Posted on 02/05/2008 3:30:04 AM PST by Clive
David Ahenakew is a reprehensible individual. That is why many observers are applauding last Friday’s decision by the Attorney-General of Saskatchewan to retry him for hate crimes, after his 2005 conviction was recently overturned on technical grounds.
The former national chief of the Assembly of First Nations has his supporters in his fight to clear himself of a hate-crimes conviction for anti-Semitic remarks he made at an aboriginal conference, and later to a reporter, in December, 2002. These backers typically point to his seemingly remorseful public apology in early 2003 as proof that his bigoted remarks were a one-time thing, completely out of character.
But the fact that Mr. Ahenakew has repeated his detestable remarks again and again since that now-outdated apology would seem to prove he deeply and honestly believes the disgusting statements that originally landed him in trouble more than five years ago.
What he said then and since bears repeating, if only to debunk his supporters’ contention that he is a kindly old man with an unblemished record of public service, save for some ill-considered remarks made years ago.
Asked to bring greetings to a Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations health care conference before Christmas in 2002, Mr. Ahenakew launched into an obscenity-laced 45-minute harangue against the media and non-aboriginals, both of whom he accused of inciting bigotry against natives. He finished by insisting that Jews had started the Second World War and were preparing to start the next one by inciting troubles in the Middle East.
Asked later the same day by a Saskatoon StarPhoenix reporter to clarify his bizarre comments, the chief went further, charging that Jews “f---ing dominate everything”; they “own the goddamn world” and that Hitler “cleaned up a hell of a lot of things, didn’t he?” He asked reporter James Parker “How do you get rid of a disease like that?” and added that the Nazi leader did the right thing when he “fried” six million Jews during the Holocaust. Then he abruptly ended the discussion, saying “The hell with the Jews. I can’t stand them. And that’s it.”
Eight months later, after his apology, Mr. Ahenakew told Toronto’s This Magazine that Jews control the world media and “there’s got to be something done about that.” Even at his trial in April, 2005, and again at his sentencing in July of that year, Mr. Ahenakew admitted he still believed in the accuracy of his earlier slurs. He blamed his conviction on the courts, the Jewish community and the “Jewish-controlled media,” and asserted they had all conspired against him just because he was aboriginal.
David Ahenakew is a sick, twisted bigot. End of story.
But should he or anyone else be charged with “hate crimes?”
Hate-speech laws — such as Section 319 of the Canadian Criminal Code, under whose provisions Mr. Ahenakew was convicted — punish people for their thoughts, not their actions. Technically, legislators get around the claim that these are “thought crimes” by framing the underlying offence as “inciting hatred” against identifiable groups. But even if one accepts this wording, it amounts to punishing someone for the thoughts and feelings their words inspire in others.
Convictions for hatefulness typically are possible even if no evidence is produced that the accused’s views have encouraged others to go out and attack members of an identifiable group. Indeed, convictions are possible without any evidence that the accused’s words have even encouraged others to hate that group. Trials, such as Mr. Ahenakew’s, typically revolve around whether the accused’s arguments would tend to incite hatred against the identifiable group. And usually, as proof of this tendency, testimony from members of the targeted group of how hateful they found the remarks make up the bulk of the case against the accused.
Hate crimes legislation is based on the premise that some thoughts are too dangerous to hold even if it is impossible to prove that any physical harm or prejudice results from them. The effect has been to move the witch hunt for thought crimes from those star chambers known as human rights commissions into the courts.
David Ahenakew deserves to have been stripped of his Order of Canada. He has no honour and thus deserves none. Decent people are right to shun him, too. It is right that he should become a pariah. But Friday’s decision by the Attorney-General of Saskatchewan to retry him is no reason for celebration. Rather, it may be seen as just another step in the effort to institutionalize political correctness.
-
Canada; will anyone notice if it’s missing?
Canada should declare war on these haters. First Nations my butt!
Will they jail you in Canada if you openly state that you hate Hippies!
I know I do... :)
What this article brings to attention is the mystery of anti-Semitism. Why would an Aboriginal of Canada have such hatred of Jews ? Apparently “victim-identity groups” all empathize with each other, finding “brotherhood” in their Victim Status.
I see the the century ahead as bloodier than the last, as each international situation has die-hard proponents of both sides within the countires of the West. “Victim-groups” will align with each other against the governing powers with internal civil strife a component of any foreign policy that is implemented.
Which side will be portrayed as the “good guys” when Civil War erupts in Europe, or when Israel finally has its fill and strikes back with stunning lethality ? What will that mean to North Americans, both Canadian and We in the US when significant portions of the population side with their fellow “victims groups” ?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.