e page five The problem faced by present day British Colum- bians and B.C. legislators in light of the recent resur- gence of the Ku Klux Klan ‘in our province is one which does not afford our cons- cience with an easy answer. The philosophical argu- ments that arise when one considers the implications of either denying the Klan its ‘“right’’ to freedom of speech, or allowing that portion of the population to propagate hatred against other members of the socie- ty, are long and complex. In the final synopsis, the arguments which arise here represent but the ‘‘tips of ice-bergs’’ of philosophical debate which encompass such questions as: is free- dom of speech an absolute within the democratic sys- tem?, if we are to ban the Klan on the grounds that the organization tends to incite hatred, where do we draw the line (what consti- tutes ‘hate propaganda’)?, does the state have the right to think for its less ‘‘en- lightened’’ members?, and, perhaps most importantly, is the state’s subjective view of what constitutes right and moral conduct any more correct than _ the Klan’s view? One of the most basic assumptions about the de- mocratic process is that in order for the system to be truly democratic certain rights must be insured to up the electorate in that system. One of these presumed rights is ‘freedom of speech’. Here in lies a most interesting posibility for contradiction, for if the majority of the members of any given de- mocratic society were to vote or legislate against a minority group’s right to free speech, the society would no longer be free and democratic (two words which are, for the most part, taken to be synony- mous in our Western cul- the individuals whom make, . ture), and yet, to deny the majority its right to rule over the society is also undemocratic, It can thus be seen that the basic premises of democracy are not absolute. In light of this, when approaching a problem within the demo- cratic system, one must look to what the state and people intended when they imple- mented the democratic sys- tem; the desired end is the physical protection of the individual. Therefore, this is what must be considered when dealing with the pro- blem of free speech being extended to those who's political views have the effect of propagating hatred and thus threatening the well-being of other indivi- duals within the society. Containment of the K.K.K. can then be said to be justifiable inasmuch as its philosophy clearly- acts to propagate hate, and endan- ger the lives and property of other members of the so- ciety. The p-oblem that arises now that we have esta- blished that the government has the right to control the activities of the K.K.K., just as it has the duty to enforce pollution control laws, is that as conscien- tious and hopefully consis- tant legislators, the state must now look around and see who else holds a politi- cal philosophy which may be deemed to incite hatred. One need not look very far to see that in Canada there is more than one commu- nist organization which would openly advocate the violent take over of the government, and the remo- val of the rich industrialists that the government sup- ports. Why then is there no public¢ outcry,, or state con- demnation of the comu- nists? Some would say it is because, the finer points of modern communist philoso- phy‘are subtler than the minds of the masses, and as such the government need far a Sara Sac aS a SS SS Sas Ss Sr sar Room 308 ed DCSS is sponsoring a meeting on Racism in the lower mainland featuring a speaker from the B.C. Organization to Fight Racism Monday, April 6, 2 - 4 pm New Westminster campus ~ Some Thought On The Klan | justify legislating The Other Press not worry about communism catching on, whereas racism already has a strong base in the community. Such government action in one instance, and inac- tion in the other instance, amounts to, the government taking it upon itself to think for those among us whom either cannot or will not, think for themselves. Atti- tudes of this sort are not unusual, however, as the state has, for years, been trying to create a unique and artificial Canadian cul- ture through the use of the CBC, the CRTC and other government funded institu- tions. In other words, since Canadians have sat pas- sively by for years while the government thought out what would be culturally benefiting for the masses, there seems no reason to stop and say, ‘‘wait a min- ute. We want to think this one through ourselves.’’ Granted, precedent does not justify such action, but it does make it technically legal. While we may be able to against | such groups as the K.K.K. on the grounds that they present a danger to the ‘integrity of the society as a whole, we must not forget | that ours is only a subjective justification. Though an anti-racist stance may be almost universally accepted as the proper view to hold in the ‘‘socially enlightened’”’ community; unanimity does not make an idea right. The problem ultimately _ boils down to a matter of faith and conviction; to the Klan, a faith in the belief that God ‘created different races of people in order that there be ‘different races of peo- _ple’’ inhabiting the earth; to contemporary liberals and humanitarians, a conviction that all men, and women too (don’t want to get beat up by any feminists), are equal inasmuch as that they are human beings, whether created by God or not. Although I agree most em- phatically with the latter of the two positions I, unfor- tunately, do not have any concrete philosophical argu- ment to support my convic- tion. Mind you, the K.K.K.’s_ assertions are subjective as well, and if forced to choose between ' advocating what I believe in my heart to be right, and watching someone openly violate what I believe to be fundamental human right, I will naturally advocate the suppression and control of ‘the Ku Klux Klan. Ultimately then, this is- sue is a matter of cons- cience and each of us must do what we feel in our hearts to be right. Unless, of course, you sympathize with the K.K.K., in which case I suggest that you withhold your judgement since you are obviously not capable of rational thought. _by Mike Kenndy Paul Bolton: I have 2 right now, but I'll only be wor- king at the Keg and Cleaver during the summer. Dan Vanos: Yes, I work ina warehouse. ‘April 2, 1981 Leslie McArthur: No, I have a part-time job now, but I think I can get a summer job. Bill Dragvik: No, I hope to though.