Before an appearance Tuesday evening of feminist writer Meghan Murphy at a Toronto library branch, city librarian Vickery Bowles explained the thinking behind the decision to allow Murphy to speak, which triggered widespread protest, in particular from the transgender community.

Protesters say Murphy is seeking to erase hard-won transgender rights.

The following questions and answers have been edited.

Article Continued Below

How do you feel about the public response to Meghan Murphy’s appearance at the library?

I’m not surprised. I think that it’s a very emotional issue. There’s a very vulnerable community that has suffered a lot of discrimination and violence and difficulties in their daily lives, and I’m speaking of course of the transgender community. Understandably, people are going to feel upset and angry and hurt by allowing a speaker that they feel is speaking against them and discriminating against them.

But I will say that it’s not the only perspective that we’ve heard from. We’ve had, at the library, more comments in terms of emails and letters and voice-mail messages in support of the library’s decision and its support of free speech.”

Did you anticipate it?

Article Continued Below

Yes, we did, absolutely. We were aware of the Vancouver Public Library controversy and certainly we anticipated this controversy unfolding here in Toronto.

Click to expand

You’ve said that you brought it to City of Toronto lawyers and outside lawyers, including a constitutional expert?

Yes. Mayor John Tory asked us to review our room booking policy at the library in July, 2017, after we allowed a group to book the Richview branch for a memorial for a lawyer who had represented (accused neo-Nazis) at the Supreme Court. As part of the revision, we hired an external law firm, based on the fact that it was such a complex legal issue. We asked them to provide us with a legal memorandum on the library’s obligations, including its obligations under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and to help us develop the wording for the revised policy. Once the legal memorandum and revised policy was developed, a constitutional lawyer peer-reviewed both the legal memorandum and the revised policy and this constitutional lawyer was from Osgoode Hall.

Now, under the revised policy, this new one that you made at the mayor’s request, would that booking still be possible?

Yes. We make our decisions based on the purpose of the meeting, not the individuals or groups who make the booking. So this group made the booking based on a memorial service, which they held for this lawyer. That was the purpose of the booking and that’s what transpired with the booking.

That’s a really important principle in terms of this event. The stated purpose of the Murphy booking is to have an educational and open discussion on the concept of gender identity, and its legislative ramifications on women in Canada. And the organizers of the booking had to sign a contract, which also went underwent a legal review, to agree that there would be no activities or discussions that violated the Ontario Human Rights code or the Criminal Code of Canada, which governs hate speech.

Did that revision of policy that you undertook at the request of the mayor, did it move the needle at all in terms of what’s acceptable and not acceptable with the library?

Article Continued Below

What it did was it clarified the library’s position and responsibilities under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and there are legal concepts included in the policy having to do with hate speech and discrimination.

Coun. Kristyn Wong-Tam has brought forward a motion for another review. Do you think it will result in any policy change?

I think that all of that was very thoroughly reviewed. And I don’t think the review would result in altering the policy in any significant way.

Because you’ve already been through the process?

We went through a rigorous process. For months.

What did you learn from this?

Well, you know, this isn’t just happening in Toronto. This is happening in libraries and other institutions throughout the world. We’re seeing challenges to free speech in government and political venues. We’re seeing it on university campuses. And we seem to be in a place where there is less tolerance for a diversity of viewpoints and civil discourse is discouraged in some instances, which I think is challenging and unfortunate.

And the public library is a place to have that kind of public discourse, to engage in civil debate on important, controversial issues.

You mentioned that the library is a place where groups seeking equity can be heard. Except in this case, the person speaking is not a member of one of those groups, she’s speaking about things that in fact, are hugely offensive to members of one of those groups.

You can’t choose what voices to protect under freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

I believe that this has been a valuable debate and I know it’s been hurtful for the transgender community. But I believe that there has also been important discussions about the discrimination, the violence and the challenges faced by the transgender community and it’s important for those discussions to happen to because it does lead to greater understanding and tolerance.

I know from the library’s perspective, we will be working very hard with the LGBTQ community, with the transgender community, with organizations such as Pride Toronto and The 519 to deliver programs and services and meet the needs of the transgender community, so that they we can support them in their equity-seeking goals.

Do you believe you listened well enough to the opposition to this? Shouldn’t the fact that they’re so angry and upset about this and believe that it’s hate speech and believe that it’s going to have a negative effect on the trans community, carry more weight? Shouldn’t that be enough to close it down?

Not in a democratic society. No. Vocal opposition cannot be allowed to shut down minority voices whether they are offensive — and they could be offensive and they could be hurtful.

We need to protect those minority voices and in fact, racialized groups and LGBTQ communities and others would not have achieved the tolerance and understanding that we have in our society if it wasn’t for the fact that their voices were protected, because there was a time, we all know, when there were attempts to shut down those voices as well.

Would you do anything differently?

No, I knew when this started, there was going to be a big controversy that there was going to be opposition.

And I wish, I guess what I wish could have happened was, would be that there would have been more of a discussion about free speech and the importance of it of protecting it. And that has taken place to some extent. But, you know, in these situations, as they said, the emotions and the hurt seem to overtake that kind of a discussion.

Correction - Oct. 30, 2019: This article was edited from a previous version that misspelled Osgoode Hall.