Marmalade Sandwich

Do we undervalue adults?

2009-11-09T22:15:00.002Z

I'm busy these days, and so blogging is extremely light.

However, I came across an interesting article in the Spiked Review of Books about Frank Furedi's new book, Wasted: Why Education isn't Educating.

Professor Furedi is an interesting gentleman. He was, for example, a co-founder of the Revolutionary Communist Party. More recently, he has attacked the scientific consensus on global warming. And he will have annoyed a lot of people with his critique of that most dubious of big charities, the NSPCC.

But if he is right, and we do undervalue adults in our society, surely the reason is that we have been so afraid of undervaluing children that we have felt it necessary to make adjustments in order to make sure that children are listened to. And while that sounds reasonable in practice, the inevitable result is that adults will become less valued. I suspect that it cannot be otherwise.

It is the same with every group in society that we suspect may be undervalued. Every legislative attempt to give them a more valued place in society inevitably will impinge on some other group.

I suspect that if Professor Furedi's view that adults are undervalued catches on, we will see a lot of government initiatives to ensure that adults are properly valued. The proper response, however, would be to dump all the initiatives we have had in the past 30 years to make sure that children were properly valued.

Halloween: A Christian view

2009-10-31T15:19:00.004Z

(Note - this is not the Christian view - it is a Christian view. Some Christians will disagree with me. Strongly.)

There is something about dressing up and make believe that seems to worry rather a lot of people. When I was a youngster, some friends of our family didn’t allow their sons to play with toy guns. They clearly believed that playing at homicide was shocking and improper. The fact that it was only playing didn’t seem to make any difference to them. Shooting people was wrong, and hence even to play at shooting people was wrong.

The same thing came out when Prince Harry dressed as a Nazi when going to a fancy dress party. Except this time, it wasn’t just my parents’ rather serious friends - it was pretty much the whole of the British political establishment. Nazis were evil, and the fact that Prince Harry was merely going to a fancy dress party made no difference to these people.

I reflected on Halloween at the time. When I was young, I had a devil mask. “Surely”, I thought to myself, “the devil is more evil than any Nazi. Therefore, wearing a devil mask must, in the minds of all these serious people who are condemning Prince Harry, be a deeply shocking thing to do.”

Fortunately, most people don’t take that viewpoint. Alas, many Christians do, including many of my friends. They regard Halloween as, at best, unhealthy, and at worst, diabolical. I see that the Vatican seems to agree with them.

The concern seems to be exactly the same as the thinking of those who disapprove of toy guns and of Prince Harry’s swastika armband. "If you let children play with guns, then they may be tempted to take homicide lightly." "If people start dressing up as Nazis, then National Socialism may gain respectability." "If you allow children to dress up as witches and ghouls, then you are sending a message that occult activity is acceptable."

In my view, this is complete and utter nonsense. Children can tell the difference between make-believe and reality. Playing at being a cowboy did not leave me with any desire to heard cattle, ride a horse, wear a gun, hang around the saloon, or exterminate native Americans. Nor does dressing up as Guy Fawkes and wondering around Westminster incite people to blow up the Houses of Parliament. Nor does dressing up as Nazis contribute to the rehabilitation of National Socialism. Nor did people wearing George W. Bush masks influence large numbers of people to vote Republican in last year's American presidential election. And nor does dressing up in a scary costume encourage Satanism.

There are plenty of more important things for Christians to be concerned about. There is a real risk here of straining out gnats and swallowing camels.

None so blind

2009-10-31T09:03:00.002Z

“Hear this, O foolish and senseless people, who have eyes, but see not, who have ears, but hear not.” (Jeremiah 5:21)

Three stories in today’s Telegraph. Spot what they have in common.

1. Lieutenant Colonel Rupert Thorneloe, the highest ranking British soldier to be killed in Afghanistan, told the Ministry of Defence, in an email sent less than a month before his death, that troops would be killed because there were not enough helicopters. “The leaked email is at odds with Gordon Brown's claims that helicopter shortages have not caused the deaths of troops fighting the Taliban.”

The government was repeatedly told by top officers that there was a serious shortage of army helicopters in Afghanistan. It didn’t want to hear. It didn’t want to know.

2. Mr. Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, has sacked his chief drugs adviser, Professor David Nutt, after he criticised the reclassification of cannabis and said alcohol and cigarettes were more dangerous than ecstasy. Professor Nutt’s comment? "I think most scientists will see this as a further example of the Luddite attitude of this government, and possible future governments, towards science."

A top scientist has spoken about what the scientific evidence seems to be saying. Mr. Johnson didn’t want to hear. He didn’t want to know.

3. Poland’s Chief Rabbi, Michael Schudrich, is reported as saying of Mr. Michael Kaminski of the Polish Law and Justice Party, '''I cannot check a person's heart, but what I have heard from Mr Kaminski publicly and privately, I certainly see him as a man that today - today - is against anti-Semitism. Mr Kaminski as a teenager did join an organisation known as NOP which is, unfortunately, openly anti-Semitic and neo-nazi. He also quit that organisation as a teenager. Since that time he has become a strong ally of the State of Israel and on other occasions has condemned anti-Semitism. So what we have here is a complicated person and we need to be able, in order to understand him, to understand him in a fuller context, not taking one thing that he said, but taking a look at what he said over the past 20 years. . . . No one here in Poland would consider the Law and Justice Party as a fringe right party.' Mr. David Milliband, who has characterised Mr. Kaminiski’s party as an anti-Semitic fringe right party is not about to apologise.

The Chief Rabbi of Poland has basically said that Mr. Milliband was wrong. But Mr. Milliband didn’t want to hear what the Chief Rabbi of Poland said. He didn’t want to know.

Experts - army officers, scientists, chief Rabbis - are sometimes wrong, of course. But these three stories together suggest something about our current government. It doesn't want to hear. It doesn't want to know.

It's not just the current government, though. It's a common disease of politicians, and a common disease of the human race.

Let the reader understand and beware.

Are Americans becoming more libertarian?

2009-10-30T15:45:00.004Z

From David Boaz at the Cato Institute, evidence that libertarianism may be on the rise in the USA:

For more than a dozen years now, the Gallup Poll has been using two questions to categorize respondents by ideology:

* Some people think the government is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses. Others think that government should do more to solve our country’s problems. Which comes closer to your own view?

* Some people think the government should promote traditional values in our society. Others think the government should not favor any particular set of values. Which comes closer to your own view? Combining the responses to those two questions, Gallup found the ideological breakdown of the public shown below. With these two broad questions, Gallup consistently finds about 20 percent of respondents to be libertarian.

In fact, if anything, the graph seems to indicate that libertarian numbers are rising.

Note, by the way, the implied definition: A libertarian is someone who believes that the government is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses, and that the government should not favour any particular set of values. Well, I think I know what they mean, but surely such things as freedom, honesty and compassion are values that a libertarian government should favour?

(Hat tip to Classically Liberal)

Pauline Howe: Where does David Cameron stand?

2009-10-27T09:58:00.002Z

Mrs. Pauline Howe is just the latest person to have ~~harassed~~ visited by the police after having made politically incorrect remarks. She says that she was frightened by the officers’ questioning, and I’m not surprised. I would have been frightened, too.

Stonewall has described the police response as "disproportionate". Various bloggers and columnists have also expressed disquiet - Andrew Pierce, in a good, balanced, article writes “We should all be worried by Norwich Council's ludicrous overreaction, and the weak-kneed response of the local constabulary which went along with it. It suggests yet again that the most fundamental of all freedoms – the right of free speech – is being endangered.” He adds “There are already too many laws on the statute book without adding one which says that gays must never be offended or irritated.”

That’s good, and I'm glad these people are speaking out. But why have we heard nothing from politicians? Why are the Conservatives and LibDems silent? And where does David Cameron stand on this matter?

It seems to me that the obvious conclusion is that if the Conservative Party wins the next election, nothing will change, and the police will continue to make threatening visits to those who express politically incorrect opinions.

The new political consensus

2009-10-09T21:20:00.002+01:00

In David Cameron’s speech at the Conservative Party Conference, there was one bit that jumped out at me. Mr Cameron said:

And let's be clear: not everything Labour did was wrong. Devolution; the minimum wage; civil partnerships, these are good things that we will we keep.

Here, if nowhere else, we have consensus. Her Majesty’s loyal opposition is in complete agreement with the government, and the Liberal Democrats are right behind them. But this consensus is new. There was not much agreement about these things a generation ago. And, to be honest, I cannot get enthusiastic about any of the members of this new sacred trinity.

Let's start with civil partnerships. What's the point? If it is about inheritance tax, there is a much more obvious answer. Inheritance tax is a nasty tax, and should simply be abolished. If it is about the transfer of pension, insurance, and social security benefits, then one must begin by asking the question “Who should I be allowed to transfer these benefits to?” No one at all? Anyone I choose to designate? Anyone that lives in a house with me? My spouse, as in marriage traditionally understood? All of these answers have some merit. But civil partnerships, as we have them in Britain, cannot lawfully be entered into by two people who are closely related, which I find completely puzzling. So what is the point of civil partnerships? It is simply a sop to the LGBT community. In other words, it is simply about political correctness. Or, to put it another way, it is about politics.

The minimum wage? Well, I’m a member of a party that is completely opposed to it, and the LPUK manifesto gives a good summary of its drawbacks. But the basic reason is that employers cannot produce money from thin air: a minimum wage basically prices the least productive workers out of the market. But it sounds good. It sounds like it is caring and compassionate. In other words, it’s about politics again.

And devolution? Well, as Billy Connolly pointed out, “It is just another expensive layer of government.” But it is worse than that. The Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly have to justify their existence, and the way that parliamentarians justify their existence is passing more laws. The ostensible reason for devolution is that is supposed to make the people of Scotland and Wales feel that government is closer to them - though the actual result is that the Scots and Welsh can expect even more laws and regulations.

So the new political consensus is basically about the country becoming more regulated and more politicised. Which is why I’m not part of it.

Do we love Big Brother?

2009-10-07T10:44:00.002+01:00

Under the headline “George Osborne plans biggest public spending cuts for 30 years,” the Telegraph proclaims “A new era of austerity would be ushered in by a Conservative victory . . . .”

“A new era of austerity?” What does this mean? I reached for my copy of Chamber’s 20th Century Dictionary (yes, I know I’m behind the times). The definition of ‘austere’ begins “sour and astringent: harsh: severe: stern: grave.” Hmmm. This new era doesn’t sound like much fun.

Only then, in the dictionary, do we come to the phrase “severe in self discipline.” Well, perhaps that is what the Telegraph meant. But they didn’t say “A new era of fiscal self-discipline.” They said “A new era of austerity.”

So the not-so-subliminal message is that low public (i.e. government) spending makes for makes for an era of harshness, sourness, and severity. Which means that high government spending makes for pleasantness, sweetness and light. Government spending is something that everybody loves.

Well, that seems to be the assumption of the Telegraph’s writers anyway. They don’t seem to have considered the idea that if we keep our own money and make our own decisions about how it is spent, then life will might be just as pleasant - possibly even moreso.

So there it is. Only the government knows how to spend money in a way that will bring joy, plenty, and luxury. Only state spending makes life pleasant and enjoyable. Big Brother knows best. We love Big Brother.

Celebrities for paedophilia

2009-09-30T19:38:00.003+01:00

Public opinion rarely shows much sympathy for paedophiles. In fact, the depth of hatred and hostility that they receive seems to me somewhat excessive. So I suppose that I should find it refreshing to see a number of celebrities calling for Roman Polanski’s release.

However, I don’t. I believe in the rule of law. And that means that if someone is convicted of a serious crime, and they flee from justice before sentencing, then it is right and proper and they are brought to justice.

The key facts in the case are these:
1) Polanski pleaded guilty to the crime he was convicted of, and there seems to be no question that he was guilty.
2) When Polanski did the deed, he was, or should have been, aware that what he did was against the law, and that those found guilty of such activity could expect a custodial sentence.
3) The crime in question was not a minor matter - unlike many things that are criminalised in modern society. Even in a libertarian society, what Polanski did would be regarded as a serious crime.

And the fact that the woman he assaulted wants him to be released is irrelevant. Should two child molesters be treated differently because one victim is vindictive and the other is not?

Reading the words of the petition makes one wonder what planet these celebrities live on.

“His arrest follows an American arrest warrant dating from 1978 against the filmmaker, in a case of morals."

So the sexual assault of a 13 year-old girl by a middle aged man is merely “a case of morals”?

“Film-makers in France, in Europe, in the United States and around the world are dismayed by this decision. It seems inadmissible to them that an international cultural event, paying homage to one of the greatest contemporary filmmakers, is used by the police to apprehend him.”

So international cultural events are sacrosanct?

“Roman Polanski is a French citizen, a renown and international artist now facing extradition.”

So the fact that the French gave citizenship to a fugitive from justice means that he should not have been arrested? Or is it the fact that he was famous? Or is it the fact that he was an artist? Or is it (as it seems to be) all three?

I must be a little intellectually challenged, because I just cannot understand this.

But what I find even more difficult to understand is how all these celebrities have the gall to put their name to a petition that basically says that child molesting is actually a fairly minor matter. And why isn’t the rest of the film industry working hard to distance itself from these perverse people?

The most obvious conclusion that one can draw is that those who work in the film industry, must, as a group, rank even lower than politicians.

What are the police for? What is the law for?

2009-09-29T09:08:00.004+01:00

What is the law for, if not to protect people from being harmed by other people? And what are the police for, if not for apprehending those who harm others?

Those are the obvious questions that arise from the Pilkington case. The Police Federation has apparently "accused the Government of destroying public confidence in the police by introducing 'gimmicks' and endless paperwork which have left too few officers on the beat to respond to every call. "

And indeed the Government (this one in particular, though previous ones are not innocent) must bear much of the blame. But surely it isn't just gimmicks and endless paperwork that the government is responsible for. What about the fact that the government has created over 3,600 new criminal offences since 1997? That must create extra work for the police?

And it is hardly surprising that the police don't have the resources to cope with thuggish behaviour, when they have to spend their time interviewing opposition MPs, bishops, street evangelists, and the BBC Director General.

There is something seriously wrong with policing in Britain, and the reason for that is that there is something seriously wrong with the current approach to law in Britain. We have too many laws. A key principle of libertarianism is the rule of law, and that includes the notion that "there should be as few laws as possible, and that those that do exist should be simple, clear and predictable in their application." We need fewer laws, not more - so that the police can concentrate their resources on the things that are important - and give families like the Pilkingtons the protection that they need.

Alcohol related deaths in Scotland: a league table

2009-09-17T15:20:00.003+01:00

The newspaper web sites have all covered the story about the high rate of alcohol related deaths in Scotland, but none gave a link to the full statistics (which are found on the Scottish Parliament site), let alone republishing them.

This site goes one better, and publishes them by parliamentary constituency as a league table. (OK, not exactly a table, since I don't know HTML!)

Alcohol-related deaths in Scotland (2008-09) by parliamentary constituency expressed as a percentage of the UK average.

Glasgow Shettleston - 574
Glasgow Maryhill - 420
Greenock and Inverclyde - 371
Dundee East - 347
Glasgow Springburn - 333
Glasgow Baillieston - 331
Dumbarton - 307
Glasgow Cathcart - 292
Glasgow Govan - 289
Paisley South - 288
Dundee West - 285
Hamilton North and Bellshill - 285
Glasgow Pollock - 249
Hamilton South - 248
Glasgow Rutherglen - 238
Paisley North - 233
Cunninghame South - 231
Edinburgh Central - 226
Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross - 223
Glasgow Kelvin - 221
Coatbridge and Chryston - 218
Edinburgh North and Leith - 216
Motherwell and Wishaw - 216
Airdrie and Shotts - 213
Western Isles - 208
Clydebank and Milngavie - 206
Kirkcaldy - 205
Cumbernauld and Kilsyth - 204
Stirling - 200
Ross, Skye and Inverness West - 199
Edinburgh East and Musselburgh - 198
Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber - 198
West Renfrewshire - 197
Moray - 195
Cunninghame North - 191
Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley - 190
Kilmarnock and Loudoun - 187
Argyll and Bute - 180
Ayr - 175
Orkney Islands - 171
Strathkelvin and Bearsden - 165
Dunfermline East - 164
Banff and Buchan - 163
Aberdeen Central - 161
East Kilbride - 160
Livingston - 156
Ochil - 154
Perth - 152
Midlothian - 148
Central Fife - 145
Clydesdale - 144
North Tayside - 144
Linlithgow - 140
Falkirk East - 132
Aberdeen South - 126
East Lothian - 125
Galloway and Upper Nithsdale - 124
Shetland Islands - 124
Angus - 119
Falkirk West - 119
Dunfermline West - 118
Dumfries - 115
Glasgow Anniesland - 105
Gordon - 103
Eastwood - 99
Edinburgh Pentlands - 85
Edinburgh West - 77
North East Fife - 77
Roxburgh and Berwickshire - 77
Edinburgh South - 75
Aberdeen North - 71
West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine - 39
Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale - 30

The great salt ban

2009-09-17T11:21:00.003+01:00

The other day I was chatting with a friend who has recently got a job as a cook in a small primary school. I asked her how it was going. She told me about making macaroni cheese following the ‘official’ recipe, and told me that it was pretty tasteless. It turned out that in the official recipe, no salt was added to the cheese sauce. Indeed, adding salt was not allowed.

I expressed surprise, and she then told me that she was not allowed to add salt when boiling potatoes or rice. My eyes grew rounder as my astonishment grew. I asked if there was salt on the table, and was told that there wasn’t. I, in my innocence, thought that everyone added salt when boiling potatoes or rice - and that omitting the salt was a major error. I don’t like my food salty, but potatoes or rice without salt really is pretty tasteless. I had always assumed that the quality of food in British schools was improving. It seems that I was sadly mistaken.

Yes - the country is in the grip of a great salt panic. Yet salt is actually a necessary part of the human diet. And further more, not all scientists are convinced that high sodium levels are linked to high blood pressure and heart disease. And the amount of sodium that would be added to the diet by putting salt in the water when boiling rice or potatoes is fairly small. And yet the war on salt continues unabated - and not just in terms of propaganda, but also in terms of legislation.

Politicians are now so determined to micro-manage all aspects of life, that they even ban school cooks from adding salt when they boil rice and potatoes.

Good grief.

Post Script: See this good article in The Times, which includes the following quote: "Catherine Collins, chief dietician at St George’s Hospital in London, . . . believes the current pressure to restrict salt in the diet as much as possible is unnecessary and potentially risky. "

We knew it was coming, didn't we?

2009-09-11T08:25:00.002+01:00

So, plans for the government's new anti-paedophile database have been announced by the Home Office. And it means . . . wait for it . . . a huge database. Another one. Thousands of ordinary citizens will be on it. All school governors will be required to be on it, even if they have no contact at all with children. Belt and braces, you know. And if you are not on it, and you ought to be, you face a fine of up to £5,000 and a criminal record. Yes, it's yet another new criminal offence created by New Labour. (So far, there are over 3,600 of them.)

At least the main opposition parties are making unenthusiastic noises.

For the Liberal Democrats, Christ Huhne commented, “The creation of the world’s biggest checking system is a disproportionate response to the problem it is trying to solve.”

For the Conservatives, Chris Grayling said “We all understand the need for proper protection of our children but this new regime has the potential to be a real disaster for activities involving young people in the UK. We are going to drive away volunteers, we'll see clubs and activities close down and we'll end up with more bored young people on our streets.”

But notice this. Neither Mr Huhne nor Mr Grayling said anything about repeal. Not a hint, let alone a promise. Even though their parties knew this was coming, and have had time to think through it, they are content with a little hand-wringing and criticism of the government.

And so the march toward the database state continues.

The shocking gender pay gap

2009-09-09T12:39:00.003+01:00

Do hurry over immediately to Entering the Whirlpool, and read what Mr. Newton has to say.

And note, in particular, his conclusion. The government’s policy can be simply stated as: “We will enact even more intrusive and authoritarian measures to attempt to reach this goal.”

The goal, of course, is complete equality of outcome - which in this case means that the average female will earn as much as the average male in every workplace, and in every profession.

Equality of opportunity under the law is no longer good enough. The government believes that we must have equality of outcome. Equality of outcome, however, can only be achieved, as Mr. Newton points out, through intrusive and authoritarian measures on the part of the state. This is simply social engineering, and the end of this road is totalitarianism.

For what it is worth, my own position as a libertarian is that the
government should not enact any directly discriminatory legislation. (Perhaps some legislation may, indirectly, result in discrimination, and such legislation may need to be reconsidered. After all, we libertarians believe that the less legislation we have, the better.) The government should also ensure that there is no discrimination in employment practices for jobs in the state sector. However, it is not the place of the government to force anti-discrimination legislation on other employers. Should an organisation desire to employ only women - or only men, or only Jews, on only people with blond hair and blue eyes - then that is none of the government’s business.

Weedkillers and the nanny tendency

2009-09-08T12:24:00.002+01:00

I am not, I must confess, particularly practical. Something to do with having paws, I imagine. Which probably explains the trouble I had with the Weedol ‘gun’ I bought at the garden centre yesterday. (Note the inverted commas. This is not a firearm!)

The instructions said “Press down firmly on top of trigger head
immediately behind yellow nozzle to depress safety tab. At the same time, twist nozzle to spray position (1/4 turn either way).”

Those of you who are reading this probably understand exactly what that means. But I was mystified, and in my efforts to use the gun, I managed to get very little weedkiller onto the weeds, but rather a lot all over my paws. And I growled at the geniuses that felt obliged to invent a new type of gun, when the old type worked well. No doubt they thought that it was too easy to get this dangerous substance out of the old type of gun, and that it needed to be changed to protect us.

However, my hard stares yesterday were not just directed toward the manufacturers of Weedol. They also fell upon the EU. For when I was in the garden centre, looking at weedkillers, I saw a notice saying that it would no longer be legal to sell Sodium chlorate after September 30th, 2009. (Which annoyed me, because I had been wanting to buy some.) I did a little research, and discovered that the decision, in fact, was taken by the EU last year, but I had missed the announcement. However, I had suspected that something was up, because I had not seen any for sale for some months.

The reasons, are found here and here, but are essentially as follows (and I quote, to give you a flavour of the prose style):

The information available is insufficient to satisfy the requirements set out in Annex II and Annex III Directive 91/414/EEC in particular with regard to
unacceptable exposure to operators
the need for further data to establish an AOEL
the need for further data to assess the leaching of a relevant metabolite to groundwater.

So Sodium chlorate products are not expected to satisfy Council Directive 91/414/EEC, and hence Sodium chlorate will not be included in Annex I to the said directive, which means that it cannot be sold or used in the EU.

Yes, Sodium chlorate is toxic if ingested - like thousands of other substances. It does tend to leach out of soil, and into groundwater. But these things have been common knowledge for generations, and Sodium chlorate has been used for generations, and I have never heard that there has been a public health problem with it.

So why is it being banned now? It’s pretty obvious. Politicians and officials didn’t get around to banning it before because they didn’t have the time. But now they are finding time. And they will increasingly find time. Time to ban other things that we have taken for granted for years.

Entitled to nothing?

2009-09-05T16:22:00.003+01:00

The headline in Michael Portillo’s article in this week’s Sunday Times was pretty blunt: Idle young should be entitled to nothing. What Mr. Portillo actually said in the text was rather more undogmatic: “perhaps, at least, we ought to assume that fit young people are not entitled to anything.”

It is curious that the New Testament’s language on the subject is much closer to the bluntness of the headline. To quote the apostle Paul: “For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.” (II Thessalonians 3:10)

We cannot know exactly why the apostle wrote these words, but it appears that there were some in the early Christian church in Thessalonica who were able to work, but were not doing so, and who apparently expected others to support them. In those days, no one would have envisaged such support from the state, so it seems that these people were looking to their fellow Christians. The book of Acts (4:32-35) tells us that the early Christians in Jerusalem shared their possessions - in other words the church basically acted like one big happy family - and it seems that something similar must have been going on among the Christians in Thessalonica, and that some people were taking advantage of this arrangement and letting the others support them.

The fact that Paul says that he gave them instructions not to feed the idle when he was with them, and now feels the necessity to repeat himself, indicates to me that the church seemed a little reluctant to crack down on the idle. But Paul clearly takes the view that expecting others to support you when you are unwilling to work is immoral - and should not be tolerated. And if it is intolerable for the church to support those within its fold who are unwilling to work, is it any more tolerable for tax-payers to support their workshy neighbours?

“Idle young should be entitled to nothing?” That’s exactly what the apostolic teaching of Christianity was. I wonder how many Christians realised that when they read the Sunday Times headline.

Libertarianism and moral degeneration

2009-09-04T10:09:00.003+01:00

In his article on welfare reform in the Sunday Times, Michael Portillo refers frequently to Charles Murray. He describes him as a ‘conservative polemicist’ - though Wikipedia describes Murray as a libertarian, and Murray seems happy with that, since one of his books is entitled What it Means to be a Libertarian: A personal interpretation.

One line from Portillo’s article jumped out at me. He writes that Murray “was pessimistic that a democratic society could take measures tough enough to halt our moral degeneration.” Moral degeneration, in other words, is a political issue, and one that concerns some libertarians. This will come as a surprise to those who confuse libertarianism and libertinism (see, e.g. this post by Cranmer), and who seem to believe that libertarianism is inextricably linked to moral degeneration.

But what is this moral degeneration that Messers Portillo and Murray are talking about? It’s basically the fact that a large number of people are happy to live off the efforts of others, and believe that they are entitled to do so. And that has long bothered me too. One of the main reasons why I parted company with the left back in the 1980s was my own feeling that the welfare state had created an unhealthy entitlement mentality. And for this reason, I came to the shocking conclusion that those who defend the welfare state, as it exists in modern Britain, do not have the moral high ground.

So is there a libertarian view on halting moral degeneration? Some would say that we cannot legislate morality, and hence policy making should take no account of moral degeneration. I think that is naive: government policy does affect the behaviour of citizens. Charles Murray clearly agrees, and apparently believes that living in a libertarian society will eliminate - or at least discourage - some forms of undesirable behaviour. And the way our fellow citizens behave is a matter of public interest.

I don’t believe that government should be in the business of social engineering. But I do believe that those who govern should be concerned about the character, attitudes, and behaviour that are found in society, and should try to think about the way that their policies will affect these things. Public policy is, of course, only one factor that affects the behaviour of people in a society. But it seems to me that if one wishes to encourage responsible behaviour, the best course of action is to let people have personal freedom, and keep state intervention in their lives to a minimum, so that they can see that they are responsible for their own actions.

For that reason, while I don’t pretend that libertarianism is a panacea, I suspect that a libertarian approach is probably at least as effective as any other political programme at halting moral degeneration.

A Liberal Democrat talks sense

2009-09-02T09:14:00.001+01:00

Last night I was chatting to our local Liberal Democrat councillor, and the discussion came around to the passing of legislation that hadn’t been properly thought through. He remarked that he had often thought that MPs should be given a generous salary, but that every time they passed the law, their pay would be docked by a few thousand pounds. The problem, as he pointed out, is that MPs tend to measure their productivity by the number of laws they pass. Sadly, a lot of voters take the same view - but here was a politically experienced man who could see that it was not so.

I would want to amend his suggestion slightly. Pay MPs a reasonable salary, dock their pay for every new law they pass, and give them a bonus for every law they repeal.

And for good measure, every time a new law is passed, one MP who voted for it should be chosen at random and taken out and shot.

Daniel Hannan, Enoch Powell, and quality of political discourse

2009-08-31T12:30:00.002+01:00

I remember, back in the 1980s, listening to Any Questions on Radio 4, on an occasion when Enoch Powell was on the panel. When he spoke, a group of people sought to drown him out by chanting “Enoch Powell is a racist.” I disagreed with Mr. Powell’s views on immigration (and indeed, on much else), but I could not see how anyone who listened seriously to him could believe him to be a racist. Some people, however, were not only determined not to listen seriously to Mr. Powell, but also determine to ensure that no one else did, either. For these people, open minded political discussion is not on the agenda. In fact, any intelligent, rational, political discussion is not of much interest.

And when Enoch Powell is mentioned, not much has changed - as witness the reaction to Daniel Hannan’s reference to Mr. Powell in his Reason TV interview. Mr. Hannan said:

“He was somebody who understood the importance of national democracy, who understood why you need to live in an independent country and what that meant, as well as being a free marketeer and a small government Conservative."

Lord Mandelson waded in, and Parmjit Dhanda, Labour MP for
Gloucester, called on Mr Cameron to remove the party whip from Mr Hannan, and said: “When another Tory candidate praised Enoch Powell in 2007, David Cameron criticised him and he was forced to resign.”

The two cases, however, are completely different. The Tory candidate in question, Nigel Hastilow, had said that Powell was right about immigration. But not only did Hannan not praise (or mention) Powell’s views on immigration, he doesn’t even agree with them. Mr Dhanda is either being stupid, or intellectually dishonest.

And this is the thing that depresses me. The level of political discourse in this country should be a little higher than “Nyah, nyah, nyah.” It shouldn't be based on ignorance and dishonesty. And yet members of parliament can come up with pure idiocy, and not face deselection.

Last year, Hazel Blears complained about political blogs:

"Mostly, political blogs are written by people with disdain for the political system and politicians, who see their function as unearthing scandals, conspiracies and perceived hypocrisy. Until political blogging 'adds value' to our political culture, by allowing new voices, ideas and legitimate protest and challenge, and until the mainstream media reports politics in a calmer, more responsible manner, it will continue to fuel a culture of cynicism and despair."

I’m sorry, Ms. Blears, but I do despair of politicians, and I am cynical about them. And there is dishonesty, stupidity and hypocrisy among politicians. Political blogging does add value to our political culture. It points out dishonesty, stupidity, and hypocrisy. And it also allows new voices and ideas.

And, at least with most of the blogs that I read, blogging provides a level of rational political discussion that is well above what we often get from career politicians like Lord Mandelson and Mr. Dhanda. If only the result of their silly remarks was a public outcry about the stupidity and intellectual dishonesty that so often characterises political discourse in this country.

My journey to Libertarianism: 6

2009-08-28T16:05:00.005+01:00

(In which a young bear gentleman from darkest Peru hears the footsteps of the Stasi in 21st century Britain.)

The political event that really shocked me (and yes, it was a political event) took place in November 2003. The Rt Rev Dr Peter Forster, Bishop of Chester, was questioned by Cheshire Constabulary over statements he made to the Chester Chronicle.
(See, for example, here, here, and here.)

In the report on what the Chronicle called his “traditional and controversial views” (there’s an odd combination) the bishop was quoted as saying

Some people who are primarily homosexual can reorientate themselves. I would encourage them to consider that as an option, but I would not set myself up as a medical specialist on the subject - that's in the area of psychiatric health. We want to help them but I don't offer it as a panacea.

Nothing remotely inflammatory there - even though many people would disagree. But a complaint was made to the police, and they launched an investigation to see if an offence had been committed under the Public Order Act 1986. No charge was brought.

But the bishop was visited by the police. And that is significant, because most people will take the view that if saying something publicly gets you a visit from the police, then you are not going to say it.

What was the point of the visit, anyway? What he said was in the public domain - the police could have a look at it and decide whether a crime had been committed. In previous statements he had said it was important to act with compassion towards gays and lesbians. Clearly, he was questioned, not in order to ascertain his views or find out what he had said, but in order to send the message that he should not have said it.

This was confirmed by the Chief Constable, Mr. Peter Fahy, who, far from apologising, said

Cheshire Police, day in, day out, deals with offences against members of minority communities which are generated by hate and prejudice. I think all public leaders need to make sure that comments they make are balanced by that need for all of us to be giving clear leadership on this issue and to make sure that vulnerable groups are protected and that people have an awareness of the needs and the backgrounds of all these various groups.

He has got his own personal view and I'm sure his comments are based on very strong personal religious conviction. But I do think we need to remind ourselves how this translates. The whole issue of diversity comes down to individual members of minority communities often being targeted, feeling under-protected and being victims of crime because of their sexual orientation, their colour or their religious beliefs. I think in a civilised society that is totally unacceptable.

That is simply Orwellian newspeak for “He shouldn’t have said what he said, and if you publicly express traditional Christian views on homosexuality you should not be surprised if you get a visit from the police.”

Free speech was being strangled. And that reminded me of the occasion 20 years earlier, when I was shocked to find that some Liberal Party activists saw nothing wrong with trying to silence the NF/BNP. (see here)

But there were three differences.
1) On that occasion, the action was taken by private individuals; on this occasion it was taken by law enforcement officers.
2) On that occasion, the individuals targeted might have been described as a group of chavs; on this occasion, it was a highly respected (and highly educated) member of the House of Lords.
3) On that occasion, the offensive philosophy was neo-nazism; this time it was traditional Christianity.
If you couldn’t see which way the wind was blowing, you weren’t paying attention. Niemöller’s dictum looked very appropriate.

Yes, the way the bishop was treated wasn’t exactly thuggish - more Brave New World than 1984. But it was still the deliberate stifling of freedom of speech. And who was to say that it might not become nastier?

The big shock for me, however, was not simply what the police did. It was the political reaction. Would the government say something vaguely apologetic? Would the Conservatives seize on the incident to speak out and oppose what New Labour was doing to traditional British freedoms? Would the LibDems speak up as the party of liberty?

But there was no political reaction. Peter Fahy, whose career should have come to an inglorious end, was actually promoted and is now Chief Constable of Greater Manchester. It was clear that the political establishment - particularly Labour, but also the Conservatives (who were, of course, responsible for the Public Order Act 1986) and the LibDems - all believed that there were some opinions that were so dangerous that people should be discouraged from expressing them - and discouraged by using law enforcement officers. If that wasn’t the beginnings of a police state, what was it?

Well, so it seemed to me. Nobody else seemed to think so. At least no-one was saying anything publicly. And I found the silence deafening.

Selective omission, labelling, and the creation of fear

2009-08-26T15:12:00.004+01:00

Is this the face of the anti-Christian left? Or is it the face of the neo-Nazi right?

It is, in fact, the face of James Wenneker Von Brunn, the 88 year old man who has been charged with the shooting which took place at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum on June 10 this year.

Read Wikipedia and you find him described as a white supremacist and Holocaust denier. He is also regularly described as neo-nazi, anti-Semitic, and far-right.

However, there are things that Wikipedia and the MSM don’t tell you. They don’t mention that Von Brunn was a self-proclaimed socialist, and wrote:

“[capitalism] is past history; . . . WESTERN SOCIALISM, represents the future of the West, and the end of JEWRY on Western soil.”

They don’t tell you about his hostility toward Christianity, and particularly toward the apostle Paul, also known as Saul of Tarsus. Von Brunn wrote:

Saul -- a Roman citizen -- suddenly realized how he could destroy Rome! . . . . He would simply promulgate the insane teachings of Jesus! . . . . Saul decided to begin the HOAX by inventing a miraculous encounter on the road to Damascus with the reincarnated Jesus the Christ! . . . he named his hoax "Christianity." . . . . The Big Lie technique, employed by Paul to create the CHRISTIAN RELIGION, also was used to create the HOLOCAUST RELIGION . . . CHRISTIANITY AND THE HOLOCAUST are HOAXES.

What is it about? It’s about labelling people. (Labelling people is not always wrong. Some people fit nicely into categories. But not everyone.) But this is about more than labelling. It’s also about guiding the way people think. It’s about leaving out certain details so that people will draw a certain conclusion.

And the reason for that is to scare people. The thinking is “Let’s scare them into thinking that neo-nazis are a threat. Let’s scare them into thinking that ‘right wing’ is dangerous. But whatever we do, we must not give people the impression that socialists, or those who hate Christianity, might be dangerous - because that would give people the wrong idea.”

Some things are dangerous. If you think something is dangerous, and it scares you, then by all means try to persuade other people. But if you are highly selective with your facts, and omit important details, don’t expect people to believe you.

After all, we libertarians would never do that, would we?

(Thanks very much to Jonny Newton at Entering the Whirlpool.)

Post Script: Here is another one. For sheer dishonesty, this is hard to beat. Watch this video.

Then watch this one.

Interesting, isn't it?

(Thanks for those to Greg at The Holy Cause, who has also written a helpful piece on the subject.)

Liberty to the captive

2009-08-25T15:36:00.002+01:00

Incarceration is, to the lover of freedom, the ultimate cruel and unusual punishment. The death penalty is not so strange, because we must all die some time, and it may turn out to be tomorrow. But incarceration in a prison is unnatural, and most of us hope never to experience it. And to be incarcerated for life, even in a gilded cage, is abhorrent. Perhaps this is why there is no mention of incarceration as a punishment in the Old Testament penal code.

And hence I have some sympathy with Mr Kenny Macaskill, the Scottish Justice minister, and indeed with the Scottish Government, who have decided to release Mr. Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, who was convicted of the Lockerbie bombing. Indeed, if one is compassionate, one must have some sympathy with Mr. Megrahi himself.

Mr. Macaskill has come in, however, for a good deal of stick. And I have some sympathy for his critics as well. Releasing someone from a sentence, simply because he is terminally ill, does seem to go contrary to natural justice. Were it standard practice to do so, and if everyone knew, when Mr. Megrahi was sentenced, that he would be released and allowed to go home to Libya if he became terminally ill, then no one could complain. It is the fact that the Scottish Government has released him unexpectedly that is the problem. Predictability is part of the essence of a good legal system. If people cannot predict how prisoners are going to be treated, it is inevitable that they will feel that something unjust is going on. And for that reason, I think that the Scottish Government has made a mistake.

However, it is a pretty small mistake. It may turn out to be expensive for Scotland - though I doubt it. But even if the repercussions are big, the fault is small. It doesn’t matter whether Mr. Megrahi spends his final weeks in Libya or in Scotland. Making him die in a Scottish jail will not bring back any of the people killed in the Lockerbie bombing. This is a storm in a tea-cup, and while it may excite public opinion, it is not much more important than the news stories about rich and famous celebrities that also seem to excite public opinion.

There are thousands of much bigger mistakes that have been made by the British and Scottish governments in recent years which have not attracted anything like the criticism of this decision. The way that Labour, Conservative and LibDem MSPs have lined up to attack the SNP for this smacks of political opportunism.

The truth of the matter is that the real scandal is that tax-payers are paying these MSPs to debate matters of so little importance - and that they are paying Mr. Macaskill to visit Mr. Megrahi in jail. Do politicians have nothing better to do with their time?

Actually, I’m afraid that the answer is probably ‘no’.

Honesty is what it is about

2009-08-21T15:21:00.002+01:00

Honesty is what it is about. We have got to speak the truth. Leaking and spinning, at the end of the day, are not helpful. (Richard Dannatt)

Next week, General Sir Richard Dannatt steps down as Chief of the General Staff. In an age of spin, when almost no one in public life seems to have the guts to tell the truth lest it cost them dearly, General Dannatt stood out. It appears, not surprisingly, that he was intensely disliked by some in the current government.

As David Crosthwaite-Eyre says, “Imagine how wonderful it would be to have someone wielding real political power who didn't care a jot for spin, who isn't afraid to speak their mind. Who actually wanted to do the right thing for the right reasons.”

Indeed.

Unless we actually know exactly what the problems are, we are unlikely to come up with the correct solutions. And if people in power are determined to suppress the truth, we are less likely to know.

Maybe street preaching offends too many people . . .

2009-08-20T15:45:00.004+01:00

The "open air preaching" was offending too many people, so we decided to try "open air liturgical dancing."

Borrowed from a caption competition at Calvinistic Cartoons (I kid you not). The caption was submitted by Craig Boyd.

(Well, you didn’t think I would think of a clever caption, did you?)

My journey to Libertarianism: 5

2009-08-19T22:26:00.003+01:00

(In which a young bear gentleman from darkest Peru watches with wide-eyed disbelief as the world’s most modern and enlightened progressives take Britain into a foolish war of aggression.)

For me, tyranny was always something so dreadful, that it was worth taking up arms to oppose it. I may abhor bloodshed, but I have never been a pacifist, and have never had much time for disarmament movements.

I have also generally taken the view that unprovoked aggression should not be allowed to succeed. Hence I supported Britain’s use of military force against Argentina in the Falklands war and against Iraq in the Gulf War.

In fact, I always seemed to be on the pro-war side.

So when the Iraq war in 2003 arrived, my gut instinct, through force of habit, was to support the war. But my head told me differently. And I passionately believe that one should listen to one’s head rather than one’s heart.

I had three major problems with Britain’s involvement in the invasion.

1. In the debate on March 18, 2003, which ended in Parliament voting to support an invasion, the heart of Tony Blair’s argument was that Iraq had not complied with UN Security Council Resolution 1441. The key phrase in the Government’s motion was that "This House . . . believes that the United Kingdom must uphold the authority of the United Nations as set out in Resolution 1441 and many Resolutions preceding it, and therefore supports the decision of Her Majesty's Government that the United Kingdom should use all means necessary to ensure the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.” In other words, it seemed to me that he was saying that Iraq must be invaded because it had defied UN resolutions. I cannot agree that upholding the authority of the United Nations is of such consequence that we should go to war over it. Nor to I believe that the UN has the authority to tell a sovereign nation to disarm.

2. I believed that the probability of a democratic, stable, free, pro-western Iraq emerging as a result of the war was about nil. (Did George W. Bush and Tony Blair really think otherwise?) There was, in other words, little chance that the invasion would be a success, except in the limited sense that it would eliminate the possibility of Saddam Hussein using any WMDs that he might have. To fight a war that would leave a complete mess in its wake seemed to me to be wrong.

3. Most fundamentally, we were the aggressors. Everyone could see that. In the first Gulf War, Iraq started it. This time we did.
The fact that I came down against the invasion did not, in itself, make me a libertarian, of course. But it did mean that I would be interested in opponents of the war who, like me, were not on the political left. And this was, in due time, to land me in the company of libertarians . . . .

(Part 4 is here, by the way)

Footnote to the Miguel Hayworth story

2009-08-18T08:20:00.002+01:00

Interestingly enough, the police chief of Greater Manchester, Mr. Peter Fahy, who has been written to by the Christian Legal Centre, is no stranger to controversy in these matters.

In 2003, the police questioned the Bishop of Chester, the Right Rev Dr Peter Forster, after Dr Forster was quoted as saying "Some people who are primarily homosexual can reorientate themselves. I would encourage them to consider that as an option, but I would not set myself up as a medical specialist on the subject - that's in the area of psychiatric health."

Mr. Fahy, at that time Chief Constable of Cheshire, afterwards was highly critical of Dr. Forster, saying,

"Cheshire Police, day in, day out, deals with offences against members of minority communities which are generated by hate and prejudice. I think all public leaders need to make sure that comments they make are balanced by that need for all of us to be giving clear leadership on this issue and to make sure that vulnerable groups are protected and that people have an awareness of the needs and the backgrounds of all these various groups.

He has got his own personal view and I'm sure his comments are based on very strong personal religious conviction. But I do think we need to remind ourselves how this translates."