Not being very familiar with the background to this trial, the following passage from the article was helpful:
The controversy began in December 2002, when Ahenakew gave a speech in Saskatoon during a health conference held by the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations.
The topic of the conference was a federal government proposal that would require aboriginals to sign medical consent forms.
In his speech, Ahenakew blamed Jews for causing the Second World War. A newspaper reporter later asked him to clarify his remarks.
"How do you get rid of a disease like that, that's going to take over, that's going to dominate?" Ahenakew said to the reporter. "The Jews damn near owned all of Germany prior to the war. That's how Hitler came in. He was going to make damn sure that the Jews didn't take over Germany or Europe.
"That's why he fried six million of those guys, you know. Jews would have owned the God-damned world."
Despite issuing a tearful apology, Ahenakew's comments cost him his position as a senator with the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, as well as his Order of Canada, which was taken from him after his first conviction. However, he has not returned his Order of Canada pin to officials.
Obviously brutal, brutal remarks. But I wouldn't think they go so far as to be classified as hate-speech (though I confess to being ignorant with respect to Canada's hate speech laws). He doesn't actually incite anyone to act hatefully towards Jews so much as he paints historical events with his own hateful brush. What I found most interesting was the point on which the case apparently turned:
In his ruling, [Justice] Tucker said he believed that Ahenakew did not intend to promote hate because he had not planned to speak to the reporter about his speech and had tried to end the interview.
Tucker also said he believed the comments Ahenakew made in his speech were not premeditated.
This suggests you can have your hateful opinions, and speak them, but you can't do it with the intent to incite hatred, and you can't bring up the subject in a premeditated way. But if someone asks you an honest question, you can give your honest bigoted answer.
|