From: Craig Anctil
To:
mailto:mfriscolanti@nationalpost.com
Sent:
Saturday, February 23, 2002
Subject: Re: Woman denied job because she
smokes.
Dear Michael:
Regarding your article in Saturday's (Feb. 23, 2002)
paper.
http://www.nationalpost.com/home/story.html?f=/stories/20020223/145297.html
What I am wondering is if this practice against smokers is perfectly acceptable:
1. Should all politicians, who
are supposed to set a glowing example for our youth, and all of us "little"
people be fired because they smoke? Case in point : Our new (federal) health
minister, Anne MacLellan, admits to being an occasional smoker (Vancouver
Province Newspaper page A6 Feb. 22 2002.) Should she be fired? Should any
politician who smokes be fired? Why not ? They don't mind destroying people's
livelihoods with unwanted 100% indoor smoking bans in private
businesses.
Lead by example. Corky
Evans NDP, ex-NDP health minister: chain-smoker; WCB 100% zero tolerance,
province-wide smoking ban backer. Thankfully, this hypocrite was not
re-elected. Smoking in his office in the legislature, his workplace, and
telling hospitality business owners they could not allow smoking in their
places of work. "What's good for the goose, is good for the gander." Fire all
smokers - and drinkers too! Bye, bye...Ralph Klein! (Alberta's Premier) Not
just an occasional drinker, a true problem drinker. "Off with his head!"
2. Should any politician who
helps to enact a 100% indoor smoking ban or bylaw based on only junk science,
in the name of political correctness, that cripples or destroys a business
owner's or employee's livelihood be dismissed and or sued by the negatively
affected parties? If not, why not?
Second-hand smoke is an unproven 'health risk'. Even
if it was such a danger, the fact remains that no one is putting a gun to
anyone's head forcing them to patronize or work in a smoke-filled business. If
health is really the basis for such smoking regulations a ventilation solution
could minimize virtually any health risks, that is if they really existed.
So far modern science has failed to prove second-hand smoke is even a
measurable health concern. Not one death has ever been attributed to
second-hand smoke (world-wide). State-of-the-art ventilation systems can remove
up to 99% of second-hand smoke in a hospitality venue. That isn't good enough?
Even though the indoor air is rendered cleaner than the air outside the
building, that is not acceptable?
Not one person should lose their job
or business because of government enforced smoking bans or bylaws in the
hospitality industry. Tobacco remains a legal product. Hospitality venues are
NOT public places. They are private businesses that allow the public access. If
the public does not like smoking or non-smoking businesses they can go
elsewhere. The market and owner's choice, not politically correct government
should dictate smoking or non-smoking in hospitality industry
establishments.
3.
When I read the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it clearly
states activities that are currently ongoing where smoking and smokers are
concerned which define the term "Hate-Crime." Smokers sure fit the bill in this
regard. They are a minority that is being flagrantly discriminated against
through outrageous taxes, Nazi-like hatred, shame and humiliation campaigns
carried out by anti-smoking groups in the name of money under the guise of
health.
Now we have these anti-smoking hiring practices. Some
religions regard tobacco use as sacred. "The Charter" supports those rights. It
would be flagrant discrimination to deny any person of a religious faith their
rights to use tobacco, especially on their own time. Funny how all other
"lifestyle" choices seem to be tolerated by Canadian human rights in the
charter.
Only smokers may be persecuted.
Hopefully someone will challenge these politically correct hate-mongers. I would guarantee you after reading this story, many smokers and non-smokers alike will no longer donate to the Lung Association in Saskatchewan.
I hope Shelly Freeland follows through with her complaint to human rights. I wish her luck. If she is of native origin she would have even a better case. Many third nations tribes consider tobacco use a sacred rite. The Charter would protect her right to smoke or use tobacco. Smokers, their family members and non-smokers who respect freedom of choice and democracy in this country are mad as hell.
Politically correct anti-smoking stances do not wash in a free society, especially in a country that reaps billions of dollars in tax monies from the "evil" tobacco industry. The federal and provincial governments are the senior partners of "Big Tobacco." Since 3/4 of the cost of every package of tobacco is government tax revenues, who are the real "Merchants of Death"? It's not "small tobacco"; the answer is "Big Government."
They should either ban this "evil" product outright, sales and production thereof, or forever hold their peace. Sadly, our governments are more addicted tobacco dollars than smokers are to this 'toxic', yet still legal product.
Regards,
Craig Anctil
Burnaby,
B.C. Canada