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.