Public neutrality

[marshwiggle]

Westlock, Alta., residents vote to get rid of town's rainbow crosswalk in plebiscite

Residents of Westlock, Alta., voted in favour of a bylaw Thursday evening that bans certain flags and crosswalks from being displayed on public property, including the town's only rainbow crosswalk.

A plebiscite over a neutrality bylaw, spurred by a door-to-door petition signed by more than 700 residents, was announced in November. The bylaw, which will be implemented after Thursday's vote, bans crosswalks and flags supporting "political, social, or religious movements or commercial entities," in an effort to keep public spaces politically neutral.
.
.
.
Thursday's vote means the municipal government can only raise federal, provincial and municipal government flags on public property.

Crosswalks in the town — located about 90 kilometres northwest of Edmonton — can also only be painted the standard white-striped pattern.

.
.
.
Town staff received a petition on Sept. 15 from the Westlock Neutrality Team, led by Westlock resident Stephanie Bakker, asking council to make a bylaw "ensuring that crosswalks and flags on public property remain neutral."

I'd vote for something like this in a heartbeat. I'm curious to see if other municipalities follow suit.

[Parasaurolophus]

Imagine being so neutral about queer people that you start a legally-binding petition to specifically outlaw a single multi-coloured crosswalk.

[marshwiggle]

Imagine being so neutral about queer people that you start a legally-binding petition to specifically outlaw a single multi-coloured crosswalk.

It outlaws any crosswalk other than the standard one. So it's not being neutral "about" any group or ideology. Everyone is as free to use any crosswalk as they always were.

[Parasaurolophus]

Mmhmm.

Just like Quebec's religious neutrality law definitely wasn't specifically directed at Muslims. It's just about making public services neutral! No veils (or kippahs, for that matter) allowed here, only the super-neutral historical symbol of the crucifix. It's a Very Principled Stand, and how dare I suggest otherwise?

[bio-nonymous]

I would have more respect for the new bylaw if it also outlawed any non-neutral displays on public property (i.e., religious, secular, ethnic, etc.). There has been so much controversy the past few years with Christmas displays and Satanic Temple displays, for example, why not just get rid of them all? Does this law also get rid of POW flags and BLM banners as well? If EVERYTHING in the town on public grounds needed to be neutral, not just a select few issues and places, I could get behind that. If the law is really just to hide certain viewpoints, well that is unfortunate.

[Stockmann]

The litmus test for these sort of things is if crosses are banned. If they're not, then it's just directed at a specific minority under the guise of neutrality. If it's truly neutral, then crosses would be included in the ban. Since a cross is neither a flag nor a crosswalk, this initiative is clearly written to target pride flags and its claim of neutrality is a sham.

[marshwiggle]

The litmus test for these sort of things is if crosses are banned. If they're not, then it's just directed at a specific minority under the guise of neutrality. If it's truly neutral, then crosses would be included in the ban. Since a cross is neither a flag nor a crosswalk, this initiative is clearly written to target pride flags and its claim of neutrality is a sham.

I don't know if there are any religious symbols on public property there, so it's not clear whether that is relevant. The bylaw would certainly make it easy for people to challenge any religious symbolism in the future, and that would be reasonable in my opinion.  Flags certainly have a history of being used for causes, with governments asked to "declare" National Dog-Walker's Day or whatever. The crosswalk is a recent thing, but there could be all kinds of symbols that governments are asked to display which this bylaw is trying to prevent.

Virtue-signalling by governments is a bad idea because it is not in their mandate, and takes away attention and resources from things that actually are within their mandate,and would make life materially better for their constituents. For instance, if people of some marginalized group are disproportionately homeless, or in need of medical or mental health services, then the government would be doing its job to try and improve those services, which would materially help those people.

[RatGuy]

I'm reminded of the time Barbara Kingsolver said that she was told she couldn't distribute any anti-war information because it was deemed "political" and therefore not neutral, but was told that the people handing out yellow ribbons were doing a "public service" and was therefore allowed.

[Wahoo Redux]

Sorry Marshbuddy, but this will not stop the encroaching flow of "progressive" ideas from impinging on your sensitivities.

But you and yours will be fine as long as you learn to live peacefully and coexist with people who are different from you, even if history has taught you some terrible ideas.

[Wahoo Redux]

Virtue-signalling by

You know, Marshysan, a great many people do actually care about things when they speak up.

"virtue signaling" is politico-jargon by wingnuts in an attempt to invalidate certain ideas.  The term is propaganda.   

You are virtue signaling when you use the term "virtue signaling." 

[ciao_yall]

Thursday's vote means the municipal government can only raise federal, provincial and municipal government flags on public property.

Flags are non-neutral. Whose land was it before the current flag was raised? Was it completely void, or did invaders come, bringing smallpox and rifles to run the previous people off the land?

[Sun_Worshiper]

Bans "certain flags" huh?

[marshwiggle]

Sorry Marshbuddy, but this will not stop the encroaching flow of "progressive" ideas from impinging on your sensitivities.

But you and yours will be fine as long as you learn to live peacefully and coexist with people who are different from you, even if history has taught you some terrible ideas.

One of the ways people live peacefully and coexist with people who are different is by not trying to pretend that everyone thinks the same.

Suppose a municipality wants to do a good thing regarding the war in Gaza by expressing support for a ceasefire and the return of all remaining hostages. That should be something most people are in favour of, right? Except that, as soon as they decide what "statement" they want to make, some people will start saying that a ceasefire has to happen before the hostages are released, while others will say that the hostages have to be released before a ceasefire. A big battle will ensue, and many people will be upset.

The real irony of this is that the municipality has absolutely no ability to make either a ceasefire or return of hostages happen, and all of the time and energy expended is time and energy that isn't being spent on what the municipality actually is responsible for.

Every day on the calendar is claimed by some group as "Basketweaver's Day" or "Love your Penguin Day" or whatever. And everyone wants to make sure that their day is "declared". What happens when one group wants "Beef Farmers' Day" and another wants "Vegan Day"? Declaring both will anger both groups, as will declaring neither, unless there is a policy against any such declarations.

It's a hole with no bottom, and since none of these materially improve the lives of any constituents, it's a waste of time, resources, and goodwill.



 

[Wahoo Redux]

Every day on the calendar is claimed by some group as "Basketweaver's Day" or "Love your Penguin Day" or whatever. And everyone wants to make sure that their day is "declared". What happens when one group wants "Beef Farmers' Day" and another wants "Vegan Day"? Declaring both will anger both groups, as will declaring neither, unless there is a policy against any such declarations.

It's a hole with no bottom, and since none of these materially improve the lives of any constituents, it's a waste of time, resources, and goodwill.

Part of free speech is being offended.  It comes with the territory.

Freedom is a dangerous thing.

You just have to learn to live with people who disagree with you. 

What you cannot do is ban them to the backroom when they are a dude wearing a dress and doing a book reading because your psyche cannot handle it and therefore make your problem their problem.

Have the Beef Farmers Day and have the Vegan Day.  No one needs to be offended unless they want to be offended----and some things really are offensive (even if they are not these).

Let everyone express their ideas and let everyone get mad and let everyone make up their own minds.  *GASP!*  Yes, let citizen's think for themselves!!!

Your theory has everyone huddling in little petrified, outraged, heads-in herds of sheep. 

[marshwiggle]

Have the Beef Farmers Day and have the Vegan Day.  No one needs to be offended unless they want to be offended----and some things really are offensive (even if they are not these).

Let everyone express their ideas and let everyone get mad and let everyone make up their own minds.  *GASP!*  Yes, let citizen's think for themselves!!!

They're all welcome to have all those days and more. What doesn't make sense is for the government to formally "recognize" or "declare" those days. Same thing with flags; private citizens or organizations can fly whatever flags they want. The government doesn't have to approve of any of them (or disapprove, for that matter). The government has other priorities.

Whether the government is "for" or "against" any cause doesn't require any citizen to be "for" or "against" it; that's what a free society is all about! So a government doesn't need to express any opinion whatsoever on any topic; all it has to do is make and enforce rules and regulations and provide services to its citizens on areas where it has jurisdiction.

Ideology not required, (beyond commitment to the democratic principles and laws that govern their operation.)