Councillor’s intentions may have been clear, but vague bylaw language was not

Coun. Evan Duncan deserves credit for pulling the plug on his proposed “nuisance” protest bylaw. It takes a measure of humility for any politician to admit a proposal has gone off the rails and to hit pause in the face of overwhelming public opposition.

But the Charleswood-Tuxedo-Westwood councillor is wrong about one important thing.

The public outcry that forced this retreat was not driven by “misinformation.” It was driven by the plain reading of what was actually written.

If there’s a lesson in this episode for city hall, it’s this: when you draft bylaws, the wording matters. Intention doesn’t govern. Text does.

Duncan’s proposed Safe Access to Vulnerable Infrastructure bylaw was pitched as a tool to curb intimidation and create “safe spaces” within 100 metres of schools, hospitals, places of worship and other “vulnerable social” locations.

On its face, that sounds reasonable. No one supports harassment. No one supports threatening children or seniors seeking medical care.

But the devil is always in the details.

The problem was that the proposed bylaw was vague and overly broad. It used elastic language, such as “nuisance” and “intimidation,” without clearly defining what those terms meant in practice. It carved out sweeping 100-metre buffer zones around a wide array of public institutions. And it created the very real possibility that peaceful protests — entirely lawful, non-violent expressions of opinion — could be caught in its net.

That’s not misinformation. That’s reality.

When you prohibit “nuisance” protests within 100 metres of a hospital, what exactly does that mean? Would a small group of nurses protesting staffing levels on the sidewalk be deemed a nuisance? Would students demonstrating outside a school over new backpack policies be swept up?

These aren’t wild hypotheticals. They are foreseeable consequences of broad language.

Duncan insists it was “never my intention to ban peaceful protests.” Fair enough. But in law, intention is irrelevant if the wording captures more than you meant it to.

Courts don’t consider a councillor’s inner thoughts. They interpret the text.

And the text of this proposed bylaw left ample room for abuse or overreach.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. Those rights are not absolute, but any limits must be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

That means they must be carefully tailored, minimally impairing and proportionate to the objective.

Blanket 100-metre exclusion zones around broad categories of public spaces raise immediate red flags.

Duncan suggested critics “clearly haven’t read the report.” On the contrary, many appear to have read it quite carefully and didn’t like what they saw.

This is the risk governments run when they legislate in broad strokes. Vague language can invite worst-case interpretations.

And in a free society, citizens are entitled to consider how laws might be used not just by the current office-holders with good intentions, but by future ones who may not share them.

Today’s well-meaning councillor could be replaced tomorrow by someone less scrupulous.

That’s why precision matters.

To his credit, Duncan acknowledged that “we need communication on this to be better” and that it’s not appropriate to sort something this significant out “on the fly.”

He has the support of Mayor Scott Gillingham and the executive policy committee to shelve the proposal and receive it as information only.

That’s the right call.

But let’s be clear about why it’s the right call.

It’s not because a mob whipped up confusion on social media. It’s because the bylaw, as drafted, failed to strike the necessary balance between protecting people from harassment and preserving fundamental freedoms.

If the goal is to address genuine intimidation — and there are certainly situations where lines have been crossed — then the solution must be narrowly tailored. It must define prohibited conduct with specificity. It must be backed by evidence demonstrating a real and pressing problem. And it must impair Charter rights as little as possible.

Throwing around terms such as “nuisance” without tight definitions doesn’t meet that standard.

Nor does rushing a proposal of this magnitude to a council vote without robust public consultation.

In a democracy, public backlash isn’t a nuisance. It’s a feature.

Citizens scrutinizing proposed laws, raising concerns and demanding better drafting is exactly how the system is supposed to work. If anything, this episode should reassure Winnipeggers that civic engagement still matters.

Councillors would do well to internalize that.

Duncan was right to withdraw the bylaw. He’s wrong to suggest much of the backlash, or even some of it, was driven by misinformation.

The concerns were grounded in the actual wording. And when it comes to laws that touch fundamental freedoms, wording is everything.

tom.brodbeck@freepress.mb.ca