Montréal, le 21 novembre 1998
Numéro 25
(page 6) 
  page précédente 
            Vos commentaires           
       LE QUÉBÉCOIS LIBRE sollicite des textes d'opinion qui défendent ou contestent le point de vue libertarien sur n'importe quel sujet d'actualité. Les textes doivent avoir entre 700 et 1200 mots. Prière d'inclure votre titre ou profession et le village ou la ville où vous habitez.  
 by Ralph Maddocks
          Everyone knows the story of the Boy Scout patrol who were asked what good deed had they done that day, and they answered that they had taken an old lady across the road. « But why », asks the scoutmaster, « did it take eight of you to do that? » The patrol leader replies, « Because she didn't want to go! »  
          This story reminded me about law making in the European Union and some of the odd regulations that have been issued there over the years. One country that continually has problems with the EU bureaucracy is Britain, whose ideas on free trade and bureaucracy, at least in Tory days, were frequently in opposition with those emanating from Brussels. A recent letter from a friend of mine, who owns a pub at Hengoed, near Oswestry, provided some examples of the kinds of regulatory changes introduced into his business.  
          Apparently, one European directive concerns the standardization of liquid measures throughout the union. Wine for example, if advertised by the measure, must be served in a 125cl., lined, certified, oversized glass. If not so advertised, it may be sold in a container of any size. Spirit measures are 35cl. (no longer a sixth of a gill) except for brandy, which can be sold by the egg-cup or bucket as may be required! 
Regulating everything 
          The attempted regulation of beer caused a real uproar, with a « Save the Pint » movement making representations to retain that ancient and much loved measure. Ultimately, an exception was granted, but it only mentioned beer and cider. This meant that mixed drinks, such as Shandy (half beer-half ginger ale or lemonade), must be sold by the 244cl. measure. Lunatic? It gets worse. It is legal now to sell a bottle containing a half-pint of shandy, but to make up a half-pint of shandy in a drinking glass is illegal. Beer must be sold by the half-pint, or multiples thereof, in a measured vessel. Not to do all this is considered very sinful and carries terrible penalties, though my friend says, in the main, these regulations are ignored. In France and Spain, spirits are still decanted by hand. 
          Ecology is not only of concern of Canadians. According to EU regulations, all waste in the UK has to be moved to controlled garbage sites only by registered waste movers. All moves must be fully documented, with official numbered, duplicate, receipts issued (at his own expense) by the mover to the disposer. My correspondent tells me that horse manure is considered to be industrial waste and must be disposed of as above; so using it for your roses is, officially, not allowed. Cow manure however, is classified as agricultural waste and does not need to be moved by authorized waste movers! 
          It may be true that many economic advantages may be expected to result from such a union of states and the standardization of government regulations, but who could believe that the above examples so qualify? Why anyone would wish to emulate such lunacy, is beyond the comprehension of this chronicler. 
          In a UK newspaper, I noted an item about a local pie maker who had run afoul of the law and who was appearing in the local magistrates court. The charges concerned the accused of having made « meat and potato » pies containing an insufficient amount of meat. Apparently, in this Kafkaesque bureaucratic world, a pie described as a « meat and potato pie » must contain a given percentage of meat. A « potato and meat pie », so described, is not the subject of such regulation. In this wonderful topsy-turvy world there have even been arguments raging about the permissible « curve » of a banana or a cucumber. 
Regulating smells 
          The initials OLF are not unique to Quebec, as a British newspaper recently reported. This concerned the funding, by Brussels bureaucrats, of a group of sniffers to measure the smell given off by British office workers. Fifteen researchers, all specially trained, were to carry out the project employing a new scientific unit known as the olf (defined as the odor emitted by a standard European person) an abbreviation of olfactory invented by a Danish scientist. He employed 160 sniffers to smell one thousand Europeans and calculated the average olf  for one individual. An average smoker is said to emit six olfs and a trained athlete, when exercising vigorously, is said to emit 20 olfs. According to the scientist involved, one Professor Fanger, « The olf is the pollution perceived by human beings that is generated by a standard person. We are talking of a few hundred chemicals in different quantities. Some are very hard to measure. » The professor mentioned that validation of the olf outside Europe showed that Americans and Japanese gave similar results, although there were large differences due to variations in diet. 
          The objective of the project was to introduce new measures to control indoor pollution by arriving at an olf factor which will enable them to calculate the ventilation required. The better buildings are supposed to have 0.1 olfs per square meter. The « sniffers » are sniffing empty offices and other objects in the belief that some modern materials give off minute quantities of gases which can make people feel ill. What will be the result if one has a variety of individuals from various European countries occupying the same office? Will the heavy garlic users of the south be able to co-exist with the garlic haters of Great Britain? Indeed will they be allowed to? All this goes to show what an uncontrolled bureaucracy can be capable of. 
          Another bizarre incident occurred in Britain where the owner of a small mountain hotel was fined $50 by the National Rivers Authority on the grounds that the rain water collected in a barrel behind the hotel « could have flowed into the rivers where it would have become available for use by others ». The owner must also pay $2000 each year to have the water tested. Elsewhere, a man was charged by that same authority for using water from an underground stream, water which would otherwise have emptied into the sea, to irrigate his crops. 
          If you prevent someone from using water it is an offence and if you use water which no one else could use it is also an offence. Joseph Heller's term Catch 22 is alive and well, and living in the European Union. 
page suivante