Tuesday, Jun. 17, 2003

Canadian Press

Montreal — A municipal bylaw restricting when Jehovah’s Witnesses can go door-to-door protects residents’ right to privacy and does not violate the group’s right to religious freedom and expression, a lawyer argued Tuesday.

The City of Blainville, which believes many of its residents don’t want Jehovah’s Witnesses at their door on weekends and in the evening, is appealing a lower-court ruling that declared its bylaw unconstitutional.

Lawyer Pierre Paquin, representing the city just north of Montreal, told three Quebec Court of Appeal justices that city officials are not restricting anyone’s religious freedoms by insisting people pay $100 for an annual permit for door-to-door visits of a non-commercial nature.

Permit holders can canvass for only two months each year. And the soliciting must be between 9 a.m. and 7:30 p.m. Monday through Friday.

The city believes it has the right to restrict how people express their religion in public in order to protect people’s rights to privacy in their own homes, Mr. Paquin said. “We’re not talking about a witch hunt.”

He argued that it’s reasonable to believe Witnesses could canvass the city within the two-month period covered by the permit. And the fact the permit applies to all groups, including charities, shows there is no discrimination.

But the three justices cautioned Mr. Paquin that it’s dangerous to distinguish between someone’s right to religious freedom and their right to express their religious beliefs.

“If these aren’t restrictions on religious freedoms, I don’t know what are,” said Justice Pierre Dalphond.

Judge Dalphond also said that the City of Blainville has been “paternalistic” in its treatment of residents by not allowing them the right to not answer the door, or the option of discussing their views with the Witnesses.

Lawyers representing the Witnesses argued that the 14 people fined under the bylaw since 1997 should be awarded damages of $2,000 each as a message to all publicly elected officials.

“To put it in simple English, you can not license freedom of expression,” said lawyer Glen How, who is also a Witness. “This is a scandalous abuse.”

Source: The Globe and Mail