De Facto Solidarity Campaign
|
Freedom of expression isn’t just for tobacco companies |
Québec City, Nov. 2003 — Promoting health to youth can be a risky business, as the staff at the Québec City area school sports association ARSEQCA have been learning of late. In the midst of a media campaign to encourage teenagers to say no to cigarettes, they received legal notices from each of the three large “Canadian” cigarette manufacturers, i.e. the local subsidiaries of British American Tobacco (BAT) and Japan Tobacco (JTI-Macdonald), as well as Rothmans, Benson & Hedges.
What is the tobacco industry’s complaint about the De Facto Campaign? Here is how Imperial Tobacco’s lawyers put it:
“...you falsely accuse our clients of hiding their intentions which, according to you, are to promote and illegally sell tobacco products to children and to adolescents. Moreover, you falsely insinuate that our clients are engaged in the promotion and sale of these products to children and adolescents in flagrant violation of applicable laws in Canada, the whole with the objective of obtaining the greatest possible profits.” [Our translation]
In short, the industry is accusing those who designed the De Facto Campaign of engaging in libel. After all, De Facto dared to present, in graphic and punchy style, the conclusions of many public health specialists — and of Judge André Denis of Québec Superior Court. In a judgement handed down in December 2002, Judge Denis upheld the constiutionality of the entire federal Tobacco Act, and in particular the constitutionality of advertising restrictions under the Act.
Judge Denis rejected the manufacturers’ claims that the sole purpose of tobacco advertising is to convince adult smokers to switch brands:
“[121] Despite [Imperial Tobacco witness] Mr. Ricard’s claims to the contrary, the Court does not believe that cigarette advertising is first and foremost aimed at ‘switchers’. It is just as much, probably even more so, aimed at attracting new smokers.”
“[122] Furthermore, the Court does not believe that cigarette advertising is solely aimed at smokers over 19 years of age. All the advertising campaigns contain elements that are attractive to the young people who are the industry’s future. The tobacco companies are well aware that most people start smoking between the ages of 12 and 18 and systematically target this susceptible age group with its advertising and marketing.”
It is worth noting that the legal notices were addressed not to the ARSEQCA as an organization, but personally to the association’s director, Gilles Lépine. Notices were also sent to the two communications firms that helped the ARSEQCA set up and run the campaign — including to the company that hosts the site www.defacto.ca — as well as to the director of one of the firms.
Faced with the prospect of expensive legal proceedings against an industry that is known to have very deep pockets when it comes to legal fees, those in charge of the campaign decided to remove from the website some of the items that the industry is objecting to:
However, it is important that the tobacco industry should not be allowed to effectively censor the content of public health campaigns simply by threatening legal action against individuals or Internet providers.
Organizations that wish to show their opposition to tobacco industry intimidation can do so by including a link to this page on their own web site.
The tobacco industry has gone to court to challenge public health legislation and claims it is doing so in order to defend freedom of expression. Freedom of expression should extend to those who dare to criticize tobacco marketing practices — even if these critics don’t have the money to pay large legal bills.
See also: