The case against the smoking ban

3824

the-case-against-the-smokng-ban

Prohibited from leaving the waiting room...

3821

prohibited-from-leaving-the-waiting-room

..,especially if you need some assistance in making it through those heavy double doors underneath the exit sign. Lord McColl writing in The Daily Telegraph sets out arguments against Lord Falconer's proposal for people's non-prosecution of those who assist others seeking to be euthanised. Dying in Dignity have found that two-thirds of people actually think that Falconer's proposal is acceptable and wish to see the change in the law.

Lord McColl's arguments are admirable, but they fail to take into account one very important factor: that people have the rights over their own lives. While there may be a majority of doctors who do not wish to be involved in making a decision with regard to someone's life, there will be others willing to help. After all patients wishes should be respected. For years Jehovah Witnesses have refused blood transfusions, much to the detriment of their own health; those wishes remain respected though. How is it that those with a god have power on their side yet the rest of us meek mortals are subservient to the politician's and medical profession's whims.

At a previous point a person has made a rational choice that they are, or will no longer be, happy with the level of life they will find themselves in. Therefore they wish to end it all. It's time that we grew up in this country and respected individual choices over our lives. We have advanced little in the intervening years since the Suicide Act was passed in 1961 when the state finally relinquished its totalitarian grasp on people's lives. Those who assist in purveying a person to carry out their wishes should not be punished unless there is a highly suspicious reason to. Obviously it would be far easier if euthanasia was available here and we had a system organized that protected the vulnerable from abuse. It will be a while longer before the state cedes total control to us to hold open the doors, as the House of Lords voted against the amendment on Tuesday.

The rise of the surveillance society

3814

the-rise-of-the-surveillance-society

Following the 9/11 and 7/7 terrorist attacks, there has been an exponential increase in Britain’s surveillance: currently, Britain has a quarter of the world’s security surveillance cameras with around four million cameras in use and we are currently the world’s most watched nation – something which is very unnerving and reflective of the surveillance dystopia envisaged by George Orwell in his fictional work “Nineteen Eighty Four".

The steady expansion and the overuse of the surveillance in Britain risks undermining the right to privacy; it poses a huge risk to individual liberty; and one more step towards a police state in the United Kingdom. Currently, there are few laws in place to limit the use of CCTV, brought about to “protect national security": this has lead to a “mission creep" in the use and abuse of surveillance. Local councils have been accused of severely abusing the surveillance in the United Kingdom by using CCTV to prevent fly tipping, dog fouling and, recently, CCTV was used by Poole Borough Council to monitor the actions and whereabouts of a family who were wrongly accused of lying about where they live on a school application form.

Britain’s surveillance society can be closely linked to the works of Jeremy Bentham and Michel Foucault. In 1785, Jeremy Bentham proposed the idea of the Panopticon: the Panopticon is a conceptual prison design that allows the prison guard to watch the prisoners without the prisoners being able to tell when they are being watched, in order to gain significant psychological control. Bentham described the Panopticon as "a new mode of obtaining power of mind over mind, in a quantity hitherto without example". The French philosopher, Michel Foucault, took up this theme in his 1975 work “Discipline and Punish", where he pursued the link between surveillance and social control. Thus, comparing the effects of surveillance to the effects of the Panopticon.

Although the use of surveillance clearly has its advantages in terms of fighting crime, its overuse can prove counter-productive and can ultimately be viewed as a challenge to Britain’s liberal democratic status.

The rise of the surveillance society is written by Daniel Button, 3rd prize in The Young Writer on Liberty 2009.

The boys in green

3812

the-boys-in-green

In the police state of Britain we are already harassed by the ‘boys in blue’ on a frequent basis, whether that be for taking photos in public, holding a peaceful protest or parking on double yellows. But now the government has decided to attack us from another side, sending in the ’boys in green’ to bully our firms and industries.

The Environment Agency is creating a new team to enforce the Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC). The team of Green Police have been given powers to search company premises and inspect utility bills without the permission of the owners. This is just another way in which the state is trying to flex its muscles, rather than aiding them by letting them get on with the jobs in hand.

The most efficient way to combat carbon emissions is not to set restrictive top-down quotas on firms and then enforce them with jack- booted Carbon Cops. Rather, firms should be free to lead the fight against climate change, with profits as the incentive. As an Environmental Kuznets Curve shows, over time if left to the market, carbon emission will begin to fall as firms search for cheaper environmentally friendly fuels and consumers are willing to pay more towards greener firms.

This latest scheme is poorly timed. Many firms are struggling to survive, with falling revenues and increasing costs. By imposing stricter regulation upon energy producers, costs will inevitably rise, costs which will passed onto consumers – individuals and SMEs.

ID cards downgraded

3789

id-cards-downgraded

We should celebrate but unfortunately the government has already wasted our money on investigating whether a national ID card would be viable and there's nothing left in our pockets to contribute to the party. The national ID card scheme has been downgraded from potentially compulsory to voluntary. Still it was a tidy earner for the goverment and a few high tech industries closely associated with the project. For example over the past 5 years the government had spent £20m on one segment of the project, the Critical Workers Identity Card and of course it is behind schedule and being badly run. As with anything IT related that the government's hands fall upon.

But (and there's always a but when a government announcement is made) the voluntary roll out is to be speeded up and the over-75s will become the guinea pig group that is handed the cards for free. They will hold them alongside the thousands of foreign nationals in the UK who will still be forced to carry one. The government will get you sooner rather than later.

The whole ID card fiasco has been one that has mirrored the government's pathological ineptitude towards governance and dealing with security. They have failed to grasp that their primary role is to protect our liberty and impinge upon our daily lives as little as possible. ID cards are a statement about how they have failed to address the threat of terrorism and how it is far easier to assume we are all terrorists. More in the hope that eventually by dragging us all up in one net they will still be able to find those they are looking for via careful sifting.

Still, by the time the current government believes that this programme can be rolled out they will hopefully have been handed a sound thrashing. But of course, the hope is that the other politicians aren't actually lying...

ASI support the amendment of the smoking ban

3786

asi-support-the-amendment-of-the-smoking-ban

... we urge politicians of all parties to help save our pubs and clubs by introducing an amendment to the ban. If they don’t, the traditional English pub will continue to wither on the vine. (See full letter in the Daily Telegraph here).

Undiversity

3783

undiversity

"Hang tradition." In this modern climate where we all assumed to share the mental capacity of a five-year old, the modern approach to England's rich and varied cultural heritage is one where children, and indeed the parents, are in need of protection. Having to explain something to a child that the state hasn't sanctioned, or placed in the curriculum, is tremendously tiresome. As the children of a primary school in Kent found out when part of their 'cultural' event that looked to bring a 'diverse and fragile' community together was cancelled after the staff discovered that some Morris dancers 'blacked' their faces.

Why do these Morris dancers perform with blacked out faces? The merry band of dancers concerned explain that it is thought to be some sort of disguise, or another theory offered elsewhere relates it to an attempt to look Moorish. Or perhaps these people feared persecution and sought to protect their identities. These reasons fundamentally point in the opposite direction to the racism that the dysfunctional teachers and parents of Kent inferred. Had they spent two minutes on the internet they would have been furnished with information that they could then pass onto the children, instead their charges will remain slightly less aware of the world around them. This a primary example of why this country's education system is only good at producing state educated clones who can barely think for themselves, let alone function.

These dancers should be welcomed back. This country needs to realise that offence is something that can be explained away if the other party holds all the information pertaining to a comment, or action. In this case the teacher and parents in Kent won't be the ones made to look ignorant; it will be the Morris dancers and their traditions. The public won't seek to understand why the dancers 'black' up, they will make assumptions. Tradition and culture are choked out of existence by the noose that state sanctioned prejudice and stupidity create through the dumbing down of the majority of the population via the poor quality of government provided education. This is just another classic example.

Conflict of interest

3748

conflict-of-interest

In a truly free society people can worship anything: images, fictional or non-fictional publication or even a lump of rock if they so choose, permitted that they do so whilst not interfering with others. In the secular states of the Western world the practices of certain religions have called into question what is right and justifiable in the public realm. President Sarkozy yesterday spoke to the French Parliament and raised the issue of the 'burqa'. He stated that:

In our country, we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity. The burqa is not a religious sign, it's a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement...It will not be welcome on the territory of the French Republic.

Following on from the feminist driven emancipation of women in the 20th century there came those that apparently freely chose to hide themselves away and revel in subservience to a misogynistic interpretation of a revered text. And this is the crux of the matter. Religion is a wholly private matter (admittedly in France, adherence to the state is the primary religion) and the people should be free to choose. If the consequence of this decision is that they end up dressing as a ninja (or halloween ghost) there is little the government can do to stop them unless the government seeks your genuflection to be directed towards them.

On occasion the pope wears a funny hat, yet we do not seek to stop him from dressing in such a way when he appears in public. Sarkozy's words are rebutting a perceived threat to the power of the centralized state by couching it in terms of individualist, feminist freedom. While also drawing upon a perceived undertow of public distrust that is directed against Muslims: a truly populist move. If Muslim women choose to disavow their religion they have at their disposal, in the Western world, at least, the tools that will support their decision and protect them from harm. But if they live in France upon disavowal they are required to convert to state worship.

Amend the smoking ban

3749

amend-the-smoking-ban

I joined TV chef Antony Worrall Thompson and other celebs in pulling pints at the Duke of Buckingham pub near Buckingham Palace yesterday, to celebrate the launch of a new campaign – Save our Pubs and Clubs.

It seems that pubs are closing at the rate of 50 a week, and one of the things that is doing in this normally recession-proof industry is the smoking ban that has been in place for two years. People who would once go out to the pub for a drink and a cigarette now load up at the supermarket, it seems, and go home and fill the family home with fumes. I'd have thought it would have been better all round for them to be out of sight of the kids, in an air-conditioned pub, with a landlord telling them if they're a bit the worse for wear. The very worst thing is to drive smokers out on to the streets, where the local authority has to clear up the cigarette butts, and where kids can see them happily smoking. Those are the daft, unintended consequences of the blanket ban.

The new campaign's leaders say we should have something more like Spain. Smoking there is allowed in designated smoking rooms, or landlords can opt to have their whole premises made 'smoking' or 'non-smoking', so you know what you're in for. I'd certainly have no problem going into a pub with a designated smoking room and the latest high-tech air filtration. Quite probably, in our city centres at least, the air would be cleaner inside than it would be on the street.

The campaign has cross-party support, with Greg Knight (Conservative),  David Clelland (Labour), and even Nigel Farage (UKIP) all there at the launch event. They've got cool things like beermats and t-shirts declaring the message. Visit www.amendthesmokingban.com to find out more.
 

Human rights, political bias

3740

human-rights-political-bias

According to mainstream human rights thinking all human rights are “indivisible". Therefore, this mantra insists, economic, social and cultural rights such as the right to an adequate living and the right to social security should not be treated differently from classic freedom rights such as free speech and habeas corpus. This conflation of very different rights is a fallacy. No Western state has built its wealth on constitutional rights to social goods. However, Western freedom has in large part been built on individual freedom rights protecting against arbitrary and authoritarian state action.  The so called indivisibility also reveals a marked political bias. Much literature and jurisprudence on social rights emphasize the importance of state involvement in the economy, increased public spending and the limitation or even abolishment of free market initiatives.

But claiming that a certain way of addressing poverty is a human rights obligation simply serves to elevate such political views to moral and legal imperatives that trump competing views. On the other hand, in a liberal democracy political opponents from left and right will generally agree that is incompatible with basic human rights to censor the media or use torture.

Social rights institutionalize a vision of society based on a specific political agenda, which excludes political pluralism and undermines the rule of law and separation of powers. Moreover, rather than restraining government action, social rights require governments to take prime responsibility for large parts of human life that would otherwise be left to the individual. Ultimately, therefore, social rights endanger the freedom secured by freedom rights. Such a development represents a huge step backwards from hard-won liberties.  It is therefore high time that advocates of human rights resist their politicization and focus on fighting for the right of everyone to live in freedom. To that end, freedom rights should be embraced and social rights rejected.

Jacob Mchangama is head of legal affairs at the Danish think tank CEPOS and external lecturer of international human rights law at the University of Copenhagen. His briefing paper – The War on Capitalism: Human rights, political bias – is published by the ASI today. Click here to download a PDF. You can also watch Jacob making his case to Amnesty International here.