[Noise] RE: Canada Imprisons People For Human Rights Acti...

Subject: [Noise] RE: Canada Imprisons People For Human Rights Activity

jbugden@alis.com wrote:
! Nota: Quebec recently held a referendum on seperation from Canada.
! Just talk about secession of a state in the U.S., and you'll quickly see 
! which country makes political ideas illegal.

qut@netcom.com (Skip, OBC)
>Exactly, we have freedom of speech alright, everone in the world does, 
>we're allowed to say "we don't believe you should remain in power," but 
>try to say, and mean, "we're going to try to take your power from you for 
>ourselves," and your group will very quickly find out the length of your 
>chains, the extent of our so called freedom.

Actually, my comment was exactly the opposite. You may not be aware of what goes
on with your neighbour to the north, but the province of Quebec currently has a
government whose stated intention is independence from Canada. 

The recent public referendum for a mandate to seceed was defeated by a very
small margin: 51% to 49% with 95% voter turnout.

"Her majesty's loyal opposition" in the parliament (the Bloq Quebecois) has the
same raison d'etre - Independence of Quebec from Canada.

I do not believe that freedom of speech in the U.S.A. extends to actively
agitating for secession or the overthrow of the federal government.

James

At 14:58 -0700 8/21/96, Michelle KC5KYO wrote:


>> I do not believe that freedom of speech in the U.S.A. extends to actively
>> agitating for secession or the overthrow of the federal government.
>
>The right to discuss revolt or secession or the overthrow of the federal
>government, it seems to me, is given below:
>
>"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created
>equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
>Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of
>Happiness - That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted
>among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the
>Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of
>these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,
>and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such
>Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall
>seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.  ... "
>
>Now this is the Declaration of Independence, and not the Constitution, but
>it seems to me that the right to discuss "agitating for secession or the
>overthrow of the federal government" is protected.
>
>Michelle

Unfortunately, this went out the window about 130-135 years ago during the
5 year period sometimes called "The Late Unpleasantness" <g>.

> I do not believe that freedom of speech in the U.S.A. extends to actively
> agitating for secession or the overthrow of the federal government.

The right to discuss revolt or secession or the overthrow of the federal
government, it seems to me, is given below:

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of 
Happiness - That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted
among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the
Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of
these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,
and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such
Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall
seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.  ... "

Now this is the Declaration of Independence, and not the Constitution, but
it seems to me that the right to discuss "agitating for secession or the
overthrow of the federal government" is protected.

Michelle

! > I do not believe that freedom of speech in the U.S.A. extends to actively
! > agitating for secession or the overthrow of the federal government.
! 
! The right to discuss revolt or secession or the overthrow of the federal
! government, it seems to me, is given below:
! 
! "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created
! equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
! Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of 
! Happiness - That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted
! among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the
! Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of
! these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,
! and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such
! Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall
! seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.  ... "
! 
! Now this is the Declaration of Independence, and not the Constitution, but
! it seems to me that the right to discuss "agitating for secession or the
! overthrow of the federal government" is protected.

Correct, if government is not protecting our rights as a people, we are 
responsible for forcing the government to do so, even if that means 
changing of the guard, ie, successful radicalism.