Mind your surroundings

That title is a line from one of my favourite movies of all time, which is always a good way to start. I've actually been toying with the idea of a post on child free public spaces for a while now, but I couldn't quite find the right jumping off point. Lucky for me, WestJet was nice enough to give me a catalyst:



WestJet makes great April Fool's jokes, and this is no exception. what got my attention, though, is how parents reacted to it. "Oh, if only we could have something like that, it would be heaven!" and other such statements along the general lines of I wish. Now, I admire the hard work that parents put into raising children. I also know that with such constant work being put into the task, having something like the stress of air travel being simplified would be a godsend. I mean, think of all the little, everyday things that become more difficult with small children. Air travel (or any kind of travel, really), going to the post office, buying groceries, booking a hotel, eating at a restaurant and more. I can't blame parents for thinking how much simpler it would be if children weren't part of the equation.

So why don't the childfree get that option?

No, really. There services out there offering childfree options (such as travel agencies, resorts, cruises), but most businesses that don't cater to young children are faced with the idea of discrimination. Many parents claim that it should be up to the business owners to meet the needs of families and provide dedicated spaces for their needs. In other words, they're asking for the same thing we are. The only difference is our requests remove a disruption from a public environment, while theirs creates an extra hardship for the business owners, and/or shows disregard for all of the business' other patrons. Speaking of consideration for other patrons, don't even think of limiting stroller access.

The bottom line here is that the breeders are crying about their civil rights. What this is really about is civil behaviour. If children always behaved, then this problem wouldn't exist. But kids are kids, and they get temperamental, they scream, they cry, they ooze, and who knows what else. I do think that common sense (which is unfortunately not common enough) should rule; I don't expect to see a child free McDonald's so I can eat my McNuggets in peace. I do, however, would welcome age-restricted restaurants, movie screenings, and a host of other activities. I want to enjoy a night out in peace, just like every parent out there wishes they could.

Censorship and Sensibility

This commercial was banned in the United States for being inappropriate:


I'm afraid I don't have the exact details of what "inappropriate" means in this case. I've unofficially heard that dying children offends the sensibilities of easily outraged television viewers (particularly parents) and should not be shown. But that would warp the message. The truth is that children do in fact die because of landmines and other war-related reasons. But because it happens half a world away, many of us have an "out of sight, out of mind" attitude.

It's unfair, it's tragic, and it's inhuman for children to get killed or maimed because they stepped a little too much to the left or right. But the U.N. had a point to make. They knew that having some high paid Hollywood actor on screen saying "landmines kill people" wouldn't be enough. In order to understand a plight, it's best to put it in terms your target audience can relate to. That's exactly what they did by showing a mine blowing up on a soccer field. The correct reaction to the message is to acknowledge that we live in a world where these horrible things happen. This is meant to spark action that enacts change, not to wrap the message in cotton batting or outright sweep it under the rug.

Children die every single day. No amount of outrage, or pretending that they don't, will make that go away.