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.
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.
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…
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.
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.