home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
- Path: sparky!uunet!world!bzs
- From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein)
- Subject: Re: Revisionist Convicted AGAIN!
- In-Reply-To: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca's message of Wed, 22 Jul 92 18:57:45 GMT
- Message-ID: <BZS.92Jul25200551@ussr.std.com>
- Sender: usenet@world.std.com (Mr USENET himself)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: ussr.std.com
- Organization: The World
- References: <1992Jul19.225535.11915@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> <15772@pitt.UUCP>
- <1992Jul22.185745.27280@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>
- Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 01:05:51 GMT
- Lines: 69
-
-
- 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
-