Supreme Court of Canada: 1992 Zündel Judgement
** Preliminary Version **
Indexed as:
Ernst*Zundel,*Appellant;
Reported at: [1992] 2 S.C.R. 731
[1992] S.C.J. No. 70
Supreme Court of Canada
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Constitutional law -- Charter of Rights -- Freedom of
expression -- Spreading false news -- Criminal Code prohibiting
wilful publication of false statement or news that person knows
is false and that is likely to cause injury or mischief to a
public interest (s. 181) -- Whether s. 181 of Code infringes
s. 2(b) of
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms -- If so,
whether s. 181 justifiable under s. 1 of Charter -- Vagueness
-- Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,
ss. 1, 2(b) --
Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46,
s. 181.
Criminal law -- Spreading false news -- Criminal Code
prohibiting wilful publication of false statement or news that
person knows is false and that is likely to cause injury or
mischief to a public interest (s. 181) -- Whether s. 181 of
Code infringes the guarantee of freedom of expression in
s. 2(b) of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms -- If so,
whether limit imposed by s. 181 upon s. 2(b) justifiable under
s. 1 of Charter -- Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,
ss. 1, 2(b) -- Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46,
s. 181.
The accused was charged with spreading false news contrary
to s. 181 of the Criminal Code, which provides 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 . . .". The charge arose
out of the accused's publication of a pamphlet entitled Did Six
Million Really Die? The accused had added a preface and
afterword to an original document, which had previously been
published by others in the United States and England. The
pamphlet, part of a genre of literature known as "revisionist
history", suggests, inter alia, that the killing of six million
Jews before and during World War II and the Holocaust was a
myth perpetrated by a worldwide Jewish conspiracy. The accused
was convicted after a lengthy trial. On appeal, his conviction
was upheld on constitutional grounds but struck down for errors
in admitting evidence and in the charge to the jury. The matter
was sent back for a new trial. The accused was again convicted
and his conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. This
appeal is to determine whether s. 181 of the Code infringes 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.
Held (Gonthier, Cory and Iacobucci JJ. dissenting): The
appeal should be allowed. Section 181 of the Criminal Code is
unconstitutional.
Per La Forest, L'Heureux-Dube, Sopinka and McLachlin JJ.:
Section 181 of the Code infringes the guarantee of freedom of
expression. Section 2(b) of the Charter protects the right of
a minority to express its view, however unpopular it may be.
All communications which convey or attempt to convey meaning
are protected by s. 2(b), unless the physical form by which the
communication is made (for example, a violent act) excludes
protection. The content of the communication is irrelevant.
The purpose of the guarantee is to permit free expression to
the end of promoting truth, political or social participation,
and self-fulfilment. That purpose extends to the protection of
minority beliefs which the majority regards as wrong or false.
Section 181, which may subject a person to criminal conviction
and potential imprisonment because of words he published, has
undeniably the effect of restricting freedom of expression and,
therefore, imposes a limit on s. 2(b).
Given the broad, purposive interpretation of the freedom
of expression guaranteed by s. 2(b), those who deliberately
publish falsehoods are not, for that reason alone, precluded
from claiming the benefit of the constitutional guarantees of
free speech. Before a person is denied the protection of
s. 2(b), it must be certain that there can be no justification
for offering protection. The criterion of falsity falls short
of this certainty, given that false statements can sometimes
have value and given the difficulty of conclusively determining
total falsity.
Section 181 of the Code, unlike
s. 319 at issue in
Keegstra, is not justifiable under s. 1 of the Charter. In
determining the objective of a legislative measure for the
purposes of s. 1, the Court must look at the intention of
Parliament when the section was enacted or amended. It cannot
assign objectives, nor invent new ones according to the
perceived current utility of the impugned provision. Although
the application and interpretation of objectives may vary over
time, new and altogether different purposes should not be
devised. Here, while s. 181 may be capable of serving
legitimate purposes, Parliament has identified no social
problem, much less one of pressing concern, justifying it. The
provision originally focused on the prevention of deliberate
slanderous statements against the nobles of the realm to
preserve political harmony in the state. To suggest now that
its objective is to combat hate propaganda or racism is to go
beyond its history and its wording and to adopt the "shifting
purpose" analysis this Court has rejected. Such an objective,
moreover, hardly seems capable of being described as a
"nuisance", the rubric under which Parliament has placed
s. 181, nor as the offence's target of mere "mischief" to a
public interest. Furthermore, if the simple identification of
the (content-free) goal of protecting the public from harm
could constitute a "pressing and substantial" objective,
virtually any law would meet the first part of the onus imposed
upon the Crown under s. 1. Justification under s. 1 requires
more than the general goal of protection from harm common to
all criminal legislation; it requires a specific purpose so
pressing and substantial as to be capable of overriding the
Charter's guarantees. The lack of any ostensible purpose
justifying s. 181 led the Law Reform Commission to recommend
repeal of the section, labelling it as "anachronistic". It is
also significant that the Crown could point to no other free
and democratic country with criminal legislation of this type.
The fact that s. 181 has been rarely used despite its long
history supports the view that it is hardly essential to the
maintenance of a free and democratic society. The retention of
s. 181 is not necessary to fulfil any international obligation
undertaken by Parliament. In the absence of an objective of
sufficient importance to justify overriding the right of free
expression, s. 181 cannot be upheld under s. 1 of the Charter.
Other provisions, such as
s. 319(2) of the Code, deal with hate
propaganda more fairly and more effectively. Still other
provisions seem to deal adequately with matters of sedition and
state security.
Even if the Court were to attribute to s. 181 the
objective of promoting racial and social tolerance and to
conclude that such objective was so pressing and substantial as
to be capable of overriding a fundamental freedom, s. 181 would
still fail to meet the proportionality test which prevailed in
Keegstra. First, assuming a rational link between s. 181 and
the objective of social harmony, the section is too broad and
more invasive than necessary to achieve that aim. The phrase
"statement, tale or news", while it may not extend to the realm
of true opinion, obviously encompasses a broad range of
historical and social speech, going well beyond what is patent
or provable to the senses as a matter of "pure fact". What is
an assertion of fact, as opposed to an expression of opinion,
is a question of great difficulty and the question of falsity
of a statement is often a matter of debate. But the greatest
danger of s. 181 lies in the undefined phrase "injury or
mischief to a public interest", which is capable of almost
infinite extension. To equate the words "public interest" with
the protection and preservation of certain Charter rights or
values, such as those in ss. 15 and 27, is to engage in an
impermissible reading in of content foreign to the enactment.
The range of expression potentially caught by the vague and
broad wording of s. 181 extends to virtually all controversial
statements of apparent fact which might be argued to be false
and likely to do some mischief to some public interest,
regardless of whether they promote the values underlying
s. 2(b). Not only is s. 181 broad in contextual reach; it is
particularly invasive because it chooses the most draconian of
sanctions to effect its ends -- prosecution for an indictable
offence under the criminal law. There is thus a danger that
s. 181 may have a chilling effect on minority groups or
individuals, restraining them from saying what they would like
for fear that they might be prosecuted. Second, when the
objective of s. 181 is balanced against its potential invasive
reach, the limitation of freedom of expression is
disproportionate to the objective envisaged. The value of
liberty of speech, one of the most fundamental freedoms
protected by the Charter, needs no elaboration. By contrast,
the objective of s. 181, in so far as an objective can be
ascribed, falls short of constituting a countervailing interest
of the most compelling nature. Further, s. 181 could support
criminalization of expression only on the basis that the
sanction was closely confined to situations of serious concern.
Per Gonthier, Cory and Iacobucci JJ. (dissenting): The
deliberate publication of statements known to be false, which
convey meaning in a non-violent form, falls within the scope of
s. 2(b) of the Charter. The sphere of expression protected by
the section has been very broadly defined to encompass all
content of expression irrespective of the particular meaning
sought to be conveyed unless the expression is communicated in
a physically violent form. Freedom of expression is so
important to democracy in Canada that even those statements on
the extreme periphery of the protected right must be brought
within the protective ambit of s. 2(b). In enacting s. 181 of
the Code, Parliament sought to restrict, not all lies, but only
those that are wilfully published and that are likely to injure
the public interest. Although the targeted expression is
extremely limited, the provision does have as its purpose the
restriction of free expression. Section 181, therefore,
constitutes an infringement of s. 2(b).
Section 181 of the Code is sufficiently precise to
constitute a limit prescribed by law under s. 1 of the Charter.
The citizen knows that to be at risk under this section, he
must wilfully publish a false statement knowing it to be false.
Further, the publication of those statements must injure or be
likely to injure the public interest. The fact that the term
"public interest" is not defined by the legislation is of
little significance. The courts play a significant role in the
definition of words and phrases used in the Code and other
enactments and should continue to do so in the future. The
term "public interest", which is widely used in federal as well
as provincial statutes, must be interpreted in light of the
legislative history of the particular provision in which it
appears and the legislative and social context in which it is
used. In the context of s. 181, the term "public interest"
refers to the protection and preservation of those rights and
freedoms set out in the Charter as fundamental to Canadian
society. A "public interest" likely to be harmed as a result
of contravention of s. 181 is the public interest in a free and
democratic society that is subject to the rule of law. A free
society is one built upon reasoned debate in which all its
members are entitled to participate. As a fundamental document
setting out essential features of our vision of democracy, the
Charter provides us with indications as to which values go to
the very core of our political structure. A democratic society
capable of giving effect to the Charter's guarantees is one
which strives toward creating a community committed to
equality, liberty and human dignity. The term "public
interest" in s. 181 should thus be confined to those rights
recognized in the Charter as being fundamenal to Canadian
democracy. It need not be extended beyond that. As an
example, the rights enacted in ss. 7, 15 and 27 of the Charter
should be considered in defining a public interest. It is only
if the deliberate false statements are likely to seriously
injure the rights and freedoms set out in the Charter that
s. 181 is infringed. This section, therefore, provides
sufficient guidance as to the legal consequence of a given
course of conduct and cannot be said to be too vague.
Section 181 of the Code is justifiable under s. 1 of the
Charter. Parliament's objective of preventing the harm caused
by the wilful publication of injurious lies is sufficiently
pressing and substantial to justify a limited restriction on
freedom of expression. The objective of s. 181 is evident from
the clear wording of the provision which prohibits the
publication of a statement that the accused knows is false and
"that causes or is likely to cause injury". This specific
objective in turn promotes the public interest in furthering
racial, religious and social tolerance. There is a pressing
and substantial need to protect groups identifiable under s. 15
of the Charter, and therefore society as a whole, from the
serious harm that can result from such "expression". The work
of numerous study groups has shown that racism is a current and
present evil in our country. It is a cancerous growth that is
still alive. Section 181, which provides protection, by
criminal sanction, to all vulnerable minority groups and
individuals against the harms caused by deliberate and
injurious lies, still plays a useful and important role in
encouraging racial and social tolerance, which is so essential
to the successful functioning of a democratic and multicultural
society. The focus of s. 181 is on manipulative and injurious
false statements of fact disguised as authentic research. The
international instruments against national, racial or religious
hatred signed by Canada, the various provisions similar to
s. 181 found in other free and democratic countries, the
tragedy of the Holocaust and Canada's commitment to the values
of equality and multiculturalism in ss. 15 and 27 of the
Charter emphasize the importance of s. 181's aim.
The purpose attributed to
s. 181 is not new. The
predecessors of s. 181 were always aimed at preventing the harm
caused by false speech and thereby protecting the safety and
security of the community. While initially the protection of
the public interest from harm focused on the prevention of
deliberate slanderous statements against the great nobles of
the realm to preserve the security of the state, the purpose
has evolved over the years to extend the protections from harm
caused by false speech to vulnerable social groups and
therefore to safeguard the public interest against social
intolerance and public alarm. Thus, rather than creating a new
and different purpose, the aim of the section has been
maintained. The wording of s. 181, however, includes a
permissible shift in emphasis with its test which is based on
injury to the public interest. Looking back to the inclusion
of the offence in the Code, and the last amendment to the
section, one can reasonably conclude that there has been a
shift in the values that inform the public interest. Since
this shift has been incorporated into the language of the
section itself, it is therefore permissible. The test of
defining "injury to a public interest" takes into account the
changing values of Canadian society. Those values encompass
multiculturalism and equality, precepts specifically included
in the Charter.
Section 181 of the Code is an acceptably proportional
response to Parliament's objective. First, there is a rational
connection between the suppression of the publication of
deliberate and injurious lies and Parliament's objective of
protecting society from the harms caused by calculated
falsehoods and thereby promoting the security and safety of the
community. Where racial and social intolerance is fomented
through the deliberate manipulation of people of good faith by
unscrupulous fabrications, a limitation on the expression of
such speech is rationally connected to its eradication.
Second, s. 181 does not unduly infringe the right of
freedom of expression. Under s. 181, the accused is not judged
on the unpopularity of his beliefs. It is only where the
deliberate publication of false facts is likely to seriously
injure a public interest that the impugned section is invoked.
Any uncertainty as to the nature of the speech inures to the
benefit of the accused. The infrequent use of s. 181 can be
attributed to the extremely onerous burden on the Crown to
prove each element of the offence. The fact that the section
is seldom used, however, should not militate against its
usefulness. Further, s. 181 is not overly broad. An
application of the appropriate criteria makes it possible to
draw a coherent distinction between statements of opinion and
assertions of fact. When applied to the pamphlet at issue in
this case, these criteria indicate that statements couched as
"revisionist history" may be taken to be allegations of fact
rather than submissions of opinion. The jury, as instructed by
the trial judge, was clearly capable of drawing that
distinction. While it is true that no theory of history can be
proved or disproved, the accused has not been convicted for
misinterpreting factual material but for entirely and
deliberately misrepresenting its contents, manipulating and
fabricating basic facts in order to support his theories.
Courts deal with the question of truth and falsity of
statements on a daily basis. With reference to reliable
historical documents, "historical facts" can also be shown to
be true or false in the context of s. 181 -- a section well
suited to respond to the harm caused by vilification campaigns
disguised as pseudo-science. Finally, the fact that Parliament
has enacted hate propaganda legislation does not invalidate
s. 181. The government may legitimately employ a variety of
measures in order to achieve its objective. Human rights
legislation may, in certain circumstances, be sufficient to
deal with a particular problem in this area, but the strength
of the criminal law is needed and reserved for the extreme
cases, such as the case at hand, to send a clear message and
to discourage and punish those who knowingly publish falsehoods
that are likely to injure a public interest.
Third, the prohibition of the wilful publication of what
are known to be deliberate lies is proportional to the
importance of protecting the public interest in preventing the
harms caused by false speech and thereby promoting racial and
social tolerance in a multicultural democracy. Section 181, at
best, limits only that expression which is peripheral to the
core values protected by s. 2(b) of the Charter. The falsehoods
of the type caught by s. 181 serve only to hinder and detract
from democratic debate. The section is narrowly defined in
order to minimally impair s. 2(b). It also provides maximum
protection for the accused.
The
original plaintext version
of this file is available via
ftp.
[
Index ]
Home ·
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Search
Nizkor
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and
to combat hatred.
Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.
As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may
include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and
provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist
and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.
R. v.*Zundel*
v.
Her Majesty The Queen, Respondent, and
The Attorney General of Canada, the Attorney General of
Manitoba, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the League
for Human Rights of B'Nai Brith Canada and the Canadian Jewish
Congress, Interveners.
File No.: 21811.
1991: December 10: 1992: August 27.
Present: La Forest, L'Heureux-Dube, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory,
McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ.