RCMP to investigate Hitler comments

XPViking · Post by **XPViking** » 2002-12-16 10:42pm

Here's the link to the Globe and Mail article.

http://globeandmail.com/servlet/Article ... eakingnews

Thoughts? Comments?

XPViking

C.S.Strowbridge · Post by **C.S.Strowbridge** » 2002-12-17 12:22am

I think we should fry his ass.

zombie84 · Post by **zombie84** » 2002-12-17 12:25am

i think his freedom of speech overrides this. People have the right to say whatever they wish; if it were a crime to do so, the KKK and white supremists woudlnt exist. I and others may not agree or approve of what he said but this is a free country you know. You cant charge a man for having an opinion.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-12-17 12:33am

I don't know if it falls under Section 319. It depends on if it did publicly incite hatred. And that is the applicable law it seems like. I don't agree with it and think it is hatred and stuff, but I don't know if it is technically breaking any laws. And as for freedom of speech, I'm not up to how that exactly works in Canada.

XPViking · Post by **XPViking** » 2002-12-17 02:19am

Okay. Here's section 319

Public incitement of hatred
319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Wilful promotion of hatred
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Defences
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

(b) if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject;

(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

Forfeiture
(4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on such conviction, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.

Exemption from seizure of communication facilities
(5) Subsections 199(6) and (7) apply with such modifications as the circumstances require to section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section.

Consent
(6) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

Definitions
(7) In this section,

"communicating" «communiquer»
"communicating" includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means;

"identifiable group" «groupe identifiable»
"identifiable group" has the same meaning as in section 318;

"public place" «endroit public»
"public place" includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied;

"statements" «déclarations»
"statements" includes words spoken or written or recorded electronically or electro-magnetically or otherwise, and gestures, signs or other visible representations.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 319; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 203.

http://www.golishlaw.com/statutes/ccc.htm

XPViking

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-12-17 02:37am

Reading the article it seems he can be convicted under that law.

The only thing is that it seemed to be a newspaper so the public place part seems odd. I don't know that much about law though so I don't know if it covers people reading it to be still considered a public "place."

XPViking · Post by **XPViking** » 2002-12-17 03:05am

Neoolong,

According to the article, he made those remarks while addressing an assembly. His remarks were then subsequently reported.

Mr. Ahenakew, 68, who headed the AFN in the 1980s and remains a prominent, made the remarks after addressing a meeting of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, a group he once led. - Globe and Mail

XPViking

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-12-17 08:36am

C.S.Strowbridge wrote:I think we should fry his ass.

My, aren't you the little statist here, CSS Clone?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2002-12-17 08:51am

MKSheppard wrote:
C.S.Strowbridge wrote:I think we should fry his ass.
My, aren't you the little statist here, CSS Clone?

Shut up, Shep. We sick of hearing your paranoid ranting.

C.S.Strowbridge · Post by **C.S.Strowbridge** » 2002-12-17 12:39pm

MKSheppard wrote:
C.S.Strowbridge wrote:I think we should fry his ass.
My, aren't you the little statist here, CSS Clone?

How is that Statist? Do you even know what the word means?

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-12-17 02:03pm

XPViking wrote:Neoolong,

According to the article, he made those remarks while addressing an assembly. His remarks were then subsequently reported.

Mr. Ahenakew, 68, who headed the AFN in the 1980s and remains a prominent, made the remarks after addressing a meeting of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, a group he once led. - Globe and Mail
XPViking

Oh. I thought it was during an interview that he said those things after the speech. Not during the speech. My mistake.

Graeme Dice · Post by **Graeme Dice** » 2002-12-18 12:54am

C.S.Strowbridge wrote:I think we should fry his ass.

I think that this is actually the more interesting of the articles:
http://www.canada.com/regina/leaderpost ... ABD469D175

Apart from his attack on Jews, Ahenakew also referred to non-aboriginal Canadians as "immigrants", criticized the government for interfering in the Saskatchewan Indian Gaming Association and complained about bigotry suffered by his six-year-old great grandson in a Saskatoon school.

He went on to say "40 years down the road we're going to be taking over. . . We're going to be the government . . . You (non-Indians) are going to be the Indians and we're going to be the bosses . . . And you better start preparing right now."

Apparently it's also not correct behaviour for reporters to report the information they hear.

Temjin · Post by **Temjin** » 2002-12-18 01:17am

What is just as disgusting is that Ahenakew has obviously held these poisoned opinions for years. During his speech, he said while he was a soldier in the Canadian Army in Germany during the late 1950s, Germans told him that the Jews had started the war and that they "damn near owned all of Germany prior to the war." He added that Hitler was only trying ensure that Jews didn't take over Germany or Europe and that was why he "fried six million of those guys."

Of course the Germans would have no reason to lie about this. [/sarcasm]

He went on to say "40 years down the road we're going to be taking over. . . We're going to be the government . . . You (non-Indians) are going to be the Indians and we're going to be the bosses . . . And you better start preparing right now."

Sadly, this isn't the first time I have heard something like this.

I also find it interesting that a native activist would refer to himself as an Indian.

C.S.Strowbridge · Post by **C.S.Strowbridge** » 2002-12-18 12:13pm

Graeme Dice wrote:
C.S.Strowbridge wrote:I think we should fry his ass.
I think that this is actually the more interesting of the articles:
http://www.canada.com/regina/leaderpost ... ABD469D175

Apart from his attack on Jews, Ahenakew also referred to non-aboriginal Canadians as "immigrants", criticized the government for interfering in the Saskatchewan Indian Gaming Association and complained about bigotry suffered by his six-year-old great grandson in a Saskatoon school.

He went on to say "40 years down the road we're going to be taking over. . . We're going to be the government . . . You (non-Indians) are going to be the Indians and we're going to be the bosses . . . And you better start preparing right now."
Apparently it's also not correct behaviour for reporters to report the information they hear.

Hopefully he's just a loney and not part of an organized movement.

Engineer_00 · Post by **Engineer_00** » 2002-12-18 05:02pm

It's so pathetic that a native could say something like this. He should be expelled from the First Nations Council at the very least. I completely agree that the RCMP should be investigating his personal life, and furthermore, I believe his charter rights do not protect what he has said. I could never condone this kind of behaviour, and therefore, feel no sympathy for him or his situation.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-12-18 06:45pm

I am of course not familiar with Canadian law, but I will say the following:

Censership is a two way door. If you try to use it to shut someone up, it can come around and hit you in the ass. It is much better to mock, or ignore these idiots than to play their game.