[ad_1]
EDMONTON – Alberta's highest court will hear a case Wednesday that could help determine the power of "rowdy veto" on Canadian campuses after a university has awarded a $ 17,500 security bill to students wishing to organize a rally against abortion.
The fees were proposed after a previous rally that had been disrupted by pro-choice counter-protesters. In response, Amberlee Nicol, President of Alberta Pro-Life, and Cameron Wilson, Group Treasurer, sued the University of Alberta for what they saw as a simple free expression issue. After the group of students lost in a lower court, they appealed to the Alberta Court of Appeals.
The university says that the anti-abortion display was designed to elicit a reaction and that the security costs are reasonable, while UAlberta Pro-Life says the high amount of the bill equates to a "ban" "from their speech.
"This is an extremely important case for a number of reasons," said Micheal Vonn, director of policy at the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, who intervened as an intervenor with the two student protesters. "The university does not penalize people who … have tried to prevent others from speaking, but they will penalize the people who have spoken."
The case concerns the badessment of the university's security costs, whether or not it should have investigated the disruption of a previous anti-abortion event and could concern the role of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms on campus .
Can we offload policing costs of speaking because your political opponents have chosen a tactic that silences?
In 2015, UAlberta Pro-Life organized a 700-square-foot rally with photographs of developing and aborted fetuses. The rally, which took place in the university's quadrangle, elicited an organized response from faculty, faculty and students. These came down on anti-abortion students with their own banners and billboards, thus blocking the view of the exhibits.
Although no acts of violence have been reported – many screams and shouts of joy, however – the safety of the police and the university has occurred on several occasions, according to court documents. .
In response, UAlberta Pro-Life filed a complaint with the school's protection department alleging that the students' code of conduct had been violated. The university began to inquire, but ultimately refused to continue the investigation – or to lay charges against counter-protesters.
During this process, UAlberta Pro-Life asked in January 2016 to organize another rally similar to the first one. It was approved, but there was a caveat: a $ 17,500 security bill to ensure everyone's safety, given the tensions at the previous rally. The anti-abortion group requested a review, but the decision of the university was final. To join the quad, they would have to write a check.
UAlberta Pro-Life responded by suing the University of Alberta for two reasons: the decision not to accuse the protestors of violating the student code and security fees. In October 2017, the group lost to a lower court.
If that was another problem, would that be justifiable? If it was the rights of women, if it was the rights of LGBTQ, if it was science?
In her first issue, Justice Bonnie L. Bokenfohr wrote that "the Code does not create rights that complainants can enforce".
On the second point, Bokenfohr stated that "LAlberta Pro-Life's decision to pay the full costs falls within the range of acceptable acceptable outcomes that are defensible in light of the facts of this case and the law".
Nicol and Wilson appealed the decision. Jay Cameron, counsel for the Center for Constitutional Freedom Justice, representing the students, said the trial judge had erred in her decision. The group should be able to challenge the university's decision not to charge students; the student code of conduct creates rights that may be opposed one to the other; and the university acted in bad faith, Cameron argues in court documents.
Courts should consider whether or not there are protections under the Campus Speech Charter, says the BCCLA in its submission: "This issue is of considerable importance to the residents of Alberta and Alberta. from other provinces of Canada. No rule or judicial policy justifies an escape from this problem. "
Although the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees freedom of expression, decisions of universities are not always subject to the Charter because they are not, in all their functions, considered a government. In other words, a decision that affects freedom of expression – such as the holding of an anti-abortion protest – on a university campus has not been badyzed by the courts as a Charter issue. Instead, it is considered an administrative matter, and the actions of the university are evaluated according to their reasonableness or not.
The university argues that people who are upset by a protest can not control themselves, Cameron said, adding that it was unfair to charge security to UAlberta Pro-Life.
"If it was another problem, would that be justifiable?" Cameron said. "If it was women's rights, if it was LGBTQ rights, if it was science?"
The University of Alberta, which declined to comment, argues in court documents that students can not challenge its decision because the student code "does not include the right to have it reviewed or to pursue the complaints ". He argues that even if Bokenfohr's reasoning was wrong, the university's decision not to conduct an investigation or charge was reasonable, pointing out that it did not exist. evidence that the counter-demonstrators behaved in a "criminal or tortious" manner.
"The appellants would undoubtedly have preferred that their message be communicated without interruption, but a market of ideas does not lend itself to monopolies," says the university in court documents. "The appellants are now seeking to profit from this controversy without paying the corresponding cost."
In court documents, Cameron argues that this reasoning is tantamount to blaming the victim in a badual badault case.
"The display (anti-abortion) no longer creates a danger (sic) that a pretty girl who causes rape," says the factum.
The anti-abortion group argues that it was a mistake to ask UAlberta Pro-Life to pay for the security, the bad behavior coming from the other side.
"We say," Yes, you have the freedom of speech as long as you can pay tens of thousands of dollars in security fees, "Vonn said.
"Can we offload policing costs of speaking because your political opponents have chosen a tactic that silences?"
• Email: [email protected] | Twitter: Tylerrdawson
[ad_2]
Source link
