(This
column was published in the North
Shore News on
Feb. 11, 1998)
Pepper spray
restrictions not needed
By Leo Knight
NORTH
Vancouver District Council stepped uneasily into a grey area
last week with their 5-2 motion to ask the Federation of
Canadian Municipalities to request the federal government to
better regulate the prohibition of pepper spray.
I
am very much a proponent of law and order, as regular readers
will, no doubt, understand. I am very much in favor of providing
the police and the courts with the appropriate tools to better
do their job which, I like to continually remind the courts, is
to protect the public and society in general. But I have a
problem with council's resolution and the initiating request by
Inspector Gordon MacRae of the North Van RCMP detachment.
A
similar request has also been made by Surrey RCMP to their local
council.
Pepper
spray, or Oleoresin Capsicum Spray (OC spray as it is
colloquially known), has been used in several high-profile armed
robberies, most recently at Oakridge mall and Park Royal.
No
argument there.
There
are also numerous documented cases of "mischief" in
which young idiots have aerated a shopping mall or other public
place, causing the need for a fire department response to
ventilate the building. No question these are dangerous and
intolerable examples of inappropriate usage of the spray.
But
there are already legal tools at the disposal of the police in
dealing with these incidents. OC spray is defined as a
prohibited weapon under the minister's regulations relative to
weapons in the Criminal Code. The police argue that the
definition is, in itself, a loophole providing an inherent
defence to someone charged under this provision.
Essentially,
the Governor-in-Council order states, "any liquid, spray,
powder or other substance that is capable of injuring or
otherwise incapacitating a person" is prohibited.
Certainly, OC spray falls under that category, leaving an
intended victim with painful, itching, watering eyes and various
other temporary afflictions.
The
police argument suggests if someone simply indicates they carry
it for defence against animals, not persons as defined, there
cannot be a conviction. This is why there are no substantive
convictions of anyone found carrying the spray.
Fair
enough, given the fact many women carry a small canister on a
keychain in their purse. And why not? Indeed, North Van
Councillor Glenys Deering-Robb is very concerned about the
safety of people walking the streets. Given our crime figures,
she should be concerned.
She
argued at the council meeting, "There's human animals out
there. It's scary out there. It ain't much ... but you're taking
away everything we've got."
Touché,
councillor.
And
may I add the courts have done precious little to protect
society in general, and women in particular, that there is
little option left to them but to carry some type of weapon for
their own protection.
You
see, the police already have a built-in section of the Criminal
Code for anyone who may deign to use OC spray as an offensive
weapon.
Section
87 of the Criminal Code states, "Every one who carries or
has in his possession a weapon or imitation thereof, for a
purpose dangerous to the public peace or for the purpose of
committing an offence, is guilty of an indictable offence and
liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years."
Since
the Governor-in-Council order defines the spray as a
"weapon," it appears to me that the police have
sufficient ammunition in that charge for anyone who may carry or
use pepper spray in a robbery or other such illegal event.
Equally,
Section 245 of the Code provides for a charge of
"administering a noxious substance" for the
genetically disenfranchised who take amusement in blowing off a
canister in a public place.
I
don't doubt for a moment the good intentions of both the police
and council in their actions. However, I fail to see how going
after an item carried by many law-abiding people strictly as a
defence mechanism, in a society where more and more people are
becoming victims of a system where the only rights that matter
are those of the individuals perpetrating the crimes, makes any
sense. Especially when the appropriate tools are already at hand
for the police and the courts.
It
is simply a matter of effectively using what already exists
against the persons who are committing the offences. It is not
necessary to kill a mosquito with a MAC 10 machine gun, so to
speak. A well-aimed smack usually does the trick.
-30-