Friday, 5 July 2013

Confiscating Children ... For The Children

There's a tag I use on this 'ere blog which public health and their entourage routinely object to. They refute the term 'health Nazis' because, you see, they're only trying to help us; they're not ogres or dictators at all, but instead simply working hard to make our lives better.

This is obviously why they sit by and allow situations like this one, very succinctly described by Brian Monteith at the Free Society earlier this week.
Sheriff Scott Pattison ruled at Ayr Sheriff Court (24 June) that a mother’s smoking had shown a “parental lack of care” and breached the Children Scotland Act 1995. The law states that “compulsory supervision” may be required if children are “likely to suffer unnecessarily or be impaired seriously in their health and development due to lack of parental care. 
The court, which has greater powers than an English magistrates court, could now decide if the mother – who cannot be named for legal reasons – is fit enough to raise her children or if the should be removed into care.
Can't you see how this help and encouragement is fantastic for the betterment of society? After all, how very small is the threat of destroying childrens' lives by dumping them in care compared with the apocalypse of their smelling a few wisps of sarin-like smoke, eh?

Not to be outdone, anti-alcohol prohibitionists in Sweden have also this week shown how very much they care by calling for kids to be confiscated from parents if they enjoy a glass of Côtes du Rhône with the family dinner.
Law professor calls for ban on parents drinking
"It is a parent's responsibility to be sober when they are with their children," said Professor Madeleine Leijonhufvud to the Dagens Nyheter (DN) daily.
Leijonhufvud pointed out that every fifth child in Sweden lives with one or two parents who suffer from drinking problems and argues that a new law penalizing parents would address the problem. 
The proposal was presented at a seminar organized by temperance society IOGT-NTO's at the Almedalen political week and is specifically designed to tackle "everyday drinking". 
The law currently has no scope for punishing parents who drink in the company of their children and Leijonhufvud argued that the proposal is an attempt to prompt a discussion on the issue. 
She compared the offence to minor assault which currently carries a penalty of up to six months imprisonment. 
While the proposal is aimed at "everyday drunkenness" it in effect suggests that parents would not be able to share a glass of wine at dinner.
So, removing children from their parents is quite clearly the kind and caring thing to do, err, for the children.

They're not health Nazis, merely wise and benevolent people with our well-being at heart at all times. Oh yeah, and there's clearly no slippery slope, either. Got that? 



8 comments:

Crossbow said...

Well, recruiting the kids for a Heath Jugend will ensure that there is always a grass roots support for the Health Polizei.......

nisakiman said...

Leijonhufvud pointed out that every fifth child in Sweden lives with one or two parents who suffer from drinking problems...

Which means that they drink maybe three glasses of wine / beer during the course of an evening.

And as for the grotesque ruling from Sheriff Scott Pattison, the epithet 'health Nazi' doesn't even begin to describe the misanthropic twat. I keep saying this, but who the fuck do they think they are?

People like Pattison should be locked away where they can't cause any more damage. A cell on Christmas Island should be far enough away from sane people to contain his madcap ideas. We could send him some companions so he doesn't get lonely. Glantz and Chapman spring to mind, but there are quite a few others who it would benefit the world to send there to keep him company.

Steve Brown said...

It really is breathtaking how evil some of the Do-Gooders are. THEY 'think' that some sort of behaviour is 'bad' so they consider that THEY have the 'right' to destroy an otherwise very happy family.
'Health Nazis' describes THEM perfectly.

Dick_Puddlecote said...

Indeed. But see how they try to make excuses when they realise they are exactly the Nazis they pretend not to be ;) https://twitter.com/Dick_Puddlecote/status/349798006431809536

What the.... said...

DP, we’re getting into strong-derangement land. And it’s not
new:

“In 1904, for example, a New York judge ordered a woman to jail for 30 days for smoking in front of her children.”
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19981129&slug=2786034

From this Non Smokers’ Movement of Australia newsletter:

“Declare smoking in the presence of children as physical and emotional child abuse.”
http://www.nsma.org.au/update06/update54.htm

Given America’s antismoking history over the last 150 years involving Temperance and Eugenics Movements, the claims by antismokers become progressively more absurd and hysterical, and their demands more draconian and inhumane.

There is plenty of evidence that the antismoking mentality is highly dysfunctional. There is constant lying to rationalize an incoherent fear and hatred of tobacco smoke (capnophobics/misocapnists). When these
neurotic bigots are let loose on society with the blessing and funding of the
State - as was seen early last century, it is they who are the abusers of the
public and particularly The Children™ whom they insist on “educating”.

While you’re at the NSMA website, have a look at their archived newsletters for a greater insight into the madness that is antismoking.

What the.... said...

The NSMA title is a good example of lying. This is not a nonsmokers group. It is an antismokers group.

If we consider the Godber Blueprint, there are numerous instances where the antismokers refer to their own activity as “antismoking” – and rightly so. But then they also append this bilge:

The term "antismoking," a label often applied by the tobacco industry, should be avoided and positive names such as "national health campaign"
used.
1992 (p.17)

According to the antismokers, “antismoking” is a negative label due to another tobacco industry “conspiracy”. Well, we now have the advantage of hindsight. As we consider the last 30 years, the label of “antismoking” is no tobacco industry “conspiracy”. Antismokers are indeed anti-smoke/smoking/smokers, and rabidly…. hysterically….. so. No amount of masquerading their dysfunctional activity with titles such as “health advocate” changes the fact that antismokers are antismokers and are neurotic bigots.

nisakiman said...

My comment of yesterday seems to have sunk without a trace, DP. Was it swallowed by the bottomless chasm of the spambox?

Podoloski advani said...

This article is mind blowing I read it and enjoyed. I always find this type of article to learn and gather knowledge.

Panele fotowoltaiczne