Talk:R v Keegstra

Section 1 or 2?

Just a matter of semantics, really, but rather that "the Court upheld the Criminal Code of Canada provision prohibiting the willful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group as constitutional under the freedom of expression provision in section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms", shouldn't it state that it was upheld under section 1 of the Charter? Section 2(b) was the section violated, rather than the section which upheld it as constitutional. Or does this sentence mean that the prohibition is constitutional in spite of section 2(b)? Thoughts, anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.63.254.245 (talk) 04:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

In the media

Does the TV story have any bearing at all on the original case? It does not seem to be about the case itself or any of the people cited in the case. What if anything makes this TV story about R v Keegstra rather than about Holocaust denialism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.173.247 (talk) 10:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

There was another 1988 US movie which portrayed this case, Scandal in a Small Town - with Raquel Welch in the Lindsay Wagner role. From the IMdB;

"She becomes aware that Julie's very popular history teacher, Mr Baker, spreads anti-Semitic, racist ideas among his pupils, Leda Beth decides to ask Mr Baker for an explanation ...... it looks as if she will have to bring the Board of Education to court."

Links;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandal_in_a_Small_Town http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096044/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_27

Both movies need to be in the section.

(The movies are "based on fact" of the incident, not actual biopics of it, hence they aren't even set in Canada but the US - they are both clearly a portrayal of the case though) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr gobrien (talk • contribs) 15:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC)