As socials studies teachers we are going to be addressing issues surrounding racially sensitive subjects. David Ahenakew is a former aboriginal leader whom during a conferenece stated that Jews started the second world war. Excuses were made for him (apaprently other than being a crusty old bugger at 75 he had been drinking before his speech and his diabetes had caused his blood sugar level to drop), but he did not appear to be disorientated during his speech.
For his comments he was fined $1000; however, this conviction was later over-turned. He was stripped of his order of Canada. The man is on trial again for this 2002 incident.
His lawyer is arguing that his comments were not to intentionally spread hate and that he had made a mistake. For me the question lies between where freedom of speach ends and hate speech begins. I dont' agree with what David said but I hear things that could be construed as hate on a daily basis, such as: muslim terrorists are evil.
Is hate based on popularity? You didn't hear many people getting outraged at what was said about muslims after 911. I hope to be able to give my students the ability to see all sides of an issue. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Without understanding what freedom he is fighting for we cannot hope to acheive a democratic or peaceful solution with anyone.
What David said may be wrong, and innapropriate, but is his opinion spreading hate? Sometimes letting a man look like a fool is enough.
Oh he wa also offered a position on the Canadian senate after this incident. He politley declined.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
Ah, the question of free speech VS human rights in Canada rears its ugly head again. Professor Richard Moon, a University of Windsor Law professor, has recommended that Ottawa repeal Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Code in regards to online hate speech. His position is that only those words which advocate or justify violence should be regarded as criminal hate speech. Otherwise, the role of government censorship expands exponentially to dealing with any comment which can "likely expose identifiable groups to hatred or contempt."
Now, I don't think it's ever a good thing to expose anybody to hatred or contempt. But there are some fundamental problems with the enforcement of federal and provincial human rights laws. In many cases, they're dealt with by Human Rights Commissions rather than in a court of law. Human Rights Commissions do not operate according to standard rules of evidence and are not necessarily presided over by real judges. Ezra Levant cites one case in which the fact that a defendant's case was presented in black and red ink on white paper was used as "evidence" that he was racist against Aboriginal people. Try making that argument hold water in a court of law.
I've become increasingly frustrated with the amount of censorship and discrimination imposed by so-called "liberal" and "tolerant" bodies against those who disagree with the majority view. Such discrimination can be potentially systemic through its institutionalization in powerful bodies such as HRCs (or university Student Unions). After reading about some recent cases, I felt ashamed to call myself Canadian. The following articles at least made me feel that I'm not the only one who's seriously disturbed by the whole situation.
How much have we, as Canadians, been willing to sacrifice for the sake of plodding along our peaceful, polite, non-judgmental, safe path? The answer, I think, is "too much." Free speech isn't comfortable, but then again neither is freedom. You can't have one without the other, and I believe Canadians are in serious danger of losing both.
**************
see http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=904735
and http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=988228
Post a Comment