"Hate Speech"

[Guest Warwick Green]

As much as I might think this guy's a slimeball his anti-Jewish rant of a few years ago just does not warrant, in my opinion, all this effort that will result, at best, in a fine.

Former First Nations leader David Ahenakew has successfully appealed his hate crime conviction of July 2005 and a new trial has been ordered.

Queen’s Bench Chief Justice Robert Laing, in a 35-page decision released Thursday afternoon, found the trial judge failed to consider certain evidence and erred in his decision.

“To the extent the foregoing evidence, along with possible other evidence, was not taken into account by the trial judge before drawing the inference he did, was an error in law that requires the setting aside of the judgment. The appellant’s conviction is therefore set aside, and a new trial is ordered,” Laing wrote in his decision....

http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix...35b016a&k=93491

[kimmy]

I am aware that he made a very unpleasant remark about Jews, but I haven't seen his full speech and so I don't really have the full context of his remarks.

I am not in favor of people making racist remarks. However, does making a racist remark necessarily equate to "Incitement of Hatred," or whatever the specific wording of the criminal code is? (I sense I will soon be getting a lecture from FTA Lawyer. )

While I agree that what Ahenakew said does make him an asshole, I'm not sure that it makes him a criminal.

-k

[Guest Warwick Green]

I am aware that he made a very unpleasant remark about Jews, but I haven't seen his full speech and so I don't really have the full context of his remarks.

I am not in favor of people making racist remarks. However, does making a racist remark necessarily equate to "Incitement of Hatred," or whatever the specific wording of the criminal code is? (I sense I will soon be getting a lecture from FTA Lawyer. )

While I agree that what Ahenakew said does make him an asshole, I'm not sure that it makes him a criminal.

-k

The outbreak of foot-in-mouth disease suffered by people such as David Ahenakew and Larry Spencer resulted in their ridicule, social banishment and loss of career. I think that's good enough punishment for what essentially is a lot of loose talk. Being a fined a few extra bucks won't add to what they have already suffered.

[Rue]

War even though I am Jewish, I also have to wonder whether charging him with a hate crime was the best way to deal with it. I think taking away his order of Canada and having the aboriginal leaders condemn what he said plus condemnation from leading religious leaders and politicians, to me, personally, was what was needed and was done.

Prosecuting people under hate crime legislation is a sticky one. You have to show a deliberate attempt. So in a case like Ernbest Zundel using the internet and actively recruiting young Canadians or say a teacher teaching students in school or people openly inciting hatred through newspapers and magazines and at rallies, maybe.

In the case of a person acting like a bafoon and raving and ranting, I am not too sure. Its a tough one. Some believe there should be zero tolerance. I believe there should be zero tolerance from society, but engaging the legal system unfortunately becomes trickier.

As a Jew I take no satisfaction in convicting this man of a crime. If I thought his comments would have led to a physical crime or really incited aboriginal peoples to hate Jews I would have been concerned but when the aboriginal community was so quick to challenge it and meet with Jewish communities, I personally was relieved.

Jews very much admire the aboriginal communities and their leaders for svereal reasons, particularly the spiritual approach aboriginals pursue with the land and their love of mythology. Aboriginal mythology is very close to the mysticism found in the Kabal. The aboriginal cleansing rituals have profound meaning and application to Jews trying to deal with their own despairs from past history.

In any event I think its important to use the laws against hatred, but I am just not so sure in this specific case.

It might have importance though in the coming months and years if things heat up due to terrorism and it being linked to Muslim Canadians.

[Charles Anthony]

I think taking away his order of Canada and having the aboriginal leaders condemn what he said plus condemnation from leading religious leaders and politicians, to me, personally, was what was needed and was done.

This re-inforces the importance of free speech. It is very important that free speech is held to the extreme otherwise, extremists will never be discovered and bigotry will persist. We must be willing to hear the voices of people who we believe are either wrong or evil to expose them for what they are.

Consider the opposite: "Former First Nations leader David Ahenakew does not voice his racist opinion in public but rather teaches it to his children." That sounds like a more distressing situation.

[Slavik44]

Here is the thing, If you told someone you had a disease, the first thing they would probabley ask would be if it can be cured, by cured they mean disposed of, can you get rid of the disease? Nobody wants a disease around. When we talk about Ahenakew we are talking about a man who called the Jews a disease, not only is that dispicable but the implications are far reaching, because the only option in dealing with a disease is to fight it, to get rid of it. In fact he further implied this when he applauded Hitler for trying to clean up the world. How did hitler try to clean up the world you may ask? By killing six million jews. A disease demands action to be taken agaisnt it, and Ahenakew praised Hitlers actions against the disease known as Jews. I think his intentions and desires are fairly clear. This man does not deserve any sympathy and any banishment from public office is well deserved for making such dispicable comments. The only question in my mind is wether we deem a conversation with a newspaper reporter as public or private.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Here is the thing, If you told someone you had a disease, the first thing they would probabley ask would be if it can be cured, by cured they mean disposed of, can you get rid of the disease? Nobody wants a disease around. When we talk about Ahenakew we are talking about a man who called the Jews a disease, not only is that dispicable but the implications are far reaching, because the only option in dealing with a disease is to fight it, to get rid of it. In fact he further implied this when he applauded Hitler for trying to clean up the world. How did hitler try to clean up the world you may ask? By killing six million jews. A disease demands action to be taken agaisnt it, and Ahenakew praised Hitlers actions against the disease known as Jews. I think his intentions and desires are fairly clear. This man does not deserve any sympathy and any banishment from public office is well deserved for making such dispicable comments. The only question in my mind is wether we deem a conversation with a newspaper reporter as public or private.

Obviousy a conversation with the press is not private - there is no expectation of privacy, in fact, the opposite.

Did Ahenakew in his remarks stir up anti-Jewish hatred? Did his comments incite people to go out and spray paint swastikas on synagogues and attack Jews in the street? Or did he simply repel the public and expose himself as a slimy little bigot. I think the latter.