|
''R v Keegstra'', () 3 S.C.R. 697 is a landmark freedom of expression decision of the Supreme Court of Canada where the court upheld the Criminal Code provision prohibiting the wilful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group as constitutional under the freedom of expression provision in section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is a companion case to ''R v Andrews''. ==Background== James Keegstra was a public school teacher in Eckville, Alberta. In 1984, he was charged under section 281.2(2) of the Criminal Code (319(2) ) ("Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group")〔()〕 for "promoting hatred against an identifiable group by communicating anti-Semitic statements to his students". During class, he would describe Jews as a people of profound evil who had "created the Holocaust to gain sympathy." He also tested his students in exams on his theories and opinion of Jews. Keegstra believed in a Jewish conspiracy and held anti-Semitic views. This conspiracy theory is the notion of world domination by Jews and their plan to annihilate Christianity. He has asserted that the current historical information being taught in universities and schools is a trap set by the Jews to mislead the public. He claims that the education system has failed because of their awareness regarding Jewish conspiracy with the Holocaust. Keegstra believes he is one of the few chosen individuals who is aware of this treachery and must put a stop to it. Keegstra would teach his classes concepts that were not a part of the Alberta Social Studies Curriculum.〔Bercuson, David J, and Douglas Wertheimer. A Trust Betrayed: The Keegstra Affair. Toronto, Canada: Doubleday Canada, 1985. 44. Print.〕 Keegstra had applied to have the charge quashed for violation of his freedom of expression; however, this motion was denied and he was eventually convicted at trial. The conviction was then appealed to the Court of Appeal of Alberta under the auspice that Criminal Code section 319(2) breached the constitutional right to freedom of expression, section 2(b). The Appeals court ruled that indeed section 319(2) did breach section 2(b) of the Charter. The Crown appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Canada. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether sections 319(2) and 319(3)(a) of the Criminal Code violated section 2(b) and section 11(d) of the Charter and, if so, whether they could be saved under section 1. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「R v Keegstra」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|