R v Keegstra

Keegstra, an Alberta high-school teacher, was convicted of wilfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group (Jews) for anti-Semitic teaching. The SCC upheld s.319(2) — hate speech infringes s.2(b) but is justified under s.1 because of the harm wilful promotion of hatred causes to vulnerable groups.

Keegstra taught his Eckville students that Jewish people were the "force behind world-historical evil" and required pupils to reproduce his views in exams. He was charged under s.319(2).

Does s.319(2) of the Criminal Code violate s.2(b)? If so, is it saved by s.1?

Yes; yes (by 4-3). Conviction restored.

Section 2(b) protects all expression that conveys meaning, with exceptions limited to violent forms. Hate speech, however offensive, falls within s.2(b). But s.319(2) is saved by s.1: the prevention of harm to target groups (psychological injury, reduced participation in democracy) and the international human rights commitment to combat hate propaganda are pressing and substantial; the requirement of "wilful" promotion is minimal impairment; and the deleterious effects on a narrow category of expression are outweighed by the salutary effects.

Dickson CJ held that wilful promotion of hatred has limited connection to the values underlying s.2(b) — search for truth, individual self-fulfilment, democratic participation. The Code provision provides a safety valve through truth, public-interest, and good-faith defences.

Defines the Canadian (anti-American) approach to hate-speech regulation. Distinguishes Canadian doctrine from US First-Amendment absolutism. Cited in Whatcott (2013, human-rights tribunal hate-speech regulation).

R v Keegstra, [1990] 3 SCR 697, 1990 CanLII 24 (SCC).

Dickson CJ, Wilson J, La Forest J, L'Heureux-Dubé J, Sopinka J, Gonthier J, McLachlin J