This is a good one! Am I correct in saying that it's the LCRB (BC's alcohol control bureaucracy) that's responsible for the sign (it's content)? Nevertheless, I find the RCMP's response from 2009 revealing. Is the community subordinate to the RCMP, or is it the other way around? There's quite some history to contend with!
While there may well be community resistance to expanding access to alcohol, do they need the RCMP paternalising them by expressing it on their behalf? And "policing concerns", expressed by the police!? I know colonial and capitalist norms include externalising all sorts of things, but this is particularly brazen.
I'm not ignoring the social consequences of alcohol consumption, just how we manage our community.
Yes, the sign template is as per LCRB. You should click through the link on the 2009 RCMP letter to read it in its entirety (if you haven't). It's worth its own full story!
I believe, but could be wrong, that having RCMP (or local police depending on jurisdiction) comments are required. I haven't been able to locate the current RCMP letter - if there is one.
Also, no one at UBC has shared any of the documents they submitted in support of their licence application that might provide more detailed context beyond the kind replies staff provided today in a short turn around.
I appreciate you pointing out the full letter was worth a read. Indeed it was!
I used to apply for small event liquor licences for department functions back in the day, and they were approved directly by the RCMP detachment on Wesbrook. So, I expect you're right about the RCMP having a role in the approval process for larger events. It seems important that they comment on their ability to execute their role in maintaining safety for the community, but all I'm really seeing is an inflated sense of authority. This obviously plays out significantly in a much wider context also.
I'm interested hearing more from UBC too. I noticed you posted this later than usual and figured it might be because you were waiting on those replies.
I always appreciate your efforts on these. Thanks.
This is a good one! Am I correct in saying that it's the LCRB (BC's alcohol control bureaucracy) that's responsible for the sign (it's content)? Nevertheless, I find the RCMP's response from 2009 revealing. Is the community subordinate to the RCMP, or is it the other way around? There's quite some history to contend with!
While there may well be community resistance to expanding access to alcohol, do they need the RCMP paternalising them by expressing it on their behalf? And "policing concerns", expressed by the police!? I know colonial and capitalist norms include externalising all sorts of things, but this is particularly brazen.
I'm not ignoring the social consequences of alcohol consumption, just how we manage our community.
Yes, the sign template is as per LCRB. You should click through the link on the 2009 RCMP letter to read it in its entirety (if you haven't). It's worth its own full story!
I believe, but could be wrong, that having RCMP (or local police depending on jurisdiction) comments are required. I haven't been able to locate the current RCMP letter - if there is one.
Also, no one at UBC has shared any of the documents they submitted in support of their licence application that might provide more detailed context beyond the kind replies staff provided today in a short turn around.
I appreciate you pointing out the full letter was worth a read. Indeed it was!
I used to apply for small event liquor licences for department functions back in the day, and they were approved directly by the RCMP detachment on Wesbrook. So, I expect you're right about the RCMP having a role in the approval process for larger events. It seems important that they comment on their ability to execute their role in maintaining safety for the community, but all I'm really seeing is an inflated sense of authority. This obviously plays out significantly in a much wider context also.
I'm interested hearing more from UBC too. I noticed you posted this later than usual and figured it might be because you were waiting on those replies.
I always appreciate your efforts on these. Thanks.