R. V. Keegstra : In Support of the Dissent Submitted in partial fulfillment of requirement for PHL613‚ Philosophy of Law Sean Peters 500 204 129 April 11‚ 2012 Table of Contents Introduction 1 Overview of R. V. Keegstra 2 Why does Freedom of Speech in Democracy Matter? 2 Factors of the Offense Principle 3 Why not Moralism? 4 Philosophical Analysis 4 Criticism 6 Recommendations 7 Conclusion 8 Appendices 9 Appendix
Premium Freedom of speech Hate speech Human rights
into the garage and put her in his car‚ he then turned the engine on and poisoned her with carbon monoxide. Tracey’s mother was not involved in this‚ Latimer denied killing her at first but he later then confessed for his actions .In the trial R. V Latimer (1997) Robert was convicted for second degree murder although the Supreme
Premium English-language films Family American films
CRIMINOLOGY: R. v. Grant We can apply different theories of criminology at any time in our everyday lives as police officers. Criminology is an interdisciplinary profession built around the scientific study of crime and criminal behaviour‚ including their forms‚ causes‚ legal aspects‚ and control. In the fallowing‚ I will identify a few theories that are the essential reasoning behind the criminal in this case. The case history of R. v. Grant is that‚ Grant‚ an eighteen year old at the time
Premium Sociology Crime Criminology
Year 12 Legal Studies Crime Assessment Steven Fraser - R v Fraser - Murder of children Legal Citation: R v Fraser [2003] NSWSC 965 and R v Fraser [2004] NSWSC 53 Elements of the Offence: Steven Fraser murdered his three children – Ashley (7)‚ Ryan (5)‚ and Jarrod (4) – on the weekend of the 18 – 19 August‚ 2001. They were staying in his Caringbah apartment on a custody visit‚ where Steven was living after separating with his wife Maria Chona two months prior. Ryan and Jarrod were given doses
Premium Murder Crime Capital punishment
Case Brief By: Ashley Tam R. v. Martineau (1991)‚ 58 C.C.C. (3d) 353 (S.C.C.) Facts: The appellant‚ Martineau‚ was convicted of second-degree murder under s. 213(a) and (d) of the Criminal Code but the decision was overturned by the Alberta Court of Appeal who concluded that s. 213(a) violated ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and could no longer be in effect. The issue was brought before the Supreme Court of Canada whether or not the appeal court was correct in
Premium Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Abortion Canada
In R v Hoyle (No 2)‚ the Court considers the sentencing of the offender‚ Arthur Hoyle‚ who was found guilty of an act of indecency without consent and sexual intercourse without consent. While determining an appropriate sentence‚ the Court had reference to three medical reports tendered on behalf of the offender‚ the authors of which each had “a different speciality.” The medical history of the offender and the subsequent diagnosis provided by the medical reports presented a unique challenge to the
Premium Law Jury Judge
Case Brief: R v.Shankar Citation: Regina v. Corey Shankar‚ 2007 ONCA 280 (CanLII) Facts: The accused was driving his car without the required laminated taillights when officers pulled him over late October 2004. The police asked Shankar for his licence‚ registration‚ and insurance. The accused handed over a licence in the name of Jason Singh‚ the insurance information handwritten on an informal yellow sticky note‚ and a photocopy of the vehicle registration. When inquired about the spelling of
Premium Appeal English-language films Judgment
Written by Sambhav Dhawan Advocating for the Appellant Multani v. Commission Scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys and Attorney General of Quebec The appellant Balvir Singh Multani and his son Gurbaj Singh Multani are orthodox Sikhs 1. Gurbaj Singh‚ born in 19892‚ as being a devoted Sikh follower. Gurbaj believes that his religion requires him to wear a kirpan at all times. A kirpan is as small religious object which symbolizes the purity of the faith and his commitment to defend it3.It bears a
Premium Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
THABO MELI v R Fact of the case : The defendants had taken their intended victim to a hut and plied him with drink so that he became intoxicated. They then hit the victim around the head‚ intending to kill him. In fact the defendants only succeeded in knocking him unconscious‚ but believing the victim to be dead‚ they threw his body over a cliff. The victim survived but died of exposure some time later. The defendants were convicted of murder‚ and appealed to the Privy Council on the ground that
Premium Causality Death Criminal law
The following case being summarized‚ R. v. Labaye is about a brothel that was in operation in Montreal called “L’Orage” in which was viewed by some members of the community a as a “bawdy house” which is an archaic term used to describe a setting in which individuals can partake in consensual acts of group sex and masturbation. The actions and activities that members of this club were involved in were done in a safe setting in which everything was done consensually. Due to the objective nature of
Premium Law Supreme Court of the United States Jury