R. v. Zundel
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| R. v. Zundel | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
|||||||||
| Hearing: December 10, 1991 Judgment: August 27, 1992 |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
| Court membership | |||||||||
|
Chief Justice: Antonio Lamer |
|||||||||
| Reasons given | |||||||||
|
Majority by: McLachlin J. |
|||||||||
R. v. Zundel [1992] 2 S.C.R. 731 is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision where the Court struck down the provision in the Criminal Code of Canada that prohibited publication of false information or news on the basis that it violated the freedom of expression provision under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
[edit] Background
Famous holocaust denier, Ernst Zundel, was charged with "spreading false news" by publishing a pamphlet entitled "Did Six Million Really Die?" in Canada, contrary to s. 181 of the Criminal Code.
Section 181 states that "[e]very one who wilfully publishes a statement, tale or news that he knows is false and causes or is likely to cause injury or mischief to a public interest is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment . . .".
At trial, Zundel was convicted. However, on appeal the case was sent back for a new trial due to a procedural error at trial in admitting evidence and instructing the jury. At the second trial he was convicted and the judgement was upheld by the Court of Appeal.
The issue before the Supreme Court was whether s. 181 of the Code infringed "the guarantee of freedom of expression in s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and, if so, whether s. 181 is justifiable under s. 1 of the Charter."
[edit] Opinion of the Court
Justice McLachlin, writing for the Court, found that section 181 violated section 2(b) of the Charter. She noted that section 2(b) protects all expression of a non-violent form, and as such, the content itself is largely irrelevant. The protection provided by the Charter includes expression of minority beliefs even where the majority may find it false. The imposition of imprisonment for expression has a severely limiting effect on freedom, beyond reason.
McLachlin further found that it could not be justified under section 1 of the Charter as the restriction on all expressions "likely to cause injury or mischief to a public interest" was far too broad.
