Topic: Canadian Town Bans Spitting, Swearing And Gathering In Groups Of Three Or More (Read 1428 times)

They could just overuse the disturbing the peace statute rather than micromanaging and creating more laws even further. Increasingly totalitarian societies don't like people hanging out in groups to spread the word about things outside of what the sanctioned media is able to spread.

I take serious offense to this image.

The swastika should be in red.

maybe licking boobs is good to be banned too   

I take serious offense to this image.

The swastika should be in red.

Don't you see the flaw in your reasoning? Common sense according to whom? Who's this perfect being that will give you a perfect definition for 'common sense' or tell you when enough is enough? Common sense has always been and will always be relative, the world as it is now is where 'common sense' leads to. Every leader in the history of mankind have operated according to what common sense is to them.
The 'balance' you describe here is what humans have been seeking since the dawn of man, take a look at the world can't you tell if we're nearly there?
This concept of "no need to go overboard in either direction" only exists in dreams my friend, it's what 'good' people keep telling themselves to take the edge off the pressure from guilt that keeps building day in day out.

Common sense is a basic ability to perceive, understand, and judge things, which is shared by ("common to") nearly all people, and can be reasonably expected of nearly all people without any need for debate.

I just disagree. I believe that, by using a little common sense and discretion, there's no need to go overboard in either direction. You're taking the position that to have any control you must accept all control, otherwise to limit control you must essentially rid yourself of control entirely. That is like saying, you must "throw the baby out with the bath water", if you don't like dirty bath water. There is a such thing as a line and crossing it. Do you drive your car with either the gas full throttle or the brakes full on? I doubt it. I'm sure you use moderation (based mainly on common sense) when considering what speed to drive according to your whereabouts and driving conditions. Without speed limits and stop signs you wouldn't automatically drive like a maniac either, just because no limits have been externally imposed upon you, unless you're just being foolish or reckless. Let's not support idiocy or fascism by making ridiculous, nonsensical rules for every little thing.

Well... you either didn't understand my comment or you chose not to understand it. I'm talking about taking responsibility for the 'Brave New World' you helped create along with everyone else, delight has got nothing to do with it.
If you prefer to sleep on a nice comfy bed and have internet instead of sleeping on dirt in some cave, that's perfectly understandable but you should accept the consequences of your choices and not be double-faced about them. If you think you can use control just to get the nice things while leaving out all the lame ones, then my friend you are more naive than the ant you walked on before going to bed.
There is always a way out but it's not a pretty one and it does not involve banding together to 'fight the system'.

It saddens me how people can greet this 'Brave New World' with such delight.

Well, spitting is disgusting so fuck them, someone else has to clean all that shit but people dont seem to care about it. If they know they can get finned they'll think about it twice.

I hardly think this warrants the swastika flag.

Haha that's the funniest title I've come across in a long time, nice work! 

I really don't see how this could come as a surprise, the more you use control, the more of your 'freedom' you have to give up. And there is no 'them' either, the nature of control is to incorporate into itself everything it encounters.
Humans are such hypocrites, I don't know how they can even look at themselves in the mirror, everything they pride themselves on exist because of control. You can't accept with big smiles all the perks made possible by control and then turn around and fight it as if you're the most innocent of victims. If this sort of development scares/disgusts you, you'd better brace yourself, a whole different level of worst is headed this way 

I would like to see spitting banned, it is littering really, I hate it, it makes me feel sick to see people gobbing all over the street all the time.
Swearing and gathering in groups of 3 or more seems a bit of a stretch, along with the permanent curfew for youths.  I would be surprised if any of the rules stood up in court, so someone will test them out and get them overturned in no time no doubt.

You know, I was going to get angry, but then I realised that this is one of the perfect targets for people on the internet to mock, nothing could be more deserving.

    No persons shall, during any period of the day allow, suffer or permit any electronic equipment, musical instruments, vehicles or any other devices to be sounded or used in any area of the Town of Taber, that may, or is likely, to disturb others.

I would like to see spitting banned, it is littering really, I hate it, it makes me feel sick to see people gobbing all over the street all the time.
Swearing and gathering in groups of 3 or more seems a bit of a stretch, along with the permanent curfew for youths.  I would be surprised if any of the rules stood up in court, so someone will test them out and get them overturned in no time no doubt.

Taber, a town of 8,100 in Alberta, Canada, must be in the midst of the nation's smallest and least impressive crimewave. How else would you explain the town's new "Community Standards Bylaw," which imposes the following on its residents?

    With a sweeping new bylaw, the southern Alberta town of Taber has outlawed swearing in public, instituted a nightly curfew on kids and teenagers, and granted local law enforcement the power to break up any assemblies of three or more people.

It's petty enough in the summary, but it gets even worse in the fine print.

Here's the "swearing" part of the bylaw:

    No person shall yell, scream, or swear in any Public Place.

Which won't hold up to Canada's free speech laws, even with the plentiful exceptions the government can enact at any time. And it will apparently be up to patrolling officers to decide when a raised voice constitutes a "yell," and always with one ear cocked towards any errant public swearing occuring at lower volumes.

Then there's this part of the bylaw, which makes possibly disturbing others a crime.

    No persons shall, during any period of the day allow, suffer or permit any electronic equipment, musical instruments, vehicles or any other devices to be sounded or used in any area of the Town of Taber, that may, or is likely, to disturb others.

There's also a clause apparently inserted by Taber's Behavior Nazis solely to anger the world's Grammar Nazis.


And bad cops will have all sorts of fun with this one:

    No person shall be a member of the assembly of three or more persons in any Public Place where a Peace Officer has reasonable grounds to believe the assembly will disturb the peace of the neighborhood, and any such person shall disperse as requested by a Peace Officer.

"Reasonable grounds." As is common to the rest of the bylaw, criminal intent is scuttled in preference of "whatever the Peace Officer believes."

So, what has prompted this move towards a more controlled populace? The answer appears to be that it's just something the town's law enforcement wanted.

    [Police Commission Chairman Ken] Holst said the goal of the bylaw was “to give another layer of tools to our police service.”

    He said it came largely in response to concerns raised by citizens in a survey commissioned by the Taber Police Service.

    “Graffiti was the main concern and the second concern was large gatherings of youth and other people on town property, sometimes causing issues,” he said.

    While some of those issues could be addressed through existing provincial and federal laws, Holst said Taber wanted to empower its law enforcement when an offence is “imminent to occur,” which he described as “preventative policing.”

Ah, the old "thoughtcrime," as practiced by loitering youths. Holst didn't want this community of 8,100 to suffer the existential threat posed by aimless teens, so he and his law enforcement buddies helped write the bylaw.

    Holst said the bylaw was drafted by town staff and the Taber Police Service and was reviewed by the police commission before being sent on to town council, where it was approved by a 6-1 vote.

And, since it was written by law enforcement, there was apparently no need to ensure the bylaw didn't violate anyone's rights or would even hold up in court. Because who knows the law better than law enforcement officers? No one, that's who. Just ask any cop.

    Holst said no lawyers were involved in the police commission’s review and they didn’t discuss whether aspects of the bylaw would violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms…

    “Exactly how that sits with the Charter, to be 100 per cent honest with you, that discussion did not come up with the commission,” Holst said.

Because screw the public.

Save that 100%, Holst. You're going to need it. Here's an actual legal expert with 45 years experience, and he's of the opinion there's a 100% chance it's in violation.

    “It clearly, clearly infringes the Charter,” [Michael] Dietrich said.

And now that the ridiculous bylaw has drawn mockery from around the internet, Holst and other city representatives are shocked and saddened by all the criticism.

    “It hurts my heart,” Ken Holst said Tuesday. “I’m hurt today to read some of the extreme comments that have circulated on social media...”

    “We really feel this is the best for Taber and makes it a better place, as opposed to ‘the worst place on Earth,’ as the way some people are portraying this,” he said.

Holst further defended his stupid bylaw by pointing to other similarly stupid Canadian towns that have enacted similarly stupid bylaws. Presumably, this belated justification will also not be run by any legal experts -- armchair or actual -- who may point out that two wrongs still don't equal a right, no matter what some informal, police-guided survey might "indicate."