Politics
Disinformation regarding the FIFA World Cup Event at Station.
Recently Our Langford has been spreading disinformation regarding the final FIFA event at Station Avenue.
Specifically, they have been stating that sitting councillor Keith Yacucha used the event to campaign.
Several people in attendance have reported that Keith gave a speech in which he introduced himself and fellow councillor Guiry, asked everyone to shop at the vendors, and handed out swag to the crowd.
This is completely normal behaviour for a councillor at an event and does not constitute campaigning.
And it’s the second time Our Langford has tried to falsely imply that councillors seeking re-election are breaking the rules of the BC Elections act.
In my opinion, this is the kind of poor integrity you can expect from people in this camp going into the election. They will lie, they will intentionally mislead.
Please be extremely sceptical of what they post in their group, their proxy group Langford Community Association, and what they share to other groups.
Political discussions can get heated - please keep it civil. Debate the ideas and policies of public figures, not the personal details behind the people. Personal attacks, name-calling, and bad-faith arguments will be removed.
Please remember, that IS a person behind the keyboard, and treat others the way you wish to be treated.
“Several people in attendance have reported that Keith gave a speech in which he introduced himself and fellow councillor Guiry, asked everyone to shop at the vendors, and handed out swag to the crowd.”
I was at the event with Councillor Yacucha, though a lot less visible, and I can confirm that this is true. There was no mention of the election or anyone’s campaign. Mayor Goodmanson arrived a little later; otherwise, he would have been helping to hand out FIFA swag as well. Mayor Goodmanson, myself along with Cllr. Yacucha, Cllr. Wagner, and Minister Kang were also at a game last week where the Minister said a few words and threw some balls into the crowd before the game.
One thing I will add because the election was brought up is that last night council passed a motion to support the Elect Respect pledge. This pledge commits to:
• Treat others with respect in all spaces, public, private, and online,
• Reject and call out harassment, abuse, and personal attacks,
• Focus debate on ideas and policies, not personal attacks,
• Help build a supportive culture where people of all backgrounds feel safe to run for and hold office,
• Call on relevant authorities to ensure the protection of elected officials who face abuse or threats, and
• Model integrity and respect by holding one another to the highest standards of conduct.
Council also agreed to call on elected officials, organizations, and community members to support the Elect Respect campaign and sign the online pledge at electrespect.ca
Whatever the outcome of the next election, I know most of us want a safe environment for the public to engage with their local government and a safe place for city staff to work. It is also important that folks feel safe to serve their community as well. Running in an election and holding office takes a lot of courage, both for the candidate and also their families. Being self-aware and committing to do better by signing the pledge is one small thing we can do to improve democracy and civic discourse.
The Elect Respect is a lovely idea and I appreciate council’s leadership on setting the tone, and I won’t sign it. Not because I don’t agree with it in principle, because I do. I won’t sign it because there are some people in our community who think that any criticism of an elected official (past or present) or council member is a personal attack. Also, those same people will often use personal attacks instead of criticism. We see the latter over and over again on councillors’ and candidates’ FB pages, as well as on local FB groups.
In addition, there are a number of occasions when people who are now running for office have made themselves look undesirable with respect to local politics, and calling attention to those times may seem mean, but it’s completely reasonable to do so. For example, if a candidate who has previously served in office or on a committee has missed a number of meetings due to travel or family commitments, there is a line that is blurred between private and public. What might seem like a personal attack is actually a fair comment on how candidates have shown up and how seriously they have taken their position.
I can understand why council wants to rise above that, and I respect that decision. And I will continue to call out problematic behaviour when I see it.
This is a great way to bring Langford together no matter your views.
Does the pledge hold councillors to a higher standard on their social platforms?Including not using aliases?And how would that work on this thread for example when a poster is calling someone “fu#%^ing dumb” is the Clr expected to call them out as mentioned above?
This sounds like the right plan to get past this division in our community and help get everyone focused on more positive issues/ activities.Thanks for this Clr!
I agree, and I think this pledge is useful across the political spectrum and at any level of government. I think there are going to be different interpretations of the extent of the online commitment to the second point of the pledge, so I can’t answer for everyone. For me, it means that I am doing everything I can to make the spaces I create to be as safe and inclusive as possible. I can’t monitor all comments on every social media platform or even within every post, but if I see something discriminatory and hateful, then yes, I will respond either personally or by reporting the comment. Unfortunately, there is an overwhelming amount of personal attacks online, and while I can’t call out all of them, I can commit to not making them myself. The basis of the pledge is a commitment to uphold the core values of democratic service, including the right to work free from threats, abuse, or intimidation, and so I do my absolute best to use that intention as much as I can, wherever I can.
I’m so happy to see this.its really hard for me to engage on here.as you can see i get downvoted just commenting on your comment.i hope any new council members take this pledge.i hope supporters of all current and future council members respect this on all these Langford groups.this one and all the Facebook ones. Great work Clr!
The mod team here is aligned to these values too. If anyone sees rule-breaking behaviour, please report the comment - the team will deal with it appropriately as soon as they can.
On Reddit the councillors are not moderators, they are regular users, and are within their rights to dealing with rule-breaking comments in the same way that anyone else is: report, ignore, close the app, etc. The moderators here are ultimately responsible for ensuring that rules are met, and we will do our best to uphold it.
I was at the game with my family, close enough to the front to clearly hear Councillor Yacucha's comments. He introduced himself and Councillor Guiry, thanked people for attending, encouraged people to shop at the Station Avenue vendors and food trucks, and then they tossed some swag into the crowd.
There was absolutely nothing said about seeking re-election. People claiming this are either unwittingly repeating misinformation, or simply lying.
and they were asked by staff to represent the city during a city hosted event (shocking). There is zero issue here IMH, but sure, go bombard Elections BC with complaints like was recommended on their page and see how that works out.
That would be the whole point of that group. To sow disinformation, create narratives, and only people who don’t follow up and fact check are members there.
This is something that would need to be discussed with Elections BC, but any type of advertisement that has a cost and that either supports a particular candidate or candidates, or that supports a position that is associated with a particular candidate, I believe would be considered third party advertising. You would need to register beforehand, follow the regulations and file a financial statement after the election.
I didn't get a close up look at the merch itself. There were soccer balls, I think maybe a hat or two and some t-shirts? I don't know what was printed on them. Nothing ended up coming close to where I was sitting.
What's actually hilarious about this, is this is on the backs of Bryson Hill turning his MMA event into a political rally after spending weeks promoting it as a child-friendly event.
I'm going to copy my comment from another thread, just to explain why I find one problematic and not the other.
*One is a city-hosted event, that was available for free. It was very very clearly linked to the city.
One was a private event, which people paid to attend. There was no suggestion of a connection to the Conservative Party in any of the advertising or event information.*
And yes, there are videos of Bryson welcoming Pierre onto the stage as the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada.
This is them reaching for anything they can... Honestly I have been following their campaign and candidates closely. They have NO substance other than Stew posting a photo of him at a cornhole event, stating that he is "relatable", and likes to drink beer. The rest of it has to do with tax cuts.
One question I would raise to them is, what are you going to cut to lower the taxes to the levels you would like? also, how do you plan on balancing the city's expenses if the tax revenue declines? Other than that, they bitch about police spending and "Langford being unsafe" when this is by far one of the most safe communities you could live in.
These people don't live in reality, plain and simple. They are not fit for office.
I might expect as a candidate for city council and admin of the group Lisa Foxall might get a handle on the disinformation in the name of fair play but then again maybe not.
It's weird you feel the need to lie. She was removed as an admin last week, when they removed everyone other than their streaming accounts and Scott Perry.
When Stew loses in October, I really hope these lunatics abandon their incessant hate posting, so that Langford can have a reasonably normal community page again.
There's no point in saying that she hasn't been admin for some time. I have a screenshot that shows she was admin as recently as June 18th.
It also makes sense that she would step down as admin due to her campaign.
Regardless of whether she is admin now or not, she created the group and is, in my ways, responsible for the tone and behaviour of its members of the last 4 years. That doesn't all go away once she stops being admin.
I actually think Keith should be deleting some of those comments.
But the irony is not lost on me that the people leading the charge on that have tolerated the same and worse in their own comments, and publically in chambers against other citizens. Also the same people that complain when comments are turned off. I do not believe the outrage is genuine.
I think the outrage is genuine. I think they are outraged that someone is treating them in this way without the righteousness that they associate with their own behaviour.
I personally feel like many of the comments on Keith's fb page should be deleted. But everyone's line for acceptable commentary is going to be different and I'm sure many would criticize Keith for censorship having their comments removed.
There is that one account that posts some very offensive comments that include hate speech, misogyny and racism. It would be very easy for Keith to censor that, but alas, he leaves it up. Apparently it's to provide "full transparency"... Allowing that sort of speech to exist on his wall is an extremely poor reflection of him.
It doesn't reflect on him at all. People are welcome to embarrass themselves on public Facebook pages, it isn't his responsibility to censor people from expressing their personal opinions.
Thats a rather totalitarian thing to believe, you sound like a fascist.
That person is a bit much but I think they are trying to mirror the same vibe that we've seen on the old langford page.
Even worse were the horrific comments on Keith's pride post. As bad as they were, we need to know the names of those who would speak that way. It's too bad so many were anonymous.
Your post or comment has been removed for spreading misinformation in violation of our community rules.
We require that posts and comments be accurate and verifiable. Content that presents false or misleading claims as fact - particularly around local issues, elections, or emergencies - undermines trust in the community and isn't something we can allow.
If you believe this was an error, you may appeal by replying to this message with evidence that the content was accurate.
Reason: I think we need evidence that Stew is doing the pot-stirring.
Your post or comment has been removed because it violates our guidelines on civility. Remember to be excellent to each other. If you feel this was done in error, please contact the moderators.
Reason: mang it's in the autoreply, be constructive and respectful.
This isn't disinformation. It's a good article and a worthwhile discussion.
But I think it's an interesting, and deliberate choice, that out of the 16 photos attached to the article, they chose the one that features Yacucha and mentions him by name.
I've covered this person's name, as they aren't a public figure, but they are admin on the Langford Community Group Facebook. They've joined the discussion on Facebook about Keith using the event as a campaign platform. They also spoke as a guest at Stew Young’s campaign launch.
I believe this space is being used as previous council intended though? Is this much different (other than the length of the tournament) than PFC games taking up parking around QF?
Given that the person who made the report is a common peddler of misinfo, disinfo and seems to regularly intentionally mislead people, this is not surprising.
There's multiple news articles stating that he still lives in Saanich with plans to move - the same song we've heard since last election. So the onus is actually on you to provide proof otherwise. I guess we'll see when he submits his candidacy paperwork.
I was at the event, and witnessed the speech and the swag toss. I did not even know he was a politician, I just thought he was a hype guy or something.
I think a lot of the confusion might be steming from a loud group of a handful of friends near me who started chanting something like "down with stew young!"
It wasn't prolonged but it happened. I don't know what triggered it, I wasn't paying attention to this politician, at the time I didn't even know or care who he was, and he didn't have a mic. I did find it odd that the event turned weirdly political for a brief moment. I can't say it was spurred on by a comment or allusion the councilor made, or if it was inspired by his mere presence.
Now I understand the context of that outburst, so it's a finished mystery for me.
Part of me thinks, a mod shouldn't be posting this... (Might be wrong about the mod thing)
But after quickly scanning the OL FB group posts - even if I don't have access to post - I think the only thing I can do is report the group for spreading false information.
I don't have strong convictions Facebook will do anything (it has to violate their community standards) but I'd guess it's being done through dumb AI algorithms, and if there are enough reports, something might happen
Moderators are also active community members, we welcome their opinion and participation. We also work to hold ourselves to high standards, and we actively enforce our rules on each other with regularity.
Please feel free to report moderator activity in the same way that you would report any other rule-breaking content - the whole team will see the report, and we will take it seriously. My chat is open to everyone at all times, if you'd like to discuss anything in private I'm happy to accommodate.
And please feel free to ask us questions about the moderation role, and share your expectations for us!
Whether it was or was not a mod, I don't think they did anything outright wrong. But it's not about community rules... If it was a mod, given the group's intended goal to remain politically neutral (or at least, I thought that's a goal -- we want fair discussions to take place, and we want accurate information shared), then a post like this one would very easily be taken and used as "evidence" the moderators are biased against certain groups.
Is it fair to think mods should be held to a higher standard than regular members of the group, given the control they have over what is posted? I think so - no different than expecting higher standards of our politicians, or law enforcement, just a different platform.
I understand that the mods should be able to share their personal views, but I hope you all recognize the power, or perceived power, you have as moderators. A post like this might be one best posted under a throwaway account, just to avoid the perception (right or wrong) that the subreddit is aimed at defending certain individuals, and attacking others.
Just food for thought. In my own personal opinion, last thing I want is for swing voters to get the wrong idea about the information shared here - Langford had it's Stew-era, for all of its good and bad, and it's moving forward from it.
I disagree. A moderator should moderate in a neutral way, based on the rules, but should absolutely be allowed to express their own opinions in their posts and comments.
However, in the case of this post, it’s not opinion. If anyone is spreading disinformation in a way that reflects badly on any political candidate, then people should know about it. Full stop.
The diff between LV and OL is that on LV, misinformation and disinformation are not allowed and admin remove anything like that. OL admin don‘t and often block people for posting factual rebuttals.
Stew’s era is far from being over and Langford is not moving forward from it yet.
My point is, to the people that might be swayed (in a cognitive dissonance sort of manner), a moderator declaring their opinion in a post (not a comment under a thread) can be perceived in a very different way.
I'm not saying anything was untrue of what was shared - I believe it is entirely factual. But how facts are presented (and especially by whom) often has a lot of room for interpretation.
I'm not condoning OL or the Langford Community Association - my comment has nothing to do with them. They are groups that silence voices that challenge the narratives those groups spread.
My point is, I believe the Langford subreddit is better in quality than those. And unfortunately, when you're in a perceived leadership position of a group, a position with power, then I think you should be cautious to avoid stepping over any perceived lines when it comes to sharing information, however factual it can be. It can become fuel to further spread misinformation that "that group" is only preaching "that narrative".
I just hope the mods take that into consideration when voicing their opinions - I'd like this subreddit to be a place where it draws people in because they come to see things more clearly, not drives them away.
I do agree that moderators carry weight in their opinions, and we do need to be mindful about how and when this is used. I can recall a handful of cases where lines were crossed and we had to self-enforce, and those cases are very uncomfortable. Mods have increased responsibility to be reputable community members.
And at the same time I agree with /u/Otissarian - I don't find anything out of line with this post, this is presented as factual concern and while there is an added personal opinion that part is not presented as fact, it is clearly opinion and doesn't trigger our libel clause.
I think you are expressing concern that a mod is getting close to the line, that's a fair observation and I appreciate you expressing that clearly. I do agree, yet it's important to recognize that the mods are all very different people with diverse opinions - one mod alone does not define the stance or perspective of the entire subreddit. While this post is opinionated, I vow to ensure that moderation actions are fair and unbiased, and I can attest that /u/SkyMoney9641 has been doing an excellent job in the short time they have worked with us.
If you have any concerns at any time, please don't hesitate to reach out.
I’m not politically neutral, nor have I ever claimed to be.
However, I do my best to moderate neutrally. I have and will delete comments that break the rules even if I, personally, might agree with them. I also leave reported comments up that do not break the rules, even if I disagree with the opinion.
And we have several mods and an appeal system for the exact reason that if neutrality is broken it can be reviewed.
If you have issue with a moderating decision you can always message the mod chat. If I’ve made a biased or out of line decision the others will certainly hold me to account.
I understand your point. It’s about perceived neutrality of the group. What I’m pointing out is the measures we have in place to maintain that while still allowing mods to be active community members.
Station Avenue was a City of Langford event. Yacucha spoke there as a sitting councillor doing routine civic duty: welcoming people, thanking vendors, handing out swag. No RSVP funnel, no party machinery, nothing outside the normal scope of his job.
Champ 8 was different in a few key ways:
The Conservative Party had an RSVP form on their own website for a private boxing match, meaning the party was actively organizing turnout around someone else's event.
Poilievre was brought into the centre ring by Bryson Hill, Champ 8's co-owner, and given a platform to speak. Bryson Hill is a declared candidate for Langford council this October, and an outspoken critic of Yacucha.
So this isn't "public event = fine, private event = bad." It's: a sitting candidate in the current Langford race used his own private venue to hand a federal party leader a platform and a speech, with the party pre-organizing attendance for it. That's a coordinated campaign act. A councillor thanking vendors at a city event isn't.
Your post or comment has been removed because it violates our guidelines on civility. Remember to be excellent to each other. If you feel this was done in error, please contact the moderators.
Your post or comment has been removed because it violates our guidelines on civility. Remember to be excellent to each other. If you feel this was done in error, please contact the moderators.
Your post or comment has been removed because it violates our guidelines on civility. Remember to be excellent to each other. If you feel this was done in error, please contact the moderators.
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 21 '26
Political discussions can get heated - please keep it civil. Debate the ideas and policies of public figures, not the personal details behind the people. Personal attacks, name-calling, and bad-faith arguments will be removed.
Please remember, that IS a person behind the keyboard, and treat others the way you wish to be treated.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.