email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now. |
Early in October the Town of Cottesloe gained itself some free publicity. On the 9th Zoltan Kovacs wrote of, "the prevailing cult of over-regulation, a set of proposed rules ... controlling the behaviour of people on the local beach." Apparently these proposed rules, "revealed a control-freak appetite for oppressive restrictions that is a mark of officialdom." (The West, 9 Oct 10)
First, note Kovacs' use of emotive language. Cult is clearly bad. What would be wrong with writing, "the prevailing culture of over-regulation"? Nothing wrong with "culture" except that "cult" is more likely to sway us -- perhaps unconsciously -- to Kovacs' negative view of the proposed regulations.
Then the proposed rules "revealed a control-freak appetite for oppressive restrictions." "An officious appetite for detailed restrictions" would have been vaguely insulting without the strongly negative connotations of Kovacs' highly emotive words. If he wanted to present a logical -- rather than emotional -- argument, Kovacs could even have written, "a strong preference for detailed instructions." But the role of a columnist is opinion, not fact.
So what are these "oppressive restrictions"? What new regulations are being proposed? Who cares!
Kovacs certainly doesn't care. His opinion piece tells us that the proposed "petty bans ... attracted deserved protest and derision." What were these "petty bans"? Why does Kovacs not entertain us with an example or two? Perhaps the facts would detract from the emotional arguments that he is presenting.
Here are some reported facts: 
(from The West online).
"No cigarette butts": Dropping cigarette butts is illegal. Anywhere in this state. Is Kovacs objecting because he wants Cottesloe to be a unique area where dropping butts is allowed?
"No leaving on taps": This one has raised general ire in the letters pages. Okay, I doubt if anyone wants to encourage other people to leave taps running. But why is such a regulation even considered? Perhaps because taps are left running... And quite a few of these rules seem to be similar: We don't want it to happen but we don't expect to need rules to tell us to not do it.
And that's the real problem with the proposed Cottesloe regulations: They are common sense but not everyone has common sense.
"No fundraising" We're here to enjoy the beach. Take your rattling tin out of my face. "No toy vehicles" Probably means, no large, remote controlled vehicles. No-one wants to be run down by a noisy model car being badly controlled through a crowded beach. "No sitting or loitering to obstruct steps or pathways" Get out of my way, I want to get down to the beach.
These are all things which are common sense -- common courtesy. So why did Cottesloe consider setting them down as regulations? Perhaps because some people lack common sense and common courtesy.
"Please don't dig a big hole in the beach where people may fall into it." "It's not a big hole." "It's big enough to fall into." "It's my beach, I can dig a hole if I want to." Differences of opinion so the law steps in.
"A big hole is more than 2m x 2m." "My hole is 2m x 1.99m. So there."
The more rules we write, the more loopholes we create. The purpose of laws is not to restrict our actions -- it is to allow actions.
"A big hole is more than 2m x 2m." "Oh, good, then I can dig a hole 2m x 1.99m. And as deep as I want."
A better answer
Kovacs writes that, "laws and regulations gradually have replaced common decency and courtesy".Why? Perhaps because a law is an enforceable expression of our will. Common decency and courtesy are simply accepted standards of behaviour; they do not demonstrate our power of control. They allow freedom to be non-courteous.
But the main problem is: we have no clearly defined standards of common decency and courtesy.
In our efforts to be accepting to all, we allow anything.
If -- in Cottesloe -- we agree that we do not want to have big holes dug in the beach -- then say so! Not as rules and regulations but as suggested standards of behaviour.
Publish a small booklet: "You are a stranger to our beach: this is the way we would like you to behave". You may choose to be courteous and fit with our standards of acceptable behaviour. Or you may be rude.
Nothing enforceable, except by peer pressure: You are not acting within our standards so we will sneer at you. In a polite way, of course.
Why would this work?
Well... Do you know what are the accepted standards of behaviour at Cottesloe beach? At Swanbourne beach? In Balga? In Peppermint Grove? No?
We all have standards of behaviour that we would like others to follow. Why will those others follow our standards -- if they do not know them?!
Set the standards for expected behaviour. And let people -- visitors, strangers, our own friends and family -- know what we expect. In a public area such as Cottesloe beach -- it is worth putting our expectations in writing. So every knows what is expected.
Emily Post felt it was necessary to document guidelines on ettiquette. It's been done before, we can do it again. Don't attract ridicule by writing regulations for common sense and ettiquette.
Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com |
No comments:
Post a Comment