The Tyranny of Safetyism
“If it’s not 100% safe, then ban it!”
This is the mantra of a growing section of society where even if the risk of harm is miniscule and virtually non-existent, if even one person is hurt or killed, the practice or product must be banned. Personal liberties and freedoms need some curtailing even in democracies, but where is the point where the Nanny State goes too far?
The premise is termed ‘Concept Creep’. As quipped during a Big Bang Theory episode where Penny and Leonard’s mother were doing shots at the Cheesecake Factory, ‘If one is good, then more must be better!’ You could re-word this quote to say, ‘If less is better, than none is the best!’
To illustrate some of the safetyism prevalent in Canada, let us start with the food we feed our children. Of course, ‘good’ parents want what’s best for little Timmy and Jane. Hence, the explosion of organic foods and the drive by advocacy groups to drive containments that may only be in the parts per billion down to absolute zero.
Instead of rehashing the arguments of why paying three times the cost for organics is a rip-off and why ‘the dose makes the poison’, let us examine a common food item, honey.
If you have an infant under the age of one, Health Canada recommends that you do not feed them honey as it may cause infant botulism. The younglings are unable to process botulism spores until they are a little older and at the age of one year, it is deemed safe for healthy infants to finally taste bee juice.
There seems to be some merit to these honey recommendations as some studies have shown C.botulinum to be present up to 25% of honey batches tested. But according to Health Canada, since 1979 of the 42 cases of infant botulism reported, only 3 were linked to ingestion of honey. Although life threatening, when caught early and treated fatalities are only 2%. These stats come from the States where they credit physician education for mitigating the mortality of infant botulism cases.
Heck, but most parents would agree, my kid isn’t starving for food so why take the chance with honey even though the risk by the numbers is very, very low. But botulism still will occur and it’s more than likely going to come from one of the many other vectors that are all around us. Besides, according to Canadian Traffic Collision Statistics, these same parents are many more times likely to hurt their infant in a vehicle accident driving to the store to buy the honey.
Moving on from innocuous and vague threats in our food supply, there is another hot button safety item that is burning up the social media feeds as the Liberals get set for another round of gun banning.
In general, the anti-gun side which has no clue as to what is involved regarding the legal purchase, use, and storage of guns let alone hand guns, wants to outright ban all guns. They are ‘scary’, why do you need an AK-47 to hunt deer, they’re used to kill women, etc. They just want guns to disappear off the face of the Earth and we’ll all be happier.
The 2 million legal Canadian gun owners have taken some umbrage to these broad sweeping statements which would eventually see a general disarmament of the population. First off, are there not more pressing issues? Violent crime in Canada, especially with a firearm, is an anomaly. According to 2016 figures, violent crime committed with a firearm only occurs .6% of the time.
A Canadian is just as likely to die from stabbing and beating as compared to being intentionally shot by someone but again those numbers are only about .6/100,000 people. The vast amount of people dying from guns, at 75%, are those committing suicide. Banning guns will not prevent suicides as they will just find some other method.
It begs the question, why are leftist governments so intent on banning guns and does it not seem that their end goal is to legislate them out of existence? It won’t reduce the incidence of illegal guns or crime on Canadian streets as the US is flush with weapons already making their way North.
Moving along, the Manitoba Government would like to wish all those merry makers a joyful party season where officers will be impounding your vehicle, confiscating your driver’s license, and levying stiff fines starting at $400 for the penalty of having one drink. Despite the fact that impaired driving rates have dropped by 2/3rds in the last 3 decades and Manitoba already had good numbers, it’s not enough if only one person dies due to drinking and driving.
Of course, if a person is physically impaired and hits the .08 BAC or higher, they should not be operating a motor vehicle. This .08 BAC was actually researched and was not a number pulled from a hat. But this is where concept creep insidiously makes its way into legislation. Some evidence from BC’s dropping of the limit was given as proof that these new measures were going to save more lives. The BC numbers seem to indicate an extra 50 people are alive each year since they have dropped the BAC limit to .05. Just for comparison’s sake, BC’s overdose deaths for 2018 were greater than 1500. There seems to be a disconnect as to priorities.
But the new, arbitrary limit can easily be reached by having one drink. Are you actually impaired with one drink, compared to maybe not getting enough sleep the night before? How soon will it be before the government decides that zero drinks will be the new limit? Shouldn’t the government be removing sleepy drivers off of the road also? Maybe we should just shut down all the highways and keep people in their houses and confiscate all vehicles.
Canadians seem to be becoming timid creatures, afraid of their own shadows, and willing to accede to the State when it comes to what’s good for them. Concept creep is inexorably strangling our personal liberties and freedoms. When did we cede all personal responsibility to government as to what risks we as individuals were willing to take?
Blair is a personification of a ‘Jack of All Trades and Master of None’. He has held several careers and has all the T-shirts. Time to add the title Blogger to the list.
Let Kids be Kids
Adults continuously underestimate children, especially their own. Babies will start playing their parents as soon as they are brought home from the hospital. It’s hilarious that parents can’t see them as having intelligence. They are your offspring after all unless you’re particularly stupid. Society in general is predisposed to treat anyone under the age of majority in an infantile manner. Somehow on the day you turn 18, you magically become an adult. I just relate this silliness to my experience growing up on a farm where I was expected to do the work of an adult at the age of 12 with the commensurate respect. I was also allowed to hunt by myself at that age with a .22 rifle. Imagine the consternation of the typical soccer mom if little Johnny was walking around with a rifle in this day and age!
There are some studies floating around which say the average one year old hears the word ‘no’ 400 times a day. It’s no wonder that’s their favourite word! ‘No, no, no, little Johnny or Susie, mustn’t touch, eat, move, say, or any other action!’ is the typical (usually) motherly admonishment kids hear. All they are doing by the age of two is mimicking what they’ve heard their entire lives. Maybe that’s why my kids never had ‘terrible’ twos since I wasn’t a constant ‘No’ monster.
Children need to be left alone once in awhile with other children to just be children. I grew up with five boys on a farm and had about 20,000 acres as our personnel playground. We played at hunting and were death to anything slow enough to not get out of our way. We travelled solo or as a ‘tribe’ and we were looking to destroy and kill. By destroy and kill, I mean stuff that didn’t matter to the adults. Smart kids realize quick that you can almost get away with murder as long as the adults do not need to intervene. Before we were allowed to hunt with rifles, we were already fashioning bows and arrows out of Saskatoon saplings and ragweed. Plus we were already proficient at throwing rocks, usually at each other for sport. You learned how to duck and how to hide the bruises. (See the note about not involving the adults) Let your children get out on their own. Let them smash things (within reason) in order to get some of those frustrations out. Let them build the self confidence needed as they move towards adulthood.
We have created a world in which children are almost always in the presence of a supervisor. It drives me crazy to be in the presence of a typical elementary playground when all the mothers are clucking. For some reason, kids need their lives to be continuously structured while harried parents run them from activity to activity. Don’t get me wrong, in my opinion, children should be active. My two kids were on the go all the time with their various programs. But the important distinction is the activity must be driven by the children vice the parents. Within reason, if a kid doesn’t want to do dance, play hockey, ride horses, etc. then as a parent, stop trying to push the rope. Let the kids explore their passions, encourage their choices and help guide them towards happiness and success. Then when they need some down or alone time, let it happen.
Here’s an example where kids have lost any chance of some down time. If you’re a hockey parent, you’re well aware of the 5 a.m. practices, the weekend road trips, the constant fund raising, and the summer camps. A kid can literally play hockey 12 months of the year. They never get a break but if they’re going to be successful and get that coveted NHL contract, that’s the path you must take. Unfortunately, thousands of families get caught up in a stressful, expensive grind.