In the interest of fair-play, who should be saying sorry?

[MHz]

Being found not guilty should mean that the things he lost should be restored. The article also alludes that the 'Jewish community' has to 'okay' the verdict. Rather than him apologizing (which he does) it should be everybody who was critical of his words (and publicly stating so)saying sorry to him for falsely accusing him of crimes he did not commit and giving him a big fat cheque as a sign of partial compensation
Now if these sorts of things can be brought against somebody then the reason those 'penalties' are there better be based on an awful lot of documents that agree with each other in every respect. Now there is also the issue of the things that were taken away before the 'final verdict' was even handed down, as it is this may just be the 'latest'.

CBC.ca Mobile
(in part)
Ahenakew made "derogatory and insulting" statements about "immigrants" that he took to mean anyone who was not aboriginal, with special attention on Jewish people, Tucker said.
However, the remarks appeared to be spontaneous and not an attempt to spread hatred of Jews, Tucker said.
The story that ran in the paper the day after the conference shocked the country. Ahenakew had his Order of Canada taken away from him and was removed as an FSIN senator.
Ahenakew's lawyer, Doug Christie, said last week that he was expecting a guilty verdict on Monday and there would likely be an appeal if that were the case.
After the decision was handed down, Christie said he hoped the Jewish community and the attorney general were satisfied and the decision would mark the end of the case.
"How many times does a person have to apologize for making a mistake?" he said.

PS Why wasn't this settled by the Native courts?

 

[Ron in Regina]

MHz....Congrat's on hitting 1700 postings. This is just a guess here on an answer
to one of your questions, but I'm assuming this wasn't handled in a "Native Court"
to avoid the appearance of a bias....again, I'm just guessing at this.

 

[karrie]

aren't native courts reserved for crimes that occur within the native community (I will readily admit I may be wrong there.... going to google)? His didn't... his drug the Jewish community into it.

 

[MHz]

Yes please do look it up, the accidental deaths of those two kids would seem to be a fairly serious matter yet tribal law got jurisdiction. Surely the Jewish community would have been in favor of whatever chastisement the band thought fair. If this one was pursued for 6 years it was quite serious.

I would look it up but there is a chance I would post an article about a Jewish person being chastised by his community for crimes committed in the Gentile world instead.

If the reason for that gathering was to do with Tribal matters (the form that was mentioned) then it was tribal in nature even if the meeting was off the Reservation.

Neither of you touched on the actual question. If a 'group' can yield that much influence (to determine how Native Americans can speak to members of the same group) then should their reasons for this 'privilege' be open to examination to verify that the claims are indeed true events? Nor did you touch on the subject on if he is entitled to compensation from his false (public) accusers. That is very telling on how much power that special group has over you.

 

[karrie]

Yes please do look it up, the accidental deaths of those two kids would seem to be a fairly serious matter yet tribal law got jurisdiction. Surely the Jewish community would have been in favor of whatever chastisement the band thought fair. If this one was pursued for 6 years it was quite serious.

Those girls were natives, on native land. Jews, are not natives, living on native land. I think it's a pretty simple concept. And there was no 'court'. It was in court the same as any other case, it was only the sentencing that the natives got say over. Not the same thing.

As for the rest... I really don't give a crap to try and have another round of anti-semitic talks. I'm fed up with the ones that are already on the board. There's a reason I ignored the bulk of your post, and will continue to do so, due to my annoyance with the Nazi holocaust deniers, NOT due to any sway anyone else holds over me.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Yes please do look it up, the accidental deaths of those two kids would seem to be a fairly serious matter yet tribal law got jurisdiction. Surely the Jewish community would have been in favor of whatever chastisement the band thought fair. If this one was pursued for 6 years it was quite serious.

I would look it up but there is a chance I would post an article about a Jewish person being chastised by his community for crimes committed in the Gentile world instead.

If the reason for that gathering was to do with Tribal matters (the form that was mentioned) then it was tribal in nature even if the meeting was off the Reservation.

Neither of you touched on the actual question. If a 'group' can yield that much influence (to determine how Native Americans can speak to members of the same group) then should their reasons for this 'privilege' be open to examination to verify that the claims are indeed true events? Nor did you touch on the subject on if he is entitled to compensation from his false (public) accusers. That is very telling on how much power that special group has over you.

MHz....read through the transcript of what Ahenakew said, and decide for yourself
if any accusations made against this Ahenakew where "false" or not. The things this
guy says are pretty racist and ugly. From: David Ahenakew July 8, 2005 - Wikisource

"Q. You agree with them?
A. The Jews damn near owned all of Germany. Prior to the war. That, that's how Hitler came in, that he was gonna make damn sure that the Jews didn't take over Germany or Europe. That's why he fried six million of them you know.
Q. Okay. D'you think that it was a good thing that he, that he killed six million Jews? Isn't that a horrible thing?
A. Well, Jews, Jews owned the goddamn world and look at what they're doing. They're killing people in the Arab countries. I was there, I was there.
Q. I know, but how can you justify the holocaust? Six million?
A. You know, how, how do you get rid of a, a, a, you know, a disease like that that's gonna take over, that's gonna dominate, that's gonna everything, and the poor people, they ...
Q. How were they taking over Germany? How were they taking over Germany?
A. They owned the banks, they owned the factories, they owned everything. They loaned money out to the peasants knowing damn well that they can't pay it back so they took their land.
Q. Well, how is it that the Germans mounted a war effort without the Jews because the Jews by that time were gone, because a lot of the German companies were owned by Germans. And I'm talking about Krupe (phonetic).
A. In name only
Q. But the Krupe
A. In name only
Q. Krupe have made ah, some of the best guns for the German army, ah, those various chemical companies that were owned by, I mean, the Germans owned the German economy.
A. Well, I'm not gonna argue with you about the Jews.
Q. Okay
A. Or the Germans or anybody else. All I know is what the Germans told me when I was there two years.
Q. And you believe them.
A. Of course I believe them.
Q. But they, weren't
A. Well, because I saw the Jews kill people in, in the Egypt when I was over there. And the Palestinians, the Egyptians, the, the Arabs, generally, eh. I saw them ****ing dominate everything.
Q. But wasn't Canadian army, ah, over in Europe to, to liberate the Jews, in a sense?
A. No, no, no, to liberate the world, not the Jews.
Q. To liberate the world (inaudible)
A. We didn't give a damn about the Jews.
Q. But to liberate the world from a dictatorship that was killing people, killing Jews, killing gypsies, killing homosexuals, killing all sorts of people.
A. Exactly. Wanna clean up the world. I, I don't support Hilter but I ....
Q. That's what it sounds like.
A. Well, you know, he cleaned up a hell of a lot of things, didn't he? You'd be, you'd be dominated by, you'd be owned by the Jews right now the world over. Look at a small little country like that and everybody supports them, the States, who in the hell owns many of the banks in the States, many of the corporations, many, well, look it her in Canada, ASPER.
Q. Yeah.
A. (Inaudible) ASPER, he controls the media.
Q. Yeah
A. Well, what the hell does that tell you? You know, that's power.
Q. Well, what does it tell you.
A. That's ****ing power.
Q. What, what, yeah, so, he's a Jewish man that owns a bunch of newspapers but there are, there are English people, there are (inaudible). There are non-Jews that own the media companies, there are non-Jews that ....
A. Anyway, anyway, to hell with the Jews. I can't stand them and that's it.
Q. Okay
A. Don't talk about them.
Q. Okay."
_______________________
Decide for yourself.

 

[MHz]

MHz....read through the transcript of what Ahenakew said, and decide for yourself

I read several reports on this. The main issue is that he was found not guilty, legally he should not be chastised by the community for anything, let alone losing a position in the community prior to the final outcome of the charges. He did apologize, the question I'm asking is that a not guilty verdict should absolve him of any 'prior punishments' and an apology from the Jewish community if they were instrumental or vocal about this charge.

 

[karrie]

I read several reports on this. The main issue is that he was found not guilty, legally he should not be chastised by the community for anything, let alone losing a position in the community prior to the final outcome of the charges. He did apologize, the question I'm asking is that a not guilty verdict should absolve him of any 'prior punishments' and an apology from the Jewish community if they were instrumental or vocal about this charge.

He was found not guilty of hate crimes, not absolved of being a racist ass. You behave in a way that's unbecoming of your status in the community, you're going to have your Order membership yanked, whether it was criminal or not, as you no longer qualify for their criteria. Simple as that. Just because it was found not to be criminal, doesn't mean it wasn't hateful of him. The Jewish community owes him no apology for seeking the courts' weigh in on the matter.

 

[MHz]

Now that this is settled (after 6 years) would it not also be appropriate that everybody in the public-eye was held accountable to the very same standards. Before the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq any American politician could demonize either of those places with impunity from any sort of 'back-lash' in the main-stream papers let alone a court-room. That can also be said of the words said by both Washington and Israel against Iran. They can say anything they want, they can lie in public all they want, absolutely anything without any fear of reprisal from any-corner. Adulation in the press is the usual outcome even though what they are publically promote is at least as racist as the incident that is the focal point of this thread.

Can it be honestly said that both sides are held to the very same standards?

The adjectives used in 10 different articles describing Mr. Ahenakew's charactor are not much different from his original comments that started all this.

How many Canadians have ended up in court for calling a First Nations person by a term that is just as hateful? Has anybody ever ended up in a hate-crime trial because of something said against somebody who is a Muslim, no cartoons that they find offensive are laughed about by the majority in the west, certainly by that one class of people who is very sensitive to racial slurs. Jews were never vocal about that being wrong.
Laws have to be equally applied, this is one that I can't find evidence that Jews face this crime as often as non-jews.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Have you heard of Ezra Levant, or John Pontes???

Start here: Man was 'deeply hurt'

 

[MHz]

Quite a few disasters in his life after that event, I personally think they would have transpired even he had been left alone that one day.
The fine may have been zero if he had attended court.

 

[Ron in Regina]

MHz, once someone is in front of a Human rights Tribunal, unless their
pockets are very-very deep, the odds of being found innocent are very
slim. Check this one out. I know Orville and he was set up here. this is
an ugly story. Ezra Levant beat his because a newspaper partially
financed his fight, but it still cost him something like $100,000.00 or so.
Orville didn't have that backing or bankroll, so he lost. John Pontes knew
it would cost himself much less to be found guilty than to fight and try to
prove him innocence. Check this one out:

Rights tribunal rebukes marriage commissioner in same-sex ruling

"In testimony before the tribunal on Jan. 31 and Feb. 1, 2007, the complainant —
who can only be identified as M.J. due to a publication ban — testified he was
devastated when he telephoned Nichols on April 18, 2005, to make arrangements
for the ceremony."

"M.J. testified Nichols confirmed a date on which he could perform the marriage
ceremony, but when told it would be a same-sex ceremony, Nichols said his
religious beliefs would not permit him to perform the ceremony."

"And while Nichols did provide the name of a marriage commissioner who
subsequently performed the ceremony on May 5, 2005, the initial refusal was
damaging, according to testimony from M.J.'s spouse, identified as B.T."