In May 2023, Campaign Life Coalition (CLC), a Canadian non-profit dedicated to advocating against abortion and euthanasia, organized a press conference on Parliament Hill ahead of its annual National March for Life. The event was scheduled for May 10, the day before the rally. Media were invited, and CLC planned to display signs depicting victims of abortion at various stages of development.
Before the press conference began, a Parliamentary Protective Service (PPS) officer inspected the group’s signs. After reviewing them, the officer prohibited CLC from displaying the images, citing that they were too graphic to be shown on Parliament Hill.
This decision was later confirmed in writing. In an email, PPS pointed to a policy document titled General Rules on the Use of Parliament Hill, which bans signs deemed “obscene, offensive, or that promote hatred.” A newer version of the policy explicitly prohibits “signs or banners that display explicit graphic violence or blood.”
The Justice Centre announces constitutional challenge
On June 30, 2023, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announced a Notice of Application had been filed in Federal Court on behalf of CLC and a woman who intended to hold one of the signs. The application challenges the constitutionality of the PPS’s actions and the policy that enabled them, alleging violations of the Charter–protected right to freedom of expression.
The Applicants are asking the Court to declare that both versions of the General Rules and the PPS decision to prevent the use of the signs infringed on their Charter rights.
“There is a certain irony to the fact that our government is currently spending hundreds of millions of dollars, domestically and abroad, promoting and facilitating a procedure it feels must be censored from the public eye,” says Josie Luetke, a spokesperson for Campaign Life. “We don’t like seeing the images of abortion either, and we hope Canadians do a lot of soul-searching as to why presenting its victims brings them such discomfort.”
“Parliament Hill is historically a public square where people of various viewpoints come to convey a message to the government and other Canadians,” adds Hatim Kheir, a lawyer with the Justice Centre. “Subjecting political expression on Parliament Hill to literal police censorship based on subjective criteria strikes at the core of Canadians’ democratic right to freedom of expression.”
Further updates on this case will be posted here.
