"Disappearing Palestine" bus ads anger Jewish groups

[Rue]

The point is simple. The decision to run a politically partisan ad challenging the right of Israel to exist and Jews to have their own self determined identity is just as repugnant as if we put up an ad that said gays are not a legitimate collective identity-they are invading heterosexual lands and imposing themselves.

It would be no different than placing an ad on the bus saying Muslims are invading Europe and trying to become the majority so they can turn these states into Islamic states.

It would be no different that drawing a map showing Indians or Chinese and their mass migration now taking place due to lack of water and food and how they are "swarming" countries that do not belong to them.

It is out and out inflammatory political rhetoric designed in incite hatred against Israelis and Jews or non Jews who believe Jews have

an existential right to exist as a collective nation.

The fact is if this was targeted against Palestinians, Muslims, gays, women, it would not be on the bus. We already had an example of atheist messages pulled off buses, and people getting upset over both Muslim and Christian ads seeking to proseltyze.

Here is the point. A bus is a public vehicle. If we put ads on it surely they should be politically neutral. You want to put up an add about tampex tampons fine. Put one up with a politically bias message designed to incite hatred , no not the place.

Now as for those Jews who feel afraid of those ads and won't get in the bus, listen up-get off your asses and march right down to the bus office and bitch.Its called free speech but do me a favour-don't turtle. Stand up and fight. We didn't get this far rolling over at the first sign of an insult. It wasn't too long ago there were signs up in public beaches saying no Jews and a Prime Minister referring to us as vermin and sending us back to Nazi Germany to die. WAC Bennet of BC was a blatant anti-Semite-his son however was not.

BC has come a long way from being a bigoted WASP enclave to today being an Indo-Chinese country within Canada. I doubt Indians or Chinese give a rat's ass about these ads. I am sure it was initiated to placate a Muslim audience. If we do not like it, we have to speak out. This kind of b.s. won't go away unless we fight for our right not to be singled out by anti Israelis coming to this country to carry out their hatred and looking for sympathetic Jew haters of ALL cultures.

I say shut the phack up to any minority including my own if we bring hate messages here. Either get the phack along with everybody or go back to your country where the hatred exists and let it devour you. Stop coming to Canada to spread your hatred using freedom of speech as the pathogen to ferment it. Some of us will be prepared to spray antiseptic back on you.

[dre]

The point is simple. The decision to run a politically partisan ad challenging the right of Israel to exist and Jews to have their own self determined identity is just as repugnant as if we put up an ad that said gays are not a legitimate collective identity-they are invading heterosexual lands and imposing themselves.

Cool story bro!

The problem of course is that nobody with more than about 10 IQ would suggest that ads critical of Israeli expansionism and ethnic cleansing are somehow against Israels right to exist or the self determination of jews.

Edited September 3, 2013 by dre

[bleeding heart]

True. In fact, it was the (probably literally clinically insane) Gellar ads, against the Palestinians, that were the truly provocative and insulting ones.

But then, Gellar and her folllowers are knuckledraggers (also birthers, just for some added fun!)...so we can't expect too much from them.

[Rue]

Cool story bro!

The problem of course is that nobody with more than about 10 IQ would suggest that ads critical of Israeli expansionism and ethnic cleansing are somehow against Israels right to exist or the self determination of jews.

Lol. Right Dre. Yah I know you support the right of Israel to exist. You only have an issue with settlers on the West Bank. Ahahahahah. Cool story bro! Problem is you have left a string of anti Israel anti Jewish comments on this forum that don't magically go poof-because you want to pretend you are only criticizing one issue. Lol.

I am not sure what is worse-someone who despises Jews for being a collective when he demands his own people are recognized as a collective, or someone who is cowardly and tries to couch his political biases and water them down to appear to be something they are not.

Dre don't come on this board posing as someone who supports the existence of the state of Israel. You never have, you never will and we both know your position on Jews as a political collective so give it a rest.

One other thing bro-ethnic cleansing? That's the best slur you have? Right bro. This is why the population of Palestinians on the West Bank has grown at a rate of 250 to 1 Jew since 1949. That is a hell of a job of ethnic cleansing bro. Speaking about ethnic cleansing bro, where were you when over 900,000 Jews were expelled from the Arab League of nations with 750,000 of them fleeing to Israel? Say Dre where were you when the Ethiopian Felashies were being wiped out? Say Bro where were you when Israel took in Muslim refugees from Albana/formr Yugoslavia caught in that civil war? Where were you bro?

Bro. Lol. I told you once before and zip over your head it went-I am not your bro. I am no coyote. They call us Canaan Dogs. Figure it out and stop yelping. We won't answer back.

Edited September 3, 2013 by Rue

[GostHacked]

You what is kind of funny? Getting called an anti-semite for recognizing a difference between Jews and Zionists.

Palestine gets UN recognition. Israel's response was , more illegal settlements.

The map is accurate regardless of what has happened in history and how ones emotions get in the way of critical though there. Israel IS bigger than it was when it was created.

[Black Dog]

The point is simple. The decision to run a politically partisan ad challenging the right of Israel to exist and Jews to have their own self determined identity is just as repugnant as if we put up an ad that said gays are not a legitimate collective identity-they are invading heterosexual lands and imposing themselves.

I agree. But can you show us the ads that say this? I'd be curious to know more, like who is putting them out and where they are and how they relate to the bus ads under discussion.

[dre]

I agree. But can you show us the ads that say this? I'd be curious to know more, like who is putting them out and where they are and how they relate to the bus ads under discussion.

Yeah just as soon as he quotes some of my posts to the effect that Israelis should not have self determination.... Dont hold your breath!

[jbg]

Link

My main question is: are the maps accurate or not? If they are, I don't know how one could argue they are "targeting a group".

IMO there's nothing stopping B'nai Brith, or other groups from running their own ads, perhaps a map showing Israel's position in the region and the number of times its been attacked by its neighbours.

I am against laws that restrict speech, period, unless the speech advocates violence.

[Rue]

Yeah just as soon as he quotes some of my posts to the effect that Israelis should not have self determination.... Dont hold your breath!

Speaking of holding one's breath...lol...this is fun...please Dre and Blackdog confirm you believe Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state with safe borders and free from terrorism so I can apologize to you two.

Hah.

This is fun. All this breath holding and posing as rational folk. Ahah.

As for JBG repeating that Libertarian argument of free speech he forgets the other part of that argument. Free speech does not mean you get to use public property to engage in partisan statements. That is why we separate religion for example from the state.

Black Dog has already argued he thinks its acceptable to use gay parades to display anti Israel statements and shout out that Israel should not exist so he has zero credibility posing as someone who is not anti Israel's existence.

Dre has come on this board and engaged in the very language against others he claims should never be used against native peoples including ridiculing the concept of Jews being a collective nation.

How about you JBG? Be straight for a second.

Would you have us believe your comments about Muslims and Arab nations if placed on buses, would not incite violence?

Just who would decide when the message went too far and began inciting violence? You? Dre? Black Dog?

You think public vehicles all taxpayers pay for should be used for politically partisan messages? Really?

Bottom line-if something is paid by taxpayers, it should have no politically partisan or religious messages on it.

That is because all of us pay the taxes for these things and none of us should feel our taxpayer's money is being used to single some of us out for partisan attacks.

Free speech is not the issue. Using taxpayer's property to display that partisan opinion is.

No I do not want to have to be faced with political messages on buses. The world is full of pollution. I prefer the ads about safe sex.

Edited September 5, 2013 by Rue

[GostHacked]

Was this advertising paid by a private group? If so, no big deal.

[Black Dog]

Speaking of holding one's breath...lol...this is fun...please Dre and Blackdog confirm you believe Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state with safe borders and free from terrorism so I can apologize to you two.

Sure right after you confirm you've stopped beating your wife.

What next. You mind telling me who will decide when these ads cross over the line?

The people who do that now? Or do you think you are the only one capable of making that call?

Bottom line-if something is paid by taxpayers, it should have no politically partisan or religious messages on it. That is because all of us pay the taxes for these things and none of us should feel our taxpayer's money is being used to single some of us out for partisan attacks.

You want to argue free speech? Not yourself out but not with taxpayer's property or money for that matter.

Well, you're running counter to the SCC here:

In 2009, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down aspects of TransLink's policies that prohibited political advertising after a court battle between the agency, the Canadian Federation of Students and the B.C. Teachers Federation.

"The Supreme Court was very clear, in nearly an identical case except for the content of the ads, that TransLink as a government agency has got to respect freedom of expression," Josh Paterson, executive director of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, said Wednesday.

"They've made this advertising service available on the sides of their buses and inside their buses, and they can't deny that to people just because the content of the message is political," he said. "It's pretty cut-and-dry from our perspective."

link

More here:

Political discourse around contentious matters such as the future of the Palestinian territories is always going to be engulfed by competing arguments. If you disagree with someone’s position, the answer is not to take away their right to express it. The answer is to argue to the contrary, to do a better job of getting your side of the issue out there.

More public discourse is always better than less.

This controversy is not likely to fade away soon. The Palestine Awareness Coalition has indicated the ads will likely pop up in other Canadian cities in the coming weeks. It is designed on a similar campaign that has been running in several big U.S. centres.

The outrage among some Jewish groups over the ads is misguided. If people have a problem with the campaign’s message then say so; make the case against it.

Better still: Take out an ad.

Edited September 5, 2013 by Black Dog

[jbg]

As for JBG repeating that Libertarian argument of free speech he forgets the other part of that argument. Free speech does not mean you get to use public property to engage in partisan statements. That is why we separate religion for example from the state.

I honestly had not thought about the issue of use of public property. But in the U.S. authorities are able to regulate time, place and manner of speech. In other words words I would not be able to schedule a demonstration on a three-lane highway during rush hour.

But aside from time, place and manner restrictions I believe in very few restraints on speech.

Black Dog has already argued he thinks its acceptable to use gay parades to display anti Israel statements and shout out that Israel should not exist so he has zero credibility posing as someone who is not anti Israel's existence.

Dre has come on this board and engaged in the very language against others he claims should never be used against native peoples including ridiculing the concept of Jews being a collective nation.

How about you JBG? Be straight for a second.

Would you have us believe your comments about Muslims and Arab nations if placed on buses, would not incite violence?

Anti-Jewish comments, when placed on buses or subways, very rarely incite violence. Someone should be able to write that Jews, or Muslims, or Christians are the vilest, lowest scum on earth. What would be violence inciting is a direct request to harm or kill persons or property associated with Judaism, Islam or Christianity.

[dre]

...please Dre and Blackdog confirm you believe Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state with safe borders and free from terrorism so I can apologize to you two.

Isreal most certainly has the right to exist. I dont personally recognize the religiosity of ANY state, so that part is irrelevant to me. As for its borders and its relationship with its neighbors it should be treated as well as it treats others.

[Guest American Woman]

Bottom line-if something is paid by taxpayers, it should have no politically partisan or religious messages on it.

That is because all of us pay the taxes for these things and none of us should feel our taxpayer's money is being used to single some of us out for partisan attacks.

Free speech is not the issue. Using taxpayer's property to display that partisan opinion is.

I'm a firm believer in free speech, but I agree with you completely here; I was going to say the same thing myself, but you beat me to it.

[Black Dog]

I'm a firm believer in free speech, but I agree with you completely here; I was going to say the same thing myself, but you beat me to it.

So not that firm a believer, then.

[DogOnPorch]

Part of being tolerant is tolerating intolerance. Unfortunately, you can do it to your grave if you jump your own shark in this regard.

[Guest American Woman]

So not that firm a believer, then.

Yes, I am, but I believe that like anything else there are limits. Perhaps you can't comprehend that concept? To you "freedom" is all encompassing? Your world is, perhaps, all black and white? Since one doesn't have the freedom to kill at whim in Canada, then in your mind, one cannot say 'I firmly believe Canada is a free country?'

I'll try to 'Dick and Jane' my viewpoint for those who have such a need.

To begin with, even "firm beliefs" regarding individual rights can't be black and white, as sometimes one right infringes on another, ergo complete freedom in every area is impossible.

With that in mind,I don't believe in the freedom to yell 'fire' in public. I believe in separation of church and state. I believe that libel and slander should be illegal. I also believe that something funded by the taxpayer's money "should have no politically partisan or religious messages on it," as Rue said; ie: I don't believe in your freedom of speech on my dime.

[Guest American Woman]

Part of being tolerant is tolerating intolerance. Unfortunately, you can do it to your grave if you jump your own shark in this regard.

It's only being tolerant of intolerance in very specific instances .....

[Black Dog]

Yes, I am, but I believe that like anything else there are limits. Perhaps you can't comprehend that concept? To you "freedom" is all encompassing? Your world is, perhaps, all black and white? Since one doesn't have the freedom to kill at whim in Canada, then in your mind, one cannot say 'I firmly believe Canada is a free country?'

I would posit, then that you are not nearly so firm in your belief in free speech than someone who doesn't believe in such limits on speech. That simple enough for you?

To begin with, even "firm beliefs" regarding individual rights can't be black and white, as sometimes one right infringes on another, ergo complete freedom in every area is impossible. With that in mind,I don't believe in the freedom to yell 'fire' in public. I believe in separation of church and state. I believe that libel and slander should be illegal. I also believe that something funded by the taxpayer's money "should have no politically partisan or religious messages on it," as Rue said; ie: I don't believe in your freedom of speech on my dime.

I wasn't aware the ads themselves were taxpayer funded. Given that they are not, they are essentially no different from ads for gum, condoms, colleges or payday loans. To refuse some ads but not others, based on an arbitrary definition of "political" amounts to discrimination, something no public entity should be seen to do.

If this was a privately-funded entity we were talking about, they would have every right to refuse whatever ads they want. The fact it is not makes it more important that they respect free expression. Don't like it? Well, you too can take out an ad saying as much.

[Guest American Woman]

I would posit, then that you are not nearly so firm in your belief in free speech than someone who doesn't believe in such limits on speech. That simple enough for you?

Good Lord. Did I say that my firm belief in free speech was as firm as someone who doesn't believe in any limits?? No, I did not. Is that simple enough for you?

I wasn't aware the ads themselves were taxpayer funded.

The property that the ads appear on are subsidized by taxpayer dollars. No one said that the ads themselves were.

Given that they are not, they are essentially no different from ads for gum, condoms, colleges or payday loans. To refuse some ads but not others, based on an arbitrary definition of "political" amounts to discrimination, something no public entity should be seen to do.

Of course they are different. That you can't see that doesn't change the reality.

If this was a privately-funded entity we were talking about, they would have every right to refuse whatever ads they want. The fact it is not makes it more important that they respect free expression. Don't like it? Well, you too can take out an ad saying as much.

Or I could voice my disapproval on a web board, eh? Another thought. One can write their 'representatives' and vote accordingly.

[DogOnPorch]

It's only being tolerant of intolerance in very specific instances .....

Thus my reference to The Fonz. Water skiing in his leather jacket?? Really??

[Bonam]

Israel IS bigger than it was when it was created.

So is Canada. Point?

[dre]

So is Canada. Point?

Seems like the point was that the ads are more or less correct.

[Black Dog]

Good Lord. Did I say that my firm belief in free speech was as firm as someone who doesn't believe in any limits?? No, I did not. Is that simple enough for you?

The property that the ads appear on are subsidized by taxpayer dollars. No one said that the ads themselves were.

Of course they are different. That you can't see that doesn't change the reality.

Or I could voice my disapproval on a web board, eh? Another thought. One can write their 'representatives' and vote accordingly.

Not in any meaningful way. They are paid messaging on government property. You wouldn't expect them to refuse gum advertising because some bureaucrat prefers spearmint to wintergreen, nor should they refuse some advertising deemed "political" because some might find it offensive. This isn't even a philosophical question, but the simple reality as laid out by the highest court in the land.

[Guest American Woman]

Not in any meaningful way. They are paid messaging on government property. You wouldn't expect them to refuse gum advertising because some bureaucrat prefers spearmint to wintergreen,

It's not about what individual bureaucrat's prefer. It's not about bureaucrat's at all. It's about the tax payers and the tax money that subsidizes the city buses. A comparison to "bureaucrat's preferences" and "the taxpayers" is hardly a relevant comparison, to put it mildly.

nor should they refuse some advertising deemed "political" because some might find it offensive. This isn't even a philosophical question, but the simple reality as laid out by the highest court in the land.

Really? So the highest court in the land has made a ruling about this? Could you please provide me with a link to a source confirming that?