ipl-logo

James Keegstra Case Analysis

1148 Words5 Pages

James Keegstra took his freedom of expression to a limit, which forced the Supreme Court of Canada to answer these difficult questions. Keegstra was a high school teacher in Eckville, Alberta. In 1984, he was charged with the unlawful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group under s.319 (2) of the Criminal Code. These charges were based on his communication of anti-Semitic (anti-Jewish) statements to his students. After being convicted of hate propaganda, the accused felt that his s.2 (b) and s. 11(b) rights of the charter were violated by his conviction under section 319(2) and s. 319(3) of the criminal code (https://prezi.com/ck7ew22d8bd8/supreme-court-case-analysis-r-vs-keegstra/). The court saw these violations of the Charter as constitutional because “the law had a rational connection to its objective, it was not overly limiting, and the seriousness of the violation was not as severe as the content of the hateful expression”. Supreme Court of Canada overstepped in its conclusion that there are limits to Keegstra’s right of expression because section 2 of the Charter should protect …show more content…

The suppression of hate propaganda signifies an infringement of individual’s freedom of expression. An activity that conveys a message through non-violent forms of expression is protected under the s.2 of the Charter regardless of how offensive it is. Moreover, there was a misapplication of Charter, which made s.319 (2) of the Criminal Code to fail the proportionality test. There was no relation between the criminalization of hate speech and its suppression. Although his comments were offensive, they did not pose any threats they way violence or violence threats would have. The meaning Keegstra’s comment conveyed was offensive but it was not from the way the message was formed but the meaning that was attached to it. Section 319(2) does not regulate the tone of expression because it strikes directly at its

Show More
Related

  • First Amendment The Most Important Essay

    601 Words  | 3 Pages

    People say things that others don’t agree with, or they say things that are disrespectful,but that doesn’t mean there’s a law against it, because everyone has a write to speech. ‘’Or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. ’’ What this is trying to say is that you can say anything to anyone you want even if their powerful. But you can get in trouble if you say something threatening.

    Read More

  • Kim Keegestra's Case And Bertham Cates Inherit The Wind

    640 Words  | 3 Pages

    Kim Keegestra’s case and Bertham Cates’ case in Inherit the Wind are similar as both Keegestra and Cates taught in a small town and broke the law, yet Keegestra and Cates are different as to how they taught/interpreted their lessons. One way in which Jim Kessestra and Bertham Cates’ case are similar is through them both breaking the law. Firstly, Keesgestra promotes hatred against an identifiable group (Jews) that violates the law. Though it was his opinion and we know in Canada that every Canadian has the rights of freedom of speech though what Keegestra did was different since he was expressing his own opinion about his hatred for Jewish people into his classroom. During his first trial, “he was charged with unlawfully promoting hatred against

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Emily Murphy's Case: A Defining Moment For Canada

    1526 Words  | 7 Pages

    4)Robert J. Sharpe, Patricia I. McMahon Persons Case: The Origins and Legacy of the Fight for Legal Personhood. Toronto: Univ of Toronto Press, 2007, 1-206 5) Michael Dorland and Maurice René. Charland, Law, rhetoric and irony in the formation of Canadian civil culture (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002), 218. 6) Vivien Hughes.

    Read More

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

    549 Words  | 3 Pages

    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).

    Read More

  • How Does This Chapter Support Toobin's Overall Point Of The Supreme Court

    1331 Words  | 6 Pages

    “By the mid nineties, the issue couldn’t exclude religious speakers from the list” The new look of religious cases allowed for people to go against the law of religious freedom. - pg 113 “But the stat denied a request heightened the differences between them.” The law of freedom of speech works for many terrible groups of people, making them question if they are actually doing the right thing. Support:

    Read More

  • Wrongful Convictions Book Report

    926 Words  | 4 Pages

    Manufacturing Guilt Wrongful Convictions in Canada, Second Edition, is relevant to the course I am taking Social Inequity and Justice because, like my course this book discusses and examines sociological approaches to social inequity in regard to race and ethnicity and how it effects these groups and their lives. Manufacturing Guilt Wrongful Convictions in Canada, Second Edition is about innocent people that spend many years behind bars, wrongfully committed for crimes they did not commit. When someone is wrongfully convicted, they are being punished for an offence they did not commit and to make matters worse the actual perpetrator of the crime goes free. Many people that do get exonerated their applications take years in the federal review

    Read More

  • Turner V. Safley Case Study

    620 Words  | 3 Pages

    In Turner v. Safley (1987), the Supreme Court ruled in favor of restricting prisoners Constitutional rights. According to the ruling, the restriction of rights is Constitution if “reasonably related to legitimate penological [i.e. safety] interests.” Jeffs communicates sermons and regulations from prison, and limiting the community between Jeffs and the hierarchy of Short Creek attempts to severe ties between Jeffs and the FLDS. Satinder Singh, an ACLU attorney, said “…prisoners can limit communication, including mail and visits….However, the prison can’t suppress Jeffs free speech rights just because it doesn’t like what he has to say (Singh).” While Jeffs ideologies continue to dictate the infrastructure of Short Creek, minimizing communication enhances the chances of stopping the theocratic rule in Short Creek.

    Read More

  • Rhetorical Analysis Of Students Fight Assault On History By Leonard Pitts

    1141 Words  | 5 Pages

    For example, Pitts refers to the school board’s decision as an act of “intellectual vandalism.” Obviously, the word “vandalism” has an extremely negative connotation, and Pitts’ decision to describe the ruling this way causes the audience to view it as a true crime against students. Undoubtedly, much of Pitts’ audience is composed of parents, so the use of the word “vandalism” also garners many feelings of anger, as the majority of parents would be truly outraged if an act of vandalism such as this were committed against their own child. Even the title of the article describes the ruling as an “assault” on all students’ basic right to learn their nation’s history. Additionally, Pitts calls the ruling “stagnant, barren and antithetical to progress.”

    Read More

  • Justice Hugo Black And Armbands Essay

    477 Words  | 2 Pages

    15 Armbands Justice Abe Fortas and Justice Hugo Black are arguing if certain kinds of speech should or should not be prohibited in an educational setting. Justice Abe Fortas is arguing the majority opinion which says that speech should not be prohibited in an educational setting. The Justice says, “Undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right of expression,” (4). This means that just because you think something will cause a disturbance and will be bad, that does not give one the right to ban freedom of expression.

    Read More

  • The Pros And Cons Of Hate Speech

    1152 Words  | 5 Pages

    The ability to speak freely is written in the bill of rights and has been preserved for decades, but when free speech turns into hate speech it brings up the widely deliberated issue about banning hate speech. There are many different perspectives on the issue of hate speech. Author of Hate Speech is Free Speech, Gov. Dean and Law professor, Glenn Harlan Reynolds, applies a strong historical perspective on the situation arguing that people are “constitutionally illiter[ate]” when they make the claim that hate speech is not part of the First Amendment. Believing that it is impossible to ban hate speech because everyone will always disagree with any idea, Reynolds focuses on the problems with banning hate speech and what might happen if hate

    Read More

  • Pros And Cons Of The First Amendment

    1203 Words  | 5 Pages

    This case clashes with freedom of speech, but it is also about freedom to

    Read More

  • The Benefits Of The Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms

    1219 Words  | 5 Pages

    Before the Charter, many people may argue that Canada was a free and democratic country. Canadians had the freedom of expression, equality and the principles of fundamental justice. What changed with the creation of the Charter was that rights and freedoms were given constitutional status, and judges were given the power to strike down laws that infringed on them. In 1982, most Canadians agreed that the introduction of the Charter was going to monumental. But on the contrary, over 30 years later, numerous laws have been struck down by interpretation of the charter and remedial techniques that have been developed by courts.

    Read More

  • Persuasive Essay On Fighting Words

    680 Words  | 3 Pages

    On the sidewalks of Rochester in the year 1942, Walter Chaplinsky was arrested for repeating ' You are a God damned racketeer' and 'a damned Fascist’ to a police officer. Chaplinsky’s statements violated a New Hampshire law prohibiting offensive, derisive, or annoying words or sounds said unto an individual or party in a public place. He appealed the decision of the District Court, and when it came to the Supreme Court, they came to a profound decision. Supreme Court Justice Murphy said there are certain words that could reasonably result in a fight or a breach of peace when uttered.

    Read More

  • Annotated Bibliography On Overcriminalizing Speech

    1204 Words  | 5 Pages

    The article argues that the courts should only view harmful speech in the same eyes and rule them the same as if they were conduct harms. The source then discusses how many scholars believe that freedom of speech only applies when the benefits outweigh the harms, regarding what is being said. The article does a good job of approaching the problem through a semi-neutral lens. The article clearly lets its opinion be known at times; however, it approaches the opposite side of the argument in a fair manner. The article will be incredibly beneficial because it discusses when freedom of speech should not apply with a neutral approach.

    Read More

  • Advantages Of Freedom Of Speech

    2363 Words  | 10 Pages

    1.0 INTRODUCTION In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), freedom of speech falls under the Article 19 which is the freedom of opinion and expression. It protects one’s freedom ‘to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers’ (The United Nations, 1948). Article 19(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) adds that the freedom of expression could be ‘either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice’. Besides being an individual’s fundamental liberty of expression, Santa Clara University School of Law Professor Russell W. Galloway (1991) states that free speech is the ‘matrix of all other freedoms’.

    Read More

More about James Keegstra Case Analysis

Open Document