By Rob Breakenridge, via the Calgary Herald:On this Remembrance Day as we honour the courage and sacrifice of Canada's bravest, it's an illustrative reminder of a glaring contrast that exists in this country.For indeed, we are a nation that asks so much of so few yet expects so little from so many.Our appreciation of valour seems a strange anomaly when coddling and condescension are the order of the day.It is rather paradoxical that in a country where one can volunteer to put one's life on the line in armed conflict, that same citizen is entrusted with far less authority in making far less dangerous decisions.It represents what is often referred to as the "nanny state" -- the notion that we need to be protected not only from others, but from ourselves as well.To use "nanny" as an analogy is to speak to the line that's seemingly been erased when it comes to safeguarding children and allowing common sense to prevail among adults.We're so accustomed to this by now that further examples of it seem inconsequential.Whereas the notion of forcing adults to wear helmets of any sort might have once seemed a demeaning encroachment on individual liberties, we're now haggling over the particular exemptions of a new worry-free society where helmets are ubiquitous.It's become a no-brainer that motorcyclists or professional hockey players would be obligated to wear helmets in such potentially hazardous conditions.We give little thought, however, to whether providing one form of protection leads to risky behaviour in other ways -- would an unhelmeted motorcyclist drive more safely? Did unhelmeted players play with more caution and less aggression?We also give little consideration to how many motorcyclists or professional hockey players would stop using helmets if the requirement was no longer there.Probably very few, but again, such decisions must not be left to the individual.But that Rubicon was crossed a long time ago; we're no longer debating mandatory helmet use for playing hockey, we're debating it for anyone who sets foot on or near an ice surface.It won't be long before proof of helmet ownership is needed to purchase a pair of skates. But then again, merely leaving the house to make such a purchase might require a helmet anyway.Read the rest here.Source
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Free to enlist, but not choose
By Rob Breakenridge, via the Calgary Herald:On this Remembrance Day as we honour the courage and sacrifice of Canada's bravest, it's an illustrative reminder of a glaring contrast that exists in this country.For indeed, we are a nation that asks so much of so few yet expects so little from so many.Our appreciation of valour seems a strange anomaly when coddling and condescension are the order of the day.It is rather paradoxical that in a country where one can volunteer to put one's life on the line in armed conflict, that same citizen is entrusted with far less authority in making far less dangerous decisions.It represents what is often referred to as the "nanny state" -- the notion that we need to be protected not only from others, but from ourselves as well.To use "nanny" as an analogy is to speak to the line that's seemingly been erased when it comes to safeguarding children and allowing common sense to prevail among adults.We're so accustomed to this by now that further examples of it seem inconsequential.Whereas the notion of forcing adults to wear helmets of any sort might have once seemed a demeaning encroachment on individual liberties, we're now haggling over the particular exemptions of a new worry-free society where helmets are ubiquitous.It's become a no-brainer that motorcyclists or professional hockey players would be obligated to wear helmets in such potentially hazardous conditions.We give little thought, however, to whether providing one form of protection leads to risky behaviour in other ways -- would an unhelmeted motorcyclist drive more safely? Did unhelmeted players play with more caution and less aggression?We also give little consideration to how many motorcyclists or professional hockey players would stop using helmets if the requirement was no longer there.Probably very few, but again, such decisions must not be left to the individual.But that Rubicon was crossed a long time ago; we're no longer debating mandatory helmet use for playing hockey, we're debating it for anyone who sets foot on or near an ice surface.It won't be long before proof of helmet ownership is needed to purchase a pair of skates. But then again, merely leaving the house to make such a purchase might require a helmet anyway.Read the rest here.Source
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment