Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Kickin' The Kids Around In Sherwood Park
Ok, I was going to write a long, ranty, piece about the new youth curfew in Sherwood Park, but upon reading the article here, I woke up to the fact that it was a very small minority of councillors who voted in favour of the ludicrous bylaw, and that actually probably a majority of Sherwood Parkers are opposed to it. What offended me mostly was the rampaging dishonesty of it; the measure is nothing more than taking out the illogical and unfounded fears of a small group on people who can't vote, yet it is being passed off as some sort of "Save the Children" campaign. Selected quotes from the article:
“Council supported me and I appreciate it,” said Coun. Peter Wlodarczak, the former RCMP inspector who originally proposed the curfew. “I’m trying to protect our youth and that is why the bylaw was put into place.”
“It’s a very sad and dark day for me,” said Mayor Cathy Olesen, who has opposed the bylaw since it was proposed. “We’ve done nothing but alienate youth.”
She said the bylaw was a “smack in the face” to youth in the community.
Well put, and unfortunately true.
Kriti Dixit, student council president at Salisbury high school, says she was very disappointed with the decision and council's lack of movement on the issue. She said the public input sessions, which brought out 18 people who were opposed and 13 people were in favour of the bylaw, were a good indication of where the community stood.
She said she will be part of the group who will challenge the bylaw in court.
“This bylaw will be repealed. We’re not going to give up until it is,” she said.
Kind of ironic that the youth of Sherwood Park are showing more restraint and maturity than the people who are so terrified of them.
Before the bylaw was passed, [one of the councillors who voted in favour of the law] made an amendment to the preamble. She moved to have the word “protective” added so it now reads, “A bylaw of Strathcona County for the purpose of imposing protective curfew regulations.”
She said the amendment would help keep the purpose of the bylaw on target.
"Keep the purpose of the bylaw on target"? What the fuck is that supposed to mean? And in fact, the amendment is specifically designed to hide the purpose of the bylaw. In other words, to lie.