Podcast Project 2.0

The podcast discusses the controversial case R vs Kefka, which involved freedom of speech and hate speech. It explores the background of the case, including the history of anti-Semitism and the upbringing of Jim Keikstra, the defendant. The discussion highlights the tension between freedom of expression and the need to protect marginalized groups. The Supreme Court of Canada ultimately ruled that while Keikstra's freedom of expression was violated, his actions could incite harm or violence. The podcast concludes with a debate on the implications of the verdict and the importance of preserving Canada's multicultural society. Hello and welcome to the jam sesh with as always your host Sam and Jack. Today a controversial cataclysmic case involving the Canadian Charter and the widely debated topic of freedom of speech and its limits is R vs Kefka. Now let's go all the way back to the 90s, a time filled with actions that, to today's standards, would be felonies. The Charter wasn't even 10 years old, which led to countless grey areas and a legal system without the concrete black and white that we see today. During this time, first in 1990, then 92, then 96, Alberta teacher James, known as Jim Keekstra, was brought before the Supreme Court of Canada to appeal his conviction of hate speech for teaching anti-semitic, meaning anti-Jewish, statements, passing them off as facts to his students, and to any students who disagreed, their remarks dwindled to the point untrue statements from Keekstra snuffed out any of their chances at receiving good post-secondary education. Keekstra's anti-semitism instated the use of section 319.2 of the criminal code, which states everyone who, by communicating statements other than in private conversation, willfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty. Another important note about the 90s is that Canada's number of non-Christian people almost doubled from 1981 to 1991. According to the 1991 census, such an influx meant the rights were becoming more protected, especially compared to the treacherous 80s. Jim then argued that statements were utterly factual and protected by section 319.3 of the criminal code, which voids part 319.2, if the statements communicated were true. He also argued that the government violated his freedom of expression, because Canada didn't have freedom of speech, and his freedom of being innocent until proven guilty was broken by judicial officials in his court cases. Before moving on to the legal jargon, like the history of anti-semitism and Keekstra's upbringing, who do you feel is right, and how do you believe freedom of expression and hate speech coexist? I see where you're coming from. However, Canada has become a multicultural haven known worldwide for its inclusivity and diversity. To allow what Keekra has said to become mainstream will be a racist, bigoted society that splits people apart instead of bringing everyone together. To become a society where everyone is accepted, Keekra cannot be correct. Okay, okay, okay. Before we get a heated debate that's going nowhere, let's go back to see where Mr. Keekstra's opinion originates from. Known as history's oldest hatred, anti-semitism goes back almost as far as Jewish history itself, all the way back to ancient Babylonia, where the Jews refused to take the culture and customs of their conquerors. Anti-semitism started to snowball when reaching Europe during the Middle Ages, with common stereotypes being that they committed far-fetched atrocities like murdering Christian children and draining their blood to make priceless amends. Jews were forced to live in secluded communities called ghettos, living constantly in fear without the ability to practice their religion. Because of their ability to lend money, some became prominent. However, this led to horrible connotations about Jews, including in the Renaissance, shown by Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice, where Shylock, known as a Jew, is portrayed as an evil, diabolical moneylender who will make somebody cut off a pound of their own flesh for not paying their money back in time, as well as listing the only Jewish character and throughout the play being referred to only as Jew instead of by his real name, and the climax of the play being him converting to Christianity. This leads us into the 1940s. The Holocaust was a harrowing time and exemplified how many felt about the Jews. Six million Jews lost their lives in the Holocaust, and countless others left permanently traumatized from the genocide. People like Lael Sokolov, the real-world counterpart of the Tattooist of Auschwitz, were forced to watch such atrocities firsthand and were made to live a normal life. Lael never mentally recovered from Auschwitz, becoming a shell of the person he used to be, and tried to raise his son. His son never saw his dad as anything but a broken shell. Not a single word spoken by Lael about before in 1945 is for him to realize that this is a real thing and that it happened and cannot be undone in this life issue. Now that we have a deeper understanding of the origins of anti-Semitism and how Jews have been oppressed throughout the ages, let's move on to a slightly less depressing place. Jim Keikstra's Childhood Welcomed into the world in 1934, Jim Keikstra was accepted into the world in the small town of Vulcan, working as a mechanic and farmhand as a child. WWII started when he was 5 and ended when he was 11. As a small child in a small town, it's reasonable to assume that this is the reason he ended up the way he did, trying to find something to blame for the loss of people he knew and loved, ending up on the Jews. A few years after WWII ended, Jim attended university, later becoming a teacher in 1968 and mayor of Eckville, a town just west of Red Deer in 1974. Wow. It's absolutely ridiculous to imagine how much someone in such a position of power could have such a biased and corrupted view of Jews. It also shows how vital a good upbringing must be, even with so much education like Jim Keikstra has. Moving onward, in 1981, a superintendent found out that Keikstra had been teaching that the Holocaust was a hoax created by the Jews to gain sympathy, and that the Jews were staging a plan to take over the entire world via an international Jewish plot. On December 7th, 1982, Keikstra was fired and charged with inciting hate speech against an identifiable group. Before the podcast, I thought that Keikstra was just a monster with no redeeming qualities. However, my thoughts of him have wholly changed throughout his upbringing. Although it doesn't justify his actions, I now think of him as more of a broken child looking for answers in a world of uncertainty, but just ending up blaming a group without thinking clearly. It also gets me thinking about whether or not these ideologies passed on to him were by a family member, or if he was the one who was thinking about them. How have your opinions changed? At first, I thought Keikstra was just and right. However, I no longer believe he was right because his words were outlandish and far-fetched. However, this case's precedent is alarming and stifles actual debate. The government should allow him to say such things, but not from a position of authority like a teacher, as that also stifles debate and harms future generations just for standing up for what they think is right, and in this context, correct. In his first court appearance in January 1984, he was convicted of hate speech before asking to be dropped because the section of the code violated section 2b of the charter, and that his freedom of expression and opinions were violated. The jury rejected his counter-argument and ordered him to pay $5,000, almost triple that in today's money. Afterwards, the Crown appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada to get another case, and in 1990, Keikstra found his way to the Supreme Court of Canada, arguing the same points as before. This time, after carefully considering how hate speech and freedom of expression interact, all seven judges agreed that the criminal code had indeed infringed upon Keikstra's freedom of expression. However, four of them decided that even though Keikstra hadn't broken the law in writing, he had far surpassed a reasonable limit and his actions could incite psychological harm or even violence. Although there were two other cases in R.V. Keikstra from 1992 and 1996, both of them were essentially just half-baked cases that aren't even very memorable, unlike the 1991. Did the results surprise you? How do you feel about how close the final verdict was? Honestly, I'm surprised it was that close. It seems the three other judges thought similarly to me, and on a different day, we might have had a completely different society. I feel what the four judges agreed upon is exactly what I didn't like about the current government system, as it's most clearly an outrage by the government, and they're looking for a way to stifle legitimate debate. Very thought-provoking. However, as we've become a society so intertwined with multiculturalism, I believe this landmark decision could be a stepping stone to becoming a more welcoming country. You highlighted both the risks of government overreach and the importance of freedom of expression. Two very pressing issues. But I believe in order for our society to continue to exist, especially when you've thrown that dumpster fire of declining birth rates in Canada, you must agree that we cannot ruin the cultural utopia that we have just for a little bit of debate. Exactly. It's vital to approach these issues with extreme caution, and today we will have to agree to disagree. All right, everybody. Thank you so much for listening. Big thank you to the Canadian Encyclopedia, Statistics Canada, History.com, Audacity, and countless others for making all of this possible. So until next time, Jam out.