I was just reading the paper and came across this

http://www.smh.com.au/national/drownings-soar-in-horror-summer-20100131-n6md.html

It says:"More than 300 people drowned last financial year, the highest figure for six years"

and:"The study highlighted a ''really concerning'' over-representation of male drownings, at 76 per cent."

The actual number of children drowned last year is not given, but the ABS provides some guidance for earlier periods

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/0/0A9D2467C7CA2AF8CA2568A900139375?OpenDocument

It says:"About a third of all child deaths from external causes were due to motor vehicle accidents (on average around 64 deaths per year) and drowning (on average 68 deaths per year)."

and:"About 6% of all child deaths classified as being due to external causes were homicides."

IOW, during the study period (1982-1996) a child was about 5-6 times more likely to drown than to be the victim of fatal assault.

Isn't it about time that we, as a caring nation concerned about our children's safety, took immediate action to have all bodes of water declared off-limits? Irresponsible parents who allow their children to play near water should surely be subject to the swiftest and most stringent interventions?

Think of the children!

I think you're on the right track, Antiseptic.

Here are some further suggestions.

i) immediately impose a 40k.p.h limit on all Australian roads, so that families find it more difficult to get to the beaches

ii) set up mobile speed traps on every road leading to water

iii) breathalyse every motorist who manages to get past the speed traps; together with ii), this will constrain the family's time at the water, which will also limit the danger to the child

iv) insist that a government inspector is present whenever a child is using your backyard pool - you can book one through the local council. Give seven days notice of your requirement.

v) include water safety in the Bill of Rights, something along the lines of "every child has the right to stay alive in the water"

vi) and finally, in line with v) above, charge the delinquent parents who carelessly lose a child in this fashion with murder.

As Voltaire nearly said...

"dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de condamner à l'emprisonnement à vie de temps en temps une famille en deuil pour encourager les autres"

As you so rightly say, think of the children.

Dear Anti,

I'm not sure that banning all water activities
is the answer.

Wouldn't teaching children to swim from an early
age - be a better alternative?

Also educational awareness programs on the dangers
and risks involved with leaving children on their own -
near bodies of water - may not be a bad idea either.
Parents should also be made aware of the importance
of swimming between the flags on public beaches,
as well as protective fencing around backyard pools,
and so on.

Education - with an emphasis on safety measures -
is what needs to be stressed.

Dear Pericles,

You made me spill my morning cuppa!
(giggle)!

Love your sense of humour!

Pericles, excellent suggestions, but of course, they don't go far enough. Thanks to the excellent work by Anna Bligh, here in Queensland we have already taken the step of making baths a part of cultural history. As always, Anna is at the cutting edge of policy.

Foxy, I'm sad to say that all of your suggestions ahve been tried and have sadly failed. It's time for the Australian public to accept that we cannot be trusted to be near water, especially the poor kiddies.

It's time for action!

I think Anti's on to something here too - although I'm not sure what thing it is he's on. Clearly, if it's males who are so over-represented in drowning deaths, then it's they rather than females who should be prevented from accessing waterways.

Think of how much safer beaches would be. I'm thinking here of places like Cronulla, Manly and Burleigh Heads where young men and boys congregate to fight, drink and - apparently - drown.

Nah let em die I say and give them a Darwin award. Stupid people should be praised for offing themselves and improving our gene pool. If someone goes to all the effort of climbing a huge fence just so they can jump to their death in the name of fun, like i saw on the news yesterday, then they deserve our cheers and their five minutes of (posthumous) fame. Set up some stands and cameras so we can all enjoy the spectacle. Way better than some confected "reality" show. LOL

In the spirit of Antiseptic's suggestion, I have another.

In order to protect children from online predators, we should make it illegal to miss represent your age to a youngster - or at the very least make it illegal to say you younger than you are. Nobody has a good reason to tell a white lie about their age, so if find someone who does so online they are obviously doing it to fool our kids. With this law in place, we can remove them from society before they do any damage.

And if there is a very rare occasion when someone lies about their age and isn't about to molest a child - well as you so rightfully say Antiseptic, someone has to think of the children. Having a "I wasn't going to molest a child" as a defence is a loophole so wide a small army of online predators could pass through it unnoticed.

The great thing about my suggestion is it isn't original. That exemplary father and outstanding politician, Senator Nick Xenophon has seen the light and is pushing for this right now:

http://www.news.com.au/national/fake-teen-predators-could-face-jail/story-e6frfkw9-1225824962653

Note: what the newspaper article doesn't say is in the private members bill Xenophon is pushing people found to be representing themselves as minors but who do not intend to prey on anyone will also be libel for 3 years jail. So Grannies (Foxy!) beware: the days of telling white lies about your age to the grand kids about your are over!

PS: Xenophon is a lawyer. He understands the implications of his proposal.

Dear rstuart,

My grandson is only 10 days old -
all I can do at present is cuddle
and sing to him.

But when he's a bit older - instead of
lying to him - I'll buy him a T-shirt
with:

"My Gran's a Fox!"

on it.

How's that?

And he won't have trouble with water either.
He adores his bath-time! Teaching him to swim
will be easy!

Well if you ask me we couldn't go wrong with demanding all water-users be required to wear floatational rings whenever they enter the water- and if possible a tether to ensure they never accidentally swim too far from shore (or if it's a pool, swim into the deep end).
Possibly even a "swimming license" too.

Failure to do so will result in fines and loss of license, and swimming without a license may result in harsher penalties.

Australians will get used to it quickly, as we already do something similar with seatbelts (it is suitable that the one driving mispractice that only endangers the willing individual be the most serious standard offense on the road).

You are kidding!

Perhaps charge the carers of drowned children with 'neglect causing death', but that's about as far as it should go.

Once again you want to restrict everyones rights just to resolve a problem.

Responsible people should not be punished for the wrong doings of others.

Nanny State legislation does not come out of thin air, it is the legislative response demanded by civil rights activists, do-gooders and ambulance chasers.

Where there are so many prospective victims (now a recognisable part of Oz culture) and an over-supply of lawyers even the Lifesaving movement is obliged to take out hefty insurance in case they offend or harm a person while saving her life.

Regardless of any of that the accidental death of anyone, especially a child is a tragedy and my heartfelt sympathy goes out to any OLO reader who has experienced the loss of a family member or friend.

Just commenting on accidents involving children, many parents are unaware of the danger of containers of water such as nappy buckets or the risk of leaving a bath plug where a child might find it (and run the bath). Many deaths occur this way. It is possible to reduce infant and child deaths through education and water safety classes.

I'm no mathematician, I can hardly add without having two go's at it but all this hype has a simple note to it. More people = more accidents = more stupidity = man related incidents. If we want to cut back on such accidents we need to cut back on people. Where lies the difficulty in understanding that ?
I suppose we could try educating people by letting them be knocked around as babies & small children so they learn that certain things will hurt. As the evidence stands now we have young people getting killed because they've been mollycoddled & therefore devoid of comprehending certain danger. Same goes for behaviour. If we were allowed to slapp stroppy kids then they'd know that bad behaviour equals copping a clip behind the ear. Instead we (the do-gooders & idiotic psychologists & Counsellors ) teach them to push past the limit because they know some moron will stand up for them doing wrong. Let kids be kids & discipline them like kids when its needed & you'll have a better human being. No discipline & you get what we have now.

Very droll. Perhaps we should all never leave our homes.

For younger children who cannot swim, safety near water will always be the responsibility of parents as much as feasibly possible but even the most vigilant may look away for a few seconds.

Fact is some people will drown each year whether it be on unpatrolled beaches or otherwise. People will die from hangliding, parachuting and mountain climbing. It is a personal choice how much risk an individual takes and if they know the potential consequences it is their decision alone to take.

When it comes to kids it really is up to parents, you cannot legislate common sense.

Never fear Pelican, for I will also address these distressing figures also:

For mountain-climbing, any steep hill should be sealed off, with only access via a long cable tracing up the side, with handrails and many padded floors to absorb any people that fall grafted to the cliffside.

Parachuting is a tricky one, but I think I have an answer for it also:
We simply replace it with a similar sport involving a steep slipperydip, on which the participant looses a parachute as he/she descends its much more forgiving descent.

Now both of these recreational groups might at first be disappointed that their favourite activities are now somewhat "less exciting" but they will learn to appreciate the improved safety they are being given by a caring authority.

And I like the idea about being safer not leaving our homes- I think all doors should have child-proof locks, and a warning sign telling would-be home-leavers of the mortal statistics in the world outside.

(this is really quite fun)

Ha ha very good Hazza. Just so I don't feel left out of the fun.

Why only child proof locks. We can do better than that.

Governments (now known as our masters or he/she who must be obeyed) should immediately install a system like that seen in the futuristic movie Fortress. All exit doors to be controlled by a Central Control Unit and people will only be allowed out of their homes once padded in cotton wool with all necessary accompaniements such as flotation devices, failsafe parachute in case you fall down a cliff, oxygen tank incase you find yourself in water.

Children of course will never be allowed out until they reach the age of 18 and only then under supervision. Until then they will be left cocooned in the safety of their homes. Of course the homes will have padded walls, non-slip flooring and no pointy edges or heating devices that may cause harm.

And don't forget bicycle helmets and a leash- just in case! ;)

A couple more of these ban suggestions & we can safely assume the australian bureaucracy & mentality too has well & truly gone off the rails. Let's hope we get invaded because with a bit of luck we might get infected with some sense.

Some good examples, however most have their own blind spots through irrational fears and crooked thinking. What constitutes Nanny state regulation depends on one's outlook and for some their political alliances (surrendering their judgement).

To take some examples:

- proposed swimming warnings and prohibition on unpatrolled beaches;

- demands that any man seen 'loitering' near a school be interviewed and told to move on by police;

- Howard's gun buy-back and gun laws (since found to have had no effect whatsoever in reducing gun crime);

- demand for more 'education' and tougher testing of new drivers, following the report of any nasty road accident involving youth;

- demand to remove the points on all chef's knives because they could be used as weapons (UK, police);

- banning of photographs on beaches (assumed paedophiles, perves or potential rapists)

- demand to change the national flag through the belief that all 'Aussies' must be racists and xenophobes because some fools used the flag inappropriately;

Over-control through regulation does not only come from the irrational belief in risk avoidance, it can also result from jealousy, intolerance and prejudice. There seems to be a growth in the number of whiners and serial botherers in Australia. Looking over the neighbour's fence and troublemaking is fast becoming a national pastime.

Australia's population has almost doubled in the past 10 years.
Has the number of surf clubs and the number of patrolled beaches double. I think not.
Hence the problem and also the solution.

ponde, "Australia's population has almost doubled in the past 10 years."

Infrastructure cannot keep up with that.

Further, the volunteers for lifesaving and the people who donate money to it tend to come from the previous 'mainstream' of the Australian population. Other voluntary community help/support organisations have also been feeling the pinch.

It is impossible to legislate against stupiddity and, stupiddity is the cause, or contributor of many 'avoidable' deaths.

The problem is that once you try to legislate against stupiddity, you also effect those who have the 'common sense' approach to life and, you end up punishing those who do the right thing all in the name of saving stupid people.

Once again, the minority wins!

I'm appalled by the selfishness of those like Foxy, who are prepared to risk the lives of helpless babies just to clean them. What's wrong with a pre-moistened towelette? The complete safety implications would need to be investigated by a committee of trained professionals of course and obviously grandparents would need to be trained in their safe use, but if even one child is saved it would surely be worth it. Besides, think of the potential profits for the State if we can attract the new boom industry of moist towellette manufacturing.

Rstuart, your point about Xenophon's proposal protecting the innocent from "Cougar" attack is spot on. Every day we are confronted with more evidence in the press that middle-aged women are becoming ever more voracious sexually as well as becoming ever-heavier.

King Hazza, here in Queensland, Anna bligh's government has anticioated your concern with people undertaking hazardous recreations by making it an offence to participate in "unregulated high-risk activities". Anna, as always, is at the forefront of social policy formulation. She's a mother, you know.

Ponde, as you point out, our population is increasing rapidly. That means there are more children. Do we not owe it to the children of our immigrants to ensure that they are safe? Do we not want Australia to be a shining beacon of safety in a world of risk? Many of their parents have never seen large bodies of water before (except on the boat coming over perhaps). We cannot expect them to be sufficiently cognizant of the risks to allow them access. Think of the children.

rehctub and individual, you are obviously out of step with the community on this, preferring your own selfish "right" to swim over the safety of children. Shame on you.

Antiseptic, Rehctub here.

I have two children, now adults and, both myself and my wife would never allow them to swim without adult supervision and hence, they survived.

I am sorry, but why should the whole of society continue to be restricted due to what is often the neglect of a supervising adult.

Besides, as a kid myself I was never allowed to swim anywhere other than a patrolled beach and, we were brought up to respect the laws, you know like, do as you are told, never cross the road if there was a crossing close by.

How many time do you see lazy parents crossing the road close to a crossing, often with kids at toe.

I have done nothing to deserve to have my rights errodded or removed.

It's easy to take extreme examples such as these and use them to bash whichever group you happen to dislike. I was amused to see some posters bashing civil rights activists with them, when it's usually civil rights activists protesting against further government incursion.

Cornflower, I see you paint some of those suggestions as being as ridiculous as the idea of banning water activities. By grouping all of them in there, I think you're trying to tar reasonable moves as outrageous, and you also misrepresent the debate about the Australian flag.

"- proposed swimming warnings and prohibition on unpatrolled beaches"

To an extent, this isn't a bad idea. Drownings kill more tourists in Australia than anything else. I'd agree with banning people from swimming at some beaches, but perhaps not all unpatrolled ones. People should face hefty penalties for swimming at known danger-spots.

" Howard's gun buy-back and gun laws (since found to have had no effect whatsoever in reducing gun crime);"

Brilliant piece of policy. Your assertion there needs a lot of backing, it's something that's incredibly difficult to prove. One of the few things Howard did I wholeheartedly agree with. I could just as easily say that there's been no more Port Arthur Massacres since then, but again, it's conjecture and ultimately that comment would be as unreliable as yours. Well, not quite. At least mine can't be directly disputed, other than it's bearing in relation to the argument.

"demand for more 'education' and tougher testing of new drivers, following the report of any nasty road accident involving youth;"

Depends on the testing. Again, not much with the details.

Cornflower, it may surprise you that I consider myself a libertarian. By and large, I think people should be allowed to do what they wish providing they're not hurting others. There are limits however, and a huge number of stupid people out there.

That being said, things need to be assessed on individual merit. And they need to be backed up.

Dear Anti,

I love your idea of banning baths for babies.
And substituting towellettes for cleaning
a bub. What a great idea - especially for
number threes.

But why stop at babies?

Think of the towellette business being extended
to include teenagers/adults as well. Afterall - there are
dangers for them as well - many have been known
to slip in the bath/shower. Ah, the odours of
gorganzola may take some getting used to ...

But think of the demand for air-freshners, perfumes,
and other toiletries - bring back medieval times -
and why not!

TRTL, "you also misrepresent the debate about the Australian flag."

No I did not, I said, "demand to change the national flag through the belief that all 'Aussies' must be racists and xenophobes because some fools used the flag inappropriately". Do you deny some used that reasoning?

TRTL, "I think you're trying to tar reasonable moves as outrageous"

No, I am making a plea for decisions to be supported by risk analysis and risk management rather than resort to risk avoidance, which is the basis for Nanny State regulation and loss of liberty.

I do not object to laws and my taxes being spent as long as there is concrete EVIDENCE of worthwhile improvement. As a libertarian you should understand that.

Moving on to the Howard gun laws. Since you obviously have made your mind up on the needs and the results, I am entitled to ask precisely what needs and outcome measures have you have based you judgement on? Nanny State laws so often come from the emotional reaction of the mob, led by sensationalist media reports.

In answer to your question, university research has been unable to find any evidence that the Howard gun buy-back and gun laws achieved any practical results at all. Here is an article from Time Magazine,

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1736501,00.html

The Howard regulations only affected honest people, those who were already required to be of good character and could be relied upon to obtain a licence (and had one), buy only legal guns from a legal source, use them legally and so on. Had there been a comprehensive risk analysis instead of a heap of spin and blaming to cover the closure of mental health facilities and chopping of mental health budgets by State and federal governments.

Howard said no to a public inquiry, an election was imminent. But even when he went ahead with his 'initiative' a comprehensive risk analysis would have informed an entirely different approach and now we wouldn't have hundreds of trained police all around Australia shining chairs monitoring respectable licensed clay pigeon shooters instead of chasing crooks.

contd.,

TRTJ, "I consider myself a libertarian. By and large, I think people should be allowed to do what they wish providing they're not hurting others. There are limits however, and a huge number of stupid people out there."

"Huge number of stupid people"? Would a libertarian share your jaundiced opinion of the personal competence and judgement of others? Would he act upon that suspicion with new regulations (for the neighbour's good, naturally)? Or would a libertarian be more trusting and loath to enact restrictions and new laws, doing so only where it is absolutely essential?

Australia has thousands of kilometres of unpatrolled beaches, yet relatively few drownings have been reported over the years even in popular areas such Fraser Island, where the sun is hot, the beer is cold and holiday-makers are plentiful. You could put unsightly signs everywhere and maintain them at great cost, but how many lives would they save?

What I support is signage by exception and not by rule or because someone thought it was a good idea. For example, warning signage where conditions are very deceptive with hidden dangers above and beyond those normally expected for a surf beach in that locale and consequently where risk could easily be miss-read. Board riders and rock fishermen oppose interfering officialdom but even they support warnings in some places and so do I. The Surf Life Saving clubs can assess risk and make recommendations, but be aware, a sign doesn't reduce the risk.

Perhaps some warning signs are more aimed at protecting government against litigation.

To repeat, I am not opposed to laws nor to the expenditure of my taxes where worthwhile needs exist, provided that there is EVIDENCE of results attained. More laws and more expenditure should be the last resort not the first. It is absolute bunkum to introduce more and more laws because you or others regard your neighbour as a risk to you (why so?) or that you don't believe your neighbour is competent enough or or lacks your judgement.

Cornflower; Perhaps some warning signs are more aimed at protecting government against litigation.

I think you may have hit the nail on the head.

It is often about accountabillity, rather than addressing the problem.

Take a 'wet floor sign' in a shopping center. The problem has been detected, a sign has been placed, so, it's no longer my problem.

The floor is still wet, the slip hazard is still there, but hey, the buck has been passed on so it's back to business as usual for the one who placed the sign.

Then there is the other side of a warning sign, that being that the sign is an admision of a problem.

Now if you place a .no swimming sign' on a dangerous beach and, you don't patrol that beach to stop people swimming, then you may in fact in the wrong as you have admitted there is a problem.

A bit like a sign saying 'dangerous dog', sure you are warning about your dog, but you are also admitting it is dangerous.

Seriously, though. There is a real problem here, struggling to make its voice heard.

Through a deliberate policy of overprotection, we are weakening the gene pool.

In previous generations, people who were stupid enough to indulge in dangerous activities such as swimming, crossing the road, riding a bicycle, cleaning a baby's bum etc. would de-select themselves from the human race, thus ensuring that the smarter genes were perpetuated, and the dumber ones eliminated.

Which leads to the obvious conclusion that there is a malevolent force at work here, promoting "think of the children" activities that, ultimately, will lead the way to a bloodless coup.

It will be a walkover, as there will be nobody left with the ability to think for themselves.

Antiseptic, I suspect you are in the vanguard of this movement. Confess.

'sblood, things are even worse than imagined! Not since the replacement of high slippery slides in parks with 'save the children' sawn-off plastic Finnskoga have I been so concerned, for this very day the Herald Sun has reported that a kleptomaniac fireman has been solidly thumped under Little Johnny Howard's firearms legislation for possessing a 'home made bazooka'.

http://www.news.com.au/national/man-kept-bazooka-to-scare-off-birds/story-e6frfkvr-1225826568786

From reading the article it transpired that the dangerous 'bazooka', was in fact a common, ordinary, garden-variety potato gun made from plastic down pipe. The fireman said he used the 'tato gun to scare off cockatoos, an innocent enough pastime.

Once when loud bangs scared a farmer's milkers, the country cop would admonish the youth concerned and confiscate his pride and joy. Now the men in black jumpsuits, the pride of the Victoria Police Tactical Response Group can be expected to 'attend', 'scoped red-dot assault rifles in hand and .40 Glocks at their hips.

To its credit, the Herald Sun also gave interested youth particulars on the construction of potato guns. However under the Weapons Act they are 'prohibited weapons', the sort of hardware that terrifying terrorists and criminals might use.

It didn't help that this villain was also a major thief, having 'lifted' a portable radio, hammers, screwdrivers, boxes of soap, shoe brushes and equipment bags from work.

Trust Victoria to be ever vigilant and proactive in protecting its citizens against that ultimate weapon of mass destruction, the potato gun.

Should potatoes, oranges and the larger calibre rock melons carry warnings? What about watermelons (shudder)? Should such potentially lethal ammunition be hidden from children, given the risk that those horrible, disgusting little boys might find potato guns irresistible later on?

If only one child was saved.......

We need pool fencing around every body of water and cliffs.ARC could fence off the whole perimeter of Aust.No only should we ban swimming,but also cars kill too many people.

Come to think of it,just living can be a danger,hence we need to ban all forms of living and the enviro nazis will be in seventh heaven.Living is dangerous, so don't do it.

You must live in a perpetual state of fear.Fear of terrorists,swine flu,bird flu,Y2K bugs,global cooling/warming,CO2 poison,comets,aliens,rising sea levels,earthquakes,volcanoes and even fear of fear.We also need to ban suicide since the stress of all this fear is causing too much death.

rehctub:"I have done nothing to deserve to have my rights errodded or removed."

But it's not about you, regardless of how many of your "rights" are removed; surely you don't think that your pleasure is more important that their safety?

Foxy, number 3s could be easily taken care of by the purchase of a good dog, preferably one of the more demonstratively affectionate breeds possessed of a large tongue. A quick touch-up with your pre-moistened towellette and you're all done. Number 2s need similarly pose no problems for the well-prepared granny.

Pericles, your cynicism is unbounded: I seek merely to ensure that our children live through the terrible hazards of childhood to become adults in their turn. If a few adults have to suffer, I'm prepared to accept that. I'm only thinking of the children, you know.

Let me remind you that I live in Qld, "the Smart State", yet children continue to drown. Obviously, being smart isn't what it's cracked up to be.

Anna Bligh, as always at the forefront of social policy, has done what she can to reduce the scourge of smartness from the top down: it's time for the rest of us to do our bit.

I'll give you all a case in point.The Manly Council has put a barrier around Jump Rock which swimmers have been using for decades.The Rock now is about 5-6m above the water.The barrier is a 3 metre high ugly steel fence with spikes on top.

So the teenagers now jump from the top of the fence which is far more dangerous.Only two people have died there in the last few decades.One was drunk and fell onto a rock.

It is far more dangerous walking down the road,yet again we have the nanny state trying to protect people from themselves.

Anti; But it's not about you, regardless of how many of your "rights" are removed; surely you don't think that your pleasure is more important that their safety?

As I say, it is impossible to legislate against stupidity!

My rights are my rights and nobody has the right to restrict them.

Dear Anti,

I've got a better suggestion.

You keep your dog, drain your pool, turn
off your water and any other drips that
take your fancy. Contribute to society
as your conscience dictates. Persuade
all like-minded people to do the same.

While I shall continue to do the Indian Rain-Dance
and encourage the government in their pursuit of
water production, catchment, and storage projects.
As well as encouraging the education of parents
and children in water safety - at home, in the rivers,
and on the beach.

We lament when we have floods and destruction - but
make no effort to contain and divert the rivers inland
that cause those floods. Farmers complain they have no
water, while hundreds of rivers flow into the ocean.
It's time that state governments faced reality and
responded accordingly.

If the Snowy could be diverted inland to produce electricity,
we can just as easily pipe water through the Great Dividing
Range to feed inland rivers.

California did it in the 1930s/40s - surely we can catch
up?

Foxy: "While I shall continue to do the Indian Rain-Dance"

Oh. So you are the reason. It has pissing here down for 2 weeks now. Enough of the Indian Rain-Dance's already.

Dear rstuart,

Your request to stop my Indian Rain Dancing
requires mature and careful consideration.

Much as I'd like to take action immediately,
I feel that it is in an area which cannot,
in the light of the present water circumstances,
be accorded a higher priority than other important
areas of water activities.

Well, I guess mist of you by now would have twigged to the fact that this thread was somewhat satirical in nature.

It was intended to highlight the sorts of stupid non-arguments that are put forward to justify massive intrusion into the lives of ordinary people who may have done nothing whatever to deserve it.

There is a thread in the articles section that was started just after this one http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10006, which is to do with the Family Law and the desire of some women to have the law reforms that have worked so well wound back. The posts make interesting reading for those of you who were offended by my satirical suggestions with respect to water activities.

With so much of our legislation now designed to "protect" one group or another, it is inevitable that some of those who are not within a preferred group will suffer as a direct consequence.

The question I'd like to ask is this: do we, as a nation, see it as the role of government to pick "winners and losers" when formulating legislation, or should law be framed in such a way as to allow maximum personal freedom with responsibility for abuse of that freedom?

There have been numerous examples of nanny-state legislation given by respondents to this thread, all of which take away the ability of individuals to make their own decisions in their own interest. Are we, as individuals, so poor at decision-making, or indeed so important as individuals that the State must intervene to save us from ourselves?

I highlighted "think of the children" as my appeal to emotion, because it is used so effectively by some groups to stifle any rational consideration of their preferred hobbyhorse. It is used to give the most egregious suggestions a veneer of authoritas, while avoiding proper examination. I reject it.

Dear Anti,

We have always been a stratified society.
From the early history of this country
for example - the vote was restricted
to adult white males who owned property.
Women were not permitted to vote until
early in the twentieth century, and until
fairly recently were generally paid much
less than men for doing the identical job.
Our Indigenous people didn't get the right to
vote until the 1970s. And, despite our
professed commitment to human equality,
we have today vast numbers of people living
below the official poverty line.

Our society remains a visibly stratified one,
marked by a very unequal distribution of
wealth, power, and prestige.

The historical extension of voting rights to
the poor, women, our Indigenous People, represents
progress in one direction, but this has been offset
by the growth of huge federal bureaucracies and
influential private interest groups, leading to
a concentration of power at the upper levels of
government and the corporate economy.

Many people would agree that they are excluded
from much of the important decision making in our
society; opinion polls regularly show large
majorities agreeing that government is run for the
benefit of a few private interests looking after
themselves.

The history of tax laws reveals long contained loopholes
that were inserted under pressure from powerful
interests. In theory, the tax system should be progressive,
the more you earn, the more you should be taxed.

In practice, the income of the wealthy has always received
favourable treatment. Until recent tax reforms, many
super-rich paid little - or even nothing - in income
taxes, quite legally.

I guess the final analysis is that in our society
inequality is built into the social structure. The
consequence is social stratification, in which
entire categories of our population have different
life chances.

Foxy

Have you read Noel Pearson's address to the Writers' festival? This blog has the link and a few bits:

http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2009/09/noel-pearsons-speech-to-writers.html

Dear Cornflower,

I have now!

Thank You.

I feel quite humbled
and overwhelmed.

You've surprised me - and I wish that
I could give you a hug.