University of Newcastle - Australia From the SelectedWorks of Neil J Foster January 28, 2014 Recent UK case connected with sexual orientation “hate speech” Neil J Foster Available at: https://works.bepress.com/neil_foster/74/ The  bus  advertisements  case     Recent  UK  case  connected  with  sexual  orientation  “hate  speech”     Following  on  from  my  recent  presentation  on  “Legal  Pressure  Points”,1   today  brings  an  interesting  decision  from  the  UK  that  raises  some  related  issues.   In  R  (On  the  Application  Of  Core  Issues  Trust)  v  Transport  for  London   [2014]  EWCA  Civ  34  (27  January  2014)2  the  England  and  Wales  Court  of  Appeal   handed  down  a  decision  relating  to  a  controversy  over  signs  displayed  on   London  buses.     The  history  is  slightly  complex,  and  some  of  the  issues  concerned  go  back   to  the  fairly  famous  attempt  by  some  of  the  “New  Atheists”  to  spread  their   message  on  London  buses  by  signs  saying  “There  is  Probably  No  God.”  A  lobby   group  supporting  the  gay  and  lesbian  movement,  Stonewall,  subsequently  ran  a   bus  campaign  with  signs  that  read:  "SOME  PEOPLE  ARE  GAY.  GET  OVER  IT!"   In  response,  two  Christian  groups  sponsored  and  proposed  to  run  signs   saying:  "NOT  GAY!  EX-­‐GAY,  POST-­‐GAY  AND  PROUD,  GET  OVER  IT-­‐   www.anglican-­‐mainstream.net    www.core-­‐issues.org".    Having  been  made  aware   of  these  proposed  signs,  the  bus  company,  Transport  for  London  (TfL)  cancelled   them  at  the  last  minute.  Part  of  the  debate  in  the  proceedings  is  the  process  by   which  this  cancellation  took  place.  The  Core  Issues  Trust,  one  of  the  Christian   groups,  contended  that  they  had  been  pulled  on  direct  orders  of  Boris  Johnson,   the  controversial  Mayor  of  London,  who  was  about  to  stand  for  re-­‐election,  and   in  particular  was  due  to  attend  a  rally  in  favour  of  his  campaign  organised  by  the   Stonewall  group  (the  sponsors  of  the  original  “Get  over  it!”  advertisement)  on   the  next  day.   Core  Issues  Trust  complained  about  the  cancellation  of  its  advertisement,   both  on  the  grounds  that  the  Mayor  had  behaved  illegally  and  exceeded  his   authority  in  giving  a  direct  order  to  TfL  on  political  grounds;  and  also  on  the   grounds  that  their  freedom  of  speech  and  freedom  of  religion  rights  were  being   breached.   In  earlier  proceedings3  the  trial  judge  had  found  that  there  was   insufficient  evidence  to  conclude  that  the  Mayor  had  been  directly  involved.  She   did,  however,  comment  adversely  on  the  way  that  TfL  were  relying  on  a  policy   they  had  adopted  that  “advertisements  will  not  be  approved  for  the  London   public  transport  network  which  in  TfL's  reasonable  opinion  "are  likely  to  cause   widespread  or  serious  offence"  or  "which  relate  to  matters  of  public  controversy   or  sensitivity".”  She  commented  that  if  TfL  were  truly  being  consistent  with  their   policy  they  should  have  rejected  both  the  earlier  atheism  advertisements  and   also  the  original  Stonewall  advertisement.  But  in  the  end  she  concluded  that  the   fact  that  TfL  had  behaved  wrongly  in  the  past,  did  not  mean  that  their  decision   now  not  to  run  the  Core  Issues  ad  was  wrong.   In  these  proceedings  on  appeal,  the  Court  of  Appeal  (Lord  Dyson,  Master   of  the  Rolls;  Briggs  and  Christopher  Clarke  LJJ)  reversed  the  trial  judge’s  decision   on  the  improper  behaviour  of  Boris  Johnson.  They  did  this  because  after  the  trial,   and  by  the  time  the  matter  had  come  to  the  appeal,  the  classic  “smoking  gun”  had                                                                                                                   1  See  Neil  J.  Foster.  "Legal  Pressure  Points  for  Christians  In  21st  Century  Australia"  Australia  Day   Convention  VII-­‐  St  Andrew’s  Cathedral-­‐  Australia’s  Future:  Christ,  the  Nation,  the  State;  Sydney,   NSW,  Jan.  2014,  at:  http://works.bepress.com/neil_foster/73  .   2  See  http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/34.html    for  the  full  report.   3  Core  Issues  Trust  v  Transport  for  London  [2013]  EWHC  651  (Admin).   Neil  Foster   1   The  bus  advertisements  case     been  located:  an  email  sent  from  the  Mayor’s  office  saying:  “Boris  has  just   instructed  tfl  to  pull  the  adverts”!  (See  para  [28]  of  the  CA  decision.)  This  issue   then  had  to  be  sent  back  to  the  judge,  who  it  was  strongly  suggested  should   reinstate  the  Mayor  as  a  defendant  and  require  him  to  testify  on  the  point.   However,  the  Court  generally  agreed  with  the  trial  judge’s  position  on  the   other  issues.  Article  10  of  the  European  Convention  on  Human  Rights  gives  a  right   to  freedom  of  speech,  which  of  course  has  to  be  balanced  against  other  interests.   A  breach  of  art  10  has  to  be  justified  by  being  shown  to  be  “(i)  prescribed  by  law;   (ii)  in  pursuance  of  a  legitimate  aim;  and  (iii)  "necessary  in  a  democratic   society".”  (at  [51])   Here  the  Court  accepted  that  TfL’s  “no  serious  offence”  policy  was  one   that  was  legally  made  under  the  relevant  Act  and  Regulations,  and  was  in   pursuance  of  a  legitimate  aim.  The  Master  of  the  Rolls  said  at  [58]:     I  accept  the  submission  of  Mr  Pleming  that  the  standards  of  "offensiveness"  and  "public   controversy"  are  sufficiently  precise  to  meet  the  requirement  of  legal  certainty.  Both   "offence"  and  "controversy"  are  uncomplicated  ordinary  English  words.  They  are  both   concepts  that  are  frequently  used  to  set  regulatory  standards  of  decency.     This  can  be  interestingly  contrasted  with  the  recent  decisions  of  the  High   Court  of  Australia  and  the  Supreme  Court  of  Canada  noted  in  my  earlier  paper,   all  of  which  expressed  concern  about  a  law  that  restricted  free  speech  merely  on   the  grounds  of  “offence”.4   On  the  question  of  the  legitimacy  of  the  aim,  Lord  Dyson  said  that   protection  of  the  rights  of  same-­‐sex  oriented  persons  was  an  important  aim.   Interestingly  his  Lordship  at  [61]  quoted  the  organisation’s  duty  under  s  149  of   the  Equality  Act  2010  (UK),  which  was  to  have     due  regard  to  the  need  to  (a)  eliminate  discrimination,  harassment  and  victimisation   against  persons  with  same-­‐sex  sexual  orientation;  and  (b)  foster  good  relations  between   those  who  have  same-­‐sex  sexual  orientation  and  those  who  do  not  and  in  particular  to   tackle  prejudice  and  promote  understanding.     One  would  perhaps  have  thought  that  accepting  an  aggressively  rude   advertisement  from  Stonewall,  but  rejecting  a  similar  advertisement  from  the   Core  Issues  Trust  on  the  same  point,  was  unlikely  to  “foster  good  relations”   between  those  different  parties!   Finally,  on  the  proportionality  point,  Lord  Dyson  accepted  the  trial  judge’s   findings  that  TfL  had  behaved  wrongly  by  allowing  the  earlier  Stonewall   advertisement  to  run.5  But  he  concluded  that  TfL’s  decision  was  still  arguably   correct.  The  core  reasons  are  expressed  as  follows:     [84]....  The  restrictions  are  justified  in  view  of  the  prominence  of  the  advertisements  and   the  fact  that  they  would  be  seen  by,  and  cause  offence  to,  large  numbers  of  the  public   in  central  London.  Moreover,  for  those  who  are  gay,  the  advertisements  would  be  liable                                                                                                                   4  See  Saskatchewan  (Human  Rights  Commission)  v  Whatcott,  2013  SCC  11  (27  Feb  2013);   Attorney-­‐General  (SA)  v  Corporation  of  the  City  of  Adelaide  [2013]  HCA  3  and  Monis  v  The  Queen   [2013]  HCA  4  (27  February  2013).   5  Interestingly,  his  Lordship  noted  that  separate  proceedings  are  currently  under  way  for  a   specific  ruling  on  the  illegality  of  the  earlier  decision,  thought  those  proceedings  had  been   “stayed”  pending  the  outcome  of  this  case-­‐  see  paras  [78]-­‐[79].   Neil  Foster   2   The  bus  advertisements  case     to  interfere  with  the  right  to  respect  for  their  private  life  under  article  8(1).     [85] Secondly,  I  agree  with  the  judge  that  the  advertisement  is  liable  to  encourage   homophobic  views  and  homophobia  places  gays  at  risk.  Closely  linked  to  this  is  TfL's   duty  under  section  149(1)  of  the  EA  which  points  strongly  against  allowing  the   advertisement  to  appear  on  its  buses,  since  it  would  encourage  discrimination.   (emphasis  added)     With  respect,  it  is  not  immediately  apparent  that  all  these  reasons  are  valid.   Yes,  the  advertisements  might  offend.  If  a  broad  view  of  art  8  of  the  ECHR  were   taken,  this  would  be  some  “interference”  with  “respect”  for  private  life.  But   would  the  advertisement  really  encourage  “homophobia”?  Surely  the  only  way  it   could  do  that  would  be  if  any  suggestion  doubting  the  genetic  basis  of   homosexuality  were  to  suddenly  lead  to  an  outbreak  of  hatred  for  homosexual   persons.  But  why  should  this  be  the  case?   And  notice  the  subtle  connections  here.  No  one  would  dispute  in  a  general   sense  the  contention  that  “homophobia  places  gays  at  risk”-­‐  we  would  all  want  to   condemn  gay-­‐bashing  and  “homophobically”-­‐motivated  violence.  But  to  slide   from  “encourage  homophobic  views”  to  the  dark  overtone  of  “risk”  is  a  very  big   move!  Again,  why  does  expressing  a  view  that  not  all  those  who  are  gay,  will   always  be  so,  “encourage  discrimination”?  We  are  not  told.6  But  we  are  told  at   [88],  with  no  real  reasons  being  offered,  that  the  Core  Issues  advertisement  was   wrong:     by  implying  offensively  and  controversially  that  homosexuality  can  be  cured.     Is  it  so  “offensive”  and  “controversial”  to  make  this  claim?  That  seems  to  be   a  conclusion  that  Lord  Dyson  starts  with,  not  one  that  he  provides  any  reasons   for  offering.   Perhaps  it  is  not  surprising,  then,  though  it  is  sad,  that  the  Article  9  freedom   of  religion  claims  are  met  with  very  short  treatment.  Lord  Dyson  refers  at  [91]  to   the  reasons  offered  by  the  trial  judge  for  refusing  to  apply  art  9:  first,  that  rights   to  freedom  of  religion  are  not  enjoyed  by  “corporate  entities”  other  than   “religious  communities  or  churches”;  second,  that  in  any  case  freedom  of  religion   does  not  apply  to  “moral”  issues  which  are  merely  “motivated”,  as  opposed  to   being  “required”,  by  belief.   Thankfully  the  Master  of  the  Rolls  does  not  endorse  these  propositions,   which  both  seem  to  be  wrong.  If  “religious  communities”  are  to  be  allowed  rights   of  freedom  of  religion,  why  not  an  explicitly  religious  organisation  like  Core   Issues?  And  the  second  proposition  is  simply  incoherent  as  well  as  being  clearly   wrong  in  light  of  the  decision  of  the  European  Court  of  Human  Rights  in  Eweida   and  ors  v  United  Kingdom  [2013]  ECHR  37  (15  January  2013),  noted  in  my  earlier   paper.  There  it  was  specifically  ruled  that  the  fact,  for  example,  that  moral   objections  to  same  sex  marriage  were  not  “required”  of  Christians,  did  not   prevent  such  an  objection  being  a  free  exercise  of  religion.   So  why  does  Lord  Dyson  say  that  art  9  is  not  engaged?  It  is  slightly  hard  to   determine,  but  he  simply  says  that  since  the  test  in  art  9  (legality,  lawful  purpose,                                                                                                                   6  See  also  para  [88],  where  Lord  Dyson  defends  the  earlier  Stonewall  ad  as  encouraging  “gay   acceptance”,  and  then  shifts  to  conclude  that  the  Core  Issues  ad,  as  a  response  to  it,  must  be  guilty   of  encouraging  “gay  rejection”!   Neil  Foster   3   The  bus  advertisements  case     proportional)  is  the  same  as  that  in  art  10,  then  for  the  same  reasons  an  art  9   claim  would  fail.7   There  was,  however,  an  interesting  point  made  about  whether  it  could  be   argued  that  TfL  were  discriminating  against  “ex-­‐gays”.  In  other  words,  does  a   right  not  to  be  discriminated  against  on  the  ground  of  sexual  orientation  include   a  right  not  to  be  discriminated  against  because  one  has  changed  sexual   orientation?   Lord  Dyson  accepted  that  an  argument  of  this  sort  might  be  made  out:     [98]  Discrimination  against  a  person  because  of  his  or  her  past  actual  or  perceived   sexual  orientation,  or  because  his  or  her  sexual  orientation  has  changed,  is   discrimination  "because  of…..sexual  orientation".  There  is  no  requirement  in  the  EA  that   discrimination  must  relate  to  a  person's  current  sexual  orientation.  All  that  is  required  is   that  the  discrimination  is  "because  of  sexual  orientation".     However,  his  Lordship  seems  to  have  accepted  that,  as  the  trial  judge  had   found,  the  Core  Issues  group  qua  group  did  not  have  a  “sexual  orientation”,  and   that  any  claim  of  this  sort  would  have  to  be  brought  by  an  individual.   The  other  members  of  the  Court  agreed  with  the  Master  of  the  Rolls.  But  it   was  encouraging  to  read  the  comments  of  Lord  Justice  Briggs:     [104] …  There  are  many  people,  of  many  different  faiths  and  none,  who  have  been   brought  up  and  taught  to  believe  that  all  homosexual  conduct  is  wrong.  Many  have,  after   long  and  careful  thought,  arrived  at  a  different  view.  Some  have  been  encouraged  along   the  way  by  bold  expressions  of  the  type  found  in  the  Stonewall  advertisement.  But  many   others  continue  sincerely  to  hold  that  belief,  and  some  regard  a  departure  from  it  as   inconsistent  with  the  maintenance  of  their  faith.  Some  would  rather  give  up  their  jobs,  or   discontinue  their  businesses,  than  act  in  a  way  which  they  believe  condones  such   conduct,  whether  by  conducting  civil  partnership  or  gay  marriage  ceremonies,  by   admitting  gay  couples  to  bed  and  breakfast  accommodation,  or  by  providing  adoption   training  to  gay  couples.  Sincere  differences  of  view  about  this  issue  are  tearing  apart   some  religious  communities,  both  here  and  abroad.     [105] Like  my  Lord,  I  consider  that  the  Stonewall  advertisement  was  probably  intended   to  promote  tolerance  of  gay  people  and  to  discourage  homophobic  bullying,  and  that  this   is  plainly  a  lawful  aim.  But  the  advice  to  'get  over  it'  is  a  confrontational  message  which   is  likely  to  come  across  to  many  of  those  to  whom  I  have  just  referred  as  at  least   disrespectful  of  their  sincerely  held  beliefs,  and  to  some  as  suggesting  that  there  is  no   place  for  the  toleration  of  their  beliefs  in  modern  society.  Displayed  on  the  side  of   London  buses  it  is  therefore  likely  to  cause  widespread  offence  to  many,  even  if  it  may   have  promoted  tolerance  and  understanding  in  others.     This  at  least  seems  to  introduce  some  balance  into  the  discussion.     In  the  end  the  decision  means  that  the  question  of  whether  the  Mayor   arranged  for  the  removal  of  the  advertisements  improperly,  for  political   purposes,  will  need  to  be  re-­‐examined.  The  related  proceedings  challenging  the   original  Stonewall  advertisements  will,  it  seems  to  me,  find  that  they  were   unlawful  as  contrary  to  TfL’s  policy.  But  that  policy  has  also  led  to  the  banning  of   the  Core  Issues  advertisements.  It  seems  obvious  that  each  of  the  ads  was  as                                                                                                                   7  His  Lordship  in  paras  [93]-­‐[94]  also  virtually  ignored  an  argument  based  on  s  13  of  the  Human   Rights  Act  1998,  which  requires  special  importance  to  be  given  to  the  free  exercise  of  religion  by   a  “religious  organization”.  The  provision  is  indeed  hard  to  interpret,  but  one  would  like  to  at  least   have  seen  some  attempt!   Neil  Foster   4   The  bus  advertisements  case     “offensive”  as  the  other  (ie  mildly)-­‐  but  for  reasons  noted  in  my  previous  paper,   in  my  view  each  should  have  been  allowed  to  run  and  the  issues  debated  openly,   rather  than  being  “covered  up”  and  removed  from  the  public  square.     Neil  Foster   28  Jan  2014       Neil  Foster   5