Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
The Keegstra decision was a close decision. In fact, many Charter experts believe that the minority position of Judge McLachlin was originally written as the majority judgement. Keegstra was charged under Canada's Criminal Code for hate speech. Something very contentious, as in Canada we have rarely charged anyone for hate speech. Dickson, the then Chief Justice, made the argument that since Keegstra was a school teacher and indeed punished his students for arguing counter to his position was a significant detriment to the student's education.
The cases are not even close to being the same.
|
Wow did you miss the point of what I was saying... probably my fault though I was very wordy.
What is important isn't that Keegstra was found guilty or even that the cases are not simmilar. THE RESULT is the important part... as a result of Keegstra being found guilty the Supreme Court basicaly told Canada that freedom of expression is restricted by Canadian Law... infact the Justices very clearly stated that any act which infinges upon the criminal code specificaly the law against showing people graphic material like the posters at the UofC against their will is illigal.
I'm not saying the pro-life people are wrong, I'm saying what they are doing is wrong and unless they can find a new and legal way to express their message they should not be allowed to express the message.