One week ago my 'hackles were raised' by The Peak's Last Word, entitled "American style libertarianism or social anarchy". I believe there are six things wrong with Matt Sturrock's argument.

First, it's beyond me why Sturrock would include examples of the proposed busking legislation and the new city parking by- laws in an article supposedly devoted to criticizing the "mild", "paternalistic", "tutelary" tendencies of the Canadian government. As Sturrock himself states, not "[e]ven the government's legions of toadies and spin doctors could" construe the new parking by-laws as anything but a money grab. As for the example of the proposed busking legislation, I feel it's safe to say that one couldn't find a better example of a piece of legislation that's so out of step with the paternalistic mindset as this one.

Second, Sturrock's treatment of the smoking by-laws is incomplete. He only considers those people who patron bars and restaurants-not those who have to work in those smoke- filled places. Consequently, Sturrock gets away with not considering the possibility that not everyone who spends time in smoke-filled restaurants and bars does so of their own choosing. Some people do not 'choose' to work in restaurants or bars, but are forced to take on such jobs due to economic necessity (e.g. students). It should also be pointed out that many restaurant workers cannot choose whether or not they work in a non-smoking section; they have no choice but to expose themselves to second hand smoke. Moreover, in the vast majority of cases it is not the worker who decides about working in the smoking section, but the manger. All a server or a busser can do is to put in a request to work in the non-smoking section.

Third, I believe the whole issue of smoke-free restaurants and bars is really about the government's obligation to provide a safe workplace and has very little to do with the banal issue of whether one has the 'right' to light up in such places.

My reasoning is as follows. (1) I assume that many people would agree that when it is discovered that a particular job site is unduly dangerous, employers should have to take steps to rectify the situation. For example, if as a result of a coroner's investigation into two deaths at a cement factory, it was determined that the chance of anyone else dying in a like fashion could be eliminated if the owners of that factory did x y and z, then I assume that many people would go along with me in saying that the owners of that factory should be forced to do x, y, and z. (2) I propose that if this law is to be effective, then this law must be applied evenly. (3) Given that there is a good deal of medical literature suggesting that second hand smoke is very dangerous, we have every reason to believe that smoke in bars and restaurants poses a threat people who work in such places. (4) It goes without saying that the owners of restaurants and bars have the power to ensure that none of their employees are exposed to second hand smoke. (5) Given points 2, 3 and 4, those who agree with me about 1 should agree with my belief that the government should ban smoking in all restaurants and bars.

Fourth, it is not at all clear how common sense legislation systematically erodes "our understanding of accountability". Sturrock's assumption does not bother to lay out just why such legislation is potentially harmful. Fifth, Sturrock offers no evidence to back up his claim that "[p]unitive measures by the government are becoming the sole criteria by which we decide whether to engage in certain activities or not." He simply takes a shot in the dark. Sixth, although no one has come to Matt Sturrock's house to lead him away in handcuffs in front of his teary-eyed mother for failing to pay his unpaid tickets and fines, it is far from obvious that the reason why this is so is because the "system is too clogged to chase after the little offenders." I can think of many other plausible explanations for why no one has come after him; if we go along with Sturrock's explanation that the main reason the government issues tickets and fines people is to add to the government coffers, then we might hypothesize that the reason why no one goes after him is that some technocrat figured out that the government would make more money (by reduced labour costs say) if they simply left those who failed to pay their tickets and fines alone.

[back to the top]

[back to issue 2]