Anti-Racist Laws Stifle Political Liberty

[qut@netcom.com (Dave Harman OBC)]

llurch@stanford.edu (Rich Graves) writes:

> Incidentally, [don't college speech codes] belong in the past
> tense? Stanford hardly lifted a finger to defend the Grey
> Amendment, which was designed and widely regarded to be the most
> carefully tailored speech code around. I don't know of any
> universities that have tried to enact a speech code since. The
> attempt would be futile. (Background: Grey applied only to
> "fighting words" directed at individuals. It was fine, under the
> [overturned] Stanford policy [which I voted against], to create a
> "hostile environment" by screaming hostile verbiage at nobody in
> particular; but you couldn't say the same thing to someone's face.)

The mere lack of enforcement of an unjust law does not justify the 
continued extancy of that law.  That very "dead letter" law can be fired 
up at any time to harass critics of the university's anti-racist 
administration.

Some examples of dangerous dead letter laws:

* Abortion

Most people presume that abortion is legal in the USA, wrong.  
Most states make abortion very illegal, our whole abortion freedom as 
currently exists rests entirely on a few federal court decisions.  If 
the previous Supreme Court decisions are overturned, most states will 
suddenly start enforcing their fascist anti-abortion laws.

* Hate Crime

Denmark used to be presumed by racists to be the only country in Europe 
where racism was legal.  Denmark's anti-racist laws were not enforced in 
ages.  Yet, the anti-racist laws sprung into action to persecute Gerhard 
Lauck, an American Nazi who desired to move to Denmark on the account of 
a provocateur that his organization would not be harrassed in Denmark.
Mr. Lauck was deported to Germany where he was sentenced to four years in 
prison to the outrage of professional anti-racists of the "moderation" of 
his punishment for merely speaking in pro-Nazi terms in Germany, where 
politics that challenge the ruling order is strictly illegal.

* Racism In Other Countries

Racist politics are explicitly illegal in every "white country" in the 
world except, so far, the USA.  The mere lack of enforcement in many of the 
countries such as South Africa, Canada, Denmark, Russian Federation, 
Malaysia, Australia, etc., does not exonerate that country from the 
charge of censorship as political intrigue.

* "We Will Take Power"

A lot of fake anti-censorship activists insist they are for free speech 
in the sense of allowing such political purposes as "we don't like your 
policies and we want you to change," but desiring to make illegal such 
political goals as "we don't like your power and we're going to try to 
take it away from you."  Yet there is no purpose, no purpose whatsoever 
in political speech, if there is no threat allowed to the ruling order 
expressed in idealogical terms and organizational forms.  Thomas 
Jefferson, Thomas Paine and all the nationalist founders of the American 
nation would approve of radicals organizing and expressing their goals of 
seizing power legally, or if denied the means of a republic for 
succession, illegally. 

* Unfree Nations

Germany is an example of a nation that prohibits any type of Nazi 
political party.  Therefore, Germany is not a free country, not an honest 
republic, in fact, less free even than Wilhelmian Germany in allowing 
radical parties to challenge the power structure.


--
I marvel at the resilience of the white people.
Their best characteristic is their desire to learn.
No other people has such an obsession with the intellect.