5 November 2015

Greens MLA slams airport arms ads

| Charlotte
Join the conversation
34
rattenbury

As Greens MLA rather than with his ACT Government Ministerial cap on, Shane Rattenbury has today called on the Canberra Airport to remove arms industry advertising from its premises.

Mr Rattenbury is seeking support from the ACT Legislative Assembly for a motion on the issue after the No Airport Arms Ads presented a petition with 1500+ signatures to airport management.

However, as a privately operated business, the airport would not be obliged to change its advertising policy and forsake revenue from defence clients even if Mr Rattenbury’s motion were successful.

Advertisements for arms manusfacturers such as Raytheon, BAE, Lockheed Martin and ThyssenKrupps vie for the attention of passengers and other visitors to the airport, no doubt particularly targeting Federal MPs and senior public servants who make procurement decisions for the armed forces.

Mr Rattenbury said images of border patrol ships and other military images were confronting and unwelcoming.

“The Canberra Airport is a major gateway into our city, it is the first place people see when they land in the Nation’s Capital and it should be a place to celebrate and promote the range of beautiful assets Canberra has to offer,” he said.

He said the advertising did not represent the Canberra community nor reflect the image Canberrans want visitors to the city to see.

“These advertisements help to normalise warfare, present a sanitised image of what weapons do and are likely to be offensive and confronting to the many refugees Canberra welcomes every year from war-torn countries,” he said.

“Given that this year Canberra was officially declared a refugee welcome zone, it is simply not appropriate that those seeking refuge from war should be greeted upon arrival in Canberra with advertising that promotes warfare and armed violence.”

His motion calls on the Canberra Airport to recognise community concern about the ads and put something more welcoming and representative of Canberra in their place.

Join the conversation

34
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest
Blen_Carmichael1:47 pm 08 Nov 15

rubaiyat said :

Blen_Carmichael said :

gazket said :

what’s wrong with the advertising of elevators and planes at airports ?

more Labor Greens ban hammer .
You can’t go around ban hammering everything you think is not nice . This is a democracy. Green on the out side and proud red on the inside.

But Mr Rattenbury may have a mandate with those 1,500 signatures. That’s nearly 0.385 per cent of Canberra’s population.

That’s 10,000% more people than have signed up for CanTheTram and we know that THEY represent the Right Thinking people of Canberra.

I’ve seen those ads and I have also seen the same ones in the bus stops at Braddon and it doesn’t take a genius to figure that the US military lobbyists are trying to influence our Public Servants although it is so quaintly naïve to presume that Hawks catch buses.

Mr Rattenbury should have a word with Adshel.

These advertisements are designed to influence people? Good heavens, what next?

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

Skyring said :

HenryBG said :

It’s actually getting quite scary – making protests in a public place illegal because they don’t agree with the protesters; wanting to ban advertising because it’s not about pink fluffy clouds – we truly live in an asylum that is on the point of take-over…

Stifling open debate is just plain stupid. Rattenbury has no control over what ads the airport displays in its own buildings, and Rattenbury has no say on Federal weapons purchases.

He’s just expressing his opinion and hoping that people will think it means more than their own.

Rattenbury is still channelling his activist days with Greenpeace.

Misuse of a word which you are apparently unfamiliar but have heard and thought you understood what it meant.

You don’t channel yourself. It comes from the fake science of Mediums who channel spirits for the benefit of the gullible. Much like Lord Monkton channels fake science for the more impressionable out there.

I think I said he was channelling “activist days”, not himself.
Re climate comment, we have Lord Monckton, you have Tim Flannery.

Now see if I can spot the difference. Hmmm.

You obviously can’t.

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

Skyring said :

HenryBG said :

It’s actually getting quite scary – making protests in a public place illegal because they don’t agree with the protesters; wanting to ban advertising because it’s not about pink fluffy clouds – we truly live in an asylum that is on the point of take-over…

Stifling open debate is just plain stupid. Rattenbury has no control over what ads the airport displays in its own buildings, and Rattenbury has no say on Federal weapons purchases.

He’s just expressing his opinion and hoping that people will think it means more than their own.

Rattenbury is still channelling his activist days with Greenpeace.

Misuse of a word which you are apparently unfamiliar but have heard and thought you understood what it meant.

You don’t channel yourself. It comes from the fake science of Mediums who channel spirits for the benefit of the gullible. Much like Lord Monkton channels fake science for the more impressionable out there.

I think I said he was channelling “activist days”, not himself.
Re climate comment, we have Lord Monckton, you have Tim Flannery.

Now see if I can spot the difference. Hmmm.

You obviously can’t.

Is it just me or do other people have difficulty understanding what you are on about?

Blen_Carmichael said :

gazket said :

what’s wrong with the advertising of elevators and planes at airports ?

more Labor Greens ban hammer .
You can’t go around ban hammering everything you think is not nice . This is a democracy. Green on the out side and proud red on the inside.

But Mr Rattenbury may have a mandate with those 1,500 signatures. That’s nearly 0.385 per cent of Canberra’s population.

That’s 10,000% more people than have signed up for CanTheTram and we know that THEY represent the Right Thinking people of Canberra.

I’ve seen those ads and I have also seen the same ones in the bus stops at Braddon and it doesn’t take a genius to figure that the US military lobbyists are trying to influence our Public Servants although it is so quaintly naïve to presume that Hawks catch buses.

Mr Rattenbury should have a word with Adshel.

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

Skyring said :

HenryBG said :

It’s actually getting quite scary – making protests in a public place illegal because they don’t agree with the protesters; wanting to ban advertising because it’s not about pink fluffy clouds – we truly live in an asylum that is on the point of take-over…

Stifling open debate is just plain stupid. Rattenbury has no control over what ads the airport displays in its own buildings, and Rattenbury has no say on Federal weapons purchases.

He’s just expressing his opinion and hoping that people will think it means more than their own.

Rattenbury is still channelling his activist days with Greenpeace.

Misuse of a word which you are apparently unfamiliar but have heard and thought you understood what it meant.

You don’t channel yourself. It comes from the fake science of Mediums who channel spirits for the benefit of the gullible. Much like Lord Monkton channels fake science for the more impressionable out there.

I think I said he was channelling “activist days”, not himself.
Re climate comment, we have Lord Monckton, you have Tim Flannery.

Now see if I can spot the difference. Hmmm.

You obviously can’t.

Blen_Carmichael12:47 pm 02 Nov 15

gazket said :

what’s wrong with the advertising of elevators and planes at airports ?

more Labor Greens ban hammer .
You can’t go around ban hammering everything you think is not nice . This is a democracy. Green on the out side and proud red on the inside.

But Mr Rattenbury may have a mandate with those 1,500 signatures. That’s nearly 0.385 per cent of Canberra’s population.

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

Skyring said :

HenryBG said :

It’s actually getting quite scary – making protests in a public place illegal because they don’t agree with the protesters; wanting to ban advertising because it’s not about pink fluffy clouds – we truly live in an asylum that is on the point of take-over…

Stifling open debate is just plain stupid. Rattenbury has no control over what ads the airport displays in its own buildings, and Rattenbury has no say on Federal weapons purchases.

He’s just expressing his opinion and hoping that people will think it means more than their own.

Rattenbury is still channelling his activist days with Greenpeace.

Misuse of a word which you are apparently unfamiliar but have heard and thought you understood what it meant.

You don’t channel yourself. It comes from the fake science of Mediums who channel spirits for the benefit of the gullible. Much like Lord Monkton channels fake science for the more impressionable out there.

I think I said he was channelling “activist days”, not himself.
Re climate comment, we have Lord Monckton, you have Tim Flannery.

dungfungus said :

Skyring said :

HenryBG said :

It’s actually getting quite scary – making protests in a public place illegal because they don’t agree with the protesters; wanting to ban advertising because it’s not about pink fluffy clouds – we truly live in an asylum that is on the point of take-over…

Stifling open debate is just plain stupid. Rattenbury has no control over what ads the airport displays in its own buildings, and Rattenbury has no say on Federal weapons purchases.

He’s just expressing his opinion and hoping that people will think it means more than their own.

Rattenbury is still channelling his activist days with Greenpeace.

Misuse of a word which you are apparently unfamiliar but have heard and thought you understood what it meant.

You don’t channel yourself. It comes from the fake science of Mediums who channel spirits for the benefit of the gullible. Much like Lord Monkton channels fake science for the more impressionable out there.

dukethunder said :

The most disturbing apect of Rattenbury of late is he acts like he’s Chief minister. At least Katy gave the impression the ALP were in control. Its abhorrent that this man can prosecute his prejudice and agenda without any respect for all ACT residents. Pretty sure this is how gaddafi started *

*jokes- pls don’t get all uber guardian on me 🙂

Gaddafi was doing a better job until Obama mentioned “the Arab Spring”.

With all the people running screaming in circles I thought it would be advisable to look under my bed.

But nah! No Greens with big pointy teeth!

I’m beginning to lose my faith in this website as the go to place for deeply considered and informed insights.

What’s the betting Rattenbury would be all for freedom of expression if Hizbut Ut Tahreeri were to attempt to pay for advertising at Canberra Airport .. and Canberra Airport declined …

The most disturbing apect of Rattenbury of late is he acts like he’s Chief minister. At least Katy gave the impression the ALP were in control. Its abhorrent that this man can prosecute his prejudice and agenda without any respect for all ACT residents. Pretty sure this is how gaddafi started *

*jokes- pls don’t get all uber guardian on me 🙂

Skyring said :

HenryBG said :

It’s actually getting quite scary – making protests in a public place illegal because they don’t agree with the protesters; wanting to ban advertising because it’s not about pink fluffy clouds – we truly live in an asylum that is on the point of take-over…

Stifling open debate is just plain stupid. Rattenbury has no control over what ads the airport displays in its own buildings, and Rattenbury has no say on Federal weapons purchases.

He’s just expressing his opinion and hoping that people will think it means more than their own.

Rattenbury is still channelling his activist days with Greenpeace.

HenryBG said :

It’s actually getting quite scary – making protests in a public place illegal because they don’t agree with the protesters; wanting to ban advertising because it’s not about pink fluffy clouds – we truly live in an asylum that is on the point of take-over…

Stifling open debate is just plain stupid. Rattenbury has no control over what ads the airport displays in its own buildings, and Rattenbury has no say on Federal weapons purchases.

He’s just expressing his opinion and hoping that people will think it means more than their own.

Complaining about an advertising campaign, especially if you’re a politician with an audience, is the last thing you want to do. All it means is that even more people will look at the ads.

Granted, the Greens don’t like the ads, but they aren’t in Defence, they aren’t buying weapon systems, they aren’t the target audience.

gazket said :

what’s wrong with the advertising of elevators and planes at airports ?

more Labor Greens ban hammer .
You can’t go around ban hammering everything you think is not nice . This is a democracy. Green on the out side and proud red on the inside.

It’s actually getting quite scary – making protests in a public place illegal because they don’t agree with the protesters; wanting to ban advertising because it’s not about pink fluffy clouds – we truly live in an asylum that is on the point of take-over…

what’s wrong with the advertising of elevators and planes at airports ?

more Labor Greens ban hammer .
You can’t go around ban hammering everything you think is not nice . This is a democracy. Green on the out side and proud red on the inside.

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

I prefer the offending advertisements instead.

Offending?
I find huge images of our civilisation’s advanced weapons systems including warships patrolling our seas to be a source of comfort that gives me a sense of security.

Maybe Rattenbury needs do some research into the images coming out of the “multicultural” middle-east in order to find out the true meaning of “confronting and unwelcoming”?

I am with you 100% on that Henry – my using of the word “offending” was only for the benefit of those who find it so.

You could, instead, challenge why we have to have the ads at all.

Alternatively, do as my sister did many years ago. She hired a railway hoarding adjoining a road/railway link between Hawthorn and Richmond in Melbourne. Her sign stated “Hoardings are hideous”. Needless to say the railways cancelled her contract within about half a day but A for effort.

As long as it’s not sexist, racist, likely to cause accidents (like the Melbourne hoarding ad which had an attractive female whose dress flapped, distracting drongo male drivers), or against the law, let the market decide. If the 1500+ petitioners can afford to pay for an ad under market conditions, then let them. Otherwise, let the rest of us live our lives without the approaching silly season being brought forward to suit these political police.

dungfungus said :

I prefer the offending advertisements instead.

Offending?
I find huge images of our civilisation’s advanced weapons systems including warships patrolling our seas to be a source of comfort that gives me a sense of security.

Maybe Rattenbury needs do some research into the images coming out of the “multicultural” middle-east in order to find out the true meaning of “confronting and unwelcoming”?

MERC600 said :

Why stop with advertising. Have airport users wearing military uniform segregated from other passengers in case they upset Mr Rattenbury.

The situation in most other countries is that soldiers with machine guns patrol the airports and waste bins consist of bin frames only with clear plastic bags and surveillance cameras everywhere (including toilets).
It is bound to happen here too, soon.
I prefer the offending advertisements instead.

I can’t afford to fly so I don’t care what’s advertised at the airport. Methinks Rattenbury is letting his “success” with light rail go to his head. Tail wagging the dog and now he has to ramp up his performance to show next year’s contenders he’s a tough guy. D’uh!

Have to wonder if this was the point all along.
Get the airport to show a few passengers some weapons etc, wait for it to explode online with 1500+ volunteers to promote it and then cash in as all the punters book flights while thinking about the controversy.
Win win for the companies and airport.

If so fairly brilliant.

If this is bothering Mr Rattenbury he has too much time on his hands. I personally object to the weird ‘go veg’ ad at the airport (if it’s still there) and don’t think that weirdo view ‘represents the Canberra community or reflect the image Canberrans what visitors to see.’ But it was a free country last time I looked.

Where’s our fast light rail to Sydney?

I find it amazing that the companies think they get a return from this form of advertising. Can be found at a number of bus stops as well.

Blen_Carmichael6:04 pm 28 Oct 15

I’m sure some of those transited through Canberra Airport found this promotion offensive (their problem). Please refer to them to Mr Rattenbury’s office.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/exclusive-canberra-airport-lights-up-in-a-rainbow-to-greet-mps-flying-in-for-parliament-ahead-of-marriage-equality-bill–20150808-giutzl.html

Ah, Ratface and watermelon party supporters showing how irrelevant they are yet again. What a surprise. I guess it is something other than chanting “climate change” constantly. There are bigger fish to fry, and you and the rest of your comrades are a waste of space. The results of the last ACT election show that you, your party and your silly ideals were rejected by the majority.

Aerospace companies advertising at an airport. How dare they.

Instead of focusing on warplanes the mayor should get active on pollution from airliners:
http://www.flyingclean.com/impacts_airplane_pollution_climate_change_and_health
Hey, what was he doing at an airport anyhow? Not using one of those emission belchers, surely!

1500 people who have too much time on their hands and need to go find themselves a new hobby rather than wandering the streets looking for the most insignificant things to whinge about.

Rattenbury is just wasting taxpayers money requesting the Assembly concern themselves about a picture of a boat or submarine in an airport. The most appropriate place to file the petition is in the bin.

Ratts got straight on to this crime against humanity. I can only remember this advertising being around for about twenty years.

It seems that if you are a refugee from a “war-torn country”, advertising at Canberra Airport will likely be the least of your problems when you find yourself on Mannus Island, or similar.

Shane, give us a break. What do you think all those people on Russel Hill, Duntroon, ADFA, and Campbell Park do all day? Not to mention the offices of the organisations advertised in theses glossy “sanitised images”. Certainly not sit around and contemplate the image of Canberra.

If this is the best you can come up with, please hand in your Assembly pass.

wildturkeycanoe4:37 pm 28 Oct 15

What would these 1500 odd protesters like to see instead, half naked bikini clad women modelling soft drink? How about silly pictures of random stuff that is supposed to mean something that promotes one of the four big banks and their “generous” interest rates?
There are advertising standards to govern what can and can’t be shown, so if the signs are approved by this governing body I don’t see a problem.
I find the political advertising come election time to be a lot more offensive than some glossy pics of our proud military assets. Perhaps the people entering our airport will have an appreciation of the might our defense forces wield and it may even deter future terrorists and enemies of Australia.

Why stop with advertising. Have airport users wearing military uniform segregated from other passengers in case they upset Mr Rattenbury.

As soon as I saw these ads I realised they were directed towards politicians, and bureaucrats in Defence and Finance. This impression was reinforced by the fact that they were above the Qantas baggage carousel – Qantas being the airline used by bureaucrats – and that the ads at the Virgin carousel are non-arms ads. It seems strange to be spending so much on ads *not* directed at the general buying public. Surely the arms companies have lobbyists in Canberra which would make these ads unnecessary and a waste of money.

house_husband2:39 pm 28 Oct 15

If Rattenbury feels so strongly about it then why doesn’t he and the 1500+ people chip in some of their own money and pay for “appropriate” advertising?

Also when my family came to Australia from post WW1 Europe fleeing fascism I know they had no problems with the Australian military being equipped well enough to help stop the Axis powers.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.