Xref: utzoo tor.general:337 ut.general:251 ont.general:430 can.politics:1514 talk.politics.misc:8392
Path: utzoo!ncc!alberta!mnetor!spectrix!tmsoft!utgpu!water!watmath!julian!deepthot!macros
From: macros@deepthot.UUCP (R.)
Newsgroups: tor.general,ut.general,ont.general,can.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: International Campaign Chile
Message-ID: <1112@deepthot.UUCP>
Date: 20 Mar 88 02:37:08 GMT
References: <8803170205.AA06419@finch.csri.toronto.edu>
Reply-To: macros@deepthot.UUCP (R.)
Organization: UWO CS, London Canada
Lines: 22

Kenneth R. Jackson passes on a note about "International Campaign
Chile" which is a campaign aimed at ending torture and political
oppression. He states:

   "Your opinion will count, whether you are famous or not, provided
    that you express it."

The wording of this is curious in light of the tenor of the rest of
the article; MY impression is that an opinion would count ONLY if it
agreed with the campaign's. If, for example, a room full of messages
was received politely asking them to BUTT-OUT, would they be dumped
and the campaign continued regardless? So it appears to me (imagine
the Chileans counterattacking with a flood of delicately worded "NO's",
for example).

Why am I writing this? Merely because I see an irony in an article
asking everyone to collaborate in the elimination of political
oppression by putting international sanctions on the offender.
Clearly, however, being on the side of "obvious" moral superiority
makes all of the difference. 

					Raymond J. Tigg