Regina City Council Passes Foolish "Bullying" Bylaw
Anti-Bullying Bylaw Is Height of Foolishness By Regina Civic Politicians
The story appeared on page B3 of the April 25th, 2006, edition of the Leader-Post. I sent the following to the Leader-Post letters to the editor by e-mail on April 25th, but as of April 27th I have not seen any evidence that they thought it was interesting enough to publish. Judge for yourself.
The letter:
This poorly conceived move by Council is foolish in the extreme. It would likely make my first sentence a crime. I suspect that one of the reasons Council passed it is to prevent just and deserved criticism [peppered with a few choice adjectives to underline the critic's disgust] of the often silly attitudes and decisions held and acted on by politicians. So it is self-serving. But it is worse than that.
It opens a Pandora's Box of possible complaints and charges by thin-skinned and overly-sensitive people which must then be acted on by police and prosecutors. The definition of bullying is much too wide, including what is termed "objectionable or inappropriate comment, conduct or display by anyone which is "likely to intimidate, humiliate, ridicule or isolate a person or is likely to cause that person physical or emotional distress". Any person who is offended by comment or conduct, whether it is fair or reasonable comment or not, could press a complaint and the police would have to act on it. Similar laws passed in recent years in Britain [see NOTE below] have been used by public authorities and individual citizens alike to pillory and victimize people on the vaguest and flimsiest of bases.
The terms "objectionable or inappropriate" are so vague and subjective that it will be impossible for any court to interpret the words and apply them fairly to a vast range of possible comment. This alone should be enough reason for the courts to strike down the bylaw.
When I described Council's move as foolish, that comment, although emminently fair and reasonable, would be seen by councillors as intended to ridicule them, as it is indeed intended. And it may cause some of them to feel emotional distress, although probably very slight distress. Under this bylaw, even teasing could be viewed as bullying, given the subjective nature of the definition.
The bylaw, as it stands, is probably contrary to the Charter of Rights, inasmuch as it severely limits free speech in an unreasonable and unnecessary way.
If Council wants to restrain bullying it must do a better job and restrict the bylaw to specific instances which are clearly definable.
An afterthought: The bylaw is also probably an attempt at legislating criminal law, which is purely the sole jurisdiction of the Canadian federal government, and is likely invalid on that ground.
NOTE: On Monday, April 18, 2005, I published a blog article called "British Adoption Of Anti-Democracy Laws" which commented upon the similar British "Anti-Hooligan" laws passed by the Blair government. The comments in that article apply with equal force to the Regina so-called "anti-bullying" bylaw. The results reported in the press respecting abuses of civil liberties under this law in Britain will happen in Regina as long as the bylaw is allowed to stand and is enforced.
The story appeared on page B3 of the April 25th, 2006, edition of the Leader-Post. I sent the following to the Leader-Post letters to the editor by e-mail on April 25th, but as of April 27th I have not seen any evidence that they thought it was interesting enough to publish. Judge for yourself.
The letter:
This poorly conceived move by Council is foolish in the extreme. It would likely make my first sentence a crime. I suspect that one of the reasons Council passed it is to prevent just and deserved criticism [peppered with a few choice adjectives to underline the critic's disgust] of the often silly attitudes and decisions held and acted on by politicians. So it is self-serving. But it is worse than that.
It opens a Pandora's Box of possible complaints and charges by thin-skinned and overly-sensitive people which must then be acted on by police and prosecutors. The definition of bullying is much too wide, including what is termed "objectionable or inappropriate comment, conduct or display by anyone which is "likely to intimidate, humiliate, ridicule or isolate a person or is likely to cause that person physical or emotional distress". Any person who is offended by comment or conduct, whether it is fair or reasonable comment or not, could press a complaint and the police would have to act on it. Similar laws passed in recent years in Britain [see NOTE below] have been used by public authorities and individual citizens alike to pillory and victimize people on the vaguest and flimsiest of bases.
The terms "objectionable or inappropriate" are so vague and subjective that it will be impossible for any court to interpret the words and apply them fairly to a vast range of possible comment. This alone should be enough reason for the courts to strike down the bylaw.
When I described Council's move as foolish, that comment, although emminently fair and reasonable, would be seen by councillors as intended to ridicule them, as it is indeed intended. And it may cause some of them to feel emotional distress, although probably very slight distress. Under this bylaw, even teasing could be viewed as bullying, given the subjective nature of the definition.
The bylaw, as it stands, is probably contrary to the Charter of Rights, inasmuch as it severely limits free speech in an unreasonable and unnecessary way.
If Council wants to restrain bullying it must do a better job and restrict the bylaw to specific instances which are clearly definable.
An afterthought: The bylaw is also probably an attempt at legislating criminal law, which is purely the sole jurisdiction of the Canadian federal government, and is likely invalid on that ground.
NOTE: On Monday, April 18, 2005, I published a blog article called "British Adoption Of Anti-Democracy Laws" which commented upon the similar British "Anti-Hooligan" laws passed by the Blair government. The comments in that article apply with equal force to the Regina so-called "anti-bullying" bylaw. The results reported in the press respecting abuses of civil liberties under this law in Britain will happen in Regina as long as the bylaw is allowed to stand and is enforced.
posted by politicalcommentariescanada | 7:36 PM
|
0 comments
