Written by: Michelle Gomez, Staff Writer
Unquestionably, the ongoing debate on the morality and legality of abortions has been controversial throughout its history. But most recently, news of a B.C. court overturning TransLink’s decision to deny advertising space to an anti-abortion group opens a door a discussion on free speech.
The originally-rejected advertisement came from the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform, an Alberta-based anti-abortion advocacy group. According to Global News, “the proposed ad contained images of a growing fetus at seven weeks and at 16 weeks, and then a red circle on a white background containing the word ‘gone’ along with text that read: ‘Abortion Kills Children.’”
When TransLink refused to display the ad last year, theier decision was upheld in the British Columbia Supreme Court. However just this week, judges from the BC Court of Appeal overturned this, stating that “TransLink didn’t provide any meaningful reasons for its decision to reject the ads.”
To put this issue in context, Canada is one of the rare countries with no restrictions on abortion. In 1969, Pierre Trudeau’s government decriminalized abortion under the condition that “a committee of doctors decides that continuing the pregnancy may endanger the mother’s life or health.” After the legal case of R v Morganteler in 1988, Canada removed all laws restricting abortion. Since then, it is treated like any other medical procedure.
Going back to TransLink though, keep in mind that the court’s decision was not about whether abortion is moral or not — it was about whether TransLink has the right to deny advertising space to certain groups based on their beliefs. Rather than a matter of abortion, it is a matter of freedom of speech.
Before anything else, it should be acknowledged that there is at least some legitimacy behind the court’s decision. If public service companies like TransLink were able to pick and chose their advertisements according to their beliefs, then a large amount of power would be in the hands of those who control these enterprises.
That being said, TransLink should have control over what they advertise on their vehicles. Reading through TransLink’s advertising policy, I noticed two points of interest.
“No advertisement will be accepted which TransLink, in the exercise of its sole discretion, considers to be of questionable taste or in any way offensive in the style, content or method of presentation.”
Whether you approve of abortion or not, it is safe to say that an anti-abortion ad on a public transit vehicle is of questionable taste and could certainly be considered offensive. Furthermore, this article points out that these matters are decided “in the exercise of [TransLink’s] sole discretion,” simply meaning that TransLink gets to decide what goes and what stays.
“All advertisements shall be of a moral and reputable character.”
Legislation that permits abortion generally does nothing but benefit women’s health, and Translink should be free to reject ads that would argue against them. Our abortion legislation is a long-standing decision in Canadian law, and ads like this just discourage women from exercising their rights regarding safety and independence. An ad that aims to make people question this could be reasonably viewed as having questionable moral character.
With these things in mind, an ad like this is nothing but disturbing and distasteful. More than that, it discourages and may distress women who need or have had an abortion, despite them exercising their legal right. TransLink’s initial refusal to accept this ad is an acknowledgement of these things, and their discretion can ensure that public transit is a safe space for everyone. The court’s demand for TransLink to accept this is unfair, and antithetical to our legal system’s current stance.
