Fat Bastard

The leader writer for the Guardian must be a Fat Bastard incapable of controlling his or her urge to buy and eat food. Last week Fat Bastard lamented that government wasn’t doing enough to help people stop eating too much and claimed that “there is a great deal the government can do to help.” Well, Fat Bastard, just what do you have in mind?

“Labelling supermarket food is a start.”

OK. I was at the supermarket today. I bought a tin of peas. When I got home and opened them, guess what? It was a tin of peas! Just what the frickin’ label said! Moreover, the incredibly helpful people at “Bigga Peas” provided me with a nutritional information section which listed just what was in the tin of peas, besides “pea.” Salt content, vitamins, water, sugar - all there, including some info about recommended daily allowances of stuff.

Fat Bastard realises this, but has another problem: “A better approach would be to recognise that many of us buy food when we are hungry.”

Genius. Pure genius. Human beings buy food when they are hungry. Noble prize award for research into the human condition! Fat Bastard must find this phenomenon wonderful and original. I wonder would he be as excited to find that not only do human beings buy food when they are hungry, but we also piss when our bladder is full , sleep when we’re tired, and scratch our balls when they get itchy.

Continuing: “The journey home from work or school is fraught with unhealthy temptations: crisps from the corner shop, a fried chicken takeaway, a call to the pizza company. This is when resolve is at its weakest.”

Yeah…all those nasty food companies manipulating us into gorging ourselves on “unhealthy” food. I walk home every single day of the week past several sandwich outlets, a Burger King, a McDonalds, a KFC, countless other stores in the centre of Belfast City and not once have I indulged myself. But, even if a person does, so what? What does it matter to Fat Bastard? People are responsible for their own culinary decisions. No one stops them in the middle of the street to force feed Kentucky Fried Chicken down their fat throats into their tubby tummies. It’s not terribly difficult to walk past them.

Fat Bastard thinks things are more tricky: “It takes careful planning to ensure there are fresh fruit and vegetables at home.” Careful planning, eh? Wars require careful planning. Buying a house requires careful planning. Building a career takes careful planning. Having fruit and veg in your house takes a shopping trip. It’s as careful as walking into a fruit shop at some point and buying an apple and a cauliflower.

Fat Bastard patronises people with his diatribe against personal responsibility. We just can‘t do it on our own. We need the help of government. We need a reduction in the number of fast food outlets. We need government help to get us exercising more. We need to be told what is good and what is bad. We can’t do it ourselves. He ends with: “Ms Hewitt could do more to help us turn away from the takeaway.” Us? Who is this? It certainly isn’t me.

Fat Bastard is a typical cultural phenomena: blame everyone for the state of your life, except yourself. Many people don’t seem to think they are in control of themselves. Perhaps this is a culture manipulated by those who want to control the lives of other people. If you make people think they can’t cope with normal everyday decisions - like what to eat - then they will be more open to swallowing all manner of interference into their lives.

I’m constantly amazed at the excuses people give for obesity that lets fat people off the hook of their own personal responsibility. Last year The Times newspaper carried a report outlining research by a group of German scientists that concludes that some fat people can rightly blame their metabolism, and a gene that controls it, for making them obese. And thus, fat people everywhere will delightedly hold onto this new excuse for their size, along with the other typical excuse - “water retention.” Burger & fries retention anyone?

We need some common sense. Every time you see an obese person ask yourself this question: did they get that size eating fruit and salads? You’ll find that you intuitively, and quite rightly, answer that in the negative. Even the afore mentioned German scientists have qualified their conclusions to say that the rogue gene is not a very common cause for obesity, that it isn’t the whole problem and sole cause of obesity, and that even among those who have the gene, many still remain thin. So, folks, we can remain steadfast in our position: on the whole, obese people are the way they are because they simply won’t stop stuffing their fat faces with cakes. Pure fact with whipped cream on top.

However, in the recent discussion of obesity I find it odd that very few people are willing to put the blame where it properly lies: with those who eat too much. Discussion, after report, after news column constantly lays the blame at someone else’s doorstep: it's the fault of food manufacturers who don't label food correctly, or it's the fault of all those advertisements on television brain-washing us into eating more chips, cheese or chocolate bars. And most people seem to think that this is “our problem,” and that “government must do something:” perhaps tax ‘unhealthy’ food or legislate some kind of advertising control so as to stop chunky Charlie chomping on cheddar. In other words, a great many people think that the way to make the population of the country slim is to make the government grossly obese.

A major flaw in the whole debate is the assumption that there is such a thing as “unhealthy” food. No food is inherently unhealthy. It all depends on the dosage. People are eating too much and not doing enough physically. Fat people don’t get fat by eating a cake. They get fat by eating 100’s of cakes, burgers, fries, and the like, all day every day.

This isn’t just a problem amongst the adult population either. It seems as if the ‘little ones’ aren’t really all that little anymore. In fact they’re turning into beach balls with legs. In response to this child-expanding phenomenon, we had, some time ago, the publishing of a draconian, even hysterical, Health Committee report, which more or less stated that virtually everyone must carry the can for this: everyone, that is, except for parents of fat children and fat people themselves, whose only can carrying is that which takes place in the 10 yards between the local supermarket and the family car.

One of the more bizarre sections in the report was the criticism of the government failure, after 10 years of trying, to implement a “walking strategy.” Outrageous! Think of all the lives that could have been saved if government had only released details of that wonder-working phenomenon known to most of us as “putting one foot in front of the other.” It is noteworthy that human kind has done remarkably well without a “walking strategy” ever since primitive man first lifted his knuckles off the ground to pursue hairy mammoths. Unfortunately these days human beings are themselves turning into mammoths through their reluctance to move.

After bombarding us with emotive statistics and horror stories, such as that of a 3-year-old child dying from obesity (which, as it turned out, was caused by a medical condition rather than over-eating - a minor fact pushed to the sidelines for the purposes of social engineering) the report suggests some tactics, many of which caused not just a few raised eyebrows.

It recommended a voluntary ban on junk food advertising aimed at children, followed by a government ban by 2007 if this fails. What in the name of Burger King is this meant to achieve? Children do not earn money and I’ve certainly never seen any doing the weekly family shop at Tesco. They eat only what their parents give them. If your child is obese then stop giving them too many sweets and burgers and ensure they get exercise. Of course, one of the reasons for such a measure is to aid parents when it comes to a child’s supposed “pester power.” What? I realise that some parents are far too stupid to have children, but is there really a new breed of parent that can’t even use a mere 1 syllable word - “no” - when a child asks for it’s third packet of potato crisps or a daily trip to Burger King?

Another insane recommendation was the suggestion that food sold in supermarkets should be labelled in accordance to a traffic light system: red for high in fat, and green for, well, lettuce, I suppose. This idea is based on fuzzy thinking and would be most unhelpful. Foods that are high in fat might also be high in protein, calcium and iron – all of which are essential in any healthy diet. Again the underlying problem is the assumption that there is such a thing as unhealthy food or “food that makes you fat.” But, as I have said, no food is inherently unhealthy, it all depends on the dosage. One cheeseburger a week is not going to make you obese or have a drastic effect on your health (unless, of course, its surface area is 20 square feet), although 10 cheeseburgers a week certainly will. Moreover, you don’t even need to eat fat in order to get fat. If you were to eat incredibly humongous portions of pasta you would soon find yourself expanding at the middle. Why? Because your body has a rather miraculous process by which it creates and stores fat all by itself. Neat, huh? I love biology.

The tone of such reports and news columns are also quite worrying. Consumers are treated as if we’re gormless, gullible and feeble victims of business marketing, or brain-dead zombies irresistibly susceptible to corporate programming. Of course, people do make bad choices, but it must be recognised that people do indeed have a choice, and that we must all learn to look after ourselves rather than be spoon-fed the typical mush from Nanny. No marketing is irresistible, and so in virtually every case obesity is caused not by corporate brainwashing, but entirely by personal volition. No amount of government programmes or medical assistance is going to prevent people going to the fridge at 2am to polish off that sizable wedge of cake insidiously lurking with it’s army of calories behind the semi-skimmed milk.

The solution to the problem of obesity is much easier that this national puzzle that it has become. We don’t need to visit health food shops to buy minute portions of ‘vital’ vitamins, ‘essential’ oils, or some weird brand of ‘indispensable’ small red seeds at grossly overweight prices (having never used any of these ‘essential,’ ‘vital,’ or indispensable products perhaps I‘m just very lucky to still be a living, breathing entity). In fact, the solution is even easier than living according to the Atkins diet. All we need is a new, amazingly simple, diet. And thus I present this new diet, fated, hopefully, to take over from Atkins. I call it “Graham's Stop-Start Diet.” Stop stuffing your fat face. Start moving your fat ass.

Stephen Graham

Libertarianism and Moral Consequentialism

In a blog recently I was challenged for being inconsistent in my views. Yeah, I know: blasphemy! I had criticised the Roman Catholic Church for it’s policy on condoms, and my intention had been to criticise the inconsistency, incoherence and factual inaccuracies of the RCC’s moral policy. However, perhaps due to sloppy writing on my part, one of our readers thought I was criticising the RCC for a policy that caused the deaths of thousands of people. If I had argued this, it was alleged that my defence of libertarianism would be inconsistent. Why? Well, I defend libertarianism as the correct political philosophy “regardless of the consequences.” But, why then would I criticise the RCC for the bad consequences of its policy? If bad consequences are irrelevant to libertarianism, then why are they suddenly relevant to a critique of another worldview.

So, it was alleged that

(1) ‘Libertarianism is the correct political philosophy to adopt regardless of the consequences’

is inconsistent with

(2) ‘Position X is morally wrong because it leads to bad consequences.’

Is (1) inconsistent with (2)? Not at all.

Lets start at the beginning. I don’t intend to argue in depth for the following; it’s just a preliminary to my solution to the charge of inconsistency.

We are individuals; individuals with a certain nature. More specifically, we are individuals with the capacity to reason. Even more again, we are individuals with rights, rights derived from the type of beings we are: most fundamentally the right to life. In order to support one’s own life as an individual a person must use his or her rational faculties to make choices about how best to live. This in turn requires freedom. As rational beings we value our freedom, and crucially this freedom is only guaranteed by extending the same freedom to others. Any ethic or political position that runs contrary to this principle is rationally unjustified and unjustifiable, largely because to claim freedom for oneself without extending that same freedom to another is an arbitrary move with no rational basis. For instance, socialism is irrational because it fails to extend freedom equally to each individual (ironic considering socialists claim to champion egalitarianism). It treats individuals as sacrificial animals to be disposed of at the whim of some greater undefined (because indefinable)“collective.” It thus bypasses individual rationality and opts primarily for brute force to bend dissenters to the “collective will.” It robs men of the produce of their efforts, and thus, by extension, of their choices as rational beings, and ultimately of their lives. Socialism is fundamentally a futile exercise in attempting to squeeze the square peg of rational human nature into the festering round hole of an irrational political system. It is no coincidence that every single tyranny in the history of humanity was justified on the same collectivist grounds as socialism rests. Respect for individual rights and freedom is the only possible rational starting point for political philosophy.

Libertarianism embodies such rational principles. It is the only political philosophy that (1) actually fits the rational nature of humankind, and, (2) is derived from the facts of reality. It is my contention that government interference beyond a certain “libertarian minimalism” is rationally unjustifiable. This libertarian minimalism is defined by the aforementioned rights, which means government’s can only justifiably interfere to uphold these rights, (thus to take action against criminals and foreign aggressors that threaten the rights of the free citizen). The rationalism inherent in libertarianism means that we can’t and shouldn’t give intellectual assent to any other system, no matter how juicy the consequences we think it might entail.

A good summary of the issue is provided by Ayn Rand when she wrote: "is man a sovereign individual who owns his person, his mind, his life, his work, and it’s products - or is he the property of the tribe…that may dispose of him in any way it pleases, that may dictate his convictions, prescribe the course of his life, control his work and expropriate his products. Does man have the right to exist for his own sake - or is he born in bondage, as an indentured servant who must keep buying his life by serving the tribe but can never acquire it free and clear.” More simply: is man free or not? If man is free then no other form of political system is justified except libertarianism. However, to say that man is not free is irrational, unjustifiable. No one rightly - that is, rationally and justifiably - enslaves another man.

With these preliminaries in place we might be in a better position to understand the dilemma above.

Much of the solution hangs on what the word “consequences” is referring to in each context. When I say “libertarianism is the correct political system regardless of consequences,” what am I actually stating? It seems to me that using “consequences” in this context is different from using the word in the context of criticising a moral position for having “bad consequences.” Take the legality of drugs, for instance. In a libertarian system drugs would be legal. It would be up to an individual to make choices about what to put in his or her body. Government cannot rightly interfere, since there are no rights being infringed. Lets say that Bob takes a bunch of drugs and dies of an overdose. That’s a bad consequence, right? But, is it a bad consequence of libertarianism? Hardly. Libertarianism is morally neutral in this respect. It doesn’t advocate drug use. It doesn’t make Bob take an overdose. Libertarianism simply creates the space in which people are free from the unjustified interference of others to make their own decisions about their lives. People might abuse their freedom and do all manner of bad things to themselves. But that is a matter for them. Although libertarianism creates the possibility for such things it does not cause them; in other words they are not direct consequences of libertarianism. They are direct consequences of the free actions of human beings. So when I say “libertarianism is the correct political philosophy regardless of consequences” I mean to say that libertarianism is the correct form of political government despite the fact that some people will choose to act in ways which might bring bad consequences on themselves. That some people will bring bad consequences on themselves is not a point against libertarianism, or a reason to limit freedom. Libertarianism is rational whether or not people choose to do bad things to themselves. It is the actions of people that have moral weight, not the framework which allows them the freedom.

If the above is true then it seems to me to be fairly obvious that such a libertarian can be a moral consequentialist without inconsistency. He can hold that an action is immoral if it has bad consequences, and live his life in accordance with that principle. In the above example, he can rightly hold that the RCC policy is bad because it bends the truths of science and misleads people - very vulnerable people - to their death. The RCC’s policy directly leads to - that is, causes - death on a grand scale. It has bad consequences, whereas libertarianism has no consequences at all but simply creates the space wherein people freely act and accept the consequences of so doing. Libertarianism has no direct and morally relevant consequences at all, despite the fact that there are good and bad consequences that follow certain actions performed under a libertarian system. The distinction here is between the concept of “causation” and the concept of “enabling.” Libertarianism enables good and bad consequences: it doesn’t cause either good or bad consequences. Enabling is a morally neutral concept, causation is directly morally relevant.

Within the wider framework of libertarianism a person can readily accept that if an action leads to bad consequences then it is immoral. We must remember that it is human actions that are either moral or immoral. Libertarianism is not an action. Socially speaking, it could be described as a vacuum, or an empty space, and as such it lies beyond morality. For this reason it is a category mistake to apply moral consequentialism to libertarianism itself. In a sense it is “pre-moral,” and, incidentally, is the only system that actually makes full and genuine morality possible. It provides the stage on which full and genuine moral behaviour can take place. Central to the notion of morality is the concept of freedom. We don’t count robots as morally good when they defuse a bomb. Nor do we count them morally bad if they have been programmed to kill people. By virtue of the fact that they cannot choose to act this way or that they do not count as moral agents. Morality requires freedom. Freedom requires libertarianism, the only political philosophy to guarantee it.

So, to my mind it is perfectly consistent to adhere to libertarianism “regardless of the consequences” while at the same time adhering to a moral position that judges human actions by their consequences. This doesn't mean libertarians should be consequentialists - I for one am not - it simply means that they can be without being inconsistent.

Stephen Graham

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