Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Do as we say!
The Times reports on some North British council leader flouting his country's smoking ban. He was smoking in his own office, but the law is the law. When it was pointed out to him that he was breaking the law: "he shrugged and carried on".
Now when it comes to banning smoking, like most bans it is ridiculous, of course there shouldn't be any law against smoking in an office and the person concerned has the smallest modicum of my sympathy. Why so little? Well they are a Labour leader, and they are in charge of implementing the smoking ban in their area; I've never heard of any resignations over the issue, or of any council showing some guts and refusing to enforce this stupid law. If this had happened in a pub or private club, they'd have sent the apparatchiks round faster than you could say it, with fines and fixed penalty notices all round. I don't expect any enforcement action here.
The "leader" has apologised, but is that really good enough? I know the law is rubbish as much as the next person, but I wouldn't enforce it at all, but he can't not enforce it, he has no choice, unless he intends to go head to head with the North British executive. So his only honourable choice is to resign, he has to say: "I can't enforce this stupid law or be part of a structure that does; so I must resign".
The chances of this happening are remote, he'll give up smoking first, but it shows us the mindset of our "leaders" - they know the laws are a load of rubbish, they know it's all stupid unwarranted interference, but instead of fighting against those laws and ensuring they never happen, they kow-tow before the legislation and then expect it not to apply to them. In this case he'll probably be right, there'll be no enforcement, no nothing, but what of others who are denied their right to smoke? What of a private club of smokers and people who don't mind smoking? Or an office staffed by smokers?
Some people oppress believing it to be for a greater good or higher purpose, some know that the professed greater good or higher purpose is a load of rubbish, but "go with the flow" anyway. Which is the greater evil?
Now when it comes to banning smoking, like most bans it is ridiculous, of course there shouldn't be any law against smoking in an office and the person concerned has the smallest modicum of my sympathy. Why so little? Well they are a Labour leader, and they are in charge of implementing the smoking ban in their area; I've never heard of any resignations over the issue, or of any council showing some guts and refusing to enforce this stupid law. If this had happened in a pub or private club, they'd have sent the apparatchiks round faster than you could say it, with fines and fixed penalty notices all round. I don't expect any enforcement action here.
The "leader" has apologised, but is that really good enough? I know the law is rubbish as much as the next person, but I wouldn't enforce it at all, but he can't not enforce it, he has no choice, unless he intends to go head to head with the North British executive. So his only honourable choice is to resign, he has to say: "I can't enforce this stupid law or be part of a structure that does; so I must resign".
The chances of this happening are remote, he'll give up smoking first, but it shows us the mindset of our "leaders" - they know the laws are a load of rubbish, they know it's all stupid unwarranted interference, but instead of fighting against those laws and ensuring they never happen, they kow-tow before the legislation and then expect it not to apply to them. In this case he'll probably be right, there'll be no enforcement, no nothing, but what of others who are denied their right to smoke? What of a private club of smokers and people who don't mind smoking? Or an office staffed by smokers?
Some people oppress believing it to be for a greater good or higher purpose, some know that the professed greater good or higher purpose is a load of rubbish, but "go with the flow" anyway. Which is the greater evil?
Tags: liberty, rights, freedom
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
