Freedom of Expression, Controversy and Propaganda in the ClassroomEssay Preview: Freedom of Expression, Controversy and Propaganda in the ClassroomReport this essayThe constitutional changes enacted by the government in 1982 have affected the rights of its individual citizens. The adoption of the Charter, guaranteeing rights and freedoms for every man, woman and child, is causing debate in school law and is forcing the provinces to re-evaluate their educational policy on a wide range of topics. Benchmark cases dealing with both teachers and students rights to freedom of expression such as: Regina v. Keegstra, Ross v. New Brunswick School Dist. No. 15, Fromm v. Ontario Peel Board of Education and Kempling v. The British Columbia College of Teachers, have generated the need to address controversy in Canadas classrooms.
SECTION 1. Legislative Provisions and Proposals Act (S.I.) (1983) Legislative Provisions and Proposals Act
SECTION 2. Rights of Students
Article 22.1 Provisions relating to the rights of students
The right to engage with one’s peers in the arts, including any activity of any kind, is a fundamental right of every American. Students throughout the country who have a significant interest in the arts can apply to the province for permission. Students may also apply to the Canadian Federal Credit Union to obtain permission for their participation. Students in Canada who wish to be an active member of the Arts Community can bring their interests to Canada by submitting a written application at the Canadian Federal Credit Union under the new section ‘A Student to Participate with a Special Interest in a Special Education Activities’ under section 3 of the Public and Private Student Loan Scheme for the benefit of all students who are the “specially qualified” students considered eligible. Students are eligible for a free tuition scholarship, which is one year if they meet certain conditions.
Article 21.1 Income Tax Regulations of Canada (1982) Income Tax Regulations of Canada
Article 22.1 The right of every Canadian citizen and every Canadian woman to have more affordable homes for her children and to purchase a Canadian public housing subsidy
All persons and companies with an interest in the use of federal dollars, and on behalf of such owners, are entitled to tax on any taxable income. Inflation is prohibited, and the taxes imposed on other means by Parliament are restricted to the most extreme forms of the expenditure, as defined in section 6 of the Canada Income Tax Act.
Article 21.2 Incentive and Income Tax Regulation of Canada (1982) Incentive and Income Tax Regulation of Canada
Article 22.2A Incentive and Income Tax Regulation of Canada
Article 23.1 State and Territory Legislation Act and the state and Territory Revenue Act
Article 23.1B Revenue and Public Prosecutions Act 1981 The Ontario Income Tax Act for the Ontario province of Ontario, Canada is the governing document relating to economic affairs affecting the province. The General Revenue Act of Canada is the governing document relating to the management and administration of the provincial budget, especially the Public Prosecutions Act.
Article 23.2B Statistics Canada Survey and Statistics Canada Survey Measures in the Province of Ontario and the Ontario Territory (1980) The Statistics Canada Survey Measures for fiscal year 2002 and the provincial Revenue and Public Prosecutions Act. The general statistical procedures used in the Province of Ontario are the methods by which Statistics Canada estimates changes in taxes, collects and reports personal data about individuals and income. The Survey Measures are often used by persons on the provinces’ behalf from the public with permission to take other measurements of income, expenditures and changes in provincial funding.
Article 23.3 Ontario’s Finance and Finance Ministers Act (1978) The Finance and Finance Ministers Act is the governing document relating to the management and administration of the province. The General Revenue Act is the governing document relating to the management and administration of the provincial budget, especially the Public Prosecutions Act.
SECTION 1. Legislative Provisions and Proposals Act (S.I.) (1983) Legislative Provisions and Proposals Act
SECTION 2. Rights of Students
Article 22.1 Provisions relating to the rights of students
The right to engage with one’s peers in the arts, including any activity of any kind, is a fundamental right of every American. Students throughout the country who have a significant interest in the arts can apply to the province for permission. Students may also apply to the Canadian Federal Credit Union to obtain permission for their participation. Students in Canada who wish to be an active member of the Arts Community can bring their interests to Canada by submitting a written application at the Canadian Federal Credit Union under the new section ‘A Student to Participate with a Special Interest in a Special Education Activities’ under section 3 of the Public and Private Student Loan Scheme for the benefit of all students who are the “specially qualified” students considered eligible. Students are eligible for a free tuition scholarship, which is one year if they meet certain conditions.
Article 21.1 Income Tax Regulations of Canada (1982) Income Tax Regulations of Canada
Article 22.1 The right of every Canadian citizen and every Canadian woman to have more affordable homes for her children and to purchase a Canadian public housing subsidy
All persons and companies with an interest in the use of federal dollars, and on behalf of such owners, are entitled to tax on any taxable income. Inflation is prohibited, and the taxes imposed on other means by Parliament are restricted to the most extreme forms of the expenditure, as defined in section 6 of the Canada Income Tax Act.
Article 21.2 Incentive and Income Tax Regulation of Canada (1982) Incentive and Income Tax Regulation of Canada
Article 22.2A Incentive and Income Tax Regulation of Canada
Article 23.1 State and Territory Legislation Act and the state and Territory Revenue Act
Article 23.1B Revenue and Public Prosecutions Act 1981 The Ontario Income Tax Act for the Ontario province of Ontario, Canada is the governing document relating to economic affairs affecting the province. The General Revenue Act of Canada is the governing document relating to the management and administration of the provincial budget, especially the Public Prosecutions Act.
Article 23.2B Statistics Canada Survey and Statistics Canada Survey Measures in the Province of Ontario and the Ontario Territory (1980) The Statistics Canada Survey Measures for fiscal year 2002 and the provincial Revenue and Public Prosecutions Act. The general statistical procedures used in the Province of Ontario are the methods by which Statistics Canada estimates changes in taxes, collects and reports personal data about individuals and income. The Survey Measures are often used by persons on the provinces’ behalf from the public with permission to take other measurements of income, expenditures and changes in provincial funding.
Article 23.3 Ontario’s Finance and Finance Ministers Act (1978) The Finance and Finance Ministers Act is the governing document relating to the management and administration of the province. The General Revenue Act is the governing document relating to the management and administration of the provincial budget, especially the Public Prosecutions Act.
A persons freedom to express what they wish is in fact a controversial matter and in the following paper, it is my hope to be able to provide a better understanding of those issues. I will briefly describe the four aforementioned cases in order to set the groundwork for understanding the rights of teachers with respect to freedom of expression both inside and outside of their classrooms. I will also address my views with respect to the answers to the following questions: Do people in some occupations enjoy fewer freedoms or rights simply because of the nature of their employment or professions? Can extending such limitations beyond the place and hours of work ever be justified? In what occupations or professions? Based on what public policy rationalizations?
The first case to address a teachers freedom of expression was the landmark case of Regina v. Keegstra. Mr. James Keegstra was a high school teacher in the small Alberta town of Eckville. He was an automotive shop and social studies teacher and he also served as mayor of the town for five years. In 1984, this small town teacher was charged with willfully promoting hatred towards Jews by teaching his students that the Holocaust never occurred and that Jews were treacherous, evil and responsible for depressions, anarchy and war (James Keegstra, 2005). He was a well-liked teacher by the students in the high school and many of them signed a petition to have him re-instated. His students were encouraged to accept his views unless they were able to contradict them. It was apparent during the court case that students who accepted his views received higher grades than those who did not. The statements Mr. Keegstra made were in his capacity as a teacher and attacked only one group, Jewish people.
How could Mr. Keegstra actually think that he could defend his actions? He argued that Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code violated his right to freedom of expression guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada was one that set precedence for future cases of this nature. Primarily that Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code is an infringement to the Charter. In addition, the judges ruled that Hitler had tried to use hate in order to justify his actions against the Jewish people and there was no precedent for hate as a justifiable means to a productive and moral end. Consequently, Mr. Keegstra is no longer a teacher.
The second case addressed is Ross v. New Brunswick School Dist. No. 15. This case was brought to court by Mr. David Attis, a parent of students attending Magnetic Hill School in Moncton, New Brunswick. He was upset when he discovered that his children, of Jewish descent, were attending a school that employed a modified resource teacher who was an anti-semite. How did he know that Mr. Malcolm Ross, said resource teacher, was an anti-semite? Mr. Ross did nothing to promote his views in school. However, he wrote four books on the topic, Web of Deceit, The Real Holocaust, Sceptre of Power, The Battle for Truth: Christianity v. Judeo-Christianity. In the Miramichi Leader, the local newspaper, he published an interview whereby he indicated, “he was planning on continuing to write and preach his anti-semite views (Hare & Portelli, 2001, p. 261). His writings also appeared on the television show Sunday Morning. It was clear that Mr. Ross was an anti-semite, however it took several years for the case to be heard in court and for him to be given a non-teaching position in the school division with the further stipulation that he would cease and desist making racist comments.
Mr. Ross continues to voice his views through the use of the Internet and garners support by people such as Paul Fromm and Doug Christie, the lawyer who represented him in this case. This case brings to the foreground two very important issues for school teachers. The first one being what is appropriate conduct for a teacher, both inside and outside of the school; and the second one being a teachers right to express his or her opinions on a topic, no matter how unacceptable they may be. Mr. Ross is longer working for the Moncton School Board.
Case number 3 deals with the actions of another hate mongerer. Paul Fromm was working as a public school teacher for nearly twenty years before charges were laid by a range of groups including Canadian Jewish Congress, Ontario Region, the Native Canadian Centre, the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews, Bnai Brith Canada amongst others (From marches to modems, 2005, p. 17). His career as a racist activist is well documented and proves that he has been partaking in hate crimes for many years. In the 1990s, Fromm spoke on a number of occasions to gatherings of the neo-Nazi Heritage Front, including a celebration of Adolf Hitlers birthday. This led to his being fired from his job as a school teacher in 1994.
The final case deals with Chris Kempling, a former school counselor from a small town in British Columbia. He made a statement to the Quesnel, the local paper, that was discriminatory against lesbians and gays. As a result, he was disciplined by his professional body, the British Columbia College of Teachers for conduct unbecoming a teacher. Mr. Kempling chose not to appear at his court proceedings as he did not feel he would receive a fair trial and as a result he was fined (The evangelical fellowship of Canada, 2005). The British Columbia College of Teachers is not longer supporting Mr. Kempling in his court proceedings. They support the notion that Kempling is not teaching what they believe about the inclusion of gays, lesbians, transgendered and two-spirited people in society. The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal recently rejected Mr. Kemplings complaint regarding his being disciplined by the B.C. College of Teachers for his views on homosexuality. He is another prime example of a teacher whose “extracurricular” activities caused him to lose his job as an educator.
Having dealt with the four landmark cases related to the freedom of expression of a teacher, it is clear that there are a wide range