>>CB: The German and French examples are contra your general criticism on
this
thread. Their definitions of "racism" and "racial vilification" are
politically correct from a left point of view. Even these reforms in
capitalism were anti-fascist and not used to attack oppressed national and
racial groups.<<
oh, Chaz. I don't have general criticisms of racial vilification laws, I have a number of specific ones. on the question of the potential for the use of these laws against the left, my point of reference is distinctly the proposals for such laws in australia: i.e., they mention 'vilification of groups according to race, ethnicity'. I have little doubt that this opens the field significantly, similar in fact to the ways in which equal opportunity laws, framed in similar language, have been most effective for white men in this country, as I've mentioned to you before. they have been used to make illegal women's only events and clubs as women only spaces.
I don't know about the French examples, but I raised the German example not in order to illustrate an inability to impose a leftist definition per se, but in terms of an inability to do anything concrete both to stem the rise of neo-nazism and to challenge the racism in that country which is not accompanied by swastikas, nazi insignia or holocaust denial. the racism in Germany today is most extreme against immigrants, and these laws have no capacity to deal with that. during the terrorising of immigrants in Rostock some years back, it was the left which went to defend the 'guest workers' who were targeted by police, not the racists.
{There's an excellent video on this by Siobhan Cleary & Mark Saunders called The Truth Lies In Rostock. This is the blurb: Police withdraw as fascists petrol-bomb a refugee centre and the home of Vietnamese guest workers while 3000 spectators stood by and clapped. Using material filmed from inside attacked houses and interviews with anti-fascists, the Vietnamese guest workers, police, bureaucrats, neo-nazis and residents, a story of political collusion and fear unfolds.}
btw, here are some links that you or others might not have come across:
Crosspoint - Europe http://www.magenta.nl/crosspoint/
Universal Mind- Anti-Racism and Anti-Fascism http://www.harborside.com/home/b/brecke/activism/anti-racism/
European Roma Rights Center http://errc.org/
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Page http://cf.vicnet.net.au/aboriginal/
anti racist action - Toronto http://www.web.net/~ara/
Anti Racism Campaign (ARC) http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/arc.html
Race Traitor - Abolish the White Race http://www.netural.com/lip/abolish.html ----
>>CB: Compared to academics, lawyers have a good record as revolutionaries
in
my opinion: Lenin, Castro, Mandela, Joe Slovo even Lincoln and Jefferson.
Part of it is that law itself emphasized unity of theory and practice.<<
I wasn't comparing lawyers to anyone. I was suggesting that the specific function of lawyers, which expresses a separation of law from the masses, is not a basis on which to conduct a revolution. as for academics, I would say the same thing, they express a distinction, and I would hope that such a distinction would be the target of any revolution, not a premise of its organisation. ----
>I haven't read Pashukanis. I read an analysis of him, but I didn't get it.
What is Pashukanis's thesis ?
I'll do a post on Pashukanis soon. I have to refresh my dim memory. I asked because since you were a lawyer, and since Pashukanis was one of the eminent, though heterodox, legal theorists of the USSR, I thought you would have a take on him.
Angela --- rcollins at netlink.com.au