Freedom of Speech

CJ · Post by CJ » Sun Mar 07, 2004 1:17 pm

Okay, people, what's going on down there?!?!?

Here's a short article culled from yesterday's (March 6 2004) Montreal Gazette:

Cross-Burning Ban Goes Up In Flames

The Virginia Supreme Court yesterday unanimously struck down a provision in the state's cross-burning ban that says the act alone proves an intent to intimidate. The high court ruled 7-0 the provision is overly broad and could impinge on freedom of speech. The ruling means to win a conviction, prosecutors will have to prove the cross-burner meant to intimidate someone.

Cross-burning isn't, in itself, meant to intimidate? Yes, I can see it now: "Er, no, your Honour, I just needed a little more light to read my Sunday funnies by." More like, to see the colour of this bitter fruit hanging from this here tree.

How soon we forget. :evil:

Love,
CJ

Post by **Celia** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 3:26 pm

Hmm . . . I bet a person could make a mint in that part of the country selling Burn Crosses, Not Flags! bumperstickers.

-Celia

Loretta Ann · Post by **Loretta Ann** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 11:36 pm

Hi Christina.

I do not see the Value of displaying a cross for those who have no idea what it means, (and I am including many Christians in that statement) In fact if all Christians were to understand the significance of the cross, we cross-dressers would not have near the problems some of us have with them, nor they with us.

So I do not really have a problem with it. It may be just what some of them need.

Good topic.
Respectfully.
Darlene.

Kyra · Post by **Kyra** » Mon Mar 08, 2004 8:17 am

I do not see the Value of displaying a cross for those who have no idea what it means, (and I am including many Christians in that statement) In fact if all Christians were to understand the significance of the cross, we cross-dressers would not have near the problems some of us have with them, nor they with us.

I agree that burning a cross has little, if no, significance to someone outside the Christian faith. My question is this: Does burning a cross (or flag or books or ??) have any significance in furthering a cause? Protests and marching, sending letters (respectful ones), debating issues and such have good intentions. I just don't see the relevence in burning something you idolize or hold in respect. IMO - it's akin to shooting doctors who perform abortions. (Now that makes TOTALLY no sense!)

Just my confused point of view.

Hugs,
Kyra

CJ · Post by CJ » Mon Mar 08, 2004 9:06 am

Hi all,

The question is: what significance does a burning cross have to a Klansman and to the person victimized by this kind of intimidation? As Darlene said, methinks the KKK knows not the meaning of the symbol. How can it be understood to have its roots in hatred rather than in love? God only knows what festers in the soul of men who commit such acts.

The real question, here, is: who are the people sitting in the Virginia Supreme Court? Have they no knowledge of history?

Sorry, ranting here again....

Peace,
CJ

Loretta Ann · Post by **Loretta Ann** » Mon Mar 08, 2004 10:07 am

Does burning a cross (or flag or books or ??) have any significance in furthering a cause? Protests and marching, sending letters (respectful ones), debating issues and such have good intentions

My observations of such activity is that although they seem to raise awareness, they do not in and of themselves, do much in the way of bringing about changes. Take the abortion issue for instance. despite all the protests it has not brought about the desired results.

Perhaps A way that might be more successful would be to take the approach that; this is not working would you consider xyz. In other words instead of focusing on what one sees as wrong about something focus instead on a solution, or a better plan working with instead of against.

My 2 cents worth.

Respectfully.
Darlene.

Josey · Post by **Josey** » Mon Mar 08, 2004 10:44 pm

Hi Y'all,

This is my opinion, plain and simple. Buring crosses have just as much significance as do sheet outfits with pointed heads. They mean that there is worse things coming for those who are targeted with the hatred behind them.

For those targeted persons, they mean more sufferring is coming. Maybe if the Virginia Supreme Corurt Judges were facing the hatred and terror those crosses represent, they wouldn't be so quick to make that ruling.
Time to get off the soap box, Josey. Thanks,for listening.

Alexandra · Post by **Alexandra** » Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:44 am

<devil's advocate mode ON!>

I'm inclinded to agree with the Virginia Supreme court. Here's why: if a provision is too broad, it can be used against ANY GROUP, including US!!!

What if it were a group of 8-year olds that did this? Do they really understand? What if this cross was burned in the midst of 100 privately-owned acres unseen from the general public?

On the other hand, I don't think it would be too difficult to prove someone's intent, because by the time an individual reaches the cross burning stage, they've pretty much have disclosed to enough potential witnesses (friends, family, neighbors, co-workers, etc) of their bigotry and a conviction would be easy regardless of their "excuse" for burning a cross.

Of course, once convicted, they shall be dealt the harsher punishment for partipicating in a hate crime.

If a person is over 18 and is actually caught burning a cross on someone's private property then they're guilty period.

My comments apply to the cross-burning ruling only. IMO if anybody is running around with white sheets and treatening minorities, they should be shot on sight.

What say you all?

<devil's advocate mode off>

CJ · Post by CJ » Tue Mar 09, 2004 1:28 am

Hi all,

Alexandra,

I don't think I'd ever advocate shooting a teepee-head on sight (of course, I know you're only kidding... right?).

Seriously, though, the thought that the provision--as it stood until two days ago--is too broad, is just plain wrong, in my opinion. There is no other possible meaning to a burning cross other than as a Klan-related symbol of racial hatred. Who'd be offended if you decided, now that it's legal, to burn a cross, say, on your own front lawn? Well, any African-American who happened to pass by, for starters. The flaming icon is forever linked to a sordid chapter in American history, one from which little that is positive can be recuperated.

Same goes for, say, the swastika. Originally a positive symbol associated with fortune coming from the four corners of the universe (in India, where the symbol has its cultural roots), the swastika was a symbol doomed the moment the Third Reich got its hands on it; the Nazis, in wishing to associate themselves with the Aryans (the northern, fair-skinned, warrior-nobles that eventually populated--or conquered, if you prefer-- northern India and kingdoms westward), subverted, not the meaning of the symbol, but the context with which we now associate it. Try decorating the walls of your house with rows of swastikas (something still done in India) and then tell the judge--because a judge there will be--that it was merely some innocent home decor idea. It's not going to fly.

Thus, too, for the symbol of the burning cross. There's much hesitation here, I think, because of the symbol beneath the symbol. Still, the cross and the burning cross are icons that are, not only different, but polar opposites. In burning crosses, the subtext is racial hatred, and the intent is to harm, even if that harm is "merely" psychological. There are limits to freedom of expression--there have to be. Otherwise, what today is the burning cross, tomorrow is the lynch mob, heavy rope in hand (and you can take the lynch mob to be a metaphor for any institutionalized intolerance that can possibly lead to violence being done to others).

Peace,
CJ (who, for some morbid reason, just can't let this one go)

Alexandra · Post by **Alexandra** » Wed Mar 10, 2004 11:54 pm

I agree with you Julie about it being a symbol of hate . . . but isn't the confederate flag a symbol of hate too? Kinda hard to draw a line sometimes . . .

Alexandra · Post by **Alexandra** » Thu Mar 11, 2004 12:34 am

Julie wrote: I suspect (without information) that many current users of the flag are promoting some kind of racial separatism.

I have to agree . . . its not like this war ended recently and plantation owners are going around holding a grudge . . .

More of us need to speak our minds when we see the confederate flag flying somehwere.

Alexandra · Post by **Alexandra** » Thu Mar 11, 2004 1:14 am

Julie wrote:Alexandra --

More of us need the moral -- and sometimes physical -- courage to say "this is wrong." I try to do what I can, but its scary sometimes. Othertimes I just pretend I don't notice. Is there a solution?

Love, Julie

Julie, at another forum (non-TG/CD) someone had the confederate flag as an avatar and I made a big deal about it. Eventually she removed it, but not after a lot of flaming . . . I don't know if it was worth it but I couldn't let it go . . .

the interesting thing was that she was white and had adopted 2 African-American kids (or so she said) so her heart was in the right place but her thinking IMO was a wee bit faulty.