The Supreme Court of Canada has refused to hear a challenge to regulations requiring airlines to provide two seats to passengers who are obese or travel with an attendant, according to this CBC story via Overlawyered.  Well, this is a problem, both for the airline and the rest of us.

The plaintiffs, and intervenor, presented as people suffering from a disability that resulted in obesity, rather than people who really like Big Macs.  Smart move.  Meet them:

The case has wound its way through various agencies and courts for years. It was originally brought forward in 2002 by three parties:

• Victoria resident Joanne Neubauer, who has rheumatoid arthritis and requires a personal attendant, wheelchair and crutches.
  
• Eric Norman, a man from Gander, N.L., who had a rare disease that impaired his motor skills. He has since died.
  
• The Council of Canadians with Disabilities.

Calgary law Prof. Linda McKay-Panos, who was later granted intervener status, has been arguing for the rights of obese travelers since she was charged for 1½ seats on a 1997 Air Canada flight.

McKay-Panos argued anyone who is clinically obese has a disability and should not have to pay for more than one seat. She has polycystic ovary syndrome, an incurable condition that can lead to obesity.

One might well see some validity to the argument, up until the extension in the last quoted sentence, “anyone whi is clinically obese has a disability and should not have to pay for more than one seat.”  That conceptual leap, from obesity caused by an incurable medical condition to obesity caused by an incurable desire to eat food that make you fat, is where the argument fails. 

The trend toward including obesity in the list of classifications against whom discrimination is intolerable really presents a “conceptual ledge” on the slippery slope.  And it’s not just Canada, though it’s certainly easier to bootstrap a worldwide movement by starting in the land of “ay” and working your way south.

Many people harbor a significant bias toward fat people, as if they are less worthy human beings than others.  That’s just foolish.  But the same can be said for the ugly, awkward and smelly.  What about people with no fashion sense?  Bad hair perhaps?  Am I being facetious and offensive by comparing?  Let’s see.

The problem an obese person has with an airline seat is physics.  Two bodies can’t occupy the same space.  This law trumps anything the Canadian Supreme Court can do, rendering its remedy clear.  If an airline has to provide every obese flyer, however obese is to be determined, with an extra seat in order to accommodate their size, it thus precludes the person who would otherwise occupy that space from having a seat.  It not only penalizes the airline, but the passenger who isn’t obese who would otherwise be able to reach a destination.

The airline sells a certain quantum of space for the purpose of transporting a person from one location to another.  When I travel by air, and an obese person plops down next to me, I find it to be a problem.  Without indulging in detailed explanation, it happens that portions of their body end up in my space.  Why is my space, that quantum that I’ve licenses for the trip, subject to their use?  They can’t help it, I’m told.  I’m sympathetic, but fail to see how that becomes my problem for the next 8 hours. 

This is where the buck stops.  As I age, I find the height of my jumps to be even lower than when I was a young man because of muscular degeneration, a sad fact beyond my control.  Am I not entiteld then to enjoy a multiple of my jumping height when I compete in the Olympics to fairly compare me to some high-jumping kid, who does not suffer the ailments of age?  Ridiculous? Sure. 

The distinguishing aspect of this argument is that it is not merely a fact of physics, proponents of this cause contend, but a disability, and no one should be punished for being disabled.  Amen.  I’m with you.  But we are all disabled.  It’s what makes us human, being able to do one thing better than someone else, and others worse.  Some are tall and some are short.  Some are good at math and some are good at lifting heavy cans.  Some graceful and others awkward.  It’s what distinguishes one person from another.

We should not penalize people for being who they are, yet we do all the time.  People suffering from traumatic brain injury are held to abide the law when they lack the ability to control their intellects and actions to the extent necessary to avoid jail.  These are people who suffer from a very real disability, and yet no one seems to care that they are prosecuted because of conduct beyond their control.  Ask a person suffering from undiagnosed bipolar disorder, during one of their more lucid moments, how well they are tolerated?  The prisons are full of disabled people.  Where is the outcry?

There are obese people who indeed suffer from a physical disease that gives rise to their issue.  There are also obese people who have chosen a lifestyle that makes them morbidly fat.  It’s their life and their choice.  But to sweep them all together under the guise of a disability cheapens the word and concept.  No one suggests that obese people be prosecuted for being so fat, or spilling over into the next person’s airline seat. 

On the other hand, there is no rational basis to place the burden on society to make accommodations for the obese.  Are you prepared to be bumped from your flight because an obese person showed up at the airport with a ticket?  Given this new regulation, this seems likely to be the outcome, another passenger losing a seat because an obese passenger requires two.  How did it become the other passenger’s burden?  The weight has to be on someone’s shoulders, and the only question is who’s?

My politically incorrect position will no doubt draw the ire of those who suffer for their size and weight.  I hold you no ill will, and do indeed appreciate your position.  It is never pleasant to find that some personal characteristic presents an obstacle to doing what you want, particularly when you feel that you can’t control it.  For this reason, I will be the first to defend your right not to be persecuted for your physical condition.  It is not a crime to be fat. 

But your right to be obese ends at my airline seat fold-down arm, or my ability to take my seat on my confirmed flight.  Being obese doesn’t confer additional rights on you that trump mine. 

Once we change the duty to not discriminate from the suspect classifications to matters that defy the laws of physics, we have fallen off the conceptual ledge that prevents our slide into an untenable state of affairs.  The many activities of a normal life implicate different people’s strengths and weaknesses, physical gifts and deficits.  Accommodating race, sex, religion, natural origin is wholly different.  Accommodating heft goes too far.  For those who truly are obese because of a disability rather than lifestyle, welcome to the club of humanity.