Comment in solidarity to the objective of the FOREST reception

It is not right for whoever turns 18 from now on to be ineligible against his or her own wishes and rights to buy tobacco products, but only those who are already over 18 at present to be able to do so. That is the meaning of Rishi Sunak’s fixation, that it is also called adult smoking prohibition because those who are already adults until now can purchase tobacco instead of those who become 18 years old from now on who are stripped of their rights to handle their responsibilities and materialise their wishes, and are deprived of their legitimate ability to do so, even though they are called legal responsibility. That is to say that they still have the same right which is not recognised by the law, like we all have the right to smoke and therefore to smoke wherever we happen to be but exercising that right is punished by the law when it happens inside buildings, and so it is not recognised by the law. The law not recognising rights that people already have as their natural rights is not permitted by the constitution. In order to take the government to court over its anti-smoking laws that it has passed through parliament before they were approved by it, anyone must make reference to the constitution and refer to the government’s constitutional incompliance.

We should not pay any attention to commands that are issued towards us whose disobedience is exchanged with paying a fine consisting of large amounts of money, we are intelligent enough and educated enough to only admit common sense and logical arguments into our mind. The perversion of our thought that happens from executing commands because of blackmailing with fines and the punishment of the law which is false in this case is a criminal unconstitutional activity that belongs to the government.

What is logical and true instead of this is that the punishment of the law must only be directed against guilt and never be applied to innocence, and since smoking inside buildings and the like of banned activities does not return a victim who would have claimed their rights from our actions, the police is punishing these alone without a victim to support in doing so. This can go to court where the innocence of the smoker will be acknowledged, declared and ascertained by an independent observer so to speak the judge who can cancel the enforcement of the law when it does not confer justice to the citizen.

So thank you for representing us as the majority with your reception in the Houses of Parliament trying to resist what the prime minister has been hooked upon. It really sounds as his fixation that he wants to pass this draft from parliament, and to sound like that what might have happened is that Rishi Sunak may have been promised large amounts of money in exchange for making adult smoking prohibition into law by anti-smoking groups and proponent organisations. I am not saying that it happened, it might not have happened, what I am saying is that it looks likely and it could have happened.

Just imagine the prime minister receiving large amounts of money in exchange for making adult smoking prohibition into law, which is quite likely on part of anti-smoking organisations and groups. Otherwise, why does he support it and why does he insist so much? It is not part of his professional duties to restrict citizens and their actions to the extent that they are innocent and especially not to punish those innocent actions which the parliament must not do and not be allowed to do, neither is this in any of his interests, but it is in the however perverse interests of anti-smoking groups and proponents to have that happen, those who derive pleasure and satisfaction from diminishing others and limiting their capabilities to take place behind bars for their political and other of their imaginary opponents, like the tobacco industry which supplies us as the rest with our physiological needs, that they might have promised Rishi Sunak money in exchange for materialising their wishes and promoting their interests.

It was very lucky indeed that another sponsor, Giles Watling, was finally found after Philip Davies was unavailable to complete his sponsorship. It must have been very agonising to go through time with no sponsorship for our reception event on the same day it was planned for.

As far as the banner with the caricature is concerned, I believe that it was expected that they would not admit it into Westminster, because it criticises two high ranking officials in a very strong and vivid way. It could be deemed to be offensive or be misunderstood by those it impersonated.

Commented under: http://taking-liberties.squarespace.com/blog/2024/2/10/house-rules.html