R V Butler Case Analysis

687 Words2 Pages

History and Socio-political implications: When looking at the legal history of this case, we see many cases that have had similar situations. Looking at R v. Butler where Chief Justice Sopinka stated, “The case requires the Court to address one of the most difficult and controversial of contemporary issues, that of determining whether, and to what extent, Parliament may legitimately criminalize obscenity.” The R v Butler case is similar to the Sharpe case as it deals with what could be classified as obscenity and at that time obscenity also included child pornography. (Court of Appeal for British Columbia, 1999) Sopinka spoke about s.163 (1)(b) having a very weird aspect, it made possession of materials which promoted or advocated a certain …show more content…

She explained that it was that “if the Criminal Code made it a crime to possess a book which counsels or advocates the overthrow by force or violence of the government but did not make it a crime to advocate publicly the use of force or violence for such a purpose.” This is why the Sharpe case and Butler case was so hard to decide. Another case that is also similar to these is the R v Keegstra case, in whereby Keegstra a teacher in Alberta told his students that the Holocaust was a tool to bring about sympathy for the Jews. He was accused of being anti-Semitic and charged under hate propaganda legislation (section 319(2) of the Criminal Code). He brought a Charter challenge under section 2(b). It was seen that the term expression should embrace all content of expression regardless of the meaning or message sought to be conveyed and no matter obnoxious the message. It was decided by Chief Justice McLachlin that freedom of expression is important in order to promote the free flow of ideas that are essential to democracy, but it should follow three rationales. 1. Seeking and attaining the …show more content…

v. Sharpe had significant socio-political implications because this case raised the public debate concerning the pornography legislation and legislators to start working on the development of amendments which could guarantee the protection of children from being involved in or harmed by the pornography. The case of R. v. Sharpe revealed the fact that the existing legislation does not prevent children from the involvement into the production of pornography. At the same time, it became obvious that the existing legislation should balance the pornography law and the right to freedom of expression. The pornography law aims at the prevention of the spread of pornography and ban of the pornography production. The protection of children from the involvement in the pornography production is one of the primary goals of the existing legislation. Nonetheless, the case of R. v. Sharpe proves that the existing exceptions make the pornography legislation ineffective. After the case, the public and legislators grew more aware of the fact that stricter pornography legislation has to be implemented. In conclusion the case of R .v Sharpe is super controversial and by examining this case, we can see how some legislations can be bypassed and fall through the cracks. The case of R v Sharpe was a lengthy and difficult process requiring facts, reasoning and precedent. However when all of these were completed, the SCC were able to make a fair decision and conclude that S.163 was a

Open Document