RESPECT FOR CABBIES
There are occasions when it makes sense to divert people accused of wrongdoing from the criminal justice system and instead deal with the matter through the Alberta Adult Alternative Measures Program.
The disgusting case of a female passenger who threw a bag of vomit at a Calgary taxi driver, soiling the poor man’s clothes, phone, car seat and floor mats, is not one of those cases, however.
Every person is entitled to enjoy a safe and harassment- free work environment. Being covered by the contents of another person’s bag of vomit is the antithesis of that, and the 33- yearold passenger deserves a criminal record for her actions, not the kid- gloves treatment that will allow the charge of assault to be withdrawn if she completes the terms set out for her.
Alternative measures conditions may include community service, counselling for issues such as anger management and/ or a fine. That’s all well and good, but it doesn’t reflect society’s deep revulsion for such an act and it doesn’t send a message to other patrons that they must treat cab drivers — or anyone else, for that matter — with decency and respect.
The incident took place at approximately 3: 20 a. m. on Aug. 23, when the taxi driver went to pick up a female patron in downtown Calgary and drove her to a home in the northwest Sandstone Valley area.
On the way, the passenger threw up in the vehicle. The cabbie gave her a bag, and then carried on with the trip.
Once they arrived at the residence, the passenger continued vomiting on the vehicle’s exterior.
When the cabbie naturally requested a cleanup fee for his inconvenience, the passenger became abusive and threw the bag of vomit on him.
“She became upset and agitated,” police said. “She was intoxicated by alcohol and wasn’t prepared to pay the cleanup fee.”
The passenger’s family later paid the cleanup fee and fare. The case is scheduled to be back in court Feb. 26 to confirm the woman’s successful completion of the program.
According to the Alberta Justice website, alternative measures “may be used only if not inconsistent with the protection of society,” the needs of the accused and the interests of the victim.
In our view, this case shouldn’t qualify. Society needs to be safeguarded from such acts. And as much as it might be convenient to take this matter out of the regular court system, a strong message needs to be delivered to others who possess a lack of regard for those providing a valuable public service.