Signs are a form of communication; a medium for sharing information that falls well within the definition of freedom of expression.

As iterated by constitutional lawyer Hatim Kheir of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF), the “Supreme Court has been clear that while there can be reasonable limits on people’s expression, limits that merely prevent offensive material cannot be prevented. The right to freedom of expression includes the right to offend others in pursuit of truth”.

Kheir represents a pro-life group filing a constitutional challenge against the government, specifically the Parliamentary Protective Service (PPS), for censorship stemming from an incident in May when they were prevented from using their signs during the annual March for Life in Ottawa. The signs in question apparently showed aborted fetuses or ‘victims of abortion’.

According to the Campaign Life Coalition (CLC), the justification for denying the signs was a policy within the ‘General Rules on the Use of Parliament Hill’ which forbids signs “that are obscene, offensive, or that promote hatred.” A policy hastily updated for the occasion to also include “signs or banners that display explicit graphic violence or blood” as also being unacceptable.

The JCCF filed a Notice of Application in the Federal Court on June 30. CLC Director of Advocacy and Education, Josie Luetke, stated that “we hope that the policies restricting signs and banners on Parliament Hill will be ruled unconstitutional, and that freedom of expression will be restored on the Hill.”

Luetke went on to point out the irony that Parliament Hill, the very space for upholding the rights and freedoms of Canadians, should be considered the very location where freedom of expression is most important and deserving of protection. “It’s disappointing, but unsurprising, to see how censorship has exploded in recent years.”

Today’s world has proven to all of us that even the truth can be distasteful or offensive, but we cannot support freedom of expression for some while disproportionately censoring others…

Apparently, that is something only the government is allowed to do.

To read more about this matter on the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms website, click here