New Paragraph

It’s time for new laws to govern protests in Canada
September 4, 2024

Photo by Arlyn McAdorey/The Canadian Press

At their Annual General Meeting in Halifax last month, the Canadian Chiefs of Police Association adopted a resolution, “calling on all levels of government – federal, provincial and municipal – to acknowledge and address the unsustainable demand on police services” caused by the current protest environment in Canada. I totally support that call and suggest that Canadian laws also need to be modified to reflect current protest realities.


The days of the occasional labour protest (or strike); the odd anti-logging protest and the sporadic morality demonstration at abortion clinics, are long forgotten. Protracted First Nations protests started in the 1990’s – largely based on outstanding land claims and indigenous rights, became more volatile over time and resulted in lives lost in some cases and complete shutdowns of transportation hubs in several others. Many linked and very disruptive protest trends followed, like the “Occupy” movement, “Black Lives Matter” and the so-called “Freedom Convoy” in Ottawa, Toronto, Windsor and Coutts, Alberta simultaneously. More recently, often extremely unstable Pro-Palestinian demonstrations have impacted most major cities in Canada. The emotions in these events run particularly high as the deadly Israel-Hamas conflict continues.


All levels of government have been impacted by the immense drain on police resources across the land. Only the largest of police services have full-time resources committed to “Public Order Units” and even they cannot keep up to the tremendous staffing pressures they are facing. The contingent of officers required must come from somewhere. They are either pulled from other areas of their jurisdiction, therefore leaving other patrols, calls and duties undone, or they are brought in on overtime. Either way it’s costly, tiring and the resource demand is unsustainable.


Police services’ approach to addressing protests is largely governed by Section 2 of the Canadian Charter and

Rights of Freedoms, which was written in 1982, and states in part:


“Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; (emphasis added) and

(d) freedom of association.”


The “freedom of assembly” principle has led to the often-used expression of the “right to peaceful and lawful protest”. Does anyone really think that “peaceful” and/or “lawful” protest is what we have routinely seen across Canada in the past 25 years?


Even the most peaceful protests often violate the law on some level. Blocking traffic; impeding pedestrian movement; trespassing on university and government grounds (once told to leave), may not involve criminal offences, but often do violate municipal by-laws and provincial legislation. Then of course what starts out peaceful sometimes goes on to break criminal laws, up to and including total mayhem – like smashing business windows, assaults, burning police cars…just to name a few.


It’s one thing for police not to step in and try to remove a group of non-violent protestors who may be breaking a municipal by-law or traffic law on public property for a short period. It gets increasingly difficult to standby and give time to those blocking a highway temporarily, or when protestors enter private property like university grounds en masse for their cause. Much public criticism of the police will come regardless of how they respond, but in essence protests of that kind have been considered to be keeping with the intention of the Charter.


More recently protestors have been entering private buildings like shopping malls and sports venue property to rant and rave. That should be completely out of bounds in my view.


Large scale protests that result in the breaking of criminal laws become almost impossible for police to address without drawing police resources from across the province or country, at the same time that those other jurisdictions are facing similar challenges. Even in cases where court injunctions exist, police cannot be expected to immediately have the resources and a sound operational plan in place to remove protestors without jeopardizing officer and public safety.


In the case of the Caledonia land dispute, following months of very troublesome and at times violent actions between Six Nations protestors and police, the provincial government of the day purchased the contested property from the developer and then told Indigenous protestors that they could remain there until the land claim proceeded through the courts. (It took 15 years) The OPP then could not evict those on the land but had to try and keep non-native protestors – who were frustrated by the long-term disruptive impacts on their property, community and local traffic flow, from going on the property and physically confronting the Indigenous people there.


Sympathetic protests then erupted in or near other Ontario First Nations communities. Undoubtedly mistakes were made at times, but it was a no-win situation, and for the first time in history the OPP had to rely on several large police services to supply countless officers to support them, stretching resources in a number of jurisdictions throughout.


I don’t think the forty-two-year-old Charter of Rights considered any of these probabilities when it was drafted.


I worry that the continuation of some of these causes will continue to result in significant protest events, and that emerging issues – particularly associated to world conflicts and divisive political elements, will result in even more public/police conflicts. Each protesting group learns from tactics in past events; social media allows them to amass substantial resources; and the likelihood of volatility seems to grow each day.


A level of patience, communication and a gradual application of force in these situations will always be the preferred police approach. But governments at all levels must ensure police resources keep up with growing demands AND must develop legislation that allows for more clarity, so that both the protestors and police understand what is and isn’t acceptable in public demonstrations going forward.

By Chris Lewis February 4, 2025
Is there any meat to this or is it more of the same?
By Chris Lewis January 4, 2025
Police know how to conduct major investigations and find bad guys. Although several specific factors change from case to case, their general investigative playbook remains the same. Once some ungodly multi-victim attack occurs, in very simplistic terms: the scene is protected, and the health of the living victims is looked after. Forensic experts begin processing the crime scene. Witnesses are located and interviewed. Physical evidence is gathered. Area and witness video recordings are collected and analyzed. Victims are identified. An off-site reunification centre is established where there are multiple victims. Next of kin notifications begin. At any point – if a suspect or suspects become known, their background is gathered, and the hunt begins. They need to be apprehended before anyone else is hurt. Area law enforcement officers need to know suspect details ASAP. “Motive” is at top of mind as investigators are synthesizing all this information, whether the suspect is identified or not. Of course, establishing motive often leads to identifying the suspect, but at other times identifying the suspect helps fill in the blanks on motive. What was the initial basis of what became a murder? Was it a robbery? Could it have been a street fight gone bad? Was it simply a want or need to kill someone specific or maybe anyone at all? That’s for investigators to sort out. There is an onus to warn the public or at least tell them something, i.e. “ongoing threat”, “stay indoors”, or “no threat to public safety”. There are reporting protocols to follow. Senior officers need to be advised up the food chain as do their political masters, so everyone knows what is happening. None of that should detract investigators from doing what they do best – catching killers. But that’s when the ravenous “thirst for knowledge” and political grandstanding often take over and completely interfere with police work. The only knowledge the investigators are thirsty for in those early hours is evidence and then identifying, locating and capturing bad people. They do not need politics monopolizing their time or efforts. The New Years Day massacre in New Orleans was big. Fourteen innocent party goers were killed and dozens injured. The world wanted to know what happened and the community wanted to know if they were in danger. I absolutely get that. However, what sometimes comes with such tragedies is everyone wanting to know everything. We see it in most mass murder cases, but this was an exceptional example of the insanity surrounding such a high-profile incident. Whatever blanks weren’t immediately filled in by police officials and verified mainstream media reports, were filled in by social media. In such cases police totally lose control of the narrative as rumours, theories, falsities, conspiracy theories and “hey look at me” games take over. The political party and individual positioning in this case was nauseating. In any multi-agency response, having the leaders of those agencies at press conferences in a united front makes sense. The public needs to have confidence that the situation is in the best of hands. But where did these massive press conferences where police officials are flanked by numerous politicians come from? I can see some elected leaders being present when a new program is launched or government funding is being announced, but it should never be in the early hours of a mass murder. Having a bunch of partisan wonks peacocking on stage and in follow-up interviews, helps no one at the operational level. As some of them were speaking, I was responding to their dumb questions in my mind: Was it a terror attack? Maybe, but let the experts figure that out. In the meantime, it’s a mass murder. Was the killer an illegal immigrant? Let’s worry about that when the dust settles. What political party is to blame for allowing him into the country? We don’t care. Maybe he was born here. Let’s sort that out if he turns out to be an illegal immigrant. Why wasn’t the area more secure? Good question for a future debrief. We need to get the FBI and HSI leaders before a government committee right away so we can find out who failed! Shut up. We have police work to do. There are always enough social media theories, private citizens’ investigations into suspects, outright lies and misinformation being spread to the public, without silly partisan games sidetracking investigators who are fighting to stay ahead of legitimate theories and tips. In the early hours of a mass murder case investigators are probably the busiest they have ever been, and don’t need any of this interference. Controlling the social media fever is next to impossible. It would take a sudden level of maturity across the populace that may be unattainable. But politicians at all levels need to get the message that they are not welcome on stage at operational press conferences and their comments to the media – if asked for them – aside from expressing sadness, thoughts, prayers and confidence in the police, should be “Our law enforcement agencies are investigating, and we need to let them do what they do.” Adding any theories, raising questions or passing blame is totally wrong. If elected officials truly care about their electorate and feel the need to say more, they should have some prior dialogue with the police leaders or their Public Information Officers to ensure that what they say is helpful as opposed to harmful. Otherwise, be quiet.
By Chris Lewis December 28, 2024
Violent Crime Remains High
Share by: