09) PUBLIC VS. PRIVATE: WHERE CAN WE DEMONSTRATE?

By Kimball Cariou

      "Private property", with all its implications, sits at the very core of modern life. Every facet of society is viewed through the lens of private ownership, from natural resources and factories, to intellectual research, and even the "nuclear family," with its feudal origins as a relationship based on retaining control of family wealth.

     The concepts of private (capitalist) and public (social) property have been at war for centuries. Skirmishes and battles are fought relentlessly, as the ruling class seeks to reap profits by extending the realm of individual ownership, while working people try to expand the limited areas of social ownership.

     Examples in recent Canadian history are numerous, from the privatization of PetroCanada, to the attacks against public schools and universal health care by corporations and right-wing governments.

     Consider the growing attempts to block the use of public or mixed public-private properties and buildings by political activists. In city after city, politicians and administrators are moving to restrict access to places created and supported by governments (i.e. the taxpayers). The effect is to make it more difficult for progressive and radical movements to make direct contact with the wider public.

     In Vancouver, members of the StopWar coalition have been repeatedly blocked by police and security from entering the Canada Place convention centre and the PNE grounds to hand out anti-war flyers and stickers near Armed Forces displays. Both locations are publicly-owned, but operated by forms of public-private partnerships.

     During the Sept. 6 by-election in the Ontario riding of Kitchener-Waterloo, university administrators prevented Communist Party candidate Elizabeth Rowley from campaigning on campuses, even getting police to remove her from so-called "all candidate" forums. These actions against Rowley and other small-party candidates were backed by Elections Ontario, which (unlike Elections Canada) now considers post-secondary campuses to be "private property."

     Another recent case involves the distribution of political newspapers inside the Metrotown Skytrain station in Burnaby, BC. Three members of the "Fire This Time" cult were removed from the station by Skytrain cops and the RCMP. While this group's history of physical assaults and threats against others (see ivandrury.wordpress.com) makes it hard to consider them defenders of free speech, the case does raise the question: is a transit station public or private?

     Other examples are even more extreme. Earlier this year, Quebec's Law 78 banned street demonstrations of more than 50 people unless organizers obtained permits in advance. Organizers chose to ignore this draconian law, but police charged thousands of Quebecers found wearing the "red square" symbol, even invading restaurants or retail shops to arrest "offenders."

     During the G8/G20 summit in Toronto, the provincial and civic governments banned protests within a specified distance of security fences. Not satisfied with this sweeping edict, police arrested and attacked hundreds of people, often randomly, earning widespread condemnation for their brutality.

     These examples are part of an escalating effort to narrow the accepted boundaries for the expression of free speech. In the name of "law and order" or "public safety", more and more locations are being defined as off-limits, especially to groups which oppose the policies of pro-corporate governments.

     There is no legal basis for such violations of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This issue was the subject of a famous legal case, the "Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada v. Canada (1991)", regarding the distribution of leaflets in the Dorval Airport by members of a U.S.-based group.

     The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that "the distribution of pamphlets and discussion with certain members of the public are in no way incompatible with the airport's primary function, that of accommodating the needs of the travelling public. An airport is a thoroughfare, which in its open areas or waiting areas can accommodate expression without the effectiveness or function of the place being in any way threatened. There was thus a limitation on the freedom of expression enjoyed by respondents when the airport manager ordered them to cease their activities."

     As a result, organizations are allowed to engage in such activities in airports - and other public facilities - as long as they do not interfere with the effective functioning of such spaces. Groups are not allowed to block the flow of pedestrians, for example. In some cases, the timing of activities must be scheduled with the management of facilities.

     But using the "private property" argument to simply deny the right to free expression is clearly a dangerous reversal of the SCC ruling. How can an airport be considered a public facility, but not a convention centre, a fairground, or a university campus operated by a quasi-government agency?

     The ideological underpinning for this trend is disturbing. At a time when the ruling class seeks to privatize all public assets, the re-definition of social forms of property is a very useful political tool. The sub-text of this argument is that any building or facility which can be used to generate a profit for a corporation should be operated purely by and for private owners. Obviously, the presence of people handing out Communist election flyers or stickers opposing the war in Afghanistan undermines this concept - thus the move to explicitly classify such spaces as private property, regardless of Supreme Court rulings.

     The denial of access to many public spaces creates enormous new problems for progressive movements trying to get out their message. It will likely take a combination of mass political campaigns and new legal challenges to reverse this insidious attack on democratic freedoms.

(The above article is from the October 1-15, 2012, issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $30/year, or $15 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $45 US per year; other overseas readers - $45 US or $50 CDN per year. Send to People's Voice, c/o PV Business Manager, 706 Clark Drive, Vancouver, BC, V5L 3J1.)