« City sells 16 year-old Guelph Transit bus online for $2,165 | Main | GCL says Karen Farbridge to deliver another State of City address Jan. 23 »

January 13, 2014

Comments

I often wondered why the City would venture into such a controversial subject and support such ads. In my opinion these ads, whether religion, sexual preference, abortion, etc. have no place on city property, which is supposed to be impartial and reflect the community as a whole. Either allow all controversial ads or none of them...you cant pick and chose.

The city needs a policy that says no to all controversial or politically sensitive ads on public space. Other municipalities have done so, it's time for Guelph to follow suit. A disclaimer is simply not enough.

It's about time. I wrote the City over a year ago about the insensitivity and inappropriateness of having anti-abortion signs on the back of City owned buses. Space for advertising on City property should be reserved solely for businesses, not groups with controversial opinions about women's health.

While we're at it, can we get the Right to Life ad off the Sleeman Centre arena boards, too? Again, this space should be reserved for business, not opinion.

This is the most current TTC Ad Policy I can find:

http://www.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Commission_reports_and_information/Commission_meetings/2010/July_14_2010/Reports/TTC_Corporate_Policy2.pdf

I believe we should get rid of the anti-abortion ads, because those spots are designated to be for businesses advertising their good and services. Not for political believes as I find the city is being pretty conservative for being liberal.

I agree that city buses should not be used to promote personal opinions. I find the Right to Life signs offensive and innapropriate. Would the city allow a religious group to promote their particular beliefs on the back of one of the buses? In these times of political correctness, why is this considered OK?
We call them ads, and they should be restricted to just that...advertising.

Why is it offensive? A picture of a baby in vitro? How is showing what life looks life before it is born inappropriate? Prefer not to be confronted with truth? I have lived in this city all my life as have my children. We see a baby in the picture. What exactly do you see?

Tamara, the picture of the baby in vitro is not in the least offensive or inappropriate.It's beautiful. What I do find offensive and inappropriate (on city buses)is the message, which I feel is a form of bullying. My comments are no reflection on my personal thoughts about abortion. I simply believe that the city has no business carrying such strong messages on a subject that is so personal and controversial.

an advertisement to choose life is just that-this is a free country last time i looked

an advertisement to choose abortion is just that-this is a free country last time i looked-we do not discriminate in this country-the charter of rights and freedoms protects all law abiding citizens

recent comments column is incorrect-my comment is that both ads pro and con are permitted by the charter of rights and freedoms -please make the correction thanks ggc

George: The charter has nothing to do with this...nor does being a free country.
It's already established that municipalities can decline to display ads like these if they want to.
People are simply asking Guelph Transit and the City of Guelph to do so.

It is about time that this is being done. Does the city allow Pro-Choice ads on their buses? Probably, but as you may see by the lack of their advertising, they do not need to force their beliefs on the public. They let people decide on their own which is what pro-lifers should be doing. Keep their ideas and beliefs to themselves. Also, get rid of the ads at the Sleeman Center. How inappropriate is that??

All many people are saying is the city should find actual businesses to post on their buses instead of putting political ads on their buses.

steve agreed but what is the "these" you talk about ? anything less than allowing/promoting what is illegal sounds like discrimination to me and as you know our charter does not allow discrimination-once you start denying someone's rights it's a slippery slope to censorship..freedom is best..and who would make that decision any way? a panel of christians jews muslims and a mayor's rep and guelph transit rep- lord save me from that process

Didn't an athiest group start posting bus ads a few years ago in England? Just pleasant "there probably isn't a God. Enjoy your life anyway," kind of ads. Would the City put ads like that on their buses? They should, if they say that this is a case of free speech. I really don't see how this is a free speech issue. The City can have a policy that ads on buses are for promoting businesses and will not contain any religious or political affiliation. Otherwise it appears that the City is endorsing specific groups, when it should remain politically and religiously neutral.

Mayor Farbridge has posted a response on the petition suggesting that people register a complaint with the Advertising Standards Canada if they believe the ad breaks advertising standards. She says that the ads come from a third-party, although the City reviews them.

yes of course guelph t c can have a policy that restricts ad to registered businesses-once a municipal guelph business is defined-no problemo here for me..ahh as long as the ad is not a charter violation of course- our wonderful charter of rights and freedoms.

This shouldn't have to go through the mayor or council either. No politician will take sides on this in an election year...so we get the mayor's cop-out response.

Guelph Transit is in the business of serving their customers - namely, the ridership. If the ads are making customers uncomfortable then GT should be able to unilaterally take steps to correct that.
No councils, no committees. Just the head of GT making a business decision that the comfort of customers is more important than the ad revenue. That's not discrimination, it's customer service.
Waste of time delivering this to the mayor. Send it straight to GT.

I always thought Guelph was a city that encouraged and tolerated divergent points of view. The majority of comments here indicate otherwise.
I do not find these ads offensive at all. The ads are merely expressing a viewpoint that is inconsistent with "mainstream" opinion. Disagreeing with their stance on abortion is one thing, but demanding they be pulled off the buses smacks of censorship and intolerance.
Unless the ads contravene the Advertising Standards Canada there is no real reason to pull them.
People with firm opinions one way or the other will not be swayed by these ads.
Encouraging and promoting discussion on controversial subjects should be encouraged.

But what about the idiots in the middle like you - R. Mast?

Our country, province, and city have always expressed the idea of free speech. For all those who don't understand those words,it means that we are allowed to say what we like, and have our own opinion! This goes for the Guelph and Area Right to Life. Especially since they paid for both the bus ads and the Sleeman Center ads,they may say what they wish so long as it passes the advertising board and is not inappropriate. For all those who have a different opinion, free speech is also allowed like for Pro-Lifers, and if your ads were appropriate too, you would be allowed to post ads too. Most will probably hate me for saying this because it goes against their opinion, but I pray that your hate will be seen by others as wrong and unnecessary.

It's good to see that some Guelphites see a baby in the ads. Babies aren't offensive in any way. Everyone loves babies and babies have a right to life just like everyone else.

The pro-choicers can choose to run ads that depict choice if they want to. So why don't they? Maybe because it takes guts to run a gruesome ad depicting a bloodied, dead baby that's just been aborted by its mother.

The ad could include the smiling mother happy to keep her right to have reproductive choice while robbing her now dead child of it's choice and right to it's life.

Ironically, Lynne makes a very valid point. It's not so much what is said, it's how it is said. This also relates to TMott's point about what is and is not (in)appropriate.

I wonder if those in support of the ads asserting freedom of speech rights would feel equally comfortable with Lynne's suggestion of a more graphic approach to the issue. Keep in mind, that graphic approach is one being promoted by the pro-life side, not the pro-choice side as Lynne incorrectly projects.

The first thing mothers-to-be do is to proudly show the ultrasound of the baby to family and friends. Everyone gets excited and happy.
The same ultrasound on the side of the bus is showing the truth of what a baby developing in the womb looks like. No controversy.

Pro-choicers don't use pictures of bloody, dead aborted babies on the sides of buses because they don't want people to see the truth of what abortions look like.
There is no good press coverage on that.

Abortions kill babies and no one likes to think about that for long.

"Abortions kill babies and no one likes to think about that for long" -- you're 100% wrong. Abortions kill fetuses, and I love to think about the fact that I have the ability to choose whether or not I'll carry a fetus to term. I also thank my lucky stars that I live in a time and place where I can get a medical abortion in a safe, sterile (although apparently not stigma-free) environment, for whatever the reason. Value your body and your right to control it.

Please explain what part of "Abortions kill babies and no one likes to think about that for long" is 100% wrong?

Well, it depends on how you define "babies" doesn't it? When does a fetus become a "baby"? Is it immediately after conception? If so, does that mean anyone who uses an IUD for birth control is having repeated abortions? Is using the "day after pill" an abortion? If they aren't, then at what point do you make the distinction?

Fred:
Good Points but the RT Lifers have their own narrow agenda'
You could have added that condoms kill babies to your IUD and Pill comments.

Good questions Fred and not even 100% right Alexandra has the answers.

A picture of a baby in the womb on the side of a bus is not controversial.

The issue is the killing of the baby.

Alexandra loves thinking about how free she is to decide to kill her fetus. She appears to value her body and her right to control it. Good for her.

She also feels lucky that she can get a taxpayer-funded abortion clinic to kill her fetus when she feels like it.

If she's so free and so in control of her body, then why does she need the taxpayer to pay for her abortion?
Why doesn't she pay for it herself?

Because the majority view in Canada is ithat it's a medical procedure and covered by our health care.
You can keep saying 'kill' and 'baby' all you want but those terms are only your own. Most of your country disagrees and the law is on our side.

You're also free to believe the world is 6000 years old or that evolution isn't true. Doesn't make it right. Canada isn't the Christian Theocracy some people want it to be, and never will be. Deal with it.

Any group or person can have any opinion on any subject and can voice that opinion in any circumstance, with the exception of hateful and discriminatory comments. That is free speech. I do see abortion as being a valid option, although i do not agree with every reason given .

Now if we can move past hating and discriminating against each other we could have a more realistic discussion.

Two major points arise in my opinion: whether in-utero is life or not, and should there be access to abortion solely as a contraception option. I am not convinced that the fetus is just tissue. The creation of a new life is remarkably complex and signs of that life do appear prior to birth. Not all feel this way and are most certainly welcome to disagree.

I know one thing is true. Both sides agree that humanity is the penultimate life on this planet.

Why do we still approach discussion as intelligent beings yet bring sticks and stones to the table?

To be a trifle pedantic, I'd say that I think you mean "ultimate". Penultimate means the ultimate minus one.

But yes, I agree that the anti-choice people have a right to advertise on buses. But I do find the parading of fetuses as being obscene. I don't think I'd like to see pornographic images on buses either. I would suggest that they have every right to make their position in a tasteful and logical manner, but I think that their present campaign is neither.

I don't think the distinction is whether or not a fetus is "life". A fly is alive too, but I don't see people picketing people for swatting flies.

And I don't agree that human life is in any sense an "ultimate". Society routinely kills people for all sorts of reasons. We spent a lot of money to kill people in Afganistan.

I do have respect for life, but I think that human beings are animals just like pigs and dogs. The question is whether or not a fetus should be given the same rights as a living human being in our society. I would argue that while a fetus has the potential to become a human being, it isn't really one yet. For that to happen there needs to be some lived experience.

I don't like the anti-choice movement because it seems to me to be heavily based on anthropocentric morality (ie human-based) and I think that we need to move towards a bio-centric morality (ie life-based.) Humans are just another part of the ecosystem, their needs do not always trump the needs of all other creatures, IMHO.

To address Steve's comments:

"Because the majority view in Canada is ithat it's a medical procedure and covered by our health care."

Please provide references and links to this "majority" that you speak of.

You didn't explain why you think taxpayers should fund Alexandra's abortion.

Alexandra says she values her body and her right to control it. I agree with her. She has the freedom to do what she wants but she also is free to pay for her own abortion.
She doesn't need others to pay for it because that takes away from her freedom and the decisions she's made to control her own body.

"You can keep saying 'kill' and 'baby' all you want but those terms are only your own. Most of your country disagrees and the law is on our side."

Thanks for giving me permission to use words like "kill" and "baby".

Any references on how "my country" disagrees with me? And last I checked, we have no "abortion law" in Canada unless you can factcheck that for me. I'd be grateful.

"You're also free to believe the world is 6000 years old or that evolution isn't true. Doesn't make it right. Canada isn't the Christian Theocracy some people want it to be, and never will be. Deal with it."

You seem to like giving people permission as to what words they can say what thoughts they can have.

Who believes the world is 6000 years old and that evolution isn't true? You? I know I don't believe those things.

What does Christian Theology have to do with what we are talking about? I laughed when I read that.
Guess that's an area you are knowledgeable about because I know I'm not.

Nice talking with you.

"Please provide references and links to this "majority" that you speak of."

Sure thing:

-In a poll conducted by the National Post in November 2002, 78% of respondents answered "yes" to the question: "Should women have complete freedom on their decision to have an abortion?".

-In a Gallup Canada poll taken September 2004, 54% of respondents said they personally thought abortion was "morally acceptable."

-In a Gallup Canada poll taken April 2005, 52% of respondents say they would like to see Canadian abortion laws "remain the same," 20% say they would like the laws to be "less strict," while 24% say they would like the laws to be "more strict."

-In a March 2010 EKOS poll, a majority of Canadians (52%) describe themselves as pro-choice while just over one in four (27%) describe themselves as pro-life. One in ten respondents (10%) describe themselves as neither pro-choice nor pro-life and 11% did not respond.

(The source I got those from has direct references to the poll results. I can provide them if you want)

I did explain why abortions should be covered by Medicare and OHIP...because they're medical procedures.

My other comments were based on my experience that a great many so-called "pro-life" sentiments come from religious beliefs and a desire to impose religion-based morals on others. If yours don't then I apologize for the false assumption. If so, those comments don't apply to you, but they still do to many others on your side of the issue.

Nice talking with you, too, Lynne.

Hi Steve,
Thanks for the info. re: polls results. I enjoy discussing things with folks like yourself who take the time to study a topic.

Abortion seems to be a topic that easily descends into people taking "sides". The pro-life or pro-choice thing makes no sense to me at all.

Just because an abortion is a medical procedure still does not answer the question as to why free women, like Alexandra, aren't responsible for paying for herself. Her choice, her body, her decision, her financial responsibility.

If women want to really be "free" and "in control", then they can pay for their own abortions. That is real reproductive choice and freedom.

As for ads on the sides of buses...who cares.

Lynne:

She does pay for her abortion. Just like I pay for my doctor's visits. We do it every time we pay our taxes.

What exactly is your point?

Lynne: The public funding assures that everyone has the ability to make the choice freely, not just those who can afford it.

"As for ads on the sides of buses...who cares" ... fair enough, Lynne, this is an abortion issue for you. Congratulations for being the first to play the disgusting, bloody, dead baby card your side is so fond of, and sucking others into this pointless debate.

And here I thot this blog was about what was, and was not, appropriate for the City of Guelph to post on the sides of its buses.

Fred:
Pregnancy is optional (excluding rape) and so is abortion. Choose to get pregnant, pay for your own abortion in full.

Steve:
If you can't afford abortion, you can't afford pregnancy.

DC:
Are you the blog moderator who decides what people get to think, say and write here?

The City of Guelph isn't in the business of deciding if ads are appropriate. A group went through the required channels, paid and the ads went up.

Lynne, correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying you're ok with taxpayer-funded abortion in the case of rape, and you're ok with privately funded abortion in all other cases. Is that true? Are you only against abortions for girls too poor to pay for their own?
Do you have similar attitudes for taxpayer-funded medical procedures arising from other "optional" activities like sports injuries or car accidents? After all, if you can't afford to pay for your own injuries you can't afford to drive/run/tackle/skate/ride.

Steve:
As rape falls under the criminal code of Canada, the victim would probably be eligible for a publicly funded abortion.

Income level doesn’t affect a woman’s control of her body. If you choose to get pregnant, you choose to pay for your abortion in full.

Auto. insurance is mandatory and private insurance covers the rest of the optional activities you've mentioned.

No, if you break a bone playing sports or any other optional activity the taxpayer picks up the hospital tab.
And most of these women don't "choose" to get pregnant any more than people "choose" to get injured playing sports. Both are a preventable but unplanned result of enjoying a fun, if somewhat risky, activity.

You aren't required to have the taxpayer pay to fix your broken bone or pay for the hospital. You can use private insurance for both.

If women don't choose to get pregnant, then are they being forced, against their will, to become pregnant?

I think the very fact that this issue has garnered this much heated debate is a good indicator that these "ads" are divisive and have no place on city-owned/tax-payer paid buses. Debate is fine and difference of opinion is also fine, but city-owned/tax-payer paid locations are not the place for these ads. Take them down. There are lots of other people who will buy the ad space. As a side note, I too find them offensive and I signed the petition.

Farbridge and co. have successfully driven off any businesses to buy ad space to prop up Guelph Transit (overtime anyone?)so they will take money from any and all.

That's why the ads are up and will continue to stay up.

I understand that they have also driven off the warm weather and are also conspiring to have an asteroid hit the earth too.

Hahahahah...good one Fred.

Trying to remove legal ads simply because one disagrees goes totally against freedom of speech. I find nothing about pro-life distasteful at all but do find abortion on demand simply as birth control under the guise of health in very bad taste.

Without taking sides, I'm troubled on the issue, for pros to presume it's 'either them or us' on this is what complicates the issue. There's absolutism on both sides, and it misses the point.

I've only scanned certain posts, but this jumped out, because it sets up what the issue is and so be addressed without impingement of 'freedom of expression'.

DC wrote:
[Ironically, Lynne makes a very valid point. It's not so much what is said, it's how it is said. This also relates to TMott's point about what is and is not (in)appropriate.

I wonder if those in support of the ads asserting freedom of speech rights would feel equally comfortable with Lynne's suggestion of a more graphic approach to the issue. Keep in mind, that graphic approach is one being promoted by the pro-life side, not the pro-choice side ...]

And that's the point: The *graphic* nature of the ads. The depiction in promoting their cause.

There was a Superior or SCC ruling on this some time back, Ottawa Transpo from memory, and the gist of the ruling came down to *depiction* (my word, the Court might have used another) and the purview that could/should be exercised by the transit carrier. The message isn't muted...the *depiction* is.

I'll see if I can find it, but there's a solution already described by existing legislation.

Apologies if another poster has itemized the following:
RE: 'Freedom of Expression' in advertising on buses:

From Osgoode Law School:
(THE COURT is the online resource for debate & data about the Supreme Court of Canada.)

[August 19th, 2009

by Daniel Del Gobbo

Protecting Political and Conscientious Speech

Last month the Supreme Court released judgment in Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority v. Canadian Federation of Students – British Columbia Component, 2009 SCC 31, ruling that the transit authority unjustifiably limited the claimants’ freedom of expression by prohibiting political advertisements from being displayed on the sides of buses. The case is a victory for civil libertarians, relieved to see s. 2(b) of the Charter withstand considerable incursion by the offending authority’s policies.

The facts of the case are well-known and described here by Chris Donovan for TheCourt.ca. For our purposes, I will provide a brief gloss of his excellent summary. The claimants attempted to purchase advertising on horizontal panels running along the sides of public buses operated by the appellant transit authority. One proposed ad, which was characteristic of the content and tone of the other impugned ads, featured a silhouette of a concert crowd with the caption “ROCK THE VOTE BC.com”.

The transit authority permitted ads which “communicate information concerning goods, services, public service announcements and public events,” although not those which are “likely, in the light of prevailing community standards, to cause offence to any person or group of persons or create controversy.” Ads which “advocat[e] or oppos[e] any ideology or political philosophy” or which “conve[y] information about a political meeting, gathering or event, a political party or the candidacy of any person for a political position or public office” are especially not permitted.

At issue was whether the transit authority could, in doing so, lawfully circumscribe the content of the claimants’ otherwise free expression in a public location. By ruling that it could not, the Supreme Court deserves praise for protecting Charter rights from undue government intrusion. Just as pertinently, the SCC’s decision may pre-empt religious objections to atheist bus ads, since their contentious subject matter seems analogous to that of the voter recruitment ads permitted by Greater Vancouver.]
[...continues at length...]
http://www.thecourt.ca/2009/08/19/permitting-atheist-bus-ads-in-greater-vancouver-and-beyond/

TorStar article:
[ Published on Fri Jul 10 2009

OTTAWA – Watch for political ads coming soon to the side of a bus near you.

British Columbia transit officials were on the wrong side of the Charter when they refused to carry messages on the sides of their buses aimed at provincial voters, the country's top court said today.

The Supreme Court of Canada struck down transit policies banning all political ads, saying they violate rights to free speech.

"Like a city street, a city bus is a public place where individuals can openly interact with each other and their surroundings," wrote Justice Marie Deschamps in the 8-0 ruling.

All nine judges heard the case in March 2008 but Justice Michel Bastarache has since retired.

"I do not see any aspect of the location that suggests that expression within it would undermine the values underlying free expression," Deschamps wrote. "On the contrary, the space allows for expression by a broad range of speakers to a large public audience.

"I therefore conclude that the side of a bus is a location where expressive activity is protected by ... the Charter."

The judgment was being watched by cities across Canada that have so far rejected atheist bus banners declaring: "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

The ruling protecting political ads will be viewed as a boon to those hoping to buy bus space for their atheist message.][...]
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2009/07/10/top_court_strikes_down_bus_ad_ban.html

Still searching for 'abortion' ads, there's a ruling there too...

Google is full of hits per: "Ontario abortion, bus ad court"...the bulk of them opinion pieces, finding it hard to cite court rulings, still looking, but be aware of this:

[CANADA, January 15, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Pro-life activists from Halifax, Nova Scotia and Guelph, Ontario are calling their pro-life bus ad campaigns a success after pro-abortion students launched online petitions against the ads that generated mainstream media attention.

“We were trying to spark a debate, and clearly it worked,” said Stephanie Potter of the Halifax pro-life group Signs4Life to LifeSiteNews.com.

Two weeks ago Signs4Life sponsored ads on 255 Metro Transit buses with an image of a newborn baby in her mother’s arms with the text, “Luc was born today, but his life began nine months ago”. ][...]
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pro-life-bus-ads-in-nova-scotia-and-ontario-fuel-national-abortion-debate

Polarized debate, no doubt. Like a family argument, I'd rather not have to see pictures, I have enough in mind already.

It's a case of conflicting rights. The right to freedom of public expression is important and I support it, but so too is the right to enjoyment of public spaces without being subjected to disturbing and distressing images or messages.
Rights conflict all the time, and the courts must resolve them as fairly as they can. One method is the least harm doctrine, i.e. which outcome causes the least harm to those directly affected:

If the ads are allowed then the harm is on those who are legitimately upset by being subjected to them every day. If they are banned then pro-life advocates will have to find other less-intrusive methods to express their opinion.

In my opinion it's an easy call. Allowing the ads cause more real harm than banning them.

Steve: How about banning *pictures* and allowing only text? That allows freedom of speech, and yet curtails the attempt at shocking the unaware viewer.

Roger Manning publishes a letter in yesterday's Merc:

[ As a citizen of Guelph who has read the bus ads many times, I would like to make three comments regarding Millman's petition.

1. The bus ads present objective, factual information to the general public regarding human fetuses. They include pictures of fetuses accompanied by two statements, "This is a Child. Not a Choice," and "I'm not a potential person, I'm a person with potential." The ads contain nothing to substantiate the claim that they promote "a subjective moral opposition" to women who wish to exercise their right to an abortion. ]

That is clearly disingenuous. Rather than describing the obvious connection to the message, I'll letter the author continue:

[2. The petition states that "women who exercise their right to choose (an abortion) should not be shamed by public bus ads." That is true. But since the ads are clearly intended to communicate objective information without moralizing or casting judgment, the sight of them should not produce feelings of shame. It is more likely that shame is part of a range of emotions, including guilt and sadness that accompanies the decision of women who choose abortion. ]

Unreal. The author not only writes in circles, there's a degree of malevolence in doing so:
"It is more likely that shame is part of a range of emotions, including guilt and sadness that accompanies the decision of women who choose abortion."

That's *DRIPPING* with moral indignation and sanctimoniousness.

[3. There are many ads that inform us of various consequences of exceeding our legal rights. Driving, smoking and drinking are legal rights under certain conditions. Nevertheless, the general public accepts ads that graphically illustrate the potential harm that excessive smoking, drinking, and reckless driving can cause to the health and life of individuals and families. Few people consider such ads to be biased, offensive or prejudicial. Why then, should ads informing the public of the potential harm that can be caused to the health and life of individuals and families by abortion be stigmatized and prohibited from Guelph's buses? ]

The author truly loses the plot here (and I'm agnostic on abortion, I think it's a *terrible* form of birth control, but there's many things in life where one is required to do something completely alien to their beliefs, as to not do it would be even more reprehensible. I immediately think of euthanizing animals in distress, your very best friend in many cases.

So how about graphic depiction of birth control? Would that be allowed on the buses? It's a leading question, as the sleight of hand behind the anti-abortion ads is far from just being 'informative'. It's meant to be disturbing, contrary to all the claims.

How about we avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place? So it then logically follows that we shouldn't be squeamish in promoting contraception.

Ahhhh...but there's the rub! THAT would offend them!

Author summates:
[Women who exercise their legal right to choose to end a pregnancy will hardly give the bus ads a second glance.]

The man is a fool. If that is the case, then why are there so many upset women? It's *exactly* aimed at such women.

To have us believe otherwise is to call us fools. And that is offensive, Mr Manning.

I repeat, for the record, I'm neither pro nor con. Every situation has to be weighed on the preponderance of its factors, and quite often, there is no clean, perfect decision.

Portraying it as such is a lie, and incredibly naive bordering on maliciousness.

I say bring on the ads showing an erect penis being sheathed in a condom.

To quote Mr Manning: "Let the city continue to benefit financially from its bus ads, including those that educate the general public about unborn children."

Where do you draw the line, Mr Manning?


[
[

In my experience those like Roger Manning are more interested in shaming and punishing women for being sexually active than saving fetuses.

I'm not sure why this thread has gone on so long. It's very simple. Advertising standards are set by Advertising Standards Canada. This is a federal issue. If you have a concern with the ads they allow, deal with them. To make this a municipal issue is a waste of municipal tax dollars and an incredibly slippery slope. Should we also ban MacDonald's from advertising because some vegans believe "meat is murder"?

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Joanne

Joanne Shuttleworth is the newsroom lead in municipal affairs coverage for the Guelph Mercury. She is a former Guelph YWCA Woman of Distinction honouree and a past winner of an Ontario Newspapers Award for her work as an editor. You can reach her at jshuttleworth@guelphmercury.com

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

September 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30        

About Chris

  • Chris Herhalt
    covers municipal affairs and politics for the Guelph Mercury. Prior to joining the Mercury he worked at The Record of Waterloo Region and at The Canadian Press. He can be reached at cherhalt@guelphmercury.com