Airlines banned smoking because some people were offended by it. They take issue with the exceptionally voluminous because some people are offended. Drunk? No, some people are offended. Anything can be banned if some people are offended.
Now children are offensive. Planes are to have no children zones, specific areas where you must go if you indulge in the lifestyle choice of parenthood, and soon airports will have special outside children's areas, next to the smoke zone, the fat zone and the booze zone. It will be illegal to have children, or to allow anyone else to have children, in any public building. Eventually this will include schools and maternity wards. It's for the... oh.
It's true that some, not all, children are rabid little brats who should be hog-tied and gagged and made to travel with the luggage, but in most cases that's because their parents aren't allowed to control them any more. One smack and it's child abuse. One raised voice and Childline is on the case. Yes, we blame the parents, but the parents are indoctrinated with the PC notion of not stifling self-expression and are legally forbidden to control their Hellspawn anyway. Some kids really do need a smack to delineate their boundaries and that's not allowed any more.
So we see harassed parents trying to look lovingly on as little Tarquin expresses himself by running up and down the plane aisle knocking over trays of food and drink then squats down and drops his load on the floor because banging on the toilet door failed to dislodge the current occupant within ten seconds.
Annoying children are a symptom, not the original cause. That lies with political correctness in a culture where children are everything, where discipline is disallowed in case it stifles the development of these prototrolls, where no child can be told they are doing something wrong and where there are no boundaries.
Let the parents, stewardess and passengers whack them, once, and they'll sit down and shut up.
They might even grow into decent human beings as a result.
6 comments:
Can they put the children's zone next to the smokers' zone and salad dodgers' zone? Wouldn't that expose both to the deadly smoke emitted by the still upright and breathing smokers? They could put the fatties between the kids and the smokers but that's probably unfair on the fatties who can't get out of the way of the smoke - they're all so wide that they've got a higher chance of some nicotine particles sticking to them and giving them 3rd hand cancer. Probably you need to put the kids on one end; then a separate zone for the parents just in case one of them's a nonce; then people with loud ringtones; then people with golf bags, skis or other large luggage; then the fatties; then the drinkers; then the people who sympathise with the smokers and drinkers (just because they fail to object they must also suffer); and then a 300 yard DMZ before finally the smokers' area.
Bloody hell, is it me or is the terminal building really empty all of a sudden?
Normally I'm with you, but this time... not so much.
If this were a case of the government banning something (children), then we can get worked up about it. Just as we should rightly be worked up about the smoking ban.
If, on the other hand, it is the choice of the privately owned airline. That is their choice, and they should have the freedom to ban what they like on the planes that they own.
It's now a 2nd generation problem - the parents of these uncontrolled children experienced the full love & kindness of a politically-correct upbringing themselves. It's their human rights to piss off (or on) other people, innit?
Onus - true, they are private comapnies but there was once a time when trains allowed smoking.
I remember being on York station with the option of getting the earlier Virgin train or waiting half an hour for the GNER. The Virgin train was completey non-smoking (long before the ban) but the GNER was not.
It was a long trip, I was in no hurry, so I waited for the smoking train. I had a choice.
Now I don't. Neither do the private companies operating those trains.
At the moment it's up to the airrlines what they want to ban. Once banning starts, governments tend to get involved. Then it goes beyond the choice of private companies.
I admit I don't like to share planes or trains with screaming kids but I still oppose this kind of restriction.
It's where the smoking ban started.
Er - LegIron. I can't agree with you on this occasion. I take it you don't have kids? When you do, you'll realise that even very well intentioned parents who do discipline their children and do their utmost to raise them as best they can find it hard to keep them behaving perfectly on a long transatlantic flight. Kids are different to grown ups and are programmed to behave differently, so that they learn and grow mentally and physically.
I hope you will one day experience the joy that being a parent brings (sometimes) as well as the stress and anger!
David C - I'm not in favour of the proposed restrictions. They lead to 'no choldren zones' and then 'adult only flights'.
Eventually, as with smoking, parents will be treated as pariahs even if their children are not with them.
Okay, I admit I would prefer not to be bothered by noisy and fractious children when trapped in a steel cylinder, but I still oppose this restriction.
Because it's just wrong. Biologically speaking, the only purpose of life is reproduction. Nature cares for nothing else. Those of us who choose not to partake are the ones making the lifestyle choice.
Post a Comment