Ruminations on ‘Independence Day’

Having stopped up all night last night, while drinking red wine, even though I got a few hours sleep between about 6 am and midday, I am significantly knackered.

I found myself today to be quite emotional – almost in tears. In fact, I still am. I need only read this:

“Smile at us, pay us, pass us; but do not quite forget;
For we are the people of England, that never have spoken yet.”

And little tears and sobs appear. Not a full flow – the sort of sadness which you might experience when your old cat or dog dies.

Readers might like to read the whole poem written by G K Chesterton, and you can do so here:

http://www.4liberty.org.uk/2016/06/24/for-we-are-the-people-of/

There is a slightly weird construction in the second line. What is the meaning of the phrase ‘never has spoken yet’? Could it not have been better expressed as ‘have not yet spoken’? There is a reason for that expression being as it is. The poem was published in 1907, before WW1. If you read it carefully, you can see that it refers to the many wars and battles from the past, where many ordinary Englishmen have fought and died for the benefit of the wealthy ‘lords and ladies’. It is the fact that those ordinary Englishmen had no voice which the phrase ‘never have spoken yet’ refers to. The implication is that, one day, “the people of England will speak”.

I would say that only in very modern times have ‘ordinary Englishmen’ been able to speak. So the phrase ‘For we are the people of England, that never have spoken yet’ takes on a new meaning. If you could somehow add a poetic expression to that sentence, it would say, “Until now!” Now, via the internet, the People of England can speak. And so can the people of Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Slovakia, Portugal, Ukraine, Russia, China, India, Australia, USA, Brazil, etc.

And that need to talk among ourselves, in the sense of finding a way to end corruption, persecution, slavery, exploitation, etc, has never been more important than it is today. By talking among ourselves, we can recognise propaganda more easily. That was not the case when newspapers, radio, TV, were controlled by a small group of ‘Stakeholders’ – aka the Wealthy and the Powerful.

And that is why we need a  new type of politician. It does not matter what strata of society that such a person might come from. What is important is that he/she gives serious thought to whether or not he/she represents ‘the people of England’, and not some ideology which favours POWER.

In Bolton, naming no names – well, go on then – his name is Andrew Morgan – AM fought tooth and nail to persecute smokers by opposing smoking shelters at Bolton hospital, and yet, it seems, he supported Brexit. Is that not what might be termed a perfect example of ‘cognitive dissonance’? On the one hand, he want persecution of smokers, but on the other hand, he wants freedom from persecution by the EU elite; but he is happy that the EU elite persecute smokers, and he likes that, but he now wants the EU elite not to have the power to create directives that he does not like. What does that show? It shows that he, himself, personally, wants to have THE POWER to persecute whomsoever he likes, but does not want the EU to have that POWER.

POWER is everything in any sort of ‘government’. We have seen that over and over again during the Brexit debates. And that is right, since that is what government is about. It is the wise use of that power which matters. Thus, for example, the creation of the ecig regs by the INCOMPREHENSIBLY, MASSIVELY, CORRUPT EU Tobacco Control autonomy MUST be opposed and rejected by The People of England who have spoken, again and again, via the voices of the internet etc.

The internet is the voice of the People of England. The press is not; politicians are not. Even trolls, such as ASH, are voices and are at liberty to speak as individuals or groups.

===

As I see it, The EU began to fall apart with the introduction of the so-called ‘Social Chapter’. I honestly do not know details, but, before that, the EU dealt with ‘things’, such as standards of manufactured goods, free trade in those standardised goods. Standardisation means, for example, the efficacy of breaking systems of cars. A ‘minimum’ standard was required, but that did not mean that better, and vastly more expensive systems, could not be provided and bought. I am talking about the systems which Formula 1 racing cars use, whatever they are.

The ‘Social Chapter’ introduced human behaviour as ‘a thing’ to be controlled by edict.  But human behaviour is only a ‘thing’ in the imagination of epidemiologists, sociologists, etc. Human behaviour is not a ‘thing’ at all. It is that perception of human behaviour as ‘a thing’ which has been used to justify the persecution of smokers. Vast tax increases are blatant persecution, as are smoking bans, and all the other restrictions and regulations. When laws move from regulation of ‘things’ to regulation of ‘behaviour’, they need a very lot of careful consideration. (Sorry about the phrase ‘very lot’ – it seems appropriate).

===

What we can hope for, but not expect, is the new PM to stop playing international games with The People of England. The People of Scotland can do as they wish. It is up to them. There are only about 5 million of them, as compared with 55 million Englishmen. Let them have another referendum asking if they want to Scexit the UK and put themselves at the mercy of the EU Elite.

Cameron has effectively gone, even though he will remain as chairman of the Cabinet. I suppose that his new role is to mitigate the shouting. “Ladies, Gentlemen, can we just tone down the anger about transgender internet hatred? Let’s face it, the easy way out is to criminalise anti-transgender speech. I’m sure that we can get the Church of England to agree, but I’m not sure that we can get the Muslims to agree. But we can pass a law anyway. We can just introduce it as a clause in an Act enabling an EU regulation about the shape of strawberries. What’s the problem?”

===

For we are the people of England, that never have spoken yet.

Oh yes we have – loud and clear. But what is not yet clear is what that ‘speech’means. I hold that it is all about the Social Chapter, which is about behaviour.

But I am not sure. Perhaps commenters could elucidate.

 

Advertisements

11 Responses to “Ruminations on ‘Independence Day’”

  1. inisfad Says:

    My one comment is in regard to the folly of the assumption that any ‘persecution’ of smokers is solely on the EU level. Your advice that your local politician, ‘AM’ was instrumental in the smoking ban in your local hospital would seem to indicate that, regardless of whether the UK is in or out of the EU, this persecution of smokers will continue. It is somewhat evident that membership in the EU had little to do with politicians adhering to the tenet that smoking should now be socially unacceptable…..????

  2. inisfad Says:

    So, you prove my point, no? The extent of making tobacco ‘socially unacceptable’ stems well beyond the borders of the EU. The Brexit vote had little to do with this issue, particularly as with or without the EU, the UK adheres to tobacco control on a local level.

    • junican Says:

      Inisfad, it is about making our own Government responsible. “We signed the FCTC treaty and so we have to do what we are told to do by that organisation. We are legally bound”. That is more or less what the then Health Minister, Milton MP said.
      Ramadoss let the cat out of the bag – “…. WHO-supported international agreement to ban the production of tobacco products in a phased manner.”. That is the hidden agenda, which was not in the FCTC treaty.
      My point is that laws passed by our Parliament must stand on their own merits and not be a consequence of some hidden agenda among the Elite of the world.
      But it is not just tobacco. It is almost everything that is pleasurable. You have fat people like Glantz pronouncing about tobacco, and thin people like ? pronouncing about sugar, and teetotallers like ? pronouncing about alcohol. (Sorry about the question marks – I have neither time nor inclination to find some examples)

      Another point is that reform of the EU is not possible. It has gone too far along the path of empire building. It needs to be terminated altogether and a new start in cooperation between the nations of Europe established.
      Thankfully, once again, England is leading the way.

  3. Rose Says:

    Just out of interest, though first suggested by Sir George Godber, the denormalisation campaign seems to have started in America in the late 70’s.

    Tobacco Control, Stigma, and Public Health: Rethinking the Relations
    2006

    “By the end of the 1970s, evidence began to mount that smoking was increasingly being viewed as undesirable by significant proportions of nonsmokers.”

    To confront such malefactors, some believed, anything that might work had to be considered, even heavy-handed moral opprobrium. In the New York Times, a psychiatrist wrote,

    “What we need is a national campaign that results in the stigmatization rather than the glorification of the smoker. This, in my opinion, would be the most effective way of reducing the number of smokers and confining their smoke to the privacy of their homes”

    “Gardner R.
    Fatuous and futile road to self-esteem [ letter to editor]. New York Times. July 30, 1977”
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470446/

    And here it is – 6th letter down.

    To the Editor:

    “In your editorial of July 12 regarding the link between smoking and an ever‐lengthening list of diseases, you recommend “a large‐scale Federal campaign to impress the dismal data on the smoking public.” This. solution is not likely to prove successful because it does not direct itself to the main reason why youngsters start to smoke, viz., it is an attempt to acquire an image of adulthood, especially one of attractiveness to the opposite sex. The youngster who surreptitiously begins smoking practices the various studied poses he has learned to equate with adulthood. He does not, at that point, fear cancer or other diseases; he fears demonstrating ineptitude in the handling of a cigarette or otherwise compromising his image as suave, experienced smoker.

    The advertising companies know this well and capitalize on it extensively. They know that the need of young adolescents to appear beautiful, strong and sexually attractive is so powerful that they will not concern themselves with warnings that thirty or forty (or more) years hence they may suffer some dreaded disease. Once the target is “hooked” in the teens the industry’s job has been done and a high percentage of such youngsters can be relied upon to remain addicted for years.

    One of the most efficient ways to protect ourselves from this insidious exploitation of our youth by the advertising industry would be to ban cigarette advertising entirely. Such solution would be fought vigorously by the many industries that profit enormously from such advertising. Even your own newspaper would suffer losses if such a ban were imposed. The very issue in which your editorial appeared contained a full two‐page ad by a cigarette company.

    Anti‐smoking programs should help people, especially youngsters, appreciate how fatuous and futile is this way of gaining an enhanced sense of selfworth; rather, they should emphasize that true self‐esteem can only come from genuinely worthwhile personality qualities and attainments acquired over years, not from such a superficial “accomplishment” as being able to smoke a cigarette.

    The image of the non‐smoker who openly expresses objection to those who smoke must also be changed. There was a time when such people were generally viewed as finicky oddballs. Fortunately, this is changing. More non‐smokers are squelching their embarrassment and demanding their rights—and such assertion is becoming more socially acceptable. As a result smokers are now showing a little more timidity and consideration.

    What we need is a national campaign that results in stigmatization rather than glorification of the smoker. This, in my opinion, would be the most effective way of reducing the number of smokers and of confining their smoking to the privacy of their homes.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/1977/07/30/archives/letters.html?_r=1

    So like to Sir George Godber’s views that this psychatrist may well have heard him speak at the Waldorf Astoria two years before.

    The 3rd World Conference on Smoking and Health – Special Report June 9 1975

    “The cigarette” said new Assistant Secretary of HEW Cooper “kills lots of people but doesn’t seem to frighten anyone”

    “That was perhaps the key among many keynotes struck by opening speakers at New York’s Waldorf Astoria Hotel where the 3rd World Conference on Smoking and Health convened for four days.”

    “Sir George [Godber] surrounded himself with an all-North American group of section chairmen who huddled with him until the wee hours of adjournment morning to prepare conference recommendations. Something went awry, however, because the ‘recommendations’ turned out to be ‘conclusions’…….Sir George guessed between 150 and 200 [conclusions]. He declared them acceptable without debate, and forecast their appearance in the proceedings he thought might become available ‘likely sometime early next year’.

    Among the conclusions:
    – Research to find out if smoke harms nonsmokers;
    – “Elimination of smoking cigarettes”;
    – Include quit-smoking assistance in health insurance;
    – Create ‘a social environment in which smoking is unacceptable;
    – Ban all smoking in all schools;
    – Classify tobacco as addictive and smokers as drug-dependent;
    – Preempt 5% of tobacco sales revenues for antismoking ‘education’;
    – Raise tobacco prices enough to discourage sales;
    – Ban all forms of tobacco advertising and promotion;
    – Set up committees of sophisticated politicians and economists in every country to help pursue stated goals.”
    https: //www.industrydocumentslibrary.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/#id=ftkb0215

  4. inisfad Says:

    And again, my point is that whether the UK is within the EU or not, these policies will not change. Each and every western government has bought into tobacco control, for whatever reason. The mandates of the EU do not change the policy of your local representative who bans smoking in your local hospital. These mandates were adopted on a local level, with or without EU intervention. So, to consider Brexit as ‘independence day’ from the ‘Social Chapter’ is not quite accurate – that Social Chapter – particularly where it involves ‘health issues’ – whether obesity, smoking, salt, sugar, whatever, exists on all governmental levels.

    • Rose Says:

      Patients face discharge from hospital in total smoking ban
      21 May 2005

      “Patients caught smoking inside or outside hospitals face being discharged under new government legislation, which will abolish hospital smoking rooms and encourage a total ban in all grounds.

      Patients caught smoking inside or outside hospitals face being discharged under new government legislation, which will abolish hospital smoking rooms and encourage a total ban in all grounds.

      The controversial “zero tolerance” plans are part of a new Bill, which will make all hospitals smoke-free by the end of 2006. In London, the deadline will be a year earlier, health officials announced last week.

      Patients too frail to endure low temperatures outside will be offered “nicotine replacement therapy” in the form of gum and patches. Other measures will include putting up “older person” signs around hospitals for patients crossing busy roads to smoke.”
      http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/patients-face-discharge-from-hospital-in-total-smoking-ban-5345434.html

      New Labour

      Tony Blair’s 10 Years Of Tobacco Control
      Friday 29 June 2007

      “A Comment published online Friday June 29 assesses the impact of 10 years of Tony Blair’s Labour Government in the UK concerning public-health measures to reduce the harmful effects of tobacco, just two days before a ban on smoking in public places is introduced in England. This week’s lead Editorial also discusses tobacco control, with reference to the 2005 WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC).”

      “The Editorial concludes: “The Bloomberg initiative helps to translate the principles of the FCTC into action, with particular focus on the 15 countries where two-thirds of the world’s smokers live (which include China, India, Indonesia, and Russia). But as the sorry delays in the UK illustrate, signing up to the FCTC was the easy bit. Implementation of all effective tobacco control policies requires sustained unwavering governmental commitment. The short-term political costs may seem substantial, but the potential health gains are huge.”
      http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/75557.php

      DECEMBER 16, 2004
      Britain ratifies anti-tobacco treaty

      “The announcement was hidden away in a statement about a reduction in the number of smokers in the UK.

      “On the same day as these statistics were published,” the release says, “the UK ratified the World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. This is the first international treaty on public health and has the potential to make a real difference in tobacco control at a global level.”
      http: //www.grandprix.com/ns/ns14008.html

      MORE THAN A MILLION FEWER SMOKERS SINCE 1998
      16 Dec 2004

      “”We are by no means complacent. The recent Public Health White Paper sets out more action on smoking in public places and the plans to extend and improve the NHS Stop Smoking Services. Seven out of ten smokers want to give up and we are committed to providing the right environment and support for them to take this decision and stick to it.”

      On the same day as these statistics were published, the UK ratified the World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. This is the first international treaty on public health and has the potential to make a real difference in tobacco control at a global level by committing all parties to the following measures:

      – Comprehensive bans on the advertising and promotion of tobacco products.
      – Labelling of tobacco products to warn about the dangers of smoking. – Education about the health effects of tobacco.
      – Greater controls on the smuggling of tobacco.
      – Protection of the public from the effects of secondhand smoke – Measures to reduce the availability and promotion of tobacco to young people.”
      http: //www.wired-gov.net/wg/wg-news-1.nsf/0/77D27AEF0BE504D7802572AB004BA8C4?OpenDocument

      Background on EU smoke-free policy

      “In the early nineties, a number of EU health and safety at work Directives defined certain restrictions on smoking at work. A Council Resolution (1989) and the Recommendation on smoking prevention (2002) called on Member States to provide protection from exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke in indoor workplaces, enclosed public places and public transport”
      http: //europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-09-1060_en.htm

      1989 , ten years later

      WHO LAUNCHES PARTNERSHIP WITH THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY TO HELP SMOKERS QUIT
      30 January 1999

      “DAVOS. – Calling tobacco a “main risk factor” to health in the next century, World Health Organization Director-General Dr Gro Harlem Brundtland announced a major project to help smokers in Europe, Russia and the Central Asian Republics stop smoking in a speech at the World economic Forum.”
      https: //web.archive.org/web/20030211043229/http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1999/en/pr99-04.html

      And 14 years before we signed up to the FCTC.

      So the EU started this, I’m not sure what you are trying to prove, but thank you for the opportunity to post it all over again, this time in sequence.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: