Individual Rights and Freedoms vs. Collective Interest
Individual Rights and Freedoms vs. Collective Interest
Jim Keegstra Case Study
Embedded Files
BLOCK 1 Josie, Ella
Define the following terms and relate to the case study.
a. individual rights and freedoms: freedoms that cannot be taken away by another person or the government. Only you can give these rights away; no one can rob you of your individual rights.
It relates to the case study because he as a teacher claims he has thought rigths to talk about what he wants and how he wants to without being ounshied due to his right of freedom of expression.
b. collective rights: a rights. claim that belongs to a group, rather than a. person or human being.
it relates to the topic becasue as a teacher he has to teach to the whole class aboout the topic and allow them to make an opion not based on indranation.
c. fiduciary duty: involving trust, especially with regard to the relationship between a trustee and a beneficiary. lawyers have a fiduciary duty to have the intrest of thier client in mind
It relates to the cass becuase he went to court and fought with lawyers who almost won his case.
Summary of Issue/case study:
Keegstra was a highschool teacher in a small town in Alberta, in 1984 he was charged with unlawfully promoting hatred against the Jewish people. This was because of Keegstra's anti- Jewish statement to his students. He believed that the Holocaust was created to gain sympathy. He took the case to court and almost won but ended up losing and eventaully lost his licence to teach.
Group's Opinion on Issue/case study: I disagree with his choice to because we belive that he should not force his student to have the same beleifs as him without actually teaching the whole thing and allowing them to have their own opinon without Keegstra voicing his opnion on them.
Did your group reach a consensus? Why or why not?
BLOCK 1 - Garrett & Gabriel
Define the following terms and relate them to the case study.
a. individual rights and freedoms: These are rights that cannot be taken away by anyone, including the government as well as other people.
It relates to the case study because Jim Keegstra argues that regulating how he teaches his class and describes Jewish people, is infringing upon the freedom of expression that he is guaranteed.
b. collective rights: A right that belongs to a collective or group of people rather than just an individual.
It relates to the case study because students when sent to school have the right to be taught in a way that allows for them to develop their own opinions rather than being indoctrinated into what their teacher believes.
c. fiduciary duty: In Canadian Law, Fiduciary Obligation is the idea that one party (Who can exercise some power), has a responsibility to look over the best interest of another party.
It relates to the case study because Jim Keegstra had a Fiduciary duty to his students to teach them in a way that wasn't his own opinion, and to not breed hatred within his classroom. The school board also had a Fiduciary duty to look after and make sure that their teachers were teaching according to the curriculum so that this sort of thing didn't happen, thus is why he ended up fired.
Summary of Issue/case study:
Jim Keegstra was a high school teacher in Echville, Alberta, who taught his students based on his belief in antisemitism. In his classroom, he taught that Jewish people were generally 'evil, selfish' people and only seek power and money for themselves and their people. He also claimed the Holocaust to be made up for the Jewish people to develop sympathy for themselves. In 1984 he was charged under the criminal code for spreading false information that targets and harms a group within Canada (Hate Speech). He tried to go to the supreme court, claiming that the criminal code violated his right to free speech that was guaranteed to him in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He lost by a vote of 4 to 3, the supreme court decided that the criminal code represents a reasonable line between fostering hate speech and promoting social discussion. Jim Keegstra is no longer a teacher.
Group's Opinion on Issue/case study:
We (Gabe and Garrett) believe that Keegstra was in the wrong and he should not be allowed to teach as he used very strong antisemitic beliefs to teach false facts to his students. He is using his individual rights and freedoms to impose racist beliefs, therefore harming people within his community. His responsibility to the collective is to teach correctly and without bias as well as not spread false information. School should also be a place to learn and for students to develop their own views on different topics and not a place to breed hate and for teachers to indoctrinate their students into their own views. He fails to do, causing harm to his collective community, both the students and the people he talked negatively about.
Did your group reach a consensus? Why or why not?
Page updated
Report abuse