UK Nanny State bullies family restaurants

The UK government’s nanny statist food ingredients and portion size policies are now being expanded to restaurants, cafés and pubs of all sizes.

The government plans to set sugar reduction targets, calorie caps for particular products such as chocolate bars and muffins, and push for smaller portion sizes.

If foot outlets, of any size, don’t follow the punitive guidelines they will be named and shamed – possibly on an offical government website. This comes on top of a plan announced in this year’s UK budget to introduce a “sugar tax” on soft drinks. (I have previously written for The Spectator Australia that such taxes are illiberal, ineffective and regressive.)

UK Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt is reported to have told a private meeting of over 100 food companies that he wanted to “shine a light” on non-complying companies, The Times reported in a front page story on Friday:

“We can’t ignore the changing habits of consumers. This means we expect the whole of the out-of-home sector — coffee shops, pubs and family restaurants, quick service restaurants, takeaways, cafés, contract caterers and mass catering suppliers — to step up and deliver on sugar reduction.”

Tim Wilson first wrote on FreedomWatch about Britain’s the impending portion size regulation back in 2013. At the time these were particularly targeted at larger food manufactures. The IPA’s Chris Berg has also warned in 2012 that draconian portion size regulation was recommended by the Rudd/Gillard government’s now-abolished Preventative Health Taskforce.

The basic idea that individuals should be able to choose what they consume, and restaurants allowed to decide their own ingredients and portion sizes, appears to have been lost. Instead the UK government intends to go after family restaurants that don’t comply with their arbitrary standards.

It is apparently now the role of government to decide what we are allowed to eat, and circumstances in which we can eat it.

facebooktwitter

How much does it cost to tell a joke in the UK?

It’ll be £2,000 ($3450)!

That’s what former England footballer Paul Gascoigne found out after he made a tasteless joke about a personal security guard at a show earlier this year.

Gascoigne has pleaded guilty to racially aggravated abuse in a British court, and will be forced to pay a fine for his misdeeds.

The BBC reports that the anti-joke judge expressed his approval that Gascoigne was prosecuted in the case.

Gascoigne has denied that he is racist, and apologised stating that he did not intend to cause offence.

However, under UK law that’s apparently not enough. This case sets an extraordinary precedent, dragging people through courts for making a joke!

It’s no longer clear what jokes are and are not acceptable. A judge can now arbitrarily declare what types of humour is acceptable.

As Brendan O’Neill explains in The Spectator:

[The judge] went on to tell Gazza: ‘We live in the 21st century — grow up with it or keep your mouth closed.’ This captures the tyrannical essence of the state’s clampdown on hate speech. What is being said here is that if you have not fully imbibed today’s mainstream moral outlook — in this case that it’s bad to tell racial jokes, in other cases that you shouldn’t mock Islam, make offensive gags on Twitter, or even engage in ‘uninvited verbal contact with a woman — then you should not speak publicly. You should STFU, keep your warped ideas and humour and morality to yourself, thanks. And if you don’t, then expect a knock on the door from the cops, a fine, and maybe jail. This is profoundly illiberal. Under the cover of tackling ‘hate speech’, everything from people’s humour to their moral attitudes to our everyday conversation is being intensively policed and sometimes punished. The seemingly PC war on racist, sexist and Islamophobic language has opened the door to state monitoring of thought, speech and behaviour.

facebooktwitter

Nobody actually distressed? Just say it anyway!

uni_melb_welcome

An Institute of Public Affairs freedom of information request has revealed that our universities are seeking to protect students from distress – even when it’s not clear anyone’s feelings have actually been hurt.

Back in April a furore erupted at the University of Melbourne after anti-Islam graffiti was sprawled on campus. The offensive writing included the phrases “Islam is not a race”, “Freedom of Speech”, and “Stop the Mosques”.

The graffiti was discovered before 7.30am, and immediately wiped off by students, as well as university cleaners.

Nevertheless, the little bit of chalk instigated frenzied activity within the highest echelons of the university, the IPA’s freedom of information request has discovered.

Just after midday a teleconference was convened with the chancellery, security, cleaning and media. The student union and the university co-ordinated statements.

For maximum effect the university put a statement on Facebook in the vice-chancellor’s name:

Many are aware a number of offensive slogans were written in chalk on the Parkville campus today. While the University community moved quickly to identify and remove offensive messages, they still have caused distress.

Interestingly, however, before putting out the statement the university leadership was informed by email that:

No students have come forward to UMSU (the student union) expressing personal distress arising from the chalkings and hopefully, given the very prompt cleaning… few people witnessed the slogans.

Despite no actual reports of personal distress and a quick cleaning process, the university felt the need to release a statement claiming the opposite.

The university simply assumed that somebody must have been distressed. And, as a communications strategy, published a statement accordingly.

In fact, it is likely the mass publicizing of the graffiti, giving it an audience far beyond that it was ever naturally going to achieve, may have helped establish distress that otherwise did not exist.

This series of events signals a worrying developing culture at our universities.

University administrators are being forced to spend hours of their day not on teaching and education, but rather responding to relatively minor cases of graffiti.

Meanwhile, Australian academics are using trigger warnings, seeking to protect students from emotional responses in class. It is no longer about resilience to challenging ideas, it’s about covering students with bubble wrap from the realities of life outside campus.

facebooktwitter

Australian debt control worst in G20: report

Australian_masthead_resized

The Australian economics correspondent Adam Creighton has written that Australia has the worst debt control worst in G20 ($):

Australia has shown less control over spending than any advanced G20 nation since the global financial ­crisis eight years ago and has squandered the opportunity offered by superior economic growth to gain control over its budget deficit.

A damning study by the former head of the IMF’s budget division shows the deterioration in Australia’s debt almost matched that of Italy, one of the most troubled European economies, suffering a deep recession and a blowout in interest costs.

Nations that fail to control the growth in their debt are at risk of a crisis when interest rates eventually rise, warns the study published by the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a Washington DC think tank.

Australia’s debt-to-GDP ratio fell 9.8 percentage points in the eight years leading up to the financial crisis but surged 27.1 percentage points over the eight years since the end of 2007, which was only slightly less than the average increase across Japan, Britain, the US, France, Germany, Italy, Canada and South Korea.

In principle, a government that is trying to cut debt should be keeping spending growth to no more than the overall rate of inflation, while revenue should be rising in line with nominal economic growth (the GDP plus inflation). The faster the growth, the quicker debt gets paid off.

However, the study shows Australia had instead used the best growth rate among G20 advanced nations to finance additional spending.

It shows Canberra increased real spending more than any of eight other advanced G20 governments since the end of 2007 — and by almost by double the average increase.

 

facebooktwitter

7 graphs that show we’re better off

As usual, the news is all doom and gloom. More terrorist attacks in France and police shootings in the United States. A failed military coup in Turkey empowers a tyrant. Meanwhile, household income in Australia is allegedly stagnant.

Despite all this bad news, in the history of humankind we are living extraordinarily successful lives.

It is important to sometimes sit back, and see the sunshine. Here are seven graphs from HumanProgress.org that show how far humanity has come.

Continue Reading →

facebooktwitter

Waleed Aly does not deserve a free speech prize

waleed-aly1

Liberty Victoria have just announced that broadcaster Waleed Aly will receive their annual free speech award, the Voltaire Award.

Notably, he was not awarded the prize for actually supporting free speech, but rather his “contributions to many areas crucial to public life,” including on the topics of terrorism and treatment of refugees.

Aly is not being awarded for his views on free speech because he doesn’t actually support Voltaire’s axiom: I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.

In a 2013 lecture, after giving the cursory statements in favour of free expression, he argued for retaining section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.

He used the metaphor of the free market to argue against free speech, misusing the idea of ‘market power’ to silence voices he considers powerful:

If free speech is meant to be analogous to the free market, if bad ideas are to be vanquished by good ones in the contest of ideas, then what happens where that contest scarcely exists? Really, it’s like an abuse of market power: a kind of market distortion. There is at the very least a case to be made for regulating speech in these circumstances to ensure that the discourse of the socially empowered is held accountable in some way.

He, of course, seems to miss the point that government intervention in the free speech ‘market’ is an exercise of social power by the powerful, silencing ideas one group happens to find distasteful.

Aly went on to say that society should regulate the tone of inflammatory ideas:

We can also require that, particularly in the case of dangerously inflammatory ideas, that they are conducted with a certain tone that reduces the likelihood of some manner of social explosion.

Liberty Victoria’s decision to award a free speech prize to someone who does not support free speech makes a mockery of the supposedly prestigious prize.

facebooktwitter

Trigger warnings have arrived at Australian universities

The anti-intellectual and seriously dangerous phenomena of trigger warnings has arrived at Australian universities.

The Age reported late last week that Australian lecturers have begun warning students about potentially graphic or sensitive content:

Australian academics are issuing so-called “trigger warnings” for confronting material in classrooms at the start of each semester, and before classes, to give students the chance to opt out.

These types of warnings encourage academics to not teach ideas, for fear of facing complaints, and students to ignore confronting ideas. And, as has been noted in the United States, there are serious mental health concerns about trigger warnings: they have the potential to establish fears students would otherwise not have, and encourage individuals to avoid addressing their fears.

Continue Reading →

facebooktwitter

The Greens soft drinks tax: illiberal, ineffective, regressive

Yesterday the Greens announced an illiberal, ineffective and regressive nanny state tax on sugary drinks.

I argued in The Spectator Australia’s Flat White blog against the new impost:

Taxing soft drinks, using the coercive power of the state to manipulate individual behaviour, is patently paternalistic.  The policy treats parents as fools who are unable to raise their own children, and adults as mugs incapable of making their own consumption decisions.

It would also prove ineffective at addressing obesity issues:

Although increasing the cost of soft drinks may reduce their consumption, it does little to change overall dietary decisions. If we make one product more expensive, individuals looking for a sugar hit can, and will, swap to other unhealthy drinks and food.

However perhaps the bigger injustice is who it will impact the most, the poor:

A study of French dietary habitspublished in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics found that fat taxes are “extremely regressive”. That is, they have a far bigger impact on lower income households who have the least capacity to pay for the additional impost.

Read the full post here.

facebooktwitter

Metadata mission creep? Who would have thought?

Victoria_Police

The latest proposal from Victoria Police to monitor mobile phone use highlights the danger of mission creep under mandatory metadata retention laws:

The so-called textalysers… are able to analyse metadata to determine whether someone was using their mobile phone at a specific time – while driving, for example.

… The model proposed by New York authorities involves the analysis of a mobile device’s metadata after a road incident to determine whether the device had been used in the lead up to the event.
… Privacy laws are slowing progress of the proposed new legislation, although Israeli company Cellebrite, which produces the technology, claims that the textalyser system doesn’t have the ability to read the content of text messages and social media updates, but rather to determine whether the device was used at a certain time to send text messages.

However, Australia’s new metadata retention laws, which allow for the time and basic surface details of every message sent to be stored and made available to law enforcement agencies, could speed the technology’s introduction here.

While the government justified the introduction of metadata laws largely to fight terrorism, the inherent danger with gathering mountains of personal data (beyond privacy and data security issues) is that once it exists other entities will inevitably demand access (see that list here).

In fact, the IPA’s Simon Breheny predicted this as early as 2012, and the IPA’s Chris Berg warned about the likelihood of the compulsorily acquired metadata being used for purposes other than national security at the time of its introduction in 2014:

A lot of opponents of data retention have pointed out that this creates a very real risk of unauthorised access. It’s hard to keep data secure.

Yet just as concerning is authorised access. Once these databases have been created they will be one subpoena away from access in any and every private lawsuit.

facebooktwitter

Even The Economist is acknowledging the global free speech problem

economist-front-page-smThis week’s Economist has an important expose on threats to free speech across the world.

The edition explores multiple dimensions of attacks on free speech: repression by governments, non-state actors enforcing censorship by assassination, the colliding of the American mind on campus, and the idea that certain people and groups have a right to not be offended.

Continue Reading →

facebooktwitter