Editor: I am a resident of Langley City and take great exception to Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson’s ruling on parks in the province of British Columbia.
He states that the bylaws passed by the cities, which prohibit sleeping being in a park overnight without permits, or erecting a temporary shelter with permits, violates the guaranteed right to life, liberty and security.
What about the rights of the individuals living beside these parks? Did Chief Justice Hinkson take into account where these people might urinate or defecate?
Did he think it might be right outside my living room window? Did he think performing sexual acts right outside my living room window would be OK?
Did he think yelling, drinking and doing drugs until all hours of the night would be OK?
Did he think that any of these acts would guarantee my right to life, liberty and security?
Where in tarnation is Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson’s thought process coming from?
Do we in Langley want a tent city similar to Victoria? I think not.
Maple Ridge council amended its parks rules, prohibiting temporary structures from being placed in a number of city parks.
Could we not do the same thing in Langley?
Douglas Park has a children’s playground, water park, tennis courts a ball hockey rink and a recreation centre.
A school borders the park. Is this the type of activity we would like to present to the children using these facilities?
I certainly would urge Mayor Ted Schaffer and the members of Langley City council, business owners in downtown Langley, MLA Mary Polak, Premier Christy Clark, and MP John Aldag to get on the bandwagon and do what they can tor rectify this unacceptable ruling.
Maybe it’s time to fight for the rights of people who worked hard to have a roof over their head, food in their stomach and who feel pride in their city and their parks.