Monday, 13 July 2009

The Righteous Foot In The Door


"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.

Lanarkshire:

EVERY primary school pupil in Wishaw has been given a leaflet to take home asking parents not to smoke in their own homes.

Rotherham:

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.




12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Personal account from Edward Behrendt
http://www.youth.net/memories/hypermail/0554.html
Like many dictators, Hitler and his immediate cohorts believed that it was
vital to convert
young children to their cause and believes. Basically that theory still
holds true today. If you
can capture the minds of young children and persuade them to become
dedicated to
your cause, your theory of the truth and your theory of what is right and
wrong, then you can
hold the whole country captive and you have complete control. That is what
the Nazis were
after in establishing the Hitler Youth.
Youth soon were no
longer real children, but more or less belonged to the State. It was not
that unusual for kids to
turn their own parents in to authorities if they caught them doing
something not approved by
the State. Many parents were severely punished and some sent to
concentration camps and
then death because their own children had turned them in to authorities.

vincent1 said...

Anon beat me to it lol, but put it much better than I could ever dream of doing.
Strange how Hitlers "children" just jump into your head when reading the article isn't it. Then the booze, then what food "our children are going to let us eat", because they will have to report it to get some lovely gold stars hmm.
Then the little ones can have a lovely Johnson&Johnson formaldehye, bubble bath - followe by some yummy water with arsenic and all the other lovely chemicals, to go with their "nicotine vegetables" in their salad, encouraged by the nanny bigade, 5 portions as well.
As long as they do not catch a whiff of smoke eh.
Asthmas on the rise, obesity on the rise, smoking on the decrease hmmm.
mandyv
freedom2choose.info for smokers and non-smokers alike, fighting for choice and TRUTH
Something the "new Temperance movement" seem to be incapable of.

Chris F J Cyrnik said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Helen said...

They might put a foot in the door - but it will be one step too far for the majority.

banned said...

I note that ASH blithely state that 'smokers who drive are not fully in control of their vehicles so smoke-driving must be detrimental to road safety' cue for the Police to start pulling over 'smoke-drivers' without any need for legislation.
Similarly we have almost reached the stage where smoking in the presence of children is, of itself, child abuse; cue Social Workers intervening to rescue abused chiiildren ( to a life in childrens home > low expectations > failure at school > drugs n prostitution > prison > early death but never mind, at least it's smoke free ) again without specific legislation.

Chris F J Cyrnik said...

Good post Dick.

ASH just recently was given as source for a BBC report about banning smoking in cars. Remember that figure of 23? ASH says that smoking in cars is 23 times more dangerous than smoking outside. I asked ASH UK to justify this figure of 23, with scientific evidence that has either been peer reviewed, or published or both.

I also asked for the contact within the BBC, so that I could ask them if they verified this kind of information instead of just blindly accepting whatever ASH tells them. As yet I have only been referred to some obscure Canadian report. But ASH will not say whether or not they recognise the figure of 23.

Sometime ago, I set up a spoof petition posing as a Dr who runs an anti-smoking patrol watch in his local community. I gather photographic evidence of people smoking in their own homes, and then pass this on to our local GPs and dentists…who say that they will refuse treatment to these people when the times comes.

Total bullshit of course…I thought I was being amusing, just having a bit of fun…but I’m not laughing anymore!

You’re right Dick about the slowly, slowly catch the monkey. I have never known such a relentless tyranny of pursuit as there is against smoking and smokers, which does not exist with regard to any other issue…and this will not go away.

No legislation is needed to stop us smoking in our homes. This can be quite easily accomplished by approaching estate agents with propaganda…telling them not to accept smokers on to their books, because of harm to children from third hand smoke ECT, ECT. One-day vendors will have to sign a document, or accept a visit, which will determine if smoking has taken place.

County councils can easily refuse to take on residents that smoke, if they lie, then they will be caught out by un-announced visits, combine this with shop your neighbour tactics, and you will have 100% compliance.

It’s politically correct to attack smoking and smokers in whatever grotesque way, without restraint or recriminations, and no one will leap to your defence. No one was prepared to have a go at me about data protection, when I suggested passing on information about people smoking in their own homes. That says it all!

Simply cutting off one or many heads of this evil hydra will not work…others will just grow in their place…we have to destroy the monster itself.

Fredrik said...

Dick,
I am, sadly, a resident of the Muesli Munchers Republic of Brighton. I can confirm that after the recent invasion of Afghanistan, the homeless Talib of bora bora caves, took up public office in Brighton. And it would seem they happy with the move.

Henry North London said...

thank the lord I never had children.

Anonymous said...

WRT banned's post - you'd only need some insurance companies taking it upon themselves to decide that evidence of smoking in a car is enough to negate cover and bob's your uncle! It would catch on like a virus. And, yes, I now believe that we've got to the stage in this country that they could get away with doing this.

Another example: today I decided to have a coffee at a Pizza Express which had tables outside. I asked for an ashtray to be told that the LA had issued the outdoor licence on condition that people weren't allowed to smoke!!! Now I'd have thought that an LA couldn't just make up conditions as it went along and if it can't then it's acting ultra vires.

Anyone any ideas how to challenge this - I see no point in going to see a Councillor on the Licensing Committee unless he or she can (yeah, right) tell me which piece of legislation enables them to impose whatever conditions they want?

Jay

PS At least Tom Harris is openly supporting the SOPAC campaign.

Dick Puddlecote said...

Jay:

I don't think he is. The ads he carried are part of a package and he has no say in what turns up on his site ... unless he has said differently?

Anonymous said...

Dick, In response to a commenter, Harris stated that he is supporting the campaign. He's one of the few Labour MPs who voted against a blanket ban. Pity he has no power!

Jay

Dick Puddlecote said...

Thanks Jay. Nice to know. :-)