Day: January 28, 2014

The Court of Appeal’s has upheld Transport for London’s (TFL) original decision and right NOT to run ‘gay cure’ adverts by the Core Issues Trust, a Christian evangelical charity.

The Appeal Court upheld the original decision by Mrs Justice Lang that TfL was entitled not to run the advert.

TfL took the decision not to run the adverts as they breached its advertising policy and caused widespread offence to the public. This was borne out by the hugely negative public reaction the advertisement generated, including on social media and newspaper websites.

However, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Dyson, criticised the office of the Mayor of London, ruling that a judicial investigation was necessary to consider if Boris Johnson has acted “for an improper purpose” in instructing TFL to pull the advertisement.

Lord Dyson revealed evidence had been produced of “an email stating that the mayor ‘instructed’ TfL to pull the advertisement,” just before London went to the polls.

In paragraph 84 of the judgement, Lord Dyson says:  “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 to interfere with the right to respect for their private life under article 8(1).”

He went on to say: “I agree with the judge (Mrs Justice Lang) 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.” “…these factors strongly support the proportionality of the interference with the Trust’s rights under article 10(1) of the Convention.”

In paragraph 88, Lord Dyson goes on to say: “The Trust’s advertisement was a riposte to the “gay acceptance” message promoted by Stonewall and would have been seen (and was seen) as countering that message and encouraging “gay rejection” by implying offensively and controversially that homosexuality can be cured.”

The other two judges, Lord Justice Briggs and Lord Justice Christopher Clarke agreed with Lord Dyson’s conclusions.