"There is some suggestion that what you do in your own home doesn't really matter. That you can drink yourself to oblivion and it's your right. I think there are two arguments against that.
"First, we don't simply allow people to do anything they want. We don't allow people to watch internet porn relating to children or some other vile matters in their own home because it impacts on others. We don't allow people to consume recreational drugs in their own home because they want to and they say it won't do any harm.
"There are things that we decide as a society, and as a Government, as a Parliament, that are inappropriate. That's why we say that there has to be a speed limit, that there have to be restrictions on illicit substances, that there have to be constraints on pornography. These things, some argue, are harmless. No, they are not. And secondly what we have to say is that the abuse of alcohol by an individual in their own house does impact on others."
So says Kenny MacAskill, now nicknamed Kenny MacAskilljoy by Scotland on Sunday in defence of the SNP's latest policy initiatives regarding alcohol consumption. I thought the quote would have to be given in full and I just find it unbelievable that such far reaching comparisons were made. In this statement Mr MacAskill does appear to be lumping all home consumers of alcohol with child pornographers, illegal drug takes and speed fiends on our roads. While these three all do hold serious consequences either for the person involved or others drinking at home does not always affect others adversely.
So while Mr MacAskill does seem to pointing out the extremes of drinking at home and how it affects others surely this is covered under domestic violence legislation etc. The plans to raise costs, ages of purchasing from off licences are not going to affect these hard core drinkers he seems out to stop. They have a disease which needs treating, these actions aren't going to affect their ability or willingness to get hold of their daily does of alcohol. What all these plans does do is inconvenience the mild drinkers disproportionately. Don't label all at home drinkers along with child pornographers or shooting up drug addicts, that is overkill, using the same fear tactics that Labour seem so prone to push to when nobody else will agree with them.
Firstly we should allow people to do whatever drugs they like in their home - it is up to them.
ReplyDeleteIf they hurt someone else whilst doing them then that is what is wrong, not taking them in the first place.
Same with drinking. If you get into a drunken brawl then you should be punished for that, or if you vomit on someone's carpet you should pay the costs. But if its your own carpet or you hurt yourself- you don't owe anything to anyone else.
Society cannot decide anything, the government decides things and then forces them upon us at gunpoint. Society does not exist as a coherent entity at the national level, there are local communities which do dictate standards upon people - but if you don't like it you can leave, they are voluntary associations (and very important ones).
There don't have to be any restrictions on behaviour other than restricting the initiation of force or the threat of that.
We have sanctions against creating real child porn because that involves initiating force upon the children involved.
There's a ban upon extreme porn because those in power find it distasteful.
There's a massive difference there. One involves causing uninvited harm, the other involves possible harm, but that is consented to.
Stephen,
ReplyDeleteI strongly disagree with your take on Kenny's comments. I'd go as far as to say it's a typically tabloid twist on a fairly innocuous statement (but then, I have always enjoyed a good bit of alliteration)
My impression was that Kenny was using the 'extreme' example of child porn to make his point that the much-less-extreme drinking at home can affect society at large.
I think you have to be seriously mistaken (or just downright mischievous) to suggest Kenny is lumping "all at home drinkers along with child pornographers"
It's perfectly fair to disagree with the policy (of course) but to contort/misread a person's meaning like this is a poor show...
Jeff he said it in the Scotland on Sunday hardly a tabloid. I gave a rare, for me, full three paragraph quote to avoid being accused of taking it out of context.
ReplyDeleteAs Iris Robinson recently decided to stem the flow of criticism against her homophobic comments by comparing gays to murders in one sentence I don't think Kenny was using an approriate parallel. Speeding possibly is an equivalnet the other two are not.
I'm all for drawing appropiate comparisons. I think Macaskill in this case only mentioned child pornography for his own ends to get the headlines. It is not the same in any shape or form. Yes there are extremes in alcohol consumption, not confined to the home.
If the SNP were seriously considering drinking at home in purely an healt stand point they should have dealt with smoking together in one package they have not. I did point out early last week that some of these proposals are pushing if not edging outside the envelope, for possible ulterior motives, of what Scotland can do under devolved powers.
Hmm, it's not the SoS text that I am querying, it is your interpretation of it.
ReplyDeleteHe quite clearly is not labelling all at home drinkers as bad as child pornographers. He is just using the extreme of child pornography to make a valid point that there are impacts of drinking at home that stretch beyond peoples' front door.
And whether the Scotland on Sunday is 'tabloid' is also up for discussion ;)
Finally, I hope you are able to spot the irony in this paragraph of yours:
As Iris Robinson recently decided to stem the flow of criticism against her homophobic comments by comparing gays to murders in one sentence I don't think Kenny was using an approriate parallel. Speeding possibly is an equivalnet the other two are not.
(Clue - Kenny's 'sins' are certainly not as heavy as Iris'. Hence an inappropriate parallel from yourself I fear...)
Far points Jeff. However the hpying up of the comparison was not initiated by me, but from Macaskill's mouth. He drew the comparison for whatever reason. He was asked by SoS to clarify his comments but they came out.
ReplyDeleteAsking oneself what was Kenny in his pre-politics full time life; a lawyer. Therefore unlike Mrs Robinson he is an expert in the field he is in charge of. He knows the differences in law between the various aspects he was pulling together. Hardly inappropraite as he has more knowledge than her, especially as I never attacked her right to hold the views merely expressing them from her position of authority merely as chair of the committee not the minster in charge.
I stand by the statement that for him to hgave initially compared the two was totally over the top as far as comparisons go. While alcohol is also classed as a drug although a lower class of one to the ones he associates them there is some justification in comparison however the ones he draws on are the extremes.
This is a truly bizarre parallel drawn by someone who should know better; regulate drinking like child porn is regulated? Come on..!
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me he's no different than those who proposed not just the 42, but the 90 day detention measures. Both seek to curtail our liberties, and neither is justifiable.