NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/pnw/general/2780

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-15 | 9.1 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!ogicse!psgrain!iWarp.intel.com|scic.intel.com!sbradley
From: [e-mail] (Seth Bradley)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: Wanted: Post election comments on Prop. 9
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 15 Nov 92 21:34:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: scic.1992Nov15.213453.12369
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Intel Corporation
Lines: 150

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat Myrto) writes:
>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.
Sorry, but I respectfully submit that intimidation and attempts to terrorize
are very much part of the issue.

>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).
I would say leaving a less-than-wanted mess is much less of an issue
than intimidation and terror.

>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.
I had asked in my post for specific instances where hate laws were
used to sanction someone for making a racial slur.  I haven't seen'
anything but assertions, so far.  I eagerly await specific instances
where this has happened, preferably in the PNW, since that is the
region this group addresses.  In the absence of said instances, I'd
label this a straw-man.

>But this wasn't the point I was addressing, and I think you know it.
Would you deny that you are against the existance of hate laws?
If you oppose them, it is completely legitimate for me to address the
situations those laws were meant to address.

>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
Sorry, but its not like that at all.  As I said before, those groups
which have been the special target of intimidation deserve special
protection.  I haven't yet seen this addressed.  I presume you're a white
male.  Have you or any friends who are white males been intimidated because
of your race, sex, etc.?  Why does special protection threaten your rights
in any way?

>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.
How is protection against intimidation a special benefit?  I don't see
this as a red herring, but as a central issue, and a very important one.
Seems like a life free of fear and intimidation is a constitional right.
Hate laws were enacted because existing laws simply weren't providing
that protection.

>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,
No, I don't.  I favor laws that prevent arbitrary firing of someone
because of some aspect entirely unrelated to job performance.  Yes, there
will be abuses of such laws - but I feel creating an atmosphere free of
fear is worth a few (IMO) minor abuses.  I also believe in the case you
mention that the better qualified person should also have redress.  Again,
as I mentioned above, some kind of specific data showing widespread abuse
would be helpful.

>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,
Actually, no, I don't think its wonderful.  But I think it would be even
less wonderful if all the civil rights laws were repealled, as you seem
to be advocating - I think the period before such laws were enacted were
obscene, with blacks and others living in the role of second class citizens.
Again, I would like to see instances where you or anyone else in your
racial group have been personally harmed by civil rights legislation.
Its much easier to address facts than assertions.

>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.
Examples, please?  I've seen this brought up mant times on the net, but
its very rare to find someone who's willing to back it up with facts.
I will readily admit that isolated injustices occur, but I submit that
they are isolated, and not indicative of a widespread phenomenon.

>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!!
Finally, a specific example, thank you very much :-).  I also have a real
difficulty supporting this state of affairs.  I have never been in favor
of quotas, and think that they're counter productive.  One can have laws
that protect minorites without requiring quotas of any sort.  Badly worded
or improperly enforced law doesn't invalidate the concept, IMO.

>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 -
Getting back to Measure 9 (this seems to have started the whole debate,
after all) the propaganda used by the OCA and that used by the NAZI's
are indeed similar, I have some examples if you'd like to see them.
Even the text of the measure bears a striking resemblence to some of
the early NAZI anti-Semitic measures.  I have copies of that as well.
That is why I brought up this issue - if you feel that Measure 9 is
bad legislation, then I would happily withdraw this reference.
I agree that it has no bearing on anti-discrimination laws, but it
does have a bearing on the opposition to enforced discrimination.
BTW, in Oregon, there were enforced discrimination laws on the books
only a few decades ago.

>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).
I agree, which is why I am in such strong opposition to the OCA and
their tactics.

>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.
Again, I'd like to see some kind of indication that significant reverse
discrimination is occuring.  Especially I would like to see _any_
indication of the threat you allude to in that last comment.

>I think the idea of EQUAL protection, and MEANING it, is much better.
So do I, but it doesn't seem to work here in America.  If you can come
up with a better solution, that truly does offer equal protection,
then I urge to have it turned into law - I for one would strongly support
it.
--
Seth J. Bradley, Senior System Administrator, Intel SCIC
Internet: [e-mail]   UUCP: uunet!scic.intel.com!sbradley
----------------------------------------
"A system admin's life is a sorry one.  The only advantage he has over
Emergency Room doctors is that malpractice suits are rare.  On the other
hand, ER doctors never have to deal with patients installing new versions
of their own innards!"  -Michael O'Brien