Wednesday, May 18 2005 marked a victory for the opponents of Toronto's proposed anti-postering bylaw. Following hours of debate, City Council voted to delay a vote on the bylaw, which would have banned postering on 98 percent of the city's utility poles, choosing instead to refer the proposal to the office of the Mayor. The decision is a momentous one, but it by no means constitutes an absolute victory for opponents of the proposed ban, who will once again need the support of the community when the debate returns to Council in the fall.

Mayor David Miller was given four months to review the bylaw, a process which demands that he review alternative proposals in pursuit of a solution that benefits the community at large. Indeed, opponents of the bylaw were reassured by the Mayor's recognition of postering as an issue of free expression within a diverse and vibrant city.

'œOur first principle has to be about freedom of speech,'? Miller argued. 'œThis is an issue that no City Council should take lightly. The Supreme Court of Canada has said that postering is an appropriate expression of free speech.'? Miller's statement refers to a decision by the Court that a regional ruling in Peterborough against postering on public property was too broad to be upheld under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms '“ a ruling which was made in response to a local musician who was charged with breach of the bylaw for advertising his band's performances by postering on local hydro poles. Although the court acknowledged the validity of the ban with regard to protection of property rights, it ruled that a complete ban on public postering was unconstitutional.

To be fair, City Council wasn't considering a total ban on postering; there was still that 2 percent of public utility poles to be considered. But as the Toronto Public Space Committee (TPSC) points out, City Council had failed to draft a method of indicating which of the city's poles would be among the 1 in 50 that were considered acceptable ground for postering. With the odds of legality being so low, the chances of a bylaw-abiding citizen postering on any of the city's poles would be slim at best. Therefore, the city's failure to propose a method of designated postering spaces could certainly be argued to constitute an unofficial, but nonetheless universal, ban on postering in Toronto.

But whatever, right? So a local hardcore group doesn't get to promote their lame show at some shitty club. What's the big deal?

The big deal, as the Mayor, the TPSC and other opponents of the proposed ban have rightly argued, was that this is a matter of freedom of speech. Postering is all too commonly associated with rock shows, club nights and CD release parties, as any resident of Queen West or the Annex will no doubt tell you. But let's say for a moment that none of these events count as legitimate expressions of art, culture or personal opinion. Let's play devil's advocate and argue that such commercial pursuits '“ as if anybody's making any real money from their show at Sneaky Dee's '“ aren't protected as free speech under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

That still leaves us with activists and community organizers who rely on postering as a method of getting their message out to the public. It still leaves us with everyday people in search of lost dogs, cats, friends or family members. It leaves us with people who believe that the right to public expression should extend beyond government and big business. Indeed, it leaves us with anyone whose chosen method of communication, no matter how dirty or disrespectful its opponents might consider it, is constitutionally protected.

Too often, the issue of postering is seen as an 'œall or nothing'? debate. Protectors of property rights could easily propose restrictions on postering on public property. Environmentalists could certainly propose cleaner and more conscientious ways to poster than many of the methods that are currently used. Concerned parents and citizens have every right to argue for restrictions on what they consider to be obscene or pornographic content. But none of these concerns necessitates an outright ban on postering within the city of Toronto, whether it be a 100 percent ban or a 98 percent ban. Ultimately, when the debate returns to City Council in the fall, it will be up to us to propose a solution that respects these concerns without compromising freedom of expression in our city.

By Matt Blair