In the case R v. Keegstra, the fundamental right to freedom of expression was used as a defence by Keegstra, who was charged under the criminal code for promoting hate speech (R v. Keegstra, 1990). Although the defence used was a constitutional and fundamental right, the Supreme Court found that the violation of a fundamental right by the criminal code was justifiable. The court ruled that section 319(2) of the criminal code was constitutional as the criminal code serves legitimate social purposes and aims to protect important social values; therefore, the Supreme Court of Canada sustained collective good and public order. (Jones, 2015:
In the case R v. Keegstra, the fundamental right to freedom of expression was used as a defence by Keegstra, who was charged under the criminal code for promoting hate speech (R v. Keegstra, 1990). Although the defence used was a constitutional and fundamental right, the Supreme Court found that the violation of a fundamental right by the criminal code was justifiable. The court ruled that section 319(2) of the criminal code was constitutional as the criminal code serves legitimate social purposes and aims to protect important social values; therefore, the Supreme Court of Canada sustained collective good and public order. (Jones, 2015: