Jim
Keegstra
Canadian teacher
K.
was a social studies high school teacher in Eckville, Alberta. He also served as mayor of the town for five
years. K. was described as a caring, generous, Christian man who was respected in the community and was popular with students and
teachers. In 1982, when K. was dismissed from his teaching position, more than one-half of the students
of his high school signed a petition to have him re-instated.
The
case began in the fall of 1982, when one Eckville parent, dismayed by what she had discovered in her son's social studies notebook, complained about the teacher to the local school board.
According to K., the 'Holocaust' was a myth which the Jews created to gain
sympathy. In December of that year, Keegstra lost his teaching job. In
January, 1984, he was charged with hate-mongering on the basis of subsection 319(2) of the
Canadian Criminal Code**. After a 70-day trial, he was convicted on July 20, 1985 - but three years later the Alberta Court of Appeal overturned that ruling after
K.'s lawyer, Doug Christie  , argued that Canada's so-called hate law was unconstitutional because it denies freedom of expression.
The decision by the Alberta Court of Appeal reduced the conviction to a one-year suspended sentence, one year of probation, and 200 hours of community service
work.
On July 10, 1992,
the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously concluded that hate propaganda formed part of protected freedom of expression pursuant to subsection 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because hate propaganda is a form of expression. The Court held that subsection 319(2) of the Criminal Code violated subsection 2(b) of the Charter because it prohibited hate
propaganda.
Nevertheless, the Court divided 4 to 3
ruled that the prohibition of hate propaganda was a pressing objective of a real and very important
character. This objective would be supported by international documents to which Canada is a party and sections 15 (equality) and 27 (multiculturalism) of the
Charter. The reasons of the dissenting judges were as follows: 'If the guarantee of freedom of expression is to have meaning, it must protect expression which disputes even the basic idea of our society. A real commitment to respect for freedom of expression demands nothing
less'. In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the original conviction and the constitutionality of the
law, but they reduced the original fine from $5000 to $3,000.
At
the end, K. lost his job and after 10 years of costly litigation, he was financially ruined.
K. thereafter worked as an automobile mechanic.
**§ 319(2) of the Canadian Criminal Code reads:
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private
conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two
years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public
benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in
Canada.
Letzte Änderung / Last update:
28.08.2008
|
