A Dopey Approach to Drugs Law

Government’s Dopey Approach to Drugs Law

I really wish members of parliament would smoke cannabis more often. It would be great if we could sit down and watch the news one day to hear the words, “well folks, we’ll rejoin the presentation of the Budget just as soon as Gordon Brown stops his bout of uncontrollable giggling,” or, “we’ll resume Prime Minister’s questions just as soon as the MP’s come back from their munchies break,” and even, “well, it seems as though the leader of the opposition has fallen asleep.” Unfortunately, not everyone is happy to make light of this, or any, drug.

Not so long ago Cannabis was downgraded from class B to class C, which meant that possession was no longer an arrestable offence. However, the Government would like a review of this decision in the light of “mounting scientific evidence” that cannabis is actually much more harmful than originally thought. Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, has ordered the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to review its conclusion that high cannabis use was not associated with health problems, a conclusion on which the decision to downgrade was based.

Two recent studies have suggested that cannabis leads to an increase in mental health problems, (which makes it a little like socialism, eh?). In one study Professor Jim van Os, of Maastricht University, concluded: “Cannabis use moderately increases the risk of psychotic symptoms in young people but has a much stronger effect in those with . . . predisposition for psychosis.” The study found that of 2,437 people aged between 14 and 24 half of those who were psychologically vulnerable and smoked cannabis developed psychotic symptoms over a four-year period. This was twice the rate among those who did not use cannabis. In a second study Professor David Fergusson, of the University of Otago, concluded that, “there was a clear increase in rates of psychotic symptoms after the start of regular use, with daily users of cannabis having rates over 150 per cent those of non-users”. In the journal Addiction, Professor Fergusson wrote: “These findings add to a growing body of evidence from different sources, all of which suggest that heavy use of cannabis may lead to increased risk of psychotic symptoms.” [Emphasis mine]

Many have welcomed Charles Clarke’s decision. Professor Robin Murray, a consultant psychiatrist at the Institute of Psychiatry at King’s College London, said: “Anybody who knows anything about this subject will be pleased. The council’s original decision was based on research conducted in 2001, but there have been six studies since then showing a clear link between prolonged cannabis use and psychosis.”

Despite my shameless arrogance, I don’t intend to challenge scientists on the science. My only question in passing is to ask how we actually know that cannabis leads to mental health problems rather than the other way around: people with deteriorating mental health are more likely to take up using a drug like cannabis because it numbs pain and brings short-term relief for many symptoms of mental health defects. It always strikes me how a statistical correlation between A and B leads us to conclude, a little too easily in my opinion, that A causes B. It smacks of the old “correlation = causation” fallacy.

Anyhow, despite my normal desire to inflict serious damage on my opponents, preferably with thumb screws and piano wire, I intend simply to be as nice to my opponents as possible by granting that cannabis, and other drugs, do indeed lead to a deterioration in the mental health of the user. So, where to next?

The argument that sits festering in the minds of people like Charles Clarke and representatives of Mental Health charities is this: drugs generally, and in this case cannabis, lead to an increased risk of mental health problems. Therefore, government should ban them and clamp down strongly on drug possession and use. It’s a popular political argument: if it’s bad for people then it should banned. But, there is a hidden premise in the argument, which is: whatever leads to an increased risk of mental health problems should be banned by government, or, more generally, if something is bad for people then it should be banned. This is the big unstated assumption. The correct response is to ask “why?” Why should government ban something that may lead to an increased likelihood of mental health problems? What justifies this notion? It’s classic “save you from yourself” mentality, a gross example of how government attempts to nationalise the life of the individual. The fact of the matter is that it should be up to each individual what they do with their own body and life. How is government interference justified?

WHAT ABOUT THE KIDS!!!

Yup. The infamous “argument from the kids” strikes again. The kids will be adversely affected if cannabis or other drugs are legalised, won’t they? Well, not obviously. If any parents are reading then they should realise that their teenage son or daughter has probably already experimented with a substance that is either illegal generally or at least for under 18’s. Banning will not decrease use. It never has. All it does it make use more dangerous. Criminal gangs have a monopoly on illegal substances, and do you really think that your local friendly drug dealer gives a shit about the levels of rat poison in an ecstasy tablet? Legalising drugs helps to remove them from a deeper criminal underworld and allows legitimate companies and business selling the drugs to build up a good reputation for the quality of their product, thus making drugs far safer. In any event, I always found the argument that adults should be banned from something because adolescents might get caught up in it to be a rather curious one that rarely leads to calls for the banning of alcohol, pornography, gambling or sex. I certainly agree that minors should be prohibited from purchasing drugs or alcohol. However, this does not mean banning the entire adult population from using these things. Alcohol laws allow adults to make choices about going out for a drink or purchasing alcohol. There is no reason why we can’t have a similar approach with regards the use of cannabis or other drugs.

Many people will undoubtedly have problems with my individualistic approach to this question. The central objection is that drug users put an extra strain on the National Health Service, and since we all pay for it we are all affected by someone else’s supposedly private and personal decision to take drugs. Doesn’t this justify the banning of cannabis? If it does then, to be consistent, we need to look even further than cannabis. We need to look at every single case of self-inflected injury and illness and at every single activity that causes, or increases the likelihood of, some form of ailment: smoking, drinking alcohol, playing football, mountain climbing, eating hamburgers, having sex, sun bathing, sneezing in public, crossing the road, driving a car, owning a pet, watching television, or leaving your house in the morning, to name but a few of the many activities that increase the likelihood of certain unsavoury things happening: lung cancer, liver disease, heart attack, stroke, falling off a cliff, spreading TB, knocking down a pedestrian, getting obese.

The fact of the matter is that this is not really a good argument in favour of drug prohibition. What it actually provides is a strong argument against the existence of a National Health Service. If we are to have an NHS we need to bite the bullet and treat all people on it no matter how they have been injured or made sick. That’s simply the price we pay for it. But, a system of private care would be so much better. It would mean that each and every individual is responsible for their own choices and the consequences of those choices. Conditions and ailments caused by cannabis use are therefore of no issue to anyone but the user in question, since no one but him or her must pick up the tab for the treatment if he or she has no medical insurance. In fact, a private system of health care might be better at making people quit such activities, since insurance premiums for some people might be far higher or even difficult to get at all. A private system of health care would certainly remove a central plank in the position of control freaks who want to interfere in the lives of other people, and that is a prize worth striving for in the fight for continuing freedom, liberty and personal responsibility.

Since government is unlikely to adopt a libertarian philosophy any time soon, perhaps I could suggest a compromise. A better approach to drugs law would be to completely legalise drugs and thereby hand the market over to reputable and accountable companies. Government could then impose a tax on drugs and use the money raised to treat those who damage their health and to clamp down on those who sell drugs to minors. This would mean that only those who use drugs pay for any damage caused, while shifting more responsibility on to individuals to make their own decisions and choices. If government reckons that it can help to inform people about the relative dangers of each drug then it could continue to finance and publicise research, as it has been doing (although given the amount of privately funded research this should be questioned).

Such an approach is far from perfect from a libertarian perspective, but it’s a decent step in the right direction.

Stephen Graham (B.Th Hons)

What's Wrong With Religious Hatred?

What’s Wrong with Religious Hatred?

The culture of our country is increasingly intolerant, and petulantly so. What we don’t like we ban, after shrieking hysterically about it like a tom cat with a firework up its arse. It seems that the goal of many political and social commentators and activists is the creation of a nice, pink and frilly la-la world in which everyone “just gets along.” Imagine there’re no arguments. It isn’t hard to do. Nothing to disagree for. And no dislike too. Imagine all the people. Living life in peace. Whoo hoo-hoo.

Their dream: my nightmare. And their dreams are being pursued with vigour. The most recent step taken in our advancement towards Big Hug Telly Tubby utopia is a clause tucked away in schedule 10 of the new Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, which is currently under debate. This schedule contains a provision to introduce a new crime: “incitement to religious hatred.” I find it totally bizarre that it could be an offence to incite someone to an emotion - hatred - that is itself not a crime. Anyhow, “religious hatred” is defined as meaning hatred against a group of people defined by reference to religious belief or lack thereof. So hating someone because they are Muslim, or Christian, or atheist, is going to be viewed as worse than hating someone just because you don’t like the look of them, or because they smell, or because you’re just a hateful bastard. Under this provision any person who uses “threatening, abusive or insulting words of behaviour” or who displays any written material which is “threatening, abusive or insulting” will be held guilty of a crime if: (1) he or she intends to stir up religious hatred, and (2) having regard for all the circumstances the words, behaviour or material are likely to be heard or seen by someone in whom they will stir up religious hatred.

Clear as mud, eh? Perhaps government could help us out here to make sense of this imprecision. However, Labour MP's have never been entirely sure themselves, or perhaps just don’t like to say. Worryingly, during a debate in the Commons, Khalid Mahmood, a Labour MP, implied that he did not rule out the application of the law in the case of The Satanic Verses. When pressed on this point the Home Office Minister Hazel Blears avoided giving a direct confirmation that Salman Rushdie could not be prosecuted under the law. In other words, Labour MP’s cannot guarantee that academic freedom of speech and an unhindered pursuit of knowledge and free enquiry will be protected. Interestingly though, Tony Blair could possibly have fallen foul of this law had it been in effect a year ago when he said: “What galvanised me was that it was a declaration of war by religious fanatics who are prepared to wage that war without limit. They killed 3,000 [in the 9/11 attacks]. But if they could have killed 30,000 or 300,000 they would have rejoiced in it.” Tony Blair connected this attack to the religion of the perpetrators, and since nothing incites hatred for people more than the notion that they take pleasure is killing others, Tony Blair could have been in a spot of bother. Bang him up.

We are told by defenders of this new law that the intention is to protect people - not belief systems, a point classically stated by Trevor Phillips of the Commission for Racial Equality: “God does not need to be defended by our laws, people do.” However, just what are people being protected from by this law? People do not need to be protected from an emotion. They need to be protected from criminal acts: vandalism, assault, bodily harm, theft, murder, rape. Every single one of these acts is already illegal, and none of them is any worse because they were perpetrated with a victim’s religion in mind. Hating people is not the problem. Hatred itself is not necessarily an evil, immoral or abhorrent thing. It is often a very valid emotion. Many people hate the members of Al Qaeda. In other words, they hate a certain group of people on the grounds of their religious (and political) beliefs. Is this morally degenerate? Hardly. If anything hatred of such people is a sign that one’s moral compass is working properly. Moreover, to waffle on about protecting people ignores that laws such as these provide little protection to those people who desire to exercise freedom of speech - to preach religion or to condemn it.

If proponents of this new law were to pay attention to the phenomena of religion and the mentality of substantial numbers of religious adherents they would soon come to see that the neat little line they try to draw between hatred for a person and hatred for a belief system is at best fine and subjective, and at worst totally illusory. Religious belief is such a fundamental part of the lives of many people that they are insulted and offended when their belief system is. I’m sure the vast majority of Muslims on the planet would be offended at the criticism of Mohammed’s marriage to a young girl. Iqbal Sacranie writes, “defamation of the character of the prophet Mohammed is a direct insult and abuse of the Muslim community.” What would count as defamation? Arguing that Mohammed was deluded? Critisicing his marriage to a young girl? Dismissing him as a power crazy war-mongerer? It is noteworthy that many British Muslims expect this new law to protect Mohammed from criticism.

This new crime will, make absolutely no mistake about it, have a negative impact on freedom of speech. Ironically, at the same time that the government is discussing this new bill it is also debating anti-terrorism measures. One of the biggest terrorist threats to Britain is from fundamentalist nut-job Muslims. That’s not a bigoted, racist, or offensive statement. It’s a fact. And another fact is that one of the most vital weapons to fight religious nut-jobbery is open debate and freedom of speech - which are amongst the most fundamental aspects of the societies these people seek to destroy. By hindering freedoms and open debate we simply play into the hands of such freaks. Freedom of expression on religious issues has been badly eroded over the past few years, and needs to be restored, not dismantled further. The truth is that we are far too tolerant of religious quacks. They get off far too lightly. Were there any charges brought against those who condemned Salman Rushdie to a life in hiding? Was anyone charged in the aftermath of the trashing of a Birmingham theatre showing the Sikh play Behzti? Nope and nope.

During his time as home secretary, David Blunkett gave the clearest example of the sort of statement that would fall under these new provisions: “Muslims are a threat to British people and liable to molest women and that they should be urgently driven out of Britain.” Just what is wrong with saying this? Now, I’m not saying that I agree with the sentiments. The statement is ludicrous, paranoid, reactionary, illogical swill. But, if someone honestly believes it to be true, why should they be banned from saying so? A representative of the group JUSTICE, Gay Moon, offers a reason. She believes that we need a bill outlawing these kinds of things because otherwise Muslims - individuals, homes, schools and businesses - will be the target of vicious and repeated attacks. However, vicious and repeated attacks against Muslims - or anyone else for that matter - are already illegal. If a Muslim gets beaten up because he or she is a Muslim, is it any worse than when an old woman gets beaten up for the change in her hand-bag? A crime is a crime is a crime. A perpetrator is no less morally culpable if he beats up a Muslim for a reason that doesn't appeal to religious belief.

Ms Moon continues her defence of the new bill by stating that “no one would want to stop vigorous debate about religious belief or the lack of it, but what many people are opposed to is where such debate leads to incitement to hatred.” The problem here is that the distinction between genuine debate and debate leading to incitement to hatred is foggy. Take a non-religious example. A pro-life organisation might hold a rally at which someone argues that abortion is mass murder. This is a perfectly legitimate argument to make. However, someone at that rally might use the arguments given as justification for killing doctors who perform abortions (killing a few doctors - saving 1000’s of babies lives). Who should be blamed? Are the organisers of the debate culpable? The speaker? Hardly. The wacko fuck-wit who goes haywire is responsible for his or her own actions. The same principle would apply in the case of religion. A Christian preacher speaking out about persecution taking place in a Muslim country could very plausibly give added impetus to someone who just wants to beat up Muslims. And, even if not, it is not implausible that a Muslim would complain that the preaching might have this impact. It is a foul law indeed that threatens an elderly woman handing out gospel tracts to Muslims with a more severe punishment than most rapists end up with.

Next, Ms Moon attempts to ease worries that under this new law people will be prosecuted for telling religious jokes, for engaging in religious debate and criticism or missionary activity. She correctly points out that Jews and Sikhs are currently protected under laws pertaining to incitement to racial hatred, and that this has not stopped racist jokes or criticisms of these religions. However, what she fails to realise is that there is absolutely nothing in the text of the law to guarantee that this will continue, and, if as typically happens with this sort of thing, there is legal “slippage,” we have a fairly massive problem on our hands. Lawyers have a great ability to increase the web of litigation. They are adept at finding loop-holes, masters at jumping through all kinds of hoops, and can twist black in to white. In an increasingly petulant and intolerant climate this law is downright dangerous, largely due to the direction it is pushing us in. Members of a church in Norwich were recently under police investigation for incitement to racial hatred because they were handing out leaflets with a view to converting Muslims. BNP leader Nick Griffin fell under similar suspicion when he described Islam as a “wicked, vicious faith” that was spawned by a “handful of cranky lunatics.” Neither of these statements are racist (since Islam is not a race) but these cases cause worry about what will happen when this new law is passed. And, isn't it telling that Labour MP’s could not guarantee that a work like Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses would not fall foul of such a law? Sixteen years ago Rushdie was protected from wackos who threatened his life. That these wackos might one day be able to prosecute him themselves should send a shiver down our spines.

Freedom of speech means absolutely nothing if it doesn’t include the offensive, the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative. As Gareth Crossman of Liberty says, “In a democracy, criminalizing even the most unpalatable, illiberal and offensive speech should be approached with extreme caution.”

Unfortunately our government has approached this issue in its typical way: like a bull in a china shop.

Stephen Graham (B.Th Hons)

Sticks & Stones

Sticks & Stones
May Break My Bones
But Words Will Never Harm Me

Most of us probably learnt the above little ditty when we were children. And what a truth it undoubtedly is - to which countless people lying in plaster in hospital wards will testify. However, we were being asked last week to consider the potentially deadly combination of stones & words. I’m referring to a spat in Carlisle regarding a giant piece of artwork, in the shape of a bloody big 14 stone lump of granite, containing the words of an ancient curse. *cue creepy music*

A little history first. In 1520, the Roman Catholic archbishop of Glasgow, Archbishop Dunbar, put a curse on the stone in an attempt to excommunicate a rather wild, savage, lawless bunch of folks referred to as the Border Reivers, who were terrorising Cumbria with rampant rape and pillage. Centuries later Carlisle City Council re-inscribed the curse on “the Bishop’s Stone,” and has recently given it a prominent place in a museum exhibition. The curse begins: “I curse their heads and all the hairs on their head; I curse their face, their brain, their mouth, their nose, their tongue, their teeth, their forehead…” Now, I’m no expert on curses, but I reckon that’s about as bad as things get, and certainly ranks right up there with my personal favourite: “may all your children have small dicks - even the girls.” Archbishop Dunbar didn’t mince his words.

“16th century hocus pocus,” I hear you mumble, and I’d be inclined to agree with you. But not everyone thinks so. Leading Churchmen in the area have asked a Roman Catholic archbishop to perform an exorcism on the giant stone. Yes, indeed. You heard me correctly. These folks seemingly reckon the stone is possessed. So, if you’re thinking of going to see it I’d stand back a few feet in case it starts spitting pea-soup at you and telling you to go fuck Jesus up the ass. The Bishop of Carlisle, the Reverend Graham Dow, wants the next archbishop of Glasgow - who will succeed Cardinal Thomas Winning who died in June - to lift the curse. Aha. Bring out the crucifixes and holy water I guess, with some garlic and a silver bullet, just in case.

The Reverend Kevin Davies doesn’t think we should make light of this matter. He told the Today programme that the curse should be taken seriously: “This stone invokes evil on people and as such we should not take it lightly.” Continuing, he added that the curse is “a violent piece of spiritual language,” and that “words are powerful things [which] can affect reality for good or ill and become even more powerful when they are written down.” What a bunch of mystic nonsense. Really. True, few intelligent people deny the power of words. But the power is words lies in their ability to persuade, to move us emotionally, to comfort, to build relationships, to express meaning and feeling. The power of words does not lie in some mysterious mumbo jumbo about how they, through some weird mechanism unknown to humankind, cause bad evil things to happen to innocent bystanders under the power of some demonic force floating around the cosmos somewhere. I could say “May Kevin Davies die by falling off the Empire State building and landing arse first on a bicycle with no seat.” That’s quite a violent sentiment. The words are powerful in that they, hypothetically in this case, express loathing for another human being. The words are not powerful in that they actually make it more likely that the good reverend will indeed die in such a fashion. Words have no such power as Davies tries to attach to them. In my view he’s been paying too much attention to the Harry Potter series.

Such lunacy is not limited to a few religious quacks, however. Even elected representatives are getting in on the act. I always knew that members of the Liberal Democrats were a tad mentally retarded, but I have found further proof of this assertion. Jim Tootle, a Liberal Democrat councillor, wants the stone destroyed and tabled a motion to discuss it in a council meeting at the beginning of last week. Has local government nothing better to do with its time than entertain the irrational ramblings of a superstitious nut-job? Elsewhere in the country we are debating the possibility of a terrorist attack and how best to protect ourselves without trampling on the very civil liberties we are seeking to protect. In Carlisle they’re talking about some mysterious power of a 16th century curse to torment the local residents. It’s so astounding that my mouth has been hanging open ever since I heard about this and started writing. Perhaps while we're at it we should discuss banning the number 13 from our numerical system, killing off all black cats, strict legislation on the use of ladders, and enforcing the use of bubble-wrap on all mirrors.

As if to appeal to an age of reason, Tootle, and some Christian groups, offered evidence to prove the stone’s malevolence. They have informed us that the stone has brought misfortunes of “biblical proportions” to Carlisle. Apparently, we are informed, since the Bishop’s Stone was placed in Carlisle, the city has suffered floods, foot-and-mouth disease, job losses and, curse all the demons of Hell, a goal famine for the football team. Yup, I detect the curse of God here. Everyone knows that when the Israelites pissed God off Big-G made sure they were scored on more times than a Bombay hooker on a good weekend as they lost the Middle Eastern cup to the Philistines. At least floods and disease are more “biblical.” There are indeed numerous occasions in which God just thought “fuck it” and wiped everyone out. However, when there are perfectly good natural explanations of certain phenomena there is no need to invoke anything supernatural, and even when there is no good natural explanation the evidence of something supernatural better be pretty robust. In this case, as in most cases regarding the supernatural, the evidence is nothing other than circumstantial. Take foot-and-mouth disease. The fact of the matter is that most of the damn country suffered from it and the reason was nothing other than feeding animals dodgy food. And what about the flooding? Well, you see, water evaporates off the ground and the sea, gathers around dust particles and forms those big white fluffy things that we call clouds. These fluffy clouds are then blown about randomly by the wind, and when the water drops get too heavy gravity kicks in and they fall to earth in a phenomenon referred to as “raining.” If the drainage of an area under heavy rainfall can’t cope then the area will flood. That’s it. No angels. No demons. No divine fucking around with the stratosphere. It’s merely the raw combination of natural processes, human negligence, and shit bad luck.

To add to my angst, the opposition to the petition to have the stone removed has been rather limp. Council leader Mike Mitchelson said: “We're obliged to address [Toolan’s] comments, but estimate that it will cost the council several thousands of pounds to remove the stone. The council will need to look at whether the removal of the stone is a financial priority for the local area.” So, if it was cheaper to remove the stone the council might just do it to appease a wave of superstitious crap? A more appropriate response would have been, “remove the stone? On the basis of your insane, irrational and superstitious medieval ramblings? Get out of my sight. You bloody idiots.”

And the story just gets more and more “Lord of the Rings” as it progresses. Another opponent of the removal was Kevin Carlyon, high priest of the British White Witches. I’m not sure if the White Witches are immigrants from Middle Earth or not, or if they have a personal relationship with Gandalf the White. But, like other opponents of the stone’s removal, they failed to base their opposition on the fundamental absurdity of the whole notion of curses. Instead they opposed it on the basis that it would increase belief in the stone’s power and that “a curse can only work if people believe in it.” It seems then that removing it would only bring more judgment of biblical proportions. More bunkum, eh? Belief has no such power to affect reality in this way. No amount of belief can make a bunch of medieval claptrap come true. Centuries ago most inhabitants of the world believed the earth to be flat, but that didn’t make it so. No matter how many people believe that bad things will happen to Carlisle as a result of a centuries old curse, how on earth does this make it more likely to actually happen? Will diseases or floods deliberately target Carlisle because of a few wacko beliefs? Come off it.

I am spared a bout of total depression by the fact that reason was not silenced, and that sense was uttered in some quarters. Councillor Judith Attinson put it well when she refered to the curse as “[just] words very nicely engraved into a huge lump of granite.” And thankfully the words of the artist who re-wrote the curse, Gordon Young, came true, since all but two councillors voted to save the stone: “I think there are enough rational people on the council to make sure there's no chance of [the stone] being destroyed, but the fact that they are considering that is truly amazing.”

Amazing indeed, and as unbelievable as the notion that an ancient curse is to blame for modern misfortune.

Stephen Graham (B.Th Hons)

Young Hooligans and the People who Love Them

Young Hooligans and the People who Love Them

On Monday it emerged that Northern Ireland’s supposedly tough new laws aimed at tackling anti-social brats and bastards have never been used, despite having been in force for the past 6 months. Unless Northern Ireland has suddenly turned into some bastion of righteous purity, and its young yobs into dazzling little angels, something is very terribly askew.

The government reckons it has been engaged in a “process of gathering evidence,” despite no cases going to court yet. Six months to gather evidence? Perhaps the police have been slowed down by all the fried chicken expanding their waistlines, or are too busy playing pool down at the station, because surely half a frickin’ year is ample time to catch and prosecute one miserable little window-breaking sod. Police in England and Wales don’t seem to be dragging their heals quite so much. 2,600 Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBO’s) have been served in England and Wales in the past 12 months. Under the terms of the legislation Police, local councils or the Housing Executive can apply for the court orders, which control or restrict a person's movements within specific areas on pain of a substantial fine or jail. Criminal Justice Minister John Spellar has confirmed that all of the relevant agencies have received guidelines and training. So, just what the hell is going on? And why is there not more of an uproar about this?

Part of the problem is that the ASBO legislation is strongly opposed by a number of influential groups. Such opposition is utterly dumbfounding. Under the new laws thugs as young as 10 years old can be banned from going into certain areas, on pain of fines or imprisonment. Since this is the case, some children’s rights groups haven’t been happy bunnies. It seems that they would rather have these young hooligans let loose to attack pensioners, destroy property and hurl verbal abuse at anyone crossing their path. God forbid we do anything to protect ourselves from such types.

The lunacy begins with Koualla Yiasouma, director of Include Youth, who informs us that, “ASBO’s [are] a significant attack on the rights of children and young people.” Yes, very good. Perhaps Yiasouma would prefer us to turn a blind eye to youth thuggery lest we tread on the rights of those who wish to bash up an old woman? Or perhaps in the pink and frilly world of Yiasouma young joy-riders need nothing other than a good big dose of group-hug therapy. I wonder would Yiasouma consider 10 years in prison as a significant attack on the rights of rapists? Upholding the rights of the perpetrators above considerations for victims is the perfect example of rights language gone mad. But, perhaps Yiasouma has yet to get to grips with the fundamentals of society. In case he frequents grumpy-young-man, I’ll spell it out for him: In society we have rules, many of which are in place to protect the fundamental rights of citizens. When these rules are broken a person forfeits certain rights that they would otherwise have. Thus we rightly impose fines or imprisonment on folks who have been a tad naughty. Criminals should therefore not be treated as equals to law-abiding citizens. I’m incredibly curious as to what right Yiasouma thinks an ASBO takes from a young offender. The right to verbally or physically abuse other people and property if they feel like it? The right to not be punished for their actions?

Yiasouma continues his pathetic fluffy-bunny diatribe with: “ASBO’s don’t deal with the reasons why young people get into trouble in the first place.” Well, 10/10 at least for factual content on that one, but 0/10 for relevance and insight. Question: Does a life sentence deal with the reasons why someone picks up an axe handle and murders someone with it? Answer: Nope. Second Question: Does this fact mean that life sentences for murder are illegitimate? Yiasouma would be a great person to have around the day after someone goes off the rails, eh? His sentiment is similar to the utopian bull plop of members of the Socialist Party who in response to the question “how do you deal with tyrants” reply “you create a world in which such people would not exist.” Yup. Just create a world in which there are no bad people, no rapists, no murderers, no violators of fundamental rights, and no violent aggressors. Simple. If we start now we’ll have it done by next week I reckon. Someone pass the Lego bricks. It would be lovely if we could sit down with our politically correct brethren over freshly brewed coffee and toasted bagels and address the reasons why young people get into trouble in the first place. But such can only ever be a long-term strategy. It does nothing to help or protect those who are currently being terrorised in their own neighbourhoods by gangs of young hooligans. No amount of reflection on the causes of crime can help when bricks and bottles come flying into your garden. In the history of penal law we have been unable to truly get to grips with the causes of crime and anti-social behaviour, and we'd be foolish to scrap criminal punishment until such time as we do. So, while it is certainly true that ASBO’s don’t deal with the reasons why young people get into trouble in the first place, it is not true that this renders them invalid, impractical, unjust or immoral. They provide a sanction on certain forms of damaging behaviour, a means to remove the worst offenders from society, and a deterrent to any less than wholly pleasant little fuckers who have been getting away with obnoxious behaviour in public for far too long.

The trip through the bizarre, limp-wristed world of political correctness ends with SDLP equality spokeswoman Patricia Lewsley, who believes that “[tagging people as young as ten as criminal] is insane and completely disregards equality legislation, in particular by failing to consult with young people.” Fancy that now: tagging criminals as criminal. Oh the nerve of some people. I wonder what Ms Lewsley thinks is the correct term of reference for someone who throw bricks at passing buses if not “criminal.” The fact of the matter is that when a 10 year old smashes a car windscreen the result is no different from when an 18 year old smashes a car windscreen. It’s a criminal act of vandalism in either case and should be treated as such. 10-year-olds know that such things are wrong (why else do they run like the hammers of hell afterwards?). And what’s this nonsense about failing to consult with young people? I suppose Ms Lewsley thinks that your average 12-year-old thug is well placed to give a thoughtful commentary on the psychological nuances and the social implications of crime and punishment? “So little master window-smashing hooligan, what do you think we should do with young offenders?” “Ummm, ahhh, free holidays, and, like, ummmm, ahhhhh, yunno, maybe, I dunno, something else, yunno?” Maybe we should also be consulting convicted murderers about whether or not we should reintroduce the death penalty, eh? In my experience young hooligans can barely count the number of cigarettes in a packet of twenty let alone evaluate a political policy.

Only when people regain their rational faculties and stop talking out of the sweaty crack of their shit-smelling arse will the pressure for action mount enough to punt the police out of the chip shop and into action.

In my opinion we might need to issue a few alternative ASBO’s to some people: an Anti-Sanity-Buffoonery-Order.

Stephen Graham (B.Th Hons)