FREEDOM OF SPEECH MUST BE PROTECTED AND IN BALANCE WITH RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS IN ORDER TO DELIVER ON THE PROMISE OF A STRONG & FREE CANADA.
VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES IN THE SAFE SPACES THEY RELY ON.
- SLIDE FOR BUBBLE ZONE PROTECTION ===>
SAFE
RESPONSIBLE
EFFECTIVE
CHAOS
TARGETING COMMUNITIES
DANGEROUS & COSTLY
Safeguarding Community Sanctuaries from Targeted Harrassment
In a democratic society, the right to protest is fundamental but not absolute. When demonstrations strategically target identifiable communities at their safe spaces, vulnerable infrastructure (such as places of worship and educational institutions) are turned into a battleground which takes an undue toll on the municipality, the location and the community’s they serve.
BubbleZones.ca explores the multifaceted implications of such targeted actions through the lenses of Tribal Psychology, Collective Blame Fallacy, Resource Sustainability and Constitutionality to support communities and policy makers in arriving at a moral, reasonable, constitutionally sound and enforceable solution.
Have a thought, question or counter position? We invite respectful dialogue and want to hear from you!
The Psychology Behind Intentionally Targeted Demonstrations
While cities and towns offer numerous location options for demonstrations, choosing to target an identifiable community’s sacred spaces—such as synagogues, mosques, churches, or schools—is a calculated move that exploits psychological vulnerabilities.
Human psychology is deeply rooted in tribalism, where individuals exhibit strong in-group favoritism and out-group bias. This means that when a group feels its core identity is under threat, especially in spaces deemed sacred or safe, it can lead to heightened tensions and conflict .
Analogy: Imagine if a protest were held outside a hospital or a house of worship, not because of policies related to that specific location, but to target those accessing the services of the location within. The choice of location sends a clear message: “We know where you are most vulnerable.”
Such tactics are not about voicing dissent but about asserting dominance and instilling fear, turning places of peace into battlegrounds.
The Fallacy of Collective Blame: When Targeted Protests Morph into Hate
Directing protests at specific religious or cultural institutions operates on the flawed premise that all members of a community share identical views or are responsible for certain actions. This generalization is not only inaccurate but also fosters racism and bigotry.
Research indicates that religious and cultural communities are diverse, with a wide range of beliefs and opinions . By targeting these groups as monolithic entities, protesters ignore this diversity and perpetuate harmful stereotypes.
This approach mirrors historical instances where entire communities were blamed and punished for the actions of a few, leading to systemic discrimination and violence.
The Unsustainable Burden on Municipal Resources
Beyond the emotional and psychological toll on targeted communities, nuissance protests impose significant financial and logistical burdens on cities and their residents that are often agnostic to the issues being protested.
In Toronto, for instance, policing protests related to international conflicts and ensuring the safety of affected communities cost nearly $20 million in 2024 alone . This figure underscores the disproportionate resources required to manage such events, diverting funds from other essential public services. CityNews Toronto
The imbalance is stark: organizing a protest may require minimal resources (often as little as a graphic and spamming on social media), but ensuring public safety in response demands extensive manpower and funding. If left unchecked, this dynamic threatens the sustainability of municipal operations, the well-being of all residents and provides a glaring national security vulnerability that can be exploited by foreign interests and their bad actors.
Balancing Rights & Freedoms
An ethical and responsible approach
Fundamental freedoms under the Charter Section 2 of the Charter establishes that “Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association.” (1)
As explained by the Department of Justice Canada, “these freedoms are set out in the Charter to ensure that Canadians are free to create and express their ideas, gather to discuss them and communicate them widely to other people. These activities are basic forms of individual liberty. They are also important to the success of a democratic society like Canada. In a democracy, people must be free to discuss matters of public policy, criticize governments and offer their own solutions to social problems.” (2)
These rights are not absolute and governments such as municipalities may impose reasonable limits for important purposes such as ensuring public health and safety. Any government action, such as a municipal by-law or policy, that purports to restrict, limit or infringe on a fundamental freedom or right guaranteed by the Charter is only acceptable if such limit is reasonable, prescribed by law, and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society pursuant to Section 1 of the Charter.”(3)
Oakes Test
The Supreme Court of Canada developed the Oakes test to determine whether an infringement on fundamental freedoms is a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society. In relation to a by-law such as a Vulnerable Social Infrastructure By-law, the test includes the following:
- The by-law’s objective must be pressing and substantial (i.e., sufficiently important to justify limiting a Charter right)
- There must be proportionality between the by-law’s objective and the means used to achieve it:
- The limits imposed by the by-law must be rationally connected to the bylaw’s objective.
- The limits must impair the right or freedom no more than is reasonably necessary to accomplish the objective.
- The benefits of the infringements must outweigh its consequences. (4)
To justify the implementation of safe access zones around vulnerable social infrastructure under Section 1 of the Charter, these requirements must be met.
Many Municipalities including the City of Vaughan, the City of Brampton, the City of Calgary and the Town of Oakville have all found it reasonable and appropriate to adopt bubble zone protections for their constituents City staff and solicitors have found agreement in multiple approaches to balance charter rights and peaceful enjoyment.
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11, s 91(24), Section 2 accessed 07 Nov 2024 23 Government of Canada, Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982
Government of Canada, Charterpedia: Section 2(a) Freedom of Religion, (https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art2a.html),
Government of Canada, Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11, Section 1
Government of Canada, Charterpedia: Section 1 – Reasonable limits, (https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art1.html), accessed June 5, 2023