Spoiler alert.
This afternoon I was contacted by a journalist who is writing a report for a national newspaper. The article will claim that pro-smoking activists are using inflammatory language to intimidate and even threaten tobacco control campaigners.
In particular I was asked to comment on a post published last year by blogger Frank Davis. Entitled Letter to Linda it was an open letter to Linda Bauld, professor of socio-management at Stirling University’s Institute for Social Marketing.
I linked to it here and described it as "stunning". I hope this doesn't come back to haunt me! It would be ironic if it did because Frank and I differ enormously on what we consider to be appropriate language in the context of smoking. (See Frank's post Antismoking Nazis.)
On reflection a better word might have been "powerful" because it is hard-hitting yet articulate, which is a powerful combination. It's certainly uncompromising and I was asked whether I thought some of the language is acceptable.
I was also asked what I think about pro-smokers calling anti-smokers "Nazis". Most of you know what I think because I have written about this before but I wanted to make sure there was no opportunity for confusion. So I sent an email that included the following quotes:
We would never condone threats of any kind, nor do we encourage inflammatory language.
The blog in question does not represent our views but it is representative of a small and increasingly vocal minority who are angry at the excessive nature of the smoking ban and the never-ending measures designed to denormalise both smokers and their habit.
Since the smoking ban many smokers feel excluded from the legislative process and disfranchised from the political system because none of the main parties appear to be listening to them.
We don't condone it but it is hardly surprising if their frustration occasionally bubbles over and is expressed in colourful or sometimes inappropriate language.
Regarding those 'Nazis' references, I repeated what I have previously written on this blog:
I certainly don't condone personal abuse or loose jibes about Nazis in relation to tobacco control ... As I have said many times, repeated references to a totalitarian regime that slaughtered six million Jews is inappropriate and embarrassing in relation to tobacco control. In terms of building support for our cause, it is entirely counter-productive.
I then changed tack and made the point that:
It is laughable that the tobacco control industry is trying to present itself as a victim of "intimidation" by the tobacco lobby or, indeed, a handful of online activists.
It is smokers and anyone who works for the tobacco lobby who should feel intimidated, and with good reason. Smokers are being denied jobs because of their habit. Communities and people's social lives have been damaged by the loss of thousands of pubs and clubs since the ban was introduced.
Smokers are told that "passive smoking kills" when there is very little evidence that it does. They are targeted with slogans such as "If you smoke you stink".
The bully state has replaced the nanny state. Coercion has taken over from education."
I also referred them to the post I wrote on Monday: Bullying, intimidation and censorship - the dark arts of Tobacco Control.
Finally, I added:
I am very keen that our position in relation to this issue is quite clear and will not be misrepresented in your report. Likewise I hope you can find space for the counter argument that accusations of "intimidation" are far more relevant to the treatment of smokers by tobacco control than they are to either smokers or the tobacco lobby.
Let's wait and see what the report actually says but my concern is that it may cast us in the worst possible light. This is one of the reasons why I repeatedly urge people on this blog and and elsewhere to moderate their language and avoid targeting individuals in a personal or vindictive way.
Call me old-fashioned but if we want to win people over we have to win the battle of ideas not the shouting match that accompanies it.
Update: The Guardian - the paper that contacted me - has the story here: Pro-smoking activists threaten and harass health campaigners - "security stepped up for tobacco control group as abuse grows amid moves to make cigarette packets plain".
Update: Dick Puddlecote, who is mentioned in the Guardian report, responds here.
Update: See also Frank Davis, Pat Nurse and Belinda.