http://dolphin.gulf.net/conservative.html (World Wide Web Directory, 06/1995)Wednesday, June 7, 1995.
Clinton's "Thought Police Rapid Strike Force" landed - and this is where it gets scary - not to oppose the restraining order in court, but to file a suit against the residents for the mere act of seeking a court order.
According to the Washington Times, the government says the act of getting a court to issue an injunction was an act of discrimination against the fools and as such a violation of the Fair Housing Act. (Which raises the legal question of whether the court is guilty of discrimination too for the mere act of issuing the restraining order?)
What about the First Amendment right of free speech for the five residents? Is the Bill of Rights "not operational" for citizens daring to oppose the mighty federal government?
Fortunately, there have been no reports of physical torture of the five California residents. The government is merely seeking compensatory and punitive damages in the area of $75,000.
This case has left me wondering: is it still legal to criticize Bill Clinton in this country? If not, please tell me before they come and get me.
We were apalled! The course was broken into two 90-minute sessions: the first being a factual, scientific/medical presentation about the AIDS virus, methods of transmission, incubation periods, etc. An attendance sheet was circulated with the comment that the AIDS activitists were looking for individuals who would be willing to have their names listed as those "caring people who would welcome individuals who feel that they may have been exposed to HIV and 'need someone to talk with'." Of the 35 people in the class, three marked their names as wanting to volunteer. By the way, both instructors appeared to take great joy in shocking the audience with their use of terminology -- not unlike the teenager who is bent on shocking whichever adults may be in his/her presence. One instructor told us, not once, but seven times that she was a lesbian. Alright, already; who cares?!?!?!? After a break, the instructors began a session designed to give the Network Volunteers the tools to deal with visitors. (Remember, now only three of 35 volunteered!) This session was a discussion of the barriers to healthy sexual awareness and communication. One question in particular, and the responses which followed made me angry. QUESTION: "What in our society may cause sexual inhibition?" One man answered, "religious mores." Response from the instructor, "Right, if those religious people had their way, none of us would ever do anything even related to sexual activity." Additional questions and answers pretty much not only set the agenda, but also worked toward establishing a mindset in tha audience.
After the workshop, I wrote to the head of the sponsoring unit, indicating that I was offended, intimidated, angry, ... because of what I felt to be an attack on what I was: a white, conservative, religious male. I said that if I were to stand in front of a group and make light of persons of color, females or those with alternative lifestyles, I would not only be censured by my employer, I would no doubt be dismissed. I wondered why some are not permitted free speech while others are. I mentioned the bulletin board sign I had just seen: "Being gay is not against the law; gay bashing is," and wondered aloud if the same philosophical base applied to my complaint. I even offered to sit privately with the instructors to try to "educate" them as to what I felt was unacceptable about their behavior.
What happened? Absolutely nothing. After repeated memoranda, E-MAIL messages,and oral conversations, I was ignored! I even challenged that if I were a minority, were gay, were female or were Hindu, my complaint would have not only received a long and serious hearing, but also there would have been immediate rectification and apologies. Even challenged with that charge, the sponsors ignored me.
I was reminded of this just this morning when Rep. Franks said about the U.S. flag desecration amendment, "this is a wanton violation of free speech" -- I wonder why he didn't react this way when the comment was made about his sexual orientation and the perpetrator was censured?
Gosh, folks, where will this all end?
-Name withheld (Sure, I worry about my job!)
Copyright (c) 1995 Informatics Resource