Jump to content

           



Latest VV Article


Condo Review: Union

Vancouver-based Anthem Properties has made its Victoria development debut with the Union, a two building lowrise condo project between the 500-blocks of Pandora Avenue and Fisgard Street in Old Town’s amenity rich Chinatown district. The Union property, left barren for nearly a decade after the failure of a previous condo development, is a stones throw from the Inner Harbour and literally at the nexus of a rapidly changing and increasingly desirable historic area. [Read more]



Photo

Concerned Citizens Coalition


  • Please log in to reply
77 replies to this topic

#1 Concerned Citizens

Concerned Citizens
  • Member
  • 56 posts

Posted 16 December 2007 - 05:08 PM

CCC

CONCERNED CITIZENS COALITION CANDIDATES WANT TO BLOW AWAY CRD ANTI-SMOKING BYLAW

David Burke, Gregory Hartnell and Father Allen Jones, three members of the Concerned Citizens' Coalition seeking to be nominated by the CCC to seek City Council seats, are calling for the City of Victoria to develop its own clean-air bylaws, and to rescind those of the CRD, whose jurisdiction to regulate clean air in Victoria they do not recognize.

The candidates are effectively calling for the City of Victoria to announce that the CRD's jurisdiction to regulate clean air on private property and City-owned property is not recognized by the City.

They say that the CRD is an unaccountable non-elected body which has overstepped its mandate, and needs to be restrained pending overhaul of its governance.

All three CCC candidates, and especially Father Allen Jones, stress that the move should not be construed as encouraging smoking, or attempting to diminish the well-known health dangers of smoking.

They stress, however, that the present draconian CRD bylaw infringes the common law rights of the general public not to be bothered by smokers' smoking, littering and loitering on public sidewalks, an apparently unintended effect of the flawed CRD bylaw.

The present CRD anti-smoking bylaw is questionable legally, ethically, environmentally, economically and is furthermore unenforceable in terms of its actual effect on smokers' behaviour, all three candidates say.

The City should call for a moratorium on the enforcement of the CRD bylaw in Victoria pending reformation of the CRD governance model, which would entail direct democratic election of candidates (rather than appointment), to the CRD board in the 2011 municipal election, they said.

In the meantime, the City should develop a reasonable clean air bylaw of its own which would accomodate all interested parties. Such a bylaw would protect common law access to a smoke-free environment on public property, including City-owned sidewalks, but would also protect private property rights by allowing smoking in designated private patios and ventilated rooms.

Gregory Hartnell, founding member
Concerned Citizens' Coalition

CCC

[Edited by mod: removed email address]

#2 davek

davek
  • Member
  • 670 posts

Posted 17 December 2007 - 07:40 AM

CCC
In the meantime, the City should develop a reasonable clean air bylaw of its own which would accomodate all interested parties. Such a bylaw would protect common law access to a smoke-free environment on public property, including City-owned sidewalks, but would also protect private property rights by allowing smoking in designated private patios and ventilated rooms.


Unless you seek to restore the rights of pub and restaurant owners to decide whether or not they will allow smoking in their facilities, your commitment to protect private property rights is suspect.

#3 Concerned Citizens

Concerned Citizens
  • Member
  • 56 posts

Posted 17 December 2007 - 08:41 AM

CCC

The proposed CCC Victoria clean air bylaw would restore old 'common law' property rights now infringed by the draconian CRD bylaw which presently outlaws all smoking on open air restaurant and pub patios, even those on private property. This has diminished custom in these establishments considerably.

Private property owners have certain traditional rights established in practice of longstanding in old English 'common law' (which Canada has inherited and recognizes in its courts).

A pub or restaurant could be completely smoke free voluntarily, it could provide a choice of a designated open air patio area or an indoor ventilated room (or both) for its smoking clientele under our proposal.

However, in the public interest of maintaining order and freedom of movement on City-owned sidewalks, we also wish to discourage the unsightly and depressing spectacle of smokers treated as second class citizens, shivering in the cold while inadvertently obstructing free passage of others, while smoking and littering on city sidewalks in front of pubs and restaurants. This is cruel and unusual punishment for the smokers, very damaging to business and quite unnecessary.

We are not proposing to have the police patrol the sidewalks to ticket smokers, rest assured!

Gregory Hartnell
Concerned Citizens' Coalition

CCC

#4 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 9,302 posts

Posted 17 December 2007 - 10:24 AM

...we also wish to discourage the unsightly and depressing spectacle of smokers treated as second class citizens...

There's actually no such thing as a smoker. Smoking is an activity. Are cyclists also treated as second class citizens because they aren't allowed to cycle on the sidewalks? Are people who want to talk loudly inside libraries treated as second class citizens because they must go outside to talk loudly? Are drummers treated as second class citizens because they aren't allowed to drum on the bus? Of course not. Everyone is allowed in and the rules are the same for everyone; therefore, there is no discrimination.

This sort of nonsense really bugs me because -- believe it or not -- there still is legitimate discrimination going on in this world. Sometimes I wonder if we've lost our ability to recognize it amid all of the noise.

#5 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 3,421 posts

Posted 17 December 2007 - 12:21 PM

I don't know, you probably have to be some sort of genetic sub-human to still take up smoking in this day and age.

#6 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 16,110 posts

Posted 17 December 2007 - 05:50 PM

I don't know, you probably have to be some sort of genetic sub-human to still take up smoking in this day and age.


The media and fear mongers have done a marvelous job of conditioning you, I see ;)

#7 Concerned Citizens

Concerned Citizens
  • Member
  • 56 posts

Posted 19 December 2007 - 12:52 PM

CCC

"Ban taser use and sales in Victoria now." Victoria City Council should immediately ban the use and sale of the controversial lethal so-called TASER 'stun guns' say all three Concerned Citizens's Coalition candidates seeking to be nominated to run for Victoria City Council seats in the 2008 election.

The CCC candidates are not always in full accord on policy proposals, but on the TASER issue they are all in agreement. The candidates, David Burke, Gregory Hartnell and Father Allen Jones, call for an immediate moratorium on their use by the Victoria Police pending the release of the final reports of numerous national investigations into the dangers of TASER use. This follows the much-publicized killing of a Polish immigrant by a TASER used by police at Vancouver airport.

By calling for Council to ban the TASER use and sale now, the CCC are effectively challenging incumbent and other candidates to position themselves on the issue. Amnesty International sees TASER use as a form of torture, and numerous city councils in Quebec are considering banning TASER sales and use.

As Victoria voters have never been consulted on whether the Police Department should have bought or ever use TASERs, the 2008 election will provide an opportunity to politicize the issue, they say.

CCC will also be issuing Freedom of Information request letters to Victoria Council and the Victoria Police Department seeking information on all the expenses undertaken by the City and Police Department to buy TASERs and will also seek information into the apparent conflict of interest of one Victoria Police officer who appears to have profited by his expertise in their use.

Gregoy Hartnell, founding member
Concerned Citizens' Coalition

CCC

#8 Phil McAvity

Phil McAvity
  • Member
  • 1,238 posts

Posted 07 January 2008 - 11:54 PM

There's actually no such thing as a smoker. Smoking is an activity. Are cyclists also treated as second class citizens because they aren't allowed to cycle on the sidewalks? Are people who want to talk loudly inside libraries treated as second class citizens because they must go outside to talk loudly? Are drummers treated as second class citizens because they aren't allowed to drum on the bus? Of course not. Everyone is allowed in and the rules are the same for everyone; therefore, there is no discrimination.

This sort of nonsense really bugs me because -- believe it or not -- there still is legitimate discrimination going on in this world. Sometimes I wonder if we've lost our ability to recognize it amid all of the noise.



There's no such thing as smokers? Well, where does the word come from then?

I think his point is, that increasingly smokers rights are being taken away and people just go along with it. The CRD is wonderful at relinquishing people's freedoms for no reason other than to justify their overpaid jobs and i'm getting really fucking sick of it. There is a strong enough correlation between smoking and health problems that cigarettes should have been banned a long time ago but of course the greedy, hypocritical government hasn't done that-they've just pestered smokers more and more with pointless, chickenshit little bylaws that are completely unecessary. Like now you can't even smoke outside in some places. If the point of these bylaws was to protect people from the dangers of second hand smoke, why can't people smoke outside? There is no health risk in having people smoke outside, regardless of where they smoke. The government has exagerrated the health risks of smoking so much that they have become laughable, like just walking by someone smoking will instantly result in lung cancer! In fact, there is very little health risk in second-hand smoke. I neither want nor need the government to tell me where i can and can't go. If i want to go to a smoky bar i should have that choice since i've never heard of anyone dying from second-hand smoke. The lunatics have taken over the asylum and i'm sick of it. In fact, i'm smoking mad.

#9 Coreyburger

Coreyburger

    OpenStreetMap + Ubuntu!

  • Member
  • 810 posts

Posted 08 January 2008 - 12:04 AM

I respect your views (although I don't share them). What I don't respect is your name. Why does every right-wing group need to name themselves as "concerned"? Have some honesty and name yourself as you are: a libertarian organization. And thank you for telling me exactly who not to vote for in the next election. May you lose well.

#10 Coreyburger

Coreyburger

    OpenStreetMap + Ubuntu!

  • Member
  • 810 posts

Posted 08 January 2008 - 12:07 AM

There is no health risk in having people smoke outside, regardless of where they smoke.


Smoking outside means I have to walk through it. For instance, at Camosun, the smoking "area" is right between all the buildings, meaning every trip from building to building requires I breathe in second-hand smoke (and before you can attack me saying my health is not being affected: If I can smell smoke, I am breathing second hand smoke). And even if you don't walk through it, what about all those air vents?

So please, get off your high horse about smoking as a protected activity. It is disgusting and harms everybodies health.

#11 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 9,302 posts

Posted 08 January 2008 - 11:26 AM

I think his point is, that increasingly smokers rights are being taken away and people just go along with it.


That was indeed his point. And my point was, there's no such thing as a smoker. Smoking is an activity, like cycling, or rollerblading, or shopping with no shirt and no shoes. Nobody's rights are being taken away because everyone is equal and everyone has exactly the same rights. It's the activities that are being regulated, not the people. The people are absolutely equal. They have exactly the same rights.

Are cyclists also treated as second class citizens because they aren't allowed to cycle on the sidewalks? Non-cyclists are allowed to use the sidewalks, so why shouldn't cyclists be allowed to use them, too? (answer: cyclists are allowed to use the sidewalks, they just aren't allowed to cycle on the sidewalks)

This sort of nonsense really bugs me because -- believe it or not -- there still is legitimate discrimination going on in this world. Sometimes I wonder if we've lost our ability to recognize it amid all of the "I'm a victim" noise.

#12 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 3,816 posts

Posted 08 January 2008 - 01:17 PM

I think his point is, that increasingly smokers rights are being taken away


Smoking is not a right...it is a knowingly unhealthy activity in which people CHOOSE to participate. To say that smokers have "rights" is like saying that murderers have rights, since despite knowing the harm they will cause they still actively harm others. If people do not like the limitations put on smoking in public places, they do have a choice: they can quit smoking.

#13 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan

    Super Moderator

  • Moderator
  • 18,224 posts

Posted 08 January 2008 - 01:33 PM

Smoking is not a right...it is a knowingly unhealthy activity in which people CHOOSE to participate. To say that smokers have "rights" is like saying that murderers have rights, since despite knowing the harm they will cause they still actively harm others. If people do not like the limitations put on smoking in public places, they do have a choice: they can quit smoking.


Driving or riding in a car is a knowlingly unhealthy activity too. First, you might crash and injure or kill yourself or others. Secondly, you are depriving yourself of exercise by not walking. That will add to your obesity and the onset of other health problems. Thirdly, you are contributing to air pollution that affects others health, and to global warming that purportedly will kill hundreds of millions over the next decades or centuries. Why doesn't the CRD ban driving?

#14 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 6,210 posts

Posted 08 January 2008 - 02:19 PM

They won't ban driving, but they give drivers restrictions and rules to abide by, just like smokers - more-so than smokers.

#15 Coreyburger

Coreyburger

    OpenStreetMap + Ubuntu!

  • Member
  • 810 posts

Posted 08 January 2008 - 05:10 PM

Driving or riding in a car is a knowlingly unhealthy activity too. First, you might crash and injure or kill yourself or others. Secondly, you are depriving yourself of exercise by not walking. That will add to your obesity and the onset of other health problems. Thirdly, you are contributing to air pollution that affects others health, and to global warming that purportedly will kill hundreds of millions over the next decades or centuries. Why doesn't the CRD ban driving?


It is not a smoking ban (ban implies you cannot do it anywhere). It is a smoking restriction, for very sane and well known health reasons.

#16 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 16,110 posts

Posted 08 January 2008 - 05:27 PM

Driving or riding in a car is a knowlingly unhealthy activity too. First, you might crash and injure or kill yourself or others.


I wonder if non-smokers cause more deadly accidents than non-smokers?

#17 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 3,816 posts

Posted 08 January 2008 - 07:07 PM

They won't ban driving, but they give drivers restrictions and rules to abide by, just like smokers - more-so than smokers.


Precisely.

#18 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan

    Super Moderator

  • Moderator
  • 18,224 posts

Posted 08 January 2008 - 08:06 PM

It is not a smoking ban (ban implies you cannot do it anywhere). It is a smoking restriction, for very sane and well known health reasons.


OK, then how about you can not drive within 7.5 meters of any non-driver? That's kind of how the smoking ban is working out. And I can assure you, a car with the engine running and travelling at any speed emits much more carcinogens per minute that any one person smoking one cigarette. Folks sitting on the patio at the Irish Times are much more affected health-wise by all the cars and busses driving by than the smokers amongst them.

#19 Coreyburger

Coreyburger

    OpenStreetMap + Ubuntu!

  • Member
  • 810 posts

Posted 08 January 2008 - 08:12 PM

OK, then how about you can not drive within 7.5 meters of any non-driver? That's kind of how the smoking ban is working out. And I can assure you, a car with the engine running and travelling at any speed emits much more carcinogens per minute that any one person smoking one cigarette. Folks sitting on the patio at the Irish Times are much more affected health-wise by all the cars and busses driving by than the smokers amongst them.


This is also false logic. The cars should also be considered a health issue and will be shortly (<5 years) . Saying that smoking is not "worse" than car fumes is likely saying you should ignore the dagger in your gut because there is a sword in your back. Both will kill you.

#20 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan

    Super Moderator

  • Moderator
  • 18,224 posts

Posted 08 January 2008 - 09:01 PM

This is also false logic. The cars should also be considered a health issue and will be shortly (<5 years) . Saying that smoking is not "worse" than car fumes is likely saying you should ignore the dagger in your gut because there is a sword in your back. Both will kill you.


Don't you believe in an acceptable risk? Cars driving at a maximum of 10km/h would pretty much eliminate the death toll on our roads. But it is not going to happen. Building a school on every street corner so no kids would ever have to cross a road would eliminate accidents. Making us all eat whole grains and vegetables only, and banning processed foods would help our health. Making us all cover up bare skin from head to toe on sunny days would radically decrease skin cancer. Why not introduce all these measures to protect ourselves from ourselves?


I don't want to live in your world, where people are not free to do what they want to do.

You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users