A friend of mine just instant messaged me with this link, along with a message that seemed to anticipate that I'd turn all squeamish and descend into carefully contrived logic to justify David Ahenakew's persecution, and by extension, defend my pro-Ezra Levant logic.
I was sorry to let him down, and I'm sorry to let down anybody who was planning to come out of the woodwork and say "gotcha!', but sorry, I'll state unambiguously: I do not support the charges against David Ahenakew.
If anything, the David Ahenakew case is a textbook example of why we don't need to prosecute "hate speech". Mr. Ahenakew is an anti-semite, who's views have led him to be stripped of his Order of Canada, he has be expelled from his memberships in native organizations; he has been publicly, and effectively ostracized. He is a sad man, who's hatred got him exactly what he deserved.
Throwing this man in jail is an overstep of the state's authority. It is not neccessary, and the lower court was right to throw the conviction out.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Pretty much agreed on there. Sensitive people are far too sensitive. Freedom of speech should be absolute, with the understanding that if you say "all Jews should burn in crematoriums", you will suffer severe social consequences which may ultimately affect your ability to even remain a member of society.
Indeed. The fact that that odious, pusillanimous, small-souled little man has been exposed for what he is is punishment enough, now decent folk know to avoid and shun him.
It must be hell, living with himself day in and day out, never able to escape the putrescence of his own hate. If I were a bigger man than I am I might feel sorry for him, but I'm not and I don't.
Shunning works!
The parallel is not Levant to Ahenakew. The parellel is whether the media should reprint what's controversial, i.e. the parellel is between the controversial words (Ahenakew) and the controversial images (Jyllands-Posten). In both cases the Canadian media (western standard in the latter case) felt it was necessary to show us what was controversial so that we could understand the story.
Post a Comment