Trampling on constitutional rights is “like forcing an opposing view on people.”
StratfordToday received the following letter to the editor from reader Dan Graver:
Today I am writing about the recent immigration ban on Stratford residents.
On Feb. 26, Stratford City Council met and unanimously elected a three-member citizen delegation to speak on the closed-session investigation report and local zoning issues agenda.
Two of these representatives were subsequently banned from City buildings (for three months) and from communicating with City officials without the City Attorney. The third was warned for voicing their opinions. These representatives did not swear, raise their voices or threaten anyone before, during or after speaking in the Council Chambers. Opinions were expressed but not accepted.
A fourth person (not a delegate) attended the meeting and was banned for three months for allegedly threatening a member of the public. The course of action chosen by the city was to equate the penalties for negative comments with those for alleged threats. In the eyes of city hall there seems to be no difference between the two, and the city is reluctant to tell the media that there were no threats among the delegates.
Following the Feb. 26 meeting, a trespass notice and cease and desist order were issued on April 4, resulting in a five-and-a-half week delay. The minutes of the Feb. 26 meeting were also significantly delayed from being made public.
An April 4 letter from the city's attorney stated:
“The City has received numerous complaints and incident reports under our Respectful Work Environment Policy regarding your conduct, including but not limited to comments made at the City Council meeting on February 26, 2024.”
This is in response to the City’s 2023 Respectful Workplace Policy, which raises several questions.
If the actions prior to February 26 were such egregious violations, why were the delegates unanimously allowed to speak? Why have these violations never been addressed? Why are they being applied now? Was this a coordinated action to dig up all sorts of issues against these individuals?
The April 4th letter informed me of the appeal process and that a representative from the city would be making a ruling. Yes, that's right. The complainant is the appeal arbitrator.
Each of the banned individuals sought disclosure of the alleged policy violations with mixed results: some did not disclose the dates, times, or original form, and some individuals refused to disclose until the appeals court's decision was complete.
Now imagine a policy that allows you to appeal, but doesn’t provide you with information about who violated it, when, or how, other than the most general terms culled from the policy – ​​and then informs you that you can’t get that information until all avenues of appeal have been closed.
This policy resulted in the prohibition of negative opinions, which is contrary to the freedom of expression guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Additionally, somehow the city has given the power to the city attorney to decide who can contact who. The city attorney is not a judge, nor is he in charge after an arrest. The city has been silent about the legal authority it used. I personally asked the mayor this question, and he was unaware of the existence of no-contact laws.
This constitutional right-snapping policy measure appears to be nothing more than an attempt to enforce dissent within City Hall. The appeals process is not independent and appears to be deployed in a highly inconsistent and ad-hoc manner.
I encourage you to read Braken v. City of Fort Erie, in which Judge Miller stated:
“Mr. Bracken's protest was not violent, nor did it pose any threat of violence – 'individual subjective feelings of anxiety, discomfort, or even fear, do not in themselves entirely remove speech from the protection of Article 2(b)'” (Bill of Rights).
Dan Graeber
Stratford
