Bylaw to shield Londoners from unexpectedly seeing graphic anti-abortion flyers faces pushback

An envelope and warning label may soon be required for any images of a fetus delivered door to-door in London.

Two years after graphic anti-abortion flyers first appeared in mailboxes in several neighbourhoods, city council is taking another shot at passing a by-law to shield Londoners from unexpectedly viewing similar images of aborted fetuses.

“I am hopeful that this will be a reasonably good solution and actually reduce the harms that this causes in the community,” Coun. Jesse Helmer told colleagues on the Community and Protective Services (CAPS) Committee.

Londoners have complained to city hall that viewing the flyers causes trauma for both adults and children.

The draft by-law would prohibit door-to-door distribution of any image of a fetus, or part of a fetus, unless it is fully concealed in an envelope or other packaging.

It would also have to bear a warning label identifying graphic content and the name and address of the person who delivered it.

Violators would be fined $350 for each incident.

“This has been a long, long, long process,” admitted Coun. Shawn Lewis, one of four councillors who in 2020 asked civic administration to find a solution. “I hope we are at the point where we make a decision.”

In March, city council scrapped a pair of draft bylaws aimed at graphic flyers after receiving confidential legal advice from the city solicitor.

Two years after local homeowners first sounded the alarm, Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada member Deanna Ronson believes envelopes with warning labels would prevent trauma, so she says it’s time for council to act.

“I’m frustrated that it has taken this long, especially when we proposed the opaque envelope as a solution back in the fall of 2021,” she says.

The organization behind the flyers warns city hall, however, that the by-law could face a legal challenge.

“The proposed by-law would violate the charter right to freedom of expression by engaging in content-based discrimination, singling out one particular message for differential treatment,” writes Blaise Alleyne of the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR).

The statement suggests that ultrasound images would also fall under the by-law.

“The proposed by-law would clearly violate the charter and CCBR would explore all of our legal options to respond,” he adds.

Coun. Maureen Cassidy, who chairs the CAPS Committee, says arriving at an effective by-law took time.

“They have the legal right to seek any legal avenues they want to, but I think we are in a good position. Staff have given us the right advice,” says Cassidy.

The committee unanimously (5-0) recommended council approve the by-law.

Council will make a final decision May 3.