Traitors

A month or two back, Norman Tebbit asked:

Just what is it that is so pressing about homosexual “marriage” that it takes precedence in the mind of Mr Cameron over Europe, immigration, airports or energy. We know that neither the Cabinet, the Conservative Party, nor the people are desperately anxious to for it.

The answer was supplied by EUreferendum today. And it is that in 2010 the UK signed up to an EU solemn international treaty that requires parties to permit same-sex marriage. In the UK’s case, the deadline was June 2013.

And that is the real reason as to why Mr Cameron has invested so much political capital in the cause of “gay marriage”. Although we have not ratified Protocol 12, we have accepted unconditionally Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)5, and undertaken to implement it by June 2013.

Having made that commitment for the Chairmanship of the CoE, Mr Cameron has no choice but to see it through. In June, there is another Committee of Ministers to consider a report on the implementation of the Recommendation, when he is to be called to account for his earlier commitment.

Mr Cameron has no intention of disappointing his LGBT colleagues in Europe. Being the good European that he is, he will do what it takes to get his Bill through Westminister.

Today in Parliament, David Cameron didn’t even bother to show up for the debate. Nor did any other senior Conservatives, even though the matter deeply divides the Conservative party.

What’s perfectly clear is that Cameron regards his primary duty and loyalty as being to the EU rather than the British parliament and people. The EU wanted this done, and Cameron did it, and displayed utter contempt for parliament in the process.

I think the name for someone who puts the interests of a foreign country (such as the EU) above those of his own country is: traitor.

It doesn’t really matter that this was a vote about gay marriage. It could have been a vote about anything. And Rose reminded us today that it was in November 2004 that a similar solemn and binding treaty was entered into when Britain signed the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. That also required Britain to implement its terms within a timescale. And this too was done.

What matters is the way it was done. And it’s how our ‘democracy’ works these days. Some shady little treaty is signed, unannounced, which upturns ancient custom and morality. And then it’s rammed through parliament into law, after a perfunctory debate.

I don’t know whether the eurocrats who are doing this really believe that they can redefine an entire culture from the top down, simply by changing the laws, and redefining words like ‘marriage’ to be whatever they want them to mean.

For myself, I think it’s a ridiculous idea. And anyone who tries to do it is doomed to fail, particularly when they set out to redefine more or less everything at the same time. Nothing can more surely create resistance, and set people against government.

The worst of it, in many ways, is that whatever all these draconian new laws, and inverted new values, and nonsensical new meanings of words may be, one can be quite sure that they will all be thoroughly hated and despised. And in the case of gay marriage, this puts at risk all the perfectly reasonable (in my view) steps taken up to now to end the persecution and exclusion and demonisation of homosexuals. But now, when the moral backlash gets under way (as it inevitably will), homosexuals are likely to lose everything they have gained over the past 50 years. And that would be a great shame.

I’ve heard people like Blair and Brown and others described as traitors before. Today was  the first time that, with a heavy heart, I also saw them as traitors. They’re all men who betrayed their country. And, quite frankly, I really don’t know why they did it. Money? Idealism?

So perhaps it’s apposite that it was announced yesterday that the bones of King Richard III of England had been found, after having gone missing for 500 years. He died in battle at Bosworth in 1485 (I  passed by the battlefield last summer, for the first time ever):

Treason he cried as he charged into the carnage.

Nothing has changed. There are as many traitors around now as there were back then.

Wait, I hear you ask: Well, did MPs vote through gay marriage, as required by the EU treaty? Of course they did.

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

70 Responses to Traitors

  1. magnetic01 says:

    The only smokers that have stood up to the antismoking onslaught have typically been older smokers. Younger smokers have unfortunately been raised on a constant diet of antismoking rhetoric.

    Chrissie Swan Admits To Smoking While Pregnant
    “Swan’s confession comes just days after paparazzi photographed the pregnant star “having a sneaky cigarette.” Begging they “not write the story” of her secret shame “because I know how bad it looks,” Swan decided to come clean. “It is bad. And I also told them it was a deeply shameful secret no one knows…not my mum, not my best friend, not my partner.”

    “Obviously I know it’s wrong, I’m not an idiot. No smoker wants to smoke, especially when they’re pregnant but it is clearly an addiction and a very serious one,” Swan said.”I’m devoted to my children. I would never do anything to harm them and yet, here I am having five cigarettes and justifying it. It’s madness, I cannot explain it.

    ”Speaking on his long-time client’s behalf, Swan’s manager, David Wilson, issued a statement in support of Swan following the scandal: “Chrissie is horrified and heartbroken she couldn’t find the strength to quit whilst pregnant. Addiction is serious and smoking is an incredibly difficult habit to kick. These past few days have galvanized Chrissie’s commitment to take the steps needed to stop it once and for all with the full support of those she loves and love her.”

    http://au.lifestyle.yahoo.com/who/article/-/16074470/chrissie-swan-admits-to-smoking-while-pregnant/

    The only thing worse is the comments to the article.

    • waltc says:

      I hope she doesn’t try to quit using NRT. I’ve got studies filed away that show that NRT (but NOT smoking) increases the risk of birth defects.

    • Twenty_Rothmans says:

      It’s Australia. Their loathing is visceral.

      Chrissie Swan is pregnant to a Jew! Down with the Jews! The Jews are our misfortune! Get out, Jew!

      Oh, hang on, I meant ‘smoker’.

    • magnetic01 says:

      The “shameful” activity made it to the nightly news. She was reduced to tears on her radio program, highly apologetic for not being able to quit the terrible addiction. She smokes 5 cigarettes a week!!!!!! A week!!!!!

  2. magnetic01 says:

    One initiative presented at the two-day showcase was an anti-smoking programme sponsored by the Barcelona soccer club, FC Barcelona. “Quit smoking with Barça” is a cooperative effort between FC Barcelona and the European Commission’s “Ex-smokers are Unstoppable” campaign, which has spread across 27 countries of the European Union over the last two years. At the heart of the campaign is the free on-line tool FCB iCoach, – a telephone app which offers updated support with the participation of Barça players, coaches and staff. The collaboration between a sporting institution and the European Commission aims to help more than 140 million European smokers give up smoking for good.
    http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2013/02/01/anti-smoking_campaign_in_focus_at_brussels_gathering/en1-661081

  3. Margo says:

    You’re right – they are traitors. And what are they after? Feathering their own nests, that’s all, money and power. We only have to look at Blair’s career to see that. Cameron’s got his eye on some of the same. They’re liars and con-artists without a single moral principle between them.

    • Frank Davis says:

      Money and power

      I saw this BBC clip of Blair a few days back. Towards the end of it (2 minutes 15 secs) he says:

      …the rationale for Europe is not about peace – that was my father’s generation -. The rationale for Europe today is power.

      In a world with China with 1.3 billion people, and India with 1 billion, Britain was a small island nation, and if it wanted to exert weight and influence and power it had better stick with the big EU gang.

      It’s a bit like someone saying of a project to build a bridge across some strait: “The rationale for the bridge is not about economic growth – that was the bridge-builders’ generation -. The rationale for the bridge today is prestige. We’re going to build the longest bridge in the world.”

  4. harleyrider1978 says:

    Looks like a lot of shit will be abolished after the EU is abolished.

  5. Furor Teutonicus says:

    The E.U it’ self is tratorous to Europe.

    See how they bend RIGHT over to fulfil the wishes of some commy pansy half coon in the Whitehouse. (Regarding membership of Turkey, or Britain leaving, etc.

  6. Furor Teutonicus says:

    Oh aye, I found a link to the German opinion poll that voted for a referendum on leaveing the E.U, by nearly 80%;

    Im Tagesspiegel Berlin vom 25.01.2013 stimmten 78% der Leser für eine Volksabstimmung über den Verbleib Deutschlands in der EU.
    http://deutschelobby.com/2013/02/05/frau-merkel-die-cdu-verliert-unter-ihrem-vorsitz-eine-wahl-nach-der-anderen/

  7. waltc says:

    The last time the gay marriage issue came up, I was too late reading it to jump into the fray but, being principled and noting you were ragged for your position, I step in to echo you– agreeing that “civil unions” are fine and even due, but resenting like hell the manipulation of language in Orwellian ways. (Freedom is Slavery; Arbeit Macht Frei). The last batch of language manipulations were political (“Ms” not “Miss/ Mrs;” “Black” then “African-American” for “Negro” ) but at least they had the justification of euphemism, of well-meant synonym. But gay marriage simply destroys or devolves the meaning of “marriage” turning it into something the word “marriage” never meant in the 5000 or more-year history of marriage. I also agree that people who don’t recognize same-sex couplings as a “marriage” will never see it as a ‘marriage” in any practical sense. It’s as though the government were telling us we had to call a “ceiling” a “table.” Call it that all you like, but you still can’t have lunch on it.

    Nor, by the way, am I saying marriage is holy or exists for the sole purpose of procreation. I’m divorced and I did not procreate nothin. I just resent having my mind rearranged.

    I also agree that there’s bound to be backlash. Almost every kind of movement that starts out well, asks more/ gets more, soon begins to overreach and then sets off the pendulum of action/ reaction. (The women’s movement went from its beginnings of correctly demanding equality to suing corporations for multi-millions of bucks because some poor benighted executive said, “you look cute.”)

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      It destroyed the military too! multiculturalism is a cancer on society.

    • Frank Davis says:

      As you know, I entirely agree with you, and for all the reasons you give.

      But what stuck in my craw yesterday with this was not the gay marriage thing, but the way Cameron had covertly signed some treaty, and now had to conform to the terms of the treaty timetable, and the ‘debate’ in parliament was a rubber stamp exercise. What’s the point of having parliament and MPs and the whole democracy thing, if it can be so easily circumvented simply by signing treaties?

    • beobrigitte says:

      The women’s movement went from its beginnings of correctly demanding equality to suing corporations for multi-millions of bucks because some poor benighted executive said, “you look cute.”

      This is EXACTLY what I am lamenting!!! Equality should allow me the answer: ” Uh, Thanks! By the way, you do show a rather nice back side!” All ends there, no law suite needed. As little I would view as the the “cute” as a preposition, as little is the “rather nice backside”.
      When there is money to be made, principles get thrown out the window. Equality? We are still lightyears away!!!

  8. beobrigitte says:

    Quite frankly, I have no problem with same sex marriages. Procreation can and does happen outside marriage.
    I also have no problem with any church refusing to perform same sex marriage marriage ceremony.

    What I do have a problem with:
    The answer was supplied by EUreferendum today. And it is that in 2010 the UK signed up to an EU solemn international treaty that requires parties to permit same-sex marriage. In the UK’s case, the deadline was June 2013.

    Who comes up with these treaties?
    This vote yesterday was just a farce; the outcome had already been dictated. Do we (anywhere!) still need politicians?? I’d much rather our tax is being invested into something useful.

  9. Rose says:

    The answer was supplied by EUreferendum today. And it is that in 2010 the UK signed up to an EU solemn international treaty that requires parties to permit same-sex marriage. In the UK’s case, the deadline was June 2013.”

    Thank you, Frank.
    I just knew that there was something deeply fishy about it all.

    I was glad when they brought in civil partnerships,
    But if you take the biological aspect out of marriage it becomes quite meaningless.

    Look on the bright side, having been married for 36 years, shortly I am to become one half of a redundant concept as well as being a social outcast.
    I am not a religious person so I miss that particular smack in the face, but perhaps some official might like to explain the new rules to the birds and bees.

  10. jay says:

    This is the first I’ve heard of this Treaty but what is more surprising is that the likes of Norman Tebbit or those Conservative activists who delivered the letter to Cameron on Sunday also seem blissfully unaware of it.

    • jaxthefirst says:

      My thoughts exactly, Jay. Also, if all those people out there who were so active in sending hate-mail to gay marriage supporters had taken the trouble to engage their mental gears before revving-up their ever-ready mouths, they might just have found that lurking deep under the surface of the emotive arguments, both for and against gay marriage, was a trump-card argument which would have brought public opinion swinging swiftly round their way (or swinging further, depending on where it was in the first place – it isn’t clear because there’s so much rhetoric from both sides).

      It wouldn’t have turned the tide completely, of course, because the ardent supporters of gay marriage would probably have continued to support it nonetheless, but I’d guess that a whole host of all those on-the-fencers or not-quite-surers, or even those, “I guess it’s just the way the world is, and it won’t do much harm”-ers would feel much less ambivalent about the whole thing if it had been revealed that the heavy, authoritarian hand of the despised EU was there, as usual, dictating things from the sidelines. With the EU being seen as such a massive millstone around our necks, I’d bet that many people would object to this legislation simply on the principle that as such it wasn’t one of “our” laws designed for “our” people in the first place.

      And if nothing else, highlighting the mechanics of the way these things are done now would do much to make people much more interested in why we have so many of the daft laws we do now, and discourage them from responding to future, similarly contentious, proposals with purely subjective, knee-jerk outbursts depending purely on their personal preferences or situations, rather than on calm, objective logic and common sese.

      Maybe that’s why the opponents of this law didn’t venture into this fertile territory. Because next time, they might need to use the very same mechanism to get one of their own favourite hobby-horse laws through Parliament. And they wouldn’t want the great unwashed public knowing how it’s done then, would they?

  11. c777 says:

    The markets, especially the European ones looked bad yesterday then rallied a bit today.
    There is real strife going on in Spain Italy and Greece.
    I cannot see the € lasting much longer, I reckon it will crash and burn this year, the state of some of those southern banks is that they are already bankrupt, failed, but propped up.
    Even the Dutch had to bail out a national bank.
    The sad thing about it is that’s what it will take to destroy this misguided undemocratic project, there was never any real political will to do so.
    We should never forget that.

  12. Bemused says:

    Just like the FCTC, I am sure some digging would trace the gay marriage issue to the UN. It is currently a main topic the world over. The US included.

  13. harleyrider1978 says:

    BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA likely to drop its gay and lesbian ban at the national level today on the news right now! They had won 12 years ago on the supreme courtthat they have a the right of exclusion. All it means is now the NAMBLA can feast upon all the young fresh boys they want!
    Its worse than letting the fox into the chicken Koop its giving the fox the keys!

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Next up to go is legal age of consent laws!

    • beobrigitte says:

      Here I really have to defend the gay community I got to know. Like you fancy only some women and like I fancy only some men, they are the same; just same sex.

      Many years ago it was a gay (male) couple that jumped on my attacker when I was on my way home from a late shift. The attacker got off the same bus stop as I did; the couple, who stood next to him, had been watching him watching me (I was tired and totally oblivious!) In the dark alley near where I lived, he jumped me; to this day I am grateful the gay couple decided to follow!!!

      • Rose says:

        Well quite, Brigitte.

        However, apparently this consultation they are on about was never about whether or not the government should open marriage up to gay people, but how it could be achieved.
        Which would accord with the treaty having already been signed.

        http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/about-us/consultations/equal-civil-marriage/consultation-document?view=Binary

        Try as I may, I can only find one reference to the Equal civil marriage consultation that I would consider public, right down at the bottom of this BBC article.
        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18407568

        The rest were in religious newspapers or blogs and gay rights organisations .
        So we still don’t know if the majority of the public really were in favour of it as claimed.
        Perhaps I have been using the wrong words to find advance notice of it in general newspapers.

        • beobrigitte says:

          Firstly, I do apologize for my numerous replies here; I have never been made unwelcome by the gay community my “rescuers” introduced me to. If anything, I experienced real tolerance and acceptance of my being “straight”. I do admit, it does take a while to adjust to same sex couples; to me it was rather “unusual”.

          So we still don’t know if the majority of the public really were in favour of it as claimed.

          This REALLY is a good point. With respect to us smokers, the public is being “directed” into a kind of political correct thinking; it’s just the opposite of the spectrum.. (This was the baseline for my stating “minority”)

        • Rose says:

          Brigitte
          When I had a social life only found welcome and kindness from them, so it’s not like I disapprove.
          What I don’t like is the government telling me that everyone is in favour , when everyone has clearly never been asked.

        • beobrigitte says:

          What I don’t like is the government telling me that everyone is in favour , when everyone has clearly never been asked.

          This is EXACTLY what I meant by this:

          What I do have a problem with:
          The answer was supplied by EUreferendum today. And it is that in 2010 the UK signed up to an EU solemn international treaty that requires parties to permit same-sex marriage. In the UK’s case, the deadline was June 2013.

          People are not being consulted.
          De-ja vu. Labour did not ask US if we support the smoking ban. They imposed it.

          We are being dictated that we ALL are in favour. As I said, I, personally am pretty indifferent to gay marriage ; a REAL commitment – with or without any law/Church/paper – is what is valuable.
          Perhaps we smokers were never committed to “giving up” and the antis know this!!!!

  14. harleyrider1978 says:

    Its all been so well choregraphed thru the years now as it comes to pass! The Psybhiatric manual the DSM-5 book was just released and in it even having emotions is now a mental defective disorder. You can be given pharma mind drugs simply for having an off day! But even more devastating is you can likely be diagnosed as having a personality disorder by not being for the gays. Anti-social behaviors will not be tolerated and especially if you love your guns and claim it a right via the 2nd amendment. Yes indeed the DSM-5 manual of today is aimed to fulfill the progressives/world order a grand weapon. The weapon to call us normal people ABNORMAL!

    • jay says:

      Here in the UK, Harley, I’ve begun to notice that employers are demanding that their people Be Happy – as if they have either the right or the abilityto demand such a thing. It’s as if not to be constantly upbeat, sparkly and enthusiastic is a personality defect. Yet I think that it was on this blog that someone found that prescribed anti-depressants have soared in the last few years. I kind of feel that everything in the UK is a sham – there’s a very thin gloss masking layers of disaffection and lack of ‘normal’ mental health – or perhaps I’m just projecting my own disaffection. Does anyone else feel this?

      • Margo says:

        I’ve noticed that, too, jay – it’s everywhere. Example: I met a friend for coffee a few months ago. She said, ‘How are you?’ I said I was a bit pissed off. She put her hands over her ears (literally) and said with a bright smile, ‘No negative thinking!’ Very peculiar. It’s the same in the field of counselling: it’s all CBT nowadays (‘you’re unhappy because you think wrong and therefore behave wrong – we’re going to change that’)
        Nobody’s allowed to have a good moan any more. I find it bloody boring and infantile. Thank goodness for sites like this!

  15. The MPs who voted for gay marriage correlate pretty much exactly as the MPs who are anti smoking/drinking/obesity. Why will they shower their love and tolerance on certain minority groups but demonise others?

  16. magnetic01 says:

    In one nightly talk program (Australia), Cameron has been depicted as a conservative that has “seen the light” on the inevitability and “rightness” of gay marriage (no reference to EU diktat). There are regular segments on gay marriage for which the presenters are passionately – passionately – in favor: They can’t understand how anyone in their right mind could oppose it. They posed the question that if Cameron can see the light, why can’t Australian politicians get progressive and come into the 21st century; why are Australian politicians dragging their heels, clinging to an “outdated minority view” on marriage?

    And following on the heels of the passionately pro-gay-marriage segment was a long, rabidly antismoking segment – Chrissie Swan (live) and her terrible smoking confession.

    Chrissie: “I’m so deeply embarrassed and ashamed of this. People are rightly disgusted and critical.”

    We all know that smoking is terrible for you. So why do we do it? Because it’s so addictive….. more addictive than heroin, cocaine, morphine…etc.

    It’s terrible for the child. Smoking while pregnant is not OK. So why do people do it? Because it’s so addictive…….

    Bear in mind that Swan is on 1 cigarette a day. The only current smoker on the panel – also a 1-cigarette a day smoker – concurred as to just how incredibly addictive smoking is. He just finds it impossible to not smoke that 1 cigarette a day.

    But Chrissie, after a wonderful, sanctimonious, antismoking dialogue with the presenters, has vowed to quit the terrible addiction; it’s been a big wake-up call.

    It was quite sickening to watch.

    • Frank Davis says:

      why can’t Australian politicians get progressive and come into the 21st century; why are Australian politicians dragging their heels, clinging to an “outdated minority view” on marriage

      I loathe this kind of thinking. It supposes that beliefs and values and opinions widely held in the 21st century are necessarily an improvement upon those held in the 20th century (or any century prior to that). It contains a doctrine of irreversible improvement, whereby everything always gets better. It’s a fallacy.

      There are plenty of examples everywhere of things that have got worse with the passage of time, not better. In fact, one might say that, since everything is always rusting and decaying, more or less everything is always getting worse, unless it is kept in good repair. i.e. efforts need to be made to stop things decaying. This applies not only to all the tools and possessions we use, but also to our institutions and laws, which now appear to be in a state of terminal decay.

      As for the idea of someone smoking 1 cigarette per day being an ‘addict’, then what about one cigarette a year, or one a decade?

      • Margo says:

        Nobody smokes 1 cig a day: somebody’s lying! And as for progress, bear in mind ancient Chinese saying – everything in the end turns into its opposite. Opposite of ‘progress’ is eventually chaos?

        • Rose says:

          It will be interesting to see what tortured new politically correct words we will be expected to say.
          For example, I can’t see “gay marriage” being allowed for long as it is still a means to differentiate between the two, I suppose it will simply be marriage, as anything else will be classed as discriminatory.

          Mind you they are still trying to get that “smokefree” thing into common parlance instead of the more normal, non-smoking.

      • garyk30 says:

        “why can’t Australian politicians get progressive and come into the 21st century; why are Australian politicians dragging their heels, clinging to an “outdated minority view” on marriage.”

        Sounds like a bunch of pre-teens claiming that they have to behave or dress in some particular way because; “Everybody else is doing it!!!”

        One would hope that politicians would be more mature.

    • beobrigitte says:

      The only current smoker on the panel – also a 1-cigarette a day smoker – concurred as to just how incredibly addictive smoking is. He just finds it impossible to not smoke that 1 cigarette a day.

      Magnetic, this made my laugh!!! Even to non-smokers it is blatantly obvious that this 1 cigarette/day “addict” is a badly disguised anti-smoker.

      In one nightly talk program (Australia), Cameron has been depicted as a conservative that has “seen the light” on the inevitability and “rightness” of gay marriage (no reference to EU diktat). There are regular segments on gay marriage for which the presenters are passionately – passionately – in favor: They can’t understand how anyone in their right mind could oppose it.

      This I do find extremely worrying. Not because of the same sex marriage (I don’t oppose it!) it is because of the abuse of the gay community. There is another aspect:

      Throughout many years the gay community has had this very rough deal that is coming to us smokers. Ironically, a lot of gay people are also smokers; so the gay smokers are in for the same a second time around. What will this do to the gay community? Fragment it! And on top of this, the one who oppose gay marriage will just hate them, smoker or not. No, I, too, do not wish to be termed an “abomination” simply because I am a “straight” SMOKER.

      Communities which began to interact peaceful with each other are being ripped apart; isn’t this the “DIVIDE AND RULE” strategy? And doesn’t ANY government (who works for who?) know that the number of people speaking AGAINST gay marriage are in the minority?
      Follow that trail of thought right up to the next election, in particular the UK!

  17. harleyrider1978 says:

    Smoking at restaurants and bars could be permitted again, media
    BULLETIN RELEASED: 4/02/13 4:42PM GMT

    UKRAINE-SMOKING-RELAXATION

    Kyiv, February 4 (Interfax-Ukraine) – Verkhovna Rada (Ukraine’s parliament) has registered a bill that permits smoking at restaurants and cafes, but only in specialized places, Ukrainska Pravda online edition reported referring to the press service of the non-factional deputy Lev Myrymsky.

    His press service reported that the bill on amendments into the Ukrainian law “On the measures to prevent and reduce consumption of the tobacco goods and their harmful influence on people’s health” was sent for consideration by the parliamentary profile committees.

    The author of the bill offers that a complete ban on smoking to concern only establishments of state and municipal ownership.

    However, private restaurants, bars and cafes could completely or partially be oriented to servicing smokers. The same concerns specialized establishments, such as cigar clubs.

    “If the economic entity renders restaurant services and organizes leisure just for smoking clients, on the entrance information there should be a sign “Caution! Smoking permitted. Smoking Harms Your Health!” the deputy’s press service reported.

    If the entertainment facility does not limit its circle of the clients, it must have separate premises for the smokers equipped with the exhaust ventilation and not adjoining the premises of the main entrance.

    “It was prohibited to smoke in lifts, on the children’s sites etc. It’s logical and fair. But why is it prohibited to smoke in cafes? People come to the cafes to relax, spend time, eat, drink coffee and smoke. To deprive people of the choice is the same as destroying the basis of the democratic culture,” Myrymsky said.

    “And what if vegetarians start to print scary graphic pictures with the dead bodies of animals on sausages?” he added.

    The explanatory note to the bill reads that there is not a complete ban on the circulation of tobacco goods and their consumption. Moreover, the state enriches the budget due to the takings from the excise duty.

    “Under such conditions persecutions and restrictions of the leisure rights of smokers, who don’t violate the rights to clean air for other people, is not just unethical from the state, but also violates constitutional principles,” the MP reported.

    However, the amendments into the law do not cancel administrative penalties for smoking in public places.
    http://www.interfax.co.uk/ukraine-news/smoking-at-restaurants-and-bars-could-be-permitted-again-media/

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Imagine all that smoking business! Yeeehawww

      • beobrigitte says:

        Thanks for this link!!
        This anti-smoking lark there (and in Poland) started just before the football (soccer) world cup. The then newly dictated smoking ban in football stadiums was largely ignored by the football fans. The BBC then aired the Ukrainian football fans being neo-nazis, actively discouraging football fans to go there and view the games until the Ukrainian government was prepared to enforce the ban.

        “It was prohibited to smoke in lifts, on the children’s sites etc. It’s logical and fair. But why is it prohibited to smoke in cafes? People come to the cafes to relax, spend time, eat, drink coffee and smoke. To deprive people of the choice is the same as destroying the basis of the democratic culture,” Myrymsky said.

        No, it’s not logical, less even, FAIR. Nevertheless, I do agree with: ‘To deprive people of the choice is the same as destroying the basis of the democratic culture’

  18. garyk30 says:

    There are no benefits to be gained from gay marriage that can not be gained from legal documents.

    Such documents as a will, joint-ownership of property, or power of attorney for health/finances cover most all of the advantages of a marriage license.

    Gay marriage laws are just pandering to the lowest common denominator for votes.

    Harley can ‘love’ his horses and put them in his will; but, that does not mean that there should be a law that allows him to legally marry one of them.

    • beobrigitte says:

      There are no benefits to be gained from gay marriage that can not be gained from legal documents.

      I totally agree!!! The reason I objected to marriage was this “I serve my husband” sentence I (then) was supposed to proudly announce in church. I knew then, sorry, this ain’t going to happen! We are equal partners! If I have to say this, he, too, should! Needless to say, this wasn’t going to happen, either.

      I can see your point, Gary. And so can any government which is under threat. What option do we have left? Labour brought us our persecution; the Liberals’ leader threw the numerous calls for amendment of the smoking ban into one pot with the few calls for re-introduction of the death penalty and declared that NEITHER would be reviewed. The Tories………. yes, within the party are calls for amendment of the smoking ban, but Cameron acts the EU sock puppet he is.

      The only party left to give a chance (after all, WHAT have we smokers got to lose?) is UKIP, who is against gay marriage. I now face my own persecution vs something I am pretty indifferent to.
      My solution to this is what many of us “straight couples” do – avoid a church marriage!

      • Margo says:

        Exactly. Civil Partnership already covers all the legal advantages of marriage, I think, so it’s very hard to see what all this is about. Is it just an attempt to annoy churches whose creed doesn’t accept same-sex marriages? (But surely no self-respecting person even wants to get married in a church that finds their behaviour an abomination? Why would they?) I think a lot of people, gay and straight, are completely bemused by it all. Or is the whole point to take our attention off something else that’s going on?

      • Rose says:

        I refused to say that I would obey my husband, after all that was never going to happen. : )

        • beobrigitte says:

          Rose, all respect!!! I was told that I HAD to say the sentence, so I cancelled the whole thing….

        • garyk30 says:

          My wife of 33 years developed a slight cough at that point of the ceremony.

          She said: ” I will Love. Honor, and ‘cough-cough’ until death do us part.

          We giggle about that on every anniversary.

        • garyk30 says:

          Actually, the ‘Honor’ part sometimes goes out of the window.

          The term ‘crotchety old fool’, is not always said with tenderness. :(

        • beobrigitte says:

          Hahahahahahahahahaha
          She said: ” I will Love. Honor, and ‘cough-cough’ until death do us part.

          Genius!!!

          I am glad I never thought of that one – our marriage wouldn’t have lasted!!!!

  19. cherie79 says:

    Thanks for this, I was really puzzled at what lay behind it and I have never seen anything in the MSM, probably don’t even know about it. I was all for Civil Partnerships, seemed only fair. I am not religious nor remotely homophobic, I have a gay grandson who is wonderful and I hope he meets a life partner one day, but I object to redefining marraige and if he introduces me to his ‘wife’ or ‘husband’ I think I would burst out laughting. It just sounds wrong and I see problems with definition of consummation, adultery and impossibility of both, of either sex, being the biological parents of any children. On the bright side once they find all the problems of property ownership, alimony and bitter divorce they might realise things were better without all the formality, just draw up wills and cohabition agreements, cheaper and easier.

  20. harleyrider1978 says:

    Did anyone ever stop to think they are doing just to destroy traditional values everywhere and for no other purpose.

    • Rose says:

      Yup, it had crossed my mind.

    • beobrigitte says:

      This is a good point!

      We are being told “to move with the times” ……… What is the origin of traditional values? Traditional values demand I have to put up with the behaviour of the “provider”, even though by now I am legally allowed to actually go to WORK and become a provider myself.

      The thing is, marriage has always been kept traditional, between man and woman and is part of a commitment of founding a family. Sadly, families fall apart; the one that keeps the offspring often encounters prejudice and it does take a lot (often desperation) to take risks with respect to feeding and providing for them.
      I did encounter much of this when, as a single parent with 3 kids well under 10, I entered University. The 3 degrees…. I have got them. (Seriously, I do have a BSc.; a PGC and a Masters)
      Nevertheless, I am still labelled as a “single parent”…. I have challenged traditional values by taking this risk in order to provide for my offspring state independent.

      There is a not only a can, there is a tank full of worms the governments are waiting for the gay community to open…..

  21. Junican says:

    There is a very simple answer to the whole furore about ‘gay marriage’. As far as the state is concerned, the word ‘marriage’ could be removed from all legal documents concerning the recognition of a wish by two people to unite their affairs. The phrase ‘civil partnership’ exists, and so it would be very simple to invent the phrase ‘civil union’, which could be shortened by usage to the simple word ‘union’. All marriages would be called ‘unions’ as far as the state is concerned, and such couples would say that the ‘are united’ or ‘have become united’ or ‘we were united last Saturday and had a great reception at the Rovers Return’.
    For Cameron and co to call these unions ‘marriages’ is an insult to every married man and woman in the country.

  22. Rose says:

    Gay marriage: PM rejects call to allow civil partnerships for straight couples

    David Cameron tells traditionalist Tory MP he wants to ‘promote marriage’ and not weaken it
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/feb/06/pm-straight-couples-civil-partnerships

    It’s all going horribly wrong rather rapidly.

    • beobrigitte says:

      Gay marriage: PM rejects call to allow civil partnerships for straight couples

      I guess the EU has not dictated Britain to sign *cough* a treaty for this.

      What’s good enough for the gay community is good enough for me? Or………….. We NEED yet another treaty!!!!!!

      • cherie79 says:

        Can someone tell me the difference between a Civil Partnership and a Register Office Wedding? I would really like to know.

    • beobrigitte says:

      No it’s perfectly fine, provided you apply it equally to gay and straight people without distinction.

      Yep. This would seem just right. I am all for it.
      The government controlled antagonizing of “minority groups” against each other has started.

      • Margo says:

        Well, I don’t think straight people can have a Civil Partnership, can they?

        • beobrigitte says:

          Firstly, sorry about writing too much – I guess I should have left that bottle of red where it was…..

          Erm, I don’t know the difference between a Registry Office Wedding and Civil Partnership; I took it that both are the same………

  23. Junican says:

    Regarding the Framework Convention, I did a thorough investigation of Parliamentary involvement in a very long post of 10th June 2012:

    http://boltonsmokersclub.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=1689&action=edit

    The Framework Convention was never debated in the Commons prior to it being signed by an official from the foreign office in June 2003. Prior to the signing, questions were asked of various ministers about progress from time to time, but there was no debate of the Convention. There was a debate on ‘smoking in public places’ in October 2003, but there was no vote on anything. Nothing was said again the House about the convention, and it was ratified by the Government in December 2004. Member states of the EU ratified according to a timetable drawn up by the EU.
    We should all be aware that the people of this country are NOT legal bound to anything in the Convention unless and until a LAW is enacted in Parliament. A serious problem is that even Ministers believe that the fact that the UK ratified the treaty means that the UK is ‘legal bound’. It is not.
    Note how democratic process in the UK was circumvented by the Zealots via the EU. It was and still is a disgrace.

  24. harleyrider1978 says:

    Addiction. 2012 Sep 13. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2012.04077.x. [Epub ahead of print]
    Racial differences in the relationship between tobacco dependence and nicotine and carcinogen exposure.
    St Helen G, Dempsey D, Wilson M, Jacob P 3rd, Benowitz NL.
    Source

    Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
    Abstract
    AIMS:

    To investigate the relationships between tobacco dependence, biomarkers of nicotine and carcinogen exposure and biomarkers of nicotine and carcinogen exposure per cigarette in back and white smokers.
    DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS:

    A total of 204 healthy black (n = 69) and white (n = 135) smokers were enrolled into two clinical studies.
    MEASUREMENT:

    Nicotine equivalents (nicotine and its metabolites), 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3)pyridyl-1-butanol (NNAL) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) metabolites were measured in urine. The Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence (FTND) and time to first cigarette (TFC) measured tobacco dependence.
    FINDINGS:

    Average TFC and FTND for blacks and whites were not significantly different. Urine NNAL and nicotine equivalents increased with increasing FTND in whites but did not increase in blacks (race × FTND interaction, both P 15 minutes; high dependence, TFC ≤15 minutes), FTND and TFC were not correlated significantly with urine nicotine equivalents and carcinogen exposure in blacks. We found moderate correlations between FTND and TFC and nicotine equivalents and carcinogen exposure among whites of low dependence and non-significant correlations among whites of high dependence.
    CONCLUSION:

    In the United States, tobacco dependence measures were related linearly to nicotine intake and carcinogen exposure in white but not in black smokers. The relationship between dependence measures and tobacco biomarkers in black smokers regardless of level of dependence resembled highly dependent white smokers.

    © 2012 The Authors, Addiction © 2012 Society for the Study of Addiction.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      What the Nazis have been up to more junk science!

      UCSF to Present Latest on Tobacco Research and Education
      Postdoctoral Fellow to Explain Tobacco Industry’s Ties to Tea Party at Symposium

      UCSF Chancellor Susan Desmond-Hellmann, MD, MPH, will deliver closing remarks.

      Other topics and speakers at the Feb. 8 symposium are as follows:

      “Quarterbacking Behind the Scenes: The Tobacco Industry’s Role in Shaping the Tea Party,” by Amanda Fallin, PhD, RN, a postdoctoral fellow;
      “Even Brief Secondhand Smoke Exposure Disrupts Arterial Function,” by Matthew Springer, PhD, associate professor of medicine, Division of Cardiology;
      “Nicotine Dependence and Carcinogen Exposure Among Black and White Smokers,” by Gideon St. Helen, PhD, postdoctoral fellow; and
      “More Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Among Children Exposed to Secondhand Smoke,” by Wendy Max, PhD, co-director of the Institute for Health & Aging, professor of health economics.

      http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2013/02/13489/ucsf-present-latest-tobacco-research-and-education

  25. beobrigitte says:

    Sorry for the off-topic! I have just read an article which really made me LAUGH OUT LOUD.

    German readers, please help me out and correct what I got wrong!

    http://www.augsburger-allgemeine.de/bayern/Pro-Rauchfrei-zeigt-Frau-mit-Zigaretten-Attrappe-an-id23893621.html

    This coming weekend it is carneval in Germany. The build up to this are numerous events and in one of these there was an actress holding a fake cigarette. “Pro-Rauchfrei” (Pro-Smokefree) there seems to be as far removed from reality as ASH is here; they not only reported the actress for “holding a cigarette INDOORS”, they also offered 100 euros to the person who could tell them the identity of this actress.
    Denn “Pro Rauchfrei” zeigte die unbekannte Dame an und rief sie im Internet zur Fahndung aus. 100 Euro werden als Belohnung ausgesetzt.

    I wish I had the time to translate this article, I will shelve it alongside the Belgian biker bar one!

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s