In deciding the case of R. v. Keegstra, Justice McLachlin (speaking for the dissent) disputed the rational connection of the Criminal Code s. 319(2) - the anti-hate speech statute - to the purported purpose of the law.

a) What did the Supreme Court determine was the objective of the law?

b) McLachlin offered three reasons for her belief that this law did not actually help achieve that end. What were those three reasons? (Name each one, and briefly explain what her reasoning was in each instance.)