Canadian citizen hostage in Iraq

[August1991]

"The government is doing everything within its power to ensure his safe relief," the PM said yesterday.

Canoe - Winnipeg Sun

Person X (a Canadian citizen, permanent resident, landed immigrant, refugee claimant, tourist to Canada) decides to ski a difficult mountain in the Andes. Person X falls into a crevice.

Person Y (a Canadian citizen, permanent resident, landed immigrant, refugee claimant, tourist to Canada) is nine years old, hungry, and manages to get to school at 9 am.

Person Z (a Canadian citizen, permanent resident, landed immigrant, refugee claimant, tourist to Canada) manages to get to war-torn Baghdad to make a name for himself (herself) in the world press and save lives but then gets kidnapped.

Should my Canadian tax dollars be used to help Person X, Y, Z?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

You need to be clearer on what you are asking.

Person X should have traveller's insurance. If they did, of their own volition, do something dangerous and perhaps, foolish, then Darwin rules.

Person Y: I believe that education should be funded by all, for the benefit of all. Including the school bus or reasonable alternative. Not sure what you are asking here.

Person Z. Gone to a war-torn country? The person chose to do so. The gov't should only aid if:

a) the person was sent on behalf of the country

b)the actions of the gov't imperilled the person

c) the person went to genuinely (and only) save lives.

Reporters or photographers do not have the plight of others as their raison d'etre. That is only the selling feature. They are there in difficult situations because the profits are greater. If the gov't is to bail them out then the gov't should have paid them not to go.

[KrustyKidd]

Good point Lonius. Maybe a UPO (United Press Organization) so these people can take care of themselves. They go over and report what they choose to see. They are on their own.

[Black Dog]

First, the abducted Canadian citizen was not, in point of fact, a reporter, but was in Iraq working for a humanitarian organization.

Second, I find the responses here to be puzzling, such as the questioning of the individual's motivations (which are mostly irrelevant: he is a civilian non-combatant).

Finally, if you were on vacation and were kidnapped at gunpoint, would you want your government to help you, or would you just say "Oh well, I guess I got myself into this, so I should accept my fate."?

[KrustyKidd]

Finally, if you were on vacation and were kidnapped at gunpoint, would you want your government to help you, or would you just say "Oh well, I guess I got myself into this, so I should accept my fate."?

Thanks for setting it straight Black Dog. I imagine that now you have put it in that context it would go along the reasoning of a trapped Mountain Climber or something. They know the risks and all, we rescue them and then charge the bill back. It is an interesting debate though, the US went through it with those Christian aid workers girls in Afganistan.

[August1991]

First, the abducted Canadian citizen was not, in point of fact, a reporter, but was in Iraq working for a humanitarian organization.

How does that change anything? The motivation of the person is interesting but essentially irrelevant.

It's interesting because it will occur more often in the future. Call it "disaster tourism" or people attracted to places like Iraq. I don't know if they're motivated by the excitement, the status it confers when they later say "they were there", or maybe they suffer from "do-gooderism".

As far as I'm concerned, any adult who accepts to go to Iraq now is on their own. If anything happens, it is directly a result of their own choice. I feel no obligation to help them.

[Hugo]

As far as I'm concerned, any adult who accepts to go to Iraq now is on their own. If anything happens, it is directly a result of their own choice. I feel no obligation to help them.

I'm thankful that more people don't share your opinion. I find it immoral to decide that you will neither help a person nor advocate another coming to their aid if you feel that their own decisions or ineptitude got them into that situation.

Personally, I don't care if a misjudgement or just bone-headed stupidity got somebody into trouble. I'll try to help my fellow man without giving his prior choices and intelligence a second thought.

With that in mind, I say that the government should do everything possible to save Persons X and Z. Maybe not Person Y, as I'd have to know a bit more about their circumstances - did they just forget to eat breakfast or what? Tax dollars can't help if you had Cornflakes in the cupboard and just couldn't be bothered to eat them.

I can't directly help Person X or Z, but I don't want them to die or come to harm, whether they got into trouble through misjudgement, stupidity or plain bad luck, so I'd like to have somebody else help them. If the government is in the best position to help, then have them do it, and if I can contribute to that help with some tax dollars, I'll do it gladly and feel contented that I was able to help a fellow man in dire need, and I'll hope that if I'm ever in dire need somebody else would do it for me.

[August1991]

With that in mind, I say that the government should do everything possible to save Persons X and Z. Maybe not Person Y, as I'd have to know a bit more about their circumstances - did they just forget to eat breakfast or what?

This answer truly surprises me. Are you suggesting that the State take over all insurance schemes?

If the government were to do everything possible to save Persons X and Z, no one would bother to have private insurance. Why should I pay insurance premiums if the State will come to my rescue? Worse, I might take risks that I wouldn't normally take because Big Brother, with endless pockets, will always be there to bail me out. This is at the heart of so many problems of the so-called welfare state.

Person Y, on the other hand, is a child. If a child, purely by chance, is born to irresponsible, alcoholic parents, then I think the State should intervene somehow. Anyone of us could have been born to such parents.

Prior to my birth, I didn't know my parents. To ensure against the risk of irresponsible parents, I would have accepted to share my good fortune of responsible parents.

[Hugo]

This answer truly surprises me. Are you suggesting that the State take over all insurance schemes?

No, I'm suggesting that the State help in dire need. It's really beyond the scope of a travel insurance company to send Delta Force to rescue tourists or aid workers held hostage in some distant land. It's also beyond insurance company reps to scale a mountain and rescue a stranded mountaineer.

I see travel insurance as being of use if your flight is cancelled and you are left stranded, you lose your money or credit cards, your hotel is overbooked and you need a place to stay and whatnot. Mundane situations all. Kidnapping, terrorism, acts of war and so forth are not mundane situations and you'll note that most insurance policies don't cover that type of event for that exact reason. This is where the power of the state can usefully be employed to help the individual, in cases where the scale of the problem truly need the resources of the state and not a single insurance company.

Person Y, on the other hand, is a child.

I reiterate that arriving at school without breakfast is insufficient information to form an opinion with.

[August1991]

It's really beyond the scope of a travel insurance company to send Delta Force to rescue tourists or aid workers held hostage in some distant land.

What is the "tourist" doing in "some distant land"? Why did they choose to go there?

It's also beyond insurance company reps to scale a mountain and rescue a stranded mountaineer.

Exactly. And that's the tip-off that anyone who wants to do such crazy things should have to self-insure.

This is where the power of the state can usefully be employed to help the individual, in cases where the scale of the problem truly need the resources of the state and not a single insurance company.

OH MY GOD! You could drive a truck through that exception.

[That beautiful piece of land happens to be on a side of a cliff, in an earthquake zone where forest fires occur. No private insurance exists, or the premiums are insane. But, the land is cheap! I buy, build, enjoy life until disaster strikes. Then what... Is the land in Canada?]

Thinking of Svend, our criminal system does not exist to dispense justice. It exists to create incentives.

If someone foolishly gets into trouble, our instinct might be to help the poor guy out. But if we do, think of the signal we'll be sending out to all the other fools.

As I noted, this problem is at the heart of so many absurd consequences of the welfare state.

[d4dev]

Should my Canadian tax dollars be used to help Person X, Y, Z?

That is very selfish thinking. The right thing to do is to put yourself in the victim's place and then think about wasting 'tax dollars'. In any case, if a person is a citizen of that country, and has fallen an innocent victim to circumstances, it is the responsibility of the parent country to rescue him. I don't see any debate in this.

[KrustyKidd]

As I noted, this problem is at the heart of so many absurd consequences of the welfare state.

Yes it is. The house or apartment fire that makes the front page every now and then is indicative of this phenomina. It carries the caviate in the last para usually, after the 'lost everything' and 'luckily Boiwser, the family dog made it out alright.' It reads all too familiarly, 'The Browns were uninsured, anyone wishing to make donations can call 123-4567.'

They expect society to make up for the insurance premiums they were too stupid or cheap to dish out likee the rest of us? I actually gave to a family here in town awhile back, they were insured but needed some stuff to get them through the first few days, that I can agree to. It is the ones that are to stupid or cheap to fork out a paltry $20 a month or whatever for content insurance that I can't abide by.

Not that this has anything to do with the aid worker who was taken hostage. However, on that note, I will say that he is talking about going back. OK, dedicated and stupid?.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear d4dev,

In any case, if a person is a citizen of that country, and has fallen an innocent victim to circumstances, it is the responsibility of the parent country to rescue him. I don't see any debate in this.

I think August1991's point is that the 'innocent victim' definition is muddy. August1991 seems to be trying to discern between 'innocent victim' and those who willfully place themselves 'in harm's way'. Further, it is their motivation, be it noble or foolish (or selfish), that is the cause of this debate.

[d4dev]

....and those who willfully place themselves 'in harm's way'. Further, it is their motivation, be it noble or foolish (or selfish), that is the cause of this debate.

Does it make any difference? A citizen is a citizen is a citizen. It is utter selfishness on our part to think about our 'tax dollars' when someone's life is at stake.

[August1991]

A citizen is a citizen is a citizen.

WTF? I have always been astonished to read about all the money and effort devoted to save some guy in [insert Name of Oogy-Boogy Country Here] and then, looking up from my paper, see some poor sod sleeping on the sidewalk. Aren't they both citizens? If I fly off to war-torn Wartornistan (knowing its war-torn), do I deserve more than the unlucky drunk who lost his job?

I think August1991's point is that the 'innocent victim' definition is muddy. August1991 seems to be trying to discern between 'innocent victim' and those who willfully place themselves 'in harm's way'.

Innocent victim? Muddy? Have you ever chosen to travel abroad?

Life is filled with choices - some fun, some boring. Some people indulge in unsafe sex with people they don't know. Some people look for CDs while driving at high speeds. Some people smoke cigarettes. Some people go to war-torn countries to make personal documentaries (eg. Trudeau's son.)

But, in this last case, we say that if you go to a war-torn country where there is a chance you'll get kidnapped, "No problem! The Canadian government will bail you out!".

Is this fair? I don't know. I'm more concerned about the yahoos that are now going to take off to Iraq to live life on the edge! (Worst case scenario? They'll get kidnapped and become famous.)

[Hugo]

August,

You are turning this into a series of sweeping generalisations. Stop it.

What we are talking about is a Canadian citizen abducted overseas by militants. If he had travel insurance up to the eyeballs it would do him absolutely no good.

There was a case in Latin America a few years or so ago where several American businessmen were taken hostage. The US government sent Delta Force in who successfully extracted all the hostages without a single casualty. Where would these businessmen be if they were left up to their insurance company?

What about situations where you can't get insured? Do you know if you buy a one-way ticket because you're unsure of a return date, you cannot buy travel insurance? Does not being certain of your date of return mean that your life should be put in jeopardy?

I'm more concerned about the yahoos that are now going to take off to Iraq to live life on the edge! (Worst case scenario? They'll get kidnapped and become famous.)

Or they'll just get executed before the government has a chance to take action, or like the Canadian security contractor who was killed a short while ago, just shot dead in a firefight. We all know that anyone going to Iraq right now takes their life into their hands. I just think that is not a good excuse for the state to wash their hands of all responsibility to their citizens.

I suppose it depends upon whether or not you think government works for the people, or the people for the government. If you believe the latter, you are right, August, we have absolutely no right to expect the state we elected and that we fund to help us, ever.

[August1991]

You are turning this into a series of sweeping generalisations. Stop it.

Sorry, Dad, I didn't know I was making so much noise.

The generalization is that our actions lead to imperfectly known consequences. If the government bails someone out from unfortunate consequences, many problems arise. For starters, other people make their choices accordingly. This explains much of the failure of the so-called welfare state.

We all know that anyone going to Iraq right now takes their life into their hands. I just think that is not a good excuse for the state to wash their hands of all responsibility to their citizens.

I don't think you understand me Hugo. It is not a question of the State ignoring its citizens. If the Canadian government could save one guy in Iraq and that's all, then I'd say fine. But it can't. The Canadian government has just sent out the message that it will help extricate kidnapped people travelling voluntarily to war-torn countries. Think of what message that implies.

[d4dev]

I have always been astonished to read about all the money and effort devoted to save some guy in [insert Name of Oogy-Boogy Country Here] and then, looking up from my paper, see some poor sod sleeping on the sidewalk. Aren't they both citizens? If I fly off to war-torn Wartornistan (knowing its war-torn), do I deserve more than the unlucky drunk who lost his job?

What is the government exactly doing in this regard? It is saving the man's life by bringing him back to Canada. It's not giving him a job or a million dollars or a car. The drunk you are talking about is already in Canada. What parallels exist between the two, I fail to understand.

Or they'll just get executed before the government has a chance to take action, or like the Canadian security contractor who was killed a short while ago, just shot dead in a firefight. We all know that anyone going to Iraq right now takes their life into their hands. I just think that is not a good excuse for the state to wash their hands of all responsibility to their citizens.

Doesn't matter if they go to Timbaktoo or Kalamazoo, they are Canadian citizens and it is the Canadian government's responsibility to take care of them.

[d4dev]

The Canadian government has just sent out the message that it will help extricate kidnapped people travelling voluntarily to war-torn countries. Think of what message that implies.

What does it imply? That the Canadian government cares for the safety and well-being of it's citizens? Is that WRONG?

The government is not a private company. It's job is not to make profits. It's job is to protect the well-being of it's citizens. Is that so hard to understand?

And in case you're still thinking of your tax dollars, calculate how much of them have been 'wasted' by dividing the cost of bringing the Canadian back home by 30 million.

[playfullfellow]

The governments job is to look after its citizens lives as best as possible. What kind of message would it send to its citizens if the government said "tough luck buddy, you got yourself there so now get yourself out"? It is also our duty to help our fellow man when they are in need. I was also wondering where you are sitting when you looked over your newspaper and see this homeless person, where are you sitting? Some nice restaraunt? Did you offer to help this person on your own? Did you offer to share your meal with this person? Was this person living on the streets by their own choice? This is the case at times too. If we do not look after our citizens abroad, then we are no better than the people who kidnap and terrorize our citizens.

[August1991]

The governments job is to look after its citizens lives as best as possible. What kind of message would it send to its citizens if the government said "tough luck buddy, you got yourself there so now get yourself out"?

What does it imply? That the Canadian government cares for the safety and well-being of it's citizens? Is that WRONG?

There are several issues here. First, the government can't help everyone so who should get priority. I thought a child should because adults have more chance to take care of themselves. Adults that choose to go mountain-climbing or to travel to war-torn countries seem the least deserving of help.

Second, when the government bails someone out of a risky endeavour, that provides a greenlight to others to take risks too. It's a basic problem of the welfare-state. The government provides insurance and then citizens act like children.

Thirdly, I don't what was done to free this guy but I'm afraid some money was involved. What kind of message does that send to future kidnappers?

[d4dev]

There are several issues here. First, the government can't help everyone so who should get priority. I thought a child should because adults have more chance to take care of themselves. Adults that choose to go mountain-climbing or to travel to war-torn countries seem the least deserving of help.

Why can't the government help everyone? Whose interest is the government sacrificing here? If there was a situation where the government had to save either the Canadian in Iraq or a dying sick child, I can understand your viewpoint. But that is not the case here. The government is not neglecting anyone else when it decides to save that man's life.

Second, when the government bails someone out of a risky endeavour, that provides a greenlight to others to take risks too. It's a basic problem of the welfare-state. The government provides insurance and then citizens act like children.

Oh? So that's a problem of a welfare state, is it? What do you think the American government does when one of it's citizens is kidnapped abroad? Does it proclaim that since it is not a welfare state, the kidnapped person can go to hell?

Oh c'mon, August, don't rake up imaginary issues just to bash the concept of a welfare state!

[Hugo]

If the Canadian government could save one guy in Iraq and that's all, then I'd say fine. But it can't. The Canadian government has just sent out the message that it will help extricate kidnapped people travelling voluntarily to war-torn countries. Think of what message that implies.

It implies this:

Firstly, your life is still in peril if you go. The government is not encouraging recklessness. They can't do anything if militants just shoot you instead of taking you prisoner.

Secondly, they are implying that the lives of their citizens are actually worth a damn to them. What's the problem with that?

[August1991]

Why can't the government help everyone? Whose interest is the government sacrificing here? If there was a situation where the government had to save either the Canadian in Iraq or a dying sick child, I can understand your viewpoint. But that is not the case here.

It is the case here. If the Canadian government could protect every Canadian's life perfectly, then the problem wouldn't exist.

But the Canadian government can't do that. It doesn't have the means. Politicians are forced to choose.

The government is not encouraging recklessness.

How do you define recklessness? People behave differently when they believe they don't have to assume all the costs of their mistakes.

they are implying that the lives of their citizens are actually worth a damn to them. What's the problem with that?

I think the problem is that it's paternalism. In this sense, I think the government should help children. But more exactly, when the government tries to help people, it invites all kinds of problems for itself.

Is it the government's role to give us the impression that it gives a damn about us?

[Hugo]

How do you define recklessness? People behave differently when they believe they don't have to assume all the costs of their mistakes.

Take the example of the mountaineer. Just because there are mountain rescue people available does not mean you won't fall and break your neck, lose your digits to frostbite, die of exposure or lose your legs. The fact that the government will try to help does not lead anyone into a false sense of security, at least, it shouldn't if they have half a brain in their heads.

But more exactly, when the government tries to help people, it invites all kinds of problems for itself.

What kind of help? Cutting taxes and interest rates to grow the economy is "trying to help people" but I'm sure you wouldn't have a problem with that, right?