March  6,  2013

DELIVERED  BY  EMAIL  TO  quaia.toronto@gmail.com

Queers  Against  Israeli  Apartheid

Toronto,  Ontario

Dear  

Re:   QuAIA,  City  of  Toronto  and  Pride

  Our  File  M1015

pressure  is  being  brought  to  bear  by  Martin  Gladstone  and  his  allies  to  get  City  Staff  and  City  Executive  to  change  City  Policies  to  de-­fund  Pride  if  QuAIA  marches.  But  what  actual  steps  or  

hugely  complicated  and  contentious  if  the  matter  ends  up  before  the  full  Council  or  in  a  public  

If  there  are  any  steps  taken  against  Pride  and  QuAIA  at  this  stage  there  will  inevitably  be  legal  issues  that  take  you  to  court  although  it  is  difficult  to  be  precise  at  this  stage  because  the  maneuvering  in  City  Hall  is  far  from  over.  But  my  preliminary  advice  is  that  any  steps  against  

The  Charter  issues  regarding  free  speech  ought  to  inform  the  political  debate    and  steer  the  councilors  away  from  infringement  -­  but  there  is  no  guarantee,  given  the  nature  of  this  issue,  that  that  will  be  the  case.

I  have  agreed  to  be  retained  in  that  eventuality.  

HISTORY  

I  would  expect  the  recent  history  would  prove  extremely  disadvantageous  to  your  opponents  if  

Looking  at  the  history  it  is  hard  to  avoid  the  conclusion  that  any  action  at  City  Hall  will  be  for  the  purpose  of  silencing  your  rights  of  freedom  of  expression.  This  evident  purpose  not  only  

infringes  your  Charter  rights  but  it  would  be  an  act  of  bad  faith  for  Council  to  take  such  steps  aimed  at  your  group.  

In  the  Human  Rights  Policy.  This  failed.  (I  believe  this  was  because  the  staff  opinion  was  that  changes  would  violate  the  Charter   mpromise  was  that  the  City  made  its  standard  donation  to  Pride  and  the  Pride  organization  gave  assurance  that  the  City  policies  on  Human  Rights  would  not  be  violated  by  in  the  parade.  The  City  and  Pride  agreed  to  a  plan  whereby  Pride  would  set  up  and  independent  Panel  of  Arbitration  to  hear  complaints  and  

parade.  It  is  no  secret  that  all  of  this  was  directed  against  QuAIA.  

In  June  2012  such  complaints  were  made,  an  independent  Arbitration  Panel  was  struck,  we  attended  a  Hearing,  the  complainants  stated  their  case,  we  presented  evidence  and  that  Panel  determined  that  no  rights  were  being  violated  and  QuAIA  could  participate.  

I  attach  the  Reasons  of  Arbitration  Panel  reference.  

I  note  there  has  recently  been  a  second  complaint.  These  complainants  seek  to  exclude  QuAIA  from  making  submissions.  The  issue  before  the  panel  currently  is  whether  this  complaint  should  be  dismissed  because  the  issue  has  been  decided.  (I  believe  this  would  be  the  correct  decision  because  the  issue  is  precisely  the  same.)  

What  is  going  on  now  is  an  effort  to  get  the  City  to  change  the  rules  somehow  to  dodge  the  effect  of  the  Arbitration  decision  already  made.  It  will  be  very  difficult  in  any  future  court  case  to  dodge  the  issue  that  the  matter  has  already  been  decided  on  the  evidence.  My  opinion  is  that  a  future  court  case  will  likely  boil  down  to  an  argument  that  the  existing  Arbitration  decision  is  wrong  in  law.  The  starting  point  will  be  the  facts  as  determined.  

CITY  EXECUTIVE    

The  Resolution  adopted  by  City  Executive:  

1. Referred the item back to the City Manager, with the request that he:

a. revise the Declaration of Compliance to include anti-discriminatory City policies which go beyond provincial and federal statutes and legislation.

b. report on amendments to the City's anti-discrimination policies, which would state that the City condemns harassment, denigration, discriminatory actions, promotion of hatred or anything which shows a lack of respect for all persons.

c. report on amendments to the City's Grants Policy and ensure that events which are funded by the City of Toronto, and/or take place on City of Toronto

property, are in accordance with the objectives of the City of Toronto of promoting respect, tolerance and diversity and that the grants guidelines and use of space guidelines are consistent with the amended Grants policy.

d. consider the following motion in the requested report:

"That in respect of the application of the anti-discrimination policy to the grants programs, in light of the purposes of the grants policy and the community complaints, Council also give specific direction for the imposition of a condition of the funding for the 2013 Pride event, that the term "Israeli Apartheid" not be permitted to be used as part of the event,"

2. Requested the City Manager to submit the report to the Executive Committee by the end of the first quarter of 2013.

I note that (b) is in effect a motion to denounce but would not appear to change the status quo regarding funding. The other proposals all raise Charter issues regarding freedom of expression. They propose to discriminate on some additional grounds that it seems, admittedly - offend the Charter guarantees of free speech.

 

LEGAL  ISSUES  -­  FREEDOM  OF  EXPRESSION  

The  best  bet  for  your  opponents  will  be  to  say  that  the  city  can  spend  its  money  however  it  wants  even  if  it  offends  freedom  of  expression.  Respectfully,  this  position  is  untenable.  The  Charter  protections  apply  to  all  government  actions    spending  or  otherwise    where  the  effective  purpose  is  to  infringe  freedom  of  expression.  Given  the  history  it  is  hard  to  see  how  the  conclusion  could  be  otherwise.  

In  Harper  v  Canada  (A-­G)  [2004]  1  SCR  827  the  Supreme  Court  said:  

Permitting  an  effective  voice  for  unpopular  and  minority  views    views  some  political  parties  might  not  embrace    is  essential  to  a  deliberative  democracy.  The  goal  should  be  to  bring  the  views  of  all  citizens  into  the  political  arena  for  consideration,  be  they  accepted  or  rejected  at  the  end  of  the  day.  Free  speech  in  the  public  square  may  not  be  curtailed  merely  because  one  might  find  the  message  unappetizing  or  the  messenger  distasteful.  

In  February  of  this  year,  the  Supreme  Court  of  Canada  released  its  decision  in  Saskatchewan  Human  Rights  Commission  v.  Whatcott.      The  decision  addressed  whether  the  prohibition  of  hate  

a  prohibited  ground  of  discrimination,  in  the  Saskatchewan  Human  Rights  Code  violates  the  right  to  freedom  of  expression.  

In  its  decision,  the  S.C.C.  confirms  that  limits  can  be  placed  on  hate  speech  and  clarifies  the  difference  between  hate  speech  and  political  expression.  The  S.C.C.  states

Political  expression  contributes  to  our  democracy  by  encouraging  the  exchange  of  opposing  views.  Hate  speech  is  antithetical  to  this  objective  in  that  it  shuts  down  dialogue  by  making  it  difficult  or  impossible  for  members  of  the  vulnerable  group  to  respond,  thereby  stifling  discourse.  (para  116117)  

It  is  difficult  to  imagine    even  if  the  court  were  prepared  to  entertain  the  regulation  of  political  speech  that  what  you  did  and  will  do  infringes  any  standard.      

The  Arbitration  Panel  found  that  QuAIA  and  inot  violate  the  City  Anti-­Discrimination  Policy.  

policies  which  create  something  akin  to  apartheid,  or  apartheid  itself,  affecting  an  

(p.  14)

political  speech  in  Whatcott.

The  Panel  further  went  on  to  say  that  the  participation  of  QuAIA  did  not  violate  the  mandate  of  

not  be  the  forum  for  political  speech.)  The  evidence  demonstrated  the  long-­stan

The  most  recent  case  in  this  area  from  the  S.C.C.  has  been  Greater  Vancouver  Transportation  Authority  et  al  v  Canadian  Federation  of  Students.  [2009]  2  S.C.R.  295.  The  student  group  wanted  to  put  an  advertisement  on  the  side  of  buses  encouraging  students  to  vote.  The  Transit  Authority  refused  on  the  basis  that  they  wanted  the  buses  to  be  safe  and  welcoming  and  that  implied  no  political  advertising.  Eventually  the  students  won.  The  S.C.C.  ruled  that  the  ban  

limit  to  the  right  to  freedom  of  expression  under  section  1  of  the  Charter.  The  Majority  reasons  said,  in  part:  

I  have  some  difficulty  seeing  how  an  advertisement  on  the  side  of  a  bus  that  constitutes  political  speech  might  create  a  safety  risk  or  an  unwelcoming  environment  for  transit  users.  It  is  not  the  political  nature  of  an  advertisement  that  creates  a  dangerous  or  hostile  environment.  Rather,  it  is  only  if  the  advertisement  is  offensive  in  that,  for  example  its  content  is  discriminatory  or  it  advocates  violence  or  terrorism    regardless  of  whether  it  is  commercial  or  political  in  nature    that  the  objectives  of  providing  a  safe  and  welcoming  transit  system  will  be  undermined.  (para.  76)  

In  another  recent  case  a  federal  cabinet  minister  cut  off  funding  to  a  group  that  represents  Arab  the  members  of  the  board  (same  

background  issue    the  Arab  /  Israeli  conflict).  The  case  is  in  court  over  the  issue  whether  the  group  had  been  unfairly  denied  a  right  to  hearing  before  the  de-­funding  decision.  The  facts  would  seem  to  be  quite  different  fro  language  instruction  classes    is  almost  entirely  unrelated  to  the  freedom  of  expression  of  the  directors.  On  your  facts  the  de-­funding  proposed  is  entirely  and  completely  for  purpose  of  preventing  speech  that  has  been  upheld  as  protected.  (See:  Canadian  Arab  Federation  v  Minister  of  Citizenship  and  Immigration.)  

CITY  HALL  

In  summary,  while  we  cannot  be  sure  at  this  stage  whether  new  rules  regarding  funding  will  emerge  out  of  the  current  City  Hall  lobbying  effort,  or  exactly  what  they  may  be,  but  it  seems  certain  that  if  the  lobbyists  are  successful  in  fashioning  something  to  block  QuAIA  it  will  of  

Charter  right  to  freedom  of  expression.  If  the  City  broadens  its  discrimination  criteria  will  also  have  to  face  the  problem  of  how  these  criteria  apply  to  other  groups  with  controversial  activities.  

I  strongly  suspect  that  City  staff  will  not  be  able  to  recommend  any  course  of  action  that  does  not  infringes  and  the  politicians  will  be  faced  with  the  problem  of  acting  against  the  advice  of  their  own  lawyers    when  the  municipality  loses  in  court.  

I  would  like  to  think  City  Council  will  reject  this  lobbying  effort  but  discretion  is  better  part  of  

considerable  confidence  that  you  will  be  successful  if  and  when  the  matter  comes  up  in  Court.  

Yours  truly,

ILER  CAMPBELL  LLP

Charles  Campbell

E-­mail:  chascamp@sympatico.ca O:\Client  Files\q-­r-­s\QUAIA\QUAIA  Opinion  re  Pride  Parade  Mar  6  13.docx