Holocaust Denial and the Abuse of Education

Holocaust Denial and the Abuse of Education Raphael Cohen-Almagor1 I. Preliminaries: Personal Words I wish to open with some personal words. I have known Jan for a quarter of a century. We met three times at conferences and have been in touch on various other occasions, collaborating on writing projects, exchanging views and supporting one another in various ways. We first met in 1995 at an International Symposium called “Biotechnological Challenges for Law & Ethics” that Jan had organized together with Joachim Hruschka and Sharon Byrd at Bellagio, Italy, one of the most beautiful places in the world. It was a small gathering of scholars, with only plenary sessions and a lot of time to meet and mingle. The people at The Rockefeller Center are known for their kind hospitality. The days were long but we had five breaks each day to enjoy the Italian cuisine. Jan and I met and talked a few times during the workshop but our most meaningful conversation took place at the concluding banquet as we were standing in line, waiting to get our meals. The atmosphere was festive. The evening was warm and the discussion became personal. We talked the entire evening and got to know each other. The more I knew about Jan, the more I wanted to know. This tall, overpowering man has a capacity to listen. Among the issues we discussed was the Holocaust, and how it influenced my life. Such a conversation between a German and an Israeli is not easy. Jan was sensitive and thoughtful. He opened me up to express inner thoughts that I do not share with many people. I grew to like Jan and told him I would very much like to keep in touch. The second time we met was in Jerusalem. I reciprocated by inviting Jan to an international conference that I organized: “Medical Ethics at the Close of the 20th Century”, at The Van Leer Jerusalem Institute in 1998. It was a very busy conference with dozens of guests and hundreds of participants, and I was the single person at the conference who connected all the dots. It was absolutely crazy. I did not sleep properly for four days, as my adrenalin was pumping. Within this craziness, I found the time to sit with Jan and have a long talk. Jan was grateful for the invitation and expressed his appreciation for taking part in this international gathering and for the opportunity to visit Jerusalem, a majestically beautiful city. Jerusalem is also a unique 1 This is partly based on an article that was originally published in American Journal of Education 2008, 215 – 241. All websites were accessed during June 2021. Elektronischer Sonderdruck (Autorenversion) Aus: Liberalität und Verantwortung. Festschrift für Jan C. Joerden zum 70. Geburtstag (SR, Bd. 412) DOI: https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-58423-9 © 2023 Duncker & Humblot GmbH, Berlin 830 Raphael Cohen-Almagor city. As a careful academic, I uniquely use the word “unique” as there are very few places in the world that are truly unique. Jerusalem is one of those places. The third time was in Poland. Jan invited me to deliver the Opening Lecture at a small conference he organized titled “Ethical Liberalism in Contemporary Society” at the Collegium Polonicum, Słubice, Poland in 2007. Every morning during the conference, Jan crossed the bridge that connects Słubice with Frankfurt-Oder, and returned in the evening. I walked with him part of the way and we had time to engage in long talks, talking about academia, families, politics, history, law, life. As ever, I was left with a taste for more. We continued to converse by email as we followed each other’s careers. And now Jan is 70-year-old. This is a milestone to celebrate. When I received the invitation to take part in this Festschrift I did not hesitate for one moment. I am genuinely honored to be part of it. I decided to write about three of the topics Jan and I have continuously conversed about for the past 26 years: The Holocaust, education and law. II. Introduction Hate speech is defined as bias-motivated, hostile, malicious speech aimed at a person or a group of people because of some of their actual or perceived innate characteristics. It expresses discriminatory, intimidating, disapproving, antagonistic and/or prejudicial attitudes toward those characteristics, which may include sex, race, religion, ethnicity, color, national origin, disability, or sexual orientation.2 Hate speech is intended to injure, dehumanize, harass, debase, degrade, and/or victimize the targeted groups, and to foment insensitivity and brutality towards them. Hate speech presents itself in many different forms including direct talk, symbols carried at parades, cross burnings and, more recently, internet web sites. It is speech that conveys a message of inferiority, is usually directed against members of historically oppressed groups, and is persecutory, hateful, and degrading. Hate speech in its various forms should be taken seriously because it is harmful. It could potentially silence the members of target groups, might cause them to withdraw from community life, and interferes with their right to equal respect and treatment. Hateful remarks are potentially so hurtful and intimidating that they might reduce the target group members to speechlessness or shock them into silence. The notions of silencing and inequality suggest great injury, emotional upset, fear and insecurity that target group members might experience. Hate might undermine the individual’s selfesteem and standing in the community.3 2 Cohen-Almagor, Policy and Internet, 2011, 1. See Moon, The Constitutional Protection of Freedom of Expression, 2000, 127; Moon, in: Cohen-Almagor (ed.), Liberal Democracy and the Limits of Tolerance, 2000, 182 – 199; Cohen-Almagor, in: Cohen-Almagor (ed.), Speech, Media, and Ethics, 2005, 3 – 23. 3 Elektronischer Sonderdruck (Autorenversion) Aus: Liberalität und Verantwortung. Festschrift für Jan C. Joerden zum 70. Geburtstag (SR, Bd. 412) DOI: https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-58423-9 © 2023 Duncker & Humblot GmbH, Berlin Holocaust Denial and the Abuse of Education 831 This article starts by explaining a specific type of hate speech: Holocaust denial. I will show that Holocaust denial is a form of hate speech. The article is concerned with the expression of this idea by educators. I make some constructive distinctions that will help in crystallizing our treatment of teachers who are Holocaust deniers. Should we allow Holocaust deniers to teach in schools? I will attempt to answer this question through a close look at the Canadian experience in dealing with such educators. In this context, the article probes the leading case of James Keegstra. I will argue that hate mongers cannot assume the role of educators. Educating and preaching hate come one at the expense of the other. You can either educate or preach hate. You cannot do both. III. Holocaust Denial What do we mean by “Holocaust denial”? Why does this form of speech constitute hate? If you ask a person on the street what she knows about the Holocaust, and she answers that she has never heard of it, that is not Holocaust denial. Denying reality is not a form of hate. And even if she seems to know, that is (still) not necessarily a form of hate. The component of hate depends on the content of the speech and the intentions of the speaker. Disputing specific historical details is also not a form of hate, and I doubt whether it can be considered as Holocaust denial. If one argues that five million, not six million, were murdered during 1938 – 1945, based on a study of sorts done on Jewish demography in Europe, this is an issue that can and should be discussed in the open in order to discover a possible new facet of the truth.4 If one brings evidence showing that an alleged massacre did not happen, or happened on a different date, or that more people were killed in it than we thought, or that an alleged war criminal was not in the alleged place at the time, these are all issues that should be probed and discussed. All this does not constitute Holocaust denial, nor are they forms of hate. Moreover, generally speaking, people are entitled to hold and express vilifying and outrageous views, to voice their dislike of other people, to use derogatory words and discriminatory adjectives against others. We do not enjoy it; we feel it is wrong, and we feel outraged confronting such statements. Still liberals believe that such speech is protected under the Free Speech Principle and is sheltered in the shade of tolerance. The way to fight against such discriminating and damaging opinions is by more speech, not by silencing and censoring speech. This, indeed, is the essence of tolerance. 4 For discussion of J. S. Mill’s Truth Principle and its importance in generating a tolerant atmosphere for unconventional expressions, see Mill, Utilitarianism, Liberty, and Representative Government 1948; Cohen-Almagor, Philosophia 1997, 131 – 152, and CohenAlmagor, Philosophy 2017, 565 – 596. Elektronischer Sonderdruck (Autorenversion) Aus: Liberalität und Verantwortung. Festschrift für Jan C. Joerden zum 70. Geburtstag (SR, Bd. 412) DOI: https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-58423-9 © 2023 Duncker & Humblot GmbH, Berlin 832 Raphael Cohen-Almagor Having said that, Holocaust denial constitutes a special category of speech that does not necessarily merit protection in all places, certainly not in the classroom. It is far from being innocent. Holocaust denial is a form of hate speech because it willfully promotes enmity toward an identifiable group based on ethnicity and religion. It is designed to underestimate and justify murder, genocide, xenophobia and evil. Holocaust denial gives a form of legitimacy to racism in its most evil manifestation to date, under the guise of pursuit of “truth”. It speaks of an international Jewish conspiracy to blackmail Germany and other nations, to exploit others and to create the State of Israel. It depicts a picture by which Jews conspired to create a hoax, the greatest fabrication of all times. Adolf Hitler did not plan a genocide for the Jews but wished instead to move them out of Europe. No gas chambers ever existed. The Holocaust is an invention of the Jews to dramatize the mere “fact” that in every war there are casualties; WWII was no different. People from many countries were killed. Many of them were Germans. And yes, Jews were killed. And also people from other religions. According to the deniers, the Holocaust is the product of partisan Jewish interests, serving Jewish greed and hunger for power. Some Jews disguised themselves as survivors, carved numbers on their arms and spread atrocious false stories about gas chambers and extermination machinery. It was not Germany that acted in a criminal way. Instead, the greatest criminals were the Jews. The Jews were so evil that they invented this horrific story to gain support around the world and to extort money from Germany. For their extortion and fabrication, for creating the greatest conspiracy of all times, they deserve punishment, possibly even death. Jews are demonic and crooked people who deserve to die for making up this unbelievable tragedy. In effect, the ultimate purpose of Holocaust denial is to legitimize violent anti-Semitism. Thus, those who deny the Holocaust are anti-Jewish. It is demeaning to deny the Holocaust for it is to deny history, reality, and suffering. Holocaust denial might create a climate of xenophobia that is detrimental to democracy. It generates hate through the rewriting of history in a vicious way that portrays Jews as the anti-Christ, as destructive forces that work against civilization. Hateful messages desensitize members of the public on very important issues. They build a sense of possible acceptability for hate and resentment of the other which might be costlier than the cost of curtailing speech. Hate speech, in its various forms, is harmful not only because it offends but because it potentially silences members of target groups and interferes with their right to equal respect and treatment. Hateful remarks are so hurtful that they might reduce the target group member to speechlessness or shock them into silence. The notion of silencing and inequality suggests great injury, emotional upset, fear and insecurity that target group members might experience. Hate undermines the individual’s self-esteem and standing in the community.5 5 Moon (Fn. 3); Cohen-Almagor, Amsterdam Law Forum 2009, 33 – 42; Newman, Amsterdam Law Forum 2010, 119 – 123; Cohen-Almagor, Amsterdam Law Forum 2010, 125 – 132. Elektronischer Sonderdruck (Autorenversion) Aus: Liberalität und Verantwortung. Festschrift für Jan C. Joerden zum 70. Geburtstag (SR, Bd. 412) DOI: https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-58423-9 © 2023 Duncker & Humblot GmbH, Berlin Holocaust Denial and the Abuse of Education 833 The historical and cultural context is obviously of great significance. Propagating Holocaust denial in Canada is quite different from propagating this idea in Germany. We hope that Germans will hardly be persuaded by such propaganda. Germany prohibits Holocaust denial due to its sensitivity to the horrors of the Nazi era. Section 130 of the German Criminal Code prohibits denial or playing down the genocide committed under the National Socialist regime (§ 130.3), including through dissemination of publications (§ 130.4). This includes public denial or gross trivialization of international crimes, especially genocide/the Holocaust. Holocaust denial was outlawed as an “insult” to personal honor (i. e. an “insult” to every Jew in Germany) and a penalty was set under the 1985 law of up to one year in prison or a fine.6 In 1994, Germany passed a statute, making Holocaust revisionism, in and of itself, a criminal offence. The German Constitutional Court ruled that freedom of speech was not a defense available to groups propagating the “Auschwitz lie”.7 The 1994 law increased the penalty to up to five years imprisonment. It also extended the ban on Nazi symbols and anything that might resemble Nazi slogans. In 1995, a Berlin state court convicted a leader of Germany’s neo-Nazi movement of spreading racial hatred and denigrating the state by telling people visiting the Auschwitz concentration camp that the Holocaust was a fiction.8 In 2019, Foreign Minister Heiko Maas said: “Our culture of remembrance is crumbling (…). Right-wing populist provocateurs diminish the Holocaust, knowing that such a breach of taboo will garner maximum attention.”9 Maas said that in the face of the growing popularity of the Alternative for Germany (AfD), whose leaders diminish the importance of the Nazi era with the aim of rejuvenating national pride. Alexander Gauland referred to the Nazi era as a “speck of bird poop” in Germany’s otherwise admirable history, while Björn Höcke called Berlin’s Holocaust memorial a “monument of shame” and defended Holocaust deniers. AfD members, while visiting Sachsenhausen’s gas chambers, questioned whether people were actually killed in this notorious place.10 They seem to believe that the industrial slaughter of millions of people by the Nazis is a fabrication, a conspiracy to smear Germany. Some other European countries adopted legislation criminalizing the Nazi message, including denial of the Holocaust. These countries include Austria (article 3h of the Verbotsgesetz, “Prohibition Statute”, 1947), Belgium (Belgian Negationism Law), the Czech Republic, France, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Po6 Bazyler, Holocaust Denial Laws and Other legislation Criminalizing Promotion of Nazism, 2021, https://www.yadvashem.org/holocaust/holocaust-antisemitism/holocaust-deniallaws.html. 7 BVerfGE 90, 241, translated in Kommers, Constitutional Jurisprudence of the Federal Republic of Germany, 1997, 382 – 387. 8 Tsesis, Destructive Messages, 2002, 188. 9 Schultheis, The Atlantic 2019, https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/04/ germany-far-right-holocaust-education-survivors/586357/. 10 Schultheis, The Atlantic 2019, https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/ 04/germany-far-right-holocaust-education-survivors/586357/. Elektronischer Sonderdruck (Autorenversion) Aus: Liberalität und Verantwortung. Festschrift für Jan C. Joerden zum 70. Geburtstag (SR, Bd. 412) DOI: https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-58423-9 © 2023 Duncker & Humblot GmbH, Berlin 834 Raphael Cohen-Almagor land, Romania, Slovakia, Spain and Switzerland (article 261bis of the Criminal Code). Many of these countries also have broader laws against libel and inciting racial hatred. France, another country that is highly sensitive to WWII, passed the Gayssot law (named after French MP J. C. Gayssot) in 1990. The law punishes with heavy fines or imprisonment any “public expression of denial of the Genocide perpetrated on the Jews by the Nazis during WWII.” This law was used to imprison the infamous Holocaust denial academic, Robert Faurisson,11 as well as some of his followers, notably the philosopher Roger Garaudy, in 1999.12 Article R645 – 1 of the French Criminal Code prohibits the public display of Nazi uniforms, insignias and emblems.13 At the same time, Great Britain does not criminalize Holocaust denial or the public display of Nazi symbols. In February 2006, British historian David Irving was found guilty in Vienna of denying the Holocaust of European Jewry and sentenced to three years in prison in accordance with the Austrian Federal Law on the prohibition of National Socialist activities. Irving denied the existence of gas chambers in National Socialist concentration camps in several lectures held in Austria in 1989. Under the State Treaty of 1955 for the Re-establishment of an Independent and Democratic Austria, which Austria concluded with France, the United Kingdom, the USA and the USSR, Austria undertakes to prevent all Nazi propaganda. The Prohibition Statute forms part of the Austrian Constitution.14 Canada has a long history of hate speech and Holocaust denial. This is partly due to the tireless activities of one of the most prolific Holocaust deniers in the world, Ernst Zündel, who from 1977 until 2003 resided in Canada and made Toronto his international headquarters.15 His website was arguably the most valuable resource for Holocaust deniers on the Internet.16 In 2000, Zündel moved to the United States, where he ran a website and lived with his third wife, Ingrid Rimland. In 2003, he was arrested for overstaying his visa. He was sent back to Canada, where Zündel was detained as a threat to national security, and after a lengthy trial was deported to Germany in 2005. A state court in Mannheim convicted him in 2007 on 14 counts 11 Goldberg, in: Cohen-Almagor (ed.), Liberal Democracy and the Limits of Tolerance, 2000, 257 – 260. 12 Text of the law may be found in French in www.jura.uni-sb.de/france/Law-France/I90615.htm; https://www.phdn.org/negation/gayssot/. For a useful discussion on French historical revisionism, see Vidal-Naquet, A Paper Eichmann (1980) – Anatomy of a Lie, 1992, available at https://www.anti-rev.org/textes/VidalNaquet92a. 13 Bazyler (Fn. 6). 14 Holocaust denier Irving is jailed, BBC News, February 20, 2006, https://news.bbc.co.uk/ 2/hi/europe/4733820.stm. 15 Zundel, https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/ernst-zundel. 16 https://www.zundelsite.org. Elektronischer Sonderdruck (Autorenversion) Aus: Liberalität und Verantwortung. Festschrift für Jan C. Joerden zum 70. Geburtstag (SR, Bd. 412) DOI: https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-58423-9 © 2023 Duncker & Humblot GmbH, Berlin Holocaust Denial and the Abuse of Education 835 of inciting hatred and one count of violating the memory of the dead. Zündel was sentenced to five years in prison but he was released in 2010. Zündel died in 2017.17 So it happened that some of the most notorious Holocaust deniers in Canada were also teachers. Do Holocaust deniers have a right of free expression as teachers and educators? Should a liberal democracy allow its teachers to uphold and promote any conception of the good? Are teaching and hate commensurate and compatible? IV. Academic Freedom at Schools Analysis of this intricate subject involves the following considerations: Context: It is appropriate to distinguish between teachers of history and teachers of anything but history. History teachers may be required by the curricula to discuss the Holocaust. On the other hand, Mathematics teachers are not expected to discuss this issue at all. If and when they do, they deviate from the subjects they are qualified to teach even though there is a reasonable expectation that they will restrict themselves to the matters they are qualified to teach. History teachers may present different interpretations of history and, thus, there might be room to argue that they may introduce revisionist argument in class and thereby evoke debate about history, interpretations, narrative, racism, anti-Semitism, and bias. In any event, when they introduce Holocaust denial into class, they are expected also to present the mainstream history that forcefully argues, supported by verified data, for the existence of the Holocaust. I assume that solely presenting Holocaust denial when discussing the horrors of WWII is not in line with established curricula in Canadian public schools. Type of school: The emphasis of the last sentence was on public schools where teachers are paid by the government, where voting taxpayers have the leverage of funding. The government may prescribe certain guidelines and ask teachers to adhere to fundamental values. Private schools may generate their own funding, hence could modify their curricula and create their own agendas. Those agendas should be explained to parents and students. In private schools, after such clarification, Holocaust denial might be the only interpretation of history presented in class. Again, I would expect the school management to highlight that before parents enroll their children in such a school so as to allow them decide whether that is the education they seek for their offspring. Of course, as parents’ influence is greater in private schools than in public schools, they could insist on not having a Holocaust denier in class, and the school management would need to pay close consideration to their demands. Student identity: Holocaust denial involves not only a challenge to all we know about history and truth. It not only questions well-known facts and historical data. It also involves hate, harm, and offence. We can assume that Jewish students would be 17 Zündel, Holocaust Denier Tried for Spreading His Message, Dies at 78, NY Times, August 7, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/world/europe/ernst-zundel-canada-ger many-holocaust-denial.html. Elektronischer Sonderdruck (Autorenversion) Aus: Liberalität und Verantwortung. Festschrift für Jan C. Joerden zum 70. Geburtstag (SR, Bd. 412) DOI: https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-58423-9 © 2023 Duncker & Humblot GmbH, Berlin 836 Raphael Cohen-Almagor highly uncomfortable in a class where Jews are presented as liars, thieves and conspirators who exist to exploit the world. Therefore, a relevant consideration is the presence of Jewish students in the school concerned. This is not to say that Christian students are not offended by such hateful speech. This is only to say that Jewish students are more likely to suffer offence when subjected to such teachings. Student age: Students’ age is relevant. The younger they are, the more vulnerable they are. They are more susceptible to manipulation. Their ability to resist their teachers is relatively limited, and the influence the teacher enjoys over them is markedly higher. High school students may try to dispute Holocaust denial, not accepting it as a given. This is unlikely to happen in primary schools. Student-teacher relations: a relevant consideration is the teacher’s reaction when confronted with students who challenge his views or do not accept them at face value. Does the teacher allow argumentation in class, counter-arguments, and different interpretations of history, or does he insist that students parrot the Holocaust denial mantras, and punish those who resist the denier’s “truth”? Given that Holocaust deniers present themselves as the prime champions of free expression, the marketplace of ideas, and the search of truth that enable their activities, we can prima facie assume wide latitude for discussion. But if this is not the case, and students are intimidated from voicing counter-truths, and are even punished for insisting on holding conventional truths, then there is room for intervention to stop the one-sided, hateful interpretation of history. Locus: Another relevant distinction is between teachers who discuss their ideas about the existence of the Holocaust at school, and teachers who don’t discuss their ideas at school. There might be teachers who are Holocaust deniers only in their private lives, who do not make their views on the subject publicly known. If that is the case, they should be allowed to teach as long as no grounds are found of them discriminating against students of Jewish belief, and/or students whose views on the Holocaust are different from theirs. Extracurricular activity: A further distinction is between teachers who do not discuss their ideas, but are known for having such ideas, who are notorious for their activities in this sphere, and Holocaust deniers who remain silent in their beliefs. There might be teachers who are Holocaust denial activists, yet for various reasons mentioned above (they teach sciences, understand that they should follow the curricula, are sensitive to education sponsored by the public purse), they refrain from bringing their views into class. Yet Jews and possibly students of other religious beliefs might feel intimidated by the sheer presence of those teachers at school. One can assume that a Jewish student will not feel welcome in a place where prominent a Holocaust denier teaches. Teachers, in most cases, enjoy far more power and influence than students. Their ability to manipulate, to play power games, to influence, is by definition superior to the ability of students. Elektronischer Sonderdruck (Autorenversion) Aus: Liberalität und Verantwortung. Festschrift für Jan C. Joerden zum 70. Geburtstag (SR, Bd. 412) DOI: https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-58423-9 © 2023 Duncker & Humblot GmbH, Berlin Holocaust Denial and the Abuse of Education 837 V. James Keegstra Does freedom of expression mean you can say anything to anyone? If not, what can you say and to whom? Do free speech and academic freedom provide leeway to deviate from the prescribed curricula in order to preach hate and to teach racism and discrimination? James Keegstra would push his freedom of expression to the limit and eventually forced the Supreme Court of Canada to answer these difficult questions. Keegstra initially taught automotives and industrial arts, which were his areas of specialization. As with other staff members at the school in Eckville, Alberta, he was asked to expand the scope of his subjects taught and to teach a wide range of subjects, including social studies, law, mathematics, and science to both junior and senior high school classes.18 He taught classes from 1968 to the early 1980s. In 1980 he won the mayorality of Eckville. In 1982, he was fired from his fourteen-year position at the school on the grounds of failing to follow the education department’s social studies curriculum. His main deviation was that he taught the curriculum of the Institute for Historical Review, an institute that was founded initially with the purpose of “reviewing” one historical truth, i. e. the Holocaust.19 Keegstra made many statements denigrating and smearing Catholics but his main focus was on Jews. For almost ten years, he taught his students that there was an all-encompassing Jewish conspiracy to undermine Christianity and control the world. His version of the world was one in which the major centers of power were controlled by Jews: the banks, the media, the universities, Hollywood, most publishers and, of course, politics. Keegstra’s students were expected to recite these teachings in class and on exams. If they did not, they were marked down.20 The power of indoctrination which teachers have over their students was clearly apparent in this case. Students that were interviewed about their views and beliefs saw the international Jewish conspiracy as a historical fact. This idea was not only legitimate; it was an accurate depiction of reality.21 Robert Mason Lee, who researched Keegstra’s influence at his school, described Keegstra as a person who enjoyed the respect of his students and their parents. Only few chose to contradict the teacher-mayor with plain and skilled speech, who backed his statements with “facts” and quotations from Christian teachings. He was so eloquent and persuasive that he seemed credible to his students, who accepted his interpretations of historical events. These events were put into a new, different light when explained by Keegstra.22 One of his students, the winner of the school’s highest grad- 18 Bercuson/Wertheimer, A Trust Betrayed: The Keegstra Affair, 1985, 17. http://www.ihr.org. 20 Matas, Bloody Words, 2000, 50. 21 Reyes, Dalhouse J. of Legal Studies 1995, 44. 22 Mason-Lee, Saturday Night 1985, 38 – 46. 19 Elektronischer Sonderdruck (Autorenversion) Aus: Liberalität und Verantwortung. Festschrift für Jan C. Joerden zum 70. Geburtstag (SR, Bd. 412) DOI: https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-58423-9 © 2023 Duncker & Humblot GmbH, Berlin 838 Raphael Cohen-Almagor uating award commented: “I’m trying so hard to be open-minded and they’re close minded”.23 Keegstra was so sure of himself that he submitted an essay titled “Judaism and Its Role in Society from 1776 – 1918”, written by one of his students, to his superintendent, R. K. David. The student wrote that the Jews were complicit in a number of nefarious organizations; that they wished to control the world through welfare states and bloody revolutions; that they wanted to establish their own “world order”; that they wished to group all governments together into one world dictatorship. They are, therefore, “truly a formidable sect”, working through deception and false tales to achieve their ends. “They are powerful and must be put in their place”.24 This piece was a testament not only to Keegstra’s teachings, but also to his sense of trust in the system in which he worked. He thought his superiors condoned and approved his teachings. In his first warning letter to Keegstra, Superintendent David wrote that he did not intend to restrict Keegstra’s academic freedom, nor to impugn his intellectual integrity. Controversial interpretations were not to be suppressed but all positions were to be presented in as unbiased a way as possible.25 It is a contested question whether tolerance should protect vicious anti-Semitism that speaks of a world Jewish conspiracy to control the world and that denies the Holocaust. The ability of thinking students in class to express other points of views was extremely limited in Keegstra’s class, even more so when they knew that there would be academic consequences for their stubbornness in rejecting his ideas. In December 1982, after numerous warnings, the School Board decided to dismiss Keegstra. The reasons for the dismissal were Keegstra’s failure to comply with Alberta Education’s prescribed curriculum, and his failure to modify his teaching and/ or approach to reflect the desires of members of the local community and the Board of Education.26 In May 1983, the National Film Board Holocaust documentary “Memorandum” was shown in Keegstra’s school. Donald Brittain, the film director and writer, came to answer questions about the film and its troubling episodes, showing concentration camp cruelty. No questions were asked. One of the 250 students who were present at the showing estimated that some 80 percent of his fellow grade eleven students denied that the Holocaust occurred and believed in a world Jewish conspiracy. Keegstra commented that the film “was a documentation of hate. I would challenge its authenticity”.27 23 Hare, Canadian J. of Education 1990, 377. Bercuson/Wertheimer (Fn. 18), Appendix, Document 11, 213 – 223. 25 Letter from R. K. David to Keegstra (December 18, 1981) in Bercuson/Wertheimer (Fn. 18), Appendix, Document 1, 197 – 198. 26 Reyes, Freedom of Expression and Public School Teachers, 43; Bercuson/Wertheimer (Fn. 18), 207 – 208. 27 Bercuson/Wertheimer (Fn. 18), 167. 24 Elektronischer Sonderdruck (Autorenversion) Aus: Liberalität und Verantwortung. Festschrift für Jan C. Joerden zum 70. Geburtstag (SR, Bd. 412) DOI: https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-58423-9 © 2023 Duncker & Humblot GmbH, Berlin Holocaust Denial and the Abuse of Education 839 Further evidence showed that a generation of students accepted Keegstra’s views about the international Jewish conspiracy in almost all its details. Keegstra’s students came to believe that Judaism and Christianity were mortal enemies; that the Talmud is a perverted and evil book, and that Jews have been seeking to take over the world.28 For his students, Keegstra was the major, if not only, source of information about Jews. Very few of the students had ever seen a Jew. There were no Jews in Eckville, and very few in rural Alberta. Almost all of Alberta’s Jews, some 10,000 people, lived in Edmonton and Calgary, far away from the Eckville area.29 When Keegstra appealed against his dismissal to the Board of Reference, the School Board’s legal representative, Richard McNally, made important observations on the impact of Keegstra’s bigotry on his students, saying that the audience was captive, comprised of young and impressionable minds (classes 9 to 12), adding that “even grade twelve students are not as mature as might be thought, when dealing with such value laden material”.30 McNally rightly noted that the possibility of harm to grade nine students exposed to such teachings is even more manifest: “The minds of students and their personalities are society’s raw materials with which the future is fashioned. To have a doctrine of hate taught to students is not only a betrayal of the trust and respect accorded teachers, but is a betrayal of the hopes of society for a better future”.31 In October 1983, Keegstra was defeated in the Eckville mayoral contest by a 278 to 123 vote margin.32 In January 1984, Keegstra was charged with unlawfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group as defined under s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code. Keegstra argued that this charge violated his freedom of expression under s. 2b of the Charter in that he was prevented from speaking his mind.33 Outside the classroom Keegstra was by far more supportive of free expression than inside the classroom. In February 1984, a three-person Teaching Profession Appeal Board upheld the Alberta Teachers’ Association decision to terminate Keegstra’s ATA membership, and to recommend the suspension of his license. In April, his license was revoked, making it impossible for Keegstra to teach in an accredited school in Alberta.34 28 Bercuson/Wertheimer (Fn. 18), 63. Bercuson/Wertheimer (Fn. 18), 63. 30 Bercuson/Wertheimer (Fn. 18), 114. 31 Board of Reference, March 1983, 2, 301, quoted in Bercuson/Wertheimer (Fn. 18), 114 – 115. 32 Bercuson/Wertheimer (Fn. 18), 177. 33 Section 2 of the Charter holds: “Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: a) freedom of conscience and religion; b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and d) freedom of association.” https://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter. 34 Bercuson/Wertheimer (Fn. 18), 177. 29 Elektronischer Sonderdruck (Autorenversion) Aus: Liberalität und Verantwortung. Festschrift für Jan C. Joerden zum 70. Geburtstag (SR, Bd. 412) DOI: https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-58423-9 © 2023 Duncker & Humblot GmbH, Berlin 840 Raphael Cohen-Almagor Keegstra saw the Jews as being responsible for every historical atrocity that had ever taken place: wars, revolutions, depressions. They all were the result of relentless Jewish attempts to achieve world power. He suggested to his students that Jews formed a worldwide conspiracy to promote their own cause. Keegstra had described Jews as “revolutionists,” “treacherous,” “impostors,” “communists,” “secret,” “sneaky,” “manipulative,” “deceptive”, “subversive”, “barbaric,” “sadistic”, “materialistic,” “money-loving”, “power-hungry”, and “child killers”. Jews purportedly “created the Holocaust to gain sympathy”. The Jews had assassinated Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt. The Jews were behind the Russian and French Revolutions as well as the Industrial Revolution, and the 1930s depression. They had started both World Wars. Keegstra also taught that hundreds of years ago, a Jewish group held a “Feast of Reason” during which young girls were murdered and their blood poured over the bodies of prostitutes.35 The Jews created Marxism and modern capitalist economics. The Jews had perpetrated the Holocaust hoax to blackmail support for the establishment of the State of Israel. Further, the IRA had been a communist organization and the troubles in Ireland had been fomented by German Jews.36 Keegstra advised the students that they were to accept his views as true unless they were able to contradict them. Encyclopedias were viewed as “false” or “tainted”. Students who echoed his views generally received better grades than those who didn’t. Keegstra made statements in public, in his capacity as a teacher. He made them to attack Jewish people and not in any effort to generate discussion for public benefit. Now, in his subjective mindset, his advice and ideas might well be “discussion for the public benefit”. I argue that objectively this is not for the public benefit, whatever Keegstra may think. Section 319(2) of the Canadian Criminal Code states: Wilful promotion of hatred – Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or b) an offence punishable on summary conviction. Keegstra was convicted by a jury in a trial before McKenzie J. of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench. Prior to his trial, Keegstra applied to the Court of Queen’s Bench in Alberta for an order quashing the charge on a number of grounds, the primary one being that his right to free expression was infringed. The application was dismissed by Quigley J., and thereafter Keegstra was tried and convicted. He then appealed his conviction to the Alberta Court of Appeal, raising the same Charter issues. The Court of Appeal unanimously accepted his argument, and it is from that judgment that the Crown appealed to the Supreme Court. 35 36 Bercuson/Wertheimer (Fn. 18), 114, 180. Bercuson/Wertheimer (Fn. 18), 60 – 74. Elektronischer Sonderdruck (Autorenversion) Aus: Liberalität und Verantwortung. Festschrift für Jan C. Joerden zum 70. Geburtstag (SR, Bd. 412) DOI: https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-58423-9 © 2023 Duncker & Humblot GmbH, Berlin Holocaust Denial and the Abuse of Education 841 R. v. Keegstra37 and R. v. Andrews and Smith38 were decided concurrently by the Canada Supreme Court in 1990. The Court upheld by a four to three margin the constitutional validity of the crime of wilfully promoting hatred. It also upheld the anti-hate provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act in the Taylor case,39 which had been joined with Keegstra and Andrews for hearing. In Keegstra, the majority of the Supreme Court agreed that a crime that prevents communication (even communication that promotes hatred) is an infringement of freedom of expression as defined in s. 2b of the Charter. However, the majority stated that freedom of expression could be limited under s. 1 of the Charter where the expression involves the promotion of hatred against an identifiable group.40 The Supreme Court limited Keegstra’s freedom of expression because of the harm that can flow from hate propaganda. The Supreme Court stated that the objective of criminalizing the promotion of hatred is an attempt to reduce racial, ethnic, and religious tensions (and possibly violence) in society. The majority of the Supreme Court, therefore, concluded that, “few concerns can be as central to the concept of a free and democratic society as the reduction of racism, and the especially strong value which Canadian society attaches to this goal must never be forgotten in assessing the effects of an impugned legislative measure”.41 It is relevant to note that Section 7 of the Canadian Charter holds: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice,” while section 15(1) dictates: “Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.”42 In turn, section 27 holds: “This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians”.43 Chief Justice Dickson, who delivered the opinion of the Court, said that hate propaganda seriously threatened both the enthusiasm with which the value of equal37 R. v. Keegstra [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697. R. v. Andrews and Smith [1990] 3 S.C.R. 870. 39 Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892. See Cotler, in: Cohen-Almagor (ed.), Liberal Democracy and the Limits of Tolerance, 2000, 151 – 181. 40 Section 1 of the Charter holds: “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” Justice.gc.ca/eng/csjsjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/#:~:text=The%20Canadian%20Charter%20of%20Rights%20and%20Free doms%20protects%20a%20number,of%20our%20country’s%20greatest%20accomplishments. 41 R. v. Keegstra [1990] 3 S.C.R., at 787. 42 The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 43 The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 38 Elektronischer Sonderdruck (Autorenversion) Aus: Liberalität und Verantwortung. Festschrift für Jan C. Joerden zum 70. Geburtstag (SR, Bd. 412) DOI: https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-58423-9 © 2023 Duncker & Humblot GmbH, Berlin 842 Raphael Cohen-Almagor ity is accepted and acted upon by society and the connection of target group members to their community. The Court said that “hate propaganda contributes little to the aspirations of Canadians or Canada in either the quest for truth, the promotion of individual self-development, or the protection and fostering of a vibrant democracy where the participation of all individuals is accepted and encouraged.”44 It depicted Keegstra as inflicting injury on his target group, the Jews, and as striving to undermine worthy communal aspirations. The language used by the Court to describe Keegstra was far from neutral or objective. Chief Justice Dickson explicitly stated that there could be no real disagreement about the subject matter of the messages and teachings communicated by the respondent, Keegstra: it was deeply offensive, hurtful, and damaging to target group members, misleading to his listeners, and antithetical to the furtherance of tolerance and understanding in society. Those who promoted hate speech were described as “hate mongers” who advocated their views with “inordinate vitriol.” Their aim was to “subvert” and “repudiate” and “undermine” democracy, which they did with “unparalleled vigor.” Since their ideas were “anathemic” and “inimical” to democracy, the Court viewed them with “severe reprobation.” Dickson CJ asserted that expression can work to undermine Canadians’ commitment to democracy where it is employed to propagate ideas anathemic to democratic values. Hate propaganda worked in just such a way, arguing as it did for a society in which the democratic process was subverted and individuals were denied respect and dignity simply because of racial or religious characteristics. This brand of expressive activity was thus wholly inimical to the democratic aspirations of the free expression guarantee. In this manner, the Court characterized Keegstra as an enemy of democracy who did not deserve the right to use free speech to undermine the fundamental rights of others.45 In her dissent, Justice McLachlin expressed concern that a ban on hate speech might mean that scientists would think twice before researching and publishing results suggesting differences between ethnic or racial groups. She wrote: “Scientists may well think twice before researching and publishing results of research suggesting difference between ethnic or racial groups. Given the serious consequences of criminal prosecution, it is not entirely speculative to suppose that even political debate on crucial issues such as immigration, educational language rights, foreign ownership and trade may be tempered. These matters go to the heart of the traditional justifications for protecting freedom of expression.”46 Well, scientists need to be careful of what they are saying. It is not enough to simply air bogus claims. Claims should be based on some evidence. If they are patently 44 R. v. Keegstra [1990] 3 S.C.R. R. v. Keegstra [1990] S.C.J. No. 131, at 763 – 769. See also Dyzenhaus/Ripstein (ed.), Law and Morality, 1998; Moon (Fn. 3), 182 – 199; Kallen/Lam, Canadian Ethnic Studies 1993, 9 – 24. For critique of the Keegstra decision, see Heinrichs, Alberta Law Review 1998, 835 – 904; Braun, Democracy off Balance, 2004, 26 – 29; Newman, Ahenakew’s views are wrong, but so is silencing him, The Globe and Mail online edition (opinion page essay), July 13, 2005. 46 R. v. Keegstra [1990] S.C.J. No. 131. 45 Elektronischer Sonderdruck (Autorenversion) Aus: Liberalität und Verantwortung. Festschrift für Jan C. Joerden zum 70. Geburtstag (SR, Bd. 412) DOI: https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-58423-9 © 2023 Duncker & Humblot GmbH, Berlin Holocaust Denial and the Abuse of Education 843 false, the result of biases and prejudices, they have very little room in research and in the classroom. But that is not the issue here, as Keegstra cannot be called a “scientist”, and his students were not mature people who could critically evaluate his views and provide counter-arguments. Keegstra abused his authority. His students had to follow their teacher or be penalized. There was no marketplace of ideas in Keegstra’s classes. They were systematically biased to inculcate the Jewish conspiracy theory. Keegstra did not welcome openmindedness, critical thinking and debate. None of the viable “trustworthy” sources to which Keegstra directed his students proposed a different viewpoint than his. When students ventured to draw on sources other than those of which Keegstra approved, their work was either not assessed at all or assessed adversely.47 There was no point doing independent research because the “other” books, those that were not authorized by Keegstra, were said to be censored by conspirators.48 What Keegstra wanted to achieve was more adherents to his views. He did not want rational critics. He wanted parrots. Indeed, Keegstra undermined the critical approach to education. He was not an educator but an indoctrinator. The parent responsible for initiating the complaint that eventually led to the decisive action against Keegstra closed her letter to the superintendent by saying: “As our children are being sent to school for education, not indoctrination, I appeal to you to dismiss Mr. Keegstra from teaching those classes in which our children will be enrolled”.49 Justice McLachlin compared Keegstra’s sayings to Rushdie’s “Satanic Verses”. She argued against the criminal restriction of hate promotion not by focusing on its value but rather by pointing out how difficult it is to draw a line separating hate promotion from other forms of expression. She was concerned that the line might be drawn in the wrong place, and that there was a potential for “chilling effect[s]” on legitimate speech. People might be reluctant to publish material, even valuable material, that should not, and probably would not, be restricted because they are unwilling to take the risk that it might fall within a criminal prohibition that does not have a clear and uncontested scope.50 With respect, I do not think these are the most important issues. The question is not merely one of free expression. At issue is not only Keegstra’s right to vilify the Jews. The forum is important. It is not merely a question of introducing “another truth” into the marketplace of ideas. It is also a question of education, of whether this is the kind of education we want our children to receive. It is also a question of offence. The students were a captive audience in Keegstra’s hands, and were punished if they failed to accept his views. They were not free to criticize or to question his opinions. If there was a chilling effect, it was on the 47 Bercuson/Wertheimer (Fn. 18), 61 – 62, 66. Bercuson/Wertheimer (Fn. 18), 98. 49 Letter from Susan Maddox to R. K. David (October 11, 1982) in Bercuson/Wertheimer (Fn. 18), Appendix, Document 6, 203 – 206. 50 R. v. Keegstra [1990] S.C.J. No. 131; 3 S.C.R. 697. See also Moon (Fn. 3), 136 – 137. 48 Elektronischer Sonderdruck (Autorenversion) Aus: Liberalität und Verantwortung. Festschrift für Jan C. Joerden zum 70. Geburtstag (SR, Bd. 412) DOI: https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-58423-9 © 2023 Duncker & Humblot GmbH, Berlin 844 Raphael Cohen-Almagor students’ ability to develop and express independent thinking, critical of Keegstra’s bigotry. Another relevant question is the effects that revisionist teaching has on the teachings of fellow teachers. In effect, Keegstra was saying: Forget everything you were told before. Ignore all that is taught by other teachers. All they say is patently false. I bring you the truth. Should history and social studies teachers be allowed to teach falsehoods and dress major events in modern history with twisted interpretations that betray historical fact, falsifying their origins and outcomes? Isn’t this misuse of public money? Can this be called “education”? Keegstra was a social studies teacher at a public school and was paid with public money. He was required to adhere to a certain curriculum but abandoned it altogether because it was “biased”, the result of Jewish manipulation. Public school teachers assume a position of influence and trust in respect of their students and must be seen to be impartial and tolerant. They are inextricably linked to the integrity of the school system, and exert considerable influence over their students. For some students, they serve as role models. Keegstra’s students, classes 9 to 12, were clearly influenced by his persona and impressed by his anti-establishment teachings. I mentioned that there were no Jews in Eckville. After Keegstra’s dismissal, it was claimed that Keegstra would not have been tolerated for such a long time if there had been Jewish students in his classes, exposed to his bigotry, and prepared to complain to their parents.51 Keegstra was very open and clear in his blatant anti-Semitism and in describing the Holocaust as a hoax. Keegstra’s replacement, Dick Hoeksema, said many students and some fellow teachers defended Keegstra’s views: “I would say World War II started because Hitler invaded Poland and they’d (students) say, ‘No, Hitler liberated Poland,’” Hoeksema told Robert Mason Lee. “I was starting to think that I was crazy. That I was the only person who thought this way.”52 Keegstra was widely hailed as a good and “forceful teacher”. His classroom management skills had earned near-universal praise. This suggests the dispiriting conclusion that this appraisal has lost its essential meaning. The judgment was based on the fact that Keegstra maintained discipline; it was not related to any consideration of the knowledge, skills and attitudes being learned by his students.53 VI. Conclusions Teachers occupy a unique position of trust in democratic societies, and they must handle such trust and the instruction of young people with great care.54 Teachers work 51 Bercuson/Wertheimer (Fn. 18), 69. Burke, Searching for truth in confusing times, Whistler Question (October 5, 2005). 53 Hare, Canadian J. of Education 1990, 386; Bercuson/Wertheimer (Fn. 18), 100. 54 Sterzing v. Fort Bend Independent School District, 376 F. Supp. 657 (S.D. Tex. 1972), at 661. 52 Elektronischer Sonderdruck (Autorenversion) Aus: Liberalität und Verantwortung. Festschrift für Jan C. Joerden zum 70. Geburtstag (SR, Bd. 412) DOI: https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-58423-9 © 2023 Duncker & Humblot GmbH, Berlin Holocaust Denial and the Abuse of Education 845 in sensitive areas in which they shape the minds of young people toward the society in which they live, toward history and politics. Teachers are situated at a crucial crossroads, spending many hours with students and have the potential of becoming their role models. They play an important role in inculcating values and ideas. Teachers may present in classes controversial issues and they are not invariably required to remain neutral regarding them. They may display strong enthusiasm for the subject at hand. They may have an agenda. Indeed, I do not believe it is possible not to have an agenda in teaching. By the very making of a curriculum, by the process of selection of readings, by the way teachers present the issues, they create an agenda. They promote certain ideals, they undermine others, they direct and lead the way for students to follow. The search for truth is certainly desirable. It is achieved by presenting different, often conflicting, conceptions and beliefs. The concern for truth does not mean promoting one truth, but a clashing of different truths in the marketplace of ideas, and allowing students scope to seek and adopt the truth which appeals to them the most. Education does not mean indoctrination, nor is it free from responsibility. The responsible teacher is required to contest his/her own beliefs and allow students to do exactly the same thing. When teaching about nature and the planet in which we live, teachers may mention the Flat Earth Society.55 But teachers should inform their superiors, and their superiors, in turn, should inform the students’ parents, if they intend to concentrate all or most of their teaching around this Society’s world view. Then, parents can decide whether this is what they want their children to know about the world in which we live, or rather send their children to another school, where time is devoted to science in a more conventional way, in accordance with coherent methodology. In any event, such teaching should, at the very least, be monitored closely and remain open to scrutiny and counter arguments. Teaching malice and falsehood, hatred and dubious conspiracy theories is a different matter altogether. It is not only that tax money should be spent in a more prudent way, as the above example illustrates. Such teachings are, simply put, not educational. They do not espouse any values that democracies should promote, and the search for truth is red herring to plant seeds of disrespect, disharmony, discrimination and discredit against the target group in question. Holocaust deniers thus pose a special pedagogic problem. They have chosen hate and lies over reason and facts. Their tone is evasive, sometimes threatening. Protected by ideas of free expression, academic freedom and liberal tolerance, combined with bureaucratic ineptitude and moral myopia, Keegstra was allowed to teach students hatred for nearly ten years. He shaped a generation of young, impressionable minds with lies, malice and hatred. To be sure, Keegstra and his like did not pose a tangible threat to the Jewish community or to the stability of the nation. However, parents do not send their young to school to learn unfounded theories, and to subject their minds to racial bigotry and hateful propaganda. Students need to feel comfortable in schools, where they spend a 55 https://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm. Elektronischer Sonderdruck (Autorenversion) Aus: Liberalität und Verantwortung. Festschrift für Jan C. Joerden zum 70. Geburtstag (SR, Bd. 412) DOI: https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-58423-9 © 2023 Duncker & Humblot GmbH, Berlin 846 Raphael Cohen-Almagor good portion of each day. They should not feel intimidated because of their origins, or because they fail to parrot the “right” views. Every individual has the right to a school system free from bias, prejudice and intolerance.56 In Ross v. New Brunswick School Dist. No. 15 (1996) Justice La Forest said: “A school is a communication center for a whole range of values and aspirations of a society. In large part, it defines the values that transcend society through the educational medium. The school is an arena for the exchange of ideas and must, therefore, be premised upon principles of tolerance and impartiality so that all persons within the school environment feel equally free to participate. As the Board of Inquiry stated, a school board has a duty to maintain a positive school environment for all persons served by it.”57 Let me end by referring to another pertinent court case, Trinity Western University, which was about discrimination against non-Christians and gays. The plea was to disallow the educational program of this private university, associated with the Evangelical Free Church of Canada, as long as its teachers espoused discriminatory views.58 The Supreme Court ruled (eight to one) that the Christian beliefs of the teachers-in-training were irrelevant; only discriminatory conduct toward homosexuals would disqualify them from holding jobs in British Columbia public schools. The British Columbia College of Teachers (BCCT), a regulatory body, had ruled that the TWU’s “community standards,” which teachers-in-training were obligated to affirm, was discriminatory and for that reason it had denied TWU accreditation. The Supreme Court distinguished between the beliefs of TWU teachers and their conduct, ruling that the BCCT had denied TWU accreditation on the basis of irrelevant considerations. The Court explained that the freedom to hold beliefs is broader than the freedom to act on them. Students attending TWU were free to adopt personal rules of conduct based on their religious beliefs provided they did not interfere with the rights of others. Any restriction on freedom of religion had to be justified by evidence that the exercise of that freedom would have a detrimental impact on the public school system. Absent concrete evidence that training teachers at TWU fostered discrimination in the public schools, the freedom of individuals to adhere to certain religious beliefs while at TWU should be respected. TWU’s Community Standards were not sufficient to support the conclusion that the BCCT should anticipate intolerant behavior in the public schools by graduates of TWU’s teacher education program. The Court concluded that if a teacher in the public-school system engaged in discriminatory conduct by acting on beliefs that were homophobic, that teacher could be subject to disciplinary proceedings before the BCCT. 56 Peel Board of Education and O.S.S.T.F. (Fromm) Re Peel Board of Education and Ontario Secondary School, 105 L.A.C. (4th) 15 Ontario (March 8, 2002): 57. 57 Ross v. New Brunswick School Dist. No. 15 (1996): 856. 58 Trinity Western University v. College of Teachers [2001] 1 S.C.R. 722, 2001 SCC 31; 2001 C.R.R. LEXIS 3. Elektronischer Sonderdruck (Autorenversion) Aus: Liberalität und Verantwortung. Festschrift für Jan C. Joerden zum 70. Geburtstag (SR, Bd. 412) DOI: https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-58423-9 © 2023 Duncker & Humblot GmbH, Berlin Holocaust Denial and the Abuse of Education 847 The language of hatred is destructive. It does not have a place in any setting, particularly not in an education setting that should encourage a plurality of opinions, free debate and civility based on the maxims of respect for others, and not harming others. People should know history and learn from it in order to ascertain that appropriate lessons are learnt, and that the phenomenon of genocide is learnt as a past historical fact that has no currency at present. Empathy, kindness, harmony and understanding are in much need in our troubled world. Elektronischer Sonderdruck (Autorenversion) Aus: Liberalität und Verantwortung. Festschrift für Jan C. Joerden zum 70. Geburtstag (SR, Bd. 412) DOI: https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-58423-9 © 2023 Duncker & Humblot GmbH, Berlin