You are on page 1of 17
The “Misuse of Freedom? The Canadian Jesh Congress, the Conaian Ci bets Associaton, and the Limits of Expression amansghsroten es bndsenineme Atoah Chimanlal nr nm tence eh ely tr pic Stair wha ‘eto for Cine ner a isn een moe Tatethan in coutvenircrung te 1970 hte roped ‘ch riminaaed cern exrsinnsl hate Drated inthe mie 960834 “pone othe eed se nate ertre snd erence of it hit pera apm Co he pa ince tat inl feed epeson creda aytrrearted by ssw sed fer ule eed vunerable ior von “Te story of he hte propaganda andthe ubeequentconstutina ot a the Sree Court of Cada begining i he ‘Postale tae ert nes toms Cian fh Congres CK) dhe Coma Ci er {ee Asociaon (CLAY Rote the nlc tea epee of {hhh comin Cina aa nn ton ht fedom of psc ot ste on cn be sed te sa underangt we ngo Coan wiy.The Ennely bee fur te CCUA chalengee etfs he Caan eh Congas te CCA ane inerftapason econ contending tha there canbe no gine gloss for po ing non-violent ess, no matter how anpopulat of above tay right Bo and that tis fr more advantageous to content menagerie, theough open public debate thn through criminal sancti thee ove wos both organizations provided mach ofthe nett capa foro fundamental ye unrsoied debate that ail ier democracies eucg Canada, must grapple with: name; whether le expression =the wpe fonction of u democratic society ~ can jest be bated when ar {eas promoted are deemed tobe So ollensve that they a nal the cove ofthe re scl. Founded intl in 1919 ac an ub group for Canad Jewish come ‘unity the Canaan fish Congres ad an auspicons being. ‘ble to cocrdiste a divided and factions commun wacom the rocks €stera disharmony inthe 1920s, onl tobe reconstituted in 193) snd 1934 incesponse to growingantisemitmn Canada and abtond! As he Jans leving Abi and Harold Troper cect in tee book None le Tos ‘Many: Canada and the fos ofEurape 19831948, much ote ogee {ont erly history ithe try of ald elt to pemuae the ctonec King goverament to provide sanctuary to ge numbers of Jewish efapes esing the hotrors of Nazism? Bat combing homegrown neon of hae dete at fevish Canaans ~ whether the virulent welings of lance ‘Adan Acad, the overt antisemitism teachings ofthe Cathas Chasen in Qaboos, the an-ewish conspacies ofthe Social Cred Party in Al bert, o he dacrimiatry practices of wo many of Canadas isteasene srl those of higher laming wat «core prt of te nace ag ‘cary days? Althoagh antsemits in Canada lng predated th Second Woeld Wat teas Fieri to pow clmiatng wih the Holcaue that brought ‘ne sense of urgency to contontingaecmicam specially neg eer For many within te CIC the are he satnatyof oe es popations during tines of den Foe them, the ete eens oo 1980 nd 19405 cemented the view that all scetcn, demarcate wis, were inherently fle, susceptible ra hata eet, eta hehe, cond undermine scl harmony a pbc oe Aer the sevcral ofthe CICS execatve became coinced that he slton nay ag ‘he state playa active ron inhbting the peomtion of open hoes between diferent groupe within soci ‘et the CIC executive srgaed with he implaton of what hey were ling for They recognized that edo of eaprenson she commestnect 8 democratic system, nots Achilles tl. They also unerstond tht ‘conctved lini on spech and othe form of commision coud be etimental fee voces, leading them doen the path oward ttt fans. Consequeny, the exer adoped the argument tha fcedom of ‘expression ia foneton of the inal restr responsibity to cont ltt the ove well-being fwciaty Hate monger they contended. fered nothing postive o society. thet pricipalaim bang deri eta clases of prope ofthe right to personal falllment Any cot of cm soring thes inividals would be smal particu compared tothe costs {hat might esl rom allowing them fe en ‘This Im essences what the CIC tad the House of Camo Spit ‘Commte on the Criminal Cade of Canad in March 1953 ding re Ingomthe provisions ofthe law tht deat with sedition publish ond spreading fle news The CIC delegation was ed by Pefetoe Bora Ls of he University of Troms Department of Law Cashin ad nt fought inthe wat or had he wines the concentration camps of Europe fst hand: Bt his brother Sal ha. As Philp Girard explain in is ography of Laskin, Sauls experience hada profound effet on theatre che te ofthe Sapreme Court of Canad, focusing hisenereson combatting ra ‘nd religous discrimination in Canadan society Laskin ward the com> mite that “preseration and maintenance of our exeatialfeedom| ‘oald not be confused witha eece to tho who would arouse hasty among diferent cass of eur people or publish malicious flscoods Arve a wedge between sch clases. Condi of thie charater undermines our democratic righ. sbotges the ational welare and destroys national uni. exploits our democracy frei ends” “Te CIC had been concerned that existing Canadian lw ofleed no meanngl protection to racial eka and weligos minorities that might le vlnerable to messages of hate Sections 62 and 166 ofthe Criminal Code prohibited, respective, setion and "preading fle news” withthe intention of easing injury oF mischief publicist But neither had been designed to criminalize expressions intended to provoke lence ‘gost particular group within society" In ight of these “defences? {asin an his coleagues ecommesded that the comme insert exh refoences to group defamation in bth ctions and sugges eee ‘of wo yeas imprisonment anyone found guilty of ether ofence The ‘committee assed on the advice convinced th har that cou res ‘hom promotions ofhate, the members opt apn placing ay new its on Canadians right fedom of expression * ‘The ea 19605 brought «renewed sense of gency to the mater forthe (IC. Ashton Fann Bilao ae argued nthe aly yeas ofthe {ecade the Holncausteame to bese aan integral put of Canadian ews ety prompted in part, by the stentionsarouning the 1962 trl of ‘Ado Eichmann the NaS ofcer and architect of Mier Binal sti whom sel forces abducted fom his hme in Argentina a 1960, eid snd eventual executed for elmer again’ the evith ppl crimes ais ‘aman and war crimes.” This period alo sa marke, though deters mins rie the prolifertion of ansemiim and test materials throughout the country. Most ot areved i he nouthen Une States, from states such as Virgina, Alabama, and Calor. A sale percentage ‘45 homegrown, originating imparts of southwestern Ontari” Ove ning; the materi espoused the dctlnes of white superict,en ore the Helocast, and advanced he view that both communis sed the United Nadons were part of larger Jewish conspiracy to contol the ‘wor To many in Cans ewish commanty ~ especially seins of the Holocaust =the spread ofthese mater ws prof that the dea of nami was very much alive and that something needed tobe done bowtie” Ina eter dated 12 March 1964, thee members ofthe CC ecetire Mite Garber Sydney Hares ond Sal Hayer~ red the te of rafting ate propaanda Keston withthe Pearson goverment, cation tha ‘hough sl realy sma the problem had grown to sac a pelt that ‘ould nolongerbe lf alone The thee facuzed href oa chtacting ‘the dstbution of atfl mater. At he tne, sectin 59 of the Cri ‘nal Code granted the postmaster general the authority to blck the lt ton of malo the grounds thas content was considered "indecent" or morse” oe sya "scurried orig" The er was that the cours would refi from ncladng me (ert defame erifsbe groups in tec interpretation outros? opting for amare reading it which the erm apleaton world be stricted to materials deemed to be slanderous on to individuals. Con- sequenh, the executive members caled on the federal govenment formally to expand the st of rounds on which an individ postal pr epeecould be eoled ince materia tht promoted Vence ar hatred ‘int igus, racial eda group: ust Liskin had anged inthe 19505 they minted tat certain tees derived vulnerable groups of thoirigh oie 2 denied existence and tha consring these Hess was not onl esoneble fr theak of sheng these rout als inthe best Interests of acey, "eis cxagprton sa tht however confident we at fthestenth of ‘ur democracy hishteronemen fot et ede rey bes thi sia ptet ett ar iy, Inthe ety 80 fo wee pe red 0 ht the RI lod sity Of Gamay cul cn ‘hough incon adie on the pat thse wh hed thing co on with Nas othe etn of permit tht dsc dct ‘inthe upper hn Yet Rar ar hon whtcan app nthe ae at as onan” In October 1964 Garber Hayes, end Mawel Cohen, de of wa MG University in Montel and longi CIC pporter met with Guy Fares the minster offs, o daca the posit of sing a commit to study the mater The meting ws ascent. Tree month ater Favre ‘snnounced thatthe federal government war exabinhng the Special Com rmitee on Hate Propaganda in Canada, which would hae mandate to e- ‘ramine "wh parameters of permisubl argent” for Canaan society” {Cohen was named cai seven members wee pled for thet pa ‘cular expertise and understandingoboth he aw andthe larger pions ca questions involved in vstcting expression, ining Caen were]. Corr, professor of plc science and wat Queens University, Lab Gérard Dion, a sociologist at Laval Univer; Shane Mackay, exectve tor ofthe Manitoba Fre Press Pere Elio Tradet, profesor of lw at {he University of Moneal a the tie Satl Hayes othe CIC and Mask MacGiuigan, profesor olla and cairo the CCLA Bourd of Diets. Originally inenoed by the sucess of the American Chl Liberties Union (ACLU), cl liberties argazations et ered in Canada nthe 1930s and 194052 ad hoe and empty reponse to spect a fant) encroachments on ind! Ubertes Dormant theoughout the 1950s, the CCLA was formally revised in 1968 fllowing the Roars gow ‘coments decision to merase the powers aval to Ontario's ple forces. Committ protecting and extending Canadians cil Mere and fundamental freedoms gat undue encronchnents by he sit he CCCLA took 8 hallowed vew offer of expresion Although estas veasby no means abso ts postion was that fe speech wa the ingle reves salegurd shilng democracies from the pesos ad toward a= ‘hortaranism tn the minds ofits members, ny of whom were pom ‘ent Linyers, journalists, and seademicy, wat the nakeplace ide ~ fee and uncensored pubic dette ~ tht petted Canadians agains “unjust gorernmente an unjust polc”™ Also taking exepion tthe snaouncement wat the eda boa of| the Gla and Mal. Given the moto on the papers masthead ~ “the sub ect wh stu loyal the Chie Magitrat wil either advise or submit (0 achizary measures” ~ te opposition was ot out of characte fa an ‘dora on 12 January 1965, the paper quested the wisdom end the {governments decision in essence daring the commie befre even ‘begun ts work. sew was that «hte propagandsl would invariably Interfere wth the freedom of expresion ofa individual, nt jst hte mongers, and have the unintended fet of devingbate- mongers under. ‘round thus ving the spi fant Semts ofeserin en recess tthe eommunity™ Cater remained unconinced tha orig the problem wat thé most sppoprte course of cton Like Hays he shared many of the CIC fears shout the gly f democracies an held partially pessimistic view of | ‘human mature. AU indvidutls, be Bleed no mater howe wel edvested, ere capable of moments of ration, sometimes even cel and vce ‘rationality Soto were whole soci, pei ting tine of soci ares when the temptation to malign or scapegoat particule rou wth In society could be great. Fat Cate passing le that prohiied the pro ‘oton of hate was in effet an “insurance picy” hat soley tok out ais itso potential for acts of batty.” ARUP he ders hat As approach was nether perfect aoe compres, he bribed othe ‘bethatepsation ould deter sentiments of ate frm manifesting then Seles in vet acts of violence and wie tareed groupe lel ecuree to confront those whovilfe them a worse lle forthe destruction * ‘The Alan Gardens Rot fate May 165 in Toronto marked ow point in the lrger dat over he spproprate response to the poiation a te Propaznds ina democrat sce The icdent Boga ater» amber af news outlets announced that Walia John Bet, lener ofthe Notional Soca Pury of Canada, and hs supporters were planning to hol a public ‘aly forte end ofthe month the Allan Gardens” At the ine ero (iy Council cau do nothingto tp the lly as eo byas rane He ahe authority to ba abl gatherings In he iy’ pas Een tured ‘olent. On 30 Maya mab of roughly $000, many of then Hola su ‘rors who hadimmgrate n Cann from atrm Europe ae the Second ‘orld War descended on Beute and his supporters. Whether the viene vs premecitated was no ney cea bu hen that many of them were armed it as apparent hate intention wa to intimidate he new Nant Imo sitence. Alter much commation, pice eventual separated the two roups, rescuing Beatie and members f= motrcele cab who happened tein thevicny oftheray lor anyone war seriously injure Nine of the rotors werearestedinclding Beste nd eight fos. All were charged with causing disturbance tothe pce, though only Beate and one other Hoter were eer convicted Many were quick denounce the siot with he harshest condemns coming from the CJC eect” Both Sydney Hass the organatin ‘ce presidet, and Benjamin Kyles, the exevativ rector ofthe Tent ‘Gammanity Relations Commitee (JCRC), which was made wp of dlees fom the congress and Bhai Brith ericzed the reters for acting i ‘esponsbly Two dys afer the Inert, Hari tld reporters that he had “ao sympathy with ny group that ha pre-determined ts oing to et in titan manner” Kafe that he CIC not condane lence, por «id t suppor individuals oF groups nthe Jewish community tat i" Both scused the onganizers ofthe tof acting "wih ite regan for the ‘consequences tothe community" Whether the CIC Med it not, the sot had romendous impletons| focboth the congress as an ogaizaton an its carpi fr hate propa. ganda law. According to Bit, ee clash exposed the deep cewagts itn Canad Jesh community and marked the arta the survivors 82 force” that ha been exchded fom the “orion poe” ofthe CIC ‘But perhaps more important reeled a wider dieatsaction wih the CCCs seeninglypasive response oneo-Nasinm and prompted eal fot & more agarestie, systematic, and inclavestegy for combating et Semi sn Canad.” ‘The Cohen committee submited ts report tothe federal goverment on November 1965, ony eleven mnths alert hd bgun ts work Cohen sd hiscollenguesallagredtat eedom of expression albeit fundamental {o the vera health af any democracy, mas wat abuse, They conde that devs that vilied whole groupe pope could exact» remendall prychologcly soil and physical = on those targeted al he wile Jeoparizng the wo-being fect. Although the evidence suggested that the diseminaton of hate erature was ested to small percentage of | the Canadian populace, Coben andhiecoleaguesbebaved hat inthe wae ofthe An Gans Rit the pobl ws oo pressing to ignore” More ove ames in which Canaan owned radio and televise masse, ‘he capaci for messages af hate to reach new and ager adence way at thetime, unprecedented elevng thatthe worst seni as ot ot ‘the realm of poss, the emits sumed tat Canadians were no less vulnerable tothe “eam of acim or Nazi than either Hal ot ‘Germany had been dig theft hal ofthe went century” For them, ‘he hams that might arse rom allowing Such ies o go unchallenged, ‘hough ontenibly minimal given the rate size ofthe problem and the fener economic prosperity ofthe mid 1960s, nonthlessemed pres Ing They ecommended hat the state enact measures to desl wih the prob Jem preempt, befor it “mushroomed] into teal and monstrous threat out way oe “The consensus among the group was tha the various provisions in the (Comin Ce at ined certain types of expression oflered adequate ‘metre for contonting the disemination of fate propaunds. Section 166, which dat with at of sedition, pple nly oY tht the ind ‘dual in quesn knew were yet published anyway. andit was ever Intended ata remedy against the spread ate gaint dentable minor ites Section 158 hich granted the postmaster general the thority to suspend the delvey of certain per of scurrilous. had only ‘been applied to materiale deemed tbe immoral and sexta charac {er Seton 50)b) ofthe Broadasting At foe radio and tke pr hibited the broncasting of “abusive cmmnts or pictures toward any “rae or religion’ but the aw alowed charges tobe lai nly ait the ‘sation or network ivoled no the person who commited the fence on si” To addres these shortcomings, the committee recommended that new epidation be drafted that criminalize thee types of speech The Bat would prohibit ether th advocacy or the promotion of genocide. The Second would forbid sateen thik incited heed or conte against any enable group — which it dtc a “any setion ofthe publi di {ingished by rligin cloae race, ingunge ethno nations eign — in public place that “ely to ead to «breach of the peace’ The tid vould prohdst group defamation, epudlesofthe outcome. The penalties for anyone foune gy of violating any ofthe three types of phy the ‘commie sigatste, should be nprsonment for, vo, and tw yer respectively Althouph ete the fist ar the secon recommendation wasn: te the third was more problematic. No one in gd concn, eo argu tha advocating genocide of inciting viokneeapiat» salable minority had anyplace na democrat sccety However the dleminn wes te fnd a way'o probit spech that dd ot cae any edt phys harm othe aged group without pling nde estcuns on feedom of expression To ove this problems the conumitiee add ft Qualls ts recommendation rating to on-sent group defamation Fast, po, ‘motion of hate needed tobe wi Second indidslscauld ot be found sy Ute oul prove that what hey had sd waste Tied they cold ot be convicted they could prove thatthe ebjct mater wasin thea interest thet csson othe subject ws forthe pulic beef orth they had "reasonable ground to belive that ther statements wet nde “rue though he ons as on thet thes to show hs © Fourth to Prevent “fevobus or unwarranted prosecutions” the commie tec ‘mended that only the federal and provincial attorneys grr balled to ‘ring charges against individuals beled to be in vito of ele ‘With these safeguards in place, the commits surmised tha the bor had bce set high fr any limitations on spech and thatthe cots wo ve lide rouble dierentiaing hate mongering from keitmate speech Released on 4 April 1966, the Cohen commiterseport dew mie ‘actions. Not surprisingly: the CIC wa gly supportive the report {ent that Cohen and his colleagushed cated wns and well enoned ‘elation to the problem of hate propaganda. Others, icing the prime ‘milter, were less convinced that the commie hd succeeded in secon lishing what hd st ou toda eason who in the 1950s had been oe “sted by Joseph MeCasthy of being 2 communist, was uncomfortable lth ‘he ambiguity ofthe commendations. Hefened that teh aw ol be tse spans those of us who eleven cil ights™ The Globe und Mt ‘which had been leery of the committee's work fom the begining mas qual disturbed, forthe report seemed to coir many ofthe fers he is edtrial bod had raised the year before, The pupermsitaned thet the proposed ints on expression wete dangerous for Canad. Although the recommenditions were tended for neo Noi and hate mongers, the Globe and Mal bev thatthe net ou be Cast much ether eons ‘ren wed sence tote who were cil of scale econo nee tues within society he CCLA abso had reservations aot the report spite MacGuigans ‘nvolvemen, the ongnzation had serous concerts aout the pope ‘ciminlz speech dered hatfl but not let Stadt in ts usp ‘in tat any iningement on freedom of expression was tetamoant to llesing the sate tobe the arbiter of trath med ech ol he rw ‘oring behind the proposed new hon the gtounds that neither thea nce of eximinal santon nor the pnt eat ost posed by the promusion of fate wat sifcent to warrant censoring discussion hat, ‘hough ofensive to «particular group or groups, cold be of some sci alte The CCLA remained fm nt conieton that open dete flere far more appropiate responseto the problem otha propaganda than dd ‘he tear oan ‘The question of “appropriate” media exposure fr neo Nai and ate mongers posed a considerable dem forthe CIC. On the oe and the {IC favoured efor to revel the setter ofthe who publi promoted tae Bleving awareness a bean important step toward inelating society pint desrctive eas On the other hand isa ages danger ging “eurency and notre” to these Mes, particu the news ngeiza tion war stemptng playa semblance of lace ins oneal Nowhere was this mote appien than daring the CJC publ fed ith the Canadian Bondesting Corporation (CRC) ove its enggement with varius neo Nain the te 1, In January 1967, th ICRC ened that Adal von Thad, the deputy ‘lrman ofthe German lraratinalist National Democratic Party (NPD), ‘wsplanninga tour of Canada to win interrtonalsipport for his pay and thatthe CRC hoped to interview him. Angee the ICRC mobi the Jewish community ar wells churches abu anions, end veteran ous: toattend publically a Nathan Pilipe Square in Toronto to potest oth von Than’ areal and the resurgence of Nach in Geman asta teoubling forthe erganizers was the CBC's seemingly cavalier tude to veda man ehosepaorms inched the eration of ews “The network nally proposed Having wm Thad 96 & “mystery sven” on Fon Page Challenge an entertainers sia which & aneoreportes were sgn four minutesto dette gus trough "series of yes and no questions and then alowed to question the nda. Lv the ICRC aecused the CBC of‘lringand den” Nasi ih ‘er tha exposing the dangers that such des posed to Canadian mci. Amd he presare,the CBC conde th this wan inapproprate foram for von Thadden, Isa coe to intrsiew hin onthe pleats show Sunday "he leaders of Cana ewsh community remand angry and warned the CBC that ny program on von Thadden would undoubecay be socom anid by protests outside the studio. Secretary of Stee dy LaMar ho ‘inate reponse forthe publ network, een weigh tronthcconin ery and chasse the network fr adopting a recleststade ed publi salty” Agsn the CEC rerestd Butt dnotacglone there tity Ine of nterviewing van Thaddn in Toon, snt hs pede, ton crew to Germany to interview hin there Asha Boon freearnn ‘ughly 8000 demonstrators protested outs the CBC station enone eile dn sow aed on 2 Jar “he cual between the CBC and Canadas Jewish community di not “nd thes. In December 1966, the CJC accused the CBC ofonce auioshon, «sing hatemonger to the Canaan pubic. Once agua the cetrorcey lnvoted Font age Chaleg. ol tite the nivel in question an, Bekish fact and outspoken antieite Se Oswald Mosey Unde non ‘aden he di ppen asthe “mystery challenger” This tine the Choe, {ack drew the ie of author and journalist Pre Beton ce hbctaren frned inthe mids of many within Canadas ewith commun he ‘eed fra hate propaganda Iw remtined pressing” In aman 196, eegton fom the Canadian ews Congress met wth the secretary of tate for external afaie and acting prime ites Pal ‘Martin to ciscus the federal government’ plans to adopt the eomsnene, one fhe Coen Report Main was nonconmital Hel te dae {that the feral gvesnment panned to bad fon inosine ey re leglation to Parament unl atri hada chanson tec ‘en Report ito Fetch, a which pink would makes deen susp tere course faton” Only in November di Slicer Generel Lear Peo introduce fil $19, An Act to Amend the Criminal Cade in Propegendat noi the Howse of Commons bain the See BI S-9 wa. orale and purpose, decal othe Caen com mites recommendations, the only asabe exception being th the bill ‘omit he terms religion "ngage sna nationl eg rns defn io of “idntfale groupe” Lethe report the bil ss Highly vse Few senators ~ Liberal or Conservative ~ supported without exertion [Most were ympatheticto ams bt uncomfortable thts poset ap pllcations. A veal few romained convinced tha posed pls affront {och bert Aldiugh the bil was allowed to leon the order paper in March 1967, dhe Senate rune te work the filling ye thi time inzoducing the legion a Bil 85. In February 1968, «seca Senate ‘omattee began hearigeon the bil Predictably celled on the expertise fol the organizations and India that had had and in dating the Proposed etion “The CIC was among the fest group of witneses to pp before the committee Its delegation conited of nine representatives rm various Jewish organizations on of whom was Sal Hayes Lite had changed in "spon snce the 19505. The C}C supp far B55 remained ted inthebele hat open soles are ot invulnerable tothe deste power ‘fates, Conspiracies about Jewish plo to donna the wos representatives argued, ad been sound for centuries. They vent ne But Joseph Goebbels the mastnind behind the Nasi propgands me ‘hing taken “Je ating” to ne eights by devising the le ec nique! which operated onthe premize that people wil Bleve ay tis repeated frequently enough Convinced hat hated toward Jes never teal disappeared but omen wives tha bed and lowed the delegates ‘eared thatthe worstense scenario ~ another Holocaust -reined & posit, ia remote one. On thie point Sey Haris, now the vice ‘harman ofthe Cetra Region of the CIC, we aan ‘Now he cate of Canad sire and thet the sgh san otk ht the ciate Cada eer eel ht of Germany Neverthe ina pcan whee happens and wean toda ates one eon ho survived the Europea kc 5 that Ieknows tha yuan row apin an simosphte wr ou hk ‘posible that happen a tn youre npn” ver conscious ofthe concer ase by cv bern, the CIC mn tained that 5-5 dd not tile lepton” pec, Expressions that te elegates reterte, feed no rodering valet soy. Nathing cred was ot by censoring spech hat cou case grea physical and paycho logical havo to whole communis. Agsin Harris wos party sent ‘on thi oie: "1 my concen hat too much srs as be Ii pon the pine ‘hein tan seated peo. an ian enone and notch ‘poe he dates an baton which arin member at soy any view it the lg fect that a eoprencag se nto eso. an ind et fa fom dining scpandog tothe daciment of he cline say snd wel Far he IC huge inte lw ptetng eda fepesion =the deen wtp nes tnd pkcboche eae tet aft not tha diet om he pin fan Cae res" Ror tds hs te ee oa ae Shelton sggesing tt theese on whoa :ponabiiyon theses poet vy sober teens Sts resonable rhe ott ae meme he gps opt ay afte uk than ay he i es Ficean cn hectic ME Seance ope sence pega’ at coadbe ad talents pepah ‘st atectonamevte at honed oranges ‘tions of Irate already in the pubtic domain, vente Netallmmbes oft pc Ses commie: werecmined Some setters tained unre the red fr egton othe pscee ht mtr potent! unable iin a se the Se srry CA dept pond by sugtng th Bl 3 rola bre French Chan nha propos argu eta nth This cin kept nel ent Chega epee ot French Canaan il tyne nee cpas den pple tents Yee ce” ‘Trehate propgands epson wat once in patos hl thin bythe feel eon of 1965, nich seta wn 9 iy gen ale his pose Trades ws merci ea +h pohbuing hte speech Sota 68 meer he ees 2 ld erates om th CIC he rime mms aed og thelepation asa grime mre Undo hanes theCatercommite indore ting Bat eat es believed thatthe purpose ofthe sate waste creates nce which Can- sms were allowed both eedom and equal of opportunity Despite hie Tivertarian leanings, he was not oppose to ree government titervention Inthe of Canadians as long athe jatifcation fr dingo wast allow tener Teedom and opportunity forthe dsavantaged™ Taso hi won the lepslition was reintduced a5 Bl S21. Hearings nthe Senate began awe in February 1969, and ths meth Sent tured othe CCLA for ttidince, ‘he CCLA sent four represetatives: Eamon Pak ne ofthe orpanion ions ie presidents Wilson Head» mciogie nee rations rm A> Tanta who had been a member of the Naina Associaton for the Advancement of Colored People rar to mving to Canada in 1965, Gr dam Parker, special counsel othe CCLA and an exer nimi aw at York Unveseys Osgoede Halland ill Armstrong, the oxniations executive sista. Alb appearing before the come, though a an i Sependen wines, was Oxgoode Hall dean flaw Hary Arthurs one ofthe ‘CCLAS Tounders in 1964 Abe rom the CCLAS delegation was Mac Gagan, who ha st aca or pit, wining he eto the ing of Windsor Walkervle For MacGuigan andthe CCLA, th Cohen Report ‘nd subsequent hte propaganda bls had mated phosphil parting ‘of ways. Although MicGuigan remained stong supporter of anda good ‘end to he organization and its execute, he had been persed ofthe nee eisation to ed with ate mongers. This wa something Nis fr mer ola gues simply could ac aexpt™ The CCLA delegates a ile need forthe lw, ave the prohibitions ‘puns he promotion of genocide andthe advocay of wolence AB “sympathetic tothe intent of he egilaton they wee uneasy abou ep ‘ental spplcation, They questioned the assumption that tension among ups in society had no redeeming vale contending that often ated ws the spark that ignited postive social change. "History Park expine"has taught us ht 5 often omer’ scia refer grows oof td's vba tack” Although the CCLA dot condone ate-mongering the dea facing any democratic society be aged wa daw the “ne Between reac tension an estrctive bate” “To those epesntng the CLA, Bl 2 spy i ut define this ‘qulbrium, Were the ines diferent, were later goup tensions boing ‘te io sytematic outbreaks of viene the group conceded he case fr such egishtion might be stonger Ba they held to the vow tat the scl climate athe lt 960 wa ch that, ven with che von hades, Mosley and Beate ofthe word the “veding ground for exes” was “not ery eile” They quetaned the vite loslaton tht ned ‘rth a the barometer of innocence while smallness panting the ‘courts he power to "se the framework of democratic pola poles by ‘ving them the authority to dead which subjects dba were of public fntrest The danger they warned was tt the law oul fet people ‘who bore “no resemblance to the Nats batmongers who pated the bil The rel solition was at to profi certain forms of speech Bt to strengthen the umn rights lgisation actos the country il si ‘ancousy eliminating the social nd economic neques thin society hat fueled felings of hate hich, atleast in theory, would farce the hat monger t opeate ina irtual acum” “The CCLAS arguments resonated with Hil S21 dtra:tors.On 24 Api 1969, days after Pack and his clleages ad appeared beter the Sena Comite, the Glob and Ma printed excerpts fs esimony and ‘the organization in that days eri column for advocating non legal remedies to the problem of hate-mongeing.” Mich of the appeal of the {CLAS postion was that it ofered, nee an nla counteract to the arguments put forth by the CIC without minimizing concern about the neal to oppose des of hate, ‘But the CCLAS arguments were not pesssive enough to change the ‘Trades governments mind. On17 Jane 196 fer two and aha yeas the berl-lominated Senate pasted Bil S-2 by a coming vote of tity. ‘seven to twenty-one Two desler the legion was introduced inthe ‘House of Commons bud on the order paper when Pasament broke for ‘the summer: In October 1969, the federal overaent enroducd as Bil (©, An Act o Amend the Criminl Cade (Hate Popacenia) On 13 Api 1970, after much heated debate, Patent pase the law by x cout ght nine or and forty: five agit One hunted andeweny seven ener bers ~ nears half th House of Commons ~ wee aban fr the ate Why somany members were not preset forthe vote hat dy not let A ‘hough porattendnce for bls thin readings at necessary out of he ‘rina, Stefan Ben has speculted ta hei absnce canbe atrbuted| tos fea of bing perecived to be onthe wrong sie of te. ying to owing poll pressure, pale wdierence, polit weariness or some ‘combination ofall fous? Troe to frm the eo board of the Gabe end Mai dsappeoned of {he outcome: “Tis isa dangerous il. We haw ony begun tse the da ‘ves iretng out frm tto thunder at the fundtons ont most preci Inscusone™™ And! in the Upper Chamber, an equally istrbed Libera senator Dani! Lang. called a his allow senators abe unsucely to suspend ther oie ofthe egistion ut the Supreme Curt f Canada ould determine whether wasconsitonal nde the 160 Blof ihe” The 1970s saw a marked opin the number af enn icons ving thedstribtion of hatfl mates in Canad, With he cine the ars of widespread neo-Nazi resurgence of he ite 960s eed ade." Bat the unease abot the potential appliction ofthe hate propaganda lw did ot. It remuned on the mind of those who had hd ouch np int the ‘omtrtion of the law Some members ofthe JERC bleed that they should loty various provincial governments to ike the broadly even fr elatively minor Incidents of pub aterm” Tat they woul ak sch «position atclary alr 1975, undertandabe, As Blytk has suggested for many within Canada Jewish community the Six Day War a 1967, the Warf Atiton from 96711973, andthe 1973 Yom Kipp Wer "brought home in some meas the reaty ofthe Holocaust = tht Js ad to be ‘plan that angers var a palpable vet, and that Jews must never low themseles a become captive to lara regimes aad om ela ‘rigs exclason™ But others were nota convinced tht thi was 2 ise Me, Following the 1970 Drydones decison atthe Supreme Cour ome members feted thst the hate propaganda I would nt survive onstutonal dallenge Hence, he predominant vem within the CJC mas that pressure to hae the aw invoke shal be eestrted oly cases ‘which the outcome would be “earcut as aay and concede ike undoing what ad taken deeds to achieve™ ‘Alan Boruvey, the general cou for the CLA, was equal uncon vince f the constitutional ofthe ae He ad joined the ganization in 1964, gic becoming its pelncpl pubic spokesperson a wll asthe in telctualfrce behind many of postions, Like many cv Hertarans, Boro was uncomfortable with ft reaching Mate tran into the es of individual, special in times of peace For Rn lthy democticy hinge on the it of dato group ones the acl consent though aon-vlent forms of pes, Fieedm of expeson lay tthe Jat ofthis ability to eet Soil change In anal tht eppesced tn Canadian Form i 1971, Boovoy wrote tat Canad’ bate propaganda law leaned “oa heey and unnecesaly toward the proteston of psc at the expense spec by resting the right pea bere the tea the peace is nom exstet minimal or capable of adequate protection in| ser wee ‘longstanding member of the}CRC, Boro wis deny disturbed by ‘oth he uth tha the CC placed in he safer the aw adit tee fom the question of whether such a might exch the wrong people A ragmatist,hesspeted tat sy aplication ofthe hae ropagand would be inherent counterproductve, He red tht woul have the ‘dese fet of transforming ide bnown soapbox eter ito national figures by allowing them an udserved oment in the wun and perhaps more troubling. rata unwelcome marys fee pec A former protig of Advan Arand. Est Zande! was Holocaust denier ‘om Germany who rst came tothe attention of Canad Jewish commun ‘yin de md-960s following the meso his book The der We Loved ‘ad Why which he wrote ur the pseudonym Cito eve By the ‘rly 1980s, his Toronto publahing company Sandal Pulser ad ‘ome the lrgest distributor of anemic Irate in the wos mang hte propaganda to destinations throughout North Amerie and Furope (On 13 November 198, Postmaster General André Ouellet sed ante robibition agent Samia unde the tems of ection ofthe Canad Post Corporation Act which permed him o revoke the company sity tosend and receive mal unttheease could be examined ya Postel Revie Board Ouallesjusied the decison onthe grounds tht the company > ‘lings ilted section 281.202) (now 3192) ofthe Criminal Cade the Portion of thehate propaganda lw that prhibed th dirbution of no ‘iolnt messages of Rite A sll procaimed champion of fcedom af ex. reson and 2 defender ofthe German ethnicity, Zindel bled that he tea the “victim of Zionist persecition™ the was not the onl india with an anise age and an ap Putte fr the poight Beginning th en 2970, ames Keen teh hishigh school sudensn ck, Alera that Jews were response foe ‘ch ofthe ei in the world” Like Zndel, Keepta belied that the oocaust had been a fbeton x ploy to create favour fo Jews wh the ret ofthe work” Students his wade 8 and 12 soil sence dacs ‘who supported his views on cams and in eps were read with igh sar those who did ot dd poory in hi cases "Following complaints fom some parents and apeotracted bate with the Albert Teaches Ae sociation, Keegstra was dsmized and stripped of his teching ence ‘December 1982. Althoagh he ormereacher was no longer position ‘olnuence young minds, the mater did ot nd tet. 1 Jury 198 tte serena elatance the Laughed goverment in Alberta charged Keegstra with ating te ate propaganda lw” epreseting both men was Doug Chri, a ayr bated in Victoria Bish Column. A devout Reman Catal, Crise wa 9 cntrversit figure nhs ight Inthe 1970s, he ad founded ape prty kw 15 the Western Canada Concepts mandate being t secie separation af the four western povnes frm the test of Canada" vowed ant"ig owenmert he considered ICS duty to dead unpopaar inde ‘hom noone ele weal ake ona ents including Zindel whom ist. inet at Keeps’ preliminary hearing in Jane 1946 Many ober were aso suethat hismotiveswereso pile. There was ston suspicion ‘hat his traction to Kenpeta and Zande involved me than jst the de fence of feed of expression In preparing for Zinds defence, Chrisie ven eported to hve fed all that he could about revisit "interprets ‘ons othe Holocaust spending cosierable time at Zunes hme in To ron. Many observer suspected tha ite epee frm ansel™ In 1988, Parliament inated study on the Participation of Ve Minor Its i Canadian cet which incded a ee ofthe hate propaganda law Responding to presure fom numberof minority grap the comm tworesponsbelur the stady recommenced sere of slerstins othe av, all of which woul, passed, remove oF diminish the provisions safe {uaeding reedom of expression foun in the ate ropagands aw Among ‘he things the commiterconchded that the lw rquie tos ch (he prosecution. thur making convictions clo acu. Iveco mended thatthe bw be amended so hat the tate no longer bad to prove that the accused "wily" prometed hate and that concent ofthe atone grea would no longer be requed tn nite proceedings gant a nd ‘ida The report wa neti of rowing apport among any ein ‘aygroupetha the stat ruled restr ste tocensos the Zande ad Koga of Canada sce nvidia whore ea wre at ony Sept hurfl bt io posed threat other members wel- being and fey. Horony was deeply troubled by the propose changes In» speech de lier tthe 1984 Conference ofthe Canadas Ititte forthe Amini ‘ration of hte, he msintained hat, though inadequate, these provisions {id oer misma steuar gsinet unde encroscests of fed expres on Moreover he argued hat Canadian society was not only strong. enough to withstand the tess of hate tat came fom teal, sal toup of extemiss but also had demonaisted this frit in veont months Kegsra, Bovey nied ha already been removed rom the pu licreal. No ony Rad he ben mised rom his teaching positon, bat he tad subsequent lost his i for eeeloton as mayor of Eel Kees hd Iite re is had traional polis, winning the candidaey for the Socal Cred, which ad aso of ater plo the ing of Re Dee nthe federal ktm of September 1984, Bat hee too he had ‘been rebut. Both heand hs party had foundered wining roughly 08 erent ofthe pops vote. only sighly more han the Rhigaceos Party’ 1 percent." For Bory, ths was prot tat he elton to individuals ‘suchas Keegstra wasnt itgation bt asin “poll ell whenever racist terances emanate from people af thority sic standing” with the objective being ether to remove the person in question from his het os Sion orto garner a mepningalpble apology. As for “peripheral as? {hose wiv might be tempred find scapegoats for ee rave standing in society, Borovoy ance again suggested tht he ston wast ema di riminatory buries within soci, ls rationale being that conlonting ‘cist “es woul kel mine the eft of racist words" ‘Not everyone wat satisfied with Barve’ asesment Many Canadians, Including many members ofthe Fewishcommnty beleved hat the eerie ‘of tempting recy the log term Us of society that alowed act Mes {otake hold wasan adequate and inappropriate respons oan mediate Problem. Increasing they Began to lok to the cours or alton {in te1986,the Canadian Holocaust Remembrance Asocition, which had broken off om the CIC in he ate 1970s becaue fwhat bleed was 4 sve response tovard hate mongers tok Zandt cour, ot or Wola. Inthe hate propaganda lv, but for vlting section 17? (ao 8), which Prohibited the “spreating of ae news and di ot requ the consent of theattomey general” Zinde seemed pleased withthe turn of events In Fundnising eter to hs spores he wrote that ths was the “Great Hoo aust Tea” in which history itself was being jaded” Drawing on Gorge Orwell famous noel Nineteen Eighty Four he wt tha the Zant ete “enemies of rath feeom and jot” and warned tht he ost ot only would he goto prison ad Sant be shut donb elo “al hove who question Zions! behaviour nd interests wil be lt sc eg Christie antes in the courtroom aed further fut tthe debate ver ‘he fun ofthe tra During the proceediags, th Crown, which ad been unsuccestl it i to cone the cout to grant ul otce ‘at the Holocast mason inspuate event in hsoy cle on survivors {otakethetandin the hopes of proving hat Zande! ws tony wrong ba alk knew that he wes wrong Yet promted hi thor anyway. Chrisie 2 unforgiving in his rom examinations He challenged the stent ‘ofthe survivor memes, accusing many ofthe witness of hing sbout wha they had ved through, He even clled om witness of i a, > ‘ilonist experts one of whom ws Kegs ‘andl was eventual found gly onthe frst cout of spreading lb hoods about the Holocauetand was sotened to ier month in prison “Traghout thea Chrisie had hs et to convince he ary that ‘conviction would be tantamount to undeemining feed of spec in Cana: however his ease had fen apt afer the Crown ws bet di pel Zandets claim that he was zevisonis bora Oude the court ‘oom, a dejected Chis tld jourmalist,"we would be wise no to question thing in thi country for a whe ‘Many wth the CICapplaidd the ling and hoped hel he conviction would act ara deterrent apne other like Zindel. Tey cote that + pusve response had thus ar sccomplithe it tht the Holoaut denier had gone unchanged for slot two decades, with the ea being that Samisat had become ene ofthe mos proiie dstibutors of hate prop fandain the weld” Sil many remained skeptical ofthe wind ofthe tal Rabi W. Gu ther Pat of Torts Holy Blom Tel cle itan ‘ero Hisconcen vas that Zundel had been handed bth plitorm of unprecedented sle and an undeserved credit that only came with resting hi des ser Jou. Ina rather blunt assesment of the ston, be commented “i someone cals your mothers whore that nit a tsb fora debate Preicably, the CCLA remained convinced that gation was mistake? [nan epiniom eral in dhe Toronto Star Bory wrote: Whe then wate pot of the ence? War Zand poate esse brewasamanfsich ting ad ttre? Wah psc so oman nga snp had bec tse Th ft tht Ze beer on fer periphery His enter was vital esis Hine ‘opranchet ro. Wis mae he prosecution toons thee tbe fot Bat gration Keegst9 appeal ed the potential oe fs aig. The it i bad be ging ting seventy dys, coaching with hedge eling thatthe ate propaganda io warindeedcositutions andthe jury nding Kegs oy of wilful promoring hate ning hin 85,000!" For the in lal hearing the CIC had Sent a team a observer and had ped the A: beta Crown to bud ts ease. Bat ever conscious af the opis of the proceedings i had decided again sechng intervene st fo er that the tril wool be perceived cule asa“ sue!" The extion was warranted, The former miyor af Eble spat the Alberts Court ot Appeal was efor the ping of 1985 Already hehad become a smbol of Ineedom of xpeson forthe extreme pita ight of western Canada "Ar Bovovoy bad belived with Zindel he bleed that preung Keege- tsa thagh the cours had unecessary given a “ige” extent pt form to Broncast his Wes” Hoping wo avd reoccurrence, the CCLA pprocted the CIC and propasd thatthe to organisation together cll ‘on the Federal government to mabmi judi! retrnce to the Supreme (Cour of Carads to determine whether the section of the hte propaganda Jaw that rimialednon-lethate speech was consttaional" Borwoy reasoned thatthe federal government agreed Kegata ta would un oubtedy be ejouned nts decision had ben tendered. Convers Sn the content ofthe relerece the Supe Cort ruled that he law was ‘unconstitutional any tl for Keegstra woul be moot. However f fund that the Law did not contravene the Chart tbe sve wold be wee, ac Keegstra would be unable to challenge ts galt om the grounds that i nated i eedom of expression ™ ‘The CJC wae not een om the a. Tete wat fing among nec tive that suppor for such a eerence could be easily minanderstod and ven expla The er was thatthe poli would not recogne tat he {CiCand CCLA wer engaging «pre-emptive mine to darupt Keeps defence Rather they were nervousthat any questioning the val ofthe law even ifthe request wargnored, oad ulate deri any re defence of ts consiationalty™ For the CIC nd Canada’ Jewish community stage the ft Zindel and Keogstra tal had beer Pec victories. In bth eats th dco ad been favourable tothe Jewish community. Yet they ad had to elie the ‘ventsf the Holcaust and comb centri of there boat the ens nee of am iteretional Zionist conmacy. Wheter the cont hd Desh ‘worth eas debatable Folin he sentencing, rv unepentnt Zinde ad conrmed the fers of those who had opposed the tl the fist ice, boasting ouralis ouside the courthouse $40,000 lon work bt ota milion dolla worth of pu for my eae” and" ould ave mused a second. enjoyed mye tocough I tle wonder tha isoran ving Abella eg is advess tthe plenary session ‘ofthe CIC 1986 annua general meting with he words oly lly have ‘Canadian ews emerged rr he trauma of 985°" Bur theteauma wae nt ove Pressure bin to mount onthe CLA ts ntervene in Zandt ae Keep fash appeals, whch once again placed the organization ln a dicult pos ‘ion Lacy for Borvoy, a publ eu with Cte in 1986 eased any doubt egarding the CCLAS intrest athe wo ates. AL the ine of the Intl trials Christie made a namberof pbc watemeats that echoed those of icles, expressing doubt abot the Helcaust and suggest that Joa were respon fr hice respective convictions." Inari sed, oro wrote to Ces informing him thatthe CCLAS “counsel had boon irate ott coperate wit Yu ke ty way i connection wth the presentation of aumento aterwise except as maybe sty ‘equ unt he clei hie views on the Holocaust and the theory” of sn intrztinal Zionist conspacy™ Christi responded by aecusing Bororoy of cmmiting Serious tnpropeey” and efeced thee to his conn eee “hw leer hows turned oettn bes mined Besng othe CCLA.Atthe ‘nial bearing lor Zandt apea at he Oma Court of Appl Zid rupprtrs debuted opis wo thse in tendace incg the medi However Zandl had made ew don to it He ad sncudedo note on| the Bint page “Alan Borovry 3 yer who sts sel deende’ of ure erties. Yet e has writen the following cows, arrogant and Prejudced tribe again a trae defender of cl Mbertes, Me Douglas Christi” conned ornare dog ith the ated of ane whose a pres Superseded any elle for and human igs dit bere i Eten eadetndersofcrliheress yb warned BoRNoNS ‘linen, When Bornoydesees"nt-democrat eet eho eve do he mt of ier order wo cite th eo fhesinansure a espace ely derbi Sil the Ontario Coureof Appeal escied the CCLAS application onthe round, that Borooy eter to Christie conned. “inimdaing ver tones"™ Whathe tis was age factor inthe courts decisions debt, tfvun thatthe court had lio rejected ener appeaton fr intervene, status ror the CIC and Bra th, Nonetheless, Borovoy was angered by ‘he court'snarow ene Given the ote othe cet seta port eal precedent he rebuked he cour ply for allowing ight to ee speech tobe defended by 3 Iyer who took “intron fom krown Nai” Aen ins inary. the Ontao Court of Appel reamed the ‘xginal decison and ruled thatthe “ens spreading of alchoods is ot covere dy thefrendom of epson protectins fond in the Char “The Abeta Courtof Appeal however afr mare seceptiv tothe con ‘ens ofthe CCLA, rating I itervener sats in Kegs’ ape! In the vigil rahe rl judge had led tat ston 24.212) was not rina fact ningerent of ton 216) ofthe Charter aid hat, even were the Tinting eee on exprension was minimal and thon habe through section L Unlike the Ontario Couto Appeal the bere Court of Appeal overruled the orginal decison. In thee to zero ruling sed on une 1968, struck down section 28.2,rling ht the ate propaga le olated both sections 26) and I), which guatateed «constitutional right to be presumed inocent unt proven gui, and could not be “de monseablyjsid” unde ction 1. Chil ibertrians ppauded the decison The flowing doy Borvoy told Canadian Pres, baie the hatemongers inthis coun ab eft ‘ouneracted without relying on rich dangerous langage (Keep ‘should have-ben alowed to wall inthe abcury hes chy deserves” Stnlly pleased, the Gioke and Mais ei! Dou amend that the ‘onl sortcoming fhe eng ws that t appli ony to Alera The paper tale on the Government of Alberta to appeal he decison tthe Spree {Cout of Canad in the hope that the appa! cours decison would be ex tended across the country ™ Subsequent events suggested that the chances ofthe Glib and ai gt. ting its wat were god. Neary two month afer the Resta decison. the Gatto Court of Appeal upheld the same vecton of the hate propaganda law ina sia case olving Donald Clatbe Andeews and Rest Wayne Smith, mares ofthe Canaan Nationalist Soca Patty te 985 both mem had been conited and sentenced to nele asa sete mat In prison. respectively for willy pabioNing and dein the neo "Nai newest the Naot Reporter (bath ls happened tobe ends of Keeps and fad soporte him in his fale bid for leadership ofthe Soca Cre arty the Jae Bloe) "The Otare Cour of Appeals dee Som was almost completely tos with hao i counterpart in Alberta "Teo ofthe thre jnties ued hat thew wast an unreasonable frngement of section 20) and all hee beeved that ws to seeping that coud not be sted under section 1 od be nlite the Alberta ‘court the Ontario our based it dein on the ins fund in setons 15 and 27 ofthe Charter which covered equal ight and enhancement of ‘Canad’ maleltural heap, erect lo what was perhps the most ‘oquent defence ofthe lw, usce Cory wrote, what a srange ad per ‘esse contrediconif would beifthe Charter was to bese and erred so aeto ati dawn la aed at preserving our mulicltura eritage by limiting n minal and reasonable way feed of expression "Te rest, however was wo diferent lw fr deren prs of the ‘ran. Gen the inconsistency in hela the Supreme Court of Canada seed tor the Regs and Andes and Smith appeals concent on Sune 1989. Keegatra was ot pleased wih the prospec ose is sea! overturned When shed byjouralis boat hs elngs tard the le responded defiant war prscuted case they ad hat’ ot what yucan belive = other words we have thonght contain Canada"™ Like the two provincia ppl cout, he Supreme Cot ws changed wth determining whether section 21.2 ofthe Criminal Cade wat conti inal. Specialy twas aed to anewer four quesiens, Dil section 281.222) inftinge on ection 26) of the Charter? so, cl Be sed {though section 1? Als, dd Section 2612(3) vate section 14) ofthe Charter? Andis, could it be jie under eacton 1? On usions two and outhe court employed she Oakes test, whch tha devised to povide Serve consistency to section J analyses. Te tet operated on the premise ‘that law deemed to be unconsteaonal could be aged few "ato ally connected to the objecves “impaired the igh in ueson a teas pose and litstlets were proportional tits bjctines™ as ~ and remains = the Supreme Courts tol or ronal ison the rights of individual forthe purpone af protecting the collate ged. 2.» Keritra was not out the teachings flames Keeps a mich sit veasabout whether the Coben committee, ick nthe 960, bee ef instiingan appropiate balance between twa semingy ncompe- ‘ble rights. Not surpsingly tbe coe capt Bette ae aay of ved parts, both gavermerial and wow governmental, The federal and provincial atioreys general for Ont, Manis, Quebec, and New Beunswick a sought and were rane eve to etrvene, The Supreme [Court also awarded intervner satus to ve inet ou: fur that do fend the aw one that i noe The foun sport ofthe Goverment ‘oF Alberta were the CIC. the League for Human Rights of Bral Brith Cam da, Intermicus and the Womens Legal Edaction and Acton Fund (GEAR). That they would choose to Interne was not tall supeiing {Given both Keegstra viiication of Canada Jewish comniy andthe respective connections othe hate propspanda li both the CXC and Bit Brith da great dea at stake in the eral Sma InterAmicns was he ‘man ighs centre based in the Department ofLaw st Mel Univers end we chaired by Irwin Cotes, former president ofthe CJC, and LEAF wan ranization whose mandate wast" rele the Certs promise of eq lyri for wonen” and develop “equal jurisprudence” thmuph ii ton in precedent sting cases. They were inched for thet especie ‘expert human eg ls The lone intervene forthe esponen was hecCLA, During the ri the arguments raised bythe CIC; Blithe Am ‘usand LEAF were varios on old CIC eso the 1990s and 1960s | ‘couched in he language ofthe Charter All tok the positon that the hae propaganda law other repreented an unreasonable mit on te eedom ff expression provisien found in seten 218) ofthe Charter nr vn defendant's ight under section I) ofthe Charter o be innocent nt ‘rove pik. All sugested tha the le wae conitent with oth he Char ‘ersequality and mulls protectins fund in sections 1 and 27, spectively and varius statutes found intentional lw an could esl beuphld under section i need be For the frst two questions al four contended that secton 20) of the hart did noe prec able feed a expression, They tld te Su reme Court tat pronouncements af hate were ot shout the pus of tut but about depriving the targeted minority ofits iphts ad eedems Sach pronouncements carried no mee fr rocket and this warranted no ‘onstatonal protection. Section 15, which protected minis against formal lsriminaton i law fern conitutnal safeguard aginst those whose ultmte sim wast deny vlnerable minorities an equal stand ing in soe Sia, secon 27 embodied vison of wha the hate manger hoped destroy namely. paral, mulclral Canada.” All Dut LEAF butresed her argent: by cing tat Canad’ ate prope sda nw was consistent with Ari a f the fternational Contention onthe Elimination of Al Fors of Rail Discrimination ICEFRD\ which ‘ply peoibited the diteination of hate ess an, tus, was ping with Canad international otgations CCallectvy they rejected the positon that its on on-vletfrms of redo af exresion were fused only when faced by “cleat ant presen ange” Cling the experince of the Holos and the emotional ‘nd mental anguish hat came with being the target olde ll hee ‘suggested hat requiring table danger minimined the camulstiveticts ‘ot hate propagend, Like the Cohen commit, ll aieuined that was beter to nip hate in he bud BeloeBostomed no fll edged ats of violence and that any impairment of feed of epreton ws minal and proportional tothe ge golf censoring hate" For queions thre and out sone believed hat thea vsited the pre: sumption of nnocence found seton 14) ofthe Charter Alageed hat the defence of ath fund ia section 28-3) was intended o protect the accused and to allow thf spech that might have sme redeemable ‘ae to society. The C1Ccorended tht there was sls easy arden on ‘he Crown to prove that the individuals tention had been "wf and (hat he rsh ad etl “promoted hate Given the potential for harm and disruption a «result of eae of hat lef nchalenged ny inking ‘en of section 11 was. in thei thinking enti jstied. Al four sb ‘mitted that placing the bude onthe Crown to prove the rth of statement would render the aw "othe Bruce Faget counsel forthe Goverament of Alber, ao sbiited ‘thatthe answers tothe questions before he out were nes not Ye, ad he suggested that vas the Ontario Court of Appeal that had ached ‘ecarrect decision in &v Andrews and Smith Andie thems the Interne, Fraser contended that the promeion of ite was Beyond the Parmeter of seton 2b) ofthe Charter on the grounds that uch speech ‘as anithetal tothe ams of mulcukurl seit Inde there was ‘de that separated the arguments af the intervenes ho sported the a and those of the Government of Alberts" Frasers stn | afc sii lay tled Realy on cambinaton ofthe Cohen Report an norms Ineratonl lw icing Artie 4) ofthe ICEFRD. and Frise up ered the notion that “didual vedo of expression mut ge way to the broader intrest facial cohesion andra and lipo eed" Given the combination ofthe objects, and the various deences found within setton 22h protected feedoma expression he tow sabe ‘thatthe hate propngind lw met ceca ofthe Ones et As for: questions thee and fu the same og applied Fase subriet that the “defence of rth reurement of ston 28120} ots an ‘essonase burden onthe defendant parts since the Ontarin Corto ‘Appeal no ruled inthe Zonet case ha the promotion faschoods was not protected nr section 2) ofthe Chart Rates, section 28133) shouldbe sen 8 an ade safeguard against ineingements on eda of ‘express, Nor did Fraser contend that twas una to req the ace to pow the ruthless ofhisor er statment since, given the sujet ‘of theses about history. ta pac that esponsibility om the sate wuld render ta law “inoperable and “anenforceable Ching the Caen Repat once aga, he supasted that, It di violate scion of the Ohare as s justifiable ition that istered minimally with the defendats Fight to be presumed innocent ‘TheCCLA took diferent view of the constitution ofthe av Repre- ening tbe erpaigton wat Mate Rescrberg Lite had changed ite CCCLAS poston owardthe law sincethelnte 96s and eat 1970s Section 281.2, be enantined, was poe designed and had ben based on noble ut ‘isgidec intentions: was spy too vague and thus in contevetion section 2(b) ofthe Charter To establish thi point, he raised many ofthe same misgivings tha the CCLA hed presented tthe Senate bach in 1968, He did mo dscoun the premise hat certain non viokent speech should ‘elimi imply bacause appeared ta be devoid uf edeeming meth? Rather he warned how the murtneisof terme suche “wills hated ond “uth madeitimpossibleto distinguish speech that war"worty af protec tion and that which shouldbe proscribed” and impeded he ih to dsent Inatree sce (On this poi he took particular ue with the Sings ofthe Cohen “oma. In the mi-860s, Cohen an hie aleages had sgeted hat the li was necessary ot beast of what was happening but bec of \shatoulet happen shouldhatee alowed go unchallenged Like Borvey, Rosenberg contended that there had mot ener aed preset danger fiom hate-mongers in 1865 when the Cahen Report was sud noe tere one almost twenty-five yeu ste. Conequenty thee ws “oo bai to conclude thatthe fabric of Canadian salty and ts democratic nati ions fe so fragile sto be unable to withstand the raring of med ‘numberof players onthe feng fsck" “he lw, he sugested, aed ll thre cei fhe Ones Ut. Seethn 281.22 had not been atonal" devised o accent of ts agence Iseapacty toimparteexpresion wae stone Here sported tat the law couldhavea ‘hing fc” onspech which wo dott serve the Interests ofa maliutrl society On the question of proportional, he restoned hat mating th hwo the basis that ees of ate igh ake ‘holdin mainsseam society in the fate was an inst aston, An just Borovoy had dove ono many ecason bef eld he court that the nw as ounterproducive, tha nse rag gation gave Individuals sch s Keeptra and Zndel an undeerved of ‘egiimary” “Pacing sich ait propaganda on theft pages of our nail ne papers ft were worthy of debe he conled, "in 0 way serves the Purpose ofthe gation and isa gratuitous afoot acl igi Predictably, Christies answers tothe quetons before the ourt were also yes no, ys and no. On theft wo question the atnaes behind his arguments were not that dart fom thow the CCLA, Like the ECLA he ton contended that Section 281.22) a8 in clea ition fs ion 21) the Charter ait wat vague and abjective ope to Broad inter pretation and unequal application. Moreover, Chistie fond that the ‘efence oth was highly speculative, nd he questioned the assumption ‘hat unpopular speech could not bean imporant sumer of soil ‘change, Ande the CCLA, he suggested tht the pve os much Power totheattorney general ad the courts to determine he parameters eg Ime speech and that he appropri recourse tte mongeing a5 hot ‘he courts but public condemnation Furthartre, Cristie argued thse ‘ion 28120) ld not pasthe Ones et and thar could ote saved under section 1 ofthe Chari potculsely since there wasn tangible evidence that Keegstra teachings had cased any phy han Canad Jewish ‘heres Rosenberg afore «measured critique of the lw, Christe was inflammatory, wily docwinaire. According to im, ection 28120) ofthe (Criminal Cade an the charges aiet Keats wee part of ager state ‘nctoned movement to eriminalze amoral peec”ochestsed by ad socates of sence” the provincial strneye gener the CJC, Boa Brith, ToterAmseus,and LEAE™ Tho collective go he citended was not to foster a chimate of equaley but to create "mcr! desptisn” in ‘hich “edar ofexresion” wat eesriced to feedom of good ath ‘mules egltaran, eins apd unemtionl,tlsant. legate geek For Chri this wat tantamount to state spore hate mongering ett the Coen Report suggesting tht "saeping generalizations ch asFeedom of speech does not mean redom to vil” ore ite sidance and thats assumption tht Canads could Become the nen “Weimer Republic if pronouncements hate wer allel ogo uncnvest cwas misguided ™* Furthermore, he rected arguments based ne: raion Ta suggesting that they had ite beng on the Canadian ‘experience pater because the intervenes had Been Quick to damit. “America jarsprudence which favoured high threshold for any bison spec ‘Asfor the Oakes est, Cite contre that aed the proportionality spect, thatthe Ueto cima ath when thre was viene ‘ny substantial fc war heh penal or expresing an opinion no mat {er ow cbjectionable i might be. On ths pnt, he contended that the “highest objective of Solty she pars of true hnowladge® Hence" persn who perce a rigour conspiracy to be ell mst be eto 50 ‘venfit promoedhatred ofthat sect or group beaut may ether Brazen Chrisie sggested thatthe hw war an excuewe too belonging to Canada Jewish communty Mi contention was that th hate prop sands law was not “a8 tstument of jie, buf selestve oppression? sed only to censor inances fans, nat the defamation of ater groups —“Auseans of Palestinians or Arb ~ that had ahs tion and host tovardJewsand thestateof fae" Inhis oa pretntton to the court, he ited Elie Wiesel 1968 bok Legends of Our Tame in which ‘Wes recommends at Secauc of the Hoc al fews shoul serve "zane fate” or Germans. Smug, Chis defended Wises words on ‘he grounds that they could serve soil purpose” ‘On the third and fourth questions Cus charged thatthe defence of| ‘rath fond in section 281 was an uncesorable burden to place onthe sccused. Truth, hen dealing with theses aot the pst simpy could not be proven. ronically, given hat Zine! was lo i len, Christe aged that the erence of ruth igh make sense oly the individ in qustion| knowingly spread flehoods But even then he contended th teas in sulin to censor al hatesimp because mph acd sommes Nov Aidhetelieve that thew could be sevedurder section snc gen with presumption of uit? which he suggested war nee neesry fr the protection ofsociety nor benef othe fundamental incest oe free and erocratc society In deamsticfacion Cite warmed that coming Keegan would be eguvaent 0 sanctioning an “oc ate Wty the ‘ics of which woud be to remove the aed for “nda gent, conscience er inlgence” and txt a precedent or Ite lntons | “The Supreme Court asared.In four to thee econ veredon 2 December 190, raked that sections 21.20) and 28.4 the Criminal Ca, despite nringing an sections (6) ab lof he Charter rexpet- Ivy, were consittlonal according tothe parameters f section 1 Chet Justice Bria Dickson wrote forthe monty tice Beverley McLachlin for the minority Despite the uncertainties an teesons inte in he aw, the ealing afltred the vew nt only thet fe exresan cies with te ‘sponsbiltybut lo tha state intervention was perme incase where ‘his sponsibility has een ignored. Altnosh Dickson jected te argumensthat the promotion afte wis conproous wth vilece and that section 28.212) ano infringe om se tion 2), he Bleed tha he could essed hough ton Adopt ing the arguments pat frward bythe appellant an the four cl scity Jncervenr that defended the ahs judgment revealed remarkably ile Fath in the mareplace of east del with mesagesof ate ete ous confidence in the courts to comet othe tied and re htemonget Given thatthe respondents appearing elo the oar were keep, Sth, and Andrews, ths was not necemary an unreasonable suipton, Bat Diekson ao subscribed tothe view tu hat ado rede vale to Society and war nconsstet with the pursuit of tth Rather, hs proses vere to “deny respect and dgnty to valrable minors, and wee at theta tothe alms os democratic ocety aime acute in the Charter 235 wel a interatonal nw Dickson lected the agumen that the Inv ad bn poosy designed Instead, he ound that, given the vari de- fences rt fered by the Cen caries, was aration constructed law the ultimate aim of which wa to combat aca within Cardin so ry Any iegemen tht might ccc tee of exreson wn in- lina and easy outigheé by the gai acrued from 4 hucmoniovs, lurlsic Canada He ound tha thesis wa roof the guition aout section 28130) although i contravened section 1d, he bene that ‘ame tom such a iningement fa outweighed the potential arms" ‘Melachta jag wa, Cun far more in ne withthe las ut forth by the CCLA ad to lene exten those of Chee, MeLach sp povted the ams af the at propagind btm the means by whic Set out wo eriminaze certin speech Unie Dickson, he ha ensierbly mor comdence in Canaan society abet withstand ies of ate and onsierbl Issn the cots sity to spare leat speech fom ‘hat dered to beiitimate™ Thus she fund that etn 28-22) wae ‘unconstitutional. She rected the arguments the eer section of the rational aw coulinform the court understanding fs {ion 216.8 ll were to ambiguou o provide much guidance Maneoce, She dsgred that Keegstra bal viokted section 15 a aed that ht se tion of he Constitution shold Rive nobesingonthe decison, She came ' sil conelasion with regard to section 27, The term “mela? she wrote, wasan abstract value” There wat no tangible evidence to sues ‘hat section 281.212) enhanced i And ike the CCLA, Meta oon that he hate propaga dd not pas the Oakes test anda could ot be saved ude section 1. She wrote tha the lw pce on resem burden om the jdiciay to determine spech that was in the public inter fst Moreover the reverse anus on the accused oul crete “eiling ‘fect ach tha any impirment on ficedom of expression wa fa frome ‘minimal. Ad ike Rosenberg he conclude tat he hte propaganda erultmately counterprodacive. Tis such as thi gave the Keegatstned Zundels of Canadian society“ milion dlrs worth of public Reaction othe decision was mined. At he He ofthe aig. the CIC ‘Manel Pratsch pecated that had the devison gone the ates the noxious ee of ate propaganda woud kav sn’ Borovy tered that ‘the re “asa ae likely to incde very egimate dseners”™ ‘To no surprise gen the split decison, the controversy surrounding the hate propagands lav did not end there, Fallowing the euling, Reegstns {nal conviction was se ase and anew il ordered. Asin 1988 Keegrirs as once asin found uly of willy promting hate and thi ine wes “charged $3,000 fn. Cristie appealed the decison onthe pounds dat ‘the tl judge had mise the ery. The Alberta Cou of Appeared