Was it right to pull ads from ETS buses?
Edmonton judge to rule if move violated freedom of expression laws
An Edmonton Court of Queen’s Bench judge will rule on whether the pulling of ETS bus ads that were criticized as anti-Muslim was a justifiable infringement of freedom of expression.
During a hearing held Friday morning, lawyers for the City of Edmonton and the American Freedom Defense Initiative each made arguments concerning the 2013 decision to remove the ads including the text “Muslim Girls Honor Killed by Their Families” and “Is your family threatening you? Is there a fatwa on your head?”
The ad also featured a logo for SIOA (Stop Islamization of America) and a link to FightforFreedom. us, which warns about the “encroachment of Islam on western civilization.”
Sponsored by the American Freedom Defense Initiative, the ads were mounted on five buses in late October 2013. The placards were scheduled to stay up until Nov. 17, but came down after just eight days, following a complaint made to ETS by then-city councillor Amarjeet Sohi. The cost of the ads, $2,500, was refunded.
Friday, City of Edmonton lawyer Brad Savourey said the decision to remove the ads was justifiable, particularly given the added logos and website link.
“The harm of limiting their freedom of speech … is outweighed by prohibition of harmful messages,” Savourey argued.
He argued that ads that offend and incite hate or violence should not be protected by the charter right to freedom of expression.
However, Jay Cameron, a lawyer with the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms that represents the American Freedom Defense Initiative, said it is unreasonable to not take the ad at face value and said the text that actually appeared is not hate speech.
“When you say something as an organization or a person, you should be judged on that speech. If you dig around in different organization’s backgrounds, what you come up with sometimes are things that may make that organization look bad, or may help to construe the message that would on its face say one thing, say something else.”
He added that the documentation of anti-Muslim ideas from the websites cited on the ads that the City was presenting is from 2015 and therefore not relevant. Savourey countered by saying they have evidence the content of those sites was similar in 2013.
There was also disagreement be about whether the City has a policy for determining whether ads can be taken down or rejected.
Cameron argued the process was neither clear nor accessible to the public, saying the ad contract was really with the city’s contracted advertising manager, Pattison Outdoor Advertising Group, though Savourey maintained the City has jurisdiction over what appears on its own property.
Court of Queen’s Bench Mr. Justice John Gill has reserved his decision, and said he expects to deliver it within a few weeks.