Taber’s Community Standards Bylaw

When this bylaw hit the news, I was approached by a lot of people who wanted me to hear their opinion, and a few who wanted to hear mine.

Background – "The Mennonite Problem"

In Taber, we have a very high population of Mexican Mennonites. They value hard work and close family. The Mexican Mennonites and a distinctive style and way of life that makes them visibly different from other Taberites. We aren't all that different in truth, but our differences breed distrust and fear. They don't integrate into the rest of Taber's society, choosing instead to segregate themselves into their own Mennonite schools, and observing their own holidays in addition to our own. The lack of integration and lack of understanding going both ways has a tendency to perpetuate itself through the actions of individuals. Someone will say something along the lines of "Those Mennos are at it again," and the Mennonites will say something along the lines of "Those Gringos are at it again." We just keep offending each other and making the situation worse. I'm sure that a few generations down the line, this problem will be a thing of the past, but right now it's a legitimate social problem.
I'm certainly no sociologist, and there may be people who disagree with me. I can think of one person in particular who has a degree in Sociology that has expressed interest in reading my post, so I'm hoping my opinions turn out to be intelligent ones. When you speak to the more mainstream Taberites, they often speak of "The Mennonite Problem." This isn't meant to be ignorant or bigoted, as some of these people are very intelligent, tolerant, and friendly. The Mennonite Problem is that the Mennonite youth tends to congregate in public areas on Sunday afternoons after Church in large numbers. Not a problem, right? In fact, all Canadians have the guaranteed right to peaceful assembly under Section 2(c) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There are 2 aspects to the actual problem at hand. The first aspect is that this is a large group of youths, which in all cultures has a tendency to act without respect, seek immediate gratification, often in the form of physical or chemical pleasures, and leave a mess behind when it leaves. The second aspect of the problem is that there is a large group of people we don't understand taking up space in our parks, parking lots, and other public areas. Because we don't understand them, we are uncomfortable joining them, and that affects our own enjoyment of those facilities.
The Mennonite Problem has been widely talked about throughout Taber. I'm probably the first person to put the words "Mennonite Problem" in writing because everyone is afraid of being seen as a bigot. We could probably come up with a better name for it, but that's what the layman is calling it behind closed doors. I haven't approached the Taber Police Service (TPS – including Bylaw Services) for any official position and I have not been authorized by them to speak on their behalf, but I'm going to comment based on my own observations. TPS has been under a lot of pressure from the community to "deal" with the Mennonite Problem. That's a pretty open-ended directive, isn't it? Does that mean to drive the Mennonites out of town? They are Canadian Citizens, and are also protected by Section 6(2)(a) of the Charter of Rights, which says any Canadian can live in any municipality they choose. Stop them from meeting in large numbers? No, we're back to Section 2(c) of the Charter. There is nothing wrong with their being here and hanging out in public areas. The only actual problem is the way they behave when they assemble. That problem isn't because they're Mennonites, it's because it's a large group of unsupervised young people.

Solving the Mennonite Problem

Of course, TPS has some tools available to address the behaviour of the Mennonites. Section 175(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code says

175. (1) Every one who

• (a) not being in a dwelling-house, causes a disturbance in or near a public place,
  • (i) by fighting, screaming, shouting, swearing, singing or using insulting or obscene language,

is guilty of an offence…
    There are also several criminal laws in place for dealing with drinking, spitting, urinating, and damaging property. Now, imagine that you're the police officer on duty, and you head over to the Community Centre because it's Sunday and you know there's going to be a large assembly of young Mennonites hanging out. Given the demographic, there's very likely to be some individuals within that group that are drinking, fighting, yelling, swearing, urinating, spitting, or just generally looking for trouble. Is it really worth reading the Riot Act to disperse the entire crowd? The innocent ones will likely go home, or they'll go looking for trouble because they've been unfairly treated. The troublemakers are just going to go cause trouble elsewhere. Is it actually going to be productive to sift through this crowd, picking one or two out of it and charging them criminally for getting a little wild while hanging out with their friends? That means you have to detain them, investigate fully, collect witness statements (what are the odds the witnesses are going to be cooperative?), and issue a Summons to Criminal Court next Tuesday. Then you're going to have to go through the trouble of criminal court proceedings for something that's actually pretty minor when you think about it. It seems a little excessive, doesn't it?
    TPS needed another tool in their toolbox for dealing with The Mennonite Problem, because the answer is not criminal charges. Council was also feeling the same pressure that TPS was feeling, and had actually been contributing to a lot of the pressure on TPS. The people in Taber wanted a solution to The Mennonite Problem. In response to this need, Council passed the Community Standards Bylaw, which is kind of an omnibus bylaw that combines Taber's already existing bylaws for curfew, noise, panhandling, loitering, and graffiti. It added to it a bylaw infraction for Disturbing the Peace, which gives police the ability to write a bylaw ticket to the offending person, rather than drag them through the criminal court system.

Media Coverage

    Where Council made their biggest mistake with this bylaw was by allowing the Taber Times to write the story about it without any help, or prepared statements. Mayor Henk DeVlieger is quoted as saying "I'm not saying this thing is perfect, but I think we should give it a chance and try it out, and let the police work with it. After a period of time, we might make some adjustments, but let's see how it works." I agree with the spirit of what His Worship is trying to convey, but the feeling of "It's not quite right, but let's pass the bylaw anyways" isn't going to sit well with residents of Taber. Trevor Busch wrote a very good article, which reported the facts straight down the middle. Council lacked the foresight to provide the Times with a press release, explaining the bylaw. Now, Busch's well-written article has been getting the attention of Global News, the National Post, the Herald, and so many others who are going to spin it way out of context. The next mistake made by Council was naming it the Community Standards Bylaw, which just screams "We have the power, and we will control what you do. Welcome to the Nanny State of Taber." The last is combining all these bylaws into one, which seems like a good idea on the surface, but causes panic when combined with the other two mistakes.

Resident Concerns

    Now, I have been seeing and hearing so many concerns. None of them are actually founded, but the wording of the bylaw leaves a lot up to the discretion of TPS. For the administration of law enforcement, it's always best to keep the wording open-ended and leave as much as possible up to the discretion of the attending officer. That way, they can deal with a wider range of problems without unnecessarily complicated jargon. However, the open-endedness of the bylaw's language is leaving everyone very uncomfortable. Here is a cross section of the concerns I've been hearing:

brilang says:

MARCH 10, 2015 AT 12:06 PM

Portions of this bylaw will be struck down at the first court challenge. It contravenes Section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms several different ways.
1. "No person shall yell, scream, or swear in any public place" contravenes Freedom of Speech
2. "No person shall be a member of the assembly of three or more persons in any public place where a peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe the assembly will disturb the peace of the neighbourhood, and any such person shall disperse as requested by a peace officer" contravenes Freedom of Peaceful Assembly

Sorry Taber, but you cannot regulate what people say, or think. Only what they do.

What "brilang" is missing is that we have no "Freedom of Speech". Section 2(b) of the Charter protects freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication. Also, that if a peace officer truly has reasonable grounds to believe the assembly with disturb the peace, that it is no longer a Peaceful Assembly, and is not and should not be protected.

"I'm a loud talker/Kids make noise in my backyard/Cornfest is pretty noisy"

The administration of the Noise part of the bylaw is up to the officer at the scene. If your kids are making noise, he's probably not going to care. I think there has been a bylaw to this effect on the books for quite some time, and there have been very few issues with how it's been handled in the past. I haven't actually researched it, but I'm pretty sure damn near every municipality has a similar bylaw in effect. Police and bylaw officers need a tool to deal with legitimate noise complaints. Maybe the wording could be a little better?

"It's a cash grab"

Without actually consulting the act, my understanding of the Municipal Government Act is that the municipality has only 2 punitive actions available to them. Fines, and solving the problem for you and sending you the bill. Again, most of these rules were already in place, and most of us didn't even notice. The purpose is not to increase revenue, it's to give the police an effective tool.

"I swear a lot"

Control it in public. It's just decent. No police officer in his right mind is going to be walking through a crowd at Cornfest and write someone a ticket for dropping the "F" bomb in a casual conversation. This is for when someone is really getting out of hand and needs to be told to shut up. Again, the open-ended wording give the police a lot of room for interpretation, and that's what makes people uncomfortable.

Ty's Bottom Line

I feel that this new bylaw can be an effective tool, but like all tools, it can also be misused. Just like a screwdriver can be used as a shiv, this bylaw can be used by an officer having a bad day to treat people unfairly. I think the people of Taber would feel much better if the wording was tightened to leave a little less to the discretion of police officers, but that also might decrease the bylaw's effectiveness. Dulling a knife so no one gets cut just leaves you with a dull knife. We need to place a certain amount of trust in our police officers, and our police officers need to continue to strive for worthiness of that trust.

Resources

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/FullText.html

http://taber.ca/DocumentCenter/View/1006

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html

http://www.tabertimes.com/news/2015/03/04/community-standards-bylaw-passed/

https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=taber+bylaw&safe=off&tbm=nws

Court of Law versus The Media

Welcome to the Free World.

Over so many generations, people have fought, lobbied, compromised, died, and voted to create what we call "rights". These rights are the foundation of western society, spanning most famously back to the Magna Carta, and more recently the American Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Now, what do you do when exercising your rights causes someone else harm or infringes upon their rights? I have been noticing a pattern lately, and I have no idea what to do about it. Ever since I found a method of making my opinions public, I have been a critic of the media. The pen truly is mightier than the sword, but how do you get the media to sheathe that pen? There have been several instances in our lifetime of the media destroying lives, most recently George Zimmerman and gun seizures following the flood in High River. There were also several cases of police officers under fire over use of Conductive Energy Weapons (Tasers).



George Zimmerman killed a kid named Trayvon Martin. It was an awful thing that happened, and Zimmerman has to learn to live with what he's done. He was acquitted of his charges, which means that the Court of Law found him not criminally responsible for the kid's death. He may still be morally responsible, but that's between him and his own conscience. The media jumps right on top of this by giving so much airtime to people who disagree with the verdict. The entire populace seems to be up in arms that he was found Not Guilty. There's a pretty good chance that you have an opinion on the verdict yourself, but make sure you came to the conclusion through appropriate means. Did you read all the Court transcripts? Did you examine the evidence and witness testimony? Do you actually have training and experience in making sense of these things? Or, do you have an admittedly uneducated opinion swayed by the media? Even though the Court of Law found Zimmerman to be in the clear criminally, the media was swayed the Court of Public Opinion to find him guilty anyways, and he will never be able to show his face where he might be recognized again. To make it worse, the media has pretty much ensured that everyone in North America knows Zimmerman's face. During the Zimmerman trial, some white lady kidnapped a black kid and burned him to death with a blowtorch. That didn't get very much attention, but the Zimmerman trial sure did.



Another high profile case of the media swaying the Court of Public Opinion was the death of Robert Dziekanski. These officers that were called to deal with this situation had very little information. They knew there was a guy who was causing a disturbance, and they may have had the information that he probably wasn't armed. They showed up to a guy screaming things they couldn't understand, and throwing stuff around. He was obviously not in a state where he was capable of intelligent communication. The police who showed up on scene used a universal sign for "stop doing what you're doing," They pointed weapons at him and started yelling at him to get on the ground. He didn't calm down, so making the snap decision that it wasn't safe to approach into a reachable zone, they deployed their CEW to incapacitate Dziekanski so that they could control him. There were all sorts of theories thrown about surrounding his death, but if I recall correctly, his actual cause of death was some sort of cardiac distress. The problem was not the deployment of the CEW. The problem was not the responding officers beating him to death. The problem wasn't even Positional Asphyxiation (when a suspect is left restrained on his front and cannot breathe), which seemed very possible because 4 officers were restraining him. In hindsight, could it have been done differently? Probably. Did the officers make the best decision they could with the information available to them? I have very little doubt. Is it unfortunate what happened to Dziekanski? Immeasurably so. The media started jumping all over not just the officers, but the use of CEW's, too. Every officer that uses a CEW has to go through training, which involves having a CEW used on him/her. If it was really that dangerous, that practice probably would cease, as we don't use guns on each other in training. A police officer's duty belt has on it: a gun with which they can kill you, OC spray to burn the shit out of your face, and a baton to beat you into submission. If I'm ever out of control, I pray that they use the CEW to disable me instead of the other tools on their belts.


While managing the near destruction of my hometown of High River, someone decided to send inspectors into every building in town to grade its habitability level before people were let back in. You can't just send inspectors into people's homes, so they were accompanied by Mounted Police officers. There is still a lot of controversy surrounding this whole situation with more information coming to light every day, like a lot of houses were left unlocked, but Mounties kicked in the doors anyways, without taking the time to check the doorknob. While checking out houses, the police seized a lot of firearms from unoccupied residences, citing a need to secure unsecured weapons. That makes sense to me, right? The police destroyed your door, which had secured your weapons. Now that they've caused your weapons to be unsecured, they secured them for you. It definitely seems to me that this decision was made for the right reasons. However, the media gets a hold of it, and it becomes a huge issue about unreasonable search and seizure, and even got as ridiculous as disarmament under a Police State, which is just stupid.

The purpose of my writing this blog entry was not to get people involved in the debate of each individual issue. I cited these issues and my opinions on them simply to illustrate what can happen when the media stops reporting the whole story, and swirls everything into a huge controversy to sell newspapers/web hits. This is not a call to legislate how the media reports stories. That would be government censorship, and that's wrong. I do want to call on all major media outlets to keep reporting every side of the story equally, rather than just the side of the story that's going to rile up the most people. That is the difference between responsible journalism and disrupting the peace.

Opinions

We are currently living in a society that thinks its members has the right to speak their mind, but they do not. Our Charter Right to freedom of speech only means that we cannot be prosecuted by the criminal justice system. Sharing your opinion publicly will often lead to persecution in the court of public opinion, and can lead to dishonour, unemployment, and loss of social status. I think this is total crap.

I feel that everyone is entitled to their opinion. This entitlement should apply to every opinion, no matter how inappropriate, uneducated, or offensive. Speaking your opinion in a public setting invariably is an invitation for everyone to express their own on the topic. This is how we learn about the works around us, and it is a good thing. What is not a good thing is when the lynch mob tries to ruin your life over it.