Oh For Fox Sake

Oh For Fox Sake

Another massive public debate is upon us, and as usual both sides are missing the point. I refer to the current debacle about the ban on hunting foxes with dogs, a ban which came into effect on Friday.

Anti-hunt campaigners have made this an issue of animal cruelty. Pro-hunt people have argued primarily on the grounds that their “way of life” is being destroyed. Is it any wonder that anti-hunt campaigners have won this debate? They have merely exploited the human weakness for cute furry animals. I am always bemused at the hue and cry that the media often make of animal stories. I remember a news report last year on UTV Live in which there was footage of a man filming a badger being butchered by a dog. The story was a major news feature two days in a row, and was the main headline on UTV on one of those days. UTV informed us that it received a massive volume of calls condemning this act, and that one anonymous caller offered £2000 to anyone who could identify the man involved.

This sort of response is blatant emotionalism, and hypocritical to boot. I wonder how many of those who were outraged by this news story had that very same day sat down to a dinner containing chunks of a slaughtered animal that more than likely had an unsavoury end itself. I wonder also just how many indignant voices call in to news rooms after watching a story of a murder or a rape. Media corporations rarely go out of their way to tell us. On one occasion in America more callers contacted a news room to express indignation at images of a rabbit being killed than in response to images of a person being savagely beaten by police.

It is difficult not to conclude that the main reason for such a response is simply due to our bleeding heart attitude towards cute furry animals. Why else would animal charities bombard us with literature covered in pictures of pathetic, sad, but incredibly cute, little faces with big dark eyes glaring out at us? We really are a superficial bunch.

Animal rights activists know this, and they use it to manipulate people to their cause. Pro-hunt people were never going to make much of a dent in public opinion by babbling on about their “way of life.” It was Nero’s way of life to cover people in oil and burn them from lamp-posts. It was Caligula’s way of life to sleep with his female relatives. It is a way of life for some aborigine folks to bury a living child face down in sunburnt earth if it has the nerve to be born at precisely the time a tribal elder dies. Behaviour is not justifiable simply by appeal to your “way of life.” I doubt many people will have had much sympathy for rich people riding around the countryside with their horses and hounds, especially given the grizzly images of semi-slaughtered foxes provided by animal rights activists.

The pro-hunt lobby played straight into the hands of their opponents. Many naively bought into the premise that animal cruelty should be banned where possible, but added that hunting foxes was the lesser of two evils (since foxes are well known for killing farm animals, and other methods of fox control are no better, and potentially much worse, than hunting them with dogs).

This was the wrong argument to make. The argument made should have been a political one. Although most members of the cabinet were lukewarm about this ban (it’s purpose being largely to appease Labour backbenchers who still have an ant in their pants about class), John Prescott was absolutely delighted. He even implied that this law was one of the greatest successes of the Labour government. But how successful is a law that doesn’t benefit one single citizen of a country of around 60 million people? Let me say that again because it is quite a staggering fact: this law does not benefit one single citizen out of the 60 million citizens who live in this country. It does not protect, uphold, enforce or defend the rights of any individual living in this country (or anywhere else on the planet, for that matter.) Jobs will be lost, liberties have been impinged, and resources will be spent on policing matters that have no bearing whatsoever on the rights and liberties of any other citizen, and this one of Labour’s greatest achievements? Well done.

Not only is this law as far from being a successful piece of government legislation as Saddam Hussein is from having sex again, the precedent that has been set is a highly dangerous one: what we don’t like we ban. But, the question must be asked: why should we ban any activity that doesn’t impinge upon the fundamental rights of other citizens? Whether or not hunts take place, whether or not foxes are torn to pieces, whether or not toffs run around the countryside shouting “Tally-ho!,” my life, and that of every other citizen in the country, will rumble on much the same as it has always done. When a fox is killed I don’t lose my life, or my job, or my property, or money, or anything. Nor does anyone else. Why then should this activity be banned?

It doesn’t matter that we simply don’t like the idea of hunting foxes with dogs. Should anal sex be banned simply because (most?) people don’t like the idea of it? If it doesn’t affect your life or the life of any other citizen there are no rational political grounds for a ban. Of course, if you think it is cruel you can argue against it and discourage people from participating in it, but why should government ban it?

For the record, the cruelty argument is a flawed one. We are told that hunting foxes with dogs 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 in the jaws of hounds as they tear it to pieces. However, banning fox hunting will not save the life of a single fox, nor will it lead to a reduction in suffering (as shown by the fact that the day after the ban no fewer foxes were killed in legal hunts than before, all that changed was the method of death). It is widely recognised by any one with functioning eyes and the will to see that foxes are a pest to the countryside, destroying crops and killing farm animals. Foxes need to be controlled. If they aren’t hunted then they must be culled in some other way. The distinguished vet Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior says 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. It does not “die as it is torn apart,” it dies, then it is torn apart. 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 the struggle to get free. Thus, I think that the fact of the matter is clear to anyone with a mind that is half-open: the alternatives to hunting with dogs are not less cruel or barbaric.

What the cruelty argument actually does is expose the moral hypocrisy of many of those who favoured the ban on hunting foxes with dogs. The argument states that this form of hunting is barbaric and cruel. But, presumably not every member of the anti-hunt herd is vegetarian. What, then, do they make of the similar ‘cruelty’ or ‘barbarity’ involved in many modern farming and slaughter 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? 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.

Anyhow, what’s a little moral hypocrisy between friends, eh? I’ll let them off with it this time and assume that hunting foxes is cruel and barbaric, because the argument against this ban does not rely on whether or not some activity is cruel to animals. Even after granting that hunting with dogs is unnecessarily cruel and barbaric we must face how we can make the massive leap from finding something that another person does vile to insisting that this person is banned from the activity in question. We must be incredibly wary of making a definitive link between disapproval and ban. Otherwise we open the doors to a ban on countless other activities: fishing, shooting, talking loudly on mobile phones in public, chewing gum, oral sex, political speeches, saying ‘fuck,’ watching violent films, drinking alcohol, visiting McDonalds, pornography, religious worship, eating meat, or, well, name it and I bet it annoys someone. All we need to do is get enough people onside and, hey-presto, we can slap a ban onto virtually anything we don’t like, regardless of the reason. I certainly don’t want to live in this kind of political climate, one in which some people want to force others to live a certain way even when their behaviour does not effect the rights and liberties of anyone else.

The current debate is not between working class and upper class, nor between town and country, nor between barbarity and civility. It is fundamentally a debate between libertarians and control freaks. At the minute what has happened is that government has converted the cries of the control freaks into legislation. This should hardly surprise us, since this Labour government has consistently attacked the principle of small government, and has introduced 1,000 new criminal offences since 1997: that’s around 125 per year, or one every 3 days since they were elected. A ban on hunting should not have been added to this list in the absence of any rational political grounds for doing so. When government legislates about matters of no consequence to any of its citizens it has over-stepped its remit with a nonsense law.

Thus, my message to this Labour government is this: for fox sake, get a grip.

Stephen Graham (B.Th Hons)

Queen Penguins

‘QUEEN’ PENGUINS

Penguins are highly comical, yet incredibly amazing, birds. They always seem to be having a good time, even when being eaten by leopard seals. Amongst just under 20 species of penguins worldwide are: African penguins, Galapagos penguins, Emperor penguins, King Penguins, and, now it seems we have ‘Queen’ penguins.

Admittedly the term ‘queen’ is my own, some will add “homophobic,” description, not a technical scientific one. ‘Queen’ penguins are those penguins, mostly of the Humboldt species, which are notorious in zoological circles for being a bit gay. Bremerhaven Zoo in Germany has about 6 of these camp chaps. In the absence of any ladies it was observed that the males would walk around in pairs (flipper in flipper?), trying to mate with each other (what the hell does that look like?) and sitting on stones as if they were eggs (haven’t we all done that?). Are these penguins gay or just a bit pissed?

Being an endangered species (easy to understand if the males are too busy banging each other to partake in the wonderful work of survival of the species), Heike Kuck, the penguin keeper, thought they were the perfect candidates for a scientific experiment. She decided to embark on a campaign, attempting to mate the group of homosexual male penguins with female penguins from Sweden (probably the hottest penguins in the world, with the most voluptuous plumage), arguing that it is the only way to preserve this dying breed from extinction. To kill two penguins with one stone, it would also give a good opportunity to test the extent to which homosexual tendencies were caused simply by the lack of females. If you wouldn’t shag a hot Swedish bird, you’re obviously gay.

Her plan has been greatly criticised. Not by other penguin keepers. Nor by other zoologists. Not even by other scientists. Her plan has instead caused a vicious backlash amongst the gay community. Gay activists from across the globe have been protesting with threatening letters and telephone calls, because the zoo, in their opinion, is treating the homosexuality of these penguins as a condition from which to be cured. Penguins have a right to be gay damn it! I put it to you, Mr Reader, that forcing happily gay penguins to go straight is a gross violation of fundamental penguin rights! Someone call the UN damn it!

Or is the gay lobby just acting a little queer?

I think this is another one of those episodes that vividly illustrates the hyper-sensitive state of homosexual culture. The gay community often ramble on about being victimised, and, in their paranoia, are all too willing to slap a “homophobe’ label on virtually anything that moves which fails to fully endorse the gay lifestyle. Aside from the fact that critics of homosexuality are not motivated by fear, but by a wider moral framework and/or a sense of sexual taste, homosexuals rarely acknowledge that many of their troubles are at least partially self-inflicted by an appalling public image.

I think this was beautifully illustrated a few months ago when homosexuals from around the country came out into Belfast city centre to tell us all how proud they are of their lifestyle. Many representatives of gay groups used the opportunity to do a little preaching. A representative of the Rainbow Project complained that many people still described homosexual behaviour as immoral, rather than fully accepting it as a legitimate lifestyle. He blamed these people for contributing to a culture which, albeit indirectly, helps ‘gay-bashers’ to justify their deplorable attacks against homosexual people.

I decided to go to watch the annual gay pride parade last year. It was at this event that I became convinced, by what I saw, and the comments I heard from members of the public, that the blame for the poor image of the gay community rests largely with its own members. Moral considerations aside, it seems that numerous people, myself included, simply find many homosexual practices to be vile, disgusting and repulsive. Some people I spoke to at the parade viewed elements of it as being incredibly sleazy, and even a little sinister. The sight of semi-naked bodies writhing on the back of dusty lorries is not one I like to entertain regularly. A number of floats also contained children – several of which looked far too young to even grasp the notion of sexuality generally, let alone celebrate a particular sexual lifestyle. Some onlookers quite understandably wondered why the gay community included children in a celebration of what is fundamentally a lifestyle choice with regards to sexual practice. Mixing young children with sexually related issues is not a terribly good way to win public support. Other floats contained transvestites, in various stages of undress, and other people in, umm, sexually suggestive poses. To top it all off a number of parade supporters saw fit to grope each other and stick their tongues down each others throats in full view of any poor, unfortunate punter who was just trying to catch the numbers on the buses turning the corner. It is fully understandable that large portions of the public are quite uncomfortable with such images in their city centre at 2pm on a Saturday, and hardly surprising that many people would find such things a tad stomach-churning. This doesn’t make people homophobic, but simply makes them normal people with sexual taste preferences and a sense of public decency. When such images as those witnessed at the gay pride parade are thrust through their city centre right into their faces some people will understandably feel a little aggrieved.

The gay community would therefore do well to assess its public image. Complaining about penguin sex is not going to endear them to the general public. They sound idiotic, and as anti-intellectual as the fundamentalist religionists they so often condemn. Why would they oppose (1) the attempt to breed an endangered species of penguin, and (2) a scientific experiment investigating the nature of homosexual relationships in the animal kingdom? Their opposition to this scientific experiment is on a par with religious fundamentalist opposition to research into the origins of the universe, and motivated by the same emotion: fear. They’re worried that the results might not come out the way they would like. Those darn pesky flingin’ flangin’ facts might get in the way of their dogma. Gotta hate those facts, eh? Are they worried that the result of this research will follow the typical trends observed in other species? It is almost always the case that homosexual behaviour is only sporadic or resorted to in the absence of the opposite sex. Thank God it is, for evolution wouldn’t have went terribly far if homosexuality was normal. The brute fact of existence testifies that, as far as nature is concerned, homosexuality is at best second-rate. All species are driven by a survival instinct, and since survival of the species depends on reproduction, homosexuality is not on a par with heterosexuality. But, I’m a homophobe, so what would I know, eh?

Anyhow, as it is the gay community remains content with playing the bully-boy. It’s aggressive tactics - threatening letters and phone calls about penguin sex, hysterical squealing about homophobia, in-your-face public parades, and, the ultimate bully-boy tactic: government force to legislate respect and acceptance, and punish dissenters - simply creates a climate of frustration and resentment. This in turn perpetuates the problems that the gay community complains about. If the gay community isn’t crippled by the time it stops shooting itself in the foot, they’d do well to take a different approach: stop acting so crazy and hysterical, learn to reason with your opponents, and come to terms with the fact that many people simply do not like what you do. This doesn’t make such people homophobic any more than the fact that they find certain forms of heterosexual behaviour abhorrent makes them heterophobic.

Hopefully the next time I hear anything from the gay community it will be much more constructive and intelligent than irrational ramblings about penguin sex.

Stephen Graham (B.Th Hons)

Big Profits for BP

BP: Beyond Petroleum or Big Profits?

BP stands for Beyond Petroleum (formerly British Petroleum). Given some recent news stories, it could very well stand for “Big Profits.” BP, Britain’s biggest oil company, announced record pre-tax profits of more than £13.5 billion, or around 37 million a day. These profits are 50% up on 2003, and Lord Browne, BP’s chief executive, will be receiving a hefty bonus package to the tune of 5 million. City experts reckon that BP will break the British record for annual profits, currently held by Shell, and will close in on the world record held by Exxon Mobil. In an effort to compete for personnel, BP is now planning to rival the sorts of pay packages offered by big US firms, with added cash bonuses for particularly hard-working and successful directors and executives. Way to go BP, eh? I’m clearly in the wrong business.

But, alas, the die hard lefties are less than impressed. The war paint and head-dresses have gone on, the howling has started, and our dear old Red heads have charged from their wigwams demanding a few scalps - in the form of a massive windfall tax. To be honest, I like Red Indians far too much, so I’d like to change that analogy and instead compare these asses to hyenas. Hyenas are pack animals who don’t even do you the courtesy of killing you before they start eating chunks of your flesh, and all the while these retarded looking mammals, these pimples on the arsehole of nature, these bloody malicious buggers are laughing their balls off in your face. Red Indians are far too respectable, civilised and principled to be rightly compared with socialists.

So, the hyenas are eyeing up this juicy looking gazelle. The problem is that gazelles are far too fast, slick, and alert for hyenas. But hyenas know they don’t have to do much. They just have to wait until a bigger, faster and more powerful predator comes along to bring the gazelle down. Rather than make any attempts to hunt the gazelle themselves, they call in the King of the Jungle to do the job for them. Enter a socialist government. Upon BP’s announcement of profits the backbench hyenas are shrieking wildly and hysterically to gain the government’s attention. They want it to take a sizable chunk out of BP (probably to give more money towards the creation of bicycle & bus lanes). One of the dominant males squealing loudest is Martin O’Neill, chairman of the Commons trade and industry select committee, who was first to suggest a windfall tax. Tony Woodley, alpha male and general secretary of the Transport and General Workers’ Union, also described BP’s profits as “more than excessive” and “obscene.”

“More than excessive.” What’s that? Profits, big or small, are excessive by their very nature. A profit is money more than was needed to cover the running costs of the business. Profit is excess, surplus to requirements. But what is “more than excessive?” It’s just a lefty way of saying “you’ve made a load of money, I didn’t, and I’m not very happy about it." And “obscene?” Child pornography is obscene. Gang rape is obscene. Wanking in public is obscene. It’s not like BP is ripping out our kidneys and selling them back to us in tins of Irish Stew. Making profits isn’t obscene - no matter how big they are. Making profit is the sine qua non of business, and probably the single most important test of how good a business actually is. And why are we surprised when an oil company annouces such profits? Is it also news to the Tony Woodley’s of this world that Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft, is a billionaire? The simple reason for such profits is the product. You’ll probably not be heading into a six-figure salary in the carpet cleaning business. Nor are family butchers likely to be making waves in the City. But look at BP: it’s selling oil for frig sake. There’s hardly a single item in your house that doesn’t rely on oil at some point in its manufacture. The importance of and demand for oil pushes up the price and increases the profit for the oil company.

And just what do socialists think happens to all these profits? Socialists buy into what I call the Bottomless Pocket Myth. They appear to think that rich people steal money off poor people, hoard it, and it’s never seen again, thus leaving a smaller pool of money available to the world. We therefore need to regularly raid the coffers of the rich to free all this money up again. But, this isn’t, umm, entirely accurate. Most of these companies that make massive profits end up reinvesting most of it. Last year Shell reinvested practically every penny of its profits back into the business, largely because oil companies have the mammoth and never-ending task of finding new oil supplies. Many businesses expand when the profits come in. Expansion typically creates more jobs, higher salaries, better products, and lower prices. Frankly I’m always delighted to hear of a business as successful as BP, and we shouldn’t let people like Martin O’Neill run one of our biggest companies out of the country with suggestions of a windfall tax, something they have said they will do if government bow the knee to the Red Reverends. The 13 billion a year that BP and Shell contribute to the exchequer shouldn’t be scoffed at.

It’s the usual socialist pile of piffle. We all know the story: big business exploits people, unfairly and, might I add, unjustly, (waggy waggy finger and foot tapping) taking the wealth of poor people and concentrating it in the hands of the rich, destroying our (collective) soul, our world and our way of life. On the face of it socialism looks noble, and it certainly appeals to our romantic side: our soft spot for being counted on the side of the poor and oppressed as they fight and win, against all odds, when all appears to be lost, just when you think they’ve been push into a bottomless abyss, against the rich, strong and powerful tyrants who have long oppressed them. It’s the stuff of Hollywood movies. Everyone loves a Robin Hood, or a William Wallace.

However, when examined more closely socialism is about as savoury as diahorrea flavoured potato crisps, as worthy of intellectual assent as one of David Icke’s prophecies, and as romantic as farting during sex. As it turns out, the socialist’s fight is not against tyranny, nor is it in favour of the poor and oppressed. Their fight is a simple one: against success. They hate it. If you’re the struggling owner of a corner shop, socialists will be on your side, fighting your corner and lobbying on your behalf. But, dear confectioner, do not, EVER, think of making your business any more successful. If you do, you’ll earn more money, and socialists will want as much of it as possible. You might open a few more shops, but then you’re a chain-store, and in clear danger of the Red-wrath. And for God’s sake whatever you do, never, under any circumstances should you open a store in another country. This will only make you a “large multi-national corporation,” and to your former socialist friends that will put you somewhere between a cockroach and the gunk that builds up between your toes on a hot day. So, if you wish to keep your socialist friends (a choice that should form part of the definition of mental derangement), there is only one course of action: don’t make a success of your life, and don’t make more money than you need to get by on (you know, to buy a baggy woollen jumper, a Che Guevera t-shirt, and some soya).

BP’s only sin is success. It makes its money fairly and squarely. It has a product, it prices the product, and consumers purchase it. Martin O’Neill and Tony Woodsley are amongst those who lament the cost of oil and petrol, rambling on about the consumer getting a raw deal in terms of petrol price, and how unfair this is when you see such massive corporate profits. But, if these dimwits want the price of oil and petrol lowered then I have a radical suggestion: stop the insane and irrational hatred of success, stop blaming companies like BP for the price of petrol and STOP FUCKING TAXING IT SO MUCH YOU LYING THEIVING CRETINOUS ARSEHOLES!

Stephen Graham (B.Th Hons)

Blessed Are The Money-makers

Blessed are the Money-makers

For years the vast majority of Christian churches have worshipped at the red-tinted alter of socialism, their men in black failing to grasp how wealth creation and free trade have brought millions out of misery at home and abroad. Now, however, leading churchmen are beginning to repent of their socialist sin, by declaring, for the first time, that they are very much in favour of the creation of wealth. Historically, churches have always been suspicious of the free market and strong believers in state intervention as the proper means to fight global debt and poverty. In other words, rather than supporting wealth creation, entrepreneurship, initiative, creativity and hard work, they have been largely supporting laziness and government theft of individual property. Anyhow, they now appear to have seen a dazzling, blinding light and heard a big booming voice giving them contrary instruction. They’ve converted. Making money is now a moral good. Given that churches are always on their knees requesting money for something (usually to fix their roofs) you would have thought they’d have come to this conclusion before now. After all, if making money isn’t a good, why constantly try to do it? It’s a bit like denouncing alcohol when you’re on the way to the pub. In any event they’re on the way to realising the truth of a sentiment expressed by Margaret Thatcher a long time ago: “no one would remember the Good Samaritan if he only had good intentions. He had money as well.”

A new report, prepared by an umbrella group of mainstream Christian denominations, Churches Together in Britain And Ireland, called Prosperity With a Purpose - Christians and the Ethics of Affluence, concludes: “Under the right conditions, economic growth can serve God’s purposes.” Mmmmm... Is the fact that economic growth can serve God’s purposes the reason why making money is good? I’m not sure what they’re on about here, but since when did churchmen have a reputation for clarity? The report does not go so far as to sanction rampant greed. It says that wealth creation and the pursuit of “social justice” should be inextricably linked and that advancing prosperity should leave no one behind. Again, I’m not sure what the report is driving at. Do they mean that making money is good so long as you give substantial portions of it away to the poor and unfortunates? Since when did the Church itself ever live up to this? Churches are notorious for spending thousands, even millions, of pounds on big fancy buildings with all the trimmings (and, of course, on fixing their roofs). Nor are ministers of religion a profession struggling for financial survival. I’m not saying that churches are wrong to own big buildings (unwise, maybe, since a big building means a bigger roof to fix), nor that its employees should not earn a lot of money. Good luck to them, God looks after his own it seems. What I am saying is that these church folks have a cheek preaching to the rest of us about tying wealth to social justice. Didn’t Christ say something about removing the plank from one’s eye before pointing out the speck of dust in someone else’s?

As with any issue, churches perform all kinds of mental gymnastics to illustrate just how their new positions or ideas come from the Bible, along with the sudden realisation that their previous position was a “misinterpretation.” The report quotes the famous passage from Mark’s gospel that has been interpreted as meaning Christianity and wealth are incompatible. In this passage, Jesus tells his disciples: “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” Since it’s fairly frickin’ hard to get a camel to do such a party trick, I guess the rich have a snowball’s chance in hell of making heaven. Historically this verse was always amongst those used by Christian churches to bash the rich into charity: “If you want to go to heaven, you’ll need to be giving away lots of your money (to us, of course, since we need a new roof.)” But, cue blinding light and booming voice, they now know exactly what Jesus meant when he said that. How do they know? Well, seemingly they just read a little further into the passage to where Jesus says: “With God . . . all things are possible.” So, there we go. For centuries the rich have been unjustly vexed at the probability of hellfire due to financial success, and could have been spared this angst by the mere reading of a few extra words. Don’t worry then dear rich folks, it’s hard to get into heaven, but God’s sorted it. You’re fine. Just ask any leading churchman.

The report itself is, however, a far cry from a shift towards capitalism. It acknowledges that wealth is good, but such proclamations are balanced by pleas for what it calls “social justice.” I never was able to grasp this rather odd notion of “social justice.” It’s almost always used to mean that the haves must, by state compulsion if necessary, give money and possessions to the have-nots. Even more curious is how the notion of social justice is tied to that of “fairness.” Seemingly if we keep too much of our wealth we are being “unfair.” But, just what is unfair about it? If someone has worked hard for their money, saved, sold property, or invested wisely, then they are entitled to the fruits of their efforts. If they decide to buy themselves a new Ferrari there is nothing remotely “unfair” about it. Of course, it might be nice of them to help others, and most people certainly do so, but this is a matter of generosity - not obedience to a moral diktat.

The Christian church would make its teaching much more consistent if they were to embrace capitalism. Although socialism is often thought to be more consistent with Christianity, there is a better case for saying that capitalism is. Christian ethicists frequently lament systems that treat individuals as means to an end, rather than as ends in themselves. Rarely does it ever occur to them that socialism merely treats individuals as means to certain ends rather than as ends in themselves. Individuals, under socialism, are disposable in favour of the collective. In advocating socialism, albeit in religious form, many Christians are supporting a political philosophy that justifies state theft of individual property and money in the name of “a fairer distribution of wealth.” Socialism robs individuals of what is rightfully theirs and gives it to those who have no right to it.

Contrary to Christian concerns, there is no inconsistency between advocating charity on the one hand and capitalism on the other. The free market prefers private charities, as opposed to government hand-outs. Historically, it is private charities who are by far the most efficient when it comes to dealing with such matters. Government schemes more often than not are incredibly wasteful of money and resources. Moreover, under private charities people who are most in need of help are more likely to receive the help that they need. Under government systems a great many people are allowed to simply leech off the system with little or no motivation for actually bettering themselves, thus diverting funds from the few who need help to the many who do not.

Sometimes Christian socialism is justified by appeal to Jesus’ teaching about the poor and oppressed. However, concern for the poor and oppressed is not the same thing as being socialist, and the fact that many people tend to equate the two is proof of the fantastic propaganda coup perpetrated by advocates of socialism. The truth of the matter is that capitalism is actually the best system to deal with poverty: and the best system for each and every single individual who wishes to look after himself. Anyhow, Jesus teaching about looking after the poor presupposes personal responsibility. His message was one for each and every individual. Nowhere does Jesus ever teach socialism or state redistribution of wealth. He teaches freedom, personal responsibility, and moral conduct, and these are actually hindered under a socialist system, which takes the power and responsibility that individuals should have over their own lives and concentrates it in the hands of the administrators of the State. A socialist system does not allow individuals to dispose of their wealth in a moral way. Their wealth is taken from them and used in whatever way the government sees fit - whether that be for homeless people or for the promotion of generally non-Christian ideals - such as gay and lesbian societies. Removing freedom and personal responsibility - thus removing the very basis of morality - can hardly be compatible with the ethos and teaching of Christ. Lets be very clear - to call Jesus a socialist is extremely anachronistic and, moreover, is to ignore some central tenets and implications of his teaching.

Although the churches have made a step in the right direction, they have a long way to go before they fully grasp that it is the free market that feeds people, clothes them, and puts a roof over their heads (albeit a faulty one that needs constant fixing).

Stephen Graham (B.Th Hons)

With Child: Without Job

With Child: Without Job

Bully other employees and you’ll likely get sacked. Misuse the internet at work and you’ll fly out the door quicker than you can say Google search. Steal company property and you’ll be need to borrow the Jobfinder. Getting pregnant, it seems, might also land you at the dole queue.

According to the Equal Opportunities Commission, 30,000 women are dismissed, made redundant, or forced to leave their jobs because they get pregnant. As illegal as this is, under the Sex Discrimination Act, 1 in 20 pregnant women will find themselves kicked out whilst knocked up. The boss doesn’t like it.

The EOC interviewed 1000 new mothers and found also that women lose out financially because they get pregnant. Many have their pay cut or get a lower pay rise than their colleagues. Some even find themselves being denied time off for antenatal appointments, which they are entitled to by law. Half of the women who worked during their pregnancy claimed to experience some kind of discrimination as a direct consequence of their pregnancy. Discrimination ranged from “denial of promotion,” “loss of bonuses,” “loss of training opportunities,” “changes in job descriptions,” “being left out of decisions,” and “verbal abuse.”

Julie Mellor, the commission’s chairwoman, said: “Women should not be penalised simply for being pregnant. The impact on women, their partners and families, and on the health of their baby can be disastrous.” Continuing, she said: “We need urgent action from the Government to provide more information and support for pregnant employees and their employers.” The EOC has called on the Government to provide a written statement of maternity rights and employer responsibilities to every pregnant woman, with a tear-off section for her employer.

It should be acknowledged that this is not a one-sided problem. Employers also experience difficulties. Some employers, mostly small businesses, will themselves be financially stretched if they lose an employee for such a long period of time. Not only do they continue paying the absent employee (even if it is less than their usual salary), but very often they will have to pay a temporary replacement as well, who may or may not have the expertise of the absentee. Many employers find the law here, and the administration of it, to be a bit of a headache.

So, what needs to be done? Well, firstly, the language of discrimination needs to be challenged and clarified. Groups like the EOC have done a brilliant job of making us associate the word “discrimination” with certain other words, like “bad,” “unjust,” “unequal,” and “unfair” So, when they use the word “discrimination” their listeners automatically agree that what they are talking about is bad, unjust, unequal and unfair. The fact of the matter is that there are many forms of completely justifiable discrimination. When an employer conducts job interviews, he or she must discriminate between the candidates. When deciding who gets a promotion, someone will be discriminated against. It is not at all obvious that an employer is engaging in unjustified discrimination when he or she takes an employee’s pregnancy into account when making a decision about promotions or salary. Not so long ago the EOC lamented the case of one woman who was effectively ruled out of a promotion battle because of pregnancy. They didn’t acknowledge the full truth of the case. The woman in question had been off work for almost 4 out of the past 9 years due to pregnancies. The men she was up against had hardly missed a day. Why should one of the men not have been given the promotion? They were at work practically the whole time, and thus where able to complete a bigger body of work and success than the woman. This was not a case of unjustified discrimination. Even if it is unjustified discrimination, businesses should not be held to account and punished by government. It's up to the owners how their private business is organised and run. If they don't want to employ blacks, or whites, or women, or men, or people with ginger hair, then that should be a matter purely for the business owners. That's the free market. Now, businesses who discriminate in such ways will often not get the best staff possible, nor will customers, or traders, be impressed. The business will therefore probably not do as well as it could. That's the free market too - driven by reason - in which the most rational business owners will most lilely be the most successful.

Women may not like to acknowledge it but pregnancy is a relevant factor in deciding a persons suitability for a job, their salary, and qualification for other benefits. Most women aged 20-35 will have periods away from work to start a family. Unfortunately this is also the time during which a person builds a career. If a director must choose between 2 employees for a promotion – a man and a woman – and the woman has been off work for 4 years in the past 9 because of pregnancies and maternal leave – it is quite likely that the man will get the job. Although this is often presumed to be discrimination, it is not discrimination at all. The woman made a choice to leave work for several years to have children. Julie Mellor, Chairwoman of the Equal Opportunities Commission, complains that, “There have been talented women coming up in business, public life and politics for years. But women are still often prevented from getting to the top because they take on more caring responsibilities than men.” Prevented by whom exactly? By men? By their employers? If a woman chooses to take on more caring responsibilities than men then they are prevented from reaching top posts by virtue of their own choices – not by anything external to themselves. Employers naturally seek people who are capable of doing the job. If, for any reason, the employee can no longer carry out that job, it is reasonable for the employer to prefer someone who can. Moreover, being asked to move to a less taxing job is not an act of discrimination. It could simply be a realistic business move. Being a parent requires sacrifice - a dirty word in our “I want it all and I want it now” culture. It is simply unrealistic to opt into and out of work when it suits and still expect to continue to maintain the same income and position, or better.

I’m getting a little sick and tired of whinging women. Women want it all: a great family life and a smashing career. Unfortunately women must realise what men have always known: you cannot have your cake and eat it. If women want to work and build a career then they need to bite the bullet and accept that they cannot do this and raise a family at the same time. There just isn’t enough of them to go around, and employers should not carry the can for this.

Maybe it sounds callous to say it, but why should anyone pay for the life choices of someone else? Lets face it, getting pregnant is a life choice - most women who get pregnant wanted to. Most of those who didn’t technically “want to” still made a choice when they got drunk and ripped off their knickers. Since this is the case, why do women, or anyone else, think that others - taxpayers and employers - should be forced to finance their lifestyle choice? If I wake up tomorrow and suddenly decide that I’m a woman trapped in a man’s body, and would like a sex-change operation, can I rightly expect someone else to pay for my lifestyle choice? There is no “right to have children,” at least not in the sense that is usually meant by “right” these days. Of course, you have a right to have a child in the sense that it would be wrong for government to actively prevent you from getting pregnant. But you do not have a right to get pregnant if this right means that you have a right to government support and money to do so. If a woman, her partner and wider family cannot afford to take on the responsibility of a child then the woman should decide not to get pregnant. I, a taxpayer, am happy to buy you a bag of crisps at lunchtime, even more so if you offer me some. I’ll gladly lend you some cash to take your kids out for the day. I’ll give you your bus fare if you get stranded. I don’t begrudge these things at all. What I don’t like is when government robs my family to fund yours.

Whether it's a house, a car, a holiday, a sex-change, or a packet of crisps, the principle should be this: learn to pay for the things that you want.

Stephen Graham (B.Th Hons)

Incapacitate Benefit

Incapacitate Benefits

The benefits system in Britain is a thoroughly depressing pot of socialist mush, into which billions of pounds of taxpayers money pours every year, and which is regularly abused by scammers and the work-shy. It seems that some of these facts have at last begun to sink through the thick, virtually impenetrable, skulls of our dear old Left-leaning brethren. Tony Blair has recently stated his desire to wean people off incapacity benefit, (which costs the taxpayer 7 billion pounds a year), and into gainful employment.

There are around 2.6 million people who claim incapacity benefit and related benefits, over 1 million of which, according to the PM, want to return to work. Seemingly the population of Britain is increasingly becoming disabled, since a mere 700,000 claimed such benefits only 25 years ago. If you’ve been “unable to work” for 6 months or more, you go to your GP who fills in a form on your behalf telling the Benefits Agency how your medical condition affects your ability to work. After an independent medical check, you’re good to go, well, good to go and sit on your ass for a while. What’s more, you get bonus payment increases the longer you stay on it. Very cool.

One major problem is that once people start getting this benefit they tend to stay on it indefinitely, regardless of whether their fitness for work improves. Now, Dr Laurence Buckman, deputy chairman of the British Medical Association’s GP committee, argues that very few people would choose to stay on Incapacity Benefit if they could work: “I would be amazed if it was more than 5-10%.” Well, Dr Doctor Buckman, in my book 5-10% is still a fairly significant number of people claiming a benefit to which they are not entitled. Anyway, how many people are claiming this kind of benefit whilst working in some unofficial capacity? I can think of a number of people I know who do just that. These buggers really piss me off. They are, in effect, supplementing their wages with my wages, and they have the gall to laugh at you for playing by the rules. I reckon I have personally provided enough money for a scamming friend of mine to redecorate his entire house, with enough left over for a Whopper meal.

A second problem involves the forms on which claims are based. They ask questions such as whether or not the person is able to go to the toilet without assistance and if they are able to cook for themselves. This relies very much on the honesty of potential claimants. Isn’t the pitfall fairly obvious here? After all, it isn’t a terribly hard job to lie about one’s ability to cook up a fish supper or piss straight. Moreover, GP’s are hardly in a position to accurately evaluate a person’s supposed back-ache or depression. So, since claiming incapacity isn’t that hard to do, why wouldn’t an unemployed person go for the £55 a week it offers, with automatic increases as time goes by, rather than Job Seekers Allowance - a maximum of £55, depending on your age?

So, Tony, just what are you going to do? Well, it seems that Tony wishes to reform the system in a number of ways, primarily by ending the system of increasing payments for length of service, although this would only apply to new claimants rather than to existing ones. He has also pledged increasing support for people who enter into rehabilitation, training and work preparation, and extra help for those who are too sick and disabled to consider returning to work. His point of view is that if someone is able to work then they should. The government has, however, ruled out reducing the starting £55-a-week rate for incapacity benefit or imposing a time-limit on the period for which the benefit can be claimed. Tony believes that his proposals will strike the proper balance between rights and responsibilities and will be deemed to be fair by the public.

Jon Knight, from disability charity Leonard Cheshire, has warned that such plans could make disabled people even poorer, adding that it is wrong to force people to work when their condition doesn’t allow them to. Many others, even on Labour benches, see the moves as penalising a vulnerable group and branding claimants as scroungers. Unsurprisingly, previous attempts to change such welfare systems have led to significant backbench rebellions.

So, who is right? Is Tony right to clamp down on this particular benefit? Is Jon Knight correct to criticise the measures in the way that he does? The fact of the matter is that both sides are blinded by their socialist premises, none of which are ever questioned. One of the central socialist premises at work here is that which proclaims not only that those who are financially and physically healthy have a duty to help those who are not, but that government has a legitimate function in ensuring that they fulfil this duty. Tony blabbers on about a balance of rights and responsibilities, oblivious to the fact that both of these terms are being abused in his collectivist diatribe. What does he mean when he speaks of “rights” and “responsibilities” in this context? It’s quite simple: those who lack have a right to the wealth of those who don’t; and those who don’t are rightly compelled by government force to assist those who do. However, there is absolutely no legitimate basis on which to ground such a “right,” or the corresponding “responsibility.” No individual ever has a right to the property or life of any other individual. There are only two legitimate ways to gain money or property: you either work for it, or you become the beneficiary of someone’s voluntary generosity (through inheritance or charity). In taking property or money from people, in the form of tax, and spending it on others who did not work for it, government treats individuals as if they are government property to be used and dispensed with as it sees fit. What this in fact does is remove the right of an individual to his or her own life.

Would this make disabled people poorer, a possibility that concerns Joe Knight? There is no way to answer this question accurately, but I want to suggest firstly that it is not at all obvious that this would be the case, and secondly that even if the answer is ‘yes’ this does not render the libertarian principle invalid or unsound. For one thing, under this principle those who can work will have far more motivation to actually gain employment, and far less incentive to sit on their lazy asses leeching off others, since a lack of productivity will render a person financially vulnerable. Furthermore, such a system would drastically reduce tax. In a system with far fewer taxes people have much more money to voluntarily give assistance to those they think are genuinely in need of it, (a much smaller number of people than currently claims incapacity benefit). Moreover, with fewer taxes, there is a far bigger pot of money floating about for business investment, which in turn increases employment, which subsequently increases the amount of money available, and so the economy grows.

But, socialists don’t trust the human race. At the heart of socialism is the patronising assumption that people will not voluntarily give to charity, and thus should be compelled to do so by force by a handful of Socialist-Saviours (The S.S.). In addition to this assumption is the S.S. paranoia that a free economy will inevitably lead to a society in which 99% of people are slaves to 1%, when the fact of the matter is that Joe Bloggs cannot but benefit when businesses are successful, and when businesses have to compete with each other for both staff and custom. This competition pushes prices down and salaries up.

Whilst it is possible that those in genuine need don’t get help, it is not terribly likely. The human race is not the bunch of uncaring, emotionally redundant Neanderthals interested only their own survival that The S.S. think. The human race is actually incredibly generous and willing to invest time and money in each other. Take the amount of money given by people in aid of the victims of the Asian tsunami. Despite the fact that the disaster hit the day after Christmas, a significant amount of aid was sent, the vast majority of which came from those countries with freer economies.

Perhaps also, people like Jon Knight shouldn’t be so patronising towards the disabled. A great number of genuinely disabled people are able to hold regular jobs, despite the fact that they could easily qualify for incapacity benefit. Some disabled people provide great testimony to the strength of the human spirit and the possibilities of achievement, even in the face of big problems, physical or mental. Many people with Down’s syndrome, spina bifida, and a whole host of “incapacitating” disabilities do work. For dear sake Stephen Hawking can barely move a muscle, and yet he seemingly does OK at the game of life. Hell, I’ve even heard of a quadriplegic in American making a living selling paintings drawn using her mouth. Jon Knight would be better off dropping his rather cynical and defeatist view of disability.

With such considerations in mind I find myself compelled to the conclusion that not only should incapacity benefit be reformed, it should, along with other welfare benefits, be completely incapacitated.

Stephen Graham (B.Th Hons)

Holocaust Abuse

Holocaust Abuse

It’s not easy to like Germans. I’ve only ever been in Germany twice - passing through on the way to and from Croatia - and that was long enough. Granted, I shouldn’t be daft enough to make a judgment about an entire nation of people on the basis of such little experience, but I will state that during my short time in the country I detected a strong whiff of arrogance about Germans (along with Sauerkraut and a hint of Spatan). Yeah. I suspect they still see themselves as a master race.

In spite of this I find myself feeling a tad sorry for them as the Holocaust memorial events get into full swing. This week alone I listened to an employee at work dismissing the Germans as a bunch of bastards for what they did to the Jews, “and I’ll tell you, they’d do it again if given even half a chance.” This sentiment is not an isolated one either. If I had a Deutschmark for every time I heard someone express hatred for the Germans I’d have, well, a whole load of useless money, but you get the point.

And this hatred is not confined to Germany’s old adversaries. It seems that Germans themselves engage in quite a bit of self-flagellation. Last week Gerhard Schroder, the German Chancellor, expressed Germany’s shame for the Holocaust. He urged his fellow Deutschlanders never to forget the evils of the Holocaust and went so far as to claim that Germans have a special responsibility for the Nazi concentration camps. In his own words: “The vast majority of Germans alive today are not to blame for the Holocaust, but they do bear a special responsibility. The evil of Nazi ideology did not occur without preconditions. The brutalisation of thought and the loss of moral inhibitions had a history. Above all, Nazi ideology was desired by people and man-made.”

I want to respond to this in the same way that God responds to the humbled prostrations of King Arthur in Monty Python’s The Quest for the Holy Grail: “Oh stop grovelling! I can’t stand grovelling!” For that is what Schroder was doing: grovelling, and grovelling without a cause. Just what does it mean to say that most Germans are not to “blame” for the Holocaust, but that they bear “special responsibility”? The concept of bearing responsibility for an event inherently involves blame. If you’re responsible for an event, or partially responsible, then you at least share the blame. Unless there was something lost in translation, this sentiment was quite meaningless, even if it may have sounded good to a bunch of Holocaust survivors.

By stating that Germans bear some kind of “special responsibility”, Schroder is buying into an irrational form of collectivism - specifically the notion of collective guilt. Pick up the Guardian on any day of the week and you’ll see this concept at work in the minds of many of the regular columnists. In one recent case a Guardian columnist, Decca Aitkenhead, suggested that Jamaicans are not to blame for their homophobic attitudes. Who then is to blame? Well. You are. I am. Hold a British passport? GUILTY! Guilty by virtue of the fact that your ancestors were very bad boys and girls when they roamed the world bringing destruction to all those nice, until then civil, parts of the world. It’s merely part of the limp-wrested, guilt-ridden, self-loathing agenda of left-liberals in which the notion of individual responsibility is dispensed with in favour of collectivism. When a burglar breaks into a house, it’s not his own fault. It’s our fault. We created the social conditions in which this poor thieving sod was compelled to knock Grandpa Joe unconscious in his kitchen for some pocket change. The sentiment is summed up nicely in the quote: “society prepares the crime, the criminal commits it.”

Germany is a different nation now. Germans today are no more responsible for the Holocaust than a child is responsible for his father’s rape of his mother. To treat Germans today as somehow responsible for what happened before most of them were conceived is merely a secular version of a rather laughable religious doctrine: the doctrine of original sin. This doctrine states that sin and guilt are passed from one generation to the other, with the result that subsequent generations are responsible for the sins of their ancestors. To hold modern day Germans responsible for the Holocaust simply secularises this doctrine. It’s no less laughable for that.

An endless supply of war films have probably prevented us from acknowledging that many Germans - innocent Germans - suffered and died in both world wars. Young German boys - as young as 11 or 12 had their heads blown off in the trenches. Small German babies had their short lives ended when Dresden was pummelled into the ground by indiscriminate allied bombing. German husbands lost wives; brothers lost sisters; mothers lost sons. Germans are as entitled to mourn their dead as anyone else, and yet they are often made to feel guilty (even by their fellow, well-meaning, countrymen) by the notion of collective guilt and responsibility, and more so now during the events marking the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.

We all agree that the war was tragic. We all agree that some terrible shit was done that should never have been done and should never be done again. But, Germans should shake off their feelings of guilt. Yes, by all means remember the Holocaust. I doubt anyone will forget it in a hurry. But it should be remembered in a different way, not used as a stick with which to beat the German population.

Regrettably, events like the Holocaust tend to bring out some of the worst in people, even well-meaning folks. We recently witnessed the shameless condemnations and over-reactions to Prince Harry’s choice of a Nazi uniform to a private fancy dress party (the theme of which, lost on most people, was “colonial and native”). My own view is that Harry has a great sense of irony, and his only real mistake was to apologise instead of dismissing the criticisms with a loud guffaw. But, some people really like to go to town with things like this, and tend to lose all sense of proportion and common sense.

This loss of proportion and common sense also manifests itself in the way that terms like “Holocaust,” “Nazi,” and “fascism” tend to be thrown about with reckless abandon to describe some comparatively banal modern day dislikes and minor problems. One of the most ridiculous abuses of the memory of the Holocaust is when animal rights activists use the term to describe what goes on behind the doors of Huntington Life Sciences. It’s a classic ploy: if you don’t like something and have more or less abandoned all reason, you can still resort to that great manipulator - emotion. And what better way to use emotion than to describe the killing of 10,000 rats and mice as a “Holocaust?” From the sublime to the ridiculous to the “fuck-did-they-really-say-that,” we also witnessed, only a few weeks ago, the ramblings of Germaine Greer as she left the Big Brother house. Big Brother was accused by Germaine of “fascism” for denying one of the housemates a bottle of Diet Coke. Complaining that no other housemates would join her in righteous protest, she preached, eyebrow-raisingly, that: “persecution is what happens…holocausts are what happen when good people do nothing.” So, apparently she left the Big Brother house just in case they started pumping noxious gases in through the window, which is, seemingly, just a few steps behind withholding a bottle of Coke.

By drawing such banal parallels we do exactly the same thing as those who deny the that the Holocaust ever happened: we cheapen the memory of it and belittle the horrors that it involved. The evils of the Holocaust are not on a par with the modern day problems and mildly unpleasant events with which they are too often compared.

We would do much better if we remembered the evils of the Holocaust in a more dignified way. German-self-flagellation, emotional over-reactions to a fancy dress costume and comparisons of the Holocaust with minor modern problems falls way short of that.

Stephen Graham (B.Th Hons)