City hall staff deserve credit for removing a few of the most objectionable aspects of the original version of the city’s proposed public nuisance bylaw. But the new version leaves a lot to be desired and shouldn’t be rushed through council this month as just another agenda item.
City staff removed a section that would have outlawed hosting or participating in a public rally or protest lasting more than 24 consecutive hours without a city hall permit. But they want to keep two related sections that are highly questionable – one about obstructing public sidewalks and another about unauthorized camping on public land, including parks.
How meaningful is it to say it’s okay to protest for more than 24 straight hours without a city permit, but to outlaw erecting tents on city-owned public land? If people have nowhere to sleep, they can hardly protest for over 24 hours. And the rationale offered in a new city hall report for being against unauthorized camping is laughable: “Staff believe the erection of tents and other structures has safety implications to other citizens, especially in park areas where tents have been known to be taken by wind and may cause injury to other park users.”
As for making it an offence to obstruct any public sidewalk or pathway, the new staff report offers assurances that discretion would be used in enforcing this part of the bylaw when people are protesting or engaged in strike action. But this assurance provides little or no comfort. Civil rights, including protesting on public property, shouldn’t be subject to arbitrary exercises of discretion. And besides, police and bylaw officers already use discretion in charging people under various laws and bylaws, so this assurance from city staff is largely an empty one.
The council committee that gets this new version of the bylaw Monday should put up a big stop sign. It should be subject to extensive public scrutiny before it proceeds.