Here is a piece today from the BBC News Service!
Bidding goodbye to the Gauloises
By Caroline Wyatt BBC News, Paris
What could be more French than sitting in a cafe enjoying a coffee and a cigarette, watching the world go by?
Not any more.
From Thursday, the plumes of smoke that once wreathed the great thoughts of Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus, as they puffed away at the café Les Deux Magots on the Left Bank, have been banished by the chill winds of change.
France has imposed a ban on smoking in public places, so Les Deux Magots is now strictly "non-fumeur": a smoke-free zone.
That famous French chain-smoker Serge Gainsbourg once sang an anthem to the habit, entitled "God smokes Havana cigars."
Cafe philosophy
Well, if He does, He will no longer be smoking them in this cafe nor in many others - and absolutely not in offices or government buildings.
Perhaps surprisingly, the move is backed by a majority of the French, and even by a majority of smokers.
The French writer Olivier Todd was a friend of the late, great smoker, Jean-Paul Sartre, and remembers breathing in his philosophy along with the fumes of Sartre's ever-present Gauloises in Les Deux Magots and Cafe Flore on the Left Bank.
Yet, though he feels a pang of nostalgia for the old days, Olivier Todd believes it is time for France to change.
"Those who smoke enjoy cigarettes after a meal or after making love can still do so. It's just that you won't necessarily be able to do so in a restaurant or cafe any more," he tells me, as he looks wistfully at his packet of cigarettes.
"So the ban in public places will not change things - we can still smoke in private. There will not be a revolution, a May '68 over cigarettes, that's for sure. And it will help people to give up."
French paradox
Monsieur Todd pats the nicotine chewing gum he now keeps in his top pocket as a substitute while in smoke-free areas.
For this is a typical French paradox - smoking in public places such as airports, railway stations, hospitals, offices and schools is now forbidden.
But restaurants, cafes, casinos and bars have until December to allow their customers to get used to the idea of their morning coffee without their "clop" or fag.
Yet the owner of Les Deux Magots, Catherine Mathivat, the great-grand-daughter of its original "patron", says she was keen to ban smoking as soon as possible, and is glad to be getting rid of the smoke.
"It will be good for the employees," she says, gesturing at the smartly-attired waiters.
"They are always in a smoky environment, and they get bronchitis and other diseases because of it.
"A lot of writers used to come Les Deux Magots and they used to drink a coffee or a glass of wine while they smoked, but I think that things have changed. The writers of today are not so addicted to cigarettes."
French identity
Her customers agree. Some 70% of the French support the ban, and, in these health-conscious times, customers at Les Deux Magots are appropriately philosophical about the change.
"People have started accepting the fact that smoking is not the thing to do. They have lost so many of their friends to lung cancer that they know that it means something," says Yves.
"I think it's a good thing - too many young people smoke. The ban is good for everyone," insists Rene, himself a smoker.
But in a cafe across the river, the Sarah Bernhardt on Place du Chatelet, there is one last Frenchman willing to defy the ban.
Teacher Gregory Bianchi looks around, rolls a cigarette and defiantly lights up.
"I believe in the right to fresh air, but I believe that it's also a right to smoke in a public place," he says.
"This is supposed to be a place of pleasure where you can relax, and smoking is part of that. They should have smoking restaurants and bars, and non-smoking restaurants and bars. That would be fair."
From today, thousands of French police will have the right to stop and fine smokers they catch flouting the ban, with a penalty of 68 euros or just under £50.
Nearly 16 years after his death, Serge Gainsbourg may be turning in his grave, as a little spark of French identity is finally extinguished for the greater good of the Republique's health, as France finally ends its long love affair with the cigarette.
Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/6319133.stmPublished: 2007/02/01 00:46:33 GMT© BBC MMVII
MIGHT ALBERTA BE NEXT?
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
A New Poll on a Smoking Ban Coming Soon.
The Canadian Cancer Society, Alberta Branch has done a new opinion poll on the issue of banning smoking in public places. I hear it is to be released very soon. Perhaps even as early as tomorrow! I wonder how the support stacks up and the fabled rural – urban split on the issue of banning smoking in public places?
Based on other social values research I have seen for Albertans, the rural-urban divide is very mythological, at least on a values basis. We Albertans are pretty much the same kind of people in terms of what we believe in and what we consider to be important. We may disagree on the ways and means to solve a particular problem. But we Albertans are still very closely aligned as to what the problems are and in what we consider their priority of importance.
This concurrence is pretty independent of what we do for a living or to where we live. Sure there are some occasional differences, between Edmonton and Calgary, or the north and the south opinions. There is really very little difference in our values as Albertans, based on where we live. It seems to make no real significant difference if we are either rural or urban
In the recent PC leadership campaign, “Candidate Stelmach” supported a ban on smoking in public places. But he did say it would be a final decision of Caucus. He is keeping true to that position. It is expected this issue will be dealt with (yet again) in Caucus and likely in this spring session starting February 27.
So if the majority of Albertan wants this smoking ban to happen, at least that is what past polls have said we want. And I am willing to bet the new Cancer Society poll will concur. We better let our elected representatives know how much we value our health and how important this issue is as a policy priority to be dealt with - and as soon as possible.
In any event, this is an idea whose time has come, it will not happen without a concerted political effort by Albertans. This idea has been defeated many times in prior Caucus decisions. But we have a new leader and taht always means a change. Citizens who desire a different result this time have too be mobilized, both personally and within their spheres of influence to make that change happen.
We have to get the message across to the PC Caucus by letting then know that this is an idea whose time has come. As a health wellness and disease prevention issue it is step in the right direction. From that perspective, this is not a very hard political decision for anyone to make. Let your wishes be known to MLAs all over the province. If they tell you it is a hard choice to mae, remind them that is why they are elected - to make hard choices on our behalf.
The new legislative session starts February 27th. It is timely to start writing your MLA. Call their offices. Send an email, or a snail mail is even better, in support of a smoking ban in public places in Alberta. Remember the world is run by those who show up!
Based on other social values research I have seen for Albertans, the rural-urban divide is very mythological, at least on a values basis. We Albertans are pretty much the same kind of people in terms of what we believe in and what we consider to be important. We may disagree on the ways and means to solve a particular problem. But we Albertans are still very closely aligned as to what the problems are and in what we consider their priority of importance.
This concurrence is pretty independent of what we do for a living or to where we live. Sure there are some occasional differences, between Edmonton and Calgary, or the north and the south opinions. There is really very little difference in our values as Albertans, based on where we live. It seems to make no real significant difference if we are either rural or urban
In the recent PC leadership campaign, “Candidate Stelmach” supported a ban on smoking in public places. But he did say it would be a final decision of Caucus. He is keeping true to that position. It is expected this issue will be dealt with (yet again) in Caucus and likely in this spring session starting February 27.
So if the majority of Albertan wants this smoking ban to happen, at least that is what past polls have said we want. And I am willing to bet the new Cancer Society poll will concur. We better let our elected representatives know how much we value our health and how important this issue is as a policy priority to be dealt with - and as soon as possible.
In any event, this is an idea whose time has come, it will not happen without a concerted political effort by Albertans. This idea has been defeated many times in prior Caucus decisions. But we have a new leader and taht always means a change. Citizens who desire a different result this time have too be mobilized, both personally and within their spheres of influence to make that change happen.
We have to get the message across to the PC Caucus by letting then know that this is an idea whose time has come. As a health wellness and disease prevention issue it is step in the right direction. From that perspective, this is not a very hard political decision for anyone to make. Let your wishes be known to MLAs all over the province. If they tell you it is a hard choice to mae, remind them that is why they are elected - to make hard choices on our behalf.
The new legislative session starts February 27th. It is timely to start writing your MLA. Call their offices. Send an email, or a snail mail is even better, in support of a smoking ban in public places in Alberta. Remember the world is run by those who show up!
Is Buying Political Access Becoming an Epidemic?
I was interested to read this National Post story this morning. It seems this “buying access to politicians” becoming an epidemic? If it is not to pay off campaign debts, it is to fund a think tank, this time the Fraser Institute, a registered charity. Interesting that the political types are backing off, partly I expect due to the $11,000 per delegate price that has been put on the politician’s heads is a sobering influence.
What if the Fraser Institute simply set up an open conference with delegate registration fees and asked these powerful people to speak? That would be buying access too but not likely on an invitation only big ticket “unique excursion” basis.
Buying access happens all the time at charity fundraising events in the form of people bidding on donated fishing trips, golf games and dinners in “auctions.” The attraction of these events are the fact a politician has agreed to “donate their time” to be in attendance. The proceeds do not go to political purposes but to the benefit of the sponsoring charity or institution. Those events are usually very public and easy to see who “bought” the time BUT it is still someone buying access to powerful people.
I wonder if this kind of buying and selling of access via charity donations will become part of the scope of the new Lobbyist and Contractor Registry? That legislation is Premier Stelmach’s flagship legislation as Bill 1 in February? It might not be a bad idea in terms of integrity and transparency.
What if the Fraser Institute simply set up an open conference with delegate registration fees and asked these powerful people to speak? That would be buying access too but not likely on an invitation only big ticket “unique excursion” basis.
Buying access happens all the time at charity fundraising events in the form of people bidding on donated fishing trips, golf games and dinners in “auctions.” The attraction of these events are the fact a politician has agreed to “donate their time” to be in attendance. The proceeds do not go to political purposes but to the benefit of the sponsoring charity or institution. Those events are usually very public and easy to see who “bought” the time BUT it is still someone buying access to powerful people.
I wonder if this kind of buying and selling of access via charity donations will become part of the scope of the new Lobbyist and Contractor Registry? That legislation is Premier Stelmach’s flagship legislation as Bill 1 in February? It might not be a bad idea in terms of integrity and transparency.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
There are some Clever Remixes on the Tacky Ads
Jason Cherniak has done a clever take on the Cons job on Dion on his January 29th posting. Clever and funny...and thank what ever omnipresent opmnipotent spritual being that you subscribe to for the freedom and fun of the Internet.
Well done Jason.
...and here is another one - author unknown but perspicatious none the less. What did we eer do before the parallel universe of the Internet?
Well done Jason.
...and here is another one - author unknown but perspicatious none the less. What did we eer do before the parallel universe of the Internet?
Harper and Layton: Alliance or Dalliance?
Alliances and Dalliances
I love the political backroom gavotte going on between the Cons and the Dippers over their principles and which ones they will trade offs or defer between getting the budget passed and getting serious changed around environment policy.
We will have to wait and see if this is an alliance or a dalliance.
On the other hand can we soon expect another couple take to the political dance floor? Will the Libs and the Greens embrace in a struggle to see which one will actually lead in the environment agenda? I don't expect May to give up the "lead" in their dance or on the issues to Dion. She will no doubt make him work harder and look even better on the issues before the music stops and the election is called.
Citizens have yet to decide who they will actually trust and respect on the environment and climate change issues. Will it be Scowling Steve and/or Smiling Jack? Such an interesting and intense couple. Is the winner going to be Studious Stephane and/or Effervescent Elizabeth? They are earnest and energetic for sure...effective - well that is still an open question
That leaves Jilted Gilles looking for someone - anyone to pay attention to him. He faces the music alone and will come to realize that the environment trumps his aspirations for more equalization money as the dominant political issue - even in Quebec.
More on Manning's Musings:
I see Jeffery Simpson in the Globe and Mail today picked up on the Manning Op-Ed piece I posted on last Monday. He mentions the “attack ads” and the ironic timing of his message that we citizens should be showing our lack of tolerance for extremism and then the Cons launch their attack ads outside of the election cycle.
Simpson calls the ads “crude and rude.” He might soon be adding to the rhyme scheme and include “sued.” Some commentary is around that the Cons “tacky ad” content misused copyright material that is the property of others. That would be an interesting development if the content is challenged over copyright. I can see the blogosphere quips about the Cons misuse of "intellectual" property in the context of the attack ads.
Another One Bites the Dust:
So Johanne Gelinas, the Environment Commissioner has been “replaced” because her report last September criticized the former Lib and the current Cons over in actions on climate change. The reason for her departure is that her report smacked of advocacy instead of auditing. I didn’t know she reported to the Auditor General and apparently the two did not see eye to eye on things. Too bad. She was a breath of fresh air in her frankness.
Perhaps this role needs to be a separate office that reports directly to Parliament. Then it could be independent enough to audit and advocate by making recommendations for performance changes and improvements in how environment policy is being implemented.
We have seen the Chief Electoral Officer leave under a cloud of interference and now the Environment Commissioner is bounced. I hope there was no political interference in either decision. The controlling nature of the PMO is not reassuring in that regard. Two incidents do not make a trend but you have to wonder if there a pattern forming here and how much of a chill this puts on the senior bureaucracy.
Eco-pets:
I see the Cons are making merry in Question Period over the name of Dion’s dog, “Kyoto.” Perhaps Harper should get a pet Polar Bear and name him “Endangered.” That would symbolically show Steve's soft side and just how much he cares about climate change too.
I love the political backroom gavotte going on between the Cons and the Dippers over their principles and which ones they will trade offs or defer between getting the budget passed and getting serious changed around environment policy.
We will have to wait and see if this is an alliance or a dalliance.
On the other hand can we soon expect another couple take to the political dance floor? Will the Libs and the Greens embrace in a struggle to see which one will actually lead in the environment agenda? I don't expect May to give up the "lead" in their dance or on the issues to Dion. She will no doubt make him work harder and look even better on the issues before the music stops and the election is called.
Citizens have yet to decide who they will actually trust and respect on the environment and climate change issues. Will it be Scowling Steve and/or Smiling Jack? Such an interesting and intense couple. Is the winner going to be Studious Stephane and/or Effervescent Elizabeth? They are earnest and energetic for sure...effective - well that is still an open question
That leaves Jilted Gilles looking for someone - anyone to pay attention to him. He faces the music alone and will come to realize that the environment trumps his aspirations for more equalization money as the dominant political issue - even in Quebec.
More on Manning's Musings:
I see Jeffery Simpson in the Globe and Mail today picked up on the Manning Op-Ed piece I posted on last Monday. He mentions the “attack ads” and the ironic timing of his message that we citizens should be showing our lack of tolerance for extremism and then the Cons launch their attack ads outside of the election cycle.
Simpson calls the ads “crude and rude.” He might soon be adding to the rhyme scheme and include “sued.” Some commentary is around that the Cons “tacky ad” content misused copyright material that is the property of others. That would be an interesting development if the content is challenged over copyright. I can see the blogosphere quips about the Cons misuse of "intellectual" property in the context of the attack ads.
Another One Bites the Dust:
So Johanne Gelinas, the Environment Commissioner has been “replaced” because her report last September criticized the former Lib and the current Cons over in actions on climate change. The reason for her departure is that her report smacked of advocacy instead of auditing. I didn’t know she reported to the Auditor General and apparently the two did not see eye to eye on things. Too bad. She was a breath of fresh air in her frankness.
Perhaps this role needs to be a separate office that reports directly to Parliament. Then it could be independent enough to audit and advocate by making recommendations for performance changes and improvements in how environment policy is being implemented.
We have seen the Chief Electoral Officer leave under a cloud of interference and now the Environment Commissioner is bounced. I hope there was no political interference in either decision. The controlling nature of the PMO is not reassuring in that regard. Two incidents do not make a trend but you have to wonder if there a pattern forming here and how much of a chill this puts on the senior bureaucracy.
Eco-pets:
I see the Cons are making merry in Question Period over the name of Dion’s dog, “Kyoto.” Perhaps Harper should get a pet Polar Bear and name him “Endangered.” That would symbolically show Steve's soft side and just how much he cares about climate change too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)