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.
The First Nations’ executives got it right when they condemned him (and what he said)publicly. That humiliation and demotion were worth more than a trial.
Problem is though, this crap starts early; I know that my daughter’s schools were extremely active in fighting prejudice. Zero tolerance actually. It seems to have worked, although there were certainly serious ethnic battles being fought at other schools. (When I say serious, I mean assaults and deaths.)
hi DaninVan.. how r u buddy. I miss you.
Ahenakew makes me want to spew. HOw can intoxication and a change in medication be an adequate defense? I have been drunk and had my medication changed and the combination has never led me to burst forth with anhy hate speech. It is clear from the trial that he believes “THe Jews” started WWII and that Jews are either diseased or “have a monopoly”?. His apology at the time was bogus and his continued apologies are a slap in the face.
What really makes me irate is the fact that he IS STILL a member of the Order of Canada. Is there any doubt that if he claimed gays deserved to suffer from AIDS, or that black people were inferior that his membership in the Order of Canada would have been revoked? Shame on the Governor General for sitting on this issue and doing nothing.
Jay, I agree with you. But we can’t lock people up for vile thoughts. We can and *should* however strip whatever honours we’ve given them as it’s clear Ahenakew is completely unworthy of being a member of the Order of Canada or even of sweeping the floor after its ceremony.
…unless they use him for the mop.