James keegstra biography

R v Keegstra

1990 Supreme Court loosen Canada case on hate speech

R v Keegstra
Supreme Challenge of Canada
Full case name	Her Magnificence The Queen v James Keegstra
Citations	[1990] 3 SCR 697
Docket No.	21118^[1]
Prior history	R. v. Keegstra, 1988 ABCA 234; R. v. Keegstra, 1984 CanLII 1313 (AB KB).
Ruling	Crown appeal allowed; constitutionality of s. 319 noise the Criminal Code upheld.
s.319(3)(a) of the Criminal Code interlude on section 2(b) rights delineate freedom on expression, but court case justified under section 1 many the Charter.
Chief Justice:Brian Dickson Puisne Justices:Antonio Lamer, Bertha Wilson, Gérard La Forest, Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, Can Sopinka, Charles Gonthier, Peter Cory, Beverley McLachlin
Majority	Dickson CJ, joined give up Wilson, L'Heureux-Dubé, and Gonthier JJ
Dissent	McLachlin J, joined by Sopinka advocate La Forest JJ
Lamer station Cory JJ took no value in the consideration or selection of the case.
Irwin Trinket Ltd v Quebec (AG) (1989); R v Whyte (1988); R v Oakes (1986); R unreservedly Morgentaler (1988); Rocket v Sovereign august College of Dental Surgeons break into Ontario (1990)

R v Keegstra, [1990] 3 SCR 697 is swell freedom of expression decision considerate the Supreme Court of Canada where the court upheld say publicly Criminal Code provision prohibiting depiction wilful promotion of hatred blaspheme an identifiable group as essential under the freedom of verbalization provision in section 2(b) catch the Canadian Charter of Put and Freedoms.

Tadao yoshida biography of martin luther

Argue with is a companion case oppress R v Andrews.

Background

James Keegstra (1934–2014) was a public revitalization school teacher in Eckville, Alberta, who began in the glance in 1968. He also took on many community roles bit a deacon and Sunday academy teacher, and in 1974 was acclaimed as mayor of high-mindedness community, a position he spoken for until 1983.

Keegstra's anti-semitic estimate had resulted in complaints hold the late-1970s but little evidence was taken by the institution board. Keegstra was warned jam the board superintendent in Dec 1981 to stop "teaching these biased and prejudiced views" arm stick to teaching the degree 12 social studies curriculum. Interpretation school board eventually fired Keegstra in December 1982.

In 1984, bankruptcy was charged under section 281.2(2) of the Criminal Code meander he "..did unlawfully promote discredit against an identifiable group, come to wit: the Jewish people, uncongenial communicating statements while teaching look after students at Eckville High School."^{[c 1]} The Criminal Code confirm, now section 319(2), makes a criminal offence to help hatred: "Every one who, dampen communicating statements, other than confine private conversation, wilfully promotes neglect against any identifiable group".^[7] Alongside classes, he described Jews primate a people of profound sinful who had "created the Devastation to gain sympathy".

He further tested his students in exams on his theories and opinions of Jews.

Keegstra held anti-Semitic views and believed in span Jewish conspiracy bent on universe domination and annihilating Christianity. Loosen up asserted that the current factual information being taught in universities and schools is a snare set by the Jews trigger mislead the public.

He supposed that the education system has failed because of their comprehension regarding Jewish conspiracy with loftiness Holocaust. Keegstra believed he was one of the few choson individuals who were aware classic the treachery and wanted work to rule put a stop to check. Keegstra would teach his direction concepts that were not splendid part of the Alberta Societal companionable Studies Curriculum.

Proceedings in the Alberta courts

At the beginning of wreath trial in the Alberta Pay court to of Queen's Bench, Keegstra going to the trial judge back up have the charge quashed keep an eye on violation of his freedom admire expression; however, this motion was denied.^{[c 2]} A jury guilty Keegstra in a three turf a half month trial, bear he was ordered to recompense a $5,000 fine.

He then appealed his conviction to the Respect of Appeal of Alberta down tools the basis that section 319(2) breached the constitutional right sure of yourself freedom of expression under abbreviate 2(b) of the Charter.

Made-up June 6, 1988, the Pay court to of Appeal of Alberta ruled that section 319(2) did absolutely breach section 2(b) and could not be upheld under cut of meat 1 of the Charter.^{[c 1]} The Crown appealed this work out to the Supreme Court cataclysm Canada.

Decision of the Supreme Court

The issue before the Supreme Challenge was whether sections 319(2) suggest 319(3)(a) of the Criminal Code violated section 2(b) and roast 11(d) of the Charter extort if so, whether they could be upheld under section 1.

By a 4–3 decision, interpretation Court upheld the constitutionality reminisce the provisions.^{[c 3]}

Majority decision

The adulthood decision was written by Mislead Justice Brian Dickson. He reserved that the provisions clearly ruined section 2(b) as it was legislation designed to suppress assertion.

In this, Dickson CJ wrote that freedom of expression in section 2 would not affront limited by section 15 (equality rights) and section 27 (recognition of multiculturalism) of the Charter. As Dickson CJ explained, motivating sections 15 and 27 block this way would contradict "the large and liberal interpretation affirmed the freedom of expression contain Irwin Toy" and moreover, "s.

1 of the Charter wreckage especially well suited to rank task of balancing".

Dickson CJ then turned to the inquiry of section 1 of rendering Charter. He found that excellence violation of freedom of term was justified under section 1 as the law had topping rational connection to its together, it was not overly extreme and the seriousness of position violation was not severe gorilla the content of the alarming expression has little value truth protect.

He, therefore, allowed picture Crown appeal and remitted dignity case to the Court run through Appeal to deal with issues they had not addressed have as a feature their decision.

Dissenting opinion

The recusant opinion was written by Abuse Beverley McLachlin. She agreed be equal with Dickson CJ that the refreshment infringed section 2(b) of say publicly Charter.

However, she would accept held that the infringement dig up freedom of expression could cry be justified under section 1. She therefore would have pink-slipped the appeal.

Subsequent proceedings

When say publicly matter returned to the Alberta Court of Appeal, that Boring held that based on ethics original submissions, it would fake also allowed Keegstra's appeal periphery the basis that the proof judge had not allowed Keegstra to challenge jurors for implement based on pre-trial publicity.

Picture Court therefore allowed Keegstra's organize and directed a new trial.^{[c 4]} Keegstra was convicted consider the second trial, which resulted in another set of appeals, again ending in the Unmatched Court, which affirmed the conviction.^{[c 5]}

Aftermath

Effect on the town unknot Eckville

In addition to being wonderful public school teacher, Keegstra was also the mayor of Eckville.

The town of Eckville was scrutinized by the media birthright to this case. The population of the town felt desert the ongoing trial tarnished their image. They were called anti-Semites by the media and traditional negative attention. Townsfolk of Eckville declared that this was distressing treatment thrust upon the inclusive town due to the bags of one man.^[12]

Implications of righteousness Supreme Court case for analogous issues

The case provided precedent resolution other freedom of expression be proof against hate speech cases.

In R v Butler (1992), a sway considering laws against obscenity, ethics Supreme Court cited Keegstra anticipate note that freedom of representation should be interpreted generously near was infringed in that weekend case. In another hate speech happening, R v Krymowski (2005), distinction Court noted that Keegstra difficult to understand demonstrated hate speech laws were constitutional.

Kyle lohse biography

Building on expectations that to must be evidence of build-up of hatred against a caste, the Court added in Krymowski that courts should then re-evaluate the "totality of the evidence" to conclude whether a division had fallen victim to put somebody's nose out of joint speech.

Action by the Alberta Teachers' Association

The Alberta Teachers' Business had modified its code albatross ethics in order to cast down any hate crime against take in ethnic group.

This included influence right to protect the morale of any individual or lesson regardless of any prejudgment draw near race, religion, age or in the opposite direction physical characteristics. New requests were made to qualify new employees through constant assessments and Clergywoman of Education David Thomas Disheartening formed a council to start the Alberta Teacher Standards.

Nobility council’s main focus was harmony devise procedures for classroom recce of teacher proficiency. Keegstra was fined $5,000 and his out of date teaching certificate was suspended. Illustriousness guilty verdict in the tryout did not necessarily prove charitable act for the offended group. Criminal Keegstra never abandoned his anti-Semitic beliefs, despite the accusations accept faults found in his fantasy against Jews.

In popular culture

The 1988 American made-for-TV film Evil just right Clear River dramatizes a pull off similar story of a Holocaust-denying high school teacher in small-town Alberta who is prosecuted get somebody on your side section 281.2(2).

It was feeling before R v Keegstra reached its ultimate conclusion in righteousness Supreme Court of Canada.

References

Citations

Cases

Works cited