News

Six years on, David Ahenakew finally held his tongue.

Head high, lips pursed, he stood outside the Court of Queen's Bench freshly vindicated by a judge.

All morning he had kept his mouth closed, barely uttering a word to his lawyer, Doug Christie, his daughter, or reporters as he walked into the Saskatoon court.

But now, hemmed in by cameras, reporters and a light Prairie snow, he looked ready to unleash years of pent-up frustration. With one reporter's question – asking Mr. Ahenakew's reaction to the judge labelling his comments about Jews as “disgusting” – the former head of the Assembly First Nations arched his brow and unclamped his jaw a fraction of an inch.

Before he could utter a word, Mr. Christie barked directly at his client: “Don't make another comment. Just wisely say nothing.”

Mr. Ahenakew complied.

Just minutes earlier, a Saskatchewan judge had found Mr. Ahenakew not guilty of willfully promoting hatred, even as he scolded him for “revolting” comments.

In court Monday, Mr. Ahenakew, 75, looked like a man at prayer. Freshly buzz-cut, he crossed his arms and closed his eyes as the judge read a 19-page decision. He didn't flinch when the judge used “disgusting” and “inhumane” to describe the former native leader's comments on December 13, 2002.

On that day, Mr. Ahenakew capped off a keynote speech to a native health conference with an incoherent stream of slurs against “goddamn immigrants.” During the public speech, he alleged that Jews started the Second World War.

Afterwards, a Saskatoon Star-Phoenix reporter pressed Mr. Ahenakew about the remarks, asking how he could say the Holocaust was justified.

“How do you get rid of a disease like that, that's going to take over, that's going to dominate?” Mr. Ahenakew responded. He went on to say the world would “be owned by the Jews right now” if Hitler had not “cleaned up a hell of a lot of things.”

Mr. Ahenakew offered a tearful apology days after the comments circulated in global media reports. He was stripped of his Order of Canada and lost his senate seat with the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations.

A 2005 trial found him guilty of willfully promoting hatred and levied a $1,000 fine. The decision was overturned 11 months later and a new trial ordered.

During the retrial last fall, Mr. Ahenakew insisted he did not “hate Jews but I hate what they do.”

While the judge Monday called Mr. Ahenakew's initial comments “revolting, disgusting and untrue,” he did not find that the former chief ever intended to espouse those views publicly.

In telling the reporter that he didn't want to talk about Jews and eventually walking away from the interview, Mr. Ahenakew actions were not “compatible with someone who was seeking to promote hatred of Jewish people.”

After the verdict, Mr. Ahenakew hugged his daughter and smiled briefly.

His lawyer later chided the Crown for pursuing the case.

“It was a few moments in history that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and really nothing was achieved in terms of harmony or understanding,” said Mr. Christie, who has represented a number of people accused of hate speech in the past, including Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel.

“It's better that we tolerate diverse and sometimes bad opinions than we take them to court and prosecute them.”

Mr. Ahenakew was asked if the ordeal had changed him.

“I'm still the same guy that was born, that served the world, that served the army, that served the people,” he said. “I'm still that same guy. And I'm too damn old now to change anyways.

“Thank God it's over. And I mean that. It has been awful.”

But the case may have life yet. At least one Jewish group is pushing the Crown to revisit the Ahenakew case. Randy Katzman, a spokesman for B'nai Brith, criticized the ruling and said his organization would “either ask the Crown to review or maybe ask for the legislation to be changed.”

Crown prosecutor Sandeep Bains said he will need to scrutinize the ruling further before deciding whether to appeal.

“The case was very important,” he said. “The fact that these comments were noted to be disgusting, untrue and revolting – that's why these cases must be prosecuted.”