Ontario court rules abortion victim photography not 'obscene'

Campaign Life Coalition (CLC) is commemorating a milestone triumph for free speech and the pro-life movement after an Ontario court decreed that federal authorities breached its constitutional rights when it banned pro-life, abortion-related signs on Parliament Hill. The court determined that photographs of abortion victims do not constitute “obscenity.”

Key Takeaways:

• In 2023, Campaign Life Coalition hosted an event in Canada at which it featured images of abortion victims.

• The Parliamentary Protective Service acted to ban the signs.

• Campaign Life Coalition and a pro-life advocate filed a legal challenge against that decision and won.

• An Ontario court ruled that federal authorities breached Campaign Life Coalition's constitutional rights by banning the signs on Parliament Hill. 

• According to the ruling, photographs of abortion victims do not constitute “obscenity.”

The Backstory:

In May 2023, CLC hosted a press conference ahead of its annual National March for Life. Before the start of the event, officers from the Parliamentary Protective Service banned the group's signs featuring the images of abortion victims from being displayed, alleging the images were excessively graphic and infringed Parliament Hill’s demonstration guidelines, according to JCCF. 

In turn, CLC, together with an individual participant, filed a legal challenge against both the decision to implement the restriction and the underlying rules that gave rise to it. 

“Abortion is not an abstract issue,” CLC’s Maeve Gainey (then Roche), who was barred from showcasing the images, declared. “It has real victims. The images PPS tried to censor due to a bad policy reveal the truth about what abortion does to preborn children. We do not display these images because they are pleasant. We display them because they are true.” 

The Details:

In a June 11 decision, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that the Parliamentary Protective Service (PPS) violated the Charter-protected freedom of expression of CLC and one of its members during a 2023 pro-life event. 

Notably, the Court determined that by forbidding the signs, PPS breached the CLC's freedom of expression as guaranteed by Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that this violation could not be justified under Section 1 of the Charter, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) reported. 

In its decision, the Court pointed out that freedom of expression was a significant pillar of Canada’s democratic system, finding that the PPS behaved irrationally by applying vague and subjective criteria to forbid signs it deemed as “obscene” or as encouraging “hate or violence.” 

The ruling conceded that although activities on Parliament Hill may be governed by certain regulations and reasonable restrictions, those rules must nevertheless respect constitutional safeguards for political speech. 

The Court rebuffed the notion that expression deserves protection only if it is deemed precise, convincing, or publicly acceptable. 

Constitutional lawyer Hatim Kheir responded to the Court ruling, saying: 

Parliament Hill has long been a place where Canadians gather to communicate political messages directly to lawmakers and to the public. We are pleased that the Court recognized that constitutional freedoms cannot be restricted through subjective and unpredictable censorship.

Highlighting that Parliament Hill has long served as a venue where Canadians come together to deliver political messages straight to lawmakers and the public, Gunnarson  likewise remarked:

We are pleased that the Court recognized that constitutional freedoms cannot be restricted through subjective and unpredictable censorship.

The Bottom Line:

This case mirrors a wider trend of escalating restrictions on the ability to transmit the pro-life message in Canada. The court’s recognition that abortion victim photography does not constitute “obscenity” may also be important in future legal challenges. Such imagery has long been a hotbed of contention, with critics maintaining that it is too graphic for public display and pro-life advocates insisting that it is an indispensable tool for unraveling the horrors of abortion. By reinforcing that these images fall within the purview of protected expression, the court decision bolsters the legal footing of pro-life groups hoping to use visual materials in their advocacy.