How to deal with an anti-Semite

Suppose I told you that the Jews -- not Jews, you understand, but the Jews -- by dint of their vast economic power and secretive blood ties, now held the government of Canada in their thrall; or more delicately, that "the Jewish lobby" exercised such disproportionate sway in the halls of power as to put democracy itself in peril. Well, no need to suppose: I just have. I don't mean a word of it, of course. But suppose I did. Indeed, how do you know I don't: Maybe my disavowals are just pro forma, a bow to political correctness. The point is, whether I believe what I am saying is unknowable. It is also irrelevant. Even if I don't believe it, that is, others may. And having put such thoughts in circulation, I am surely responsible for what follows. In which case, why were the newspapers that reported on David Ahenakew's arraignment, trial and conviction not also charged with the same crime: willful promotion of hatred? The former native leader, as everyone knows by now, uttered the vilest possible sentiments about Jews in an interview with a Saskatchewan newspaper reporter two and a half years ago -- sentiments so hateful and odious as to call into question, not just his morals or his judgment, but his sanity. The standard technique of anti-Semites, after all, is to deny or minimize the Holocaust, not to justify it. I will not repeat his precise words here. I don't have to: They have been repeated, verbatim and at length, countless times in every media outlet in the country. Indeed they gained a great deal more currency, we may be sure, from the prosecution of Mr. Ahenakew than would have been the case had he never been charged. But never mind: If the point of using the law against Mr. Ahenakew was, as the judge who convicted him maintained, that his words were likely to expose Jews to violence, then surely that is true whether they come from Mr. Ahenakew or some reporter. In which case, why were the media not also charged, as one may be held to account for repeating a libel? Let me suggest a reason: Because there is in fact no evidence -- none whatever -- that a single person's safety was in any way put in jeopardy by Mr. Ahenakew's disgusting outburst. Indeed, had the judge himself truly believed there was, he would not have let Mr. Ahenakew off with a $1,000 fine. He would have thrown him in jail. To be sure, the judge said that Mr. Ahenakew's statements comparing Jews to a disease were such as to "invite extremists to take action against them." But so might all manner of statements -- extremists do not generally need much in the way of provocation, more or less by definition. Is it possible that somebody somewhere might find inspiration in his words to do something nasty to somebody else? Maybe. But maybes, mights and somebodies are not ordinarily the business of the law. Ordinarily we insist on evidence, proof, hard facts -- especially, one would think, before going to the extraordinary length of prosecuting someone for the sounds that came out of his mouth. If there were such evidence, there would be no need to charge Mr. Ahenakew with promoting hatred, a law of comparatively recent invention: He could be charged under the longstanding Criminal Code provision against "incitement to violence." The crime of which he has been convicted, then, is unrelated to any harmful act. It is not even about the contents of his speech, the actual words he uttered -- else, as I say, the media would be as guilty. The reason he stands convicted and they do not is because, unlike the media, he believed what he said. We have tried and convicted a man, quite literally, for his thoughts. I rather thought we were past that sort of thing. This is an altogether different matter than whether he should have his status as a member of the Order of Canada revoked. Decent people are entitled to shun the company of bigots and racists, and a free and democratic society is entitled to choose which of its citizens it will honour, and which it will not. If it wishes, by such means, to express its disapproval of certain opinions, it is entitled to do that, too. What it is not entitled to do is to outlaw them. But perhaps you think just stripping him of his OC is insufficient. Here's a suggestion, then: Rather than fining people whose views we don't like, or throwing them in jail, why don't we set up an opposite version of the Order of Canada, a Disorder of Canada if you like: a dishonour roll, a hall of shame, where those who had offended against common decency in some way short of the Criminal Code could be publicly recognized, rather as the Speaker "names" a member of Parliament who has acted up. There could be several ranks and designations: CB (Crashing Bore), TH (Talentless Hack), DLSS (Devious Little So-and-So). The title of SOB, of course, would be reserved for those who had especially distinguished themselves, and I can think of at least one person I might propose for immediate elevation.