Bureaucratic Agencies Reach ‘Compromise’ on Victoria Tobacco Signs

A ludicrous bureaucratic logjam involving Victoria’s Old Morris Tobacconist shop was broken this week in the form of an awkward compromise between City of Victoria heritage planners and the Vancouver Island Health Authority.

In recent weeks, Old Morris Tobacconist owner, Rick Arora, found himself between a rock and a hard place as health officials threatened to fine him up to $5,000 for his store’s outdoor signs, which allegedly “advertise” tobacco products in a public place. The problem was that removal of these signs, which have been in place since 1910, would have violated municipal rules against “altering a heritage building” (punishable with fines of up to $1-million).

After the story received media attention earlier this week, the relevant government agencies were forced to have a meeting and reach a solution. Mr. Arora gets to keep his “Tobacconist” sign over the main entrance to his store, but must cover up another sign promoting “house blends” and “Havana cigars.”

This sounds like a reasonable, relatively inoffensive compromise solution. But it’s not.

The fundamental problem with this arrangement is that two bureaucratic agencies got to “compromise” on a solution, while a private business owner who actually owns the store was given no say whatsoever.

Government bodies created the problem in the first place, and government bodies spent taxpayers’ money to “solve” it, while ignoring the only individual with legitimacy to make a decision. Such is the nature of the modern-day social democratic state.

In theory, I fully support covenants protecting heritage buildings, provided that property owners give their voluntary consent that they and all future owners will cooperate with given restrictions (potentially lowering the property value). In the case of a truly exceptional building or landmark, members of the public should raise money to incentivize owners to sign such a contract.

In the case of our provincial Tobacco Control Act, however, the government is violating natural property rights plain and simple. Private businesses should be able to set their own regulations with regard to both tobacco use (indoors or outdoors) and tobacco signs.

Do legislators really think that banning a sing promoting “house blends” and “Havana cigars” will prevent teenagers from smoking? Anyone who has actually been a teenager knows that the forbidden fruit is the most tantalizing. Marijuana, and signs promoting it, are totally illegal throughout Canada, and yet, this drug “herb, bearing seed” (Genesis 1:29) is more popular than tobacco among young people today.

It is parents and other concerned citizens, not the state, who are responsible for ensuring that children understand the dangers of addictive substances. Adults, meanwhile, should be completely aware of those dangers, and are free to make their own decisions on the matter.

Private businesses, as well, should be able to set their own regulations based on the will of their customers. If the majority of the public is averse to smoking (which seems to be the case), then public smoking will gradually be phased out in accordance with free market principles.

Government regulation of tobacco usage and signage has absolutely no place in a free and democratic society.

Trapster: Avoid Speeding Tickets with Your Cell Phone

I don’t often plug products on this site, but the other day I came across an innovative mobile software application that combines social networking with citizen cooperation, and actually has the potential to be quite useful.

I speak of course of Trapster, a handy new service for smartphones (think BlackBerry, iPhone, Windows Mobile, etc.) that allows drivers to share information about police speed traps in real time. Once installed, it’s easy to use – just dial #1 on your keypad whenever you see police radar by the side of the road – and will cause your phone to beep as you approach hiding cops, thus warning you to slow down and avoid a ticket.

And with the current legal state of affairs, speeding tickets aren’t the only thing to worry about. All of Canada and every U.S. state except New Hampshire has seatbelt laws in effect, forcing citizens to buckle up or pay up (and in some cases, go to jail). Ontario, meanwhile, is on the verge of passing legislation to restrict smoking in vehicles, and numerous states and provinces have implemented bans on cell phone use when behind the wheel.

Trapster shouldn’t be seen as an encouragement to speed, drive recklessly, or be stupid behind the wheel (don’t abandon your common sense), but it will provide you with a nice little safety reminder from time to time, minus the ~$150 fine. Most importantly, Trapster recognizes the role of your common sense in determining what safety precautions to take, rather than leaving all the decisions to the state.

Of course, the very idea that individuals might have enough common sense to make their own decisions can be quite terrifying for government. Therefore, I wouldn’t be surprised if criminalizing Trapster is next on their agenda.

In the U.S., this service is probably quite safe from a legal standpoint, given that the flashing of headlights to warn of a police speed trap has been ruled protected speech under the First Amendment. But in Canada, where free speech is effectively non-existent and seven out of ten provinces have criminalized radar detectors, I wouldn’t be surprised to see services like Trapster banned from use.

Such an edict would be very difficult to enforce, of course… But nevertheless, download it while you can.

Victoria Police Officers Guilty of “Cruel and Unusual Punishment,” Says Jury

Willow Kinloch, a teenager arrested and hogtied by Victoria City police in May 2005, has been awarded $60,000 in damages for false imprisonment and cruel and unusual punishment by a BC Supreme Court jury.

Although I cringe on behalf of local taxpayers, I must ultimately lend my support to Ms. Kinloch, given the outrageous facts of this case. Having observed the proceedings of this trial at the Victoria Law Courts over the past 10 days, I am of the opinion that the police constables involved in this case made all the wrong choices at every juncture.

Ms. Kinloch was arrested at around midnight on May 6, 2005, and freely admits that she was drunk at the time. She apparently provided her address to the arresting officers who could have made the compassionate choice and taken her home (just three blocks away). Instead, they booked her into police cells for about four hours, after which she was described as “calm, cooperative, and sober.”

At this point, police officers drove Kinloch to her apartment, but arrived at the wrong entrance to the building and refused to let her out of their vehicle, then drove back to the police station without giving her access to a police cell phone (which they carried as a matter of necessity, despite our city’s $17.5 million dollar investment in the ineffective CREST police radio system.)

Police constables then re-booked Ms. Kinloch into custody claiming that she was a “child in need.” After expressing her frustration with this, Kinloch was thrown against a cell wall, taken to the ground by two officers each more than twice her size, then handcuffed, bound at the ankles, and tied to the cell door. All of the officers involved finished their shifts a little over half an hour later, then headed for home without so much as a thought for the “child in need” they had tied and abandoned a few minutes before.

One constable later testified that Kinloch was left in a “safe” and “comfortable” environment. On cross-examination he admitted that she remained tied up on a hard cement floor for about four hours, and that this “wasn’t like a sofa chair.”

Police defended their actions claiming that if they hadn’t forcefully restrained the 5-foot-tall, 100 lbs. teenager, they might later have needed shields, riot gear, and pepper spray to control her (within a 7′ by 6′ padded cell.) As a citizen, I would have to say that this doesn’t inspire much confidence in the abilities of our local police officers.

The success of Kinloch’s civil suit was primarily based on s. 12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which prohibits any form of “cruel and unusual punishment.” It is clear and apparent from the testimony and video evidence in this case that police did what they did more out of a desire to punish an individual that they found annoying than to ensure the safety of anyone. The jury ruled that this punishment was “cruel and unusual,” in that it was “so excessive as to outrage standards of decency.”

On the evening of May 6, 2005, Ms. Kinloch was drunk on alcohol, but the police officers who restrained her were drunk on something far worse — power. This has all-too-often been the case in the past few years, as is demonstrated by many recent events. The monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a society, like any other monopoly, can easily lead to abuse and recklessness. The only solution to this is meaningful personal responsibility.

$60,000 in damages, paid for by the taxpayers, might induce some public pressure on police to be more reasonable, responsible, and honest, but it will also remind those who are mistreated (or think they’ve been mistreated) by police that the courts provide a possible redress. If police officers continue using unreasonable force and abusing their power, citizens should demand changes to the Police Act and other similar pieces of legislation, requiring that officers themselves are more frequently held financially accountable for their actions.

The odd lawsuit involving an innocent mistake might be part of the legitimate cost of policing, but the consistent malicious misconduct of police officers that we’ve been seeing in recent years is not. We the people should not have to pay for the obvious mistakes of those whose salaries we already provide.

We give these people power so that they may keep us safe. But when they abuse this power, we should make them pay. Before they act, we should make them think.

Brave Employees Take Legal Stand Against Union Bullying

A vital case dealing with the issue of workplace freedom is heading to the Ontario Court of Appeal this Wednesday, as two government employees struggle to avoid punitive fines, levied by their own union.

April Luberti and Jeff Birch, two employees at Canada Revenue Agency, chose to defy the 26,000-member Union of Taxation Employees in 2004 when they crossed picket lines and agreed to work for normal wages, despite a strike organized by the Public Service Alliance of Canada.

Personally, I applaud the brave actions of these two employees, and take heart in the fact that even some members of our friendly tax enforcers are able to see when enough is enough. They were good natured enough to simply do what they were paid to do (taking our money), rather than nagging the government to let them take more of our money specifically to line their own pockets.

But the bigger issue at stake here is freedom of association in all workplaces throughout Canada. Unions can be a great tool for workers to voluntarily band together and negotiate with their employers in good faith. They exist to ensure equal footing between multiple parties in free and fair marketplace. In short, their purpose is to prevent bullying, and union bosses should be mindful of this in the way they conduct themselves.

In this case, union leaders are seeking to fine Jeff Birch and April Luberti to the tune of $476.75 for each day they refused to picket. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice already ruled against the union, describing the fines as “very unfair,” and designed to intimidate employees. But union bosses are intent on appealing the issue, using their members own dues to attack them in any way possible.

Rather than bullying workers who disagree with their agenda, unions should seek to build consensus amongst employees, and negotiate agreements that make sense to all parties. In the case of a severe dispute or strike, they have no legal or moral authority to enforce unanimity through coercive and punitive fines.

The National Citizens Coalition (NCC), a non-partisan conservative organization that is supporting Birch and Luberti in their struggle, has stated that it will be essentially impossible for the union to win their case on appeal.

“The law supports an employee’s right to work,” said NCC President, Peter Coleman, last month. “The unions are simply levying fines and suing even though they can’t collect in order to intimidate unionized workers who depend on their union. Unions are supposed to look out for their employee’s best interest, but instead they are using intimidation to get money it cannot collect through the courts.”