I encourage people to read this article as it more or less gives each side their "best shot" by fully quoting the airport's position, in their own words. I'm s

I encourage people to read this article as it more or less gives each side their "best shot" by fully quoting the airport's position, in their own words. I'm sure the side blocking the ads would prefer that the headline redd "rejects" or "chooses not to run" (rather than blocks), but in the body of the article they have a chance to state their piece in full. I'll quote this part (in the article this is followed by a direct quoted rebuttal literally starting with the words "This is wrong"): >“In reviewing Open Media’s request to place advertising at the airport, we determined that it did not serve all of our stakeholders as we felt it pitted two groups against each other and it also has potential to add undue stress to the travel experience,” wrote spokesperson Brock Penner. >“Additionally, YVR aims to be non-political and Open Media’s borderprivacy.ca website promotes an online petition with a political call-to-action directed towards government officials.” (It should go without saying that I am not endorsing this statement.)