Law Paper
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is being cited more frequently as a basis for Canadian lawsuits. One such case that has received much attention in the Canadian, as well as International spotlight is that of Ernst Zundel. "Mr. Zundel contends that Government parties denied him his freedom of speech as protected under the Charter". The purpose of this paper is to evaluate Mr. Zundel's claim by exploring the contrasting principles that apply to his case. Furthermore, this paper will evaluate the societal implications that have been brought forward with respect to freedom of speech. Finally, this paper will determine whether or not section 2(b) of the Charter should be amended or left as is. Mr. Zundel is a familiar face to the Canadian Courts. Mr. Zundel, who calls himself a 'German-Canadian Human Rights Activist', is now attempting to sue Members of Parliament as well as the Prime Minister for "depriving him of his constitutional right to freedom of speech". All political parties of Parliament joined together and unanimously agreed to bar him from speaking in Parliament. Section 2(b) of the Charter provides that " everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression,
Advocates of the restriction of certain forms of speech claim that racist speech provokes harmful consequences. Racist speech "is harmful three times over: to the targets of racist speech, who feel degraded and powerless, to the perpetrators, whose moral sense is thereby diminished, and to society as a whole". Racial speech may also set a precedent to other would-be racist activists, who will be permitted to spread their harmful views because others before him/her were permitted to do so. Peter Hum, "Judge throws out Zundel's case against federal parties" National Post, Mr. Zundel's case is sure to raise objections from both ends of the spectrum. Critics who oppose the restriction of speech, even speech in the form of racism and hatred, argue that the "government is the presumptive enemy of free speech and should not be authorized to choose between speech it likes and speech it despises". Another argument against the restriction of speech is the Slippery Slope argument. This states that "any restrictions on speech, once permitted, have a sinister and nearly inevitable tendency to expand", meaning that once one form of speech is restricted it is certain that other types of speech will soon be restricted as well. Nahlah Ayed, "Zundel's lawsuit, press conference spiked," Globe and Mail, 23 January 1999 Kimberly A. Gross & Donald R. Kinder, "A Collision of Principles: Free Exhibition, Racial Equality and the Prohibition of Racist Speech," British Journal Of Political Science XVIII (1998): 445-471 Peter Hum, "All parties agree Zundel should not sue," National Post, 19 January 1999
Some common words found in the essay are:
Charter Zundel's, Slippery Slope, Zundel Charter, Criminal Code, Zundel Zundel, Parliament Section, Parliament Hill, Canadian Citizens, Sections Charter, Prime Minister, freedom speech, racist speech, section 2b, january 1999, peter hum, 23 january 1999, protected charter, forms speech, free speech, 2b charter, zundel's rights, section 2b charter, targets racist speech, society zundel claim, january 1999 peter,
Approximate Word count = 1252
Approximate Pages = 5 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
