The Pridgen Case and Freedom of Speech On the Canadian Campus

Tomorrow, the Alberta Court of Appeal will hear arguments on the Pridgen case. The issue involves the use of Facebook postings to criticize a University of Calgary professor, contrary to the student code of conduct. In the lower court case, Madam Justice Strekaf considered whether the subsequent finding of non-academic misconduct by the Pridgen brothers was a violation of freedom of expression under s.2(b) of the Charter. Ultimately she ruled there was a violation and the restriction could not be justified under s.1 of the Charter.

The issue of freedom of speech on campus is troubling. Universities are seen as the defender of academic independence and the protector of free thought. Through this freedom, critical thought is created, nourished, and encouraged. Innovation and excellence is the by-product of free thought. To restrict it, results in a withering effect and a loss of free debate on controversial issues. Thus, there is a societal interest in protecting free expression on campus. Our democratic tradition demands it.

On the other hand, as mentioned in previous posts, freedom of expression is not absolute under our Canadian Charter. Speech can be restricted but only if justified in a free and democratic society. There have been campus cases where Facebook postings were restricted justifiably. Those cases, however, involved threats of harm attracting Criminal Code sanctions. In contrast, the Pridgen case involved no threats and there was no evidence of resultant "injury" before the discipline council. Certainly, the comments were unkind, but were they the kind of expression we want to restrict on a University campus?

The answer will be left to the Court on Wednesday when the freedom to express oneself on campus will be tested. We will await the decision to see if the Pridgen brothers receive a pass or a fail.

Creating A Positive Out of A Negative

Today, we will journey from yesterday's Peace Camp to Victoria's Tent City and discuss the legal implications of protecting positive rights through the Charter.

Our Charter is generally a negative rights document protecting mostly civil and political rights. To protect these rights, the government is required to refrain from action, essentially to leave us, the right-holders, alone to enjoy rights such as freedom of religion (s.2(a)) and freedom of expression (s.2(a)).

The idea of positive rights in the human rights context is more problematic. These rights require the government to take action, to fulfill our entitlement to rights. They are typically socio-economic in nature and cover a wide array of social welfare issues such as the right to education or the right to health care. 

Traditionally, our Courts have been reluctant to find positive rights protection in the Charter : this would require the non-elected judiciary to step into the political fray by creating public policy. Despite this cautious approach, as Dylan would say (that's Bob, not Thomas), "the times they are a changin'." An example of this judicial trend into the positive rights arena, is the Supreme Court of Canada decision in the Chaouilli case, where Quebec legislation limiting timely access to health care was found to violate s.7 rights under the Charter.

Recently, further forays into the positive rights territory has produced interesting results. The 2009 Adams case, a particularly unique case from the British Columbia Court of Appeal (BCCA), highlights the lengths the Court will go to protect basic human rights, such as shelter. At the time of Adams, the City of Victoria was experiencing a severe shortage of shelter beds for the City's numerous homeless, resulting in a Tent City erected in a local public park. The Tent City housed 70 homeless people by the time the City of Victoria started legal steps to evict the people through the authority of the municipal bylaw. 

In a bold decision, the BCCA found the bylaw was overly broad and deprived the homeless people of their right to life, liberty and security of the person under s. 7 of the Charter by prohibiting the assembly of temporary overnight shelters by the homeless, who had no alternative accommodations. To require them to leave would negatively impact their personal integrity and diminish greatly their human dignity and self-worth.

As a result, the Court crafted a highly ingenious and singular remedy declaring the legislation inoperative when the number of homeless people exceeded the number of shelter beds available. The Court was sending a clear message to the City of Victoria: provide or accept the consequences.

The interesting aspect of this positive rights movement is how grounded it is in the basic minimal needs one requires in order to live; water, food, and shelter. And yet considering the origins, why is this such a unique foray? If indeed these rights are so basic, why are they not already "covered" by the Charter?

Perhaps the answer lies at the beginning of this post; with the meaning of positive rights. The government must act to fulfill these basic rights, which means big government spending big money. Not such a popular notion in a weakened economy. Another reason may be more subtle and may be found in the historical framework of our liberal democracy itself as epitomized by the laissez-faire or "hands off" government policies of the economist Adam Smith.

For whatever reason, it is clear the Courts have become more positive about our rights, which proves a positive can be created out of a negative.

Part Two: Occupying Public Space

Yesterday, I outlined the tension between the City and the Occupy movement over the tent city erected in the City's public spaces. Although, municipal legislation prohibts the camp, it has, to this date, not been enforced. Why? Initially, no doubt, the thought was occupy Calgary would make their point and move on. No "strong arm of the law," means no trouble. Unfortunately, that tactic has proven to be wrong. The Occupy movement has no plans to move their campsite, even in the face of declining public support (petitions) and despite alternative offers of living space. It appears a Western style show-down is inevitable and the only question is how soon before the matter is before the Courts. 

What would happen if the matter did go before the Courts? Two cases, involving protest in two very different Canadian Cities, may help answer this question.

First we go to Ottawa. It is 1994 and a Peace Camp, to protest cruise missile testing, is erected on the lawn of the Parliament building. Indeed, the protesters had a presence, in one form or another, in front of Parliament since 1983. An attempt to dismantle the camp led to various court actions. At the heart of the debate was the expressive quality of the protest: if the Peace Camp attempted to convey or did convey a meaning, then, Weisfeld the leader of the protest, could argue an infringement of s. 2(b) of the Charter, freedom of expression.

The Federal Court of Appeal agreed with Weisfeld: the structure, and the presence of other accouterments of the protest (brochures, pamphlets, signs, and the like), indicated there was a meaning conveyed by the Peace Camp itself. However, as discussed yesterday, the decision does not rest on a violation. An infringement of a right still requires a further analysis based on s. 1 of the Charter. Is this violation justified in a free and democratic society? Enter, the government to establish that indeed, it is, or the legislation restricting the right is invalid. The end result in Ottawa was a save by the government. On the s.1 analysis the removal of Weisfeld was justified. Exit the Peace Camp.

Fast forward fifteen years to Vancouver where the Falun Gong erected banners and a "make-shift shelter" in front of the Chinese Consulate, contrary to a City By-law. The City sought an injunction to remove the protest, which was granted. The Falun Gong appealed to the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

Following Weisfeld, the Court agreed there was a violation of s.2(b) as the structures had expressive content being "part and parcel" of the Falun Gong protest. That is where the similarities end. The BCCA did not find the bylaw saved under the s.1 analysis. In the Court's view, the prohibition did not minimally impair the legitimate right to engage in political protest; a cherished Charter value residing at the very core of our democracy. In a word, the by-law was over broad and captured legitimate forms of expression.

After that Canada-wide tour, we are now back in Calgary. What conclusions can we draw based on these other cases? Clearly, the occupy protest has an expressive quality which is protected by s.2(b) of the Charter. However, whether the City ordinance will be a justifiable intrusion on that right is questionable and dependent on a number of factors, including the type of evidence the municipality will proffer to justify the legislation.

Whatever the outcome, this much is clear, the protesters are here to stay for the near future. Indeed, no Canadian City has successfully evicted the movement. In the end, when the dust is settled and the shoot-out is over, this gun-fight might just be a draw.

Freedom of Expression: Occupying Public Space Part One

For weeks now, we have been inundated with the details of the Occupy movement. We know where they are, what they are protesting about, and in this age of technology, we can watch them on our computers. We can also watch the City authorities walk in circles as they try to avoid clashing with the protesters. Some cities have not avoided harm: Occupy Oakland is a good example. But other cities, like Calgary, have tried to give the Occupy movement a wide berth. Unfortunately, patience is now wearing thin with the municipal authorities, the press, and the public, as Occupy Calgary refuse to leave the public space provided to them. This has all the ingredients of a classic Western show-down. 

On the one hand, we have the Charter right of s. 2(b) freedom of expression and on the other, municipal by-laws prohibiting camping in public parks. Up to now, the City has not enforced the by-law and allowed the Occupy movement to inhabit the public space (Canada Olympic Plaza in downtown Calgary). But as the authorities begin to consider ending the occupation, the show-down between the Charter and the City looms. 

This conundrum is, of course, typical Charter fodder: a fundamental freedom is violated and the government must establish the intrusion is justifiable in a free and democratic society under s. 1 of the Charter. In this, our Charter differs dramatically form the American Constitution as our rights are guaranteed yet limited under the Charter : no rights are absolute, yet the s.1 analysis is rigorous. The analysis requires the right to be minimally impaired by the legislation, to be proportionately restrained, and the limit must have a rational connection to the valid legislative purpose of the law. It is a balancing act, which may lead to legislative death but it can also lead to legislative discourse between the Courts and the government. This dialogue can assist in re-framing legislation, which fulfills its objective, but in a Charter friendly manner.

Thankfully, we Canadians are not protest-shy and there are legal precedents to help guide the Occupiers and the Municipal landlords. Join me in tomorrow's post, as I navigate us through the legal side of the issue by looking at Ottawa and Vancouver.

Another Blog Interruption: It's Halloween, Are You Scared?

It is Halloween. The street is dark but the activity level is immense. Clutches of kids in costumes of all sorts are walking through the neighbourhood in search of sweet treats, scary houses, and fun.

But in some communities there is no fun. Two schools in Calgary, tweaked Halloween from a scary adventure to a caring one: children were not permitted to wear scary costumes (zombies immediately come to mind) but were only allowed to wear "caring" costumes involving fuzzy animals, fairies, police man and the like. It was caring with a capital "C," as the children attended caring assemblies and even built healthy food models to promote a healthy caring lifestyle. No sticky sugar-coated eyeballs here please! 

In other communities, instead of Halloween being transformed into the "care bears gone wild," Halloween is stripped down to its bare bones (excuse the pun). In the Town of Bonneyville, Alberta for instance, a Halloween curfew is in place: trick or treating can only take place between 4:00 pm and 7:00 pm and only by those under 15 years of age. 

In Charlottetown, PEI, the Nuisance Bylaw penalizes those teenagers who are out Halloween eve, after 8:00 pm, without an adult in contravention of the "Halloween Curfew."

In still other communities, an age restriction limits the fun. Teenagers are are expressly prohibited from taking part and if they do decide to take the trick instead of the treat, they are subject to fine. 

Setting aside what these restrictions, changes, and penalties say about our society, there may be some Charter rights at risk here. I can think of a few, can you?

Today, I was reading the 2004 Supreme Court of Canada Mann case in anticipation of my lecture on Legal Rights in the Charter. Although the issue in that case was the ambit of a protective search, which resulted in a police officer finding marijuana in Mann's pocket, the Court made some profound comments on the difficulties of balancing individual rights with societal interests. As Justice Iacobucci stated:

The vibrancy of a democracy is apparent by how wisely it navigates through those critical junctures where state action intersects with, and threatens to impinge upon, individual liberties.

 This comment can apply equally here: how wisely are we navigating through the seemingly endless restrictions on individual liberty and are we losing some of our democratic "vibrancy" as a result. Now that's a scary thought.