A panel of senior city staff is sticking by a decision to refuse two proposed bus ads from Guelph and Area Right to Life (GARL), but a court challenge is likely to follow.
“I’m not surprised in the least,” Jakki Jeffs, GARL president, said of the decision. “I thought the panel was quite disinterested. Not one question was asked.”
The dismissal was announced on Wednesday, 19 days after an appeal hearing was held inside council chambers at city hall. Following a 30-minute panel discussion behind closed doors, chair Trevor Lee, one of the city’s three deputy CAOs, revealed a decision had been made but provided no indication as to what it was or how that determination was reached.
Those details were revealed in Wednesday’s announcement.
“In reaching this decision, the panel noted that this is not a blanket decision to reject all advertisements that contain a message against abortion,” it reads. “Rather, it demonstrates a balancing of the complainant’s right of freedom of expression with the city’s social responsibility not to disseminate advertisements which might cause serious harm to members of the public who trust what they read on Guelph Transit bus advertisements as being fair, accurate and reliable information.”
The appeal centred around two of several proposed bus ads submitted to the city by GARL last year. Both ads deal with the issue of abortion.
In one case, city officials challenged the use of “Legal ≠ Safe” in reference to Health Canada-approved medical abortion pills. The other denied ad includes a website address which promotes an abortion pill reversal process.
GARL’s board of directors is expected to discuss next steps when it meets on May 21, but Jeffs noted a judicial review will likely be sought.
“I know the board will not accept this,” she added of the city panel’s decision. “It’s all just smoke and mirrors.
“I think abortion politics is involved in this decision.”
As explained in that decision, the panel weighed studies and other information presented to it and found that the information contained in this advertisement appears to be misleading, as it implies that a Health Canada approved drug or drug therapy is unsafe,” the decision explains in reference to the proposed “Legal ≠ Safe” ad.
In terms of the abortion pill reversal ad, “It is the panel’s finding that the information contained in this advertisement does not give an accurate account of the findings of scientific authorities, particularly as it recommends using progesterone in a manner that has not been approved by Health Canada.”
Those arguments essentially match the presentation from city lawyer Allison Thornton to the advertising review panel on April 12.
“I don’t stand behind lies or misinformation,” said Jeffs. “All we stand for is helping mothers try and bring their babies to term rather than have abortions.
“We’re just ordinary people in the middle of an extraordinary battle.”
