 |
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:34
|
|
quote:
Note- you didn't actually respond to my earlier request for further clarification in the thread where you claimed a teacher in Canada had been fired for publishing their antigay views.
|
Okay, I don't have it quite right.
Apparently Kempling wants to fight this ruling to the Supremes.
Yes, Kempling would have a month's suspension, but the effect would place Kempling on a blacklist, since this suspension would be on his record for 'conduct unbecoming a teacher.'
It is unlikely that he could find employment as a teacher again.
Last edited by Ben Kenobi on 25-07-2004 at 09:12
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:34
|
|
Here's the article from World net daily.
I think this makes it all clear.
This is from the 5th of February, so I'll see if I can't find anything more recent.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/a...RTICLE_ID=36939
Suspension for 'anti-gay' opinion upheld
Teacher's letters-to-editor 'poisoned' classroom environment
------------------------------------------------------------------------Posted: February 5, 2004
¿ 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
A teacher suspended because he wrote published letters critical of homosexual behavior was properly punished with a one-month suspension, the British Columbia Supreme Court ruled.
As WorldNetDaily reported, Chris Kempling of Quesnel, British Columbia, was found guilty of unbecoming conduct by the B.C. College of Teachers. The panel asserted his letters to the editor, a research paper and other correspondence contained "discriminatory and derogatory statements against homosexuals."
Teacher Chris Kempling (Vancouver Sun)
Though none of the statements in question were made in class, the panel said the writings indicated the veteran teacher's attitude could poison the class environment.
One Kempling letter cited by the panel said: "Gay people are seriously at risk, not because of heterosexual attitudes but because of their sexual behaviour, and I challenge the gay community to show some real evidence that they are trying to protect their own community members by making attempts to promote monogamous, long-lasting relationships to combat sexual addictions."
Justice Ronald Holmes of the B.C. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday Kempling's comments were discriminatory and could reasonably cause disruption to the school system.
In a letter to supporters yesterday, Kempling said, "It is a black day for religious freedom in Canada."
According to Kempling, Holmes implied homosexual students would be unwilling to speak to him in his role as a school counselor, asserting the published comments reduced his credibility as a teacher in the eyes of students and the public.
"There was no evidence presented that this was true," Kempling said. "No evidence of a disrupted school environment was found. There were no complaints from students, parents or my supervisors."
He noted all of his former administrators wrote letters stating his public comments had no discernible impact on the operation of the school.
According to its rules, the teacher's panel does not need to find direct evidence of a poisoned school environment to determine that a member is guilty of conduct unbecoming. The panel said, "It is sufficient that an inference can be drawn as to the reasonable and probable consequences of the discriminatory comments of a teacher."
The teachers said they were disturbed by Kempling's statements that homosexual relationships are unstable, 'gay' sex poses health risks and many religions consider homosexuality immoral.
In his letter yesterday, Kempling pointed out three former students interviewed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation at the University of British Columbia said they were not even aware that there was a controversy at that time.
He insists Justice Holmes ignored evidence that homosexual students received impartial service from him.
"In fact, a prominent homosexual interviewed by college investigators offered no opinion that what I had written publicly was upsetting to homosexual people," Kempling said.
He argued that the fact he was appointed to be chair of the Community Health Council by the Minister of Health during this period showed his credibility as a teacher and community leader were not impaired.
The post is the highest non-elected appointment in his city, with responsibility for over 500 employees and a $22 million budget.
Kempling said the ruling "means that teachers who happen to be Christians or who belong to other religions proscribing homosexuality may not comment publicly on this issue."
"It means that disciplinary bodies do not need to provide any evidence of impairment or harm at a professional's workplace if they exercise their right to free speech in their off-the-job capacity," he said. "Inference of harm is sufficient to remove a teacher from his job. It is a serious blow to freedom of speech and freedom of religion."
Kempling said he will appeal the decision to the B.C. Court of Appeal, although the four-year battle has been tough on him and his family.
"But I am determined to see this through," he said. "I am a Christian first and a teacher second, and I will not compromise my faith or keep silent about what I believe."
Kempling appealed to the B.C. Supreme Court on the grounds that the decision violates Canadian Charter of Rights protections of freedom of expression and religion.
He argued no professional regulatory body had ever punished members for off-site conduct that had no demonstrable impact on their work.
Kempling insists a one-month suspension was particularly harsh since teachers convicted of threats, assault, theft and flashing have received only letters of reprimand.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ming
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
They are suppressing it simply because their actions or threatened actions influence the person speaking. The idea of free speech is that you can express your political beliefs without fear of reprisal. People will not feel free to express their political beliefs if they are afraid of reprisals.
|
A boycot is a great way for the small guys to have the big guys listen to their opinion. That is how discussions can happen. If one side has the power or media attention, and you don't, you have to resort to proven methods to be heard. Boycotts are just another form.
So are you really saying people shouldn't have a choice on how to spend their money... Because that's all a boycott on political issues is, a choice on how to spend your money. You say boycots limit the right for free speech, but if they are allowed to the people, you are limiting there rights as well.
quote:
We have a way of sorting out our political differences. It's called the ballot. A feature of the open society is that people should feel free to express their political views without fear of reprisals in order to persuade their fellow citizens at the ballot.
|
A red herring... this has nothing to do with voting... that right remains no matter which side of this you are on.
People have the right and power to use economics as well to persuade people. There is a balance of rights here... Your argument is one sided, and doesn't take the other into consideration. I don't want to restrict anybodys right to voice their political opinion in a legal fashion.
quote:
If your boss can fire you because of your politics, then that places a massive constraint on free speech for the majority of ordinary Joes. it means that only those who can afford the risk will express their political opinions, and that's not everyone.
|
The owners of business have that right. If you were employed by the government, that would be a different story.
quote:
Whatever... No amount of bluster or accusations will hide the fact that you are seriously out of your depth in this discussion (just like last time in the copyright discussion, in which you were thoroughly owned).
|
Typical... claim you have won, toss a few insults, and think you have won. From my perspective, you are the one that have lost this one 
quote:
If I am going to lose half my income by stating my political opinion, then that's going to make me feel reticent about expressing my political opinions. In a democratic society no one should be put in that situation.
|
It's your choice on whether you take a job or not... If the money is that important to you, maybe you should take a job where they believe like you do.
In the example for this thread, a tired old singer who tried to make a simple concert into a political statement, and incited a riot that didn't make her employers very happy... she lost no income, and was escorted off the property. She won't be hired by that casino again... but it's her fault.
quote:
It is not identical to speech (because it isn't speaking or conveying semantic content) and it is not the only option open. In the open society you are free to petition, protest and publish. These things are better than boycotts in that they are attempts to persuade rather than coerce.
|
Publishing, protests, and petitions can all be forms or coercian as well... Just like a boycott can be just a chance to be heard... Boycotts are just one method.
A newspaper printing an op ed piece can be far worse in terms of coercian...
quote:
I'm not the clueless one. You just want a society where you can coerce people into shutting up by threatening their livelihoods.
|
You seem to want a society where peoples rights are ristricted.
quote:
You aren't voicing an opinion by not buying a product, you are just not buying a product. If all you do is not buy the product, how is the manufacturer supposed to know your reasons for not buying it? Of course you could voice your opinion by writing or speaking to them or protesting, but that is different from merely not buying their stuff.
|
And they will probably just ignore your letter... it's harder for them to ignore a boycott. If you don't want to call it voicing an opinion... whatever... it's obvious to everybody else
quote:
The key statement that undermines your whole position is that, as you say, "people have to listen to you". That is why it is coercive.
|
But they can ignore you... People at the concert didn't have any choice, and had to listen to the message... but that doesn't make it coercive
quote:
What you want is for consumers to be able to compel people they disagree with to keep their traps shut. A society based on this premise is not one in which heretical ideas can easily flourish and is not a society that resolves its differences through open discussion and the ballot.
|
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA... how dramitic.
All I want is right of the consumer to spend his hard earned dollars on whatever products he wants. You seem to be the one that wants to force them to buy products from companies they don't agree with...
quote:
I agree that they were within their rights to dismiss her, I merely think that this shows how some people can't handle free speech when it doesn't go their own way.
|
I think it shows they were pissed about have a riot and angry customers, and would probably lose money in the deal... it had nothing to do with "how some people can't free speech"
quote:
Of course it does. It simply stands to reason that if there are serious consequences with expressing your beliefs, people will be less likely to do it. The difference between a vindictive society which boycotts dissenters and a totalitarian society which imprisons them is one of degree, not of kind. Both reject the idea that people should be free to express themselves politically without fear of reprisals from others.
|
You call somebody a name to their face, expect that they might respond... boycotts are legitimate way to get your message across. and trying to call equate boycotts with a totalitarian society is just plain silly.
quote:
The society in which people resolve these issues at the ballot is a more open society than one in which people must live in fear of vindictive boycotts.
|
The boycot isn't stopping people from voting for who they want... that's why it's a "secret ballot"... so you can lose the whole ballot and open society crap... it has nothing to do with this discussion
quote:
It's about the power of each individual to express his or her political beliefs and for others to be free to accept or reject them at the ballot, not about the power of individuals to silence others with threats and boycotts.
|
It's also about the fight of people not to have to spend their money to support companies they don't agree with.
Boycotts are a way of making a statement, and being heard. The target of the boycot can still do whatever they want. They can listen, and maybe change their ways for economic reasons... or they can ignore them, and accept what happens... Choice on BOTH sides.
quote:
 Nobody can. There are millions of products I don't buy. How are the companies supposed to know I am boycotting them unless I tell them? In that case I may as well just hold a protest.
|
Yeah, and they can ignore your protest... a boycott can get their attention/
quote:
Protests and other forms of dissent do this just as well. The difference is that they are non-coercive. The problem with your version is that it can just as easily be used to silence people.
|
But they don't work as well sometimes...
quote:
And I have a reason, you don't.
|
You keep saying things like that, but it seems most disagree with you on that point
Last edited by Ming on 25-07-2004 at 09:43
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:34
|
|
quote:
Are you seriously suggesting one of those religious establishments south of the border wouldn't employ him, given his exemplary outspoken views critical of homosexuality?
|
You concede the point that he would be blacklisted in the public school system here in BC? That is all I ask you to concede, which is an exceptional penalty.
Go ahead, sleep with your students. Just don't have any published papers arguing against homosexuality. And whatever you do, don't write a letter to the newspaper.
quote:
He'd even get a pay rise, I'd think.
|
Still, he has a point. Do you really want to remove all the Christian teachers from the public school system of BC? That's a self-defeating prophecy.
quote:
Self made martyrs don't impress me much, I'm afraid.
|
So a man who writes a letter to the editor is a self-made martyr? Only in a country that bans freedom of speech and expression.
quote:
He had a duty of care not just to pupils who think the way he does but also to gay and lesbian pupils too- and the children of gay and lesbian parents.
|
He had 0 complaints from homosexual students whom he counselled and taught. 0. I say he upheld his duty to his students in an exemplary way, in which he will be missed. Many teachers put their ideology over the curriculum, but Kempling is not among those.
quote:
If he'd broadcast anti-semitic or holocaust denying opinions I bet you'd be 100% behind him too, right?
|
If he wrote a letter to the paper?
Damn straight!
That's why we have freedom of speech in the first place.
Heck, he could go on an anti-papist rant in the paper for all I care.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:34
|
|
quote:
I don't concede anything of the sort- you're simply parroting his opinion, not a given fact. I think we might allow that his opinion of his future employment opportunities might be coloured by his predicament, and any kind of sympathy he's trying to drum up.
|
Someone who slept with their students wouldn't even get such a blackmark on their record.
Ergo, it stands to reason, that 'conduct unbecoming a teacher' is a very great deterrent to future employment.
quote:
He wasn't fired for publishing a letter- you stated, as fact, earlier in another thread that he was.
|
He was suspended for a month plus the black mark on his record rather than fired. I admit that, which is why I edited the first post in the thread to clarify.
Secondly, he was suspended for publishing a letter to the newspaper. Do you admit that Molly?
quote:
Not all Christians think like you, and not all Christian teachers think or act like him- praise be to god.
|
I think it's your loss Molly. He has a good teaching record. No complaints from his students. I think you would have liked such an earnest teacher who didn't preach in his classes.
I admit, not all Christians think the way I do. Thank goodness they don't!
quote:
Would he have been criticized for holocaust denying or anti-semitic remarks, yes or no?
|
In the paper? Yes. Would he be suspended for making such remarks in a letter to the editor? No.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Someone who slept with their students wouldn't even get such a blackmark on their record.
Ergo, it stands to reason, that 'conduct unbecoming a teacher' is a very great deterrent to future employment.
Secondly, he was suspended for publishing a letter to the newspaper. Do you admit that Molly?
|
You mean like the woman teacher currently on trial in the United States? And others like her?
'12 Feb 1999
Mark Shaffer / The Arizona Republic
Parker teachers accused in sex cases
Female teachers accused of having sex with students
PARKER -- It had been the worst-kept secret in Parker High School.
Ms. Jennifer A., was indicted on three counts of sexual conduct with a minor student two weeks ago.
But an even bigger bomb was on the horizon involving another female teacher in the Parker Unified School District. Ms. Tracey N., 23, a librarian at Le Pera School south of town, was indicted last week on two counts of sexual abuse for reportedly molesting a 13-year-old girl who worked in the library at the school.
Both women were booked and released on their own recognizance, which got tongues wagging again saying that male teachers wouldn't have been treated in such a lenient manner.
It's a cutting-edge issue that has been on the front burners of court cases around the nation which challenge stereotypes of women as victims not perpetrators.
Residents of Parker and La Paz County have certainly had a double standard in the past.
In the late 1980s, a Parker middle-school teacher, 40-year-old Ms. Suzanne Y., had a sexual affair with a 14-year-old boy. She was sentenced to three years' probation.
The judge in the case, Stephen Conn of Mohave County Superior Court, said that "a crime perpetrated by a woman on a male child is not the same as a crime perpetrated by a male on a female child."
In 1997, Ms. Catherine M., a 35-year-old former teacher at Deer Valley High School, got six months for sex with a minor, a former student, at a party in the desert.
This week, Ms. Marian L., 39, former director of a Cave Creek charter school, was given a year in jail and lifetime probation for two counts of attempted sexual contact with two 14-year-old boys. '
In trying to get Kempling into Foxe's Book of Martyrs you're overegging the pudding somewhat.
Sleeping with a pupil- publishing a letter. Why of course, they're exactly the same, aren't they!
As for his suspension being related to his publishing a letter- I think I was the one who brought that up.
So yes, I would agree, wouldn't I?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ming
A boycot is a great way for the small guys to have the big guys listen to their opinion. That is how discussions can happen. If one side has the power or media attention, and you don't, you have to resort to proven methods to be heard. Boycotts are just another form. |
The problems are: (a) it's an even better method for the big guys to use to shut the small guys up.
and: (b) it's unnecessary for getting your point of view heard. Other traditional forms of dissent work just as well, and don't suffer from the defect of being coercive.
quote:
So are you really saying people shouldn't have a choice on how to spend their money... Because that's all a boycott on political issues is, a choice on how to spend your money. You say boycots limit the right for free speech, but if they are allowed to the people, you are limiting there rights as well. |
I wish you would bother actually reading my posts. I advocated no law change and no law restricting how people spend their money. The fact that you have harped on about this for about a page is testament to the fact that you've missed the point I have been making all along - that it is a cultural problem and cannot be solved by making new laws. People in other countries do not behave this way, and there is no ironclad law of nature that requires Americans to do so.
quote:
A red herring... this has nothing to do with voting... that right remains no matter which side of this you are on. |
That's not the point. The question is whether we use the non-coercive nature of free discussion and the ballot to solve our differences, or we resort to coercing people into silence. You obviously prefer the latter.
quote:
People have the right and power to use economics as well to persuade people. There is a balance of rights here... Your argument is one sided, and doesn't take the other into consideration. I don't want to restrict anybodys right to voice their political opinion in a legal fashion. |
But by advocating boycotts of the type the Dixie Chicks suffered that is exactly what you are doing. A society that operates after your fashion will engender fear among those who wish to dissent, since their economic well being will be at stake. You have not provided one iota of argument against this conclusion.
quote:
The owners of business have that right. If you were employed by the government, that would be a different story. |
Great. I suppose they have the right to tell you how to vote as well. At least I can see nothing in your version that would prevent them from requiring that employees vote for the company line and bring back proof. What a lovely way to undermine democracy in favour of corporate totalitarianism...
I've news for you, employers do not have the right to interfere in their employees private lives, anyone that argues differently is on the road to fascism. If they can't fire them because of race or religion, I see no impediment to prohibiting firing people because of their personal politics.
But if you want to give employers the right to fire black people, why not just go the whole hog and let white people own them again.
quote:
Typical... claim you have won, toss a few insults, and think you have won. From my perspective, you are the one that have lost this one |
It's easy to see for anyone with any logical acumen that you have provided nothing against my claim at all. Instead you have accused me of wishing to deprive people of legal rights that I have explicitly said I wanted to retain. Nowhere have I said that people should be legally prevented from consumer boycotts, I just called for a change to a healthier attitude regarding political speech.
You are out of your depth here, that much is evident.
quote:
It's your choice on whether you take a job or not... If the money is that important to you, maybe you should take a job where they believe like you do. |
Of course in a dream world people can choose whatever job they wish, but in the real world people are often compelled by the threat of homelessness to take what they can get. Of course the political right spends forever praising the kind of freedom which means the choice between a sweatshop or living under a bridge.
quote:
In the example for this thread, a tired old singer who tried to make a simple concert into a political statement, and incited a riot that didn't make her employers very happy... she lost no income, and was escorted off the property. She won't be hired by that casino again... but it's her fault. |
wrong. The prospective owners of the casino have said they will make a point of hiring her back.
quote:
Publishing, protests, and petitions can all be forms or coercian as well... |
How so? I don't see how protesting peacefully in front of a McDonalds coerces anyone. The owners are free to listen if they wish, as are passers by and customers. And handing in 10,000 signatures expressing agreement with an opinion is just that, it makes no threat against anyone.
quote:
Just like a boycott can be just a chance to be heard... Boycotts are just one method. |
And as I have already argued in previous posts, one that is particularly open to the abuses of democracy and free speech I mentioned.
quote:
A newspaper printing an op ed piece can be far worse in terms of coercian... |
How so? It's the newspaper editor's opinion. Unless the editor threatens people I fail to see how it could count as coercive.
quote:
You seem to want a society where peoples rights are ristricted. |
Well, I'll point out again that I never asked for that (read the thread again). But even if I did, it would only be restricting the right of people to coerce others into silence.
quote:
And they will probably just ignore your letter... it's harder for them to ignore a boycott. If you don't want to call it voicing an opinion... whatever... it's obvious to everybody else |
No. The letters of complaint I've sent have all been taken quite seriously. And if it is "obvious" to everyone else, then more fools them.
quote:
But they can ignore you... People at the concert didn't have any choice, and had to listen to the message... but that doesn't make it coercive |
No they didn't. They could simply have ignored it and talked to their friends. Linda Ronstadt was not saying to them, "listen to me, or I'll have you strip searched by the bouncers."
quote:
All I want is right of the consumer to spend his hard earned dollars on whatever products he wants. You seem to be the one that wants to force them to buy products from companies they don't agree with... |
You show me where I said that. I'll point out to you again that I called for a change of attitude, not a change in legislation. I've been saying as much the whole thread. Perhaps when you realize this, you will see how foolish your responses appear.
I've said repeatedly that it would be better w/regard to free speech if people were more tolerant and didn't attempt to use boycotts or power advantages to coerce dissenters into silence.
quote:
I think it shows they were pissed about have a riot and angry customers, and would probably lose money in the deal... it had nothing to do with "how some people can't free speech" |
Again, if you bothered reading back, I said I didn't blame the company, but the childish people who had to make a scene because somebody said something they didn't like. Unfortunately, living in an open society means that everyone often hears things we don't like and we just have to suck it up instead of making a pointless fuss or trying to ruin someone's career because we disagree with them.
quote:
You call somebody a name to their face, expect that they might respond... boycotts are legitimate way to get your message across. and trying to call equate boycotts with a totalitarian society is just plain silly. |
Really? I don't think so. What happened to the Dixie chicks was worrying. Elton John complained the other day of the chilling effect on free expression. I guess they should slap themselves and thank the gods that they can work in a country where people will try to ruin your career if you express a different political preference than they.
And equating is not what I was doing - I said they were different in degree. Please read more carefully to avoid making such obvious mistakes.
quote:
The boycot isn't stopping people from voting for who they want... that's why it's a "secret ballot"... so you can lose the whole ballot and open society crap... it has nothing to do with this discussion. |
Nice way to miss the point. Whether it was intentional or not, I don't know. I never said that boycotts stop people from voting for who they want. But boycotts like that against the Dixie Chicks are designed to prevent them from expressing views that others might accept and agree with. That is the point - don't pretend it is something else.
quote:
It's also about the fight of people not to have to spend their money to support companies they don't agree with. |
 Unfortunately, as I have said, the one is inimical to the other, unless there is a broad culture of tolerance, as there is in most other democratic societies.
quote:
Boycotts are a way of making a statement, and being heard. The target of the boycot can still do whatever they want. They can listen, and maybe change their ways for economic reasons... or they can ignore them, and accept what happens... Choice on BOTH sides. |
Great, this effectively means that people who have unpopular views have a disincentive to voice them. Great, nice way of chilling free speech.
quote:
Yeah, and they can ignore your protest... a boycott can get their attention |
seen this, refuted it twice now. Yes, a boycott can get their attention, but boycotts as a first response have other undesirable consequences as listed above. You can rave on until you are blue in the face that boycotts can sometimes make companies or individuals do what you want. I accept that, but it doesn't change the fact that some of the things people want are odious (like silencing the political opinions of others).
quote:
But they don't work as well sometimes... |
Sometimes boycotts don't work either. So what? These other methods have the benefit of being non-coercive.
quote:
You keep saying things like that, but it seems most disagree with you on that point |
Most people never think such issues through properly. I know, I have to grade their papers.
*edited to fix the mess I made of the quotes.
Last edited by Agathon on 25-07-2004 at 13:43
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
I'm a little skeptical that America is the only nation that discourageous speech in this way. |
It isn't peculiar to the United States- a 'Christian' group in Melbourne called the Salt Shakers (presumably 'the Cruet Set' might have sounded like a New Romantic pop group) tried to claim success in creating an advertisers' boycott of the drama serial 'The L Word' because they didn't like its homophile agenda.
It was such a success that viewing figures for the show increased.
'By yesterday, to my knowledge four out of the five reported commercial advertisers - DaimlerChrysler, Roche, Allianz and Just Jeans - and the one community service organisation - The Open Family Foundation, set up by Fr Bob Maguire and now run by Les Twentyman - have clearly repudiated Mr Stokes' claims about his influence on their advertising policies. Apparently ratings for "The L Word" have jumped by 20% in response to Peter's efforts. Mikey Robbins said on "The Glasshouse" last night that before the Saltshakers he didn't know about the show and that they have now promoted it among straight men who fantasize about lesbian sex.'
http://www.ssonet.com.au/display.asp?ArticleID=3089
The religionistas have a thing called shunning- a social version of the economic boycott. Peer pressure to behave yourself is a wonderful thing, ain't it?
"The shunning of an individual is the act of deliberately avoiding association with him or her. The historical punishments of ostracism and exile were forms of shunning. Today, shunning in an official, formalized manner is practiced by only a few religions, although it continues to be practiced informally in every sort of human grouping or gathering. Religious shunning is often referred to as excommunication.
A distinct practice sometimes confused with shunning involves the severing of ties between new members and those of their friends and family who disapprove of the faith. Scientologists coined the word disconnection to refer to that practice.
Shunning aims to protect a group from members who have committed acts seen as harmful to the shunning organization, or who violate the group's norms. As the practice may end marriages, break up families, and separate children from their parents (or vice versa), it is particularly controversial. "
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Shunning
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MosesPresley
|
|
I remember the beef boycott in the 70's. iirc, it worked pretty well and the prices stabilized.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-07-2004 08:20
|