For Duck Sake

Tony O’Neill, head chef of the Merchant Hotel in Belfast, was absolutely mauled by Andrew Tyler, a representative of the organisation Animal Aid, during a debate about the culinary delicacy foie gras on Radio Ulster’s Sunday Sequence Programme. The mauling was brutal and bloody. It was real tiger and zebra stuff. O'Neill was, put mildly, blown away by a thoughtful and relentless barrage of vegetarian reason, which he simply wasn’t intellectually equipped to deal with, or wasn’t quick enough to think on his feet. The veggie won. No contest. In fact, so lop-sided was the debate that the programme’s producers should feel ashamed of themselves. This was the kind of debate you might expect at a vegetarian gathering, with a highly articulate buddy-in-ethos up against a lame-duck, to build up the resolve of the faithful and banish their doubts. As much as I admire William Crawley as a presenter I detected just a smidge of deference in his treatment of Tyler over O’Neill.

Anyhow - foie gras. Foie gras is the fattened liver of a duck or a goose that has been force-fed well beyond the natural appetite. In many cases it leads to the devastation of Donald’s liver. The procedure has been banned in Chicago as tantamount to “torture” and many countries are under pressure to follow suit. In Britain it is legal to import, buy, sell and consume foie gras, but illegal to produce it. One of the main gripes of the broccoli-brigade is that this policy is inconsistent, and therefore foie gras itself should be banned. And there’s that word again - “banned” - the bane of libertarians everywhere. And, surprise surprise, there’s that tired old justification of the ban: the view that if something is immoral then it should be illegal.

Time and time again I have watched, or listened, helplessly as my meat-loving buddies take a steak-knife to their own throats by buying in to the premises of our tofu-consuming opponents. O'Neill done just that on Sunday. He agreed, implicitly, with the logic that if something causes suffering to an animal, then it is immoral, and therefore it should be banned. He also implied that he agreed that the pleasures of the palate do not over-ride considerations of animal welfare. He didn’t stand a chance after this, despite forwarding an “argument” that went something like this: “well, if you ban foie gras then you should ban virtually all forms of animal farming.” He was trying to suggest that since the animal-lobby’s logic leads to such a conclusion then their position must be absurd. Unfortunately for his efforts he got a new arsehole ripped for himself. The argument backfired spectacularly. Andrew Tyler’s eyes must have lit up at this one: it was like a retarded buffalo to a ravenous lion. And oh how Tyler feasted. He simply said well, yes, we should abandon animal farming and we should all be veggies. O'Neill obviously wasn’t prepared for this. And every listener must have cringed with embarrassment. I snorted so strongly at him my morning coffee came flying out on my nostrils, mildly singeing my nose hairs on the way past. This was a special moment. A lesson in self-defeat. The intellectual equivalent of an anti-gay campaigner walking into a gay bar, pulling down his trousers and bending over. O'Neill had nothing. All he offered in riposte was a few fickle, apologetic, comments about how he and many of his customers enjoy foie gras, which was met with the retort that putting one’s palate before the suffering of an “innocent” animal was “degenerate.”

So, what should O'Neill have said, and how should he have said it? Well, first of all he should have grown himself some balls and bit of backbone. His limp-wristed, whining apologetic for meat eating was embarrassing. Secondly, he should have agreed that the policy of the UK was indeed inconsistent. To ban the procedure without banning the produce is about as blatantly inconsistent as it gets. However, when two policies are inconsistent with each other, why presume that there is only one way to resolve the matter - in this case the banning of foie gras in addition to the ban on production? The inconsistency is just as well dealt with if the ban on producing foie gras is lifted.

Most importantly Tony O’Neill should have pointed out that because some people believe something is immoral is not sufficient grounds for banning it. There is only one justifiable grounds for any government to ban any activity: to uphold the fundamental rights of the citizens. Banning murder is right for this reason. Banning theft is right too. But, banning the over-feeding of a duck? It might not be “nice” to do such a thing, but why should it be banned? Animals do not have rights. They are not citizens. The concept of a “right” relates to the boundaries of government interference into the lives of its citizens. It has no wider application than that. Ducks have webbed feet, beaks, feathers, eggs: they do not have rights. The government has no business making laws which pertain to the animal kingdom.

Now, while this settles the matter politically it doesn’t settle it morally. While force-feeding a duck to make a culinary delicacy should be legal, it doesn’t mean it is moral. So, what should O'Neill’s next line have been?

Well, O'Neill could have went on the attack here and questioned Tyler a bit more about morality generally. The debate never got this far, and rarely does, so we’re never quite sure about the basis on which groups like Animal Aid consider certain forms of treatment of animals to be immoral. Whatever answer they give to this question it must ultimately rest on some general theory of ethics. If I was to guess which theory of ethics it is I wouldn’t go for virtue ethics, natural law theory, divine command, or deontology. I would bet, judging from the animal rights literature that has crossed my path in the past, that their ethical roots are based in consequentialism - more specifically, in the utilitarian family, and to pin-point even more accurately, it lies within that view that sees suffering - or the infliction of it - as morally wrong. I’m fairly certain Andrew Tyler would have argued this. It’s a line made classic by the animal rights philosopher Peter Singer, and the rest of the animal lobby have danced to Singer’s tune ever since.

O'Neill could have had some fun here. Firstly, if suffering is the problem then would the moral indignation of the tofu-herd be placated by animal slaughter that had no suffering whatsoever? They would certainly admit that this would be better, but they would most definitely still object to the killing of animals for food. But on what basis? Not on the basis of suffering. What other grounds could there be if this is your ethic? The only possible grounds is if killing animals adversely affects other human beings, and such an argument would be difficult to construct and virtually impossible to sustain.

Furthermore, O'Neill could have asked whether or not such a theory is itself coherent and rational. As a sub-division of utilitarianism it suffers from many of the same logical problems, vagaries and practical difficulties - not least of which is just how to quantify something like “suffering” and balance it against “pleasure.” Jeremy Bentham, the father of utilitarianism, came up with a hedonistic calculus which is generally laughed at these days, but utilitarians have never came up with anything better. Even Peter Singer has thus far failed to give any indication as to how we quantify suffering and pleasure for the purposes of having a practical and logical moral guideline. Just what is the basic unit of suffering? How many of these units should we assign to a force fed duck and why? How many units of pleasure are there when a person enjoys foie gras? There is little by way of objective guidance here, and the problem is compounded by the fact that we are dealing with different species and have no access to their inner mental life. Too often we read human emotions and intellect into the lives of animals in a crass exercise in anthropomorphism. Animal rights groups tend to create animals in their own image. But, are we to suppose that animals have similar concepts and emotional life to human beings? Surely not. We simply can’t empathise with a duck or any other animal. Because we can’t and because there is little objectivity in any utilitarianian calculus what we end up with is a little other than intuitive ethics - something is right or wrong on the basis that we feel, or have a “sense,” that it is.

O'Neill could have gone on the offensive in another way. One relatively easy point of attack is the very existence of animal charities and lobby groups - supported by people who put the lot of animals before that of human beings. With so much human suffering in the world, why should we focus on over-feeding ducks? If, as animal groups constantly trumpet, suffering is what should guide one’s ethic, then isn’t it highly questionable that animal suffering be pushed to the fore? Tyler referred to O'Neill as “degenerate” for enjoying foie gras, but in truth Andrew is degenerate for putting the considerations of animals before those of humans beings: a key tenet of every animal rights group I’ve ever come across.

As it was, none of this occurred to Tony. But, I guess, why should it? He’s not an ethicist. He’s a chef. Even so, he could have provided a better defence than his logical bullet to his own brain followed by a semi-apologetic, gutless expression of how he enjoys foie gras. Perhaps he should adopt a bit of the Gordon Ramsey spirit (Ramsey being Britain’s top chef, for the non-UK readers). Last Christmas as part of his “The F-Word” series, Ramsey hand-reared some turkeys. During the penultimate episode it was slaughter time. The camera followed Ramsey as he picked up “Nigella” and carried her to the slaughter van. As he walked he looked at the camera with a pained expression and said “do I feel just a little bit guilty?” at which point his countenance changed to a devilish grin as he answered his own question with: “Do I fuck!” Utterly shameless. Fantastic. His view was that these birds had lived an excellent life and were about to be killed very clinically, so as to provide his diners with delicious food. Fair enough. The turkeys had no concept of their own death. And, in fact, they wouldn’t even have enjoyed their lives half as much were it not for the fact that they were to be slaughtered for food. Vegetarians like Tyler might label this kind of attitude as “degenerate” but so what? Why should this rattle us? If “degenerate” is a label I get landed with for enjoying the pleasures of meat - which requires that I put my palate before the life of an animal - then so be it.

Pass the gravy.

Stephen Graham.

Mugging the Dead

You’d think the Robin Hoods of the political left would be content with stealing money from the living, but oh no. They just love to mug the dead too. And oh such pleasure they take in it. I speak of course of inheritance tax: the tax on the dead.

Stephen Byers, a Labour MP (surprisingly), proposed that inheritance tax be scrapped. The number of estates that currently pay this tax increased by 70% in the past few years, with estates valued at under £500,000 accounting for 71% of all those paying (estates over £2 million in value account for less than 20% of the total). And any estate worth £285,000 or more is liable to cough up the cash.

It’s quite a disgusting tax, but leftists run to it like dogs to a pile of vomit: and they lap it up. Increasingly I’ve taken the political left less and less seriously, but they’re still worth dealing with, even if only for a bit of sport. And they’ve had such an outcry in defence of inheritance tax in the past week.

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, columnist for the Independent, is one such advocate. Her article “Soak the Rich (When They are Dead)” begins with a general dig at rich people. After listening to some “rich” people criticise the tax on a radio show Yasmin comments, “Few things are more nauseating than the privileged bewailing their lot…” Perhaps leftist spew? After another dig at rich “spoilt cats” and free-marketers who “know the price of everything and the value of nothing” she finally dumps her tiresome clichéd mutterings and hysterical shrieking about the rich to make her first point: Byers policy will simply help the rich keep even more of their money than they have typically been allowed to do under this “friendly [?] government.” Hardly a great first argument by any stretch. Before it even works as an argument you must first establish that “allowing” “rich people” to keep more of their money is generally a bad thing, but Yasmin never quite gets around to it. It helps the rich, and the rich people are bad. Need anything further be said about such irrational, irrelevant diatribe?

After wadding through a little more rich-bashing and a bit more cliché (“there is such a thing as society”) we can discern the fragments of a second point: “Good governance should result in a reduction of distance between rich and poor.” Oh come on! Since when was it the proper function of government to take the money produced by some people to support the lives of others? That’s not governance. That’s mob rule; the law of Sherwood forest. If people have no right to their own lives and to the produce of their own lives then they really have no rights at all, since any other right is merely a derivative of these. They’re at the mercy of the “collective” - ceasing to be an individual and forced to bow in allegiance to the tribe.

But, “argues” Yasmin, if we abolish inheritance tax do we not confirm that rich kids have more intrinsic worth than poor kids, even if the rich kids are “indolent” and “useless”? Huh? If the government begins to reduce the level of taxation how on earth is that to be construed into a value judgment on the lives of the rich over others? In fact the exact opposite is true. In taking money from tax-payers to pay for services used by other people, many of whom don’t pay any taxes at all, government is forcing an entire group of people to play the part of a sacrificial animal leached off by whosoever will. They are forced to work for the good of other people (which in effect is a form of slavery) and to give up the produce of their efforts. If Yasmin wants to stick an “indolent” or “useless” badge onto anyone the best individuals to start with are the members of the can’t work won’t work unemployed classes.

Her next point is jaw-droppingly stupid, and blatantly inconsistent with her wider political beliefs: “By definition, inheritance tax gives to those who have not put in the effort and skills that went into the making of the wealth. It is bestowed, not earned.” Now, that was a precious moment folks. You see, Yasmin loves a good bit of redistribution of wealth and enjoys nothing more than a good tax. In fact I suspect the very thought of our benefits system brings her to orgasm. So let me change her quote a little: “By definition, welfare benefits (and tax-funded public services), gives to those who have not put in the effort and skills that went into the making of the wealth. It is bestowed, not earned.” I wonder does Yasmin still agree with her logic? Scrap benefits? Scrap tax-funded public services, or at least ban the unemployed from using them? And I wonder would Yasmin be quite so indignant if someone left their entire estate to charity? Is this wrong too, since it “gives to those who have not put in the effort and skills that went into the making of the wealth. It is bestowed, not earned?” I really wonder what these people smoke in the mornings, I really do. I would have thought that any human being with at least 3 neutrons firing in their heads would have noticed such a blatant inconsistency. Yasmin is a real special lady.

Of course, she hasn’t finished yet. Not by a long shot. We’re only half way through the tirade. And it shows no signs of getting better either. Her next point is that we really do our kids no favours by leaving them so much wealth, and that rich children suffer high levels of mental and emotional problems, engage in self-harming, and are “spending their way to hell.” So, to placate her own conscience she blabbers that we’re really saving the rich, taking their money for their own good before it destroys them. And herein lies the basis of our nanny-state philosophy: people can’t look after themselves so we must do it for them. C.S. Lewis was on to something when he wrote “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” True words.

After a little bit of personal tear-jerking story-telling about how she got no money when her parents died, Yasmin seems to run out of steam altogether. So then of course in a “Eureka” moment she does what all good British left-liberals do: she blames the United States of America. More specifically she blames Neo-conservatives. She writes: “Like many of Labour’s impulsive bad policies this one is a bastard child of the US neo-cons and their libertarian economist supporters.” Is this what a middle-aged woman sounds like when she takes leave of her senses and her grasp on reality begins to slip? For a start this isn’t a Labour policy. Nor is it at all motivated by US neo-cons or anything remotely related to American policy. Yasmin’s mind has performed the typical left-liberal short-circuit: X is bad, and although we might not be able to prove it we can be certain the USA must have something to do with it. Despite yapping about the USA Yasmin provides absolutely no evidence of any US influence beyond stating that George Bush abolished estate tax in 2001. Instead she goes off on a rant about how the campaign against estate tax was run, moves on to praise Bill Gates for giving his money away and concludes that “not all the loaded are hopelessly greedy and venal.” No. Not all. Just most of the buggers, eh Yasmin? God woman, you’re obsessed.

Yasmin hopes that “there are still some Labour MPs prepared to stop the sale of their most precious values - equality and meritocratic competition.” Ha! Meritocratic! Just what is meritocratic about the welfare state? What is meritocratic about government confiscation of wealth? The very socialist philosophy under-girding Labour policy totally flies in the face of meritocracy. And this Labour government has done more to undermine the concept of meritocracy than any other for decades. But this shouldn’t surprise us, since meritocracy and equality are incompatible. If you’re a meritocrat then you’ll hold that people rightly receive rewards in accordance to their skill, intelligence, strength, creativity, flair, hard work and resolve. But, if you’re an equalitocrat you’ll hold that none of these attributes matter when it comes to reaping rewards and benefits. Meritocratic competition will inevitably lead to inequality: because some people are more intelligent, more skilful at certain pursuits, more motivation and drive, greater creativity and resolve than other people. If a philosophy is built on these two principles then something has to give.

Yasmin ends her rant with the hope that her children will be properly taxed on all their inherited wealth (so, Yasmin, you mean to say that won’t voluntarily give it to poorer people in your lifetime?). She fears that if her kids get too much of a leg-up they will become careless and “consumerist.” I guess it never occurred to Yasmin’s tiny brain to figure that she doesn’t have to leave her kids a single penny. She can donate it to any cause she likes, hell she can even buy a massive tombstone for herself, perhaps with the entire text of her article engraved for the benefit of future generations.

Arguments on both sides of this debate have thus far completely missed the point. This issue isn’t primarily about fairness, social justice, equality: terms which both sides have tossed about with reckless abandon. It’s an issue of rights: the right to property and to dispose of it as one sees fit. It doesn’t matter whether or not the beneficiary is “worthy” - that isn’t what justifies it. Individuals produce wealth and have a fundamental right to dispose of it as they will. No one else is entitled to choose for a person what happens to their wealth. And this is why it doesn’t matter how “worthy” the beneficiary is: it isn’t his rights at stake. Left-liberals babble on that heirs have no rights to the property because they never produced it. However, they receive the wealth because of the rights of the benefactor to dispose of his or her wealth as they so choose. And if the heir has no rights to the inheritance because they didn’t work for the wealth then certainly no one else has a right to it: not the government, or “society” or “the general public.” I own a house and it should be a matter for me who I bequeath it to when I finally go the way of ashes and dust. I worked hard to buy a house, it is the produce of my own efforts. It doesn’t belong to government, or society, or “the collective,” or the tribe, or anyone else (aside from my wife). It is my property and my right. It is the responsibility of government to defend such rights, not breach them at will.

This tax should certainly be abolished.

Stephen Graham

Whose Life is it Anyway

Earlier this week Jenni Murray, a BBC radio 4 presenter, made plans with three friends to assist each other to die if any of them is diagnosed with a debilitating and incurable disease or disorder. Assisted suicide is illegal in Britain, so this certainly raises interesting points. And, of course the topic is of immense importance for libertarians who wish to champion the right of people to live their lives as free from government interference as possible. Why shouldn’t euthanasia be an option for people in a free and civilised society?

If I am ever unfortunate enough to end up with some horrendous condition like motor neurone disease then I suspect that I would not wish to continue living in such a state for very long. Maybe I’m wrong. Perhaps one day I’ll find myself confined to a wheelchair thinking that slurred speech, inactive muscles, and pissing myself ten times a day is actually quite a fulfilling way to live. But for now I doubt that this would be the case. In the event that I end up in a wheelchair in a dreadful condition I would like to know that someone would be there to stick a needle in my arse, hold a pillow over my head, throw me off a cliff, or boil me oil. Just end it. Please. And I can’t imagine anything worse than being left in a position unable to help myself and surrounded by hoards of wankers babbling away in my left ear about respect for life while a host of pious dick-brains whisper platitudes in my right ear about perseverance in the face of life’s difficulties, and other such bollocks. Well meaning folks, perhaps; wankers and dick-brains nonetheless. In such an instance it would be MY life that is being discussed, and MY difficulties and suffering under consideration. I certainly don’t mean to sound arrogant but I judge myself to be the world’s leading expert on all matters relating to my quality of life, feelings and inner conscious states. My life is precisely that - mine. Not yours. Not society’s. Not government’s. M-I-N-E. If I no longer wish to live and someone is willing to assist me in dying then there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for government to prevent my death, and thus force me to continue living.

And yet some folks disagree. The British Medical Association regularly debate the issue and are bitterly divided on the matter. On the “anti” side Dr. Jane Orr states that: “Nobody has a right to be killed by a doctor. It would undermine patient autonomy. It is morally wrong and contrary to the codes of medical ethics. Let us, as healthcare professionals, get on with the task of working to get a genuinely gentle and easy death that all patients deserve.”

Dr Orr’s position is a jumble of confused thinking. I partially agree with her first statement - but it depends on what is meant by “right.” These days rights are normally taken to be things which we can properly demand from government. If this is what Dr Orr means then I agree - nobody has a right to be killed by a doctor. Obviously if a patient wishes to die and no doctor is willing to help then the patient has no right to have a doctor forced by government to perform the deed. However, just because there is no right (in this sense) to be killed by a doctor doesn’t mean that doctors shouldn’t be permitted to assist a terminally ill person to die. A much better conception of rights is to see them as things with which government cannot justifiably interfere. For instance, we all have a right to property. This does not mean we can all demand to be given property, but it means that if we legally acquire property we cannot justifiably be deprived of it by government. On this conception of rights, if a patient wishes to die then they have a right to be killed by a doctor if they find a doctor willing to help them.

Orr’s second statement is more puzzling. How would denying patients a right to die hinder their autonomy? The issue is whether patients should have a choice. In other words, the issue is about more autonomy, not less. There is nothing remotely autonomous about being told that you must persist in what to you is an intolerable condition against your will. Amazingly Dr Orr finishes off with a nice platitude about giving patients the gentle and easy death they deserve. Quick question: which is easier: (1) being forced to live against your own will in a condition you consider to be intolerable, and dying at some later date God only knows how far away or (2) making your decision to die and getting it over with minus the excess suffering? It’s a no-brainer really. Dr Orr’s denial of a right to die is in fact nothing but a burdening of the terminally ill with a duty to suffer.

Most of those who claim euthanasia to be “morally wrong” or “unethical” generally go for one of these lines of argument: (1) euthanasia is a lack of respect for life and is thus morally wrong, and, even more common: (2) only God (or “nature”) should decide how when and how we die, and it is “unethical” to interfere with God’s plan or Nature’s Way by “playing God”.

(1) is simply a blatant falsehood. Euthanasia does not show a lack of respect for “life,” or for people. On the contrary, dictating a continuance of life to those who do not wish to live is a lack of respect for the life and autonomy of a person. No one seriously suggests trying to keep people alive for as long as possible at all costs all the time. When a person is dying there is no question of preserving life at all. The only significant question left to answer is how that person dies. It is nothing less than a denigration of the person to tell them: “As you die we’ll do everything we can to bring you back and keep you alive, regardless of how much pain you are in, how low your quality of life will be, how much you suffer, what you wish or what any member of your family think.”

(2) is a haphazard bunch of mumbo-jumbo religious or pseudo-religious gunk which seems to rely on the dubious notion that humans should stay out of making life and death decisions. Here’s the fact of the matter: every single time you swallow a paracetamol tablet you are interfering with nature. Every single time a surgeon grasps the heart of a dying cardiac patient to keep the blood pumping and ultimately save the persons life, he or she is “playing God” - interfering in a life and death matter. When paramedics come across a car accident involving numerous people they may have to decide who to help and who to leave to fate - thus “playing God.” Human beings are autonomous moral agents. In other words, we’re free to think, make decisions, act accordingly, and be responsible for so doing. If we are created by God then it seems pretty obvious that what is mockingly described as “playing God” is an essential, and divinely intended, part of human life. A pious sounding little catchphrase doesn’t eliminate the responsibility for us to make difficult decisions.

Other opponents of good euthanasia laws complain that by allowing people with certain conditions to die or be killed we are making a judgment of other people with those conditions, effectively telling them that their life is not worth living.

Proponents of this position need to grasp that their argument is a double-edged sword. If euthanasia tells people that their life is not worth living then what does denying people a choice over their own life and death tell them? Are all terminally ill and severely disabled people unable to make their own decisions? Take the shocking case of Diane Pretty. Diane Pretty was suffering from motor neurone disease, and had decided that she wanted to end her life, but needed the help of her husband, which was illegal. She spent her time campaigning for a right to die before she finally did, but not as she wished. Those, like me, who fully supported Diane Pretty were not making a general judgment about people who have motor neurone disease. It’s not as if we desire a Nazi “relocation service” to remove all disabled people from society and dispose of them in death camps. We simply supported Diane Pretty’s own rational decision and will to die. This in no way threatens any other person with the desire to live, for no one was advocating that people with motor neurone disease, or any other condition, should be killed against their will. On the contrary, we simply support the idea that people should choose for themselves.

This is nevertheless not good enough for some of the most vehement opponents of euthanasia. Some disability groups still argue that the very notion of euthanasia sends out and reinforces the message to disabled people that it’s better not to have a disability. I’m not exactly sure how to deal with this point, except to completely affirm it: it is better not to have a disability. This statement may not be politically correct in a culture that would prefer to talk about the “visually challenged” rather than the “blind,” “the physically impaired” rather than “paraplegics:” a culture obsessed with “diversity” and “equality.” However, a quick show-of-hands should convince any sceptic of the validity of what I say. If given a free choice who would choose being blind over having sight? Who would rather be quadriplegic than able to walk and move? Would anyone prefer motor neurone disease over a healthy body? How many arms would you like - one or two? Would you like feet with your legs? Fancy a snapped spinal cord? No? I didn’t think so. The sentiment that I have expressed here is the very basis of health care. If sickness, disability and ailment are on a par with physical and mental well-being then bang goes the entire medical establishment.

Mick Hume is an otherwise respectable social and political commentator. Unfortunately he appears to remove his brain when commenting on euthanasia. Labelling himself as “anti legal euthanasia”, he describes the wish to die as “morbid defeatism.” Well, there you go Ms Pretty - you’re a morbid defeatist. So says that relatively fit and healthy chap over there. Hell, it’s only motor neurone disease. I don‘t understand the fuss you‘re making. You’re not really going to be that bad off. Come on, Diane, you can do it! Persevere! Fight the good fight! There, there now, you’ll be grand, dry your eyes love. I’ll stick the kettle on and we’ll watch Eastenders with a nice cup of tea. Two sugars isn’t it?

It seems fairly obvious to me that people should be allowed to decide whether or not their life is worth continuing, even if that means ignoring the diktats of a tyrannical minority of people. Mick Hume might complain that euthanasia gives out the underlying message that death is the preferable solution for people severely incapacitated or in pain, but perhaps it actually is. My suggestion is that we let people decide for themselves rather than be dictated to by the fit and healthy. Moreover, there is an even more important message that legal euthanasia would give out: “it’s your life, make your own decisions” - a message that sounds more and more radical with every passing day of our current administration. Some people will wish to live, others would rather die. A good euthanasia bill would respect the wishes of everyone, and would be a welcome advance in reclaiming the notions of personal responsibility and individual autonomy.

Whose life is it anyway?

Stephen Graham

When Moral Garbage Kills

AIDS kills. There is no vaccine. Condoms help prevent the spread of AIDS.

Sorry to state the obvious, but it seems that these basic facts still need to be proclaimed. The 16th International AIDS conference is meeting in Toronto this week, and it has emerged that the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is donating $500 million (greedy capitalist bastards!) to a global fund to help fight the spread of the disease which kills 35 million people each year. In an effort to beat bureaucracy, corruption and waste the foundation has pledged money only to groups able to prove that every single last cent is spent on preventative measures or effective drug research. This will go a long way to help, but the single biggest obstacle to the fight against AIDS is not bureaucracy, corruption or waste: it’s the Roman Catholic church.

Despite running 25% of the world’s AIDS treatment centres the Roman Catholic church retains its ban on the most effective weapon: a little piece rubber. The use this little piece of rubber has been ruled out by a little piece of moral theology: a little deadly piece of moral theology which has undoubtedly contributed to thousands, maybe millions, of deaths. The RC church’s approach to condoms is as far from being life-affirming as east is from west, and is neither theologically sound, nor moral.

Much to the disgust of the World Health Organisation figures within the RCC have gone so far as to claim that condoms actually contribute to the spread of AIDS. Rafael Llano Cifuentes, Auxilliary Bishop in Rio de Janeiro, put it like this: “using a condom to stop AIDS is like putting out a fire using petrol.” So, in the mumbo-jumbo world that is Catholic morality condoms help to spread AIDS. I suppose umbrellas make you more wet, Father? I guess this kind of statement shouldn’t surprise us coming from the church that gave us the rhythm method of birth control - to which comedian Billy Connelly claims to owe his very existence. In fact, Billy Connolly is worth quoting a little more at length: “Only a celibate could come up with the line: ‘at the point of ejaculation withdraw.’ Oh yeah!?! Is that right father!?! Well let me tell you something. At the point of ejaculation there isn’t a bloody herd of wild horses that could make my arse go in that direction.” Anyhow. Moving swiftly on.

The RCC continues to stick to preaching about abstinence and faithfulness. Nothing inherently wrong with that. Abstinence from sex altogether would indeed hinder the spread of AIDS quite successfully. However, the RCC needs to wake up to the reality of life, especially in a continent like Africa which has been ravaged by AIDS, and realise that abstinence programmes only work to a certain extent. Millions of people are still going to have sex, and many people in Africa catch AIDS from their spouse. Abstinence is not really an option for millions of women in Africa. Nor will faithfulness help someone is their partner is unfaithful or has HIV. The case of Harriet Nakabugo is particularly tragic. Despite the fact that her husband has HIV, her Catholic teachers have lead her to believe that condoms are unholy, that she cannot get to heaven if she uses them, and that she would miss God’s blessings and end up in Hell if she goes against church teaching. She now fears she has HIV herself, and thus is going to die for a point of theology that relies on dubious science and questionable ethics, as we shall see.

Leading Catholic Cardinals have defended their position by arguing that the AIDS virus can pass through the tiny holes in condoms. Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujill, President Pontifical Council for the Family, pontificates that, “this is something the scientific community accepts.” This is quite a serious claim. If it is false then the Catholic Church is in big trouble for misleading people.

Before we analyse this claim further we should perhaps note that the RCC’s opposition to condoms does not fundamentally rest on the claim that condoms are counter-productive in the fight against AIDS. Even if they thought condoms were wholly safe they would still oppose their use. Although condoms are not actually mentioned in the Bible, the Catholic Church holds to a natural law ethic, which had is classic statement in the work of the theologian Thomas Aquinas. According to their version of natural law ethics, the use of condoms offends the natural law that everyone, Christian or not, should obey. Under this scheme of things sex has a natural function - procreation. Condoms, (and every form of birth control) interfere with this and are thus “unnatural.” Bishop Cifuentes puts it thus: “The church is against condom use. Sexual relations between a man and a woman have to be natural. I’ve never seen a little dog using a condom during sexual intercourse with another little dog. Animals have natural sex. Man likes pleasure but not the consequences.”

I laughed the first time I read that quote. Then I realised he wasn’t taking the piss. Firstly, it may indeed be true that dogs do not use condoms, but does that mean that humans also must not use them? Since when was the behaviour of dogs taken to be the arbiter of what is right and wrong for a human being? Incidentally I’ve also never seen a little dog (or a big one) take a vow of chastity, or commit itself to one other dog for the rest of its life. In fact, if little dogs are a prime moral example then I guess I’ll nip out into the street, piss against a few lamp-posts, hump someone’s leg, and try to shag the first female that comes along. And perhaps tomorrow morning I’ll chase the mailman. Secondly, it would also be quite difficult to advocate monogamy on the basis of ‘natural sex.’ If humans should have “natural sex” just the way animals do then I suspect that the aforementioned senile old bishop might not be terribly happy with the consequences. Thirdly, just what is ‘unnatural’ about using a condom? Is it anymore unnatural than wearing warm clothes on a cold day to avoid hypothermia? I’ve never seen a dog put on warm clothes on a cold day. And, whilst we’re on the subject of “natural law” perhaps our dear old bishop may want to rethink his celibacy - doesn’t that offend the natural law? Perhaps he should ask himself just want the point of his bollocks is. Decorative purposes?

Anyhow, I suspect the RCC realises that most people are far too intelligent to buy into such hole-y moral theology. So, they try to appeal to science. Well, they don’t really appeal to science. They kind of make it up as they go along. Their position on the use of condoms is untrue and not by miles something that “the scientific community accepts.” Dave Lytle is a leading researcher on condoms and the question of leakage. His research concluded that 0.21% of condoms might conceivably leak any infectious virus, and that there was no real risk to worry about: “The latex condom is a very effective barrier…a few may allow minimal exposure to virus…[but] if I were to give my children or grandchildren advise about whether to use condoms, I’d say ‘absolutely.’”

This, then, leads us to a further question: what are the chances of being infected even by a leaking condom? Just because a person is exposed to the virus doesn’t mean they will get infected. It is a question of risk, and there are a number of factors that affect the risk: the viral dose, or amount of the virus a person is exposed to, and the infectivity of the virus, or how ‘active’ the viruses are in any given instance. Dr Pietro Vernazza, world expert and Head of Infectious Diseases at St Gallen’s Hospital in Switzerland, says: “We’re talking about such miniscule risk that in our regular life is a zero risk. . .it’s [a combination] of several unlikely events: the unlikely event that a condom will have a tiny hole. . .the very unlikely event that a virus will pass. . .and even after that it’s very unlikely that a virus that has passed actually causes transmission. . . [You‘re as likely to die in a plane crash].” He goes on to say that of course there is always a risk of a plane crashing, but the risk of it is so small that it doesn’t, and shouldn’t, stop us from getting on one to go on holiday.

Thankfully some Catholic leaders are coming to the conclusion that their current position is a crock of irresponsible shit with more holes in it than condoms allegedly have. A number of cardinals are currently lobbying the Pope to change the policy. They’re never going to give up the moral theology, so they still think the use of condoms is wrong, but they’ve found a loop-hole. They have appealed on the grounds that forbidding condom use is a “lesser evil” than the transmission of a deadly disease. Cardinal Godfried Danneels, Archbishop of Mechelen-Brussels, says that if 1 member in a sexual partnership has HIV then they are morally obliged to wear a condom, otherwise they would be guilty of breaking the 5th commandment: do not kill (just how someone is morally obliged to do an evil is a mystery to me, but I’ll let it go on this occasion). He correctly stresses that condoms are not just birth controls but help prevent a plethora of sexually transmitted diseases. Although the same dodgy natural law ethic is in place, at least there’s a better conclusion deducted from it.

The Catholic Church now needs to urgently address this question: Is a supposedly loving and good God really honoured by a theology that tells people like Harriet Nakabugo that they will go to Hell if they protect themselves by using a condom from a spouse infected with AIDS? Is a supposedly loving and good God really honoured by a theology that effectively assists the spread of a killer disease?

I think not.

Stephen Graham

A War on Two Fronts

I’ve been amazed at the amount of scepticism over the recent terrorist scare in Britain. Many, mostly left-liberal, commentators and huge sections of Muslim opinion don’t think there really was a terrorist plot at all. Nothing inherently wrong with that, except the bizarre rationalisations of their evidentially-challenged position that have been spewed out over numerous newspaper pages and air waves.

Many Muslims have played the race card: “it’s just us poor Muslims being victimised again…yadda yadda yadda.” [I suspect the same would have been said had we arrested the 7/7 bombers prior to their act of destruction.] Others think that it was just a government stunt to whip up fear. [Despite the fact that much of the intelligence came from Pakistan.] Even more suggest that it was a diversion tactic to take the focus off what was happening in Lebanon. [Despite the blanket coverage of that conflict through the press on a daily basis.] It’s important to note that this sort of shaky political analysis comes from the same minds that provide lots of weird and wonderful conspiracy theories about other world events. One Muslim interviewed mentioned that it was a matter of proven fact that it was the US air force who flew planes into the WTC. We’re using “proven fact” a bit loosely there, no? I guess if that qualifies for a “proven fact” label then so does the proposition that Elvis and Hitler enjoy tea-parties together in Mozambique. Another lovely theory deeply embedded in some minds is the one that denies the fact that the 7/7 London bombers were British Muslims, but which instead suggests it was the work of intelligence agents. I’m amazed at just how widespread this utter denial seems to be. Many Muslims simply won’t accept that some of their “brothers” have been radicalised to the point of terror plots.

However, what is also emerging is that mouth-pieces of such mindless conspiracy theories also keep their options open, just in case their recently arrested brethren are indeed guilty. And many of our left-liberal analysts help them to beef up the theory: These Muslims are all innocent men, but if they aren’t then British foreign policy is to blame.

I feel sorry for British foreign policy. It gets blamed for everything. There is a certain group of political commentators who like to link every misfortune to British foreign policy. The 7/7 London bombs: because of foreign policy. Increased racial tensions: because of foreign policy. Social unrest in impoverished areas? Blame foreign policy. Burn your toast? Bloody foreign policy! Finger go through the toilet paper when you were wiping your arse? Change the frickin’ foreign policy!

It’s an obsession. No sooner were we told that a massive terrorist plot to bring down transatlantic planes had been foiled than we were deafened by the clamour of guilt-ridden explanations regarding the “root-cause” of such extremist actions. It was Blair’s fault. It was the fault of our foreign policy. It’s illegal and immoral! The Socialist Workers Party were at it. The Guardian was at it. Muslim spokesmen were at it (despite the aforementioned denial). The spiel is spreading like the AIDS virus in Africa. Few of these folks can find it in them to condemn attacks or potential attacks without “we told you so,” or “well, no surprise really,” tagged on, along with a finger of blame pointing at someone other than the nut-cases who wish to and do blow themselves - and numerous innocent people - to shards. I wonder how they would respond to the family of a man killed while walking through a dodgy area: “Well, he had it coming really, didn’t he, going there? It’s his own fault really.”

Apologists for murderers and wackos have always been with us. Of course, they will deny that they are apologists for murderers. In their own minds they are just honestly attempting to understand the things that are going on in the world around them. But, their comments are both smug and self-satisfied. It’s as if they might just like to see a massive terrorist attack just to vindicate their position and placate their feelings of guilt. And it should be pointed out that their seeking to dissipate the responsibility for mass murder and terrorist plots has little to do with understanding. It is difficult to view the apologists as honestly seeking explanations for things going on around them when they are highly selective about what crimes and atrocities they apply their “root-cause” methodology to. They only ever use it when it suits their political ends. For instance: it suits the political agenda of the anti-war movement to offer a root-cause explanation of Islamist extremism in terms of the war in Iraq. The Socialist Workers Party also gain political capital with a root-cause explanation in terms of the oppressed people around the world bullied by Western Imperialists, (last year I was told by a member of the Socialist Workers: “you’re naïve if you think the 7/7 bombs in London were motivated by anything other than British and American imperialism”). They can easily direct blame towards their political opponents. What I want to know is why you never hear a “root-cause” explanation for certain other forms of thuggery. For example, lets say a bunch of racist thugs beat up an African immigrant because of the government’s immigration policy. I very much doubt that the apologists would be out in such force to give us a sympathetic “root-cause” explanation of this violence.

Sometimes the offering of this root-cause explanation even comes across as a threat, intended or not. A spokesman for the Muslim Public Affairs Committee condemned the murder or attempted murder of innocents but went on to suggest that if Britain didn’t grasp how very angry young Muslims are then more attacks would happen. Not a full-bodied condemnation by any stretch of the imagination. And I seriously doubt that if we sat down with these young angry Muslims over freshly brewed coffee and toasted bagels and reassured them that we understood how they felt but didn’t agree they would stop trying to blow up aeroplanes.

On their constant quest after the causes of terror they never quite manage to go beyond the “Blame Blair and Bush” mantra that has become rather tiresome. They never seem to catch on to the most basic “root-cause” of such atrocities. Why does George Galloway, who feels as strongly about Iraq as anyone else, not contemplate blowing himself up in the London underground? Why do millions of people in Britain who oppose much of our foreign policy not react via the bomb-belt? Why don’t Christians behave this way when they hear stories of persecution of their “brothers and sisters” in Islamic countries? How come most people don’t murder others when they’re angry? Could it be something to do with the fanatical, fundamentalist belief and values system that infects the heads of those who engage in this sort of terror? Might it have something to do with the cultures that nurture this mindset or at best fail to check it? This system teaches hatred and justifies murder. Unfortunately this most obvious of root-causes never gets a mention from the mouths of the apologists.

In any event, lets say the apologists are right on this occasion: the increase in the terrorist threat is solely because of our foreign policy. What is supposed to follow from this? It’s a classic logical error which runs like so: If X causes Y and Y is bad, then X is bad. But that simply doesn’t follow. The apologists seem unable to differentiate between two very different concepts: causality and moral responsibility. Just because a person, group or nation does something that contributes causally to a crime, atrocity, or other misdeed, does not mean that they are agents who must bear moral responsibility for that crime. An obvious example is the Second World War. Our involvement in the Second World War contributed causally to the German bombing of British cities, but this certainly did not mean that Britain had to bear moral responsibility for it. Moreover, our resistance of Nazism contributed to our being bombed by German planes. Since the latter was a bad thing are we committed to holding that the former was also? Hardly.

Unfortunately conceptual blurs and confusions are rife in the minds of the apologists. Writing in the Belfast Telegraph some time ago, the socialist thug Eamon McCann gave approval to sentiments expressed in a poem by his friend Mike Rosen. At several points in this poem we have the line: “If you go into other people’s countries and bomb them they will bomb you.” This poem was written after the London bombs, seemingly to explain the “root-cause” of the bombs - which for McCann & Rosen was the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - and dissipate responsibility for them. On this occasion the facts weren’t allowed to get in the way of a “good” poem. The plain truth was ignored: the bombers in London were all British. They were not Iraqis or Afghans. They weren’t even of Iraqi or Afghan origin. Three were Pakistani and the other one was Jamaican. To the best of my knowledge Britain had not engaged Pakistan or Jamaica with military action.

The idea that if we changed our foreign policy we would be safe is naïve at best, but in my view is utterly delusional. Extremists simply won’t vanish like a fart in the wind with a change of foreign policy. For a start we must remember that 9/11 came BEFORE Afghanistan & Iraq and during a time when the USA was making strenuous efforts to forge a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians. Also worth remembering is that the recent round of violence in Lebanon was initiated by Hizbollah - not Israel, the US or Britain. And in any event it’s not at all obvious that Britain would be safe from terror attacks if it changed its foreign policy. Extremists will not be appeased by such political fluctuations. They are defined by an intense hatred of the West, since its values are diametrically opposed to ours. There are many other grounds on which religious nut-jobs might seek to cause mayhem in Britain. The fact that we are infidels who should succumb to the supposed will of Allah in the form of Sharia law is an obvious one. Some commentators seem to think that the Middle East will return to some form of hippy utopia if only Britain and America changed their foreign policy? Nonsense. Most likely it would continue to pull itself to bits. Make no mistake about it, a change in foreign policy would bring only one change: a change in the justification for Islamist terrorism.

Furthermore, even if we would be safe from terrorist attacks by changing our foreign policy this is insufficient in and of itself to warrant a change. Take the Second World War once more as an example. If we stopped bombing Germany and withdrew our troops from Europe then the German bombing of British cities would have ceased. And yet despite this fact it would have been much worse to have withdrawn.

If stupidity was rice then the current band of apologists would be China. It’s bad enough having to fight a war against fundamentalist lunatics but it seems that we are destined to fight on a second front: against the lunacy emanating from the political left.

Stephen Graham

Mind Your Own Business

News broke earlier this week that companies bidding for government work contracts face possible rejection if they fail to employ enough black and Asian people. A committee, which includes 7 government ministers, has made proposals requiring businesses to provide the racial profile of their workforce compared to the racial profile of the area in which the business is situated. So far three pilot schemes have been authorised, and it is note-worthy that this is the first time that “positive vetting” has been approved by a British Government. Apparently such measures are required in order to improve the employment of ethnic minorities who are, allegedly, twice as likely to be unemployed as a white person.

I’m always uneasy when I hear phrases like “positive vetting” or “affirmative action.” My own definition of such terms is: “keeping the most skilled people out of a job to promote a person of lesser ability because of sex or race.” Affirmative action hinders the employment market and tends, in most places where it has been used, to discriminate against white people and men.

Some of the claims by proponents of this policy have been downright bizarre, even mindless. And what is worrying is that they can’t even be honest about the policy. In support of the policy Mr Keith Vaz, MP, stated that: “This is not about quotas, but about encouraging employers to recognise the impact their employment policies can have on a local community.” I feel sorry for Mr Vaz for being so stupid, but to be honest I feel more sorry for myself for having to listen to him. This is not about quotas? Obviously Mr Vaz doesn’t use the same dictionaries that I do. Seemingly he doesn’t even have enough wit to qualify as a half-wit. Ian Barr, an ex-member of the Commission for Racial Equality also claimed that: “This is not about positive discrimination and quotas. This is about using the talent that is currently under-utilised and providing equality of opportunity to succeed.” It’s not about positive discrimination? You mean you’re NOT actually trying to get more blacks and Asians employed? You don’t think that companies seeking lucrative contracts won’t ensure that they have their correct quota of blacks and Asians? Good God, if this guy was any less intelligent we’d have to water him twice a day. Perhaps if we grasp his ears and pull really hard we might just assist him in getting his head out of his arsehole. There is absolutely nothing in the policy about equality of opportunity. Moreover, if the policy is only intended to “assist” employers then employers could hardly raise objection to it, could they? But, of course, employers have been raising objections to this. They know what’s good for them and what isn’t. They know unjustified government interference when they see it. They tend to be intelligent and rational people, and thus fully understand that this policy is indeed about positive discrimination and quotas. These guys would be taken much more seriously if they were honest about their intentions and desires. As it is they really shouldn’t say things like this - it just makes them look stupid. If fact, perhaps they shouldn’t say anything - it just makes them look stupid.

Mr Iqbal Wahhab, the chairman of the ‘Ethnic Minority Employment Task Force,’ the government-backed think-tank with delusions of competence which is responsible for these proposals, said: “These new procurement policies are required to assist employers in making more enlightened recruitment decisions…It may be unpopular in certain quarters, but the fact remains that we should not have been in this kind of position in the first place…this is possibly the only way to get a substantial reduction in ethnic unemployment.”

Phew…with a head so full of bullshit Mr Wahhab‘s eyes must be brown. The first thing that amazes me is that Mr Wahhab patronisingly thinks businesses need assistance from insidious little busy-bodies like him to make more “enlightened” business decisions. It isn’t the job of government to ensure that companies make more enlightened decisions, whether that be about recruitment, suppliers, marketing, or where to hold the office Christmas party. Business owners want to make money. In order to make money a rational business owner will employ the best people for the job at hand so as to maximise profits and efficiency. Businesses don’t need government quangos to prod them into doing what is in their best interests.

And what’s telling is that Mr Wahhab puts more value on getting a reduction in the unemployment rate among ethnic minorities than he does on business freedom, the concept of privacy and non-government interference, and meritocracy. Of course, he does admit that this policy might not be popular (fucking genius, isn’t he? Or perhaps just half-genius: an IQ of 75). What has Mr Wahhab been smoking, you might ask. The reasons why this sort of policy is a bad idea are bountiful. There are practical and objections as well as objections in principle.

For a start this sort of policy would be highly expensive to run. The bureaucracy involved in applying for government contracts is already a minefield. And once companies jump through the many governmental hoops there will be no guarantee that the company offering the most competitive bid will actually win, and thus it’s hardly the best use of tax-payers money. It pisses me off that government take my money in the first place. The least I should expect in return is that that money is spent as carefully and efficiently as possible. Under this policy some of the best firms might not even bother making a bid.

Even more note-worthy is the fact that in modern day multi-cultural Britain many people simply don’t fit into simple racial categories. Some people might be ¼ Bangladeshi, ½ African and ¼ white. And even if we could categorise people there could be perfectly justifiable reasons why the ethnic make-up of a company doesn‘t match that of the local community. A firm employing plumbers, electricians or building site workers will quite likely have very few Japanese women on their books. This has nothing to do with discrimination, and everything to do with the lack of female Japanese plumbers around. Plus, there will be some areas where ethnic minorities are “over-represented,” but no complaint from Mr Wahhab or others of his ilk. It’s seems that white people can’t be discriminated against.

Not only does positive discrimination take the merit out of meritocracy, it just doesn’t work. What such policies tend to do is alienate the minority groups they purport to help, whilst causing deep resent in the white community. In the show ‘Curb Your Enthusiasm’ Larry David jested that he didn’t trust a black doctor’s opinion because of “the whole affirmative action thing.” A joke with a jab indeed. Here in Northern Ireland there is a “50-50” recruitment policy for our police force. In other words recruitment programmes must take on 50% Roman Catholics and 50% Other (Protestants and everyone else). It causes resentment, not least of all because around 400 Protestants are rejected each year solely because of their religion. And, you know what, it makes you wonder whether the police charged with defending society are the best for the job or only there because of their religious beliefs.

Despite all of these practical objections to these policies the objection from principle is most important. Such proposals are simply a means to increasing state control of the private sector. And in that one word - ‘private’ - we have the nub of the issue. Businesses are privately owned. For this reason it would even be wrong if the government were to legislate for meritocracy. In many countries, including Britain, it is generally illegal to discriminate against people along some or all of the following lines: age, sex, race, sexual orientation, religion, political viewpoint, and disability (where it is deemed irrelevant to the job). Many people think this is a good thing. It isn’t. It’s unjustified interference in private businesses. Our politicians simply can’t get their heads around it, or perhaps just don’t want to since it would involve them relinquishing a degree of power. Since businesses are private then the owner should be able to employ whoever the hell he or she wishes to. If they want to employ only 50 year old black women then that is their prerogative.

The fact of the matter is that most employers don’t give a damn whether employees are black or white, male or female, gay or straight, old or young, left-handed or right-handed, long hair growing out of their noses, warts on their chin, big arses or small, as long as they are the best person for the job at the time of recruitment. We mustn’t lose sight of the fact that business exist to make money and in order to make money they need the best employees. If an employee decides he only wants to employ white men then that’s his decision and he’ll pay for it in terms of decreased efficiency, bad publicity, lower profits, decreased competitiveness, and quite possibly bankruptcy. A free market is the best guarantor of fair employment. Businesses can only stay in business if they are competitive. To be competitive they need to employ better people than other companies in the same line of business. In a free market the only thing that matters is a persons fitness for the job.

Governments with interfering policies are like brain surgeons with chainsaws. My message to government is this: make some happy - mind your own business!

Stephen Graham

Drugs are Bad?

Another massive scandal about the use of drugs in sport has broken out recently with the spotlight on the US sprinter Justin Gatlin and some guy who rides a bike whose name I can’t remember and can’t be bothered to look up.

But just what is the problem with sportsmen and women using certain substances to enhance their performance? Why are some chemicals banned but many other chemicals perfectly acceptable to boost performance? Some commentators claim that using drugs gives one sportsman an “unfair advantage” over another. But such an argument is a tad absurd. A drug can only give an “unfair” advantage by virtue of the fact that it is banned. If the drugs in question weren’t banned then every competitor could use them if they wish, thus removing the possibility of “unfair” advantage. Of course there will still be advantageous effects of one sportsman using a drug whilst his competitor doesn’t, but this happens in all other areas of sport. Some competitors have better track shoes, coaches, dieticians, money, facilities etc. than their opponents, yet no one ever refers to this as an “unfair” advantage. Take Formula One racing - some guys have vastly superior cars, but no one complains much about this fairly obvious advantage as being in any way “unfair.”

A second argument is that some drugs are banned because they are bad for an athletes health. But this isn’t necessarily true. Some of the drugs aren’t necessarily bad, and many are actually naturally occurring chemicals which the body makes to some degree anyway (testosterone, for instance). Even if the drugs are in some way “bad” for health then it would still be the athletes choice whether or not to risk their use. Isn’t a bit nanny-ish to dictate to rational adults what they can and can’t put into their bodies? Not to mention the fact that some sports are surely bad for health: boxing can’t be good, and muscle tears, broken bones, sprains, slipped discs, and many other conditions are frequent occurrences in most sports. Sport is a dangerous business. Should we start banning some of them because of the dangers to health that they inherently involve?

I’m not against performance enhancing drugs in any sport. As a spectator all I’m really interested in is seeing people run faster, jump further and higher, throw further, and swim at sword-fish speeds. I long to see the day that earmuffs are provided in the Olympic stadium to protect from the sonic booms of the track events. I look forward to the days when the only sand pit big enough for the long jump is the Sahara. Roll on the days when the athletes from the Middle East are withdrawn from competing because their countries need them to launch long distance rockets at each other.

What a spectacle this would be. In the early days of the Olympics the games were venerated and the competitors treated like heroes, risking their lives (which were frequently lost in wrestling events and chariot races) in the pursuit of excellence. Might not allowing the use of drugs help us recapture that spirit?

Stephen Graham

PS…Kids: Don’t take drugs. OK? Drugs are bad. OK?

Debt: Who's to Blame?

The concept of personal responsibility is making a gradual exit from public discourse. To emphasise it these days typically brings a raised eyebrow in response. But it’s a concept that every single libertarian must fight for as that notion is one of the those lying at the very heart of our political philosophy.

Reports this week beautifully illustrate the fact that libertarians have their work cut out for them. The BBC’s economic editor, Evan Davis, recently gave a report about the scale of debt in Britain and raised the question “who is to blame for getting us into all this debt?” The wording of the question didn’t bode well for anything resembling the sensible answer to be voiced, as the question itself implies the existence of some big bad wolf of debt pulling the strings that make us puppets dance to some given tune (“Money, Money, Money” or “Money Makes the World go Round,” perhaps?). With a roll of my eyes and a shake of my head I did the pleasant and polite thing and I let Mr Davis present the rest of his report before I shouted at the TV and called the BBC a “bunch of useless, ignorant, Bastards [yes, with a capital “B”] with nothing but shit for brains.” Or words to that effect. And then I stormed out and took my temper out on my long-suffering drum kit.

Mr Davis gave us two alternatives. The first was “it’s all the fault of the big banks for lending us more money than we can afford to repay.” Banks are much too lax with their money lending and more people than ever are going bankrupt as a result. Damn banks, eh? Thrusting that money into people’s wallets against their will. Forcing us to spend well beyond our means. Bastards! The second alternative: “it’s all the fault of debt management companies.” Wait a minute. Aren’t these people helping to reduce our debt? Not so suggests Mr Davis. In fact they simply make us think that getting out of debt is easy, which actually means are less likely to put up resistance when the banks force money on us against our will. That was it. That was our choice. Which one do YOU think is to blame? The report ended and the BBC newsreader moved on to another “More Lebanese Massacred by Israel” story, in their most neutral and unbiased of voices of course. Anyone wishing to know the definition of a false dichotomy need look no further than Mr Davis’s report. Two alternatives offered as if that exhausts the options, when in fact neither is correct.

In the search for something rational and accurate I tried some other media. From one source I learnt that “it’s all the fault of high street stores.” Yeah, those pesky stores, eh? The buggers suck us into their shops through some physical and/or psychological mechanisms currently beyond the reach of modern science, raping our wallets, and throwing us back on to the street like a used Kleenex when we’ve nothing left to give, with no evidence of the crime except the store card occupying the place in our wallet where the stolen cash used to be. Another source added “it’s all the fault of consumer culture.” “Consumer Culture:” a particularly nasty beast. If superman was alive in the world today then this would surely be his nemesis. Not only does “Consumer Culture” force us to bankruptcy, it destroys the planet, devastates the family unit, tears the very fabric of society to shreds, and I bet it mugs little old ladies to boot. Don’t let your kids out to play in the street when “Consumer Culture” is around, whatever you do. Don’t say you haven’t been warned!

I did come across one other theory that I found incredibly attractive: “it’s the fault of the government.” OK, this sounds better. Whenever there’s a problem you can indeed bet your ass the government has a hand in it. The government tends to be to problems what petrol is to forest fires. What has the government done? Well, for a start they have significantly contributed to the escalation of property prices. Prices go up when demand is high but supply is low, and thanks to impenetrable planning laws and over-regulation of land for building houses the government has effectively choked housing supply. The chancellor Gordon Brown is also guilty of fiddling with interest rates which, although set by the Bank of England, are not independent of inflation: which Mr Brown has kept artificially low by excluding major items such as mortgages in his calculations. And it is Mr Brown’s policies that have ensured a steady supply of cheap money for banks to throw at people who can’t afford to repay it. Furthermore, people don’t have as much money as they should have to spend on things they want because of government taxes, thus making the rate of borrowing more likely to increase. Despite earning a relatively low salary I still manage to pay £160 in tax each month, and £90 for National Insurance. Thanks to Mr Brown our disposable income is much less than what it should be, and that’s not including the extra taxes on virtually every item we buy when the high street stores suck us in to their thieving embrace. So, yes, I’ve some sympathy for this argument. But it still doesn’t hit the nail on the head.

Try as I might I couldn’t find anyone with either the balls or the brains to raise their hand and admit the fact of the matter. So, I‘ll have to do it myself: “it’s primarily the fault of the people themselves.” The other complaints are largely chimeras. This answer is often dismissed as “too simplistic,” but to me that’s the beauty of it. Sometimes the easier answer is indeed the correct one, despite being the bitterest pill for people to swallow in our age of “it wasn’t me, it’s not my fault.” But, no one is forced against their will to buy a brand new Ferrari, red of course. No one is forced to run up massive bills on high interest store cards. Banks don’t march people in at the point of a gun, shine a light in their eyes, and poke them with pitching forks until they sign on the dotted line. Free will. What a great gift. Not as good as a new Sony Playstation, but not bad nonetheless. Unfortunately it must be exercised, and many people find themselves far too lazy.

It’s not too difficult to do either. I earn below average wage and will be paying off my mortgage for the next 22 years. This is my only debt, and it’s budgeted for and insured. I don’t have a single credit card to my name. No store cards. My hands are strong enough to tear up junk mail offering me massive home improvement loans. My mathematics is sound enough to ensure I don’t spend more money than is in my bank account, and I’ve heard of this wonderful invention for people who aren’t so sound - a frickin’ calculator. And, to be honest, “Consumer Culture” can’t make me feel that I lack a bunch of “must have” items.

Put simply: I act responsibly. I make decisions about my life and accept the consequences. I live within my, fairly meagre, means and the grass is perfectly green thank you very much.

So as the concept of personal responsibility makes its exit from public discourse we need to make sure that it doesn’t go quietly. We must shout it from the roof-tops of our over-priced homes.

Stephen Graham

Death by Penis

It may amuse the more school-boy-humoured men amongst us to think of one’s penis as a “deadly weapon.” Hee hee hee. Unfortunately for some men that literally is the case.

An article in the Guardian on Thursday 02nd August brought my attention to the case of a man about to be sentenced for grievous bodily harm after he had unprotected sex with another person without disclosing the fact that he was HIV positive. The article was written by Deborah Jacks of the National AIDS Trust and couldn’t go without comment.

Ms Jacks doesn’t think that this is the correct course of action and asks: “Was this how we were meant to respond to HIV? Was this the shared responsibility for sexual health some of us remember hearing about in the 1980s and 90s?” Shared responsibility. Now there’s an entire minefield in the space of two words. She is referring to the fact that both parties in a sexual relationship bear responsibility - for their own health, primarily. And, of course she is right. However, this is a perfect illustration of how someone can both be right and utterly miss the point within the same sentence. It seems to me to be the height of absolute stupidity to have unprotected sex without being fairly certain that your partner isn’t carrying an STD. To tell you the truth I have very little sympathy for people who catch any STD through unprotected sex. However, what sort of creep knows they have something as deadly as HIV and has unprotected sex with an unknowing partner? Such a person is fully worthy of utter revulsion whether or not their sexual partner is naïve to the point of brain-deadeningly stupid. Carelessness does not justify a crime. Lets say I become lax about my home security; perhaps forgetting to close my windows and even leaving my door open when I go out to work. In one sense I’m simply asking for trouble. However, if someone enters my house and steals my possessions are their actions any less reprehensible because I’ve been careless? I think not.

Ms Jacks laments the fact that “the courts have turned to 19th-century law to put people behind bars, and the government has let it happen without demur.” When she talks of 19th-century law in such derogatory tones she is referring to the Offences Against the Person Act of 1861, under which such prosecutions are made. I’m not sure what she has against this act since, along with some subsequent amendments, it is a fundamental legal basis of prosecution for major crimes: pretty much any type of physical assault. I’m not one to shy away from lamenting bad law, as readers of this blog will know, but this piece of legislation is one of the exceptions. Manslaughter, murder, rape, assault, and bodily harm are all included in its remit. I’m not sure why Ms Jacks despises it. Because it’s old? Congratulations! You’ve just discovered the worlds thinnest argument.

She asks “why … [are] we throwing people into prison for HIV transmission … [and will] such prosecutions make the sex we are all having any safer.” Firstly, we’re not throwing people into prison for HIV transmission. Get a grip of yourself woman. You aren’t going to jail if you don’t know you are infected, or for any accidental form of transmission. The only type of transmission that is covered in the case law is when the infected person knows they have HIV, fails to tell his or her partner, and has unprotected sex knowing full well the consequences. Are these prosecutions making our sex safer? Well, it’s hard to say. Some of the people convicted, such as Feston Konzani and Mohammed Dica, had several partners, and would most probably have had more were it not for the fact that they were caught. So, in terms of their future partners we must say that the sex is probably a little bit safer by virtue of not meeting these men who are now serving long sentences at Her Majesty’s, and, I must say, my own pleasure. And letting such people see the consequences of this recklessness might just stand a chance of deterring others tempted to infect someone with HIV for kicks and giggles.

Ms Jacks then argues: “Of course, if someone intends to harm a sexual partner by transmitting HIV, that is a malicious assault and should be punished.” It’s difficult to see just how someone doesn’t intend to harm their partner, albeit implicitly. What they hell do they think will happen if they, having HIV, have unprotected sex with someone? It’s like aiming a gun at someone pulling the trigger and trying to convince someone that you never intended to blow your friends face off. Whoopsie! What the hell did you think would happen? It's basic cause and effect here, not some obscure version of quantum physics we're expecting people to comprehend. It's hard to see how the concept of not intending harm is of much defence here anyhow. Take the example of a man driving home from a bar drunk. He doesn’t intend to kill anyone - not directly - but when he falls asleep at the wheel, mounts the footpath and kills a bunch of people do we, and should we, hold him responsible for their deaths? Of course we should, whether he intended the deaths of not.

Her next point is simply downright false: “The prosecuted cases, however, have been different - people in denial, scared, ill-equipped to discuss their infection.” Lies, Ms Jacks, lies. I’m a legal researcher by profession and I can tell you that perpetrators in several cases cannot by a long shot fit that description. For brevity I refer the reader to the two cases I mentioned above: “R v Mohammed Dica” and “R v Feston Konzani,” both of which can found at www.bailii.org. In the first case Mr Dica was in a long term relationship AND he always insisted on NOT wearing a condom. He had plenty of opportunity to protect and tell his partners. He didn’t. In the second case Mr Konzani (who infected three women, one of whom was a 16 year old girl, and a virgin before Mr Konkani’s exploits), spoke in terms of “eradicating women,” according to witness testimony. In any event it’s a moot point because even if some people are in denial or find themselves unable to talk about their condition, how hard is it to insist on the use of a condom at the very least? In this day and age few people would object if their sexual partner made such a request, and nor would such a request raise any suspicions. It just makes you look, well, sensible. Again an example can help illustrate the point further. Lets say Bob runs a mountain climbing company. Some of his gear is now old and worn and unsafe. However, he doesn’t have the money to replace it and has a number of rich clients coming to climb. If he turns them away he’ll maybe go bankrupt with everything that that involves. He’s scared, in denial and doesn’t want to tell anyone about his dodgy equipment in case they pull out of the climb, so he convinces himself that everything will be OK. When the climbing party set off several of them are killed or injured when the ropes and harnesses give up the ghost. Is Bob liable?

Ms Jacks believes that we should understand if not condone a failure to disclose HIV status. She states that, “With high levels of stigma and discrimination, telling someone your HIV status takes time and care.” Again true. Again utterly missing the point. If you have HIV you simply don’t have sex with anyone unless they know of your condition. If you have a difficult time talking about it you don’t just say, “oh well, fuck it, I’ll shag a few people regardless until I find a way to tell them.” Perhaps over a romantic candle lit dinner: “Honey, you know how we’ve been fucking like rabbits for a few months, well there’s really something you should know.”

Continuing, Ms Jacks states her belief that: “We do not as a society have to punish every action we deplore.” I wholly agree with this sentiment. How very libertarian it is. In fact, I have argued several times about the danger of banning behaviour that doesn’t breach the fundamental rights of other people. However, infecting someone with HIV without their knowing is hardly a case of not breaching someone’s fundamental rights. So, whilst it is true that we shouldn’t punish every, even most, actions we deplore, we certainly should when fundamental rights are at stake? Not so for Ms Jacks, she thinks that such prosecutions will “make those actions more likely to occur.” This is a fairly definite empirical prediction, and unfortunately, but not surprisingly, Ms Jacks provides absolutely no evidence for it. Not one single digit of a statistic. In any event there has only been a handful of such cases, so it’s hardly causing social disintegration or the public health disaster that Ms Jacks refers to in her article. Moreover, she fails to consider the deterrent effects of punishment. Even if we leave aside the not unrealistic proposal that such prosecutions might deter others from sowing their poisonous oats, it is beyond argument that punishment at least deters the people in question from infecting anyone else. If Mr Dica or Mr Konzani had been caught earlier and imprisoned then at least a few of their victims would never have got infected with HIV. This deterrence value of punishment is a fact.

Of course, Ms Jacks offers alternatives, which aren’t really “alternatives,” since they could easily work alongside prosecution as a way to tackle the issue. Firstly: “end the stigma that makes some people tongue-tied or in denial about their HIV status.” Yes, great, lets! Secondly, “provide properly resourced care to help people come to terms with their diagnosis.” You mean another service alongside several hundred other services doing just that? Thirdly, “negotiate condom use and talk about HIV to partners, encourage everyone to use condoms” Everyone? Monks? Lesbians? People trying to have babies? Yeah, OK, cheap shot, but I’m getting bored of your article.

Thank God that’s were it ended.

Stephen Graham

Fun-Day-Mental

Alton Towers, a family fun and amusement park in Great Britain, recently had to cancel a "Muslim fun day" because there wasn't enough interest in it. The event was organised by Islamic Leisure who had billed the event as the "First National Muslim Fun Day.," expecting 28,ooo to sign up for the day of Islamic frolics. But it seems Muslims weren't interested in the fun. And just what fun there was to be had! There was to be no music. Yay! Rock on! No alcohol or gambling, and whilst you were allowed on the rides men and women had to go on separately. Presumably the women's roller coaster didn't have to travel 10 feet behind the men's, though. They obviously didn't figure that girly screams (however muffled though veils & burkas) are part of the fun at any fairground. Any Muslims tired from enjoying themselves too much would have been able to retire to designated prayer areas from where they could enjoy the more sublime company of Allah.

These guys really know how to crank up that fun-o-meter, eh?

To top it all off they weren't going to have non-Muslims attending. Party-poopers! How selfish to keep all that fun to themselves!

Unfortunately one non-Muslim couple had spent thousands to have their wedding there on the same day and Alton Towers realised they had double-booked. The couple were told that they could still attend, with 60 guests, but they had to follow all the Islamic rules for the day - including those related to dress, and the happy couple were even forbidden to ride a roller coaster together.

And it made me wonder...what is it about this type of religious person that they can't abide by their own religious codes without having to force them on other people? The fun was always going to be limited at this fun day, but this additional religious cumpulsion isn't funny at all.

Thank Allah it was cancelled.

Stephen Graham

Addicted to Irresponsibility

Two days ago a judge had a rattle at internet betting sites in the course of the trial and sentencing of Bryan Benjafield who stole in excess of £1 million from his employer over 18 months, squandering the lot on internet gambling websites. Judge Andrew Langdon announced his disbelief at how easy it was to blow so much money so quickly. Wow, it’s a big wild world out there isn’t it Your Honour? Fancy that! People are able spend whatever money they have on largely whatever they want. From behind his wig and gown our learned friend babbled: “It says something for the power of your addiction to gambling that, despite the low rate of return on your mindless betting, you carried on despite the obvious consequences. The ease with which a desperate man addicted to gambling could spend enormous sums is bluntly staggering. Internet or online gambling has made it much easier, regretfully, for enormous sums to be spent unthinkingly.” For his sins, one of which being putting his employer out of business and several fellow employees out of a job, Benjafield, was then sentenced to 5 years, and was told he would have to serve at least half of the sentence.

What pisses me off about this case is the carelessness with which the language of addiction is bandied about - not only by the defence lawyers, but also picked up unthinkingly by the judge, the court reporters, and the media. One report this week told us that “internet gambling is spiralling out of control.” Umm, out of WHOSE control, exactly? Continuing, “and there is little the government can do about it.” Right. As if it’s always the government’s responsibility to “do something” when it “gets out of control.” You’d think that internet betting was throwing late night parties, forcing kids to take drugs, breaking into people’s houses, and beating up little old ladies the way these people talk. Of course, implicit in the language of control is the concept of addiction - “internet gambling is spiralling out of control” actually means “people involved in internet gambling are losing control of themselves," and thus by implication are not fully responsibile for their actions.

The vast majority of news reports about gambling will inevitably mention the phrase “problem gamblers,” normally in the context of statistics showing how many people are doing it and how much money is in total being poured into the coffers of casino operators. Some reports, even generally well written newspapers like the Times, blurt out sentiments such as: “The websites carry few or no health warnings, even though they are potentially more dangerous than bricks-and-mortar casinos and betting shops.” More dangerous to your health? Are you more likely to get cancer, heart disease, or a stroke from online gaming? What nonsense.

All in all I’m utterly fed up with all the psycho-babble about the concept of addiction. Addiction seems to be everywhere. Believe it or not but there exists eBay addict support groups and telephone lines for people who just can‘t stop bidding on stuff. The human race seems to be in the clutches of a whole host of new addictions. These days we have addiction not only to hard drugs, but also to alcohol, smoking, gambling, shopping, porn, TV, junk food, and a million other supposed forms of addiction and pseudo-psychologists ready to cash in with a fancy name for such “disorders.” Personally I think there is only one name that should be applied to all these “addictions”: “Guilt-ridden, irresponsible weakness of the will.” This whole notion of addiction needs to be challenged much more than it ever is.

Here in Northern Ireland we had a run of TV advertisements for a help-line people can call if they wish to stop smoking. It runs something like this:

Patronising Tele-Assistant: “Smoker’s Helpline, how can I help you?”

Smoky Smokerson: “I’d like to stop smoking.”

Patronising Tele-Assistant: [incredibly cheerful tones]. “Well, you’ve taken the first step, and that’s great!”

Then we get a bunch of snapshots of the kinds of help and advise you can expect if you call the Smoker’s Helpline:

[terribly concerned] “So, how have you been getting on with quitting?”

[terribly inquisitive] “Have you tried patches or gum?”

[terribly helpful] “I can send you some information if you like.”

[terribly consoling] "Well, not everyone quits succesfully the first time."

There seems to be a great market here and I’m thinking of getting myself a slice of the pie by setting up my own help-line service. Perhaps something like this:

Smoky Smokerson: “ “I’d like to give up smoking”

Me: “Have you tried not buying cigarettes?”

Smoky Smokerson: “Ummm…well, no, but I was talking to this other guy who said something about patches or gum.”

Me: “Yes, indeed, perhaps you could get a great big patch, superglue it over your mouth so you can’t get the cigarettes in even though you really want to. Gum would be redundant after this.”

Smoky Smokerson: “Can you send me any information?”

Me: “Stop buying cigarettes. Stop accepting cigarettes when offered. I can put this into writing and mail it to you if you wish if you haven‘t quite grasped the spoken word.”

Here’s the cold hard truth. If you really don’t want to smoke you won’t. I’m sick and tired of people moaning that they can’t give this or that up. Yes you fucking can. Take smoking, the most popular example. Just what are people saying when they claim to be addicted to it? It’s hardly a genetic trait that we can do little about, like having blue eyes. There is no “must-suck-on-cigarettes gene.” The language of addiction is virtually always used to suggest irresistibility: the smoker can’t do other than smoke. Now, my knowledge of physics is patchy but as far as I’m aware there is no magnetic field surrounding people that sucks them into the local store and fixes their eyes on the cigarette section. As far as I’m aware there is no vocal compulsion, perhaps similar to tourettes, that forces people to utter “a pack of cigarettes please” against their will. And I have yet to hear a scientist expounding a theory of the irresistible universal physical mechanism by which someone’s hand is twisted behind their back to fetch the wallet.

The human spirit is much more robust than our new breed of pseudo-psychologists make out, with their nonsense that people are helpless victims of some monster - gambling, violence, smoking, burgers - over which they have no control. The truth is that it’s very easy not to gamble, smoke, punch someone, eat burgers. How don’t you gamble? You simply don’t perform the physical actions necessary to placing a bet: walking into a book-makers, lifting a pen, and selecting the 200-1 blind horse with three legs and a limp. How don’t you smoke? You don’t lift and cigarette, stick it in your mouth and light it. How don’t you eat junk food? You eat something else. It’s dead easy - in fact you eat all other food in exactly the same way. The wonders of the human mouth and digestive system, eh? How don’t you gamble online? You don’t log on to the internet, or if you do you don’t type www.888.com into the address bar of your browser.

I’ll never buy into the psycho-babble about chemicals in the brain, peer-pressure, blah blah blah. Human beings are not determined or caused to act in the ways that they do. We choose our behaviour. We choose to act or not act in certain ways. Our concepts of morality and justice would be nonsense if this wasn’t so. We are responsible agents. And it's defeatist weak-willed bollocks to suggest otherwise and whine about being addicted to something as if it isn’t in your power to change. As long as physical actions remain voluntary - and they do - the notion of addiction as an irresistible power is nonsense. What I find if you dig a little deeper is that smokers, and most other addicts, who want to give up will give up. Those who continue in their ways do so because they want to: not because they’re forced to by something outside their own control. If they whine about trying to give up I can only conclude that, given the increasing social unacceptability of smoking, (and other so-called forms of addiction), they wish to appear more noble by making a half-hearted attempt to stop something that they really don’t want to but feel guilty about.

Some time ago several members of my family were on the receiving end of a rant to this effect. My smart-arsed father retorted: “you’re fucking addicted to ranting about everything!”

No father. I choose to do it because I enjoy it.

Stephen Graham

The Fox and the Hounds

There they hide in the long grass. Waiting for their prey. Always ready to move. Telescopic lens at the ready. Their prey comes into sight. Closer and closer they skulk until within range. Out they spring, without warning, and begin to shoot. The prey stands no chance.

The scenario above was played out recently when two members of the League Against Cruel Sports (LACS) shot video footage of a huntsman, Tony Wright, as he lead a hunt across the countryside. This video footage now forms the basis of a private prosecution brought by the LACS against Mr Wright under the terms of the Hunting Act 2004, introduced so as to ban the practice of hunting foxes with dogs (in England & Wales); and this case is the first to seriously test the law.

The fact of the matter is that this law was badly framed, with more holes in it than an old dart board (although I for one am extremely pleased that this is so). Since the law was passed it is estimated that there has been 25,000 days of hunting by 300 hunts, many of which have reported an increase in numbers and support from people giving a two-fingered salute to an evermore authoritarian government. What a beautiful illustration of good old British bloody-mindedness, a rare trait in these limp-wristed, guilt-ridden, politically correct times. There is good reason why this is the only serious case to go to court under the Act despite hunts being constantly monitored by animal rights nutters with bugger all better to do. Before the law was passed members of the pro-hunt Countryside Alliance had promised that there would be a host of “hunting martyrs” arrested for continuing to hunt regardless. However, they haven’t had much to worry about. As it turns out the Act is as loose as the panties on a cheap Bangkok hooker. In fact, the LACS is bringing this current case as a private action because the police figured that getting a conviction was highly unlikely. In fact, it has been widely reported that police forces in Britain have complained about the “impossibility” of enforcing the Act, since: (1) hunts take place over such a wide (and rural) area, (2) the Act contains a number of exceptions which hunters have fully exploited, and (3) the Act is full of loop-holes. But, when the thinking behind an Act is utterly flawed the practical outcome always suffers. This law came on the back of a surge of emotionalism and prejudice, and the sloppy logic and moral hypocrisy remains rampant.

The main line of argument in favour of the hunting ban was the welfare of animals, and this kind of argument will always find a ready home in the hearts of a largely fickle popular opinion. Who doesn’t have a soft spot for furry animals (Michael Moore excluded)? As a child I was myself very much the young animals rights extremist, and only a few years ago I toyed with the idea of vegetarianism, only to find that my palate over-ruled my feelings about animal killing, despite the pangs of conscience that would occasionally accompany the devouring of a huge steak fit for a puma.

Today, however, I am an unrepentant leather-wearing, animal product consuming, animal experiment supporting, meat-eater. This doesn’t make me a barbarian or a philistine, as some of the more extreme Fluffy Bunny Fascists hysterically shriek. In fact, my childhood obsession still has a small grip on me as I’m not totally untroubled by the thought of a cute furry animal being killed by savage hounds from hell. And, I’m certainly not the only person to entertain such emotions, a brute fact that animals charities are well aware of. Why else does most of the literature from animal charities contain picture after picture of cute furry animals gazing lovingly and pathetically at the camera, “please don’t kill me… I’m a helpless little seal pup…” In any event rationality must be our guide.

The leading argument of the anti-hunt lobby carries incredible emotional weight: hunting foxes with dogs is not essential and amounts to little other than conscious cruelty to a fox, who suffers the distress and terror of being chased and then the pain of dying (however brief that process is). To do this for “sport” is thus a brutal and barbaric activity with no place in the “civilised” modern world. I’m not surprised that this argument is the leading one, and I’m fairly sure that it has converted more people to the anti-hunt position than anything else. However, it is little more than the logical equivalent of a ghostly apparition. The ban on fox hunting with dogs has had a number of outcomes - but saving the lives of foxes and reducing cruelty are not amongst them. It is widely recognised by any one with functioning eyes and the will to see that foxes, to a great extent, are a pest to the countryside, destroying crops and killing farm animals. Foxes need to be controlled - not eliminated altogether - just controlled. If they aren’t hunted then they must be culled in some other way. How? The distinguished vet Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior stated that, “the alternatives [to hunting foxes with dogs] in many cases are certainly less welfare positive than hunting. Shooting, poisoning, trapping and other methods of control are much more insensitive.” A fox killed by dogs may experience the terror of the chase (although we have no access to the inner conscious world of a fox to confirm just to what extent this is the case), but when caught it dies in seconds, if that. 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: fox numbers need to be controlled, and the alternatives to hunting with dogs are not less cruel or barbaric.

And thus when the veil is lifted we can see that this leading argument of the anti-hunt lobby is little more than a noxious pile of puke. However, the argument does help to uncover the moral hypocrisy of many of those who oppose fox hunting. I’ve lost count of the number of people spewing this argument out who are meat-eaters. And what do they make of the similar cruelty involved in many modern farming techniques? Are they sure that animal products they consume didn’t come from animals held in factory farms, in which their movement is greatly restricted, in horrendous conditions? Many animals that make their way onto supermarket shelves had a fairly unsavoury end themselves, and not every member of the anti-hunt herd is vegetarian. Their concern for the welfare of one animal is in tension with their disregard for many others. If they really had a beef with cruelty to animals then fox hunting with dogs is not by a mile the best place to begin. The only reason to do so is because foxes are far cuter than pigs, cows and chickens. Cue soppy eyes. Cue emotion over-riding reason.

The real reason why the Labour government introduced this law originally was pure class prejudice. A number of labour MP’s - most notably Kevin McNamara, Gerald Kaufman and Elliot Morley - explicitly stated in the debate in the House of Commons at the time that since during the Thatcher years a great many miners and steelworkers were made unemployed, now the shoe is on the other foot the “toffs” of the countryside cannot complain that they are to lose liberty and part of their way of life. So, there you go. Nothing political, principled, moral, or even practical offered. The actual justification of the ban was naked sectarian class bigotry. So giddy were the members of the Labour party at the thought of sticking it to the “toffs” that some MP’s 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 did not and never will benefit one single citizen of the 60 million citizens who live in this country. It did not protect, uphold, enforce or defend the rights of any individual living in this country. Instead jobs have been threatened, liberties impinged, and resources 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 principle behind it 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 have been banned in the first place? 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?

Even if we grant that hunting foxes with dogs is unnecessarily cruel and barbaric there is still a massive gulf between finding a person’s behaviour 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.

This libertarian principle is worth more than the life of every single fox on the planet and it’s a about time it found more willing defenders.

Stephen Graham