R. V. Keegstra Case Study

As instructed in the outline for this assignment, I have read and analysed the case of R. v. Keegstra. I have understood the allegations placed and the defence of the same. Also, I have answered the questions provided explaining the rights at stake, the procedure that court adopted to reach to a final decision and that whether or not it was able to reach a balance between the individual and the group rights.

INTRODUCTION

This case revolves around James keegstra who was an Alberta high school teacher. He was accused of intentionally promoting hatred against an unidentifiable group of the society through his teachings. He would teach his students about numerous evil qualities of Jews describing them as “treacherous”, “money loving”, “sadistic”

319(2) of the criminal code lead to the infringement of his rights of freedom of speech as guaranteed by s. 2(b). However, his appeal got denied and he was anyways tried and convicted. It was after this that he went to the Court of Appeal of Canada who decided that his freedom of speech is indeed being suppressed by the s. 319(2) of the criminal code and thus the case was further sent up to the Supreme Court of Canada. The question to be answered by the Supreme Court here was that whether or not his freedom of speech infringed by the s. 319(2) and if so, how can it be protected by s. 1 of the

The law states that every communication, that is not private and aims to willfully promote hatred against and group, is found to be offensive and must be charged under the criminal law. It is a punishable offence and hence the spreading of hatred of negativity regarding any particular group on purpose should be avoided. In other words this section prohibits hate propaganda other than in the personal or private communications.

ROLE OF THE COURT

In order to solve this case, where James Keegstra was charged under the s. 319(2) of the criminal code for spreading the hate propaganda and where he appealed that this was opposed to his right of freedom of speech; the court followed a detailed and intensive procedure.

There were a number of things that were taken into consideration before the court could reach any final judgment. The history of hate propaganda was brought into consideration. Prior to the Canadian Charter, the laws like De Scandalis Magnatum, laws for the crime of seditious libel provided that a person was free to express what he wanted unless he has an intention or disobey openly, act in a violent way against the authority or he has a seditious attention where there is a unlawful use of force for bringing about a governmental change in