NOVANEWS
It has been six months since many of you donated generously to our “Disappearing Palestine” map ad campaign. We targeted the Toronto subway (TTC), and the Calgary LRT to be the intended locations of the map ad campaign. Unfortunately, the management at each of these public transit agencies has been intimidated by the pro-Israel lobby, and has created obstacles to the publishing of these ads. As a result, CJPME has decided to take the TTC to court.
CJPME is confident that the case can be won. There is a definitive Supreme Court of Canada case from 2009 between the Canadian Federation of Students and the Vancouver Transportation Authority (VTA.) In it, the court ruled that the VTA could not discriminate against certain types of speech on the basis of content, whether commercial or political (see more details below.)
There are two reasons we feel compelled to go to court: 1) we want the ads to run successfully in Toronto, and 2) we fear that if the roadblocks created by the TTC are allowed to remain, it might permanently hinder other similar pro-justice ads in the future.
Challenges faced in Toronto:
- We contacted the TTC via its advertizing outsourcer Cogeco/Pattison in March, 2013, and worked out a plan for the rollout.
- We provided designs for the ads in June.
- In July, the TTC asked to rework the ads to add references for the maps and our assertions. Early in August, we resubmitted revised designs as per their request.
- Later in August, we got another “not approved” message from the TTC/Cogeco/Pattison without any explanation.
- After August 29th, Cogeco/Pattison no longer answered emails or accepted calls.
- In early September, we resubmitted our ad to the TTC via our legal counsel, citing stonewalling on the part of Pattison. In mid-September, the TTC said they could not consider the ad, as it must receive any proposed advertisements through Pattison.
- Later in September, we resubmit the ads again via our legal counsel to Pattison, and copy the TTC on the submission.
- Late on Oct. 21, we received word that the ads are again rejected by the TTC, vaguely citing lack of “accuracy and clarity” in the designs. Interestingly, B’nai Brith issued a press statement on the rejection on Oct. 18th, three days before we – the client – are informed of the rejection.
- Anticipating our taking the TTC to court, we modify the ads slightly, and resubmit new ads on Nov. 4th.
- On Dec. 11th, the TTC again rejects the ads, now citing issues of “compliance with Ontario human rights laws and the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards”
- On Dec. 21st, we formally appeal the rejection to the TTC’s Advertising Review Working Group (ARWG, made of Toronto city councillors, and city staff.)
- On Jan. 17, 2014, we are told that the ARWG has rejected our appeal.
Challenges faced in Calgary:
- Like in Toronto, we contacted the Calgary LRT via its advertizing outsourcer Cogeco/Pattison in April, 2013, and worked out a plan for the rollout.
- We provided designs for the ads in July.
- In early August, the Calgary LRT approved the draft ads, and we begin finalizing the ads for printing.
- In late August, we got a message from the Calgary LRT stating that they did not have the resources to verify the assertions in our ad, and that they were consequently required to reject the ads.
- In early September, our legal counsel advises us to focus on one battle – Toronto – rather than fighting on two different fronts.
The Supreme Court Precedent: 2009 Supreme Court of Canada case between Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority (VTA), and the Canadian Federation of Students, BC:
- In this case, VTA authorities refused to rent ad space to two groups on the basis that the proposed ads contravened the existing advertising policies. These policies included both a prohibition on political advertising as well as a prohibition on any ads that could be deemed to cause offence or to create controversy.
- The Supreme Court of Canada first determined that VTA was an agent of the government, and therefore, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applied to its actions and policies.
- The Court found that while the VTA goals of the transit authorities of providing a “safe, welcoming transit system” were sufficiently important to warrant placing a limit on freedom of expression, the prohibitions in their advertising policies were not rationally connected to those goals. The Court did not accept the argument that the placement of political ads on the buses could create a safety risk or unwelcoming environment for transit system users.
- Thus, the Supreme Court held that BC Transit’s policy banning political advertisements on buses was a violation and unjustified limit on freedom of speech. The VTA’s policies, therefore, infringed on the freedom of expression of the respondent groups.
- The Court commented on the fact that the exclusion of controversial messages was “overly broad” and that transit riders are expected to “put up with some controversy in a free and democratic society”.
Again, we ask for your financial support to surmount this new challenge placed before us. If we drop this initiative now, we let the pro-Israel lobby dictate the public discourse. If we move forward with the court case, we defend our right to speak freely of the injustices faced by the Palestinians.
