They are about the extent to which public health goals should impede on the liberty of the individual, invoking a familiar libertarian trope - the nanny state.
To what extent should the state intrude on the autonomy and decision making capacities of adults in pursuit of wider public goods; be these be increase in alcohol and junk food pricing to reduce the harmful impacts of both or the introduction of 20 miles an hour speeding zones and low vehicle emission zones in order to promote clean air and community safety? Such debates invariably pit ‘hard pressed’ motorists and ‘ordinary’ smokers and drinkers against the ‘intrusive’ and ‘evangelical’ agendas of public health and Net Zero environmental zealots. Opposition to lockdowns and other restrictive measures imposed during the Covid-19 pandemic also form part of the contours of this statist versus libertarian conflict.
I should declare a couple of interests here. The new anti-smoking measures propose that smoking be banned in pub gardens; as well as in areas fronting restaurants and in the vicinity of hospitals and schools. Smokers are to be moved on – even from the pavement outside, even from the nightclub smoking areas into “somewhere down the street.”[1] I am an ex-smoker having attempted to give up on seven occasions before ultimate success. I therefore welcome any attempt to dissuade smoking be it public information bulletins or smoking cessation clinics. But I am also a frequenter of public houses; specifically free houses or those who serve cask or real ale and belong to the Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA) to promote such; CAMRA being one of the UK’s fastest growing consumer organisations.
This measure could seriously jeopardise the future of such establishments which are valued community assets and social spaces for the otherwise isolated due to the deterrent effect on their smoking patrons. No one should be exposed to second hand smoke (especially children in the family home and car) which was the rationale for the original prohibition of smoking in enclosed spaces. But for me, smokers like all addicts need help not persecution and stigmatisation which criminalising their habit in open spaces where the risks to the wider public of inhaling second hand smoke are minimal amounts to.
I should declare a couple of interests here. The new anti-smoking measures propose that smoking be banned in pub gardens; as well as in areas fronting restaurants and in the vicinity of hospitals and schools. Smokers are to be moved on – even from the pavement outside, even from the nightclub smoking areas into “somewhere down the street.”[1] I am an ex-smoker having attempted to give up on seven occasions before ultimate success. I therefore welcome any attempt to dissuade smoking be it public information bulletins or smoking cessation clinics. But I am also a frequenter of public houses; specifically free houses or those who serve cask or real ale and belong to the Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA) to promote such; CAMRA being one of the UK’s fastest growing consumer organisations.
This measure could seriously jeopardise the future of such establishments which are valued community assets and social spaces for the otherwise isolated due to the deterrent effect on their smoking patrons. No one should be exposed to second hand smoke (especially children in the family home and car) which was the rationale for the original prohibition of smoking in enclosed spaces. But for me, smokers like all addicts need help not persecution and stigmatisation which criminalising their habit in open spaces where the risks to the wider public of inhaling second hand smoke are minimal amounts to.
The experience of prohibition regimes on other addictive substances shows that the incidence of the habit and its harmful impacts are merely shifted to lawless spaces as in the United States during the Prohibition Era. In short addicts need safe spaces to smoke, inject etc alongside treatment for and recovery from addiction. Furthermore, closure of pubs means that retailers of cheaper and higher strength alcohol such as large supermarkets will be the beneficiaries and that the harmful societal and personal impact of alcohol will be much more pronounced.
So, I do not buy the “exposure to second hand smoke” case for these additional anti-smoking measures which are more coercive than persuasive. I am far from an opponent of the “nanny state.” Big business wants us to eat, smoke and drink our way to an outsized grave[2] and have gone to inordinate lengths to win new markets with ultra subliminal advertising; to suppress their own commissioned research into the deadly effects of their products and to influence and thwart public policy making by its armies of lobbyists. But, like Martha Gill, I draw the line where the pushing from authorities has to stop at this point. Or you begin to prove the libertarians right.[3] Besides, why devote policing resources to enforce the unenforceable?
However, common sense arguments against these proposed regulations have been drowned out by outrageous posturing from the usual suspects. First up, was Reform UK leader Nigel Farage MP who performed a typically faux man-of-the-people shtick by having his photo taken lighting up and smoking a B and H outside the Westminster Inn in another faux act of rebelliousness. Leaving aside his long history of xenophobic nationalist dog whistling and his more recent role in stirring mistrust of the police in the aftermath of the Southport stabbings, any public representative who encourages or can be interpreted as encouraging smoking is frankly not fit to hold public office. Next was a post by Esther McVey, Conservative MP for Tatton and latterly Minister for Common Sense in the last Tory Government on X/Twitter, citing the famous poem by Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer “First They Came” reflecting on the progression of Nazi tyranny in Germany beginning with. It reads:
“Pertinent words re Starmer’s smoking ban” was her warning about what she regards as the first step in a similar descent into totalitarianism in Britain.
A predictable clamour of outrage resulted, particularly from Jewish groups. The Board of Deputies for Jews called it “a repugnant action” and called for her to delete the tweet and apologise for this “breathtakingly thoughtless comparison.” Ms McVey proceeded to double down on her initial comment by denying any comparison with the Holocaust. For her it was merely an “analogy” – those who restrict freedoms start with one target then expand their reach, she explained.
She then delivered this bullish defence of “free speech.”
So, is this the litmus test for Voltaire’s famous but misquoted advocacy of free speech: “I may disagree with what you say but I will defend you to the death to say it”? Related to this old conundrum, is there, in modern parlance, a right to be offended by Esther McVey’s invocation of the Nazi era in her opposition to the extension of the smoking ban?
In calling for Ms McVey to delete her tweet, are the Board of Deputies asserting a right to be offended on the grounds of the historic sensibilities of the Jewish population? When advocates of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU complained of a master-slave type relationship between UK and Brussels, did the descendants of enslaved Africans have a similar right to assert offence?
The common-sense response to Ms McVey’s use/misuse of Pastor Niemoller’s poem is to ridicule the sheer ahistoricity of it. Promulgation of individual restrictions in pursuit of beneficial social goods such as improved public heath such as curbs on outdoor smoking should not be seen as libertarians would have it, as the beginning of “the slippery slope” towards dictatorship; be it the accumulation of anti-Jewish measures in Nazi Germany leading inexorably towards the Holocaust or the creeping erosion of civil society spheres and electoral choices in today’s populist pseudo-democracies like Hungary, Turkey and Venezuela. For one thing, liberal democracies have sufficient guard rails to prevent such journeys (although there must always be vigilance as to any potential diminution of their effectiveness). For another, the industrial scale and unprecedented aims of the Nazi extermination programme negate most comparisons.
But it is also true that drawing comparisons with Nazism always touches raw nerves, and it is fair to say that Ms McVey would be fully aware of the emotional impact and outrage that her use of Niemoller’s poem would generate. Any attempt to relativise Nazi atrocities; be it by antiabortion activists; by anti-communists who posit an equivalence between the crimes of Nazism and Stalinism or by pro-Palestinian lobbies who routinely compare Israel to Nazi Germany; always stir passions bordering on the visceral.
But there can never be a category of thought crimes. People can never be criminalised or silenced for the expression of mere opinions no matter how grating they appear to others. Holding of racist/discriminatory/” extremist” opinions should only become problematic is used in tandem with the infliction of physical harm on others. That is why Holocaust denial and support of the Learned Protocols of the Elders of Zion are not illegal in most democracies (apart from Germany and Austria). For they are merely stand-alone “offences.” But when anti-migrant or anti-Muslim online speech morphs into incitement to violence against mosques and migrant residences as occurred in this month’s race riots in England and Northern Ireland, then such speech becomes criminal. Similarly, Donald Trump’s “Freddy Star Ate My Hamster” spiel in last week’s US Presidential debate about immigrants eating pet cats and dogs and, even more appalling, his statement that in Arizona, 200,000 illegal migrants posed a danger of rape and sodomy to that state’s children, most definitely cross that threshold.
It is when prejudicial and xenophobic speech masquerading as anti-elite populism is weaponised by powerful figures like Trump, that speech is no longer free but becomes a serious societal and even global expense. To return to the case of Esther McVey, it must be remembered that she held a Cabinet post as “Minister of Common Sense” with a brief to monitor and counteract “woke” activity in the Civil Service, Universities, and wider civic society. She thus had the power to restrict freedom of literary, artistic, and political expression in the guise of protecting society from a mythical “woketariat.” The same phantom entity that she claims is trying to censor her when she offends their sensibilities by her deployment of the symbolism of one of the twentieth century’s famous dissident truth tellers to power.
But the best antidote to the exercise of Esther McVey and other bloviators’ freedom to nonsensical speech is ridicule in the bar of public opinion. In this spirit, I am reminded of this reply in the House of Commons to the apocalyptic pronouncement by Tory MP G.E. Smith that the Disestablishment of the Church of Wales Bill had “shocked the Christian conscience of Europe” – “Chuck it, Smith.”
Chuck it, Esther.
[1] Martha Gill, I love the nanny state, but let’s leave outdoor smokers to puff away in peace. The Observer. 1st September 2024
[2] Ibid
[3] Ibid
[4] Backlash as Tory MP Esther McVey uses Holocaust poem to attack smoking ban. ITV News 30th August 2024
So, I do not buy the “exposure to second hand smoke” case for these additional anti-smoking measures which are more coercive than persuasive. I am far from an opponent of the “nanny state.” Big business wants us to eat, smoke and drink our way to an outsized grave[2] and have gone to inordinate lengths to win new markets with ultra subliminal advertising; to suppress their own commissioned research into the deadly effects of their products and to influence and thwart public policy making by its armies of lobbyists. But, like Martha Gill, I draw the line where the pushing from authorities has to stop at this point. Or you begin to prove the libertarians right.[3] Besides, why devote policing resources to enforce the unenforceable?
However, common sense arguments against these proposed regulations have been drowned out by outrageous posturing from the usual suspects. First up, was Reform UK leader Nigel Farage MP who performed a typically faux man-of-the-people shtick by having his photo taken lighting up and smoking a B and H outside the Westminster Inn in another faux act of rebelliousness. Leaving aside his long history of xenophobic nationalist dog whistling and his more recent role in stirring mistrust of the police in the aftermath of the Southport stabbings, any public representative who encourages or can be interpreted as encouraging smoking is frankly not fit to hold public office. Next was a post by Esther McVey, Conservative MP for Tatton and latterly Minister for Common Sense in the last Tory Government on X/Twitter, citing the famous poem by Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer “First They Came” reflecting on the progression of Nazi tyranny in Germany beginning with. It reads:
First, they came for the Communists, and I did not speak out. Because I was not a Communist.
The they came for the Jews. And I did not speak out. Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me. And there was no one left to speak out for me.
“Pertinent words re Starmer’s smoking ban” was her warning about what she regards as the first step in a similar descent into totalitarianism in Britain.
A predictable clamour of outrage resulted, particularly from Jewish groups. The Board of Deputies for Jews called it “a repugnant action” and called for her to delete the tweet and apologise for this “breathtakingly thoughtless comparison.” Ms McVey proceeded to double down on her initial comment by denying any comparison with the Holocaust. For her it was merely an “analogy” – those who restrict freedoms start with one target then expand their reach, she explained.
She then delivered this bullish defence of “free speech.”
I will not be bullied into removing a tweet by people who are deliberately twisting the meaning of my words and finding offence where they know none was intended. We already have too much of that politically correct bullying designed to silence any free speech they don’t like. If they think I can be bullied in that way they have picked the wrong target. Someone has to make a stand against the metropolitan politically correct bullies.[4]
So, is this the litmus test for Voltaire’s famous but misquoted advocacy of free speech: “I may disagree with what you say but I will defend you to the death to say it”? Related to this old conundrum, is there, in modern parlance, a right to be offended by Esther McVey’s invocation of the Nazi era in her opposition to the extension of the smoking ban?
In calling for Ms McVey to delete her tweet, are the Board of Deputies asserting a right to be offended on the grounds of the historic sensibilities of the Jewish population? When advocates of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU complained of a master-slave type relationship between UK and Brussels, did the descendants of enslaved Africans have a similar right to assert offence?
The common-sense response to Ms McVey’s use/misuse of Pastor Niemoller’s poem is to ridicule the sheer ahistoricity of it. Promulgation of individual restrictions in pursuit of beneficial social goods such as improved public heath such as curbs on outdoor smoking should not be seen as libertarians would have it, as the beginning of “the slippery slope” towards dictatorship; be it the accumulation of anti-Jewish measures in Nazi Germany leading inexorably towards the Holocaust or the creeping erosion of civil society spheres and electoral choices in today’s populist pseudo-democracies like Hungary, Turkey and Venezuela. For one thing, liberal democracies have sufficient guard rails to prevent such journeys (although there must always be vigilance as to any potential diminution of their effectiveness). For another, the industrial scale and unprecedented aims of the Nazi extermination programme negate most comparisons.
But it is also true that drawing comparisons with Nazism always touches raw nerves, and it is fair to say that Ms McVey would be fully aware of the emotional impact and outrage that her use of Niemoller’s poem would generate. Any attempt to relativise Nazi atrocities; be it by antiabortion activists; by anti-communists who posit an equivalence between the crimes of Nazism and Stalinism or by pro-Palestinian lobbies who routinely compare Israel to Nazi Germany; always stir passions bordering on the visceral.
But there can never be a category of thought crimes. People can never be criminalised or silenced for the expression of mere opinions no matter how grating they appear to others. Holding of racist/discriminatory/” extremist” opinions should only become problematic is used in tandem with the infliction of physical harm on others. That is why Holocaust denial and support of the Learned Protocols of the Elders of Zion are not illegal in most democracies (apart from Germany and Austria). For they are merely stand-alone “offences.” But when anti-migrant or anti-Muslim online speech morphs into incitement to violence against mosques and migrant residences as occurred in this month’s race riots in England and Northern Ireland, then such speech becomes criminal. Similarly, Donald Trump’s “Freddy Star Ate My Hamster” spiel in last week’s US Presidential debate about immigrants eating pet cats and dogs and, even more appalling, his statement that in Arizona, 200,000 illegal migrants posed a danger of rape and sodomy to that state’s children, most definitely cross that threshold.
It is when prejudicial and xenophobic speech masquerading as anti-elite populism is weaponised by powerful figures like Trump, that speech is no longer free but becomes a serious societal and even global expense. To return to the case of Esther McVey, it must be remembered that she held a Cabinet post as “Minister of Common Sense” with a brief to monitor and counteract “woke” activity in the Civil Service, Universities, and wider civic society. She thus had the power to restrict freedom of literary, artistic, and political expression in the guise of protecting society from a mythical “woketariat.” The same phantom entity that she claims is trying to censor her when she offends their sensibilities by her deployment of the symbolism of one of the twentieth century’s famous dissident truth tellers to power.
But the best antidote to the exercise of Esther McVey and other bloviators’ freedom to nonsensical speech is ridicule in the bar of public opinion. In this spirit, I am reminded of this reply in the House of Commons to the apocalyptic pronouncement by Tory MP G.E. Smith that the Disestablishment of the Church of Wales Bill had “shocked the Christian conscience of Europe” – “Chuck it, Smith.”
Chuck it, Esther.
[1] Martha Gill, I love the nanny state, but let’s leave outdoor smokers to puff away in peace. The Observer. 1st September 2024
[2] Ibid
[3] Ibid
[4] Backlash as Tory MP Esther McVey uses Holocaust poem to attack smoking ban. ITV News 30th August 2024
⏩Barry Gilheany is a freelance writer, qualified counsellor and aspirant artist resident in Colchester where he took his PhD at the University of Essex. He is also a lifelong Leeds United supporter.
Much of this would sum up how I feel about the extension of the smoking ban Barry. Every society needs state management which means state intervention but how far should it go? A state should not allow some citizens to harm others but that argument does not apply here.
ReplyDeleteI also thin that the Niemoller quote has universal applicability, it crosses both time and space and can be used in any context whereby people are silent in the face of a great wrong. I don't see it trivialising the Holocaust.
ReplyDelete