London Mayor faces discrimination probe for anti-Christian sentiments

London Mayor Boris Johnson faces a legal investigation by the High Court as to whether he illegally ordered Christian ads. supporting ex-gays to be removed from London Buses, while permitting ads. by a gay lobby to run. Johnson had insisted he was not involved in the decision, but new E-mail evidence suggests he gave the order himself.

The actions which coincided with his re-election bid in 2012 bring into question whether he acted solely for political gain. The Court of Appeal ruling follows new evidence detailing emailing exchanges that suggest Johnson may have acted for an “improper purpose”. Stonewall is a pro gay-lobby with significant American funding, about 25% of their money comes through US based 501 C 3 corporations. (Which are not supposed to raise tax deductible dollars for foreign political advocacy) They ran ads. on London Buses that said “Some people are gay, get over it.” Core Issues Trust and Anglican Mainstream responded with their own ads. saying “Not Gay! Ex-gay, post-gay and proud. Get over it.” It was these ads. that were pulled resulting in court proceedings with Mayor Johnson saying "London is one of the most tolerant cities in the world and intolerant of intolerance. It is clearly offensive to suggest being gay is an illness someone recovers from and I am not prepared to have that suggestion driven around London on our buses."

---

Transport for London (TfL) prevailed in lower court hearings but fresh evidence introduced has swayed the case on appeal. It shows the Mayor acting in his own self-interest and coordinating press releases with The Guardian newspaper (a notable left-wing publication), the day before proceeding to an event with Stonewall, one of the parties in the case. Vernon Everitt, TfL’s managing director of marketing and communications, has claimed he was the one making the decision although he was aware of Mr. Johnson’s views. But an internal email from Guto Harri, the Mayor’s media chief, says: “Boris has just instructed tfl to pull the adverts and I've briefed The Guardian, who will break that news in next half hour.” Subsequently, the damning part of the ruling issued by Sir John Dyson said in paragraphs 37-38.

“The difficulty is that there is now in evidence an email which unequivocally states that the Mayor instructed TfL to pull the advertisement…. The need for examination of the role of the Mayor is all the greater because (i) the 18.04 email shows that the Mayor’s office contacted the Guardian immediately in order to make political capital out of the story; and (ii) arrangements had been made for the Mayor to appear on 13 April (the following day) at hustings organised by Stonewall. This is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs.”

"Interests of Justice"

[Para 48]“In my view, it is in the interests of justice that a further enquiry be conducted by the court as to whether (i) the decision was instructed by the Mayor and (ii) it was made for an improper purpose. As Christopher Clarke LJ said during the course of argument, the only way this can be done properly is for the Mayor (on behalf of the GLA) to be added back as a defendant. The case should be remitted to the judge for her to make such an order and then give appropriate directions with a view to deciding whether the decision was instructed by the Mayor and made for an improper purpose. It will be for her to decide what directions to give. But I would expect her to direct that written statements be made by the Mayor, Mr Harri and Mr Barnes and then to decide in the light of the statements whether to order cross-examination.”

So the case will be referred back to the lower appeal court to Mrs. Justice Lang, who heard arguments previously, with Mayor Johnson being added as a defendant on orders from the higher court. Lang had previously written ‘If the motive of the decision was to advance Mr Johnson’s election campaign, at the expense of a proper exercise of TfL’s powers and duties, this would call into question the lawfulness of the decision.’ This time she may be able to establish that this is the case. Reaction from the Mayor’s office has been extraordinary. Proceedings established that both sets of ads could lawfully be banned if the TfL judged that they would be offensive and cause widespread public offence. Johnson’s people have doubled down on that as the news of the day, ignoring the fact that their boss has now been ordered to stand as a defendant in a High Court matter. Johnson’s official spokesman said “The Mayor is pleased that the court has upheld TfL's right to ban the Core Issues Trust advert. He agreed with TfL's ban at the time and will continue to support the banning of adverts that breach advertising policy and cause widespread public offence, as this advert clearly did.” But the spokesman ignores the fact that the court required equal treatment which was not the case with only one side’s ads banned. Even after court proceedings began TfL re-instituted the Stonewall ads but not the opposition’s. Now TfL along with Stonewall have closed ranks with the Mayor’s office with TfL asserting the legality of their actions while Stonewall prattle on again about Christians tackling global poverty instead of “being obsessed with sex.” Johnson’s attitudes towards the Christian position are very troubling. Clearly the evidence has indicated that while being a member of the Conservative Party he is quite at home doing business with left-wing power brokers like the Guardian (of Edward Snowden fame) and the extremely militant Stonewall, while manipulating the branch of government that he oversees for his own political gain. Johnson has taken his personal perception and imposed it on everyone else. It is pompous and arrogant of him to use the term “clearly offensive”, as if he is the sole arbiter of individual expression. Indeed, the fact that legal action is ongoing against him and TfL because of his intolerant views, demonstrates absolute hypocrisy for his position.