A9

John Millikin
Commentary

Stumble Upon

del.icio.us

Digg

Facebook

Print

Email

Speak Up

On Jan. 9, 2009 it will become law that obese and disabled passengers be granted an extra seat at no extra charge on domestic flights. This law has caused a stir and raises a few questions.

For example, should people have to prove that they are obese due to a medical condition? If not, then aren't we rewarding self-induced obesity? What happened to the near decade long media campaign battling to prevent the growing obesity "epidemic"?

According to an essay prepared for the Library of Parliament, "Dramatic increases in overweight and obesity among Canadians over the past 30 years have been deemed to constitute an 'epidemic.'" The World Health Organization stated that, "Without societal changes, a substantial and steadily rising proportion of adults will succumb to the medical complications of obesity; indeed, the medical burden of obesity already threatens to overwhelm health services."

So, despite the health issues, instead of trying to offer incentives to reduce obesity, we're now offering incentives to become more obese? It doesn't make sense.

As for the disabled, at what point does being in a wheelchair not have to come with its own expectations, such as having a wheelchair that can fold for easier storage? As far as wheelchairs go, being in a rigid frame wheelchair is preferable to the less agile folding chairs. But if traveling is that important, then using a folding chair or paying a reasonable fee for storing a rigid frame should be acceptable.

If such accommodations are to be made for the obese and disabled, shouldn't accommodations then also be made for tall people who find airlines painfully cramped? Where does it end?

At this rate, it ends in bankruptcy for the airlines. Even prior to such regulations, most North American airlines have at least once experienced the heavy breath of bankruptcy breathing down the back of their neck. "The airline industry is the single toughest business, period." They can't afford giveaways.

All this coddling and catering to the less fortunate is going a bit far. Sure, it is appropriate and makes sense to help out the less fortunate whenever possible, but in an industry that is struggling as badly as the airlines, this new law simply doesn't make sense. The concept of equality is stretching too far and could actually become detrimental to social decency.

Efforts towards equality in modern society have been exceptional. And, for the most part it is certainly beneficial. But after a while it becomes counterproductive. Look at our propensity towards continually changing politically correct labels: Terms such as "cripple" change to "handicapped." Just when people get comfortable with that term, it inexplicably becomes un-PC and the term changes again to "disabled." Next it will be "less-abled" or "almost-as-abled." The terms continue to change, and unless you subscribe to Politically Correct Weekly, you may not be up to date on the current correct terms. If you're not up to date, awkward moments can ensue.

People tend to fumble with words when in the company of those outside their demographic. People don't like to feel awkward, so it becomes easier to just avoid certain situations such as being around a disabled person. This is entirely counterproductive to the concept of political correctness. The idea is to encourage comfort within difference, not discomfort.

This new airline law is intended to create equality, but it may do more harm than good.

If the law to give an extra seat to disabled people who are unwilling to use folding wheelchairs, or to obese people unwilling to embrace a healthier lifestyle, creates increases in ticket prices, it will likely cause resentment towards those people. The disabled and obese may find themselves the victims of further discrimination as a result of a botched attempt for greater social "equality."

Life requires compromise. The airlines already provide isle chairs, storage space for folding wheelchairs, options for vegetarian meals, and lifting armrests should a person require two seats. Why should they be the only ones who have to compromise?

Middle ground needs to be found on this topic, because too much coddling is crippling to the disabled and obese, and backbreaking to the already ailing airline industry.

Keep in mind, flying is a business and a privilege, not a God-given right.

Just in case you think I'm being unfair, it may be appropriate for me to mention that I am a quadriplegic.

John Millikin is a graduate of Trinity College Dublin, where he wrote his thesis on Canada's Residential Schools. He is currently studying conflict resolution.