Focus on the Film

Don’t Ban It: Just Don’t Watch It

Some films are good: others a load of tripe. Some films are tasteful, others about as tasteful as eating a bin full of tampons. Some moviemakers, in certain genres, like to be factually correct, while others wouldn’t know the truth if it came up wearing steel toe-capped boots and punted them firmly in the bollocks.

Last weekend a new film about the life of the sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, starring Liam Neeson, was released in the USA. With a fired up, politically energised conservative Christian movement presently running amok, there was sure to be more uproar than merely a few raised eyebrows. Some of the comments from conservative Christian groups are reasonable, others are completely wacko. Most Christian groups do at least finally realise that it is quite futile to freely advertise the shows they dislike through their attention seeking, high profile publicity stunts and demonstrations. Thankfully Kinsey will not be faced with any pickets or calls for boycotts.

One concerned Christian group is Focus on the Family, whose website offers reviews of films, television, and music so as to aid their loyal flock in choosing moral, God-fearing entertainment. I’m not against this in principle. If there is a group of people with certain beliefs who want advise and guidance on what they should and should not watch, then that’s fine - they are perfectly entitled to do so. At least as far as Kinsey is concerned they are welcoming debate. Kristi Hamrick says, “…we want to have a serious intellectual conversation about who Kinsey was and what he did.”

This is a reasonable response, and I must say that I am pleasantly surprised to hear it coming from a group like this, a group whose criticism of many films is laughable and pathetic on occasions: On Bad Santa - “A shocking amount of profanity is used. . . about 150 f-words. . .60 s-words, along with more than 75 other profanities and crudities. God’s name is profaned over 15 times. . . A couple of obscene gestures crop up.” Isn’t it just a tad psychotic that some guy sat counting the number of times someone said fuck or shit? And just why are those words, or any words, considered immoral? Words are neither inherently moral nor inherently immoral. And what’s this about God’s name being profaned? I never once heard God’s name (traditionally Yahweh, or Jehovah) mentioned, but I suspect that the reviewer was making a similar mistake to most Christians in assuming that God’s name is “God.” Yes, right, and my name is “human being.” Under “other negative elements” we are informed that “a child grossly sneezes all over Willie’s face.” I have it on good authority from my wife (a childcare worker) that these guys must find day-nurseries to be quite obscene places, since messy child sneezes are quite the norm, and most kids don’t care much for whose face is in the way of the latest snot-fest. On Bridget Jones The Edge of Reason, under “violent content” we get this: “Bridget’s physical foibles include no fewer than three face plants, leaving her countenance covered in everything from sand to snow to pig manure. Mark and Daniel chase each other, push each other and come to blows over Bridget.” Someone falls in the snow or the sand and THAT is “violent content?” What planet are these guys from? I suppose Road Runner cartoons are on a par with Kill Bill in the minds of these people. I can just see it now: “Wylie Coyote falls off a cliff no fewer than ten times in this sadistic cartoon, and we are always forced to look into his doomed face as he plummets onto jagged rocks rigged with ACME dynamite. Post-teens only.”

But, I digress. Suffice it to say that I’m pleased, surprised, but pleased, that these people are, apparently, willing to have an intelligent debate.

There is one other Christian group who’d seemingly prefer to skip all debate and move straight to regulation and legislation of their own moral outlook. Robert Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute, based in Washington, said that evangelical Christians are on the move and beginning to use their political weight to get their way and subdue the preferences of others: “Just as Reagan was not content to contain communism but announced a rollback, pro-family organisations are not content to protest the latest outrage anymore, but will seek legislation and will punish sponsors of lewd entertainment.” [Emphasis mine].

This sort of sentiment is made all the more sinister once we find out just what such types believe counts as “lewd.” Judging from the film reviews I have been reading, Lewd can mean as little as the baring of a naked posterior on screen. Far from being lewd, I consider the human posterior to be an incredibly funny thing. It looks odd, wobbles, and makes strange noises (often at inconvenient and utterly inappropriate moments). And what is this “punishment” supposed to consist of? Are we talking hefty fines for actors who show more than 40% of their skin? Would directors have to go to prison because the camera catches just about too much tit? “What are you in for?” “Murder, rape and burglary, you?” “Ummmm, my R-rated movie contained 2 shots of a someone’s tits and 3 seconds of somebody’s arsehole.”

The problem with groups like the Culture and Family Institute is that most of their offerings are based on an illegitimate premise and contain an erroneous assumption. The illegitimate premise is that government has a duty to legislate morality. The erroneous assumption is that by portraying something on screen the filmmakers are advocating it. With regards to the latter I remember having a debate with a Christian friend of mine about the British movie Trainspotting. Trainspotting is about the lives of a group of drug addicts in Scotland. I told my friend I went to see it. He had been to see it himself and informed me that he thought it was bang out of order because it glorifies drugs. My response ran something like this: “What film did you watch? The film portrays the destructiveness of drugs. A woman’s baby dies because she lies out of her head on heroin most of the day, the lead character has a horrendous hallucinatory episode (after he nearly dies) because of heroin, one of the guys takes up heroin only to catch AIDS from an infected needle and dies of a brain cist in his stinking apartment, and at the end the lead character rejects drugs and decides to “choose life.” Tell me again, what part of this film glorifies drugs?” He mistakenly thought the film was advocating drugs because it was merely about drugs.

This assumption is forgivable and correctable. However, the illegitimate premise that government should legislate matters of private morality is much more insidious. Why should filmmakers be punished for showing sex or using certain words or gestures? I certainly agree that many portrayals of sex in films are utterly tasteless - especially hard-core pornographic images. But, this is a matter of taste. I don’t like such films, so I simply don’t watch them. It’s the same principle as that which operates at a restaurant. If you’re a vegetarian then don’t order a meat dish and then complain about it.

Christians must be careful that the precedent they hope to set doesn’t come back and bite them on the ass. There could yet come a day when Christianity is both censured and censored by a majority that just doesn’t like it. Already some “progressive” countries are putting Christians in prison for preaching certain things, for instance anti-gay sentiments, which are classified as “hate-speech.” This is the secular version of the Christian premise that government should legislate its morality.

The fact of the matter is that government has no business interfering in private consensual relationships, freedom of thought, freedom of speech, and a whole host of other things beyond the remit of this article. The legislation of morality is particularly toxic to society, and even to the notion of morality itself. Central to morality is the notion of freedom. An action is not morally right or wrong if the person who performs it is compelled by a force external to themselves.

The standard Christian reaction to this argument is, “well, if we shouldn’t legislate morality then we have no grounds on which to prohibit murder, assault, rape, burglary, vandalism and theft?” This is not true. The single duty of government is to protect its citizens from direct, non-consensual and intentional harm. All of the above therefore warrant government interference. There is no basis for government interference in matters of sex, whether that be to outlaw certain forms of consensual sex or its depiction in a film. The film industry already has a certificate system which informs viewers of the nature of the movie. I have never once went to the movies and been shocked to see that some film was not what I thought it was. When I went to see Troy I knew there would be graphic violence, gushing blood, and hacked limbs. It’s impossible to go to a film without having access to what it is about, and if you don’t like the look of the content then don’t go to see it.

It angers me to see Christian groups attempting to sanitise society to their own ideals. Where will this form of sanitising end? Compulsory church attendance? Fines for uttering the word “fuck?” Imprisonment for worshipping other gods? Make no mistake about it, this mentality is ultimately no different to that of fundamentalist Muslims bent on world conversion, who desire Islamic states run in accordance to Koranic ideals. All that’s different is the methods. The outcome is equally disastrous for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Stephen Graham (B.Th Hons)

PS. This article contained 1 B-word, 2 F’s, 1 S, 2 T’s, and 2 A’s.

Retiring from Iraq

Finish the Job, then Retire

I supported the war in Iraq from day one. The reason for my support for the war was that Saddam Hussein had not been co-operating anywhere nearly as fully as he should have with weapons inspections, and, according to the intelligence services of almost every county in the western world (including those opposed to war) Saddam still had some fairly destructive weapons, and the will to use them (which he had already done, like it or not Mr Lilly-Livered Limp-wrested Liberal), to such an extent that he was a threat to national security.

As it turned out, the power of Saddam was grossly over-estimated, or deliberately fabricated. In the former case there was a failure in the intelligence services; while in the latter case the population was deceived to such an extent that the politicians party to the deception should be hung, drawn, and quartered. Soon after this information became available anyone with an opinion on the war seemed to join one of two camps. They either put on their baggy jumpers, skipped a few baths, and joined the anti-war protests, or else they remained in support of the war, but by abandoning the security argument in favour of what was labelled “the moral argument for war”: Saddam was a brutal dictator who persecuted and killed his own people to such a degree that we were right to do the world the favour of disposing of him ASAP.

It was understandable that those in favour of military action resorted to such an argument. However, with hindsight, they may have made a tactical blunder. With every new day in Iraq the “moral case for war” has been further eroded. It is now perhaps the case that more Iraqi citizens have died during the military campaign than were killed by Saddam Hussein over a far longer period. For those who died life was most certainly better under Saddam Hussein - at least they still had it. Now, of course, this response overlooks the fact that subsequent generations will benefit, hopefully, from the new Iraq that will, hopefully, emerge, hopefully. But, the “moral case for war” is still highly suspect and looks quite fragile as it stands alone, trying to prop up a war that seemingly gets worse with every passing day.

I think that arguing such a moral case for war was a bad route to have taken. I myself actually still support the war because of the very first reasons I stated: national security. My initial support for the war was rational given what we were told at the time. Joe Citizen cannot but trust the intelligence community, not least of all because we aren’t privy to the information that they are. You can hardly call someone irrational for not taking into account information that wasn’t available at the time of making the decision. My support for the war is also rational now, (despite the fact that the original grounds were later proven to be invalid), because if our troops withdraw we face no less, and potentially very much worse, of a security crisis than is currently the case. Our will will have been cracked, and will have been seen to have cracked, with the result that terror groups worldwide will be galvanised. When your enemy is in retreat, that is the time to go for a rout. Britain will be more vulnerable.

The moral case for war was never one I supported. There are any number of national tyrants and oppressed peoples throughout the world. However, it is not the job of our government to police outside of its jurisdiction - our national borders - unless our own security is under threat. As much as we can sympathise with people oppressed by their governments, our troops have no business bailing foreign citizens out of their situation. Our army is for our defence, and nobody else’s. Robert Mugabe is simply no threat to our nation, so we rightfully do not send troops to get rid of him, even though there is a “moral argument” for so doing. But, the second he comes over his borders to threaten our national interests and our citizens then we can melt his sorry ass with the latest super-duper 7000 degree Fahrenheit wonder bomb. Until such time it’s simply a matter of saying “tough bloody luck” to Zimbabweans, and, of course, treating the country with contempt in our relations with it, if indeed we should have any.

Our government should not take on the role of global nanny, spanking the arses off all the nasty little bastards of the world. Justifying the war in Iraq for that reason is wrong - spending British money without doing anything to protect Britain. However, now we’re stuck there and we can’t pull out. We’ve created a security crisis, and increased the hatred and zeal in the heart of every would-be terrorist nut-job to hit us as hard as possible. An unstable Iraq would simply worsen this situation, and thus we need to subdue the insurgents and stabilise the country as far as possible - so as to ensure that the new threat to our country and the civilised world is lessened. Withdrawing from Iraq will provide us with a far greater threat than staying and assisting the rebuilding and stabilisation, despite the level of internal resistance. We’ve made a mess, and we’d best clean it up - for our own sake, not out of some altruistic concern for the Iraqi people, as the “moral argument for war” proposes. Of course, if we knew 2 or 3 years ago what we know now, we should never have gone to war at all. But, this fact does not mean that we should withdraw now, because now there is a real threat that must be dealt with. Ironic, eh?

When the dust settles, and our troops finally get home (perhaps in time to draw their pension), we must reflect long and hard about this whole sorry situation. We need to ensure that we never again get involved in an unnecessary war on the basis of a false premise - by reviewing the mechanisms and processes of the intelligence community, or by ensuring that our politicians can never again dupe us so easily. Our approach to military intervention needs to be a little more “stand-offish.” We have a great army, possibly the most professional troops in the world. They would die for their country. But, unfortunately we too often ask them to die for other people and other countries. Let people in other countries deal with their own problems, whilst making it perfectly clear that any aggression towards us will be met with swift, solid and uncompromising retribution.

But, like I said…when the dust settles…

Stephen Graham (B.Th Hons).

Prince - Charming!

Prince - Charming!

I always thought that it was only members of royalty who minced around with a poker up their arse, but apparently not. It seems as if a large contingent of the media and a sizeable quantity of modern day journalists live their lives in similar rectal discomfort, if the reactions to comments made by Prince Charles about education are anything to go by.

The chattering classes didn’t like Charlie’s comments at all (which should have been grounds enough to expect that what he said was perfectly reasonable). I read most of the reaction to the comments before I read the actual comments themselves, which were scribbled on a private memo, and weren’t intended to be a contribution or starter for any debate about education. After listening to the mass denunciation of the Prince’s sentiments from journalists, political commentators, MP’s and various other self-styled omniscient types, I then read the comments, expecting a bunch of aristocratic, out-of-date nonsense. Instead I found myself to be in agreement with every single word that Charles had written in his memo. This is not because I myself am an aristocrat, nor because Charlie’s powers of rational persuasion are second to none. I agreed with his comments because I am a meritocrat: ironically, what everyone who passionately disagreed with him also claimed to be.

Writing in the Independent, Johann Hari said that Charles’ comments were an attack on meritocracy. Either Johann read a different memo from the one I read, or he’s using a completely different dictionary from the one I use - an Orwellsian one, perhaps, in which slavery means freedom. The sentiments espoused by Charles were nothing other than a cry for meritocracy, and this is exactly in keeping with the character of someone who has aided countless people, through various charities, many of which he set up himself, make as much of themselves as they possibly can. He has established 17 core trusts to aid education and employment, the Prince’s Trust has helped thousands of young people to start in good jobs, and this year alone he has helped to raise around £100 million for good causes. Despite this, critics have en masse condemned Prince Charles for spewing out-of-date notions that ‘people should not rise above their station.’ But, nowhere has Charles ever said this, and however hard I try I simply can’t see how his memo can be construed to mean what Johann Hari, Charles Clarke and John Reid said it means. Perhaps the poker is short-circuiting their rational faculties and ability to comprehend fairly basic sentences of English (and since such is the case, perhaps they have risen above their station?).

Quoting Charles’ words might help:

“What is wrong with everyone nowadays? Why do they all seem to think they are qualified to do things far beyond their actual capabilities? This is all to do with the learning culture in schools — the child-centred learning emphasis which admits of no failure and tells people they can all be pop stars, high court judges or brilliant television personalities — heads of state! (sic) without ever putting in the necessary work or effort, or having the natural ability. It is the result of social utopianism” [Emphasis mine]

Now, when I read these comments in context it seems quite clear that the Prince is not implying that people should not rise above their station. He is complaining about people having unrealistic ambitions to do things that they have no talent, skills or natural ability for, and little or no motivation to actually undertake the work required to gain the necessary skills and abilities. I emphasised the last few words of the penultimate sentence because they clarify everything else, and were seemingly missed out by most critics.

Children are, unfortunately, encouraged to think more about what they want to be rather than about what they want to do. Hell, even adults do this. I’ve lost count of the number of people who tell me that they want to be writers, but who, oddly, never sit down to actually write anything. They seem to think that one day a great idea will just pop into their head and that, presumably by some miraculous procedure little understood, they’ll sit at a desk one day and start writing words that just come to them, like signals from some external source. Cue the Booker Prize. But, talk to anyone who actually writes and you’ll find out that this is not how books, or even articles, are written. There is a lot of thought, editing, re-writing, and failure before something even remotely semi-decent begins to emerge. This is, however, a bitter pill to swallow for the “I want it all and I want it now” minions who think that the world owes them something.

I share Charles’ frustration. How do people ever expect to get to certain positions without ever working towards that end? His memo was written in response to one of his members of staff, Elaine Day, who had expressed her view that bright young graduates should be promoted to more senior positions in the Royal Household. However, no one should expect a promotion simply because he or she has a piece of paper from a university. Many graduates, clever though they may be, tend to want jobs way above their current ability. They seem to think that a university degree entitles them by divine right to better jobs. The fact of the matter is, that employers frequently complain about university graduates having an over-developed sense of self-importance and an under-developed sense of realism and common sense. Having a degree in history of art, English, Greek, or geography does not mean that one necessarily has excelled competence in matters of business.

Our education system lets children down very badly, not least of all by a retardation of standards, brought about by an “all shall have prizes” culture in schools. This sort of school environment creates nothing other than a bunch of deluded children who struggle when faced with the real world, in which one can most assuredly fail. People are all of differing abilities, and there is tremendous competition out there. Surely it is simple child-abuse to tell children that they can reach the moon, sun and stars, when in fact the education of children is stunted in our bog-standard schools where illiteracy abounds among students who struggle to count even on their fingers.

Far too many average people, with little more than basic numeracy and literacy skills, expect to reach professional level jobs, ignorant of the fact they are not terribly special, better trained, more creative or vessels of outstanding ability. The culture of our schools has misled people into delusions fit for a lunatic asylum. It simply isn’t true that any given person can be whatever they want to be. Sometimes it takes a very special person to do certain things, other times it takes a hell of a lot of luck.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with ambition, or with encouraging people to be the best they possibly can. But, there is a sense of realism badly needed to avoid crushing disappointment and subsequent anger. Not everyone can be a prime minister or a judge or a joiner or a teacher or a writer or a radio DJ. Some people will be hopeless at doing such things, even if they were to try very hard.

Those who criticised Charles claimed to be meritocrats. The fact of the matter is that they are not meritocrats at all. Meritocracy is not, as our leftist-socialist brethren hold, a dogma stating that all people are, or can be, of equal merit or equally successful. Innate ability varies, and merit varies with it. It is quite simply the case that, alas, all will not have prizes. However, every person can do well to some degree, hopefully as well as they can. This notion has nothing at all to do with advocating the old-fashioned doctrine that people should “know their place” and not attempt to “rise above their station.” But meritocracy, properly understood, is quite cruel and merciless. It should not be, as it has undoubtedly been, confused with socialism. Socialism is not compatible with a truly meritocratic system, since such a system leaves it up to individuals to pursue their own ends, with the inevitable result that many will fail. Meritocracy is a capitalist ideal. Socialism brings us redistribution of wealth, affirmative action, government interference in individual lives, university entrace quotas, employment quotas, and the like. This is the complete opposite and negation of meritocracy.

I think that this explains the confusion in the minds of Prince Charles critics. They simply don’t like the idea that all will not and cannot have prizes, and they foolishly try to push the square peg of meritocracy through the round hole (sphincter?) of socialism.

So, Prince - charming - and ridicule is nothing to be scared of.

Stephen Graham (B.Th Hons)

Kill the Fox

Killing Cute Furry Animals

I’ve always had a soft spot for animals. As a child I was very much the young animals rights extremist. I remember vividly sitting in my grandparents house as a young boy watching the Grand National, to see if any of the horses my grandfather had bet on would win (yeah, right!). My grandfather was always a betting man. He’d have placed a bet on 2 snails moving across the garden. In this race a horse fell and it was later announced that the horse had a broken leg. I remember my disgust when I was told that when a race-horse died it was normal practice to kill it. The scene that followed was, when I consider it now, somewhat amusing. A 7 year old boy stood up in righteous indignation and denounced the entire sport of horse racing as cruel and barbaric, giving his entire family a lecture in animal rights.

My love for animals continued. I worked in the school animal house for years, looking after all kinds of rodents and reptiles. I wrote essays for GCSE English about the cruelty of human beings to animals. One such essay I wrote was called “The Fox.” The Fox was a descriptive piece, written from the perspective of a young boy watching a fox as it hunts and kills a rat. As the fox tears the rat to bits, a gun-shot goes off and the fox itself falls dead. My last line in that essay was: “Man is the ultimate predator of everything.” A few years later I began to toy with the idea of vegetarianism, only to find that my palate over-ruled my feelings about animal killing, despite the pangs of conscience that would frequently accompany the devouring of a huge steak fit for a puma.

Today I am an unrepentant leather-wearing, animal product consuming, meat-eater whose last argument about horse racing was from the perspective that the horses are very well looked after and seem to have a much better life than horse in the wild. This doesn’t make me a barbarian or a philistine, as some of the more extreme elements of the modern day animal rights movement, the Fluffy Bunny Fascists, hysterically shriek. I’m still always amazed at the animal world. It fascinates me. I would even watch insects in wonder.

However, it has taken me some time to form an opinion about the ban on hunting foxes with dogs. Perhaps my deep-rooted childhood obsession with animals still has a grip on me. I guess to some extent a part of me still doesn’t like the idea of a cute furry animal being killed. I’m certainly not the only person to entertain such emotions, a fact that animals charities are well aware of. Why else does most of the literature from animal charities contain picture after picture of cute furry animals gazing lovingly and pathetically at the camera, “please don’t kill me… I’m a helpless little seal pup…”

But I have now decided where I stand on this issue: hunting foxes with dogs should not be banned.

The chief factors leading me to this opinion are: (1) the failure of the pro-ban lobby’s cruelty argument, (2) their moral hypocrisy, and (3) their true motives.

The leading argument of the pro-ban lobby carries incredible emotional weight: hunting foxes with dogs is not essential and amounts to little other than conscious cruelty to a fox, who suffers the distress and terror of being chased and then the pain of dying (however brief that process is). To do this for “sport” is thus a brutal and barbaric activity with no place in the “civilised” modern world.

I’m not surprised that this argument is the leading one, and I’m fairly sure that it has convinced more people of the need for a ban, and increased the resolve of those already in favour of a ban, than anything else. However, it is little more than the logical equivalent of a ghostly apparition. Banning fox hunting because it is cruel will have a number of outcomes - but saving the lives of foxes and reducing cruelty are not amongst them. It is widely recognised by any one with functioning eyes and the will to see that foxes, to a great extent, are a pest to the countryside, destroying crops and killing farm animals. Foxes need to be controlled - not eliminated altogether - just controlled. If they aren’t hunted, then we need to cull them in some other way. How should we do it? The distinguished vet Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior stated that, “the alternatives [to hunting foxes with dogs] in many cases are certainly less welfare positive than hunting. Shooting, poisoning, trapping and other methods of control are much more insensitive.” A fox killed by dogs may experience the terror of the chase (although we have no access to the inner conscious world of a fox to confirm just to what extent this is the case), but when caught it dies in seconds. A fox that is shot can lie dying for days. Poison ingested can make a fox violently ill without killing it for quite some time. Trapping is notoriously ineffective. When trapping fails to kill a fox, the animal can do itself untold damage in it’s struggle to get free. Thus, I think that the fact of the matter is clear to anyone with a mind that is half-open on this question: fox numbers need to be controlled, and the alternatives to hunting with dogs are not less cruel or barbaric.

And thus the leading argument against hunting foxes with dogs collapses into a noxious pile of puke. But, this argument is not without use (unlike a pile of puke). It helps uncover the moral hypocrisy of many of those who favour a ban on hunting foxes with dogs. The argument states that this form of hunting is barbaric and cruel. How many of these people are meat-eaters, I wonder? And what do they make of the similar cruelty involved in many modern farming techniques? Are they sure that animals products they consume didn’t come from animals held in factory farms, in which their movement is greatly restricted, in horrendous conditions? Many animals that make their way onto supermarket shelves had a fairly unsavoury end themselves, and I seriously doubt that the entire anti-hunt herd is vegetarian. Their concern for the welfare of one animal is clouded by their disregard for many others. If they really had a beef with cruelty to animals then fox hunting with dogs is not by a mile the best place to begin. The only reason to do so is because foxes are far cuter than pigs, cows and chickens. Cue soppy eyes.

What other possible reason can there be for banning the hunting of foxes with dogs? And could any such reason override other considerations that must be taken into account when coming to a conclusion? Some MP’s have described the ban as “unworkable,” and described MP’s in favour of a ban as “misguided.” Certainly this ban will by no means be easy to enforce, and it seems now that 1000’s of hunts-people are going to openly defy it, come what may. And then what? Will they be arrested and thrown into already over-crowded jails for hunting foxes? On what basis is this proposed?

Earlier in the week John Reid, the government health minister, said that people should be able to live their own lives as they see fit, except in so far as they harm other people. Casting the incompatibility of being a Labour government minister with plagiarising John Stuart Mill to one side, these comments are to be welcomed, if only the government would actually govern in accordance with them. However, if Labour take such comments seriously, where is the basis of a ban? Hunting foxes with dogs does not directly and of necessity harm any other living, breathing human being. So why is the government contradicting its very own Millsian principle?

The answer is 2-fold.

Firstly, John Reid was babbling when he came off with libertarian sentiments like that. He was trying to escape charges that Labour is creating a nanny state, and attempting to make Labour look like the party of choice - which would be like Abu Hamza trying to make Bin Laden look like Mother Teresa.

Secondly, and far more sinister, is the fact that when it comes to fox hunting many Labour MP’s and supporters have a hidden agenda. They are not concerned with cruelty to foxes. They are motivated by class prejudice. A number of labour MP’s - most notably Kevin McNamara, Gerald Kaufman and Elliot Morley - have explicitly stated that during the Thatcher years a great many miners and steelworkers were made unemployed, and so now that the shoe is on the other foot the “toffs” of the countryside cannot complain that they are to lose liberty and part of their way of life. So, there you go. Nothing political, principled, moral, or even practical is offered. The actual justification of fox hunting is naked sectarian class bigotry, “we just don’t like rich toffs ridding around on horses shouting Tally-Ho.” And, consonant with New Labour policy, the attitude is “what we don’t like, we ban.”

It is this attitude that lies at the root of such political moves, and this attitude that must be resisted. Voltaire once said that though he may disagree with what someone said, he would die to defend their right to say it. I would expand on that: though we may disagree with what others do, we should defend their right to do it. The only guiding principle here is that uttered, ironically, by John Reid in echo of John Stuart Mill: people should be allowed to live as they wish, and do what they like, as long as they do not directly and necessarily harm an non-consenting party enough to justify interference.

A ban on hunting foxes with dogs does not qualify.

Stephen Graham B.Th (Hons)

Sacking the Golden Oldies

When I'm 64

BBC Breakfast News yesterday ran a feature on the question as to whether or not Britain should have compulsory retirement, and, if so, at what age?

I’m incredibly pissed off purely because a sizable number of people seemingly adhere to the notion that such an issue can and should be decided at government/legislative level. There are, however, absolutely no grounds on which to have a national compulsory retirement age. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch.

Take Betty Shwollocks. Betty has worked for Bob the builder as a secretary for around 40 years, and she is now about to turn 60. Betty has been a fantastic employee for Bob and has built up a vast load of experience and expertise that Bob would dearly love her to apply to a number of building projects he has lined up for the next few years. Should she be forced to retire? If you find yourself answering “yes” to that then you should, no question about it, be locked up into a lunatic asylum for the mentally, and irredeemably, insane, and how you managed to read this article this far is, quite frankly, little short of the best evidence yet in the history of humankind for the existence of God and the occurrence of miracles. Please go and turn yourself in to the nearest police station or secure clinic before you have the opportunity to do any serious damage to human civilisation.

If Betty is able to do a job to the satisfaction of Bob then government has no business dictating to Bob about the hiring and firing of staff. Acting like a nanny for society is bad enough, but for government to behave like a glorified personnel manager interfering with corporate affairs in this way is beyond the pale. Let me spell things out clearly just in case some of the aforementioned mentally deranged have, against all odds, hung on this far and have neglected to take my advise. Employment is a contract between an employer and an employee. The employer with a job going will offer certain terms and conditions to a prospective employee, who in turn either decides to accept them or reject them. If the prospective employee rejects them then he can catch the Number 10 bus - Skidrow, via Job Centre. If he accepts the conditions offered to him then he’s employed, and an employment relationship, bound by a legal contract, begins. At this point the government has only one job to do - not to force the employer to pay the employee more money, not to give the employee a certain number of extra days off each year, and not to set guidelines about the hiring and firing of employees. The only job of government is to protect either party in the event of a breach of contract. It doesn’t even decide industrial disputes - law courts do that.

A compulsory retirement age is no more justified than refusing work to all people under 30 years old. Now, of course, some people have attempted to justify compulsory retirement on the grounds that older people just aren’t as fit to work as they once were. That this is a gross generalisation in starkly obvious. True, 65 year old Geordie might have lost a few brain cells, but in many cases he could well have had far more to begin with than some younger people I have met whose neanderthalic qualities provide good evidence that evolution works in two directions - survival of the fittest and survival of the shittest. Moreover, Geordie might have some leg pains, but he may very well be more mobile than an obese 40 year old who’s tired by the walk to the bus stop before he even gets to his desk. Those who advance the above argument have a questionable number of brain cells themselves. There mere fact that, generally speaking, older people may not be as able as they once were is no basis on which to introduce the one-size-fits-all measure that is compulsory retirement. If someone is unfit in some way for a job then that is a matter for them and their employer, and is wholly separate from a persons age. In fact, intelligence, waistline or health of people at any stage of life is more important. Perhaps we should legislate a blanket ban on fat people working because they are, generally speaking, less able, (not to mention more likely to eat their colleagues). Not all old people suddenly cripple and begin dribbling their stew in the staff canteen as soon as they start advancing through their 60’s. If some do then their employer may indeed realise that the time is ripe to move someone off the shop-floor.

The above generalisation about old people is no different, logically speaking, from that which states: “most men are better at X than women, therefore only men should do X. Women should be banned, through legislation, from doing X.” This sort of sex discrimination would, for our government, be a complete non-starter, and quite rightly so, as would the inherent racism in the statement: “most top sprinters are black, therefore white people should not be allowed to compete alongside them.” I typically detest much of the nonsense that is discrimination-speak, but I have no problem using it here: compulsory retirement is an unjustified interruption by government into the lives of individuals and businesses that amounts to nothing other than legislated discrimination on the basis of age.

Many older people certainly do want to retire when they reach the traditional retirement age, and of course it is up to them to decide whether or not they do, in the same way that it is up to any employee whether or not they want to leave their job. If any older person decides they have had enough then they simply inform their employer and contact their pension provider. Many will, however, want to continue working - usually either because they want or need the money, or because they’d be bored walking the dog and doing crossword puzzles all day long. My own grandfather worked from the age of 14 until 77 when he finally decided to give up work, which he loved and thoroughly enjoyed (largely because it paid for the huge volume of cigarettes and alcohol he made his way through in a week). He died 3 months later. The fact of the matter is that work can give a person purpose, routine, stability, a social life, and a sense of worth and self-esteem. To create a legislative blanket ban preventing older people from working, regardless of the wishes of the people themselves and their employers, is a gross injustice. If they desire to work, and if an employer desires their services, then they should be able to do so.

In short: it is up to employees who they work for, and up to employers who they employ. This should not be in the remit of government.

Will you still need me
Will you still feed me
When I’m 64?

Stephen Graham (B.th Hons)

SMACK!!

SMACK!

It’s the year 1987. The cat is still screaming in pain. I’m running up the stairs. Mum isn’t very happy. 2 minutes and 3 cracks of the leather belt and I’m not much chuffed myself. I never swung the cat by the tail again.

I love my parents and would do anything for them. But, as I always joke with them now, I could today sue them for the things they did to me as a child. My upbringing isn’t very much different with respect to corporal punishment to that of millions of other law-abiding citizens over the past few decades who didn’t become violent criminals and aren’t lacking in mental health, as the anti-smacking brigade predict of children who get smacked. In fact, it seems to me that today’s kids, the lesser-smacked generation, are reaching brand new heights of ill-discipline and spoiled-bratness.

A leading argument against the legal right of a parent to smack a child is articulated by Janet Alty, the Green Party Spokesperson on responsibilities and rights: "A adult never has the right to assault another adult; why do we think we have the right to hit our children?" This ‘wrong to hit adults, therefore wrong to hit children’ argument seems prima facie persuasive, but it falls apart when examined more closely.

Firstly, Ms Alty uses the wrong, and, I must say, highly emotive, language. The current debate must not be caricatured as being between those who are anti-smacking and those who think that assaulting children is OK. Assaulting children is something that is already illegal. There’s a world of difference between assault and a smack. Baroness Finlay of Llandoff makes a similar equivocation when she writes, "We aim to give children the same protection from assault as adults currently enjoy. . . we protect in law all our citizens from battery but not children."

I must say that if these people ever find themselves going to war and getting captured then they’re very much in for a big surprise. A parental smack is not battery. Physically restraining a child and giving it a smack is not the same thing as throwing it down the stairs headfirst. We’re talking about giving it a light tap here, not cracking its skull with a golf club.

But, there’s an even more severe problem with the ‘you wouldn’t do it to an adult, therefore you shouldn’t do it to a child’ argument. Most of the anti-smacking lobby call for the use of other methods of discipline: grounding children from going out and playing with their friends, withholding their pocket money, banning them from watching TV, making them do extra housework, or sending them to their room for the rest of the night. However, using the exact same reasoning that Janet Alty uses to call for a ban on smacking, we could also ban all of these other forms of discipline too. I wouldn’t dream of getting up in the middle of an argument with my wife and telling her to go to her room to "think about what you did!" Nor would I attempt to ban her from watching TV because I don’t think her behaviour was appropriate in some particular instance. I can just see her face now if I were to tell her to stay in the street where I can see her and be back home by 9o’clock. To see just how stupid Ms Alty’s argument is we can take out the terms ‘assault’ and ‘hitting’ and plug in any other form of discipline that a parent may use to punish a child: "An adult never has the right to stop another adult from going out with his or her friends; why do we think we have the right to stop children from going out with their friends?"

The flaw in the argument is the assumption that children are equals to adults and that therefore the relationship between a child and a parent is equal to that between 2 adults. But, children are not equal to adults at all. That’s why we can force them to go to school against their will, make decisions about what they can and cannot eat, disqualifying them from voting, driving, drinking, smoking, and decide what time they must go to bed at. A parent has the responsibility to shape a child’s behaviour. To do this requires discipline and punishment – which an adult is not placed to apply to his or her relationships to other adults. A relationship between adults is therefore not the same as a relationship between an adult and a child, because a child is not, and should not be treated as, equal to an adult.

But, perhaps by smacking children we are telling them that violence or the use of force is acceptable. As Baroness Finlay argues, "[children] are being taught that the way to get someone to do what you want is to hit them."

What tosh! When I got hit as a child I never once entertained the thought that, "hey, smacking people’s a great way to get what I want." Children aren’t as reflective as that. Instead, they connect a smack to a certain form of wrong behaviour: "I just got smacked, so running out in front of cars is bad." Millions of people over countless decades past provide overwhelming evidence that smacking does not ingrain in people the notion that hitting people is a good and acceptable way to get them to do what we want them to do.

But does a lesser charge stick – that smacking teaches kids that the use of physical force is acceptable in some instances? I think it is probably true that kids can and will learn that the use of physical force can be acceptable. But, what’s so bad about this? Only the most die-hard, baggy-jumper wearing, dope smoking, nose-ringed, unwashed pacifist would attempt to argue that the use of physical force is never acceptable. Our society relies heavily on the use of physical force in certain instances – most obviously in criminal law and the military. Teaching kids that physical force in certain contexts is justifiable is not the gross sin that it is often made out to be. It’s good for kids to learn such boundaries, and lets face it, parents aren’t hitting their kids for every little thing either.

A ban on smacking would do nothing to reduce the kind of abuse that the anti-smacking brigade is hoping to eliminate. They argue that a ban sends out the message to society that hitting children is not acceptable. But, the types of abuse that we should be protecting children from are already illegal. There is no damage caused to either child or to society by the use of parental smacking. All we have been offered to the contrary is a load of scare-stories that smacking produces the violent criminals of the future, when in fact there is far more evidence to suggest that parental neglect rather than discipline has a link to later criminal behaviour.

A ban would simply criminal many loving parents and cause great family distress as many unjustified police investigations are made into family life.

Even the current compromise is highly problematic. It allows parents to smack children but not to the extent of causing bruising or reddening of the skin. But, wouldn’t these criteria allow black children to be hit much harder, since such physical signs don’t show up on their skin just so well? Moreover, the current compromise is unable to address the fact that there are far worse things to do to a child than a smack. As a child the worst punishment I ever received was grounding. The pain of a smack, even though many of those smacks are totally out-of-bounds as far as today’s debate goes, recedes. I would have chosen to be smacked rather than grounded or banned from watching TV.

Among the worse kinds of child abuse is not smacking, but mental abuse – such as destroying a child’s fragile self-esteem and sense of value. But, unfortunately, as a society we are infatuated with physical pain. Mental abuse is, however, far more serious, yet it leaves no bumps, cuts or bruises.

Indeed we must put an end to child abuse in all its forms, but outlawing smacking or restricting it in terms of physical signs, criminalizing parents and causing unwarranted family strife, is not the way to do it.

Stephen Graham B.Th (Hons).

Religious Education - A Manifesto For Indoctrination?

Religious Education: Manifesto for Indoctrination?

Religious education is undergoing a review, and it seems that God will not be kicked out. I’m sure He’ll be delighted to see that his omnipresence has not been compromised. The heavenly host will certainly have something to sing about.

There is strong support for the continuation of religious education, if a little debate over the contents. Unfortunately some secularist groups haven’t been terribly receptive of this news. In their rejection of R.E. some even sound like the very fundamentalists they typically despise, and it seems as though all their usual concerns for free enquiry and tolerance have gone up in a puff of anti-religious smoke. One such group even went so far as to describe the new shake up of R.E. as a “manifesto for indoctrination.”

Under the new measures, children will learn about a number of major world religions: mainly Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism & Buddhism, with possible attention given to smaller religions and even to atheism itself. To describe the new measures as a manifesto for indoctrination is a terribly blinkered move. To teach R.E. is no more a manifesto for religious indoctrination than the teaching of modern history a manifesto for political indoctrination. Teaching Christianity no more brainwashes people into the church than teaching Nazism brainwashes people into the smoky basements of far-right groups.

Some secularists go on to argue that religious education should be kept out of schools altogether because religion should remain a private affair. If parents want their children to learn religion then, the argument goes, children should be taught by their parents at home in their own time.

Aside from the blatantly obvious, and fallacious, blurring of “religious education” with “religion,” the non-blinkered secularist should realise that the above argument is hardly compatible with their concerns that children should not be indoctrinated. There is a very strong argument to retain R.E. in schools on the grounds that it actually helps to counter religious indoctrination.

For one thing, many parents could not teach religion intelligently. An R.E. teacher could teach children much more effectively than most parents could. If parents are trying to lead their children in a certain direction with respect to religion then the problem is merely compounded. How fairly could a fundamentalist Muslim teach his children about other religions? Would a child under such circumstances be able to question his Muslim faith at all? If R.E. is not taught in schools then children will be much more easily indoctrinated, since they would either be sitting at home being indoctrinated by biased parents, or not being taught anything at all, leaving them ignorant of an important phenomenon. What we would likely end up with is a bunch of uninformed children who couldn’t think terribly well for themselves with respect to religion.

By having R.E. taught in schools we offer children a chance to learn in a neutral environment, giving them the skills to judge religions by an academic, and balanced, standard. It is the removal of religious education from schools that puts children at risk and makes them easier to indoctrinate. If we ban R.E. we may prepare for a generation that is uncritical, unquestioning and unknowing about religion, a generation that thinks the Holy Trinity consists of Elvis, Beckham & Schwarzenegger, that considers Muhammad as a great boxer, and for whom the Last Supper is something taken by inmates on death row. Such ignorance is the fundamental ingredient of indoctrination.

If truth be told secularists don’t have the concern for children that they profess. Their programme is exactly the same as that of any religious group: to have their narrative generally accepted as truth and to win as many converts to their cause as they possibly can - to make sure people bow down and worship their very own golden calf. If this means keeping people ignorant of one of the most fundamental aspects of human nature since the dawn of time, then so be it.

But the secularist attempt to treat religions as if they don’t exist is a recipe for disaster. The fact of the matter is that religion has been one of the main driving forces of humanity from the time our early ancestors first hauled themselves upright and raised their hands to the sun. It would be incredibly difficult to get a proper grasp on history, politics, sociology, psychology and human nature without also getting a grasp of the phenomenon of religion. Religion is not a private matter at all. Religion is very much public, and must be grappled with.

On the other side of the debate, some religious commentators have baulked from the possibility that atheism might be taught in schools. Some have mocked the suggestion altogether, saying that it should only be taught in R.E. classes as a footnote: “Oh, by the way, some people don’t believe any of this.” It is true that atheism lacks positive substance (a-theism meaning lack of belief in God or gods). However, to so easily dismiss it is a little unfair. Discussions of atheism could launch some very important issues. Why some people believe and some do not is an important question. It opens up the entire field of philosophy of religion: what evidence is there for a God? What is the nature of God? Is the supposed nature of some God coherent?

It would seem, in fact, that any good R.E. teaching would lead into some basic exploration of philosophy of religion. If it did not then we would have little other than a banal “Christians believe this, Muslims believe that, Jews believe the other, and that’s all there is to it.” The most dangerous thing about teaching R.E. in schools is not that it is a manifesto for indoctrination. The most dangerous thing facing the teaching of R.E. is that in the name of politically correctness children learn about religions without a great emphasis on critical reflection, in case someone gets offended. It is on this point that secularists would do best to focus their attention.

R.E. can be taught like any other academic discipline and it’s standards can be as rigorous as any other subject. The importance of religion is far too great to be excluded from education or treated as if it doesn’t exist. If religious people and secularists genuinely care about truth and free enquiry then they should for once sing from the same hymn sheet and support the teaching of R.E. in schools and pursue the utmost in it’s standards.

Stephen Graham B.Th (Hons)