Why not just put surveillance cameras everywhere?

Rob Breakenridge
Calgary Herald
Tuesday, July 22, 2008

The path to nanny-statehood may be best described as a slippery slope, but in Calgary the analogy seems somehow inappropriate.

A slippery slope conveys a sense of being trapped; being unable to disembark from a journey you have inadvertently set upon.

However, given the gleeful embrace of the nanny-state by Calgary city council, that slippery slope seems more like a waterslide. So long as council is so eager to take the plunge, why not go all in?

Last March, council approved a pilot project of two dozen surveillance cameras to monitor crime in the downtown. Never mind their intrusive nature, or that they seem to have little impact on crime rates, why not make the most of the opportunity? Ald. Ric McIver suggested the cameras might help with “social behaviour issues,” which seems to encompass a lot these days.

(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)

For example, the problem of littering — it’s apparently a very serious problem, given how council has decided to deal with it. City council is looking at some much stiffer fines for littering — up to $1,000 for tossing a cigarette butt.

Ald. Druh Farrell even suggested that those who litter should be “thrown in the clink.”

Well, here’s one social behaviour issue that these cameras could help out with. Why not use the eye of Big Brother to keep watch for cigarette flickers and coffee cup tossers? Once we’ve crossed the threshold of monitoring the citizenry, does it really matter anymore what we’re monitoring for?

Furthermore, what possible argument could the busybodies on city council mount against such a move? They’re the ones who have decided that simply being elected is tantamount to a mandate to be as intrusive as possible in the lives of Calgarians; I would be most interested to hear them make their case against such intrusion.

Somehow, though, as facetious as I’m being, I suspect some aldermen might not have too many quarrels with such an approach. After all, city bylaw officials may need the assistance, given how busy they’re likely to be.

Flying in the face of science and common sense, council last week decided to press ahead with a pesticide ban, although the confusing debate was somewhat of a farce. In the end, though, council has decided that a pesticide ban will be brought forward in the fall of 2009.

How many bylaw officers will be needed to enforce this ban?

What sort of intrusive measures might we come up with to keep an eye on the lawns and garages of Calgary homeowners?

After all, there may be some rafters on the Elbow River drinking beer or not wearing life-jackets, and we wouldn’t want to pull any bylaw officers off that beat.

To say nothing of drive-thrus. Ald. Brian Pincott and the aforementioned Ald. Farrell are pushing for a ban on any new drive-thru being built. Perhaps some surveillance could come in handy in helping to make sure that anyone buying a hamburger or withdrawing $20 from a bank machine is parking and exiting his or her vehicle beforehand.

FULL STORY CLICK HERE

• 
• Social bookmarks
• 
• Email this article
• 
• Print this page

Comment Terms Of Use

Comments are closed.