R. v. Keegstra, (1990) 117 N.R. 1 (SCC)

• Judge: Dickson, C.J.C., Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier and McLachlin, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 13, 1990
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1990), 117 N.R. 1 (SCC)

R. v. Keegstra (1990), 117 N.R. 1 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. James Keegstra (respondent) and Attorney General of Canada, Attorney General for Ontario, Attorney General of Québec, Attorney General for New Brunswick, Attorney General of Manitoba, The Canadian Jewish Congress, The League for Human Rights of B'Nai Brith, Canada, Interamicus, The Women's Legal Education and Action Fund and The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (intervenors)

(No. 21118)

Indexed As: R. v. Keegstra

Supreme Court of Canada

Dickson, C.J.C., Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier and McLachlin, JJ.

December 13, 1990.

Summary:

The accused was charged under s. 281.2(2) of the Criminal Code (now s. 319(2)) with communicating statements wilfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group (Jews). The accused applied to strike down s. 281.2(2) on the ground that it violated the right to freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a judgment reported 87 A.R. 200, dismissed the application. The court held that s. 281.2(2) did not violate s. 2(b) and, alternatively, if it did, it would be a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1 of the Charter. The accused was subsequently convicted following trial by judge and jury. The accused appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported 87 A.R. 177, allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction and declared that s. 281.2(2) was of no force and effect pursuant to s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act. The court held that s. 281.2(2), as presently worded, violated the freedom of expression (s. 2(b)) and the presumption of innocence (s. 11(d)). The court held that s. 281.2(2) was overly broad and therefore not a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1. The Crown appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, McLachlin, Sopinka and La Forest, JJ., dissenting, allowed the appeal and returned the case to the Court of Appeal to resolve those issues left unexamined as a result of its decision to strike down the impugned provisions. The court stated that s. 281.2(2) violated s. 2(b), but was a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1 of the Charter. The court held that use of the word "establishes" in the truth defence (s. 281.2(3)) violated the presumption of innocence (s. 11(d)), but was also saved by s. 1.

Civil Rights - Topic 1803

Freedom of speech or expression - Freedom of expression - Scope of - Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code made it an offence to communicate statements wilfully promoting hatred of an identifiable group - Expressions contrary to s. 319(2) allegedly fell outside the protected sphere of s. 2(b) of the Charter on the ground that hate propaganda was analogous to violence or threats of violence - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "no decision of this court has rested on the notion that expressive conduct is excluded from s. 2(b) where it involves violence" - The court further stated that "nor do I find hate propaganda to be analogous to violence" - See paragraphs 35 to 37.

Civil Rights - Topic 1803

Freedom of speech or expression - Freedom of expression - Scope of - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the reach of s. 2(b) was potentially very wide; expression deserved protection if "it serves individual and societal value in a free and democratic society" - Section 2(b) is to be given a large and liberal interpretation - The first step was to determine whether the activity involved fell within the protected s. 2(b) sphere - The second was whether the purpose of the impugned legislation restricted freedom of expression - The court stated that "expression" embraced all content of expression irrespective of the particular meaning or message sought to be conveyed - See paragraphs 27 to 34.

Civil Rights - Topic 1860.2

Freedom of speech or expression - Limitations on - Hate messages or literature - Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code made it an offence to communicate statements wilfully promoting hatred of an identifiable group - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that s. 319(2) violated the right to freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter - The court stated that hate propaganda fell within the protected sphere of s. 2(b) and the purpose of s. 319(2) was to restrict freedom of expression - See paragraphs 27 to 34.

Civil Rights - Topic 4945

Presumption of innocence - Evidence and proof - Reverse onus provisions - Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code made it an offence to communicate statements wilfully promoting hatred of an identifiable group - Section 319(3) precluded conviction where the accused "establishes" the statements were true - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that permitting an accused to raise the truth defence on a balance of probabilities violated the presumption of innocence, because the accused could be convicted of wilfully promoting hatred even though there was a reasonable doubt that the statements were true; "the presumption of innocence is infringed whenever the accused is liable to be convicted despite the existence of a reasonable doubt as to guilt in the mind of the trier of fact" - See paragraphs 138 to 142.

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law - The Supreme Court of Canada restated the test to determine whether legislation violating a Charter right was saved by s. 1 - The court stated that (1) the objective of the challenged legislation must be of a pressing and substantial concern in a free and democratic society and (2) there must be proportionality between the objective and the means - To satisfy the proportionality test (1) the means must be rationally connected to the objective; (2) the means should impair as little as possible on the Charter right; and (3) there must be proportionality between the "effects" of the legislation and the desired objective - See paragraph 42.

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8469].

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "a rigid or formalistic approach to the application of s. 1 must be avoided. The ability to use s. 1 as a gauge which is sensitive to the values and circumstance particular to an appeal has been identified as vital in past cases" - See paragraph 47.

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law - Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code made hate propaganda an offence - Section 319(3) provided a defence if the accused "establishes" the truth of the statements - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that s. 319(3) violated s. 11(d) of the Charter but was saved by s. 1 - The court stated that "the reverse onus found in the truth defence represents the only way in which the defence can be offered while still enabling Parliament to prohibit effectively hate-promoting expression through criminal legislation; to require that the state prove beyond a reasonable doubt the falsity of a statement would excuse much of the harmful expressive activity caught by s. 319(2) despite minimal proof as to its worth" - See paragraphs 143 to 151.

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "s. 1 should not operate in every instance so as to force the government to rely upon only the mode of intervention least intrusive of a Charter right or freedom. It may be that a number of courses of action are available in the furtherance of a pressing and substantial objective, each imposing a varying degree of restriction upon a right or freedom. In such circumstances, the government may legitimately employ a more restrictive measure, either alone or as part of a larger programme of action, if that measure is not redundant ..." - See paragraph 130.

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law - Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code violated freedom of expression (s. 2(b)) by making it an offence to communicate statements wilfully promoting hatred of an identifiable group - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 319(2) was a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1 - The objective of s. 319(2) was sufficiently important to override the s. 2(b) Charter right and the means chosen were proportional to that objective - The means chosen were rationally connected to the objective, s. 319(2) was neither overly broad nor vague and the effects were not so deleterious as to outweigh any advantage gleaned from the limitation of s. 2(b) - See paragraphs 58 to 137.

Civil Rights - Topic 8469

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - United States experience - The Supreme Court of Canada referred to the use of American jurisprudence to determine whether a Charter rights denial was a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1 - The court stated that "differences may require that Canada's constitutional vision depart from that endorsed in the United States" - The court stated that "the international commitment to eradicate hate propaganda and, most importantly, the special role given equality and multiculturalism in the Canadian Constitution necessitated departure from the view, reasonably prevalent in America at present, that the suppression of hate propaganda is incompatible with the guarantee of free expression" - See paragraphs 48 to 57.

Criminal Law - Topic 1550

Hate propaganda - Communicating statements wilfully promoting hatred - Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code made it an offence to communicate statements wilfully promoting the hatred of any identifiable group - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 319(2) violated the freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter, but was valid as a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1.

Criminal Law - Topic 1550

Hate propaganda - Communicating statements wilfully promoting hatred - Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code made it an offence where any person wilfully "promotes" hatred against an identifiable group - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "promotes" indicated active support or instigation, not mere simple encouragement or advancement - The court stated that "the hate-monger must intend or foresee as substantially certain a direct and active stimulation of hatred against an identifiable group" - See paragraph 115.

Criminal Law - Topic 1550

Hate propaganda - Communicating statements wilfully promoting hatred - Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code made it an offence where any person wilfully promotes "hatred" against an identifiable group - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that hatred "connotes emotion of an intense and extreme nature that is clearly associated with vilification and detestation" - "Hatred is predicated on destruction, and hatred against identifiable groups therefore thrives on insensitivity, bigotry and destruction of both the target group and of the values of our society. Hatred in this sense is a most extreme emotion that belies reason; an emotion that, if exercised against members of an identifiable group, implies that those individuals are to be despised, scorned, denied respect and made subject to ill-treatment on the basis of group affiliation" - See paragraph 116.

Criminal Law - Topic 1550

Hate propaganda - Communicating statements wilfully promoting hatred - Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code made it an offence where any person "wilfully" promotes hatred against an identifiable group - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "wilfully" was proved only where the "accused subjectively desires the promotion of hatred or foresees such a consequence as certain or substantially certain to result from an act done in order to achieve some other purpose" - Wilfulness involved more than mere negligence or recklessness - See paragraphs 111 to 112.

Criminal Law - Topic 1551

Hate propaganda - Defences - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4945].

Words and Phrases

Wilfully - The Supreme Court of Canada defined "wilfully", as found in the phrase "wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group" in s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 - See paragraphs 111 to 112.

Words and Phrases

Hatred - The Supreme Court of Canada defined "hatred", as found in the phrase "wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group" in s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 - See paragraph 116.

Words and Phrases

Promotes - The Supreme Court of Canada defined "promotes", as found in the phrase "wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group" in s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 - See paragraph 115.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Andrews and Smith (1990), 117 N.R. 284 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 1].

Taylor and Western Guard Party v. Canadian Human Rights Commission (1990), 117 N.R. 191 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 1].

R. v. Zundel (1987), 18 O.A.C. 161; 58 O.R.(2d) 129 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Carrier (1951), 104 C.C.C. 75 (Qué. K.B.), refd to. [para. 17].

Boucher v. The King, [1951] S.C.R. 265, refd to. [para. 19].

Dolphin Delivery Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 580, Peterson and Alexander, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573; 71 N.R. 83, refd to. [para. 24].

Chaussure Brown's Inc. et al. v. Québec (Procureur général), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 712; 90 N.R. 84; 19 Q.A.C. 69, refd to. [para. 24].

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur général), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2, refd to. [para. 24].

Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1326; 102 N.R. 321; 103 A.R. 321, refd to. [para. 24].

Reference Re ss. 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1123; 109 N.R. 81; 68 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 24].

Royal College of Dental Surgeons (Ont.) v. Rocket and Price, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 232; 111 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 24].

Reference Re Alberta Statutes, [1938] S.C.R. 100, refd to. [para. 25].

Switzman v. Elbling, [1957] S.C.R. 285, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 200; 50 C.R.(3d) 1; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 321, appld. [para. 42].

Davidson v. Slaight Communications Inc., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038; 93 N.R. 183, refd to. [para. 44].

United States of America v. Cotroni; United States of America v. El Zein, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1469; 96 N.R. 321; 23 Q.A.C. 182, refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Jones, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 284; 69 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713; 71 N.R. 161; 19 O.A.C. 239, refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd. - see R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al.

Beauharnais v. Illinois (1952), 343 U.S. 250, refd to. [para. 49].

Garrison v. Louisiana (1964), 379 U.S. 64, refd to. [para. 49].

Ashton v. Kentucky (1966), 384 U.S. 195, refd to. [para. 49].

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), 376 U.S. 254, refd to. [para. 49].

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), 395 U.S. 444, refd to. [para. 49].

Cohen v. California (1971), 403 U.S. 15, refd to. [para. 49].

Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith v. Federal Communications Commission (1968), 403 F.2d 169 (D.C. Cir.), refd to. [para. 50].

Tollett v. United States (1973), 485 F.2d 1087 (8th Cir.), refd to. [para. 50].

American Booksellers Ass'n, Inc. v. Hudnut (1985), 771 F.2d 323 (7th Cir.), refd to. [para. 50].

Doe v. University of Michigan (1989), 721 F. Supp. 852 (E.D. Mich.), refd to. [para. 50].

Collin v. Smith (1978), 578 F.2d 1197 (7th Cir.), refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Rahey, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 588; 75 N.R. 81; 78 N.S.R.(2d) 183; 193 A.P.R. 183; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 57 C.R.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 51].

Roth v. United States (1957), 354 U.S. 476, refd to. [para. 54].

New York v. Ferber (1982), 458 U.S. 747, refd to. [para. 54].

Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Co. of Puerto Rico (1986), 478 U.S. 328, refd to. [para. 54].

Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defence and Educ. Fund, Inc. (1985), 473 U.S. 788, refd to. [para. 54].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266; [1986] 1 W.W.R. 481; 24 D.L.R.(4th) 536, refd to. [para. 56].

Janzen and Govereau v. Pharos Restaurant and Grammas et al., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1252; 95 N.R. 81; 58 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 60].

Reference Re Compulsory Arbitration, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 313; 74 N.R. 99; 78 A.R. 1, refd to. [para. 66].

Reference Re Public Service Employee Relations Act (Alta.) - see Reference Re Compulsory Arbitration.

Felderer v. Sweden (1986), 8 E.H.R.R. 91, refd to. [para. 72].

Glimmerveen v. Netherlands (1979), 4 E.H.R.R. 260, refd to. [para. 72].

Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177; 58 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 74].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; [1985] 3 W.W.R. 481; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 321; 37 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97; 85 C.L.L.C. 14,023, refd to. [para. 75].

Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143; 91 N.R. 255, refd to. [para. 75].

R. v. Andrews and Smith (1988), 28 O.A.C. 161; 43 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 79].

R. v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30; 82 N.R. 1; 26 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 100].

R. v. Buzzanga and Durocher (1979), 49 C.C.C.(2d) 369 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 109].

R. v. Holmes, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 914; 85 N.R. 21; 27 O.A.C. 321, appld. [para. 140].

R. v. Whyte, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 3; 86 N.R. 328, appld. [para. 140].

Abrams v. United States (1919), 250 U.S. 616, refd to. [para. 172].

Saumur v. City of Québec, [1953] 2 S.C.R. 299, refd to. [para. 187].

Cherneskey v. Armadale Publishers Ltd. and King, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 1067; 24 N.R. 271, refd to. [para. 188].

Dupond v. City of Montréal, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 770; 19 N.R. 478, refd to. [para. 188].

Jabour et al. v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 307; 43 N.R. 451, refd to. [para. 188].

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), 319 U.S. 624, refd to. [para. 197].

Debs v. United States (1919), 249 U.S. 211, refd to. [para. 198].

Schenck v. United States (1919), 249 U.S. 47, refd to. [para. 198].

Whitney v. California (1927), 274 U.S. 357, refd to. [para. 199].

Dennis v. United States (1951), 341 U.S. 494, refd to. [para. 199].

Chaplinski v. New Hampshire (1942), 315 U.S. 568, refd to. [para. 200].

Police Department of the City of Chicago v. Mosley (1972), 408 U.S. 92, refd to. [para. 203].

Boos v. Barry (1988), 108 S. Ct. 1157, refd to. [para. 203].

Perry Education Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n (1983), 460 U.S. 37, refd to. [para. 203].

Coates v. City of Cincinnati (1971), 402 U.S. 611, refd to. [para. 206].

Handyside v. United Kingdom (1976), 1 E.H.R.R. 737, refd to. [para. 209].

Warren v. Chapman (1984), 29 Man.R.(2d) 172; 11 D.L.R.(4th) 474 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 220].

Human Rights Commission (Sask.) v. Engineering Students' Society, University of Saskatchewan (1989), 72 Sask.R. 161; 56 D.L.R.(4th) 604 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused, [1989] 1 S.C.R. xiv, refd to. [para. 220].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291; 9 C.R.R. 355; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 41 C.R.(3d) 97; [1984] 6 W.W.R. 577: 33 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; 27 B.L.R. 297; 84 D.T.C. 6467; 2 C.P.R.(3d) 1; 11 D.L.R.(4th) 641, refd to. [para. 262].

R. v. Schwartz, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 443; 88 N.R. 90; 56 Man.R.(2d) 92, refd to. [para. 275].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Bill of Rights, R.S.C. 1985, App. III, preamble, sect. 1(d) [para. 7].

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [paras. 7, 42, 163]; sect. 2(b), sect. 11(d), sect. 15(1) [paras. 7, 163]; sect. 27 [paras. 7, 77, 163].

Canadian Human Rights Act, S.C. 1976-77, c. 33, generally [para. 70]; sect. 13 [para. 219].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 2 [para. 18]; sect. 59 [paras. 19, 216]; sect. 298, sect. 300 [para. 18]; sect. 318(4), sect. 319(2) [paras. 7, 161]; sect. 319(3) [paras. 7, 119, 161]; sect. 319(6), sect. 319(7) [paras. 7, 161].

Customs Tariff, S.C. 1987, c. 49, s. 114, Sch. VII, code 9956(b) [para. 126].

Defamation Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. D-20, sect. 19(1) [paras. 20, 219].

European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950), 213 U.N.T.S. 221, art. 10(1), art, 10(2) [paras. 71, 209]; art. 17 [para. 72].

European Social Charter, generally [para. 67].

International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, Can. T.S. 1970, No. 28, art. 4 [paras. 68, 211]; art. 5 [para. 70].

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), 999 U.N.T.S. 171, art. 19(2), art. 19(3), art. 20(1), art. 20(2) [paras. 69, 210].

Libel Act, R.S.M. 1913, c. 113, sect. 13A [paras. 20, 219].

Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, generally [para. 70].

Penal Code (India), sect. 153-A, sect. 153-B [para. 102].

Penal Code (Netherlands), sect. 137c, sect. 137d, sect. 137e [para. 102].

Penal Code (Sweden), c. 16, sect. 8 [para. 102].

Public Order Act, 1986 (U.K.), c. 64, sect. 17, sect. 18, sect. 19, sect. 20, sect. 21, sect. 22, sect. 23 [para. 102].

Race Relations Act, 1971 (N.Z.), sect. 25 [para. 102].

Racial Discrimination Act, S.O. 1944, c. 51, sect. 1 [para. 219].

Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, S.S. 1979, c. S-24.1, sect. 14(1), sect. 14(2) [para. 220].

United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (1980), pp. 43-54 [para. 73].

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), generally [para. 20].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Aleinikoff, T. Alexander, Constitutional Law in the Age of Balancing (1987), 96 Yale L.J. 943, pp. 966-968 [para. 55].

Beckton, Clare, Freedom of Expression, Gérald-A. Beaudoin and Ed Ratushny (eds.), The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1989), pp. 197-198 [para. 26].

Berlin, Isaiah, Two Concepts of Liberty, in Four Essays on Liberty (1969), pp. 118, 155 [para. 61].

Bessner, Ronda, The Constitutionality of the Group Libel Offences in the Canadian Criminal Code (1988), 17 Man. L.J. 183, generally [para. 81].

Bollinger, Lee C., The Tolerant Society: Freedom of Speech and Extremist Speech in America (1986), pp. 87-93 [para. 91].

Borovoy, A. Alan, Freedom of Expression: Some Recurring Impediments, in Rosalie S. Abella and Melvin L. Rothman (eds.), Justice Beyond Orwell (1985), pp. 125 [para. 81]; 141 [para. 126].

Borovoy, A. Alan, When Freedoms Collide: the Case for our Civil Liberties (1988), p. 50 [para. 303].

Bottos, Dino, Keegstra and Andrews: A Commentary on Hate Propaganda and the Freedom of Expression (1989), 27 Alta. L. Rev. 461, generally [para. 81].

Braun, Stefan, Social and Racial Tolerance and Freedom of Expression in a Democratic Society: Friends or Foes? Regina v. Zundel (1987), 11 Dalhousie L.J. 471, generally [para. 81]; p. 190 [para. 93].

Canada, Law Reform Commission, Working Paper 50, Hate Propaganda (1986), generally [para. 64]; p. 36 [paras. 112, 144].

Canada, Special Committee on Hate Propaganda in Canada, Report of the Special Committee on Hate Propaganda in Canada (1966), preface [para. 22]; pp. 8 [para. 20]; 24 [para. 59]; 30 [para. 62]; 59 [para. 63]; 66 [para. 144]; 214 [para. 60].

Canada, Special Committee on Participation of Visible Minorities in Canadian Society, Equality Now! (1984), pp. 1-6 [para. 284]; 69 [paras. 59, 284]; 70-74 [para. 284].

Canadian Bar Association, Report of the Special Committee on Racial and Religious Hatred, Ken Norman, John D. McAlpine and Hymie Weinstein (1984), p. 12 [para. 64].

Canadian Human Rights Commission, Annual Report 1989, p. 22 [para. 286].

Cohen Committee - see Canada, Special Committee on Hate Propaganda in Canada.

Cotler, Irwin, Hate Literature, in Rosalie S. Abella and Melvin L. Rothman (eds.), Justice Beyond Orwell (1985), generally [para. 81]; pp. 121-122 [para. 39].

Doe v. University of Michigan: First Amendment Racist and Sexist Expression on Campus -- Court Strikes Down University Limits on Hate Speech (1990), 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1397, generally [para. 53].

Delgado, Richard, Words that Wound: A Tort Action for Racial Insults, Epithets, and Name-Calling (1982), 17 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 133, generally [para. 53].

Doskow, Ambrose and Sidney B. Jacoby, Anti Semitism and the Law in Pre-Nazi Germany (1940), 3 Contemporary Jewish Record 498, p. 509 [para. 102].

Emerson, Thomas I., Toward a General Theory of the First Amendment (1963), 72 Yale L.J. 877, p. 879 [para. 175].

Fish, Arthur, Hate Promotion and Freedom of Expression: Truth and Consequences (1989), 11 Can. J.L. & Juris. 111, generally [paras. 81, 238]; p. 118 [para. 107].

Greenawalt, Kent, Insults and Epithets: Are They Protected Speech? (1990), 42 Rutgers L. Rev. 287, p. 304 [para. 48].

Holdsworth, Sir William, A History of English Law (5th Ed. 1942), vol. 3, p. 409 [para. 16].

Horowitz, Irving Louis, First Amendment Blues: On Downs, Nazis in Skokie, [1986] Am. B. Found. Res. J. 535, p. 540 [para. 50].

Horowitz, Irving Louis, and Victoria Curtis Bramson, Skokie, the ACLU and the Endurance of Democratic Theory (1979), 43 Law & Contemp. Probs. 328, generally [para. 53].

James McCormick Mitchell Lecture, Language as Violence v. Freedom of Expression: Canadian and American Perspectives on Group Defamation (1989-90), 37 Buffalo L. Rev. 337, pp. 344, 353 [para. 56].

Kafka, Franz, The Trial (1976), p. 203 [para. 301].

Lasson, Kenneth, Racial Defamation As Free Speech: Abusing the First Amendment (1985), 17 Colum. Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 11, pp. 20-30 [para. 53].

Lerner, Natan, The U.N. Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (1980), pp. 43-54 [para. 73].

MacKay, A. Wayne, Freedom of Expression: Is it All Just Talk? (1989), 68 Can. Bar Rev. 713, p. 714 [para. 191].

Magnet, Joseph Eliot, Multiculturalism and Collective Rights: Approaches to Section 27, in Gérald-A. Beaudoin and Ed Ratushny (eds.), The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1989), p. 739 [para. 78].

Matsuda, Mari J., Public Response to Racist Speech: Considering the Victim's Story (1989), 87 Mich. L. Rev. 2320, pp. 2339-2340 [para. 62]; 2348 [para. 53].

McAlpine, John D., Report Arising Out of the Activities of the Ku Klux Klan in British Columbia (1981), generally [para. 64].

Meiklejohn, Alexander, Free Speech and its Relation to Self-Government (1948), generally [para. 168].

Milton, John, Areopagitica (1644), generally [para. 172].

Mozley & Whiteley's Law Dictionary (10th Ed. 1988) [para. 232].

Neier, Aryeh, Defending My Enemy: American Nazis, the Skokie Case, and the Risks of Freedom (1979), generally [para. 98].

Rauf, N. Naeem, Freedom of Expression, the Presumption of Innocence and Reasonable Limits: An Analysis of Keegstra and Andrews (1988), 65 C.R.(3d) 356, pp. 359 [para. 100]; 368-369 [para. 148].

Regel, Alan R., Hate Propaganda: A Reason to Limit Freedom of Speech (1985), 49 Sask. L. Rev. 303, generally [para. 81].

Rushdie, Salman, Satanic Verses (1988), generally [para. 26].

Schauer, Frederick, Free Speech: A Philosophical Enquiry (1982), generally [para. 177].

Schauer, Frederick, The Aim and the Target in Free Speech Methodology (1989), 83 Nw. U.L. Rev. 562, p. 568 [para. 55].

Shakespeare, William, The Merchant of Venice, generally [para. 321].

Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (3rd Ed. 1987) [paras. 233, 310].

Sieghart, Paul, The International Law of Human Rights (1983), p. 75 [para. 67].

Stein, Eric, History Against Free Speech: The New German Law Against the "Auschwitz" and other -- "Lies" (1987), 85 Mich. L. Rev. 277, generally [para. 102].

Tribe, Laurence H., American Constitutional Law (2nd Ed. 1988), pp. 785-789 [para. 176]; 861 [para. 48]; 1033-1034 [para. 206]; 1056 [para. 205].

United Nations, Study on the Implementation of Article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, by Special Rapporteur José D. Inglés, A/CONF. 119/10, May 18, 1983, generally [para. 102]; para. 108 [para. 70].

Uris, Leon, The Haj (1984), generally [para. 320].

Counsel:

Bruce R. Fraser, Q.C., for the appellant;

D.H. Christie, for the respondent;

D. Martin Low, Q.C., Stephen B. Sharzer and Irit Weiser, for the Attorney General of Canada;

Gregory J. Fitch, for the Attorney General for Ontario;

Jean Bouchard and Marise Visocchi, for the Attorney General of Québec;

Bruce Judah, for the Attorney General for New Brunswick;

A.L. Berg and Deborah Carlson, for the Attorney General of Manitoba;

John I. Laskin, for the Canadian Jewish Congress;

Mark J. Sandler, for the League for Human Rights of B'Nai Brith, Canada;

Joseph Nuss, Q.C., Irwin Cotler and Ann Crawford, for Interamicus;

Kathleen E. Mahoney and Linda A. Taylor, for the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund;

Marc Rosenberg, for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

Solicitors of Record:

Attorney General for Alberta, Calgary, Alberta, for the appellant;

Douglas H. Christie, Victoria, British Columbia, for the respondent;

John C. Tait, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Canada;

Attorney General for Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Attorney General for Ontario;

Jean Bouchard, Marise Visocchi and Gilles Laporte, Ste-Foy, Québec, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Québec;

Paul M. LeBreton, Fredericton, New Brunswick, for the intervenor, the Attorney General for New Brunswick;

Attorney General of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Manitoba;

Davies, Ward & Beck, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Canadian Jewish Congress;

Cooper, Sandler & West, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, the League for Human Rights of B'Nai Brith, Canada;

Ahern, Lalonde, Nuss, Drymer, Montréal, Québec, for the intervenor, Interamicus;

Kathleen Mahoney and Code Hunter, Calgary, Alberta, for the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund;

Greenspan, Rosenberg, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

This appeal was heard on December 5 and 6, 1989, before Dickson, C.J.C., Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier and McLachlin, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On December 13, 1990, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:

Dickson, C.J.C. (Wilson, L'Heureux-Dubé and Gonthier, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 154;

McLachlin, J. (Sopinka, J., concurring), dissenting - see paragraphs 155 to 339;

La Forest, J., dissenting - see paragraph 340.