Vancouver City Restricting the Right to Protest

[Lancaster]

http://www.theprovince.com/news/Vancouver+right+restrict+Falun+Gong+protest+says+city+lawyer/10209207/story.html

Vancouver has the right to restrict Falun Gong protest, says city's lawyer

By Susan Lazaruk, The Province September 17, 2014

The Falun Gong stage a peaceful protest outside the Chinese consulate on Granville Street in Vancouver, B.C. Wednesday September 10, 2014. The group is going back to court against the City of Vancouver, arguing that the city's updated bylaw which limits how the Falun Gong can protest in front of the consulate, is unconstitutional. Photograph by: Ric Ernst , PNG

Restricting protests such as one staged for years by Falun Gong is justifiable to ensure all citizens can enjoy public property, a lawyer for the City of Vancouver argued in court on Tuesday.

Followers of the spiritual movement are in B.C. Supreme Court in Vancouver this week to fight for the right to erect a permanent hut and large banner in front of the Chinese consulate in the 3300-block Granville Street.

The structure, which was set up on public property in 2001 and provided shelter for meditating protesters during poor weather, was removed by the city in 2009.

This petition to the court on Tuesday is the group’s second court challenge to allow practitioners to protest China’s documented human rights violations against their counterparts in China.

They argue a city bylaw, even amended as ordered by an earlier B.C. Court of Appeal ruling after a similar constitutional challenge, infringes on their right to free political expression.

City lawyer Iain Dixon acknowledged the bylaw does restrict rights under Sec. 2 ( of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees freedom of expression, but argued that’s within the city’s right and duty to maintain public order.

The city’s authority to do that is granted under Sec. 1 of the Charter, which allows “reasonable limits” to Canadians’ legal rights if they can be “demonstrably justified,” he said.

“The city acknowledges the bylaw does limit people’s rights under 2 (,” Dixon told the hearing, but added the city is within its rights to do so.

“The city has a role in regulating what happens on the streets,” Dixon said.

The question for the court is to decide is “whether or not (the amended bylaw) fits into a reasonable range of constitutionally acceptable restrictions,” he said.

About 60 followers of the spiritual practice, most middle-aged women who speak little or no English, sat quietly in court during the long and complicated arguments by Dixon and their lawyer, Cameron Ward.

They engaged in no small talk before the proceedings began and some did synchronized isometric exercises, like the ones they had been seen performing at the protest site for years, in the court hallway during the lunch break.

Ward on Monday argued the new bylaw, which was an amended version of an old bylaw thrown out by the B.C. Court of Appeal for being unconstitutional, still illegally infringes on his clients’ rights.

But Dixon said the restrictions are reasonable and without them, other protesters may choose to erect their own permanent structures on city property.

He said the Falun Gong protest was peaceful, but “this is not to say the next one will be like that — the city has to factor in all possible scenarios.”

Dixon also said the city “absolutely and comprehensively” rejects assertions that it was under political or economic pressure from China to restrict the Falun Gong protesters.

Falun Gong spokeswoman Sue Zhang said the hut and banners are essential for protesters to maintain an almost 24/7 vigil outside the Chinese consulate for high visibility and protection from the elements.

She said it was also important to carry the message about the Chinese government’s human rights violations against Falun Gong to Canadians and visiting Chinese.

Three of the practitioners on Tuesday outside court told The Province how they or family members had been jailed and in some cases beaten for practising Falun Gong in China, before escaping to Canada.

slazaruk@theprovince.com

twitter.com/susanlazaruk

© Copyright © The Province

[Warhippy]

i've read into some of the info the Falun Gong movement have and read some impartial accounts of things.

And I am kind of confused. How are they considered such a terrible group of people? And are we to believe the Conservatives of Canada under harper and the Chinese government about it?

Seems to me that this might actually be suppression of the stupidest kind and in light of China telling Clark to get something done and then something getting done in regards to the teachers strike I question more and more how much control of this country we have left at all as a population.

The right to peaceful assembly and protest is at the core of civil rights in canada and I think I might follow this a shade closer than I would have in the past as it seems these basic rights are being eroded at all levels. recently

[elvis15]

i've read into some of the info the Falun Gong movement have and read some impartial accounts of things.

And I am kind of confused. How are they considered such a terrible group of people? And are we to believe the Conservatives of Canada under harper and the Chinese government about it?

Seems to me that this might actually be suppression of the stupidest kind and in light of China telling Clark to get something done and then something getting done in regards to the teachers strike I question more and more how much control of this country we have left at all as a population.

The right to peaceful assembly and protest is at the core of civil rights in canada and I think I might follow this a shade closer than I would have in the past as it seems these basic rights are being eroded at all levels. recently

That may be, but they aren't stopping them from protesting from what I can tell, just stopping them from erecting a permanent structure and banner on city property.

[-SN-]

That may be, but they aren't stopping them from protesting from what I can tell, just stopping them from erecting a permanent structure and banner on city property.

Only after China asked them to do something about the protests. That's much of the issue.

[DonLever]

If the Falun Gong gets the right to build a permanent structure on public land, then that sets a precedent. Every protest group can then build a permanent structure anywhere on public land. For example, protesters can build a permanent structure outside the US consulate if they wish.

You can't grant an exemption to one group and not another.

[VanGnome]

I recently received a survey call on behalf of the Government of Canada speaking to immigration issues, of which this particular issue is closely related.

IMO, Canada should not be catering to emerging markets, regardless of who the emerging market is, and instead focus on improving the welfare and status of our own market -- immigration is not needed for Canada to improve or grow the economy, and is a completely different notion from being multicultural.

I accept and embrace all cultures who seek to find a home in Canada, provided they do so by following the rules and regulations for doing so. I have issue with foreign governments placing nationals here in our country for the purpose of, how shall I say, suggesting to US how WE should handle OUR own policies, and once nestled firmly against our ear, lobby to relax immigration policy (the context of the phone call I received).

Now, I believe that I have moral license to talk about these very topics, and proof of my tolerance is in the fact that my fiancee and mother of my daughter is in fact herself a landed immigrant who painstakingly followed the immigration regulations to obtain permanent residency, and is now working on her citizenship (which she refuses to accept as a byproduct of us legally marrying, when we choose to do so).

There is a lot wrong in China still, at a human rights level for Canada to be openly cozying up to them like a cat in heat. IMO China should focus on resolving their own issues before seeking to spread their ideologies here.

The issue of Vancouver buckling under political pressure is wrong, and using the strawman argument that "just because this protest is peaceful doesn't mean the next one will be", sure because the previous 13 years of protest has certainly trended toward violence, is such a cop out.

The issue of protesters erecting permanent structures? How about working with the protesters to find a suitable compromise? Why not build city approved shelter in the requested area, allow provisions for signage to be erected for as long as there are protesters present to supervise.

There is a lot more that could be done in a far more positive manner, and better use of tax payer money then to slightly modify an already sketchy bylaw that was once rejected by the courts, and waste time in court justifying the new one.

[-SN-]

If the Falun Gong gets the right to build a permanent structure on public land, then that sets a precedent. Every protest group can then build a permanent structure anywhere on public land. For example, protesters can build a permanent structure outside the US consulate if they wish.

You can't grant an exemption to one group and not another.

Oddly enough it wasn't deemed a problem until China complained about it.

The precedent was already set, and there were zero legitimate issues with it.

[Warhippy]

Only after China asked them to do something about the protests. That's much of the issue.

Oddly enough it wasn't deemed a problem until China complained about it.

The precedent was already set, and there were zero legitimate issues with it.

And this is a big part of the core of the issue right here.

Chinese state contacts BC administrators and things get done. Until said contact happened there was no real issue.

The same thing happened last week during the teachers strike. Monday happened Chinese groups contacted the Bc Liberals from the consulate and basically said do something about it and they did something about it when 3 days prior they were content sitting until they ran out of money.

At what point does our government start taking orders and requests from foreign nations as opposed to its own people?

When did our rights gets superceded as Canadians over the demands of another country?

Again I agree erecting a permanent structure is one thing, but there was no issue until a phone call was made from the consulate. And the chinese state ahs yet to defend itself or even try to defend itself from the complaints over the alleged harvesting of the Falun Gong members in china which if true is 3 shades of disturbing yet truly far from the realms of believability

[DonLever]

If someone erects a permanent structure on the sidewalk outside your house you would complain too. You can't blame China for complaining.

It has nothing to do with freedom of protest. People can protest 24/7 outside the Chinese Consulate or anywhere they wish.

[Warhippy]

If someone erects a permanent structure on the sidewalk outside your house you would complain too. You can't blame China for complaining.

It has nothing to do with freedom of protest. People can protest 24/7 outside the Chinese Consulate or anywhere they wish.

Uhhmm...yes, actually we can blame China for complaining, not so much as we can blame our government for bending over for a foreign nation though.

I agree about the structure but these protests have been going on for quite a while now and nothing has been done until said phone call was allegedly made.

What gives with that?

[elvis15]

Only after China asked them to do something about the protests. That's much of the issue.

From what I saw in the article that wasn't clearly stated as a reason for it to be torn down. It'd certainly been up there for a number of years so I'm not sure why they allowed it for so long or the reason it was torn down after all that time.

[Offensive Threat]

they built an illegal structure on public land. It went unnoticed for a long time. Either unnoticed or ignored, either one.Eventually the Gov said hey you cant have that there and got rid of it. Whether it was people in the Chinese consulate who informed them that it was there or someone else is irrelevant.

Many times municipal Govs lets this type of thing go on until someone complains. It doesnt matter who it is.

[DonLever]

Its like those illegal basement suites in Vancouver. If no one (ie. neighbours) complains the city will not take action.

So the Chinese government complained to the city. Big deal, they have the right to complain as do everyone.

Are there any other permanent structures on public sidewalks in Vancouver? No.

Also, there is safety and legal concerns. What if the structure burns ups with someone inside it? The City can be liable.

[Lancaster]

IIRC, the structure is pretty much a small stand. A simple structure that protects a few people from the rain and wind a little bit. Plus some surface area to put up posters and have some pamphlets to pass around.

Still on public property and not affecting the flow of traffic nor hazardous in any way.

[The Bookie]

If the Falun Gong gets the right to build a permanent structure on public land, then that sets a precedent. Every protest group can then build a permanent structure anywhere on public land.

2 things I disagree with here:

-there's no such thing as a permanent structure; all structures decay

-there's no such thing as public land; all land is controlled, in this country at least

But, if you are to assume that this land is public, then anyone and everyone should be able to build a structure on it. This structure didn't decay, it was removed. So it becomes a matter of the why - why was it removed and why can't they build another there?

[Ghostsof1915]

I'm more concerned that the Chinese Consulate bought land at the corner of Granville, and despite city regulations on cutting trees, just clear cut the lot so they could expand.

The issue is the protesters had a small shack on the sidewalk where they would have a person occupying it 24/7, and protected them for the elements. I don't have the right to put a structure where ever I feel like. The protesters should be allowed to have their say.

They just are not allowed to put up tents, a shack on the sidewalk in front of the consulate.

[2SKATES1STICK]

You can't grant an exemption to one group and not another.

Welcome to how the world works bro.

[key2thecup]

And this is a big part of the core of the issue right here.

Chinese state contacts BC administrators and things get done. Until said contact happened there was no real issue.

The same thing happened last week during the teachers strike. Monday happened Chinese groups contacted the Bc Liberals from the consulate and basically said do something about it and they did something about it when 3 days prior they were content sitting until they ran out of money.

At what point does our government start taking orders and requests from foreign nations as opposed to its own people?

When did our rights gets superceded as Canadians over the demands of another country?

Again I agree erecting a permanent structure is one thing, but there was no issue until a phone call was made from the consulate. And the chinese state ahs yet to defend itself or even try to defend itself from the complaints over the alleged harvesting of the Falun Gong members in china which if true is 3 shades of disturbing yet truly far from the realms of believability

Link? That's definitely interesting if true...

I don't want any foreign country dictating to us to do things. Including our neighbors. (which sadly they already do)

[Dral]

Its like those illegal basement suites in Vancouver. If no one (ie. neighbours) complains the city will not take action.

So the Chinese government complained to the city. Big deal, they have the right to complain as do everyone.

Are there any other permanent structures on public sidewalks in Vancouver? No.

Also, there is safety and legal concerns. What if the structure burns ups with someone inside it? The City can be liable.

if this "structure" gets caught on fire and the person inside is trapped and dies...

gotta say, it's pretty ugly tho - I definitely wouldn't want that on my lawn

[DonLever]

if this "structure" gets caught on fire and the person inside is trapped and dies...

gotta say, it's pretty ugly tho - I definitely wouldn't want that on my lawnt

The OP says it was "IIRC, the structure is pretty much a small stand. A simple structure that protects a few people from the rain and wind a little bit. Plus some surface area to put up posters and have some pamphlets to pass around".

Looks pretty big to me.