I am amazed on how someone could be so out of touch with reality (Ahenakew)

[orcenio]

Ahenakew still blames Jews for Second World War

Former First Nations leader David Ahenakew insists he’s not an anti-Semite, telling his hate-crime trial Thursday he doesn’t “hate the Jews, but I hate what they do” - and that he still believes Jews started the Second World War.

He testified he “never” would have used the words, had he planned a 2002 speech in which he blamed the Jews for the Second World War.

But he also testified he hasn’t changed his mind.

The quotes from this guy is amazing and (I’m sure) made in complete earnestness. He needs help, not a trial.

[Boyo_Jim]

Am I reading this right? This guy is being charged with a crime for making an offensive speech?

You know who arrested people like that? HJitler, that’s who!

Seriously – did people riot? Was there any violence that supposedly resulted from the speech that prosecutors are trying to link to?

BTW, I too am amazed that people like him are so out of touch with reality.

But I am also amazed that spewing your bizarre fantasies in public can get you arrested. I thought you Canadians were cooler than that.

[El_Kabong]

@Boyo_Jim

You know who arrested people like that? HJitler, that’s who!

You mean AJdolph HJitler? Der FJuhrer?

[Eutychus]

@El_Kabong

You mean AJdolph HJitler? Der FJuhrer?

Oh El_KJabong …you card.

[El_Kabong]

Anyway, I could perhaps see this guy being charged and tried if some specific act of violence had actually been carried out based on his statements, but from the little info available in the article, it seems like he’s being prosecuted for having made crazy talk.

[FriarTed]

@El_Kabong

Anyway, I could perhaps see this guy being charged and tried if some specific act of violence had actually been carried out based on his statements, but from the little info available in the article, it seems like he’s being prosecuted for having made crazy talk.

And THAT is why I resent the hell out of the idea that we US Amurricuns need to be more like our enlightened neighbors to the North.

[Baldwin]

@El_Kabong

Anyway, I could perhaps see this guy being charged and tried if some specific act of violence had actually been carried out based on his statements, but from the little info available in the article, it seems like he’s being prosecuted for having made crazy talk.

It looks like that. I guess he could have gotten arrested in Germany, too. That’s just a bad road to go down – deciding that expressing some ideas is illegal.

[Frodo]

I do not understand the minds behind those laws.

“because i consider it offensive, it should be illegal”?

Free speech is free speech, period.

Frodo, Free Spech Fundamentalist.

[don_t_ask]

I walked past a homeless guy on the street the other day who was talking to himself (as so many people with tatooes on their faces do) and what he was saying sounded kind of racist. I should get the police to put out a BOLO for him.

[orcenio]

Just to be clear the purpose of the OP was to laugh at the fool (Ahenakew). Not to debate or laugh at hate speech laws (which I largely agree with).

So, all you damn “Free Spech Fundamentalists” need to go back to the US!

don’t make me call the cops

[Frodo]

But i live in Argentina!, (that’s what i get for changing my location)

[Larry_Mudd]

@El_Kabong

Anyway, I could perhaps see this guy being charged and tried if some specific act of violence had actually been carried out based on his statements, but from the little info available in the article, it seems like he’s being prosecuted for having made crazy talk.

Here’s the relevant legislation:

318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

(2) In this section, “genocide” means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,
(a) killing members of the group; or
(b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction…

(4) In this section, “identifiable group” means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.
319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada…

(7) In this section,
“communicating” includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means;
“identifiable group” has the same meaning as in section 318;
“public place” includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied;
“statements” includes words spoken or written or recorded electronically or electro-magnetically or otherwise, and gestures, signs or other visible representations.

Personally, I think it’s good law, and don’t see a lot of room for misapplication. This is a very narrow limitation on speech, with tangible benefits that outweigh the abstract value of unrestricted free speech (which doesn’t exist anywhere, anyway.)

[tagos]

@Frodo

I do not understand the minds behind those laws.

“because i consider it offensive, it should be illegal”?

Free speech is free speech, period.

Frodo, Free Spech Fundamentalist.

Speech likely and as in the case of fascists, intended to incite violence and hatred is
not protected free speech and rightly so.

[Frodo]

If free speech has to be “protected” the it is not free, i think, anyway this is a hijack, perhaps someone less affected by procrastinationism than me could start a GD about it…

[Boyo_Jim]

@Larry_Mudd

Here’s the relevant legislation:

Personally, I think it’s good law, and don’t see a lot of room for misapplication. This is a very narrow limitation on speech, with tangible benefits that outweigh the abstract value of unrestricted free speech (which doesn’t exist anywhere, anyway.)

Looks like Randy Newman is in the clear for Short People. Lucky for him no one has added them to the protected category list.

[Grumman]

@Larry_Mudd

Personally, I think it’s good law, and don’t see a lot of room for misapplication. This is a very narrow limitation on speech, with tangible benefits that outweigh the abstract value of unrestricted free speech (which doesn’t exist anywhere, anyway.)

It gives religion the same protection that is given to race, and denied to atheistic beliefs. To me, that makes it a terrible law.

[Boyo_Jim]

Anyone know if this speech is published somewhere? I’m curious to what he said that was actionable. On re-reading, maybe he is being charged with things he said on different occasions.

[Boyo_Jim]

@Grumman

It gives religion the same protection that is given to race, and denied to atheistic beliefs. To me, that makes it a terrible law.

I don’t believe in God. I am an atheist. I don’t have atheistic beliefs, I simply lack religious ones.

[Nanoda]

Yeah, us damn Canadians. Next thing we’ll be getting arrested for just talking about killing our elected officials, or have reserved locations… I wanna say “zones” where we’re allowed to protest. We already have these wacky “libel” and “slander” laws you wouldn’t believe. :rolleyes:

orcenio He’s really, really not helping his case there is he? I thought he’d gotten that all over with ages ago, but I guess not. At the very least it looks like he had some strange experiences on peacekeeping duty way back when that didn’t do him any good.

[j666]

As someone not familiar with the story, I didn’t find the article very informative. Two comments about World War II-era opinions are quoted, and he conflates ‘Israeli’ and ‘Jew’.

The Wiki article clarified the issue for me (the other articles I found did not quote him).

I do not understand why people of abused and powerless groups adopt the mind-set of the abusers, and turn the same abuse on others. Why don’t (some) people view the derogatory opinions of other groups through the prism of those held of their own?

I know we are enculturated to anti-someone-isms in thousands of little ways from our first awareness of others, but, hell, doesn’t anyone notice the parallels between the Anti-Isms against one’s own Us and those against Others?

@Frodo

I do not understand the minds behind those laws.

“because i consider it offensive, it should be illegal”?

Free speech is free speech, period.

Frodo, Free Spech Fundamentalist.

Nothing is so absolute.