From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Revisionist Convicted AGAIN!
Organization: The World
	<1992Jul22.185745.27280@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 01:05:51 GMT


From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
>Canadians, you may be surprised to learn, support this law. With regard to
>your specific comment, I confess confusion. If you want to grant government
>the power to take away someone's livelihood, how does that differ from
>convicting them of a crime?

There is a curriculum and subject matter that is decided upon by some
process, presumably open at least to review if not participation.

There are also minimal acceptable standards, for example a math
teacher who never touched upon the subject of mathematics but instead
rambled on about his/her favorite television series could be summarily
fired for merely refusing to perform the job s/he was hired to
perform. I believe this is closer to the reason Keegstra was fired.

Obviously any such firing is reviewable, ultimately by the courts, if
desired (as well it should.) And damages should be possible for an
unfair firing, that is the necessary check to ensure that such an
action does not occur frivolously (as well as application of relevant
law.)

Even being a history teacher and pointing out that this is historical
issue is not enough to rationalize the behavior, there is some certain
scope of history that was agreed upon to be taught in return for a
paycheck.

To my knowledge, the govt has not "taken away his livelihood" (or I
would hope not), he was fired for not performing his job (e.g. not
conforming reasonably to curriculum) in this specific circumstance.
If another school (say, a private school) were to pick him up to teach
I doubt the govt would be able to interfere (if they can then Canada
has more problems than I suspected.)

He should be free to express his opinions, at his own expense.

He should not be "free" to pick up a paycheck, utilize a classroom,
etc for the same behavior, at the taxpayer's expense. He should have
some amount of latitude as any teacher should have, but there is a
point where it is reasonable to say ``stick reasonably to the
curriculum or buzz off''.

Sticking the fellow in jail deprives him of the right to express his
opinion publicly (indeed, it intends to seriously punish him for
holding this opinion), even at his own expense and trouble.

This, in my opinion (and that of the historical and common
interpretation of the US Constitution) is wrong. I realize Canada's
laws are different, but I also find them (on this topic)
reprehensible, I merely cite the USC to point out that my opinion is
not unique.

>Expressing your opinion is one thing - teaching racial hatred is
>quite another. In Keegstra's case, I'm delighted to see the second
>conviction. Perhaps Mr. Keegstra will immigrate to your side of the border
>and teach in your city - you are welcome to him.

There is nothing to compel anyone here to hire him.

But he would not be jailed or even threatened with criminal charges
for merely expressing his opinion.



--
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism