A Falun Gong practitioner protests outside the Chinese embassy on Granville St in Vancouver on November 3, 2011.The Globe and Mail
The long-running legal battle between the Falun Gong and the City of Vancouver is back in court, with the spiritual practitioners arguing an amended bylaw still violates freedom of expression and the city saying otherwise.
The Falun Gong, who allege they have been persecuted by the Chinese government, erected a protest billboard and makeshift shelter outside Vancouver's Chinese consulate in 2001. The set-up contained photos of alleged human-rights abuses and grew to be 100 feet long.
In 2009, the B.C. Supreme Court granted the city's request for an injunction to remove the structures. That ruling, however, was overturned by the province's Court of Appeal the following year. The appeal court said the bylaw that prohibited structures violated Charter rights to free expression, and gave the city six months to amend it.
But Cameron Ward, the lawyer representing the Falun Gong, and intervener B.C. Civil Liberties Association, say the amended bylaw remains unconstitutional given the restrictions that were put in place.
"The association submits that the sweeping restrictions contained in the amended bylaw, and the financial penalties associated with some of those restrictions, almost completely ignore the letter and spirit of the Court of Appeal's ruling," the lawyers representing the civil liberties group wrote in their submission.
The association said the amended bylaw does not acknowledge the importance of political expression and regulates when politically expressive structures can be used, what forms they can take and their size. The amended bylaw, the association said, also allows for penalties of $1,000 to $5,000 an offence for anyone who violates the restrictions or fails to obtain a permit.
Mr. Ward, outside the room in B.C. Supreme Court, said there is no question the amended bylaw still infringes on freedom of expression. Iain Dixon, the lawyer representing the city, disagreed. He told the court the city has to set some limits and those that were put in place are reasonable and constitutional.
"At the end of the day, a reasonable limit has to be drawn somewhere," he said. "Can we have a 100-foot structure? Can we have a 200-foot structure? There has to be a size limit. And the question of what the reasonable size limit is is within the purview of the council to decide, as long as it's not unreasonable."
A decision in the case is not expected for months.