Censorship

Municipalities across Ontario are being pressured by lobby groups to pass so-called “bubble zone” bylaws to prevent legal protests they do not like. Such bylaws do two things. First, they prohibit already illegal behaviour like violence, threats of violence, preventing access to buildings, and harassment on public property (streets, sidewalks, parks) within a certain distance of designated infrastructure, such as religious centres, school buildings, hospitals, and childcare facilities. Second, they prohibit legal free expression on public property within the restricted zone. 

Supporters of the recently enacted bubble zone by-law in Toronto argue that the law is necessary to protect individuals, who are entering and leaving places such as synagogues and religious schools, from harassment and intimidation by protestors. While very little was said in these debates about the protection of “captive audiences” from speech they find objectionable, this concern is, I think, implicit in the claim that the speech of protestors, and more particularly pro-Palestinian protestors, is harmful. 

One of the questions I always enjoyed asking school kids is, “To whom does the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms apply?” While there are many possible answers, one that I like to hear is that the Charter is about the relationship between governments and the people who live in Canada. In other words, it applies to all of us.

In spring 2024 student encampments at Canadian and US universities provoked strong reactions for and against pro-Palestinian demonstrations on campus property. While some Canadian universities called in police to disperse demonstrators, others looked to the courts for injunctions compelling students to disperse and abandon their encampments.

On Thursday, Calgary Police forcibly dismantled the pro-Palestine encampment at the University of Calgary within hours of its formation. Those who advocate the same tactic at other Canadian universities, including University of Toronto, argue that an encampment is not a legitimate form of protest because it is disruptive and occupies space that should be open to all. A columnist in the Globe & Mail even argued that the encampment is not a form of expression and thus deserves no protection. 

Infrastructure Ontario and Metrolinx, both provincial mega-agencies using, exclusively, public-private infrastructure partnerships, have imposed a requirement on the public that is supposedly being served, according to a Toronto Star article (March 19).