Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.



Published on

law presentation

Published in: Spiritual
  • Hi there! Get Your Professional Job-Winning Resume Here - Check our website!
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here


  1. 1. R. v. Keegstra Menik Nayyarah Sita
  2. 2. Important facts <ul><li>James Keegstra was a high school teacher in Eckville, Alberta </li></ul><ul><li>1984: charged for promoting hatred against an identifiable group by communicating anti- Semitic statements to his students </li></ul><ul><li>He would describe Jews as people of profound evil who had “created” the Holocaust to gain sympathy </li></ul><ul><li>He would also test his students on exams/tests on his theories and opinions of Jews </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Students who shared his views received better grades than those who didn't </li></ul></ul>
  3. 3. Issues <ul><li>Does s.319 (2) of the Criminal Code violate the right to freedom of expression protected in s.2(b) of the Charter? </li></ul><ul><li>Does s.319 (3a) violate the right to assumption of innocence found in s.11(d) of the Charter? </li></ul><ul><li>S. 2b of charter : Everyone has the right to freedom of expression </li></ul><ul><li>S. 11d: any person charged with an offence has right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law </li></ul><ul><li>S.319 (2) of Criminal code: Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully promotes hatred against an identifiable group is guilty </li></ul><ul><li>S.319 ( 3a): No person shall be convicted of an offence if he establishes that the statements communicated were true </li></ul>
  4. 4. The verdict <ul><li>First issue: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The Court decided first that s. 319(2) infringed freedom of speech in s. 2(b) of the Charter </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Second issue: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>the Court ruled that there was an infringement of s. 11(d) of the Charter due to the reverse onus provision in s. 319(3a) of the criminal code </li></ul></ul><ul><li>a one-year suspended sentence, one year of probation, and 200 hours of community service work </li></ul>
  5. 5. Reason behind the decisions <ul><li>S.1 of CCRF: guarantees the rights and freedoms but only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law </li></ul><ul><li>Court found that both the rulings were justified under section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms </li></ul><ul><li>Supreme Court ruled that Keegstra's rants exceeded his freedom of expression simply because hate isn’t a valid means to a productive end </li></ul>
  6. 6. Significance of the decision <ul><li>freedom of expression should be interpreted generously and was infringed in the case of the James Keegstra </li></ul><ul><li>freedom of expression does not protect communications supporting racial or religious hatred </li></ul><ul><li>Your right to freedom of expression cannot be taken advantage of </li></ul>