Karen Farbridge is the the four-term left-of-centre, progressive mayor for the city of Guelph, the city and federal riding that is ground zero for the robocalls controversy.
Farbridge is facing a stiff challenge from Cam Guthrie who is pitching ideas familiar to small-c conservatives.
Last week, the Farbridge campaign bought a half-page of ad space in the Guelph Tribune and divided that space into two spaces, a positive ad on the left which clearly has the candidate’s name on it and an attack ad, on the right, which does not have the candidate’s name on it. In it, the Farbridge campaign insinuates that candidate Cam Guthrie has the same political morals as Michael Sona, famous now in political circles as the federal Conservative campaign worker in Guelph convicted of a robocall offence. Last week, at a sentencing hearing, Crown prosecutors were pressing the judge to put Sona in jail for up to 20 months.
The Guelph Mercury reports that Farbridge has had to a) ‘fess up to being behind that ad and b) defend her role in what apparently has become a “toxic campaign.”
Guthrie is complaining “That photo was taken several years ago at a public event and used out of context.”
For those outside Guelph, though, this attack ad is notable for two things. First, it’s the first one I know of in which a “progressive” uses Sona specifically to go after a “conservative” candidate. Do you think the federal Conservatives will get attacked with Sona and robocalls? Second: Neither the Farbridge campaign nor the Guelph Tribune owns this image. It is, in fact, a picture taken by a Guelph Mercury photographer. If you look closely at the fine print, you’ll see that the Farbridge campaign provides credit which is apparently all that is required under the fair dealing provision of Canada’s copyright laws. There is a bit of a debate right now at the federal level as to whether political parties ought to be able to lift “news images” for their own messaging purposes. The Harper government is proposing some legislative amendments that would expressly allow political parties to do just Farbridge is doing to Guthrie.
And here I thought, according to opposition and the media that only the Conservatives were going to benefit from the changes to the copyright laws. Didn’t take long for the “progressives” to catch on!
Personally, I think the use of the term “progressives” is a misnomer in this context.
Events show Ms Farbridge to be as ‘catty’ as they come.
David: lol…I think you must also have been reading the 59 Carden St blogs to get some of the info you have. Credit to you.
If I may speak unsolicited on the Mercury’s behalf, the use of the photo in itself was not that troublesome, as you state, it is a somewhat gray area legally. Normally, supplying the accreditation is suffice to satisfy copyright law. Note that was the extent of Mayor Farbridge’s apology. That’s like apologizing for stepping on the tulips when you’ve just abducted someone’s child.
The accreditation on that photo *without supplying the legally required sponsor* left the Merc looking like they were somehow complicit in the ads message…and from what I can tell, the Merc has been fastidious in being fair and treading the path of virtue.
Here’s the real issue:
[There is no requirement that the sponsorship of an ad be revealed as part of the ad.]
There certainly is, and under two Ontario Acts. Here’s from the Ontario Municipal Elections Act:
[All political printed advertising, handbills, placards, posters and broadcast or telecast advertisements must show the name of the registered constituency association, registered political party, registered candidate, registered third party, person, corporation or trade union that caused it to appear and sponsored or paid for it.]
http://www.elections.on.ca/en-CA/CandidatesAndParties/IAA.htm
Authorization on election advertising
[All third party election advertising must name the registered third party, person,corporation, or trade union authorizing the advertising.
No specific language is required for the authorization but it must be apparent what
person or entity has caused the advertisement to appear and any other person or entity that has sponsored or paid for it.
An example of appropriate authorization wording is “Authorized by the XYZ entity”]
http://www.elections.on.ca/NR/rdonlyres/6002BE5C-D23D-4D89-A2D2-AA7D7F7CFAA2/6131/HandbookThirdParties2014Eng.pdf
Clarification: I’d quoted:
[There is no requirement that the sponsorship of an ad be revealed as part of the ad.]
That is from the Guelph Tribune’s copy today on the matter. http://www.guelphtribune.ca/news/attack-ad-enflames-mayoral-debate/
I’ve posted the two clauses from Ontario Acts that I have here as a reader response. It remains to be seen if they publish them.
This notion that the negative half if this add is unattributed is false, and its repetition is becoming irksome. And Stephen’s suggestion of illegality is slanderous.
As Atkins clearly states, Mayor Farbridge’s campaign purchased a half page ad, and the source of that single ad is clearly marked as required by law as paid for by the Mayor’s campaign. Just look at the reproduction above–it is obvious that we have a single ad with a double message.
Indeed for us Guelphites familiar with the local campaign, there is a single theme here. Councillor Cam Guthrie as chair of a finance committee under Farbridge’s leadership knows full well that the rate of tax increases in Guelph have dropped steadily under Mayor Farbridge’s term, and yet his campaign constantly pushes gross misrepresentation on this point, over and over again. Where does this propensity to mislead as an election strategy come from? Is it a coincidence that Cam’s campaign team and volunteer core is populated by the same Conservative Party activists who generated the robocall scandal, and the judge who convicted Sona stated in open court that Sona did not act alone.
Was Cam Guthrie one of those involved. It my opinion, no way–Cam is clearly not preoccupied by facts when there is political advantage to be rung from a situation, but he knows better than to be caught up in something illegal. But his team overlaps with the campaign team that gave gave us Sona.
So Stephen, I invite you either to stop represented this ad as illegal, or, man up, have the courage of you convictions and launch legal proceedings. It is libellous to accuse someone if illegality when that is clearly false.
Mr Galon writes:
[Just look at the reproduction above–it is obvious that we have a single ad with a double message. ]
So obvious, in fact, that even you wouldn’t take responsibility for it until Ms Farbridge apologized herself (belatedly)…somewhat.
From the Tribune themselves, (the paper that ran the ad) an article entitled:
[Attack ad enflames mayoral debate]
[…][The controversial attack ad ran next to a “Re-elect Karen Farbridge” ad][…][But there is some ambiguity, as the two parts are separated by a centre line of white space in the paper. The part linking Guthrie with Sona is coloured differently and does not feature Farbridge’s name on it.][…][ since the ad showed up on Thursday, a number of Twitter users have expressed their disapproval of its “anonymous” nature.
“The source should be revealed,” one user said.
“Shame on @guelphtribune for running today’s attack ad re @CamGuthrie and shame on the cowards who placed it without attribution,” said another.][…]
http://www.guelphtribune.ca/news/attack-ad-enflames-mayoral-debate/
Mr Galon writes:
[…Stephen’s suggestion of illegality is slanderous. ][…][So Stephen, I invite you either to stop represented this ad as illegal, or, man up, have the courage of you convictions and launch legal proceedings. It is libellous to accuse someone if illegality when that is clearly false.]
Those are pretty brave words coming from someone who accuses me of illegal slander, and then challenges me to submit a complaint.
Of no-one else does, with more of a dog to hunt in this chase than I, I guarantee you, I will. Gladly.
Needless to say, you’ll be available to make a sworn statement?
I didn’t make up those legal quotations, Mr Galon. Are you attempting to scare me away from utilizing the law they way it was intended?
You have enough of a challenge holding your head up….
In reading back, I’m struck by the possibility that Mr Galon finds the Law a bit vexxing, so let’s tackle defining what things mean for those who don’t find it that clear:
Authorization on election advertising
[All third party election advertising must name the registered third party, person,corporation, or trade union authorizing the advertising.
No specific language is required for the authorization but it must be apparent what
person or entity has caused the advertisement to appear and any other person or entity that has sponsored or paid for it.
An example of appropriate authorization wording is “Authorized by the XYZ entity”]
http://www.elections.on.ca/NR/rdonlyres/6002BE5C-D23D-4D89-A2D2-AA7D7F7CFAA2/6131/HandbookThirdParties2014Eng.pdf
Please note: “it must be apparent”
First hit when Googled:
ap·par·ent
əˈperənt/
adjective
adjective: apparent
clearly visible or understood; obvious.
Yes, indeed. And yet so many people didn’t make the connection of intimacy that Mr Galon claims. Feel absolutely free to supply *your* undetrstanding of the word, Mr Galon.
Why can’t people just do as they’re told, Mr Galon? So, was it all just a ‘misunderstanding’, and that’s why even the Tribune has cut you adrift?