Pubdate: Mon, 02 Feb 2015
Source: Province, The (CN BC)
Copyright: 2015 Postmedia Network Inc.
Contact: http://www2.canada.com/theprovince/letters.html
Website: http://www.theprovince.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/476
Author: Gordon Clark
Page: 10

SHOULDN'T GOVERNMENTS ACT LIKE GOOD PARENTS?

"In loco parentis" ought to be Latin for "parenting makes you crazy." 
Parents deserve a special phrase revealing the wisdom of antiquity 
for how nuts kids can make you feel at times.

But the term, as any lawyer who didn't drink too much in law school 
can tell you, actually means "in place of the parent."

It refers to the legal responsibility of individuals, groups or the 
government to take on some or all of the responsibilities of a parent 
when put in charge of someone else's child or others of diminished capacity.

Teachers, coaches, camp counsellors and the guy who runs the 
Hellevator at the PNE all need to be familiar with the term, 
especially that last dude. (Yes, you do have a legal obligation to 
ensure Jimmy has his harness on, even if he thinks it's cool not to wear it.)

"In loco parentis," as a concept, used to be much more embraced by 
our society, especially as it related to upholding moral values. 
Teachers and principals, for instance, had a larger role in 
disciplining kids, up to and including using a strap, not that I'm 
defending that practice.

Even other adults took an active role in watching out for other 
people's kids and keeping them in line. As a youngster, you worried 
that the neighbour lady up the lane would tell your mother if she saw 
you getting up to no good. Those women were more effective at 
domestic espionage than anything the Harper government keeps dreaming up.

College administrators even assumed parental roles in the past with 
their young adult charges, setting curfews for them and banning 
members of the opposite sex from visiting those living in residence.

But all that has changed under the permissive society we've built 
since the 1960s, much of which, of course, is positive. Most of us 
now appreciate the classically liberal view that people should be 
free to do what they want as long as they don't hurt others.

But I wonder if we've gone too far, especially when it comes to 
government policy and the government's role in looking after people 
who need help.

Drug policies are one example. While I'm generally liberal on the 
subject, preferring that government provide treatment for addicts 
rather than jail, I struggle with reconciling the government's 
approach to drugs with those of the average parent.

Not many parents would hand out clean needles or crack pipes and 
provide their kids with a "safe" place to shoot up. Their general 
message about drug use is still former U.S. first lady Nancy 
Reagan's, "Just say no."

Then there's prostitution, which will soon be occurring at your 
neighbour's house thanks to activists both on and in front of the 
Supreme Court. Sure, people should be able to buy and sell sex, they 
always have and good luck trying to stop them.

But how many parents would suggest prostitution as a good career 
choice for their kid?

How about the mentally ill? How many parents would suggest that their 
schizophrenic offspring live in a scuzzy hotel room in the Downtown 
Eastside, as the provincial government does by closing mental-health 
facilities and forcing people to live on starvation welfare levels? 
How good a parent has the government been to native people who need 
help, especially native kids? What about people with disabilities?

Maybe I had it wrong.

"In loco parentis" shouldn't mean parenting makes you crazy. It 
should mean that when it comes to parents, the government is loco or worse.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom