R. v. Morgentaler, Vriend v. Alberta, R. v. Keegstra

R. v. Morgentaler, 1988

Before this court case, there was a law in the criminal code requiring women to attain certification before being allowed to have an abortion. The certification was proof that a committee of three doctors had reviewed a request for an abortion, and decided that the request was reasonable, meaning that continuing pregnancy would cause harm to the mother. Then abortions could only be performed by an accredited hospital. Morgentaler, along with two of his associates, Dr. Smoling and Dr. Scott, set up an abortion clinic in Toronto, where women who had not received a certification could have an abortion. This case was an evaluation of whether or not the abortion law, section 251(4) of the Criminal Code, was in violation of section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, focusing primarily on the security of person. This section of the charter outlines that a person should have control of their body and health. The court ruled in a 5-2 majority that the abortion law violates section 7 of the charter and is invalid. Canada now has no criminal legislation regarding abortion and thus abortion is not a crime in Canada. Some provinces have still made measures to limit or restrict abortion.

I chose this case because as a female, I have strong opinions on abortion and it is a relevant topic to me as a person. There remains to be ongoing discourse and discussion on abortion and abortion laws, making it prevalent in today’s society. This case decriminalized abortion in Canada, a feat that many countries have yet to accomplish, and this case helped further women’s rights to govern their bodies. I feel strongly that this case has changed society for the better, and if had not occurred, Canada would be father behind in women’s rights, and abortions would be viewed much more negatively than they are today. This case challenged medical and social views on abortion and women’s bodies, as well as how people view a fetus and mother together and respectively.

Vriend v. Alberta, 1998

Delwin Vriend was fired from his job at King’s College in Alberta based on his sexual orientation. He attempted to make a complaint under the Alberta Individual Rights Protection Act, but this complaint was dismissed because the acts did not specify that discrimination based on sexual orientation was prohibited. Vriend then went on to seek a ruling that his dismissal was in violation of section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which contains equality rights. This case argued that sexual orientation was a personal characteristic and to be discriminated against based on that characteristic compared to another group that is the same with the exception of that one personal characteristic is unconstitutional. The courts ruled that Vriend’s dismissal based upon his sexual orientation was in fact, a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I chose this case because it was one of the cases that paved the way for so many others to help cement LGBT+ rights in Canada. This case, having set the standard that sexual orientation is protected under section 15 of the charter, has inspired many other people to fight for equality rights, and allowed people of the LGBT+ community to be more open about their orientations without fear of losing their job based on discrimination. LGBT+ rights are still being argued in many countries all over the world.

R v. Keegstra

James Keegstra cited anti-semitic hate speech to his classes at a public school in Alberta. These statements conveyed Keegtra’s negative views on Jewish people, and Keegstra tested his students on his opinions of Jewish People, Keegstra was charged under section 319(2) of the Criminal Code for promoting hatred. Keegstra argued that the ruling infringed upon his freedom of expression. The court determined that while the law does conflict with the freedom of expression outlined in section 2b of the charter, it was enforceable. The law was not exceedingly limiting, not exceedingly severe, and in this case, the law had a clear objective which had been directly related to the charge.

I chose this case because the basis of this case is still a core issue today. There are many people arguing that their hate speech and active promotion of hate to a group should be protected under freedom of expression in the charter. This case demonstrated the limitations that can lawfully be put on the freedom of expression. With modern day nazi’s and rampant prejudice, this case is an example of the value that Canada holds of equality, and it’s views on discrimination.