OP-ED: Toronto's bubble zone backlash exposes progressive left’s selective free speech support

Christine Van Geyn writes: "Toronto city council passed a bylaw that will ban certain protests within 50 metres of places of worship, schools and childcare centres on request."

Source: Wikimedia Commons

Author: Canadian Constitution Foundation Litigation Director Christine Van Geyn

Canada needs principled defenders of freedom of speech. On May 22^nd, Toronto city council passed a “bubble zone” bylaw that will ban certain protests within 50 metres of places of worship, schools and childcare centres on request. If requested by a facility, protesters will be banned from public sidewalks, lawns and roads in that 50 metre “bubble” around the facility. The ban will be implemented and enforced by Toronto Police Service and emergency management.

The progressive left has been howling with outrage over this bylaw, which was introduced in response to regular pro-Palestinian protests on the streets of Toronto. But supporting civil liberties and freedom of speech means supporting them all the time, not just when you happen to disagree with the speech being silenced.

The left is correct that protests are constitutionally protected, even if many members of the public find these particular protests racist, antisemitic, and odious. They are also correct that the bylaw is unnecessary. When protests become violent or break the law, the Criminal Code already exists. Synagogues, Jewish schools, and Jewish-owned businesses have been targeted with arson, vandalism and shootings since the Hamas massacre of 1,400 people in Israel on October 7, 2023. These acts are also already illegal and can be dealt with by police enforcing the Criminal Code. Protests that harass, intimate, and block infrastructure can also be enforced against using the Criminal Code or court injunctions.

These are criminal acts that should shock the conscience of Canadians. The violent targeting of the Jewish community should open the public eyes to the antisemitism that runs through this protest movement. The bylaw will do nothing to stop a criminal intent on arson or violence. But it will stop constitutionally protected speech.

For example, a protest at a synagogue hosting an event selling real estate in the West Bank is constitutionally protected. Under the new bylaw, a facility like this could now request the government use its power to ban protests nearby, removing the meaning and impact of the protest. Even if we might reasonably be able to make the argument that protesters are using the real estate exhibit as a pretext to target the synagogue, the protest is protected by our constitution.

During the debate over the bylaw, progressive city councillors spoke eloquently about the role of protest in civil society. Councillor Alejandra Bravo says the bylaw could be used to ban a residential school survivor outside of a Catholic church. Councillor Gord Perks spoke about the history of protest, and how civil rights and positive societal change is the result of protest movements, not because of the kindness and generosity of governments. They are both correct.

But the left was conveniently silent in March of 2023, when Calgary city council passed the country’s first municipal bubble zone bylaw. This was in response to protests by parents who opposed drag shows for children at city libraries. Instead of opposing this bylaw, it was championed by progressive councillors. The Canadian Constitution Foundation challenged that bylaw, and is awaiting a decision from the Alberta Court of Kings Bench. Progressive voices were silent in defending free speech in that case, because they disagreed with the content of the speech.

The left has likewise championed provincial laws across the country that ban protests near abortion clinics. If the left believes bubble zones that prohibit pro-Palestinian or anti-war protests near what are described by the city as “vulnerable” institutions are an unjustified limit on speech, surely they must believe the same types of laws that prohibit protests near abortion clinics are unjustified.

Free speech is a content-neutral value and right. Its protection does not fluctuate on the basis of whether or not one agrees with the speech itself. Indeed, the right to free speech only has value when it protects controversial or unpopular speech, because there is no need to silence and censor innocuous speech. Don’t be fooled by their self-righteous words. Even if they are correct in opposing this law, city councillors are no champions of free speech.