Ahenakew acquitted of promoting hatred: A good decision!

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I have a problem with that theory. There is a thread on CP regarding this guy being acquitted. I don't see the thread ridiculing his uninformed racist opinions. Had this not gone to trial and put this out there in the public forum, his opinions would have gone unchallenged. When hate speech goes unchallenged, people start buying in and hatred spreads.

So unless you have attended a rally condemning Mr. Ahenakew's statements, or written a letter to the editor or otherwise countered these racist ideas in a public forum, then we have let this go uncontested.

It puts the responsibility back on the public to condemn these things and the public is notorious for shrugging their shoulders and ignoring racism. The courts less so. If you HAVE written a letter to the editor of your local paper condemning Mr. Ahenakew's opinions, I stand corrected.

Mr. Ahenakew's opinions were very public at the time; they lost him his Order of Canada, garnered him immense amount of criticism, and made him a pariah. The persecution came afterwards. It was as if some people needed to keep kicking.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Mike F

See, there you go contradicting yourself and / or not understanding.

First you say hate laws are there "to stop people from actively calling(inciting) for the death of others" and then hold up Keegstra as someone promoting hatred when he never did actively call for the death of anyone.

From only reading the above article, the difference seems to be that Ahenakew didn't go into the interview expecting or intending to discuss his hateful opinions and have them published (i.e. no intent to promote), whereas Keegstra taught his hateful beliefs with the intent that his students adopt them, apparently demanding those sorts of answers on exams.

Well I may be misinformed on Keegstra and therefore he may also be in store for an acquittal.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I have a problem with that theory. There is a thread on CP regarding this guy being acquitted. I don't see the thread ridiculing his uninformed racist opinions.

There was a thread ridiculing him when it happened, and within this thread the guy is being universally panned (even if some agree with his acquittal) for his beliefs. He's been called a moron several times.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

There was a thread ridiculing him when it happened, and within this thread the guy is being universally panned (even if some agree with his acquittal) for his beliefs. He's been called a moron several times.

I searched on his name and couldn't come up with the thread.

What I was getting at was that with freedom comes responsibility. And with the freedom of speech, we are given the responsibility of ensuring that we speak out strongly against such hate filled speech.

I remember Ernst Zundel using community cable TV to promote anti-Semitism and holocaust denials. He spent a lot of time and effort and resources and organizing into putting together his propaganda. Though I remember no efforts organized by you or I or any other everyday Canadians that put the effort into debunking him every time he was on community cable. And therein lies my problem - crackpots with crazy views seem to be able to find a forum for their misguided ideas. Are you willing to give up your time surfing on CP, or watching the Flames, etc... to invest in confronting hate speech?

The funny thing is that I *DID* have thoughts of doing exactly that (investing my own time into speaking out for the things I did believe in - ie I had actually started work on a documentary on GLT issues in my second year of university) and I borrowed $15,000 to put into videography gear to do my own projects. And then, to pay off that money, I needed a good job, and then more responsibilities came along and soon I had no time to put into my own projects.

So where was I going with this? I think my point is that if there are people out there spouting hate speech, we need to have at least an equal response of outrage against it. Sometimes we see it. Others, not so much.

For every guy pumping out pamphlets blaming AIDS on the Jews there are 10,000 people ignoring that that there is a guy pumping out pamphlets blaming AIDS on the Jews.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I searched on his name and couldn't come up with the thread.

What I was getting at was that with freedom comes responsibility. And with the freedom of speech, we are given the responsibility of ensuring that we speak out strongly against such hate filled speech.

I remember Ernst Zundel using community cable TV to promote anti-Semitism and holocaust denials. He spent a lot of time and effort and resources and organizing into putting together his propaganda. Though I remember no efforts organized by you or I or any other everyday Canadians that put the effort into debunking him every time he was on community cable. And therein lies my problem - crackpots with crazy views seem to be able to find a forum for their misguided ideas. Are you willing to give up your time surfing on CP, or watching the Flames, etc... to invest in confronting hate speech?

The funny thing is that I *DID* have thoughts of doing exactly that (investing my own time into speaking out for the things I did believe in - ie I had actually started work on a documentary on GLT issues in my second year of university) and I borrowed $15,000 to put into videography gear to do my own projects. And then, to pay off that money, I needed a good job, and then more responsibilities came along and soon I had no time to put into my own projects.

So where was I going with this? I think my point is that if there are people out there spouting hate speech, we need to have at least an equal response of outrage against it. Sometimes we see it. Others, not so much.

For every guy pumping out pamphlets blaming AIDS on the Jews there are 10,000 people ignoring that that there is a guy pumping out pamphlets blaming AIDS on the Jews.

That's the point. Let's keep them safely ignored.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by peter12

That's the point. Let's keep them safely ignored.

I meant that those of us going about our daily lives ignore that this stuff is being published and handed out. By ignoring it, it means a few people will buy into it as they are not getting the opposite message.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by photon

What does incite hatred mean anyway? Wouldn't inciting an actual behaviour (such as violence) be a better measure?

Outlawing inciting hatred is kind of close to making hatred illegal.. if it's illegal to encourage someone to hate someone else...

I think the reactions of people claiming 'hate speech' are similar to people that claim 'offense' to things said about them, their particular race, creed, belief, etc..

Free speech is messy, unclean and not always right. But the alternative of having other people decide what we can and cannot say is much much worse.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

I am not sure where you got any of your so called facts from, but can you please post the dozens of posts in this forum that his comments were no worse than?

His comments are not just wrong and misinformed, they have a purpose, to promote hate. What else could his intention be? He was a politician when he said them. His comments are just as bad as the supremacist /clan rallys, except he is Native.

Maybe once the game is over I'll look through some of your posts. You believe Israel can do no wrong and consistly make NO distinction between Hamas/Hezzbollah and mainstream Islam.

[Thor]

Again, hopefully a few of you watch this but the same video again by Christopher Hitchens on Free speech and why Canada has it wrong.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...18149058958603
21 mins.

"your own right to hear or be exposed is as much involved in all these cases as is the right of the other to voice his/her view. Indeed as John Stuart Mills said, if all in society were agreed on the truth and beauty of value of one proposition; all except one person, it would be most important, in fact it would become even more important that this one heretic be heard because we would still benefit from his perhaps outrageous or appalling view. And in more modern times this has been said by a personal heroine Mia Rosen Luxenberg free speech is meaningless unless its means the freedom of the person who thinks differently."

One of the many gems by Hitch in this speech.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Maybe once the game is over I'll look through some of your posts. You believe Israel can do no wrong and consistly make NO distinction between Hamas/Hezzbollah and mainstream Islam.

Go for it! Instead you said that there are just as hateful things said about Muslims here as what was said by Ahenakew. Once you are done proving that, then for sure start trying to find dirt on me (which you won't find).

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Thor

I think the reactions of people claiming 'hate speech' are similar to people that claim 'offense' to things said about them, their particular race, creed, belief, etc..

That is a pretty big accusation. I am one of those that might cringe on occasion, but I accept the fact fools still get to say things. However, this guy was basically a politician, and was telling people why he thought Jews deserved to be murdered. Clearly this is not a cut and dry case, since he lost once, the case was thrown out once and he was declared innocent once. If I was on a jury on this case, I would convict. You might not. But to stereotype a group of people that think he was guilty as anything is unreasonable.