So this whole case is actually exactly about those Canadian laws, as defined in the Charter of Rights as the right to freedom speech and the right to freedom of assembly. The British Columbia Civil Liberties association is arguing that Charter rights should not be infringed upon just because they were expressed on a college campus (private property).
Another explanation from VIU faculty themselves : “These suspensions violate President Saucier’s public statement from 31 May 2024: “Let me state that clearly: members of our community will not be punished for participating in the encampment.””
If we were to say that freedom of speech is not allowed just because you’re on private property, we’re setting a very dangerous precedent. I do think that the freedom of assembly one is a bit harder to argue because of trespassing laws, but they are then policing why students assemble on the campus (where they normally would’ve been allowed to be), which crosses back onto freedom of speech.
So this whole case is actually exactly about those Canadian laws, as defined in the Charter of Rights as the right to freedom speech and the right to freedom of assembly. The British Columbia Civil Liberties association is arguing that Charter rights should not be infringed upon just because they were expressed on a college campus (private property).
The BCCLA’s legal argument here
Easier to read article here
Another explanation from VIU faculty themselves : “These suspensions violate President Saucier’s public statement from 31 May 2024: “Let me state that clearly: members of our community will not be punished for participating in the encampment.””
If we were to say that freedom of speech is not allowed just because you’re on private property, we’re setting a very dangerous precedent. I do think that the freedom of assembly one is a bit harder to argue because of trespassing laws, but they are then policing why students assemble on the campus (where they normally would’ve been allowed to be), which crosses back onto freedom of speech.