HAIRY'S BACK!

I'm so pleased to see Hairy Chestnuts back on top form. I think what he's been feeling is the same as we all have felt of late. Sometimes the control freakery just gets so overwhelming all we can do is step out of the shit and take time out. But that doesn't mean it goes away. It gets bigger and side stepping it just gets more difficult.

WHOSE CHILD IS IT?

Johnny Cash famously explains what it's like living with a stupid name and how it can mould a character.

I know some parents are guilty of inventing names so ridiculous it's uncomfortable for the child to live with. But is it really necessary for Govt anywhere in the world to step in and decide what each of it's citizens should be called?

In Norway in 1998 a woman was jailed for two days after failing to pay a fine for calling her son an "unapproved" name. Kristi Larsen said she was instructed in a dream to name her son Gesher (Hebrew for 'Bridge'), but the court decided the name was daft.

In Italy in 2008 a court banned an Italian couple from calling their child Venerdi (Friday). The judges reckoned the name - taken from 'Robinson Crusoe' - would expose the boy to 'mockery' and was associated with 'subservience and insecurity'.

Malaysian authorities have cracked down on "unsuitable" names in recent years and you can kind of see where they're coming from after one couple named their kid the Cantonese moniker Chow Tow – which means 'Smelly Head'.

In Denmark, the Govt gives parents a list with 7,000-odd names to choose from and special permission is needed to deviate from this list. Ethnic names, odd spellings and even compound surnames are forbidden. Anus was one rejected by the Govt last year.

In Japan one father named his child Akuma aka Devil. The authorities decided this was an abuse of the parent's rights to decide a child's name and a lengthy court battle ensued. Eventually the father backed down and the kid got a new name.

New Zealand decided that Talula Does The Hula From Hawaii could cause offence and ordered parents to change the name of their nine year old girl.

In Sweden, one couple chose Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116 for their son. Apparently the name is pronounced 'Albin'. The parents chose it as a protest against Sweden's strict naming laws. Tax authorities must give their blessing to both first and surnames before they can be used.

There will always be some parents who want to give their child a name so unique it skirts daftness or shoots way beyond the bounds of "normality". Kids for their part grow up inventing a new name for themselves anyway if they don't like the one they've got. I'd rather the cause of bullying against children with weird names be addressed rather than bully their parents to name it in accordance with state requirements. To me it's yet another example of how we constantly encourage intolerance.

If the state can name a mother and father's child, what control of our children could it take next? Would it ever tell us what clothes are suitable to dress them in? Will boys always have to wear blue and girls pink? Surely they'd never tell us what we should and shouldn't feed our kids would they?

Children learn from their parents and their experiences. Wrapping them in cotton wool can only create a nation of BORGS. Unique names however silly create unique individuals. Why is individuality such a problem?

Any state taking control of a simple choice such as naming a child signals a very dangerous move. There was a time when I was proud to know that such oppressive Govt control would never happen in Britain. Now I just wonder how long it will be before our Govt embraces the opportunity for this control under the usual guise of the "greater good."

BANNED

"Everything the Govt does is backed up by guns and force..."

A DEPRESSING READ

I'm feeling a bit down in the dumps today. Perhaps it's the latest assault on smokers or maybe it's that I'm still dragged down from yesterday's inquests.

As far as smokers are concerned, I am in despair that the persecution doesn't stop. It's like a constant smack in the head delivered by righteous, self-interest idiots that have the power of Big Money and Big Govt backing them against the little man (or woman!).

It has taken the anti-smoking industry 40 years to get control on the grounds of a freedom harming someone else. Previous Governments haven't bought into that idea because banning things on the grounds that one doesn't personally like it, was seen as undemocratic and communist. There was, and still is, no evidence to back up the tripe the anti-smoking industry spouts but what changed was that left thinking lettuce munching health obessives got into Govt. Can we say without doubt that Patricia Hewitt - who promised exemptions to the blanket smoking ban but then pulled the rug from under everyone at the last minute - was not paid to do so by Big Pharma bearing in mind recent news ?

Now the antis have what they initially said they wanted - a public smoking ban so they didn't have to mix with smokers - they are pushing further and further. Where will it lead when you think of how these people depend on persecution of a minority group for their income. They will never stop. It matters not what new restrictions they get. It will continue. Their jobs, mortgages, holidays in the sun, etc, thrive on it.

In future they will not be the educators we asked for 40 years ago to inform us and our children of the risks of smoking. They will be the enforcers who will be in jobs taking children away from smokers, denying smokers jobs, and guarding them in jails. Once they have smokers under complete control, they will move on to others - drinkers are obviously next, and watch out fatties - they're also heading your way soon!

My despair comes because most ordinary people don't see this as a freedom issue. They are not thinking where will it lead. Those smokers and non-smokers who are trying to fight honourably and courageously, are just not joined up in their thinking or their campaigning and so what hope? The antis know this. They are simply biding their time to finish us off.

See - my thinking today is thoroughly depressive but perhaps it was sitting in inquests yesterday that has put me in this mood. I just can't seem to shake them off despite being used to attending such events in 20 years as a journalist.

As soon as I was asked to go and cover the case of an 18 year-old who hung himself, I knew it wasn't going to be the jolliest of days. It appears he killed himself because of a girl. His mother found him. I can't begin to imagine what it must be like to live with that image for the rest of my life as I am sure she will.

The next case concerned a 59 year old man who died from asbestos cancer which had invaded both lungs and his chest. Ironically, he was working to rewire a hospital in the late 60s and early 70s and that's where the damage began. He inhaled the asbestos dust from sheeting and lagging he ripped out to get at heating pipes.

Just as depressing was the case of a 41 year old man who killed himself with his car exhaust fumes. There seemed to be no reason why he would want to take his life. Doctors' reports were read out in all cases. This one spoke of how the man was rarely seen but had recently visited the surgery for smoking cessation. Frustratingly, the doctor did not mention whether the man was given a drug like Champix to help him in his quit efforts. Many of us know too well what the side effects are of that monster and other anti-smoking drugs. I don't think the coroner or the health professionals involved would even have considered it.