By: Mike Stafford (NAUresistance.org) & Kathleen Moore
(HABEAS CORPUS CANADA)
Harry Bloy from the BC Liberal party has his own definition on what it means to be a proud Canadian. Bloy expressed his pride at being Canadian “particularly” as the region gets ready to host the Games with the start of the torch relay. He took the opportunity to denounce those Canadians who choose to exercise their rights under section 2(b) of the Charter, stating in the Legislature Monday that “people who protest the Winter Olympics are nothing more than “terrorists” with “limited intellect”.
Bloy’s comments were made in support of a private member’s bill motion by Richmond Centre MLA Rob Howard, to welcome the Olympic torch to B.C., and recognize the unprecedented economic opportunity the Winter Olympics and Paralympics will bring.
Harry Bloy elaborated on his opinion about Olympic protesters: “You know, there was a disappointing factor about the Olympics. It was that 200-odd group of terrorists who came to Victoria from across Canada to interrupt the Games. Anyone who could support this group should be ashamed of themselves.
“They do not understand, these terrorists, the potential goodwill and economic benefits that come from these games, because they have a limited intellect and do not understand how the world truly operates.”
What Harry fails to understand is that our constitutional commitment to free speech is predicated on the belief that a free society cannot function with coercive legal censorship in the hands of persons supporting one ideology who are motivated to use the power of the censor to suppress opposing viewpoints.
In fact, without this constitutional commitment, even Harry and the Liberal Party with their opposing views to the Conservatives would lend themselves to be labeled the same way when they speak out for what they think is right- Terrorists?
The problem is Mr. Bloy, most of these Canadian citizens you label as terrorists (which is a very serious accusation) just might actually know “how the world truely operates” and this is the very reason they choose to protest! To simply generalize these protesters as having a “limited intellect” does nothing to prove yours to be in anyway superior as you fail to demostrate that the concerns of the protesters are unfounded.
I would ask all Canadians, what is more “terrifying” or threatening to our way of life, a bunch of people holding up signs and posters, speaking over a bullhorn OR a virtual police state hellhole, with a multi million dollar budget spent on over 800 surveliance cameras, bomb sniffing dogs, armed police walking through your neighbourhoods, remote submarines, choppers and F18’s in the sky, gun boats in the water, thousands of Police/Military in riot gear, suspension of civil rights, designated “free speech zones” to protect not the people, but rather an international organization that feels Canadian rights and freedoms are secondary to their motive of profit from the Olympic franchise.
Special Topics/Further research:
- Freedom Of Expression in Canada; 2(b) – http://www.uottawa.ca/constitutional-law/expression.html
maybe harry can explain a company like genral electric can sposor the olympics and manufacture wepons at the same time. perhaps if harry was able to trade in his arrogance for intellect he would find many similaritys between his comments and another infamaous politician speaking about olympic values in berlin 1936.snag a life harry .
A FEW NOTES FOR PROTESTERS ON SECTION 2(B) OF THE CHARTER:
The purpose of s. 2(b) is to permit free expression to the end of promoting truth, political or social participation, and self-fulfilment. That purpose extends to the protection of minority beliefs which the majority regard as wrong or false. Tests of free expression frequently involve a contest between the majoritarian view of what is true or right and an unpopular minority view. As Holmes J. stated over sixty years ago, the fact that the particular content of a person’s speech might “excite popular prejudice” is no reason to deny it protection for “if there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought — not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate”.
Thus the guarantee of freedom of expression serves to protect the right of the minority to express its view, however unpopular it may be; adapted to this context, it serves to preclude the majority’s perception of “truth” or “public interest” from smothering the minority’s perception. The view of the majority has no need of constitutional protection; it is tolerated in any event. Viewed thus, a law which forbids expression of a minority or “false” view on pain of criminal prosecution and imprisonment, on its face, offends the purpose of the guarantee of free expression. This expression arguably has intrinsic value in fostering political participation and individual self-fulfilment.
The Supreme Court of Canada has adopted a two-step inquiry to determine whether an individual’s freedom of expression has been infringed. The first involves a determination of whether the individual’s activity falls within the freedom of expression. The second step is to determine whether the purpose or the effect of the impugned government action is to restrict that freedom: Ross v. New Brunswick School District No. 15, 1996 CanLII 237 (S.C.C.), 1996 CanLII 237 (S.C.C.), 1996 CanLII 237 (S.C.C.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 825.
All activities conveying or attempting to convey meaning are expression for the purposes of s. 2(b).
The Constitution protects the right to receive expressive material as much as it does the right to create it: Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada (Minister of Justice), 2000 SCC 69 (CanLII), 2000 SCC 69 (CanLII), 2000 SCC 69 (CanLII), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1120, 2000 SCC 69. Government may not control attempts to convey a meaning either by directly restricting the content of expression or by restricting a form of expression tied to content (as with a rule against handing out pamphlets), but it may legitimately aim to control the mere physical consequences of particular conduct (as with a rule against littering).
While freedom of expression does not encompass the right to use any and all government property for purposes of disseminating views on public matters, it does include the right to use streets and parks dedicated to public use, subject to reasonable limitation to ensure their continued use for the purposes to which they are dedicated. This right extends to areas of airports frequented by the public: Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada v. Canada, 1991 CanLII 119 (S.C.C.), 1991 CanLII 119 (S.C.C.), 1991 CanLII 119 (S.C.C.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 139. It also protects the placement of posters on some public property, such that a complete prohibition on postering would infringe the guarantee: Peterborough (City) v. Ramsden, 1993 CanLII 60 (S.C.C.), 1993 CanLII 60 (S.C.C.), 1993 CanLII 60 (S.C.C.), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 1084. Moreover, s. 2(b) ensures a right of public access to the courts, and to obtain information about court proceedings from the media: Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. New Brunswick (Attorney General), 1996 CanLII 184 (S.C.C.), 1996 CanLII 184 (S.C.C.), 1996 CanLII 184 (S.C.C.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 480.
The full and fair discussion of public institutions, which is vital to any democracy, is the raison d’être of the s. 2(b) guarantees.
The right conferred by s. 2(b) of the Charter embraces a continuum of intellectual and expressive freedom — “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression”.
In Irwin Toy Ltd. v. A. G. Que., 1989 CanLII 87 (S.C.C.), 1989 CanLII 87 (S.C.C.), 1989 CanLII 87 (S.C.C.), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that “activity is expressive if it attempts to convey a meaning”.
There is always some element of expression in picketing. Action on the part of the picketers will always accompany the expression, but not every action on the part of the picketers will be such as to alter the nature of the whole transaction and remove it from Charter protection for freedom of expression. That freedom would not extend to protect threats of violence or acts of violence. It would not protect the destruction of property, or assaults, or other clearly unlawful conduct. Here, however, the picketing would have been peaceful and would therefore have involved the exercise of the right of freedom of expression: Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union et al. v. Dolphin Delivery Ltd., 1986 CanLII 5 (S.C.C.), 1986 CanLII 5 (S.C.C.), 1986 CanLII 5 (S.C.C.), [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573; R.W.D.S.U., Local 558 v. Pepsi-Cola Canada Beverages (West) Ltd., 2002 SCC 8 (CanLII), 2002 SCC 8 (CanLII), 2002 SCC 8 (CanLII), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 156, 2002 SCC 8.
To attract constitutional protection, the claimant need not establish that his or her message was received and subjectively understood or appreciated by others. It is the conveying or the attempted conveying of the meaning, not its receipt, that triggers the guarantee under s. 2(b).
The Supreme Court of Canada:
Further, in this case, it does not matter whether the Peace Camp and its constituent structures built by the appellant on Parliament Hill successfully conveyed a message of peace, or of general protest, or of specific protest against the policy of the Federal Government in allowing cruise missile testing in Canada. It is enough that the appellant’s conduct attempted to convey some meaning, which it clearly did. This brings the appellant’s expression prima facie within the scope of the expression protected by the Charter: Weisfeld v. The Queen, 1994 CanLII 3503 (F.C.A.), 1994 CanLII 3503 (F.C.A.), 1994 CanLII 3503 (F.C.A.), [1995] 1 F.C. 68 (F.C.A.).
As Chief Justice Lamer in Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada v. Canada stated: “A person who is in a public place for the purpose of expressing himself must respect the functions of the place and cannot in any way invoke his or her freedom of expression so as to interfere with those functions. … The fact that one’s freedom of expression is intrinsically limited by the function of a public place is an application of the general rule that one’s rights are always circumscribed by the rights of others.”: Ontario (Attorney General) v. Dieleman reflex, (1994), 117 D.L.R. (4th) 449 (Ont. Gen. Div.).
[2] Right of Access to Information
Freedom of expression must extend to all forms of expression, and this applies to all phases of expression from maker or originator through supplier, distributor, retailer, renter or exhibitor to receiver, whether as a listener or a viewer.
The Supreme Court of Canada also agreed with the trial judge that a regulation which forbids any unlicensed person from approaching within half a nautical mile of a seal hunt, impinges on the freedom of expression. It completely restrains the plaintiffs’ freedom of expression, forbidding as it does their attendance at the hunt in all circumstances. The only saving feature is the possibility of a licence, but a licensing procedure cannot save an otherwise complete interference with a fundamental freedom under s. 2 of the Charter. If restraint by licensing is to be justified, it can only be under s. 1: International Fund for Animal Welfare Inc. v. The Queen, reflex, [1989] 1 F.C. 335 (F.C.A.).
“Counter-advertising” is not merely a reaction to commercial speech, and is not a form of expression derived from commercial speech. Rather, it is a form of the expression of opinion that has an important effect on the social and economic life of a society. It is a right not only of consumers, but of citizens. In this respect, simple means of expression such as posting signs or distributing pamphlets or leaflets or, these days, posting messages on the Internet are the optimum means of communication for discontented consumers. The media are still often beyond their reach because of the cost. In Ramsden, this Court stressed the importance of signs as an effective and inexpensive means of communication for individuals and groups that do not have sufficient economic resources. Signs, which have been used for centuries to communicate political, artistic or economic information, sometimes convey forceful messages. Signs, in various forms, are thus a public, accessible and effective form of expressive activity for anyone who cannot undertake media campaigns : R. v. Guignard, 2002 SCC 14 (CanLII), 2002 SCC 14 (CanLII), 2002 SCC 14 (CanLII), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 472, 2002 SCC 14.
The distribution and circulation of leaflets has for centuries been recognized as an effective and economical method of both providing information and assisting rational persuasion. It has long been used as a means to enlist support. The distribution of leaflets and posters is typically less expensive and more readily available than other forms of expression. As a result, they are particularly important means of providing information and seeking support by the vulnerable and less powerful members of society. [...] leafleting is an activity which conveys meaning. In light of the very broad interpretation that has been given to freedom of expression, it clearly falls within the purview of s. 2(b) of the Charter: U.F.C.W. Local 1518 v. KMart Canada Ltd., 1999 CanLII 650 (S.C.C.), 1999 CanLII 650 (S.C.C.), 1999 CanLII 650 (S.C.C.), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 1083.
The freedom guaranteed by the Charter is a freedom to express and communicate ideas without restraint, whether orally or in print or by other means of communication. It is not a freedom to use someone else’s property to do so. It gives no right to anyone to use someone else’s land or platform to make a speech, or someone else’s printing press to publish his ideas. [...] New Brunswick Broadcasting Co. Ltd. v. C.R.T.C. reflex, (1984), 13 D.L.R. (4th) 77 (F.C.A.); Trieger et al. v. C.B.C. et al. reflex, (1988), 54 D.L.R. (4th) 143 (Ont. S.C.); Natural Law Party of Canada v. C.B.C., 1993 CanLII 3005 (F.C.), 1993 CanLII 3005 (F.C.), 1993 CanLII 3005 (F.C.), [1994] 1 F.C. 580 (F.C.T.D.).
Much more on Section 2(b) can be found here:
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/charter_digest/s-2-b.html
Kathleen Moore
HABEAS CORPUS CANADA
The Official Legal Challenge
To North American Union
http://www.habeascorpuscanada.com
* http://hccvideocatalog.blogspot.com
HABEAS CORPUS CANADA COMMENTS:
* http://habeascorpuscanadacomments.blogspot.com