In an affront to democracy and transparency, the board also prohibited members of the public from recording this public meeting, with the exception of “authorized” media. Prohibiting the recording of a public meeting violates the Charter right of all citizens and taxpayers to hear, listen to, and consider alternative perspectives, and to share information freely.
Censoring your opponents by interrupting them, muting their microphone, and ordering them to stop might feel like a fun power-trip in the short run. But what happens if your opponents win the next election, and use these same tools against you? What goes around, comes around.
On June 13, 2023, di Armani, who had also worked for 10 years as an educational assistant with special needs students for the Chilliwack School Board, attended a public meeting of the school board. She tried to share her concerns regarding a potential conflict of interest. A trustee had asked the board to promote Pride Month, including installing a third flagpole to fly the pride flag. That same trustee was also the marketing director for a local pride society. Di Armani believed this was a conflict of interest, and attempted to share her concerns with the board during the “public participation” portion of the meeting.
Di Armani had only started her presentation when she was swiftly and repeatedly interrupted and silenced by the board chair and vice-chair, who claimed that her remarks were “discriminatory” and that “[t]here is no conflict of interest when you’re talking about basic human rights.” Di Armani was told she could not refer to the pride flag as a special interest flag. The chair repeatedly silenced her mic, and muted the recording. This rude and anti-democratic censorship can be viewed here at 24:02 to 26:56.
Five months after this incident, the board wrote a letter inviting di Armani to speak (presumably without interruption) at an upcoming meeting in December. The letter came only after di Armani had filed a court application against the school board, and after the board had already passed a policy to erect an additional flagpole for a pride flag, regardless of what conflict of interest may have existed. Di Armani’s opportunity to speak at the December meeting was therefore meaningless.
The board’s letter did not contain an apology for the behaviour of the chair, or for the board’s obvious violations of di Armani’s Charter-protected freedom of expression. In fact, the board didn’t even mention the Charter in its letter, nor did it acknowledge any wrongdoing. The letter claimed that “the board heard and addressed your questions related to an alleged conflict of interest at the June 13, 2024, board meeting,” which is obviously not true, considering the interruptions and the muting of the mic.
Unsurprisingly, di Armani declined the invitation to speak uninterrupted at a later board meeting.
Still, the judge appeared very impressed with the board’s letter, and used it to dismiss di Armani’s claim as “moot” (no longer relevant). The court concluded that the board had somehow provided an adequate remedy for any misconduct, and that there was no longer any “unresolved dispute” between di Armani and the board. In spite of the board’s letter being unapologetic and remorseless, the court ruled that “the Board clearly found the original decision to terminate Ms. di Armani’s participation was wrong, and that the petitioner should be permitted to voice her comments or questions.” The court ruled, absurdly, that rendering a decision against the school board would not have “any practical effect on the rights of the petitioner.”
Citing “safety,” “security,” “inclusivity,” “student safety,” and opposition to “discriminatory” comments, the court referred to various woke policies of the school board to rule that the chair has the authority to interrupt speakers. The court suggested that, in the name of pursuing “anti-discrimination policies,” the chair had honourable motives when pre-emptively “responding” to di Armani’s comments (by interrupting her repeatedly and muting her microphone). Without any basis, the court’s reasoning implies that di Armani had somehow failed to conduct herself “in a respectful manner to promote a safe and inclusive school environment” and had engaged in conduct that was “discriminatory,” “invasive,” and “irresponsible.”
The court referenced a school board policy to create an “inclusive” environment and a culture of “safety” at “school-authorized events and activities.” How a public meeting for citizens, taxpayers, and parents qualifies as a “school-authorized event” the judge did not explain.
The court ruled that the board legitimately expected all persons to refrain from “discriminatory behaviour,” but provided no explanation as to how or why this ought to apply to members of the public expressing their views about items on the board’s agenda.
Di Armani did not engage in any “discriminatory” behaviour. Rather, she peacefully and politely expressed concerns and opinions about political issues, as every citizen should be free to do, especially at public meetings of a school board, town, or city. Protecting the safety of those who attend a public meeting can be achieved by arresting anyone who engages in criminal behaviour (violence, threats, disruption, etc.), not by censoring the speech of citizens or by prohibiting the recording of a public meeting.
In Di Armani v. School District No. 33, the court failed to hold the board to any constitutional standard in how it treats members of the public. The court let a public school board off the hook for violating the Charter freedom of expression, based on the pretext of a non-apology letter and a change in which trustees occupied the positions of chair and vice chair.
Turning a blind eye to government censorship effectively invites other school boards to interrupt and silence citizens who express opinions that do not align with woke policies. What goes around comes around. It is most unwise for a court—or any other person or entity—to condone censorship.
John Carpay, B.A., LL.B., is president of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (jccf.ca).
