Crossing the line into hate speechEr, I'm confused. What evil deeds resulted from Ahenakew's evil words? None. (Whereas the hateful words in the Koran about the Jews' evil deeds continue to do no end of harm--are you suggesting we censor them?) And what's up with the palaver about Dave's words not having "criminal consequences"? Sure, his conviction may have eventually been overturned--twice--but not before the dude was dragged through the courts for years. Doesn't that count as a "criminal consequence"?
Re: Mere Hate Should Not Be A Crime, Lorne Gunter, March 12.
We wish that we could share Lorne Gunter's sanguine view that calling for the mass murder of Jews was merely "repulsive and hateful" rather than unlawful. While evil words do not always lead to evil deeds, the connection between statement and action cannot simply be brushed aside. Not every occasion where hateful words are publicly expressed will be found to attract criminal consequences (witness the outcome in the matter of the late David Ahenakew), and that is as it should be, but advocating genocide, inciting violence and willful promotion of hatred do in our opinion cross that line.
Bernie M. Farber, CEO, Canadian Jewish Congress, Toronto.
And why does BMF seem to be approving of the way the Ahenakew hate speech case turned out? Rather disingenuous, I'd say, since at the time of the court battles, BMF was certainly convinced that Dave had "crossed the line" and that the trespass should be punished. Why, now, does he seem to be backtracking?
Wait. Lightbulb flashing over my head. Could it be he's claiming all was "as it should be" (thanks, Candide) in the Ahenakew affair because he doesn't want to say anything that might dissuade authorities from laying criminal hate speech charges against Hossain? (As if.)
Gotta love that royal "our," though. Very Queen Vicki.