Free speech stubbed out
Friday, January 23, 2009 Last year, as I wrote HERE, I travelled to Brussels to attend a meeting of "EU experts, civil society and social partners to support the Commission's Impact Assessment on the forthcoming initiative on smoke-free environments".
Seconds into the meeting, to which I had been invited, several hands shot up and two or three delegates announced that if I didn't leave they would leave the room. Others nodded in agreement. In the EU, it seems, free speech and tobacco operate on different planets.
Next week, also in Brussels, a group called The International Coalition Against Prohibition (TICAP) was due to hold a two-day conference under the patronage of Godfrey Bloom MEP (UKIP). The event was called "Smoking Bans and Lies" and the programme was unambiguously partisan.
Venue was the European Parliament building and I understand that several readers of this blog were planning to attend.
Yesterday morning it was reported that the conference had been moved from the Parliament to a hotel near the Parliament building. Last night I was told by Gawain Towler, press officer for UKIP in Brussels, that the original conference hosted by Godfrey Bloom has been cancelled and in its place is a "new" conference with a very similar programme. (Don't ask me why. I'm only the messenger.)
The "new" conference will be called "Thinking Is Forbidden" and officially it will be hosted not by Godfrey Bloom but by the British arm of the Independence/Democracy Group (aka UKIP). Delegates who were due to attend "Smoking Bans and Lies" will be invited to attend "Thinking Is Forbidden" instead.
The reason for this game of musical chairs seems to be related to THIS outrageous letter which was sent, in December, to Hans-Gert Pöttering, president of the European Parliament, by Florence Berteletti Kemp, director of the Smoke Free Partnership (which includes Cancer Research UK).
In her letter, Kemp argues that "this event should not under any circumstances take place on the premises of the European Parliament". She then gives the following reasons:
- "the event appears to be in contravention of Parliament’s own rules of procedure and is detrimental to the dignity of Parliament"
- "the event goes against all of Parliament’s adopted reports and the European Community’s legislation and commitments on this topic"
- "it violates the spirit of the International Framework Convention on Tobacco Control"
There's a lot more of this high-handed nonsense in Kemp's letter and any self-respecting institution would have torn it up and sent her packing. But not the European Parliament. I am told that on on Tuesday 12 January a committee met in camera and decided that permission for the conference to be held within the Parliament building had been withdrawn.
Neither Godfrey Bloom nor anyone else associated with "Smoking Bans and Lies" were told that the conference was on the agenda. In their absence, the committee acted as judge and jury. According to UKIP's Gawain Towler, the organisers only discovered that they were barred from using the Parliament building on Tuesday this week, a full seven days after the meeting.
What has happened beggars belief. I am assured that the venue was secured months in advance. Delegates and speakers have made travel arrangements. Hotel accommodation has been reserved. Video conferencing links have been booked.
And yet ... is anyone surprised? The anti-tobacco lobby is ruthless and will happily suppress any form of debate, or opposition.
Ironically, thanks to these unelected bureaucrats, news of the conference will almost certainly reach a far wider audience than would otherwise have been the case.
Note: as I understand it, "Thinking Is Forbidden" will take place at the Hotel Berlyamont Silken, Blvd Charlemagne 11, Brussels, on 27-28 January. For details/confirmation contact Gawain Towler, Independence/Democracy Group, telephone +32 (0)2 284 6384.
Reader Comments (55)
Anyone still pro-Europe - apart from Ken Clarke?
It's quite unbelievable isn't it?
I'm interested to see if the MSM pick up on this. If not, then the UK and its facade of democracy are truly dead in the water.
Dick, I'm hoping that you and other widely-read bloggers will be writing about this. I'd really like to see Iain Dale pick it up.
The TICAP Conference was first mentioned on the 8th September 2008 on the F2C site.
I think the cancellation is a complete coup. I am of the understanding that some major political blogs are running with the story, and I am aware of one mainstream daily may have a piece too.
I am going too and have requested a meeting with the European Health Commission. After ignoring my email for two weeks I got a triumphant email from them yesterday and I quote:
"Dear Mr Atherton,
Thank you for your e-mail of 13 January and the information attached.
First of all, we would like to refer to the reply letter sent to you on 16 Dec to stress Commission arguments and position on smoke free environments.
In addition, according to our information (tbc) the TICAP Conference has been finally cancelled. Therefore, we assume that your request for a meeting is no longer valid.
Yours sincerely,
LC
Also Mary Honeyball a Labour, London MEP has written on her blog about TICAP and the comments on there are outstanding
http://maryhoneyballmep.blogspot.com/
A lot of normal people have paid a lot of money to attend the conference, whereas MEPs are paid all their expenses. Freedom of speech in the EU is prohibited.
This is incredibly disappointing.This is fear by Tobacco Control, of the truth coming out and of any opposition having a real public platform. It's a disgrace and it shows just how much control the EU want over free speech. Dreadful people who are now running scared.
Shoot the damn lot!! No mercy given.
Welcome to commie UK & EU.
I'll line up in the firing squad.
I think that this is quite positive in a sort of way. At least it's got people talking about it a bit more and it confirms exactly what's behind all this to those who weren't so sure.
This is the latest from the TICAP website:
http://www.antiprohibition.org/ticap_pages.php?q=6
It is not surprising that MEPs now cannot attend the meeting as they cannot disobey the dictate of the EU central committee for fear of losing their jobs. Similarly, when voting bills through, retired MEPs in our House of Lords cannot disobey EU dictate for fear of losing their EU pensions.
The decision to ban the meeting was never discussed in "open" parliament. Pointless, anyway. There are many up-to-date factual videos on the UKIP website showing the EU parliament in action. Notable among them recently showed MEPs complaining that only their "Yes" button works when voting is called for.
Since October 2006, when Gordon Brown signed over to the EU total control of the South East region, including Westminster, it was renamed the Trans Manche Region and is administered directly from an EU office in Paris. Leaders of all three main political parties are controlled by the EU, as is our media - especially news and current affairs broadcasts.
It will be interesting to see whether any of our major newspapers, apart from those "on line", will even dare mention this conference.
..
Margot said -
"Notable among them recently showed MEPs complaining that only their "Yes" button works when voting is called for."
Did they suspend voting until the buttons worked, Margot? If they didn't I'll know that I'm not paranoid...
Anyone still pro-Europe - apart from Ken Clarke? - Joyce
I'm still in favour of a loose-knit European community of separate nations. I've never been in favour of a totalitarian superstate.
Unfortunately, it's become increasingly clear that what we've got is the latter. And so reluctantly I have to say that I'm no longer pro-Europe.
Perhaps it was inevitable that it was always going to turn out to be a totalitarian superstate. Perhaps that's what the founders of it always wanted. Or perhaps it always attracted authoritarians into its bureaucracy.
The EU increasingly looks like the British Labour government. It can't deal with any really big issues, but it's very good at the little ones, and can micromanage the details of everybody's lives. This government is losing control of the economy, but until recently it was arguing about cigarette displays and packaging. The EU is no different. It's a very weak organisation at the state level, but omnipotent at the grassroots. It couldn't field an army to fight a war, but it's got very pretty Euro paper money, and lots and lots of laws.
Perhaps the two go hand in hand? Perhaps ineffectuality on the grand stage has always to be compensated by hyperactive supervision of the trivial?
What amazes me about this story is that it advertises just how small-minded the EU is. I'm amazed that Hans-Gert Pöttering and Florence Berteletti Kemp can't see the damage this story will do them. (Actually, the antismoker Kemp doesn't surprise me at all: all antismokers are smallminded). But the president of the EU too?
What does Vaclav Klaus have to say about it? I thought he was the current EU president? Are there lots of presidents of the EU?
Unbelievable! I've blogged about it.
Peter James
'Commie'?
Isn't this fascism of the highest order: the appropriation of public wealth into private hands?
It is also McCarthyite: you can almost hear these people calling us 'useful idiots' and 'you might not be a communist but you are being used by the communists' ... [substitute tobacco giant] when they are calling us front groups for the likes of Philip Morris.
Joyce.
No they didn't suspend voting until the "No" buttons worked. As far as I know, they still don't work.
A thought occured to me as I wrote that MEPs who don't obey the EU dictates may lose their jobs. I am just supposing that this is so. The truth may be far worse. It's not impossible that such disobedience could be regarded as treason. We know that Europol are empowered to enter any residence without giving reason and arrest anyone, again without giving reason. The prisoner can then be taken to an unknown destination for trial in a closed court. The right to trial by jury.no longer exists under European law.
Perhaps MEPs themselves are uncertain.
Joyce.
No they didn't suspend voting until the "No" buttons worked. As far as I know, they still don't work.
A thought occured to me as I wrote that MEPs who don't obey the EU dictates may lose their jobs. I am just supposing that this is so. The truth may be far worse. It's not impossible that such disobedience could be regarded as treason. We know that Europol are empowered to enter any residence without giving reason and arrest anyone, again without giving reason. The prisoner can then be taken to an unknown destination for trial in a closed court. The right to trial by jury.no longer exists under European law.
Perhaps MEPs themselves are uncertain.
Peter James
The whole anti smoking movement, including the E.U. is as far as it is possible to get from a communist organisation. Ask yourself, who is often cited as Europe's first great anti smoking campaigner?
I often see our own government referred to as left wing. On taking power Broon invited who to tea? Michael Foot? Toy Benn? No. Margaret Thatcher. Calling our political leaders 'communists' makes as much sense as referring to Hitler as a Zionist.
I agree this smacks of tyranny, but with a distinctly RIGHT leaning bias.
Notable among them recently showed MEPs complaining that only their "Yes" button works when voting is called for. - Margot
Got a link for that story, Margot? I can't find anything.
Smokestack: Frankly I can't agree with your statement. The Tories voted 2-1 against the smoking ban. Maggie's husband Denis was a heavy smoker with a penchant for scotch who died at the age of 88 of pancreatic cancer. Somebody I know who worked in his office said that he arrived at 9.00am on the dot, reviewed the morning papers while reaching for his bottle in his desk and pouring a large one. I just can't see Denis or Maggie allowing the legislation to be on the agenda, let alone passing it. The 2005 Tory Manifesto on smoking and I quote were following a "voluntary" policy and had no wish to interfere in the market.
Also I have just received this email from someone I know in the pro choice movement, an example to us all.
"Cheers Dave,
I emailed every MEP and hers was the only one that I received any feedback from as yet......
Regards"
I have just been informed that the conference that I was attending has been canceled.
Unlike the people that have secretly taken this decision at the last minute, I have saved hard to pay for my travel and accommodation in Brussels.
I understood that the conference was to discuss prohibition !! This was my interest, as close family members have fought and died for this country on the principle of freedom of choice and the right of free speech.
I am saddened that my money that I have spent has been a waste of time. I should have used the cash to keep a bit warmer indoors last week.
Idlex.
Here is the link to the EU "no" voting equipment being unworkable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gm66-XmN6tg
Hi, Dave. Don't mean to hog the blog but have to reply. When I spoke of right wingers I wasn't referring to the Tories, who I believe have spoken of amending the ban, but the general state of Pan European politics. Among the many things I could say against Thatcher I agree it is inconcievable that she would have supported anti smoking legislation such we have today.
All the best to you.
Sorry. For 'Among the many things...' read 'For all the things...'
I mean it as a commendation, not a condemnation.
Smokestack: Sorry for slightly misreading your post, "right" many mean "fascist" and "left" "Marxist".
Sums them all up for me.
Benjamin. You can still attend the conference. It is being held opposite the EU Parliament and has been renamed, that's all.
The conference is still going ahead, with TICAP as the guests. The agenda and speakers remain the same.
Yes the conference IS still on and now it's even more important that people attend.
They have now proved to many who didn't believe it, that Fascism is alive and well in the EU.
"Perhaps ineffectuality on the grand stage has always to be compensated by hyperactive supervision of the trivial?" (Idlex)
Absolutely. You see it happening all the time in organisations, displayed by people who are ineffectual, often in positions above their level of ability. They're the ones who chunter about drawing up procedures to monitor and control pen usage by staff while ignoring decline in business turnover.
NAME THAT LUNE
NAME RIGHT WING PRO TOTAL BAN POLITICOS
NAME LEFT WING PRO TOTAL BAN POLITICOS
SURPRISE SURPRISE
You have just GOT to see this reply from Honeyball. She surely must have been drunk.
Apparently, we were allowed free speech because she didn't delete our comments on her blog.
Priceless
what an odd set of posts. Even Simon describes as "outrageous" what is simply a well researched letter to the commission pointing out that there is a meeting coming up which breaks many of the formal rules of operation of the EU. And the meeting does.
Now, we may be angry that a meeting whose content we may support has been affected, but those are the rules. They would apply and we would be able to use them if a meeting were going on about something we opposed.
Let's not waste our energy over a non-story. It's going nowhere as a big story. In fact my anger would be directed at the organisers who failed to follow the rules. It's quite simple.
Smile.
Margot
Indeed, Margot James, I'm spitting tacks at the organisers of the conference who dared to presume that the building of government which represents Western democracies would be a suitable venue in which to hold an open debate about an issue which affects millions of people. By 'an issue', I mean not only the particular issue of tobacco control but the wider issues of the use of propaganda to manipulate attitude and the proper limitations of Democratic Government. Thank heavens it was sufficient for the Director of the Smokefree Partnership to point out that the debate would involve an alternative viewpoint on tobacco control to that of the EU and the Smokefree Partnership.
the point is, with their references to sponsorship, the organisers gave our opponents an open goal. Once they had done that it didn't matter what subject was being discussed the meeting was lost. Bunch of amateurs.
Margot
I'm confused about what rules were broken Margot, and where sponsorship was mentioned?
Sorry, Margot, I found the mention of sponsorship now.
...Then the point is that the purportedly democratic EU has allowed one unelected organisation to cancel - at very short notice, and on the most flimsy of pretexts - a meeting to be attended by many of its 'electorate'. This is the same EU that has no problem with breaking big rules such as not having its accounts audited for years. As Simon says, any institution with an ounce of common sense and decency would have sent Kemp packing instead of which the EU - in secret - agrees to withdraw permission.
Fortunately, the 'bunch of amateurs' appear to either have had the wit to foresee this or have reacted speedily to make sure the conference still goes ahead. Your use of the phrase, however, does highlight the fact that it's been left to a bunch of unpaid individuals to organise this event, individuals who don't have the benefit of Forest's experience and expertise.
Now let's have a think about this sponsorship issue? How far back should we go?
Heaven forbid that anyone suggest the pharmaceutical companies sponsor the anti-moking "charities" and other such organisations. Their representatives, however, are most welcome to attend closed-doors policy making meetings held within the EU buildings. This was witnessed first hand by Simon last year, as he stated above.
To be fair to these companies, they don't dispute the health benefits of nicotine. Many of their medications have always had nicotine as the base. All they want, really, is that we buy only their medications rather than continue the age-old natural way of smoking cigarettes.
Now could the word "sponsorship" be applied anywhere in that context?
All power to you, Joyce, you are hitting a few nails on the head today.
There was I thinking that margot james was a supporter of minority groups.
Margot
To clear up the sponsorship issue, legal advice was taken prior to organising the event and if you read the letter without your obvious bias yopu will note that it refers to the evening social and not to the actual conference. There has never been any indication that this part of the proceedings was to take place within the EU building and that a private venue has always been the locus.
Any earlier reference to sponsorship may be taken that the UK Independence Party was acting as a Sponsor as far as the actual Conference venue was concerned, which they are legally entitled to do. In real terms where facilities are available, all Member State Parliaments can offer such facilities not just the EU Parliament in Brussels.
Have TICAP sent a letter to that effect to the EU Bureau, Bill?
Joyce, can you explain why Smokefree Partnership can publicly claim sponsorship from Pharma when they produce and market such products as Champix and Zyban, both products now having sever restrictions on use by the FAA and FDA as they can induce suicidal tendancies.
TICAP will ases the situation in the next few days, as the Bureau has intentionally hidden all correspondence associated with the event we have focused on the Conference. Once this has passed, then the war will begin in earnest
This was sponsored by Pfizer and Novartis, and involved Florence Berteletti herself:
http://www.smokefreepartnership.eu/IMG/pdf/Tax_and_illicit_trade_seminar_September_2008.pdf
At this point in time even the Security Division of the EU Parliament who we have been working very closely with has not been formally advised of the cancellation. Obviously it was hoped that everyone would turn up on Tuesday to face locked doors... this is the way of a democratic Europe I am afraid
Well. I've found all this totally confusing but it's coming much clearer. Let me sum up how I see it. This woman claims the conference,or at least the later reception, breaches rules regarding sponshorship in the E.U. building, but there's no suggestion that the reception was to be held in the building, so she's out of order there. How am I doing so far?
She also claims the whole event undermines the dignity of the E.U.; a subjective-not to say laughable-judgement call I feel.
Anyhow, having read the whole letter as carefully as I can, it seems to me that TICAP has a strong case.
Thanks, Bill, for explaining it so I can understand it. And thanks to all the organisers for doing such a thorough job and best wishes to all there.
Bill, I don't quite understand your question. (Have you perhaps misread my posts?)
I'd hazard the guess, though, that the fanatics would consider the real risk of suicide from use of Zyban and Champix to be acceptable when weighed against the statistically projected risks associated with smoking. They also believe themselves to be above scrutiny because they've convinced those in power that their motives are altruistic and their evidence, sound.
Joyce ... my fault. However this Conference had very little to do with Primary Smoking but had to do with the junk science surrounding ETS that has caused Smoking Bans to be enacted.
To further clarify the Sponsorship aspect, Sponsorship and Advertising is allowed within the EU Parliament as long as no actual product is sold commercially on the premises. Now as the only commercial donation to the event has come from an Alcohol and Drug Addiction Clinic in Seattle, Wasington State, USA it is very doubtful that their particular services would have been for sale within the venue.
http://www.schickshadel.com
margot james.
I hope Bill Gibson's excellent clear summary of events to date has clarified the situation. I must confess that I, too, had paused for thought when reading that original letter.
Pity, however, that you used the phrase "Bunch of amateurs" to describe the highly professional and dedicated team at F2C.
Just a word in defence of FOREST, Joyce.
I,too, get frustrated with Simon at times, [especially when he blocks my posts!] However, his role is different to that of F2C. To maintain his good standing with the media and all powers-that-be, he would have to remain moderate in presentation and circumspect at all times.
FOREST needs to maintain a high acceptable profile. It is an easily accessible site and attracts many new visitors who didn't know that there are pro-smoking organisations. They can then choose to become active in the cause.
Best wishes as always. [I wonder what Bond is up to now?]
.
margot james.
I hope Bill Gibson's excellent clear summary of events to date has clarified the situation. I must confess that I, too, had paused for thought when reading that original letter.
Pity, however, that you used the phrase "Bunch of amateurs" to describe the highly professional and dedicated team at F2C.
Just a word in defence of FOREST, Joyce.
I,too, get frustrated with Simon at times, [especially when he blocks my posts!] However, his role is different to that of F2C. To maintain his good standing with the media and all powers-that-be, he would have to remain moderate in presentation and circumspect at all times.
FOREST needs to maintain a high acceptable profile. It is an easily accessible site and attracts many new visitors who didn't know that there are pro-smoking organisations. They can then choose to become active in the cause.
Best wishes as always. [I wonder what Bond is up to now?]
.
Margot
It would have been far too easy to rant at all and sundry and to have made a complete fool of oneself in the process. However TICAP boasts real professionals within its ranks who take decisions based on facts and in the very best interests of all the member organisations that now number 26 with others waiting in the wings.
Strangely enough TICAP was born as a result of discussions Simon and I had in Edinburgh on the 10th September 2007 over a pub lunch. What was said on the day nagged at me for several weeks, then I got of my backside and made it happen along with the other dedicated few who could see the sense in pulling together the small Groups into a professional organisation prepared to take the battle forward.
It becomes confusing when there are two people named Margot posting, one of whom, Margot James considers that the EU could do nothing other than withdraw permission in view of its attention having been drawn to alleged breach of its own rules regarding sponsorship and that the organisers should be blamed for giving the opportunity to the tobacco control lobby to scupper the conference and the other, Margot Johnson, like myself, uses irony, in Margot's case to point out that it can be argued that the tobacco control lobby is sponsored by Pharma and that it is a fact that the EU allowed the tobacco control lobby to meet in its building last year. Now Bill's posts suggest that the sponsorship issue is a red herring used, possibly cynically, by Kemp. There is, of course, no way of assessing whether it was this issue or the issue that debate would 'undermine' the EU's commitment to its own tobacco control objectives that determined the EU's decision to withdraw permission because the committee met in camera. If the former and the EU genuinely believed that sponsorship rules had been breached, then its stance is inconsistent with that previously shown towards the tobacco control lobby, if it didn't really believe that sponsorship rules had been broken, then that issue was merely a pretext for the latter (discordant with EU objectives) in which case the EU is guilty of suppressing a fundamental of a free society: freedom of assembly and speech. No matter which way you look at it - it stinks.
Is this a fair assessment of where we are so far?