Oakville News received the following Letter to the Editor from reader Ibrahim Baig in regards to a so-called “bubble bylaw" being drafted by Oakville staff to be presented in the April 2025 council meeting for discussion and vote.
Oakville has recently witnessed a surge in activism by the pro-Palestinian community in response to the human rights violations by Israel in Gaza. Students have staged multiple walkouts from schools, and protests have been organized by the community members on a scale unseen in decades. It is important to mention here that having attended multiple pro-Palestinian demonstrations in Oakville over the past year and a half, I can personally attest that they have all been peaceful. Amid this wave of civic engagement, the Town Council has come under public scrutiny — not only for its troubling stance on key issues but also for actions that appear to suppress dissenting voices.
In January 2024, during a Town Council meeting, Mayor Rob Burton ruled an agenda item calling for a motion on ceasefire in Gaza “out of order,” preventing scheduled delegates from speaking. This decision sparked outrage among community members who felt silenced. More recently, concerns have deepened with the proposed bylaw that would "regulate nuisance protests” within a "reasonable distance" around certain locations, such as "schools, places of worship, childcare centres and town facilities". The Town is considering creation of bubble zones that would prohibit and penalize protests within a certain distance of such locations. Many residents view this measure as a thinly veiled attempt to silence the pro-Palestinian community in Oakville, particularly students who, in recent months, have participated in high school walk-outs to bring attention to the dire humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
At first glance, restricting protests in specific areas might seem reasonable, especially when framed as a way to protect individuals from harassment. However, such a bylaw sets a dangerous precedent. It creates exceptions to the fundamental rights of peaceful assembly and free expression as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, making them subject to the whims of local politicians rather than constitutional protections.
What begins as a targeted restriction can expand into broader censorship and the suppression of dissent under the guise of maintaining public order. A similar pattern unfolded in the United Kingdom with the 2022 Public Order Act, which granted authorities expanded powers to restrict protests deemed too “disruptive.” Initially aimed at preventing major disturbances, it was later used to target climate activists and labour unions. In Hong Kong, the 2020 National Security Law was justified as a measure to curb riots and maintain stability but soon became a tool to silence pro-democracy activists and journalists.
Peaceful protests are a cornerstone of any free society. Historically, they have played a vital role in bringing about positive change, from civil rights movements to labour reforms. The 1960s sit-ins in the United States, the anti-apartheid protests in South Africa, and Indigenous land rights movements in Canada all faced resistance from authorities who sought to limit demonstrations. Yet, these protests were instrumental in driving social progress. By labelling protests as inherently disruptive or dangerous, this bylaw diminishes the importance of civic engagement and public discourse.
Proponents of the bylaw argue that it is necessary to prevent harassment and intimidation. However, if that is truly the intention, Canadian law already provides law enforcement with ample tools to address such concerns. Municipal bylaws regulate noise levels, obstructions, and public nuisances, while law enforcement officers in Oakville have the necessary legal framework to handle genuinely disruptive protests without resorting to blanket prohibitions on public assembly. The Criminal Code of Canada includes provisions that criminalize various unlawful behaviours, such as causing disturbances (Section 175), common nuisance (Section 180), blocking or obstructing a highway (Section 423), breach of peace or imminent breach (Section 31), unlawful assembly (Section 63), intimidation (Section 423), mischief (Section 430), and hate propaganda (Section 319). These laws target actions like public disorder, threats, property damage, and incitement of hatred against identifiable groups.
Beyond criminal laws, facilities facing protests have legal avenues available to them. Injunctions can be sought through the courts to impose temporary or long-term restrictions on protests that genuinely disrupt operations or endanger individuals. This tool has been used effectively in Canada to balance protest rights with public safety. Additionally, private property owners already have the right to remove individuals engaging in trespassing, making additional municipal restrictions unnecessary.
Preemptively restricting protests in certain areas is an overreach that undermines democratic principles. Rather than imposing broad restrictions on protests by creating bubble zones, Oakville should focus on enforcing existing laws that address actual harassment or threats. Public spaces belong to the people, and the right to assemble peacefully should not be subject to arbitrary limitations. If Oakville proceeds with this bylaw, it risks setting a troubling precedent for other municipalities in the Halton Region, leading to further erosions of free expression. It is imperative that residents speak out against this unnecessary and overreaching restriction before it becomes a reality.
Ibrahim Baig
Oakville, ON
