Editorial As women we have a shared connection that reaches through all the different groups that we are a part of. Remember that there is no group that we are not a part of and that we are half of every liberation group there is. Women’s history has been invisible, still there is an unlimited list of women who’ve fought for all liberation issues. These are the women who have proudly and powerfully stood for discovering new roles and supporting brand new brilliant thinking for all women. We have consistently suppressed our physical selves, and our economic and political power. Our general liberation issues are that we are not treated well amongst ourselves and by men. It is useful to realize that we need to. reclaim our past for the strength, intelligence and inven- tiveness in the entire history of women the world over. The reason exploitation and oppression exists is the economic system that is presently in place and is not because of inherent differ- ences common to all groups. Oppression is defined as systematic mistreatment of one group of people by another and this is okayed by the community that surrounds it. We are brilliant, loving, creative, cooperative and powerful women. Anything else that says otherwise is because of the ways that we have all been deeply hurt. To believe in anything else than our excellent and complete selves is to buy into the baggage handed to us from without. We, as women, need to try to keep from Letting the negative outlook we have of ourselves from being used against each other. This is something that can happen as we take full responsibility for our lives. Understanding that we don’t need to fight over the Limited amount of resources because we are each other’s resources. Men are not the enemy. We will not be able to be fully ourselves if we insist on ensuring that men are kept at a distance and kept from taking part in supporting our liberation issues. It is not the fault of the men that we are not treated well by them. Their incorrect behaviours, ideas and attitudes are put on them by the society we all live in. Men are the instruments of oppression that all women face, not the oppressors. Naturally, they are our allies, our advocates, the ones who will support us in any endeavour without taking over for us. We need to realize that we want to make men our friends. And reach out to them so they can Lend their assistance to cheer us on while we work on our liberation. We expect them to rightfully take full pride in their complete humanness without exception. So, keep in mind that the sky is not the limit for whatever we decide we, women, want to do and that we do not need to settle for less than absolutely everything. We choose to remember that the whole world is ours and that we need never to be alone in figuring it out and making it just right.@ I am writing to thank you for, among other things, running the articles by Doug Whitlow on the Gustafsen Lake trial. The Other Press is the only place where I’ve seen updates of the trial, perhaps other newspapers or news broad- casts have done the same but I haven’t seen them doing it. It is terrible that the RCMP may have been lying under oath. How do they expect ordinary citizens to obey an oath if police officers are seen to lie? I believe that the “mainstream press” may have been showing a bias in favour of the police, in the sense that the police view seemed to be the only one reported. Anyway, thanks Doug for keeping us informed about the trial. Sincerely, Patrick Longworth This prosex, radical, Marxist, Rousseauarian, feminist read (with great interest) the article ““Naughty’ books still seized” by Andrew Carroll in the February 10th, 1997 issue of The Other Press. What Carroll said regarding Canada Customs seizing books it thinks is ‘obscene” is correct, but he did no tell the whole “obscene” story (probably due to lack of time and space), which are the same reasons why I cannot tell the whole “obscene” story, but I can inform the public about the fact (contrary to Justice smith’s false ruling) that every time Canada Customs and Canada Post censor freedom of the press, speech, expression, opinion, thought, and belief they are violating the following national and international laws” Section 2 of The Canada Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canada Constitution (which is the supreme law of Canada), Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: United Nations Charter Preamble. Besides being censored, freedom of the press, speech, expression, opinion, thought, and belief contains a double standard , which is definitely unconstitutionally, because some incendiary speech is more equal than other incendiary speech. For example, pornographic (“obscene”) speech is outlawed in Canada (which is why Little Sisters was prosecuted by the Crown) and the United States, under the obscenity laws, but most hate and violent speech is legal. However, the legal definition of “obscene” is too vague and subjective. The Dictionary of Canadian Law, written by Dukelow and Nuse, defines obscene as follows: Any publication whose domi- nant characteristic is the undue exploitation of sex, or of sex and any one or more of the following subjects, namely: crime, horror, cruelty, and violence shall be deemed obscene (1995, 821). What constitutes undue exploita- tion of sex? Undue exploitation of sex has many interpretations. To impose one interpretation of undue exploitation of sex on the public clearly violates the public’s constitutional rights because undue exploitation sex is a matter of opinion. Opinions cannot be legislated. What is “obscene” speech? Obscene speech was defined by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Butler, 1992, as being any speech that subordinates or degrades women. first of all, no speech subordinates or degrades me (I am a heterosexual woman) because I truly believe and unconditionally support freedom of speech! In other words, what the Supreme Court of Canada thinks regarding speech that subordinates or degrades women is vague and subjective. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Canada has violated some of its own criteria because in R. v. Oakes, 1985, the Supreme Court of Canada outlined its criteria that challenged legislation must pass. However, Canada’s obscenity laws fail to pass the Supreme Court of Canada’s criteria: 1. Sufficiently important objec- tive. The law must pursue an objective that is sufficiently important to justify limiting a Charter right. 2. Rational connection: The law must be rationally connected to the objective. 3. Least dramatic means: The law must impair the right no more than is necessary to accomplish the objective. 4. Proportionate effect: The law must not have a disproportionate severe effect on the persons to whom it applies (cited in Hogg, 1992; 17-35. Canada’s obscenity laws fail to pass the Supreme Court of Cana- da’s criteria in R. v. Oakes because the state did not use the “least dramatic means” to accomplish its law enforcement. First of all, Canada Customs and Canada Post seized “obscene” books before the fact. Whatever happened to “innocent until proven [beyond a reasonable doubt] guilty (which is entrenched in section 11 (d) of the caieemmmmmemmmmmmmmnal (000 1811) WIth HALF THE er ae Canada Constitution)? Moreover, Canada’s obscenity laws fail to include men. What about speech that subordinates or degrades men? Some men may find “obscene” speech subordinat- ing or degrading; what about men’s rights? In Conclusion, Canada’s obscen- ity laws are completely flawed and false because their premises do not support their conclusions.... Sincerely, Linda Meyer Iam writing this letter for two purposes: to inform others and to take action for myself. Recently someone, a male, leveled an accusation against me in the most insidious way. This person, either maliciously or mistakenly, accused me of a serious type of offense which I was not guilty of. Why should anyone care about my misfortune? I believe people should care because my situation proves that not one person is immune to the possibility of being wrongfully charged of an offense. In other words, what happened to me could happen to anyone. On the day in question, I was at college to attend classes. At one point, I went to the washroom on the second floor. As I was exiting, I bumped into a security guard who was followed in by another male. At the time I wondered why the guard was going in there but I had no idea of what was to follow. I made my way towards the book store and was coming down the stairs when the same guard accosted me. He asked me if I was a student, to which I replied that I am. He then requested my student THE 60'S HAD "MR. NATURAL” THE FO'S HAD ‘KEEP ON TRUCKIN’ THE 80'S HAD ‘ B. oom county’ NOW IT'S ALL THE CYNIciSmM oF ‘womgat’ INTELECT + | Beugy THE Eaves Seane. ' WAS ae Lead * SIMGER OF A SEATLE BAND, 1M citan SHAVEN AnD READY To DIE; id which I handed to him. Being a security guard myself and believ- ing that I was undergoing a random check, I cooperated fully with him. He asked me to come over to the south-west corner of the first floor entrance and when we were there, proceeded to advis me that someone had accused me of masturbating in a public place. I was shocked by the accusation as I ama person who does his best to act in a responsible manner. I am not the kind of person who would perform sexual acts in public places. The guard finished taking the information I gave him and left me there at the entrance. I don’t know how many people were watching the guard talk to me but one of them approached me afterwards. She wanted to know what had gone on and to the best of my recollection I told her but in vague terms. I was very embarrassed first of all by the accusation leveled at me and by the fact that other people had witnessed my ques- tioning. (If you should wonder, I do not hate the guard who ques- tioned me as he was simply doing his job but more on that later). After the young woman departed, I went to the book store and made some purchases, still somewhat dazed by what had happened. Once I came out, I headed up to the security booth to challenge the guard on his handling of the matter and the fact that he had questioned me publicly rather than privately. His response was that another guard was busy with an emergency and he’d had no option but to question me there as he wasn’t sure that I wouldn’t run off and leave him to fill out reports. I felt that he had failed to show letters continue on page 4 the Was Gither Press Volume 21 - Issue 16 - Meroh 4 1887 1020-700 Royal Avenue New Westminster, BC V3L 5B2 Phone 525-3542 Fax 527-5095 general@op.douglas.be.ca The Other Press is Douglas College’s autonomous student newspaper. We have been publishing since 1976. The Other Press is runasa_nor-hierarchical collective. The OP publishes every week during this semester—we felt like we needed the change—and monthly (as a magazine) during the summer We receive our funding from a student levy collected every semester at registration, and from local and national advertising revenue. The Other Press is a member of Canadian University Press, a cooperative of student newspapers from across Canada. We claim to adhere to CUP’s Statement of Common Principles and Code of Ethics. The Other Press reserves the right to choose what to publish, and what not to publish. We don’t publish anything racist, sexist or homophobic. If you have any quibbles with what we choose, maybe you should get your lazy butt down here and help. Coordinating Staff Athletics ~ Jonathan D, Chapman sports@op.douglas.be.ca Arts & Entertainment ~ Kim Jorgensen a&e@op.douglas.bc.ca Classifieds ~ Barbara Kinley-Hubert Creative ~ Gweny Wong others@op.douglas.be.ca Coquitlam ~ Joyce Robinson coq_coordinator@op.douglas.be.ca CUP Liaison ~ Julia Cornester cup@op.douglas.be.ca Distribution ~ Lee Flower (acting) Features ~ Arthur Hanks features@op.douglas.be.ca Graphics ~ Cheryl Chiu graphics@op.douglas.bc.ca News ~ Jim Chliboyko news@op.douglas.bc.ca Opinion and Editorial ~ Elijah Bak (acting) opinions@op.douglas.be.ca Photography ~ Eric Milner photo@op.douglas.bc.ca Production ~ Jessica Fish production_co@op.douglas.bc.ca Systems Operator ~ Michael Pierre op_web@op.douglas.be.ca Contributors Doug Whitlow, Zeebo and Caitlin, Jason Kurylo, Miguel Strother, Chris Bonnallie, Holly Keyes, Kevin Sallows, David Tam, Dave Dalcanale, Pretzel Levesque, Max Phoenix, Idella Sturino, Ian (AKA Mr. Bitter), Laura Selman, Michelle L. Gray, Sam McDonough, Leah McKay, Rebecca Kirkwood, Eamma Cheng, Jong Nan Kim, Sylvia Robertson, Jess Johal. Employees Advertising ~ John Morash Bookkeeping ~ David Sussman Production Resource ~ Trent Ernst Editorial Resource ~ Corene McKay 2 March4,1997 The Other Press