Wednesday, April 09, 2008

Oops! CPoC Touts Consumer Protection with Photo of Helmetless Rollerbladers

Whooee! Well friends an' foes, I see that the Con's are up on their hindlegs crowin' about how they're Protecting Canadian Families with new consumer protection rules. They say:
When it comes to protecting consumers, the choice is clear. Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservative Government are taking real action to keep Canadians safer and healthier. The St├ęphane Dion Liberals must answer to Canadian families for their record of inaction, weak leadership, and unacceptable risk. (emphasis mine. JB)

Most authorities on health and safety are in agreement. Inline skating is inherently dangerous and is the cause of hundreds of injuries annually. Most of the serious cases are head injuries and most could have been minimized or eliminated if the skaters were wearing helmets, as recommended by experts from Sick Kids Hospital (PDF) and many other consumer and child safety organizations.

Here's a little tip fer the ConMen. If yer talkin' about protecting families, try to find a photo where responsible parents are following universally accepted safety precautions. Promoting the use of rollerblades without adequate protection against head injuries creates an unacceptable risk.

Before the cries of "Nanny State! Nanny State!" start, let me say that I'm not (at least in this boog story) advocating mandatory helmet use for adults. Children, however, are vulnerable and parents must do what they can to ensure their offspring will reach adulthood without suffering preventable, debilitating injury. Kids should wear helmets when a serious, proven risk of head injury exists.

JimBobby

5 comments:

stageleft said...

Good closing paragraph :-)

Catelli said...

For the really analytical.

Note that the oldest boy is the only one wearing knee and wrist protectors.

Youngest boy gets knee protectors.

Daughter? Nothing.

Gotta protect the eldest male you know, so they can inherit the lands and titles.

JimBobby said...

Whooee! SL, I wrote that closer with you in mind.

Catelli, I noticed the lack of other protection, too. And the varyin' degrees afforded the different kiddies. Good spin. The Con's are notorious fer failin' to protect women.

dirk buchholz said...

JB said..."Before the cries of "Nanny State! Nanny State!" start, let me say that I'm not (at least in this boog story) advocating mandatory helmet use for adults. Children, however, are vulnerable and parents must do what they can to ensure their offspring will reach adulthood without suffering preventable, debilitating injury. Kids should wear helmets when a serious, proven risk of head injury exists"....

Point taken,but there to its not a matter for the law,education for sure.
Enough already with laws mandating how and what parents must do.Nothing worse then do-gooders and over zealous social workers judging parents,indeed anyone.

JimBobby said...

Well Dirk, we got laws sayin' parents must provide the necessities of life, i.e. food, clothing, shelter. We got laws against child abuse. We got laws that say kids under a certain age must sit in a child seat when traveling in a car. We got laws against child abandonment. We got laws that say a child can't drive a car on the public roads. We got laws that say drivers need to slow down in school zones.

Them laws are in place to protect children who cannot be expected to protect themselves. That's society looking after some of its weakest members.

I didn't call for mandatory helmet use. I said parents "must" do what they can and that helmets "should" be worn. Those are moral imperatives -- not laws.

Most parents take their role seriously. Most do not need legislation or public awareness campaigns to tell them they oughta be lookin' out fer the kiddies' safety. Some parents, however, put their children at unnecessary risk of serious, debilitating injury. If they want to risk their own lives, fine. If they want to risk their children's lives, they need to be educated. If they can't be educated, they need to be forced. That is only society protecting its most vulnerable from, negligence and, in this case, brain injury.

The whole Con website piece is about how the gummint is putting stricter laws in place to protect consumers. Maybe you oughta be railin' against them restrictive laws instead of against my commonsense suggestion that children are a parent's responsibility. Fight for the right of Chinese manufacturers to poison our children. After all, it's not up to government to protect its child citizens from harm, is it? Parents should be free to poison their brain-injured vegetable children if they want to, right?

JB