Decisions, decisions: A challenge for council

Action needed quickly from new panel on cannabis and bus shelter ads

Hamilton’s newly elected council doesn’t get sworn in until Dec. 3, but it will be facing a couple of thorny community values issues right off the bat.

It has to swiftly decide whether to allow government-licensed marijuana stores to operate in the city.

And it needs to vote on whether to appeal a court ruling that gives the Christian Heritage Party (CHP) the right to place ads in city bus shelters that allegedly discriminate against transgender people.

Currently, recreational marijuana, which was legalized Oct. 17, is only legally available through the government’s online Ontario Cannabis Store.

But that will change April 1, 2019, when the province launches a network of privately run retail shops.

The Ford government is giving councils a one-time window to prevent the storefronts from opening in their communities. And council needs to make a decision to reject or approve the stores by Jan. 22.

That means if councillors are planning to do some community consultation before voting — which they surely should — they’ll need to get cracking ASAP.

Whether to launch a legal appeal over the controversial bus shelter ads raises similar questions of competing community values.

The current council was supposed to deal with the court ruling quashing the city’s ban on the CHP ads at a special council meeting on Oct. 16. Not surprisingly during a municipal election, the meeting was cancelled because of lack of quorum.

In the absence of political guidance, staff filed a notice of motion for leave to appeal the ruling, which safeguards the city’s legal options until the new council provides direction.

The issue stems from the city’s summary decision to remove ads from three Mountain bus shelters in August 2016.

The ads, paid for by the CHP, showed the back of a person, who appears to be a man, entering a room labelled “ladies’ showers.” The accompanying text says “Competing Human Rights ... Where is the Justice?”

Below that, it says “Bringing respect for life and justice to Canadian politics,” which is followed by the name, web address and phone number of the CHP, which promotes Judeo-Christian principles and values.

Branding the ads “inappropriate,” the city pulled them after receiving an inquiry from the CBC, but at that point, no complaint from the public. That move set in motion a CHP court challenge that argued the city had violated its freedom of expression under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The city contended the ads, which were approved by a company that handles HSR advertisements, were discriminatory, implied transgender people are dangerous, and contravened various municipal policies.

The context to all this is the ads appeared a few months after the city reached an agreement to settle a human rights complaints with a transgendered woman who in 2014 was prevented from using the women’s washroom at the Hamilton bus terminal.

The terms of the settlement included creating protocols protecting the rights of trans and gender nonconforming people, including their use of city washrooms.

Earlier this month, a panel of Superior Court judges overturned the ad ban, ruling the city denied the CHP its “fundamental rights to natural justice” by failing to give it a chance to defend its position, thereby failing to balance the right to engage in political free speech against the right of transgendered people to be free from discriminatory speech.

The court disagreed with the city’s position that the right to political speech was a “lesser right” than others under the Charter.

“Society’s need to ensure that political parties can voice their views ensures that Canadian political discourse does not become a dogmatic single voice that only transmits messages with accepted content,” said the court, noting that such outcomes erode the fundamental rights of individuals.

Whether councillors vote to appeal or not, it’ll certainly be interesting to hear their reasons for or against.

Unfortunately, under the guise of receiving legal advice, much of the group discussion will likely take place behind closed doors.