|
Prince Albert Daily Herald, Tuesday, April 8, 2008
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 has
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, '02, in Saskatoon,
organized to oppose yet another detrimental policy
imposed on First Nation's 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."
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.
This 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, Mr. Ahenakew's apology. It wasn't good
enough. They wanted "more," opting to pursue the
proverbial pound of flesh. 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 off-spring 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 Lukowski who, having grossly attacked homosexuals,
was upon his mea culpa instantaneously forgiven by the
Conservative government.)
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 an
ass."
Marjaleena Repo is a freelance writer who lives in
Saskatoon. She can be reached at
mrepo@sasktel.net
Back
Top |