Waterloo Passes Bylaw Banning Communication That Makes People ‘Feel Harassed’ on Region Property

A woman walks into the Waterloo City Centre, part of the City Hall building, in a file photo. The Canadian Press/David Friend

At a packed meeting of the Region of Waterloo Council, councillors unanimously passed an amended bylaw that bans communications that make others “feel harassed.”

The Waterloo Region’s solicitor Graham Walsh explained the amended bylaw’s intention at the meeting on Sept. 27, saying it was “designed specifically to address and prohibit harassing behaviour by one person against another on the Region’s premises.”

Mr. Walsh said the bylaw, which is proposed to take effect on Jan. 1, 2024, seeks to limit behaviour that would “objectively cause a person to feel harassed,” but it is not “intended to prevent legitimate political discourse” on the region’s property. The lawyer said the distinction between activism and lawful protest would “factor heavily into the training of our bylaw enforcers.”

He noted that the bylaw amendments have been in effect since 2004, but the community had advocated for the bylaw to be modernized.

“This is not a new bylaw, this is a proposed amendment ... to an existing bylaw,” said Mr. Walsh.

The amendment adds a subsection that states communication “with any person in a way that causes the person, reasonably in all the circumstances to feel harassed,” relating to protected grounds such as race, religion, gender identity, and sexual orientation would be banned, and that the communication could be spoken, written, recorded—electronically or electromagnetically—and gestures, signs, or other visible representations.

Almost 20 individuals addressed the councillors at the meeting, either in favour of the bylaw, or strongly opposing it on the grounds it would impact freedom of speech and expression, as well as constitutional rights.

For and Against

Janice Jim, identifying as a visible minority, spoke to council stating that members of a drag queen story time event were “threatened with disruption” and members of the LGBT community “were exposed to hate speech at the Million March for Children.”

She said she was in favour of the bylaw as “street harassment is disproportionately experienced by females, racialized, or indigenous persons, people who wear clothing or symbols that indicate their religion, and members of the 2SLGBGTQ+ community.”

“Everyone deserves a safe and inclusive space,” she said.

She added that the bylaw was a “statement that the region condemns hateful acts.”

One delegate who presented at the meeting, Julia Malott, who self-identified as a transgender parent and Postmedia columnist, said she was not in favour of the bylaw given that Canada already had “robust hate speech laws” under the Criminal Code.

“Limitation on freedom of speech should not be taken lightly,” Malott said. “Placing restrictive covenants on the speech of others, even when done with the best of intentions causes resentment and animosity towards marginalized identities to grow.”

In a social media post on Sept. 26, Malott said it seemed to be a “coincidence” that the Waterloo Region was putting forth bylaw amendments that “could prevent any protest or dissension about controversial identity matters on Regional property” one week after the 1 Million March 4 Children.

“Despite the coincidence, it’s almost certain that such a protest would not be allowed to continue on Regional property under such a bylaw,” Malott wrote. “How have we reached a place where municipal staff feel that such a democratic overreach is acceptable?”

Freedom of Expression

Also speaking at the meeting was Alan Honner, a lawyer and litigation director for The Democracy Fund, a non-profit organization that defends constitutional rights. Honner said the bylaw will affect the freedom of expression guaranteed by the charter.

He said the bylaw not only prevents harassing communication based on human rights concerns, it also prohibits any communication that would “reasonably cause a person to feel harassed.”

“That’s a very low standard to limit a charter right,” said Mr. Honner, adding that the bylaw “goes too far.”

Marium Ali, a Muslim woman and advocate for the 1 Million March 4 Children,  questioned the need for a bylaw to prioritize “hurt feelings over the Charter right for all of us to speak.”

“I’m afraid this can be a disguised weapon that can be used to intimidate citizens ... from expressing their concerns and joining together to influence legislation,” Ms. Ali said at the meeting. “We already have too much fear and intimidation in society.”

She said the bylaw feeds into an “increased victim mentality, the opposite of the resilience necessary to thrive in the real world.”

“It allows people to weaponize their feelings against the right of others to speak,” she said.

After four hours, councillors passed the amended bylaw after first removing a proposed definition of harassment that included “feeling tormented, troubled, worried, plagued, or badgered.” The council added a provision that said, “Nothing in this subsection shall prevent or limit a lawful protest.”