29 Jul Vandalizing the census – cont.

Gus Reed really hates the long census questionnaire:

I admit to some disappointment that you have so totally and uncritically capitulated to the Forces of Social Planning on the census issue. Contrarians need to be contrary. Apart from the indisputably careless design of the long form (or the sloppy posting of an unedited version), there are a couple of things that rankle:

Many of the questions are sort of inherently interesting, but that doesn’t mean they should be asked. What government policy hinges on knowing the birthplace of my parents (#25)?

I like this statement attached to the race/ethnicity question: “This information is collected to support programs that promote equal opportunity for everyone to share in the social, cultural and economic life of Canada.” It would be good discipline to have such a statement attached to each question, or at least each section. If the statement is not succinct and understandable, then it’s a good indication that someone’s just fishing: “We want to know where your parents were born because your government is considering a system of preferential immigration based on national origin.”

More argument, and Contrarian rebuttal, after the jump – photos included!

This phrasing in the Activities of Daily Living section — “Does a physical condition or mental condition or health problem reduce the amount or the kind of activity this person can do?” — represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation of the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who face accessibility problems. If the purpose of the long form is to assist social planning (whatever that is) and lead to meaningful change, the question ought to read, “Do inadequate facilities reduce the amount or the kind of activity this person can do?”

I’ve beaten this horse before – much disability is the result of careless and discriminatory infrastructure planning, and it is a disservice to people to blame some medical condition for failed government policies.

Finally, in response to your If the Fraser Institute operated park benches post, I have to say that I prefer the pay-as-you-go model to the poorly situated and chronically unattractive free benches in Halifax’s Point Pleasant Park. It’s worth a quarter to sit on level, reasonably attractive, and arse-friendly furniture rather than on Brutalist fixtures finished with army surplus paint (applied with a mop). Why is it that it’s so hard to get good value for our tax dollars?

No doubt the long form could be clearer, and perhaps it could ask more pertinent questions, but that has no bearing on the destructive act of de-randomizing the sample. Harper’s vandalism won’t even lessen the inconvenience to Canadians. Since the long form will go to many more people than before, it’s likely that more people than ever will suffer the inconvenience of filling it out. This time, however, the collective inconvenience will yield no useful data.

In effect, the Vandals are burning down the library, and Gus is standing next to the fire plug, arguing that we shouldn’t put out the fire because the 17th Century French Lit collection isn’t up to snuff, and the paint is peeling in the upstairs hallway.

(Note: Gus’s specific grievance about the accessibility question is not trivial, but it does not warrant wrecking the whole census. If the Reformers Conservatives had proposed to improve the census along the lines Gus suggests, no one would have objected.)