Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Trial Of David Ahenakew, Hate Vs. Free Speech  
User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 25
Posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1409 times:

Those of you in Canada, or other people following this trial, what do you think?

http://www.canada.com/saskatoon/star...631ce7-0901-4ddf-adf6-f21d7bdfc222

This guy is clearly a racist and a bigot, but should what he said be protected by free speech? I'm divided on this. On one hand, he has the right to say this, on the other hand, does he have the right to preach what he did to 300 people? Does this cross the boundary from free speech to hate speech? I'm not sure exactly what the law says about this.

Any comments?


NO URLS in signature
15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 1, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1405 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

While I personally deplore what the guy said it would be thought policing to limit his thinking, and an abrogation of his civil rights to deny him the right to voice his opinion. He is not calling for action against the government, nor is he crying fire in a crowded theater.

The proper response to this clown is to put someone at every streetcorner where he plans on speaking and respond to his line of complete crap with the truth. He is preaching to the choir already, and to attempt to silence him through the law merely justifies his actions and words in the eyes of those to whom he is preaching.

In order to maintain everyones rights we have to protect the bigots and loonies.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17501 posts, RR: 45
Reply 2, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1405 times:

He's the exactly the same as the quack at CU, Ward Churchill. Whatever you do to this guy should be done to Ward.


E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 3, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1402 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

With Ward Churchill I can safely say that to prevent him from passing his garbage on to students who view him as an authority (thereby legitimizing what he says with official approval) is much different than legally restraining him from speaking. Churchill just needs to find work in our society to support himself..... I certainly don't support muzzling him legally unless he calls for open armed insurrection against our society.


Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17501 posts, RR: 45
Reply 4, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1402 times:

"He's the exactly the same as the quack at CU, Ward Churchill. Whatever you do to this guy should be done to Ward.
"

Actually I take that back, they are both the same in the sense that they both said the same type of inflammatory garbage. The difference is that Ward said it in a public setting, in papers, to classes, in his position as professor. This jerk said it in private. Ward should be fired and donkey punched, frankly, while this guy should not be charged with anything since it was a private conversation. The bad PR he has received is more than enough punishment, nevermind the stigma he has on his head for life. You can't charge someone for being an asshole in private if they've done nothing illegal.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 5, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1399 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 4):
You can't charge someone for being an asshole in private if they've done nothing illegal.

My point precisely.....although you can publicly invite him to the nearest gym with a boxing ring, if you feel so inclined.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 1388 times:

I guess his stupid ill-informed opinions must be covered by freedom of speech, no matter how asinine they are. I'm stunned that a native Canadian/first tribesman/whatever would hold such blatantly bigoted views - just goes to show what poor education will get you.

User currently offlineN229NW From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 1950 posts, RR: 31
Reply 7, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1385 times:

Whoa, what an idiot. I guess I'm torn like Tbar. I think you can't stifle free speech, but you can when it is preached as incitement to hatred.

Interesting that the punishment is "$2000 or 6 months in prison." The second of those options seems noticeably harsher.



It's people like you what cause unrest!
User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 8, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1373 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 6):
just goes to show what poor education will get you.

You should know that an excellent education is no real bar to ignorance and hatred. Some very well educated people can be blinded by such feelings when they seek to blame everyone else for their troubles.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 25
Reply 9, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1359 times:

Does "incitement of hatred" cross the line from free speech to restricted hate speech? Is what this guy did "incitement of hatred"?


NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 10, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1350 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

All speech is inciting....hatred and love are merely two of the emotions that speech is supposed to inflame.

If you ban speech that incites hatred you will limit my ability to decry Nazis everywhere, and even make it difficult (in the face of some civil rights lawyer somewhere) to profess my admiration of a concept such as love or peace, for fear of "inciting" someone to some type of emotion.

If a person says that they hate "niggers, kikes, spics, chinks and especially the damned micks"...then that's protected speech under the US constitution, and most other free nations in the world. It may not be acceptable in polite company (indeed I expect to be castigated for using any of those words even in a purely descriptive tense....by someone), but it is legal. The college campuses that ban such speech are inviting a serious constitutional challenge.

However, if I were to say "Hey....I want you to go murder a couple of people...here's $20,000....and here is what they look like and where they are going to be tomorrow at 6pm" then I am conspiring to commit an illegal act and should be arrested. If a person announces that they are going to take up arms against the United States and they exhort you to do the same, they may be guilty of sedition or treason, but they are not forbidden from saying the words...only the actions they commit.

As a matter of fact the only legal instances, as defined by the Supreme Court of the US, where speech can be curtailed is when it is in the interest of the People for military or judicial purposes, or when it presents an immediate danger to others i.e. shouting fire in a crowded theater thus causing a stampede (taken from one of the many large cinema fires in the US prior to strict fire codes) where people are killed by panic and riot. Inciting to riot has been upheld as well.

So the question we have to ask is this....is this man saying that all Jews should be killed and that the executions should start tomorrow at 0900? Or is he saying that Hitler had the right idea, in which case he bears watching to see what he does next?

I truly believe that the more limits we place on our speech, the more limits we will suffer. Simplistic but true.

I hope my earlier use of the ethnic and racist slurs did not offend anyone, but there is a point to be made here. Freedom means that we allow that which we don't like sometimes to ensure that we can exercise our own rights that others may not like.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineScarletHarlot From Canada, joined Jul 2003, 4673 posts, RR: 56
Reply 11, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1346 times:

You are forgetting one thing: in Canada we do not have the right to free speech. There are hate crime laws where you cannot publicly say things. For example, Howard Stern's programming has been prohibited or censored in Canada, and he fussed about free speech - but guess what, you're not in the US of A anymore!

I do not know the exact laws but you are not allowed to incite hatred in Canada. This takes precedence over the right to free speech. We had one crazy bugger in Alberta - Ernest Zundel, if I remember correctly - who published magazines stating that the Holocaust was a fraud. He spent time in jail for that.

What is awful about Ahenakew is that he is a member of the Order of Canada. He's been recognized as one of the best citizens of my country. Without a doubt he should be stripped of that.

Here's an article on the CBC's website about how a hate crime is defined in the Criminal Code of Canada:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/hatecrimes/

It's important to remember that not all the world thinks the same way as Americans or has the same law as Americans. I have no problems with these limits to free speech.



But that was when I ruled the world
User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 12, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1344 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ScarletHarlot (Reply 11):
in Canada we do not have the right to free speech

Well, slap me silly. I think I would argue about that with someone in power.

Quoting ScarletHarlot (Reply 11):
He's been recognized as one of the best citizens of my country. Without a doubt he should be stripped of that.

Well now there is an example of active white guilt run amok....obviously no one vetted this clown adequately.

Quoting ScarletHarlot (Reply 11):
It's important to remember that not all the world thinks the same way as Americans or has the same law as Americans. I have no problems with these limits to free speech.

April...You know how much I like and respect you so don't take this wrong.....that is the response of someone who accepts these limits because that is what they know and understand. I would have seroius issues with such restrictions on one of my fundamental freedoms.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineScarletHarlot From Canada, joined Jul 2003, 4673 posts, RR: 56
Reply 13, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1340 times:

Ian...like you, with all due respect...  Smile

Quoting DL021 (Reply 12):
that is the response of someone who accepts these limits because that is what they know and understand

I could say the same about you, and that the US is not enlightened enough to prevent hate crimes.

I do know and understand limits on free speech. But I think it is important to recognize the cultural differences between the US and Canada. We have a much more collective point of view - more socialist. We are willing to give up some individual freedoms in exchange for a better society. This is an example of that kind of tradeoff.

The things that Americans consider important, or even indispensible, rights are not necessarily seen as such in the rest of the world. There's nothing wrong with that, and I would seriously resent an American marching into my country and telling me that I am unenlightened and am missing out on an essential freedom. (Not that I'm saying this about you, Ian, because I know you are not doing this.) I live in the US now but can't wait to move back to Canada, because Canadian society is more to my liking.



But that was when I ruled the world
User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16259 posts, RR: 56
Reply 14, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1331 times:

This man is an absolute racist. He even admitted in court this week that he stands by his comments about Jews.

Yet, the courtroom was filled with his supporters who accused the prosecutor of racism, since the accused is aboriginal! Even the leader of the Saskatchewan Indian bands says he should not be charged even though his comments are wrong!

Absolutely incredible! Goes to show that there is a sickening double standard of non-white racists being given more tolerance and acceptance for their racist views both within their own commuinities and within society at large.

I would be horrified if a white racist was similarly supported in court by throngs of white supporters. Yet, the Saskatchewan natives have no qualms at supporting this vile man, just because he is one of their own.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 25
Reply 15, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1280 times:

Man, this trial is getting ugly.

***

A Manitoba First Nations chief claims Jewish-controlled media ignore aboriginal struggles, and instead focus criticism on David Ahenakew during his hate trial. In a letter faxed to a Winnipeg media outlet, Terrance Nelson - the chief of Manitoba's Roseau River reserve - said such focus will increase any aboriginal hatred towards Jews.

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Edmont...un/News/2005/04/12/992730-sun.html

SASKATOON -- Former national aboriginal leader David Ahenakew, on trial for allegedly inciting hatred through anti-Semitic remarks, is the victim of a newspaper reporter looking for a sensational story, his defence lawyer argued Wednesday.

http://www.canada.com/regina/leaderp...551004-5bab-46f9-bdce-349c1b41cd06

***

Are the people involved in this really that stupid?



NO URLS in signature
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Should Discrimination Be Part Of Free Speech? posted Sun Feb 27 2005 07:22:42 by Allstarflyer
Free Speech In America Becoming Extinct posted Fri Nov 3 2006 15:19:02 by Mirrodie
Crazy Gambling Law-v-Free Speech! posted Sun Jun 18 2006 14:43:47 by NWDC10
Aclu Squelches Free Speech posted Thu May 25 2006 04:10:33 by Halls120
Muslims 'must Accept' Free Speech posted Sun Feb 26 2006 22:26:35 by BMIFlyer
Match Of All Matches: ANCFlyer Vs Gkirk posted Mon Jan 9 2006 13:26:20 by Pe@rson
Trial Of Terror Group To Begin In Alaska Today posted Mon May 2 2005 23:20:30 by L-188
Trial Of The Decade posted Mon Sep 20 2004 15:19:26 by ANA
Football Game Of The Night:Greece Vs Turkey posted Wed Sep 8 2004 12:57:46 by Wing
With Liberty & Comfort For All, Screw Free Speech posted Wed Mar 31 2004 05:12:54 by MD-90