WESTLOCK – A Westlock woman who spoke out against the painting of the 106th Street Rainbow crosswalk and was displeased by what she perceived as a lack of unbiased debate, has launched a petition that aims to keep public spaces within the Town of Westlock “neutral.”
Stephanie Bakker was one of two people to speak against the crosswalk at town council’s June 12 meeting and stated at the time that displaying Pride symbols in public spaces could potentially be seen as “endorsing a particular viewpoint, potentially excluding or alienating individuals who may hold different perspectives or beliefs.”
In an Aug. 1 interview, Bakker confirmed she’s the author of the “Westlock Neutrality Bylaw Petition” whose aim is to force the town to craft a bylaw that would ban crosswalk decoration that supports “political, social, or religious movements or commercial entities” and would also ensure that only the Maple Leaf, provincial flag and town flag would be flown on any town-owned properties. Downtown Westlock was filled June 27 for the inaugural painting of the crosswalk, which had been requested by R.F. Staples School’s gay-straight alliance (GSA), the Thunder Alliance, and approved initially by council in May.
Bakker said when she attended the council meeting to speak her peace, crafting a petition wasn’t even on her radar and she had hoped that council would “have a rational consideration of both sides of the debate.”
“I was quite disappointed at the councillors and the mayor’s attitude at the meeting. They seemed very biased and there was a lot of emotion and rhetoric, but not a lot of honest consideration of what the town’s people wanted,” said Bakker. “I didn’t appreciate their way of handling it.”
Following, Bakker eventually talked with former town councillor Robin Brett who has helped her with the logistics as this is her “first petition.” Currently, Bakker said they need roughly 10 per cent of the town’s population of 4,802 to sign it before presenting it to the town Sept. 21.
Bakker, in addition to several like-minded supporters, have been hitting the streets and knocking on doors to gain support as people need to physically sign the document for it to be valid — more information about the petition is available here.
“Surprisingly, we’re doing better than expected. We’ve only been going door-to-door for about a week now so I can’t predict if the numbers are going to continue, but if they do, we’re quite hopeful,” said Bakker.
Ultimately, Bakker said if the petition is successful and forces a vote for the bylaw and residents are against it, “that’s fine, but council has still been guided to do it democratically.” She also made it clear that “we’re not against any group” but that “government should not discriminate against minorities nor should government promote any minorities and should remain neutral.”
“The biggest response we’re getting from people is that they’re tired of being pushed around by their own government civil servants. The attitude that they heard coming from the town was, “Sit down and shut up and if you disagree with us, you’re misinformed and causing division,’” she continued.
“The space for debate in democracy seems to be getting smaller and smaller in Canada and people don’t like to see that.”
Author of letters speaks
Brett, who admitted he’s “a bit of an arm’s length from the petition”, is providing technical assistance and drawing on his past experience but has taken an active role in voicing his displeasure on the decision, writing a series of letters in Town & Country This Week — the final one appears on Page 47 of the Aug. 8 print edition.
After the June 12 meeting, Brett wondered what he could do as the next municipal election isn’t until 2025 so he looked to “give people ammo when discussing council’s behaviour and decisions” and got a recording of the meeting, then analyzed it and offered his own counterarguments.
“The feedback on the letters I’ve received has been overwhelmingly positive. People have thanked me for saying what they’ve been feeling,” said Brett, who posts the letters online after they’ve been printed in the paper. “There’s been a clear hunger for someone to do something.”
Brett reiterated that the issue revolves around “neutrality and equality in public spaces” and isn’t about “putting any one group down, nor is about elevating one group above another in public spaces” and said simply that this issue has “highlighted why we need” a bylaw.
“And I really think that’s been overlooked, unintentionally or otherwise. The June 12 meeting was disappointing. The delegates spoke, but council’s decision had clearly already been made and most of them, including the mayor, read from scripts that were clearly prepared in advance,” said Brett in a July 31 interview. “The delegations didn’t matter, they were just a formality. And the fact that it was a unanimous decision meant that there was no one I could go to for support or to support, so I felt like many others, voiceless and dismissed.”
And while he acknowledges council is elected to make decisions, he believes that in this case on “such a contentious issue” it should have been up to residents to decide. He recalled past town-wide votes, ranging from banning smoking in public places, one he worked on specifically, to a vote on a casino opening up in the community.
“No matter what some councillors said, this issue is divisive and it should have gone, I believe and many others do as well, to a town-wide vote and hopefully it will,” said Brett. “And not because council wants it to, but because a petition will hold them to it.”
First petition failed
The neutrality petition is the second one aimed at the Rainbow crosswalk, as on the day before it was painted another Westlock woman presented a petition to the town, which was rejected for a host of reasons.
The author of that petition, Benita Pedersen, said that the “public was given very little notice” about the Rainbow crosswalk and “due to that short notice and a shortage of available volunteers, the 124 signatures collected represent just a sample” of its supporters.
Town CAO Simone Wiley previously confirmed in the July 4 Westlock News that she did receive the petition June 26, but said it was rejected as there was “far less signatures than had been portrayed there would be” and “significantly less” than an online one in favour, along with the fact councillors had dealt with the issue twice and that the Municipal Government Act (MGA) doesn’t contemplate petitions for things like the painting of a crosswalk.
Pedersen said that residents “clearly expressed disapproval” in an assortment of ways including presentations at the town council meeting, rallies outside council chambers and on the steps of town office, signage, handouts and “hundreds (possibly thousands) of messages sent to members of town council and the CAO.”
“Elected representatives have a responsibility to hear the voice of the people. For all of the aforementioned efforts, including the petition to be completely disregarded instead of given careful consideration, is unacceptable,” said Pedersen previously. “For a petition to be rejected before it is presented is unacceptable. It is also unacceptable that CAO Simone Wiley failed in her responsibility to provide adequate information to council so that they could make a sound decision on this matter. What we have witnessed is an alarming disrespect for democracy and a concerning disregard for the voice of the people. Going forward, when it is apparent that the town is dealing with a contentious issue, put the matter to plebiscite and let the people decide.”
In a July 4 story, Wiley said that “The delegations had happened, council made their decision and then reaffirmed their decision and when the person dropping it off says, ‘People don’t want this’ and then the petition ‘for’ it has three times the number of signatures, it’s a clear case of a vocal few who are not in favour.”
Wiley also made it clear that the petition wasn’t valid under the MGA for a host of reasons and that “council had no obligation to do anything with it.” A Municipal Affairs document from 2016 on petitions explains that Section 232(1) of the MGA states that electors may petition council for a new bylaw or to amend or repeal an existing bylaw or resolution on any matter within the jurisdiction of the council under the MGA or any other enactment, subject to some limitations. Councils may also be petitioned to hold a public meeting (s. 229), for a public vote on an advertised bylaw or resolution (s. 231), or for local improvements (s. 393).
“The MGA does not contemplate this type of a petition that would force council to do anything about the decision that they made. They’re elected to make decisions and they made one. There were some residents who were unhappy with that decision and wanted to be heard and they were heard,” said Wiley previously. “And just because council didn’t agree with them doesn’t mean the democratic process wasn’t followed correctly.”
