What is the bigger risk, falling in the bathtub or being killed in a terror attack?

On Monday Edward Snowden delivered the keynote speech to open Upper Canada College’s World Affairs Conference. Glenn Greenwald also spoke. Snowden, of course, is America’s most famous fugitive whistleblower and is either a great patriot or a filthy spy, depending on your perspective. Also speaking was Glenn Greenwald, an American journalist well known for his collaboration with Snowden. 

In speaking about the proposed new Bill C-51 which will expand the powers of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Greenwald said:

“In Canada you are more likely to die as a result of falling in the bathtub than you are from a terrorist attack.”

He’s right.

There are about 40 bathing deaths per year in Canada. I know of only two deaths last year from terrorism (might be more, depending on how big you draw the circle, but certainly less than 40). Greenwald seems to be implying that we should be more worried about bathtub falls than terrorism. 

And on this point… He’s wrong. Well, sort of.

The death rate from falling in the bathtub is a constant. You could reduce bathing deaths by requiring foam padding on rims and shower handles and enforcing compliance with hefty fines and jail time for those who insist on recklessly bathing without a handle. So, why don’t we? Because the risk is so small that going to extraordinary lengths to protect ourselves from this risk is not deemed important. In other words, it costs too much and nobody really cares. So, we keep building bathtubs like we do. A few people will die but as a society we have deemed that this is OK partly because the death rate is within tolerable limits and partly because, as individuals, we don’t perceive bathing to be a risky activity.

The death rate from terrorism may not be constant. It might be increasing. Or, more appropriately, it might be at risk of increasing. And therein is the difference. Terrorism includes the implied risk that, left unchecked, it will increase. If we don’t fight terrorism, there will be more terrorism. We can make a difference. We can hold this growth in check, perhaps even eliminate it altogether. Thus, CSIS.

It’s a matter of issue definition and policy.

The issue is that terrorism exists and will increase if left alone. Implied in this are some additional questions. How big will terrorism get? How many people will die or be tortured? What terrorism death rate do we find tolerable? You may find it a shocking question but we already implicitly ask and answer this same question when it comes to bathtubs, car accidents, and the cleaning products under your sink. How much mayhem and death do we tolerate measured against stylish tubs, the convenience of driving, and a nice clean kitchen?

The policy question is how much money we are willing to spend and how large an abrogation of our cherished individual rights are we willing to accept in order to keep terrorism death from expanding beyond our tolerable limit?

And so, Glenn Greenwald is, broadly speaking, correct. When it comes to counter-terrorism we should be asking:

1.     What is the present terrorism risk?

2.     What is the potential risk?

3.     What short term policy should we enact that will be a cost effective means of ensuring the risk remains below tolerance? Cost effective includes money and loss of rights.

4.     What long term policy should we enact that will be a cost effective means of making the world a safer, better place.

Incidentally, I think that the present risk is much lower than most people perceive. I think the potential risk is much lower than most people perceive. I think that we are overreacting in the short term. And, I think we need a much better understanding of the long term.