4 ms·

That's a dishonest quote, you didn't include the context that was provided on why YVR considers it political. > Additionally, YVR aims to be non-political and

That's a dishonest quote, you didn't include the context that was provided on why YVR considers it political. > 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. Not that I agree with YVRs decision not to allow the ad, but I find it hard to argue that a website including a petition and urging visitors to message the government about the issue to be "non-political."

rosser 8y ago
Your point is technically correct (the best kind of correct), but consider that in the US, the IRS's rules for 501(c)3 organizations, for example, allow those organizations to advocate for political policies without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status, but not for or against candidates. There is a legitimate argument to be made that policy advocacy is a different kind of "political" than what people generally take that term to mean. EDIT: That said, I agree with the many other comments here that the tone of the ad in question was confrontational, counter-productive, and fear-mongering. They could perfectly well have made their — again, technically correct — point with a more constructive or informative tone.
- mynameisvlad 8y ago
  I get that you used it as an example, but IRS's rules wouldn't apply or likely even be relevant to a Canadian airport's internal policy.
saagarjha 8y ago
I can personally be political but still inform people of their rights without being so. Now, if I asked for more rights that is probably a political statement.
- admax88q 7y ago
  > Now, if I asked for more rights that is probably a political statement. That's literally what the ad in question is accused of doing. The link leads to a petition to ask the government for _more_ rights in regards to protection of privacy at the border.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

rosser 8y ago

Your point is technically correct (the best kind of correct), but consider that in the US, the IRS's rules for 501(c)3 organizations, for example, allow those organizations to advocate for political policies without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status, but not for or against candidates. There is a legitimate argument to be made that policy advocacy is a different kind of "political" than what people generally take that term to mean. EDIT: That said, I agree with the many other comments here that the tone of the ad in question was confrontational, counter-productive, and fear-mongering. They could perfectly well have made their — again, technically correct — point with a more constructive or informative tone.

mynameisvlad 8y ago
I get that you used it as an example, but IRS's rules wouldn't apply or likely even be relevant to a Canadian airport's internal policy.

saagarjha 8y ago

I can personally be political but still inform people of their rights without being so. Now, if I asked for more rights that is probably a political statement.

admax88q 7y ago
> Now, if I asked for more rights that is probably a political statement. That's literally what the ad in question is accused of doing. The link leads to a petition to ask the government for _more_ rights in regards to protection of privacy at the border.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]