Why mass intimidation undermines liberty and personal security

Canadians have the right to be left alone 

By Andrew Roman

In a recent column for The Hub, Stephen Staley was critical of Canada’s police union president for saying that policing protests is complicated, but offering no solutions. Yet, Staley is guilty of the same thing. He criticized his target, but offered no solutions. Criticism requires nothing more than eloquence in writing. Offering solutions requires work, thought, and the exercise of judgment in what to include in one’s list of solutions. It also requires understanding the root cause of the problems.

My disagreement with Staley begins with his perception of the problem being the policing of “protests.” But what exactly is a protest, and when is it not a protest?

Dozens of masked “protesters” have been covering a bridge in North York, holding threatening antisemitic signs and intimidating local residents. This is not a protest. Its target is not a government or business that can address their grievance; their only goal is to intimidate their target: Jews. This targeted intimidation is also applied to Jewish schools, synagogues, access to Mount Sinai Hospital, and Jewish-owned stores like Indigo. Canadians should not have to endure this. Yet, in many cities, they are. 

There is a Charter of Rights aspect to this problem. Section 7 guarantees “liberty,” and “security of the person,” which includes the right to be left alone. Mass psychological intimidation directly interferes with both liberty and personal security, i.e., people cannot access public spaces, essential services, or their normal routines without fear. The current policies and practices of all levels of government are responsible for this infringement of section 7. Ineffective criminal laws and police and prosecutorial inaction license intimidation, effectively depriving citizens of their liberty and security. 

Today, protecting just the rights of freedom of expression and assembly is constitutionally unbalanced when those rights are exercised in ways that make ordinary life unbearable for others. The liberty of one citizen ends where the liberty of another begins.

There is no current Canadian criminal law that effectively covers intimidating mobs unless there is overt violence. Canadian law does not define what a protest is. It sets no boundaries based on who can be targeted and the means used against them—between lawful expression at lawful targets versus mass intimidation of communities which have no means of addressing the grievance. 

The current Criminal Code is written in such a way that it does not allow for the arrest and prosecution of mass intimidation. It contains several archaic and ineffective provisions, including public incitement of hatred, riots, mischief, and obstruction. But these are badly worded and therefore difficult to police and prosecute. 

The Code’s archaic offence of “tumultuous disturbance” requires disorderly, violent, or loud conduct; the current crime of “intimidation” requires evidence of one-to-one direct threats; and hate propaganda laws demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt of “detestation” and “vilification,” which are highly subjective terms.

Being in a quiet, masked crowd, organized to inspire fear, escapes all of this obsolete Criminal Code language. Prosecutors are reluctant to prosecute when the law is unclear, convictions uncertain, and penalties trivial. Police, aware that prosecutors won’t prosecute, are understandably unwilling to commit massive resources to policing or arresting mob participants. In this enforcement vacuum, communities are left exposed, while perpetrators act with impunity. 

That’s why mere demonstrations have escalated to shootings through the windows of synagogues. Bill C-9 (the Combatting Hate Act), just passed by the House of Commons, will help, but only modestly.  

Although Statistics Canada notes that police-reported hate crimes have escalated by 169 percent since 2018, charges and conviction rates remain stubbornly low. Most police-reported cases never result in charges, and after the rare convictions (usually for mere “mischief”), the sentence is a “slap on the wrist”: probation, rather than a substantial fine or imprisonment.

Canadians deserve a new law that explicitly addresses mass intimidation, with clear boundaries for lawful protest targets and means of protest, and mechanisms for enforcement. Police and prosecutors must have the tools to intervene effectively and quickly. 

Yes, protecting freedom of expression and assembly is essential, but that cannot justify leaving people under siege, trapped in fear in their own neighbourhoods. Being able to live free from intimidation by masked mobs is a fundamental right. True liberty requires not only the right to speak or assemble, but also the right to be left alone.