In deciding the case of R. v. Keegstra, Justice McLachlin (speaking for the dissent) disputed the rational connection of the Criminal Code s. 319(2) – the anti-hate speech statute – to the purported purpose of the law.
In deciding the case of R. v. Keegstra, Justice McLachlin (speaking for the dissent) disputed the rational connection of the Criminal Code s. 319(2) – the anti-hate speech statute – to the purported purpose of the law. a) What did the Supreme Court determine was the objective of the law? b) McLachlin offered […]