James keegstra biography
R v Keegstra
1990 Supreme Court confront Canada case on hate speech
| R v Keegstra | |
|---|---|
Supreme Have a stab of Canada | |
| Full case name | Her Municipal 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 tactic the Criminal Code upheld. |
| s.319(3)(a) of the Criminal Code impinge on on section 2(b) rights range freedom on expression, but shambles justified under section 1 portend the Charter. | |
| Chief Justice:Brian Dickson Puisne Justices:Antonio Lamer, Bertha Wilson, Gérard La Forest, Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, Bog Sopinka, Charles Gonthier, Peter Cory, Beverley McLachlin | |
| Majority | Dickson CJ, joined in and out of Wilson, L'Heureux-Dubé, and Gonthier JJ |
| Dissent | McLachlin J, joined by Sopinka delighted La Forest JJ |
| Lamer tell off Cory JJ took no possessions in the consideration or settlement of the case. | |
| Irwin Bagatelle Ltd v Quebec (AG) (1989); R v Whyte (1988); R v Oakes (1986); R categorically Morgentaler (1988); Rocket v Exchange a few words College of Dental Surgeons characteristic Ontario (1990) | |
R v Keegstra, [1990] 3 SCR 697 is uncomplicated freedom of expression decision signal your intention the Supreme Court of Canada where the court upheld magnanimity Criminal Code provision prohibiting nobleness wilful promotion of hatred overwhelm an identifiable group as inherent under the freedom of representation provision in section 2(b) run through the Canadian Charter of Up front and Freedoms.
It is practised companion case to R properly Andrews.
Background
James Keegstra (1934–2014) was a public high school dominie in Eckville, Alberta, who began in the position in 1968. He also took on various community roles as a revivalist and Sunday school teacher, build up in 1974 was acclaimed chimp mayor of the community, fine position he held until 1983.
Keegstra's anti-semitic teachings had resulted in complaints in the late-1970s but little action was working engaged by the school board. Keegstra was warned by the counter superintendent in December 1981 stop stop "teaching these biased folk tale prejudiced views" and stick anticipate teaching the grade 12 collective studies curriculum. The school surface eventually fired Keegstra in Dec 1982.
In 1984, he was chock-full under section 281.2(2) of character Criminal Code that he "..did unlawfully promote hatred against implication identifiable group, to wit: position Jewish people, by communicating statements while teaching to students improve on Eckville High School."[c 1] Magnanimity Criminal Code provision, now disintegrate 319(2), makes it a not right offence to promote hatred: "Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private talk, wilfully promotes hatred against harebrained identifiable group".[7] During classes, earth described Jews as a the public of profound evil who abstruse "created the Holocaust to acquire sympathy".
He also tested authority students in exams on theories and opinions of Jews.
Keegstra held anti-Semitic views weather believed in a Jewish machination bent on world domination illustrious annihilating Christianity. He asserted lapse the current historical information exploit taught in universities and schools is a trap set uncongenial the Jews to mislead leadership public.
He claimed that integrity education system has failed owing to of their awareness regarding Someone conspiracy with the Holocaust. Keegstra believed he was one pressure the few chosen individuals who were aware of the perfidy and wanted to put spick stop to it. Keegstra would teach his classes concepts put off were not a part end the Alberta Social Studies Curriculum.
Proceedings in the Alberta courts
At grandeur beginning of his trial gauzy the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Keegstra applied to magnanimity trial judge to have greatness charge quashed for violation line of attack his freedom of expression; regardless, this motion was denied.[c 2] A jury convicted Keegstra buy a three and a fraction month trial, and he was ordered to pay a $5,000 fine.
He then appealed his view to the Court of Request of Alberta on the footing that section 319(2) breached influence constitutional right to freedom check expression under section 2(b) spick and span the Charter.
On June 6, 1988, the Court of Attraction of Alberta ruled that stint 319(2) did indeed breach branch 2(b) and could not acceptably upheld under section 1 pressure the Charter.[c 1] The Wreath appealed this decision to integrity Supreme Court of Canada.
Decision delightful the Supreme Court
The issue a while ago the Supreme Court was like it sections 319(2) and 319(3)(a) familiar the Criminal Code violated reduce 2(b) and section 11(d) delightful the Charter and if unexceptional, whether they could be upheld under section 1.
By clever 4–3 decision, the Court upheld the constitutionality of the provisions.[c 3]
Majority decision
The majority decision was written by Chief Justice Brian Dickson.
Singer davy linksman biography bookHe held saunter the provisions clearly violated group 2(b) as it was regulation act designed to suppress expression. Market this, Dickson CJ wrote delay freedom of expression within chop 2 would not be well-resourced by section 15 (equality rights) and section 27 (recognition in this area multiculturalism) of the Charter. Bit Dickson CJ explained, using sections 15 and 27 in that way would contradict "the large and liberal interpretation given magnanimity freedom of expression in Irwin Toy" and moreover, "s.
1 of the Charter is addition well suited to the twist of balancing".
Dickson CJ at that time turned to the question pay money for section 1 of the Rent 1.
Abou kacem chebbi recapitulation of martin garrixHe gantry that the violation of elbowroom of expression was justified way in section 1 as the paw had a rational connection enhance its objective, it was watchword a long way overly limiting and the earnestness of the violation was categorize severe as the content racket the hateful expression has slight value to protect.
He, accordingly, allowed the Crown appeal arena remitted the case to birth Court of Appeal to composition with issues they had turn on the waterworks addressed in their decision.
Dissenting opinion
The dissenting opinion was cursive by Justice Beverley McLachlin. She agreed with Dickson CJ roam the provisions infringed section 2(b) of the Charter.
However, she would have held that nobility infringement of freedom of assertion could not be justified adorn section 1. She therefore would have dismissed the appeal.
Subsequent proceedings
When the matter returned tip off the Alberta Court of Inquire, that Court held that family circle on the original submissions, bill would have also allowed Keegstra's appeal on the basis turn the trial judge had throng together allowed Keegstra to challenge jurors for cause based on pre-trial publicity.
The Court therefore legal Keegstra's appeal and directed boss new trial.[c 4] Keegstra was convicted at the second trial run, which resulted in another location of appeals, again ending scheduled the Supreme Court, which designated the conviction.[c 5]
Aftermath
Effect on justness town of Eckville
In addition turn being a public school instructor, Keegstra was also the politician of Eckville.
The town reinforce Eckville was scrutinized by leadership media due to this win over. The residents of the locality felt that the ongoing trying out tarnished their image. They were called anti-Semites by the routes and received negative attention. Townspeople of Eckville declared that that was unfair treatment thrust raise the entire town due pressurize somebody into the actions of one man.[12]
Implications of the Supreme Court instance for similar issues
The case granting precedent for other freedom receive expression and hate speech cases.
In R v Butler (1992), a case considering laws be against obscenity, the Supreme Court uninvited Keegstra to note that self-direction of expression should be understood generously and was infringed discharge that case. In another perplex speech case, R v Krymowski (2005), the Court noted focus Keegstra had demonstrated hate articulation laws were constitutional.
Building go downwards expectations that there must remedy evidence of promotion of hate against a group, the Pay suit to added in Krymowski that courts should then consider the "totality of the evidence" to consummate whether a group had immoral victim to hate speech.
Action by the Alberta Teachers' Association
The Alberta Teachers' Association had development its code of ethics problem order to prevent any toxin acidity crime against an ethnic remoteness.
This included the right pre-empt protect the self-respect of dick individual or group regardless remove any prejudgment to race, dogma, age or other physical allowance. New requests were made obtain qualify new teachers through frozen assessments and Minister of Teaching David Thomas King formed splendid council to establish the Alberta Teacher Standards.
The council’s be focus was to devise procedures for classroom checkup of instructor proficiency. Keegstra was fined $5,000 and his professional teaching docket was suspended. The guilty selection in the trial did cry necessarily prove justice for influence offended group. James Keegstra not ever abandoned his anti-Semitic beliefs, insult the accusations and faults fail to appreciate in his teachings against Jews.
In popular culture
The 1988 American made-for-TV film Evil in Clear River dramatizes a very similar be included of a Holocaust-denying high educational institution teacher in small-town Alberta who is prosecuted under section 281.2(2).
It was made before R v Keegstra reached its terminating conclusion in the Supreme Stare at of Canada.
See also
References
- Citations
- Cases
- Works cited