The David Ahenakew Thread- Merged

[mo-litia]

The thought police strike again...

Canadian convicted of hate crimes

Former First Nations leader of Native groups found guilty of wilfully promoting hatred when he referred to Jews as 'a disease' and justified the Holocaust in December 2002
By Combined Wire Services

SASKATOON, Saskatchewan - A retired Canadian native leader blamed a racist justice system and lobby groups after he was convicted of hate crimes for praising Adolf Hitler's murder of 6 million Jews.

Saskatchewan Provincial Court Judge Marty Irwin fined David Ahenakew CDN 1,000 (USD 820) for telling a local newspaper reporter in 2002 that Jews were a "disease" and that Hitler was trying to "clean up" when he "fried 6 million of those guys."

The conviction was praised by the Canadian Jewish Congress, which advocated for Ahenakew to be stripped of the Order of Canada, the country's highest civilian honor.

A defiant Ahenakew lashed out at the Jewish community, the courts and the media shortly after being convicted and fined for promoting hatred.

Ahenakew said he is convinced authorities decided to strip him of the Order of Canada before the court reached its verdict.

"This, of course, was the direct result of the pressure put on the (Gov. General's) advisory committee by some of the Jewish community, including a letter-writing campaign and the lobbying by the Canadian Jewish Congress," he said at a news conference.

"If I'm forced to choose between freedom of speech and the Order of Canada, I chose free speech."

Ahenakew, 71, is currently a member of the Order of Canada, but on Thursday the Gov. General's office confirmed it has begun the process of stripping him of that honor.

Tribal supporters

The former First Nations leader was found guilty of wilfully promoting hatred when he referred to Jews as "a disease" and justified the Holocaust in December 2002, a judge ruled earlier Friday.

Irwin handed down his decision in a tiny courtroom packed with Ahenakew's supporters, members of the Jewish community and reporters.

"My conviction says the power of this country lies with those who have the funds to back their lobbies, and the corporate and financial influence to bend the Canadian judicial system and the government at their will," a defiant Ahenakew told reporters after the verdict.

But Ahenakew's lawyer refused to let him answer reporters who asked whether he thought Jewish people were responsible for his conviction.

"He doesn't have to answer questions that are going to get him charged with criminal offenses," said Doug Christie, who said he plans to appeal the verdict.

Ahenakew, 71, former head of the Assembly of First Nations, blamed the media for reporting his anti-Semitic comments and said he was suffering from a diabetes-related chemical imbalance when he made them - arguments Irwin rejected.

Lapel pin

Ahenakew, wearing the lapel pin given to members of the order, said he would not give it up.

A spokesman for the governor general, whose office issues the Order of Canada, said an advisory council had already started the process of revoking the honor.
 
Ahenakew would be the second person to be stripped of the honor. Disgraced former hockey czar Alan Eagleson had to give his up in 1998 after he was jailed for theft and fraud.

Ahenakew said he was not surprised by the conviction because he believes the justice system is prejudiced against aboriginal people.

"Hatred of First Nations people is rampant in our country, and it exists in the legal and justice systems, the media and the Canadian economy," he said.

Ahenakew said he hoped his case would raise awareness about the litany of social injustices faced by aboriginals.

"We've suffered under deliberate genocidal policies designed to rid the world of us," he said.

"The injustices against First Nations people are more than equal to the horrors perpetuated against the Jewish community and the racism and ethnic cleaning that has so shocked the world in places like Rwanda and Bosnia."

Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this article

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3110562,00.html

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

This guy obviously has some issues, but our legal system is being supremely arrogant in overruling the Charter Right to freedom of speech just because it is distasteful.

I guess the Charter of Rights and Freedoms only applies to those with politically correct causes...  :-X

 

[Marty]

"This guy obviously has some issues, but our legal system is being supremely arrogant in overruling the Charter Right to freedom of speech just because it is distasteful."

"I guess the Charter of Rights and Freedoms only applies to those with politically correct causes...  Lips Sealed"

It isnt the thought Police at work here , its the Speech Police , if he would have thought and not said he wouldnt have had a problem

He  wasnt charged because what he said was distastful ,, he was charged because someone thought it was ilegal, which it was .........cause the Judge said so

 

[Gramps]

"Fundamental Freedoms (Section 2): This section includes the right to freedom of conscience and religion; freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communications; and freedom of peaceful assembly and association"

"Equality Rights (Section 15): This section includes the right to equal treatment before and under the law; and to equal benefit and protection of the law without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability. The courts have also recognized other grounds of discrimination that are not specifically set out in the Charter such as sexual orientation and marital status. This section came into effect in 1985."

The above quotes are from the following link about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/fs/2003/doc_30898.html

So, yes there is the freedom of Expression but, there are also the Equality rights as well. Publicly making Anti-Semitic statements could also be considered an infringement on someones Equality rights. If the comments came from an Imam or any Muslim for that matter I would assume there would be more of an outcry from the public. The charges were appropriate but the punishment should have been more severe (just my opinion). With Freedom of speech also comes the responsibility to be held accountable for your words and the content of your message. Using the excuse that he was just repeating what certain German citizens had told him while he was serving in Germany is a very poor and ignorant point to base his ideas on, in fact it is an excuse not a reason. Someone in this persons position has the "ears" of many young people since he was a former leader and his ideas and statements can have a negative impact on many people. This issue has been brought up before on things like the publication and or possesion of child pornography, or how about Ernst Zundel and his group of Neo-Nazi, Aryan Brotherhood, RAHOWA (Racial Holy War), Christian Heritage Front, or Hammer Skin groupies when he tried to publish works with a similar message about Jews in North America.

 

[mo-litia]

He   wasnt charged because what he said was distastful ,, he was charged because someone thought it was ilegal, which it was .........cause the Judge said so

Well thought out and succinctly expressed, Marty.  If one Judge says so, it MUST be correct.... 

Gramps, while I agree with the equality section of the Charter, I disagree completely with the notion that the rantings of an old man would violate ANYONE'S Charter rights under the equality section. Since the Charter can be interpreted in this way, the wording of it should be redefined to make the freedom of speech right paramount.   While I agree that saying, "Rabbi So-and-so should be shot", should be illegal because it is a threat against a particularperson, one's expressing discontent-no matter how distasteful that expression may be-towards any identifiable group should not be forbidden. 

The hate law is a draconian law that has very scary implications in that it could conceivably be used to muzzle ANY viewpoints that the government feels are opposed to it's politically correct aims.  (Ie: A person who disagrees with homosexual marriage under the Christian religious principle that homosexuality is inherently wrong could be prosecuted for hatred against homosexuals under this unjust law-even though his expressing his views on that topic would be in accordance with HIS Charter right to freedom of religion.) 

Here is a news article from a major newspaper that supports this assertion.

http://www.canada.com/edmonton/edmontonjournal/news/opinion/story.html?id=5abdb8b3-4aa0-42bc-a81d-2e0b35f05125&page=2

Ahenakew guilty verdict flawed
Hate-crimes process only serves to eventually outlaw opposition
 
Lorne Gunter
The Edmonton Journal

Sunday, July 10, 2005

There can be little doubt that David Ahenakew, the former head of the Assembly of First Nations, has become a bitter old bigot. He also displays signs of being a conspiracy theorist. And he is surely a disgrace to the Order of Canada and has been rightly stripped of that honour.

Decent people should stand up to his race-baiting and vileness.

But he should not be made a criminal for his beliefs, no matter how pernicious, dark-hearted or wrong they are.

Hate-crimes laws are based on the fallacious premise that we may be punished for our thoughts and feelings, not just our actions. And insisting the state has the ability to look into our hearts and minds and adjust the contents is a very dangerous line to cross. It gives legislators, the courts and human-rights tribunals far too much power to decide what emotions and beliefs are acceptable and, more ominously, which are not.

Such power will inevitably be corrupted to the service of keeping legitimate opposition quiet. The corruption may be gradual, even subconscious. Today it will only be used against obvious cases of prejudice, but by tomorrow it may seem reasonable to use it to silence those who offer contrary views from those held by favoured special interests. To ensure it is never used -- wilfully or unintentionally -- against those merely with discomforting opinions, it must never be used against those who have been arbitrarily deemed hateful or bigoted.

Ahenakew is culpable for more than just a couple of offhanded slurs against Jews on a single occasion nearly three years ago. Despite a televised apology for his slurs in December 2002, the native rights activist has made a series of racist remarks since.

In addition to calling Jews a "disease" during a keynote speech to an aboriginal health-care conference in Saskatoon, and praising Adolf Hitler for having "fried" six million during the Holocaust, the chief insisted Jewish-dominated media were inciting bigotry against natives and claimed the Jews had started the Second World War and were attempting to set off another one by inciting troubles in the Middle East.

When asked later by a Saskatoon StarPhoenix reporter whether he stood by what he had said to delegates, the chief added that Jews "f---ing dominate everything." Hitler "cleaned up a hell of a lot of things, didn't he?" Then he concluded "The hell with the Jews. I can't stand them. And that's it."

He apologized fairly quickly (four days after the incident). But that now looks contrived. Eight months later, he was again alleging that Jews control the world's media and "there's got to be something done about that."

At his trial in April, when asked by the Crown prosecutor whether he still believed some or all of the things he had said, Ahenakew admitted he did.

And ever since his conviction last Friday, Ahenakew has been positively unhinged in his criticism of Jews, the courts, Canadian society in general, non-natives in particular and the media. He has even been indirectly critical of the Governor General.

After he learned he would be fined $1,000 for his despicable statements, Ahenakew started spraying venom at anyone and everyone who does not adhere to his radical view that North American natives are history's greatest victims.

He charged that "native people will never get good, solid justice in this country," and claimed the charges against him were motivated by anti-native prejudice, rather than his own remarks.

"The injustices against First Nations people," he insisted, were worse than "the horrors perpetuated against the Jewish community and the racism and ethnic cleansing that has so shocked the world in places like Rwanda and Bosnia.

"Hatred of First Nations people is rampant in our country, and it exists in the legal and justice systems, the media and the Canadian economy."

Ahenakew is clearly an anti-Semite and arguably an anti-European bigot, too. I have no doubt he has swallowed so much of his own poisonous mythology about aboriginals-as-perpetual-victims and non-natives-as-oppressors that his hatred is now nearly boundless.

Still, it is wrong (and dangerous) to prosecute people for their beliefs.

Strip them of honours voluntarily given? Certainly. Ahenakew, whether guilty or not of hate crimes, has no business in the Order of Canada.

But the Saskatchewan court inadvertently betrayed the sandy foundations of our hate laws in finding Ahenakew guilty. The judge insisted that "to suggest that any human being or group of human beings is a disease is to invite extremists to take action against them."

No, it's not. Extremists are by their nature people who have already decided violence and discrimination against individuals or groups is acceptable based on race, creed, origin and so on; otherwise, they wouldn't be extremists.

And to claim the accused or others can be turned from their depraved beliefs by legal sanctions against hateful ideas and words is naive in the extreme.

Ahenakew has become an ugly, spiteful person. He should be shunned by good citizens. But his bigotry needs to be countered with passionate truth, not thought police.

lgunter@telus.net

 

[Marty]

"Well thought out and succinctly expressed, Marty.  If one Judge says so, it MUST be correct...."

In the Judges opinion it was the correct verdict, the accused is free to appeal , Im not sure what you mean by the "If one Judge says so , it must be correct" statement . This man was charged and the case was adjudicated in a court of law , do you have another suggestion as to who should have heard the case? 

 

[Gramps]

Mo-litia, I can see your point to a certain degree but, he was not charged for his thoughts and feelings. He was charged for Anti-Semitic statements made in public to a reporter and there is a huge difference between the two. Besides, that article was from the opinion section of the paper and is just that..an opinion and should be taken with a grain of salt (just like anyone else's opinion including mine). The fact that his statements are referred to as "the rantings of an old man" does not make them right, as I had made reference to before, this "old man" was a leader in his community and therefore has a greater responsibility when it comes to public speaking. For him to use the "reverse racism " argument when he speaks of racism against natives is possibly the worst defence ever. If the situation were reversed with someone saying similar things about native people I could only guess that this gentleman (and I use the term very loosely) would be at the front of the line to bring him up on hate crime charges.

 

[Britney Spears]

Some friendly advice for both the anti-semitic twit in question, and some members of the board:

The terms "Political Correctness", "Freedom of Speech", "Slander" and "Libel" have distinct meanings. You can all google so I won't bother explaining to you why stating that "Jews are a disease and should be wiped from the face of the earth" has zilch to do with the first two terms. Suffice to say you will get much further in life if you have a proper understanding of these concepts, especially as a politician.

Boy the Native community must be glad to have such a character as one of their leaders, eh?

 

[Trinity]

Crazy rantings of some old man?

He may be old, possibly crazy... but he is a well respected
leader of the community who HOLDS and Order of Canada.

Not every crazy old man gets an order of Canada. 

He's supposed to represent the best of what Canada
has to offer... so.. to make bold statements such as that
deserves the revocation of the order.

 

[Infanteer]

Sorry, read Section 1 of the Charter:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

I think it can easily be demonstrated, both in society and within the courts, that making public proclamations that incite fear and hatred of the Jewish people is something that deserves to be held up for lawful censure (which it was).

 

[vangemeren]

I was going to mention section 1 but, Infanteer beat me to it.

Do other countries have a similar section in their charters? (If they have one)

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Just to be fair he doesn't hold the Order of Canada anymore.

You can't yell fire in a crowded establishment if there isn't one and you can't speak about hateful things.  Freedom of speech has limitations.

 

[mo-litia]

Yelling fire in a crowded establishment is quite different from expressing an opinion, no matter how odious that opinion may be.  My point is that it is a violation of everybody's civil liberties for the government to dictate which opinions are acceptable and which are not.

How abominably unjust to persecute a man for such an airy trifle as that! 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,'

S. G. Tallentyre, referring to Voltaire. Often attributed to Voltaire

 

[Acorn]

"Jews are a disease and should be wiped from the face of the earth"

Britney Spears quoted the "rantings of an old man." Had he (Ahenakew) simply said "I hate Jews, and think they run too much of the country" or words to that effect I'd probably agree with yoyu, and Lorne Gunter. However, he said "...should be wiped from the face of the earth." If that isn't inciting violence against an identifiable group, I don't know what is.

Acorn

 

[Rebel_RN]

ACORN hit the proverbial nail on the head there, freedom of speech is no longer that when you are inciting violence or harm on a particular group of people. I find that the Man's excuse for why he said it to be absolutely ridiculous as well and for trying to fob off his comment as the product of a medical ailment is utterly in-excusable.

Rebel

 

[a_majoor]

As much as I am opposed to the idea of "hate crime" laws in principle, I am for it in this sort of situation. I want all of you to take the various statements attributed to this person, clip the word "Jew" and insert your own name, the name of whatever ethnic, religious or geographical group you feel comfortable associating yourself with, and read it again.

Looks a whole lot different when it is pointed at you, eh?

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

mo-litia,

As others have already said, freedom of speech should never be extended to include the incitement of violence and I'm frankly shocked that anyone would started a thread in defence of such statements.



Matthew.  ???

 

[Wayne Coady]

The thought police strike again...

Canadian convicted of hate crimes

This guy obviously has some issues, but our legal system is being supremely arrogant in overruling the Charter Right to freedom of speech just because it is distasteful.

I guess the Charter of Rights and Freedoms only applies to those with politically correct causes...   :-X

Right on !

 

[Brad Sallows]

Interesting. I've read some discussion boards where it was suggested that Christian fundamentalism should be eliminated from the face of the earth or at least from Canada, and funnily enough there were no objections.  I'm not sure how you get rid of the fundamentialism without getting rid of the fundamentalists.

I'm one of those flakes who believes in the strongest possible degree of freedom of expression.  Fight bad and weak ideas with good and strong ones.  In this case, I find the law to be a poor trade-off against rights because it tends to be enforced rather selectively: some groups may be defamed with impunity, and others may not.

 

[Wayne Coady]

Brad: I agree with you and talking never killed anyone. It is quite something else when a "political party" can put one of its citizens in jail for speaking out on an issue , by using the influence of "government" and that same "political party" can hide behind the umbrella of "government" to dump agent orange/ purple on Canadian citizens.
You see this is what pees me off, political parties get to do as they feel to people who speak out on an issue and these parties do so in the name of "government" , well whose "government" , its their's at that moment, "government" does not belong to the people, it belongs to .... business....unions... and   special interests groups with money.

It is like every time Tony Blair or George Bush open their mouth, some innocent citizen dies, while these two hide behind a fortress of   "government" protection. Now I am no condoning the terrorist actions here, but wouldn't it be great if Blair, Bush, Hussian and Bien Laden would just go have a shoot out, think of the lives that would be saved.

 

[1feral1]

The guy has had an 'attitude' for many years, and he obviously thought he was above the law. He stepped over the mark.

Quite frankly, it should be 'disicpline by example', and good on the system for coming thru, and putting this arrogant idiot in his place. This shows others that Canada will NOT tolerate such offensive behavior.

You should read this guys statement all about the wrongs the white society has plagued against Indians, as he claims for the past 400 years.

He got what he had coming, and as far as I am concerned a thousand dollar fine is NOT enough.

Wes