Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mnetor.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!utcs!mnetor!clewis
From: clewis@mnetor.UUCP
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: Ban the new testement with the Zundel law
Message-ID: <413@mnetor.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 12-Apr-85 10:23:01 EST
Article-I.D.: mnetor.413
Posted: Fri Apr 12 10:23:01 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 12-Apr-85 11:51:51 EST
References: <407@mnetor.UUCP> <5459@utzoo.UUCP> <260@looking.UUCP>
Reply-To: clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis)
Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Lines: 80
Summary: 

Yes, that is one of the examples I was referring to.  The book should
either be purged of such racist/intolerant remarks, or banned outright.  
Considering the hatred and atrocities that that book has incited, it's 
about time. There are other, more explicit, intolerant remarks in other
places.  There are lots of similar items that could be removed too.  
The Talmud and Koran aren't any better.  [ Boy-oh-boy are I gonna get
flamed for that! ]

Whoops, I'm getting a little nasty in my old age.  Maybe we could look
at this in another way:

	We either make the assumption that people are not competent w.r.t.
	critically examining incoming information (eg: people are unable to
	interpret/self censor published material) and should be protected
	from them (censoring/banning Zundel's works, Keegstra's works, 
	the Bible, Talmud, Koran and what-have-you), otherwise they
	will start hating/killing/discriminating,

	OR,

	We assume that people *can* critically examine incoming information
	and *not* respond with inappropriate actions.

The way I see it, we are being inconsistent in our treatment of the 
traditional establishment (or large lobby groups) works (Bible etc.) and 
that of the smaller groups.  The only difference between the Bible and
Keegstra in this respect is "which group supports it".  Whenever you
point at a section of the Bible and say "This section promotes racial
intolerance", you get the reply "But people don't really follow that part
too closely/literally" or "it is there because of historical significance".
But, some people do take it seriously (Hitler, fundamentalists etc.
all took/take particular sections very literally (or use them to
justify certain actions)).

We need a little of both worlds.  There are people totally incapable
of thinking for themselves and who will incite themselves to hatred
by reading the most ridiculous assertions from people trying to take
advantage or who are psychopathic themselves.  What we need is some
way of eliminating the more virulent examples of demonstrably-false
material.  Even if this means purging parts of the Bible from the
mainstream of religous teaching of the public, I guess I have to be 
for it.  Libel/slander laws are one way already instituted to protect
individuals and they work reasonably well.  They should be extended
to protect groups as well.

If we ban things, we have to be ready for the consequences:

	1) Do you ever wonder why Shirley Temple movies aren't shown
	   very much anymore?
	2) Ying Hope tried to get "The Nutcracker" censored.  (He
	   may succeed next time)
	there are many more.

I personally will greatly miss the above examples.  I want my children 
to be able to see them.  And, with a little guidance from me and my 
wife, they will be lessons in tolerance/history along with sheer
entertainment rather than (vaguely tending to) teach racism.  The 
Bible is a lot more explicit in it's intolerance than a Shirley 
Temple movie (the latter is more a representation of the 
thinking/situation of the time without comment either pro- or con-.
That wasn't the topic of the movie!  The Bible is explicit in promoting 
intolerance).  Normally we cannot touch the Bible, Koran, Talmud etc.
due to "Religious Freedom".  It's a lousey excuse.  What about the
people wanting to smoke pot for religous rites?  We banned the latter
didn't we?

[ BTW: I find it hard to understand how Zundel actually got convicted.
I think that Zundel *did* believe the trash that he was publishing.
WW II (and everything that goes along with it) place a colossal guilt-load
on many Germans.  There are several possible responses: "ignore it",
"accept it", and "deny it".  Zundel was just an extreme case of the
latter reaction - probably a psychopathic personality whose extreme denial
(when running into continous counter beliefs) turned into a belief
in "conspiracies" (the classic invincible force meeting the immovable
object).  I actually feel a little sorry for him - too bad he wasn't
born non-German.  I still hope they deport him. ]
-- 
Chris Lewis, Computer X (CANADA) Ltd.
UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis
BELL: (416)-475-1300 ext. 321