# Signs saying "Say No to Mass immigration" to be removed



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

Billboards from a 3rd party ( not the PPC themselves ) with the message "Say no to mass immigration" has drawn such outrage that they will be removed by the company that owns the billboards.... https://globalnews.ca/news/5811905/maxime-bernier-anti-immigration-ads-company/

Now, whether or not you agree with that message, do you not find it unsettling that given that this is not some fringe lunatic radical statement, and that over 60% of respondents to a poll taken in June do agree ( https://globalnews.ca/news/5397306/canada-immigration-poll/ ), that the minority can impose their will to supress a political party's message? The PPC says that although they are not directly responsible for those signs, the message does reflect the party's official platform.

In a supposed age of diversity, acceptance, tolerance, an accommodation, it seems to me that those principles only apply within a narrow scope. Yes, I can see the irony in my saying we should be tolerance of someone who is intolerant, but that's what freedom and democracy are all about, no?


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

The irony is both sad and alarming. There is absolutely no reason why those messages should not stand. Each side has the right to voice and pursue their views.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It doesn't sound like there was much support for the ad. 

Jim Pattison knows who butters his bread.


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

sags said:


> It doesn't sound like there was much support for the ad.
> 
> Jim Pattison knows who butters his bread.


Oh yes, I'm sure the vocal minority will be compensating him for his loss of income. They didn't butter his bread, they took it away!

Nobody speaks up because of the fear that the thumb-typing hoards of mindless followers, that need to be told how to think, wiill wage a shame campaign against them. Even someone who says "I don't agree with what they say, but will defend their right to say it" could find themselves a target.

The only place that's out of reach to them is behind the screen at the ballot box; it will be interesting to see if the PPC wins any seats, or even what % of votes they receive.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

Userkare said:


> Nobody speaks up because of the fear that the thumb-typing hoards of mindless followers, that need to be told how to think, will wage a shame campaign against them.


For sure. I do think most Canadians welcome immigrants who embrace our country and integrate into our society. Certainly Max Bernier is not against immigration - just mass immigration, and in fact, a survey conducted mere months before this poster-gate occurred agreed.

_"A pre-election survey__ conducted for CBC News suggests Canadians are divided on immigration, with clear limits on the kind of migration they find acceptable"........"More than three-quarters (76 per cent) of respondents to a survey by Public Square Research and Maru/Blue agreed that Canada should do more to encourage skilled labourers to immigrate to the country, while 57 per cent said Canada should not be accepting more refugees."_




Userkare said:


> The only place that's out of reach to them is behind the screen at the ballot box; it will be interesting to see if the PPC wins any seats, or even what % of votes they receive.


I'm torn on this. I wish Bernier had found a way to stay in the Conservative party and not strike out on his own. He obviously had lots of support. This foray into a new party is a lost cause and will do nothing but water down the Conservative vote. I doubt he'll do well in the election, but I do know every vote he gets will help the Liberal party.

ltr


----------



## condor (Jun 15, 2014)

We have deadheads here in Canada who are all for social re-engineering to have ....NO...borders at all. Hard to believe i know...but they are out there.

This thread will draw them out while they post and light their hair on fire.

Canada is so fu....ked up.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The company cited an "overwhelming backlash" as the reason the advertising was taken down, so the Bernier message doesn't appear all that popular.

https://www.citynews1130.com/2019/08/26/immigration-ads-pulled-bernier/

Bernier may not even win his own riding. Polls show a dead heat with the PC candidate.

https://globalnews.ca/news/5785159/the-battle-for-maxime-berniers-riding/


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

"overwhelming backlash" is probably a dozen anonymous triggered liberals who live rent free in their parent's basement. If some people choose to take them seriously and let them decide what they can say or not say, then they are the ones making a mistake.


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

They should have left the signs up. The media coverage for the removal has produced some free advertising. I do not know much about the party that put up the signs though I do like their stance against the carbon tax & preventing mass immigration


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

LOL......I will go with Jim Pattison knowing what he is doing.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

This is what you get when you allow censorship even for seemingly good reasons. There is nothing wrong with having a discussion of immigration policy but you can't have one if one side gagged and forbidden to express their views. This is how you get dictatorship but it seems I am the only person in the country who feels this way. Everyone else agrees with George Bush who said "there's nothing wrong with a dictatorship as long as I'm the dictator".


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Bernier's camp would have been wiser to put up an advertisement that said......."Let's Discuss Immigration" and then a link to their website.

"Say no to mass immigration" isn't a message that could be expected to be well received by a nation of immigrants.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Wong twice in one sentence sags.

Most people don't want unchecked mass immigration. They want controlled and thoughtful immigration.

Most people in Canada are not immigrants.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Bernier wants fewer immigrants than the 350,000 accepted today, and many fewer refugees.

Among others, the Premier of Nova Scotia and the PC leader both oppose Bernier's plan and say they depend on immigrants and higher numbers.

We do need highly skilled immigrants, but the shortage of workers is most pronounced in the unskilled labor group, which comprises a big part of today's economy.

Bernier's followers want to go back to the good old days of white racial dominance that don't exist anymore.

They have no problem with immigration from predominantly "white" countries.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

sags said:


> They have no problem with immigration from predominantly "white" countries.


That's a racist comment. The reason people like immigration from certain countries more than others is because of comparable values and work ethic, not their skin colour. Also, speaking a common language makes things easier for all involved. Race has nothing to do with it...except for YOU.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Maybe in your neck of the woods ... I have a couple of co-workers who are clear that priority one is skin colour. Fortunately they seem to be few and far between.


Cheers


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I made a comment on a racist viewpoint and then you admit it by saying white people are more apt to meet your standards of values and work ethic.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

sags said:


> I made a comment on a racist viewpoint and then you admit it by saying white people are more apt to meet your standards of values and work ethic.


Wrong...that's YOUR interpretation of my comment, but it's not what I said. You are incapable of looking beyond race, therefore you are a racist.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

..


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Prairie Guy said:


> Wong twice in one sentence sags.
> 
> Most people don't want unchecked mass immigration. They want controlled and thoughtful immigration.
> 
> Most people in Canada are not immigrants.


Don't be too sure, there are major cities that are 50% first generation immigrants, or more. How they are supposed to integrate into Canadian society and absorb Canadian values I don't know.


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

sags said:


> Bernier's camp would have been wiser to put up an advertisement that said......."Let's Discuss Immigration" and then a link to their website.
> 
> "Say no to mass immigration" isn't a message that could be expected to be well received by a nation of immigrants.


Speaking as an immigrant myself, I have no issues with Canada being selective with immigration applicants. I'm sure that you could ask any immigrant who worked for years in Canada and would get the same answer. I had to meet certain criteria in order to be admitted; race was not one of them. I don't recall anything in the application that asked about race, religion, etc; just country of citizenship, languages, profession, and if I had a job offer in Canada. In fact, even though I had a rare ( at the time ) skill, I still had to find a job before I would qualify for a landed immigrant card. If anything, I was discriminated against because I didn't speak French fluently enough; I was told that I would be admitted if I did - even without a job offer.

In this billboard case, the over-sensitive, protected from anything even slightly unpleasant since birth generation, just see "No" and "Immigration" in the same sentence, get all stressed out, run to their safe space , and tweet their anger into the ether. I doubt that any of those complaining took the time to understand what the message actually said; even "let's discuss immigration" would probably trigger their anxiety. They just don't want to confront anything that they've been told by social media is a bad thing. Look at how universities are not allowing speakers who express views that challenge the students' concept of how the world really is.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

^+1 Well said. Permanent residents and new citizens that I know well would agree with your post. Seems many 'born' Canadians feel it is their freaking right to be 'offended' these days at anything they do not exactly line up with. or what they perceive to be 'politically correct'. They may actually know what the term even means. Conversations and debate are a necessary part of democracy from all points of view.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Words have to be considered not only for their literal meaning, but implications and context. Sometimes, phrases are loaded or deliberately used because they invoke or express a specific message.

I personally don't have a problem with the term "mass immigration" -- I _don't_ think it's a loaded phrase. but it does border on the kinds of rhetoric used by anti-immigrant extremists. For example, the El Paso shooter did reference "mass immigration" within his manifesto. That's an example of how these phrases have to be carefully considered.

The people talking about free speech here seem to not be aware of the issues of racist dog-whistles. Surely you can see why some people might take opposition to certain phrases, if there is an established pattern of the phrases being used to imply something far more sinister or extreme.

Imagine a billboard that says something along the lines of (and I'm toning this down, please realize this is not a personal belief) "Expel Soros & the elites". Well, that's blatant antisemitism. These billboards do exist in Hungary, by the way. This is entirely code for Jews... it's saying to expel the Jews. It would be just as bad if it said "Expel the global elites". *It's about keywords.*

Free speech does not permit the posting of messages which encourage harm. And phrases can have hidden meanings. So while I do agree that there isn't a problem with the 'mass immigration' sign, this has to be evaluted on a case by case basis.

One reason people are waking up to this, and justifiably more careful about this today, is because Trump's campaign masterfully leveraged these kinds of racist dog whistles. It flew under the radar for a long time, and what we only realize now is that over several years, Trump's campaign (helped by the Steve Bannon and other extremists) was stirring up and invigorating racist extremists, white supremacists, and neo-nazis.

*That* is the reason people want to be careful about these "mass immigration" signs. There is a concern that there are hidden messages, just like the US experience, which really got out of hand before anyone noticed. Caution and concern among Canadians is justified, and it's bound to have some over-reaction at times.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Well James...maybe only people with an agenda choose to see a hidden meaning that's not even there.

Imagine if people here decided to find hidden messages in your comments? I've seen several of your comments that can be construed as racist and hateful, and a few that actually are racist and hateful. Of course, your own interpretation would be different.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The greatest trick the devil ever played on people was to convince them he didn't exist.

That is the game racists try to play with words but it isn't working. 

People are tired of listening to it and are pushing back hard. It is the push back that riles up the racists into a fervor.

The sign wasn't an honest mistake. The words were a deliberate attempt to convey the message of a horde of invading immigrants entering Canada ever year.

Canadians know better.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

That is simply your interpretation Sags. You cannot speak for great numbers of Canadians. The message is purposefully worded to 'get attention' but I don't see it implying anything more than the need to having a larger debate on the degree and number of immigrants. A more tactful approach might have been "What do we want to do about mass immigration?" Or "Do we really want to continue mass immigration?". Both are appropriate questions given the leaky sieve that Canada has become.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

sags said:


> The sign wasn't an honest mistake. The words were a deliberate attempt to convey the message of a horde of invading immigrants entering Canada ever year.


I'm on the fence sags. There are certainly some variations of this wording that I would absolutely call a racist message, but I think this particular one was borderline.

That being said, I think the reaction from the public is very sensible given that overt racism and dangerous anti-immigrant rhetoric (including violence) is on the rise. The public does have to stay vigilant.


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

james4beach said:


> Words have to be considered not only for their literal meaning, but implications and context. Sometimes, phrases are loaded or deliberately used because they invoke or express a specific message.


And here I thought Pepe the frog was just a poorly drawn Kermit :tongue:

Yes, you made a good point about how words can be coded to appeal to a particular group without most people understanding the implication. But, as I said, if anyone took the time to research Maxime Bernier, they would have found that he was a former cabinet minister with a lot of government experience; not some Trump or Bannon character out of nowhere. Then, of course that was in Harper's cabinet, and we all know how close to Hitler that man was { sarcasm }. 

I just think back to the last federal election when there were so many people whipped into a frenzy to get rid of Harper. When I asked why, I got reasons like "he's going to tax the Internet", "he's going to jail people for downloading music". When I asked where this was in the party platform, all I got was that they saw it on Facebook or some other social media that he had a 'hidden agenda'. You have to take a test to drive a car, but any moron is allowed to vote without the slightest clue of the issues and the candidates' stand, and will just follow whatever the mob says to do. That goes for either side - left or right!


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

james4beach said:


> I'm on the fence sags. There are certainly some variations of this wording that I would absolutely call a racist message, but I think this particular one was borderline.
> 
> That being said, I think the reaction from the public is very sensible given that overt racism and dangerous anti-immigrant rhetoric (including violence) is on the rise. The public does have to stay vigilant.


I think Bernier's camp knew exactly what that message would convey and I would question why they felt it necessary to skate so close to the thin ice.

Maybe it was for "shock value" as Bernier has pretty much disappeared from the public eye of late.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

sags said:


> The greatest trick the devil ever played on people was to convince them he didn't exist.
> 
> That is the game racists try to play with words but it isn't working.
> 
> ...


It's a legal message. Supporters of his party like what he's saying about putting limits on immigration and put this out there to get attention for the party. You may not like it and that's fine.

However can you please stop writing and commenting as if you speak for all Canadians? It's a very bad habit of yours. You don't speak for me and you most often don't speak for many other millions of Canadians.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The proof is in the pudding. How is Bernier doing in the polls ?


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

@ RBull... be kind. Sags has picked up on JT's lingo about 'speaking for all Canadians' which is as arrogant and false phrase as I have heard anywhere. JT may speak for Canada, but he sure does not speak for even the majority of Canadians.....based on 30 something percent support.

Sags invents this stuff on an hourly basis..... Circa 60% of Canadians do not support current 'mass immigration' policy. They want something different....to be defined.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

AltaRed said:


> Circa 60% of Canadians do not support current 'mass immigration' policy. They want something different....to be defined.


What "mass immigration" policy are you referring to, exactly?

Canada has a points-based system which is very selective in who it admits, and takes in pretty steadily levels of immigrants. In addition to that, we admit some number of refugees.

Which part is excessive? Instead of contributing to the catch-phrases and fear mongering, why don't you explain to us which part you feel is out of control?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Let's get some context here: https://canada2050.org/2017/12/03/welcome-to-canada/

The issue Bernier is challenging is the plan to admit around 350K legal immigrants in upcoming years. Bernier wants the number of immigrants reduced to about 125K per year.

Early 1990s: Canada admitted around 240K or 0.9% of total population

Harper's years: Canada admitted around 250K or 0.8% of total population

Liberal plan: at projected population for when the plan takes effect, they want 0.9% of total population

Bernier's plan: at 125K, that's *0.3% of population*

Gee AltaRed & friends ... 0.9%, 0.8%, 0.9% don't look that different to me. Is it possible you're overreacting and fear mongering about a total non-issue? Why on earth would we drop immigration levels all the way down to a ludicrous 0.3%.

This is exactly the kind of thing that xenophobes and racists are good at. Taking a complete non issue, something that isn't even outside the norm -- including during Conservative years -- and spinning up public fear about "mass immigration"

*Immigration levels, normalized to the size of Canada, are the same under the Liberal plan as they were 30 years ago, and well within the level that existed even during Harper's years in the middle of a huge recession!*

AltaRed: don't tell me you're one of these nuts who thinks we have "mass immigration". I've shown the numbers, properly normalized to population. Why don't you explain for us what, exactly, makes current immigration levels excessive. Show your work.

And if you mean that you'd want the 0.9% plan reduced to 0.8% to match Harper's years, I think you're being overly dramatic if you call that "mass immigration".


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

AltaRed said:


> @ RBull... be kind. Sags has picked up on JT's lingo about 'speaking for all Canadians' which is as arrogant and false phrase as I have heard anywhere. JT may speak for Canada, but he sure does not speak for even the majority of Canadians.....based on 30 something percent support.
> 
> Sags invents this stuff on an hourly basis..... Circa 60% of Canadians do not support current 'mass immigration' policy. They want something different....to be defined.


Thanks AR. I get it.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

sags said:


> The proof is in the pudding. How is Bernier doing in the polls ?


I don't know if this is directed to my comment or someone elses, since you rarely quote or direct your responses properly. However I'll respond. 

My comment was about the right to place a message put by another group and had nothing to do with Bernier. I have no idea what you are talking about with "proof or pudding".

Its obvious how Bernier is doing. He doesn't have a chance of winning. 

I live in a part of the country that needs immigration and support an even better process than we have now. I volunteer teaching English to new immigrants.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

James....the immigration numbers are very revealing when presented as a percentage of the population. 

The numbers reveal the "mass immigration" claim is a misleading trope of Conservatism.

The days of Canadians sitting quietly while objectionable content is shoved in front of them are over.

The internet and social media changed everything. People can band together and have their voices heard now.

Someone placed the objectionable content on a billboard, and the people demanded....."take it down."

Hearing their unified voices, the company responded and quickly took down the content. It was a good day for Canada.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Simply too many refugees and illegal immigration. Turn them back at the 49th. 

JT used his ego to boost the Syrian numbers in 2015 creating a degree of havoc in re-settlement. We need a sensible approach that existed for a long time before JT. No more complex than that.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

AltaRed said:


> Simply too many refugees and illegal immigration. Turn them back at the 49th.


That's *not* what Bernier's message, or the billboard, is about. The billboard is arguing about numbers of legal immigration.

When Bernier and the billboard says "mass immigration" he's saying he wants to reduce legal immigration levels, bring them way down as per the numbers I posted. Here's Bernier's position:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/maxime-bernier-immigration-speech-mississauga-1.5224114

You're confusing the issues and I think you're falling for the argument by the extremists. They're invoking your (and the public's) fear of refugees and trying to leverage that to reduce overall immigration.



sags said:


> James....the immigration numbers are very revealing when presented as a percentage of the population.
> 
> The numbers reveal the "mass immigration" claim is a misleading trope of Conservatism.


Yes, numbers have to be normalized to population. There is nothing excessive about current immigration plans, by any measure. "Mass immigration" is meant to invoke fear, and is not a statement of fact.

Now we have a great illustration of the danger of this billboard. It was designed to mislead the public, including AltaRed, and invoke their general fear of "illegals" and "foreigners". People read this and assume it's about reducing the illegals and refugees. In reality the agenda of the xenophobes is to reduce all legal immigration to Canada, dramatically.

The billboard is also clearly a ploy to manipulate public emotion, invoking a general fear to win votes. Very few people do their own research or look at numbers. Most will act on emotion... great for populists, great for the far-right.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Userkare said:


> Now, whether or not you agree with that message, do you not find it unsettling that given that this is not some fringe lunatic radical statement, and that over 60% of respondents to a poll taken in June do agree ( https://globalnews.ca/news/5397306/canada-immigration-poll/ ),


It is indeed a fringe, extremist position statement. You just failed to understand the numbers.

The public poll was regarding increasing or decreasing immigration. As I showed in my numbers above, over the last 30 years the level of immigration has varied between 0.9%, 0.8%, back up to 0.9% currently under Liberals. Yes, people might very sensibly say they want immigration reduced a bit. Perhaps back towards 0.8% of population as it was under Harper's years. No big deal actually; this is splitting hairs.

The billboard and Bernier, on the other hand, want legal immigration absolutely slashed, down to ridiculous levels of 0.3%. This is absolutely an extremist, fringe lunatic position. That's what they mean by "mass immigration" and what Bernier has stated for the record.

The opinion poll says: we think we might want to reduce immigration a bit (within that 0.8%-0.9% range I described). Sensible.

Bernier & the extremists say: we want all immigration to Canada absolutely slashed, to levels not seen in well over 30 years. It is a fringe lunatic position. Just the wording "mass immigration" is designed to be misleading, and to invoke fear.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

james4beach said:


> Bernier & the extremists say: we want all immigration to Canada absolutely slashed, to levels not seen in well over 30 years. It is a fringe lunatic position. Just the wording "mass immigration" is designed to be misleading, and to invoke fear.


I agree that Bernier seems to be tilting towards extremist positions to garner support. I recall a CBC profile of Syrian immigrants being accepted and supported by a small Ontario community. The message was that the Syrians made out OK but only because the community supported them emotionally and economically. It implied that the government did not adequately fund them.

Not sure if this was representative. Probably the CBC was seeing an outlier to make a story.


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

james4beach said:


> It is indeed a fringe, extremist position statement. You just failed to understand the numbers.


I didn't want this topic to be about the merits of immigration per se, but rather how a political party's message that offended some people had to be removed. How is this tolerated in a democracy? The PPC, whether or not I agree with their platform, is a real political party who will be running candidates in most ridings. Their leader actually has past cabinet minister experience, so not just some clown from out of nowhere. In that respect, it's not 'fringe'. 

This issue is global, and we are seeing a slow shift to populist leaders and nationalist parties, even in Europe. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36130006 If this trend is truly so repugnant to a majority of Canadians, then let the billboard stand, and let the voters see why they shouldn't be voting for the PPC. Sure, criticize it on social media, get the word out, go nuts! Start a counter movement, whatever; but don't censor it. I'm more offended by someone censoring what political messages I'm allowed to see than the message itself; I'll make up my own mind what offends me. What's next, telling home owners they're not allowed to put PPC campaign signs on their lawn, because even the very existence of the PPC offends someone? 

Now since you brought it up... given that the figures over the past 30 years showed that the levels were close to 1%, does that necessarily mean that those same numbers can be sustainable over the next 30? What about the effects of automation putting large numbers out of work? Does Canada still need as many immigrants for jobs that may be disappearing? Wouldn't being more selective for the skills that will be needed in the future be a better plan? How many more Uber-eats drivers do we really need though?

Edit... On further research of James' numbers, I found this StatCan article on immigration numbers. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2016006-eng.htm 
The current level is approaching the post WWII, late 50's level. The 350K proposed number is getting close to the early 1900's. I know, expressed as % of total population would yield a different graph, but maybe a graph of immigration vs. GDP growth would shed some light on what immigration policy should be. If growth is stalled due to labour shortages, then we will need talented immigrants, not former Sadam Hussein ministers who have had their diabetes treatments cut off in Iraq, or 'citizens' who immediately go back to their origin country until they need health care, or conflict occurs at home. Would it be zenophobic to ask if they intent to stay in Canada and help build the country?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Funny thing to me about the right wingers and their whining about "censorship" is that they work pretty hard to censor and stifle opinions they don't like. This kind of conservative "outrage" is really mostly an outrage about not being able express _their_ message, but they don't extend the same favour to dissenting views.

Right wingers like framing this as a general problem of censorship but this is dishonest and manipulative. Apparently it does work on many people though.

This billboard was an extremist, xenophobic position by a populist party (or their agents), meant to provoke fear.


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

james4beach said:


> Funny thing to me about the right wingers and their whining about "censorship" is that they work pretty hard to censor and stifle opinions they don't like. This kind of conservative "outrage" is really mostly an outrage about not being able express _their_ message, but they don't extend the same favour to dissenting views.
> 
> Right wingers like framing this as a general problem of censorship but this is dishonest and manipulative. Apparently it does work on many people though.
> 
> This billboard was an extremist, xenophobic position by a populist party (or their agents), meant to provoke fear.


Wow, I'm a 'right winger' now? Do I get a uniform, or maybe even just an armband? Heil Harper!

I can't imagine a situation that I would ask for a political party not be allowed to advertise their platform. I find the Bloc Q platform to split up the country objectionable, but still understand and accept that they have the right to go ahead and try to do that with their 10 MPs. Truth, I would rather see a Lib majority than any minority, Lib or PC, that leaves the BQ with the balance of power.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I'm not sure what you are, Userkare, but I think the right wingers have influenced you with their fake outrage about "censorship". You've fallen for their fake outrage... that poor old far-right. Just can't express their xenophobia without people speaking up against them!


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

Read the newspapers. (There's a novel thought in the digital age.)

The company that owns the billboards removed them because they were receiving the harassing phone calls and threats from an incensed public instead of the company that created and paid for the ads. And True North North Strong and Free refused to take the flak for their ads.

https://ottawacitizen.com/pmn/news-...-ads/wcm/ab07ec1d-1cd0-47ab-9a16-24895e7dc2ae


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

Userkare said:


> Wow, I'm a 'right winger' now? Do I get a uniform, or maybe even just an armband? Heil Harper!
> 
> I can't imagine a situation that I would ask for a political party not be allowed to advertise their platform. I find the Bloc Q platform to split up the country objectionable, but still understand and accept that they have the right to go ahead and try to do that with their 10 MPs. Truth, I would rather see a Lib majority than any minority, Lib or PC, that leaves the BQ with the balance of power.


Honestly Userkare, would you stop being so damn reasonable all the time. 

We don't need to hear your sensible opinions. You're driving the left crazy. They're running around like chickens with their heads cut off trying to find ways to oppose your rational, logical, level-headed responses.

Stop that please.

ltr


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

I would have to look objectively on a case by case basis. If the environmental group was a genuine recognized Canadian organization, like Greenpeace, then yes, I object to their being censored. If OTOH a group's funding could be traced back to, let's say, a Texas oil company whose real motive is to keep Canadian oil off the market, then sure, cut them off! I have no specific cases here, just spitballing what may or may not cause my "outrage".

Edit... Oh, it appears that James' question about if I was outraged by the Alta government censorship of enviromental groups was removed.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

like_to_retire said:


> Honestly Userkare, would you stop being so damn reasonable all the time.
> 
> We don't need to hear your sensible opinions. You're driving the left crazy. They're running around like chickens with their heads cut off trying to find ways to oppose your rational, logical, level-headed responses.
> 
> ...


+1 Good one ltr. 

Thank you Userkare. You managed to do a lot work that summarized my thoughts well. 

Wow James that's quite a rant you're on.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

A business decision by an advertising company. There is nothing more to it than that.

The Bernier crew could buy billboards and rent land space to put up their own billboard advertising if they want.

Bernier Billboards........is kind of catchy but it might get confused with Bilbo Baggins.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It might be useful to remember the history of the Syrian refugees entry into Canada. 

Bernier and his supporters would be wise to tread carefully on the issue of refugees.

_A single out-of-the-blue event changed the entire tone and tenor of the 2015 election, and none of the parties’ strategists saw it coming. They couldn’t have. After a flimsy raft carrying Syrian refugees capsized off the coast of Turkey, a shocking photograph of a little Syrian boy lying dead on a Turkish beach appeared in news media all over the world. It quickly turned out that the drowned child, three-year-old Alan Kurdi, had been the subject of a frustrated refugee-resettlement appeal to Immigration Minister Chris Alexander’s office. There was an uproar.

Party strategists were forced to wholly rewrite their campaign scripts, and while the shock wasn’t the deciding factor in the 2015 election outcome, it was a big deal, and it was Justin Trudeau’s Liberals who most persuasively aligned themselves with the widespread Canadian outrage and revulsion._

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/te...at-octobers-ballot-box-question-will-truly-be


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Userkare said:


> Edit... Oh, it appears that James' question about if I was outraged by the Alta government censorship of enviromental groups was removed.


Yeah, I removed it because I thought I'm just going to further confuse the thread/go off topic. What I had written was the question, how about the conservatives in the Alberta government creating an entire department to censor and silence environmental groups. You already responded to that but writing to share with others what the original text was.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

james4beach said:


> ... What I had written was the question, how about the conservatives in the Alberta government creating an entire department to censor and silence environmental groups...


As far as I know, they haven't established their 6-person 'war room' yet, but I don't recall its mandate as 'censor and silence'?


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Just catching up after a lovely sunny day in Banff. I see James is on his usual rant and is somehow paranoid about the PPC platform. 

Why do you even care James? Bernier may not even win his own seat. As for me being suckered and led down the garden path? I've never looked at anything Maxime has published or his platform. I don't identify with it.

Do I like what the billboard said? You darn rights I liked it though as I suggested already, it could be more tactful. You also know that when the rubber hit the road after the 2015 election, there were many unhappy Canadians having to deal with the surge of Syrian refugees, just like there is a lot of more recent concern about our porous southern border.

The poll confirmed there needs to be a better conversation around immigration levels, especially refugees and illegal immigration. I am perfectly fine with our traditional immigration program, but I am not okay with waves of refugees and illegals at our 49th. It is simply common sense.

James, your paranoia with the PPC fringe is all out of proportion to reality. So is your reaction to a bill board which has gotten attention as intended. The conversation needs to be heard in several ways. On the campaign trail and in Parliament post election. I really hope it becomes part of the Canadian debate.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I'm actually glad someone brought up this thread topic, because until I looked into this myself, I didn't realize how reasonable and rational the Liberals' immigration levels were. I had been duped for a moment into thinking we had dramatically increased our immigration levels.

Then I looked into it myself, and found out that our immigration levels are basically unchanged over 30 years (or longer) and that Trudeau's immigration plans are nothing than the normal scaling/population adjustment of existing levels, consistent with the past few decades.

Thanks to you folks, I can now see that Trudeau has done a reasonable job with immigration policy. Not only that, but I can clearly explain it to friends, citing sources that show the numbers in historical context.

The other thing I learned, from this thread, is that Bernier and his party truly are anti-immigrant, xenophobic fringe nuts. The reduction in immigration they are calling for is absolutely insane, something like 70% reduction even from Harper's years.

Thanks, conservatives! Now, continue with your fear mongering over having "too much immigration!"


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

james4beach said:


> Yeah, I removed it because I thought I'm just going to further confuse the thread/go off topic.


No problem, thanks. I'm not one of those who think they have the right to prevent anyone from expressing their views, off topic or otherwise in a thread just because I started it. That would be, well, censorship - and make me look like a real hypocrite, wouldn't it?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

James........the Liberals would be wise to reveal the immigration statistics in their election campaign advertising. Informed Canadians make better choices.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The odd thing is that more Canadians probably know of the "mass immigration" ad now than would ever have passed by the billboards.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

james4beach said:


> Funny thing to me about the right wingers and their whining about "censorship" is that they work pretty hard to censor and stifle opinions they don't like.


And yet all we see are the left censoring right wing opinions. But you can easily prove us wrong with an example of right wings censoring the left.


----------



## Parkuser (Mar 12, 2014)

james4beach said:


> I'm actually glad someone brought up this thread topic, because until I looked into this myself, I didn't realize how reasonable and rational the Liberals' immigration levels were. I had been duped for a moment into thinking we had dramatically increased our immigration levels.
> 
> Then I looked into it myself, and found out that our immigration levels are basically unchanged over 30 years (or longer) and that Trudeau's immigration plans are nothing than the normal scaling/population adjustment of existing levels, consistent with the past few decades...


Hey, but everything is like that. Doesn't it also mean that the Conservatives' immigration levels were reasonable and rational? When the "fog of war" clears there is practically no difference between major liberal and conservative policies. The minor differences are wildly exaggerated. On both sides are the same people, usually decent and reasonable, their "sins" are really minor. When you look at the graphs here https://www.fin.gc.ca/afr-rfa/2018/report-rapport-eng.asp, can you tell when the government has changed from Liberal to Conservative or vice versa? I can see two major deflection points, Paul Martin's deficit reduction and 2008 US crisis, when "penny-pinching" Harper went deep into deficit, killing debt erasing nirvana of Paul Martin policies.


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

Even after this long discussion, which probably has run its course, I still don't see how it is acceptable for a swarm of 'Keyboard Quixotes' to silence a political party's message, even if their political platform is offense to most, especially by the tactic of anonymously attacking the billboard company. Shoot the messenger? I would have had more respect for someone who climbed up the platform and defaced the sign risking only their own injury or arrest. 

Just consider this.. If a pendulum is pushed far in one direction, it doesn't go back to a stable centre position, it swings far the other way and takes a while before it goes back to a stable calm rhythm.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

james4beach said:


> I'm actually glad someone brought up this thread topic, because until I looked into this myself, I didn't realize how reasonable and rational the Liberals' immigration levels were. I had been duped for a moment into thinking we had dramatically increased our immigration levels.
> 
> Then I looked into it myself, and found out that our immigration levels are basically unchanged over 30 years (or longer) and that Trudeau's immigration plans are nothing than the normal scaling/population adjustment of existing levels, consistent with the past few decades.
> 
> ...


I agree with that James4beach, the numbers do not suggest any great increase in immigration has occured at all. At the same time though I do think there is a point to be made that has nothing to do with immigration and whether someone is in favour or against it. It is a question of censorship and free speech. 

At what point does objecting to something like this billboard based on 'pc' thinking, infringe on freedom of speech? While I disagree with what the sign was implying, that mass immigration was being suggested by anyone, I cannot personally make the leap to thinking it was promoting anti-immigration thinking. I take it as read, mass immigration, not no immigration at all. But even if it actually said, 'say no to any immigration at all', is it not the right of any Canadian to say anything they want that is not 'hate' speech? Can the sign as written, really be called 'hate' speech? I don't think so. I for one certainly cannot make that leap from the words on the sign. 

At the end of the day, an individual is free to be against immigration if they want to. I don't have to agree with them and may be strongly in favour of immigration but I think it is wrong to try and 'shut them down' and deny them the right to say what they believe. It is yet another example I think of 'pc' run amok. 

This thread should not be about immigration at all. It is about freedom of speech that people should be concerned with this.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Who censored the free speech ?

If you mean the so called "outraged public".........they are exercising their right to free speech as well.

I can express my views, but my rights end where your rights not to listen begin.

Conflicting rights aren't an easy problem to solve.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

it would be unusual for a political party in active campaign mode to have only one billboard at one particular location

surely there were identical maxime bernier billboards with the same graphics in other locations? did these others survive? they should have survived.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

the real immigration story right now is the silent one. The in-house one. Qualified canadian workers moving from alberta back to eastern canada where good jobs are beckoning.

montreal housing prices are shooting up. One hears london ontario house prices also rising rapidly.

quebec businesses working flat out to attract the workers they require. I'm told the town of St-Donat (150 km north of montreal) recently undertook to pay the rental housing costs for a group of workers who would settle there.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> it would be unusual for a political party in active campaign mode to have only one billboard at one particular location
> surely there were identical maxime bernier billboards with the same graphics in other locations? did these others survive? they should have survived.


It's not the political party but a third party that had them put up in multiple cities.

I expect they are down in all cities as the billboard owners were okay with it as long as the third party took the calls in favour or against the billboards. The billboard company feels shafted as the their staff is taking the response while:



> Otto said he was “overwhelmed” and “appalled” to see Frank Smeenk, the head of the third-party group, tell The Canadian Press he disavowed the ad and that he mistakenly did not get the chance to sign off on the controversial campaign.


 (see the Ottawa Citizen link earlier in the thread).


Which raises the question - if the billboards are disavowed by those that provided them to the advertising company, is it censorship to take down when according to Smeenk, it is not the message the third party group wanted put up?


Cheers


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

"That's deep man", he said as he drew another hit from the bong, "I will have to ponder it for a spell."


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

Eclectic12 said:


> Maybe in your neck of the woods ... I have a couple of co-workers who are clear that priority one is skin colour. Fortunately they seem to be few and far between.
> 
> 
> Cheers


 In terms of health costs skin color might make a difference i.e., an Albino living on the equator is not really suited for the hot sun @ the other end of the spectrum a dark skin color might not be as well suited for living @ the poles & will have more trouble getting enough vitamin D.

Mans means to survival is his ability to think in harsher climates that are tougher to live in where there is little life perhaps evolution has given these people a stronger weapon to survive the harsher climate. i.e., the poles there is little life compared to the equator


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

humble_pie said:


> it would be unusual for a political party in active campaign mode to have only one billboard at one particular location
> 
> surely there were identical maxime bernier billboards with the same graphics in other locations? did these others survive? they should have survived.


In my city out west, they are down. It was not the party but the third that took it down. If that is the case, then I am worried about ramifications of free speech. I personally do not like censorship taking my rights to hear different views and make decisions myself even when I don’t agree with a message. I am fine for outrage because seems to be the default these days. I want to hear about outrage, and then I want to hear the response, then I will make my decisions. 

These days, people get outraged at everything. Instead of thinking through and seeing their are multiple interpretation of the same event, they started posting on social media and letting the messages do the dirty work. No critical thinking involved. Unless, it is hate speech, which it isn’t, contact the source yourself, and find what they mean. No wonder people can’t problem solve any more or get through conflict. 

Recently on a Facebook Costco shopping page, a shopper was outraged at a kid’s poetry book. One of the poems was about don’t doing mean things to your sibling, and talked about cheeky gruesome ways to get rid of yit ur sibling, like running them over with a train or exploding, ect. It was meant as tongue and cheek. The parent had already been blocked from the author for stalking him, and was calling for a ban from Costco and book stores. Such a mob mentality. I had to speak up and compared some of the verses to the beloved Robert Munsch and pulled out some cheeky verse of his. 

Her concern is kids would get ideas on how to out their siblings. I made an effort to find the open and so my kids. Their response was, if a kid wants to get rid of their sibling and doesn’t know better, then parent has bigger problems and needs to teach them. 

The point is people a crying Outage and the banning of these things for the reason it brings uncomfortable conversations and conflicts they don’t know how to have in a constructive manner. We do ourselves no favours by jumping on the bandwagon. If you don’t agree with the billboard, don’t demand it get removed, demand that the party who came up with the bill board explain themselves.

It’s going to be like 1984, but much worst. In 1984 the government and thought police made the rules, here it’s a bunch of social justice warriors who represent the ‘average’ person, whom don’t have a lot of faith in.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Actually, the billboard company took it down when the "third party" denied approving the message and Bernier's camp said they had nothing to do with it.

The billboard company was receiving all the calls from the angry public and decided they could rent the space to someone else for a lot less headaches.

If a third party put the ad up and anyone who approved of it .....they should own up to it, defend it and take the flack.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

It always turns out the same...the left silences free speech because they are unable to win a debate with facts and they don't want people to hear the opposing message. They start by shutting down a few alt-right haters and no one does anything. Step one accomplished. Then non hateful right of center speech is routinely shut down by Big Tech, even Prager U and their bland slightly right of center speech is shut down by YouTube and no one bats an eye. Step two accomplished.

When Big Tech eventually comes for the left a few of them might realize what they did but by then it will already be far too late. Mark Zuckerberg and Google will eventually control everything that you are allowed to read, and therefore will decide who gets elected.


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

I wouldn't be at all surprised if a large number of the people who objected to the sign had any idea who Bernier is, or even that he is a sitting MP, and leader of a political party. Matter of fact, I'd bet that most could not identify the photo of the leader of any party except the selfie-boy rock star.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Actually, the billboard company took it down when the "third party" denied approving the message and Bernier's camp said they had nothing to do with it.
> 
> The billboard company was receiving all the calls from the angry public and decided they could rent the space to someone else for a lot less headaches.
> 
> If a third party put the ad up and anyone who approved of it .....they should own up to it, defend it and take the flack.


This is why we have election laws, to ensure that all political parties can access advertising.

However there are no penalties for rejecting political ads you don't want.

I don't think this people realize how scary this is.
We have private companies, in violation of the law, deciding what political messages you're allowed to see.

Oh and now these private companies get hundreds of millions of dollars, from the Liberals, filtered through the largest union in the country.
But don't worry, our PM, who doesn't understand conflict of interest will make sure it's all legit.

It's really sad that nobody sees how dangerous this is.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Add to the above the fact that Trudeau has also created a slush fund for "approved" party media....$600 million to media who toe the line and write properly gushing articles that ignore his crimes.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Plugging Along said:


> In my city out west, they are down. It was not the party but the third that took it down.
> If that is the case, then I am worried about ramifications of free speech.


It wasn't the party that contracted to have the message put up. 
Allegedly, the third party that arranged with fourth party for the billboards has gone on record saying they wanted a different message put up.

Why is it censorship for the fourth party to take down what the contracting third party says is the wrong message?


Cheers


----------

