Aubry v. Editions Vice-Versa Inc. (1998) 1 S.C.R. 591 Supreme Court of Canada Pascal Claude Aubey...

Transcribed Image Text:

Aubry v. Editions Vice-Versa Inc. (1998) 1 S.C.R. 591 Supreme Court of Canada Pascal Claude Aubey took civil action against a pho tographer and the magazine that employed him. The photographer had taken a photograph of Aubery sitting on the steps of a building when she was 17 years old. The magazine then published it without her permission. Aubry claimed that her right to pri vacy had been invaded and that her image had been used illegally to help sell the magazine. The defendants argued that because the pho tograph had been taken in a public place, Aubry could not reasonably expect privacy. Section 2(b) Case R. v. Keegstra (1990) 117 N.R. 1 Supreme Court of Canada James Keegstra taught high school in Eckville, Alberta, from the early 1970s until he was dismissed in 1982. In his history classes, Keegstra taught that the Holocaust, in which 6 million Jews died during World War II, had never happened. He described Jews to students as "treacherous," "sadistic," and "power hungry." He taught that they were respon- sible for economic depressions, chaos, wars, and rew olutions. According to Keegstra's lessons, the Holocaust was a fabrication, part of a Jewish con spiracy to rule the world. Keegstra expected his stu- dents to repeat these teachings in class and on exams. If they failed to do so, their marks suffered. For Discussion 1. What was Kongstra's main defence for his actions? In 1984, Keegstra was charged under section i 319(2) [then section 281(2)] of the Criminal Code with promoting hatred. This section states: "Everyone who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any iden- tifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of (a) an indictable [severe criminal] offence and is liable 2. Did Kengstra abuse the public trust he enjoyed as a teacher? 3. In 1988, Ontario Justice Samuel Grange wrote: Freedom of speech has never been absolute. Which section of the Charter supports this view? of the Charter, they argued, guarantees freedom of expression. Taking the photo was merely using this right artistically. The trial judge ruled in favour of Aubry and ordered the defendants to pay her $2000 in damages. The Supreme Court of Canada upheld that decision. 4. After the Court's decision, Jim Keegstra said: "If we all have to think the same way, well, then we're just robots.... We were taught in university that you can be skeptical For Discussion 1. Identify the issues involved in this case. 2. Why did the trial judge and the Supreme Court of Canada rule in favour of Aubry? 3. What precedent has been set here? 4. What conflicting rights and freedome are being balanced in this case? to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction [can be tried without jury)." After the longest trial in Alberta history. Keegstra was convicted by a judge and jury in the i Alberta Court of Queen's Bench and fined $5000. Keegstra appealed this to the Alberta Court of Appeal. In June 1988, that court unanimously accepted his argument. It held that the Criminal Code provision violated his Charter right to freedom of expression, and that the Criminal Code section was too broad and not a reasonable limit prescribed by law under section 1 of the Charter The Crown appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, where the appeal was heard in December 1989. In a 4 to 3 judgment, the Supreme Court upheld the Crown's appeal. All seven judges agreed that the hate law violated the Charter's sec- tion 2(b) guarantee of freedom of expression. But four of them-the majority-believed the violation could be justified under section 1 of the Charter because it would help protect victims of hate pro- paganda. The remaining three judges could not jus tify the law under section 1. continued and no, you'll never be taken to court. Well, you see that's not true anymore." Do you agree with Keegstra's opinion? What section of the Charter supports his view? 5. Lorne Shipman, of the League of Human Rights of B'Nal Brith, Canada, said: "This decision serves, as all laws do, as a boundary of reasonable societal behaviour and as a deterrent to those whose intent is to cause hatred and upset our fragile. dream of equality for all." Defend or refute this statement, referring to the Keegstra decision. Aubry v. Editions Vice-Versa Inc. (1998) 1 S.C.R. 591 Supreme Court of Canada Pascal Claude Aubey took civil action against a pho tographer and the magazine that employed him. The photographer had taken a photograph of Aubery sitting on the steps of a building when she was 17 years old. The magazine then published it without her permission. Aubry claimed that her right to pri vacy had been invaded and that her image had been used illegally to help sell the magazine. The defendants argued that because the pho tograph had been taken in a public place, Aubry could not reasonably expect privacy. Section 2(b) Case R. v. Keegstra (1990) 117 N.R. 1 Supreme Court of Canada James Keegstra taught high school in Eckville, Alberta, from the early 1970s until he was dismissed in 1982. In his history classes, Keegstra taught that the Holocaust, in which 6 million Jews died during World War II, had never happened. He described Jews to students as "treacherous," "sadistic," and "power hungry." He taught that they were respon- sible for economic depressions, chaos, wars, and rew olutions. According to Keegstra's lessons, the Holocaust was a fabrication, part of a Jewish con spiracy to rule the world. Keegstra expected his stu- dents to repeat these teachings in class and on exams. If they failed to do so, their marks suffered. For Discussion 1. What was Kongstra's main defence for his actions? In 1984, Keegstra was charged under section i 319(2) [then section 281(2)] of the Criminal Code with promoting hatred. This section states: "Everyone who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any iden- tifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of (a) an indictable [severe criminal] offence and is liable 2. Did Kengstra abuse the public trust he enjoyed as a teacher? 3. In 1988, Ontario Justice Samuel Grange wrote: Freedom of speech has never been absolute. Which section of the Charter supports this view? of the Charter, they argued, guarantees freedom of expression. Taking the photo was merely using this right artistically. The trial judge ruled in favour of Aubry and ordered the defendants to pay her $2000 in damages. The Supreme Court of Canada upheld that decision. 4. After the Court's decision, Jim Keegstra said: "If we all have to think the same way, well, then we're just robots.... We were taught in university that you can be skeptical For Discussion 1. Identify the issues involved in this case. 2. Why did the trial judge and the Supreme Court of Canada rule in favour of Aubry? 3. What precedent has been set here? 4. What conflicting rights and freedome are being balanced in this case? to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction [can be tried without jury)." After the longest trial in Alberta history. Keegstra was convicted by a judge and jury in the i Alberta Court of Queen's Bench and fined $5000. Keegstra appealed this to the Alberta Court of Appeal. In June 1988, that court unanimously accepted his argument. It held that the Criminal Code provision violated his Charter right to freedom of expression, and that the Criminal Code section was too broad and not a reasonable limit prescribed by law under section 1 of the Charter The Crown appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, where the appeal was heard in December 1989. In a 4 to 3 judgment, the Supreme Court upheld the Crown's appeal. All seven judges agreed that the hate law violated the Charter's sec- tion 2(b) guarantee of freedom of expression. But four of them-the majority-believed the violation could be justified under section 1 of the Charter because it would help protect victims of hate pro- paganda. The remaining three judges could not jus tify the law under section 1. continued and no, you'll never be taken to court. Well, you see that's not true anymore." Do you agree with Keegstra's opinion? What section of the Charter supports his view? 5. Lorne Shipman, of the League of Human Rights of B'Nal Brith, Canada, said: "This decision serves, as all laws do, as a boundary of reasonable societal behaviour and as a deterrent to those whose intent is to cause hatred and upset our fragile. dream of equality for all." Defend or refute this statement, referring to the Keegstra decision.

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Aubry v ditions ViceVersa Inc This case was about a woman named Aubry who sued a photographer and a magazine for publishing a photograph of her without her permission The photograph was taken in a pub... View the full answer