Silent protest or bullying? Lawyers argue over MUN student's protest against Vianne Timmons
Ryan Cooke | CBC News | Posted: March 23, 2023 12:53 PM | Last Updated: March 23, 2023
Matt Barter's lawyer argues protections for silent protests should apply to his case
Nobody disagrees that Matt Barter did not make a sound during his protest against Memorial University president Dr. Vianne Timmons on Dec. 2, 2021.
Barter attended a public event on campus and held up a stop sign while Timmons spoke to the audience. His sign said "Stop Vianne! No to Tuition Hikes and Out of Control Spending."
He snapped a selfie, Timmons continued talking, and the event continued uninterrupted.
But while silent protests are protected under the university's student code of conduct, a lawyer for Memorial argued Wednesday that a university official was correct in saying Barter's quiet demonstration was not, in fact, a silent protest, but a form of bullying.
And under the same code of conduct, bullying is a punishable offence. Barter was banned from campus, except to attend classes, for three months while an investigation was launched into his actions.
"What is it that, for the decision-maker made this into bullying or harassment? The answer: It was targeted," said lawyer Ruth Trask, citing decisions made by senior administrators to punish Barter.
Jennifer Browne, Memorial's director of student life, handed down a decision on March 18, 2022, imposing sanctions on Barter for two offences — bullying and causing a disturbance. He was given a letter of reprimand, ordered to attend a bullying seminar, and was placed on non-academic probation for one year.
Barter appealed the decision and it was sent to Marine Institute registrar Leslie Noftall, who sided with Browne.
In her decision, Noftall wrote: "Behaviours were very personal against an individual rather than protesting the collective administration of Memorial."
Barter and his lawyer, Kyle Rees, then appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Rees is asking a judge to set aside the appeal decision, while Trask is asking the judge to dismiss the application or send it back to Memorial University for a hearing. The university is also seeking costs for its legal fees.
Trask said it's not up to the court to decide if it would come to the same conclusions as Browne and Noftall, but whether or not those conclusions were reasonable based on the facts.
Court must consider the target, lawyer says
In his submissions, Rees didn't mince words about whether the protest was targeted.
"I think it is targeted. The president's name is on the stop sign," he said.
"The problem is … there is no analysis conducted by either decision-makers on who that target is. Who that target is, is the president of the university, is the highest public authority in any event that the students can respond to."
If Barter had launched the exact same protest against another speaker at the event, Rees said, then they could have made an easier argument that it was targeted harassment. But when it's a high-ranking public authority, Rees said, there should be different considerations to protect the students' right to protest.
What is a silent protest?
Rees also took issue with Browne and Noftall labelling it anything other than a silent protest.
"My friend takes the position that it is not a silent protest if it conveys a message," Rees said, referring to Trask. "It is absurd."
Rees argued a protest without a message is not a protest at all.
"If what Matt Barter did is not a silent protest, then I can't imagine what a silent protest is."
He said Barter read the student code of conduct before his protest against Timmons, and understood it to mean his actions were protected by the rules and regulations within the document.
He argued if university officials want to interpret what Barter did as anything other than a silent protest, the protections under the student code of conduct might as well not exist.
Rees questions if a disturbance happened
Rees and Trask also differed on whether what Barter did constituted a disruption, as ruled by the decision-makers Browne and Noftall.
Timmons never stopped speaking as Barter walked up to the front of the room and taped one stop sign to the podium and held another one up a few feet to the president's left. Rees said not only did it fail to interrupt her speech, it also didn't hinder anything else she had planned for that day.
In a statement to the investigator hired by MUN, Timmons said she wasn't bothered by Barter but she could see the next woman in line to speak looked scared. Timmons also said she wasn't afraid of Barter but was afraid of other people he might incite with his actions.
Rees suggested none of that constituted a disruption under the code of conduct.
Trask, however, compared the situation to an attempted crime versus an actual crime, saying the outcome doesn't matter as much as the intention.
"Would it have been different if she had stopped her speech and asked him to move, or called for assistance or done some other thing? No," Trask said. "That doesn't change what Mr. Barter did on that day. His actions were the same."
Justice Rosalie McGrath will take the arguments into consideration and deliver a ruling at a later date.