Ahenakew Guilty

Guilty of being a disgusting bigot, that is - a verdict rendered more than six years ago in the court of public opinion.

 

As for the legal system, Ahenakew has rightly been acquitted:

 

A Saskatchewan judge acquitted Ahenakew yesterday but lambasted the former aboriginal leader for anti-Semitic comments that sparked a nationwide outrage six years ago.

 

Provincial Court Judge Wilfred Tucker called the remarks "revolting, disgusting and untrue" but said he did not believe Ahenakew had the intention of promoting hate when he made them.

 

Ahenakew was charged under Section 319 of the criminal code, a charge that probably should not have been laid in the first place - that's certainly the message from yesterday's verdict.

 

As Ezra Levant aptly puts it, not only did the case against Ahenakew ensure that his words would be repeated over and over and over again, but it probably reinforced his hateful views:

 

Ahenakew has not changed his mind -- he still hates Jews. Probably more than when he was charged with hating them six years ago.

 

Ahenakew's statements about Jews have not evanesced into the air, as they would have had he been properly ignored (or informally rebutted, instead of prosecuted by the state). His anti-Semitic views have been repeated countless thousands of times in newspapers, TV shows and, of course, the Internet. The ramblings of a fool have thus received more of an audience than the thoughtful prose of most best-selling authors in Canada.

 

And Ahenakew's conspiracy theory -- that the Jews control the world, and persecute their enemies -- is just a little bit more plausible, certainly in his own mind and that of his supporters.

 

(While you're there, do read about a certain Liberal operative's five-million dollar lawsuit and Ezra's interesting response)

 

Meanwhile, Nigel Hannaford draws an informative comparison:

 

Nevertheless, under the Canadian Criminal Code, it is not illegal to have revolting or disgusting opinions, or to hold them on the basis of myth and fancy.

 

Indeed, it is not even inevitably illegal to utter them. What is illegal, is to incite others to hatred. There is a Canadian constituency that thinks the Code should be more restrictive, but the Supreme Court of Canada has established the limit where it is to acknowledge that under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, expression is a "fundamental freedom" to be "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

 

The protests of free-speech extremists notwithstanding, it is actually a barbed-wire fence around Canadian free-speech rights. Prosecutions under Sections 318 and 319 of the Code must prove intent and actual harm, and the accused may depend upon due process in the courts, before a real judge, including established rules of evidence, and several common-law defences. For the prosecution, these are high fences to jump.

 

Not so, the generic human rights commission, where the standard is merely whether somebody was offended. In this case, Ahenakew offended everybody -- Jews, and non-Jews alike. (White racists celebrating his acquittal should understand that he doesn't like them either and during the remarks that put him in court, had some choice words for the people in the covered wagons, too.)

 

In any case, had he put himself under the jurisdiction of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission by publishing his hateful words, rather than merely blurting them out, his conviction would have been assured, and quick.

Breaking My "Silence"

I'm not aware of any blog or website that manages to offer commentary on every issue and story which happens to be in the news at any given moment. To then presume the absence of commentary on a particular issue implies a position is both lazy and disingenuous as a means of critiquing.

 

Moreover, in order to make a convincing charge of hypocrisy, one would need to demonstrate two conflicting views on the part of the accused. Silence can be damning, but often it's best to see if the presumed double-standard actually exists.

 

For example, on the question of Campus Pro-Life and its dispute with the U of C, I've been very firm in my belief that freedom of expression should prevail and that that freedom must flourish on university campuses.

 

So if I  were to suddenly support censorship on campus, then yes, I suppose that would make me a hypocrite. But my silence on such a matter might be just be because I was unaware of the story.

 

Lefty blogger Dr. Dawg is mocking the "Silence of the Speech Warriors", after he came across a story about an offensive (the whole "baby-killer" thing has dark overtones) anti-Israel poster (pictured above) being banned at Carleton University.

 

I suppose I could make assumptions about Dr. Dawg's position on this matter and on the U of C matter and call him a hypocrite, but I'll simply give him credit for highlighting the matter.

 

This is the first I've heard of the story, and the source for Dr. Dawg is an obscure source, indeed.  

 

To me, the whole concept of "Israeli Apartheid Week" is ridiculous and offensive, but the answer is not to censor it. Clearly, then, Carelton is in the wrong.

 

In the case of Campus Pro-Life at the U of C, we are talking about a display set up by a registered group on campus. It would appear as though the Carleton posters are the produce of a legitimate campus group for a sanctioned event.

 

I think it's fair to say that in the context of a university campus, it would be reasonable to place restrictions on non-students and non-campus groups. Some random anti-abortion group would not be as free to simply show up on a university campus, set up a display, put up posters, hold protests, etc.

 

But yes, among the student body, a free and vibrant dialogue should be encouraged. If sensible people object to this poster or Israeli Apartheid Week then they should respond with their own posters and rallies (as outlined here).

 

Those who would censor pro-life groups and those who would censor anti-Israel groups are both being short-sighted. It might be tempting to have that which offends you censored, but you're setting the stage for that to come back and bite you in the form of censorship of something near and dear to you.

 

Here's some interesting background on "Israel Apartheid Week". More here:

 

International Israeli Apartheid Week is one of many symptoms of the unjust double standard that the international community has applied to Israel since its birth. Critics target Israel's Law of Return for Jews as an "apartheid" policy while almost identical citizenship laws in countries like Germany and Ireland go unnoticed.

Almost no one criticizes Jordan for its law barring Jews from becoming citizens. And can anyone remember the last time that the United Nations passed a resolution condemning blatant human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia or Syria? No? That is fascinating, considering the fact that the UN has issued over 300 condemnations of Israel in the last 40 years. This double standard can only be explained by outrageous ignorance or bigotry.

The Israeli apartheid label is a fallacious and offensive attempt to delegitimize Israel. This irresponsible use of "apartheid" dilutes the power of the word, hinders efforts at peace, and leads to ignorance of other glaring cases of injustice, both in the Middle East and worldwide.

See also here, here, and here. I would hope that certain finger-pointing lefties are as supportive of freedom of speech if and when pro-Israel campus groups face obstacles in organizing events or inviting pro-Israel speakers.

 

UPDATE: See this, too. I could add that certain bloggers have been awfully silent on the recent ugliness at York, but I won't go there...

Herald Column: Zealots & Hypocrites in the War on Offensiveness

This week's Calgary Herald column from yours truly examines the folly and the shame of our undeclared "war on offensiveness":

 

...The absurdity of a belief that we can and should vanquish that which "offends" ought to be self-evident. This campaign, however, has become even more farcical due to an abundance of hypocrisy.

 

This would appear to be the case even for some of those targeted by and ostensibly opposed to the "war on offensiveness": an attitude of "offence for thee, but not for me."

 

Take, for instance, Calgary's outspoken Bishop Fred Henry, who wrote a letter to this paper offering a strong defence of Campus Pro-Life (although, a pro-life bishop defending a pro-life group might fall into the "dog bites man" news category). He defended the "freedom to inquire, speak, publish, (and) debate" even if it leads to "error and abuse." So while others may bemoan the "offensiveness" of Campus Pro-Life's display, the bishop has rightly noted that freedom of expression trumps the (non-existent) freedom to not-have-my-delicate-sensibilities-ruffled.

 

And yet, in now leading the charge against the forthcoming Atheist Bus Ad campaign, Bishop Henry has morphed from a champion of the right to offend to a poster boy for the I'm Offended Industry.

 

Suddenly we are to now tremble in awe at the mighty power of the O-word: Bishop Henry is "offended" by the ads. To which we ought to say: so what?

As subjective as so much of this issue inherently is, I think one can objectively conclude that a bus ad declaring that "There's Probably No God" is far less offensive than images of aborted fetuses.

 

Describing the bus ads as "aggressive" and "hate-filled," Henry has adopted the rhetoric of those who would silence Campus Pro-Life--and him, for that matter.

 

Conversely, I doubt those who would block an "offensive" pro-life display would support a campaign to block "offensive" atheist bus ads. To that end, though, I would challenge those who stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the likes of Syed Soharwardy and Mohamed Elmasry to now step forward and stand with Bishop Fred Henry.

 

The rest here.

Herald Column: Defending Freedom of Religion Means Defending Secularism

This week's Calgary Herald column from yours truly looks at the kerfuffle over the atheist bus ads and the University of Alberta's convocation controversy, and argues that both decisions are encouraging for freedom of religion:

 

...It is that neutrality--better known as secularism--which we must strive for. It should come as little surprise that freedom of religion is most threatened, or even non-existent, in nations in which the state has indeed taken sides.

 

That is what makes the West special and unique: enlightenment, reason and freedom of thought--all of which are really at the root of our freedoms.

 

Those believers who are now lashing out at Calgary Transit or the University of Alberta should realize that the decisions being viewed as attacks on religion are really decisions which strengthen freedom of religion. That's the trade-off: no one will ever be 100 per cent pleased with the fruits of true freedom of religion, but everyone will benefit equally from it.

 

(...)

 

Freedom of religion exists to protect believers. However, that does not mean protection from criticism, protection from challenge or even protection from mocking. It certainly does not mean that believers are accorded a certain status and certain privileges that others are not.

 

To argue otherwise would mean a de facto state religion shielded by a de facto blasphemy law. Such an arrangement may be to the liking of some, but it would in no way, shape, or form resemble freedom of religion.

 

The rest is here.

 

Meanwhile, a somewhat related piece from Johann Hari in the UK Independent:

  

The right to criticise religion is being slowly doused in acid. Across the world, the small, incremental gains made by secularism – giving us the space to doubt and question and make up our own minds – are being beaten back by belligerent demands that we "respect" religion. A historic marker has just been passed, showing how far we have been shoved. The UN rapporteur who is supposed to be the global guardian of free speech has had his job rewritten – to put him on the side of the religious censors.

 

Read the whole thing.

 

UPDATE: This is also related:

 

Metro Transit will not allow an advertisement saying You Can Be Good Without God on its buses.

 

"We’re a public transit service first, and then we sell advertising on the side, and normally the standard procedure is we have a contracted agency who sells our advertising,"" said Metro Transit spokeswoman Lori Patterson on Monday.

 

""If there’s something that’s viewed to be controversial, as part of our contract we get to see the messaging on it, and so they advise us if they think something’s going to be controversial and then we review the message.

 

"If we feel it’s going to be something that’s going to upset a number of people, we don’t choose to advertise it," Ms. Patterson said.