Excerpt from a June 11 Ontario Superior Court ruling upholding Campaign Life Coalition’s free speech right to display anti-abortion images on Parliament Hill.

Not the least of the functions of Parliament Hill is to host demonstrations and public gatherings but that use is neither exclusive nor unrestricted.  All organized public gatherings…must be approved and then are subject to the Rules. Some regulation is required to ensure that gatherings do not disrupt the work of Parliament, result in destruction of property, or have a negative impact on the heritage character of the grounds. 

The Applicant, Campaign Life Coalition (CLC). describes itself as a “pro-life organization, established as a not-for-profit corporation, which works at all levels of government to defend the sanctity of human life, and in particular, to oppose abortion and euthanasia. For decades CLC has been the organizer of an annual rally and demonstration named the “National March for Life.”  

The march begins on Parliament Hill and proceeds through the streets of Ottawa before returning to Parliament Hill.  It is sponsored by the Roman Catholic Church and various Catholic organizations as well as businesses and community organizations, committed to the cause of ending or reducing the incidence of abortions in Canada. They seek to sway public opinion by persuading people that abortion is morally wrong, and influence lawmakers to enact legislation that “protects the rights of the unborn.” 

As part of the pro-life, anti-abortion message, the Applicants intended to display posters with photographs of what purported to be bloody and dismembered fetuses. On May 10, 2023, as part of the annual protest and the day before the March itself, CLC had organized a press conference on Parliament Hill… where they planned to display the signs depicting what the Applicant describes as “victims of abortion at various stages of development.”  Officers from the PPS advised participants that they could not display the signs because they “were too graphic” and were in breach of the Rules. 

Although the Applicants complied with the direction of the PPS, they launched this Application seeking remedies for unconstitutional interference with freedom of speech…. There is no doubt the images were graphic, bloody and disturbing. That is their point. The Applicants contend “abortion victim photography serves as an effective tool to uncover the hidden violence of abortion, that results in the death of a human embryo or fetus”.  

They attest to their objective to “convey the reality of abortion in Canada” and to influence people’s opinions.  The point of the message is to sway public opinion and to express the point of view that abortion is a form of murder because in the view of the Applicants, human life – and human rights – begin at the point of conception.  The signs were described by one of the constables as “abhorrent”.  That is undoubtedly true and is precisely the objective of communication designed to persuade members of the public that abortion itself is an abhorrent practice. 

(T)here is a different point of view anchored in commitment to a woman’s right to choose whether or not to carry a child. Many would reject the Applicants’ thesis that human life and human rights begin at conception.  There is no general acceptance of the idea that the rights of an unborn fetus should always take priority over the rights of the living. There is active debate about where termination of pregnancy is ethical and should be legal.  

No pro-choice organization is before the court or is a party to these proceedings. The court is not called upon to adjudicate the merits of the Applicant’s message. The issue is whether they have the right to communicate that message in any way they choose on Parliament Hill unconstrained by the rule in question…. 

The Respondent accuses the Applicants of using images that are misleading, exaggerated and out of context, misrepresenting the reality of abortions in Canada and of doctoring images for maximum impact.…I do not find it necessary to resolve that debate…. (T)he accuracy of the images plays no role in qualifying the photographs as protected expression under s. 2 (b) of the Charter.  The right of the Applicants to promote their beliefs and points of view are protected whether or not the expression is truthful or accurate. A point of view need not be truthful or accurate to be protected speech. That statement of the law was articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada when it struck down the offence of “spreading false news” in R. v. Zundel….The court rejected the idea that even deliberate lies were automatically excluded from protection…The right of the Applicants to promote their beliefs and points of view are protected.