To be sure, election signs are just another form of advertising. Granted, in Canadian and B.C. political campaigns they have evolved into rather plain, single-slogan placards. They urge you to sure you know what candidate is attached to what party in your riding, and hope that repetition pounds those simple connections into your voting consciousness. So, it seems natural on some level that candidates would try to target demo-graphic groups who speak languages other than English. During the last civic election, school board candidate signs, most notably, targeted Chinese-reading voters. Did it work? It's hard to say.
But, we sympathize with Mr. Gill, who, on page 3, voices his concerns over one NDP candidate's decision to run English with Chinese signs. While Janet Routledge is clearly targeting the largest group of other-than-English speaking voters, she does run the risk of looking like she is pandering to one group and ignoring others. And then there's the potential to alienate the only-English speaking voters - particularly those who believe that if you come to Canada you should converse and communicate in at least one of the national languages.
One is quickly reminded about the brouhaha last month when the City of Richmond had to deal with a petition asking the city to ensure that store signs in that city had an English translation on the largely Asian-language signs. The petitioners felt excluded from businesses, as they had no idea what the signs said, and city council refused to legislate any such rules.
Routledge deftly avoids becoming entangled in any of the potentially emotional and divisive arguments that the sign issue could trigger. We are sure the NDP has not taken this decision lightly, and has weighed the risks of alienating some voters with the potential rewards of winning over others. In a tight race, it may make all the difference.
