R. v. Krymowski

! bgcolor="6699FF" | R. v. Krymowski

Supreme Court of Canada
Argued November 8, 2004 Decided February 24, 2005
Full case name: Her Majesty The Queen v. Krystopher Krymowski, Ryan Douglas Marshall, Quinn Mason McFarlane, Michael Peter Schultz, J.J.V. and A.M.V Citations: [2005] 1 S.C.R. 101; 2005 SCC 7 (CanLII); (2005), 249 D.L.R. (4th) 28; (2005), 193 C.C.C. (3d) 129; (2005), 26 C.R. (6th) 207; (2005), 195 O.A.C. 341 Prior history: Judgement for the defendants in the Court of Appeal for Ontario
Holding
The trial judge erred for not considering the totality of the evidence in a hate speech case.
Court membership
Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin Puisne Justices John C. Major, Michel Bastarache, Ian Binnie, Louis LeBel, Marie Deschamps, Morris Fish, Rosalie Abella and Louise Charron
Case opinions
Majority decision by: Charron Joined by: McLachlin, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella Minority opinion by: None Joined by: none

R. v. Krymowski [2005] 1 S.C.R. 101 was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on hate speech against the Roma people, also known as "Gypsies."

Background

When Roma refugees were allowed into Canada in 1997, a protest was staged by 25 neo-Nazis and other people in front of the motel where the refugees were staying. The protesters held signs that said, for examples, "Honk if you hate Gypsies," "Canada is not a Trash Can," and "G.S.T. — Gypsies Suck Tax." (The last is a reference to Canada's Goods and Services Tax, also known as GST.) The protesters were charged with promoting hatred, a crime under the Criminal Code of Canada. However, the defence replied that the hate speech did not target the Roma, but only "Gypsies," who may or may not be Roma. This was in spite of a letter by the defence lawyer, which was attached to an article that used the words "Roma" and "Gypsies" to refer to the same people. The Crown also pointed to dictionary definitions. The defence won their case at trial, and the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld this finding.

Decision

The court overturned the dismissal and held that "The appeal should be allowed. The acquittals are set aside and new trials ordered."

The decision of the Court was written by Justice Louise Charron. She first observed the hate speech law was discussed and held to be constitutional in the case R. v. Keegstra (1990). In Keegstra it was found that the definition of the crime was specific enough to be enforceable and its infringement on freedom of expression was minimal. In this case, this meant the Crown was obligated to show the protesters publicly promoted hatred against a racial or religious group. It was not disputed the Roma would be such a group. Moreover, the protesters targeted a specific group.

Charron faulted the trial finding as too focussed on the terms "Roma" and "Gypsies," and not on the general question of whether the protesters were attempting to promote hatred of the Roma. Charron emphasized the importance of studying the "totality of the evidence" and drawing reasonable conclusions to determine whether a group was subject to hate speech. It was suggested that evidence besides the use of the word "Gypsies" be considered. This included that the Roma were staying at a motel that was targeted, that neo-Nazi displays were used, and that the protesters advocated "White Power." Neo-Nazism was particularly important since the Nazi Germans persecuted the Roma in the Holocaust.

Finally, Charron noted that use of the words "Roma" and "Gypsies" as synonyms need not have been fully proven if it were reasonable enough to believe and not be disputed. The dictionaries used in the case made the use of the synonyms believable and understandable.

See also

• List of Supreme Court of Canada cases (McLachlin Court)

References

External links