This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21613433

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
High Court hears gay cure ad ban 'threatens democracy' High Court hears gay cure ad ban 'a political issue'
(about 3 hours later)
A ban on a bus advert claiming gay people can be "cured" was a "deep threat" to democratic freedoms, the High Court has heard. A decision to ban a London bus advert claiming gay people can be "cured" was made as it was a "trigger issue" ahead of the mayoral election, a court heard.
The advert was created by Christian group Core Issues Trust, which tries to help people overcome gay urges.The advert was created by Christian group Core Issues Trust, which tries to help people overcome gay urges.
But Transport for London (TfL) pulled the campaign, claiming it breached its advertising policy because it could have caused widespread offence.But Transport for London (TfL) pulled the campaign, claiming it breached its advertising policy because it could have caused widespread offence.
The trust is applying for a judicial review of TfL's decision. A judicial review of TfL's decision is being heard at the High Court.
'Restrained advertisement' 'Closely fought race'
The advert was due to appear on 24 London buses as a repost to one by gay rights organisation Stonewall, which ran last April reading: "Some people are gay. Get over it!" The advert was due to appear on 24 London buses as a riposte to one by gay rights organisation Stonewall, which ran last April reading: "Some people are gay. Get over it!"
The Core Issues Trust advert was due to read: "Not Gay. Ex-Gay, Post-Gay and Proud. Get over it!".The Core Issues Trust advert was due to read: "Not Gay. Ex-Gay, Post-Gay and Proud. Get over it!".
Paul Diamond, counsel for Core Issues Trust said that the use of the London transport system for one point of view the government approves the British public should hear was "frightening" and "unlawful".
He argued that Core Issues Trust had as much right as Stonewall to have its viewpoint aired under article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights for freedom of expression.
Mr Diamond claimed that the decision to not run the advert after it had been approved by the Committee for Advertising Practice was political because it was close to the London Mayoral election.
He said: "It was a trigger issue and it was a very close fought race."
He said that although an article on the Guardian's website reporting that the ad had been removed garnered 800 comments, TfL received only 37 complaints.
Although Boris Johnson publicly endorsed the removal of the advert at the time, TfL has said it was a decision taken by the transport authority, not the mayor.
Dr Mike Davidson, co-director of the Core Issues Trust, asked Mrs Justice Lang to rule the ban was unlawful and "a deep threat" to democratic freedoms.Dr Mike Davidson, co-director of the Core Issues Trust, asked Mrs Justice Lang to rule the ban was unlawful and "a deep threat" to democratic freedoms.
Paul Diamond, appearing for the trust, told the court: "We believe this is a very important free speech case on whether a totally temperate, restrained advertisement can be put on the sides of London buses."
A TfL spokesman said: "The advertisement breached TfL's advertising policy as, in our view, it contained a publicly controversial message and was likely to cause widespread offence to members of the public.A TfL spokesman said: "The advertisement breached TfL's advertising policy as, in our view, it contained a publicly controversial message and was likely to cause widespread offence to members of the public.
"This view was borne out by the high number of complaints we received about the ad and the large number of negative comments on social media and newspaper websites.""This view was borne out by the high number of complaints we received about the ad and the large number of negative comments on social media and newspaper websites."
Before the hearing, Matthew Ryder QC, who specialises in human rights, said it was a classic example of someone's freedom of expression being pitted against someone's right not to be offended.Before the hearing, Matthew Ryder QC, who specialises in human rights, said it was a classic example of someone's freedom of expression being pitted against someone's right not to be offended.
"Freedom of expression includes speaking in a way which offends people," he said."Freedom of expression includes speaking in a way which offends people," he said.