Feeling offended is often the price we must pay for freedom
Abortion clinic bubble-zone legislation tramples Charter rights, says John Carpay.
Health Minister Sarah Hoffman recently claimed banning peaceful pro-life protests near abortion clinics is not about freedom of expression.
Yet she has also expressed confidence her new law would withstand a constitutional challenge. By speaking of a constitutional challenge, it seems she knows this new law tramples on free expression as protected by the charter.
It’s not easy to make a case against peaceful expression on a public sidewalk. So the minister, along with Calgary and Edmonton abortion clinic managers, refers to a collection of illegal and potentially illegal behaviours: “aggression, threats, yelling, screaming, interference, bullying, intimidation, harassment, shaming and blocking access.”
Perhaps these examples of illegal behaviour will distract people from the prohibition on charter protected expression.
It is a criminal assault to push, shove, hit or punch someone, or even touch someone without consent. Uttering threats to harm a person’s life, body or property is also criminal. Disturbing the peace by yelling and screaming is criminal, and also contrary to municipal noise bylaws.
Section 430 of the Criminal Code makes it illegal to “obstruct, interrupt, or interfere with the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property.”
It is criminal to block access to someone going about their business and engaging in legal activities (which includes getting an abortion). All of these actions could be characterized as “aggression,” which is illegal, along with interference, threats, yelling, screaming and blocking access.
But what about bullying, intimidation, shaming and harassment? Intimidation caused by physical blocking, interference or obstruction is already illegal.
Intimidation caused by threats is also already illegal. An environmentalist protester cannot tell a logger: “chop down that tree, and I will chop you down.”
But threatening some form of moral consequences or psychological harm (for example, “karma will repay you for harming Mother Earth” or “your lust for profits is killing the forest”) is perfectly legal.
Intimidation caused by someone criticizing your behaviour is part of living in a free country. How can citizens debate a topic (pipelines, climate change, the Trump presidency) without referring — directly or indirectly — to standards of good and evil?
An oil company executive might feel “intimidated” when confronted by Greenpeace protesters on a public sidewalk, whom she cannot avoid seeing and hearing while on her way into her office building. But as long as environmentalists threaten no harm to her life or property, and do not physically obstruct her access to her office, any discomfort she may feel is simply part of living in a free country.
In a free society, nobody can be exempt from having her or his actions criticized as immoral by others. Witness the predictable litany of judgment cast by social justice warriors: “racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic,” etc.
Should governments pass laws to create “safe” zones where no person will hear such words?
What holds true for intimidation also holds true for bullying, shaming and harassment. Feelings of being “bullied, shamed and harassed” are normal in a free country, and to be expected, absent physical interference or threats of harm.
All Canadians have a right to denounce conduct they believe to be wrong. People exercise this right every day, on blogs and Facebook and Twitter and elsewhere, denouncing what they see as political, economic, or environmental injustice.
Whenever citizens exercise this right to speak out against actions they believe to be unjust, this will necessarily offend those who carry out such actions. Feeling offended is the price we pay for living in a free country.
Alberta’s new law is about government deciding the “wrong ” opinion cannot be expressed peacefully on a public sidewalk, because some people feel offended by this “wrong ” opinion.
Under the pretence of stopping already illegal behaviour, this law targets the heart of constitutionally protected expression. This law should therefore be resisted and rejected by all who cherish a free society, pro-choice and prolife people alike.