Residents of the Gatewood Crescent area in London, Ontario who contacted us to represent them clearly had a problem. As victims of a visible and serious infringement of their property rights during a U.W.O. Homecoming Party on October 19, they had plenty of reasons to be upset.

With revellers smashing beer bottles on their street and driveways, and urinating on their lawns, gardens, and automobiles, local residents found themselves virtually helpless against the collective onslaught of over 1000 party-goers. Despite police attempts to disburse the crowd by using tear-gas, verbal and physical onslaughts against residents continued into the hours of dawn.

Unbelievably, press reports of the incident totally ignored the residents' situation, and chose instead to focus on police tactics and student opinions. Needless to say, it became imperative to refocus everyone's attention to the issue at hand: the property rights of the affected homeowners, and the subsequent assigning of responsibility for damages, to effect just compensation. Assuming that the police and court system were, however effectively, seeing to the latter (since evidence is generally required to determine responsibility), our political approach sought to reaffirm the former, namely, the residents' property rights.

Freedom Party Action Director Marc Emery, due to his reputation as a political activist in the community, was chosen as representative of the 72 residents, who outlined their account of the event for our inclusion in a petition and letter to the editor, with the purpose of voicing their concern and frustration to local politicians and the public.

The result of our effort was printed in the London Free Press under the heading "Why London should review grant to UWO", and it generated an almost instant critical response, most notably from the Gazette, the university student newspaper whose editorial banner proclaimed "Pulling grant won't solve problem" --- though no one ever suggested that it would.

It was understandable, however, that the students, as indirect beneficiaries of such grants, would view a citizens' effort to control his tax dollar as an attempt to "penalize" them. But far from being intended as any form of punishment, the purpose of drawing attention to the UWO municipal grant was (beyond a legitimate and understandable expression of resentment experienced by the residents affected) to remind councillors, the public, and students alike who the grant originally came from, and in whose interests municipal councils ought to be acting. At the very least, such action would remove insult from injury.

In any event, Emery successfully defended his position when he faced the wrath of U.W.O. students in November, where he was one of four guest panelists on Radio Western's Wake Up Westem program. The event produced a lively debate in which Emery found himself having to pronounce explicit moral judgement against those who did not seem to have any regard for, or understanding of, the property rights of others.

e-mail

Page last updated on April 28, 2002