Respectful Spaces Bylaw Still Doesn't Respect Charter Rights

 

The City of Nanaimo has issued a public statement aimed at countering criticism and clarifying misunderstandings about the Respectful Spaces Bylaw (7381) and recent amendments to the Council Procedure Bylaw. Below is a critical analysis comparing the City's claims to the actual language and implications of the bylaws, as previously examined.

1. Respectful Spaces Bylaw – Clarification vs. Reality

City’s Claim:

“There is no ban on taking photographs or video in all public spaces.”

Reality Check:

- This is partially true — outdoor public spaces like parks and trails have no blanket ban.
- However, the bylaw enables City staff to post conduct rules in any City facility — including recreation centres, libraries, and City Hall — that may restrict recording.
- Staff have broad discretionary power to label recording as 'intimidating', which can lead to exclusion or enforcement action.
- The vague language enables potential misuse to limit public accountability or criticism.

Conclusion:

The bylaw does not ban recording in parks, but still permits indoor restrictions without clear accountability. Original concerns about transparency and selective enforcement remain valid.

2. Council Procedure Bylaw – Still Problematic

City’s Claim:

“As Council meetings are live-streamed and posted online, individuals are prohibited from recording unless the Chair authorizes it.”

Reality Check:

- This is a direct restriction on public expression.
- Public meetings in public buildings should not restrict citizen recording unless it causes disruption.
- The existence of a City livestream does not eliminate the public's right to record their government.
- A Media Accreditation Policy now gives special rights to 'approved' media, creating a two-tiered system.

Conclusion:

This bylaw change infringes on the Charter right to freedom of expression (Section 2b) and invites legal challenge. The media policy further restricts access by defining who is 'authorized' to record.

It should also be noted that the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) has sent a formal letter to the City warning that this restriction on recording Council meetings may violate the Charter and must be rescinded or legal action may follow.

3. Summary Table

Issue	City’s Claim	Reality
Recording in parks/trails	No restriction	Accurate; not the main concern
Recording in City facilities	May be restricted by posted codes	Still a problem; vague and discretionary
Council meeting recording	Chair must approve	Direct restriction on public expression
Media accreditation	Media allowed under policy	Creates selective access, risks bias/exclusion

4. Final Conclusion

The City’s clarification confirms the validity of earlier concerns:
- Indoor restrictions are still at the discretion of staff.
- Council meeting recording is prohibited without Chair permission.
- Media rights are selectively granted.

These policies weaken public transparency, risk unconstitutional overreach, and may ultimately face legal challenges under Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.