RSS FeedFree to Attack Marginalized Groups
The Ahenakew affair: a bad law, an opportunity missed
By Marjaleena Repo
The David Ahenakew Affair, after five years in the courts, has sprung back with full force after the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations (FSIN) voted to reinstate him as one its senators. The media have reacted with vehement disapproval as have Jewish organizations. The provincial and federal governments – the latter long overdue in its own apology and restitution to Aboriginal people for a variety of oppressive policies over the last century – are in high dudgeon, threatening censure and sanctions against the FSIN. (Mr. Ahenakew, with the storm gathering, declined the offer of reinstatement.)
Mr. Ahenakew’s brutish comments were made at an emergency meeting December 12, 2002, in Saskatoon, organized to oppose yet another detrimental policy imposed on First Nations people. He was angry and agitated – reportedly to the point of being incoherent in his speech – but his most offensive remarks came after the speech, in an encounter with a reporter (described by the reporter as an interview and by Ahenakew as an aggressive ambush). The reporter taped Ahenakew blaming the Jews for creating World War II and calling them “a disease.”ť
Five days later Ahenakew, in a press conference, apologized profusely for his offensive and hurtful language, stating that his comments were made in anger and frustration over the plight of native people in Canada, but that this did not excuse them. He asked to reach out to the Jewish community.
This was the moment when history could have been made, by a new level of communication and trust-building between Ahenakew, his own constituency whom he had hurt and the Jewish community, victim of his ignorant and deeply offensive comments.
If Jewish organizations had accepted the apology, one can imagine only positive outcomes: a deeper understanding of how wrong his words were and what the actual experience of German Jews was, from their relentless ostracism to the “final solution” in concentration camps.
With David Ahenakew leading, prepared to be a changed man, his own people, from young to old, could have entered a rich experience of empathetic learning with many connections to their own suffering under brutal colonial rule. A sign of forgiveness (and compassion) about one man’s human failing would have brought Jews and Aboriginals together, in the spirit of good will, resulting in deepening connections and new friendships. Both peoples, Aboriginals and Jews, have a history of resilience and survival, and when given a chance are capable of transcending and recovering from the worst of circumstances, as well as forgiving those who have hurt them and genuinely repent it.
TThis opportunity for transformation and restorative justice by building on the strengths of the people involved was missed when the Jewish leadership rejected, out of hand, Ahenakew’s apology. It wasn’t good enough. They wanted “more”…
Canada’s highly problematic anti-hate law, Section 319 of the Criminal Code, was invoked. Ahenakew was charged with “inciting hatred” and cornered, forced to try to defend himself against criminal charges. With apology and amends rejected, the case proceeded to a conviction in 2005 — overturned on appeal June 2006 on the grounds that a crucial element, “willfulness,” was missing as the remarks were made in confrontation with a reporter rather than before an audience. Saskatchewan is retrying Ahenakew.
The 40-year-old anti-hate law was flawed from the beginning because it pursues thought-crimes: dissenting opinions, prejudices, stupidity and ignorance among them. One of the first charged were young Canadian nationalists in Toronto, demonstrating against a Shriners parade with a “Yankee Go Home!” leaflet, supposedly hateful towards all Americans!
Age has not improved this unnecessary law. It now has its offspring in human rights commissions, where a couple of well-known journalists of the right, Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn, have lately had to defend themselves against charges of “encouraging hatred” in their writings. But, significantly, in their case, they are being defended to the hilt by editorials and columnists across the country, on the grounds of freedom of expression, no matter how distasteful — and wrong— their opinions are to people whose beliefs and ethnicity they offend.
The explanation might be that Levant and Steyn are attacking an increasingly marginalized group of Canadians – Muslims and Arabs. David Ahenakew, on the other hand, part of a powerless and long-suffering group of original Canadians, having offended a powerful ethnic and religious group, has no such support for his right to be ignorant and wrong, and ends up sharing his guilt with all Aboriginals, to boot. (Contrast this with MP Tom Lukiwski who, having grossly attacked homosexuals, was upon his mea culpa instantaneously forgiven by the Conservative government.)
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwumZ5I6vkM[/youtube]
(We’re still looking for it on campaign literature).
Offensive ideas and concepts, of course, need to and will be challenged, and expressing them will have consequences. But these consequences ought to be social and political — allowing for apologies and regrets — not criminal, with catastrophic consequences for those caught by a law, which to quote Charles Dickens, “is a (sic) ass.”
(April 6, 08)
Marjaleena Repo is a freelance writer who lives in Saskatoon. She can be reached at mrepo@sasktel.net
Updates
We made some further edits with the piece over some sections we found problematic.
This article has since been published in the Prairie Messenger and the Prince Albert Daily Herald.
Reproduced with the permission of the author. Emphasis in bold, commentary in italics and links added, and some material removed.
Disclaimer: Views expressed in this post are the views of the author, and not of this site. We have presented this piece to try and provide different perspectives on the issue.
The author is a senior advisor to David Orchard and former Progressive Conservative Party Vice-president for Saskatchewan.
Curry Bomb Newest Weapon Against Terrorists
The ‘War on Terror’ has a new arsenal in it’s fight – a curry bomb.
India developed an 81mm grenade filled with pepper and phosphorus, intended to bring its target to their knees.
But based on historic use of basic pepper spray in Canada, we don’t think anyone here is going to be rallying for the curry upgrade any time soon.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPzNvSnhFbI[/youtube]
How to Be a Good Lawyer
Honourable Associate Chief Judge Murray Sinclair speaks about his personal challenges while working in the criminal justice system.
Don’t Save Us Through Privatization
Lorne Gunter of the National Post commented yesterday on the Kawacatoose First Nation proposal for a private MRI service,
For defenders of Canada’s government-monopoly health care system, there is only one goal that truly matters. And, no, despite their earnest insistences to the contrary, that goal is not the health of patients. It is the preservation of the public monopoly at all costs, even patients’ lives.
But Gunter’s thinking is short-sighted. Private services would ease wait times in the short-term, but would exacerbate them in the long. She explains the rationale herself in quoting health critic Judy Junor, who says that private facilities poach services from public hospitals.
The larger implications are that many hospitals operate on a global budget, offering some services at a modest profit, and others at a loss. Private clinics choose to offer only the former, usually at the expense of the latter. The end result is that public systems operate on an even narrower margin and risks collapse, thereby providing an even greater hazard to patients’ lives.
The one positive factor of the scenario is that the Aboriginal band proposed offering services to all Canadians, without cue-jumping. They would probably be better positioned to provide culturally appropriate services for their community. But most importantly, they are considering revenue generation beyond casinos.
Ahenakew to be Retried for Hate
The Aboriginal leader who made anti-Semitic remarks will be retried for hate speech.
Although convicted in 2006 and charged $1,000, the finding was overturned by the Court of Appeal.
The recent finding indicates he may still be found guilty for willfully promoting hatred.
Chief Justice Robert Laing held that the requisite intent to be convicted was not properly assessed on appeal.
The statements in question were made in 2002 to a reporter at a conference where he justified the Holocaust because they were so proliferative in Germany that they were taking over and changing Germany.
how do you get rid of a… disease that’s gonna take over, that’s gonna dominate, that’s gonna everything, and the poor people, they…
Ahenakew was theformer head of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations and the Assembly of First Nations and member of the Order of Canada.
At the time of the statements, Manuel Prutschi,national executive vice-president, Canadian Jewish Congress, said,
David Ahenakew’s views are acknowledged as “vile” and “poisonous.” The anti-hate law must be invoked to free the environment of hatred’s most toxic manifestations.
Ahenakew had responded that he himself was a Holocaust victim, and that
Thousands and thousands of Canadians – they should be answering questions about their hatred toward Indians.
The League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada had stated on the appeal that they would seek to get the case retried.
A Double Standard?
Virginia Green wrote in a letter to the Toronto Star onDecember 23, 2002,
Your observations do not take into account power relationships in this country.
I find a double standard in how the media, as a reflection of mainstream public opinion, continue to bring up David Ahenakew’s inexcusable and racist comments toward Jews while ignoring and minimizing the many racist behaviours and comments committed by public authorities toward other groups.
Mel Lastman is still the mayor of Toronto despite his racist comments toward African people. No charges have ever been laid against the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, whose actions include carrying out arrests on open waters, subduing boat crews with pepper spray and ramming and attempting to sink boats from aboriginal fishers in the community of Burnt Church, New Brunswick.
The Ontario government still refuses to either hold an inquiry or convene a coroner’s inquest into the killing of unarmed aboriginal activist Dudley George. Toronto police still have no independent body to investigate police abuses against aboriginals and people of colour in this city.
[n.b. the Ipperwash Inquiry was concluded last year, and did address the issue of Dudley George]
Our government refuses to take the U.S. to task for racially profiling and detaining Canadian citizens who are of Arab descent.
It seems to me that the incident with Ahenakew might represent an opportunity to explore aboriginal history and current events, as well as those of Jewish communities.
Ahenakew is the product of the purposeful destruction of aboriginal social, political and legal systems. He comes out of a band council system imposed on our peoples in all its paternalistic and racist wisdom. It also wouldn’t surprise me to learn, as in the case of many of our leaders and community members, that Ahenakew is a personal survivor of the sexual and physical abuse bequeathed to our communities by missionaries, residential schools and the child welfare system.
Neither I nor any other aboriginal person or organization I know of condones Ahenakew’s comments. Rather, I am disheartened that while aboriginal people feel the pressure to reach out to those who were hurt by his comments, we receive little support, no justice and superficial media attention to abuses committed against our own communities.
Occasionally we see aboriginal people utter hateful remarks. How often do we see them in a position of power where they can actually kill unarmed people, ram boats, use pepper spray or deport helpless refugees with impunity? How often do we see people of colour remain in positions of power after making racist comments? How often do we see people of colour in positions of power, period?
While anti-Semitism and racism are never okay, one needs to distinguish between who has the power to act on their views and who does not.
The Real Double Standard
Often overlooked and underreported is that Ahenakew also made statemetnts about other groups at the same time as his anti-Semitic remarks.
He complained about,
…goddamned immigrants – East Indians, Pakistanis, Afghanistan…
Given the context of this statement in conjuction with the anti-Semitic remarks, it would appear that groups representing these communities as well would also have intervenor status as well.
Although not nearly as explicit, these statements should have received equal condemnation by the public.
But it’s not as if they were completely ignored. Crown prosecutor Brent Klause asked Ahenekew at trial in December 2002,
Are you not an immigrant?
…I suggest your people came across the Bering Straight.
An Assault on Dignity and Worth
The Toronto Star said in an editorial about Ahenakew on Apr. 4, 2005,
Hatred is an assault on the dignity and worth of communities. It is tantamount to a rape of the soul. It inflicts emotional injury and threatens physical security.
Society, as a whole, is no less vulnerable since it will not remain intact for long if it permits its communities to be vilified with impunity.
History has shown that decent people speaking out, important as this is, cannot guarantee the preservation of a multicultural democracy because good, unassisted by law, does not necessarily triumph over evil.
Hate speech is an issue that affects us all. But that’s also why we must all work against it, irrespective of who it is directed at.
It’s also why Mr. Martin’s private-member bill should be struck down:
M-446 — January 30, 2008 — Mr. Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca) — That, in the opinion of the House, subsection 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act should be deleted from the Act.
Resources
Dawn Walton and Jeff Sallot. Ahenakew’s racist words shock friends and followers. The Globe and Mail. December 17, 2002
When the anti-hate law is invoked. The Toronto Star Pg. A15. April 4, 2005.
Tonda MacCharles. RCMP to probe pro-Nazi tirade. Toronto Star Pg. A01. December 17, 2002
More Aboriginals Shouldn’t Mean More Problems
The Globe and Mail reported today a 45% increase in Aboriginal populations over the past decade.
Nunavut has the highest birthrate in the country, and also the highest proportion of Aboriginals at 85%.
But many claim these figures are still underrepresented,
Thousands more people weren’t specifically noted as aboriginal because they had no permanent address or were behind bars.
Others simply refused to be counted. Chief Clarence Simon of Kanesatake said,
We are not Canadian citizens, we are North American Indians. And that is something they have to understand.
They already know how many native people are registered.
Kanesatake is the Mohawk community that was involved in the 1990 Oka crisis. But 22 other reserves also refused the census.
As Aboriginal populations rise, they will slowly approach the levels they were prior to drastic reductions after the arrival of European settlers.
David Stannard said in his book, American Holocaust, that this process was the most massive genocide in the history of the world, conducted through a deliberate “string of genocide campaigns.”
He claims that over 100 million people were lost, resulting in declines of 95% of some populations.
David Cesarini, a Jewish expert on the Holocaust that has campaigned against Holocaust deniers like David Irving, has quoted Stannard,
…in terms of the sheer number of deaths and the proportion of the. population killed, the Native American genocide exceeded that of the Holocaust.(1)
Canadians still live under the shadow of Oka, especially after the findings last year that exonerated Dudley George in the Ipperwash Inquiry.
The report found that the Aboriginals were unarmed, and claims by authorities of gunshots were falsified.
We haven’t figured out how to amend for the crimes of our past, including the residential schools, and Aboriginal issues continue to challenge policy writers.
But there is some good news.
The recent cabinet appointment of Michael Bryant, former Attorney General for Ontario, to the newly created position of Minister of Aboriginal Affairs does demonstrate some willingness by the government to take these issues seriously.
(LawIsCool did an interview with Michael Bryant last year, where he gave law students some tips).
Malthusian calculations of high birth rates transforming the demographics of Canada should be quickly dismissed in this context as racist jargon. These were nations and peoples that we destroyed, almost to the point of extinction. It is our responsibility to help restore their glory.
Updates
- Stageleft has provided a list of papers covering the subject.
- See the comments for a lively discussion among some of LawIsCool blawgers.
References
(1) Gavriel D. Rosenfeld. The Politics of Uniqueness: Reflections on the Recent Polemical Turn in Holocaust and Genocide Scholarship. Holocaust and Genocide Studies 1999 13(1):28-61.
Thanks to Ali Ahmed of Osgoode Hall for the heads up.
