The Professional Objector – Comment
By Johnie Jonker
Judging by a number of reader responses on articles and letters published in Leisure Wheels – and other magazines – a subspecies of humanis objectus appears to have evolved over time.
The content of their opinion differs from that of regular readers – humanis commentus – in that it would highlight some negative aspect – often mistakenly – in the name of safety, environmental issues, etc.
Recent examples are comments on a) two ecstatic young boys sitting behind the bullbar of a Defender riding through water, b) someone camping under “holy” Baobabs and c) for me on a more personal level, “allowing” passengers to ride in the boot of a car seated on a camping chair.
Of course some comments are perfectly valid and in agreement with the opinion of the vast majority of readers, e.g. issues related to littering and taking more than photographs.
But there are cases where, regardless the instigative source of the comment, the moral high ground is invariably taken with a distorted sense of righteousness, and the action categorized in accordance with the reader’s own (generally conservative) frame of reference.
A few years back my wife was reversing out of the garage when two armed thugs attempted to hijack her car. During the ensuing struggle for her handbag she let go of the brakes. This caused the two open front doors to act as an anchor as it hit the gate, resulting in the doors being bent back next to the fenders. The hijackers then lost interest (can you believe it!) in the car and settled for the handbag only. Apart from the damage to the car and my wife being shaken up emotionally, no harm was done, although it could have ended in tragedy. But it did not end in tragedy. This is my first point.
My second point: When my son was a toddler, playing on the lawn where I was gardening, he showed me a bee that was crawling through the grass. I explained to him what bees do when threatened and that it was best to leave it alone. At that stage we did not know whether he may be allergic to stings or not. But if he was, I had a car in good condition and also knew where the hospital was, so I could take him there. Well, ten minutes later all the above came together.
This could be regarded as irresponsible on my part, but here’s the outcome: We now knew of his allergy and could have the rogue bee-hive – which had taken up residence in a birdhouse in one of the trees – removed. Also, we could put Jacobus on a desensitization program. This was done successfully, with the additional benefit that he has not gone near a bee since.
Other than the insurance company who classified the first event as an accident, most people – including the objectors – would recognize it as a crime. One could therefore question the relevance of the two incidents to each other. However, if you stand back somewhat, you will notice that both happened to people that are dear to me.
Hence, what I am advocating is that supervised risk management generally has a far better outcome than random events which you cannot predict or control. Put differently, allow the head bumps – prevent the skull cracking.
Perhaps, if one could therefore gain a holistic perspective and see the bigger picture, it may be possible to live (and let live) a little (more).
Thank you, I feel much better now.
JJJ