Angry in the Great White North

When Libertarian candidate Marty Gobin complained to Elections Ontario that No Gun No Funeral constituted political advertising, Elections Ontario disagreed. This is what was reported in the media about the Elections Ontario decision, as was reproduced on No Gun No Funeral:

Gobin said he was told by Elections Ontario that the website doesn't meet the definition of political advertising because it does not promote a politician or party, but he wants officials to look more closely at the website and the resources used to develop it.

Well, since that complaint happened, I posted some information about the tight connections between Michael Bryant and No Gun No Funeral website. That led to a on-air discussion with Roy Green, followed by a news report in which, when asked, Michael Bryant admitted that the site was his.

That news report was reproduced on the No Gun No Funeral website, both in summary form and verbatim. The summary focused on the point that since Michael Bryant's name wasn't on the website, the site was not considered political advertising.

Here's the obvious thing that I missed. The moment the report was reproduced on the No Gun No Funeral website, it made direct mention of Michael Bryant, including how he conceived of the website and had it constructed. By reporting on the Elections Ontario decision, the argument of Elections Ontario that Michael Bryant wasn't tied to the website anywhere on the website was rendered null and void:

Michael Bryant said he wanted the website to be about ideas -- not politics or politicians -- so he did not put his name on it..."It's my phrase; it's my idea; it's my website," Bryant said.

Here's the screenshot from the home page:

Wait a second...Michael Bryant's name is on the website. Right there. On the home page. Bragging about how the website and its content was his.

Now doesn't that mean that someone visiting this site would now that Michael Bryant, candidate for the Ontario Liberal Party, is promoting a handgun ban, and doesn't that mean that the same person would be presented with the arguments to support this politician's point of view on the facts page? Does it not follow that a voter in Ontario who might be sympathetic to a handgun ban would realize after visiting this site that Michael Bryant ought to enjoy this voter's support, and that Michael Bryant's party (the Ontario Liberal Party, mentioned explicitly in the full version of the story, which is reached from the top link on the home page) ought to get this voter's vote, if he wants this ban to be realized?

Doesn't that mean that by admitting that the site is his via this news report, and by reproducing that report on the website, Michael Bryant has transformed the website into an example of political advertising?

Think about it. Read what's on the front page. It boils down to, "Hi. I'm Michael Bryant. This is my website where I'm promoting my idea to ban handguns outright."

Sounds like he's advertising his platform loud and clear. And all because he's reporting on how Elections Ontario was right not to tag the site as political advertising because his name isn't on it. It's ironic. And sort of funny, too.

Check out other entries from the No Gun No Funeral category
Results will open in a new window.

Check out what other Canadian bloggers have written about "No Gun No Funeral"
Results will open in a new window.

Check out what other Canadian bloggers have written about Michael Bryant
Results will open in a new window.