Roger Varley has been in the news business almost 40 years with The Canadian Press/Broadcast News, Uxbnridge Times-Journal, Richmond Hill Liberal and Uxbridge Cosmos. Co-winner with two others of CCNA national feature writing award. In Scout movement over 30 years, almost 25 as a leader. Took Uxbridge youths to World Jamboree in Holland. Involved in community theatre for 20 years as actor, director, playwright, stage manager etc. Born in England, came to Canada at 16, lived most of life north and east of Toronto with a five-year period in B.C.
Council stifles rights for public good
Would it surprise you to know that Uxbridge Council has abrogated your right to free speech as guaranteed under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Furthermore, would it interest you to know that Council is considering denying you the right of freedom of assembly, also guaranteed by the Charter?
Before we go any further, let me state that I do not believe for one minute that past or present councils have taken these steps with any Machiavellian intent in mind. After all, almost all bylaws are passed for “the public good”. Furthermore, I would be surprised if any members of council actually realize that they have stepped on these rights. What I am suggesting, however, is that councillors and township staff have not shown due diligence when it comes to the wording of certain bylaws that they draft and pass.
This issue came up last week when council was discussing a new bylaw covering the placement of election signs in the upcoming municipal vote. The bylaw is designed to bring the township into line with Durham Region's bylaw. And, because it deals in part with “potentially dangerous visual distraction”, it's for the public good.
One provision of the bylaw states that no election sign shall be displayed prior to 45 days before voting day. This provision is propped up by another which says “no person” shall display an election sign except as allowed by the bylaw. Sounds innocent enough!
But I asked council whether a private resident could make their own sign saying they supported so-and-so and place it on their front lawn ahead of the 45-day limit. Township clerk Debbie Leroux said such a situation would be covered by the township's general sign bylaw.
I went home and looked up the bylaw, passed in 2002, which states in a preamble that it is intended, among other things, "to control community appearance". In other words, for the public good. The bylaw, in addressing signs placed on private residential properties, sets out an extremely narrow list of what is permitted. It left questions unanswered. So I later asked Ms. Leroux if the bylaw would allow a private resident to erect a sign on their lawn which stated, just for example, "I oppose the sign bylaw".
The answer was "No".
I'm no lawyer, but doesn't that step on the resident's Charter right of freedom of speech and expression? And doesn't it do the same when council says a resident cannot place a sign saying "I support John Smith" more than 45 days ahead of voting day? Do we really have freedom of speech if someone else can place restrictions on when, where and how we can exercise that right?
What about the Charter right of freedom of assembly? Well, council is currently working on a bylaw covering home businesses and home industries, and one provision states that a home business in an urban area shall not be allowed to have more than five customers visit the residence in one day. And they must only come between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Once again, this is for the public good, because council is concerned that allowing more than five visits a day could lead to increased traffic, parking problems and possible conflict with neighbours.
Excuse me? If I have more than five friends drop by every day for a cup of tea and a chat, do they not also create the same amount of traffic and could not that also lead to the aforementioned possibilities? The answer, obviously, is yes. So what possible difference does it make whether they are coming by for a chat or to pick up a pair of knitted socks? It doesn't! And if it doesn't make a difference, then by extension, the bylaw would allow council to limit the number of visitors I have. That denies all of us our Charter right of freedom of assembly.
The fact that the provision is unenforceable is beside the point, but I'll discuss it anyway. It is unenforceable because no one would be able to say whether seven visits to a home business on any given day were all customers or whether two or three of them might have been friends dropping by. And there's no way to tell if a caller arriving after 5 p.m. is a customer or a visitor short of . . . well, you just couldn't.
Of course, no one in their right mind would think for a moment that this or any other council intends to do that. Or that the 2002 council really intended to infringe on our freedom of speech. But the fact remains, they can and they did. Because once the bylaw is passed, the authority is there. As in the sign bylaw.
Now, some of you might think I'm making a mountain out of a molehill. It's probable that none of you care strongly enough about any issue to feel the need to express yourself with a sign on your lawn. But, then again, maybe you'd like to put a sign on your lawn saying “Support Our Troops”. Sorry, mate, you don't have the right. Council has taken it away. For the public good.
I don't know about you, but I'd choose my right to free speech over a few lawn signs any day.
It seems to me that we are seeing our Charter rights chipped away a little piece at a time, by all levels of government, innocently or not, mostly over things that really aren't going to get anyone's knickers in a knot. Like bylaws covering election signs. But it also seems to me that if you don't fight against the small infringements on your rights, it will be too late to take on the big ones.
Tell me, am I wrong?
