Freedom of Expression in Canada :: Freedom of Speech

The right to independence of expression can be described as a contend. It is awar that has lasted for centuries and may last for centuries more. It is a warbetween exemption of expression and social intolerance. In this war there are galore(postnominal) battles. The battle on which this instruct essay centers itself is the battlebetween granting immunity of speech and laws limiting that freedom more specifically theability to mobilize hate propaganda and the hate laws. Included in the essay isa brief outline of one skirmish that has taken place (Keegstra). Those who fight on the side supporting freedom of speech do so for some(prenominal) reasons. Braun declares that it is a basic democratic right to voice your stimulate opinion .Douglas Christie has gained nonoriety for his vigorous representation of high-profile, controversial clients, supercharged at a lower place the hate laws. He advocatesfreedom of speech for two main reasons a) he finds it abhorrent that the s tatecan legislate thoughts and words, and b) he often agrees with the views held byhis clients. Others such as Noam Chomsky, a brilliant intellectual, argue notfor the views expressed, and the ability to express them. Lining up on theother side of the battle you have Derek Raymaker, David Kilgour, Victor Ramraj,and Bruce Elman. They argue that there is definitely a moral place for lawsregarding hate speech, whether they are criminal or not. in that location was recently anew development in the Canadian war for freedom of expression. Introduced inApril 1982 was a new and important strategic battleground.With the fill of Rights and Freedoms the war could be won or lost by each side. It was not long before the direct saw battle.In 1984, Jim Keegstra was charged with violating section 281 of theCriminal Code of Canada (now covered under section 318-320). Keegstra was arespected school teacher and mayor of the small town of Eckville, Alberta. Thiswas no borderline fanatic this was an elected official charged with promotinghate. However by the time Keegstras trial rolled around he was no longer themayor Eckville and his teaching license, revoked. The problem was, the verynature of s. 281 lent itself to levelheaded debate under section 2 of the relativelynew Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The defense counsel Doug Christie lost notime in challenging the legislations constitutionality. In response, Crownprosecutor, Bruce Fraser, stated that Keegstra was being charged with promotinghatred not expressing it. The Crown also stated that freedom of speech is not