Protest ‘bubble zones’ would infringe on homeless people’s rights 

Maytree fellow Diana Chan McNally spoke to a special meeting at Toronto’s City Hall on a proposed “Bubble Zone” by-law to restrict public protests around “vulnerable institutions.“ These are her remarks.

My name is Diana Chan McNally, and I am a long-time community worker and advocate in Toronto. I am also a Maytree fellow, and a member of the City of Toronto’s Housing Rights Advisory Committee. 

My work is with homeless people, which is a growing demographic in our communities. Specifically, I work on advancing the rights of homeless people by challenging policies and programs at all levels of government that seek to undermine or infringe upon those rights. At times, I have worked with the City of Toronto, but I have also challenged the City when necessary. Like all institutions, the City of Toronto is capable of upholding and respecting people’s rights, but it is also capable of enacting serious harm. 

Institutions are not people. People have rights – not institutions. There is no definition of a “vulnerable institution,” and this very framing suggests that institutions do not hold power, which they inherently do. As power-holders, they can and do enact harm against people – which means that we require mechanisms that can hold them to account. Peaceful, public demonstrations are one of these mechanisms. It is our right, as enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to hold peaceful assembly and engage in freedom of expression, including in the pursuit of justice and accountability. For this reason, institutions cannot be made impervious to our ability to exercise these rights. Yet, this is precisely what a “Bubble Zone” by-law would do: give so-called vulnerable institutions – which have no definition, and which have no rights – exemption from being held to account through peaceful protest. 

The system, as it exists, has made engaging in the democratic process exceptionally difficult for homeless people. In the past two elections, people’s ability to exercise their vote was impeded, with polls in Toronto turning away numerous encampment residents. Homeless people are also infrequent participants in city committees, community engagement sessions, and deputants, in part because they are not invited into or supported to be in these spaces. In some government buildings, homeless people are clearly profiled during the security process, and they are often the first to be removed during perceived disruptions. 

When there are so few opportunities for homeless people to have their voice heard inside the halls of government, being able to demonstrate outside of institutions like City Hall is imperative. Removing this ability by enacting protest “Bubble Zones” would erode equity for homeless people further. They would have even fewer options to be seen and heard by governments, despite their lives being overwhelmingly and often negatively impacted by government policies. 

Homeless people also protest institutions like shelters for the conditions and treatment they experience inside. Are shelters “vulnerable institutions,” or is it that shelter residents are vulnerable to the policy-making and practices inside of shelters? Again, who in the equation is equity-seeking here, and who has rights? The law, and logic, shows that it’s homeless people – not the institutions that hold power over them, such as shelters. 

As an advocate, I have protested outside of City Hall many times. I have also protested outside the Ontario Legislature, as well as at MP and MPP offices. I have participated in peaceful demonstrations in front of 129 Peter Street, where unsheltered refugees were stranded on the street. I’ve also spoken outside of churches, in public parks, and on the street in support of the rights of encampment residents. The results of these protests have helped to enact tangible and positive change for unsheltered people. These include City Hall reversing its stance on refusing shelter access to African refugees, as well as forcing the federal government to fund supports for these refugees in Toronto’s shelter system. 

Think about that. And think about where Toronto might be without the power of these protests – protests that have helped to win significant changes to government policy and resources. What would City Hall have done without federal funding for refugees in shelters? 

A “Bubble Zone” by-law that would restrict peaceful assembly and freedom of expression wouldn’t just infringe upon our rights, it would be counter-productive to positive change – including to the benefit of City Hall. Healthy democracies must make room for pluralistic viewpoints. They must differentiate between being offended or uncomfortable, and experiencing a legitimate threat or hate. They must uphold our freedom to peaceful protest. And they must understand that they will be the better for it. 

If Toronto aspires to be a healthy democracy, we must protect human rights instead of enacting a ”Bubble Zone” by-law.