How Does Section 319 (2) Of The Criminal Code Prohibits Hate Propaganda

549 Words3 Pages

James Keegstra was a high school teacher in Alberta, who lost his teaching license in 1984. Keegstra taught his students that the Holocaust was made up by the Jews to receive sympathy from society. Therefore, Keegstra was accused of being discriminatory towards the Jewish community. Section 319(2) of the criminal code prohibits hate propaganda, not including in private conversations. Subsection 2(b) of the Charter protects hate propaganda because it is a form of expression. Therefore, subsection 319(2) of the criminal code violated subsection 2(b) of the Charter. Section 319(2) of the criminal code establishes a reasonable limit on freedom of expression under section 1 of the charter. The court found that section 319(2) of the Criminal Code did not violate freedom of expression as guaranteed by section 2(b) of the Charter. The crown appealed the court of appeals decision to the Supreme Court of Canada, in the case R v. Keegstra. In December 1990, the court upheld Keegstra’s conviction because section 319(2) of the Criminal …show more content…

Keegstra appealed to the Court of Queen’s Bench, before his trial, for an order to overturn the charge. The defense argued that the appeal should be allowed because sections 319(2) and 319(3) (a) of the Criminal Code are constitutional. Section 319(3) (a) of the code states that a person cannot be convicted of promoting hate if he or she establishes that the statement is true, guaranteed in section 11 of the Charter. However, Keegstra was unable to demonstrate the truth of the many prejudice statements he made to his students and many of Keegstra’s former students testified against him. Keegstra appealed his conviction and claimed the conviction was in violation of section 2(b). Section 2(b) guarantees freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including the freedom of the press and other media of

Open Document