"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation" - Mein Kampf
One can never accuse the righteous of contravening the Gorgon's principle of trans-pair-ency, because it is always painfully obvious what they are going to do next. The secret is to just think of the most extreme nonsense you can imagine on any subject, see how far along that path they have thus far travelled, then plot the next logical step. That is where they will be found, management-speaking and gleefully cascading public money down the drain for little or no benefit to society as a whole.
And, sure as eggs is eggs, they will be using the chiiildren as a shield for whichever illiberal initiative they intend to submit next to government ... using government funds ... provided by taxpayers who have no say in objecting to it being spent in this way.
Deborah Arnott, of fake charity ASH, during a BBC piece talking about banning smoking in cars containing children, let slip that this was just a first step towards dictating what you do in your own car whoever is in it.
Deborah Arnott, chief executive of Action on Smoking and Health (Ash), said the charity was in favour of a ban on smoking in cars.
The risks were not just to children but to adults suffering from conditions like heart disease, she said
It's the way they work, you see. Use the chiiildren to denormalise an activity, then once the precedent is set and another tiny part of your freedom has been extinguished, push for the larger part.
So, while they are nagging the compliant knob-jockeys in parliament about that one, they have been feverishly planning the next step. Your home.
Here in April came news of a consultation amongst those who wish to ban smoking in private homes, on ... err ... how to go about banning smoking in private homes.
They were struggling with the sticky problem of getting round the fact that private homes are exactly that - private - and have absolutely naff all to do with interfering bansturbating fucktards on a fat state-funded salary.
On the one hand the home is a private space and there is some resistance found in the ethical debates inherent in public health literature to the blurring of the public/private boundary for smoke-free public health interventions. This is often articulated by libertarian arguments advocating the rights of smokers in their own home and opposing perceived encroachment of the State into private space.
They really wanted to go for a policy of arguing for a total ban, but realised that it's too early for that right now.
Approaches to developing smoke-free homes - incremental or total ban
All panel participants agreed that the ultimate goal was smoke-free homes. However there was considerable discussion about the most feasible and effective way of achieving this.
So, for now, the agreement is to keep the powder dry and just chip away until such time as they have brainwashed our dull-witted MPs enough to move to the end game.
Some, including several of our panel members, have argued that a staged approach may be more realistic and sustainable in ultimately protecting children, whilst still maintaining the goal of smokefree homes.
Scroll on a couple of months, and we begin to see the resultant green shoots of righteous fuckwittery from extreme north to extreme south. Exactly as one would expect. Trans-fucking-pair-ent as perspex.
EVERY primary school pupil in Wishaw has been given a leaflet to take home asking parents not to smoke in their own homes.
Hundreds of homes in Rotherham will soon become smokefree, thanks to the launch of the ‘Smokefree Homes’ campaign this week.
East Sussex (more bans for Brighton, sorry guys):
The PCT, in partnership with the Stop Smoking Service, is working closely with schools, colleges, children’s centres and local communities to raise awareness of the dangers of second hand smoke and the benefits of working towards smokefree homes
All voluntary. For now. But the righteous are past masters at dismissing voluntary arrangements as ineffective in their pursuit of their 'ultimate goal' (until the next 'ultimate goal' is targeted).
For example, on banning smoking in pubs
Doctors' leaders says Britain's voluntary route, where bars and restaurants are encouraged to introduce no-smoking policies, is simply not enough.
And we all know what happened next, I presume?
Whether one agrees with a home being smoke free or not, this is the righteous sticking their size 12 jackboot exactly where it should not be entertained. Inside your front door. And as you surely must have noticed by now, no amount of appeasement works with these tax-spongers. Interfering is in their nature (well, their wallets, actually), and once they have cracked open the portal of your right to peaceful enjoyment of your property, they will next want it to be broken down with the sledgehammer of legislation.
I would still bet good money that Tom Harris, at some point, will be made to come good on the promise he made in October.
So let me make this clear: the government will not, under any circumstances, legislate to stop people smoking in private. It would be a crazy move and, believe it or not, ministers are not crazy people – they’re politicians and they recognise political realities.
And if they did attempt to legislate in this direction, I would risk the wrath of those who don’t believe Scottish MPs should vote on English matters by voting against it.
But as I say, I won’t need to, because it’s not going to happen.
When the division bell rings for the Smoke Free Homes Bill, I for one will be watching closely.