Awaiting the Small Tax on Tea

AWAITING THE SMALL TAX ON TEA

by Jane Gaffin
February, 2004

WHITEHORSE, Yukonslavia - City council did it this time, as evidenced by the fed-up residents who stream into Monday night meetings to defend their rights against a bunch of politically-correct masters.

Somebody can get hurt--even die--over ill-conceived bylaws.

Government decision-makers always dismiss the argument as unrealistic: "We're not going to be shooting anybody for smoking in public."

Maybe you're not. But somebody might.

An irritated customer killed a bouncer who told him to butt out when New York first brought in its smoking bylaws.

Human nature is human nature. Another community imposing identical half-baked laws can expect the same consequences when dictating what private entrepreneurs can and cannot do in their own establishment.

Most disgruntled customers wouldn't go to such extremes as homicide but would be more prone just to trash the place.

Residents didn't settle here "to think and do things the way they do Outside". Regardless of how apathetic, Yukoners, who came here to escape this type bilge, will only be pushed so far before they bare fangs and bite back. These so-called authoritarians running around loose off their leashes are a threat to our public safety.

As a nifty reminder in history, Colonists had migrated to America to live free or die. But the British government kept pushing, pushing, pushing. One day, it imposed a seemingly-innocuous tax on tea.

The fed-up Colonists threw the goods overboard in Boston Harbor, then ran home for their muskets. The "proverbial straw" sparked the American Revolution that did not need to be.

Governments haven't changed. Every day, another aggravating scheme is brought forward by some do-gooder to make people safer, healthier and to protect us from ourselves.

There are even common-sense non-smokers who are extremely agitated with city council's latest display of fascism. It has also been applied to retired folks who like to play Bingo in private halls and raise money for charity.

Those seemingly-innocuous, well-intentioned laws supposedly only carry fines. To evaluate whether violation of a law ought to be a crime, first we must ask:

"Are we really willing to shoot someone over it?"

What if Yukoners are so fed up with being nitpicked to death by nanny-statism that they just snap one day? What if people refuse to obey any more stupid laws?

What if people refuse to pay their fines? What if people refuse to allow enforcement officers in their establishments and homes?

What if people go into such a mouth-foaming rage they choose to stand up and fight to the finish rather than be taken alive?

At that point, whichever level of government passed the seemingly innocuous law will have blood on its hands.

No matter how high-minded and uplifting the law sounds, laws have to be enforced, otherwise they are useless and breed contempt for the law.

Martin Luther King, Jr. said: "One who breaks an unjust law that conscience tells him is unjust is in reality expressing the highest respect for law...We will not obey..."

There are any number of incidents to explore. One was of 20-year-old Timothy Thomas killed for not wearing his seat belt.

The Cincinnati, Ohio, lad hadn't paid any of his tickets and refused to respond to court orders. When pulled over, the police only knew there was a warrant for his arrest. They didn't know it was only a seat-belt violation.

He refused to be arrested. He led them on a merry chase, then pulled over and bolted down an alley, where the police shot and killed the youth. He was not armed but he was black. The killing sparked a race riot.

He died--not because of the police, per se--but because he was resisting authoritarians dictating what he had to do to protect himself from harm. He died because the government denied him his right to free choice.

Whenever anybody wants to dictate what the guy next door can and cannot do, or think they're improving everybody else's health and well-being by forcing people to comply with their snobbish ideas, then the politicians, bureaucrats, general public--even government-owned physicians who practice politics in the spirit of public safety (helmets, seat belts, gun prohibition, non-smoking, fat-and-alcohol free diets)--need first to answer a sobering question:

"Am I really willing to see somebody shot for this law?"

Personally, I'd like to own a restaurant right now. I wouldn't enforce the law free of charge for any government body, any more than did Vancouver cab drivers when seat belt laws were pushed on them. The cabbies advise that buckling up is my choice. Thank you.

As for the smoking ban, I wouldn't waste time going before city council pleading that my business was going bust. The government relishes that news.

Its objective is to put private entrepreneurs out of the free-market business so all restaurants, bars, supermarkets, department stores can be government-operated, along with the health-care system, power-generation, resource development, news broadcasting, Internet, and so forth.

I'm tired of government trying to make me an obedient Stalinist slave, who has to bow to the whims of so-called elitist political masters.

I'd bring out the ash trays in my restaurant, run ads in the media, put out billboards and hang signs in the windows: "Smokers Welcome!"

Patrons would be met at the door. "Puffer or non-puffer?"

If non-puffers appear, they'd be advised to move along out of the smoking haven to any number of smoke-free places replete with dull people who'll never make the grade for artist Jim Robb's exclusive Colourful Five Percent club.

If the non-smokers chose to stay because I served great grub, the non-smoking patrons may be required to sign a waiver to dissuade them from suing over their next ingrown toenail that they might blame on "second-hand smoke".

Consideration also could be given to locking the doors and turning the place into a private club, like the exclusive clubs Canadian Pacific Airlines operated in airports in the good ol'days.

They were reminiscent of bootleg and bottle joints of the alcohol-prohibition era.

Some were nice; some were sin dens. Bootleg establishments are making a popular comeback due to municipal smoking bans across Canada.

Of course, Whitehorse no longer dares march to the beat of its own drummer as in a by-gone era. No. Whitehorse is so unimaginative, the leaders can only follow the crowd.

In a closed joint, club members would be required to purchase a plastic latch card annually. Paying members would be allowed to bring along a certain number of non-member guests, similar to CP's policy in its elitist lounges.

The only hazard to locking doors, however, is that unwelcome Ninja-style SWAT heros like busting them down for fun occasionally.

Business would be too brisk for me to have time to trot over to city hall every Monday night. In fact, I'd probably have to expand the facilities. Rather than lay off staff, I'd be hiring more.

So, buck it.

What is the worse case scenario to expect?

Are the bylaw enforcement officers going to shoot the owner? Or will the bylaw officers elicit assistance from the police to shoot the owner?

I daresay, the penalty for sinning against the city bullies would be a fine.

The Association of Restaurant and Bar Owners could gather all the tickets from various entrepreneurs and private clubs that run Bingo games.

The debate should be challenged in court over and over again until these moralistic do-gooders get the message.

I can guarantee without reading the smoking bylaw that it is not written properly. Otherwise, why was the city's enforcement section soliciting cooperation from restaurant owners?

There was also confusion over whether the bylaw pertained to home-based businesses.

Not a chance, honey.

Somebody will definitely get hurt if enforcement officers with or without search warrants start invading private homes to check for a cigarette butt or sniff the air like a dog in heat for the whiff of stale smoke. (Smart smokers burn candles!)

The city says the smoking ban is in restaurants and all public places. If restaurants are considered public places, so are bars and lounges.

But they really aren't public places unless the government has pulled a regulatory taking, which wouldn't surprise me.

Public places are defined as government-owned property where members of the public congregate. Malls, restaurants and bars do not constitute public property.

These so-called "public places" are only public in the sense that the public is invited to congregate on the premises.

The only way private property or a private business can be turned into public property of a public business is for a government to purchase, inherit or confiscate it. This is the plan, but it hasn't happened yet.

A city bylaw--the lowest law on the totem pole--can't do it legally. (A case that challenges the definition of "public place" is presently before the court in Yellowknife, NWT).

Restaurants are actually real estate whose use by members of the public is open to the highest bidder. Smokers and non-smokers compete to rent table space. Smoking bans discriminate against smokers who are prevented from bidding on restaurant space.

State-imposed discrimination allows non-smoking restaurants to discriminate against smokers. Yet smokers' restaurants aren't allowed to discriminate against non-smokers.

Discrimination is not "legal", so say our courts.

I don't give a whit whether a person likes smoking or doesn't. I say personal choice has to be maintained, otherwise every government will keep pushing, pushing, pushing, passing sillier prohibition laws until somebody gets hurt.

I know from experience that when ordinary citizens push, authorities back off. They are cowards. They only push until they meet a wall of resistance.

Thumb your nose at the fascists who want to dictate how private risk-takers are expected to behave. Bring out the ash trays if you want to allow smoking in your establishment.

You might have to raise prices to offset fines, court costs, ventilation systems, but probably not your funeral.

Guaranteed, your restaurant will fill up with both brands of supporters who will have a desire to uphold civil rights and strike back against fascism.

Now, excuse me, I'm going across the street for a healthy Buffalo Cheese Burger, a bowl of salty soup, a side dish of ash tray and await the brilliant political masters to impose a small, seemingly-innocuous tax on tea.

-- 30 --