Health fascism? Islamofascism? Same thing?
[My thanks to Marc Brands for posting this to the Libertarian Alliance Forum]
|
|||||
|
Because I grew up in the 1970’s I still associate Trade Unions with the rank-and-file of the British urban proletariat; the lantern-jawed, barrel-chested, horney-handed, hobnail-booted sons of industrial toil. These were the rough, tough, no-nonsense men who hewed the coal, forged the steel and rivetted iron plates down in the boiler-room of the British economy. In those days ‘male grooming’ meant a smell of honest sweat and a smear of brickdust and anyone who was stupid enough to go into a working class pub and prissily complain about the smokey atmosphere was more likely than not to experience ‘Death by Shipbuilder’. Alright, I know that’s a cartoon but at least it was corroborated to a small degree in real world of shop floors, lathes and jackhammers. But the coal fields are silent now, the shipyards have all gone and the smokestack industries are billowing clouds of vapour over Taiwan not Teesside and so the Trades Union Congress (TUC) needs new rubrics to campaign on. Out has gone the fiery old rhetoric of revolution, strikes and class war and in has come the priggish, condescending ideology of health fascism:
Very useful this ‘passive smoking’ hoax. What would organisations like the TUC do without it?
Ah yes, the hobgoblin of ‘Big Tobacco’, yet another shadowy capitalist conspiracy determined to preserve our right to choose. They’re a ‘lobby’, don’t you know. All ‘lobbies’ are malevolent and driven by greed, as opposed to organisations like the TUC which is motivated solely by altruism and love for their fellow humans. Let us hear the voice of the ‘lobby’:
Is this Apostate of Hell trying to tell us that if that people wanted a smoke-free environment then any entrepreneur who opened a non-smoking restaurant would clean up? Just further proof that the concept of a free market is a standing affront to people with agendas to advance and empires to build. My, how the TUC has apparently changed its tune. In the good old days they denounced ‘profits’ and told the workers that they had nothing to lose except their chains. Now they seem to want to enourage profits while telling the workers to lift that barge, tote that bail, have a little smoke and land in jail. May 11th, 2003 | 5 comments - (Comments are closed)
 Just a brief comment regarding the Dixie Chicks. As no one has been threatening to sling their boney arses in jail, I do rather think the ‘fighting against censorship’ and ‘striking a blow for free speech’ meme that is floating around is a bit odd. They freely said what they wanted, as have the people who freely slagged them off for doing so… that they may have suffered negative commercial consequences for this entirely fair use of their gobs is neither here nor there regarding their right to sound off. That we have the liberty to speak our minds is vital and an objective right, the absence of which means tyranny pure and simple… but that does not always make it a good idea. You may think your boss is a stupid malodorous clown, and you cannot be sent to jail for saying that to him whilst the entire office listens, however… April 30th, 2003 | 35 comments - (Comments are closed)
Last night I watched a Channel 4 TV documentary about SARS. Meanwhile, according to the Radio Times, over on Channel 5 they were showing the movie Outbreak, starring Dustin Hoffman and Rene Russo. Sometimes Britain’s broadcasters cancel things at the last minute if they feel that the bounds of bad taste are being crossed, so I made a point of checking if Outbreak was actually being shown. It was. The way that SARS is, we were told, being contained, is that the various people who took the lead in spreading it are being restrospectively tracked in minute and individual detail, so that all their contacts can in turn be tracked down and placed in quarantine. The movements of the “super-spreader” Professor Lee, who took the contagion from South China to Hong Kong, were recounted as if doing the research for the disaster movie script that all this will surely yield in due course. The scene where the already coughing Professor shares a lift with a young businessman called something like Johnny Chang will undoubtedly be in this movie, with very scary music. April 29th, 2003 | 9 comments - (Comments are closed)
There is a groundswell of anger against the Unpatriotic Act I and its’ sequel, Unpatriot II (coming soon to a Gulag near you). This very civil disobedience will soon make Herr Ashcroft’s life extremely difficult. I was already well aware of the low esteem in which he and his slab monster laws are held in the blog arena. I quite share it if you haven’t noticed yet. Still, I was very happily unprepared for this uprising in the towns and states of America. If your town or State has not outlawed the Patriot I Act yet, ask them why not. Show them others have done so. You don’t have to appear anti-war. You may argue we should not discard the blessings of liberty for ourselves at the same time we are bringing them to others. Defending the freedom our forefathers died for is more American than apple pie, Old Glory, mom and the 4th of July. It’s at the core of what allowed them. If we lose that unique freedom and America is “just another country”, hardly worth fighting for. Like France. With enough effort on the part of our readers and the rest of the blogosphere, this could be the biggest rebellion against Washington since the Whiskey Rebellion in Western Pennsylvania. Unlike that one it will be impossible to put down. It is a non-violent, wide-spread effort; it is under the protective eyes of thousands of freedom loving writers like yours truly; and any attempt to kill it will make it grow. Be a real patriot. Get out there and defy the law! April 23rd, 2003 | 7 comments - (Comments are closed)
Blogger Sina Motallebi has been arrested by Iranian authorities for the ‘crime’ of giving interviews to Persian language radio stations outside Iran and for his blogging (in Farsi). I suspect giving his plight as much publicity as possible may give the notoriously intemperate Iranian security services at least some motivation to play it cool if they think the spotlight of world opinion is on them. It is a good thing we in the west have freedom of the press and internet, eh? No way would such heavy handed tactics be tolerated in somewhere like the USA, right? Right? April 21st, 2003 | 10 comments - (Comments are closed)
Blogger David Holford has been threatened with legal action by Tower Hamlets Council unless he removes some comments from his site. He has no plans to comply. For more from me about why Tower Hamlets Council are not, as they claim, preventing hate speech but rather are attempting to suppress ridicule of Tower Hamlets Council, click here, or here if the Blogspot archives are bust again. April 15th, 2003 | 4 comments - (Comments are closed)
You know there are some downsides to this otherwise wonderful transatlantic relationship. I cannot help but suspect that the decision to ban smoking in restaurants by the Mayor of New York has, in turn, inspired some of own moral entrepreneurs:
Ah yes, Children. They’re doing it for the Children! Bless Mr.Thomas for he is the Guardian and Saviour of Our Children.
Yes but nowhere near the risk of living or working in a building containing busybodies with legislative powers. Meanwhile a gaggle of the usual suspects are lining up eager to lend their support.
Well, then a legal prohibition is not necessary, is it. If smoking bans will improve trade then any restaurant owner left to his or her own devices would be mad not to ban smoking from their own premises.
We all know the old saying; there’s lies, then there’s damnable lies and then there’s completey bogus statistics fabricated in order to advance a political agenda.
Brave resistance from a brave few but probably to no avail. After all this is Tony Blair’s shiny, new Britain and we must all be re-made in His image. My thoughts turn to the British soldiers in the Gulf who have displayed their customary elan and professionalism in freeing the Iraqis from tyrrany. Perhaps they could come home now and perform a similar service for their increasingly beleaguered countrymen. April 14th, 2003 | 8 comments - (Comments are closed)
Another one you didn’t see in the media.
It continues with the following:
The press conference will be held at 15 hours at the aid centre for the Foreign Press, maison de la Radio, 116 avenue du Président Kennedy, 75016 Paris. The best contact I have is Prégentil (Americans will really like the graphics on his front page). Sad note: repression is operating worldwide whilst the eyes of the world are focused on the liberation of Iraq. April 8th, 2003 | One comment - (Comments are closed)
Instapundit links to this stirring piece in the Mirror by Tony Parsons, with which I almost wholly agree. Wow, says Instapundit. Indeed. But here’s the one bit I have a problem with.
But I haven’t seen any pictures of dead Iraqis either. Not at any rate on television, which is the news source I’ve been relying on. Neither has James Lileks. → Continue reading: Where are the dead Iraqis to be seen? April 7th, 2003 | 7 comments - (Comments are closed)
This is quite a story:
I’ve spent many minutes of my life opposing jail sentences like this. Clearly there is a point where words and actions can’t be separated, but I’m not convinced that this man crossed it. On the other hand, if we are to take these people at their various words over the years, they are at war with us, and the usual punishment for being at war against my country and having the misfortune to get captured is imprisonment for the duration, even if you actually did nothing except wear an enemy uniform. So you won’t see me at any demonstrations on this guy’s behalf. Two further quotes from the BBC story caught my attention. There was this …
… which sounds right to me! And then comes this gem:
I love that. He wanted all infidels murdered, but he wasn’t being nasty about it or anything. → Continue reading: On hate-speaking and law-making March 8th, 2003 | 13 comments - (Comments are closed)
Melanie McDonagh, ever the dependable voice of anti-idiotarianism and reason, has pointed out the ludicrous thinking behind the latest changes planned regarding laws on domestic violence. The intention is to remove the defence of provocation, whilst at the same time introducing a plea of self-defence for women who kill after years of being abused… or as Melanie sums it up:
As one would expect from a socialist collectivist like Solicitor General Harriet Harman, because men tend to kill out of anger and women out of fear, the law will be skewed to in fact make that a presumption. This is not really English law so much as feminist law, treating men and women according to their category rather than as individuals judged on the basis of facts.
Quite so! This is a charter for murdering partners with whom a woman has a volatile (but not necessarily violent) relationship. The statue on top of the Old Bailey is ‘blind justice’, but no longer if you are male, it seems. March 4th, 2003 | 4 comments - (Comments are closed)
|
   |
||||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||