|
Deborah Gyapong writes today about that old Jew-hater David Ahenakew, his reinstatement by the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, and the objection to said reinstatement by Indian Affairs Minister Chuck Strahl.
In a way, the case nicely illustrates the limitations of "hate" prosecution. It would seem unlikely that Mr Ahenakew has changed his views on the perfidiousness of Jews after being dragged through legal hell by them for five years and having been "stripped of everything he had". Au contraire, he's clearly a sympathetic figure not just to himself but to his fellow Saskatchewan Indians. I would figure Saskatchewan Indian chiefs are on balance rather less fond of Jews than they were before this thing started. So if the object of "hate" prosecutions is to eradicate ill feelings towards certain groups I doubt it did its job in this case.
On the other hand, I'm all in favour of social ostracism of Ahenakew. I don't know why the government stuck him in the Order of Canada in the first place, but it seems unlikely that he'll be enjoying any more of the photo ops with the Queen he once took for granted. Yet, aside from that high-level pursing of lips, he's not suffering any other meaningful ostracism among his own community.
By way of comparison, consider a less stellar victim of the anti-"hate" regime and one who lacks the support of one of the Canadian mosaic's preferred identity groups. Stephen Boissoin is the more or less penniless pastor clobbered by the Alberta "Human Rights" Commission for one letter to the newspaper on the subject of homosexuality. Last Sunday, his story was on CBC TV: They interviewed the plaintiff, Darren Lund, but not Mr Boissoin. A couple of weeks before that, The Globe And Mail ran a column by Mr Lund, but rejected one by Mr Boissoin. Before that, The Red Deer Advocate ran a front-page profile of Mr Lund about Mr Boissoin's "hateful" speech, but declined to run a letter by Mr Boissoin.
And so it will go, forever and ever. The thought police have declared him a non-person. For years to come, "human rights" crusaders like Mr Lund will make reference to the importance of "the Boissoin case" and of taking a stand against "Boissoin's hateful speech", but Boissoin the person will have no right of reply, even in the local newspaper, which will have no desire to attract the attentions of Lund and his enforcers.
Go back to the Sock Puppet Three, still fraudulently claiming to be the "complainants" in the cases against Maclean's. They piously insist that they went to the “human rights” enforcers because they were only trying to “start a debate”, and mean old Maclean’s was preventing their voices from being heard. They have repeated this mournful plea in TV appearances on the CBC, CTV, TVO plus in lengthy editorials they’ve written for, at last count, The Globe And Mail, The National Post, The Toronto Star, The Toronto Sun, The Ottawa Citizen, The Calgary Herald, the Montreal Gazette, the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, The London Free Press, and no doubt a few other publications. That’s the reality of Canada’s “Islamophobic” media: They’ve been given acres of op-ed real estate to yell at full volume that their voices are being silenced and all they want to do is start a debate – even though, in none of their many columns, do they actually start it.
Mr Boissoin, by contrast, has been entirely silenced. This is the real punishment of the "human rights" racket, and, unlike a regular jail term from a proper court, it's a sentence without end.
|
