NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.news1130.com/news/national/article.jsp?content=n041063A

In December 2002, Ahenakew made a fiery and profanity-laced speech to a Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations conference. In the speech he mentioned that, while serving overseas with the military, he was told by the Germans that it was the Jews who started the Second World War.

Ahenakew was asked for clarification by a reporter afterwards. He proceeded to call the Jews a "disease" and said that Hitler cleaned up the world when he "fried six million of those guys" during the Holocaust.

Ahenakew was a chief when he made these statements. People were so outraged, he resigned soon after. However, while I find his statements repugnant, and am glad he resigned, should we really be classifying such stupidity as a hate crime?

At first, when this case just came out, I was quite happy to hear that people were not letting his comments slide just because he is Native. However, this hate crime thing kind of suggests that free speech is not all that free anymore. I can see inciting violence, or whatever, but being an insensitive idiot shouldn't be a crime. Think of how many of our fellow NSers would be on death row if it were!

Absolutely not. Speech should never be a crime unless it causes someone harm. If he'd advocated violence against Jews, then he should be punished, but just saying he doesn't like Jews and such should not be a crime.

http://www.news1130.com/news/national/article.jsp?content=n041063A



Ahenakew was a chief when he made these statements. People were so outraged, he resigned soon after. However, while I find his statements repugnant, and am glad he resigned, should we really be classifying such stupidity as a hate crime?
Since when is speaking your mind a crime? He might be a bigoted idiot, but he's not a criminal.

It's kind of weird. In Canada, we're always shaking our heads at the things Americans do, like wanting to make file sharing illegal and so one. But then we don't even notice it when our own government passes laws even more draconian (our new copyright laws make it illegal to even link to a picture for example, without paying a copyright fee!), or is in the middle of a case that has potential to limit our freedoms even more than anything being done in the US. Sad and scary.

Since when is speaking your mind a crime? He might be a bigoted idiot, but he's not a criminal.
Well it isn't yet...but this case will determine whether it will be. And it isn't receiving all that much attention. We have no ACLU here, and no one seems to care that this case is about more than just his specific comments.

Fellow canuks! What do you think about this trial???

Maybe the title needed to be more attention getting like,

"Jew hating Red Injun on trial for hate crimes!"

Section 319 of the Criminal Code in Canada should be repealed. It is a tool used by minority interest groups to manipulate a political tribunal to target certain individuals because of their inflammatory politcal views.

Look at what happened to Ernst Zundel, and what is now happening to Glenn Bahr, Brad Love, and this David Ahenakew fellow. Just think about this before you start justifying the hate-crime legislation: Who can't commit a hate crime? Virtually everyone can be accused of committing this crime and few people have actually committed any real crime that deserves the punishment the government throws at them.

If you kill a man because of his race, colour, gender, or religion you should be charged with murder: Not a hate crime. Justice is not political, and no law should ever be made to infringe upon the basic human rights of any individual!

I would post, but I already made a comment.

Aw, shit, I just posted. Oh well. Hey Sinuhue.

Ahenakew was a chief when he made these statements. People were so outraged, he resigned soon after. However, while I find his statements repugnant, and am glad he resigned, should we really be classifying such stupidity as a hate crime?
No, absolutely not. It should only be labelled a "hate crime" if he, for instance, got the conference together specifically to discuss and promote hatred of Jews.

I think the whole idea of hate crime is so difficult to qualify. I mean, if someone beats up someone, leaves a sign on them saying, "Die Jew/Fag/Negro/Indian/Whitey" or whatever, then I'd say that was a hate crime. Just one person of one race hurting a person of another race does not necessarily make it about racial hatred. And just saying stupid shit shouldn't be a crime.

Re the Criminal Code, Section 319 (1) is very clear: it specifies inciting hatred through your words, as in a rally. Section 319 (2) appears to be about communications through media devices, although it exempts private conversation.

There seems to be lots of room for leniency there.

it does seem odd for it to be a crime to speak an unpopular opinion in public.

but i sure would want him to resign as MY chief after i found out he held that kind of an opinion.

Re the Criminal Code, Section 319 (1) is very clear: it specifies inciting hatred through your words, as in a rally. Section 319 (2) appears to be about communications through media devices, although it exempts private conversation.

There seems to be lots of room for leniency there.
It's that Section 319 (2) they're working from...the comments were made after some prompting by the reporter, he didn't just offer them up all on his own, so the defence is saying that this should have been seen as private conversation.

I can see the point about not being able to use a media outlet to spread your hateful opinions...but this was more like an interview...the reporter ASKED...

it does seem odd for it to be a crime to speak an unpopular opinion in public.

but i sure would want him to resign as MY chief after i found out he held that kind of an opinion.
Why? I mean, if he does his chief job well, why should it matter that his opinions differ from yours?

I just read the article. I hope that he goes free. I don't think the law should be expanded to include a "requested opinion."

Why? I mean, if he does his chief job well, why should it matter that his opinions differ from yours?

we arent talking about a liberal/conservative difference, we're talking about a sane/insane difference. a rational/racist difference. i can forgive many things in my leaders but thats just too wrong.

While I think his views are incredibly retarded, I don't think he should be tried for holding such views. Canadians do have a right to be wrong, don't they?

I definitely disagree with the Canadian law in question.

I want to make clear that it isn't remotely similar to hate crime laws in the US. They only apply as a sentencing enhancement when you commit a regular crime with a hate motive. (Oversimplification, but I'm tired.)

I'm afraid I like freedom of speech too much to approve of either the law or this prosecution.

I did see this (http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/insmt-gst.nsf/en/sf02998e.html), which makes the law slightly (only slightly) more palatable:

1. Overview of Applicable Law on Hate Propaganda
The primary legislation dealing with hate propaganda is the Criminal Code, the Broadcasting Act and various human rights statutes. Due to the limited scope of this study, only the Criminal Code is reviewed in detail.

Criminal Code
The three sections dealing with hate propaganda in the Canadian Criminal Code are sections 318, 319 and 320.

Section 318 ("Advocating Genocide")

Section 318 makes it an offence to advocate or promote genocide (killing or inflicting conditions to destroy members of a group). It differs from section 319 in that it is not limited (as is section 20) to statements made in a public place or those made other than in private conversation. Although the meaning of "advocates and promotes" has not yet been tested, we can look for guidance to the Supreme Court of Canada’s interpretation of "promotes" in the context of s. 319(2) in R. v. Keegstra.1 "Promotes" was held to mean active support or instigation or something more that mere encouragement or advancement of hatred. It is likely that "advocates and promotes" would be interpreted similarly in s. 318.

Section 319 ("Public Incitement of Hatred")

Section 319 creates two offences.

Subsection (1) targets everyone who incites hatred against any identifiable group by communicating statements in any public place, where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. Section 319 defines "communicating," "statements" and "public place" non-exhaustively. Communicating is defined as including "communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means."2 Statements include "words spoken or written or recorded electronically or electro-magnetically or otherwise, and gestures, signs or other visible representations."3 Public place includes "any place to which the publichave access as of right or by invitation, express or implied."4 "Incite" has been held to mean to "urge someone to do something" or "stir them up to do something".5

Subsection (2) makes it an offence to willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group by communicating statements, other than in private conversation. The Supreme Court of Canada addressed the meaning of "willfully," "promote" and "other than in private conversation" in R. v. Keegstra.6 The court held that "promotes" involves the active support or instigation of hatred; a simple encouragement or advancement of hatred is not enough.7 With respect to "willfully, " an accused needs both to intend, in the sense of desire, and to foresee the stimulation of hatred as a certainty. Neither recklessness8 nor the mere fact that the accused was aware of the risk of stimulating hatred are sufficient to convict under s. 319(2).9 A conversation or communication intended to be private but which was accidentally or negligently made public also does not fall under s. 319(2).10

Section 320 ("Seizure of Hate Propaganda")

Section 320 permits a court to authorize the seizure of copies of a publication believed to be hate propaganda11 when the copies are kept for distribution or sale in premises within the court’s jurisdiction.12 If the court is satisfied that the publication is indeed hate propaganda, it may order that the seized copies be forfeited.13 "Hate propaganda" is defined for the purposes of s. 320 as " ... any writing, sign or visible representation that advocates or promotes genocide or the communication of which by any person would constitute an offence under section 319".14

It is unclear to me exactly what guy said that would violate s 319. (But I probably don't want to know.)

I definitely disagree with the Canadian law in question.

I want to make clear that it isn't remotely similar to hate crime laws in the US. They only apply as a sentencing enhancement when you commit a regular crime with a hate motive. (Oversimplification, but I'm tired.)

I'm afraid I like freedom of speech too much to approve of either the law or this prosecution.


I agree with the free speech violation. On the other hand, I have a philosophical problem with sentencing enhancements based on "hate crime".

Hate to say it, but I'm old-fashioned. Murder in the 1st is murder in the 1st. Mayhem is mayhem, and aggravated assault is aggravated assault. Just because you committed those acts in the name of some racist agenda makes precious little difference to me - as far as I'm concerned, the offender needs to take a long trip up the river for the offense regardless of his motivation.

What such laws tell me is that if I kill a man by skinning him alive and pulling out his intestines, they're going to make it a big deal if I spout racist rhetoric while I'm doing it (racist in meaning relative to the victim). Otherwise, it's just murder. It implies that somehow, some victims have less value than others.

Sheesh, murder is murder. Why a criminal commits his crime should be fodder for the tabloids. The court should be busy hanging criminals at the gallows.

I agree with the free speech violation. On the other hand, I have a philosophical problem with sentencing enhancements based on "hate crime".

Hate to say it, but I'm old-fashioned. Murder in the 1st is murder in the 1st. Mayhem is mayhem, and aggravated assault is aggravated assault. Just because you committed those acts in the name of some racist agenda makes precious little difference to me - as far as I'm concerned, the offender needs to take a long trip up the river for the offense regardless of his motivation.

What such laws tell me is that if I kill a man by skinning him alive and pulling out his intestines, they're going to make it a big deal if I spout racist rhetoric while I'm doing it (racist in meaning relative to the victim). Otherwise, it's just murder. It implies that somehow, some victims have less value than others.

Sheesh, murder is murder. Why a criminal commits his crime should be fodder for the tabloids. The court should be busy hanging criminals at the gallows.

So, are you opposed to the entire Sentencing Guidelines that take into account scores of variables in sentencing?

Or just the one variable about motive based on hatred of a race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation?

The whole point of the Guidelines was to increased the rigidity of sentencing so defendants would get bigger sentences rather than have "lenient" judges use discretion. It was big Reagan thing.

So, are you opposed to the entire Sentencing Guidelines that take into account scores of variables in sentencing?

Or just the one variable about motive based on hatred of a race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation?

The whole point of the Guidelines was to increased the rigidity of sentencing so defendants would get bigger sentences rather than have "lenient" judges use discretion. It was big Reagan thing.

I'm not a big fan of scoring systems, and I wasn't a big fan of Reagan in that regard. If you want rigid sentences, then make them universally rigid. It would make life a lot easier, and more predictable. If you're going to allow judges to use discretion, a scoring system seems to be a quick way to get into trouble - someone is going to find a way to say that the scoring system is biased, or is being used in some biased way - it certainly makes the data easier to collect for such a purpose.

I have the same bad taste in my mouth for sentencing guidelines and their scoring systems that I have for social engineering through the tax code.

Fellow canuks! What do you think about this trial???
The sponsorship one? Oh right, the one with that native-who? ;)

Just out of curiousity, but has anyone seen what's coming out of the trial. First, Ahenakew says something to the effect that his medication caused it. His Lawyer tried blaming the reporter for reporting it(which makes no damn sense) and last I heard that he started ranting about how thousands of Canadians should be prosecuted for racism towards natives. I mean really, won't this guy just shut up, he looks like a big ass as it is, why does he gotta add more to it?