I would LOVE to see election signs banned from public spaces.
I also think that it looks untidy, but I think it’s terrible that “it looks untidy” is considered an argument worth repeating when we are talking about having access to political expression.
Politicians should be showcased during live, public debates. The public should have full access to those debates online, on TV, on radio, in-person, etc.
The media should do a better job interviewing candidates using questions posed by the public on various issues.
That would be fair for candidates, and more beneficial for voters, rather than seeing 1000 random signs strewn on the side of a major road.
But a ban would only be for signs in public areas, not on private property (i.e. someone’s front lawn), so political expression really isn’t being restricted.
For me, it’s not only the untidy aspect of these signs, but the environmental impact of plastic signs, and the danger they pose by:
a) being a distraction for motorists. b) blocking the line of sight at turns, intersections, parking lot exists, etc. for everyone.
blocking the line of sight at turns,
This one in particular gets me. Some big placard that reads “Vote for me. I care about your community” blocking the view of a turn that ends up hurting someone.
Of course political expression is being restricted. I shouldn’t need to have the support of home and business owners to express my political message. The best spots in town shouldn’t be controlled by private land owners. These allowances exist exactly to allow political expression to as many different kinds of people as possible; if you want to take them away, you should be mindful of that and come up with some method of compensating.
But anyone can express their political views… on their own property. Having signs littered beside public roads and sidewalks, where public safety is priority, isn’t reasonable. This would level the playing field for all candidates, and it would help to keep public spaces clean.
I shouldn’t need to have the support of home and business owners to express my political message.
Well, you should at least have their permission. It’s the same rules that apply to advertising, so you don’t have people who feel the need to post their ads (illegally) on public grounds, light poles, etc. without consent or permission.
These candidates already advertise online, by mail, on billboards, on radio, on TV, by phone, on their office buildings, on vehicles, and by knocking doors. Believe me, anyone who plans to vote already knows who these candidates are, and are actively seeking to learn more about their platform.
The act of clogging public space with a noxious assortment of blue, red, orange, yellow signs, bearing names that are unfamiliar to the public, names that have been recurrently mentioned for far too long, and names that appear popular solely due to their substantial campaign expenditures, is a disservice to the public.
But anyone can express their political views… on their own property
You are proposing property ownership as a requirement for political speech. It would degrade me even to attempt to refute such a claim. Suffice to say, while that may apply to the 40 million other Canadians, I don’t happen to own real estate in every jurisdiction I might wish to run for an office. And I cannot get the permission or afford to buy the permission of the people who do own private real estate.
You can flatly say that it is unreasonable, but you cannot show that it unreasonable, because reasonable people have managed to live with the situation for a very, very long time. Reasonable people accept that sometimes things look messy, because they are messy, and that’s okay.
You are proposing property ownership as a requirement for political speech.
Not at all, but if you want to be placing political ads in places without permission, then it would have to be on your own property. That sounds pretty fair to me, and cuts down on a lot of sign litter.
Of course, you’re also free to express political speech without the use of a lawn sign. You can use voice, written words, a t-shirt, etc…
because reasonable people have managed to live with the situation for a very, very long time. Reasonable people accept that sometimes things look messy, because they are messy, and that’s okay.
Well, not really: "Oshawa bylaw officers received 277 complaints [during 2022 elections] and removed 816 signs… 62 were disposed of by the city. In addition, the City’s Legislative Services department got 94 complaints and removed 26 signs. "… “some candidates didn’t follow the current election sign bylaw. Or didn’t repair damaged signs.”
I also disagree with your sentiment, and apparently, so do several council members. The public will be able to voice their concerns about these new proposals, so you’re more than welcome to let councillors know about how you feel (if you live in Oshawa).
This honestly doesn’t feel like we (or candidates) are losing anything… in fact, we’re just keeping things better organized and in line with enforcing rules that were never followed.
Anyway, I think it’s a good first step towards a smoother, less trashy form of political campaigning.
If you cannot accept the basic point that removing the right to put signs on public spaces restricts political expression in any way whatsoever as compared to the present situation, I can no longer entertain the idea that you are arguing in good faith.
removing the right to put signs on public spaces restricts political expression
You keep saying that, but it is incumbent upon municipalities to establish bylaws regarding electoral signage regulations, in addition to the provisions of the Canada Elections Act, which encompass the content of signs, their location, and the duration for which they may be displayed.
As it stands, quite a few rules have not been followed: Signs have been put in areas that are a danger to the public. Signs have not been removed when they are supposed to. Damaged signed aren’t being fixed. And the city has been forced to remove unclaimed signs at taxpayer’s expense.
All that’s being proposed is that current rules be strengthened and that existing rules be enforced. The additional stipulation about signs not being allowed on public property has already been introduced in other municipalities throughout Ontario without any issues. There haven’t been any court cases, as far as I know, which have ruled that these bylaws are infringing on any rights of political expression. Have you come across any that can be shared? I’d be happy to side with your argument, if these rules are found to be in violation on any rights.
So, if candidates have *already *been given leeway to put their signs on public property, and have failed to follow rules for many years already, what do you suggest should happen? Again, the city will ask for public feedback, so you are more than welcome to give them your proposals.
But I think that if it’s worked elsewhere, and the current system has not been working for us here, we should make the proposed changes.
