having worked in non-western nations I have experienced people do things that dont constitute what we view as normal, especially safety related acts. With further explanation and reasoning in the local language, the people adopt the new ways and often excel in the area of concern.
That sounds fine, in principle. But saying that and realising there is both safety and legal compliance here are two things. That is also why symbolism helps bridge communication gaps (if English cannot be assumed to be understood).
Australian tourists (or Western tourists, most commonly for that matter) tend to find themselves in trouble (from minor to serious) when overseas for violating local custom. I'm sure with some explanation, most intelligent lay people will understand what they did wrong. They mightn't do it again, though that doesn't help extricate them from the consequences of their current intransigence. (In many cases like these, there's no such thing as a, "two strikes and you're out," policy - this is the law, where there is rarely such provision and often there should be no need to).
This is the case here. Hopefully the offender will not try to do what they did again. But that realised, they should still face serious consequences for violating both safety and legal rules.
I would like to think the benefit of the doubt existed for anybody, as we dont know the entire facts, we're merely speculating. End of the day he may well have been an arrogant cough and may well need a readjustment from a sky-marshall, but with anybody I like to give them some latitude. As I said two strikes and you're out policy would suffice in this instance.
My error here is probably assuming too much (as well as probably taking the presumption of guilt, though I can't imagine how it could be otherwise, except perhaps one remote possibility), so you're taking the other end, which is fine. Mind you, if this person was proven to be competent in understanding English, then there is no excuse and they would deserve the full extent of punishment.
I'm probably a bit older than many but smoking on board aircraft has been around longer than it has not. Maybe someone could look up the reasons why smoking was banned. Was it a flight safety issue or was it a passive smoking health issue? I cannot recall.
I remember that only 10 years ago, I would fly Biman Bangladesh from DXB-BOM just because they still allowed smoking. The after-dinner cigar with a precocious port on a flight is a fond memory of a much more enlightened age (excuse the pun).
When I was much younger, there were still smoking zones on aircraft, so I recall those times (and my father would often retire to the smoking zone after a meal for a social cigarette).
I'm not really concerned about why they banned it - it'd probably be the same reasons why it is banned in restaurants, most public areas (especially enclosed) etc., then add on top of that that this is an aircraft environment. Bottom line is - it's illegal now.