It is time for politicians to stop demanding that every location that attracts protesters receive “bubble zone” protection to prevent demonstrations.
Free expression is slowly being hollowed out and eroded by these constitutionally questionable anti-speech laws. And a new proposal to criminalize protests near politicians’ offices would only further undermine our democracy.
“Bubble zones,” also known as “safe access” laws, prohibit protests within defined geographic areas. Anyone who protests within the protected “bubble” can face penalties, sometimes criminal in nature.
Bubble zones were originally developed to prevent protests and “sidewalk counselling” by pro-life protesters outside abortion clinics. In recent years, their use has expanded dramatically.
In 2020, Calgary’s city council passed the School Safe Zones Bylaw Amendment to prohibit “advocacy messaging” on signs within 150 metres of a school boundary. That same year, Alberta enacted the Critical Infrastructure Defence Act, which bans blockades and “wilfully enter(ing) on any essential infrastructure” without “lawful right, justification or excuse.”
In 2021, the Ontario Liberals and NDP both introduced opposition bills calling for bubble zones around schools and daycares.
In early 2023, Calgary passed the Safe and Inclusive Bylaw, which prohibits “specified protests” within 100 metres of a library or community centre. In late 2023, the Trudeau government passed Bill C-3, which prevents protests that obstruct access to hospitals and health-care facilities.
Most recently, Toronto City Councillor Brad Bradford and Vaughan Mayor Steven Del Duca have both called for bubble zones around places of worship.
Liberal MP Marco Mendicino has now suggested adding politicians’ offices to this lengthy list of places where protests are prohibited. On July 18, he told Canadian Press that the government should establish “protective zones” around constituency offices for members of Parliament.
Under Mendicino’s proposal, anyone who “intimidated or otherwise harassed people within the buffer zone of perhaps 50 to 100 metres would be subject to harsher criminal penalties including jail time.”
No. Enough with the bubble zones.
As more and more spaces come under the umbrella of bubbles that prevent speech and protest, our cities move closer to becoming giant bubble zones, with expression of dissent or discord permitted only in small envelopes.
To be clear, all bubble zones are a problem.
When abortion bubble zones were first proposed and introduced, they were rightly opposed by groups like the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the BC Civil Liberties Association as an unjustified limit on free expression. In a 1996 decision, the B.C. Supreme Court held that an abortion bubble law violated the right to freedom of expression, but that the limit was constitutionally justified.
“Health care has fundamental value in our society. A woman’s right to access health care without unnecessary loss of privacy and dignity is no more than the right of every Canadian to access health care,” the court said.
These abortion bubble zones were created after serious violence had been perpetrated against abortion clinic providers — including the bombing of the Morgentaler clinic in Toronto in 1992 and shooting of a Vancouver abortion provider in 1994. But they were still the wrong response. Violence is already criminalized, and those intent on committing criminal acts of violence will not be dissuaded because there is suddenly a 50-metre bubble around the space they had planned to commit murder.
The more recent expansions of bubble zone laws are generally in response to vitriolic speech that may be worthy of social condemnation, but which is clearly protected by the Charter. These more recent bubble zones have also not yet faced court scrutiny. The justification used to uphold bubble laws around abortion clinics cannot hold for all these other places.
The Canadian Constitution Foundation, a legal charity that fights for fundamental freedoms, is challenging the Calgary bylaw that prohibits protests near libraries and community centres. That hearing is scheduled for early 2025.
Unlike abortion clinics, community centres and libraries can be used to host political debates during elections and are centres for learning, exploration and discovery of competing ideas. Bubble zone laws that prevent entry and egress from buildings are redundant, since existing laws that prohibit criminal harassment, intimidation and injunctions can be used to address situations where specific places are threatened.
In fact, it is the lack of enforcement of existing laws that is, at least in part, fueling demand for bubble zones. The calls for bubble zones stems from a desire to protect vulnerable people, such as Jewish adults and children who are facing an unprecedented wave of antisemitism. Like the example of violence around abortion clinics, there has been physical property damage as well as threats and acts of violence targeting Jewish communities.
This is, of course, noxious. But bubble zones will not cure antisemitism. We have existing laws to deal with criminal harassment, intimidation, road blockades, the occupation of property and incitement of violence and hatred. The police do not need more tools — they need to use the tools they already have (which some seem to have a troubling unwillingness to deploy). Like the example of violence around abortion clinics, the police must enforce existing laws.
But there is no clear rationale for imposing bubble zones around the offices of politicians. Protesting the politicians who make our laws is a part of how democracy works. It is often the most marginalized who must resort to protest to have their voices heard by those in power.
Mendicino’s proposal to criminalize protests near politicians’ offices is a proposal to shield the political class from different viewpoints. It is not just a proposal to silence political dissent, it is undemocratic, unconstitutional and frankly dangerous to democracy.
Enough already.
