Segacs's World I Know

Posts Tagged ‘david ahenakew’

London’s mayor will face a disciplinary hearing for his comments comparing a Jewish reporter to a Nazi concentration camp guard:

Mayor of London Ken Livingstone could be banned from office for up to five years for likening an Evening Standard reporter to a Nazi concentration camp guard if he is found guilty by an independent panel.

Livingstone will have to attend a disciplinary hearing, which will decide whether he is guilty of failing to treat others with respect, or bringing his office into disrepute.

The decision to refer the dispute for adjudication was announced by local government watchdog the Standards Board for England, which said yesterday that it had “concluded that the issue should now be considered at a hearing held by the independent Adjudication Panel for England”.

The panel, whose members are appointed by the lord chancellor Lord Falconer, has the power to ban people from office and to instruct those brought before it to make an apology. A public hearing is expected to take place this December, during which Livingstone has the right to bring in his own legal team.

(Via Lynn).

Update: I should probably mention that I’m generally uncomfortable with hate speech laws even where there is clear evidence of real antisemitism (see my postings on David Ahenakew, for example), and that arguably Livingstone’s comments were just idiotic, not necessarily evidence of the kind of virulent antisemitism that someone like Ahenakew displays. Furthermore, I don’t really agree with the idea of forcibly removing someone from office for making hateful comments. Theoretically, if someone holds and spews such views openly, and the people vote for him anyway, then those people are getting exactly the leadership that they deserve. Such is democracy.

Anyway, I’m fairly sure that all the panel will do is possibly censure him or force an apology. But I’m concerned of what message about freedom of speech it will send if they impose harsher penalties – and about what message about antisemitism it will send if they find him not guilty.

It’s not entirely a lose-lose situation, though; the panel is evidence that the British government is taking antisemitism seriously, and holding elected officials to a higher standard. And, in the publicity this is sure to generate, at least more people will see Ken Livingstone’s true colours. Maybe it will affect their behaviour next time they go to the polls, and they’ll kick him out on his arse and vote in someone more worthy.

I almost missed this in all the other news, but convicted hate criminal David Ahenakew was stripped of his Order of Canada membership yesterday.

Good. It’s about time.

(Via Damian Penny).

Native leader and vicious antisemite David Ahenakew, who praised Hitler for killing 6 million Jews, has been found guilty of promoting hatred under Canada’s hate crimes legislation:

Former aboriginal leader David Ahenakew, who called Jews “a disease” and justified the Holocaust, has been found guilty of wilfully promoting hatred.

Two and a half years ago, Ahenakew told a reporter that the Holocaust was a good thing and praised Adolf Hitler for having “fried” six million Jews during the Second World War.

The process has also been started to strip Ahenakew of his Order of Canada award.

Despite my mixed feelings on the hate trial in the first place, I’d said that once it was started, this was the only acceptable way for it to end. So I’m greeting this verdict with some relief.

As for the Order of Canada, it should have been stripped long ago. I can’t believe he’s kept it all this time.

Native leader and antisemite extraordinaire David Ahenakew’s hate trial is underway.

I’ve always been torn on the issue of hate speech legislation. Restricting freedom of speech can have potentially dangerous consequences for a free society, and it’s not something to take lightly. After all, restricting free speech means that someone has the power to decide what qualifies as hate and what doesn’t. This opens the door for things like this, when those in power can muzzle their political opponents by attacking different opinions as “hate speech”. Deny a freedom to your enemies, and you open the door for your enemies denying that same freedom to you if the tables should turn.

And one could argue – convincingly – that people like Ahenakew should be encouraged to say what they really think, so at least we know what they really think and can judge them on that basis. And if political ostracism for hate speech isn’t disincentive enough for someone to shoot off their mouth in public, then it’s doubtful hate legislation will be either.

On the other hand, wilfully and publicly promoting hatred against a group of people, when left unchecked, can allow the hatred to grow and spread like a cancer. It’s like advertising; repeat something often enough and loudly enough, and people will start to believe it.

There are no easy answers here. However, the Ahenakew trial is just barely underway and it’s already leaving a sour taste in my mouth.

First of all, there’s the ridiculous defence argument that Ahenakew said what he did because he was on medication:

“He was certainly not feeling well that day and wouldn’t have said these things if he was feeling well,” [Defence lawyer Doug] Christie said.

“His medication had recently been doubled caused clearly by a chemical imbalance in the blood being related to diabetes. In addition to that he had two glasses of wine the night before.

“I think in those circumstances it’s pretty obvious that he wasn’t measuring his words the way he would normally do.”

Basically the lawyers are arguing a technicality: hatred is okay, but expressing it isn’t. That’s the way the law is written after all. This isn’t Orwell’s 1984 and we’re not about to start prosecuting thoughtcrime. So this defence argument of utter nonsense actually might work here.

This raises the question of what happens if Ahenakew is acquitted. Some people will use that mere fact as vindication for their hateful and antisemitic views. Ahenakew would become an underground hero of the antisemitic fringe. In many ways, an acquittal could have worse consequences for Canadian society than a lack of trial in the first place.

Then there’s the issue of the media coverage of Ahenakew’s trial actually becoming an additional vehicle for Ahenakew’s vile views to be spread. Every time a clip of Ahenakew’s despicable statements about Jews is shown on the news, millions of Canadians are hearing it. One hopes that most people react to what they hear with distaste, but some people may be reacting by agreeing. After all, it’s this exposure of such views that hate speech legislation was designed to prevent.

Now that Ahenakew is on trial, only a conviction would send a message to Canadians that promotion of such hatred is unacceptable. Only a conviction will deter further spreading of the cancer of hatred. Which is why I’m hoping for this outcome. It’s kind of like the war in Iraq; agree or disagree with it at first, now that the US is there, they have to finish the job.

But there are a lot of tricky questions here, and I don’t think the sour taste is going away anytime soon.

LGF’s Idiotarian of the Year contest is getting some excellent nominations.

My nominees:

David Ahenakew

The Concordia Student Union (especially exec members Sabine Freisinger, Yves Engler, Ralph Lee, Aaron Mate, Sameer Zuberi, and Kealia Curtis as well as members of the council of representatives

Jaggi Singh and his buddies (including Samer Elatrash and Laith Marouf)

Françoise Ducrois

The 11% of Americans who couldn’t find the USA on a world map.

Bill Graham

and, last but not least, Jennifer Durocher.

Although, admittedly, Robert Fisk has been getting so many nominations that it almost seems unfair to declare him as the winner. It seems the award will be named for him, thus disqualifying him and opening the field to other nominees. Feel free to mosey on over and give your suggestions.

Ahenakew apologized… sort of:

In an emotional appearance Tuesday, Ahenakew apologized to the Jewish community, Holocaust survivors and their families.

“I am deeply sorry for the pain I have caused you,” he said. He also apologized to his own people.

“I have clearly embarrassed our people. I admit my own stubbornness, my pigheadedness and my own personal embarrassment prevented me from coming forward immediately to do the right thing in light of what I have caused by such irresponsible and painful comments,” he said.

Sorry, but in a case like this, that just don’t cut it. What’s more likely to be a true expression of how he feels? The disgusting racist comments he made in anger? Or a carefully-crafted apology after nearly five days of media pressure?

For a man like this to be a member of the Order of Canada is a disgrace. He resigned from all his political positions within the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, but even during his apology speech he still opted to wear his Order of Canada pin on his lapel. What does that say about Canada? What does that say about us as Canadians? He should be stripped of the Order immediately.

Damian Penny alerted me to this disgusting news:

A respected Saskatchewan Indian leader said Friday Hitler did the right thing when he “fried” six million Jews during the Second World War.

In comments one local Jewish leader described as unfortunate, David Ahenakew, a senator with the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations (FSIN), a former chief of the organization and a former chief of the Assembly of First Nations (AFN), said in an interview Friday the Nazi leader was trying to clean up the world during the war.

“The Jews damn near owned all of Germany prior to the war,” Ahenakew said.

“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 goddamned world. And look what they’re doing. They’re killing people in Arab countries.”

I must admit, words fail me. Except to point out that the rise in worldwide antisemitism in the past two years among the fringe extremes has exactly mirrored the rise in anti-Zionism among people who consider themselves more “mainstream”.

But one, of course, has nothing to do with the other. (Insert sarcasm tag here).