Even Canada Thinks the Nanny State Has Gone Too Far on Outlawing Fun
A new white paper from the Canadian Pediatric Society recommends more unstructured play time for kids.

Kids need to climb trees, jump off things, and ride their bikes—even at speed. That's what the Canadian Pediatric Society is recommending in a new white paper: Healthy Childhood Development Through Outdoor Risky Play.
It's the sort of finding that is almost considered radical these days. Mariana Brussoni, a developmental psychologist at the University of British Columbia, has been championing risky play for more than a decade, but the Pediatric Society wasn't ready to endorse her call to action.
It was only when faced with soaring rates of childhood anxiety, depression, obesity, and even myopia that Canadian health officials realized that "letting kids go out and play could be a way to deal with a lot of these challenging issues," says Brussoni.
That's because the doctors came to recognize two truths.
First, children are hard-wired to play because it aids their development. It teaches them how to take action, get along, and solve problems.
Second, replacing rollicking, kid-led play with structured, adult-led play was a mistake. It deprived children of a million opportunities to exercise their autonomy. It also increased their risk of physical danger.
When kids play without adult supervision, they hone their social and emotional coping skills, according to the report. What's more, free play can "significantly reduce children's risk for elevated anxiety."
Play does that in a rather obvious way, says Peter Gray, a professor of psychology and neuroscience at Boston College and a co-founder with me of Let Grow.
"From an evolutionary standpoint, why do children want to play in a risky way?" asks Gray. "Because this is how they develop a little courage. They deliberately put themselves into situations where they're feeling fear so that, unconsciously, they can have a sense of control over it: 'I can feel this fear and survive it.' So when they face a real emergency, they are slightly less likely to panic. They are also less fearful because they know, 'Something can happen, and I can manage it.'"
The Canadian report recommends pediatricians promote risky play as preventative medicine for mental health.
But what about the physical danger that risky play sometimes involves? How can doctors—and parents and schools—ignore that?
By looking at statistics, says Brussoni.
"From 2007 to 2022, there were two deaths from falls on the playground, and 480 deaths from motor vehicle crashes," she says.
And as the Pediatrics paper notes, "The research has established that children are less likely to be injured while engaging in unstructured activities than when playing an organized sport."
Sports are more dangerous than goof-around play? It's starting to sound like the real risk in "risky play" is that our culture has been busy outlawing it. Think of signs like the one in a suburban Washington, D.C., playground that warns would-be fun-havers: adult supervision required.
So how can we normalize free play again?
Brussoni tells parents to start with an "underwhelming" experiment.
"Let them out into the backyard while you're watching for a few minutes," she says.
The next day, sit in the kitchen and don't watch. You and your kids will get used to time apart.
Another way is to ask your kids' school to start a "Let Grow Play Club." That's when the school stays open for mixed-age free play. An adult is there but like a lifeguard. They don't organize the games or solve the spats.
The Canadian Pediatrics Society issued its full-throated endorsement of risky play partly in response to the "restrictive safety programs and measures that have become more broadly implemented—and sometimes mandated—in child care settings, schools, and playgrounds in recent years."
If even overly cautious Canada is saying safety culture has swung too far, it's time to jump off the swing.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"Let them out into the backyard while you're watching for a few minutes,"
That's privilege talking. Most parents these days don't have a backyard.
One square meter is plenty for 2-3 kids to sit and play on their phones without parental supervision.
And what is to be said to the generation of kids that got messed up by these restrictive policies? Oops!, sorry!
“Dont be such a snowflake”?
So how can we normalize free play again?
First, we kill all the lawyers.
Seriously, opportunities for free and risky play have been severely curtailed by out-of-control liability law. If we want children, and indeed all of us, to have our freedom back, we'll need drastic reform of liability law. Property owners and local governments know that if a child is injured on their property and requires medical treatment, the child's insurer will insist on a lawsuit to hand off their expenses to a deep pocket that can be held responsible. That's even if the parents don't wish to pursue it.
And a lot of this is we keep electing lawyers to write the laws. Seriously, about the only thing worse than having lawyers write the laws is to have criminals write the laws.
Electing some lawyers is probably warranted but they shouldn't approach a majority.
Reforming liability law is very difficult, because it wasn't legislated. Rather, it's come to be the way it is because of the legal culture, largely thru academics. Could it be superseded by legislation? Sure, but I shudder to think about how, because it'd all be ad hoc. It'd be simultaneously too broad and too narrow.
How 'bout a constitutional amendment enacting the right to waive the right to sue? I can remember when it was done that way. One could sign a liability waiver before engaging in potentially risky activity, and it would actually hold up in court. We would also need legislation prohibiting insurance companies from denying coverage to the insured who declined to sue.
Second, we lock up all the pedos, groomers, LGBT, drug addicts, illegal aliens, vagrants, gang members, and the mentally ill. In jail on criminal grounds if we can, or involuntarily committed to sanitariums if we can't.
You can't free range farm animals until you first do something to address the predator population. What makes you think you can with children?
These are ALL unchecked social contagions - and parents are rightfully and increasingly concerned about them being present in a child's environment. They point to those groups and are dead-on-balls accurate when they say, "THIS is why we can't have nice things." Because the degenerates ruin everything for everyone. Especially when the State shows more deference to the their sensitivities than they do encouraging environments that promote health and safety.
Every time Reason posts this free-range parenting stuff, their glaring omission of this shows just how not-serious they are about it.
It's the job of parents to provide a child safe environment. It's not the job of society or tax payers to do so.
It's the job of society and the tax-payers to not INTENTIONALLY INTRODUCE/SPREAD those social contagions into the greater social sphere!
They're supposed to work WITH parents, not consciously frustrate the ability of a parent TO provide their children those safe environments. (This is why everyone's so pissed at the schools introducing rainbow groomer porn.)
FFS, you may as well re-write the ending to Old Yeller starring yourself as some clinically insane person who insists that Travis should accept Old Yeller for who and what he has become (a rabid dangerous threat), and let him stay in the same room as him and all the rest of the family.
Because that's what "society and the tax payers" are doing.
Now, if you're arguing in favor of parents being allowed to get their rifles and go deal with these social contagions themselves - then say so. I can think of a great deal of parents who would happily declare open season on the pedos, groomers, LGBT, drug addicts, illegal aliens, vagrants, gang members, and the mentally ill - and find your support of that welcoming.
You are the poster child for the paranoid delusional ninnies that Lenore speaks out against.
Maybe. But by all means, feel free to tell how pedos, groomers, LGBT, drug addicts, illegal aliens, vagrants, gang members, and the mentally ill are conducive to a safe environment, and why parents should accept their presence as a part of "free ranging" their kids.
That's easy—bad people have always been with us. It is a myth that children are in more danger from them than in the past. Rational risk assessment makes clear that the benefits of allowing children reasonable freedom and independence greatly outweigh the danger of exceedingly rare crimes against them.
But we’ve always been AGAINST those bad people, and done our best as a civilized society to keep them at bay.
Now we’re intentionally encouraging and empowering them to weave seamlessly into society, especially it seems, around children. The problem is that society is hell bent on calling those bad people, "good people."
Also, just out of curiosity – what do you define as “exceedingly rare crimes against them?” Because if you’re circumscribing your argument to only things like outright kidnapping and molestation and the like, then you’re being disingenuous in your argument. It’s not just ACTUAL crimes that parents don’t want their children exposed to.
It’s the half-naked junkies zombie shuffling down the sidewalk.
It’s the gang punks out there peddling to them.
It’s the park full of used needles and broken pipes.
It’s the nutjobs out exposing themselves and screaming profanity at the sky.
It’s the transgender creepers in the public bathroom.
It’s the LGBT groomers out “celebrating their pride” in sexually explicit ways.
It’s the vagrants sleeping in the bushes and taking a dump on the sidewalk.
Now that our Clown World, as a society, have become so “ToLeRaNt aNd aCcEpTinG” to these “dIvErSiTy iS OuR sTreNgTh LiFeStYleS” – now that we’ve rationalized their legitimacy and normalized them into mainstream America – surprise, normal people really don’t want their kids around all that.
But somehow they’re in the wrong for not letting their child frolic freely among the degenerates we’ve intentionally filled their streets and schools and parks with?
You are the poster child for the paranoid delusional ninnies that Lenore speaks out against.
Did you see the part about looking at statistics?
"Play does that in a rather obvious way"
Except it was obvious to everyone but the experts ... and the professional politicians.
Fun fact, Canada may have socialized healthcare but doctors are independant contractors who get paid by the procedure... more injured kids... more money. lol
"From 2007 to 2022, there were two deaths from falls on the playground, and 480 deaths from motor vehicle crashes," she says.
This is meaningless. It could just as easily be used to deduce that the overly safety conscious policies worked.
Not saying I agree with that, just noting that perhaps this is not the overwhelming evidence they might wish it was.
People have raised kids all over the planet through wars, famine, and all the rest. It's tough, but modern academics are convinced it's so hard that only academics can do it. Go figure. You'd think the few billion cases where that's objectively not true might be a hint.
I still say the main problem is third parties paying for treatment of injuries and not allowing waiver of liability.
"modern academics are convinced it’s so hard that only academics can do it."
Not exactly. Modern academics are convinced that it's so hard that only academics know how YOU should do it. Most academics I have known can't tie their own shoelaces, have to use slip-ons instead, but know so much about how you should tie shoelaces that they authored or co-authored with their graduate students a dozen academic studies on the subject.
Canada doesn't think.
Neither do the vast majority of Canadians.
Independent thinking is being steadily outlawed in Canada. Thinking outside prescribed parameters, and expressing those thoughts is certainly being criminalized.
I do wonder why Hungary got all the heat when Canada is worse on freedoms in every conceivable way under Trudeau.
The paper is great, but the problem is, the society doesn't want to hear it.
All the adults in the room with their fingers in their ears going "NaaahNaaahNaaahNaaah...."?
How will the Gov-'Guns' raise kids after they're free'd??? /s