VANCOUVER, BC—Pro-lifers will be heading back to court this fall to challenge as unconstitutional the province’s 10-year-old “bubble-zone” law barring them from protesting in front of abortion clinics.
An earlier attempt to strike down the Access to Abortion Services Act failed when the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear the case. This time, the defendants are pinning their hopes on a more focused argument.
“Previous challenges have all focused on the right to life of the unborn child and the Charter protections for that unborn child as well as freedom of speech and the right to assembly [or freedom of religion],” says John Hof, president of Campaign Life Coalition B.C.
“This court case specifically focuses on the Charter challenge with regards to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly—and that’s it.”
The case dates back to December 1998, when Gordon Watson and Donald Spratt were charged with breaching the 150-metre “access zone” surrounding a Vancouver abortion clinic.
Watson was handing out pamphlets describing the link between abortion and breast cancer while holding a sign that read “Abortion is murder.” Spratt carried a nine-foot-high cross with a sign “You shall not murder.”
In 2002, the B.C. Supreme Court upheld the law as a reasonable limit on freedom of expression and freedom of religion, and found both men guilty. Two years later, the B.C. Court of Appeal agreed to hear their appeal—but only on grounds that the “bubble zone” violates their Charter rights.
Calling it “a matter that is of significance,” Justice John Hall decided to grant Watson and Spratt “an opportunity to further argue this issue before this court.”
Written arguments must be submitted by the end of June. A hearing will be held likely sometime this fall, but has yet to be scheduled.
Abortion advocates are confident the outcome will be the same as before. “Previous decisions have been strong and well reasoned,” Joyce Arthur with the Pro-Choice Action Network told the Vancouver Sun in 2004.
“I think this will, in fact, end up being another validation of the Access to Abortion Services Act.”
Hall too conceded “the possible success of any appeal is…somewhat clouded.”
But unlike previous attempts, lawyers for the Canadian Religious Freedom Alliance—a group comprising the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC), the Catholic Civil Rights League and the Christian Legal Fellowship—will join pro-lifers.
“We have really felt that the bubble zones are a severe restriction on the rights of Canadians to express opposition to abortion,” says Janet Epp Buckingham, the EFC’s director of law and public policy. “And we felt it was important to have more than just the voice of those who were accused of violating the bubble zones supporting the arguments for freedom of expression and freedom of religion.”
Also allowed by the court to intervene are the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, Canadian Nurses for Life and a five-member pro-choice coalition.
Hof is encouraged by such a high level of interest. “The fact that all of these interveners have appeared on this case tells me that [the courts] are taking it a lot more seriously than previous challenges,” he says.
Buckingham also hopes the court will recognize that times have changed since 1996, when the NDP government brought in the bubble zones.
“There was some concern about potentially violent protests,” she says. “But the kinds of cases that are coming up now are very far from that, and so I think the original justification for the legislation no longer exists.”
But Hof admits he would be somewhat satisfied if the court were to make the law less oppressive while upholding its basic constitutionality.
“I would regard any modification as a small victory—a skirmish won. The battle would [still] be to have freedom of speech in this country and the right to life of unborn children in this country.”
Similar bubble-zone legislation also exists in Ontario.
