Pubdate: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 Source: Peterborough Examiner, The (CN ON) Copyright: 2003 Osprey Media Group Inc. Contact: http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2616 APPLY TO GANGS AS NEEDED Fortress Bylaw Editorial - The city's new fortress bylaw is intended to shut the door on biker gangs and other criminal organizations that try to build barricades against police. That's a worthwhile precaution. No gang has tried to build Fort Kawartha here yet, but with the Hell's Angels stepping up their activity in Ontario it could happen. Drugs, prostitution and extortion -- the building blocks of a successful biker franchise -- are as profitable here as anywhere. In fact, local Satan's Choice bikers had a clubhouse near Park and Wolfe streets in the '80s that probably would have violated some of the new bylaw restrictions on covered doors and other "excessive fortification." But while blocking gangs from blocking out police is a worthy goal, the potential problem with the bylaw is obvious. It is aimed at preventing a specific action by a narrowly defined group, something the courts frown on when considering whether laws are fair and reasonable. Of course, that's not how the framers of the bylaw would describe its intention. And by "framers" we are not talking about City Hall staff. It is based on a model developed by the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police and already adopted by several other cities. Lawyers who developed the wording knew what they were up against, and have tried to build in protection against claims that the bylaw discriminates against one group while allowing others to protect themselves. Most notable are the repeated references to prohibition on anything intended to "restrict, obstruct or impede law enforcement officers and/or emergency services personnel." If you aren't trying to keep the police out, you're OK. At the same time, businesses like banks and trust companies that require some measure of fortification are exempted, along with detention centres and lands or buildings owned by police departments and the armed forces. So far so good. But then the ground gets softer. All other businesses and homeowners are also exempted from the bylaw "but only to the extent necessary" for protection of whatever they do, or have, on the property. Now we are into the grey area of judgment calls and justifications. Who's to say that a homeowner doesn't really need bars on windows or bullet-proof glass to make her feel safe, or a laser-optic detection system, or surveillance cameras that allow someone approaching from off the property to be watched? All are specifically banned in the bylaw, but the law-abiding owner of a home or business who wants the security of those measures should be free to install them. We would expect police to recognize that right. Deputy Chief Ken Jackman says that will be the case, that "common sense" will be used when deciding who can do what under the bylaw. In this case the definition of common sense should be broad enough to allow virtually any security measure on private property as long as it doesn't present a danger to anyone else. But interpreting the "extent necessary" provision that broadly could cause problems if a real biker fortress has to be dealt with. Gangs could make the argument that if a high-tech surveillance system and bullet proof glass are reasonable protection for one, they are reasonable protection for all, not an attempt to keep out police. We expect those arguments will remain academic and the bylaw won't have to be enforced. But just in case, the city's policy should be clear. Allow homeowners and businesses to take whatever security measures they believe necessary. Apply the restrictions vigorously to gangs or organizations with a criminal history. If bikers or gangs that run marijuana grow houses don't like it, let the courts decide who is right. - --- MAP posted-by: Larry Stevens