Hate speech

Hate speech

Hate speech is a form of public speech that describes hate or incentivizes violence towards an individual or a group of people based on religion, sexual orientation, sex or race. Various laws in Canada at the territorial, provincial and federal levels have foisted limitations on freedom of expression that is stipulated in section 2b of the Canadian charter of rights and Freedom. Actions like defamatory libel, fraud,  perjury and counselling suicided are prohibited. The justice of the supreme court in 1990, stated the offences that show forms of hate speech or any expression that falls in offences against an individual reputation, offences in reliance to falsehood, offences in reliance to public morals, disorderly conduct and offences in reliance to falsehood.

Freedom of expression is among the limited among the laws and are known anti-hate laws since they limit the public expression of various messages that inflict hatred to a group of people and publication.  Section319, of the criminal code of Canada, foists criminal sanctions against people who willfully incite hatred in public. Majority of the Canadian human rights laws prevents displaying any material that shows the implies a form of discrimination and any other publication .section 3, of the Canadian human rights laws describes prohibited grounds of discrimination are ethnic origin, race, national, sex, age, genetic characteristics, and sexual orientation. Therefore the supreme court has identified that eradicating the speech of hatred is part of the wider goal of explaining issues on discrimination. In the case of human rights vs Whatcott, the court asserted that prohibiting actions that expose protected groups to hatred is a good strategy of eradicating discrimination and other detrimental effects of hatred.

ISSUE

The issue at hand is the Keegstra case, which dealt with hate propaganda and freedom of expression. James Keegstra, who was a secondary teacher in Alberta, said anti-semitic statements during his classes, where he charged with an offence under the criminal code of willfully encouraging hatred to an identifiable group. Section 318 of the criminal code of Canada, defines an identifiable group as any part of the public that is recognized by race, colour, ethnic origin, gender identity, expression, physical disability, sexual orientation or national. He taught social studies to his students stating that holocaust was a form of fraud and formed the various evil traits of the Jews. He then described the Jews as “sadistic”,  child killers, power-hungry, money-loving, subversive and treacherous.  He taught his students that the jews were aiming at ruining Christianity and are liable for the chaos, anarchy, revolution and form of war. He further stated that the Jews formed a holocaust to achieve sympathy and described them as inherently evil. He taught in classes that the Jewish world-conspiracy allegedly resulted from the Talmud. He expected his pupils to apply those insights in class and during exams, if they became reluctant, they would be penalized on their marks.

As the law, states that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution side, evidence had to be proven in court by calling the witness who would affirm the truth. The objective of examining the witness is to elicit all facts that will prove the prosecution’s case. Most of the students testified in court and asserted that he brought chaos in town.

As envisaged in section 319 (2) of the criminal code of Canada, hate propaganda is prohibited. This case was then heard in the Supreme court of Canada, and the court held that hate propaganda was an element that formed the protected freedom of expression in accordance to subsection 2 (b)of the Canadian  Charter of Rights and Freedoms since hate propaganda involves expression.

The freedom of belief, expression and thoughts are protected as a significant constitutional guarantee as stipulated in section 2(b) of the charter. Some have argued that this right is fundamental since it is an instrument used in a democratic government. Freedom of speech is envisaged in the Canadian Bill of rights, where the federal laws provide the rights like freedom of press or religion. The court has described this to be quasi-judicial, which makes other laws to be consistent with it. However, the Supreme Court of Canada has identified the Guarantee by the charter of freedom of expression as not being absolute; there are limitations in the form of expression that would be contrary to the charter like hate speech.

When Keegstra was convicted, he appealed on the basis that the court of appeal has violated section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of rights and freedoms. He went ahead and challenged the court in accordance to section 319 (3) (a), of the criminal code which stated that a person could not be Sentenced of hate speech when he or she proofs that the statement is true, but only when proofing the truth of the statement on the balance of probabilities, violated section 11(d)  of the charter. Section 11 of the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms states that every person has the right to be presumed innocent until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  Keegstra, in this case, was not able to prove the truth of the anti-Semitic statements he asserted to his students.

Section 319 of the criminal code of Canada, states that if the court, is contented that the publication is propaganda, it shall declare an order that the matter is relinquished to the majesty in right of that province where the proceedings occur, for disposal and the Attorney general is at the discretion to direct it. It goes further and states that if the court is not contented, that the hate speech is propaganda, it shall declare an order that the matter is reinstated to the person from whom it was impounded when the final appeal has expired. Keestra’s appeal was not successful, and the Supreme court convicted him, on the basis that the hate speech was not only a victimless crime but psychological harm, risk of violence and degradation.

Relevant case

In the case of R vs Andrews, David Andrews was a leader of a political group known as a white supremacist. He was found guilty of encouraging hatred.  The  Supreme court upheld the criminal provision on the freedom of expression in accordance to section 2 (b) of the Canadian charter of rights and freedom, as a statutory that prevents any form statements that results to hatred.

Jurisprudence

The command theory, as illustrated by Austin, states that the law is the command of a sovereign which is declared by a superior that is accompanied by coercion. However, he asserts in his book the province of jurisprudence that law is not moral, and the results of any form of law do not deem it as a moral value. The law depends on the actions done by humans; the empirical investigation conducted by people in power, not of morality.

Conclusion

Hate speech is an immoral act which should be investigated to get admissible evidence which shall be decided by the superior power who in this case is the Supreme court, who pronounces the judgment based on statutory provisions of law. Therefore every person should conform to laws that are ordered from the sovereign body.