Mr.Canada Posted March 15, 2010 Author Report Posted March 15, 2010 I can't speak for the other guy, but I was busy having a life. Something you may want to consider. Not one of my "flock" and besides, he had his own lawyers to defend him. Do you mean like the Magna Carta or something? I thought for sure you'd be here telling us how the white man made him do it. Seems to be your answer to everything else that ails the red man. I've been wrong before, once. Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
Guest American Woman Posted March 15, 2010 Report Posted March 15, 2010 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. I agree that it was right to charge/try him. I had to read what he said, as well as the law, a few times in order to understand why what he said wasn't considered "hate speech" under the law. Quote
jbg Posted March 17, 2010 Report Posted March 17, 2010 I agree that it was right to charge/try him. I had to read what he said, as well as the law, a few times in order to understand why what he said wasn't considered "hate speech" under the law. I'm a member of the alleged "victim group" of Ahenekaw's rantings. I do not think it was O.K. to charge him with anything other than gross stupidity. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
ToadBrother Posted March 17, 2010 Report Posted March 17, 2010 I agree that it was right to charge/try him. I had to read what he said, as well as the law, a few times in order to understand why what he said wasn't considered "hate speech" under the law. It's hard for me to approve of charging a man for speaking, even when the words are ugly and evil, and yet feel that I live in a free society. I find the idea of hate speech laws to be an anathema in any society where free speech is a valued liberty. He was a hateful old man, which seems to me to be a much greater punishment than anything the judiciary could level at him. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.