The Israeli-Palestinian conflict: Coming to a bus near you?

Vancouver's Skytrain has been put in the middle of a bloody political conflict that many Canadians would rather not talk about.

According to the CBC, this poster was placed by The Palestine Awareness Coalition on TransLink media in Greater Vancouver.

Here's their side of the story:

The realities of Palestinian land loss are on display in Vancouver, as a new series of transit ads has been posted at the Vancouver City Centre SkyTrain station and on 15 TransLink buses, on August 27, 2013. The ads, created by the Palestine Awareness Coalition, made up of seven Vancouver-area peace and justice groups, depict the “disappearance” of Palestine due to Israeli occupation over the past 66 years. 

“The goal of the advertising campaign is to make the Canadian public aware of Israel’s steady absorption of Palestinian territory from 1946 to the present day and the constant oppression that accompanies that occupation,” said Martha Roth of Independent Jewish Voices, one of the groups in the coalition. 

And here is another POV from the Jewish Federation of Greater Vancouver:

It is our assessment that these advertisements distort history, are malicious and essentially question the legitimacy of Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. 

We believe it is no coincidence that this advertising campaign will coincide with the sacred holy days of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. 

TransLink—the regional transit authority—has a clearly defined set of advertising policies and guidelines, which restrict the display of ads that make public transit unwelcoming for any ethnic or racial group—the appropriateness of which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada. 

As the advocacy arm of Jewish Federation of Greater Vancouver, CIJA | Pacific Region has addressed this issue directly with TransLink—both with members of its Board and its Management—and has asked the transit authority to comply with its stated policies and withdraw its approval for the ads. 

TransLink has since confirmed that they have reviewed the matter and that they recognize the offensive and provocative nature of the advertisements. Despite our view that the advertisements contravene TransLink’s own policies, TransLink has decided to proceed with allowing the advertisements to be displayed. 

Public opinion toward Israel will not change as a result of these ads. Support for Israel locally, provincially and federally across the political spectrum has never been stronger.The objective of the sponsoring groups is clear: to gain publicity for their marginalized views, which fall outside of mainstream Canadian opinion. Countering these ads in the public domain (on buses, for example) would only raise the profile and lend credibility to these marginal groups. 

Our community is strengthened by its diversity of opinions and views. However, on the core issue of Israel’s right to exist as an independent Jewish state in peace and security – we stand together.

And here is TransLink's statement:

TransLink does not endorse nor advocate any position put forward by outside advertisers. In addition, as a public agency, TransLink's advertising policy cannot violate freedom of expression under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Freedom of expression is a protected right under the Charter. 

TransLink does not have the legal authority to deny ads as long as the ads comply with the Code of Canadian Advertising Standards, other laws such as the Human Rights Act and TransLink's Advertising Policy. This is in accordance with a 2009 Supreme Court of Canada decision that struck down the portion of TransLink's Advertising Policy that prohibited advocacy ads. 

The Disappearing Palestine ad was referred to the Canadian Advertising Standards office for review by Lamar (the contracted agency that oversees ad placements and buys on our transit system) prior to its placement. In addition, TransLink sought a third-party legal opinion about this ad with regard to the Canadian Charter. That legal advice noted the Supreme Court of Canada decided that TransLink is subject to the Charter in its role as the host of advertising. 

If TransLink accepts advertising, it must not restrict content, (i.e., the freedom of expression of its advertising customer or potential customer under Section 2(b) of the Charter) except in accordance with Section 1 of the Charter which makes all Charter Rights subject to "such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." TransLink has been advised that no such "limit prescribed by law" would prohibit the Disappearing Palestine advertisement under TransLink's Advertising Policy, the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards, or other applicable "law" such as the Human Rights Act. 

We appreciate that some advertisements on the transit system may cause concern for customers. However, our advertising policy is posted online and guides all advertising on TransLink property. Concerns about this ad - or any advertising on the transit system - can be referred to the Canadian Advertising Standards office. 

As a transparent public organization, we continue to uphold the laws of our country while we work to provide the best possible customer service. We hope concerned customers understand that within defined limits TransLink has no legal authority to decline advertising content.

So here we have three ways of looking at an ad. The Palestine Awareness Coalition was careful to keep it factual and historical/geographical, which got Code approval. The Jewish Federation of Greater Vancouver was correct in seeing the placement and timing as deliberately provocative and polarizing — but they provoked back harder by referring to the Palestinians as having "marginalized views". (As a messaging geek, I have to point out that they should have used "marginal" since "marginalized" implies deliberate attempts to push into obscurity.) TransLink is complying with the Charter, which overrules their own ad policy. What else can they do?

So, who's in the right? Here in Canada, where we'd rather not think about our own past of Protestant vs. Catholic, and English vs. French (not to mention European vs. Aboriginal) violence, it's always difficult when other imported conflicts cause divisions between friends  in our multicultural society.

 Let's just hope some constructive discussion comes out of this.

UPDATE: The campaign is planned to run in other Canadian cities as well.

My encounter with a religious extremist

Do not scroll to the bottom of this post if you are offended by sexualized religious imagery.

Via Fox News

A friend posted an image on his Google+ account. It is a provocative image, currently making the viral rounds, of an artwork that took a religious symbol and transformed it into a realistic portrayal of human genitalia.

Immediately, and predictably, there were complaints from  his circles. Here are some excerpts from one unhappy G+er in particular — a person from a country, language and culture very different from mine (as I was soon to find out):

"What is the intention of this? Bring attention?  Pretend to be artistry? Some symbols should be respected, believing or not...  Some world symbols should be treated with great care."

Some other people in the thread, myself included, talked about the need for free speech in art, and how a provocative work can inspire new thoughts and conversations about old ideas. Plus, the link between ancient fertility symbols and later religious imagery is an old and learned idea.

He kept going:

"Why do something that will offend a lot of people? When we put down and idea or principle we should put other in its place. Not all are evolved, not all like this kind of thing.
But believe or not, this symbol is the comfort of millions of people. In the serious and desperate moments of our life we can pray for [...] help. And it works with millions! So, this is a matter of ethics too. Respect others first. What kind of conclusion do you think that who made this want to provoke on the viewer? There are thousands of other ways to bring attention much better and safer [bolding mine] than this one."

He claimed not to be religious, but went on to explain why religion needed special protection from criticism:

"The need of God do not originate from supernatural sources but from our inner, our fragility in life. The human race have not been so much desperate as now. Drugs, pornography, lack of values, egotism. All this are a "testimony" of our superiority... Com on give a look at a newspaper and see TV news for just a few minutes and think." 

"There is no reason to put down religious symbols. No matter if we believe or not, they help millions!" 

"You are really offending millions that believe on this. Put this on your house wall but you have not the right of publish this. You are offending!  [...another insistence he is not religious...] You should remove this." 

"One wrong thing do not justify the other. We can not compare all the wrong things in the world because we would be here forever. ---- The fact is that this image offend a lot of people. ----- This is a public place and it exist for sharing. It gives no one the right to offend others. Every one have the right of keep his concepts PRIVATELY."

Most of the original thread had dropped out at this point, including the original poster. I gave another explanation of what I saw as the artist's message, and gave a link to similar portrayals throughout history, with the philosophical question of who gets to decide what is "sacred".

He started to get internet angry:

"What you consider sacred or not do not concern here as long as you keep it private. This is a public place! YOU want to impose an image on a public place. YOU are defending something that you knows is wrong. This is no place for it." 

I tried to end the conflict peacefully but firmly, concluding, "I don't know you, but I do know I that I'm glad you are not in charge of censoring art and speech where I live."

That's when he threatened me:

"Yes you do not know me. I am not a censor and yes, you are lucky I am not where you live. You are the aggressive person here not me. I am just defending a symbol so caring by millions. Defending from an idiont tentative of make ridiculous one of the best examples of a decent human being. If you have or not faith I do not give a shit. But this image DO HARMS."

I should point out, again, that all of my comments were simply academic and artistic rationales for why the artwork was useful to public discourse about religion and philosophy. The only reason I have not quoted myself in full is because my descriptions of the artwork would spoil the reveal. And you're dying to know what the image was, aren't you?

Be forewarned that this image can and will offend the pious. I chose not to share it openly on my professional and family social networks because it is polarizing, and without proper explanation it could make me seem as if I were either prejudiced against a certain religious group, or simply a great big pervert.

Still want to see it? Oh, come on... you know where this is going by now.









Okay, here:

The artist is unknown to me, as is the artist's statement. But it's a rather graphic take on the iconography of the mandorla ("almond" in Italian), a traditional way of portraying Mary (and sometimes Jesus) that uses a shape reminiscent of an open vulva as a female fertility symbol. The hood piercing as halo is a clever modern touch, but I would not be surprised if the artist is revealed to be a woman, and a deeply spiritual woman at that.


The extremist was a young, male Latin American commercial photographer from Rio de Janeiro. His latest post is a quote from Oscar Wilde, "Art is the most intense mode of individualism that the world has known."

Was I trolled? If so, I congratulate him. But if not, I think we have a good example here about how the passions of religious belief can easily be provoked into more violent feelings — regardless of country or culture.

Blog Action Day: Don’t give in to the Dark Side of the “We” #BAD2012

Today, October 15, is Blog Action Day. It's an opportunity for bloggers around the world to post simultaneously on a single topic that relates to social issues or social change. This year, the topic is "The Power of We":

We choose this theme for a couple of reasons. Firstly, the popularity of the your suggestions; Community, Equality, Transparency/Anti-Corruption and Freedom, in our theme poll. Secondly, The Power of We is a celebration of people working together to make a positive difference in the world, either for their own communities or for people they will never meet half way around [t]he world.

When I thought about how I'd represent this idea in a marketing context, I have to admit that the first thing that popped into my head was an ad almost as old as I am, from of all advertisers, Coca-Cola:



Times have sure changed. Now, "Big Soda" is the enemy of activist marketers like former CP+B  creative demigod Alex Bogusky. But, consumerism aside, was this hippy-dippy "we're all in it together" dream ever even achievable? Part of me really wants it to be possible.


As the father of a third-grader, I try to encourage my son to view all fellow humans as brothers and sisters. Growing up in a multicultural community, he has not yet learned to categorize people by skin colour or cultural affiliation. When I ask him to describe a classmate or adult in his life, he describes them based on their personality and actions, rather than appearance. It's nice, but I also realize it will not last.

Perhaps he will not grow up with the same racialized context I still work hard to leave behind, but as he grows he will join tribes of interests, location or politics that will inevitably bring him into conflict with others.

"We" humans are tribal. There is no getting around it. Social experimenters continue to replicate the same results when they create artificial or arbitrary tribal differences between groups of strangers. For example, diversity trainer Jane Elliott is able to turn brown-eyed and blue eyed groups agains each other. Tribalism is so engrained in our very biology that it threatens our world and future as a species. While it can express itself in (usually) harmless ways, like fanatic team loyalty in organized sports, even that can turn into violence. "We" in this context is another way of saying "us over them".

This idea of "we" exists in nationalism, religion, politics, even what band you like. And it's killing us. In the Middle East, "we" are under threat from a corrupt western civilization that insults our religion and wants to turn our daughters into prostitutes. So "we" attack and kill foreigners in their embassies, and even in their own cities.

In North America, "we" don't believe in biological, statistical, economic or climate science, so we oppose measures that would reduce our impact on the climate, help the poor and sick, and prevent unwanted pregnancies. It goes on and on.


Membership in a group is usually defined by opposition to other groups. And to protect our tribal identity, we naturally dehumanize outsiders. The most extreme cases are in war. But it happens every day when we make generalizations about "those people" or fail to treat our own tribe's agreed-to "truths" with healthy skepticism.

Which brings us to the world of cause marketing. Tribalism can be an incredibly powerful source for change, especially as the internet allows formerly isolated individuals to gain strength from a positive group identity.

A good example is the It Gets Better project, in which Dan Savage's attempt to reach out to LGBT youth at risk turned into a massive outpouring of support from both LGBT and straight ally communities.

What was great about this effort was its inclusiveness. Anyone was welcomed to join the tribe, as long as they had a message of hope and positivity for the youth. But they were still defined by a common enemy: homophobia.

The other good thing about that campaign was that it was based on hope, rather than fear. In fact, the enemy was fear.

Usually, when an enemy is defined, exaggerated fear of that enemy (rational or not) is used to rally the troops. And once rallied, those troops start to lose any sense of logic or common sense.

This can happen in any movement, whether its members consider themselves conservative or progressives.

This Blog Action Day, as a blogger, social marketer and human being, I would like to urge you all to embrace the positive side of "The Power of We". Welcome your friends. Understand and empathize with your enemies. And don't get sucked into the dark side of the We.

Cross-posted on Change Marketing and Osocio Academy.