I don't like head injuries.
My friends don't like head injuries.
The NHL doesn't like head injuries. (or class-action complaints for that matter)
Head injuries, quite generally, do not have the greatest reputation of being very fun.
Naturally, wherever there are situations where there is a chance one might experience a head injury there are often measures put into place to avoid such an experience; one such famous and beloved measure to preventing a head injury is known as a helmet. Helmets come in all kinds of sizes and shapes and can be found in may different contexts: construction sites, hockey, american football, biking (motor and human powered), and so on. For the purposes of this particular analogy I will be rolling with the biking context (again, either motor or human powered) and I will be applying the Bill C-51 logic to bike safety.
From the moment where the ability to operate a bike first comes into our lived experience we're taught to wear a helmet to avoid experiencing a serious head injury; for many this was explained through fear as we watched many a video of unfortunate watermelons having rather explosive interactions with pavement. With a healthy dose of fear most of us grabbed a helmet and then set out to experience what it was like to operate a vehicle with only two wheels. Everyone seemed to have a pretty good understanding of what the helmet was going to provide for us and wearing one didn't mean we went around with a perpetual fear of potentially needing to use it. Biking is risky and while a helmet may prevent the worst of the worst, there is still a chance that one might experience a rather serious head injury as we meander about.
However, despite the risk, many did and many do make the choice to operate bikes on a daily basis; millions of people, in fact, engage with bikes accepting the reality that there is still a chance they might come to significant harm while operating one. Helmets are also thought to be good things to have, even though they are not guaranteed to make one invulnerable to harm. We take advantage of a freedom that's available to us, accepting the fact that while we can reduce the risk of significant harm, we're never completely guaranteed to prevent harm from ever coming to us.
Our illustrious government has other ideas about bike safety. Our government is very afraid of head injuries, more so than your average bike operator. They are so fearful of head injuries while operating a bike that they have become fixated on the chance that a head injury might occur even while wearing protective equipment. Exactly why or how they've become to be so paranoid about the potential for head injuries is anyone's guess; however, they have come to the point when they are desperate to convince the rest of us that their fear is justified and they are going to extreme lengths to do so. Much like the traumatizing videos of happy watermelons meeting an early demise, the government has been stirring the pot when it comes to head injuries by cherry-picking evidence about the prevalence of them. They're at a point, now, in their propaganda where they're even suggesting that one might experience a biking head injury completely out of the blue or even just randomly experiencing a head injury.
Helmets are no longer adequate.
More extreme measures are required.
So, the government puts into place Bill C-51 to improve bike safety for all Canadians. This bill gives them the power to intervene in citizens lives whenever they choose should the government feel that a potential head injury is remotely possible sometime in the very near future or sometime in the very far future. For individuals deemed at risk of experiencing a bike related head injury the government is prepared to confiscate their bike, helmet, riding paraphernalia, and anything in that person's life that may lead them to think about engaging with a bike. By preventing these individuals, and applying the regulations broadly, from experiencing a bike related head injury they are, subsequently, making it safe for the rest of us to not experience a bike related head injury.
Well intentioned? Perhaps.
Practical? Hardly.
One cannot monitor every single person in this country for bike related thoughts. The government has to know this. So the only result of such an over-reaching and impractical bill is for the government to become hyper-vigilant when it comes to putting this bill into practice. Will it prevent bike related head injuries? Well if you don't allow anyone to ever do anything related to bikes ever again, remove all mention of bikes from history, and discretely eliminate anyone who has heard, knows, or is aware of the existence, past or present, of bikes then...yes, you will prevent all future instances of bike related head injuries.
Bottom line is this: If you want to have a country where the people are, generally, free then you have to accept the risk that some will find a way to exploit the system. You have to accept the risk that despite your risk reduction tactics, you may still find yourself in a harmful or hurtful situation.
If, however, you are NOT interested in having a country where people are, generally, free then, by all means, impose blanket restrictions on the people, reducing their freedoms to the point where every second of their lives is controlled by you. Just don't sit there and try and tell us that this is actually "for our own good" and is really all about "protecting" freedom.
Post inspiration/source: http://thinkpol.ca/2015/05/09/supporters-publicly-abandoning-liberal-party-over-trudeaus-support-for-bill-c-51/
Showing posts with label Bill C-51. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bill C-51. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
Monday, March 2, 2015
Single Issue Politics
As the country in which I live gradually slides down a slope of
increasingly problematic systemic oppression, I can’t help but feel a
growing bitterness towards the democratic process and the current state
of it in this country.
With the recent passing of Bill C-36, the Canadian Government (aka The Harper Government, no narcissism there *eyeroll*) clearly stated to the entire country that the lives and safety of Sex Workers were not worth protecting. While the bill was presented as something that only criminalizes the people seeking the service Sex Workers provide, the reality is that it makes it impossible to conduct Sex Work in a safe manner. Sex Workers and their advocates repeatedly stated that the bill will create unsafe working conditions and constantly advocated for decriminalization, which would have given Sex Workers much more control over their own lives.
With that issue “settled” as far as the current government is concerned we are now seeing the rise of a new, equally oppressive bill just in time for a new election season. This new bill, being marketed as an “anti-terror” bill, seeks to provide government security forces with unprecedented latitude when it comes to “preemptively silencing terrorist acts.” However, initial details released about the bill are terrifyingly vague as to what qualifies as a “terrorist” act and horrifyingly versatile when it comes to which groups this bill could be applied to. Under this new legislation, any group could easily be labeled as engaging in terrorist acts where peaceful protests and merely disagreeing with the government are the acts that will be used as evidence. It as, in fact, already been applied before the bill has even been approved.
Now, as we approach election season, the media and politician’s respective propaganda machines are firing up and anointing Bill C-51 as this elections “hot issue.”
While I am moderately encouraged that at least one party is opposing the bill I am not at all enthused as to where I see us heading. Bill C-51 will be the major deciding factor in this years election, whomever can convince the largest demographic that their position is right can take a significant number of votes. This will happen because the media is already telling us that this is the most important issue for this coming election. The depressing upshot of this change in the winds means that other desperate social issues will take a back seat in the politicians platforms and in the public’s mind.
This will happen because we have a capitalistic democracy that sees the people they serve as demographics and works to secure the largest demographic with the best marketing campaign. An “Anti-Terror Bill” is as enticing as it is banal which acts as the perfect issue to guide how an election rolls out; it is something can always be used as a trump card for other issues because one can simply ask “don’t you care about the security of this country?” or “so you side with the terrorists then?” It is, and will be, presented as a black and white issue whereby politicians cannot ignore addressing it.
Other issues will fall to the wayside because the subtle evil of a banal label of “Anti-Terror” appeals to the privileged majority who have not had to consider the suffering and oppression of others. The need for an “Anti-Terror” bill is a completely manufactured fear that plays on the completely normal desire to remain unafraid, content, and comfortable that the privileged masses have become accustomed too. They have not been made aware of other social issues and, when pressed, have deliberately remained ignorant and uninterested. In addition to the apparent threat to privilege “terrorism” poses, this bill will also play on the latent racism, classism, and general bigotry that is lingering, just under the surface of the privileged masses. The white, affluent masses have been trained and conditioned to fear people who are not like them, so any opportunity to embrace that fear is one that they take with great enthusiasm; one need only look at the response to the Charlie Hebdo shooting as evidence of this impulse.
I cannot help but see our current state of democracy as broken and until there is a radical shift in the public’s view and understanding of what a democratic government is supposed to look like, I do not see a change coming.
With the recent passing of Bill C-36, the Canadian Government (aka The Harper Government, no narcissism there *eyeroll*) clearly stated to the entire country that the lives and safety of Sex Workers were not worth protecting. While the bill was presented as something that only criminalizes the people seeking the service Sex Workers provide, the reality is that it makes it impossible to conduct Sex Work in a safe manner. Sex Workers and their advocates repeatedly stated that the bill will create unsafe working conditions and constantly advocated for decriminalization, which would have given Sex Workers much more control over their own lives.
With that issue “settled” as far as the current government is concerned we are now seeing the rise of a new, equally oppressive bill just in time for a new election season. This new bill, being marketed as an “anti-terror” bill, seeks to provide government security forces with unprecedented latitude when it comes to “preemptively silencing terrorist acts.” However, initial details released about the bill are terrifyingly vague as to what qualifies as a “terrorist” act and horrifyingly versatile when it comes to which groups this bill could be applied to. Under this new legislation, any group could easily be labeled as engaging in terrorist acts where peaceful protests and merely disagreeing with the government are the acts that will be used as evidence. It as, in fact, already been applied before the bill has even been approved.
Now, as we approach election season, the media and politician’s respective propaganda machines are firing up and anointing Bill C-51 as this elections “hot issue.”
While I am moderately encouraged that at least one party is opposing the bill I am not at all enthused as to where I see us heading. Bill C-51 will be the major deciding factor in this years election, whomever can convince the largest demographic that their position is right can take a significant number of votes. This will happen because the media is already telling us that this is the most important issue for this coming election. The depressing upshot of this change in the winds means that other desperate social issues will take a back seat in the politicians platforms and in the public’s mind.
This will happen because we have a capitalistic democracy that sees the people they serve as demographics and works to secure the largest demographic with the best marketing campaign. An “Anti-Terror Bill” is as enticing as it is banal which acts as the perfect issue to guide how an election rolls out; it is something can always be used as a trump card for other issues because one can simply ask “don’t you care about the security of this country?” or “so you side with the terrorists then?” It is, and will be, presented as a black and white issue whereby politicians cannot ignore addressing it.
Other issues will fall to the wayside because the subtle evil of a banal label of “Anti-Terror” appeals to the privileged majority who have not had to consider the suffering and oppression of others. The need for an “Anti-Terror” bill is a completely manufactured fear that plays on the completely normal desire to remain unafraid, content, and comfortable that the privileged masses have become accustomed too. They have not been made aware of other social issues and, when pressed, have deliberately remained ignorant and uninterested. In addition to the apparent threat to privilege “terrorism” poses, this bill will also play on the latent racism, classism, and general bigotry that is lingering, just under the surface of the privileged masses. The white, affluent masses have been trained and conditioned to fear people who are not like them, so any opportunity to embrace that fear is one that they take with great enthusiasm; one need only look at the response to the Charlie Hebdo shooting as evidence of this impulse.
I cannot help but see our current state of democracy as broken and until there is a radical shift in the public’s view and understanding of what a democratic government is supposed to look like, I do not see a change coming.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)