4A
Wednesday, June 19. 1996
OPINION UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
VIEWPOINT
Clinton may jeopardize votes by supporting bill
President Clinton has announced that he will sign a bill allowing states to make same-sex marriages illegal. This development complicates the president's rocky relationship with the gay and lesbian community.
The announcement, which outraged some members of the gay and lesbian community, leaves Americans wondering whether the president is pandering to religious conservatives. Those who supported him enthusiastically may vote for him only reluctantly in the 1996 election.
The president's actions have damaged his credibility in the gay and lesbian community and among sympathetic members of the Democratic and Republican parties.
That he is willing to compromise the interests of a group of his supporters to appear more appealing to another group is a sad commentary on his loyalty to constituents.
Same-sex marriages
Clinton will lose credibility by allowing states to refute the legality of same-sex marriages.
In the upcoming election, one must consider Clinton's actions on this issue. Loss of moral courage in the face of purely political considerations is not the mark of a desirable leader.
To retain the American electorate's trust, Clinton must link his actions to his rhetoric. Because of his actions, voters are left to wonder whether Bill Clinton can be trusted to safeguard the ideals of any group that supports him.
NICK PIVONKA FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD.
Kansas' sexual-predator law could prevent repeat offenses
The Kansas sexual-predator law, which was ruled unconstitutional in March, is vital in protecting society from repeat sex-crime offenders and preventing recidivism of Kansas prisoners. Because the law doesn't set a deadline for rehabilitation, offenders are more likely to receive the treatment that they need and less likely to repeat their crimes.
Under the law, offenders may be imprisoned indefinitely until they are rehabilitated if they have personality disorders or mental illnesses that make them likely to become repeat offenders.
The U.S. Supreme Court has announced that it will use the Kansas law to decide whether sexualpredator laws are constitutional. The Kansas Supreme Court ruled the law unconstitutional because it violates the 14th Amendment's due process clause.
THE ISSUE:
Predator laws
Sexual-predator laws provide rehabilitation for offenders and could prevent recidivism.
The U.S. Supreme Court should use the Kansas sexual-predator law to set a precedent for other states. Rehabilitation is not a violation of due process; it is a service to both first-time offenders and to the members of society with whom the offenders will live again. The Kansas law also allows for variation in the length of time individual offenders will need to be rehabilitated.
Premature release of a sex-crime offender who has not been fully rehabilitated only will put society needlessly at risk a second time.
KIM BECKA FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Shawn Trimble / KANSAN
Human-rights violations in Nigeria need attention
In the past two months, there has been relatively little news about Nigeria. But in a country such as Nigeria, where journalists are detained without trial for their opinions and radio stations are shut down for broadcasting critical commentary, no news is not necessarily good news.
Human-rights abuses in Nigeria caught international attention in November when Nobel Prize-winning author Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other environmental activists were executed for urging the Nigerian military government to clean up their oil-polluted homeland.
Without trivializing the deaths of Saro-Wiwa and the eight activists, arrests on the grounds of political belief without trial are par for the course in Nigeria, a country ruled by military force.
The circumstances of Saro-Wiwa's arrest and trial by military tribunal prompted a U.N. investigation of the human-rights situation in Nigeria. Despite the United Nations' investigation, human-rights abuses persist. We cannot wait for another Nobel Prize winner or any other Nigerian to be executed before we respond to this situation.
Since its independence from Britain in 1960, Nigeria only has had 10 years of democratic rule. The
STAFF COLUMNIST
president of Nigeria, Chief Moshood Abiola, has been in solitary confinement for the past two years. General Sani Abacha, the current military leader, replaced all elected officials with military governors. Nigerians are fed up with military rule and want
democracy, but they cannot gather to organize protests because public meetings, rallies and private organization have been banned. This ban infringes on Nigerians' rights to freedom of expression and assembly.
The military illustrated its disregard for human rights by arresting at least 19 people to prevent them from providing information about human-rights abuses to U.N. investigators.
Despite this fact, the United Nations recommended a "transitional program" from military government to democratic rule. Unfortunately, this recommendation did little to stop human-rights violations.
Nigerians still are arrested and
killed for exercising their basic rights to freedom of expression and assembly. In a June 13th radio broadcast, Chief Anthony Enaharo, chairman of the National Democratic Coalition of Nigeria, reported that a week earlier, Chief Abiola's wife was assassinated for asking that her husband be released from jail and recognized as president. Enaharo is in exile because he fears detention and death for his political affiliations.
Since the Nigerian military government obviously could care less about human rights, the international community should voice its concern in terms that Nigerian military rulers can relate to — money.
Oil makes up 95 percent of Nigeria's foreign exchange, and 41 percent of the daily oil exports comes to the United States.
Write your congresswoman, Jan Meyers, at 2303 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C., 20515, or send her this article asking for a U.S. embargo on Nigerian oil until the military returns ruling power to the Nigerian people.
Let us exercise our freedom of expression to ensure that Nigerians one day can do the same.
Rachel Wisele is a Stanley sophromore in Japanese and political science.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Slaughtering animals for food is unnecessary
I am writing in response to the article "Bardot objects to dog meat sales in South Korea" in the Mav 3, 1996, issue of the Kansan.
The cow, which Hindus consider a pet, a companion and a sacred animal, is slaughtered daily by Westerners who consider these animals to be cattle, not cows. The Western view is that killing cattle for meat is slaughter, not cruelty.
Now Westerners are angry to hear that dogs are killed for meat in South Korea, and the Western media are suddenly concerned about cruelty to dogs and other animals.
pig for meat, yet she considers the slaughtering of dogs to be cruel?
It is considered unacceptable to kill a dog for meat because the dog is man's best friend.
Who is Bardot kidding? It's OK to kill a cow, horse, chicken or
What a joke! The West is hypocritical in pointing out animal cruelty in other countries. The slaughter of all innocent animals for food is unnecessary.
I am a vegetarian, and I believe that by being so, one can lead a healthier, happier and philosophically better life.
Hari Paramesh Lawrence Resident
How to submit letters and guest columns
Letters: Should be double-
spaced, typed and fewer than 200
words. Letters must include the
author's signature, name, address
and telephone number plus class
and hometown if a University student.
Faculty or staff must identify
their positions.
Guest columns: Should be double-spaced, typed and fewer than 700 words. The writer must be willing to be photographed.
All letters and guest columns should be submitted to the Kansan newsroom, 111 Stauffer Flint Hall. The Kansan reserves the right to edit, cut or reject all submissions. For any questions, call Kim Becka, editorial editor, at 864-4810.
Marge Schott all Americans have the right to free speech
Controversy has erupted once again in baseball. Cincinnati Reds owner Marge Schott is in the news for spewing more bigotry.
We shouldn't be surprised. In 1992, Schott was fined $25,000 and suspended for eight months when she referred to former Red Dave Parker with a racial slur too repugnant to print.
STAFF COLUMNIST
Baseball's big shots are sick of Schott, and last week they forced her to give up daily control of the team for the next two and a half years. The decision means that Schott is no longer the official representative of the Reds in league meetings, with team
owners, or in any public capacity.
OWNER OF HIGHLY public capacity. She will retain her ballpark office and private viewing box, and she will have final say on all financial decisions related to the team. In other words, she won't have to work, but she will still get paid.
While America would be better off with one fewer hatemonger, forcing Schott out of baseball is not the solution. She may be a wart on the face of baseball, but punishing free speech is no less tyrannical and detestable than the utterances that got her in this mess.
A boycott of the Reds would send the message that Schott and her kind are not wanted. Such an action would demonstrate broad agreement that bigotry has no place in society.
Some of those riding the get-rid-of-Schott bandwagon justify punishing her because she damages the image of the great American pastime. This may be true. But society is full of people who retain leadership positions despite their questionable rhetoric and the damage they cause to their institutions
Pat Robertson could be considered the Marge Schott of Christianity, and religion is far more ingrained in our national psyche than baseball. Robertson has said that Communism was the brainchild of German-Jewish intellectuals; he has called Jews spiritually blind and deaf. In 1991, he said that Episcopalians, Presbyterians and Methodists possess the spirit of the Antichrist. No matter how objectionable his stance, other religious leaders have not tried to force him to sell either his broadcasting network or his other business enterprises.
Pat Buchanan is another example of free speech at its worst. In his 1992 campaign, he referred to Hitler as a man of great courage. During that time he also said that AIDS was this nation's price to pay for violating the laws of nature. Buchanan's 1996 campaign was a bit more polished, but the message was equally divisive: Immigrants are the root of evil in America. Although he does not speak for the majority of Republicans, he probably will not be silenced at this year's convention in San Diego. He has the right to speak his mind.
We would prefer to be rid of divisive public figures, but we must remember the principles on which this democracy was founded. The First Amendment guarantees Schott, Robertson, Buchanan and the rest of us the right to our beliefs and a right to express those beliefs. We must resist the temptation to silence those with whom we disagree.
Shannon Tauscher is a Lawrence senior in social welfare.
KANSAN STAFF
SARAH WIESE Editor
CRAIG LANG Managing editor
TOM EBLEN
General manager, news adviser
Editors
Campus...Jason Strait
Associate Campus...Dan Gelson
Editorial...Kim Becka
Photo...Edmee Rodriguez
Wire...Craig Lang
Design...Debbie Staline
Copy Chief...Julie Kinn
KAREN GERSCH
Business manager
SARA ROSE
Director of Client Services
JAY STEINER
Sales and marketing adviser
JUSTIN KNUPP
Technology coordinator
Business Staff
By Jeremy Patnoi
Business Staff
Campus / Regional mgr ...Shelly Wachter
Special Sections mgr ...Rachel Cahill
Production mgr ...Karen Gersch
Assistant Creative dir...Dena Pleciotte
Classified mgr ...Stacey Welgarten
Zone mgr ...Troy Sauer
Monish Good
OUT FROM THE CRACKS
G. RETURN