A deep dive into the Right to Privacy Committee material stored at The ArQuives. In her blog post, Sophie explores how the committee formed at a rally in response to the police raid of the Barracks bathhouse.

Formation
The Right to Privacy Committee (RTPC) was formed in Toronto at a rally in response to the police raid of the Barracks bathhouse on December 9th, 1978. The December 9th raid involved five queer people being charged as keepers and 23 as found-ins1. The RTPC was formally constituted at a meeting of the queer community on January 22, 19792. The RTPC was coordinated by Michael Laking, Brent Hawkes, Tom Warner, Brian Mossop, Bill Mole and Peter Maloney3. The RTPC was originally called ‘The December 9th Defence Fund’ and was an organization that supported the defendants charged in the raid and sought to make changes to prevent it from happening again4. It raised money for The Barracks and those charged as ‘found-ins’ and ‘keepers’. The RTPC wrote that “the committee engages in political and public educational activity to reduce the actual level of intrusion on personal privacy, and to foster a climate which supports the growth of individual liberty”5. They were able to defend the interests of found-ins, business owners and the larger queer community.

Following the December 9th raid, the RTPC compiled a list of those arrested and their lawyers. They circulated leaflets and met with found-ins to coordinate a defence. They urged those arrested not to plead guilty and pledged to financially support those who required assistance6. Throughout its existence, the RTPC raised money by asking for donations in The Body Politic and holding fundraising events such as queer dances and rummage sales7. In its first eight months, the RTPC raised $16514.988. Unfortunately, three quarters of those charged in the December 9th raid pleaded guilty9. “Even the Right to Privacy Committee, created in response to that original raid, appeared unaware that the cases had come to trial and that most found-ins were pleading guilty. The RTPC’s John Burt said ‘It’s a lesson on how vigilant we have to be’”10. This is a lesson that the RTPC used when it came to future defences.

The RTPC published a monthly newsletter and a shared publication with The Body Politic called Newsbreak. It also operated the Gay Street Patrol and Gay Court Watch. Gay Court Watch offered “general court information[,] lawyer referrals, crisis referral [and] support services [for those who] have been arrested or need assistance with the court system”11. Through Gay Court Watch, the RTPC helped hundreds of queer people. For example, “In 1983, Gay Courtwatch helped gay men deal with 500 indecency charges”12. With all of their interventions, the RTPC was “an invaluable resource in the era of stepped-up police entrapment, AIDS, right wing backlash, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms”13.

Grappling with the Police
In a 1979 issue of Newsbreak14, a timeline traced the history of police harassment in Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal from 1969 to 1979. Outlined were instances where queer people were persecuted on the basis of immorality in publication offices, bars, bathhouses and their own bedrooms. The committee’s issues with police intersected with other struggles between marginalized people and police, for example, violence against Black people. The committee frequently criticized the Toronto Metro Police budget15. The RTPC explained that “[g]ay taxpayers have particular concerns that they will be made the object of police attempts to justify their budget”16.

On June 6 in 1979, a teacher named Don Franco was arrested on bawdy house charges in his own home17. The following was written about the arrest in The Body Politic: “If, as the Right to Privacy Committee claims, the police in Toronto are out of control and waging a private war on gay people, then this arrest was a calculated act of revenge”18. The police seized sensitive materials such as RTPC membership lists and NDP gay caucus lists. This was a huge violation of privacy and the police could use these lists to target queer people. Franco told The Body Politic that the police were “dragging their feet about returning seized materials that have no bearing on the charge”19. The RTPC asked police and government to make amends by returning materials and denouncing anti-queer discrimination, but they refused20. In November 1981, Don Franco was finally acquitted and the RTPC celebrated their win21. Unfortunately, Don Franco did not attend the celebrations because “he felt he had to leave the city shortly after the verdict”22.

The RTPC was “the backbone of the Toronto community’s response to the bath raids of 1978, 1981 and 1983”23. The RTPC did important work during an intense time of targeted raids by police. A recorded 26 raids occurred between October 1977 and June 1981, with over 805 queer people arrested or charged in these raids24. This is a significant number over only a four-year period. Between February 1981 and February 1983, the RTPC raised over $100,000 for legal defence of found-ins25.

One of the most impressive successes of the RTPC was their response to the Operation Soap bathhouse raids26. In coordinated attacks on February 5th, 1981, four Toronto bath houses were raided by the Toronto Police. The police arrested 286 people and charged them as ‘found-ins’ in a ‘common bawdy house’27 with 306 people arrested in total, the remaining charged as ‘keepers of a common bawdy house’ The RTPC helped organize the 3000 person march on the Toronto Police 52 Division and then on Queen’s Park protesting the violence28. Impressively, their legal coordination helped 87% of those charged in Operation Soap and two smaller raids be discharged29. Read my blog post about Operation Soap here.

In the spring of 1982, the police’s targeting of the queer community escalated to the point of Glad Day Book Shop being slapped with obscenity charges30. Once again, the police took advantage of the vague definition of obscenity in Canada’s Criminal Code31. An article in Newsbreak read “Toronto’s gay community is now entering yet another costly legal battle against selective enforcement of the law. Once again, it is up against an Attorney General’s department that possesses virtually unlimited financial and human resources”32. Francis Gillis argued that while the found-in trials were still going on, to avoid negative attention, such as that caused by Operation Soap, the police had taken to targeting individuals rather than making mass arrests33. This allowed them to avoid press attention or intense community backlash. He wrote that “the chagrin of Glad Day Books is not an isolated event. It is just one more incident in a wave of intense, if low-profile, police activity against the gay community”34. Newsbreak warned that these smaller attacks may have cumulative effects far more devastating than those of Operation Soap.

The police failed to protect the queer community, and worse, perpetrated violence against queer people themselves. In order to protect the community, the RTPC created the Gay Street Patrol in 198135. This was a “group trained to patrol streets and lanes where frequent queerbashing occurs”36. It was created in response to frequent anti-queer attacks that occurred in Toronto’s downtown core37. “The RTPC attribute[d] the increase in attacks on gay people to the attitudes of police and the provincial government”38. In a press release by the RTPC, the patrol was announced: “Gay street patrols utilizing a minimum of three four-men teams will be patrolling areas of downtown Toronto by the first week in June“39. Patrol members attended self-defense, legal and first aid training. They were also taught teamwork skills and non-violent philosophy40.

Denying accusations of vigilantism, “Findlay said the RTPC designed the entire program to remain within the framework of the Canadian Criminal Code”41. An administrative note in the documents of the Gay Street Patrol, its creators wrote “Philosophy – We DO NOT WANT TO START A FIGHT”42. The Gay Street Patrol was not a substitute for police, but a complement. Members of the patrol would call for police to help with violent occurrences as they were happening43. Also, the RTPC encouraged and supported victims of anti-queer assaults to report incidents to the police44. In the press release Dennis Findlay said “[t]he problem is that many gays are afraid to go to the police […] They don’t want to be on record as gay persons in police reports”45. This patrol would help bridge the gap between victims and the police. In a letter to the editor of the Toronto Star in 1981, Dennis Findlay wrote “I view the patrols as one of the most positive responses from the gay community to an intolerable situation […] I challenge you as the editor of the Toronto Star and the citizens of the City of Toronto to be as positive”46.

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the Toronto Metro Police would claim to care about mending their relationship with the queer community, yet the discrimination continued. In a 1982 publication of Newbreak47, the community asserted that “[w]hile appearing to be committed to improving relations with the gay community, the police continue to systematically harass gay individuals and establishments.” RTPC activist Graham Crawford warned the police that “unless the police show their concern to be genuine then discussion will cease”48. Interestingly, the RTPC’s stance was that there were bad apples in the police force that needed to be removed: “It is the homophobic elements of the force that must be rooted out” 49. This stands in contrast to police abolition views held by many members of the queer community.

Lobbying for Change
The queer community was often unimpressed with political parties’ efforts (or lack thereof) to support their rights. In 1981, dissatisfied with Ontario political candidates, The Body Politic urged readers to “[r]edirect money you might otherwise have given to a political party to groups like Toronto’s Right to Privacy Committee”50. Examining proposed criminal code reforms, Bill C-5351. A June 1979 issue of The Body Politic describes how candidates dodged queer issues leading up to the Federal election. The RTPC and the Lesbian Organization of Toronto held “[a]n all-candidates meeting […] in Rosedale, a heavily gay-populated downtown Toronto riding”52.

From their inception, the RTPC took many formal pathways to effecting change. In its first year of existence, the RTPC was already “[acting] as a lobbying group at the Police Commission, Metro Council and Metro Council executive on issues concerning gay rights. The Committee has also lobbied the Solicitor General of Ontario about dropping the bawdy house charges”53. In August 1979, pressures from the RTPC resulted in “superior officers within the Metro Toronto Police Dept revers[ing] a July 12 decision by the police-controlled Citizen Complaint Bureau”54. The Citizen complaint Bureau had decided not to prosecute Constable John Puce for using an anti-gay slur, but this overturning meant that he would be prosecuted55.

Bawdy house laws were a focus of the RTPC’s efforts. The RTPC challenged the search warrant used in the 1983 raid of the Backdoor Gym and Sauna. “Toronto’s Right to Privacy Committee [was] in the forefront of organizing support for this case [and they raised money] to quash the search warrant and strike down Section 181 of the Criminal Code“56. In 1985, the RTPC arguments were accepted by the Ontario Supreme Court, which agreed that the bawdy house special warrants were unconstitutional57.

The RTPC was even challenging bawdy house laws in 1979, before the infamous Operation Soap bath raids even took place58. In the November 1979 issue of Newsbreak59, the RTPC saw the risk presented by the law and was raising money to challenge it. The RTPC asserted that “[u]nder the law as it now stands there is no right to privacy […] It is the most important challenge for the civil rights of sexuality ever launched in this country”60, The RTPC thought that its challenge would be monumental, affecting every queer person in the country and potentially even going to the Supreme Court of Canada. Unfortunately, change would not be made so quickly.

Criticisms
Community members voiced their criticisms of the RTPC in The Body Politic. In its May 1979 issue61, Ken Popert critiqued the presence of businessmen in the leadership of the RTPC, arguing that their interests do not align with those of the broader queer community. He wrote that “with the Right to Privacy Committee as its vehicle, gay business stands ready to promote itself as the leadership of the whole gay population”62. He warned that having gay businessmen leading the community undermined prospects for queer liberation63. This is an understandable concern, but the RTPC was not only made up of businessmen. As CWK Heard wrote in a letter to The Body Politic responding to Popert, “if it were not for these business persons, who else would support the Right to Privacy Committee?”64.

Personally, I think that the race and gender makeup of the RTPC was more of a problem. It was almost entirely white, cis, men. The absence of transgender people, women, and people of colour is more concerning to me than the presence of a few businessmen on the committee. While the RTPC was absolutely reflective of who was visible in the queer community at the time, I think that an unrepresentative group leading the community makes me question whose privacy was being protected and whose liberation was being fought for. However, it would be dishonest to act like this was the only or dominant group leading the community. In fact, the RTPC’s constitution draft includes the following statements: “WE ARE NOT A SINGLE VOICE FOR THE ENTIRE GAY COMMUNITY” and “WE ARE ONLY ONE COMPONENT OF THE GAY COMMUNITY”65. The RTPC did not claim to represent the entire community and it worked with many other groups to fight for queer people’s rights.

Some argued that the RTPC was anti-sex. Regarding washroom arrests, the RTPC maintained “we have a responsibility not to inflict our sexual activity on others where it is not wanted”66. Some believed that “the Right to Privacy Committee [was] failing to advance the cause of radical sexuality”67. “The bawdy house laws [were] often used to arrest and harass prostitutes”, but in 1989, “[t]he Right to Privacy Committee ha[d] not taken up the question of prostitution on the grounds that no prostitution is involved in the baths”68. By 1984, the RTPC saw that they shared a common enemy and was actively fighting for sex workers’ rights. While Canada was waging attacks on sex workers, the RTPC “urged that soliciting be removed from the Criminal Code”69. Further, referencing treatment by police and government, Newbreak warned against respectability politics: “‘good’ faggots must be protected from ‘bad’ faggots. And what is a good faggot? Presumably one who is not politically active, does not go to bars, does not attempt to buy or sell sex, does his best to disappear”70. To me, this shows that the RTPC was not anti-sex in order to advance their cause.

Others critiqued the RTPC’s focus on privacy as a key tenet of queer liberation. In a letter to The Body Politic, Scott Tucker argued that the bathhouse raids were not just an attack on private life, but public life. He warned that “the [political] right is free to interpret our right to privacy as being our right to the closet”71. Tucker argued that “the right to privacy is a defensive right and gays at this time must take up an offensive fight for community”72. Certainly, the queer community was not aiming to be told that they are allowed to be queer as long as they don’t make anyone look at it or hear about it. His concern is valid since privacy is not the same as freedom. However, privacy forms the basis for most basic human rights. Surveillance is the first step in controlling a population. Thus, I would argue that privacy actually forms the basis for freedom. In his essay, In Defence of Privacy Or Bluntly Put “No More Shit”73, George Smith asserts that

“[t]he demand that sexuality be treated as a private matter, the demand for the Right to Privacy, is in principle fundamentally the same as the demand for human rights legislation for gays. What human rights protection for sexual minorities says is that sexuality is a private matter. Therefore, it is not relevant to public issues such as housing and employment […] Understood this way, privacy goes beyond the four walls of a bedroom. It is the fundamental defense against state control of sexual life”.

Privacy should not be the end goal of queer liberation movements, but I agree with the RTPC that it is a necessary first step.

It is clear that the RTPC prompted a lot of debate. Ken Popert, justifying his critiques of the committee, wrote “[u]nity, yes, in emergencies. But otherwise, let there be public discussion and patient struggle”74. In 1981, George Smith wrote, “[i]t would be sad if the unity that the RTPC is working so hard to build were to be weakened by the sensationalistic treatment of serious issues taken up in the pages of our community’s major newspaper”75. He feared that criticism could undermine the efforts of the RTPC to protect Toronto’s queer community from police and government violence. This raises important questions for those advancing queer liberation today. We want to achieve unity but leave room for debate. In the internet age, we have become hypercritical of leaders, especially those who purport to fight for the queer community. The LGBTQ2+ community is full of in-fighting and disagreements about how to advance our goals or even what those goals are. It is crucial that we hold movement leaders accountable, but we must not get so hung up on debate that we fail to make any progress. As the saying goes, perfect is the enemy of good.

References
1. Newbreak. (1982, May). RTPC / TBP Newsbreak. The ArQuives. https://collections.arquives.ca/link/catalogue15438
2. The Body Politic. (1979, August). The Body Politic fonds. The ArQuives. https://collections.arquives.ca/link/ia_bodypolitic55toro
3. The Body Politic. (1979, February). The Body Politic fonds. The ArQuives. https://collections.arquives.ca/link/ia_bodypolitic50toro; The Body Politic. (1979, March/April). The Body Politic fonds. The ArQuives. https://collections.arquives.ca/link/ia_bodypolitic51toro
4. The Body Politic. (1979, February). The Body Politic fonds. The ArQuives. https://collections.arquives.ca/link/ia_bodypolitic50toro; The Body Politic. (1979, August). The Body Politic fonds. The ArQuives. https://collections.arquives.ca/link/ia_bodypolitic55toro
5. Newbreak. (1979, November). RTPC / TBP Newsbreak. The ArQuives. https://collections.arquives.ca/link/catalogue15438
6. The Body Politic. (1979, March/April). The Body Politic fonds. The ArQuives. https://collections.arquives.ca/link/ia_bodypolitic51toro
7. The Body Politic. (1979, February). The Body Politic fonds. The ArQuives. https://collections.arquives.ca/link/ia_bodypolitic50toro; The Body Politic. (1979, May). The Body Politic fonds. The ArQuives. https://collections.arquives.ca/link/ia_bodypolitic52toro; The Body Politic. (1985, April). The Body Politic fonds. The ArQuives. https://collections.arquives.ca/link/ia_bodypolitic113toro
8. Newbreak. (1979, November). RTPC / TBP Newsbreak. The ArQuives. https://collections.arquives.ca/link/catalogue15438
9. The Body Politic. (1981, November). The Body Politic fonds. The ArQuives. https://collections.arquives.ca/link/ia_bodypolitic78toro
10. Ibid.
11. The Body Politic. (1984, January/February). The Body Politic fonds. The ArQuives. https://collections.arquives.ca/link/ia_bodypolitic100toro
12. Ibid.
13. Draft Overview of RTPC History and Committee Work. (n.d.). The Right to Privacy Committee Fonds. The ArQuives. https://collections.arquives.ca/link/descriptions35136
14. Newbreak. (1979). RTPC / TBP Newsbreak. The ArQuives. https://collections.arquives.ca/link/catalogue15438
15. Newbreak. (1980, March). RTPC / TBP Newsbreak. The ArQuives. https://collections.arquives.ca/link/catalogue15438; The Body Politic. (1979, May). The Body Politic fonds. The ArQuives. https://collections.arquives.ca/link/ia_bodypolitic52toro; The Body Politic. (1981, May). The Body Politic fonds. The ArQuives. https://collections.arquives.ca/link/ia_bodypolitic73toro
16. Newbreak. (1980, March). RTPC / TBP Newsbreak. The ArQuives. https://collections.arquives.ca/link/catalogue15438
17. The Body Politic. (1979, June). The Body Politic fonds. The ArQuives. https://collections.arquives.ca/link/ia_bodypolitic53toro; The Body Politic. (1979, August). The Body Politic fonds. The ArQuives. https://collections.arquives.ca/link/ia_bodypolitic55toro
18. The Body Politic. (1979, June). The Body Politic fonds. The ArQuives. https://collections.arquives.ca/link/ia_bodypolitic53toro
19. The Body Politic. (1979, August). The Body Politic fonds. The ArQuives. https://collections.arquives.ca/link/ia_bodypolitic55toro
20. Ibid.
21. The Body Politic. (1981, November). The Body Politic fonds. The ArQuives. https://collections.arquives.ca/link/ia_bodypolitic78toro
22. Ibid.
23. The Body Politic. (1985, January). The Body Politic fonds. The ArQuives. https://collections.arquives.ca/link/ia_bodypolitic110toro
24. Newbreak. (1982, May). RTPC / TBP Newsbreak. The ArQuives. https://collections.arquives.ca/link/catalogue15438
25. Administration. (n.d.). The Right to Privacy Committee fonds. The ArQuives. https://collections.arquives.ca/link/descriptions35405
26. The Body Politic. (1981, March). The Body Politic fonds. The ArQuives.
27. Ibid.
28. Ibid.
29. The Body Politic. (1983, April). The Body Politic fonds. The ArQuives.
30. Newbreak. (1982, May). RTPC / TBP Newsbreak. The ArQuives. https://collections.arquives.ca/link/catalogue15438
31. Ibid.
32. Ibid.
33. Ibid.
34. Ibid.
35. The Body Politic. (1986, January). The Body Politic fonds. The ArQuives. https://collections.arquives.ca/link/ia_bodypolitic122toro
36. The Body Politic. (1981, May). The Body Politic fonds. The ArQuives. https://collections.arquives.ca/link/ia_bodypolitic73toro
37. The Body Politic. (1986, January). The Body Politic fonds. The ArQuives. https://collections.arquives.ca/link/ia_bodypolitic122toro
38. Administration. (n.d.). The Right to Privacy Committee fonds. The ArQuives. https://collections.arquives.ca/link/descriptions35405
39. Ibid.
40. Ibid.
41. Ibid.
42. Ibid.
43. Ibid.
44. Ibid.
45. Ibid.
46. Ibid.
47. Newbreak. (1982). RTPC / TBP Newsbreak. The ArQuives. https://collections.arquives.ca/link/catalogue15438
48. Ibid.
49. Ibid.
50. The Body Politic. (1981, March). The Body Politic fonds. The ArQuives. https://collections.arquives.ca/link/ia_bodypolitic71toro
51. The Body Politic. (1981, May). The Body Politic fonds. The ArQuives. https://collections.arquives.ca/link/ia_bodypolitic73toro
52. The Body Politic. (1979, June). The Body Politic fonds. The ArQuives. https://collections.arquives.ca/link/ia_bodypolitic53toro
53. Newbreak. (1979, November). RTPC / TBP Newsbreak. The ArQuives. https://collections.arquives.ca/link/catalogue15438
54. The Body Politic. (1979, August). The Body Politic fonds. The ArQuives. https://collections.arquives.ca/link/ia_bodypolitic55toro
55. Ibid.
56. The Body Politic. (1985, January). The Body Politic fonds. The ArQuives. https://collections.arquives.ca/link/ia_bodypolitic110toro
57. Ibid.
58. The Body Politic. (1979, July). The Body Politic fonds. The ArQuives. https://collections.arquives.ca/link/ia_bodypolitic54toro; Newbreak. (1979, November). RTPC / TBP Newsbreak. The ArQuives. https://collections.arquives.ca/link/catalogue15438
59. Newbreak. (1979, November). RTPC / TBP Newsbreak. The ArQuives. https://collections.arquives.ca/link/catalogue15438
60. Ibid.
61. The Body Politic. (1979, May). The Body Politic fonds. The ArQuives. https://collections.arquives.ca/link/ia_bodypolitic52toro
62. Ibid.
63. Ibid.
64. The Body Politic. (1979, July). The Body Politic fonds. The ArQuives. https://collections.arquives.ca/link/ia_bodypolitic54toro
65. Constitution Drafts, Amendments and RTPC Objectives. (n.d.). The Right to PrivacyCommittee fonds. The ArQuives. https://collections.arquives.ca/link/descriptions35135
66. Newbreak. (1980, March). RTPC / TBP Newsbreak. The ArQuives. https://collections.arquives.ca/link/catalogue15438
67. The Body Politic. (1981, September). The Body Politic fonds. The ArQuives. https://collections.arquives.ca/link/ia_bodypolitic76toro
68. The Body Politic. (1979, June). The Body Politic fonds. The ArQuives. https://collections.arquives.ca/link/ia_bodypolitic53toro
69. The Body Politic. (1984, January/February). The Body Politic fonds. The ArQuives. https://collections.arquives.ca/link/ia_bodypolitic100toro
70. Newbreak. (1982, May). RTPC / TBP Newsbreak. The ArQuives. https://collections.arquives.ca/link/catalogue15438
71. The Body Politic. (1981, November). The Body Politic fonds. The ArQuives. https://collections.arquives.ca/link/ia_bodypolitic78toro
72. Ibid.
73. In Defence of Privacy or Bluntly Put No More Shit by George Smith. The Right to Privacy Committee fonds. The ArQuives. https://collections.arquives.ca/link/descriptions35378
74. The Body Politic. (1979, July). The Body Politic fonds. The ArQuives. https://collections.arquives.ca/link/ia_bodypolitic54toro
75. The Body Politic. (1981, September). The Body Politic fonds. The ArQuives. https://collections.arquives.ca/link/ia_bodypolitic76toro

Author Bio: Sophie Argyle is a Master’s student in York University’s Communication and Culture program. In her research, she examines the possibilities and limitations offered to LGBTQ+ people by digital media. She is currently writing her thesis about queer people who discovered a facet of their LGBTQ+ identity on TikTok. As an intern at the ArQuives, Sophie is excited to help out the communications team and research historical events that involved the collection of queer people’s personal data.