Introduction
Canadian obscenity laws have evolved over years of court cases that resulted in amendments and reconsideration. However, the R. v. Butler proceeding of 1992 is the most widely discussed and referred to ruling due to its comprehensive approach to deciding decency and ethics. Before the 20th century, society observed high moral standards that limited people from publicly engaging in disrespectful acts and sharing obscene content. However, significant changes in human principles and the nature of explicit materials being exposed to underage individuals question the current freedom of expression and obscenity laws as some behaviors do not resonate with a decent society. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court Ruling in the R. v. Butler case regulates sexual obscenities based on traditionally established notions of the government’s responsibility for its society’s morality and the implications of pornographic materials.
Facts of the R. v. Butler Case
The R. v. Butler court hearing featured Donald Victor Butler as the Appellant and Her Majesty the Queen as the respondent. Law enforcement apprehended the accused because of owning a pornographic shop and selling explicit magazines, videotapes, and sexual paraphernalia. As a result, the court charged him with 73 counts for possessing obscene materials and 77 counts for going against s. 163 of the Canadian constitution and two counts for distributing obscene materials and exposing them to the public (Authers, 2020). The court found the accused guilty of eight charges, and he was fined $1000. However, the Group Against Pornography (GAP) and the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) disagreed with this verdict. They initiated an appeal to the Crown in 1991, where the accused was again found guilty of his charges (Authers, 2020). LEAF argued that pornography championed sexual exploitation against women.
Thus, the constitution should justify regulating pornographic materials based on their harmful effects. Nevertheless, Mr. Butler appealed in February 1992 but was declared guilty of the charges, resulting in the modification of the pornography legislation (Martin, 2019). The judge concluded that the guarantee of the right of expression protected obscene materials and that prima facie only applied to instances where violence and cruelty were associated with sexual activities. In addition, the scenes must depict a lack of consent to sexual encounters and should be perceived as dehumanizing to men or women in the sexual context stipulated in s.1 (Kusz, 2020). Hence, the Court of Appeal convicted him of 8 counts associated with eight films and dismissed the remaining charges. The Crown appealed these acquittals in the Supreme Court, and in a majority decision, the court agreed to the propositions and convicted the accused with respect to all his counts. The court held that the charter did not protect the materials because they comprised physical activities and involved the exploitation and degradation of individuals’ sexuality.
Case Precedent, Facts, and its Association with the R. v Butler Hearing
The Canadian Supreme Court referred to various precedent cases to conclude the R. v Butler ruling and offer an indisputable explanation. However, they argued against the Court of Appeal’s ruling that laws against obscenity breached the freedom of expression by pointing to the R. v. Keegstra case. The case featured a public school educator, Mr. James Keegstar, charged in 1984 under s. 281.2(2) of the criminal code because he unlawfully promoted hatred against specific individual groups (Martin, 2019). The teacher spoke harshly against Jewish people in his Eckville High School class and resisted the expected curricula. During his lessons, he described Jews as evil people who planned the Holocaust to gain global sympathy. He believed that the Jews conspired to annihilate Christianity and even tested his students on some of the misguided concepts (Martin, 2019). As a result, his case reached the Supreme Court, where jurors affirmed his initial convictions and found him guilty of hate speech because his sentiments were malicious.
The case of R. v. Keegstra provides a reliable precedent for freedom of expression hearings such as R. v Butler. Keegstra and his team argued that section 319(2) was against the constitutional right of expression under the charter’s s. 2(b). However, the Alberta Court of Appeal ruled against this argument and suggested that his actions breached section 319(2) and could not stand under section 1 of the charter (Bannerman, 2020). The Supreme Court upheld this ruling, thus further strengthening their stand against hate speech and forms of expression intended to dehumanize and harm others. Subsequently, the bench responsible for presiding over Butler’s case reinforced their decision by citing the R. v. Keegstra ruling and suggesting that the court interpret expression expansively (Martin, 2019). Hence, Butler’s actions were illegal because they did not reflect moral and social behaviors and painted a negative image of women.
The Basis of the Supreme Court’s Judgement in the R. v Butler Case
The Supreme Court’s main argument was based on its definition of obscenity, obligating it to adopt an approach to validate its meaning as proposed in section 163 of the Constitution. According to the court, material or work is obscene when it features undue exploitation of sex. In other words, the exploitation of sex must be present and must also be undue (Martin, 2019). “The community standards of tolerance” assessment is one of the solutions designed to evaluate excessive exploitation of sex by investigating what Canadians do not perceive as appropriate to expose to others. Therefore, any material that degrades and dehumanizes human sexuality fails the test, not because it offends individuals’ morals but because of negative public opinion (Bannerman, 2020). Moreover, evaluating whether a sexual act is dehumanizing requires considering consent, but this does not rule out immorality. In addition, the exploitation of sex can be ruled out if the content is a work of art that requires sexual encounters to describe a particular theme seriously. The court decided that indecent and immoral actions in society are unacceptable because they defile culture.
The main intention of the Supreme Court’s approach to the case of R. v Butler was to uphold social decency and oversee the Constitution’s moral objectives. Although traditional views of the law only championed morality, the Charter of Rights suggests that these approaches infringed on individuals’ liberty. However, the Supreme Court did not focus on immorality when deciding the case but on the dangers, the tabled issues presented for society (Bannerman, 2020). The court upheld that obscenity and dehumanizing women could facilitate degrading views and promote violence against women, which contradicted the nation’s ambitions of achieving equality. The Supreme Court justified its decision by pointing out that it was dedicated to avoiding societal immorality because it often leads to harm. Thus, they aimed to reduce women’s risks by abolishing immorality and destructive notions about them or their being (Kusz, 2020). Section 163(8) of the Criminal Code describes obscenities as any publication that features the undue exploitation of sex in the context of crime, violence, cruelty, and horror. Therefore, the ruling did not ban erotic productions but limited the nature of the content and perceived messages.
The Implications of the R. v Butler Ruling on the Canadian Society
Obscenity and pornography are complex issues, especially when perceived from an ethical and human rights perspective. However, the case of Butler provided a non-discriminatory form of guidance on how courts should address such issues. The point is critical and beneficial because it aligns the laws dictating human freedoms with women’s rights (Dymock, 2020). Moreover, it expresses concern about societal decency and acknowledges the harm that pornography can cause. Notably, the ruling stands against any actions that discriminate, dehumanize, and coerce women with respect to their sexuality (Bannerman, 2020). Therefore, it allows individuals to exercise their freedom of expression even by creating pornography but limits the harm imposed on women, children, and society by championing respectful acts and art. Hence, regulation prevents inequalities and double standards that discriminate against particular parties (Martin, 2019). The court’s reasoning offers no objections to what it deems appropriate and immoral, thus playing a vital role in assisting jurors in deciding on associated cases.
Although some forms of pornography are intended for educational purposes, allowing its free distribution, public display of pornographic acts is indecent because of the ideas it can give individuals. Pornography harms children and adolescents because it gives them the wrong impression of sexual encounters and fills their thoughts with immorality. Moreover, pornography is addictive and can deteriorate an individual’s relationship when they use films for arousal or as a coping mechanism (Dymock, 2020). Therefore, limiting access and distribution of indecent content prevents these incidents and associated adversities. Although the principles restrict indecency, they are designed to limit the harm imposed on human beings rather than deter people from engaging in sexual activities and sharing their expressions (Kusz, 2020). Therefore, it offers a reliable framework to champion equality and positive social developments because it encourages people to cherish, respect, and uphold their sexuality.
Conclusion
The R. v Butler case has been a framework to guide other indecency and pornography cases. The Supreme Court’s analysis method is reliable because it focuses on individuals’ well-being and consensual engagement. Although the global standards of morality have diminished since the court ruled on the case, its propositions are reasonable and essential in protecting the next generation from indecency and immorality. Moreover, the ruling is relevant to modern times because it allows people free expression but prevents them from taking advantage of others for personal gains. In addition, it pays attention to and prioritizes women’s rights and well-being in its reasoning, thus contributing to other critical decisions regarding gender violence and associated factors. Therefore, adhering to these stipulations promises a just and moral society.
Despite all of the above, the court’s decision can still be considered ambiguous in view of the difference of opinions on this case. But if one looks at the position of the court, the decision can still be considered the most correct. Moral issues are always the most difficult to make a final decision, but nevertheless, it can be argued that the court made the most acceptable possible.
References
Authers, B. (2020). Analogies of harm: Excess, expression, and obscenity in Margaret Atwood’s bodily harm and the Supreme Court of Canada decision R v butler. British Journal of Canadian Studies, 32(1-2), 23–42. Web.
Bannerman, S. (2020). Canadian Communication Policy and Law. Canadian Scholars. Web.
Dymock, A. (2020). Defending pornography: the case against strategic essentialism. In Research Handbook on Gender, Sexuality and the Law. Edward Elgar Publishing. Web.
Kusz, J. (2020). How to assess obscenity: A legal realism interpretation of the legal standards for obscenity. UBCL Rev., 53, 705. Web.
Martin, S. L. (2019). Equality jurisprudence in Canada. New Zealand Journal of Public and International Law, 17(2), 127–152. Web.