The Importance Of Hate Speech In Canada

In Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v Whatcott [2013] the Supreme Court looks at a case of potential hate speech and defines what constitutes as hate speech. I agree with the court finding the pamphlets a form of hate speech and plan to argue that they should not be protected. To begin this essay, I will consider the facts of the case and discuss the outcome. Second, I will look at the case of R v Butler and analyze how they are similar in nature. Next, I will argue that the court made the right choice in deciding the pamphlets constitute as hate speech, and should not be protected under section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v Whatcott [2013] Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission)

“The courts... [determined] as best they [could] what the community would tolerate others being exposed to on the basis of the degree of harm that may flow from such exposure.” (R. v. Butler, 1992, p. 15) The public did not tolerate the material in either case and it was considered by the public to be offensive and disrespectful. Public perception and opinion of a case is important in these cases and the public is being affected by the material involved. Although not everyone was directly given a flyer in the Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v Whatcott [2013] case, the entire LGBTQ community would be affected as it changes the attitudes and perceptions people have towards one particular group of people. Although a similar case, the outcome was quite different. Butler “was charged with 173 counts in the first indictment;” (R. v. Butler, 1992, p. 1) This included: possessing obscene material for the purpose of sale, possessing obscene material for the purpose of distribution and exposing obscene material to public view. Perhaps Butler had a harsher outcome than Whatcott due to the fact that a larger group of people was offended by his actions, or the time in which these cases

Through the case of Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v Whatcott [2013], the court was able to define hate speech and determined that the flyers William Whatcott created and distributed were not protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The information on the flyers were inaccurate, and caused both social and direct harm to the individuals it targeted. This case is similar in nature to the R v Butler [1992] case as it focuses on freedom of expression and involves material that the public found offensive. Although similar, we are able to see through the outcome how society has progressed and changed throughout the years. The pamphlets in Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v Whatcott [2013] do not display the level of tolerance of diversity and acceptance that our society should strive to