Questioning What no One Questions. A new proposed bill to pick apart.
So we are aware that many bills get proposed, introduced and read and either passed or not. Numerous anti-fireworks proposals have been heard over the years. Here is one of the new ones for me to pick apart.
It was introduced in January, as were other numerous counterparts and proposals for amending definitions such as HB 243, SB 2090, SB 428 and more. You can read the HB 1631 version here http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=1631&year=2014.
This set of bills all propose to ban all consumer fireworks, on all three holidays normally used--New Years Eve, Chinese New Year and the Fourth of July. In other words, no more fireworks, period. Do not expect to be able to purchase a permit during designated times. Do not expect to be able to get at least one roll of firecrackers.
Should this pass, we are taking the first steps toward such dystopian societies as have been portrayed in movies such as Equilibrium (starring Christian Bale), in web series such as Electric City (starring the voice of Tom Hanks) and books such as The Giver (written by Lois Lowry.)
By the way, if you are over the age of 18, I highly recommend you click that link and watch Electric City for free. It is a graphic and harsh reminder of where we are headed: all that is dangerous, is destroyed; no one has true "choice" anymore.
Think I'm taking it too far? HB 1631 is not the only bill that claims to be for the good of our society. I recently also caught wind of a new law that may completely ban cigarettes. While I hate cigarette smoke and I do not smoke nor do I condone it--I don't believe in taking away people's right to do something. I think they should still be able to do it in designated areas. Forcing thousands of people into the traumatic quitting process, mood swings, withdrawals, and substitute vices is NOT my idea of social justice.
Back to the fireworks. It's time to ask the questions, the ones no one does, not just of HB 1631, but of all laws. Where is the REAL information?
First. A bunch of "fluff" is written in the bill so that people buy into the bill's purpose.
"The legislature finds that the use of consumer fireworks frequently results in fires and burn injuries to children and produces excessive smoke, contributing to breathing difficulties."
Define frequently. Is that number compared to the total number of fireworks purchases? Where are the statistics. THE PUBLIC HAS THE RIGHT TO KNOW AND DEMAND SUBSTANTIATION OF THESE CLAIMS.
"Loud fireworks noises can also traumatize war veterans and pets."
Yes, this is true and no doubts that. Neither does anyone doubt that humans traumatize other humans and animals, nor does anyone doubt that horror movies traumatize children. My vacuum traumatizes my niece.
Where is the substantial relevance in that statement to the fireworks ban when by the bill's logic, we should also illegalize human interaction, horror movies and vacuums?
"When fireworks-related calls increase, public safety agencies are often strained to maintain adequate response levels for other critical emergencies."
Does anyone notice the clever wording? This does not state that fireworks calls increase. Sure, it states a fact. It does NOT, however, tell us that fireworks calls have in fact increased over some period of time. Fireworks-related calls should have decreased thanks to the initial fireworks ban. If in fact they have increased, then BOY do I have some picking apart to do about that. First: are the calls merely COMPLAINTS? or are they actual emergency calls? Second: What percentage of both types are due to ILLEGAL USE of fireworks? THE PUBLIC HAS THE RIGHT TO KNOW AND DEMAND SUBSTANTIATION OF THESE FACTS.
"The residents in this State deserve to live in peace and security, without the public safety risk and disruptive impact of consumer fireworks."
By the bill's logic, why do we not illegalize other things that CAN but do not necessarily ALWAYS result in harmful or disruptive side-effects? Other things include, as mentioned in my tweet, things that CAN cause fires or burns such as stoves, lighters, grills, and hot coffee; things that CAN be loud and disruptive such as stereos or in fact... people; things that CAN cause difficulty breathing such as the dust from construction, or hey... swimming.
The residents in this "state" also deserve and have a right to celebrate their cultural traditions.
So, it's right versus right. Which one wins? Come on. We all know smoke and burns and noise is not the real issue. What wins is whatever is best for the "state" ... money-wise. Don't ask me to elaborate; let's ask the lawmakers: why are detailed, substantial, quantified and JUSTIFIED, reasons left off of bills?
Lastly, here's the real kicker--the thing I purposely did not mention at the beginning of this post: to save some face, the bill claims to allow consumer fireworks use for "cultural purposes." Read below:
"The purpose of this Act is to limit the use of consumer fireworks to only cultural purposes and to discontinue the use of consumer fireworks on the three designated holidays, namely, New Year's Eve, Fourth of July, and Chinese New Year."
""Cultural" means relating to the arts, customs, traditions, mores, and history of all of the various groups of Hawaii[.] and includes religious events.""
Good. It's good that the legislature defines culture this way. No really. If they said anything else, I would pick it apart like no one's business because after all, culture is widely subjective. Some consider it limited to ethnic traditions that have been practiced for decades or centuries. Some consider hot dogs and baseball, American culture.
Now define groups. Dare the legislature do that without upsetting anyone? Ethnic peoples are groups. Nations are groups. Males is a group. Females is a group.
The kicker is that bringing in the New Year with fireworks, celebrating the Fourth of July with fireworks, celebrating Chinese New Year with fireworks... IS culture. It IS related to a custom or tradition of a group of people. Those holidays ARE cultural events.
It need not be tied or privileged only to a "named" group of people (such as an ethnicity or religion) to be "legitimate." The fact is that many families in Hawaii have brought in the new year with fireworks for decades. It has been a part of the CULTURE of that group of celebratory participants.Â
For many, it symbolizes the sending out of the old and the bringing in of the new. For some, it also symbolizes the firing of canons in honor of lives lost in battle.
If the bill is trying to save face by not directly taking away someone's right to cultural celebration, it's doing a bad job. No fireworks will be available for purchase for anyone's cultural events anyway. Is that not the same as banning them from cultural practices? And what about the contradiction I mentioned above--do WE, who have been bringing in the new year with fireworks, who have been lighting sparklers for passed family members, who have been honoring those whom died in battle, not have the right, then, to acquire and use fireworks for these cultural celebrations?
I hereby challenge the integrity of HB1631. The public is treated as if we are dogs, insulted, as if we do not know any better, by sentences that are mere fluff and jargon that states no relative research. Claims are not substantiated by statistics. The bill's own definitions contradict its intentions.
My beef is beginning to no longer be merely with the ban of fireworks. It is now widening to the process of forming and passing bills and the lack of disclosure of all of the research, statistics, substantial claims, and good solid justification that outweighs all other things considered.
