The Halifax advertising authority has declared atheism ads in “poor taste”, or possibly merely objectionable to certain “moral standards”.  In so doing they have joined the Vatican as the only two organizations in the western world still in the dark ages when it comes to allowing non-believers the right to free speech in public spaces.  That’s quite an accomplishment!  Here’s the full official response we received from the General Manager of Pattison Maritimes, the company that produces and sells transit advertising in Halifax).

Thank you for your inquiry.  We are aware of your message due to the existing media coverage you are experiencing.  We are not able to accept your message as it currently reads.

If you would like to submit an alternative message, we will submit that for approval.

If any potential ad message is deemed to be possibly controversial, we must advise the transit system.  They rarely refuse creative content, however have advised us that in this particular case, your message has already stirred up enough media exposure across the country to be deemed controversal.

All advertisements must meet acceptable community standards of good taste, quality and appearance . Furthermore, the ads will not be considered discriminatory, or objectionable to any race creed or moral standard.

In unofficial correspondence they have stated that this policy would apply to any groups with an advertisement referring to god or religion, although the reference to the possibility of our ads infringing on moral standards is curious.  That phrase does not appear as stated anywhere in their policy document.

The CBC, in an article called Halifax is Keeping God Off Its Buses reports:

A ‘Without God’ ad has proven too controversial for Halifax transit.

Humanist Canada wanted to place ads on Metro Transit buses with the slogan, “You can be good without God.”

But officials with the transit authority deemed that too controversial.

Aren’t ads supposed to catch your attention and make you think?  That’s what characterizes really good advertisements.  Should our organizations be penalized for our successes?  Besides, if we removed every offensive ad, we’d be taking half of them down.  I imagine a Hummer ad isn’t exactly impressing an environmentalist nor, to borrow an example from Pat O’Brien, President of the Humanist Association of Canada, would a vegan be happy with an ad for sirloin stake.  And it goes without saying that political ads are offensive to everyone who doesn’t belong to the political party being promoted.  Here’s another example where religion receives a special blanket of protection.  If you want to contact Pattison with your response to their actions (that’s what free speech is all about) their contact is at the bottom of Chris’ post below.

In statements prepared by the Freethought Association of Canada, we shot back:

Metro Transit needs to understand the seriousness of the message they’re sending by rejecting an ad as benign as ours on the grounds that it doesn’t conform to their standards of “good taste, quality, and appearance.” Metro Transit has a history of running ads that are potentially objectionable, from Vagina Monologue ads that include the slogan “The Vaginas are coming” to ads for an anti-choice organization known as “Birthright.”

We’re very concerned about our right to free speech — I think a lot of Haligonians are expressing similar concerns, so we’re really eager to sit down and discuss this face to face with Metro Transit.

Now it should be admitted that Pattison hasn’t refused to consider any ad from our organizations.

The transit authority would reconsider its position if Humanist Canada toned down its message.

Toned down its message?  Humanist Canada’s message – distinct from that of the Freethought Association of Canada – was the very outrageous

You can be good without God

Wow.  That’s so toned down it’s practically apologizing for itself.  It’s hard to imagine a more innocuous statement of the secular humanist worldview in a more respectful and conciliatory phrasing.  How could anyone possibly ask that this be toned down, unless they think atheists and humanists have no right to any public existence.  This is a clear example of just how certain individuals and organizations see any assertiveness on the part of non-believers as a sign of arrogance and bigotry.  But I believe this example betrays the real bigots.

According to some research, a lawsuit against the Vancouver Transit Authority for an old decision not to run potentially “offensive” political ads (which was ruled unconstitutional by the B.C. Court of Appeals) was appealed by the Transit Authority to the Supreme Court of Canada last year and in fact we are awaiting a decision on that in the coming weeks.  Here’s the appeal decision by the B.C. Court of Appeals.  As I’ve said before on this blog, censorship and free speech is becoming THE issue in Canada.

And Pattison has a history of deciding the wrong way on these issues, considering their refusal to display AIDS ads: Pattison company rejects AIDS ads for Gay Men.  Maybe AIDS is objectionable to “moral standards” or maybe it’s just gay men.

But seriously, these cases raise critical questions:

-are transit authorities bound by the Charter?
-if so, does the Charter guarantee access to advertising on buses?
-if so, can the transit authority impose limits, and on what basis?
-if limits can be imposed, is an informal policy enough, or would it have to be some sort of bylaw?

Send your thoughts quickly.  Chris and I are appearing on CP24 tonight (Feb 4) from 9-10pm to address these and other issues in the ongoing bus campaign.

—-

Discuss this issue on our forums! http://atheistbus.ca/forum