| Freedom of expression is part of the Fundamental Freedoms program. You can find more information about it on its main program page. |
|
|
Freedom of Expression
By Communications on May 16, 2012
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CCLA Demands Accountability for G20 Rights Violations in light of Scathing OIPRD Report into G20 Police ConductCalls for Immediate Action from Chief, Police Services BoardTORONTO, May 16 2012 – The Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) today released its systemic review into policing during the 2010 Toronto G20. The Report confirms the position that Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) has held from the outset: that mass violations of fundamental rights occurred throughout the downtown Toronto core over the G20 weekend. These rights violations were the result of systemic planning and training failures leading up to the G20, and specific orders and statements made by senior commanding officers during that weekend. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association calls on the Ontario government and police services to commit to a full and immediate implementation of the OIPRD recommendations, issue an unconditional apology, proactively pursue disciplinary measures for officers implicated in misconduct, and pursue criminal charges where appropriate. The Chief and the police services board need to take action against senior command officers responsible for the decisions that violated the civil liberties of hundreds of Canadians on June 26th and 27th. CCLA continues to believe that, given the severity of the rights violations that occurred on the G20 weekend, full political and police accountability is vital to rebuilding public trust in law enforcement and democratic institutions. “We know what happened during the G20. We know that there were rights violations on a massive scale. What we need now is accountability,” said Abby Deshman, Public Safety Director of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. “Transparency without accountability is unacceptable. We have multiple reports documenting in detail massive rights violations over that weekend. The individuals who were in charge need to accept responsibility and be held accountable. The Toronto Chief of Police needs to acknowledge what has happened, and apologize. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association calls on all police services to proactively pursue meaningful disciplinary measures for all officers implicated in misconduct that weekend. The Chief and the police services board need to take action against senior command officers responsible for the decisions that violated the civil liberties of hundreds of Canadians on June 26th and 27th.” -30-
By Communications on May 16, 2012
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has written to the Mayor of Montreal, and to city councillors, to express its concerns regarding the City of Montreal’s proposed adoption of amendments to a bylaw that would make it illegal to wear a mask during a public demonstration, and that would require demonstrators to provide prior notification to police authorities of their meeting place and route.
By Communications on May 10, 2012
Since February 2012, CCLA has been monitoring a freedom of expression case out of New Brunswick, in which a local blogger, Charles Leblanc, had been charged with criminal libel under Section 301, a contentious provision of the Criminal Code, for comments he made about a Fredericton police officer. CCLA wrote to the Fredericton police chief several times over the course of the past few months to express its concern about the use of a provision of the Criminal Code that has been found unconstitutional in several jurisdictions. Following a review of the case by the province’s attorney general, charges against Mr. Leblanc were dropped and the Fredericton police chief declared he would welcome an independent review into the matter. CCLA is pleased with this development. Sheetal Rawal, CCLA articling fellow, spoke to the CBC about these recent developments:
By Communications on May 9, 2012
Earlier this morning the Alberta Court of Appeal released its decision in the Pridgen v. University of Calgary case. The case raised questions around whether students at public universities were entitled to freedom of expression on social networking sites, for the purpose of criticizing their instructors and educational institutions. In this case, two brothers, Keith and Steven Pridgen, were disciplined by the University of Calgary for speaking out against their instructor on Facebook. The students were given two years of academic probation, asked to write an unqualified letter of apology to the professor, and told to refrain from posting any material that could be defamatory of the professor or other members of the university. The students argued that the University acted unreasonably and infringed their right to freedom of expression guaranteed in the Charter. The lower court agreed with the students, noting that the students’ freedom of expression had been violated and the university had made an unreasonable decision under administrative law principles. The University of Calgary appealed the judge’s ruling, arguing that it had not acted unreasonably. The university further argued that it was immune to Charter scrutiny as institutional independence and academic freedom shields Canadian universities from the obligation to protect and respect students’ Charter rights, including freedom of expression. The CCLA intervened in the Alberta Court of Appeal to argue the importance of protecting the freedom of expression of students, the application of the Charter to the university’s actions in this case, and also that applying Charter values would in fact enhance the academic freedom considered crucial in post-secondary settings. The Court of Appeal released three concurring judgments today. All three judges dismissed the University of Calgary’s appeal and found that the university’s Review Committee did indeed act unreasonably. Further, Justice Paperny, in her written reasons, found that the Charter did apply to the disciplinary proceedings undertaken by the university. She emphasized that academic freedom and freedom of expression went hand in hand – an argument highlighted by the CCLA. Justice O’Ferrall also reasoned that the university ought to have considered whether its discipline violated the students’ rights to freedoms of expression and association, noting that they are common law civil liberties concepts that predate the Charter. The Court of Appeal therefore upheld the decision of the lower court to quash (set aside) the University of Calgary’s Review Committee’s disciplinary measures against the Pridgen brothers. >> Click here to read more about CCLA’s involvement in the case. >> Click here to read CCLA’s factum. >> Click here to read the Court of Appeal decision.
By Communications on May 9, 2012
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association is set to appear before the Supreme Court in A.B. v. Bragg Communications Inc., a case that raises questions around the open court principle, freedom of expression, and access to justice in the context of a case involving a minor who had been cyber-bullied. In March 2010, a youth in Nova Scotia, A.B., discovered that someone had created a fake Facebook page purporting to be hers. The bogus profile included her photograph and other identifying details, along with what a judge later called “scandalous sexual commentary of a private and intimate nature.” Shortly thereafter the Facebook page was taken down. A.B., through her litigation guardian, applied for an order requiring the Internet Service Provider (ISP), identified by Facebook as the host of the originating Internet protocol (IP) address, to provide her with the name and address of the person(s) who created the bogus page. In her application, she stated that she wished to discover the identity of the profile creator(s) so that she could pursue a defamation suit against them. In her application, she also asked the court to conceal her identity by allowing her to proceed by initials, and to ban the republication of the actual words contained in the face Facebook profile. Although the ISP agreed to disclose the information with a court order, two news outlets successfully objected to the other requests as infringing upon the open court principle. The Chambers judge found that there was no evidence before him that A.B. would face serious risk of harm without a total publication ban and anonymity: a requirement of the Dagenais/Mentuck test to limit the primacy of open courts. A.B. appealed. She argued that a minor should not have to prove that actual harm would occur if the offending material were repeated, or her name made public. Rather, the courts should take judicial notice of the damage suffered by minors in cases like this, and automatically protect their privacy. The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal disagreed and upheld the Chambers judge’s decision. On May 10, 2012, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case. It must determine the proper balance between the transparency of court proceedings and the privacy of complainants in cases of this nature. CCLA will appear to defend the existing standard, the Dagenais/Mentuck test, which requires the party seeking a judicial order that will limit freedom of expression or the press (such as a publication ban or anonymity order), to provide clear and specific evidence that serious harm would flow from publication of the information which he or she seeks to conceal. CCLA will argue that the existing test protects two important public interests – open courts and access to justice – and that it should continue to be applied with a high evidentiary standard, and without blanket exemptions. CCLA will also argue that an anonymity order is more appropriate in this case than a publication ban (or both) for reconciling open courts, freedom of expression, privacy, and access to justice. Confidentiality could protect A.B.’s privacy and allow her to proceed, without concealing from the public the details of the fake profile. This key information would allow the public access to the speech whose permissibility could be on the line in a defamation case; it would also allow others who may be targeted in a similar way to consider whether the case applies to their situation; and, finally, it could enhance the broader social response to the problem of bullying. Iris Fischer and Dustin Kenall, of Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP, are representing the Canadian Civil Liberties Association in this case.
By sheetal on April 19, 2012
The CCLA has written a letter to the Université du Québec en Outaouais to communicate our concerns related to the arrest of Professor Thibault Martin earlier this week, and to invite the University to do everything in its power to ensure that charges brought against faculty and student participants in peaceful protests be dropped. The CCLA believes that universities have a positive obligation to protect freedom of expression, which includes facilitating its exercise and minimizing any possible impediment to it. Read a CTV News article about the issue here.
By sheetal on April 18, 2012
The Supreme Court of Canada has released its decision in Les editions Ecosociété Inc, et al. v. Banro Corporation, a case in which CCLA intervened. It has dismissed publisher Ecosociété’s appeal, finding that Ontario is an appropriate forum for Banro’s defamation suit against it. Concerns had been raised that the choice to sue in Ontario was an example of forum-shopping due to anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) legislation that existed in Quebec. The case stems from the publication of a book called Noir Canada - Pillage, corruption et criminalité en Afrique by university professors and a small publishing house in Quebec. The book is a commentary on activities of Canadian multinational corporations in Africa, and includes, at some points, allegations of wrongdoing. The submissions that CCLA made in this case were about the rules that should be in place when deciding which jurisdiction should hear a defamation case in order to protect freedom of expression. CCLA has serious concerns about defamation lawsuits, particularly when they may be used to stifle discourse and discussion on important public issues. The Supreme Court found that it was not clear that Banro engaged in “libel tourism,” as there was a real and substantial connection between the jurisdiction, Ontario, and the subject-matter of the action. It also found that the motions judge, in maintaining her jurisdiction over the claim, had correctly applied the doctrine of forum non conveniens, which allows a judge to exercise discretion in determining whether there is a more appropriate forum. Read more about the case and CCLA’s intervention here. Read the Supreme Court’s decision here.
By sheetal on April 17, 2012
CCLA has written to Western University to express concern over its apparent banning of two community members from campus. Media reports suggest that two London protestors have been banned from the university campus for one year for “participating in a prohibited activity” – that is, attending a protest on campus that was peaceful, but was not “approved.” CCLA is concerned that Western unduly limits the ability to protest on its premises, and is punishing individuals and denying them access to the campus on the basis of participation in a peaceful protest. Especially concerning is that one individual may have been acting in a journalistic capacity at the time. A fundamental role of universities is to provide settings in which ideas and opinions can be freely expressed in order to further public discourse, not to limit it. In exercising their power to deny entry to campus, universities should be guided by principles of fairness, due process, and the protection of fundamental liberties, including freedoms of expression, peaceful assembly, and the press. Read CCLA’s letter to the President of Western University here.
By sheetal on April 4, 2012
CCLA recently received a response from the Fredericton Chief of Police to its Request for Information under New Brunswick’s Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Following the arrest earlier this year of a Fredericton blogger in connection to comments he had made on his blog about a city police officer, CCLA wrote to Police Chief Barry MacKnight to express its concerns regarding the use of Criminal Code defamation provisions, and to ask for information about the use of these provisions in the jurisdiction. CCLA sought information on the number of criminal libel investigations the Fredericton Police Force had undertaken, as well as the number of charges and the disposition of those charges. Chief MacKnight has reported that since 1988, there have been 12 complaints to the Fredericton Police Force under the Criminal Code criminal libel provisions; 4 occured between 1988 and 2006, and 8 occured between 2007 and 2012. Of the 12 complaints, 10 were concluded without charges, and 2 cases remain under investigation. Read Chief MacKnight’s letter here. Read more about CCLA’s response to this case here.
By Communications on March 24, 2012
On March 23rd the Court released its decision in the case of Doré v. Bernard, which considered freedom of expression in the context of a lawyer being disciplined for comments he made about a judge in a private letter to that judge. CCLA intervened in the case to argue that lawyers not only have a right, but also a duty to comment on and, in some cases, criticize the way in which justice is administered. The Court’s decision had both positive and negative elements. While they helpfully underscored the fundamental importance of open and forceful criticism of our public institutions, as well as the right—and, arguably, duty—that lawyers have in speaking their minds freely, the court found that Mr. Doré’s reprimand was justified because lawyers are required by their profession to criticise with “dignified restraint,” and the private letter lacked “objectivity, moderation and dignity.” As lawyers are uniquely positioned in the justice system, they often have important vantage points from which to speak to the effectiveness and fairness of the system and its actors. Responsible criticism of the judicial system should be encouraged—not punished with professional sanctions—because of the fundamental democratic role such expression plays. |
|
|
Copyright © 2012 Canadian Civil Liberties Association - All Rights Reserved |
||