From: chrisb@seachg.uucp (Chris Blask)
Subject: Re: Anti-Nazi Rally
Reply-To: chrisb@seachg.UUCP (Chris Blask)
Organization: Sea Change Corporation, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 22:11:48 GMT

Hi folks!

I'm gonna toss a few cents into the rign, hopefully get some direction
here, particularly since you two seem to basically agree (charles more so).

>well, *pro*secution is not the same as *per*secution. i agree that the
>turning of tables is a problem. but i was simply trying to find out
>what they did. and if you know no more about it than i, then "parking
>tickets" is not a reasonable assumption.

What they are being prosecuted for is "promoting hatred" (someone want to
look up the legaleeze?).  If this Heritage Front is anything like the
American Heritage Front, then they doubtless setup an answering machine
with hard-core racist messages on it, then distribute the phone number
through any available means.  Before I get my definitions flamed, let me
elaborate:
	"hard-core racist" - I've encountered lots of these things, and
	although the format differs, the content is pointedly and
	deliberately racist.  Some paraphrased quotes from memory:
		"...the so-called white truck driver who was beaten in the
		LA riots actually has a spic wife and a bunch of half-breed
		bastards running around..."
		"...the kykes have been using the niggers against you,
		putting ideas in their heads, making them think they are
		equal to you..."

	"any available means" - the way I've run into these is through my
	company's ads in US magazines.  These organizations will reply to
	your ad, request information on your products, and when you follow
	up, you find the machine.  In several cases I've found that the
	company name was real, they have been targetted by the group
	repeatedly, and have doubtless lost business because of it.

These are not only unpopular ideas, they're down-right sick.  They have cost my 
company time and money sending literature and calling all over the bloody 
world, aside from the obvious damage they are intended for.  Nevertheless, we 
can't get carried away in our censorship, or we really will be in the state 
mis-quoted by charles' adversary.

  The speaker was a U-boat commander in WWI, served valiantly in WWII before 
  becoming a chaplain and openly protesting the war.  For his beliefs, he
  spent two years in a concentration camp:

    "When you came for the Jews, I said nothing, because I was not a Jew.
    When you came for the Catholics, I said nothing, because I was not a
    Catholic.  When you came for the Trade-Unionists, I said nothing,
    becasue I was not a Trade-Unionist.  When you came for the Poles, I said
    nothing because I was not a Pole.  And then you came for me, and there
    was no one left to say anything at all."

The point that he made is two-fold, though it is rarely seen that way.  The
first is obvious - you cannot allow others to be arbitrarily silenced, or
you may be next.  The second is basic to Western ideology - you cannot
allow whole groups to be targetted and mistreated, or your group may be
next.  It isn't an either-or scenario.  You have to defend the right for
free speech, even if you disagree, AND, you cannot allow arbitrary hate against
whole groups of people to flourish.  A fine line, indeed.

>i don't disagree. but even then there is a difference between hate
>literature and the rest of your "persecuted classes": the former
>encourage violence against others; the latter do not (for the most
>part). and demonstration is not persecution.

I can't accurately recall any of the messages advocating the listener to
violence, though the one with the bit about the truck driver heartily 
encouraged the rioters to kill each other, and specifically stated that it
was no loss at all.  This is bordering on illegality, but I don't know
which side it comes down on, and I never made a transcript.

>>>this happened recently in the states, where a KKK rally was outnumbered
>>>100-to-1. the grand dragon was shouted down by 5,000 anti-KKK protestors.
>>>the news story ended up being more about the huge turn-out of the counter-
>>>rally than about the rally itself. damn effective, i'd say.

Let's not forget the Skokie (sp?) Illinois nazi's (so wonderfully spoofed
in 'The Blues Brothers').  I was living near there at the time, and the
majority of my school was planning on blocking the street before they got
there (Marching through a town with a large concentration-camp-survivour
population on Hitler's birthday, for those not familiar).  The end result
was a 'march' in (damn, can't remember, but not Skokie), 50 nazis on stage, 
10,000 protesters throwing garbage, and a couple thousand cops to keep the 
nazis safe.  A perfect example of two things: 

1) *absolute* freedom of speech is neither realistic nor desirable; 
2) It's good to get idiots in public where we can see them sometimes.

>>And I will say this. Shouting them down will not shut them up. Let them
>>be forced out into the open so we can see their faces and their placards
>>and their slogans. Let us know them and laugh at them, instead of forcing
>>them back underground where we are more likely to fear them in the future.

No, pinhead, shouting them down IS shutting them up, forcing them into the
open, seeing their faces and placards...  And making their stupidity
illegal may not be possible (or desirable), but there is *plenty* of moral
ground to jail them for their actions, or forbid the actions altogether.
No one said they can't speak, no one said they can't demonstrate - they
just can't organize groups to promote the hatred and destruction of others.

>you are wrong. *nothing* will shut them up. and it is *much* easier to
>laugh at them as crackpots when it is clear that they are by far the
>minority. you ignore the effects of having these people appear unchecked
>on the national media. i made that point in my previous post, which you
>deleted.

Exactly!  We need to let these jerks come right out where we can see them,
and where we can see how many people disagree with them.  Chicago may be
thought of as a hub of racism (and it may be), but I can tell you there are
a **lot** of people there who aren't.  Until you hear the overwhelming
opinion of the majority, you may put too much credence in the loonies (and
nobody flame me for the "conformity" argument, either.  We can do that later).

Sure, let the bastards talk, but that doesn't mean we have to get run over
by 'em.

-chris blask

nice agreeing with ya', charles (were we agreeing?  ;^}) 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish