1. Identify the conflict in this case. Think about the clip above: Right v other legislation. Briefly summarize the arguments on each side.
2. Include brief timeline of the case (what were the key events before and during Whatcott's trial and what was the aftermath of the initial rulings/appeals?)
3. In high profile cases certain groups are granted intervener status. This means that they are able to share their viewpoints on the case with the judges. The judges decide who will be able to intervene. They are often groups or individuals that are able to offer a distinct perspective on the issue in question. The media report notes that some interveners made a point to note that they disagreed with Mr. Whatcott's message but they defended his right to express it. Why might a group defend his freedom of expression if they do not agree with his ideas?

Recourse: https://www.constitutionalstudies.ca/2013/06/saskatchewan-human-rights-commission-v-whatcott-2013-anti-gay-flyers-violate-hate-speech-prohibitions/?print=print#:~:text=for%20Constitutional%20Studies-,Saskatchewan%20(Human%20Rights%20Commission)%20v%20Whatcott%20(2013)%3A%20Anti,Flyers%20Violate%20Hate%20Speech%20Prohibitions&text=On%20February%2027%2C%202013%2C%20the,hate%20speech%20prohibitions%20are%20constitutional.