The obligation of hatred

This was a letter directed at a news editor, but it may also be a warning to be sent to all members of the participating and financing groups, connected to tobacco control. A template, to put on notice; this or many of the other Public Health interventions currently underway, in applauding the savaging of the individual. This new legalized form of hatred is, by an over reaching perspective, targeting of racial minorities and the poor once again, with back door prohibitions and back room bigotry, incredibly portrayed as an obligation to the state and to political correctness.

Hello;

A commentary, in regard to the Article; The DNA Age

Fear of Insurance Trouble Leads Many to Shun or Hide DNA Tests by Amy Harmon

Published: February 24, 2008

“All civilized systems of law confer upon the people, as against their governments, the right to be let alone.
That is the most comprehensive of rights and the most valued by civilized men.”

— Justice Louis D. Brandeis


The article indicated the situation described is rare, yet according to S. Chapman in his recent paper published at the British Medical Journal discussing the “spoiled identity” the situation is not as rare as one may think. At least 60 million people in America he described, currently share the discrimination she fears. No longer just normal people who smoke but now evolved to a sub human species, we have been encouraged to detest.

How in retrospect could anyone fail to see the linkages to those in the past who sought to protect the gene pool and modern day science, targeting personal responsibility for all disease? Just as Hitler created his "spoiled identities" while “protecting” his realm. Modern medicine is replicating the process by inwardly discriminating against genetic predisposition, linking genetic variances to a detestable person, just as the outward associations Hitler defined in describing how those predispositions occurred more predominantly among racial variation.

The woman in the article; if she contracts emphysema, whether she smokes or not; will be assumed by the stoked public, to be a victim of smoking. If she smokes, a master of her own destiny. Otherwise she will be assumed to have been exposed to 30 seconds of tobacco smoke at some time during her life, which would explain the horror in realizing "she never smoked a day in her life" we hear so often in media banter, which only solidifies the bigotry and fears being created. In ether case, she will be viewed as a questionable or lesser person.

A legal perspective; of what the medical HIA health intervention, contravenes?

The promotion of smoking bans targeting individuals, identified as smokers or the fat pandemic describing those who are overweight, or the lobby against any other personal characteristic when individuals are identified as a group, with unfounded broad brushed accusations, coupled with the intent to destroy reputation and their public acceptance, is likely illegal for a number of reasons; "The spoiled Identity" admitted by S. Chapman and others is cause, to seek legal action, on behalf of those who are the targets of organized and deliberate state bigotry.

Complaints could include any or all of the following;

"Invasion of privacy is a legal term essentially defined as the unlawful intrusion into the personal life of another person without just cause and includes a non-public person's right to privacy from: a) intrusion into solitude or into private affairs; b) public disclosure of embarrassing private information; c) publicity which puts him/her in a false light to the public; d) appropriation of a person's name or picture for another person's gain or commercial advantage.[1] The right to privacy is the right of a person to be secluded and not seen, heard, or disturbed and involves freedom from observation, intrusion, or attention unless there is a "reasonable' public interest in personal activities, the right to stop police and other government agents from searching person or property except when there is "probable cause", the freedom to make certain decisions about our own personal bodies and private lives without interference from the government, and protected in the due process clause of the 14th amendment of the United States Constititution, the right to privacy regarding family, marriage, motherhood, procreation, and child rearing.[2] However, public figures have less privacy, and this is an evolving area of law as it relates to the media."

"Intrusion of solitude occurs where one person exposes another to unwarranted publicity. In a famous case from 1944, author Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings was sued by Zelma Cason, who was portrayed as a character in Rawlings' acclaimed memoir, Cross Creek.[4] The Florida Supreme Court held that a cause of action for invasion of privacy was supported by the facts of the case, but in a later proceeding found that there were no actual damages."

"Intrusion upon seclusion occurs when a perpetrator intentionally intrudes, physically, electronically, or otherwise, upon the private space, solitude, or seclusion of a person, or the private affairs or concerns of a person, by use of the perpetrator's physical senses or by electronic device or devices to oversee or overhear the person's private affairs, or by some other form of investigation, examination, or observation intrude upon a person's private matters if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. Hacking a computer is an example of intrusion upon privacy.[5] In determining whether intrusion has occurred, one of three main considerations may be involved: expectation of privacy; whether there was an intrusion, invitation, or exceedance of invitation; or deception, misrepresentation, or fraud to gain admission. Intrusion is “an information-gathering, not a publication, tort…legal wrong occurs at the time of the intrusion. No publication is necessary"

"Public disclosure of private facts arises where one person reveals information which is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person[7]. "Unlike libel or slander, truth is not a defence for invasion of privacy."[8] Disclosure of private facts includes publishing or widespread dissemination of little-known, private facts that are non-newsworthy, not part of public records, public proceedings, not of public interest, and would be offensive to a reasonable person if made public."

"False light is a legal term that refers to a tort concerning privacy that is similar to the tort of defamation. For example, the privacy laws in the United States include a non-public person's right to privacy from publicity which puts them in a false light to the public; which is balanced against the First Amendment right of free speech.

False light laws are "intended primarily to protect the plaintiff's mental or emotional well-being."[10] If a publication of information is false, then a tort of defamation might have occurred. If that communication is not technically false but is still misleading then a tort of false light might have occurred.[10]

The specific elements of the Tort of FALSE LIGHT vary considerably even among those jurisdictions which do recognize this Tort. Generally, these elements consist of the following:

1. A publication by the Defendant about the Plaintiff;
2. made with actual malice (very similar to that type required by New York Times v. Sullivan in "Defamation" cases);
3. which places the Plaintiff in a false light; AND
4. that would be highly offensive (i.e., embarrassing to reasonable persons)"

"Invasion of privacy is a commonly used cause of action in a legal pleading. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States ensures that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The amendment, however, only protects against searches and seizures conducted by the government. Invasions of privacy by persons who are not state actors must be dealt with under private tort law.


A notable quote regarding the United States Constitution and privacy in the case of Dietemann v. Time Inc. (9th Cir. 1971): “The First Amendment has never been construed to accord newsmen immunity from torts or crimes committed during the course of newsgathering. The First Amendment is not a license to trespass, to steal, or to intrude by electronic means into the precincts of another’s home or office"

In conclusion;

It would seem to be a duty of every American citizen; individually or as organized groups to copy the legal descriptions of these reprehensible and illegal acts, and deliver them with demands for public retractions and apologies, in an effort to avoid legal demands, which could proceed.

The demand should be addressed to any and all partners of Public health organizations who have distributed, or by their silence as partners in the coalition allowed, false and misleading information to exist in the public perspectives, which detracts from the rights of the person and could [and likely will] endanger their security. Partner lists can be found at; The Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, ASH, The American Cancer Society, The Heart and Stroke Foundation, The American Lung Association or at a host of media branded darlings, who recently replaced the "Flintstones selling cigarettes" and now promote and protect the sales of other perspective driven and branded products. which trend to be; as, or much more, dangerous to the health of the same targeted individuals claimed as "protected" by Public health Associations who tend to protect their financing sponsors to a much higher degree.

The "spoiled Identity" is a deliberate act of personal denormalization, which has gone well beyond the description of making "not normal" the act of smoking and now has defamed humiliated and encroached on the civil and human rights of millions who chose to use, a thus far, legal product.

As a benchmark in public health advocacy this can not stand, as an acceptable model for future campaigns. Too many died as a consequence of these promotions in our past, to even consider this, as an appropriate action to protect our futures.

"In 1975 Sir George Goober, British delegate to the World Health Organization presented his blueprint for eliminating tobacco use worldwide by changing social attitudes;

"..it would be essential to foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them, especially their families and any infants or young children who would be exposed involuntarily to EST..""

Minor reference list;

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/17/1/25

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1523368

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_privacy

http://thesuburban.com/content.jsp?sid=14787592909217016673552527312&ctid=1000002&cnid=1014440