Tuesday
Feb192008
Monteith attacks "lifestyle fascists"
Tuesday, February 19, 2008 News travels. Writing from Botswana, Brian Monteith has some strong words to say about the proposal to introduce smoking permits. The former MSP, who is policy director of The Free Society, makes the point that:
A smoking permit is not about winning the argument against the freedom to smoke, it’s about persecuting smokers in full gaze of the public, it’s about de-normalising smoking by making smokers pariahs ... And of course, it’s not just about smokers, it will then be about drinkers, drivers, bungee jumpers – anybody the lifestyle fascists wish to control.
Full article HERE.
Reader Comments (16)
What exactly does Brian Monteith think the "retiring law-abiding British public" will do about this proposal then?
He says that he doesn't think they will stand for it. I wish I could be so optimistic. In my view, the British public will, and do, stand for almost anything.
The British public stood for the big one, which was making it illegal to smoke in all enclosed places, so why does he think they will act any different with this one?
Bring it on, he says. Have a go, he says. Do you think you're hard enough?, he says.
I think Mr Monteith has seriously misjudged the British people if he thinks they will do anything apart from moan. We are extremely good at that, and I am sure all the pro-smoking sites with attract hundreds, if not thousands of moaners, but ask the moaners to stand up and fight, and you might just as well be asking where the anti-smoking bodies get their figures from. You won't get an answer from them, and you won't get any positive action from the British public either.
If Mr Monteith really believes in what he is saying, then he should lead by setting an example. Organise a march, organise a mass meeting, organise a protest.
The ban has been in existence in England for nearly eight months now, and all we have a several bedraggled elements, all with the same cause in mind, but no overall leadership. An army needs Generals and leadership, who can clearly be seen.
As Mr Monteith himself says, Come on, have a go, do you think you're hard enough?
I agree, Peter.
While I'm sure Mr Monteith has the best of intentions when saying those things, the fact is that talk hasn't got us anywhere.
And the same goes for Forest, really. Although I'm VERY glad that Forest exists, I agree with the sentiments of somebody who wrote a comment recently to this effect: Forest have always taken the "reasonable" line, whilst their opponents (ie ASH) take decidedly UNreasonable ACTION. As a result, their opponents have won - time after time.
As for Monteith's statement that the public won't stand for this... I'm afraid the public couldn't give a f*** about this issue. To most people it is no issue - just an excuse to feel self-righteous. The more the better, they will think. The public is, on some level, enjoying the vilification of smokers because
a) it's nice to be "right"
b) if something is perceived as "successful", it will win support - and the media/govt are working hard to paint the ban as "successful" and people are taking the hint
c) the vilification of smokers seems to represent some form of "progress". It is seen, I think, as evidence that Britain is hip and modern and up-to-date. The more difficult life is made for smokers, the more Britain is moving forward. This in a time when social change seems to manifest pretty much exclusively through the deletion of freedoms. That's to say, the mark of a "civilised" society is that most things are banned in it.
It's like the cliche about 1930s Germany. "First they came for the Jews, and I did nothing because I wasn't a Jew," etc. I think that's most people's attitude to smoking.
If the government want to introduce this permit, it will happen and the public will not only accept it, but take pleasure in it. They will be glad of one more reason to feel superior to those silly people hanging around outside pubs.
I only hope that the people who enjoy the vilification of smoking get stung by the government's next hate-campaign. I will be the first to remind them how much they revelled in the systematic persecution of smokers.
So sorry, Mr Monteith, but the British public are a disgrace to themselves.
The ban was intended to break the back of smoking and the public, eager to feel that politics still means something, have lapped it up and will continue to enjoy watching an example made of the smoker.
I don't think it's true that the public are OK with the ban at all. (They're only complying because of the degree of force that has been brought to bear on compliance. It doesn't mean they like it). If someone holds a gun to my head and I give him my wallet, does that mean I'm in favour of his actions?
I do agree that there's a problem with getting people to DO something about it, and I think the reason for that is, even where people are totally hacked off about the erosion of civil liberties, they still believe the numbers they've been fed, and it seems a bit incongruous to go out marching in support of something that's been so thoroughly damned.
What would REALLY get the public riled would be to learn that the numbers they've been given are misleading (on the smoke issue, on the amount that truly wanted a ban - which was outnumbered by the amount that wanted separate areas, and on the amount that wish to quit - see Simon's previous on this), and to learn that LeGrand, for example, doesn't believe the government hype yet still thinks it's a great idea to 'paternalise' (puke - what an insult that word is to good fathers everywhere!) fully grown, adult smokers even more.
A mass campaign in the press, through leafleting etc, telling the country they'd been duped into accepting this erosion of civil liberties would fire them up into action, I'm sure.
Introducing a permit to smoke - and it will mean smoke anywhere including your own home - will be a step change in the laws of Britain.
I'm hard enough lads, and I'll be lighting up my cigars without a permit - and I don't think I'll be alone.
Unlike the smoking ban - where the policing was placed on the license (for example) this idea gets right to the heart of individual liberty. I have no doubt that enforcing it would be highly impracticable and ripe, therefore, for protest.
Protesting against smoking in pubs, clubs and restaurants put the livelihoods of their owners at risk – protesting against a permit will put the individual in the front line – creating potential martyrs and a culture of rebellion.
Unlike the smoking ban - which I predicted would be meekly accepted by the law abiding British public - I don't think a permit would enjoy such tolerance. It would become a focus and a badge of honour for protesting against the bully state.
It's a matter of judgement, but I'm relaxed in my opinion on this, and, in regard to giving leadership, or setting an example, I think my record in fighting smoking bans can stand comparison with anyones.
The individual license idea was a total smoke screen (sorry about the pun) so that when the Government announces a sellers license, joe public breathes a sigh of relief and accepts it without a fight and the media pats the Government on the back for listening to the general public and protecting our health.
You can write the script for them.
Hello Mr Monteith / Brian (not sure of the etiquette!),
I realise that my previous post may have seemed critical of your approach. I didn't mean it to be.
My point is that websites like Forest, F2C and the Free Society surely act as tonics for people disenchanted with the way things are going - re. smoking and govt interference in general. It's reassuring and comforting that such organisations exist. But we are in danger of languishing in talk, talk, talk, whilst our opponents (for that they be) mount ever more ridiculous hate-campaigns based on lies, guilt and innuendo.
Forest's approach is to be reasonable - ASH's approach is to be hysterical. So what future is there in debating with these people? They cannot be negotiated or reasoned with: their cause is obsessive and fascistic. Meantime, they are the ones who Joe Bloggs has heard of. Their figures are the ones Joe Bloggs can recite. Their "vision" is the one Joe Bloggs thinks is the only option. Their hatred for smoking is becoming de rigeur - not just in politics but in the public themselves - because they shout louder than those talking sense.
So if Forest is to achieve real progress (ie amendment of the smoking ban, calming down of the anti-smoking hysteria) they have to move beyond talk and become, frankly, more aggressive.
For example, what good is it inviting David Cameron to a get-together when, if the reports are true, the Conservatives are hoping the smoking ban will be old news come the election, so they won't have to do anything about it?
I'll admit I don't know what "real action" can be taken. It's not my area of expertise. But the reasonable approach is getting us mown down.
I'm not advocating hysteria or smear campaigns against ASH or anything like that. Certainly nothing illegal. I just worry that the fight against ASH is becoming more a matter of honour than an attempt to actually "undo" their work.
However, to address the rest of your post, I think you make an excellent point about this permit putting the individual at the front line instead of the retailer. That would be a crucial difference to the smoking ban and therefore may generate a different reaction in the public.
One thing I meant to say before is that the permit scheme wouldn't be so impractical if the onous was placed on the retailers. I mean in the same way that off-licenses can get punished for selling alcohol to underage kids. After all, this is how the smoking ban has been implemented. It's not the £50 fine that stops people smoking in pubs.
Now to address what Struggling Spirit wrote:
"I don't think it's true that the public are OK with the ban at all. (They're only complying because of the degree of force that has been brought to bear on compliance. It doesn't mean they like it). If someone holds a gun to my head and I give him my wallet, does that mean I'm in favour of his actions?"
I can only speak from personal experience. I moved back up to Scotland 6 months after the ban came in here, and frankly it was like moving to a foreign country. Already in that 6 months, the attitude to smoking had completely altered. People were lapping it up.
Indeed, to this day I don't know anyone who is against the smoking ban. The only people I know who are against it live in England.
Even smokers seem "grateful" for the ban - you know, it helps them cut down etc. Basically the ban has created a mentality that I simply don't think was there before.
I remember the Health Secretary saying she hoped the English ban would create a "change of culture". It's astonishing when politicians speak in those terms - as if they are not serving us but parenting us - but her hopes don't seem misguided. It's worked.
Of course this is anecdotal. I'm sure there are many people in Scotland who don't like the ban. But I think there are many more who like it, and even enjoy it - not because it's made things better, but because it's new and "successful" and "popular".
Perhaps we need to mount a counter attach, now that even more information is available about what is really causing the harm - petrol and diesel exhaust fumes! Of course, most of us already knew that these were more harmful than the humble ciggie!
F2C today, piece by Colin Grainger and link to article.
On top of this, there is what Le Grand said the other day, about knowing that SHS was not harmful. Now that the truth is starting to come out from these foul mouthed liars, we need to keep tabs on all of it and their blunders and use this to discredit them.
Like others on this post, I do have ideas, but am not so good at putting them into practice and being up against ASH, Cancer Research and the Government, etc, it would need a strong and dedicated base. Gathering all the information we can however has to give us a good base. I know the information was there before, but isn't it better to gain information from the perpetraters themselves about the lies they told and why?
The sea change in political attitudes came about not because of what ASH did but because of the way the opposition rolled over in Ireland. Immediately political activists of all colours knew that if it could be done in Ireland it could be done anywhere.
Scotland had no intention of going as far as Ireland until, on visiting Dublin, the then First Minister was won over, not only to the ban - but crucially - to the fact that the ban had to be comprehensive with very few exemptions for it to be enforceable and accepted.
The rest is history.
I opposed the ban in the Scottish Parliament, I submitted amendments to the Bill and attended committees I was not a member of arguing the case. At one meeting held next door to the Parliament by licensees I was the only MSP of all 129 invited to turn up. About 13 of us voted against the Bill. It is my contention that its enforcement contributed to the disillusionment in last May’s Scottish elections with Labour - and rewarded the SNP (who voted for it also). I can think of at least two Labour seats where the issue made the difference to labour losing to the SNP. Had they held them Labour would still be in power.
What can be done? Getting smart is what must come first. There's no point in FOREST, F2C or any other organisation picking fights it will only lose in the short AND long term. It has to fight on the ground where it has an advantage and where it can pick off victories. A full frontal assault will just not work for now.
As well as being smart we need to win the higher ground by not relenting on the science and we have to rebut the denormalisation by showing that we are the tolerant, good mannered, humorous, well balanced people - and the nutters and extremists are those that crave to control every facet of our lives.
Then, when the evidence mounts that the ban has made little or no difference we should seek to erode it, winning exemptions - because that's how we change it.
I think seeing Cameron is important because it sets a precedent and opens channels - when the election comes the issue will still be there and he can then be questioned on what, if anything, he is going to offer. Just one Labour seat swinging to the Tories might be enough to give him power - having a policy that might attract voters in Labour marginals is what he is interested in.
I, like 'Mark' above, suspect the introduction of a permit is kite flying (but if it isn't opposed they WILL bring it in) and could, I hope, change the ability of groups to organise demonstrations, smoke-ins and civil disobedience. At the moment however, there just aren't the troops willing to be led as not enough people see it as an issue to protest about.
A permit could be different because others (non-smokers) would surely see that they would be next - already an Independent columnist (Thomas Sutcliffe - http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/columnists/thomas-sutcliffe/thomas-sutcliffe-how-about-a-permit-to-drink-alcohol-783979.html) is saying there should be one for alcohol. It's this quantum leap that gives me some hope that we could in future mount the type of opposition that you would like to see and might turn politicians' heads.
I’ve now written nearly twice as much comment as my original piece – which was meant to provoke debate – that having been achieved, forgive me if I now move on. Thanks for contributing
I don't think the British people will be riled if it's proven that the figures given out by government were misleading. The people already KNOW these figures are a load of c**p. I agree with the comments made by Col Dee and Peter Thurgood. Basically we moan & groan, do a lot of talking and that's as far as it goes. Other nations put up a fight (big time) if they're against something their governments intend to do, they're prepared to bring their country to a standstill and even get support from their police - unlike the British. That makes me sad to be British not proud. The only consolation I have, and it's not a lot, is that when the lives of the people of Britain are being completely controlled those people will include the future generations of the people that steered this country towards the Big Brother scenario that it is fast becoming.
I think a lot of people still do think that they are in danger from ETS, although Le Grand has done us a big favour. Granted, many do suspect it's nonsense but either don't care or take the selfish view that they should should be able to walk into any non-residential building in the country and not encounter ETS.
The only way this ban will be amended or repealed, short of mass civil disobedience -highly unlikely to happen, is by people getting together, putting there money up, jointly buying or renting premises, calling themselves eg a reading group, and smoking. This won't annoy Joe public and the enforcers will look ridiculous trying to stop it going on. First, they will have to break into a building containing mostly middle-aged people sitting around chatting and drinking coffee. These clubs will gradually become an unthreatening part of normal life and eventually, with some regulation on smoke extraction, will be legalised.
My impression from this, is that the cliche "of the debate has moved on". Some here will not be fighting to get the ban overturned but merely fighting for the status quo. I maybe a King Canute trying to turn the waves back, or Don Quixote tilting at windmills, but there is plenty of fight left in me yet to get smoking back in pubs. Has anyone seen this:
http://freedom2choose.info/news1.php?id=543
This is a survey that Freedom2Choose have done on the hospitality trade, I am sure if it was done with the man on the street you would get similar results. This needs to be on every spin doctors desk pronto.
"34% state the ban will have an effect on the way they vote. Out of those individuals, 25% will switch from Labour to Conservative. 28% won’t vote and 34% will switch to another party, with UKIP being specifically mentioned in some cases. (UKIP are the only party opposed to the ban)."
I’ve enjoyed reading the posts’ on this blog with relish. However, please do remember that inactivity does not necessarily mean apathy. There are many smokers and tolerant non-smokers out there who are frustrated by not having their views heard in the media to the extent that those views have any real influence.
We know it’s all about vested interests. Pubco’s would at a stroke go immediately to court if their bottom line was being jeopardised, but because they can quite easily make up any shortfall by selling more food based products…then why should they care about the smoker being socially ostracised…it’s selfish, but understandable.
Now then…did you see how quickly Porche reacted to Mayor Ken Livingston’s £25 charge for vehicles that are heavy fuel users – without taking breath, Porche are swiftly taking court action, and of course they have the money and clout to make an impact. I bet you won’t miss much of what happens in this development.
And that is my point. What we need is a couple of court cases that will hole this smoking legislation below the waterline – which incidentally wouldn’t be that difficult, since our case against the ‘junk science’, upon which this ban has been predicated – is irrefutable. Court cases where all the relevant arguments will be thoroughly aired…in essence will be impossible for the media, and lawmakers to ignore.
I’m sure you have read that excellent article, brought to us by Freedom2Choose chairman Colin Grainger.
He draws our attention to a case over 2 years ago in which Margaret McTear brought a case against Imperial Tobacco Ltd.
Here is part of this most important judgment. At the Edinburgh sessions court, The Rt Hon. Lord Nimmo Smith says this:
‘In any event, the pursuer has failed to prove individual causation.
Epidemiology cannot be used to establish causation in any individual case, and
the use of statistics applicable to the general population to determine the
likelihood of causation in an individual is fallacious’.
Mrs McTear lost her case.
As Colin has pointed out, this judgment stopped impending actions in their tracks.
Please go to Freedom2choose and click on older news, Volenti Non Fit Injuria. (“to a willing person, no injury is done”)
When you have someone of that standing making a qualified judgment of this sort, then it augurs well for us all.
At some stage other judgments will follow – then and only then – will this intolerable intrusion into our civil liberties finally be expunged.
Maybe a lot of this is actually about money: for a sustained media campaign that shoulders up to ASH and government propaganda. The truth is we have had nothing, and the pro-banners have had it all. We can include in that all the main tv news programmes that seemed to take great pleasure in depicting only the 'fag-end' elements of tobacco - overfull ashtrays spilling out everywhere, smoke-in-the-face, and the apparent 'reek' that every smoker carries (not true!). As I've said before, ANY substance can be shown in a disgusting or attractive light; that is what the advertising industry is paid to do. Relax with a Hamlet at the end of a hard day? Cool, clean Consulate? Tough-man Marlboro country? Or hacking cough and fug? Well, unfortunately the public are exactly that gullible, and it works.
We need another campaign, and money, and a General. Political parties HAVE to take this seriously in terms of civil liberty. It wouldn't take much persuasion for the public to see that permits for tobacco are only a first step to invasion of other civil liberties. This is just NOT an organised campaign, and it absolutely has to be to have any faint chance whatsoever of being taken seriously. And I include in that by David Cameron's party.
I am now seriously thinking about where on God's earth I can move to in order to be left in some kind of peace to be the individual that I am. I hope there is an alternative, and fast.
Having read the above comments - there'll be a piece of action on Wednesday 27th February from 11am to 7pm starting at the William Sangster Room, Central Hall, Westminster London SW1 cf.www,iwantareferendum.com re: mass lobby of Parliament due to Lisbon Treaty and lack of referendum. As the smoking ban is yet another example of how promises are made in manifestos and then reneged upon, there may be scope for disgruntled personae to express their views.
Could you please stop using acronyms as they are extremely irritating, lazy and so very nu labour (they seem to love them). Can you please tell me what ETS actually stands for in full. Unless you work with these blessed things every day you have no hope of decifering them.
Sylvia
The main ones are:
ETS (environmental tobacco smoke)
SHS (second hand smoke)
ASH (action on smoking and health), This bunch of zealots care more about politics than health.
Hope this helps.