Ahenakew, Offensive Speech, Ignorance and Political Correctness

Please note: Links do not always show up in blue; sometimes they are a hardly visible dark wine or rust colour; it comes with the template. I shall try to fix this.


The National Post editorial today is excellent on David Ahenikew's anti-Jewish speech:

"As the prosecutor told Mr. Ahenakew, he is a former native leader, "not an unsophisticated individual from some remote northern band"

That was followed by chants of "That's a racist remark, racist."

"It is getting to be hypocritical for natives and other minorities to play the victim card which has been all too familiar among natives. . . . But in Mr. Ahenakew's case, in which the card is being played to justify praise for history's greatest atrocity, it is particularly offensive."

Letter: 'It never ends with just the Jews' National Post, April 7, 2005

I agree with (letter writer) Mr. Krall's sentiments on David Ahenikew's anti-Jewish speech; however, I see problems with attempting to define hate speech, one being, who defines it? Because the definition may encompass speaking truths that would be better out in the open than lurking and simmering in the background if suppressed, I am leery of 'hate speech' legislation. Ideas must see the light of day if we are to combat them. Ahenakew' speech reveals much that must be addressed, which I shall attempt to explain.

* David Ahenakew formerly represented the Assembly of First Nations as their chief and presently, as a recipient of the Order of Canada; as such a recipient he should represent the cream of native education, thought and action -- but he is not a good representative for Indian education--or is he a fair representation of the result of his education, but we just don't talk about it? At any rate, his expression taints the Order.

Mr. Ahenikew's Canada Council award was granted because of his services to Indian education. As a representative of native education, he is a walking advertisement for an appalling education and he provided a negative influence in his leadership. In my opinion, native education is in a perilous state and this should be discussed. If our media and government would stop papering over the reality -- speaking in hushed, reverential, uncritical tones about various aspects of first nations' culture, education, 'stewardship of the land' and the realities of native life -- if, instead, they would present the truth as it is, then an effort could be made to address the inadequacies. But that is not happening -- at least not adequately.

In the case of Former Assembly of First Nations chief David Ahenakew, on hearing his words, my first thoughts were where was he educated and was he educated? Then I considered the calibre of native schooling (what I know of it), along with its emphasis on native studies/issues/etc., to the detriment of and to the exclusion of a good, wide-ranging, general education, in my opinion. Then I dismissed his comments as coming from an ill-educated fool. I was saddened, but not really surprised that this was the thinking of a prominent native chief, whether expressed publicly or privately. Certainly, I would not be swayed by his words, once I had considered the source, but if we do not hear his words, how are we to know?

Is that enough? There is much to be said for stopping hateful speech; nevertheless, consider the following.

* Speaking truth about anything in Canada is rapidly becoming forbidden, whether in fact (hate crimes legislation) or in effect (It is not politically correct to mention the obvious about some issues).

How are Canadians to address problems if free speech does not allow us to know that these ideas exist and are spoken? (Frankly, I had no idea a leader would think, feel and express such, which just goes to show how insulated I, and others, are.)

This is a problem in all areas of discourse in Canada, not just with the Mr. Ahenakews.

Right now, Ottawa insiders and those who have attended the Gomery Inquiry know what has been said--which may or may not be true--BUT those who pay the bills, the Canadian citizens, are not privy to the testimony. This means that, in another circumstance (or in this), government, politicians and ex-politicians may act to stop the flow of information which might do them harm by revealing the truth. In this case, the information must get out. When the free flow of ideas, words, testimony is curtailed, we do not know where the problems lie and those who make the rules have the advantage. Particularly in this case, the Liberal government has revealed itself incompetent or worse, to judge, and with an interest in curtailing free speech, even if it is truth.

The following deals with another topic but it is relevant; read to the end of the excerpt.

"Little Eichmanns" and "Digital Brownshirts" -- Deconstructing the Hitlerian slur Victor Davis Hanson, Hoover Institute, Posted by Joan O'C on 22:51:15 2005/04/05

[. . . . ] So what gives with this crazy popular analogy - one that on a typical Internet Google search of "Bush" + "Hitler" yields about 1,350,000 matches? [comparing Mr. Bush to Hitler]

One explanation is simply the ignorance of the icons of our popular culture. A Linda Ronstadt, Garrison Keillor, or Harold Pinter knows nothing much of the encompassing evil of Hitler's regime, its execution of the mentally ill and disabled, the systematic cleansing of the non-Aryans from Europe, or mass executions and starvation of Soviet prisoners. Like Prince Harry parading around in his ridiculous Nazi costume, quarter-educated celebrities who have some talent for song or verse know only that name-dropping "Hitler" or his associates
gets them some shock value that their pedestrian rants otherwise would not warrant.

Ignorance and arrogance are a lethal combination.

[. . . . ] If the sick analogy to Hitler is intended to conjure up a mass murderer, then the 20th century's two greatest killers, Mao and Stalin, who slaughtered or starved somewhere around 80 million between them, are less regularly evoked. Perhaps that omission is because so many of the mass demonstrators, who bore placards of Bush's portrait defaced with Hitler's moustache, are overtly leftist and so often excuse extremist violence - whether in present-day Cuba or Zimbabwe - if it is decorated with the rhetoric of radical enforced equality. [. . . . ]

Why does the media parade celebrities or those well known in another field to speak of something of which they know nothing?

Identity politica has given us representatives of identity groups, hyphenated Canadians, whose words are repeated, whether they know what they are talking about or not. This has come out of a striving for equality, probably with the best of intentions. However, there is a difference between equal opportunity and equality of result, granted by someone's decision made through political correctness. What did Mr. Ahenakew do for education, that he merited the award in the first place?