STREET SPEAKING

Evening Star, Issue 21819, 7 September 1934, Page 9

STREET SPEAKING

CASE OF MR GILCHRIST LEGAL ASPECT OF BY-LAW Having been adjourned in anticipation of a discussion as to the legal issue, the case against John Gilchrist, charged with causing a street obstruction and with delivering an address without a permit, came up again in the Police Court this morning before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M. Mr R. H. Simpson appeared for the defendant, and Mr A. N. Haggitt for the City Council. Mr Simpson referred briefly to the incidents leading up to the case, and said it was estimated that there was a crowd of between 150 and 300 people present when the defendant was speaking. A photographer’s estimate was 160, and it seemed that he was in a better position to judge than anybody else. It was admitted that one or two curious people had, stopped for a moment to see what was happening, and had then passed on. Substantially, contended counsel, that could not ho regarded as an obstruction. After quoting from observations and decisions made in previous cases elsewhere, Mr Simpson went on to say that the City Council’s by-law was unreasonable, in that it operated too widely in respect to time and place. It operated from _1 o’clock on Monday morning until midnight on Saturday. If its scope were limited to Friday night or any night when a big crowd was expected in the streets, it would be reasonable as far as the main streets were concerned. Moreover, it was a by-law that was difficult to enforce satisfactorily. In the defendant’s case it meant that when Jie made an application to deliver an oration he had to make it to his political opponents. Of course, the City Council was not a political body, but there was no douht that a large number of people looked on it as such to a- certain extent. It was also au awkward position for the City Council to have, to give out permits for street speaking in this manner, and, if it happened to be election time, there would be an unusual strain. It seemed that the power the corporation had in this matter was not a power that it should be glad to possess. As things were, the_ councils powers were extraordinarily wide and it seemed unreasonable that a man like defendant should have to approach political opponents for permission to make a public address. He submitted that public speaking was merely an expression of personal views, the prevention of which was a matter that they should be chary about. “ I take it that my friend objects to the by-law on the grounds that it is unreasonable. Well, I cannot imagine one that is more reasonable,” said Mr Haggitt. The by-law, he continued, had been very carefully drawn up and covered every conceivable circumstance. Mr Simpson seemed to assume that in having a by-law at all the City Corporation was interfering with the rights of the people. It was doing nothing of the kind. There was a great deal of misconception about the rights of “ free speech.” All the streets were vested in the corporation and were under its control. Mr Haggitt went on to deal with the Municipal Acts and their relation to control _ of city streets. There was also a definite requirement that all buildings used for public purposes should be licensed. The statutory authorities made it clear that the by-law was not invalid, as a discretionary power was left to the local authority* ft could, not possibly

be held to be void for any reason at all, least df all because, it was unreasonable. It was a commonly accepted view that the streets of the city could be used for free speech. No such right existed. The “right of free speech ” was a misnomer. The defendant seemed to consider that there was such a right, but there was nothing in the constitution or in law to uphold that. The position was that people had a perfect right to say what they liked provided they did not offend against the laws of treason, sedition, official secrets, blasphemy, obscenity, and so on. Tney could say anything else they liked. The “right of free speech” was a matter that was being challenged elsewhere in the dominion at the present time, but actually the only persons who held that right were judges, counsel, and members of Parliament. Mr Bundle: It would be somewhat ridiculous if free speech were allowed. Offences would be committed daily. Mr Simpson: I quite agree. All we claim is the right of free speech within the law, Mr Bundle: You say you should have equal rights with everyone else? Mr Simpson: Yes. Mr Haggitt added that there were certainly ho rights of free speech in a public street. But with regard to this particular by-law the corporation made ft clear that it did not desire to be unreasonable. It gave the right to ask for leave to institute applications for public meetings, and if such applications were considered proper they would be granted. They had been granted before, but never for the purpose of enabling a person to give a political address in a city street. The by-law was really permissible, and conferred a benefit which the public would not otherwise enjoy. The action of the defendant in holding a public meeting on a busy Friday night in a city street could not be anything else hut an unreasonable use of that street. Mr Simpson had assumed that the City Council was exercising its discretionary powers in an unfair manner. Mr Haggitt did not think that' even Mr Gilchrist himself believed that. It simply did not matter what party a man belonged to —no one would get a permit to speak in' such circumstances in a city street. Specific places had been allocated for the purpose. Mr Gilchrist maintained that he had a “ message ” for the people, and it was up to him to deliver that message in the proper place, one set aside for any similar speech. But he wanted the use of a principal city thoroughfare, one in which motorists were not allowed to stop their cars for longer than a few seconds on a Friday night. If people wanted to hear him or anyone else they should go to a hall or the Oval or any such place set aside for the purpose. Counsel mentioned that shopkeepers were objecting to such meetings as Mr Gilchrist’s on a Friday night, as they interfered with business. _Mr Haggitt quoted several authorities in support of his submissions. “ Supposing not only Mr Gilchrist, but everyone with political leanings, applied for a permit to hold such meetings,” he concluded. “ If Air Gilchrist is to be allowed to speak like this, then everyone should be given the same concession. The place would be a bedlam, and the right of way would be entirely obstructed.” In response to a question from the magistrate regarding his views on the political aspect of the City Council, Mr Simpson replied that if he got on the council he would consider himself a politician, more or less. The council was, of course, not as strong in a party sense as Parliament, but there was certainly a political conflict between the “ outs ” and the “ ins.” His Worship: Do you suggest that a political meeting would be permitted by city councillors if the speakers were on a, certain side?.

Mr Simpsonl do not think there is much chance of either of the more conservative sides wishing to speak in the streets. Outside speaking seems to be confined practically to the Labour Party. The Magistrate: But you do not suggest that the corporation would grant the right to one party and not to another?

Mr Simpson: One would have to try the actual experiment, sir. I cannot prove favouritism. “ Do you suggest it?” persisted Mr Bundle. Mr Simpson: To be perfectly frank, it is in my mind, but 1 have no wish to say anything to that effect before the court unless I have proof. Mr Bundle asked what body Mr Simpson would suggest should have the power to grant permission to speak in the streets. Mr Simpson answered that the bylaw should be so drawn up that the council should be asked to intervene as little as possible. Admittedly,- control of the streets was necessary on Friday nights, but during the rest of the week there was no necessity for the council to exercise its powers. He did not suggest that there was an actual _ .legal right for a person to speak m the street, but there was a public right. The Magistrate: If there is no legal right, is that not an end to the matter? How can the by-law be unreasonable? . . , , . - Mr Simpson: There is a right, in a sense, to do anything we like as long as we do nob infringe the law. I cannot see that public speaking is an infringement of the law. ' • “Is it right to use the public streets for public speaking?’’ Mr Simpson submitted that Mr «ii“ Christ had been talking in a recess, and nobody had any need to traverse it to pass through the streets. . His Worship said he would give his decision on Monday morning.