A Home for Historical Thinking
Weekly Cases
Please submit to larsena@unbc.ca
WEEK 1: Witch Trials, Terror, and Injustice - Due February 8, 2019
Between the 14th and 18th Centuries, tens of thousands of people were put on trial for the crime of witchcraft, or maleficia. Execution rates varied regionally from 30% of the accused being sentenced to death, all the way to 99% of the accused being sentenced to death. The accused were placed on trial based on accusations from friends, neighbours, and other community members. They were subjected to torture, which only ended upon death or confession of guilt.
​
Those found guilty by the church or local authorities were beheaded, hanged, or burnt alive.
​
This week, I would like you to read some documents on the witch trials of Europe and reflect on how these trials were conducted. Were they fair? What processes were similar to trials conducted today? How were witch trials a reflection of the society of the time?
Documents
WEEK 2: The end of death row
- Due February 15, 2019
Internationally, 55 countries still retain the death penalty, or capital punishment, in their legal codes. 104 nations, including Canada, have outright banned capital punishment, and the rest have held a moratorium on executions.
​
In 1962, Canada executed its final two prisoners, Ronald Turpin and Arthur Lucas, who were hanged in Kingston, Ontario. Their deaths brought Canada's total number of criminals executed to 710, all killed by hanging. In 1967, Prime Minister Pearson enacted a moratorium on all executions, with the exception of those charged with the crime of murder of a police officer. On July 26, 1976, Prime Minister Trudeau officially abolished the death penalty.
​
This week, I would like you to think about the abolition of the death penalty. Was it a necessary step for Canada's development of a just society? Or has the world's movement away from capital punishment resulted in a loss of justice? What were the experiences of those who were executed?
WEEK 3: Apartheid for a new age
- Due February 25, 2019
In 1947, the nation of Israel was created in the Middle East to provide a home for the Jews of Europe who had survived the Second World War and the horrors of the Holocaust. However, the new nation was built atop another pre-existing nation. Palestine, which was created after the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1918, was partitioned with half of the land being handed over to the Israelis.
​
War broke out immediately, and in 1967, Israel destroyed the forces of Palestine, Jordan, Egypt, and Syria in the Six Days War, beginning an occupation of Palestine that continues to this day. The international community has urged Israel to end the occupation, but they have yet to withdraw troops from the Palestinian territories, citing the need for security.
​
Since 1994, the Israeli government has been constructing an enormous wall between itself and the Palestinian territories on the West Bank. Over 70% of the wall has been completed in 25 years. 15% of the wall lies along the pre-existing border, while 85% extends at most 18km. into Palestinian territory. The International Court of Justice has issued warnings that this incursion is a breach of international law.
​
This week, I would like you to delve into the idea of international law, sovereignty, and security. Is this wall fair? Has security gone too far? How does this wall impact Israelis and Palestinians? Do you see a solution to this problem?
Primary Source: 15 Years of Separation: The Palestinians Cut Off From Jerusalem by the Wall, Haaretz
WEEK 4: Where Free Speech Ends
- Due March 4, 2019
In 1984, the scrutiny of the international media fell upon the small town of Eckville, Alberta. The spotlight was upon a teacher at the local public school: James Keegstra. In his classroom, Keegstra used his job as a teacher to spread his own anti-Semitic views, including denial of the Holocaust and conspiracies around a Jewish plan to annihilate Christianity. Clearly, these views were not true as made evident by historical evidence, and were not approved as part of the Alberta Social Studies Curriculum.
​
He was charged in 1984 with promoting hate speech, which was illegal under section 281.2(2) (now 319(2)). He was convicted of the crime of spreading hate speech, but filed an appeal upon the premise of freedom of expression before the Supreme Court of Alberta. The court, upon ruling that the law against hate speech infringed upon the freedom of expression guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, appealed the decision before the Supreme Court of Canada.
​
The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the ruling, stating that the Charter's provision of freedom of expression did not apply to the promotion of hate against any identifiable group. R v. Keegstra set the precedent for all future cases regarding hate speech and freedom of expression in Canada.
​
This week, I would like you to think deeply about the role of freedom of expression and human rights. At what point do human rights outweigh the rights of the individual? How does hate speech fit in with freedom of speech? Where do we draw the line?
WEEK 5: The Whistleblower
- Due March 11, 2019
In 2013, the international intelligence community imploded, as over 1.7 million files were leaked by a single whistleblower. He quickly became the most wanted man on Earth, as his leaks endangered massive government survellance programs that had been operating since 9/11. His name: Edward Snowden.
​
As a contractor for Dell working with the NSA, or National Security Agency, Snowden was tasked with overseeing the development of counter-intelligence systems against Chinese hackers. As part of his job, he was tasked with finding ways of getting around security settings to obtain information from civilians around the world, programs that could track movements, view private data, and read encrypted communications. These tasks were all done without the consent of users.
​
On May 25, 2013, Snowden handed over the documentation of these programs to The Guardian, an independent news agency, as he went into hiding in Hong Kong. On June 5, the story was published, beginning an international manhunt. American, British, Australian, and Canadian surveillance programs were revealed, and agents in the field were recalled out of fear that the documents had compromised their positions. The international community felt betrayed that their citizens had been spied on without their knowledge. The US government charged Snowden with Theft of Government Property and Espionage, but Hong Kong refused to extradite him.
Snowden is still wanted in the United States, and is currently living in Moscow under the protection of the Russian Government.
​
This week, I would like you to think about the difference between a whistleblower and a traitor. Edward Snowden is called a hero by some for exposing the threat of surveillance to the world, and a villain by others who felt that he betrayed his country. Do you think he made the right choice? Should a government be allowed to spy on its citizens in the name of security? Should he have betrayed his country in favour of the truth?
WEEK 6: Just Cause?
- Due April 1, 2019
Trinity Western University is the primary Christian run post-secondary institution in BC, with a student body of approximately 4000. With the highest tuition prices in the country, it is seen as a prestigious school (in terms of socioeconomic status, but UNBC is better, just saying). When TWU proposed a law school in 2013, the decision was initially approved by the Provincial Liberal government, but the Law Society of B.C. argued that this went against their inclusion policies.
​
At the heart of the issue is the TWU Community Covenant, a document that all students must conform to in order to avoid disciplinary action. In the covenant is a strict prohibition against any students engaging in a sexual relationship outside of a heterosexual marriage. The Law Society of B.C. felt that this discriminated against LGBTQ+ candidates and would tarnish the reputation of lawyers in B.C. A case was brought forward, pushing for the right to deny accreditation to graduates of the TWU Law program.
​
The case was brought before the Supreme Courts of B.C. and Canada, who decided to deny accreditation with a 7-2 vote. Graduates of the TWU Law program may not practice as lawyers in B.C. or Ontario as a result of this decision.
​
This week, I would like you to think about the fairness of the case. Was it fair for Trinity Western to force a blatantly homophobic covenant upon all law students? Or were the courts out of line for denying the institution's right to create a law school in line with their religious beliefs? How far can a religious group go to protect their ideology before it becomes discriminatory?
​
**Bonus** Not all fun and games
- Due April 1, 2019
Sports are a pastime enjoyed by millions across Canada. In each different sport, conduct is determined by a set of rules, and breaches of these rules can result in penalties that may affect the way that a team or individual competes. However, sometimes the actions of an athlete may go beyond those dictated by the rules and step into legal territory.
​
Hockey is an aggressive sport, in which players are constantly in contact with one another, pushing, shoving, and checking one another at high speeds. Sometimes fist fights even erupt on the ice, but without the threat of the legal consequences that may appear in a similar situation on the street. In the cases of Marty McSorely and Todd Bertuzzi, we see two NHL players who were charged with assault after in-game conduct was deemed to move beyond the realm of a traditional hockey game.
​
In 2000, McSorely was convicted of assault with a weapon for slashing Canucks player Donald Brashear, causing a Grade III concussion and loss of consciousness. He was sentenced to 18 months of probation, and the imminent end of his professional hockey career. Bertuzzi was convicted of assault causing bodily harm after punching Colorado player Steve Moore in the back of the head, knocking him unconscious and shattering three vertebrae. After being handed a light sentence of one year's probation and 80 hours of community service, Moore sued Bertuzzi and the Canucks in Civil Court, a case that only closed with a deal in 2014.
​
What makes these cases unique? For this *Bonus* Weekly Case, you have the chance to think about the distinction between sport based violence and criminal assault. Where does the line exist? Should sports based assaults count as criminal offences? Should the rules be changed to protect players and draw a greater distinction?
​
For the full 12 marks, please complete this worksheet and submit it on April 1 with your regular case reflection.
