Fun with analogies! A Bill C-51 approach to bike safety!

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/

So, I think I'm going with NDP and here's why...

First, let me say something about some biases I have going into this post.

I do not trust politicians.

I do not like the state of "Democracy" in North America.

I do not trust the system.

The spirit of what Democracy should be is that the people elect representatives because it is the best possible way to ensure that concerns of the people are addressed by the government; we need elected representatives because governing people is a full time job and a democracy cannot function without structure (in a practical sense, millions of people cannot each weigh-in on every issue and total consensus is not always possible).  In theory, the people of any given community select a representative to participate in government who they feel best represents their interests and will do the best job of governing.  A representative must have ideals, integrity, and interest to be a good candidate for this sort of thing as not everyone is capable of governing.  The representative must always work in the best interest of the people that put them there, regardless of personal beliefs, opinions, or external influences.

That is a little about what we should have.

We don't.

Modern "democracy" has become a farce of banality and frustrating public relations spin where the people who are afforded the opportunity to participate come from the highest of privileges and who carry said privileges into office with them.  The privileged few who have the opportunity to engage in politics have made democracy into a game about winning elections and not about how to best govern the people.  Yes, a candidate who receives the most number of votes (or in our case has the most votes of anyone one party)  technically "wins" the election; however, framing it in Win/Lose binary has more in common with games than it does with government.

I said earlier that I believe representatives in a democracy must posses ideals, integrity, and interest to be effective in governing people.  Those ideals, I feel, must always be concerned with what is best for the people, above all else.  Those ideals, I feel, should not be about towing the party line or keeping their privileged friends happy with subtle politicking behind closed doors.  Having party platforms is one of the reasons democracy has been reduced to the mess it is today as it is the party ideals that have taken over as the primary influencing factor for how a representative governs the people.  It is this notion that a Progressive Conservative (which is a contradiction of terms by the way) must always act as a Progressive Conservative in all things, the up shot being that the Progressive Conservative puts their party's ideals before the desires people that they are supposed to be governing; the same goes for Liberals, NDPs, and the Wildrose.  Party representation means that the elected party governs the people who's party affiliation matches their own and, from what I've seen done in practice, elected parties tend to ignore the people who's affiliation differs.

Like I said at the outset, I have no faith in politicians nor the system in which they participate and I will hold this position until I see reason to believe otherwise.

The other source of my pessimism/realism (however you want to label it) comes from the realities of how the Obama Administration has played out in the United States, while we do have completely different political structures one of the major problems manifested in a very large and obvious way.  Republican concerns about Obama were very clear before anyone was elected and this is fine, they are fully entitled to have an opinion as to whether or not they like the other side.  However, what this manifested as was practically childlike obstinate behavior.  To show their dislike the Republican side made sure that the Obama Administration was one of the least effective governments in recent history by refusing to participate, at all, in any decisions that the Administration was trying to make; they would even refuse to participate in concessions that the Obama Administration was willing to make to help them stop pouting for a minute and govern the country.

If a party is truly interested in governing the people in the best way possible then they must respect the will of the people even if that means respecting who they have chosen to represent them in government.  When the Republicans of the United States made it their mission to refuse to participate in governing, they directly insulted the people who cast their vote.  They demonstrated that they're only interested in respecting the democratic process if they are the beneficiaries.

Again, our governments are very different in a structural context, but, make no mistake, they are almost identical in terms of how the parties are behaving with each other.  It is a game of winners and losers, a game where the privileged few fight over who has the power, and all the while the people, who selected these representatives, suffer and are ignored. The state of modern day "democracy" is dismal.

With that said, I saw a glimmer of hope with the public debate that was held recently.

NDP Party Leader Rachel Notley demonstrated, with a very simple phrase, what I feel to be a sign that there is reason to believe she and her party are interested in focusing on the concerns of the people over and above their own party ideals.  The question posed to each candidate was around forming a coalition government in the event that a minority government is selected, however, it was how each party responded to the idea that prompted Notley to make the statement that I'm interested in.

Each of the other candidates remained rigid in their party ideals and plainly stated that they are not interested in working with anyone else, under any circumstances.  This means we can infer that should they lose the election, they would follow in the footsteps of the Republicans under the Obama Administration and refuse to participate; doing everything in their power to make sure the elected government, whomever that ends up being, couldn't do their job and govern properly.

Notley was the only candidate who stated that they would respect the will of the people and ensure that they would work with the elected government, if it wasn't themselves, to be best of their ability with the hopes of making sure that Albertans have the best possible government.

It wasn't much and my lack of faith in the system and the politicians prevents me from getting overly optimistic, after all it could simply have been good politicking on her part.  But, having said that, it's a subtle yet intriguing statement to make when every other candidate was rolling with the status quo in terms of party politics.  When I consider her move, the underwhelming performances of the Liberal and Wildrose candidates, and the totally disrespectful behavior of Prentice over the past few months I can't help but be drawn to throwing some support behind one of the lesser evils.

Notley and the NDP could still turn out to validate my pessimism, but for the longest time I've been looking for one of the parties in our government to display single factor, aspect, or ideal that would separate them from the others.  This small act, which just shows you how dismal things really at the moment, is enough...for now...

Video of the debate is here.

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.