The Shotgun Blog
« Spoiling for a Fight | Main | Democrats Threw Thousands of American Flags into the Trash in Denver »
Saturday, September 06, 2008
Civilizing Calgary's C-Train through censorship
The Calgary Herald reports on Calgary public transit's cuss police:
Potty-mouthed transit riders will face fines under a new campaign to make C-Trains more civilized.
Personal safety and appropriate behaviour are the focus of Calgary Transit's crime prevention and safety awareness campaign this month.
"The issues that upset Calgarians the most are those minor issues, like people who are discourteous," said Brian Whitelaw, co-ordinator of public safety and enforcement.
"We're going to be focusing on disorder offences . . . that's the swearing, the bad behaviour . . . offences that make riding the C-Train unpleasant."
Whitelaw said incidents of bad behaviour have not increased, but as the city grows, so do levels of frustration.
So far this year, 230 people have been fined $100 each for swearing on the C-Train.
I don't ride the C-Train often–and never during rush hour–but when I do I normally find it quite pleasant. Despite my own experiences, I often hear complaints about how crowded and unpleasant it is for many commuters. It's a broken system which needs to be fixed, but solutions are more likely to come from recognizing the limitations of light-rail as a transportation solution than from ramping up censorship on public property, an approach that tackles a consequence of the city's transportation woes, rather than its roots.
Posted by Kalim Kassam on September 6, 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e554e848938833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Civilizing Calgary's C-Train through censorship:
Comments
Maybe it's just old fashioned "manners". You should be free to swear around your buddies or some co-workers, but not around old ladies.
Posted by: glen | 2008-09-06 10:04:38 AM
Agree re manners and common decency. Was in a mall not long ago and there was a woman with turrets(sp) syndrome in one of the stores. I work in the construction industry and am exposed to foul language on a daily basis. Some of the stuff that came from that woman's mouth would have made the average iron worker blush. I'm assuming that people like her ride the c-trains occasionally...
Are those folks now banned from riding the train? Probably not. Our council and by-law enforcement folks are probably going to rehash their tired old line of "selective enforcement" where they use discretion in deciding which bylaws apply to which people at which time. "Equal justice for all" isn't a concept they're familiar with...
Posted by: Richard Evans | 2008-09-06 10:23:43 AM
Regulating the use of public property is a tricky matter, which is why we should always move to privatize these assets and let the owners then establish the rules according to their own values.
Until then, I think basic standards of decency should prevail, whether we're talking about public nudity or profanity.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-09-06 11:23:43 AM
I'm wondering if they fined any of those middle eastern students who cheered and chanted on 9/11 when they heard about the planes hitting the twin towers. A lot of riders were offended by that.
Posted by: dp | 2008-09-06 12:18:18 PM
...i hope they start handing out stink fines for those who don't shower often also.
Posted by: tomax7 | 2008-09-06 12:20:53 PM
"Regulating the use of public property is a tricky matter, which is why we should always move to privatize these assets..."
How do we privatize assets that are on land (the rail lines) that was previously expropriated from private citizens in the name of the "common good"? The end result would, ultimately, be that property was transfered, at the barrel of a gun, from one private citizen to another. What about the taxes that went into purchasing the buses and train cars?
I like the idea that those services should be privatized but the genie is already out of the bottle. How do we bridge the gap between what we've got and what we want without having the original investors, the over taxed public, getting screwed in the process?
Posted by: Richard Evans | 2008-09-06 12:40:54 PM
Richard -- The money from the sale can be used to provide tax relief or pay off debt. By your logic, if I understand you correctly, we could never divest ourselves of any public assets.
Perhaps we could give every taxpayer a share of the assets and then leave it to them to sell those shares to someone who wants to pay to gain control. I think that's the way Russia privatized their assets.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-09-06 2:40:39 PM
"Richard -- The money from the sale can be used to provide tax relief or pay off debt. By your logic, if I understand you correctly, we could never divest ourselves of any public assets"
I never said we couldn't do it. My 'logic' led me to ask questions about 'how' we could do it. There's a difference.
"Perhaps we could give every taxpayer a share of the assets and then leave it to them to sell those shares to someone who wants to pay to gain control. I think that's the way Russia privatized their assets."
That sounds reasonable... Everyone would get a specific number of shares and what happens to those shares afterwards is up to the individual... That could work... The transition would be a bitch though...
Posted by: Richard Evans | 2008-09-06 3:02:40 PM
Why would it be a bitch?
First, hand over the management to a private company -- that's pretty common -- and then slowly transfer the equity using whatever process is fair to taxpayers.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-09-06 3:17:47 PM
"First, hand over the management to a private company -- that's pretty common -- and then slowly transfer the equity using whatever process is fair to taxpayers."
Who determines what's fair? The taxpayers? The new owners? Market value? If market value is less than the purchase price, the taxpayer takes it in the shorts because they were forced to purchase the stuff in the first place. What about the folks that had their property expropriated at 75% of market value? What controls can be put in place to ensure that doesn't happen?
Ya know, I like libertarian ideals but most of you purists haven't clued-into the fact that reality doesn't match your ideals and that making a switch from one to the other is a lot more involved than a simple two step process...
Posted by: Richard Evans | 2008-09-06 11:40:44 PM
I like you conservatives as well, Richard, but you occasionally lack imagination when it comes to market-based solutions.
Why is this complicated? Put together a benchmark valuation and then accept the highest bidder.
The taxpayers will not loss if the asset is transferred to private hands...at any price. It's not like they actually own the asset now and can collect a dividend on their investment or sell their shares.
Furthermore, the private sector will run things better and cheaper, so let them do it.
And the proceeds from the sale can be used to pay down debt liabilities that really do burden taxpayers -- or the proceeds from the sale can be distributed to taxpayers equally or on a pro-rata basis.
There are lots of ways to sell government assets. Pick one and get on with it, I say.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-09-07 12:00:12 AM
"There are lots of ways to sell government assets. Pick one and get on with it, I say."
Two points;
1. They're not 'government assets'. They're 'taxpayer assets'.
2. You trust the government bureaucrats to sell those assets without giving special favor or consideration to their own interests first?
Posted by: Richard Evans | 2008-09-07 9:02:08 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.