Monday, February 18, 2019
Freedom of Expression in Canada :: Freedom of Speech
The right to license of expression can be described as a state of war. It is awar that has lasted for centuries and may last for centuries more. It is a warbetween immunity of expression and social intolerance. In this war there are some(prenominal) battles. The battle on which this shortened essay centers itself is the battlebetween exemption of speech and laws limiting that freedom more specifically theability to bedspread hate propaganda and the hate laws. Included in the essay isa brief outline of one skirmish that has taken place (Keegstra). Those who fight on the facial expression supporting freedom of speech do so for some(prenominal) reasons. Braun declares that it is a basic democratic right to voice your induce opinion .Douglas Christie has gained nonoriety for his vigorous representation of high-profile, controversial clients, charged below the hate laws. He advocatesfreedom of speech for two main reasons a) he finds it abhorrent that the statecan legislat e thoughts and words, and b) he often agrees with the views held byhis clients. Others such as Noam Chomsky, a brilliant intellectual, argue notfor the views expressed, plainly the ability to express them. Lining up on theother side of the battle you have Derek Raymaker, David Kilgour, Victor Ramraj,and Bruce Elman. They argue that there is definitely a moral place for lawsregarding hate speech, whether they are criminal or not. thither was recently anew development in the Canadian war for freedom of expression. Introduced inApril 1982 was a new and important strategic battleground.With the adopt of Rights and Freedoms the war could be won or lost by either side. It was not long before the accept saw battle.In 1984, Jim Keegstra was charged with violating section 281 of theCriminal Code of Canada (now covered under section 318-320). Keegstra was arespected school teacher and mayor of the small town of Eckville, Alberta. Thiswas no borderline fanatic this was an elected official c harged with promotinghate. However by the time Keegstras trial rolled around he was no bimestrial themayor Eckville and his teaching license, revoked. The problem was, the verynature of s. 281 lent itself to wakeless debate under section 2 of the relativelynew Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The defense counsel Doug Christie lost notime in dispute the legislations constitutionality. In response, Crownprosecutor, Bruce Fraser, stated that Keegstra was being charged with promotinghatred not expressing it. The Crown also stated that freedom of speech is not
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment