Creating ‘bubble zones’ might make people feel safer during protests, but freedom of speech is at stake also.
Many years ago, I had occasion to visit an abortion clinic.
On the sidewalk outside, placard-waving protesters, many with youngsters in tow, kept a sluggish yet intent vigil. I wondered how women — women who agonized over their decision to terminate their pregnancies — must have felt as they passed this phalanx of strangers telling them that what they were doing was morally wrong. As a male, I cannot imagine just how uncomfortable that might be.
Yet while I don’t agree with the protesters’ position on the issue, I cannot but defend their right to be there and voice their objections. Freedom of belief and expression, and peaceful protest, are enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Expressing dissent is a fundamental right, and those protesters were as entitled to be present as were the women exercising their reproductive rights.
Because the Charter doesn’t give anyone the right to not feel uncomfortable.
It’s with that in mind that I confess to feeling somewhat discomfited by the idea of Ottawa adopting a “vulnerable social infrastructure bylaw,” a.k.a. a “bubble bylaw,” that could prohibit demonstrations and protests outside schools, hospitals, community centres and religious institutions.
Bubble zones became part of our conversations about 30 years ago, when B.C. prohibited protests outside abortion clinics. Similar rules eventually spread to other jurisdictions, including Ottawa, where those protesting outside the Morgentaler clinic downtown could approach no closer than the opposite side of the street.
Evening Update
The current motion, put forward by Kanata South Coun. Allan Hubley and Mayor Mark Sutcliffe, asks city staff to explore the possibility of enacting such a bylaw to prevent demonstrations outside schools and other institutions. It comes after numerous such protests, including an anti-trans demonstration near Broadview Avenue public and Nepean and Notre Dame high schools in 2023; an anti-Israel protest outside the Soloway Jewish Community Centre and adjacent Hillel Lodge long-term care facility earlier this month; and past anti-vaccination protests outside hospitals.
In supporting the motion, Sutcliffe noted in a post on the social media platform X that there was a 19 per cent increase in hate crimes against Ottawa’s Muslim, Jewish, LGBTQ+ and other communities last year. “That is not just a statistic,” he wrote, “it’s a call to action.”
He’s right, but creating a bylaw that could prohibit what are often peaceful demonstrations in public spaces is a dangerous action, one that would undercut the Charter and create a culture in which the silencing of dissenting voices is increasingly accepted. Schools and houses of worship today. Municipal parks and government legislatures next?
And what of institutions that merit protest? Let’s just use a hypothetical, over-the-top scenario as an example: Suppose a major religion, say, was credibly accused of allowing sexual abuse against children to occur. Could it invoke the bubble bylaw to limit or move even the most peaceful protests down the street from a place of worship?
And how far away would be far enough?
Or what about a bylaw that, say, prohibits the use of megaphones? Do we have a right not to hear peaceful — if offensive — slogans?
We certainly can’t allow some of the behaviour that too often accompanies protests: harassment and threats, spitting and other acts of physical violence, impeding people’s movement and uttering messages of hate.
But there are laws already in place to discourage or react to such behaviour. Section 319 (1) of the Criminal Code of Canada, for example, makes it illegal to make statements in any public place that incite hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. “Identifiable group” in this case refers to any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability.
Similarly, laws that prohibit assault, harassment and public mischief are already on the books.
While the sort of buffer zone created by a bubble bylaw might add some measure of security, the cost to existing freedoms of expression needs to be considered. If current laws and bylaws are already so toothless that they can’t adequately deal with acts or threats of hatred or violence, we should be looking at strengthening them and toughening enforcement before we add new layers of prohibitions. Weakening the public’s right to protest — no matter how much we may disagree with a given cause — is not the answer.
Without question, people’s safety should always be protected. But there are other ways to do that than by enveloping them in bubble wrap.
