As the last pro-Palestine encampments are being removed from universities in Canada, it’s time for lawmakers to have a discussion about what constitutes a legitimate form of protest and what doesn’t.
The right to protest is fundamental and must be protected for the sake of freedom. It isn’t an absolute right, however, and we need legislative guidelines to offer clarity for both protesters and governments to avoid conflicts and damage caused by protests that cross the line.
Protests are typically accepted by the public, even if they may cause inconvenience and represent causes with limited support. But when protests become occupations, problems begin and state intervention eventually becomes necessary.
The truckers’ Freedom Convoy protest in Ottawa in early 2022 was left to continue unfettered initially, but when it turned into an encampment of a significant zone of the city and offshoots from the protest began blocking border crossings, the government intervened using the Emergencies Act.
If there had been clear-cut regulations on how long a protest can take over a public space, perhaps the protesters would have been less inclined to entrench themselves. With legislation in hand, local governments could potentially remove protests that try to become occupations in the early stages. It only becomes tougher and more dangerous to remove an encampment the longer it has been in place. Courts almost always grant injunctions to remove protest encampments, but it’s an expensive and time-consuming process. If laws offer clarity, injunctions aren’t needed to enforce them.
Some aspects of protest are simply unacceptable in a civilized society, and while this delves into more subjective and tricky territory, we need to examine it. We would never tolerate Ku Klux Klan members marching in the streets calling for the extermination of black people, yet we allow protesters to celebrate the murders and rapes carried out by terrorists in Israel on Oct. 7th of last year while they shout the genocidal “from the river to the sea” chant. A society needs to uphold a degree of basic values, and that means shutting down such vile expressions of hatred on our streets.
Legislation can’t cure every societal ill nor can it anticipate every potential issue. Well-crafted legislation can mitigate some problems, though, and reduce incidences of extended, protest-based occupations along with the potential violence in the removal of those occupations.
An all-party committee should be formed and tasked with laying out the rights, and limitations of protests within Canada. If the legislation is crafted by a single party, bias could be baked into it even if unintentionally. Legal and constitutional experts must take part in the creation of new regulations to ensure it will withstand the inevitable court challenges it will face. It won’t be easy, but it must be done.
Currently, the laws governing protests are something of a wild west. Governments are always reactive and treat each protest as if it were the first of its kind. With some comprehensive legislation, authorities would have the ability to be proactive and contain protests before they become occupations or become dangerously hate-based.
Regulating any fundamental right can be a difficult business. While citizens enjoy rights, there are also obligations. If we better define those, we can preserve people’s ability to protest while ensuring protests remain within reasonable constraints. If we don’t create some solid legislation, more occupations and rough police actions are sure to be coming.
