In an important development, the High Court examined contradictory statements about the role of Mayor Boris Johnson in banning the ‘Ex-Gay’ advert from London buses.
The ad sought to highlight that some people who experiencing same-sex attraction do not wish to embrace a same-sex lifestyle. It read ‘Not Gay! Ex-Gay, Post-Gay and Proud. Get over it!’ and was created in direct response to a provocative campaign from homosexual campaign group Stonewall which read ‘Some people are gay. Get over it!’
However, whilst the Stonewall ad was allowed to run, the response advert was pulled at the last minute following political and media pressure. The decision was taken during the London Mayoral election and just two days before Boris Johns appeared at an election hustings event organised by Stonewall.
Correspondence presented to the Court, from the time of the ban, highlighted the role played by the Mayor. One letter from the Mayor stated ‘I instructed that [the ad] be immediately stopped’. Emails originating from senior staff within the Mayor’s Office and Transport for London (TfL) read ‘Boris has just instructed TfL to pull the adverts’, ‘The Mayor’s intervention is coming through strongly’ and ‘The mayor immediately put the wheels into motion to halt the campaign after being alerted to the plans by the Guardian’.
However, in a remarkable development, the Mayor told the Court that he didn’t in fact take the decision. In a statement to the High Court, he said that he ‘did not instruct TfL to do anything’.
In response to the contradictory evidence, his lawyers told the Court that when used in the original correspondence, the word ‘instruct’ should only be understood to mean that Boris Johnson offered his opinion to TfL, not that he took the decision.
The case against the Mayor and Transport for London is being brought by Core Issues Trust, a Christian charity that supports those facing unwanted same-sex attraction.
The Christian Legal Centre is supportive of the case and Chief Executive Andrea Williams commented following last week’s hearing:
“It is staggering that Boris Johnson is now claiming that he didn’t take the decision to ban the advert. He stated in a letter to a politician that he had taken it. Email evidence makes plain that senior staff in his office and at TfL believed that he had taken it. He was happy to take credit for the decision in the media at the time.
“Surely there are only two options - either Boris didn’t take the decision but was happy to take credit for it - and mislead the electorate, presumably for perceived political gain - or he did take the decision but is now telling the Court that he didn’t? Either way, it appears that Boris has been economical with the truth for political reasons.
“We have argued that the advert should never have been banned. However if it were banned, the Stonewall Ad should also have been removed. If a restriction on freedom of expression was justified, it should have been applied evenly. There should have been a level-playing field. Instead we saw politically motivated asymmetry of treatment that punished one viewpoint but not another and left one group effectively denied a voice. Not only did Boris allow the provocative Stonewall Ad to run at the time but he has allowed it to run again since.”
