Roger Varley has been in the news business almost 40 years with The Canadian Press/Broadcast News, Uxbnridge Times-Journal, Richmond Hill Liberal and Uxbridge Cosmos. Co-winner with two others of CCNA national feature writing award. In Scout movement over 30 years, almost 25 as a leader. Took Uxbridge youths to World Jamboree in Holland. Involved in community theatre for 20 years as actor, director, playwright, stage manager etc. Born in England, came to Canada at 16, lived most of life north and east of Toronto with a five-year period in B.C.
The same old argument
"All the world's a stage" -William Shakespeare
When I am treading the boards at the Music Hall, I delight in having people watch me. If they didn't, what would be the point of being on stage? But I don't like being watched when I'm not on stage. Most specifically, I don't like government at any level or any of its representatives watching me as I go about my business. Or not being busy at all. And yet it seems Uxbridge Township is contemplating doing just that.
As is reported elsewhere in this edition of the Cosmos, council discussed video surveillance cameras on Monday night. Facilities manager Bob Ferguson reported there are nine such cameras already or due to be installed at municipal properties around town and there is another camera - a mobile one - that can be set up temporarily at any location the township desires.
I have no problem with cameras being installed to protect properties such as the arena and train station from vandals and other miscreants: several private businesses in the downtown area have security cameras installed for just such similar purposes. But what concerns me is that the Township is apparently considering the future installation of closed circuit television (CCTV) cameras to monitor the streets in the downtown area. Do Uxbridge residents really need to be watched as they move about the retail sector? Are our streets so unsafe that we need the questionable security of cameras surveying the area?
Ingrid Svelnis, the chief administrative officer, noted that installing cameras downtown still needs to be talked about. Indeed it does! Because there was precious little discussion about the cameras when Mr. Ferguson presented his report detailing the policies and procedures to be followed by those operating the cameras and viewing the resulting video tapes. It was only when I asked a question regarding the cameras at the end of the council meeting that the councillors began talking about the issue at all. Ward 4 councillor Jacob Mantle was the only one who voiced any opposition to CCTVs scanning the downtown streets.
"If I'm a law-abiding citizen, I shouldn't have to have somebody watching me," he said.
That was in response to Mayor Gerri-Lynn O'Connor's statement that people with nothing to hide should have no concerns about the CCTVs. That tired old argument is continually raised when it comes to matters of government surveillance, be it government snooping into private e-mails and Internet use or cameras installed to scan the streets. It just doesn't wash. The fact that strict privacy rules are in place and only authorized personnel can view the scenes captured by the CCTVs doesn't alter the fact that, in this town, those authorized people are your neighbours. You wouldn't want your neighbour watching you on screen any more than you'd want him watching you through your living room window, whether or not you are doing anything wrong.
Proponents would point out that many stores, banks, shopping malls, etc use surveillance cameras. That is true, but I have the option of entering those establishments or not. Unless I want to live like a hermit, however, I have to use the downtown streets and should be able to do so without my every step being recorded and my every act observed, whether I'm picking my nose, scratching my behind or whatever.
Although council went out of its way to emphasize the program is still in its infancy and "needs to be talked about", it was stated downtown cameras would likely operate only in the overnight hours "to watch for loiterers". I'd like someone to explain to me what is meant by "loiterers". The powers that be would have you believe a loiterer is someone who is likely to be up to no good, especially if they are loitering at night. But the last time I looked, this township does not have a curfew on the books, so if I'm of a mind to wander down Brock Street at 3 a.m. and sit on a bench for half-an-hour, does that make me a loiterer? Does that mean I can expect to be questioned by police if a camera catches me on a stroll in the wee hours? I have done that a number of times, because I'm a night owl who seldom hits the hay before 4 a.m.
While CCTVs at municipal properties are aimed at stopping the vandalism that, admittedly, plagues this town, I haven't seen any reports or personally observed much in the way of downtown vandalism other than a few flower beds being brutalized. It seems to me like a matter of overkill to install CCTVs to watch the citizenry in order to catch a couple of flower mutilators.
Instead of heading down the road to Big Brotherism, maybe the council should consider the funds required to purchase said CCTVs could be better spent keeping the Zephyr library branch open.
Tell me, am I wrong?
