NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/pnw/general/2779

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-15 | 8.9 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!nwnexus!beauty!rwing!pat
From: [e-mail] (Pat Myrto)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: Wanted: Post election comments on Prop. 9
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 15 Nov 92 14:24:58 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Totally Unorganized
Lines: 148

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Seth Bradley) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat Myrto) writes:
>>Excuse me?  Is not assault, battery and all that ALLREADY against the
>>law?  Please explain why you consider it 'twisting' when one objects to
>>a group receiving SPECIAL status?  That would deny equal protection
>>under the law, now wouldn't it?   What is wrong with simply enforcing
>>EXISTING laws UNIFORMLY, or is the idea to give certain groups special
>>treatment based on whether one considers the group fashionable or not?
>
>I find your logic very interesting.  According to discussions I've read,

As I do yours, especially when you 'forget' certain parts of the post
you are responding to, and bring in situations other than what was being
discussed (assault, etc) to obscure the issue.

>there is no "EXISTING law" to prevent one from burning a cross on
>someone's lawn (except, in some cases, for trespassing, which isn't much
>of an offense).  Hate laws were invented to cover situations like these,
>where no overt assault is being committed, but where an attempt is being
>made to strongly intimidate.  I fail to understand why these laws restrict
>freedom of speach, unless one is the sort who goes in for cross burnings
>and similar "speach" (these are the sort of acts for which the laws were
>intended, not for the purpose of limiting casual speach - any concrete
>examples to the contrary are welcomed). Those groups which are the victims
>of "SPECIAL" intimidation deserve special protection under the law, IMHO.

There is nothing wrong with strengthening ALL laws relating to damaging
other persons property, or placing unwanted material on it (burning a
cross certainly leaves a less-than-wanted mess on the person's lawn).
One treads on very dangerous ground when laws are written to outlaw
uttering of certain unapproved phrases ESPECIALLY when that law
is not applied to certain persons (when was the last time you heard
of a black being sanctioned for uttering a racial slur, for example),
or uses 'incorrect' symbols.

But this wasn't the point I was addressing, and I think you know it.
On that point, you seem to support making certain acts illegal if done
to person A, but not if done to person B.  I support making the given
acts UNIFORMLY illegal, or not illegal.  Not writing laws to benefit
certain people exclusively.  I hope you see the difference, without
conjuring up some sort of red herring.

I was addressing the situation where one is assumed guilty until proven
innocent, typified by where an employer chooses person B over A because
B turns out to be better qualified for the task in question, and A
squacks "DESCRIMINATION", and happens to be one of the 'special' categories
of persons.  I take it you favor this state of affairs, where one must
hire a lesser qualified person based on non job-related attributes,
simply to avoid the hassle and non-trivial expense of a frivolous suit.
When was the last time you heard of a black owned business, for example,
getting penalized when they discriminate against hiring whites?  Seems
we have two standards of behavior here, no?  And you think this is
wonderful?!  I think it promotes animosity and worsens the problems that
one claims they are addressing.  Course, if the problems were addressed,
a LOT of people 'solving' the problems would be out of work!

I cannot see how one can support UNEQUAL protection before the law,
unless one is a member of a group who will benefit from that unequal
protection, to get social approval they seek, or to salve surpressed
guilt feelings.  In other words, there is SOMETHING in it for them,
somewhere.  I suspect that the same person would squack very loudly if
on the other end, however, if their rights were consistantly subordinated
in respect to the rights of the special group in a way that would cost
THEM, rather than someone else.  Get passed by for a few desired
promotions, or jobs one desires because they are not a Politically
Correct race, sexual preference, or whatever other attribute or excuse
someone dreams up.

Many of these laws result in quotas, implied to be sure, but nontheless
just as real:  The first thing that is checked out is the percentage of
the workforce that are from group X, and the businessman is forced to
prove discrimination didn't occur if the workforce isn't mostly group
X.  Of course the businessman isn't told the target balance (because
there isn't one OFFICIALLY), yet he must spend time and resources to
prove his INNOCENCE!  The STATE is not required to prove guilt, that is
assumed when a complaint is filed.  The result is the businssman must
operate as if there were explicit quotas, and hope the guess as to where
it lies is correct.  Stories of injustice are all too common, even to the
point of destroying a business:  It is better to have EVERYONE out of
work than the individual who thinks that they were discriminated against.
I am sure that isn't the INTENT of those who support these special
preference laws, but all too often that is the EFFECT, after the
bureaucrats get done with 'interpreting' it.  The case came to mind of
a business where almost all the employees were minorites (from the
surrounding neighborhood) but unfortunately they were not the CORRECT
minority.... never mind that the correct minority was a tiny part of
the surrounding area.  I remember the ultra liberal 60 Minutes did a
piece on this one 'outstanding' case....  All they could get out of
the bureaucrats was 'not enough minorites', and in response to how
mahy is enough the reply 'there are no quotas'... finally degrading
to 'no comment'.  I have real difficulty supporting this state of
affairs!!

>>It kind of gives credence to the idea that much of
>>the advocacy for special protective status arises from feelings of guilt
>>arising from ones own prejudices that one is trying to conceal by putting
>>it on everyone else.

Funny, you seem to 'forget' the part of the post that prompted the above
response you are quoting _OUT OF CONTEXT_, I notice...

>I support special protective status not "from feelings of guilt arising
>from ones own prejudices" but because I am here posting to this newsgroup
>because my ancestors fled here from Russia to avoid being killed because
>of their faith, and I don't wish to see any group become the victim of
>intimidation or discrimination.
>
>    [ ... the Martin Niemoeller quotes deleted ...]

Comparison with the situation in Nazi Germany is a bogus comparison,
and you know it (a red herring?):  The jews were NOT given any semblence
of equal protection under any law - it was a situation where they were
turned against by the STATE, and portrayed as a scapegoat for all the
nation's problems.  The STATE santioned venting all of one's hostility
toward them, and finally decided to pass SPECIAL laws that affected ONLY
that group and provided for the STATE to 'punish' them for existing -
the 'final solution'.  What you seem to be advocating is the same thing
in reverse - special laws that affect only CERTAIN groups to give them
special status under the law, differing only in sense and degree.
However you wish to paint it, it does violence to the idea of all men
being created equal, and having equal standing and protection under the
law.  Couching it in pretty and nice-sounding phrases does not change
the underlying principle.

The minute the STATE supports the idea of subordinating the rights of
one group in relation to another, the difference between this situation
and the Nazi treatment of Jews example is only a matter of degree and
the sense of the special provisions (not the comparison you wanted, I
know, but you brought in the Nazi thing with the Niemoeller quites).
Where does one draw the line?  When is enough enough? When group A has
no rights, and group B reigns supreme?   Sounds a lot like the situation
your ancestors fled from, except that perhaps you or those you support
are on the other side of the fence now.  Perhaps you would support this
going to its logical conclusion, eliminating all who are not a member
of the 'special' group or who express any opposition?  Only difference
I can see is a matter of degree.

I think the idea of EQUAL protection, and MEANING it, is much better.
'Special' will never be a synonym for 'equal'.  Not until a 'final
solution' is carried out on those who point this minor detail out.

shit - I am getting tired...

--
[e-mail]                                  (Pat Myrto),  Seattle, WA
                      If all else fails, try:
         ...!uunet!{pilchuck, polari}!rwing!pat
WISDOM:    "Travelling unarmed is like boating without a life jacket"