Dreadful tragedy or dreadful overreaction?
This appeared in The Age today:
The cricket fraternity throughout Australia expressed shock yesterday at the
death of David Hookes. In a nation without aristocracy, Hookes was one of those
rarities, a prince among men.
"A prince among men"? First it was 'Waugh the hero', now it's 'Hookes the prince'. Why are sports people constantly revered over all other Australians? Where's the sense of perspective?
To follow up the tragic incident, the Victorian Govt has announced they'll make some changes to the law:
A spokesman for Victoria's Police Minister Andre Haermeyer said new legislation
would significantly update the Private Security Agents Act which regulated the
crowd controllers industry.
I'm always wary of knee-jerk reactions. Are they making the change because it's genuinely warranted or are they just doing something to make it look like they're doing something? The saturation media coverage so far hasn't been very clear on what exactly happened on Sunday night so if that's yet to be determined, why do we need to start changing laws already?
Would they be rushing around to do this if this had not been a sportsman? When so many people die across the country every day from all manner of causes, why does this one require changes to the law above all others? Shouldn't we be prioritising according to what changes to the law are likely to have the greatest impact on the wider community?
The loss of David Hookes is indeed a tragedy for his family and the cricket community but from what I've read the last couple of days, I think even David would be embarrassed by the unbridled hysteria his death has provoked.
Posted by david at January 20, 2004 4:49 PM