Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Some things don't change

Adam Radwanski, April 2, 2008 at 1:04 PM EST

Good for Chuck Strahl.

"[H]e's apologized, he's won an appeal, he's been stripped of everything he had, including an opportunity to make a living, and he has not repeated that mistake in over five years," FSIN Chief Lawrence Joseph says in defence of David Ahenakew's reinstatement. "Let's be reasonable."

Okay, let's. For starters, does anyone reasonably believe that Ahenakew is no longer a raging anti-Semite?

What always bothers me in these sorts of cases are the attempts to chalk up the most nauseating explosions of bigotry to mere out-of-character slip-ups. There are things we all do occasionally that are out of character, and there are rare cases where even a racial slur might qualify. But suggesting that Hitler was doing the right when he "fried six million of those guys" isn't something that can be dismissed as out-of-character. It instead tells us exactly what sort of character that person is, of what lurks inside them, even if they usually have enough restraint to keep it under the surface. Because people who don't believe these things deep down don't spontaneously start spewing them.

That there's some question as to whether what Ahanakew said was a hate-crime - or whether it should be - is beside the point. So is his apology. He's paid enough of a public price that it seems gratuitous to drag him before any more courts, and if he were young enough to need work it would be wrong to deprive him of it. As it is, letting him go off and live quietly in peace somewhere is probably best for all concerned. But the fact that he's learned his lesson about stating his views publicly doesn't mean he no longer holds them. And as long as he holds them, he should be nowhere near a position of honour.

  1. Robert McClelland from London, Canada writes: "For starters, does anyone reasonably believe that Ahenakew is no longer a raging anti-Semite?"

    Well, I never believed he was a raging anti-Semite to begin with. He could very well be, but one outburst does not even come close to providing sufficient evidence to label him as one.
  2. MJ Patchouli from Regina, Canada writes: Chuck arrived a little late -- Premier Wall has already publicly stated this re-appointment cannot stand. The Senate Chief Marcel Head has resigned and so have other prominent Aboriginal leaders stepped down because of this decision.

    Chief Lawrence Joseph, who certainly comes across as a bitter racist whenever he's on the news, better do some thinking if neither the federal or provincial governments will do business with FSIN.
  3. colin broughton from Edmonton, Canada writes: I spent the first 25 years of my life in Saskatchewan. There are no racists in Saskatchewan, so long as you don't count people who hate Natives and Pakistanis. I would describe Saskatchewan as the Alabama of Canada.

    And of course most people are smart enough to put on their best behavior around strangers, especially reporters. Political correctness has driven a lot of the old attitudes underground, but there they are, right beneath the surface.

    Racism amongst Saskatchewan's aboriginal community is a natural reaction to the way they have been treated. It would be hypocritical to banish Ahenakew forever simply because he is so representative of the social norms of Saskatchewan.

    I speak these truths with genuine sadness. We all have to deal with the world as it is, not as we might wish it to be.

    That said, Adam, I tend to agree with your conclusion.
  4. Go Oilers Go! from Canada writes: Robert McClelland from London, Canada writes: "Well, I never believed he was a raging anti-Semite to begin with. He could very well be, but one outburst does not even come close to providing sufficient evidence to label him as one." Sorry Robert but I think you are wrong. It wasn't one outburst; it was prolonged rant filled with hate and ignorance. A racial slur or one sentence comment can be counted as a slip up or outburst. A paragraph of anti-Semite propaganda highlights his belief system pretty clearly. He in no way should be re-instated.
  5. Robert McClelland from London, Canada writes: A sentence or a paragraph; it doesn't matter. It was still just one incident and it doesn't justify hanging a label on him or demanding that everyone ostracize him from the community for all eternity.
  6. rob ballantyne from La Ronge, SK, Canada writes: I believe racism is over-rated from the Aboriginal perspective. Aboriginal politicians have lobbied for the betterment of all Aboriginal peoples, and have gone up against a white predominant ruling class society. Last I checked, (depending which stats you quote) Aboriginal people make up 4.3 percent of the overall Canadian population. The politics of race is a reality for Aboriginal politicians. Government policy on Aboriginal peoples is dictated by the status quo, the dominant society of Canadian population, to which is continuously reverberated by the mass media in terms of promoting and maintaining the status quo. Some would go as far and argue the mass media designs and manifests public opinion for the purpose of Government policy agenda. With that in mind, David Ahenakew is a veteran Aboriginal politician, from his perspective, he is/was a veteran on politics of race. Now, I do not agree, nor condone the comments he made about the Jews. I believe somewhere along the way in his political lobbying against a white dominant society of the nation state, in his resolve someone fed him the garbage about his distorted views on historical facts of WW2 holocaust, and ran with it. Freedom of expression means to express the right to say dump things, every now and then. I believe he has learned his lesson, because before he made his controversial comments. He believed he was untouchable and believed that he earned the right to say whatever he wanted. Many people within the establishment of the FSIN did not dare to speak against him or disagree with him on any issues. Indeed, he was on his “high horse”. Aboriginal philosophy dictates that it is morally wrong to place elders or any other people on a pedestal, because they are only human, and as such are capable of making mistakes like any other human being. Once a person or society puts people on a pedestal it is very hard to bring them down, and when they do come down, they come down hard.
  7. Ruth Walker from Edmonton, Canada writes: If we are going to be fair and even on this question, we will have to pull down the statues to the Famous Five.

    For all their good qualities and important accomplishments, they were vile racists.

    I am not suggesting tolerance for racism and hate, just some honesty.

Join the Conversation, Leave a Comment

This conversation is semi-moderated What is moderation? | How do I report a comment?

You must be logged-in to submit a comment — login now!

Not registered with globeandmail.com? Register now. It is quick and free.

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to Adam Radwanski

Back to top