The Pen Vs The Sword
One of the first moves of a regime averse to criticism is to imprison or ‘liquidate’ its critics; traditionally, these tend to be political opponents, a tradition Mr Putin is proudly upholding in Russia at the moment. However, artists and intellectuals who have a frustrating habit of masking their criticisms in allegorical ambiguity are also perennial thorns in the totalitarian side. Back in the Soviet era, author Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn had spent time in a Gulag and brought the conditions there to the attention of those in the west who had turned a blind eye to Stalin’s suppression; he was eventually expelled from his homeland, even if that’s something that might seem like a relatively humane sentence in retrospect. More recently, however, the Chinese authorities have made a similar example of conceptual artist Ai Weiwei, demonstrating once again how the individual voice singing from a different hymn sheet to the mass chorus has a habit of spoiling the common song.
Last week, Ananta Bijoy Das was murdered in Bangladesh, ambushed outside his home by four masked men wielding machetes who hacked him to death in broad daylight on a bustling street. He wasn’t a major political activist or noted agent provocateur on a government hit-list, merely a man who does what I and other contributors to this blog do – a blogger interested in the issues of the day and exercising his right to free speech by occasionally criticising them. His criticisms were fairly mild and tended to offer suggestions for an alternative within them; being a native of a country that is currently engaged in a cultural war between primitive Islamic fundamentalists and secular moderates, it was only natural Das should discuss such relevant topics on his blog; but in daring to do so, he has lost his life.
Sadly, his case isn’t unique. Ananta Bijoy Das was the third Bangladeshi blogger to be slaughtered in the space of three months, following the murders of Avijit Roy and Washiqur Rahman in February and March respectively. With tragic irony, Das had criticised the sluggish police response to the previous murders on his blog, and his own case suffered a similar reaction from the forces of law and order in a part of the world where police and political corruption are endemic. But it was Das’s temerity in his critiques of Radical Islam and its governmental appeasers that sealed his fate, even if the gruesome outcome of voicing an opinion labelled liberal and atheist because it challenges enforced interpretations of religious texts is nothing new in Bangladesh’s recent history. Attacks on outspoken writers and bloggers have increased over the past three or four years, making the simple act of writing one that appears to require danger money.
Lest we forget, the heinous crime of caricature is another one that can provoke bloody retaliation, as was highlighted in such a ghastly fashion at the Paris HQ of ‘Charlie Hebdo’ magazine earlier this year. Although none of these terrible killings were carried out by agents of a despotic government, the aim of the organisations responsible is identical to that of a North Korea or USSR, to silence dissenting voices with brute force. Because events in Paris were carried out on European soil in a civilised country that has nevertheless spilled its fair share of blood over the centuries, the attention it received was worldwide – less so equally awful events in Bangladesh; but both mark an especially worrying development for freedom of speech.
I think free speech is viewed by democratically elected governments as fine in theory but more problematic in practice; the show of support by world leaders on the streets of Paris in the wake of the ‘Charlie Hebdo’ massacre appeared admirable, but it’s worth remembering that many of those world leaders who stood shoulder-to-shoulder in defence of free speech head administrations that sanction the tapping of phones, the monitoring of internet traffic and listening-in on their alleged allies’ private conversations. Indeed, David Cameron’s first task upon returning from Paris was to emphasise the urgent need to legislate for the so-called ‘snoopers’ charter’, ensuring free speech is okay as long as the government gets to see it even if it’s not intended for public consumption.
Whilst the punishment dished out to enemies of the state or critics of religion is particularly brutal today, there is a long history of such responses that suggest they will always be with us. John Wilkes was an eighteenth century radical journalist and libertine politician who was arrested for seditious libel after ridiculing the recent King’s Speech in print; although he craftily avoided imprisonment by calling on parliamentary privilege, he was later branded an outlaw after publishing a poem deemed obscene, a judgement that provoked a flight to France. When Wilkes eventually returned to Britain, he was gaoled and expelled from Parliament, though he continued to be an irritant to the authorities. From today’s perspective, the cat-and-mouse battles between Wilkes and the powers-that-be seem almost comic, but were Wilkes around now I dread to think what the end result of his mischievous endeavours would be. Having said that, I’ve also a feeling our beloved landlady would be persuading John Wilkes to pen a post, for the contemporary blogger – at his or her best – is today’s nearest equivalent to being the eighteenth century author and publisher of an articulate and entertaining pamphlet attacking the authorities.
The likelihood that such an innocuous position in society could be life-threatening sounds ludicrous, yet that’s exactly what it is in many countries. However, expulsion or imprisonment without trial for such offences is not the British way; the mainstream media simply blacklists whilst social media abuses. I don’t even need to name a certain story that has made occasional appearances here over the past three years, one that our so-called professional investigative journalists have avoided touching with or without the proverbial bargepole. Meticulously researched and told with both eloquence and wit, this story should have earned the plaudits that lesser ones have routinely scooped; but because it exposes the sham of the consensus, a conspiracy of silence has condemned it to the cyberspace version of a small independent record label rather than a major that has the money and the clout to reach the widest possible audience.
It would be perfectly understandable if the Bangladeshi Anna Raccoon, Petunia Winegum or Gildas the Monk hesitated from speaking their minds in the face of three hideous murders that occurred because minds were spoken. But I’ve a feeling the horrific attempts at silencing online criticisms of a deranged and nihilistic strain of a particular faith may well spark a fresh wave of bloggers rightly outraged at what has happened. Bravery is not an attribute that should really be necessary when it comes to penning a post for a blog, but in the current climate it would appear to be a more vital component of the writing process than ever.
Petunia Winegum
-
May 18, 2015 at 9:13 am -
Rather puts the phenomenon of being called a fat ugly slag on faeces book or twatter rather into perspective doesn’t it?
-
May 18, 2015 at 9:20 am -
Petunia, wonderfully said as always. The little tiny bits of negativity some of us get in backlash from our writings is nothing compared to what others in the world face. It’s nice to put on a big face and say, “Well, I wouldn’t let them shut ME up! I’d stand up for FREE SPEECH!” when we’re thousands of miles and several cultures away. But if our blogging friend two towns away had gotten hacked up outside his house one afternoon in front a hundred people something tells me that a lot of our courage would wear pretty thin pretty fast.
Whenever I sign a copy of Brains, I always print down at the bottom of the page, “Be The Sand.” And when people ask me what it means I tell them to read the book — knowing that there’s a good chance I’ll see them again just in case they missed it. Since so many of Anna’s readers are 5,000 miles from me, I’ll share the paragraph from my Conclusion here, because I think it’s very relevant to this:
“While smokers filling the jails would certainly bring the Crusade grinding to a halt, far lower levels of commitment can also have profound effects. Even if such a smoker extinguishes his or her offending smoke at the first request of an authority, the point has still been made: the system has been forced to respond and recognize that there is a real cost of investment of resources needed to enforce such a ban. When the unjust authority of a state apparatus makes its first encroachments upon individual freedom it depends on the “oil” of public indifference to those moves. Don’t be the oil in the machine: be the sand in the gears.”
We don’t all have the courage to face bombs, bullets, or machetes… but we should all have the courage to stand up and resist in the little ways, as much as we dare, because when we do so we make it easier and safer for those who *are* willing to face the bombs, bullets, and machetes.
Thank you for your writing Petunia!
– MJM
-
May 18, 2015 at 9:24 am -
One man’s freedom-fighting Blogger is another man’s obsessive and possibly dangerous nutter.
The job of the mainstream media is to define which is which and who is who…-
May 18, 2015 at 11:05 am -
Moor, you wrote, “The job of the mainstream media is to define which is which and who is who…”
Moor, in the ideal world, yes, that’s how it should work. But unfortunately that’s not how it actually works. In the real world the media has far too much power in controlling our perceptions of reality and the way we think about things instead of simply giving us access to information and opinions for us to evaluate and integrate on our own. The classic “Liberals” (in the U.S. sense … i.e. the moderate establishment face of the hippies) have proven to be as bad as the Anti-Communists of the 1950s in terms of trying to use the media to shape the world in their vision. Lots of aspects of that vision are good things. But not all aspects. And the problem is that when we give them the power they seek to do their good things, we’re also giving them the power to control us in ways we might *not* be so happy with, *AND* we’ve built and groomed the apparatus that can, in the future, be taken over and truly abused by those who are far more evil in their intent.
:/
MJM-
May 18, 2015 at 1:30 pm -
They could have a fantastic role as “fact-checker” and arbiter exactly as I said. Instead however, they have just joined the crazies online in a hysterical seeking for popularity and presumably what they anticipate as increased sales. Disappointing that the mass media have all turned out to be merely Establishment whores after all. David Icke was right, but for all the wrong reasons.
-
-
-
May 18, 2015 at 10:05 am -
I can’t help but see parallels between Nazism and ISIL. As Nazism developed, not everybody saw it’s dangers; indeed, some admired it as the strong leadership they thought a nation needed at that time. Ultimately, when it’s true colours became clearer, the world had to put down Nazism at an huge cost in blood and treasure, lest it expunge freedom itself. One wonders whether we will have to fight another world war against the evil of ISIL to protect freedom, and how bad we will allow things to become before we do take decisive action. As yet, ISIL shows no signs of collapsing, indeed it seems to grow stronger, and our answer to it so far seems paltry. How many bloggers must die – along with how many thousands of innocents – before the good people of the world take action to protect the general freedom of humanity?
-
May 18, 2015 at 10:19 am -
So far, it seems to have been the good people of the world who have prompted the rise of ISIL by eliminating all the bad people, such as Saddam, Gaddaffi, Mubarak and the attempted removal of the uber-bad guy in Syria. The Chinese and the Russians seem to be making a rather better fist of things, but of course they’re bad too. If ISIL had the state apparatus, they’d find they had enough to chew on oppressing their own people, rather than being heroes of the revolution. Look how McGuinness and Sinn Fein have settled down now they have the power.
-
May 18, 2015 at 11:44 am -
Appease them and leave them to it? I see the logic, though history would suggest that it may be flawed. I’m fairly certain that for the good of humanity in general, it’s a threat to freedom that will have to actively faced down at some point. Freedom isn’t always self-sustaining. Sometimes, it must be actively upheld, and doing so would probably solve a lot of other problems; migrants from Libya in overcrowded boats, for example.
-
May 18, 2015 at 11:58 am -
You really care so much for the Arab Muslim people? Good on you, a true western liberal and all-round good egg. Personally I think we would have been better off minding our own business and allowed human nature to take it’s course and for those people themselves to gradually ease the yoke of their own tyranny. Should we and the Scots turn to blows I do hope the Saudi Airforce doesn’t take it upon itself to start making surgical strikes on Berwick-upon-Tweed… to kill the bad people.
-
May 18, 2015 at 1:01 pm -
It’s always seemed to me a bit rich that we lecture the third or emergent world whatever on equality, democracy & the rest; less than a century after this advanced economy let women vote. Now we criticise the attitude to homosexuality of other nations, only a very few years after legalising it here. Is gay marriage going to be the next requirement?
This all seems unrealistic given the time it can take for acceptance of such change. In states with strong religious influence, it seems almost perverse.
We either need to be very sensitive about how we influence, or we need to keep our noses out. It’s one thing for missionaries to have a go, entirely another for international action, which so often seems to end in destabilisation.
Yes, I do understand there are some abhorrent regimes & practises around the world, but we haven’t been appointed to police them. That ended with the end of Empire.-
May 18, 2015 at 1:14 pm -
I don’t think we were ever ‘appointed’ to police them under Empire, it just went with grabbing the territory.
You are, of course, right – we have taken centuries to advance beyond tribal village cultures, gradually, step-by-step, adopting the package of ‘norms’ we accept today, whether that’s universal suffrage, gay rights or health & safety at work, they’re all part of ‘growing up’.
We may help to guide and counsel less advanced nations towards these desireable facets of development, but it is the height of arrogance to insist that they be imposed on any society not yet culturally ready to accommodate them. They need to go through their own development adolescence before the same package can work for them too. The process should be quicker than it was for us, aided by global travel and communications, but it’s a hearts & minds job, and that always takes generations to embed. -
May 18, 2015 at 1:24 pm -
We either need to be very sensitive about how we influence
Part of the problem is also international Aid..and the NGOS that provide it coupled with their various agendas. Case in point I heard last week on the radio,a spokesPerson from some CHILDREN’S Charity out in Nepal who let slip that they saw their mission of PROTECTING CHILDREN in far broader terms than just providing tents, cuddles and warm fluffy blankets for the earthquake victims. Wish I could recall exactly what he said but it was scary to anyone who thinks little Nepalese boys and little Nepalese might rather prefer being brought up by their own parents according to the culture they were born into, than as some kind of pseudo Westernized genderless Protected Species.
-
-
May 18, 2015 at 2:02 pm -
“You really care so much for the Arab Muslim people?”
Well, I do – up to a point – but not as much as I care for British people, the British way of life, freedom and Western democracy. That’s under some threat from ISIL and Muslim extremism at the moment, and we have to act to defend ourselves from it. Sorting out ISIL will become part of that, sooner or later. Sorting out Iraq can then be left to Iraqis, broadly speaking.
We did the right thing in Afghanistan by sorting out the Taliban to prevent them sheltering Al Qaida. It wasn’t easy, but it worked; Afghanistan is now sorting out the last of the Taliban for itself, and is becoming – slowly – a functioning nation. That may not last, but so far, so good, just about. If we’d just left Afghanistan to the Taliban and AQ after 9/11, what would Al Qaida have become by now? Would the Afghan people have been better off? Would we have been safer?
-
-
May 18, 2015 at 1:27 pm -
I take it by “history would suggest that” you are referring to Chamberlain?
We have all grown up with the “peace in our time” narrative for so long that any suggestion that WWII could have been averted in any way seems ludicrous. Offensive, even.
Some argue that (ironically Chamberlain’s) unreasonable military guarantees to Poland in 1939 (which were “actively upholding freedom” in the model of foreign diplomacy you espouse) actually guaranteed its invasion. Had these guarantees not been given, the Nazis & Poles would likely have negotiated the revision of their borders around the German city of Danzig far more pragmatically. The suggestion is that the Nazis had everything to gain and actively wanted to keep the Poles onside as allies against the Soviet Union.
This has rather ominous echoes of what is currently happening in Ukraine. Regardless of what you believe the right position to be, you should be able to understand that making empty threats is not particularly help in calming things down in the short term, nor is it conducive to peace in the longer term when the red lines that are drawn are inevitably blurred.
-
May 18, 2015 at 1:48 pm -
I don’t think diplomacy will have the slightest effect on ISIL. I think the only thing that will do any good at all is force, which we are currently using ineffectually through airstrikes and a mixture of ground forces, some more motivated than others. Sooner or later, we will have to commit Western boots on the ground to clear out Isil. The countries cleared can then be left to manage their own affairs (though Syria may be a more difficult problem).
ISIL are directly threatening Western democracy and freedom. So far, their direct attacks have not been extensive, but their ambitions are. We will have to face up to that threat sooner or later to protect Western freedom and democracy.
Ukraine is a different problem, and has been badly mishandled by an arrogant and expansionist EU. We now have to rely on NATO shows of force to, hopefully, disuade further prodding and probing by Putin. The EU also has to stop making provocative incursions into what Russia regards as it’s natural affiliates.
-
May 18, 2015 at 2:05 pm -
Nearly got it. Who are ISIL’s primary enemies?
Their stated order of play is:
– Iran / Shia militia
– Non observant Muslims
– Us
– IsraelDon’t the Mullahs want to kill us all as well, or are they our friends now that Obama went around kissing everybody? Can’t we wait for them to duke it out first? If it looks like either side are going to win too easily, we could step in & help whoever is losing?
-
May 18, 2015 at 2:32 pm -
I’m not sure it matters all that much who ISIL’s other enemies are, the salient point as far as we in the west are concerned is whether they are OUR enemies – and they are.
I’m not at all sure about Iran. Apparently, their nuclear ambitions are entirely non-military. Not altogether sure I fully believe that. However, I dare say we have a few Trident missiles targeted at Tehran, and have quietly let them know that we won’t loose ’em off if they play nicely.
-
May 18, 2015 at 3:15 pm -
We may question whether Iran’s nuclear ambitions are indeed non-military, but we know that both Pakistan and Israel already have had operable nuclear weapons for many years (despite non-proliferation ‘rules’ of the impotent UN) – neither would count as stable states and we could trust neither to keep them unused if suitably provoked. Chances are many other novice nations also already have them, only we don’t know about them yet (but the CIA almost certainly does).
So why should we worry so much about Iran taking the same route? The nuclear genie is out of the bottle and it ain’t going back in anytime soon.
-
-
-
May 18, 2015 at 4:23 pm -
With the usual caveat that our knowledge is limited to what we are told & can infer, the EU’s meddling in the Ukraine seemed terrifyingly provocative & ill judged. The opportunity to cultivate & exploit sections of the population was more than offset by the risks. Would they have tried the same game with China or the USA if there were opportunity? Who was going to save the situation if things escalated? Perhaps a trade embargo & boycotting Russia’s gas by an EU already on it’s economic knees?
-
-
-
-
-
-
May 18, 2015 at 10:26 am -
Ananta Bijoy Das was murdered in Bangladesh
Whenever I read of another ‘Keyboard Warrior’ being murdered, imprisoned, flogged for daring to write then I take comfort looking at this photo which I nicked from the NY Times during the Arab Spring . Says it all for me. It’s photographic HOPE, the Anna حيوان الراكون ‘s of the future.
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b116/horta/25YIP_ARABSPRING-slide-6IIB-jumbo_zpsjyzofjgl.jpg
Mind you, I’m not sure they should be drinking that much Coke-Lite but then again their bodies are young and can probably take the aspartame.
-
May 18, 2015 at 10:36 am -
More like the Arab Fall in retrospect, although I flatter myself that I thought it was a pile of interfering western poo in the first place.
It’s one thing to scribble, quite another to encourage people to die and suffer pointlessly. -
May 18, 2015 at 10:41 am -
“Whenever I read of another ‘Keyboard Warrior’ being murdered, imprisoned, flogged for daring to write then I take comfort looking at this photo…”
They are probably dead or have been jailed for the rest of their lives.
-
May 18, 2015 at 11:03 am -
They are probably dead or have been jailed for the rest of their lives.
or are now posting naked selfies on their Instagram account while twittering from their lofts in New York or Camden.
-
May 18, 2015 at 11:03 am -
Either that or in they’re in the running for some journalist award. Odd how just as the not-so-strongmen, Gaddaffi’s son – a graduate of the LSE, and Assad Jr with his fragrant English wife, were succeeding the dying or dead old dictators that “revolution” was finally in the air and on the air-waves. I daresay Mubarrak would have been dead and gone soon enough at his age too. So just as things could only get better, they got a whole lot worse. God save me from the do-gooders.
-
May 18, 2015 at 11:12 am -
God save me from the do-gooders.
God save me from my friends and those who only want what is best for me. With my enemies I can deal myself.
-
-
-
-
May 18, 2015 at 12:57 pm -
The problem that S0lzhenitsyn exposed was not the blind eye that had been turned to Stalinist suppression – that had already been exposed in Khruschev’s secret speech & was known and understood domestically and among western academia.
“Gulag Archipelago” brought him so much trouble due to the way it traced the Gulag’s shadowy existence way back beyond Stalin to Lenin. It’s excesses had up until then been excused as mis-implementation of the perfect communist model under Stalinist brutality. His book attributed its existence as a functional necessity of the Marxist / Leninist model of society that required slave labour and hardcore political suppression as an unfortunate side product.
This was a rather “Politically incorrect” truth, to say the least, among commies of all stripes.
This might seem like a minor detail to us in the here and now, but it really wasn’t & still isn’t.
-
May 18, 2015 at 1:26 pm -
His main fear is that the economic weakness of the USSR was almost irreversible and that ‘the only course open to the Soviet Union was to start a war’, an analysis which Thatcher described as ‘disturbing’. In addition to this, Solzhenitsyn is adamant that the West is ill-prepared for any such war, showing particular frustration with anti-nuclear demonstrators, who he deems ‘prepared to surrender’. He continues: ‘Although there was no war today, the situation might be worse than that of 1940. The young did not seem prepared to defend their country,’ a point Thatcher contended, citing the Falklands. Solzhenitsyn goes on to claim the West ‘had lost the nuclear race’ and that balance ‘would never be restored’. However, demonstrating his latterly acquired faith, and general disregard for Western materialism, he claimed that, ‘if the West could re-discover spiritual firmness, the struggle could continue for a long time.’
http://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/blog/new-files-from-1983/-
May 18, 2015 at 1:56 pm -
Are you familiar with Aleksandr Dugin’s musings? He appears to have co-opted much of this narrative, but is rather less squeamish about it. He thinks this is a good thing – and has the ears of a good number in the Kremlin, if the internet is to be believed.
-
May 18, 2015 at 4:11 pm -
Interesting. He wasn’t born until 1962. Same sort of age as many disaffected folk in the UK just now.
“Dugin stated he was disappointed in Russian President Vladimir Putin, saying that Putin did not aid the pro-Russian insurgents in Ukraine after the Ukrainian Army’s early July 2014 offensive.[35] In August 2014, Dugin called for a “genocide” of Ukrainians.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Dugin
Maybe Vlad the Bad is underestimated as a moderating influence…
I imagine Dugin would have been carried off by the Hate Police in England by now, if he was living in our tolerant country and we were Russia… if you get my drift.-
May 19, 2015 at 4:36 pm -
Absolutely, although common sense alone would indicate that anybody with his broad support and popularity cannot, almost by definition, be representitive of an extremist fringe of contemporary Russian thought.
That isnt to say that popular opinion doesn’t hold ideas that we would consider extreme. Making it all the more important that we try to understand and give due consideration to our responses to such ideas.
-
May 19, 2015 at 4:41 pm -
Carried off by the hate police? Nah – he is an all round multi-cult type guru. His line on “Traditionalism” (which is certainly the mainstream of his appeal) almost perfectly tows the relativist P.C. multi-cult line over here. He even makes nicey nicey with da Mosslims…
-
-
-
-
-
May 18, 2015 at 1:11 pm -
One man’s crusader is, I’m afraid, another’s jihadist and vice versa. So now you are the downtrodden smoker? For a long time, the non-smokers had to put up with smokers’ fascism. You used to belong to the Berkeley Hunt? Now you risk prosecution if your dog chases a fox. Used to be persecuted for preferring botties to fannies? Now you can bring down B&B owners and bakers for not toeing your line. Used to have a range of expressive but disparaging words for other folk and where they came from? Now you are a waycist. Used to roam the high seas freeing slaves? Now we let rich foreigners bring their slaves with them. Used to get tax relief on your mortgage payments? Now you are severely taxed on property you own (I made that one up, almost). Professor Higgins tutored Eliza Doolittle in ‘talking posh’, now she trains him to speak ‘Estuarine’. I suggest that Alice would have something to say on the matter.
It might be fun to predict which of today’s social taboos become tomorrow’s imperatives and vice versa – or to add to the list of other things already turned on their head.
-
May 18, 2015 at 8:00 pm -
For a long time, the non-smokers had to put up with smokers’ fascism.
Strangely I can’t remember many NonSmokers being FORCED by law to smoke before the ban. How many Nonsmoking Refuseniks were fined for NOT smoking in a public space?
Aside from that however, may i say I thought your comment was easily one of the best and most amusingly written of the day so far. Have you considered applying for the next barmaid’s vacancy to come up at The Raccoon Arms? Parts of your comment mirrored the Landlady’s style when the mood and morphium come upon her….and you’ll get extra wordscore points from Pet for referencing Jefferson Starship/Airplane/Lead Balloon.
-
May 19, 2015 at 6:50 am -
“Aside from that however, may i say I thought your comment was easily one of the best and most amusingly written of the day so far.”
Couldn’t agree more my stunted friend – and would be nice to have another woman around the place.
-
May 19, 2015 at 9:11 am -
Yes, Petunia said the dirty glasses mountain is getting out of hand.
-
May 19, 2015 at 9:28 am -
I keep my own pint mug beside the bed – the gin sterilises it – but how you lot are surviving downstairs, I know not.
-
May 19, 2015 at 9:37 am -
I installed a horse-trough and filled it with best bitter. Keeps ’em happy.
-
May 19, 2015 at 12:30 pm -
“I installed a horse-trough and filled it with best bitter. Keeps ’em happy.”
“..the best Best needs no etiquette” – Count Ivan Skavinsky Skavar
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
May 19, 2015 at 11:05 pm -
Dear Dwarf,
I seem to be reactive rather than active …
As regards smoking – no problems in other folks’ cars, homes or the great outdoors, but inside? I don’t go for all that passive smoking crap, and have little fear of smoke that has been through a smoker’s lungs. The problem is the blasted things just smouldering away – usually held at arm’s length in my general direction and stinking out my hair and clothes – or resting in an ashtray. Smokers not actually smoking – that’s my problem with it!
I’m old enough to remember pubs with smoking rooms, and trains with smoking compartments, but I’m afraid that nothing was sacred – there was no escape, and the not-actually-inhaling smokers were everywhere ….
{ 39 comments… read them below or add one }