by Ray Eagle
Is common sense dead? For the longest time it appeared that way, particularly with privacy legislation, but now, with the age of consent raised from fourteen to sixteen, a modicum of common sense has been restored.

Previously, under privacy laws it was all but impossible to ascertain information about a missing family member if they were fourteen or older, as happened to Doug Nobles, a single parent who was desperately trying to establish the whereabouts of his fourteen year old daughter.

She had run away with her thirty-four year-old drug-dealing ‘boyfriend’ and had disappeared. When her father went to the police for help, privacy legislation got in the way of their ability to assist in finding her.

One of the strangest cases occurred when a woman ceased receiving her daughter’s Canadian Child Tax Benefit. An investigation revealed that entirely without her knowledge the benefits had been transferred to the daughter’s boyfriend’s mother. The girl’s mother was denied the right to challenge the transfer.

The recent tragic case of a Carleton University student whose deep depression led to her death would indicate an urgent need to overhaul and clarify privacy legislation. University authorities wrongly believed that it prevented them from informing her parents of her condition unless she had given permission.

When privacy became an issue to the point where legislation was deemed necessary, surely it was never intended to deny parents the right to know what their own children were doing that might endanger their lives. In fact there was a strenuous denial by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario that the parents of the Carleton student had no right to know of her situation.

In an April 24 letter to the Toronto Star, Commissioner Ann Cavoukian went as far as to say “In light of this tragic event, I urge all those who are responsible for the health and safety of others to read my fact sheet ‘Disclosure of Information Permitted in Emergency and Other Urgent Circumstances.’” Her letter ended “I have tried repeatedly to get this message out, so please don’t blame privacy laws. The problem lies with the default of non-disclosure and inaction.”

This clearly points to a poor understanding of the rules, and there must be many more situations where wrong information was acted upon. Trying to determine how such situations came about can lead into a quagmire, but one point has to be acknowledged, and that is the issue of what used to be accepted as common sense. To most older people, we live in an ‘Alice in Wonderland’ world where individual rights are sacrosanct and are more important than the common good; hence the shift to a belief that the privacy of young individuals now takes precedent over the parents’ right to be informed. In other words what to older generations was once regarded as plain common sense may not seem that way to present generations. The use of ‘double speak’ by those involved in communications does not help either. These people are masters in obfuscation, by which a retrograde step for the customers of a business can be portrayed in a letter by the communications department as a positive which will benefit the customer.

The London Times recently summed it all up in a piece titled “An Obituary for the late Mr. Common Sense.” It contained examples of situations where common sense has taken a back seat. To quote from the article: “Common sense was preceded in death by his parents, Truth and Trust; his wife Discretion; his daughter, Responsibility; and his son, Reason. He is survived by his four stepbrothers: I know My Rights, I Want It Now, Someone Else Is To Blame, and I’m A Victim.”

Until the very recent raising of the Age of Consent, how did it make sense to declare that at the age of fourteen a child was old enough to leave home and the parents had no rights to seek help to bring their offspring back to them?

When the Privacy Act took effect on July 1, 1983 it had a laudable intent, which was to respect the rights of individuals to demand limitations on the collection, use and disclosure of personal information. A second act, titled the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Document Act was then introduced to provide rules limiting the private sector in the use or disclosure of personal information. Under this act individuals have the right too request correction of personal information that has been collected on them.

Both acts are intended to protect individuals from exploitation by use of their personal documents; so at what point was Age of Consent legislation combined with privacy legislation, which effectively blocked parents and legal guardians of the right to know as it pertained to children and young adults? Melded together they make a formidable combination that makes personal privacy rights paramount, clearly to the detriment of what was once accepted as normal parental control.

Even harder to understand is legislation under which parents have no right to be informed by a doctor of any health issues once a child reaches the age of twelve. It is bad enough that some faceless bureaucrat would dream up such a rule, but it is even more unbelievable that government would pass it. Was there no one in Parliament with enough sense to question such a law?

It is important to know that there are professionals who are strenuously opposed to the new Age of Consent rules. Their rationale is that it may confuse teenagers and they will not seek medical help, counseling, or birth control. This would most likely apply to the rebellious ones, who are the most likely to have run away in the first place - and surely raising the age will help to bring back a measure of parental control that was previously lacking.

It is most improbable that all such legislation will be rescinded unless the public demands it. So those who seek to be responsible parents, and those who fail to see the logic of a twelve-year-old being the sole decision-maker regarding their personal health, must do all in their power to influence their member of Parliament to bring about the necessary changes.

Ray Eagle, free-lance writer and author writes on Scottish, Canadian and early American history. He is also a social activist, who has been involved in specific issues, such as the Cambie Street/Canada Line; the case of the water buffalo on Vancouver Island, when the Darrell and Anthea Archer imported a herd from Denmark just as an outbreak of BSE was reported there and the buffalo were ordered destroyed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. The buffalo eat only hay – not the processed offal that caused the BSE. Ray was one of a dedicated group supporting the Archers with their fight against the CFIA. The original seventeen animals were eventually destroyed and not a single case of BSE was found. He was also a very active supporter of Christine Lamont and David Spencer who, in the early `1990s were sentenced to twenty-five years in Brazil for their part in the kidnapping of businessman, who was released unharmed in about a week. The kidnapping was a protest against the treatment of street-children. Led by Christine’s parents, Keith and Marilyn a hardworking group kept up a barrage of letters to both the Canadian and Brazilian governments. Christine and David were released after nine years and are now married and pursuing careers in Vancouver. Another concern of Ray’s is the breakdown of the civil society and he has strong views on its causes and remedies, but fears it may be too late to return to the civil society in which he grew up.

Ray Eagle, free-lance writer and author writes on Scottish, Canadian and early American history. He is also a social activist, who has been involved in specific issues, such as the Cambie Street/Canada Line; the case of the water buffalo on Vancouver Island, when the Darrell and Anthea Archer imported a herd from Denmark just as an outbreak of BSE was reported there and the buffalo were ordered destroyed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. The buffalo eat only hay – not the processed offal that caused the BSE. Ray was one of a dedicated group supporting the Archers with their fight against the CFIA. The original seventeen animals were eventually destroyed and not a single case of BSE was found. He was also a very active supporter of Christine Lamont and David Spencer who, in the early `1990s were sentenced to twenty-five years in Brazil for their part in the kidnapping of businessman, who was released unharmed in about a week. The kidnapping was a protest against the treatment of street-children. Led by Christine’s parents, Keith and Marilyn a hardworking group kept up a barrage of letters to both the Canadian and Brazilian governments. Christine and David were released after nine years and are now married and pursuing careers in Vancouver. Another concern of Ray’s is the breakdown of the civil society and he has strong views on its causes and remedies, but fears it may be too late to return to the civil society in which he grew up.

Ray Eagle is a freelance writer who writes on Scottish, Canadian and early American history. He is a social activist as well.!!