The flags of Didsbury, Alberta, and Canada fly in front of Didsbury Town Hall, and they'll remain the only three after a public spaces neutrality bylaw was passed on March 24. (Image Credit: Contributed)

By Aaron Sousa, Canadian Press

vote was march 24

Neutral spaces bylaw gets final approval in Didsbury

Mar 27, 2026 | 9:49 AM

Councillors in an Alberta town have voted to become the latest community in the province to ban decorative flags and crosswalks from public land, a move that effectively forbids symbolic artistic statements, such as rainbow-hued Pride crosswalks.

It’s a decision opponents say is a step toward erasing the voices of marginalized communities.

On Tuesday, Didsbury town councillors passed the “public spaces neutrality bylaw.” It restricts the town north of Calgary to only flying government flags and maintaining standardized road and crosswalk markings.

Didsbury, a town of 5,200, does not currently have special flags or crosswalks, such as those recognizing the 2SLGBTQ+ community, First Nations or veterans.

The bylaw, introduced March 10, was the result of feedback gathered from residents during the election campaign.

vote was march 24

Neutral spaces bylaw gets final approval in Didsbury

1h ago

Celebrity guest appearance

Alberta Food & Beverage Expo happening this Saturday in Red Deer

5h ago

ALERT investigation

Victims identified in Red Deer, Morinville after investigation into Calgary man for alleged child sex crimes

18h ago

The decision was close.

Mayor Chris Little and three other councillors voted in favour of the bylaw’s third and final reading. Three other councillors voted against.

Little told council that political neutrality is about ensuring everyone feels welcome in public spaces. He said the bylaw doesn’t seek to bar free expression.

“If it’s not one of these two things — a town-owned flagpole or a crosswalk — the bylaw does not affect it,” he said.

One opposing councillor, Will Stevens, said the bylaw has sparked animosity and division, as some emails to council had language “directly or indirectly tied to limiting LGBTQ inclusion.”

“Regardless of intentions, the perception of this bylaw is clear and it is not neutrality,” Stevens said. “If Didsbury is perceived as less welcoming or less inclusive, we risk reputational harm that extends beyond this debate.”

At the meeting, some residents said the bylaw would drive away tourists and youth, and change how others view the town. One woman, who called herself a member of the queer community, said it opens the door to hate and “makes me nervous to live here.”

Supporters said it’s not about diminishing any particular group, belief or identity, but about keeping municipal resources fair and accessible.

Didsbury serves as an agricultural hub looking to attract tourists with services and a historic downtown.

The advocacy group Calgary Pride, in a statement, said the bylaw sets a disturbing precedent: “What may seem innocuous is a concerning step towards the erasure of 2SLGBTQIA+ representation and greater diversity in the community.”

Another group, the Didsbury Civic Literacy Network, called it a “thinly veiled attempt” to ban and erase symbols of support for marginalized groups.

Didsbury is now the third Alberta town to outlaw such adornments. In 2024, the northern towns of Westlock and Barrhead passed bylaws, barring Pride crosswalks, Treaty 6 flags and a Royal Canadian Legion flag. It came after neutrality groups in each town argued governments should not promote one group over others.

“The increasing number of cities and towns limiting representation of their residents in municipal spaces is cause for great concern,” said Calgary Pride.

“We’re seeing a rise in capitulation to a few voices — a few opinions — who may benefit from further features on acceptance and representation of the people.”

Little said they must take a larger view, adding, “This council will make decisions based on what we believe is fair, reasonable and in the best interest of the entire community.”

—

READ MORE: Didsbury citizens’ group vehemently opposed to proposed ‘Public Spaces Neutrality Bylaw’