Invincible Summer
24th January 2009, 22:28
So I read this recently:
http://www.straight.com/article-198107/olympic-critic-says-vancouver-charter-changes-threaten-civil-liberties
The last of the amendments would provide that the city may remove illegal signs from real property with limited notice, and may charge the owner for the cost of such removal, according to the staff report recommending the changes...
...
Fellow COPE councillor David Cadman said he wasnt concerned about another APEC happening, referring to the RCMPs pepper-spraying of protesters at the 1997 summit in Vancouver.
That [amendment] is to deal with illegal advertising, not someone putting a sign in their window, Cadman said by phone, adding that he is of the opinion the city needs greater protection from ambush marketing.
Bullshit. The clause is so vague that it could mean anything. Basically, they don't want people to put up anti-Olympic advertising/organizing posters so that the superfluous amount of 2010 Olympic advertising will be pristine.
Thoughts?
http://www.straight.com/article-198107/olympic-critic-says-vancouver-charter-changes-threaten-civil-liberties
The last of the amendments would provide that the city may remove illegal signs from real property with limited notice, and may charge the owner for the cost of such removal, according to the staff report recommending the changes...
...
Fellow COPE councillor David Cadman said he wasnt concerned about another APEC happening, referring to the RCMPs pepper-spraying of protesters at the 1997 summit in Vancouver.
That [amendment] is to deal with illegal advertising, not someone putting a sign in their window, Cadman said by phone, adding that he is of the opinion the city needs greater protection from ambush marketing.
Bullshit. The clause is so vague that it could mean anything. Basically, they don't want people to put up anti-Olympic advertising/organizing posters so that the superfluous amount of 2010 Olympic advertising will be pristine.
Thoughts?