In early February we were notified by the company that handles bus advertising for OC Transpo that our ad had been rejected by OC Transpo staff. On February 11, Alex Cullen, Ottawa city councilor and chair of the Ottawa Transit Committee, brought a motion before the committee to have the rejection overturned. The vote was a tie, so the motion failed and the rejection was upheld. On February 25, at the full City Council meeting, Alex Cullen tabled a motion to overturn the rejection and permit the ad. This motion is to be discussed and voted upon at the next council meeting, on 11 March. If you would like to support the right to freedom of speech, and the idea that freedom of religion must include and acknowledge the freedom to have no religion at all, please sign the petition below. Some other ways you can help:

• Come to the council meeting at City Hall on Wednesday, 11 March (more information here)
• Write a letter to your city councilor (email addresses here and suggestions for letters here)
• Sign the petition to be presented to members of the City Council in advance of the 11 March meeting
• Join the Facebook group – tell your friends

I feel caught up in a whirlwind. The last 2 days in Halifax has involved tons of presentations, interviews and meetings – and little by way of sleep.

Arriving in the city as Tuesday was dawning, I immediately headed for my hotel to put some finishing touches on (alright, to get started on) my remarks for the Silent Rally for Free Speech that was planned for noon outside city hall.

Before making it to the rally Derek Rodgers (Halifax spokesperson and organizer with the Dalhousie Atheist Community) and I had a rather long (and equally annoying) appearance on Maritime Morning with Andrew Krystal. This was without a doubt the most surreal radio experience I’ve had. Derek and I were put through an intense defense of the campaign by Mr. Krystal, but after an hour of that I still can’t pinpoint where he stands on the issue. Clearly he thinks it’s odd we’d be promoting our atheistic position. He mentioned more then a few times that if you believe in no God, you would have no reason to be an activist. And he was convinced that Christians – not atheists – were marginalized in this country (I think he must be a devotee of Michael Coren).

But more then anything else, it would appear his show simply thrives on controversy and yelling matches and that is what he wanted to spark. He was quite happy to be able to get one supportive caller and one angry caller to square off against each other. Great radio, if not terribly conducive to a productive dialogue. This was the first time I was on a radio show to which a significant majority of callers offered strong criticism of our campaign, reaffirming for me how important the choice of Halifax was. Some were just insulting, calling Derek and I “young men” who must be in our “early thirties.” I won’t divulge any ages but let’s just say that’s still some way off for me and significantly off for Derek.

One woman called in to defend a previous caller, insisting we had been rude to her. When we defended ourselves she said, “well you’re irritating me” and promptly hung up on us. Towards the end I recall being asked what my parents thought of this campaign and whether they were offended by what we were doing. That one threw both Derek and I off at first. But it was indicative of the general tone, which fluctuated between criticism of our disrespect and disrespect for our criticism. Here’s the full audio for your enjoyment/irritation.

Although Metro Transit in Halifax banned the ads on buses, the Rally itself was unopposed and went very smoothly, despite being so close to the offices of some very strong politicians and detractors.

The event was covered by 16 media outlets (at least that’s how many microphones were shoved in my face). In fact, the ratio of media to protesters was 1:1. As we were preparing, one reporter called me over to inquire, referring to the bible, as to whether we had purposefully planned to have precisely 12 individuals holding posters. Thankfully, a few more people promptly showed up. The modest turn out was unavoidable given the tight timeline we had to work within and the weather of the day. Nevertheless, we were able to get every protester – with the exception of Derek and I – behind a big banner bearing our slogan, with their mouths taped shut. A placard was held up behind the slogan:

This is What Metro Transit is Protecting You From

Not more then five hours later, the story was already reported on CBC.ca – Protesters Cry Censorship in Atheist Bus Ad. Other media soon followed, including a front page story in The Chronicle Herald with a large picture at the top with our banner. Some other reports included: Athiests bring duct-taped disappointment to city hall (which mispelled Atheists but managed to get my name right) and Rally for atheist bus ads

Long desiring a Free Speech Rally, ever since the inauguration of the Centre for Inquiry’s Campaign for Free Expression, this was one of the proudest moments of my life.

I had very little time to soak it all in though, as I was rushed back to my hotel to prepare for the evening’s talk. This was a short speech building on the situation with the ad campaign but going much further and discussing censorship and attacks on free expression at local, national and international levels in many areas. A transcript of the full speech – Local, National and International Threats to our Fundamental Freedom – is available here. The talk rolled nicely into an organizing meeting for the Dalhousie Atheist Community. I would encourage any on or off campus supporters to get in touch with this very well run and ambitious organization. They have some great activities planned. Sylvia Browne beware.

Back at my hotel that evening, I quickly got to work to prepare for my debate – Can We Be Good Without God, hosted by the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Public Affairs – scheduled for Wednesday evening. I emerged from my hotel room only once over the course of the next 20 hours. That was a pre-debate debate at the CBC (just down the road from where I was staying) and an excellent opportunity to plug the evening’s event as well as for I and my fellow debater Eric Beresford, President of Atlantic School of Theology to meet and learn a little about each other.

The exchange was quite productive and amicable and it set me at ease that the evening would be the same. One question for which I really had no good answer was, to paraphrase, what yardstick to you use to judge right actions? Busy reading everything on philosophy and science that touched on ethics, I wasn’t ready for this practical question regarding my own personal decision making. Thankfully both Dr. Beresford and I quickly agreed the question was just not amenable to an easy answer. After all, most philosophers if they agree on anything in ethics, it’s that there is no such a thing as an objective all purpose yardstick for such judgments on individual actions.

It was a real pleasure engaging with Dr. Beresford, who was kind enough to take me on a short tour of downtown Halifax, pointing out some locations he recommended I visit while in town. His organization – the Atlantic School of Theology – had submitted an Editorial supporting the atheist bus campaign. Another religious ally.

The debate that evening was composed and measured. I fear it may have been too low key for our organizers, who understandably were hoping for more disagreement. There were of course a few key areas where we had some seemingly fundamental dispute.

One example is whether individualism or community identity was supreme. We each insisted on the importance of both, but my argument was that any ethical system ought to be judged on how it treats its most vulnerable members and if group rights were protected at the expense of those within the group – and here I’m referring mostly to children – who have little choice and opportunity to leave, then that is problematic. An emphasis on individual and universal human rights must reign supreme.

We also argued but then came to a consensus of sorts on the universality of science to approach questions outside its usual sphere, such as love and ethics. The last point I made to that issue was that while science might be the best method we’ve developed to understand really anything and everything, love and ethics (through its evolutionary underpinnings) included, that to implement that knowledge, such as in building loving relationships and building actual ethical systems, that here science is not appropriate.

A defense of the scientific method was also given. Carl Sagan was invoked to explain science’s built in tension between acceptance for consideration of all new ideas and, paradoxically, great skepticism of novelty. By lying between those extremes, it is hard to conceive of anything like fundamentalist science.

Hard to believe I’ve only been in Halifax for 2 days. Today time will finally be dedicated to visiting the city itself which until now has been but a backdrop on all these activities. But a city that has given rise to such controversy and in which I’ve met such interesting individuals – supportive or otherwise – is one I’m happy to have some time to explore.

One question to leave you with. Can anyone tell me why Halifax citizens refer to themselves as Haligonians? No one here seems to know.

The Canadian Atheist Bus has officially hit the streets of Toronto with more ads en route to be displayed in the follow weeks.   Starting Feb 23rd our subway interior ads will posted and the following week (March 2nd) on the sides of streetcars in the downtown Toronto area. If you are lucky enough to catch a photo, we’d love to post it online. Please email photos to “photos {at} atheistbus.ca”. Buses change routes daily as they are returned to TTC garages and picked up by different drivers that drive different routes so keep your eyes peeled.

Unfortunately we also have a bit of bad news about our campaign. We’ve been rejected by OC Transpo and at the moment our advertisement is not permitted to be displayed on any Ottawa public transit vehicle.  OC Transpo’s response:

“The Advertising Standards section of our contract specifically excludes religious advertising which might be offensive to transit users, so we cannot approve this ad”

This comes as a shock to us and also Pattison Outdoors whom was forecasting a positive response. OC Transpo has permitted religious advertisements in the past but it is not yet clear what message was being advertised.  On Tuesday (Monday is an Ontario provincial holiday) we will attempt to contact OC Transpo to try and discuss our options. Hopefully we have more success in Ottawa compared to Halifax where Metro Transit has rejected every offer for a meeting thus far.

This past week our advertisement was also rejected in Vancouver, Victoria, Kelowna British Columbia, and  London Ontario. The three cities we applied to in BC follow identical transit standards, their response:

“No advertisement will be accepted which promotes or opposes a specific theology or religious ethic, point of view, policy or action.”

In London we were simply told that no religious advertisements were permitted despite Atheism not being a religion.

TORONTO, ONTARIO–(Marketwire – Feb. 10, 2009) – Freethought Association of Canada announces it will move its “Atheist Bus” campaign into more cities, including Ottawa, after surpassing $40,000.

The ads, which have been approved in Toronto and Calgary, declare “There’s probably no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”

“Ottawa is a logical choice,” said FAC President Justin Trottier. “As the political centre of our country we hope to send a message that secularism and non-believers be considered equally in political discussion.”

The Freethought Association continues to pressure Metro Transit in Halifax to run ads. They have refused, claiming the ads are too “controversial”.

“We want to discuss this, but they won’t meet,” said Derek Rodgers, Halifax spokesperson.

The Freethought Association feels that Metro Transit’s actions violate their Charter right to free speech.

“We exist to encourage healthy debate,” said Trottier. Several religious organizations have already joined the discussion.

FAC is a registered charity promoting education of secular worldviews.

—
Join our Halifax Facebook Group for more news, updates, alerts, and discussion about Halifax.

Moderator of the United Church of Canada the Right Reverend David Giuliano

It’s been getting really exciting recently with the bus campaign.  There’s been an interesting new development since the United Church of Canada got in on the fun.  We are actually succeeding in the primary aim we keep going on about, namely the formation of dialogue.  Over the last two days I’ve engaged in back to back panel discussion, live on air, with the Right Reverend David Giuliano, the highest officer in the United Church of Canada.

Firstly, last night Chris Hammond and I engaged with the Reverend for an hour on CP24 television and jointly fielded half a dozen callers.  The conversation was very level except after one caller gave her point of view that since Canada was a Christian country (talk of begging the question) we had no business impugning that fact, and that a person’s religion was too holy for offending it to be acceptable.  I had to say about three times – over her voice – that Canada has no such thing as a human right to not be offended (not yet anyway).  Luckily, the host of the show is a free speech attorney who worked to defend Ezra Levant, the former editor of the Western Standard who was hauled before the Human Rights commission in Alberta for printing the Mohamed Cartoons.  So Chris and I were in very good company.

This morning I was woken up to a phone-in discussion on a Waterloo, Ontario based radio show for a conversation with the same Reverend Giuliano.  Knowing each other a little better, we now had the opportunity to explore issues of faith and divinity in more depth, and the host prompted us with leading questions like whether atheists were just out for themselves (to which I responded by describing that as a fairly archaic characterization) and whether god was a necessary additive if everyone agreed non-believers could lead moral and deeply satisfying lives.

When the Reverend described how God to him was a transcendental entity which subsumed concepts like beauty, love and ethics, I agreed that such a transcendental belief assisted some, while explaining that many people are able to appreciate the majesty of the universe and lead lives of commitment to deep ethical principles without having to label these values with the imprimateur of God.  Also consider individuals like Gretta Vosper, head of the Canadian Centre for Progressive Christianity and United Church minister in Scarborough, whose book With or Without God, calls Christians to move towards the use of symbols in place of doctrine and belief.  It was an interesting conversation because without caller interruptions we were able to engage in more of a good natured critique of the other’s viewpoint, always staying positive and converging in some places along the complicated spectrum that joins our worldviews, and in fact concluding with the host expressing his belief that we would make great friends, to which we both readily agreed.

I’m very pleased that precedents such as these are moving atheism into the mainstream.  To respond to criticisms that what we are doing is trivial and pointless, I would point to such examples.  That’s what this campaign is all about.

Now for something more amusing – but equally mainstream – editorial cartoons!  Since this site is well read (as opposed to my personal blog) I won’t dare reprint it, so visit here, so visit the Montreal Gazette Aislin cartoon for Feb 2, 2009.  Enjoy!

—-

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

Cross posted to Equalism Activism

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

Yesterday we official received word from Sherry Kirwin, General Manager of Pattison Maritimes, that our banner is too “controversial” for Halifax Metro Transit.

“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 controversial.

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“, explained Ms. Kirwin.

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.

*Update* Today during an interview, Lori Patterson of Halifax Transit Public Affairs mentioned “[...]this groups ads were known to be or were already viewed to be inflammatory or controversial before they reached this market.” When asked why it would be viewed as “inflammatory” and mentioning that the ads and atheism certainly represents a significant part of the population, she replied stating “it could be viewed as inflammatory to a certain group in population and that is certainly what we’re hearing. We have to recognize that this is an older area of the country and people still have, you know, traditional views. [...] All the calls we’ve been getting have been against us running them.”[1]

“Anything considered to be objectionable to any race, creed, or moral standard, you know, we have the right to.. or we can refuse. And I’ve not heard of.. You know, we haven’t been approached by religious groups to my knowledge before.”[2]

I encourage everyone that supports this campaign to call Ms. Patterson and Halifax Metro Transit and let them know what you think.  Ask her if she thinks that the people of Halifax are not capable of making their own decisions and coming to their own conclusions about advertisements.  Ask her if she has forgotten about our national anthem and charter of rights. Not only are we supposed to be the “true north, strong and free“, but our Canadian Charter of Rights under section 2) guarantee’s “b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; “.[3] Canada is known around the world to be a country of religious (or in this case non-religious) freedoms. Does Halifax really want to be labeled as the city that doesn’t allow alternative views?

[1], [2] CBC Radio One – Halifax

[3] Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/

—–

To discuss this please sign up for our forums and have your say. There’s already a thread started on this topic here.

Join the Halifax Atheist Bus Campaign group. This group is an extension of the Official Canadian Atheist Bus Campaign.

We got word this morning that the TTC has approved our message:

Canadian Atheist Bus Campaign Advert

Yay! This means that we’ll be able to start the logistics of getting this on out and should have your atheist buses rolling out soon! Thanks again for your contributions!

I wish I had more time to post entries as we receive ongoing press in the Canadian Atheist Bus Campaign, but as President of the sponsoring organization, I wanted to share a short report on some of the attention we’ve been getting.  So here are a few highlights from one of the busier days this week.  It started, appropriately enough, with an odd phone call.  I was asked

Are you the atheist?

After some hesitation over how to approach an answer, I simply gave my name and addressed my title with the Freethought Association of Canada.  After a first awkward question where he asked how the bus campaign was

meant to make me feel better

he proceeded to inquire about our motives. I stated we wished to introduce our perspective into an ongoing discussion on the role of faith in a secular society and sincerely hoped it would create fruitful dialogue.  That he took as an invitation to embark on a one on one debate with me at that very moment.  Fair enough, but I was technically at work.

His questions showed a depressingly low lack of understanding of secularism.  He couldn’t figure out the difference between having an open public space like the side of a bus on which every group – religious or not – could publish their ads, and having the government actually endorse a single worldview through publicly funded catholic schools or opening prayer at legislative meetings.  He kept repeating that

atheists just want to get rid of god everywhere

When he said that atheists should just keep in their place and happily fund public god-invoking ceremonies, I told him, rather passionately, that the entire point of this campaign was to make it clear that atheists are a large percentage of organized individuals and that we are no longer accepting marginalization from public debates concerning the role of religion and secularism in a democratic society.  Realizing he had hit a nerve, he promptly pulled out the “atheists are all angry about trivial things” card to which I kindly reminded him that he had called me for a half hour debate on this “trivial matter”.

In short, it quickly became clear he wished to engage in a never-ending diatribe.  I had to end this, which I hope I did respectfully by letting him know that I would have to be going and that his next question would have to be the last one.

Fortunately, I ended up ending that call just in time to pick one up from the Toronto Star.  It ended up being a rather challenging interview for Saturday’s Ideas section.  I was forced to think quickly about such issues as how the different political climates in the UK and Canada vis a vis religious tolerance would effect the dynamics of these atheist bus campaigns, and whether my skepticism and scientific inquiry was another brand of ideology.  I hope I said something coherent.  While there’s nothing so annoying as reading back your own inelegant words quoted in the paper and knowing that’s not what you said, it’s much worse to realize that that inelegance is precisely what you said.

Later in the day I was able to field a call from a reporter with the National Post (which we’ve been debating already), as well as one from the Corriere Canadese, an Italian language paper I have not yet come across.  These interviews were more laid back, although I recall one question regarding my concern that parents would feel threatened by an atheistic message that might undermine their ability to effectively brainwash, sorry indoctrinate, sorry educate, yes educate, their children in their faith tradition.  I really have no apologies coming to parents who feel that years of focused efforts to instill their version of reality on their vulnerable children – sometimes including isolation from other points of view and outright lies – will be overturned by the sheer knowledge that atheists exist and such an offensive statement as

There’s probably no god.  Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.

If your faith is that easily shaken it hardly deserves my respect in the first place.  Plus, with a stance you might term a “child-centred libertarian,” I believe children are not owned by parents.  They should not be forced to undergo anything that so permanently marks them that they are unable to make a free and informed decision or change later in life.

The amount of response that we have received today has been totally overwhelming. I always knew the Canadians were out there who wanted to support the freethought and secular movement – and it’s so great to finally be getting in contact with those people. Donations are rolling in left right and center and I would specifically like to thank Mr. Trevor Byrne for donating $3000 to our campaign this morning! If you want to see your name on the donation list along with Trevor Byrne and other donors, please follow the instrutions listed here before you donate. Thanks everyone!