Stupid Black Women

Stupid Black Women

Here are a few of my opinions:

1. Black men are generally better boxers than white men

2. Vegetarians tend to be thinner than meat eaters

3. Asians are on average more intelligent than white people

4. Socialists are usually much more angry and unhappy than capitalists

5. Men tend to be physically stronger than women

6. Women tend to be more caring than men

These opinions of mine are totally unfounded. I have no empirical evidence on hand to support any of them. They are simply general impressions that I have about different groups of people. Did I offend anyone with them? I doubt very much that I did. Now, lets say that instead of writing “Asians are on average more intelligent than white people” I had said “Whites are on average more intelligent than blacks.” I suspect that there would be a fury unleashed against me from the very bowels of hell itself. No one batted an eyelid when Michael Moore published a book called “Stupid White Men.” The book was widely praised. But, surely if someone had written a book called “Stupid Black Women” they would have been lynched if only the limp-wristed soft-bellied tit-mubbling plonkers of the politically correct left could muster the balls to try. I wonder how many of my dear readers nearly shit in their pants when they saw the title of this blog. And did they risk needing clean pants when they first clapped eyes on Moore’s literary offering?

When white people are criticised, putdown or mocked very few people really give a toss. But when the target of the said mockery is a black person there is hell to pay. The current wisdom is that only blacks can suffer racism, and only whites can be guilty of it. Interestingly there is no reaction when education experts and government papers point out that Chinese pupils constantly perform better than white pupils in our schools.

Dr Frank Ellis, a Russian tutor at Leeds University, had no desire to gratuitously criticise, putdown or mock black people when he recently commented that he found the empirical evidence suggesting that black people on average have lower IQs than white people to be convincing. He was stating his opinion, unlike me above, with the aid of empirical evidence. His argument is that data stretching back for the past century points to a persistent deviation in the average IQ of black and white people. Dr Ellis has expressed support for the Bell Curve theory, propounded by Richard Hernnstein and Charles Murray, which concludes that ethnicity can play a part in IQ levels. He praised the work of scholars such as Hans Eysenck and Arthur Jensen who have come to similar conclusions. [Incidentally, there is probably more evidence supporting this conclusion than there is to support the theory that global warming is caused primarily by human interaction].

As a result a group of around 500 students have signed a petition calling for Dr Ellis to be sacked. The Student Union said it was “horrified” by Dr Ellis’s views and students are threatening to picket his lectures unless the university “takes all necessary action to remove him.” It said: “We are extremely concerned that students from ethnic minorities, who he claims are inferior, could face discrimination from Dr Ellis’s presence on campus.” Leeds University, while admitting that there is no evidence that Dr Ellis discriminates against blacks, did say that his views were “abhorrent.” Leeds University Secretary Roger Gair said: “Dr Ellis has a right to his personal opinions, but he does not have the right to treat students or colleagues in a prejudicial or discriminatory manner.”

What amazes me is that Dr Ellis’s views are written off as abhorrent with no regard for the possibility that they may actually be true. The offended parties have adopted an incredibly cavalier approach to the truth. Their first reaction is to label the views abhorrent, rather than exploring them and, if necessary, rejecting them as false. It is clear to me that many of these students and university chiefs aren’t terribly bright. Shouldn’t they be sweeping corridors for a living, or some other occupation more fitting the strength of their intellect, instead of running a university? Can’t students research and think anymore? Perhaps our universities are more akin to lunatic asylums than we care to admit.

The Student Union has been caught up in a wave of emotionalism such that it cannot even grasp some basic facts of the case, and has lost all concept of nuance. To them Dr Ellis simply regards all the members of all ethnic minorities as inferior, when in fact Dr Ellis said nothing of the sort, and nor did the researchers whose work he quotes. Jensen was concerned with the undisputable recorded differences in IQ scores between blacks and whites, while Eysenck actually pointed out that Japanese and Chinese students scored on average higher than whites when it came to abstract reasoning. To accuse Dr Ellis of holding the view that ethnic minorities are simply inferior displays either a wilful ignorance of his actual position or a gross stupidity on the part of the Student Union. I’ll leave it to my readers to decide which it is.

Dr Ellis certainly shouldn’t give a black person a lower mark simply because they are black, but there is no evidence whatsoever that Dr Ellis is or has been guilty of discriminating against students from the black community or any other ethnic minority group. For one thing all university testing is marked by more than one person, and in most cases there is an external examiner from some other institution keeping an eye on all assessment. Moreover, Dr Ellis explicitly states that the theory he supports does not preclude the existence of many black people of exceptional intelligence. The figures are averages and as such cannot tell us anything about individuals. Take one of my opening statements by way of example. Men tend to be physically stronger than women - on average. However, there are some women who are physically stronger than most men, and many more women who are physically stronger than many men. In the case of IQs, just because Group X has a slightly higher average IQ than Group Y does not allow us to conclude that all members of Group X have higher IQs than all members Group Y. Nor can we say that any particular individual in Group X has a higher IQ than a particular individual in Group Y simply by virtue of belonging to either group. The fact of the matter is that there will be substantial overlap between the two groups. And, Dr Ellis fully accepts this: “The way to deal with this is not to treat people as groups, but to treat them as individuals.”

The terrible nature of the reaction against Dr Ellis is symptomatic of a culture that puts political, cultural and religious sensitivities before the quest for truth, and which has become intellectually lazy. Whenever someone wants to argue for something these days the typical way to do it is to invent a right - “it’s my right to…” thus hoping to end all debate before it begins. In a similar fashion when someone doesn’t like something then they just slap it with an “ism” - racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, fascism - to the same end: kill debate before it can start. For instance, it is becoming increasingly difficult to discuss the issue of immigration in Britain without someone throwing the word racism around regardless of the points of discussion. Words like racism and sexism are therefore quickly losing any conceptual content they might once have had. If you don’t like something you just slap an “ism” on it - to show you disapprove, whether or not the thing is actually an instance of the “ism” in question. It’s a convenient way to side-step actually having to discuss and debate difficult questions.

The truth is that there IS evidence for Dr Ellis’s “abhorrent” viewpoint. This evidence could be explained by genetic or biological factors and/or social, cultural and historical factors. How many of the protesting students have actually read the research? How many have critically assessed the methods and reasoning involved? Very few, apparently. It’s much easier to slap Ellis down for “calling all black people stupid” or “believing ethnic minorities are inferior.” Academic debate has disappeared off the radar, leaving a massive gaping hole that students and academics who should know better have filled with lazy, blame-game, finger-pointing and name-calling. If you disagree with Dr Ellis why not do so openly by explaining where he is wrong? It’s difficult not to conclude that many of these academics and students simply don’t want to discuss the issue at all. At an institution of higher learning this is a terribly sad state of affairs. If truth can’t come before political sensitivities at a university then where can it?

Leeds university claims that Dr Ellis’s viewpoint might be in conflict with its values which include “mutual respect, diversity and equal opportunity.” As noble as these values are they are not the most basic of an institution of higher learning. The most fundamental value of any university is the unhindered pursuit of the truth regardless of where it leads. When truth collides with the musings of a bunch of thin-skinned sensitive souls then there should be no question about which should prevail.

Truth should reign supreme - and this, to me, is a black and white issue.

Stephen Graham B.Th (Hons)

Puttings All Your Eggs In One Basket

Putting All Your Eggs In One Basket

On 3rd October 2003 Lorraine Hadley and Natallie Evans lost a High Court bid to become pregnant using frozen embryos after their former partners withdrew consent. Mr Justice Wall decided that the men, Howard Johnston and Wayne Hadley, had rights in this case that cannot be overturned. He didn’t really have a terribly hard decision to make as far as the law goes since the relevant law in this instance - the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 - explicitly states that unless both parties consent to each stage of IVF treatment it will not proceed and the embryos will be destroyed. After having their appeal case thrown out one of the women, Natallie Evans, went to the European Court of Human Rights and on Tuesday 07th March 2006 her appeal was defeated.

The case appears to me to be fairly clear cut, but it seems that not everyone thinks so. There are some otherwise intelligent people who believe that Natellie Evans should have been allowed to use the embryos to have a child, especially since she is now infertile after having cancer treatment and has no other chance to have a child of her own.

When the couple went for IVF treatment they signed an agreement requiring each others consent for the continuation of the treatment. Shortly after they had the embryos created their relationship went tits-up and thus, given the very different situation, isn’t it understandable why at least one party didn’t want to treatment to go any further? The couple were told of the law which governs what happens to embryos in storage, so neither could plead ignorance of the situation. The courts have come to the only possible rational decision that could have been made under current law, a law which is itself a fairly sensible one. If the courts had arrived at any other decision, they would have negated the rights of male partners, which would have been an extremely dangerous precedent to set, as would changing the rules retrospectively. The parties gave their consent on the basis that it could be withdrawn or varied at any time up until the embryos were used in treatment. The principle of valid consent is an important one that must be upheld. No?

This highly publicised case has lead to a flood of debate and argument. So far there are three major arguments employed by those who think the courts made the wrong decision. Two of these arguments are serious issues that need to be addressed, while the other is little more than a piece of ad hominem.

Allow me to dispel the latter of these arguments first. It has been voiced from some sources that the men in this case were stopping these women from having children simply due to bitterness. Baroness Mary Warnock, who chaired the 1984 inquiry that led to the 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, said “I would. . .have liked to know what the potential father’s motivation was in bringing this case. The decision to block the two women from having babies does seem somewhat spiteful.”

First of all, it wasn’t the men who brought the case - it was their ex-partners. Second of all, There is no way to get inside the heads of either man in an effort to find out what his “real” intentions were in refusing consent after a break-up. However, it’s quite unfair to jump to the conclusion that the men were simply being bitter. They didn’t want to have a biological child with a woman they had split up with. Sounds like a fairly rational position to me. In any event, even if they were just being bitter that is entirely their prerogative. They are not committing any crime by refusing consent due to post-break-up bitterness. The legal or moral validity of their decision to withdraw consent does not hang on the reason for their withdrawal of consent. The issue of why they withdrew consent is of no legal or moral relevance whatsoever and has no bearing on the rightness or wrongness of the judicial decision to respect their withdrawal of consent under a mutual agreement in this case.

Why would Baroness Warnock suspect that the men were being spiteful? Well, in her words because, “they were told they would not have anything to do with these children. I can’t see why they wanted to stop it happening.” You silly old twit! Do you think that a man could simply live happily in the knowledge that somewhere out there he has a child that he has no responsibility for? Do you suppose men are so cold and incapable of emotional attachment? Having a biological child out there in the world wouldn’t bother them as long as they have no legal or financial responsibility for it? Ms Warnock obvious hasn’t got a terribly high opinion of the human male, eh? Doing what Ms Warnock suggests would by no means be easy. Does not the fact that the man knows he has a child involve him right from the start? It is also highly likely that later in life the child will want to learn where it came from, and who its biological father is. The connection between the father and the child will be present in some form whether or not the father has any legal or financial responsibility for the child. Could a mother simply forget her child in the way that Baroness Warnock expects the men in this case to do? It is dangerous to try to ignore the strength of biological bonds and unrealistic, even naïve, to expect men to be able to live like nothing really happened. To suggest that this wouldn’t have a massive impact on a man is a gross falsehood. Us men are more than mere sperm donors, Ms Warnock.

I will look now at two ethical arguments concerning this case.

The first of the ethical arguments concerns the right to have a child. Baroness Warnock hints at this when she says, “I think [The 1990 law] is hard on women. For the two women in [this] case, it appears that this was their only chance of having children, so I think it is hard to deprive them of that.” For some reason there are those who think that a woman has a right to have children and that the decision of the courts in this case upheld a “male veto” to that right. But this is not true. It is little more than a fabrication to say that women have a right to have children, even if they cannot conceive naturally, and even if the father does not want to have a child. Lets imagine a scenario in which a woman has just her eggs frozen. She now decides she wants to have a baby, but no sperm donor will come forward. Does she have a right to have her eggs fertilized? Should some random man be compelled to donate his sperm and become a father against his will simply because of some supposed right of a woman to have a child of her own? More importantly, from where does such a right originate? What possible argument is there for something like a “right to give birth?” Does a man also have that right? Isn’t this just another example of modern-day rights language plumbing the depths of absurdity? Even if there was such a right to bring these embryos to full term, there is no reason why this right should be given to the woman alone. If the man in question entered another relationship with an infertile woman there is surely an equally strong case for the embryos to be implanted into that woman. Given that the embryo is in a neutral environment, connected to neither the man nor the woman, and given that both the man and the woman have been equally involved in the creation of the embryo, it would be difficult to make the case that the woman has some privilege here that a man doesn’t.

I wonder what the reaction would be if the case was the other way around. Lets say the man has testicular cancer, undergoes IVF with his partner, and soon after receives treatment for cancer that leaves him infertile. If the couple then separate before implantation would anyone suggest that she shouldn’t be able to withdraw her consent to the later stages of IVF treatment?

The last and best argument to conclude that the wrong decision was made is that in normal pregnancies the man cannot veto a birth. If a couple are in a relationship, are expecting a baby, and then subsequently break up, the man will have no rights whatsoever regarding whether or not the child is born. The woman has absolute rights to decide whether or not to terminate the pregnancy. Why should this case be treated differently?

On the face of it this argument appears to be persuasive, and a number of people have bought into it. However, the argument is flawed by virtue of failing to recognise relevant differences between the two cases. When trying to have a baby a couple will be aware of how the law relates to cases of pregnancy. Both parties enter into an agreement to have a child knowing full well that in the event of pregnancy the woman will have absolute rights to decide whether or not to continue with it. This is the law. It would be practically difficult for this to be any other way, given the complications that arise from the fact that the child is inside the woman’s body. In IVF treatment the situation is different from the outset by virtue of the fact that the embryo is not inside the woman’s body. It is wholly separate from her. But more importantly, in the case of IVF treatment both parties understand that they are entering into a different agreement than is the case with normal pregnancy. From the outset both parties fully understand that for IVF treatment to continue the consent of both parties is required. Both the man and the woman enter the agreement on these terms, and as in the case above both explicitly knew what these terms were. Now, perhaps it could be argued that the woman should have absolute rights in cases of IVF just like she does in normal pregnancy, and thus that the law should be changed. However, no-one has made that case and, frankly, I have no idea what such an argument would look like let alone how it might possibly be rationally successful. In any event such an argument would be very different from saying the courts got the application of the law, as it stands, wrong. The courts applied a good law properly. The courts do not exist to dispense either justice or morality, despite a worrying trend to the contrary, but instead exist to interpret and to apply the law of the country. In this case the issue is not about whether or not the woman should have absolute “rights,” the issue is a simple legal one – she didn’t have such “rights.”

Finally, it would be important to consider the consequences of over-riding the consent clause to allow these women to have the embryos implanted. Consider the effect that such a ruling would have on other couples. It is not unreasonable to posit a drop in the number of men willing to participate in such a procedure, if they are aware that a precedent has been set by which their side of the agreement will be torn up in the event of a relationship breakdown. This in turn would lead to other women being denied the very same “right” that is claimed for women by those commentators who believe the courts should have decided otherwise.

Regardless of what happens to the law, if it is reviewed after this case, we must never allow governments or the courts to tear up contractual agreements between consenting parties. When rational people make an agreement on certain terms how dare anyone blunder into the relationship and dictate to one or both parties what the terms will now be. The only relevant right in such cases is actually the right of the individual to their own life: To make their own private decisions and live with the consequences, free from interference from government or any other moralising busybody. Both parties made a decision and both parties should now live with the consequences of it, however hard they are to bear.

Stephen Graham B.Th (Hons)

Workers United

Workers United
Shall Not Be Defeated!
(Nor Shall They Be Rational)

We have recently had another fine example of the horrendously naïve, blinkered, and irrational philosophy of socialism at work here in Northern Ireland as 200 postal workers walked out of a Royal Mail depot in Belfast causing two and a half weeks of postal disruption. Why? Fuck knows. There has never been a clear and proper explanation given for the unofficial and illegal strike action. The only thing we have been offered is a vague story of alleged bullying and harassment, most likely in relation to the union official, loud mouth and general upstart, Eoin Davey who was himself sacked by Royal Mail for bullying and harassment. After almost three weeks postal workers returned to do the job that they’re paid for after an agreement stating that Royal Mail must not target the strikers for disciplinary action, must have an independent review of industrial relations, and that the workers must not strike again for 12 months.

It must have been a fairly quick 12 months. Postal workers were back a mere 5 days before they were threatening to get permission from their union - the Communication Workers Union - to hold a ballot for an official strike, because this time Royal Mail were refusing to give unlimited overtime to workers who had been out on strike. Shock horror! Imagine, refusing to give illegally striking workers a shit-load of overtime paid at a higher rate to do work that they should have been doing instead of standing warming their arseholes and scratching their balls at a picket line. Oh the injustice! As things stand another strike will probably be avoided, but the CWU stand ready and willing to fuck up the lives of thousands of people throughout the country if they deem it necessary.

The strike had a massive impact. Many small business suffered from serious cash-flow problems as cheques and business failed to reach them; essential bank notices never arrived; tax returns never made it on time; patients missed hospital appointments; some employees never got paid because times sheets weren’t delivered; and even some inquests had to be delayed because the relevant people hadn’t received notification. The Federation of Small Businesses have said that in the event of another strike a number of small businesses will close - inevitably leading to unemployment. Postal workers themselves suffered during the strike. Many workers didn’t want to strike but were forced to through intimidation and bullying. In fact, a representative of the CWU was forced to resign because he disagreed with the unofficial action.

Unions are not protectors of “the worker.” They are insidious little viruses that prey on workers under the pretence of giving them assistance and improving their lot. Their propaganda campaign has, however, been very successful, since it certainly seems that most people would agree with the assertion that unions are good for workers. The truth is that unions are to workers what sharks are to wind surfers. Their philosophy is irrational; their behaviour that of the playground bully; their mindset a horrendous mixture of psychosis, instability, self-righteousness, paranoia and good old-fashioned nonsense. The only way the unions can be put in their place (oblivion) is by convincing people that they do not offer a good deal to any living breathing entity with the exception of fat-cat union bosses drunk on power. How is this to be done? The typical philosophy of the unions is socialism. It is this that needs to be challenged and rejected: And it is the free market that must be embraced. The former is irrational; the latter rational. The former immoral; the latter moral. The former the means of enslavement; the latter the means of freedom. The former will destroy the workers; the latter will offer them the best deal.

In a free market employers must bid for the services of workers. If an employer pays wages that are too high then, all other things being equal, they will put themselves at a competitive disadvantage. However, if they pay their workers too little then they will constantly lose employees to other companies and organisations and must regularly engage in the costly business of recruitment. In a free market wages are simply the prices that employers pay for human labour. These prices are not determined by the whim of either an employer or a union. Like the price of anything else in a free market it is determined by the law of supply and demand.

The problem that we face is that we don’t have a free market. In the particular case of Royal Mail there is no competition since Royal Mail is a coercive monopoly protected from competition by an act of government. The employee benefits package (which I refer to by the term “wages”) is therefore not determined by a free market. This gives the unions carte blanche to force wages up above their market level, which leads to three foreseeable but ignored consequences:

(1) Unions restrict production

When wages rise arbitrarily and beyond the market level then the production and operational costs of any given company will increase. This is turn leads to either a stunting of the growth of production or a cut back, with the result that goods and services that might have been created or brought into existence to the benefit of consumers are not.

(2) Unions cause unemployment

As unions force wages above the market level companies cannot hire as many workers as they might have been able to, and with the increasing costs of production and operation - leading to production cut backs - there will not be the need for as many employees. So, basically one group of workers get their high wages at the expense of a group of people who cannot even get a job and are forbidden from competing by offering their labour at a lower cost. It should be noted that minimum wage legislation has exactly the same result for exactly the same reasons. But, the government deem it necessary to forbid us from working for any given company for a privately agreed wage package. In doing so they put us at the mercy of unions, socialist workers parties, pressure groups and other interfering busybodies.

(3) Unions penalise workers and the general population

With higher wages come higher prices. F.A.C.T. It’s basic horse & carriage stuff here. The typical union war cry is that employers can “absorb” their proposed wage increases by taking the money out of company profits, thus avoiding the need to increase prices or reduce production. This argument is economically naïve, irrational spew. It doesn’t take a genius to realise that production is driven by profits and that constant wage rises must by necessity eventually cause a reduction in production or service and/or a rise in prices. With this rise in prices the cost of living is increased for other employees in every other sector, which in turn leads to their unions demanding pay rises and which sets up a never-ending cycle. Ironically union leaders are among the first to express indignation when prices rise, except when the prices in question are those paid for human labour of course.

The blinkered short term view of unions is downright dangerous. The recent action here in Northern Ireland shows how the country and livelihoods of so many people are at the mercy of the arbitrary whims of unions who can officially or unofficially bring its members out of work for the sake of a minor point of disciplinary procedure that should have been dealt with internally.

Capitalism is the only politico-economic system to free society from the choking, life-threatening noose of union activity. Of course, under capitalism workers will be free to form themselves into unions if they wish. However, companies will not be coerced by acts of parliament into dealing with unions. Moreover, under capitalism Royal Mail would not have the monopoly that gives so much power to unions. It is capitalism - the free market - which will create a better deal for workers. History tells us that wages and levels of employment rise in proportion to the degree of market freedom. This should not surprise anyone with more than half a brain (which I suppose excludes the vast majority of socialists). With greater economic freedom business has been able to make giant leaps forward in terms of technological progress. Technological progress in turn made businesses much more efficient and this lead to industrial expansion, and the creation of new markets. Under such conditions wages and levels of employment cannot but rise. It is demand coupled with competition that leads to wage increases without causing the unemployment, higher prices and the loss of production and services which socialism inevitably gives us. Notably, even China - that bastion of government control - has had to free up its markets to grow. It seems that China has been sipping at the cup of capitalism, yearning for a good deep drink to quench the thirst caused by the dry stiffling philosophy of statism that it currently embraces.

Instead of blindly embracing the doctrines and practices of socialism, workers would be better off uniting in favour of a freer, and ultimately capitalist, economy. Then they truly will not be defeated, because reason and morality will be on their side.

Stephen Graham B.Th (Hons)