Some of Toronto’s veteran activists are decrying the city’s new “bubble zone” anti-protest law, and the “disappointing” vote from stalwart NDP leader Mayor Olivia Chow. 

Last week Toronto’s city council voted to pass the controversial access bylaw, restricting demonstrations around places of worship, faith-based schools and cultural institutions.

The bylaw, which comes into effect July 2, allows institutions to apply to have the city enforce a temporary no-protest zone for a 50-metre radius. This is an increase over staff’s recommendation of 20 metres, a last minute motion successfully moved by Councillor James Pasternak, and “appears to fly in the face of legal advice,” according to the Toronto Star. 

It passed 16-9, with Chow and fellow progressive and moderate councillors, Don Valley North’s Shelley Carroll and University-Rosedale’s Dianne Saxe, voting to support, after hours of debate.

Gord Perks, Councillor for Parkdale-High Park, said it’s a big step backward for the city. “Every moment of freedom that we enjoy in Toronto and Canada was fought for and won and is defended by public protest. Efforts to constrain public protest put our fundamental freedoms at risk,” he said. 

There are around 3,000 buildings in Toronto that could qualify for a “bubble zone.” Building owners applying for a bubble would make an attestation that there was a recent protest outside their institution that was disruptive to attendees, and that they have reason to believe there will be another soon. The no-protest zone would be in effect for 180 days, with the possibility of renewal.

Dave Meslin, author and creative director of Unlock Democracy Canada, a non-partisan group focused on electoral reform, told Ricochet that the bubble zone bylaw is an unprecedented attack on our democratic rights to gather, speak and protest on public property.

Meslin says that one of the flashpoints that led to this moment was the backlash to legitimate civil protest outside a synagogue that was hosting a “real estate forum” — a Toronto event selling illegally occupied land in East Jerusalem. “If a synagogue supports terrorist activity in the West Bank, then why shouldn’t people be able to protest outside of that synagogue?” he asked councillor Brad Bradford in a LinkedIn post. 

“As a Canadian Jew, I want to register my strong opposition,” said the founder of the Toronto Public Space Committee and Spacing Magazine.  

The bylaw follows more than a year and eight months of Palestinian solidarity demonstrations in Toronto since the beginning of the genocidal onslaught by Israel on Gaza. 

It was built on a city policy aimed at fighting the rise in reported hate crimes that states all Torontonians should be free to “practice their faith and access their place of worship free of intimidation and harassment; and are able to freely exercise their protected Charter rights to freedom of assembly, religion and expression.”

However, Perks says there’s been a strong pro-Isreal lobbying push for this bylaw. He says there have been several attempts by city council to restrict pro-Palestinian demonstrating. “It’s a reaction to protests against the genocide happening in Gaza,” he said.

Cheri DiNovo, former NDP MPP for Parkdale High Park and United Church minister, who has spent years protesting for human rights in Canada, says the bylaw is an overreach and doesn’t grant the police any additional powers that they don’t already have.

DiNovo says that the Criminal Code already provides police with tools to protect faith communities. “The bylaw is not necessary. End of story,” she told Ricochet.

The bylaw is also extremely broad. As Councilor Alejandra Bravo pointed out, it could potentially be used to ban protests outside Catholic churches by Indigenous residential school survivors, or LGBTQ+ students protesting because they were discriminated against by their faith-based schools.

DiNovo, who performed the first same-sex marriage in Canada in 2001, says she remembers vividly “being inundated” at her church and community events by protesters from rightwing religious groups. “So I speak with some experience of what might be behind this bill. However, the reality is the police have the power to stop [violent behaviour] if they choose to without the bill, and the police have said as much.”

Ricochet reached out to Chow’s office for comment, but did not receive a response. 

The City points to a completed multi-stage community consultation with a focus on equity-deserving groups. The report from the consultation states that participants were most concerned about potential infringement on Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and called for the city to explore other existing enforcement tools to address concerns about demonstrations.

The report includes Statistics Canada data showing that hate crimes are on the rise, with a majority targeting religious communities, the highest increase targeting Muslims.

It includes several testimonials of consulted participants, many from groups most targeted by hate crimes, who said they believed that this bylaw would do nothing to protect their communities. 

“Passing this bylaw will create more legal battles than safety – it’s going to clash with the Charter of Rights,” one participant said. 

Susan Gapka, a longtime advocate for LGBTQ+ rights, labour rights, and the NDP, says that this bylaw and the historically progressive or moderate city councillors that voted in favour of it, shows that there is reason to be concerned for the future of Toronto. 

“These kinds of agenda items will bolster funding for enforcement. I don’t want to live in a state where we have more police than we have the freedoms to assemble,” she told Ricochet. 

Chow has faced criticism for increasing the funding given to Toronto Police, rather than investing in communities.

“All the money that’s going to go into police enforcing these bylaws is money we’re not going to spend on education, on housing, or on all the other social determinants, like access to health care,” Gapka said. 

Gapka came out as one of the first openly trans people in Canadian politics in the early 2000s while she was working in Olivia Chow’s office, when Chow was an NDP MP for Trinity-Spadina. Asked for her thoughts about Chow’s vote in favour of the bylaw, she said that she was disappointed but not surprised. 

Gapka calls it “a wedge issue.” It’s intended to create division and drive people further apart. “There are members of city council who are trying to wedge the council into two very divisive parts. The mayor is trying to bring people together.” 

Toronto’s “bubble zone” bylaw follows similar bylaws that have passed in smaller Ontario cities, including Brampton, Oakville, and Vaughan. Ottawa appears to be next. 

In other cities these bylaws have only rarely been enforced, and in Vaughan not at all. In February, Calgary’s bubble zone bylaw was challenged in court by the Canadian Constitution Foundation to determine whether it was within the city’s authority. A test like this, Perks thinks, is a necessary path for a legal challenge against Toronto’s “bubble zone” bylaw. 

Toronto’s bylaw is likely heading for a Charter challenge. The City’s own lawyers warned it is likely unconstitutional. However, it remains unclear whether or not it will stand up to a court challenge. And there’s always the chance the province could interfere or use the notwithstanding clause. 

This is also not the first time bubble zones have been proposed in Canada to silence protests and limit public expressions of dissent. In 1995, British Columbia passed the country’s first law prohibiting protests and demonstrations at or around abortion clinics. In 2010, when the G20 was held in Toronto, police tried unsuccessfully to enforce “designated protest zones” as the streets of downtown Toronto exploded in protest. Police responded with excessive force, mass arrests and many people detained without charges.

Prime Minister Mark Carney has also promised to bring forward “bubble zone” legislation that would make it a criminal office to block entrances to places of worship, schools, and community centres.