I never thought of it in that way. I agree the message should probably not be changed then. Unless changing the message is the last resort, but only after exhausting all other options.

If the words the campaign uses are changed for Halifax, it means that someone or some people in Halifax have, by whatever means, modified your message. This results in your losing your freedom of thought and freedom to express it; hence, both capitulation to coercion and loss of a right enshrined in the Charter.

Therefore, I strongly urge you not to accept any solution that modifies the original wording. If it takes longer to get the ad on the buses, fine. Just don’t let anyone force you to modify your ‘views.’ You have a right to them, and the others have no right to force any change in them (albeit that I support their right to try to persuade you to change your views).

BTW, my cheque is in the mail.

http://www.halifax.ca/mediaroom/mrcommunications.html

Now for the real reason I started this post. For those interested I forwarded the info to James Randi and he actually added a post about the issue in his blog.

For those who do not know of the website please take the time to take a look since his foundation has greatly help increase not only the cause of atheists but also the truth wether in religion, witch doctors, or everyday life stuff. His website is http://www.randi.org

Note that someone posted an alternative message in the comments below the blog entry by BillyJoe. Although I think it would need a bit of tweaking, I have to say its one of the most plausable alternative ads wording I have seen that might actually be toned down but still be effective. The suggestions was for “Atheist are good people, just like you and me”!

Targeting Pattison is an exercise in futility as, given the choice, they’d likely have run the ads.

This is important stuff. We need to target Metro Transit, the publicly funded transit authority.

Also, Halifax is NOT alone outside the Vatican … “Nancy Swartz with the Secular Humanist Association in Victoria said it’s running into the same problem there, and the ads have been rejected by BC Transit, which oversees transit outside the Greater Vancouver area.” (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/02/03/bc-good-without-god-ads.html?ref=rss)

Notes:

Halifax advertising authority = Halifax Transit Authority

“That phrase does not appear as stated anywhere in their policy document.” – The policy referred to is the policy of Metro Transit and could be obtained from them.

“…we shot back: Metro Transit needs to understand…” – This says “we shot back (at Pattison) but then refers to Metro Transit.

“Now it should be admitted that Pattison hasn’t refused to consider any ad from our organizations. ‘The transit authority would reconsider its position if Humanist Canada toned down its message.’” – Same deal. Pattison is not a transit authority.

“And Pattison has a history of deciding the wrong way on these issues, considering their refusal to display AIDS ads: Pattison company rejects AIDS ads for Gay Men. Maybe AIDS is objectionable to “moral standards” or maybe it’s just gay men.” I have no idea if this one is Pattison’s refusal are who actually refused the ads.

Here’s a link to a bus ad generator that is available online. I’m already seeing this “fake ads” appear all over the blogsphere. Guess there is no such thing as bad publicity:

http://ruletheweb.co.uk/b3ta/bus/

There is always the possibility that Halifax wants the campaign to use up financial resources battling the decision. :-/

So they are not a private company and they recieve often receive public money to help them purchase new buses and equipment. Therefor they management cannot run it as a private company and can be held accountable for their actions by HRM and the people who live here.