R v.

Keegstra

Jim Keegstra, a social studies teacher in Alberta, taught his students his personal view of
history, which included that the Holocaust never occurred and that it was a worldwide Jewish
conspiracy. Keegstra was fired from his job as a teacher and charged with unlawfully promoting
hatred against a specific group contrary to section 319 of the Criminal Code. Keegstra replied to
the accusation by arguing that Section 319 was an unreasonable restriction of Sections 2(b) and
11(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The judge determined that the purpose of the laws
of the Criminal Code was to protect targeted groups from harm. Furthermore, he stated that the
prohibition against promoting hatred against a minority was not contrary to the Charter. Keegstra
appealed this decision to the Alberta Court of Appeal. The court allowed an appeal and it entered
an acquittal. The Court argued that the law against promoting hate towards a minority was too
broad and that the freedom of speech of Keegstra under section 1 of the Charter was unduly
restricted. The Crown appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada for the acquittement of
Keegstra. The court upheld the legislation prohibiting the spread of hate propaganda by finding
Keegstra guilty of the crime of unlawfully promoting hatred toward an entire race of people.

This case connects with Locke’s theory because it goes against a group of people’s
freedom of life. While people do have the right to express themselves and believe whatever they
wish they should not be spreading hate speech towards other people. In this case, yes, the teacher
was within his rights to express what he believes but he crossed the line when he started teaching
his students his perspective of history and not what actually happened. Often, hate speech leads
to violence towards others and that becomes a threat to their life and security. Another theory
this connects with is that of Bentham. He states that if an act has negative consequences then that
act is considered immoral, and if it has positive consequences then it’s considered moral. Mr.
Keegstra, although he was within his rights, his actions would result in negative consequences
and cause hate against a particular group of people which is why his actions would be considered
immoral.

R v. Oakes

David Oakes was arrested for possession and trafficking of narcotics(heroin). His defense
is that Section 8 of the NCA is a reverse onus (guilty until proven innocence) which was
established to eliminate drug dealers, violates section 11 of the Charter of Rights. The court
agreed with Oakes defense and the charges were dropped. This case led to the creation of the
Oakes Test and they are the following: 1. The reasons for restricting charter rights must be
important enough to justify the overturning of constitutional protection, 2. There has to be a
reasonable connection between the limitation of rights and the objective of the legislation, 3. The
rights must be limited as little as possible, and 4. The more severe right limitations, the more
important the objective must be.
 This case connects to Locke’s theory of natural rights and that people should be given the
freedom to protect their life, liberty, health, and possession. He in this situation would agree
with the charges being dropped. The reason for this is section 8 of the NCA goes against section
11 of the charter which states that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Sec 11 the charter
helps an individual protect his liberty and gives him the presumption of being innocent and
makes it that the crown has to find evidence which proves his guilt not him trying to prove his
innocence. Kant’s view on moral philosophy also connects with this case. Kant was the one who
had the philosophy of presumption of innocence. He believed that people should be presumed
innocent until there is clear evidence that proves their guilt. In Oakes case, there was no evidence
that proved that he was trafficking narcotics. So, Kant would have agreed to the decision that
section 8 of the NCA goes against section 11 of the Charter and would be in favor of having the
charges dropped.

R v. Big M Drug Mart

Big M Drug Mart was a store in Calgary that didn't close on Sundays. The police charged
the store for violating the Lord's Day Act, which specified that it was illegal to sell merchandise
or conduct business on Sundays. This act represented a Christian tradition to reserve Sunday as a
day of rest. The Supreme Court ruled that the act violated the basic freedoms of religion
protected by the Charter. This is because the act required all in Canada to abide by the laws of
one faith (Christianity), which restricted the freedom of religion of those who did not share the
same beliefs or practices. This case acknowledges that laws that force Canadians to comply with
a particular religious practice cannot be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society
because they go against the rights granted to Canadians from the Charter.

This case connects with Voltaire’s advocacy for freedom of religion, expression, and
separation of state and church. His philosophical perspective including having the freedom of
religion and separating the state and church. From his perspective, the decision of the court was
just and fair. The court’s ruling acknowledged the freedom of religion by dropping the charges
that were placed and it also showed the separation between church and state. It also
acknowledged the fact that people should not be forced to follow the rules and teachings of a
certain religion and that they should be free to follow what they believe in. It also connects with
Montesquies’ theory in which he advocates for freedom of thought, speech, and assembly. To the
company, Sunday is not a day of rest and they chose to sell merchandise on that day.
Montesquieu would have advocated for the company and be in favor of dropping the charges
because they go against giving people the ability to think what they want and forces them to
follow the rulings and principles of a certain religion. Locke’s natural right theory which
includes liberty(having the freedom of thought/ opinion) also connects with this because even he
believed that individuals should be given the right to have their own opinion. This would include
the right to be able to not consider a certain day holy even though others may and to have the
freedom to do what they wish on said day.