Opposition Members of the Legislative Assembly echoed concerns of the BC Humanist Association (BCHA) during debates over the government's proposed church bubble zone law.
Bill 13 last week allows religious groups to establish bubble zones around places of worship. The BCHA had criticized the bill for vague definitions and raised concerns that it effectively allows places of worship to ban protests of otherwise secular events. Our supporters sent over a hundred letters to their MLAs calling for the bill to be sent back to the drawing board.
The bill was ultimately passed without amendment.
"We're disappointed by the passage of this bill and hope most places of worship opt not to exercise these powers," said BCHA Executive Director Ian Bushfield. "The debates show that MLAs heard our supporters' concerns. We will continue to advocate for everyone's right to freedom of expression, freedom of religion and freedom from religion."
During the second reading debate on March 31, Green Party MLA Jeremy Valeriote quoted our concerns to the legislature:
Opponents to the broadness of the definition have stated that “in other words, any protest outside a place of worship would be illegal, regardless of the actual activity taking place in the facility” and further stating that this new law would include those who have recently protested, for example, Indian government events at a gurdwara, Israeli realtors talking about investment opportunities in the occupied West Bank at a synagogue, and MAGA concerts at various churches.
Additionally, many Conservative speakers echoed concerns about the vague definitions and potential duplication of criminal code provisions.
MLAs further debated the bill at the legislature's committee on April 2.
When asked by Conservative Attorney General Critic Steve Kooner whether the government included any civil liberty groups in its consultation, Attorney General Niki Sharma responded:
No civil liberties groups were directly consulted with a draft of this legislation, although I have a whole team of lawyers that are very equipped with understanding the different rights of people and individuals and how the law works.
Kooner and Valeriote raised questions about the definitions in the bill, with Sharma defending the government's decision.
Valeriote pointedly asked, "What steps is the government taking to ensure the public's right to protest non-religious events is maintained?" To which, Sharma argued that the bill does not prohibit "protests" but rather takes a "content-neutral" approach.
"Premier David Eby justified this bill as protecting people's right 'to pray without harassment or intimidation,' which itself is not a content-neutral determination," responded Bushfield. "Unfortunately, the debates don't reassure us that this bill will not impact people's right to protest events at a place of worship, as any attempt to 'advise or persuade' people not to participate is now unlawful."
The bill passed the committee without amendment and subsequently passed third reading. It now awaits Royal Assent before becoming law. The bill includes a sunset clause, meaning it will be repealed four years after that, unless the Government reintroduces it before then.
Image credit: Wikimedia