Anyone who's ever considered himself or herself the owner of a cat (world's biggest oxymoron) is familiar with said pet's response when the cat is challenged. At best you get a polite hiss, at worst a full-fledged clawing. Much like a reader's reaction when one of his or her beliefs is challenged or simply disagreed with. And lately we've seen the claws unsheathed on more than one issue and no, this is not about the Vancouver Health Authority. Christine Wood has covered that issue more than capably. Instead this is about two other hot-button issues in the community.
First of all is the question of whether or not the RCMP should be teaching our children about drug awareness through the DARE program. In some folks' minds, the presence of a school liaison officer means one less cop available to battle crime on our small peninsula. And of course there's the other mindset that says teaching children abstinence is unrealistic. I disagree with both premises. First of all, I think having a police officer in the schools is a good thing. Kids get to put a face with the uniform. And maybe, just maybe, even one will think twice about doing drugs or vandalizing the community because of that identification. And who better to teach about the dangers of drug abuse than someone who sees the results of such abuse daily in his job? For my money there's no one better to connect with kids than Const. Chris Pillsworth, the current school liaison officer.
I've seen Pillsworth firsthand with kids through his work with Cops for Cancer. No one could be more compassionate or caring about what happens to the young people on our Coast, be they healthy or healing. As to teaching kids to just say no to drugs - believe it or not, there actually are people in our society who do just that. We're happy to have the ranks swelled. Another issue that warrants debate in our society is the upcoming referendum on a new voting system. For several months last year a citizens' assembly met to decide if B.C.'s system of electing the members of legislature needed overhauling. They decided it did and recommended a system called STV.
By that system each voter would be able to rank all the candidates on the ballot. Ultimately, depending on the population of the constituency, there would be from two to seven MLAs elected. Two very diligent citizens from the Sunshine Coast represented us on the assembly - Rick Dignard, who is not in favour of the STV system, and Anne Dykes, whose vote at the assembly is not known but who has been holding information sessions about STV. Dignard's nay position has riled at least one letter writer who favours anything over the current first-past-the-post system.
And I say good for you for having an opinion. But as someone who grew up in a sparsely-populated area 40 km from the B.C./Alberta border, I know why the lesser populated areas of our province might need "preferential" treatment. First of all it's difficult enough to get people interested in voting when they know and can reach their MLA easily. Imagine how little interest there would be if the two chosen lived thousands of miles or several ferry rides away from you. My bet is interest would wane even further. Secondly, people all over this province pay taxes. Let's use language that's inclusive not exclusive. Many of the people living in far-flung areas of the province that are close to Alberta would be happy to go over to the dark side. Why give them another reason?
And finally, to fully explain why someone doesn't like something, it's necessary to give background. And that is what the story about STV did. There were other options, and perhaps the assembly didn't give enough weight to them. We'll never know. I can hear the meows already.
