Sarah Mills: Teachers deserve gratitude as school year wraps up
There's a collective sigh coming from Saskatchewan's teachers as the school year ends. Sarah Mills says teachers are ask...
OTTAWA — Justice Minister Sean Fraser says the Liberal government will press ahead with plans for new criminal provisions against blocking access to places or worship, schools and community centres.
The measures, promised during the recent federal election campaign, would also create a criminal offence of wilfully intimidating or threatening people attending events at these venues.
Read more:
- Man charged with vandalism of National Holocaust Monument
- Former Canadian Ambassador to Israel weighs in on U.S. attack in Iran
- ‘So terrifying’: Iranian student on fleeing back to safety in Canada amid conflict
The minister’s statement comes as civil libertarians point to existing provisions intended to curb such behaviour and push back against the idea of new measures that could infringe on freedom of expression and assembly.
Tensions have risen in Canadian communities over public protests, many prompted by the ongoing hostilities in the Middle East.
Several Canadian municipalities have taken steps recently to mandate “bubble zones” that restrict protest activity near such places as religious institutions, schools and child care centres.
“It’s not lost on me that there will be different levels of government that try to address this challenge in different ways,” Fraser said, adding that the federal government has an opportunity — where behaviour crosses a criminal threshold — to legislate in that space.
“We clearly have seen challenges when it comes to certain religious communities in Canada who are facing extraordinary discrimination — antisemitism, Islamophobia, and other forms of hate,” Fraser said in a recent interview.
“People need to know that in Canada they are free to pray to the God of their choice and to, at the same time, freely express themselves, but not to the point where you threaten the protected Charter rights of a religious minority.”
Need for new provisions questioned
James Turk, director of the Centre for Free Expression at Toronto Metropolitan University, said he questions the need for new provisions and suggests politicians are proposing penalties simply to appear to be doing something.
He said existing laws against mischief, nuisance and interfering with religious celebrations can be used to deal with the kinds of behaviour the federal government wants to address.
“I haven’t heard a single thing that isn’t already illegal, so it’s a waste of time. It adds confusion to the Criminal Code and it suggests that they’re only engaged in performative activity,” Turk said.
“They want to be seen to be doing something about this pressure they’re under.”
Anaïs Bussières McNicoll, director of the fundamental freedoms program at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, also said she wonders about the scope of the proposed new federal provisions “and if they are necessary or simply duplicative of existing criminal offences.”
Bussières McNicoll said it’s important to remember that a protest might be disruptive but also protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ guarantee of peaceful assembly.
“As a parent myself, I know that any protest can be sometimes scary for a child. We’re talking about loud voices, huge crowds, emotions are running high,” she said.
“So I believe it’s part of my role as a parent to teach my child about what living in a democracy means, why we need protests, why we need space in our society for strong language — including language that we disagree with — and to teach my child about what we can do if we personally disagree with speech that we hear.”
Richard Robertson, director of research and advocacy at B’nai Brith Canada, said that while the organization welcomes the planned new federal provisions, additional federal measures are needed.
B’nai Brith wants national “vulnerable infrastructure legislation” that would prohibit protests within a certain distance of a place of worship or school, or perhaps during specific time periods, if they interfere with someone’s ability to attend the institutions, Robertson said.
“That would remove the need for municipalities and provinces to adopt legislation, and it would send a clear message that across Canada, individuals do not have the right to prevent others from accessing their houses of worship and their community centres and cultural institutions.”
— by Jim Bronskill, with files from Anja Karadeglija
Read more:
