Juno News - Imprisoned Pastors and Locked Churches

00:00:00.000 A few names for you that you should certainly know by now.

00:00:13.940 Artur Pawlowski, James Coates, Tim Stevens, three Alberta pastors who due to a myriad of

00:00:20.780 COVID regulations have found themselves behind bars in Canada, a country that we think values

00:00:26.640 freedom of religion. And even in Ontario, we are not immune from these issues. Two churches 0.97

00:00:31.620 in particular, Trinity Bible Chapel and Church of God, have had their doors locked by order

00:00:38.220 of the court at the request of the Ontario government to prevent the assembly of worshippers,

00:00:44.180 prevent congregations from gathering and worshipping as Christians again in Canada in 2021. I want 0.97

00:00:51.000 to talk about the state of these specific cases, the church lockouts in particular, but also

00:00:56.580 the broader implications of this. We've seen more of these circumstances than we can count.

00:01:01.840 I know it's been a big challenge for the lawyers who are taking up these cases. The Justice

00:01:06.380 Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, if I understand correctly, had to actually hire several lawyers

00:01:11.820 because there was such a volume of cases that were needing to be fought in court to stand

00:01:17.040 up for people's liberty. Lisa Bildy is a staff lawyer with the Justice Centre of Constitutional

00:01:22.920 Freedoms, and a tremendous one at that. I should put in a plug. She represented True North and I,

00:01:28.680 as we fought against the federal government. Lisa Bildy joins me now. Good to talk to you,

00:01:33.100 Lisa. Thanks for coming on. Thanks for having me, Andrew.

00:01:35.820 So the volume of this is so key here. I mean, any one of these cases in a different parallel universe

00:01:42.740 without COVID would have been, I think, a significant thing. And now we have numerous,

00:01:48.040 numerous of these, and they continue. Well, that's the thing too. And once something

00:01:53.620 that crosses a threshold happens in one case, then the threshold is new. And now all of a sudden,

00:02:01.240 we're not as shocked by the next thing that happens. And then, you know, suddenly now,

00:02:04.640 instead of issuing warnings and tickets, they're going straight to the enforcement measures because

00:02:08.780 they know they can get away with it. So it has been a little bit shocking that how comfortable

00:02:13.980 people have been with that moving threshold. I was covering a couple of weeks ago the case where

00:02:22.220 the provincial government was trying to extend its lockout of Trinity Bible Chapel, which is in the

00:02:27.860 Waterloo region. And you laid out, I thought, a tremendous case. Unfortunately, the judge didn't

00:02:32.640 see it that way as these things go. But you were talking about really a very symbolic, I mean, it's real

00:02:38.340 in the sense that the church is locked out. But for the country itself, a symbolic turning point

00:02:44.000 when government is chaining up church doors. Right. And to be fair, I really was making a plea for what

00:02:52.980 this means in the broader context. But knowing full well that in these circumstances, there was very

00:02:58.500 little that the judge could do other than, I mean, I suppose they could have ordered a conditional

00:03:04.640 sentence and not opted to lock the doors. That was possible. But remember, the government gave itself

00:03:10.060 the power in the Reopening Ontario Act to impose these, almost on a unilateral basis, I mean, they can

00:03:16.740 do it without notice, to impose these enforcement orders. And then when someone breaches it, it's not

00:03:21.540 just getting a ticket anymore. Now we're into the contempt of court process. And the courts are, of course,

00:03:28.720 very concerned about making sure that the integrity of the judicial system is upheld by not letting people 1.00

00:03:34.120 flout their court orders. And so they have to send a message. And that's unfortunately, you know,

00:03:39.540 I was making those pleas to hopefully encourage the courts to be, to remember their, the broader

00:03:46.480 constitutional context, the fact that we live in a liberal democracy and, and that people have

00:03:51.640 fundamental rights and freedoms that we ought not to be just discarding so readily. But yeah,

00:03:57.380 they weren't buying it.

00:03:58.060 Let's talk about the length of time we're dealing with here, because the nature of

00:04:03.500 any charter right violation, as I understand it being a layman, is that it has to be as narrowly

00:04:09.380 limited as possible in scope and also in longevity. Yet we seem to be heading towards

00:04:14.620 indefinite lockouts, indefinite suspension of religious freedoms.

00:04:19.340 Well, it certainly feels like that. And we've been saying this now for a year,

00:04:22.620 that, that the response should be targeted, it should be a minimal impairment. The legislation

00:04:27.940 requires that, the constitution requires that. But, you know, we've, when people are afraid,

00:04:36.020 you, it's remarkable how much you can get away with. And the governments know that they are,

00:04:41.460 you know, it's not just the churches that are being impacted. Although I will say that we've

00:04:45.680 certainly seen, there's a lot more lenience in terms of enforcement when the political cause is,

00:04:50.520 is more favorable to those who are in charge. You know, it's, we may very well at the end of all

00:04:58.480 this say, well, that was all a bad experience and go back to treating religious freedom the way that 0.69

00:05:02.800 we have in the past. But we have in our minds probably moved on and crossed that threshold,

00:05:10.160 as I was saying, to paraphrase justice learned at hand from the United States, when liberty dies in

00:05:15.540 the heart of men and women, no constitution can save it. And we have seen how readily people are

00:05:22.200 willing to give up their, their freedoms when they're worried about a virus. And I, so I think

00:05:28.000 it doesn't bode well for the broader principles of fundamental freedoms.

00:05:32.480 Yeah. And, and I don't know, I don't want this to be taken the wrong way by people listening. I've had

00:05:36.900 less of an issue with fines because a fine is something that you have an immediate recourse for.

00:05:42.860 You can either pay it or you can fight it. And as you go through that process of fighting it,

00:05:47.040 you don't actually have to pay it. So there's a little bit more of a due process there. Whereas

00:05:52.220 if your doors are locked, even if you are eventually successful, you can never get that time back that

00:05:58.300 you were locked out of your church. Right. That's exactly, that's exactly right. And there's no

00:06:03.020 opportunity in any of that process to be able to raise those constitutional arguments. I mean,

00:06:07.900 I was trying to, to raise them just so that they would be on the mind of the court,

00:06:11.180 to how significant all of this was, but really the, the process of getting that order,

00:06:15.500 the enforcement order, and through the contempt proceedings, that is not where the constitutional

00:06:20.300 arguments are raised. Now the government is supposed to be weighing all of that before they act,

00:06:24.760 before they implement these kinds of things, but they clearly haven't been. And when they have been

00:06:30.020 pushed in the past, sometimes they've walked back their, their overreach to some degree, but,

00:06:34.400 um, but not in every case. And so, of course, it's much harder to get your case before the court to

00:06:40.480 argue the constitutional aspects of it. And in the meantime, yes, all these restrictions continue

00:06:45.680 and people are locked up to their churches and, um, and they won't be, they may be vindicated down the

00:06:51.580 line, but they will not be able, as you say, to recover the fines and the, and, and just the lost time

00:06:56.680 in their, in their facility. I know we have churches that in some cases are saying, listen,

00:07:01.800 we believe we have a constitutional right to assemble. That's the case we're making. Would

00:07:06.600 it be different in the court's eyes, in your view, if you had a church that said, listen,

00:07:12.060 we are going to put up, you know, we're going to put six to eight feet between seats. We're going to,

00:07:17.000 uh, rigorously enforce masking. We're, we're going to do all of these things. And if they laid out a

00:07:21.640 really comprehensive plan or, or is none of that really factoring into these decisions to lock

00:07:27.260 people out of their buildings? It really isn't. I mean, if you remember, there was a church just

00:07:32.020 before Christmas that brought an application, it was an injunction. So they had a heavier onus on

00:07:35.700 their side, uh, as to why it should be granted. That was the Toronto International Celebration Church.

00:07:40.220 And they, uh, to my knowledge, were in fact trying to, um, incorporate measures to socially distance

00:07:46.640 and all that sort of thing. And many other churches have as well. And that is not,

00:07:50.660 it's not taken into account. And remember too, that public health policy historically was more

00:07:57.120 about education than enforcement. It was more about at least, at least, um, you know, that,

00:08:02.460 that was the normal, uh, approach that you, you sort of think, think about things holistically.

00:08:06.800 Um, you recognize that going to church is in fact important and, and, um, a matter of health for a lot

00:08:12.620 of people, you know, for their, for their mental health, for their spiritual health. And so you don't

00:08:16.840 come in with the stick right off the bat, you try to educate and you try to encourage people. Um,

00:08:23.140 but it seems like in a lot of cases, they came out with the stick first and the church of God in Elmer

00:08:27.520 was one of those examples. If you recall all the way back to last spring, they had decided to try and

00:08:33.280 meet with drive-in services. They saw that a congregation in Saskatchewan had done it and they

00:08:37.540 demanded the rules out there and, uh, and tried to do it in Ontario. And the police initially said that

00:08:42.300 it was fine. But then when somebody complained, which is another big factor in all of this is

00:08:46.440 how much the population has taken it upon themselves to be like Stasi, like informants

00:08:51.180 against churches. Um, but somebody complained and the police immediately went to enforcement

00:08:57.120 and showed up and started threatening tickets and charges. And, uh, um, you know, that set the tone

00:09:03.380 for that particular conflict. And it's really unfortunate that they went that route.

00:09:07.000 So when we talk about the long-term implications of this, I think there are two issues. Number one,

00:09:13.240 these, uh, court cases and challenges are mounting to such a point where there is a judicial backlog.

00:09:18.300 And I think the church of God and Trinity Bible chapel cases are set for October, if I'm not

00:09:23.540 mistaken, correct? Yes. And, and we have other lockdowns, uh, lockdown tickets for businesses,

00:09:29.260 fines for individuals. The church battle is by no means the, the only battle in this area.

00:09:34.040 How much of this down the road do you think will, will really just end up being torn apart? These

00:09:40.820 tickets and citations and fines based on what you know about precedent and constitutional law and,

00:09:46.120 and all of these things, and also judicial economy with how many of these, the courts will have to

00:09:50.860 deal with in the coming months. Well, I think when it comes to those tickets and charges, a lot of

00:09:55.520 them probably will be disposed of, uh, by the, by the prosecutor. If they don't think they can get a

00:10:00.460 conviction, if they think probably, you know, it's too much effort to have to defend each of these

00:10:04.280 unconstitutional grounds. Um, you know, I, I wouldn't start with the assumption if you're

00:10:09.520 going out to, uh, you know, to, to protest or to, to go to church against the rules to assume that

00:10:15.160 your ticket's going to get torn up. But I think that that is, well, that will be a likely outcome

00:10:18.800 for a lot of them, particularly if there are some precedents that are set in the superior court

00:10:23.020 to suggest that the government was, uh, you know, was, was acting out of line on any of these

00:10:28.440 restrictions, but that remains to be seen. Um, so far, uh, I would say that most of the courts have

00:10:34.460 given a fairly wide berth to the government on, on, um, on these restrictions. We haven't had a lot

00:10:40.620 of cases on the merits yet. There was one out in Newfoundland. We had one out in BC, which was a

00:10:44.920 judicial review. Um, so a little different, but, um, you know, there was one argued last week

00:10:51.320 about outdoor gatherings, Roman Baber's, uh, application. Um, there'll undoubtedly be others

00:10:57.200 along the way before ours is heard in October. I don't know how they'll turn out, but, um, um,

00:11:02.660 I'm certainly hopeful that the courts will remember their role is, is also to be that

00:11:08.100 sober second look at what the government is doing and, and, uh, you know, they, they aren't

00:11:13.080 there to rubber stamp government decisions. It's easy for us to look at the world we're in

00:11:17.980 right now and think this is just a, you know, a once in a million, uh, period. We're

00:11:21.900 in a once in a lifetime at the very least situation. How concerned are you about future

00:11:27.320 implications of these suspensions of freedom? And what you, I think very adequately

00:11:32.140 characterized earlier is this internalization by people that this is all okay.

00:11:37.480 Well, I, I view this as a continuation of what has already been going on in our

00:11:42.180 society, which is particularly in Canada, which is a collectivization, um, in our, in our

00:11:47.680 views of things that people, uh, now have to have consensus of opinion on so many things

00:11:52.780 and lockdowns just fed right into that existing political climate where, you know, anybody

00:11:58.320 who thinks differently from the, the, the, um, you know, for want of a better term, what

00:12:04.520 the, what the elites say we should be believing and thinking is a bad person. And we, you know,

00:12:09.260 we actually see them saying that, that people who are protesting against lockdowns are bad

00:12:13.120 people. Um, so when you start with a climate that's as politically charged as ours was and

00:12:19.880 throw this into the mix, I, I don't, the, the new normal that we're going to end up at,

00:12:25.160 at the, at the end of all of this is, is very, um, it's very concerning to me. I, I, I think

00:12:30.260 that we will be in a new constitutional era, uh, where people who want to exercise their fundamental

00:12:37.220 freedoms under the charter, um, will face a lot of resistance from others in the public

00:12:43.280 and from, you know, the, the legal establishment and so on. Uh, I hope I'm wrong, but I, I have

00:12:48.960 to say I've, I've been pretty disheartened over this last year.

00:12:51.660 I realize you're in Ontario, but just looking at Alberta for a moment, this is very unique

00:12:56.860 in the sense that on one, on one hand, we view this as being the, the most free province

00:13:00.960 and confederation, uh, historically in the political discourse, but we all, we also have

00:13:05.520 had three pastors that have been arrested and put behind bars there. Is there a reason

00:13:10.780 that Alberta has been the, the province to go in that direction, either in, in the laws

00:13:16.060 that they have on the books there, or is it simply a direction that they're taking that

00:13:19.700 we're not seeing in other provinces?

00:13:21.960 Honestly, I don't know. I think probably people are more shocked by what they're seeing in

00:13:26.180 conservative, particularly conservative provinces. Uh, there's certainly been a heavy

00:13:30.780 handed approach, not just in Alberta, but in Ontario with the conservative government

00:13:34.180 and in Manitoba. And, uh, and you, you sort of wonder why that sort of traditional, um,

00:13:40.240 support of individual rights and freedoms and, and, you know, self-sufficiency and people

00:13:44.920 being able to make decisions for themselves, those sort of, uh, usual conservative tenants,

00:13:49.360 small government have just been disregarded and tossed out the window. I can't explain it,

00:13:54.520 uh, other than to, to think that perhaps the conservatives worry that if they misstep, that they

00:14:00.540 will be judged far more harshly than any liberal government would be.

00:14:04.440 Well, very well said. I appreciate that you are on the front lines of this battle,

00:14:08.260 you and your colleagues, Lisa Bility with the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms.

00:14:12.300 Thanks very much.

00:14:13.240 Thanks for having me, Andrew. Bye for now.

00:14:14.480 Thanks for listening to The Andrew Lawton Show.

00:14:17.020 Support the program by donating to True North at www.tnc.news.

Juno News - May 21, 2021

Imprisoned Pastors and Locked Churches

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript