A blantant Canadian racist has been convicted for promoting hatred.
He claims that his conviction is due to racism against him.
Why am I not suprised. :dubious:
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/07/08/ahenakew050708.html
You’re not suprised because you expect synical shit like this to hit the world. At least you folks up in Canadaland take a shot at him. I think of Louis Farrahakan, Jesse Jackson, and the Rev. Al Sharpton as three folks on par with your aboriginal nazi. Well, no, that’s unfair to Farrahakan, who’s rhetoric makes me wonder if he has an SS blood tatoo on his underarm.
So you are honestly happy with a legal system where a person can face a prison sentence for expressing he thinks the Holocaust was a good idea?
Yes, he is a racist. Yes, he is a scumbag. Yes a racist scumbag crying racism is funny in some ways. But a law that pisses all over free speech is not something to be celebrated, however objectionable the speech it targets. I hope your opinions fush never fall foul of such prohibitions.
Bullshit. Sharpton and Jackson may not be the most responsible, or racially sensitive people at all times, but neither have expressed anything on par with this guy. Let me remind you of some of the things this guy has said.
There are plenty of things about both Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson that I don’t like, but to compare them to this guy is ridiculous. Both of them have done plenty of good, and have, more often than not, been on the right side of civil rights issues. Unless you have a cite for your claims, you should shut up.
Also, it’s Farrakhan.
A person holding such foul views is unworthy of being honoured with the Order of Canada, and I approve of his being stripped of it. However, I disagree with his prosecution and the laws it took place under. Prohibition on the expression of certain ideas cannot help but impact the most vulnerable, a lesson queers in this country know very well (assuming we’re paying attention).
Wow, I disagree with matt about something. room spins
I can get behind the hate speech legislation. Fully.
It’s carefully constructed and places no unreasonable limitation on speech, in my opinion, and I think this was an appropriate application of it. A person of influence who stands at the podium at spouts race (or religious/sexual orientation/etc) hatred should not be tolerated.
Shee-it, the law has enough wiggle room that Mr. Phelps would get a pass if he wanted to set up shop in Moosejaw. It’s pretty damned tolerant, except of public communication of pure hatred.
I’m quite happy to come down on people promoting ideas that entire classes of people are subhuman or want killin’ simply because they are part of that class. No place for it in Canada.
I disagree, forbidding someone from saying the Holocaust was a good idea and praised Adolf hilter is an unreasonable limitation on free speech. I don’t agree or like what he has to say but that certainly shouldn’t prevent him from voicing his ideas. We’re suppose to be civilized people and we shouldn’t gag people who say things we don’t like. The proper course of action is to use our voices to denounce what he says.
Marc
The law is practical because it narrowly targets speech along the lines of “Hey! Let’s get those dirty X.” Our Charter rights guarantee everything else.
Someone with a considerable audience condoning genocide crosses a line. I understand the ideal of totally unlimited free speech, but when someone with followers says things that can reasonably be expected to result in violence to other people, it’s nice to be able to do something before bricks meet heads.
He’s inciting racial hatred.
So are the people making a martyr of him.
Saying that mudering Jews was a good thing isn’t exactly the same as “let’s get those dirty jews” today. I didn’t see any incitement to violence in what he said in the quoted article.
I fail to see why that’s just cause for restricting speech. If I want to convince others to hate other races, religions, or nationalities I should be free to do so. The beautiful part of free speech means that you’re able to counter my arguements.
Marc
That requires effort, though. Much easier just to pass a law and throw anybody who expresses ideas the majority don’t like in jail.
IANAL, but I think US law would allow a person to say what this guy says, but still has laws prohibiting incitements to violence.
I, personally, do not think what the guy (according to this thread) said is close enough to an incitement to violence for it to be forbidden by law. This is my moral judgement, not a legal opinion.
I hope I do not need to state that I do not agree with his vile views in any way, shape, or form.
No, it doesn’t, as demonstrated by the example cited in the OP.
I’m glad he’ll lose his medal. On the other hand, I’ll stand with our American posters in questioning how serious we in Canada are about free speech.
I am… somewhat amused. As a Canadian Ex-pat, this kind of thing makes my hair stand on end. I don’t really know where I stand on the free-speech law issue, mostly because of the charter of rights counterbalancing most of the potential problems… but I agree with Matt - he should be stripped of the OoC, like, right now.
All this said, I am very very amused by those who hold up the US freedom of speech as an example of how things should be done. Even here, there are limits. Ask any teenager who tried to write a short story involving murder in a school. Or any immigrant about the patriot act in general…
I did. Back in '95. In fact, it was a story about me deviously murdering my English teacher because she gave us inane writing assignments. I believe the assignment in question was to write a shortstory in the style of Poe.
Got an A, too.
I may be wrong (seriously…I’m not trying to sound like a smart ass), but it is my understanding that minors, especially in a public school are not granted the full power of the right to free speech. They cannot say, write, wear, or do anything they want as an expression of free speech.
I really don’t have a problem with this either.
The guy is an idiot of the highest caliber. He claimed he wasn’t anti-semetic and then blames Jews for his conviction.
As far as the freedom of speech thing goes. I admire the US model, but Canada isn’t the US and Canada feels its system works better for it than anything else would. As far as I know, nobody in Canada has been arrested for calling any political figure a dumbass.
Characterizing a people as a “disease” has consequences, and he used the present tense. “Jews are a disease.” A disease wants a cure. Today. Saying that it was good thing that the nazis “fried those guys” suggests a cure. He said, “How do you get rid of a disease like that, that’s going to take over everything?”
Hell, al Qaeda has used “Jews are a disease and we are the cure” as a recruiting slogan.
These are words that have effects, like yelling “Fire” in a crowded moviehouse.
Specific “Incitement” (Public Incitement of Hatred) is a seperate offense under the same law. He was charged with Willful Promotion of Hatred.