The Globe and Mail is reporting today that the Saskatchewan Provincial Court in Saskatoon has found David Ahenakew, a former senator with the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, not guilty of wilfully promoting hatred against Jewish people.
To be certain - Ahenakew's comments are ignorant and offensive. Of that there can be no doubt.
However - the Judge hearing the trial got it exactly right - there is no indication that his comments were "intended" to promote hatred of Jews.
Uh.. yeah, right. Ahenakew statements included comments suggesting that the Jewish people were a "disease" and that they were responsible for the second world war. I am certain that he didn't "intend" people to hate Jews by making those statements - in fact, I'm certain, really, his comments were meant in the warmest possible way about our Jewish brothers.
Sure.
However, while the suggestion that Aheanakew apparently "accidentally" made these offensive and ignorant statements is so much legal gobbeldygook, the outcome was correct.
If he wasn't seeking to actually induce violence or immanent harm to another group - in this case, Jewish people, he should have had the right to make whatever ignorant and asinine statement he wished.. letting the Canadian public and the free expression of thoughts bring to greater light the ignorance and stupidity of his utterances. To put on display (as here) for all to see just what a sad buffoon he really is - made all the more pathetic when one has regard to the fact that he is not only an aboriginal person himself, but was a representative of aboriginal persons - and as such, should have been more than a little aware of the sting and harm of ignorant and baseless stereotypes being employed against a people.
Of course - this being said - a Jewish person in Canada today might be foregiven for being a little suspicious of the current political winds regarding anti-Semitic stupidity, after hearing that CUPE is again going ahead with plans to ostracize Israeli academics based upon their findings, apparently, that Israel was clearly wrong, and Hamas terrorists were clearly right, regarding the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Oh.. and speaking of free speech and stupidity - I see in Ezra's blog that he-who's-name-will-not-be-spoken on this blog has filed papers seeking $5 million in damages for allegations that Ezra "defamed" him. (Same guy who suggested that Chinese restuarants were serving cats on their menu, and then became indignant when the Chinese became offended).
The moral of the story - I guess, is that it's ok to call Jewish people a disease, to pass formal CUPE union motions opposing Jewish academics, and make jokes about cat being served in Chinese restaurants, but god help you if you have the temerity to make a statement deemed offensive to a Liberal.
Is that the type of people we want to lead our country? Really?
3 comments:
I'd like to partially disagree with you.
I find it hard to swallow that someone who would describe Jewish people as a disease doesn't expect other people to hate them upon accepting that idea.
Maybe what this really speaks to is the extremely notion of demonstrating the intent to spread hatred. Clearly it isn't easy, and it's very difficult to agree upon.
Furthermore, we clearly have to reconsider whether or not encouraging hatred is enough on its own to warrant criminal charges.
These are evidently questions we have yet to fully answer.
Patrick - my sarcasm was perhaps not evident - I agree, the notion that you can call a race or religion as a "disease" but not "intend" other people to hate them becuase of it is the position of the trial judge, which is the "legal gobbeldygook" I referred to.. but I think that the harm of trying to arbitrarily limit speech is more damaging than allowing the speech and then sharing our views and exposing just how stupid it actually is..
Hmmmm. I didn't quite catch that the first time around, but I certainly see it now.
The rationale for the ruling was, in my mind, purely nonsense. I don't think the expected topic of the interview can reasonably be expected to demonstrate Ahenakew's intent when he made those comments.
The argument simply doesn't make sense, but I didn't expect one that did from Doug Christie.
Post a Comment