Should Hate Speech be Criminalized? Lessons from the Canadian experience in R v. Zundel and R v. Keegstra

There is a global trend toward increased use of criminal law to combat hate speech. In assessing this trend, one should be mindful of the experience of countries that have long had criminal laws targeting harmful expression. Canada is one such country. Using the leading Canadian cases of R v. Zundel and R v. Keegstra, this article argues that the Canadian experience suggests the criminal law is a flawed mechanism for countering harmful expression. This is so for at least three reasons. First, hate-speech prosecutions may undermine the group dignity and sense of inclusion of minority groups. Second, criminal laws against hate speech do not serve the primary objectives of criminal justice. Third, hate-speech trials may impede the search for truth, a fundamental purpose of the criminal process.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
FIU Law Review
Published
2025-01-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.25148/lawrev.19.3.6
Primary Topic
Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Should Hate Speech be Criminalized? Lessons from the Canadian experience in R v. Zundel and R v. Keegstra

Kenneth Grad
FIU Law Review
Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
article

Should Hate Speech be Criminalized? Lessons from the Canadian experience in R v. Zundel and R v. Keegstra

Kenneth Grad
article en

Abstract

There is a global trend toward increased use of criminal law to combat hate speech. In assessing this trend, one should be mindful of the experience of countries that have long had criminal laws targeting harmful expression. Canada is one such country. Using the leading Canadian cases of R v. Zundel and R v. Keegstra, this article argues that the Canadian experience suggests the criminal law is a flawed mechanism for countering harmful expression. This is so for at least three reasons. First, hate-speech prosecutions may undermine the group dignity and sense of inclusion of minority groups. Second, criminal laws against hate speech do not serve the primary objectives of criminal justice. Third, hate-speech trials may impede the search for truth, a fundamental purpose of the criminal process.

FIU Law ReviewVol. 19(3)
University of Manitoba (CA)
Openalex Percentile: Top 94%
Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.