R V. Keegstra Summary
R v Keegstra
3S.CRD.697 (1990)
Issue
James Keegstra was a high school teacher at Alberta for 12 years. While teaching, he informed the students that the Jews had various evil qualities. Keegstra told the students that the Jews “created the Holocaust to gain sympathy”. Keegstra also claimed, that Jewish people wanted to destroy Christianity and that the Jews goal was to create war and revolution. As a result of this propaganda act Keegstra was dismissed. However, Keegstra brought his case to the Charter of Rights and Freedom to quash the charge under 319(2) of the Charter. He feels that the Criminal Code unjustifiably infringed his expression as guaranteed by 2(b) of the Charter. He was convicted by a jury; he appealed and raised the Charter …show more content…
The Supreme Court legal issue was that the Charter violated a constitutional limitation. The Supreme Court states that the laws were a suppression of Keegstra freedom of expression. When Keegstra taught his students that the Jewish people were “profound evil” this was his beliefs. Reason being under section 319(2) of the criminal code applied when dismissing the case on section 2 (b) of the Charter-that his right to freedom of expression was violated. The court also believed that Keegstra’s under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom was violated on the presumption of innocent. As the Charter has infringement justifiable under s.1.The court claimed this that Keegstra should be addressed in regards to the freedom of expression and hate speech. The Justices of the Supreme Court saw Keegstra’s speech as not being victimless, but instead degradation and humiliation. The Supreme Court used this case to set a precedent for the freedom of expression on hate speech cases.
Conclusion
Yes. The court finds that this was an infringement of Keegstra’s freedom of expression under Section 2(b) that upheld a reasonable limit prescribed by law in a free and democratic society. The court saw this immensely as a direct freedom of expression values and they disagreed with Alberta Court of Appeals as the appeal’s conclusion is a criminal prohibition of the propaganda that violates the Charter, and would allow the appeals. However the court used the Section 319(2) to satisfy each component of this proportionality
3S.CRD.697 (1990)
Issue
James Keegstra was a high school teacher at Alberta for 12 years. While teaching, he informed the students that the Jews had various evil qualities. Keegstra told the students that the Jews “created the Holocaust to gain sympathy”. Keegstra also claimed, that Jewish people wanted to destroy Christianity and that the Jews goal was to create war and revolution. As a result of this propaganda act Keegstra was dismissed. However, Keegstra brought his case to the Charter of Rights and Freedom to quash the charge under 319(2) of the Charter. He feels that the Criminal Code unjustifiably infringed his expression as guaranteed by 2(b) of the Charter. He was convicted by a jury; he appealed and raised the Charter …show more content…
The Supreme Court legal issue was that the Charter violated a constitutional limitation. The Supreme Court states that the laws were a suppression of Keegstra freedom of expression. When Keegstra taught his students that the Jewish people were “profound evil” this was his beliefs. Reason being under section 319(2) of the criminal code applied when dismissing the case on section 2 (b) of the Charter-that his right to freedom of expression was violated. The court also believed that Keegstra’s under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom was violated on the presumption of innocent. As the Charter has infringement justifiable under s.1.The court claimed this that Keegstra should be addressed in regards to the freedom of expression and hate speech. The Justices of the Supreme Court saw Keegstra’s speech as not being victimless, but instead degradation and humiliation. The Supreme Court used this case to set a precedent for the freedom of expression on hate speech cases.
Conclusion
Yes. The court finds that this was an infringement of Keegstra’s freedom of expression under Section 2(b) that upheld a reasonable limit prescribed by law in a free and democratic society. The court saw this immensely as a direct freedom of expression values and they disagreed with Alberta Court of Appeals as the appeal’s conclusion is a criminal prohibition of the propaganda that violates the Charter, and would allow the appeals. However the court used the Section 319(2) to satisfy each component of this proportionality