 |
| Not a spoof |
Tobacco Control has published an
hilarious article by a lawyer from ASH (USA) and a social scientist from Mike Bloomberg's
Tobacco Control Research Group (Bath University). It is titled Tobacco control advocates as human rights defenders: a call for recognition. and is every bit as ridiculous as it sounds.
Tobacco control advocacy is not without risks. Increasingly, advocates
have spoken out about the threats, harassment and attacks they face when
confronting powerful corporate interests.
This "harassment" mostly consists being called things like 'nicotine Nazis', 'health fascists' and 'killjoys'. It turns out that if you stigmatise people, extort money from them through sin taxes and ruin their social lives, they will dislike you. Who knew? And yet, despite working tirelessly to make the lives of nicotine users miserable, I have never heard of any anti-smoking campaigner in the modern era being physically attacked by a smoker. When you think about it, that is quite remarkable.
This commentary argues that tobacco control advocates should be
recognised as human rights defenders (HRDs) under international
frameworks.
Hahaha!
The Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR) defines HRDs
as individuals who, individually or with others, act to promote or
protect human rights in a peaceful manner.
You know who isn't defined as a human rights defender? Ambulance-chasing lawyers and pointless academics who sit around on fat salaries thinking up ways to take away people's right to enjoy themselves. There are lots of names for people like that but 'human rights defender' is definitely not one of them.
This definition is based on
actions, not positions or titles. By this standard, tobacco control
advocates—who work to protect and advance the right to health (and other
rights) and challenge harmful corporate practices—clearly fall within
the scope of HRDs.
Anti-smoking lobbyists do not advance the right to health. Insofar as not smoking is synonymous with health, people can choose to do it or choose not to do it. Having the right to something does not mean that a person should be compelled by others to maximise it at the expense of everything else they hold dear. People have the right to a family life but that doesn't mean they should be forced to have children.
What difference would it make if we go along with this gaslighting and pretend that prohibitionists are champions of human rights?
... much of the practical, frontline support for HRDs comes from civil
society. For example, a civil society-led initiative based in Europe
offers a variety of support mechanisms, including a hotline for urgent
protection and visits in detention.
The
initiative they are referring to has been supporting women living in Afghanistan under the Taliban and libertarians fighting political oppression in Georgia. Surely even the most deluded 'tobacco control' nutter can see that the plight of these people has nothing in common with single-issue campaigners being called nanny statists on Facebook?
Tobacco control has always been about defending the right
to health, life, and dignity.
No, it has always been a prohibitionist crusade run by neurotics, bigots and grifters. As the campaign against e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches shows, it was never really about health and it certainly isn't about dignity.
A moral crusade explicitly grounded in 'denormalisation' was never going to advance human dignity.
Yet the advocates who lead this work often
face threats without the recognition or protection afforded to other
defenders of human rights.
The authors helpfully link to a website that might otherwise have escaped me. Paid for by two of Bloomberg's front groups,
Courage Against Tobacco tells the heart-rending stories of brave of anti-smoking careerists who have suffered at the hands of the tobacco industry. The 'tobacco industry' is very broadly
defined, including not just companies who make and sell tobacco products but also "all related corporate entities connected to tobacco manufacturing companies", "research institutions accepting tobacco funding", "third-party allies" and "lobbyists advancing industry positions". And, as if that were not enough, it also includes:
- Organizations promoting "reduced-harm" products while opposing evidence-based measures aligned with the WHO FCTC
- Entities that consistently advance tobacco industry policy positions
In other words, it includes literally everybody who disagrees with them.
The website tells the story of a French anti-smoking campaigner who was "allegedly insulted online" by somebody from an organisation called 'Angry Tobacconists'. It tells the tale of ASH Scotland's Sheila Duffy being called a "health Nazi" by FOREST and of a former Detective Chief Inspector threatening to take her to court over something (the details are not clear). And we hear about some anti-smoking activist in southeast Asia who received a 36 page letter of complaint from somebody who is apparently vaguely connected to the tobacco industry.
It certainly puts the situation in Gaza and Ukraine into perspective, doesn't it? Nobody has ever suffered like a professional tobacco control lobbyist has suffered - and all to protect human rights! (i.e. their right to tell other people how to live their lives.)
Recognising tobacco control advocates as HRDs
is not symbolic—it is a necessary step to close a serious protection
gap. It would align the field more explicitly with global justice
efforts, unlock underused legal and institutional resources...
And there we have it. Is that the sound of a cash register I can hear?
... and send a
clear message that defending health is defending human rights. As
pressure from commercial actors intensifies, the global tobacco control
community must act—not only to advance policy, but to safeguard those
advancing it.
These people are deluded beyond belief. Clive Bates puts it well in a
rapid response...
Tobacco control advocates are not defending human rights, but rather
promoting controls and limitations on the rights of others. The threats
to the safety of tobacco control activists are minimal in practice, but
the threats to millions of others from adopting a prohibitionist,
war-on-drugs posture towards safer forms of nicotine are significant.
No comments:
Post a Comment