Quebec’s emergency law in response to student protests has prompted lots of discussion around its constitutionality.
Certainly, there are many aspects of Bill 78 that are troubling.
The notice provisions for demonstrations and restrictions on union participation raise legitimate questions about fundamental freedoms.
Another area of concern are the reverse-onus provisions that require elected officials of student associations to prove they didn’t incite people to break the law.
The government, of course, had very good reason for sending a strong statement with Bill 78.
After months of protests and actions that have inconvenienced the public, trampled on the rights of non-demonstrating students, and included vandalism and violence, Premier Jean Charest was right to take action to restore order.
But did he need to go as far as he did?
Many Montrealers who have battled countless disruptions to their daily lives are behind Charest when it comes to putting a stop to the mayhem.
Certainly, many people in this province — notably Torontonians — would never put up with a situation like that.
And while critics have said the provisions requiring eight hours of notice and other information on demonstrations infringe the right to assembly, Quebec officials have pointed out that other jurisdictions have more stringent rules.
Moreover, they insist they’re not outlawing protests but instead are regulating them.
But any response to the demonstrations should really focus on two key issues: ensuring the rights of non-protesting students to go to class and ending the violence, vandalism, and disruption to others.
So while it’s reasonable to regulate protests in the streets, it’s not necessary to apply the notice rules to all demonstrations, including those in public parks.
There’s less disruption to the public in those cases and, as long as there’s no violence or vandalism, it’s a legitimate way for the students to voice their concerns about tuition-fee increases.
Overall, then, while much of the law is reasonable, it is in fact too broad. There’s no doubt that Charest is responding to the urgent need to send a message that the protesters themselves had gone too far in trampling on the rights of others.
But this is a country that guarantees the right to peaceful protest, and that’s what the government should be making efforts to ensure through both legislation and enforcement efforts.
For the moment, the government has only fuelled the protests and prompted talk of constitutional challenges. Narrowing the bill to blunt the criticism would be a better way forward.
