StratfordToday received the following letter to the editor from reader Dan Graver.
I’m writing today concerning the recent banning of Stratford citizens.
On Feb. 26, a Stratford Council meeting occurred, and a delegation of three citizens was unanimously voted in to speak on topics of a closed-door meeting investigation report and a local zoning issue.
Two of these delegates were subsequently banned (three months) from attending any city building and were not to communicate with city staff except through the city solicitor. A third received a warning for opinions expressed. These delegates did not swear, raise their voices or threaten anyone before, during or after speaking in the council chambers. Opinions were spoken and were not well received.
A fourth (non-delegate) individual attended the meeting and allegedly threatened a member of the public, and has been banned for three months. The city’s chosen action has equated penalties for negative opinion with that of alleged threats. They appear to be no different in the eyes of city hall, with the city being quite reluctant to advise the media that no threats occurred amongst the delegates.
After the Feb. 26 meeting, a five-and-a-half-week delay occurred with letters of trespass and communication muzzle applied on April 4. The minutes of the Feb. 26 meeting were also significantly delayed in the release to the public.
The April 4 letters from the city solicitor stated:
“The City has received numerous complaints and incident reports under its Respectful Workplace Policy with respect to your actions including but not limited to the statements made at the Council Meeting held on February 26, 2024.”
This was in response to the city’s Respectful Workplace Policy of 2023 and leads to several questions:
If the actions before Feb. 26 were such egregious violations, why were the delegates unanimously voted in to speak? Why were these violations never actioned upon before? Why do they apply now? Was this an orchestrated action to dig up, any and all matters against these individuals?
The April 4 letter advised of an appeal process and city representatives would adjudicate. Yes, that is correct, the accuser is the appeal adjudicator.
Each banned individual asked for disclosure of the alleged violations of policy, with mixed results. No dates, times or original format has been provided for some and the outright refusal of one to supply disclosure until the appeal adjudication is complete.
Now imagine a policy that allows allegations, but you are not provided the who, when and how it was violated, except for the most general terms plucked from the policy. You are then advised you will not get that information until all avenues of appeal are closed.
This policy has now disallowed negative opinions, contrary to the freedom of expression entrenched in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Further, somehow the city has bestowed powers on the city solicitor to dictate who can communicate with who. The city solicitor is not a justice, nor officer In charge after an arrest, and the city has gone silent on the legal authority it has used. I have personally asked the mayor this question but he was unaware of the existence of the communication ban.
This constitutional rights stomping policy action has all the appearances of railroading of dissent within city hall. The appeal process is not independent, is vastly inconsistent and appears rolled out on the fly.
I encourage you to read Braken vs the Municipality of Fort Erie where Justice Miller stated,
“Mr. Bracken’s protest was not violent, nor did it threaten violence - “A person’s subjective feelings of disquiet, unease, and even fear, are not in themselves capable of ousting expression categorically from the protection of s. 2(b)” (Charter of Rights)
Dan Graver
Stratford
