Anti Semitic Native Leader Ahenakew dead at 76.

[Mr.Canada]

David Ahenakew, a former Saskatchewan aboriginal leader who was stripped of the Order of Canada for calling Jews a "disease", has died in hospital after a long battle with cancer. He was 76.

At his second trial on hate charges he testified that he doesn't hate Jews but still believes they caused the Second World War.

"Everybody says I'm a Jew-hater," he told court. "I don't hate the Jews, but I hate what they do to people."

Source

He went from being immensely popular as the youngest chief in SK at 35 to being ousted for taking kick backs and other favors. He recieved the order of Canada then was later stripped of it for calling Jews a disease and they started WWII but he doesn't hate Jews. He died in a hospital room of cancer, can't say I'm sad. I'm more than positive that some people here will come to his rescue.

Edited March 13, 2010 by Mr.Canada

[Michael Hardner]

I'm more than positive that some people here will come to his rescue.

Rescue ? It's a little late but let us see.

Edited March 13, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[Mr.Canada]

Rescue ? It's a little late but let us see.

Rescue is probably the wrong word but no matter how unpleasant someone is someone else will almost always defend them.

[jbg]

I'm not quite coming to his rescue.

That being said the "hate speech" prosecution is totally anathema to me. I know this is a minority position for someone of the Jewish faith but we built our greatness from courage, not fear. Democracy and freedom are not for cowards, for people scared of irregular views, however stupid.

I would far rather have these views debunked in the marketplace of ideas. I was rooting for him in the courts. I will not be rooting for him to have a good life in hell.

[bloodyminded]

I'm not quite coming to his rescue.

That being said the "hate speech" prosecution is totally anathema to me. I know this is a minority position for someone of the Jewish faith but we built our greatness from courage, not fear. Democracy and freedom are not for cowards, for people scared of irregular views, however stupid.

I would far rather have these views debunked in the marketplace of ideas. I was rooting for him in the courts. I will not be rooting for him to have a good life in hell.

Here here, jbg.

His right to say what he wants to say is something that should be supported. Canada should be following the US lead on free speech principles, rather than, say, the UK's preposterous (and libel-riddled) policies.

There are a couple of practical reasons for supporting this principle. First, it's not good to have an overarching authority determining what is factually true (or historically inarguable, say in matters of Holocausr denial). For every denial-ridden Jew-hater, there are a thousand other people holding other contentious and controversial views...do we want them shut up?

Authorities should not be in a position to determine punishment based on vocal inadherence to fact.

Second, and I think you've mentioned this, it is better on the whole to have such bigotries stated. This is the way to rationally argue against them.

Hell, I'm all for letting Holocaust deniers sya whatever they like. The fact that I think they're ignorant, or hateful, or a combination, is actually a very separate issue. Of course they're ignorant. So what?

[Guest TrueMetis]

Second, and I think you've mentioned this, it is better on the whole to have such bigotries stated. This is the way to rationally argue against them.

Or be able to avoid those idiots.

[bloodyminded]

Or be able to avoid those idiots.

True, an added benefit.

[Smallc]

At the same time, I would say that it was right to challenge what he said. He was basically advocating for the killing of jews...that's not acceptable.

[jbg]

Here here, jbg.

Thanks.

There are a couple of practical reasons for supporting this principle. First, it's not good to have an overarching authority determining what is factually true (or historically inarguable, say in matters of Holocausr denial).

Exactly. It morphs into an "official truth" on global warming and other controversial issues.

For every denial-ridden Jew-hater, there are a thousand other people holding other contentious and controversial views...do we want them shut up?

I'm on board with this. Most people who hold views that are badly out of line with facts are marginal people, with zero influence.

Authorities should not be in a position to determine punishment based on vocal inadherence to fact.

Except obviously when it comes to private, as opposed to public people's reputations. If someone accused me of running a Ponzi scheme I'd still like to be able to sue.

Second, and I think you've mentioned this, it is better on the whole to have such bigotries stated. This is the way to rationally argue against them.

I have said that in private messages, I believe, and have no problem with that being quoted.

Hell, I'm all for letting Holocaust deniers sya whatever they like. The fact that I think they're ignorant, or hateful, or a combination, is actually a very separate issue. Of course they're ignorant. So what?

Exactly.

If expressing their viwews they look, and sound, stupid.

[jbg]

At the same time, I would say that it was right to challenge what he said. He was basically advocating for the killing of jews...that's not acceptable.

I don't know if he actually advocated the killing of Jews. I do think that urging the murder of anyone should be and is criminal.

[Smallc]

He may not have been advocating for the killing of jews in current time, but he basically said that Hitler was right, because jews were dangerous...talk like that is dangerous.

[bloodyminded]

At the same time, I would say that it was right to challenge what he said. He was basically advocating for the killing of jews...that's not acceptable.

I agree. The challenge is the correct thing. But without freedom of speech, there's little to challenge in the first place.

All North Koreans love the regime, after all.

[Smallc]

Yes, and I agree with freedom of speech, but I think there are limits to that said freedom. People cannot advocate for the killing of other people or groups of people.

[bloodyminded]

Except obviously when it comes to private, as opposed to public people's reputations. If someone accused me of running a Ponzi scheme I'd still like to be able to sue.

Oh yes, sure. Free speech doesn't mean you can whatever you like, about anybody, in any context.

(But of course, if somebody accused you of running a Ponzi scheme, and in fact you got in legal trouble for doing just that, you would have no case against them.)

[Smallc]

I agree with freedom of speech, I just think there's such thing as too much freedom. People should be able to say what they want as long as it doesn't endanger others. What he said bordered on endangering jews given his stature....that's my only point.

[bloodyminded]

I agree with freedom of speech, I just think there's such thing as too much freedom. People should be able to say what they want as long as it doesn't endanger others. What he said bordered on endangering jews given his stature....that's my only point.

Well, when it comes to any charges of incitement, we have to be very cautious, very conservative.

For example, there are people who say, very explicitly, that political views like mine are treasonous, part of a fifth column giving succour to terrorists, and so on.(I say "fuck these little pantywaists," but that's beside the point. )

Incitement can't be assumed. It must be proven.

[Smallc]

I'm not even talking about something like that. I'm talking about people saying that all homosexuals should be killed or assaulted. I agree that such things hve to be proven though, and that's why I don't think trials on these possibly dangerous statements aren't such a bad thing at times.

[jbg]

He may not have been advocating for the killing of jews in current time, but he basically said that Hitler was right, because jews were dangerous...talk like that is dangerous.

Yes, and I agree with freedom of speech, but I think there are limits to that said freedom. People cannot advocate for the killing of other people or groups of people.

I agree with freedom of speech, I just think there's such thing as too much freedom. People should be able to say what they want as long as it doesn't endanger others. What he said bordered on endangering jews given his stature....that's my only point.

I'm Jewish, obviously. I don't feel the least bit endangered by advocacy. Planning actual murders is a different story.

I pretty much lean to almost absolute free speech. Without it someone such as Ezra Levant could be called to task for simply stating a position and then having to prove that it's "permitted speech". The chill comes not from the ultimate punishment, but from having to pay to establish the permissible nature of speech. The speech should have to be very clearly over the line to be illegal.

[Smallc]

I pretty much lean to almost absolute free speech. Without it someone such as Ezra Levant could be called to task for simply stating a position and then having to prove that it's "permitted speech".

Levant wasn't subject to criminal charges and that is a different matter. I agree the Human Rights Commissions do need to be investigated, but this was an actual criminal matter relating to speech that can be considered hate under the criminal code. Hate speech laws, I support. I really have no position on the Human Rights Commissions....I think they may need to be brought down a peg. In the criminal trial of Ahenakew, he did not have to prove himself innocent.

This, when speaking about killing Jews:

How else do you get rid of a disease like that, that's going to take over, that's going to dominate?

Is something that I would see as bordering on hate.

Edited March 13, 2010 by Smallc

[Guest American Woman]

Is something that I would see as bordering on hate.

What he said was definitely hate, but from what I'm understanding it's only considered illegal when inciting others to hate, too, and I think that's the point being made. His comments, no matter how hateful, were stated as his opinion, not with the purpose of inciting others to hate Jews also.

Edited March 13, 2010 by American Woman

[Smallc]

I said it bordered on inciting hate. The court found that it didn't constituted a criminal act. It still was worth the investigation.

[Mr.Canada]

I wonder where charter.rights and Shwa are? Why aren't they vigorously defending one of their flock. I'm sure what this man said can be defended by some ancient treaty.

[Shwa]

What he said was definitely hate, but from what I'm understanding it's only considered illegal when inciting others to hate, too, and I think that's the point being made. His comments, no matter how hateful, were stated as his opinion, not with the purpose of inciting others to hate Jews also.

The problem with Ahenakew is that he made his comments while in a position of power and influence which could be seen as an incitant. It was right to charge him and send him through the system to sort it out.

[Shwa]

I wonder where charter.rights and Shwa are?

I can't speak for the other guy, but I was busy having a life. Something you may want to consider.

Why aren't they vigorously defending one of their flock.

Not one of my "flock" and besides, he had his own lawyers to defend him.

I'm sure what this man said can be defended by some ancient treaty.

Do you mean like the Magna Carta or something?

[g_bambino]

The problem with Ahenakew is that he made his comments while in a position of power and influence which could be seen as an incitant.

But leaders only lead with consent. His public shaming and fall from grace should have been enought to knock him off his pedestal and shut him up.