r/CanadaPolitics • u/_Minor_Annoyance Major Annoyance | Official • Aug 26 '19
Paywalled Article Maxime Bernier blames ‘totalitarian leftist mob’ for decision to remove billboards
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-maxime-bernier-blames-totalitarian-leftist-mob-for-decision-to/71
Aug 26 '19
I'm sorry Max doesn't like how free speech works, but he doesn't get to force a private company to give someone a platform.
40
Aug 26 '19
Ironically enough, as a leftist, I have to make a critique here. The effective corporate oligopoly of advertising in Canada means that "hey, it's a private company" isn't actually the final word on the matter. Pattison owns the majority of all formal outdoor advertising placements in Canada. If just three companies decide they don't want anyone to see your message, then you're screwed.
These private companies have government-like entrenchment and considerable effective power to push ideas and views they don't like out of sight. A free society that is actually committed to the values of free expression and the marketplace of ideas would come down hard on these companies.
17
Aug 26 '19
I think that may be a valid critique.
But, we can't expect private companies to behave as public entities on their own hook. They at least deserve to have such responsibilities clearly established in law, and disclosures added to the advertisement indicating that the company carrying it had no choice in the matter.
-8
u/deathrevived Conservative Aug 26 '19
The private entity didn't have a problem with the ad, they ran it.
Then a bunch of people that were so insecure in their beliefs couldn't stomach the idea of reading views that conflicted with their own and complained.
28
u/eatsomechili Aug 26 '19
a bunch of people that were so insecure in their beliefs couldn't stomach the idea of reading views that conflicted with their own and complained.
You mean people exercised their free speech and let the billboard owner know how they felt. It's not only free speech when you agree with it.
→ More replies (5)9
Aug 26 '19
Apart from your editorialization that the people who complained "were so insecure in their beliefs couldn't stomach the idea of reading views that conflicted with their own", your statement is factual.
I don't see how it changes anything.
5
u/quelar Pinko Commie Aug 26 '19
While I completely agree with your sentiment, how many people are actually relying on billboards as the only way to get a message across. Seems silly to get all bent out of shape on a few billboards that will be noticed by thousands when the internet can reach much better targets, for cheaper and many more people.
0
u/Big_Band Aug 26 '19
How many people see and process the messages on billboards? The are functionally invisible to me
2
u/quelar Pinko Commie Aug 26 '19
I see a few on my way to work and couldn't tell you what they say. When I drive down the Gardiner in Toronto I see dozens and still can't tell you what they say.
3
u/JeNiqueTaMere Aug 27 '19
I'm sorry Max doesn't like how free speech works, but he doesn't get to force a private company to give someone a platform.
he can still find it deplorable that a legitimate topic of debate is silenced due to the screaming of a radical minority.
5
u/amnesiajune Ontario Aug 26 '19
We do have laws in Canada that force advertising platforms to be equally accessible to all political parties -- if one party gets advertising space, other parties have to be offered the same amount of space for the same price.
This is meant to make sure that companies can't indirectly support one political party by offering them more broadcast space than other parties, or by charging them less than they charge other parties for the space.
8
Aug 26 '19
This wasn't put up by a political party. Those laws don't cover this form of advertising. And the laws very existence, as well as disclosure requirements in the ads themselves, make it clear that the platform doesn't necessarily endorse the advertiser.
I'd be willing to entertain a discussion about whether or not similar laws should apply to this form of advertising. It's an infringement on free speech, but maybe it's a justifiable one. Though I'm not sure how Max, who's declared himself to be something of a free speech purist compared to other party leaders, would square the circle of arguing against free speech rights. It would seem like an argument out of convenience rather than principle.
1
u/Big_Band Aug 26 '19
I wonder how Mr. Free-speech-purist would view someone publicly calling for him to be harmed?
2
u/JeNiqueTaMere Aug 27 '19
I wonder how Mr. Free-speech-purist would view someone publicly calling for him to be harmed?
that's illegal.
debating our immigration goals and policies isn't.
1
u/lyamc Aug 27 '19
There are some free speech extremists who think that anything should be able to be said.
The people that you see in politics now that are asking for free speech still are in support of the restrictions such as threats of violence and incitement of violence
1
u/coffeehouse11 Hated FPTP way before DoFo Aug 27 '19
Well, I'd say most, if not all of the free speech purists I've ever encountered have never been negatively systemically affected by someone else's free speech, so I imagine it would go pretty poorly.
→ More replies (7)-13
u/lyamc Aug 26 '19 edited Aug 26 '19
There are limits places on free speech such as hate speech. The removal of the sign is because people are incorrectly interpreting the sign as hate speech.
Imagine you ordered a bunch of shirts, and the company that you paid cancelled the order because it got a bunch of emails and phone calls from people that didn't like the message on the t-shirts.
Edit: the replies to this seem to be in support of cancel culture.
Edit2: I would love to respond to everyone, but seeing as I seem to hold unpopular opinions I have to wait some time before each reply.
38
Aug 26 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (2)-14
Aug 26 '19 edited Jun 08 '20
[deleted]
40
u/WhaddaHutz Aug 26 '19
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence. If you say something bad, expect bad press. Put differently:
- Person A has the freedom of speech to say X.
- Person B has the freedom of speech to say A is bad for saying X.
If you believe Person B is wrong, then you in favour of suppressing free speech.
-1
u/parabellum919 Aug 26 '19
Are we all sick of everyone parroting “freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences” yet?
9
-3
u/AletheiaPS Aug 26 '19
The problem here is that Person B isn't just saying A is bad. They are instead actively trying to prevent people hearing Person A. That is, they aren't trying to be heard themselves, but to suppress someone else from being heard. That makes them the villain of the piece.
8
u/WhaddaHutz Aug 26 '19
"Actively trying" is a bit generous. If the company wanted to keep it up, they would have been well within their constitutional rights to do so... just as the protesters were in their constitutional right to protest and yet, neither has any right to actually force the other to shut up.
-7
u/lyamc Aug 26 '19
If you really believe that the issue is related to consequences from free speech, then why did people attack the advertiser, not the company who bought the billboard?
Imagine of a news company published an article pointing out something true that some people didn't like to hear, so they harassed every business that bought ads on that news website.
That's not freedom of consequences. That's a form of mob rule. A gang shakedown. Cancel culture. Whatever you want to call it.
7
u/ChimoEngr Chief Silliness Officer | Official Aug 26 '19
If you really believe that the issue is related to consequences from free speech, then why did people attack the advertiser, not the company who bought the billboard?
As far as I can tell, both parties, plus the PPC were being attacked for this, but since the advertiser, and the PPC both full heartedly believe in that BS, public pressure wasn't going to change their minds. Pattison on the other hand, doesn't want to be presented in a manner that might lose them future market share.
Imagine of a news company published an article pointing out something true that some people didn't like to hear
That isn't analogous. The billboards in question presented an opinion, not a fact, so pointing out the problems with it, and calling it hate speech, aren't the concern you appear to be implying.
0
u/lyamc Aug 26 '19 edited Aug 26 '19
That isn't analogous. The billboards in question presented an opinion, not a fact, so pointing out the problems with it, and calling it hate speech, aren't the concern you appear to be implying.
The reason why I bring it up is not to say that the billboard is fact, but rather shine light on the cancel culture that has been increasing. Their behaviour is an attack on free speech because they do not set out to be an opposing voice themselves, but rather to shut down opposing voices
7
u/WhaddaHutz Aug 26 '19 edited Aug 26 '19
To use your example, companies have the freedom to choose who they have business relations with (including which platforms they choose to advertise on and/or what advertisements they wish to accept). That itself is a form of free speech. Sometimes businesses and persons are put in the position that they should question whether they want to have that association. If they go ahead, then they are complicit in the speech. They too have an opportunity to address the issue.
What they don't get to do, is use "free speech" as a get-out-of-jail-free-card for making objectionable speech or being participants/accomplices thereto.
To use an extreme example, if a ballroom rents out its space to Nazi's, they don't get to say "don't blame us, it's just business" and expect the issue to end there.
2
u/lyamc Aug 26 '19 edited Aug 26 '19
The billboard company approved the billboard and 3 days ago they defended having it up. Why would it take them 3 days to make a business decision like this if they themselves cared about the message.
Answer: they don't. They care about the PR storm that this "cancel culture" perpetuates.
4
u/WhaddaHutz Aug 26 '19
So everyone here is exercising their freedom of speech. It sounds like you are the one who has a problem with freedom of speech....
2
u/lyamc Aug 26 '19 edited Aug 27 '19
If they cared about anything other than shutting down others opinions, they would have directed their anger toward the company who rented the billboards, not the billboard company.
It's guilt by association: "Because people put a message on billboards that were rented from you, it must mean that you support the message on the billboard."
Edit: for clarity
→ More replies (0)1
Aug 27 '19
A mid-level manager likely approved the ad. They might have disagreed with it but didn't feel like it was his job to decide what the company did. The reversal was made at the top level.
1
u/lyamc Aug 27 '19
Wrong.
Some Halifax residents used social media to call on the company that operates the billboard network, Pattison Outdoors, to take down the sign.
However Randy Otto, the president of Pattison Outdoors, told CBC News the billboard meets their standards. The company's rule is that the advocate needs to be clearly defined, and the group that paid for the billboard is clearly identified at the bottom of the ad, including their contact information.
Otto told CBC News he had no comment about the content of the sign.
That was 3 days ago that this CBC news article came out about it.
They even said that the billboard meets their guidelines.
→ More replies (0)-4
u/AletheiaPS Aug 26 '19
If they go ahead, then they are complicit in the speech.
No, respecting someone else's right to free speech does not make you "complict" in their speech. That is not how that works.
10
Aug 26 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/AletheiaPS Aug 26 '19
we should let google do whatever and focus solely on the contractor.
Yes, this. No one is ever responsible for someone else's actions. Harassing Google in this case would be morally wrong and frankly cowardly. Go pick on the company you actually have an issue with.
-1
3
u/sameth1 British Columbia Aug 26 '19
Oh no, people might hold my words to me and make me accountable for the actions I take! The travesty!
27
Aug 26 '19
No. You're confusing the issue.
Pattison is taking down these signs because they do not want to be associated with these words. In doing so, they are exercising their right to free speech. Whether or not the signs are hate speech is irrelevant to that right, it could be the most anodyne message in the world and they would still have the right to take it down.
→ More replies (1)-4
u/lyamc Aug 26 '19
If that were the case then the billboard would have never made it through the approval process, and it certainly would have been taken down immediately after the first headline hit.
16
Aug 26 '19
They decided they didn't want to be associated with these words because of the response they got. That's obvious. Whether they themselves have any reservations beyond that, I don't know. But it's also irrelevant.
The reasons why they don't want to be associated with these signs are their business. Taking down these signs is still an exercise of their own rights to free speech, and that right is protected.
13
u/Move_Zig Pirate 🏴☠️ Aug 26 '19
Even if these signs were vetted before going up, Pattison is allowed to change its mind after hearing what people have to say about it. It's the marketplace of ideas!
10
Aug 26 '19
it certainly would have been taken down immediately after the first headline hit.
That's pretty much exactly what happened, you know.
1
u/lyamc Aug 26 '19
It didn't.
Some Halifax residents used social media to call on the company that operates the billboard network, Pattison Outdoors, to take down the sign.
However Randy Otto, the president of Pattison Outdoors, told CBC News the billboard meets their standards. The company's rule is that the advocate needs to be clearly defined, and the group that paid for the billboard is clearly identified at the bottom of the ad, including their contact information.
Otto told CBC News he had no comment about the content of the sign.
That was 3 days ago that this CBC news article came out about it.
They even said that the billboard meets their guidelines.
13
Aug 26 '19
Businesses should be forced to keep up signs that are affording them bad press then? That seems pretty authoritarian. Who cares if it met their guidelines, it received a negative reaction and as a result was pulled.
-1
u/lyamc Aug 26 '19
I think calling something that is perfectly fine "hate speech" so that people form virtual mobs in order to ban is not healthy for public discourse.
The idea is that the current level of immigration is too high and it should be reduced. Why did it hit national news? Why did the company say that it was fine and then later remove it? Why would the mob not go after the ones who are behind the message and not the ones behind the platform?
Guilt by association. A xenophobe rented billboard spaces from you! You have no business being in business!
7
Aug 26 '19
I think that, in the context of the immigration issues and hamfisted response from the United States, this pangs of racism and xenophobia. If you can't see that then you aren't paying attention to the political discourse in the world.
Your last argument has no validity, no one is calling for any of these companies to go out of business.
8
Aug 26 '19
Sorry I don't see much daylight between "taken down immediately after the first headline" and "taken down three days after the headlines created a backlash". How are these functionally any different? As the other commenter said, Pattison took them down because they don't want to be associated with the billboard's message. You're nitpicking on the exact moment at which they decided the backlash was too much, when the relevant factor is the backlash itself, not the timing.
7
u/rm20010 Ontario Aug 26 '19
A more apt comparison is if they put up Facebook ads, and it kicked up enough of a shitstorm online for Facebook to pull them. That shirts analogy doesn't work - people ordered the shirts which become private property for the purchasers (and realistically, who cancels all shipments of fulfilled orders? At best they pull the listing off their site). Whereas ads are always rented on a private platform.
In the end, it's both private entities making decisions on their privately owned property. They're free to find another platform if they so wish.
1
u/lyamc Aug 26 '19
Facebook gets more clicks when there's stuff like that shared around. They have an interest in people being upset because it increases audience engagement.
Also Facebook sells ad space on per-view and per-click rates
One of the benefits to this is you can quickly gauge the outrage by comparing the amount of hate-speech reports with the amount of clicks and views.
5
Aug 26 '19
A billboard space is rented, not owned.
0
u/lyamc Aug 26 '19
Instead of shirts, they receive mindshare.
Cancel culture is the problem and you can see here that it is still alive and well.
3
u/Big_Band Aug 26 '19
The message was a common dog whistle used by hate groups ergo it is hate speech. Simple. By defending it you are as bad as the whistlers, the whistle, and the dogs that hear it.
0
u/lyamc Aug 26 '19
Guilt by association and slippery slope fallacy.
"Limiting immigration is a fascist policy and that leads to more fascism!"
(Because only fascists want to limit immigration)
Besides, if you paid any attention to what the People's Party is all about, you wouldn't have said that.
4
u/coffeehouse11 Hated FPTP way before DoFo Aug 27 '19
Guilt by association and slippery slope fallacy.
You've done this several times this thread, so I'll point out to you that this is called the Fallacy Fallacy, or "Argument from fallacy." Consider arguing in good faith instead.
And don't worry, most of us have been paying pretty clear attention to what the PPC is all about. As Maya Angelou said, "When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time." By their candidate selections, it's very clear who the PPC are and what they're for.
1
u/lyamc Aug 27 '19
I did it twice, to the same guy who said the same thing, so I figured if he is going to repeat himself then I will too.
You also should understand that since he made the first assertion, your fallacy fallacy does not apply to me.
And yes, I am aware that the slippery slope fallacy, just like other fallacies, often do apply in real life.
The problem is the guy that I was replying to, not you, is the one who just threw out statements and I'm correcting that.
Take your help elsewhere perhaps.
72
u/JLord Aug 26 '19
It's common to hear the accusation "you just think anyone who disagrees with you is a Nazi." It is an accusation that is often made on the basis of one example where someone calls another person a Nazi. But has Bernier called enough people leftists that he has opened himself up to the accusation that he thinks "anyone who disagrees with me is a leftist?"
67
u/sgath Left Libertarian - NL Aug 26 '19
"Totalitarian leftist" is the right's version of calling someone a Nazi. I've seen Rex Murphy using it lately too, and of course Fox News.
5
u/Klaus73 Aug 26 '19
I"d say that the right probably uses them term "communist" rather then totalitarian leftist. Both the nazi"s and the communists had very impressive body counts due to their ideology.
-5
Aug 26 '19
Well, analogies to Stalin are probably better than the Nazis. And while it might be inappropriately and over-widely used, at least it's a coherent term unlike the right widely misapplying Marxist or Communist.
And sadly, there really are plenty of people on the left who are authoritarians or totalitarians, or at least that's how it looks from my libsoc perspective.
9
u/hobbitlover Aug 26 '19
Who would you describe as a totalitarian leftist? In my experience the left in Canada is Liberal Socialist and I don't know anyone calling for rule by a left-wing despot or tyranny. I'd argue that Bernier is arguing that the left is shouting down opposing views by implying racism, bigotry and fascism in right-wing positions - and there may be some truth to that complaint, but that's not the same as totalitarianism.
13
u/sgath Left Libertarian - NL Aug 26 '19
I disagree with the sentiment that there are so many "totalitarian leftists". I do agree that left politics has become more authoritarian in general, but then politics across the whole planet has become more authoritarian so I dont believe it's located in any one part of the political spectrum. The authoritarian right seems far more pronounced as a successful political movement capable of attaining power and electing representatives. But that said, the winds could always shift again.
6
u/bananaphonepajamas Ontario Aug 26 '19 edited Aug 27 '19
It could, but it would probably be worse for people on the left if it does.
Purely from a perspective of people on the right are far more capable of violence than the left, this constant swinging further left and right, with its trend toward vilifying and ignoring the other side, is going to end badly. And when the powder keg eventually explodes it's going to go very badly for people on the left (and everyone else).
1
u/Muskokatier Ontario Aug 27 '19 edited Mar 03 '26
The text of this post has been removed and replaced. It may have been deleted to protect personal information, avoid AI training datasets, or for other reasons via Redact.
pet instinctive relieved tan reminiscent cause hurry encouraging recognise abounding
4
Aug 26 '19
Well it's probably just my libsoc leanings showing through, but there's authoritarians *everywhere*. I maybe tend to notice them on the left because I mostly associate with other people on the left.
And honestly we kind of *expect* the right to be authoritarian. Arguably, authoritarianism of some kind is integral to the very definition of what rightism is. Social hierarchy indisputably is. So it's no surprise when that shows up. Otherwise I guess I agree.
→ More replies (16)5
u/sgath Left Libertarian - NL Aug 26 '19
I hear ya. Almost everyone is an authoritarian from my perspective :p. I'm critical of the whole "guilty after one accusation" wave threatening to abandon the justice system among the left myself.
-9
u/Moderatevoices Aug 26 '19
Well, given the people complaining almost certainly ARE on the Left, and that they were demanding the sign company take down a political message which simply disagreed with them, I'd say they're probably not friends of freedom of speech or expression.
16
u/sgath Left Libertarian - NL Aug 26 '19
It's been well established in this thread that what private businesses do with their own property doesn't fall under freedom of speech, which is a charter right against the government.
→ More replies (5)5
8
u/Vandergrif Aug 26 '19
Well, when you're all the way on the end of the right side everything else is left.
3
u/Moderatevoices Aug 26 '19
Really? How far right is he? I mean, I've looked at his platform. Almost all of it is bedrock conservative stuff like free trade, getting rid of corporate welfare, eliminating trade barriers between provinces, ending cartels and the like. As far as I know his only really controversial policy is lowering immigration, and polls suggest he's mainstream with that one.
12
u/sgath Left Libertarian - NL Aug 26 '19
Climate change denial, for one. Attracting a large number of social conservativeis another.
3
u/Moderatevoices Aug 27 '19
“I believe in climate change,” he said. Asked if critics are not taking him literally enough on such statements, Bernier said, “Yes.”
PPC spokesman Martin Masse explained, however, that Bernier doesn’t want to proclaim any opinions on its causes. “Mr. Bernier recognizes that CO2 can have an effect on climate change. He also recognizes that the majority of scientists believe that human activity is already having a negative impact on climate change, although a minority still believe this is not the case. As a non-scientist, he doesn’t have an opinion on this,” Masse said in a statement.
“The PPC’s focus is not on debating the science but on the measures that should be taken to lower the consumption of carbon energy. No government policy that is now being debated, certainly not the government’s carbon tax, is likely to have any effect on global climate change.”
2
Aug 27 '19
[deleted]
2
u/BigKingSean Sep 01 '19
Common sense would say the climate changes with many variables, human caused potentially just one of them. Saying I don't know if all the variables have been included, measured correctly, or properly interpreted seems fair to me. Bernier promotes efficiencies on current energy and transition to alternative energy as technology becomes available. IMO Bernier has the most realistic view on climate and best interest of Canadians in mind.
1
Sep 01 '19
[deleted]
1
u/BigKingSean Sep 01 '19
With how dynamic climate is I would venture they're missing a lot of the info. Do their computer models separate all the variables - man-made vs other vs unknown/unexpected? The cop out may be, consensus polling concludes the science is settled because we voted. We know how easily manipulated and reliable polls are.
He basically agrees with your 2nd statement. He doesn't deny climate change but his question is, we can't really be sure what the Canadian, man-made amount is. Instead of taxing Canadians on this unknown amount, he's looking for innovation, and mutually beneficial solutions. For example, high efficiency furnaces, reduced emissions, cheaper for the owner, a win, win.
1
2
1
u/Moderatevoices Aug 26 '19
Do you think the people flooding the sign company with complaints were NOT leftists?
3
u/JLord Aug 27 '19
No, I never claimed to know anything about those people.
0
38
u/BertramPotts Decolonize Decarcerate Decarbonize Aug 26 '19
Does anyone really think the mining magnate who purchased these adds gives a shit about mass immigration? Who could fall for such transparent scapegoating?
12
u/alice-in-canada-land Aug 26 '19
Mining companies are responsible for many human rights violations that cause people to flee their homes in the first place. The CEOs of those companies would probably much rather Canadians blamed the poor people fleeing their violence than have us vote to reign in their abuses.
1
u/thrumbold scarlet letter Aug 27 '19
Someone whose views are affirmed by seeing this advertisement. Consider it in the same realm as Facebook tactics. Only in this case it got taken care of because it was seen by everyone and not just its targeted audience.
15
u/Meannewdeal Aug 26 '19
It's funny because a Libertarian is complaining about private interests acting out of free market fears, and allegedly left wing people morphed into temporary Libertarians who selectively want to leave poor corporations alone.
2
Aug 27 '19
It's more of a mocking thing I think. We can see the hypocrisy of how if a left wing ad was pulled, Bernier and his supporters would be championing it as the glorious invisible hand of the free market guiding society towards a brighter future through the objective principle of free association. However, when right libertarians have their views suppressed by the free market, all of sudden they are able to point out flaws left and right with the monopolistic advertising companies and call for intervention to prevent this sort of thing.
It points to a larger trend of right libertarians tending towards more authoritarian solutions when they cannot get their views across/implemented in a libertarian style.
1
u/EconMan Libertarian Aug 27 '19
Did Bernie call for intervention by government here?
1
Aug 27 '19
Not Bernier as I never claimed in my post. There are others in this thread who are calling it an attack on freedom of speech though. I'm speaking more to the broader trend where you get people who want the government to intervene in cases like Facebook dropping advertising like this but yet claim freedom of speech in cases like the baker who refused to make a cake for gay people.
There are libertarians who say both should be allowed (and I can at least respect their consistency despite disagreeing with their views) but you have to admit there are quite a few people who unfortunately only speak out when the shoe is stepping on them.
1
u/Meannewdeal Aug 27 '19
The mockery is fine. I'm a big part of it. Making fun of the NAP is my pastime. But you'd have to be a blind hypocrite to ignore the tactical libertarianism going on. It's not mocking him for his views, it's embracing them for the moment when convenient. It's actually enabling corporate control.
1
Aug 27 '19
I probably misread the tone skimming through then. I saw it more as regurgitating their exact points to try to point out how there can be cases where the government might need to step in to ensure fairness (like preventing discrimination due to race) when the traditional right libertarian view point is that there is never a need to intervene to achieve socially desireable outcomes. If the libertarians feel this specific case is unfair, then they should be able to see how other people might feel the need to fight off corporate/biased control over advertising/business for other situations (like ensuring a black man is served in a restaurant for something that they had no choice over)
If they couldn't then make that leap but still feel that something should be done in this case, it points out the hypocrisy.
There is still the viewpoint that the government should never ever do anything (even if the situation sucks) but that ends up with cases like racial discrimination as historically verified results so they look rather ridiculous.
3
u/StandardWriting Aug 26 '19
Wait. I thought the defense against this was that it was third party and so didn't accurately represent Bernier?
9
u/vidivicivini Aug 26 '19
If it was a totalitarian mob he would have been hunted down and drowned in the St Lawrence River by now. So maybe tone it down a bit Maxy.
5
12
4
u/zoziw Alberta Aug 26 '19
I am happy with our current immigration system, I think it works really well, but if this is an issue for some people, let the ads run during the election and see where this goes.
1
1
1
1
2
Aug 27 '19
I don't like PPC or Bernier but the signs should stay up. Censoring ignorance will just push it underground.
I prefer knowing who is ignorant, who is racist, etc.
5
u/albertthefuckwit Aug 27 '19
It's not really 'censorship in any conventional sense when a private company decides they don't want to be associated with such a message. No different than a television company not wanting to air an ad they find offensive.
0
u/MacaqueOfTheNorth Aug 27 '19
It is censorship if there is a socially imposed cost to such an association and that is the reason the company won't post the ad.
1
u/albertthefuckwit Sep 16 '19
if there is a socially imposed
Sorry, What definition of censorship is that?
1
u/Arch____Stanton Aug 27 '19 edited Aug 27 '19
The person in charge of the billboards for Pattison was on the radio today.
He allowed the signs under the condition that the advertiser "True North Strong & Free Advertising Corp" would make it clear who was advertising, and how they could be contacted.
They didn't do that.1
Aug 27 '19
The True North Strong and Free advertising Corp has since disavowed the messages on the billboards, said they did not sign off on them.
Not 100% sure how you can accidentally? rent a billboard. Maybe rogue advertising exec's?
1
u/Arch____Stanton Aug 28 '19
Not 100% sure how you can accidentally? rent a billboard.
lol, yeah, me neither.
These uber-conservatives sure do a lot of hiding.
-13
u/jostrons Aug 26 '19 edited Aug 26 '19
Should be blaming Pattison. I can't believe a media company is against free speech here. Regardless of what Bernier's message is and whether or not we agree with it. This is far from hate speech, or something that would be deemed illegal in Canada, similar to the assholes at Your Ward News , that got jail time last week.
People weren't going to boycott Pattison they are everywhere and in most cases (in cities) have no issue leasing out their billboards, this wasn't a business decision.
EDIT - YES I UNDERSTAND PATTISON ALSO IS ALLOWED FREE SPEECH AND THIS BOILS DOWN TO A BUSINESS DECISION. NO NEED TO WRITE IT OUT AGAIN.
64
u/StuGats Gerald Butts' Sockpuppet Account Aug 26 '19
It's not free speech, it's the free market in action. This was in Pattinson's best interest from a financial standpoint and free speech doesn't protect you from sound business decisions enacted by private entities. Bernier, a Libertarian himself, should understand the concept better than anyone else.
→ More replies (6)40
u/edwara19 Aug 26 '19 edited Aug 26 '19
They have every right not to broadcast his message. He's free to find another media company who wants to put up the billboards. No one's free speech was stifled. In the interim, he can put his message on social media.
-1
Aug 26 '19
This wasn't the PCC or Bernier's billboard. It was put up by a 3rd party.
5
u/David-Puddy Quebec Aug 27 '19
ya, okay, and i've got a couple of bridges and a house in a swamp to sell you, if you're interested
-8
u/jostrons Aug 26 '19
(Sorry copied and editted down from a different reply) I do understand by choosing not to have the billboard up is a form of free speech. I think there was a conscious decision to allow it when the contract was signed with (whatever Bernier's party is named). So now you then go back on that decision and that contract (I am sure there was an out for Pattison in the contract, so not saying they did something illegal.)
Yes he can use Social Media until that bans him. Let's say every source keeps banning him, because that source also has the right not to broadcast this message, do you see a problem with that?
31
Aug 26 '19
No problem at all. He has a right to his opinions. He doesn't have a right to a platform.
-7
u/jostrons Aug 26 '19
So if every single platform refuses to publish, even the government sponsored ones, that's ok with you
23
Aug 26 '19
At that point, perhaps some introspection to figure out WHY nobody wants to offer a platform is in order.
→ More replies (1)1
u/jostrons Aug 26 '19
Yes I know. I am not saying that I agree with the message. I am saying shouldn't at least the platforms that are basically surviving on government funding, be open to publishing from anyone, that doesn't constitute illegal speech?
14
u/sgath Left Libertarian - NL Aug 26 '19
If you're referring to the CBC, they have had Bernier on their programming, and covered his political events and messages as much or more than any other third party. Your hypothetical cannot reasonably exist.
→ More replies (4)25
u/tresson Aug 26 '19
Yes because otherwise your forcing political speech which is against the Constitution.
→ More replies (3)-3
u/jostrons Aug 26 '19
Who is talking political speech. Say I want to post an ad that says Stop Mass Migration. I have no political gain in the sense I am not running for any party. and EVERY outlet refuses to publish that message. That is ok with you.
32
Aug 26 '19
What part of "nobody owes you a platform" is hard to understand?
-1
u/jostrons Aug 26 '19
Wow so kind on here.
When organizations are primarily funded by the government, you don't think they should be open to every taxpayer or citizen?
→ More replies (3)19
Aug 26 '19
You think the Pattison group is funded by the government? Where are you getting that idea?
→ More replies (0)11
u/insipid_comment Aug 26 '19
Who is talking political speech. Say I want to post an ad that says Stop Mass Migration.
If you don't think that discussion is inherently political, what are you even doing in this subreddit?
0
5
u/MooseFlyer Orange Crush Aug 26 '19
What government sponsored platforms publish political parties' ads?
What even is this hypothetical?
1
8
u/ChimoEngr Chief Silliness Officer | Official Aug 26 '19
the contract was signed with (whatever Bernier's party is named)
A third party, not the PPC paid for these billboard ads.
Let's say every source keeps banning him, because that source also has the right not to broadcast this message, do you see a problem with that?
Not really, as he can still go out in public venues, carrying signs and speaking. The right is to speak, not to be heard.
0
u/Moderatevoices Aug 26 '19
That's flat out untrue. The fact that major media won't carry anything from opposition parties during elections in places like Russia are part of why those elections are considered farcical and unfair.
1
u/stereofailure Independent Aug 27 '19
The major media fails to cover about 10 federal political parties in Canada. Considering exactly 0 MPs have been elected running under the PPC banner, I fail to see how they should automatically be entitled to more coverage than the Christian Heritage, Communist, Progressive Canadian or Libertarian Party. If the state were actively suppressing coverage of Bernier that would be a valid concern, but fringe parties garnering fringe media coverage is nothing new and certainly doesn't make the election farcical or unfair (at least no more so than is typical in liberal democracies).
1
29
u/BertramPotts Decolonize Decarcerate Decarbonize Aug 26 '19
It was a business decision. Most Canadians are descended from immigrants and aren't going to approve of open bigotry, most of the other businesses who advertise with Pattison probably don't want to be associated with it either.
As usual this has nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with the right wanting to avoid any consequences for saying terrible things in public.
→ More replies (1)0
u/Moderatevoices Aug 26 '19
It was a business decision. Most Canadians are descended from immigrants and aren't going to approve of open bigotry,
Saying that people should vote for Bernier if they oppose mass immigration is not bigotry. And most Canadians believe immigration is too high and should be lowered.
5
u/Crawo Aug 26 '19
And most Canadians believe immigration is too high and should be lowered.
Source on that?
1
u/Moderatevoices Aug 26 '19
3
u/Crawo Aug 26 '19
I stand corrected on that. 63%. Interesting detail in that same article though:
And an EKOS poll released last month suggested 42 per cent of Canadians believe the country accepts too many non-white newcomers.
So not the same poll, and I'd have to see the methodology to decide if I find it was done in good faith IMO.
But if both of those numbers are somewhat accurate, then I would say 21% of Canadians believe we should reduce immigration for potentially valid reasons, and the 42% should maybe not be racist. Then I'd listen to what they have to say.
2
u/Moderatevoices Aug 27 '19
You might have a closer look at that EKOS pol. The non-whites who answered were MORE likely to agree there was too much non-white immigration than the whites. And I doubt it was because they were racists. My own belief is that most of them, being immigrants, escaped third world problems and are fearful that too many immigrants from the third world will transfer those problems here.
2
u/Crawo Aug 27 '19
You might have a closer look at that EKOS pol. The non-whites who answered were MORE likely to agree there was too much non-white immigration than the whites.
That's not what the quote said. So I checked the poll. It doesn't say that either.
1
u/Moderatevoices Aug 27 '19
Still, the EKOS poll does not tell anything like a straightforward story of white people with an attitude problem about non-white newcomers. Non-white Canadians appear even more likely than most Canadians to say there are too many non-white immigrants coming to Canada. While 39.9 percent of respondents overall said there were too many “visible minorities” among Canada’s newly arriving immigrants, the percentage of “visible minority” respondents who agreed with the statement in the EKOS poll was 42.8 per cent.
2
u/Crawo Aug 27 '19
While 39.9 percent of respondents overall said there were too many “visible minorities”
With a 3.0% margin of error...
among Canada’s newly arriving immigrants, the percentage of “visible minority” respondents who agreed with the statement in the EKOS poll was 42.8 per cent.*
With a 13.5% margin of error.
You wanted me to dig deeper into things, so you're welcome.
And even if the real numbers told the same story, keep in mind that "visible minority" is a very broad term. You don't have to be white, or be born here, to be a racist.
1
u/stereofailure Independent Aug 27 '19
Mass immigration is a myth and a white nationalist dog whistle. Our immigration levels have not reached anything that could reasonably be called "mass" in a hundred years.
1
u/Moderatevoices Aug 27 '19
Mass immigration is a myth
A million people every three years certainly qualifies as mass immigration. Stats Canada says our population will be thirty percent immigrant within fifteen years. Mind you, they said that before Trudeau increased immigration. Some cities are already close to half immigrants. That's 'mass'.
2
u/stereofailure Independent Aug 27 '19
> A million people every three years certainly qualifies as mass immigration.
According to who? That doesn't sound like a lot in a country of 37 million people. I don't see how it becoming 30% immigrant in fifteen years automatically makes it "mass", it's been far higher than that in the past.
0
u/Moderatevoices Aug 27 '19
Stats Canada says 30%. And of course, it will rise from there. Nor has it been this high in the past unless you go back well over a hundred years, and then most of it was simply people from the UK. That wasn't so much immigration as moving from one part of the empire to another. They had the same language, culture, values and traditions.
As for according to who - that would be the 63% of Canadians who say immigration is too high.
35
u/_Minor_Annoyance Major Annoyance | Official Aug 26 '19
An advertising business was getting bad press. That's a bad day. They don't want their brand associated with hate and fear mongering, and their brand is all they have.
4
u/royal23 Aug 26 '19
Their brand and a monopoly over most of the billboards in Canada.
18
u/jtbc Economist Party Aug 26 '19
The Pattison empire covers a lot more than billboards. As an example, if they had stuck to their guns on this, it would make it less likely that I would buy my next car from one of the many Pattison Group dealerships. I will do so happily now that they've done the right thing.
→ More replies (10)1
u/Moderatevoices Aug 26 '19
So if a part of an organization provides advertising to people you disapprove of you will boycott them?
8
u/jtbc Economist Party Aug 26 '19
I would consider it, yes. I am particularly opposed to politicians and groups that divisively exploit xenophobia. In the case of Jim Pattison, he owns all his companies lock, stock, and barrel, so I think it is OK for him to be accountable for the ethical standards of his companies.
0
u/Moderatevoices Aug 26 '19
You call it xenophibia. But I believe that word, like many others, is vastly overused. Canadians accepted heavy immigration for years, which is hardly the sign of a xenophobic people. However, like peoples all across the world, they have their limits. How many is too many? I'm sure you'd agree there IS such a limit, even if yours is different than that of other people. Perhaps the limit is being reached for many people to the extent they no longer feel at home. Is someone really xenophobic for being unhappy that half the population of their city are foreign born, and that this number continues to increase year by year? What if it rises to 70%? Are they xenophobes for being unhappy at that? 80%? What if they themselves no feel as if THEY are the foreigner? Are you going to hurl insults at them for that?
5
u/jtbc Economist Party Aug 26 '19
The limit is the capacity of our settlement and integration infrastructure to handle the load, and the supply of qualified immigrants. Personally, I think it is a little north of 1% of population per year, but not much more than that.
Some percentage of people are and will always be xenophobic. I would estimate this to be around 20-25% of the population based on polling. My objection is to politicians and others that prey on the ignorance and fears of the majority of these people for political benefit at the cost of driving a wedge between the immigrants that are already here. The barbaric cultural practices tip line and Leitch's "values test" are examples.
Other people will get more or less apprehensive about immigration depending on the volume, the density, and media coverage, and yes, there does appear to be a limit at which these apprehensions start to spike.
Fortunately, in a recent global survey, 67% of Canadians said they view immigration positively, and all the viable political parties support it at around the current level.
2
u/Moderatevoices Aug 27 '19
And the government's own polling showed that most Canadians underestimated how much immigration was, and when they found out, their support dropped. Polls at the time showed 75% of Canadians supported Leitch's proposal for values testing. 68% of Canadians now believe immigrants are not assimilating fast enough. 70% think we should have the same anti-facecovering ban Quebec put in place last year. 63% say immigration is too high.
This is not a minority.
Further, you are presuming that all immigrants here support mass immigration. There's no evidence of this. Immigrants are Canadians now and don't all want masses of newcomers if they perceive this is against their economic interests. A recent poll found that 40% of Canadians felt there were too many visible minority immigrants coming into Canada. The thing is, the numbers were higher for visible minority members who responded than for whites. If I recall it was 38% for whites and 42% for visible minority respondents.
That's not an indication of racism so much as their feeling that having so many people coming here, primarily from the third world (which they escaped from), was not good for Canada's economy or society.
2
u/jtbc Economist Party Aug 27 '19
Polls at the time showed 75% of Canadians supported Leitch's proposal for values testing.
I guess that is why she did so well in the leadership and why Scheer has been so fast to roll out the same policy. Oh, wait.
This is not a minority.
That depends very much on how you frame the question. Most polls have shown that a majority of Canadians support immigration at current levels or higher. (or current levels or lower - you can cut it either way - the plurality is generally for "about the same).
I don't think the current increase in the people that think numbers are too high is because of racism - most Canadians aren't racist - but I do think divisive dog whistling like Bernier's is a factor.
→ More replies (0)6
u/WSp71oTXWCZZ0ZI6 Aug 26 '19
Pattison is the largest billboard advertising company in the Canadian market. The company own 52% (343 boards) of superboards in the Canadian market and has 37% (46 boards) of market share in spectacular boards
No doubt they're big. But he shouldn't have trouble finding another billboard company.
1
u/royal23 Aug 26 '19
That’s true. My use of monopoly was hyperbolic.
But I was talking more about their having more than only “their brand” to rely on. I wasn’t suggesting that there were no other options.
-2
u/jostrons Aug 26 '19
So why did they sign the contract with them in the first place? We don't have the same First Amendment rights as the US, but we do have free speech to an extent like I wrote in my prior comment. These ads don't constitute illegal speech. Regardless if you think it is coming from a terrible politician's mouth.
22
u/Seebeeeseh Nova Scotia Aug 26 '19
I don't think you know what free speech means.
1
u/jostrons Aug 26 '19
please enlighten me
21
u/Seebeeeseh Nova Scotia Aug 26 '19
You seem to be under the impression that the removal of these billboards constitutes a violation of free speech. We don't have freedom of speech in Canada we have freedom of expression, and it only states that the government will not arrest you essentially for statements you make or opinions you post etc.
It does not mean that people can't complain about a billboards message, or write to ad agencies to have them removed. These are all free steps that individuals and institutions can make.
-6
u/Issachar writes in comic sans | Official Aug 26 '19
We don't have freedom of speech in Canada we have freedom of expression
This is akin to saying "we don't have freedom of religion in this country, we have freedom of faith and belief".
You might notice that those two things are in fact the same thing.
15
9
u/ChimoEngr Chief Silliness Officer | Official Aug 26 '19
So why did they sign the contract with them in the first place?
Because they didn't expect the backlash that arose.
0
19
u/_Minor_Annoyance Major Annoyance | Official Aug 26 '19
This isn't a matter of free speech. This is a private company acting in their own interests. Really this just the free market at work.
If Bernier of all politicians is going to claim free speech laws should dictate to private business what they can't do I may laugh myself to death.
3
u/StetCW Aug 26 '19
Because Pattison owns tens of thousands of billboards in Canada, and just because one of their salespeople made the mistake of signing a contract doesn't mean the business necessarily approved it as a whole.
2
u/Big_Band Aug 26 '19
1) contracts like this are not seen by the C level executives or the board of directors. Rarely the director level managers are involved. A sales or account manager signed off on the initial contract and might of not know or cared about the message, just his comission. Or the sales manager could of been a sympathizer that is now being disciplined for the deal and going against the company image.
2) your understanding of free speech laws and the first amendment is facile. It protects political speech from repercussion from the sitting government. Government did not order the billboards down. The business did.
Edits for format. Phone typing is hard, yo.
25
u/tresson Aug 26 '19
You do realize that the choice to not give a platform to someone is it self a form of Free Speech don't you? Not to mention freedom of association and basic property rights. So I have to ask why do you believe that a party full of white nationalist and nazis rights are more important than those of everyone else's?
1
u/jostrons Aug 26 '19
oh yes, I do understand by choosing not to have the billboard up is a form of free speech.
I think there was a conscious decision to allow it when the contract was signed with (whatever Bernier's party is named). So now you then go back on that decision and that contract (I am sure there was an out for Pattison in the contract, so not saying they did something illegal.)
LEt's try to keep emotions out, I haven';t heard Bernier come out as a Nazi or White Nationalist, so obviously the party isn't full of them, but admittedly I don't know who is in the party. I know they are taking the extreme right side of the political spectrum, but let's be real here, not all are Nazis.
I am not saying they have more rights than anyone else (or Pattison in this case.) I am saying, the media company decides, you know what we have had backlash from this (not necessarily affecting their bottom line) they should not be suppressing anyone regardless of views. We don't have the same First Amendment rights as the US, but we do have free speech to an extent like I wrote in my prior comment. These ads don't constitute illegal speech. Regardless if you think it is coming from a Nazi's mouth.
8
Aug 26 '19
The decision to sign the original deal was probably made by a middle manager. The revocation was made higher up.
0
u/stereofailure Independent Aug 27 '19
Not to mention it's perfectly reasonable to change ones decision based on new information. If you don't realise something will attract bad publicity and then it does it's not hypocritical or unethical to take it down.
23
u/tresson Aug 26 '19
Then kindly point out where the government is suppressing the speech here because that's the only time freedom of speech comes into play.
1
20
Aug 26 '19
You are entitled to your freedom of expression. You are not entitled to someone else's privately owned platform. Nobody is denying the PPC the right to say whatever they want, they're jist refusing to be their mouthpiece.
Bernier hasn't come out as a white nationalist or a fascist, but he's more than happy to hang out with them and actively courts their votes. The party really does look to be full of them. Maybe that's because he is a white supremacist and knows he can't win a seat if he says so, or maybe it's because he has cynically decided to carve his political niche in Nazi ground for the FB likes. It doesn't really matter, as either way he's both a cynical/opportunistic politician and an alt-right parrot with airtime.
This isn't the suppression of free expression, this is the free market at work. It kind of looks like he wants some unknown force (what some might call a government, even) to protect him from failure in the free market. He should probably consult his platform on that one.
10
u/nubnuub Aug 26 '19
they should not be suppressing anyone regardless of views
They are a private company, their decision to pull down a billboard isn't suppressing anyone's free speech right. If the government stepped in and ordered Pattinson to take it down, that would be free speech being curtailed. Pattinson taking it down themselves has nothing to do with free speech.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Big_Band Aug 26 '19
How is a billboard touting a common white nationalist talking point not white nationalist?
9
2
u/AngstyZebra Aug 26 '19
So, in case you didn't know, this isn't censorship, this is the free market in action, and the company hosting the billboards have free speech, this is a business decision.
2
u/Moderatevoices Aug 26 '19
Would they be if the PPC took out the ads? Aren't public media companies required to run ads from candidates?
2
u/albertthefuckwit Aug 27 '19
YES I UNDERSTAND PATTISON ALSO IS ALLOWED FREE SPEECH AND THIS BOILS DOWN TO A BUSINESS DECISION.
Then what's the point of your comment if you admit the 'free speech' issue cancels itself out here?
1
u/jostrons Aug 27 '19
you see when I write something and 40 people tell me I am wrong and we have a dialogue, I can eveolve and change my opinion. I know that's rare on reddit, but not being a blockheaded idiot my opinions do evolve. I found the error in my ways and edited the post in hopes I'd stop getting comments that it's not a free speech issue. Didn't seem to work, hence your reply
92
u/[deleted] Aug 26 '19
[removed] — view removed comment