You don’t have to be vegetarian to be green. Many special environments have been created by livestock farming – for example chalk down land in England and mountain pastures in many countries. Ending livestock farming would see these areas go back to woodland with a loss of many unique plants and animals. Growing crops can also be very bad for the planet, with fertilisers and pesticides polluting rivers, lakes and seas. Most tropical forests are now cut down for timber, or to allow oil palm trees to be grown in plantations, not to create space for meat production.  British farmer and former editor Simon Farrell also states: “Many vegans and vegetarians rely on one source from the U.N. calculation that livestock generates 18% of global carbon emissions, but this figure contains basic mistakes. It attributes all deforestation from ranching to cattle, rather than logging or development. It also muddles up one-off emissions from deforestation with on-going pollution.”  He also refutes the statement of meat production inefficiency: “Scientists have calculated that globally the ratio between the amounts of useful plant food used to produce meat is about 5 to 1. If you feed animals only food that humans can eat — which is, indeed, largely the case in the Western world — that may be true. But animals also eat food we can't eat, such as grass. So the real conversion figure is 1.4 to 1.” [1] At the same time eating a vegetarian diet may be no more environmentally friendly than a meat based diet if it is not sustainably sourced or uses perishable fruit and vegetables that are flown in from around the world. Eating locally sourced food can has as big an impact as being vegetarian. [2]  [1] Tara Kelly, Simon Fairlie: How Eating Meat Can Save the World, 12 October 2010  [2] Lucy Siegle, ‘It is time to become a vegetarian?’ The Observer, 18th May 2008

animals environment general health health general weight philosophy ethics

Being vegetarian helps the environment  Becoming a vegetarian is an environmentally friendly thing to do. Modern farming is one of the main sources of pollution in our rivers. Beef farming is one of the main causes of deforestation, and as long as people continue to buy fast food in their billions, there will be a financial incentive to continue cutting down trees to make room for cattle. Because of our desire to eat fish, our rivers and seas are being emptied of fish and many species are facing extinction. Energy resources are used up much more greedily by meat farming than my farming cereals, pulses etc. Eating meat and fish not only causes cruelty to animals, it causes serious harm to the environment and to biodiversity. For example consider Meat production related pollution and deforestation  At Toronto’s 1992 Royal Agricultural Winter Fair, Agriculture Canada displayed two contrasting statistics: “it takes four football fields of land (about 1.6 hectares) to feed each Canadian” and “one apple tree produces enough fruit to make 320 pies.” Think about it — a couple of apple trees and a few rows of wheat on a mere fraction of a hectare could produce enough food for one person! [1]  The 2006 U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report concluded that worldwide livestock farming generates 18% of the planet's greenhouse gas emissions — by comparison, all the world's cars, trains, planes and boats account for a combined 13% of greenhouse gas emissions. [2]  As a result of the above point producing meat damages the environment. The demand for meat drives deforestation. Daniel Cesar Avelino of Brazil's Federal Public Prosecution Office says “We know that the single biggest driver of deforestation in the Amazon is cattle.” This clearing of tropical rainforests such as the Amazon for agriculture is estimated to produce 17% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. [3] Not only this but the production of meat takes a lot more energy than it ultimately gives us chicken meat production consumes energy in a 4:1 ratio to protein output; beef cattle production requires an energy input to protein output ratio of 54:1.  The same is true with water use due to the same phenomenon of meat being inefficient to produce in terms of the amount of grain needed to produce the same weight of meat, production requires a lot of water. Water is another scarce resource that we will soon not have enough of in various areas of the globe. Grain-fed beef production takes 100,000 liters of water for every kilogram of food. Raising broiler chickens takes 3,500 liters of water to make a kilogram of meat. In comparison, soybean production uses 2,000 liters for kilogram of food produced; rice, 1,912; wheat, 900; and potatoes, 500 liters. [4] This is while there are areas of the globe that have severe water shortages. With farming using up to 70 times more water than is used for domestic purposes: cooking and washing. A third of the population of the world is already suffering from a shortage of water. [5] Groundwater levels are falling all over the world and rivers are beginning to dry up. Already some of the biggest rivers such as China’s Yellow river do not reach the sea. [6]  With a rising population becoming vegetarian is the only responsible way to eat.  [1] Stephen Leckie, ‘How Meat-centred Eating Patterns Affect Food Security and the Environment’, International development research center  [2] Bryan Walsh, Meat: Making Global Warming Worse, Time magazine, 10 September 2008 .  [3] David Adam, Supermarket suppliers ‘helping to destroy Amazon rainforest’, The Guardian, 21st June 2009.  [4] Roger Segelken, U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat, Cornell Science News, 7th August 1997.  [5] Fiona Harvey, Water scarcity affects one in three, FT.com, 21st August 2003  [6] Rupert Wingfield-Hayes, Yellow river ‘drying up’, BBC News, 29th July 2004

The key to good health is a balanced diet, not a meat- and fish-free diet. Meat and fish are good sources of protein, iron, and other vitamins and minerals. Most of the health benefits of a vegetarian diet derive from its being high in fibre and low in fat and cholesterol. These can be achieved by avoiding fatty and fried foods, eating only lean grilled meat and fish, and including a large amount of fruit and vegetables in your diet along with meat and fish. In general, raw, unprocessed meat from the muscle is made up of the following: protein 15 - 22 % Fat 3 - 15 % Minerals, carbohydrates 1 - 5 % Water 65 - 75 %, all things that we need in moderation. [1] A meat- and fish-free diet is unbalanced and makes it more likely that you will go short of protein, iron and some minerals such as B12 for which we are primarily dependent on animal foodstuffs. Also, a vegetarian diet, in the West, is a more expensive option - a luxury for the middle classes. Fresh fruit and vegetables are extremely expensive compared to processed meats, bacon, burgers, sausages etc.  [1] Bell, ‘Nutrition &amp; Well-Being’

It is immoral to kill animals  As evolved human beings it is our moral duty to inflict as little pain as possible for our survival. So if we do not need to inflict pain to animals in order to survive, we should not do it. Farm animals such as chickens, pigs, sheep, and cows are sentient living beings like us - they are our evolutionary cousins and like us they can feel pleasure and pain. The 18th century utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham even believed that animal suffering was just as serious as human suffering and likened the idea of human superiority to racism. It is wrong to farm and kill these animals for food when we do not need to do so. The methods of farming and slaughter of these animals are often barbaric and cruel - even on supposedly 'free range' farms. [1] Ten billion animals were slaughtered for human consumption each year, stated PETA. And unlike the farms long time ago, where animals roamed freely, today, most animals are factory farmed: crammed into cages where they can barely move and fed a diet adulterated with pesticides and antibiotics. These animals spend their entire lives in their “prisoner cells” so small that they can't even turn around. Many suffer serious health problems and even death because they are selectively bred to grow or produce milk or eggs at a far greater rate than their bodies are capable of coping with. At the slaughterhouse, there were millions of others who are killed every year for food.  Further on Tom Regan explains that all duties regarding animals are indirect duties to one another from a philosophical point of view. He illustrates it with an analogy regarding children: “Children, for example, are unable to sign contracts and lack rights. But they are protected by the moral contract nonetheless because of the sentimental interests of others. So we have, then, duties involving these children, duties regarding them, but no duties to them. Our duties in their case are indirect duties to other human beings, usually their parents.” [2] With this he supports the theory that animals must be protected from suffering, as it is moral to protect any living being from suffering, not because we have a moral contract with them, but mainly due to respect of life and recognition of suffering itself.  [1] Claire Suddath, A brief history of Veganism, Time, 30 October 2008  [2] Tom Regan, The case for animal rights, 1989

There is a great moral difference between humans and animals. Unlike animals, humans are capable of rational thought and can alter the world around them. Other creatures were put on this earth for mankind to use, and that includes eating meat. For all these reasons we say that men and women have rights and that animals don’t. This means that eating meat is in no way like murder. It is natural for human beings to farm, kill, and eat other species. In the wild there is a brutal struggle for existence. The fact that we humans have succeeded in that struggle by exploiting our natural environment means that we have a natural right over lower species. In fact farming animals is much less brutal than the pain and hardship that animals inflict on each other naturally in the wild.  Eating meat does not need to mean cruelty to animals. There are a growing number of organic and free-range farms that can provide meat without cruelty to animals. Similarly, it might be reasonable to argue for an extension of animal welfare laws to protect farm animals - but that does not mean that it is wrong in principle to eat meat.

Food safety and hygiene are very important for everyone, and governments should act to ensure that high standards are in place particularly in restaurants and other places where people get their food from. But food poisoning can occur anywhere “People don't like to admit that the germs might have come from their own home” [1] and while meat is particularly vulnerable to contamination there are bacteria that can be transmitted on vegetables, for example Listeria monocytogenes can be transmitted raw vegetables. [2]  Almost three-quarters of zoonotic transmissions are caused by pathogens of wildlife origin; even some that could have been caused by livestock such as avian flu could equally have come from wild animals. There is little we can do about the transmission of such diseases except by reducing close contact. Thus changing to vegetarianism may reduce such diseases by reducing contact but would not eliminate them. [3]  Just as meat production can raise health issues, so does the arable farming of plants – examples include GM crops and worries about pesticide residues on fruit and vegetables. The important thing is not whether the diet is meat based or vegetarian; just that we should ensure all food is produced in a safe and healthy way.  [1] ‘ 10 ways to prevent food poisoning’, nhs.co.uk, 28th November 2010.  [2] Food Poisoning, emedicinehealth.  [3] Ulrich Desselberger, ‘The significance of zoonotic transmission of viruses in human disease’, Microbiology Today, November 2009.

Vegetarianism is healthier  There are significant health benefits to 'going veggie'; a vegetarian diet contains high quantities of fibre, vitamins, and minerals, and is low in fat. (A vegan diet is even better since eggs and dairy products are high in cholesterol.) The risk of contracting many forms of cancer is increased by eating meat: in 1996 the American Cancer Society recommended that red meat should be excluded from the diet entirely. Eating meat also increases the risk of heart disease - vegetables contain no cholesterol, which can build up to cause blocked arteries in meat-eaters. An American study found out that: “that men in the highest quintile of red-meat consumption — those who ate about 5 oz. of red meat a day, roughly the equivalent of a small steak had a 31% higher risk of death over a 10-year period than men in the lowest-consumption quintile, who ate less than 1 oz. of red meat per day, or approximately three slices of corned beef.” [1] A vegetarian diet reduces the risk for chronic degenerative diseases such as obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes and types of cancer including colon, breast, stomach, and lung cancer because of it's low fat/cholesterol content. There are plenty of vegetarian sources of protein, such as beans and bean curd; and spinach is one of the best sources of iron.  [1] Tiffany Sharples, ‘The Growing Case Against Red Meat’, Time, 23rd March 2009

Being vegetarian reduces risks of food poisoning  Almost all dangerous types of food poisoning are passed on through meat or eggs. So Campylobacter bacteria, the most common cause of food poisoning in England, are usually found in raw meat and poultry, unpasteurised milk and untreated water. Salmonella come from raw meat, poultry and dairy products and most cases of escherichia coli (E-Coli) food poisoning occur after eating undercooked beef or drinking unpasteurised milk. [1]  Close contact between humans and animals also leads to zoonosis – diseases such as bird ‘flu which can be passed on from animals to humans. Using animal brains in the processed feed for livestock led to BSE in cattle and to CJD in humans who ate beef from infected cows.  [1] Causes of food poisoning, nhs.co.uk, 23rd June 2009

To suggest that battery farms are in some way 'natural' is absurd - they are unnatural and cruel. To eat meat is to perpetuate animal suffering on a huge scale - a larger, crueler, and more systematic scale than anything found in the wild. Furthermore, the very fact of humanity's 'superiority' over other animals means they have the reason and moral instinct to stop exploiting other species. If an alien species from another planet, much more intelligent and powerful than humans, came and colonized the earth and farmed (and force-fed) human beings in battery farm conditions we would think it was morally abhorrent. If this would be wrong, then is it not wrong for we 'superior' humans to farm 'lower' species on earth simply because of our ability to do so?

Human evolved as omnivores over thousands of years. Yet since the invention of farming there is no longer a need for us to be omnivores. Even if we wished to we could no longer collect, hunt and eat our food in the same way as our ancestors as we could not support the human population. We have outstripped the pace of our evolution and if we do not want to be turning ever more land over to farming we have get our food from the most efficient sources, which means being vegetarian.

There are problems with being vegetarian  A vegetarian or vegan diet may result in a person not getting enough iron. This is because, although you can get iron from foods such as pulses, green leafy vegetables and nuts, the iron in these foods isn't absorbed so easily. The symptoms of this feeling breathless after little exercise, feeling tired and a short attention span and poor concentration. [1] These symptoms could negatively affect proficiency in school and the ability to perform well at work ultimately leading to a loss of productivity which has both personal effects and broader effects for the economy. Other conditions include frequently becoming ill, frequently becoming depressed, and malnourishment.  [1] Bupa's Health Information Team, ‘Iron-deficiency anaemia’, bupa.co.uk, March 2010,

Survival of the fittest  It is natural for human beings to farm, kill, and eat other species. In the wild there is a brutal struggle for existence as is shown by Darwin’s On the Origin of the Species. [1] The fact that we humans have succeeded in that struggle by exploiting our natural environment means that we have a natural right over lower species. The concept of survival of the fittest may seem outdated but it is still the defining order of nature. In fact farming animals is much less brutal than the pain and hardship that animals inflict on each other naturally in the wild.  [1] Darwin, Charles, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life., Literature.org

Humans can choose their own nutrition plan  Humans are omnivores – we are meant to eat both meat and plants. Like our early ancestors we have sharp canine teeth for tearing animal flesh and digestive systems adapted to eating meat and fish as well as vegetables. Our stomachs are also adapted to eating both meat and vegetable matter. All of this means that eating meat is part of being human. Only in a few western countries are people self-indulgent enough to deny their nature and get upset about a normal human diet. We were made to eat both meat and vegetables - cutting out half of this diet will inevitably mean we lose that natural balance. Eating meat is entirely natural. Like many other species, human beings were once hunters. In the wild animals kill and are killed, often very brutally and with no idea of “rights”. As mankind has progressed over thousands of years we have largely stopped hunting wild animals. Instead we have found kinder and less wasteful ways of getting the meat in our diets through domestication. Farm animals today are descended from the animals we once hunted in the wild.

The problems with fatigue, apathetic behaviour and concentration are mostly a result from a lack of iron in the diet. However as with any diet this is only a problem when not eating the right things, this regularly means that such iron deficiency can be a problem in the developing world where vegetarians have little choice – usually eating little else except what they grow, normally just cereals. “Although the iron stores of vegetarians are sometimes reduced, the incidence of iron-deficiency anaemia in vegetarians is not significantly different from that in the general population”, there are plenty of sources of iron that can be eaten by vegetarians such as legumes and whole grains that are a substantial part of most western vegetarian’s diets meaning it is not a problem. [1] Research done in Australia concludes that "There was no significant difference between mean daily iron intakes of vegetarians and omnivores". [2]  [1] David Ogilvie, Nutrition: Iron and Vegetarian Diets, Vegetarian Network Victoria, September 2010.  [2] Madeleine J Ball and Melinda A Bartlett, ‘Dietary intake and iron status of Australian vegetarian women’, American Society for Clinical Nutrition, 1999

What then is the interest of the animal? If releasing these animals into the wild would kill them then surely it is humane to put them down after the experiment. It must also be remembered that the interest of the animal is not the main and is outweighed by the benefits to humans. [5]

Animal research causes severe harm to the animals involved  The point of animal research is that animals are harmed. Even if they don’t suffer in the experiment, almost all are killed afterwards. With 115 million animals used a year this is a big problem. Releasing medical research animals in to the wild would be dangerous for them, and they would not be usable as pets. [4]. The only solution is that they are wild from birth.  It is obvious that it’s not in the interest of animals to be killed or harmed. Research should be banned in order to prevent the deaths of millions of animals.

The laws that restrict animal testing only allow it where it’s needed.  Animal testing isn’t cheap, meaning that if universities and the drug industry have a good reason to end it if they can. If we ban animal testing we won’t know what it would be able to do in the future. Animal research now has better results than other ways of doing research. [8]

It would send out a consistent message  Most countries have animal welfare laws to prevent animal cruelty but have laws like the UK’s Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, [10] that stop animal testing being a crime. This makes means some people can do things to animals, but not others. If the government are serious about animal abuse, why allow anyone to do it?

Animals shouldn’t be harmed  The difference between us and other animals is a matter of degree rather than type [2]. Their bodies resemble ours, as do their ways of conveying meaning. They recoil from pain, appear to express fear of a tormentor, and appear to take pleasure in activities; a point clear to anyone who has observed a pet dog on hearing the word “walk”.  We believe other people experience feelings like us because they are like us in appearance and behaviour. An animal sharing our anatomical, physiological, and behavioural characteristics is surely likely to have feelings like us.  If people have a right to not be harmed, we must ask ourselves what makes animals different? If animals feel what we feel, and suffer like us, to condemn one to testing because of them being of a different species is similar to racism or sexism.[3]

The right of a human not to be harmed is based not on appearance but on not harming others. Animals don’t participate in this.  Animals won’t stop hunting because of the pain and feelings of other animals. Even if animal testing were to be abolished people would still eat meat, and kill animals for other less worthwhile reasons than animal testing.

There is a moral difference between harm for the sake of harming an animal and harm in order to save lives. Lifesaving drugs is a very different purpose to betting or enjoyment that animal welfare laws are aimed at.

The decision to test is not based upon the capacity to suffer. But it should be remembered that the individual being tested would not be the only one who suffers, for the intellectually disabled we must remember their families would suffer as well.

It isn’t necessary  We don’t know how we will be able to develop new drugs without animal testing until we end it. We now know how most chemicals work, and computer simulations of chemicals are very good.[6] Experimenting on tissue can show how drugs work, without the need for actual animals. Even skin left over from surgery can be experiment on, and being human, is more useful.  The fact that animal research was needed in the past isn’t a good excuse any more. We still have all the advancements from animal testing in the past, but it’s no longer needed. [7]

Most animals can suffer more than some people  It’s possible to think of people that can’t suffer, like those in a persistent vegetative state, or with significant intellectual disabilities.  We could go for one of three options. Either we could experiment on animals, but not such people, which is morally not consistent. We could allow both, but do we want to do painful medical research on the disabled? Or, we could do neither.[9]

When a drug is first tested on human volunteers, they are only given a tiny fraction of the amount shown safe to give to primates showing there is another way, to start with very low doses. Animal research isn’t a reliable indicator of how a drug will work in people – even with animal testing, some drugs trials go very wrong [15].

To argue that “the ends justify the means” isn’t enough. We don’t know how much animals suffer, as they can’t talk to us. We therefore don’t know how aware they are of themselves. In order to stop a moral harm on animals we don’t understand, we shouldn’t do animal testing.  Even if it were a “net gain” because of the results, by that logic human experimentation could be justified. Common morality says that isn’t OK, as people shouldn’t be used to a means to an end. [12]

People will die if we don’t do animal testing  Every year, 23 new drugs are introduced in the UK alone.[13] Almost all will be tested on animals. A new drug will be used for a long time. Think of all the people saved by the use of penicillin. If drugs cost more to test, that means drug companies will develop less. This means more people suffering and dying

Research animals are well treated  Animals used in research generally don’t suffer. While they may be in pain, they are generally given pain killers, and when they are put down this is done humanely. [16] They are looked after, as healthy animals mean better experimental results. These animals live better lives than they would in the wild.  As long as animals are treated well there shouldn’t be a moral objection to animal research. This is exactly the same as with raising animals that will be used for meat.

Animal research is only used when it’s needed  EU member states and the US have laws to stop animals being used for research if there is any alternative. The 3Rs principles are commonly used. Animal testing is being Refined for better results and less suffering, Replaced, and Reduced in terms of the number of animals used. This means that less animals have to suffer, and the research is better.

Testing is needed for really new drugs  The real benefit of animal testing is making totally new drugs, which is about a quarter of them. After non-animal and then animal tests, it will be tested on humans. The reason why the risk is low (but not non-existent) for these brave volunteers, is because of the animal tests.  These new chemicals are the ones most likely to produce improvements to people’s lives, because they are new. You couldn’t do research on these new drugs without either animal testing or putting humans at a much higher risk.

Just because an animal is treated well as it is brought up doesn’t stop the very real suffering during testing. Stricter rules and painkillers don’t help as the lack of suffering cannot be guaranteed – if we knew what would happen, we wouldn’t do the experiment.

Animals don’t have human rights  Humans have large brains, form social groups, communicate and are generally worthy of moral consideration. We also are aware of ourselves and of the nature of death. Some animals have some of these characteristics but not all so should not have the same rights. In harming animals to benefit humans, we enter in to a good moral trade-off to create a greater good. [11]

Not every country has laws like the EU or the US. In countries with low welfare standards animal testing is a more attractive option. Animal researchers tend to only do animal research so don’t know about the alternatives. As a result they will use animal testing unnecessarily not as just a last resort.

Many of these drugs are “me too” drugs – ones with a slight change that doesn’t make much difference to an existing drug. [14] So often the benefits from animal testing are marginal, and even if there was a slight increase in human suffering, it would be worth it based on the animal suffering saved.

Tougher protection of Africa’s nature reserves will only result in more bloodshed. Every time the military upgrade their weaponry, tactics and logistic, the poachers improve their own methods to counter them. In the past decade, over 1,000 rangers have been killed whilst protecting Africa’s endangered wildlife. [1] Every time one side advances its position the other side matches it. When armed military patrols were sent out, poachers switched their tactics so every hunter has several ‘guards’ to combat the military. The lack of an advantageous position in the arms race has ensured that the poaching war is yet to be won. [2]  [1] Smith, D. ‘Execute elephant poachers on the spot, Tanzanian minister urges’  [2] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’

animals international africa house would african government implement tougher

Poaching is becoming more advanced  A stronger, militarised approach is needed as poaching is becoming far more advanced. Poachers now operate with high-calibre rifles, night vision scopes, silencers and use helicopters to hunt their prey. [1] These methods are used particularly against rhinoceroses in South Africa, whose horns have become extremely valuable on the Asian market for their supposed medical properties. [2] In response to this, South African rangers are being given specialised training and use their own aerial surveillance to track poachers down with success, [3] supporting the argument for a militarised response to protect endangered animals.  [1] WWF, ‘African rhino poaching crisis’  [2] Zapwing, ‘The Rhino Poaching Crisis’  [3] ibid

Not all endangered animals have such cultural significance within Africa. Pangolins are armoured mammals which are native to Africa and Asia. Like rhinoceros, pangolins are endangered due to their demand in East Asia. They are relatively unknown however, and therefore have little cultural significance. [1] This is the case for many of Africa’s lesser known endangered species. Any extension of protection for endangered animals based on their cultural significance would be unlikely to save many of these species.  [1] Conniff, R. ‘Poaching Pangolins: An Obscure Creature Faces Uncertain Future’

The justice system does not currently work  A major failing in current anti-poaching operations is that the poachers are rarely prosecuted. African legal systems rarely prioritise poaching as a serious crime, with offenders usually receiving trivial fines1. One of the major reasons for the Western black rhinoceros’ extinction in 2011 was the complete lack of sentencing for any of the poachers who were captured. [1] The system also fails to prosecute the brains behind many of the operations due to poor investigative methods. This creates an impression in the minds of the poachers that they can operate with impunity. [2]  [1] Mathur, A. ‘Western Black Rhino Poached Out of Existence; Declared Extinct, Slack Anti-Poaching Efforts Responsible’  [2] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’

Natural habitats being are destroyed  A tougher approach to the protection of animals is needed to prevent their natural habitats from being destroyed by locals. As humans expand their agricultural activity in Africa they are destroying the environments of endangered animals and pushing others towards being endangered. Due to an increase in large scale cotton plantations and food crops, the West African lion has seen a marked decrease in population; numbering less than 400 in early 2014 [1] . Tougher protection, such as fencing off areas from human activity, has been suggested and has seen success in South Africa [2] .  [1] BBC, “Lions ‘facing extinction in West Africa’”  [2] Morelle,R. “Fencing off wild lions from humans ‘could save them’”

Human development is of great importance to the African continent, arguably more so than conserving endangered animals. In 2010 it was estimated that there are 239 million sub-Saharan Africans living in poverty. [1] Poverty can be the cause of a wide array of political, security and socio-economic issues. Possible sources of income, such as cotton plantations and food crops, should therefore be embraced as they will have a more positive impact on the region than the survival of endangered species.  [1] World Hunger, ‘Africa Hunger and Poverty Facts’

Deterrents in the criminal justice system have not worked in similar cases. The US drug war, which identified a specific activity and made it a matter of national security, has resulted in harsh sentences for those who deal or smuggle illicit substances. Despite these harsh punishments however, there has been little success in defeating the drug business as the profit margin for the trade is too high. [1] With Ivory and other products for which poachers are hunting the same will happen; if some poachers are put up the prices will simply go up encouraging others. Tougher protection of animals through increased conviction rates and extended terms is likely to fail.  [1] BBC, “Global war on drugs ‘has failed’ says former leaders’

Linking animal endangerment and poaching to terrorism as a justification for action unnecessarily securitises the issue. This will only serve to create a situation where state actors can use poaching as an excuse to exploit threats. As with the war on drugs and the war on terror, this power is apportioned to actors who are then capable of abusing it for the sake of national security. [1]  [1] Crick,E. ‘Drugs as an existential threat: An analysis of the international securitization of drugs’

Endangered animals are a source of pride for African countries  Endangered animals warrant a tougher degree of protection in Africa as they have notable cultural significance. Some groups believe that African elephants have mystic powers attached to them and have coveted them for centuries. [1] African lions have been depicted on the coat of arms for states and institutions both past and present. [2] They are intrinsically linked with Africa’s past and its identity. The extinction of these animals, therefore, would have a negative cultural impact and should be prevented.  [1] University of California, Los Angeles, ‘Elephant: The Animal and its Ivory in African Culture’  [2] Coleman, Q. ‘The importance of African lions’

Poaching is linked to terrorism  Stronger protection of animals should be implemented to reduce the funding for terrorist groups. Certain terrorist organisations use the illegal ivory and horn trade as funding for their operations. Al-Shabaab, the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), and the Sudanese Janjaweed all use the illicit trade as a source of income, with the former using the trade for 40% of its expenditure. [1] This enables them to carry out attacks such as the 2013 Westgate siege in Kenya. [2] Tougher protection of endangered animals would reduce the ability of these groups to fund themselves. In turn, this would decrease their operational capability, increasing stability in Africa.  [1] Stewart, C. ‘Illegal ivory trade funds al-shabaab’s terrorist attacks’  [2] Tackett,C. ‘How elephant poaching helped fund Kenya terrorist attack’

There is no guarantee that legalising the trade would satisfy demand in East Asia. [1] Nor is there any substantial evidence to suggest that prices would drop to the point where hunters could no longer sustain themselves. If neither of these factors transpires then there is a strong likelihood that endangered animals would be hunted to extinction.  [1] Player, I. &amp; Fourie, A. ‘How to win the war against poachers’

There are numerous sponsors who contribute towards animal protection schemes, reducing the government’s burden. Private wildlife custodians spend significant sums of money ensuring they are fully equipped to deal with poachers. There are also private donors and interest groups such as World Wildlife Federation (WWF) who supply funding for the governments’ conservation efforts. [1] This financial support has made projects such as the increased military presence in South Africa’s game parks possible.  [1] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’

Fewer human deaths  Fewer large beasts will lead to fewer deaths in Africa. Some endangered animals are aggressive and will attack humans. Hippopotamuses kill in excess of three hundred humans a year in Africa, with other animals such as the elephant and lion also causing many fatalities. [1] Footage released in early 2014 of a bull elephant attacking a tourist’s car in Kruger National Park, South Africa demonstrated the continued threat these animals cause. [2] Tougher protection would result in higher numbers of these animals which increases the risk to human lives.  [1] Animal Danger ‘Most Dangerous Animals’  [2] Withnall, A. ‘Rampaging bull elephant flips over British tourist car in Kruger Park’

Heavy handed approaches do not solve the motivations for poaching  Creating tougher responses to poaching will not deter poachers as they fail to recognise the motivations for illegal hunting. Many hunters, especially those who aren’t native to Africa, take part in poaching as there is a thrill in the illegal status. [1] The close calls, challenges and sense of independence will all be multiplied by increased protection on the game reserves.  Then there are those who take part out of necessity. Poachers will often be able to make $50-100 per kilogram for a rhinoceros’ horn [2] and the bush meat from kills can be a necessary source of nutrition. [3] Poaching creates opportunities for Africans which are usually unavailable in licit work. Tougher protection of animals fails to provide an alternative livelihood for these poachers.  [1] Forsyth, C. &amp; Marckese, T. ‘Thrills and skills: a sociological analysis of poaching’ pg.162  [2] Stewart, C. ‘Illegal ivory trade funds al-shabaab’s terrorist attacks’  [3] BBC, “Lions ‘facing extinction in West Africa’”

Legalising the trade of horns, ivory, furs and pelts would be more effective  Making it legal for hunters to kill these endangered animals, rather than protecting them, could prevent extinction. The protected status of endangered animals has made their pelts, horns and tusks more expensive as they are harder to obtain. [1] The current illegality of trading rhino horns has constrained supply in comparison to demand in Asia. This has driven the price of the horn to around £84,000. Softening protection for endangered animals could, in theory, reduce the price to a point where it is no longer profitable to hunt these endangered animals. [2] This would potentially increase supply by freeing up that seized by governments which is currently destroyed, and could potentially involve farming as South Africa is considering with Rhino horn. [3]  [1] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’  [2] Player, I. &amp; Fourie, A. ‘How to win the war against poachers’  [3] Molewa, E., ‘Statement on Rhino poaching intervention’

African countries have little money to spare  Africa has some of the least developed countries in the world, making extensive protection of endangered animals unviable. Many African countries are burdened by the more pressing issues of civil war, large debts, poverty, and economic underdevelopment. [1] These factors already draw significant amounts of money from limited budgets. Tanzania, for example, has revenue of $5.571 billion and an expenditure of $6.706 billion. [2] Increased expenditure on animal protection projects would only serve to worsen this budget deficit.  [1] Simensen, J. ‘Africa: the causes of under-development and the challenges of globalisation’  [2] The World Factbook ‘Tanzania’

If tough approaches to conservation did not exist then the situation would be far worse. [1] The lack of legislation and an armed response to the poaching threat has led to the extinction of many species, such as the Western black rhinoceros. [2] Without the boots on the ground then poaching would most likely expand due to the lack of deterrent which armed guards cause.  [1] Welz, A. ‘The War on African Poaching: Is Militarization Fated to Fail?’  [2] Mathur, A. ‘Western Black Rhino Poached Out of Existence; Declared Extinct, Slack Anti-Poaching Efforts Responsible’

Most of these human deaths are caused by humans invading the territory of the animals at hand. Even giraffes, usually considered peaceful animals, will attack if they feel that humans are too close. Generally, it is the human’s responsibility rather than the animal’s. Increased protection may save more lives as methods such as fencing will forcibly separate humans from animals and decrease the chances of the two coming in to contact. [1]  [1] Morelle, R. “Fencing off wild lions from humans ‘could save them’”

Journalist Jeremy Shere describes the problems with most methods of nuclear storage:  "There have been a few other interesting ideas –such as burying nuclear waste beneath the ocean floor. Scientists have also thought about putting waste in really deep holes, burying it in polar ice sheets, and stashing it beneath uninhabited islands. [...] But there are problems with each of these ideas. For example, it would be difficult to monitor nuclear waste under the ocean floor. Waste buried deep in the earth, meanwhile, might contaminate ground water. And as ice sheets continue to melt, it’s hard to say how long nuclear waste would remain buried, or where it would end up if it floated away. Plans to store waste produced in the United States in Yucca Mountain, in Utah, have been put on hold. So for now almost all nuclear waste is kept above ground in special containers at a few hundred different sites around the country.” [1]  The point with underground nuclear storage is that geological conditions are often very different between states and regions; this would often mean that in some states underground nuclear storage would be completely inappropriate because it could leak due to geological changes. Further, underground nuclear storage as mentioned in the first opposition counterargument, actively encourages a state to become reliant on nuclear power.  [1] Shere, Jeremy. “What Is The Best Way To Dispose Of Nuclear Waste?” Moment of Science. 23/03/2010

Underground Nuclear Storage is Safe  Underground nuclear waste storage means that nuclear waste is stored at least 300m underground. [I1]  The harm of a leak 300m underground is significantly limited, if the area has been chosen correctly then there should be no water sources nearby to contaminate. If this is the case, then a leak’s harm would be limited to the layers of sediment nearby which would be unaffected by radiation. By comparison a leak outside might lead to animals nearby suffering from contamination. Further nuclear waste might reach water sources should there be a leak above ground, if it is raining heavily when the leak happens for example.  Further, the other options available, such as above ground storage present a potentially greater danger, should something go wrong. This is because it is much easier for nuclear waste to leak radiation into the air. This is problematic because even a hint of radiation may well cause people to panic owing to the damaging and heavily publicised consequences of previous nuclear safety crises. As such, underground storage is safer both directly and indirectly. [1]  As well as this, underground storage also prevents nuclear waste or nuclear radiation from reaching other states and as such, results in greater safety across borders. [2]  Further, storing all nuclear waste underground means that countries can concentrate their research and training efforts on responding to subterranean containment failures. Focus and specialisation of this type is much more likely to avert a serious release of nuclear material from an underground facility than the broad and general approach that will be fostered by diverse and distinct above-ground storage solutions.  [1] “Europe eyes underground nuclear waste repositories.” Infowars Ireland. 20/02/2010   [2] “EU Debates Permanent Storage For Nuclear Waste.” 04/11/2010 AboutMyPlanet.   [I1] I am not sure how to replace this section. “Leakage” of radioactive material into the air is a minimal danger. The contributor may be referring to the ejection of irradiated dust and other particulates that has occurred when nuclear power stations have suffered explosive containment failures, but this is not comparable to the types of containment failures that might happen in facilities used to store spent nuclear fuel rods and medical waste.  One of the more substantial risks presented by underground storage is release of nuclear material into a water source.

Underground Nuclear Storage is Necessary  Even states without nuclear waste programs tend to generate radioactive waste. For example, research and medicine both use nuclear material and nuclear technology. Technologies such as Medical imaging equipment are dependent and the use of radioactive elements. This means that all states produce levels of nuclear waste that need to be dealt with.  Moreover, many non-nuclear states are accelerating their programmes of research and investment into nuclear technologies. With the exception of Germany, there is an increasing consensus among developed nations that nuclear power is the only viable method of meeting rising domestic demand for energy in the absence of reliable and efficient renewable forms of power generation.  The alternatives to putting nuclear waste in underground storage tend to be based around the reuse of nuclear waste in nuclear power stations. Whilst this is viable in some areas, in countries which lack the technology to be able to do this and in countries which don’t need to rely on nuclear power, this option becomes irrelevant. Further, even this process results in the creation of some nuclear waste, so in countries with the technology to implement such a solution, the disposal of the remaining nuclear waste is still an issue.  As such, underground nuclear storage is a necessary method that should be used to dispose of nuclear waste. [1]  [1] “The EU’s deep underground storage plan.” 03/11/2010. World Nuclear News.

Underground nuclear storage is not the only way to store nuclear material. Economically speaking, it is more expensive, but likely much safer to store nuclear waste above ground in facilities that can be easily monitored and dealt with. Unlike in underground storage facilities, should something go wrong above ground, it can be responded to quickly and efficiently and it is likely that problems will be detected earlier as well.  Further, widely implementing underground nuclear storage would also encourage states to be more cavalier with their nuclear energy policies. Specifically, whilst nuclear energy generation may result in zero carbon emissions, the mining and milling of uranium that initially starts the process is environmentally damaging. [1]  [1] ISN Security Watch. “Europe’s Nuclear Waste Storage Problems.” Oilprice.com 01/06/2010

Integral Fast Reactors are not a solution for the short term. There are currently no Integral Fast Reactors in commercial operation and the research reactor that was to be constructed by the United States was cancelled in 1994. Any attempt to use IFRs to recycle all of the world’s nuclear waste would be very expensive and would not be an immediate solution – the waste would need to be stored somewhere while it waits to be used by the new reactors.

The economic costs of underground storage are high. However, given that nuclear power is necessary to avoid what would likely be a very significant amount of economic harm, specifically from global warming. For example, it has been projected that not doing anything to address climate change would result in an overall increase in temperate of 5 degrees Celsius which would lead to economic costs in the order of $74 trillion. This means that the need for nuclear waste storage is inevitable. [1]  As such, whilst underground storage does cost more than alternate options, it is as mentioned within the proposition case the safest and most reliable method of nuclear waste storage. As such, proposition is willing to take the harm of extra cost in order to prevent harm to people’s health and well being.  [1] Ackerman, Frank. Stanton, Elizabeth. “Climate Change –the Costs of Inaction.” Friend of the Earth. 11/10/2006

There Are Better Alternatives to Underground Nuclear Waste Storage  France is the largest nuclear energy producer in the world. It generates 80% of its electricity from nuclear power. [1] It is very important to note, therefore, that it does not rely on underground nuclear waste storage. Instead, it relies on above ground, on-site storage. This kind of storage combined with heavy reprocessing and recycling of nuclear waste, makes underground storage unnecessary. [2]  As such it seems logical that in most western liberal democracies that are able to reach the same level of technological progress as France, it makes more sense to store nuclear waste above ground. Above ground, checks and balances can be put into place that allow the maintenance of these nuclear storage facilities to be monitored more closely. Furthermore, reprocessing and recycling leads to less wasted Uranium overall. This is important as Uranium, whilst being plentiful in the earth, is often difficult to mine and mill. As such, savings here often significantly benefit things such as the environment and lower the economic cost of the entire operation.  [1] BBC News, ‘France nuclear power funding gets 1bn euro boost’, 27 June 2011,   [2] Palfreman, Jon. “Why the French Like Nuclear Energy.” PBS.

Nuclear waste should be reused to create more electricity.  There are new kinds of nuclear reactor such as ‘Integral Fast Reactors’, which can be powered by the waste from normal nuclear reactors (or from uranium the same as any other nuclear reactor). This means that the waste from other reactors or dismantled nuclear weapons could be used to power these new reactors. The Integral Fast Reactor extends the ability to produce energy roughly by a factor of 100. This would therefore be a very long term energy source. [1]  The waste at the end of the process is not nearly as much of a problem, as it is from current reactors. Because the IFR recycles the waste hundreds of times there is very much less waste remaining and what there is has a much shorter half-life, only tens of years rather than thousands. This makes storage for the remainder much more feasible, as there would be much less space required. [2]  [1] Till, Charles, ‘Nuclear Reaction Why DO Americans Fear Nuclear Power’, PBS,   [2] Monbiot, George, ‘We need to talk about Sellafield, and a nuclear solution that ticks all our boxes’, guardian.co.uk, 5 December 2011,

Underground Nuclear Storage is Expensive.  Underground nuclear storage is expensive. This is because the deep geological repositories needed to deal with such waste are difficult to construct. This is because said repositories need to be 300m underground and also need failsafe systems so that they can be sealed off should there be a leak. For smaller countries, implementing this idea is almost completely impossible.  Further, the maintenance of the facilities also requires a lot of long term investment as the structural integrity of the facilities must consistently be monitored and maintained so that if there is a leak, the relevant authorities can be informed quickly and efficiently.  This is seen with the Yucca mountain waste repository site which has cost billions of dollars since the 1990s and was eventually halted due to public fears about nuclear safety. [1]  [1] ISN Security Watch. “Europe’s Nuclear Waste Storage Problems.” Oilprice.com 01/06/2010

Side proposition supports the reuse of nuclear waste; however, it also believes that the remaining nuclear waste left by the process should be stored underground.  This is because, the nuclear waste created from such a recycling process ends up being more concentrated and dangerous radioactively than normal nuclear waste. As such, storage above ground is incredibly dangerous if there is a leak. By comparison, storing the waste underground leaves 300m of sediment between the waste and the air. As such, the chances of the waste reaching a water source or causing panic are reduced as detailed in the proposition substantive. Further, even if there is a leak, the facilities can often be sealed off to prevent this from happening.7

Rising countries, such as India, China, and Brazil, are adopting more efficient technologies than are currently in use in much of the world. While the developing world is contributing to net GHG emission growth, their GHG per person is still far below that of a developed country. And, as a result of the adoption of newer technologies, it is unlikely that their GHG per person will ever equal that found in the developed world. If reductions can be made in the developed world, where it is a fact that the economic resources exist to do so, then net emissions can be stabilized even while emissions in the developing world continue to grow.

Developing world  Developing countries such as China and India are growing rapidly and causing massive increases in global GHG emissions through fossil fuel use and deforestation. It took developed countries 100s of years to create a standard of living high enough for an environmental movement to develop. It is more likely than not that developing countries will continue to increase their annual emissions for decades, greatly eclipsing any potential reductions in the developed world. According to Joseph Romm, former US assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy, "China's growth in emissions could erode all other countries' efforts to stabilize the world's temperature" 1. As a result, atmospheric GHGs will continue to increase, causing greater climate change.  1. Romm, Joseph, 'How Copenhagen can succeed where Kyoto failed', Foreign Policy, June 18, 2009.

Despite the failure of the Copenhagen Protocol, local, regional, national, and international organizations are all still working on solutions for climate change. The Kyoto Protocol was a failure by virtue of its design (too many credits would have gone to former Soviet countries whose GHG reductions were entirely attributable to economic collapse, which would have resulted in a cash transfer but no real reductions). Discussions continue on how best each country can reduce their GHG emissions while remaining economically competitive. The EU ETS trading scheme is an example of just such an endeavour. (See Carbon Trading Schemes)

450 PPM  The IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report determined that atmospheric GHG emissions needed to stabilize at 450ppm in order to avoid a temperature rise of more than 2-2.4C. Atmospheric ppm are currently at 393 and are rising at a rate of about 2 ppm per year. In order to stabilize at 450 ppm, the developed world would need to reduce its emissions by 25-40% by 2020 and 80-90% by 2050 along with significant reductions in the emissions growth rate of developing countries 1. Only a handful of countries (all of them in Europe) have achieved any reduction in annual GHG emissions despite promises to do so going back to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.2 As a result, there is no evidence on which to reasonably conclude that atmospheric GHGs will be stabilized at 450ppm.  1. IPCC (2007). "IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 (AR4)". Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.: Cambridge University Press.  2 The Guardian, World carbon dioxide emissions data by country: China speeds ahead of the rest. (31/1/11).

The fossil fuels which account for the majority of GHG emissions are finite resources. As oil and coal becoming increasingly scarce, markets will naturally switch to more efficient or renewable resources thus stabilizing global GHG emissions. The growth of fuel efficient hybrid and fully electric automobiles are a good example of the market responding to higher fuel prices. (Also see New Technology)

These consequences are often speculation. With such a large and complex system we have no way of knowing what the consequences of climate change. There may well be some tipping points that will accelerate climate change but we do not know when each of these will become a problem and there may also be tipping points that act in the other direction.(See Earth's Resiliency)

Failure to reach global accord  The Kyoto Protocol failed to reduce global GHG emissions and in the midst of an economic crisis, world leaders were unable to even agree to a replacement treaty when it expired. There is no meaningful global emissions reduction treaty ready for ratification and no reason to be optimistic that one is forthcoming. The developing world believes it has a legitimate right to expand economically without emissions caps because the rich world is responsible for the vast majority of emissions over the last 200 years and per capita emissions in developing countries are still far lower than in the developed world. As such, developing countries will only agree to a global accord that pays for their emissions reductions/abatement. However, the developed world is unwilling to transfer wealth in exchange for a right to emit, particularly at a time when so many have large budget deficits 1. Given that the growth of annual emissions is being driven by developing countries, many developed countries (like the US) believe that any treaty that does not include developing countries (particularly China) would be fruitless.  1. The Economist, 'A bad climate for development', 17th September 2009.

Consequences of increased GHGs  Increased GHGs in the atmosphere have numerous significant consequences:  -glaciers, ice sheets, and perma frost will continue to melt. This will increase water levels, release more GHGs (methane, which is twenty times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2 and CO2), and reflect less heat back into the atmosphere exacerbating climate change1.  -the oceans (which are a natural carbon sink) are becoming increasingly acidic which will significantly damage ecosystems such as coral reefs. Additionally, changes in the chemistry of the ocean could affect the amount of CO2 it can absorb and process annually.  -there will be increasing incidents of extreme weather such as hurricanes, floods, and record high/low temperatures. Extreme weather can destroy ecosystems that capture CO2 such as forests and peat bogs leading to less natural CO2 absorption.  These events will accelerate climate change making it more difficult for humans to reduce GHG ppms to a sustainable level. Once average temperatures are above 2.5C, events will be triggered that will be irreversible and it will take 1000s of years of lower GHG emissions for the earth to return to normal 2.  1. Connor, Steve, 'Exclusive: The methane time bomb', The Independent, 23rd September 2008,  2. Wikipedia, "Climate Change Feedback". Retrieved 2011-08-08.

Technological improvements will almost certainly be developed for those who can afford them (as most technology is). However, climate change will have the greatest effect on poor countries that cannot afford mitigation. Potentially, being able to protect the wealthy does not mean that we are not too late on global climate change.

Carbon trading systems may have the effect of slowing the rise in CO2 emissions, and possibly even creating a fall. However this will not solve the problem as changes are already occurring and there may be no way to stop feedback that creates more emissions.

Earth's Resiliency  All the conclusions about the effects of rising atmospheric GHGs are based on computerized climate models. Even those that develop and use the models admit that the models are not nearly complex enough to be 100% accurate. Climate science is incredibly complicated and different models sometimes produce vastly different results 1.Increased carbon dioxide will increase plant life which may mitigate other damages of climate change and protect species currently considered threatened by climate change. Therefore, it is far too early to conclude that humanity is going to be destroyed. The earth's climate is continuously changing, with or without anthropogenic effects, and life has always found a way to continue.  1. Lemonick, Michael D., 'How much can we really trust climate models to tell us about the future?', 18th january 2011.

New Technology  Humanity has revolutionized the world repeatedly through such monumental inventions as agriculture, steel, anti-biotics, and microchips. And as technology has improved, so too has the rate at which technology improves. It is predicted that there will be 32 times more change between 2000 and 2050 than there was between 1950 and 2000. In the midst of this, many great minds will be focussed on emissions abatement and climate control technologies. So, even if the most severe climate predictions do come to pass, it is unimaginable that humanity will not find a way to intervene. Even small changes will make a difference – more efficient coal power stations can emit a third less emissions than less efficient ones 1. Renewable energy will become more competitive and scalable and technology develops we may even be able to remove carbon from the atmosphere so undoing the damage. 1  1. Bradsher, Keith. “China Outpaces U.S. in Cleaner Coal-Fired Plants.”, New York Times Published: May 10, 2009.

Carbon Trading Schemes  The EU ETS is an example of a viable carbon market, it covers thirty countries from the EU as well as Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. Countries within the ETS are using market mechanisms to force domestic emitters to meet national caps as the amount of allowances reduces over time emissions fall. In 2020 under the ETS emissions will be 21% lower than in 2005 1. The IPCC report contains recommendations for how emissions can be abated through the simultaneous application of numerous small reductions and the implementation of abatement technologies and this is exactly what schemes like the ETS encourage. Part of the reason that the ETS is successful is that it is ensuring an even playing field between countries by (more or less) applying its rules equally across borders and industries.2  1. European Trading System, 2010  2. European Commission Climate Action, 'Emissions Trading System'

While climate models may be imperfect they are the best tool presently available to predict the future. Most predict dire consequences if GHGs continue to rise through the 21st century, which is what seems most likely.

While it is clear that such an immense project will have an impact we have little idea what that impact might be. Will the builders be local? Will the suppliers be local? It is likely that the benefit will go elsewhere just as the electricity will go to South Africa rather than providing electricity to the poverty stricken Congolese. [1]  [1] Palitza, Kristin, ‘$80bn Grand Inga hydropower dam to lock out Africa’s poor’, Africa Review, 16 November 2011, www.africareview.com/Business---Finance/80-billion-dollar-Grand-Inga-dam-to-lock-out-Africa-poor/-/979184/1274126/-/kkicv7/-/index.html

omic policy environment climate energy water international africa house would

An immense boost to DRC’s economy  The Grand Inga dam would be an immense boost to the DRC’s economy. It would mean a huge amount of investment coming into the country as almost all the $80 billion construction cost would be coming from outside the country which would mean thousands of workers employed and spending money in the DRC as well as boosting local suppliers. Once the project is complete the dam will provide cheap electricity so making industry more competitive and providing electricity to homes. Even the initial stages through Inga III are expected to provide electricity for 25,000 households in Kinshasa. [1]  [1] ‘Movement on the Grand Inga Hydropower Project’, ujuh, 20 November 2013,

In the short to medium term during the decades the dam is being built investment will surely be concentrated in one place in this vast country; in the west where the dam is, not the east where the conflicts are. Later there is little guarantee that the government will spend the proceeds wisely to develop the country rather than it disappearing through corruption. And this assumes the money flows in from the export of electricity. To enable such exports 3000km of high voltage cable will need to be laid which would be vulnerable to being cut by rebel groups seeking to hurt the government through its wallet. [1]  [1] ‘Explained: The $80 billion Grand Inga Hydropower Project’, ujuh, 21 November 2013,

The dam would power Africa  Only 29% of Sub Saharan Africa’s population has access to electricity. [1] This has immense consequences not just for the economy as production and investment is constrained but also on society. The world bank says lack of electricity affects human rights “People cannot access modern hospital services without electricity, or feel relief from sweltering heat. Food cannot be refrigerated and businesses cannot function. Children cannot go to school… The list of deprivation goes on.” [2] Conveniently it is suggested that the “Grand Inga will thus provide more than half of the continent with renewable energy at a low price,” [3] providing electricity to half a billion people so eliminating much of this electricity gap. [4]  [1] World Bank Energy, ‘Addressing the Electricity Access Gap’, World Bank, June 2010,  p.89  [2] The World Bank, ‘Energy – The Facts’, worldbank.org, 2013,   [3] SAinfo reporter, ‘SA-DRC pact paves way for Grand Inga’, SouthAfrica.info, 20 May 2013,   [4] Pearce, Fred, ‘Will Huge New Hydro Projects Bring Power to Africa’s People?’, Yale Environment 360, 30 May 2013,

It is not the best solution to Africa’s energy crisis. According to a report by the International Energy Agency as an immense dam requires a power grid. Such a grid does not exist and building such a grid is “not proving to be cost effective in more remote rural areas”. In such low density areas local sources of power are best. [1] DRC is only 34% urban and has a population density of only 30 people per km2 [2] so the best option would be local renewable power.  [1] International Energy Agency, ‘Energy for All Financing access for the poor’, World Energy Outlook, 2011,  p.21  [2] Central Intelligence Agency, ‘Congo, Democratic Republic of the’, The World Factbook, 12 November 2013,

There is currently not enough traffic to justify such a large addition to the project. If it were worthwhile then it could be done without the need for building an immense dam.

Will enable the rebuilding of DRC  DR Congo has been one of the most war ravaged countries in the world over the last two decades. The Grand Inga provides a project that can potentially benefit everyone in the country by providing cheap electricity and an economic boost. It will also provide large export earnings; to take an comparatively local example Ethiopia earns $1.5million per month exporting 60MW to Djibouti at 7 cents per KwH [1] comparable to prices in South Africa [2] so if Congo were to be exporting 500 times that (at 30,000 MW only 3/4ths of the capacity) it would be earning $9billion per year. This then will provide more money to invest and to ameliorate problems. The project can therefore be a project for the nation to rally around helping create and keep stability after the surrender of the rebel group M23 in October 2013.  [1] Woldegebriel, E.G., ‘Ethiopia plans to power East Africa with hydro’, trust.org, 29 January 2013,   [2] Burkhardt, Paul, ‘Eskom to Raise S. Africa Power Price 8% Annually for 5 Years’, Bloomberg, 28 February 2013,

A dam could make the Congo more usable  While the Congo is mostly navigable it is only usable internally. The rapids cut the middle Congo off from the sea. The building of the dams could be combined with canalisation and locks to enable international goods to be easily transported to and from the interior. This would help integrate central Africa economically into the global economy making the region much more attractive for investment.

Yes they are. Big international donors like the World Bank who are supporting the project will ensure that there is compensation for those displaced and that they get good accommodation. In a budget of up to $80billion the cost of compensation and relocation is tiny.

The World Bank would be taking a lead role in the project and it proclaims “The World Bank has a zero-tolerance policy on corruption, and we have some of the toughest fiduciary standards of any development agency, including a 24/7 fraud and corruption hotline with appropriate whistle-blower protection.” All documentation would be in the public domain and online so ensuring complete transparency. [1]  [1] Maake, Moyagabo, ‘Concern over SA’s billions in DRC Inga project’, Business Day Live, 24 March 2013,

A dam would damage the environment  Dams due to their generation of renewable electricity are usually seen as environmentally friendly but such mega projects are rarely without consequences. The Grand Inga would lower the oxygen content of the lower course of the river which would mean a loss of species. This would not only affect the river as the Congo’s delta is a submerged area of 300,000km2 far out into the Atlantic. This system is not yet understood but the plume transmits sediment and organic matter into the Atlantic ocean encouraging plankton offshore contributing to the Atlantic’s ability to be a carbon sink. [1]  [1] Showers, Kate, ‘Will Africa’s Mega Dam Have Mega Impacts?’, International Rivers, 5 March 2012,

The cost is too high  The Grand Inga is ‘pie in the sky’ as the cost is too immense. At more than $50-100 billion it is more than twice the GDP of the whole country. [1] Even the much smaller Inga III project has been plagued by funding problems with Westcor pulling out of the project in 2009. [2] This much smaller project still does not have all the financial backing it needs having failed to get firm commitments of investment from anyone except the South Africans. [3] If private companies won’t take the risk on a much smaller project they won’t on the Grand Inga.  [1] Central Intelligence Agency, ‘Congo, Democratic Republic of the’, The World Factbook, 12 November 2013,   [2] ‘Westcor Drops Grand Inga III Project’, Alternative Energy Africa, 14 August 2009,   [3] ‘DRC still looking for Inga III funding’, ESI-Africa.com, 13 September 2013,

Dams displace communities  Dams result in the filling of a large reservoir behind the dam because it has raised the level of the water in the case of the Grand Inga it would create a reservoir 15km long. This is not particularly big but the construction would also displace communities. The previous Inga dams also displaced people. Inga I and II were built 30 and 40 years ago, yet the displaced are still in a shabby prefabricated town called Camp Kinshasa awaiting compensation. [1] Are they likely to do better this time around?  [1] Sanyanga, Ruto, ‘Will Congo Benefit from Grand Inga Dam’, International Policy Digest, 29 June 2013,

Such a big project is beyond DRC’s capacity  The Grand Inga dam project is huge while it means huge potential benefits it just makes it more difficult for the country to manage. Transparency international ranks DRC as 160th out of 176 in terms of corruption [1] so it is no surprise that projects in the country are plagued by it. [2] Such a big project would inevitably mean billions siphoned off. Even if it is built will the DRC be able to maintain it? This seems unlikely. The Inga I and II dams only operate at half their potential due to silting up and a lack of maintenance. [3]  [1] ‘Corruption Perceptions Index 2012’, Transparency International, 2012,   [2] Bosshard, Peter, ‘Grand Inga -- The World Bank's Latest Silver Bullet for Africa’, Huffington Post, 21 April 2013,   [3] Vasagar, Jeevan, ‘Could a $50bn plan to tame this mighty river bring electricity to all of Africa?’, The Guardian, 25 February 2005,

The difficulty of constructing something should not be considered a good argument not to do it. As one of the poorest countries in the world construction will surely have significant support from developed donors and international institutions. Moreover with the energy cooperation treaty between DRC and South Africa there is a guaranteed partner to help in financing and eventually buying the electricity.

Hydroelectric power is clean so would be beneficial in the fight against global warming. Providing such power would reduce the need to other forms of electricity and would help end the problem of cooking fires which not only damage the environment but cause 1.9million lives to be lost globally every year as a result of smoke inhalation. [1] Because the dam will be ‘run of the river’ there won’t be many of the usual problems associated with dams; fish will still be able to move up and down the river and much of the sediment will still be transported over the rapids.  [1] Bunting, Madeleine, ‘How Hillary Clinton’s clean stoves will help African women’, theguardian.com, 21 September 2010,

There are alternatives which are far more palatable means of increasing the rate of organ donation, sparing us the moral quandary associated with denying organs to patients and coercing the populace to donate. An easy example is the opt-out organ donation system, wherein all people are organ donors by default and need to actively remove themselves from the system in order to become non-donors. This alternative turns every person who is indifferent to organ donation, currently a non-donor, into a donor, while preserving the preferences of those with a strong commitment not to donate.

Prioritizing donors creates an incentive to become a donor  The greatest argument for this policy is also the simplest: it will save thousands, perhaps millions of lives. A policy of prioritizing transplants for donors would massively increase the proportion of donors from the status quo of (at best) just over 30% {Confirmed Organ Donors}. Given the number of people who die under circumstances that render many of their organs useless, the rate of donor registration must be as high as possible. The overwhelming incentive that this policy would create to register may well eliminate the scarcity for certain organs altogether; a bonus benefit of this would mean that for organs where the scarcity was eliminated, this policy would not even need to make good on its threat of denial of organs to non-donors (and even if this happened for every organ and thus reduced the incentive to register as a donor, the number of donors could only fall as far as until there was a scarcity again, thus reviving the incentive to donate until the rate of donation reaches an equilibrium with demand.)

The principle of moral reciprocity does not require identical acts. Potential organ recipients who do their part for society in other ways ought to be rewarded. We do not require that citizens repay firefighters by carrying them out of burning buildings, because we recognize a certain division of the responsibility for making the world better. A system that purports to evaluate people’s desert for life is an affront to the inherent human dignity that entitles every human being to life. (see “The right to healthcare is absolute” point below.) Reciprocity means treating others as we would like to be treated even if they don’t do likewise for us.

A Practical Solution  There are many mechanisms by which this policy could be implemented. The one common thread is that those hoping to receive organs would be divided into those registered as donors, and those who are non-donors. Potential recipients who are non-donors would only receive an organ if all requests by donors for such an organ are filled. For example, if there is a scarcity of donated kidneys with the B serotype, organ donors requiring a B kidney would all receive kidneys before any non-donors receive them. The existing metrics for deciding priority among recipients can still be applied within these lists – among both donors and non-donors, individuals could be ranked on who receives an organ first based on who has been on the waiting list longer, or who has more priority based on life expectancy; this policy simply adds the caveat that non-donors only access organs once all donors for their particular organ are satisfied. What defines a “donor” could vary; it could be that they must have been a donor for a certain number of years, or that they must have been a donor prior to needing a transplant, or even a pledge to become a donor henceforth (and indeed, even if they are terminally ill and for other reasons do not recover, some of their organs may still be usable). Finally this policy need not preclude private donations or swaps of organs, and instead can simply be applied to the public system.

The controversial part of this plan is how the status of “donor” is determined. Each standard that could be used has massive, and sometimes monstrous, negative ramifications. If the requirement is that recipients be donors for a certain number of years beforehand, then people who have been donors for a substantial but still inadequate time are being perversely punished simply for not having been doing their civic duty long enough (see also “past decision they cannot now undo” point below). If the standard is simply that they must have been a donor for any amount of time, however small, prior to needing the organ, this perversely encourages patients to hide their need for an organ long enough for them to register as donors and then collect their organ; any attempt to solve this would require doctors to report on their patients’ need for organs, eroding patient privacy and turning the doctor-patient relationship adversarial. The last of the proposed standards, that the recipient only need to sign up to be a donor in the future, causes all the alleged benefits of this to policy evaporate; the average person will not sign up to become a donor, as they know that they can always sign up later in the event that they need an organ. This plan only gets any benefit whatsoever if healthy people are signing up to be donors as a cautionary measure, rather than a small group of sick and likely elderly people who only sign up when they need organs. In addition to reducing the pool of donors, such a standard which calls for people to be donors from the time of their need onwards would require a massive breach of body rights to enforce. In order to make it binding (and prevent people from de-registering as donors once they no longer need organs), the state would have to say that they can no longer withdraw their consent to be donors, which amounts to the state laying claim to their organs.

Even granting the premise that people ought to donate their organs anyway, the role of the state is not to coerce people to do things they ought to do. People ought to be polite to strangers, exercise regularly, and make good career choices, but the government rightly leaves people free to do what they want because we recognize that you know what’s good for you better than anyone else. Moreover, the premise that people simply ought to donate their organs is highly contentious. Many people do care deeply about what happens to them after they die; even an enthusiastic organ donor would probably prefer that their body be treated respectfully after death rather than thrown to dogs. This concern for how one’s body is treated after death affects the psychological wellbeing of the living. This is particularly true for members of some religions which explicitly prohibit the donation of organs. Any government campaign that acts as if it is one’s duty to donate forces them to choose between their loyalty to their beliefs and the state.

Organ donors are more deserving of organs  Reciprocity is a basic moral principle: afford others the good treatment you yourself would like to receive. In most cases, it is a hypothetical; one must place oneself in the other person’s position even though one will never actually be in their place. However, how donor and non-donors are treated when they themselves are in need is a situation in which reciprocity becomes a practical reality. This principle of reciprocity suggests that people who are willing to donate their organs more deserve to receive organs when they need them. And there is good reason to believe in reciprocity. Those who would flaunt this principle are basically stating that they expect something of other people that they themselves are unwilling to do; this is a position that is either incoherent, or based on the unjustified premise that oneself is more objectively valuable than other people. The concept of desert has a foundational role in our society. For example, innocent people deserve not to be put in prison, even if it would be useful to frame and make an example of an innocent person in order to quell a period of civil unrest.

People ought to donate their organs anyway  Organ donation, in all its forms, saves lives. More to the point, it saves lives with almost no loss to the donor. One obviously has no material need for one’s organs after death, and thus it does not meaningfully inhibit bodily integrity to incentivize people to give up their organs at this time. If one is registered as an organ donor, every attempt is still made to save their life {Organ Donation FAQ}. The state is always more justified in demanding beneficial acts of citizens if the cost to the citizen is minimal. This is why the state can demand that people wear seatbelts, but cannot conscript citizens for use as research subjects. Because there is no good reason not to become an organ donor, the state ought to do everything in its power to ensure that people do so.

Even if it were terrible to coerce people into donating their organs, there is a difference between mandating a behavior and creating strong incentives to do it. For instance, most governments do not mandate that people not smoke, but severe disincentives exist in the form of cigarette taxes and higher life insurance premiums. Furthermore, this argument is questionably premised on the notion that laying claim to a person’s organs after their death is a major violation (see “people ought to donate their organs anyway” point).

The government already makes life or death decisions as to who receives organs; at the end of the day, the organ scarcity means someone has to go without them. The state, in administrating organ donor lists, must decide on some basis who receives organs. The choice is whether they ought to be allocated primarily based on desert, or arbitrarily. Moreover, no medical system actually treats access to it as an inviolate right. Many healthcare systems worldwide are not universal, and even universal systems broadly restrict access on the basis of some criteria, most notably citizenship.

This system will punish people for a past decision they cannot now undo  Most formulations of this policy involve assessing donor status on the basis of whether the patient was a registered organ donor prior to needing an organ. Thus, a sick person could find themselves in the tortuous situation of sincerely regretting their past decision not to donate, but having no means to atone for their past act. To visit such a situation upon citizens not only meaningfully deprives them of the means to continue living, it subjects them to great psychological distress. Indeed, they are not only aware that their past passive decision not to register as a donor has doomed them, but they are constantly told by the state that this is well and just.

People may have valid religious reasons not to donate organs  Many major religions, such as some forms of Orthodox Judaism {Haredim Issue}, specifically mandate leaving the body intact after death. To create a system that aims to strongly pressure people, with the threat of reduced priority for life-saving treatment, to violate their religious beliefs violates religious freedom. This policy would put individuals and families in the untenable position of having to choose between contravene the edicts of their god and losing the life of themselves or a loved one. While it could be said that any religion that bans organ donation would presumably ban receiving organs as transplants, this is not actually the case; some followers of Shintoism and Roma faiths prohibit removing organs from the body, but allow transplants to the body.

Denying organs to non-donors is unduly coercive.  For the state to make organ donation mandatory is rightly seen as beyond the pale of what society would tolerate. This is because the right to the integrity of one’s body, including what is done with its component parts after death, must be held in the highest respect {UNDHR – Article 3 re security of person}. One’s body is one’s most foundational possession. Creating a system that effectively threatens death to anyone who refuses to donate part of their body is only marginally different from making it outright mandatory. The state’s goal is in effect the same: to compel citizens to give up their organs for a purpose the government has deemed socially worthwhile. This is a gross violation of body rights.

The right to access healthcare is absolute  Healthcare is a primary means by which individuals actualize their right to be protected against an untimely death. The ability to access healthcare, to not have the government actively intervene against one receiving it, is of fundamental importance for living a long and worthwhile life, and is hence entrenched in the constitutions of many liberal democracies and much of international human rights literature {WHO - Health and Human Rights}. While some rights, such as the right to mobility, can be taken away as a matter of desert in almost all societies, absolutely fundamental rights, such as the right to a fair trial, are actually inalienable and ought to never be violated. What this means in practice is that one’s access to healthcare should not be continent. The government should set no standards on who deserves life-saving treatment and who doesn’t. To do so would be to assign a dangerous power of life and death over the government.

In reality, the majority of faiths that ban organ donation, and all of the faiths that feel particularly strongly about it, such as certain branches of the Jehovah’s Witness with regard to blood transfusions {Blood – Vital for Life}, also ban accepting foreign organs. In such cases, practitioners wouldn’t be receiving organs anyway, so the net effect is nil. Moreover, many religions mandate that followers do everything in their power to save a life, and that this should trump adherence to lesser dictates. Finally, to adhere to a religious ban on giving but not receiving organs is disingenuous. It is the ultimate hypocrisy: to rely on others to do someone one would not do oneself. In such a situation, the state is no longer obliged to guarantee a chance to adhere to one’s religion.

This is a harm that the proponent of denying organs to non-donors will gladly eat. The threat of being left high and dry without an organ is exactly the incentive that this policy aims to create. The most unpalatable aspects of this process can be mitigated, such as making it clear that this is simply a loss of priority and not an active denial of any treatment.

This is misleading - in partial-birth abortion, as the term suggests, the foetus is not fully born when it is killed: the purpose of collapsing the skull is to allow the foetus’ head to pass more easily through the birth canal. At no point in the process is a live foetus entirely outside the womb, so legal personhood is never an issue.

pregnancy philosophy ethics life family house would ban partial birth abortions

If personhood accrues at birth, then abortion after inducing birth is wrong  If birth is the crucial dividing-line we use to decide when legal personhood begins, then we should not be allowed to induce birth and then deliberately kill a foetus during that process - this is different from early abortion in which birth is induced and the foetus dies naturally. Partial-birth abortion is murder, even on the pro-choice understanding of personhood.

Arguing that adoption is a good option shows a fundamental lack of awareness of what is involved in carrying an unwanted foetus to term. Pregnancy can be stressful at the best of times; being forced to carry an unwanted child against your will is enormously traumatic, and can cause permanent psychological harm, as can the knowledge that your own unwanted child is growing up elsewhere and may one day return to find you. If a mother chooses to carry a foetus to term and then give it up for adoption, that’s fine, but nobody should force her to do so.

The foetus feels pain  Partial-birth abortion is disgusting. Like all abortions, it involves the killing of an unborn child, but unlike first trimester abortions there is no doubt that the foetus can feel pain by the third trimester. [1] The procedure involves sticking a pair of scissors into a baby’s brain, enlarging the hole, sucking the brain out with a catheter and then crushing the skull. It is entirely unacceptable to do this to a living human being. Psychological damage to the mother as a result of rape or teenage pregnancy or depression is in the end less significant than the physical damage - death - caused to the child.  [1] Lee, Susan J., et al., ‘Fetal Pain, A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence’, Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol 294 (8), 2005,

Nobody would choose to have a partial-birth abortion over a much simpler abortion in the first trimester. Partial-birth abortions are either medically or psychologically necessary. If a young mother either does not find out she is pregnant or is too scared to tell anyone, if a woman is raped and decides at any stage that she does not want the baby, if a woman is threatening suicide if she is forced to carry a baby to term, we should not make her suffer further by forbidding her from ending the pregnancy. For all sorts of reasons, many women do not seek any kind of medical help until late in their pregnancy - this should not mean they forfeit their right to an abortion. In any case, if abortion is allowed at all, and given that the foetus is not recognised in law as a human being, it should be nobody’s business but the mother’s whether and at what stage she chooses to have an abortion.

These opinion polls are misleading, as they force respondents to choose between an outright ban and no control at all – it is impossible for them to register support for partial-birth abortion in cases where the mother’s physical or psychological health is in danger. A majority of Americans are still in favour of the right to abortion. More importantly, this should not be the business of the general public or of legislators. Nobody who would prefer not to have a partial-birth abortion will be made to have one. Most people who want it banned will never face a situation where it directly affects them in any case. We should leave decisions up to the people who are directly affected by them - not to outsiders, who are free to express their opinion but not to impose it on everyone else. This is a campaign promise George Bush should not keep.

Abortion is wrong per se when there are alternatives such as adoption  Tragically, some babies are unwanted, but this does not mean that we should kill them. There are plenty of other options, notably adoption. If anything, the case for adoption is more compelling in the third trimester, because the pregnancy is nearer to its natural end and there is less time, only about ten weeks, for the mother to have to put up with it. [1] Unwanted pregnancy and adoption may be psychologically harmful, but in many cases so is abortion, particularly at a late stage of pregnancy when the mother can see that the dead foetus is recognisably a baby - the guilt feelings associated with feeling that one is responsible for murdering a child can be unbearable.  [1] Bupa, ‘Stages of pregnancy’, April 2010,

Banning partial birth abortions is in line with popular and accepted moral standards  here is a vast amount of support in the United States for a ban on partial-birth abortion. Opinion polls have shown a consistent increase in support for a ban: as high as 70% in favour to 25% against in January 2003. [1] Furthermore, in 1997 the House of Representatives voted 295-136, and the Senate 64-36, in favour of a ban. For President Clinton to veto it was undemocratic; [2] for President Bush not to pass it would have been to break a campaign promise.  [1] Gallup, ‘Abortion’, 30 November 2011,   [2] Craig, Larry E., ‘Clinton Claims on Partial-Birth Abortion Still Not True -- Not Even 'Legally Accurate'’, United States Senate Republican Policy Committee, 15 September 1998,

There is no medical consensus on this issue. Where Dilation and Extraction is performed without inducing partial birth then it has the potential to be just as safe for the mother.

Allowing partial-birth abortion is utterly inconsistent with the growing, and legally recognised, respect for foetal rights in the United States. If a man can sue the mother of his child for taking drugs during pregnancy which discolour their child’s teeth, if pregnant women can be banned from the smoking sections of restaurants, what sense does it make to allow exactly the same foetuses to have their skulls deliberately crushed?

Opposition to partial birth abortion is part of a strategy intended to ban abortion in general  Partial-birth abortions form a tiny proportion of all abortions, but from a medical and psychological point of view they ought to be the least controversial. The reason for this focus is that late-term abortions are the most obviously distasteful, because late-term foetuses look more like babies than embryos or foetuses at an earlier developmental stage. Late-term abortions therefore make for the best pro-life campaigning material. By attempting to focus the debate here, campaigners are aiming to conflate all abortions with late-term abortions, and to increase opposition to all abortion on that basis.

Partial birth abortions are safer than any available alternative  The D&amp;X abortion procedure generates the minimum of risk for the mother. Banning it means that the only alternatives are premature labour induction for which mortality rates are 2.5 times higher and is emotionally very difficult due to the length of time it takes [1] (it is also likely to be unacceptable to the proposition) and hysterotomy (which results in removal of the womb). Finally as those who are having late partial birth abortions are likely to be suicidal, or at least will be very determined to get rid of their child they are the most likely to resort to back-street methods that cause damage to themselves.  [1] The Harriet and Robert Heilbrunn Department of Population and Family Health, ‘Abortion’,

The concept of "foetal rights" is an attack on the autonomy of women  The culture of foetal rights reflects a dangerous litigious trend in American society, and implies a view of pregnant women as being nothing more than baby-carrying machines whose independence and autonomy should be restricted and whose motivations should be questioned at every turn. If this has implications for the abortion debate, then those implications are profoundly damaging to women in general. In any case, the mother of a wanted baby has entirely different responsibilities toward the unborn foetus from the mother of an unwanted baby - that’s why our society allows both abortions and antenatal classes.

Although many people who are against partial-birth abortion are against abortion in general, there is no necessary link, as partial-birth abortion is a particularly horrifying form of abortion. This is for the reasons already explained: it involves a deliberate, murderous physical assault on a half-born baby, whom we know for certain will feel pain and suffer as a result. We accept that there is some legitimate medical debate about whether embryos and earlier foetuses feel pain; there is no such debate in this case, and this is why partial-birth abortion is uniquely horrific, and uniquely unjustifiable.

It’s not as if the employee can’t tell their employer at present – it’s that he or she could, but doesn’t want to. They get to decide what’s in their best interests (including what’s likely at trial) – and sadly, that will often be keeping quiet about his condition.

disease health general sex sexuality house believes employees should be compelled

It’s in the interests of employees  It’s in the interests of the HIV positive employee. Right now, although in many countries it is illegal to fire someone for having HIV [1] prejudiced employers can claim that they didn’t know their employer had HIV when they fired him, so they must have been acting on other grounds. The employee then has to try and prove that they did know, which can be very hard. Furthermore, once informed the employer can reasonably be expected to display a minimum level of understanding and compassion to the employee.  [1] Civil Rights Division, Ouestions and Answers: The Americans with Disabilities Act and Persons with HIV/AIDS’, U.S. Department of Justice,

Working with someone with HIV does not put you at risk. Suggesting that it does serves to perpetuate the myths that do such harm to HIV-positive people who already suffer too much. To clarify: AIDS cannot be transmitted through external, intact skin. It cannot pass through the air like cold germs. Sweat, urine, tears and saliva cannot transmit HIV. Whilst blood, seminal fluid, vaginal fluid and breast milk can, how often are such fluids encountered at work? Even if they are, and such fluids are HIV positive, they must enter another’s body through mucus membranes, directly into the bloodstream (e.g. via injection), or from mother to child via breastfeeding or in the womb. What workplaces risk such transferral?

It’s in the interests of employers  It’s in the interests of employers. A long, incurable and debilitating condition has stricken one of their employees. They will have to make provision for possible sickness cover and replacement workers, potentially for medical and/or retirement costs. HIV can make people tired and can lead to being sick more often as it means the immune system will not be able to fight off infections as well as it normally would. [1] The employee’s productivity might be reduced to the point at which their continued employment is no longer viable. If things are made difficult for employers with HIV positive workers, then they are less likely in the future to employ people who (they suspect) are HIV positive. Employers must be listened to in this debate – in many HIV-stricken countries, they’re the last thing between a semi-functioning society and complete economic and social collapse. Traditional rights ideas such as concerns about privacy of medical records are less important than the benefit to society of being able to cope with the unique problem of HIV more effectively.  [1] Dickens, Carol, ‘Signs of HIV, AIDS symptoms’, AIDS Symptoms,

It is in the interests of employers not to have to pay their employees. It is in the interests of employers not to offer vacation time. It is in the interests of employers not to spend money on ensuring health and safety measures are complied with.  It is in the interests of employers to do many things that violate the rights of their employees and as a society we prevent them from doing these things because the benefit to the business (and the economy as a whole) does not outweigh the harm caused by the violation of those rights. Most people who are being treated for HIV are no less productive than any other worker – 58% of people with HIV believe it has no impact on their working life. [1]  [1] Pebody, Roger, ‘HIV health problems cause few problems in employment, but discrimination still a reality in UK’, aidsmap, 27 August 2009,

All these worthwhile aims can be achieved without employees having to tell their employers of their HIV status on an involuntary basis. The scale of the problem can be easily inferred from national and regional medical statistics. For example, mining companies in South Africa have put in place excellent programmes to combat prejudice and treat sick employees without compulsory disclosure.

It’s in the interests of co-workers  It’s in the interests of other workers. The possibility of transmission, while very unlikely, is real and one they have a right to know about so as to be able to guard against it. While most of the time it will not be problem as transmission requires a transfer of bodily fluids this may occasionally happen in a workplace. [1] This is particularly true of healthworkers (e.g. doctors, nurses, dentists, midwives, paramedics, etc) who should have both a moral and a legal obligation to disclose if they are HIV-positive. Even outside the medical field industrial accidents may expose employees to risk. Employers have a duty to protect their workforce.  [1] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, ‘HIV Transmission’, Department of Health and Human Services,

Tackling HIV requires a responsible and active position by everyone  Businesses ought to take a responsible and active position on HIV. The issue isn’t going to go away. Successful programs designed to help HIV-positive employees remain in the workplace for as long as they want to do so should be developed. Procedures for treating personnel with fairness and dignity must be put in place. The potential fears and prejudices of other employees must be combated. The beginning of that process is ensuring they know about the problem and, crucially, the scale of it. Without knowledge of the numbers involved, employers may put in place inadequate medical and pensions arrangements that will ultimately prove inadequate.

Some very few people may do this and it’s the job of the government to attempt to educate people about the enormous dangers of doing so to minimise that. Nevertheless, most people will quite properly prioritise their lives and health over their job, which in any case legislation should safeguard by stopping unfair dismissal.

Employers have a right to know about issue which will affect their business. An employee with a serious incurable illness which requires a large amount of medication to control is inevitably going to affect the business in a way that the employer will have to know about in order to work around it.  Aside from the fact that HIV status need not be communicated to co-workers, managers and employers already have a duty to prevent harassment and prejudice in any circumstances and this would not change.

The risks of ignorance and prejudice are too high  This measure could be actively dangerous for HIV-positive workers. Ignorance causes so much bad behaviour towards AIDS sufferers and HIV-positive men and women. A fifth of men in the UK who disclose their HIV positive status at work then experience HIV discrimination. [1] The proposition seeks to institutionalise and widen the shunning and ill-treatment of HIV-positive workers that already happens when people find out about their condition. Even if not motivated by prejudice, co-workers will often take excessive precautions which are medically unnecessary and inflame unsubstantiated fears of casual transmission.  In addition, many people who are HIV-positive choose not to reveal their condition for fear of violent reactions to them from their families and the rest of society. If disclosure to an employer is compulsory, then the news will inevitably leak out to the wider community. In effect, they will lose any right of privacy completely.  [1] Pebody, 2009

It is a disincentive to get tested in the first place  The requirement to disclose their condition if known would be a disincentive to get tested in the first place. This is especially the case for many people in places like sub-Saharan Africa, but also applies widely elsewhere. Their job is so important to them (since there’s no safety net to speak of if they lose it) that they’d prefer to go in ignorance of their HIV status than find out and risk being fired for it. The medical repercussions of that are obvious.

Employers have no right to private medical information  Employers have no right to know. This is an arena into which the state has no right to intrude, or to compel intrusion by others. Employers will know if their employee’s work is satisfactory or unsatisfactory – what more do they need to know than that? If employers find out, they might dismiss workers – which is exactly why many employees don’t want to tell them.  If workers are forced to disclose the fact that they have HIV, the merit principle will go out the window. Even if not dismissed, their prospects for promotion will be shattered – because of prejudice, or the perception that their career has in any meaningful sense been ‘finished’ by their condition (which is often not the case as sufferers can work and lead fulfilling lives after diagnosis; life expectancy after diagnosis in the US was 22.5 years in 2005 [1] ).  Even if not fired and career advancement doesn’t suffer, prejudice from co-workers is likely. From harassment to reluctance to associate or interact with the employee, this is something the employee knows he might face. He has a right to decide for himself whether or not to make himself open to that. Managers may promise, or be bound, not to disclose such information to other workers – but how likely is enforcement of such an undertaking? For these reasons, even problems with huge HIV problems like South Africa haven’t adopted this policy.  [1] Harrison, Kathleen M. et al., ‘Life Expectancy After HIV Diagnosis Based on National HIV Surveillance Data From 25 States, United States’, Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, Vol 53 Issue 1, January 2010,

Employers can be trusted to use this information responsibly. They are already used to keeping sensitive information (e.g. about salaries, annual reports, or employees' addresses and telephone numbers) confidential. Nor is it in their interest to open themselves up to lawsuits for bullying and discrimination in the workplace. There is no reason to assume that businesses will be more likely to leak information about someone's HIV status than doctors or hospitals, who already have such information.

The use of generic drugs can sometimes fail to bring about a reduced price. For the cost of drugs to decrease, there must be competition within the industry to drive prices down. The switch from patented to generic drugs in Ireland failed to bring about any significant saving for this reason [1] . African countries must therefore ensure competition in order for generic drugs to become truly affordable which could be problematic due to continued protectionism in some states.  [1] Hogan,L. ‘Switch to generic drugs fails to bring expected savings for HSE’

disease healthcare international africa censorship ip house would produce high

Savings can be used in other sections of medical care  The decreased cost of pharmaceuticals allows African states to focus on other aspects of medical schemes. Pharmaceuticals are not the only aspect in treatment, there needs to be sufficient staff, medical equipment and infrastructure [1] . These requirements cost money, which the savings made on pharmaceuticals provide. In Europe, 50% of dispensed medicines are generic yet they cost only 18% of pharmaceutical expenditure, with a similar model predicted for South Africa. This allows the state to focus on other aspects of medical schemes [2] .  [1] Ibid  [2] Health24, ‘South Africans embrace generic meds’

It is nearly impossible to remove black markets; medication is no exception. Attempts thus far to remove the African counterfeit pharmaceuticals have been unsuccessful. Corruption and a lack of manpower have ensured that counterfeits continue to reach Africa, especially from India [1] . As long as there is a profit to be made, fakes and bad drugs will be sold at a lower price than even generic drugs on the African continent which have the addition of importation and tax in their cost [2] .  [1] Sambira,J. ‘Counterfeit drugs raise Africa’s temperature’  [2] Ibid

Easily affordable drugs will mean greater access  Generic drugs are much cheaper to produce, which is ideal for Africa’s struggling population. While there has been significant gross domestic product (GDP) growth in Africa, the actual distribution of wealth is relatively unequal. According to Afrobarometer, 53% of Africans still feel that their economic condition is poor [1] . This restricts their ability to purchase high cost drugs. Generic medication would reduce the price of these drugs, making them affordable to the average citizen. The patented drug Glivec, used for cancer treatment, costs £48.62 for 400 mg in South Africa while its generic equivalent (produced in India) costs £4.82 [2] . Increased access will result in higher levels of treatment, which in turn will reduce death rates from preventable diseases in Africa.  [1] Hofmeyr, Jan, ‘Africa Rising? Popular Dissatisfaction with Economic Management Despite a Decade of Growth’  [2] Op Cit

Greater access of generic drugs can increase the chances of overexposure and misuse. This has a detrimental effect on fighting diseases. Greater access will lead to higher use rates which, in turn increases the chances of the disease developing an immunity to the drug [1] , as is already happening to antibiotics resulting in at least 23,000 deaths in the United States. [2] This immunity requires new pharmaceuticals to counteract the disease which can take years to produce. It is therefore, disadvantageous to produce high quality generic drugs for Africa.  [1] Mercurio,B. ‘Resolving the Public Health Crisis in the Developing World: Problems and Barriers of Access to Essential Medicines’ pg.2  [2] National Center for Immunizations and Respiratory Diseases, ‘Antibiotics Aren’t Always the Answer’, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 16 December 2013,

Pharmaceutical companies investing in R&amp;D deserve to make a return on their investments. Research and development can take a long time and will cost significant sums of money. The cost of creating many new drugs was estimated to be as high as $5 billion in 2013 [1] . There is also a risk that the drug may fail during the various phases of production, which makes the $5 billion price-tag even more daunting. It is therefore necessary for these companies to continue to make a profit, which they do through patenting. If they allow drugs to immediately become generic or subsidise them to some of the biggest markets for some diseases then they shall make a significant financial loss.  [1] Herper,M. ‘The Cost of Creating a New Drug Now $5 Billion, Pushing Big Pharma to Change’

Reduce the prominence of bad and fake drugs  The increased availability of high quality generic drugs will reduce the numbers of bad and fake pharmaceuticals on the markets. The cost of patented drugs has forced many to search for other options. This is exploited by the billion dollar global counterfeit drug trade [1] . Fake drugs are the cause of around 100,000 deaths in Africa every year. Bad drugs, which are substandard, have also found their way in to Africa; one in six tuberculosis pills have been found to be of a poor quality [2] . The widespread introduction of low cost, high quality drugs will hopefully ensure that consumers do not turn to sellers in market places.  [1] Sambira,J. ‘Counterfeit drugs raise Africa’s temperature’  [2] Ibid

Unfair to apply same patent laws universally  It is unrealistic to expect poorer countries, such as those in Africa, to pay the same price as the developed world’s markets. Current patent laws for many countries dictate that prices for buying patented drugs should be universally the same. This makes it extremely difficult for African countries to purchase pharmaceuticals set at the market price of developed countries. In the US there are nine patented drugs which cost in excess of $200,000 [1] . To expect developing African states to afford this price is unfair and reinforces the exploitative relationship between the developed and developing world. Generic drugs escape this problem due to their universally low prices.  [1] Herper,M. ‘The World’s Most Expensive Drugs’

These vital drugs will become outdated. Diseases often have the ability to build a resistance to treatment, making many of these currently generic drugs impotent. In Tanzania, 75% of health workers were providing lower than recommended levels of anti-malaria drugs which resulted in a drug resistant form of the disease becoming prominent [1] . Giving recently developed drugs to Africa will have a greater impact against diseases such as HIV than giving them twenty year old drugs to which a disease is already immune.  [1] Mercurio,B. ‘Resolving the Public Health Crisis in the Developing World: Problems and Barriers of Access to Essential Medicines’

Some countries, such as India and Thailand, have specialised in producing generic drugs. These states provide the majority of generic drugs to Africa. This removes the burden of other countries to supply Africa with their own drugs whilst potentially damaging their own research companies. India has managed to create a very profitable industry based around cheap generic drugs which it mainly exports to the African continent [1] , decreasing the necessity of other states to contribute vast resources.  Providing generics to Africa will not damage development by the big pharmaceutical companies as at the moment these countries cannot afford the drugs so are not a market. The drugs are researched on the assumption that they will be sold in the developed world. What matters therefore is to ensure that generics for Africa don’t get sold back to the developed world undercutting patented drugs.  [1] Kumar,S. ‘India, Africa’s Pharma’

Cheaper drugs aren’t trusted by consumers  The differences in price between generic and patented drugs can be disconcerting to those wishing to buy pharmaceuticals. As with other product, logic generally follows the rule that the more expensive option is the most effective. There are reports from the USA of generic drugs causing suicidal tendencies [1] . These factors, combined with the lower levels of screening for drugs in Africa, mean that cheaper drugs are generally distrusted [2] .  [1] Childs,D. ‘Generic Drugs: Dangerous Differences?’  [2] Mercurio,B. ‘Resolving the Public Health Crisis in the Developing World: Problems and Barriers of Access to Essential Medicines’

Most vital drugs are already generic  Many drugs which are used in the treatment of HIV, malaria and cancer are already generic drugs which are produced in their millions [1] . This removes the necessity to provide further high quality generic drugs as there is already an easily accessible source of pharmaceuticals. Effective treatments for Malaria, in conjunction with prevention methods, have resulted in a 33% decrease in African deaths from the disease since 2000 [2] . The drugs responsible for this have been readily available to Africa, demonstrating a lack of any further need to produce pharmaceuticals for the continent.  [1] Taylor,D. ‘Generic-drug “solution” for Africa not needed’  [2] World Health Organisation ’10 facts on malaria’, March 2013

Dominance of generic drugs will reduce reinvestment and innovation in donating countries  The production of high quality generic drugs endangers pharmaceutical progress. In order to export high quality generic drugs, some countries have suggested allowing generic drug manufacturers access to patented drugs. In Canada, amendments to Canada’s Access to Medicine Regime (CAMR) would have forced pharmaceutical research companies to give up their patents [1] . This is problematic however as research based companies invest a large proportion of their profits back in to the industry. The requirements proposed for some Western countries for obligatory quantities of generic drugs to be given to Africa have been accused to removing any incentive to invest in research to combat disease [2] .  [1] Taylor,D. ‘Generic-drug “solution” for Africa not needed’  [2] ibid

Medically there is no difference between generic and patented drugs. They are both identical, with the exception of aesthetic differences in some US drugs to avoid copyright infringement. Generic drugs cost less because they do not have to invest in R&amp;D [1] . They focus on efficient methods of production and ensure that their product can be sold at a competitively low price. The lack of a need for R&amp;D is therefore more prominent than quality in the pricing of generic drugs.  [1] Stoppler,M. ‘Generic Drugs, Are They as Good as Brand Names?’

What those statistics mean could be questionable – did the ban make people stop, or only provide an extra incentive or assistance for those who already want to stop to do so? It could be suggested that this would simply lead to increased smoking within the home.  Even so, other measures could be more effective, if the goal is a simple reduction in smoking numbers.

addiction healthcare international africa house believes ghanas ban smoking public

Reduce smoking  A ban on smoking in public places would help reduce the rates of people smoking, by making it appear socially unusual – people will have to leave enclosed public places to smoke, each time they want to smoke. This is particularly important in Africa which is at an early stage of the tobacco epidemic where it can be prevented from ever coming to be seen as being normal.  The ban both through the new obstacle and the change in norms could reduce smoking rates. In England, nine months after such a ban, the fall in smoking rates (such as with much of the Global North) accelerated 1 - it has been claimed by up to 400,000.  1 Daily Mail Reporter, “Smoking ban spurs 400,000 people to quit the habit”, Daily Mail, 4 July 2008,

It would require a large amount of resources for law enforcement to go in to such public places occasionally to see that the ban is being enforced.  It would be easier to enforce conditions relating to the packaging and production of tobacco, which occurs on fewer sites, than ban an activity in certain places which is not so enforceable.

Nip the problem in the bud  Smoking rates in Africa are relatively low; a range of 8%-27% with an average of only 18% of the population smoking 1 (or, the tobacco epidemic is at an early stage 2 ). That’s good, but the challenge is to keep it that way and reduce it.  A ban on smoking in public places at this stage would stop tobacco gaining the widespread social acceptability that caused it to thrice in the 20th century in the Global North. The solution is to get the solutions in now, not later.  1 Kaloko, Mustapha, 'The Impact of Tobacco Use on Health and Socio-Economic Development in Africa', African Union Commission, 2013,  , p.4  2 Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, “What we do: Tobacco control strategy overview”, Bill &amp; Melinda Gates Foundation, no date,

Lower healthcare costs  Smoking caused disease causes large expenses for healthcare systems, something which is particularly burdensome in countries without the rich well developed healthcare systems of the developed world. In the UK lung cancer, one of the diseases caused by smoking, costs £90 per person or £9071 per patient. 1 Even the cost per head of population is higher than Ghana’s entire healthcare budget of $83.4 (about £50) per person. 2  The reduction in smoking, which would be triggered by the ban, would lead to a drop in smoking related illness. A study in the US state of Arizona showed that hospital admissions for smoking related diseases dropped after a ban on smoking in public places 3 .  This would allow resources to be focused on the big killers other than tobacco – including HIV AIDS.  1 The National Cancer Research Institute, ‘Lung cancer UK price tag eclipses the cost of any other cancer’, Cancer Research UK, 7 November 2012,   2 Assuming Ghanaian health spending of 5.2% of GDP which is $40.71 billion split between a population of 25.37 million from World Bank Databank    3 Herman, Patricia M., and Walsh, Michele E. “Hospital Admissions for Acute Myocardial Infarction, Angina, Stroke, and Asthma After Implementation of Arizona’s Comprehensive Statewide Smoking Ban”, American Journal of Public Health, March 2011,

The argument that states will save money due to less people smoking based upon healthcare costs from treating smoking related diseases is over-simplistic. While smoking does cause medical costs, taxation can counterbalance this – in 2009, the South African government gained 9 billion Rand (€620 million) from excise duties on tobacco 1 . Paradoxically, less people smoking could lead to less money for other projects. Indeed, some countries in Europe raise the amount of health expenditure it causes from tobacco taxation 2 .  1 American Cancer Society, “Tobacco tax success story: South Africa”, tobaccofreekids.org, October 2012,   2 BBC News, “Smoking disease costs NHS £5Bn”, BBC News, 2009,

Is it really the job of African states to stop smoking? Africans have the same amount of personal responsibility to choose to smoke or not – policies should reflect that.

Yes, tobacco is harmful – but is it really a benefit to remove economic activity, which people choose to do? Labour abuses occur in other industries – but that’s an argument for increased labour protections and economic development, not economic self-inflicted wounds.

Easy to introduce  A ban on smoking in public places would be simple to enforce – it is an obvious activity, and does not require any form of complex equipment or other special techniques . It would largely be enforced by other users of public places and those working there. If it changes attitudes enough, it could be largely self-enforcing – by changing attitudes and creating peer pressure 1 .  1 See Hartocollis, Anemona, “Why Citizens (gasp) are the smoking police), New York Times, 16 September 2010,

Reduces growth of tobacco  Less people smoking means less tobacco being purchased – something that would contribute to the reduction in the tobacco industry. The industry is known for its exploitative labour practices, from child labour (80,000 children in Malawi work in tobacco farming, can result in nicotine poisoning – 90% of what is grown is sold to American Big Tobacco 1 ) to extortionate loans. 2 Reducing the size of such an industry can only be a good thing.  1 Palitza, Kristin, “Child labour: tobacco’s smoking gun”, The Guardian, 14 September 2011,   2 Action on Smoking and Health, p3

Even if such a link were true – the campaign against the ban on smoking in public places in the UK accept that it’s unlikely that it is the primary cause of closures in the UK 1 – the public health benefits would make it worth it. Reductions on spending in some areas of the economy is likely to be balanced by increases elsewhere; of course there will be losses in some industries – particularly tabacco itself but those who stop smoking will have the money to spend elsewhere.  Moreover the economic effects are likely to be different in Africa; smoking outside in the UK, bearing in mind the infamous British weather, is a far less attractive proposition than smoking outdoors in many African countries.  1 'Why we want government to amend the smoking ban', Save Our Pubs &amp; Clubs,

Personal autonomy arguments sound reasonable, but often ignore the wider consequences. Public health is a key issue – the state has a role in stopping people harming themselves – they may be harming themselves but the cost often falls on government through public healthcare, and therefore on all taxpayers. Moreover smoking also harms others through passive smoking, this is particularly true in public places that are enclosed.

Unenforceable  Smoking bans are often unenforceable in higher income countries. This is because they require expensive manpower or CCTV in order to stop those flouting the ban, with scarce resources a police force will almost always have other more important crimes to deal with. If Berlin 1 and New York City 2 cannot enforce them, most African cities won’t be able to either.  Ghana's advertising ban has been flouted in the past. When asked in a survey about advertising 35% of Ghanaians recalled hearing a tobacco advert on radio or television despite such ads being banned. 3  1 AFP, 'Smoking Ban not Enforced in Parts of Germany', Spiegel Online, 2 July 2008,   2 Huff Post New York, 'NYC Smoking Ban In Parks Will Not Be Enforced By NYPD: Mayor', Huffington Post, 2 November 2011,   3 Kaloko, Mustapha, 2013,  , p.18

Pack labelling or taxation a better alternative  If it’s not enforceable, enforceable solutions ought to be used instead. It would be easier to enforce pack labelling and branding requirements, from larger and clearer health warnings to even brand-free packs. Of course, American-style lawsuits by governments against tobacco manufacturers could be tried, as suggested in Nigeria 1 .  1 IRIN, “NIGERIA: Govt hits tobacco companies with whopping law suit”, irinnews.org, 9 November 2007,

Ban would harm the wider economy  A ban could harm the wider economy – from bars to clubs, if smokers are unable to smoke inside, they may be more likely to stay away. According to some critics, this lead to the closures of bars in the UK when such a ban was brought in 1 . Research in the United States has shown drops in employment in bars of between 4 and 16 percent. 2  1 BBC News, “MPs campaign to relax smoking ban in pubs”, BBC News, 2011,   2 Pakko, Michael R., 'Clearing the Haze? New Evidence on the Economic Impact of Smoking Bans', The Regional Economist, January 2008,

Paternalistic  Personal autonomy has to be the key to this debate. If people want to smoke – and the owner of the public place has no issue with that – it is not the role of the state to step in. While smoking is dangerous, people should be free in a society to take their own risks, and live with their decisions. All that is required is ensuring that smokers are educated about the risks so that they can make an informed decision.

Each has its own disadvantages. A growing form of tobacco sales in Africa – Nigeria in particular – is the “single stick” 1 . If retailers break packets of cigarettes apart, customers won’t see the packets containing health warnings or similar.  Cost increases can lead to increased use of rollups 2 , or even counterfeit cigarettes, 3 both of which have happened in South Africa as a result of taxation. At any rate, it’s not a zero sum game – more than one policy can be introduced at the same time.  1 Kluger, 2009,   2 Olitola, Bukola, “The use of roll-your-own cigarettes in South Africa”, Public Health Association of South Africa, 26 February 2014,   3 Miti, Siya, “Tobacco tax hikes 'boost illegal traders'”, Dispatch Live, 28 February 2014,

It often doesn’t require enforcement – it changes attitudes itself, making people not do so. In Scotland, within three months 99% of locations abided by the ban, without the need for excess heavy handed enforcement 1 . This is because non-smokers will ask a smoker to stub it out if they are smoking where they are not allowed to. There seems little reason why this wont happen in Ghana or elsewhere in Africa just as in the west.  Even so, a lot of laws are not enforceable in all cases – that doesn’t mean that they will be complete failures.  1 The Scottish Government, 'Smoking ban gets seal of public approval', scotland.gov.uk, 26 June 2006,

Given all the responsibilities our society has transferred from parents onto schools and educators in the 21st century, is it really sensible to include caring for nutritional choices to this already bloated and unmanageable list?  We need to ask ourselves, is it actually right that kids turn to schools and peers about lifestyle advice, when this is so clearly a domain of parents and families and so obviously a burden on an already taxed public school system.

Schools are the best place to create lasting lifestyle changes.  Schools are playing an increasingly formative role, in the sense that they’re being tasked with not only knowledge transfer, but also the creation of behaviors and placing emphasis on teaching students how to apply their knowledge. [1]  Given this expanded mandate, the schools are not only obliged to therefore offer choices that would go hand in hand with healthier behavior, but also the perfect pressure point for lawmakers to go about introducing healthier lifestyles.  The simple reason is that our kids are increasingly looking not to their parents, but schools and the environments they provide, for advice on how to live their lives. They are also the traditional environments for youth to continuously invent and reinvent themselves and therefore hold immense potential for behavior modification.  [1] Fitzgerald, E., 'Some insights on new role of schools', New York Times, 21 January 2011,  , accessed 9/11/2011

Again, if this is in fact true, then the incentives are already in place for better choices both on the side of students as well as schools.  What the government should do is through subsidizing healthier meals and educational campaigns help both of them make those choices on their own, and not force an unnecessary ban on them.

Schools need to practice what they preach  Under the pressure of increasing media coverage and civil society initiatives, schools are being called upon to “take up arms” against childhood obesity, both by introducing more nutritional and physical education classes, as well as transforming the meals they are offering in their cafeterias. [1]  Never before has school been so central to a child’s personal and social education. According to a study conducted by the University of Michigan, American children and teenagers spend in school about 32.5 hours per week homework a week – 7.5 hours more, than 20 years ago [2] . School curricula now cover topics such as personal finance, sex and relationships and citizenship. A precedent for teaching pupils about living well and living responsibly has already been established. Some schools, under national health programs, have given out free milk and fruit to try and make sure that children get enough calcium and vitamins, in case they are not getting enough at home [3] .  While we are seeing various nutritional and health food curricula cropping up [4] , revamping the school lunch is proving to be a more challenging task. “Limited resources and budget cuts hamper schools from offering both healthful, good-tasting alternatives and physical education programs,“ says Sanchez-Vaznaugh, a San Francisco State University researcher. [5]  With expert groups such as the Obesity Society urging policy makers to take into account the complex nature of the obesity epidemic [6] , especially the interplay of biological and social factors that lead to individuals developing the disease, it has become time for governments to urge schools to put their education into practice and give students an environment that allows them to make the healthy choices they learn about in class.  [1] Stolberg, S. G., 'Michelle Obama Leads Campaign Against Obesity', New York Times, 9 February 2010,  , accessed 9/11/2011  [2] University of Michigan, 'U.S. children and teens spend more time on academics', 17 November 2004,  , accessed 09/08/2011  [3] Kent County Council, Nutritional Standards, published September 2007  , accessed 09/08/2011  [4] Veggiecation, 'The Veggiecation Program Announced as First Educational Partner of New York Coalition for Healthy School Food',18 May 2011,  , accessed 9/11/2011  [5] ScienceDaily, 'Eliminating Junk Foods at Schools May Help Prevent Childhood Obesity', 7 March 2010,  , accessed 9/11/2011  [6] Kushner, R. F., et al., 'SOLUTIONS: Eradicating America’s obesity epidemic', Washington Times, 16 August 2009,  , accessed 9/11/2011

Media sensationalism is a poor justification for any state intervention of any kind. What histrionic television documentaries usually provide nothing more than a warning that our kids are in danger, along with a list of all the diseases obesity might cause. But there is absolutely nothing that would explain how exactly something as drastic as a ban would do anything to begin solving this problem.  These observations highlight a distressing truth about contemporary western society – we are unable to accept that the state is unable to solve problems without the assistance and support of civil society. We have a hard time accepting the fact that responsibility will have to fall on the shoulders of parents to enforce (or, more likely, to adopt in the first place) a healthy and active lifestyle in their families.  Advice provided by the Mayo Clinic explains that just talking isn’t effective. Kids and parents should go together for a brisk walk, ride on the bike or any other activity. It is important for a healthy lifestyle that parents present exercise as an opportunity to take care for the body, rather than a punishment or chore [1] .  Finally, there is absolutely nothing stopping schools from offering healthier options alongside existing ones. In fact, many schools are choosing a healthier path already, without being forced by governments or regulatory bodies.  [1] MayoClinic.com, 'Fitness for kids: Getting children off the couch',  , accessed 09/10/2011

Better nutrition leads to better students.  There is a growing body of evidence linking a healthy lifestyle, comprising of both adequate nutrition and physical exercise, with improved memory, concentration and general academic performance. [1] A study has shown that when primary school students consume three or more junk food meals a week literacy and numeracy scores dropped by up to 16% compared to the average. [2]  This is a clear incentive for governments to push forward for healthier meals in schools for two reasons. The first obvious benefit is to the student, whose better grades award her improved upward mobility – especially important for ethnic groups stuck worst by the obesity epidemic and a lower average socioeconomic status.  The second benefit is to the schools, who benefit on standardized testing scores and reduced absenteeism, as well as reduced staff time and attention devoted to students with low academic performance or behavior problems and other hidden costs of low concentration and performance of students. [3]  [1] CDC, 'Student Health and Academic Achievement', 19 October 2010,  , accessed 9/11/2011  [2] Paton, Graeme, ‘Too much fast food ‘harms children’s test scores’’, The Telegraph, 22 May 2009,  accessed 20 September 2011  [3] Society for the Advancement of Education, 'Overweight students cost schools plenty', December 2004,  , 9/11/2011

There is absolutely nothing stopping the schools from finding ventures that are just as profitable with companies that offer healthy drinks and snacks. In fact, most of the existing contracts could simply remain in place, since most of the firms are conglomerates that could just as easily offer healthy alternatives to soda pops and cookies.  Where that would prove impossible, it is simply a question of priorities: how many children afflicted by diabetes type 2 are worth a field trip? How many a new sports program or new equipment?

We would be truly hard pressed to find a student, who isn’t very well aware of all the reasons we call certain food “junk food” and what the consumption of those does to the human body.  We already have fantastic mechanism of nutritional education in place and many very publicized campaigns stressing the importance of a healthy lifestyle. Yet what we don’t have are the results – obviously educating the public is not enough.  When we are faced with an epidemic that has such an immense destructive potential, we truly must face it head on and forget about well-intended yet extremely impractical principled arguments – such as the one proposed by the opposition.  What we need is results, and armed with the knowledge won from the war on tobacco, we now know that limiting access is a key mechanism of taking on childhood obesity.

Targeting schools will be an ineffective strategy.  Schools may seem like a perfect place to effect behavioral change in youth, since 95% of young people are enrolled in schools. [1]  But what researchers find is that changing the choices we have available does not necessarily lead to any behavioral change. Penny Gordon-Larsen, one of the researchers, wrote: "Our findings suggest that no single approach, such as just having access to fresh fruits and veggies, might be effective in changing the way people eat. We really need to look at numerous ways of changing diet behaviors. There are likely more effective ways to influence what people eat.” [2]  In the case of school children is this point seems particularly salient. Given that high school students in the US average only 6 hours in school [3] and the widespread availability of fast and other forms of “junk food”, we can hardly expect that impacting this single environment of the school will lead to any lasting behavioral changes. Realistically, what we can expect is for school children to go outside the school to find their favorite snacks and dishes.  Even if, by some miracle, the ban would change the behavior of children in schools, there is still the matter of 10 hours (the ATUS suggests kids sleep an average of 8 hours per day) they will spend outside schools, where their meal choices will not be as tailored and limited.  [1] Wechsler, H., et al., 'The Role of Schools in Preventing Childhood Obesity', National Association of State Boards of Education, December 2004,  , accessed 9/11/2011  [2] Nordqvist, C., 'No Single Approach Will Solve America's Obesity Epidemic', Medical News Today, 11 June 2011,  , accessed 9/11/2011  [3] Bureau of Labor Statistics, 'American Time Use Survey', 22 May 2011,  , accessed 9/11/2011

Pupils will bring unhealthy food with them to schools.  Frequently, a ban- whether or food, alcohol or forms of media- serves only to build interest in the things that has been prohibited. When a ban affects something that is a familiar part of everyday life that is generally regarded as benign, there is a risk that individuals may try to acquire the banned thing through other means.  Having had their perspective in junk food defined partly by attractive, highly persuasive advertising, children are likely to adopt an ambivalent perspective on any attempt to restrict their dietary choices. The extreme contrast between the former popularity of vending machines in schools and the austere approach required by new policies may hamper schools’ attempts to convince pupils of the necessity and rationality of their decision.  Even though schools may be able to coerce and compel their pupils to comply with disciplinary measures, they cannot stop children buying sweets outside of school hours.  When rules at an Orange county school changed, and the cafeteria got rid of its sweets, the demand was still up high, so that the school had to figure out a way to fix the situation. They created a “candy cart” – which now brings them income for sports equipment or other necessities. One of the pupils, Edgar Coker (18-year-old senior) explained that: “If I couldn’t buy it here, I’d bring it from home.” [1]  It is difficult to regulate junk food consumption through unsophisticated measures such as prohibition. A ban my undermine attempts to alter pupil’s mindsets and their perspective on food marketing and their own diets.  [1] Harris G., 'A Federal Effort to Push Junk Food Out of School', New York Times, 2 August 2010  , accessed 09/10/2011

“Junk food” sales are an important source of funding for schools.  An important issue to consider in this topic is the constellation of incentives that actually got us to the place where we are at today.  With the environment designed to incentivize improving schools’ performance on standardized tests, there is absolutely nothing that would motivate them to invest their very limited resources into non-core programs or subjects, such as PE and sports and other activities. [1]  Ironically, schools turned to soda and snack vending companies in order to increase their discretionary funds. An example cited in the paper is one high school in Beltsville, MD, which made $72,438.53 in the 1999-2000 school year through a contract with a soft drink company and another $26,227.49 through a contract with a snack vending company. The almost $100,000 obtained was used for a variety of activities, including instructional uses such as purchasing computers, as well as extracurricular uses such as the yearbook, clubs and field trips.  Thus it becomes clear that the proposed ban is not only ineffective, but also demonstrably detrimental to schools and by extension their pupils.  [1] Anderson, P. M., 'Reading, Writing and Raisinets: Are School Finances Contributing to Children’s Obesity?', National Bureau of Economic Research, March 2005,  , accessed 9/11/2011

Schools should educate about healthy choices, not make them on the students’ behalf.  Although it might be very tempting for the government to try and attack the problem of childhood obesity by attempting to change, in essence, the very choices our kids can make, this is the wrong way of going about doing it.  The purpose of schools is education – the genesis of active and useful members of society. A large extent of what schools do is imprinting the ideas the society values. In most western countries those would be the ideas of fairness, democracy, freedom of expression, etc. The other side of the coin is the transference of knowledge, knowledge of mathematics, history, but also of biology, health and nutrition.  We see thus that the proposed ban on specific choices one makes in school, whether be it choices regarding food or choices regarding the clothes one wears, the ideas one expresses, and so on, is truly meaningless in the existing concept of education.  What the schools should be doing is putting more emphasis on getting the message of the importance of a healthy lifestyle across. Our kids should be taught that this lifestyle consists of more than just whether or not we chose to eat a hamburger and fries for lunch. In short, this ban falls short of truly educating the children about how important physical activity, balanced meals and indulging in moderation are.  They should also focus on the importance of choice, since in the case of childhood obesity, making the right nutritional and lifestyle choices is of paramount importance. But they should also focus on the importance of choice for a society and how all should take responsibility for their choices in such a society.

First of all, such loop holes can be fixed and are just a problem of practicalities, if it helps to educate the pupils, we should do it. For example, there can be an agreement that parents should not buy candy for children to take to school or just restrict stores in the neighborhood to only selling junk food during school hours as they did in Tower Hamlets (UK).  In one school surveyed, all 1,700 pupils were obliged to follow strict rules stating 'no chips, fatty foods, sweets, fizzy drinks' can be sold at the school.  A nearby fast food shop was initially allowed to sell to pupils, but parents and teachers objected, fearing it would jeopardize the school's healthy-eating policy. One resident, Edward Copeland, was so angry that he brought the case to the High Court, where the court decided, that junk food stores are not be opened during school [1] hours to support the schools strict rules.  [1] Borland S., 'Judges declare fast food takeaway near school is »unlawful«', The Daily Mail, 6 December 2010  , accessed 09/10/2011

Even if students spend a small fraction of their time in schools – and 6 hours is by no means an insignificant amount of time – it is still an incredible opportunity for intervention for a very important reason.  The reason is the incredible potential for homogeneity of experience. at least in the aspect of food offered. We are able, to certain extent, control the school environment in such a way as to promote healthy choices and eliminate bad ones. When students return to their homes, we have lost that opportunity. In a nutshell, one healthy meal per day is much better than none.  It can also be contended that children often share experiences from school with their parents and siblings back home. Thus a healthy environment in school could, potentially, find its way into homes we couldn’t otherwise reach by any other means.

Providing the choice to donate at expense of one’s life will simply increase the pressure on those who do not wish to donate as they now are presented with a much bigger burden when their loved one dies as they could lawfully have prevented it. Moreover the person who is receiving the donation would also have that sense of guilt of living with the knowledge that someone actively chose to sacrifice their life for them. This guilt may well be larger than having the possibility of saving someone but not acting. [1]  [1] Monforte-Royo, C., et al. “The wish to hasten death: a review of clinical studies.” Psycho-Oncology 20.8 (2011): 795-804.

healthcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense

The guilt may be too heavy a burden for the relative who could have saved a life  It is not fair to ask of a parent to live with the guilt of having been able to save their child and not doing so. Believing that they are guilty of their child’s death can cause Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome, which in turn is a major cause of suicides. [1]  [1] Monforte-Royo, C., et al. “The wish to hasten death: a review of clinical studies.” Psycho-Oncology 20.8 (2011): 795-804.

Man is also a social being. While we have a right to our own body, we also have duties to those around us. If we choose to terminate our lives, we must consider the consequences for those who depend on us, physically or emotionally. Can we really judge whether our own life is less worth than that of the recipient? Human beings also often make decisions without all the relevant information. The choices we make may very well be ill-informed even if we believe otherwise. Part of the problem here is that all the consequences of our decisions can never be fully understood or anticipated.

Greater awareness will increase donations  There is a clear need around the world for more donors of organs. In the UK there are about 4000 transplants a year but there are always more waiting, in November 2012 there were 7593 people waiting so on average each will be waiting for almost two years. [1] In Germany there are over 12,000 waiting but only 2777 donations in 2012. [2] The sacrifice of individual relatives who willingly choose death to save their loved ones therefore brings the need for donations into focus. The media are likely to present heart-breaking stories about loving people who made the ultimate sacrifice. As a consequence, more people will be aware of the issue and wish to fill in donor cards so that they might be able to minimise the number of voluntary donations in the event of their death. Thus there will be more naturally donated organs available and more lives will be saved.  [1] NHS Choices, “Introduction”, 19 October 2012,   [2] Lütticke, Marcus, “Germany lags behind in organ donations”, Deutsche Welle, 4 January 2013,

It is a natural thing to do  We are biologically programmed to want to preserve our species. As such, our offspring will often be more important to ourselves than our own persons. Many doctors hear parents tell them how they wish that they could “take over” their child’s terminal illness rather than have the child suffer. [1] It is therefore natural and right for the older generation to sacrifice itself where possible to save the younger generation. As crass as this might seem, they are statistically more likely to die earlier than their offspring in any event and stand to lose less. They have had the chance to experience more of a life than their child. They are furthermore the cause of the child’s existence, and owe it to the child to protect it at any cost.  [1] Monforte-Royo, C. and M.V. Roqué. “The organ donation process: A humanist perspective based on the experience of nursing care.” Nursing Philosophy 13.4 (2012): 295-301.

Biology is a bad way of deciding moral behaviour. If we were to do what biology tells us to do, we would be no more than animals. Every person has a right to live their life and they do not lose it simply because they have family. In modern society we do not cease to live meaningful lives at the point when we have children, as Darwinians might have us believe, but many people have more than half of their valuable lives ahead of them at the point when their children are emancipated.

It is cynical to encourage people commit suicide to bring the media’s attention to an issue. If there is too little attention, the problem lies with the media and needs to be solved by changing the media. It is not the responsibility of vulnerable relatives to sacrifice their lives to redress that issue.  Moreover, if the proposal were to be put into practise, the government would be communicating that organ donations primarily is an issue for the family of the sick person. Thus, people will be less keen to donate their organs to someone that they do not know, as they believe that there will be a family member who will sort it for them. Sacrificial donations are always inferior and the motion would make them the norm rather than what is the case in the status quo.

This will only lead to family members pressuring terminally ill people to commit suicide prematurely. Even those who are terminally ill, value life, possible even more than others. These people are vulnerable and bereft of hope they are prone to be pressured into such action (Tremblay). [1] However, it is impossible to say whether six months of life for one person is more or less worth than six years for another. Furthermore, this assumes that we know that the recipient will indeed live that long, which we never can know about mortal beings.  As to the second part of the point, it is impossible to quantify human life. If the value of human life is indeed infinite, it is not as simple as to say that two lives are better than one. As long as we cannot say for sure, this is a slippery slope of quantifying human lives that we want to avoid at all costs.  [1] Tremblay, Joe. “Organ Donation Euthanasia: A Growing Epidemic.” Catholic News Agency, (2013).

The right to individual self determination is a fundamental human right, equal to that of life itself  It is a fundamental principle of the human being is that every human is born autonomous. Therefore, we believe that every person has a right to his or her own body and is thus competent to make decisions about it. This is because we recognise that whatever decisions we might make about our bodies, stem from the knowledge that we have about our own preferences. Nobody can tell us how to value different goods and therefore what matters to one person might matter less to another. If we were to undermine this right, nobody would be able to live their life to its fullest as they would be living their life to someone else’s fullest. The extension of this right is that if someone values another person’s life over their own it is their informed decision to sacrifice themselves for that person. It is not for others to decide, and in particular not for the State.

We should preserve the person with greater quality of life  We have to be able to measure quality of life relatively. There might be many cases where a relative is terminally ill, yet not dead yet. This person, with a survival prospect of maybe half a year of suffering and medication, might have a perfectly functional organ. [1] It is very rational, both for this person and for society as a whole to allow him or her to undergo euthanasia at an early stage to save the other person. [2]  Furthermore, a person might sacrifice his or her life to provide an organ for a specific individual, yet their other organs can still be used to save others, of whom the donor might not have been aware. It is sad that a person has to die, but as this is the only option [3] , it is a good thing that several people might live when one sacrifices their life.  [1] Monforte-Royo, C. and M.V. Roqué. “The organ donation process: A humanist perspective based on the experience of nursing care.” Nursing Philosophy 13.4 (2012): 295-301.  [2] Wilkinson, Dominc and Julian Savalescu. “SHOULD WE ALLOW ORGAN DONATION EUTHANASIA? ALTERNATIVES FOR MAXIMIZING THE NUMBER AND QUALITY OF ORGANS FOR TRANSPLANTATION.” Bioethics 26.1 (2012): 32-48.  [3] ibid

The risk of coercion might be true about voluntary donations of organs and blood where the donor survives. A donation is always a large decision and the authorities must take measures to ensure that the donor is acting freely. However, the harm of a person potentially being vulnerable is significantly lesser than that of a person dying because everyone who wanted to help this person had their hands tied.  Modern medicine has very powerful tools at their disposal to be able to know for a fact that a person is beyond saving if not given an organ. [1]  [1] Chkhotua, A. “Incentives for organ donation: pros and cons.” Transplantation proceedings [Transplant Proc] 44 (2012): 1793-4.

This argument is selfish and ignores how love might push a person to make great sacrifices. We might have imperfect information about our importance, but whatever information we have, gives us an idea of how to assess complicated situations. If we were to follow this logic, self-determination would be impossible

The recipient is forced to receive the sacrifice of another  In many cases, the recipient is not in position to consent to the donation. Thus, even if it saves his or her life, it is comes with an intrusion on his or her moral integrity that he or she might value higher than survival. If we are to receive such a drastic sacrifice from someone that we love – surely we must have a right to veto it? [1] This means that to enable the choice of the donor the choice of the receiver has been ignored, there seems to be little reason to simply switch those two positions around as is proposed.  [1] Monforte-Royo, C., et al. “The wish to hasten death: a review of clinical studies.” Psycho-Oncology 20.8 (2011): 795-804.

Doctors should not be asked to take the moral burden of people who want to commit suicide  It is not fair to ask doctors who have committed their lives to preserving health to act as an instrument of killing a person. The doctor will then have to live with the doubt as to whether the act of assisting in the donation was just or not. In other words, if the person who wanted to die for another did not do so voluntarily, the act of killing him or her is morally wrong and the doctor becomes complicit. In order to carry out this scheme, the individual moral autonomy of doctors will be violated. [1]  [1] Tremblay, Joe. “Organ Donation Euthanasia: A Growing Epidemic.” Catholic News Agency, (2013).

The role of society is to save lives not to assist in suicide  The purpose of society, the health sector and more specifically the doctors is to preserve health, not to be damaging health or even assisting in the ending of a life even if voluntarily. As part of this, death is sometimes something that must be affected. However, it is not in line with the purpose of medical professionals to kill a healthy person. The solution is to focus every possible effort on curing the sick person, but society cannot be complicit in killing a healthy person [1] .  [1] Tremblay, Joe. “Organ Donation Euthanasia: A Growing Epidemic.” Catholic News Agency, (2013).

This would encourage coercion for some to die to save others  By allowing sacrificial donations society becomes vulnerable to abuse of this system. It is possible that people are scared or coerced into sacrificing their lives for others. While society does all it can for those who are ill, it cannot start moving the boundaries for when it actively takes the lives of its citizens.  Even when there is no coercion, we cannot even know when a person is beyond all hope. Even in the direst situations, there are exceptional cases when people recover. However, if we take a person’s vital organs, the process is irreversible. Therefore, it is always wrong to prematurely kill another person, while the recipient is still alive and within the realm of luck and miracles. In the status quo the donor is already dead and the trade-off is not a problem, but this cannot be extended to the living

This is easily solved. Similarly to doctors who assist in cases of abortion or even executions doctors must have the option of opting out. However, once it is proven that this model is ethically good, it is likely that there are doctors who will realise the potential of this method and who will want to participate. After all, this is a motion that relates to the exceptional cases, so even if most doctors opt out there will still be doctors who will be willing to operate under this scheme.

Self-preservation is our primary moral duty  Many people, especially those who belong to religious groups believe that we have a duty to preserve our own lives. They would argue that suicide is never justified, even if the reasons might appear to be good. It is impossible to sacrifice your life for others, because you cannot know how important your life is to others in relation to how important other people’s lives are. Either life is invaluable and it is thus impossible to value one life higher than others, or it can be valued, but it is impossible for us to assess our life’s value in relation to others. Therefore, while we accept that some might die, it is not for the individual to take matters into his or her own hands and accelerate the process, as this decision might be made on the wrong grounds, but cannot be reversed.

If the purpose of society and the health sector is indeed to promote life and preserve health, surely it must be in that interest to find ways of saving people’s lives when possible. Whoever dies and leaves an organ behind saves a life, and often more than one life as shown by the UK having carried out 3960 transplants with 2143 donors in 2011-12, [1] and there is thus no loss of life. A person only gives up their own life if they have a good reason to do so. Thus, it is likely that this model will promote the preservation of younger and healthier lives over those who have less to lose by sacrificing theirs.  [1] NHS Choices, “Introduction”, 19 October 2012,

Firstly, this case is about emergencies. Consent is important, but it cannot be compared to the importance of saving a life. Secondly, the person whose consent matters is the donor who is making the sacrifice. The recipient can be expected to want to live, even if he or she cannot communicate this. [1]  [1] Monforte-Royo, C., et al. “The wish to hasten death: a review of clinical studies.” Psycho-Oncology 20.8 (2011): 795-804.

Allowing the sale of generic drugs will not help the plight of the developing world. Many drug companies invest substantial amounts of money, gleaned from the sale of profitable dugs in the developed world, into researching treatments for the developing world. Without the revenues available from patent-protected drug sales, companies' profits will fall, precipitating a reduction in pro bono giving and research. Allowing the production of generic drugs will thus in the long run hurt the developing world.

disease health general house would allow production generic drugs

Allowing production of generic drugs saves lives, particularly in the developing world  Many developing countries are fraught with terrible disease. Much of Africa and Asia are devastated by malaria, and in many parts of Africa AIDS is a horrendous scourge, infecting large percentages of many countries populations. For example, in Swaziland, 26% of the adult population is infected with the virus1. In light of these obscenely high infection rates, African governments have sought to find means of acquiring enough drugs to treat their ailing populations. The producers of the major AIDS medications do donate substantial amounts of drugs to stricken countries, yet at the same time they charge ruinously high prices for that which they do sell, leading to serious shortages in countries that cannot afford them. The denial of the right to produce or acquire generic drugs is effectively a death sentence to people in these countries. With generic drugs freely available on the market, the access to such drugs would be facilitated far more readily and cheaply; prices would be pushed down to market levels and African governments would be able to stand a chance of providing the requisite care to their people2. Under the current system attempts by governments to access generic drugs can be met by denials of free treatments, leading to even further suffering. There is no ethical justification to allow pharmaceutical companies to charge artificially high prices for drugs that save lives. Furthermore, many firms that develop and patent drugs do not share them, nor do they act upon them themselves due to their unprofitability. This has been the case with various treatments for malaria, which affects the developing world almost exclusively, thus limiting the market to customers with little money to pay for the drugs3. The result is patents and viable treatments sitting on shelves, effectively gathering dust within company records, when they could be used to save lives. But when there is no profit there is no production. Allowing the production of generic drugs is to allow justice to be done in the developing world, saving lives and ending human suffering.  1 United Nations. 2006. "Country Program Outline for Swaziland, 2006-2010". United Nations Development Program. Available: 2 Mercer, Illana. 2001. "Patent Wrongs". Mises Daily. Available: 3 Boseley, Sarah. 2006. "Rich Countries 'Blocking Cheap Drugs for Developing World'". The Guardian. Available:

Allowing the production of generic drugs will only increase production of drugs currently on the market. Without the profit incentive that patents provide, pharmaceutical companies will not invest in the expensive process of developing new drugs in the first place. It is a necessary trade-off, as patents are essential to incentivize innovation. Furthermore, many states have mandatory licensing laws in states requiring companies to license the rights to the production of drugs so as not to precipitate shortages.

You cannot own an idea, and thus cannot hold patents, especially to vital drugs  An individual's idea, so long as it rests solely in his mind or is kept safely hidden, belongs to him. When he disseminates it to everyone and makes it public, it becomes part of the public domain, and belongs to anyone who can use it. If individuals or firms want to keep something a secret, like a production method, then they should keep it to themselves and be careful with how they disseminate their product. One should not, however, expect some sort of ownership to inhere in an idea one has, since no such ownership right exists1. No one can own an idea. Thus recognizing something like a property right over something like a drug formula is contrary to reason, since doing so gives monopoly power to individuals who may not make efficient or equitable use of their asset. Physical property is a tangible asset, and thus can be protected by tangible safeguards. Ideas do not share this right to protection, because an idea, once spoken, enters the public domain and belongs to everyone. This should apply all the more with vital drugs that are fundamentally for the public good by improving health.  1Fitzgerald, Brian and Anne Fitzgerald. 2004. Intellectual Property: In Principle. Melbourne: Lawbook Company.

The current patent system is unjust and creates perverse incentives that benefit large pharmaceutical companies at the expense of ordinary citizens  The current drug patent regime is largely designed to benefit and shield the profits of large pharmaceutical companies. This is due to the fact that most of the laws on drug patents were written by lobbyists and voted upon by politicians in the pay of those firms. The pharmaceutical industry is simply massive and has one of the most powerful lobbies in most democratic states, particularly the United States. The laws are orchestrated to contain special loopholes, which these firms can exploit in order to maximize profits at the expense of the taxpayer and of justice. For example, through a process called "evergreening", drug firms essentially re-patent drugs when they near expiration by patenting certain compounds or variations of the drug1. This can extend the life of some patents indefinitely ensuring firms can milk customers at monopoly prices long after any possible costs of research or discovery are recouped. A harm that arises from this is the enervating effect that patents can generate in firms. When the incentive is to simply rest on one's patents, waiting for them to expire before doing anything else, societal progress is slowed. In the absence of such patents, firms are necessarily forced to keep innovating to stay ahead, to keep looking for profitable products and ideas. The free flow of ideas generated by the abolition of drug patents will invigorate economic dynamism.  1 Faunce, Thomas. 2004. "The Awful Truth About Evergreening". The Age. Available:

There is nothing unjust about the patent system. It protects everyone equally. The nature of democracy is such that people are allowed to express their opinions and to organize to further certain aims. Drug companies have a particular interest in protecting their patent rights so it is only natural that they should involve themselves in the process of how those patents should be treated legally. They are not miscreants, but rather are participants in a system that is designed to be as fair as possible for everyone.

Ideas can be owned, to a certain extent. The creative effort involved in the production of a drug formula is every bit as great as the building of a new chair or other tangible asset. Nothing special separates them and law must reflect that. It is a fundamental violation of property rights to steal from drug companies the rights they own to drugs by allowing the production of generic knock-offs.

The costs associated with the current patent regime are necessary to the maintenance of innovation. It may be costly, and technically inefficient to police property rights, but that does not make them less of a right. If firms feel they can benefit from fighting infringers of their patent rights, it is their right to do so. The state likewise, has an obligation to protect the rights, physical and intangible, of its citizens and cannot give up on them simply because they prove difficult and costly to enforce.

Production of generic drugs reduce medical costs by allowing increased production and the development of superior production methods, increasing market efficiency  The sale of generic drugs invariably reduces costs to consumers. This is due to two reasons. It may be the case that an individual or firm with a patent, essentially a monopoly right to the production of something, may not have the ability to efficiently go about meeting demand for it. Patents slow, or even stop the dissemination of the production methods, especially when a patent-holder is unwilling to license production to others1. Such an outcome is deleterious to society, as with no restrictions on drug production an efficient producer, or producers, will emerge to meet the needs of the public, producing an amount of drugs commensurate with demand, and thus equilibrating market price with that demand2. This market equilibration is impossible under conventional patent laws, as it is in the interest of firms to withhold production and to engage in monopolist rent-seeking from consumers3. This leads firms to deliberately under-produce, which they have been shown to do in many cases, as for example the case of Miacalcic, a drug used to treat Paget's Disease, in which its producer deliberately kept production down in order to keep prices high4. When a firm is given monopoly power over a drug it has the ability to abuse it, and history shows that is what they are wont to do. By allowing the production of generic drugs, this monopoly power is broken and people can get the drugs they need at costs that are not marked far above their free market value.  1 Kinsella, Stephan. 2010. "Patents Kill: Compulsory Licenses and Genzyme's Life-Saving Drug". Mises Institute. Available: 2Stim, Rishand. 2006. Profit from Your Idea: How to Make Smart Licensing Decisions. Berkeley: Nolo. 3 Lee, Timothy. 2007. "Patent Rent-Seeking". Cato at Liberty. Available: 4 Flanders Today. 2010. "Big Pharma Denies Strategic Shortages". Flanders Today.

When generic drugs are legalized firms and individuals no longer feel the incentive to misallocate resources to the race to patent new drugs and to monitor existing patents, or to spend resources stealing from one another  Patent regimes cause firms to inefficiently allocate resources. One such inefficiency arises from the duplication of effort by firms seeking to develop the same or very similar drugs, though only the first to do so may profit from it due to the winner-takes-all patent system. This leads to brutal races and excessive expenditure of resources to be first over the line and to monopolize the production, at least for a time. These races can thus lead to efforts by firms to steal research from one another, thus resulting in further wastes of resources in engaging and attempting to prevent corporate espionage. Another serious inefficiency arises in the production of similar products to existing ones, seeking to get around existing patents. Such has been the case for years in the pharmaceutical industry, which has succeeded, for example, in curing erectile dysfunction dozens of times. An overemphasis on such spinning off of similar products is the result of patent-generated inefficiency 1. The inefficiency does not end with production, however, as firms likewise devote great amounts of resources and effort to the development of non-duplicable products, in monitoring for infringement, and in prosecuting offenders, all of which generates huge costs and little or no return 2. Furthermore, the deterrent effect to patent piracy generated by all the efforts of the state and firms has proven generally minimal. Clearly, in the absence of patent protection for pharmaceuticals, markets and firms will behave more efficiently. This is shown by the introduction of generic antiretroviral drugs for treating AIDS where the introduction of generic drugs forced the price of the branded drugs down from $10439 to $931 in September/October 2000 3.  1 Gabb, Sean. 2005. "Market Failure and the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Proposal for Reform". National Health Federation. Available: 2 World Intellectual Property Organization. 2011. "Emerging Issues in Intellectual Property". Available: 3 Avert.org, "AIDS, Drug Prices and Generic Drugs",

No one can own an idea. Thus creating something like a property right over intangible assets is a meaningless endeavor. Doing so gives monopoly power to individuals who may not make efficient or equitable use of their inventions or products. Physical property is a tangible asset, and thus can be protected by tangible safeguards. Ideas do not share this right to protection, because an idea, once spoken, enters the public domain and belongs to anyone who can use it.

Dangerous generic drugs are rare, and when they are found they are quickly pulled from the market. Arguments against generics on the grounds of safety are no more than alarmist nonsense. When people go to the drug store they have a choice between expensive brand name drugs and cheaper generics. It is their right to economize and choose the less glossy alternative.

Patent rights allow firms to more readily release their products and methods into the public domain, particularly through licensing  Without patent protection, innovative and enterprising firms lacking the capacity to market successfully or efficiently produce new drugs might develop new drugs and never release them, since it would simply result in others profiting from their efforts. After all, no one likes to see others profit by their hard work, and leaving them nothing; such is tantamount to slavery. Patent protection encourages the release of new ideas and products to the public, which serves to benefit society generally1. The main mechanism for this is the system of licensing, by which firs can retain their right of ownership over a drug while essentially renting the ability to produce it to firms with productive capacities that would better capitalize on the new product. Furthermore, the disclosure of ideas to the public allows firms to try to make the product better by "inventing around" the initial design, or by exploiting it once the term of the patent expires2. If the drug formula never enters the public, it might never do so, leaving society bereft of a potentially valuable asset.  1 Rockwell, Llewellyn. 2011. "The Google Pharm Case". Mises Daily. Available: 2 Business Line. 2007. "Patents Grant Freedom to Invent Around". Hindu Business Line. Available:

Robust drug patent laws incentivize investment of time and money in developing new products  When a real chance of profit exists in the development of a new product or drug, people and firms put the effort into developing and creating them. The incentive to profit drives a great deal of people's intellectual endeavors. Research and development, for example, forms a major part of industries' investment, as they seek to create new products and inventions that will benefit consumers, and thus society as a whole. Research and development is extremely costly, however. The US pharmaceutical industry alone spends tens of billions of dollars every year on researching new drugs1. The fear of theft, or of lack of profit stemming from such research, will serve as a powerful disincentive to investment. Without the protection of patents, new drugs lose much of their value, since a second-comer on the field can simply take the formula and develop the same product without the heavy costs of research involved, leaving the innovative company worse off than its copycat competitor. This will lead to far less innovation, and will hamper companies currently geared toward innovative and progressive products. Patent protection is particularly important to companies with high fixed costs and low marginal costs, such as pharmaceutical firms. Without the guarantee of ownership over intellectual products, the incentive to invest in their development is diminished as they will not be guaranteed a payback for their research costs as a competitor could simply take the product off them. Within a robust patents system, firms compete to produce the best product for patenting and licensing that will give them a higher market share and allow them to reap high profits. These incentives lead firms to "invent around" one another's patents, leading to gradual improvements in drugs and treatments, benefiting all consumers2. Without patents the drugs companies are trapped in a kind of prisoners' dilemma where both are individually better off by refusing to innovate, yet both suffer if neither innovates. Patents are the solution to this: if a company innovates, it alone can reap the rewards of the new invention3. In the absence of patent protection there is no incentive to develop new drugs, meaning in the long run more people will suffer from diseases and ailments that might have been cured were it profitable to invest in developing them. Clearly, patent protection is essential for a dynamic, progressive pharmaceutical industry.  1 Congressional Budget Office. 2006. Research and Development in the Pharmaceutical Industry". The Congress of the United States. Available: 2 Nicol, Dianne and Jane Nielsen. 2003. "Patents and Medical Biotechnology: Empirical Analysis of Issues Facing the Australian Industry". Center for Law and Genetics Occasional Paper 6. Available: 3 Yale Law &amp; Technology. 2011, "Patents: Essential, if flawed", Available:

The product of a firm's intellectual endeavor is the property of that firm, and it deserves to profit from it  When a firm directs individuals to mix their labor with its capital or other resources, part of that firm's identity inheres in the product that arises from the effort. This is the origin of, and fundamental philosophical justification for, property rights. Property rights are an unquestioned mainstay of life in all developed countries, and are an essential prerequisite for stable markets to develop and function1. The law protects patent rights in much the same way as more conventional physical property, as well it should. Individuals and firms generating ideas and using their effort to produce an intangible good, such as a new drug formula, have a property right on those ideas and the products that arise from them. It is the effort to produce a real good, albeit an intangible one, that marks the difference between an idea in someone's head that he does not act up, and intellectual property that can be protected by a patent. Developing a new drug is a very intensive endeavor, taking time, energy, and usually a considerable amount of financial investment2. The cost of developing a new drug varies widely, from a low of $800 million to nearly $2 billion per drug and is rising3. People and firms deserve as a matter of principle to benefit from the products of the effort of creation. For this reason, stealing intellectual property, which developing generic drugs is, is the same as stealing an actual physical product. Each is a real thing, even if one can be touched while the other is intangible in a physical sense. As a matter of principle, property rights can be assigned to intangible assets like drug formulae, and in practice they are a necessity to many firms' financial survival.  1Fitzgerald, Brian and Anne Fitzgerald. 2004. Intellectual Property: In Principle. Melbourne: Lawbook Company. 2 Congressional Budget Office. 2006. Research and Development in the Pharmaceutical Industry". The Congress of the United States. Available: 3 Masia, Neal, 2008, "The Cost of Developing a New Drug", Focus on Intellectual Property Rights, America.gov, Available:

Generic drugs often prove to be less effective than their brand name counterparts, and can even be dangerous  Generic drugs are meant to retain a substantial degree of bioequivalence with their brand name predecessors. Yet, even under strict testing laws in this regard, generic drugs have on several cases been shown to manifest side effects not present in their parent products. For example, a generic version of Wellbutrin XL, an anti-depressant, that was ostensibly chemically equivalent to the brand name drug, caused suicidal episodes in several users1. This demonstrates that no amount of chemical testing can guarantee true bioequivalence, and thus generic drugs cannot be considered as identical to brand name drugs in terms of safety. While improving testing of generics would go some way toward fixing this problem, it would not do so entirely, as the market for new drugs will be so greatly widened with the approval of generic production that the cost of screening will be very high and the likelihood of poor knock-offs reaching consumers, particularly in the developing world where screening is less robust, is increased substantially2. Brand name drugs may be more expensive, but their safety is more thoroughly guaranteed. Flooding the market with cheap, potentially dangerous alternative drugs helps no one but the undertaker.  1 Childs, Dan. 2007. "Generic Drugs: Dangerous Differences?". ABC News. Available: 2 Mercurio, Bryan. 2007. "Resolving the Public Health Crisis in the Developing World: Problems and Barriers of Access to Essential Medicines". Northwestern University Journal of International Human Rights. Available:

Research and development will continue, irrespective of intellectual property rights. The desire of firms to stay ahead of the competition will drive them to invest in research regardless. That their profits will be diminished by the removal of intellectual property rights is only natural and due to the fact that they will no longer have monopoly control over their intangible assets, and will thus not be able to engage in the rent-seeking behavior inherent in monopoly control of products. The costs of commercialization, which include building factories, developing markets, etc., are often much higher than the costs of the initial conception of an idea1 these are areas where competition will force down costs. Furthermore, there will always be demand for a brand name over a generic product. In this way the initial producer can still profit more than generic producers, if not at monopolistic levels.  1Markey, Justice Howard. 1975. Special Problems in Patent Cases, 66 F.R.D. 529.

If firms are afraid their formulae will be stolen, then they should keep them hidden. Otherwise, they should seek to make their new drug public, benefiting everyone so that the most people possible can have access to them. The release of ideas is most bountiful when there is active and constant competition to produce newer and better products and ideas. This is only possible in the absence of constricting patent protections. Furthermore, firms' attempts to "invent around" patents do not actually benefit anyone, as their aim is often not to improve upon existing models, but to design products that are as close to replicas as possible without violating law. This is a gross misallocation of resources created by the unjust patents regime.

Partly the problem here may well be that clinical research is simply looking for the wrong things. There is enough anecdotal evidence of success to at least suggest further research – it is worth noting that there’s no money in many of these treatments so they actually get relatively little academic discussion.  A meta-study of the available material on analyses of the effectiveness of complementary medicine by the Cochrane Library found positive or confirmatory outcomes in 34 percent of those papers it reviewed on the subject.  It is also worth reiterating that there is a massive financial interest in ignoring, sidelining or condemning therapies that pose a threat to the medical establishment.  It seems incredibly unlikely that people would come back for more than one dose of a treatment that was having no effect, and yet they do.

disease health general healthcare house believes alternative medicine poses threat

Although there are many accounts of the efficacy of alternative cancer treatments, not one has been demonstrated to work in a clinical trial  The National Centre for Conventional and Alternative Medicines has spent over $2.5bn on research since 1992. The Dutch government funded research between 1996 and 2003. Alternative therapies have been tested in mainstream medical journals and elsewhere. Not only have thousands of research exercises failed to prove the medical benefit ”alternative” treatments for severe and terminal diseases, serious peer-reviewed studies have routinely disproved them.  It’s all well and good to pick at mistakes in individual studies. Indeed, this tactic often forms the mainstay of pleas for legitimacy made by members of the alternative medical community. However, the odds against such consistently negative results would be extraordinary.  By contrast, conventional medicine only prescribes medicines and treatments that are proven, and vigorously proven, to work.

Statistics for alternatives are difficult to generate as patients will often move between practitioners and frequently self-medicate.  Clearly there are also conditions that any responsible practitioner would refer to a specialist in that particular field.  However, many people are mistrustful of so-called conventional medicine and the alternative medicine sector has proven both popular and has often brought about changes in lifestyle as well as direct health benefits, if anecdotal evidence is to be believed.  Responsible practitioners have welcomed the actions of those governments who have licensed and regulated the Complementary and Alternative sector.  Although science may struggle to explain the benefits of these therapeutic technics, as they do not lend themselves to the tools of commercial medicine.

Many alternative remedies, such as homeopathy, offer nothing but a false hope and can discourage patients from consulting a doctor with what may be serious symptoms  There are good reasons why new therapies are tested in scientific trials first, rather than just released on the public that it might work. The first is to weed out side-effects but the other is that if you give most people a medicine they will, not unreasonably, expect it to make them better.  An entire industry has grown out of alternative medicines. No doubt many alternative practitioners are well meaning, but this does not change the fact that people are making money out of something that, as far as anyone can determine, is basically snake oil.  Although many people take both alternative and established treatments, there are a growing number of patients who reject conventional medical wisdom ( there’s an account of one such case here [i] ) in cases that prove fatal the availability of alternative medicines raises serious ethical and legal concerns, and also undermines the stringent regimes of monitoring and supervision that qualified medical professionals are subjected to..  [i] David Gorski. “Death by ‘Alternative Medicine”: Who’s to blame?”. Science-Based Medicine 2008.

The overwhelming majority of practitioners of alternative therapies recommend that they be used in conjunction with conventional medicine. However, the rights and opinions of the patient are foremost and should be respected. In the case of cancer, since that is the study considered by proposition, there are many sufferers who decide that chemotherapy, a painful and protracted treatment, which rarely yields promising or conclusive results, may well be worse than the disease.  Of course there is a cost associated with alternative medicine, although it is as nothing compared with the cost of many medical procedures, notably in the US but also elsewhere. There are plenty of conventional practitioners willing to prescribe medications that may not be necessary or, at the very least, select medications on the basis of financial inducements from pharmaceutical companies.  Despite legal rulings [i] , such practices still take place; it would be disingenuous not to explore the extent to which commercial dealings influence the practice of conventional medicine.  Clearly advice should always be given on the basis of the needs of the patient. However, there are many circumstances in which conventional medicine fails to adhere to this principle. Venality and petty negligence are not behaviours that are exclusive to the world of alternative therapies.  [i] Tom Moberly. “Prescribing incentive schemes are illegal says European Court”. GP Magazine. 27 February 2010.

Overwhelmingly alternative therapies are used in conjunction with established remedies - oddly the latter tends not to get the credit for the miracle cure  Thankfully only 4.4% of the 60million or so Americans who say they use alternative therapies rely on them exclusively. It is odd that in the cases of anecdotal accounts of the success of alternative medicines this statistic is rarely mentioned [i] .  Equally, the impact of other treatment which may have been used by patients eager to credit complementary and alternative medicines with curing their conditions, tend not to get a look in, neither do the relative successes of conventional medicine.  This is probably why in every trial alternative medicine has a success rate of between 0% and 0%. By contrast there needs only be one instance of harm caused to demonstrate that this motion must stand. Interestingly, although conventional medicine publishes its mistakes in an effort to correct them, nothing similar exists for alternatives. Moreover, there are many accounts of fatalities caused by alternatives – both directly and indirectly through delaying accurate diagnosis as seen above (Oh, the same applies to animals too [ii] ).  The food supplements industry alone is worth $250 a year worldwide, with little examination of the medical impact of merrily shoving things into your system that were bought at WalMart or Tesco.  [i] JA Astin “Why patients use alternative medicine: results of a national survey” Journal of the American Medical Association 279 (19) 1548-53. May 1998.  [ii]

his is of course an excellent argument for more and better funded clinics, especially in parts of the world (including much of the West) where access to medicine is difficult.  It is also evidence that when people are genuinely worried about their health they tend to consult providers of conventional medicine who are, as a result, extremely busy.  It perhaps says more than anything else about many practitioners of alternative medicines that they have time to sit around bonding with their patients. Unsurprisingly, such a luxury is rare in an A and E ward or even in the average GP’s surgery.

This comes down to the ‘well it can’t hurt, can it’ approach to alternatives. There is simply no serious medic – or any other scientist for that matter who would suggest that it’s a good idea to ingest products that are of dubious origin and purport medical benefits without having been tested. In many cases these have been shown to be at least irrelevant and at worst actively harmful.  Of course it is painful to deny treatment to a patient on the basis that the medication has yet to complete its trial stage but there is a reason for doing that in that it allows doctors to be 100 percent sure of a product before they’re prescribed.

The pharmaceutical and medical industries are worth billions of dollars annually. They have an interest in ignoring the efficacy of remedies that are, for the most part, free or considerably cheaper  It’s understandable that the medical establishment has an interest in ignoring treatments that are freely available. Pharmaceutical companies make billions each year selling drugs that cost pennies to manufacture.  There is an enormous vested interest in insuring that the world in general- and the West in particular-remain tied to the idea that the only solution to disease is to swallow a pill provided by a man in a white coat. There are other solutions that have been used for thousands of years before anybody worked out how to make a buck out of it. For much of the world these therapies continue to be the ones people rely on and the rush of pharmaceutical companies to issue patents on genes of some of these traditional remedies suggests that there must be at least some truth in them.

Alternative medical practitioners tend to spend more time with their patients and get a better understanding of them as a whole, as a result they are more likely to treat the person than the symptom  Modern medicine tends to treat an individual symptom without putting it in the context of the whole person and so will often fail to see it as part of a wider pathology.  Alternative practitioners tend to spend more time with their patients and so are better placed to asses individual symptoms as a part of the person as a whole rather than just dealing with symptoms one as a time as the crop up.

A huge number of fully accepted medical practices started being seen as something a bit off the wall, it’s wrong to deny sick people access to a treatment that may be mainstream in 20 years  There is a fine line between what is considered alternative and what is thought of as mainstream. Techniques do move across that line and when they do so, they are seen as mainstream. However, this process of reform, refinement and acceptance takes time.  In the meantime it is simply unfair to deny treatment to patients who want it because the medical establishment is beholden to a conservative academic orthodoxy and drug and treatment providers with vested interests in ensuring that particular cures and techniques will continue to be purchased and utilised.

Absolutely nobody questions that many remedies can be drawn from nature- penicillin provides one example- but there is something of a jump that happens between chewing on a piece of bark and a regulated dose of a chemical.  Let’s deal quickly with the cost of medications – the second pill may well ‘cost pennies’; the first one, by contrast, costs hundreds of millions of dollars in research. On the basis that there is probably more than one medicine in the world that procedure will need to be repeated.  As for the idea that there are older or more traditional remedies and that these are still frequently used in much of the world, that is, indeed true. They are the same periods of history and parts of the planet were the bulk of humankind died – or continues to die – agonizing deaths from relatively commonplace diseases that modern medicine is able to cure with ‘a pill from a man in a white coat’. It is admittedly regrettable that more of the world isn’t covered by the protection science offers but that is scarcely the fault of science.

Modern palliative care is immensely flexible and effective, and helps to preserve quality of life as far as is possible. There is no need for terminally ill patients ever to be in pain, even at the very end of the course of their illness. It is always wrong to give up on life. The future which lies ahead for the terminally ill is of course terrifying, but society’s role is to help them live their lives as well as they can. This can take place through counselling, helping patients to come to terms with their condition.

disease healthcare philosophy ethics life house believes assisted suicide should

Those who are in the late stages of a terminal disease have a horrific future agead of them  The gradual decline of their body, the failure of their organs and the need for artificial support. In some cases, the illness will slowly destroy their minds, the essence of themselves; even if this is not the case, the huge amounts of medication required to ‘control’ their pain will often leave them in a delirious and incapable state. At least five percent of terminal pain cannot be controlled, even with the best care. Faced with this, it is surely more humane that those people be allowed to choose the manner of their own end, and have the assistance of a doctor to die with dignity. One particular account was of Sue Rodriguez who died slowly of Lou Gehrig's disease. She lived for several years with the knowledge that her muscles would, one by one, waste away until the day came when, fully conscious, she would choke to death. She begged the courts to reassure her that a doctor would be allowed to assist her in choosing the moment of death. They refused. Rodriguez did not accept the verdict and with the help of an anonymous physician committed suicide in February 1994. [1]  [1] Chris Docker, Cases in history, euthanasia.cc, 2000  (accessed 6/6/2011)

Demanding that family take part in such a decision can be an unbearable burden: many may resent a loved one’s decision to die, and would be either emotionally scared or estranged by the prospect of being in any way involved with their death. Assisted suicide also introduces a new danger, that the terminally ill may be pressured into ending their lives by others who are not prepared to support them through their illness. Even the most well regulated system would have no real way to ensure that this did not happen.

Every human being has a right to life  Perhaps the most basic and fundamental of all our rights. However, with every right comes a choice. The right to speech does not remove the option to remain silent; the right to vote brings with it the right to abstain. In the same way, the right to choose to die is implicit in the right to life. The degree to which physical pain and psychological distress can be tolerated is different in all humans. Quality of life judgements are private and personal, thus only the sufferer can make relevant decisions. [1] This was particularly evident in the case of Daniel James. [2] After suffering a spinal dislocation as the result of a rugby accident he decided that he would live a second-rate existence if he continued with life and that it was not something he wanted to prolong. People are given a large degree of autonomy within their lives and since deciding to end your life does not physically harm anyone else, it should be within your rights to decide when you wish to die. While the act of suicide does remove option to choose life, most cases in which physician assisted suicide is reasonable, death is the inevitable and often imminent outcome for the patient regardless if by suicide or pathological process. The choice for the patient, therefore, is not to die, but to cease suffering and tto chose the time and manner of their death.  [1] Derek Humphrey, 'Liberty and Death: A manifesto concerning an individual's right to choose to die', assistedsuicide.org 1 March 2005,  (accessed 4/6/2011)  [2] Elizabeth Stewart, 'Parents defend assisted suicide of paralysed rugby player', guardian.co.uk, 17 October 2008,  (accessed 6/6/2011)

There is no comparison between the right to life and other rights. When you choose to remain silent, you may change your mind at a later date; when you choose to die, you have no such second chance. Arguments from pro-life groups suggest that nearly ninety-five percent of those who kill themselves have been shown to have a diagnosable psychiatric illness in the months preceding suicide. The majority suffer from depression that can be treated. [1] If they had been treated for depression as well as pain they may not have wanted to commit suicide. Participating in someone’s death is also to participate in depriving them of all choices they might make in the future, and is therefore immoral.  [1] Herbert Hendin, M.D., Seduced by Death: Doctors, Patients, and Assisted Suicide (New York: W.W. Norton, 1998): 34-35.  (accessed 4/6/2011)

Suicide is a lonely, desperate act, carried out in secrecy and often as a cry for help  The impact on the family who remain can be catastrophic. Often because they were unaware of how their loved one was feeling. Suicide cases such as Megan Meier, an American teenager who committed suicide by hanging herself in 2006, [1] as the parents have to launch police investigations into why their child might have felt so desperate. By legalising assisted suicide, the process can be brought out into the open. In some cases, families might have been unaware of the true feelings of their loved one; being forced to confront the issue of their illness may do great good, perhaps even allowing them to persuade the patient not to end their life. In other cases, it makes them part of the process: they can understand the reasons behind their decision without feelings of guilt and recrimination, and the terminally ill patient can speak openly to them about their feelings before their death.  [1] Wikipedia, "Suicide of Megan Meier", en.wikipedia.org,  (accessed 6/6/2011)

Were the disposal of human life so much reserved as the peculiar province of the almighty, that it were an encroachment on his right for men to dispose of their own life, it would be equally criminal to act for the preservation of life as for its destruction' [1] . If we accept the proposition that only God can give and take away life then medicine should not be used at all. If only God has the power to give life then medicines and surgeries to prolong people's life should also be considered wrong. It seems hypocritical to suggest that medicine can be used to prolong life but it cannot be used to end someone's life.  [1] David Hume, Of Suicide, cited in Applied Ethics ed. Peter Singer (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986) p.23

At the moment, doctors are often put into an impossible position. A good doctor will form close bonds with their patients, and will want to give them the best quality of life they can; however, when a patient has lost or is losing their ability to live with dignity and expresses a strong desire to die, they are legally unable to help. To say that modern medicine can totally eradicate pain is a tragic over-simplification of suffering. While physical pain may be alleviated, the emotional pain of a slow and lingering death, of the loss of the ability to live a meaningful life, can be horrific. A doctor’s duty is to address his or her patient’s suffering, be it physical or emotional. As a result, doctors will in fact already help their patients to die – although it is not legal, assisted suicide does take place. Opinion polls suggest that fifteen percent of physicians already practise it on justifiable occasions. Numerous opinion polls indicate that half the the medical profession would like to see it made law. [1] It would be far better to recognise this, and bring the process into the open, where it can be regulated. True abuses of the doctor-patient relationship, and incidents of involuntary euthanasia, would then be far easier to limit. The current medical system allows doctors the right to with-hold treatment for patients. Though, this can be considered to be a more damaging practise than allowing assisted suicide.  [1] Derek Humphrey, Frequently asked questions, Finalexit.org  (accessed 4/6/2011)

If someone is threatening to kill themselves it is your moral duty to try to stop them  Those who commit suicide are not evil, and those who attempt to take their own lives are not prosecuted. However, it is your moral duty to try and prevent people from committing suicide. You would not, for example, simply ignore a man standing on a ledge and threatening to jump simply because it is his choice; and you would definitely not assist in his suicide by pushing him. In the same way, you should try to help a person with a terminal illness, not help them to die. With the exception of the libertarian position that each person has a right against others that they not interfere with her suicidal intentions. Little justification is necessary for actions that aim to prevent another's suicide but are non-coercive. Pleading with a suicidal individual, trying to convince her of the value of continued life, recommending counseling, etc. are morally unproblematic, since they do not interfere with the individual's conduct or plans except by engaging her rational capacities (Cosculluela 1994, 35; Cholbi 2002, 252). [1] The impulse toward suicide is often short-lived, ambivalent, and influenced by mental illnesses such as depression. While these facts together do not appear to justify intervening in others' suicidal intentions, they are indicators that the suicide may be undertaken with less than full rationality. Yet given the added fact that death is irreversible, when these factors are present, they justify intervention in others' suicidal plans on the grounds that suicide is not in the individual's interests as they would rationally conceive those interests. We might call this the ‘no regrets' or ‘err on the side of life’ approach to suicide intervention (Martin 1980; Pabst Battin 1996, 141; Cholbi 2002). [2]  [1] Cholbi, Michael, "Suicide", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),  #DutTowSui (accessed 7/6/2011)  [2] Cholbi, Michael, "Suicide", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),  #DutTowSui (accessed 7/6/2011)

It would have a damaging effect on society  Some people who do not agree with voluntary euthanasia argue that if it was legalised, it would damage the moral and social foundation of society by removing the traditional principle that man should not kill, and reduce the respect for human life. It might also be the case that once voluntary euthanasia has been legalised, this might lead to cases of involuntary euthanasia being carried out. With people deciding that someone else's life such as the elderly or the terminally ill is not worth living and therefore performing euthanasia without their consent. [1] A recent study discovered that some sufferers of locked-in syndrome – as many as three out of four of the main sample – were happy and did not want to die. [2]  [1] The case against, religiouseducation.co.uik  (accessed 4/6/2011).  [2] Barbara Ellen, Who is to judge which lives are worth living?, guardian.co.uk, 17 April 2011  (accessed 6/6/2011)

Only God can give and take away life  Life is Sacred so no one has the right to take a life, this includes ones own. As a result both suicide and assisted suicide are wrong. There are many passages within the bible that speak of the idea that God has appointed a time for all to die, 'Hebrews 9:27, “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgement:” Ecclesiastes 3:1-2, “To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;” Ecclesiastes 7:17, “Be not over much wicked, neither be thou foolish: why shouldest thou die before thy time?” [1] In addition to this, physicians are nowhere in Scripture given authority to take someone's life. Apart from the government in the case of capital punishment, all other human beings are given the commandment “Thou shalt not kill,” Exodus 20:13 and “Thou shalt do no murder,” Matthew 19:18. [2]  [1] Pastor Art Kohl, 'The Bible Speaks on Euthanasia', Political Science and the Bible, 2002  (accessed 6/6/2011)  [2] Pastor Art Kohl, 'The Bible Speaks on Euthanasia', Political Science and the Bible, 2002  (accessed 6/6/2011)

It is vital that a doctor's role not be confused  The guiding principle of medical ethics is to do no harm: a physician must not be involved in deliberately harming their patient. Without this principle, the medical profession would lose a great deal of trust; and admitting that killing is an acceptable part of a doctor’s role would likely increase the danger of involuntary euthanasia, not reduce it. Legalising assisted suicide also places an unreasonable burden on doctors. The daily decisions made in order to preserve life can be difficult enough; to require them to also carry the immense moral responsibility of deciding who can and cannot die, and the further responsibility of actually killing patients, is unacceptable. This is why the vast majority of medical professionals oppose the legalisation of assisted suicide: ending the life of a patient goes against all they stand for. The Hippocratic Oath that doctors use as a guide states 'I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.' [1]  [1] Medical Opinion, religiouseducation.co.uk  (accessed on 4/6/2011)

However, the idea that we should not kill is not absolute, even for those with religious beliefs — killing in war or self-defence is justified by most. We already let people die because they are allowed to refuse treatment which could save their life, and this has not damaged anyone's respect for the worth of human life. Concerning the notion that legalised voluntary euthanasia might lead to involuntary euthanasia being carried out, there is no evidence to suggest this. As Ronald Dworkin states, 'Of course doctors know the moral difference between helping people who beg to die and killing those who want to live.' [1]  [1] Ronald Dworkin, stated in The case against, available at  (accessed 4/6/2011).

Society recognises that suicide is unfortunate but acceptable in some circumstances – those who end their own lives are not seen as evil. It seems odd that it is a crime to assist a non-crime. The illegality of assisted suicide is therefore particularly cruel for those who are disabled by their disease, and are unable to die without assistance. For example, in March 1993 Anthony Bland had lain in persistent vegetative state for three years before a Court Order allowed his degradation and indignity to come to a merciful close. [1] It might cause unnecessary pain for people if they make an attempt at suicide themselves and subsequently fail. Rather than the pain-free methods that could be available through doctors and modern medicine.  [1] Chris Docker, Cases in history, euthanasia.cc, 2000  (accessed 6/6/2011)

Changing the demographics on the field will not be likely to change the demographics in the stands. Economic equality is still an issue – which means the change that is needed are changes in matters such as ticket prices, in order to bring in a broader base of spectators.  The way to broaden the talent pool is through policies to make it larger, not to distribute positions within it. In other words, what’s needed is resources, and a commitment to take the game in to communities where it is not so popular currently – the best players will rise to the top no matter their ethnicity.

ational africa sport team sports house supports racial quotas south african rugby

Broadening participation  The talent pool in South African rugby is not as racially diverse as one would expect from the “Rainbow Nation” – some commentators have argued that England and France produce more top level black players than South Africa [1] . This is because top level players are a result of development from the grassroots up.  Targets or quotas could not only improve the talent pool of today, but could broaden it for the future. A new generation of youth across all races in South Africa would be able to see that rugby union is a sport that accepts people from their backgrounds, making them more likely to participate in rugby union, either as players, coaches, referees or as a general part of the rugby fraternity.  [1] Blackwell, James, ‘South African Rugby Quotas – Right or Wrong?’, Sporting Mad, 16 September 2013,

2006 was a while ago, at a time when quotas were in force. Even so, popular support does not mean that something is a good idea. Sport should be distanced from the popular will. Most rugby fans are white, a group that had in the survey only 14% of people in favour of a quotas. Among the people that might be considered the electorate of the sport, the fans, quotas are not wanted

Radical action needed for racial equality in South Africa  It is plain for all to see how unrepresentative rugby union in South Africa is. While there is not necessarily a deliberate policy of racism, it is very easy for biases to creep in. Across the division where the quotas will come in only about 6% of players are black, a number that should increase to 33%. [1] Quotas could help concentrate the mind to ensure that the best team is picked.  At grass roots level, there have been some cases of flat-out racial abuse of non-white players, including using racial terms that are particularly offensive in a South African context.  [1] Peacock, James, ‘Peter de Villiers says racial quotas are ‘waste of time’, BBC Sport, 15 August 2013,

Even if action is needed to create racial equality, are quotas the solution? There is no doubt that rugby is a sport where South Africa could be stronger if it was popular in all racial groups, but they are a blunt instrument: the way to pick the best team is to simply pick the best team. Racial equality comes when no one is picked as a result of race whether that is through negative or positive discrimination.

Most South Africans support quotas  In 2006, the South African Social Attitudes Survey revealed that most South Africans (56%) support a quota system [1] . This support remained roughly the same over a four year period. Sport should reflect the will of the population of the country, if the population wants quotas then there should be quotas. There is particularly strong support from quotas among black people (63%) implying they feel that something needs to be done in order to let them into the sport. Doing nothing will simply ensure the status quo with very few non-white rugby players remains indefinitely.  [1] Struwig, Jare, and Roberts, Ben, ‘The numbers game Public support for sports quotas’, South African Social Attitudes Survey, p.13,

Kevin Pietersen isn’t anything too unusual: English sporting teams have always had a number of South African and New Zealand rejects. It is natural for players to move to where they think they will be most likely to have the best prospects.

In a society where race affects everything, can there ever be such a thing as a legitimate meritocracy? Not everyone will get the same opportunities in life. You cannot pretend factors are not there when they are. Positive discrimination such as racial quotas helps to counter act some of these factors that are weighed heavily against non-whites in playing rugby helping to create a much truer meritocracy.

IRB rules  Racial quotas are a breach of the views of the world governing body of Rugby Union, the International Rugby Board [1] . If this were found to be the case then it would have a large negative impact on South African rugby.  An IRB intervention would lead to at least interference by the governing body, which would be highly embarrassing for the SARU (as well as difficult for a sport which has had major political rows before), or even worse, some form of sanction or expulsion – things that could lead to long term instability in the sport, which should be avoided.  [1] SARugbymag.co.za, ‘Saru quotas ‘breach IRP rules’’, 3 December 2013,

Racial quotas don’t develop new players  The quota system could lead to moving players from the regional teams who generally have less non-white players pilfering them from other unions, rather “Home growing” them [1] .  Former Springboks coach Peter de Villiers, the first non-white person in that role, has described quotas as a “waste of time [2] ”.  Depending on the exact phraseology of the rules, this could even allow black players from outside South Africa (from, for example, England) to be used to fill the quota.  [1] McGregor, Liz, ‘New Year, new model for SA Rugby? Here’s hoping’, Books Live, 30 December 2013,   [2] Peacock, James, ‘Peter de Villiers says racial quotas are ‘waste of time’, BBC Sport, 15 August 2013,

Quotas can drive players away.  Policies of racial quotas can have the effect of driving players abroad. Such policies have had similar affects in cricket. Kevin Pietersen stated that racial quotas in domestic competition, requiring four non-white players per team, were a key reason for his decision to leave South Africa and move to England. Eligible due to playing in England for four years and an English parent, he successfully had an England career. In rugby union, Brian Mujati left South Africa to play in England as he did not want to be selected to fill a racial quota [1] .  [1] Foy, Chris, ‘Last orders at the bar for master brewer – prop Mujati calls time on Saints career’, MailOnline, 19 April 2013,

Meritocracy  It is a value of sport in general that it should be outside the sphere of social ills like racial, religious and political tensions. Sport should be based on merit only; those who play best get onto the team.  Racial quotas will lead to any non-white player in a team in a competition where quotas are being employed to being under a suspicion that they are not good enough and were only selected due to their race. As Peter de Villiers, the first black coach of the Springboks, says “Everybody will believe that these players will be picked because people are looking out for them.” [1] The result could be more racial abuse of players, not less.  [1] Peacock, James, ‘Peter de Villiers says racial quotas are ‘waste of time’, BBC Sport, 15 August 2013,

Even if it doesn’t increase the numbers at the grass roots and youth levels, it will create more players who can be selected by the provinces for Currie Cup competition. This, in turn, could give more non-white players the development and the experience they need to make it in to the national team.

The IRB did not take action against the previous system of quotas: why would they be likely to take action against a new system?  Also, there is a clear difference between the sort of racial discrimination that occurred in the sport during the apartheid era, and affirmative action policies. Positive discrimination does not prevent anyone from having a chance at playing; it simply gives those who are less fortunate a leg up.

Boycotting the football will not highlight Ukraine’s human rights abuses any more than they already have been by the international press as a result of the calls to boycott. Whether leaders boycott or not the human rights abuses have been highlighted. Choosing to attend will not show that leaders are unwilling to take action simply that this is not the way for them to take action. Leaders could attend the matches and still diplomatically rebuke Ukraine’s leader.

olympics team sports house would boycott euro 2012 ukraine unless yulia timoshenko

Boycotting Euro 2012 will highlight Ukraine’s backsliding on human rights  European leaders must take a stand on human rights in their own back yard if they are to be taken seriously on the issue anywhere in the world. There are numerous human rights abuses in Ukraine; migrants "risk abusive treatment and arbitrary detention", Roma and people with dark skin in particular face governmental and societal discrimination and some xenophobic attacks and may be prosecuted for acting in self defense. [1] Amnesty International has highlighted abuse of power by the police “numerous cases in Euro 2012 host cities in which police have tortured people in an attempt to extort money, extract a confession, or simply because of the victims’ sexuality or ethnic origin”. [2] If Europe turns a blind eye to these kinds of abuses in neighbouring states without even a minor diplomatic snub it will not have the moral authority to confront worse abuses elsewhere in the world. States that are abusing their own citizens would shrug off criticism believing that European states will not back their criticism up with any action.  [1] Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, ‘2010 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices Report’, U.S. Department of State, 8 April 2011.  [2] ‘Ukraine: Euro 2012 jeopardised by criminal police force – New Amnesty report’, Amnesty.org.uk, 2 May 2012 .

A boycott can’t be proportional because politics and sport can’t be linked. A proportional response would involve some real action that would hurt Ukrainian leaders such as freezing some of their corruptly gained assets rather than a symbolic boycott.

Europe must not give approval to this regime.  Viktor Yanukovych fairly came to power in 2010 however since then he has set about attacking the country’s fragile democracy. There are numerous cases showing this democratic decline. For example changes to the constitution that occurred after the Orange revolution have been rolled back to give more power to the presidency. [1] Most visibly opponents of the regime such as Yulia Timoshenko have been jailed in politically motivated trials. At the same time there have been attacks on the freedom of the media and Ukraine has fallen down rankings of press freedom in 2010-11 with its score from freedom house falling from 56 to 59 with its ranking falling to 130th. [2]  Ukraine, like its neighbours Russia and Belarus, has become a ‘virtual mafia state’ where the SBU (Ukraine’s successor to the KGB) is all powerful and the elite are unaccountable. [3] It is becoming more and more corrupt as is shown by its fall down the Corruption Perceptions Index from 118th in 2007 to 152nd in 2011. [4] Ukraine is clearly going in the wrong direction and European leaders need to stand up and show that the will not allow this to continue.  [1] Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, ‘2010 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices Report’, U.S. Department of State, 8 April 2011.  [2] Karlekar, Karin Deutsch and Dunham, Jennifer, ‘Press Freedom in 2011: Breakthroughs and Pushback in the Middle East’, Freedom House, 2012, pp.7, 16.  [3] Luzio, Taras, ‘Ukraine, Like Russia, Is Becoming a ‘Virtual Mafia State’’, Atlantic Council, 1 March 2012.  [4] Transparency International, Corruption Perceptions Index 2011 , Transparency International, Corruption Perceptions Index 2007 .

Attending football matches is not giving approval to a country’s government. Leaders when attending international football matches are simply supporting their team and often hoping that they will be seen as such giving them a good photo op for the audience back home.

Boycotting Euro 2012 is proportional  Diplomacy is necessary with any regime almost no matter how oppressive they are however that does not show approval of a regime to the world in the way that high profile visits and events can. Just as the Beijing Olympics were the People’s Republic of China’s coming out party so Euro 2012 is an ideal chance for Ukraine to show itself off to Europe and the rest of the world. If there was not a boycott this would implicitly show that Europe approves of Ukraine and the actions of its government.  In a list of possible diplomatic responses that range from verbal diplomatic complaints right up to sanctions a boycott represents a mid-point. A boycott is perhaps the best action that the European Union leaders could take is it takes away the shine that the event would otherwise give the Yanukovych. It will be denying him the political benefits of the Euros while highlighting rights concerns. A boycott is also proportional because it gives Ukraine’s leaders a chance to reform before beginning any further measures that would have a much deeper effect on diplomatic relations.

A boycott of the events in Ukraine could even be good for the events in Poland as more will go there instead. It is difficult to see how the Ukrainian people are negatively affected by foreign leaders not attending matches in Ukraine. This is an action that only affects the elite.

Sports and politics have always been intertwined and so can’t be separated. That political leaders were thinking of attending in anything beyond a private capacity proves the linking of international football and politics. Yanukovych himself no doubt hoped for a political payoff and has opened the new stadia such as the Olympic Stadium declaring “The successful reconstruction of the NSC Olympiyskiy has become the most telling project for Ukraine's image.” [1]  [1] Buga, Bogdan, ‘Olympic Stadium opens in Kyiv’, uefa.com, 8 October 2011 .

A boycott won’t help resolve the issues at question  European leaders need to consider whether their methods are likely to achieve the result they want. What Europe’s leaders want is first of all Yulia Timoshenko released and secondly improvements in Ukrainian human rights. Timoshenko is unlikely to be released as she has been convicted on charges of abuse of office and sentenced to seven years in prison; the best that could be hoped for is an improvement in her treatment. Similarly the result is not likely to be positive for human rights and democracy. There might be an improvement during the games while the eyes of the world are on Ukraine but long term there will be no impact unless Yanukovych is persuaded that improvements are in his benefit. This would require more concrete and long term actions than one off boycotts.  Past boycotts have demonstrated a lack of success in changing the situation on the ground. In the 1980 Olympics held in Moscow during the Cold War the USA boycotted in response to the 1979 invasion by the USSR of Afghanistan. The result was that the Soviet Union stayed in Afghanistan, won most medals in the Olympics and retaliated by boycotting the 1984 games held in Los Angeles. [1]  [1] Gera, Vanessa, ‘Boycott of Ukraine During Euro 2012 Carries Risk’, Associated Press, 11 May 2012.

Europe needs to prevent Russian influence in Ukraine  If Europe shuns Ukraine then Yanukovych has an obvious alternative he can turn to; Russia. Putin, the newly re-elected President of Russia, is holding out the option of a customs union with Ukraine which Yanukovych despite initially rejecting [1] is now showing more interest in joining. [2] Only a few years ago Ukraine was being touted for possible NATO membership and Vice President Biden called Ukraine a “European country where democracy rules”. [3] A turn towards Russia therefore represents a failure of the European Union and NATO’s policy towards its eastern neighbours where the aim is to promote democracy and human rights.  [1] Interfax-Ukraine, ‘Putin: Yanukovych statement Ukraine will not join Customs Union conveys political emotions’, Kyiv Post, 16 September 2011 .  [2] Interfax-Ukraine, ‘Official: Ukraine shows keen interest in Customs Union’, Kyiv Post, 15 March 2012 .  [3] ‘Biden: U.S. supports Ukraine’s NATO bid’, USA Today, 21 July 2009 .

Boycotts did not take place for the 2008 Olympics despite the far worst human rights background  It would be hypocritical for European leaders to boycott the Euro 2012 finals because of Ukraine’s recent human rights record. It an absurd overreaction when the focus is on the poor treatment of one woman, Timoshenko. Countries with poor human rights records have hosted major sporting events before without there being boycotts. President Bush was urged by some in the US such as former president Clinton to boycott the Beijing Olympics and only a few countries boycotted on human rights grounds. This was despite China having a considerably worse human rights record than Ukraine and engaged in a violent crackdown in Tibet in the run up to the games. [1] Similarly Russia will be hosting the next Winter Olympics in 2014 should leaders essentially commit to boycotting these games too?  [1] ‘Bush will attend opening of Beijing Olympics’ CNN, 3 July 2008.

The boycott would affect Poland and the Ukrainian people as well as Yanukovych  A boycott of Euro 2012 even if it was meant to be limited to Ukraine would negatively impact on the whole tournament. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tust argued "It is in Poland's undisputed interest to hold the games in Poland and Ukraine without a hitch and to prevent politics from ruining the great effort", [1] any boycott would unnecessarily move the attention away from the games itself towards politics.  It should also be remembered that Viktor Yanukovych does not represent the whole of Ukraine and only won by a narrow margin with 48.95% of the vote compared to Yulia Timoshenko’s 45.47% in the second round. [2] Arseniy Yatsenyuk leader of the Front for Change has urged leaders not to boycott "The best scenario would be if the European leaders attended the championship, but did not meet President Yanukovych. It's supposed to be a visit to Ukrainians, not to Yanukovych". [3] This would show that European countries support the Ukrainian people and their democratic aspirations and even hope they may be eventually will join the European Union while showing displeasure at Yanukovych’s policies and lack of support for democracy.  [1] ‘ Poland slams calls for Ukraine Euro 2012 boycott’, The Warsaw Voice online, 4 May 2012.  [2] Nesterov, Andrei, ‘How the News is Reported in Russia’, School of Russian and Asian, 19 February 2010.  [3] Dorosh, Svitlana, ‘Ukraine fights Euro 2012 boycott’, BBC Ukrainian, 9 May 2012.

Russian influence in Ukraine is not a real concern. Given the possibility of joining the European Union or a Russian lead customs union any Ukrainian government even one lead by a pro-Russian such as Yanukovych would choose Europe. The Ukrainians know that the Russian’s price is likely to be high and so will continue to try to balance between their two larger neighbouring blocks. As a result any boycott will not seriously affect long term relations. [1]  [1] ‘Call foul, Viktor Yanukovych’s thuggish autocracy is heading in a dangerous direction’, the Economist, 5 May 2012 .

This is a sports event not a political event  Sport and politics are separate and should be kept separate. This is the position of the organisers “Uefa has no position and will not take any regarding the political situation in Ukraine, and will not interfere with internal government matters.” [1] Euro 2012 is a football tournament that is about entertainment and bringing nations together in a common love of a game in a non-political sphere. Even pro-democracy activists such as Vatali Klitschko are “against the politicization of sports”. [2] Politicization would be exactly what politicians are doing by engaging in cheap political stunts, such as a boycott, to promote their own human rights agendas.  [1] Scott, Matt, ‘Sports minister Hugh Robertson could boycott Ukraine during Euro 2012’, The Telegraph, 2 May 2012.  [2] Keating, Joshua, ‘European leaders consider Euro Cup boycott over Tymoshenko’, Passport Foreignpolicy.com, 1 May 2012.

In a global event such as the Beijing 2008 Olympics of the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi many more nations would need to boycott to have an effect. In Euro 2012 by contrast liberal democracies who claim to be concerned about human rights make up the majority of the participants making their actions much more significant.

Because these issues are domestic to Ukraine European nations cannot directly resolve them however actions such as boycotting of the tournament show that the international community wants these problems resolved. Without any action at all how will the issues ever be resolved? You don’t prevent human rights abuses by brushing them under the carpet.

Any large expenditure in one area will stimulate regeneration. Considering that the cost of hosting the London 2012 Olympics is predicted at £2.375 billion, expected to rise far higher, regeneration is the least that can be expected as a legacy (Carlin, 2006).1 Controversially, a large part of this (£625 million) is being financed by London’s own citizens through a rise in council tax bills (Buksh, 2007).2 Jobs are promised, but there is no guarantee that these jobs will last beyond the Olympics itself. Furthermore, the £15 billion Crossrail system planned for East London is money not spent on fixing the increasingly fragile Underground lines currently servicing Central London.  Regeneration is also only available to those areas who are fortunate enough to be hosting Olympic events. This typically means a couple of areas of one city, using funds derived from a much larger population spread over a far greater territory. The East London regeneration expected for 2012 threatens merely to substantiate the already expansive North-South divide in the United Kingdom (Ruddick, 2011).3  1 Carlin, B. (2006, November 22). Cost of London Olympics could hit £10bn. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from Telegraph  2 Buksh, A. (2007, March). Grey rebellion against Olympics Levy. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from BBC News  3 Ruddick, G. (2011, April 1). North-South divide exists on whether games will benefit whole of UK. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from The Telegraph

y business finance government sport olympics house believes hosting olympics good

Hosting stimulates regeneration in local areas  Hosting stimulates regeneration. The IOC is enthusiastic about bids that will leave a lasting impact and have looked favourably on cities that locate their Olympic Villages and stadia in deprived areas in need of regeneration. The 1992 Barcelona Olympics were used as a means to completely overhaul the port and coast of the city creating an artificial beach and waterside cultural area that became a lasting tourist attraction. Along with cleaning up areas and new stadia, Olympic Villages release between 5,000 and 20,000 new homes which governments can chose to hand over as low-cost housing (as is proposed for London 2012). Whilst these projects could be completed without the Olympics, the need to provide an overall package (transport, accommodation, stadia, greenery etc.) for a set deadline means that there is far more incentive to get the projects done. An example of this in London is the plan for a new £15bn underground rail system called ‘Crossrail’, first proposed over 20 years ago but only now being developed because of the attention surrounding the London 2012 bid.1 The fact that international scrutiny will follow the building program means that it is far more likely to be completed to a high standard (consider the detailed coverage of the preparations for Athens 2004).  1 Hayes, S. (2011, April 19). Crossrail will leave a positive legacy. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from Wharf

The Olympic spotlight is not always a positive experience for the host nation and its government; for example, the run-up to the Beijing Games in 2008 was hijacked by the issue of Tibetan autonomy. The event designed ostensibly to celebrate China's coming-of-age was instead framed through their poor human rights record. German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy were sufficiently concerned to boycott the opening ceremony in protest, causing significant embarrassment for Olympic organisers.

Hosting creates a 'feel-good' factor  Hosting creates a 'feel-good factor'. It is hard to put a price on the buzz that surrounds international sporting events. Think of Paris during the World Football Cup in 1998 or Sydney during the 2002 Olympics. Even sporting success abroad can unite a nation (for example the England Rugby Union Team's victory in the 2003 Rugby World Cup in Australia). Governments are aware of the huge potential for boosting national pride and national unity. The Paris 2012 bid has used a well-known footballer, Zinedine Zidane, who is the son of an immigrant to stress how hosting the Olympics would bring Parisians of all backgrounds together. It is partly because of this 'feel-good factor' that so many people want their city to host the Olympics (97% of Parisians and 87% of Londoners want the 2012 Olympics).

There is no guarantee that a city will experience a 'feel-good factor'. In Athens many of the events had empty seats as the Greek team failed to do well enough to capture the local imagination. Where tournaments and games have successfully created a 'buzz' it has been because the host nation has done well (England reached the semi-final of Euro 96, France won the World Cup in 1998). The fact that this 'feel-good factor' can be had even if the team is winning on the other side of the world means that there is no need to host the Olympics in order to get it. Furthermore, a study of British youth in 2011 found that 70% were not inspired to take part in more sport despite the media attention given to London 20121. In any case, any Olympic excitement will be short-lived compared to the years of disruption and congestion which a host city will suffer in the run-up to the games, due to the massive building work and security worries which are now necessary.  1 Magnay, J. (2011, June 21). London 2012 Olympics: British youth not inspired by Games, survey shows. Retrieved June 29, 2011 from The Daily Telegraph:

Hosting does not leave a beneficial legacy. As a study found in 2010, 'there is insufficient evidence to show that major multi-sport events benefit or harm the health and economy of the host population.'1 The demands of the Olympics are very particular, an 80,000 all-seater stadium, pools, horse tracks, beach volleyball etc. Many of these stadia will never be used again after the end of the games. Even in Australia, which has a very strong sporting ethic, underused stadia in Sydney are costing the taxpayer $32m a year in maintenance1. In the long term, the money spent on these stadia would be much better off used to build affordable homes and transport infrastructure which is designed with local residents in mind rather than with the intention of impressing IOC members. As far as tourism goes, Greece may even have lost out economically in 2002-03 as potential visitors stayed away, frightened off by stories of disruptive building works, security worries and fears of over-crowding.  1 Ormsby, A. (2010, May 21). Benefits of hosting Olympics unproven. Retrieved June 29, 2011 from Reuters:  2 Davenport, C. (2004, September 1). A post-Olympic hurdle for Greece: the whopping bill. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from The Christian Science Monitor:

COUNTERPOINT Any large expenditure in one area will stimulate regeneration. Considering that the cost of hosting the London 2012 Olympics is predicted at £2.375 billion, expected to rise far higher, regeneration is the least that can be expected as a le  The Olympics are a showcase. Hosting the Olympics can be a way of making a strong political point because of the intense media scrutiny that accompanies the games. During the Cold War both Moscow 1980 and Los Angeles 1984 were used by the USSR and USA to show their economic strength. Seoul in 1988 used the games to demonstrate South Korea's economic and political maturity. The Beijing Olympics in 2008 are seen by many as evidence of China's acceptance into the global community and a way for her to showcase her economic growth and acceptance of the West. For New York, the 2012 bid is a way of showing that the post-9/11 healing process has been completed and that the city is 'open for business' despite the terrorist attacks.

Hosting has wide-reaching economic benefits  Hosting creates an economic boost. Whilst none of the Olympics of recent times have made an immediate profit, the cost of the regeneration and improved infrastructure means that this is not a big problem as long as the losses are not huge. The Olympics showcases the host nation to the world and most hosts have seen a boost in tourism in the years after the Olympics (Australia estimates it gained£2bn extra tourist revenue in the four years after Sydney 2000). During the games between 60,000 (Paris 2012 estimate) and 135,000 (New York 2012 estimate) jobs are created providing skills and training to local people.

The economic benefit of the event is in its legacy. Regarding London specifically, a lot of the money will be spent on the regeneration of parts of East London that are currently underdeveloped. When the games are over the new facilities will still benefit the local communities and the prestige of hosting the games should bring new life and investment to the area. Furthermore, London's reputation as a tourist destination has taken a knock from the threat of terrorism since the underground bombings of 7/7. The games will be a way of bringing international attention back to the positive aspects of the UK's capital, bringing foreign visitors and their spending power back to Britain. London's population of 7.7m people is expected to be temporarily expanded by 12% during the Olympics alone1.  1 Grobel, W. (2010, April 15). What are the London 2012 Olympics 2012 worth? Retrieved May 13, 2011, from Intangible Business:

Hosting has an impact on the whole nation. The Olympics involves hundreds of events and sports and so provides an opportunity for the whole nation to feel like they have taken part. Training camps are often located outside the host city, as are events such as rowing, sailing, canoeing and shooting, so that the rest of the country benefits too. During Beijing 2008 for example, the equestrian events were held in Hong Kong, drawing both tourism and prestige away from Beijing and towards other parts of the country. The lasting impact of this will be a generation of young people who are excited about sport. Given rising levels of childhood obesity and declining amounts of sport in schools, this can only be a good thing.

The bidding process is too long, tying up funds and land  The bidding process takes too long. Bidding officially takes only two years (unless a city fails to make the shortlist), but most cities spend nearly a decade working on their bids. Obviously the bidding process costs money but it also ties up the land needed for any future Olympic Village or stadia from being developed until the bid outcome is known, as well as diverting government funds away from other sporting events and activities. Furthermore, the way the IOC works with each member deciding which city they wish to vote for means that personal relationships and international tension can count for more than the quality of the bid. For example, American foreign policy is thought to be disadvantaging New York in the 2012 bidding process. Given that the Olympics are 'rotated' between continents, if a city fails to be selected it will be 12 years before it has another chance.

Hosting is very expensive  Hosting is very expensive. In recent times the Olympics have never made a direct profit. The bidding process alone for 2012 will cost each bidding city around £20m and whichever is selected will expect to pay at least £6.5bn (Paris). With increased security fears Athens spent $1.5bn on security out of a total of $12bn on the 2004 games. The burden of this cost falls on government (and therefore the taxpayer), companies and individuals. Both Paris and London’s local governments have put aside around £2.4bn which will mean £20 per year extra in tax for every household in the cities. Big projects are notoriously hard to budget for (so much so that London is estimating the total cost may go up by up to 50%) and residents in Los Angeles have only just stopped paying for the over-budget 1984 Olympics through their local taxes. If cities want to regenerate or improve their infrastructure then they should use this money directly on those projects rather than wasting it on subsidising a sporting event.

Hosting only affects one city  In large countries like the United States or China, the benefits of the Olympics are almost entirely focused on the host city. Even in smaller countries, the benefits of a event played outside the host city or a training camp are negligible. Capital cities are often chosen (after failed bids from Birmingham in 1992 and Manchester in 1996 and 2000 the IOC told the United Kingdom that only a bid from London was likely to win), which concentrates growth and development where it is least needed. 90% of the economic impact of London 2012 is expected to come to London1; not surprising given that 'seventy-five pence in every pound on the Games is going towards the regeneration of East London.'2Furthermore, house prices have been seen to rise in host cities like Barcelona and Sydney around the time of their Olympics, without comparable rises elsewhere in Spain and Australia respectively2. As such, hosting only serves to entrench geographical economic divides.  1 Grobel, W. (2010, April 15). What are the London 2012 Olympics 2012 worth? Retrieved May 13, 2011, from Intangible Business:  2 Ormsby, A. (2010, May 21). Benefits of hosting Olympics unproven. Retrieved June 29, 2011 from Reuters:

The bidding process is not too long and does not tie up funds or land that would otherwise be developed. Furthermore, the Olympic bidding process would not be as difficult, expensive or long if the benefits to the eventual victor were not deemed worth all the time and effort. The unsuccessful bids are not wasted, the plans drawn up and experience of the process can be utilized for later bids. Moreover, the exposure granted to land earmarked for Olympic redevelopment can both generate interest in the area and lead to further development in the area regardless of an unsuccessful Olympic bid. The bidding process is now open and trustworthy. Whilst the 1998 Salt Lake City scandal did reveal huge levels of endemic corruption, IOC president Jacques Rogge has taken significant steps to stamp it out. Cities can now be confident that the best bid will win and that they should not be put of bidding to host because they fear they will lose simply for not being corrupt enough.

Collisions are much less a part of the game than people believe. The notion that collisions have been in the game for ages is a widely held misconception. In fact, collisions were specifically banned in baseball’s early history, and the collisions we see today came about only since around the late 1960s. Bill James, one of the best-respected authorities on baseball, wrote: “Basepath obstruction was a major problem in the 1880s and nineties, when baseball was in danger of becoming a contact sport. In 1897 the rules on obstruction were tightened up, and the principle of free access to the bases met with general acceptance at the other three positions. There was always something of a problem with catchers blocking the plate, but there were always limits.... I think it has changed a lot just in the last fifteen or twenty years. . . . I don’t remember [well-respected catchers] Elston Howard or Bill Freehan doing some of the things that [catchers] do now [in the 1980s].” [1]  Clearly, collisions are not a necessary part of the balance between offense and defense. Baseball did quite well for decades without allowing runners to crash into catchers. Just because something is now erroneously regarded as a “tradition” does not make it deserving of respect. Toughness in baseball is better measured by playing hard every day, rather than by meaningless, destructive collisions.  [1] “The MLB Rulebook, Bill James, and the Buster Posey–Scott Cousins Collision,” Misc. Baseball, May 26, 2011,  .

team sports house believes major league baseball should continue allow collisions

Collisions are a part of the game.  First, collisions are part of the tradition of baseball. They have been part of the game for a very long time. Fans, players, and managers all expect home plate hits to occur from time to time. “Some things are part of the game. There’s not a whole lot you can do,” said Red Sox catcher Jason Varitek, who has been on the receiving end of numerous crashes in his career. [1] Varitek’s manager at the time, Terry Francona, agreed: “Nobody wants to see anybody get hurt, but you got to play the game.” [2] And former catcher Brad Ausmus, who had also been hit multiple times in his career, echoed the sentiment: “[I]t's part of the game.… When you put on the shin guards and chest protector, you know that if there’s a play at the plate and you’re blocking the plate, you could take a hit at any moment.” [3] As the Associated Press put it, many people believe “home plate collisions are as much a part of baseball tradition as peanuts and Cracker Jacks and the seventh-inning stretch.” [4]  Second, home plate hits are an essential element of playing the game hard. Without them, baseball would be much less deserving of its nickname “hardball.” One commentator notes, “[An injury is] extremely unfortunate, but it's the result of a hard-nosed play that is as old as the game itself. To take away the potential for a high-intensity, physical play in an otherwise non-physical sport would be a mistake.” [5] In that vein, collisions are also part of the dynamic between the offense and defense that, once removed, will make the game much poorer: “A baserunner wants to get there at all costs, whereas a catcher wants to protect it at all costs. The mutual discomfort that's evoked in both the catcher and the baserunner as a play at the plate develops is one of the intriguing peculiarities that makes the game of baseball so great.” [6]  [1] Antonio Gonzalez, “Posey’s injury stirs debate on baseball collisions,” Associated Press, May 27, 2011,  .  [2] Ibid.  [3] Jayson Stark, “On a collision course,” ESPN.com (Rumblings &amp; Grumblings blog), May 28, 2011,  .  [4] Ibid.  [5] Ricky Doyle, “Buster Posey’s Injury Unfortunate, But Home-Plate Collisions Still Have Place in Baseball,” NESN, May 29, 2011,  .  [6] Ibid .

Collisions increase the risk of injury dramatically. Though it’s true that most collisions do not result in significant injury, they result in a higher rate of injury than almost any other baseball play. And just because a collision doesn’t necessarily result in an injury that derails a player’s entire career does not mean that it didn’t take a toll. This is especially true now that we’re learning more about concussions, which might be suffered without someone immediately realizing it. After a catcher on his team suffered a concussion in a collision, Yankees manager Joe Girardi referred to this type of injury as “so unpredictable. That’s what’s so scary.... You just don’t know what’s going to happen” with a concussion. [1]  When catchers are trained to block the plate, they’re taught how to reduce the risk of injury, not how to eliminate the risk of injury. No matter how a catcher positions himself, there will still be a risk of injury, and it will still be much higher than for any other play in baseball.  (Opposition Point #1 elaborates more upon the risk of injury.)  [1] Mark Feisand, “Yankees manager Joe Girardi not counting out catcher Francisco Cervelli for postseason roster,” New York Daily News, Sept. 17, 2011,  .

Collisions are exciting and fun to watch.  Baseball is a form of entertainment, and few plays are as entertaining as bang-bang plays (a close call on whether the runner is thrown out) at the plate. As a sport that’s often criticized for being too slow and boring—“baseball has no clock,” the saying goes [1] —it’s important that it hold onto perhaps the most dramatic, vivid play it has to offer. One columnist described it this way: “When [collisions] do occur, they’re exciting. We watch to see how well the catcher blocks the plate, how hard the runner slides, and whether the catcher can hold the ball. As dangerous as that play may be, it’s exciting to watch.” [2]  Other sports—like American football, ice hockey, and rugby—feature plenty of violent hits. Baseball has so few of them that when they do happen, they are doubly entertaining. It is just not necessary for baseball to prohibit a small dose of something that is extremely common in other sports.  [1] William Deresiewicz, “Metaphors We Play By,” American Scholar, June 6, 2011,  .  [2] Nick Cafardo, “Let’s keep rule change off our plate, please,” Boston Globe, May 29, 2011,  .

Collisions are often not entertaining, and when they are, it’s for the wrong reasons. Most collisions do not show two athletes engaged in a skilled showdown; they feature athletes awkwardly trying to achieve their goal (scoring or getting the out) without injuring themselves. It’s not fun or exciting.  Fans also tend to be horrified by the injuries they witness in these crashes. Watching Buster Posey’s leg snap at an odd angle was hardly entertaining or amusing; it was stomach-turning.  And if fans do find this sort of thing entertaining, they’re wrong to do so. Violence should not be glorified, at least not in this sport. Nobody should delight in watching baseball players put their careers in jeopardy. Baseball is fundamentally different from other sports; if people want to see athletes impose harmful blows on each other, they can watch boxing or ice hockey or ultimate fighting.

In the match-up between catchers and runners, home plate should be treated like the other bases. At first base, second base, or third base, fielders are expected not to block the base and runners are expected not to collide with the fielder. By imposing both of these requirements, neither the catcher nor the runner would have an unfair advantage. Each player would be required to contribute to a situation that allows both of them to avoid a collision.

Collisions are not as dangerous as they’re feared to be.  Some hits lead to injury, but the vast majority do not. One commentator challenged proponents of a rule change “to name as many as five MLB catchers in the last 30 years who have had their careers ended or shortened as a result of a home plate collision. Personally, I can’t think of one.” [1] In posing some—though not a substantial—risk, home plate collisions are very much like other aspects of the sport. Every time a pitcher throws a pitch, the batter could get struck and hurt. Every time two outfielders converge on a fly ball, there’s a risk of injury. Baseball, as with many other sports, inherently involves the risk of injury. It makes little sense to focus on this play, which doesn’t often result in significant injury.  Moreover, catchers are trained to position their bodies in ways that minimize the injury risk from crashes. [2] If catchers do as they’re trained, they’re very unlikely to get hurt.  [1] Joe Janish, “Buster Posey Aftermath: What Should Be Done?,” On Baseball, May 30, 2011,  (internal quotation marks omitted).  [2] See, for example, “Relays, Cutoffs, and Plays at Home,” Baseball-Catcher.com,  .

Without collisions, either the catcher or the runner would have an enormous and unfair advantage.  There are two often-discussed ways to change the rules: require the runner to slide, just as they must do when attempting to reach other bases; or disallow catchers to block runners’ paths. Each results in an imbalance between the catcher and runner. A commentator describes this dynamic very well:  “If Major League Baseball was to employ a rule stating that runners must avoid contact with the catcher—similar to the ‘slide or avoid’ rule employed in amateur baseball—it would give the advantage to the catcher. The catcher would have the benefit of dictating the course of action that a baserunner must take, and would—perhaps more importantly—have peace of mind knowing that there is no chance of an ensuing collision. If Major League Baseball was to make a rule stating that the catcher cannot block the plate, the advantage would certainly go to the baserunner, who would enjoy the luxury of a straight path to the most sacred ground on a baseball diamond.” [1]  Allowing collisions is the fairest, most even match between the catcher and runner.  [1] Ricky Doyle, “Buster Posey’s Injury Unfortunate, But Home-Plate Collisions Still Have Place in Baseball,” NESN, May 29, 2011,  .

Collisions are an occasionally necessary part of the game. When two professional athletes are involved in a dramatic, exciting play that could change the direction of a game (or decide the outcome of the entire season), they will do whatever they can to ensure the play turns out favourably for their team. That means that collisions will occur. To try to remove this aspect of baseball is to ask the players to do something that is completely at odds with their objective: to score, or to prevent the run from scoring.  Though home-plate collisions are prohibited in amateur leagues, the stakes are different. MLB players are paid millions of dollars to score—or prevent—runs. They should be permitted to do what they’re handsomely paid to do.

Collisions are not as dangerous as they’re made out to be. (Proposition Argument #3 is directly relevant here, though it’s not repeated in this cell.) People remember vivid example of injuries in home-plate crashes, but that does not mean that they happen as often as people believe. This is a textbook example of the availability heuristic: people believing that an event is much more likely because they can think of an example of it very easily. [1] Yes, those injuries were quite bad, but it was their very severity that leads people to overestimate the frequency and severity of home-plate collisions in general.  Any simulation of a hit at home plate will be imperfect. In a game situation, a runner will have to make a split-second decision of whether to slide around the catcher or to barrel into him, and this will often reduce his speed or remove the decisiveness of his impact. The catcher is also wearing protective pads. The crash-test dummy does not accurately represent reality.  If a team does not want its catchers to be involved in collisions, it can instruct them to avoid collisions, just as the Oakland Athletics did. This is their choice; they have decided that the risk is not worth it. But this is not a reason for MLB to step in and change the rules.  Fans want to see players playing their hardest. A player is much less exciting to watch if he’s always worried first and foremost about whether a particular action is going to injure him. Yes, there’s always a risk of injury, but fans understand that, and they still want to see collisions and players giving their all.  [1] See Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman, “Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability,” Cognitive Psychology, 1973, 4, pp. 207-232,  .

Collisions are an example of violence that has no place in baseball.  Baseball is not a contact sport. It is not a sport that is supposed to rely on violence. This is one commentator’s point: “if you want to watch violent collisions, you can watch [American] football. Or hockey. Or MMA. There’s no reason baseball needs to have similar kinds of plays; it’s an entirely different sport with a different premise and different rules.” [1]  Baseball tries to make the game safe for its players. That’s why beanballs—pitches that endanger hitters—are disallowed. Baseball should not promote violence, and it certainly shouldn’t allow it when players’ careers hang in the balance.  [1] Dave Cameron, “It’s Time to End Home Plate Collisions,” FanGraphs, May 26, 2011,  .

Collisions heighten antagonisms.  When someone gets hurt in a collision at the plate, the injured player’s teammates are more likely to hold a grudge—and to try to get even. There are numerous opportunities to do that, whether by aiming a pitch at that player, or by seeking another opportunity to hurt him. When Posey was injured, the Giants’ General Manager Brian Sabean said, “If I never hear from Cousins [who hit Posey] again or if he never plays another game in the big leagues, I think we’ll all be happy.... We’ll have a long memory.” [1] This is exactly the unsportsmanlike behaviour engendered by these dangerous and unnecessary plays.  Former MLB catcher Mike Matheny noted that catchers don’t forget when they get hit, saying, “I think you just put a mark in the column that that kid took a run at a catcher. To me as a catcher I know the next time I get the ball I'm going to stick it to him. You make those notes as a catcher.” [2]  [1] “Source: Joe Torre to call Brian Sabean,” ESPN.com News Services, June 3, 2011,  .  [2] R.B. Fallstrom, “Matheny critical of Cousins’ hit on Posey,” Associated Press, May 30, 2011,  .

Collisions are unnecessary.  Baseball doesn’t need collisions. By requiring the runner to slide, just as they must do when attempting to reach other bases, or disallowing catchers to block runners’ paths, or—best of all—requiring both those steps, baseball can eliminate collisions.  Unlike in football or rugby, hits at the plate are not a necessary component of the sport. The game is played quite well at the amateur level without such brutal physical contact. [1] Collisions occur relatively infrequently, and the complexion of the game will not be dramatically different without them. Yet the benefits of improved safety are dramatic.  [1] See, for example, American Legion Baseball Rules, Rule 1(E),  .

Collisions are dangerous and lead to injury.  Ray Fosse and Buster Posey (mentioned above in the Introduction) are just two examples of players who suffered major injuries in crashes at home plate. Texas Rangers star Josh Hamilton, reigning Most Valuable Player of the American League, broke his arm when he collided with a catcher in 2011. In August 2010, Cleveland Indians catcher Carlos Santana suffered a season-ending knee injury when he was hit by Red Sox runner Ryan Kalish. To go back a few more seasons, Braves catcher Greg Olson was having a career year in 1992 until Ken Caminiti broke his leg in a collision. There have been literally dozens of severe injuries suffered in bang-bang plays at the plate.  This high rate of injury should come as no surprise, given the physics involved in this type of play. A simulation with a crash-test dummy wired with sensors showed that a catcher can get hit by a runner travelling 18 miles per hour, resulting in 3,200 pounds of force—much worse than an American football hit, with much less padding. [1]  Teams make heavy investments in their players, paying them millions of dollars a year. Thus, serious injuries are very expensive, both because of the treatment required and because the player is missing many games. This is why the Oakland Athletics instructed their top catcher, Kurt Suzuki, to avoid blocking the plate—because their investment in him is worth more than whatever runs he allows by failing to stop the runner from scoring. [2]  When players are injured in these plays, it’s also bad for fans, who will lose the opportunity to see their favourite athletes on the field. As Bruce Bochy, Busty Posey’s manager with the Giants, told the media after he lost his star catcher to injury: “And here’s a guy that’s very popular in baseball. Fans want to see him play, and now he’s out for a while.” [3]  [1] Joel Siegel, Barbara Pinto, and Tahman Bradley, “Catcher Collision Ignites Baseball Rules Debate,” ABC News, May 28, 2011,  .  [2] Buster Olney, “Billy Beane issues home plate directive,” ESPN The Magazine, June 1, 2011,  .  [3] Tim Kawakami, “Bochy on Posey’s injury: ‘Hopefully the guys are not happy—I’m certainly not happy,’” MercuryNews.com (Talking Points blog), May 26, 2011,  .

A clean hit will not heighten tensions between teams. Players recognize when a collision is “dirty” and when it is entirely within the rules and spirit of the game. After the Posey hit, a baseball columnist summed up “the consensus viewpoint” of baseball professionals and journalists: “It was a clean play.” [1]  In the 2011 playoffs, Texas Rangers Mike Napoli was barrelled over by Sean Rodriguez of the Los Angeles Angels. Napoli said afterward, “It was a fine, clean play. He was trying to score. I’m going to try to do the same thing if I’m trying to score and a guy is blocking the plate in that moment.” [2] As long as a player is not intending to hurt another and does not use unnecessary force, players on both teams are unlikely to hold grudges.  The threat of retaliation for “dirty” hits is actually a useful deterrent to gratuitous force. Players are much less likely to hurt each other if they know that there will be consequences for that behaviour.  [1] Bruce Jenkins, “Buster Posey’s injury provokes anger, reflection,” San Francisco Chronicle, May 27, 2011,  .  [2] Richard Durrett, “Catcher Mike Napoli fine after collision,” ESPN.com, October 5, 2011,  .

Some level of violence is called for in baseball. Just because most plays in baseball do not involve contact does not mean that no plays should involve contact. It has been a part of the game for decades, so it is false to argue that it is not part of the game, or to assert that baseball is not a contact sport at all.  There is also a clear difference between violence that is intended to injure an opponent—for example, in a boxing match or an ice hockey fight—and physical contact that is aimed at a valid objective, such as scoring a run. A beanball is not a way to achieve a valid objective. In addition, a beanball is much more dangerous than a collision at home plate. A beanball has resulted in a fatality at an MLB game [1] ; no home-plate collision has even come close.  [1] “Beaned by a Pitch, Ray Chapman Dies,” New York Times, Aug. 17, 1920,  .

While it is inexpensive to set up and run this is relatively expensive for the community compared to commercial radio, which is free to the user and perfectly capable of promoting the ideas of the free market which have had a proven benefit to democratic structures the world over.  In addition to which, realistically, democratic participation will end up involving larger national bodies such as trades union, political parties and civil society organisations who need to operate on a nationwide basis but also have larger budgets.

Radio is cheap to produce and easily accessible.  Community radio relies on the power of its ideas and the thirst for those ideas among its audience. It accepts the notion that it is the exchange of information and views, freely given and received, that is more important than the ideas themselves.  It doesn’t require massive budgets and radio waves can be received on equipment that costs pennies; more importantly it can be shared.  For all of its pretensions of accessibility the devices used to access the Internet tend to be expensive and they also tend not to be shared – unlike radios [i] .  To give some context to this, even paying Western prices, a small radio station can be started for as little as $10,000 with monthly costs of $1,000 [ii] . Some of that, of course, relates to government issued licences, clearly this does not apply if the station is planning to be ignored by the authorities. These costs can be further reduced when the founders have a pre-existing knowledge of radio engineering or work with a partner organisation such as the BBC World Service or the various NGOs who specialise in the field [iii] .  [i] Plunkett, John, Community radio: A rare success story. The Guardian. 9 March 2009.  [ii] Prometheus Radio Project.  [iii] Wikipedia. Community Radio.

Once again, Proposition is conflating things that tend to go along with community development and those that cause it. The fact that vibrant and active communities, duly engaged in wider society, frequently set up institutions such as community radio in no way demonstrates that it encourages civic participation.

Community radio gives voices to the people rather than imposing those of the powerful.  The events of the Arab Spring (and previous events such as the revolutions of 1989) have shown that effective means of communicating are vital. In a country where people have heard only one perspective, anything that can break the monopoly is to be welcomed. As Orwell put it, ‎'In an age of universal deceit, to tell the truth is a subversive act'.  Community radio can both encourage an initial outpouring of democracy and, just as importantly, ensure that a diversity of opinions means that one autocratic regime is not just replaced by another.  In almost all other forms of mass communication, genuinely democratic voices are easily swamped by those with either the power or the money to drown out the competition [i] . As the focus of community radio is public service, rather than profit, responsible to – and frequently produced by – their listener base there do not have commercial advertisers’ aversion to upsetting authority – either political or cultural. As a result they are free to eschew the bland lowest common denominator approach that is so typical of commercial radio.  [i] AMARC (World Association of Community Radio) booklet. What is Community Radio? 1998.

Community radio can indeed do the many wondrous things that Prop seems to trust it to do. It can also do more or less anything else. If proposition is trying to demonstrate that community radio, per se, supports democracy, then it needs to demonstrate how it does so more than, say, libraries or coffee shop discussion groups. It may be a public service that is responsible to the community but that does not mean that it cannot be infiltrated and controlled by the state like any other service.

Community radio evens the playing field against state and corporate broadcasters.  Autocracy has, at its root, the premise that only one perspective, or group of perspectives is legitimate. Certain assumptions are unquestionable, certain rules inviolable and, more often than not, certain voices unchallengeable.  It’s all too easy for that state of affairs to be normalised. Community radio offers another voice. More to the point it offers many.  As well as the value of the messages themselves, the very fact that they are there and broadcast is a powerful statement against autocratic assumptions. The process of establishing and running a community radio station is, in and of itself, a powerful fillip for community cohesion.  Giving voices to communities supports them as groups in their own right; cohesive, engaged and worthy of respect. In doing so it can provide a focus which increases the homogeneity of those communities without requiring the approval of a central structure of control [i] . In addition to well known examples such as Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, radio stations across the Middle East And, especially, Africa have been key movers in the shift to democracy [ii] .  [i] Siddharth. Riding the radio wave; Community radio in South-East Asia. Culture360.org 18 February 2010.  [ii] Buckley, Steve, President, World Association for Community Radio Broadcasters. Community Broadcasting: good practice in policy, law and regulation. UNESCO. 2008.

It is a platform, but it’s a platform with history – one that has allowed small or marginalised groups to have a voice. Of course a radio station won’t build democratic strength on its own but it is an important tool in normalising the concept that the voices of those communities have both worth and power.

Opposition is letting state-sanctioned media off the hook fantastically lightly. Just staying within the Arab world, the number of broadcasters that sully the name of journalism by acting as apologists for butchers and torturers is astonishing. One example of this – selected utterly at random from an embarrassment of riches – was the state media’s declaration of historic victories by both Milosovich and Saddam Hussein after both had received drubbings from Western allies [i] . There is at least a chance that a broadcaster won’t be just a voice for the state if it isn’t funded or run by the president or one of his closest allies or appointees.  [i] Ash, Timothy Garton, Facts are Subversive. The Strange Toppling of Slobodan Milošević. Atlantic Books. 2009. This account is one of many, many others that highlight the importance of the control of media centres in democratic shift. However, it highlights the Serbian state media’s proclamation of Milošević’s ‘victories’ against the west but also the impact of this when, fallowing the dictator’s fall, it was the seizure of the state TV and Radio stations, rather than parliament or the presidential palace, that denoted victory.

Radio is yesterday’s technology.  Proposition is right to point out the role that has traditionally been filled by relatively small scale radio – providing a relatively cheap method of getting in touch with anybody willing to listen. However, that has, effectively, been rendered redundant by Internet technology. The power of Facebook, Youtube and other sites to disseminate ideas and information as well as phone texting has not only matched that role but surpassed it.  With no capital costs in an era of internet cafes and omnipresent cell phones, the free exchange of information through digital and portable technology has met exactly the needs and concerns Proposition highlights. [i]  Suggesting that community radio will somehow supplement or enhance that process it taking a step backwards; support for the relatively monolithic radio model runs all of the risks of empowering extremists already mentioned without even equalling the benefits of texting and social media [ii] .  [i] Helling, Alex, ‘This House would use foreign aid funds to research and distribute software that allows bloggers and journalists in non democratic countries to evade censorship and conceal their online activities’, freespeechdebate.idebate.org, 18 May 2012.  [ii] Hood, Michael, NPR CEO: Internet will replace broadcast radio in 5-10 years. Blatherwatch, 3 June 2010.

Community radio is just a platform, there is nothing innately democratic about it.  To associate a medium with a particular virtue is missing the point. Radio has been used for atrocity and tyranny (Rwanda would be an obvious example) just as much as the promotion and development of democracy. Equally the suggestion that community radio has a more significant role to play in this regard as opposed to, say, the BBC world Service, is ignoring the facts.  Particular media cannot be said to support democratic renewal any more than particular languages can. Equally, the revolutions of 1989 demonstrated the reality that taking control of the national radio station is, in some situations, more important than seizing the Presidential Palace. Neither the ‘community’ element nor the ‘radio’ aspect are innately democratic.  Different media have, undeniably, produced different types of social change – but they all have possibilities for democratic progress [i] .  [i] Sedra, Mark, Revolution 2.0: democracy promotion in the age of social media. The Globe and Mail. 2 February 2011.

Community radio just gives a megaphone to extremists.  Experience suggests that the airwaves, unregulated, tend to attract pedagogues seeking followers more than democrats seeking the views of others. Particularly in areas of high sectarian divisions, technologies that propagate the views of every mullah with a mic are unlikely to help democracy in the middle east. Indeed the experience with the nearest equivalent in the US, talk radio, shows how fantastically divisive it can be. [i]  Community radio in areas that do not have a history of plurality and diversity of opinion would be likely to see the spread of radio stations pandering to the specific views of every shard and splinter of opinion, reinforcing that particular set of beliefs while ignoring all others – it is difficult to imagine a more toxic – and less democratic – option to encourage in the Arab world [ii] .  The difficulty, as shown in the reference given in the previous paragraph, is that exactly the same ease of access applies to fanatics as to democrats – who may, frequently, be the same people. In the instance of Rwanda, extremists inciting violence (almost entirely Hutus) had acquired small scale radio equipment. The government couldn’t afford the jamming equipment (the US jamming flights would cost $8500 per hour) and sought assistance from the Americans. The UN objected as such actions were clearly sectarian. However, the wide use of Radio – initially funded by the West – which, in part at least had lead to the genocide then left a toxic legacy of fanatics dominating the airwaves, those involved were eventually convicted in 2003. [iii]  [i] Noriega, Chin A, and Iribarren, Francisco Javier, ‘Quantifying Hate Speech on Commercial Talk Radio’, Chicano Studies Research Center, November 2011.  [ii] Wisner, Frank G., ‘Memorandum for deputy assistant to the president for national security affairs, national security council, Department of Defense, 5 May 1994.  [iii] Smith, Russell, ‘The impact of hate media in Rwanda’, BBC News, 3 December 2003.  Dale, Alexander C., ‘Countering hate messages that lead to violence: The United Nations’s chapter VII authority to use radio jamming to halt incendiary broadcasts’, Duke Journal of Comparative &amp; International Law, Vol 11. 2001.

For all of its potential, the idea that the Internet is a worldwide force is something of a Western conceit. That fact is doubly the case when discussing the social media sites that Op seems to think are such a panacea. These sites – and the Internet in general – are overwhelmingly white, Western and wealthy.

Proposition are obfuscating attacks on the right to a free expression of religious faith, free of ridicule or threat for doing so behind the BBCs obligation to be fair. This right is established in national and international law where it is not treated as comparable to what someone might find interesting as part of the nights viewing. The latter is clearly trivial by comparison to the former.  Those leading the protests have been quite clear that they have no objection to free speech and discussing, and disagreeing with, various religious themes – so long as that is done in a respectful manner. It was offensive that it had been shown at the National Theatre and then in Cambridge; for it to be broadcast on the de facto ‘flag carrier’ of British broadcasting is simply unfair to the many Christian licence fee payers who help fund the BBC’s output [i] .  [i] The Christian Voice. Statement from their website in 2005.

Many people find the views expressed by much of the church offensive, those views are given airtime, a public service broadcaster should provide a level playing field for ideas.  The role of a public service broadcaster, especially one of the stature of the BBC, is to provide a portal for ideas from all perspectives. There are many who take either irritation or offence at the idea that the Corporation devotes a disproportionate time and resources to what, in modern Britain, is a strictly minority interest [i] with fewer than seven per cent of people regularly attending religious worship.  Many perceive commonly held positions in the mainstream churches – let alone more extreme sects – to be offensive or reactionary and, in some cases, a cover for homophobic, illiberal or sexist opinions.  If religious opinion is to be granted this airtime for the benefit of a small, if vocal, minority then it seems both unfair and unprofessional for that broadcaster to be constrained by that groups views in relation to the rest of its output.  The BBC, like most major broadcasters, meets the challenge of divergent or conflicting views by providing some output that is considered likely to be of interest to each viewpoint.  [i] National Secular Society. Press Release: “BBC Must Not Become the Evangelical Wing of the Church of England.” 9 February 2010.

It is wrong to suggest that the BBC has any duty on account of its relative funding freedom to give a platform to controversial works of art. On the contrary the BBC has a higher obligation to viewers not to offend them because they are also licence payers. Highlighting the BBC’s global audience also has little meaning as the global audience did not all have the opportunity to watch the programme – the numbers are global and include radio. The 1,500 protesters outside BBC studios was a small slice of the tens of thousands who voiced their protest in one form or another. These protests took place outside productions around the world involving Christians from many walks of life as well as the numerous complaints. However the BBC, dominated by an out of touch urban elite, clearly had little interest in the huge amount of offence that it had caused.

This was a piece of art, advertised and described as such, those likely to be offended were quite welcome not to watch it.  The allegation made by those who objected to the airing of this show was that it was blasphemous. There were also objections to the graphic nature of the language and sexual reference. It seems staggeringly unlikely that 55,000 [i] people had accidently been watching opera on BBC 2 having failed to watch any of the warnings in advance or the fairly extensive media discussion in advance of the broadcast.  Therefore, those who watched it made a choice to do so – and it seems reasonable to consider that an informed choice. A free society is predicated on the fact that adults have the right to make choices. In turn that is based on the shared understanding that those choices have consequences; which may, potentially, cause some degree of harm to the person making that choice. Having been warned that watching the broadcast may cause them offence, viewers still chose to and some, it seems, were duly offended.  It seems reasonable, therefore, to assume that the shock was either feigned or a matter of pretence. Which leaves the matter of blasphemy; an offence against a belief system. There was no secret that religious issues were likely to feature in the broadcast and no secret was made of the fact that those views were likely to be both critical and forthright. Tuning in, specifically to be offended by something that the viewer had been warned they might find offensive seems perverse.  By contrast, art lovers who wished to see the production - which had received four Lawrence Olivier Awards among other tributes – had the opportunity to experience a theatrical work they would have had a limited opportunity to witness had it not been broadcast nationally.  It would be bizarre to disadvantage those who wanted to – and actually did – see the performance (about 1.7 million [ii] )because of the views of those who neither wanted to see it or refused to do so  [i] Wikipedia entry: “Jerry Springer: The Opera”  [ii] BBC News Website. “Group to Act Over singer Opera.” 10 January 2005.

As Proposition suggest, the broadcast had been widely discussed in the media before the event and there had been reviews of the stage performance as well as coverage of the subsequent awards. It cannot have come as a huge surprise that this would attract attention from, and cause great offence to, many people with an interest in the popular portrayal of religion. The trick of deliberately stoking allegations of blasphemy and obscenity to improve the ratings of a fairly obscure art form is as old as it is contemptible.  Equally there is a secondary level of impact in terms of how the deep beliefs of people of faith will be represented to those who choose to watch and are not offended. They are hardly likely to have their perceptions of those beliefs enhanced by seeing matters portrayed in this way. There is, therefore, the risk that the interaction between those two groups will be effected in a deleterious way.

There is clearly a different threshold between the questions “do I like soap operas?” and “do I appreciate having my beliefs excoriated on national TV?” The difficulty here is that many who took offence saw the programme as a direct attack on themselves personally, their beliefs and the others who shared their faith.

There is a duty for a broadcaster that is not dependent on either commercial or state funding to give a platform to controversial works of art.  The BBC is in an unusual position, simply because of its funding structure, to promote new or challenging works of art. The licence fee means that it is freed of many of the pressures brought to bear by either commercial or political masters. Although it has never taken that to mean it has a carte blanche, it does allow for opportunities simply not available to many broadcasters in terms showcasing new works of art and encouraging creative development.  The BBC’s global audience in 2007 was 233 million [i] . That audience provides some context for the 1,500 who actively protested this particular broadcast.  It seems reasonable to suggest that many of those millions follow the BBC because they trust the Corporation’s approach of providing the widest possible range of output and opinion. For such an organisation to capitulate to a prudish group – who were outside BBC venues at the time so couldn’t have seen the broadcast – would be a huge betrayal of that trust.  [i] BBC News Website. “BBC Global Audience Hits New High”. 21 May 2007.

It is simply impractical for a major international broadcaster to hand out powers of veto to small sectional interests.  The BBC would quickly be left with a content either devoid of interest or of content were it to allow such a veto to become normative. Especially were it, as appears to be the case here, to offer such a veto to people who didn’t watch the programme.  As a result, although some of the responsibility for avoiding offence lies with the broadcaster at least an equal share must lie with the viewer. Even at the more basic level of ‘will I like this’, responsibility lies with both parties. The BBC undertakes to provide a diverse range of programming so that there is a reasonable chance that the overwhelming majority should be able to find something of interest but does so on the assumption that people will watch what they find interesting.  Likewise, it is reasonable to assume that people will not go out of their way to watch things that they already expect to find offensive.

The BBC may be unusual but it is designed to fulfill particular functions. The very reason for its existence is to provide a platform for the free expression of a wide range of views, tailored to a wide range of viewers. Within that context, it cannot be expected that everyone will feel equally comfortable with every programme – indeed if that were the case, they would be breaching their own commitments to reflect diverse, often special, interests. There are other services and broadcasters who receive support from the licence fee, so those who wish to view elsewhere are not throwing away their investment. [i]  [i] Holmwood, Leigh et al., ‘Digital Britain: BBC licence fee to help fund broadband and ITV local news’, the Guardian, 16 June 2009.

BBC Director General, Mark Thompson, who is himself a practising Christian, said that he found ‘nothing blasphemous’ about the programme [i] . The protests were small and overwhelmingly organised by one group. There is simply no case for a right not to be offended by something you’ve seen; far less for something you haven’t. This would equally apply if the programme had been offensive to some Muslims as it does to a programme that is offensive to some Christians.  [i] BBC News Website. “Protests as BBC Screens Springer”. 10 January 2005.

Tens of thousands of licence fee payers objected to this, ultimately they are the BBC’s key stakeholder and that view is worthy of respect.  As an institution, the BBC may like to position itself as a global media brand but that doesn’t alter the fact that it is funded by, and chartered to serve, the British population. The whole British population. That combination – paying the pipers and calling the tune – would suggest that the corporation might be sensitive to that group.  If 50,000 to 60,000 users of any other brand registered their protest or objection to a product put forward by that brand, it would cause chaos, resignations, sackings and a rethink of whatever strategy had caused the problem in the first place.  In the case of the BBC, it caused a few slightly dismissive comments from senior managers, one editor resigned because he felt that the protesters comments were not being taken seriously and the organisation continued as though nothing had happened.  The sheer arrogance required for that response beggars belief. The BBC, as a public institution has a duty of care that might be thought of as greater than that of a private corporation. And yet it gave the impression of acting like it was just one of the other venues who had staged the opera. There is clearly a difference between a theatre that I choose to attend or not – and choose whether to support financially – and the national broadcaster which is beamed into people’s living room paid for by a compulsory licence fee.

Why should those who foot the bill have chunks of airtime from which they are, effectively, excluded.  How can it be okay for a broadcaster, funded by a compulsory levy on anyone who owns a television, to willingly produce programmes they know will cause offence to that consumer?  The charge of blasphemy is far more than saying ‘I didn’t enjoy this’ or ‘not my kind of show’, it is a deeply held belief that what has been said is a deliberate and willful attack on values and beliefs that the viewer holds sacred and fundamental to who they are.  All major broadcasters, including the BBC, routinely test shows and monitor audience response and yet, in this particular regard, feel relaxed about producing material that certain viewers would consider it not only uncomfortable but sinful to watch. By definition, those viewers cannot watch those shows or, quite probably, that station and yet they are still expected to pay for it.  Even if a British viewer were to choose never to watch the BBC again because of the offence caused by programmes such as Jerry Springer: The Opera, they would still be paying the salaries of those who had caused the offence in the first place. That cannot be reasonable by any standard.

If this work had been an attack on Mohammed it would never have been broadcast, the BBC is applying double standards.  A week before the broadcast of the opera, protest by Sikhs in Birmingham about the play Bezthi by the Birmingham Rep, brought the show to a close. Like many organisations, the BBC panics when it believes it has caused offence to some religions and yet Christianity – by far the world’s most populous and diverse creed [i] - is routinely ignored or expected to ‘take it on the chin.  Christian symbols and imagery are routinely profaned by major broadcasters, publishers and others in a way that would simply not be tolerated if they were directed at ‘minority’ faiths in the UK.  Article Four (4) of the BBC’s charter [ii] stipulates quite clearly that all of the UK’s communities should be reflected in all of its activities. Despite this the interests of the community that is represented by the established church of the country, headed by the monarch, receives the least support or consideration from the institution.  [i]   [ii] BBC Charter.

In the same way that the BBC is routinely criticised from the political Right for its Left-wing bias and from the Left for a supposed favouritism to the Right, maintaining balance in any sphere of life is difficult. Freedom of speech demands that such a balance is maintained, however hard to do. That balance can mean that last week’s bosom buddies may be this week’s fiercest foes. The reality of both free expression and a public service ethos mean that one cannot, constantly yield to the cry of ‘more of what I like’. Any broadcaster could not show a greater disrespect to its viewers than by assuming they could not be capable of dealing with new ideas.

The media always want a good story; they are interested in the health of celebrities when there is no clear reason why they should have any right to this private information. The health of the leader is not something that the press or public needs to know about unless it is an illness that is likely to affect the president’s capacity to make decisions. A government’s decision should not be based upon the possibility that information on the leader’s health will leak and should take a consistent line that it is a private matter or provide a bare minimum of information.

free speech and privacy health general international africa politics

The people are interested in the health of their leader  The health of the leader of the state is an issue that the people and the media inevitably want to know about. There will always be a lot of interest in it. Occasionally this can be played by the administration as with Kissinger saying he was ill and using time to fly to Beijing to arrange for Nixon’s visit without press attention. But most of the time keeping things from the press is purely negative; it drives rumors.  This was the case of John Atta Mills, people were not allowed to know about his health. The presidential staff and communication members constantly lied about his health but there were two reports that he had died. Mills spent time in a US hospital, on returning to Ghana, he was made to jog around the airport to show the media that he was healthy. 1  1 Committee for Social Advocacy, 'Who and what killed President John Evans Atta Mills?', Modern Ghana, 13 August 2012,

Administrative capabilities should not be compared to health. Unhealthy leaders may perform better than the healthy ones, people could be misled to choose inappropriate leaders while taking health as a black spot while the leader could actually have a better potential than the rest. If the electorate had just elected on the basis of health, or had been fully informed about presidents health then it is plausible that neither FD Roosevelt of JF Kennedy would have been elected. Neither completely hid their illnesses but they were not discussed and did not become election issues as they would have in a modern election. 1  1 Berish, Amy, ‘FDR and Polio’, Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum,

The head of state/government must be accountable to the people  Secrecy in relation to the leader’s health shows a distrust or distain of the electorate. Not being open about health issues almost invariably means that the administration is lying to those who elected them, those who they are accountable to. A couple of days before John Atta Mills died Nii Lantey Vanderpuye a candidate for Mills’ party stated “He [Mills] is stronger and healthier than any presidential candidate”, information that in retrospect was clearly untrue. 1  1 Takyi-Boadu, Charles, ‘Confusion Hits Mills’, Modern Ghana, 21 July 2012,

If a candidate has a condition during an election campaign then there is a clear right to know when the electorate is making the decision. But does such a right to know apply at other times when it will make no difference to the people? There can only be a right to know if it is going to affect the people, something that many illnesses won’t do.

All of these procedures could be put in place even if there is secrecy. Doctors are already committed to patient-doctor confidentiality so are unlikely to tell the press if they are told beforehand to be ready to receive the President.

Transparency allows citizens to choose for a healthy leader as to ensure proper functioning  The health and fitness of a leader is a vital issue when choosing a leader; the electorate deserves to know if they are likely to serve out their term. When health conditions are hidden from the people they may mistakenly elect a leader who is unable to serve a full term or is at times not in control of the country. There would be little point in voting for a leader who will often not truely be in charge of the country, if voters are told it becomes their choice whether this is a problem. Transparency in terms of clear, accurate and up-to-date information is necessary for the electorate to judge the fitness of a leader which is a necessary precondition for election. In a democracy a leader needs to be accountable, he can only be accountable if the elctorate knows such vital information.

A lack of transparency can endanger the leader  A person is most likely to survive when they have an accident, a heart attack, or some other condition if they get prompt treatment and doctors are aware of any underlying conditions. Mills may well have lived, or lived longer if there had been more transparency about his death. There had been no prior warning that the president might be rushed to hospital despite the doctors having been called in the previous day. For the same reason his outriders were not available leading to indecision over whether to send off the ambulance. And finally he was initially turned away from the emergency ward because they did not know it was the President they were being asked to treat. 1 Transparency would allow procedures to be in place and advance notice given possibly gaining a few minutes and enabling survival.  1 Daily Guide, ‘How Mills died: Sister tells it all’, My Joy Online, 31 August 2012,

Deputy leaders are appointed and they are well versed with how the leader is managing issues and are capable of taking up the role immediately after the leader resigns or dies. Being open and transparent about a leader being ill simply creates the lack of stability. If he lives it is best if the illness is not revealed as everything will carry on as before. If the leader dies then it is best nothing is known until his successor is announced so reducing the period of uncertainty.

When leaders choose to serve the country they should be ready to sacrifice their privacy for the country. There is clearly a different standard for those who are in government and should be publicly accountable to those who are not. Even more minor illnesses can damage the running of the country through either affecting the judgment of the leader or limiting the amount of time he can work. The people have the right to demand their leader has his full attention of the issues affecting the nation. If he can't do that then he should resign.

Rivals could misuse the opportunity  While the leader suffers from an illness, rivals can use the opportunity to ease the leader out of office. A period of illness is a period of vulnerability in which the government is less able to respond to external and internal threats. Not telling the public about the leader's health during an illness helps prevent such attempts. The same is the case with a leader's death; a few days of secrecy allows for smooth succession as the appointed successor has the time to ensure the loyalty of the government, army and other vital institutions. In 2008 when General Lansana Conte of Guinea died power should have been transferred to the president of the National Assembly Aboubacar Sompare with an election within 90 days. Instead a group of junior military officers took advantage of the quick announcement to launch a coup. 1  1 Yusuf, Huma, ‘Military coup follows death of Guinea’s President’, The Christian Science Monitor, 23 December 2008,

Damages diplomacy to be too open  Diplomacy can be very personal; diplomatic initiatives are often the result of a single person, and the individual leader is necessary to conclude negotiations. Transparency about a leader's health may therefore prevent deals being done; Nixon went to China despite Mao's ill heath meaning the supreme Chinese leader contributed little to the historic change in diplomatic alinements. 1 Would such a momentous change in alignment have been possible if both the Chinese and American public knew about Mao's ill health? The Americans would have considered any deal unreliable as they could not be sure it was Mao who made the decision, while opponents in China could have argued that it was advisers like Zhou Enlai who made the deal not Mao himself potentially enabling them to repudiate or undermine the deal.  1 Macmillan, Margaret, Seize the Hour When Nixon met Mao, John Murray, London, 2006, p.76

Markets like stability  Business and the markets prize political stability. Clearly when the leader of a country is ill this stability is damaged but the damage can be mitigated by being transparent. The markets will want to know how ill the leader is, and that the succession is secure so that they know what the future holds. Secrecy and the consequent spread of rumour is the worst option as businesses can have no idea what the future holds so cant make investment decisions that will be influenced by the political environment.  Leaders do matter to the economy; they set the parameters of the business environment, the taxes, subsidies, how much bureaucracy. They also influence other areas like the price of energy, the availability of transport links etc. It has been estimated that “a one standard deviation change in leader quality leads to a growth change of 1.5 percentage points”. 1 The leader who follows may be of the same quality in which case there will be little difference but equally it could mean a large change.  1 Jones, Benjjamin F., and Olken, Benjamin A., 'Do Leaders Matter? National Leadership and Growth Since World War II', Quarterly Journal of Economics, February 2005,

Denial of privacy to the leaders  The leaders of states deserve privacy in exactly the same way as anyone else. Just like their citizens leaders want and deserve privacy and it would be unfair for everyone to know about their health. Leaders may suffer from diseases such AIDS/HIV or embarrassing illnesses which could damage a leader.  The people only a need for the people to know when the illness significantly damages the running of the government. The government can function on its own without its leader for several days; only if the illness incapacitates the leader for a long period is there any need to tell the people. Clearly if the President is working from his bed he is still doing the job and his government is functioning. William Pitt the Younger, Prime Minister of Great Britain was toasted as 'the Saviour of Europe' while he was seriously ill but still running the country during the height of the Napoleonic Wars. 1  1 Bloy, Marjie, 'William Pitt the Younger (1759-1806)', Victorian Web, 4 January 2006,

If the leader in-charge is in illness, to avoid any repudiation, the representative from the other side could meet the leader in order to confirm or even have a video conference with the leader in charge. The leader only needs to set the overall policy, not negotiate the fine details. When Nixon went to China the Americans knew Mao was ill but realised that he still set the overall direction of policy.

Transparency is still better than secrecy. There are several reasons why the opportunity of instability is as present when keeping the leader's health a secret. The first is that it is likely that at least some of the leader's rivals are in government so are likely to be in the loop on any illness. In this case secrecy simply gives these individuals more opportunity to do as they wish. Secondly a lack of transparency creates uncertainty which can be filled by a rival wanting to seize power; if the leader is just ill and there is a void of information it is simply for rivals to seize the narrative and claim he is dead enabling their takeover.

A bargaining chip, by definition needs to be part of a bargain. Using it to demand a change in the structure of the state as a whole is hardly reaching a bargain – it’s dictating a fiat. An invitation from a country to a university is a big step in expressing an interest in how that institution works and the values it promotes. Using that as an opening to demonstrate the strength of those ideas is an opportunity that should not be dismissed.

y free speech debate free know house believes western universities

A bargaining chip  In much the same way that material investment in countries can be used as a bargaining chip to secure improvements in areas of legislation, so cultural investment can be used to secure rights associated with related fields of endeavour. Free speech is merely the most obvious. It is reasonable for a western university to insist that its graduates will need to have access to the fruits of a free press and democratic speculation of experts and the wider public [i] .  The cases of the lecturer, Chia Thye Poh who is arguably the world’s longest serving prisoner of conscience or the political opposition leader, Vincent Cheng who was barred from addressing a talk organised the History Society of NUS at the national library [ii] both give examples of how Singaporean government actions impact directly on university life and academic freedoms. In the light of this, it seems the height of reasonableness for Western universities to say that they will only operate in areas that offer the same academic freedoms they would expect in their home country. If the Singaporean government wants that benefits that Yale graduates can bring, they should be prepared to accept such a change.  [i] Stateuniversity.Com. western Europe – Educational roots, reform in the twentieth century, contemporary reform trends, future challenges.  [ii] Ex-detainee Vincent Cheng barred from speaking in history seminar, The Online Citizen, 28 May 2010

Employers measure degrees by the academic results they indicate. The level of political engagement of the individuals is not critical – or even relevant – to that measure. In a global market of tens of millions of students graduating every year [i] an increase of a few thousand in those graduating from top universities will do little to dilute their iconic brands while taking advantage of communications technologies to justify their global reputation. University Senates determine whether degrees can be awarded in their name and it is scarcely in their interest to damage their own reputation. [ii]  [i] There are approximately 150 million students in the world and for the purposes of this debate, that number has simply been divided by three. Source material can be found here .  [ii] Jones et al., ‘The Academic Senate and University Governance in Canada’, The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, Vol.XXXIV, No.2, 2004, pp.35-68, p.50, 57

The academic tradition of the West  The growth of universities as beacons of free speech has been a fundamental part of their history in the West; notably during the renaissance, reformation and enlightenment. The democratisation of that process with the expansion of the university sector in recent decades is merely the latest stage in an ongoing process.  However, that entire process has been driven (along with the artistic, cultural and scientific changes they have inculcated) on the basis that universities allow for the free exchange of ideas and flourish in environments where that approach is standardised throughout society [i] . Marxist scholars have gone further in calling for a critical pedagogy in which perspectives other than academic orthodoxy are normalised within universities.  Such institutions produce the best graduates because they have the best academics and the best academics will stay where they are free to publish whatever their research is and express their own views. For example in the 1990s 55.7% of those who had immigrated to the USA from the USSR described themselves as academics, scientists, professional or technical workers. [ii] Those academics in turn respect the intellectual tradition of dissent and critical scrutiny of which they are the inheritors. To take something else and slap the name ‘Yale’– or for that matter Oxford, Harvard or ETH Zurich – on it and pretend that nothing has changed devalues the qualification. Without the intellectual dissent and freedom of academic inquiry it is intellectually dishonest to call the degree the same thing.  [i] The Nebraskan. Doug Anderson. Learning depends on the free exchange of ideas, Nebraskan says.  [ii] Harvard, ‘Russians and East Europeans in America’

Universities also survived the inquisition, the French revolutionary terror and the tyrannies of twentieth century Europe. The issue being discussed here is not in the same league as any of those. There is, as a result, clearly nothing innate that requires an appreciation of free speech for universities to operate. Furthermore universities do not locate or relocate en masse depending on the direction of the political wind.

Maintaining the value of the degree  Employers and others expect certain degrees to mean certain things; they are more than just an expensive badge. In the case of elite western universities part of what that means is a critical approach to the world and the willingness to challenge ideas, regardless of the authority that holds them. Part of their exclusivity derives from their admission standards, partly from the academic rigour of their scholars and partly from the simple fact that there are only a relatively small number of graduates.  In other areas universities are all too aware of selling their reputation – impartiality, avoiding plagiarism and so forth – the same should be true here. If a degree from a western university does not mean that it recognises issues such as creativity and free thinking then it devalues the degree itself.  As a result the very governments that are so keen to acquire the creative, critical skills offered by graduates of western-style education will end up undermining the very thing that they seek. This impacts not only the graduates from Asian campuses of western universities but also their peers at the home institution [i] .  [i] US-China Today. Jasmine Ako. Unraveling Plagiarism in China. 28 March 2011.

There is gradualism and then there is inertia. Refusing to cooperate with governments where individuals can be banned from addressing a group of students would seem to be setting the bar relatively low. In this particular instance, the bar doesn’t appear to have been set anywhere. The example given by opposition is of one between states, this is between state actors and organisations who rely on the free expression of ideas as part of their raison d’etre.

‘Separation of town and gown’  There are two parties involved in this interaction, the state and the university. To pretend that is an entirely one way process is to ignore reality. Contrary to the belief of many Senior Common Rooms, states do not exist for the convenience of universities. Indeed universities quite happily accept the political and economic stability provided by states at exactly the same time as criticising the methods they need to use to maintain it.  However, ultimately universities are service providers from the point of view of the state, training and skilling the workforce. The university provides its expertise in exchange for funding and student fees. Where, exactly, the opinions of the faculty enter into such an equation is not clear and appears to have been assumed by proposition. Of course individual academics and students have the right to their own political views but the idea that a university as an institution has rights distinct from, say, a supermarket chain is impossible to justify. If a supermarket announced that it should be free to ignore local laws and adopt those of its base state instead, that would clearly be rejected. Just as when a food chain invests in a country for, say, beef, the arrangement is predicated on the understanding that both parties benefit and each has a little room for negotiation. [i] The same should apply here. If prop were to argue that Asian nations should relax there approach to cannabis so that it students could enjoy a more genuine ‘Western student experience’ the statement would be the subject of ridicule, so should this be.  [i] Smith, David, ‘Tesco should give us some of these billions’, guardian.co.uk, 15 May 2009,

Universities should exchange ideas not impose them  Of all possible institutions, for a university to suggest that it is not open to defending its ideas rather than insisting that they be artificially imported seems counter-intuitive. As Asian and European intellectual traditions increasingly interact as a result of economic interaction there are going to be clashes between and attempts to integrate the Confucian and Socratic approaches [i] . Part of that is the relationship between academia and the state. Western institutions seeking to establish themselves as a presence in Asia should at least be open to the idea that a different approach may have something to offer. After all a willingness to accept new ideas and attitudes is key to the ethic of any university – the assumption that such an exchange would only flow in one direction is astonishingly arrogant.  [i] This is true at every level, including simple things such as the approach taken by students to their studies. Inevitably, universities have responded to these in different ways in the two traditions.  Paton, Michael, ‘Asian Students, Critical Thinking and English as an Academic Lingua Franca’, Analytic teaching and philosophical praxis, Vol.32, No.1, pp.27-39 p.28

Argument One: Contact leads to the dissemination of values  There is certainly some evidence to suggest the view that trade with a country can benefit human rights as increased wealth provides many with more choice and better standards of living. [i] Certainly that argument has been made by governments and multi-nationals based in the West. It is not unreasonable to suspect that this may relate to academic cooperation as well, as Richard Levin suggests in the introduction. However it seems likely that in this latter case, as in the former, that a gradualist approach is the sensible one to take. We build on existing strengths while agreeing to differ in certain areas. To extend the trade example, China, the US and the EU all manage to trade with each other despite differing approaches to the death penalty. They trust that through cooperation over time, changes can be achieved. This will happen slowly in some instances – as with the ‘drip, drip’ affect in China - or quickly in others as has been the case in Burma [ii] .  On key difference to note with the shift towards establishing elite universities around the world rather than shipping the world’s elite in to attend them in the UK and the US is that it opens opportunities to a much wider social group. For decades a small handful – children of the wealthy and political elite - have had the opportunity to have a Western education before returning home as well-educated tyrants and sycophants. Expanding the learning opportunities to the rest of the nation seems both just and reasonable.  [i] Sirico, Robert A., ‘Free Trade and Human Rights: The Moral Case for Engagement’, CATO Institute, Trade Briefing Paper no.2, 17 July 1998  [ii] Education has long been seen as a critical starting point for the development of human rights in any country as is examined in this UNESCO report .

Singapore in this particular instance is securing far more than a ‘service provider’ from a university whose foundation precedes that of the state by over a century. Yale is an internationally identifiable brand, as would any other major university be, and Singapore and NUS benefit from that association. Yale is in a strong position here to argue for things that stretch well beyond the lecture theatre.

It is usually the task of movie classification organisations such as the MPAA and the British Board of Film Certification to judge whether the content of a film should be cut or altered. In most cases these groups will be politically independent, but may be politically appointed. They will make the decision to cut content based partly on the criteria described above. A movie will only be censored if it contains shocking or offensive images used in a way that suggests that violence is glamorous, entertaining or without consequences.  There is a broad consensus in western liberal democracies on what constitutes a highly shocking or offensive image. For example, in even the most permissive societies, open and public images of sexual intercourse would be considered problematic. Similarly, graphic depictions of violence against vulnerable individuals would be open to wide condemnation. The thing that unifies each of these categories of image is that they can be easily understood and interpreted by the majority of people. Even a casual observer can understand that pornography is pornography. This is part of the reason why some states try to control extreme images – because they are both powerful and emotive, and easy to produce, display and distribute.  However, music and lyrics are different from images. Language contains a degree of abstraction, depth and nuance that only the most unconventional (and non-commercial) film could replicate. This is problematic, because it is much harder for censors and members of the general public to agree on an exact definition of an offensive statement or form of words. Complex legal processes are used to determine whether or not offensive statements are sufficiently offensive to be classed as hate crimes. Even more complex are the legal procedures used to determine when an individual’s reputation has been damaged by allegations published in books or periodicals.  It will be much harder for ratings or certification boards to decide when a particular song is violent or offensive due to the range of meanings and ambiguities that are built into language. For example, the verse  “Got a temper nigga, go ahead, lose your head/ turn your back on me, get clapped and lose your legs/ I walk around gun on my waist, chip on my shoulder/ ‘til I bust a clip in your face, pussy, this beef ain’t over,”  can either be seen as a series of boastful threats, delivered directly by the musician, but it could also be reported speech – a lot of hip hop music is based on narratives or performer’s accounts of past events. It could also be intended to invite condemnation of the behaviour of the character that the speaker has assumed. Hip hop artists frequently use alternative personas and “casts” of characters to add depth to the narrative dimension of their tracks.  Under these circumstances, the process of classifying and censoring potentially violent lyrics is likely to become laborious. More important than the expense that this process will entail is the possibility that the chilling effect of a prolonged classification process will cause music publishers to stop promoting hip hop, metal and other genres linked with violent imagery. Lack of funds will curtail innovation and diversity in these genres.

living difference house would ban music containing lyrics glorify

Hate speech  The enforcement of the laws proposed in this article will be fraught, complex and difficult. However, the difficulty of administering a law is never a good argument for refusing to enforce it.  The censorship of the written word ended in England with the Lady Chatterley and Oz obscenity trials, but this liberalisation of publication standards has not prevented the state from prosecuting hate speech when it appears in print. It is clear that, although we have more latitude than ever to say or write what we want (no matter how objectionable), standards and taboos continue to exist. We can take it that these taboos are especially important and valuable to the running of a stable society, as they have persisted despite the legal and cultural changes that have taken place over the last fifty years.  Hate speech is prosecuted and censored because of its power to intrude into the lives of individuals who have not consented to receive it. As pointed out in Jeremy Waldron’s response [1] to Timothy Garton Ash’s piece [2] on hate speech, hateful comments are not dangerous because they insight gullible individuals to abandon their inhibitions and engage in race riots. Hate speech is harmful because it recreates- cheaply and in front of a very large audience- an atmosphere in which vulnerable minorities are put in fear of becoming the targets of violence and prejudice. Additionally, hate speech harms by defaming groups, by propagating lies and half-truths about practices and beliefs, with the objective of socially isolating those groups.  Gangsta rap does all of these things, yet legal responses to the publication of songs containing such lyrics as “Rape a pregnant bitch and tell my friends I had a threesome,” have been timid at best. Even if we maintain our liberal approach to taboo breaking forms of expression, we can still link hip hop to many of the harms that hate speech produces.  Gangsta rap gives the impression that African-American and Latin-American neighbourhoods throughout the USA are violent, lawless places. Even if the pronouncements of rappers such as 50 cent and NWA are overblown or fictitious they enforce social division by vividly discouraging people from entering or interacting with poor minority communities. They damage those communities directly by creating a fear of criminality that serves to limit trust and cohesion among individual community members. Finally, violent hip hop is also defamatory. It propagates an image of minority communities that emphasises violence, poverty and nihilism, whilst loudly proclaiming its authenticity. It is completely irrelevant that these images of minority communities are produced by members of those communities.  It is on this basis, however protracted the process of classification must become, that the content of hip hop songs should be assessed and censored. Liberal democracies are prepared to go to great lengths to adjudicate on speech that could potentially promote racial or religious hatred. The same standards should be applied to hip hop music, because it is capable of producing identical harms.  [1] Waldron, J. “The harm of hate speech”. FreeSpeechDebate, 20 March 2012.  [2] Garton-Ash, T. “Living with difference”. FreeSpeechDebate, 22 January 2012.

Banning one type of hip hop is not an effective way to intervene in a market that is in danger of dismantling itself.  Governments are not record companies. They are not in a position to make nuanced judgements about the content, meaning and themes of singles and albums. In short, the state cannot be relied on to understand when a musician has produced a work of violent fantasy, or a piece of social commentary with broad appeal.  The state can perform a positive correction for inequalities and failures in the hip hop market by subsidising niche or experimental performers, in the same way that is provides financial support to opera, theatre and the fine arts.  The policy that proposition side seem to be advocating, however, would only do further harm the reputation of hip hop. Once officially censured by the state- which is still seen as a significant moral authority- it is likely that the public profile and popularity of hip hop will be further damaged. The ambivalent position of hip hop in popular culture, as both a commercially successful medium and the subject of wide scale condemnation, is a significant opportunity for the medium, rather than a spectre of its imminent demise. However, larger record companies will be more likely to disengage from hip hop culture if they believe that their businesses affairs might be compromised by intrusive government legislation.

Classification, not censorship  We should expect fans of an art form that is subjected to public criticism and vilification to leap to its defence. Some of these aficionados- whether the medium in question is cinema, fine art or pop music- make the case for the value of their favourite mode of expression by overstating its positive effects.  Hip hop has long been the focus of controversies surrounding violent music. Hip hop is closely associated with low-level criminality, as noted above. A number of highly successful hip hop artists have been attacked or killed as a result of feuds within the industry and links between managers, promoters and criminal gangs.  As the academic John McWhorter has pointed out in numerous [1] publications [2] , the positive political and social impact of rap music has been massively overstated, as a result of highly charged media coverage of hip hop-linked violence. As a result, attempts to address some of the hips hops most objectionable content- lyrics that are misogynist and blankly and uncritically violent- have been condemned as unjust assaults on the right to free expression. Attacks on negative content in hip hop have been made all the more emotive, because they appear to be an attempt to restrict the speech of members of vulnerable and marginalised communities.  Side proposition agrees with McWhorter that listening to music that contains violent themes will not, in the absence of other factors, cause individuals to behave in a violent way. However, the content of rap, and its strong links with the youngest inhabitants of marginalised, stigmatised urban areas mean that it damages the developmental opportunities of teenagers and young people, and harms others’ perceptions of the communities they live in.  Hip hop trades on its authenticity – the extent to which it faithfully portrays the lived experience of the inhabitants of deprived inner city areas. The greater the veracity of a hip hop track, the greater its popularity and cache among fans. Musicians have gained public recognition as a result of being directly involved in street crime and gang activities. 50 Cent, a high profile “gansta” artist owes his popularity, in part, to a shooting in 2000 that left him with 9 bullet wounds [3] . This supposed link to reality is the most dangerous aspect of contemporary hip hop culture. Unlike the simplistic make-believe of, say, action films, the “experiences” related by rappers are also their public personas and become the rationale for their success.  Rap, through materialist boasting and sexualised music videos tells vulnerable young men and women from isolated neighbourhoods that their problems can be solved by adopting similarly nihilistic personas. The poverty that affects many of the communities that hip hop artists identify with does more than separate individuals from economic opportunity. It also confines the inhabitants of these communities geographically, politically and culturally. It prevents young men and women from becoming aware of perspectives on the world and society that run contrary to the violence of main stream rap. With television dominated by the gangsta motif, marginalised youngsters are left with little in the way of dissenting voices to convince them that hip hop takes a subjective and commercialised approach to the lives and communities that rappers claim to represent.  In effect, controversial hip hop is capable of sponsoring violent behaviour, when it is marketed as an accurate portrayal of relationships, values and principles. Under these circumstances, adolescents, whose own identity is nascent and malleable can easily be misled into emulating the exploits and attitudes of rappers [4] .  Side proposition advocates the control and classification of controversial forms of music, including but not limited to hip hop. Consistent with principles 1 and 10, classification of this type will follow similar schemes applied to movies and videogames. Assessments of the content of music will be conducted by a politically independent organisation; musicians and record companies will have the ability to appeal the decisions of this body. Crucially, the “ban” on music containing violent lyrics will take the form of a categorisation scheme. Content will not be blocked from sale or censored. Instead, as with the sale of pornographic material in many liberal democratic states, music found to contain especially violent lyrics will be confined to closed off areas in shops, to which only adults (as defined in law) will be admitted. Its performance on television, radio and in cinemas will be banned. Live performances of restricted music will be obliged to enforce strict age monitoring policies. Online distributors of music will be compelled to comply with similar age restrictions and intentionally exposing minors to violent music will be punishable under child protection laws.  This approach has the advantage of limiting access to violent content only to consumers who are judged, in general, to be mature enough to understand that its “message” and the posturing of singers does not equate to permission to engage in deviant behaviour.  [1] McWhorter, J. “How Hip-Hop Holds Blacks Back.” City Journal, Summer 2003. The Manhattan Institute.  [2] McWhorter, J. “All about the Beat: Why Hip-Hop Can’t Save Black America.”  [3] “What’s In a name?” The Economist, 24 November 2005.  [4] Bindel, J. “Who you calling bitch, ho?” Mail &amp; Guardian online, 08 February 2008.

Crime and deviance existed in marginalised communities long before the creation of pop music or hip hop. Side proposition is attempting to claim that a particular genre of hip hop is harming efforts to improve living standards and social cohesion within these communities.  Many of the problems associated with poor socialisation and a lack of social mobility in inner city areas can be linked to the closed, isolated nature of these communities – as the proposition comments correctly observe. However, these problems can be traced to a lack of positive engagement between these young people and wider society [1] .  Violence may be discussed or depicted in popular culture for a number of reasons, but it is still comparatively rare- especially in mainstream music- to celebrate violence for violence’s sake. Violence is discussed in hip hop in a number of contexts. Frequently, as in British rapper Plan B’s single Ill Manors, or Cypress Hill’s How I Could Just Kill A Man, descriptions of violent behaviour or scenarios serve to illustrate negative or criminal attitudes and behaviours. These forms of conduct are not portrayed in a way that is intended to glorify them, but to invite comment on the social conditions that produced them. As the opposition side will discuss in greater detail below, the increased openness of the mainstream media also means that impoverished young people can directly address mainstream audiences.  Proposition side contends that the impression of the world communicated to potentially marginalised adolescents by pop culture is dominated by the language and imagery of gangsta rap. Proposition side’s argument is that, in the absence of aggressive and negative messages, a more engaged and communitarian perspective on the world will flourish in schools and youth groups from Brixton and Tottenham to the Bronx and the banlieues. By controlling access to certain hip hop genres, young people made vulnerable and gullible by the desperation of poverty will supposedly start to see themselves as part of the social mainstream. Nothing could be further from the truth. Why? Because efforts at including and improving the social mobility of these young people are underwhelming and inadequate. Social services, youth leaders and educators are not competing to be heard above the din of hip hop – they are not being given the resources or support necessary to communicate effectively with young people.  The nurturing environment that proposition side fantasises about creating will not spring into being fully formed if hip hop is silenced and constrained. The existence of an apparently confrontational musical genre should not be used to excuse policy failures such as the disproportionate use of the Metropolitan Police’s stop and search powers to arbitrarily detain and question young black men.  [1] “Keeping up the old traditions.” The Economist, 24 August 2003 .

Defending hip hop artists’ right to free speech  The intervention of the state is necessary in order to ensure that aggressive forms of hip hop remain accessible only to adults, especially in neighbourhoods and home environments that are not part of a cohesive, caring community. Some degree of public control over the content of hip hop will also help to preserve the diversity, accessibility of the genre in the face of commercial dominance by violent forms of rap.  Mainstream success in hip hop has become synonymous with gangsta rap, and with artists who have backgrounds that lend veracity to their lurid verses. However, many of these supposedly “authentic” experiences consist of little more than exaggeration and invented personas. When being interviewed about the controversial content of her son’s single “Fuck tha’ police”, the mother of rapper Ice Cube commented that “I don’t see [him] saying those curse words. I see him like an actor.”  The existence of pornography attests to the market for forms of media that fulfil base and simplistic human fantasies. Much the same can be said for the violent and cynical content of rap singles. Unlike the relationship between cinema and pornography, however, many commentators appear to regard gangsta rap as being synonymous with hip hop – a position as deceptive as a film critic claiming that all movies are inevitably tied to pornography.  The significant public profile and poor regulation of hip hop have meant that gangsta rap fans have become the genre’s dominant class of consumer. The amount of money that fans are willing to spend on singles, albums, concert tickets and associated branded goods means that labels that cultivate relationships with gangsta rappers have become the gatekeepers of the hip hop genre in general. “Conscious” rappers, who do not glorify violence, along with musicians working in other hip hop genres must work with labels that promote acts containing violent lyrics in order to publish their own music.  Either consciously, or by design, the terrain of contemporary hip hop is hostile to musicians who are not prepared to discuss “guns, bitches and bling” in their work. This constitutes a significant barrier to rappers ability to communicate novel messages and listeners’ ability to receive them. It could be called a market failure – the pervasive public presence of gangsta rap has effectively denied an audience to other rappers.  Classification has the potential to maximise the freedom and effectiveness of musical expression by hip hop artists who choose not to trade in brutality and misogyny.  The alternative is to allow hip hop to continue to be dominated by businesses such as Death Row Records, Low Life Records and Machete Music. This will lead to hip hop as a medium becoming inextricably linked with violent lyrics and the dubious businesses practices of gangsta labels’ bosses. Popular disengagement is much more likely under these circumstances, and will actively deny a voice, and opportunities, to musicians with a different perspective on hip hop.

This argument makes a claim of bias against academics and commentators who portray the audiences that hip hop music is targeted at as vulnerable. Unfortunately, this is a viewpoint that is closer to the truth than the aspirational narrative provided in the opposition side’s case.  Hip hop emerged from environments that were extremely poor and that had been pushed to the margins of society. This situation has persisted until well into this century. The cyclical effects of racism and discrimination continue to be felt in minority communities. Although anti-discrimination laws now protect access to employment and government services, inequalities in cultural capital and high-impact policing have led to the exclusion of large numbers of young men from the social economic opportunities that are made available to middle class society. Under these circumstances, it is entirely appropriate to describe the adolescent inhabitants of impoverished urban communities as vulnerable.  Poverty- either financial or of opportunity- breeds desperation. An individual placed in a situation of urgent need will not have the ability to reason clearly. This is especially true of young people undergoing the difficult transition to adulthood. Adolescence is characterised by a desire to test the boundaries of social norms and parental authority. Therefore, expression that legitimatises and encourages ever more dangerous forms of rebellion should be kept out of the hands of young people. They are unusually susceptible to the behavioural distortions that side opposition goes out of its way to deny.  We limit the content of the media that children and young people can consume all the time, recognising that the process of education and socialisation changes the individual’s relationship to wider society and their ability to which forms of behaviour will best help them to live freely and happily.  Children and teenagers are more impressionable than adults. Similarly, the rate at which individuals mature and develop can vary wildly. We recognise that, for example, exposure to pornography or violent cinema could have serious behaviour consequences for young children. Objections to the restricted availability of pornography are nonsensical, given that they do a great deal to protect children, and present only a minor inconvenience to an adult’s attempts to access such material.  Although we do not place onerous restrictions on the ability of adults to access media of this type, we can be strict in regulating children’s access. This does not constitute a permanent form of censorship, but instead fulfils the broad remit that the state is granted to protect its citizens. Moreover, classification of expression that is geared toward protecting the vulnerable also aids in protecting the primacy and utility of free speech itself. Free expression- as has been restated throughout this exchange- can harm as easily as it liberates. In some instances, the state must temporarily restrict the access of certain classes of people to certain forms of free expression, in order to ensure that free, frank and controversial discussion and expression can take place in society in general.

Hip hop is a diverse genre. The quote that opened this discussion is taken from a song by the English surrealist rapper Scroobius Pip. His albums cover themes entirely different from those found in “gangsta” rap. Similarly, artists such as MIA, Optimus Rhyme and the Wilcania Mob have used hip hop to discuss the conflict in Sri Lanka, computer games and life as a member of the aboriginal community in Australia. Each of these artists share a single common link. They all cater to a relatively niche market and have encountered little in the way of mainstream success.  Rappers who write lyrics about cynicism and aggression- from Slim Shady to JayZ- have recorded numerous number one tracks and attracted a wide range of industry accolades. In 2006 the founder of Death Row records, a major gangsta rap label, was found to have assets valued at $7 million. It is clear that rap discussing crime and violence is the dominant genre within hip hop. It is clear that there is a significant popular and public appetite for rap of this type.  As the comment opposite notes, there will always be a need for classification boards, as gratuitous or pornographic content will always form a significant part of the media landscape. Moreover, despite efforts to control access to such content, pornography and wilfully violent movies continue to make money. Hip hop appeals to a similar market – individuals seeking to indulge violent fantasies via the safe, sanitised environment of their iPod’s headphones, as discussed above.  There are no nuances of context and meaning to discuss in gangsta rap, only potentially damaging content that, at best, should be regulated and monitored.

A ban will be ineffective  A new legal prohibition on any type of behaviour or conduct can only be set up by investing large amounts of political capital in order to transform vague proposals into a legislative document and then into a fully-fledged law. This expense can only be justified if the ban is effective – if it is seen as a legitimate use of a state’s power; is enforceable; and if it brings about some form of beneficial social change. The change being sought in this instance is a reduction in the violence, criminality and social disaffection that some people associate with hip hop music and its fans.  Laws do not create changes in behaviour simply because they are laws. It is unlikely that the consumers of hip hop will refrain from listening to it. The ease with which music can be distributed and performed means that any ban on violent songs will, inevitably, be ineffective. File sharing networks and cross border online stores such as eBay and Silk Road already enable people to obtain media and controlled goods with little more than a credit card and a forwarding address. The total value of all of the music illegally pirated during 2007 is estimated to be $12.5 billion. The same network of file sharing systems and data repositories would be used to distribute banned music if proposition’s policies became law.  Current urban music genres are already defined and supported by grassroots musicians who specialise in assembling tracks using minimal resources before sharing them among friends or broadcasting them on short-range pirate radio stations. Just as the internet contains a resilient, ready-made distribution network for music, urban communities contain large numbers of ambitious, talented amateur artists who will step into fill the void created by large record company’s withdrawal from controversial or prohibited genres.  Although a formal ban on the distribution of music has yet to happen within a western liberal democracy, similar laws have been created to restrict access to violent videogames. Following widespread reports of the damaging effects that exposure to violent videogames might have on children, Australia banned outright the publication of a succession of violent and action-oriented titles. However, in several instances, implementation of this ban led only to increased piracy of prohibited games through file sharing networks and attempts by publishing companies to circumvent the ban using websites based in jurisdictions outside Australia. Similar behaviour is likely to result in other liberal democracies following any ban on music with violent lyrics.  If banned, controversial music will move from the managed, regulated space occupied by record companies and distributors- where business entities and artists’ agents can engage in structured, transparent debate with classification bodies- to the partly hidden and unregulated space of the internet. As a consequence it will be much more difficult to detect genuinely dangerous material, and much harder for artists who do not trade in violent clichés to win fans and recognition.  As discussed in principle 10, effective control and classification of controversial material can only be achieved if it is discussed with a high specificity and a nuanced understanding of the shared standards that it might offend. This would not be possible under a policy that effectively surrenders control of the content of music to the internet.

A ban will further marginalise young members of impoverished communities  Hip hop is an extremely diverse musical genre. Surprisingly, this diversity has evolved from highly minimal series of musical principles. At its most basic, raping consists of nothing more than rhyming verses that are delivered to a beat. This simplicity reflects the economically marginalised communities that hip hop emerged from. All that anyone requires in order to learn how to rap, or to participate in hip hop culture, is a pen, some paper and possibly a disc of breaks – the looped drum and bass lines that are used to time rap verses. Thanks to its highly social aspect, hip hop continues to function as an accessible form of creative expression for members of some of impoverished communities in both the west and elsewhere in the world.  Point 7 suggests that free speech flourishes when we respect believers but are not forced to respect their beliefs. Free Speech Debate discusses this principle in the light of religious belief and religious expression. However, it is also relevant when we consider how our appraisal of an individual’s background, culture and values affects our willingness to accept or dismiss what she says.  The positive case for banning- or at least condemning- hip hop often rests on its ability to reinforce the negative stereotypes of impoverished and marginalised communities that are propagated by majority communities. Critics of hip hop note that black men have often been stigmatised as violent, uncivilised and predatory. They claim that many hip hop artists cultivate a purposefully brutal and misogynist persona. The popularity of hip hop reflects the acceptance of this stereotype, and further entrenches discrimination against young black men. This line of thinking portrays hip hop artists as betrayers or exploiters of their communities, reinforcing damaging stereotypes and convincing adolescents that a violent rejection of mainstream society is a way to achieve material success.  Arguments of this type fail to recognise the depth of nuance and meaning that words and word-play can convey. They are predicated on an assumption that the consumers of hip hop engage with it in a simplistic and uncritical way. In short, such arguments see hip hop fans as being simple minded and easily influenced. This perspective neglects the “recognition respect”, the recognition of equality and inherent dignity that is owed to all contributors of a debate. Moreover, it also bars us from properly assessing the “appraisal respect” owed to the content of hip hop and other controversial musical genres. When hip hop is seen as being inherently harmful, and as being targeted at an especially impressionable and vulnerable part of society, we both demean members of that group and prevent robust discussion of rap lyrics themselves. Academics such as John McWhorter see only the advocacy of violence and nihilism in lyrics such as  “You grow in the ghetto, living second rate/ and your eyes will sing a song of deep hate”.  But these are words that can also be interpreted as astute observation on the brutality that is bred by social exclusion. In point of fact, there is little in the previous verse, or those that follow it,  “You’ll admire all the numberbook takers/ thugs, pimps and pushers, and the big money makers”,  that could be interpreted as permitting, popularising or endorsing violence. That is, unless the individual reading the verse had already concluded that its intended audience lacked his own critical perspective and understanding of social norms and values.  Even if an observer were ultimately conclude that a particular hip hop track had no redeeming value, a broad interpretation of point 7 suggests that he should, at the very least, credit its artists and listeners with a modicum of intelligence and reflectiveness. When we approach music with a custodial mind-set, determined to protect young listeners from what we see as harm or exploitation, we prevent those individuals from access a form of speech that may be the only affordable method of expression open to them.  Just as we allow individuals the right to be heard in a language of their choosing (see point 1), we should also accept that perspectives from marginalised communities may not appear in a conventional form. Under these circumstances, it would be dangerous for us to curtail and marginalise a form of speech geared toward discussing the problems faced by impoverished young people that has, against the odds, penetrated the mainstream. We are likely to deepen existing prejudices by viewing rappers and their fans as infantile, impressionable and in need of protection.

Violent imagery can serve different purposes.  Calls for a ban on music that references or glorifies violence are frequently based on an overly simplistic understanding of contemporary and popular musical genres. It is instructive that the loudest voices of protest raised against violent content in hip hop and rock music are, overwhelmingly, white, middle class, middle-aged newspaper columnists. Any ban created under these circumstances would reduce the diversity and depth of popular musical genres, by preventing musicians from commenting- in any way- on violent events.  Banning particular musical tracks due only to the fact that they discuss violent acts would be damaging to the creative industries and would not reflect methods currently used to classify and restrict content appearing in other media. Criminal acts are punished when an act results in a damaging outcome and because that act is performed with a particular dishonest or malicious intention. Generally, someone cannot be found guilty of murder if they did not intend to kill their victim. Similarly, it is unusual for films or videogames to be censored or banned because they happen to depict violent acts. The intention that underlies the use of graphic images or words must also be examined. As BBC director general Mark Thompson noted when discussing the controversial religious content of Jerry Springer: The Opera with freespeechdebate.com  “… Jerry Springer I saw without feeling that it was offensive to me because the intention of the piece was so clearly a satire about an American talk show host and his world rather than the religious figures as such.”  Classification boards will look at the context in which an offensive act is shown. The violence of war is portrayed vividly in Saving Private Ryan, but the film has not been banned on this basis. Private Ryan portrays violence and suffering in order to remind us of the inhumanity that pervaded the Second World War. It uses violence to make a didactic point, to move its audience to sympathy and disgust. If a film were to use images of extreme violence or suffering as a form of entertainment, inviting the audience to take pleasure in brutality, a classification board would try to restrict or censor its content.  Comparably, “violent” music can use brutal language and themes to make moving and engaging observations about the world. Violent music does not automatically glorify violence, nor does it cause its audience to see violence as something that is glamorous.  Listened to out of context, without any attempt to critically analyse the imagery of the song and the intentions of the artists, it is easy to condemn many acclaimed examples of popular music as containing violent lyrics. By giving into the populist pressure that is represented and generated by newspaper columnists and talk show hosts, we risk creating a chilling effect, not only on mainstream hip hop culture, but on any other musical form that dares to discuss themes that fall outside narrowly and arbitrarily defined limits of social acceptability.

Modern policy making does not rely on the force of law to bring about social change. This is an archaic approach to addressing the harms and deficiencies that might appear in communities.  We can reasonably assume that any ban on violent lyrics will be linked to wider reaching education and information campaigns that attempt to address misogynist attitudes and violent crime. Concerns expressed above that other hip hop genres, and musical innovation in general, might suffer could be adequately countered by offering subsidies and support to non-confrontational forms of hip hop. In this way legal regulation and policy interventions could help the music industry to address the more pernicious aspects of hip hop, while promoting its more innovative side. This reflects the state’s role in promoting and safeguarding free speech, by giving those who do not have access to public forums the means to have their voice heard, while ensuring that the principle of free speech is not abused or used to limit the liberal freedoms of others.  These contentions adequately address the problems that the opposition side links to the distribution of illegal and unregulated content via the internet. The implication that a ban on music containing violent lyric might increase piracy is irrelevant – states will still act to address all forms of piracy, and measures taken against the violation of copyright online will be just as effective against prohibited content.

Nobody is being forced to perform acts of violence by the words of another; it is their choice to do so. Equally, there are plenty of people who would hold views that could be considered homophobic but would be appalled by acts of violence. It is fundamental to the principles of respect for the individual that I cannot be held liable for the actions of others. There is no dividing line between the incitement Proposition claims exists and my jokingly suggesting to a broke friend that they rob a bank. Ironically, perhaps, the defence of “The Devil made me do it” is not one that is taken seriously by any credible framework of laws.

Because religion promotes certainty of belief, divinely inspired hatred is easy to use to justify and promote violent actions and discriminatory practices.  Free speech must come second when there is the potential for that speech to cause harm. The mantra of “With God on our side” has been used, and continues to be used, to justify massacre and barbarity throughout history. Although it is rarely the prelates and preachers who do the killing the certainty they promote gives surety to those who do.  The purpose of the Act [1] used in this particular case was an entirely practical one. It’s main role was to tidy up existing legislation on rioting and public disorder but one section recognised that homophobic and racist language do lead to violence. It is all well and good to talk of freedom of speech but the reality is that homophobic speeches, particularly those of a religious nature, may well lead to violence. For example in New York there were a series of homophobic attacks after anti-gay statements by republican politicians. [2] Preventing hate speech helps prevent that violence from occurring so justifying restrictions on freedom of speech.  [1] Legislation.gov.uk, ‘Public Order Act 1986’, The National Archives, 1986 c.64.  [2] Harris, Paul, ‘US shaken by sudden surge of violence against gay people’, The Observer, 17 October 2010 .

Homophobia should indeed be confronted but penalising it is not the solution – just as it wasn’t for racism and sexism. These views should be confronted and challenged, which doesn’t happen by banning their expression. Indeed using legislation in this way is more likely to make the homophobe feel justified. Freedom of speech and equality have generally worked hand in hand and will do so in the case of homophobia as well. Banning ideas doesn’t threaten bigotry; indeed historically it has tended to be the tool of the bigot, not the liberal.

Religion simply justifies reactionary views which many find offensive. There is no reason for vitriol to be tolerated just because it presents a mask of religion.  Views on issues such as abortion, women, and what constitutes an acceptable family expressed by those who are extremely religious are simply bigoted views which are given credibility by being wrapped in a cassock.  It is in the nature of religious belief that any set of views can adopt a religious justification and there is no objective measure against which to hold the views. For example the homophobic views which have common currency in many churches can be contrasted with a gay liberation trend discernible in others. In the light of this, it makes sense to judge the views on their own basis, regardless of the religiosity surrounding them.  The views expressed by Harry Hammond, and others [1] , need to be stripped of their religious veneer and shown that at their heart they are simply offensive. There is absolutely no reason why LGBT people should have to endure vitriol and condemnation as they go about their daily lives. It is a useful exercise to consider how we would respond to a secular speaker saying that the actions of two people who were in love with each other should condemn them to torment and suffering. Oddly however, the moment this is done in the name of God, it somehow becomes acceptable.  [1] Blake, Heidi. “Christian Preacher Arrested for Saying Homosexuality is a Sin”. The Daily Telegraph, 2 May 2010.

Religious belief is the most widely used and historically enduring framework for discussion of the universe around us and our place and role within it. Pretending that it not part of civic discourse is simply living in a fantasy world. The views expressed by Hammond are widely and genuinely held and deserve to be heard. Those who oppose them should, of course, be free to do so. Simply banning their expression doesn’t make the views go away. However impossible opposing sides in this argument may believe it to be, the other side could be right, that gives them the right to be heard [1] .  [1] Tatchell, Peter, ‘Lords are right to limit homophobic hatred law’, 10 July 2009.

Ill-informed prejudice has no place in society. The veneer of religion has been used to justify hatred, prejudice and division and should be confronted.  Homophobia is the last respectable prejudice [1] and should be tackled with the same passion and force that others have been, and continue to be, confronted. If the speaker had been condemning black people or women they would have been arrested for public disorder if they represented an organisation that was overtly racist, it would be quite likely to be banned.  For some reason Churches that hold views on homosexuality that are comparable in their vitriol to those on race held by neo-Nazi groups are not only tolerated but frequently supported by the state.  Hatred is hatred and there is no reason why homophobia should be given a free pass that would not be given to racism or sexism.  All of the Abrahamic faiths have, at their core, an authority focussed on maintaining ‘the natural order’. From the fourteenth century on – although interestingly less so before that point – homosexuality has been singled out as one of the gravest of sins [2] , with the Catechism identifying it as one of four sins that “calls out to Heaven for vengeance”. That is not merely offensive but dangerous in a modern society.  [1] Maguire, Daniel C., ‘Heterosexism in Contemporary World Religion’, The Religious Consultation.  [2] Boswell, John, The Marriage of Likeness, Harper Collins, Chapter Eight.

Issues of sexuality tend to raise great passion but to accept that people should be harangued, threatened or intimidated for just getting on with their lives, quite legally and posing no threat to others is absurd. A liberal society should be free to defend that liberalism, if people wish to change that reality then there are democratic ways of doing so that do not incite hatred on the streets. Homosexuality has been legal in the UK for over forty years; it is absurd that gay people should still have to face this kind of barracking on a regular basis.

It is simply unfair to ask people to be the victims in a societal experiment on the basis that it will all be okay in the end. In a context like this the language used is not only offensive but also threatening. This legislation may not be great constitutional theory but provides very real protection of people’s safety and quality of life.  In addition to which, homophobia long enjoyed the sanction and protection of the state it is interesting that when that is reversed just a little it becomes an assault on free speech.

There is no right not to be offended, enforcing what is acceptable to be thought or said places far too much power in the hands of the state.  It is impossible to ensure that nobody is ever offended and it is questionable as to whether it is even desirable [1] . There is simply no way of protecting against offence. The state clearly has a role in protecting the physical safety of citizens and in other relevant areas such as preventing dismissal from employment on the grounds of sexuality but this is not the case with speech that may cause offense.  Governments that attempt to lead, ahead of public opinion, on matters such as this do little to resolve the problem. In doing so in this manner, they may well pour fuel on the fire of the very prejudice they are aiming to combat as well as creating additional problems by justifying the idea that it is okay to silence views simply because you happen to disagree with them.  Banning the expression of ideas has, historically, be the recourse of those who have run out of arguments to defeat them; doing so is an acknowledgement that the proposal is a weak one. Admitting that – or appearing to do so – for the principle of equality set a dangerous precedent.  [1] Harris, Mike, “It shouldn’t be a crime to insult someone”. Guardian.co.uk, 18 January 2012.

Silencing views that are considered offensive is self-defeating and would be detrimental to those attempting to advance gay rights.  If freedom of speech is to mean anything then it needs to be a principle that is universally applied. Unless speech represents a direct and immediate threat to public safety then it should not be curtailed. The overwhelming majority of the world would agree with Hammond. Globally this is a significant, possibly a majority, view. Certainly the 24% of people in the UK who believe that homosexual sex should be illegal [1] could be assumed to be sympathetic. These people might well consider gay pride marches to be offensive and a threat to public order but these are allowed to go ahead and so should Hammond’s protest and those like it. The freedom of expression must be allowed equally in both cases.  [1] The Guardian. “Sex uncovered poll: Homosexuality”. 28 August 2008.

Regardless of the views expressed, freedom of speech means that all opinions should be heard.  Allowing politicians to regulate what it is acceptable to say – or think – is not something that has a happy history. This isn’t the result of a purely intellectual construct but one of altruistic self-interest; once people start banning ideas, they tend not to stop at one.  Voltaire’s comment that “I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it” is a statement of the very same principle that that demands equality for all groups in society.  In exactly the same way that all views are, at the very least, worthy of a hearing, so are all lifestyles acceptable. Locking people up in the name of liberty makes no sense at all. Equally, banning statements on the basis that it might be offensive to some people has been used as an excuse to prevent social and cultural developments, the process of being offended usually made society and culture stronger for it. We tend to fear or hate that which is hidden or unspoken. The emancipation and liberation of other groups has tended to suggest that open debate is a more productive answer than trying to ban opinions and views.

This is simply a myth. Society routinely legislates to prevent offence with restrictions on what can be said or done within a broadcast or in print. This particular case does not relate to a private conversation between friends but to a public address. As such the response of the police officers was not some Orwellian nightmare but a responsible protection of public order and a show of respect for those who, quite rightly, had taken offence at the remarks. We are rightly cautious of the state intervening too far into the private sphere but this was a public event – by the speakers own choice.

Just because groups and individuals have a Freedom of Expression, does not mean it can be used without proper consideration of whom maybe hurt and offended by connotations implied in the image. A White artist portraying the Black leader of the country and the ANC as someone who leads with their genitals goes someway to dehumanising him, launching into character assassination that fails to actually examine policy.  Pluralism can exist without needlessly causing offence in the way Murray has done in this painting. The Constitution protects Freedom of Expression; however the grave offence causedto many people by dehumanising President Zuma in this way can justify the protests against the artworks installation and replication in the news media. No constructive criticism is meted out in the painting, thus justifying counter-protests against it.  While there were supporters of the ANC and COSATU, who are allied with the government, who took part in protests, it is a stretch to suggest that this is political overreach in action. The image attacked the President in ways that evoked previous allegations against him that were later disproven in court. The President took legal action in a personal capacity, whilst other exhibits created by Murray which highly critical of the ANC were not targeted in this manner, hinting at there being a free platform for criticism and satire in South African Political discourse.

reputation and defamation house believes spear should have remained

Pluralism and Political Interference  The removal of ‘The Spear’ from the Goodman Gallery and the City Press also hints at a threat to pluralism, especially when one considers the political nature of the campaign to have such images removed.  While Jacob Zuma attempted to have the image banned in a personal capacity, the intensive campaigning by both the ANC and the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) against both the Goodman Gallery and City Press [1] hints at a dangerously political action taken by those with close access to power over the South African state.  This should be cause to worry. Chapter Two of the Constitution of South Africa, in place since 1997, protects freedoms such as Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association. [2] The intimidation of Art Galleries and Newspapers threatens the free exchange of ideas that occurs in these areas, as well sending an implicit image by its supports that criticism of the Government cannot be tolerated.  If neither the Gallery nor City Press removed the image of ‘The Spear’ from public view, then a clear message would have been sent that the principles of Free Speech, Free Association and Freedom of Intimidation outlined in the Constitution is to be upheld at all times, regardless of who may take offence at what is being said. It is important in the South African context to protect the right to criticise the government and voice opinions that vary from the ideals of the majority. It is worrying what kind of message is sent by those close to the South African Government that intimidation seems to be the appropriate response to criticism such as this rather than asking why such criticism is there in the first place.  [1] Mthembu, Jackson, ‘ANC calls on all South Africans to boycott buying City Press Newspaper and to join the protest match to the Goodman Gallery’, African National Congress, 24 May 2012,   [2] ‘Constitution of the Republic of South Africa’, Statutes of the Republic of South Africa, 4 February 1997,

To somehow state that racism is the motivation to criticisms of ‘The Spear’ is fanciful and far-fetched. People were massively offended by the piece and as such used their right to protest to demonstrate the fact. The artwork itself was vulgar, displaying images that would be offensive to anyone, regardless of race.  No-one is accusing Murray of being in favour of restoring Apartheid; indeed his early works in the 1980’s attacked the government of the day, highlighting their crimes. But when a public gallery and a newspaper releases an image that is seen as offensive to many people on many levels, provoking angry responses in the process, then it is only right that such images are removed to prevent further protest and controversy for those involved.  It is also erroneous to accuse the ANC of race-baiting. It is a multi-racial organisation and has had prominent non-Black members leading the organisation during the struggle. If any criticism of White Opponents including the Democratic Alliance is seen to be racialised, then it is probably a reflection upon the DA’s ineffectiveness in gaining the support of poor black voters, remaining a party for privileged whites as a result. Criticism of Murray was not based on race, rather the shocking and offensive artwork that hurt so many people, not least the President himself.

Artistic Freedom  A core principle of art is that it should be free from any form of inhibition, as the particular artwork is an expression of the particular views and ideals of the artist. The subject matter in many instances is their own choice; therefore they have the right to say what they want about the subject matter, safe in the knowledge that is their opinion alone being portrayed.  The artist that painted ‘The Spear’, Brett Murray, created the piece as part of an exhibition that reflected his own discontent at the lack of major progress since the ruling African National Congress took power in South Africa after the end of Apartheid in 1994. Murray used his work to promulgate an idea that he has, allowing for others to see the art work for themselves and make up their own minds about President Zuma and the ANC. [1]  Art Galleries have a right to display any artist they feel will attract visitors as well showcase the forms of art that they believe is suitable. The Goodman Gallery saw no issue with Murray’s work to the extent that they prevented any particular works from being displayed. As it was their venue which was the setting for ‘The Spear’s display, The Goodman Gallery had the right to take decisions independently of external pressure. The removal of the exhibit sets a dangerous precedent whereby government can unduly censor artworks, threatening the free actions of artists and the galleries that display their work in turn affecting plural, democratic discourse. [2]  [1] Du Toit, ‘Artist Brett Murray explains why he painted ‘The spear’, 2 Ocean’s Vibe, 2012,   [2] Robins. P, ‘The spear that divided the nation’, Amandla, 2012,

While public art is valuable, it can serve a purpose to educate and send a message, influencing discourse. Criticism of a political figure, when expressed via an art form, can change perceptions of that figure, particularly when their policy is under scrutiny. However, the image portrayed in ‘The Spear’ does not do these things. It does not focus on the policies of President Zuma, but rather relies on innuendo surrounding the President’s personal life, graphically represented by Zuma’s exposed penis, which is a prominent feature of the painting.  While artists have a right to criticise those in authority and galleries have a right to display any art it wants, such rights are balanced by responsibilities over how such artists conduct themselves when they choose to enter political discourse. A provocative image such as ‘The Spear’ flouts those responsibilities by relying upon graphic innuendo instead of policy criticism to get the point across. This is damaging for a number of reasons specific to the South African context which will be explained in the Opposition Arguments.

Racialised Opposition  Some critics of ‘The Spear’ have criticised the artwork on the grounds that it ‘dehumanises’ black people in general [1] and President Zuma in particular and criticises him based upon his personal life rather than policy, using vulgar means to do it. This line of opposition is part of a dog-whistle tactic that the ANC has consistently used against white critics of its government in the past. [2]  ANC criticisms of its white critics, including the opposition Democratic Alliance have made discreet reference to the injustices of the past as a means of creating distrust in the minds of poor, black voters who maintain ANC support as a result. Some politicians within the ANC, most notably the former President of its youth wing Julius Malema, have made incendiary statements that could be seen to stoke up hatred against whites.  It is against this back drop that the double standards over criticism of Murray should be viewed. Murray, a white artist, has been criticised roundly for ‘The Spear’, while black artists have created works that could be seen to denigrate President Zuma in a similar manner to ‘The Spear’. A noticeable example is ‘Ngcono ihlwempu kunesibhanxo sesityebi’ (Better a fool than a rich man’s nonsense) by Ayanda Mabulu, that carried a much more graphic depiction of the President and other leading politicians of the past and present with barely a murmur raised. [3]  By bowing to the pressure exerted by the ANC and its followers, the Goodman Gallery and City Press have bowed to pressure, denying criticism of the government and accepting the implied view that White South Africans are unable to criticise the government without seeking to re-assert any forms of superiority that had existed under Apartheid. Whilst there may still be underlying problems of Far-Right activity in South Africa, to smear anyone who criticises the government based on their race does nothing to help move the country on from autocracy and institutionalised racism. The Goodman Gallery and City Press should have stood by displaying the image as it represented the opinion of Brett Murray, free from intimidation or race based slander.  [1] Dana, Simphiwe, ‘The 'Sarah Baartmanisation' of the black body’, Mail &amp; Guardian, 12 June 2012,   [2] Hlongwane, Sipho, ‘The ANC's best friend: Brett Murray &amp; The Spear’, Amandla,   [3] Ndlovu, Andile, ‘'Spear' sparks hot Twitter debate’, Times Live, 23 May 2012,

What is termed a decent or otherwise is largely subjective and depends on an individual’s viewpoint. Those who use the cause of ‘public decency’ to call for ‘The Spear’s removal fail to understand the point of the artwork. Murray created such a visceral image in order to trigger debate and cause South Africans to look at the political class and their antics. Such a debate over Zuma’s fitness for office would not have been possible without an image that brought home the seriousness of the personal accusations against him and whether such allegations make him incompatible with the office of President. Murray was free to depict an image that at best a plurality of people would disagree with, and given the subject matter, that image was appropriate to use.

Jacob Zuma had a right to sue, which he made use of before dropping his claim for defamation. However, for his supporters inside and outside the ANC to attack The Goodman Gallery, City Press and Brett Murray personally is irresponsible and stifles debate over the credibility of Jacob Zuma for the office of President. Zuma has done controversial things before and during his time in office that are worthy of criticism and ‘The Spear’ amongst the rest of the exhibition reflects this. No one should be above criticism, especially if their actions will have an impact upon many people.

Infantilisation and Prejudice  Those who dismiss the reaction to ‘The Spear’ forget the historical context which may trigger the sorts of responses seen to the artwork. [1]  South Africa’s past problems can be seen to derive from the gross caricaturing of Black people and Black Men in particular as lascivious, overtly sexual and threatening, playing into a narrative of Blacks as ‘inferior beings’ justifying inhumane treatment over a number of centuries.  Portraying the President with his genitals exposed could also be seen to pass negative comment upon his polygamy, which is permitted in his Zulu culture. Such comment upon something which can determine social standing can also be viewed as offensive by many, triggering such reactions. [2]  With this in mind then the right action for both The Goodman Gallery and City Press to take would be to remove such offensive art to avoid any hurt caused and to quell the protest which were borne out of genuine offence, not political grandstanding as opposition seem to imply.  [1] Hlongwane, Sipho, ‘The Spear: Millions of people were insulted’, Daily Maverick, 28 May 2012,   [2] Dana, Simphiwe, ‘The 'Sarah Baartmanisation' of the black body’, Mail &amp; Guardian, 12 June 2012,

Masculinity  The problem with leaving the painting, the spear, up is that to many young men President Zuma symbolises what excessive wealth can ‘buy’ you. He is the figure head of the nation, the pinnacle of capitalism and masculinity, of which the penis and sex are instrumental in this image. By leaving the painting up, it encourages hyper-masculinity (which is inherently violent), [1] because it assumes there is an inherent link between power and the penis. This is unhelpful, both for women and men who are trying to live in equity.  [1] Scheff, Thomas J., ‘Hypermasculinity and Violence as a Social System’, Universitas, Vol.2, Issue 2, Fall 2006,

Public Decency  Freedom of Speech is something that is highly valued, particularly in a country such as South Africa, where it was in short supply for a large part of its history, but surely for such speech to be worthwhile, it has to be able to convey a message that actually enriches the public domain. Such messages can be critical of government, but it must be best if they do not cause widespread offence in the process.  The problem with ‘The Spear’ is that is causes widespread offence with the graphic depiction of the male genitalia. As a result, the underlying message that Brett Murray is trying to convey is lost in the offence image of the exposed penis, causing needless controversy in the process. [1]  The utilisation of an exposed penis in ‘The Spear’ breaches all notions of public decency, not only causing offence in the public domain, but also personal offence, by depicting President Zuma in such a lewd manner. As such, it is right to ask for the removal of the artwork from public display to prevent further offence from being caused.  [1] Robins. P, ‘The spear that divided the nation’, Amandla, 2012,

Defamation  While South African Law does allow for freedom of speech, and the constitution is one of the most liberal in the world for protecting such freedoms, it must be measured against the need for responsibility in the use of such freedoms to prevent offence.  Whatever one believes about ‘The Spear’ it is clear that Murray attacked President Zuma based upon his personal life rather than any critique of policy. The depiction of the President with his penis exposed is a reminder of the accusations of rape against him, of which he was acquitted in 2007.  To remind those who view the painting of the accusation is to hint at Zuma’s guilt in the case despite it being proved otherwise in a court of law. This is effectively libel and as such defames Zuma’s character. As such, Zuma was right to sue for defamation and it was right for the artwork to be removed as it implied and spread a falsehood in the public domain that is damaging to Zuma.

The painting should remain hanging as a reminder to young men that society is noting the particularly high prevalence of cases of rape, that are committed by all peoples within society, from the bottom to the top. This is not to argue that the President has ever necessarily raped anyone, although his defence in his rape-trial in 2005 was flimsy and without doubt he abused his power, as the girl he is supposed to have had consensual sex with was like a daughter to him. It is to critique his infidelity, and his lack of support in the AIDS pandemic. Just because he is the president does not mean he should be above being publically ridiculed for putting his own sexual desires above the safety of others.

To attach historical abuses to the symbolism of ‘The Spear’ is outlandish, irresponsible and fully indicates the way in which the ANC and its supporters use the past to excuse its poor record in government. ‘The Spear’ followed a theme criticising Zuma and his actions as a public figure. Criticism of the piece is welcome as part of debate based on facts, not emotion like what was seen during the controversy. Maintaining ‘The Spear’s display is part of this, triggering a debate over ANC policies in the here and now, as opposed to referring to past injustices. Removing ‘The Spear’ prevents that rational debate and instead sends a message that merely shouting down opponents is a suitable solution to an argument, harming South African political discourse in the long term.

A free press can only function if it is also a responsible press. Journalists are allowed a leeway not enjoyed by most because they act responsibly and within boundaries. Realistically, the test of whether the risk posed to third parties is balanced by the public interest is a difficult one. Although much has been made of the risks to Assange himself – at least he has made a lot of it – he has less to say on the dangers posed by the impact of his actions on military and, especially, diplomatic operations. Endangering U.S. relations with other nations by making public the opinions of Western diplomats about their hosts may be good copy but scarcely serves the cause of peace or the national interest. Mexico’s President Felipe Calderon for example said he had lost confidence in the U.S. ambassador to the country as a result. [1] Equally, the information disclosed on Guantanamo or in the Iraq and Afghanistan diaries of soldiers revealed little that wasn’t either known or widely suspected and so it is difficult to see how the public interest was served at the cost of operational efficacy.  [1] Sheridan, Mary Beth, ‘Calderon: WikiLeaks caused severe damage to U.S.-Mexico relations’, The Washington Post, 3 March 2011,

Governments have always struggled with the idea of press investigation and freedom of information, claiming Assange is not a journalist is simply a stunt.  We know that most governments struggle with the idea of not having control over information and are suspicious of the media. In a pre-Internet age working with a handful of proprietors made controlling information far easier.  Since the creation of the Internet, the idea of controlling the media has become harder, now there are those who can broadcast themselves directly; a mass of information and opinion that doesn’t rely on the patronage of publishers or political favour.  Assange has simply taken a journalistic position that makes sense for the new media age.  In contrast to the opinion driven mainstream press and much of the blogosphere, Wikileaks actually breaks new stories [1] . New media requires new skills and attitudes of its journalists because the relationship with their readers has changed dramatically but the core of the role, speaking truth to power, remains the same. Furthermore they do so in such a way as allows them to publish their source material and allow the reader themselves to make a judgement as to whether their story really reflects that material. This ability, reflecting effectively limitless capacity for providing textual information, meets the frequently heard desire for news without spin – routinely featured in research into people’s views on the press. This may be a new approach, just as Assange is a new type of Journalist but he is still a journalist.  [1] John Pilger and Julian Assange discuss citizen journalism here .

Historically, journalists have been protected from prosecution for espionage (Assange is threatened with prosecution under the Espionage Act) whereas their sources were not. Assange is providing the information which he has acquired illegally. The fact that he, in turn, had a source does not qualify him as a journalist. Surely it makes more sense to view him as a source, someone simply providing information to the journalist of the Guardian, Times and elsewhere, who subsequently used the data in actual journalism. Assange doesn’t seem interested in Freedom of information as much as he is in simply causing trouble.

The concept of what is a journalist needs to be clarified to deal with the reality of new forms of mass communication. Assange gathers, collates and disseminates information, ergo, he is a journalist.  Few industries have been changed more radically by the advent of the Internet than journalism. The traditional role of the journalist, disseminating information to which they had special or privileged access, has changed beyond recognition. Now readers and viewers have direct access to much of that information and can access it at their own convenience and through their own choice of media. Sales of newspapers are in freefall and the stranglehold of a handful of broadcasters on political access has been lost forever. There are still extraordinary journalists finding news and genuinely affecting the society around them. For the most part, however, journalists increasingly comment on the news rather than directly collecting it. In many ways, Assange has taken journalism back to basics – acquiring information to which most people do not have access and making it public. The very fact that the powerful and the privileged dislike what he is doing so much could even be taken to suggest that he has to be doing something right as one of the roles of the fourth estate is to act as a check on government. [1]  At a time when much of the traditional media seems to have lost its sense of what its role is, Wikileaks is providing a timely reminder [2] .  [1] Hume, Ellen, ‘Freedom of the Press’, Issues of Democracy, December 2005,   [2] The Guardian. Julian Assange Wins Martha Gellhorn Journalism Prize. Jason Deans. 2 June 2011.

Journalists fulfill a multitude of roles. Of course revealing information is part of that but only one part. Further, journalists do not reveal information, as Assange does, purely because it’s secret but within a wider narrative. It is however difficult to see what wider narrative Assange is pursuing. Realistically, there are some things that need to be confidential; diplomatic and military communications would come high up that list. Assange seems primarily interested in reveling things purely because they are secret. One of the curious things about Wikileaks is that, while some of it has been embarrassing, it has been published indiscriminately. The US Diplomatic Cables, the most famous of the leaks and the ones that caused the most debate, have mostly been described as embarrassing rather than reveling corruption or illegality. It’s difficult to see what journalistic goal such voyeurism could fulfill.

There is a difference between actual journalists and those who like having their names published in newspapers. Assange has far more claim to the description than many of them.  One of the things that the Leveson Inquiry [1] has made all too apparent is that simply working for a newspaper or broadcaster is not a satisfactory definition of journalist. In terms of maintaining a professional ethic, the difference between those who hacked into phones – including that of murdered schoolgirl Millie Dowler – and the journalists who broke the story, Nick Davies and Amelia Hill [2] could not be starker. Equally many popular blogs that focus exclusively on opinion or areas of news far more specialist than has traditionally been considered the role of the daily media.  A more useful definition, it would seem, relates more to the ethics and aims of the individual or organisation involved. This has the advantage of ruling out those organisations devoted to advertising (such as listings magazines or shopping channels) or those focused purely on entertainment.  A Journalist should therefore have a commitment to revealing and disseminating information that is held by those with power to those over whom they wield that power. This means that the journalist gains access to information through various sources and then publicises that information as a story. Anonymous sources such as those used by Assange are a key part of journalism with many of the biggest stories such as Watergate only being published because of anonymity. [3]  By such a definition, Assange would clearly qualify [4] . This was clearly felt to be the case by the New York Times, the Guardian, Le Monde and others who reprinted his original material and drew conclusions from it. It would come as something of a surprise to such publications to discover they were not staffed by journalists.  [1] For a link to the inquiry’s website, click here  [2] The Guardian. “Missing MIlly Dowler’s Voicemail was Hack by News of the World”. Nick Davies and Amelia Hill. 5 July 2011.  [3] Myers, Steve, ‘Study: Use of anonymous sources peaked in 1970s, dropped by 2008’, Poynter.org, 9 August 2011,   [4] The Spectator. “Yes, Julian Assange is a Journalist”. Alex Massie. 2 November 2010.

The fact that Wikileaks specialises in one form of news gathering is hardly revolutionary – a little like saying magazines specialise in features or blogs tend to be dominated by opinion pieces. The idea, however, that journalists should provide their source material so that readers can make a decision for themselves is one that constantly finds praise from audiences and many journalists regret they cannot provide because of the pressures of printable space or broadcast schedules.  At the time of writing, the lead item on Wikileaks’s front page read;  WikiLeaks: 542 days of banking blockade - no process  Assange: 539 days detainment - no charge  Manning: 737 days in jail - no trial  Grand Jury: 622 days US secret Grand Jury into WikiLeaks - no transparency  If the purpose of a news organisation is to hold account the powerful and act as an independent check on the use of that power then Assange would certainly seem to be having an impact.  By contrast, on the other side of the Atlantic, the Leveson Inquiry is now months into an investigation focussing on the largest media organisation in the world, which stands charged of breaking not so much the basic principles of good journalism but, rather, those of simple humanity. Surprisingly, the publisher of this group, Rupert Murdoch, remains at liberty on the basis that he had no idea what was going on in his empire.  The first group pointed out the failings of the powerful, the latter invited them to parties. It is interesting to consider which one comes truer to the spirit of journalism.

It is worth noting the people who are happy to say that he is a journalist – in addition to many other journalists around the world. He has received the 2008 Economist Freedom of Expression award, the 2009 Amnesty International Media Award, La Monde Person of the Year (2010) [1] and the Martha Gelhorn Prize for Journalism in 2011. [2] Wikipedia’s media partners include Der Spiegel, The New York Times, Le Monde, The Guardian and El Pais. If we accept the idea that ‘by his works shall you know a man’ then the fact that Wikileaks has produced game changing information – and stories that have changed policy - on extra-judicial killings in Kenya, the dumping of toxic waste in Cote d’Ivoire, the Church of Scientology, procedures at Guantanamo bay [3] and the financial dealings at Kaupthing and Julius Baer [4] – all before the revelations about the State Department imbroglio that is suddenly of interest to … well, to the State Department.  There are few other journalists in the word that could make such claims.  [1] AFP, 'Assange named Le Monde Man of the Year', ABC News, 24 December 2010,   [2] Deans, Jason, 'Julian Assange wins Martha Gellhorn journalism prise', guardian.co.uk, 2 June 2011,   [3] Chivers, Tom, 'Wikileaks' 10 greateststories', The Telegraph, 18 October 2010,   [4] The Economist, 'Be afraid' 9th December 2010,

It is a basic principle of journalism that sources should be checked and verified by another, independent, source.  British Foreign Secretary William Hague has pointed out that the actions of Wikileaks put British lives at risk. [1] Congressman Peter King described the mass leaking of documents as “Worse even than a physical attack” on America and Assange as “an enemy combatant”. [2] Vice-President Joe Biden refers to him as a “High-tech terrorist.” [3]  He has condemned governments, endangered operations and undermined diplomatic activities, all without knowing the identity or motives of his sources. For all we know the information could be quite false or released only in part by someone with an axe to grind. Those parties who are damned by the revelations are hardly in a position to say, “No that isn’t one of our cables and here’s the real one to prove it."  Furthermore, as the site itself proudly proclaims, it has no way of knowing who the source is and, therefore, no way of knowing the accuracy of the information published beyond the educated guesswork of their editorial staff [4] . Who is it making these guesses? It is impossible to say as only Assange’s name is associated with the site.  It’s an interesting exercise – how many other Editors-in-Chief could you name? How many star reporters can you name? Wikileaks must be the only media organisation – or such is its claim – where the only name that is widely known is that of the publisher.  It is a fairly basic principle of journalism that not only should more than one person know the identity of the source but that the information should be possible to ratify. To prove the confidence that journalist has in the source, they are prepared to put their name to it.  Assange cannot say whether he has confidence in the sources because he has no way of telling whether that is really a person with access to information or whether it is the agent of and unfriendly power, a disaffected employee or is simply making the whole thing up  [1] BBC News, 'Julian Assange ready to meet police says his lawyer', 7 December 2010,   [2] James, Frank, 'Wikileaks Is A Terror Outfit: Rep. Peter King', NPR, 29 November 2010,   [3] The Sydney Morning Herald, 'Joe Biden calls Julian Assange a 'hi-tech terrorist', 20 December 2010,   [4] The Slate. “The Wikileaks Paradox: Is Radical Transparency Compatible with Total Anonymity?” Farhad Manjoo. 28 July 2010,

Wikileaks is not a news organisation, it exists exclusively to disseminate classified information, no genuine news organisation has such an agenda.  News organisations provide a variety of functions, from reporting the weather to breaking news. Even the most hardened investigative outlet does not dedicate itself exclusively to revealing classified information. It appears to have no interest in what that information is or whether its disclosure causes more harm than good, the sole interest is that it is classified.  That isn’t journalism, at best it’s prurience and, at worst, egocentricity – ‘I know something you don’t know’. The fallout for people’s jobs, liberty and safety appears not to interest those involved.  Their own ‘About Us’ section makes a point of stating that “We accept (but do not solicit) anonymous sources of information [1] .” Interestingly, the whole of the rest of the page talks about maintaining anonymity for both readers and sources and little else. It provides screeds of text about themselves, a free press and the importance of releasing classified information. Unusually for a media organisation, there are no details about how to complain if a reader feels they or someone else has been misrepresented. This means that Wikileaks is denying someone’s freedom of speech by not giving them a right to reply and have corrections published.  In an age where even the most stentorian paper of record enshrines such rights, one might assume that such devout proclaimers of free speech would shout it from their mast head. Instead, their Chat page is mostly full of dire warnings that security forces are watching the reader’s every keystroke. Hardly encouraging for the little guy wishing to clear their name.  [1] The link to the page is here .

Assange is mostly interested in self-promotion, not being a serious journalist.  Journalists are judged by far more than their ability to acquire and disseminate knowledge or information. The quality of their writing, the skills and contacts developed to acquire it, the training used to enter the trade (which incidentally would have included the difference between the legitimate use of privileged information and espionage) and many other characteristics.  Assange doesn’t seem to have taken any interest in any of this. He undertook no formal training – he studied but did not graduate in Physics – and worked as a computer programmer and hacker before founding Wikileaks. His interest in data seems to do with the technological side of the process rather than the ideas.  Were a printer in the same situation to attempt the same defence, it would be ignored. Assange is an irresponsible geek, self-proclaimed hacker and someone who clearly has no interest in, or understanding of, the notion that there are occasions when a responsible journalist does not release information, frequently out of concern for those whose lives it might engender.  His entire background has been in hacking, he is described as a cryptographer in articles written by or about him before the launch of Wikileaks. This sudden commitment to journalism seems awfully convenient in the event of the threat of a trial.

The source material is at least open to scrutiny, and anyone can decide if it appears to be genuine.  Equally many serious journalists take Assange and the rest of the Wikileaks team seriously enough and have no difficulty with trusting the stories put forward. If he is really a patsy of agents unknown then governments, notably the US, seem to be going to extraordinary lengths to silence him and the rest of the organisation. Presumably the banks blockading his site have reason to believe that he is a threat to their commercial interests, otherwise it would be a bit of a waste of time to give him the added credibility.  The very fact that the people he attacks take him sufficiently seriously to have taken the actions they have would seem to add a lot of weight to his argument and suggest strongly that the sources are quite genuine.  The more likely explanation is that the political classes of many nations simply do not know how to respond to this new kind of journalism which can neither be bought nor bullied and, unlike the traditional media, can be based anywhere in the world. As a result they use frightening words like “Terrorist” and “Espionage” in an attempt to discredit him.

Legislation takes account of particularities. Christianity does not, and never has, required the wearing of the cross as a demonstration of faith and few representations are found before the fifth century [i] – indeed in early Church history it was discouraged. In much of the West, the cross has become simply another piece of jewellery and legislation should reflect that reality. To allow a Christian to wear such an adornment but not to allow a non-Christian to wear exactly the same thing would be unworkable. That is the consistent position.  [i] Maurice Dilasser, The Symbols of the Church, 1999, P.21,

nothing sacred house believes christians should be allowed wear cross

Other religions have the right to wear prescribed clothing enshrined in British law, it is hypocritical not to offer Christianity the same protection.  Legislation should be consistent; otherwise it is, by definition, discriminatory. [i] If some faiths are allowed to show outward demonstrations of their faith in the workplace, then that should apply across the board.  Christianity is an established part of the state, as shown by the monarch being head of the Church of England. So it is perverse for two national brands to accept attire that demonstrates an employee’s profession of other faiths but to reject one that is universally recognised as a symbol of Christianity.  The very fact that both women were willing to risk, and lose, their jobs over the issue shows that they considered wearing the cross to be an important part of their faith. That should be enough to demonstrate that it is a matter of conscience. It is demonstrably true that allowing other religious symbols to be worn does not create immense difficulties, both the NHS and Heathrow airport allow sikh’s to wear a kirpan (small dagger). [ii] Their right to do so is respected because it is important to the individual concerned. The same is clearly true here.  Either legislation should respect that commitment in all faiths or it should not do so in any.  [i] The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th ed., Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000,   [ii] The Kirpan, A submission to the Department of Communities and Local Government (UK), British Sikh Consultative Forum, April 2009, P12

Virtually every employee dresses differently for work than they do outside. We accept the fact that there are behaviours and attitudes that must be left at the door when we enter the workplace. Those unwilling to make such an accommodation simply don’t work for organisations with those requirements. If the women concerned had such a great commitment to their faith, then they should find a different job.

Declaration of the faith is a key part of Christianity and that should be respected.  The UK is a nation that claims to be tolerant of all faiths and to respect religious beliefs. If that is the case then it must be accepted that the law should respect actions in accordance with those beliefs insofar as they do not harm or infringe on the rights of others. Demonstrating one’s commitment to the cross is part of that faith [i] and should, therefore be shown some respect in a religiously diverse and tolerant society.  There may be more militant forms of religious profession that would be inappropriate in a workplace but wearing a simple piece of jewellery causes no harm or offence to others.  Both women have stated that they felt that wearing the cross was an important part of their faith [ii] and respect for those beliefs should be shown if society’s claims of tolerance and diversity are to have credibility.  As with the demonstration of any right, the fact that its exercise may not be convenient does not supersede its validity. Indeed the only way of demonstrating that a society is, in fact, a tolerant one is, by definition, when it tolerates the exercise of legitimate practices which are inconvenient.  [i] Galatians 6:14 among others  [ii] BBC News Website. “Shirley Chaplin and Nadia Eweida Take Cross Fight to Europe.” 12 March 2012.

There is no requirement within Christianity that the cross should be worn. This makes it quite different from other items of religious clothing – specifically required as articles of faith - that are accepted in the workplace. It is an entirely reasonable distinction to draw a line between iconography that the employee believes it would be a sin to go without and that which is an active choice.

Proposition is completely over-reacting. Nobody is stopping the women involved from practising their faith but there is nothing within mainstream Christianity that requires the wearing of a cross as a public statement. Furthermore, a tolerant society can only function if it works within a framework of rules that are evenly applied.  This case demonstrates that as even the established religion is expected to confine to that framework.

The confession of religious faith is far more important than the rather petty rules that banned the wearing of the cross.  People of faith attest that those beliefs determine the nature of their own identity and their place in the Universe. In the case of Nadia Eweida, at least, the employer’s case was based on the idea that wearing a symbol of that faith might not enhance their uniform. The difference between the significance of the claims could not be greater.  Indeed, British Airways, Eweida’s employer, has since changed their policy to permit staff to wear religious or charitable imagery [i] in large part because of the absurdity of the position.  The case against Chaplin was based on health and safety legislation - but not because the cross and chain posed a risk to others but to herself [ii] ; a risk she was, presumably, prepared to accept.  On one hand there are individuals protecting their sincere beliefs in the most profound of issues and, on the other, managers applying what the Archbishop of Canterbury described as “wooden-headed bureaucratic silliness”. [iii] There is no suggestion that harm to another could have been caused here and, therefore, no reason not to respect the heartfelt beliefs of the individuals involved.  [i] BBC News Website. “Christian Airline Employee Loses Cross ban Appeal”. 12 February 2010.  [ii] Daily Mail. “It's a very bad day for Christianity: Nurse's verdict after tribunal rules she can't wear crucifix at work”  [iii] The Telegraph, ‘Archbishop of Canterbury hits out at cross ban’, 4 April 2010,

Freedom of expression, like any right is fairly meaningless if it’s only respected when it’s convenient.  Recognising rights when there is no inconvenience to anybody involved is verging on the irrelevant. This is, perhaps, especially true, with freedom of expression. If I recognise your right to express yourself freely - so long as I never have to see, hear or be aware of you doing – rather misses the point.  Likewise if the individual is free only so long as there aren’t any rules saying they shouldn’t be, goes somewhat against the grain of defending liberties. Indeed the history of the idea that people can exercise all the freedom they like as long as it’s out of sight, out of mind and doesn’t break any rules is not a noble one; among other absurd forms of “freedom”, it was used to justify both segregation and apartheid.  Although the effect and extent of the prejudice is clearly different here, the logic is the same: you are completely free to do whatever I think you should do.  Having a right to freely express oneself means to do so when it is inconvenient, challenging or offensive to others [i] . The rules being broken here were, as has already been mentioned, fairly petty and the sanctions comparatively minor – although the loss of someone’s livelihood should not be understated. The case is important because of the precedent it sets; what if the two women were risking not just their jobs but their liberty?  The UK considers itself to be a tolerant country. Tolerance means accepting those declarations and statements that are inconvenient. If the law is incapable of defending a statement as benign as wearing a small piece of jewellery, it is worrying to think how it would cope with something more forthright.  [i] UN Declaration of Human Rights. Articles 18, 19 and 23.

Recognizing that people have different views is a fairly fundamental part of maintaining societal cohesion. Freedom of expression requires the corollary that there is no right not to be offended – it is hard to see how such a right would be manifest in practical terms. It is also worth reiterating that there were no complaints from customers or patients in either case.

Both women were long-standing employees. The rules changed around them, it is, however, difficult to see how not wearing a cross was innate or fundamental to the job they were doing. Employers hire a worker’s labour, not their soul.

Both employers acted out of concern for the interests of their clients, employees should respect that.  Employers don’t introduce rules because it’s fun but, rather, because they serve a purpose. Ms. Chaplin has expressed concern about the legal costs incurred by the NHS Trust which employed her in fighting the action she initiated. Health and safety rules exist, in part, to avoid the possibility of subsequent legal action; it might be reasonable for her to support such rules given her concern [i] .  Likewise, airlines have uniform policies to make their services, well, uniform. It’s what their customers expect. In much the same way as many Christians refuse to receive communion from a woman or a homosexual, it simply goes with the job.  For any workplace to function, the lifestyles of the employees need to accommodate the needs of the customers or users of the service provided by the employer. Clearly there is a degree of balance involved and the values of the employee need to be respected. However, this case isn’t about the values of the employee – they weren’t fired for being Christian – it was about and active decision in how to demonstrate those values. A decision not taken by their co-religionists and one that seemed to owe more to belligerence than to belief.  [i] Daily Mail. “It's a very bad day for Christianity: Nurse's verdict after tribunal rules she can't wear crucifix at work”

If this were about wearing a badge with a political slogan or something similar, everyone would agree that it was inappropriate. The same principle should apply to iconography.  If the image they were wearing endorsed a political candidate or another company, the issue would never have got to court. Neither complainant was employed in a capacity where their religious conviction was relevant to the job. If the situation were reversed and they were compelled to profess a religious faith in such a situation there would, rightly, be an outcry.  In neither situation would the consumer of the service being provided expect to be confronted with endorsements for which candidate to vote for or which soda to drink.  The question then arises, if political and corporate branding is out, why should suggestions about which god to pray to be okay? The very fact that they were willing to pursue this action demonstrates that images and symbols carry meaning beyond the explicit statement they make. If that is true, then it is equally true that others may object to, or be offended by, what that symbol represents. People who have bought airline tickets or are in need of healthcare should not be confronted by imagery they may find unpleasant.

Employers impose rules relating to conduct in the workplace, it’s one of the things that everyone accepts when they take and continue in a job.  Put simply, if you don’t like the rules, don’t do the job. The fact that the world of work and the life of faith can come into conflict should hardly have come as a surprise to the women concerned. From Biblical times onward, that has been a reality.  However, they chose these particular jobs and that choice comes with consequences. Their actions would seem to suggest that they prize their faith more highly than their jobs, the solution seems fairly straightforward – get another job.  Religious belief is also a choice. Nobody is compelling the two women into one particular faith and nobody, including the Church, is compelling them to wear a cross as a demonstration of that decision.  The problem seems to have arisen because one thing they chose to do was in conflict with another thing they chose to do. It is difficult to see how that is the responsibility of either the employer or the courts.

No customer or patient complained in either case. Neither employer demonstrated that wearing the cross prevented either employee from performing their duties efficiently. Indeed, given the size and diversity of both organisations’ client base, a demonstration that they support free expression might be welcomed.  The key point here is that both of the employees concerned did believe that the right to not only hold, but proclaim, their beliefs was core to their faith. By denying them the right to express that impeded not just their actions but their beliefs.

The business community is far from united in its supposed support of a third run-way. Surveys suggest that many influential businesses in fact do not support expansion. A letter expressing concern was signed by Justin King the Chief Executive of J Sainsbury and BskyB’s James Murdoch. [1] Therefore to conflate the business community as one voice calling for expansion is misguided. We should also remember, when considering the alternatives to Heathrow’s new run-way such as a new runway at another London airport or a completely new airport, that these would likely have a similar economic impact as the Heathrow expansion would. If it is the connections that matter to bring in business and tourists then so long as the connection is with London it does not matter which airport the connection is from. There may even be less need for the airport to be a hub airport if we are focused on benefits to London as Bob Ayling, former British Airways Chief Executive stated Heathrow should be focused on passengers that want to come to London not simply as a transfer point, he said that a third runway could therefore be “a costly mistake”. [2]  [1] Osborne, Alistair, ‘Kingfisher chief Ian Cheshire questions Heathrow runway success’, The Telegraph, 13 July 2009,   [2] Stewart, John, ‘A briefing on Heathrow from HACAN: June 2012’

economy general environment climate environment general pollution house would

The expansion of Heathrow is vital for the economy  Expanding Heathrow would ensure many current jobs as well as creating new ones. Currently, Heathrow supports around 250,000 jobs. [1] Added to this many hundreds of thousands more are dependent upon the tourist trade in London which relies on good transport links like Heathrow. Loosing competitiveness in front of other European airports not only could imply wasting the possibility to create new jobs, but lose some of those that already exist. Expansion of Heathrow would also be building a vital part of infrastructure at a time when British infrastructure spending is very low as a result of the recession so helping to boost growth. Good flight connections are critical for attracting new business and maintaining current business. This is because aviation infrastructure is important for identifying new business opportunities. The UK’s economic future depends on trading not just with traditional destinations in Europe and America but also with the expanding cities of China and India, cities such as Chongqing and Chengdu. [2] Businesses based in these cities will be much more likely to invest in Britain with direct flights. [3]  [1] BBC News, ‘New group backs Heathrow expansion’, 21 July 2003,   [2] Duncan, E., ‘Wake up. We need a third runway’. The Times, 2012,   [3] Salomone, Roger, ‘Time to up the ante on roads and airports’, EEF Blog, 2 April 2013,

Location is a relatively unimportant issue when talking about ‘hubs’. In hub airports an important proportion of passengers and cargo is only passing through; it arrives to the airport by plane only to leave it again by plane without even reaching the city. As a result for these passengers the links to the city do not matter. Even for those going into London the location of the airport itself is not an issue per se, rather the length of time to get into the center of the city is. In which case wherever becomes the new hub should have new transport links built or it should be built at a location that has, or will have, good transport connections such as to the North West of London where the High Speed 2 railway will run. [1]  [1] Leftly, Mark, and Chorley, Matt, “IoS exclusive: Secret plan for four-runway airport west of Heathrow”, The Independent, 2 September 2012,

Heathrow is full; it must expand  Put simply Heathrow is at the limits of its capacity so there needs to be expansion. Heathrow is already at 99% capacity and running so close to maximum capacity means that any minor problem can result in large delays for passengers. London’s major rivals have four-runway hub airports Paris, Frankfurt, even Madrid [1] this means these cities have much greater capacity as they can take up to 700,000 flights a year compared to Heathrow’s 480,000. [2] Britain does not want to be left behind, crumbling in the dust. These airports therefore clearly have the capacity to take flights that would otherwise be going to Heathrow. Heathrow needs to expand to maintain its competitiveness so that the airport retains its position the most popular place to stop-over in before catching a connecting flight. Colin Matthews, the chief executive of Heathrow (formerly BAA) has argued that Heathrow’s lack of hub capacity currently costs the UK £14billion. [3] Heathrow is in danger of falling behind continental rivals in Frankfurt and Amsterdam.  [1] Leunig, T., ‘A third runway? Yes, and a fourth too, please’ The Times, 2012,   [2] Lundgren, Kari, “Heathrow Limit Costs U.K. 14 Billion Pounds, Airport Says”, Bloomberg, 15 November 2012,   [3] Topham, Gwyn., ‘Heathrow must be expanded or replaced, airport chief announces’ The Guardian, 15 November 2012,

It is not as simple as considering that Heathrow is at capacity so everything will go to competitor airports. So far it is simple alarmism to warn of traffic going to European competitors, John Stewart (chairman of HACAN, Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise) points out that the airport already has more departure flights each week to key global business centres than its two closest rivals in Paris and Frankfurt combined. [1] Heathrow being at capacity may encourage other forms of transport, for example encouraging passengers to take the train rather than the plane to Edinburgh, Paris, or Brussels. Secondly it is not always simple just to change hub. As a transfer point if moving airport it would be necessary to change dozens of flights to enable the same transfers not just one or two. And finally of course Heathrow’s expansion is not the only way to deal with excess demand at Heathrow, numerous other options have been proposed from the ‘Boris island’ airport, to linking Heathrow and Gatwick by high speed train. [2]  [1] Topham, Gwyn, ‘Airline chiefs slam government for blocking Heathrow expansion’, The Guardian, 25 June 2012,   [2] BBC News, ‘Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link’, 8 October 2011,

Heathrow is in the best location for London  Flying is critical for business. Heathrow is well located for the people that will pick up the bill funding its expansion. People need to be able to get to their homes and work easily from the airport otherwise it is impractical. According to the Civil Aviation Authority 25% of business passengers start their journey within 30 minutes of Heathrow, far more than any other airport. [1] This demonstrates that the demand for Heathrow’s services from the local area is real and pronounced. Heathrow is closer to London than its rivals Gatwick and Stansted and has better transport links through the Piccadilly line and Heathrow Express. A new airport could potentially be closer, but finding space within the M25 for a large airport without attracting the same kind of opposition that expanding Heathrow has would be next to impossible  [1] Leunig, Tim, ‘A bigger and quieter Heathrow is the answer to our aviation capacity problem’, The Spectator, 5 October 2012,

London has a lot of runways in total because it has a lot of airports however Heathrow is the only one that has the benefit of being a hub airport as each of these existing airports only have one or two runways. Suggestions that short haul flights should go to other London airports misses the point of a hub airport which is that there should be quick transfers – something that would not be possible if the passengers from the feeder services have to cross London from one airport to another and there is not the demand to use larger planes on these routes. [1]  Of course we cannot be certain that passenger numbers will keep going up in line with predictions and long term trends. However we can be certain that the numbers using UK airports won’t go up if we don’t provide the capacity to enable them to come.  [1] Thomas, Nathalie, ‘Heathrow rejects Gatwick rail link plan’, The Telegrapoh, 29 October 2012,

An additional run-way would not necessarily result in a large increase in noise pollution as this would depend on where the runways are located. If the runway was established to the West of its current location incoming planes would cross over areas not occupied by as planes would fly over the M25, the Poyle industrial estate, the Wraysbury reservoir and part of Stanwell Moor. On the other hand all the runways could be moved to the other side of the M25 and closely spaced potentially reducing the noise level over what it is at the moment even with three or four runways. [1] Therefore the noise complaints argument is overstated. No airport will ever be silent but with proposals to increase the number of airbus A380s, which are half as noisy as the 747 when taking off and only produce a quarter of the noise when landing, the noise argument really does lose a lot of credit. [2] We should also remember that a third runway will ease capacity problems so potentially allowing the first and last flights to be at more sociable hours than is currently the case.  [1] Leunig, Tim, ‘A bigger and quieter Heathrow is the answer to our aviation capacity problem’, The Spectator, 5 October 2012,   [2] Heathrow Media Centre, ‘Heathrow set to more than triple its A380 fleet by 2020’, 25 October 2012,

Expanding Heathrow would be at the expense of the environment  Expanding Heathrow will directly contribute to climate change and make it impossible for the UK to stay within the EU legal limits. The EU has established limits on the levels of harmful pollution and the UK has signed a commitment to reduce Green House Gases by 80% by 2050 and also to emit no more CO2 in 2050 than it did in 2005. However, building a third runway would be enabling and encouraging greater number of flights which would result in Heathrow becoming the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the country. [1] Attempts by the government to weaken pollution laws by lobbying Brussels would enable the third runway but at a deeply nefarious price, that of human health, currently fifty deaths a year are linked to Heathrow but with expansion this would go up to 150. [2]  [1] Stewart, John, ‘A briefing on Heathrow from HACAN: June 2012’   [2] Wilcockm David, and Harrism Dominic, ‘Heathrow third runway ‘would triple pollution deaths’’, The Independent, 13 October 2012,

The economic case for expansion does not add up  A study conducted by the NEF revealed that the cost of expansion will outweigh the benefits by at least £5billion. [1] London has six airports and seven runways meaning that London already has the best connections globally. Together, London airports have a greater number of flights to the world’s main business destinations than other European cities, despite serving less ‘leisure’ destinations than Paris’s airports. [2] The solution to making air travel efficient lies in increasing the size of planes and filling them up rather than running half empty flights on small planes, something which is particularly prevalent on short haul flights. Short haul flights could also be re-directed to alternative airports such as Gatwick, City airport, Luton and Stansted so as to free up more space at Heathrow.  The expansion case also assumes ever increasing numbers flying, yet passenger numbers dropped for the first time in the wake of the recession, [3] and eventually technology may reduce demand for business travel. There are also other restrictions aside from runway capacity that prevents more flights, for example the UK has an agreement with China that restricts the UK to 62 flights to China per week. [4]  [1] New Economics Foundation, ‘A new approach to re-evaluating Runway 3’, 19 April 2010,   [2] Stewart, John, ‘No economic case for expansion’, November 2011,   [3] Rutherford, Tom, “Air transport statistics’, House of Commons Library, 4 July 2011, SN/SG/3760, p.4 www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN03760.pdf  [4] HACAN, ‘BAA challenged on claim that it is lack of runway capacity at Heathrow that is limiting flights to China’, airportwatch, 14 November 2012,

The third run-way would cause noise and pollution problems  The high population density of the area around Heathrow means it is not an ideal location for a bigger airport. It makes sense to increase capacity in an area with lower population density instead of trying to do so within a location that is constrained by adjacent urbanized areas. Expanding Heathrow airport would mean increasing the problem of noise for the about 700,000 people living under the flight path. According to the HACAN report the Department for Transport only accepts that noise is a problem if a community is subjected to over 57 decibels of noise over the course of a year according to a 1985 Government study. In which case only the boroughs of Richmond and Hounslow would be affected. However this does not tie in with Londoner’s experiences. BAA says that 258,000 people are currently affected by high noise levels but the local community believes the real number is more like 1 million people affected. [1] Any argument that states that noise levels will not increase is flawed at best and outright fraudulent at worst, clearly a large expansion in the number of flights will increase the amount of noise and possibly the numbers affected.  [1] Johnson, Tim, ‘Approach Noise at Heathrow: Concentrating the Problem’, HACAN, March 2010,  p.12

The former Labour government when considering expansion made it clear that environment would be taken into account when considering the construction of a third run-way so there would be environmental restrictions to make sure that this is not an issue. [1] However not expanding Heathrow also contributes to CO2 emissions; with so little spare capacity flights are often delayed due to any small disruption on the ground leaving planes circling above London increasing their emissions. Building more runways anywhere else would have a similar environmental impact to the expansion plans.  [1] The Labour Party, ‘A future fair for all; The Labour Party Manifesto 2010’. 2010,

There is no evidence that gambling prevents people from caring for their family. The vast majority who gamble do so responsibly. It isn’t right to ban something that millions of people enjoy just because a few cause problems. And banning gambling, whether online or in the real world will not stop these problems. Sadly, even if it is illegal, people with problems will still find a way to hurt those around them – just look at drugs.

business economic policy law crime policing digital freedoms freedom expression

Online gambling affects families  A parent who gambles can quickly lose the money their family depends on for food and rent. It is a common cause of family break-up and homelessness, so governments should get involved to protect innocent children from getting hurt [5]. Each problem gambler harmfully impacts 10-15 other people [6]. The internet makes it easy for gamblers to bet secretly, without even leaving the house, so people become addicted to gambling without their families realising what is going on until too late.

Unlike drugs, gambling is not physically or metabolically addictive. Most gamblers are not addicts, simply ordinary people who enjoy the excitement of a bet on a sporting event or card game. The large majority of people who gamble online keep to clear limits and stop when they reach them. The few people with a problem with being addicted will still find ways to gamble if gambling is illegal either through a casino, or else still online but in a black market that offers no help and that may use criminal violence to enforce payment.

Gambling is bad for you.  Gamblers may win money from time to time, but in the long run, the House always wins. Why should governments allow an activity that helps their citizens lose the money they have worked so hard to earn? The harm is not just the loss of money and possible bankruptcy; it causes depression, insomnia, and other stress related disorders [4]. The internet has made gambling so much easier to do and encouraged lots of new people to place bets so dramatically multiplying the harm.

Every leisure industry attracts a few troubled individuals who take the activity to harmful extremes. For every thousand drinkers there are a few alcoholics. Similarly some sports fans are hooligans. Those who gamble enough to harm themselves would be those who would gamble in casinos if the internet option was not available.

Criminals will always try to exploit any system, but if governments allow legal online gambling they can regulate it. It is in the interest of gambling companies to build trustworthy brands and cooperate with the authorities on stopping any crime. Cheats in several sports have been caught because legal websites reported strange betting patterns. Betfair for example provides the authorities with an early warning system ‘BetMon’ to watch betting patterns.

Gambling is addictive.  Humans get a buzz from taking a risk and the hope that this time their luck will be in, this is similar to drug addicts [7]. The more people bet, the more they want to bet, so they become hooked on gambling which can wreck their lives. Internet gambling is worse because it is not a social activity. Unlike a casino or race track, you don’t have to go anywhere to do it, which can put a brake on the activity. The websites never shut. There won’t be people around you to talk you out of risky bets. There is nothing to stop you gambling your savings away while drunk.

Online gambling encourages crime  Human trafficking, forced prostitution and drugs provide $2.1 billion a year for the Mafia but they need some way through which to put this money into circulation. Online gambling is that way in. They put dirty money in and win clean money back [8]. Because it is so international and outside normal laws, it makes criminal cash hard to track. There is a whole array of other crime associated with online gambling; hacking, phishing, extortion, and identity fraud, all of which can occur on a large scale unconstrained by physical proximity [9]. Online gambling also encourages corruption in sport. By allowing huge sums of money to be bet internationally on the outcome of a game or race, it draws in criminals who can try to bribe or threaten sportsmen.

It is only in the interests of big gambling sites that aim to create a long term business to go along with tough regulation. Online gambling sites can get around government regulations that limit the dangers of betting. Because they can be legally sited anywhere in the world, they can pick countries with no rules to protect customers. In the real world governments can ban bets being taken from children and drunks. They can make sure that the odds are not changed to suit the House. And they can check that people running betting operations don’t have criminal records. In online gambling on the other hand 50% of players believe that internet casino’s cheat [14].

People are not free to do whatever they want whenever they want. When their activities harm society it is the government’s role to step in to prevent that harm. Online gambling simply provides the freedom for more people to get into debt, not a freedom that should be encouraged.

Cant enforce an online gambling ban  Governments can’t actually do anything to enforce a ban on the world wide web. Domestic laws can only stop internet companies using servers and offices in their own country. They cannot stop their citizens going online to gamble using sites based elsewhere. Governments can try to block sites they disapprove of, but new ones will keep springing up and their citizens will find ways around the ban. So practically there is little the government can do to stop people gambling online. Despite it being illegal the American Gambling Association has found that 4% of Americans already engage in online gambling [11].

Government only objects to online gambling because they dont benefit  Governments are hypocritical about gambling. They say they don’t like it but they often use it for their own purposes. Sometimes they only allow gambling in certain places in order to boost a local economy. Sometimes they profit themselves by running the only legal gambling business, such as a National Lottery [15] or public racecourse betting. This is bad for the public who want to gamble. Online gambling firms can break through government control by offering better odds and attractive new games.

Other forms of online gambling  What is the difference between gambling and playing the stock market? In each case people are putting money at risk in the hope of a particular outcome. Gambling on horse-racing or games involves knowledge and expertise that can improve your chances of success. In the same way, trading in bonds, shares, currency or derivatives is a bet that your understanding of the economy is better than that of other investors. Why should one kind of online risk-taking be legal and the other not?

Only regulation can mitigate harms  It is where the sites operate, not where they are set up that matters for regulation. It is in gambling sites interest to run a trustworthy, responsible business. Whatever they are looking for online, internet users choose trusted brands that have been around for a while. If a gambling site acts badly, for example by changing its odds unfairly, word will soon get around and no one will want to use it. Regulation will mean that sites will have to verify the age of their users and prevent problem gamblers from accessing their site. When there is regulation consumers will go to the sites that are verified by their government and are providing a legal, safe service [13].

Because people will gamble anyway, the best that governments can do is make sure that their people gamble in safe circumstances. This means real world that casinos and other betting places that can easily be monitored.  The examples of government using gambling for their own purposes are really the government turning gambling into a benefit for the country. Physical casinos benefit the economy and encourage investment, and lotteries can be used to raise money for good causes. Online gambling undermines all this, as it can be sited anywhere in the world but can still compete with, and undercut organised national betting operations.

Personal freedom  Gambling is a leisure activity enjoyed by many millions of people. Governments should not tell people what they can do with their own money. Those who don’t like gambling should be free to buy adverts warning people against it, but they should not be able to use the law to impose their own beliefs. Online gambling has got rid of the rules that in the past made it hard to gamble for pleasure and allowed many more ordinary people to enjoy a bet from time to time. It provides the freedom to gamble, whenever and wherever and with whatever method the individual prefers.

Gambling is quite different from buying stocks and shares. With the stock market investors are buying a stake in an actual company. This share may rise or fall in value, but so can a house or artwork. In each case there is a real asset that is likely to hold its value in the long term, which isn’t the case with gambling. Company shares and bonds can even produce a regular income through dividend and interest payments. It is true that some forms of financial speculation are more like gambling – for example the derivatives market or short-selling, where the investor does not actually own the asset being traded. But these are not types of investment that ordinary people have much to do with. They are also the kinds of financial activity most to blame for the financial crisis, which suggests we need more government control, not less.

Governments have the power to ban online gambling in their own country. Even if citizens could use foreign websites, most will not choose to break the law. When the United States introduced its Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act in 2006 gambling among those of college-age fell from 5.8% to 1.5% [12]. Blocking the leading websites will also be effective, as it makes it very hard for them to build a trusted brand. And governments can stop their banks handling payments to foreign gambling companies, cutting off their business.

Possessing greater wealth does not obligate an individual to contribute more to the state by any moral precept. All people’s property rights should be protected equally. Citizens who succeed by their own industry and accrue wealth should not be punished for their success, or be expected to contribute more to a state that provided the same basic framework of law and rights to all citizens, rich and poor.

Those who have more owe more to the state  Wealthier people benefit from the state more than do those who are worse off for two reasons. First, they have more to lose in the absence of the state. Without the rule of law, people would no longer be bound by any power to respect one another’s property rights. A rich person has much more to lose should there be a reversion to the state of nature; nothing would shield him from the mob. For this reason it is in the interest of the wealthy to preserve the just rule of law in the state and to uphold its institutions. It does so by funding it through taxation, and those who have more to lose have a greater interest in paying more to ensure its continuity. The second benefit the rich have is that they have gained more from the state than have the poor and less well off. It is only within a state system that maintains order and provides vital services that markets can form and be maintained. [1] Warren Buffett, for example, has argued that he could never have amassed anywhere near the sort of wealth he has in a country without the rule of law, such as Bangladesh. [2] Wealthy business owners and corporations use state utilities far more than poorer individuals quite often, when for example they use public roads to move their vast fleets of trucks, while individuals only drive their personal car. The state guarantees property rights, which allows markets to form and provides the protections and services to businesses that need them to function. Those who profit from that have an obligation to contribute to its upkeep.  [1] Lakoff, George and Bruce Budner. “Hidden Truths of Progressive Taxes”. Institute for America’s Future. 2007. Available:   [2] Terkel, Amanda. “Warren Buffett: ‘I Should Be Paying a Lot More in Taxes’”. Huffington Post. 2010. Available:

It is not the state’s role to efficiently distribute economic resources; the market does a much better job of that. When the state seeks to distribute income, there is substantial efficiency loss. This is due to the so-called “leaky bucket” of distribution, as money is lost or wasted through the bureaucratic processes necessary to redistribute income and wealth. Progressive taxation only serves to exacerbate these inefficiencies by breeding more and more complex structures for their implementation.

A well-implemented progressive taxation scheme serve to promote economic growth  Progressive taxation can serve very effectively to increase the economic welfare and development of societies. It does so in three ways. First, it lifts the poor out of poverty by redistributing the tax burden from them onto the wealthy who are more able to pay, and gives them more disposable income to put back into the economy, which increases the velocity of money in the system, increasing growth. [1] Second, workers will be more likely to work harder since they will feel the system is more equitable; perceptions of fairness are very important to individuals. People will still work and save since they will want the goods and services they always did in the presence of progressive taxation, and will thus not be less motivated as detractors of progressive systems suggest. Third, progressive taxes serve as an automatic stabilizer in the event of recessions and temporary downturns in the market, in the sense that a loss of wages due to unemployment or wage cuts places an individual in a lower tax bracket, dampening the blow of the initial income loss. The American economy is a perfect example of how progressive taxation promotes broader economic growth; data shows that average yearly growth has been lessened since the 1950s after the reduction in progressively in the tax system. In the 1950s annual growth was 4.1%, while in the 1980s, when progressively in taxes fell dramatically, growth was only 3%. [2] Clearly, a progressive tax regime is best for workers and the economy generally.  [1] Boxx, T. William and Gary Quinlivan. The Cultural Context of Economics and Politics. Lanham: University Press of America. 1994.  [2] Batra, Ravi. The Great American Deception: What Politicians Won’t Tell You About Our Economy and Your Future. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 1996.

Those able to pay more should pay more into the tax system  The wealthy have more disposable income and are more financially secure than are the poor and economically tenuous. For this reason, a progressive system of taxation puts the tax burden more heavily on the wealthy which has the wherewithal to pay. Progressive taxes make everyone sacrifice equally, since true equality of taxation means equality of sacrifice. [1] It is ludicrous to expect the poor and less well-off to pay the same proportional amount in taxes as the wealthy since they have to spend most of their income on essential goods like food and shelter; it is unjust to gain all state revenues from regressive taxes like VAT, since the wealthy have excess resources they can do without while not overly influencing their standard of living. [2] Progressive taxation serves to help the poor and worst off while not leaving the wealthier worse off, since they still have more money. Clearly, progressive taxation is just in terms of burdens on individual taxpayers.  [1] Young, H. Peyton. 1990. “Progressive Taxation and Equal Sacrifice”. The American Economic Review 80(1): 253-266.  [2] Shapiro, Robert. “Flat Wrong: New Tax Schemes Can’t Top Old Progressive Wrongs”. Washington Post. 1996. Available:

Simply because someone can feasibly pay more does not mean he should be obligated to do so. Everyone’s property rights should be considered equal; the property rights of the wealthy should not be trodden upon by the state while leaving that of the less well-off alone. Fundamentally, any amount of appropriation of what belongs to an individual for the benefit of others is a kind of theft, and if the state is going to tax people, morally it can only do so if it treats everyone equally, which progressive taxation certainly does not do.

Progressive taxation does not improve economic growth. This is because, when the rich are heavily taxed, they have less likely to invest in new enterprises. Higher taxes serve as a disincentive to investment, both domestic and foreign. As to economic growth in the United States, statistics can also be misleading. The high growth of the 1950s was due to the fact that the United States was essentially the only industrial power whose infrastructure was not devastated by World War II. A better data set can be seen between the stagflation of the 1970s with its high taxes, and the relative increase in economic growth that followed with the tax cuts of the 1980s. Soaking the rich only serves to reduce the economic success of a country.

A more equal society is not necessarily a more harmonious society, and is certainly not a more just one if it was created through the process of progressive taxation. Social harmony relies on trust between all citizens, rich and poor. Progressive taxes only serve to divide society, as the rich become resentful of the poor and the poor feel more and more entitled to the possessions of the wealthy cash cow. In terms of justice, equality is not an end in itself. Opportunities can be afforded without compromising the rights of citizens by enacting a draconian scheme of leveling.

The state should promote the efficient distribution of income in order to maximize the utility derived by society from its economic resources  All goods suffer from diminishing marginal utility, and this includes money. The more money someone, the less happy they are made from each successive addition of wealth after a certain point. One might be able to buy a second car or a second house with extra money, but eventually one runs out of things one particularly wants to buy or own. [1] When wealth is unevenly distributed in society, the wealth of society is inefficiently distributed. The aim of the state must be to attempt to maximize the aggregate utility of its citizens insofar as it is able without damaging the economy. With progressive taxation, wealth is effectively reallocated to poorer people, who gain more utility than the wealthy lose in the process. The state has a right to do this not only because it generates a more efficient distribution of income than the market does, but also because income is partly a collective good. [2] Ownership rights to property and the ability to expand them is only possible within the framework of the state; thus the state can make a moral ownership claim to some of the products of the services it provides, and does so most effectively through the mechanism of progressive taxation.  [1] Thune, Kent. “The Diminishing Marginal Utility of Wealth”. The Financial Philosopher. 2008. Available:   [2] Weisbrod, Burton. Public Interest Law: An Economic and Institutional Analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1978.

Progressive taxation promotes a more equal, more harmonious society  Progressive taxation provides real equality of opportunity, and serves to level the playing field so that social classes are not fixed. Everyone deserves a chance to climb the economic ladder, but without a regime of progressive taxation this is nearly impossible. [1] If tax revenues are generated by flat or regressive taxes the poor will necessarily have to contribute substantial portions of their own income to the state, cutting into their ability to consume and save. Social services must still be financed, and the best way to do that is through a progressive tax regime that makes those most able to pay more pay more; if more of the burden is placed on the poor and disadvantaged, as it must in a flat-rate system, fewer people will be able to climb out from the social strata in which they are born. [2] The more equal society created by these taxes is thus more equitable, since it affords people greater opportunities. It is also more harmonious, since well-funded services keep people from feeling desperate and to turn to such things as crime. But greater equality itself can also be beneficial, as it reduces distinctions between groups in society, and prevents stratification into social classes based on wealth. People who are more alike can sympathize and empathize more with one another. Progressive taxation thus promotes a very real and powerful social message that can greatly benefit social cohesion.  [1] Young, H. Peyton. 1990. “Progressive Taxation and Equal Sacrifice”. The American Economic Review 80(1): 253-266.  [2] Benabou, Roland. “Social Mobility and the Demand for Redistribution: The Poum Hypothesis”. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2001. Available:

A state with the ability to levy taxes will not necessarily be evil and dominating of the wealthy. People can always leave a country, so governments must always be accommodating of wealthy citizens, and can be so even within a progressive tax system. The tyranny of the majority can only persist when there are no legal protections for individual citizens and minorities, but these exist almost universally in Western states; there is no reason to think this would somehow change in the presence of progressive taxation.

Income alone is not a sufficient measure of an individual’s contribution to society. Much income, and proportionally more so among wealthy people, is not the product of effort, but rather is unearned. The state is not punishing people for their contributions to society when it taxes them in a progressive manner, but rather simply acknowledges that some people are more able to pay greater amounts, namely the wealthy, and can thus be levied from accordingly.

Progressive taxes place an unfair and disproportionate burden on the wealthy  The revenues the state acquires through taxation are used to pay for various services and benefices. Lower income individuals consume these services to a disproportionate degree. It is they who require income supplements and child benefits when they lack the wherewithal to provide for themselves, and they avail more readily than the wealthy of such things as public healthcare and transport services. There is thus clearly no correlation between the amount people pays in taxes and amount of benefits they receive from them. [1] The rich make less use of such services, often preferring to use of privately provided services, yet they are expected to pay a greater proportion of their wealth to the public services they do not use under a progressive system of taxation. As a matter of fairness it is only just that everyone contribute to the provision of public services equally, in accordance with their wherewithal to do so. Wealthier people thus can pay more units of wealth to the system than poor people justly, but when they are expected to pay a disproportionate percentage of wealth, through a system that levies contributions according to a progressive rather than proportional scale, they are being used unfairly and being stripped of their rightful possessions to the use of others.  [1] Mayer, David. “Wealthy Americans Deserve Real Tax Relief”. On Principle 7(5). 1999. Available:

The aim of taxation should be to provide equality of opportunity, not of outcom  Taxation should not be about trying to engineer a more equal society. The purpose of taxes is to furnish necessary services people need to become competitive free agents in the economy. Progressive taxes take unduly from some to give to others in the hope of fostering social equality. Yet such efforts can only be harmful, as they breed resentment from rich toward the poor for taking undue amounts of their wealth for their consumption, and feelings of entitlement from poor who feel the wealthy owe them the money they pay, and thus feel happy to levy ever more odious taxes from them. [1] Society is best served by promoting a system of taxation that fosters equality of opportunity, by providing essential services to which everyone contributes in accordance with their ability to pay. This is better serviced through a system of flat-taxes, such as in Russia where there is a flat tax of 13%, [2] that promote a system of proportionality in taxation, rather than progressive taxes that focus unduly upon the contributions of the few to the many.  [1] The Frugal Libertarian. “Immorality of Progressive Income Tax”. Nolan Chart. 2008. Available:   [2] Mardell, Mark, ‘Pros and cons of Rick Perry’s flat tax plan’, BBC News, 26 October 2011,

Progressive systems are invariably highly complex and inefficient in implementation, breeding the knock-on inefficiencies of evasion and avoidance  The modern progressive tax system has created whole industries of firms and specialists geared toward helping people file their taxes and to ensure the system runs smoothly. It has also bred armies of officials who oversee and audit tax issues, costing the United States for example more than $11 billion a year to operate its tax collection and verification systems. [1] People are forced under the progressive system to waste hours filling out returns, to hoard and sift through receipts to be accurate and to maximize their rebates. There is thus a huge efficiency loss in terms of people’s time as they are forced to dedicate effort and resources to the often arduous task of filing taxes in an ever more complicated system, arising from a progressive regime. The extreme complexity of the system has generated further negative incentives, encouraging the wealthy to seek ways around the system, to exploit loopholes in the bloated system for their personal benefit. [2] The very wealthy can thus evade obligations through the manipulation of complex tax codes and loopholes, and can sometimes even lead less scrupulous people to pay less than less wealthy people. Flat and regressive consumption taxes, on the other hand, offer an easier mechanism of taxation that is easier to understand, less time consuming to deal with, and harder to manipulate.  [1] White, James. “Internal Revenue Service: Assessment of the 2008 Budget Request and an Update of 2007 Performance”. United States Government Accountability Office. Available:   [2] Wolk, Martin. “Why the Tax System Keeps Getting More Complex”. MSNBC. 2006. Available:

The ability to orchestrate a progressive taxation regime gives undue and dangerous power to the state  The power to tax is power to destroy. A state with power over a progressive taxation system can put the wealthy in effective thrall, and use them to benefit its own ends. This is exacerbated by such phenomena as the tyranny of the majority which can lead the majority of less wealthy and have-nots to demand more and more services and paying for them by inflicting ever more onerous taxes on the wealthy while diminishing their own burdens. Furthermore, so long as the tax burden is disproportionately leveled on the few, no one can see the growing size of the state. [1] With flat or regressive consumption tax everyone can feel the growth of the state. They can also understand the costs associated with it, driving them to have more realistic preferences and to make more rational demands of the state rather than treating the rich as a perpetual piggy bank.  [1] Dorn, James. “Ending Tax Socialism”. Cato Institute. 1996. Available:

The state’s sole role in taxation is not merely to provide equality of opportunity, but also to foster social justice through the promotion of greater social equality. This does not mean that there should not be any inequalities between citizens, but rather it means that by limiting income disparities individuals in society have more in common and are thus more able to interact in a peaceful societal framework. Progressive taxes promote this end by reducing the incomes of the very top and using the tax revenues to improve the situation of the worst off, closing the gap between the two groups and fostering broader social interaction and cooperation.

Individuals’ property and income are an index of deserving achievement, and of value contributed in the market place to society  A progressive taxation system essentially assumes that the property rights of the poor are more sacred than those of the wealthy. Somehow the wealthy have a less proportionate ownership right than do the less well-off simply by dint of their greater wealth. [1] This is the height of injustice. An individual’s income is a measure of his overarching societal worth, by reflecting his ability to produce goods and services people find socially desirable and to signify his level of competence and desirability by his employer. The state should not punish people for this greater social worth by taxing them disproportionally to others. When it does so it expects people to work for the sake of others to an extent that is not fair, effectively consigning them to a kind of forced labor, by which parts of the wealth they work to acquire is appropriated by the state to a degree beyond which it is willing to do to others. [2] Such a regime is manifestly unjust.  [1] Seligman, Edwin. “Progressive Taxation in Theory and Practice”. Publications of the American Economic Association 9(1): 7-222. 1894.  [2] Nozick, R. Anarchy, State and Utopia. New York: Basic Books. 1974.

While tax codes are complicated, their sophistication is not justification for their abolition. Rather, progressive systems can be more streamlined. New Zealand can be used as an example where a progressive taxation system is also simple, it has been praised by the OSCE; [1] in 1958 it introduced the PAYE, pay as you earn system. Where employees were taxed from their salary rather than paying their taxes in full at the end of the financial year. [2] As Complex systems and loopholes do arise due to the piecemeal development of such taxation systems, by organizing it properly a progressive system of taxation can be every bit as easily regulated and navigated as a flat-rate system.  [1] Dalsgaard, Thomas, ‘The tax system in new Zealand: An appraisal and options for change’, OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No.281, 31 January 2001,   [2] Goldsmith, Paul, ‘Taxes’, Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 5 March 2010,

Taxation need not be proportional to be fair; individuals earning significantly higher income than others have benefited from many societal factors that allowed them to accumulate wealth in peace and safety. Such people thus owe a greater burden to the state for the greater benefits the opportunities it bestowed upon them allowed. A just system of taxation should reflect this, and a progressive system does so by levying from people in accordance with their wealth that without the state could not have existed. A study of 54 nations shows that the public preserve flattening the tax adds to the risk of wellbeing and thus prefer progressive tax as a way in order to for a better over quality of life. [1]  [1] Hyde, Lucy, ‘A More Progressive Tax System Makes People Happier’, Association for Psychological Science, 6 September 2011,

Again employment needs to be contextualised with what type of jobs are provided and entered into. It remains questionable as to whether the mental health of women improves if women are employed to work within hazardous work environments, or where there is no job security.  For example domestic workers remain vulnerable to different abuses - such as non payment, excessive work hours, abuse, and forced labour. Women may be vulnerable to gender based violence on their way to work. Furthermore, street traders are placed in a vulnerable position where the right to work is not respected. The forced eviction and harassment of female street-traders is a common story, underlined by political motivations. A recent example includes the eviction of street hawkers in Johannesburg [1] .  [1] See further readings: WIEGO, 2013.

economic policy international africa society gender house believes feminisation

The effects of unemployment  Unemployment has been linked to several health and wellbeing effects. Firstly, the psychological impact of unemployment involve a range of issues - from confidence to mental well-being. Issues of mental health problems - such as depression, suicide, anxiety, and substance abuse, need recognition in Africa. The impact of mental health may not only be on the individual, but dispersed within families and across generations. Secondly, unemployment may result in a loss of social networks and networking skills. The power of social capital, or networks, in reducing vulnerability has been widely noted. Therefore encouraging women to participate within the labour market ensures new networks are built and retained through the vital communication skills used. Finally. unemployment may affect physical health status.  Unemployment may place individuals in a downward spiral, making it harder to re-enter the job market.

For rights to be granted women need to be able to have a position within trade unions, and policy change is required.  A recent study shows fewer women than men are found in trade unions across eight African countries looked at in a study(Daily Guide, 2011). The greatest degree of women’s involvement was from teacher and nurses unions, however, there remains a lack of representation at leadership levels. The lack of a united, or recognised, women’s voice in trade unions undermines aims for gender equality and mainstreaming for those women who are working.  Additionally, at a larger scale, policy change is required. Empowerment cannot occur where unequal structures remain - therefore the system needs to be changed. Governments need to engender social policy and support women - providing protection, maternity cover, pension schemes, and security, which discriminate against women and informal workers.

The importance of jobs in livelihoods - money  Jobs are empowerment. Building sustainable livelihoods, and tackling poverty in the long term, requires enabling access to capital assets. A key asset is financial capital. Jobs, and employment, provide a means to access and build financial capital required, whether through loans or wages. When a woman is able to work she is therefore able to take control of her own life. Additionally she may provide a second wage meaning the burden of poverty on households is cumulatively reduced. Having a job and the financial security it brings means that other benefits can be realised such as investing in good healthcare and education. [1] .  Women working from home in Kenya, designing jewellery, shows the link between employment and earning an income [2] . The women have been empowered to improve their way of life.  [1] See further readings: Ellis et al, 2010.  [2] See further readings: Petty, 2013.

The relation between employment, money, and household poverty is not a simple correlation when we consider the type of jobs women are entering. In developing countries work in the informal economy is a large source of women’s employment (Chen et al, 2004). In the case of Sub-Saharan Africa, 84% of women in non-agricultural work are in the informal economy (ILO, 2002). Only 63% of men work in the informal economy. Women represent a large proportion of individuals working in informal employment and within the informal sector. Informal employment means employment lacks protection and/or benefits, and the informal sector involves unregistered or unincorporated private enterprises.  Such a reality limits the capability to use employment to escape poverty (see Chant, 2010). With wages low, jobs casual and insecure, and limited access to social protection schemes or rights-based labour policies, women are integrated into vulnerable employment conditions. Data has shown informal employment to be correlated with income per capita (negative), and poverty (positive) (ILO, 2011). Further, the jobs are precarious and volatile - affected by global economic crisis.  Women’s employment in Africa needs to be met with ‘decent’ work [1] , or women will be placed in risky conditions.  [1] See further readings: ILO, 2014.

Labour participation and rights  Labour participation enables an awareness, and acquirement, of equal gender rights. Firstly, labour participation is challenging cultural ideologies and norms of which see the woman’s responsibility as limited to the reproductive sphere. Entering the productive sphere brings women equal work rights and the right to enter public space. By such a change gender norms of the male breadwinner are challenged. Secondly, labour force participation by women has resulted in the emergence of community lawyers and organisations to represent them. The Declaration of the African Regional Domestic Workers Network is a case in point. [1] With the rising number of female domestic workers, the network is working to change conditions - upholding Conferences, sharing information, and taking action.  [1] See

Yes education may help to determine the extent to which labour participation empowers women but it is the participation itself that is the actual tool that empowers. A well-educated woman who is kept at home doing nothing is not empowered no matter how good her education might have been. In Saudi Arabia there are more women in university than men yet there is 36% unemployment for women against only 6% for men (Aluwaisheg, 2013). The women are educated, not empowered.

With the right to work within the productive sphere, the responsibility of care becomes shared. This may take some time but eventually equality will be the result. If you consider the changes occurring within the developed world - such as improved access to child-care facilities and the rise of stay at home dads, the integration of women into paid employment shows changes in gender roles. The double burden may occur temporarily, but in the long-run it will fade.

Women need alternatives for empowerment  Empowerment cannot be gained for women through employment, alternatives are required. A gender lens needs to be applied to women’s life course from the start. To tackle the discriminatory causes of gender inequality access to sexual and reproductive health rights is required for women. Access to such rights ensures women in Africa will be able to control their body, go to school, and choose the type of employment they wish to enter into.  The importance of enabling sexual and reproductive health rights for women is being put on the agenda for Africa [1] . There is a lot to be done beyond workforce participation - ending violence against women, promoting equal access to resources, opportunities and participation. Such features will reinforce women’s labour market participation, but in the jobs they want.  [1] See further readings: Chissano, 2013; Puri, 2013.

Where are the men?  Is the feminisation of labour emerging with a de-masculinisation of jobs? If so, how do women cope in the work environment? Are methods being integrated to ensure a just work environment is maintained?  Overa’s (2007) study on gender relations within the informal economy indicates how tensions emerge with women and men being forced into similar occupations. The informal economy of retail trade in Ghana is becoming overcrowded as men enter into female jobs; competition is causing reductions in returns, and further, frustrations are rising against the state. Therefore if more women are entering male jobs, what are the reactions?

Who are the women?  Women are a diverse group, and the feminisation of labour has incorporated a range of women of different ages, race, socioeconomic backgrounds and education. Such intersectionalities are important to recognise, as not all women are empowered and the empowerment is not equal.  For example, a study by Atieno (2006) revealed female participation in the labour market was influenced by education. Human capital influenced the transition into work: who was able to access labour opportunities, and which ones. Therefore inequalities among women determine the degrees, and capability, of empowerment it is therefore not labour force participation that empowers but education.

The double burden  Despite a feminising labour market there has been no convergence, or equalisation, in unpaid domestic and care work. Women still play key roles in working the reproductive sphere and family care; therefore labour-force participation increases the overall burden placed on women. The burden is placed on time, physical, and mental demands.  We need to recognise the anxieties and burdens women face of being the bread-winner, as survival is becoming ‘feminised’ (Sassen, 2002). Additionally, women have always accounted for a significant proportion of the labour market - although their work has not been recognised. Therefore to what extent can we claim increased labour force participation is empowering when it is only just being recognised?

Within Gender and Development the importance of bringing men into the picture of gender discrimination has been recognised. Therefore working with men will change enable gender roles to be changed.

How we define empowerment is broad - encompassing all changes that women are able to make, through agency, to tackle their subordinate position. Therefore labour force participation does provide empowerment. Labour participation provides an opportunity for women to control household resources, demand rights, and organise for equal justice. There is no silver bullet, or objective, to achieve women’s empowerment.

Latin American countries do not have the same interests to protect. There are high disparities within the region itself. It would be naïve to believe that Brazil, a country of nearly 200 million people who recently overtook the UK as the world’s 6th largest economy, and Haiti, that has 10 million people and one of the lowest GDPs in the world, have the same national interest to protect. Even among richer South American nations, there are differences. Brazil tries to protect its industry from American competition while Argentina is strongly against farming subsidies. A country like Brazil will not necessarily stand up for those most vulnerable in the region at the negotiating table.

economic policy economy general international americas house supports creation

Multilateralism is preferable to bilateralism.  It is preferable for Latin American countries to band together when negotiating trade deals with the US and Canada, to better protect their interests. After FTAA negotiations failed, the US focused on bilateral strategies and trade deals where the imbalance of power was much greater in favour of the US, and it therefore could more easily dictate terms of the agreement that were detrimental to the interests of the developing country. For example, El Salvador, who is a member of CAFTA (Central America Free Trade Agreement), together with only five other Central American countries, has found itself under legal attacks by foreign investors when it refused to lower its environmental standards in the gold mining industry [1] . Having an emerging global power, like Brazil, be part of the agreement, would counterbalance US influence over the terms.  [1] Gallager, Kevin. “Stop private firms exploiting poor states.” The Guardian. 5 February 2010.

The US has a long history of toppling unfriendly regimes in Latin America and propping up dictators who were agreeable to the US, from Panama to Nicaragua. This has made the people of Latin America very mistrustful of any American intervention in their politics and economy. In fact, many South American leaders see the FTAA as another attempt by the US at imperialist expansions in their continent. This would give them more reasons to rally around Chavez rather than isolate him.

Free trade is good for development and growth.  Free trade essentially removes barriers for companies to do business across countries and regions. This leads to competition between countries in those regions, and between companies and industries in those countries. It leads to the sharing of innovation, drives down the cost of production, and allows workers to move freely where their labour and skills are needed. This is good for all those involved in the transaction. It is good for companies, because they have more resources and markets at their disposal, good for consumers, because competition between companies drives down prices and drives the innovation that improves products, and it is good for workers, because they have greater opportunities to find employment for their labour and skills [1] .  [1] DanBen-David, Håkan Nordström, LAlanWinters. “Trade, Income Disparity and Poverty”. World Trade Organization. 1999.

Free trade does not benefit everyone equally. Rich corporations from developed countries are not interested in growth in developing nations; they are interested in making profits. They just view developing nations as sources for cheap labour and materials, that can be harnessed more easily, due to low levels of environmental and labour regulation. For example, the so-called Maquiladoras in Mexico, which were put in place by NAFTA were rife with labour and environmental violations [1] . Therefore, free trade agreements between rich and poor countries can trap developing nations in the economic cycle as raw material providers, thus preventing them from developing their own national industries.  [1] Human Rights Watch. ”Mexico’s Maquiladoras. Abuses Against Women Workers.” 16 August 1996.

Trade is good for democracy.  Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez has been making sustained efforts to boost his influence in Latin America, with regional tours and substantial investments in neighbouring economies, fuelled by Venezuela’s oil money [1] . He is staunchly anti-American and a supporter of Iran. Meanwhile, he has been restricting freedom of speech in his own country, has done away with presidential term limits, and has essentially proven himself as yet another Latin American dictator in the making. If the US hopes to counterbalance his influence, it needs to become more economically connected to Latin America. Showing that the United States is willing to trade fairly with Latin America would undermine his message. This would not only be the case for the United States as it would also allow Brazil and other successful democratic Latin American states to boost their influence.  [1] Carroll, Rory. “Chavez Opens His Wallet Wider to Boost Latin American Influence.” The Guardian. 9 August 2007.

A multinational trade agreement could equally raise environmental standards across the region. Under the status quo, nothing stops companies from moving to countries that have low environmental standards and few regulations. But if governments agreed, the US could push for higher standards across the entire continent. That way, it would ensure its business environment remained competitive in the American region.

Protectionism cannot create a healthy national industry. Only by competing openly against each other on the global market, companies become truly efficient and effective. And small, local companies and industries can often have the advantage in such a confrontation. They can be more flexible and innovative than large multinational corporations, and they are better adapted to the local climate and culture.

The FTAA is bad for South American Agriculture.  During the FTAA negotiations, the US has consistently refused to eliminate subsidies for American farmers [1] . Because of subsidies, great agricultural surpluses are produced that are then sold on developing markets at prices lower than the cost of production. Farmers in places like Brazil or Argentina, who are much more efficient in their process of production but do not benefit from subsidies, could not compete with these low priced imports, either locally or on the American market. Farmers would soon go out of business.  [1] Marquis, Christopher. “Panama Challenges Miami as Free Trade Headquarters.” New York Times. 11 November 2003. www.nytimes.com/2003/11/11/world/panama-challenges-miami-as-free-trade-h...

FTAA is bad for labour in developed countries.  Liberalizing the labour market across the entirety of the Americas would be a severe blow to workers in the US and Canada. It would put them in direct competition with workers from countries where the average salary is much lower than in the US, who would be willing to work for a fraction of what a US or Canadian worker currently makes. In order to stay competitive in such a market, they would have to accept lower salaries and a cut in benefits. This would reverse decades of progress in the direction of better protections for workers and workers’ rights, as well as lead to higher unemployment levels in developed countries [1] . This has occurred as a result of previous free trade agreements in the Americas for example the North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA) after it was implemented resulted in the displacement of 682,000 US jobs [2] this then gives employers a chance to reduce working conditions as there is surplus labor.  [1] Suroweicki, James. “The Free-Trade Paradox.” The New Yorker. 26 May 2008.   [2] Scott, Robert E., “Heading South: U.S.-Mexico trade and job displacement after NAFTA”, Economic Policy Institute, 3 May 2011,

FTAA is bad for the environment.  Free trade creates a "race to the bottom", whereby developing countries lower their labor and environmental standards in an effort to attract foreign investment. Developed countries, which may have higher standards, are then forced to lower them as well in order to make sure companies don’t relocate or outsource their jobs abroad [1] .  [1] Hassoun, Nicole. “Free Trade and the Environment”. Environmental Ethics, Vol. 31.

The FTAA is bad for industries in developing nations.  This agreement would put farmers and workers in some of the world’s most impoverished nations in direct competition with some of the richest companies in the developed world. FTAA would have small, domestic industries in countries like Bolivia or Haiti compete with massive American corporations, and prevent their governments from aiding them in any way. The disparity of power and resources would be so great in the case of such a collision, that it would mean these small industries could easily be wiped out and never develop to a level where they can sustain a healthy national economy and become competitive against giant multinational corporations. This would be disastrous for development and poverty reduction in South America [1] .  [1] Robinson, Mary. “Free Trade Area of the Americas: Latin America Deserves Better.” New York Times. 18 November 2003. www.nytimes.com/2003/11/18/opinion/18iht-edrob_ed3_.html?scp=1&amp;sq=

Employers will always pay a premium for workers who have the necessary education, technical and language skills that are needed to do the jobs that insure the companies’ financial success. Such workers would be primarily sourced from developed countries, which have the education systems required to educate them. Meanwhile, there are numerous low skill, menial jobs that find no takers, even during high unemployment. Bringing in workers from abroad that would be willing to do those jobs and pay taxes would be mutually beneficial for everyone involved in the exchange.

Subsidies for farming and agriculture mean cheaper food. If Americans were forced to pay the price of production for the food they consume, poverty rates in the US would be much higher. Conversely, in developing South American countries, which have high levels of poverty and wealth disparity, driving down the price of food would actually be of great benefit to those who live below the poverty line.

While it is true that the quota of women in African politics is growing, it is still a far stretch from the control needed to have a credible influence on the economy. It is true; they have high representation in Rwanda, in South Africa, in Liberia and Malawi [1] . But the rest of the continent is lacking in women representation.  Africans appear to not be ready to empower their women; the overall representation of women in the continent is lower than in Europe or North America.  Politics is also not always central to running the economy. There may be women in parliament but do they have an influence on the economy as ministers? In South Africa only 19% of board members are women and they make up less than 20% of top management positions. [2] The future for Africa’s economy hinges not on the representation of women in politics but in investments, good resource managements, developing infrastructure and a cleansing of the system of corruption.  [1] The Economist, ‘Africa’s female politicians: Women are winning’, 9 November 2013,   [2] Thorpe, Jen, ‘Why are there still so few female leaders?’, women24,

economy general international africa house believes women are key africas

Women provide a platform for economic development  Where women in Africa are treated more as equals and are being given political power there are benefits for the economy. Africa is already surging economically with 6 out of the world’s ten fastest growing economies in the past decade being a part of sub-Saharan Africa [1] .  While some of the fastest growing economies are simply as a result of natural resource exploitation some are also countries that have given much more influence to women. 56% of Rwanda’s parliamentarians are women. The country’s economy is growing; its poverty rate has dropped from 59% to 45% in 2011 and economic growth is expected to reach up to 10% by 2018. Women become the driving force of the socio-economic development after the 1994 genocide with many taking on leadership roles in their communities. [2]  In Liberia, since Ellen Johnson Sirleaf took the presidency seat on January 2006, notable reforms have been implemented in the country to boot the economy, and with visible results. Liberia’s GDP has grown from 4.6% in 2009 to 7.7% by the end of 2013.  Men in Africa on the other hand have often lead their countries into war, conflict, discord, and the resulting slower economic growth. Men fight leaving women behind to tend the household and care for the family. Giving women a greater voice helps encourage longer term thinking and discourages conflict, one of the main reasons for Africa’s plight in the second half of the 20th century. The feminisation of politics has been identified by Stephen Pinker as one of the causes for a decline in conflict. [3] When peace brings economic growth women will deserve an outsize share of the credit.  [1] Baobab, ‘Growth and other things’, The Economist, May 1st 2013   [2] Izabiliza, Jeanne, ‘The role of women in reconstruction: Experience of Rwanda’, UNESCO,   [3] Pinker, S., The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined, 2011

An increase in literacy does not necessarily translate into greater economic participation by women in the future. Yes more women are being educated but it is not just a lack of education that hinders them. It also requires infrastructure and facilities that are missing in almost every African country, especially in the rural areas. For all of these to happen, first there needs to be political stability [1] . Discrimination against women also needs to go, as proposition has already pointed out in agriculture where women provide the workforce they don’t keep the benefits of their labour; the same could happen in other sectors too.  [1] Shepherd, Ben, ‘Political Stability: Crucial for Growth?’, LSE.ac.uk,

Women are the backbone of Africa’s agriculture  It sounds dramatic, but when more than 70% percent of the agricultural labor force of Africa is represented by women, and that sector is a third of GDP, one can say that women really are the backbone of Africa’s economy. But the sector does not reach its full potential. Women do most of the work but hold none of the profit; they cannot innovate and receive salaries up to 50% less than men. This is because they cannot own land [1] , they cannot take loans, and therefore cannot invest to increase profits. [2]  The way to make women key to Africa’s future therefore is to provide them with rights to their land. This will provide women with an asset that can be used to obtain loans to increase productivity. The Food and Agriculture organisation argues “if women had the same access to productive resources as men, they could increase yields on their farms by 20–30 percent. This could raise total agricultural output in developing countries by 2.5–4 percent, which could in turn reduce the number of hungry people in the world by 12–17 percent.” [3]  The bottom line is that women work hard but their work is not recognised and potential not realised. What is true in agriculture is even truer in other sectors where women do not make up the majority of workers where the simple lack of female workers demonstrates wasted potential. The inefficient use of resources reduces the growth of the economy.  [1] Oppong-Ansah, Albert, ‘Ghana’s Small Women’s Savings Groups Have Big Impact’, Inter Press Service, 28 February 2014,   [2] Mucavele, Saquina, ‘The Role of Rural Women in Africa’, World Farmers Organisation,   [3] FAO, ‘Gender Equality and Food Security’, fao.org, 2013,  , p.19

Women do indeed work on small farms, but it is this very size that means they will not be key to the future. A 2.5-4% increase in agricultural production is not much. Even with agriculture as a third of the economy this is only a one off 1% increase in GDP.  This small size is also the reason they do not get loans and the opportunity to develop the land or business; they are not profitable over the long term. Subsistence farming is necessary and investing to create some surplus is beneficial but it will not have sufficient impact.  Instead women need to be taken out of their traditional role where they are the caretakers of the family. They are not the future for Africa’s economy just because they are fulfilling their traditional role, quite the opposite. The fact that women still continue to work in agriculture and they have yet to stand out in the more competitive areas of the economy shows that they are not ready yet to have an impact over the economy, and that this job, securing the future of Africa’s economy as a whole, is still in the hands of men.

There is greater potential for African women  There is great potential in educating African women. Two out of three illiterate Africans are women. In 1996 the countries with the highest illiteracy rates in women are Burkina Faso with a staggering 91.1%, Sierra Leone with 88.7%, Guinea with 86.6% and Chad with 82.1% of women illiterate [1] . The situation is however improving. Women are starting to reach their educational potential: by 2011 the illiteracy rate among female youth (15-24) had dropped to 52% in Sierra Leone, 22% in Guinea and 42% in Chad. [2]  Women in Africa are becoming much better educated. This means they are much more likely to be able to reach their full potential in the economy. Education provides opportunities as educated women will be better able to work in the manufacturing or services sectors. They will also be much more capable of setting up and running their own businesses or organisations. As a more educated cohort of women enters the workforce they will have a much greater effect on the economy than women have had in the past.  [1] ‘The role of Women in Post-independent Africa’, African Women Culture, 29 April 2011,   [2] UNESCO Institute of Statistics, ‘Literacy rate, youth female (% of females ages 15-24)’, data.worldbank.org, 2009-2013,

Neither education not infrastructure can discount the possibility of women being key to the economic future. Yes infrastructure is needed before many businesses can reach their full potential. But the same limits are on men and women. The lack of infrastructure does not necessarily mean that men will be the ones who benefit. Nor can we be certain that Africa will develop through building infrastructure in the manner than China has. Some infrastructure may become unnecessary; for example there is now no need to build extensive systems of landlines as a result of the use of mobile phones. Other technologies in the future may make other large scale infrastructure projects less necessary – for example community based renewable energy.  Similarly education is not destiny; those who do not go to university may well contribute as much as those who do. Moreover this education gap simply shows that when it is closed the impact from women will be all the greater.

While Africa has huge reserves of natural resources they are not its economic future. Mining employs few people and provides little value added to the economy. Also not every African country has natural resources to exploit while all have people, including the currently underutilised women, who could with better education bring about a manufacturing or services economy. Such an economy would be much more sustainable rather than relying on resource booms that have in the past turned to bust.

Women are not the future for Africa’s economy  In the short to medium term women are unlikely to be the key to Africa’s economic future. Even in western economies, there is still a gap between genders at the workplace. Women are still paid less than men, there are more men CEO’s than women and so forth. This is likely to remain replicated in Africa for decades after there has been full acceptance that women should be treated equally as has happened in the west.  In some parts of Africa there are cultural reasons why women are unlikely to obtain a key role in the near future. In Egypt for example, where 90% of the populations is Muslim, women account for 24% of the labour force, even though they have the right to education. This is true across North Africa where women amount for less than 25% of the work force. [1] Just because there is clearly a large amount of potential being wasted here does not mean that is going to change. Women often have few political or legal rights and so are unlikely to be able to work as equals except in a very few professions such as nursing or teaching.  [1] International Labour Organisation, ‘Labour force, female (% of total labor force)’, data.worldbank.org, 2009-2013,

Africa's greatest needs are for infrastructure and education  Africa’s greatest needs for development are infrastructure and education. Neither of these needs implies that women are about to become key to the African economy.  Africa is severely deficient in infrastructure; Sub Saharan Africa generates the same amount of electricity as Spain, a country with one seventeenth the population. The World Bank suggests “if all African countries were to catch up with Mauritius in infrastructure, per capita economic growth in the region could increase by 2.2 percentage points. Catching up with Korea’s level would increase economic growth per capita by up to 2.6 percent per year.” [1]  There are numerous projects to alleviate this deficit such as immense projects like the Grand Inga Dam in the Democratic Republic of Congo which could power not just the country but its neighbours too. [2] However if construction is the key to the future then this implies men are going to continue to have more impact as the construction industry is traditionally dominated by men.  Africa has been making strides in education for women. Yet there still remains a gap. To take a few examples the youth female literacy rates in Angola 66%, Central African Republic 59%, Ghana 83% and Sierra Leone 52% is still lower than youth male literacy rates or 80%, 72%, 88%, and 70%. [3] And the gap often increases with further education. To take Senegal as an example there are actually more girls than boys enrolled in primary education, a ratio of 1.06 but for secondary this drops to 0.77 and to 0.6 for tertiary. The situation is the same in other countries; Mauritania 1.06, 0.86, 0.42, Mozambique, 0.95, 0.96, 0.63, and Ghana 0.98, 0.92, 0.63. [4]  With women not breaking through to the highest level in education it is unlikely that they will be the main driver of the economy in the future. Their influence may increase as a result of increasing education at lower levels but without equality at the highest level they are unlikely to become key to their countries economic future as the highest skilled jobs and the roles of directing the economy will still be carried out primarily by men.  [1] ‘Fact Sheet: Infrastructure in Sub-Saharan Africa’, The World Bank,   [2] See the Debatabase debate ‘ This House would build the Grand Inga Dam’  [3] UNESCO Institute for Statistics, ‘Literacy rate, youth male (% of males ages 15-24)’, data.worldbank.org, 2009-2013,   [4] Schwab Klaus et al., The Global Gender Gap Report 2013, World Economic Forum, 2013,  , pp.328, 276, 288, 208 (in order of mentioning, examples taken pretty much at random – though there are one or two where the ratios actually don’t change much such as Mauritius, but that is against the trend)

Natural resources are key  Africa has a very significant amount of resources that have not yet been exploited and put to good use. The continent has 12% of the world's oil reserves, 40% of its gold, and 80% to 90% of its chromium and platinum. Moreover, it is home to 60% of the world’s underutilized arable land and has vast timber resources. [1]  Given the economic changes, and the recent continent’s economical upraise, Africa has now a real opportunity to capitalize on their resource endowments and high international commodity prices. [2] The major point is that Africa’s resources fuel the world. Commodities from laptops to cell phones, cars or airplanes, all are made from using minerals that come from Africa. For example, catalytic converters are fitted to cars in order to reduce air pollution. Platinum and rhodium are the key components, both resources found in abundance in Africa. Cell phones or laptops use parts made out of tantalum, which is exported from African countries such as Mozambique or Rwanda, and so on. [3]  Africa is also the continent, excluding Antarctica, which is least explored so has most potential growth in raw materials. New explorations reveal much larger reserves than previously known. If these resources and wealth are well managed, in an efficient and equitable way, it could boost Africa’s economy, helping all categories of people, from women to children, offering jobs and generally raising the level of life on the continent.  [1] Lopes, Carlos, and Tony Elumelu, ‘How Africa’s natural resources can drive industrial revolution’, CNN, 20 November 2013,   [2] Economic Commission for Africa, ‘Making the Most of Africa’s Commodities: Industrializing for Growth, Jobs and Economic Transformation’, uneca.org, 2013,   [3] Tutton, Mark, and Milena Veselinovic, ‘How Africa’s resources fuel the world’, CNN, 25 July 2013,

There is little reason to believe Africa will follow the path that western countries have when it comes to the role of women. Change could come much more quickly than expected. Already there are African countries that have most women in Parliament; Rwanda has by far the highest percentage in the world with 63.8% of seats in the lower house taken by women with three other African countries (South Africa, Seychelles, and Senegal) in the top 10. [1] If Africa, with the exception of the North, has accepted women in politics much faster than the west there is little reason to assume the same won’t happen with business.  [1] ‘Women in national Parliaments’, Inter-Parliamentary Union, 1 February 2014,

Under capitalism property is privatised under the presumption that it will not harm anyone or even that it will benefit everyone. This is not the case and what actually takes place is that property becomes concentrated into the hands of a relatively few well-off people leaving the rest more or less without property. The capitalist's bargaining position is far superior in comparison to the worker's (since he is a capitalist) and he can use it as an advantage in order to concentrate wealth for himself. If the capitalist has everything and the worker nothing it leaves the worker with nothing more than the mercy of the rich for work, charity, etc. Even if the capitalist offers the worker a salary on which he can survive (in comparison to unemployment a salary on which he can survive "makes him better off') it is a forced contract out of necessity from the worker's part1/2. Consequently private ownership is by no means on par with the possibilities of owning goods in common and is thus contradictory to the capitalists premise of not harming others3. Capitalism makes the majority more dependent on a minority than they would have been if property were shared.  1 Marx, K. (2010). On The Jewish Question. Marxist Internet Archive. Retrieved March 17, 2011  2 Marx, K. (2009b). A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy - Preface. Marxist Internet Archive. Retrieved March 19, 2011  3 Cohen, G. A. (2008). Robert Nozick and Wilt Chamberlain: How Patterns Preserve Liberty. Erkenntnis (1975-), Vol. 11, S(No. 1), 5-23. D. Reidel and Felix Meiner. Retrieved June 9, 2011

economy general philosophy political philosophy house believes capitalism better

Each man has a right to private property  The right to own property is central to man's existence since it ensures him of his independence of survival. It provides a means to sustain himself without relying on others inasmuch as he has control over a property and can make a living from it. However in order to acquire property the person must gain it from his own labour, if he takes the fruit of someone else's labour without consent that would be plain stealth. However, this is not the only requirement which must be fulfilled in order to gain property: imagine a scenario where I pour out tomato juice into the ocean, I have mixed my own labour with nature and made an "own" creation, but could it be said that the ocean is my property? Most people would certainly say no and therefore one of the following two provisos must also be met before one can fully acquire property: 1. It does not impact on others chance of survival/ comfort of life 2. Leaves the others better off than before. Let us presume that we have a wasteland which generates very little harvest since it is uncultivated. If I privatise and cultivate a bit of this land it will generate more harvest since I have put work effort in it. Presuming that the privatisation does not leave the others worse off than before e.g. there is plenty of other wasteland they can cultivate on their own and does thus not harm anyone else's opportunities/chances to cultivate their own land, privatisation is allowed for the individual good. Alternately, others are better off if they do not have the skill to cultivate land themselves and can lease their labour working on my privatized land, they would win on the deal since the wage I pay them would be better than what they would have gained on their own1/2.  1 Locke, J. (n.d.). Chapter. V. Of Property. Constitution Society. Retrieved June 7, 2011  2 Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy State and Utopia (pp. 54-56, 137-42). Basic Books.

Capitalists often disregard the fact that people, although being individuals, also are formed by their social circumstances 1/2. People's class belonging, sexuality, sex, nationality, education etc. have a major impact on people's opportunities; there might be cases of individuals achieving the American dream like Barack Obama despite their social background, however this is not applicable to the majority of people. In capitalism the people with the most opportunities are usually the people who have the most capital, take the example of university students: universities in many countries such as the United States and United Kingdom charge students high tuition fees, if one is not wealthy enough to pay for these fees the likelihood to continue into further education is much lower (if a loan is provided one would have to risk to be indebted for a long period of one's life, or not have the opportunity to study at university at all)3. This can by no means be called an equal opportunity for everyone. It is not enough to provide opportunities; people must also be in a position to grab them.  1 Berger, P. L., &amp; Luckmann, T. (2007). Kunskapssociologi : hur individen uppfattar och formar sin sociala verklighet. (S. T. Olsson, Ed.). Falun: Wahlstr

The market should determine the price of products and services  A free market gives the power to the people to choose and decide what products and services should be offered to them. If many people want the same thing the demand will be higher and it will be profitable to offer them on the market since it will sell, therefore the people are in command of what products are being offered to them through their own want. The market is thus decided upon what people need and therefore there will be no excess products or services offered e.g. let us presume that many people want to see high quality basketball, a person like Michael Jordan who has a talent for basketball and has honed his basketball skills would in this case be much in demand. People are ready to pay for the service he offers (excellent basketball) and consequently his high wage will be justified. On the other hand a mediocre basketball player would not be paid at all since there is no demand to see mediocre basketball, his service does not have an attraction on the market and will thus be eliminated1/2. This is all part of what could be called a "dynamic capitalist system" which values individuality (honing your basketball skills), rewards ability (having basketball skills) and risk-taking (risking that you will succeed with it).  1 Adam Smith. (n.d.). The concise Encyclopedia of Economics. Retrieved June 20, 2011  2 Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy State and Utopia (pp. 54-56, 137-42). Basic Books.

Often when consumers buy things they might ostensibly believe that they have a choice, when in reality they do not, since they are presented with several options; I could e.g. either watch this blockbuster movie or that blockbuster movie on the cinema. However, there is no option to watch anything else than a blockbuster movie and consequently there is no real choice offered. Capitalism has already decided what is going to be produced and the consumer is left with nothing else than purchasing whatever is provided. Another example could be that there might be a whole range of food options in the supermarket, but the good food is expensive and therefore the people with less income end up eating unhealthy food since they cannot afford the good food, therefore in practice there is no real choice since one of the options is not available for the people with less income because it is too expensive1. An additional counterargument might also be to question the validity that a product/service's price should be determined by the pure fancy of the market, is it really justifiable that Michael Jordan earns much more than e.g. a nurse? The nurse provides a service which saves lives while Michael Jordan only supplies entertainment, even if it is only Michael Jordan who can play a certain kind of high quality basketball and many more people are qualified nurses, it does not justify at all the wage difference between the two2.  1 Adorno, T., &amp; Horkheimer, M. (2005). The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception. Retrieved June 7, 2011  2 Sandel, M. (2004). Justice: What is the right thing to do? Allen Lane.

According to Karl Marx work should not be regarded as just a means to achieve a reward in the form of profit, work should (i) be directed to the need of their fellows, (ii) be an enjoyable, meaningful activity which develop human capabilities. In the capitalist system labour becomes distorted e.g. industrial work tends to be monotonous and dulling without any enjoyment at all. People are more or less coerced to work for their survival and accept even the most horrific work conditions; work is only performed on the capitalist's terms1/2. If workers did not have to fight for their survival and labour was directed to the meaningful activity of helping others instead of profit making for capitalists, incentives in the form of profit would be without value. The want to share wealth and material amongst the community is inscribed in the human essence and constitutes meaningful activity. It is not merely possible

The capitalist society enhances personal freedom  The Western democratic capitalist system protects individual's rights and liberties through freedom from of interference by other people. Mature adult citizens are believed to have the capacity to choose what kind of life they want to lead and create their own future without paternalistic coercion from the state (Berlin, 1958). The capitalist society's ideals could perhaps be best exemplified with the American dream where everyone has an initial equal opportunity to reach their full potential, each individual being choosing their own path free from external coercion,. James Truslow Adams defines the American Dream as the following in 1931 "life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement"1. The current President of United Stated Barack Obama is a typical example of a person who has achieved the American dream. Barack Obama did not start his life with a traditional "fortunate circumstance" previous presidents had enjoyed (e.g. George Bush). Nevertheless he succeeded in transcending his social class, his race etc. and became the president of United States2. Thus capitalism provides everyone with a fair chance to reach great achievements in their life if they seize the opportunities.  1 James Truslow Adams papers, 1918-1949. (n.d.). Columbia University Library. Retrieved June 7, 2011  2 Barack Obama is the American Dream writ large. (2008). Mirror. Retrieved June 7, 2011

Incentive in form of profit benefits society as a whole  The strongest motivational force a human being can feel towards work is a potential reward for their effort, therefore those who work hard and contribute most to society should justly also gain the most in form of increased wealth (e.g. private property). When work is uncoupled from reward or when an artificial safety net provides a high standard of living for those who do not work, society as a whole suffers. If those who work will benefit equally as the ones who do not there will be no reason to work and the overall productivity will be lowered, which is bad for society. Incentives are therefore necessary since it increases the overall standard for the whole society in form of material wealth, the fact that individuals are driven to succeed and earns what is rightfully theirs is thus in all our interest. With an overall higher productivity even the worst off may benefit more than they would have if the productivity had been low e.g. through charities etc.1/2/3/4  1 Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice (Rev.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.  2 Bradford, W. (1856). History of Plymouth plantation. Little, Brown and company.  3 Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy State and Utopia (pp. 54-56, 137-42). Basic Books.  4 Perry, M. J. (1995). Why Socialism Failed. University of Michigan- Flint, Mark J Perry?s personal page.

In order to avoid economic crisis there is a need to return to a separation of commercial banking from investment banking which was e.g. implemented as legislation in the U.S.A. under the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act (scrapped under President Clinton in the 1990s). It is dangerous to allow banks to get into a position where they can be shut down by pursuing exciting, but high risk investment banking activities such as real estate speculations. The rationale for this separation is that it was a commercial banking crisis which posed the systemic risk, investment banks should be left alone from state interference and left to the influence of the market. "This leaves a much more limited, and practicable, but still absolutely essential, role for bank supervision and regulation: namely, to ensure that the core commercial banking system is thoroughly sound and adequately capitalised at all times. The crisis can thus be resolved through a separation of the banks since the commercial banking won't be affected when investment banks go bust, the whole system will not be dragged down if only a few investment banks misbehave since commercial banks are the backbone of the economy. Financial crisis doesn't have to be something "inherent" in the capitalist system due to overproduction but can be accommodated through some regulations1.  1 Lawson, N. (2009). Capitalism needs a revived Glass-Steagall. Financial Times. Retrieved June 14, 2011 1.

The reasons behind the poverty gap are not purely because of a capitalist expansion; a clear example may be seen at the development of the African region between the 1960.  Free market economics also provides the solution to such inequality; labor will gravitate towards companies which provide the best working conditions and wages. For example, while most automobile companies offered two dollars per day as wages, Henry ford offered five, guaranteeing him the best of the best by way of labor. The important point is that the employers do not enslave the workers, the workers are more than free to try to find better employment, be it in better pay, better conditions, easier work, better benefits or more satisfaction.

Socialism provides a more sustainable way of living  Capitalism always acts on the cost of nature and its ecological balance. With its imperative to constantly expand profitability, it exposes ecosystems to destabilizing pollutants, fragments habitats that have evolved over time to allow the flourishing of organisms, squanders resources, and reduces nature to the exchangeability required for the accumulation of capital. Socialism requires self-determination, community, and a meaningful existence. Capital reduces the majority of the world's people to a mere reservoir of labor power while discarding much of the remainder as useless. The present capitalist system cannot regulate, much less overcome, the crises it has set going. It cannot solve the ecological crisis (e.g. global warming) because to do so requires setting limits upon accumulation

Socialism is a more secure system than the free market in Capitalism  'Credit bubbles' and resultant credit crunches (financial crisis) are inherent in the capitalist system. The economy undergoes a crisis whenever productive economic sectors begin to undergo a slowdown resulting in falls in profits. The recent crisis was caused due to the fact that there was an inflated investment in real estates. It was invested in with the purpose of keeping up profits which lead to a rise in the price of properties. Because of the increased price in property many people took out loans on their house and bought goods for the credit, thinking they could easily pay back their loans since their house would be more valuable at sale. However, since the rise of price was fabricated and not corresponding to an actual need (it was a bubble), house prices had to invariably go down at some point. When the prices eventually went down people could no longer afford to pay back what they had bought on their loaned houses and the installed payments were the trigger of the financial crisis. It could perhaps be said that the economy was surviving on money which did not exist (thereof the name 'credit bubble'). The result was that there were countless goods which no one could buy because no one could afford to pay for them, in turn this lead to a stagnation in the economy and hence to a crisis. A socialist system would not produce overconsumption since its aim is not profit but human needs, it would not have a reason to fabricate an investment for the sake of keeping up the profits and would therefore not cause a capitalist crisis1.  1 Roberts, M. (2008). The credit crunch - one year on. In Defence of Marxism. Retrieved June 7, 2011

Socialism leads to a more humane equal society  The gap between poor and rich countries has never been as great as it is today, Warren Buffet's wealth was estimated to be a net worth of approximately US$62 billion in 20081, this while one in seven people on earth goes to bed hungry every night and 6.54 million children die of starvation and malnutrition every year2. The absurd inequality between people's wages is because of the capitalist system, since the capitalist's only aim is to generate profit there is no reason to keep anything other than a minimum wage for the workers. In a globalized world, rich countries can outsource industries to poorer countries where workers will not expect so high a wage. The lower the wages a capitalist can pay to the labourers, the more profit he can generate. A capitalist does not care whether his labourers' living standards are good, acceptable or bad (although he does want to maintain a level where the labourers will not die or rebel), as long as they deliver the work for the lowest wage possible3. Therefore a company CEO can gain an absurd amount of money since he will reap all the profit made from all the labourers in his company while the lowest worker in the hierarchy will only earn enough to survive. The ordinary worker does not have a free choice whether he wants to work or not since he is at such an inferior bargaining position that he has to accept the capitalist's offer in order to survive. According to socialism this inequality is atrocious, it can by no means be justifiable that an ordinary labourer who works equally as hard, or harder than a CEO should struggle for his survival while the CEO lives in unimaginable luxury. In socialism, production and wages are directed to human needs, there is consequently no need to maximise profit and thus this gross inequality would be evened.4  1 The World?s Billionaires: #1 Warren Buffett. (2008, March). Forbes.  2 Hunger. (2011). World Food Programme. Retrieved June 7, 2011  3 Engels, Frederick. (2005). The principles of Communism. Marxist Internet Archive. Retrieved June 7, 2011  4 Marx, K. (n.d.). Critique of the Gotha Programme: I. Marxist Internet Archive.

In practice capitalism and environmentalism do not necessarily have to clash with each other as can been proved by small enterprises that can directly implement green criteria by, for example, using renewable energy sources, avoiding toxic chemicals, repairing or recycling used products, and minimizing reliance on long-distance shipment for either supplies or sales. Because the free market is directed ultimately by its consumers if the consumers demand more eco-friendly products the suppliers will also increase its efforts to be eco-friendly, thus the two of them don't have to be incompatible. Here are a few suggestions of how capitalism and environmentalism could go hand in hand: (i) energy-saving and other cost-cutting measures are advantageous to companies; (ii) maintaining good public relations with consumers involves having an eco-friendly policy1.  1 Wallis, V. (2010). Beyond "Green Capitalism." The Monthly Review. Retrieved 2011

f the government wants to save money, they should not be trying to reduce smoking levels, since smokers are the source of a great deal of tax income. While the NHS might spend some of their money on smokers (whose health issues may or may not be directly to their smoking habit), the government receives much more money from the taxes paid on cigarettes. For example, smoking was estimated by researchers at Oxford University to cost the NHS (in the UK) £5bn (5 billion pounds) a year [1] , but the tax revenue from cigarette sales is twice as much – about £10bn (10 billion pounds) a year [2] . So governments which implement smoking bans actually lose money.  [1] BBC News. “Smoking disease costs NHS £5bn.” BBC News. 8 June 2009.  [2] Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. “Tax revenue from tobacco.” Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. 2011.

This ban would lower healthcare costs.  The health problems that smokers experience cost taxpayers (where healthcare is provided by the government) or the individual (for private healthcare) a lot of money. Decreasing the number of smokers – as a result of a reduction in both “social smokers” (those who smoke when out with friends) and “passive smokers” (those who do not smoke themselves but are exposed to the second-hand smoke of others) – will lead to a decrease in these healthcare costs. This has been reported – for example – in Arizona, where a study found that hospital admissions due to diagnoses for which there is evidence for a cause by smoking have decreased since the statewide smoking ban, and that costs have thus decreased [1] .  [1] Herman, Patricia M., and Walsh, Michele E. “Hospital Admissions for Acute Myocardial Infarction, Angina, Stroke, and Asthma After Implementation of Arizona’s Comprehensive Statewide Smoking Ban. American Journal of Public Health. 101(3). March 2011.

While some studies have shown that numbers of smokers in countries in which a smoking ban has been introduced have fallen, it seems that these results only represent those people who were trying to quit smoking anyway, with the smoking ban acting as an added incentive. Studies in England have shown that while there was a rise in the number of smokers trying to quit soon after the ban in 2007, that rise has fallen again since1. So, while there was an initial fall in the number of smokers, the smoking ban in England is not having a continuing effect on whether more people are giving up the habit.Additionally, it can be argued that since people are continuing to smoke in countries with a smoking ban, but not doing so in public, there must be more smoking going on within the home. If there are any dangers of second-hand smoke, then a smoking ban moves those dangers from responsible adults who can choose whether to go somewhere where smoking is allowed (in public) to children who cannot (in the home), which is immoral.  1 Lies, Elaine, 'Smokers quit after ban, but numbers ebb: study', Reuters, 6 June 2011,

Exposing non-smokers to second-hand smoke goes against their rights.  The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (a list of rights to which the United Nations has declared that all human beings should be entitled) states that "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family"1. More than 50 studies carried out worldwide have found that people are at an increased risk of lung cancer if they work or live with somebody who smokes2. Given these very serious health risks, it goes against people's human rights to be exposed to second-hand smoke when they have not chosen to breathe it in. To avoid this happening, smoking should be banned in public places, so that non-smokers can be sure that they will not have to breathe in second-hand smoke.  1 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights', General Assembly of the United Nations,   2 'Tobacco Smoke and Involuntary Smoking', World Health Organisation, Vol.83, 24 July 2002,

It is very difficult to properly scientifically measure the risk for non-smokers of being exposed to second-hand smoke. To do a proper experiment, scientists would need to find a large group of people who had never been exposed to cigarette smoke before, split them into two groups, and then systematically expose one group to second-hand smoke for a period of time while the other group stayed smoke-free. They would then have to wait and see if more of the group exposed to second-hand smoke developed lung cancer than the other group over their lives. This would be a very expensive and time-consuming experiment. Besides this, it would be very difficult to find people who had never breathed in cigarette smoke and keep half of them that way for their whole lives for comparison. Because of these difficulties in the ideal experiment, scientists often just use questionnaires, asking people to try and remember how many cigarettes the person they live with smokes in a day, for how many hours a day they are exposed to smoking, etc. These kinds of studies are far from precise, since human memory is not very accurate, and so no truly scientific conclusions can be drawn1. Therefore, it is not a fact that non-smokers exposed to the smoke of others are at a serious health risk, so the proposition cannot say that having to sometimes be around other people who smoke goes against non-smokers' human rights.  1 Basham, Patrick, and Roberts, Juliette, 'Are Public Smoking Bans Necessary?' Democracy Institute, Social Risk Series Paper, December 2009,

This ban would not be so easy to introduce. A ban on smoking in all public places would not be easily accepted by all. For example, there are groups in England seeking to change the existing ban there so that more places are exempt; the Save Our Pubs &amp; Clubs campaign wants to change the smoking ban so that large venues can have a designated smoking area which can be avoided by non-smokers1.  1 'Why we want government to amend the smoking ban', Save Our Pubs &amp; Clubs,

This ban would encourage smokers to smoke less or give up smoking altogether.  Not being able to smoke in public will make it more difficult for smokers to keep up with their habit. For example, if they are no longer able to smoke in the pub, smokers would have to go outside – possibly in the rain or other uncomfortable weather – and be away from their non-smoking friends every time they wanted to have a cigarette. So, a smoking ban would encourage smokers to smoke less frequently and maybe even give up. This can be seen in countries already with smoking bans. For example, a study in England found that in the nine months after the smoking ban was introduced, there was a 5.5% fall in the number of smokers in the country, compared to the much lower fall of 1.6 % in the nine months before the ban [1] . This can only be a good thing, since giving up smoking decreases the risk of death, even for those suffering from early stage lung cancer [2] .  [1] Daily Mail. “Smoking ban spurs 400,000 people to quit the habit.” Daily Mail. 4 July 2008.  [2] Parsons, A., Daley, A., Begh, R., and Aveyard, P.. “Influence of smoking cessation after diagnosis of early stage lung cancer on prognosis: systematic review of observational studies with meta-analysis.” British Medical Journal. 340. 21 January 2010.

This ban would be easy to introduce.  A ban in all public places would be no more difficult to introduce than existing bans preventing smoking in only some public places. As long as people are given plenty of notice of changes, as was done in airports in Saudi Arabia, and the rules are made clear and readily available1 there should be few difficulties in introducing this ban.  1 Smith, Louise. “Smoking in public places: the ban in force – Commons Library Standard Note.” Parliament. 20 May 2011.

While pubs and restaurants might lose money from some smokers initially, they will gain money from those who are more likely to eat/drink somewhere if they know they will not have to breathe in second-hand smoke. Even the Save Our Pubs &amp; Clubs campaign admits that pub business is on a decline in the UK anyway, and that the current economic environment in the country is probably partly to blame1. Some pubs have actually seen improved business since the introduction of a smoking ban, like the Village Pub and Grill in Wisconsin, who say that they get more families coming to eat during the day, and have non-smokers staying longer in their bar 2 The lack of smoke indoors also makes pubs a better environment in which to work.  1 'Why we want government to amend the smoking ban', Save Our Pubs &amp; Clubs,   2 Linnane, Rory et al., 'One Year After State Smoking Ban, Village Pub Sees Better Business, Health', ShorewoodPatch, 6 July 2011,

In some countries, compliance rates have actually been high, proving that it is not a problem with the idea of having a ban but with the authorities themselves in different countries. In Scotland, for example, reports from 3 months after their smoking ban was introduced showed that about 99% of premises were following the law properly1. This shows that the opposition should not use the fact that a smoking ban might be difficult to enforce in some places in the initial stages of the law change as a reason not to introduce such a ban in the first place. Lots of laws are difficult to enforce, but still necessary in order to protect people.  1 'Smoking ban gets seal of public approval', The Scottish Government, 26 June 2006,

Smokers have a right to enjoy themselves.  Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood"1. So, smokers have the same rights as non-smokers and should not be targeted because of how they choose to live their lives. Article 24 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay" 1.If some people get their rest and leisure by smoking with friends in a pub, it seems that governments should make it possible, by at least having smoking areas in pubs, restaurants, etc. A ban on smoking in all public places would mean smokers could never enjoy themselves like they want to, at least not legally. There are many groups which feel that the rights of the smoker are being ignored, e.g. "Forest".  1 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, General Assembly of the United Nations,

This ban would put many pubs, clubs, etc. out of business.  If smokers are not allowed to smoke in pubs, they will not spend as much time in them, preferring to stay at home where they can smoke with their friends. This will put many pubs out of business. In fact, since the smoking ban was introduced in the UK, many pubs have closed and blamed their loss of business on the smoking ban1. The Save Our Pubs &amp; Clubs campaign estimates that the smoking ban in the UK is responsible for 20 pub closures a week2. This is an unfair consequence for the many pub-owners across the world.  1 'MPs campaign to relax smoking ban in pubs', BBC News, 29 June 2011,   2 'Why we want government to amend the smoking ban', Save Our Pubs &amp; Clubs,

This ban would be difficult to enforce.  Given the popularity of smoking, a ban on smoking in all enclosed public places would be difficult to enforce, requiring constant vigilance by many police officers or security cameras. It has been reported that smoking bans are not being enforced in Yakima, Washington 1, Atlantic City2, Berlin 3and other places. In New York City, the major has said that the New York Police Department (NYPD) are too busy to enforce the ban on smoking in their parks and on their beaches, and that the job will be left to citizens4.  1. Guenthner, Hayley, 'Smoking Ban Difficult to Enforce in Yakima', KIMA TV, 1 April 2011,   2. Sajor, Stephanie, 'Smoking Ban Not Enforced at Atlantic City Casinos', ThirdAge.com, 25 April 2011,   3. AFP, 'Smoking Ban not Enforced in Parts of Germany', Spiegel Online, 2 July 2008,   4. 'NYC Smoking Ban In Parks Will Not Be Enforced By NYPD: Mayor', Huffington Post, 2 November 2011,

While all humans do have the right to rest and leisure, they should not be allowed to do so at the expense of the health and safety of other human beings. Serial killers enjoy killing people1, but it is against the law to commit murder. Smoking in public places should be banned despite the fact that smokers enjoy doing it, because it endangers the health of others.  1 Blackwelder, Edward, 'Serial Killers: Defining Serial Murder', Criminology Research Project Inc.

The costs of starting and maintaining business in agriculture vary among European countries as well – the costs of additional materials can be much cheaper in for example Poland than in France. The costs of life vary among European countries as well. Subsidies which are sufficient for Polish farmers to live a decent life are simply not enough for French one. If one of the reasons behind this policy is to preserve traditional ways of life, then part of the role is to keep farmers out of relative poverty as well.  Also the current reform of CAP address these issues – the conditions for all countries should converge in the next years as there is a change replacing the Single Payment Scheme with a basic payment scheme. [1] It is a matter of setting the system right – not giving up on it altogether. Even for farmers in discriminated countries, it is far better that they receive some benefits than no benefits at all.  [1] European Commission, ‘establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy’, Europa.eu, 19 October 2011,  p.7

business economic policy international europe house believes eu should abandon

It is unfair to new members of EU  Not only are the largest recipients of CAP western countries – France, Spain and Germany - also the payments per hectare of arable lands differ significantly between new and old members of EU. The new members of EU with their economies often struggling and more dependent on agriculture (as is the case of Poland, Bulgaria or Romania) need more monetary support compared to their western counterparts to produce food of same quality and be competitive in EU market. However, the payments for hectare of land vary from 500€ in Greece to less than 100 € in Latvia. [1] These different conditions undermine the EU’s ethos of fairness and equality of countries.  [1] EurActive, ‘Eastern EU states call for ‘bolder, speedier’ farm reforms’, 14 July 2011,

Developing countries often face a problem when the local people simply cannot afford food (for example as a result of drought or floods destroying local crops) – thus giving them food for greatly reduced price helps a lot of people to survive at day to day basis. Even for farmers they are unlikely to grow the full range of crops so benefit from being able to obtain cheap foodstuffs. These countries can also if they wish control their import tariffs to ensure that the price of European food is comparable to local one – it is not that they are entirely helpless. The local producers have other benefits given by European Union – reduced taxation on exported agricultural products and development help – which help to compensate for these possible detrimental effects. Even without these programs, EU is still the biggest importer of foodstuff from the developing world by a big margin – therefore in balance the developing countries still receive more than lose by these seldom exports from EU.

CAP is costly and unfair to other industries  Currently CAP costs the European Union approx. 40% of its whole budget. However, this money is used to provide subsidies for industry that only employs less than 5 % of workforce and creates less than 2 % of GDP. [1] We can easily assume that nearly half of EU’s budget can be used more effectively and can, instead, be used to support other, more potential industries which can boost the currently sluggish economic growth. Moreover, the subsidies for European farmers are so high they can contribute up to 90 % of farmers’ pre-tax income. [2] No other industry has such privileges – when European coal and iron industry became uncompetitive and needed to be slimmed down, the European union did not subsidise the industry to such degree even though such action could have saved thousands of jobs.  [1] Charlemagne, ‘Milking the budget’, The Economist, 22 November 2012,   [2] The Economist, ‘Europe’s farm follies’, 8 December 2005,

The importance of agricultural industry cannot be valued on the merit of how much percent of GDP it creates. It is one of the industries that are vital for the society as whole – without food the society cannot properly function. In the case of complicated world we are now living in food security – the ability to be self-sufficient in producing food at least to some degree – is important. Also agriculture is not the only industry which is subsidised – the subsidies to other industries such as coal and steel come directly from member states’ budget and not EU’s. Thus for example Germany subsidizes car production by about $1300 per vehicle. [1] The 40% figure is therefore deceptively high as it is the only industry through which subsidies go through the EU budget rather than individual member states.  [1] Davison, Remy, ‘Far from pole on car subsidy grid’, Business Spectator, 26 July 2013,

Even the larger companies can have difficulties in a market in which their consumers, the supermarkets, have so much power over prices. The result is often that supermarkets buy their produce at below the cost of production – as is happening with milk in the UK where it costs 30p per litre to produce but they are only being paid 25p per litre. [1] The costs of producing food in Europe even with mechanisation can be high because of the expensive workforce, and smaller farms on average than in the US. Therefore subsidies to larger companies are needed to keep even larger farmers in business. Often the larger companies involve smaller producers who produce the original, unique specialties and enjoy the stability of larger firm. It is hard to say that support of these companies is not useful.  [1] BBC News, ‘Q&amp;A: Milk prices row and how the system works’, 23 July 2012,

It harms the economies of developing world  The current model of CAP results in major oversupply of food and beverages. In 2008 the stockpiles of cereals rising to 717 810 tons while the surplus of wine was about 2.3 million hectolitres. [1] This excess of supply is then often sold to developing countries for prices so low that the local producers cannot cope with them. The low prices of European food can be attributed to the higher efficiency of producing food because of use of advanced technologies as well as the CAP. Agriculture makes a small fraction of GDP in Europe, but in developing countries of Africa or Asia it is entirely different with large numbers dependent on much smaller plots of land. Hence, the consequences of CAP and high production in the EU can be the rise of unemployment and decline of self-sufficiency of these affected countries.  [1] Castle, Stephen, ‘EU’s butter mountain is back’, The New York Times, 2 February 2009,

It doesn’t serve its purpose (subsidies to larger farmers)  The CAP as originally proposed was aimed to support small, local, family farmers which have difficulties with sustaining their business in competitive environment. The conference in Stresa in 1958 that helped define CAP’s objectives stated “Given the importance of family structures in European agriculture… all means should be taken in order to strengthen the economic and competitive capacity of the family enterprise.” [1] However, the current model of CAP gives direct payments to farmers according to area of their farms. That means that the major recipients of CAP are actually the biggest players in agricultural industry. According to Economist, 80 % of the subsidies go to 20 % of the richest farmers. [2] Therefore, the money is spent to support large companies and wealthy landowners who could easily compete in EU market even without such abhorrent support from EU taxpayers.  [1] Knudsen, Ann-Christina, ‘Romanticising Europe? Rural Images in European Union Policies’, Kontur, no.12, 2005,  p.52  [2] The Economist, ‘Europe’s farm follies’, 8 December 2005,

The standards of quality can and are checked for imports. Only food, produced without potentially harmful agents and in a certain way, can be sold on European market. The fact that food was not produced in EU does not mean that food is of lower quality, or that there are fewer checks to ensure their quality. In a recent years there were many cases when the food produced in EU was not what it should be – horse meat scandal in 2013 [1] or scandals in Poland with rotten meat. [2] The CAP and EU are not enough to ascertain the quality of produced food and therefore it is unreasonable to follow this argument.  [1] Meikle, James, and McDonald, Henry, ‘Cameron tells supermarkets: horsemeat burger scandal unacceptable’, theguardian.com, 16 January 2013,   [2] UPI, ‘Europe’s food scandals multiply’, 8 March 2013,

In the current interconnected world it is hard to imagine a situation when the EU will be unable to buy enough food for its citizens on the global market. Countries of the EU are among the richest in the world and have enough soft power to negotiate favourable terms of trade from developing countries in nearly any situation. [1] Even if the subsidies created by CAP were abandoned, the agricultural industry will hardly be decimated. The numbers of farmers may decline, there would be consolidation into bigger farms, however there always will be markets where European food will be sold – due its regional specifics, high quality or simply patriotism, when people buy food produced in their own country to support it.  [1] Zahrnt, Valentin, ‘Food Security and the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy: Facts against fears’, Ecipe Working paper, No. 1, 2011,

It protects rural communities  People in EU are hard to convince that staying in rural areas and working as a farmer is a viable life choice. The profit is often low, the starting costs are high and work is hard. The income of a farmer is usually around half of the average wage in a given country and the number of these farmers fell by 20% in the last decade. [1] By having CAP we have an additional incentive for the people to stay in villages. The direct payments help the people with the starting of business, subsidies helps them to sell their goods at reasonable prices. The process of urbanisation is at least slowed and that, by extend, helps to preserve traditional culture of such communities and thus diversity of European culture itself.  [1] Murphy, Caitriona, ‘Number of EU farms drops 20pc’, Independent, 29 November 2011,

CAP protects the quality of the food in EU  The role of CAP is to produce food at affordable prices while maintaining its quality. By having policies which favour agriculture in Europe it is easier to control the quality of the food, maintain it and also support the diversity of the food produced in EU. [1] The goods imported from developing countries are often not produced under such scrutiny as are those in EU. In EU the quality standards of production are one of the highest – the hygiene, the amount of additives in products – all these are set and controlled by the EU. The result of it is that European citizens eat healthy food of high quality which is still affordable – mainly due to subsidies and payments obtained via CAP.  [1] European Commission, ‘The Common Agricultural Policy A partnership between Europe and Farmers’, 2012,

CAP maintains European food security  The subsidies to agriculture are important for maintaining self-sufficiency to enable Europe to feed its own citizens. In the world of fluctuating markets, global climate change, commodity crisis such in 2008, the state intervention is even more important because that means that the needed goods can become unavailable. Without EU’s help the prices can fluctuate wildly which can be of concern mainly for poorer parts of EU, where the major part of household spending is still food and non-alcoholic beverages. To prevent this kind of situations only the continent-wide policy can be an effective measure. The markets of other countries can compensate losses from others and vice versa. The result of a secure supply of affordable food has been that the amount an average EU household devotes to food has halved since 1960. [1]  [1] European Commission, ‘CAP – how much does it cons’ ‘Food Prices’, ec.europa.eu,

We can see from continuous decline of farms in Europe that the CAP has been ineffective in creating enough incentive for people to stay in villages and farms. And it is doubtful if even the reform of CAP can change this situation. In the last 40 years CAP was reformed in one way or another however the declining trend has still continued. It is reasonable to assume that leaving the agricultural sector without state interventions (which are basically CAP) will eventually result in some sort of stable equilibrium emerging with farmers who can make money from farming, or other activities remaining without subsidy.

Choosing to introduce a new policy based on experience with a different, seemingly similar case, is not a good idea.  Tobacco and fatty food are vastly different things for a couple of reasons. An obvious one is the fact that fat is in fact necessary nourishment, even the trans-fat kind. Cigarettes on the other hand have absolutely no value to a persons’ health – their detrimental impact is quite infamous.  A different one is the importance of dosage. While smoking is harmful in all doses, indulging in larger amounts of fatty food isn’t. Consuming what we consider “junk food” in moderation has no ill effect on health. [1] This results in legislating for any kind of fat tax much more difficult as the tax needs to allow consuming fat in moderation while preventing excess.  [1] Roberts A., Let Them Eat Cake (Why Junk Food Is OK For Kids, In Moderation), published 5/9/2011,  , accessed 9/12/2011

tax health health general healthcare weight house would implement fat tax

There is ample precedent in the form of other “sin” taxes  A sin tax is a term often used for fees tacked on to popular vices like drinking, gambling and smoking. Its roots have been traced back to the 16th century Vatican, where Pope Leo X taxed licensed prostitutes. [1]  More recently, and with greater success, US federal cigarette taxes were shown to have reduced consumption by 4% for every 10% increase in the price of cigarettes. [2]  Given the success achieved with uprooting this societal vice, which on a number of counts is similar to the unhealthy food one - immense health costs linked to a choice to consume a product – we should employ this tried and true strategy to combat the obesity epidemic.  In fact, a recent study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine followed 5000 people for 20 years, tracking food consumption and various biological metrics. The report states that “Researchers found that, incremental increases in price of unhealthy foods resulted in incremental decreases in consumption. In other words, when junk food cost more, people ate it less.” [3]  Thus leaning on the successful tradition of existing “sin” taxes and research that points out the potential for success of a similar solution in this arena, it should be concluded that a fat tax is an important part of a sensible and effective solution to the obesity epidemic.  [1] Altman, A., A Brief History Of: Sin Taxes, published 4/2/2009,  , accessed 9/12/2011  [2] CDC, Steady Increases in Tobacco Taxes Promote Quitting, Discourage Smoking, published 5/27/2009,  , accessed 14/9/2011  [3] O'Callaghan, T., Sin taxes promote healthier food choices, published 3/10/2010,  , accessed 9/12/2011

While the tax might level out the playing field, it does so to the detriment of those that would need our protection the most.  Instead of making healthy food more accessible, we would make all foods less accessible – a truly nonsensical and harmful situation that we should do our utmost to avoid. Moreover, given that many individuals in lower socio-economic groups will have become used to eating “junk” food, when prices rise they will not necessarily move to the healthier alternative. It is likely that they will stick to what they know, and end up paying more from their limited budgets for it. The end result is likely to be that these people will still buy junk food first but will pay more and thus will not be able to afford any healthier foods.

An individual's BMI is no longer a purely personal matter  The obesity epidemic is taking an enormous toll on global medical costs. In the US alone the health care costs attributable to either direct or indirect consequences of obesity have been estimated at $147bn. [1] Put into context, this amounts to roughly 9% of the health spending in the US. [2]  The figure might seem excessive, but we need to remember that obesity is linked to Type 2 Diabetes, several kinds of cancer, coronary artery disease, stroke, congestive heart failure, asthma, chronic back pain and hypertension, to name just a few.  We also need to realize that many of the diseases on this list are chronic in nature, requiring lifelong pharmacological therapy, which often follows complex and expensive diagnostic procedures, frequent medical specialist consultations, and not infrequent emergency interventions. [3]  Adding to the list is the value of income lost due to decreased productivity, restricted activity, and absenteeism, not to mention the value of future income lost by premature death.  Thus it becomes increasingly clear that due to the substantial cost obesity presents to the society, individual choices that might lead to excessive weight gain, can no longer be considered as solely individual in nature. [4]  Therefore the government is legitimate in its action to introduce a form of a fat tax in order to try to dissuade the population from becoming obese and cover the increasing societal costs the already obese individuals are responsible for.  [1] CDC, Obesity: Economic Consequences, published 3/28/2011,  , accessed 9/12/2011  [2] RTI international, Obesity Costs U.S. About $147 Billion Annually, Study Finds, published 7/27/2009,  , accessed 9/14/2011  [3] The Council of State Governments, Costs of Chronic Diseases: What Are States Facing?, published in 2006,  , accessed, 9/14/2011  [4] Los Angeles Times, Should there be a 'fat tax'?, published 4/11/2011,  , accessed 9/12/2011

An important source of extravagant medical spending around the world, especially in the US, can be traced to inherent inefficiencies of current medical care systems. [1] And the current trends show the situation to be worsening.  It is thus impossible for anyone to really say whether the rising cost of the medical care system can really be attributed to obesity related diseases, especially since those are some of the most common ailments of the modern age.  It is also unfair to single out obesity as the single cause that should get such intense scrutiny and attention. What about the connection between consumption of meat and colorectal cancer? [2] Should we introduce an additional levy in that case as well?  [1] Connolly, C., U.S. ‘Not Getting What We Pay For’, published 11/30/2008,  , accessed 9/12/2011  [2] The HMS Family health guide, Red meat and colon cancer, published in March 2008,  , accessed 9/12/2011

A fat tax levels out the playing field for healthier food  An important reason why people continuously turn to unhealthy, fat, sugar and salt laden food, is the simple fact that it’s often cheaper than a more wholesome meal comprised at least in part of fresh produce.  A study done at the University of Washington found that “when they compared the prices of 370 foods… junk foods not only cost less… but junk food prices are also less likely to rise as a result of inflation.” [1]  A similar conclusion was reached by a group of Australian researchers, who found that the prices of healthy food have risen 20 per cent above inflation, while the harmful counterpart have actually dropped below inflation – as much as 20 per cent below. [2]  Noting that obesity is more prevalent in groups of lower socioeconomic status, we find that the price of food is a substantial incentive for consumption.  Thus it is only reasonable to levy a tax against unhealthy, fatty food in order to give healthy food a fighting chance.  [1] Parker-Pope, T., A High Price for Healthy Food, published 12/5/2007,  , accessed 9/12/2011  [2] Burns, C., The rising cost of healthy foods, published 10/16/2008,  , accessed 9/12/2011

Even if this policy might cause some families to spend more on their food – even more than they feel like they can afford – it still is more important to start significantly dealing with the obesity epidemic. We feel that nothing short of forcing these low income families – which are also the ones where obesity is most prevalent – to finally change their eating habits will make a dent in the current trend.  But there is a silver lining here. These are also the families that are afflicted most by obesity related diseases. Thus spending a couple dollars more on food now will – necessarily – save them tens of thousands in the form of medical bills.  Reducing obesity will also make them more productive at work and reduce their absenteeism, again offsetting the costs of this tax. [1]  We should look at this tax as a form of paying it forward – spending a little time and effort now and reap the benefits for the individual and the society in the future.  [1] ACOEM, Obesity Linked To Reduced Productivity At Work, published 1/9/2008,  , accessed 9/14/2011

Such a limited view of the role of government may be something we have seen in the past, but even conservative governments today are warming to the ideas of social support, progressive taxation, etc.  This shows a clear trend that the perception of government is changing – and rightly so. The challenges of the 21st century are vastly different from those of a hundred or more years ago, when that idea of government was popular or mainstream.  Given the very recent and very cataclysmic events involving the world’s economy, that were arguably sparked by some very bad financial choices made by consumers, one could think that societies around the globe would be more than ever inclined to answer yes to those questions.  In fact, what the government is doing in this case is respecting its boundaries – it cannot ban certain choices of food outright, although this might be the fastest solution. What it’s doing instead is providing a disincentive for a certain individually and societally harmful choice. That sort of action is entirely legitimate, as it doesn’t infringe on a person’s right to make a certain choice, yet it awards those who make the socially conscious one and it also protects the society in general from harm, since it takes important steps to reduce medical spending.

A tax is not an effective instrument to fight obesity  There are very legitimate concerns whether artificially increasing the cost of fatty food by specifically targeting it with a tax would have a significant effect on the obesity trend.  In fact, research shows that a fat tax would produce only a marginal change in consumption – not the dramatic shift in public awareness the proponents of the fat tax are hoping for. The reason, LSE researchers believe, is simple: “those on the very poorest diets will continue to eat badly.” [1]  Other than the economic reasons for such behavior, it could be argued that is also a thing of habit and culture: fast fatty food is quick, accessible and tasty. [2] Thus while a tax might be useful in reducing things such as the use of cigarettes – which are at heart an unnecessary “luxury” and thus more easily affected by the price – eating food, whether junk or not, is necessary. It also seems that the fast fatty kind of food is fulfilling a specific need, a need for a quick, tasty and filling meal, something people consider worth paying good money for.  The fight against obesity ought to be multifaceted, complex and well thought out – and a fat tax is none of those things. We should approach the issue with more cunning and introduce other programs: such as increasing the availability of healthy food by introducing healthy vending machines; [3] increasing the amount of physics exercise by requiring it in school, improving possibilities for recreation and access to public transportation thus encouraging people to burn more calories [4] and, most importantly, proper education on the topic if we want to create lasting change. [5]  [1] Tiffin, R., Salois, M., A fat tax is a double whammy for the poor – it will do little to prevent obesity in those on lower incomes, and will hurt them financially, published 9/2/2011,  , accessed 9/12/2011  [2] Hitti, M., Top 11 Reasons For Fast Food's Popularity, published 12/3/2008,  , accessed 9/14/2011  [3] Yara, S., Best And Worst Vending Machine Snacks, published 10/6/2005,  , accessed 9/14/2011  [4] CDC, Recommended Community Strategies and Measurements to Prevent Obesity in the United States, published 7/24/2009,  , accessed 9/14/2011  [5] Bunce, L., ‘Fat tax’ solutions ignore wider social factors driving junk food habits, published 8/16/2010,  , accessed 9/12/2011

It hits the most vulnerable part of society hardest  The practical consequence of an additional tax on what the government considers fatty unhealthy food will disproportionately affect the poorest part of the population, who often turn to such food due to economic constraints.  These were the concerns that stopped the Romanian government from introducing a fat tax in 2010. Experts there argued, that the countries people keep turning to junk food simply because they are poor and cannot afford the more expensive fresh produce. What such a fat tax would do is eliminate a very important source of calories from the society’s economic reach and replace the current diet with an even more nutritionally unbalanced one. Even the WHO described such policies as “regressive from an equity perspective.” [1]  Clearly, the government should be focusing its efforts on making healthy fresh produce more accessible and not on making food in general, regardless if it’s considered healthy or not, less accessible for the most vulnerable in our society.  [1] Stracansky, P., 'Fat Tax' May Hurt Poor, published 8/8/2011,  , accessed 9/12/2011

A fat tax infringes on individual choice  Introducing such a tax would constitute an overstepping of the government’s authority. The role of government in a society should not expand further than providing basic services such as education, legal protection, i.e. only the services necessary for a society to function and for the individual’s rights to be protected.  Such a specific tax is completely uncalled for and very unreasonable in the context of a fair society with a government that knows its place in it.  Protecting the individual should go no further than the protection against the actions of a third person. For instance: we can all agree that governments should put measures in place to protect us from thieves, scammers, etc. But should it also protect us from frivolous spending? Limit us in the number of credit cards we can own? Tell us how we can invest our money?  Of course not. But what this tax does is exactly that – it is punishing the citizens for a specific choice they are making by artificially inflating its cost.  Thus it is clear that levying such a tax against a specific choice an individual should be able to legitimately make is a clear overstepping of the government’s authority. [1]  [1] Wilkinson, W., Tax the fat, not their food, published 7/26/2011,  , accessed 12/9/2011

Though one might be inclined to agree with the statement, that a fat tax on its own would be insufficient to solve the problem of rising obesity, it is also simply not the case.  There are numerous educational campaigns underway, from celebrity chef Jamie Oliver’s school dinners to the first ladies ‘Let’s move’ that are effectively targeting that aspect of the fight against obesity.  What is needed to balance these is tangible action by the government that is able to underwrite and solidify what these campaigns are saying. In short, to help our society practice what we preach.

One of the key benefits highlighted about Oxfam’s Saving for Change Initiative is the empowerment provided for women. Women are argued to be more independent, able to organise within communities, and provided with a voice of power. However, are women empowered?  In the cases of microfinance in Cameroon, Mayoux (2001) highlights the inequalities operating within community groups. The message is we cannot rely on communities, and social capital, for empowerment as women within such communities have different relations to power. The ability for women to use savings and credit for self-empowerment is limited by wider, traditional, gender inequalities. Microfinance may act to reinforce unequal power relations and positions within society.  Furthermore, women’s empowerment needs to be understood as complex. [1] Real, and strategic, empowerment for women goes beyond increased access to economic resources. So how can microfinance ensure true empowerment?  [1] See further readings: Sutton-Brown, 2013.

finance international africa house would provide access microfinance unbanked

Small is beautiful: community empowerment  Microfinance is empowering the communities that are using it - showing in development, small is beautiful. Communities are empowered to change their conditions. For example taking the case of savings - microfinance allows for savings. Half of the adults that saved in Sub-Saharan Africa, during 2013, used an informal, community-based approach (CARE, 2014). First, having savings reduces household risk. CARE is one of many organisations working in innovations for microfinance. At CARE savings have been mobilised across Africa by working with Village Savings and Loans Associations. Overtime, CARE has targeted over 30,000,000 poor people in Africa, to provide necessary finance. Savings ensures households have financial capital, can invest resources in education, health, and the future. Savings is security in livelihoods.  Second, microfinance is providing key skills. Oxfam’s Savings for Change Initiative provides training on savings, and lending, to women in communities in Senegal and Mali. Evidence from Mali indicates startup capital provided has ensured better food security, women’s empowerment in the financial decision-making of households, and crucially, a sense of community bond among the women (Oxfam, 2013). Gender based violence within households may also be reduced [1] .  [1] See further readings: Kim et al, 2007.

Can we rely on business to solve social problems? Ultimately the model proposed through microfinance schemes is the creation of a consumer market where risks are already high. This has shown to be one of the key factors of microfinance failing in South Africa (Bateman, 2013). The microcredit provided across South Africa, post-apartheid, aimed to solve social problems - however, it has acted to support risky consumption not investment. With a lack of secure incomes, due to high levels of unemployment, underemployment, and informal employment, the rate of repayment is low. Households have been forced into severe poverty by being provided with credit which they can’t pay back. Even among those who do invest how many of their business ideas will succeed?

Microfinance and protection  Access to a small loan provides benefits for the poor’s ability to access high quality health care. A lack of access to banking facilities - loans and credit - may mean the poor are left excluded from health care services as these are usually not free. Microfinance institutions accept the irregularities of the poor’s income, so enabling health care to be affordable to the poor by providing access to finance. As Ofori-Adjei (2007) shows the integration of microfinance institutions within healthcare systems in Ghana is required to resolve the issue of inaccessibility. Ill health should not put a household into a state of poverty - microfinance provides this protection.  Microfinance schemes not only provide loans to access health care but are now integrating non-financial services, such as health education, within their finance schemes.

A livelihoods approach  The livelihoods approach provides a useful model to understand how poor people live [1] ; and remains important to recognising the benefits of microfinance.  The provision of microfinance reduces vulnerability to shocks and changes such as losing a job; enhances people’s access to assets that they use and need (such as finance, friend networks, and land); and this fundamentally acts to change the lives of the poor. Microfinance provides social protection through tapping into social capital. Further, microfinance means aid is not simply provided, but the individual is taught valuable financial skills and given the means to sustain themselves for their lifetime.  [1] See further readings: IFAD, 2013.

The provision of microfinance within livelihoods is based on a positive view of social capital [1] and cohesion. The idea relies upon a perception whereby social networks within the community are able to positively organise funds and remain democratic in how they manage poverty. It fails to acknowledge negative aspects of social capital - such as how networks can act to exclude and restrict who becomes a part of the scheme. Civil society is not without internal politics, with competing interests, and can be uncooperative.  [1] Social capital represents the relationships and linkages between people and/or groups, of which are formulated with rules and norms. See further readings:

Loans provided are embedded with conditions, which can constrain what an individual can do with the money. A microfinance loan is still a loan, it needs to be paid back, if someone is in poor health for a long period they will run into difficulty. Can saving schemes enable social protection in the long term when the amount saved is just enough to cover one sick person? We need to realistically evaluate what the loan enables, provides, and how long for. To provide real health security a much more comprehensive finance system is needed, such as insurance

There is a need to reinvigorate Africa’s agricultural system; however, the ability for microfinance to do this is debatable. The distribution of loans is not necessarily adequate or responsive to the need. The loans provided need to be able to provide security and protection in the face of environmental crisis. There are some things microfinance can’t solve; more variable rains and desertification for example. Loans can only be provided if the risks are known and the risks are getting higher so too will be the costs of loans.  Additionally, multiple factors are responsible for Africa’s agrarian crisis. The lack of an agriculture marketing board for farmers to control price, insufficient infrastructure, and the legacies of structural adjustment, all act to constrain the agricultural system.

Ending poverty through entrepreneurialism  Introducing finance provides communities with access to startup capital. Access to financial capital is vital in several respects for initiating capitalism. Firstly, access to capital enables entrepreneurialism. The poor have business ideas that would benefit both themselves and their community they just require access to capital to invest in such ideas. The Initiative ‘Lend with Care’ is providing access to capital to empower entrepreneurs [1] .  Secondly, the cumulative effect of small-scale savings and borrowing, enabled through microfinance enables individuals, families and communities, to enter markets - of land and property. Being able to buy property and land can enable personal security, dignity, and increasing returns.  [1] See further readings: Lend with Care, 2013.

Rebuilding agricultural systems  Africa is faced with an agrarian crisis. Microfinance is providing rural communities a chance to gain food security and reduce vulnerability to risks such as climate change, unstable demand, and political tensions. Microfinance supports small scale agriculture – which is more sustainable, effective for growth, and beneficial for communities than larger scale agriculture. In Zimbabwe, small scale farming has the capability to improve production, benefiting households, communities, and the Nation (IRIN, 2013; Morrison, 2012).  Kiva, a microfinance NGO, is providing affordable capital to remote communities. Loans have been provided to small-scale farmers and a rental system has been set-up enabling farmers to borrow tools and resources needed.

Africa’s microfinance schemes can be different, and are fundamentally different. Across Africa there is a history of informal lending. Microfinance is not new, but rather embedded in traditional practices. This means communities are aware of the obligations, rules, and practice of microfinance.  Additionally, the path taken by microfinance lenders shows stricter controls are being taken to ensure that the loans are not subprime. In a bid to ensure the safety of the poor the Bank of Ghana has set up minimum capital requirements for the borrower and new regulations to ensure money-lent is repayable.

All policies have barriers and potential disadvantages and for a scheme to be rolled out the advantages must outweigh the costs. In the case of microfinance advantages are higher. Microfinance has a low cost for implementation, and can therefore be distributed nationwide. Rolling out microfinance schemes means a majority of the population will become able to access vital services through a flexible loan.  Microfinance not being able to reach everyone is not a reason to enable it for those it can reach. If bad governance prevents sustainability then something needs to be done about governance – it does not invalidate microfinance as a concept. And all those involved in supply do have close enough objectives to run the scheme there simply needs to be compromises to ensure they remain the same.

Deeper issues unresolved  Microfinance provides a quick-fix solution for the poor. The individual, or community, is provided with a loan to invest in their future. However, although access to capital is a key concern for enabling entrepreneurialism it is not the silver bullet. Microfinance schemes will fail without providing a stable political and economic environment that makes a good climate to invest in.  Microfinance is essentially short-termist. It encourages investment but only in things that will bring a quick return. With interest rates as high as 30% the person taking the loan needs to pay it back as quickly as possible. This can sometimes be against an individual’s long term interests, for example access to microfinance often reduces primary school attendance as this is a long term investment that will not pay back the loan money (IOE, 2011).

Debt cycles and the curse of microfinance  Microfinance is incorporating free market ideologies and subprime (lending to those who may not be able to repay) lending at a smaller scale. Unstable crises’ form as a result, and debt is intensified for the poorest - of which are given access to credit they are not able to repay. This is a problem with all lending, microfinance is no exception.  In India the pressures of microfinance repayment has become linked to suicide and early mortality (Biswas, 2010). The stress of looking for microcredit, and then how to pay it back, has created a crisis within the microfinance industry. Regulation is required on the microfinance organisation: controlling the distribution of credit and the use of threats if the individual defaults.

Realistic barriers  There are significant barriers to introducing microfinance. Microfinance can’t reach everywhere; a lack of infrastructure, or poor infrastructure, can mean that microfinance initiatives often can’t reach where need is greatest. Those who are poorest most need money just to get buy, not to invest. They would be unable to repay even tiny loans. It returns to the question of who is the poorest, and what do we know about them - where they are, what they need, and why are they poor?  Secondly, structural constraints limit the ability for microfinance to be sustainable and provide a long term solution. Bad governance, inadequate structures to regulate microfinance, and political instability, mean the theoretical benefits of microfinance may not become a lived reality.  Thirdly, who is involved in the supply? The involvement of multiple actors - NGOs, communities, the state, and private sector, complicates how microfinance is being run and therefore the effectiveness. Tensions emerge with such partnerships as each actor has the different objectives and motivations.

Microfinance does not have to be short term financing. Because it is a community based loan that is based on trust if those wanting the loan can explain why they want a loan over the longer term then it is possible to get longer loans. Moreover long term investment should not be something those who are struggling day to day have to think about; such investments as education should be made by the government not relying on individuals to realise their long term interests. No one would argue that microfinance is the solution to a poor education system.

The reason for the apparent superiority of Democrat administrations is that they use government as a job creation service; using taxpayers’ money to create jobs in a bloated federal administration [i] .  Ultimately, these are not real jobs as they are not actually producing wealth, merely circulating what already exists. Real growth and real economic health comes from unleashing the innovativeness and industry of the American people to create new businesses and expand existing ones. The Democrat approach leads to taxes rising The Republicans can reduce taxes because they leave the creation of jobs where it belongs – in the private sector.  [i] “Historical U.S. Job Creation – Under Democratic and Republican Presidents and President Obama” Democraticunderground.com. 2 September 2011.

economic policy tax politics government house doesnt trust republicans economy

Historically Democrats have presided over more economic stability whereas the GOP is the party of boom and Bust  During the past 60 years Democrats have been considerably more likely to preside over a balanced budget than their Republican rivals. Since the OPEC shocks of the mid-70s the average unemployment rate under Republican Presidents has been 6.7 % as opposed to 5.5% under democrats. Even expanding that period out to the whole of the post-war period, unemployment has averaged 4.8% under democrats and 6.3% under democrats [i] .  Republican presidencies have been marked by higher unemployment, bigger deficits and lower wages.  [i] Larry Bartels. “Why the economy fares much better under Democrats.” Christian Science Monitor. October 21st, 2010 .

It is really not up to the Government to decide when a job is “good enough”, frankly when the alternative is welfare any job looks fairly attractive. It is also much easier to find new work when you are already in the job market. As well as providing an income, jobs also give the worker pride and self-respect.  It is in the interests of employers to pay as much as the market can bear – this way they get the best person for the job, however, it is not the role of government to tell them how much they should be paying as this removes the incentive to work hard.

Bush squandered an extraordinary economic legacy on tax cuts for the wealthy and too expensive and unnecessary wars.  The Clinton legacy was one of extraordinary economic health including an enormous $4,000 billion surplus. This could have been used to improve services and create jobs. Instead the Bush administration squandered this, mostly on tax cuts for the wealthy and two expensive wars. He turned the surplus on its head, leaving a budget deficit of $482 billion in 2009 with, frankly, not a lot to show for it [i] .  [i] Andrew Taylor. “Bush Leaving Next President Record Federal Deficit”. Huffington Post. 28 July 2008.

The logic behind tax cuts is two-fold. The first is that it isn’t the government’s money, it belongs to the people who worked hard to earn it. The second is that cash in people’s pockets acts as a stimulus to the economy which it doesn’t sitting in the government’s vaults.  In terms of who benefited from the cuts, a single person earning $30,000 a year was paying $4,500 by the end of Bush’s presidency as opposed to $8,400 at the end of Clinton’s.  It’s easy to create a surplus if you simply take people’s money away from them [i] .  [i] “Taxes: Clinton vs Bush”. Snopes.com 22 April 2008.

The events of late 2008 had a variety of complex causes. To try and blame them on one thing alone is not to understand the problem.  What is clear however is that an active financial sector creates jobs and wealth for the American people providing them with the security of a job, a pension and a home in a way that government can only dream of.  There is also no doubt that light regulation allows business to grow and create jobs, the only way out of recession is to allow business to do what it does best; grow America for all our futures.  As Ronald Reagan put it “Government is not the solution to our problems. Government is the problem”.

Democrats focus on increasing wages, creating better consumers.  Quality customers can only be created by paying people enough to allow them to purchase goods and services. You can create as many jobs as you like but if they’re created at a level where consumers can’t even afford to survive it does absolutely nothing to stimulate the economy. Instead Democrats believe in working with labour to ensure that wages are set at levels that both respect the worker and have a positive effect on the economy. [i]  [i] Mark Pash, CFP_ wi8th Brad Parker. “Progressive Economic Principles: Creating a Quality Economy.”

Deregulation contributed to the banking crises and, therefore the 2009 economic crash  It is clear that the economic meltdown was, in large part, caused by deregulation of the banking and financial sectors. The Republican obsession causes not only environmental damage and low wages but it doesn’t even succeed in its avowed aim of leaving the market free to generate wealth. In just a way of letting the parties friends in the boardrooms of corporate America to get even richer by gambling with the homes and pensions of ordinary, hard-working Americans [i] .  The Congressional Republican response to the 2008 crash was to pass a bill that curtailed 38 environmental regulations, blaming the EPA for the stalled economy. Why is anyone’s guess.  [i] “Why Government Becomes the Scapegoat”. Governemtnisgood.com

The Obama administration received one of the worst political legacies in US history. A broken economy, half a trillion dollars’ worth of debt, two expensive wars, a sick healthcare system and much more besides. In just three short years he has stopped the country haemorrhaging Money in Iraq and Afghanistan, introduced a healthcare system based on medical need rather than the ability to pay and has made progress in improving the economy. Although things are still difficult for many Americans and there are not enough jobs, the idea that having the Republicans back in the Whitehouse is clearly untrue. They were in large part responsible for creating the economic mess in the first place with reckless over-spending and unjustified tax hikes. They turned one of the best economic inheritances in history on its head, leaving the country broke, in debt and with nowhere to go.

George Bush announced that cutting government was one of his greatest priorities, his actions could not have been further from this ambition. As with most Republican presidents, government spending grew considerably on his watch. Indeed no president since FDR presided over a larger rate of growth in the federal budget. The largest recipient has been the military with over $5tn dollars spent on defence during his two terms. To take one example, when the Transportation Security Administration took a guess at the cost of a national computer system in 2002, it pegged the price at $1bn. A few years later the price was running at five times that [i] .  [i] Jon Ward. “Big Government Gets Bigger”. The Washington Times. 19 October 2008.

Republicans more enthusiastically support market capitalism  A free market is at the core of many of the other freedoms we enjoy. When government gets too involved in the running of commerce – whether through taxation, regulation or the state ownership of companies, history has shown us that they start controlling other aspects of citizens lives in an effort to get the economic outcomes that they want. Corporations – along with organised religion – provide useful counter-balance to too much government power. As nice as it sounds that we should divert the wages of the rich to bring the poor up to middle class standards of living, it just doesn’t work [i] .  [i] “Why am I a Republican?” Early Riser. 7 February 2006.

“After three years, it is clear that President Obama’s budget-busting policies have not created jobs and have only added to our debt,”  The Obama administration has been profligate with taxpayers’ money, has failed to deal with the economic crisis and has increased the debt. His policies on health care show that he is more interested in controlling people’s lives than he is in encouraging enterprise and industry. It’s the same story that is always heard from Democrats; they say that they’re interested in encouraging business but instead all they really want to focus on is getting the government involved in as many areas of life as possible – especially in the running of the market. After three years in office Obama has done nothing to improve the life chances of the American people, growth and employment have stagnated, GDP growth has been under 1% per year while unemployment is up to 9.1% from 7.8%, [i] while regulation and taxation have blossomed.  [i] Kristol, William, ‘Weekly Standard: Obama No FDR ON Unemployment’, npr, 2 September 2011,

Republicans are the best at stimulating economic growth  The tax cuts proposed by President Bush and passed by a Republican Congress ensured that real, after-tax income was up 15% by 2006. The Dow Jones hit record Highs during his time in office.  These tax cuts were responsible for the creation of 6.6 million jobs, primarily in the private sector – real jobs producing real goods and providing real services not tax-payer funded sinecures to mask the reality of the economic situation. [i]  [i] The White House, “Fact Sheet: Job Creation Continues – More than 6.6 Million Jobs Created Since August 2003”, 6 October 2006,

The idea that free markets are innately linked to democracy in some way is simply untrue. Equally there is a difference between markets that are free and those that are unfettered.  Free markets are good to the extent that they create jobs and generate wealth. They cease to be good when they become an end in themselves, indeed when that happens, it very rarely encourages democracy.  In a situation where corporations are, by law, required to maximise profits no matter what there is clearly a role for government in setting some parameters in terms of what terms of what can be considered acceptable behaviour for corporate citizens within a civilized society.

Developing nations are plagued with corruption as well as desperate economic situations and are often in competition with each other in exporting whether that is manufacturing for slightly richer countries of South East Asia or natural resources in Africa.  In the context of such an economic rat race, it would be unfair to impose a western standard on these countries. An increase in standard is not a cheap process as it increases the costs of labour and will stretch resources resulting in cutting back the number of jobs and hence will increase unemployment and poverty just as happened in many Latin American countries [1] . It is better to employ many and provide some means of sustenance to all, as will happen with very low wages and standards, rather than employ less and give (relative) luxury to a few. Developing nations that have lower labour standards can gain a comparative advantage in trade: the lower the cost of the industry, greater the turnover of the industry. [2]  [1] Stern, R. and Katherine Terrell, ‘Labor Standards and the World Trade Organization’, Discussion Paper N 499,2003   [2] ‘The benefits of International Labour Standards’, International Labour Organisation,

economic policy employment house would make raising business and labour standards

International labour and business standards go hand in hand with development standards and will de facto increase implementation levels  What are international labour and business standards? They are globally acceptable methods of doing business and employing labour. These include Conventions Against Forced Labour [1] , Discrimination [2] and Child Labour [3] . These also form guideline structures for social policy such as labour dispute resolution bodies, employment services and good industrial relations. Therefore, this goes hand in hand with reducing poverty and increasing the standard of living of the employees, and hence the standard is a facet of development in itself. This helps in achieving the goals of a stable long term plan for economic growth as well paid workers are necessary for consumer spending. Employing higher standards would be a way to tackle the problems with distribution of aid at the grassroots and increase efficiency within the system organically. [4]  The poorest countries invariably have the lowest standards of labour and business. It is essential to raise these standards to an international level, implementing standards against practices like child labour. If this is done then the purpose of development aid, which is to increase the day to day standard of living of the people, will improve. In an absence of such a pre-requisite, a developing country will be free to employ standards that do not reflect the same principles of the donor nation. Thus, to avoid a hypocritical scenario, this pre-requisite is necessary.  [1] C029 - Forced Labour Convention, Adoption: Geneva, 14th ILC session, 28 June 1930,   [2] International Labour Office, ‘Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention’, International Labour Organisation, 1958 No.111,   [3] ‘ILO Conventions and Recommendations on child labour’, International Labour Organisation,   [4] ‘How International Labour Standards are used’, International Labour Organisation,

This is a common logical fallacy. With limited resources, there is a limited bandwidth within which one can stretch the standard above the capable standard. It is not favourable to increase this gap too much for then it is not realistic. Many countries have ratified ILO Conventions but not implemented any of it. [1] For example India has ratified both ILO core conventions on discrimination but domestic laws have not managed to curtail the widespread discrimination on the basis of caste, particularly for being a Dalit, gender, and ethnicity. [2]  It is important that the standards not only need to be raised, but rather the current standards need to be implemented better – which means a stricter hand to the current regulations.  [1] Salem, Samira and Rozental, Faina. “Labour Standards and Trade: A Review of Recent Empirical Evidence” Journaln of International Commerce and Economics. Web Version August 2012.   [2] ‘India Hidden Apartheid’, Center for Human Rights and Global Justice, Human Rights Watch, February 2007,  P.80

When developing countries employ poor labour standards, other countries follow the example in order to be competitive  As long as developing nations constantly keep employing poor labour standards, it will keep putting a strain on the global economy. This is because other countries will be pressured to do the same just to remain competitive. This creates a race to the bottom effect and would create “poor conditions and loss of freedom in the global South, and causes workers in the global North to lose their jobs to cheap outsourced labour”. [1] Higher labour standards in developing countries therefore also benefits developed countries. However the converse is also true; labels like ‘fair trade’ provide a guarantee of ethical quality and show that consumers are willing to pay more to ensure good labour standards.  [1] ‘Changing Global Trade Rules’, International Labor Rights Forum,

Labour standards are necessary to protect basic human rights  Labour and business standards are a cornerstone of agreement on universal human rights between various international actors and so it is right that they should be linked to aid. In 1998 the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work were adopted and are considered binding on all members regardless of whether they have ratified the conventions. [1] The business and labour regulations protect the basic worker rights and improve job security through demanding the elimination of discrimination and empower workers through the recognition of “freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining” [2] like in those in developed western countries. This then provides a minimum standard and aid should only be given to those that ensure those minimum standards they have signed up. It would also help compliance to prioritise those who go further in their protections of labour when it comes to receiving aid. It should be remembered that there has been general acceptance of international labour standards not just for human rights reasons but also because having minimum standards is beneficial economically – for example a 40 hour working week is more productive per hour than a 60 hour week. [3]  [1] the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, ‘About the Declaration’, International Labour Organisation,   [2] ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-up, Adopted by the International Labour Conference at its Eighty-sixth Session, Geneva, 18 June 1998 (Annex revised 15 June 2010),   [3] Robinson, Sara, ‘Bring back the 40-hour work week’, Salon, 14 March 2012,

Not all standards benefit human rights and some could even undermine individual’s most basic human rights such as that to sustenance and shelter. Standards combating child labour, for example, could be misguided. In many developing countries, child labour is an important source of income for children’s food and education.  Holding to the ILO’s convention on child labour would therefore affect families’ and children’s income and development opportunities. Since child labour is dependent on level of economic development, developing countries should work on combating poverty before reducing child labour. India implemented most international standards, including the convention for child labour. However, research has found that children working full time have better chances of making it to adulthood than those who work less, because they’re better fed [1] . Children’s physical wellbeing will often therefore benefit from being allowed to work.  Rather than imposing labour standards the way to end such practices is to provide incentives that pay for parents to send their children to school as with the Bolsa Familia in Brazil. [2]  [1] Cigno, Alessandro, and Rosati, Furio C., ‘Why do Indian Children Work, and is it Bad for Them?’, IZA Discussion paper series, No.115, 2000,  , p.21  [2] Bunting, Madeleine, ‘Brazil’s cash transfer scheme is improving the lives of the poorest’, Poverty Matters Blog guardian.co.uk, 19 November 2010,

This is similar to the debate of imposing uniform carbon emission caps on all nations. This would be unfair as the developing world would be at a disadvantage as it takes away one of the ways in which poorer countries compete effectively in the global market; through having lower prices as a result of those lower standards. That is why keeping lower standards that are more easily met is better than having an unachievable and unfair standard.

Strategic interests can be put to risk by such pre-requisites. Donor nations have strategic interests when awarding aid, which ensure that future trade relations are well secured (such as United States and the Middle Eastern oil states). This is why aid goes to countries that often have links with the donor.  If there are too many conditions attached and when the developing countries cannot meet them these countries will go elsewhere. China is increasingly a competitor in giving aid and overtly at least ties in far fewer conditions into the aid they give. Sudan was cut off from aid programmes due to its internal conflict, but China invested in development projects without asking for any conditions [1] .  [1] Zafar, A. "The Growing Relationship Between China and Sub-Saharan Africa: Macroeconomic, Trade, Investment, and Aid Links." The World Bank Research Observer 22.1 (2007): 103-30.

Increasing a standard, even if not as high as the donor would want, increases the standard of the present situation  Increasing the required standard of business and labour will result in increases to the current standard labour and business standards even before aid is entirely tied as countries implement changes to ensure they get the most possible aid. Simply setting an expected level of labour and business standards will therefore create improvement in those standards. In the case of the Decent Work Country Programme for Bangladesh 2006-2009 Bangladesh has been implementing the program due to its positive benefit towards achieving the millennium development goals. This is despite challenges such as the lack of employment opportunities in the country. The programme has been successful in improving social protection, working conditions and rights for female, male, and children workers in a few sectors and areas [1] .  [1] International Labour Organization, Bangladesh: Decent Work Country Programme 2012-2015, 2012

Historically the donor of Foreign Aid has always set down pre-requisites  When a donor nation parts with foreign aid for development to a nation, it must always choose who it prefers to give it to as there is a limited pot of money to donate there needs to be a way of allocating it. It is not surprising therefore that countries with shared colonial histories tend to dominate aid flows, thus Britain has historically given most aid to countries that were its colonies; in 1960 Malta and Cyprus received most, while India was the biggest recipient for much of the rest of the 20th Century. [1] Further, often countries offering aid, such as the US, the UK, and the EU, require the pre-requisite of democracy or the start of a democratisation process. Therefore, it is justified to add a pre-requisite for better standards of business and labour as it helps implementation, and principally meets the goals of the developmental aid itself. [2]  [1] Provost, Claire, ‘UK aid: where does it o and how has it changed since 1960?’, Datablog guardian.co.uk, 14 April 2011,   [2] Dollar, David and Alesina, Alberto. “Who Gives Foreign Aid to Whom and Why?” Journal of Economic Growth, Volume 5, No. 1(Mar., 2000).

The concept of a nation’s sovereignty is losing weight against the rights of a global citizen. Citizens everywhere in the world should be able to enjoy equal standards of employment and not suffer at the hands of a nation’s neglect. The rights of a nebulous entity such as the state should not be equated with the much more vital rights of individual workers to humane standards of treatment and good working conditions.

Achieving development at the cost of principles of development is not acceptable. The means by which you achieve development is equally important, and will remain integral in the principles and priorities of a nation once it achieves developed status. The road is as important as the destination! Building the economy on poor labour standards is building on unstable ground as those jobs will simply move as soon as costs rise in any way.

There is nothing wrong with individualised standards. It is the question on implementing them better and not raising standards  The chances that these international labour standards are even relevant to these developing nations are low. For example, India need not ratify the two core conventions on protecting trade union rights because these are rights that pertain to workers in formal employment. A majority of India’s workforce is not in formal employment, and hence not covered by any legal provisions. Similarly in many developing economies a large portion of the workforce is engaged in subsistence farming, something that labour standards are never going to apply to as those involved will do whatever they need to in order to get by. Therefore, there needs to be a different standard applied to the situation specific problems. What needs to be recognised is how no to low labour standards in developing countries can be a significant improvement over the only alternative that was previously available; subsistence farming. One size fits all does not work in such a diverse global economy and donors should recognise the benefits of helping development to bring people out of subsistence farming.

There is uneven implementation of labour standards even in western countries  Western countries often do embrace high levels of labour standards or do not follow their labour regulations. Germany for example has no minimum wage [1] while the USA has no legal or contractual requirement to provide minimum amounts of leave. [2] Moreover it is the demand for the cheapest possible products that drives down labour standards worldwide. If western nations truly want to change labour standards then the way to do it is with the consumer’s wallet not the aid chequebook. British clothing retailers such as Primark are often shown to be buying their products from sweatshops that use illegal workers, and exploit their labour [3] . If there is to be real lasting change in labour standards western firms need to be the ones pushing high labour standards and consumers would need to not automatically go for the cheapest product available.  [1] Schuseil, Philine, ‘A review on Germany’s minimum wage debate’, bruegel, 7 March 2013,   [2] Stephenson, Wesley, ‘Who works the longest hours?’, BBC News, 23 May 2012,   [3] Dhariwal, Navdip. "Primark Linked to UK Sweatshops." BBC News. BBC, 01 Dec. 2009. Web.

Development has many facets of which pure economic growth is a priority, especially in the context of a developing nation  It is a nation’s own sovereign decision to decide its own standards and pace itself. It is a sovereign right of self-determination of a nation to freely comply or refuse to comply with international standards. It is unfair to back a developing nation up against a wall and force them to ratify higher standards in return for aid.  It is notable that the countries that have developed fastest have often been those that have ignored the whims of the aid donors. The Asian tigers (Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan, later followed by South East Asia and China) did not receive aid, but preserved authority over their developmental policies. Their success story does not involve the international labour standards and goes against many of the policy prescriptions, such as free trade, of international institutions, such as the World Bank and the ILO [1] . This shows that nations that follow their national interest rather than bending to the whims of donors are the ones that ultimately do best economically. These states only implement labour standards when they become beneficial; when it is necessary to build and maintain an educated labour force.  [1] Chang, Ha-Joon, “Infant Industry Promotion in Historical Perspective – A Rope to Hang Oneself or a Ladder to Climb With?”, a paper for the conference “Development Theory at the Threshold of the Twenty-first Century”, 2001,

Universal standards of labour and business are not suited to the race for development  Developing countries are in a race to develop their economies. The prioritisation of countries that are not currently developed is different to the priorities of developed countries as a result of their circumstances and they must be allowed to temporarily push back standards of labour and business until they achieve a level playing field with the rest of the world. This is because economic development is a necessary precondition for many of the kinds of labour standards enjoyed in the west. For there to be high labour standards there clearly needs to be employment to have those standards. Undeveloped countries are reliant upon cheap, flexible, labour to work in factories to create economic growth as happened in China. In such cases the comparative advantage is through their cheap labour. If there had been high levels of government imposed labour standards and working conditions then multinational firms would never have located their factories in the country as the cost of running them would have been too high. [1] Malaysia for example has struggled to contain activity from the Malaysian Trades Union Congress to prevent their jobs moving to China [2] as the competition does not have labour standards so helping keep employment cheap. [3]  [1] Fang, Cai, and Wang, Dewen, ‘Employment growth, labour scarcity and the nature of China’s trade expansion’,  , p.145, 154  [2] Rasiah, Rajah, ‘The Competitive Impact of China on Southeast Asia’s Labor Markets’, Development Research Series, Research Center on Development and International Relations, Working Paper No.114, 2002,  P.32  [3] Bildner, Eli, ‘China’s Uneven Labor Revolution’, The Atlantic, 11 January 2013,

It is irrelevant that some western countries do not always meet the highest labour standards; does it matter that Germany does not have a national minimum wage when there are minimum wages for each sector? These are countries where one labour standard can be sacrificed because the pay and standards elsewhere are much higher.  Of course consumers should be supporting attempts to increase labour and business standards but this is hardly exclusive; there is little reason for aid donors not to be demanding high standards at the same time as consumers are.

Individualised standards can be dangerous. International standards could be set at a minimum level on which every country could add measures tailored to its needs as is the case with the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. Countries tend to ignore the importance on long term development and concentrate on plans for relatively short term success. By neglecting important issues countries suffer because they wake up when the issue at hand is too large to handle. For example, China’s economy has grown tenfold since 1978 but at the cost of great environmental damage. China now hosts 16 of the 20 most polluted cities of the world. The country has also landed itself with over 70% of its natural water sources polluted and is now the largest emitter of greenhouse gases. [1] Encouraging greener development earlier would have helped prevent this problem.  [1] Bajoria, Jayshree, and Zissis, Carin, ‘China’s Environmental Crisis’, Council on Foreign Relations, 4 August 2008,

Less than $6billion seems to be suspiciously low. Some land would undoubtedly need to be purchased if only to allow for less tight corners. Added to this there would still be delays due to the need for permits for noise, light and vibration which will mean rising costs. [1] A study of 250 major transport infrastructure projects has found that 90% of come in over budget and this escalation is 45% on rail projects. [2] And it should be remembered that this is dealing with systems were we know the costs not something that is completely new. Additionally there would be costs associated with the closures of the main road routes between Los Angeles and San Francisco – though these might be moved to the people of California the cost would still be there.  [1] Fernholz, Tim, ‘Does the Hyperloop even make sense for California?’, Quartz, 12 August 2013,   [2] Flyvbjerg, Bent et al., ‘How common and how large are cost overruns in transport infrastructure projects?’, Transport Reviews, vol.23, no.1, 2003, pp.71-88,  , p.85

The Hyperloop is comparatively cheap  The Hyperloop would be cheap to build. The pods themselves would only cost $1.35million each, the pressurised tube just $650million (or double if wanting vehicles), with only two stations their cost would only be $250million. The biggest cost would be the construction of the pylons carrying the tube which is estimated at $2.55 or $3.15billion. There is an estimated total cost of $4.06billion for the passenger only version or $5.31billion for the vehicle version. [1] This should be compared to the current cost for California’s high speed rail project which is estimated to be $68billion while covering much the same ground. [2]  [1] Musk, Elon, ‘Hyperloop Alpha’, SpaceX, 12 August 2013,  pp.23, 27, 32, 28, 32  [2] Slosson, Mary, ‘California moves forward on $68 billion high-speed rail project’, Reuters, 18 July 2012,

While it seems reasonable that the cost will be low it is questionable that it will be quite as low as suggested. If the cost of construction rises – as it inevitably does – then because this is the basis for the pricing calculation the prices will surely go up. Musk is also forgetting all the extra costs that would be incurred such as the cost of airline style security measures. [1]  [1] Fernholz, Tim, ‘Does the Hyperloop even make sense for California?’, Quartz, 12 August 2013,

Fastest possible transportation over a short distance  Public transportation has not been getting much faster over the last few decades. The fastest method of transport, supersonic jets in the form of Concorde ceased operation in October 2003. [1] Even if at some point a new generation of supersonic planes are built these will not be ideal for travelling between cities that are comparatively close together. The time spent getting the plane up and down from cruising altitude means they would take longer over these short distances than a slower option at ground level. The Hyperloop at more than 700mph will be twice as fast as high speed rail. To take the different options on the San Francisco-Los Angeles route cars take 5hours 30minutes, the proposed high speed train would take 2hours 38minutes, by plane takes 1hour 15minutes whereas the Hyperloop would only take 35minutes. [2]  [1] ‘End of an era for Concorde’, BBC News, 24 October 2003,   [2] Musk, Elon, ‘Hyperloop Alpha’, SpaceX, 12 August 2013,  p.8, 56

People are not always interested in the fastest possible option; they often want comfort as well. Trains allow riders to work or relax as well as travel the Hyperloop has little space for passengers to move around in. This means that passengers may actually be more productive on a train on which they can move around and work as they travel than they would be in a confined space on the Hyperloop.

The Hyperloop will be a low cost system for the user  The Hyperloop would be the cheapest mode of intercity transport possible. “Transporting 7.4million people each way and amortizing the cost of $6 billion over 20 years gives a ticket price of $20 for a one-way trip for the passenger version of Hyperloop.” [1] There are very few additional costs. Usually the main cost for transportation beyond the infrastructure is the energy but the Hyperloop produces more energy than it uses so would make a profit here. There would be additional maintenance costs and some minor staff costs but this is unlikely to add too much to the ticket price. The Hyperloop would therefore be very price competitive compared to the $100 and up for flights.  [1] Musk, Elon, ‘Hyperloop Alpha’, SpaceX, 12 August 2013,  p.56

That there have been similar suggestions before does not mean they are not commercialisable today. The very high speed trains are an inspiration for the Hyperloop but have serious disadvantages by comparison. Because of their vacuum tube the system would be stopped at the slightest leak. [1] They are also astonishingly expensive with the cost associated with construction estimated at as high as $1trillion, the hyperloop is much more economic and therefore practical.  [1] Musk, Elon, ‘Hyperloop Alpha’, SpaceX, 12 August 2013,  p.3

That there will be some opposition to such a construction is inevitable. This however does not matter in a rational look at the advantages and disadvantages of such a transportation system. The politicians will ultimately decide on the same calculus as everyone else.  That the Hyperloop does not connect into infrastructure in the same way that the maglevs fail to is not a relevant argument to the United States where there are few rail services to connect into. Instead the possibility of having a Hyperloop that transport vehicles invites the prospect of connecting into the road network. A much more useful alternative in California.

Lack of capacity or room for expansion  The plans for the Hyperloop provide that “The capacity would be 840 passengers per hour which more than sufficient to transport all of the 6 million passengers traveling between Los Angeles and San Francisco areas per year.” With only 28 people per capsule and a maximum of one capsule every 30 seconds there is not much room for expansion. It would seem surprising if this service only carried 6million passengers a year. The Taiwan High Speed Rail running between Taipei and Zuoying carried 41.6 million passengers in 2011 [1] considering that Taiwan has a population of 23 million compared to the combined population of the San Francisco Bay and Los Angeles metropolitan areas of 26million this does not seem an unreasonable comparison. [2] Even if we assume it will not be used at all for commuting and take the Eurostar as the point of comparison the Hyperloop still has only two thirds of the capacity it would need as Eurostar’s ridership is currently approaching 10million. [3]  [1] "Table 2-8 Passenger Traffic of High-Speed Rail" . Monthly Statistics of Transportation &amp; Communications . MOTC Department of Statistics .  [2] ‘Annual Estimates of the Population of Combined Statistical Areas’, Census.gov, 2012,   [3] ‘’Strong’ 2012 for Eurostar’, Global Rail News, 25 March 2013,

If Musk won’t build it who will?  Elon Musk himself is unwilling to build his Hyperloop. He has stated “Maybe I would just do the beginning bit, create a subscale version that is operating and then hand it over to someone else. Ironing out the details at a subscale level is a tricky thing. I think I would probably end up doing that. It just won’t be immediate in the short term because I have to focus on Tesla and SpaceX execution.” [1] If the visionary for the project is having little to do with the project itself it seems unlikely that the proposal will come to anything. The Hyperloop being such a low priority for Musk is also likely to put off anyone else who might be interested in being involved.  [1] Elliott, Hannah, ‘Hyperloop Update: Elon Musk Will Start Developing It Himself’, Forbes, 12 August 2013,

There have been similar suggestions before for intercity travel  The Hyperloop is not the first proposal to use tubes with low – or no – pressure in them. A very high speed train was proposed by Robert M. Salter in 1972. This as a train running in a vacuum would have gone substantially faster than anything that is currently being proposed travelling at around 3000 mph. [1]  Nor is this the first proposal for a pneumatic transport system; such trains were around in the 19th century. They were first proposed as far back as 1812 [2] and several short demonstration tracks were constructed such as the Beach Pneumatic Transit in New York which opened in 1870. [3] Such idea has not got off the ground in the past and there seems no reason why they should now when the basic technology is pretty much the same.  [1] Salter, Robert M., ‘The Very High Speed Transit System’, RAND Corporation, 1972,   [2] Medhurst, George, ‘Calculations and Remarks, Tending to Prove the Practicability, Effects and Advantages of a Plan for the Rapid Conveyance of Goods and Passengers: Upon an Iron Road Through a Tube of 30 Feet in Area, by the Power and Velocity of Air’, D.N. Shury, 1812,   [3] Mihm, Stephen, ‘New York Had a Hyperloop First, Elon Musk’, Bloomberg, 14 August 2013,

It will never work  The plan for the Hyperloop is sound technically but would it work politically? It is unlikely that the California high speed rail project will be scrapped simply because there is a new competitor on the block. The Hyperloop has the advantage of being cheap but it is cheap because it is being built in the middle of an existing highway, the interstate-5. Building the Hyperloop would therefore cause traffic chaos so there would not be much political support. [1] Build it elsewhere and land would need to be bought just as with proposals for high speed rail.  Maglevs are, like the Hyperloop, practically sound – one travels from Shanghai Airport into the center of the city [2] – but they have not been built. High speed trains, despite being slower, have been the preferred method for creating high speed transportation systems because they can easily connect into the existing rail infrastructure, a problem for both the Hyperloop and maglevs.  [1] Yarow, Jay, ’41 Years Ago, A Scientist Explained Why Elon Musk’s Hyperloop is Doomed’, Business Insider, 12 August 2013,   [2] Kidman, Alex, ‘Shanghai’s Maglev Train: Astonishingly Fast… and a little dull’, Gizmo, 12 September 2011,

Even if Elon is not currently willing to lead the project himself he is willing to both build a demonstration prototype to prove the technology and to invest money in the development himself. [1]  [1] Elliott, Hannah, ‘Hyperloop Update: Elon Musk Will Start Developing It Himself’, Forbes, 12 August 2013,

It is very unlikely that the Hyperloop would quickly reach its capacity. Currently the number of people travelling from Los Angeles to San Francisco by plane only number 2.8million so there would clearly be plenty of room for expansion. [1]  [1] Amin, Saurabh, ‘Ride the Hyperloop before decade’s end?’, CNN, 13 August 2013,

Even an all inclusive package holiday benefits the economy through buying local products and hiring staff locally. To get beyond the lower end of the market Tunisia is diversifying its tourism for more profitable gains through cultural activities which can be charged separately to board and lodging.  Cultural tourism equates to around 37% of worldwide tourism1 and Tunisia is beginning to further embrace this aspect. The set of the fictional planet of Tatooine from the Star Wars films is a popular destination for tourists, although this is now threatened by sand dunes2. There are other notable locations which are not threatened however. The ancient city of Carthage, excavated in the mid-19th century, the world heritage site of Kairouan, and the Saharan desert are prominent destinations for cultural tourism. The growth of this sub-sector could incur more profitable gains.

business economic policy africa house believes tunisia should not rely tourism

Profit margins are too small  A major problem for Tunisia’s tourism sector is the small profit margin. The industry’s main targets are European, middle class income visitors on package holidays to sea-side resorts. This has resulted in a low per-capita spending rate as food, drink and travel are all usually included in sea-side holiday resorts. Average per-capita spending for tourists in Tunisia amounted to around $385 in 2012 which is low when compared to Egypt’s $890 and Greece’s $10001. This reliance on a low-profit niche in the tourism industry is a systematic flaw which will not provide the economic growth which the country needs.  1) Achy,L. ‘The Tourism Crisis in Tunisia Goes Beyond Security Issues’, Al Monitor, 26 June 2012

The majority of modern economic industries have to face overseas competition. Tunisia, like its North African neighbours, was convinced in the 1990s to emplace neo-liberal reforms in return for increased lending from the World Bank and other lenders. These reforms, based on the free market principles, ensured that protectionism ended and domestic industries had to compete against other international actors. Sectors such as agriculture have become increasingly threatened by overseas competition since the 1990s1. The disparity between rich and poor created by the reforms has been listed as one of the major factors for the Jasmine revolution2.  1) Aoun,A. ‘The Performance of Tunisian Agriculture: An Economic Appraisal’, New Medit, vol.3 no.2, 2004 pg.5  2) Nazemroaya,M. ‘Dictatorship, and Neo-Liberalism: The Tunisian People’s Uprising’, 19 January 2011

Vulnerable to unrest  Relying on tourism ensures that the economy is at the mercy of unrest. The violence and break down in law and order following the Tunisian revolution resulted in a notable decrease in tourists as tourists were unwilling to visit an area which they view as dangerous. This is demonstrated by the footfall of tourists which declined from 6,487,000 in 2010 to 4,456,000 in 2011 1. The increase in attacks by Salafists, a conservative sect of Islam which promotes Sharia law and has attacked tourist destinations, has dissuaded many potential visitors2. This has been exacerbated by government travel information which generally advises against visiting regions during periods of unrest, especially for Westerners who are perceived as profitable targets for ransom3. The resultant decrease in tourists reduces revenue, making tourism an unreliable industry for Tunisia.  1) African Manager, ‘Tunisia-Tourism: Clear Improvement, but a timid pace!’, data accessed 24 January 2014  2) Whewell,T. ‘Justice kiosk: Tunisia’s alternative law enforces’, BBC, 30 July 2013  3) Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade ‘Kidnapping threat worldwide’

The long term affects that instability have on industries such as tourism is overstated. Since the Tunisian revolution, there has been a continued effort by Salafists to attack tourist destinations. However, tourism has recovered from the low point of 2011. In the first ten months of 2013 Tunisia attracted 5.5 million tourists, increasing by 5.7% over 20121. The continued growth of the sector demonstrates that the impact which instability has is exaggerated. Besides instability would equally affect other industries; closing factories, damaging perceptions of an ability to complete orders etc.  1) Reuters, ‘Tunisia tourism up by 5.7 pct in first 10-months of 2013’

Environmental damage caused by alternative sectors is far worse. Pollution in the industrial sector has become much more evident since the removal of Ben Ali’s regime. 13,000 tonnes of industrial pollution are released from the Gulf of Gabes every year, causing high rates of infertility, miscarriages and deaths1. This is a common theme amongst Tunisia’s industrial areas and is far more destructive than tourist activities.  1) Addala,R. &amp; McNeil, ‘Pollution in Gabes, Tunisia’s shore of death’, Al-Jazeera, 14 June 2013

Overseas competition  Tunisia’s tourism industry is at risk from overseas competition. International tourism is a very competitive market, relying on the industry is therefore an illogical policy. Tunisia is already being undercut on prices by other countries despite its low fees. Morocco, Spain and Turkey can afford to charge a lower price for package tours than Tunisia due to better air transportation links1. Even before the Jasmine revolution, Tunisia was starting to lose ground to these countries. The ten years before the removal of Ben Ali saw the number of tourists to Tunisia rise from five to seven million, whilst Morocco rose from five to nine million2. Outside of the Mediterranean, Tunisia must compete with popular tourist destinations such as the Far East, North America and Australasia.  1) African Manager, ‘Tunisia-Tourism: Clear Improvement, but a timid pace!’, data accessed 24 January 2014  2) Achy,L. ‘The Tourism Crisis in Tunisia Goes Beyond Security Issues’, Al Monitor, 26 June 2012

Tourism causes pollution  The tourism industry in Tunisia results in notable damage to the environment. Without sustainability, economic growth will only last in the short term. This is especially pertinent for tourism, where environmental beauty is of particular importance. From the construction of infrastructure and travel, to the general waste produced, tourism is problematic in the sense that it can often cause pollution; which in turn damages the country’s reputation1. Most tourists to the region are from Europe, although there are an increasing number of Russians which means travel becomes a major source of pollution. A return journey via plane from London to Tunis creates around 310 kg of CO2 (standard passenger jets create around 0.17kg of CO2 per km) 2. This is disproportionately damaging compared to other vehicles, but is the most practical way of reaching Tunisia. Other impacts such as overuse of water, land degradation and littering can all cause problems as well3.  1) United Nations Environment Programme ‘Environmental Impacts’ data accessed 28 January 2014  2) BBC, ‘Pollution warning on holiday flights’, 1 May 2000  3) United Nations Environment Programme ‘Tourism’s Three Main Impact Areas’ data accessed 28 January 2014

The potential for growth within other sectors of Tunisia’s economy is far greater than that of tourism, if invested in properly. The energy sector has been highlighted as a potential avenue for development, as energy efficiency projects would provide employment and a lower cost of production in the industrial sector1. At present, the industrial sector’s low profits are the product of high-energy costs due to energy imports. Sustainable energy production in Tunisia through projects such as solar panels would help increase profit margins.  Research and development in industry and agriculture also has the potential to increase profits and employment. At present there are few private R&amp;D departments in comparison to those in the public sector, but it provides another avenue for greater technical efficiency in other areas which could then create a higher revenue2.  1) World Bank, ‘Energy Efficiency in Tunisia: Promoting Industry While Protecting the Environment’, 23 May 2013  2) Aoun,A. ‘The Performance of Tunisian Agriculture: An Economic Appraisal’ pg.7

While the sector does provide employment, there is a regional and gender disparity. The number of women employed by the generally female friendly industry is below the national average. Only 22.5% of those employed in tourism are female, while the national average is 25.6%1, demonstrating a clear under-representation. Regional disparity also exists between coastal and inland regions. Years of coastal-focused economic growth has resulted in an underdeveloped interior region with few jobs in the tourism sector2.  1) Kärkkäinen,O. ‘Women and work in Tunisia’, European Training Foundation, November 2010  2) Joyce,R. ‘The Regional Inequality Behind Tunisia’s Revolution’, Atlantic Council, 17 December 2013

Investment  Tourism should be relied upon for economic growth as it attracts significant foreign investment. Tourism is the largest form of foreign currency income, with around £728 million being produced by external visitors in 20121. Attracting Europeans, who have relatively large disposable incomes, has been a prominent tactic of the industry with favourable results. It is estimated that Europeans account for 95% of all overnight stays in Tunisia2. The other major sectors of services and agriculture do not inspire foreign investment of this magnitude.  1) Khalifa,A. ‘Foreign direct investment and tourism receipts pick back up in Tunisia’, Global Arab Network, 7 October 2012  2) Choyakh,H. ‘Modelling Tourism Demand in Tunisia Using Cointegration and Error Correction Models’ pg.71

Other industries are less reliable  Other sectors, such as agriculture and the industrial sectors, have proven to be unreliable as well. Tunisia’s agriculture sector is the largest employer in the country and has received significant investment since the 1980s. Despite this, the sector performed poorly between 1985-2000 and was costly to the Tunisian economy; ensuring low returns and importation of food to meet domestic demand1. The industrial sector also demonstrated itself to be vulnerable in the 2008 economic recession. In addition, the low value of produced goods creates little opportunity for lucrative profits2. The flaws of these sectors make them unviable as alternatives to tourism.  1) Aoun,A. ‘The Performance of Tunisian Agriculture: An Economic Appraisal’ pg.7  2) Elj,M. ‘Innovation in Tunisia: Empirical Analysis for Industrial Sector’ 2012

Produces Employment  Tourism is the second largest employer in the country. The industry produces over 400,000 jobs for Tunisians1. This employment figure is vital to Tunisia which has a large number of students in higher-education, around 346,000 in 2010, and a consequentially high expectation of employment2. Tourism also has a positive effect on other linked industries such as transport, creating jobs in these sectors as well. This creation of employment allows more people to sufficiently contribute to society through taxes and the purchasing of goods through their wages. This, in turn, produces economic growth and should therefore be encouraged.  1) Padmore,R. ‘Tunisia tourism industry looks to rebuild’, BBC, 22nd August 2013  2) Global Edge, ‘Tunisia: Economy’, data accessed 27 January 2014

The prominence of foreign investment in tourism has decreased since Ben Ali’s fall. Prior to the Jasmine revolution, financial actors who were close to the ruling regime were encouraged to invest and given a privileged position. Once the regime was removed, so were the favourable conditions1. Reliance on Europe for tourists, and the foreign investment that accompanies them, has also proven to be unwise. Since the 2008 economic crisis, many potential European tourists have been out of work, or have reduced disposable incomes at the very least, which has decreased the flow of tourists and financial investment2.  1) Achy,L. ‘The Tourism Crisis in Tunisia Goes Beyond Security Issues’, Al Monitor, 26 June 2012  2) Padmore,R. ‘Tunisia tourism industry looks to rebuild’ , BBC, 22nd August 2013

People who move to the cities have chosen to move from their families and dear ones, because they want to create a new and better life for themselves. Armed with great motivation, they enter the cities and are often prepared to undertake work that others do not want to do, hoping to climb the social ladder later on. Interestingly it is often the case that those in slums have a higher rate of employment than those not living in slums. In Uganda for example only 9% of young men are neither in school or employment compared to 16% for those not living in slums. [1] This benefits the development of the city and it is only with this extra workforce that the city can fully develop, thus most big cities have at some point had slums, such as London’s East End in the 19th Century. It might take time, but for the long-term benefits of the cities, rural-urban migration should be promoted. An example of this slow kind of development is the progress that is seen today in Kibera outside of Nairobi where small parts of the shanty-towns are gradually converted into lower middle-class communities.  [1] Mboup, Gora, “Measurement/indicators of youth employment”, Expert Group Meeting on Strategies for Creating Urban Youth Employment Solutions for Urban Youth in Africa, June 2004, www.un.org/esa/socdev/social/presentation/urban_mboup.ppt

economic policy society immigration house believes developing nations should

Restrictions on migration would benefit people in the cities economically and socially  Cities are very appealing to poor people. Even if their living standards in cities might be unacceptable, they get closer to basic goods, such as fresh water, sanitation etc. However, these things exist because there are productive people in the cities who work and pay taxes. What happens when too many people come at the same time is that public money is stretched too thinly and these basic goods can no longer be provided. This leads to severe humanitarian problems such as malnutrition, thirst, lack of medication, etc.  However, this humanitarian crisis does not only harm those directly affected, it also creates an unattractive environment for business. Thus, people who enter the city cannot find work, as production does not grow in relation to the people who enter. They become excluded from society and often turn to crime, which further erodes the economy. [1]  Limiting migration to reasonable levels give the cities a chance to develop progressively and become the kind of places that people in rural areas currently believe them to be.  [1] Maxwell, Daniel., “The Political Economy of Urban Food Security in Sub-Saharan Africa.” 11, London : Elsevier Science Ltd., 1999, World Development, Vol. 27, p. 1939±1953. S0305-750X(99)00101-1.

The argument is based on the idea that there is a lot of investment that is just waiting to be made in rural areas. In reality, this is not so. Until there are real investors who are prepared to change the conditions of rural areas in developing countries, it is morally bankrupt to force people to remain in an untenable situation as marketing material for hypothetical investment.

The government has a right to make decisions in the best interest of the people  Man is a social being. Therefore people live in communities where decisions that affect the many, are taken by representatives of the many. Thus, a social contract exists between the people and their government. [1] In exchange for part of their autonomy and freedom, the government ensures that policies are made in the best interest of people, even if this might come at the expense of short-term interests for some individuals. This is a typical example of this kind of case. The trend is emptying the countryside, stopping the production of agricultural goods and hollowing the amenities provided by the cities. Even if each individual has a personal incentive to move to the cities, the harm to the cities is greater than their accumulated individual gains. It is in these cases that the state must act to protect its people and ensure long term benefits.  [1] D'Agostino, Fred, Gaus, Gerald and Thrasher, John, "Contemporary Approaches to the Social Contract", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),

The government has a right to make some decisions on behalf of the people, but not any decision. Once the state acts against one group of people to further the interest of an already privileged group of people it loses this right as the state exists to protect everyone in society not just the majority or a privileged group. This is precisely the case in this motion. People who live in rural areas are already disenfranchised and condemned to terrible conditions, and the proposal only serves those who want their comfortable bourgeois life to be even more comfortable.

The principle at the heart of this debate is that of the rights of the individual. While it might be true that a large group of people make uninformed decisions, a ban on any decisions in relation to where people live will keep the individuals from making any decisions, informed and uninformed. The damage to those who actually could improve their lives greatly outweighs the benefits, especially as the resources that would be needed for this policy could be used to educate and inform people in rural areas and thus improve the basis of their decisions.

Restrictions would benefit rural areas  Unlimited rural-urban migration erodes the economy of the cities, as shown in the previous argument, and limits their economic growth and available resources. On a national level, this causes decision makers to prioritise the cities, as the country relies more on urban than rural areas, thus preventing them from investing in the country-side. [1] China is a good example of this where urban privilege has become entrenched with ‘special economic zones’ being created in urban areas (though sometimes built from scratch in rural areas) with money being poured into infrastructure for the urban areas which as a result have rapidly modernised leaving rural areas behind. This leads to a whole culture of divisions where urbanites consider those from rural areas to be backward and less civilized. [2]  Moreover, there will be little other reason to invest in rural areas, as the workforce in those areas has left for the cities. By preserving resources in the cities and keeping the workforce in the rural areas, it becomes possible to invest in rural communities and change their lives for the better as these areas maintain the balanced workforce necessary to attract investors.  [1] Maxwell, Daniel., “The Political Economy of Urban Food Security in Sub-Saharan Africa.” 11, London : Elsevier Science Ltd., 1999, World Development, Vol. 27, p. 1939±1953. S0305-750X(99)00101-1.  [2] Whyte, Martin King, “Social Change and the Urban-Rural Divide in China”, China in the 21st Century, June 2007,  p.54

Poor, uneducated people are lured into cities  The cause of rural-urban migration in developing nations and the main reason why it becomes problematic is that people who move to the cities are not making informed decisions. They are led to believe that the cities contain opportunities that they cannot find where they live, and there are no mechanisms such as efficient media or adequate education to eradicate this misconception. [1] Myths can be easily propagated by a single successful migrant returning home to visit that then attracts many others to try their luck without any knowledge of the possible costs. [2] This is exacerbated by unscrupulous organisations that prey on their desperation to take all their money to organise their move to the city. Some of those who are trafficked find themselves brought to the city and exploited through forced labour, begging, or even prostitution. [3] Many of those who move to cities find themselves in a worse situation but have lost any moving power they originally had and are thus trapped.  [1] Zhan, Shaohua. “What Determines Migrant Workers' Life Chances in Contemporary China? Hukou, Social Exclusion, and the Market.” 243, 2011, Vol. 37.  [2] Waibel, Hermann, and Schmidt, Erich, “Urban-rural relations”, in Feeding Asian Cities: Food Production and Processing Issues, FAO, November 2000,   [3] “UNIAP Vietnam”, United Nations Inter Agency Project on Human Trafficking, accessed March 2013,

This kind of argument underestimates the capacity of human potential. People in rural communities devote all their efforts and their creativity towards getting to the cities because they believe it is the best for them and their families. If they do not have this option, they can devote that energy to their community and make it grow to compete with the cities. It is then the duty of the government that imposes this restriction to support such commitments by giving them the right conditions to improve their situation by investing in rural areas as much as urban ones.

Freedom of movement is not an intrinsic human right, but rather a right that can and should be given by the state where it is possible. For example the state puts people into prisons; this infringes their freedom of movement. This is partially as punishment, but the core rationale for this is to protect the people outside of the prison from potentially dangerous people. [1] But for that, there would be significantly cheaper and more efficient ways of punishing criminals. The people whose freedom of movement is restricted are a threat to people living in the cities and to the economy of the nation as a whole. In the better interest of the nation and to protect innocent people whose lives will be damaged by unrestricted migration, these people must accept restricted freedom of movement.  [1] See the debatabase debate ‘ This House believes criminal justice should focus more on rehabilitation ’

It is practically impossible to control people's movement  One of the major problems with the proposal lies in the very fact that we are indeed dealing with developing nations. These nations have very limited capacity to manage this kind of system. What will happen instead, will be a state of confusion, where the law will be upheld in some parts while ignored in others. The case in China clearly shows that corruption follows in the wake of this kind of legislation, where urban Hukous are sold illegally or officials are frequently bribed to ignore the law. [1]  Furthermore, it only causes those who choose to move to the cities, in spite of the law, to be alienated from society and live a life outside of the law. Once outside of the law, the step to other crimes is very small as these people have little to lose. [2] In short, the law will only work in some cases and where it works it will lead to increased segregation and more crime.  [1] Wang, Fei-Ling. “Organising through Division and Exclusion: China's Hukou System". 2005.  [2] Wu. s.l., and Treiman, The Household Registration System and Social Stratification in China: 1955-1996. Springer, 2004, Demography, Vol. 2.

Restrictions cause an incredible loss of potential  One of the best things about a functioning developed nation is that young people can choose their profession. Apart from this being beneficial for the individual, this means that the best suited person for a given trade will often be the same that pursues it. If we prevent people from moving freely we deprive the cities of talented people whose talents and skills are much better suited for urban professions than for rural jobs. In short, this policy would make farmers out of the potential lawyers, politicians, doctors, teachers etc. Indeed this is the whole basis of most models of migration, people leave rural areas because there is surplus labour in that area while the cities needs new workers. [1]  [1] Taylor, J. Edward, and Martin, Philip L., “Human Capital: Migration and Rural Population Change”, Handbook of Agricultural Economics,

Rural life is miserable and has higher mortality rates than cities  This planet does not find worse living standards anywhere than in the rural areas of developing countries. These are the areas where famine, child mortality and diseases (such as AIDS) plague the people. [1] China’s Hukou system has condemned millions of people to premature death by locking them in areas that never will develop. [2] While the cities enjoy the benefits of 12% growth, the villages are as poor and deprived as ever. [3] It is a poorly concealed policy aimed at maintaining a gaping social cleavage and allowing the rich to remain rich.  [1] Maxwell, Daniel., “The Political Economy of Urban Food Security in Sub-Saharan Africa.” 11, London : Elsevier Science Ltd., 1999, World Development, Vol. 27, p. 1939±1953. S0305-750X(99)00101-1.  [2] Dikötter, Frank. Mao's Great Famine. London : Walker &amp; Company, 2010. 0802777686.  [3] Wang, Fei-Ling. “Organising through Division and Exclusion: China's Hukou System". 2005.

Freedom of movement is an intrinsic human right  Every human being is born with certain rights. These are protected by various charters and are considered inseparable from the human being. The reason for this is a belief that these rights create the fundamental and necessary conditions to lead a human life. Freedom of movement is one of these and has been recognised as such in Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. [1] If a family finds themselves faced with starvation, the only chance they have of survival might be to move to another place where they might live another day. It is inhuman to condemn individuals to death and suffering for the benefit of some nebulous collective theory. While we might pass some of our freedoms to the state, we have a moral right to the freedoms that help us stay alive – in this context freedom of movement is one of those.  [1] General Assembly, “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights”, 10 December 1948,

While factually true for developed nations, this point completely disregards the reality of developing nations. Most of the labour that is available is unskilled, whether it is in the rural or urban communities. There is little reason to believe that the poor will automatically be able to gain better education should they move to the city. The harm caused by letting migrants flood the cities to lead a miserable life greatly outweighs that of having one or two too intelligent farmers who miss out on their calling.

No amount of confusion can compare with the nearly anarchical state of places like Nairobi, where there is no law and very little state. [1] In the current situation where there is a menacing trend that threatens the very fabric of society, even if the law would not work to its full effect, it is better for it to work partially than not to have it at all. Corruption is a separate issue that already festers in these regions under the status quo and does not need this extra policy to thrive. This must be dealt with separately, but it is indeed regrettable if a good policy is kept from being put into practice from fear of a phenomenon that is in no manner causally contingent upon the policy.  [1] Maxwell, Daniel., “The Political Economy of Urban Food Security in Sub-Saharan Africa.” 11, London : Elsevier Science Ltd., 1999, World Development, Vol. 27, p. 1939±1953. S0305-750X(99)00101-1.

In addition to the moral concerns, it is not proven that dictatorships are sustainable in the long term. There will always be groups seeking a democratic government, which could lead to revolution.  There is a particular issue with handovers of power in dictatorships, especially those with personality cults – for example the transition to democracy after the death of Francisco Franco in 1975, or the collapse and disintegration of Yugoslavia in to ethnic conflict following the death of Tito. Many authoritarian regimes require a lot of upkeep in terms of propaganda which counterbalances the cost of elections [1] .  An election may be costly but it is also a good indicator of the performance of a government, providing a mechanism of monitoring the performance of the “social contract”. Democratic governments are accountable to their people at the ballot box, which gives those in power an incentive to perform well. If the government is not performing well they will be thrown out. In an authoritarian country if the government performs badly the people have no way to remove them and so change policies to ones that work.  Dictatorships have a different problem with political stability and that is on a smaller scale; it is difficult to know if an investment is safe because the government is arbitrary not bound by the rule of law. The results of this may not be the sweeping changes in economic policy found in democracies but can be more significant locally such as demands for high payments to operate, confiscation, or preferential treatment for competitors.  [1] Marquand, Robert, ‘N. Korea escalates ‘cult of Kim’ to counter West’s influence’, The Christian Science Monitor, 3 January 2007

business economic policy international global house believes dictatorship best

Dictatorships assure low cost political stability  Due to the lack of rotation in office, a dictatorship allows for a more stable government with more ability to plan for the long term, which is crucial for attracting foreign investment.  Given that a democracy requires regular elections, each election can change the economic environment of a country. A change in government may lead to a switch in policies, partisan appointments to government bodies, and a medium term focus always set on the next election.  Close elections can lead to disorder as votes are recounted and appeals lodged in the courts. After the 2006 Mexican presidential election, tight results lead to popular unrest and mass protests calling for a recount. The president elect had to deal with a large legislative faction that did not recognise him, and his opponent refused to concede defeat. [1] Without a stable framework, the lack of foreign confidence may impede development. The countries that have developed rapidly have tended to be those that have managed to attract this foreign direct investment thus in 2012 China managed to get $243 billion of FDI (18% of the total) against only $175 billion for the United States which is still a much bigger economy. [2]  Additionally the resources needed to operate a democratic society and run elections are a large expense for the state and society as a whole; the US presidential election costs $6bn, [3] money which would be much better spent investing in building infrastructure or businesses.  [1] See for example the case of Mexico’s 2006 elections. ‘Mass protest over Mexico election’, BBC News, 9 July 2006,  ‘Fracas mars Mexico inauguration’, BBC News, 2 December 2006,   [2] OECD, ‘FDI in Figures’, April 2013,   [3] Hebblethwaite, Cordelia, ‘US election: How can it cost $6bn?’, BBC News, 2 August 2012,

Dictatorships generally focus only on supporting one element of society, which means that there are often opposition groups from other demographics ready to oppose them. When the repression fails, the state will no longer be stable. Even if a dictatorship can create economic growth, it will not necessarily permeate through all elements of society, making them more likely to object to the government.  If a dictatorship manages to create an inclusive economy, demands for an inclusive political system will follow. While a dictatorship may work in the short term, political change will then result from this very success as shown by the countries like South Korea and Taiwan that grew rapidly as autocracies before having democratic revolutions.  According to Adam Smith, ““[c]ommerce and manufactures can seldom ﬂourish long in any state which does not enjoy a regular administration of justice, in which the people do not feel themselves secure in the possession of their property, in which the faith of contracts is not supported by law, and in which the authority of the state is not supposed to be regularly employed in enforcing the payment of debts from all those who are able to pay. Commerce and manufactures, in short, can seldom ﬂourish in any state in which there is not a certain degree of conﬁdence in the justice of government” [1] .  [1] Smith, A. (2009). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Digireads.com. [1776]. p. 546

Dictatorships are more effective than democracies at mobilizing resources for investment.  Dictatorships are superior to democracies in that they can make decisions and implement policies quicker. They can easily modify institutional and legal frameworks towards development goals, as there is no need for a political consensus behind their actions. This also insulates government from special interests that must be reconciled with in democracies. This allows dictatorships to create a pro-investment legal, economic and institutional framework such as low taxes, exchange rate manipulations and import tariffs, without facing political opposition.  For example, fracking, a technique used to extract hard to obtain gas, has generated widespread opposition in the West, leading to it being banned in France [1] . An autocratic government would find it easier to allow cheap access to this energy, boosting industry, as it could disregard this opposition.  Dictatorships can also control resources to allow for better health and education services, by determining curricula, salaries and supplies. Cuba has one of the best healthcare systems in the world, with more doctors per capita than much of the Western world [2] , and in 2009 Shanghai came first in the PISA test [3] .  [1] Castelvecchi, Davide, ‘France becomes first country to ban extraction of natural gas by fracking’, Scientific American, 30 June 2011,   [2] The Economist, ‘Reshoring manufacturing: Coming Home’, 19 January 2013,   [3] Brouwer, Steve, ‘The Cuban Revolutionary Doctor: The Ultimate Weapon of Solidarity’, Monthly Review, Vol.60 No.8, January 2009,

This makes the assumption that dictators are rational, wise and seek to encourage development, rather than operate as kleptocrats. This is why dictatorship usually does not benefit development; the very concentration of power means when they make poor decisions the effect on the country is much greater. There is a similar result with corruption, a lack of checks and balances mean that decisions can be taken and implemented quickly but this same lack also means there is little to prevent corruption.  Corruption is often rife in non-democratic societies. For example, in Cuba the healthcare system is largely reliant on bribery and is often under-resourced. One US diplomatic cable points out “[i]n one Cuban hospital, patients had to bring their own light bulbs. In another, the staff used "a primitive manual vacuum" on a woman who had miscarried. In others, Cuban patients pay bribes to obtain better treatment.” [1]  [1] ‘Wikileaks cables highlight Cuba’s health care issues’, McClatchyDC, 29 December 2010,

Dictatorships can prevent social unrest  Dictatorships are better at controlling discipline and order within society. They generally promote a state based on hierarchical values, through strict policies based on security. This allows them to prevent financial losses due to strikes and riots, and reduce crime rates, making the country more stable.  Singapore is a de-facto one party state, in which the ruling People’s Action Party, is accused of stopping the operation of opposition parties. A former Foreign Minister of Singapore has asked “How many Singaporeans really want free speech anyway? They want orderliness, a decent living” [1] . This both makes the country more competitive because there are more productive days and more attractive to invest in as expats will want to live in countries with little crime. Moreover when it comes to attracting immigration for sectors of the economy there is none of the opposition that would occur in democracies.  Autocracy may be the only way to stabilize some countries that have never had a democratic government. It has been suggested by Mancur Olson, a leading economist, that “anarchy not only involves loss of life but also increases the incentives to steal and to defend against theft, and thereby reduces the incentive to produce [2] ”. A dictatorship may be the only way to restore order and create a political framework stable enough for trade and investment.  [1] Huff, W.G. (1994). The economic growth of Singapore: trade and development in twentieth century”. Cambridge; New York; Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. p. 358  [2] Olson, M. (2000). Power and Prosperity: Outgrowing Communist and Capitalist Dictatorships. New York: Basic Books. p. 64

Those cases show that the dictatorship helped the economy. Even if it did not trigger the growth, it laid the ground work for it. In Spain’s case it was a dictator who was able to change to the necessary free market policies while in South Korea it was the previous autocrats that launched the country’s miracle. While economic policy is more important than political freedoms, dictatorships are better at implementing such a framework of policies.

Development is about more than economic growth  Amartya Sen has argued that “the removal of substantial unfreedoms […] is constitutive of development [in so far as give people] the opportunity of exercising their reasoned agency [1] ”. In a broader sense, democracy is necessary for a developed society because a precondition of a developed society is for that society to be able to decide for itself what its objectives are. It is society as a whole that needs to define what it considers to be development. The Myanmar under the junta may have considered its goals to be a strong military showing that Burma was developed. But without the citizenry agreeing this would not make Burma a strong state. Quite the opposite the lack of freedoms would show the country is not actually developed. Development means more than economic growth, it has to include other indicators as in the Human Development Index, but also things that are not even captured by that measurement such as freedom of speech.  Economic growth and GDP are even worse at demonstrating which countries are developed. Development only occurs when the wealth, and the choices it brings, reaches the people which is why Equatorial Guinea is not a developed nation despite its high income. Even in the economic realm therefore it is not just the absolute growth that matters but how it is distributed. Przeworski and Limongi show that from 1951-1990 dictatorships had higher growth rates than democracies (4.42% against 3.95%) yet the growth rate in GDP per capita was higher in democracies (2.46% against 2%). [2]  [1] Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxfor University Press. p. xii  [2] Przeworski, Adam and Fernando Limongi, 1997a; in M. ANTIĆ: “Democracy versus Dictatorship: The Influence of Political Regime on GDP Per Capita Growth”. EKONOMSKI PREGLED, 55 (9-10) pp. 773-803 (2004)

Democratic rule of law is the best ground for political stability and growth  In order for a society to develop economically, it needs a stable political framework and dictatorships are often less stable. A dictator will have to prioritize the retention of power. As repression is inevitable, a dictator will not necessarily be entirely popular. There will regularly be a doubt about the future and sustainability of a dictatorship. Bearing in mind the messy collapses of some dictatorships, a democracy may be a more stable form of government over the long term [1] .  Only democracies can create a stable legal framework. The rule of law ensures all of society has access to justice and the government acts within the law. Free and fair elections act as a bulwark against social unrest and violence. Economic freedoms and human rights protection also have positive effects on economies. Private property rights, for example, encourage productivity and innovation so that one has control of the fruits of their labour.  It has been argued by Acemolgu and Robinson in their book Why Nations Fail? The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty that inclusive political institutions and pluralistic systems that protect individual rights are necessary preconditions for economic development [2] . If these political institutions exist then the economic institutions necessary for growth will be created, as a result economic growth will be more likely.  [1] See for example the work of Huntington, S, P., (1991), The third wave: democratization in the late twentieth century, University of Oklahoma Press,   [2] Acemolgu, D., and Robinson, J. (2012). Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty. London: Profile Books.

Political regime has a limited impact on development  It can be argued that a good economic policy, such as China’s economic policies, have helped development. But a free market policy can be done with any form of government, and cannot be exclusively attached to a dictatorship or a democracy. Any political system can use it. Although it has been noted that South Korea was an autocracy during economic ‘takeoff’ its economy has also grown significantly since democratization with GNI per capita growing from $3,320 in 1987 to $22,670 in 2012. [1]  Another example is that Spanish economic growth in the 1950-2000 period. The 1960s economic miracle in Spain was not necessarily caused by Franco’s regime – he controlled the country in the 1950s, when the country did not have such economic success. In 1959, Franco opened up the Spanish economy internationally, ending the isolationist economic policies established following the Civil War so making the country free market bringing dividends. As a result Spain also grew economically after the collapse of the Franco government, continuing on following on from EU membership.  [1] The World Bank, ‘GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$)’, data.worldbank.org,

Democracy acts in the interest of the general population, which is good for development  It can be argued that a good economic policy, such as China’s economic policies, have helped development. But a free market policy can be done with any form of government, and cannot be exclusively attached to a dictatorship or a democracy. Any political system can use it. Although it has been noted that South Korea was an autocracy during economic ‘takeoff’ its economy has also grown significantly since democratization with GNI per capita growing from $3,320 in 1987 to $22,670 in 2012. [1]  Another example is that Spanish economic growth in the 1950-2000 period. The 1960s economic miracle in Spain was not necessarily caused by Franco’s regime – he controlled the country in the 1950s, when the country did not have such economic success. In 1959, Franco opened up the Spanish economy internationally, ending the isolationist economic policies established following the Civil War so making the country free market bringing dividends. As a result Spain also grew economically after the collapse of the Franco government, continuing on following on from EU membership.  [1] The World Bank, ‘GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$)’, data.worldbank.org,

Economic development is not exclusively bound up with regimes or institutions. Natural factors such as rivers for transport, potential land use and natural resources are key to explaining why some countries are more prosperous than others. Many countries with higher economic growth are authoritarian or unstable democracies [1] . These may have the necessary economic conditions for growth even without these inclusive political institutions.  [1] GDP growth on an annual basis adjusted for inflation and expressed as a percent, CIA World Facbook, 2013.

Certain economic standards have to be met to genuinely satisfy individual autonomy and freedom. If economic growth is a necessity for democracy, dictatorships are better at gaining the required growth. If dictatorships grow faster while not redistributing wealth then at least there will be more wealth to redistribute when the state does eventually start to do so. It might therefore be considered once again that it is the autocratic state that sets the conditions for democracies to take over and increase development in the non-economic areas.

Self-determination is not an absolute right. Not every territory and region in the world that seeks independence has the right to it. This is due in no small part to the fact that such a system would be unworkable. Certain criteria must be met for a territory and people to obtain a legitimate right to self-determination, including not compromising the fundamental security or territorial integrity of the original state, which a Palestinian state created through Israel withdrawing to its 1967 borders arguably, would do. Moreover, it is possible for Israel to withdraw from most of the West Bank, as it has offered to do in the past, while keeping some strategically essential land. This would allow for Palestinian self-determination whilst falling short of falling back totally to the 1967 borders.

global middle east house believes israel should return its pre 1967 borders

Failure to withdraw blocks legitimate Palestinian aspirations to statehood.  The Palestinian people since 1967 have demonstrated through resistance to Israeli occupation their desire for an independent state of their own. [1] Throughout the years polls have consistently showed respectable Palestinian majorities in favour of a negotiated two-state settlement, which would offer them an independent state as well as allowing Israel to continue to exist as an independent state alongside the new Palestinian nation. [2] Israel's refusal to withdraw to the 1967 borders means that the majority of Palestinian people are compelled to live under the control of a state they do not wish to be a part of, a violation of their right to self-determination under international law. The 1993 Vienna Declaration, which reaffirmed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Charter (and so sets the standard in current international law), unequivocally gives all peoples the right to self-determination: “All people have the right to self-determination. Owing to this right they freely establish their political status and freely provide their economic, social and cultural development...World Conference on Human Rights considers refusal of the right to self-determination as a violation of human rights and emphasizes the necessity of effective realization of this right”. [3] Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said in 2006 that the pre-1967 borders uphold the “legitimate aspiration of the Palestinian people for a secure, united, democratic and economically viable state coexisting peacefully with Israel.” [4] By this measure, the Palestinian majority in the occupied territories have the right to self-determination (by democratic processes), and Israel's suppression of that right through its refusal to withdraw to the 1967 borders should be seen as a human rights violation. Consequently, Israel should withdraw to its 1967 borders in order to end its violation of the rights of the Palestinian people.  [1] BBC News. “Israeli settlements condemned by Western powers”. BBC News. 2 November 2011.   [2] Kennedy, Hugh. “The Great Arab Conquests: How the Spread of Islam Changed the World We Live In”. Da Capo Press. 2007.  [3] United Nations World Conference on Human Rights. “VIENNA DECLARATION AND PROGRAMME OF ACTION”. United Nations. 14-25 June 1993.   [4] Agence France-Presse, NDTV. “Brazil recognises Palestinian state on 1967 borders”. NDTV. 5 December 2010.

Simply withdrawing to its 1967 borders would not end the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Violence between Israelis and Palestinians long pre-dates the 1967 war. The 1967 war itself was caused by the fact that even an Israel within its 1967 borders was hated by neighbouring states for existing. [1] Palestinian support for two-state solution, even one where Israel withdrew to its 1967 borders declined around 2008, and is waning even among the 'moderate' Palestinian camp, as well as among additional Arab elements. [2] Regarding Hamas, the reason it speaks only of “long term truces” with Israel and not peace is because it only wishes to make a deal allowing it to grow strong enough to eventually destroy the Israeli state, not to make permanent peace. [3] It is also naïve to think that an Israeli state existing within its 1967 borders would gain the favour or even support of Iran. Iran wants to be the dominant power in the Middle East, and any form of Israeli state is a threat to this. Iran has a history of supporting violent Islamist terrorist groups dedicated to Israel's destruction, such as Hamas and Hezbollah. [4] The political futures of Syria and Egypt are also uncertain, due to the unrest of the 2011 'Arab Spring', and it is not beyond the realm of possibility that both could come under the sway of Islamist groups seek Israel's total destruction.  [1] BBC News. “1967: Israel launches attack on Egypt”. BBC News On This Day. 5 June 1967.   [2] The Reut Institute. “The Trend of Palestinian and Arab Inversion towards the Two State Solution”. The Reut Institute.1 May 2008.   [3] El-Khodary, Taghreed and Bronner, Ethan. “Hamas Fights Over Gaza’s Islamist Identity”. New York Times. 5 September 2009.   [4] Los Angeles Times. "Two States? Many Problems". Los Angeles Times, Letter to the Editor. 7 May 2009

Israel has no right to the occupied territories.  Because Israel won the land during war, it is considered occupied territory under international law, and it is illegal for Israel to annex it. [1] In July 2004, the International Court of Justice delivered an Advisory Opinion observing that under customary international law as reflected in Article 42 of the Regulations annexed to the Hague IV Convention, territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army, and the occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. Israel raised a number of exceptions and objections, but the Court found them unpersuasive. The Court ruled that territories had been occupied by the Israeli armed forces in 1967, during the conflict between Israel and Jordan, and that subsequent events in those territories, had done nothing to alter the situation. [2] Even the Israeli Supreme court has ruled that “Judea and Samaria [a.k.a. The West Bank] areas are held by the State of Israel in belligerent occupation.” [3] Therefore, Israel has no better claim to these lands than that it won them in a war, which is an illegitimate claim under international law, and also illegitimate as a thinly-disguised, morally abhorrent “might makes right” argument. The fact that Arab states initiated the 1967 war does not justify Israel responding by annexing Palestinian territory. [4] A just settlement would have been a return to the previous borders in exchange for security guarantees, etc. Instead, Israel unjustly used the opportunity to take land from an innocent people. One bad act does not justify another bad act in return. Moreover, it is notable that the nations which Israel took Gaza and the West Bank from in 1967 (Egypt and Jordan, respectively) were not representative nations of the areas' majority inhabitants, the Palestinian people. [5] It is thus illegitimate for Israel to claim ownership of Palestinian land because it defeated non-Palestinian nations in a war, and Israel should therefore return to its pre-1967 borders, leaving Gaza and the West Bank to the Palestinian people.  [1] BBC News. “Israeli settlements condemned by Western powers”. BBC News. 2 November 2011.   [2] International Court of Justice. “Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”. International Court of Justice, United Nations Organisation. July 2004.   [3] The Supreme Court of Israel. “Mara'abe vs The Prime Minister of Israel”. The Supreme Court of Israel. June 2005.   [4] BBC News. “1967: Israel launches attack on Egypt”. BBC News On This Day. 5 June 1967.   [5] BBC News. “Israeli settlements condemned by Western powers”. BBC News. 2 November 2011.

Israel won the 1967 war, even though this tiny nation was up against numerous Arab nations that aggressively initiated the conflict. [1] It had and has a right, therefore, to govern territory it rightfully fought and died for. All land held by any nation was gained through conflict at one time or another; the Palestinian people came to be in possession of their land in the West Bank through the Arab Conquests of the 7th Century. [2] Why are Israel's conquests any less legitimate, especially seeing as Israel took this land in self-defence and has kept only the land it needs for its continuing security? Moreover, hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens now live in settlements beyond the 1967 borders, and Israel has both the right and responsibility to protect their lives and homes by continuing to hold this territory.  [1] BBC News. “1967: Israel launches attack on Egypt”. BBC News On This Day. 5 June 1967.   [2] Kennedy, Hugh. “The Great Arab Conquests: How the Spread of Islam Changed the World We Live In”. Da Capo Press. 2007

Returning to the 1967 borders would bring peace to Israel.  If Israel were to withdraw to its 1967 borders, the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) would recognise Israel as legitimate within its remaining territories and end the conflict. In October 2010 Senior Palestine Liberation Organization official Yasser Abed Rabbo said that the Palestinians will be willing to recognize the State of Israel in any way that it desires, if the Americans would only present a map of the future Palestinian state that includes all of the territories captured in 1967, including East Jerusalem. “We want to receive a map of the State of Israel which Israel wants us to accept. If the map will be based on the 1967 borders and will not include our land, our houses and East Jerusalem, we will be willing to recognize Israel according to the formulation of the government within the hour... Any formulation [presented to us] – even asking us to call Israel the 'Chinese State' – we will agree to it, as long as we receive the 1967 borders ” added Rabbo. [1] Even Ismail Haniyeh, leader of the more extreme Hamas organisation, has said Hamas will accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders and will offer Israel a “long term truce” if it withdraws accordingly. [2] Significant international support for Israel withdrawing to the 1967 borders also exists, even from states with a history of hostility with Israel such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, who have made such a withdrawal a precondition of peace and recognition talks with Israel. [3] [4] Even then-Israeli Prime Miniser Ehud Olmert acknowledged in 2008 that “almost all” of the territory seized during the Six-Day War in 1967 will have to be given back to the Palestinians return for peace. [5] Therefore Israel should withdraw to its 1967 borders as this would bring peace and security to Israel by ending the conflict with the Palestinians and neighbouring states.  [1] Haaretz. “PLO chief: We will recognize Israel in return for 1967 borders”. Haaretz.com. 13 October 2010.   [2] Amira Hass News Agencies, Haaretz. “willing to accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders”. Haaretz.com. 9 November 2008.   [3] Al-Quds. “Ahmadinezhad and the Implications of the Two-State Solution”. Pro-Fatah Palestinian newspaper Al-Quds. 29 April 2009  [4] UPI.com. “Saudi to Israel: Return to 1967 borders”. UPI.com. 5 November 2010.   [5] MacIntyre, Donald. “Israel will have to reinstate pre-1967 border for peace deal, Olmert admits”. The Independent. 30 Septemebr 2008.

Israel has forcibly removed settlements when transferring back occupied land in the past, most notably in 1982 in the Sinai and 2005 in Gaza. While difficult, it is possible, and any ensuing difficulties are the fault of the Israeli government for allowing these settlements in the first place, and as such the cost (of not having their own state) should not be borne by the Palestinian people.

Israel won the 1967 war, demonstrating that despite a major coordinated Arab attack on Israel, it could defend its pre-1967 borders adequately. [1] This puts the lie to the central argument that the pre-1967 borders are indefensible. They defended them before under extremely hostile conditions; they can defend them again now under less conventionally threatening conditions, with a greater conventional military capacity to wage a defence, and with the unwavering support of the United States.  [1] Johnson, Paul. “A History of the Jews”. Weidenfeld and Nicolson. 1987.

Returning to the 1967 borders would make war more likely.  The Foreign Minister of Israel, Avigdor Lieberman, said in 2009: “A return to the pre-1967 lines, with a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria, would bring the conflict into Israel's borders. Establishing a Palestinian state will not bring an end to the conflict.” [1] This is why the American ambassador to the UN at the time of the 1967 war pointed out that “Israel's prior frontiers had proved to be notably insecure”, and American President Lyndon Johnson, shortly after the war, declared that Israel's return to its former lines would be “not a prescription for peace but for renewed hostilities.” Johnson advocated new 'recognized boundaries' that would provide "security against terror, destruction, and war.” [2] An Israel that withdrew completely to the 1967 borders would offer a very tempting target, since it would be a narrow country with no strategic depth whose main population centres and strategic infrastructure would be within tactical range of forces deployed along the commanding heights of the West Bank. This would hurt Israel's ability to deter future attacks and thus make conflict in the region even more likely. This ability of Israel to deter aggressors is particularly important not only due to the region's history of aggression against Israel, but also due to the unpredictable future events in the highly volatile Middle East. There is no way, for example, to guarantee that Iraq will not evolve into a radical Shi'ite state that is dependent on Iran and hostile to Israel (indeed, King Abdullah of Jordan has warned of a hostile Shi'ite axis that could include Iran, Iraq, and Syria), nor that a Jordan's Palestinian majority might seize power in the state (leaving Israel to defend itself against a Palestinian state that stretches from Iraq to Kalkilya), nor that in the future, militant Islamic elements will not succeed in gaining control of the Egyptian regime. [3]  Given its narrow geographical dimensions, a future attack launched from the pre-1967 borders against Israel's nine-mile-wide waist could easily split the country in two. Especially seeing as Islamic militants throughout the Middle East are unlikely to be reconciled to Israel even by a withdrawal to the 1967 borders, such a withdrawal therefore would actually make peace in the region less likely and encourage war against Israel. [4]  [1] Lazaroff, Tovah. “Lieberman warns against '67 borders”. Jerusalem Post. 27 November 2009.   [2] Levin, Kenneth. “Peace Now: A 30-Year Fraud”. FrontPageMag.com. 5 September 2008.   [3] Amidror, Maj.-Gen. (res.) Yaakov. “Israel's Requirement for Defensible Borders”. Defensible Borders for a Lasting Peace. 2005.   [4] El-Khodary, Taghreed and Bronner, Ethan. “Hamas Fights Over Gaza’s Islamist Identity”. New York Times. 5 September 2009.

Many Israelis now live in the occupied territories.  Israel has more than just national security at stake in the occupied territory of the West Bank -hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens now live there, many in areas which are not strategically essential (the areas described above). Between the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights (all outside of Israel's 1967 borders), over 400,000 Israelis live in settlements in the occupied territories. [1] These ever-expanding settlements represent a barrier to Israeli withdrawing to its 1967 borders. In 1993, when Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat famously shook hands on the White House lawn, there were only 109,000 Israelis living in settlements across the West Bank (not including Jerusalem). Today there are more than 230 settlements and strategically placed 'outposts' designed to cement a permanent Jewish presence on Palestinian land. [2] Forcibly removing these settlers would be too difficult, could foment a kind of Jewish civil war, and would create a level of resentment among fundamentalist Jews that would likely inflame the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Furthermore it should be remembered that these settlers are Israeli citizens, with families, who moved to these areas because the Israeli government told them it was safe and that they would be allowed to stay, and thus Israel has a moral duty to live up to these promises by not withdrawing. Israel cannot afford this sort of internal turmoil, and should not neglect its duty to protect the rights of these citizens, and so it should not withdraw to its 1967 borders.  [1] Levinson, Chaim. “IDF: More than 300,000 settlers live in West Bank”. Haaretz.com. 27 July 2009.   [2] Tolan, Sandy. “George Mitchell and the end of the two-state solution”. The Christian Science Monitor. 4 February 2009.

Israel has the right to claim minimal territory to ensure security  Israel has been the victim of multiple major illegal wars of aggression on the part of the Arab world, most notably in 1948 and 1967. These wars invalidate any special claim made by Arabs and Palestinians to pre-1967 territory, and justify Israel in keeping as much territory as is necessary to secure itself against these hostile states. Israel could have gone much further and taken more territory than it did in 1967 (as it was easily winning the war), but instead it restricted itself to only taking the territory that was necessary for it to create security buffer. [1] When peace deals have allowed Israel to improve its security through giving up land historically, it has done so, for example when it returned the Sinai peninsula to Egypt in 1982 in exchange for a peace treaty with Egypt, or when Israel returned the small swath of Jordanian territory it held when King Hussain of Jordan wanted to make peace. To date, Israel has withdrawn from approximately 93 percent of the territories it captured. In return for peace with Syria and an end to Palestinian terror, it is prepared to withdraw from most of the remaining 7% in dispute, although not all. Israel remains committed to trading land for peace, and never annexed the West Bank or Gaza Strip because it expected to return part of these territories in negotiations. When the Palestinians finally declared that they would recognize Israel and renounce terrorism, Israel agreed to begin to withdraw. Since 1993, Israel has turned over approximately 80% of the Gaza Strip and more than 40% of the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority. Thus, Israel's objection is not so much against returning any of the land captured in 1967, but against returning absolutely all of it and going back completely to the 1967 borders, as this would mean giving up territories vital for Israel's security. The minimal slivers of territory that Israel it seeks to maintain through a peace settlement (after returning 90% of the pre-1967 territory), is very important to its national security as it offers a buffer against future Arab wars of aggression. This why Ehud Olmert stressed that only most of the occupied territory could be returned. He still argued that some had to be kept for security reasons: “We can never totally return to the indefensible pre-1967 borders, ... We simply cannot afford to make Israel [9 miles] wide again at its center. We can't allow the Palestinians to be a couple [miles] from [Tel Aviv's] Ben Gurion Airport in the age of shoulder-fire missiles with the capacity to shoot down jumbo jets.” [2] Moreover, Israel is in an anomalous situation: It is an embattled democracy that historically has had to defend itself repeatedly against the armies of neighbouring Arab states whose declared goal was nothing less than Israel's eradication. The Israel Defense Forces could not afford to miscalculate. While other nations, like France or Kuwait, have been overrun, occupied, and nonetheless have survived to reconstitute themselves, Israel, in contrast, cannot depend on obtaining a second chance. Miscalculation on its part could have had devastating consequences and, thus, its situation is unique. [3] For this critical purpose of national survival, therefore, the annexed land serves a legally legitimate purpose, especially considering that the Arab wars of aggression were what caused the annexation of the land in the first place. In such circumstances, a nation that won a defensive war has a right to set terms to ensure against future wars of aggression.  [1] Johnson, Paul. “A History of the Jews”. Weidenfeld and Nicolson. 1987.  [2] Thinkexist.com. “Ehud Olmert Quotes”. Thinkexist.com   [3] Amidror, Maj.-Gen. (res.) Yaakov. “Israel's Requirement for Defensible Borders”. Defensible Borders for a Lasting Peace. 2005.

The Middle East, and the world more generally, is a far different place than it was in 1967. There is a significantly smaller risk that Arab states will gang up in a conventional war against Israel. This owes significantly to the fact that Israel is much more powerful militarily, Arab states are less powerful relatively, and the military alliances and dynamics in the region tend to favour Israel more. All of this means that maintaining a buffer in Israel, with the post-1967 borders, for the sake of defending against a collective Arab assault is highly unreasonable. Israel does not need this buffer. It can return to its pre-1967 borders.

Migration results from poverty; poverty will not be solved through migration. Migration is a survival strategy - therefore development initiatives are required first for poverty to be reduced. Three points need to be raised. First, patterns of migration showcase the prevalence of a 'brain drain' [1] across Africa, and inputting a free labour market will continue to attract skilled migrants to desired locations. Research by Docquier and Marfouk (2004) indicates Eastern and Western Africa accounted for some of the highest rates of brain drain; with rates increasing over the past decade . Rather than promoting free movement African nations need to invest in infrastructure, health and education, to keep hold of skilled professionals.  Second, the extent to which remittances are ‘developmental’ are debatable. Questions emerge when we consider who can access the money transferred (gender relations are key) and therefore decide how it is used; the cost, and security, of transfer.  Lastly, migration is not simply ‘developmental’ when we consider social complexities. Research has identified how increased mobility presents risks for health, particularly with regards to the HIV/AIDS epidemic [2] . Therefore migrating for jobs may put the migrant, or their partner, at risk of HIV/AIDS.  Migration cannot resolve poverty disparities across Africa. Poverty disparities, both spatial and social, reflect the unequal, growing, gap between the rich and the poor. Neither economic growth, or migration, will reduce poverty in the face of inequality.  [1] ‘Brain drain’ is defined as the loss of high-skilled, and trained, professionals in the process of migration.  [2] See further readings: Deane et al, 2012.

ment international africa society immigration minorities youth house would

Migration is 'developmental'.  Recent reports by the HDR (2009) and WDR (2009) have shown migration is a means of development – free movement has the power to alleviate poverty, enable markets, and connectivity. Taking recent evidence concerning worldwide remittance flows, the developmental nature of free movement is shown.  In 2013, it is estimated, through international migration, $414bn were remitted back to developing countries [1] . Remittance flows into Africa (from within and internationally) accounted for $40bn in 2010, accounting for an increasing percentage of GDP (AfDB, 2013; IFAD, 2013). Northern Africa articulated the largest total of remittances received. Remittances remain beneficial for supporting livelihoods. The influx of remittances to households provides security, an additional income for support, enables household consumption, and investment in alternative assets, such as education and land, of which present crucial benefits in reducing poverty. Although the geography of remittances remains uneven, and currently barriers remain to sending and receiving money, the developmental potential of remittances from African diasporas (both outside and within Africa) is now recognised [2] .  [1] See further readings: World Bank, 2013.  [2] For additional information on the debate of migration, remittances and social development see further readings: De Haas, 2010.

A unified labour market will not be achieve if root issues remain unresolved.  Within East Africa, the construction of an East African Community has been met with political tensions. The recent evictions of nearly 7,000 Rwandan refugees from Tanzania indicate the idea of free movement does not provide a sufficient basis for unity [1] . Despite regional agreements for free movement, political tensions, the construction of ethnicity and illegality meant forced deportation was carried out by Tanzanian officials. Political hostilities amongst heads of government is continuing to divide the nations within East Africa.  Further, cases of xenophobia remain prevalent across Southern Africa. Frequently reported cases of xenophobic attacks on foreign nationals - including nationals from Zimbabwe, Mozambique, and Malawi [2] - indicate the inherent tensions of migration when jobs remain scarce and poverty high. Dangers occur in advocating a free labour market when the perception of migration is misunderstood, and/or politically altered.  [1] See further readings: BBC News, 2013.  [2] See further readings: IRINa.

The freedom to move is a human right.  Mobility is a human right - which needs to be enabled across national spaces and Africa. Obstacles need to be removed. Mobility enables access to interconnected rights - such as ensuring women their right to move enables empowerment in the political, social and economic spheres.  Taking the case of migration of young people, the process reflects a right of passage, a means of exploring opportunities and identity.For example the Mourides of Senegal have established a dense network sustaining informal trading across multiple scales based on a foundation of ‘Brotherhood’ youths leaving rural areas become integrated into dynamic social networks and educated within the Mouride culture. As research in Tanzania shows although migration is not a priority for all youths, many identify the opportunity as a time to prove yourself and establish your transition into adulthood. The process empowers human identity and rights.

Free movement will provide benefits for productivity.  A free labour market provides a space for sharing (knowledge, ideas, and socio-cultural traditions), competing, and sustaining efficiency in development. As neoliberal theory advocates a laissez-faire approach is fundamental for growth. A free labour market will enhance economic productivity. Free labour movement enables access to new employment opportunities and markets.  Within the East African Community the Common Market Protocol (CMP) (2010) has removed barriers towards the movement of people, services, capital, and goods. Free regional movement is granted to citizens of any member state in order to aid economic growth. Free movement is providing solutions to regional poverty by expanding the employment opportunities available, enabling faster and efficient movement for labour, and reducing the risk of migration for labour. Similar to initial justifications of Europe’s labour market, a central idea is to promote labour productivity within the region [1] .  [1] Much criticism has been raised with regards to the flexible labour market in Europe - with high unemployment across national member states such as Spain, Ireland, and Greece; the prevalent Euro-crisis, and backlash over social welfare with rising migration. Disparities remain in jobs, growth, and productivity across the EU.

The benefits of a free labour market are merely based on an idealistic reality. The CMP has only existed for three years so it is impossible to draw any conclusions. When looking at whether migration enhances productivity questions need to be raised. First, what jobs are provided in the new destination? Are the jobs safe and secure, or within informal employment? Second, where is productivity actually encouraged? Is the distribution occurring across an even geography; and assisting the poor? As yet there are no answers.

The reality of achieving free labour movement is not as simple as it may seem in practice. Contradictions have emerged in the laws implemented by national governments, such as Uganda, and the desired EAC regional laws. In addition, the recent eviction and detainee of refugees from Rwanda and Burundi, from Tanzania, indicate political tensions are at the heart of ensuring 'free' movement. Labour and migrant workers rights cannot be guaranteed until the duty, and responsibility, is taken on at multiple scales - from local, national, and regional authorities.  Finally, in order for mobility to be seen as a right, labourers and migrants need to be granted the right to organise. Currently, labour unions operate at a national scale - for mobility to be accepted as a right and migrant rights to be recognised labour unions are required across COMESA, EAC, and ECOWAS.

Promoting a free labour market across Africa will exacerbate difficulties for planning. The geography of migration is uneven; and spatial disparities in the proportion of migrants presents challenges for urban and rural planning, which needs to be considered.  First, where will migrants be housed? The housing crisis, and prevalence of slums, across Africa show an influx of new workers will overburden a scarce resource. In addition, the complex, and insecure, nature of land tenure across Africa raises further questions for housing and productivity - will new migrants be able to buy into land markets to enhance their capabilities? Second, are road infrastructures safe enough to promote the frequent movement of labour? Will implementing a free labour market ensure the safety of those migrants?  We need to ensure planners and policy can establish fundamental rights to a home, land, and personal safety, before promoting free movement.

Policies towards a free labour market will create unity.  National borders are a result of Africa’s colonial history. The boundaries constructed do not reflect meaning or unite ethnic groups across the continent. The border between Togo and Ghana alone divides the Dagomba, Akposso, Konkomba and Ewe peoples. [1] Therefore encouraging freedom of movement across Africa will erase a vital component of Africa’s colonial history.  The erasing of boundaries, for labour markets, will have significant impacts for rebuilding a sense of unity, and reducing xenophobic fears, of which have been politically constructed.  A sense of unity will motivate citizens to reduce disparities and inequalities of poverty.  [1] Cogneau, 2012, pp.5-6

Implementing a free labour market will enable effective management of migration.  Even without the implementation of a free labour market, migration will continue informally; therefore policies introducing free movement and providing appropriate travel documents provides a method to manage migration. In the case of Southern Africa, the lack of a regional framework enabling migration is articulated through the informal nature of movement and strategic bilateral ties between nation-states.  Several benefits arise from managing migration. First, speeding up the emigration process will provide health benefits. Evidence shows slow, and inefficient, border controls have led to a rise in HIV/AIDs; as truck drivers wait in delays sex is offered [1] . Second, a free labour market can provide national governments with data and information. The provision of travel documentation provides migrants with an identity, and as movement is monitored, the big picture of migration can be provided. Information, evidence, and data, will enable effective policies to be constructed for places of origin and destination, and to enable trade efficiency. Lastly, today, undocumented migrants are unable to claim their right to health care. In Africa, availability does not equate to accessibility for new migrants. In South Africa, migrants fear deportation and harassment, meaning formal health treatment and advice is not sought (Human Rights Watch, 2009). Therefore documentation and formal approval of movement ensures health is recognised as an equal right.  [1] See further readings: Lucas, 2012.

Positives arise from a predominantly male out-migration. Women are provided with a means of strategic, and practical, empowerment - as power is redistributed within the household. Women are placed in a position whereby capital assets and time can be controlled personally [1] .  [1] For more on the debate see: Chant (2009); Datta and McIlwaine (2000).

The prevalence of trafficking across Africa today is not new so it is likely a free labour market will make little difference. Further, uncertainty remains as to whether or not the extent of human trafficking is actually rising. With the exact number of cases unknown [1] - are concerns sensationalised hype or a growing reality?  [1] See further readings: IRINb, 2013.

Urbanisation without industrialisation, the dangerous livelihoods of migrants.  Across Africa a reality of ‘urbanisation without industrialisation’ is found (Potts, 2012). Economic growth, and activity, have not matched the urban phenomena across Sub-Saharan Africa. The sombre picture of urban economics questions - what do new migrants do as opportunities are not found?  More than 50% of Youth in Africa are unemployed or idle. [1] With migrants entering urban environments presented with a lack of safe and secure jobs unhealthy sexual politics are found, and precarious methods are used to make a living. The scarcity of formal jobs, means a majority of migrants are forced to work in informal employment. Informal employment will continue to rise creating its own problems such as being barrier to imposing minimum wages and employment security.  [1] Zuehlke, 2009

Who is left behind?  In promoting a free labour market, we need to ask: who is left behind? To understand the developmental nature of migration investigation is needed into who doesn’t migrate - the non-migrant’s lifestyles raise key concerns.  Data from the EAC indicates the EAC labour market remains popular among over 65's and in favour of men; and further, a majority of employment occurs within agriculture [1] . The labour market remains inadequate in providing jobs for women and youths. Women and youths reflect disproportionate numbers of those forced to adapt, and create, new livelihoods following migration. Further, migrants are returning home, retiring, and therefore with limited effect on productivity.  The impact of migration is distributed unequally. In a previous study by Brown (1983) the detrimental effect of male out-migration from rural areas in Botswana was indicated. Family units were altered, changing to being predominantly female-headed households, the lack of human capital resulted in sustaining the agrarian crisis, and women were forced to cope with the burden of care. Little assurance was found as to whether the men would return, or remit resources.  [1] EAC, 2012.

Migration reasonings and exploitation.  A free labour market perceives migration in a predominantly neoclassical light - people migrate due to pull factors, to balance the imbalance of jobs, people move due to economic laws. However, such a perspective fails to include the complex factors enticing migration and lack of choice in the decision. Promoting a labour market, whereby movement is free and trade enabled, makes it easier to move but does not take into account the fact migration is not only purely economical. By focusing on a free labour market as being economically valuable, we neglect a bigger picture of what the reasons for migration are.  Without effective management a free labour market raises the potential of forced migration and trafficking. Within the COMESA region trafficking has been identified as a growing issue with the 40,000 identified cases in 2012 being the tip of the iceberg (Musinguzi, 2013). A free labour market may mean victims of trafficking will remain undetected. Moving for ‘work’, how can distinctions be made to identify trafficked migrants; and clandestine migration be managed?  A free labour market, across Africa, justifies cheap and flexible labour to build emerging economies - however, remains unjust. Promoting free labour movement needs to be matched with a question on ‘what kind of labour movement’?

Working within informal employment is better than nothing. Although debates have raised over the costs-benefits of informal employment - when considering the need for capital, money, and an income, informal employment presents a better alternative.

Not all nations are equal. In an area where high technology is essential rich nations may be able to monitor all cyber intrusions but there will be many countries without the necessary systems. This treaty would therefore in effect be making poor countries without cyber defences into fair game. In theory they would be protected by the treaty, in practice with no monitoring there would be nothing they could do.

States will monitor each other, and an international body could be set up  Once a treaty is set up to limit or eliminate cyber-attacks monitoring is unlikely to be a problem because states will be willing to monitor each other. States in order to defend themselves from cyber-attacks already monitor the cyber-attacks that occur – the United States for example already has several cyber defense forces. [1] If that is not enough then there are numerous private groups that will be monitoring cyber-attacks as most are made against corporate rather than government targets. For example private company Mandiant exposed a unit of the People’s Liberation Army for its cyber-attacks in February 2013. [2] Once a cyber-attack has been traced and evidence gathered if the appropriate domestic authorities won’t deal with the culprit then an independent international institution can decide on the punishment for the government that is not living up to its treaty commitments.  If there is a need for international monitoring rather than simply a dispute settlement mechanism then there are models available through current treaties; a UN organisation similar to the International Atomic Energy Agency or International Criminal Court could be set up that can investigate incidents when asked.  [1] US Department of Defense, ‘The Cyber Domain Security and Operations’   [2] Mandiant, ‘Exposing One of China’s Cyber Espionage Units’, mandiant.com, February 2013,

While it is true that governments for the most part seek to prevent non-state actors that engage in violence we should not assume that the response will be the same for activities that are not violent. The rise of multinational companies has sometimes (particularly in the 1970s) been mentioned as a threat to the state (particularly poorer states where the MNC may be richer than the state) yet many countries promote their MNCs because they bring them wealth and therefore power. [1] Similarly having non state groups that are able to engage in cyber-attacks bring an advantage to those states that have them as they provide benefits both in conflicts (essentially creating a cyber-militia) and in peace where they engage in espionage so damaging competitors businesses.  [1] Kobrin, Stephen J., ‘ Sovereignty@Bay : Globalization, Multinational Enterprise, and the International Political System’, The Oxford Handbook of International Business, 2000,

Arenas of potential conflict must be regulated  Conflict needs to be regulated, and something that can start conflicts even more so. Warfare and conflict is currently regulated by the Geneva Conventions that seek to limit the effects of armed conflict and regulate the conduct of the involved actors. [1] Just as importantly there are rules on what weapons can be used through various treaties that ban weapons such as the Land Mine Ban, [2] and on when a state can legally initiate conflict through the UN Charter.  In just the same way when a new area of potential conflict arises that too must be regulated by treaty. The internet and the threat of cyber-conflict is that new area at the moment. While cyber warfare is not currently a large scale threat it is still a form of conflict that could escalate just like any other - the Pentagon has explicitly stated it could respond militarily to a cyber-attack. [3] As a result it is most sensible to draw up the rules and regulations early, to ensure everyone knows the consequences and prevent damage by making sure that states agree not to engage in offence cyber-attacks against each other.  [1] ‘The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols’, ICRC, 29 October 2010,   [2] ‘Convention on the prohibition of the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines and on their destruction’, un.org, 18 September 1997,   [3] Brookes, Adam, ‘US Pentagon to treat cyber-attacks as ‘acts of war’’, BBC News, 1 June 2011,

While there are bans on certain weapons these are because such weapons are considered beyond the pale. This is either because they are horrifying as in the case of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, or indiscriminate as with land mines. This does not apply to cyber warfare. Other regulations similarly do not provide a good parallel as the Geneva conventions seek to limit the effects of armed conflict a similar treaty is clearly not necessary for cyber-conflict because the effects will already be limited by the type of conflict. Ultimately cyber-attacks are much more akin to espionage and are not regulated because they are small scale, localised, and have limited effects as well as being difficult to trace.

It is unlikely that all states would see this as beneficial to them. There will always be some states that benefit more from engaging in cyber-attacks than others – usually the underdog in other areas. If cyber-attacks are an area being used to redress the balance then why should they be willing to restrict their freedom of action? This is why Russia is unwilling to engage in deep cuts in the number of nuclear weapons it has – they are the main area of armaments in which they have an advantage over their potential adversaries.

The use of the internet undermines the state by demonopolizing the use of force  Ever since the state rose to ascendancy over powerful internal actors, such as the nobility in a feudal system, the state has had a monopoly on the use of force. The state quickly became the only institution with the resources to maintain military forces and has become the only legitimate wielder of force. The internet however changes this. Cyber-attacks are often by individuals or groups who can carry out a cross border attack without the aid of their home country.  In 2011 CIA director Leon Panetta told Congress “when it comes to national security, I think this represents the battleground for the future. I've often said that I think the potential for the next Pearl Harbor could very well be a cyber-attack.” [1] If cyber-attacks are so important it stands to reason that the groups who are able to engage in such activities should be as limited as possible. While it is not always possible states try to make sure that the weapons of war for the most part remain in the hands of responsible actors. This should apply as much in cyberspace as elsewhere. While terrorist groups do exist – and are occasionally armed by states – for the most part they are seen by every government as being illegitimate.  [1] Serrano, Richard A., ‘U.S. intelligence officials concerned about cyber attack’, Los Angeles Times, 11 February 2011,

A cyber treaty benefits everyone  A treaty that bans, or sharply curtails cyber-attacks would benefit every state. Even those who may currently benefit from cyber espionage would be better off signing up to the treaty.  First most cyber-attacks are not carried out by the state even in countries like China where the state is using the internet as an offensive tool. In its annual report to congress the Department of Defence stated some cyber-attacks “appear to be attributable directly to the Chinese government and military” but this does not sound like a majority. [1]  Secondly no state wants a risk of conflict as a result of an unregulated new field of potential conflict. Or even to risk relations with other nations; cyber-attacks in large part go on because they are cost free.  And finally all nations are the victims of cyber-attacks. The United States has repeatedly condemned cyber-attacks against it but China also claims that it is the victim of cyber-attacks. China’s Minister of National Defense General Chang Wanquan says “China is one of the primary victims of hacker attacks in the world.” [2] Having a treaty against cyber attacks would not only make business easier for all countries but it would build up trust between nations where it is currently being eroded.  [1] Office of the Secretary of Defense, ‘Annual; Report to Congress Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2013’, Department of Defense,  p.36  [2] Brook, Tom Vanden, ‘Cyber attack? What cyber attack?’, USA Today, 19 August 2013,

Clearly cyber-attacks are not currently deadly but this does not mean they will not become so in the future. Leon Panetta has warned “A cyber-attack perpetrated by nation states or violent extremist groups could be as destructive as the terrorist attack of 9/11”. Such an attack would be indirect – unlike setting a bomb – but could be just as effective “An aggressor nation or extremist group could gain control of critical switches and derail passenger trains, or trains loaded with lethal chemicals. They could contaminate the water supply in major cities, or shut down the power grid across large parts of the country.” [1] At the moment systems are not really connected enough to allow this but it is pretty much certain that technology will become more sophisticated, control more systems, and become more and more connected. This is immensely beneficial economically but does create vulnerability.  [1] Garamone, Jim, ‘Panetta Spells out DOD Roles in Cyberdefense’, American Forces Press Service, 11 October 2012,

There is no reason to assume that nations cannot get along on the issue of cyber security just because cooperation has not been prevalent so far. The US and China despite regularly accusing each other of launching cyber-attacks have set up a joint US-China working group on cyber security. [1] There is clearly a willingness to work together on this issue.  As to working out who is behind attacks the United States at least claims to be capable of doing this. Panetta says the Department of Defence can track attacks so “Potential aggressors should be aware that the United States has the capacity to locate them and hold them accountable for actions that harm America or its interests.” [2] That computers in multiple countries should be taken over in order to launch an attack should simply provide another reason why all nations should want to be involved in preventing cyber-attacks.  [1] ‘US-China cyber security working group meets’, BBC News, 9 July 2013,   [2] Garamone, Jim, ‘Panetta Spells out DOD Roles in Cyberdefense’, American Forces Press Service, 11 October 2012,

A treaty would benefit larger powers over the small  Any treaty that seeks to ban cyber-attacks would simply be an attempt to cement the position of the most powerful countries at the expense of weaker ones. This is because cyber-attacks are, like terrorism, weapons that can be used by anyone to attack a much bigger target. To launch a cyber-attack there is little need for training, only a small amount of comparatively cheap equipment (to military hardware at any rate), and an internet connection. [1] And it is difficult to defend against. This makes it ideal for poor nations to maintain cyber warfare as a credible threat to their bigger neighbours while their neighbours threaten them conventionally with their bigger militaries. We have seen before arms treaties that are fundamentally biased in favour of a small group of powerful states. Most notable is the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty where there are five recognised nuclear weapons states who are allowed the horrific weapons and everyone else is banned from having them. This discrimination was accepted as a result of the agreement that the nuclear weapons states would eventually disarm. It has not happened so leaving a troubled treaty system that appears to be regularly flouted. [2]  [1] Phillips, Andrew T., ‘Now Hear This – The Asymmetric Nature of Cyber Warfare’, U.S. Naval Institute, Vol.138/10/1316, October 2012,   [2] Miller, Steven E., ‘Nuclear Collisions: Discord, Reform &amp; the Nuclear Nonproliferation Regime’, American Academy of Arts &amp; Sciences, 2012,

Unlike warfare cyber-attacks don’t kill so they don’t need to be restricted in the same way  Warfare needs to be closely regulated because of the numbers of people who can be killed and the devastation that can result. This is not something that is a concern with cyber-attacks. So far cyber-attacks have not been very effective. ‘Stuxnet’ was a computer worm targeted an important control system in the Iranian nuclear program sabotaging gas centrifuges by making them run out of control. It was created by US and Israeli intelligence yet was not particularly effective, and certainly did not kill anyone. [1] Other major attacks have infected a large number of machines, such as ‘Shamoon’ that attacked the Saudi state oil company ARAMCO which affected 30,000 computers, but again this is simply destruction of property. [2] No matter how indiscriminate cyber-attacks may be that they don’t cause large numbers of deaths means there is little need to ban such attacks – it simply does not matter if attackers don’t follow a set of conventions like the Geneva conventions.  [1] Barzashka, Ivanka, ‘Are Cyber-Weapons Effective? Assessing Stuxnet’s Impact on the Iranian Enrichment Programme’, RUSI Journal, Vol.158, Issue 2, 28 April 2013,   [2] Garamone, Jim, ‘Panetta Spells out DOD Roles in Cyberdefense’, American Forces Press Service, 11 October 2012,

It would never work  There are immense challenges to making a treaty seeking to prevent or curtail cyber-attacks work. Even on issues where there are clear security concerns it is unusual for the involved nations to be willing to get along and cooperate. This has proven to be the same with regards to the internet governance with Russia and China wanting greater state control while the US and Western Europe is opposed. [1] Even on issues where lives are being lost there is often no global agreement as can be seen by the deadlock in the UN security council over what to do about the civil war in Syria. [2]  Additionally there is the problem that working out who engaged in a cyber-attack is difficult. Such attacks are often routed through proxy computers to launch their attacks. If attacking a difficult target that may seek to strike back the attack will be through numerous proxies which will be in numerous countries to make tracking back difficult. [3] This means there can be misattribution of attacks creating confusion about which state needs to act domestically to prevent the cyber-attacks – or in the worst case resulting in a response aimed at the wrong country. For example South Korea has blamed its Northern neighbour for an attack on the website of the South Korean Presidency but the hacking is more likely to have been the work of someone in South Korea itself as a South Korean detailed his plans on Twitter before the attack. [4] If it is difficult to attribute who launched the attack then it would clearly be easy to get around any ban.  [1] Nebehay, Stephanie, ‘China, Russia seek greater control of Internet’, Reuters, 7 March 2013,   [2] Black, Ian, ‘UN may struggle to respond to reports of Syrian chemical attacks’, The Guardian, 21 August 2013,   [3] Greenemeier, Larry, ‘Seeking Address: Why Cyber Attacks Are So Difficult to Trace back to Hackers’, Scientific American, 11 June 2011,   [4] Koo, Soo-Kyung, ‘Cyber Security in South Korea: The Threat Within’, The Diplomat, 19 August 2013,

Everyone would benefit from the potential closure of a zone of possible future conflict. While cyber warfare may give a smaller state a brief advantage due to some low cost methods of attack ultimately the superior resources, both in defence and attack in cyberspace of the richer state would be telling. In the United States the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) alone has a budget of $1.54billion for research into cyber offence from 2013-2017 [1] considering that there are numerous other agencies involved in cyber warfare or defence, or monitoring the internet it is clear that cyber-attacks are not some wonder weapon that can even the odds between states.  [1] Kallberg, Jan and Thuraisingham, Bhavani, ‘Cyber Operations: Bridging from Concept to Cyber Superiority’, Joint Force Quarterly, Vol.68, no.1, January 2013,

The west has historically not been good at picking the winner in the Middle East; take its backing of Saddam in the 1980, the Shah in the 1970s, or the mujahideen in Afghanistan. All have either lost power or turned on those who supported them. If we back the wrong group in Syria then we end upon a worse position than backing none at all; the west is already perceived as being pro Sunni and is seen as being partisan rather than attempting to build a broad inclusive democracy for all communities. [1] So backing any group simply undermines longer term western aims to create a democracy.  [1] Yacoubian, Mona, in ‘Roundtable: arming the Syrian rebels’, Foreign Policy, 21 February 2013

It is in the national interest for democracies to support those seeking to oust dictators  Democracies should support moderate groups seeking to oust dictators because the result will hopefully be a moderate, democratic state. This would then be a reliable partner for the future that would be more willing to help engage and resolve the region's problems. But this is not all about being high minded and wanting to promote democracy in the Middle East, arms need to be provided in order to ensure future influence in Syria. We already know that there are jihadis operating in Syria so it is plain that this is a conflict that will eventually have wider implications for the west. If we want to have influence in Syria after Assad is overthrown then we need to begin helping opposition groups. It is in our interest to build up the moderate groups so as to deny support to the extremists; once this is over we would be in a much better position if we have grateful friends on the ground rather than groups who are resentful that we provided fine words but no real help. We don't want to find ourselves having to root out terrorists from the air using UAVs. [1]  [1] Hokayem, Emile, in ‘Roundtable: arming the Syrian rebels’, Foreign Policy, 21 February 2013

And what happens to these weapons afterwards? Air defensive systems that can destroy Syrian jets could pose an equal risk to Israeli or western warplanes. While Israel was surprised by Hezbollah's use of anti tank systems that did not stop the Israeli army from ultimately prevailing in the conflict so there is little reason to believe that 'evening the odds' will really alter the outcome of the conflict.

Diplomacy is not going anywhere  The best solution would be a ceasefire between the two sides in the Syrian civil war and a negotiated settlement, but it is clear we are long past the point where this approach stood a chance of success. The United Nations peace effort under Kofi Annan failed in the middle of last year [1] and there has been no progress since. Similarly all attempts to bring pressure to bear throughout the security council have failed as a result of Russia supporting Assad's regime. This leaves the unilateral initiatives to help the rebels. No state wants full intervention as France did in Mali [2] so the only alternative is simply to help the Free Syrian Army. To do so means providing what they need to win the conflict; primarily arms that can defeat the Syrian army. This need not be considered to be exclusive with diplomacy; the intervening state should continue to try to find a diplomatic solution just as before the Dayton accords NATO helped the Croats militarily while at the same time looking to diplomacy to provide an overall solution to the conflict. [3]  [1] Plett, Barbara, ‘Syria crisis: Kofi Annan quits as UN-Arab League envoy’, BBC News, 2 August 2012  [2] See the debatabase debate ‘ This House believes France is right to intervene in Mali ’.  [3] Hokayem, Emile, in ‘Roundtable: arming the Syrian rebels’, Foreign Policy, 21 February 2013

Syria clearly meets the standards for intervention  The Assad regime has clearly lost its legitimacy and has precipitated a humanitarian crisis in Syria. The February estimate of 70000 killed [1] is up from an estimate of 60000 only a month before, [2] so clearly the violence is escalating. The conflict is also affecting neighbours; refugees have flooded into Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey, and Israel is already believed to have attacked a convoy or research facility involved in chemical and biological weapons development. [3] Clearly the presence of these weapons show how much worse the situation could get if Assad is not overthrown. Not intervening risks the whole region being slowly destabilised and drawn in to the conflict. [4]  [1] Nichols, Michelle, ‘Syria death toll likely near 70,000, says U.N. rights chief’, Reuters, 12 Feb 2012  [2] ‘Data suggests Syria death toll could be more than 60,000, says UN human rights office’, UN News Centre, 2 January 2013  [3] ‘Q&amp;A: Israeli ‘strike’ on Syria’, BBC News, 3 February 2013  [4] Byman, Daniel, in ‘Roundtable: arming the Syrian rebels’, Foreign Policy, 21 February 2013

The if the rebels are armed and the regime gets close to losing surely it will simply increase the bloodshed and have greater motive to use its chemical and biological weapons. Therefore arming either side simply increases the potential for killing. A balance of death is not what anyone should be looking for in Syria.

Simply because there is stalemate in diplomacy and on the ground does not make arming the rebels the option that should now be taken, indeed it does not mean that outside powers need to take any action at all. Those with Syria's best interests at heart would remain on the sidelines, provide humanitarian assistance, and encourage new diplomatic initiatives. The response should not be to turn Syria into a rerun of the proxy wars of the Cold War with the west arming be side and Russia the other.

Balance in this case would not be a good thing as this would simply mean a much longer continuation of a bloody civil war. The longer the conflict continues the more difficult it is to put Syria back together again when peace finally does arrive.

The Free Syrian Army is outgunned  The Syrian army is one of the biggest armies in the world; it is nothing like the poorly equipped Libyan army that was beaten by western backed rebels in 2011. The government has aircraft, and helicopters that are used to bomb the rebels, and heavy Russian built tanks that are impervious to most of the small arms the free Syrian army has. Providing arms would quickly even the odds; light anti-tank weapons would be effective against Syrian armoured vehicles repeating the success with which Hezbollah employed them when they knocked out sixty Israeli armoured vehicles in 2006, [1] while man portable air defence systems would quickly make the skies too dangerous for the Syrian airforce so protecting free Syrian controlled areas from the threat of attack from the air. [2]  [1] Cordesman, Anthony H., ‘Preliminary “Lessons” of the Israeli-Hezbollah War’, Center for Strategic and International Studies, 17 August 2006, P.18  [2] Doran, Michael, and Shaikh, Salman, ‘Arm the Syrian Rebels. Now’. Foreign Policy, 8 February 2013

Would balance the support for Syrian government  Syria's government has been receiving outside support from a variety of sources; Russia and Iran being the most prominent. Iran has been training the Jaysh al- Shabi, a Syrian government-controlled force modelled on Iran's Basij militia. Far from just providing weapons, both Iran and Hezbollah from Lebanon have been sending fighters to support the Syrian government. [1] The rebels have received some support for Qatar and Saudi Arabia but not to the extent the Syrian government has. Anyone with an interest in the free Syrian cause should realise that they cannot do so simply by sitting on their hands expecting a victory when those doing the fighting are only provided diplomatic support.  [1] Doran, Michael, and Shaikh, Salman, ‘Arm the Syrian Rebels. Now’. Foreign Policy, 8 February 2013

This is a pointless argument; the consequences of inaction are just unknowable. Doing nothing could lead to exactly the same consequences. Alternatively arming the moderates could speed the end to the civil war and the creation of a democratic state.

This makes the assumption that the Assad government is considered the legitimate authority within Syria, the Russians accept this, but other countries are less sure. Both the US and UK now recognise the Syrian opposition as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people [1] which would mean arming them would be legal in the same way that the Russians consider arming Assad to be internationally legal.  [1] Malas, Nour, and Solomon, Jay, ‘U.S. Formally Recognizes Syria’s Main Rebel Group’, The Wall Street Journal, 12 December 2012

Arming the rebels would be unpopular  Ten years after the Iraq war interventions in the Middle East are no more popular than they were back in 2003. Getting involved in Syria would not be popular no matter how small the commitment. In the United States voters oppose the idea of supplying arms to Syrian rebels by 45% against to only 16% in favour, in the United Kingdom opinion is even more opposed; while there are still 16% in favour there are 57% opposed. [1] Clearly arming the rebels would not be popular with voters - there can therefore be no domestic reason for this policy.  [1] Clark, Tom, ‘US and UK public reject stronger military support for Syrian rebels’, guardian.co.uk, 22 March 2013

Would it work?  The most fundamental question for any policy is whether it would actually work if implemented? In this case it seems to be doubtful that in practice arming the rebels would be enough to allow them to prevail. It will simply be helping to even the odds; providing enough arms to prevail over a fully equipped army that is supplied by Iran and Russia would require a truly colossal effort. No one is seriously going to consider providing M1 Abrams tanks to overcome Syrian armour when there are even concerns about providing anti-aircraft missiles. Even supporters of arming the rebels such as Senator John McCain say "this alone will not be decisive". All arming the rebels does then is make the government appear to be doing something (in a bad way since it is an unpopular policy), and stick a toe in the water (also bad as that may lead to escalating commitments), and another decision point six months down the line. [1]  [1] Lynch, Marc, ‘Shopping Option C for Syria’, Foreign Policy, 14 February 2013

Possibility of being drawn into a long drawn out conflict  Even just providing the rebels with arms risks drawing the powers that supply those arms into the conflict. [1] This is because it gives the intervening power a stake in the conflict. Once weapons have been supplied allowing the Syrian government to reassert control would be a large foreign policy reversal and would damage relations with the Syrian government for years to come.  We need only look at the Vietnam conflict to know that what starts out as a very small commitment can rapidly escalate when the government decides it cannot afford to back down. What starts as just arming the rebels could quickly lead to troops on the ground. Indeed it might require men on the ground right from the start as if we were to be providing heavy weapons the rebels would need training in how to use those weapons if they are to seriously be considered an equaliser.  [1] Byman, Daniel, in ‘Roundtable: arming the Syrian rebels’, Foreign Policy, 21 February 2013

Unforeseeable consequences  We do not know where arming the rebels will lead. The most obvious parallel has to be Afghanistan in the 1980s where the United States armed the mujahideen and succeeded in their objective of damaging the USSR through a war of attrition much as the US had suffered in Vietnam. Afghanistan became an albatross around the Soviet Union’s neck. [1] But the US did not win the peace, Afghanistan descended into civil conflict which had a Taliban victory that sheltered Osama bin Laden; US arms in Afghanistan unintentionally lead more than a decade later to September 11. In this case we would be arming a movement that has many jihadi elements that could end up with the weaponry. Other countries such as Turkey are also worried about where powerful weapons such as anti aircraft missiles could end up if provided to the rebels. They fear they could easily find their way across the border to militant Kurds. [2] Other paths that this could lead to are just as bad; for example helping the Libyan rebels lead to the conflict in Mali. [3] In this case the short term consequences could be just as bad. Arming the Sunnis could provoke retaliation from either Iran or Hezbollah who could feel undermined by the move, in the worst case scenario they could even attack western assets in the area. [4]  [1] Hoffman, David E., The Dead Hand: Reagan, Gorbachev and the Untold Story of the Cold War Arms Race, Icon Books Ltd, 2011, p.211  [2] Hokayem, Emile, in ‘Roundtable: arming the Syrian rebels’, Foreign Policy, 21 February 2013  [3] Jones, Owen, ‘The war in Libya was seen as a success, now here we are engaging with the blowback in Mali’, The Independent, 13 January 2013  [4] Yacoubian, Mona, in ‘Roundtable: arming the Syrian rebels’, Foreign Policy, 21 February 2013

We cannot know whether this policy will work until it is tried. The Free Syrian Army has been remarkably successful so far capturing large swathes of the country and taking the fight to the regime in the capital Damascus. [1] With more sophisticated weaponry to naturalise the tanks, warplanes, helicopters of the regime the Free Syrians may well be able to finish the job.  [1] BBC News, ‘Syria: Mapping the insurgency’, 4 December 2012

Sovereignty and non intervention in internal affairs  It is a clear international rule that nations are sovereign and other states are simply not allowed to be making interventions into another country’s domestic affairs. The UN Charter emphasises “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state”. [1] Within a state only the government is legitimate as the supreme authority within its territory. [2] This is to prevent the bigger and richer powers from doing exactly this sort of thing to obtain the result they want inside another country. This is why Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated "International law does not permit the supply of arms to non-governmental actors and our point of view is that it is a violation of international law," in response to suggestions that the UK would arm the Syrian rebels. [3]  [1] UN General Assembly, Article 2, Charter of the United Nations, 26 June 1945  [2] Philpott, Dan, "Sovereignty", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)  [3] Abbas, Mohammed, ‘Russia says arming Syrian opposition would be illegal’, Reuters, 13 March 2013

The strategic situation in Syria is nothing like that which meant the US felt it could not withdraw from Vietnam. There is no line of 'dominos' that could be knocked over in a row as a result of a victory by the Syrian government. Far from it, some of Syria's neighbours like Jordan may be strengthened by a government victory as it would halt the momentum of protest against rulers in the region. There is also no large scale outside power that would take advantage of Syrian government victory as was the case with the USSR in the Cold War. In this case such a result would mean a return to the status quo, not something the west would desire, but hardly a strategic disaster so cutting losses if the policy does not work would be comparatively easy.

Public opinion is not the decider of what is right and wrong in foreign policy; people are rarely in favour of any kind of action in a volatile international situation. Had public opinion been the decider the allies would have rolled over and let Poland be taken in World War II.

This proposition line does not lead to a situation where developing countries forgive their colonisers and forget the suffering of the past; rather, it will lead to a situation where they identify those colonial forces as the source of their suffering, but also as the power which tried to undermine their human integrity by paying them off. Such developing countries will always view reparations as ‘insufficient compensation’ [1] , because there is no lump sum on money which can atone for the acts and atrocities committed against human life. This motion is not only ineffective but will exacerbate the current situation by portraying the West as a place where money has a higher value than the human lives of developing countries; as such, there is no reason for former colonies to believe that their have gained any status other then an ‘opportunity’ for the West.  [1] Accessed from  on 12/09/11

africa global house believes former colonial powers should pay reparations

Reparations would be a step towards closing colonial scars.  It is difficult for former colonies to feel as if they can move on and develop a wholly independent identity when their ties to the past, and to their former colonisers, have not been definitively ended. For example, while it is important to remember those who suffered under slavery, the overwhelming memory of it [1] overpowers the history of those countries and innately links them back to former colonial powers. Furthermore, many of the problems now faced by former colonies can be traced back to the actions of colonial-era masters, for example the birth of ethnic tensions between minorities in Rwanda [2] and Burundi [3] . In order to move on from that damaging legacy, and to conclusively prove that such prejudices are always wrong, it is necessary for former colonial powers to show a tangible move towards closing that colonial chapter of their history. In this way they can begin to move towards a fresh, equal and co-operative relationship with the developing countries which were their former colonies, without the background of history which currently warps such relationships. Italy’s payment of reparations to Libya [4] allowed Libya to ‘mend fences with the West’ [5] and to improve international relationships. This is a step to recognise developing countries as a nation, rather than an economic opportunity. In this way, reparations would be an effective way of demonstrating a global community and spirit.  [1] Accessed from  on 12/09/11  [2] Accessed from  on 12/09/11  [3] Accessed from  on 12/09/11.  [4] Time. ‘Italy Pays Reparations to Libya’. Published 02/09/2008. Accessed from  on 12/09/11.  [5] Accessed from  on 12/09/11

These reparations have done little to satisfy the recipient countries. For example, Israel asked Germany to improve the reparations agreement [1] , which resulted in Germany withdrawing reparations entirely [2] and only served to increase tensions between the two nations. Furthermore, Israel has become reliant on German reparation money [3] , suggesting that reparations do not in fact allow the recipient country to develop their whole national identity without ties to former dominating countries. Moreover, despite the payment of reparations from Italy to Libya, Libya still believes that it was ‘insufficient compensation for colonial damages’ [4] . Just because reparations have been made in the past does not, by any means, show that they were successful or indeed that they are the best option available in the present day.  [1] Accessed from  on 12/09/11.  [2] Accessed from  on 12/09/11  [3] Accessed from  on 12/09/11  [4] Accessed from  on 12/09/11

Reparations demonstrate a true concern for the developing world.  Even alongside the colonial justifications for providing reparations, there are also many other strong reasons why former colonial powers should grant reparations. Former colonial powers tend to be economically developed, like America, Britain and France. The developed world should recognise the dire poverty and social challenges fed by the developing world today. Giving aid as an act of charity can sometimes be seen as derogatory [1] , and is even rejected by the potential recipients [2] [3] [4] . However, reparations allows a transfer of wealth between these countries in a way which is sensitive to the history between them, and which also demonstrates a desire to improve their relationship. It allows aid to be given to the developing world in a means which is dignified but not spurious.  [1] Accessed from  on 12/09/11  [2] Accessed from  on 12/09/11  [3] Accessed from  on 12/09/11  [4] Accessed from  on 12/09/11

What happened during the colonial era was morally wrong.  The entire basis for colonisation was predicated on an innate ‘understanding’ and judgment of one superior culture and race [1] . This ethnocentric approach idolised western traditions while simultaneously undermining the traditions of the countries which were colonised. For example, during the colonisation of America, colonists imposed a Westernised school system on Native American children. This denied their right to wear traditional clothing [2] or to speak their native language [3] , and the children were often subject to physical and sexual abuse and forced labour [4] . The cause of this was simply ignorance of culture differences on behalf of the colonists, which was idyllically labelled and disguised as ‘The White Man’s Burden’ [5] . Colonial powers undermined the social and property rights [6] of the colonies, using military force to rule if civilians should rebel against colonisation in countries such as India [7] . After Indian fighters rebelled against British colonial force in the Indian Mutiny of 1857-58 [8] , the British struck back with terrible force, and forced the rebels to ‘lick up part of the blood’ from the floors of the houses [9] . The actions which occurred during colonisation are considered completely inappropriate and undesirable behaviour in a modern world, and in terms of indigenous rights to culture and to property, as well as human rights more generally. Reparations would be a meaningful act of apology for the wrongs which were committed during the past.  [1] Accessed from  on 11/09/11  [2] Accessed from  on 11/09/11  [3] Accessed from  on 11/09/11  [4] Accessed from  on 11/09/11  [5] Accessed from  on 11/09/11  [6] Accessed from  on 11/09/11  [7] Accessed from  on 11/09/11.  [8] Accessed from  on 11/09/11  [9] Accessed from  on 11/09/11

This is a very one-sided assertion of past events. It was not only the colonists who acted in an unacceptable manner; for example, during the Indian Mutiny, a party of sepoys ‘execute[d] the 210 women and children’ with guns and knives [1] . Some, though horribly wounded, remained alive until morning [2] . History is very complex; while there were certainly atrocious events, it is unfair and untrue to apportion blame to only one party – namely, the colonists. In any case, in the face of such atrocities, it is completely superficial to imagine that mere money could wipe the slate clean. Reparations are used to correct a past wrong [3] ; it would be derogatory to assume that we can pay people off for acts such as these, and that they require no more hindsight or consideration.  [1] Accessed from  on 11/09/11  [2] Accessed from  on 11/09/11  [3] Accessed from  on 11/09/11

Disguising the purely economic balance illustrated here as a demonstration of heartfelt regret undermines the principles outlined by previous proposition arguments. This is, in fact, a hollow gesture – one that is disguised as a reparation to overcome a country’s right (though we may not agree with it) to reject the aid which is offered to them. The rejection of aid is a demonstrative action in itself; it sends a message that the recipient country does not wish to associate themselves with the donor country. By trying to use reparations as a loophole, this concept simultaneously criticised the recipient country’s right to choose whether they receive aid or not, and undermines the value of reparations elsewhere as a genuine gesture.

Most of the Western world is currently undergoing a financial crisis [1] . However prosperous these former colonies might have been, in the modern world they simply do not have the money to provide reparations to these countries on any scale which might come close to closing the economic gap between them. America’s enormous debt almost caused a complete economic collapse in August [2] ; Britain was struggling under £2252.9 billion of debt as on July 2011 [3] . The proposition’s naive balancing argument fails to take into account the realities of the economy and debt in raising this motion – it would be impossible to achieve.  [1] The Telegraph. ‘Double-dip fears across West as confidence crumbles’. Published on 30/09/2011. Accessed from  on 12/09/11  [2] BBC. ‘IMF calls for US to raise debt ceiling and cut spending’. Published 25/07/2011. Accessed at  on 12/09/11  [3] Accessed from  on 12/09/11

There is already a precedent for paying reparations to such states.  In the past, dominating global powers have paid reparations and compensation for historical wrongs. For example, Germany pays an annual amount of money to Israel to recognise wrongs committed against Jews during the Holocaust, and to recognise the theft of Jewish property at this time [1] . These reparations have helped Israeli infrastructure enormously, providing ‘railways and telephones, dock installations and irrigation plants, whole areas of industry and agriculture’ [2] and contributing to Israeli economic security. Japan also paid reparations to Korea after World War II as the Koreans were ‘deprived of their nation and their identity’ [4] . Britain has paid compensation to the New Zealand Maoris for the damage done during colonial times and the seizure of their land [5] , and Iraq pays compensation to Kuwait for damage done during the invasion and occupation of 1990-91 [6] . There is little reason why other nations should not be paid for the grievances caused to them by domination countries. There is support for the notion that colonial powers should pay for free universal education in Africa [7] ; this would be an entirely appropriate and desirable measure.  [1] 'Holocaust Restitution: German Reparations', Jewish Virtual Library, accessed 16/1/2014,   [2] 'Holocaust Restitution: German Reparations', Jewish Virtual Library, accessed 16/1/2014,   [4] Accessed from  on 12/09/11  [5] Accessed from  on 12/09/11  [6] Accessed from  on 12/09/11  [7] Accessed from  on 12/09/11

Reparations would effectively right the economic imbalance caused by colonialism.  Given that much of the motive for colonisation was economic, many former colonies have suffered damage to their natural resources [1] or human resources, [2] which has left them less able to sustain a healthy economy. Colonists targeted countries with rich natural resources and little ability to defend themselves from invasion and manipulation. By this method, they could supply their own markets with the natural resources which they had already exploited at home [3] , and find cheap (or free) human labour for their markets [4] . Given that powerful countries such as Britain [5] and France [6] gained their own economic prosperity through the exploitation of the economic potential of the colonies, it is entirely appropriate and logical that they should pay reparations as compensation. In this way, the economic disparity between former colonies and colonists would be equalised.  [1] Accessed from  on12/09/11  [2] Accessed from  on 12/09/11  [3] Accessed from  12/09/11  [4] Accessed from  on 12/09/11  [5] Accessed from  on 12/09/11  [6] ‘The Haitian Revolution and its Effects’. Patrick E. Bryan. Accessed from  on 12/09/11.

Taxpayers already fund the foreign aid which is distributed habitually [1] [2] ; they are not to blame for a famine in Somalia, for example, but they continue to pay for it [3] . There is frequently a disconnection between the people who pay for aid and the people who receive it. However, we recognise that the need is great enough in such countries to make it not only legitimate, but a moral duty. Most citizens of former colonial powers can recognise that some of the acts committed during colonial times was wrong and deserves repairing. Given that this is a productive means of doing so, and already has the precedent of foreign aid more generally, it is entirely appropriate.  [1] The Daily Mail. ‘Foreign aid budget to cost every family £500’. Published 22/10/2010. Accessed from  on 12/09/11  [2] Accessed from  on 12/09/11  [3] BBC. ‘Somalia famine: UK insists aid is “getting through”’. Published 18/08/2011. Accessed from  on 12/09/11

Given that many former colonies remain poor (even after so many years), it is very unlikely that these people would have no need for such money. The difference in timescale is irrelevant; what is relevant is that such former colonies have a demonstrated need for this money, and that atrocities occurred during the colonial era. If it became to hard to track down specific people, it would also be easily possible to give money to the government as Italy did to Libya [1] , in which case the potential for improved infrastructure and basic living conditions could have a nation-wide benefit. Just because it may be difficult does not overrule the many powerful arguments that we should do this.  [1] Accessed from  on 12/09/11

Such reparations would do little to actually improve the developing countries.  Reparations are an incredibly short-term economic measure. To have any substantial impact, long-term systems would need to be put in place to truly benefit such countries, and it would be far better to encourage sustainable growth [1] than a one-off bumper payment. Developed countries should look towards improving their long-term relationship with former colonies and establishing measures such as fairer trade rules or debt relief as an efficient measure. This would allow the aid to be focused in the places where these countries need it most.  The symbolism of reparations is also potentially dangerous. Firstly, paying reparations may bring the belief that former colonial powers have ‘paid their debt’ and no longer have to seek to improve their own conduct of foreign policy. Secondly, this measure would allow dictators such as Robert Mugabe to feel justified in their declarations that colonial powers are independently responsible for all the problems affecting their countries [2] [3] [4] . In this way, Mugabe tries to hide his own shortcomings and place blame entirely on the West, which has negative impacts on the potential for international relations. In the case of Italy’s reparations to Libya, this could be seen as strengthening the Gaddafi dictatorship at the expense of the Libyan people and the West, particularly as Gaddafi is prone to blaming the West [5] or indeed anybody else he can [6] .  [1] Accessed from  on 12/09/11  [2] Accessed from  on 12/09/11  [3] Accessed from  on 12/09/11  [4] Accessed from  on 12/09/11  [5] Accessed from  on 12/09/11  [6] Accessed from  on 12/09/11

The very payment of reparations exerts a neo-colonial power over former colonies.  The recognition that many former colonies are in desperate economic need only adds to the sense that former colonial powers desire to hold sway over them. Giving reparations induces dependency and can weaken the appearance of government in the former colonies, and may allow the donor government to exert influence over policy areas within the recipient country [1] . Far from giving the recipient country the means to develop itself as an independent nation, this motion simply recalls the old power structure which existed during colonisation.  [1] Accessed from  on 12/09/11

Reparations unfairly target the taxpayers of former colonial powers who had nothing to do with the deeds committed under colonisation.  It is unclear who exactly is being punished under this mechanism. Ordering reparations rather than, for example, a public apology from a monarch or government, only serves to harm tax-paying citizens whose money would be used to pay such reparations. There is a huge disconnection between the people who actually committed wrongs and the people who are now forced to literally pay for them. This is likely to lead to an increase in hostility from the taxpayers who do not understand why they are being punished, towards the people of former colonies. It is no longer a case where reparations could ever be paid from the direct profits of exploitation as any profit from that must have been spent long ago. It is wrong to impose undue guilt and obligation of payment on to people who are entirely disconnected from that history.

Time has removed the opportunity to truly make reparations to those who may have deserved it.  Reparations are used to make ‘amends for wrong or injury done’ [1] ; it is impossible to truly achieve this when the victims of wrongdoing are long since dead. Moreover, reparations which may have been made immediately after colonisation could have had a specific purpose – for example, to rebuild property which was destroyed, or to restore items which were wrongfully taken. However, the development of both countries has led to a very different state of affairs in both, and there may no longer be an obvious end for the money from reparations. There is also no precedent for giving reparations to countries after so long a period of time. For example, Germany began paying reparations to Israel in 1952 [2] , only 7 years after World War II ended in 1945. Time also makes it very difficult to judge who the ‘victims’ are now. The descendants of original victims may well be independently wealthy now – would it be right to financially cripple of Western country and their people, already suffering from economic depression, to pay people who may not need it now? In any case, it would take a very long to even work out how we could pay reparations, let alone whether we should.  [1] Accessed from  on 12/09/11  [2] Accessed from  on 12/09/11

There is a fundamental difference here between colonisation and the modern day; whereas colonial powers were formerly damaging infrastructure [1] and natural resources [2] , in the modern day under reparations they would be helping to preserve such resources and finance the development of a sound infrastructure. Nor would the former colonial powers be exerting military strength [3] [4] [5] . There is an obvious difference between the relations of a colonial power and its colony, and a developed nation offering reparations to a less developed nation. One notable change is that the flow of money has changed direction – instead of exploiting the economic potential of the colony, the developed country is actually giving money to the former colony. This opposition point simply does not stand  [1] Accessed from  on 12/09/11  [2] Accessed from  on 12/09/11  [3] Accessed from  on 12/09/11  [4] Accessed from  on 12/09/11  [5] Accessed from  on 12/09/11

It is entirely possible that reparations could be paid in smaller instalments over a much longer term as Germany has done [1] , thereby providing a longer-term solution rather than one lump sum. Furthermore, it is likely that if former colonial powers offer reparations as a genuine attempt to accept and apologise for the wrongs previously committed, the longer-term relationship between the two countries would be eased. Finally, it is at least more likely that citizens in countries such as Zimbabwe and Libya might re-think their opinion of the West if reparations and help were offered, rather than blankly refused. While the dictators may continue to denounce the West, it will be harder for them to do so if former colonial powers show every attempt to help and communicate with the people they have wronged.  [1] Rising, David, 'Germany increases reparations for Holocaust survivors', Times of Israel, 16 November 2012,

Georgia's government is democratic and modern in its institutions. It is fully capable and intent on governing S. Ossetia democratically and honestly. Moreover, if the aim of the S. Osseitans' is to join with Russia, upon seceding from Georgia (as seems likely), then the many arguments it is putting forward in support of its national identity and right to self-determination do not apply in the same way, as they would be simply exchanging minority status in one state for minority status in another, and not truly seeking their own homeland where Ossets would be a majority, as they claim. This means that arguments about Ossetian being its own language and the Ossets having a long history of self-rule are not in fact arguments for secession, as secession would simply result in a transfer to Russia and not a truly Ossetian state. Therefore, the real question is: does Georgia or Russia have a greater claim to S. Ossetia as part of its territory? The historical arguments made by proposition clearly should Georgia to have a greater claim here.

global politics society minorities house believes south ossetia should be

Georgian rule in South Ossetia is historically illegitimate and oppressive  Modern Georgia never really controlled S. Ossetia. South Ossetia declared independence from Georgia shortly after Georgia gained independence from the disintegrating USSR in 1991. South Ossetia has maintained de facto independence ever since. [1] Georgia, therefore, cannot really claim to have had sustained, legitimate sovereign control over South Ossetia in modern times. Even the USSR recognised S. Ossetia as distinct from Georgia, with the Kremlin stating in 1920 that “we consider that Ossetia should have the power it prefers. Georgian intrusion into affairs of Ossetia would be an unjustified intervention into foreign internal affairs”. [2] S. Ossetia was an autonomous region within the USSR. It was not considered part of the same region that is now Georgia, and thus during its years under the USSR, S. Ossetia built up a significant degree of autonomy and independence in its internal functioning. Therefore, Georgia's only real claim to South Ossetia must extend back nearly a century, before the time of the Soviet Union.  This significantly weakens Georgia's claim over South Ossetia, but moreover Georgia's historical claim on South Ossetia is quite weak even in isolation. This is because S. Ossetia has its own distinct language and history to that of Georgia. Ossetian or Ossetic is a member of the Northeastern Iranian branch of Indo-European languages. About 500,000 people speak Ossetian in Ossetia. [3] , [4] That Ossetia has this distinct language is an important fact in favour of its status as a nation-state and in favor of its independence. Georgia, however, has been accused of committing genocide against the South Ossetians in 1920, 1993, and 2008, with tens of thousands of S. Ossetians dying over the course of these conflicts. [5] The Georgian government has also attempted to suppress S. Ossetian culture and identity, for example banning the use of the Ossetian language in official documents and abolishing S. Ossetian autonomy within Georgia. [6] Georgian rule in S. Ossetia is therefore both ahistorical, due to S. Ossetia's long and recognised history of independence and cultural and linguistic distinctness, and illegitimate, as the Georgian government has waged war upon the very lives and identity of the S. Ossetian people.  [1] BBC News. “S Ossetia votes for independence”. BBC News. 13 November 2006.   [2] Bzarov, Ruslan. “Independence of the Republic of South Ossetia – a guarantee of safety and reliable future of the Ossetian people”. Speech of Doctor of historical sciences, Professor Ruslan Bzarov at the VI congress of the Ossetian people. September 2007.   [3] BBC News. “S Ossetia votes for independence”. BBC News. 13 November 2006.   [4] Omniglot. “Ossetian”. Omniglot.   [5] Portyakova, Natalya and Sysoyev, Gennady. “Measuring South Ossetia by Kosovo”. Kommersant. 15 November 2006.   [6] Makarkin, Alexei. “How is South Ossetia different from Kosovo?”. RIA Novosti. 9 March 2006.

If S. Ossetians renounce violence, no future conflicts will occur. S. Ossetian militant separatists argue that, if S. Ossetia is not given independence, that future violence and chaos will result. Yet, this is only the case if S. Ossetian separatists continue to resist Georgia's sovereignty violently. If S. Ossetians renounce the use of force and their separatism, there will be no future conflicts. This is an equally valid solution as independence. Furthermore, the US State Department rejected the 2006 independence referendum and warned that it would “only serve to exacerbate tensions and divert attention from the need to peacefully resolve the conflict.” [1]  [1] The Georgian Times Online. “US slams separatists' decision”. The Georgian Times. 9 November 2006.

South Ossetia has a right to self-determination  The 1993 Vienna Declaration, which reaffirmed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Charter (and so sets the standard in current international law), unequivocally gives all peoples the right to self-determination: "All people have the right to self-determination. Owing to this right they freely establish their political status and freely provide their economic, social and cultural development...World Conference on Human Rights considers refusal of the right to self-determination as a violation of human rights and emphasizes the necessity of effective realization of this right". [1]  By this measure, South Ossetia has the right to self-determination (by democratic processes), and any suppression of that right should be seen as a human rights violation. In 2006, South Ossetia held a referendum that found over 99% of its population of over 100,000 desire independence from Georgia. 95% of the population turned out to vote. The referendum was monitored by a team of 34 international observers. [2] These facts are the core of the case for South Ossetian independence. It demonstrates that South Ossetians are entirely unified and enthusiastic in their desire for independence. The strength and unity of these calls for independence are almost unprecedented and cannot be ignored by the international community. And, certainly, the percentage of a population that desires independence is of relevance to assessing the legitimacy of the call and a country's right to self-determination. By this standard, South Ossetia's right to self-determination is highly legitimate.  [1] United Nations World Conference on Human Rights. “VIENNA DECLARATION AND PROGRAMME OF ACTION”. United Nations. 14-25 June 1993.   [2] BBC News. “S Ossetia votes for independence”. BBC News. 13 November 2006.

Self-determination is not an absolute right. Not every territory and region in the world that seeks independence has the right to it. This is due in no small part to the fact that such a system would be unworkable. Certain criteria must be met for a territory and people to obtain a legitimate right to self-determination (for example, viability as an independent state and an authentic internal drive for independence), and S. Ossetia arguably does not meet many of these criteria. Therefore S. Ossetia possesses no absolute right to self-determination, and its calls for independence must be evaluated in the context of what the consequences of independence would be. Furthermore, no countries recognized South Ossetia's 2006 referendum and vote for independence at the time it was carried out, and few do now. Without such approval, the referendum should be considered illegitimate. The European human rights watchdog, the Council of Europe, denounced the referendum as "unnecessary, unhelpful and unfair". [1]  [1] Walker, Shaun. “South Ossetia: Russian, Georgian...independent?”. Open Democracy. 15 November 2006.

South Ossetian independence will help prevent future conflict  The status quo in the region is one of militarized clashes and tensions. It is important to recognize that South Ossetia has been de facto independent for some time. If it does not achieve independence, the proposed alternative is that it re-integrate into Georgia. Yet, of South Ossetians have made it clear that they will not accept this. The only possible course of action, therefore, would be to force over 100,000 South Ossetians to live under the tyranny of the majority of the Georgian state. This would not only be a clear violation of self-determination and basic democratic principles, but it would also risk a protracted war or insurgency in S. Ossetia against any re-assertion of Georgian authority. S. Ossetia and Georgia have been battling each other for over a century. Georgia has been accused of ethnic cleansing there, and of launching a 'war of aggression' which killed a large number of S. Ossetian civilians in 2008. [1] This war, as the culmination of Georgian aggression against S. Osstia, has made finally made any sort of reconciliation between the two impossible, and hardened S. Ossetian desires for independence. Keeping S. Ossetia within Georgia will simply prolong this ethic struggle, which has demonstrated itself to be irreconcilable in the foreseeable future. This conflict could easily draw in other powers (such as Russia) and cause a wider war once again. Granting S. Ossetian independence, therefore, would help avoid future conflicts and their awful humanitarian consequences.  [1] Walker, Shaun. “South Ossetia: Russian, Georgian...independent?”. Open Democracy. 15 November 2006.

It is invalid to criticize S. Ossetia's referendum for risking instability. The US State Department as well as the European Union both argued that the South Ossetia referendum was wrong on the basis that it was “unhelpful” and could exacerbate tensions with Georgia. [1] This, however, is an invalid status quo argument. It posits that any vote taken by the South Ossetians that disrupts the status quo is invalid, while a vote that might uphold the status quote could be considered valid. This is an unprincipled argument. The South Ossetians have a right to express their beliefs, and those beliefs are legitimate and should be respected, irrespective of whether it disrupts the status quo or even leads to conflict with Georgia. And, if Georgia and other states want to maintain stability, they can do so by not reacting violently to an independent South Ossetia.  [1] The Georgian Times Online. “US slams separatists' decision”. The Georgian Times. 9 November 2006.

Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs described the 2006 referendum as a “free expression of the will of South Ossetia’s people through democratic procedures. Many countries in Europe and America could only envy the level of organization and democratic transparency [in South Ossetia].” [1] (10)Similarly, Luis Tascón, a member of the National Assembly of Venezuela, stated during visit to S. Ossetia that “Those people who wish to be free will be free. And the free peoples will help South Ossetia with it.” [2] (13) Denying the legitimacy of this democratic referendum (whose flaws have not been proved to have been so severe as to discredit it entirely) is to deny the South Ossetian people the right to self-determination.  [1] Socor, Vladimir. “MOSCOW’S FINGERPRINTS ALL OVER SOUTH OSSETIA’S REFERENDUM”. Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 3 Issue: 212. The Jamestown Foundation. 15 November 2006.   [2] Enotes. “South Ossetian independence referendum, 2006”. Enotes.

A South Ossetian state is unviable  There are many factors that make South Ossetia unviable as a state. South Ossetia is very small with a very small population. It is also a landlocked state and very poor. These facts make it unlikely that South Ossetia could act effectively as an independent state. The result is that it would become dependent on other states. [1] This can already be seen from the fact that S. Ossetia has only been able to secure its current de facto independence with substantial military and foreign aid from Russia. [2] S. Ossetia is economically unviable as an independent state. It is landlocked and only has meaningful road access to the sea through Georgia. S. Ossetian GDP was estimated at US$ 15 million (US$ 250 per capita) in a work published in 2002. S. Ossetia is arguably lacking in the basic economic necessities for autonomy. Indeed, a $15 million GDP would make South Ossetia one of the poorest nations in the world. Particularly following a war with Georgia in the 1990s, South Ossetia has struggled economically. Employment and supplies are scarce. The majority of the population survives on subsistence farming. Virtually the only significant economic asset that South Ossetia possesses is control of the Roki Tunnel that links Russia and Georgia, from which the South Ossetian government reportedly obtains as much as a third of its budget by levying customs duties on freight traffic. The separatist officials admitted that Tskhinvali received more than 60 percent of its 2006 budget revenue directly from the Russian government. [3] [4] Finally, S. Ossetia has a population of roughly 70,000. [5] This would make it one of the smallest states in the world. This fact, combined with its high level of poverty, makes it a poor candidate for independence, and shows that its “independence” would compel it to become even more dependent on Russia, or else risk disintegrating as an unviable state.  [1] BBC News. “S Ossetia votes for independence”. BBC News. 13 November 2006.   [2] Socor, Vladimir. “MOSCOW’S FINGERPRINTS ALL OVER SOUTH OSSETIA’S REFERENDUM”. Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 3 Issue: 212. The Jamestown Foundation. 15 November 2006.   [3] Walker, Shaun. “South Ossetia: Russian, Georgian...independent?”. Open Democracy. 15 November 2006.   [4] Vaisman, Daria. “No recognition for breakaway South Ossetia's vote”. The Christian Science Monitor. 10 November 2006.   [5] BBC News. “S Ossetia votes for independence”. BBC News. 13 November 2006.

Georgia has a right to territorial integrity  Georgia has a legitimate sovereign right to maintain its territorial integrity as well as the social contract accompanying it. Georgia has the right to take action to secure the integrity of these things, unless blocked by a higher international authority. Internationally, S. Ossetia's independence is recognised by only five nations (including Russia), demonstrating that the international community is not convinced that S. Ossetia's claim to self-determination trumps Georgia's claim to territorial integrity. [1] In order to obtain independence, it is important that a country be recognized diplomatically by a significant number of the members of the United Nations. This is important in large part because it ensures that a state will have viable diplomatic relations internationally if it becomes independent. It also demonstrates that the international system supports a certain action being taken internationally. Thus Georgia's claim should continue to stand until the international community changes its mind, and at the moment the international community has legitimate concerns regarding the regional instability and conflict that an independent S. Ossetia might foster. Moreover, as shown above the S. Ossetian state is entirely dependent on Russian support, and so it can be accurately stated that the issue of S. Ossetian independence, and its threat to Georgian territorial integrity, has arisen only because of Russian interference within Georgia. Even those who argue that any region has the right to self-determination would probably reject the idea that nations have the right to foster and encourage parts of other nations to secede from their current state and join another. The S. Ossetian independence movement can thus be correctly seen simply as Russian aggression against Georgia for its own advantage, not an issue of self-determination.  [1] RIA Novosti. “Nicaragua recognizes South Ossetia and Abkhazia”. RIA Novosti. 4 September 2008.

Illegitimacy of the 2006 referendum  South Ossetia was wrong to hold elections under conflict conditions. In 2006, South Ossetia can be said to have been in 8 conflicts with Georgia when it held its 2006 referendum on independence. Holding referendums under such conflict conditions is generally illegitimate because the results of the elections are skewed by the conflict, threats, and the various risks for the voters involved. This caused David Bakradze, the chairman of a Georgian parliamentary European Integration Committee, to comment, “Under conflict conditions, you cannot speak about legitimate elections.” [1] This mirrors European human rights watchdog, the Council of Europe’s, denunciation of the referendum as "unnecessary, unhelpful and unfair". [2] Furthermore Russia's involvement in the 2006 referendum arguably corrupted its validity, as many of the authorities in S. Ossetia were installed there by the Russian government. [3]  [1] Radio Free Europe. “Overwhelming Support For South Ossetia Independence”. Radio Free Europe. The Journal of the Turkish Weekly. 13 November 2006.   [2] Walker, Shaun. “South Ossetia: Russian, Georgian...independent?”. Open Democracy. 15 November 2006.   [3] Socor, Vladimir. “MOSCOW’S FINGERPRINTS ALL OVER SOUTH OSSETIA’S REFERENDUM”. Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 3 Issue: 212. The Jamestown Foundation. 15 November 2006.

S. Ossetia has an effective democratic government which carries out an effective control over the territory and the population. It has independent legal procedure, army and militia and security service. The state levies taxes, provides property rights and social service – public health services, provision of pensions, public safety, power and road and transport services, etc. [1] (4) All this clearly points to the viability of an independent S. Ossetian state -a fact which already exists on the ground. Or, if it wants, after independence S. Ossetia is morally within its rights to re-join with its kith-and-kin in North Ossetia, which is part of Russia. Of course, it would have to first separate from Georgia, whereupon it will have the capacity to then decide to join Russia. Moreover, few states n the world are truly self-sufficient, and there are plenty of poor landlocked countries, so in this sense S. Ossetia would not be unique. Furthermore, poverty from continual conflict is an argument to end the conflict, not against independence.  [1] Bzarov, Ruslan. “Independence of the Republic of South Ossetia – a guarantee of safety and reliable future of the Ossetian people”. Speech of Doctor of historical sciences, Professor Ruslan Bzarov at the VI congress of the Ossetian people. September 2007.

At that rate, war in Africa is not going to be ended by 2020. Moreover, progress in the past does not mean that the progress will continue into the future.

africa politics warpeace house believes african union can meet its pledge

Progress in ending conflict in Africa  Conflict in Africa is slowly being ended. In 1992 there were 18 conflicts in Africa; by 2009 this had been halved to 9. [1] But a decline in the number of conflicts is not the only positive trend in African conflicts: there has also been a decline in the size of wars. They have changed from wars between two organised armies to being small scale insurgencies. In 1984 the conflicts were on average causing more than 20,000 battle deaths per year, but by 2008 only around 1,000. Even the number of incidents of genocide and mass killing has been going down from 9 in the 1980s to five in the 2000s. [2] Ending war might therefore be considered to be ambitious but it is not against the trend and not inconceivable.  [1] Straus, 2012, pp.183-184  [2] Straus, 2012, pp.189-191

Increasing the number of peacekeeping missions does not always mean that the result will be peace; clearly if there is a need for peacekeeping or even more so combat troops then peace has broken down. The United Nations has almost 70,000 peacekeepers deployed in Africa ,yet new conflicts and crises keep erupting; in 2013 there were new conflicts in Mali, South Sudan, and the Central African Republic. In the case of Southern Sudan this is despite there being 7500 UN peacekeepers in the country. [1]  [1] Raghavan, Sudarsan, ‘Record number of U.N. peacekeepers fails to stop African wars’, Washington Post, 4 January 2014,

The Solemn Declaration  The Solemn Declaration did not just highlight the goal but also that it would be achieved through three techniques: by 1, addressing the causes of conflicts – economic and social disparities, strengthening judicial systems to ensure accountability, and reaffirming collective responsibility, 2, preventing emerging sources of conflict such as piracy getting a foothold, and 3, engaging in conflict prevention. [1]  Africa has been building the African Peace and Security Architecture to address these causes of conflict. It has created the Peace and Security Council that facilitates the AU’s response to crises; it can engage in actions from humanitarian assistance to military intervention if there are particularly grave circumstances such as genocide. [2] When it does authorise action, this action is coordinated by the AU commission. When it comes to peaceful resolution of conflict, the AU has a ‘Panel of the Wise’ made up of former presidents and others with lots of influence and moral authority who use preventative diplomacy to try to resolve conflicts. [3]  [1] African Union, 2013, p.5  [2] Williams, Paul D., ‘The African Union’s Conflict Management Capabilities’, Council on Foreign Relations, October 2011,  , p.7  [3] Ibid, p.12

Having a system is useless if it is not sufficiently funded to fulfil its objectives, at the moment the AU does not provide sufficient funding for peacekeeping. [1]  Moreover, reaction does not prevent war - just shortens it and reduces the intensity. The Panel of the Wise is one method of attempting to stop conflict before it becomes really violent but external mediators can only do so much in preventing conflict; most needs to come from the parties in conflict.  [1] Williams, 2011, p.12

Fiddling around with what is considered to be a war is not resolving the problem of conflict in Africa. The most devastating conflicts have been internal conflicts – if we want to end war in Africa we need to prevent these conflicts from occurring too.

The increasing effectiveness of the African Union  The African Union has been taking a much more active stance in preventing and resolving conflict. Since 2003 responsibility for peace in Africa has been with the Peace and Security Council. This body has authorised AU interventions in Somalia, Sudan, Burundi, and the Central African Republic. [1] The African Union is not the only organisation engaged in peacekeeping; the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) has also been actively engaged in peacekeeping, having been deployed in numerous conflicts since the 1990s, most recently in Mali where they took part alongside French forces in defeating an Islamist insurgency. [2]  The AU is also boosting its collective capacity to respond to crises creating the African Standby Force made up of five regional brigades of 4000 soldiers. This force, when complete, will enable rapid deployment anywhere in Africa so helping to prevent crises becoming full scale wars. [3]  [1] ‘Peace and Security Council’, peaceau.org, 23 July 2013,   [2] News24, ‘Ecowas urges members to send troops to Mail’, 23 October 2013,   [3] Cilliers, Jakkie, ‘The African Standby Force An update on progress’, Institute of Strategic Studies, March 2008,

Not all conflict is war  What is War? The AU’s declaration does not define it. Ending all conflict is ambitious, ending only inter state war in Africa on the other hand is not. The vast majority of conflicts in Africa have been internal. The only true inter state conflicts have been the wars between Israel and Egypt, the Eritrean-Ethiopian war, the Uganda-Tunisia war, and the Second Congo War. [1] None of these are ongoing. The only conflicts that might count as inter-state that might be considered ongoing are the situation in Western Sahara and border clashes between the Sudans. Western Sahara might be considered to be frozen with very few deaths as a result of it and the Sudan conflict is in large part a result of the border being new.  [1] Wikipedia, ‘List of conflicts in Africa’, accessed 10 January 2014,

While events cannot be foreseen, fixing fragile states to make conflict less likely is possible. Eradicating poverty is already an international goal and improving governance is a regular concern among donors. The AU recognises that development, democracy and good governance are necessary to ensure stability and peace. [1]  [1] Cilliers, Jakkie, ‘Towards a Continental Early Warning System for Africa’, ISS Africa, paper 102, April 2005,  , p.2

While we know that so long as there has been recorded history there has been war, we do not know that war is a part of human nature. Indeed there is some evidence that it is not. Research by Abo Academy University has found that primitive societies – tribes that don’t rely on agriculture or domesticated animals – don’t have group conflicts; violence is almost exclusively between individuals. As these societies are a good analogue for society before what we term civilisation arose it is likely that war is a result of civilisation not human nature. [1]  [1] BBC News, ‘Primitive human society ‘not driven by war’’, 18 July 2013,

Africa is the most warlike continent  In 2012 Africa had the most distinct conflicts of any region with 13 ongoing conflicts. [1] While Africa and Asia have throughout most of the last fifty years had roughly similar numbers of conflicts – approximately 10 per year [2] - Africa has had many more non state conflicts and the number has not declined since 2004 when there were 20 non-state conflicts; in 2011 there were 22. [3] All in all there is little hope of managing to end all these conflicts by 2020.  [1] ‘Armed Conflicts 2012’, Uppsala Conflict Data Program, 2013,   [2] ‘Armed Conflict by Region’, UCDP, 2013,   [3] ‘Non-state Conflicts by Region, 1989-2011’, UCDP, 2012,

No mechanism to prevent crises and war exists  Within countries it is the state that ensures that conflict does not occur: the state has a monopoly on the use of force so ensures law and order. There is no such hierarchy between states. African nations, as with most other states in the world, believe in the sovereign right of states to manage their own affairs. In the same document as there is a pledge to end war “respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of each of its [AU’s] Member States” is reaffirmed. [1] While states are considered sovereign there is no possible way to create a mechanism to ensure that conflicts do not happen. The AU cannot dictate to its members to ensure they avoid internal conflicts even if the AU knows a conflict is coming as those members are the stakeholders. [2] All that the AU can do is react to ongoing conflicts when it is already spilling out of control and encourage good practice.  [1] African Union, 2013, p.1  [2] Williams, 2011, p.9

Gains may be reversed; events can’t be foreseen  Africa still has many fragile states. The Institute of Strategic Studies Africa identified 26 ‘fragile’ states (meaning they have weak governance, conflict and violence, inequality and poverty) including DR Congo and Ethiopia and forecasts that there will still be 11 fragile states by 2050. [1] This rather implies that war will not be ended by 2050, let alone 2020.  Even in countries that are considered stable events can quickly spiral into conflict. Mali was considered to be democratic and reasonably stable before a coup in 2012: there were multiparty elections in 1992, it held regular elections that passed international inspections, its first president Konaré willingly stood down, there was comparatively good freedom of speech and media. [2] Yet after a coup in 2012 it went downhill to the point of requiring intervention by French troops in early 2013.  [1] Cilliers, Jakkie, and Sick, Timothy D., ‘Prospects for Africa’s 26 fragile countries’, ISS Africa, p.7,   [2] Whitehouse, Bruce, ‘What went wrong in Mali?’, London Review of Books, Vol.34, No.16, 20 August 2012,  , p.17

War is in human nature  War and conflict between groups is in human nature. As Hobbes famously wrote “the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short… Nature should thus dissociate and render men apt to invade and destroy one another”. [1] Although the motives have changed, conflict has been a constant throughout human history. The first militaries were created around 2700 BC but conflict between societies almost certainly occurred before this. [2] Pledging to end all war is high minded, but it is unlikely to actually succeed in overturning human nature.  [1] Hobbes, Thomas, ‘Chapter XIII of the Natural Condition of Mankind as concerning their felicity and misery’, Leviathan,   [2] Gabriel, Richard A., and Metz, Karen S., A Short History of War, 1992,

While the AU cannot completely prevent conflicts from breaking out it is establishing a Continental Early Warning System. This will use publically available information and involve organisations at all levels from international to local to enable the AU, and any threatened states, to take preventive action in the common good. This is linked to regional organisations such as ECOWAS which has its own conflict prevention mechanisms and has the authority to react with peacekeeping, mediation of disputes or other peace building mechanisms. [1]  The AU can also ensure any conflicts that do break out are ended quickly. The creation of the African Standby Force should give the AU the strength to react to crises and prevent conflicts escalating.  [1] Cilliers, 2005, pp.1, 10

Africa is not the most warlike continent in terms of the frequency or duration of conflicts. Asia had 1.88 wars per country from 1960 to 2008 compared to 1.65 per country in Africa. [1] Moreover many more of these armed conflicts are internal and are smaller.  [1] Straus, 2012, p.186

While there are sure to be some countries that won’t live up to their pledges this is also the case with binding agreements even if they have built in penalties. This has been shown by the European Union where Germany and France both flouted budget rules that allowed a maximum deficit of 3% at the start of the millennium despite the threat of fines. [1]  [1] Osborn, Andrew, ‘France and Germany to flout budget rules until 2006’, The Guardian, 30 October 2003,

imate international global house believes outcome paris climate conference

Only an international treaty can create penalties for non-compliance  A non-binding agreement will not have any penalties for any countries that do not comply with it, this sets the agreement up for failure. Without a binding agreement a government will find it difficult to bind its successors who may back track in the decades that follow. Some states are backtracking even before the agreement is finalised; the UK has been abandoning its green policies – cutting subsidies for renewables, cancelling carbon capture and storage, reducing funding for domestic energy efficiency, and selling the green investment bank. [1] If governments will take such measures before the agreement is even finished then what hope does it have in the future if there is nothing to persuade sovereign governments to comply with their pledges?  [1] Monbiot, George, ‘On climate change this government is indifferent to life, in love with death’, The Guardian, 2 December 2015,

Voluntary measures have got much further than previous attempts to get a binding agreement – at least there is going to be a good working agreement to build on in future this time. The changes that could mean countries ultimately targeting 2C or even 1.5C are technological; if solar becomes the cheapest form of electricity generation, if electric cars become competitive with petrol, and biofuels taken up for aviation fuel. [1]  [1] Mathiesen, Karl, ‘Should we be aiming to keep global warming to 1.5C, not 2C?’, The Guardian,. 2 December 2015,

The hard part is the cutting of emissions  The problem with a non-binding agreement, even one where the targets have been submitted by the governments themselves is exactly that it is non-binding. If governments are not bound to cut emissions then there is a good chance that many of them wont. [1] The British government, which has binding targets, has been on course to miss its 2025 targets with reductions of only 23% against targets of 31% due to a decision to reduce subsidies for housing insulation. [2] If countries which have set targets for themselves in the past are missing them what hope do we have for these voluntary targets?  [1] Taylor, Lenore, ‘Paris climate talks: the real test is whether countries will keep their word’, The Guardian, 30 November 2015,   [2] Harvey, Fiona, ‘UK on track to miss carbon targets, climate change advisers warn’, The Guardian, 15 July 2014,

Each government has put in targets that they believe are realistic and that they are willing to try to reach. The countries involved are therefore much more likely to want to meet the target than if they had been imposed on them by a binding international treaty. Europe has found that binding refugee quotas are almost impossible to agree and equally difficult to implement. [1] Instead it has generally been accepted that only voluntary systems will work when it comes to taking in the majority of refugees with Hungary willing to take legal action to prevent mandatory quotas. [2] The same is the case on greenhouse gas emissions.  [1] Euractive, ‘Commission ready to drop mandatory quotas for refugees’, 17 September 2015,   [2] BBC News, ‘Migrant crisis: Hungary challenges EU quota plan in court’, 3 December 2015,

It is too late for half measures  Two degrees Celsius has generally been regarded as that safe level which agreements should be aiming for. This agreement does not go so far with it expected to keep the temperature increase to around 2.7 degrees if everyone sticks to their commitments and makes deeper ones after 2030. [1] Unfortunately however the world will still most likely be heading towards a 3.5 degrees rise if no further cuts are made later. [2] Now is the time to be much more ambitious and part of that means binding cuts to prevent backsliding or those agreeing carrying on as usual.  [1] Nuttall, Nick, ‘Global Response to Climate Change Keeps Door Open to 2 Degree C Temperature Limit’, UNFCCC Press Office, 30 October 2015,   [2] Romm, Joe, ‘Misleading U.N. Report Confuses Media on Paris Climate Talks’, thinkprogress.org, 3 November 2015,

The United States Senate would be a potential sticking point for any treaty however it would be unlikely that the United States would hold out against the rest of the world. At the worst case it would simply sign next time the democrats gain a majority.

Sovereignty is often taken to mean that states can do what they like without interference. This is not the kind of mentality that will help solve climate change or ensure that this deal sticks. Unfortunately climate change is a global issue where what happens in one country affects everyone else just as much as the miscreant. The atmosphere is a global commons, currently free for everyone to use, and more often abuse. As such the principles of sovereignty and non-interference can have no place.

Only a non-binding agreement would get the targets necessary  Fully binding treaties with mechanisms for compliance are the gold standard for agreements between nations. But because they are onerous they are the most difficult kind of treaties to get agreed to start with. If the aim were such an agreement it would unfortunately never happen. This has been demonstrated by the years of successive failures in crafting climate agreements. COP 15 is the most notable; expectations were immensely high for a binding international treaty but there was a failure to deliver, largely because governments did not want a binding international solution which is what was being negotiated at Copenhagen. [1]  [1] BBC News, ‘Why did Copenhagen fail to deliver a climate deal?’, 22 December 2009,

A more informal agreement avoids the US congress  The United States Congress is a potential hurdle for any climate agreement. While President Barack Obama is keen to make tackling climate change a legacy of his Presidency the Republican dominated Congress is both likely to try to block the President for that very reason and is sceptical of climate change. It is therefore a major benefit to have an agreement that will not need to be submitted to Congress for approval as any treaty needs to be confirmed by the Senate.  The Secretary of State Kerry argues that it is “definitely not going to be a treaty,” and “not going to be legally binding reduction targets like Kyoto”. It won’t need to be passed to the Senate because the President already has the power to implement the agreement through existing law. [1]  [1] Mufson, Steven, and Demirjian, Karoun, ‘Trick or treaty? The legal question hanging over the Paris climate change conference’, Washington Post, 30 November 2015,

Sovereign states should be allowed to set their own targets and be trusted to meet them  States are sovereign entities meaning that only they have power within their borders and climate change should not be a cause for groups of countries meddling in the business of others. Each state making its own commitment and then doing its own monitoring and enforcement is the right way to go about preventing climate change. By doing it this way no countries will feel unduly burdened or persecuted.

There is little reason why countries can’t voluntarily come up with their quotas and then be bound to them by treaty. Being willing to be bound by a treaty would show that the targets submitted are really the targets that countries are setting for themselves rather than a public relations exercise.

This is really not an issue about the reporting of gay marriage or the opportunities to host a pride march. In many of these countries gay men and women face repression, imprisonment and violence. Regardless of the victims of such actions, it says something fundamental about the perpetrators of those actions – governments, security services or religious groups – that they perform the actions at all. Privacy is an argument to be used to prevent discrimination, not cover-ups of discrimination and abuse; those who are offended by such reporting can invoke their privacy simply by tuning out.  Equally it is questionable that proposition would make such an argument based on the view that certain racial, ethnic or religious groups were less than human and it might trouble bigots of another stripe to see their interests of those communities mentioned in the media. It is difficult to find a definition of Human Rights that would not condemn the suppression of individuals on the basis of sexuality that does not also have to argue that gay men and women are less than human. Such an argument is as offensive as it is palpably untrue.

bate living difference international middle east house believes news

On issues such as gay marriage, human rights activists have taken the line that the right to marry is nobody else’s business. That principle of privacy should work both ways.  Many have argued that issues relating to homosexual relations are, fundamentally, a matter of privacy. That we should respect the rights of individuals to live their lives as they see fit without having the views, actions and opinions imposed upon them. [1] It’s a reasonable position but must surely relate to viewers and readers as much as it does to the subjects of news stories.  If gay men and women have the right to live their lives free from the intervention of other traditions and beliefs then so do those communities – religious and otherwise – that find some of their demands offensive or objectionable.  If the rights to privacy and self-determination are supported by those who support gay rights, then it would be inconsistent to suggest that this does not generate a right to avoid offence on behalf of those receiving news.  [1] Human rights campaign, ‘Should gay marriage be legal?’, procon.org, updated 10th August 2012,

It seems perverse to suggest that consumers of news would be likely to abandon a channel on the basis of one story – or even several. Decisions by consumers of news are determined far more by the general outlook of a channel than by particular stories – it is rare to find individuals who are interested in the entire output of a news organisation.  In addition, new organisations clearly have an interest in covering areas that are ignored by their competitors because it gives them a commercial advantage both through appealing to new groups but also through enhancing their reputation for impartial reporting. There is clearly a gap in the market to provide reporting of gay issues and it therefore should be in news organisations interests to fill that gap. This is exactly what al Jazeera did when it was set up; it filled a gap left by the closure of BBC Arabic for a broadcaster that is willing to "report the news as they see it." [1]  [1] ‘History of Al Jazeera Television’, Allied Media Corp,  accessed 14 August 2012

Broadcasters almost never show scenes of torture or torment because they know this will cause offence, the same principle should apply here.  Journalists and editors use their judgement all the time on what is acceptable to print or broadcast. Expletives [1] or graphic images of violence or sex are routinely prevented because they would cause offence, giving personal details might cause distress and are omitted as a courtesy, and the identities of minors are protected as a point of law in most jurisdictions. It is simply untrue to suggest that journalists report the ‘unvarnished truth’ with no regard to its ramifications. Where a particular fact or image is likely to cause offence or distress, it is routine to exercise self-censorship – it’s called discretion and professional judgement [2] . Indeed, the news outlets that fail to do so are the ones most frequently and vociferously denounced by the high-minded intelligentsia who so frequently argue that broadcasting issues such as this constitutes free speech.  It is palpably and demonstrably true that news outlets seek to avoid offending their market; so liberal newspapers avoid exposés of bad behaviour by blacks or homosexuals otherwise they wouldn’t have a readership. [3] Most journalists try to minimise the harm caused by their reporting as shown by a study interviewing journalists on their ethics but how they define this harm and what they think will cause offence differs. [4] Western journalists may find it awkward that many in the Arab world find the issue of homosexuality unpleasant or offensive but many of the same journalists would be aghast if they were asked to report activities that ran counter to their cultural sensibilities simply as fact.  [1] Trask, Larry, ‘The Other Marks on Your Keyboard’, University of Sussex, 1997,   [2] For example see the BBC guide to editorial policy.  [3] Posner, Richard, A., ‘Bad News’, The New York Times, 31 July 2005,   [4] Deppa, Joan A, &amp; Plaisance, Patrick Lee, 2009 ‘Perceptions and Manifestations of Autonomy, Transparency and Harm Among U.S. Newspaper Journalists’, Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, pp.328-386, p.358,

All of the issues that Prop raises are matters of choice - the use of expletives or the visual portrayal of a brutal act are the representations of an active choice, either by the subject of the story or the reporter. The endemic homophobia in the Arab world attacks people on the basis of their humanity, if people were being imprisoned for having green eyes or red hair or black skin or breasts or an attraction to the opposite sex, nobody would suggest that there were cultural sensitivities involved. Journalists would report it as a crime of apartheid.  Free speech is grounded in giving voice to the voiceless, not only regardless of the fact that some may find that inconvenient but in active defiance of it. Journalism at its best recognises that fact. For example the ethics guide of the American Society of Professional Journalists states that journalists should, “Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience even when it is unpopular to do so.” [1] At its worst it’s merely a handy way of filling space between adverts for washing powder; the best of journalism happens when it challenges, takes risks and, frequently, offends. In demonstrating that an American President was, in fact, a crook, [2] or reminding Western viewers that there was a famine happening in much of Africa, the journalists concerned made their readers and viewers uncomfortable because they reminded them that they were complicit.  [1] Quoted in Handbook for Journalists. Publ. Reporters Without Borders. P 91.  [2] ‘Watergate at 40’, Washington Post, June 2012,

Where there is a clear objection to discussing a certain subject, insisting on doing so is not news, it’s propaganda.  Ultimately all news outlets report that which is of interest to their viewers. Where there is no interest or, more frequently, an active lack of interest, news outlet do not - and should not – impose a particular set of judgements or interests on their customers. Doing so would arguably be patronizing and certainly be financial suicide [1] .  As a result they report what is both interesting and acceptable to those who consume the news and, for the vast majority of news outlets, the companies that advertise on the station, website or in the paper. Expecting news outlets to ignore those simple realities is asking them to self-destruct by ignoring their market. It is a clear example of sacrificing the good in the name of the best – in the example given, the writer mentions that Al Jazeera covers stories relating to gay rights but does so on its English language channels. [2] This exactly shows the market in action; Al Jazeera English broadcasts mostly to a European audience who are not offended by reports on gay rights whereas “Al Jazeera Arabic is geared towards a Middle Eastern audience and does not challenge cultural values or orthodox religion”. [3]  [1] For example the actions of advertisers and readers killed the News of the World.  [2] Pellot, Brian, 2012, ‘(Not) reporting homosexuality in the Middle East’, Free Speech Debate,   [3] Krajnc, Anita, ‘Al Jazeera Arabic ignores gay news’, Toronto Media Co-op, 2 August 2010,

A liberal bias among the journalistic elite in the West is hardly reason for changing the editorial policies of news outlets in nations that do not share those values. The first duty of the journalist must be their role as the eyes and ears of those for whom they do their reporting – the readers and viewers who both directly and indirectly pay their salaries. As a result, there is a duty on journalists not only to report those issues of interest to that group but to avoid those issues which their customers consider either irrelevant or distasteful.

It is routine to make determinations on the basis of the race or religion of those affected in a story as to whether it is newsworthy or not. Sixty people of another nationality die in an accident, it may be barely reported, if two people of the news outlet’s home nationality dies in such a tragedy then it is a major story. The interests and prejudices of the consumers of news are reflected all the time in what editors consider to be important.

Citizens deserve the right to know what is happening in their name.  It is up to the public to decide whether those actions that are reported are right or wrong, journalists and broadcasters should not act as a filter in that process. Many of these actions – imprisonments, internments, brutality and others – are conducted by governments in the name of the people. Sometimes this is done under euphemisms such as ‘protecting public morality’ or in the name of a majority religion. This is used as a catch all as shown by the case of journalist Sofiene Chourabi who was arrested for ‘harming public morals’ in response to calling for a protest against the governing party in Tunisia. [1] It seems only reasonable that people have the right to know what is being done in their name, how their morality is being ‘protected’ or what their faith is being used to justify.  The failure to do so assumes that the public – individually and collectively – are either to foolish to understand or too callous to care. Either or both of those things may be true, although it seems unlikely, but it is certainly not the role of the individual journalist or editor to make such an assumption. Even was that assumption true, it still does not change the facts. In the words of C.P. Snow, “Comment is free but facts are sacred”. [2] These events happened, they happened to citizens of that country, they affect how the rest of the world views that country and how the government views and treats its citizens. On every count, that is news.  [1] ‘Tunisian journalist faces ‘public morals’ charge after criticizing government’, Amnesty International, 8 August 2012,   [2] ‘Comment is free’, guardian.co.uk,

Journalism should report the experiences of the vulnerable and oppressed just as much as those of the elite and powerful.  The idea that people are not widely interested in the lives of their fellow citizens is clearly untrue. Indeed, ‘people sell papers’ is one of the oldest sayings in journalism. However, there is also a moral obligation on journalists to report the news that impacts on the marginalized the most. This is demonstrably the case as it tends to those stories that bring to life disadvantage or the vulnerable just as much as those that report the misdeeds of the powerful that win journalists the recognition of their peers and the professional awards and prestige that goes along with that. Pulitzers and others are rarely handed out for reporting what is comfortable, mundane or safe. For example the 2012 Pulitzer for local reporting was for an article on the sex scandal at Penn State and Feature Writing on “haunting story of a woman who survived a brutal attack that took the life of her partner”. [1]  [1] ‘2012 Winners and Finalists’, The Pulitzer Prizes,

The job of a journalist is to report the world and events as they see them. Cultural sensibilities do not alter the fact that these events have happened.  It is difficult to see how a matter that is undeniably controversial on the international stage and impacts on the perception of the perpetrating government around the world could not be deemed newsworthy [1] . It should not be the responsibility of journalists to determine whether or not viewers and readers might find something of interest but, rather, to report events that have happened and that may have an impact on the lives of consumers either as individuals or as a nation. By that standard, these matters are clearly news.  News organisations and individual journalists do not report on military, political, financial or terrorist actions because they agree with them but do so because of their impact on the world in which their consumers live. Often the very stories which are the most important to report – and do so impartially – are those very stories that evoke strong feelings on both – or all – sides. Al Jazeera gained its reputation by being willing to go where other Arabic channels had not gone such as showing Israeli guests speaking Hebrew which shocked the Arab world. [2] It should be willing to do the same with gay issues.  [1] CNN. Hala Gorani. The Struggle for Gay Rights in the Middle East. June 02 2006.  [2] Yeginsu, Ceylan, ‘Al Jazeera English Fresh outlook from the Middle East’, Global Media Wars,

If Op’s argument were true then news programmes would never end – and never need to repeat a story. Governments undertake an enormous number of actions every day that in some way impact upon their citizens and have wider implications for the wider world. By any objective standard, it is quite routine for all but the most important of these to go unreported – most consumers of news have little interest in or understanding of many of the complexities of economics or foreign policy. For example in 1999 only 29% of Americans said they were very interested in news about other countries. [1] Likewise many important developments in science or literature – frequently involving public money – are barely mentioned by a media that knows its consumers to be uninterested.  [1] Bostrom, Meg, 1999 ‘Public Attitudes Towards Foreign Affairs An Overview of the Current State of Public Opinion’, Frameworks Institute  p.11

Independent nations are capable of trying war crimes themselves.  The ICC is an unnecessary intrusion on national sovereignty. It should be up to each state to determine its own legal system as to how criminal matters should be prosecuted.  If the US and Israel do have issues where military officials have broken the international criminal law, they can be dealt with by the existing Courts-Martial of their respective militaries. Both Israel and the US are states that obey the rule of law. The ICC was unnecessary when the US military convicted William Calley for the My Lai massacre, or the Mahmudiyah case.  The principle of complementarity is no guarantee as it is up to the ICC itself to determine if the state is unable or unwilling, meaning it could take over a case for its own ends.

americas middle east house believes us and israel should join international

Domestic courts are often incapable of providing a fair trial, when they fail the ICC fills the void.  Domestic legal systems will often suffer from a lack of judicial independence and potentially politicised prosecutions, and are also open to allegations of victors’ justice, or whitewashes by a judiciary biased towards the winners of the conflict.  The ICC, as an effective court and with an independent judiciary, provide a suitable and unbiased climate for these cases to be heard in. While it is difficult to give any former head of state a fair trial, it is even more so in cases involving states divided along ethnic and political fault lines where any conviction could be seen as one based on continuing hatreds rather than evidence and criminal procedure.  It is clearly in the interests of the United States and Israel to support the principle that where there is no independent judiciary cases can be moved to a higher level. These states as much as any other desire that those who commit large scale international crimes be brought to book. The ICC for example might provide an alternative method of going after terrorists.  In addition, the principle of complementarity – that the ICC should only prosecute where states have shown themselves unable or unwilling to prosecute - means that when a state can take effective action against war crimes, there will be no role for the ICC. This means that the US and Israel with independent judiciaries should have nothing to worry about unless their judiciary proves unwilling to prosecute if one of their own nationals commits a crime prosecutable by the ICC.

Just because there is widespread public support for a thing or measure does not mean that it should automatically be the case. The issue should be debated on its own merits, rather than resting on a potentially ill-informed public. Ratification of treaties is left to congress and the Knesset to ensure that their consequences are properly considered.

The ICC is a force for good, and the all states should be seen to be standing fully behind it.  The International Criminal Court is a major breakthrough in providing a permanent and durable system that can effectively prosecute and independently try war criminals.  In the past there was no permanent framework for dealing with grave breaches of human rights protection, often allowing states to perform evil acts with impunity. Only for the very worst atrocities were special courts and tribunals set up. It should also act as a deterrent to future violations; it may not reduce conflict but will encourage states to keep a tighter rein on their militaries.  An attempt at a solution to the problem of enforcement of international criminal law is something to be applauded, for the same reason the criminal law on the domestic sphere is – it saves lives, protects human rights and provides civilization to what would otherwise be anarchy.

It took nearly two years for the ICC to launch an investigation into atrocities in the Central African Republic. This has helped defeat the argument that it would be faster than the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and International Tribunal for Rwanda were. So far being indicted by the ICC has had little impact; for example it failed to prevent the election of Uhuru Kenyatta, who is currently facing trial by the ICC for crimes against humanity, as President of Kenya.  The ICC is also hamstrung by its inability to capture defendants itself. It can only do so with the co-operation of its member states.  The US and Israel have nothing to gain from membership, and everything to lose in terms of being on the receiving end of politically motivated and abusive prosecutions.

The American people support ICC membership.  In a democracy the voice of the people should carry weight in determining how the country acts internationally. According to a 2005 poll carried out by the Chicago Council on foreign relations 69% of the US population are in favour of US participation in the ICC. This clearly shows that the US people are unconvinced by the arguments on the theorized drawbacks of the International Criminal Court and are happy for it to be ratified.

The only effect on US freedom of action would be prohibition of clear and significant violations of international law.  If the US stays within the international criminal law, they will not be affected by the ICC. It would be harmful for any state to have special treatment – if the US were to be granted such special treatment to the United States other large states could request the same due to their self-perceived international roles. Such exceptions and opt outs would mean that the International Criminal Court would be granting impunity to large states, whatever gargantuan violations of the international law are committed, and only investigate smaller ones. This would clearly be an unfair system of international justice. If a country engages in more military engagements, and is larger and more powerful, it is all the more necessary that they are held to the same standards as smaller powers.

It is accepted that there is now such a thing as international criminal law – from Nuremberg onwards, there are some matters that can be punished by multinational courts. The US also supported the ICTY and ICTR – if the ICC is a breach of national sovereignty, so are all the single use tribunals. The ICC is essentially an intergovernmental institution in the mould of the United Nations or the IAEA – an institution that can sometimes lead to a decision that goes against the wishes of individual members but that does not mean the members sovereignty is undermined.  While the ICC does have jurisdiction over nationals of non-party states, that only applies if referred by the UN Security Council or if the acts in question. The principle of complementarity will allow states to deal with issues themselves if they are willing and able to do so. Therefore the ICC is perfectly compatible with national sovereignty.

Risk of “lawfare” against Israel  The specific position that Israel is in, places it at a unique risk of “lawfare”, the use and abuse of the legal process by states for political ends.  A particular concern is Article 8(2)(b)(viii), which could be used as a particular tool to attack Israel over the settlements policy. Issues over settlements in the West Bank should be resolved by negotiation during the existing, albeit fractious, peace process, rather than being used as a tool for those who wish to derail good faith negotiations by dragging matters in to the hands of the international courts.  Israel has regularly been singled out for particular beration by UN bodies. For example, over half of the country-specific resolutions passed by the UN Human Rights Council have been about Israel, while praising Muammar Gadaffi.

ICC trials violate the due process guarantees of the US constitution  US ratification of the Rome Statute would lead to the possibility of Americans being subject to trials with procedures that violate the American Constitution. For example, there are no jury trials at the ICC – a majority vote of the judges is enough to convict - is a violation of the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution.  The independence and neutrality of some of the judges may be doubtful if they come from countries with definite foreign policy interests that run contrary to those of the US. This is particularly pertaining to judges who are from backgrounds where judicial independence from the executive is not a defining feature of the legal system who will be more likely swayed by political considerations.  There is, in addition, a lack of rules against double jeopardy, and the glacial rate of progress made by the ICC with lengthy waits in pre-trial detention for defendants, affecting the right to a speedy trial. It has also been argued that the procedures for special measures to protect witnesses hamper the defence.

The rest of the world is better off with the US out  The crucial role that the US plays for international security means that, for the benefit of the rest of the world, it is advantageous for the US to be outside of the ICC jurisdiction.  When military intervention is needed , it will often be the US that does so. The US being in a position where its actions would be constrained by a fear of ICC prosecution.  This would be even worse if the crime of aggression were to take effect, a broad definition of which could harm US interests. With the notable exceptions of the 1991 Gulf War and the invasion of Afghanistan, most recent US overseas missions could be seen as amounting to the crime of aggression. Depending on the definition used, it has been argued that every single US president since Kennedy has committed the crime of aggression. In an increasingly uncertain world, it could be necessary for the US to intervene  American ratification of the ICC would therefore have the unintended consequence of constraining US actions that would otherwise save lives. If the United States does not intervene in cases where there may be considered to be a responsibility to protect then it is unlikely that any other state will either.

Ratification of the International Criminal Court would be a violation of national sovereignty  Any state ratifying the Rome Statute, is placing its citizens at the mercy of a court that operates outside of national control. This is an unacceptable ceding of national sovereignty – thus no state other than the US has the power to deal with American criminals, and no one but Israel should deal with Israeli criminals. International criminal law and national sovereignty are inevitably enemies  Not only does the ICC threaten American sovereignty, it threatens the sovereignty of all nations – the ICC can, in some cases, prosecute citizens of nations that are not state parties. Authority for justice within one’s territory is however at the heart of the concept of sovereignty. As a matter of principle the US should not be supporting measures that affect the sovereignty of any nation, let alone the US itself.

While the ICC operates its own rules of procedure and uses its own formulation for due process rights, it has protections as strong as the top legal systems around the world.  While the ICC is unique, it meets the standards accepted for a fair trial. For example, article 66(2) of the Rome Statute guarantees the presumption of innocence, article 54(1) covers disclosure, article 67 includes the right to counsel and a speedy trial. These safeguards are considered more than adequate by human rights campaign groups such as Amnesty International.  While the ICC does not use juries, in many cases it would be difficult to find an impartial jury or to transport them, and they would be unlikely to cope with the weighty and complex legal issues that occur in complex international criminal trials. At any rate, many states, even common law ones such as the US, do not use juries at all (such as Israel), and in some circumstances they can be allowed in the US.

If Israeli nationals have not committed any criminal offences against international law, they have nothing to fear from joining the International Criminal Court system. While some may agitate for action to be brought against Israel for political reasons, the International Criminal Court has an independent prosecutor and complex procedures that will act as an adequate filter to stop it being hijacked as a tool for “lawfare”  No state should have immunity from the international law, whatever their circumstances or potentials for mischievous uses of the legal system.  In addition, Israeli membership of the ICC would be useful part of the bargaining in the peace process, to allow any criminal cases against Israel to be handled by an impartial international court obeying full rules of law.

Impartiality is not defined by the constitution of the forces, but the decision-making process which determine their use. A UN standing army would not alter the injustice of the UN Security Council and its veto system, which institutionalizes self-interest in the decisions of the body. As the recent proposal for an independent UN force indicates, the force could move swiftly to avert catastrophe but only specifically ‘after UN authorization’1. Therefore whilst a UN standing army would ostensibly be neutral, the uses for which it would be deployed would still have the same, underlying self-interested motives on the part of the UN Security Council. The problem is therefore not resolved, but pushed further up the line.  “We have to walk a fine line in order to build support in the U.S. and in developing countries. This sort of thing creates suspicion that Western countries want to use this for political purposes.” 2  On speed of deployment, the UN’s ability to respond more quickly is not a serious problem. Many of the UN’s most embarrassing incidents occurred when its troops were very much on the ground already. The three oft-quoted examples are Srebrenica, Somalia, Rwanda; in the 1990s all three states played host to UN peacekeeping forces, and in each case further bloodshed ensued. At Srebrenica, Serbian troops marched the Bosnian Muslim men out of a UN-declared ‘safe area’ 3; the fault for their massacre does not rest with speed of deployment or troop cohesion. As Morrison states, ‘until U.N. member states devote as much attention to solving the underlying political causes of national and international disputes as they have to the creation of a U.N. permanent military force, true solutions will remain elusive’4. The UN needs to be able to respond more effectively, not necessarily more quickly.  1 .Johansen, R. C. (2006). A United Nations Emergency Peace Service to Prevent Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity. p22  2. Perelman, M. (2007, September 5). Calls Grow for Creation of Standing U.N. Army. Retrieved May 10, 2011, from Forward:   3. Canturk, L. (2007, October 25). Anatomy of a Peacekeeping Mission: Srebrenica Revisited. Retrieved May 10, 2011, from Worldpress:   4. Morrison, A. (1994). Fiction of a U.N. Standing Army. Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, 83-96

global politics defence warpeace house would create un standing army

A UN standing army would be ideally suited to respond to contemporary crises.  Changes in modern warfare dictate the need for an impartial, rapidly-deploying, multi-national force. Modern warfare is no longer the trench battles of battalions aligned to a flag, it is increasingly police actions designed to prevent the resort to warfare in the first place or enforce ceasefires once they have begun. As such, the impartiality of a UN standing army would be highly valuable, offering both parties in the conflict a neutral peacemaker and peacekeeper. Contrast this to the perceived differences in attitude between troops from Britain, the US, Russia and France to warring sides in the Balkans. It would be free of accusations of meddling and self-interest that accompany the participation of troops from neighbouring states in UN interventions (for example, Nigeria in West African missions). A UN standing army could overcome local civilian suspicion, free from the threat of propaganda from those opposed to it and free from the restraints of state power on those troops involved.  Furthermore, a UN standing army would be able to deploy much faster than current peacekeeping missions which are held back by the bureaucracy of finding troops, equipment and funding. The present system takes months to put forces in the field, and these are often inadequate to the task in hand, as member states have pledged fewer troops than were requested and they then struggle to co-ordinate across cultural and linguistic barriers. This has meant the UN has often acted too late, with too little force, and has thereby failed to avert humanitarian disasters in such places as Central Africa, Bosnia, Sierra Leone and Somalia. A UN standing army would be permanently available and able to deploy rapidly to contain crises before they turn into full-scale wars and humanitarian disasters. Without an independent army, the UN has ‘no capacity to avert such catastrophes’ 1 for it simply cannot raise forces quickly or effectively enough.  [1] Johansen, R. C. (2006). A United Nations Emergency Peace Service to Prevent Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity, p.23.

A UN standing army would still have the same drawbacks as the current model. Differences in language, culture, etc. will seriously mar operational effectiveness, especially in combat situations, irrespective of whether they have been trained together. In the heat of the battle, troops that have grown up in different cultures, speaking different languages will understandably fall back upon what they know. Cultural instincts cannot be retaught or unlearned in a military barracks; they will prove an obstacle to operational effectiveness. In addition, in a truly multinational force there will always be a great many individual soldiers who could be suspected of taking sides in a particular conflict (e.g. Muslims or Orthodox Christians in the Balkan conflicts); are such soldiers to be pulled out from a particular mission, thereby perhaps weakening the whole force? A UN army might also end up being very poorly equipped, for if the advanced military powers start to see the UN as a potential rival or adversary, they will refuse to provide it with quality arms and armour. In that case, the UN standing army becomes both another rival in the global balance of power and may drive opposition to the institution itself and its long fight to garner respect.

A UN Standing Army would solve the problem of American military hegemony.  A strong, effective and impartial United Nations standing army would deny powerful military states the right to bully and blackmail rivals into submission with the threat of military force. A UN army would be able to balance that threat with their own willingness to come to the aid of states under military duress. The United States, unwilling to risk a protracted conflict against a respected, well-trained multi-national force would have to fall back. To use an example, American military intervention in Vietnam, against the wishes of the majority of the population, could have been prevented had a U.N. standing army existed to respond to the wishes of the Vietnamese people and stand against the United States’ intervention. The existence of such a military rival would therefore force the United States to increase its investment in its State Department and diplomatic solutions to political crises. Ultimately, peace would be more effectively maintained.

A UN standing army would not solve 'the problem of American military hegemony', even if there is such a problem. It is perhaps unlikely that the US would fund such an army. Nor would other major military spenders like the United Kingdom be likely to since they already send troops to NATO, possibly in the near future to an EU army, and having its own army it would be significantly overstretched. This United Nations could not raise sufficient funds to create such a force. To establish military parity with the US would require a large nuclear arsenal and an enormous military infrastructure. States will not ever finance such a force at the expense of building up their own forces. The army would have to be willing to be pitched against the interests of the US or other permanent members of the Security Council, yet any U.N. standing army would require the blessing of that Security Council, where those members have a veto. Therefore making this not possible, as only the UNSC can be responsible for security. American military hegemony will not be challenged by a force that is under its own direction.

A UN standing army would be more effective in operations themselves.  A UN standing army would be more effective than the variety of troops staffing missions under the current system. At present most UN operations are supplied by developing nations who hope to make a profit from the payments they receive for their services, but who are under-equipped and badly trained. Forces from the major powers are provided sparingly and only after substantial public pressure or when there exists an incentive for their use. A UN standing army would be better prepared, both in regards to training and equipment, and its soldiers would have greater motivation as they would have made a choice to enlist, rather than being conscripts forced by their own states to fight someone else’s war. A single UN force would also have better command and control than in current situations, when different national forces and their commanders often fail to work effectively together in the field for cultural and linguistic reasons. Successful forces such as the French Foreign Legion, the Indian army and the Roman army show that issues of language and culture need not be problems in combat situations. They can be overcome through a strong professional ethos and a commitment to a mutual cause, values that can only be expected to develop if troops prepare, train and fight together.

Although other reforms of the UN may be desirable in their own right, without involving the creation of a standing army they will not address the central problems of peacekeeping. Proposals for a rapid reaction force formed from member states may speed up the arrival of troops a little, but it will still make the UN dependent upon the goodwill of member states; if they choose not to participate in a particular mission, then the usual long delays and inadequate forces will result. The predominant concern is the safety of civilians, and the existence of a force or process for establishing a force able to quickly and effectively achieve this wherever necessary in the world. A UN standing army is the only solution able to provide both quick and effective force in every possible case.

A UN standing army would be cost effective. It would bring benefits to the world economy, and therefore offset its own expense, through avoiding the protracted costs of refugee crises and other humanitarian disasters. These costs are both direct (through aid) and indirect (as developed nations often become the destination of illegal immigrants fleeing conflicts at home, e.g. Sri Lankans and Kurds). War also disrupts trade and thus damages the global economy, while a greater confidence that war can be avoided in future will encourage more long-term investment and thus greater prosperity. Moreover, member states providing troops for current UN missions are paid for their services, so a UN standing army would not be much more expensive that the present system.

A UN standing army is simply impossible to form.  A standing army for the United Nations has an existing legal framework; it has never been attempted in practice because it would be impossible to create. Article 43 of the original UN Charter specifies that all member states are expected, upon the signing of a future UN agreement, to provide ‘forces, assistance and facilities’ for the maintenance of international peace and security 1. That it is has never been attempted is the direct result of its sheer impracticality; who would contribute the troops? How would they be trained, and ensure that troops trained in one state would not be asked to thereafter fire on their own colleagues? Furthermore, where would the U.N. standing army be located, for the United Nations has no land, and the United States would not take kindly to a reprisal attack on the UN Army at the United Nations Headquarters. And who would fund this army? The United States hasn’t paid its bills to the United Nations in years due to their opposition to some of its actions/ What is there in place to prevent that continuing? Lastly, and most importantly, whose will would they be implementing, for the United Nations is not a single voice but the aggregated noise of its member states? The Security Council, which currently dictates the form that U.N. peacekeeping operations take, are not a group to whom impartiality can be attributed. A U.N standing army at the behest of the Security Council would be used sparingly at best and only in regions and conflicts for whom all the P5 had a vested interest in the maintenance of peace. Any impartiality that the U.N. standing army had in theory would be lost in practice.  1. U.N. Charter, (1945)

A UN standing army is unnecessary  A UN standing army is unnecessary; in many cases UN missions are very successful. In Guatemala for example, a UN peacekeeping mission was essential in enabling the conclusion of a decades-long civil war in 1997. When there are problems these are more to do with lengthy and difficult Security Council deliberations, inadequate mandates, etc. rather than how long it took to gather a force together. In Srebrenica for example, where thousands of Bosnian men and boys were slaughtered by Serbian troops, the problem was not the absence of peacekeepers on the ground, but an inadequate mandate to use force. The UN would be much better spending its efforts on setting up a proper peacekeeping department, and streamlining the UN as a whole.

A U.N. standing army renders the United Nations a de facto state, but without a territory or a population.  Essentially only governments have standing armies, so this plan would inevitably make the UN more like a world government – and one which is not democratic and where, in China, a totalitarian state has veto power over key decision-making. This means a standing army may actually be counter-productive, impairing current perceptions of the UN’s selfless neutrality, undermining its moral authority and its ability to broker peace agreements. If the UN becomes an institution with its own voice, the fears that the UN would lose its role as the honest broker in international affairs would come to fruition 1.  1.Miller, 1992-3, p.787

There are better alternatives to solving the problems of contemporary warfare.  If it is granted that the UN currently reacts too slowly to crises, alternatives for an improved response could be implemented without resorting to a standing army. A Rapid Reaction Force made up of fast-response units from member states with elite military capability, pledged in advance for UN operations, would build upon the best features of the current system. Security Council reform to remove the veto powers from the Permanent 5 members would allow deadlocks in decision-making to be rapidly broken and avoid the compromises which produce weak mission mandates. An improved prediction capability through better intelligence and analysis, and central logistical planning at UN headquarters would allow forces to be assembled and mandates drafted before problems became full-blown crises. Security Council rules could be changed so that resolutions requiring force could not be passed until troops have been pledged in advance.

The lessons from failed UN peacekeeping missions are that ‘coalitions of the willing’ do not work effectively; forces used to training with each other will demonstrate cohesion in a conflict zone 1. Furthermore, states can be unwilling to get involved if they have bad memories; the UN failed to go into Rwanda because of American objections following events in Somalia in 1990 2. A rapid response team that did not rely on American troops would have been able to prevent much of the Rwandan bloodshed, or at the very least alleviate conditions until which time the US could have decided to offer its political will and military support. A standing army is required for those opportune moments when force is required to protect those for whom the major powers are not willing to make sacrifices.  1. Wedgwood, R. (2001). United Nations Peacekeeping Operations and the Use of Force. Washington University Journal of Law and Policy, 69-86  2, Ibid

A UN standing army would not be cost-effective.  The cost of such an army would be very high, especially if it were to include purchase of air and sea transport to reach theatres of operation, added to the high costs of permanent establishment and training, and equipping the force for every possible type of terrain. State armed forces have the advantage of preparing for specific battles with specific enemies. Any UN standing force would be forced by its very nature to prepare for every enemy, in every environment. Such a scope is neither desirable nor easy to overcome without great expense and large numbers. At present, the UN model is preferable; it can draw upon different kind of troops for different kinds of missions from whatever member states feel best equipped to deal with a particular situation.

A U.N. standing army does not render the United Nations a de facto state, for the army would still be under the authority of the Security Council and therefore subject to the will and control of its sitting members. As such, a standing army does not qualitatively alter the decision-making process which is the foundation for the moral authority of the United Nations and its ability to broker peace agreements. The decision to deploy troops will still have to be ultimately authorized by the UN Security Council; the only development being that the force will be both quicker to deploy, averting humanitarian catastrophes, and more effective, due to group cohesion, in its actions 1. The institutional restraints of the General Assembly vote and Security Council veto would remain as a leash on the use of any standing army, with the proviso that once unleashed, the UN would be both quicker and more effective in its use of force to implement security council mandates.  1. Johansen, R. C. (2006). A United Nations Emergency Peace Service to Prevent Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity.p.26

A U.N. standing army is not impossible to form. The United Nations has already conclusively proved, in numerous peacekeeping among other missions, its ability to play a constructive, effective military role in interventions; a standing army would merely replace the top level of command. Instead of taking orders from the top brass in a national military, the orders would come from United Nations commanders. For soldiers trained to listen and respond to commands, this would constitute merely a subtle shift that would not alter their operational effectiveness. Furthermore, funding would be provided through similar streams to how peacekeeping forces are funded contemporaneously,; however, once the U.N. standing army has proved itself capable, funding will surely come from those states who recognize that pooling resources to form a U.N. army is more prudent than scratching together a under-resourced, native army.

As argued below (Opposition argument 2), the UN has in fact been instrumental in developing the modern concept of human rights, which prior to its foundation essentially did not exist as an idea, and certainly not as a body of coherent international law. And the UN has acted to prevent and condemn human rights abuses all over the world.  Where the UN has failed to prevent genocide or human rights violations, it has generally been due to the failure of the international community rather than the UN itself. For example, the bloodshed in Rwanda went unstopped not because the UN was unconcerned, but because those nations that might have intervened, such as the US, France or neighbouring African countries, were unable or unwilling to do so - not a failure that can fairly be laid at the door of the UN.

UN ignores or enables human rights abuses.  Despite the development of the concept of human rights in the post-war world, the UN has totally failed to protect the rights of citizens, ethnic minorities, women and children. It has stood by during episodes of genocide in Cambodia, Rwanda, Congo and Yugoslavia among many others [1] , tolerates some of the world’s worst dictatorships as members, and does nothing to improve the situation of women in developing nations. Indeed, where UN peacekeepers have been sent into war-torn countries, they have sometimes been guilty of the most horrendous human rights abuses themselves. [2]  As of 2011, the UN’s Human Rights Council itself is comprised of members such as Saudi Arabia, Cuba and China. [3]  [1] “UN admits Rwanda genocide failure”. BBC website, 15th April 2000.   [2] MacFarquhar, Neil. “Peacekeepers’ Sex Scandals Linger, On-Screen and Off”. New York Times, 7th September 2011.   [3] “Membership of the Human Rights Council”. United Nations website, 2011.

Stories of bureaucracy and delay in the General Assembly obscure the vital work that goes on, often unnoticed, through United Nations agencies every day. It is true that the UN’s decision-making processes are not terribly efficient but in a body comprising nearly 200 members this is probably inevitable. If there are problems with the structure of the UN, such as the Security Council veto, the answer is to reform those institutions to fit the challenges of the 21st Century. As an analogy, national governments have often been accused of being slow to change and reform, but we do not conclude from this that “government has failed” and seek to abolish them!

Most international co-operation can takes place outside UN framework.  The major economic, political and trade issues around the world are almost all dealt with either through bilateral agreements between nations or by specialised bodies set up for that purpose – the World Bank, IMF, EU, ASEAN, NATO, WTO and so on. In all of these fields the UN is little more than an irrelevance. Even where the UN does get involved in international affairs – such as in the Libyan crisis of 2011 – it is other bodies, in that case NATO, which serve as the vehicle for international cooperation. [1]  [1] . Bolopion, Philippe. “After Libya, the question: To Protect or Depose?”. Los Angeles Times.25th August 2011.

: Main purpose of UN, to prevent war, has clearly not been achieved.  The UN was set up with the express purpose of preventing global wars, yet it has done absolutely nothing to prevent them. Indeed, the UN has often served merely as a forum for countries to abuse and criticise each other, rather than resolve disputes peacefully.  In some cases, such as the 2003 invasion of Iraq, UN resolutions have arguably been used as a justification for wars, rather than to prevent them. Research shows that the number of armed conflicts in the world rose steadily in the years after 1945 and has only begun to plateau or fall since the end of the Cold War. [1]  [1] Harrison, Mark &amp; Wolf, Nikolaus. “The Frequency of Wars”. University of Warwick, 10th March 2011.

It is unfair to say that the United Nations has failed just because conflict has not been eradicated from the world. The causes that drive nations to war with one another often cannot be resolved by diplomatic means; to set global peace as the test for the UN’s efficiency is clearly unfair. Nonetheless the UN has served as an effective forum for behind the scenes diplomacy in many international crises. It has come to the aid of countries when attacked, as in the examples of [South] Korea and Kuwait in 1950 and 1990 respectively; it has also kept the peace in, for example, the former Yugoslavia, Cyprus and East Timor. The fact that armed conflicts around the world have become less common since 1990 is, arguably, at least partly down to the good offices of the United Nations.

Despite the proliferation of supranational organisations, the United Nations remains the indispensable global forum for meeting to discuss world affairs. Indeed, in a way this expansion in the number and range of international organisations is a testament to the success of the UN model. Furthermore, many international organisations work very closely with the United Nations, or even partially within its system. For example, when the International Atomic Energy Authority assesses the compliance of nations such as Iraq or Iran with the Non-Proliferation Treaty, it is to the UN Security Council that it reports. [1]  In any case, this debate is about whether or not the United Nations has failed. Even if many decisions are now taken outside the UN framework that does not reflect badly on that body.  [1] “How many times has the IAEA reported cases to the UN Security Council?”. IAEA Infolog. 15th February 2006.

The United Nations is no more corrupt than any large organisation, much less national governments, and far more transparent than many comparable institutions.  It is true that the Human Rights Council contains some nations with bad records on civil liberties but it is surely better to engage with such regimes and shame them into slowly improving their human rights standards, than simply excluding them from UN organs and losing any influence over how they treat their citizens.

UN decision-making procedures are very inefficient.  The UN displays all the worst traits of bureaucracies the world over. The General Assembly is little more than a forum for world leaders and ambassadors to lambast each other. The Security Council is systemically unable to take decisive action in many of the world’s trouble-spots due to its outdated permanent membership structure, which gives five nations a totally disproportionate power to prevent the world body from acting against their interests. In the UN’s 65 years, the veto has been used nearly 300 times. [1]  [1] “General Analysis on the Security Council Veto”, Global Policy Forum website.

Many UN bodies are corrupt or compromised.  As mentioned above, the Human Rights Council consists of some the worst human rights abusers in the world. The NGO UN Watch has accused the HRC focusing almost exclusively on alleged human rights abuses by Israel to the exclusion of almost every other country. [1]  There have been widespread allegations of corruption in UN bodies. [2] It is for these reasons that the US long refused to pay its full dues to the United Nations and threatens to do so again in future, as well as withholding funding from UNESCO in 2011 after it voted to recognise Palestine as an independent state. [3]  [1] “Anti-Israel Resolutions at the HRC”, UN Watch 2011.   [2] “Corruption at the Heart of the United Nations”, The Economist, 9th August 2005.   [3] “US cuts UNESCO funds over vote for Palestinian seat“. BBC website. 31st October 2011.

It is obviously true that some UN agencies and organs carry out valuable and useful work. However, there are two ways of looking at this. The first is that UN work often duplicates programs and programs carried out by NGOs, national governments and charities. Its work is useful, but by no means indispensable.  The second way of approaching this question is to ask whether these are core functions of the UN – in other words, whether preserving world heritage or co-ordinating vaccination programmes is what the UN is really “for”. We can admit that some UN agencies do good work but still believe that as a body; overall the United Nations has failed.

No-one is suggesting that the test of a successful United Nations should be an end to all armed conflict. But even judged on its own criteria, it has been remarkably ineffectual. The examples of Kuwait and Korea are both situations where defensive wars were fought by the US and allies for their own reasons – the containment of Saddam Hussein and Communism, respectively – not UN ideals. Where the UN did not authorise military action, such as in Vietnam or Iraq in 2003, this made no difference. It is hard to think of an example where imminent conflict was definitely averted due to UN influence.  As for UN peacekeepers, they usually come into conflicts only after they have ended and thousands of civilians been killed. They often do a good job, but they are seldom indispensable. Other regional organisations, such as NATO or the African Union, can equally well perform this function.

The UN has been at the forefront of promoting respect for international law and human rights.  When the United Nations was founded in 1945, the idea of “international law”, in so far as it had any meaning, was little more than the customary behaviour of states towards each other. Over the succeeding 60 years, the UN and its various offices and organs have taken a lead role in codifying and promoting the concept of international law and the protection of human rights. For example, the crime of genocide was first enshrined in international law in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. [1]  [1] United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, “What is Genocide?”.

As world becomes more globalised, the need for a global forum for resolving problems becomes ever more important.  In a globalised economy nations depend on each other as never before, and the costs of war and conflict grow ever higher. So it is more important than ever than countries have a forum for resolving their disputes and simply talking to each other. Regional bodies such as the EU or ASEAN can perform some of these functions, and specialised bodies such as the WTO some others; but there can never be a substitute for the global forum provided by the UN. If the United Nations did not exist, we would have to invent it. [1]  [1] Hammarskjold, Dag. “Do We Need The United Nations?”. Address to the Students’ Association, Copenhagen, 2nd May 1959. www.un.org/depts/dhl/dag/docs/needun.pdf

Solution to problems of UN is to reform outdated structures.  It is undeniably true that some of the UN’s procedures need to be improved, and standards of financial transparency improved. However, this is true of many governments and international organisations, not just the UN. The answer to the UN’s problems is not to give up on it but rather reform it for the 21st century, including perhaps changing or augmenting the permanent membership of the Security Council to reflect the reality of the modern world. [1]  [1] London, Jacqueline. “Reform of the United Nations Security Council”. International Affairs and Foreign Policy Institute. 29th June 2007.

Many UN organs carry out valuable work around the world.  The United Nations is far more than simply a debating forum; it does a massive amount of vital work around the world through its other organs. Examples of these are the World Health Organisation (WHO), UNESCO, UNICEF, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and the High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) among many others. [1]  Even if the slow speed of diplomacy at the UN General Assembly can sometimes be frustrating, the idea that the United Nations as a whole has “failed” simply does not take account of all these very important bodies. Furthermore, the UN remains one of the most respected of international organisations among ordinary citizens.  [1] “United Nations: Structure and Organisation”. United Nations, 2011.

It is arguable that the era of globalisation makes the United Nations less important, not more. Trade disputes are settled bilaterally or through the WTO; economic crises through the offices of the World Bank and IMF; security problems, as often as not, through the mediation of the US or other interested powers. All too often, the UN is a forum not for dispute resolution but the airing of grievances against other nations. For example, in the run up to the 2003 Iraq War, both the United States and its detractors, such as France, used the UN to publicise and justify their position on military action, not to discuss it in any meaningful way. If a United Nations did not exist, and we were obliged to invent one, we would hopefully do a better job next time!

The UN has performed a valuable service in preventing wars and in peacekeeping.  It is clearly unrealistic to imagine that the United Nations could prevent all wars, but nonetheless it has been successful at negotiating peaceful resolutions to international disputes. It has also authorised military force to defend countries from unprovoked attacks; Kuwait and South Korea, to name just two, owe their freedom to UN action. Finally, UN peacekeepers do vital work all over the world from Cyprus to Korea. [1]  [1] “What is Peacekeeping?”. United Nations, 2011.

This debate is about whether or not the UN has failed. It may well be that the response to a failing organisation is not abolition but wholesale reform, as the opposition argue here, but that would not change the fact that the UN has not achieved what it was designed to do. And while reform has been promised for many decades, nothing has ever been done to resolve the systemic flaws of this organisation. So promises of reform are an unsatisfactory answer to the charges against the UN.

The UN has been only one among many organisations which have shaped the modern doctrine of international law. More influential in developing our contemporary understanding of human rights, arguably, was the worldwide horror at the Holocaust, Nuremberg war crimes trials, and the determination of the West to hold developing nations and Communist states to the same standards that they [supposedly] adhere to. When activists in undemocratic regimes fight for better civil rights, it is seldom the UN they cite as their model.  It is fair to ascribe the United Nations its due share of credit for this emerging consensus, then, but it has been remarkably bad at actually encouraging, let alone enforcing, the rules it has helped to create.

Despite the change in nominal governmental structure, the real holders of power have remained the same. The president Thein Sein was handpicked by the outgoing military leader Than Shwe. The top posts in government and one-fourth of parliament is reserved was the military. Arbitrary laws prevented leaders of the NLD, including Aung San Suu Kyi, from participating in the elections. Elections do not equal democracy. Other than the sugar-coated words of the new government, there has been no real movement towards democratic reform. The international community has long called for an impartial investigation into the systematic human rights violations to bring its perpetrators to justice. None of this has been promised, or is likely to be achieved under a military-controlled government, the main aim of which is to hoodwink the international community and provide security to the guilty leaders of the military junta.1  1 Ellgee, ‘Myanmar hides behind ‘democracy’’, Aljazeera, 27 January 2011.

Myanmar is no longer a military dictatorship  Myanmar has taken significant steps towards democratisation in the last three years. The new constitution and the elections that resulted in the current civilian government being appointed represent a marked shift in its governance structure. Though there may be scope for improvement in its democratic framework, institutions for democratic functioning have been created and this is a huge step forward. Aung San Suu Kyi has also been released from house arrest, and the tone of the statements made by the new government has been a reconciliatory one. A new human rights commission has also been established. While the pace of reform may not match the supposed expectations of the US and the EU, Myanmar’s choice to change gradually and engage with them on its own terms must be respected. The fundamental circumstances under which a policy of limited engagement was adopted with Myanmar have changed, and this calls for reassessment.

Since the government is still controlled by the military and there is no evidence to that corruption levels will go down in the new regime, engaging in trade with Myanmar will only strengthen the ruling elite. There is little accountability for developmental aid actually reaching its desired goals.1 Trading with Myanmar means trading with organisations controlled by the state/military in a nationalised economy. Common people are exploited and kept in poverty while the profits are reaped by a few. This has been the experience of international trade with Myanmar involving countries other than US and EU, and there is no reason that this will change. Further, there is no necessary link between business activity and development of the rule of law, as the experience of many African countries has shown. Opportunistic business entities are more likely to be involved in rent-seeking monopolistic practices that benefit them, instead of causing social change.  1 BBC News, ‘UN frustrated at Burma response’, 13 May 2008.

Regional factors favour re-engagement  Myanmar has continuing economic and political relations with many other countries, including members of the ASEAN, and significantly, China (which is also the source of a large proportion of foreign investment in Myanmar). These countries, some of which are major economic and political partners of the US and the EU, do not share the same attitude about the legitimacy of the Myanmar government and the approach that should be taken towards it. For the purposes of regional stability, it would be better for the US and the EU to align their positions with the others. This reduces the risk of diplomatic rifts which could destabilise the region. Further, if the international community presents a united viewpoint on what steps Myanmar should take to improve its democracy, such steps are more likely to be taken.

States should not be isolated on political grounds  The isolation of Myanmar by some of the developed Western powers is arbitrary and marked by hypocrisy. The real reasons for the stance taken by these countries are political. There is little consistency in the attitude taken towards other governments and dictatorships across the world that also have questionable human rights records (Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to name a few), but either offer other strategic and economic benefits, or are much more influential in international affairs than Myanmar. Myanmar is only part of a group of countries (also including Cuba and North Korea) whose economic and political policies have remained relatively opaque to arm-twisting by the US and the EU. It is unfair to impose sanctions on and isolate Myanmar on this basis, especially in an emerging multi-polar international environment.

This argument is not a defence of the government in Myanmar. Making it a question of who is pointing fingers itself politicizes a principled stance against an undoubtedly unjust system. The US and the EU have been consistent in their criticism of the military-controlled government and in their principled support for pro-democracy activists in Myanmar. This is in line with their stated positions on human rights and democracy across the world – with political allies or enemies - and in accordance with international treaties that they are signatories to. They have long voiced concerns over human rights violations in China and India, for instance. Only because their moral position may not have been as influential in relation to certain countries, or that it has been diplomatically unfeasible to take stronger positions in certain circumstances due to global power relations, it does not mean they should not take such a position in the case of Myanmar as well.1  1 Schmahmann, David, The unconstitutionality of state and local enactments in the United States restricting business ties with Burma (Myanmar) Vanderbilt journal of transnational law. March 1997, vol 30, no 2.

Though countries in South Asia have displayed ambivalence in their attitude towards Myanmar, it is not a reason for the US and the EU to change their stance. Regional players have sometimes tended to support the pro-democracy movement in their rhetoric, but have not adopted policies that are aligned with it. Therefore, they have not been able to cause any real democratic reform. If there is a united international community that does not actively seek to isolate Myanmar, but to the contrary engages with it, the force that can drive such reform will become even weaker. The risk of harm from long-existent differences in attitudes between regional players and those who seek to disengage is very low, and nothing has occurred since 1990 to suggest otherwise.

While the policy of disengagement may not have achieved all its goals, it has brought to the forefront a moral standard by which the government can be judged. This has helped frame global opinion and influenced regional players’ attitudes to Myanmar as well to some extent. More harm is done by continuing to engage with Myanmar since that option offers no incentive or pressure for democratic reform. Trading with Myanmar will only add to the economic and political clout of the ruling elite, as the ‘trickle down’ to the population as a whole is minimal. A policy of disengagement, at the very least, prevents the military (which is sensitive to international opinion) from becoming even stronger.

There is scope for further diplomatic progress in the region through disengagement  Reengagement has potential for having a positive influence in various contexts. Myanmar is rich in natural resources, including forest products, minerals and gems. Removing trade restrictions and offering developmental aid would benefit the local economy and population.1 In the longer term, economic activity can act as a stimulus for development of a stronger legal and business framework to reduce corruption. If the US and the EU create confidence in the Myanmar government that they are willing to offer something constructive rather than critical, it may be possible to ask for greater transparency in government and reduce systematic violations of human rights as well.2 The newly elected civilian government has indicated it is willing to pursue democratic reform, and the US and the EU should not lose this opportunity for change.  1 BBC News, ‘India and Burma expand trade ties and sign gas deals’, 14 October 2011.  2 Human Rights Watch, ‘China: press visiting Burmese leader on elections and accountability’, 6 September 2010, (example of how state relations can encourage democracy)

Disengagement has done more harm than good in the region  The policy of disengagement has not resulted in any meaningful change in Myanmar, politically or economically. Since Myanmar has not been dependent on the US or the EU, sanctions and arms embargoes have not had any effect on the government. The changes in 2010-2011 have been due to the influence of the NLD, and certain regional players (like Thailand and China) which have sought to directly engage with Myanmar. Further, the sections of the population that are most affected by the sanctions are those not in the top tier of the political and economic class, but smaller manufacturers and the working class. Restrictions on exports and developmental aid from the US and the EU prevent local manufacturers and consumers from having access to them. On the other hand, restrictions on imports from Myanmar weaken the market for its exporters. These factors only further impoverish and alienate the local population, increasing economic disparity, and consequently the power of the ruling elite in the national context as well.

Reengagement will send a message to the Myanmar government that the steps it has taken have not gone unnoticed by the international community, and may lead to more substantive change over time. It will project the US and the EU as constructive actors in the process of reform. Reengagement is a way of gaining political and economic influence in Myanmar and in the region. It may lead to negotiations at some stage, and reengagement now would allow them to have a greater say at that time. By not engaging, the US and the EU are not actually able to increase the influence of the opponents of the current government either.

This argument assumes that democracy, and that too a particular kind of democracy, is the only legitimate form of government possible. The kind of democracy that is followed in the West may not be appropriate for Myanmar, in any case not at this stage. There are economic and political inequalities in Myanmar and its democracy is not perfect. However, if everyone was allowed to participate in elections, the country is likely to slip into a situation of civil war, since the elected individuals may not wield real power. Attempts at imposing a particular style of democracy in countries that may not be ready for it can be counter-productive (as in East Timor, for instance). Further, not every country in the world has claimed itself to be a champion of democracy across the world. Such countries have no obligation to denounce a foreign regime, and have a right to decide what their policies should be. An apparently democratic government may not be a good one (for instance, Zimbabwe), and an undemocratic government may not necessarily be a bad one (for instance, China and Venezuela). There is no basis to say that any uniformity has been achieved in accepted international standards for the legitimacy of governments.

The international community and political legitimacy  The military-controlled government in Myanmar clearly does not have popular domestic support - otherwise the artificial election process would not have been necessary. Therefore, it derives its strength from the fact that many international players other than the US and the EU have continued to recognise it, while there is historic precedent for concerted international opinion having influenced illegitimate regimes (Haiti and South Africa, for instance). Having a nationalised economy increases the control the military has over trade and investment, while a majority of the country finds itself in poverty. The choice for the international community is between continuing to strengthen the military by engaging with it, or by disengaging (like the EU and the US) until the ruling elite runs out of resources and options. The former option does not give hope to any real democratic reform, while the latter option would take away the legitimacy of the government in the international arena.

Vested international interest are harming Myanmar  Certain members of the international community, especially regional players like China and India, have tended to ignore questions of legitimacy of the regime for economic and political benefits. While this may be beneficial to them in the short term, it is very harmful for Myanmar as a democracy in the future. Politically, a blind eye is being turned to a culture of violating human rights. If and when Myanmar becomes a real democracy, it is unlikely that it will magically transform into a model democratic state, unless enough emphasis is provided to fundamental principles of good governance at the outset. Economically, investment is being provided in a highly monopolistic and imperfect environment, without addressing problems of corruption and inadequacy of legal processes. In the long run, even if a democratic constitutional framework exists, the country is likely to continue to have high economic disparity and corrupt markets due to these reasons (in a manner comparable to how Russian markets have evolved since the 1990s). Reengagement should not be setting the stage for a shift from a military-controlled government to a poor democracy, which would also be harmful for stability in the region as a whole.

Re-engagement will weaken the reform movement  International and domestic pressure has forced the military junta to set up a nominal civilian government. It is important to make sure that change goes further and becomes meaningful. This will involve bringing into force a fair constitution, curbing human rights violations and bringing its perpetrators to justice, and creating conditions for legitimate democratic elections to take place. By reengaging at this juncture, the signal the ruling elite in Myanmar will get is that this piecemeal, nominal change is sufficient to hold them in good stead in the international political arena for a longer period. It would also be a betrayal of the pro-democracy supporters in Myanmar, who continue to be cast out of the constitutional process and have little actual political influence under the existing system.1  1 Thanegi, Ma, ‘Burma sanctions: The case against’, BBC news, ‘4 March 2002’.

Liberal democracies have a moral obligation to denounce illegitimate regimes  The new civilian government in Myanmar is as illegitimate as the rule of the military junta which led to its creation. The military junta itself was guilty of overruling the democratic verdict in 1990 that gave power to the NLD. Under the new constitution, 25% of all seats in parliament and the most influential governmental posts are reserved for the military, and more than 75% majority is required for amending the constitution. Political prisoners (including Aung San Suu Kyi) were not permitted to participate in the elections. Further, the election process itself has been described as a sham, involving violence and intimidation of democratic activists. The current government is only a tool for the preceding military junta to consolidate its power and provide a safety valve for its leaders through apparently legitimate means. It attempts to use the false democratic process as a veil to resist international criticism. Widespread human rights violations, ethnic violence, and undemocratic curtailment of the freedom of speech have characterised the period of rule of the military junta. By engaging with it at the political or economic level, other countries provide it with a false sense of legitimacy. This is morally at odds with established standards in of human rights and international relations, especially where other illegitimate governments (Syria, Iraq, and North Korea for instance) across the world continually face censure and isolation.

Regional players like China and India are interested in border security and internal stability for Myanmar. There is no basis to say that their political and commercial relationship with Myanmar must necessarily be for short-term benefit. It is unfair to compare Myanmar with Western standards of preserving human rights or with ‘a model democratic state’, though there may not be any countries in the world that fit the description. It is sufficient if it is at a stage where its standard of governance is comparable with other countries in South Asia that do not face international isolation or censure. There is also evidence to show that exposure to more sophisticated markets does have a positive influence on the development of internal legal systems. Though Russia may not be a model economy, its economic growth has been accompanied by gradual changes to attitudes and institutions internally. Reengagement would make it easier for these changes to take place, while a policy of disengagement would, in effect, be a policy of apathy.

While international support is important to some extent for the government, Myanmar has significant political and economic relations with many countries in the region, including China and North Korea, whose stance is strategically motivated and is not going to be influenced by what the US and the EU do. It is hard to fathom a situation in the foreseeable future where the military and government leadership will be forced to bow down to international pressure, whether or not certain countries choose to engage with it. The only way for the international community to remain relevant to Myanmar would be by engaging with it. The situation is different from that in South Africa and in Haiti because of the existence of strong allies, whose interests are different, if not opposed to in some respects, from those who follow a policy of disengagement with Myanmar.

Divisionism in Rwanda did not spark as a result of the controlled media and government propaganda in 1994, there were killings reported in the 1960’s 1970’s and 1980’s[1] even before the media was part of society. This came as a result of long standing grudges and misunderstandings between the Tutsi and Hutu groups in the country.  That the media bears responsibility for spreading hate speech and broadcasting where the other could be killed moreover does not absolve the individuals involved. Each individual had the choice whether they acted on what the media was telling them. In a completely free media there would be some of the same hate speech and it would still be up to the individual to decide whether to follow that message. Far better to ensure that message cannot be aired in the first place.  [1] History world, ‘History of Rwanda’, historyworld.net

bate media and good government international africa house believes limited

Blind obedience to authority  One of the major factors that exacerbated genocide ideology was the “AKAZU” controlled media which made most of the Hutu population wrongfully obey authority and government propaganda of divisionism[1].  This was achieved by proclaiming that the Tutsi are snakes and cockroaches in newspapers, and directing the Hutu extremists to where killings were to be conducted on radio RTLM. Meanwhile they also refused to broadcast speeches calling out for unity among people helping to lead to the assassination of the then Prime minister Agathe Uwilingiyimana who opposed government restrictions. There was no space to question policies and ideas that were encouraging genocide by manipulating people to believe it was right path for Rwanda.  The genocide should therefore serve as an example that restricting freedoms of speech and press can cause severe damage. This is especially harmful to a healing and reconciling country like Rwanda that needs the freedom to debate the past and analyse how far it has come openly. Rwanda should learn from the past that freedom of speech is necessary to prevent conflict while having only one side potentially exacerbates it.  [1] Chalk, Prof. Frank ‘Radio propaganda and genocide’, Concordia.ca, November 1999

Many donors have been deeply reluctant to stop or reduce aid, whatever the arguments over eastern Congo[1]. Donors like to see their money have an impact, something that Rwanda’s transformation has provided. There might be concern about freedom of speech and the press but donors recognise that the way to change this is not to simply stop aid; an act that simply damages those the donors are trying to help not those who are limiting freedom of speech.  [1] The economist, ‘The pain of suspension’, economist.com, 12 January 2013  [2] Timmins, Jerry, ‘Free speech, free press, free societies’, li.com

Authoritarian leadership  President Kagame though considered a visionary leader has made Rwanda a country based on one man’s ideas. He has silenced critics, opposition and any counter arguments that may not support his opinions through tough rules imposed against the media and free speech. This sparked misunderstandings within the government forcing 4 four high rank officials in exile, one, an ex-intelligence chief was recently murdered in South Africa[1].  Rwanda is essentially a hard-line, one-party, secretive police state with a façade of democracy[2]. To avoid future conflict and government break down Kagame needs to convene a genuine, inclusive, unconditional and comprehensive national dialogue with the aim of preparing and strengthening the country’s future progress.  The fact that most Rwandans still want him to run for re-election after his two terms in 2017 shows how much he has controlled people to believe he is the only potential leader in a country of more than 11 million citizens. If Rwanda is to have a stable future democracy it needs to be recognised that the opposition are patriots too and should be entitled to freedom of speech and press to give them an opportunity to share their views on how the country can be improved. For democracy in Rwanda to progress the country needs to accept the idea of freedom of speech and a ‘loyal opposition’.[3]  [1] Aljazeera Africa news, ‘Rwandan ex-spy chief found dead in S Africa’, Aljazeera.com, 2 January 2014  [2] Kenzer, Stephen, ‘Kagame's authoritarian turn risks Rwanda's future’, thegurdian.com, 27 January 2011  [3] Fisher, Julie, ‘Emerging Voices: Julie Fisher on Democratization NGOs and Loyal Opposition’, CFR, 13 March 2013

Rwanda does not limit freedoms of press and speech as such but discourages the use of sensitive articles or speeches that would provoke insecurity in a country still trying to heal from the wounds of genocide. This cannot be therefore considered abusing people’s rights.  Misunderstandings with the 4 officials were not as a result of restricted freedoms but instead the desire of power[1] and cannot be taken a model for Rwanda’s future.  Past conflict broke out due to divisionism which was given space through hate speeches and publications a behaviour that has no room in the country today – indeed there are anti divisionism laws.  Having a large population supporting a leader doesn’t mean they are controlled, he has done so much to revive lost hope hence winning the favour of the people.  [1] Smith, David, ‘Exiled Rwandan general attacks Paul Kagame as 'dictator', thegurdian.com, 30 July 2012

International concern  Rwanda, though a progressing country is still aid dependent which has been a backbone for its achievements today[1]. Spoiling Rwanda’s relations with the international community would therefor be destabilising Rwanda’s focus and growth. This has been evident when some countries cut aid to Rwanda recently following allegations of the government supporting insecurity in Congo [2].  Most donor governments are strong backers of human rights and freedom. Continued restrictions to freedom of speech may provoke international reaction through cutting aid and trade ties a move that may hinder the success of Rwanda’s goals. Aid has been cut on other human rights issues for example donor countries have recently acted to cut aid to Uganda as a result of their criminalisation of homosexuality.[3]  [1] DFID Rwanda, ‘Growth and Poverty reduction grant to the government of Rwanda (2012/2013-2014/2015), gov.uk, July 2012  [2] BBC news, ‘UK stops £21m aid payment to Rwanda’ bbc.co.uk, 30 November 2012  [3] Plaut, Martin, ‘Uganda donors cut aid after president passes anti-gay law’, theguardian.com, 25 February 2014

It is a wrong assertion that Rwandans are valued in the process of policy making when their genuine opinions are limited to a certain level. The national dialogue is a three day event and cannot cover the concerns of more than 11 million Rwandans. Moreover when people still fear to say the truth as they go through in daily life [1], how can one expect such people to raise the right issues on a public platform with the most powerful people in the country?  [1] Amnesty International, 2011

Restricted press and speech also limits political debate and engagement which are crucially needed in adopting fruitful policies[1]. The best policies are those that are rigorously debated and analysed. The current leadership may have acted to check corruption but without institutionalised freedom of the press to encourage whistleblowing there is no guarantee that corruption won’t return in the future. Rwanda’s progress is therefore dependent on individuals, fine in the short term but development takes decades. In the long term for a state to progress there has to be balancing mechanisms so as to prevent misrule and importantly persuade investors there will be stability.  Moreover Rwanda is trying to create a knowledge economy. It is not like China’s creation of a manufacturing based economy, instead it relies upon critical thinking, ideas and analysis – all things that benefit from freedom of speech.  [1] UNESCO, ‘Press freedom and development: an analysis of correlations between freedom of the press and the different dimensions of development, poverty, governance and peace’, unesco.org

Setting Rwanda's priorities  Rwanda is an emerging democracy healing from the wounds of the horrific past. To achieve the set vision, there should be a priority which in this case is economic development[1].  A large number of Rwandans believe that the government should focus on transforming the nation economically although it may mean restricting free speech, which has prompted a huge participation in government development programs like Ubudehe[2]. Freedom of speech and press needs to be restricted if the government wants to engage in unlimited development; there is no time to engage in long debates over whether a particular project is being implemented the correct way. Having freedom of speech and press would hinder the government’s ability to manage the resources of the state and to encourage investors who don’t want to have protests to their building factories, or have labour complaining about not being paid enough.  Whether a country puts rights or the economy first is up to the individual country, Rwanda has chosen.  [1] Horand, Knaup, ‘Kagame's Priorities for Rwanda: First Prosperity, then Freedom of Expression’, Spiegel.de, 12 August 2010  [2] NS world, ‘Rwanda Engages Citizens in Community-Level development’, nsworld.org

There is accountability without a free press  Freedom of speech and the Press is not the only way of creating accountability in a country – especially a comparatively small one such as Rwanda. Rwanda has been ranked a transparent and is the least corrupt state in East Africa [1] where everyone is accountable and equal before the law.  How can this be without an aggressive free press? Annually, all government officials are cross examined by locals publicly in a forum called national dialogue “Umushyikirano”, to ensure that they meet the needs of citizens and assess their performance[2]. This has given Rwandans courage to express their desires and feel much valued in the process of policy making and engagement. It puts ministers and even the Prime Minister on the spot on individual issues. Restricted press and speech is therefore rendered irrelevant by such programs as people can question authorities and demand justification directly rather than relying on the press.  In Africa, most countries lack transparent government systems and institutions, a factor responsible for continued corruption, poor governance and crime which in turn destroy progress in societies [3], but this is not the case with regard to Rwanda.  [1] Zegabi East Africa news, ‘Transparency International Ranks Rwanda the Least Corrupt Country in East Africa’, 5 December 2013, zegabi.com  [2] Hunt, Swanee ‘Rebuilding Rwanda: Access and Accountability’, inclusivesecurity.org, 30 December 2013  [3] Jones Lang Lasale, ‘Sub-Saharan Africa: A region with opportunities amid transparency challenges’, joneslanglasale.eu

Focused leadership  Progress in Africa has been hindered by factors like corruption, conflicts and poor infrastructure, all of which are linked to the incompetent or greedy leaders.  Rwanda is a different case, ranked among the best countries with a strong and focused leadership in Africa, the country has set up clear policies like EDPRS [Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy] which aims to change Rwanda from an agriculture based economy to knowledge and service economy [1]. It is well known for zero tolerance to corruption, improved infrastructure and technology all of which are core factors in achieving development. In Africa, Rwanda tops list of easiest countries to do business a move that has encouraged more investors into the country[2].  Limited freedom of speech and press does not hinder economic development. What matters is that the government is trusted to fulfil all its commitments. After all, nothing has stopped China progressing despite human rights violations and censorship of both free speech and the press.  [1] The world bank, ‘Rwanda overview’, worldbank.org  [2] International finance corporation, ‘Rwanda top business reformer’, ifc.org

While the government of Rwanda has chosen the economy this does not mean the people agree – simply that the government controls the narrative so giving the impression, or persuading them that they agree.  Restricting free speech and press has increased critics from the Rwandan diaspora evidence that inside the country, citizens have no way of putting forward their say[1]. Economic growth is not the only kind of progress. In order to drive forward the economy Rwanda is stunting the progress of individual rights.  [1] Keung, Nicholas, ‘Paul Kagame: Rwanda’s saviour or strongman?’, thestar.com, 26 September 2013

The Basotho people existed as a separate state for decades before colonization. There was a separate Basotho identity long before the instauration of the apartheid in SA. Their history and roots gives Lesotho an identity that is different from that of their only neighbors. That Lesotho never suffered under apartheid is in itself a big difference from South Africa where the legacy still looms large. Lesotho has taken measures to highlight their differences from South Africa; In 2013 Lesotho introduced national identification documents. [1]  [1] Tefo, Tefo, ‘Lesotho finally introduces national ID’, Public Eye, 5 July 2013,

africa politics politics general house believes lesotho should be annexed

The historical reasons for which the state of Lesotho exists are no longer relevant in a post-apartheid South Africa  The reason why Moshoeshoe, the leader of Lesotho, wished to become a British protectorate was because of the Boers of the Orange Free State was trying to take their land. In 1966, when the Kingdom of Lesotho gained its independence from Britain, it remained separate from SA as it had been a separate colony. Lesotho was under direct rule while South Africa was a dominion. There was no incentive to change at the point of independence because SA was ruled by the apartheid regime. Lesotho was a strong public opponent of the regime and granted a number of SA refugees’ political asylum. The African National Congress, the ruling party in SA since 1994, was founded in Lesotho. Moreover, during the struggle against apartheid, the ANC’s armed wing organized its guerilla units from the enclave. [1] We can firmly say that Lesotho vas a very important actor in a post-apartheid SA, but the times have changed. The ANC is now in power in South Africa and SA and Lesotho are closer together than ever before.  [1] Smith, 2010,

There is no guarantee that the SA government will indeed try to make a change after the integration of the Lesotho territory. The narrative is quite different in Europe for example where regions like Catalonia, Venice and Scotland are trying to secede because they do not feel the national government is addressing their problems as they should. Even if we agree that SA is the most powerful country in Sub-Saharan region and that they have more money that the Kingdom of Lesotho, there is no certainty that the money will be redirected toward that region. SA already has a lot of problems of its own.

Annexation will allow the free movement of Basotho people, goods and services  For the Basotho in a landlocked country the free movement of their people is a right that is in large part dependent on the South African (SA) government rather their own national one. Its importance is shown by 40% of border crossings into South Africa being from Lesotho. Acknowledging the fact that Lesotho is an enclave state surrounded by SA, the ability of people to move freely depends on whether they are allowed to enter SA or not. There is corruption at border posts and the number of crossings results in long queues and slow service; 63% of border crossers experience problems. [1] This is sometimes made even more difficult by SA government actions as before the World Cup in 2010 when border restrictions were tightened making it almost impossible for Basotho to leave their country. [2] This happened due to the detention of several Lesotho nationals after a spate of criminal activities along the border.  The same situation applies to trade. Lesotho is dependent on the trade with South Africa, even for goods that come from beyond South Africa as Lesotho has no port of its own most goods will have to be transported through South Africa. This dependency is rising. In 1980, Lesotho produced 80% of the cereals it consumed. Now it imports 70%. [3] Annexation would eliminate these borders boosting trade between the countries, helping to make both richer. In the best interest of Basotho is to be able to control and be listened to by the entity that is metaphorically and literally feeding them.  [1] Crush, Jonathan, ‘The border within: The future of the Lesotho-South African international boundary’, Migration Policy Series No.26,   [2] Patel, Khadija, Lesotho and South Africa: ‘Good fences make good neighbours’, 19 April 2013,   [3] Smith, Alex Duval, ‘Lesotho's people plead with South Africa to annex their troubled country’, theguardian.com, 6 June 2010

While the ability of Basotho people to travel abroad is something that we should take into consideration, we should also seek to understand the SA government intention to secure their territory. As a sovereign state that is primarily responsible towards its citizens, SA has the right and the duty to secure its borders in order to prevent any kind of security problems that might occur when people from a poor, underdeveloped country like Lesotho try to enter their premises. If SA is concerned about the security of its border with Lesotho how much less secure is it when the border disappears? On the other hand, progress regarding border control is already being made through bilateral cooperation and agreements. [1] Certainly, there are less drastic solutions, such as border-unions that permit the exact same advantages as annexation when it comes to borders.  [1] Magubane, Khulekani, ‘SA, Lesotho to ease border control’, Business Day Live, 22 April 2013,

While any annexation would be mutually agreed there is no guarantee that the whole international community would see it positively; any resistance from groups within Lesotho and it could be a PR nightmare. Moreover the spin of it being a humanitarian gesture is reliant on it following through and improving conditions. If it succeeds then SA will likely be called upon to resolve other humanitarian situations in the region such as in Swaziland.

Lesotho is in a dire condition and needs help from its closest ally  With about 40% of Basotho people living below the international poverty line [1] , Lesotho needs urgent help both from the economic and social perspective. A third of the population is infected with HIV and in urban areas; about 50% of the women under 40 have the virus. [2] There is a major lack of funding and corruption in the system is halting any progress. The Kingdom of Lesotho is clearly unable to deal with its issues and should be annexed by SA. Annexation is the only way in which the SA government is going to care about this enclave territory. Give Basotho citizenship and the right to vote in elections and they will be taken into consideration. Give SA the power to control and they will assume the responsibility for pulling the Basotho out of poverty, giving them a better social system and a country in which they can thrive. A simple look at the GDP per capita of each state shows the potential benefit to Lesotho and ability of SA to deliver. While Lesotho is stable at $1,700 per capita, SA has a GDP of $10,700 per person. Only by giving them full responsibility of the territory, the SA government is going to step in and make the necessary change.  [1] Human Development Reports, United Nations Development Project,   [2] The World Factbook, ‘Lesotho’, cia.gov, 11 March 2014,

South Africa will gain influence, stability and a better image on the international stage  Bringing South Africa and Lesotho will benefit SA on the global stage. The move would be one to provide aid to a smaller state and provide stability. The dire conditions for the Basotho people are acknowledged by the UN and the Africa Union. Firstly, SA, by the annexation of Lesotho, will prove good intentions in creating a sustainable Sub-Saharan Africa. This will ultimately create a better image and a greater influence in the region if they choose to respond positively to the People’s Charter Movement in Lesotho [1] , a social structure pleading for annexation. The movement, driven by trade unions, has collected 30,000 signatures in favor of their goal and is rising in popularity. Secondly the annexation will provide a boost for the South African Development Community and South African Customs Union by demonstrating the willingness of South Africa to integrate with poorer neighbours and take on some of the responsibility for them.  [1] Smith, 2010,

The population in Lesotho might be suffering from poverty but this is not their fault but rather the result of the bad governance. Lesotho is investing 12% of its GDP in education and 85% of its population over 15 is literate. [1] This can provide an knowledgeable, smart workforce for SA which can help develop both countries. On the other hand, South Africa is also dependent on one resource from Lesotho and this is water. Over the past 25 years, a mutual, bilateral agreement has been made between the two sovereign states so that the Lesotho Highlands Water Project can provide SA with clean water. [2] Moreover, the textile industry in Lesotho is competitive and profitable. The industry still contributes close to 20 percent of Lesotho's annual gross domestic product, and is its largest employer. [3] Lesotho would clearly not just be a burden.  [1] The World Factbook, 2014,   [2] Ashton, Glenn, ‘A Case for Closer Integration between South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland?’, The South African Civil Society Information Service,   [3] ‘LESOTHO: Textile industry gets a lifeline’, IRIN, 24 November 2011,

Assuming the two countries are so well integrated, there should be no reason for not taking the last step that is the annexation of the territory. Furthermore, the current sovereignty of the Kingdom of Lesotho exists as a fiction rather than reality. The authorities are not able to provide and take care of the basic human needs of their people; there was a humanitarian crisis as recently as 2012 when a third of the population needed food aid after flooding. [1] Lesotho does not even have control over its own defence with South Africa having launched a military ‘humanitarian intervention’ in 1998 to save democracy but which was also about South African concerns over water. [2] Rather than permitting for the local government to loose its authority, annexation represents the short step towards real and sustainable development for the land-locked country.  [1] Beukes, Suzanne, ‘Food crisis aggravates the already massive social challenges Lesotho faces’, unicef, 28 November 2012,   [2] Hedebe, Siyabonga Patrick, ‘South Africa’s Military intervention in Lesotho in 1998 – A critical overview’, academia.edu,

A local, decentralized authority can provide better opportunities and solutions for Lesotho  With a population of only 2 million people the Basotho would not have the voice and the votes for legislative and executive authority in SA. South Africa’s population of 53million would swamp their voice. Moreover, keeping the local government in place provides a better option for the people in Lesotho as they are closer to their government than they would be in a bigger state. Lesotho needs a decentralized government that can respond to the wishes and needs of the people. This is something the SA government might not be able to provide it as they are trying to provide general solutions for all of its territory. [1] Lesotho is one of the leaders for democracy in Southern Africa [2] ; joining South Africa would not provide an improvement in accountability. In Europe and even in South Africa, secession movements exists because people feel they are better represented in a smaller state as their vote is more important. This is the case with the king of the abaThembu who is seeking an independent state from the SA government. [3]  [1] ‘9 major problems facing South Africa - and how to fix them’, Leader, 18 July 2011,   [2] Jordan, Michael J., ‘Lesotho leads southern Africa in democracy’, globalpost, 7 June 2012,   [3] ‘Angry king Dalindyebo seeks independent state’, City Press, 23 December 2009,

It is not in the interest of South Africa to annex a poor, underdeveloped country  It is not in South Africa’s interests to annex Lesotho. Lesotho would be a burden; it is poor, might cause instability, and has no resources as compensation. On a simple cost-benefit analysis made by the SA government they would clearly see they would have more responsibility towards the Basotho population but new resources to fulfil those responsibilities. South Africa has its own problems that it should be focusing on first. Poverty is officially at 52.3% [1] and unemployment is a great problem for South Africans; a quarter of the majority black workforce is unemployed. [2] Moreover, Only 40.2% of black infants live in a home with a flush toilet, a convenience enjoyed by almost all their white and Indian counterparts showing the inequality that still exists in the ‘rainbow nation’. [3] Why add more people under your protection when you can’t take care of your own?  [1] ‘Statement by Minister in The Presidency for Performance Monitoring and Evaluation, Collins Chabane, on the occasion of the launch of the Development Indicators 2012 Report’, thepresidency.gov.za, 20 August 2013,   [2] Mcgroarty, Patrick, ‘Poverty Still Plagues South Africa's Black Majority’, The Wall Street Journal, 8 December 2013,   [3] Kielburger, Craig &amp; Marc, ‘Why South Africa is Still Dealing With Segregation and Poverty’, Huffington Post, 18 December 2013,

Annexation is not needed where there is already extensive cooperation between the countries  Lesotho and South Africa already cooperate on a wide variety of issues. If we look at the example of the law system; the two systems are almost the same and all but one of the Justices on the Court of Appeal in Lesotho are South African jurists. [1] Moreover, there are at least four inter-governmental organizations that maximize the trade, help and social connections between the two states. Starting with the African Union, going on to the Southern African Development Community [2] that promotes socio-economic cooperation as well as political and security cooperation, moving to the Southern African Customs Union [3] and the Common Monetary Area. Lesotho is not only helped by SA but this is happening without them having to let go of their national identity and history. In much the same way as different nations, large and small, benefit from the EU so the countries of Southern Africa can benefit from some integration without the negative consequences of complete annexation with the loss of control that would bring.  [1] U.S. Department of State, ‘Lesotho (10/07)’, state.gov,   [2] Southern African Development Community Official website   [3] ‘Continued economic reforms would attract more foreign investment’, World Trade Organisation, 25 April 2003,

Of course, the local Lesotho authorities have a mandate to act upon the interest of Basotho, but the problem is that they are not able to do so; Lesotho is dependent on foreign aid. The state simply doesn’t have to money to fund a health system that could deal with the fact that 1 in 3 Basotho are infected with HIV. Moreover, the problems in SA and Lesotho are not that different. In SA, one in ten people have AIDS and a majority deal with poverty. Of course, economies of scale can deal better and cheaper with problems such as poverty and health issues because of their ability to provide more money, resources and expertise. The point about what kind of influence Basotho might have on the SA authorities is not entirely true. The National Council of Provinces, the upper house, gives each province ten delegates regardless of population size [1] ; Lesotho would have an outsized influence.  [1] National Council of Provinces, Parliament.gov.za, accessed 28/3/2014,

Actually national governments are more effective. The more authority international governing bodies, organizations and institutions have, the less can they afford to "bother" with local problems applying less effective problem solving procedures. Not fully understanding local tensions, burning issues in one particular area can, in the long term, bring great harm to the citizens of the whole federation. One spark can set ablaze a much larger fire than a federal government can possibly imagine. Therefore creating one European federal body will shift the focus of the local problems and the problems of the average person to more global ones which will be problematic on its own. Furthermore the advantages in the face of connection to the political process, respect for local cultural traditions and responsiveness to differing economic and physical situations will not be achieved, because boundaries fade away and people become more interested in the activities on a higher level, rather than on smaller.  Devolution and subsidiarity can be applied by existing states, as Britain and France have both showed in the 1990s, and as Germany has done since 1945. Spain’s problem with separatist terrorists in the Basque Region shows that even a great deal of regional autonomy fails to satisfy extremists.

A federal Europe will protect the cultural diversity of its member states  A federal Europe will be more advantageous for individual citizens, since they will be living in a powerful state, yet with respect of their cultural and local situation  Subsidiarity combines maximum effectiveness with maximum accountability, with decisions being made at the lowest appropriate level. Citizens gain the advantages of living in a large, powerful state in terms of international economic, military and political power, all available more cheaply in a state of 450 million people, and through their increased opportunities for work, study, etc. Yet the advantages of living in a smaller state are preserved in terms of connection to the political process, respect for local cultural traditions and responsiveness to differing economic and physical situations. Such checks and balances prevent tyranny and increase willing obedience to laws.  Overall, we now have something resembling parliamentary democracy at the European level. EU political institutions now look more like those of a member state than they do those of an international organisation. The challenge facing the European Union in the future is to fill the gap between itself and the citizen, providing a political connection equal to the social, cultural and sporting connections that the single market has already provided.  Federalism and subsidiarity can allow for regional identities in a way national states cannot – e.g. for Northern Ireland, Corsica, Basque Region, Lombardy. In a Federal Europe such peoples would not feel under threat from a dominant culture and long-running conflicts could be resolved, as issues of sovereignty become less relevant within the new political structures.

Actually if the EU became a unified state, there would be s loss of UN Seats - a major democratic, liberal voting block in international institutions such as the UN would be lost, in return for one vote (for an incredibly powerful state). Due to the UK and France, both EU members and also UN Security Council permanent members (UNSC P5 - along with the US, China and Russia), and with Germany (G4 - along with India, Japan and Brazil) hopeful to gain a seat in the future, removal of these nations from the UNSC would leave it open to greater sway by American, Russian or Chinese influence. As it is, the UK and France provide a powerful voting bloc in the SC. (Italy has offered the plan of a revolving seat for EU member states.). Therefore countries from the EU are powerful enough as it is and creating only 1 country can result in the exact opposite situation.  None of the benefits, listed in the Proposition argument are actually benefits of a federal Europe. They all have been achieved via the EU. This means that the EU itself is strong and influential enough. There is no need for deeper development as it will only bring disadvantages. “In these days of renewed gloom about the future of Europe, a quick test is in order. Who has the world’s biggest economy? [...] Who has the most Fortune 500 companies? [...] Who attracts most U.S. investment? [...] The correct answer in each case is Europe, short for the 27-member European Union (EU), a region with 500 million citizens. They produce an economy almost as large as the United States and China combined”. [1]  [1] Debismann, ‘Who wins in U.S. vs Europe contest?’

A federal Europe will ensure that large, multinational businesses remain accountable for their actions  In a globalised economy, there is a need to tame multinational corporations, which would be otherwise capable of playing national governments off against each other in search for low wages, social costs and state protection. A federal Europe would be powerful enough to demand high standards of behaviour from such companies, because only a powerful and economically significant player can dictate restricting conditions. This would ensure fair wages, safe working conditions and - additionally - Europe would be able to force the multinational companies to implement correct and holistic policies and would also be in a position to make a greater difference on environmental issues such as global warming. Sovereignty becomes less relevant when effective independence is lost anyway as the economy and the problems faced by all nations are increasingly globalised.

A federal Europe will benefit the citizens of its member states  A federal Europe would build upon the success of the EU and its predecessors in taming the nationalism that caused so much conflict in the twentieth century. The EU is drawing nearer to realising the vision of its founders for an “ever-closer union”. Despite the EU’s relative success in this regard, while national governments still exist they will regard policy-making within Europe as a competitive business, abusing vetoes and damaging the potential prosperity of all of Europe’s citizens. Such is the case with Britain's veto over the carbon tax, which the EU wants to implement - “The British government is "highly likely" to block European Commission proposals for a carbon tax contained in a widely-circulated draft version of the Energy Taxation Directive, EU diplomatic sources said yesterday”. [1]  A federal European state can build on the shared history and culture of its members to further the common good, while accommodating regional differences.  [1] EurActiv.com, ‘Britain set to veto EU carbon tax plans’

National identity and differences remain far more important than supposedly shared European values. Existing national governments operate on different models which recognise the historical, cultural and economic distinctiveness of each nation, and thus provide an important focus for the loyalty of their citizens (e.g. various monarchies, the French republican system, hallowed by successive revolutions). The further power is removed from a citizen, the more detached he is from the democratic process, the less accountable that power becomes, and the more likely it is to make decisions badly, damaging the interest of tens of millions of people.

The assumptions about the multinational corporations are not actually proved. National governments close deals with such corporations if both sides have interest in it. Even if we assume such a thing existed nowadays – in a federal Europe the same problem would occur only not with countries, rather with regions. That is because every region would want the company to create more business in its area so we will end up with the assumed status quo today.  The EU today is already strong enough in regards to implementing environmental policies and restrictions – the carbon tax, the cap and trade system. Dealing with the international issue of global warming is not a point of a federal Europe or the EU, but a completely different matter.

Europe is not like America and Australia, which were founded by immigrants with considerable homogeneity of language and culture. Canada’s relations with Quebec show that where such differences exist they can be politically destabilising, while federal states such as Brazil and the USSR have not avoided dictatorship, human rights problems and economic backwardness. Within the EU there is often no commonality of interests on key federal issues such as defence and foreign policy. Even today there are big splits on major issues such as agricultural reform and trade policy.  In actuality, Europeans don’t envy Americans because right now EU is far better in every aspect than the US – “Loory: What we have heard today is that the problems here in the U.S. are certainly much worse than in Europe.” [1] ”Anybody who claims that the US provides a model which the EU should copy needs to consider the basic economic facts of the case.” [2]  [1] Loory, ‘Europe's economy doing better than US’  [2] Irvin, ‘Europe vs. USA: Whose Economy Wins?’

A federal Europe will be a stronger international actor  A federal Europe will be better equipped to promote the interests of its citizens in the world, carrying more influence in the UN, WTO, IMF and other intergovernmental and treaty organisations than its individual states do now. Furthermore, Europe has a lot to contribute to the world in terms of its liberal traditions and political culture, providing both a partner and a necessary balance to the USA in global affairs.  Once unified, Europe will become an (even more) important negotiating and trading partner – one of the biggest economies in the world. It will have a population of 450 million – more than the United States and Russia combined. It will be the world’s biggest trader and generate one quarter of global wealth. It presently gives more aid to poor countries than any other donor. Its currency, the euro, comes second only to the US dollar in international financial markets. France, Germany, Poland - these countries can hardly ever negotiate something with giants such as the US or China. Europe as one country stands a better chance of putting its message across effectively.

The federal model has proved to be a success previously  The success of federal states elsewhere in providing peace and prosperity for their citizens, alongside democratic safeguards, point to the advantages of pursuing this model in Europe. The USA, Australia and Canada provide standards of living for their citizens which most Europeans would envy, while federal India is the best example of a long-term democratic success in the developing world.  The application of the principles of federalism to the European social and environmental policy s the key to European success. The creation of the single market meant that much national regulation of social and environmental issues ceased to be effective: only a European approach at the same level as the regulation of business would be able to work. Otherwise, companies might simply transfer from one member state with a great deal of regulation in these areas to another member state with less. If what economists call “externalities” were not to go unaddressed altogether, European social and environmental policies became necessary. Therefore only federal unity can bring EU states closer together in order for them to work as successfully as others federal countries.

This is all a matter of PR. Politicians and leaders need to work harder in order to present the benefits of an eventual federal Europe, which will also deal with some of the problems the EU has today. The public opinion is not a constant; it is rather variable and changeable.  Furthermore the EU is getting some bad evaluation at the moment due to the economic crisis, but this doesn’t mean the overall opinion toward it is negative.

Surely an ill-advised dash to build a federal Europe and forcing people in a direction they do not wish to go is a bad idea. However a federal Europe is the normal concurrence of the process of integration. And this is not against people’s will- “…He (Belgian ex-prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt) said, “I don’t think people have said that they are against a United States of Europe”. The no votes in France and the Netherlands were, according to Verhofstadt, not “no votes against Europe, but were votes against a certain type of Europe… what people want is a strong Europe, a United States of Europe that can give an answer to their concerns”. [1]  [1] Eurealist.co.uk, ‘United States of Europe’

Existing contributive inequalities within the Union would be amplified by a formal federal system  There is a possibility that once a federation, Europe will adopt certain policies that might be harmful for a minority of the member states. In consequence, any economic downturn in those states could manifest itself on a larger scale in the United States of Europe as economies of the member states rely (more than ever) on each other.  Furthermore different states may not contribute equally. States, because inducements to cooperate or threats to punish may be low, fail to provide for the collective benefit, therefore essentially "passing the buck" to other states, and most frequently to the most economically powerful participants. Citizens of large states like France, Great Britain, and Germany frequently complain that smaller states are not paying their "fair share" of the costs of the European Union. Meanwhile, smaller states may complain that they are overlooked or even disregarded because of their economically weaker status. These issues will be exacerbated in a European federation.  Decentralization decreases economic progress. [1] European countries where regions have more powers and responsibilities in terms of taxation, legislation and education policies tend to do better economically than centralised ones. Centralism hammers development of countries at the cost of its citizens.  [1] EUObserver, ‘Centralised states bad for economy, study shows’

Subsidiarity will deal with regional identities’ problem  Federalism and subsidiarity, that things should be dealt with at the lowest, most local, level possible, [1] can allow for regional identities in a way national states cannot. For example for Northern Ireland, Corsica, Basque Region, Lombardy. In a Federal Europe such peoples would not feel under threat from a dominant culture and long-running conflicts could be resolved, as issues of sovereignty become less relevant within the new political structures.  [1] Europa, ‘Subsidiarity’

The concept of federalism lacks political support  Euroscepticism is highest in Latvia, the United Kingdom, and Hungary, with only 25%–32% viewing membership as a good thing. Belief that the citizen's country has benefited from EU membership is lowest (below 50%) in the UK, Hungary, Latvia, Italy, Austria, Sweden and Bulgaria. A significant minority (36%) do not tend to trust the European Parliament. The European Parliament does not command the same sense of respect as national Parliaments, nor the connection with ordinary people. [1]  [1] Directorate-General for Communication, ‘EUROBAROMETER 71 Public opinion in the European Union’

Moves toward federalism will endanger the stability of the EU  There are great dangers of forcing people in a direction they do not wish to go. An ill-advised dash to build a federal Europe could raise dormant nationalist feelings, promote the rise of populist politicians with xenophobic agendas and endanger the stability of the EU. A Gaullist “Europe of Nations” [1] preserves the current benefits of EU without the risks of further unwanted political integration.  “(...)Dominant groups have more to gain from the majoritarian principle which is indispensable for constitutional democracies. As such, minorities would be placed at an ever more disadvantaged position in a European state. Thus, the progression of the EU into a federal state is bound to have a more negative than it would a positive impact on European integration.” [2]  [1] Ross, ‘Chirac the Great or de Gaulle the Small?’  [2] Cocodia, ‘Problems of Integration in a Federal Europe’

Devolution and subsidiarity can be applied by existing states, as Britain and France have both showed in the 1990s, and as Germany has done since 1945. Spain’s problem with separatist terrorists in the Basque Region shows that even a great deal of regional autonomy fails to satisfy extremists.

On the contrary a federal Europe will bring the countries a lot closer together. Matters of harmful policies will be a lot less than they are right now in the EU simply because separate states do exist now. However when there is just one state with all the nations in it – the harmful policies toward a certain state will be reduced to a minimum – after all the leaders will be managing one country and will be watching for the interests of all its people equally. Furthermore in a federal Europe the economic situation will even far better and faster than it is doing so now in the EU. As a matter of fact there are examples with the recently joined states, Bulgaria and Romania, which after 3 years still cannot catch up with the more advanced western states. In a federal Europe this particular problem will be sorted out, because everybody will be a part of one major and powerful country. Therefore in an economical aspect a federal Europe will manage a lot better than the European Union is right now.

imals international africa house would african government implement tougher

The Lisbon Treaty is limited in significance and has less problematic superstate aspects that the Constitutional treaty of 2004 such as an official flag, anthem and bill of citizen's rights [1]. The Constitution wanted to found the European Union on an entirely new basis, whereas the Lisbon Treaty is a conventional amending Treaty. It is this fundamental difference that justifies the lack of referendum for the Lisbon Treaty when it was essential for the ratification of the Constitution. However the association with the previous Treaty would have seen the public wary and progress stifled as a result. The Lisbon Treaty was more concerned with technical reforms than constitutional significance and therefore did not need the ratification of the national electorates. The result of a referendum is more likely to reflect public opinion on the current government than on the proposed reforms. Furthermore on important foreign policy issues the elected government is better informed to make decisions than the electorate [2].  [1] BBC News, ‘EU leaders sign landmark treaty’, viewed on 13 June 2011   [2] Parliament, Referendums – for and against, viewed on 13 June 2011

europe politics voting house would hold referendum any new eu treaty

Major changes need to be put to the people and the people must be trusted.  The Lisbon Treaty significantly affects the workings of each member country. It gives the European Union a legal personality, allowing it to sign international agreements and member countries are now made subject to majority voting [1]. The Lisbon Treaty does not only affect international policies, criminal law and national justice systems, it also gives power over to the Commission and European Court. Such major changes must be put to popular vote, the citizens of each EU member state have a right to legitimise or reject these changes that push for a more centralized European superstate. Furthermore the will of the people needs to be trusted, if a reform is intentionally ambiguous and complicated, which was one of the criticisms of the Lisbon Treaty [2], it is the job of the politician to explain the cause to the public. Voters should be included in the debate and key issues need to be highlighted not just ignored.  [1] European Commission, Your Guide to the Lisbon Treaty, viewed on 13 June 2011   [2] Foley, Kathy, ‘Lisbon treat: yes, no or eh?’, Sunday Times (13 January 2008).

Democracy itself is the delegating of decision making to elected officials and this is exactly what has taken place in the government's decision to not hold referendums but pass changes through national parliaments. Referenda undermines democracy by negating the representative government and parliamentary sovereignty, they have been chosen as the representatives of the people, by the people, and therefore have the right to make informed decisions on their behalf about what to do in the nation's best interests. If there are longer term issues with a government's decision then they can be made accountable at the next general election.

The decision not to hold a referendum directly ignores the wishes of the people and is therefore undemocratic.  The Lisbon Treaty and the Constitution have 96% of the same text. Former French President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, who wrote the original EU Constitution, has publicly stated that the Lisbon Treaty is essentially the same as the proposed Constitution [1]. The decision from countries not to hold referendums in 2007 that they had previously agreed to is a flagrant disregard for the wishes of the people. Moreover the decision to ratify the Lisbon Treaty through national parliaments in France and the Netherlands where the 2004 Treaty was rejected in popular vote demonstrates that the decision not to hold referendums was in the fear that they would be rejected when put to the people. Any decision that is forced through parliament in the fear that it would fail when opened to the citizens of that country lacks legitimacy.  [1] Valéry Giscard d'Estaing: The EU Treaty is the same as the Constitution’, The Independent (30 October 2007), viewed on 13 June 2011

The decision not to hold a referendum was not one taken against the wishes of the people. Firstly, citizens of France and the Netherlands, who voted no to the Constitution in public vote, accepted the decision to not repeat a referendum in 2007. Furthermore, the accusation that the two texts are 96% identical is a crude one that ignores the fundamental difference in meaning that a few words can make [1] therefore the decision to not hold a referendum to ratify The Lisbon Treaty should not be seen in conjunction with the result of the Constitution referendum. This demonstrates that the decision not to hold a referendum was not against the people's wishes: it was largely accepted that accepting constitutional changes through the elected national parliament was democratically acceptable.  [1] 'The EU Reform Treaty

Reform treaties are too important to be left to politicians of the day  Decisions that affect the national sovereignty of a country should not just be left to elected politicians who have power for a limited time but should be given to the citizens through direct vote. The nature of the Lisbon Treaty changed the relationship between member states and Brussels; it is clearly a constitutional issue and therefore needs to be ratified by all citizens. The Blair Labour Government held referenda on a whole range of constitutional changes, including not only devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but even on whether individual cities should have directly elected mayors

All politics is PR. If democracy was abandoned every time that the media held sway with the public, then government would soon become a dictatorship. It is a government's job to take up this PR war and to inform the public about the pros and cons of possible reform so that they can make an informed decision. It is not simply good enough to declare that referendums don't work

The lack of referendums in the making of past decisions is not reason enough to neglect democracy in the present. Decisions that were made by past governments should be made accountable by present governments, because voting has been denied in the past gives even more reason to now open up these important decisions to popular vote.

If all member states held a referendum on all EU treaties nothing would get passed.  The pure size and logistics of the European Union is such that if every member state had to hold a referendum on all EU Treaties, no EU Treaties would get enacted. It is too likely that one of the member states will vote against a motion. The EU should be able to vote on issues without consulting the citizens of all member states, in the UK legislation is voted on in parliament which is made of constituency representatives. The concept for government's voting in representation of their countries within the EU is the same. Furthermore the UK did not hold a referendum on the war with Iraq, so why should a referendum be held for issues of lesser importance.

Voters do not understand or care about EU reforms.  They would have found the legal jargon off-putting and a detailed knowledge of the existing EU Treaties is necessary to understand the amendments proposed 1. They have limited understanding of the current system and therefore cannot evaluate how reform treaties would benefit or harm the EU and their nation's interest. Due to this lack of understanding citizens are too likely to be swayed by media bias and anti Europe campaigners. All this is shown by the low turnout in European parliament elections. Elected representatives on the other hand, do understand the impact of the treaties and therefore can make an informed decision on the behalf of their people and in the nation's interest.  1 'An unloved Parliament', The Economist (7 May 2009), viewed on 13 June 2011 'Elections 2009', eu4journalists viewed on 13 June 2011

Referendums are more about PR than politics.  Referendum votes always end up being about something other than the issue on the ballot paper. In many referendum campaigns the real issue becomes one of confidence in the government of the day and its management of the economy, law and order, public scandals, etc. So when people vote they are expressing their unhappiness at their national government rather than making a considered judgment about the future of the EU. This is exactly what happened in the French and Dutch votes on the EU Constitution in 2005. When asked what influenced their decision, most voters said that they disliked aspects of EU enlargement, especially the arrival of Eastern European workers who might take local jobs, and the proposed entry negotiations with Turkey – but none of this was anything to do with the Constitution [1]. Furthermore a referendum would be pray to media distortion, which could have swayed the votes with biased coverage. Referendums are too often about government confidence rather than the issue at hand, people may have voted to express other grievances with their current government and not the future of the EU.  [1] The Further Enlargement of the EU: threat or opportunity?’ House of Lords European Union Committee (23 November 2006) viewed on 13 June 2011  , p.10

Significant changes in the past have not been put to popular vote.  In the past treaties with more far reaching consequences have been ratified by ruling parliaments without ever going to popular vote. For example the 1986 Act establishing a Single Market and the 1996 Maastricht Treaty. These treaties gave the EU power in economic regulation, immigration and monetary policy and yet were not put to majority voting. It was understood that progress was important and popular voting could halt progress. If these changes were made it is nonsensical that treaties with less significance should use a referendum.

Voters do care about EU reforms, and they are owed the respect of being told in layman's terms what specific treaty changes would do in real terms. The Lisbon Treaty was unnecessarily complicated and full of jargon (Browne, 'Gobbledegook'). It is the role of the politicians to make sure that treaties are easy to understand and accessible to all the citizens of the countries that they will affect. If the public is apathetic it is because they know their vote will ultimately be ignored. Democracy is paramount and in order to remain democratic EU reform needs to be passed by a public vote and not just the elected: prolonged elite avoidance of the engaging the public will be more detrimental in the long run1  1 Lu, Chien-Yi Lu, 'Fallacies in Embracing a

There is a difference between holding a referendum for every decision and holding one for important constitutional changes that will affect a nation's future sovereignty. The logistics and the fear of rejection should not be a reason to not hold a referendum. If anything the current controversy surrounding the war on Iraq and its legality is proof that referendums are fundamental in important issues to ensure that the ruling government still reflects the will of the people.

Most often, prosecutions that occur are not just with only the losing side being prosecuted for their crimes. The Nuremburg trials prosecuted Nazi’s for offences they committed, but none of the Allied forces were ever brought for trial; Curtis LeMay who commanded the US Air Force in fire bombings that killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese himself said “I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal.”[1]  Prosecutions also focus on a small number of scapegoats, to the exclusion of the majority who showed sympathy for that regime, civilians that marched with the regime, or political supporters. An example of this is the prosecution of the military junta in Argentina in 1984-5 while Peronist supporters (the new government was peronist) were given amnesties under the ‘full stop’ program. It took another 20 years before more – 267 members of the military and police – were convicted.[2]  The third reason why these trials may be unjust is that the laws that get created – in order to ensure that no one slips through the cracks – are usually so broad and generalist that they are virtually indefensible and fail to take context of the crimes into account. As such, the laws themselves are often manifestly unjust.[3]  [1] ‘General Curtis E. LeMay, (1906-1990)’, PBS, accessed 24/2/2014,   [2] Layús, Rosario Figari, ‘Better Late than Never: Human Rights Trials in Argentina’, RightsNews, Vol.30, no.3, May 2012,   [3] Osiel, Mark J. ‘Why Prosecute? Critics of Punishment for Mass Atrocity’ 118 Human Rights Quarterly 147

The only just method  Prosecuting offenders is the only way to get a just outcome when there have been horrific crimes committed. At a most principled level, those who commit a crime ought to be held accountable for their actions even if they are powerful or it damages the chances of peace because the powerful must be shown not to be above the law. Even where the law did not exist, or the leaders were in control of the law, international norms provide a standard for what actions merit prosecution, and judiciaries have been very good at convicting those who committed atrocities[1]. Having those who committed crimes convicted by law courts helps prevent those affected by atrocities holding grudges and put the past behind them so aiding the healing process [2].  [1] Moore, John J Jr ‘Problems With Forgiveness’ 43 Stanford Law Review 733, February 1991  [2] abc news, ‘Dallas Holocaust survivors welcome prosecution of former Nazi guard’, wfaa.com, 20 August 2010,

By using international courts, countries do not actually gain skills or dependence within their own systems, but may instead become reliant on that system.  However, such an international institution cannot handle all the cases and delays the process of justice; The ICTR have completely finished 47 cases in 20 years [1], a slow operation compared to the Rwandan local courts. The domestic Gacaca system has done much more trying nearly 2million suspects.[2] But this system has been reconciliatory in nature without forensic evidence and cross examination.  [1] Will, Ross, ‘Rwanda genocide: Did Bizimungu trial take too long?’, bbc.co.uk, 17 May 2011,   ‘Status of cases’, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, accessed 24/2/2014,   [2] Kimenyi, Felly, and Asiimwe, Bosco, ‘Legal experts hail Gacaca’, newtimes.co.rw, 18 June 2012,

Prosecutions are needed for victims  Prosecutions are the only way for victims to see those who caused pain against them brought to justice. The alternative of some kind of reconciliation often leaves those who perpetrated crimes able to retain power as has happened in countries like Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia and Guatemala[1]. When this happens there is clearly a concern both that these individuals are not being held to account and that they could act in a similar way again if given the opportunity. Under the United Nations Genocide Convention of 1948, victims have a right to see offenders prosecuted[2]. And it is only prosecution that will ensure that such acts cannot occur again so giving peace of mind to victims.  [1] Osiel, Mark J. ‘Why Prosecute? Critics of Punishment for Mass Atrocity’ 118 Human Rights Quarterly 147   [2] Akhavan, Payam, ‘Beyond Impunity: Can International Criminal Justice Prevent Future Atrocities' American Journal of International Law, 95(1), 2001, pp.7-31

Victims are often no better off by seeking prosecutions, especially because prosecutions are often hard to make stick in the first place. But moreover, the process often involves victims having to relive their story while being cross examined, which further harms the victim.  The continued trauma among genocide survivors in Rwanda is largely due to having to give testimonies in such cases [1].  [1] Redress and African rights, ‘Survivors and post genocide in Rwanda’, redress.org, November 2008,

Deterrence doesn’t work as people who commit these atrocities usually don’t believe they will be caught, or don’t care. Further, prosecutions can actually cause more offenses in the future, as supporters of those prosecuted seek revenge for the prosecution occurring. We have seen this in Sudan where President Bashir’s indictment by the ICC has done little to halt attacks on civilians in both Darfur and, more recently, South Kordofan [1].  [1] Jennifer, Christian and James, Bair, ‘ Why does the world allow Sudan’s Bashir to target civilians? ’, globalpost.com, 30 July 2012,

International prosecution encourages domestic justice  By introducing internationally based prosecution, the laws are able to effectively filter down into the domestic system. The international system takes care of powerful offenders who might otherwise not receive a fair trial or be brought to justice. This then allows domestic courts to prosecute those involved in the crimes at a lower level. This has worked in Ivory coast where the former leader was brought to face charges committed at home and also helped stabilize the situation in the country [1].  [1] Smith, David, ‘Laurent Gbagbo appears before international criminal court’, thegurdian.com, 5 December 2011,

Deters future offences  By prosecuting those who commit crimes against humanity and war crimes future leaders are dissuaded from committing such acts [1]. When criminals are held accountable, the belief in the reliability of the legal system is enhanced, society is strengthened by the experience that the legal system is able to defend itself and the sense of justice is upheld or rectified [2].  Since the Office of the Prosecutor announced its interest in Colombia in 2006, the government has taken a number of measures particularly the Peace and Justice Law to ensure domestic prosecution of those who could potentially be tried by the ICC. The threat of ICC prosecution appears to have concerned former President Pastrana. Vincente Castrano (AUC) a paramilitary leader was fearful of the possibility of ICC prosecution, a fear that reportedly directly contributed to his group’s demobilisation[3].  [1] Safferlin, Christoph J.M., ‘Can Criminal prosecution be the answer to massive Human Rights Violations?’, issafrica.org,   [2] Grono, Nick, ‘ The Deterrent Effect of the ICC on the Commission of International Crimes by Government Leaders ’, globalpolicy.org, 5 October 2012,

It is the threat of prosecutions that cause leaders to fear committing crimes in the first place. The best way to stop leaders causing damage is for them to be deterred from doing so by being held accountable of their deeds.

This often leads to a scenario where leaders grant themselves immunity, or continue to commit atrocities, in the comfort of knowing that immunity is coming. Those in the CIA who committed what many consider to have been torture were granted immunity by the justice department claiming that it would be unfair to prosecute men and women working to protect America [1]. Such an immunity or amnesty can then be used to close discussions to find the truth and effectively shut of the healing process.  [1] Greenwald, Glenn, ‘Obama's justice department grants final immunity to Bush's CIA torturers’, thegurdian.com, 31 August 2012,

Prosecutions don't get to the real truth  Truth is the most important factor that supports the healing process. Individuals when being prosecuted have incentives to hide crimes and lie about the true motivations for offences occurring as they don’t want to go to prison for telling the truth. This means that the whole truth of matters never really come to light. TRC’s, such as that in South Africa, do a very good job of ensuring that the full record of human rights abuses come to light [1].The Rwandan Gacaca courts which encompasses three important features of relevance to broader experiments of reconciliatory justice serve as a lesson. Those who confess their crimes are rewarded with the halving of prison sentences and as a result, 60,238 prisoners have confessed to participating in the genocide [2]. Second, gacaca law highlights apologies welcomed by many as an important ingredient to promote reconciliation.  [1] Linfield, Susie, ‘Trading Truth for Justice? Reflections on South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission’, bostonreview,net, 01 June 2000,   [2] Graybill, Lyn, and Lanegran , Kimberly, ‘Truth, Justice, and Reconciliation in Africa: Issues and Cases’, ufl.edu, Fall 2004,

Fear of prosecutions cause leaders to do more damage  Instead of giving up fighting, leaders continue to fight, disrupting the ability of a country to move on, for fear of prosecution. Pol Pot, for example, rebuilt armies and continued to fight long after his regime was overthrown, killing thousands more people. Had an amnesty been offered, he might well have given up and allowed the country to heal with far less death. Joseph Kony also continues to plague Uganda from within bush land even though he has offered to surrender for amnesty, because the ICC refuses to grant him any indemnity for his crimes [1].  [1] BBC news Africa, ‘LRA leader Joseph Kony 'in surrender talks' with CAR’, bbc.co.uk, 20 November 2013,

Peace more important than Justice  In practice, prosecutions often come at the expense of other forms of reconciliation. For instance before Truth and Reconciliation Commissions can work amnesties have to be given for people to be willing to tell their stories. In order for people to put down weapons, or agree to tell stories, prosecutions must be given up.  This is evident with the conflict is South Sudan; the opposition which had signed the ceasefire agreement to restore stability in the region, breached it and started fighting again when many of its members were indicted for the crimes they had committed [1]. In such case the most important thing is to prevent future atrocities as healing can only start when there is no conflict or atrocities going on.  [1] Deustche Welle, ‘South Sudan: Rebels Strike Oil Centre, Breaching Ceasefire’, allafrica.com, 18 February 2014,

Prosecutions allow an equal chance for both prosecution and defense to show the truth as they believe it with the result that far more facts are brought to life than a process that is reliant only on the individual being ‘truthful’. Moreover an amnesty may not be forever as it is against the norms of international justice so it is unlikely that they will tell the whole truth.[1] Argentina for example has seen the prosecution of those who were given amnesties two decades earlier [2].  [1] Ahmed, Anees and Quayle, Merryn, ‘Can genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes be pardoned or amnestied?’, sas.ac.uk, 28 January 2008,   [2] Layús, Rosario Figari, ‘Better Late than Never: Human Rights Trials in Argentina’, RightsNews, Vol.30, no.3, May 2012,

Currently 3 in 4 youths work informally or within vulnerable employment - working without a formal written contract (Work4Youth, 2013). Although technology may create new markets it will not change the type of employment youths engage in. The use of technology will mean a majority of youths will continue to work informally - without access to social security, a valuable pension scheme, and social protection in the event of a crisis. Self-employment and having the flexibility to connect to different markets provides a temporary fix and income. Stability and security is not provided for youths.

ss international africa computers phones house believes new technologies

Technology has driven youths to identify new markets  A key technology for youths are mobile phones and devices. Across West and East Africa the possession of mobile phones has enabled citizens to network and form solutions to social problems. By 2015, there are expected to be 1 billion mobile cellular subscriptions in Sub-Saharan Africa (Sambira, 2013). This is the first African generation directly accessing high-technology, although uncertainty remains in the amount of youths having access to technology. Through mobile phones new business opportunities, and flows of money, are being created. Furthermore, mobile phones are providing innovative solutions to health care treatment, ensuring better health for future entrepreneurs and youths.  SlimTrader is a positive example [1] . SlimTrader uses mobile phones to provide a range of vital services - from airplane and bus tickets to medicine. The innovative e-commerce provides a space to advertise skills, products, and opportunities - to, on the one hand, identify new consumer demands; and on another hand, create notices to exchange goods.  Mobile technology is making it faster, quicker, and simpler to tap into new markets [2] .  [1] See further readings: SlimTrader, 2013; Ummeli, 2013.  [2] See further readings: Nsehe, 2013. Inspite of challenges Patrick Ngowi has earned millions through the construction of Helvetic Solar Contractors.

Such platforms are known, and accessible, by a minority within Africa - limiting who benefits from the technology available. Rising entrepreneurs across Africa typically are able to access resources required and network their ideas, whilst a majority of youths remain out of the innovation loop.  As inequality disparities continue to increase in Africa, a similar trend is identifiable to youth technology and entrepreneurialism. Entrepreneurs rising in Africa show the future of a ‘young millionaire’s club’. They hold the right connections, access to credit and electricity, and time to apply to their business model. The millionaire entrepreneurs continue to create new technologies - not vice-versa.

Technology has enabled Africa’s cultural industries to grow.  Technology has enabled the development of entrepreneurial ideas for business, but also within Africa’s cultural industry. Access to video recording mobile phones, the internet, and televised publications has created a new culture of expression for African youths. Cultural industries are raising critical questions for politics, and empowering youth to tell their stories. The use of journalism has become mobilised by youths - as seen in initiatives such as, African Slum Voices, of which are encouraging youths to pro-actively raise their opinions and voices on issues occurring within their communities.  Furthermore, the music and film industry in Africa has arisen as a result of access to new technologies at a lower-cost. Two key components responsible for the growth of Nollywood (Nigeria’s Film Industry) include access to digital technology and entrepreneurship. Youths have become vital within Nollywood, as actors, producers and editors. Today Nollywood’s low-budget films have inspired the growth of regional film industries across Africa and contributed to its status as the third largest film industry. Nollywood’s revenue stand’s at around $200mn a year [1] .  [1] See further readings: ABN, 2013.

Technology will lead job growth for youths.  The rate of unemployment in Sub-Saharan Africa remains above the global average, at 7.55% in 2011, with 77% of the population in vulnerable employment [1] . Economic growth has not been inclusive and jobs are scarce. In particular, rates of youth unemployment, and underemployment, remain a concern [2] . On average, the underutilisation of youths in the labour market across Sub-Saharan Africa stood at 67% in 2012 (Work4Youth, 2013). Therefore 67% of youths are either unemployed, inactive, or in irregular employment. The rate of unemployment varies geographically and across gender [3] .  There remains a high percentage of youths within informal employment. Technology can introduce a new dynamic within the job market and access to safer employment.  Secure, high quality jobs, and more jobs, are essential for youths. Access to technology is the only way to meet such demands. Technology will enable youths to create new employment opportunities and markets; but also employment through managing, and selling, the technology available.  [1] ILO, 2013.  [2] Definitions: Unemployment is defined as the amount of people who are out of work despite being available, and seeking, work. Underemployment defines a situation whereby the productive capacity of an employed person is underutilised. Informal employment defines individuals working in waged and/or self employment informally (see further readings).  [3] Work4Youth (2013) show, on average, Madagascar has the lowest rate of unemployment (2.2%) while Tanzania has the highest (42%); and the average rate of female unemployment stands higher at 25.3%, in contrast to men (20.2%).

Recent evidence by the World Bank indicates unemployment is not only due to the limited availability of jobs. A high proportion of youths have been identified as ‘idle’ - not in school, training, or work, and not actively seeking employment. Although variations are found, in 2009 only ~2% of male youths, aged 15-24, and ~1% of female youths, who were not in school or employment in Tanzania, were actively looking for work [1] . Without motivation technology will not make a difference.  [1] WDR, 2013.

Cultural industries don’t always provide a positive role. If entrepreneurial youths today are using technology to create films on witchcraft in the public sphere, what effect will this have on future generations? Growth cant just rely on creative industries as there needs to be money created to drive demand for these films, and any money that might be made by the creative industries are undermined by piracy. Without a solution small time films are hardly the most secure of jobs.

Despite programs distributing technology into schools does the availability of technology provides future benefits? Having a tablet does not ensure teachers are well-trained to assist and guide the children. Without proper oversight it might prove more of a distraction. Technology in schools might also mean students having technology substituted for teachers. With programs still being implemented, and results variable, the causality between technology, education, and the rise of well educated, motivated, youths remains precarious.

Technology is building a platform for sharing ideas.  Entrepreneurialism can be encouraged through an awareness, and sharing, of new ideas. The technological revolution has provided a platform for personal expression, delivery of up-to-date news, and the vital sharing of local ideas and thoughts. In Nigeria the Co-Creation Hub has emerged, encouraging an entrepreneurial spirit. Further, Umuntu and Mimiboards’ are connecting individual communities to the web by encouraging local content creation [1] .  Such platforms are enabling the transfer of knowledge and innovative ideas. Innovative solutions are being introduced to routine problems, such as ‘Mafuta Go’ an app to find the best price for petrol (Christine Ampaire).  [1] See further readings: Co-Creation Hub Nigeria, 2013

Changing education systems and democracy.  Technology has enabled access to e-books and resources for students and teachers [1] . Such changes have enabled improved efficiency in teaching, with the availability of up-to-date resources and awareness of relevant theories. Furthermore, the ease by which students are able to access multiple resources and buy books online is expanding their intellectual curiosity and library.  In addition to raising new students, technology can be seen as a tool for democracy. Technology provides a tool for government accountability, transparency in information, and for good governance. Organisations, such as Ushahidi (Crowdmapping) following Kenya’s 2007 post-election violence; and mySociety which updates citizens on parliamentary proceedings in South Africa, show how technology is feeding democratisation for youths [2] .  [1] See further readings: Turcano, 2013.  [2] See further readings: Treisman, 2013; Usahidi, 2013.

Technology is enhancing security, not threatening it. Measures are being implemented to ensure cyber-security and further technology is creating new, local, initiatives for security on the ground. Ushahidi Crowdmapping - an interactive, collective, mapping tool - was used to expose, and remember, political violence that occurred in Kenya’s 2007 presidential election [1] .  [1] See further readings: Ushahidi, 2013.

Credit is now becoming more accessible through technology. Mobile-banking schemes such as MPESA across East Africa and ZAAB in Somalia, use mobile phones to transfer money and payments. The mobile banking scheme is increasing the efficiency of borrowing money from social circles, enabling quick transactions to be carried out, and introducing users to a wealth of market opportunities.  Technology is integral to entrepreneurship.

The technological revolution has been hyped.  Debates may be raised as to whether the technological revolution is actually a reality across Africa [1] . Have expectations been too high; the benefits exclusive; and the reality over-exaggerated?  On the one hand, the type of technology raises significant questions. Although the population with access to a mobile phone has risen, the quality of the phones indicates a hyped-reality. Although technology has become easily accessible, the quality of such technologies puts constraints on what it can be used for. A vast majority of mobile phones are imported from China - at low-cost but also poor quality. Quality testing on imports, and locally produced products, is needed to approve market devices.  On another hand, the reality of internet connectivity is not high-speed, and therefore of limited use. Better connectivity emerges in certain geographical locations, to those who can afford higher prices, and within temporary fluxes.  [1] See further readings: BBC World Service, 2013.

Technology has only benefited private companies.  Ultimately, technology, its provision, distribution, and function, is based on a business model. Profits are sought and losers emerge. The technology hype has attracted global technology giants, ranging from IBM to Google – a key issue as to whether entrepreneurialism can emerge amongst youths and technology used sustainably. The monopolisation of technology markets by multinational companies puts constraints on the ability for small businesses to break through. Any profits created are not recirculated in their locality, or Africa, but return to the country of origin.  For entrepreneurialism to be gained, and youth jobs emerge, the technological giants investing in Africa’s rising future need to partner with communities and small businesses.

Technology remains insecure and a security risk.  The internet remains at risk. Cybersecurity is a key concern, and the prevalence of hacking events across Africa identifies the need to promote security for the new digital users. Cyber-crime costs the Kenyan government around Ksh.2 billion (Mutegi, 2013); and affects around 70% of South Africans. In order to encourage more users in technology their safety, against fraud, hacking, and identity theft, needs to be prioritised. Without security technology can’t help entrepreneurs as customer details, business plans etc can’t be kept private.

Technology will not result in entrepreneurialism without providing a foundational basis.  The key constraint for entrepreneurship is the lack of access to finance, credit, and basic infrastructure - whether a computer or technical skills on how to use different systems. Limited accessibility acts as an obstacle to entrepreneurialism.  In order to encourage an inclusive capability for youths to get involved in entrepreneurial ideas, technology training and equal start-up credit is required. Furthermore, dangers arise where credit has become easily accessible - putting individuals at risk of debt where a lack of protection and payment planning is provided.  Kenya’s Uwezo Fund provides a positive example, whereby action has been taken to provide youths with safe credit. The government collaboration is calling for youths to apply for grants and loans in a bid to encourage entrepreneurial activity for all. Loans are interest-free.

Several examples may be found on established partnerships between multinational technology firms and civil-society groups. Microsoft has become a key investor in South Africa to tackle youth unemployment.  Microsoft has established a Students to Business initiative in South Africa, aiming to build human capital and provide professional skills to students, thus assisting job opportunities. Multinational companies are investing in youths as they recognise the burden of high unemployment and the potential talents youth have. By providing young students with key skills and sharing knowledge, a new generation of technology developers, leaders, and entrepreneurs will arise.

The technological revolution across Africa is broad, ranging from mobile technology to internet connectivity. The availability of mobiles has broadened who can use technology - being more inclusive to multiple socio-economic groups.  Internet.org [1] has been established to resolve issues, making connectivity affordable. The initiative, which involves a collaborative partnership between Facebook and technological organisations, has a vision of ensuring access to the internet for the two-thirds who remain unconnected. Connectivity is a fundamental necessity to living in our ‘knowledge economy’. Their mission has centred on three aspects: affordability, improving efficiency, and innovative partnerships to expand the number of people connected. Intervention has therefore focused on removing barriers to accessing information by connecting people.  Furthermore in Kenya, mobile phones have been made accessible to a wider audience through the removal of the general sales tax in 2009.  [1] See further readings: Internet.org, 2013.

There are big differences between Romania and Bulgaria and Turkey; this is caused by the political situation regarding Turkey’s support for North Cyprus. Cyprus is a member of the European Union having joined in 2005 and would be likely to block any attempt by Turkey to join so long as Turkey supports the breakaway north of the island, the European Union admitted that Cyprus would become an obstacle as soon as it joined. [1]  [1]  University of Miami study, ‘Turkey’s Membership Application: Implications for the EU’, Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series, Vol 5 No 26 August 2005.

americas europe global middle east politics politics general house would

Turkey has precedents, such as Romania and Bulgaria, both of whom were accepted into the EU  Romania and Bulgaria, who have by far the worst human rights’ records, were prioritized over Turkey when they were granted the right of accession, joining the EU in 2007. The EU rewarded states that have made a big effort to democratize and change policy in order to be allowed in to the EU. By essentially procrastinating on Turkey's case, the EU are discouraging Turkey from making the required changes to their legislature and norms and thus hindering their chances of accession. Countries such as Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic were pressurized to reform at a rapid pace after being promised by the EU they would likely be in the EU in a relatively short period of time; Turkey has been given no such promises. Turkey should have even more 'right' to be in the EU as these states, as it formally applied for membership long before these states and should thus be given priority over them.

There are fears that Turkey joining the EU would create the possibility of a ‘single market’ in terrorism. "Turkey will not be admitted to the E.U. It will not be admitted because, at this point, given the behaviour mainly of Arab Muslims (for does anyone doubt that it was the Arab influence that caused some Chechens to embrace not only the idea of Jihad, but all of the current methods being used to further it), Europeans have lost their stomach for parroting phrases about the religion of "peace" and "tolerance." They do not want to admit a country of 70 million Muslims, who would then move freely about Europe. They do not want Turkey admitted because it will be an easy conduit for non-Turkish Muslims to enter Europe, posing as Turks." [1]  [1]  ‘Turkey will not be admitted to the EU’ by Hugh Fitzgerald, 6th December 2005

Turkey is a poverty stricken country and entry into the EU would help to raise the living standards for its entire population  The EU has welcomed poorer entrants than Turkey without disaster; Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Greece were all much poorer than the EU average when they joined and all are now well integrated and much more prosperous. Disastrous migration was forecast in their cases too, but did not occur. Nor is Turkey as poor as has been suggested; Turkey with a GDP per capita of $8215 in 2009 is richer than Romania at $7500 and Bulgaria with a GDP per capita of $6423 [1] both of which are already members. Turkey’s economy is also in the process of reform, including the restructuring of its banking system and IMF programmes; in the next few years this process will allow for faster, more sustained growth. Turkey provides a large new market for EU goods; should it be accepted into the single market the economic benefits would not be solely limited to that country.  Turkey’s inclusion in the EU would not threaten other members with overwhelming economic or immigration issues. It is possible that, as has happened with Bulgaria and Romania, that a delay is enacted for the Schengen passport-free zone [2] . This would give both the current EU and Turkey a period of time to adjust.  [1]  The World Bank, GDP per capita (current US$), 2009  [2]  ‘EU newcomers smart over Schengen delay’ by Chris Bryant, 21st Jan 2011

The EU will never be able to integrate Turkey economically. Turkey is too poor, with millions of subsistence farmers and living standards far below the European norm (making massive migration to richer EU countries inevitable). "Despite its current population accounting for 15% of the EU-25 population, its GDP is equivalent to just 2% of the EU-25 GDP. Its GDP per capita is 28.5% of the EU-25 GDP (European Commission, 2004)" [1] . It would be a significant drain on EU funding to bring its economy and living standards to an acceptable level.  Turkey is a nation of over 70 million with significantly lower living conditions and wages than most EU member states. Most EU states are already going through a recession and credit crunch and are suffering enough without a potentially huge number of Turkish migrants legally given the right to live and work in 27 member states, but who would be expected to choose to reside mainly in the more prosperous member states such as the UK, Germany, France, Spain and Italy. This is especially a problem for Germany, who by 2004 already had 1.74 million Turkish people living in Germany [2] who make up approximately one fourth of the immigrant population in Germany. To allow migrants to come in legally could potentially hinder Germany's economy significantly by increasing unemployment levels even further.  [1]  University of Miami study, ‘Turkey’s Membership Application: Implications for the EU’, Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series, Vol 5 No 26 August 2005.  [2]  ‘Turkish Migration in Germany’, chart breakdown of German immigration figures by country.

Turkey first applied to join the EU back in the 1960s but there is no document where EU leaders have promised unconditionally to include Turkey in the future. In a decade of candidacy Turkey has managed to satisfy less than half of the chapters, and these are only the minimum prerequisites. Even if they had, past declarations (as opposed to treaties) cannot be held to bind today’s leaders in weighing both their own national interest and the wider European interest. The possibility is therefore a long way off. The possible negative impact of Turkish EU membership upon existing members must be considered. The recent rise of far-right anti-immigration politicians, such as Marine Le Pen, Jorg Haidar and Pym Fortuyn, point to a dangerous public reaction to more open borders and unchecked migration.

Turkey joining the EU would help the international fight against terrorism  Turkey is a key geo-political strategic ally to the West and should be integrated fully in order to ensure its continued cooperation. "Turkey is a secular Muslim democracy and a crucial ally for the West. The eastern flank of NATO, straddling Europe and Asia, it played a critical role in containing the Soviet Union during the Cold War. In the 1990s, it helped monitor Saddam Hussein and protect Iraqi Kurds by permitting U.S. warplanes to use its bases. After the September 11, 2001, attacks, it became a staging area for coalition forces in Afghanistan, where Turkish forces eventually assumed overall command of the International Stabilization Force. Turkey continues to be a pivotal partner in the fight against al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, despite attacks by radical Islamists at home." [1]  [1]  ‘Turkey’s Dreams of Accession’ by David Phillips, Foreign Affairs September/October 2004

Any country that fulfils the accession criteria should be allowed to join  Turkey was promised a chance to join the EU by a unanimous vote at the Helsinki summit in 1999, when its candidacy was unanimously accepted after three decades of consistent Turkish requests. As a candidate country Turkey should be allowed in once it meets the membership criteria which were first set out in the Copenhagen European Council of 1993. These were stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities, the existence of a functioning market economy as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union and the ability to take on the obligations of membership including adherence to the aims of political, economic &amp; monetary union. [1] Clearly economic and political reforms are necessary, but that is true of all states attempting to join the EU and should not be used as an excuse to backtrack now. It would be hypocritical to apply one set of criteria to Central and Eastern European states and another to Turkey. Such blatant hypocrisy would have consequences, if the EU is seen to break its promise to Turkey it may turn a potential friend and partner into a suspicious and hostile neighbour.  [1]  European Commission Enlargement, Accession criteria, 30th October 2010

Turkey has a large number of pending cases to be addressed by the European Court of Human Rights [1] . Police use of torture is widespread against PKK members and sympathisers. Turkey refuses even to acknowledge that Kurds have a separate culture and ethnicity, referring to them as 'Mountain Turks'. Peaceful protestors, including (but not only) those wanting improved rights for the Kurdish minority, are still tried and imprisoned under anti-terrorist laws. The UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances reported that in 1994 there were over 50 disappearances in Turkey, more than in any other country [2] . There are also restrictions on the freedom of the press.  It is true that reforms have begun, but there are questions as to how thoroughly these will be implemented. And in cases where judgments have been put forward by the European Court of Human Rights, Turkey is often loath to implement the advice of the court, as in the Loizou Case [3] . Until political dissidents are freed, those accused of human rights abuses are brought to trial and punished, and Kurds are given equal rights, Turkey cannot be judged a suitable candidate for EU accession.  [1]  Report by Thomas Hammarberg, Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, 1st October 2009  [2]  United Nations Commission on Human Rights  [3]  Netherlands Institute of Human Rights, summary Loizuo and others v Turkey

Turkey is not a European country - 95% of the nation’s landmass is on the wrong side of the Hellespont, in Asia. If Turkey is allowed into the European Union, not only would the institution’s very name become nonsensical, but it would be impossible to place a limit upon its potential future expansion. If Gibraltar belonged to Morocco rather than Britain, would we have said yes to Morocco’s application to join the European Union? Former French President Valery Giscard d'Estaing told Le Monde in 2002 - "The day after you open negotiations with Turkey, you would have a Moroccan demand (for membership of the union)" [1] . One could of course then argue that Turkey should not be the only geographically non-European member of the European Union and that Morocco and Armenia would make excellent candidates. But if Morocco, why not Algeria? If Armenia, why not Azerbaijan?  French President Nicolas Sarkozy said in January 2007: "Turkey has no place inside the European Union. I want to say that Europe must give itself borders, that not all countries have a vocation to become members of Europe, beginning with Turkey which has no place inside the European Union. Enlarging Europe with no limit risks destroying European political union, and that I do not accept." [2] If there is to be a limit then it makes sense that this limit should be at Europe’s geographical borders.  [1]  ‘Turkey not part of Europe’ by Randall Parker, 8th November 2002  [2]  15th January 2007

Turkey is a highly unstable democracy in an unstable part of the world  Turkey has a better history of democratic elections than a number of the former communist states currently negotiating their membership of the EU. Its election of a party with Islamist roots has led to a smooth transfer of power, with no attempt at intervention by the secularist military (as in the past). In 2010 the EU welcomed the success of a referendum on changes to the Turkish constitution which reduced the power of the military and made it fully subject to democratic authority.  Turkey is near some global flash points, but its entry into the EU would not bring these potential dangers closer to current EU members. The EU is already engaged in conflicts in Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan; Turkey’s inclusion would not have made that more or less likely. Turkey is already a long-standing member of NATO; this means that any security crisis on Turkey’s borders, for example between Palestine and Israel, already involves its Western neighbours and the EU has had to involve Turkey over issues of planning and access.  Furthermore, Turkey as a strategic gateway to the Middle East does not only involve conflict; it also provides the West with the opportunity for reconciliation and cooperation. Turkey is potentially a crucial alternative conduit for oil and gas to and from central Asia [1] , making Europe less dependent on Russian favour. Engagement between Turkey and the EU has greatly reduced historic enmity between Turkey and Greece, and held out hope for a solution to the division of Cyprus, showing the benefits of a closer relationship. The EU was created to encourage political cooperation in just such circumstances [2] , and Turkey’s entry would be important for strengthening relationships with the increasingly important Muslim countries in the Middle East and breaking down the artificial barriers between ‘East’ and ‘West’.  [1]  ‘Turkey: still America’s best ally in the Middle East?’ by Joshua W Walker, 25th June 2010  [2]  ‘Turkey: an honest broker in the Middle East’ by Bulent Kenes, 9th June 2010

Turkey would have the largest population of all member states and would therefore hold a disproportionate amount of voting power  Turkey is a large country in European terms, but even if its population would make it the largest single EU member by 2020, this would still only give it some 15% of the total in an enlarged EU of 25 countries or more. This is a much smaller proportion than Germany represented in the EU of 15 before the 2004 enlargement (21.9%) [1] , so it is ridiculous to argue that Turkey would dominate EU decision-making. It would not gain full status for many years anyway; an inauguration period, in which it had semi-membership status, would introduce it slowly to the process. Turkey would not be able to change EU policy to suit itself as soon as it arrives.  [1]  European Union (EU-15) &amp; Constituent Nation Population from 1950 &amp; Projections to 2050, Demographia, 2001

Turkey would be an unstable Muslim state in a traditionally Christian union  Turkey’s citizens may be Muslims, but the state is as firmly secular as France in terms of its constitution and government. The new Justice and Development Party (AK) which is currently in government is not seeking to overturn the secular constitution, although it does want to amend some laws that positively discriminate against devout Muslims. These include rules such as the ban on women wearing headscarves in government buildings; restrictions on expressing religious belief which would break human rights laws within the EU.  Regardless of one's beliefs surrounding Turkey's possible ascension to the European Union, the fact that the nation's predominant religion is Islam is surely not one of the issues to be considered. Millions of Muslims already live within the EU; excluding Turkey from membership on the grounds of religion would suggest these European Muslims were second-class citizens in a Christian club. It would also presumably rule out future EU entry for Albania, Bosnia and Kosovo. If the EU is to be regarded as an institution that promotes freedom for the citizens of its member states then surely this also means that it promotes freedom of religion. If EU member states are fearful of building closer relations with Islam, which they will inevitably have to, proceeding with the world's most moderate and 'western' Islamic country is the most logical first step. The EU should welcome a state which could provide a positive example of how Islam is completely compatible with democracy, progress and human rights.

Turkey has a poor human rights record  Turkey’s human rights record is improving rapidly, with the abolition of the death penalty and the removal of restrictions on the use of the Kurdish language. "Encouraged by the EU, Turkey has pursued legislative and constitutional reforms liberalizing the political system and relaxing restrictions on freedom of the press, association, and expression. Turkey signed and ratified Protocols 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It abolished the death penalty and adopted measures to promote independence of the judiciary, end torture during police interrogations, and reform the prison system. In addition, Turkey has significantly reduced the scope of its antiterrorism statutes, which had been used to curtail political expression, and it amended the Penal Code and Codes of Criminal and Administrative Procedure. Police powers have been curbed and the administration of justice strengthened, due partly to the dismantling of state security courts." [1]  The Kurdish minority is also enjoying better treatment. “The protection and promotion of the rights of the Kurds, which make up about a fifth of Turkey's population, have also progressed… In June, an appeals court ordered the release of Leyla Zana and three other Kurdish parliamentarians who were jailed ten years ago after the Kurdistan Workers' Party was banned." [2]  Surely countries with a history of bad human rights activities should be embraced by the EU, in the hope that the EU will have a positive influence on them. It is true that banning them from membership is an effective punishment but that will not enforce any change. If we wish to see compliance with Human Rights conventions we have to ensure that countries that may contravene them are under its jurisdiction in the first place. Once they are members we can then encourage better behaviour through punishing any further contraventions.  [1]  ‘Turkey’s Dreams of Accession’ by David Phillips, Foreign Affairs September/October 2004  [2]  ‘Turkey’s Dreams of Accession’ by David Phillips, Foreign Affairs September/October 2004

Turkey is too big to be safely included within the EU. The Turkish population - estimated at 65.6 million in 2000 - is on current growth trends forecast to rise to 87.3 million by 2025, making it the largest single state in the EU [1] . As population size determines representation and voting strength in the Council of Ministers, and in the European Parliament, Turkey would be able to dominate EU decision-making and set its own agenda, to the disadvantage of existing members.  [1]  Population projections of countries and their coastal regions: Turkey

The geographical definition of Europe must be limited and does not include Turkey  There is no obvious and widely accepted geographical definition of a frontier to Europe. Is Russia a European country? Are Georgia and Armenia? Are Cyprus and Malta? The fact that the Mediterranean country Italy became a member of a regional organisation, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), was certainly not determined by geography, but was an act of political imagination. Today the location of a Mediterranean state in the North Atlantic is no longer considered as something "odd". Another example of changing perceptions of a region is the change from regarding the border of Europe as falling between East and West Germany; Europe broadened to include all the former Eastern European countries as potential members of the EU.  Given that part of Turkey’s territory is on what everyone accepts is the European mainland, why shouldn’t it be allowed to join the main European club? While Turkey's land area is almost entirely in Asia the European part does have immense historical significance, and Turkey has a population in Europe of about 14million, larger than many of the smaller EU members. It already belongs to NATO, the OECD and the Council of Europe, and participates in the Eurovision Song Contest and European football competitions. Turkey is a westward-looking country.

Turkey is not a Christian country but a Muslim one, unlike all the current or prospective EU states, which have been shaped by a shared legacy of Christian values, history and culture. Turkeys AK party has brought on many changes that are interpreted as being non-secular or rooted in Islam. Indeed Turkey’s history represents a clear rejection of any Christian tradition, from the centuries-long Ottoman Muslim conquest of Byzantine Christian territories, to the early twentieth-century population exchange with Greece which removed millions of long-established Christian families from Turkish territory. Most recently, Turks have several times elected to government a party with Islamist roots, suspected of wishing to undermine the country’s secular constitution [1] . Turkey is not as moderate a country as it would seem.  [1]  ‘Turkey denies break with Europe’, BBC 10th June 2010

Turkey does not have a stable democracy. The military has intervened three times to remove governments of which it disapproved in recent decades, most recently in 1997 [1] . The nature of the struggle between Turkey's generals - who try and keep the country as secular as possible (arguably at the expense of the right of the people to decide for themselves which party best represents their views) - and the increase in votes and influence for conservative Islamic political views paves for an unstable political environment which is vulnerable to extremism [2] .  Turkey has some dangerous neighbours and its inclusion within the EU would expose Europe to a greatly increased risk of crisis and conflict. The Caucasus is very unstable, with some of its nations looking to Turkey for support for religious and cultural reasons. A Middle Eastern border would heavily involve the EU in the Israeli-Arab conflict and give it a border with an aggressive and unstable Iraq (and Iran), with whom it would share an assertive Kurdish minority seeking statehood. Turkey even has major disputes with Greece, a current EU member, over territory in the Aegean and over the divided Island of Cyprus, where it alone recognises and backs the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus, preventing a settlement.  [1]  Map of Freedom in The World: Turkey  [2]  ‘Secularism and Democracy in Turkey’, Editorial New York Times, 1st May 2007

An attempt at a plebiscite in 1921/22 under the specter of a war of independence and civil war would have been fraught with danger and even more open to intimidation than the House of Commons.  It would be undemocratic to relinquish Northern Ireland today, because recent polls have shown that the majority of people want to remain within the UK. *  *Moriarty, 2011,

europe politics government local government house believes northern ireland

The partition of Ireland was undemocratic  The people of Northern Ireland should have decided whether or not they wanted to be united with Northern Ireland, rather than it being battled out in the British Parliament and the country partitioned by the Government of Ireland Act of 1920* that created a separate parliament for the six counties of Northern Ireland.** It was because the vote was not put to the Irish that the Unionists could twist arms and manipulate British politicians into allowing the six counties to remain part of the UK. After partition, the Unionists fixed electoral boundaries so there would never be a Republican majority in an electorate. This was unjust and illegitimately prevented a pro-Republic vote passing in future.  * Government of Ireland Act, 1920,   ** Ferriter, ‘Ireland in the Twentieth Century’,

There is no evidence that the Catholic population today suffers a bias in the current political system, except for that which they make for themselves. As of 2010 the Catholic representation in the House of Commons is 5 Sinn Fein and 3 SDLP against 8 Democratic Unionists,* it is only the fact that the Sinn Fein members do not take up their seats that make things uneven. In the NI Assembly things are slightly more skewed. As of 2011 there are 55 Unionists and 43 Republicans.**  Attacks against Catholics are not based on religious lines. Unionist attacks are only focused on those Catholics that are Republicans. In general Catholics are perfectly safe in Northern Ireland.  Additionally in united Ireland, the Protestants would become the marginalized minority. Abortion is illegal in the Republic of Ireland***, for example, which will inhibit the freedom of non- Catholics. Such laws are likely to stay because of the overwhelming Catholic majority.  *Parliament.uk, 2011,   **Northern Ireland Assembly, 2011,   ***Wikipedia,

Economic efficiency  A Unified Ireland would be better off economically. “Ireland is too small for two separate administrations….There is a draw towards the greater integration of services, structures and bodies on an all-Ireland basis in order to deliver quality services and economies of scale.” – Martin McGuinness, Deputy First Minister for Northern Ireland*  Having two electricity grids, two transport networks, two separate police and judiciary hamper economic growth and waste resources that could be better used in a unified system, as cost would lower as efficiency rises.  *McGuinness, 2010,

Britain is morally obliged to permit the secession of northern Ireland  The age of colonialism is over. We recognize that the dominance of one country over another is morally wrong. Ireland was already in the hands of the Irish people before English earls and kings invaded. The Irish had a right to the ownership of their land because they cultivated it and so put their labor into it. The use of force to seize that land from the people’s control is unjust because it denies them the right they had to their land. They had no choice to voluntarily hand over their land either.  To right this historical wrong, the British government should relinquish Northern Ireland, just as they have decolonized the rest of the world ending the British empire except for a few scattered outposts. Since Hong Kong was handed back to China in 1997 Northern Ireland is the only remaining colony with a significant population and independent identity.

The Unionists in Northern Ireland who wish to remain part of the UK should have the freedom to do so. To disown Northern Ireland would be a second involuntary decision made by an outsider.

If you were to adopt a federal system, which would best please Unionists, the systems would not integrate very much anyway as Northern Irish ‘states’ would want their own state constitution and have separate judiciary to the rest of Ireland, as is the practice in the US.

We are at peace now. The Good Friday Agreement has created stability, with the exception of occasional outbreaks but nothing like the horror of The Troubles. We do not need re-unification to have stability. In fact, the positive outcome that might happen is unsure and not a reason worth gambling on.  It is likely that there will be conflict in the beginning. Such a huge move will come to Unionists as a shock and without knowing how much power they will have, having to answer to Dublin, it is likely that paramilitary activities will flare up again. This will, of course, spark off IRA and other Republican attacks. If escalations get worse, the British may intervene as well as the Irish army and there may be an entire repeat of The Troubles.

It would be easier to protect the rights of religious minorities within a united Ireland  Unrest in Northern Ireland was started by the appalling treatment of the Catholic minority there. When there was a Northern Ireland Parliament there was some gerrymandering, while the discrimination in representation was slight very few nationalists were able to get senior jobs, in the civil service for example in 1927 fourteen of the 229 officers of staff officer rank or above, or 6 per cent, were Catholic, while in 1959 there were forty-six Catholics out of 740 in such ranks, or once again, 6 per cent.* Over the years reforms have been introduced but there is still huge stigma against the Catholic community in Northern Ireland, who have little representation in politics, because it is dominated by Unionist rhetoric.  The best way to ensure equal treatment of the Catholics in Ireland is to unite majority Protestant Northern Ireland with Catholic majority Republic of Ireland, where they will be better represented in politics and not stigmatized by their neighbors.  *Whyte, 1983,

Uniting Ireland would bring about an end to sectarian violence  A united Ireland doesn’t have to marginalize the Protestant population. If they are included more in the political process there can be debate, discussion and an airing of grievances which can then be resolved.  There is little sense of attachment to the UK, and British institutions. Much like the Scottish and Welsh, the Northern Irish feel Northern Irish. This shows that the ties to Britain are not emotional, but political. It is clear that Unionists just want to have power over how they run their lives. If Unionists are included in the political process in a united Ireland they will have no grievances and there will finally be a lasting peace.

There are many ways to resolve some of these issues. Firstly, regarding political resentment, a system of federalism is likely to ensure some level of political autonomy on both sides. Secondly, such a huge project is likely to attract funds from the UN, EU, the IMF, from charities from private donors etc. So, the former Republic of Ireland will not be subsidizing the Northern Irish, nor will the Northerners be left without support. There will most likely to be international bodies and charities monitoring the transition too, so that any outburst of violence can be contained or reported.

Economic fortunes rise and fall all the time. Many in Northern Ireland looked up enviously during the Republic’s boom. There were even clamors from Northern Irish politicians to lower the corporate tax in Northern Ireland to match the Republic’s success. So, economic reasons for opposing unification don’t stand in the long run.

The majority of the inhabitants of Northern Ireland do not support unification  The Good Friday agreement affirmed “That if, in the future, the people of the island of Ireland exercise their right of self-determination … to bring about a united Ireland, it will be a binding obligation on both Governments [UK and Ireland] to introduce and support in their respective Parliaments legislation to give effect to that wish”.* However as yet the Northern Irish do not wish to exercise this right. In a recent survey conducted by The Northern Ireland Life and Times it transpired that, “Overall, 73 per cent believe the long-term policy for the North should be maintaining the union, with 58 per cent supporting devolution and 15 per cent in favour of direct rule. Just 16 per cent want a united Ireland, with 3 per favoring an independent Northern Ireland.” This is not just amongst the Protestant population. The survey also showed that, “just one in three Catholics (33 per cent) wants a united Ireland, while 52 per cent want the North to stay in the UK, with 46 per cent of Catholics happy with the devolved arrangements and 6 per cent favoring a return to direct rule from Westminster.”**  *NIO, 1998,   **Moriarty, 2011,

Unification would reignite civil disorder and violent factionalism among Irish communities  As shown above, the Northern Irish don’t want to unite with the Republic. The Irish in the Republic will also resent the new drain on their economy. Either the Republican parties in Ireland will resent having to concede some power to new political entities or the Unionists will resent being marginalized. The recent reoccurrence of violence in Belfast is being attributed to the breakdown of protestant communities and low job prospects for young protestants. Both of these problems will be exacerbated in a majority Catholic Ireland. All of these examples illustrate how unrest is likely to breakout again in a united Ireland.

Unification would be damaging for the economies of both parts of Ireland  The Republic of Ireland is currently in a crisis. It is the I in P.I.G.S, the European Union countries whose economies are bust and require a bailout package. It would not be to the benefit of either Northern Ireland joining such a fragile economy, nor would it be good for the Republic of Ireland, having the cut back on public spending whilst trying to integrate Northern Irish transport/police systems etc.  Northern Ireland is a weak economy anyway and a lot of employment comes from the public sector, 30% compared to the UK average of 21%.* The region is £9billion in the red or £5,502 per person, three times the UK average.** These jobs will obviously no longer be an option under re-unification and so there is likely to be mass employment amongst the newly integrated Northern Irish. To counter this, money from Republican taxpayers will have to go to subsidize business/building projects etc in the way the Germans in the West still subsidize the Eastern parts of Germany, over 50 years since the wall came down.  *HM Treasury, 2011, p.9   **Fitzpatrick, 2011,

It is highly probable that opinion will shift. Current statistics reflect the fact that this generation has lived through The Troubles. The next generation is likely to see a nation divided, which appears to so obviously belong together. There is no evidence that current opinion will not change with time.

Reducing nuclear arms through New START will not compel others to stop pursuing nukes. The logic behind New START asserts that for every neg­ative development in the area of nuclear proliferation the US needs to take a substantive step in the direction of nuclear disarmament. Ultimately, this approach effectively assumes that the possession of nuclear arms by the US (and Russia) is the incentive driving other nations to pursue nuclear weapons programs so as to be able to deter the United States. Not only is the assumption misplaced, but the policy will undermine deterrence and increase the likelihood of the use of nuclear weapons. It is foolish for the U.S. to take substantive steps toward nuclear disarmament at the same time the nuclear proliferation problem is growing worse. [1] The US should also not seek to improve relations by bribing them with New START at the cost of damaging US defence capabilities.  [1] Spring, Baker. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix". Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. 16 September 2010.

global law international law politics defence warpeace house supports new

The New START treaty will help against Iran’s nuclear program.  New START will help bolster US-Russian cooperation, which is necessary for solving the problem of Iran’s nuclear proliferation. On Nov. 19, 2010, the Anti-Defamation League released a statement, which came from Robert G. Sugarman, ADL National Chair, and Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director: "The severe damage that could be inflicted on that relationship by failing to ratify the treaty would inevitably hamper effective American international leadership to stop the Iranian nuclear weapons program. The Iranian nuclear threat is the most serious national security issue facing the United States, Israel, and other allies in the Middle East. While some Senators may have legitimate reservations about the New START treaty or its protocol, we believe the interest of our greater and common goal of preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons must take precedence." [1] New START is crucial in getting Russian support against Iran and other rogue nuclear states.  Although the United States needs a strong and reliable nuclear force, the chief nuclear danger today comes not from Russia but from rogue states such as Iran and North Korea and the potential for nuclear material to fall into the hands of terrorists. Given those pressing dangers, some question why an arms control treaty with Russia matters. It matters because it is in both parties' interest that there be transparency and stability in their strategic nuclear relationship. It also matters because Russia's cooperation will be needed if we are to make progress in rolling back the Iranian and North Korean programs. Russian help will be needed to continue our work to secure "loose nukes" in Russia and elsewhere. And Russian assistance is needed to improve the situation in Afghanistan, a breeding ground for international terrorism.  Obviously, the United States does not sign arms control agreements just to make friends. Any treaty must be considered on its merits. But the New START agreement is clearly in the US’ national interest, and the ramifications of not ratifying it could be significantly negative. [2] As US Vice President Joe Biden argued in 2010: "New Start is also a cornerstone of our efforts to reset relations with Russia, which have improved significantly in the last two years. This has led to real benefits for U.S. and global security. Russian cooperation made it possible to secure strong sanctions against Iran over its nuclear ambitions, and Russia canceled a sale to Iran of an advanced anti-aircraft missile system that would have been dangerously destabilizing. Russia has permitted the flow of materiel through its territory for our troops in Afghanistan. And—as the NATO-Russia Council in Lisbon demonstrated—European security has been advanced by the pursuit of a more cooperative relationship with Russia. We should not jeopardize this progress." [3] Therefore, because New START will have significant positive consequences in terms of aiding relations with Russia, and thus in dealing with rogue nuclear states like Iran, it should be supported.  [1] Weingarten, Elizabeth. “How did New START become a Jewish issue?”. The Atlantic. 1 Decemebr 2010.   [2] Kissinger, Henry A. ; Shultz, George P. ; Baker III, James A’ ; Eagleburger , Lawrence S. ; and Powell, Colin L. "The Republican case for ratifying New START". Washington Post. 2 December 2010.   [3] Biden, Joseph. "The case for ratifying New START". Wall Street Journal. 25 November 2010.

New START will cause American missile and nuclear capabilities to atrophy, not to be maintained. This is because it locks the US in to agreements of defensive reductions which are tied into Russian offensive reductions. This could eventually leave the US badly under-defended by its missile systems when compared against the offensive capabilities of other nuclear states. Moreover, New START leaves in place the pre-existing Russian tactical nuclear advantage harming US capabilities by comparison. [1] Overall New START hams US missile and nuclear capabilities, and further advantages Russia and other nuclear powers, and so should not be supported. As Mitt Romney argued in 2010: "Does New START limit America’s options for missile defense? Yes. For the first time, we would agree to an interrelationship between strategic offensive weapons and missile defense. Moreover, Russia already asserts that the document would constitute a binding limit on our missile defense program. But the WikiLeaks revelation last weekend that North Korea has supplied Iran with long-range Russian missiles confirms that robust missile defense is urgent and indispensable." [2]  [1] Spring, Baker. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix". Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. 16 September 2010.   [2] Romney, Mitt. "Stop START." Boston.com. 3 December 2010.

The New START treaty will make for a safer world.  Reducing US and Russian nuclear weapons stockpiles makes for a safer world, as Dr. David Gushee states: "The issue on the table is a nuclear arms reduction and verification treaty between the United States and Russia. The treaty, called New START, would reduce Russian and American deployed nuclear weapons to 1,550 and delivery vehicles to 700 each. This would be a 33 percent reduction in the existing arsenals, which is worth achieving and celebrating even as we know that countless cities and millions of precious human beings could be destroyed by the use of even part of the remaining arsenals. Still, these reductions would be a great step on the way to a safer world, as would the re-establishment of bilateral, intrusive verification measures for both sides, also part of the treaty." [1]  The world is simply a much less secure place without New Start, and not just because New START means there are physically fewer nuclear weapons and thus a lesser chance of nuclear disasters (although this in itself is compelling). Rather, New START also has immense symbolic value, in demonstrating that the two greatest powers have enough in common and are interested enough in their mutual security that they can agree to deduce nuclear weapons together. It shows that these nations regard each other as partners for world peace, not as enemies.  The alternative world, without New START, would be one in which the mutual suspicion and animosity of the Cold War might continue. It is notable that Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said in an interview released in early December 2010 that Russia might be forced to build up its nuclear forces against the West if the United States fails to ratify the New START treaty. [2] The threat of Russia, or even the US, resuming nuclear build-ups is a frightening thought for both nations, for the world and for peace.  On top of its other benefits, New START is key to opening Russian nuclear weapons up for verification, which contributes to trust and peace. As former Secretaries of State Kissinger, Shultz, Eagleburger, Baker and Powell argue “the agreement emphasizes verification, providing a valuable window into Russia's nuclear arsenal. Since the original START expired last December, Russia has not been required to provide notifications about changes in its strategic nuclear arsenal, and the United States has been unable to conduct on-site inspections. Each day, America's understanding of Russia's arsenal has been degraded, and resources have been diverted from national security tasks to try to fill the gaps. Our military planners increasingly lack the best possible insight into Russia's activity with its strategic nuclear arsenal, making it more difficult to carry out their nuclear deterrent mission.” [3] Therefore New START should be supported as it represents a positive step for peace and cooperation in the world.  [1] Gushee, Dr David P. "Security, Sin and Nuclear Weapons: A Christian Plea for the New START Treaty". Huffington Post. 4 December 2010.   [2] Abdullaev, Nabi. “Putin Issues Warning on New START”. The Moscow Times. 2 December 2010.   [3] Kissinger, Henry A. ; Shultz, George P. ; Baker III, James A’ ; Eagleburger , Lawrence S. ; and Powell, Colin L. "The Republican case for ratifying New START". Washington Post. 2 December 2010.

New START is about national politics, not about the interests of the world or peace. As George Will argued in 2010: "The (Obama) administration's ardor for ratification is understandable, as is Russia's. The president needs a success somewhere; Russia needs psychotherapy. It longs to be treated as what it no longer is, a superpower, and it likes the treaty's asymmetries." [1] New START is about serving these domestic political interests, not securing peace, which it will not achieve as the inspections it puts in place are highly flawed, and there remains a high probability that Russia will cheat on the treaty and augment its nuclear capabilities regardless. All this treaty does is weaken the US, and a situation where one power weakens and the other grows stronger is not good for world peace.  [1] Will, George. "Obama's time-warp focus on the New START treaty". Washington Post. 2 December 2010.

The New START treaty maintains US nuclear and missile defence.  The US’ Nuclear armament will be modernized along with New START. “The Obama administration has agreed to provide for modernization of the infrastructure essential to maintaining our nuclear arsenal. Funding these efforts has become part of the negotiations in the ratification process. The administration has put forth a 10-year plan to spend $84 billion on the Energy Department's nuclear weapons complex. Much of the credit for getting the administration to add $14 billion to the originally proposed $70 billion for modernization goes to Sen. Jon Kyl, the Arizona Republican who has been vigilant in this effort. Implementing this modernization program in a timely fashion would be important in ensuring that our nuclear arsenal is maintained appropriately over the next decade and beyond.” [1]  Both US Military and civilian leaders insist that the new START treaty will still allow the US to deploy effective missile defenses, something which Russia was opposed to, and so will not affect US missile defense plans. The main limit on missile defense is that the treaty prevents the conversion of existing launchers for this purpose this would be more expensive than building new missiles specifically for defense purposes. [2]  Furthermore, as Joe Biden argues, New START is important to Russian cooperation on missile defense: "This [missile defense] system demonstrates America's enduring commitment to Article 5 of the Washington Treaty—that an attack on one is an attack on all. NATO missile defense also provides the opportunity for further improvements in both NATO-Russian and U.S.-Russian relations. NATO and Russia agreed at Lisbon to carry out a joint ballistic missile threat assessment, to resume theater missile-defense exercises, and to explore further cooperation on territorial missile defense—things that were nearly unimaginable two years ago. These agreements underscore the strategic importance the alliance attaches to improving its relationship with Russia. But trust and confidence in our relationship with Russia would be undermined without Senate approval of the New Start Treaty, which reduces strategic nuclear forces to levels not seen since the 1950s, and restores important verification mechanisms that ceased when the first Start Treaty expired last December." [3]  In many ways, in the 21st Century having an abundance of nuclear weapons, particularly having too many, is more of a liability than an advantage. The United States will be far safer with fewer nuclear weapons in the world and a stronger, more stable relationship with Russia under New START, and this is desirable. Therefore it is clear that New START maintains the important parts of US nuclear capabilities while removing the over-abundance which may become a liability due to security and medical concerns, and so New START should be supported.  [1] Kissinger, Henry A. ; Shultz, George P. ; Baker III, James A’ ; Eagleburger , Lawrence S. ; and Powell, Colin L. "The Republican case for ratifying New START". Washington Post. 2 December 2010.   [2] ibid  [3] Biden, Joseph. "The case for ratifying New START". Wall Street Journal. 25 November 2010.

Agreements between the biggest nuclear powers are a good starting point towards disarmament. We cannot expect countries with a very small number of nuclear weapons to be disarming if the countries that have the vast majority of the world’s arsenal have not already begun the process of getting rid of their own. Even the reductions in New START will not bring either Russia or the United States anywhere near the level of any other nuclear power whose nuclear weapons number in the hundreds not thousands. Both countries would need to reduce a very long way before they lose deterrence against China, let alone North Korea. As former secretaries of state argue America has “long led the crucial fight to protect the United States against nuclear dangers… The world is safer today because of the decades-long effort to reduce its supply of nuclear weapons. As a result, President Obama should remain similarly courageous with New START.” [1]  If linkage between the New START and Russian action on Iran exists then this would not always be a bad thing. Linkage has been used successfully in the past, and to the advantage of the U.S., for example Kissinger credited the peace agreement with North Vietnam in Paris in 1973 as being down to linkage which resulted in pressure on North Vietnam from the People’s Republic of China and the USSR. If linkage could be successful in bringing Russia onside in pressurizing Iran on the issue of nuclear weapons it could be to the benefit of the United States.  [1] Kissinger, Henry A. ; Shultz, George P. ; Baker III, James A’ ; Eagleburger , Lawrence S. ; and Powell, Colin L. "The Republican case for ratifying New START". Washington Post. 2 December 2010.

Many of the worries about the impact of the treaty are much more of a political problem than problems with the treaty itself. U.S. missile modernization in particular is still up to the President and Congress to sort out the funding between them – the restrictions are minor. [1] Worries about the impact on missile defense are also a red herring. Missile defense is not aimed at Russia and the United States simply needs to make sure that its defenses are obviously aimed at who it says they are aimed at: rogue states such as Iran and North Korea. Regarding other defence capabilities, the New START Treaty preserves America’s ability to deploy effective missile defenses, and simply prevents it from being effective enough to undermine deterrence, something which Russia would be right in worrying about if the United States had any intention of building such a comprehensive missile defence. The prohibition on converting existing launchers will have little impact on the United States as the military believes that such conversion would be more expensive and less effective than building new purpose built defensive missiles. [2] Finally if Russia did exercise its right to withdraw then both parties would be in no worse a position than they would have been without the new treaty and could simply restart negotiations.  [1] Spring, Baker. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix". Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. 16 September 2010.   [2] Kissinger, Henry A. ; Shultz, George P. ; Baker III, James A’ ; Eagleburger , Lawrence S. ; and Powell, Colin L. "The Republican case for ratifying New START". Washington Post. 2 December 2010.

The New START treaty helps Russia more than the US  Not only does New START leave in place Russia’s extant tactical nuclear advantage but it has further loopholes for Russian weapons. As Mitt Romney argued in 2010: "Does the treaty provide gaping loopholes that Russia could use to escape nuclear weapon limits entirely? Yes. For example, multiple warhead missile bombers are counted under the treaty as only one warhead. While we currently have more bombers than the Russians, they have embarked on new programs for long-range bombers and for air-launched nuclear cruise missiles. Thus, it is no surprise that Russia is happy to undercount missiles on bombers." [1]  New START also fails to limit rail-mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), which Russia could potentially make use of. The definition of rail-mobile ICBM launchers was established in the expired START as “an erector-launcher mechanism for launching ICBMs and the railcar or flatcar on which it is mounted.” [2] This and associated restrictions and limitations in START, are not in the New START. This makes it possible for Russia to claim that any new Rail Mobile ICBMs are not subject to New START limitations. [3] Mitt Romney worries that Russia is already working to take advantage of these omissions: “As drafted, it lets Russia escape the limit on its number of strategic nuclear warheads. Loopholes and lapses -- presumably carefully crafted by Moscow -- provide a path to entirely avoid the advertised warhead-reduction targets. …. These omissions would be consistent with Russia's plans for a new heavy bomber and reports of growing interest in rail-mobile ICBMs." [4]  This means that under the treaty limits, the United States is the only country that must reduce its launchers and strategic nuclear weapons. Russia has managed to negotiate the treaty limits so that they simply restrict it to reductions it was already planning to do. As a result the United States is making what are effectively unilateral reductions. [5] Therefore, New START is an unequal treaty as it offers more to Russia than to the US. This is bad for the balance of power and thus bad for world peace, and so New START should be opposed.  [1] Romney, Mitt. "Stop START." Boston.com. 3 December 2010.   [2] ‘Terms and Definitions’, The Treaty Between The United States Of America And The Union Of Soviet Socialist Republics On The Reduction And Limitation Of Strategic Offensive Arms And Associated Documents, 1991,   [3] Spring, Baker. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix". Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. 16 September 2010.   [4] Romney, Mitt. "Stop START." Boston.com. 3 December 2010.   [5] Romney, Mitt. "Stop START." Boston.com. 3 December 2010.

Problems with Verification.  Verification is vital in any agreement to limit arms. Both sides need to trust each other a bit but a lot of this trust needs to come from comprehensive mechanisms to monitor and ensure that both sides are carrying out their commitments. If the verification system is not good enough then neither side will have faith in the agreement and will be more likely to try and bypass it.  Unfortunately the expired START’s verification regime was robust when compared to that for the New START. Baker Spring at the Heritage foundation lists some of the specific areas that are significantly less robust: A narrowing of the requirements for exchanging telemetry (electronic transmissions that give details of missile performance that helps give a good idea about whether Russia is complying with the treaty) , A reduction in the effectiveness of the inspections (the Russians feel that inspections are unfairly biased against them), Weaknesses in the ability to verify the number of deployed warheads on ICBMs and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), Abolition of the START verification regime governing mobile ICBMs, and A weakening of the verification standards governing the elimination of delivery vehicles. [1]  [1] Spring, Baker. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix". Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. 16 September 2010.

The New START treaty sets a bad approach for a changing world  New START reduces US deterrence in world that is arming, not disarming. The United States has relied on deterrence for sixty years and as a result has prevented war between the great powers. A US drawdown, especially as other new powers are arming, will undermine deterrence. This will then encourage rivals to try to catch the United States while the reductions show that the United States is in decline. [1]  While proponents of reducing nuclear weapons, or reaching global zero, argue that possession of nuclear weapons by the nuclear weapons states is the incentive behind proliferation, this is not true. The US has consistently taken leadership in the reduction of nuclear arms through treaties but this has so far had no effect in encouraging other nuclear powers to reduce their arsenals and indeed new powers have joined the club. Reducing nuclear arms through New START will therefore not encourage others to stop pursuing nukes. The U.S. should not be taking steps towards disarmament without all nuclear weapons states, including those not signed up to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, also being involved. [2]  New START also fails to speak to the issue of protecting and defending the U.S. and its allies against strategic attack. The treaty fails to recognize that deterrence is no longer simply between the U.S. and Russia and that the whole policy should no longer be based on just against strategic attacks on the United States or very close allies. Instead it is much more critical to deal with nuclear policy towards ‘rogue’ states and rising powers. [3]  Finally, the US should not set a precedent that it will sacrifice its own interests to bribe Russia over issues like Iran. As the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) argues: “we are told that the real purpose of New START is to create a stronger U.S.-Russia bond in a broader international effort to restrain Iran's nuclear weapons program. Such a justification is wrong. Iran's nuclear ambitions are no secret; neither are Russia’s past efforts in aiding that program. We seriously question whether Russia is serious about stopping Iran, with or without New START. There is no reason why the United States should be required to sacrifice its own defense capabilities to inspire Russia to a greater degree of diplomatic fortitude. If Russia is indeed concerned with a nuclear-armed Iran to its immediate south, it should need no extra incentive to take the action necessary to stop it." [4] If the U.S. bribes Russia over Iran China might expect to get similar treatment over North Korea. New START puts the US in a disadvantaged position in a changing world, and consequently should not be supported.  [1] Brookes, Peter. “Not a new START, but a bad START”. The Hill. 13 September 2010.   [2] Spring, Baker. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix". Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. 16 September 2010.   [3] Ibid.  [4] Weingarten, Elizabeth. “How did New START become a Jewish issue?”. The Atlantic. 1 Decemebr 2010.

The New START treaty harms US nuclear capabilities  As David Ganz, the president of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), argues: "This treaty would restrain the development and deployment of new nuclear weapons, missile defense systems, and missile delivery systems." [1] The atrophying U.S. nuclear arsenal and weapons enterprise make reductions in the U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal even more dangerous. The new START treaty allows nuclear modernization but while the US capacity to modernize nuclear weapons is limited and either congress or the president is likely to prevent modernization on cost grounds. The Russians have a large, if unknown, advantage over the United States in terms of nonstrategic, particularly tactical, and nuclear weapons. The New START treaty however ignores these weapons entirely as it is focused on strategic arms. This therefore leaves the Russians with an advantage and potentially reduces the potential for deterrence in areas beyond the US. [2]  New START also restricts US missile defence options. The Obama Administration insists the treaty doesn’t affect it, but the Kremlin’s takes a different view: "[START] can operate and be viable only if the United States of America refrains from developing its missile-defense capabilities quantitatively or qualitatively." [3] New START imposes restrictions on U.S. missile defence options in at least four areas. First the preamble recognizes “the interrelationship between strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms” it seeks to make sure defensive arms “do not undermine the viability and effectiveness of the strategic offensive arms of the parties” so defensive arms must be reduced to allow offensive arms to remain effective. [4] Russia also issued a unilateral statement on April 7, 2010, Russia reinforced this restriction by issuing a unilateral statement asserting that it considers the “extraordinary events” that give “the right to withdraw from this treaty” to include a buildup of missile defense. [5] Second, Article V states “Each Party shall not convert and shall not use ICBM launchers and SLBM launchers for placement of missile defense interceptors” and vice versa. [6] There are also restrictions on some types of missiles and launchers that are used in the testing of missile defense. And Finally, article X established the Bilateral Consultative Commission (BCC), the treaty’s implementing body, with oversight over the implementation of the treaty which may impose additional restrictions on the U.S. missile defense program. [7]  [1] Weingarten, Elizabeth. “How did New START become a Jewish issue?”. The Atlantic. 1 Decemebr 2010.   [2] Spring, Baker. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix". Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. 16 September 2010.   [3] Brookes, Peter. “Not a new START, but a bad START”. The Hill. 13 September 2010.   [4] Obama, Barak, and Medvedev, Dmitri, ‘Treaty Between The United States of America And The Russian Federation On Measures For The Further Reduction And Limitation Of Strategic Offensive Arms’, U.S. Department of State,   [5] Bureau of Verification, Compliance, and Implementation, ‘New START Treaty Fact Sheet: Unilateral Statements’, U.S. Department of State, 13 May 2010,   [6] Obama, Barak, and Medvedev, Dmitri, ‘Treaty Between The United States of America And The Russian Federation On Measures For The Further Reduction And Limitation Of Strategic Offensive Arms’, U.S. Department of State,   [7] Spring, Baker. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix". Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. 16 September 2010.

The verification requirements of New START have satisfied not only the Obama Administration but also a large number of foreign policy experts. A panel including Henry Kissinger argues that New START “emphasizes verification, providing a valuable window into Russia's nuclear arsenal." [1] Howard Baker argues that: "President Reagan was famous for his adage about dealing with the old Soviet Union: “Trust but verify.” Since the last START treaty expired in December 2009, we’ve had no right to conduct inspections of Russian nuclear bases, and thus no way to verify what the Russians are doing with their nuclear weapon systems. For us veterans of the Cold War, that’s an alarming fact and a compelling reason to ratify this New START treaty without further delay." [2]  When the allegations are gone through individually they do not stand up to scrutiny. On the telemetry issue the treaty does not limit throw-weight so the data is not needed; the number of warheads per missile can be verified by other means. There are less facilities being inspected, but more inspections and the decline in Russia’s nuclear forces means that not so many facilities need to be inspected. [3] There is no reason to be worried about the numbers of missiles as there will be a database detailing all the weapons both sides have and inspections to confirm this, [4] this will also mean that there are unique identifier tags on each missile, launcher and bombers so helping inspectors in their counting. [5] Mobile launchers are much less of a problem than they were as we already know the base number the Russia has whereas when START was originally negotiated the US did not know. Technology to track such mobile launchers has also become much more powerful. Finally if worried about the verification of the elimination of delivery vehicles both sides will have the right to inspect the debris and to demand demonstration of the procedures. [6] Neither side will be able to get around the new START’s verification regime.  [1] Kissinger, Henry A. ; Shultz, George P. ; Baker III, James A’ ; Eagleburger , Lawrence S. ; and Powell, Colin L. "The Republican case for ratifying New START". Washington Post. 2 December 2010.   [2] Baker, Howard. "Dangerous if we reject New START." USA Today.   [3] Blook, Oliver, ‘Nothing to Fear with New START Verification’, Center For Strategic &amp; International Studies, 8 July 2010,   [4] Woolf, Amy F., ‘The New START Treaty: Central Limits and Key Provisions’, Congressional Research Service, 24 October 2011, p.3,   [5] ‘Verification of New START’, Union of Concerned Scientists, 13 July 2010,   [6] Blook, Oliver, ‘Nothing to Fear with New START Verification’, Center For Strategic &amp; International Studies, 8 July 2010,

The New START treaty does not help Russia more than it does the United States. Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates argued at the time the Russians are currently “above the treaty limits. So they will have to take down warheads.” [1] If there really is undercounting of missiles on bombers then it affects both sides equally – as Romney says “While we currently have more bombers than the Russians”, so this too should not be a worry. Russia does not currently deploy rail-mobile ICBMs and neither does the United States, explain why the definitions are not there. However the State Department argues that “If a Party develops and deploys rail-mobile ICBMs, such missiles, their warheads, and their launchers would be subject to the Treaty.” As the definitions of ICBM launchers would include them. [2] Finally we should recognize that we do not know that Russia would have reduced its bomber and missile forces without a new treaty, while Russia has more difficulty maintaining its nuclear forces than the United States so has more incentive to reduce them, but without a treaty it might even increase its forces due to a desire to keep parity with the United States while the US has a big lead in conventional weapons. [3]  Furthermore, any agreement made between Russia and the US needs to be one that benefits both parties, it does not matter if someone is getting more than the other. Getting an agreement that meets the needs of both countries is far more important, because it will be upheld more so than one that simple gives both countries the same. Fair and efficent does not mean spilting a pie in half, if one only wanted the crust, and the other only wanted the filling.  [1] Isaacs, John, ‘Rebuttals to Additional Arguments Against “New START”’, The Center For Arms Control And Non-Proliferation,   [2] Bureau of Verification, Compliance, and Implementation, ‘Rail-Mobile Launchers of ICBMs and their Missiles’, U.S. Department of State, 2 August 2010,   [3] Isaacs, John, ‘Rebuttals to Additional Arguments Against “New START”’, The Center For Arms Control And Non-Proliferation,

Other countries are hypocritical in expecting Africa to develop in a sustainable way. Both the West and China substantially damaged their environments whilst developing. During Britain’s industrial revolution pollution led to poor air quality, resulting in the deaths of 700 people in one week of 1873 [1] . That said, sustainable resource management has become prominent in some African countries. Most countries in the South African Development Community (SADC) have laws which regulate the impact that mining has on the environment, ensuring accountability for extractive processes. In South Africa, there must be an assessment of possible environmental impacts before mining begins, then the company involved must announce how it plans to mitigate environmental damage [2] . In Namibia, there are conservation zones and communal forests where deforestation is restricted in order to prevent negative environmental consequences [3] .  [1] Environmental History Resources ‘The Industrial Age’ date accessed 17/12/13   [2] Southern Africa Research Watch ‘Land, biodiversity and extractive industries in Southern Africa’ 17 September 2013   [3] Hashange,H.’Namibia: Managing Natural Resources for Sustainable Development’ Namibia Economist 5 July 2013

ss economic policy international africa house believes africans are worse

Environmental Damage  Both licit and illicit resource extraction have caused ecological and environmental damage in Africa. The procurement of many natural resources requires processes such as mining and deforestation, which are harmful to the environment. Deforestation for access purposes, timber and cattle has led to around 3.4 million hectares of woodland being destroyed between 2000 and 2010 and, in turn, soil degradation [1] . As Africa’s rainforest are necessary for global ecological systems, this is a significant loss. Mining and transportation also create damage through pollution and the scarring of the landscape. Mining produces various harmful chemicals which contaminate water and soil, a process which is worsened by illicit groups who cut corners to ensure higher profits [2] .  [1] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United States ‘World deforestation decreases, but remains in many countries’   [2] Kolver,L. ‘Illegal mining threat to lawful operations, safety and the environment’ Mining Weekly 16 August 2013

Resources are not the problem, bad management and agreements are the problem here. The presence of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in resource extraction can have a more positive impact than if it was absent. The presence of FDI is often associated with increased bureaucracy efficiency and rule of law [1] . There have been attempts by Western governments to curtail illicit transactions as well. In 2013, the British government spearheaded the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative aimed at encouraging accountability from TNCs [2] . Governments control the resources; they simply need to be more willing to fight, and prevent corruption, to get a better deal.  [1] Bannerman,E. ‘Foreign Direct Investment and the Natural Resource Curse’ Munich Personal RePEc Archive 13 December 2007   [2] Duffield,A. ‘Botswana or Zimbabwe? Exploiting Africa’s Resources Responsibly; Africa Portal 12 December 2012

Resource abundance has led to poor governance  Corruption in African governance is a common feature of African governance [1] , with resources being a major source of exploitation by the political class. Natural resources are often controlled by the government. As resources fund the government’s actions rather than tax, there is a decrease in accountability to the citizenry which enables the government to abuse its ownership of this land to make profit [2] . To benefit from resource wealth, money from the exploitation of mineral wealth and other sources needs to be reinvested in to the country’s economy and human capital [3] . Investing in infrastructure and education can encourage long term growth. However a large amount of funds are pocketed by politicians and bureaucrats instead, hindering growth [4] . Africa Progress Panel (APP) conducted a survey on five mining deals between 2010 and 2012 in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). They found that the DRC was selling off state-owned mining companies at low prices. The new offshore owner would then resell the companies for much more, with much of the profit finding its way to DRC government officials [5] . The profits were twice as high as the combined budget for education and health, demonstrating that corruption caused by resource exploitation detracts from any long term growth.  [1] Straziuso,J. ‘No African Leader wins $45m Good Governance Award’ Yahoo News 14 October 2013   [2] Hollingshead,A. ‘Why are extractive industries prone to corruption?’ Financial Transparency Coalition 19 September 2013   [3] Pendergast,S.M., Kooten,G.C., &amp; Clarke,J.A. ‘Corruption and the Curse of Natural Resources’ Department of Economics University of Victoria, 2008 pg.5   [4] Ibid  [5] Africa Progress Panel ‘Report: DRC mining deals highlight resource corruption’ 14 May 2013,

Resources don’t have to mean poor governance. In 2013, attempts were made to counter corruption, the G8 and EU have both began work on initiatives to increase the transparency of foreign firms extracting resources in Africa [1] . The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative has been established in an attempt to improve governance on the continent by funding attempts to stem corruption in member countries. The results of this latter initiative has resulted in the recovery of ‘billions of US$’ in Nigeria [2] . Other projects are continuing in other African countries with great hope of success.  [1] Oxfam ‘Moves to tackle Africa’s ‘resource curse’ reach turning point’ 23 October 2013   [2] EITI ‘Impact of EITI in Africa: Stories from the ground’ 2010

Kleptocrats wish to increase their personal wealth and power, and will find a means to do so. To contribute power over resources as the main motive is inaccurate, as noted by Charles Kenny in Foreign Policy; ‘For every Gen. Sani Abacha skimming billions off Nigeria's oil wealth, there is a Field Marshal Idi Amin massacring Ugandans by the thousands without the aid or incentive of significant mineral resources’ [1] . There are many ways to increase power, if mineral wealth isn’t available then they’ll find another way.  [1] Kenny,C. ‘Is it really true that underground riches lead to aboveground woes? No, not really.’ Foreign Policy 6 December 2010

Foreign companies gain most of the profits  The majority of investment in Africa by Trans National Companies (TNCs) goes towards resource extraction [1] . Many companies use transfer pricing, tax avoidance and anonymous company ownership to increase profits at the expense of resource abundant nations [2] . Production sharing agreements, where companies and states share in the profit of a venture, can often benefit the former over the latter. In 2012 Ugandan activists sued the government for one such deal where the country was to likely to receive only half the profits rather than three quarters [3] .  Kofi Annan, former United Nations Security General, has claimed that Africa’s outflow of funds by TNCs in the extractive industries is twice as high as inflows to the continent. Businesses such as Barclays have been criticised for their promotion of tax havens in Africa [4] . These allow TNCs to avoid government taxation for projects such as resource extraction, a symptom of the attitude of foreign companies to investment in Africa. The unfavourable inflow/outflow balance prevents reinvestment in Africa’s infrastructure, education and health services.  [1] African Development Bank ‘African Development Report 2007’ pg.110   [2] Stewart,H. ‘Annan calls for end to ‘unconscionable’ exploitation of Africa’s resources’ The Guardian 10 May 2013   [3] Akankwasa,S. ‘Uganda activists sue government over oil Production Sharing Agreements.’ International Bar Association 01/05/2012   [4] Provost,C. ‘Row as Barclays promotes tax havens as ‘gateway for investment in Africa’ The Guardian 20 November 2013

Resources are a source of conflict  There is a strong connection between the presence of natural resources and conflict within Africa. Natural resources, especially those with a high commodity price such as diamonds, are a useful means of funding rebellions and governments [1] . The 1991 civil war in Sierra Leone became infamous for the blood diamonds which came from mines with forced slavery. These diamonds were used to fund the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) for eleven years, extending the blood-shed. Continued conflict in the Congo is also attributed to the control of mineral wealth [2] and exemplifies how resources have negatively impacted Africa.  [1] Pandergast, 2008,   [2] Kharlamov,I. ‘Africa’s “Resource Wars” Assume Epidemic Proportions’ Global Research 24 November 2014

Employment practices are usually discriminatory against locals in Africa. Due to a lack of local technical expertise, firms often import professionals particularly for the highest paid jobs.  The presence of these extractive industries can also disrupt local economies, causing an overall decrease in employment by forcing the focus and funding away from other sectors [1] . Returning to the Nigerian example, the oil industry directly disrupted the agricultural industry, Nigeria’s biggest employment sector, causing increased job losses [2] .  [1] Collins,C. ‘In the excitement of discovering oil, East Africa should not neglect agriculture’ The East African 9 March 2013   [2] Adaramola,Z. ‘Nigeria: Naccima says oil sector is killing economy’ 13 February 2013

The trade of natural resources can be unreliable for African nations. Exports on the international market are subject to changes in price, which can harm export orientated countries should there be a decrease in value. The boom/bust cycle of oil has been particularly damaging. The drop of oil prices in the 1980s had a significant impact on African countries which were exporting the commodity [1] . The boom/bust cycle of resource value has impaired, rather than inhibited, some states’ debts. The price slump of copper in 2008 severely damaged Zambia’s mineral orientated economy, as FDI stopped and unemployment rose [2] . This debt crisis had been created by another slump in prices in the 1980s that forced the government to borrow to keep spending. [3] This demonstrates how international markets are unreliable as a sole source of income.  [1] African Development Bank ‘African Development Report 2007’ pg.110   [2] Bova,E. ‘Copper Boom and Bust in Zambia: The Commodity-Currency Link’ The Journal of Development Studies, 48:6, Pg.770   [3] Liu, L. Larry, ‘The Zambian Economy and the IMF’, Academia.edu, December 2012,

Bring Africa out of poverty  The African continent has the highest rate of poverty in the world, with 40% of sub-Saharan Africans living below the poverty line. Natural resources are a means of increasing the quality of life and the standard of living as long as revenues are reinvested into the poorest areas of society. There are 35 countries in Africa which already conduct direct transfers of resource dividends to the poor through technology or in person [1] . In Malawi, £650,192.22 was given out in dividends to the poorest in society ensuring that they were given $14 a month in 2013 [2] . This ensures that there is a large base of citizens profiting from natural resources which increases their income and, in turn, their Human Development Index scores [3] .  [1] Devarajan, S. ‘How Africa can extract big benefits for everyone from natural resources’ in The Guardian 29/06/13   [2] Dzuwa,J. ‘Malawi: Zomba Rolls out Scial Cash Transfer Programme’ Malawi News Agency 11 June 2013   [3] Ibid

Natural resources create employment  The extraction of natural resources creates the possibility of job creation which can strengthen African economies. Both domestic and foreign firms require man power for their operations, and they will often draw from the local labour force. Employment ensures a better standard of living for the workers and injects money in to the home economy leading to greater regional economic stability. In Nigeria, for example, the company Shell hires 6000 employees and contractors, with 90% being Nigerian and at higher wages than the GDP per capita [1] . This would indicate that the presence of natural resources is economically strengthening Africa.  [1] Shell Nigeria ‘Shell at a glance’ date accessed 16 December 2013

Source of trade  Natural resources are a source of economic revenue for Africa. If managed well then this can become a genuine source of prosperity. Africa does not currently have developed secondary and tertiary sectors yet [1] , most of the continent’s economics surrounds primary sector activity such as resource extraction and farming. The high commodity price of items such as gold, diamonds and uranium is therefore valuable for Africa’s trade. Profits from this trade have allowed countries to strengthen their economic position by reducing debt and accumulating external reserves, a prime example of this being Nigeria.  [1] Maritz,J. ‘Manufacturing: Can Africa become the next China?’ How We Made Africa 24 May 2011

Despite projects such as direct dividends, the gap between rich and poor is still worsened by natural resources. Investment from the profits of natural resources in human development is relatively low in Africa. In 2006, 29 of the 31 lowest scoring countries for HDI were in Africa, a symptom of low re-investment rates [1] . Generally it is only the economic elite who benefit from any resource extraction, and reinvestment rarely strays far from urban areas [2] . This increases regional and class inequality, ensuring poverty persists.  [1] African Development Bank ‘African Development Report 2007’ pg.110   [2] Ibid

The issue is not teachers or investment per se, rather the structure of teaching used. The curriculum is focused on passing exams to meet the MDG criteria and get students to the next stage. There remains a need to incorporate the teaching of life skills for potential career options, and encouraging students to engage in innovative thinking and explore interests. UNICEF’s Child-Friendly Education approach is a clear example, whereby the child’s need is the central focus.  Technology is changing teaching, and teacher training needs to be less theoretical; more focused on the subjective needs of the children.  Further, challenges to teacher training are prevalent. For example, not all schools are government owned - with faith bodies, private sector and NGOs establishing schools. The diversity of ownership creates challenges for regulating training provided. By focusing on teaching curriculum the national government can enforce national policy change.

ary teaching international africa house believes lack investment teachers

Teacher training  Investment is required in teacher training to ensure quality control. Teachers need to be provided with qualifications and effective training both technical and theoretical. Teachers need to be introduced to methods on how to interact with students, provoke student debates, and manage large classes. In-service training and pre-teaching training are key.  Countries such as Uganda and Angola [1] have utilised on the job training for teachers, with positive results for teaching quality. In Uganda initiatives, such as INSSTEP [2] , provided capacity training to teachers and headteachers. 14,000 secondary school teachers participated between 1994-1999, followed by school inspections to monitor capacity. The ‘mobile-caravan’ approach is making it easier, more feasible, and flexible, to provide training [3] .  Additionally, investors and national governments need to provide Model schools, indicating what responsibilities teachers have and enabling knowledge transfer. Model schools can assist in alleviating work pressures for teachers by showing their terms of contract, duties and obligations. Increasingly teachers are expected to fulfil the role of carer, counsellor, and advisers on HIV/AIDs without relevant training.  [1] See further readings: World Bank, 2013.  [2] In-Service Secondary Teacher Education Project.  [3] See further readings: World Bank, 2013.

A positive intervention to tackle geographical disparities in education is by introducing long-distance learning. ICT and technology makes such a reality possible.  Such proposals require institutional change. The capacity of local, and regional, government bodies need to be built to enable decentralisation. Community centres can be used for distance learning, forming schools that are adaptable to the needs of rural children and families. However, for such proposals we need to focus on decentralisation and ensuring good governance amongst local and regional actors.

Social Policy: encouraging teaching careers  UNESCO (2013) report the need for 6.8mn teachers by 2015 for the right to primary education to be achieved. The teaching workforce requires includes both replacements and additional teachers. Africa has a reality of low teacher-student ratios. In 2012, 80 students were reported per teacher in the Central African Republic (World Bank, 2013). Positive schemes are needed to incentivise potential teachers to enter the profession and meet demand.  Careers can be encouraged through multiple paths. For example, providing incentives to study teaching as a profession. Tanzania’s Ministry of Education provides grants to students entering University to study teaching.

Firstly, encouraging teaching as a employment path does not ensure committed or motivated teachers are gained. Secondly, the problem is advocating ‘universal’ education when the infrastructure does not match. Low teacher ratios per student indicate the need for new buildings, and bigger schools. Facilities need to be improved with space for more classes. Schools need to be designed to enable diverse learning - such as space for IT, games, and public discussions.  The experience of learning is broader, and goes beyond the classroom. Good education is not solely reliant on the teacher, but on what the student is able to engage in and how they can learn to raise new ideas and questions. Investment is therefore required in new schools and universities.

A key concern for government’s education policy is ensuring efficiency in the allocation of resources. Investment is required in management structures - to ensure teachers accept the social contract of responsibility, and duty, to the services provided and enable the efficient allocation of public resources.  Weaknesses have been identified with regards to resources being lost or misused in districts or schools. The rising cases of ‘Ghost teachers’ - teachers who are not real but created to exist on paper - indicates the scope of chaotic management structures and persistent corruption. Resources are being lost through cases of manipulation, whether by teachers or government officials embezzling money. Reports from Sierre Leone, Uganda, and Libya, showcase the concerning reality [1] . Before higher wages can be provided, forgeries need to be resolved. A system needs to be built which enables monitoring to ensure real teachers are paid and found.  [1] See further readings: All Africa, 2012; The Informer, 2013; and BBC News, 2008.

Incentivising movement so there are teachers where they are needed  Although the extent of rural-urban disparities remains debatable, geographical disparities in living standards and education are articulated across Africa. The location, and provision, of teachers does not always match need.  In Uganda, the universalisation of education has been met with inequities, regionally and across socioeconomic groups, in the quality of education (Hedger et al, 2010). Incentives are required to deploy teachers to districts according to need; and encourage teachers to relocate. For example, awards need to be provided for teachers to move to rural areas, and the development of teacher housing schemes - providing teachers with houses in new locations.

Social Policy for satisfied teachers  The creation of national social policies which provide secure, and stable, wages for teachers is fundamental. Social policy can make satisfied teachers. A key concern amongst teachers is finance - inadequate wages and insurance. Teacher wages is considerably lower than other formal professions - combining to enforce low morale and occupational motivation as pay is too low to sustain individuals and households (Bennell, 2004). In South Africa an average teaching salary is 19,535 ZAR in contrast to the 28,235 ZAR average granted in all jobs in South Africa (Salary Explorer, 2013).  Further, social policy is required to introduce teacher pension schemes. Pension schemes are provided for workers within the formal employment sector, by various public organisations - including the government and GEPF [1] . However, some national pension schemes are more developed than others and teachers need to be ensured the profession can provide investments for future security. An ageing population only reinforces its importance.  [1] See further readings: GEPF, 2013.

Fundamentally, structures cannot be changed without development. Human capital however, provides a means of development. Studies have shown the positive role human capital - a composite measure of education and knowledge - has on a nation’s development.  The AfDB have shown that enhanced human capital amongst Africa’s young population is empowering change - promoting good governance and post-conflict recovery; and intrinsic to economic growth (Diawara, 2011). In other words teachers need investment to educate the youths in order to overcome these barriers to universal education.

A key concern in achieving the MDG is quality control - regulation is required to do so, and the standard of teaching needs to be monitored; this cannot be done at home. Investing in teachers will ensure basic needs are met.  Teachers are the vital resources to transfer knowledge, and providing universal access to standardised education. Thus direct investment is required in teachers for students well-being.

Colonial legacies: the issue of language  A fundamental restriction to achieving universal education in several African countries is not teachers, as a resource, but rather the lack of a national language. Colonialism enforced national boundaries, of which remain mismatched to ethnicity and language. African nations remain some of the most diverse in the world. With the exception of Tanzania, whereby Julius Nyerere used policy to create a sense of national unity and language, many African nations placed minimal focus on nationalisation. Around 46 languages are spoken in Zambia.  Such language diversities make universal education difficult. Therefore, presidents such as Paul Kagame, have the right approach of enforcing a national language.

The MDG is the barrier  Significant progress has been made in meeting the MDG in Africa, therefore criticism needs to be raised on the MDG themselves. The MDG are unrealistic, unfair, and the benchmarks set fail to acknowledge progress made (Easterly, 2009).  The barrier to achieving universal education is not a lack of investment, rather inappropriate targets.

The complex controls over enrolment  Suggesting investments are required in teachers limits a recognition of the multiple forces creating barriers to achieve a right to education. Universal education is constrained by political, socio-cultural, and economic, structures.  Firstly, gender inequalities in education raise cultural norms of the role of girls in society, and within the domestic-sphere at home. Religious and cultural beliefs mean girls account for 70% of children not attending school. Across Sub-Saharan Africa the economics of child marriage often mean girls leave school or become reluctant to go to school. A positive correlation is found between low education and countries with high rates of child marriage [1] . Niger has the highest rate of child marriage.  Secondly, poverty and hunger act as key restraints in achieving the target. As Mkandawire (2010) argues, development needs to be brought back onto the ‘pro-poor’ agenda. Human capital cannot be developed without a broader focus on social and economic policies that enable development first.  [1] See further readings: Education for Girls, 2013.

Teaching begins at home  For the target of universal primary education to be achieved we need to look beyond a narrow education policy. Programs are required to enable teaching at home. The benefits of education need to be accessed nationwide; which will cumulatively encourage children to go to school and participate to do their best. For example, by introducing adult training/education courses to parents and elderly populations, parents are able to assist children at home, and to recognise the benefits of gaining an education. Simply providing better teachers at school fails to recognise the importance of intra-household decisions and life. For universal education the whole population strata needs to be included; and adult courses provided on basic maths, english and science.

Critiquing the foundation of the MDG does not resolve the reality that around 56mn children are still unable to use their right to education (UN, 2013).

Proposals for basing education, and teaching, on a universal language raise criticism. Will students be able to ask for assistance at home and amongst their community if the language taught is not understood? Does enforcing a national language return to unequal relations of power - overriding the history and ethnic diversity of said nation? Shouldn’t national governments be more sensitive to local communities and group identities? Finally, what language will be chosen, and how will the decision be made? The implementation of a national language introduces a risk of conflict in unstable countries.  It also needs to be remembered that a national language has to be taught; something which requires investment in teachers.

States can get very worked up about very small pieces of land. Size appears to matter little when the issue is one of sovereignty. For that matter neither does the worth of the land or the population living on it. A great many of the world’s hot spots are over very small areas of land often with small or non-existent populations such as Gibraltar, Falklands, Senkaku, and the islands of the South China Sea.

imate water international africa global house believes seychelles should

Small size makes for ease  The Seychelles, as with the other nations whose very existence is threatened by climate change, is small. It is twice the size of Washington D.C., so smaller than many cities. As such finding enough land to relocate the country should not be a problem. Several of the states closest to the Seychelles; Kenya, Tanzania, Somalia, and Madagascar, have plenty of land that they could give up without any inconvenience to their own state. Kenya, the smallest, is more than 1200 times bigger than Seychelles

Shared sovereignty is likely to create problems in the future. No state wants to have another state controlling some aspects of its sovereignty and any deal the Seychelles entered into would be an unequal one as the Seychelles would both be much smaller and be the state asking for help. If the host state for example maintained control over national defense what would there be to stop that country essentially mounting a takeover of the Seychelles new territory in the future?

Moving is an imperative  It is clear that if the Seychelles wishes to remain as a sovereign nation it will have to relocate almost all of its population and it makes sense for this to be in one place so keeping the nation together. The way to do this is through purchasing land and sovereignty from another country that has land to spare. There is clearly little other choice and some of the small island states have already accepted this. Kiribati for example has already bought land from Fiji with the intent of using it as a last resort for its people. [1]  [1] Yu, Bobby, ‘The Sinking Nation of Kiribati: The Lonely Stand Against Statelessness And Displacement from Rising Oceans’, The Arizona Journal of Environmental Law &amp; Policy, 11 January 2013,

Unlike the Maldives or Kiribati the Seychelles will still have a small amount of land. [1] The government could establish a permanent outpost even if it does have difficulties with water supplies. The Seychelles would therefore be able to maintain sovereignty through this outpost much as mounting bases on small islets around the world provide sovereignty without acquiring new territories elsewhere.  [1] Conan, 2010,

The suggestion that the polluter pays is in relation to the cleaning up of pollution and reduction of emissions not helping those who are affected by the consequences. Accepting an obligation to help everyone affected by climate change would mean developed nations taking on an immense burden in terms of rebuilding lost homes and livelihoods. No government would make such a commitment to any but its own citizens.

Shared sovereignty  If there are no countries willing to cede complete sovereignty over territory then some kind of shared sovereignty could be considered. “This conferred jurisdiction must include rights to become a citizen, migrate, work, access health care, and access social security.” [1] Additionally there would almost certainly need to be sovereignty over justice, law and order. However this would potentially leave large areas of sovereignty in the remit of the host nation; such as providing defense. The most notable compromise by both might be to maintain sovereignty over people rather than just territory.  There have been suggestions such as by Krasner that shared sovereignty should be considered, and become much more normal. And some forms of shared sovereignty have happened before such as foreign control over some tax revenues, or the status of forces agreements the USA had with Germany that restricted German ability to make war after WWII. [2] Or more obviously the members of the EU increasingly cede some sovereignty to the international entity. As the deal would be voluntary for both the Seychelles and its host country and both would potentially gain such a deal would seem feasible.  [1] Yu, 2013,   [2] Krasner, Stephen D., ‘The case for shared sovereignty’, Journal of Democracy, vol.16, No.1, January 2005,  , p.77

Other nations have an obligation to help  The President of Vanuatu has noted “If such a tragedy [the disappearance of a state] should happen, then the United Nations and its members will have failed in their first and most basic duty to a Member and its innocent people, as stated in Article 1 of the Charter of the United Nations.” [1] As long ago as 1992 developed nations accepted “the responsibility that they bear in the international pursuit to sustainable development in view of the pressures their societies place on the global environment and of the technologies and financial resources they command” and that “polluter should, in principle, bear the cost of pollution”. [2] There is also a Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness in which article 10 demands that any redrawing of borders must not render a person stateless, the principle behind which would equally apply to a disappearing state. [3] The small island states are losing their countries through no fault of their own it is therefore the responsibility of other states to provide them with alternatives; be this land or the resources to purchase land.  [1] McAdam, ‘’Disappearing states’, statelessness and the boundaries of international law’, UNSW Law Research Paper, 2010,  , p.4  [2] The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, ‘Rio Declaration on Environment and Development’, unep.org, 14 June 1992,   [3] United Nations, ‘Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness’, unhcr.org, 1961,

While this is technically the case, and indeed the Seychelles would even maintain some territory, it would not be a viable long term option. While other countries would maintain recognition of a territory-less state for a while would they do so over the long term? The Seychelles government would meanwhile have immense problems exercising any kind of authority. How would a state with no, or very little, territory collect any taxes? Without a functioning government with revenues providing any of the services of a state to its citizens would be impossible. Meanwhile its citizens would likely be scattered and there would be a clash between any services offered by the state they are staying in and a government in exile trying to exercise control.

The cost need not be borne by the state from which they Seychelles is given land; rather it could come from the funds that have been set up to help developing nations adapt to climate change such as the Adaptation Fund and the Green Climate Fund. [1] This would mean the money would be coming from developed countries that can easily afford the costs of helping rebuild the lives of 90,000 people not the country that provides the territory.  [1] ‘Finance’, unfccc.inc, accessed 26/2/2014,

New countries forged by those fleeing disaster  There have been very few countries that have been created in circumstances that are at all similar to that which would happen when island nations are forced to abandon their homeland. The closest parallel is Israel when Jews arrived en mass first because they were promised the land after WWI, when it is notable that they purchased the land they occupied, [1] and then after the disaster of the Holocaust. The Palestinians have not been happy about the loss of territory. Indeed there have been few examples in history of peoples’ willingly giving up land to a new arrival whether it is due to colonialism or migration. The result, especially if sovereignty is involved, is usually conflict.  [1] Pipes, Daniel, ‘Not Stealing Palestine, but Purchasing Israel’, National Review Online, 21 June 2011,

Could retain sovereignty without acquiring new territory  While it is normal for states to have exclusive sovereign control over territory this has not always happened in the past. There have been governments in exile that have remained recognised as a result of wars or revolutions. Most notable perhaps was during world war II where there were governments in exile as a result of invasions by Germany and Japan. For example Philippine President Quezon set up The Commonwealth government in exile in Washington D.C. which remained the recognised government by the allies and therefore much of the world. [1]  A state therefore does not have to have control over a populated territory to maintain a sovereign government and for the world to recognise it as such. [2] Having a population on the territory over which the state has sovereignty matters little; migrants don’t always change citizenship when they move to live in another country. Indeed 56.9% of Samoans live outside their own territory. [3]  [1] Jose, Ricardo, T., ‘Governments in Exile’, University of the Philippines,  , p.182  [2] Yu, 2013,   [3] McAdam, 2010,  , p.8

Other states would not want to waste resources on a refugee state  The Seychelles are not a particularly rich place. Their main industries are tourism and tuna fishing accounting for 32% of employment, [1] both of which are unfortunately entirely dependent upon the territory of the islands themselves and cannot be moved. The result is that the Seychelles have little to offer those states that might consider giving up territory. The country will therefore have difficulty rebuilding its economy and would likely be a drain upon its host making countries unwilling to take on the commitment.  [1] The World Bank, ‘Seychelles Overview’, October 2013,

Israel while it may be the only obvious modern example is a terrible analogy. The number of people from small island states is tiny compared to the number of Jews wishing to live in Israel/Palestine. Those from the small island state are unlikely ever to be in a position to dictate terms to those who are already living in the state so there will be cooperation not conflict.

Bucking this trend of increased HDI figures are the states who are currently witnessing, or have recently experienced, armed conflict. Africa has observed many well-known and lesser known conflicts which have damaged infrastructure and made it significantly harder for local populations to access key services such as schools and healthcare. Five of seven countries with the poorest nutritional scores are African and have recently emerged from armed conflict [1] , they are also rated as some of the poorest countries in the world.  [1] Smith, ‘Africa is not rising’, 2013

ss economy general international africa house believes africa really rising

Human development indicators have significantly improved in recent years.  Human development index (HDI) indicators are used to assess levels of life expectancy, education and income indices throughout the world. The majority of African states have seen an improvement in these scores since 2001, and are predicted to continue this trend. Some African states, such Seychelles, Libya and Tunisia, are in the ‘High Human Development’ category and are positioned in the top 100 for HDI indicators, an improvement from 1990 [1] . Life expectancy has increased by 10% on the continent and infant mortality has decreased as well, thanks to the greater availability of mosquito nets and the attention given to HIV/AIDS [2] . Education is seen as a cornerstone to growth as it allows the quicker attainment of the skills required for knowledge-intensive industries (such as agriculture and services), which will in turn lead to greater development [3] . The level of literacy in Africa has seen an increase in reports on human development from 2001 [4] and 2011 [5] . Finally, levels of poverty throughout Africa have generally decreased, including in notable countries such as Ghana and Zimbabwe.  [1] Watkins, ‘Human Development Report’, 2005, p.219  [2] The Economist, ‘Africa Rising’, 2013  [3] Haddad, ‘Education and Development’, 1990  [4] Fukuda-Parr, ‘Human Development Report’, 2011  [5] ‘United Nations Human Development statistical annex’, 2011, pp.159-161

FDI increases have not been universal in Africa. Both Southern and Western Africa have witnessed decreased levels of FDI in 2012 [1] . South Africa, whilst being well known for fluctuating levels of investment, saw a decrease of 24% in 2012 and Angola saw a decrease of $6.9 billion of FDI. Furthermore, companies have attempted to avoid tax whilst operating African countries, as the Barclays tax haven scheme has demonstrated [2] . FDI is also dependant on the condition of other economies. During the global recession, which began in 2008, there was a notable dip in investment and FDI has not fully recovered yet [3] . In addition to this, there is no guarantee that FDI will create employment. This suggests that the future of FDI, and the improvements that can be made to African infrastructure and employment levels as a result, are unstable to say the least.  [1] UNCTAD, ‘Foreign Direct Investment to Africa increases’, 2013  [2] Provost, ‘Row as Barclays promotes tax havens as 'gateway for investment' in Africa’, 2013  [3] The Economist, ‘Africa Rising’, 2013

Africa’s Economies are growing rapidly  Africa has recently experienced some of the most significant economic growth in the world. Amongst the top ten growing economies in the world are five African countries; The Gambia, Libya, Mozambique, Sierra Leone, and South Sudan [1] . The latter, South Sudan, witnessed GDP growth of 32% in 2013. Other economies in Africa are also doing exceptionally well, such as Ethiopia and Ghana. As ever, natural resources are a key export for these countries. Recent investments from China in exchange for Africa’s abundant natural resources have enabled many African countries to develop at a significantly faster rate, with trade between the continent and China increasing by $155 billion [2] . All of this has contributed to an average GDP growth of 4.8% in the past ten years. There is a rapidly expanding middle-class and it is predicted that by 2015 there will be over 100 million Africans living on $3,000 a year [3] , showing an increasingly positive future for Africa.  [1] Maps of World, ‘Top Ten Countries with Fastest Growing Economies’, 2013  [2] The Economist, ‘Africa Rising’, 2013  [3] The Economist, ‘The hopeful continent’, 2011

Whilst there has been significant economic growth in many African countries, the majority of people are not seeing the benefits. Despite some success stories, such as Folorunsho Alakija becoming richer than Oprah [1] , most Africans have not benefitted from economic growth. Afrobarometer conducted a survey of 34 African countries between 2011 and 2013 [2] . They found that 53% found their economic situation to be either ‘fairly’ or ‘very bad’. Only one third of respondents believed that their national economy had improved in the past year. Statistics like these demonstrate that most are seeing no improvement in their lives despite current levels of national economic growth. The finite nature of many of the resources being sold by Africa means that the current levels of trade cannot be maintained forever, calling Africa’s future economic growth in to question.  [1] Gesinde, ‘How Alakija’s wealth grew’, 2013  [2] Hoffmeyr, ‘Africa Rising?’, 2013

Internet use is still very low in Africa, only 16% regularly access the internet. Some areas lag far more than others as well, highlighting regional disparity and the role that has on the economy. While East Africa benefits from large-scale mobile phone ownership, a money transfer system M-Pesa has transactions of $1 billion per month, other areas such as West Africa have failed to do the same [1] . This has led to a potential loss of business for the region’s population who require communications for their farms and businesses.  [1] Felix, ‘Insight’, 2013

Foreign Direct Investment to the continent has increased  Foreign investment into Africa has seen a large increase in recent years, which has enabled Africa to invest significant amounts of funding in to infrastructure, jobs creation and acquisition of technology [1] . In Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania, foreign businesses account for a much larger percentage of employment than any domestic firm, hence increasing the standard of living for a greater number of people [2] . FDI has gone from $15 billion in 2002 to $37 billion in 2006 and $46 billion in 2012. The vast majority of this investment is based on extractive industries such as agriculture and raw resources. However, Africa has recently seen an increase in FDI for manufacturing and services as well [3] . Central Africa alone received $10 billion in 2012-3, due to an increased interest in the DRC’s copper-cobalt mines. The sources of this FDI vary, but China has become the major investor in the region, with investment rising from $11 billion to $166 billion in the past decade. China has helped build vast infrastructure projects in return for natural resources and food for its growing population.  [1] Moss, ‘Is Africa’s Skepticism of Foreign Capital Justified?’, 2004, p.2  [2] Moss, ‘Is Africa’s Skepticism of Foreign Capital Justified?’, 2004, p.19  [3] UNCTAD, ‘Foreign Direct Investment to Africa increases’, 2013

Greater Access to Technology  Proponents of this view claim that the traditional image of ‘Dark Africa’ is becoming outdated in the light of greater access to technology. Due to poor infrastructure, mobile communications have had a transformative impact on African life. In the past decade there has been a notable increase in mobile phone ownership, with the trend set to continue. There are over 600 million mobile phone users in Africa, which is more than in North America and Europe [1] . Mobile phones allow the use of services such as agro-info and mobile banking to further their businesses. It is thought that by 2017, 30% of households will have a television in their house. Household technologies becoming more available have gone hand in hand with the development of more sophisticated farming and industrial techniques. A recent Pan-African project designed at improving legume technology and enrich low-nitrogen soils has made it possible for farmers to increase their yields and has reached 250,000 smallholder farmers so far [2] .  [1] The Economist, ‘The hopeful continent’, 2011  [2] Abuje, ‘Putting biological nitrogen fixation to work for smallholder farmers’, 2011

In recent years there has been a large amount of aid provided to Africa for the express purpose of climate change adaption, demonstrating a growing awareness to this issue. The UNEP claimed that between 2010 and 2011 it provided several hundred million dollars each year, with an unknown amount coming from other development projects, directed towards climate change adaption [1] . While this does not cover future costs, it is a start.  [1] Rowling, ‘Africa Faces Sharp Rise in Climate Adaption Costs – Unep’, 2013

Fifteen out of the twenty countries which have made the most progress towards completing the MDGs are African states. According the UNDP the goals of universal education, gender equality and the empowerment of women, combat HIV/AIDS, TB malaria and other diseases and Global partnership are on track to being completed. While the other goals have not been completed, there is hope that they will be completed in time. The fact that the majority of states have made at least some improvement on these goals is a positive in itself. They have attempted to improve the quality of their populations’ lives, which has a positive impact upon their economies.

Majority of states are still undemocratic  While there is a lot of contention over government type, democracy is seen as an aspiration in Western eyes, and African dictators have a history of running brutal and corrupt regimes. In Africa the majority of states are still dictatorships. Only 25 of the 55 states are democratic, whilst the rest are authoritarian or hybrid regimes. These dictators are commonly associated with poor governance, which in turn can affect economic growth. Recent pictures of Robert Mugabe and his team of ministers asleep at an African-Arab economic summit demonstrate how little enthusiasm some of these leaders have for the progress of their country [1] .  [1] Moyo, ‘Mugabe and his ministers sleep through economic summit’, 2013

War and Civil unrest disrupt development and economic growth  Another major barrier to economic development in Africa is the regional instability caused by the 23 wars and episodes of civil unrest. War is naturally a costly affair; the 2001 conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea cost the former $2.9 billion with extensive damage to its economic and social infrastructure. A BBC report noted that extra funding had to be diverted away from development in order to meet the rising demands of the war [1] . What makes Africa’s situation far worse is the tendency of many armed groups to become bandits rather than armies with political objectives [2] . The inclination for these armed groups to forsake any ideal of governing in favour of banditry and rape makes them harder to negotiate as ‘legitimate grievances in these failed or failing African states deteriorate into rapacious, profit-orientated bloodshed’ [3] . The constant disruption to the lives of civilians in these 23 wars has led to poor levels of human development, which has further destabilised the region.  [1] Bhalla, ‘War ‘devastated’ Ethiopian economy’, 2001  [2] Gettleman, ‘Africa’s Forever Wars’, 2010  [3] Gettleman, ‘Africa’s Forever Wars’, 2010

The Continent is still vulnerable to natural disasters  A major road block to development and economic growth in Africa is the prevalence of natural disasters. These disasters commonly affect the poorest and most vulnerable in society, as they are often the ones living in the ‘most exposed areas’, thus preventing development [1] . In Somalia, for example, the 2013 cyclone left tens of thousands homeless in an already impoverished area, worsening their economic situation [2] . Dr Tom Mitchell from the Overseas Development Institute has claimed that economic growth cannot occur until disaster risk management becomes central to social and economic policy [3] . Disaster management could cost too much however. In November 2013, a United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report demonstrated that 2070 a total $350 billion per annum would be required to deal with the threats presented by clime change such as increased Arid areas and higher risks of flooding [4] .  [1] Decapua, ‘Natural Disasters Worsen Poverty’, 2013  [2] Migiro, ‘Somalia Reels From Cyclone, Floods and Hunger – ICRC’, 2013  [3] Decapua, ‘Natural Disasters Worsen Poverty’, 2013  [4] Rowling, ‘Africa Faces Sharp Rise in Climate Adaption Costs – Unep’, 2013

Millennium Development Goals have not yet been reached  While the majority of African governments have made efforts to reach the Millennium Development Goals (MDG), the deadlines for achieving them are fast approaching with little sign of complete success. The MDGs were established in 2000, and laid out a set of criteria which each country should aspire to in order to become developed. These development goals are essential for Africa to be able to effectively grow. The United Nations Development Programme readily recognises that the eradication of hunger, reduction of child mortality, improvement of maternal health and ensuring environmental sustainability are all off track in Africa [1] . Observing the causes of this failure, the inequality existing in Africa is blamed as a fundamental roadblock.  [1] UNDP, ‘MDG Progress Reports – Africa’, 2013

Despite numerous ongoing conflicts on the continent, there have been efforts to create an end to war. The number of conflicts in Africa has decreased since its peak in the early 1990s [1] , and there is increased optimism with the resolution of the M23 rebellion in DR Congo which will hopefully bring Africa’s most devastating war to an end. There is a desire by many African states to end war in the region, as illustrated by the African Union’s (AU) objective to end war on the continent by 2020 [2] . Amongst other objectives, the AU has stated that it wished to ‘address the root causes of conflicts including economic and social disparities’ [3] . African peacekeeping forces have also become more prominent, with large contingents in Mali and Somalia. As of December 2013, the AU has begun preparations to send a peacekeeping force to the Central African Republic [4] , suggesting the AU will be proactive in preventing conflict on the Continent in the future.  [1] Straus, ‘Africa is becoming more peaceful’, 2013  [2] African Union, ‘50th Anniversary Solemn Declaration’, 2013  [3] African Union, ‘50th Anniversary Solemn Declaration’, 2013  [4] Ndukong, ‘Central Africa’, 2013

The rise in the number of democracies, and the Arab Spring movement in Northern Africa, demonstrates an increasing dedication to democracy. At the end of the cold war there were only three democracies; the large number of regime changes show that African governments are becoming more accountable to the people that they are supposed to represent. Arguably, one of the main goals of the Arab Spring was to seek democracy and a greater say in politics. This led to regime changes in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia with protests occurring in other states as well. In 2012 Egyptian President, Mohamed Morsi, announced laws that would make him free from judicial review [1] . The resulting protests saw him removed from power, demonstrating the continued desire for democracy in Northern Africa.  [1] Egypt Independent, ‘Morsy issues new constitutional declaration’, 2012

The PRC does not ignore countries that do not have diplomatic relations with it. São Tomé is a case in point; PRC is opening a trade mission in the country despite not change in diplomatic recognition. This is in part because the Chinese are taking part in a $400million deep-water port development. [1] Not engaging in diplomatic relations with the PRC does not damage economic relations.  [1] ‘China to open mission with tiny Sao Tome, despite its Taiwan links’, Reuters, 14 November 2013,

africa asia house would sao tome drop relations taiwan favour mainland

Economically beneficial  Switching diplomatic recognition to China can be economically beneficial. A country that changes recognition is both likely to be given a reward for the change and then be much capable of engaging in joint economic projects with the PRC. Malawi for example cut its ties with Taiwan at the end of 2007. PRC offered a $6billion financial package for the defection. [1] Malawi has since benefited from large amounts of Chinese investment; Chinese companies have been involved in building vital infrastructure such as schools and roads, and even a new parliament building. [2] And trade between China and Malawi has been booming with growth of 25% in 2010 alone. [3] Even the Chinese believe that recognition occurs as a result of the economic incentive the Chinese envoy to Malawi having been quoted calling Malawi beggars. [4]  [1] Hsu, Jenny W., ‘Malawi, Taiwan end 42-year relations’, Taipei Times, 15 January 2008,   [2] Ngozo, Claire, ‘China puts its mark on Malawi’, theguardian.com, 7 May 2011,   [3] Jomo, Frank, ‘Malawi, China Trade to Grow 25% on Cotton, Daily Times Reports’, Bloomberg, 15 December 2010,   [4] ‘Chinese Envoy's Remarks on Malawi Breed Resentment’, Voice of America, 1 November 2009,

While the PRC may have more people the rights of its people to consider themselves Chinese is clearly recognised the world over. It is Taiwan however whose rights are quashed by its lack of recognition; it can neither be recognised as China or exercise its right to self-determination as Taiwan as China has threatened invasion if it declares independence. [1] This would be unjust. Changing recognition to ensure ‘peace’ would not change the Taiwanese position so rendering the change meaningless.  [1] Hutzler, Charles, ‘China Threatens War Over Taiwan’, Washington Post, 21 February 2000,

PRC is clearly the China that matters  The Chinese civil war is over, and it is clear that it is the People’s Republic that has won. The 1992 consensus (though the term was coined later) between Taiwan and the PRC is that there is “one China, Different Interpretations” about who controls that China. [1] If there is only one China then it is clear which of the two China’s that one is. The PRC is 266 times larger than RoC, has 58 times the population, and its economy is 13.7 times bigger (by purchasing power parity). [2] States should be recognising the PRC as the “one China”.  [1] Kan, Shirley A., ‘China/Taiwan: Evolution of the “One China” Policy – Key Statements from Washington, Beijing, and Taipei’, Congressional Research Service, 26 August 2013,  , p.47  [2] All figures from The World Factbook, China and Taiwan pages  ,

The PRC may be much more powerful, more populous, and bigger, but that does not mean that it is the legitimate government of China. The decision to recognise other countries is a matter for each government and should be based on their perception of the legitimacy of the two contenders and their own national interests not comparisons between the two competing sides.

São Tomé is not a large country; it is unlikely to have interests that are threatened by the kind of resolutions the UNSC makes unless it is itself the subject. Moreover Beijing has not let the lack of recognition undermine relations with the remaining members; Beijing would not engage in actions that might create enmity that would then reduce the chances of a change in recognition.

Should not ignore the will of 1.3billion  A small African country should not ignore one sixth of the world’s population. To recognise a tiny country of 23million over one of 1.3billion is being unjust to a huge portion of humanity. When there is such an imbalance in population it is clear that the democratic path is to recognise the side with the greater population. When all the states that have recognised Taiwan finally transfer recognition to the PRC Taiwan may finally recognise that it would be best off returning to China. By changing its recognition São Tomé and other small countries can do their bit to ensure peace in East Asia.

Cannot avoid dealing with a UNSC member  The PRC is a member of the United Nations Security Council and as such is one of the key members of the UN. It is therefore difficult for countries to avoid dealing with it. The Pacific island of Tonga’s switched recognition because it feared the PRC would veto its membership of the UN. [1] São Tomé is already a member but that does not mean the PRC can’t cause problems in the international body; it clearly has the ability to scupper any initiative São Tomé wishes to pursue. Similarly in other international institutions while the PRC does not wield as much power as it does in the UN it still has considerably more influence than Taiwan; this includes over some organisations that provide aid such as the World Bank and IMF. São Tomé therefore must deal with the PRC, this being the case it should not let recognition get in the way.  [1] Fossen, Anthony Van, ‘The Struggle for Recognition: Diplomatic Competition between China and Taiwan in Oceania’, The Journal of Chinese Political Science, Col.12, No.2, 2007,  , p.4

China is interested in African states; for decades many African states were seen as ideological partners, and now they are economic partners. [1] A President’s first overseas visit is always symbolic; President Xi’s firs visit was a four country tour taking in Russia and three African countries; Tanzania, South Africa, and Republic of Congo. [2] This shows how important Africa is to Beijing.  [1] Qichen, Qian, ‘Ten Episodes in China’s Diplomacy’, HarperCollins, 2006, Chapter 8 pp.191-230  [2] Forum on China-Africa Cooperation, ‘Africa: China's New President Concludes First Foreign Visit With Fruitful Results’, allAfrica, 1 April 2013,

Democracy and history have little to do with recognition; PRC is recognised by many democracies around the world. The PRC is also on the side of former colonies having itself suffered a ‘century of humiliation’. The PRC is an observer of the Non Aligned Movement which contains almost all countries that have been colonies. [1]  [1] ‘The Non-Aligned Movement: Background Information’, Government Communications South Africa, 21 September 2001,

There is a truce in the diplomatic conflict  There is a truce between Taipei and Beijing on the issue of recognition. Neither is currently aiming to poach countries from the other. China has refused advances from El Salvador and Honduras that have said they wish to change their recognition to the PRC. [1] When Gambia terminated its ties with Taiwan Hong Lei a spokesman for the PRC Foreign Ministry said “We learned the relevant information from the foreign media. Before that, China was not in contact with The Gambia.” [2] The truce has been maintained and Gambia has been left essentially not recognising either China. [3]  [1] Cole, J Michael, ‘Is China and Taiwan’s Diplomatic Truce Over?’, The Diplomat, 18 November 2013,   [2] Enav, Peter, ‘Beijing was in dark about Gambia's broken ties with Taiwan: China official’, The China Post, 16 November 2013,   [3] Atkinson, Joel, ‘Gambia’s Break with Taiwan’, The Diplomat, 2 December 2013,

Receive much greater interest from Taiwan  There are benefits to being one of only twenty-two countries that recognise another country; you are lavished with attention. The President of the RoC visited São Tomé in January 2014, [1] he was last intending to visit only two years before but cancelled as President Manuel Pinto da Costa was overseas. [2] Visits also regularly go the other way; in a four month period from October 2010 São Tomé’s President, Minister of Finance, and Prime Minister all made separate trips to Taiwan. [3] The PRC being recognised by many more countries could never provide the same level of attention. As one of the poorest countries in the world without the question of recognition the PRC would have practically no interest in such a small African state.  [1] ‘Ma vows to strengthen ROC-Sao Tome relations’, Taiwan Today, 27 January 2014,   [2] Hsiu-chuan, Shih, ‘Ma’s trip canceled due to scheduling conflict: Sao Tome’, Taipei Times, 5 April 2012,   [3] Martins, Vasco, ‘Aid for legitimacy: São Tomé and Principe hand in hand with Taiwan’, IPRIS Viewpoints, February 2011,

Should recognise a democracy  São Tomé is a multiparty democracy and has been since 1995 with free and fair elections. [1] The country is eleventh on the Ibrahim Index of African Governance. [2] It should therefore be supporting its fellow democracy; Taiwan. As a country that was a colony of Portugal for five hundred years having only secured independence in 1975 São Tomé should not wish to support a country that colonises others such as Tibet and Inner Mongolia, seeks to colonise Taiwan, and engages in aggressive actions to seize small islands in nearby seas.  [1] Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, ‘Sao Tome and Principe’, U.S. Department of State, 2012,   [2] ‘The Ibrahim Index of African Governance’, Mo Ibrahim Foundation,  accessed 10/2/2014

That there is a truce at the moment does not mean that diplomatic relations with Taiwan should not be dropped. Taiwan is not China so Sao Tome should not be recognising Taiwan even if the PRC will not accept recognition at the moment. The PRC is also unlikely to keep the truce for long – any countries changing diplomatic recognition will be able to formally recognise the PRC as soon as the PRC finds it politically expedient to needle Taiwan.

The proposition vastly understates the negative impact a default has on the local economy. It is unrealistic to compare Greece with Argentina. As a member of the Eurozone, the developments within the Greek debt crisis have a huge impact on nations suffering from similar problems, as well as the Eurozone as a whole. Moreover, devaluing the Drachma would be nowhere near as beneficial as the proposition suggests. Greece is not rich in natural resources or industry and so boosting exports will not make a huge difference.  Yes, a default would resolve the uncertainty about whether Greece will default and exit the Euro. However this new predictability would not be good; it would simply show investors that they cannot invest in Greece because they will lose their money. Ratings agencies are unlikely to consider Greece a safe investment for a long time so there will not be international investment.[1]  [1] Pappa, Eppi: “Q&amp;A: What happens if Greece leaves the euro?”, 14 May 2012, Al Jazeera,

ic policy eurozone crisis finance international europe politics government

Defaulting would be the quickest route to economic recovery  Under the status quo, the Greek economy is only headed in one direction: deeper recession. There are no signs of the situation changing any time soon. Were the Greek Government to default on its debts, after a period of recession, conditions would quickly be favourable for economic growth once more. This is what was observed when Argentina and other nations [1] recently defaulted and can be explained by many factors. Firstly, defaulting and exiting the Eurozone would allow Greece to conduct monetary policy more freely: they would be able to quickly devalue their currency in order to make Greek goods and services more competitive on the international market. This would increase exports and attract investment, as well as tourists looking for cheaper holidays – all of which would contribute towards the rebuilding of the Greek economy. [2] Moreover, were Greece to default, it would put an end to the huge degree of unpredictability and uncertainty about the Greek economy. At the moment, nobody knows if the banks are safe, if the government will default etc. The constant chopping and changing of current austerity measures such as increases in varieties of corporate tax and changes in regulations also contribute to the huge degree of uncertainty in the Greek economy. Uncertainty breeds risk and risk breeds fear: a recipe that drives away foreign investors and makes it difficult for local businesses to start up. Were Greece to default, however, such elements of uncertainty would be seriously diminished, and conditions would be ripe for investment from abroad and locally. Greek would be able to start afresh.  [1] Pettifor, Ann: “Greece: The upside of default”, 23 May 2012, BBC News,   [2] Lapavitsas, Costas: “Eurozone crisis: what if… Greece leaves the single currency”, 14 May 2012, The Guardian,

Greece’s default will not decrease uncertainty. If anything, the perceived risk of investing in other Eurozone members suffering from their own debt problems like Italy, Spain, Portugal and Ireland would rocket sky-high. The Eurozone project as a whole may struggle on with Germany trying to keep it together, but claiming that a Greek exit from the Eurozone would restore stability is short-sighted. Many of Greece’s creditors are European banks and financial organisations. Greece’s default would, therefore, be a heavy blow for many of their creditor companies who would be unlikely to be willing to invest in other nations suffering similar problems to Greece.

The current austerity measures are not working  The Austerity measures put in place by the ECB, IMF and European Commission have led to nothing but misery for the Greek people. They have failed to cut down the total debt % GDP ratio and have also failed to increase the competitiveness of the Greek economy. This is because raising taxes and slashing the minimum wage has sent the economy deeper and deeper into recession. Unemployment is at a record high of 21% and there is a severe shortage of credit leading to severe difficulties in companies financing their day to day projects. What’s more, the country itself is plunged into depression. Escalated (inevitably) by the local and international media, the climate is one of despair and investment is at the bottom of anyone’s priorities. This further perpetuates the cycles of recession and prevents any of the austerity measures having their desired effect. Additionally, the drastic fall in GDP every quarter means that cuts in government spending are also not having their desired effect on reducing the budget deficit % GDP ratio. Worst of all, the economic hardships have drawn many people to despair and the suicide rates in Greece have dramatically risen over the last year and access to healthcare has drastically declined. [1] In this manner, the government is failing in fulfilling its most basic duties of safeguarding the lives and wellbeing of its citizens. If the current measures are not working then a new approach is needed. A default would alleviate much of the suffering caused by austerity.  [1] Armitsead, Louise: “Why Greece should default and exit the euro” 23 February 2012, The Telegraph,

The proposition’s claims that the austerity measures have totally failed are unfounded. Although it is true that the total debt % GDP ratio has not gone down, this is not as serious as the prop make out. The budget deficit is the main problem that needs to come down because a consistently high budget deficit is what will make the situation spiral out of control and make Greece default on its debts. There is nothing per se problematic with having a large total debt (look at the USA’s total debt of $10 trillion, or Japan’s much higher debt to GDP ratio of 230% which unlike in Greece has not resulted in high interest rates,[1] for example). The fact that Greece’s budget deficit has gone down from 16% to 9% is an encouraging sign of improvement.  In addition, the proposition are not contentious in their claims about the negative effects of austerity. What they have failed to demonstrate, however, is why defaulting is the only solution to the suffering Greek people and the inability of the austerity measures to have their desired effect. The austerity measures have failed thus far because they have been targeted at the wrong areas of the economy and because the Greek Government has not been implementing them properly. Hitting the private sector with high taxation has done nothing to fix the faulty public sector which is the real cause of the debt crisis. The Greek Government remains hugely reluctant to carry out redundancies and wage cuts within the public sectors, as well as privitisations. [2] Greece, therefore, must be made to see that they must fulfill their promises and actually tackle the public sector, while alleviating taxation from the private sector.  [1] Free Exchange, ‘Defying gravity’, 14 August 2012, The Economist,   [2] Babbington, Deepa: “Greek PM sings in tune, now must hit the hard notes”, Septembe 5 2012, e-kathimerini,

A Greek default would increase stability for the rest of the Eurozone  A Greek exit from the ‘Eurozone does not mean the end of the euro. It will, instead, mark a new beginning. Germany has a long and proud tradition of currency strength, but it could not cope with going back to the deutschmark because it would rocket in value and destroy the country's competitiveness. Some 97% of the Eurozone's population will continue to use the single currency and their leaders will circle the policy wagons to protect what is left.’ [`] A Greek default and departure from the Eurozone would decrease uncertainty and fear within the rest of the Eurozone. This, in turn is likely to attract higher levels of investment and transactions across Eurozone members.  [1] Parsons, Nick: “Eurozone crisis: what if… Greece leaves the single currency”, 14 May 2012, The Guardian,

The situation in Ireland, Italy, Spain and Portugal is not as extreme as that faced by Greece. It is therefore highly unlikely that a Greek default would have as severe a domino effect as the opposition suggests. Greece is the main source of political and economic uncertainty in the Eurozone, and their departure would ease the situation, facilitate investors and allow for the Eurozone to rally strongly. [1]  [1] Ruparel, Raoul and Persson, Mats: “Better off Out? The short-term options for Greece inside and outside of the euro”, June 2012, Open Europe, 2012

It is not necessarily true that the whole banking sector in Greece would collapse. Given that the default would be orderly and take place within the context of the European Union, the ECB and European Commission would still provide substantial liquidity aid for Greek banks. Moreover it is not true that a devaluation of domestic currency necessarily leads to high inflation – this was not the case, for example, when Britain exited the European Exchange-rate Mechanism in 1992 and pursued a devaluation policy of the British Pound. [1] Lastly, evidence of recent governments that have defaulted suggests that even though some of the harms the opposition refer to may actualise, recovery generally follows fairly quickly, as was the case with Argentina, South Korea and Indonesia. [2]  [1] Ruparel, Raoul and Persson, Mats: “Better off Out? The short-term options for Greece inside and outside of the euro”, June 2012, Open Europe, 2012   [2] Becker, Garry: “Should Greece Exit the Euro Zone?”, The Becker-Posner Blog, 20.5.2012,

Defaulting would not solve Greece’s problems  The proposition argue that the hardship endured by the default would only be temporary, but an analysis at the particular situation facing Greece indicates the opposite. Greece’s problems arose from a horrifically inefficient public sector embedded within a mentality of corruption and tax evasion. Even if we assume that defaulting would eventually boost Greek exports and help the economy recover, this would not solve the underlying problems that caused the crisis in the first place. By leaving the Eurozone and defaulting, Greece would lose easy access to borrowing, meaning that taxpayers would soon have to face the reality that they would have to pay for the inefficiencies within the public sector and support all the other structures that need reform. [1] Greece must, therefore, address these underlying issues or face the exact same problems in the future. Given that solving these problems necessarily involve austerity measures and job cuts, it makes most sense for Greece to undergo these changes now (as it is with the current austerity measures), under the framework of IMF, ECB and European Commission funding and supervision.  [1] Barrell, Ray: “Eurozone crisis: what if… Greece leaves the single currency”, 14 May 2012, The Guardian,

Leaving the Eurozone would be detrimental for Greece in the long-run.  Even if the proposition are correct in claiming defaulting and leaving the Eurozone would stimulate growth in the Greek economy, such benefits are transitory whereas the benefits of remaining in the Eurozone are permanent. [1] Having the Euro provides stability for the Greek economy – investors know that the currency will not collapse, making their invested capital worthless. The gravity of the outcomes of a Greek default cannot be known for sure, however some economists have even suggested that hyperinflation could occur – leading to disastrous consequences for Greece. [2] Moreover, in the long term, a single currency makes investment and transactions with other Eurozone members much more efficient and profitable. This is particularly important given that the vast majority of Greek trade is carried out with other European members. In light of these benefits, a short term cost that comes with the austerity measures enforced under the status quo, would be worthwhile in the long term.  [1] Barrell, Ray: “Eurozone crisis: what if… Greece leaves the single currency”, 14 May 2012, The Guardian,   [2] Ruparel, Raoul and Persson, Mats: “Better off Out? The short-term options for Greece inside and outside of the euro”, June 2012, Open Europe, 2012

A Greek default would have a negative domino-effect on other Eurozone countries.  A Greek default will leave tremendous shockwaves across the Eurozone. Investors will instantly become wary of default in Portugal, Spain, Italy or Ireland, particularly given the sudden nature of the Greek default. Consequently, huge volumes of capital will flow out of these countries and into other more secure ones like Germany and the Netherlands. [1] This will, in turn, heighten speculation about the danger of default of other Eurozone nations. Speculation of default is particularly dangerous because it drives demand for government bonds down. This leads to the interest payments on government bonds rising which in turn raises the interest rates governments need to pay on their outstanding debt. The new, higher payments governments must make on their debt increases their budget deficit % GDP ratio, thus making it more likely that the country will actually default. We thus see how increased fears about the future of Italy, Portugal, Spain and Ireland that will arise from a Greek default, will cause big problems and will put even more strain on the ECB and primarily Germany in providing financial support.  [1] Kapoor, Sony, “Viewpoints: What if Greece exits euro?”, BBC News, 13 July 2012,

Defaulting would cause chaos in Greece  There is no good solution for the crisis Greece finds itself in, only less bad ones. Austerity measures imposed on Greece may currently be causing suffering, but austerity is the least bad option available for the Greek people: default would be considerably worse. Here is what would most likely happen:  The Greek banking sector would collapse [1]. A large portion of the Greek debt is owed to Greek banks and companies, many of which would quickly go bankrupt when the Government defaults. This is also because Greek banks are almost totally reliant on the ECB for liquidity. [2] People would consequently lose their savings, and credit would be close to impossible to find.  The Government would quickly devalue the Drachma by at least 50%. This will lead to imported goods being more expensive and consequently to a huge rise in inflation with the living costs increasing tremendously.[3]  These two events would lead to a severe shortage of credit, making it almost impossible for struggling companies to survive. Unemployment would soar as a result. It will become increasingly difficult to secure supplies of oil, medicine, foodstuffs and other goods. Naturally, those hit worst would be the poor. The Government, in this respect, would be failing on an enormous scale in providing many citizens with the basic needs. [4]  [1] Brzeski, Carsten: “Viewpoints: What if Greece exits euro?”, BBC News, 13 July 2012,   [2] Ruparel, Raoul and Persson, Mats: “Better off Out? The short-term options for Greece inside and outside of the euro”, June 2012, Open Europe, 2012   [3] ibid  [4] Arghyrou, Michael: “Viewpoints: What if Greece exits euro?”, BBC News, 13 July 2012,

Even in the long-term, continued Eurozone membership for Greece is not sustainable. The size of their total debt % GDP ratio is such that even if Greece were to recover (eventually) with the current austerity measures, Greece would always be susceptible to yet another debt crisis in the event of a future global or European recession. Eurozone membership denies Greece fiscal and monetary policy freedom required to face economic shocks to prevent this from happening. We thus see that in the long-term growth is more sustainable for Greece without the Euro.

In receiving financial support from the ECB and European Commission to prevent the escalation of a major banking collapse in Greece, the Greek Government would be expected to continue with reforms of the public sector. What’s more, defaulting would grant the Greek Government more time to implement such reforms, making them more likely to succeed and less painful on the Greek populous. The oppositions fears are, therefore, unfounded.

While many things may have eased up for a few years in the 2000s China has since hardened its policies in many areas rolling back progress. On the one child policy for example Zhang Feng, director of the provincial population and family planning commission, has said there would be "no major adjustments to the family planning policy within five years." [1] Meanwhile village elections have never gone further than the villages and the odd trial in townships and are still one party affairs. [2] When it comes to international affairs China is not using the veto any more than previously but its rise is no longer considered so peaceful after a string of clashes with its neighbors, particularly on its sea borders such as the South China Sea where Vietnamese vessels have been harassed inside Vietnamese waters. [3] China is obviously not following a straight line towards peaceful coexistence and democracy. The EU should keep the arms ban to pressure China into continuing progress.  [1] AFP, ‘China province cools hopes of ‘one-child’ policy easing’, 2011.   [2] Brown, Kerry, ‘Chinese democracy: the neglected story’, 2011.   [3] Miks, Jason, ‘Vietnam Eyes Foreign Help’, 2011 .

europe global human rights house believes european union should lift its

China has changed a lot since Tiananmen  China has changed over the past two decades, becoming more open to the world and more open domestically. For example it is experimenting with democratic elections at village level and since 1998 begun extending these to townships. [1] It has also effectively scrapped the repressive one-child policy. Internationally China is a responsible member of the international community, as befits a permanent member of the UN Security Council. At the United Nations, although it occasionally abstains from votes, it very rarely threatens to use its veto power in the Security Council, it has only used the veto six times since 1971 when the PRC joined the UN [2] - unlike the USA, for example. Its "peaceful rise" can also be seen in its hosting of the six-nation talks over North Korea's nuclear programme. And China is increasingly willing to operate within regional diplomatic frameworks covering East Asia, SE Asia and Central Asia.  [1] Horsley, Jamie P., ‘Village Elections: Training Ground for Democratization’, 2001   [2] Sun, Yun, ‘China’s Acquiescence on UN SCR 1973: No Big Deal’, 2011.

Just because others will sell if the EU does not is not a reason to lift the arms ban. The EU’s weaponry is often more advanced than those produced by Russia and may be originally built to fight alongside the US so potentially be more damaging US security. It is also not always true that China can simply go and get high tech arms elsewhere. Under US pressure Israel said that it would allow U.S. officials to review weapons transactions so making it much less likely to transfer the most high tech weapons. [1] Russia is also unwilling to sell high tech weapons to China both because it fears their impact on the balance of power in North East Asia where China could potentially be a future threat to the Russian Far East and because China has often copied Russian technology and improved upon it resulting in lost business in the long term. [2 ]  [1] Wilson, Scott, ‘Israel Set to End China Arms Deal Under U.S. Pressure’, 2005.   [2] Weitz, Richard, ‘Why China Snubs Russia Arms’, 2010.

A code of conduct is needed not a ban  The current arms ban is purely symbolic. China is already able to buy a range of military items from Europe ($555 million worth in 2003) [1] and the USA, which has a similar "ban" on weapons sales to China. This is because the EU’s current ban is not legally binding and it is up to each EU member to define and implement the embargo meaning the embargo is not effective. [2] An arms ban is therefore a blunt instrument that does not work. Instead future sales should be regulated by a tough EU code of conduct which prevents military equipment being sold to any state which might use it for external aggression or internal repression. Such a code of conduct for all arms exports has already existed since 1998. [3] Such a code of conduct will be a much better guarantee that China is not sold arms unless EU states are sure they will not be misused.  [1] Tkacik, ‘E.U. Leadership Finds Little Public Support for Lifting China Arms Ban’, 2005.   [2] Archick, Kristin, et al., ‘European Union’s Arms Embargo on China’, 2005, p5.   [3] Ibid, p21

China can’t be ignored  Europe has a developing strategic partnership with China. China is Europe’s largest trading partner with EU exports in goods of €113.1billiion and imports of €281.9billion and in services of €20.2billion and €16.3billion respectively, [1] and as China's rapid growth continues it is playing an increasingly important part in the global economy and in international affairs. Clearly it is in the EU's interests to work together with this emerging superpower. Ma Zhaoxu a Foreign Ministry spokesman called it ‘the obstacle to the sound growth of the China-EU relationship,’ [2] after more than fifteen years, it is time to lift it. China has repeatedly said that it will never enjoy a normal trading relationship with the EU until the ban is lifted. Europe’s first responsibility is to its own citizens economic wellbeing which would benefit from greater trade ties between China and the European Union.  [1] European Commission, ‘China’, 2011   [2] Xinhua, ‘China calls for end to “prejudiced” EU arms embargo’, 2010

The idea of a "strategic partnership" with China is both vague and cause for concern. It is unclear what such a partnership would involve and questionable whether it is desirable. On one hand, by lifting the arms ban the EU will be showing that it favours stability over democracy and profit over principle. Other repressive regimes and would-be tyrants will surely take note. On the other hand it is unclear what actual harm there is to Europe from keeping the ban in place. Despite Chinese rhetoric about it damaging their trading relationship with the EU, it is not clear how European states are disadvantaged compared to other countries, as mentioned China is the EU’s largest trade partner already. As a WTO member China is committed to further market opening anyway, [1] and as a member of the UN Security Council it is in its own interests to cooperate with others for mutual benefit.  [1] Kim, Ki Hee, ‘China’s Entry Into WTO And Its Impact ON EU’, 2004

A Ban that is not very effective is better than no ban at all. That the Chinese are so determined to get the ban lifted shows that it does make a difference and is therefore worth keeping. Either way the European Union should not give it up for nothing. Rather as the Danish lead opposition to lifting the ban argues "Any decision to lift the arms embargo must be linked to specific Chinese steps on human rights." [1]  [1] EUobserver, ‘Leaked cable shows fragility of EU arms ban on China’, 2011.

Cooperation has very little to do with influence in international affairs, what matters is how aligned the national interests of the two powers are. This is the case with Russia and China where both want to blunt western power, prevent separatism, and endorse what Russia calls ‘sovereign democracy’ which means a rejection of notions of universal human rights. [1] The areas that the EU most wants progress on among the least likely for there to be Chinese action without any kind of incentive. Lifting the ban will likely help with trade, something that China sees as being in its interest, but will make little difference to China’s policies towards human rights and other areas where it considers any criticism to be outside interference.  [1] Menon, Rajan, ‘The China-Russia Relationship’, 2009, pp.13-15.

China will simply get similar products elsewhere  In a global marketplace, if EU states don't sell China arms, others will. Russia and Israel [1] already sell China much high-tech military material, between 2001 and 2010 Russia sold over $16billion of arms to China. [2] As Israel is a key American ally, US criticism of Europe over lifting this ban is particularly unfair. It is in Europe's economic interest to gain part of the huge Chinese market and so safeguard European jobs. And if European arms industries cannot find export markets, their production for domestic military forces is simply not enough to support the cost of research and development, [3] so our indigenous arms sector may collapse.  [1] BBC News, ‘US ‘anger’ at Israel weapons sale’, 2004.   [2] Ottens, Nick, ‘Russian Arms Sales to China Drying Up’, 2010.   [3] Ashbourne, Alex, ‘Opening the US Defence Market’, 2011, p1.

Cooperation is the best way to gain influence  Cooperating with China is the best way to gain influence with the regime in order to promote democracy and human rights, engage it internationally, etc. The Chinese respond very badly to being publicly lectured or threatened, [1] but they will listen to those friendly nations who have earned their trust in ways like these. China for example often follows Russia, since the beginning of the 1990s its biggest arms supplier, when it comes to voting in the United Nations Security Council. Thus both vetoed sanctions against Syria in 2011 and shortly after Russia shifted its position to urging Assad to carry out reforms China followed. [2] The influence of the United States over other East Asian states in encouraging their democratization also shows that friends can apply influence on issues such as human rights as well as where interests coincide; The United States played a key role in sheparding Philippine dictator Marcos out of office and then encouraged Korean President Chun Doo Hwan to stick to a single term of office and not to use force against the opposition in 1988. [3] Lifting the ban is an investment in the future of the Europe-China relationship, and could be of benefit to the whole world, not just the EU.  [1] Byrnes, Sholto, ‘David Cameron’s China visit’, 2010.   [2] Chulov, Martin, ‘China urges Syria regime to deliver on promised reforms’, 2011.   [3] Oberdorfer, Don, The Two Koreas, 2001, pp.163-4, 170.

China is making progress towards resolving many of its territorial disputes. It has resolved it long disputed border with Russia and has also been resolving territorial disputes with its Central Asian neighbors on terms favorable to the Central Asian powers, for example Tajikistan ceded only 1,000km2 of the 28,000 that China claimed. [1] There are good reasons to believe that even if Beijing is pulling its weight on the regional and world stage it is not a threat to peace and stability. China’s booming economy relies on trade, both when importing the necessary raw materials and exporting the finished products around the world. China’s trade was 44.2% of GDP in 2009. [2] Any regional conflict even against a much weaker neighbor would prevent this trade as there are many choke points such as the straits of Malacca and cause immense damage to the Chinese economy.  [1] Ramachandran, Sudha, ‘China plays long game on border disputes’, 2011.   [2] The World Bank, ‘Merchandise trade (% of GDP)’, 2011.

The arms ban is an anachronism - only China, Myanmar and Zimbabwe are singled out by the EU in this way from all the regimes in the world. [1] China is therefore right to call this policy as showing a “political prejudice against China” [2] as many other nations have perpetrated similar human rights violations. This is pointlessly offensive to the Chinese government and people, who see it as political discrimination against them, and it should be lifted. The new code of conduct should be sufficient to prevent worries that European weaponry will be used to repress demonstrations as it prohibits exports where there is a “Risk that export would be used for internal repression or where the recipient country has engaged in serious violations of human rights”. [3]  [1] BBC News, ‘EU China arms ban ’to be lifted’’, 2005.   [2] Xinhua, ‘China calls for end to “prejudiced” EU arms embargo’, 2010.   [3] Archick, Kristin, et al., ‘European Union’s Arms Embargo on China’, 2005, p21.

Prevents a competitor from building a high tech military  The arms ban is very effective in preventing the Chinese military gaining access to the best modern technologies. A convincing code of conduct has yet to be drawn up, but even if it looks very tight, it has a major flaw. Individual EU member states will be able to judge for themselves whether a proposed arms sale breaks the code. Past experience suggests that when exports are at stake, perhaps with the risk of job losses in an election year, then politicians interpret codes like this very loosely, so for example despite this code UK arms exports may have been used in the conflict against the Tamils in Sri Lanka. [1] This will be made worse by the thought of an EU state that if it refuses a particular military sale to China, then another member state will be more flexible. This means that each individual member will make decisions based upon what is best for it individually and not think of what is best for the Union as a whole – such as providing high tech weapons that bring in export dollars but helps undermine security.  [1] Prince, Rosa, ‘UK arms used against civilians in Sri Lanka and Gaza’, 2009.

Lifting the ban will damage relations with the U.S.  Even if it was in Europe's interest to sell arms to China, the damage from upsetting the United States by lifting the arms ban would be much greater. This is partly because America takes the human rights situation in China more seriously, but mostly because the USA has a major commitment to the freedom of Taiwan. If China did attack the island, America would almost certainly intervene. As the US State Department has said in relation to lifting the ban, "We don't want to see a situation where American forces face European technologies." [1] Congress has already threatened to restrict technology transfers to Europe if the ban is removed. [2] For fear of this, BAE Systems, one of Europe's largest defence firms, has said that it would not sell to China even if the ban was lifted. [3]  [1] Brinkley, Joel, ‘Rice Sounds a Theme in Visit to Beijing Protestant Church’, 2005.   [2] Archick, Kristin, et al., ‘European Union’s Arms Embargo on China’, 2005, p34-5.   [3] Evans, Michael et al., ‘British arms firms will spurn China if embargo ends’, 2005.

There is no reason to strengthen China militarily  Lifting the arms ban will strengthen China militarily. The US fears less the Chinese purchase of EU weaponry and armour, than that the regime will get hold of advanced communications and control systems, as well as high-technology guidance systems, night-vision equipment, etc. [1] - all of which would make its existing military far more effective. Even if the EU is reluctant to sell such material to China, the possibility will give the Chinese leverage in negotiations with existing suppliers like Israel and Russia, who will feel under more pressure to sell China their most modern technology. In time, China's ability to "reverse engineer" high-technology equipment will also boost their own military research and development programmes. [2]  [1] Archick, Kristin, et al., ‘European Union’s Arms Embargo on China’, 2005, p16.   [2] Page, Jeremy, ‘China Clones, Sells Russian Fighter Jets’, 2010.

China is a threat to regional stability  China poses a threat to regional and international peace and should not be encouraged and helped by European arms sales. It has territorial disputes with most of its neighbours, particularly over oil and gas reserves in the South China Sea. The regime has also encouraged an assertive nationalism, damaging relations with Japan, for example with protests over the Japanese detention of a Chinese fisherman who rammed a Japanese coast guard boat. [1] Most seriously, China claims ownership over Taiwan, [2] a pro-Western Chinese democracy, and is rapidly building up the kinds of military forces it would need for an assault on that island, which it is now believed could be taken in as little as three days, [3] as well as staging exercises designed to intimidate its people. In 2005 the Chinese parliament passed a law that force should be used against Taiwan if it declared formal independence. [4] Quite apart from the principle of backing a repressive state against a democratic one, it is not in the EU's interests to make a war between two of its major trading partners more likely, especially as other powers such as the USA, as has happened in the past in 1995-6, [5] and perhaps Japan are then very likely to be drawn into the conflict.  [1] Banyan, ‘Doth we protest too much’, 2010.   [2] Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, ‘What is meant by the Taiwan question?’, 2000.   [3] Miks, Jason, ‘Taiwan War Games’, 2010.   [4] People Daily, ‘China’s parliament adopts Anti-Secession Law’, 2005.   [5] Ross, Robert S., ‘The 1995-1996 Taiwan Strait Confrontation’, 2000.

Lifting the ban may briefly result in condemnation from the United States but it is unlikely to damage relations over the long term. The United States and Europe are strong allies in NATO and both accept that from time to time one partner will do things the other does not like.

The arms ban is still necessary  The European Union should stick to its principles. The arms ban was imposed for a reason - the massacre of students demonstrating for democracy and openness in 1989. Nothing China has done since shows it regrets its savage actions in Tiananmen Square - indeed many of the demonstrators are still in prison today. [1] If the ban is lifted, the EU will be implying that it should never have placed the ban on arms sales in the first place, and signalling that China can do what it likes to its own people without fear of EU objections. Indeed if there is an end to the arms ban, the next time that peaceful demonstrators are attacked by the armed forces in China, they may be able to do it with European weapons. Overall, China's human rights record is still very bad. It still hasn't ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and is regularly criticised by Amnesty International [2] and Human Rights Watch [3] for imprisoning political and religious activists without trial. This is not a state that should be rewarded with EU favours.  [1] Jiang, Shao, ‘List of “June Fourth Tiananmen Prisoners” still held in custody and their backgrounds’, 2010.   [2] Amnesty International, ‘Annual Report 2011 China’, 2011.   [3] Human Rights Watch, ‘China’

Lifting the arms ban will not strengthen China militarily. Not only would sales be restricted by the new code of conduct, but China’s Ambassador to the European Union has also clearly reiterated "We have stated several times that we do not intend to buy European military equipment" as "We cannot afford to buy such expensive weapons". [1] Even if China was sold high-tech European equipment, this could even be beneficial for the EU as it would make China dependent on the EU for such items and make it less likely to pursue its own research and development programmes.  [1] Rufino, Filipe and Vucheva, Elitsa, ‘EU Arms Embargo is ‘political discrimination, says Chinese Ambassador’, 2005.

China is increasingly able to develop its own high tech weapons so by continuing to have a ban in place will make very little difference to China’s capacity to build high tech weapons. This is shown by China’s unveiling of a prototype stealth fighter the J-20. [1] Even if the code of conduct is not watertight neither is the current arms ban as some weapons are still sold in spite of the ban.  [1] Foster, Peter, ‘China stealth fighter a ‘masterpiece’ of homegrown technology’, 2011.

It is not up to outside powers to decide what is and what is not in the interest of any peoples but their own. While those attempting to circumvent censorship may see themselves as promoting some kind of universal human rights in practice they are pushing their own notions on other peoples that may not share these ideals. This may be the case even when there are some in that start that share these ideas; thus for example while there are dissidents in China that want democracy, most of the population is not particularly concerned with creating a more democratic system and in 2009 95.9% were satisfied with their government’s performance. [1]  [1] Saich, Tony, “Chinese governance seen through the people’s eyes”, East Asia Forum, 24 July 2011,

global science censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression

It is legitimate to undermine illegitimate governments to promote human rights  Autocratic governments that breach their people’s human rights have no legitimacy domestically as they do not represent the people or protect their interests. They also have no international legitimacy, as they are violating their obligations that they have signed up to through various international agreements such as the universal declaration of human rights [1] and the international covenant on civil and political rights [2] which oblige states to respect their citizen’s human rights. Other states therefore are legitimate in acting for the people of the repressed state to undermine their government and take up their cause. By imposing censorship the government is violating its people's freedom of expression which that government has promised to uphold therefore it is right that other governments should endeavour to uphold that standard. It was therefore right for the west to undermine the USSR and the communist governments of Eastern Europe through radio broadcasts such as Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, they gained immense audiences, a third of urban adults in the USSR and almost half of East Europeans with these sources often being considered more credible. [3]  [1] UN General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948, 217 A (III),   [2] UN General Assembly, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 999, p. 171,   [3] Johnson, A. Ross, and Parta, R. Eugene, “Cold War International Broadcasting: Lessons Learned”, Briefing to the Rancho Mirage Seminar,  p.54

The public are rarely interested in foreign policy and want to keep well clear of foreign entanglements; they may like the idea of promoting democracy but if it means anything more than simple public support then they shy away as shown by only around 20-30% considering it a priority. [1] Undermining censorship may seem to be a cheap option for governments but they then have to own the consequences; such as having to pay to build stability which may be much more costly. The American people may have supported the Iraq war but they were against the immense amounts of wealth that was spent to try to put the country back together again. By undermining censorship revolution is being promoted along with the damage and chaos this can bring so the result may be a costly rebuilding process, possibly with troops on the ground.  [1] “Historically, Public Has Given Low Priority to Promoting Democracy Overseas”, Pew Research Center, 4 February 2011,

Advancing national interests  A nation’s foreign policy should be primarily concerned with advancing the national interest. By the national interest we mean promoting the interest of the nation as a whole rather than any of its subnational groups; whether this is building up the state's military power to protect its citizens through alliances or military bases, benefiting the nation's economy through trade deals, or encouraging the creation of friendly governments around the globe. [1] Circumventing censorship helps obtain this last objective for democracies by encouraging peoples in autocracies to find their own voice and push for democracy; a system of government that is more compatible to other democracies. Ultimately this will also provide other benefits; friendly governments with similar political systems are more likely to create trade agreements with each other so providing economic benefits, in the 1990s the volume of trade between a democracy and autocracy was on average 40% less than two democracies. [2] Equally importantly democracies do not fight other democracies so helping to create stability. [3]  [1] Realism emphasises the alliances bit, Liberalism the economic self interest, and constructivists spreading values. Walt, Stephen M, “International Relations: One World, Many Theories”, Foreign Policy, Spring 1998,   [2] Mansfield, Edward D., et al., “Free to Trade: Democracies, Autocracies, and International Trade”, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 94, No. 2,  p.318  [3] Rousseau, David L., et al., “Assessing the Dayadic Nature of the Democratic Peace, 1918-88”, The American Political Science Review, Vol.90, No.3,  p.515

There is little certainty that undermining an autocracy will benefit the countries that undermine it. No state can full control what goes on in another state; an even more oppressive regime could be the result. Even if there is a transition to a democracy this does not mean it will benefit those who wanted change. This is because democratic governments have to take account of the desires of their own people which may not always be in alignment with the interests of the foreign powers that supported political change. Thus while it would seem that the United States, as a democracy, should be naturally inclined to support a democratic government in Egypt in practice Mubarak operated more in line with US interests by keeping the peace with Israel that the Muslim brotherhood threatens to disrupt.

As foreign states are not the legitimate representative of the people it is not legitimate for them to set themselves up as the arbiter for those whom it believes are being deprived of rights. These states that are meddling in the affairs of others cannot know the full consequences of their actions; circumventing censorship could end up simply undermining a stable state without enabling anything to replace it. This is just as the Arab Spring has undermined the Syrian government but has only resulted in a conflict not the creation of a stable democracy. Countries that undermined the Syrian government cannot say that their contribution has been positive when there have been 70,000 killed [1] as a result of the collapse of the state.  [1] Nichols, Michelle, “Syria death toll likely near 70,000, says U.N. rights chief”, Reuters, 12 February 2013,

It is domestic not international legitimacy that matters  What matters for a state when it comes to foreign policy, and therefore with helping to circumvent censorship, is whether the policy is considered legitimate domestically. Since a government's legitimacy is domestically derived from the support of its people if they support the policy then it is legitimate. While it is often not considered a top priority people in democracies usually support promoting human rights and spreading democracy around the world. [1]  [1] Stevenson, Kirsten, “Strong support for democracy promotion in national opinion ballot”, Foreign Policy Association, 23 October 2012,

It is legitimate to enable freedom  Circumventing censorship is a cost effective method of promoting freedom. When a country has refused to recognise the right to freedom of expression of its own people and indeed is actively stopping them from exercising this right then it is legitimate for other countries to step in to act as an enabler of those rights. By circumventing censorship so the freedom of expression is returned to those that have had their voice stripped from them. Doing this costs the state that is acting almost nothing; thus Britain’s Foreign Office is devoting a mere £1.5million to promoting expression online, [1] and yet the benefits for those who it helps can be considerable by helping them to publicise and organise themselves by providing a platform. The small cost should be compared to the benefit of keeping activists one step ahead of the authorities by, for example providing software that helps make sure online communication is anonymous, which can save lives.  [1] “William Hague promises £1.5m to promote freedom of expression online”, BBC News, 30 April 2012,

If a regime is so intolerant as to threaten its citizens for using lines of communication that have been opened by another country then that country is clearly in need of greater openness towards freedom of expression and information. This is something that undermining censorship achieves. Clearly in a few cases the attempt to circumvent censorship may be used by the government but the creation of the path to circumvent censorship alone shows that foreign governments are watching. Even the most repressive regimes are less likely to use force when they know the outside world is watching.

Proclamations that there can be no interference in another state are simply attempts by elites to cling on to power by preventing any help reaching those campaigning for democracy. These declarations, even the UN Charter, are negotiated, written, and signed by the leaders of governments not their people so favour those who are already in power. Something cannot be considered illegitimate just because it is supported by the status quo.

Governments enable censorship to protect their citizens  What censorship is it legitimate to undermine? Censorship is often created in order to protect the people not to strip them of freedoms. This is most obvious when we consider that filters to prevent hate speech or child pornography are forms of censorship that may be enabled with the intention of protecting citizens not repressing them. Iceland for example has recently decided to ban pornography and it would be enabled in a similar way to censorship by regimes like China or Iran. [1] Even harsher censorship that naturally looks more repressive to us may be considered a legitimate means of protecting the people and their values. When a government is using censorship to ensure stability is that censorship not justified when compared to the alternative? While there may be divisions internally about the legitimacy of this censorship it is certainly not legitimate for outside actors to impose their own idea of how much censorship there should be.  [1] Kiss, Jemima, “Iceland’s porn ban ‘conflicts with the idea of a free society’, say critics”, guardian.co.uk, 28 February 2013,

Aggressive foreign policy is not legitimate foreign policy  Foreign policy is legitimate when it is peaceful and based upon mutual respect. It is no surprise that the most controversial foreign policy actions are those that are aggressive whether this is invading another state such as the Iraq war, attempting humanitarian intervention as in Kosovo, or engaging in clandestine actions such as Iran-Contra. This is because there is a powerful norm against aggressive action in international relations in order to maintain stability.  Undermining states by circumventing censorship is simply a new method of engaging in aggressive actions against another state. NATO has accepted that cyber operations can be considered to constitute an armed conflict, [1] so it is increasingly accepted that actions on the internet can be aggressive action. Indeed “If such cyber operations are intended to coerce the government… the operation may constitute a prohibited ‘intervention’”. [2] While no one would argue that this policy will create a war it is not a very big step from considering cyber attacks to be armed conflict to considering undermining states through circumventing censorship to be an aggressive action.  [1] Bowcott, Owen, “Rules of cyberwar: don't target nuclear plants or hospitals, says Nato manual”, The Guardian, 18 March 2013,   [2] Schmitt, Michael N., ed., “The Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare”, Cambridge University Press, 2013, p.17.

This policy is not necessary and may be counterproductive  Unless a state wishes to pull the plug on the internet entirely state censorship on the internet is never complete. Dissidents and those who are interested in getting around censorship will manage with or without help from other governments, they will use privately developed software, or proxies to get around censors and protect themselves. Having help from foreign governments to bypass censorship may even put the people this policy is trying to empower in an even worse position. The use of software that is meant to undermine censorship helps to prove that the dissident’s intent is hostile towards the government and the state’s policies – otherwise they would not need to software, and would not resort to using methods developed by foreign countries. Russia is increasingly cracking down on those who have contact or receive help from ‘foreign agents’ particularly foreign NGOs, such a policy could be as easily applied to online help as financial aid. [1]  [1] Earle, Jonathan, “Hundreds of NGOs Checked for Foreign Agents, Extremism”, The Moscow Times, 19 March 2013,

The international system is based on equality and non-interference  Relations between states are based upon “the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.” The UN Charter emphasises “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state”. [1] Within a state only the government is legitimate as the supreme authority within its territory. [2] Without such rules the bigger, richer, states would be able to pray on the weaker ones. This cannot simply be put aside because one state does not like how the other state runs its own internal affairs. The United Nations has gone so far as to explicitly state “all peoples have the right, freely and without external interference, to determine their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” [3] Circumventing censorship would clearly be another power attempting to impose its own ideas of political cultural and social development.  [1] UN General Assembly, Article 2, Charter of the United Nations, 26 June 1945,   [2] Philpott, Dan, "Sovereignty", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),   [3] UN General Assembly, “Respect for the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States in their electoral processes”, 18 December 1990, A/RES/45/151

The NATO manual does specifically state “network intrusions, the deletion or destruction of data… computer network exploitation, and data theft do not amount to a non-international armed conflict.” [1] Instead it has to be persistent, and be carried out by organised armed groups; likely not criteria that would be ever satisfied by undermining censorship.  [1] Schmitt, Michael N., ed., “The Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare”, Cambridge University Press, 2013, pp.87-88.

Governments do not have a monopoly on the knowledge of what is best for their people and even the people may themselves make a mistake when deciding on whether to be an open society. Thus even if it appears that many people support censorship it may be legitimate to undermine it. In particular is people have never had a chance to experience life without that censorship how can they be considered to be making an informed choice when deciding to live with censorship?

e international africa house would provide access microfinance unbanked

Turkey today only has 3% of its total territory located on the European continent making it dubious that it counts as European geographically [1] . The core of Turkey is located geographically in Asia Minor. Turkish culture has little connection with the cultures of the other members of the European Union. This is a result of its culture deriving from a tradition as an Islamic state whereas the members of the European Union all have histories as Christian states meaning there are less shared values between Turkey and EU members than EU members have between themselves.  [1] Geography of Turkey. Wikipedia.  Accessed on: September 3, 2012.

Turkey is actually part of the European continent both geographically and historically.  Geographically, Turkey is astride the divide between Europe and Asia, it is uncontestable that Turkey is in part a European country and so has the right to become a member of the European Union. Turkey’s biggest city, Istanbul, is located within Europe. One of the core values of the EU stands as “every country on the European continent after having completed all the necessary preparations has the right to join the EU’’ [1] . Furthermore, Turkey and its predecessors, the Ottoman Empire and Byzantine Empire were major European and World powers from the end of the Roman Empire until the breakdown of the World War I. The Ottoman Empire took part in the European state’s system from its birth even if as in some ways an outsider, until the end of the eighteenth century Turkey was considered to be much more a part of the European system than Russia. [2] Turkey since the first world war has been orientated towards the west using western methods to modernize including for example making the state secular; building a law system based not on Islamic law but on Swiss civil law. [3] Turkey can therefore be said to be as much a western nation as an Islamic one.  [1] The EU: A Community of Values. EU Focus.  Accessed on September 3, 2010.  [2] Anderson, M.S., The Origins of the Modern European State System 1494-1618, Longman London, 1998, p.57  [3] Huntington, Samuel P., The Clash of Civilizations and the remaking of world order, Simon &amp; Schuster London, 1996, pp.144-145

False, the EU values are present in Greece for more than three decades, but problems related with their traditional way of life are persisting more and more, knowing the fact that Greece and Turkey are sharing more or less the same cultural values. Not even to mention the cases of Bulgaria and Romania which have not changed in any way, surprisingly they are getting even worse than before. By citing the examples of how the European values will attain as far as Iran, Iraq and Syria, the argument is clearly saying that Turkey is indeed not an European country by bordering those three countries and the big question is how an actual European country as Turkey-as the case is willing to promote, ‘’has to get European values’’?

The admission of Turkey will help the economy of the EU develop more dynamically.  Turkey has a booming economy with one of the fastest growing economies of the world [1] . Turkey has a young, skilled and vibrant workforce contributing in the fields of innovation, industry and finance. Having a young and growing population means that Turkey is in the opposite situation to the European Union, whose population is declining. As a result Turkey joining would be very complementary to the European Economy. In Turkey 26.6% of the population are under 15 [2] while in the EU only 15.44% is. [3] This is significant because the population of the European Union as a whole will be declining by 2035 [4] and because of the aging population the working population will be declining considerably before this. Aging obviously means that the EU will not be able to produce as much, but also that much more of EU resources will be devoted to caring for the elderly with a result that there is likely to be an drag on GDP per capita of -0.3% per year. [5] One way to compensate for this is to bring new countries with younger populations into the Union.  [1] GDP growth (annual %). The World Bank.  Accessed on: September 3, 2012.  [2] ‘Turkey’, The World Factbook, 24 August 2012,   [3] ‘European Union’, The World Factbook, 24 August 2012,   [4] Europa, ‘Population projections 2008-2060 From 2015, deaths projected to outnumber births in the EU27’, STAT/08/119, 26 August 2008,   [5] Carone, Giuseppe, et al., ‘The economic impact of aging populations in the EU 25 Member States’, Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs, n.. 236, December 2005,  p.15

Turkey may have a growing economy, but this does not make it a good candidate for EU membership. Despite its growth there is still a lot of poverty in Turkey. Its GDP per capita is less than half the average of the EU. [1] When looking at Turkey, everyone thinks of Istanbul, forgetting the other ‘’invisible’’ Turkey, where there are major economic problems, such as unemployment, low wages, bad infrastructure and high immigration rates. [2]  [1] ‘Turkey’, The World Factbook, 24 August 2012,  ‘European Union’, The World Factbook, 24 August 2012,   [2] Daily News. Economy. Number of poor people increasing in Turkey.  Accessed on September 3, 2012.

Strategic position and energy benefits  There would be immense strategic benefits both to Europe and to Turkey if she were allowed to join the European Union. Turkey is already a important regional power with a lot of influence in the Middle East and Central Asia and it is already a member of NATO, which most members of the EU are also a part of. [1] This is in part because Turkey is in an immensely strategic geographic situation as the border between Europe and Asia. Historically this has meant Turkey is ideally located for trade, today it means it is strategically close to the oil and gas fields advanced economies like the EU’s depend on.  Turkey is therefore vital for Europe’s energy security. According to the EU energy minister “Turkey comes first in these countries for cooperation” on energy issues because of its location. [2] This is because Turkey is an important transit point for Oil coming through the Bosporus from the Caspian Sea and Russia and also for gas. Turkey acts as a bridge both to the Caspian and the Gulf and creates a second option for importing gas into Europe through pipelines that Europe needs as shown by the cut offs caused by Russian disputes with Belarus and Ukraine. Having gas pipelines through Turkey to the EU, such as the Nabucco pipeline, would shatter Russia’s gas monopoly in Europe. [3]  [1] Solana, Javier, ‘Why Turkey must join the European Union’, CNN World, 13 June 2011,   [2] Kurtaran, Gökhan, ‘Turkey vital for energy, EU commissioner says’, Daily News, 10 February 2012,   [3] Tekin, Ali, and Williams, Paul A., ‘Europe’s External Energy Policy and Turkey’s Accession Process’, Center for European Studies Working Paper Series #170, 2009,

The issue of Cyprus will eventually be resolved; one small member state cannot hold the destiny of 550 million people hostage indefinitely. [1] Europe made a mistake by not forcing Cyprus to resolve its problems with Northern Cuprus and Turkey before joining the EU [2] however Europe once again has leverage as it is in negotiations to bailout the country. [3]  [1] Lake, Michael, ‘Turkey: Tilting from U.S. to EU?’, Atlantic Council at 50,   [2] ‘Cyprus: Six Steps towards a Settlement’, International Crisis Group, Europe Briefing No.61, 22 February 2011,   [3] Kambas, Michele, ‘Cyprus hopes for deal with Troika in October’, Reuters, 5 September 2012,

Turkey has a booming economy. Turkey has one of the fastest growing economies of the world Turkey is therefore rapidly catching up with Europe and this will therefore become less and less of an issue; at the same time Europe will need Turkey more while Turkey will need the EU less. [1] While many Turks may wish to move to the EU to try to find work it is unclear either that they would do so, Europe’s average unemployment rate is currently higher than Turkey’s, or that Europe would let them, there would likely be transitional rules such as those imposed on Bulgaria and Romania. [2]  [1] GDP growth (annual %). The World Bank.  Accessed on: September 3, 2012.  [2] EURES, ‘Free Movement : Romania’, European Commission,

Turkey is not yet up to European standards of human rights.  Turkey is a democracy but it is not yet up to the standards necessary for membership in the European Union. Turkey has numerous problems with the autocracy of its leaders, the suppressed human rights of the Kurdish and the other minorities. The State Department Human Rights Report condemns for example arbitrary arrest and says “Police detained more than 1,000 members of the pro-Kurdish Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) on various occasions” during 2011. Kurds and other minorities are “prohibited from fully exercising their linguistic, religious, and cultural rights” and are harassed when attempting to assert their identity. [1] There is little freedom of the press in Turkey, most of the media are state-controlled resulting in turkey ranking 148th on Reporters without borders press freedom index whereas the lowest EU country is Greece ranked 70th. [2] While some countries in the EU, such as France, have criminalized the denial of the Armenian genocide [3] Turkey on the other hand hasn’t even recognized that it ever happened. It is clear that while this disparity exists and human rights violations continue Turkey cannot join the EU.  [1] Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, ‘Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2011 Turkey’, U.S. Department of State,   [2] ‘Press Freedom Index 2011-2012’, Reporters Without Borders,   [3] De Montjoye, Clementine, ‘France’s Armenian genocide law’, Free SpeechDebate, 29 June 2012,

Turkey must recognize Cyprus.  The biggest problem facing Turkey that will prevent its entry to the European Union is that it does not recognize Cyprus, a state that is already an EU member. It is clear that Cyprus and relations with it are the main sticking point as the EU President Van Rompuy has admitted “Were it not for some challenges from one of the members of the European Union, Cyprus, we would have made more progress when it comes to Turkey, I acknowledge that negotiations on enlargement are stalled for the time being because one of the members of the club has problems with the process.” [1] Negotiations towards reunification of the island have stalled since the EU backed UN peace plan was rejected by the Greek Cypriots in 2004 just before they joined the EU. Neither Cyprus nor Turkey are willing to take any possible steps that would help build confidence and break down the barriers to agreement such as reopening ports and airports. [2]  [1] Neuger, James G., ‘Turkey’s EU Bid Is ‘Stalled,’ Cyprus to Blame, Van Rompuy Says’, Bloomberg, 5 September 2012,   [2] ‘Cyprus: Six Steps towards a Settlement’, International Crisis Group, Europe Briefing No.61, 22 February 2011,

Turkey is not enough economically developed to join the EU.  Turkey has many economic problems ranging from high inflation, high regional disparities, high wealth disparity, unemployment, bad infrastructure and poverty among others. The country must solely focus itself onto improving those problems, before obtaining EU-membership. Not resolving economic problems before joining the EU can lead to problems as exemplified by Greece, Portugal and Italy, countries which had their big economic problems that were overlooked upon joining the Eurozone. Turkey’s GDP per capita is less than half the average of the EU [1] and as a large country with more than seventy million people it would pose an immense strain on the rest of the Union.  The effect of this economic disparity is likely to lead to a massive influx of immigrants from Turkey to the rest of the EU, because they will take advantage of free movement of people in the European Union and these immigrants. This immigration is likely to have the effect of forcing down the wages of workers in the existing EU nations as the Turks will be willing to work for less. [2]  [1] ‘Turkey’, The World Factbook, 24 August 2012,  ‘European Union’, The World Factbook, 24 August 2012,   [2] Turkey is part of Europe. Fear keeps it out of the EU. The Guardian. August 6 2009.  Accessed on: September 3, 2012.

Turkey is a democracy but it is not yet up to the standards necessary for membership in the European Union. Turkey has numerous problems with the autocracy of its leaders, the suppressed human rights of the Kurdish and the other minorities. The State Department Human Rights Report condemns for example arbitrary arrest and says “Police detained more than 1,000 members of the pro-Kurdish Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) on various occasions” during 2011. Kurds and other minorities are “prohibited from fully exercising their linguistic, religious, and cultural rights” and are harassed when attempting to assert their identity. [1] There is little freedom of the press in Turkey, most of the media are state-controlled resulting in turkey ranking 148th on Reporters without borders press freedom index whereas the lowest EU country is Greece ranked 70th. [2] While some countries in the EU, such as France, have criminalized the denial of the Armenian genocide [3] Turkey on the other hand hasn’t even recognized that it ever happened. It is clear that while this disparity exists and human rights violations continue Turkey cannot join the EU.  [1] Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, ‘Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2011 Turkey’, U.S. Department of State,   [2] ‘Press Freedom Index 2011-2012’, Reporters Without Borders,   [3] De Montjoye, Clementine, ‘France’s Armenian genocide law’, Free SpeechDebate, 29 June 2012,

Consultation, collaboration and the attempted creation of a common set of values has not worked and is not likely to work. This language is not much different from what we have heard with every attempt the EU has made to push for further political integration. The role of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), as agreed upon back in 1993 during the Maastricht Treaty, was in fact presented very much along similar lines. Fifteen years later however, that united front has not been created. If anything, the EU’s political union, and certain any attempts towards a common foreign policy, have completely disintegrated when faced with the War in Iraq and the larger war on terror and more recently the Euro debt crisis on another front.

europe politics defence leadership house favours common eu foreign policy

The fact that it is a Representative highlights the fact that the EU is based on consultation and consensus, and that is a positive thing.  While the new ‘EU High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy’ marks only a bold first step towards a more unified voice for the EU, the decisions are indeed still based on a state by state consultation mechanism – hence the name representative. This should however not to be downplayed as a less significant change in how the EU approaches its foreign policy. The consultation aspect is in fact essential to reaching agreement and the importance of not only presenting a united front to the rest of the world (the EU is exemplary in trade policy and environmental policy, but less important when it comes to presenting a united voice in foreign policy as Belgian Foreign minister Mark Eyskens put it in 1991 “Europe is an economic giant, a political dwarf, and a military worm” 1, but also creating a united front through collaboration and debate. One should thus see this not only as a means to an end, but rather as an important mechanism in itself, whereby new identities are slowly created along with a deeper sense of commitment to a common set of values.  1. Craig R Whitney, ‘WAR IN THE GULF: EUROPE; Gulf Fighting Shatters Europeans’ Fragile Unity’,

The creation of a combined post of High Representative for foreign and security policy and Vice President of the Commission for External Relations marks a needless complication of decision making. It adds an expensive and largely pointless layer of European bureaucracy to a substantively weak and poorly coordinated foreign policy. This failure is made worse by the member states’ refusal to appoint a senior European politician with international credentials to the post. This suggests that the European Union is simply not ready to pursue a serious and substantive foreign policy. 1  1 Charlemagne, 'The test for Ashton and Europe', The Economist, 1st February 2011,accessed 1/8/11

The EU has already been unifying on multiple fronts, this is just a step in the same direction.  The EU has slowly been building up its own common military framework, with the UK and France leading the effort to pool European military capacity. In addition, the EU itself has created new institutional bodies such as the Political and Security Committee, a Military Committee and military staff. The EU has had military envoys in Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina and has committed itself to the creation of a Common Security and Defense Policy with 3-4,000 troops on permanent standby in multilateral ‘battlegroups’ ready for immediate deployment(see Rockwell Schnabel’s article listed below)1. While incremental, these are steps not to be ignored. The Union has also placed that military capacity within the broader context of a security strategy designed to promote international peace, justice and development.  1. Schnabel, Rockwell A., 'U.S. Views on the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy', The Brown Journal of World Affairs, Vol. IX. Issue2., (Winter/Spring 2003) accessed 1/8/11

The very creation of a common military framework has been fraught with disagreement. The UK and France have only been willing to cooperate bilaterally and outside the EU framework, within a set of nationally-framed security interests. Both states are also very traditional military powers. While some states pretend to support the creation of a credible EU military capacity, they are unwilling to contribute seriously to its construction and when faced with a crisis almost always turn to the United States for military solutions. While the EU does like to see itself as the diplomat of the world and flaunt its achievements with the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the World Trade Organization (WTO), it still ponders the possibility of a middle-of-the-road strategy of militarization and securitization. In the meanwhile, it continues to reside comfortably within the US sphere of military protection while acting as an enfant terrible who rebels against and yet continues to accept US protection. It is a contradiction to argue that the EU is both attempting to build up its military force as well as providing an alternative sense of security that does not rely on military power.

The position of High Representative will be, and has been, largely powerless, because the member states have such divergent interests that agreement will be rare, and that attempts to devise a common foreign policy for the EU are doomed. Because control of foreign policy is such a key aspect of sovereignty, it would be wrong for national governments to give this power away to the EU, which is less democratically accountable. If the EU and its High Representative do try to pressure states into common positions this may well backfire, creating strong anti-EU feeling in both national governments and public opinion. Pushing too hard for a common foreign policy and giving too much power to an unelected High Representative may instead begin to tear Europe apart. 1  1. Traynor, Ian, 'EU foreign ministers round on Lady Ashton', guardian.co.uk, 23rd May 2011, accessed 1/8/11

The creation of the post of a High Representative marked an important change in the EU.  The creation of a post of High Representative and Vice President of the Commission (HRVP) marks an important change in the decision making process at the EU level with regards to foreign policy. Agreement on the post showed a clear commitment to the pursuit of a common EU foreign policy and to developing a unique cooperative model for foreign and defense policy decision making that goes beyond the nation state. Member states should now deliver on that commitment by seeking as much common ground as possible to ensure that the High Representative’s role is truly significant. The goal of a common foreign and security policy should thus be supported not only as a mechanism to streamline EU’s position and role in world politics, but also to reinforce notions of cooperation and consultation essential for maintaining a stable international system, in line with the stated goals of the EU. (The 12 stars in a circle is meant to symbolize the ideals of unity, solidarity and harmony among the peoples of Europe)1.  1 Europa.eu, 'Symbols',accessed 1/8/11

The High Representative will be a catalyst and a facilitator for decision-making.  The High Representative will not only act as a spokesman for EU nations when they agree on foreign policies, but will act as a catalyst around which external policy will increasingly become coordinated. By chairing meetings of EU foreign ministers, he or she will be able to shape the agenda and influence the outcomes of meetings, encouraging member states increasingly to think in terms of common foreign policy positions. They will have added authority from their ability to speak for the EU in the UN Security Council. The High Representative will also direct the EU’s new External Action Service, which brings together policy specialists from both the Council and Commission in a unique manner (ranging from the Arctic region to nuclear safety and enlargement) 1. With representatives all over the world the EU will develop a foreign service capable of creating and articulating policy positions in a manner that few national governments can match. Over time this will promote the evolution of a true EU foreign and security policy, and will contribute significantly to increased European consciousness among EU citizens and further moves to political unity.  1. European Union External Action, Policies, accessed 1/8/11

The EU is indeed under NATO’s and US’s military umbrella, and while terrorist attacks on EU’s territory have certainly heightened levels of anxiety, its ‘foreign policy’ is still based on an inclusive approach: bring threatening nations under your economic and political umbrella and provide them with incentives to collaborate. Academics such as Allen David and Michael Smith have argued that the EU’s ‘foreign policy’ seeks to go beyond the nation state and thus treats what lies outside its borders not necessarily as ‘foreign’ and ‘threatening’ but rather as a different system.1 The EU provides a subsystem of international relations within a larger global system, in which threats and fears subside as a result of economic and military integration. The most pressing challenge is to learn how to extend this system beyond the current borders of the EU, keeping in mind that the accession process is a mechanism not to be abused.  1. Allen, David, and Smith, Michael, 'External Policy Developments', Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol 43. (2005) pp.109-26 accessed 1/8/11

One should not forget that a uniting Europe in itself has been a very bold undertaking that has taken several centuries to develop, and is certainly far from being a finished product. It would be unfair to argue that the EU has made no progress in its collaboration on foreign policy since the initial establishment of the CFSP, or that the past fifteen years have seen more decay than progress on further political integration. The mixed EU reaction to the war in Iraq has long been a point of contention and criticism, yet it represents only a small and exceptional failure, in a much larger common EU foreign policy. The Enlargement Process has been by far one of the most successful elements of EU foreign and security policy, along with many other success stories with aid to third parties and management of international conflicts, for example the EU’s role in Kosovo.

The previous arrangement of having two foreign policy centers (in the Commission and in the Council) was arguably inefficient, but consolidating these into a single office-holder has created more complexity and at significantly greater expense.  Creating a position of EU High Representative is not objectionable in itself. Previously the EU was in the ludicrous situation of having two foreign affairs spokesmen, one from the Council and the other from the Commission. Rivalry and duplication of efforts, staffs and resources results, and so focusing all the EU’s external affairs work around one person makes some sense. What it does not mean is that the High Representative should lead a drive for a stronger common foreign policy position. Only when member states agree (which may not be often) will he or she have a role. In fact, by weakening the foreign affairs role within the Commission, this development may actually limit the pretensions of Brussels to develop its own agenda and dictate foreign policy to the member states.

There have been tests on the EU's ability to create a common foreign policy that it has failed.  The War in Iraq, along with previous notable failures to deal with the breakup of former Yugoslavia, has been an excellent test for the extent to which the EU can claim to have a common approach to world politics and foreign policy in particular. It has clearly pointed out a whole range of diverse and often opposed national interests, and national publics that were unwilling to make compromises along EU lines of commitment. It has also showed that the economic power of the EU is not enough to turn it into a major player on the international scene: the lack in military power and presence speaks for itself. The EU still lies very much under the umbrella of NATO and US military power and as long as this military dependency continues, the EU will not be able to have its own independent voice in world politics. 1  1.  "&gt;

The post of a High Representative is merely a shadow of what it should have been, and its failure shows the EU's inability to consolidate foreign policy.  While seemingly groundbreaking, the current agreement on the EU reform treaty was nothing but a lame attempt to salvage a much bolder initiative: an EU Constitution. The rejection of the EU Constitution in the Dutch and French referendums, as well as the extreme difficulty in getting even its watered-down version accepted, shows the extent to which the member states of the EU are not yet ready to think and act in unison. The UK representatives successfully insisted that the language of the reform treaty clearly states that major foreign policy decisions will continue to be taken at the state level.

Creating a common EU foreign and security policy will in fact be easier than many people suppose, because many of the 21st century’s most important issues in external relations are already part of the ‘normal’ EU policy routine; climate change, development, trade, aid and the environment, for example. Most such issues are ones on which any single member state, even one as significant as Britain, France or Germany, cannot hope to make a real global impact alone. Only by coordinating policy at EU level will the interests of member states be advanced at all. Having a High Representative to coordinate and promote this work on behalf of the Union as a whole makes sense and actually gives all member states a greater international effectiveness – the true measure of sovereignty.

More casual sex with barrier contraception is preferable to the current amount without contraception. The amount of consensual sex is not going to change no matter what the church teaches. As long as the use of barrier contraception was promoted along with this promotion of casual sex, it would be a huge net reduction in the cases of contraction of HIV. Therefore, condoning the use of barrier contraception would be the more responsible stand to take on the part of the Catholic Church.

sex sexuality international africa religion church morality house believes

Going back on this rule would promote casual sex  Condoning the use of barrier methods of contraception would be implicitly condoning casual sex since their primary function is within that context. This is particularly important since the Catholic Church's teachings on casual sex are not taken particularly seriously already. Any action, such as the Catholic Church allowing the use of barrier contraception, that would promote casual sex in countries with severe AIDS/HIV problems, would be an incredibly irresponsible one. Pope Paul VI argued that when considering "the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards." The Church's current stance on barrier contraception, therefore, is the most responsible one1. 1 Pope Paul VI. "Humanae Vitae." 1968.

AIDS/HIV can be spread outside of having casual sex. The HIV epidemic is spread not just through people having casual sex. In many cases, wives contract HIV after their husband being unfaithful or having had premarital sex. There are also many cases where a woman has little choice in being sold off to a man and is forced to have sex with him. There are also a huge number of cases of rape where HIV is contracted. In all of these cases, if the Catholic Church had condoned barrier contraception, the likelihood of HIV being contracted as a result would have been dramatically reduced; whether that is through contraception being used in that particular instance of intercourse or through the man not contracting HIV in the first place.

Protects people from spending eternity in Hell.  It is important to remember that the Catholic Church believe that barrier contraception is against God and that using it will condemn people to Hell. Therefore, even if the Church's stance on condoms is harmful, which the proposition does not accept that it is, it is less harmful than people spending an eternity suffering. In this context, therefore, the most responsible thing for the Catholic Church to do is to forbid the use of condoms and, thereby, save people from Hell1. 1 Pope Paul VI. "Humanae Vitae." 1968.

Radical changes risk the stability of the Catholic Church.  Whenever a Church makes a radical change to its doctrines and teachings it causes a huge amount of tension within the Church. An excellent example of this is the Church of England allowing women to become bishops; a huge number of people left the Church over the controversy. Since the Catholic Church's ban over contraception of all kinds is something that it has stood fast over for a great number of years, as well as something that sets it apart from most other denominations and faiths, the proposition believes that a change in this would result in a huge amount of tension within the Church. This tension would inevitably bring about a considerable risk of large parts of the Church collapsing altogether. This would be much the same as the tensions over gay priests in the Anglican church that have led to fears of a schism1. Therefore, in the interests of its own stability, the sensible course of action for the Catholic Church to take is to maintain its ban on contraception. 1 Brown, Andrew. "Jeffrey John and the global Anglican schism: a potted history." Guardian.co.uk, 8 July 2010

The Catholic Church already has huge numbers of people leaving, this could help stop that. The Catholic Church is already becoming increasingly unpopular because of its refusal to compromise on any issue and its inability to adapt and change to keep up with an ever changing world. Rather than damage the stability of the Church, allowing barrier contraception would show that the Church is capable of change when change is necessary. Importantly, when the Church of England allowed women to become bishops, it caused some tension at the time but had no long term negative impact on the stability of the Church.

This is a wilful interpretation of a highly ambiguous passage. The Church's belief that barrier contraception is against God is based entirely on a single passage of the Bible where Onan is condemned for wilfully 'spilling his seed.'1Importantly, the fact that he spilled his seed alone was not even the main reason that he was condemned. It is well within the power of the Catholic Church to officially change their belief that using barrier contraception will send people to Hell and allow its use. Since the passage is ambiguous, the decision should be made based on what is best for society and the Church as a whole. The opposition believes that in their main case they have proved that the Church lifting their ban on barrier methods of contraception would be better for society and therefore they believe they have won the debate. 138:9-10, The Book of Genesis, The Bible.

The commandment given is to 'go forth and multiply', not to multiply as much as possible with no thought for sustainability. Contraception can help monogamous couples control the amount of children they have and when so that they can ensure they don't have more children than they can sustainably provide for. The idea that any limitation of procreation is against God is a single interpretation of a very ambiguous passage. The Catholic Church has the freedom to choose the interpretation that is best for humanity.

In context of other teachings, does not promote the spread of AIDS/HIV.  The Catholic Church does not only forbid the use of barrier contraception but also of casual sex. The issue is not that the Church is being irresponsible by banning the use of barrier contraception but that people are choosing to follow some of the Church's teachings but not others. Pope Benedict XVI argues AIDS is "a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems"1. If people followed the Church's teachings on casual sex as well as their teachings on barrier contraception, the AIDS epidemic would be dramatically decreased. Given, therefore, that it also forbids any sex outside of marriage, the Catholic Church is totally justified in forbidding barrier methods of contraception2. 1 Wynne-Jones, Jonathan. "The Pope drops Catholic ban on condoms in historic shift." The Telegraph, 20 November 2010, 2 Pope John Paul II. "Evangelium Vitae." 1995.

The Catholic Church believes that any limitation of procreation is against God.  Catholics consider the first commandment given to them by God to be to 'multiply'1. In light of this, anything that limits procreation, be it the use of contraception or even condoning the use of contraception, is against God. It is important to remember that the Catholic Church's primary obligation is not to its people but to God. The Church is, therefore, justified in any action where the alternative is going against what they believe to be the wishes of God, even if it is harmful to the people of the Church. 11:28, The Book of Genesis, The Bible.

This would not protect wives. In these situations the wife would be expected to have unprotected sex, so that the couple could conceive a child, even if the Church condoned the use of contraception. If a husband contracts HIV, the Catholic Church condoning or forbidding the use of condoms makes absolutely no difference to the fact that his wife is very likely to contract it also. The only action by the Church that would affect this would be to try and highlight the fact that sex outside of marriage is also forbidden to a greater degree and allowing the use of contraception would only weaken this message.

The Catholic Church is not a democracy. The opposition makes no mention of the huge numbers of Catholics who actually support the Church's decision to forbid barrier contraception. There is by no means a clear majority either way. Even if there was a clear majority of Catholics in favour of barrier contraception, the Church is under no obligation to change its official stances or any part of the way it works based on the opinions of members of the Church. The Church is founded on the basis that it is doing God's bidding and changing its working based on the demand of the people would undermine that.

In contradiction to the Catholic Church's responsibility to promote life.  Many Catholic countries in Africa and South America have huge problems with AIDS and HIV with thousands of people dying as a result. In a survey carried out in 20091, it was found that in sub-Saharan Africa 22.5 million people were living with HIV/AIDS and 1.3 million people died of AIDS. An enormous number of these people contracted HIV because they did not use a condom during intercourse, under the advice of the Catholic Church. It is clear, then, that the Catholic Church's stance on barrier contraception promotes the spread of AIDS. The opposition also believes that since the Catholic Church are in a position of power over a colossal number of people, they have a responsibility to ensure the welfare of those people. They must, therefore, reduce the likelihood that the people that they have power over will die as much as they can. Their ban over the use of barrier contraception is not in line with this responsibility. 1 UNAIDS global report.

Birth control within monogamous relationships.  Contraception is not just used in casual sex but within monogamous couples who want to control when they have children. The reason for this could be so they ensure that they don’t have more children than they can afford to reasonably look after.  Contraception can help monogamous couples to give more to the children they do decide to have and to the community, since less of their time and money will be used in maintaining a family which is larger than they can reasonably afford to control. The current cost of raising a child in Britain is calculated to be over £210,000, a very substantial sum that any responsible parent must think about before having more children 1.  Since, in this case, contraception promotes a good in the community, as well as more responsible reproduction, the Catholic Church is unjustified in its blanket ban over barrier contraception.  1. Insley 2011

Promotes image of Catholic Church as uncaring and stubborn.  Organised religious groups, such as the Catholic Church, around the world, regardless of faith and denomination, change their official stances in an effort to keep up with a changing world. For example, the Church of England allowing women to become bishops. In doing this, these groups show that they are able to be reactive and can fit into a world that changes every day. Even the Catholic church has begun to realise that by stubbornly refusing to change its stance, the Catholic Church presents itself as unable to adapt and stuck in its ways 1. As a result, it finds that it will lose a lot of its influence and, by extension, its propensity to do good. Since its stance on contraception limits the Church's ability to do good, then it is clearly a stance that generally causes harm and, therefore, is an unjustified one.  1.Wynne-Jones 2010

Barrier contraception can protect women from husbands with AIDS/HIV.  There are many cases, particularly in South America and Africa, of men contracting HIV from sexual partners outside their marriage, be it from before they were married or from an extramarital affair and passing it on to their wives. In cases such as these, the wife may follow all of the teachings of the Catholic Church and still contract HIV. If the Church did not forbid the use of barrier contraception then the frequency of occurrences such as these would be severely limited. Since, as discussed above, the Catholic Church, has a responsibility to promote life in its people, their ban of barrier contraception is unjustified.

The Catholic Church does not forbid all methods of contraception which could be used as alternatives. The Catholic Church actually condones the use of natural contraceptive methods, which essentially amount to only having intercourse at times of the month when the woman is not fertile. It is not unreasonable of the Catholic Church to expect married couples to just withhold from sex at certain times of the month if they do not wish to conceive another child. This situation gives no reason to make an exception.

Opposed by much of the Church  In spite of the Catholic Church's ruling, a huge number of people who identify as Catholic do not adhere to the Church's teachings on contraception. Additionally, many Catholic priests and nuns openly support non-abortive forms of contraception, including barrier contraception. In 2003 a poll found 43% of catholic priests in England and wales were against the church's stance and a further 19% were unsure1. The Church should listen to the requests and opinions of those who are part of it 2. 1 Day, Elizabeth. "Most Catholic priests 'do not support Rome over contraception'." The Telegraph, 6 April 2003, 2 Short, Claire. "HIV/AIDS

Radical changes risk stability of the Catholic Church. As outlined in the main proposition case, rather than making the Catholic Church seem as if it can move with the times, suddenly changing its stance on barrier contraception would make the Church seem weak and would lose a lot of its support. Since their stance on barrier contraception is something that the Catholic Church has stood by for a huge number of years suddenly moving on it would throw their conviction on everything into question and would have a severe negative effect on the stability of the Church.

The Catholic Church also forbids sex outside of marriage. The opposition has tried to ignore the fact that the Catholic Church actually does not allow sex outside of marriage either. It is not a case of the Church saying it is acceptable to have casual sex as long as contraception is not used but saying that neither is acceptable. If abstinence were practised, there would be no HIV epidemic. Since the Church preaches abstinence outside of marriage it cannot be held accountable for the HIV epidemic.

It seems odd to quote the wife of an investment banker commenting about the abuse of other people’s money. What is becoming increasingly clear in critiques both from the left and the right is that we can actually afford a welfare state just fine but not at the same time as allowing a bunch of Wall Street wideboys to play fast and loose with the nation’s money.  In terms of twentieth century ideologies, certainly there have been changes on both sides of the political fence – the rise of moralising neo-cons and a growing far right is nothing for Conservatives to write home about – but the idea that Capitalism now reigns supreme rather than having the guts of it corpulent excesses scattered across the capitals of Europe is simply laughable.  As the high priests of Capital write themselves yet another cheque, an increasing number of people are objecting to the idea that public services should be closed so that the very rich can have their taxes reduced simply won’t wash.

political philosophy politics government society house believes socialism dead

Socialism was a twentieth century ideology which ran its course and ran out of steam when it became clear that Capitalism worked better  The world has moved on; it is inconceivable that the protests of the seventies and eighties could be refought again. This issue was settled at the end of the eighties. It wasn’t just the collapse of the Soviet Union, although that no doubt played a major role in shaping the future of socialism in Europe.  In a globalised world the traditional ideas about class and the nature of the labour market have moved on and politics moved on with it.  Socialists may have won many of the arguments over social issues, but arguments on the advantages of free trade, deregulation, the role of the state, the relationship between government and industry all line up firmly in the Capitalist column.  There were some remnants of dogmatic, “classical” socialism left in continental Europe, especially amongst its union movements, which are now collapsing. As Margaret Thatcher put it, “The problem with Socialism is that you will eventually run out of other people’s money.” [i]  [i] Quoted in: James Turk. “Will Sovereign Debt Defaults Bring The End Of Socialism?” Free Gold Money Report. 19 December 2009.

Remembering that those states that dashed after the illusory prize of low taxes and deregulated banking are currently only being propped up by the ratings agencies should give politicians around the world- both radical and conventional- something to think about. However, even the most casual wander around the blogosphere makes clear that the principles of market economics are a long way from being universally agreed.  The intellectual recovery from the assault posed by Thatcherism and Reaganomics has taken time but is certainly taking place and it is increasingly the Right that appears intellectually bankrupt.  Organisations like the New Economics Foundation are approaching old problems in new ways alongside a whole range of popular movements – environmental, youth led, immigrant led and others. The fact that modern socialism has as much to do with the industrial struggles of the seventies as it does with the Spanish Civil War in the thirties should really come as no surprise.

Although there are protests as a result of the banking crisis and the resulting financial meltdown, they have no cohesive ideology  There is clearly a difference between the general malaise of those protesting the result of the financial crisis and any form of coherent ideology or manifesto for government. The only people pretending that protesters in Athens or Rome – or the Occupy movement worldwide – are in some meaningful way Socialists are aging class warriors from the seventies.  The Occupy movement may well count many social liberals [i] among its members, and these individuals are almost certainly unhappy about many aspects of modern Capitalism but that doesn’t make Occupy, or the Athens street protestors Socialist.  [i] Occupy Wall Street Website. “Forum Post Liberalism is Not Socialism”. 12 November 2011.

Socialism has frequently been defined by its opponents and as Capitalism has changed so have the political responses made to it. The fact that this iteration of socialism is different should come as no surprise to anyone who has studied the history of Socialism. That earlier generations of Socialists would not have recognised a blog or a Twitter account doesn’t change the fact that they recognise the flaws of Capitalism and reject the widely accepted views of the last twenty years or so that if everything is left to the market then everything will come out just fine.

Even the leaders of the Left have given up on Socialism as a creed and have now accepted the vast majority of modern Capitalist principles  Even the leaders of those European political parties that still call themselves socialist tend to avoid the word. Broadly speaking even the leaders of the left- outside Cuba and Colombia- accept the basic principles of Market economics and recognise that high-tax, high-spend economics simply does not work.  Like it or not borders are now open and the idea that the state can control the flow of capital is a thing of the past. As a result people generally are richer and the idea that there a solid class block is simply no longer relevant to their lives.

As has so often been the case in the history of Socialism, the moment one form is comprehensively beaten, its adherents announce, “Oh that wasn’t really Socialism”. The reality is that Socialism fell with the Berlin Wall it just took a few years for the impact of that to ripple all the way across Europe.  The last stage of that process is now taking place as the economies that continued to believe that social systems would pay for themselves realize that not only is that fantasy not the case, it never was.  It may have taken a crisis in Capitalism to demonstrate that Socialism is a luxury Europe cannot afford but the result is the same anyway.

Trying to pretend that absolutely anyone who disagrees in some way with the architects of the banking bubble can be described as a Socialist is simply taking things too far.  Many people are suffering as a result of austerity measures and it is interesting that in countries with left wing governments the protests support the right and vice versa. This has nothing to do with the emergence of Socialism for the 21st century – however desperately the Socialists of the 20th century may wish it.  The closest even the most ardent supporters of the current protests can get is that ‘things should be different’ other than that it tends to be a round of decidedly nineteenth century solutions to nineteenth century problems

The idea that wealth should be more fairly and evenly distributed has never had so many supporters and the failure to do so has rarely been more keenly felt  In the model of Blair and Clinton, it didn’t matter if the rich got a lot richer, as long as the poor got a bit richer. That model has now been shown not to work and the rather timid new leaders of the left are starting to return to concepts of fairness and equality rather than the rather bland concepts of ‘opportunity’ and ‘choice’.  Europe is increasingly governed by unelected technocrats who seem to think that the opinions of a handful of international bankers are somehow more important than the jobs and livelihoods of millions. This may always have been the case but it tends not to show during times of plenty. Now these latent inequalities are becoming apparent and people are angry.  It is perhaps one of the great ironies of history that one of the aspirations of early nineteenth century Socialists- nationalising the banks- required Capitalists to actually achieve it.

It is impossible to acquire the information necessary to create a coherent economy  A planned economy requires that the planners have the information necessary to allocate resources in the right way. This is a virtually impossible task.  The world contains trillions of different resources: my labour, iron ore, Hong Kong harbour, pine trees, satellites, car factories – etc. The number of different ways to use, combine and recombine these resources is unimaginably vast.  And almost all of them are useless. For example, it would be a mistake to combine Arnold Schwarzenegger with medical equipment and have him perform brain surgery.  Centralised planning cannot possibly sort through the myriad of way of arranging resources to arrive at the most efficient usage. Only a decentralised price system can achieve this via the institution of private property and associated duties and rights. [1]  [1] Boudreaux, Donald J, ‘Information and Prices’.

Globalisation has made socialism impractical to implement  Global economic forces have rendered socialism powerless. Financial speculation, and investment flows can make or break economies, and the agents who channel these monies want to see countries liberalise, privatise and de-regulate more. This is being shown by the speculative attacks on Eurozone countries where the markets are showing they can force governments to implement tough austerity or even force changes in government without an election as has happened in Greece and Italy where technocrats have taken over as Heads of Government. [1]  These more flexible markets generate higher levels of growth and prosperity, and provide higher returns on investment, encouraging more. Countries which try to resist globalisation and liberal economic markets, as in ‘old Europe’, suffer stagnant growth and higher unemployment as a result. Old socialist-style economic models of tight economic regulation and central planning are unsustainable.  [1] Frankel, Jeffrey, ‘Let European technocrats weave their magic’, The Sydney Morning Herald, 29 November 2011,

Class consciousness is an important aspect of Socialism, it would be hard to find a period in recent history when the majority have been so aware that their interests are not the same as the uber-rich  It has rarely been so clear that the interests of the few are not the same as those of the vast bulk of either European societies or the world outside it. At a time of rising unemployment, a handful of people who are already fantastically rich continue to pay themselves obscene salaries and bonuses. Of course there is nothing in this that is unusual, it’s just not usually done in so cavalier a fashion.  Although there is nothing mechanical in the process, most Socialist thinkers have been clear that the popular realisation that there really is a class distinction between what the Occupy protesters refer to as the 1% and the rest of us is an important first step towards establishing Socialism.  Whatever the media and political classes may pretend, Socialism is not – and never was – a single party or policy. It is a process. And that process is being seen on the streets across Europe

While there are a vast number of potential combinations of resources, the ones that are useless are mostly obvious and do not need a market to tell us so. Nobody would attempt to generate power by burning bicycles, for example.  An economy that is organised by prices will be organised by those with enough capital to out-bid all others, not those willing to pay the best price because they can make the most use of the resource

Socialism has changed historically to meet the challenges of the moment and is addressing those of the 21st century in new ways  It should perhaps come as no surprise that the days of standing outside shopping centres and train stations handing out soggy newspapers have passed into the annals of political history – although some still do it.  Equally, trades union are no longer seen as being as central to European Socialism as they once were. However, the militancy seen over the last few years suggest, if anything, that what was a diversified ‘anti-capitalist’ movement is now coalescing around a rather clearer set of goals of which the basics of the anti-capitalism movement are merely a part. In the light of the globalisation of Capitalism, the left is increasingly rediscovering its internationalist roots which were lost to a great extent in the seventies and eighties in national struggles to save industries and jobs.

What investors want more than anything is a stable economy and skilled workforce. Ironically it is the European nations where socialist thought remains strongest (the Nordic Countries) that are consistently ranked as the most competitive economies in the world. [1] Careful state management of the economy, provision of infrastructure and investment in exceptional health and education systems through high taxation have created a dynamic and highly qualified workforce, and attracted huge investment from technologically advanced industries.  [1] World Economic Forum, ‘The Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012’,

Setting the crises of the last few years against decades of prolonged growth under market capitalism really shows the lie of this idea. There is no doubt that certain sectors over-reached themselves in the latter part of the last decade but to suggest that this is a collapse of the Capitalist model makes about as much sense as the idea that a handful of idealists camped outside St Pauls are the emergence of a new political movement.  Both ideas are preposterous and only give credence to some of the madder parts of the Right whom would like nothing more than to be able to demonise the protesters and their demands.

This conveniently ignores that patients in a permanent vegetative state (PVS) do recover. It also ignore that Alzheimer’s patients enjoy moments of lucidity that bring pleasure to both themselves and their friends and relatives. It also discounts the possibilities offered by advances in medical science. The one point in any of the processes that is irreversible is the point of death – in the event of a misdiagnosis or the creation of a new drug, it’s too late if the person is already dead.

Medical science allows us to control death, suicide and euthanasia are sensible corollaries to that.  We now live longer than at any time in the 100,000 years or so of human evolution and longer than the other primates [i] . In many nations we have successfully increased the quantity of life without improving the quality. More to the point, too little thought has been given to the quality of our deaths.  Let us consider the example of the cancer patient who opts not to put herself through the agony and uncertainty of chemotherapy. In such a circumstance, we accept that a person may accept the certainty of death with grace and reason rather than chasing after a slim probability of living longer but in pain.  All proposition is arguing is that this approach can also apply to other conditions, which may not be terminal in the strict sense of the world but certainly lead to the death of that person in any meaningful sense. The application of medical science to extend a life, long after life is ‘worth living’ or would be possible to live without these interventions cannot be considered a moral good for its own sake. Many find that they are facing the prospect of living out the rest of their days in physical pain or are losing their memory. As a result, some may see ‘going out at the top of their game’ as the better, and more natural, option.  [i] Caleb E Finch. Evolution of Human Lifespan and the Diseases of Aging: Roles of Infection, Inflammation, and Nutrition. Proceding of the National Academy of Sciences of the united States of America. 12 October 2009.

Society routinely accepts that the state has a role in balancing the desires of some with the threats those pose to others. For every reasoned, unpressured decision that can be presented by prop, we can offer a situation in which the decision to die was coerced, or at least was not devoid of financial of self-serving interests on the part of others. The only way to prevent those negative outcomes is to deny the palatable ones through a complete moratorium. Such actions may not become routine yet even one death through compulsion is too many. However it is equally likely that once a right to die becomes established it comes to be seen as normal that someone who is particularly ill or frail will exercise the right to die. Once this is normalised then it becomes easier and easier for the boundary to slowly slip as it is an arbitrary line, either those exercising the right slowly become less and less ill or frail. Alternatively there is a slide into coercion as it becomes normal it begins to be seen as expected that the right will be exercised. [i]  [i] Young, Robert, "Voluntary Euthanasia", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)

Suicide is a rational choice in many situations.  When confronted with chronic pain or with diseases that steadily remove our sense of self – or at least the self of whom we are aware – death has proven to be a sensible option taken by sensible people [i] . It is a simple fact that we all die, our objections to it tend to be based on the idea that it can happen at the hands of others or at a time, or in a manner, not of our choosing.  Neither of these issues arise with either assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia. Proposition has no difficulty at all with the suggestion that both procedures should be regulated and take place in safe, medically supported, environments.  However, if an individual accepts that death is their preferred option in such a scenario, it is difficult to comprehend of reasons why they should not be allowed to proceed. Our social rejection of murder does not, ultimately relate to death itself but to the denial of choice. With murder someone is denying that person all their future potential so denying their freedom of choice, and this remains the case even if the murder was completely painless. Here, reason tells us, the virtuous act is death and the reservation of that choice.  The determining element of humanity is that we are rational beings; a blanket ban – legal and social – on choosing the time and manner of our deaths reflects our primeval fear of a death that comes, unwanted, in the dark of the night, not the mature judgement of modern, thinking (and long-lived) humans.  [i] Andy Bloxham. Husband films assisted suicide of wife to prove it was not murder. The Daily Telegraph. 10 March 2011.

It is the mark of a civilised society that we accept the inconvenience of laws in some circumstances because we also require their protection in others. To take a trivial example we take away the choice for people to drive on the other side of the road to everyone else. Here the protection offered by a full moratorium on killing requires that we accept all of its implications. The challenge is to use medical science to make it a moot point. Proposition has therefore made a powerful argument in favour of better painkillers and more research into mentally debilitating illnesses. Many of those developments have come about as a result of the very human attributes prop is so keen to cite. Realising that they have an opportunity of future free of pain and illness, humans have found ways of delivering it. It is precisely because death can now be managed that the process of self-imposed triage prop suggests is increasingly unnecessary; a fact to be applauded, not discarded

The decision to die is a deeply personal one - it is no business of the state.  Ultimately, the decision to die is a personal one, it may affect others but, clearly it has the greatest impact on the person who decides to die.  Clearly those who remain behind will have to deal with the consequences of that death and the end of their relationship with that person but, one would hope, that would be the case if she had died of natural causes at a later date. Furthermore the experience of watching someone die can by as traumatic, or more so, for the carer or loved one than it is for the individual concerned.  What it clearly is not, is an issue for legislators and other strangers who have no connection to the person involved. There are deeply personal issues such as love, death, sex, and reproduction where we accept the state may have a role in the formal sense of preventing their abuse but otherwise should not have an opinion either way. With the right to die the state has maintained not only an opinion but a criminal sanction. This is a clear example of where the role of the state is to respect the individual and step back; legislation is far too cumbersome a tool with be used in circumstances as varied and complex as these.  Dealing with the loss of a loved one, particularly in a situation such as assisted suicide, is painful and traumatic enough for all concerned without adding to that the additional stress of a threat of criminal sanction.

This risk can be mitigated by making it clear that the elderly, disabled, and others who may feel a burden are genuinely wanted as a part of society but that the right to die is there if they feel it is too much. Any right to die being allowed is not going to be as simple as going to the doctors and getting an injection. In any system there would be checks and balances put in place. There would probably be some form of application process, checks to see if there is any coercion and that it is what the individual really wants as well as probably some form of cooling off period after which the checks would probably be redone before they finally have their chance to exercise their right to die.

The issue that Op highlights is the matter of intention, that the courts should not be interested in why someone took the decision to kill another person. However, that does not apply here as the intention is that of the person who has chosen to die. In a majority of nations suicide is already legal – the most spectacular exception to this being North Korea, a country with, otherwise, a fairly relaxed approach to the deaths of its citizens. Accepting the right to die simply extends the ability to do so to those who currently are incapable of performing the necessary procedure themselves [i] .  [i] BBC News Website. Right-to-die law appalling, says Health Minister Anna Soubry. 8 September 2012.

Once the moral absolute is broken, there is no other credible point before the right to use becomes standardised.  It is easy to say that this social move would not lead to healthy thirty year olds walking into emergency rooms and asking to end it all because they had just broken up with their partner or been sacked. However, it’s rather difficult to see why it should not. Proposition says that all this would do is extend the right to commit suicide to those currently incapable of performing the act themselves but that isn’t so. It also extends the surety of success and of a medically painless procedure that is not available to the teenager with a razorblade or the bankrupt with a bottle of pills and another of vodka. For the sake of exactly the equality of approach, it seems only fair to do so. Proposition are attempting to pick the easy bits of the case but, by doing so, they leave contradictions in their case, why shouldn’t the right to die be universal? They know the reason; society would reject the idea out of hand, regardless of its merits. As a result they draw an arbitrary line simply because it is difficult to argue this right as a response to poverty or grief or addiction. They could argue that all of those things “might” get better. Well similarly a cure for cancer “might” be invented. The only consistent argument is either a universal ban or a universal acceptance. Anything else is an argument about where to draw the line; such approaches tend to lead to a gradual, slippery descent away from the original intentions of legislators. Whatever the initial legislation, it would likely be a matter of days before the court cases started.

The death of one individual has implications for others, which by definition, do not affect the suicide herself.  Even setting aside the religious concerns of many in this situation [i] , there are solid secular reasons for accepting the sanctity of life. First among them is the impact it has on the survivors. The relative who does not want a loved one to take their own life, or to die in the case of euthanasia. It is simply untrue that others are not affect by the death of the individual – someone needs to support that person emotionally and someone has to administer the injection. Because of the ties of love involved for relatives, they are, in effect, left with no choice but to agree regardless of their own views, the law should respect their position as well.  It further gives protection to doctors and others who would be involved in the procedure. Campaigners are keen to stress that doctors should be involved in the process whilst ignoring that, pretty much whenever they’re asked doctors say they have no desire to have any part of it [ii] . Indeed it would be against the Hippocratic oath which while it is no longer always taken still sums up the duties of a doctor which includes doing no harm and includes "And I will not give a drug that is deadly to anyone if asked, nor will I suggest the way to such a counsel." So ruling out euthanasia. [iii] Presumably, the very case that is so keen on the voluntary principle would also observe this compelling rejection by a group critical to the plan.  [i] Joint letter to the Telegraph. The terminally ill need care and protection – not help in committing suicide. The Most Rev Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury. The Most Rev Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster. Sir Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi.  [ii] Ella Pickover. Doctors Reject Assisted Suicide. The Independent. 28 June 2012 .  [iii] Sokol, Dr Daniel, ‘A guide to the Hippocratic Oath’, BBC News, 26 October 2008 ,

There is a risk that even a free choice may have some coercion involved.  By far the biggest worry is that a right to die will create a silent form of coercion that cannot be detected. In the West’s increasingly elderly society the role of older people in that society, their value and their continuing contribution is all too likely to be masked by the issue of the cost placed on those of working age. Even where older people do not face pressure from their families, society needs to be aware of this wider narrative. Such a narrative will slowly create a norm where the elderly feel that they are a burden and it is expected that they will exercise their right to die. The ‘choice’ will remain and they will even think it a choice free of coercion but will exercise their right not because they really want to die but because they feel it is what they ought to do, once the right to die is completely normalised those exercising it may not even consider that what they are doing is not really of their free will. Perceiving oneself as a burden is already a common cause of suicide [i] and would certainly increase if it were to no longer be considered taboo. Not having a right to die will not stop arguments about the burden placed on the working members of society by the elderly but it will stop this going any further towards the creation of a culture where individuals consider it normal that they should die when they feel they are a burden.  [i] Joiner, Thomas E. et al., ‘The Psychology and Neurobiology of Suicidal Behaviour’, Annual Review of Psychology, 10 September 2004, p.304 .

It is impossible to frame a structure which respects the right to die for the individual but that cannot be abused by others.  In terms of moral absolutes, killing people is wrong sets the bar fairly low. Pretty much all societies have accepted this as a line that cannot be crossed without the explicit and specific agreement of the state which only happens in very rare circumstances such as in times of war.  There is a simple reason for a blanket ban. It allows for no caveats, no misunderstandings, no fudging of the issue, and no shades of grey. Again, the reason for this approach is equally simple; anything other than such a clear cut approach will inevitably be abused [i] . As things stand guilt in the case of murder is determined entirely on the basis that it is proven that someone took another life. Their reasons for doing so may be reflected in sentencing but the court is not required to consider whether someone was justified in killing another.  It is in the nature of a court case that it happens after the event and nobody other than the murderer and the deceased know what actually took place between them. If we take shaken baby syndrome cases as an example the parent still loves the child, they have acted in the madness of a moment out of frustration. It’s still murder. Supporting a dying relative can be no less frustrating but killing them would still be murder, even where that comes after a prolonged period of coercion to fill in forms and achieve the appearance of consent. It would, however, be very hard to prove. At least with a baby we can assume consent was not given, that would not be the case here.  [i] Stephen Drake and Diane Coleman. ‘Second Thoughts’ Grow on Assisted Suicide. The Wall Street Journal. 5 August 2012.

Obviously nobody is going to compel doctors or others in the medical profession to undertake a procedure of which they do not approve. Indeed doctors are routinely required to give independent advice - so that a patient is aware of the available options - without being required to perform a procedure themselves. The same is true with relatives or friends. There are many issues in life, where we may disagree with someone’s decision but we respect their right to make that decision just as they respect ours to check that they have considered all the implications. In the case of the doctors this is simple professionalism, in the case of loved ones, respect.

It is not uncommon for legislation to apply in extreme circumstances and not in more routine ones – the right to use violence in defence of the home or self being just one example. If the legislation states that this relates to certain, terminal conditions and those patients shown to be of sound mind, then that’s how the legislation works. Society gives the universal right to free education but not if you’re 46 and decide that you should have done something different at school, the right is confined. That applies here and in most universal rights. Its aim is to solve one particular legal problem, not all of them.

Firstly, due to our larger and more sophisticated brains, one would expect the average human to have a great many more interests than any animal, for those interests to be more complex and interconnected, and for there to be a greater capacity for reflection and comprehension of the satisfaction gleaned from the realisation of such interests. Thus, we can ascribe greater value to the life of a human than an animal, and thus conclude there to be less harm in painlessly killing an animal than a human. Secondly, to the extent that research on animals is of benefit to humans, it is thus permissible to conduct experiments requiring euthanasia of the animal subjects. [1]  [1] Frey, R. G., “Moral Standing: The Value of Life and Specieism”, in La Follette (ed.), Ethics in Practice, (Malden, Mass; Oxford : Blackwell Pub, 2007)

animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal

Animal research necessitates significant harm to the animals involved  Animal research, by its very nature necessitates harm to the animals. Even if they are not made to suffer as part of the experiment, the vast majority of animals used, must be killed at the conclusion of the experiment. With 115 million animals being used in the status quo this is no small issue. Even if we were to vastly reduce animal experimentation, releasing domesticated animals into the wild, would be a death sentence, and it hardly seems realistic to think that many behaviourally abnormal animals, often mice or rats, might be readily moveable into the pet trade. [1] It is prima fasciae obvious, that it is not in the interest of the animals involved to be killed, or harmed to such an extent that such killing might seem merciful. Even if the opposition counterargument, that animals lack the capacity to truly suffer, is believed, research should none the less be banned in order to prevent the death of millions of animals.  [1] European Commission, 1997. Euthanasia of experimental animals. Luxembourg: Office for official publications

Most developed countries, including the United States and the member-states of the European Union, have regulations and laws which require the research methods that do not involve animal models should be used wherever they would produce equally accurate results. In other words, scientists are barred from using animals in research where non-animal methods would be just as effective.  Further, research animals are extremely expensive to breed, house and care for. Developed countries have very strict laws governing the welfare of animals used in research; obtaining the training and expert advice required to comply with these laws is costly. As a result, academic institutions and medical or pharmaceutical businesses function under constant pressure to find viable alternatives to using animals in research. Researchers have a strong motive to use alternatives to animal models wherever possible.  If we ban animal research even if research advances continue we will never know how much further and faster that research could have gone with the aid of experiments on animals. Animal research conducted today produces higher quality results than alternative research methodologies, and is thus it is likely necessary for it to remain in order for us to enjoy the rate of scientific advancement we have become used to in recent years. [1] Precisely because we never know where the next big breakthrough is going to come, we do not want to be narrowing research options. Instead, all options - computer models, tissue cultures, microdosing and animal experiments - should be explored, making it more likely that there will be a breakthrough.  [1] Ator, N. A., “Conducting Behavioural Research”, in Akins, C. Panicker, S. &amp; Cunningham, C. L (eds.), Laboratory animals in research and teaching: Ethics, care and methods, (Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association, 2005, Ch. 3.

Would send a positive social message, increasing animal welfare rights more generally in society  Most countries have laws restricting the ways in which animals can be treated. These would ordinarily prohibit treating animals in the manner that animal research laboratories claim is necessary for their research. Thus legal exceptions such as the 1986 Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act in the UK exist to protect these organisations, from what would otherwise be a criminal offense. This creates a clear moral tension, as one group within society is able to inflect what to any other group would be illegal suffering and cruelty toward animals. If states are serious about persuading people against cock fighting, dancing bears, and the simple maltreatment of pets and farm animals, then such goals would be enhanced by a more consistent legal position about the treatment of animals by everyone in society.

Animals have a right not to be harmed  The differences between us and other vertebrates are a matter of degree rather than kind. [1] Not only do they closely resemble us anatomically and physiologically, but so too do they behave in ways which seem to convey meaning. They recoil from pain, appear to express fear of a tormentor, and appear to take pleasure in activities; a point clear to anyone who has observed the behaviour of a pet dog on hearing the word “walk”. Our reasons for believing that our fellow humans are capable of experiencing feelings like ourselves can surely only be that they resemble us both in appearance and behaviour (we cannot read their minds). Thus any animal sharing our anatomical, physiological, and behavioural characteristics is surely likely to have feelings like us. If we accept as true for sake of argument, that all humans have a right not to be harmed, simply by virtue of existing as a being of moral worth, then we must ask what makes animals so different. If animals can feel what we feel, and suffer as we suffer, then to discriminate merely on the arbitrary difference of belonging to a different species, is analogous to discriminating on the basis of any other morally arbitrary characteristic, such as race or sex. If sexual and racial moral discrimination is wrong, then so too is specieism. [2]  [1] Clark, S., The Nature of the Beast: are animals moral?, (Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1982)  [2] Singer, P., “All Animals are Equal”, in La Follette (ed.), Ethics in Practice, (Malden, Mass; Oxford : Blackwell Pub, 2007)

Animals do not have such a right not to be harmed; even if they are similar to humans in terms of their feelings (that opposition does not concede) this right is impossible to argue for. The right of a human not to be harmed is a part of a quid pro quo that we will also not do harm to others. Animals are unable to engage in such a contract either to us or to other animals. Animals are not about to stop hunting other animals because the animal that is hunted feel’s pain when it is caught and it even if animal experimentation was to be ended it is unlikely that humanity would stop killing animals either for food, to prevent overpopulation or by accident all of which would have to be the case if animals feeling of pleasure and pain and resulting rights had to be taken into account.

We do not have to justify cock fighting and other acts of animal cruelty as morally permissible. These are different acts to animal research in an important respect. It is not the intention of the researchers to harm the animals, but rather to produce high quality research for the betterment of human lives. Whilst it is true that in some cases harm to the animals is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the research, this is minimised wherever possible, with pain killers, anaesthesia, and attempts to use other research means. There are many exceptions in law which maintain moral consistency due to the intention behind the act. For example, killing someone for money would be murder and illegal, whilst an exception might be made if you were killing in war, or self-defence, as the intention behind the act is held to be both different and morally just.

We do not need to justify the moral value of severely cognitively disabled persons, although if we wanted to, we could invoke notions of kinship, and family as providing a justification for acting in an apparently specieist manner. [1] Rather, it is sufficient to highlight the point, that experimenting on humans of any cognitive function, carries with it certain negative externalities. Such persons are likely to have relatives who would be harmed by the knowledge that their loved ones are being used in medical experiments for example. Even in the case of such a person who lacks any relatives, broader society and disabled rights groups could be harmed by a policy that allows treating some disabled persons differently to the rest of our moral community.  Such externalities would make experimenting on animals, rather than such persons, both preferable and morally consistent.  [1] Fox, M. A., “The Moral Community”, in La Follette (ed.), Ethics in Practice, (Malden, Mass; Oxford : Blackwell Pub, 2007)

Research can be done effectively without experimenting on living creature  As experimenting on animals is immoral we should stop using animals for experiments. But apart from it being morally wrong practically we will never know how much we will be able to advance without animal experimentation if we never stop experimenting on animals. Animal research has been the historical gold standard, and in the case of some chemical screening tests, was for many years, by many western states, required by law before a compound could be released on sale. Science and technology has moved faster than research protocols however, and so there is no longer a need for animals to be experimented on. We now know the chemical properties of most substances, and powerful computers allow us to predict the outcome of chemical interactions. Experimenting on live tissue culture also allows us to gain insight as to how living cells react when exposed to different substances, with no animals required. Even human skin leftover from operations provides an effective medium for experimentation, and being human, provides a more reliable guide to the likely impact on a human subject. The previous necessity of the use of animals is no longer a good excuse for continued use of animals for research. We would still retain all the benefits that previous animal research has brought us but should not engage in any more. Thus modern research has no excuse for using animals. [1]  [1] PETA. 2011. Alternatives: Testing Without Torture.

Some groups of people have less capacity for suffering than most animals  It is possible to conceive of human persons almost totally lacking in a capacity for suffering, or indeed a capacity to develop and possess interests. Take for example a person in a persistent vegetative state, or a person born with the most severe of cognitive impairments.  We can take three possible stances toward such persons within this debate. Firstly we could experiment on animals, but not such persons. This would be a morally inconsistent and specieist stance to adopt, and as such unsatisfactory. We could be morally consistent, and experiment on both animals and such persons. Common morality suggests that it would be abhorrent to conduct potentially painful medical research on the severely disabled, and so this stance seems equally unsatisfactory. Finally we could maintain moral consistency and avoid experimenting on the disabled, by adopting the stance of experimenting on neither group, thus prohibiting experimentation upon animals. [1]  [1] Fox, M. A., “The Moral Community”, in La Follette (ed.), Ethics in Practice, (Malden, Mass; Oxford : Blackwell Pub, 2007)

This again highlights some of the problems with animal research. In the UK example cited, animal testing had been done, and the dose given to the human volunteers was a tiny fraction of the dose shown to be safe in primates. Animal research is an unreliable indicator of how drugs will react in the human body, and as such alternatives should be sought and improved upon.

To argue that the ends justify the means does not justify research upon animals. Firstly we do not know the extent to which animals are capable of holding interests or experiencing suffering, as they are unable to communicate with us. Our shared similarities give us cause to believe they must have at least a truncated experience of the world to us, but we cannot know the level of that truncation. Thus in order to avoid committing a significant moral harm upon a being we do not fully understand, a precautionary principle of non-experimentation would be well advised. Secondly, even if we would be achieving a net gain on the utilitarian calculator, that is insufficient justification on its own. By that same logic, experimenting on one person to save the lives of many could be justified, even if it caused them suffering, and even if they did not consent. Common morality suggests that this is an objectionable position to hold, as the moral principle would allow us to treat any being as a means to an end rather than existing as a being of independent value. [1] In short such logic would allow us to experiment not only on animals but also on non-consenting people, and we posit that to be an unreasonable position to hold in this debate.  [1] Crisp. R., Mill on Utilitarianism, (Routledge, 1997)

People would die and suffer needlessly under such a policy  23 new drugs are introduced each year in the United Kingdom alone . [1] . While almost all of these drugs will have been brought to the market after extensive animal testing, the number of animals used to check their safety only seems to be a high cost when the benefits that each drug brings to its users are inadequately considered.  New drugs that are approved for medical use have the potential to relieve human pain and suffering not only for the first group of patients given access to them, but also for future generations of sick and suffering individuals too. Consider all the lives, all over the world, that have benefitted from penicillin since its discovery in 1928. If drugs cost more to research and develop, then that reduces potential profit margins, and some drugs that would have otherwise been discovered and released will fall below the new threshold of likely profits necessary to fund the research. Adopting this proposition will lead to more people suffering and dying in the future than would have otherwise been the case.  [1] BBC News. 2013. Falling drug breakthroughs 'a myth'.

Animals involved in animal research are mostly well treated.  The vast majority of animals used in research are not subjected to suffering. Where there may be pain, they are given painkillers, and when they are euthanized it is done humanely. [1] They are looked after well, as the health of the animals is usually not only required by law and good practice, but beneficial for the experimental results. Many of these animals live better lives than they might have done had they been born into the wild. Many animals, and indeed humans, die untimely deaths that are due to reasons other than old age, animal experimentation may increase these numbers slightly but so long as the animals are treated well there should be no moral objection to animal research. If the foundation of the argument for banning animal experimentation is therefore based upon the cruel treatment and pain suffered by animals then this is a reason for regulation to make sure there is very little suffering rather than an outright ban.  [1] Herzog, H., “Dealing With the Animal Research Controversy”, in Akins, C. Panicker, S. &amp; Cunningham, C. L (eds.), Laboratory animals in research and teaching: Ethics, care and methods, (Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association, 2005, Ch. 1.

Animal research is only used where other research methods are not suitable  Developed countries, including the US and all members of the EU (since EU Directive 2010/63/EU) have created laws and professional regulations that prevent scientists from using animals for research if other, non-animal research methods would produce equally clear and detailed results.  The principle described above is also enshrined in the "3Rs" doctrine, which states that researchers and their employers have a duty to identify ways to refine experiments conducted on animals, so that yield better results and cause less suffering; replace animals used in research the non-animal alternatives where possible; and reduce the number of animals used in research. Not only does the 3Rs doctrine represent a practical way to reconcile the necessity of animal research with the universal human desire not to cause suffering, it also drives scientists to increase the overall quality of the research that they conduct. Governments and academic institutions take the 3Rs doctrine very seriously. In EU countries scientists are required to show that they have considered other methods of research before being granted a license for an animal experiment.  There are a huge number of ways of learning about our physiology and the pathologies which affect it, including to computer models, cell cultures, animal models, human microdosing and population studies. These methods are used to complement one another, for example animal models may well produce data that creates a computer model. Nonetheless, there is some research which cannot be done any other way. It is difficult to understand the interaction of specific sets of genes without being able to change only these genes – something possible through genetically modified animals.  Finally, as noted above, given the high cost of conducting animal research relative to other methods, there is a financial incentive for institutions to adopt non-animal methods where they produce as useful and accurate results.

Animal research is necessary for the development of truly novel substances  Undoubtedly then, the most beneficial research to mankind is the development of truly novel drugs. Even according to the proposition this represents about a quarter of all new drugs released, which could be seen as significant given the great potential to relieve the suffering beyond our current capacity that such drugs promise.  After the effects, side effects and more complex interactions of a drug have been confirmed using animal and non-animal testing, it will usually pass to what is called a phase I clinical trial - tests on human volunteers to confirm how the drug will interact with human physiology and what dosages it should be administered in. The risk of a human volunteer involved in a phase I trial being harmed is extremely small, but only because animal tests, along with non-animal screening methods are a highly effective way of ensuring that dangerous novel drugs are not administered to humans. In the United Kingdom, over the past twenty years or more, there have been no human deaths as a result of phase I clinical trials.  Novel compounds (as opposed to so-called "me-too" drugs, that make slight changes to an existing treatment) are the substances that hold the most promise for improving human lives and treating previously incurable conditions. However, their novelty is also the reason why it is difficult for scientists to predict whether they may cause harm to humans.  Research into novel compounds would not be possible without either animal testing, or tremendous risk to human subjects, with inevitable suffering and death on the part of the trial volunteers on some occasions. It is difficult to believe that in such circumstances anyone would volunteer, and that even if they did, pharmaceutical companies would be willing to risk the potential legal consequences of administering a substance to them they knew relatively little about. In short, development of novel drugs requires animal experimentation, and would be impossible under the proposition's policy.

This logic assumes that one positive moral action can cancel out a negative moral action. That an animal is well treated before being involved in animal testing and its suffering during testing is kept to a minimum does not balance the very real suffering the animal experiences during the experiments themselves. Regulation would not be helpful in addressing this contradiction as the suffering during the experiments could never be eliminated as if we knew the effects the experiment will have on the animal the experiment would not be necessary in the first place.

Animals' rights are of less moral worth than human rights  Humans are complex beings with large well developed brains, that form sizeable social groups, have significant ability to communicate with one another, possess interconnected desires, preferences and interests about the world, have an awareness of their own existence and mortality, and as such are beings worthy of moral consideration. Animals too express some of these characteristics to some degree and thus animals too are worthy of moral consideration. However, animal lives and human lives are of unequal value. This is due to the fact that no animal possesses all of these characteristics to the same degree as the average human, or even comes particularly close. Thus any rights ascribed to animals should be truncated relative to the rights we ascribe to humans. [1] Therefore animals should not rightly possess the same rights to not be experimented upon as humans might. To the extent to which causing some harm to animals brings great benefit to humans, we are morally justified in creating some moral harm, to achieve a far greater moral good.  [1] Frey, R. G., “Moral Standing: The Value of Life and Speciesism”, in La Follette (ed.), Ethics in Practice, (Malden, Mass; Oxford : Blackwell Pub, 2007)

The opposition's conclusions can be attacked in three ways. First, countries that are less economically developed than wealthy North American and European states are not likely to support rules or laws similar to the 3Rs doctrine or Directive 2010/63/EU. In these countries, low animal welfare standards often mean that animal research is cheaper relative to the cost of non-animal methods such as computer models or cell cultures.  Second, across the world, researchers tend to specialise in certain fields. Animal researchers tend to involve animal work in most of their projects, meaning that they may be less aware of alternative methods that could be used. Essentially, an individual who has spent their entire career as an animal researcher is likely to see all scientific problems in their field of research as solvable through animal experiments.  Finally, toxicology work on new drugs (and sometimes other products) still legally requires animal testing in most countries of the world. The length of time it took to introduce the EU ban on animal testing for cosmetic testing shows the difficulties faced by governments in adopting new methods of regulating animal research.

Firstly the vast majority of drugs released today (around 75%) are so called “me too” drugs that add little, if any genuine innovation to the existing body of pharmaceuticals in production. Rather, they represent only a slight molecular tweak on an existing drug line. Such drugs rarely save lives or even relieve much suffering upon their release, as they are only very slightly better, for only some patients, than the drugs available prior to its release. [1] None the less, the development of only technically novel compounds is used as a justification for research on animals, even when the benefit from such research is marginal at best. Secondly, even if there was a small increase in future human suffering, relative to a future where such a policy was not adopted, it would be worth it due to the saving of so much animal suffering, and the moral impermissibility of inflicting that for our own gains.  All this is notwithstanding the proposition point that much of the research does not necessitate animal testing.  [1] Stanford Medical Magazine. 2005. Me-too drugs: Sometimes They’re Just The Same Old, Same Old.

To look at life simply as a tool for producing greater good reduces it to a numbers game. Humans are all vastly different and to suggest that one can accurately measure the ‘good’ they experience or produce misunderstands the complexity of what it means to be human. Unfortunately simply saying that killing one person to save five produces more good does not deal with the moral issue at hand. If we abducted one person and used their organs to save five dying people we would consider that to be wrong. The principle is that same: kill one to save five.

More ‘good’ is produced by saving five lives than saving one  When any life is removed so too is the future good that life may produce; all of the good that person would have experienced as well as all of the good they could have brought to other people’s lives will no longer occur. It is difficult to say precisely how much good a person may bring. However, it is fair to assume that saving five people brings with it a greater chance of higher levels of ‘good’. Considering the fact that one does not know anything about the people on the tracks one must assume that there will be five times more ‘good’ produced by saving their lives than if the one person is saved.

We do not always choose the most rational course of action. If we do not know anything about who we are in the situation we still know that if the one person is killed then their life has been unfairly ended. If the five people die then we know that this is an accident. Therefore we might still choose to allow the five people to die. This is because we can still decide the right or wrong of the situation and choose not to make the decision based on self interest.

As humans we try to save as many people as possible  There exists a basic right to life which, as humans, we try to follow. Killing others is outlawed because we generally believe that every person has the right to live their life and no one else has the right to take that life away. In the situation with the train there are two possible outcomes which both lead to life being cut short. Due to the fact that we place such value on life we have a duty to reduce the number of people who die. One ought to commit the act that results in the fewest deaths, and this is to kill the one and save the five.

People suffer unfortunate deaths on a daily basis. The fact that people die in accidents does not necessarily mean that their right to life has been violated. Therefore, if one lets the train run its course five people will suffer an unfortunate accident. The real violation of rights in this situation is the action of changing the course of the train. The single person on the track is in no immediate danger. However, by changing the course of the train one is actively participating in the removal of that person’s life. If we believe that a person has the right not to be murdered then pulling the lever is a violation of that right.

Killing one person is the rational choice  The philosopher John Rawls came up with a thought experiment to discover the right way to organize a society. When people talk about how society should be organized they generally take their own situation and interests into account. Rawls asked us to imagine a situation in which we do not know anything at all about our own lives and then try to organize society? Without knowing anything about our wealth, intelligence, personality, race, gender, religion etc., we would create the fairest society. This is because without knowing who we are we have no idea where we will be in society once it has been organized. So, in order to make sure we have the best chance to be treated fairly we create a society in which all people are treated fairly. The same experiment can be applied to the train problem. If we do not know anything about who we are in the experiment we would chose to kill the one person. This is because there is a greater chance of us being one of the five people and so killing the one person gives us the best chance to survive.

Our feelings are clouded by the way the situation is presented and so we cannot use feeling as a way to decide what to do. For example, most people instinctively say that they would pull the lever to save the five people. However, if the case is presented differently and to save the five people you have to push a man onto the track to stop the train then most people will say not to do it. The two situations are morally identical; the only change is the physical act that needs to be done. Therefore it is clear that our feelings can change despite the principle staying the same.

Choosing not to act in the situation is still a choice and does not remove the responsibility in the situation. If someone stands by and watched as another person drowns, even though they could have rescued them, then they are no better than the murderer who participates in a person’s death. The idea that active killing only relates to taking action to cause death is wrong. When one has the ability to prevent death then one is actively involved in the situation whether one chooses to accept it or not.

We cannot make any judgments about whose life is valuable and whose is not  It is impossible to know what any of the people involved in the situation will do with their life. One might be a serial killer while another might be a life-saving doctor. By attempting to use some sort of calculation in the scenario we are presuming that we have more knowledge than we actually do. In reality we are totally ignorant to the right course of action and doing anything in the situation could be a terrible mistake that causes a lot of pain and suffering in the future.

The act of killing is emotionally damaging  To actually be involved in the death of another person is an incredibly traumatic experience. Soldiers coming back from war often suffer from ‘post-traumatic stress disorder’ which suggests that being in a situation in which you have to take another persons life has a long lasting impact on your mental health. This is also true for people who are not directly involved in the act of killing. For instance, the people who worked on developing the atomic bomb described an incredible guilt for what they had created even though they were not involved in the decision to drop the bombs. The same traumatic experiences would likely affect the person responsible for pulling the lever.

We do not want a society in which killing can be acceptable  As soon as we agree that there are situations where killing is acceptable we have reason to fear for our own safety. By accepting killing in certain situations society as a whole becomes more open to the idea. It then becomes hard to draw the line as to where killing is acceptable and where killing is unacceptable. It is much better to outlaw all instances of killing so that we have a general moral standard to follow in all situations.

In the train example there is no one else around and it is only you that can save the five lives. With the charity example there are many other ways in which the lives can be saved; governments can save them or other people can donate money. Therefore the moral duty to act is dramatically reduced.

Utilitarianism is demanding  If we choose to save the five people just because we have the power to do so then we also have to consider all the other lives that are in our power to save. It is in our power to donate all of our excess money to charity to save lives and so we must also do this. Actions like this are worthy of praise but no one would suggest that we have a duty to do them.

We instinctively know killing is wrong  While sometimes our feelings as to what is right and what is wrong are not accurate they are needed when thinking about morality. If a theory is well argued and thought out but goes against our feelings as to what is right and wrong then we will dismiss it. Most people have the feeling that killing is wrong and so to partake in any action that leads to the death of another is also wrong.

The same traumatic affect would also result from not pulling the lever. One must still cope with the fact that one could have saved the five lives. Post traumatic stress disorder can be brought on by experience with horrific death regardless of whether or not the sufferer caused the death.

Killing is worse than letting someone die  People die in accidents and by natural cause all of the time. However, it is much rarer for a person to be actively involved in another person’s death. If one chooses to pull the lever and change the course of the train then one is actively participating in the death of the one person. The other option involves no action; it simply allows a set of events to run their course. There is, therefore, a greater responsibility involved in being actively involved in the death of another.

The specific circumstances of every case need to be taken into account. In this case someone will definitely lose their life and one’s decision is to decide how to minimize the damage done. It is wrong to suggest that this is an act of killing; instead it is an attempt to reduce the number of deaths in a tragic situation. Pulling the lever is not an act that the person would do if the five people were not tied down and so it is very different from an act of intentional murder.

Given that we don’t know anything about these individuals all we have to work with are the numbers. If you take five random people and one random person then there is a greater chance that among the five people there is a life saving doctor. The only time this is not true is if the average person has a negative effect on the world. However, if this is the case we would always have to act in a way that fewest people survived which is absurd.

If there is even a slight injustice, then there is a problem worth addressing. It is a fact that recent anti-terrorism legislation, in nearly all western countries, has been used for a variety of uses from international banking [1] to petty thievery. This is obviously beyond the original intentions of these measures; something that should not be taken lightly.  [1] Wintour, Patrick, and Gillan, Audrey, ‘Lost in Iceland: £1billion from councils, charities and police’, 10 October 2008,  , accessed 9 September 2011

political philosophy house believes civil liberties should be sacrificed

The apparent loss of liberty is overstated.  Negative cases of security abuse are few and have been greatly exaggerated by an emphatic civil rights lobby that has no empathy for the victims of terrorism. Of course, with any wide-scale attempt to fight terrorism there are bound to be a few cases of abuse of security measures. For example in the UK terrorism suspects were originally detained without charge under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act however the detention was declared unlawful by the law lords in 2005 so the government introduced new scaled back policies such as ‘control orders’. [1] Therefore government has always been willing to scale back its security legislation when the courts believe it goes too far. Nonetheless it is not a good idea to shut down all security measures under a pretext that they violate rights [2] . The majority of the measures are intended to safeguard those civil liberties instead of abusing them.  [1] Hewitt, Steve, THE BRITISH WAR ON TERROR TIMELINE, Libertas, 2007,  , accessed 9 September 2011  [2] Stratton, Allegra and Wintour, Patrick, ‘Nick Clegg goes to war with Labour over civil liberties’, guardian.co.uk, 13 April 2010,  , accessed 9 September 2011

The opposition does not except the importance of legalisation like the US Patriot Act, as such legislation is always used for aims it was not originally intended for example when it is being used to investigate media companies dedicated to free speech - Wikileaks [1] . The fact that western countries are already quite liberal should not be an argument for why that has to change. Should we not be moving forwards towards even more freedoms for citizens instead of backwards?  [1] IBTimes Staff Reporter, ‘Wikileaks: U.S. Seeks Assange Info Through Patriot Act’, 24 August 2011,  , accessed 9 September 2009

The argument is about practicality and the balancing of risks.  It would be incredibly disingenuous of the opposition if they did not concede that the dangers are great and that something must be done. Because, deep down, everyone knows that it is simply a balancing of risks – in practice all the government is trying to do is save lives. It is of course, the government’s primary duty to protect citizens but this can only be done with the loss of some civil liberties. These liberties will of course still be completely protected by the courts. When it comes to the issue of life and death, it is the proposition’s hope that a few civil liberties would be only willingly given up by any prudent citizen.

National security is something that must be protected even at the cost of  Terrorism is part of the modern world and is inextricably linked with the rise of modern communications, the internet, and a global community. This is an age in which space and time are bending to the tune of new media – information at your fingertips may sound nice, but for those who want to destroy, it only makes their object easier to attain. And so more strict national security measures must be employed in order to keep up with the enemy. Escalation is the name of the game imposed on governments around the world by terrorists for example the Mumbai terrorists used GPS systems to guide them into Mumbai, attacks were coordinated on cell and satellite phones and Blackberrys were used to monitor the international reaction [1] . In order to keep up states need new powers to stop, deter, and prevent terrorism. The government needs to secure state-security first; only then can the debate on civil liberties begin, and only then.  [1] Shachtman, Noah, ‘How Gadgets Helped Mumbai Attackers’, Wired, 1 December 2008,  , accessed 9 September 2011

Nothing justifies some of the security measures taken by western governments. The ancient western conventions of the accused being innocent until proven guilty and his right to a fair trial have both been undermined [1] by the recent Labour administration in the UK. And all in the name of security. The trade-off has gone too far; liberty is something that must be protected at all costs – it seems that governments the world over have forgotten that the whole point of the state is too protect citizens liberty, not destroy it.  [1] BBC News, ‘A brief history of habeas corpus’, 9 March 2005,  , accessed 9 September 2011

The issue would indeed by easy to solve if what the proposition spoke of was the whole story. Unfortunately, the legal measures put in place will always be open to abuse and so, as all power corrupts – and as absolute power corrupts absolutely – the more and more power we give to the authorities the more and more abuse and corruption we will witness. We have seen what happens with big, powerful governments; this is a historical rule, without exception.

Granted, the measures are implemented with popular support; the opposition cannot argue against this. However, to claim that democracy has some inherent value beyond providing a stable society is naïve. Democracy is, in this example, simply the tyranny of the majority – populist measures like unjust anti-terrorism legislation holds no currency in reasoned debate.

Western countries already benefit from extremely liberal laws.  The USA is at present far better than most countries in their respect and regard for civil liberties. New security measures do not greatly compromise this liberty, and the US measures are at the very least comparable with similar measures already in effect in other democratic developed countries, e.g. Spain and the UK, which have had to cope with domestic terrorism for far longer than the USA. The facts speak for themselves – the USA enjoys a healthy western-liberalism the likes of which most of the world’s people cannot even conceive of. The issue of the erosion of a few minor liberties of (states like the US’s) citizens should be overlooked in favour of the much greater issue of protecting the very existence of that state. [1]  [1] Zetter, Kim, ‘The Patriot Act Is Your Friend’, Wired, 24 February 2004,  , accessed 9 September 2011

It is with the popular support of the public that security measures are taken.  Let us not forget that is with the consent of the public that these security measures are taken, CCTV for example was a populist measure that has often been considered a threat to civil liberties [1] . It is in line with democratic ideals; the majority of the country wants greater security [2] . For example in 2005 59% of Americans wanted the Patriot Act extended. [3] And because democracy embodies all those values we are fighting for – freedom and equality included- we must adhere to a democratic spirit when deciding on how to organise ourselves or else risk falling into the same mind-set as those terrorists themselves.  [1] Norris, Clive, McCahill, Mike and Wood, David, ‘Editorial. The Growth of CCTV: a global perspective on the international diffusion of video surveillance in publically accessible space’, Surveillance &amp; Society, 2(2/4):110-135, 2004,  (2)/editorial.pdf, accessed 9 September 2011  [2] Law Council of Australia, ‘Politics and Populism win out at anti-terror summit’, 30 September 2005,   [3] Langer, Gary, ‘Poll: Support Seen for Patriot Act’, ABCnews, 9 June 2005,  , accessed 9

If the opposition’s argument is correct then there is simply no way to win. The argument is illogical; they would have the terrorists pick us off slowly until we were all victims all because we simply let them. In short, governments have to do something instead of being completely irrational and holding the immature high ground – “letting them win” is a childish argument.

The proposition can point to the clear acts of terrorism of recent years that have proven difficult to combat and fatal to so many thousands. What the opposition is asking is to simply disregard all these facts on principle, and on principle only; this is overly idealistic and naïve to the extent where people’s lives would be put at risk. To question the motives of democratically accountable governments is a separate question; this is about terrorism and how to stop it; it’s about life and death, and how best protect the former and stop (by all means necessary) the latter.

The loss of individual liberty is the start of a slippery slope.  The proposition puts us in a dangerous place. That situation is the thin edge of a totalitarian wedge – we must take a principled stand for liberty and stop the increasing number of anti-terrorist legislation and over powerful policing powers. Many evil events in history started with good intentions and few cases of injustice. Allowing even a few abuses as an acceptable side effect of improved security will change the tolerance level of the public and lead to a belief that rights such as the presumption of innocence and habeas corpus (which prevents the state from imprisoning someone without charging them with a crime and then trying them) are a negotiable luxury. Furthermore, abuses of the system are likely to victimise certain minority groups (e.g. Muslims, Arab-Americans) in the same way that Japanese-Americans and many other groups were persecuted in World War II, [1] something about which Americans are now rightly ashamed.  [1] Hummel, Jeffrey Rogers, ‘Not Just Japanese Americans: The Untold Story of U.S. Repression During 'The Good War'’, The Journal of Historical Review, Fall 1987 (Vol. 7, No. 3),  , accessed 9 September 2011

In the public’s eyes, the government seems to suspect everyone.  Although the anti-terrorist measures are supposed to be trying to catch certain people, it is the whole of the public who have to suffer on a daily basis: an abundance of security cameras, security checks, and anti-privacy measures continually invade innocent people’s lives and yet it is supposed to be the terrorists who are being punished. The issue of justice, and whether it is actually being done, has to be fully looked at properly. These measures are not solving the problem of terrorism as it does not address the core grievances. Instead other ways such as negotiation to address grievances is necessary, as happened in Northern Ireland [1] .  [1] Bowcott, Owen, ‘Northern Ireland’, The Guardian, 11 May 2007,  , accessed 9 September 2011

It impedes economic progress.  Extra-security measures only impede, or halt the flow of trade [1] , make the country harder to deal with - less internationally ‘friendly’, and disrupt communities. Security states almost always have slower growth than freer states because there is extra red tape, transport networks are slowed down, for example airport check ins take much longer. The U.S. Travel Association, says on average, in the United States as a result of the airport security measures each person avoids two to three trips a year because of the hassles of airport-security screening. That amounts to an estimated $85 billion in lost business for hotels, restaurants, airlines and other travel suppliers. [2] And this is even before the losses caused by unproductive hours, and deterred investment. All these things will decrease incomes and GDP growth.  [1] Verrue, Robert, ‘Tighter Security Must Not Slow Down World Trade’, The European institute, Spring 2004,   [2] McCartney, Scott, ‘Aiming to Balance Security and Convenience’, Wall Street Journal, 1 September 2011,  , accessed 9 September 2011

It would be letting the terrorists win  It is the aim of all terrorists to influence by violent means government policy. If we changed how our country was run we would be letting the terrorists win – they would be getting what they wanted. If we changed the way we lived [1] , greater security measures or something else, we would be shaping our society to the tune of the terrorist. So more security measures at airports limit the freedom to travel, turning the country into a surveillance society makes everyone nervous; ultimately the country is no longer the same as it was having lost the freedoms which are the best way to combat terrorism. This is something perversely wrong.  [1] Symanovich, Steve, ‘If you don’t read this, the terrorists win’, Washington Business Journal, 24 December 2001,

This is just like any other investigation. Obviously the government has to take a broad approach because any loophole could be exploited by the unscrupulous terrorist. It is a necessity, albeit one with unfortunate consequences, but a necessity all the same. As for negotiations with terrorists, it is the propositions view that this option does not exist when dealing with terrorists of a fundamentalist background, who are, by definition, not willing to compromise and therefore unable to be negotiated with.

The threat of terrorism and security risks are overstated.  The threat of terrorism is greatly over exaggerated. Western governments all over the world are effectively selling the threat of terrorism to their citizens in order to increase their powers of control. The threat, however, has to be exaggerated in order for the electorate to believe that the security measures are needed. The motives of governments doing this vary; some just want the new security measures to make their jobs easier; others however, see it as an opportunity to increase state control and power over the average citizen. There is not enough evidence to show that terrorism has evolved into something more threatening since than it had been for several decades. For example there was the bombing of Pan Am 103 in 1988 killing 270 people or the 1983 bombing of the US embassy in Beirut which killed 63. [1] While the scale is smaller than the 9/11 attacks they are just as terrible and were met with a much more measured response that did not involve infringing civil liberties. Governments are likely to take advantage of anti-terrorist mania and seize the moment to strengthen their regimes. Modern government bodies fighting terrorism are sophisticated enough to counteract terrorism with little use of 'draconian' measures. It is not acceptable to curb citizen rights because of isolated events.  [1] PBS Frontline, ‘terrorist attacks on americans, 1979-1988’,  , accessed 9 September 2011

Admittedly, extra-security measures do halt economic growth. But then again, so do a lot of things like inertia, or lack of consumer confidence. It is, however, a matter of degree; if the trade-off is between a lessening of economic growth and lives saved, then it is not hard to decide in which direction reason is behind. When lives are saved the economy benefits as those people will remain productive workers. And having lots of security is not all negative, the security business does very well.

If the opposition is citing examples from history then there are just as many examples, if not more, of western governments resisting the corrupting effects of increased power and turning not from good into evil intentions. The fact of the matter is that most of today’s western nations have a relatively good track record. It seems the opposition is once again forgetting the real enemy – the terrorists. In most Western countries we have a fully independent and liberal judiciary, vigorously and vigilantly watching for human rights abuses and protecting civil liberties. For nearly all Western countries, a slippery slope simply does not exist.

There is little or no evidence of bias in universities admissions procedures. Universities admissions departments go to great lengths to ensure fairness, not least because it is in their own self-interest to take only the best applicants, to maintain the intellectual credibility of their institution. Any overt or explicit discrimination would be illegal, and should be guarded against by using a wide range of admissions procedures and interview (where applicable) by more than one academic. Any charge of prejudice would be an argument for ‘colour-blind’ (or school-blind) admissions, in which the background of the applicant is hidden from the admissions officer, so as to prevent any possibility of discrimination, subconscious or otherwise. The presence of positive discrimination would, if anything, raise the incidence of racism and prejudice on university campuses, with lecturers and fellow students resentful of members of the university perceived to have been given a helping hand.

niversity philosophy political philosophy minorities house would use positive

Overcomes prejudice  Affirmative action is required to overcome existing prejudice in universities’ admissions procedures. There is clear prejudice in the job market, as shown in a study by Marianne Bertrand, an associate professor at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, and Sendhil Mullainathan of Massachusetts Institute of Technology. [1] [2] Following this line of thinking, it is therefore not a far-fetched idea that admissions departments in top universities are likely to be discriminating against applicants from minority backgrounds, even if this process is not deliberate. A senior academic will look to see in applicants qualities they see in themselves, so, given the overwhelmingly white, affluent, male makeup of the academic community, minorities are at a disadvantage even if the admissions officer is not intending to discriminate against them. Prejudice towards certain types of applicants is blatantly unfair, and also undermines meritocracy (as explained above). Since we do not expect applicants from minority backgrounds to actually be worse applicants, it makes sense to require universities to take more of them, so as to protect the system from any bias that may exist.  [1] Bertrand, M. “Racial Bias in Hiring”. Spring 2003.   [2] BBC News Magazine. “Is it wrong to note 100m winners are always black?” August 27, 2011.

Positive discrimination will increase negative perceptions of university. Far from changing attitudes about campus life among disadvantaged groups, positive discrimination is likely to be seen as patronising, belittling of the achievements of ethnic minorities and the working class, and serve to reinforce negative stereotypes15. By making the statement that disadvantaged groups are so far behind the rest that they need discrimination in their favour and quotas, universities will alienate themselves from the group they are seeking to help, and will come over as elitist. Survey evidence suggests that affirmative action is usually opposed by the target group, affirming the view that people wish to achieve things for themselves, without being given a ‘leg-up’ by the state. Moreover, positive discrimination devalues the achievements of those who would have been accepted into university even without the assistance, and these people are likely to be deterred from applying.

Equality of opportunity  Affirmative action is required for equality of opportunity. Under the status quo, it is easier for students who go to better schools to get into university. This is reflected in data from the UK - Oxford and Cambridge universities (the top academic institutions) take more than 50% of their students from private schools, despite 93% of UK schoolchildren state educated. [1] In addition, there is a clear underrepresentation of ethnic minorities in these universities. [2] A similar story is evident with regards to ethnic minorities in the USA - white students are more likely to graduate from high school and go to college than black and Hispanic ones. [3] [4] These examples reflect the opportunities granted to wealthier children from particular socioeconomic and racial groups, whose superior education and less disruptive home lives give them a leg-up. It is unfair that such random aspects, which have nothing to do with talent or hard work, have such a determining influence on one’s life chances. Moreover, it undermines meritocracy – by allowing the rich to be advantaged, we create a society in which wealth, rather than ability, is rewarded.  [1] Sagar, P. “The truth about Oxbridge admissions: a reply To Dave Osler”. Liberal Conspiracy. May 21, 2010.   [2] Vasagar, J. “Twenty-one Oxbridge colleges took no black students last year”. The Guardian. December, 2010.   [3] Orfield, Gary, et al., 'Losing Our Future; How Minority Youth Are Being Left Behind by the Graduation Rate Crisis', Urban Institute, 25 February 2004,   [4] Marklein, M.B. “Minority enrollment in college still lagging”. USA TODAY. October, 2006.

Though affirmative action wishes to create an equality of opportunity for the poor and ethnic minorities, it also creates an unfair situation in which talented students lose their places. Ability may ultimately not be rewarded as the whole point of affirmative action is to promote a less able applicant ahead of a more able one, measured by their test scores. It undermines the fairness of the system if reasonable objective measures of a person’s ability, such as exam performance and aptitude testing, are overlooked. Under a system of positive discrimination, able students from the majority group or who went to private school are required to achieve more than others to get the same reward. Furthermore, positive discrimination is bad for the talented students from the target group who would get into university even without affirmative action: the policy will undermine their achievement, making their peers (and even them) believe that they only got to where they were because of different standards. It would create a two-tiered university system, in which the achievements of one group were elevated above the achievements of another.

Quotas create stigmas and enforce negative stereotypes about ethnic minorities. It means that students from these groups are incapable of entering universities on their own. And during their time at university, the students may face the stigma of being known as a “quota student”. This may cause students to feel inferior and lose self-confidence, and this may ultimately affect their academic performance. In addition, quotas do not solve the root cause of the problem. The best way to help the poor and ethnic minorities is through investments in public schools and basic services so that at the end of the day, admission tests are a true reflection of academic ability and not as a result of economy and geography. [1]  [1] Stahlberg, S.G. “Racial Inequality and Affirmative Action in Education in Brazil”. August 2010,

Changes negative perceptions of university life  Affirmative action is required to change negative perceptions of university life. In the status quo, many talented potential students are put off applying for top universities (or university at all) because of their negative perceptions of elite institutions. This perception exists in part because of the makeup of the student population – black high school students may see a university filled overwhelmingly with white lecturers and students as not being a welcoming environment for them, and may even perceive it as racist. [1] The only way to overcome this unfortunate stereotype of university is to change the student population, but this is impossible to do ‘organically’ while so few people from minority backgrounds apply. Therefore, it is necessary to use quotas and other forms of affirmative action, to change the student body in the short term, and encourage applications from more disadvantaged students in the long term.  [1] Ancis, J.R. “Student perceptions of campus cultural climate by race”. Journal of Counselling and Development. Spring 2000.

Increase the number of Minorities  College admission processes are impersonal and favourably biased towards white, affluent students – therefore, quotas specifically for minority students need to be established. College admissions processes are as such because they heavily rely on standard tests or college admission exams. This has caused countries such as Brazil to create quotas for brown (mixed) and black students in most universities. [1] These students cannot afford the better education enjoyed by their rich, white counterparts, and therefore do not perform well in college exams and do not gain admission into university. Quotas are needed to make the admission process a little bit fairer and increase the number of minorities in university campuses.  [1] Stahlberg, S.G. “Racial Inequality and Affirmative Action in Education in Brazil”. August 2010,

Affirmative action has never sort to be the cure for underlying social problems. The goal of positive discrimination is to level out the playing field for admission procedures; and create opportunities for disadvantaged groups. In a society in which sweeping societal reforms that benefit minorities are not forthcoming, affirmative action may be regarded as an immediate solution which counteracts the continual injustice faced by certain groups.

By having more students from disadvantaged backgrounds get into university and ultimately have access to top professions, and more likely to enter politics, law, or become the heads of major corporations, affirmative action will generate more role models for the poor and ethnic minorities. As a consequence, the aspirations of disadvantaged youths will change – it will become more realistic for them to see themselves in public life, and will thus have a better incentive to work hard at school. Not only is this good for their own development, but it will also help wider society by tackling social problems such as petty crime and truancy.

Affirmative action can create social tensions  Under the policy of affirmative action, there is a real danger that social tensions become inflamed. This is because in the process of benefiting minority groups it helps to disenfranchise the majority. For example in the 2001 riots in Oldham and other cities of Northern England one of the main complaints from poor white areas was alleged discrimination in council funding. [1] There was a possibility that the more privileged from minority groups such as upper-class blacks will be favoured at the expense of the marginalised within majority groups such as lower-class whites. Therefore, rather correct racial bias, affirmative action may inevitably deepen it.  [1] Amin, A., 2002. ‘Ethnicity and the multicultural city: living with diversity.’ Environment and Planning, 34, pp.959-980, p.963

Affirmative action will not work  The underlying issue which affirmative action tries to gloss over is the embedded social problems which put the poor and ethnic monitories in continual disadvantages generation after generation. This policy merely papers over the cracks by masking the fact that the failures of state-funded schooling and attempts at integration have led to a situation in which ethnic minorities and the poor are so vastly underrepresented in universities. The state should do more to address these underlying problems, rather than covering up its failures with a tokenistic policy. Better funding of state schools, real parental choice in education, and accountability through the publication of comparable examination data would all drive up standards and allow more underprivileged children to fulfil their potential. [1] [2]  [1] Gryphon, M. “The Affirmative Action Myth”. Cato Institute Policy Analysis. No 540. April 13, 2005.   [2] Rosado, C. “Affirmative Action: A Time for Change?” March 3, 1997.

Achievements should be earned not given  There is a great possibility that beneficiaries of positive discrimination may not be regarded as good role models as their achievements may be viewed as unearned. [1] A role model is someone others can look up to and admire for the things they achieved through hard work and talent – by parachuting people into university, their ability to act as a role model is undermined. It is also patronising to assume that young people from ethnic minorities can only look up to people who have the same colour skin, or went to the same type of school – in a society that admires diversity and cosmopolitanism, we should surely accept that anyone can act as a role model.  [1] The British Psychological Society. “The Hillary Clinton effect - how role models work for some people but not others”.

Social tension, especial in poor areas and minority groups, does not come as a result of unfair affirmative action policies, but as a result of inadequate funds available to the communities which result in individuals struggling for limited resources. Affirmative Action creates an opportunity whereby more politicians and businesspeople rise up from humble backgrounds are given the chance to change the political and economic structure of society. By “giving back” to their community, they will be able to assist the less well-off, for example by expanding welfare systems and ensuring greater equality of opportunities, or through different hiring practices.

Neo-functionalism believes in building a community Europe, but then the question is raised, what is the purpose of this new entity? There is no common outlook and getting the major powers of Europe to agree what this should be will be near impossible. Intergovernmentalists would also argue that economic determinism regarding integration is wrong. As they believe national governments have to consciously make these decisions and will not be economically driven alone, ‘Extensive cooperation is not at all ruled out: on the contrary, such cooperation will benefit all participants as long as it corresponds to and enhances mutual interests’. It will always be politics that drive integration, while the motive may be economic – to solve a crisis or even just to profit – the key decisions by all actors will be political. [1]  [1] Martell, Luke, ‘Globalisation and Economic Determinism’, Paper given at Global Studies Association conference, Challenging Globalization, September 2009, www.sussex.ac.uk/Users/ssfa2/globecdet.pdf , p.4

nomic policy economy general international europe philosophy political

Neo-functionalism proposes a purpose to EU integration.  Neo-functionalism proposed building a community Europe, through the concept of spillover the theory proposes economic determinism. Spill-over will eventually lead to a completely integrated Europe with a strong central government. This has not yet been proved true, as EU integration has become a long and difficult process. This is understandable since it is not exactly easy to integrate together all those policies, economies and people. However this would most probably be the eventual result, which is already visible: The experience of the European Union (EU) is widely perceived as not just an example, but the model for regional integration. In recent years, the EU has also been pursuing an increasing number of trade agreements which may in turn lead to spillover. [1] Furthermore the recent enlargements of the EU in Eastern Europe, as well as the ongoing negotiations with Croatia and Turkey have renewed the academic and political interest in the effects of European Economic integration. [2]  One of the theory’s strengths is to predict the outcome of integration and an eventual conclusion to the process, allowing for political and economic aims to be made and realised. For example ‘Larger companies have been acting on the assumption that the internal market will eventually be established’. [3]  [1] Bilal, Sanoussi, ‘Can the EU Be a Model of Regional Integration?’, Paper to be presented at the CODESRIA - Globalisation Studies Network (GSN), 29-31 August 2005,   [2] Lafourcade, Miren, and Paluzie, Elisenda, ‘European Integration, FDI and the Internal Geography of Trade: Evidence from Western-European Border Regions’, 23 December 2004, www.cepr.org/RESEARCH/Networks/TID/Paluzie.pdf  [3] Tranholm-Mikkelsen, Jeppe, ‘Neo-functionalism: Obstinate or Obsolete? A Reappraisal in the Light of the New Dynamism of the EC’, Millennium - Journal of International Studies, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp.1-22,

Intergovernmentalism assumes states to be the core actors, this is difficult to deny as most economic boundaries and policies are administered by the nation state. It believes that the logic of diversity will prevail in areas of high politics (e.g. security), however it does accept the logic of integration in low politics, that when interests coincide integration is possible (when there is consensus among elites, similar external situations and domestic politics situations). Intergovernmentalism does not allow for the idealist aim of transforming the regional system to a ‘better’ order as what qualifies as ‘better’? The logic of diversity denies the possibility of states agreeing on what is ‘better’.

Supranational Entrepreneurs played a crucial role in integration  The role of supranational entrepreneurs within the development of integration within Europe has been crucial. Characters such as Jean Monnet envisaged and worked continuously towards uniting Europe. As the head of France's General Planning Commission, Monnet was the real author of what has become known as the 1950 Schuman Plan to create the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), forerunner of the Common Market. Later a similar role was played by Jacques Delors with the creation of the Single European Act (SEA) and the all-important 1992 project that would see the single market and eventually fully Economic and Monetary Union complete. These characters act in support of integration within Europe and represent an empirical example of cultivated spill-over. Unmitigated pressure from Delors in pushing for the single market ensured that it became a reality in the time it did.

Neo-functionalism explains the cause of integration  Spill-over is the following concept – in order to enjoy the full benefits of integration of the first sector you need to integrate the related sectors. An example of this is the ECSC (European Coal and Steel Community) evolving into other energy sectors and forming Euratom. There are three types of spill-over – functional spill-over, political spill-over and cultivated spill-over. Firstly, functional spill-over, which regards spill-over in an economic context. For example, this might involve integrating coal and steel, then integrating transport systems so that coal and steel are moved around more easily. Secondly, there is Political spill-over, where political actors shift their allegiance to a new centre, for example from the national parliament to Brussels. Thirdly, there is cultivated spill-over, which is the idea that institutions drive further integration by being in practice; for example the European Commission’s growing autonomy. [1]  [1] Tranholm-Mikkelsen, Jeppe "Neo-functionalism: Obstinate or Obsolete? A Reappraisal in the Light of the New Dynamism of the EC Millennium - Journal of International Studies, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp.1-22,

The counter theory to spill-over is the logic of diversity. Neo-functionalism is flawed as it assumes that integration in low politics (economic) will lead to integration in areas of high politics. This is not possible as issues of high politics are integral to the national interest; so integration will only be possible when national interests coincide, which is possible but unlikely. Neo-functionalism believes areas of high politics can be cultivated into integration, whereas intergovernmentalism believes that the fate of the nation-state should never be subject to the decisions of others.

The role of elites acting in their national interest better explains the logic behind integration. Key players such as Charles De Gaulle and his untiring opposition to British membership and Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) in the Council of Ministers and his success in gaining what he set out to achieve through the Luxembourg compromise demonstrates that the true power actually lay with him and the state. Another example to contradicting the role Delors played was that of Margaret Thatcher. Her relentless demand for a British rebate (1979) and general demeanour in the European Council demonstrated a powerful state elite getting her way. The single market came about because Thatcher wanted it more than most and was thus willing to compromise on certain areas of the Single European Act (i.e. on QMV in the Council of Ministers). [1] It is because of this that the role of individual elites is far superior to that of supranational entrepreneurs.  [1] Dinan, Desmond, ‘The Single European Act’, European Union Centre of Excellence,

Neo-functionalism is too simple, it does not account for external forces well, as some states have better defined their international position more towards US hegemony than towards each other. “Whereas in economic issues (soft power) the EU has been able to respond to the US in trade disputes, in political and security affairs (hard power) the panorama is mostly discouraging“. [1] Intergovernmentalism rejects economic determinism and therefore rejects Neo-functionalism’s ability to predict. Neo-functionalism may provide a starting point for analysis but it requires much more to be able to explain other pressures of integration.  [1] Dominguez-Rivera, Roberto, ‘Dealing with the U.S. hegemony: soft and hard power in the external relations of the EU’, 8th International Conference of the European Union Studies Association, 27 March 2003,

Neo-functionalism - liberal theory of regional integration  Neo-functionalism is an example of a liberal theory of regional integration. Its focus is on human welfare needs, not political conflict and law. Its focus is on individuals aggregated into interest groups as the main actors in integration, so the focus is on low politics and the areas which become integrated in the European Union reflect that. As such there has been much more progress on economic integration than there has on creating a common foreign and security policy. [1]  It also accepts the independent role of international organisations and that the transformation of the international regional system towards a better order is feasible so making the European Union a project worth investing effort in.  [1] Center for European studies, ‘European Union –Common Foreign and Security Policy’, unc.edu,

Neo-functionalism provides a good starting point for EU analysis.  Neo-functionalism is an accessible theory which provides a good starting point for analysis. As a theory it has the advantages of being able to predict the outcome of integration and clearly explains which actors must be studied in order to explain integration. Haas and Lindberg’s “main thesis was that sectorial integration was inherently expansive - integration of some functional tasks would tend to spill over into  integration of other tasks(…) In the basis of this analysis, Haas argued that an acceleration of the  integration process could be 'safely predicted' and that it might lead to a 'political community of Europe' within a decade”. [1]  [1] Tranholm-Mikkelsen, Jeppe "Neo-functionalism: Obstinate or Obsolete? A Reappraisal in the Light of the New Dynamism of the EC Millennium - Journal of International Studies, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp.1-22,

The Empty Chair Crisis of 1965 may lead some to presume that National governments are all powerful, but it may have just been a ‘speed-bump’ on the road of spillover. Ben Rosamond (2005) [1] did a reassessment of Haas and concluded that he never abandoned Neofunctionalism; he just changed it and accepted more the view of ‘Complex Interdependence’. The revival of integration since 1985 including the Treaty of Maastricht 1991 led to co-decision procedures which are an example of Political spillover as political decisions and procedure moved to the supranational level.  [1] Rosamond, Ben, 'The Uniting of Europe and the Foundations of EU Studies: Revisiting the Neofunctionalism of Enrst B. Haas', Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 12, No. 2, 2005, pp. 237-254,

Ernst B. Haas was the founder of Neo-functionalism in 1951, Jeppe Tranholm-Mikkelsen identified the 3 types of spill-over within the theory. However neither author placed a time limit on how long the integration process would take. The revival of European integration in 1985 shows it may be many years between instances when Neo-functionalism is an adequate theory for explaining integration. This may be equally coming true in the financial crisis as the Euro is necessitating further reforms and may well lead to much greater integration in order to have the tools prevent members being forced out. The political spill-over concept makes account for the fact that national elites 'will undergo a learning process, developing the perception that their interests will be better served by seeking supranational than national solutions'. [1]  [1] Tranholm-Mikkelsen, Jeppe, ‘Neo-functionalism: Obstinate or Obsolete? A Reappraisal in the Light of the New Dynamism of the EC’, Millennium - Journal of International Studies, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp.1-22,

The Founder of Neo-functionalism abandoned his own Theory (Haas).  The Founder of Neo-functionalist theory Ernst B. Haas later abandoned his own theory; According to Tranholm-Mikkelsen (1991)- “By the mid-1970 s, Ernst Haas had effectively abandoned the neo-functionalist theory by assimilating it within general interdependence theories of international relations”. [1] The theory proved a success in the economic realm but a fiasco in high politics; “…at the time of the ‘empty chair’ crisis [see next point] neo-functionalism was considered too incapable of describing the process of integration in general because of its extreme Eurocentric nature. Rosamond states that it is emerged from the process of complex web of actors pursuing their interests within a pluralist political environment.” [2] Neo-functionalism remained a partial theory, good at explaining particular parts of integration but required supplanting by other theories to keep it relevant.  [1] Tranholm-Mikkelsen, Jeppe, ‘Neo-functionalism: Obstinate or Obsolete? A Reappraisal in the Light of the New Dynamism of the EC’, Millennium - Journal of International Studies, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp.1-22,   [2] ‘European Political Theories: Neo – functionalism’, May 2011,

The international system is characterised by anarchy and the distribution of economic and military capabilities  Stanley Hoffman used a Neo-Realist view of International relations to build the theory of intergovernmentalism. In a neo-realist understanding the international system is characterised by anarchy and the distribution of economic and military capabilities is of primary importance. States will not trust each other but can still reach agreement, but the agreement will be characterised by bargaining and negotiation (not an automatic process!) ‘Nations prefer the certainty, or the self-controlled uncertainty, of national self-reliance, to the uncontrolled uncertainty of the untested blender’. [1]  [1] Wikipedia, ‘Intergovernmentalism’, en.wikipedia.org,

The Empty Chair Crisis 1965  In 1965 during the Empty Chair Crisis brought integration came to a halt and shifted the institutional balance of power away from the commission to the Council of Ministers, it shows that spillover will not always occur. [1] It was caused by President de Gaulle of France being in conflict with other member states, specifically Germany and Italy. France wanted a deal on the Common Agricultural Policy but was unwilling to agree to further integration through creating majority voting in the Council of Ministers. When France took on the Presidency the normal system of mediation was lost. Bonn and Rome were unwilling to give way. [2] De Gaulle pulled his ministers out of the Council of Ministers thus reasserting the power of national governments. This showed that states would not automatically be prepared to give up their national sovereignty and might of helped lead to the abandonment of Neo-functionalism in the 1970s.  [1] Moga, Teodor Lucian, ‘The Contribution of the Neofunctionalist and Intergovernmentalist Theories to the Evolution of the European Integration Process’, Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences, Vol. 1, No. 3, 2009 pp.796-807,  , p.799  [2] Ludlow, N. Piers, ‘De-commissioning the Empty Chair Crisis : the Community institutions and the crisis of 1965-6’, LSE Research Online, 2007,

The assumption of the automaticity of Spill-over is wrong.  The core of Neo-functionalism that spill-over being the main driving force behind continuing integration assumed the automaticity of integration. Once integration has started it will be a self-continuing force that will eventually integrate the whole of Europe - is clearly wrong. Supranational functionalism 'assumed first, that national sovereignty, already devalued by events, could be chewed up leaf by leaf like an artichoke'. [1] The functional method of spill-over is very limited, its success in the relatively painless area in which it works relatively well lifts the participants to the level of issues to which it does not apply well any more. For example no common defence or foreign policy within the community project has been successful. This failure in high politics is fundamental, without a coordinated foreign and security policy the role of the EU in the world is open to question. Opposition too much further enlargement reduces the role the EU can play outside the union unless a common foreign policy can be agreed. [2]  [1] Hoffmann, S. ‘Obstinate or obsolete? The fate of the nation-state and the case of Western Europe.’, Daedalus, Vol. 95, No. 3, 1966, pp. 862-915, p882  [2] Pabst, Adrian, ‘The EU as a Security/Defence Community?’, Luxembourg Institute for European and International Studies, 2/3 July 2004,

Neo-functionalism has a liberal view of the international system; whereby agreements can be easily reached.  Actually the European Union has proven the exact opposite of the statement – “Nations prefer the certainty, or the self-controlled uncertainty, of national self-reliance, to the uncontrolled uncertainty of the untested blender” as they give more and more power to the united institutions of the European Union – the European Commission and the European Parliament. The most recent treaty, the Lisbon treaty, proves this as it gives more rights to the EU on account of national power Lisbon’ gives the European Parliament a much greater say in the EU’s decision-making process, it reduced national vetos, created a president and a representative for foreign affairs. [1]  [1] Europa, ‘Treaty of Lisbon: The Treaty at a glance’, Europa.eu,

Intergovernmentalism too has proved 'out of date'. It fails to pay enough attention to supranational institutions; its focus is too exclusively on big treaty negotiations and fails to understand to increasing importance of economic issues. Intergovernmentalism as a theory collapses in the view of actual integration taking place: the revival of integration from mid-1980s onwards. In the 1990s Intergovernmentalism was supplanted by 'Liberal Intergovernmentalism' from the scholar Andrew Moravcsik in his work 'Preferences and Power in the European Community: A liberal Intergovernmentalist Approach' (1993). [1]  [1] Moravcsik, Andrew, ‘Preferences and Power in the European Community: A Liberal Intergovernmentalist Approach’, Journal of Common Market Studies (30th Anniversary Edition) (December 1993).

There are procedural ways of mitigating this concern that are less severe than eliminating the jury altogether. Possible ways of dealing with jury intimidation/tampering include 1) having retrials in cases where jury tampering occurred, 2) attempting to increase the degree of juror anonymity, for example by seating jurors where they cannot be seen, and 3) by having higher penalties for jury tampering and intimidation. The second way is probably the most effective, and American courts have found that in cases where jury tampering poses a serious threat, it does not interfere with the defendant's right to a fair trial.1 1Laura K. Donohue, "Terrorism and Trial by Jury: The Vices and Virtues of British and American Criminal Law"

eral philosophy political philosophy house would limit right trial jury some

It may be necessary to limit trial by jury in cases where there is a real danger of jury tampering or intimidation.  It is very difficult to carry out trial by jury if people involved in the case continuously attempt to tamper with the jury, or unduly influence its decision. For example, the UK home office has stated that trying to protect jurors from tampering can be extremely disruptive to the jurors themselves, who may in extreme cases need police protection 24 hours a day. Cases involving international terrorism, drug smuggling or organized crime are the most likely to present such problems 1. In the infamous trial of Italian anarchists Vanzetti and Sacco, one of the jurors had a bomb thrown at his house, despite a huge number of security measures taken by the Massachusetts government 2. Another example is the 2008 case of a large armed robbery at Heathrow. After three mistrials, which cost £22m and the last of which collapsed after a serious attempt at jury tampering, it was decided that the case would be tried by a judge alone 3. If eliminating the jury is the only way to ensure that a) a trial occurs and b) jurors are safe, particularly when it is the defendants' fault that a fair trial by jury is untenable, it may be necessary to do so.

Not only is trial by jury a very important check on the justice system, but evidence also suggests that juries are fair and effective. First of all, as explained in the Opparguments, trial by jury is an extremely important check in the criminal justice system. Eliminating it would be a grave threat to justice. But second, to address the more practical concerns raised by the Proposition, studies actually suggest that juries are fair and effective. Recent UK Ministry of Justice research found that juries tend to be objective and non-biased, and that cases based on the strongest evidence are also those cases resulting in the highest conviction rates.1  1Cheryl Thomas, "Are Juries Fair?"

It may be necessary to limit trial by jury in cases where it is impossible to recruit an impartial jury.  Especially in cases of nationalist conflict or terrorist attacks, it may be extremely difficult to have a non-biased jury. In Northern Island, for example, jurors may sympathize with violent offenders and acquit them despite a preponderance of evidence. Similarly, it can be a struggle to appoint non-biased juries for terrorism trials post 9/11. In 2003, the "Lackwana Six" were accused of aiding a foreign terrorist organization. The magistrate noted that "Understandably, the infamous, dastardly and tragic deeds and events of September 11, 2001 have caused a maelstrom of human emotions to ... create a human reservoir of strong emotional feelings such as fear, anxiety and hatred as well as a feeling of paranoia... These are strong emotions of a negative nature which, if not appropriately checked, cause the ability of one to properly reason to ... be blinded." Questions about jury impartiality have been raised in multiple similar cases, even leading some defendants to claim that they pled guilty out of resignation that the jury would inevitably be biased and refuse to acquit.1 The implication is that in some trials, juries may be unable to make impartial decisions, thus making the trial unfair. The only way for justice to be done, in such cases, is to allow a judge to decide the verdict.  1Laura K. Donohue, "Terrorism and Trial by Jury: The Vices and Virtues of British and American Criminal Law"

It may be necessary to limit trial by jury in terrorism cases, or other cases surrounding large national security issues.  There are three reasons why this is the case. First, terrorist groups may threaten jury members (see Argument 2 for more detail). Second, terrorism may politicize the jury (see Argument 3 for more detail). Third, the state may be limited in what information it can provide if jurors are present. The government may be unable or unwilling to present classified information for fear of intelligence leaks; for example if it does not want to reveal intelligence methods and sources to the public. This reluctance may make it very difficult to prosecute terrorists. The implication is that the unique national security issues terrorism trials pose may make juries untenable if we ever want to convict terrorists of serious crimes.1 1Laura K. Donohue, "Terrorism and Trial by Jury: The Vices and Virtues of British and American Criminal Law"

First, eliminating trial by jury may make other countries less willing to cooperate with us, reducing the amount of information we have about international terrorism. For example, the United States’ decision to eliminate juries from terrorism trials resulted in other countries being more reluctant to cooperate (e.g. Germany delayed the extradition of two suspected terrorists because of that decision). Second, eliminating trial by jury gives the democratic countries less of a moral high ground in advocating that other countries – often countries from which terrorists come – adopt liberal democratic structures (something which already established liberal democracies generally regard as being in their self interest). Third, refusing to grant trial by jury to suspected terrorists may make other countries less willing to grant our own citizens fair trials when they are abroad.

First, there are checks in place to help prevent biased decisions and second, the less objective nature of juries is not necessarily bad. First, in most jury systems, a judge can overturn a guilty verdict if s/he believes that the jury made a faulty decision1. Judges can also order retrials in cases of guilty verdicts, if they believe there were procedural errors. Furthermore, in most countries there is a phase of the jury selection process in which both the prosecution and defence can object to a juror; in many countries each side gets a specific number of these unconditional 'peremptory challenges.' That allows blatantly biased jurors to be excluded. Perhaps most importantly, at least with juries there are multiple people making the decision, as opposed to a sole judge: there is no reason to assume that a lone judge will be less biased, just because of his 'professional training.' But second, having a subjective body making the decision is not necessarily bad. We obviously don't want people to be swayed by unchecked prejudices, but one of the points of having a jury is that it allows all parts of the community to participate in the judicial process and provide input that disconnected and often homogenous government officials cannot. For example, the Diplock courts established in 1970s Northern Ireland eliminated juries, and along with them, jury bias. This resulted in higher conviction rates for violent offenders, but also had the negative effect of excluding the Catholic minority from the administration of justice (and judge bias remained, as evidence by the failure of the courts to eliminate the gap between Catholic and Protestant conviction rates).2  1Andrew D. Stine, P.A. "Can a Judge Overturn a Jury Vedict?"  2Laura K. Donohue, "Terrorism and Trial by Jury: The Vices and Virtues of British and American Criminal Law"

Trial by jury is too important to sacrifice it for the sake of efficiency. As explained in the Opposition case, trial by jury is one of the cornerstones of just democratic courts. There are other ways to free up resources: perhaps if we put fewer people in prison we could spend more time and money ensuring that the right people got there. As Judge McQuillan wrote, "dedication, hard work, planning and resources are the means for dealing effectively and rationally with calendar delays."1  1Robert P. Connolly, "The Petty Offence Exception and Right to a Jury Trial"

Judges are better at delivering justice than juries are.  Juries are not technically trained in evaluating evidence.1 Additionally, judges are trained to recognize and suppress their own prejudices, evaluate information given to them, recognize prosecutorial strategy etc., better allowing them to make objective decisions. Furthermore, some studies suggest that juries actually work against the innocent; a 1979 study found that "more than 5 per cent of defendants found guilty by juries were considered by professionals to have been convicted in questionable circumstances."2This is hardly surprising given that jurors are ordinary citizens who are forced to sit through what are often dull and protracted trials, and who may have little interest in actually listening to what is being said (Joanne Frail, a juror convicted for contempt of court stated that she 'drew more than she wrote [during the trial]').3 Perhaps we should trust in the expertise of screened and trained justices instead.  1Sir Louis Blum Cooper QC, "A Judge Can Do the Work of 12 Amateurs, and Better  2Baldwin and McConville, "Jury Trials"  3BBC, "Juror Admits Contempt of Court Over Facebook Case"

Having trial by jury for people accused of very small offences is a waste of resources.  Juries are very expensive and time consuming, and courts may not be capable of using them for all trials. Indeed, in both the UK and the United States, minor or petty offences can be tried without jury (such offenses are defined differently in different places; in the US petty offences are those carrying less than 6 months prison time or a fine of $5000)1. That is because in densely populated areas, the courts are simply not capable of handling all trials with juries 2. But even beyond the limitations already in place, there may be more small-scale trials which could function without juries, and free up resources. According to British government crime advisor Louise Casey, if all of the either-or cases (cases dealing with minor offences which can be tried in either a crown or a magistrates court) were shifted entirely to the latter, Britain would save £30m in the costs of setting up juries. Such money could be used to help out victims of serious crimes, or otherwise improve the justice system 3. For example, if more time and money were freed up in the United States, the courts might not need to pressure so many defendants into plea bargaining, or pleading guilty without a trial in exchange for less harsh sentencing or the dropping of other charges (in 1996, about two thirds of American criminal case dispositions involved guilty pleas) 4. That would allow more trials to take place, and more justice to be done.  1.  )  2.Robert P. Connolly, "The Petty Offence Exception and Right to a Jury Trial"  3.Peter Wozniak, "Trial by Jury Faces the Axe for Petty Crimes"

First, juries are not necessarily fairer or more just than judges, and second, even if trial by jury is an important right, that does not make it an unlimited one. First, there are reasons to believe that juries are less suited than judges to make criminal convictions. See Prop Argument 5 for more detail. But second, even if we do not want to eliminate trial by jury, there are still particular circumstances where it makes most sense to defer to such judges' authority, as we explained in the Prop case. There are already plenty of checks to protect the innocent: for example most systems have right to appeal clauses, safeguards against double jeopardy, presumption of innocence etc. While juries may generally present an added benefit, we believe there are circumstances where having a jury presents too many concerns for it to be a viable option.

Trial by jury is not necessary to uphold principles of justice. As stated in response to Opp Argument 1, there are plenty of other checks in favour of the defence. We do not agree that removing trial by jury erodes at this principle: trial by jury may be important, but a judge can still presume innocence, treat evidence fairly etc. If juries are not necessary to uphold the principle of innocent until proven guilty, then removing them in specific circumstances should not undermine the integrity and justness of the court. Again, we often do not have trial by jury in the case of petty offences, suggesting that this right is not regarded as absolute.

Through jury nullification, juries make the law more accountable to the people.  Although juries are not technically supposed to nullify the law, or choose to acquit even if the evidence suggests that the defendant is guilty, they sometimes do. This usually happens when the jury believes the law is unjust: for example when the punishment is disproportionate to the crime1 (for example some activists encourage juries to nullify in cases of non-violent drug crimes). We believe this is good because it allows the public to check the government in a way for which rare elections and complex legislative processes do not allow. Only consider how many 'democratic' countries have upheld policies of segregation or discrimination, and it becomes clear that 'free and fair' elections can lead to outcomes that are anything but. Thus jury nullification can a) protect individuals from blatantly unjust laws, and b) provide impetus to actual legislative change. For example, some scholars believe that it was in part the frequent acquittal by juries of defendants who were probably guilty, but who would have received the death penalty if found to be so, that led to the US Supreme Court declaring mandatory capital punishment schemes unconstitutional.2 This community input is valuable in all circumstances, and there is no reason why it should be limited to certain cases.  1Doug Linder, "What Is Jury Nullification?  2Andrew Leipold, "Rethinking Jury Nullification

Limiting trial by jury in some cases sets the stage for limiting it in other, unjustified, cases.  Humans are fallible, and so sometimes it is better to have absolute rules against certain actions, even if we recognize that in a perfect world, it might be better to allow such actions in very specific circumstances.1 It is for this reason, for example, that we never allow evidence obtained by illegal measures to be presented in court, even though such evidence would sometimes make it possible to convict. Similarly, even if removing trial by jury might be good in individual circumstances, it is too great a power to give to a fallible government which may misuse that authority. If there is a precedent of the right to trial by jury being removed in some circumstances, even if that removal is justified, it becomes much easier for corrupt governments to remove it for unjustified reasons, and it becomes correspondingly more difficult for us to condemn that decision as illegitimate.  1Brad Hooker, "Rule Consequentialism"

Trial by jury is a fundamental right and should never be abridged.  Trial by jury is an essential check on abuse in the court system for three main reasons. First, it prevents governmental oppression by ensuring that non-state actors determine guilt 1. It is dangerous to allow the government—the same body which makes and enforces the laws—to also decide who is guilty of breaking the laws. Second, it checks against corrupt judges and prosecutors2. Judges are only human, and are susceptible to the same weaknesses, like prejudice and corruption, as the rest of us. Consequently, it is very dangerous to put the future of defendants in their hands. A representative group of jurors, approved by both sides, is far less likely to reach an unjust decision, since they are generally required to reach unanimous decisions to convict, and it is unlikely that an entire jury will be made up of biased, corrupt, or negligent people. Third, trial by jury allows for community input in the justice system (see Opp Argument 4 and response to Prop Argument 3 for more explanation). Thus trial by jury is essential to ensuring that innocent individuals are fairly treated, and is a fundamental right which ought never be denied. As Chairman of the Criminal Bar Association Paul Mendelle QC said, "Some principles of justice are beyond price. Trial by your peers is one of them."3  1.Robert P. Connolly, "The Petty Offence Exception and Right to a Jury Trial"  2.Robert P. Connolly, "The Petty Offence Exception and Right to a Jury Trial"  3.Clive Coleman, “Debating non-jury criminal trial”

Protections offered in a court must be absolute in order for the court to be just.  A just adversarial court system is premised on absolutes: that the defence has certain absolute rights which check it against government corruption, and which ensure fair trials even at the expense of conviction. Indeed, it is for this reason that we say it is better to let ten guilty men go free than to punish one innocent man. The protections in place that ensure fair trials must always be upheld, or else the guarantee of fairness no longer exists. If the government can sometimes remove this right, even in clearly delineated circumstances, then the right is no longer absolute, and the presumption in favour of the defence is far weaker, undermining the justness of the entire system.

If the situations in which trial by jury can be limited are clearly delineated, governments cannot justify limiting it in unjustified circumstances. Saying that the government can sometimes limit trial by jury is not equivalent to giving it a pass to do so whenever it chooses. Obviously there would need to be clear criteria as to when the government could use its power to remove a jury: factors such as the level of security threat posed by the trial, the magnitude of the crime, the imminence of danger etc. would all need to be considered. Perhaps there could be an extra-governmental body to approve such decisions. It is a slippery slope fallacy to argue that allowing the removal of trial by jury in some cases will lead to the erosion of that right in general. Indeed, many countries already do limit the right to serious, as opposed to petty crimes, and the Opp has not presented any evidence that doing so has had negative results.

Jury nullification is a bad thing, and just another reason why trial by jury is not always the best way to deliver justice. When juries nullify, they bypass the electoral process, invalidating laws that society has already approved by democratic elections. This is unjust, because it means that a small, random group of individuals can ignore laws which have been approved by the majority of society. Even if a juror believes a law to be unjust, it is integral that he enforce that law, because that law represents the will of a constitutionally checked majority, as well as trained and educated legislators. If a law is truly unjust, there are better avenues to change it: voting in new legislators, legally protesting, appealing the law in court etc. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that jury nullification will be used to protect rights; indeed racist juries frequently acquitted KKK members in the 1950s and 60s.1 The fact that there is no way to prevent jury nullification without forcing juries to justify their decisions (which would violate the principle that juries must be allowed to deliberate secretly) is just another reason why juries may not be the best way to deliver justice. 1Hiroshi Fukurai and Richard Krooth, "Race in the Jury Box"

Terrorism, in the long term, has far less chances of success than other, peaceful means. It antagonises and angers the community that it targets. It polarises opinion and makes it more difficult for moderates on both sides to prevail and compromise. A lasting and peaceful settlement can only be won with the freely given consent of both parties to a conflict or disagreement. The examples given in this argument are of countries and areas that still counter much instability, and in countries such as Israel and Palestine a sustainable peaceful solution still seems far away. Moreover, the Oslo peace process is the result of long-term, diplomatic efforts on an international scale, and terrorism does not seem to have contributed directly to this process.

political philosophy politics terrorism house believes terrorism can be

Terrorism can lead to discussion  In some cases, terrorism can result in the acknowledgement of certain groups. Therefore, terrorism is justified by its success in achieving results when peaceful means have failed. In many countries terrorists have succeeded in bringing governments to negotiate with them and make concessions to them. Where governments have not been willing to concede to rational argument and peaceful protest, terrorism can compel recognition of a cause. Nelson Mandela moved from terrorist to President. In many other countries we see this trend too – in Israel, Northern Ireland, in Sri Lanka, and in the Oslo peace process that led to the creation of the Palestinian Authority. [1]  [1] Palestine Facts. (n.d.). Details of the Oslo Accords. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from Palestine Facts:

Not all attention that follows terrorism is positive. After the 9/11 attacks, aid workers in Afghanistan were forced to cut off food supplies in the country, even though 7 to 8 million civilians were dependent on them. [1] The kind of terrorist attacks that attract the most attention are the violent ones, and they are likely to be met with reactions of disgust and grief. This means that the international community is less likely to sympathize with their cause, which results in less support.  [1] Chomsky, N. (2001, October 18). Terrorism Works. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from Media Monitors Network:

Consequentialism  Actions can only be justified by their outcomes, and if the outcome of an act of terror is an overall increase of justice, freedom and welfare, this action is therefore legitimate. Many people around the world suffer on a daily basis from poverty, injustices and violence. Generally, these people did not choose to suffer, nor was it a result of their actions; therefore it can be seen as a logical conclusion that it is a good thing that this suffering is diminished. However, authorities might not always agree to redistribution or an acknowledgement of rights, and more drastic measures are needed to obtain the goal. If, in this case, the use of acts of terror is needed to obtain greater goods such as justice and equality, and this would mean that on balance, more people would gain more utility, the action would be justified. In this way, terrorism can be seen as an effective weapon in a revolutionary struggle that results in progression. A very current example are the terrorist attacks in several Middle Eastern countries that have led to the Arab spring, such as the attack on the Yemen president Ali Abdullah Saleh. [1]  [1] Sinjab, L. (2011, June 3). Yemen: President Saleh injured in attack on palace. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from BBC News:

Legitimacy  In extreme cases, in which peaceful and democratic methods have been exhausted, it is legitimate and justified to resort to terror. In cases of repression and suffering, with an implacably oppressive state and no obvious possibility of international relief, it is sometimes necessary to resort to violence to defend one’s people and pursue one’s cause.  Every individual or (minority) group has the right to express its discontent. The state, being a representation of the people, should facilitate this possibility. Even more, the state should support the rights of minorities, in order to prevent the will of the majority suppressing the rights of people with other interests. If this does not happen, the state has failed to serve its purpose and loses its legitimacy. This, in combination with the growing inequalities and injustices amongst certain groups, justifies committing acts of terror in order to defend these rights, that were denied in the first place.  For instance, Umkhonto we Sizwe, a liberation organisation associated with the African National Congress in South Africa and led by Nelson Mandela, decided in 1961 to turn to violence in order to achieve liberation and the abolishment of Apartheid. The reason they gave was:  “The time comes in the life of any nation when there remain only two choices: submit or fight. That time has now come to South Africa. (...) Refusal to resort to force has been interpreted by the government as an invitation to use armed force against the people without any fear of reprisals. The methods of Umkhonto we Sizwe mark a break with that past.” [1]  [1] African National Congress. (1961, December 16). Manifesto. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from African National Congress:

Terrorism is never justified. Peaceful and democratic means must always be used. If this cannot happen inside the state, there are international courts such as the International Criminal Court in the The Hague, which handle cases such as war crimes and oppression. Even when democratic rights are denied, non-violent protest is the only moral action. And in the most extreme cases, in which subject populations are weak and vulnerable to reprisals from the attacked state, it is especially important for groups not to resort to terror. Terrorism merely exacerbates a situation, and creates a cycle of violence and suffering.

The end does not justify the means. Even in cases of oppression, it is better to persecute your interest through non-violent and legal means. There may be cases where only an act of terror will lead to a direct improvement of overall utility, but these cases are very rare. Often terrorist attacks are performed by extremist groups who have views that differ from the majority of the community they claim to represent. Most people prefer non-violent means, and the repercussions of violent terrorist acts, such as the invasion of Afghanistan to eradicate the Taliban, will largely worsen the position of the marginalized in society.

States who ignore the Geneva Conventions, for example by mistreating prisoners or deliberately attacking civilian targets, are guilty of terrorism and this cannot be justified. Nor are the Conventions only applicable to warfare between sovereign states - their principles can be clearly applied in other kinds of conflict and used to distinguish between legitimate military struggle and indefensible terrorism.  Nor is it reasonable to argue that there are grey areas, and that civilians are sometimes legitimate targets - once such a claim has been made anything can eventually be "justified" in the name of some cause. All too often the political leaderships of protest movements have decided that limited "physical force" is necessary to advance their cause, only to find the violence spiralling out of control. The "hard men" who are prepared to use force end up in control of the movement, which increasingly attracts criminals and others who love violence for its own sake. The original base of support for the movement in the wider population and internationally is alienated. The authorities against whom the movement is struggling also respond by using increasingly repressive measures of their own, generating a spiral of violence and cruelty.

Terrorism can bring attention  Terrorism can raise the profile of a neglected cause. The hi-jackings of the 1970s and 1980s brought publicity to the Palestinian cause, helping to bring it to the attention of the world. [1] States can use their wealth and media to put across their side of the story; their opponents do not have these resources and perhaps need to resort to terrorism to publicise their cause. In this way, limited and focused use of violence can have a dramatic international impact.  [1] Tristam, P. (n.d.). The 1970 Palestinian Hijackings of Three Jets to Jordan. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from About.com:

Terrorism is relative  The definition of terrorism depends very much upon your point of view - the proposition does not need to defend every atrocity against innocent civilians to argue that terrorism is sometimes justified. A broad definition would say terrorism was the use of violence for political ends by any group which breaks the Geneva Conventions (which govern actions between armies in wartime) or ignores generally accepted concepts of human rights. Under such a broad definition, states and their armed forces could be accused of terrorism. So could many resistance groups in wartime or freedom fighters struggling against dictatorships, as well as participants in civil wars - all irregular groups outside the scope of the Geneva Conventions.  A narrower definition would say that terrorism was the use of violence against innocent civilians to achieve a political end. Such a definition would allow freedom fighters and resistance groups with a legitimate grievance to use force against dictatorship and occupation, providing they only targeted the troops and other agents of oppression. Yet even this tight definition has grey areas - what if the soldiers being targeted are reluctant conscripts? Are not civilian settlers in occupied territories legitimate targets as agents of oppression? What about their children? Doesn't it make a difference if civilians are armed or unarmed? Don't civil servants such as teachers and doctors count as agents of an occupying or oppressive state?  There will always be grey areas that might be justified, under the broader definition most armed forces in history could be accused of terrorism particularly acts such as the bombing of cities during World War II. While under the narrower definition the various resisitance groups during the same war would count. Perhaps at a half way house would be independence movements including the American Revolution.

In extreme cases, communities already live in very poor conditions, and terrorism can bring attention to their cause and provide an escape of their situation. By bringing attention to the poor conditions people are living in, and the oppression a community is suffering, you provide an opportunity for improvement. It can be that their condition can worsen on the short term, but that is justified if this means that there is a solution to their suffering on the long term.

In extreme cases, it is justified to harm others. It can be argued that the population of a nation is complicit in the crimes that their government commits, because they support the regime by paying tax. Osama bin Laden's 'Letter to America' justifies attacking civilians by stating that they are a complicit part in the American military actions abroad because they have chosen their government democratically, and pay taxes to fund their actions. [1]  Secondly, attacks on authorities can get rid of dictators or repressive regimes. Thirdly, commodities such as infrastructure can be used by the government for the promotion of certain groups and to marginalize others. During South African Apartheid, townships were created where black people were forced to live, and which had very little amenities, while the areas where white people lived had much better provisions. [2]  [1] Laden, O. B. (2002, November 24). Letter to America. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from Observer:   [2] SouthAfrica.info. (n.d.). Tackling Apartheid. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from SouthAfrica.info:

Terrorism creates a negative abusable portrayal  Acts of terror will not lead to a deeper mutual understanding, but to alienation from the international community. People see acts of violence as a threat, and especially in the context of international terrorists attacks, the fear of escalation prevails. Even more, acts of violence are open to multiple interpretations, which can be used in favour of the oppressing state, that has much more resources to spread its message. Not only can it say it uses violence against these terrorists groups to defend itself, but it can also paint an image of the terrorists as irrational, violent creatures. This plays easily into existing stereotypes of non-Westeners as being violent. In order to counter this scenario, it is wiser to resort to non-violent actions. This has the benefit of conveying a very clear message to the outside world that the people protesting are the victims, and not the perpetrators. For instance, the actions of Mahatma Ghandi were known for their civil disobedience and their political messages that went against the norm, but because of the peaceful nature of his protest, he was able to attract a lot of positive attention and followers. [1]  [1] BBC News. (1998, January 29). The life and death of Mahatma Gandhi. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from BBC News:

Corrupt states  States or institutions created in concession to terror are often corrupt, dominated by men of violence with links to organised crime. Nothing is achieved to improve the lives of the people in whose name terror has been used. Terrorist organisations have often a military and violent character. The sort of people who attracted to committing acts of terror often glorify illegitimate acts of violence and justify the possible harm done to civilians by proving their complicity or the outcome of the actions. More precisely, they have only the interest of their ideology or the minority they are supporting. When these people are put in a position of power, they are likely to follow the same lines as before, especially when they do not have a political background. They are likely to be ignorant of how political processes work, and will appoint people that have the ideology in other powerful positions. This will make the whole political system inefficient and biased towards a minority or a fringe interest. As a result, level of corruption could rise, and in extreme cases people with other opinions can be persecuted. Iran went from a Westernizing state to an Islamic one, and is now hostile to dissidents. [1]  [1] BBC News. (2012). Iran Profile, Retrieved 17 February 2012 from BBC News:

Exacerbation of poor conditions  Terrorism creates a perpetual situation of poverty and anxiety within the community. Terrorism creates an unsafe situation for the local community, which has several consequences: firstly, people are less able to continue their daily actions, such as going to work or school of they are afraid of attacks. Secondly, people are less likely to save or to take risks such as setting up a business when they are uncertain about the their future. Thirdly, international companies are less likely to set up business in a location which is seen as unstable, and with the local market which has little to spend. This all lead to a continuation of poor conditions where many people live in poverty and anxiety, and see little opportunity than continuing the violence themselves. In Northern Ireland, the political violence which is present, combined with the high rates of poverty, creates a vicious circle where the unstable situation is continued. [1]  [1] Horgan, G. (2011, July 12). Equality of misery? Poverty and political violence in Northern Ireland. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from Politico:

Harm to others is never legitimate  Even in cases of suppression and deprivation of human rights, it is not justified to harm others outside the law. Considering acts of terror, there are three possible targets: civilians, political, military or other powerful authorities and their representatives, and structures such as (government) buildings, cars etc. without any causalities. In the case of the first, it is illegitimate to kill innocent civilians because not only have these people not contributed to the terrorists' marginalization, which means that hurting them will not undo the cause of harm, but this also perpetuates the harm that was the cause for violence in the first place. In the case of the second target, the attack on authorities responsible for the marginalization might be removed in some cases (if there is one), but it more often results in backlash where supporters of the authorities act against the insurgents, resulting in more harm. This happened with the Kurdish revolt against the Turkish authorities, which led to a guerilla war with over 30.000 causalities. [1] Thirdly, attacking the infrastructure of a country means disabling the population for accessing their basic capacities such as accessing healthcare by destroying roads or hospitals. Regarding the fact that the population is innocent in the crimes of the government, this is unnecessary and harmful for the whole population.  [1] Washington Post. (1999). Who Are the Kurds? Retrieved August 3, 2011, from Washington Post:

States or institutions created in concession to terror can work, if the process of creation is handled with care and is done with the interests of the whole population at heart. It is true that some terrorist organisations have no political experience, but some have, and these organisations should have a say in the political process, in corporation with representatives of other groups. Modern South Africa is a state created as a result of terrorism, yet it is not a state that would be accused of conducting a violent foreign policy or excessive internal repression, especially when compared to other parts of the continent.

Terrorism can bring attention to certain causes and bring discussion. Images of violence will make much more of an impact than those of peaceful protest. With the modern media, the power of oppressive states to hide or twist the truth has significantly diminished, as anyone with a cellphone can tell their story. Also, with people taking their faith in their own hands, acts of terror such as sabotage can be seen as clever and resourceful.

States in the Global North already deal with other states with capital punishment in the Global North. Broader based changes to criminal justice system would be needed - if it is desirable for states to make those changes in the first place.  The solution for extradition is clear - diplomatic assurances before extradition that capital punishment will not be sought.

ights punishment philosophy ethics life house believes capital punishment

Justice co-operation  Crime does not stop at national borders. Therefore efforts to fight crime cannot, either. A country that abolishes capital punishment will be in a much better position to cooperate on justice issues internationally.  Many states, particularly ones in the Global North, have policies of not extraditing people to jeopardy of capital punishment. Not only could more people be extradited, foreign states may be more willing to provide broader based assistance and co-operation if they see that a state has made steps forward in criminal justice policy.  Some states have a policy of not extraditing to states where there is a risk of capital punishment: a particular clause on this is included in the US-Mexico extradition treaty, and it is the position of the European Court of Human Rights. [1]  [1] Soering v United Kingdom - available at

It should be for a state to independently determine its criminal justice policy. At any rate, there are some developed states that maintain capital punishment; they are hardly likely to impose diplomatic penalties on other states that do the same.  Capital punishment also doesn’t stop states being seen positively. Despite having even worse human rights violations (if you consider capital punishment as a human rights violation) - the US and US-aligned nations in Europe have very strong and positive relations with Saudi Arabia, despite Saudi Arabia’s gender segregation and lack of religious and political freedom.

Encourages a culture of respect for human rights  Capital punishment is, in general seen as a significant human rights violation by the international community - not only most liberal democracies, but much of international civil society.  Abolition will help lead to the development of a culture of human rights and the rule of law by acting as a benchmark of progress, and a symbol of a commitment to these principles. It is notable that Guinea Bissau is the only abolitionist nation in the bottom ten countries in Africa for the rule of law – according to the Ibrahim Index of African Governance’s safety and rule of law category, compared to six abolitionist countries in the top ten [1] .  [1] Mo Ibrahim Foundation, “Ibrahim Index of African Governance”, Mo Ibrahim Foundation, 2013,

If anything, abolition could be a seen as a distraction of progress. Even in retentionist criminal justice systems, only a small number of those who go through the criminal justice system are sentenced to death or executed. Behind the smokescreen of reform, things can be hidden. While Russia abolished capital punishment shortly after the end of the Soviet Union, politically motivated prosecutions continue, such as those of the members of Pussy Riot.  As for the rankings, correlation is not causation.

Diplomatic relations  European states in particular put a particular emphasis on capital punishment when determining human rights issues for foreign policy. The UK for example has a policy of promoting and lobbying for the abolition of capital punishment with foreign governments. [1]  This will help generate goodwill for the nation. This could have a whole myriad of benefits - from aid and trade, to being seen as the “good guy” in any international disputes. When using capital punishment the opposite is the case; controversy has been created by the use of UN resources in drugs cases in Vietnam that could lead to executions for drug offences [2] .  [1] Foreign &amp; Commonwealth Office, ‘HMG Strategy for Abolition of the Death Penalty 2010-2015’, gov.uk, October 2011,   [2] “UN urged to freeze anti-drug aid to Vietnam over death penalty”, Reuters, 12 Feb 2014,

A human rights violation, however many people it happens to, is a human rights violation. Capital punishment is the ultimate human rights violation.

Those well trodden arguments lead to an anti death penalty position, not a pro death penalty one. Deterrence cannot be measured, mistakes are made too often and issues of punishment (if punishment, rather than rehabilitation or incapacitation is a legitimate goal of a justice system, which it is not) are different between cultures. Evidence on cost shows it is more expensive than prison in the Global North.  With regards to crimes against humanity, the International Criminal Court - the world’s leading authority on international criminal law - does not use capital punishment. Neither did the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.

African values  Human rights are a concept that take on different conclusions and priorities when applied in different cultural contexts. Protecting the community as a whole, by removing dangerous offenders from circulation, and by a deterrence effect, capital punishment is a manifestation of a form of “African Values” that place more emphasis on the community over the individual than western legal tradition. Capital Punishment has traditionally used for the most serious crimes such as murder as well as some serious religious offenses which it was feared might bring serious consequences for the entire community. [1]  [1] Balogun, Oladele Abiodun, ‘A Philosophical Defence of Punishment in Traditional African Legal Culture: The Yoruba Example’, The Journal of Pan African Studies, Vol.3, No.3, September 2009,  , p.47

Particular need in Africa  Capital punishment for particularly dangerous offenders is a practical solution for African nations with low quality prison systems, which, through either deliberate policy or basic underfunding, can have poor conditions, or poor security. In 2013, over a thousand prisoners escaped from a prison near Benghazi in Libya [1] . A similar escape with particularly dangerous offenders would be dangerous - a corpse can’t escape.  [1] Zway, Suliman Ali, “Amid protests, Inmates escape from Libyan prison”, New York Times, 27 July 2013,

Capital punishment is a comparatively small issue  Whatever the merits, capital punishment in Africa is a small issue. Capital punishment opponents should focus on China, which uses capital punishment in a secretive manner for all variety of offences and executes far more people than the rest of the world put together. [1]  If Western human rights groups genuinely want to improve human rights in Africa, there are a myriad of issues that affect many more people relating to good governance, political rights and socio-economic rights, rather than just focusing on a small number of individuals, generally convicted of particularly serious criminal offences.  [1] ‘Death Sentences and Executions 2012’, Amnesty International, April 2013,  , p.6

“Benefits” of capital punishment apply universally  The same arguments about capital punishment apply in Africa - deterrence value, potential cost savings, and principles of justice. [1] This could be more acute, with growing issues of international crime, such as drugs, growing in Africa [2] .  Africa has had many issues of conflict and crimes against humanity – these are the kind of crimes that many who are less enthusiastic about capital punishment would still support it for.  [1] See “This House Supports the Death Penalty” -   [2] See Cockayne, James, “Africa and the War on Drugs: the West African cocaine trade is not just business as usual”, African Arguments, 2012,

Practicality is not an excuse - capital punishment is still a human rights violation, whatever the circumstances.  The Libya prison escape, of course, was an unusual case - it was during a civil war.

The idea of a unified “African values” is as manifestly absurd as unified “European values”, or the “Asian values” used as an excuse by anti-democratic leaders such as Matahir Mohamed and Lee Kuan Kew, (heads of government of Malaysia and Singapore respectively in the 1980s), to reject political freedoms.  Even so, capital punishment can be seen as opposed to the “African value” of ubuntu - a broader concept of treating people with humanity. Religious leaders are often also against, the Catholic Bishops Conference of Nigeria described capital punishment as savagery and expressed its desire to join the “civilised world in ending the death penalty”. [1]  [1] Uduma, Uche, ‘Nigeria: Much Ado About the Return of Death Penalty’, Leadership, 14 July 2013,

The wrongs of colonial powers are by now far in the past. The great majority of people living in former colonies, or indigenous peoples in countries like the US or Australia, have no experience of that time and have not been directly affected by the injustices of colonialism. Making sure that everyone in society has equal rights and opportunities is nothing to do with self-determination.  improve this  Self-determination offers a way to resolve otherwise intractable disputes.

international law philosophy political philosophy politics government house believes

Self-determination and independence is recognition of the fact that indigenous peoples were unfairly treated by colonial powers, and their proprietary rights abused.  In some contexts, separation may not be a realistic option for minority peoples. However, that does not mean that self-determination is not meaningful for such groups. For indigenous peoples, self-determination may take the form of restitution for land that was stolen from them, or compensation and reparations. Furthermore, self-determination may take the form of political autonomy, or greater rights to decide how children are educated, or parallel systems of justice such as sharia courts. Self-determination is about representation and identity and choice - not about outcomes.

The principle of self-determination might seem a straightforward one but in practice it is rarely that simple.Firstly, in many countries, majority and minority groups live side-by-side, rather than in distinct territories. Upholding the right of such a minority to self-determination may not be possible without affecting the rights of the other inhabitants of that area. This damage might be direct – for example, if the people of Catalonia decide to secede from Spain, what will happen to the Spanish inhabitants of Catalonia? – or it may be indirect, as in the example of Palestine, whose independence has long been resisted by Israel on the grounds that it would constitute a threat to Israeli security.  Second, it is often difficult to agree, particularly in disputed areas, who falls under the definition of a “native” whose right to self-determination must be respected. For example, should people in Ireland have a say over the future of Northern Ireland, given that most of them consider it an integral part of their own country? Does the right of self-determination for Israelis extend to Jews who live in other countries, given that they have the right to settle in that nation if they choose to? Does it extend to non-Jewish Israelis, and if not, why not? These questions are hard to answer neutrally; to answer them involves making difficult judgements.

Self-determination is necessary to protect minority cultures.  Many states in the modern world do not respect the rights of minorities or actively seek to dilute and subsume them into the majority culture. Others offer limited protections to minority peoples but stop short of allowing them to choose their own futures. We need to reassert their right to self-determination to ensure that these minority cultures are not lost. Failure to defend the principle of self-determination now will effectively close off the choices of future generations.  For example, Australian government policy for many decades was to ignore Aboriginal rights, denying them full citizenship1 and removing children from their homes and relocating them with white families (the so-called "stolen generation"2). As a result many indigenous Australians no longer have a strong link to their native cultures and languages. The same is arguably true in places like Tibet, where traditional culture is being diluted over time through the deliberate policy of the Chinese government.  1 See "Collaborating for Indigenous Rights", National Museum of Australia 2 "Bringing Them Home: Report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families", Australia Human Rights Commission, April 1997.

Forcible assimilation, as in the Australian case cited, is clearly wrong, but that does not mean that we should abandon the goal of integrating minorities into society without forfeiting their cultural, racial or religious differences. Placing undue importance on the right to self-determination may make such situations worse. Furthermore, in some situations, governments manipulate the idea of self-determination to suit their own ends. Many governments have pursued a policy of sending settlers from the majority race or religion into minority-dominated areas and then point at the difficulty of allowing such areas to implement political reforms or secede without massive social upheaval.  One example of this is Tibet, where the Chinese government has strongly encouraged ethnic Han Chinese settlers to relocate to that province with the aim of gradually reducing the impact and strength of Tibetan demands for self-government1.  1 Hessler, Peter. "Tibet through Chinese eyes", The Atlantic, February 1999.

It is true that many modern states have somewhat artificial or arbitrary boundaries. However, this applies to some or other extent to all states everywhere in the world; indeed, the nation state as we know it is a relatively modern construct, and no nation state is completely ethnically or culturally homogenous. There are certainly places in the world where minorities are oppressed, but insisting on self-determination as a universal human right often merely encourages separatism, racial tension and conflict.  Furthermore, self-determination is often used by states as a casus belli and used to justify interference in neighbour's affairs and even invasion – as in the conflict between Russia and Georgia in 2008, ostensibly over the treatment of ethnic Russians in South Ossetia 1, or Hitler’s invasion of the Sudetenland in 1938 on the pretext that ethnic Germans in that area should belong to the German Reich 2. If we place too much emphasis on the importance of self-determination in all situations it may lead to worse international relations, not better. At any rate, it has not helped us solve problems in places such as Kashmir or the Falklands, which are still disputed.  Additionally, self-determination may not help us in cases such as that of the Falklands, where almost all the inhabitants are of British descent, since Argentina argues that they are in effect illegal settlers who have no right to be there in the first place.  Finally, the broader international context may mean that other interests or legal agreements must take precedence. For example, Hong Kong was returned to China in 1997 not out of any desire of Hong Kong Chinese to self-determination but simply because Britain’s 99-year lease on the bulk of the territory was due to expire.  1 Cornell, Svante: “War in Georgia, Jitters All Round”, Current History, October 2008.   2 “Sudetenland”, Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2011.

Self-determination embodies the fundamental right of peoples to decide their own futures.  Modern liberal democracy is founded on the idea that people should be free to decide their own leaders and their own futures, but not all states give their minority peoples such a right. However, this is a right guaranteed under international law. The International Court of Justice has held that this right applies not just to national governments but also people1. The two important United Nations studies on the right to self-determination set out factors of a people that give rise to possession of right to self-determination: a history of independence or self-rule in an identifiable territory, a distinct culture, and a will and capability to regain self-governance2. If these criteria are in place, such peoples should have the right to determine their own constitutional and political arrangements.  1 Western Sahara Case, 1975 International Court of Justice 12, 31. 2Critescu, A. and GrosEspiell, H. "The Right to Self-determination", United Nations, 1980 (not online, but widely cited

Self-determination offers a way to resolve otherwise intractable disputes.  Many modern nation states are the product of historical accident or hurried decolonisation processes that did not properly take account of ethnic or religious differences between peoples in the states that resulted. Examples can be seen all over the world but especially in Asia, Africa and the former Soviet Union, where postcolonial or post-Cold War boundaries separate people from their kin against their wills. Other territories may be disputed between one or more nation.  Allowing ethnic or religious groups self-determination may help to reverse the harmful effect of artificial, poorly-drawn borders. If self-determination is universally accepted (and applied) by the international community as a key principle in such disputes, they may in future be easier to resolve.  Two examples; Kashmir, which straddles the line of partition drawn up by the British when granting independence to India and Pakistan in 19471; and the Falkland Islands, which are the object of dispute between the UK and Argentina, including a brief war in 19822. History, law geography all offer competing and incompatible views of who should rightfully own these territories. If we recognise the principle of self-determination as key, however, it is clear that it is the view of the inhabitants that should decide its future. Indeed, if this principle is ignored, such disputes will rumble on for many years to come.  1 "Kashmir: Run-up to Partition", Globalsecurity.org 2 "Falklands/Malvinas War",Globalsecurity.org For the Falkland Islanders' view of self-determination, see Falkland Island Government website, "Falklands call on UN Committee to uphold right to self-determination",

In many cass, it is not self-determination that causes tensions, but the lack of opportunity for minorities to choose their own future. Conflicts and civil wars generally take place not because people want self-determination but because they are not allowed it. In the Yugoslav example, if the Milosevic government had recognised the right of the country's component ethnic groups to self-determination, rather than seeking forcibly to suppress it, then there would have been no armed conflict. In contrast, by the time Montenegro sought to secede from Serbia, the now-democratic Serb government accepted their right to do so, and the split was carried out without bloodshed1.  1 "Montenegro declares independence", BBC News, 4 June 2006.

Minorities are often economically disadvantaged and politically marginalised; formal guarantees of equal rights, even where they exist, do not necessarily translate into real opportunities for citizens. And respect for individual rights, as important as it is, does not address issues of concern to the entire community, such as the teaching of minority languages in school, provision of facilities for religious worship, and so on. The best way to improve the situation of these minority populations is by respecting and promoting their right to self-determination. If not, they will remain second-class citizens in their own countries.

The rise of universal human rights makes self-determination increasingly irrelevant.  Across the developed world, modern nation states are bound into a complex network of treaties and international organisations which together go a long way to guaranteeing citizens very similar rights wherever they live. These supra-national rules make it less and less important on what side of an international boundary you happen to live. What matters is not so much self-determination as whether or not an individual citizen is able to enjoy the same rights and privileges as those of the majority culture.  For example, EU citizens enjoy many common rights, common European citizenship, freedom of movement between member states and so on. Minorities who fifty years ago might have taken up arms to "free" themselves from an oppressive nation state – such as Catholics in Northern Ireland – don’t need to do this now, because they have new rights against discrimination, guaranteed and enforced by international treaty.

Self-determination can destabilise nation states, sometimes with very destructive consequences.  If we accept self-determination as such an important principle that it trumps all others, this will encourage people to self-identify along nationalistic, racial or religious lines, at a time in human development when we are moving away from racist and nationalist ideologies. Nationalism is about difference, which flies in the face of the idea of the global citizen. Taken to its extremes, it encourages increased conflict, separatist terrorism. For example, the ethnic conflicts that led to the breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990s were fuelled by nationalist ideologies and the stressing of the differences between ethnic and religious groups that made up that country.

What matters are individual democratic rights, not necessarily collective self-determination.  Simply being a minority in a nation should not be enough to claim the right to self-determination. As long as people have democratic rights, such as the right to protest, to lobby and to vote , they enjoy the same rights and protections as those of the majority community in that country; there should be no obligation on the state to go further in granting them self-determination. For example, during the Franco era in Spain, minority nationalities such as Basques and Catalans were for a long time discriminated against and excluded from real political power, and backed political parties that explicitly represented their community. As their position in society has improved, however, so the hold of identity-based politics has loosened, and the pull of secession has weakened1.  1 Macko, Kalyna: "The Effect of Franco in the Basque Nation", Salve Regina University, July 2011.

Many minorities live in states where international human rights law is applied inconsistently or indeed not at all. It may not make a life-changing difference to a French-speaking Belgian which side of the France – Belgium border they happen to be born, but to a Palestinian in the West Bank or a Tamil in Sri Lanka, their right to self-determination is absolutely crucial, because other rights may well be denied to them through direct or indirect state discrimination.  It is relatively easy for states to explain away individual human rights breaches, since these occur in all nations from time to time. It is much harder for them to justify denying an entire people their right to determine their own futures.

This is only an objection to particular cases of suicide; it cannot be made into a general case because some suicides really do only affect the individual – those in which there is no extended family or friendship group. And that an act is, on occasion, selfish is not sufficient grounds to prohibit it. Indeed, ostracising one’s friends or walking out on one’s family can upset people but we are hardly likely to deny people the liberty to make such individual, private life choices. Nobody has the right to force people to live in circumstances that cause them unhappiness. Suicide should be viewed in exactly the same way.  Moreover it should be remembered that an attempt to prosecute survivors or in some way to punish relatives of those who succeed is clearly not going to help leaving grieving relatives in a worse position. [1]  [1] Holt, ‘When Suicide was illegal’, 2011

law general philosophy life house believes suicide should be criminal offence

Suicide is a selfish act that causes suffering to others  Suicide is an entirely selfish act that causes immense pain and suffering for those loved ones that are left behind. It is also cowardly; rather than facing your problems and being strong, you instead take the easy way out and kill yourself. It is important, therefore, to instil a strong sense of responsibility to one’s family and for one’s affairs and to do this by punishing those who try and fail to perpetrate this selfish and cowardly act.

Society can perfectly well spread the message that suicide is not a valid life choice without criminalizing and punishing those that have tried and failed to perpetrate it. Moreover, we have grave doubts about the practical use of anti-suicide legislation. It is highly dubious that people who are driven to contemplate suicide will be dissuaded by the knowledge that they would be breaking the law. The spectre of punishment only awaits those who fail to commit suicide. These people have already decided that their lives are not worth living; branding them criminal and punishing them is hardly likely to make them reconsider their decision.

Suicide is a waste of life  Suicide is a waste of life. It is an immoral act that ignores the sacrosanct nature of human life – something that is universally considered to be the case as shown by being something nearly all religions consider to be the case. [1] Failure to criminalize such a flagrant violation of the sanctity of human life condemns any society as irreligious and immoral. Nowadays we hear everyone talking about human rights; we hear precious little about human obligations. If we believe in the moral worth of human rights we do so because we think that human life is a wonderful thing and something with which we should not interfere. Whether the interference is by others or by ourselves, any action that denigrates human life is morally wrong for precisely the reason that we support human rights. We have an obligation to preserve all life, including our own.  [1] Perrett, Roy Wo., ‘Buddhism, euthanasia and the sanctity of life’, Journal of Medical Ethics, Vol. 22, No. 5, October 1996,

The question whether or not human life is "sacred" should not intrude on the issue of suicide legislation because no clear proof is possible one way or the other. We respect human rights because we value the liberty and autonomy of individuals; we want to be able to make our own decisions and we likewise affirm the right of others to make their own decisions. The free, autonomous decision to take one’s own life should be respected as a legitimate exercise of one’s individual liberty. Human liberty is sacrosanct and should only be limited where clear social harm is caused; suicide affects only the individual and so it should be permitted

Suicide is different from abortion or cloning or euthanasia in the important respect that it involves only one individual and his choice about the way he lives (and by extension, when he dies). So we can deny any link to these other phenomena. In addition, we can defend suicide on the same basis as one might plausibly and robustly defend all the others: on the basis of the value of individual autonomy. Human dignity is a value that is inextricably linked to the free exercise of individual autonomy; it is the absence of autonomy and the domination of another man over the slave that makes slavery a clear violation of basic human dignity.

Prohibiting suicide sends the message that it is not an acceptable behaviour  Individual action is shaped by what norms and standards are set by society. By prohibiting suicide, society sends out a message that it is not an acceptable action. Legislation is a useful social tool, in that it proscribes the limits of individual action. And by failing to prohibit suicide, society fails to add the ultimate sanction of its laws into the balance of any decision whether or not to commit suicide. Many of those who have tried and failed to commit suicide never attempt it again. This suggests that many who kill themselves do so because of their particular short-term circumstances, perhaps while ill, suffering financial problems or under emotional stress, rather than through a considered and rational decision. More than 30% of suicides are precipitated by intimate partner problems, more than 10% by jobs problems and 10% by financial problems. [1] Given this, even a small deterrent will help to save many lives that are currently wasted needlessly.  [1] Canters for Disease Control and Prevention, ‘Suicide: Data Sources’, 26 August 2011,

Suicide undermines the sanctity of the human body  Like abortion, euthanasia, cloning and genetic engineering, suicide undermines the sanctity and inviolability of the human body. It is legitimate to legislate against such actions because the sanctity of the human body is an intrinsic constituent part of the respect for human dignity, which is the sine qua non of social life in any country.

The fact of suffering is what makes it impossible to consider suicide a legitimate choice. Someone under the duress of intense pain and/or discomfort is not going to be able to make a fully voluntary and informed choice to end their life.

The law and is to protect the state and the people from each other and to help guide people into making the right decisions for the whole of society. The important thing is that society should make a stand for what it believes is right and against what it believes is wrong. And suicide is clearly a wrongful, misguided and wasteful act from the point of view of society and the state.

The right to life means a right to death  When we speak of the right to life it means more than merely the right to be alive, it encompasses the right to self-ownership, the notion that one’s life is one’s own and that you are not beholden to anyone else by the mere fact that you are alive. It follows from this that there can be no duty on anyone to live beyond a point of their own choosing, and there should be no attempt to interfere with suicidal behaviour whether by individuals or by the law. [1]  [1] Chobli, Michael, ‘Suicide’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward n. Zalta (ed.), Fall 2009,

We are all dying  Death is an inevitable fact of life. We will all die. Suicide is therefore not a matter of choosing between life and death per se, but of choosing the time and manner of death one wishes. We would all prefer a painless death over a slow and agonising one, and it is better to be able to prepare oneself and if possible anyone else who will be affected, so why should the difference between the two be a matter of luck and not one of choice?

This is not the role of the criminal law  Criminal legislation is not the vehicle for society’s pronouncements on questions of how one should live one’s life. It instead involves the entirely practical exercise of ensuring that individuals are able to live freely and enjoy their freedom without fear of external interferences like theft, violence or murder. Criminal legislation should guarantee a safe space for autonomous individual action - like suicide.

The right to life is a positive protection against the state extinguishing that right and is limited largely to that context. A person can no more choose to give up their right to life than they can choose to give up their right to freedom from slavery.

It is accepted as a position of international criminal law that head of state immunity does not apply before international tribunals [1] . Any such immunity that Kenya had was waived by them joining the ICC, which they did voluntarily.  Even so, just because someone has a position of power does not mean they should have impunity from liability for very serious crimes.  [1] Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Belgium), 14 February 2002,

rnational africa law human rights international law government leadership voting

Head of state immunity  Traditionally, heads of state have had immunity in foreign courts. This is for the normal functioning of diplomacy – so heads of state can engage in business at other states and travel to summits without the risk of harassment by vexatious claims in foreign courts, or foreign governments trying to attack the decisions of other governments in their own courts.  The ICC trying sitting heads of state would set a terrible precedent of a method of regime change – not even by foreign militaries, but by the ICC prosecutor. Regimes should change according to democratic mandate not foreign courts.

A previous Kenyan government, operating with a democratic mandate, ratified the Rome Statute. Therefore, there is no interference with Kenyan sovereignty: a Kenyan government legally and lawfully submitted Kenya to the jurisdiction of the ICC.  Besides, a “democratic mandate” would not stop the prosecution of a prosecution of someone for an offence committed prior to getting into office, which is what happened in Kenya. Neither is a “democratic mandate” a defence to perform crimes against humanity either in or out of office.

A delay is necessary for national security  Kenya is at risk of terrorist attack. Al-Shabab, a group linked to Al Qaeda have launched a number of attacks against Kenya. In addition to the Westgate massacre, there have been grenade attacks on bus terminals [1] and suicide bombings in refugee camps [2] .  Kenya’s waters are also used by Somali based pirates as a ground for attacks on international shipping, including possibly targeting ships travelling towards the port of Mombasa.  It is more important to the international community to have credible action taken in order to protect the Kenyan people from terrorism. This needs a strong Kenyan government – which means that there cannot be a change due to an international trial.  [1] Associated Press, “Two grenade blasts rattle Nairobi; 1 dead”, USA Today, 25/10/2011   [2] Ombati, Cyrus, “Terror suspects die after bombs explode on them”, Standard Digital News,

Kenya is an advanced state with a functioning system of the rule of law – except for those in power. With modern video technology, Ruto and Kenyatta could oversee the governance of the country from The Hague, or, alternatively, participate in the trial through videolink.  Even so, Al-Shabab are unlikely to be defeatable within the terms of Kenyatta and Ruto. Such a delay would only be useful if there was government reform or fresh elections necessary, rather than anti-terrorist action.

Interferes with a democratic mandate  Unlike many of the other ICC defendants, Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto have a democratic mandate from elections that “represented the will of the voters” [1] – electoral mandates given to them after their indictment by the International Criminal Court.  This must be respected by the ICC and the international community as a whole: even though they are suspected of crimes against humanity by a foreign court.  [1] European Union Election Observation Mission To Kenya, General Elections 2013 :Final Report,

Kenya does not need or want government by those who hand out illegal title deeds [1] and threaten the freedom of the press [2] as Kenyatta’s government does.  In addition to that, the allegations that the president used a banned occult gang, the Mungiki, in order to perform acts of mass murder is enough to end his credibility as a leader in the country – the best interests of good governance in Kenya mean that Kenyatta should go.  [1] Chanji, Tobias, “Raila Odinga says title deeds issued by President Uhuru Kenyatta illegal”, Standard Digital, November 25th 2013,   [2] Shiundu, Alphonce, “President retains punitive fines against media in new law”, Standard Digital, November 27th 2013,

Not every defendant is a head of state. While justice should aim to treat all defendants alike, there are some cases where things have to be changed in order to allow states to function.

Kenya needs the trial now  Without justice, there cannot be peace. Following the total failure of the Kenyan justice system to take action, exemplified by the Parliament’s complete and utter rejection of the Waki Commission, the ICC, which Kenya voluntarily signed up to, has to step in.  Ethnic violence still goes on in Kenya [1] , and if there is impunity in this case, no message will be sent out: justice must be done and seen to be done to prevent similar abuses and prevent justice being taken outside of the courts.  [1] Wachira, Muchemi, “Cattle raids and tribal rivalries to blame for perennial conflict”, Daily Nation, November 18 2012,

Just hold the trial by videolink  It has already been agreed that defendants can appear at the court by videolink [1] for parts of the trial. This is not problematic, unless the defendants want to start representing themselves.  Bearing in mind that Ruto and Kenyatta have been continuing to co-operate with the trial throughout the process, there is no reason to think that they would flee the international criminal court. Either way, if they change their mind, they could simply not travel to The Hague for the trial.  [1] Corder, Mike, “International court changes trial attendance rule”, The Wichita Eagle, November 28th 2013,

Kenya would be better off without them  Kenya does not need or want government by those who hand out illegal title deeds [1] and threaten the freedom of the press [2] as Kenyatta’s government does.  In addition to that, the allegations that the president used a banned occult gang, the Mungiki, in order to perform acts of mass murder is enough to end his credibility as a leader in the country – the best interests of good governance in Kenya mean that Kenyatta should go.  [1] Chanji, Tobias, “Raila Odinga says title deeds issued by President Uhuru Kenyatta illegal”, Standard Digital, November 25th 2013,   [2] Shiundu, Alphonce, “President retains punitive fines against media in new law”, Standard Digital, November 27th 2013,

Criminal defendants don’t get to pick and choose trial dates  Irrespective of who they are, Kenyatta and Ruto are nothing special – they’re just another two criminal defendants.  A person who is on trial murder or any other offence, whoever they are, can’t pick and choose their trial date for their own convenience or for their own business interests – why should these two particular defendants get a special privilege? Silvio Berlusconi was prosecuted by the Italian courts; the slow speed was due to the glacial pace of the Italian legal system rather than him particularly agitating for a special hold-up. The court cases were not done at his convenience.

Even though all parties agree to this, it is not appropriate for the ICC to be trying a sitting head of state anyway. The ICC is accepting this by holding the trial by videolink – no other court would do such a thing.  While it sounds tempting to allow Kenyatta and Ruto to participate in their trial by Skype, they may not continue to participate and simply refuse to leave Kenya if they are convicted.

Kenya doesn’t need a trial. The Kenyan parliament voted against such a thing – the Kenyan people decided in 2013 that they want to give Kenyatta and Ruto a democratic mandate.  While there is a terror threat – something that Kenyatta and Ruto can deal with in their role as head of state – Kenya did not have post election violence in 2013, and ethnic conflict is not going on at a major level. Even if there is no justice, there is peace, which is more important.

Simply arguing that because something is a 'tradition' that it should be legalized is a nonsensical argument. Traditions need to stand on their own merits, beyond the simple fact that people have done it in the past, as anyone would recognise that a great many things done in the past were not desirable, and therefore longevity does not equal desirability. Moreover, substances have never been legalized simply because some religions place spiritual connotations upon their use. For example, many members of the Rastafarian Movement and some Muslim Sufi groups claim that using cannabis has spiritual value and is important to understanding mystic truths, but cannabis has not been legalized as a result. [1] This is because, on balance, the harms of legalization outweigh our perception of its claimed benefits, and the same is true of the coca leaf. It is also important to note that the prized position of coca in Andean culture owes much to the lucrative nature of the international cocaine market, and thus this cultural value cannot be entirely 'unbundled' from cocaine use in the West. [2]  [1] Ernest, Abel. “A Comprehensive Guide to Cannabis Literature”. Greenwood Press. 1979.;  [2] Transnational Institute Debate Papers. “Coca yes, cocaine, no?”. Transnational Institute. No. 2006/2. No. 13. May 2006.

th health general global law crime policing law general punishment house would

Coca production can be justified on cultural grounds  Coca chewing is hugely prevalent amongst the peoples of the Andes, and their social relationship with it is akin to that of ours with coffee in Western nations. This is why so many nations in this region cannot and simply will not ever conform to any international ban that calls for phasing it out. The custom of chewing coca leaves may date back as far as 3000 BC in the region, and so hugely pre-dates cocaine consumption, and thus shouldn't be bundled with it or banned on the grounds that cocaine is banned. [1] Coca has also been a vital part of the religious traditions of the Andean peoples from the pre-Inca period through to the present, being used 'to communicate with the supernatural world and obtain its protection, especially with offerings to the Pachamama, the personification and spiritual form of the earth.' [2] All South American countries have signed several declarations by the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) that acknowledged that the chewing of coca leaves is an ancestral cultural expression that should be respected by the international community. [3] The international discouragement of the practice of chewing coca leaves and the prohibition on its use by Andeans when they travel or reside abroad can thus be seen as a violation of their indigenous religious and traditional rights, and therefore is not acceptable on a moral level.  [1] Morales, Evo. “Let Me Chew My Coca Leaves”. New York Times. March 13, 2009.   [2] Transnational Institute Debate Papers. “Coca yes, cocaine, no?”. Transnational Institute. No. 2006/2. No. 13. May 2006.   [3] Jelsma, Martin. “Lifting the Ban on Coca Chewing”. Transnational Institute, Series on Legislative Reform of Drug Policies Nr. 11. March 2011.

Medical uses of the coca leaf are already legal under the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. [1] . The coca plant has also never been proven to be a better ingredient in these varied domestic products than other plants, and other plants may even perform even better as ingredients. [2] There is therefore no compelling reason to believe that its global cultivation would result in any meaningful economic boost or better products on the market. Saving lives from being ruined by cocaine is more important than nay minor boost we might get from other coca products.  [1] United Nations. “Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961”. United Nations. 1961, amended 1972.   [2] Transnational Institute Debate Papers. “Coca yes, cocaine, no?”. Transnational Institute. No. 2006/2. No. 13. May 2006.

Coca chewing is not equivalent to the consumption of hard drugs. It is no more harmful than drinking coffee.  The coca leaf, in its natural state, is not even a narcotic, even though the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs considers the natural leaf to be so. However it only truly becomes a narcotic when the paste or the concentrate is extracted from the leaf to form cocaine. [1] The simple coca leaf, by contrast, only has very mild effects when chewed and is different from cocaine. In 1995 the World Health Organisation found that the “use of coca leaves appears to have no negative health effects and has positive therapeutic, sacred and social functions for indigenous Andean populations.” [2] It may even be useful in combating obesity, and there is no evidence that coca use is addictive. At worst, it is comparable to caffeine in terms of its effect on its consumer. [3] Therefore there are no significant health reasons behind this ban on the cultivation of coca leaves for their chewed consumption in its traditional form.  [1] Morales, Evo. “Let Me Chew My Coca Leaves”. New York Times. March 13, 2009.   [2] Jelsma, Martin. “Lifting the Ban on Coca Chewing”. Transnational Institute, Series on Legislative Reform of Drug Policies Nr. 11. March 2011.  [3] Morales, Evo. “Let Me Chew My Coca Leaves”. New York Times. March 13, 2009.

Compulsive Coca chewing may compromise oral health. The wider cultivation of coca plants may make cocaine itself more readily available, and cocaine has clear health risks to its consumption. This debate must be seen in terms of the wider health risks and problems that actually occur if cultivation is legalized, not just a narrow understanding of the health risks in a theoretical vacuum.

Legal coca cultivation would enhance economic growth in developing states  Millions of people in South America chew coca leaves, so this practice cannot simply be wished away. [1] Moreover, it currently acts as a vital income source in many impoverished areas of the Andes. Pasquale Quispe, 53, owner of a 7.4-acre Bolivian coca farm, explained to the New York Times in 2006: “Coca is our daily bread, what gives us work, what gives us our livelihood.” [2] Previous attempts to eradicate coca cultivation in Bolivia harmed the poorest farmers there and led to significant social unrest. [3] When it is allowed, however, coca cultivation can actually have economic benefits. Peasant cultivators in the Andes have indicated their belief that coca chewing helps increase production in agriculture, fisheries and mining. [4] The legalization of coca cultivation globally would allow for the expansion of these economic benefits. The coca leaf may have uses as a stimulant and flavouring agent in drinks (in which it is currently used to a limited extent in the West), but also in the expansion of the many domestic products currently in use in the Andes, including syrups, teas, shampoo and toothpaste. It may also have a use as a general anaesthetic. [5] Only the legalization of its cultivation globally will allow these product and economic potentials to be fully realized and allow humanity to reap the full rewards of the coca plant, rather than simply being limited by the fear and stigma surrounding its illegal use in cocaine.  [1] Morales, Evo. “Let Me Chew My Coca Leaves”. New York Times. March 13, 2009.   [2] Forero, Juan. “Bolivia's Knot: No to Cocaine, but Yes to Coca”. New York Times. February 12, 2006.   [3] Forero, Juan. “Bolivia's Knot: No to Cocaine, but Yes to Coca”. New York Times. February 12, 2006.   [4] Transnational Institute Debate Papers. “Coca yes, cocaine, no?”. Transnational Institute. No. 2006/2. No. 13. May 2006.   [5] Transnational Institute Debate Papers. “Coca yes, cocaine, no?”. Transnational Institute. No. 2006/2. No. 13. May 2006.

The burden of evidence lies on the side trying to prove its harm, not on the side asserting that it is not harmful, and so the lack of categorical proof of its harm is in itself an argument for legalizing its cultivation and chewing. If proof of health risks arise then they can be addressed, but until then the ban is inappropriate and should be lifted.

If coca cultivation were legalized, there would probably be mechanisms and policies to allow the plant and its derivatives to co-exist without this necessarily signifying an increase in harmful consumption, and to limit it being grown in the huge amounts needed for cocaine production. [1] The legalizing of coca cultivation for non-cocaine use could also undermine the supply basis of cocaine itself, as farmer would shift their production of coca from cocaine-purposed coca to open market coca production, as legal production would be much more secure from government action. Therefore legalizing coca production could actually help make cocaine less readily available.  [1] Transnational Institute Debate Papers. “Coca yes, cocaine, no?”. Transnational Institute. No. 2006/2. No. 13. May 2006.

Legalising coca production would undemine the wider war on the drugs economy  The UN International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) said in 2011 that exceptions for Bolivia would undermine international narcotics control efforts: “[Allowing coca] would undermine the integrity of the global drug control system, undoing the good work of governments over many years.” [1] A US official said in January of 2011: “there is evidence to suggest that a substantial percentage” of the increased coca production in Bolivia over the past several years, registered in U.N. surveys, “has indeed gone into the network and the marketplace for cocaine.” [2] These examples thus show that legalizing coca cultivation would undermine the wider war on drugs, because it shifts the policy away from one of eradicating crops which could be turned into narcotics and instead turns towards making them acceptable on the global market. It encourages countries to take eradication efforts less seriously, and seemingly undermines the commitment of the international community to the war on drugs, once it gives in on this narcotic. This will make not just cocaine but many other drugs more widely available, leading to even more ruined lives through drug abuse.  [1] M&amp;C News. “Bolivia undermines global anti-drug efforts, UN warns”. M&amp;C News. Jul 5, 2011.   [2] Associated Press. “U.S. to fight Bolivia on allowing coca-leaf chewing”. The Portland Press Herald. January 19 2011.

Coca chewing is harmful and should be proscribed  The original decision to ban coca chewing was based on evidence that this was indeed harmful to human health. A 1950 report elaborated by the UN Commission of Inquiry on the Coca Leaf with a mandate from ECOSOC states that: "We believe that the daily, inveterate use of coca leaves by chewing ... is thoroughly noxious and therefore detrimental." [1] Therefore the risk of health harms should not be dismissed or undermined. Coca is also different to caffeine and other similar products in in its capacity to be diverted to highly potent, dangerous, and damaging use in cocaine. Therefore it has unique health considerations which make its prohibition acceptable.  [1] Jelsma, Martin. “Lifting the Ban on Coca Chewing”. Transnational Institute, Series on Legislative Reform of Drug Policies Nr. 11. March 2011.

Unrestricted Coca production would increase the availability of cocaine  Cocaine can be readily extracted from the coca leaf. In 1992 the World Health Organization’s Expert Committee on Drug Dependence (ECDD) undertook a ‘prereview’ of coca leaf at its 28th meeting. The 28th ECDD report concluded that, “the coca leaf is appropriately scheduled [as a narcotic] under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, since cocaine is readily extractable from the leaf.” [1] The active ingredient in coca leaf is the same as in cocaine, just more concentrated. Because the raw material of coca and its more potent relative cocaine are so closely aligned, it is impossible to disassociate the two, and so any attempt to consider cocaine a narcotic and stop its spread must also forbid coca. Globally, cocaine is also most produced where coca is legal, and this is a clear correlation. In Bolivia, coca eradication efforts in the 1980s and 90s helped reduce cocaine production. However, as Evo Morales took power and legalized coca production and consumption, cocaine production has shot up, despite his efforts to fight cocaine production. [2] Thus legalizing coca makes it easier for cocaine producers to operate. Legalizing the cultivation of the coca leaf would therefore simply make cocaine more readily available, thus increasing all the harms that come with widespread cocaine use in society.  [1] Jelsma, Martin. “Lifting the Ban on Coca Chewing”. Transnational Institute, Series on Legislative Reform of Drug Policies Nr. 11. March 2011.  [2] Forero, Juan. “Bolivia's Knot: No to Cocaine, but Yes to Coca”. New York Times. February 12, 2006.

With no other narcotic drug are the components parts of that drug banned in of themselves. For example, the raw component parts of crystal meth are not banned. These components are a variety of household cleaning compounds. [1] It is wrong therefore to suggest that it is impossible to have an effective anti-narcotics effort unless the component parts are banned, as this exact approach is successful taken in other areas.  [1] Associated Press. “New 'shake-and-bake' method for making crystal meth gets around drug laws but is no less dangerous”. NYDaily News. Tuesday, August 25th 2009.

The verdict of an individual trial should not be predicated on trials which have already been carried out and concluded. The evidence which is being ‘withheld’ here is in fact irrelevant to the case at hand. While these countries recognise that juries have great value as a representative of the people [1] , it is also important to recognise that people are vulnerable to bias – as shown by the huge increase in convictions when previous offences are disclosed [2] . The benefits of disclosing past convictions is outweighed by the benefits of the jury remaining impartial as far as possible, as this is the best way to reach a fair and just verdict.  [1] Tickner, Joel and Ketelsen, Lee, ‘Democracy and the Precautionary Principle’, The Networker, Vol. 6 No.3, May 2001  [2] The Economist, ‘Tilting the balance’, 2 January 2003

crime policing law general punishment society house would disclose previous

Juries need to have all the information possible in order to reach a fair verdict.  It is nonsensical to withhold evidence from a jury that might be necessary for them to reach an accurate verdict. Just because their verdict might be more prone to conviction rather than acquittal does not necessarily mean that this is an unfair or even inaccurate conclusion; given that violent offenders are likely to re-offend [1] , it may illuminate the truth rather than confuse it. Jurors should be allowed to weigh the relevance of previous convictions and compare them with the accusations of the trail at hand. A criminal justice system which currently relies on the ability of the jury to make a decision [2] cannot legitimately choose to withhold evidence from them without innately biasing the trial itself. As the UK Government’s White Paper states, ‘we want less evidence to be withheld from the courts, on the principle that relevant evidence should be admissible . . . magistrates, judges and juries have the common sense to evaluate relevant evidence and should be trusted to do so’ [3] . If we cannot trust juries to decide which evidence is relevant to the verdict and which is not, then the entire use of juries in the criminal justice system should be reconsidered.  [1] CBC News, ‘Getting out of prison’, March 2008.  [2] Direct Gov, ‘Jury service – what happens in court and after the trial’, 10 October 2011.  [3] CPS, ‘Justice for all’, The Stationary Office, July 2002.

If anything, this is an argument to prevent the media from publishing and details of a case or its defendant before the trial has been carried out, or from being more proactive and disqualifying jurors who ‘research’ their case before it comes to court. We should not endorse this kind of behaviour, which jurors know is not allowed, by legitimising it within court and announcing previous convictions. The harm of bias, particularly among those who would go out of their way to read about the personal history of a defendant, could be incredibly dangerous to the principle of a fair trial.

Occasional disclosure of convictions leads to an inconsistent justice system.  At present in Britain, some previous convictions may be disclosed if they bear a striking resemblance to the case at trial, if the defendant falsely claims to be of good character, or if they attack the character of a prosecution witness [1] . However, different judges invariable interpret these criteria in different ways, which leads to a wavering standard of trail where previous convictions may or may not be revealed. It would be much more efficient and transparent to allow this motion and make court procedures more accessible.  [1] The Economist, ‘Tilting the balance’, 2 January 2003.

The current system is unfairly weighted in favour of criminals.  It is unfair that those who repeatedly re-offend should be treated in the same manner as those who have committed one offence; a singular offence could mark a mistake or accident in the defendant’s choices, but repeated criminal acts mark a habit and a lack of regret for past crimes. Failing to take past convictions into account can lead to many dangerous offenders being underestimated by the jury, and so released. This is particularly pertinent in cases of child molestation, where child molesters have a particularly high rate of re-offending – expected to be even ‘larger than the reported 50 per cent’ - but ‘only a small proportion of sexual offences against children result in a conviction’. This conviction rate, however, does rise for ‘those with a history of prior sexual offences’ [1] .  Under the current conditions, this system is unfairly weighted against the innocent victims of repeated crime. A higher conviction rate, informed by the knowledge of previous offences, helps to reach justice for these victims and their families, as well as promoting justice and the safety of the general public who find it frustrating that so many dangerous offenders are released without appropriate conviction [2] . Moreover, jurors themselves lose confidence in the justice system when they find out that they have just acquitted a defendant who has committed a similar crime before. One notable example of this was series of trials of Kirk Reid, who committed many sexual assaults against women including several instances of rape and who was ‘wrongfully acquitted’ of his first offence in 1996. Not only did his victim lose all sense of hope in the justice system – she had faced her attacked and been discredited – but one of the jurors at the trial who believed that he was guilty went on to criticise the justice system itself [3] . The current system seriously risks acquitting criminals who have already committed similar crimes; it is time to rebalance the justice system to acknowledge the needs of the victims who suffer through wrongful acquittal of their attackers.  [1] Victims of Violence, ‘Research – Protecting Children from Sexual Abuse’, 28 February 2011  [2] Hughes, David, ‘Sex offenders to lose right to get out of jail early’, The Daily Mail  [3] Lette, Kathy, ‘For sexual assault, justice is on trial’, The Guardian, 1 July 2010

While recidivism is obviously a problem, this motion fails to take into account any situation where an individual has previously committed a crime but is innocent of the crime going to trial. Given that conviction rates soar when previous convictions are disclosed [1] , this motion doesn’t rebalance the justice system to cater for the victims, but risks seriously prejudicing those who are innocent of the crime going to trial. A wrongful conviction is just as bad as a wrongful acquittal; the prejudicial effects on the jury’s ability to make a verdict [2] undermines the objectivity of the justice system, and seriously risks the possibility of a fair trial.  [1] The Economist, ‘Tilting the balance’, 2 January 2003.  [2] The Economist, ‘Tilting the balance’, 2 January 2003.

The more obvious and efficient solution to this problem is to ensure a clearer standard of when previous convictions may or may not be disclosed, so that judges may act by the same standards. There is a simple solution to this particular complication; it would be an overreaction to suddenly change the entire court process by allowing this motion.

Revealing past convictions could actually be detrimental in providing an accurate character profile of the defendant or prosecution witness, particularly if the defendant has previously been convicted but has also had successful rehabilitation. This disclosure undermines a key principle of the justice system – rehabilitation and reintegration [1] – by undermining any possibility that they could have changed their lifestyle or altered their character. As such, while it might serve one point of court, it seriously undermines other principles of justice which should not be compromised for such a small benefit.  [1] law.jrank.org, ‘Rehabilitation – What is Rehabilitation?’

Jurors are already aware of information which might ‘bias’ their verdict.  Jurors are frequently affected by media coverage of particular cases, which makes it almost impossible for them to remain impartial in the idealistic way which opposition naively believes possible. This creates a situation where the jury may be more affected by information which they have found out elsewhere – for example on the news or in newspapers – than the information which is presented to them in court. There have been some cases where jurors search the internet to find the backgrounds to their cases, despite the fact that this is not allowed [1] . This evidently reflects that jurors feel that they have not been adequately informed and so seek facts elsewhere. Given that this need has been reflected by the jurors themselves, the court should give jurors all possible information and bring previous convictions into the open to ensure that they can base their verdict on reliable fact presented in court rather than resorting to sensationalist media.  [1] Attorney General’s Office, ‘Juror convicted for internet research’, 23 January 2012.

Defendants who are innocent will be protected  This motion could allow innocent defendants to mount a stronger case. This is because, if allowed, the previous convictions of prosecution witnesses would be admitted as evidence. In this case, if a prosecution witness falsely claims good character in opposition to the defendant, any falsity could be more easily seen and weighed by the jury. This solves a problem under that status quo where ‘the threat of introducing his [the defendant’s] previous convictions will frequently inhibit him from introducing character evidence about the prosecution witness’ [1] ; fear that the defendant’s convictions may weigh against them where the prosecution witness remains untouchable creates a discrepancy in the justice system. However, if convictions on both sides were to be revealed anyway, then neither can falsely claim the character of the other and attempt to convince the jury of false information on this front.  [1] CPS, ‘Justice for all’, The Stationary Office, July 2002.

It is patronising to state the jurors cannot understand the difference between a conviction and an acquittal. However, knowledge of the defendant’s background might help to shed light on the case at hand and allow the jurors to view the wider picture when weighing up their verdict.

Unfortunately, empirical evidence shows that past offenders are more likely to commit further offences [1] . Revealing past convictions could be a good indicator of how likely it is that the defendant could have committed a crime, particularly if it is a similar crime to one committed in the past. Acquitting a defendant of a crime which they had previously committed could easily create public outrage and discredit the justice system; it is only fair that past convictions should be taken into account alongside the rest of the evidence.  [1] Edwards, Richard, ‘Half of all criminals re-offend within a year’, The Telegraph, 5 September 2008.

We already recognise that we cannot place complete trust in juries.  Although we recognise that juries can provide valuable insight and represent the will of the general public in court cases [1] (and especially the communities in which the crimes occurred [2] ), there is also recognition that juries can be subject to bias [3] . Britain has even suggested plans to restrict the right to trial by jury in order to prevent undue bias from affecting court cases [4] . Elsewhere, experts are debating over whether jurors should learn about ‘a victim’s sexual history in rape cases where the defendant asserts that the accuser consented to sex, or a victim's propensity for violence in murder cases where the accused claims self-defense’ [5] because of fears that it might cause juror bias. We do not grant ultimate knowledge to jurors, nor should we; it endangers the potential for an unbiased trial.  [1] Lawson Neal, and Simms, Andrew, ‘A People’s Jury of a thousand angry citizens’, The Guardian, 31 July 2011.  [2] New Jersey Courts, ‘Welcome to the New Jersey Court System’, judiciary.state.nj.us, 2011.  [3] Howard Nations, ‘Overcoming Jury Bias’  [4] Davies, Patricia Wynn, ‘Plans to restrict right to trial by jury condemned’, The Independent, 28 February 1997.  [5] Silverglate, Harvey A., and Poulson, Dan, ‘Getting Real at the SJC’, Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, 30 May 2005 .

Allowing this motion would lead to a miscarriage of justice.  This motion removes the incentive for police to conduct vigorous investigations. Given the increasing pressure on policemen and women to gain convictions [1] , this motion will mean that their best chance of obtaining those convictions is simply to accuse those whose backgrounds could feasibly lead a jury to believe that they are not only capable of crime, but have committed the crime in question. Subsequently, the real culprits may be left to go free as suspicion is routinely pointed towards those who already have a criminal record. Given that poor police investigation [2] and poor case preparation by the prosecution [3] are currently a large source of dissatisfaction with the justice system, it is important to prevent either police or the prosecution from becoming dependent on the negative records of the defendants rather than properly fulfilling their roles.  [1] Bushywood, ‘CPS - Crown Persecution Service’.  [2] The Guardian, ‘The cost of poor policing’. 11 October 2010  [3] Human Rights Watch, ‘Justice at Risk: War Crimes Trials in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbia and Montenegro’, 14 October 2004, D1607.

The disclosure of previous convictions could falsely characterize the defendant.  This motion is incredibly dangerous in a variety of ways as not only convictions but also acquittals and other past conduct could then be raised in a court trials. This means that a jury could be informed that somebody had questionable behaviour, such as a sexual interest in children, even if they had never been tried or much less convicted of an actual offence. This would allow the prosecution to unduly blacken the character of the defendant, and easily prejudice the jury against them for no valid reason, and without the evidence which formal proceedings would require. Studies into jury verdicts have found that a jury was ‘50% more likely to convict if it was told that the defendant had a conviction for a similar previous offence than if it was given no information’, particularly in regard to sexual offences [1] . This is proof that jurors are highly susceptible to prejudice when reaching a verdict.  [1] The Economist, ‘Tilting the balance’, 2 January 2003.

The motion completely undermines the assumption of innocence which accompanies a fair trial.  By projecting past convictions on to a new case, this disclosure greatly weakens the presumption of innocence which is the defendant’s right [1] . It is the jury’s duty to form a verdict based on the relevant case, and it should not be dependent on events from the defendant’s past life which may be completely irrelevant to the case in hand. Many people who mistakenly committed a crime at one point in their life realise that it was a mistake and do not go on to re-offend, particularly if they have received help or treatment from the state [2] . Even if the defendant has repeatedly committed crimes in their past, it does not necessarily follow that they are guilty of the particular offence which has gone to trial.  [1] Criminal Defense Department’ Every person is PRESUMED INNOCENT until Proven Guilty Beyond a Reasonable Doubt’, Parkes Law Group, 6 May 2011  [2] Public Safety Canada, ‘Treatment for sex offenders’, 28 December 2007

This point places too much importance on the defendant’s history. In any case, records of their previous convictions must be heard alongside of the facts of the primary crime; any history will always be tempered by discussion of the actual crime. Satisfaction from the justice system will be greater if the public are aware that juries are not simply allowing past offenders to walk free; and if police and prosecution forces are found to be failing at their jobs, then this should be separately addressed and regulated.

Better training for jurors could easily override this problem. If we continue to use juries as an essential part of the justice system, it is important to make sure that they are as well-informed as possible. Ensuring that they are blind to the truth is not a legitimate way to achieve a fair or unbiased verdict; rather, it innately limits the accuracy of any verdict and confines it to only a portion of the truth.

Giving evidence is a traumatic experience, TV coverage or otherwise. TV broadcasts can already have measures brought in to protect witnesses – for instance it could be agreed that they are not directly filmed. Anonymized witnesses at the ICC currently give evidence by video-link, of which the audio is distorted and the image pixelated out, save for those who are permitted to see it, such as the judges and counsel.  The ICC already enters in to arrangements with other states for the protection of witnesses in their physical safety.

ure media television law international law house opposes televising all criminal

Witnesses might be identified and placed in danger  Televising criminal trials may cause a number of problems with witnesses. It may make individuals less likely to give evidence, make them more likely to play to the television audience, or make the already intimidating process of giving evidence in court more so. Also, television broadcasts make it more likely that the identities of anonymized witnesses would leak out – something that has already happened at the ICC in the Ruto-Sang case [1] .  The ICC already has problems with witnesses, including allegations of bribing and intimidating prosecution witnesses in the Ruto case [2] , which has led to Walter Barasa, a Kenyan Journalist, being subject to an arrest warrant [3] . Ending the televising of trials may go some way to remedy those problems.  [1] Lattus, Asumpta, ‘Evenson: ‘First time arrest warrant has been issued in Kenya case’, Deutsche Welle, 2 October 2013,   [2] Stewart, Catrina, ‘ICC on trials along with Kenya’s elite amid claims of bribery and intimidation’, The Guardian, 1 October 2013,   [3] ‘ICC seeks Walter Barasa arrest for Kenya ‘witness tampering’, BBC News, 2 October 2013,

The Hussein trial identified the solution to problematic rants disrupting the trial - the TV feed cut to the judge and faded out Hussein’s sound [1] . This is part of the reason why the ICC broadcasts are on a 30 minute delay, on web and TV access – outbursts, material that should be redacted and other things can be redacted before it reaches viewers.  These antics have been used in trials before the rolling news era, such as in the Chicago Eight case in the US, the trial of eight activists (one of whose trials was separated) for conspiracy and incitement to riot for offences regarding demonstrations at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. One of the defendants, Bobby Seale, launched in to a vicious vocal tirade against the judge, and was eventually bound and gagged in the courtroom. During the trial of the other seven, the defendants tried various antics including blowing kisses to the jury, wearing judicial robes which were removed to reveal police uniforms, not standing when the judge entered the court, and draping a North Vietnamese flag over the defence table [2] . The convictions – including those of the defence counsel for contempt of court – were overturned due to improper jury selection.  Television is not necessary for such behaviour.  [1] Engel, Richard, ‘Saddam trial outbursts, heard but not seen’, NBC News, 5 December 2005,   [2] Linder, Douglas O., ‘The Chicago Seven Conspiracy Trial’, University of Missouri Kansas City,

Televising turns justice into entertainment  Broadcasting trials would be likely to turn the court in to entertainment. The Simpson trial showed how harmful a televised high profile trial can be degenerating into a freak show. The ICC trials are among the most high profile in the world so are likely to be susceptible to this. Much of the interest in the SCSL Charles Taylor trial came along when Naomi Campbell gave evidence so giving the trial celebrity interest that had little to do with the legalities involved [1] .  Jurisdictions where cameras are not permitted in courts still can and do have accurate, informative and timely reports of cases, however high profile, without filming them. Courtroom sketches, written transcripts and other tools allow reportage without the use of original footage in a tawdry manner.  [1] Bowcott, Owen, ‘Charles Taylor and the ‘dirty-looking stones’ given to Naomi Campbell’, theguardian.com, 26 April 2012,

Court proceedings themselves aren’t, in general, entertaining. Live broadcasts would largely involve lawyers discussing intricate details of issues, including complex points of law. If there was a real prospect of an ICC trial becoming a matter of entertainment, it probably would have occurred with the existing trials.  Even high profile court cases will not get large viewing figures – the UK Supreme Court case in to the extradition of Julian Assange only got 14,500 viewers [1] . Existing regulations for the use of Supreme Court footage in the United Kingdom allow excerpts of the footage to be used in news and current affairs programmes, or educational uses, but bars the use of the footage in light entertainment or other programmes.  [1] Ministry of Justice, ‘Proposals to allow the broadcasting, filming, and recording of selected court proceedings’, gov.uk, May 2012,  at p10

Unruly defendants can play up to the cameras  Televising the trial can create extra incentives for defendants to attempt to disrupt the process. During his trial, Saddam Hussein regularly made outbursts and went on political rants – based on Iraqi law, he was able to examine witnesses after his lawyer. This was not new – Slobodan Milosevic tried various antics in front of the (televised) ICTY [1] , and Ratko Mladic used those tactics post-Hussein [2] . Milosevic’s approval ratings grew, and he even won a seat in the Serbian parliament while on trial.  A televised trial creates more of a risk of a political hijacking of the trial – something that has been shown to be a successful tactic by Milosevic. This both potentially damages the successor government by giving those on trial a platform and the court itself.  [1] Scharf, Michael P., Chaos in the Courtroom: Controlling disruptive defendants and contumacious counsel in war crimes trials’, University of Galway  [2] Biles, Peter, ‘Mladic’s courtroom antics’, BBC News, 4 July 2011,

Transcripts and other forms of notation would also set a historical record. While the Nuremberg trials were filmed, live television broadcast was not technically possible, footage was used for newsreels at the time. The lack of continuous total film footage has not stopped the Nuremberg trial from setting a historical record – the written judgements and transcripts are enough.

While there is no jury that could be identified, or influenced, by the broadcast, there is still the other problems attached to televised trials – issues of legitimacy, lawyers and defendants acting up etc.

Open justice – crimes with large numbers of victims  The principle of open justice, including the right to a public trial [1] , is enshrined in many legal systems. The best show of commitment to open justice is to allow everyone to watch it, the best method of doing so is for the trial to be televised. This is all the more the case when the victims can't all be in court, either because of the numbers or because of the distance.  Television coverage will help bring the trial closer to the victims. International criminal trials regularly take place outside the location of the offences, either in The Netherlands such as the ICTY, ICC and Charles Taylor trial, or elsewhere, such as the ICTR sitting in Arusha, Tanzania. It would be helpful in terms of providing closure to the victims, who should be witnessing proceedings.  [1] See the 6th Amendment to the US Constitution, Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Broadcasting provides a public record  Unlike many other criminal trials, since Nuremberg a key principle of International Criminal Law is that it aims to set a historical record. The events that it deals with are important as they are heinous crimes that change regions forever. A trial helps to get to the bottom of events that happened preventing there being multiple conflicting versions of events. This record also can help to act as a deterrent to others considering similar measures.  Broadcasting the trial will bolster this record by providing footage of the trial itself (which may reduce myths about it being unfair, for example) and providing a voice to the victims through their evidence, in their own words, being recorded for posterity and future study.

ICC does not have same problems as other legal systems  The ICC as a court does not have many of the things that a domestic criminal trial would have in terms of disadvantages of televising. Like all other international tribunals, there is no jury, only a panel of professional judges. Judges are going to be less intimidated by there being television broadcasts even if broadcasts of trials typically aim to obscure the identity of the jury. Similarly, there is a competent system of witness protection, and other safeguards.

Few people would actually watch the entirety of the trial proceedings, most would probably just see clips of the footage of news reports; television news coverage of criminal trials can already take place without actual footage.  While televising trials will engage the victims and their families, televising a criminal trial may inflame tensions as well. During the trial of Saddam Hussein, Hussein made a number of calls to violence during his televised trial. Many of those who are on trial have a significant number of followers (see the widespread support for Uhuru Kenyatta) – television broadcasts would give them a means of communication

Opposition agrees that handguns have unique advantages over other weapons; however, banning handguns in this area would lead to worse problems which are mentioned here as well as in the first point of opposition.  The biggest issue with banning handguns, especially in a city, is that handguns will still be available to criminal classes willing to simply import the weapons from elsewhere. Due to their concealable nature it is very easy for them to smuggle handguns into an area where a handgun ban has been imposed. This is problematic because law abiding citizens in this area will now not have guns to defend themselves with. As such an asymmetry of power has been created where the people who bear guns, mainly criminals have weapons which give them significantly more power than the citizens in that area.  Under the status quo, the legality of handguns means that although they are more dangerous than other weapons, their availability works in citizens’ favour. This is because the asymmetry of power mentioned above is then weighted in the other direction. If a large proportion of the population have handguns for self-defence then there will be a greater chance that criminals attempting to commit violent acts will encounter individuals carrying weapons, resulting in an equality of power between both attacking and defending parties. The asymmetry is then pushed towards the defensive parties because presumably there are more law abiding citizens than criminals. As such those who wish to use guns for defensive purposes outnumber those who want to use guns for criminal purposes, weighting power in favour of those defending themselves. This is verified by the incredibly common use of handguns in self-defence; roughly 80% of self-defence actions involve handguns.4

crime policing law general local government house would ban handguns washington dc

Handguns are uniquely dangerous when compared with other weapons  Handguns are specifically worse than most other weapons. They are weapons which are both concealable and portable. Shotguns and Rifles can easily be identified from a long distance making it easier to avoid those who are carrying them or conversely for the authorities check their motives for carrying arms. Handguns, being ranged weapons (as opposed to knives), prevent people from opting to run away if they are confronted by an attacker and being concealable prevent any attempt at avoiding those carrying them.  Because of these unique capabilities they make excellent weapons for gang members who wish to remain inconspicuous to avoid being searched by the police. Further, they are also uniquely useful for other criminal actors such as drug dealers who need to be able to protect themselves, but also need to appear unassuming for clients.  As such, handguns, where they are freely available, are often used by most criminals for these purposes. Given that handguns are also more likely to cause accidental injuries- as a result of incompetence or recklessness- than a knife, it seems logical that handguns cause a much larger harm to citizens in places where they are freely available.4

Studies have been conducted on cities where a handgun ban has been implemented. It found that cities such as New York and DC continued to exhibit high rates of crime and proved to be some of the most dangerous cities in the world, regardless of the ban on guns.6  As mentioned, this is because criminal gangs and criminogenic neighbourhoods in these cities have become entrenched. Anyone desperate enough to seek out a handgun- either for use in a crime or as a means of defending themselves in a crime-ridden neighbourhood- is likely to be able to acquire one regardless of the legal control that city councils may attempt to put in place. In the case of stop and search laws, it proves that criminals are adaptable and change their methods based on this lower burden of proof. For example, many gangs opt to keep guns in armouries and only loan them out as and when they are necessary.

Individuals Should Not Have the Right to Bear Arms in DC  Under the status quo the state exists to protect the security of its citizens. It does so by maintaining a monopoly of violence with the consent of its citizens. US citizens have been allowed to bear small arms as a symbolic representation of their ability to rise up against state oppression should it ever occur. That is, to keep a check and balance upon the monopoly of violence that the state has.  It is important to note that the state has the monopoly of violence such that it can protect its citizens in the best possible way. In the same way, the right to bear arms exists such that citizens can protect themselves and prevent harm. This means that should the state visit harm upon the citizens of the state then its right to claim a monopoly on violence is revoked and the citizens can fight against the state.  In a similar fashion to the above, should the citizens of the state use their right to bear arms to visit harm upon one another, it seems reasonable that in the same way that the state’s monopoly on violence is revoked, the citizens should have their right to bear arms revoked.  Given that this does not occur in every single part of the U.S. it also seems reasonable to isolate the ban to areas where the spirit of the right to bear arms is being significantly violated. In this case the ban is limited to DC however it could potentially extend to other areas in the U.S. which suffer similar problems.2

The issue with Washington DC and certain states in the U.S. is that the police and the state are unable to protect people. The opposition believes that people who visit violence upon one another should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. However, within certain areas of DC, the state consistently fails to protect its citizens and enforce its monopoly of violence in a just and effective fashion.  In doing so the state is failing to uphold its part of its agreement with its citizens. Further, if police in these areas are corrupt in any way, then the state is actively visiting harm upon its citizens.  If the state is failing to maintain its monopoly on violence then the citizens of that area have to take over in order to provide for their own security. The citizens of DC have a right to bear arms in order to protect themselves.  The failure is thus on the part of the state for deaths in DC. Citizens within the state should not have their rights curtailed for what is essentially a failing of the state.3

A handgun ban reduces crime and deaths  Aside from the fact that handguns are uniquely dangerous weapons, when the handgun ban was in place in DC, there was a reported decrease in crime in the area. In 1977 the year immediately following the ban the U.S. Conference of Mayors reported robberies, assaults and homicides using handguns had fallen in DC sharply. Further, in 1991 the University of Maryland published a study in the New England journal of Medicine suggesting the gun ban had saved lives in the decade before 1991, claiming that the ban had prevented 47 deaths in DC per year.5  It is theorised that the handgun ban does this because it makes other police tactics, such as stop and search, significantly more effective. If criminals wish to get the tactical advantage of power that opposition mention then they have to carry hand guns in order to do it. However, it means that if they are caught with a gun they become very easily identifiable and can easily be arrested to prevent harm coming to the populace of large. Specifically, the handgun ban means that the police have a much lower burden required in order to arrest suspects and given that a lot of the time the police have a strong idea of who the criminals are, but simply can’t pin them for arrest, such a tactical advantage helps them get dangerous people off the street.

Democracy is designed to be a flexible mechanism that can change based on different circumstances and at different times. The American constitution should provide a legal basis for all citizens of the U.S.  However, the reason such a legal basis exists is such that citizens in the U.S. are fairly treated under the law and thus benefit through the stability that such fairness creates.  However, it is also feasible that at certain points, part of the constitution could work out very badly for the state in some areas. This is why a system of amendments to the constitution exists.  As such, it is feasible that the constitution should also be able to deal with transitional periods where certain areas should be allowed different rights under the constitution because each area requires different laws in order to work properly that cannot be created on a state level.  Whilst this might cause some tension, most people in DC, particularly the non-criminals would probably understand the reasons behind a ban on handguns in their area, and indeed did when handguns were initially banned there.13

Firstly, the deterrence effect created by guns disappears if the use of guns is considered normal behaviour among the populace. Many violent and opportunistic crimes are committed out of necessity. They are not based on a rational calculus of the sort that side opposition discusses. In a society where gun use is normalised, criminals are more likely to view death as a hazard of their occupation, similar to arrest and imprisonment. In these circumstances, the deterrent effect of widespread gun ownership will quickly abate, overridden by desperation. Further, if crimes are being committed by gangs then often, need for respect from the gangs or fear of reprisal will simply override any beliefs regarding deterrence. Finally, criminals are very careful to pick actors who aren’t likely to be well armed and to do so in secluded places. As such, it is incredibly unlikely that they will be deterred from crime.  Secondly, people are likely to have guns holstered. This means that should they be mugged by a criminal they will be unable to retrieve their weapons from their holsters because any movement toward the holster will likely result in them being shot. As such, any concept of a parity of power between actors simply does not exist under the status quo

Handguns are Required For Symbolic Reasons As A Defence Against the State Monopoly of Power  Handguns are legal in the U.S. for symbolic reasons. In Justice Scalla’s oral argument he stated “isn't it perfectly plausible, indeed reasonable, to assume that since the framers knew that the way militias were destroyed by tyrants in the past was not by passing a law against militias, but by taking away the people's weapons -- that was the way militias were destroyed. The two clauses go together beautifully: Since we need a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”9 Guns are necessary to prevent the disarming of the people and as a statement that the citizens of the U.S. are allowed to stand up against the state.  In the formation of the state, the citizens of the state give up their freedoms and their ability to do violence upon each other in favour a state monopoly on violence. The implication is that the state, through this monopoly on violence, then prevents citizens from doing violence against one another.  However, it is possible for the state to use its monopoly on physical force in a reckless or subversive fashion. This means that the citizens should always be able to reassert the primacy of their rights and independence over the state, should the state begin to deviate from its mandated role as protector of those rights.  The right to carry firearms is part of this ability to assert one’s power over the state. However, as the state has become more powerful, ownership of small arms has become an increasingly symbolic gesture. Taking away the right to bear arms from any American is thus harmful, as it removes the symbol that the state’s power is not absolute and that ultimately the state is subservient to its people.10

The DC Handgun ban is inconsistent with other legislation in the U.S.  A change in legislation in DC that is markedly different from everywhere else in the U.S. is harmful. Whilst the constitution might be amended to give a specific change for DC, the rest of the U.S. will still be able to bear arms. The point of the American constitution is that it is meant to give an even field to all citizens under the law. Minor differences between people within different states is acceptable; owing to specific needs of specific states and all state legislation must be proved to be constitutional anyway. This difference is specifically problematic because of the nature of its interactions with both the constitution and the law.  This change is harmful because the state is dependent upon consistency within the law and perception of the law as being a fair mechanism for all people. Large inconsistencies within the law should not be tolerated as such inconsistencies often bring into debate the legitimacy of the state’s legal code. This is problematic as such debates and inconsistencies can lead to confusion about the reach of the law as well as doubt in the legitimacy of the law. The law is dependent upon citizens understanding and subscribing to the legal code, otherwise legal systems might suffer from problems such as people simply not reporting crime to the police owing to their doubt in the legal system and its ability to protect them, or otherwise law abiding citizens from other areas of the country inadvertently breaking the law by bringing guns into D.C.

Hand Guns Are Required For Self Defence.  Under the status quo handguns are legal. This means that should a criminal initially wish to consider mugging someone he has to consider the possibility that he might be shot should he choose to take this action. A visceral fear of death and injury means that a significant number of criminals will be deterred from engaging in burglaries, violent robberies or muggings if they suspect that they might face armed resistance. As such the presence of handguns within a community contributes to the general deterrence of crime within that community.7  Secondly, should someone try to attack someone else with a handgun, if the other person is armed then they are in a much better position to negotiate with their attacker and prevent harm to either party. Creating a public culture in which handguns are held and used sensibly, and in which firearms training is widely available, allows a parity of power to be created between ordinary citizens and criminals. However, this parity of power is changed in favour of the defender. This is because there are more law abiding citizens than criminals. If the mugger is caught by another citizen then it is possible that citizen will also have a handgun leading to a situation where the mugger will likely be arrested or risk death.8  Finally, the normalisation of handguns in society means that people are less likely to panic should they be attacked by a mugger who has one. Deaths from mugging can often be caused by the victim simply panicking in response to the mugger. Shots are often fired by desperate and unstable assailants who are unprepared for their victim’s reaction. In a society acclimatised to handguns and aware of the risk they present, incidents of this type- fuelled by panic, uncertainty and fear- are much less likely to occur.

The right for Americans to bear arms used to be important for symbolic reasons. However, now such a symbol does not serve to act in the same way that it once did. It was once realistic that American citizens would be able to counteract the monopoly of violence that the state has. However, in this age of modern warfare, such power simply does not exist in any real form any more. Weapons as symbols in this way are just symbolic of the loss of power that the citizens of the U.S. have undergone over time and further are symbolic of a fruitless endeavour in resistance of the state through violent means. The fact that the citizens of America feel the need to resort to violence as a symbol for the ability to stand up to the state harms what the state stands up for now, which is change through peaceful and democratic protest.  Further, even if the right to bear arms was still symbolic in a positive way, the good feeling such a symbol gives simply does not compare to the number of lives lost to things such as gun violence year on year.11

A democracy’s first duty must always be to the citizens that elect it, not to foreign dissidents. Their duty therefore is to be engaging with these regimes to the benefit of their own citizens; through encouraging trade relations for example. Offering amnesty to individuals oppressive regimes consider to be criminals will serve only to alienate those regimes from the process of negotiation so actually runs counter to the interests of the electorate. Such alienation would result in even more repression, and a greater unwillingness to adopt reforms. If democracies want to promote their mode of government abroad they would be best advised not to pick fights with those they wish to influence.

speech debate internet freedom law human rights digital freedoms freedom expression

Democracies have an obligation to shield these people and to encourage further dissent  The universality of human rights, of the freedom of speech and of due process is all touted as crucial by the world’s democracies. Democratic countries are frequently vocal on the subject of liberty, on the superiority of their system of government that provides for the best protection of human dignity. By offering amnesty to bloggers, the people standing at the forefront of the democratic cause in oppressive regimes, Western countries take a largely low-cost action that provides for the security and safety of some the bravest people in the public arena. The West must stop kowtowing to oppression and make a stand to offer an umbrella of protection to those who need it. That protection is absolutely crucial to the development of more dissent in the blogosphere and on the ground. Only by nurturing dissent can it ever take root and overcome the vast powers of authoritarian government. The promise of protection is hugely powerful because it gives bloggers a safety net to fall back on. Those already active will feel more empowered to speak out against their oppressors, and some currently cowed by fear will have the courage to speak up. The guarantee of amnesty also removes the perceived randomness of such offerings that currently occur, as in the recent case of Cuba in which two bloggers of similar pedigree asked for asylum in the US, but only one received it. [1] Such inconsistency has bred fear in the minds of dissidents. This policy would correct for it and help bolster the cause of justice on all fronts. It is through offering amnesty that democracies can provide the catalyst for the change they avow to be the paramount aim of human civilization.  [1] Fox News Latino. “Cuba: Prominent Blogger-Dissidents Receive Contradictory Results on Visa Petitions”. 31 January 2013.

This policy will not be a public statement of anything other than Western attempts to interfere in the internal affairs of others. It is also a powerfully hypocritical message; many democracies have libel laws that prevent libel and misrepresentation and authoritarian states should be allowed to have the same laws which will sometimes impact on bloggers. [1]  [1] Li, Eric X, “The Life of the Party”, Foreign Affairs, January/February 2013,

These people are under serious threat for their pursuit of justice  The internet has become the paramount means of voicing dissent within repressive regimes. As the technology regimes have to keep control of their people increases, with access to high-tech surveillance technology adding to their already formidable arsenals of physical oppression, the internet has become the only platform to express meaningful dissent. The Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia, for example, wherein people mobilized to overthrow their dictator has even been dubbed the Twitter Revolution. [1] Bloggers have become a major voice of dissent in other repressive regimes, including Cuba and China. Yet the blog platform is far from safe. Governments have sought to crack down on bloggers’ ability to dissent, using draconian methods like imprisonment to cow them into silence. In China the arrests of bloggers like Zhai Xiaobing, who was arrested and detained for simply posting a joke about Communist Party, have served to frighten many into silence. [2] So long as information is denied to the public, governments are able to maintain their repression. Only external help from democratic, or at least more liberal, states can provide the safe haven for people who have rubbed their governments the wrong way in their pursuit of reform and justice.  [1] Zuckerman, E. “The First Twitter Revolution?”. Foreign Policy. 14 January 2011.   [2] Wong, G. “Zhai Xiaobing, Chinese Blogger, Arrested for Twitter Joke About China’s Government”. Huffington Post. 21 November 2012.

Offering amnesty will not serve the cause of justice, it is responding to the symptom not the cause. It is unfortunate that individual bloggers suffer at the hands of governments, but seeking to give them amnesty will only serve to anger the regimes, leading to even further oppression and stifling of dissent. This unfortunately means that an individual is saved even as their actions may result in further reductions in the liberties of those who remain. As seen in China, the process of reform is slow and gradual. Upsetting that process could well increase the repression Western peoples feel to be so reprehensible.

This offer of amnesty serves as a powerful public statement in favour of free speech and rule of law  In offering amnesty Western governments make an exceptionally powerful public statement in the international arena, an area in which they already hold great sway as norm-setters. It is a statement that shows that they will not simply ignore the abuses of power used by repressive regimes to stifle dissent and the voices of reform. [1] Ultimately, the power of oppressors to act with impunity is the product of democracies’ unwillingness to challenge them. Authoritarian regimes often claim to value freedom of the press, for example article 35 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China guarantees it, [2] and this policy challenges them to make their practice more like what they preach. A policy of amnesty for those threatened with the lash of tyranny serves to actively protect those people while at the same time upholding the avowed principles of justice and fairness the West proclaims. This will show that the West does not play favourites or turn a blind eye to these repressions, but is an active player, willing to step in to shield those who share its dreams of a freer world. The international ridicule these policies can generate will serve to shame regimes into relaxing their policies and to embrace at least a road to reform. Nor should it be assumed that this rhetoric will have no real consequences, many authoritarian regimes encourage investment by companies from democratic countries, such investment is less likely when that company’s home state is publically condemning that state by granting amnesties to dissident bloggers.  [1] Clinton, H. “Conference on Internet Freedom”. U.S. Department of State, 8 December 2011.   [2] Fifth National People’s Congress, “Constitution of the People’s Republic of China”, 4 December 1982,

People in oppressive regimes are smart enough to know when they are being duped. They will listen if the bloggers have a good point and are being unjustifiably persecuted. In the case of the Japan-China territorial dispute, there is the tangible fact that the islands are being fought over for nationalists to attach to irrespective of ideology. Offering amnesty is simply an offer to rescue people facing imminent unjust punishment. While governments will no doubt seek to paint them as foreign agents, their ideas will be able to continue to battle in the public sphere, rather than be shut off forever with the closing of a prison-cell door.

All countries, even authoritarian ones, desire to be considered legitimate and valued in the international community. The weight of condemnation that a policy of amnesty creates is one that bears down heavily on repressive regimes and can galvanize them to reform. Furthermore, it is essential that Western governments nurture dissidents and give them shelter so they can continue their mission to attain justice rather than be thrown into jail.

The liberal democratic paradigm is not the only legitimate model of government, a fact that democracies should accept and embrace  Ultimately, states’ laws have to be respected. Liberal democracy has not proven to be the end of history as Fukuyama suggested, but is rather one robust system of government among many. China has become the example of a state-led capitalist model that relies on a covenant with the people fundamentally different from that between democratic governments and their citizens. [1] Chinas ruling communist party has legitimacy as a result of its performance and its role in modernising the country. [2] China’s people have accepted a trade-off; economic growth and prosperity in exchange for their liberties. When dissidents challenge this paradigm, the government becomes aggrieved and seeks to re-establish its power and authority. If the dissidents are breaking that country’s laws then the state has every right to punish them. Singapore similarly has an authoritarian version of democracy that delivers an efficient, peaceful state at the expense of constraints on the ability to criticise the government. [3] This collective model of rights has no inherent value that is lesser to that of the civil liberties-centric model of liberal democracy. In the end, as the geopolitical map becomes complicated with different versions of governance, states must learn to live with one another. The problem of offering amnesty to bloggers is that democracies and the West seek to enforce their paradigm onto that of states that differ. This will engender resentment and conflict. The world economy and social system relies on cooperation, trade, and peace. The difference between systems and cultures should be celebrated rather than simply assuming that there is only one true model and all others are somehow inferior.  [1] Acemoglu, D. and Robinson, J. “Is State Capitalism Winning?”. Project Syndicate. 31 December 2012.   [2] Li, Eric X, “The Life of the Party”, Foreign Affairs, January/February 2013,   [3] Henderson, Drew, “Singapore suppresses dissident” Yale Daily News, 5 November 2010,

Democracies should be wary of meddling in the internal affairs of other countries  Authoritarian countries tend to guard their sovereignty jealously and will not take kindly to what they would consider to be interference in their internal affairs. In many cases this is exactly what the government offering an amnesty would be doing. Should foreign countries really be deciding that the justice system of a country was wrong in this or that case so amnesty should be provided? Where there are legal proceedings against a blogger that end up with the blogger being sent to jail those outside the country may think the sentences unjust but as countries that publically support the rule of law they should accept the result. It may well be the case that sometimes the judicial system has been used to persecute a blogger but it is difficult to see why an outside power with little interest in the case should believe they have the right to provide an alternative verdict through an amnesty. Where a country disapproves of the treatment of an individual this should be done by negotiating with the government in question and providing any alternative evidence they have. Cuba for example has released dissidents before as a result of negotiations with outside actors; the release 80 dissidents for the visit by Pope John Paul II in 1998 being merely the most successful example. [1]  [1] Human Rights Watch, “Cuba: Release of Dissidents Still Leaves Scores in Prison”, 8 July 2012,

The offer of amnesty allows home governments to discredit bloggers and paint them as foreign agents of disruption  When Western states and democracies offer amnesty to bloggers under threat from their home governments, the blogger’s views and comments immediately become coloured in the eyes of the public. The government is able to point to the Western powers offering this amnesty and can easily claim that their offers are the result of collusion between bloggers and their foreign patrons to spread propaganda, so the blogger is therefore guilty of treason. As unfortunate as it may be in individual cases, the result is that offering amnesty will only weaken the cause of democracy. Being sent to prison for their beliefs will do far more to serve their cause than seeking succour in the arms of another state, one that has demonstrated antagonism toward their homeland. The ability for governments to stoke nationalist fires has been thoroughly demonstrated in recent months by China’s reaction toward territorial disputes with Japan. [1] It is very easy to rile the public against a perceived external aggressor, especially given that these states often control much of the mainstream media outlets, and those who offer amnesty give themselves up on a platter as an adversary to be exploited in the public consciousness. The better plan for democracies in pursuit of their goals is to condemn acts of oppression and to seek diplomatic redress, but direct interference in the course of states’ justice will doing nothing but harm relations with regimes and turn the people against the proponents of reform.  [1] The Economist. “Barren Rocks, Barren Nationalism”. 25 August 2012.

An amnesty policy will serve only to alienate regimes, shutting down the possibility of discourse or reform  It is a natural conclusion that a repressive regime, which operates largely by force and the control of its population, will react rather negatively to an action by the West that appears to be a calculated, public, and on-going subversion of their power in favour of criminal dissidents. The result of such action by Western democracies will not be any positive discourse between the targeted regime and the West, but will rather cause a breakdown in communication. They will be reticent to engage for the very reason that the states seeking to influence them are clearly not interested in dealing on an equal footing, but rather wish to undermine their way of life in favour of asserting their own superiority. The best way to actually get talks about reform started, and to empower those who wish for more democracy and press freedom, is to patiently engage with these regimes, to coax them peaceably toward reform without threatening their core aims. [1] Aggression toward them will generate aggression in return as is shown again and again by North Korea and the responses to its actions by the United States. While incremental change may feel glacial, the long game is the only way to get changes without letting blood flow through the streets. The only possible outcome of this policy would be a harsher crackdown on bloggers by these governments.  [1] Larison, D. “Engagement is Not Appeasement”. The American Conservative. 17 December 2012.

An amnesty would clearly only be offered under certain circumstances. In cases where there are judicial proceedings then the offer of an amnesty could only take effect when the individual being offered it is released and able to take advantage of the offer. It is also wrong to consider that an offer of an amnesty is unwarranted interference in internal affairs; the country in question clearly objects to what the blogger is doing so this is opening an avenue where both the state and blogger get what they want.

Liberal democracy is in a clash of ideologies with other competing systems, they promote their own systems through other means such as aid to regimes that are considered to be backsliding by liberal democracies with no strings attached. It is critical that the democratic paradigm not submit to the demands of other systems that would undermine the rights and values that democracy has come to view as universal. While liberal democracy may not be the only legitimate form of governance there are universal right, such as freedom of expression, which must be accepted by all states and should be protected both at home and abroad. China’s vibrant dissident community is example enough that the alternative rights framework that the Communist Party offers is deficient. Rather than let those fresh shoots of democratic advocacy be smothered, the West should nurture them, and give them protection when they face vicious threats from cruel regimes.

First, it is unclear if this is even true. A 2010 poll showed support for dismantling settlements in exchange for Peace at an all-time high in Israel. [1]  Secondly, even if it is true that settlements complicate the internal Israeli political picture, the impact on the Peace Process is limited to the extent to which one accepts that the West Bank borders are sacrosanct. Beyond that, the difference in political cost between uprooting 180,000 and 300,000 settlers is marginal at best – both are likely impossible concessions for any Israeli government to make except under enormous international pressure in which case the numerical difference is of limited importance.  Far more important is accepting that the assumption that the West Bank boundaries are sacrosanct has done far more harm than good. It gives neither side room to compromise on the issues of vital importance to them. For Israel, providing defence in depth for Tel Aviv which is only sixteen miles from Jerusalem, for the Palestinians, ensuring that their national home is economically viable.  Far better would be to use the existent of the settlements to pressure both sides to accept that some portion of the West Bank will remain with Israel in any settlement, while in exchange, some portion of Israel proper approximately equal in size will be transferred to a future Palestinian entity. Once both sides accept this premise, the number of options for an agreement and for compensations on the issues of dispute increase astronomically.  It is perhaps for this reason that support for this exchange has moved from the fringes to the mainstream of Israel Political thinking with even Tzipi Livni of the Center-Left Kadima now open to it. [2]  [1] Richman, Alvin, ‘Israeli Public’s Support for Dismantling Most Settlements Has Risen to a Five-Year High’, World Public Opinion.org, 15 April 2010,   [2] Carlstrom, Gregg, ‘Lieberman sees common ground with Livni’, Al Jazeera, 25 January 2011,

rnational middle east law human rights international law house believes israels west

The Settlements commit future Israeli governments to a harder stand in future negotiations  Whether deliberate or not, the settlements are changing the “facts on the ground” by changing the political calculus for future Israeli governments.  While most Israeli politicians accept the need to abandon some smaller settlements, the vast majority are unlikely to be evacuated. It was politically divisive to the point of breaking the Likud party in two when Ariel Sharon, a man with more credit than anyone else on the Israeli right pulled out of Gaza in 2005, and there were only a little over 7000 Israeli settlers there. By contrast there are now more than 300,000 settlers in the West Bank, and this number is rising fast. [1] There were less than 200,000 in 2000. [2]  Of these settlers, many are religious and vote for the Haridam (Orthodox) parties like the National Religious Party . [3] Because the party has served in governments of both the Left and the Right in recent years, in practice they and the ultra-nationalist Israel Beitinu tend to hold the balance of power in the Israeli Knesset.  Therefore every time Israel expands settlements, they are reducing their room to manoeuvre in future Peace Negotiations, and forcing themselves to take a harder stance. This means that Peace will either become less likely (because Israel will set more extreme terms) or that Israel will face more internal divisions in order to offer it. In either case, as the settlements expand  [1] Levinson, Chaim, ‘IDF: More than 300, 000 settlers live in West Bank’, Haaretz.com, 27 July 2009,   [2] Wikipedia, ‘Population statistics for Israeli West Bank settlements’, en.wikipedia.org,  , accessed 20 January 2012  [3] Etkes, Dror, ‘The Ultra-Orthodox Jews in the West Bank’, Peace Now, October 2005,

The settlements at the current time occupy less than 3% of the West Bank, [1] and even if one were to take into account the land needed for their security in any settlement, most have predicted that at most 9-11% of the region would be affected, much less than the area currently controlled by the settlements, [2] and this would be subject to compensation elsewhere.  The vast majority of this growth is taking place existing settlements or adjacent to them, so even large amounts of proportional growth are not shifting the percentages sharply.  Furthermore, a time factor is far from a uniform negative. A large portion of the Palestinian strategy from the mid-1990s onwards has arguably been to drag out negotiations while hoping that a better international climate would lead other countries to exert pressure on Israel for concessions. This strategy has seen their negotiating position deteriorate and undermined support for an agreement within Israel.  By adding a time element, it incentives the Palestinians to think seriously about pressing for an agreement now, rather than looking to fantasy solutions like potential UN recognition that would do nothing to alter the fundamental fact that any possible agreement will have to be made with, and therefore be acceptable to, Israel.  [1] Fleischer, Tzvi, ‘How much land do West Bank settlements take up?’, Australian/Israel &amp; Jewish Affairs Council,   [2] CBS News, ‘Group: Israel Controls 42% of West Bank’, 6 July 2010,

The Settlements are illegal, and demonstrate the impotence of the international community  The Settlements, constructed on land that is neither recognizably Israel’s nor which Israel has even claimed to annex are illegal, encroaching on the territory of a future Palestinian state.  It is absurd for the international community to demand the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, and yet allow Israel to establish its population on that land in settlements that view themselves and are viewed by Israel as Israeli territory. [1]  Furthermore, their continued expansion is something that each and every Palestinian can see every day. As a result, the continued expansion both: 1. Destroys Palestinian confidence in the ability and willingness of the International community to enforce its own promises, especially after repeated American and European promises to stop their construction.  2. Convinces Palestinian opinion that the negotiating process is an Israeli game to buy time until they have changed the facts on the ground.  As a consequence of these two factors, the continued expansion of settlements has an impact in driving Palestinians towards violent resistance even beyond the direct impact of the settlement construction by undermining their faith in International Law, and by adding a sense of urgency to their grievances.  [1] MacIntyre, Donald, ‘The Big Question: What are Israeli settlements, and why are they coming under pressure?’, the Independent, 29 May 2009,

The settlements are a sideshow that provide a convenient excuse for the Palestinians and their foreign friends to ignore the real (and difficult to solve) issues such as Jerusalem and what sort of sovereignty a Palestinian state would have.  For one thing, international law is very unclear on who owns the West Bank. Jordan gave up all claim to it in 1988, but its unclear as to whether their annexation in 1949 was legitimate in the first place. [1] Only Pakistan and Great Britain ever legally recognized Jordanian sovereignty over the West Bank. Secondly, the current border of the West Bank are arbitrary, the results of the military conflict of 1948-49 for which they represent the cease-fire line. As a consequence, even if one accepts the principle that there should be a Palestinian state in the West Bank, it does not follow that the final international border should follow the regions border exactly. It might for instance to make sense, as Israelis like Avigador Lieberman have suggested, to trade Arab villages in Israel proper for settlement areas on the West Bank. [2]  The Settlement issue mainly serves the purpose of putting Israel in the wrong, so as to distract from the need on the part of the Palestinians to define what sort of state they are willing to accept. The problem is not territory per se, but what happens to that territory and it’s on that issue that previous efforts to reach peace deals have faltered.  [1] ‘Jordan Renounced Claims to West Bank, 1988’, Palestine Facts,   [2] Carlstrom, Gregg, ‘Lieberman sees common ground with Livni’, Al Jazeera, 25 January 2011,

First of all, the security precautions are not a perquisite of settlements in and of themselves, but a consequence of the violent condition of the West Bank. Similar settlements in the Negev do not require anywhere near the degree of investment in security and protection.  Such precautions will almost certainly be removed not only in a final settlement but also in any intermediate ones. Israel has already shown a preparedness of to lift travel restrictions on Palestinians in exchange for reductions in violence. [1]  [1] Hass, Amira, ‘Israel to lift restrictions on Palestinian Jordan Valley travel’, Haaretz.com, 26 April 2007,

The Settlements are seen by Palestinians as a sign of bad faith on the part of Israel, and therefore weaken the hand of Pro-Peace elements  As important as the existence of the settlements themselves is their continued growth. The very fact that Israel has continued to ostensibly negotiate for the independence of a Palestinian state in the West Bank on one hand while rapidly expanding the population and the size of Israeli settlements can be interpreted as a sign of bad faith.  For one thing, it raises questions of the seriousness with which Israel is attempting to reach an agreement. Even if the programs of Settlement expansion are intended as a temporary policy in lieu of a settlement, the very fact that Israel’s plan B is arguably as popular as peace, and being pursued with far more vigour could lead many Palestinians to conclude that Israel is attempting to run out the clock.  The consequences of this are inauspicious for the Peace Process. As Palestinian faith in the prospect of peaceful negotiations falters, groups like Hamas are likely to find an increasingly receptive audience for their view that only force will compel Israel to negotiate seriously. This in turn will make compromise all the more difficult to achieve.

Settlements remove Palestinians from their own land, and they produce a self-perpetuating cycle in their sear  The settlements themselves are self-perpetuating in a manner that makes them pernicious to the rights and very existence of neighbouring Palestinian communities.  For one thing, a settlement cannot function in isolation. It needs a road for its residents to safely travel to and from work in Israel. Security needs subsequently require that this road be protected from attacks by creating a large military presence along its route, and in many cases moving existing Palestinian settlements. At the very least Palestinian areas are bisected by impassable thoroughfares. [1]  In turn settlements require their fields to be protected by high walls and electric fences to protect them from attack, and the construction crews building them also require protection.  The result is that even a settlement of a few hundred families rapidly requires the takeover of an amount of land out of all proportion to the actual number of settlers involved, and any further expansion compounds the problem. [2] The security needs of settlements create a situation which makes the livelihood of Palestinians impossible. The existence of the settlements makes these security policies a necessity. As a consequence, the only clear solution is the removal of the settlements.  [1] United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs occupied Palestinian territory, ‘The Humanitarian Impact of Israeli Settlement Policies’, January 2012,   [2] CBS News, ‘Group: Israel Controls 42% of West Bank’, 6 July 2010,

It is absurd to argue that because someone is hypocritical that they lose their rights. The fact is that the Palestinians today are not guilty of the crimes of their ancestors anymore than the Israelis are.  Rather than being evaluated based on history, they should be evaluated based on what is justified now. And settlements make both sides less secure, and render peace less and less likely.

The Palestinians themselves did not enjoy self-rule after 1948 and the blame for the expulsions should not be placed on them but on the Jordanian authorities, and they are the ones who should be obligated to provide compensation if any is due. And the Palestinians played no role in the expulsion of Jews from states like Iraq and Egypt and therefore to impose compensation at their expense is deeply unfair.  Furthermore, while many of the settlement may have been built near the sites of abandoned Jewish communities, most have expanded far beyond those locations and the need to provide security for them has led to the confiscation of historically Arab land.

Settlements provide economic investment in the Occupied Territories  The fundamental fact is that the West Bank, whatever its status, is not an economically viable entity on its own. It produces few goods, while Gaza produces next to none, and independence without a major influx of capital will not change this situation.  The best source for a supply of capitol in the region lies in Israel, which has an enormous demand for a low-wage work-force. Millions of Palestinians worked in Israel until after 2000, and with travel into Israel proper restricted, settlement construction and cultivation provide economic development opportunities for the region and create jobs for Palestinians. [1] This is an important prospect when the unemployment figures for the Palestinians are at nearly 30%. [2]  Furthermore the very need for such labor is likely to further incentivise Israel to loosen restrictions on Palestinian workers in the West Bank and Gaza.  [1] Hass, Amira, ‘Israel to lift restrictions on Palestinian Jordan Valley travel’, Haaretz.com, 26 April 2007,   [2] ‘Palestinian unemployment shows gradual decline’, Jmcc, 21 February 2010,

There is nothing legal or sacred about the West Bank’s borders – it was an ad-hoc armistice line never recognized internationally  The West Bank is not some sort of recognized entity with legally or internationally recognized boundaries. Its borders were the 1948 cease-fire line between Israeli and Jordanian forces, and Jordan’s annexation of the region, and hence the borders were only recognized by two countries – the United Kingdom and Pakistan. [1]  This is important, because the entire challenge to the legality of the settlements, i.e. Why they are unacceptable in Hebron but not in the Negev, is due to the belief that Israel is somehow annexing Palestinian territory. While some of the West Bank was intended to be part of a Palestinian state in 1948, and some will be incorporated into a new one in the future, Israel is under no responsibility to the international community or any comprehension of International law to recognize boundaries that have no legal force and do not legally exist.  [1] ‘Jordan Renounced Claims to West Bank, 1988’, Palestine Facts,

The Palestinians were full participants in the 1948 War against Israel  Before the discussion of the Palestinians as the innocent victims of Israeli oppression can be established, it should be noted that the Palestinian leadership were full participants in rejecting the 1948 partition plan and the war that followed. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem rejected any form of compromise, and urged the removal of the region’s Jewish population, while massacres of Jewish settlers at Palestinian hands and the complete elimination of the Jewish presence in the areas of Palestine that the Israelis did not secure in 1948 speaks to a certain degree of popular enthusiasm. [1]  Following 1948, Israeli law provided for compensation or the return of land for any exiled Palestinians who returned to Israel proper and took an oath to the state.  This does not justify the actions of Israel in their entirety, but the tragedy of the Palestinian people is partially of their own making, and if one accepts the principles of the right of return, then the creation of Israeli settlements furthers this on the Israeli side.  Furthermore, it calls into question what, if any legal claim the Palestinians can have to any land on the basis of a UN partition plan they rejected, and on the basis of principles and practices they themselves have subverted.  [1] Dershowitz, Alan, ‘Has Israel’s Victimization of the Palestinians Been the Primary Cause of the Arab-Israeli Conflict?’, The Case for Israel, Chapter 10, 2003,

The Settlements are justified based on the expulsion of Jews from Arab lands after 1967  Settlement construction, and in fact the whole settlement of Jews in the West Bank has to be viewed in the wider context of the Middle East conflict as a whole.  Jews lived in the West Bank for thousands of years before the creation of Israel, and it was only after the 1948 war when Jews were fully ethnically cleansed from the region. While a Diaspora took place among the Arabs of Israel it was neither as deliberate nor as thorough – a large Arab population remained. No Jews remained in the West Bank under Jordanian rule.  As such many of these settlements are not artificial constructions but built on the ruins of pre-1948 Jewish communities.  Furthermore, the same 1967 War that brought on the Israeli conquest of the West Bank was also followed by a new round of pogroms against the nearly 800,000 Jews living in Arab countries more than 95% of which were driven into exile in Israel. [1] Israel has not responded by expelling or compensating them at the expense of their own Arabs, as they would be morally justified in doing, but rather has settled them on empty land in the West Bank. Any claim that the Palestinians have an inherent right to property which they do not explicitly own must also take into account Israel’s need to compensate these refugees.  [1] Aharoni, Ada, ‘The Forced Migration of Jews From Arab Countries and Peace’, August 2002, Historical Society of Jews from Egypt,

If de facto boundaries exist for a long enough time they gain legal force. The border between North and South Korea is a legal armistice line, rather than an official international boundary, but anyone attempting to make that argument upon crossing it would be likely to receive a cool reception.  The boundaries of the West Bank were de facto recognized, first when Israel and Jordan agreed to abide by them for twenty years after 1948, second when Jordan ceded all claim to the territories, and third implicitly by Israel itself which has made no claim to annex the territory, even in areas where settlements are located. They have not bothered with this sort of diplomatic care when it comes to the Golan Heights which they annexed. [1]  As a consequence it can be implied that at least Israel believes that its claims to the West Bank are questionable, and would like to ensure them through negotiation and this makes the claim that they don’t know exactly what they are doing in the West Bank and that it’s a de facto violation of International Law something less than plausible..  [1] Wikipedia, ‘Golan Heights’, en.wikipedia.org,  , accessed 20 January 2012

It is ironic that when the agricultural basis of the Palestinian economy is being strangled by settlement construction and the seizure of groves involved, that Palestinians should be grateful for the job opportunities provided in low-wage service positions in the Israeli settlements. [1]  Furthermore, even if one accepts the economic premises of the government’s argument, one is left with the fact that Israel’s policies are creating a climate of economic dependence that will ensure that any future Palestinian entity is economically and therefore politically dependent on Israel.  The Palestinian movement is as much a resistance against colonial exploitation as it is a revolt against a legal denial of independence, and it is unlikely their grievances will be settled when similar arrangements have left Israeli Arabs more alienated from the Jewish state than ever before. [2]  [1] Alwazir, Atyaf, ‘Uprooting Olive Trees in Palestine’, American.edu, November 2002,   [2] Telhami, Shibley, ‘The 2011 Public Opinion Poll of Jewish and Arab Citizens of Israel’, Brookings, 1 December 2011,

States are capable of their own enforcement, even in the difficult cases – for example, Radovan Karadzic was arrested by the Serbian authorities for his trial by the ICTY, and would not necessarily have been arrested faster by an outside force rather than the Serbian police. A large number of states have been pouring resources in to capturing the Lord’s Resistance Army fugitives such as Joseph Kony – if they cannot do capture him, there is no reason to believe that an ICC Police would be able to. Recently the Ugandan Army has been willing to cross borders to chase Kony, so far with little to show for it. [1]  [1] Van Woudenberg, Anneke, ‘How to Catch Joseph Kony’, Human Rights Watch, 9 March 2012,

crime policing international law house believes icc should have its own enforcement

An ICC enforcement arm would be quicker  If international criminals are to be caught it needs to be clear that there is an organisation with the responsibility and authority to catch them. This is especially important when the criminal in question is able to slip across borders to avoid the national authorities in one state as Joseph Kony has done as the ICC would be able to cross borders itself and coordinate the response from multiple countries. The importance of an organisation that is able to catch international criminals can be highlighted by the experience of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia where despite a Memorandum of Understanding relating to the detention of war criminals in Bosnia NATO denied it had the power to make arrests so leading to patrols actively avoiding wanted men to avoid a situation in which they might have to engage in arrests. [1] A lack of clarity over whether an organisation can enforce its warrants for arrest results in arrests not being made. Ultimately the ICTY was successful because this situation was resolved with the creation of multinational police forces backed up with traditional NATO military power if necessary leading to the arrest of 126 individuals. [2]  [1] Zhou, Han-Ru, ‘The Enforcement of Arrest Warrants by International Forces From the ICTY to the ICC’, Journal of International Criminal Justice, Vol.4, 2006, pp.202-18,  pp214-6  [2] Ibid, p.203

An enforcement arm would still have finite resources. There is no guarantee that an ICC in-house enforcement system would arrest more suspects than the existing system of state bilateral co-operation. This is particularly the case in relation to the most thorny problems the ICC faces – how to catch those who have the backing of their state. An independent force would not enable the ICC to snatch Omar al-Bashir out of Sudan unless the proposal was to create a special forces style force and any such action would have large diplomatic repercussions.

An ICC enforcement is a necessity if there is to be international criminal justice  The remit of the ICC is unlike the remit of any national court. It deals exclusively in crimes so unacceptable there is an international consensus behind their illegality and the need for prosecutions. The parties that signed up to the Rome Statute’s reason for the creation of the ICC was “that such grave crimes threaten the peace, security and well-being of the world” the perpetrators of such crimes clearly need to be brought to book, and to do that they need to be apprehended. The same agreement said the signatories were “Resolved to guarantee lasting respect for and the enforcement of international justice” if this is the case then there should be agreement on enabling that enforcement by creating an ICC enforcement arm. Again the Rome statute makes clear that the agreement “shall not be taken as authorizing” intervention by another state. This is why the enforcement needs to be done by a separate international force who could not be considered a threat to any state. [1] Quite simply there is little point in international criminal justice if there is no force to bring the criminals to the court.  [1] ‘Preamble’ Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 1 July 2002,

While the ICC is a multinational body, it is designed to have a respect for individual nations court systems. It is mainly a “backstop” court, it is happy to see nations prosecute those offences – the Rome Statute mandates that they be added to the domestic criminal law. This is the principle of complementarity. As such there is no need for an international force as the enforcement of international criminal law is provided by the member state’s police forces who will catch the criminals that the ICC wishes to prosecute and send them to the court.

Just creating a force to bring suspects to trial would not necessarily be enough to make the ICC a more credible organization. That would have to come through more measures and building multilateral support in areas where situations have been referred to the council. This increase in credibility of the ICC also comes at the expense of the sovereignty of the states that call the ICC force in. Many nations would much prefer the current system where it is clearly solely within their purview to arrest criminals on their soil, creating a competitor with its own police force will be considered by many to be undermining their sovereignty so damaging not improving the chances of a state being willing to involve the ICC.

An ICC Enforcement arm would bring in a higher proportion of defendants in to trial  Eight out of the thirty people indicted by the ICC (four in the Darfur situation, including Omar al-Bashir, three Lord’s Resistance Army leaders in Uganda and one in the DR Congo investigation) are still alive and avoiding justice. An in-house enforcement arm would be more effective at capturing indictees than many of the forces of the state parties, as it is likely to be more competent than many of the under-resourced or under-trained national forces. An in house force would be solely focused on capturing the wanted war criminals so would both be focusing resources and much less likely to be sidetracked by other priorities (many of which may be influenced by politics) than national forces. One of the suggested solutions to the failure to capture Joseph Kony and leaders of the LRA is to have greater involvement of peacekeepers; an ICC force would provide the same kind of help. [1]  [1] Van Woudenberg, Anneke, ‘How to Catch Joseph Kony’, Human Rights Watch, 9 March 2012,

An ICC enforcement arm would make the ICC more credible as an organization  To its critics, the ICC is an organization that can be mocked with Stalin’s dismissal of the influence of the Pope: “how many divisions does he have?”  An ICC capable of arresting its own fugitives would become a more credible organization, not only due to the show of competence through the arrests – it would lead to more trials, and more convictions, that would help contribute to the acceptance of the ICC as a serious court that is effective at bringing international criminals to justice. A legal institution needs to be effective to remain credible. [1] This would make countries much more likely to cooperate because the ICC would be doing more to help them by providing some of the necessary resources.  Henry Kissinger apparently said “Who do I call if I want to speak to Europe?” (he is not sure he said it) because there is no single European leader, and if the US wants political or military cooperation it calls the UK or France. In much the same way if countries need help apprehending and convicting someone they are much more likely to call in the ICC if it can actually help them catch the wanted person. [2]  [1] Perritt, Henry H., ‘Policing International Peace and Security: International Police Forces’, Chicago-Kent College of Law, March 1999,  p.293  [2] Sobczyk, Marcin, ‘Kissinger Still Lacks a Number to Call Europe’, The Wall Street Journal, 27 June 2012,

Those arguments are similar ones to those used against the ICC. An ICC police force, comprised of officers from individual state and supervised by an independent authority appointed by a similar mechanism to the judges, would use the existing frameworks in place for the use of the ICC. If states are happy to have their nationals indicted for international crimes then it stands to reason that these nations should welcome a force that can enforce such indictments and bring these war criminals to trial.

An ICC police would be able to provide independent assistance to these states to aid those that do not have enough resources. The ICC has a poor track record of capturing suspects. This is not due to a lack of trying by the ICC – in some cases, it is due to the lack of trying of states such as those that have played host to Omar Al-Bashir. While individual states do, and should, have a role to play in enforcement, in some cases they are unwilling or unable to arrest suspects. Just as the ICC is there if a state is unable or unwilling to try an individual, they can have a role if they are unable or unwilling to arrest them.

An ICC enforcement arm would be unduly expensive  In a climate where the ICC’s budget is determined exclusively by contentious negotiation between states (at a time where the ICC itself has threatened to close down investigations due to a lack of funds [1] ), many of whom are undergoing austerity, an enforcement arm is not the best use of scarce funds when its role can be taken by the state parties. The ICC is already expensive enough – it cost over €100M in 2009.  [1] Nzau Musau, “Kenya: ICC Threatens to Drop cases for Lack of Funds”, The Star (Kenya), 2013,

ICC enforcement would create resentment  There are good reasons for why an ICC enforcement arm would be ineffective on its own. It may have all the necessary equipment and training but it would be a foreign force, that may or may not be seen as legitimate, attempting to arrest a native of that country. The result would be resentment in the community at the intrusion. This regularly occurs to national police forces when policing in minority areas. In London the Brixton race riots were seen by one inquiry as “essentially an outburst of anger and resentment by young black people against the police” as the police did not represent them. [1] The result with the ICC as elsewhere would likely to at the least be a lack of cooperation, and with most of the force unable to speak the native language altering perceptions would be difficult. Such a force may bring even fewer results than using local forces and would provide a scapegoat for local politicians. [2]  [1] Bowling, Ben, and Phillips, Coretta, ‘Policing ethnic minority communities’, LSE Research Online, 2003,  p.4  [2] Perritt, Henry H., ‘Policing International Peace and Security: International Police Forces’, Chicago-Kent College of Law, March 1999,  p.294

An ICC enforcement arm would be highly detrimental to the relations between the ICC and state parties  Currently the ICC functions based on a relationship of trust and understanding with the state parties to the ICC – a bottom-up rather than a top-down approach. This is backed up by the court’s respect for the for the principle of complementarity – it is hoped that national courts are capable of prosecuting the crimes, and the ICC only takes a role if the state is unwilling or unable to do so. Being willing to use an international force to catch criminals would make a mockery of this determination to leave power and responsibilities at the national level wherever possible.  Having ICC forces on a country’s territory would be humiliating, showing that the international community does not trust that nation to catch war criminals itself. While this model did not provide for attempting to snatch government officials who have been indicted it does leave open the possibility of an international force intruding on states sovereignty without consent. This would diplomatically backfire and could even lead to an ICC force being involved in fighting with government forces protecting their national sovereignty.

An ICC enforcement arm is unnecessary  To create an enforcement arm for the ICC would be to accept that state parties are incapable of enforcing decisions themselves, that is not necessarily the case. State parties have supplied the ICC with many of the defendants that it desires to face trial, including Bemba and the Gbagbos. Some, such as Uhuru Kenyatta have appeared voluntarily. The current system is working in many cases. While it does not in all, there are some that will be extremely difficult to capture by anyone.

Apart from the visibility due to the diversity of the force the ICC force may well be very similar to national forces in this regard. Often a problem with arresting wanted international criminals is their support in the community – that they have often been claiming to be fighting for. The national government’s enforcement arm may be as unwelcome as the ICC. In such circumstances the ICC at least has the advantage of being a new quantity with a blank slate rather than being known for any excesses, human rights violations or bribery. The ICC force will be able to treat the local populace fairly and win their trust.

What price justice? The ICC has been supported by a large number of states who accept that, while it does cost money, the ICC is the only effective way to bring war criminals and those who commit crimes against humanity to trial, provide them with a fair trial and sentence them appropriately. If that is the goal, states should be willing to finance means towards it. While the ICC’s existing budget of over €100M is substantial, it is dwarfed by, for example, the £4bn budget of London’s Metropolitan Police. In such context €100M is not a large amount to pay to bring international criminals to justice. The people the ICC pursue often engage in widespread destruction, apprehending them quickly may actually save rather than cost money by preventing such damage.

Needle exchanges can result in areas of open drug use around the needle exchange. Given the level of criminality of drug users it often causes these areas to degenerate into dangerous places which the public cannot go to.  This is effect causes harm to local business, not only because of the actual potential for harm, but also because people inherently fear drug dealers and addicts.  As well as this, the area around the needle exchange will have large numbers of stray needles, often causing as much damage as they prevent in other areas.4  1. Toni Meyer. "Making the case for opposing needle exchange". New Jersey Family Policy Council. November 16, 2007.

th law crime policing law general house would fund needle exchanges

Needle exchanges protect the public  Needle exchanges allow drug addicts a convenient and safe place to throw away used needles. This directly protects the public from stray needles that are sometimes put in rubbish bins or left lying around. Specifically this protects children who often don’t know to avoid needles but it also protects sanitation workers and other staff from being accidentally struck by a needle.  Further, the families of those who are drug addicts can also be helped. Partners and loved ones are much more likely to come into contact with the drug addict and fluid exchange is possible. Given that this is the case, the benefits of needle exchanges also extend to these people.1  1. Franciscus, Alan. “Needle Exchange - A Matter of Public Health So why is the government playing politics with this ticking time bomb?” Hepatitis Mag, April 2003.

Some studies have shown that there are relatively few referrals to drug treatment clinics from needle exchanges. This might be due to the fact that drug addicts who attain clean needles assume that they are now ‘safe’ taking drugs and as such see no need to get into rehab for their addiction.  Further, many needle exchanges are often unenthusiastic and ineffective at changing the behaviour of drug addicts. With the number of people who relapse despite the best care it can often be demoralising for staff and as such lead to lacklustre service that does not result in drug addicts getting clean.  Ultimately it can also be argued that more funding should simply be focused upon treatment if the rehabilitation of drug addicts is such an important part of this scheme.1, 2  1. Noffs, David. “Should Needle Exchange Programmes Be Publically Funded?” Close to Home Online,   2. “Report: Needle Exchange Program Finds Mixed Success in Atlantic City.” Drugfree.org January 22, 2009.

Needle exchanges prevent the transmission of disease  A needle exchange as mentioned in the introduction allows drug users to trade in dirty needles for new ones. This can prevent disease simply by preventing transfer of fluids from one drug user to another. As such, if one drug addict has HIV and has not yet been diagnosed it becomes less likely that he will transmit the disease to another person. Further, many drug addicts fail to even consider the possibility of infection via dirty needles, the mere presence of a needle exchange in the nearby vicinity causes drug addicts to be more aware of the dangers associated with dirty needles.  Further, the liberalising effect that needle exchanges have on public opinion can often cause societal change that allows needles to be bought over the counter. This is especially good in targeting drug users who do not wish to reveal that they have an addiction and allows them use of clean needles.  To back this up it has been found by some researchers that, there has been a one-third reduction in HIV prevalence in New Haven, Connecticut, after its NEP had been in operation for only 4 months. Researchers found an 18.6% average annual decrease in HIV seroprevalence in cities that had introduced an NEP, compared to an 8.1% annual increase in HIV seroprevalence in cities that had never introduced NEPs. HIV prevalence among NEP attenders in a Canadian city was low, even though high-risk behaviors were common. Injecting drug users in Seattle who had formerly attended an NEP were found to be more likely than non-exchangers to reduce the frequency of injection, to stop injecting altogether, and to remain in drug treatment, while new users of the NEP were five times more likely to enter drug treatment than never-exchangers."1  1. Debra L. O’Neill. "Needle Exchange Programs: A Review of the Issues". Missouri Institute of Mental Health. September 27, 2004 www.mimh200.mimh.edu/mimhweb/pie/reports/Needle%20Exchange.pdf

Some studies have found that needle exchanges are not related to decreases in HIV transmission. It is theorised that the overall increase in drug use that needle exchanges cause, which is described in the first point of the opposition case, offsets the benefits the exchanges provide in terms of disease prevention.  Further, in providing needle exchanges to prevent disease, it is possible that states and people think the problems of drug use are solved and fail to do any more to prevent the problem, which explains the continued deaths of drug addicts due to causes other than infection due to dirty needles.1  1. Noffs, David. “Should Needle Exchange Programmes Be Publically Funded?” Close to Home Online,

Needle exchanges can help social services to locate addicts who are in need of treatment  Needle exchanges allow drug addicts to see formal parts of the state that they often associate with negatively as institutions that can help them. This allows them to more positively associate with other state mechanisms such as rehabilitation clinics in the future.  This is further helped by clinic staff being able to recommend drug addicts to rehabilitation centres should they be looking for help and due to the more anonymous nature of clinic staff, drug addicts might ask for help from them as opposed to a closer person who they fear might judge them.  In addition, social services for addicts can be centred on needle exchanges. Rehabilitation clinics as well as simpler facilities such as washrooms can be centred there as well as clinics for disease diagnosis. Further, in the clinics themselves, posters and information pertaining to drug awareness can be circulated in order to help addicts.1, 2  1. Debra L. O’Neill. "Needle Exchange Programs: A Review of the Issues". Missouri Institute of Mental Health. September 27, 2004 www.mimh200.mimh.edu/mimhweb/pie/reports/Needle%20Exchange.pdf  2. Noffs, David. “Should Needle Exchange Programmes Be publicly Funded?” Close to Home Online,

It is possible that needle exchanges increase crime in areas. However, needle exchanges serve to allow for the rehabilitation of drug addicts. Whilst there might be greater crime owing to needle exchanges in the short term, in the long term they serve to treat one of the biggest causes of crime in a community.

Needle exchanges do not condone drug use and in fact they actively discourage it. However, it is important to note that drug addicts are not rational actors and given that they are already taking drugs in a very hostile legal environment, it seems that taking a hard line to them is unlikely to have any real affect. What is more likely to work is winning the trust of the addict and then offering them help as and when they need it.  Further, the law exists to help those who commit crimes and incarceration exists principally to allow for the rehabilitation of criminals so they may be re-released into society. As such the principal behind the law and punishment is harm reduction and needle exchanges simply exist as an extension of this principle.1  1. Franciscus, Alan. “Needle Exchange - A Matter of Public Health So why is the government playing politics with this ticking time bomb?” Hepatitis Mag, April 2003.

Needle exchanges will increase the incidence of drug use  Beyond increasing drug use through condoning the practice, needle exchanges also facilitate drug use by gathering all the drug addicts in a single area. This allows drug dealers to operate more efficiently and as such gives them more time to explore new markets for their drugs. As well as this, people are encouraged to keep on taking drugs as they feel the risk to them from doing so has been significantly decreased by the exchange. Given the lower risk, those drug users that are still somewhat rational actors will be more likely to take drugs because of the lower potential harm.  Further, in the long run, needle exchanges through these mechanisms make it harder to eradicate drug use entirely in the future. By causing addicts and the public to accept drugs needle exchanges ingrain drugs in society as any removal of the facility in the future will be seen as the state coming down too harshly on drug addicts and can be opposed much more easily.1  1. Lawrence Aaron, “Why a Needle Exchange Programme is a Bad Idea.” RedOrbit. August 26, 2005.

Needle exchanges cause crime  Needle exchanges gather a large number of drug addicts into a single area. Many drug addicts are forced into criminality because of their addiction. Given that this is true, the needle exchanges serve to concentrate a large number of potential criminals in a small area. Not only does this increase crime in the area itself significantly, what is also manages to do is cause criminals to meet other criminals who they may not have interacted with before.  This can either lead to the aforementioned criminals working together and causing more problems, or it can lead to violence between rival criminals and their gangs.  Further, the simple gathering of criminals in a single area can also serve to attract other criminals to the same area to possibly reap benefits. This often comes in the form of prostitution, which thrives in areas of high crime and weaker police presence.1  1. Toni Meyer. "Making the case for opposing needle exchange". New Jersey Family Policy Council. November 16, 2007.

Creating needle exchange may normalise drug-taking behaviour  Needle exchanges increase drug use. The state implicitly accepts that drug use is an acceptable practice when it aids drug users in practicing their habit. As such drug users feel less afraid of taking drugs. This can extend to first time users who might be encouraged by friends to take drugs using the morally grey area created by needle exchanges as an argument.  Further, it is principally wrong that the state should help those who choose to take drugs to begin with. In doing so these people are choosing to firstly harm themselves and secondly cause harm to society as well as contravene the law. The state should exist in such a way that should someone contravene the law they be punished, not rewarded with extra supplies from the taxpayer with no further strings.1  1. Toni Meyer. "Making the case for opposing needle  exchange". New Jersey Family Policy Council. November 16, 2007.

Most studies indicate that needle exchanges do not increase drug use. This is corroborated by studies in Amsterdam and New Haven, Connecticut. In fact, one programme in San Francisco resulted in decreased drug use in the community owing to the links that were tied with the drug using community. Further reasons for this are also outlined within the third argument on proposition.1  1. "Interventions To Prevent HIV Risk Behaviors". National Institutes of Health, Consensus Development Conference Statement". February 11-13, 1997.

This motion will have no impact on that problem. Fines must be set at a low percentage of income so that the people earning the least do not find themselves going without essentials (a fine for speeding that caused you not to be able to heat your house in winter would seem, with good reason, disproportionate!)  Consequently, whether the fine is £60 or £6000, there will always be some to whom paying the fine is not a problem, and who will happily pay in order to flout the law.

The rich are now also deterred  Another purpose of fines is to provide a deterrent. If fines are applied at one rate regardless of income, they must be low enough not to be un-payable for those who do not earn much money. Consequently, they are set so low that they fail to have a deterrent effect on the richest in society, who are easily able to afford to break the law.  This is especially the case when you consider the sorts of crimes that are punishable by fines, e.g. illicit parking and littering. These crimes have an indirect harm, and thus it is easy for the rich to consider that once they have paid the fine they have paid for the damage done, even though in reality this is not the case.1  1 Gneezy, U., Rustichini, A., 2000. ‘A Fine is a Price’. Journal of Legal Studies., vol. 29 pp1-17

Whilst this may well appease some sections of society, it comes at the cost of resentment from the rich.  This resentment will be magnified by media response: some newspapers and news outlets will choose to report this as an attack on the rich.  The problem is therefore very similar to the questions posed by taxing the rich more; it may be considered fairer by the rest of society but it is pointless if the rich all simply move elsewhere as they now perceive the justice system to be unfair.

Rich and poor now face equality of impact of punishment  The purpose of a fine is to ensure that the offender faces the consequences of their actions. The extent to which a financial penalty feels like a negative consequence is relative to the amount of income someone has, not to the simple amount that the fine is. That is, if someone earning £200 per week is fined £100, that will feel more severe than a £100 fine would feel to someone earning £2000 per week.  Therefore, if you make fines proportional to the income someone has, all people feel the impact of the punishment equally, rather than the poor facing a punishment with a harsher impact on them than on the rich.

Even if a fine is made proportional to income, you will not get the equality of impact you desire. This is because the impact is not proportional simply to income, but must take into account a number of other factors. For example, someone supporting a family will face a greater impact than someone who is not, because they have a smaller disposable income. Further, a fine based on income ignores overall wealth (i.e. how much money someone actually has: someone might have a lot of assets but not have a high income).  The proposition does not cater for these inequalities, which may well have a much greater skewing effect, and therefore the argument is being applied inconsistently.

Creates the perception that the rich are not immune to the consequences of their actions  Fines that are not proportionate to income may create the perception that the rich are immune to the consequences of their actions. This is because people see those earning the least struggling to pay a fine, whilst the rich are able to pay that fine easily, without making any significant sacrifices. Canada is an example of this being the case with two thirds of respondents on surveys saying that the Canadian justice system is unfair because it provides preferential treatment to the rich compared to how harsh it is towards the poor.1  Making fines proportionate to income would change that perception. People would then see the law being applied in such a way as to punish all, not just certain sections of society. This will improve perceptions of (and consequently, relations with) the justice and law enforcement systems.  It is important that justice is seen to be done, as well as occurring (sometimes referred to as the Principle of Open Justice), for several reasons. First, we operate a system of government by consent: people’s opinions of the justice system are deemed an important check and balance on the power of the law-makers. Consequently, if they are seen to ‘abuse their power’ by imposing a law seen to be unfair, they have an obligation either to adequately explain and defend the law, or change it.  Second, people’s perceptions of law enforcement in one area spill over into other areas: it is the same police force enforcing all aspects of the law, and so the differences in policy origin are obscured. Consequently, if people deem law-enforcement to be unfair in one regard, they are less likely to trust it in other circumstances.  Third, it is important that the justice system is seen to be impartial, rather than favouring any particular group, because it is only under such circumstances that its designations of acts as ‘crimes’ can be seen as a true reflection of what you ought and ought not to do, rather than just what would be in the interests of a given group.  1 ‘Justice and The Poor’, National Council of Welfare, 10 September 2012,

Given, particularly, that it is those with the most money who are most likely to deem the fine ‘worth it’, this would be mitigated by the increased deterrent: the rich will now face substantially greater penalties.

Whilst it is true that a crime ought to be proportionate to the severity of the crime committed, there is no reason why that must be the only factor. This motion does not remove the proportionality about which you are concerned, but merely adds an additional factor. If two people earn the same amount, but person A has committed a more serious crime, person A will still receive a larger fine.  Further, it is unclear why people would find this more unfair than a system in which all were impacted equally by the fines they receive.

The rich will resent this  The rich will feel like they are receiving an unfair, ‘greater’ punishment. This resentment will be magnified by media response: some newspapers and news outlets will choose to report this as an attack on the rich just as is the case with progressive taxation which is often attacked as an assault on ‘wealth creation’.1  This may well increase the extent to which they break the law, because if you perceive the law to be applied unfairly, you are less likely to consider it to be making an accurate assessment of whether an action is right or wrong in any given situation.  That is, in situations where you are unlikely to be caught committing a crime, the deterrent is clearly not the possible punishment (which you won’t face, because you won’t be caught). Rather, the deterrent is the extent to which you believe the illegal action to be morally wrong. If you believe a law is applied unfairly, you are less likely to consider the prohibited action to be actually, morally wrong, and therefore more likely to commit that act.  1 Cianfrocca, Francis, ‘Wealth Creation Under Attack’, Commentary, June 2009,

Creates the perception that fines are like taxes, rather than a punishment  If we detach fines from the crimes committed, people are more likely to see fines as unrelated to justice. Rather, they will see fines as another mechanism by which the government makes money, this will be especially the case if as in New Zealand the money goes into government coffers without being hypothecated.1  This is similar to the way in which some people in the UK see speed cameras as less about preventing speeding, and more about getting money from motorists with one poll showing 49% of people believe they are primarily about revenue raising.2  This is harmful because it decreases the probability of people who deem the fine ‘worth it’ nevertheless abstaining from the criminal act.  1 ‘Frequently Asked Questions’, New Zealand Police,   2 ‘Drivers conflicted over cameras’, IAM Driving Road Safety, 11 August 2010,

A flat rate is more just  A fine ought to be proportionate to the severity of the crime committed, not the income of the offender. It is fundamental that the justice system should treat all offenders equally; if two people commit the same crime in the same circumstances but one is richer than the other then they have caused the same amount of harm so should pay the same price for that harm. Having a richer person pay more implies that crimes by the rich are necessarily more harmful to society regardless of what the crime actually is.  Further, this system will cause anomalies, where rich people fined for small offences (e.g. littering) will have much larger fines than poorer people fined for more serious offences (e.g. speeding). This will make people question the fairness of the fines, which will negatively impact their relationship with the justice system.

Only a small number of people will act like this. Some people, though rich, are nevertheless capable of seeing beyond self-interest, and will consider the fine to be fair.  This small harm is therefore easily outweighed by the improved perceptions of the justice system by those who currently believe it unfair that the rich can so easily buy their way out of trouble.

When battling those who would seek to replace the rule of law and democratic governance with religious decree, it is more important than ever to demonstrate that the principles of a civilised society are paramount.  In the light of that reality, for the state to use the very tools of fear and violence that they are fighting against sends out the wrong message. It means, in effect, that nations have put themselves on the same moral level as the terrorist organisations they are fighting.  Instead it is important to demonstrate that actions undertaken quite legally are an effective bulwark against terror. Moreover, it is necessary to demonstrate that these values are part of a system of rule of law; that values of justice, fairness and accountability are seen as valuable both by a states’ leaders, but also by arbiters (judges) and its people.

human rights philosophy ethics politics terrorism house would use torture obtain

Terrorist organisations such as Al Qaida do not respect the rights of individuals and the only way to fight fire is with fire  Terrorist networks use fear, pain and suffering as their stock in trade. By definition, terror organisations are not bound by legal due process or rights of appeal and review. Instead they deal out death to innocent members of society who have no power to alter the events and policies that motivate terrorists atrocities.  By contrast, the first role of governments is to protect their citizens’ safety and they should use all tools possible to ensure that innocents are not threatened with random death and destruction.  In the light of these two realities, it is appropriate for governments to take extreme measure, such as torture, to protect their citizens.

The primary difficulty with the use of torture is not one of principle but one of practice – it doesn’t work. You simply have no way of checking whether the information is accurate. By using force or the threat of force, suspects are under pressure to say something- anything- that will stop the pain they are experiencing. However, information acquired this way will not necessarily be true  In the light of this, the use of torture actually slows things down the process of investigating and preventing terrorist threats. This is particularly true of terror suspects for whom death has no fear and for whom it may, in fact be a goal. A much safer approach to rooting out terrorist who seek to martyr themselves is old fashioned, and perfectly legal, investigation.

In the event of an imminent attack it is only reasonable to use force to find information  If authorities have good reason to believe that there is a realistic threat of a nuclear explosion in downtown Manhattan or Tel Aviv then it is vital that as much information as possible can be gathered as quickly as possible.  If that requires pain to be inflicted on an individual to save the lives of millions then it is simply practical to do so. The harm represented by the pain caused to a single individual is outweighed by the possibility that information gathered from a forceful interrogation might save thousands of lives

What about a biological bomb in a small town killing a few thousand. Or a lunatic with an M16 in a village killing fifty? Or preventing a single murder or rape? Anyone attempting to support the resolution must give a clear explanation of the point at which torture can be justified. How many individuals must information acquired through torture be able to save before the state is permitted to use pain and coercion against criminal and terrorist suspects in its custody?  If it is right to use torture in an attempt to prevent the death of a single individual, when that individual is a member of a crowd, then why should the use of torture to protect the life of a single individual be considered unjustifiable? It makes no difference to the individual or to their family. Torture must either be treated as being unacceptable in all circumstances, or its use in all circumstances must be permitted.

Time is of the essence in a crisis. When confronted with extremists who see a virtue in their own death, extraordinary methods may be required.  The use of force and fear in enhanced interrogation gives quick results. In the event of a bomb hidden somewhere in Manhattan, it’s vital to have information quickly. Nobody, even the most diehard proponents of enhanced interrogation, would suggest that it is pleasant or should be used on a routine basis; the point is that techniques such as waterboarding are effective and fast.  Responding to terrorist threats is something that needs to be dealt with in minutes or hours. Unfortunately, it is in the nature of due process and legal procedure that they trials and questioning take place in a framework of days or weeks.

No amount of legal niceties would bring any comfort to the families of those slaughtered in terrorist atrocities around the world. When you are fighting an enemy that has no time for the European Convention on Human Rights, the US Bill of Rights, English common law or the Geneva Convention it is simply impractical to apply those standards.  The basic principle of terrorism is to cause as much fear, panic and destruction as possible. Terrorists do not have a set goal in mind, they are not functioning as rational individuals, and affording them the luxury of treating them as such ignores what they are likely to do.  The great wars of the twentieth century were fought within the confines of post-Enlightenment thought, however extreme that may have become. The wars of the 21st seem set to be Mediaeval in nature, with the promise of paradise rather than provinces as the reward for martyrdom. The defense of the values of liberty and democracy must reflect that new and chilling reality.

It is perfectly possible to put legal structures in place that allow for judicial overview of the interrogation techniques used. In most Western countries – the most common targets of modern terrorism – there are already legal frameworks for judicial approval of the extension of detention periods and so forth on an emergency basis. The same form of oversight could be used here and exactly the same principle of retrospective appeal could apply to ensure that the capacity was not misused.

Introducing the use of violence into the justice system means that liberties that have taken centuries to secure are lost  The principle that all people are presumed innocent and, as a result, should not be abused either physically or mentally by officers of the state is one that took centuries- not to mention a great deal of blood and sweat- to establish. In the words of British Chief Justice Phillips this respect for human rights is, in and of itself, “a vital part in the fight against terror”, as if terrorism is to be defeated states that ascribe to such principles must show that they remain true to them in order to win the ideological battle.  Using torture on suspected terrorist would be to tear apart that basic principle in response to crimes, which, it has been noted, are on nothing like the scale of the industrialised warfare of the twentieth century, would be a massively damaging step. Regardless of the scale of the crime the individual must have protections against false accusation and punishment, this means that a fair trial is necessary in order to determine innocence or guilt.

If legal principles are abandoned then there is little point in defending the liberties that democratic governments say they are so keen to defend  If we accept that this is a war, then its focus is not so much political control of territory as the preservation of a way of life. It is ridiculous to fight to defend principles of equality and decency using the tool of abandoning them the moment they become inconvenient.  The forces of religious extremism wish to undo 1,400 years of democratic development. We should not assist them in that process by allowing the major powers of the West throw out the most basic principles of the rule of law. Such a move, ultimately, has the potential to be vastly more destructive than the actions of a few fanatics

Allowing torture under any circumstances will allow the prospect of its routine use  The advantage of a complete ban on torture is that it leaves no room for doubt, no possibility for confusion, no need to apply personal judgement. Under the status quo, it is simply illegal to use force or the threat of force to solicit information from a suspect, regardless of the charge.  The moment that becomes something other than a complete ban then it puts an intolerable pressure on security officials to decide when it is justified and when it is not.  The experience of Abu Grahib demonstrates how the use of abusive treatment can become routine, even trivial, all too quickly. If it is acceptable to use torture to prevent mass-murder, then why not murder? If for murder than why not rape? And so on.

The era of battlefield warfare has passed. The war on terror may be a new form of combat, but the results are no less serious. Were a terrorist flying a military bomber aircraft to deliver a payload of death and destruction on one of the world’s major cities, nobody would think twice about shooting it down, killing the crew and preventing the bombing.  There is no meaningful way in which the example above is morally different from leaving a bomb in a station or on a subway train. Societies have the right to defend themselves by all means necessary. The combatants involved in this process consider themselves to be at war and revel in the fatalities they cause. It is only sensible for states to treat these individuals as though that war were a reality in the more traditional meaning of the word.

A stenographer already records every word spoken during the course of the trial, which already serves to help with potential appeals [1] [2] . Furthermore, appeal court judges rarely interfere with the verdicts of lower courts because they were not present at the original trial. Using a video record to overturn the verdict of a previous court would essentially eradicated the role of a jury; which is to reach a decision based on the fact presented, guided by the judge’s knowledge of the law [3] [4] . Far from making court proceedings more democratic and transparent, using cameras in courtrooms would actually be damaging because it undermines the position of normal people to reach a verdict of ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’. In this case, a judge’s choice to hang a new verdict on video information would make the law a very exclusive practice where very few individuals can determine the fates of others, and the role of jury would become irrelevant.  [1] In the UK:  , accessed 18/08/11  [2] In the US:  , accessed 18/08/11  [3] in the UK:  , accessed 18/08/11  [4] In the US:  , accessed 18/08/11

law general house would place cameras courtrooms televise court cases

Video footage of a court case would provide valuable information for both defendant and judiciary.  If the defendant is convicted of a crime, they have a right to appeal in the UK [1] and US [2] . However, this is made difficult for another court to re-assess the conviction if they cannot know how reliable evidence was in the first trial. Without film recordings of court trials, judges who have the duty to re-examine the case are unable to see witness testimonies; though new evidence does sometimes come to light during the course of an appeal [3] , it would be easier to assess this new evidence if the judges also had knowledge of how the first trial went. If the judges could watch a video of the first trial, they could judge the demeanour, body language and general impression given by each witness in the first trial. Body language can affect a court’s perception of a witness [4] , but this information could not be gained by a transcript. However, this evidence may be important for a new verdict to be reached.  [1]  , accessed 18/08/11  [2]  , accessed 18/08/11  [3]  , accessed 18/08/11  [4]  , accessed 18/08/11

Putting this kind of pressure on the judiciary and lawyers does not have the same kinds of benefits that it might in the House of Commons. Politicians often focus on, and are expected to uphold, the general interest of the public, which is why having public access to televised debates is an incentive for them to push those interests through as far as possible. However, the rule of law does not always correlate to public opinion. Particularly in high-profile cases, the public may wish to see the accused given the harshest sentence possible; however, this might not be the legally correct sentence to give in those circumstances. Public outrage has been known to tamper with judicial verdicts in places such as India [1] , and is damaging to the principle of a fair trial.  [1]  , accessed 06/08/11

People should have a right of access to justice.  Given that people are already allowed to watch court proceedings from the public gallery – including the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords in the UK [1] , and the Supreme Court in the US [2] – there is little reason why this should not be extended to give better access across the nation to anybody who wants to watch. Those with full-time jobs or who live far away from the courts are currently unfairly limited in this respect, and those who do wish to attend well-publicised trials often have to arrive hours in advance to get a seat. Individuals should not have to give up so much time and money just to be able to watch a democratic proceeding, which is a cornerstone of democratic nations. Given that many closed trials such as the trial of the Guantánamo Bay terrorism suspects [3] have still led to intense media coverage, we would be better off showing the courts to be transparent and just instead of vainly trying to hide everything behind closed doors.  [1]  , accessed 05/08/11  [2]  , accessed 05/08/11  [3]  , accessed 19/08/11.

When people take the time and effort to visit the law courts and watch a case, it is a formal, regulated atmosphere. If this were televised, it would become closer to ‘entertainment’ than to fair, legal proceedings. It becomes a human interest story rather than a legitimate court case, where the focus is on moral retribution rather than fair application of the law. Given that high-profile cases can go on for weeks, or even months, even if you were to broadcast every step of the court case it is likely that viewers would only tune in for the climax of the trial. This means that they would miss important (but perhaps comparatively boring) steps which led to that conclusion; it obscures the whole picture of the trial.

Cameras encourage efficiency and high standards.  Placing cameras into courtrooms encourages the judiciary and lawyers to increase their efficiency and have high standards of behaviour, because they are aware that it will be carried outside of the courtroom by public viewing. The introductions of cameras to the Houses of Parliament in the UK resulted in significantly improved standards of debate, greater punctuality, and greater attendance of MPs [1] . We can expect this same principle to continue in courtrooms when cameras are put in place.  [1]  , accessed 06/08/11

For the families of defendants, incriminating evidence of the defendant comes out anyway – the emotional problems are still there under the status quo, whether or not the trials are televised. For the victims, often a reason why cases are dropped or the victims decide not to testify is the idea that their case is not seen as important, or will not make a difference [1] . Giving a public focus to this cases, and emphasising public outrage against rape, sexual assault and other serious crimes, endorses victims’ rights and makes them see that justice for this crimes is incredibly important. Perhaps this is the best step towards encouraging more people to make a difference by coming forward to testify.  [1]  , accessed 19/08/11

It is unlikely that people will use court cases as a form of entertainment; if the entire case is televised, then a lot of the case will be ‘boring’ discussion of applying law and legal theory [1] , rather than doling out punishment Judge Judy-style. Even if a few people do try to use it as entertainment, the potential benefit to wider society as they can literally see how their legal system works to protect them outweighs the very small number of people who might group court cases and reality television shows together. Furthermore, if somebody is convicted of a serious crime like murder, their chances of rehabilitation are already slim (and convicts often re-offend), whether it is televised or not [2] . Indeed, some would argue that they have forfeited their right to rehabilitation by committing murder in the first place [3] . However, if they were acquitted of a serious crime on television, future employers could be more likely to accept them as they could see exactly how the court progressed and arrived at that conclusion, rather than having it shrouded in mystery which could breed suspicion.  [1] Transcript of a court case:  , accessed 18/08/11  [2]  , accessed 19/08/11  [3]  , accessed 19/08/11

Invoking public reaction can damage the lives of those concerned in the court case.  Proposition may well argue that televising court cases gains a sense of ‘sympathy’ and justice for the victims of the case. However, this is double-edged. Firstly, particularly emotive and controversial court cases concerning crimes such as sexual assault could blind the public (or ‘audience’) to any untruthfulness from the ‘victim’, by virtue of being perceived as vulnerable and wronged. Secondly, any sympathy which is gained for one person often arises out of increased hatred or outrage against another – namely the defendant. This could lead to public condemnation of an individual who is never actually convicted of a crime; they will be exposed to public reaction that might be wholly unjustified if he is subsequently acquitted. One example of this is when Milly Dowler’s father was questioned in court as a suspect of his daughter’s death and his personal, pornographic magazines were used as evidence against him [1] . Although he was completely innocent, the prosecution’s job was to explore any possibility of perversion or dangerous character. This is an infringement upon that individual’s rights, as being publicly portrayed as a villain could go on to affect their future private life, such as their chances of future employment or anonymity.  [1]  , accessed 19/08/11

Witnesses and jurors could easily become involved in the media coverage of the case and place the trial at jeopardy.  Newspaper interviews with witnesses have already caused trials to be cancelled in the past [1] because the judiciary recognises that media coverage can change people’s incentives and warp their priorities. This interference may affect the reliability of the witness’ evidence or the jurors’ verdict. Following the televised trial of O. J. Simpson, several witnesses and jurors gave interviews to the media, or wrote their memoirs of the case [2] . If witnesses and jurors know that their public lives could be affected by how the rest of society perceives them through a court case, they might have an incentive to be more harsh or more lenient; public outrage when the criminal sentence does not match their own interpretations is likely to be laid on those who caused that sentence. This is particularly dangerous for America, where they have trial by jury [3] . Here, the jury has more control over the sentencing of criminals – which obviously becomes a problem if the jury has a vested interest in giving harsh sentences to offenders in order to gain public support. Cameras in court can only encourage witnesses and jurors to distort their true recollection or their opinions in order to profit from the media circus.  [1]  , accessed 19/08/11  [2]  , accessed 19/08/11  [3]  , accessed 19/08/11

Televising court cases undermines the right to privacy for the victim and the defendant’s family  Court proceedings can be extremely stressful for the families of the accused, and publicising them in this way only makes this worse. Again, a good example of this is the Milly Dowler case, when her father’s pornographic magazines were used as evidence against him [1] . Not only did he then have to try and come to terms with his daughter’s disappearance, but also the knowledge that the media – and his family – now knew intensely personal details about him which were not even relevant to the case, but used to try and condemn him anyway. Meanwhile, although the family members have done nothing wrong, they are forced to listen to critical evidence of another family member which is suddenly now broadcast into peoples’ homes directly from the court. Their public and private lives would be irrevocably transformed by this experience. Secondly, because the defence must try to protect the defendant, these vilifying tactics can also be used against the victim – which could then lead to fewer people being prepared to testify. There is already a problem in society where not all crimes are even reported, sometimes because the victims are afraid of how people will then think of them [2] [3] . The knowledge that the defence will try to expose them as a fraud, or deny that the offence took place – in front of millions of people watching the case on television – suddenly becomes a much bigger obstacle for victims, especially if they are emotionally shaken by their experience [4] , to come forward and help a criminal to be convicted.  [1]  , accessed 19/08/11  [2]  , accessed 19/08/11  [3]  , accessed 19/08/11  [4] Support group for women who have been victims of rape; helping them to testify in court  , accessed 19/08/11

This turns court cases into entertainment, rather than legitimate legal proceedings.  Several television shows, such as ‘Judge Judy’, assert the style of a legal courtroom [1] . These shows are based on entertainment value from scrutinising the accused and defendant; it would be dangerous to remove a barrier which currently separates genuine legal proceedings from entertainment by televising them. The risk that the public would see them as one and the same is increased by an incident where a man really did believe that the Judge Judy trial was a real trial [2] . The trial of Casey Anthony in Florida, where cameras are allowed, escalated into a media frenzy where legal justice became unimportant in comparison to television ratings [3] . Court cases, then, are at risk of not being taken seriously and used instead for the public to satisfy their curiosity into other peoples’ lives. Televising court cases also immediately undermines some fundamental principles of the justice system, such as rehabilitation. If somebody is convicted of a crime on national television, his or her anonymity or chance of future employment is severely compromised. The rights of the victims, their families, and the defendants should be placed ahead society’s assumed ‘right’ to sensationalist portrayals of the courtroom.  [1]  , accessed 18/08/11  [2]  , accessed 18/08/11  [3]  , accessed 19/08/11

Juror involvement is made less likely by the proposition line that jurors’ faces will be blanked out during the broadcast. For witnesses, the potential to warp and distort the truth already exists; they could be trying to avoid a sentence, or to make sure that justice is done if they have been wronged. They are already emotionally involved. If anything, video footage of the trial could encourage them to temper their responses and make absolutely sure that they are accurate in order to avoid questioning by the media or incrimination for giving an inaccurate statement.

Withholding video evidence of a court trial will not stop people from automatically siding with the victim and denouncing the accused; it will just stop them from being able to see the body language and other actions which can balance out the media’s assertion that one party is definitively a ‘victim’ while the other is a ‘criminal’. These labels are already in place – televising court cases just helps us to understand the details and nuances of a case, and garner a more sophisticated view of the case in question.

Arguments that invoke censorship of materials for minors are just that - arguments for the censorship of materials for minors. They do not concede the general principal that censorship is good because until the age of majority the state has a duty to respect (and to take limited measures to ensure others respect) the parental responsibility of those bringing up children.

speech debate free challenge law human rights philosophy political philosophy house

Protection of Minors  We need to protect minors (those under the age of majority) from exposure to obscene, offensive or potentially damaging materials. While this would be a restriction on the freedom of speech it should be something that the government is responsible for and we would all agree needs some kind of restriction or regulation.

The ends do not justify the means. The government may well wish to suppress publication of information that would be prejudicial to its success in the next elections or its war campaign, but it’s in the public interest to know about their dirty dealings or illegal activities.  Moreover secrecy in the name of security often leads to injustice; the rendition of British residents and secret evidence given at control order hearings are but a couple of examples.

The character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done  "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." [1] Shouting fire in a crowded cinema when there is no fire, and you know it, is wrong because doing so creates a clear and present danger of harm to others.  Likewise, in the US (and many other countries) there is no protection for ‘false commercial speech’ (i.e. misrepresentation) and the contents of adverts can be regulated in order to ensure that they are truthful and do not deceive consumers. [2] On that basis, restrictions can be placed on how tobacco products may be advertised, and people may be prevented from promoting illegal and fraudulent tax advice.  [1] U.S. Supreme Court, Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 1919,  [2] U.S. Supreme Court, Lorillard Tobacco Co v Reilly, AG of Massachusetts, 533 U.S. 525, 200

The argument leads to a slippery slope. It is one thing to regulate speech on matters that are objectively verifiable, quite another to restrict the permissible scope of opinion and expression. Even then, the state should be extremely cautious about declaring a state of objective fact. People taking advice on matters such as tax always take the risk that that advice may turn out to be bad, the amount of risk a person is willing to take is entirely a matter of personal responsibility and not a matter that the government should intervene in.

Society is self-regulating. The link between speech acts and physical acts is a false one - people who commit hate crimes are likely to have read hate speech, people who commit sex crimes are likely to have watched pornography but not necessarily the other way around. Viewers of pornography and readers of hate speech are therefore not incited to commit anything they otherwise would not do.  If the advocates of these views have hidden agendas, all the more reason to expose them in public. The fact that Holocaust denial leads to neo-Nazism will, for most people, be one more compelling argument against it; creationism’s necessarily literalistic approach to scripture can easily be shown to be ridiculous. Again, the truth has nothing to fear, and the evil implications of falsehood should not be covered up by refusing to engage with it.

It may be necessary in the interests of national security  The Government must protect its citizens from foreign enemies and internal enemies - thus freedom of speech can be acceptably curtailed during times of war in order to prevent propaganda and spying which might undermine the national interest. This has happened in almost all states during times of war, during the second world war the United States even had a government department dedicated to it; The Office of Censorship. [1]  [1] Hanyok, Robert J., ‘Secrets of Victory: The Office of Censorship and The American Press and Radio in World War II’, Studies in Intelligence, Vol 46, No. 3,

Holocaust Denial  Speech acts lead to physical acts. Thus pornography, hate speech and political polemic are causally linked to rape, hate crimes, and insurrection.  Both scientific creationism and Holocaust denial have serious, and dangerous, hidden agendas. Deniers of the Nanjing Massacre believe that the Japanese did nothing wrong in the Second World War and continue to claim that it was a war of liberation against western colonialism - feeding Japanese militarism today. Holocaust deniers, in claiming that a Jewish conspiracy is responsible for the widespread belief that six million Jews were murdered by the Nazis, are closely allied to anti-Semitism and neo-Nazism. We should not allow such views the legitimacy which being debated gives them.

Society is entitled to define itself on certain issues – otherwise what does it stand for? Community is only possible among like-minded individuals. It is likewise entitled to tell those who refuse to accept the consensus on those issues to ‘lump it or leave it’.  It is also absurd to suggest that all challenges to orthodoxy are legitimate. Denial of atrocities is usually a mask for racial intolerance. Denial of established scientific truths in the public world is not usually about progress but rather about ignoring the evidence to promote theologically based worldviews. Society has a vested interest in suppressing those movements.

Individual Liberty outweighs any potential harms  Whatever the potential harms that may arise from unrestrained free speech; they pale in comparison to the harm that arises from banning an individual from freely expressing his own mind.  It is a matter of the upmost individual liberty that one’s thoughts and feelings are one’s own, and that individuals are free to express those thoughts and feelings openly. A prohibition on this liberty is a harm of incalculable value – it strikes right to the core of what it means to be in individual person.

Free speech allows challenges to orthodox beliefs  Free speech is not merely a ‘nice thing to have’, it is a mechanism which brings real, tangible benefits to society by allowing people to challenge orthodoxy. States that do not allow orthodox beliefs to be challenged stagnate and decline.  Reducing restrictions on free speech to ‘special exceptions’ frustrates the whole point because it is precisely those special exceptions where established truth needs to be challenged. This is not restricted to matters of pure opinion – the modern scientific process relies upon professionals being able to vehemently disagree on matters of crucial fact. “Real science depends for its progress on continual challenges to the current state of always-imperfect knowledge.” [1]  [1] Sarewitz, Daniel, ‘The voice of science: let’s agree to disagree’, Nature, Vol 487, No.7, 5 October 2011,

Liberty is an intangible right – restrictions on liberty can be equally intangible and entirely transitory based on the circumstances.  What we know though is that real harm is derived from defaming an individual’s reputation, broadcasting racist abuse and shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre. It is wrong to ignore real, tangible harm in favour of preventing fanciful and intangible harms.

Prohibition may not be working in the UK but that does not mean that prohibition is not working everywhere. In the US, the Drug Enforcement Agency states that “Overall drug use in the United States is down by more than a third since the late 1970s. That’s 9.5 million people fewer using illegal drugs. We’ve reduced cocaine use by an astounding 70% during the last 15 years.” [1]  [1] U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, ‘Fact 1: We have made significant progress in fighting drug use and drug trafficking in America. Now is not the time to abandon our efforts’,

th addiction health general law crime policing house supports legalisation drugs

Prohibition does not work; instead, it glamorizes drugs  Those who want to use drugs will take them whether they are legal or not – and more are doing so than ever before. In 1970 there was something like 1,000 problematic drug users in the UK, now there are over 250,000. [1] Legalization will also remove the glamour which surrounds an underground activity and so make drug use less attractive to impressionable teenagers. For example, statistics suggest that cannabis use in the UK declined after its classification was lowered from ‘B’ to ‘C’. [2]  [1] Home Affairs Select Committee, ‘The Government’s Drug Policy: Is It Working?’, parliament.uk, 22 May 2002,   [2] Travis, Alan, ‘Cannabis use down since legal change’, The Guardian, 26th October 2007,

The law is hypocritical  In most countries where drugs are illegal, tobacco and alcohol, which arguably have equally devastating consequences in society, are legal. In a UK study, alcohol was shown to have the worst effects of any drug, yet the current law recognises that people should be able to choose whether they drink or not. [1] The same should be true of drugs.  [1] Professor David Nutt, ‘Drug Harms in the UK: a multicriteria decision analysis’, The Lancet, Vol 376, Issue 9752, pp. 1558-1565, 6th November 2010,

If the state is to make money from taxing drugs, this undercuts the (supposed) advantages of lower-priced drugs and will just encourage a black market to continue. In the UK, there is large black market for tobacco; it is suspected that tax has not been paid on 21% of cigarettes and 58% of hand rolling tobacco consumed. [1] Furthermore, for the state to take revenue from this practise is morally wrong, whatever use the money is put to. The point of drug treatment is to help abusers off drugs, but under the proposition’s system the state would have a financial interest in prolonging addiction.  [1] Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association, ‘Tobacco Smuggling and Crossborder Shopping’,

Part of the reason that drugs are illegal is because of the health ramifications, which exist even if a drug is pure.  To give a brief summary of some health harms that come from unadulterated drugs:  “Cocaine can cause such long-term problems as tremors, seizures, psychosis, and heart or respiratory failure.  Marijuana and hashish can cause rapid heart rate and memory impairment soon after use. Long-term effects include cognitive problems, infertility, weakened immune system, and possible lung damage.  Narcotics such as heroin can bring on respiratory and circulatory depression, dizziness, impotence, constipation, and withdrawal sickness. Overdoses can lead to seizures and death.” [1]  [1] Bowles Center for Alcohol Studies, ‘Effects of Alcohol and Drugs on your Health’, University of North Carolina,

Drugs currently fund terrorism and regional instability  The Taliban gets most of its revenue from poppies, which provide the opium for heroin. They do this by intimidating local farmers who would otherwise sell their harvest at market. They then demand “protection money” as well, or else either another local warlord or the ‘protectors’ themselves would rob the farmer. Something like 22,700 people have died in Mexico since January 2007 from gangsters who want to protect their revenue and almost the entire continent of South America, from Brazil to Colombia, has had their governments destabilised by drug lords. [1] The hugely-costly but unsuccessful war on drugs could be ended, starving terrorists of the profits of drug production. As a result peace and development could be brought to unstable drug-producing states such as Colombia and Afghanistan.  [1] Mexico under siege, The drug war on our doorstep, Los Angeles Times , 27 September 2011,

People should be free to take drugs  Individuals are sovereign over their own bodies, and should be free to make choices which affect them and not other individuals. Since the pleasure gained from drugs and the extent to which this weighs against potential risks is fundamentally subjective, it is not up to the state to legislate in this area. Rather than pouring wasted resources into attempting to suppress drug use, the state would be better off running information campaigns to educate people about the risks and consequences of taking different types of drugs.

Legal drugs would increase tax revenue  In 2009-2010, the tax revenue from tobacco in the UK was £10.5 billion. [1] If the state legalizes drugs, it can tax them and use the revenue from this practise to fund treatment. At the moment such treatment is difficult to justify as it appears to be spending ordinary taxpayers’ money on junkies.  [1] Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association, ‘Tax Revenue From Tobacco’, accessed 16th June 2011 -

This point makes the assumption that drug use only affects the individual concerned; in reality, drug usage can have a significant effect on people close to the user, as well as wider society. People who can be affected include family who have to care for a user and victims of drug-related crimes. In addition, in countries with welfare states, there is an additional significant societal cost as many drug users cannot hold down jobs. [1] Studies in the USA have shown that parents often put their need for drugs above the wellbeing of their children. [2]  This being the case, it is clear that the harms of drugs far outweigh governmental duty to protect individual freedoms.  Furthermore, doing drugs may be a free choice at first, but after a certain period the drug user is no longer to choose for himself/herself because addiction overruns their judgement.  [1] BBC News, ‘Drugs cost society £18.8bn’, 12 February 2002,   [2] National Drug Intelligence Center, ‘The Impact of Drugs on Society’, National Drug Threat Assessment 2006, January 2006,

Whether legal or illegal, drugs will still be a source of income for warlords and terrorist groups. Instead of starving them off, the dealers become more competitive and lower their prices. The only way to stop these people using drugs as a source of income is to remove poppies from Afghan fields, to destroy coca plantations.

Perhaps alcohol and tobacco should also be illegal. However, one of the reasons why alcohol ranks so badly in such studies is because of its legality; if other drugs were legal, we would see their usage go up and therefore the negative social effects they produce rise as well.

Drugs affect how people think, and they take away their ability to control their actions rationally, and so people on drugs are more likely to commit crimes. The US Drug Enforcement Administration states, “Crime, violence and drug use go hand in hand. Six times as many homicides are committed by people under the influence of drugs, as by those who are looking for money to buy drugs. Most drug crimes aren’t committed by people trying to pay for drugs; they’re committed by people on drugs.” [1]  [1] U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, ‘Summary of the Top Ten Facts on Legalization’, 2010,

Drugs are safer when legal  Currently in the UK, purity of illegal Amphetamine is normally under 5%, and some tablets sold as ecstasy contain no MDMA at all. Instead, drugs are adulterated (“cut”) with substances from chalk and talcum powder to completely different drugs. [1]  At least when drugs are legalised the state can regulate their sale to make sure that they are clean and not cut with other dangerous substances. This will minimise the risk to users.  [1] Drugscope, ‘How Pure Are Street Drugs?’, updated January 2005,

Legalisation reduces crime  The illegality of drugs fuels a huge amount of crime that could be eliminated if drugs were legalised. Price controls would mean that addicts would no longer have to steal to fund their habits, and a state-provided drug services would put dealers out of business, starving criminal gangs of their main source of funding. For example, an Italian Mafia family were making around $44bn a year from cocaine smuggling. [1] This represents something like 3% of Italy’s entire GDP – and that from only one crime syndicate.  [1] Kington, Tom, ‘Italian police raids reveal how an 80-year-old gangster held sway over the feared Calabrian mafia’, The Observer, 18 July 2010,

In a capitalist system reliant on supply and demand, the cost of a particular drug will always correspond to what people are willing to pay for them. So, there is no reason why a black market should spring up under a legalised system of drug sale.

Many things that can be dangerous are legal, from drugs such as alcohol, to activities such as skydiving, or even rugby. However, millions of people are able to drink or play sports without harming themselves or society. It would seem draconian and extremely paternalistic for the government to ban everything that has the potential to be dangerous; instead, they should educate people about the dangers, but trust them to make decisions about their own lives.  The State has no authority to force its own morality on the general populace unless these drugs can be proven to harm others. The State is the facilitator of the voters’ desires in a democracy. So, a State enforced, morality goes against the obligations of the State to its people.

More people will take drugs if they are legal  Considering that drug use has so many negative consequences, it would be disastrous to have it increase. However, the free availability of drugs once they are legal will make it far easier for individuals to buy and use them. In most cases, under 1% of the population of OECD countries regularly use illegal drugs; many more drink alcohol or smoke tobacco. [1] This must at least partly to do with the illegality. Indeed, in an Australian survey, 29% of those who had never used cannabis cited the illegality of the substance as their reason for never using the drug, while 19% of those who had ceased use of cannabis cited its illegality as their reason. [2]  [1] UN Office on Drugs and Crime, World Drug Report 2009,   [2] NSW Bureau of Crime and Statistics, ‘Does Prohibition Deter Cannabis use?’, 23 August 2001,  $file/mr_cjb58.pdf

Drugs will either be too cheap or too expensive  Low prices for drugs will hugely increase consumption of drugs, amongst all groups - addicts, previously casual users, and those who were not previously users. If drug provision is strictly regulated, an illegal black market may remain.

Drugs are dangerous, and the governement should discourage its use  The government has a responsibility to protect its citizens; if a substance will do people and society significant harm, then that substance should be banned. There is no such thing as a safe form of a drug. Legalization can only make drugs purer, and therefore perhaps more deadly and addictive. Many illegal drugs are closely related to potentially dangerous medicines, whose prescription is tightly restricted to trained professionals, but the proposition would effectively be allowing anyone to take anything they wished regardless of the known medical dangers.  However entrenched in modern culture drugs may be, legalising them will only make them appear more acceptable. The state has a duty to send out the right message, and its health campaigns will be fundamentally undermined by the suggestion that drugs are harmless, which is what will be understood from their legalisation – just like when cannabis was downgraded in the UK.

When drugs are illegal, this does not stop people from using them. A Canadian report on the matter concluded, "The licit or illicit status of substances has little impact on their use." [1] In addition, even though drugs are illegal, it is not hard to access them. In a Spanish survey, 92.9% of Spanish students said that it was very easy to access illegal drugs – even though only 11.6% used cannabis, which was the most used. [2] Even using the survey quoted by opposition, it is clear that the majority of people surveyed did not view the illegality of cannabis as a reason not to use it.  [1] Parliament of Canada House of Commons, Special Committee on Non-Medical Use of Drugs, report issued November, 2002,   [2] Eurocare, ‘92.9 % of Spanish students say that access to drugs is very easy’, 26 March 2010,

Crime is not pathology, it is not the product of circumstance, and it is certainly not the product of coincidence. As the case of Husng Guangyu shows, despite being Chinas richest man he still committed crimes involving illegal business dealing, insider trading and bribery and was then sentenced to 14 years. This was rightly given in order as a just punishment for the cost of the crimes he had committed and to deter others from such practices. [1] Crime is the result of choices made by the individual, and therefore the justice system must condemn those choices when they violate society’s rules. To say otherwise (i.e. to say that criminals are merely the product of their unfortunate circumstances) would be an insult to human autonomy - the liberalist idea that our judicial system is based on, in saying that individuals are given the power to make their own decisions freely and this should be interfered with in as little as possible. It would be to deny the possibility of human actors making good decisions in the face of hardship.  Retributivism alone best recognises the offender’s status as a moral agent, by asking that he take responsibility for what he has done, rather than to make excuses for it. It appeals to an inherent sense of right and wrong, and in this way is the most respectful to humanity because it recognises that persons are indeed fundamentally capable of moral deliberation, no matter what their personal circumstances are.  [1] Jingqiong, Wang and Zhu Zhe, ‘Former richest man gets 14 years in prison’, China Daily, 19 May 2010.

crime policing punishment society house believes criminal justice should focus more

Rehabilitation Has Greater Regard For the Offender  Rehabilitation has another important value – it recognises the reality of social inequity. To say that some offenders need help to be rehabilitated is to accept the idea that circumstances can constrain, if not compel, and lead to criminality; it admits that we can help unfortunate persons who have been overcome by their circumstance. It rejects the idea that individuals, regardless of their position in the social order, exercise equal freedom in deciding whether to commit a crime, and should be punished equally according to their offence, irrespective of their social backgrounds. Prisons are little more than schools of crime if there aren't any rehabilitation programs. Prisons isolate offenders from their families and friends so that when they are released their social networks tend to be made up largely of those whom they met in prison. As well as sharing ideas, prisoners may validate each others’ criminal activity. Employers are less willing to employ those who have been to prison. Such circumstances may reduce the options available to past offenders and make future criminal behaviour more likely. Rehabilitation becomes more difficult. In addition, rates of self-harm and abuse are alarmingly high within both men’s and women’s prisons. In 2006 alone, there were 11,503 attempts by women to self-harm in British prisons. [1] This suggests that imprisoning offenders unnecessarily is harmful both for the offenders themselves and for society as a whole.  [1] Women in Prison. Statistics. Retrieved August 4, 2011, from Women in Prison .

Rehabilitation Is A Better General Justifying Aim for Punishment  Rehabilitation is the most valuable ideological justification for imprisonment, for it alone promotes the humanising belief in the notion that offenders can be saved and not simply punished. Desert (retributive) theory, on the other hand, sees punishment as an end in itself, in other words, punishment for punishment’s sake. This has no place in any enlightened society.  An example can be taken from the aftermath of the London rioters, where 170 riot offenders under 18 are now in custody without firstly understanding the causes of the riots nor the reasons of why these people offended. [1]  The rehabilitative ideal does not ignore society and the victim. In fact it is because retribution places such great value on the prisoner’s rights that it tries so hard to change the offender and prevent his reoffending. By seeking to reduce reoffending and to reduce crime, it seeks constructively to promote the safety of the public, and to protect individuals from the victimisation of crime. The public agrees; a 2008 poll of British citizens found 82% ‘thought rehabilitation was as important, or more important than punishment as a criterion when sentencing criminals’. [2] Such a model of punishment is therefore a more enlightened approach in a modern day criminal justice system. Our current system which focuses more on retribution does not have the possibility of seeking to prevent reoffending by curing the offender of their desire to reoffend.  [1] Malik, Shiv, ‘UK riots cause 8% rise in jailed children’, guardian.co.uk, 8 September 2011.  [2] Directgov. Rehabilitation versus punishment - judge for yourself. 1 July 2008 .

A sanction should not merely be helpful – it should treat the offending conduct as wrong. The purpose of punishment is to show disapproval for the offender’s wrongdoing, and to clearly condemn his criminal actions. This is what was and is being done with the offenders of the August riots, the most common example is of an the two men who attempted to organise riots using Facebook, both were sentenced to four years and shows societies disgust in the events of the riots and acts as a message for future. [1]  A prison sentence is as much a punishment for the offender as a symbol of the reaction of society. Society creates law as an expression of the type of society we are aiming to create. This is why we punish; we punish to censure (retribution), we do not punish merely to help a person change for the better (rehabilitation). We still have to punish a robber or a murderer, even if he is truly sorry and even if he would really, really never offend again and even if we could somehow tell that for certain. This is because justice, and not rehabilitation, makes sense as the justification for punishment.  Why is justice and censure (‘retribution’) so important? Because unless the criminal justice system responds to persons who have violated society’s rules by communicating, through punishment, the censure of that offending conduct, the system will fail to show society that it takes its own rules (and the breach of them) seriously. There are other important reasons as well: such as to convey to victims the acknowledgement that they have been wronged. Punishment, in other words, may be justified by the aim of achieving ‘justice’ and ‘desert’, and not by the aim of rehabilitation.  [1] Bowcott, Owen, Haroon Siddique and Andrew Sparrow, ‘Facebook cases trigger criticism of ‘disproportionate’ riot sentences’, guardian.co.uk, 17 August 2011 .

The expense of re-offenders re-entering the system is also an expense that our prison system cannot afford. A system such as counselling for released prisoners would prove to be inexpensive when weighed against the benefits of decreased crime, and all the costs involved in that (public damage, judicial costs and prison costs). Given that many organisations work in rehabilitation programs in prisons for very little, if any, payment such a system could easily be established for counselling.  A complete system of rehabilitation and post-release counselling, to access these programs, should be paired with increased awareness programs in schools and welfare support. However, this system of combating crime is not complete without a comprehensive system of rehabilitation. If we truly want to protect society and reform criminals then we must invest more time, effort and funding into a system that can achieve this. Incarceration on its own is not working and it is time for change. An addition to the rehabilitation programme was aired on the UK television in November 2011, a new scheme where the offender meets their victim(s) in order to understand their actions have consequences. This type of programme can show visible changes or responses of the offenders as they agree to talk about their feelings and show remorse.

The needs of society are not being met by those who reoffend due to lack of rehabilitation. The fact that two thirds of offenders subsequently re-offend with two years [1] suggests that the prison system does little to encourage people to stay on the right side of the law. Clearly, the threat of prison is not enough alone and needs to be supplemented by other schemes.  Prisons can provide an opportunity to develop important skills: it is especially clear in the case of non-violent offenders that criminal behaviour often stems from a perceived lack of alternatives. Offenders often lack educational qualifications and skills. Prisons can provide an opportunity to develop necessary skills for future employment through the provision of courses and education. The UK offers courses in bricklaying, hairdressing, gardening and teaching sport and fitness. [2]  These people can then contribute back into society rather than a purely retributive model which just takes from a system. [3]  [1] Souper, M., ‘Principles of sentencing – reoffending rates’, Sixth Form Law .  [2] Directgov, ‘Education, training and working in prison’ .  [3] Jonathan Aitken wrote an opinion column for ‘The Independent’ website in which he criticised the current legal setup for criminal prosecution and suggested that reforming the system of rehabilitation in the UK would help to reduce rates of re-offending. This if of the greatest importance not only to the individual but for the safety of society.

Rehabilitation Doesn’t Actually Work  While some rehabilitative programmes work with some offenders (those who would probably change by themselves anyway), most do not. Many programs cannot overcome, or even appreciably reduce, the powerful tendency for offenders to continue in criminal behaviour. In Britain, where rehabilitation has long been purported to stop re-offending, 58 per cent of those over-21 find themselves in trouble with the law within two years of release. [1] The rehabilitation programs simply do not work. ‘Rehabilitation’ is therefore a false promise – and the danger with such an illusory and impossible goal is that it is used as a front to justify keeping offenders locked up for longer than they deserve and sometimes even indefinitely (‘if we keep him here longer maybe he might change’). We cannot justify passing any heavier or more onerous a sentence on a person in the name of “rehabilitation” if “rehabilitation” does not work.  [1] Stanford, P., ‘The road to redemption: Does the rehabilitation of prisoners work?’, The Independent, 23 August 2007.

Rehabilitation Constitutes an Unjustifiable Further Expense  The evidence from all over the world suggests that recidivism rates are difficult to reduce and that some offenders just can’t be rehabilitated. It therefore makes economic sense to cut all rehabilitation programs and concentrate on ensuring that prisoners serve the time they deserve for their crimes and are kept off the streets where they are bound to re-offend. As it can be seen that some deserving of a longer sentence only receive short sentences due to lack of time and space and some who have committed shorter sentences are given long sentences aimed at making a point or sending a message.  Currently, the government will continue to be gambling tax payers’ money on programs that will not give anything back into the society that it took from. Britain spends £45,000 a year on each of its prisoners and yet 50% will go on to re-offend, ‘which translates into a dead investment of £2 billion annually. [1] Rehabilitation programs should be scrapped and taxpayers asked only to pay the bare minimum to keep offenders off the streets. They can’t harm society if they are behind bars.  [1] Bois, N. D., ‘Retribution and Rehabilitation: A Modern Conservative Justice Policy’. Dale &amp; Co. 20 July 2011.

How Would One Know a System of Rehabilitation Is Really Working  The question “does it work” must be joined by the second question: “even if it does work, how can you tell, with each individual offender, when it has worked?” How would we check if this system is really working? Tagging prisoners? Free counselling for the prisoner for the rest of their life? These measures would require huge administration costs and then the question follows would it even be feasible to enforce such a system?  The root of criminality exists before exposure to the prison system; otherwise criminals would have no reason to be there in the first place. What may be more sensible is to analyse the root causes of what makes criminals offend in the first instance and introduce reform to counteract it, for example the economic crisis. [1]  Some have cited the education system as failing to instil a sense of morality in people. Others suggest that a lack of welfare leads individuals to lose faith in society and therefore be unwilling to follow the law. Assuming that the right time to change people’s outlook on society is after they have offended is naïve – criminal urges are better ‘nipped in the bud’.  It could be argued that criminal mentalities are inherent within certain individuals, either due to their inborn psyche or their upbringing. If one accepts this, then basic rehabilitation into society is going to do little to stop re-offending, whereas incarceration will keep them in a position where they cannot offend. Allowing them easy passage back into the world, with minimal supervision, could provide a gateway for them to commit more serious crimes.  [1] Dodd, Vikram, ‘Police face years of public disorder, former Met chief warns’, guardian.co.uk, 6 December 2011.

Rehabilitation Does Not Serve The Needs of Society  The primary goal of our criminal justice system is to remove offenders from general society and protect law abiding citizens. Many criminals are repeat offenders and rehabilitation can be a long and expensive process. In Jamaica, police claim repeat offenders are responsible for over 80% of local crime despite rehabilitation programmes in prisons. [1] Ideally therefore, retribution and rehabilitation should work hand in hand to protect citizens in the short and long term. There are some successful examples of this happening, where prisons encourage inmates to take part in group activities such as football. Some prisons have started cooking programmes where inmates learn to cook in a professional environment and leave with a qualification. However the first priority is the removal of the convicted criminal from society in order to protect the innocent. Rehabilitation should be a secondary concern. The primary concern of the criminal justice system should be the protection of the non-guilty parties. The needs of society are therefore met by the immediate removal of the offender.  In addition a more retributive approach serves society through the message it conveys. Most modern defences of retribution would emphasize its role in reinforcing the moral values of society and expressing the public's outrage at certain crimes. Rehabilitation therefore weakens the strong message of disgust as to the offender’s actions that a traditional prison sentence symbolises and the deterrent that it thus provides.  [1] Chang, K. O. ‘Lock up repeat offenders for life’. Jamaica Gleaner, 17 September 2006 .

Philosopher Peter Landry believes that it takes a whole group of specialists to determine what kind of punishment to mete out to criminals. [1] There is no hard and fast rule. Money spent on rehabilitation may cost a lot, but is well worth it, when you consider cuts to the rate of reoffending, leading to reduced expense related to those who reoffend and less crowded prisons. In Britain, it costs £140,000 a year to jail a young criminal, imagine if that money was spent on his or her rehabilitation instead? [2] Furthermore, in America, where measures like the ‘three-strike policy’ were introduced and rehabilitation discouraged, ‘more than four out of ten adult American offenders still return to prison within three years of their release’. [3] Retribution simply does not work, and it is certainly not saving the government any money.  [1] Landry, P. ‘On The Theory of Punishment’. Blupete, 2011 .  [2] Doyle, J., ‘£140,000: the annual cost of jailing a young criminal’. The Guardian, 1 March 2010.  [3] Pew Center on the States. State of Recidivism. The Pew Charitable Trusts. 2011, Washington, D.C., P.2.

If we had the opportunity to stop some offenders re-offending why do we not seize this opportunity? Rehabilitative programs provide such an opportunity. Such programs include cognitive-behavioural programs (say, trying to get a violent offender to think and reach differently to potential ‘trigger’ situations), pro-social modelling programmes, and some sex-offender treatment programs. Of course, certain styles will suit some better than others, but this is someone that will have to determined case by case. As some methods with work better than others depending on attitudes, values etc.  The most credible research (done by a technique called meta-analysis) demonstrates that the net effect of treatment is, on average, a positive reduction of overall recidivism (reoffending) rates of between 10% and 12%, which would promote a reduction in crime that is, by criminal standards, massive.  Rehabilitation is a concept. It is not a definite technique whose effectiveness can be precisely measured. So yes some forms of rehabilitation may not work, others however might. What the opposition to this argues is what we've deemed rehabilitation is what we will utiize going forward. However, this is illogical; as we speak, new methods of rehabilitation could be concocted. Such an indefinite ideal cannot be proven as ineffective. For example, if somebody proves that high-speel monorail transportation is ineffective, this does not mean that transportation is absolutely and fundamentally flawed. One simply cannot disprove an infinite set of hypotheses.

If it were the case that legal advice were not privileged people would not tell their attorneys the full truth and therefore such evidence would not exist anyway. The removal of Attorney-Client Privilege would only remove such evidence from the forum. This would lead to a further distorted system whereby Attorneys are arguing upon the false representations made to them by their clients. This provides even less evidence of truth than a system which includes Attorney-Client Privilege.

law general house believes attorney client privilege should be abolished

It blocks a significant amount of evidence  A system of just law is not based on opinions or ideologies. It is about finding evidence and using that evidence to prove or disprove either to 'beyond reasonable doubt' for criminal cases or 'on the balance of probabilities' for civil and commercial matters. The burden is on the importance of the evidence. It does not make sense for a legal system to on one hand place so much emphasis on evidence and lock away documents which will contain a vast array of empirical evidence with the other. Instead, attorney-client privilege should be abolished and all evidence should be in justices domain in order to ensure that the law achieves a just result.

The privilege that subsists between solicitors and their clients is well documented. Therefore, when people go about becoming solicitors they go into it knowing the potential moral pitfalls. Having entered the career they accept the moral burden and should seek to comply with the Solicitors Code of Conduct. In addition, the moral burden is mitigated by those such rules. It is stated that in exceptional circumstances, situations involving children or the potential serious bodily harm on any individual the duty of confidentiality can be departed from.

Attorney client privilege need not be sacrosanct in all situations  Most obviously it seems unnecessary for there to be attorney client privilege when the defendant’s interests cannot be adversely affected. For example when the confidential information just does not incriminate the client himself but it might clear somebody else, or when the client is dead. Few people will be discouraged from being candid with their lawyers if there is merely the possibility that the communications may be disclosed after their death.  In addition there are situations where the client’s interest may indeed be hurt but where this should be outweighed by some other very important public interest. In other words perhaps there should be ‘necessity’ or ‘public interest’ or ‘in the interests of justice’ balancing exceptions to the privilege. This would be the case when public safety is at risk, for example if the client holds some very vital information but is not willing to disclose it to anyone other than his lawyer. In such cases the courts should weigh up and balance the client’s interests against society’s and make the decision accordingly rather than rigidly sticking to attorney-client privilege.

It makes it more likely that attorneys will lie for their clients  If communications between an attorney and their client are confidential, then it allows for lies to be put forward to the court in order to defend someone who is guilty. In the case of a criminal matter, it could mean that even though a defendant has stated they are guilty to their attorney, they will not be found to be guilty. Every attorney wants to win their case, and if they are likely to conceal the confession of their client if it means their client will be released. As the communication is confidential, such confession will not be informed to the court and the attorney would not be exposed for their lies. The confidential nature of the communications between attorney and client open the possibility for a system of justice based upon lies. This is not just and so the Attorney-Client Privilege should be abolished.

It is a breach of a fundamental rule of an attorney's professional conduct rules to lie to the courts. In England and Wales the risk of Attorney's lying has been catered for by the Rule 11.01 of the Solicitors' Code of Conduct. This rule makes it a serious breach of the conduct rules to lie to or knowingly deceive the courts; as witness statements and police interviews are presented in courts as evidence these are also included. [1] This means that a solicitor is not allowed to put forward or allow to be put forward any information to be adduced to the court which is incorrect. The consequences for a solicitor are high – they are liable to have their professional license revoked. Given the high consequences, a solicitor would not be willing to risk it and will therefore not be willing to lie for their client to the court.  [1] Rule 11: Litigation and advocacy, Solicitors’ Code of Conduct 2007,  accessed 18/5/11

It is very unusual to have a case where it would be certain that disclosure would in no way affect the client. Clients want confidentiality for a wide variety of reasons, not only for reasons connected to personal criminal liability. Even if these confidences are not any sort of admission of criminal wrongdoing, they may nonetheless be matters that the client, for one reason or another, would not wish divulged. Abolishing the privilege not only violates a person’s right to privacy, but a person who knows that his communications may be later revealed (even after his death, or even with ‘use immunity’) may well decide that it is better not to go to a lawyer in the first place – in other words, leading to an access to justice problem. This becomes even more of a problem if the privilege may be overridden when it is in the public interest as the client is not going to know when this may be considered to be the case. Better to keep the information to him/herself rather than opening the possibility that it may be used ‘in the public interest’

This does not mean that client-attorney privilege should be done away with altogether. When it comes to European law and their investigations under the Treaty of Lisbon for uncompetitive practices, they do not count in house lawyer communications as privileged [1]  [1] Akzo Nobel Chemicals Limited C-550/07  accessed 18/05/11

It places excessive moral burden on solicitors  With the attorney-client privilege in place, there is an excessive burden on the solicitor to cope with any information their client may give to them on a confidential basis. This means they have to deal with the information alone. This is an excessive moral burden for any individual to have and should not be justified on the basis that a solicitor is there to advance the interests of their client. It should not be the solicitors role to deal with moral conflicts alone.

The principle behind attorney-client privilege is declining in relevance  One of the principles behind allowing communications between a solicitor and their client to be privileged is that a solicitor is independent of their client and so will not breach laws themselves in order to attain their clients objectives. However, after the recession of 2008 and the Legal Services Act 2007 the position of in house lawyer is more prevalent [1] . In house lawyers are not financially independent. They are in fact employees of their 'client'. This eradicates the principle behind client-attorney privilege and therefore the privilege itself is now irrelevant and should be eradicated.  [1] In-house counsel on the rise, New Law Journal, 28 April 2010,  accessed 18/05/11

The circumstances under which Note 9 allows such a break in the rule of client-attorney privilege is for the HM Revenue and other bodies that act for the benefit of the Government. It is rather archaic that a principle such as that of attorney-client privilege is loosened only for bodies that act for the benefit of the Government. This does not show that attorney-Client privilege is necessary but that it is not. If the Government is willing to do away with it for their monetary benefit, why can we not do away with it in the interest of justice for society? There should be a system that encourages the adversarial system, and attorney/client privilege but yet allows a variety of circumstances to override this principle, such as public interest and public security. These principles are often used to justify potential Human Rights breaches, so we should also be able to use them to justify the breach of attorney/client privilege.

Surely the best way to ensure justice is to let the truth be known. By allowing the communication between an attorney and their client to be privileged, the system is catering for a system of arbitrary loopholes and cleverly worded arguments. These are the tools that a solicitor/ attorney would have in order to protect the interests of their client in the face of information they may not wish to divulge to the opponent. This only caters for an adversarial system whereby two parties oppose each other and they each have lawyers to assist them. Surely a better system would be one that encouraged open communication of the truth in order for the court to establish the most just outcome.

It better enables Attorneys to advance their client's case  An attorney's main duty is owed to their client. Under Rule 1.04 of the Solicitors' Code of Conduct a solicitor “must act in the best interests of each client”. [1] It is part of the adversarial system that we have that two opposing parties in litigation argue for their best interests. The whole working of the adversarial system of justice is that each party knows the facts but argues the facts that most support their case. To take away client-attorney privilege is to undermine this way of achieving justice.  [1] Rule 1: Core duties, Solicitors’ Code of Conduct 2007,  accessed 18/05/11

Client-Attorney Privilege is already qualified appropriately  In exceptional circumstances, solicitors are told that they may depart from the rule of confidentiality contained in Rule 4 of the Solicitors' Code of conduct. Note 9 states that there are some regulatory bodies that are entitled to be informed of apparently confidential client communications. [1] In cases of suspected money laundering, solicitors have a duty under the Money Laundering Regulations 2007 [2] to inform relevant bodies of any suspected money laundering or any handling of the proceeds of crime. This means that there is flexibility in the rule of client confidentiality and client-attorney privilege which allows for justice to take its course in serious circumstances.  [1] Rule 4: Confidentiality and disclosure, Solicitors’ Code of Conduct 2007,  accessed 18/05/11  [2] The Money Laundering Regulations 2007, legislation.gov.uk, No2157, 2007,

It supports the principle that everyone is entitled to a defence  In criminal, civil or commercial matters, it is important that everyone has equal access to the law. This ensures a fair and just system. In order to facilitate this principle, even those in the wrong need to know that what they say to their legal representative will not be used against them at a later date. It is this principle that provides equality in the court room and therefore the principle of client attorney privilege needs to be maintained.

All this shows is that our 'adversarial system' is flawed. Rather than each party trying to pull the wool over the courts eyes and only see their version of the facts surely the system of justice would operate better if each attorney had the duty to the court in finding the truth. Perhaps it is for this reason that mediation is often seen as the better way to solve disputes. In mediation, the parties are each trying to reach an out of court settlement that balances both of their needs. Justice would be achieved more easily in this mediation setting if the client-attorney privilege did not apply. Solicitors then would truly be looking to advance justice, not the clients best interests. Justice is supposed to be unbiased in this regard.

The ICC does not offer lasting peace to victims, but can instead re-open old wounds. 'It is by no means clear that 'justice' as defined by the Court and Prosecutor is always consistent with the attainable political resolution of serious political and military disputes' argues John Bolton. The ICC deals with individual criminals and specific crimes in a vacuum, it is unable to appreciate the, albeit paradoxical, notion that it may be in the best interests of the resolution of conflict for the perpetrators to go unpunished and victims to forego reparations. 'Circumstances differ, and circumstances matter'1 the ICC in offering lasting peace to victims of war crimes is unable to weigh the circumstances in the manner of an ad hoc tribunal tailored to the specific conflict.  1 Bolton, J. (2002, November 12). The United States and the International Criminal Court. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from

human rights international law politics government warpeace house would recognise

The ICC offers justice to victims of war crimes.  The ICC offers a multilateral means by which international law can be brought to bear on the perpetrators of war crimes. As Amnesty International argues, 'the ICC ensures that those who commit serious human rights violations are held accountable. Justice helps promote lasting peace, enables victims to rebuild their lives and sends a strong message that perpetrators of serious international crimes will not go unpunished'. Furthermore, and for the first time, the ICC has the power to order a criminal to pay reparations to a victim who has suffered as a result of their crimes. Such reparations may include restitution, indemnification and rehabilitation. Judges are able to order such reparations whether the victims have been able to apply for them or not. Though reparations will often not be sufficient on their own for lasting peace, they are a step in the right direction and only made possible by the establishment of the ICC.

The US holds a unique position in the fabric of the protection of international peace and security. Whilst it might be appropriate for other States to consent to the jurisdiction of the ICC, these States do not bear the responsibilities and attendant risks beholden to the 200,000 US troops in continuous forward deployment. The armed forces of the US that have responded to three hundred per cent more contingency situations during the previous decade than during the whole of the Cold War. It is clear that the world more than ever looks to the US for its safety. Furthermore, the military dominance of the US increases the likelihood of prosecution. When rogue regimes are incapable of defeating the US by any military means, they are likely to resort to 'asymmetric challenges' to their forces. Challenging the authority of the US in the ICC will be more damaging to US interests and willingness to intervene than any conventional military opposition. The indispensable nation must therefore be permitted to dispense with the ICC.

The ICC allows for the prosecution of war criminals.  Law-abiding states like the United States that have yet to ratify the ICC should have nothing to fear if they behave lawfully. The Prosecutor of the ICC is only concerned with the most grave offences and it defies belief that the US would approve a strategy of genocide or systematic mass violations of human rights that could attract the jurisdiction of the ICC. Further, the discretion of the Prosecutor is not unchecked. The Statute requires that the approval of three judges sitting in a pre-trial chamber be obtained before an arrest warrant can be issued or proceedings initiated. Moreover, there is no harm to the interests of the US in being subjected to a mere preliminary investigation. In fact, it is preferable that spurious accusations are briefly examined and shown to be baseless, than that these accusations be allowed to raise doubts about the credibility of a State's actions and the impartiality of the Tribunal in question. The US acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Prosecutor of the ICTY is evident ; the US troops forming part of the KFOR peacekeeping force in Kosovo could equally be subject to investigation and prosecution by the ICTY. The US is prepared for its forces to operate under the scrutiny of the ICTY since it reasonably does not expect its members to commit the very crimes they are deployed to prevent.

The ICC's ability to prosecute war criminals is both overstated and simplistic. It has no force of its own, and must rely on its member states to hand over criminals wanted for prosecution. This leads to cases like that of Serbia, where wanted war criminals like Ratko Mladic are believed to have been hidden with the complicity of the regime until finally handed over in 2011. The absence of a force or any coercive means to bring suspects to trial also leads to situations like that in Libya, whereby Colonel Gaddafi is wanted by the ICC but the prosecution's case is germane if he manages his grip on power. Furthermore, it relies on external funding to operate, and can only sustain cases so long as financial support exists to see them through.

The deterrent effect of the Court ensures wide-spread and equal adherence to international law.  Upon signing the Rome Statute in 1996, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan stated that 'the establishment of the Court is still a gift of hope to future generations, and a giant step forward in the march towards universal human rights and the rule of law'1. Such statements demonstrate the impact the Court could potentially have, as a body that simultaneously cherishes sovereignty and protects national courts whilst offering a means by which criminals in states unable or unwilling to prosecute will still be brought to justice. As the natural and permanent heir to the process started at Nuremberg in the wake of World War II2, the ICC ensures that the reach of law is now universal; war criminals, either in national or international courts, will be forced to trial as a result of the principle of universal jurisdiction1. The deterrent effect of such a court is obvious and a warning to those who felt they were operating in anarchic legal environments.  1 Amnesty International. (2007, September). Fact Sheet: International Criminal Court. Retrieved May 11, 2011  2 Crossland, D. (2005, November 23). Nuremberg Trials a Tough Act to Follow. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from Spiegel International

The ICC does not have too much authority, merely the necessary authority to be useful as an institution. It is the very pre-eminence of the US that demands it adhere to the international rule of law, the ICC's existence will not alter that nor lead to charges for legitimate actions. It is perfectly possible to conduct a campaign for bona fide reasons of saving lives and protecting human rights that involves the commission of war crimes. The ICC can reasonably demand that the US, or any other State, pursue their lawful ends by lawful means. Moreover, it matters not to the victim of a gross human rights violation whether the perpetrator was the regime of a rogue state or the service member of a State seeking to protect the population. Further, other States with significant military commitments overseas, such as the UK and France, have ratified the Rome Statute without equivocation. These States accept that intervening in other States to uphold international human rights demands respect for these same norms.

The budget of the ICC is not particularly excessive and can be maintained without US finance. The withholding of US funds from the UN budget is a familiar tactic for expressing disapproval. In 1998, the total US arrears on assessed contributions that had been approved by the Security Council amounted to over $1.3 billion1. Whilst the operation of UN institutions and operations, in particular peacekeeping, might have suffered, the UN was still able to function. Likewise, there is no reason to suggest that the refusal of the US, or even Japan, to ratify the Rome Statute, would preclude the operation of the ICC. The Statute allows the donation of additional funds and resources from other State Parties. With regard to the ICTY, the EU has consistently contributed personnel, in addition to the payment of the assessed contribution of each of the 15 States. $100 million might seem a significant expense. However, it is both trite and true that no price should be put on justice. Not least justice for thousands of victims of some of the most heinous crimes imaginable.  1 Lautze, S. (2000, October). US Arrears to the UN. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from Humanitarian Exchange Magazine:

It may be in the best interests of victims and their state for war criminals not to be brought to trial.  The ICC may well lead to the political prosecution of war criminals, but that is not necessarily the most effective means to peace, or lasting peace for victims. As U.S. policy papers have pointed out, despots like Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein did not consult lawyers over potential legal ramifications before they committed their respective human rights violations1. Furthermore, the impact on an oppressed population of a long, protracted trial of their fallen dictator is not always therapeutic for it can dredge up events of particularly melancholic qualities and grants the dictator a platform to continue his psychological control over his population.  1 Elsea, J. K. (2006). U.S. Policy Regarding the International Criminal Court. Congressional Research Service, p. 22.

The ICC fails to prevent atrocities.  The ICC will not deter the commission of war crimes or genocide. The Third Reich augmented the crimes of the Holocaust when it became clear that the Allies would defeat them in Europe. The only expectation of the Nazi leadership was immediate execution, rather than trial in a judicial forum. Similarly, Slobodan Milosevic and the Bosnian Serb army conducted a campaign of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo whilst the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was sitting in the Hague. The calculation of whether to commit gross human rights violations is not that of the reasonable and rational individual. The existence of a court, however well intentioned, will have no effect on the commission of these crimes.

The novel crime of aggression leads to the prosecution of those seeking to protect human rights.  The likelihood of political prosecution is only augmented by the creation of the novel crime of 'aggression' under the Rome Statute. Any intervention in a State for the protection of human rights of some or all of its people might constitute a crime. The US or any NATO State could be prosecuted, at the request of the genocidaires, for successfully preventing genocide. Moreover, by a quirk of the drafting of the Statute, States that refuse to accept the jurisdiction of the ICC can nevertheless request the prosecution of individuals of other States for crimes alleged committed on its territory. Thus Milosevic could have demanded the investigation of NATO forces for the events of Operation Allied Force, but have precluded any investigation of the actions of the Bosnian Serb army on the same territory.

The ICC has too much authority.  The ICC will lead to political prosecution. American service members and senior military and political strategists will be subject to charges for legitimate military action. Any State has the power to refer an issue for investigation to the Prosecutor and the Prosecutor also has the power to commence an investigation ex proprio motu. There is no UN Security Council veto over the discretion of the Prosecutor. Moreover, the phantom of political prosecution has already materialised in the preliminary investigation mounted by the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICTY into the NATO bombing of Kosovo and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the course of 'Operation Allied Force'. The Prosecutor chose to investigate a campaign that had been undertaken with clinical precision, that had received the ex post facto support of the Security Council, and that had been directed against a military infrastructure effecting a brutal policy of ethnic cleansing. This grim precedent suggests that a Prosecutor will not hesitate to investigate any other good faith and successful military actions across the globe.

It is ludicrous to claim that the ICC will fail to deter atrocities when such an international institution has never before existed. Moreover, the ICC is not designed to be a prophylactic ; for the victims of these terrible crimes it is crucial that these offenders are apprehended, tried and punished. Retribution and protection of society are objectives not only for the domestic criminal justice system but also for the new international version. Therefore, even if the ICC failed to prevent the atrocities in the first place, a mechanism is now in place to punish those responsible. Justice is not sufficient where war crimes are concerned, but it is a start.

The ICC generates crippling expenses.  Cautious estimates suggest an operating budget of $100 million per year1. The costs of the ICTY and ICTR have already spiralled out of control, and the latter tribunal has a legacy of maladministration and internal corruption. The US contributes 25% of the budget for both the tribunals, which amounted to $58 million in the fiscal year 20002. It is dubious whether the ICC could survive without US financial support. The UN as a whole is obligated only to fund investigations and prosecutions initiated at the request of the Security Council. Every other investigation must be funded by assessed contributions from the States that have ratified the Rome Statute. Although the UN could authorise the transfer of additional funds, the procedure would require a UN Security Council resolution that would of course be subject to the US veto. Alternatively, it is accepted that State Parties to the Statute could directly contribute funds or personnel to the ICC. However, the possibility of partiality or even corruption is manifest where States with their individual political interests are deploying and directing their own staff within the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC.  1 Irwin, R. (2010, January 8). ICC Trials Hit by Budget Cuts. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from Institute for War &amp; Peace Reporting:  2 Scharf, M. P. (2000, October). The Special Court for Sierra Leone. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from American Society of International Law:

The crime of aggression is not remarkably novel. Intervening in the domestic affairs of a sovereign State is contrary to norms of conventional and customary law. The UN Charter prohibits both the unauthorised use of force against another State and any intervention in its domestic jurisdiction. Moreover, the fact that the crime of aggression has not yet been defined means that this objection to the ICC is purely hypothetical. The US should in fact be encouraged to ratify the Rome Statute in order to allow its negotiators to play an active role in the Assembly of State Parties. The Assembly is currently responsible for drafting the definition of this crime.

It is always in the best interest of victims for war criminals to be brought to justice, even if in the intermediate period there is a great deal of stress and suppressed grief. The ICC has the power not only to punish war criminals with incarceration, but order reparations to be paid to victims. Though financial reward cannot cover the loss of life or injury, it is a start and could not directly come from the criminal themselves without the influence and power of the ICC. Furthermore, it establishes a precedent that demonstrates to the wider public that victims will, however long it takes and however hard the ICC must work, get justice for their suffering.

university free speech debate free know house believes western universities

MOOCs primarily reach already educated and thus privileged people. Roughly 80% of people who took Coursera courses already have a Bachelor' degree [12]. This statistic shows that the less-advantaged do not prefer online courses over the traditional university nor do they find them more convenient to take. At the least it shows MOOCs are just reaching the same people as universities. Even if universities drop tuition fees, which does not seem likely, the argument is entirely based on the idea that poorer people would find it easier to do courses from home. However, many of the poor do not even have access to internet at home, including an estimated 100 million poor Americans [13], not to mention much larger numbers of poorer people from less developed countries.

education general teaching university science computers phones internet house

Online courses broadens access to education  Online courses can expand access to university education. University education is based on the idea of merit - that the brightest people should be enabled to learn - however in real life many different circumstances play a role in one's ability to attend university. The result is that lots of stellar people from less-affluent backgrounds do not even apply to the best universities due to costs and anxiety involved in leaving home. In the United States the bottom 50 percent of the income distribution comprise just 14 percent of the undergraduates at top universities [10]. Online courses allow more bright people to go to a university by definitely removing accommodation and travel costs, and, as some predict, even by lowering or dropping tuition fees [11]. This argument is made even stronger by inherent flexibility of online courses, which means that people can combine studies with work and family obligations better. This improves access to education for the poor within the country and in particularly for those in less developed countries, which then improves meritocracy of the university system.

Online courses enables universities to accept virtually unlimited numbers of students regardless of presence of tuition fees. If universities keep tuition fees, it makes sense to admit more students because they are no longer limited by availability of physical space; if they drop tuition fees, they still should accept more students because their revenues would depend on how popular they are. What this means is that instead of picking just the brightest of the applying lot, universities can now accept pretty much everyone who meets the basic standard criteria. Not only this decreases the quality of professionals and academia, it decreases the value of a university degree.

Online courses encourage sharing of academic information  One of the technical features of MOOCs is that content of courses can easily be shared between universities and learners (as content is freely downloadable). This is useful in two ways. First, people who are not earning credit from the course can have full access to educational materials, which expands knowledge of those not enrolled in the university. Second, less prestigious universities can benefit by learning how to design courses better, so they can offer better services. MOOCs even offer opportunities for universities to cooperate together to offer shared courses that would decrease duplication and increase quality of education [16], which would be of even greater benefit to financially stressed institutions. Shared educational resources would expand access to education even further and drive educational standards higher through university cooperation.

Online courses are more convenient for students than traditional university  The vast popularity of MOOCs can be explained by the fact that people are finding it easier to learn this way. The best feature of online learning that it can be done in the privacy of one's home, which is more convenient than having to move cities or even countries for a university degree. Moreover, online courses are inherently more flexible. Lectures can be watched and tests taken at any time a person desires (within the deadlines), unlike with scheduled lectures and tests at the traditional university. Not only this means a more personal approach to studying, it also provides people with more flexibility to manage their other commitments, such as work and childcare. Such personal and flexible approach to learning will overtake the rigidity of the traditional university.

Online courses are popular not because they are flexible, but because they provide an opportunity to expand one's knowledge on a variety of subjects. For example, the most common reason for people taking Coursera courses are professional development and lifelong learning, the latter being essentially pleasure learning [9]. While there is nothing wrong with people taking courses to expand their knowledge or add to what they already know, it nevertheless indicates that MOOCs are not really used for furthering one's academic knowledge. This objective is and will remain the field of traditional universities.

Though it is good for personal development opportunities to access educational material don’t mean anything in the labour market that requires verification of understanding through grading. As regards to universities cooperating; that might actually result in the same course being offered by many smaller universities, which decreases the room for free thinking and interpretation, which is an integral part of academic development [17]. Moreover, if with MOOCs prestigious universities can accept more students, this might mean an end to many less prestigious universities altogether as they would not be able to compete. This could actually diminish access to university education for many people who cannot make the cut for the prestigious universities.

It is questionable whether universities would be able to substantially cut administrative costs and facilities. They will have to spend substantially more on IT support for running courses, as well as adapting courses for the online format. Then it is likely that universities would have to spend substantially more on hiring teaching and research assistants to manage increased numbers of students enrolled. While student accommodation support is going away, the normal academic student support for questions about studies is not, and its workloads actually increase due to higher student numbers. At the end of the day, administrative expenses just have to be spent on different administrative tasks.

Online courses are a way to higher academic excellence  Relocating to the best universities is a budgetary concern, but also family and social relations concern for many people, which prevents all the best people from even applying to universities that would suit them the best. Online courses can recruit students from anywhere in the world much easier than traditional universities can because students don't need to travel far away for the best education. This then ensures that universities have better access to the brightest people. For instance, Stanford University's online course on Artificial Intelligence enabled people from 190 countries to join, and none of students receiving a score of 100 percent where from Stanford [14]. Improving the pool of students would automatically result in better academics, professionals and science, which would benefit the society better.

Online courses would allow universities to use more resources on teaching and research  Traditional Universities are forced to spend a lot on administration and facilities, such as renting and maintaining buildings and parking lots, providing student support for accommodation, renting student halls, subsiding transports costs and meals, supervising university areas and so on. Across 72 US public universities the average administrative cost was about 8% of spending with the highest, at the University of Connecticut at 17% [15]. All these costs can be cut or abandoned all together if universities move to online teaching. There would be no need for lecture halls and student accommodation as students would just work from home, and even professors could mostly work from home. Even if some of administrative costs remain, that would still substantially increase the amount of resources to be spent entirely on teaching and research. This allows universities to improve their academic credentials and their academic output, which benefits the students and the society.

It is not true that online communications cannot be as good as real life communications. MOOCs platforms already are addressing student and professor involvement via such means as discussions in internet forums, Google hang-outs etc. This communication can be expanded to other means that the internet provides, such as Skype chats, conference calls, instant messaging, and even broadcasting live podcasts where people can ask questions online. Plus, it is not true that students would not be able to communicate among themselves given the possibilities of social media. Sure, they probably won't meet other students in real life, but that does not mean they cannot try to get to know each other online, especially since this is the only option. The internet has the capability to promote inclusive dialogue between students and professors, this capability just is not used to the fullest at the moment.

It is false to assume that MOOCs platforms would be the only or even the main way to provide university courses. The Open University uses its own resources for online and distance learning. This proves that, given advantages of online learning, universities can switch to digital learning themselves without any intermediaries. This also means that there is no reason for states to cut funding for universities as university learning would simply go digital, everything else staying the same. Even though some universities at the moment offer online courses for credit that are very cheap, these are not degrees, and it is unlikely to imagine that universities would offer cheap online degrees that would threaten their own existence.

Online courses make it impossible to ensure academic honesty  With online courses, unlike with actual tests and lectures, there is no way to ensure the person is not cheating on the other side of the screen. There is no way to ensure that essays and papers are written by people who will be getting degrees, and especially that tests and examinations are taken by the people who will be getting the degrees. But even if they are the same people, there is no way to prevent cheating during tests and examinations, as people can just have the cheat sheets in front of them and there are no supervisors to stop them from doing so. The crucial point about university degrees is that they ensure that the person is the professional. With online courses, that is not possible, which undermines the whole idea of the university degree.

Traditional universities are a rite of passage to independent life  For many students leaving for a university is a passage to an independent life, as they often move out out of their parents’ home and even their countries. This means they have to start learning or practically using lots of skills of independent adults, such as financial management, cooking, being crime-aware, networking, and solving communication problems on their own. With online courses students do not leave homes, and essentially do not start using these skills. This takes away an important practice in being an independent adult before the real life, which might leave students less equipped for the real life.

Online courses undermine society life of the university  University is not just a place for learning. A big part of student life is participating in societies and other activities, such as sports, debating, political, philosophical or other interest groups. These provide them with opportunity to explore their talents, do the things they like and also build connections that could be useful after the university. But you cannot do most of these things online as they, unlike studying, are not based on studying materials you can upload. This is why students with online courses would be deprived of these opportunities to develop themselves, build useful connections and get ideas for their further life. This is important for society too as students historically have often been an important political and social actor (e.g. see 1968 France, Athens Polytechnic uprising etc.).

Online courses undermine live communication with professors and other students  Online courses impair live communication between students and professors and among students. For instance, Coursera professors ask students not to email them because due to high numbers of students taking the course meaning they cannot reply [22]. Moreover, due to pre-recorded lectures, there is no option of asking professors questions. There are no live class discussions. Sure students could email each other, but it is more difficult to freely communicate with people you do not know and never met. It is also difficult to imagine that, given their numbers, students could get personal feedback on their progress from professors themselves, and not, say, teaching assistants (as Coursera does) or even from computers. Lack of personal feedback and engagement with professors and other students in discussions of the material decreases the quality of education.

This is exactly as saying that people who did not go to universities are not independent enough. We know this to be wrong in practice and this is so because independence is not obtained in a fixed set of circumstances. There are different ways to foster independence (e.g. part-time work, personal relationships parents don’t necessarily know about, etc.) that are also very much dependent on the persons' character rather than their circumstances. Besides, rites of passages are a subjective and culturally defined – if people no longer leave for universities, a new type of passage into independence is likely be constructed.

Financial model of online courses is unsustainable  At the moment some MOOC platforms are non-profit, while even for-profit ones do not pay universities, nor do universities pay MOOC platforms, they might only divide revenue if a revenue stream appears [18]. This essentially means that MOOCs have to rely on traditional financial models of universities to survive – they need the universities to provide materials and the academics and traditional models that are based on the fact that lots of students do not take online courses. However, MOOCs might undermine traditional university funding. For instance, Princeton professor Mitchell Duneier withdrew from Coursera claiming that states use MOOCs as a justification to withdraw state funding from universities [19]. Moreover, some MOOCs consider providing chargeable courses for credit but for a substantially lower price (around 100 dollars for a course), which might draw students away from traditional universities further undermining their existence [20]. This means a depletion of universities financial sources that MOOCs themselves rely on. At the moment there is no way for MOOCs to replace traditional university learning.

While there would no longer be a traditional university campus to carry out these activities, it does not mean these activities would disappear. Given the popularity of societies with students, it is expected that other platforms would spring up to fill in the gap. For instance, student clubs can be established in cities or regions, provided either by for-profit entrepreneurs (as in MOOCs platforms) or self-managed by students themselves. The only difference would be that these new platforms might no longer be affiliated to a university but rather be geographically based. This, however, is not a bad development as students would still have an opportunity to join societies. Students can easily be recruited into them via social media and the internet. Maybe not every student will have an option of the society they'd like to join, but that is also the case in lots of traditional universities.

It is highly unlikely to believe that people can easily find other people to go through the degree for them on the massive scale, no matter how dedicated of a friend that person is. And even if that friend or a relative is a professional in the degree area, it does not mean they could successfully pass the degree as universities update their examinations and degree materials yearly. Besides, there are ways to prevent such fraud. For instance, Coursera charges fees for certificates that verify a person's identity by using a webcam while the person is taking the course [21]. In terms of having essays and papers written by someone else, this problem is no different from the traditional universities, as they cannot easily verify that the person themselves wrote those either.

Countries need educated people, including a certain amount of university graduates, but the idea proposed, that everyone having a degree would benefit society economically, is unfounded. There is no economic benefit when people with degrees are doing jobs that do not require university education, and represents a substantial misallocation of resources on the part of the state.4 As to developing future leaders, those who are gifted or particularly driven can still rise to the top, even if university is not free, as scholarships tend to be mostly aimed at such individuals.

university government house believes university education should be free

The state benefits from the skills of a university educated populace  A university educated society is of great value to any state, and provides three main benefits. Firstly, it provides extensive economic benefits. There is a profound advantage to countries that actively promote a culture of “smart economy”3, with a highly educated and technically able workforce. They are more likely to be innovative and highly productive. Secondly, higher education leads to an increase in cultural awareness via subjects like the arts, history, and the classics. The third benefit is the development of leaders in society. The barrier created by university fees will prevent some potentially high­ worth individuals from ever reaching their potential.

There is no fundamental right to a university education; it is a service, and people should pay for it, not freeload on the taxpayer. Rights exist to provide people with the necessities of life. Some people may never have the “opportunity”, ie. wealth, to visit Hawai’i, yet that is not unfair and the state should not be expected to fund every citizen’s tropical vacation. Yet even in the presence of fees, access to scholarships and loans make it possible for people from disadvantaged economic backgrounds to find their way into university. In this way the state can provide equality of opportunity while the wealthier pay.

Individuals have a right to the experience of higher education  University offers personal, intellectual, and often spiritual, exploration. In secondary school and in professional life, no such opportunities exist as they are about instruction and following orders, not about questioning norms and conventions in the same way university so often is. [1] A life without the critical thinking skills provided by university will be less useful to society, as citizens will be unable to engage with political debate effectively – citizens need to be critical of what politicians tell them. The state has a responsibility to provide citizens with the skillset to take partake in the democratic process. [2] Free universities benefit both the citizen, as an exploration for his/her own development, and to society, for an educated and active populace.  [1] Key Degree. 2010. “How to Reap the Benefits of College”. Keydegree.com. Available:  ­of­college.html  [2] Swift, Adam. 2001. Political Philosophy: A Beginner’s Guide for Students and Politicians. Cambridge: Polity.

There is no right to the university experience. University life is not used as the previous argument would suggest. University life is often about alcohol first, education second. Self­knowledge and genuine wisdom come from study and reflection. This can be done anywhere, not just in a university. There is no fundamental right of individuals to be allowed to take four years free of charge to learn new skills that will benefit them or teach them how to be better citizens. The state’s duty is to provide a baseline of care, which in the case of education secondary school more than provides. If individuals want more they should pay for it themselves.

Every action has an opportunity cost. If people are willing to take loans it shows they consider the education worth the cost. It can actually be quite beneficial to society at large that university graduates seek swift employment due to debt, since it forces them to become productive members of society more rapidly than they might have done. For example, in Ireland where higher education is free graduates often take a year or two to travel and “find themselves” while giving little or nothing back to the state that has financed their degrees. It is good that people begin contributing to the economic life of society after graduating from university, rather than frittering away their youths in unproductive pursuits.

Individuals have a right to equal opportunities that free university provides.  The employment prospects created by a university degree are substantial, and many lines of work are only available to university graduates. True merit should define the ability to attend university, not the accident of birth. With the institution of fees, access becomes more difficult, and will certainly lead to lower attendance by poorer groups. This serves to lock people into the economic situation when they are born, as getting out is much more difficult when denied access to most high­income jobs.5  5 Tribune Opinion. 2005. “Education Paves Way Out of Poverty”. Greeley Tribune​ . Available:

The burden of fees and loans are too great to expect young people to shoulder  University fees are usually quite high. When fees are put in place in countries, many people find it extremely difficult to find the funds to pay for it, leading many people to seek school loans. In the United States, obtaining loans for university is the norm. These loans can put pressure on students to perform well. [1] But can lead to students dropping out. Debt encourages individuals to take jobs for which they are not necessarily best suited in order to get started on debt repayment immediately after leaving higher education. Furthermore, repayment of loans can take many years, leaving individuals with debt worries for much of their working lives. [2] With free university education everyone can go to college without crushing debt burden allowing them to study what they wish.  [1] Kane, Thomas. 1999. The Price of Admission: Rethinking How Americans Pay for College. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.  [2] Hill, Christine. 2007. “Still Paying Off that Student Loan”. National Public Radio. Available:

State funding of higher education is actually beneficial to universities. It allows universities to get on with their research and teaching without worrying about competing and spending money on getting students to attend. The money wasted in pursuit of high numbers of students is thus saved, as the state can tend to the needs of universities.1 The idea that the state will simply neglect its universities is silly, because society and therefore the state, relies on having capable professionals whose qualifications have value.  [1] Greatrix, Paul. 2011. “University Isn’t Just a Business—and the Student Isn’t Always Right”. The Guardian. Available:  ­education­network/higher­education­network­blog/2011/mar/14/students­asconsumers ​

It is far from impossible to pay for free university education. States waste money in many activities, and if they were to cut back on other discretionary (optional) spending then the cost of free higher education would be entirely possible. Cuts to defense spending in countries with overinflated militaries, or ending farm subsidies in many European states, are just some of things states can do.

Maintaining a system of free university education leads to an inefficient allocation of state resources.  First, tax money is wasted on paying civil servants to deal with university bureaucracy. Second, when the state funds all university education for free, funding will be allocated to unprofitable courses. Thirdly a moral hazard problem emerges among such students attending for free. They are allowed to reap all the benefits of education, while needing to incur none of the costs so won’t feel they need to work at their degree. The fourth problem of free university education is saturation of degree­holders in the market. [1] When everyone has a degree, the value of such a qualification plummets. Thus, a system of fees is superior to free education as it allows for more efficient allocation of resources to universities determined by which universities produce the best educated students and research.  [1] Chapman, Bruce. 2001. “The Higher Education Finance Debate: Current Issues and Suggestions for Reform”. Australian Review of Public Affairs. Available:  ​

State control of acceptance/curriculum criteria has negative effects  When the state has control of the purse strings, it wields a great deal of power over universities. In the case of Ireland, for example, the government has so much influence over higher education that it altered the governing structures of the major universities in 2000 through legislation and has representation on the Boards of each university. This degree of control is negative to the academic independence of universities.1 Universities operate best when they are independent of outside control and agendas. For the sake of free scholarship, free university education should not be instituted.  1 Government of Ireland. 1997. “Universities Act, 1997”. Available:

Free university education unjustly benefits one subset of society at the expense of everyone  The state funds essential services, but higher education is not such a service. The specific subset free university education tends to benefit not the disadvantaged, but rather the middle and upper classes who would have paid fees, but are now relieved of this burden. This pattern has been seen in Ireland where poorer communities still view higher education as something for the rich even though it is free. These groups continue to enter the workforce in similar numbers as they had before the ending of fees, and they still tend to prefer trade schools to universities if they do seek qualifications beyond the secondary level. [1]  [1] Brady, Hugh. 2008. “We Must Invest Now in Our Universities or Pay Later”. University College Dublin News. Available:  ​ 14 Government of Ireland. 1997. “Universities Act, 1997”. Available:

The quality of education suffers when university education is free  Without university fees, universities become dependent on the state for funding. This leads to larger class­sizes and less spending per student. [1] Yet with fees, the quality of universities increases for three reasons. First, funding improves, as university may charge in accordance with need. Second, quality of teaching is improved. Because a university wants people to attend and to pay fees, the programs and degrees they offer have to be good signals of quality requiring hiring the best lecturers. Third, the average quality of students attending university will improve. This is because students feel they need to get the most from their investment in education. An example of higher quality education from fee­paying is that of the United States, which has eighteen of the top fifty ranked universities in the world. [2] Quality is clearly improved when university is not free.  [1] Brady, Hugh. 2008. “We Must Invest Now in Our Universities or Pay Later”. University College Dublin News Available:  ents.html​  [2] QS World University Rankings 2015/16, QS,

Publicly funded universities in practice do not become parrots of the state’s agenda; far from it, in fact. Often it is public institutions that are the most outspoken against government activities. The University of California, Berkeley, for example, is one of the most politically active campuses in the United States and is a public institution. States tend to let universities govern themselves, accepting that they are generally better through self-governance. Similarly, the state controls both primary and secondary education, so would the privatisation of these too further benefit independent thinking?

The cost to the state is far too great to sustain universal free university education  The system of paying for universal healthcare, education, pensions, etc. threatens to bankrupt countries. The cost of paying for free university education is ruinously high. [1] In the OECD 1.9% of GDP, a third of education expenditure, is spent on tertiary education. [2] For countries to survive, they must rethink what they can afford to provide freely to citizens. It seems fair that all states should offer access to their citizens to primary and secondary education opportunities. University, on the other hand, is not essential to life in the same way. People can be functional and responsible citizens without it. For this reason, the state must consider university in the same way it does any non­essential service; people may pay for it if they wish to partake, but it is not an entitlement owed by the state.  [1] Ullman, Ben. 2007. “Should Higher Education Really Be Free For All?”. The New Statesman. Available:  ­radicals/2007/01/higher­education­free­students  [2] ‘What proportion of national wealth is spent on education’, Education at a glance, OECD, 2011, p.225,

Many state services are furnished that benefit a few and are not used by others. That is often just the way such services operate. So long as everyone has access to the service, then it is just to provide it out of tax revenues. Every individual, when higher education is free, can attend university without cost. That is a right every taxpayer can enjoy. If some choose not to do so, that is fine, but it does not delegitimize the government outlay.

While there will of course be people who do not try to get the most out of their university educations, what matters is that everyone has access to it. It is a fair trade between inefficiencies created by inattentive students and diligent students who would have lacked the facility to attend without it being free. More degree­holders thus do not automatically diminish the value of having degrees; they make the grades gained and degree subject more important.

Affirmative action is not the best way to deal with these issues. If it is true that there are cycles of poverty caused by past discrimination, the most precise way of righting this wrong is to offer assistance to all people in poverty to get themselves out of its cyclical grasp as opposed to blanket policies based on race or gender that may or may not necessarily help those who have been adversely affected by past discrimination.

ucation secondary university philosophy religion minorities house believes use

Affirmative action removes the cyclical disadvantages of discrimination  Affirmative action evens the playing field for those who have suffered past discrimination.  Discrimination in the past not only leaves a feeling of rejection by one’s community, but also a legacy of disadvantage and perpetual poverty. Discrimination is not only psychologically damaging, but tangibly. The denial of opportunities for education and employment in the past has left families in situations where they are stuck in a poverty trap and cannot afford to achieve the basic opportunities that others can as they are stuck in a cycle of poverty [1] .  A good example of this can be seen in the example of Brazil, where poverty is much more wide-spread in African communities who were previously used as slaves [2] .  There is no equality of opportunity in cases of past discrimination. Affirmative action helps level the playing field for selection by assisting those who are held back from a continual historical denial of opportunity and providing them the equality of opportunity everyone deserves.  [1] Aka, Philip. "Affirmative Action and the Black Experience in America." American Bar Association. 36.4 (2009): Print.  [2] Telles, Edward. "Discrimination and Affirmative Action in Brazil." PBS Wide Angle. N.p., 01 Jun 2009. Web. 23 Aug 2011. &lt;  .

Affirmative action does not reduce societal prejudice, but actually increases it. By creating a situation where individuals receive state help in gaining the jobs and success they have, this simply confirms the prejudice in peoples’ minds that individuals of this group cannot gain anything on their own merit, but rather require external assistance. (Refer to opposition arguments two and three)

There is a moral obligation to provide affirmative action programs  Society has a moral obligation to right its wrongs and compensate those they have treated unjustly.  Discrimination, whether overt or convert, is an unacceptable practice that arbitrarily disadvantages certain people on grounds that they have no control over. Discrimination not only is theoretically a bad thing to do to people, but also has tangible negative impacts. Discrimination against groups such as the African American community in the USA has left them without the education or employment opportunities to even have a chance at achieving the success and happiness they deserve [1] . Discrimination is unacceptable practice for any society to engage in and victims of discrimination deserve compensation for the physical and psychological harms they suffered from being rejected by their very own community [2] .  Past discrimination has left communities without the physical goods and psychological feelings of acceptance and safety all individuals deserve from their country and thus there is a moral obligation of society to take steps to offer the physical and symbolic advantages they have been denied through affirmative action.  [1] Aka, Philip. "Affirmative Action and the Black Experience in America." American Bar Association. 36.4 (2009): Print.  [2] Aka, Philip. "Affirmative Action and the Black Experience in America." American Bar Association. 36.4 (2009): Print.

Society may owe an obligation to the victims of past discrimination, but offering advantages to descendants of people who suffered discrimination does not do this. If discrimination occurred several generations ago, the individuals who simply happen to be of the same gender/race as those who were previously discriminated against generations ago are not entitled to preferential treatment as they are not the victims of discrimination.  By not targeting those who actually suffered from discrimination due to the generational gap, you are simply giving unfair preferential treatment to people of a particular gender/race and therefore committing an injustice by discriminating against everyone else who was not given the same treatment.

Affirmative action reduces social prejudice  Past discrimination lingers on in society through subtle prejudice that must be righted.  Past discrimination against particular groups lingers today through the perception of those groups and how they perceive themselves. By using affirmative action, a demonstration effect is created where individuals are previously discriminated groups prove to society and other members of their racial or gender group that they are capable of gaining power and functioning in the same positions of power, responsibility and success as those of other groups in society.  This challenges society’s perception of these groups as the poor people in society and proves to them that the individuals of this race/gender are equally capable and deserving members of society and can and should function in the same positions of society as them.

This resentment already exists in society, and as explained in counterargument two, in many specific environments, affirmative action is its own cure.  On a wider societal level, this prejudice will not be created by affirmative action, but already exists. Simply because people may not particularly like the idea of affirmative action and get a bit resentful about it is not a good enough reason to let these minorities be denied the opportunities and lives they deserve.

This issue is not whether or not meritocracy is good, but rather if society is meritocratic without intervention by the public or private sector. The system is not meritocratic without affirmative action; with the endemic psychological and tangible disadvantages as discussed in proposition points two and three, people of previously discriminated groups do not get judged on their own merit. They do not receive the same basic opportunities and they are given no inspiration to strive to achieve the things that would indicate their merit because they believe it to be impossible for someone of their group.  Meritocracy only works when everyone is entering a fight from the same playing field, which does not currently happen. Affirmative action adjusts this to a meritocratic system by adjusting for the fact that individuals of previously discriminated groups will not have the same indicators of merit such as academic achievements due to a lack of opportunity as opposed to lack of merit. Moreover, it will afford these individuals these missed opportunities to level the playing field in the long-run, allowing true meritocracy to exist [1] .  [1] Aka, Philip. "Affirmative Action and the Black Experience in America." American Bar Association. 36.4 (2009): Print.

Affirmative action creates bad workplaces for all minorities  Affirmative action creates a negative workplaces for all minorities whose group receives affirmative action support.  The existence of affirmative action creates a de-facto assumption that anyone of that particular minority must have gotten where they are not on their own merit, but simply because they are that particular minority. This causes people to resent the minority group for getting for “free” what people feel they had to work hard for. This furthers the perception of the minority as being inferior, and removes their capacity to be treated as an equal in the workplace and prove themselves.  This assumption is not only harmful to those minorities who did receive assistance from affirmative action, but also anyone of that minority group regardless of if they were hired using affirmative action because there is simply an assumption that they are less qualified and there because of the policy because the policy exists.  Therefore, affirmative action creates an assumption that minorities in the workplace are less qualified and inherently inferior to the other workers due to the affirmative action policy causing resentment and deepening inequality, not helping eradicate it.

Affirmative action perpetuates prejudice  Affirmative action causes prejudice against minorities in society.  The existence of affirmative action creates a de-facto assumption that anyone of that particular minority must have gotten where they are not on their own merit, but simply because they are that particular minority. This causes people to resent the minority group for getting for “free” what people feel they had to work hard for. People feel as though that minority is getting a “free-ride” and are inherently less worthy of what they achieve.  This is damaging on a societal level because minorities who receive affirmative action are assumed to be less qualified and less valuable than others in society simply because many of them are aided by affirmative action policies. This not only creates damaging stereotypes, but also causes resentment and backlash from others in society who view affirmative action as simply unfair.  This is best demonstrated by the backlash in America in the mid-1990s over the existence of affirmative action policies [1] .  [1] Aka, Philip. "Affirmative Action and the Black Experience in America." American Bar Association. 36.4 (2009): Print.

Meritocracy is the only fair system by which society should be ordered  Any system that does not reward individuals on the basis of their merit is one that is unjust to those not in the group that is “preferred” and therefore benefitted by it.  Meritocracy is the only fair system to run a society on. Any system that does not reward individuals on the basis of their skill and effort is one that is unjust. The use of any criteria other than merit to select or benefit an individual is the definition of discrimination itself. Simply putting the word “positive” in front of it does not make it a beneficial or just system. For every act of “positive” discrimination enacted, an act of “negative” discrimination occurs against the individual that was denied a position or achievement they earned on their own merit for the person that received the “positive” end of the discrimination.  Affirmative action is simply reversing the discrimination in society so injustice is enacted in the opposite direction. This is not a just system of distribution; it’s simply unjust against a different group. The only truly fair system to use is one that has no criteria other than merit to determine who receives what.

The prejudice that individuals in the workplace hold for these minorities already exist through their current perception of these people as being less qualified as them due to their conspicuous absence from the workplace as it is. The best way to deal with such resentment and prejudice is to use affirmative action and bring more of these minorities into the workplace where they work side-by-side as co-workers and prove themselves as equally competent and qualified as every other person in the workplace.  Although affirmative action may initially cause this assumption to occur, it is its own cure as affirmative action allows these minorities to prove themselves in the workplace and dispel such a baseless assumption.

The main problem with the proposition argument is the belief that a graduate will be earning £40,000 immediately after leaving university, this is clearly not the case, particularly in the current economic climate, the average starting wage for a graduate was in 2009 £23,500 with only one in ten exceeding £36,000. (Milkround, 2009) The argument does in part accept this weakness however what it does not point out is that many careers which require a university degree may never pay greater than £40,000. What a graduate tax focuses on is getting a job after university, this is not always the reason that people wish to go to university, take for example a mature student who just wants to self-better themselves, could they still get access to education when the system would be built upon getting young people into work? University should not be commoditized, it should be considered sacred in its own right; introducing a graduate tax turns university into a means to get a career rather than being a place of pure education.

ployment tax education university house would fund provision higher education

A graduate tax would make university funding more sustainable  A graduate tax would potentially give universities more than they get from traditional funding, as a contribution would depend directly on a person’s salary rather than just being a flat rate fare for services rendered over a short time. For example a person earning £40,000 would pay about £125 per month. (Shepard, J. 2009) That over 20 years could amount to £30,000, more than enough to cover the costs of a university education in a way which is manageable. Admittedly that sum is based on a person rising like a rocket but it still hints at the possibilities of the tax and how it could bring in more money than simply universities rising their fees. Secondly, it would change as a person’s salary rises or falls over a twenty year period, being more sustainable and increasing the chance of the costs being recovered. Thirdly, rather than giving a person a required fee to pay it would be giving a person a chance to pay over a set time period, reducing the financial impact of the bill.

As higher earners, graduates already pay a lot more on average in taxes over their lifetime, while consuming less in welfare payments, thus more than repaying their “debt to society”. In addition, the whole of society gains from higher education through increased economic growth and prosperity, and from the social mobility and integration that open access to university promotes. If the cost of higher education is an investment in the country’s future, it is appropriate for the government to fund it out of general taxation. In any case, the argument that an individual doesn’t use a particular government service, so why should they pay for it, could apply elsewhere and undermine most aspects of government activity and the taxation that pays for it.

Delivering funding via a graduate tax is the best way to encourage more students to enter higher education  A graduate tax is the best way to increase access to higher education without massively burdening the government with an open-ended financial commitment. It is not a deterrent to the poorer students in the way fees and loans-based schemes are and which simply appear to block access, yet it still delivers sufficient extra capital to fund the increase of students entering university. Australia’s introduction of a graduate tax has been successful enough to allow university places to grow rapidly following its introduction with participation from both high and low income groups increasing by approximately one third. (Chapman, B. 1997). Therefore, a graduate tax removes the expensive barriers to entry that had previously kept out low-income groups, whilst not discouraging the high-income groups from tertiary education.

The prospect of life-long higher-tax status will in fact act as a deterrent to many weaker students who doubt their abilities to make a success of a university degree, or those from poorer backgrounds with no family tradition of higher education. Introducing a graduate tax will simply come across as penalizing those who want to go into higher education rather than encouraging it. The real key to improved access to higher education lies in both better secondary education, as at present many potentially able students are failed by poor schools and are unable to achieve the qualifications needed to go on to university and by providing more bursaries for those from disadvantaged backgrounds.

A graduate tax would make access to higher education fairer and more equitable  A graduate tax would be fairer for everyone in society. Graduates earn considerably more than non-graduates, on average over £100,000 more in a lifetime (Channel 4 News, 2010.), experience lower rates of unemployment and greater job security, they therefore benefit hugely from higher education. They should therefore be expected to pay for the privilege of having an education which has put them in that position rather than having the rest of society fund there degrees, going to university should be an honor and not a privilege. While having a degree is useful it is not necessary for getting on with life, if someone wants to go to university they should have that opportunity regardless of their background but they should be expected to contribute to that education which is why the graduate tax works as students of all social classes can join university, not be loaded with debt and can contribute fiscally when viable.

A graduate tax put into an independent trust fund could in fact conversely help universities gain more academic freedom than they have now. They would be more free from market constraints which may restrict them, for example universities could be able to offer courses which may only be taken all be a very small fringe and would not usually be financially viable to run but which are culturally beneficially to have experts in if not useful economically. The argument that the state could interfere with the running of universities under a graduate tax system is erroneous, universities would still retain current levels of freedom from the government as the trust fund would be independent from government decision making and would be controlled by the stakeholders including universities meaning that they could worry a bit less about funding and exercise more independence on academic issues leading to better universities which are concentrating on their students’ needs and not just their own.

In the long term a graduate tax would save the state money by shifting the burden of costs to the main beneficiaries of higher education. It would also help to make the costs of expanding access to higher education more predictable and controllable, improving long-term planning. This means the early costs of setting up the system could be spread into the future by a bond issue, for example. The money saved can be spent better elsewhere in the education system, perhaps by improving secondary schooling so that more school leavers have the academic qualifications needed to attend university. Using the argument that change is not needed simply does not with students which a being saddled with debts before they even have work.

Alternative- and more efficient- methods of funding universities are available  There are a number of viable alternatives to a graduate tax as a means of paying for Higher Education: Full state funding operates in many EU countries as part of an extensive and popular welfare state paid for out of general taxation; the value the state clearly places upon Higher Education has made it a common aspiration across all social classes. Other countries make individual students pay for all or most of the cost of their university education, which is widely seen as an investment in increased future earning potential. In the USA this has produced very high levels of enrollment and broad access to higher education as motivated students readily work to pay their way through college. Most also take out commercial loans, which are later paid off once the student is in employment; unlike a graduate tax these repayments are not open-ended and will one day be completed. The cost of educating a student to degree level varies widely both between and within countries, showing clear room for efficiency savings to be made in many institutions, perhaps through some focusing solely upon teaching rather than research, or by academic specialization.

Graduates may move abroad to avoid tax payments  As taxes are collected nationally there is no reason why a UK graduate could not simply upon graduating leave the country and avoid paying the education tax. If enough people exploited this obvious loophole in the system the Government could end up severe deficit in the education budget which ultimately could lead to lower investment which would have a detrimental effect on the quality of education on offer. The proposed system then is simply not a practical one seeing as this massive and clear to see loophole exists with it.

A graduate tax would reduce teh autonomy of universities  If a graduate tax were introduced the money would go to the national treasury which would result in universities competing for the same money as colleges. At the moment the money generated from tuition fees goes straight to where it should go, straight to the universities bank accounts who provide the education. Under graduate tax proposals from the UK’s National Union of Students, raised revenue from the tax would go into a centralized higher education fund which could be distributed by the government through various means which could result in some universities getting unfair levels of funding relative to both their standing and student bodies. (Barr, N. 2009) This is impractical for universities to plan investments as they will never be entirely sure what funding they will have and furthermore and for many arguably most importantly universities will ultimately lose their independence from the state.

Setting up a graduate tax system would be damagingly expensive  A graduate tax would be a very expensive scheme to put into effect, as it would require high levels of government spending on student grants before the first graduates began to repay anything through taxation. If all the 2011 English applications for university we’re accepted at the new top price of £9,000 it would cost the Government in the first year just over £3 million, and this figure does not take into account all the other grants universities receive and as time goes on and more years enter the system the figure will grow greatly. (Guardian, 2011.) It is likely then to be two decades of investment or more before the system begins properly to pay for itself. Furthermore a costly increase in government bureaucracy would be necessitated by the need to keep track of so many graduates and by the complications the system introduces to the general taxation system. With many Governments taking up austerity measures it is simply impractical to setup a new funding system which is not needed.

As taxes are collected nationally there is no reason why a UK graduate could not simply upon graduating leave the country and avoid paying the education tax. If enough people exploited this obvious loophole in the system the Government could end up severe deficit in the education budget which ultimately could lead to lower investment which would have a detrimental effect on the quality of education on offer. The proposed system then is simply not a practical one seeing as this massive and clear to see loophole exists with it.

The alternatives to a graduate tax are worse: Full state funding encourages many without clear motivation or ability to enter university, leading to high dropout rates, while removing incentives to complete courses in a timely manner. The USA has a philanthropic culture absent in many other countries, meaning private colleges have large endowment funds offering a very large number of bursaries and scholarships to poorer students. Nonetheless, the individual states do fund universities and few students pay the full cost of their higher education. Elsewhere in the world the absence of state funding tends to limit access to university to the children of a prosperous elite. Even in the USA students from some ethnic minorities are much more reluctant to take on high levels of personal debt, and are therefore very underrepresented in higher education. The USA’s high level of personal bankruptcy is linked to the high levels of debt built up while at university. A graduate tax then can be seen as a happy medium between the two extremes of Full state funding and No funding whereby the student pays for the benefit of having a higher education only when they are fit to do so.

Of course scientific opinion changes over time. It does so because the process of scientific enquiry requires the search for new data. Theories are not rigidly adhered to, but are rather accepted when there is evidence for them. When evidence mounts against a theory it is rejected. The examples cited show this very well. The idea that the world was flat was proposed as a theory without proof but by the end of the classical world Pliny was able to say "Every one agrees that it has the most perfect figure. We always speak of the ball of the earth, and we admit it to be a globe bounded by the poles." [1] as scholars had provided evidence of the earth being spherical. This process of change can harm some scientists' careers, but it can also make others. There is no monolithic scientific establishment setting policy, denying younger researchers from exploring new hypotheses and avenues of inquiry. It is clear from this that Creationism is not a science, because it does not change in light of new evidence, but rather dogmatically adheres to its claims in spite of evidence. Science adapts to new information. Creationism is stagnant and intellectual barren.  [1] Pliny the Elder, The Natural History, John Bostock ed., Taylor and Francis 1855.

primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach

Scientific opinion often changes; evolution may be accepted in the scientific community now, but it could well be rejected in future.  The opinion of the scientific community with regard to facts and theories has a great propensity to change with time. Once scientists adamantly maintained that the Earth was flat. For centuries it also maintained that there were two kinds of blood flowing through the human body. Science is not infallible and the prevailing theory is no more than the opinion currently in vogue among scholars. In light of new evidence, theories can change over time, giving way to better explanations [1] . For this reason, the evolutionists' dogmatic adherence to their position in spite of contrary evidence provided by Creationists is hard to understand. However, it becomes clear why the scientific establishment takes such a confrontational position toward Creationism when one considers that many eminent scientists and researchers have built their careers within the paradigm of evolution, and their research often depends wholly on its acceptance. These scientists would lose their exalted position in the light of a paradigm-shift in scientific understanding away from evolution. It is for this reason that scientists who adhere to established norms so often fight things like Creationism, even though they provide explanations where evolution cannot. For science to progress, these conservative impulses must be fought against, which is why it is essential that when science is taught, so are all the prevailing theories concerning branches of the sciences, including Creationism.  [1] Understanding Science. 2011. “Science Aims to Explain and Understand”. University of California Berkeley.

There is no design in biology. People tend to anthropomorphize their environment, trying to assign human-like qualities to animals and nature. All of the complexity of life on Earth can be attributed to natural processes; life, diversity, and complexity are all the product of physical and chemical interactions and biological processes. There is no mystery in the basic process. Also, complexity is not at all indicative of design. In fact, evolution has been observed to occur from simple single-celled organisms into multi-cellular organisms under laboratory conditions. That degree of evolution completely refutes any claims about complexity requiring design. Furthermore, there are no irreducibly complex organisms. Every example offered by theists of irreducible complexity has been found inaccurate. The bacterial flagellum, for example, when several key components are removed loses its functionality as a motor, but becomes a form of secretory system that has a separate function. [1] Clearly, complexity is not indicative of a creator.  [1] Miller, Kenneth. 2004. “The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of ‘Irreducible Complexity’” in Ruse, Michael and William Dembski (ed.). Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Communities should have a say in what is taught in schools, and many communities want to teach creationism.  Society is made up of communities with their own views on politics, religion, education, etc. School boards should be able to set curriculum based on the desires of the public, not just on what the scientific elites command to be taught. Children deserve to hear that their beliefs and those of their community are respected in the classroom. This is why Creationism, a belief held to varying extents in many countries, should be taught in the classroom. This is particularly true in the United States, where in several states the majority of people does not accept evolution, but have instead adopted Creationism, considering the evidence for the latter to be more convincing. [1] In a poll in 2009 a majority (57%) said that creationism should be taught in schools either without evolution or alongside it. [2] The teaching of Creationism should not be taught exclusively, but should share time with other prevailing theories, particularly those of evolution and abiogenesis. Furthermore, evolution taught exclusively threatens religious belief, telling children they are no more than animals and lack the spark of grace given by God. It is important for social stability that schools are allowed to teach what communities believe to be true.  [1] Goodstein, Laurie. 2005. “Teaching of Creationism is Endorsed in New Survey”. New York Times.  [2] HarrisInteractive. 2009. “No Consensus, and Much Confusion, on Evolution and the Origin of Species.” BBC World News America/The Harris Poll, 18th February, 2009.

There is a very real controversy regarding the origin and development of life, and children deserve to hear both sides.  Many scientists do not accept the conclusions of the evolutionists. People like Dr. Michael Behe have dedicated themselves to exposing the flaws in evolution and showing that there is very real disagreement within the scientific community. This controversy is highlighted in the many court cases, books, and televised debates occurring in countries all over the world [1] . Children deserve to hear about the controversy, and not to simply be fed one story set for them by the prevailing majority in the scientific community, even if that community cannot claim anything near consensus. Until consensus is reached and indisputable proof of one theory or the other given, both sides should be taught in schools.  [1] Linder, Doug, 2011. “The Evolution Controversy”. University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law.

There is no controversy. It is not even a matter of most scientists agreeing with evolution, but virtually all of them. This is demonstrated very clearly in the scientific literature, as thousands of papers are submitted for peer review every year on the topic of evolution, all bolstering and upholding the theory. On the other hand, on average zero are submitted supporting Creationism, because such papers would not meet the necessary criteria of being scientific research at all. [1] Some papers at best question evolution, but attacks on one theory are not supports of another. Furthermore, the reason there are public debates and court cases is that Creationists seek to capitalize on the relative scientific illiteracy of the general public, knowing they can only win by spreading disinformation, rather than facing off against real scientists in the academic realm.  [1] Kuhn, Thomas. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Schools should teach what is true. Evolution is one of the most robust theories in contemporary science; it is not the place of communities to propagate lies, even if they are more in keeping with their religious beliefs. Indoctrinating children and denying them access to real science, which happens even if Creationism and evolution are given "equal time", is to fundamentally compromise the value of education [1] . It is an inculcation of false belief to suit a communal goal of maintaining a set of beliefs that may not stand up to scientific scrutiny. The Creationists cannot win in the scientific arena because they are not scientists so they have decided to try to subvert the political system. Their goal is to undermine science and reason, and they must be stopped.  [1] Rooney, Brian and Melia Patria. 2008. “Because the Bible Tells Me So?”. ABC News.

Creationism is not science. It makes no predictions that can be tested in the laboratory or field. Adherents of Creationism do not accept it because of evidence, but rather they shape disparate facts to fit their beliefs. That is the opposite of scientific enquiry; Creationism begins with a conclusion and works backward. Furthermore, all evidence does indeed point to a natural origin of life and its diversity. Experiments are getting consistently closer to creating new life, and there are no evident bounds to evolution. The arguments of Creationism are based on gaps in knowledge; rather than trying to find real answers through scientific enquiry, they fill them with "the designer did it". Such answers are the refuge of the ignorant.

Much of the complexity of life cannot be explained by evolution, but is perfectly explained by Creationism.  Nature is marked by clear design. The complexity of the human body, of ecosystems, and even of bacteria, attests to the existence of creative agency. It is impossible that such things as, for example, interdependent species could come to exist without the guidance of a designer. Likewise, certain organisms can be shown to be irreducibly complex, meaning that if one were to remove any part of it, it would lose all functionality. This refutes the gradualist argument of evolution, since there is no selective pressure on the organism to change when it is functionless. For example, the bacterial flagellum, the "motor" that powers bacterial cells, loses all functionality if a single component is removed. [1] Besides design, the only explanation of its development is blind chance, which is nonsensical. Creationism serves to explain the various mysteries of biology currently absent from the evolutionary biologists' picture of the world. The existence of complexity of the order found in the natural world is too great to envisage an origin other than complex design.  [1] Behe, Michael. 1996. Darwin’s Black Box. Glencoe: Free Press.

Creationism is as valid a scientific theory as those of evolution and abiogenesis, and should therefore be given equal time in the classroom.  Creationism can be drawn as an entirely reasonable scientific hypothesis, and it forms a coherent theory of the origin and development of life that opposes the naturalist theories of abiogenesis and evolution. Abiogenesis describes the development of life from nonliving materials and evolution seeks to explain the development and diversity of life through a gradual process of mutation and natural selection, yet no one has ever demonstrated either process sufficiently in the laboratory. In the case of abiogenesis, all experiments to create an environment similar to the supposed prebiotic soup whence life first sprang have resulted in no new life forming. In the case of evolution, evolutionists consistently fail to show the development of new kinds of organisms [1] . While there is no doubt that some change occurs within species, such as the breeding of wolves into dogs, it appears to happen only within certain limited bounds. Certainly no experiment or study has shown evolution to be capable of explaining such huge diversity in the world of living things. Creationism, on the other hand, offers the explanation that abiogenesis and evolution cannot. The diversity of life and its origin are rationally explicable as the product of intelligent agency. This is not a statement of religious belief, but of scientific observation. Describing the nature of the designer, however, is another question all together, one that need not be answered in order to accept that there is such a designer.  [1] Wells, Jonathan. 2009. “Why Darwinism is False”. Discovery Institute.

Evolutionists point to all kinds of evidence "proving" their case, yet they still fail to offer a practical demonstration of their theory that would prove that all life could have evolved from a common ancestor. That still requires a great deal of faith on the part of the scientists. As to positive proof for Creationism, there are many co-dependent species relationships, as well as irreducibly complex biological structures which evolutionists have consistently been at a loss to explain. Creationism offers the explanation evolution cannot.

The scientific community was once convinced the world was flat. It was also once sure that women's brains were smaller than those of men. The scientific community "knows" lots of things only to be proved wrong. The scientific elitist establishment is built on the theory of evolution; many prominent academics' careers were made affirming it. Many people have a lot to lose if science changes and evolution is overturned as the prevailing paradigm in biology. That is why there is such resistance to the evidence piling up that contradicts evolution and affirms Creationism. The unwillingness of the scientific community to hear Creationists out in the scientific forums, where the old guard predominate and have all the power, is what has led them to pursue their objectives in the courts and through politics. The only reason Creationism is not accepted in the mainstream is because scientists fear the loss to themselves. Education is most effective when our children are exposed to the entirety of issues, not just parts. To contextualize and offer completeness to their scientific education, they should hear both sides.

Education should be about truth and facts, not dogma and faith.  Scientific enquiry is, at its core, a search for truth [1] . It is about shining light in dark places. Dogmatic adherence to beliefs in spite of evidence, and even trying to cover up facts that contradict those beliefs is academically dishonest and intellectually facile. Evolution is proven fact, a theory so sound that it is the cornerstone of all biology. Nothing in biology makes any sense unless considered in the context of evolution. Schools should teach this fact, not the pseudoscience of religious demagogues. It is a fundamental attack on children's rights to subject them to false information for the sake of upholding outdated and disproved beliefs. It is a right of all people to have a valuable education, because good education is required to be able to take part in the democratic process, to be able to make informed decisions. That right is compromised when the educational system gives them a worthless education in untruths, like Creationism, because informed decisions must be based on fact, and must be objective the way science is, rather than loaded with religious undertones, that skew ones view of the facts. The value of education is only as good as its applicability, either directly or through its fostering of critical thinking. So, when the political process is used to circumvent the curriculum set by teachers and experts, who actually know the subjects they are talking about, and replacing them with the curriculum set by a scientifically illiterate political body, the children suffer as the quality of their education decreases.  [1] Pauling, Linus. 1983. No More War! New York: Dodd Mead.

Creationism is a religious, not a scientific, explanation of reality.  Creationism is, by definition, not science. It is not based in any empirical evidence. Rather, Creationists start with a presupposed answer and work back from it. They assume there is a designer, so they look for holes in evolutionary theory and claim only a designer can explain the gaps. When new evidence arises that gives a natural explanation of the phenomenon in question, the Creationists backpedal and start looking for new holes. No amount of evidence could convince a Creationist because his belief is not based on evidence, but rather on a usually religion-driven opposition to evolution on a political and belief level. A science proves itself through experimentation and submitting research for peer review. Creationism fears scrutiny by real scientists. Instead supporters of creationism attempt to further its agenda through politics and courts, where science is not the main goal, but popularity and where expertise is not in science but in law (Dawkins, 2006). Creationism couches itself in the language of science and does its best to look respectable in the eyes of the public. For example, in rebranding as Intelligent Design, Creationists sought to appear less overtly religious. These attempts show the illegitimacy of Creationism. The pseudoscience of Creationism must, for the sake of education, be kept out of the classroom.

There is no empirical evidence supporting Creationism, whereas all evidence supports abiogenesis and evolution.  Creationists have never once offered a positive evidence for their claims. When challenged, they respond with vitriolic, and often deliberately false, criticisms of evolution and abiogenesis. They behave as if delegitimizing an alternative theory necessarily gives credence to their own. Unfortunately for Creationism, that is not how science works. Positive claims require positive evidence. Even if the Creationists were able to provide evidence that actually refutes evolution it would do nothing to support a theory that intelligent agency is behind the existence and development of life. For Creationism to be true, there would need to be demonstration of living organisms that are unambiguously designed, and not the product of evolution by means of mutation and natural selection. Proponents of Creationism have consistently failed to do so. When they point to things they claim to be irreducibly complex they are invariably forced to back off as soon as scientists appear on the scene to test their claims. [1] The truth is there are no examples of organisms that could not have evolved. Abiogensis and evolution, on the other hand are thoroughly proven by observation and data. [2] In the case of abiogenesis, self-assembling molecules have been observed that are akin to the first proto-life, and hopes have never been higher that they will be able to observe the development under laboratory conditions of fully-formed new life. Evolution likewise is extensively demonstrated. Speciation, phylogenetic mapping, a more and more complete fossil record, structural atavisms, junk DNA, and embryology provide just some of the proofs of evolution. [3] All of these disciples are in agreement with evolution. In fact, only in light of evolution does anything in biology make any sense at all. Clearly, Creationism has no basis in science and thus no place in the classroom.  [1] Miller, Kenneth. 2004. “The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of ‘Irreducible Complexity’” in Ruse, Michael and William Dembski (ed.). Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  [2] Lenski, Richard. 2011. “Evolution: Fact and Theory”. Action Bioscience.  [3] Colby, Chris. 1997. “Evidence for Evolution: An Eclectic Survey”. TalkOrigins Archive.

The scientific community as a whole overwhelmingly rejects Creationism.  95% of all scientists accept evolution, and only a fraction of those that do not accept Creationism. [1] The numbers are even smaller among biologists, the people most qualified to discuss the relative merits of Creationism and evolution, as the study of life and biological processes are their specialty. There is, in fact, greater consensus in biology than in virtually any other discipline. Evolution is often called one of the most thoroughly proven theories, more so even than such things as the observable laws of physics, which break down at the subatomic level. Evolution is a constant, which is why it has survived as a theory for 150 years. [2] The scientific community always fights any effort to institute Creationism in schools through the political process. [3] This is why, when court cases are brought on the issue of teaching Creationism, the panel of scientists is always on the side of evolution. Only a few discredited cranks support Creationism, and they invariably break down under cross-examination when they can offer no positive evidence for their claims. Furthermore, many scientists have religious faith and accept evolution. They simply see no reason to reject observable reality just to serve faith [4] . Creationists try to portray evolution as contrary to religion, which forms one of the main planks of their political campaigns against it, but such claims are fallacious. Science and faith can be compatible, so long as people are willing to accept observable reality as well as belief. The scientific community rejects creationism because it is not true and is not science.  [1] Robinson, B. 1995. “Public Beliefs About Education and Creation”.  [2] Lenski, Richard. 2011. “Evolution: Fact and Theory”. Action Bioscience.  [3] Irons, Peter. 2007. “Disaster in Dover: The Trials (and Tribulations) of Intelligent Design”. University of Montana Law Review 68(1).  [4] Gould, Stephen. 2002. Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. New York: Ballantine Books.

Creationism is a legitimate scientific endeavor. Researchers struck by the apparent design in organisms look for evidence of that design. There is nothing pseudoscientific in that. There are many issues that evolution cannot explain, but which Creationism can (Behe 1996). Evolutionists can say the gaps in their theory will be filled over time, but that is not a scientific proposition either.

Truth is a complex thing. Scientists claim to know what is true and that schools should only teach their truth. But their truth changes with time. Communities can hold, and desire to hold, beliefs with more constancy. States everywhere recognize the value of communities and often give them special rights and exemptions for the sake of those beliefs. The Amish in America, for example do not need to attend education past the primary level, because the communities do not desire it. Communities give structure and lend stability to broader society, so they should be allowed to behave with a degree of leeway in terms of issues like education. Creationism is a truth for those who adhere to it and see that evidence fits that paradigm more than does evolution. Until irrefutable proof of evolution is given, as the scientific community has yet to do, both paradigms are equally valid and should be available to students in the classroom.

Incentives like this can be (and in the UK, are) created by central government through the use of targets. Failing schools can receive extra funding and guidance, and threatened with closure if they do not improve. The voucher scheme’s harsh free market system of incentivisation takes away extra funding and support – indeed, failing schools without full classrooms will face diminished levels of funding – and so makes it even harder to run schools in tough areas.

x education education general secondary house would fund education using

Improving the quality of state managed education  State schools will, like the private schools, have to offer a high quality service in order that parents do not take their children elsewhere. This incentivises in particular high level management, who, if the school fails, will be out of a job with a blot on their record.

Variety within the education system is not always a good thing. National curricula exist to facilitate transfer between schools and comparisons of different pupils and schools, as well as enforcing basic standards.  Thus, not only might variety lead to some sub-standard schools, but it might trap children in a particular school that fails to match the child’s ambitions as it grows up, and ceases simply to reflect its parents’ desires, because the child lacks qualifications or even just knowledge required by a more appropriate school in the area.

Equality of opportunity between richer and poorer children  State education in some areas of the UK is continuing to fail, despite increased investment. This will allow those pupils who are currently locked into sub-standard state education access to the private schools enjoyed by their more privileged peers (because you can spend the vouchers anywhere). Even if private school fees can only be subsidised by the voucher scheme, most private schools are charitable organisations that do not run a profit, and so in the vast majority of circumstances the voucher will make private schools accessible to poorer families.

The best schools will continue to differentiate themselves (there is competition amongst the top schools in an area to attract the brightest pupils), and as the voucher scheme will subsidise those currently paying for private education the market will be able to support higher fees. The result of this is that the voucher scheme will subsidise better facilities for the best schools, whilst poorer children will remain trapped in the schools with lower standards.

Increasing parents' freedom of choice  Different parents have different values and priorities, and it is entirely legitimate for them to wish to pass these on to their children. The state does not know any better than them with which values the ideal life can be lived.  Further, children are individuals who respond in very different ways to different styles of teaching. Parents know their children better than central government possibly could, and so are the best placed to decide what sort of school their child should go to. Currently, there is very little state provision for non-mainstream styles of learning, whereas in the private sector there is a big incentive for educational innovation.

Most government goals that are pushed forwards in schools are also valued by the parents: consequently, even under a free market they would be taught in schools. Further, if the majority of parents do not want such things taught in schools, then they should not be: to do so would be to use schools as a tool for state propaganda.

It is currently the case that some children, with unfortunate home circumstances, don’t get optimal educational provision as a result of their parents’ failure. However, there are many parents who are able to make good decisions on behalf of their children, and who are currently blocked from doing so only by the unaffordable prices of some schools. These parents should not to discriminated against on the basis of the incompetent minority.

Only well-off families will benefit from increased freedom of choice  Under the current system, many schools that are “failing” are struggling as a result of factors such as deprivation in their area, or high levels of children for whom English is not their native tongue.  There will be no incentive for companies to set up schools in such areas: the voucher scheme dictates that each child gets the same amount of funding, and thus in schools where a lot of extra facilities (like extra teachers, specialist language tutors etc.) are needed the potential profit to be made will be lower. On the other hand, children in well-to-do middle class areas will be highly profitable (it is not difficult to make children with a wealth of parental support do well in their exams). Thus rich children will have a range of subsidised schools from which to choose, whilst the poorest in society are still failed.

The state retain control of schools - freedom, in this context, is illusory  The state funds education using taxes taken from everyone in society, not just those who have children. Therefore the state has a duty to benefit the whole of society, not just parents and children, when funding education. It is therefore entirely legitimate for the state to use schools to fulfil other societal purposes. A good example of this is the question of teaching citizenship in schools: it does not necessarily help children to pass exams, and so schools do not have a strong incentive to insure that children are taught it. However, it fulfils government goals of helping to ensure that people become functioning members of our democracy.  When schools are privatised it becomes increasingly difficult for the government to ensure that such agendas are followed in schools.

The most vulnerable children would be left behind by the scheme  Even if a voucher scheme is used, parents still need to have considerable input in order that their children are able to access the best educational opportunities. Thus, those children who are most vulnerable, i.e. those with inadequate home support structures, will find that they are unable to access the best schools as their parents may lack the desire or knowledge to find out which schools are the best in their area.  Further, this problem will be exacerbated by the subsequent dearth of funding at the worst schools.

Admittedly, it may take extra measures to help children in the very poorest areas. This is required under the status quo and could still be provided under a voucher scheme (e.g. extra funding for children in deprived areas). However, there are many children in between the poorest of the poor and the richest of the rich who are currently excluded from the opportunities afforded by some of the best schools. These children, as you accept, will see an increase in the choice of schools. The fact that this motion does not solve all of the problems in education does not prove that it does not solve any.

Public funding does not mean that everything should be free and open to use by the public. We do not expect to be allowed to use buildings that are built as government offices as if they were our own. The government builds large amounts of infrastructure such as airports and railways but we don’t expect to be able to use them for free.

university digital freedoms access knowledge universities should make all

Most universities are publically funded so should have to be open with their materials.  The United States University system is famously expensive and as a result it is probably the system in a developed country that has least public funding yet $346.8billion was spent, mostly by the states, on higher education in 2008-9. [1] In Europe almost 85% of universities funding came from government sources. [2] Considering the huge amounts of money spent on universities by taxpayers they should be able to demand access to the academic work those institutions produce.  Even in countries where there are tuition fees that make up some of the funding for the university it is right that the public should have access to these materials as the tuition fees are being paid for the personal teaching time provided by the lecturers not for the academics’ publications. Moreover those who have paid for a university course would benefit by the materials still being available to access after they have finished university  [1] Caplan, Bruan, “Correction: Total Government Spending on Higher Education”, Library of Economics and Liberty, 16 November 2012,   [2] Vught, F., et al., “Funding Higher Education: A View Across Europe”, Ben Jongbloed Center for Higher Education Policy Studies University of Twente, 2010.

Open access makes little difference to research. If an academic needs to use an article they don’t have access to they can pay for it and gain access quickly and efficiently.  The benefits to the economy may also be overstated; we don’t know how much benefit it will create. But we do know it would be badly damaging to the academic publishing industry. We also know there are risks with putting everything out in the open as economies that are currently research leaders will be handing out their advances for free. There is an immense amount of stealing of intellectual property, up to $400 billion a year, so research is obviously considered to be economically worth something. [1] With open access the proposal is instead to make everything available for free for others to take as and when they wish.  [1] Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, “Backgrounder on the Rogers-Ruppersberger Cybersecurity Bill”, U.S. House of Representatives,

Opens up education  Higher education, as with other levels of education, should be open to all. Universities are universally respected as the highest form of educational institution available and it is a matter of principle that everyone should have access to this higher level of education. Unfortunately not everyone in the world has this access usually because they cannot afford it, but it may also be because they are not academically inclined. This does not however mean that it is right to simply cut them off from higher educational opportunities. Should those who do not attend university not have access to the same resources as those who do?  This can have an even greater impact globally than within an individual country. 90% of the world’s population currently have no access to higher education. Providing access to all academic work gives them the opportunities that those in developed countries already have. [1]  [1] Daniel, Sir John, and Killion, David, “Are open educational resources the key to global economic growth?”, Guardian Professional, 4 July 2012,

Making these academic materials available to the general public does not mean they are useful to anyone. Many of the materials universities produce are not useful unless the reader has attended the relevant lectures. Rather than simply putting those lectures that are recorded and course handbooks online what is needed to open up education is systematically designed online courses that are available to all. Unfortunately what this provides will be a profusion of often overlapping and contradictory materials with little guidance for how to navigate through them for those who are not involved in the course in question.

Most students most of the time stick to the core areas of their course and thus are not likely to encounter difficulties with finding the relevant information. For those who do require resources that the university library does not have access to they can use interlibrary loan for a small fee to cover the cost of sending the book or article between universities. [1] The universities in most countries can therefore effectively split the cost of access by specialising in certain subjects which limits the number of journals they need to buy while making the resources available to their students if they really need them.  [1] Anon., “Inter-library loans” Birkbeck University of London.  Within the UK Cambridge charges £3 to £6,  in Europe the University of Vienna charges €2  while the United States is higher with Yale charging between $20-30

Openness benefits research and the economy  Open access can be immensely beneficial for research. It increases the speed of access to publications and opens research up to a wider audience. [1] Some of the most important research has been made much more accessible due to open access. The Human Genome Project would have been an immense success either way but it is doubtful that its economic impact of $796billion would have been realised without open access.  The rest of the economy benefits too. It has been estimated that switching to open access would generate £100million of economic activity in the United Kingdom as a result of reduced research costs for business and shorter development as a result of being able to access a much broader range of research. [2]  [1] Anon., “Open access research advantages”, University of Leicester,   [2] Carr, Dave, and Kiley, Robert, “Open access to science helps us all”, New Statesman, 13 April 2012.

Students would be able to benefit from being able to use resources at other universities  Having paid for access to universities and the materials they provide for research students have a right to expect that they will have all the necessary materials available. Unfortunately this is not always the case. University libraries are unable to afford all the university journals they wish to have access to or need for their courses. Therefore any student who wants to go into areas not anticipated by the course they are enrolled with will find that they do not have access to the materials they require. They then face the cost of getting individual access to an online journal article which can be up to $42, despite there being almost zero marginal cost to the publisher. [1] This even affects the biggest and best resourced university libraries. Robert Darnton the director of Harvard University’s library which pays $3.5million per year for journal articles says “The system is absurd” and “academically restrictive” instead “the answer will be open-access journal publishing”. [2]  [1] Sciverse, “Pay-per-view”, Elsevier,   [2] Sample, Ian, “Harvard University says it can’t afford journal publishers’ prices”, The Guardian, 24 April 2012.

The vast majority of people who go to University are not doing so simply because they are interested in a subject and want to find out more. Instead they are after the qualification and improved job prospects university provides. Even those few who are in large part studying out of curiosity and interest will likely be doing so at university because they like the student life and want the experience.  However having courses and materials out in the open can even help universities with recruitment. Providing open access boosts a university’s reputation abroad which helps it in the international student market. Open access to academic work also helps give potential students a much better idea with what they will be studying which is very useful for students who are unsure where to choose. The benefits are obvious as shown by 35% of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s students choose the university after looking at its OpenCourseWare. [1]  [1] Daniel, Sir John, and Killion, David, “Are open educational resources the key to global economic growth?”, Guardian Professional, 4 July 2012,

Academic work is not about profit. For most researchers the aim is to satisfy curiosity or to increase the sum of knowledge. Others are motivated by a desire to do good, or possibly for recognition. None of these things require there to be profit for the university.  Moreover we should remember that the profit is not going to the individual who did the research, there is therefore no moral justification that the person has put effort in and so deserves to profit from it. The university does not even take the risk, which is born by the taxpayer who pays the majority of the research budget. Much of the profit from publishing this knowledge does not even go to the university. Instead academic publishers make huge profits through rentier capitalism. They have profit margins of 36% despite not doing the research, or taking any risk that goes into funding the research. [1]  [1] Monbiot, George, “Academic publishers make Murdoch look like a socialist”, The Guardian, 29 August 2011,

Making everything free to access will damage universities ability to tap private funding  For most universities even if the government is generous with funding it will still need for some projects require private funding. When providing money for research projects the government often requires cost sharing so the university needs to find other sources of funding. [1] Third parties however are unlikely to be willing to help provide funding for research if they know that all the results of that research will be made open to anyone and everyone. These businesses are funding specific research to solve a particular problem with the intention of profiting from the result. Even if universities themselves don’t want to profit from their research they cannot ignore the private funding as it is rapidly growing, up 250% in the U.S. from 1985-2005, while the government support is shrinking. [2]  [1] Anon. (November 2010), “Research &amp; Sponsored Projects”, University of Michigan.   [2] Schindler, Adam, “Follow the Money Corporate funding of university research”, Berkley Science Review, Issue 13.

Who will write and edit the work?  You can’t take the end result out of the system and assume all the rest of it will continue as usual. Journal articles don’t write themselves; there will still be costs for editors, typesetters, reviewing etc., as well as the time and cost of the writer. The average cost of publishing an article is about £4000. [1]  There have been two suggested forms of open access ‘Gold’ in which authors pay publishers article publication charges and ‘Green’ under which the author self-archives their papers in open access repositories. The gold option that the UK intends to implement could mean universities having to find an extra £60million a year. [2] In either case the cost is being put on the author.  This is exactly the same when asking academics to put their lectures, lecture notes, bibliographies etc online. They are being asked to put in more hours grappling with technology without being paid for it.  [1] Moghaddam, Golnessa Galyani, “Why Are Scholarly Journals Costly even with Electronic Publishing?”  p.9  [2] Ayris, Paul, “Why panning for gold may be detrimental to open access research”, Guardian Professional, 23 July 2012.

Less incentive to study at university  If everything that University provides is open to all then there is less incentive to study at university. Anyone who is studying in order to learn about a subject rather than achieve a particular qualification will no longer need to attend the university in order to fulfil their aim. The actual benefit of university education is less in learning content per se than engaging with new ideas critically, something that is frequently more difficult in an online environment.  Moreover if only some countries or institutions were to implement such open access then it makes more sense for any students who are intending to study internationally to go elsewhere as they will still be able to use the resources made available by that university. Open access if not implemented universally is therefore damaging to universities attempts to attract lucrative international students who often pay high tuition fees.

Universities deserve to profit from their work  Universities are providing a service just like almost any other business. They provide a service in terms of educating students who are enrolled with them and secondly they conduct research on a wide range of subjects. In both of these cases the university deserves to make a profit out of their work.  When acting as an educator universities are in an educational free market, this is the case even when the cost is provided by the state. All universities are aiming to attract as many students as possible and earn as much as possible from fees. If the university is successful it will be able to charge more as it will attract students from further afield.  While Universities may make a profit on research or even teaching this profit is for the benefit of society as a whole as the profits are usually simply reinvested in the University’s education and infrastructure. [1]  [1] Anon. “What does the money get spent on?” The University of Sheffield, 2013.

This is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of those who fund the research in the first place; the taxpayer. The taxpayer (or in some cases private funder) pays for the research to be done and so is paying for the paper to be written. It then does not make sense that the taxpayer should pay again in order to access the research that they paid to have done in the first place. Yes there are small costs associated with checking and editing the articles but these could easily be added into research budgets especially as it would mean cutting out an extra cost that occurs due to the profit margins of the academic publishers. As Neelie Kroes, European Commission Vice-President for the Digital Agenda, says “Taxpayers should not have to pay twice for scientific research”. [1]  [1] Kroes, Neelie, “Scientific data: open access to research results will boost Europe's innovation capacity”, Europa.eu, 17 July 2012.

If business wants certain research to use for profit then it is free to do so. However it should entirely fund that research rather than relying on academic institutions to do the research and the government to come up with part of the funding. This would then allow the government to focus its funding on basic research, the kind of research that pushes forward the boundaries of knowledge which may have many applications but is not specifically designed with these in mind. This kind of curiosity driven research can be very important for example research into retroviruses gave the grounding that meant that antiretrovirals to control AIDS were available within a decade of the disease appearing. [1]  [1] Chakradhar, Shraddha, “The Case for Curiosity”, Harvard Medical School, 10 August 2012,

Every other indicator is also skewed in favour of high-income students. They tend to have parents who are better educated and are interested and much more involved in their children’s education, as well as greater access relevant materials such as books and computers. Tutoring academically, while it may not involve having tutors test for a student, is probably much more impactful in the long-run, they may not be able to do extra-curricular activities but can help with homework (as can engaged parents), so would be just as likely to have an impact on coursework or another method of assessment as it does on the SATs.

teaching university house would abolish standardized tests university admission

Standardized Tests are skewed in favour of the wealthy  Standardized tests are inherently skewed in favour of high-income students. Tutoring is and industry unto itself and the resulting rise in scores among high income students skews the scale against students whose families cannot afford it. By contrast, even if the money is available, the impact that tutoring can have on a student’s academic performance is limited. A tutor cannot write papers or take tests for them, and nor can they answer questions in class, or participate in sports or other extracurricular activities. As a consequence, eliminating easily tutored standardized tests helps even the playing field between richer and poorer students.

Language will be as much of an issue in understanding in college as it will be for the tests and is likely to be as much of a difficulty in any other method of determining college admissions.  Otherwise these are objections to individual questions on the test, and not to the system itself. The very fact they have made have ensured that the same problems have not re-occurred. Indeed the analogies were dropped in 2005 and scores for the poorest students increased as a result showing that SATs can simply be changed when problems are found with the testing. [1] The problems with a purely grade based system are however intrinsic, and much harder for individuals to improve.  [1] Cloud, ‘What’s Good about the New SAT Test’, 2006

Standardized tests result in teachers “teaching the test”  The importance attached to such tests leads to teachers actively “teaching the test.” The result is that many teachers, rather than instilling useful skills or providing a balanced curriculum, end up trying to focus on things that occur on given tests. While this is not a huge problem with the SAT itself, it is a serious problem with subject tests like the SAT 2s, AP Exams, and the British A-Levels. This undermines the provision of education in the country.

Standardized tests are arbitrary  Standardized tests are inherently arbitrary. They reduce an applicant’s entire academic career to a single one-day session. The result is an inherently unrepresentative test which fails to paint an accurate picture. What if a student has a bad day? What if they do poorly on the specific test questions? In the SAT’s there is an error of measurement of about 30 points either way out of 800, this is the potential difference between where the student really is and what his or her score on the day was. [1] By contrast, looking at their entire academic record ensures that admissions officers will get a far more comprehensive picture of their actual ability. The law of averages means that bad days and tests will be balanced out with good ones, with the result that their academic record, the result of years of work, will reflect their true performance.  [1] Cloud, John, ‘What’s Good about the New SAT Test’, Time, 1 September 2006,

A student’s academic record tends to measure very different things from what a standardized test does. GPA tends to be based on repetitive assignments such as homework, and in many cases students receive at least some academic credit for simply attending class. By contrast, standardized tests reward ability, by seeing whether or not at the end of the process students actually learned the material in question. Performance under pressure is an important skill to measure, especially for top institutions, while sifting through the differing standards for what goes into the grades in different school districts is simply not possible.

There is a degree of hypocrisy in arguing that the tests are classist and racist and then complaining that schools take too long in preparing students for them. Ideally the tests should be on relevant subjects that will be useful to the student and is needed as part of a well-rounded education that prepares the student for life, and if they are not they are flawed.  Many of the skills required for a successful performance on A-Levels or on the AP Essays are remarkably similar to those needed for University level written work. As a consequence it is wrong to argue they are of no relevance.

All measurements are to one degree or another arbitrary. If necessary the scale can be increased, or there can be movement towards a more essay-based exam like the British A-Levels rather than the current multiple-choice format. These changes in fact have already been made with the transformation of the SAT in 2006 which increased the maximum score from 1600 to 2400 and added an essay. [1]  [1] Cloud, ‘What’s Good about the New SAT Test’, 2006

Standardized tests discriminate against minorities  Minority students perform less well on tests like the SAT, even when correction is made for income. The test with its reading comprehension test and being done in English is obviously biased against students from households where English is not the dominant language as they are much less likely to understand the questions.  Even when English language skills are not a problem the question choice can contain a cultural bias. One analogy question on the 2003 SAT used the word “regatta” which minority students were unlikely to be familiar with. Having this kind of bias is obviously unfair and can never be fully accounted for in a diverse country such as the United States of America where those who set the wording of the questions will never know all possible perspectives.

Standardized tests exaggerate small differences in performance  Most tests were designed in an earlier era when far fewer students took them. The large number of students who now take tests like the SATs results in a situation in which the scoring scale magnifies small differences in performance into large differences in scores. Two questions wrong out of 80 on the math section of the SAT may well produce a score of 760 while three questions wrong will result in a 720. 40 points can mean difference between admission and rejection for many candidates, while telling us nothing about the different abilities of the students involved. Indeed on average for 88% of applicants their SAT score will predict their final college grade rank no more accurately than a pair of dice. [1]  [1] Elert, Glenn, ‘The SAT Aptitude of Demographics?’, 5 May 1992,

Applicants are not the same. They come from different backgrounds, attend different schools, and have different opportunities. It is “false meritocracy” to compare them with students from an entirely different background. Students should be examined individually, and their performance compared with other students with a similar background. The best way to do this is to allow individual schools to grade their student body, and to then have Universities compare how those students did vis-à-vis their peers within that school.

Alternative factors that can be considered in the admissions process  SATs are mathematical and it is therefore possible to objectively evaluate them. This is why they are so popular, they provide a benchmark of comparison across the whole education system in a way that any non-standardized assessment never could. This does not only benefit universities in providing an objective measure to compare admissions candidates but it also gives the government statistics with which to measure the progress of schools.  Any other form of assessment would mean switching to much more subjective factors. Traditionally such factors, such as extracurricular activities, volunteer work, and even access to references are all more easily available to high income students. Opportunities may not even be offered in poorer school districts. Complaining that poorer and minority students do less well on the SAT ignores the fact that the test provides one of their best opportunities to impress admissions officials.

It is the only single standard that everyone ends up taking  All measures applied during University admissions processes are arbitrary to one extent or another. Grades depend on the whims on individual instructors, curriculum choices, and school quality. Every single one of the flaws the proposition applies to the SATs or other standardized tests may well be true, but the fact is that they are true for everyone who takes them. The SATs are the only part of the application to a university that every single applicant will likely have been taken, and therefore the only one where all applicants can be objectively compared.

The objectivity of SATs does not matter to individual students, many of whom are discriminated against by the tests. Subjective factors can be comparative if students’ backgrounds are taken into account. By contrast, the SAT, by its very use and existence, legitimizes its results as an “objective” measure of ability and capacity, which in turn legitimizes schools in discriminating against the vast majority of poor students who do worse on the exam, even if it helps a few out on an individual level. It would be much better to offer preferences in admission to poorer students than to legitimize discrimination.  Subjective criteria can also be successful in determining how successful someone will be in university. In a 1972 study by psychologist Jonathan R. Warre it was found that “Motivation was the quality most frequently cited by over 3400 college teachers” when asked what it takes to succeed in college. [1] Motivation cannot be objectively measured.  [1] Elert, ‘The SAT Aptitude of Demographics?’, 1992

None of these benefits apply if the peer pressure simply switches to harder drugs which are harder to test for or less likely to be tested for.  Moreover, peer pressure can exist outside of schools, and amongst older teenagers who have the choice to vary their attendance of sixth forms, FE colleges or senior high schools. Random drug testing could lead to older children being pressured to cut classes for prolonged periods of time, in order to take drugs, in order to be thought of as cool.  Teenagers are also notorious for believing that “nothing bad can happen to me”, even if that bad thing becomes more likely (such as being caught with a random drugs test). This is demonstrated by the fact that many teenagers already engage in illegal drug use despite the reasonably high chances that an adult will see them using drugs, smell smoke or notice the drug's effects on them in the status quo. [1]  [1] Grim, Ryan. “Blowing Smoke: Why random drug testing doesn't reduce student drug use”. Slate. March 21, 2006.

education general secondary crime policing house supports random drug testing

School's duty of care  Peer pressure drives most drug use among children and teenagers. [1] The fact that the state requires all children to be engaged in education means that most of them will be gathered into large groups in schools for most of the day, five days a week, essentially creating the necessary conditions for peer pressure to take place and be powerful. This occurs as some children face ostracism or exclusion from their peers in the social environment that the state compels them to be in if they refuse to take illegal drugs, if drug use is deemed necessary to be 'cool' or 'popular'.  It is, generally, the state that operates a western liberal democracy’s education system. Under circumstances in which children are placed into the care of the state, and are made vulnerable to peer pressure the state has a duty to ensure that children are not coerced into using drugs. This means that concerns of 'privacy' are secondary to protecting the choice not to take drugs, as ensuring the 'privacy' of all students by not having random drug tests empowers some students to socially coerce other students into using drugs when they otherwise would not.  Random drug tests help prevent cultures or norms of drug-taking (by which it can become the 'cool' thing to do) by ensuring that most drug users will be caught and helped to quit, thus protecting the choice of others not to be pressured into drug use.  [1] Rosenbaum, Marsha. “Safety First: A Reality-Based Approach to Teens and Drugs”. Drug Policy Alliance. January 1, 2007

Students who do not use illegal drugs do have something to fear - the violation of privacy and loss of dignity caused by random drug tests. They may well feel that they are being treated as under suspicion with no evidence or cause, and resent this imposition upon their privacy. Indeed, the indignity of drugs testing may compel children who are already in a position of vulnerability as a result of social marginalisation or personal or family problems to drop out of school entirely.

Prevent drug use  There is a clear and present problem with drug use among children and teenagers in many countries. According to the UK Department of Health, in 2002-2003 38% of 15 year olds had used illegal drugs, as had 8% of 11 year olds [1] . The fact that all of these children would have been in schools at the age of 15 shows that current policies of targeting the supply train of drugs (for example by arresting drug dealers and intercepting drug shipments) is failing to protect children. Therefore a more direct approach that intervenes at the point of consumption is needed, most crucially for children and teenagers, as their years in education are crucial for both their personal development and their realization of their future education and employment potential.  Drug use at a young age may lead to lifelong use and addiction. Random drug testing in schools will allow for vulnerable children's drug problems to be discovered, and assist the state in getting them the help they need to get off drugs. Random testing is especially valuable in this scenario because many infant and teenage drug users will try to disguise their drug use from parents and teachers and so avoid detection through avoiding suspicion, a tactic which will prove of no use against random drug tests which will likely affect all students at one point or another. It should also deter many students from starting taking drugs in the first place as the prospect of them being caught becomes far more likely, as they know disguising their drug use will be of no use.  [1] Department of Health. “Statistics on young people and drug misuse: England, 2003”.

Drug users' decisions are influenced by an irrational desire to fulfil the chemical need they feel (to get their 'high'). As a consequence many drug users in schools will simply look for ways to evade drug testing regimes that are put in place. This is a problem as drug testing is most likely to catch cannabis users (the most widely-used drug among teenagers) [1] , as cannabis endures longer in the body than other more dangerous drugs such as heroin and cocaine. This can potentially lead would-be cannabis users to switch to these harder drugs, most of which generally have significantly shorter detection times and/or are less likely to be tested for. [2] This harm clearly outweighs the benefits of catching or deterring a few more cannabis users.  [1] Department of Health. “Statistics on young people and drug misuse: England, 2003”.   [2] Rosenbaum, Marsha. “Safety First: A Reality-Based Approach to Teens and Drugs”. Drug Policy Alliance. January 1, 2007

No harm to non-drug users  Random drug tests will pose no harm to students who do not use illegal drugs, as they have nothing to fear from this fact being certified. If anything it serves as a vindication of their law-abidance and good character.  Random drug tests will only catch those who are actively taking drugs, as tests can be used which are unlikely to make a 'positive' reading from secondary exposure (for example, being near someone else smoking cannabis).  Those actively taking drugs need help in getting off drugs far more urgently than they need their right to 'privacy', as addiction at a young age could have a significant negative impact upon the remainder of their time in education. Therefore, non-drug users have nothing to fear from testing. As a result random checks are in the best interests of drug users.

Random drug tests may actually help remove mistrust between teachers and students. Individual suspicion will no longer be the cause of drug tests for students, but rather these tests will be something al students will face at one time or another. This means students may actually feel freer to approach their teachers, and they may feel the need to more keenly, as they know they may be tested at any time.

The students in question may not realize the long-term harms of drug use or fully understand the risks of addiction, and as they are not yet fully adult and responsible for themselves, the state has the right to ensure that they do not exercise their 'right to privacy' in a way that could be harmful to them.

Keeping teenagers in education  Studies in Michigan in the USA have found that random drug tests in schools do not deter drug use, as schools with and without random tests have similar levels of drug use among their pupils. [1]  It seems unlikely that random drug tests will, in fact, deter students from taking drugs. What such tests will result in, however, is a greater number of exclusions and disciplinary actions resulting from catching student drug users, which as the studies have shown has no guarantee of lowering drug use overall.  Faced with a situation of continuing to be caught and reprimanded for drug use in school due to random drug tests, many older teenagers who reach the age whereby they may choose to leave school may choose to do so in greater numbers. This may well be compounded by an adolescent desire to rebel and reject authority when it tries to prevent them doing what they want, and so a greater number of teenage students may drop out of school so as to allow themselves to continue doing what they want more easily – that is, taking drugs. Leaving school at such an age for no other reason than to pursue a drug-using lifestyle is almost certainly more harmful than the worst-case alternative, whereby they at least remain in education even if they continue to use illegal drugs, comparatively improving their future career and education choices. Simply driving teenagers out of education with random drug tests benefits no-one.  [1] Grim, Ryan. “Blowing Smoke: Why random drug testing doesn't reduce student drug use”. Slate. March 21, 2006.

Safeguarding the teacher-student relationship  Random drug tests change the student-teacher relationship from one of trust into one of suspicion, whereby the teachers and the school establishment become a body which many students will perceive as being out to catch them, and suspicious of all. The destruction of this trust makes it far harder for teachers to impart useful information on illegal drugs and the consequences of their use to students, and students may be less willing to seek teachers out on this information. This would lead to students relying increasingly on their peers and the internet for information on illegal drugs, and this information is far more likely to be of questionable policy or influenced by notions of drug use as 'cool' or glamorous. Thus schools' anti-drugs message may be harmed by random drug tests.

Right to privacy  Even if a right to privacy (which would prevent random drug testing with no reason for suspicion) does not exist in law in every country, many students being affected by drugs tests will perceive that the notional right to privacy which they believe they possess is being violated. Because they would perceive this violation as a harm, it should not be imposed without good reason. This problematizes the nature of 'random' testing, which by definition means forcing drug tests on individuals on whom there is no reasonable suspicion of drug use.  Firstly, the majority of those being tested will most likely test negative (as the previously cited statistics suggest) and so a majority will be harmed for no fault of their own, but rather as a consequence of the crimes of others. This may be seen as the equivalent of searching all homes in a neighbourhood for an illegal weapon on the suspicion that one of them was hiding it -an action which would be illegal in almost every western liberal democracy.  Further, however, even if students do engage in illegal drug use, random drug tests will additionally catch only those on whom there was previously no suspicion against (as students who show signs of drug use are already usually tested). In order to not already be under suspicion, these drug-using students would have to be engaging in their education, not disrupting the education of others, and not displaying erratic or harmful behaviour. As they are not actively harming others, these students should be subject only to the same standards as individuals in other areas of society: to only have their privacy violated by drugs tests if their behaviour actively brings them under suspicion.

Using random drug tests would mean that a greater number of teenage drug users would be caught and put into drug rehabilitation programs, which would surely help at least some of them. The school's duty of care means that they must at least be given this chance to give up drugs, even if they refuse it, as opposed to simply allowing them to keep using, which will most likely disrupt their education severely anyway.

Schools already have enough pressures just to educate their students, they do not need additional pressure from having to ensure their nutrition as well. In the UK kitchen improvements cost £200 million and many local councils found they needed to take money from other budgets such as school maintainance budgets showing the increase in pressure on schools. [1]  [1] BBC News, ‘Q&amp;A; Free school meals for infants’, 2 September 2014,

primary secondary health health general house would provide breakfast all 0

Schools are best places to ensure good nutrition  Education is universal from 5 or 6 to 16 years old in most countries, 58% of children worldwide attend secondary school, [1] with even poor countries providing education for all from 5 to 12 years old. As a result giving breakfast at school will mean that all children between these ages receive it.  [1] Unicef, ‘58: The percentage of children of secondary school age worldwide who attend secondary school is 58’, Unicef global databases, 2008,

Exactly, the role of the school is to teach children, not to be providing food and using periods of time for this that could be used for lessons.

A school breakfast gives all students an equal start to the day  All children should have equal opportunities, a breakfast for all helps provide this. With schools providing breakfast for everyone the start to the day will be the same for all. No one will starting school hungry or thirsty. Everyone will have had a chance to wake up before their lessons start allowing them to get as good a start to the day as possible.

This will not be true equality. Some people naturally wake up earlier, yet many will still be feeling sleepy at 10:00. A school breakfast may have forced these students to be up even longer before their natural wake up time than would otherwise be the case.

There is no need for education about a healthy diet to be combined with free breakfasts for all. The teaching can be done separately just as effectively. Teaching at the same time as, or immediately before or after will simply mean students are concentrating on the food they have, not upon the lesson. Meal times are lively and social, not a good time for teaching.

A healthy breakfast improves students concentration  Children are in school to learn. To do this they need to concentrate. To be able to concentrate they need to have a balanced meal – one without too much sugar – that will ensure they are not hungry until lunchtime. A child who is hungry is not going to be concentrating on their studies. A study by the Indian National Institute of Nutrition has shown a regular breakfast to result in a 2% increase in test scores in addition to other health benefits. [1]  [1] Gajre, N.S., Fernandez, S., Balakrishna, N., and Vazir, S., ‘Breakfast Eating Habit and its Influence on Attention-concentration, Immediate Memory and School Achievement’, National Institute of Nutrition, 31 March 2008,

Breakfast teaches about health  Children need to learn about how good nutrition keeps them healthy. Providing a school breakfast means that the meal can be an educational experience and have teaching alongside. This education will ensure that when these children grow up they continue to eat healthily with future benefits for the nation’s health.

The upfront cost will be paid back. In the future there will be less health care costs. And there will be a more highly educated and skilled population which will mean more economic growth and tax for the government.

The split in responsibility under this proposal is clear; school provides breakfast, parents other meals. This split ensures that even if the parent is shirking their responsibility the child will receive some nutrition.

Government should focus on the most needy  A primary responsibility of the government is for reducing inequality and ensuring that everyone has a basic living standard. A basic living standard includes food. As a result providing breakfasts should be for those who are most in need of a helping hand from government. Those who are wealthier and can afford their own breakfast do not need this help so any such breakfast policy should be means tested to only apply to those who need it. This is the case with the United States School Breakfast Program.

Can we be sure a school meal will be healthy?  Even if the schools provide breakfast can we be sure that it will be healthy, and even if it is will the students eat it? Without individual supervision that having breakfast with parents provides it is difficult to ensure that the children are eating what they should be rather than throwing away the bits they like. In the UK there has been a campaign against the poor quality of school meals. [1] In the US there has been concern at the amounts of fresh fruit and vegtables being thrown away from school means. One study by the University of Vermont found food waste increased 56%. [2]  [1] Evening Standard, ‘Unhealthy school meals are on the menu for over a million children’, 12 January 2013,   [2] Welch, Ashley, ‘School lunch fruits and veggies often tossed in trash study finds’, CBSnews, 25 August 2015,

A school breakfast for all is a greater cost on schools  Everything costs. Providing free school to all breakfasts will cost the government money for ingredients, cafeteria staff, administration, even possibly new facilities. In the USA the Breakfast Program costs $3.3 billion to provide free or reduced price breakfasts to 10.1 million students. [1] There is a limited total amount of money so the cost will mean there is something else the government will not be able to do. This proposal may mean, for example, that the government cannot afford to hire more teachers to reduce class sizes.  [1] Food and Nutrition Service, ‘The School Breakfast Program’, September 2013

Nutrition is the parents responsibility  Parents are responsible for their children, and this includes responsibility for their meals. The parent has had to provide meals up until the start of school. They know their own child’s preferences there is little reason for this to change. Splitting responsibility between parents and schools means the burden of responsibility will no longer be clearly don't placed.

If the school is providing unhealthy meals then guidelines can be tightened to ensure they improve. If the students are throwing away food then there can be greater supervision by teachers. A study by Harvard University has also shown that food waste, and the amount of healthy food eaten can be increased by having more time allocated to eating. [1]  [1] Wanjek, Christopher, ‘Are Healthy School Lunch Programs a Waste?’, Livescience, 7 October 2015,

Focusing on need requires that the need be defined and those in need identified. It runs the risk that some people will be missed. A child having a wealthy parent does not mean that they are getting a good healthy breakfast at the start of the day. That parent may never be home in the morning, may consider breakfast unimportant, or simply be neglecting their child.

The international legal system already has many grey areas and often things that should be banned are not because of objections by certain countries despite their similarities to other items that are banned. A change regarding cluster bombs is not realistically going to make more people accept the international legal system.  Further, according to the exact wording of the 1997 ban on land mines, the ban exists for those items that exist to “Primarily” act as land mines. Cluster bombs act as landmines as a secondary effect and are not intended to do so. As such, it would be more inconsistent under the law to accept cluster bombs as landmines than it would be to ban them.5

national law politics defence warpeace house believes us should ban use cluster

Cluster Bombs Are Inconsistent With International Law  The international legal system is dependent on being robust and transparent in order for it to be respected by countries and states that accept it. The refusal by the U.S. to ban cluster bombs prevents the international community from doing the same within international law as the U.S. has enough political power that should it choose to ignore the law, the law itself is considered to be irrelevant.  In failing to ban cluster bombs the U.S. maintains an inconsistency within international law. Since dud cluster bombs effectively act as land mines for all intents and purposes, they are well hidden and cause indiscriminate damage, the fact that they aren’t banned is inconsistent with existing bans on land mines already. This inconsistency within international law makes the international legal system seem less credible, owing to contradictions as well as illustrating its weakness to the influence of the U.S. This makes it more difficult for countries to enforce the rules of the international legal system, such as preventing human rights violations because fewer countries will accept international law as being legitimate and will not agree to subject themselves to those rules.5

The U.S. is currently developing cluster bomb technology that will prevent cluster bombs from remaining armed over a long period of time. Given that the U.S. is a pioneer in this area, it knows more about the development of the technology than other countries that might have signed up to the treaty. If the efforts of the U.S. prove to be fruitful then their decision to avoid the ban will prove them as being the more politically shrewd of other liberal democracies.  Further, political status with other countries is unlikely to be entirely determined by treaties regarding cluster bombs. In fact these treaties are relatively minor and have almost no political affect by comparison to more pressing issues such as economics or other parts of international policy.7

Cluster Bombs Cause Unacceptable Harm to Civilians  In a modern warfare scenario, the vast majority of combat takes place in civilian areas, such as cities. Whilst cluster bombs are obviously not used for peacekeeping purposes they are used in initial assaults on these areas, particularly against larger formations of enemy troops. This means that due to the indiscriminate nature of cluster bombs, in the same way as with land mines, often both military and civilian targets are encompassed in the blast radius. This is what happened in Zagreb as Martic was targeting Croat forces but the attack due to the use of cluster weapons also killed civilians.  Further, cluster bombs often have a few bomblets which are duds and do not go on initial impact. The issue with bomblets is that they are often brightly coloured and when used in cities or populous areas they can often attract the attention of children who are very unlikely to know to be careful around them. This can result in significant harm to civilian populations well after the attack has been carried out.  Further, due to the sheer volume of duds that cluster bombs put out, attempts to demine cluster bomb bomblets is an incredibly dangerous process that in of itself costs lives.1,2,3

Cluster bombs, when used sensibly are used in uninhabited areas to take down military personnel. They are only intended for military targets and collateral damage when attacking military targets is something that is accepted as a regrettable problem in war.  Further, cluster bombs are simply a very effective weapon in battles between standing armies in most war. Given that cluster bombs help sides achieve victory quicker and with less resistance, they justify their use in the prevention of strife in the future by causing wars to end quickly as well as enabling assaults on well-defended sites to be performed more smoothly.  Due to their niche, cluster bombs will simply be replaced by the military with substitutes that are just as harmful.4

Rejecting the Ban on Cluster Bombs Hurts the international image of the U.S.  The U.S. is one of the only remaining Western Liberal democracies to allow the U.S. of cluster bombs. The continued refusal of the U.S. to tow the same line as fellow liberal democracies makes it look bad internationally; especially considering that one of the main instigators behind the cluster bomb ban is the U.K. traditionally a great ally of the U.S. politically.  The U.S. is often seen as the greatest representative of Western liberal democracy as it is the most economically powerful. Part of this political clout however, comes from the continued cooperation of other Western Liberal democracies with the U.S. in failing to the sign the cluster bomb treaty despite pressure from other countries, the U.S. fails in this capacity and loses the support of the countries that it relies on to maintain its political status.  Moreover, given that the U.S. currently does not help with demining work, this further worsens relationships with other countries.6

The improvement of cluster bombs in the way that opposition describes has not happened yet and these bombs have not been deployed. It would be fairly easy to class these new cluster bombs differently to older models should they come into effect.  However, the potential for new types of cluster bombs does not mean that the older types are any less inhumane. A ban on cluster bombs could easily exist to simply encompass older models whilst leaving newer ones alone.11

Cluster bombs are an ineffective weapon that often deal more damage to the side deploying the weapons than their opponents. Given modern warfare scenarios, the need for cluster bombs is not great given that in asymmetric warfare the conflict will be over relatively quickly, owing to the massive level of firepower that the West and its allies can bring against the targets that they attack, often dictators only in control of militarily weak countries. Dud cluster bombs harm any occupation following invasion and warm by harming troops that happen to stumble across them as well as harming demining personnel. This prevents effective occupation in the long run and costs lives through preventing the armed forces from achieving stability in the region as quickly.9

The Ban is Unfeasible  The problem with the ban on cluster bombs is that it is unfeasible in the prevention of the use of cluster bombs on the battlefield. Many countries aside from the U.S. will continue to use the weapons and will likely do so less responsibly. There is no way to persuade these countries to abandon the weapons. Countries such as China and the US are unconcerned by threats that their use can be a crime against humanity and might result in international criminal prosecutions as they are not signed up to the ICC and as Security Council members can prevent investigations of themselves or their clients.  The U.S. and Western powers continuing to manufacture cluster bombs allows them to engage with the other users of cluster bombs on the battlefield. Many countries import weapons from Western powers and as such, continuing the manufacture of cluster bombs allows Western powers to keep a check on their use by other countries.  Further, the ability for Western powers to use cluster bombs allows Western powers to discourage their use on the battlefield through the threat of retaliation with the same weaponry. As such, banning the weapons could cost the lives of soldiers on the battlefield.8

This House Believes That the U.S. Should Ban The Use of Cluster Bombs  Currently the U.S. is working on improving the reliability of cluster bombs. The weakness of cluster bombs, being that the bomblets often do not explode is something that U.S. military has understood for a long time. It is inefficient for the military to allow this problem to continue. As such a large amount of military funding goes into improving cluster bombs.  The U.S. is hoping to improve cluster bombs in two ways, the first is ensuring that when the cluster bombs are deployed that all bomblets explode on impact or explode very quickly after the initial barrage. However, the U.S. is also working on technology that would allow bomblets to disarm themselves after a short period of time, hence preventing accidental discharges in the future.  If these improvements work, then cluster bombs cease to cause civilian damage and will likely be an incredibly effective tool in warfare. Hence a ban on them when this technology is being deployed is premature.10

Cluster Bombs Have Significant Strategic Value  As mentioned earlier in the opposition counter arguments, cluster bombs are incredibly effective at dealing with large formations of troops and armoured vehicles and can cause a significant amount of damage to an opposing force in a relatively small amount of time. This niche is not filled as cheaply or as easily by other weapons that can be released from a bombing aircraft. As such cluster bombs have a significant level of military and strategic value when used in conflict.  In the case where cluster bombs were banned, it would simply fall to the military to find an effective replacement weapon for these scenarios and it is likely that these would be as problematic if not more so.8

Whilst the ban prevents engagement with countries that use cluster bombs, it also limits the supply of cluster bombs to these countries significantly. The West ceasing the manufacture of cluster bombs means that many countries will cease being able to get their through second or third hand sources. Whilst the Chinese might be able to fill the gap, their cluster bomb technology is not on the same level as that of the West and as such the lack of reliability with the Chinese weaponry will cause fewer countries to employ the use of cluster bombs on the battlefield.  Further, the ban on cluster bombs by Western countries sends out a strong moral message that many other smaller countries are likely to obey and follow. With the US accepting the ban international prosecution, or potentially even sanctions is considerably more likely. The U.S. holding out however, shows the West to be divided on the topic and as such prevents other countries that might be better off from banning them owing to their fear of indecision in the West.6

Putin’s initial support was based mainly on strong promises, a series of arrests of corrupt businessmen and tough action towards Chechnya that at first seemed to give positive results. His support base, however, has been significantly damaged following his increasing tendencies to control the media and to replace elected governors with presidential appointees, and by scandals surrounding the disappearance and murder of several important journalists. He has lost the support of the NGO community and most of the intelligentsia and also the originally strong backing of the USA and President Bush.

onal europe politics government house believes russia needs strong leadership

A strong leader has more benefits than harms  Putin is the strong leader that Russia has been waiting for. His electoral success and consistently high approval rates show that the people of Russia are ready for someone who can rid their society of increasing corruption and restore a sense of calm and equality. His ability to maintain a high level of support despite what some have called authoritarian tendencies shows that people are ready to sacrifice a certain degree of freedom for the promise of stability. Enthusiasm for Putin among the young also shows that he does not only appeal to those looking back to past certainties.

Putting your hopes and trust in a single person can be fairly dangerous, particularly in a transition period. Putin is not the state and his ability to control and represent the state and the population at large is questionable. Putin is also not a saint and an example to be followed. His authoritarian tendencies do not have insignificant effects: at this point most Russian media is controlled by the state, decisions continue to be made behind closed doors without consultation, Russia has once again become the pariah of the international community, the Chechen conflict has spilled into new attacks against civilians resulting in the death of thousands of people including children (one only has to mention the horrible attacks in Beslan and the Moscow theatre), etc, etc. Putin’s stubborn refusal to accept international help in the case of the stuck submarine Kursk also resulted in the unnecessary death of tens of people.

Stability is more important than reform  Since the fall of communism, Russia has plunged into a deep economic recession. The introduction of market reforms and privatization has led to a swift increase in inequalities coupled with an increase in corruption. The chaos of economic and political reform, along with the chaos of the break-up of former USSR, has left the majority of the population both disillusioned and distrustful of their government. In a period of such chaos, stability seems to be much more important than reform. A strong leader is the only solution to providing such stability, setting a clear direction and pulling a country at risk of falling apart together again. This is also proven from various polls among the Russian population – “…The most eye-catching statistic is the overwhelming majority of respondents who say that order is more important for Russia than democracy – 72 per cent, with 16 per cent responding conversely.” (1)

All periods of transition have been chaotic by definition and reforms are by their nature disruptive. At the same time, it is only through these reforms that a future of freedom and prosperity is possible. While a long transition process can certainly cloud minds and turn people into distrustful and disillusioned individuals, one must keep in mind that it is precisely at these moments that the risk of authoritarian tendencies re-emerging is highest. The people of Russia agree in polls over and over again that democracy is and should be their future. We must not let the immediate chaos of reform scare us into a fake stability. Even if still Russians prefer stronger leadership the number of these people is decreasing and the tendency shows that more and more are starting to evaluate the true value of democracy - “…But that number is actually down from the last time VTsIOM conducted a similar survey in 2000, when 75 per cent of Russians said they favored order, and 13 per cent – democracy. “ (1)

History is not destiny and a highly-selective view of Russia's past should not lead us to prefer authoritarian rule today. The Tsars and their communist successors killed millions of people through brutal rule and failed policies - made possible by the same lack of consultation and accountability that we see in Russia today. Only a vigorous multi-party democracy, fully independent legal system and free media can ensure that the disasters of the past are not repeated. Nor is there any reason why such a system could not take root in Russia - it is no more diverse than many other countries and modern communications mean that mere distance is not a problem. And there is nothing in the culture or temperament that makes Russians uniquely unsuited to democracy.

A strong leader is working in the state’s best interest  Putin’s authoritarian style is not a threat to democracy but rather a requirement for a successful and quicker transition. Having Putin control the media is probably healthier than having it be controlled by a corrupt few that promote their personal interests rather than the interest of the state and thus those of the population at large. Democracy is a goal and while certain countries believe themselves to have achieved it, they are constantly struggling to maintain it. As a young democracy, Russia is still working towards defining its own version of democracy and finding what works best in its case.

Russia as a state and Russians as a nation need strong leadership  Historically, Russia has always needed strong centralised leadership for it to make progress. This was true both in imperial times under tsars such as Peter the Great (who made Russia a European power and built St Petersburg) and Alexander II (who freed the serfs), and since 1917 under Lenin and Stalin. Russia is too big, too diverse and too thinly-populated for western systems of representative democracy to be applied. Culturally its people are temperamentally suited to following the decisive lead of a strong ruler who can unite them in the face of great challenges. Without such a ruler Russia is likely to fragment with local strongmen grabbing power in the regions, religious fundamentalism dominating much of the Caucasus and Central Asia, and economic stagnation.

All of these speculations are rather unreasonable and tend to create a public opinion which does not cooperate entirely with the truth. Such drastic conclusions can be made just about any other country. It is true that Vladimir Putin is a strong leader and a powerful figure in the Russian political life, but this does not mean that he is a puppet master, who decides the entire faith of Russia and the Russian population. The political life cannot go without political games, intrigues and deals, but this is just how the policy works and this is how it has been working for a long time. Political interests mix up with business interests and it is actually important to have a strong leader in the face of Putin, who, unlike a lot of politicians will not be influenced by big corporate players or at least will not be influenced as much. Putin’s political career has been successful and his rating among the population are the simplest proof - According to public opinion surveys conducted by Levada Center, Putin's approval rating was 81% in June 2007, and the highest of any leader in the world. His popularity rose from 31% in August 1999 to 80% in November 1999 and since then it has never fallen below 65%. Observers see Putin's high approval ratings as a consequence of the significant improvements in living standards and Russia's reassertion of itself on the world scene that occurred during his tenure as President.

The best possible way to tackle the corruption issue, which lets face it is one of the major problems in Russia nowadays, is through a strong leader. Eastern European democratic countries are the pure example that corruption spreads when there is no strong leadership. The corruption in these countries is an obstacle to their economic development. As a matter of fact present president Dmitry Medvedev has launched policies and new projects in order to fight back corruption – “ Fighting corruption has been a top agenda of President Dmitry Medvedev. An Anti-Corruption Council was established by Medvedev in 2008 to oversee the Russia's anti-corruption campaign. The central document guiding the effort is the National Anti-Corruption Strategy, introduced by Medvedev in 2010.” (2) In fact, increasing corruption might prove to be more dangerous than terrorist attacks since it would create powerful drug, oil and weapons cartels as well as human trafficking problems. Therefore a strong leader is necessary to cope with this critical matter.

Russia does not have true democracy  The status quo in Russia is highly controversial. On the one hand it is considered a democracy – it has all the structures and norms of a democracy. On the other hand there are many attacks and proof that the Russian governance is far from democratic: The joint observer team for the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe criticised the Russian elections as "not fair and failed to meet many OSCE and Council of Europe commitments and standards for democratic elections," with "abuse of administrative resources, media coverage strongly in favour of the ruling party". The polls "took place in an atmosphere which seriously limited political competition" meaning "there was not a level political playing field". The 2007 parliamentary election resulted in United Russia gaining 64.1% of the vote. (3)  Furthermore not only there isn’t election freedom, there is not academic freedom either – “The European University at St Petersburg has been forced to suspend teaching after officials claimed its historic buildings were a fire risk. This forced all academic work to cease. The University had been running a program that advised Russian political parties, including how to ensure elections are not being rigged. The project they are involved in called Interregional Electoral Chains of Support was to develop and raise the effectiveness of electoral monitoring in Russia's regions. The university has also been attacked for having close ties to the west, particularly US and UK universities” (4)  There are cases of murdered journalists, who were “inconvenient” to the authorities. This also raises the question whether a strong leadership is better for the people.  Basic freedoms are denied to the Russian population. In the 21st century this is simply unjust. Therefore strong leadership creates more wrong than it does good.

Corruption, an essential issue in Russia, is due to the strong leadership  There is a link between the high levels of corruption and the strong leadership of Russian president and prime minister of Russia. – “Some of Russia's most prominent opposition figures have produced a report accusing Prime Minister Vladimir Putin of presiding over a boom in corruption and enriching his inner circle over the past decade… Putin and President Dmitry Medvedev themselves have 26 "palaces" and five yachts, which in turn require costly state upkeep, according to the report.” (8)  Many argue that if it weren’t for the power of the prime minister and ex-president Putin, also his strong authority and management, corruption would have been minimized long ago.

The status quo reveals that several powerful and influential people are in charge of the whole state  What is occurring in Russia now is closer to dictatorship rather than to strong leadership. Many commentators of the Russian political stage share the opinion that Medvedev is just a pawn in the hands of the former president and current prime minister – Putin. “The leading role still clearly belongs to Putin. This reflects the unspoken agreement that was reached between Putin and Medvedev,” said Yevgeny Volk, an independent political analyst in Moscow. (6) Russia’s both external and internal policy have not changed after the elections in 2008 and are following the same path, which is another argument that Putin continues to pull the strings.  In fact, the more important question is not whether or not Medvedev is a pawn, but who is actually in charge – “Kremlin-watchers say this system of interlocking and competing clans that is managed by Putin comprises the core of Russia's ruling elite. The key players, the people with decision making power, number about thirty. The inner circle, most agree, comprises about twelve people… There are something like a dozen of the most influential guys in the first circle and perhaps two dozen who are less influential in the second circle. These are not only managers but also shareholders who are not that visible or public...Not only do they manage Russia...but they also enrich themselves pretty actively.” (7) This poses the debate is such a status quo in the best interest of Russia and its people or is the exact opposite.

Proper democratic checks and balance are the only way to real problem-solving  There is a fine line between enough authority to fight corruption and enough authority to oppress a population. Many corrupt, authoritarian leaders have risen to power through the promise of social reform and of wiping out drug cartels and gangsters. A society living in fear and believing that all their problems will be solved by a powerful leader will never be able to overcome its problems. Empowering individuals and accepting risk is ultimately the only true solution to such problems. Even if Putin were completely pure himself, centralising power so completely gives great influence to those advisers and ministers around him and makes corruption in government inevitable. Only by building in proper democratic checks and balances, including criticism from a free media and legal system, can accountability be created and corruption or incompetence tackled.

The current president Dmitry Medvedev is working on and introducing policies toward corruption. Actually this is his main strategy. It is a well-known fact that Medvedev keeps close relations with the former president Putin and discusses Russian relations and policy with him. If the abolishment of the corruption was standing in the way of Putin, such a strategy would not have been undertaken by Medvedev. – “Speaking to a group of Russian experts and journalists, he said that corrupt officials ran Russia. "They have the power. Corruption has a systemic nature, deep historic roots. We should squeeze it out. The battle isn't easy but it has to be fought. I don't think we can achieve tangible results in one year or two. If I am a realist we could get good results in 15." “(9)  Exactly strong leadership can deal with the difficult issue of corruption in the Russian state. And the new policies of the current president clearly present that.

Russia has the attributes of a democracy. It is a federal state with a constitution. It has a two chamber legislature; the lower house is the Duma with 450 members elected from nationwide party lists based upon proportional representation. The Upper house; the Federation Council has two representatives from each of Russia’s 89 regions and republics that are chosen by the regional governors and legislatures. Elections for the President are every four years who then appoints the prime minister who in turn appoints the government. Russia therefore appears to have the necessary structure to be a democracy as each of the branches or government are independent.  What Russia is doing is combining the modern democratic governance with better control and management.  Shortly after one of the reporters’ death (which death is thought to be a political order) the head of the human rights organisation issued a strongly worded statement alleging the involvement of state authorities and the area's premier Ramzan Kadyrov in this particular death. This statement was not suppressed in Russia and means that there is freedom of speech. There maybe a strong amount of state control of the press similar to Italy which is a problem but the right still remains. (5)

In the areas of policy where rapid responses are necessary even within the EU the UK retains its freedom of action. The areas where there is joint policy are issues such as trade and environment negotiations which are always slow anyway. Defence and security are areas where power remains with the member states. The only areas of foreign policy where the slow speed of the EU comes up against slow decision making are areas where joint policy is a benefit as in response to the migration crisis; no one nation could have responded alone, even Germany, who take in most migrants needed there to be a path to the country.

onal europe politics leadership house believes uk would have more influence

Britain will have greater ability to respond quickly  Whatever the EU is we can all agree it is not the fastest and most responsive of institutions. As a result of needing the input of 28 countries EU external policy is slow and faltering. Leaving will enable the UK greater freedom to create its own policies and to reframe them in response to changing circumstances and challenges. The UK will no longer need to take into consideration any other country’s views.

As a smaller and less attractive market the UK will inevitably get a less good deal than it could have with the whole of the EU at its back. Moreover if the UK still wants free access to the EU market, which accounts for 45% of UK exports and 53%, [1] it will still not have a completely free hand economically. Norway for example may retain close economic links and freely trade with Europe but does not have any ability to make decisions on EU rules and must accept their regulations – clearly a worse position than the UK now. [2]  [1] Webb, Dominic, and Keep, Matthew, ‘In brief: UK-EU economic relations’, House of Commons Library, Briefing Paper, No. 06091, 19 January 2016, p.3, www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06091.pdf  [2] Eide, Espen Barth, ‘We pay, but have no say: that’s the reality of Norway’s relationship with the EU’, The Guardian, 27 October 2015,

The UK would have a completely independent foreign policy  Britain’s is not completely sovereign within the European Union with the EU having a common foreign and security policy and all economic negotiations taking place under the auspices of the EU trade commissioner, it is what the EU refers to as an ‘exclusive power’, rather than the Foreign Office. [1] Exiting would give these powers back to the UK. Regardless of how these powers are used this will mean the UK has more influence and freedom to manoeuvre as it will have more options with which it can negotiate with other powers.  [1] ‘Policy making: What is trade policy’, European Commission,

It is a misconception that any nation has complete sovereignty in the realm of international affairs, the restraints and restrictions as a result of being in or out are simply different. Every foreign policy has to operate within the context of the international system, and the capabilities with which the state has. Leaving the EU will give back certain areas with which the UK can negotiate but at the same time will ensure the UK is a lone voice rather than part of a combined negotiating position. The common foreign policy is just that; 28 countries making the same point, much more difficult for even the biggest nations to ignore. The decision making is done by all the heads of state/government so cannot be said to represent a loss of sovereignty. [1]  [1] ‘Foreign &amp; security policy at EU level’, EUR-lex, updated 8 December 2015,

Ukraine may not be a high priority itself for British foreign policy but Russia is still a major, possibly the most major, threat. The UK has had very poor relations with Russia for years with various spy incidents such as the murder of Alexander Litvinenko [1] and with Russian bombers regularly being intercepted near the UK, six times in 2015, [2] even before we get onto Russian aggression in Georgia and Ukraine and British and Russian interests in the Middle East often being at loggerheads. The migration crisis may not directly affect the UK but it's cause, Syria and Middle Eastern instability, is a major concern for the UK as a result of UK nationals joining Daesh.  [1] Owen, Robert, ‘Report into the death of Alexander Litvinenko’, The Litvinenko Inquiry, January 2016,   [2] ‘RAF jets intercept Russian bombers heading to UK’, BBC news, 17 February 2016,

EU economic preference will no longer bind Britain  As a customs union the EU has a common external tariff set at the EU level meaning that the UK cannot tailor its external trade policy to its own needs. Instead the UK will be free to negotiate its own free trade agreements with any power it wishes. This may be individually or joining larger trade groupings such as the currently being negotiated Trans Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership deal between the USA, Canada, and the EU. it also means the UK is free to reject such joint agreements, as many campaigning groups would like with the Trans Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership deal. [1] Countries which are not in regional blocks have not suffered as a result, South Korea has 24 free trade agreements [2] and despite an economy that is just over half the size of the UK’s has trade in goods worth similar amounts;$1,098bln $1,190bln [3] but importantly gets to negotiate each one itself and to its own terms and conditions.  [1] See #noTTIP,   [2] ‘Free Trade Agreements’, Asia Regional Integration Centre, 2015,   [3] Adding exports and imports of merchandise, ‘Korea, Republic of and United Kingdom’, World Trade Organisation,

UK will be disentangled from EU affairs  Leaving the EU would mean that Britain is no longer entangled in foreign policy issues that are of little interest to it and instead could devote itself to other more productive issues. The two main foreign policy crises for the EU at the moment are Ukraine and migration, neither of which concern the UK when not a member of the EU. Migration would be stopped at the channel while Ukraine is at the opposite end of the EU. The EU would essentially become a buffer for the UK.

It is undeniable that in some areas the EU is a force multiplier. But many of the issues it uses this leverage on are not areas of concern to a UK that has left the EU; migrants arriving in Greece are of little national interest to the UK. Britain would instead focus its weight on areas that are of direct concern such as terrorism. In other areas the multiplier simply saves the UK a little money; could the UK have an embassy in Djibouti? Certainly if it wished, but it is not an area of primary concern to the UK.

The UK has more influence as a power in the second tier being sought after rather than having its voice swamped in the EU where it is but one of 27 voices. The UK will retain its UN Security Council seat and nuclear weapons, it will remain a powerful country that is relevant across all sorts of areas, it will simply be less constrained.

Power is shifting to the East  Geography has a great influence on the position of nations and their foreign policies. For example it is the UK’s Island nation status that is a major reason why it is not fully committed to the European project. Attention internationally is now shifting to East Asia where the main rising powers are; China and India. This means that the UK’s position is less geographically important so to compensate the UK needs Europe; China’s leader Xi Jinping on his state visit to Britain stated China wants “a united EU, and hopes Britain… can play an even more positive and constructive role in promoting the deepening development of China-EU ties.” [1] The United States, Britain’s main ally since World War II, is much less interested in Europe.  [1] ‘China wants Britain in a united European Union, Xi Jinping tells David Cameron’, South China Morning Post, 23 October 2015,

Leaving the EU will mean the UK will have less regional influence  Like it or not the UK is a part of Europe geographically and as such the countries that are most important to UK foreign policy are also in Europe. Leaving the EU will damage relations with those powers that are currently a part of the EU, and potentially also those who are used to dealing with the UK as part of the EU. The United States has noted it “benefits from a strong UK being part of the European Union” [1] in much the same way as the UK does. If this is the UK's strongest ally's view what would be the view of the powers from whom out would mean divorce? The UK will be outside the group trying to influence it rather than on the inside. The EU states will no longer need to listen to the UK on a wide range of issues where it has previously been a key voice.  [1] Earnest, Josh, ‘Press Briefing by the Press Secretary Josh Earnest’, White House, 14 March 2016,

The EU is a force multiplier  The UK gets more bang for the buck as a result of being a member of the EU. It has representation in more countries as a result of the European External Action Service (equivalent of the Foreign Office) thus extending UK influence to countries where it would not otherwise have representation. For example the EU have representation in Djibouti [1] whereas the UK individually is represented there from neighbouring Ethiopia. [2]  The UK, along with France, and to a lesser extent Germany, leads the EU on foreign policy matters, as illustrated by the first The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy being a Briton, Catherine Ashton. [3] This means the UK essentially gains from the backing of the other 26 member states giving the UK a much more influential voice globally. For example the EU has a role in the Middle East ‘quartet’ of the EU, USA, Russia and United Nations [4] giving the UK a place at the table on the key issue of Israel Palestine where otherwise it would have none.  [1] ‘Délégation en République de Djibouti’, Délégation de l’Union européenne,   [2] ‘British Embassy Addis Ababa’, Gov.uk,   [3] ‘The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy’, Europea Union External Action,   [4] ‘The Quartet’, Office of the Quartet,

The UK needs to be part of a block to remain relevant  History is moving towards bigger and bigger blocks being relevant. The US and USSR dwarfed the previous global power the UK [1] and China and India look set too be bigger again. In a world where the great powers are regions of the globe in themselves to be influential requires being part of a bigger group. The EU negotiates on equal terms with China, India and the USA. The UK on its own would be very much a second order power.  [1] See Paul Kennedy’s The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, Random House, 1987

The UK will still be part of Europe just not in the EU. It will still be a member of a plethora of other organisations; NATO, OSCE, Council of Europe, European free trade area. Countries like France and Germany are not going to stop listening to the UK because it is no longer a member.

There are also advantages to this power shift; the UK is less threatened so better able to act. The UK is therefore free to align itself with whichever powers it wishes rather than having alignments dictated by geography and who is threatening the UK. In the past the threat from Germany, and then the USSR, forced the UK into an alliance with France and the USA. When it comes to deciding between the USA, China, and India the UK has a free hand. As a result the UK has a once in a lifetime opportunity to strike new “trade deals with the growth economies around the world”. [1]  [1] Boris Johnson quoted in Erixon, Fredrik, ‘Boris and the Breziteers are talking nonsense about Britain’s trade policies’, The Spectator, 1 April 2016,

The present system of earmarking in Congress is wide open to abuse. The party leaderships in each house can use the offer of pork, or the threat to withhold it to enforce party discipline. “Logrolling” occurs whereby an earmark is obtained in return for support on an unrelated piece of legislation. All this leads to legislators who put party above country and vote for bad legislation in pursuit of their own vested interest. They basically “are federal dollars that members of Congress dole out to favor seekers — often campaign donors. In the process, lawmakers advocate for the companies, helping them bypass the normal system of evaluation and competition.”1Forcing pork out in the open by making Congress vote to defend it after a Presidential line-item veto is the best way to remedy matters. Overall the President is more accountable to the people as a whole than individual representatives, and with their national mandate, more able to stand up to powerful interest groups.  1 David Heath and Hal Bernton, $4.5 million for a boat that nobody wanted, The Seattle Times, 15/10/07 , accessed 5/5/11

onal americas politics government house wants line item veto amendment

There are other means by which cutting earmarks could be achieved, without the drastic step of mutilating the work of the Founding Fathers. For a start, Congress could just ban the use of earmarks, unfortunately an attempt in 2010 was defeated 39-56 in the Senate.1 Existing rescission powers could be toughened by requiring Congress to hold a prompt vote on Presidential requests for appropriations cuts, rather than ignoring them as invariably happens now. The Impoundment power removed in 1974 could be restored. The convention that spending items in committee reports should be binding on the executive could be challenged. And the practice of legislating massive omnibus spending bills could be ended; more, smaller and more focused bills would make pork more obvious and make it more viable for a President to veto a whole bill without causing the federal government to collapse for want of funding.  1 Rushing , J. Taylor, 'Senate votes down ban on earmarks 39-56', The Hill, 30/11/10,accessed 5/5/11

The use of the line-item veto power by President Clinton in 1997 demonstrates the advantages of such authority. Although the power was declared unconstitutional in 1998 by the Supreme Court, while he held it Clinton demonstrated what could be achieved. He acted cautiously, only cancelling 82 appropriations, but these totalled nearly $2 billion1– a useful contribution in itself to reducing the federal deficit, and one that suggested that much bigger savings could be achieved by a more determined President. The Congressional Budget Office agreed according to the Congressional Budget Office "The 1997 cancellations had a relatively small impact on the budget's bottom line, but that outcome may have resulted in part from temporary factors, such as last year's balanced budget agreement."2 This period also demonstrated that Congress would still retain the power of the purse, as it was able to overrule one of Clinton’s deletions, on the Military Construction bill worth $287billion, by majority vote in both houses.3  1 It is time for congress to kill the pig, Center for individual freedom, 11/11/04, accessed 6/5/11  2 The line item veto act after one year’, Congressional Budget Office, April 1998, accessed 6/5/11  3 Marc Lacey, ‘Senate Votes 1st Override of Clinton Line-Item Vetos, Los Angeles Times, 26/2/1998, accessed 6/5/11

This amendment would only give the President a limited power for a limited but worthwhile purpose. The media and interest group scrutiny that accompanies the Presidency will ensure that the White House will have to justify every line-item decision made. It does not affect the Congress's power regarding policy-making, entitlement programmes or taxation. Indeed, it is little different to the existing convention of executive "Signing Statements" whereby the President can sign legislation while making it clear his intention not to fully implement aspects of it. It would create a budgetary separation of powers between the president and congress so introducing checks and balances against the abuse of power.1  1 Ferro, Lucas and De Magalhaes, Leandro M. 'Budgetary Separation of Powers in the American States and the Tax Level: A Regression Discontinuity Design', Bristol University, Oct 2009,accessed 5/5/11

The constitution should not be amended  We should always be cautious of altering the United States’ Constitution. Once an amendment is passed, it is extremely hard to overturn, even if its consequences are clearly negative (as the experience of constitutionally-mandated prohibition of alcohol should make clear). It would be both difficult and unnecessary. There are problems of wording and interpretation. The 1996 Act covered 22 pages and went into great detail to define the extent and limits of Presidential authority under the legislation, including the exact meanings of “single item of appropriation”, ''direct spending'' and ''limited tax benefit'', as well as the means by which Congress could override his decisions.1 It is hard to believe that a one-paragraph amendment to the Constitution could achieve such precision, opening the budgetary process up to confusion, shifting interpretation and constant legal challenge. It is also unnecessary. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia argues "The short of the matter is this: Had the Line Item Veto Act authorized the president to 'decline to spend' any item of spending ... there is not the slightest doubt that authorization would have been constitutional… What the Line Item Veto Act does instead -- authorizing the president to 'cancel' an item of spending -- is technically different."2 Thus the act could simply have been worded differently in order to make it constitutional. This would not change the substance of the ability of the ‘veto’ to cut spending.  1 One hundred fourth Congress of the United States of America at the second session, “Line Item Veto Act”, 3/1/1996, The Library of Congress, accessed 6/5/11  2 Supreme Court Justice Scalia quoted in Michael Kirkland, ‘Under the U.S. Supreme Court: Like the South, will line item veto rise again?’, upi.com, 17/4/11 accessed 6/5/11  improve this  COUNTERPOINT  "I do not take these matters lightly in amending the Constitution. However, I am convinced in this case it is the only way to provide the President with the same authority that 44 Governors already have to influence spending."1It would in general be preferable to make such a change through normal legislation, but that was attempted in 1996 and found unconstitutional. Supreme Court Justice Stevens in his majority opinion for the Supreme Court argued that it was necessary for there to be an amendment to make it constitutional, "If there is to be a new procedure in which the president will play a different role in determining the text of what may "become a law", such change must come not by legislation but through the amendment procedures set forth in Article V of the Constitution."2  1 Item veto constitutional amendment hearing before the subcommittee on the constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary House of Representatives, 23/3/00, accessed 5/5/11  2 Clinton, President of the United States, et al. v. City of New York et al. No.97-1374, United States Supreme Court, 1998,accessed 5/5/11  improve this  APPENDIX

Has made little difference in the past  The precedent of the Line Item Veto Act under President Clinton should warn against a constitutional amendment. The sums saved were laughably small, $355 million, in the context of the entire federal budget, $1.7 trillion, (0.02% of spending)1 but nonetheless provoked considerable friction between elected representatives and the White House. There was unhappiness that the large majority of his cuts were of earmarks requested by Republican members, and an allegation that the Administration had threatened a Congressman with the veto of an item dear to them unless they supported an unrelated piece of legislation.  1Virginia A. McMurty, 'Enhancing the President's Authority to Eliminate Wasteful Spending and Reduce the Deficit', Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services and International Security Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Committee Hearing 15/3/2011, p.9

A President would be able to abuse the power given to them in a line-item veto authority, leveraging it into undue influence over other elements of the legislative process. By threatening to veto items dear to particular Congressmen, they could obtain assent to bills, treaties and appointments that otherwise would not be forthcoming. Such intimidation would be subtle and hard to prove, but it would erode checks on the executive and fundamentally alter the balance of power within the constitution. This means that budgets are politicised even more than is currently the case. When the line item veto was previously used by Clinton republicans such as Rick Santorum argued that every decision "has political overtones, but that's fine, it comes with the territory," Senator Ted Stevens went further "We're dealing with a raw abuse of political power by a president who doesn't have to run again".1  1 Hugliotta, Guy and Pianin, Eric, 'Line-Item Veto Tips Traditional Balance of Power', Washington Post, 24/10/97,accessed 5/5/11

We should always be cautious of altering the United States’ Constitution. Once an amendment is passed, it is extremely hard to overturn, even if its consequences are clearly negative (as the experience of constitutionally-mandated prohibition of alcohol should make clear). It would be both difficult and unnecessary. There are problems of wording and interpretation. The 1996 Act covered 22 pages and went into great detail to define the extent and limits of Presidential authority under the legislation, including the exact meanings of “single item of appropriation”, ''direct spending'' and ''limited tax benefit'', as well as the means by which Congress could override his decisions.1 It is hard to believe that a one-paragraph amendment to the Constitution could achieve such precision, opening the budgetary process up to confusion, shifting interpretation and constant legal challenge. It is also unnecessary. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia argues "The short of the matter is this: Had the Line Item Veto Act authorized the president to 'decline to spend' any item of spending ... there is not the slightest doubt that authorization would have been constitutional… What the Line Item Veto Act does instead -- authorizing the president to 'cancel' an item of spending -- is technically different."2 Thus the act could simply have been worded differently in order to make it constitutional. This would not change the substance of the ability of the ‘veto’ to cut spending.  1 One hundred fourth Congress of the United States of America at the second session, “Line Item Veto Act”, 3/1/1996, The Library of Congress, accessed 6/5/11  2 Supreme Court Justice Scalia quoted in Michael Kirkland, ‘Under the U.S. Supreme Court: Like the South, will line item veto rise again?’, upi.com, 17/4/11 accessed 6/5/11  improve this  COUNTERPOINT  "I do not take these matters lightly in amending the Constitution. However, I am convinced in this case it is the only way to provide the President with the same authority that 44 Governors already have to influence spending."1It would in general be preferable to make such a change through normal legislation, but that was attempted in 1996 and found unconstitutional. Supreme Court Justice Stevens in his majority opinion for the Supreme Court argued that it was necessary for there to be an amendment to make it constitutional, "If there is to be a new procedure in which the president will play a different role in determining the text of what may "become a law", such change must come not by legislation but through the amendment procedures set forth in Article V of the Constitution."2  1 Item veto constitutional amendment hearing before the subcommittee on the constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary House of Representatives, 23/3/00, accessed 5/5/11  2 Clinton, President of the United States, et al. v. City of New York et al. No.97-1374, United States Supreme Court, 1998,accessed 5/5/11  improve this  APPENDIX

Possessing nuclear weapons will do little to help small and poor nations set the agendas on the international stage. In the present age, economic power is far more significant in international and diplomatic discourse than is military power, particularly nuclear weapon power. States will not be able to have their grievances more rapidly addressed in the United Nations or elsewhere, since they will be unable to use nuclear weapons in an aggressive context as that would seriously threaten their own survival. Possessing nuclear weapons may at best provide some security against neighbouring states, but it creates the greater threat of accidental or unintended use or of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists and rogue states.

Nuclear weapons give states valuable agenda-setting power on the international stage  The issues discussed in international forums are largely set by nuclear powers. The permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council, for example, is composed only of nuclear powers, the same states that had nuclear weapons at the end of World War II. If all countries possess nuclear weapons, they redress the imbalance with regard to international clout, at least to the extent to which military capacity shapes states’ interactions with each other. [1] Furthermore, the current world order is grossly unfair, based on the historical anachronism of the post-World War II era. The nuclear powers, wanting to retain their position of dominance in the wake of the post-war chaos, sought to entrench their position, convincing smaller nations to sign up to non-proliferation agreements and trying to keep the nuclear club exclusive. It is only right, in terms of fairness that states not allow themselves the ability to possess certain arms while denying that right to others. Likewise, it is unfair in that it denies states, particularly those incapable of building large conventional militaries, the ability to defend themselves, relegating them to an inferior status on the world stage. [2] To finally level the international playing field and allow equal treatment to all members of the congress of nations, states must have the right to develop nuclear weapons.  [1] Fearon, James D. 1994. “Signaling Versus the Balance of Power and Interests: An Empirical Test of a Crisis Bargaining Model”. Journal of Conflict Resolution 38(2).  [2] Betts, Richard K. 1987. Nuclear blackmail and nuclear balance. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.

Public acknowledgement of the right to nuclear deterrence will benefit the public regulation of nuclear weapons generally  When nuclear deterrence is an acknowledged right of states, they will necessarily be less concealing of their capability, as the deterrent effect works only because it is visible and widely known. Knowledge of states’ nuclear capability allows greater regulation and cooperation in development of nuclear programs from developed countries with more advanced nuclear programs. [1] Developed countries can help construct and maintain the nuclear weapons of other countries, helping to guarantee the safety protocols of countries’ programs are suitably robust. This will cause a diminution in clandestine nuclear weapons programs, and will reduce the chances of weapons-grade material falling into the hands of terrorists. Thus, greater openness and freedom in the development of nuclear weapons will increase the security of nuclear stockpiles.  [1] Sagan, Scott D. 1993. The Limits of Safety: Organizations, Accidents, and Nuclear Weapons. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

All countries have a right to defend themselves with nuclear weapons, even when they lack the capacity in conventional weapons  The nation-state is the fundamental building block of the international system, and is recognized as such in all international treaties and organizations. States are recognized as having the right to defend themselves, and this right must extend to the possession of nuclear deterrence. Often states lack the capacity to defend themselves with conventional weapons. This is particularly true of poor and small states. Even wealthy, small states are susceptible to foreign attack, since their wealth cannot make up for their lack of manpower. With a nuclear deterrent, all states become equal in terms of ability to do harm to one another. [1] If a large state attempts to intimidate, or even invade a smaller neighbour, it will be unable to effectively cow it, since the small state will have the power to grievously wound, or even destroy, the would-be invader with a few well-placed nuclear missiles. [2] For example, the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008 would likely never have occurred, as Russia would have thought twice when considering the potential loss of several of its cities it would need to exchange for a small piece of Georgian territory. Clearly, nuclear weapons serve in many ways to equalize states irrespective of size, allowing them to more effectively defend themselves. Furthermore, countries will only use nuclear weapons in the vent of existential threat. This is why, for example, North Korea has not used nuclear weapons; for it, like all other states, survival is the order of the day, and using nuclear weapons aggressively would spell its certain destruction. Countries will behave rationally with regard to the use of nuclear weapons, as they have done since their invention and initial proliferation. Weapons in the hands of more people will thus not result in the greater risk of their use.  [1] Jervis, Robert. 2001. “Weapons Without Purpose? Nuclear Strategy in the Post-Cold War Era”. Foreign Affairs.  [2] Mearsheimer, John. 1993. “The Case for a Ukrainian Nuclear Deterrent”. Foreign Affairs.

While states do of course have the right to defend themselves, this does not extend to the possession and use of nuclear weapons. The destructive power of nuclear weapons cannot be contained in either space or time. They have the potential to destroy all civilization and the entire ecosystem of the planet. International humanitarian law prohibits the use of weapons that are incapable of distinguishing between civilian objects and military targets. [1] Indeed, the use of nuclear weapons could well constitute a war crime or a crime against humanity. [2] Just as biological and chemical weapons are banned by international treaty, so too the international community generally acknowledges the dangers of nuclear proliferation, which is why so many treaties are dedicated to non-proliferation. [3] It is unfortunate that nuclear weapons exist, even more so that a few countries are still seeking to develop them. It is better to fight this movement and to prevent their use or acquisition by terrorists and the like. It is also essential for States to fulfil their obligation under Article VI of the NPT ‘to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all aspects under strict and effective international control’. [4] Nuclear weapons cannot lawfully be employed or deployed and there is a legal obligation to negotiate in good faith for, and ensure, their elimination. [5]  [1] International Court of Justice. 1996. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1996, p 226.  [2] Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 1998.  [3] Shah, Anup. 2009. “Nuclear Weapons”. Global Issues.  [4] International Court of Justice. 1996. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1996, p 226.  [5] Grief, Nicholas. 2011. “Nuclear Weapons: the Legal Status of Use, Threat and Possession”. Nuclear Abolition Forum, Issue No 1.

It is very unlikely that many states will invite their neighbours to help them in the development of their weapons and in securing them, as doing so would open the risk to sabotage and would disclose potential weakness in their defences. Furthermore, terrorists will not be substantially deterred by greater openness in weapons development, as there will be more potential suppliers of weapons.

The nuclear peace theory only holds when all nuclear-armed states behave rationally. This cannot be guaranteed, as rogue states exist whose leaders may not be so rational, and whose governments may not be capable of checking the power of individual, erratic tyrants. Also, international conflicts might well be exacerbated in the event that terrorists or other dissidents acquire nuclear weapons or dirty bombs, leading to greater fear that nuclear weapons will be used. A better situation is one in which nuclear weapons are reduced and ultimately eliminated, rather than increased in number. Furthermore, MAD can break down in some cases, when weapon delivery systems are improved. For example, Pakistan’s military has developed miniaturized nuclear warheads for use against tanks and other hard targets on the Indian border, that will leave little nuclear fallout and thus be more likely to be employed in the event of a border skirmish. This development could well cause escalation in future conflict. [1] In addition to the risk of such smaller weapons is the risk of pre-emptive nuclear strikes, as some countries with nuclear weapons might lack second-strike capability. Clearly, possession of nuclear weapons will not guarantee peace, and if war does occur, it will be far more ghastly than any conventional war.  [1] The Economist. 2011. “The World’s Most Dangerous Border”. The Economist.

Nuclear weapons serve to defuse international conflicts and force compromise  Nuclear weapons create stability, described in the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Countries with nuclear weapons have no incentive to engage in open military conflict with one another; all recognize that they will suffer destruction if they choose the path of war. [1] If countries have nuclear weapons, fighting simply becomes too costly. This serves to defuse conflicts, and reduce the likelihood of the outbreak of war. For example, the conflict between India and Pakistan was defused by the acquisition of nuclear weapons by both sides. Before they obtained nuclear weapons, they fought three wars that claimed millions of lives. Relations between the two states, while still far from cordial, have never descended into open war. The defusing of the immediate tension of war, has given the chance for potential dialogue. [2] A similar dynamic has been played out a number of times in the past, and as of yet there has never been a war between two nuclear powers. When states have nuclear weapons they cannot fight, making the world a more peaceful place.  [1] Waltz, Kenneth. 1981. “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Better”. Adelphi Papers 171. London: International Institute for Strategic Studies.  [2] Nizamani, Haider K. 2000. The Roots of Rhetoric: Politics of Nuclear weapons in India and Pakistan. Westport: Praeger.

Powerful states often couch their imperial ambitions and desires to further their own aims on the world stage in the language of humanitarian intervention. [1] Such interventions are rarely due solely to the abuses, real and imagined, committed by leaders upon their people, but are driven by geopolitical considerations. This is why interventions have been staged in the Middle East, as in Iraq where there were substantial oil reserves, while not in Sudan where civil war has been rife, but which possesses little in the way of strategic or economic significance. Recognizing the right of all states to possess nuclear weapons serves to diminish the number of political power plays of strong states against weaker ones, and entrenches the concept of national self-determination as an ideal that should not be infringed by strong nations against the weak.  [1] Walsh, John. 2011. “Libya and the Hypocrisy of Humanitarian Intervention”. Daily Paul.

All parties recognize the risk of their total destruction as a result of starting a nuclear conflict. This is exactly why no full scale war has broken out between nuclear powers. Supposing that states will be unable to handle the responsibility of nuclear weapons does not change the fact that many states have them, and also that many other states are incapable of defending themselves from aggressive neighbours without a nuclear deterrent.

The threat of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of rogue states and terrorists increases as more countries possess them  There are many dangerous dictators and tyrants, many of who covet the possession of nuclear weapons not just for the purpose of defence, but also for that of intimidating their neighbours. [1] Such leaders should not possess nuclear weapons, nor should they ever be facilitated in their acquisition. For example, Iran has endeavoured for years on a clandestine nuclear weapons program that, were it recognized as a legitimate pursuit, could be increased in scale and completed with greater speed. The result of such an achievement could well destabilize the Middle East and would represent a major threat to the existence of a number of states within the region, particularly Israel. Furthermore, the risk of nuclear weapons, or at least weapons-grade material, falling into the hands of dissidents and terrorists increases substantially when there are more of them and larger numbers of countries possess them. Additionally, many countries in the developing world lack the capacity to safely secure weapons if they owned them, due to lack of technology, national instability, and government corruption. [2] Recognizing the rights of these countries to hold nuclear weapons vastly increases the risk of their loss or misuse.  [1] Slantchev, Branislav. 2005. “Military Coercion in Interstate Crises”. American Political Science Review 99(4).  [2] Sagan, Scott D. 1993. The Limits of Safety: Organizations, Accidents, and Nuclear Weapons. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

The threat of a state developing nuclear weapons could instigate pre-emptive strikes from its neighbours and rivals to prevent the acquisition of such weapons  The threat represented by potential nuclear powers will instigate pre-emptive strikes by countries fearing the future behaviour of the budding nuclear powers. Until a state develops a nuclear capacity that its rivals believe they cannot destroy in a first strike, nuclear weapons increase the risk of war. For example, Israel will have a very real incentive to attack Iran before it can complete its development of nuclear weapons, lest it become an existential threat to Israel’s survival. The United States military even considered attempting to destroy the USSR’s capability before they had second strike capability General Orvil Anderson publicly declared: “Give me the order to do it and I can break up Russia’s five A-bomb nests in a week…And when I went up to Christ—I think I could explain to Him that I had saved civilization.” [1] The development of nuclear weapons can thus destabilize regions before they are ever operational, as it is in no country’s interest that its rivals become capable of using nuclear force against it. Clearly, it is best that such states do not develop nuclear weapons in the first place so as to prevent such instability and conflict.  [1] Stevens, Austin “General Removed over War Speech,” New York Times, September 2, 1950, p. 8  improve this  COUNTERPOINT  If a country is surrounded by hostile neighbours that are likely to attempt a pre-emptive strike upon it, then nuclear weapons are all the more desirable. With nuclear weapons a country cannot be pushed around by regional bullies. It seems perfectly fair that Iran would covet the ability to resist Israeli might in the Middle East and defend itself from aggression by it or the United States.

Possessing nuclear weapons will be counter to the peaceful interests of states  Most states will not benefit at all from possessing nuclear weapons. Developing a nuclear deterrent is seen in the international community as a sign of belligerence and a warlike character. Such an image does not suit the vast majority of states who would be better suited focusing on diplomacy, trade, and economic interdependence. [1] The loss of such diplomatic and economic relations in favour of force can seriously harm the citizens of would-be nuclear powers, as has occurred to the North Koreans, who have been isolated in international relations by their government’s decision to develop nuclear weapons. If the right to nuclear weapons were recognized for all states, only those states that currently want them for strategic reasons will develop them, and they will do so more brazenly and with greater speed. These countries might try to develop them even if proliferation is outlawed, but giving them license increases the likelihood that they will succeed. Furthermore, when countries develop nuclear weapons, their neighbours may feel more vulnerable and thus be compelled by necessity to develop their own weapons. This will lead to arms races in some cases, and generally harm diplomacy.  [1] Sartori, Anne. 2005. Deterrence By Diplomacy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Humanitarian intervention becomes impossible in states that possess nuclear weapons  It has often proven to be necessary for the UN, the United States, and various international coalitions to stage humanitarian interventions into states fighting civil wars, committing genocide, or otherwise abusing the human rights of their citizens. [1] An example of such an intervention is the recent contributions by many states to the rebels in Libya. Were all countries permitted to possess nuclear weapons, such interventions would become next to impossible. Were, for example, countries to try and contribute to the Libyan rebels, they would find themselves the targets of Libyan nuclear warheads. The cost of intervention thus becomes too high for virtually any country to tolerate, in terms of both human and political costs. The world would be a worse place if tyrants were allowed to perpetrate whatever crimes they saw fit upon their people, while the international community could do nothing for fear of nuclear retaliation.  [1] Slantchev, Branislav. 2005. “Military Coercion in Interstate Crises”. American Political Science Review 99(4).

The threat represented by potential nuclear powers will instigate pre-emptive strikes by countries fearing the future behaviour of the budding nuclear powers. Until a state develops a nuclear capacity that its rivals believe they cannot destroy in a first strike, nuclear weapons increase the risk of war. For example, Israel will have a very real incentive to attack Iran before it can complete its development of nuclear weapons, lest it become an existential threat to Israel’s survival. The United States military even considered attempting to destroy the USSR’s capability before they had second strike capability General Orvil Anderson publicly declared: “Give me the order to do it and I can break up Russia’s five A-bomb nests in a week…And when I went up to Christ—I think I could explain to Him that I had saved civilization.” [1] The development of nuclear weapons can thus destabilize regions before they are ever operational, as it is in no country’s interest that its rivals become capable of using nuclear force against it. Clearly, it is best that such states do not develop nuclear weapons in the first place so as to prevent such instability and conflict.  [1] Stevens, Austin “General Removed over War Speech,” New York Times, September 2, 1950, p. 8  improve this  If a country is surrounded by hostile neighbours that are likely to attempt a pre-emptive strike upon it, then nuclear weapons are all the more desirable. With nuclear weapons a country cannot be pushed around by regional bullies. It seems perfectly fair that Iran would covet the ability to resist Israeli might in the Middle East and defend itself from aggression by it or the United States.

The right of self-defence must be exercised in accordance with international law.  There can be no right to such terribly destructive weapons; their invention is one of the great tragedies of history, giving humanity the power to destroy itself. Even during the Cold War, most people viewed nuclear weapons at best as a necessary defence during that great ideological struggle, and at worst the scourge that would end all life on Earth. Nuclear war has never taken place, though it very nearly has on several occasions, such as during the Cuban Missile Crisis. And in 1983 a NATO war game, the Able Archer exercise simulating the full release of NATO nuclear forces, was interpreted by the Soviet Union as a prelude to a massive nuclear first-strike. Oleg Gordievsky, the KGB colonel who defected to the West, has stated that during Able Archer, without realising it, the world came ‘frighteningly close’ to the edge of the nuclear abyss, ‘certainly closer than at any time since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962’. [1] Soviet forces were put on immediate alert and an escalation was only avoided when NATO staff realised what was happening and scaled down the exercise. [2] Cooler heads might not prevail in future conflicts between nuclear powers; when there are more nuclear-armed states, the risk of someone doing something foolish increases. After all, it would take only one such incident to result in the loss of millions of lives. [3] Furthermore, in recent years positive steps have finally begun between the two states with the largest nuclear arsenals, the United States and Russia, in the strategic reduction of nuclear stockpiles. These countries, until recently the greatest perpetrators of nuclear proliferation, have now made commitments toward gradual reduction of weapon numbers until a tiny fraction of the warheads currently active will be usable. [4] All countries, both with and without nuclear weapons, should adopt this lesson. They should contribute toward non-proliferation, thus making the world safer from the threat of nuclear conflict and destruction. Clearly, the focus should be on the reduction of nuclear weapons, not their increase.  [1] Andrew, Christopher and Gordievsky, Oleg. 1991. “KGB: The Inside story of its Foreign Operations from Lenin to Gorbachev”. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.  [2] Rogers, Paul. 2007. “From Evil Empire to Axis of Evil”. Oxford Research Group.  [3] Jervis, Robert. 1989. The Meaning of the Nuclear Revolution: Statecraft and the Prospect of Armageddon, Cornell Studies in Security Affairs. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.  [4] Baker, Peter. 2010. “Twists and Turns on Way to Arms Pact With Russia”. The New York Times.

It is true that most states will not develop nuclear weapons, whether they are recognized as a rightful possession of states or not. The important thing is that those states that do want nuclear weapons can have them, which will likely be only a handful. As to arms races, it is unlikely that they will occur, as the defence pacts between many states, such as NATO defend non-nuclear states without requiring them to possess such weapons themselves. [1] Furthermore, if a state feels vulnerable due to the nuclear armament of its neighbours, it should absolutely have the right to defend itself.  [1] Sagan, Scott D. 1993. The Limits of Safety: Organizations, Accidents, and Nuclear Weapons. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Government legitimacy is defined in its most limited form as the ability to provide security and stability within its jurisdiction. It seems fair to say that international institutions and states with a stake in international order, as most do, will have an interest in keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of failing and failed states, which do not retain the same legitimacy of states that can provide the baseline of security to their people. Furthermore, the openness created by the public recognition of the right to nuclear weapons will allow advanced countries to offer assistance in security and protection of nuclear stockpiles, making it less likely that nuclear weapons will fall into the hands of terrorists.

ch debate free speech and privacy health general international africa politics

It is true that the Founding Fathers did design the complexion of the Federal Government in such a way that prevents power from being concentrated in one place. This made sense in the eighteenth century when the states had most of the power. However the power and responsibilities of the federal government has expanded dramatically. The United States is no longer best off with a slow government that creates compromise. In a period where the poles of the parties are increasingly powerful government is not just slow but glacial as is shown by the crisis in 2011 over negotiations to raise the debt ceiling. [1] Single party government would be able to get its legislation passed and could actually govern rather than merely engaging in political manoeuvring to fend off the other party.  [1] MacAskill, Ewen, and Rushe, Dominic, ‘US debt crisis talks reach an impasse’, guardian.co.uk, 26 July 2011,

government house believes governance united states should be split between two

Constitutional imperative  The Constitution of the United States is designed to prevent power from being concentrated in one place, with each of the three branches (executive, legislative and judicial) placing checks and balances upon each other. As James Madison wrote “It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part.” [1]  This principle ensures that power is divided, facilitating greater dialogue between the branches and between the two houses of Congress which seeks to compromise with each other to provide the best possible expression of Congress’ will.  Such a need for compromise between the branches lends itself to having control of the two elected branches being spilt between two parties necessitating compromise as opposed to single party control of both houses, where compromise can be pre-arranged to fit the aims of the executive. Therefore, Divided Government is an extra requirement to government, ensuring that powers are not concentrated to the detriment of Americans.  [1] Madison, James, ‘The Federalist No.51 The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments’, Independent Journal, 6 February 1788,

Congress maybe a bicameral body, but it still needs to be able to work effectively and having control split between the parties is not conducive to this. Reconciliation only truly works when there is a clear and coherent ideological programme to work around when making straightening differences between laws. In an ever more polarised politics, divided government would be more likely to result in gridlock as is the case in 2011 the reconciliation.  Voters may also choose an ideological swing, rendering such a point moot. There was a clear mandate for Republican policies from 2003 to 2007 and Democratic policies from 2009. Every democracy has its losers. Voters recognise this and vote for a clear program at elections, not a watered down version of it.

Checks and balances  By having both parties in charge of different parts of the Government, there can be a greater degree of scrutiny over policy as the opposition party will force the president to justify his policies.  Under single-party rule, there is a risk of a President being able to push through his/her agenda with little oversight from a legislative branch that is largely in agreement with the policy. One need only look to authoritarian governments the world over to see that governments with too much power are likely to abuse that power.  Divided Government provides a check on the executive, preventing agendas to be pushed through, allowing for compromise to be made between the two major parties, ensuring that the best possible policy for Americans is enacted. As Benjamin Franklin wrote “It is not enough that your Legislature should be numerous; it should also be divided.” [1]  [1] Franklin, Benjamin, Writings, ‘III. On the Legislative Branch.’ 10:55 – 60, 1789,

Proposition makes the assumption that Single-Party Government prevents Checks and Balances to be enacted within the United States Government. This is simply not true as there are still institutional breaks on the executive such as the Supreme Court.  In particular the most powerful check of all is still in place, no matter how powerful a party is it will still have to face presidential elections in at most four years’ time and elections in the house within two years. A single partly government will therefore not have long to take advantage of their weak opposition.  Even in congress supermajorities - the high threshold required for a filibuster proof majority – are rare; 60 out of 100 senators which before 2009 had not happened since 1979 and previously 1937 means that congress will still be a check. [1] This along with the ideologically fractured nature of the two major parties forces the executive to compromise with Congress and the opposition to provide a policy which is the best for the electorate.  [1] Tumulty, Karen, ‘A Filibuster=Proof Majority’, Time, 28 April 2009,

Divided Government may in theory provide an impetus for co-operation but rather has been an opportunity for the divisiveness of the campaign to continue once the votes have been counted. Instead of co-operation, what is commonly seen is partisan tactics from both sides of the aisle to discredit the other side, preventing compromise and leading to gridlock. In some extreme cases a complete shutdown of the federal government has been forced due to the impasse, such as in 1995 when Clinton was unable to work with an obstinate Republican Congress. [1]  While Reagan was able to use his co-operation with House Democrats to great effect in pushing through policy and gaining re-election. [2] Clinton was re-elected by showing himself as the only one prepared to compromise compared to the dogmatic Republicans, merely continuing the Partisan mode of campaigning the Proposition hopes would end through divided government. [3]  [1] ‘1995-96 Government Shutdown’, Slaying the Dragon of Debt,   [2] Faler, Brian, ‘Reagan’s Tax Increases Have Democrats Recalling Republican Hero’, Bloomberg, 22 July 2011,   [3] Kessler, Glenn, ‘Lessons from the great government shutdown of 1995-96’, The Washington Post, 25 February 2011,

How Congress Works  Congress is a bicameral body, with its constituent parts, the House of Representatives and Senate, working largely independent of each other to create bills. However necessary for both the house and Senate to pass laws in identical form in order for it to become law. [1] A period of ‘Reconciliation’ is usually required to find a compromise between two different versions of the same bill in order to maintain and improve what is best about proposed reforms and eliminate flaws before it becomes law. [2]  This independence between the two chambers, with Reconciliation being one of the few areas where the two meet can allow for division in Congress between the two major parties. Indeed this can be seen as beneficial, as the broadest ideological range will be considered when making a policy work by reconciling two bills, making sure that centrist policy is enacted, preventing an ideological swing against the wishes of the people.  [1] Goldman et al., The Challenge of Democracy, Brief ed., Fourth ed., New York 2001, p.196  [2] United States Senate, ‘reconciliation process’,

Effect on the structure of the main political parties  Divided Government creates an imperative for compromise, encouraging the parties to work together for the best outcomes. This can help to undermine the more visceral aspects of debate, with the contest for election being left behind in order to focus on governing for the good of all Americans. As a result the greatest American achievements have come when there has been broad bipartisan consensus. [1]  There is also a Partisan consideration to seeking divided Government. The more successful two-term Presidents of recent times, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, governed with Congress partly or completely controlled by the opposition party. [2] They were able to work with the opposition to pursue the best policy, aiding their re-election hopes by pitching themselves as seeking to compromise, in line with the aspirations of voters, who on the whole prefer divided government in order to promote mature co-operation between the parties.  [1] McCarty, Nolan, ‘The Policy Consequences of Partisan Polarization in the United States’, bcep.haas.berkeley.edu/papers/McCarty.doc  [2] ‘Divided Government’ Wikipedia,  accessed 30/1/12

The reason why a febrile atmosphere has emerged in recent years is because both red and blue single-party governments have made unpopular decisions without the necessary checks being place upon it. This has made people disenchanted with the political system and made them think that it is only looks out for ideological elites, causing a backlash in the form of the Tea Party and Occupy movements. [1]  Divided Government combats this by helping to re-establish consensus between the parties over what is best for America, ensuring that policies have the consent of a majority of people, thus preventing the overtly ideological backlashes seen recently.  [1] Miles, Chris, ‘What the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street Have in Common’, policymic,

It is Single-Party Government that fails to represent the interest of Americans. By subscribing to just one view of what makes good policy, government risks simply taking into account little over half the electorate (and under half the population, giving how low voter turnout usually is in American Elections [1] ) when taking actions that effect all. By taking into account the wants and aims of both parties, the best policy that can carry the support of the broad cross-section of society will be implemented, preventing disillusionment with unrepresentative, overtly ideological government.  [1] Infoplease, ‘National Voter Turnout in Federal Elections: 1960–2010’,

Existing checks and balances  Proposition have made out so far that single-party Government has few checks upon it, allowing for overbearing ideological government. This however is not true as there a many external checks upon a single-party government that can prevent this.  Firstly, the checks and balances put in place by the Constitution means that the executive is unable to do much without the consent of Congress, meaning that the President would need the support of his/her party in the legislature to do what (s)he wants in government.  Within Congress, the governing party would still face oversight from Departmental Committees that scrutinises its work and unless the governing party can get a filibuster-proof majority of 60 Senators in the Upper House, then a degree of negotiation would be required.  Finally, the nominally non-partisan Supreme Court can strike down laws seen to violate the terms of the Constitution. Together these bodies are able to constrain single-party government to prevent it from abusing its power.

Parties as coalitions  The two political parties are ideologically broad churches, with many different factions that stand up for varying positions on the ideological spectrum. The republicans for example contain within them several different republican movements; from social conservatives or ‘the religious right’, through libertarian conservatism like much of the tea party, to fiscal conservatives who are mostly more moderate. Interweaving these three is national security conservatism and issues conservatism. [1]  Policies formed by each party are specifically designed to take into account of the different strands within the party, creating a platform that all candidates can stand on.  The policy is in effect a compromise between different wings of the party, with Primaries adding credence to a particular view.  In effect, Policies enacted under Single-Party Government have had the oversight from party members in order to be representative of the different interests within the party, thus delivering clear, coherent policies to the people that are constantly self-corrected due to the different ideological streams.  [1] Westen, Drew, ‘The Five Strands of Conservatism: Why the GOP is Unraveling’, HuffPost, 23 January 2012,

Growing partisanship  The current political climate makes divided government difficult anyway. The terms of debate in American politics is based on a perceived ‘culture war’ between liberals and conservatives over what it means to be American, something that has been exacerbated by 24-hour news and a proliferation of partisan blogging.  This makes agreements on core issues difficult to achieve and this has become apparent in recent years, with opposition to Barack Obama’s $1 trillion stimulus package helping to spawn the Tea Party movement [1] that has helped move the Republican Party to the right, making the compromise required for effective divided government unachievable. [2]  While it has been most noticeable recently the US political climate has been becoming more polarized for the last twenty-five years. This polarization helps to create gridlock and less public policy. [3] The stasis in Congress created by the dogmatic Republicans winning the House in the 2010 mid-terms shows how America’s political climate is now much more suited to Single-Party Government, allowing for much more effective decision making than divided government.  [1] Ferrara, Peter, ‘The tea Party Revolution’, The American Spectator, 15 April 2009,   [2] Rawls, Caroline, ‘Moderate Republicans Lament GOP Shift Further Right’, newsmax, 27 July 2011,   [3] McCarty, Nolan, ‘The Policy Consequences of Partisan Polarization in the United States’, bcep.haas.berkeley.edu/papers/McCarty.doc

Effect on democratic participation  Divided Government undermines the democratic will of the people as it prevents a clear policy choice from being enacted by those elected to represent them.  The compromise necessary will result in policy platforms enthusiastically chosen by voters being watered down in order for it to be even partly enacted. It is notable that the majority of legislation originates from Congress when government is divided rather than from the President. This is despite the president being the one with the nationwide mandate. [1]  Single Party Government counters this by ensuring that policies clearly presented to and chosen by the electorate are enacted without having to countenance the opinions of an opposition whose policies have just been discredited by the electorate, Thus ensuring that government is responsive to the aims and wishes of the people.  [1] Jones, Charles O., The Presidency in a Separated System, The Brookings Institution, 1994, p.222

The parties may be broad churches with many mechanisms in place to form the ‘best policy’ but that can still lead to flaws under a single-party government. It is easy for one wing to dominate a party, as has been seen recently with the dominance of the Tea Party within the Republican Party.  Primaries are a symptom of this, with the views of grass roots being expressed in results that do not conform to the views of a majority of voters.  This can lead to parties standing and governing on a platform that is unrepresentative of the aims of many Americans. Under Single-Party Government, there is little scope for moderating highly ideological government, thus underlining the need for divided government.

As noted earlier, compromises in Congress can be pre-arranged in order to satisfy the aims of the Executive if both are controlled by the same party, reducing the amount of check and balance from Congress. The party in control of Congress also form majorities on Departmental Committees making effective scrutiny conditional upon whether or not government is divided.  The last time a supermajority in the Senate was achieved along party lines was during the 95th Congress of 1977-79 when the Democrats had 61 seats. Since then no party has achieved this yet the majority party has still have been able to use the influence they have to work in conjunction with their President’s agenda. Only by having split control can there be a real check and balance.  The Supreme Court can be quite partisan with Justices reading the law in order to fit their own ideological biases. [1] A seen a number of times during the Presidency of George W. Bush, the largely Republican appointed Court made controversial decisions in favour of the President and Republicans on Abortion and Affirmative Action, undermining the idea of the Court as a check on government power.  [1] Sunstein, Cass R., ‘Judicial Partisanship Awards’, The Washington independent, 31 July 2008,

Negotiations to defuse the cause of the immediate tension, and sanctions to encourage North Korea to the negotiating table are sensible, proportionate responses to North Korean actions. It is difficult to see how sanctions can be seen as encouraging even if those sanctions are then eased when North Korea climbs down.

onal asia politics defence house would ignore north korean provocations

Providing attention simply encourages the regime  North Korea has an attention seeking cycle on the go that was used by Kim Jong Il and now seems to be used by his son Kim Jong Un. Essentially North Korea takes a provocative action (as big or small as it thinks necessary – this may be a missile launch, right up to some kind of military attack) in order to grab the world’s attention. There is then a period where there are condemnations and threats to increase sanctions that usually don’t get anywhere as they are blocked by China. The North Korean regime will then proclaim a willingness to do business and negotiate giving minor concessions on the issue of the provocation in return for aid or whatever the regime happens to want at the time. Of course whatever concession it gives is easily reversible so setting up another round. [1] This is a good deal for North Korea as it essentially gets aid in return for bad behaviour, it is therefore not surprising that the North is willing to continue engaging in bad behaviour.  [1] Hong, Adrian, ‘How to Free North Korea’, Foreign Policy, 19 December 2011,

The United States has its own interests in the North Korean question, not only does it have troops in South Korea and security guarantees to maintain with its ally but it is also concerned by nuclear proliferation. If there is a chance to get rid of North Korean nuclear weapons through negotiations, or even a peace treaty should the USA not take that when it is in the US national interest? [1]  [1] DiFilippo, Anthony, ‘Time for North Korea Peace Treaty’, The Diplomat, 11 April 2012,

South Korea can handle the situation itself  The two Koreas should be able to solve the situation themselves without recourse to all the neighbouring powers – whose interest does not seem to have spurred a solution to the frozen conflict anyway. With the Cold War over South Korea is more than capable of handling its own security. South Korea is economically far ahead of the North with its economy thirty seven times bigger. [1] Its military is also more capable than the North’s as the International Institute for Strategic Studies argues “As measured by static equipment indices, South Korea’s conventional forces would appear superior to North Korea’s. When morale, training, equipment maintenance, logistics, and reconnaissance and communications capabilities are factored in, this qualitative advantage increases.” [2] So should be able to deter aggression on its own and pull its own weight in negotiations without the need of a multilateral process. Moreover no one would argue that an invasion should be ignored however the South should be the one who responds to North Korean actions on its own.  [1] Oh Young-Jin, ‘South Korean economy 37 times bigger than NK’s’, The Korea Times, 5 January 2011,   [2] ‘The Conventional Military Balance on the Korean Peninsula’, The International Institute for Strategic Studies, 2012,

Pressure from other states acts as a force multiplier helping to show that the North has crossed a line with its actions. A lack of reaction from the Unites States, Japan, and other states around the world would show that these nations are no longer supporting the South as strongly as they were. The United States in particular has to be willing to engage with North Korea in order to present a united front with its South Korean ally.

Rounds of sanctions and engagement does not bring a solution any closer  The responses to North Korean provocations do not bring a solution any closer. North Korea has yet to sign a peace treaty with the South and the United States. It is however particularly interested in signing a treaty with the United States rather than the South. In 2010 the North Korean foreign ministry proposed that "If confidence is to be built between [North Korea] and the US, it is essential to conclude a peace treaty for terminating the state of war, a root cause of the hostile relations, to begin with". [1] The North wants a peace treaty with the US so as to drive a wedge between the USA and South Korea to prevent US support for the South in the event of war. [2] Ignoring such efforts at negotiating with the USA without South Korea in the room, and indeed all advances and provocations would force the North to accept that it has to negotiate with the south or with no one. Ignoring North Korean actions and reducing the number of allies negotiating while maintaining security guarantees prevents any chance of the North dividing the USA and South Korea.  [1] Walker, Peter, ‘North Korea calls for peace treaty with US’, guardian.co.uk, 11 January 2010,   [2] Cheon, Seongwhun, ‘Negotiating with South Korea and the I.S.: North Korea’s Strategy and Objectives’, International Journal for Korean Studies, Vol XVI No 1, Spring 2012,  p.153

So far engagement has done little to resolve the situation in North Korea either; the regime is practically immune to pressure from those states that are willing to pressurise it. There are occasional hopes that China will put more pressure on North Korea but so far these have proven to be false hopes, and indeed China is investing heavily in North Korea, for example creating a port at Rason to serve Manchuria. [1] When the Korean question is resolved it will be through the collapse of the regime, something that is as likely to come about through ignoring it as engaging with it.  [1] Bloomberg News, ‘North Korea Investment Zone Promoted to Chinese as Next Shenzhen’, Bloomberg, 13 September 2012,

North Korea is not an irrational regime, and is certainly not going to use its missiles to hit one of its neighbouring great powers. North Korea has shown time and time again that its number one objective is regime survival [1] and its provocations are one method it uses to try and ensure such survival through getting concessions and building deterrence against any possible pre-emptive attack either by the South or the United States. [2] North Korea will therefore never invite such retaliation from the surrounding great powers. All provocations it takes are just to the extent that it thinks it can get away with them. It is notable that since South Korea altered its stance from ‘controlled response’ to ‘manifold retaliation’ in the wake of the shelling of Yeonpyeong Island [3] the provocations from North Korea have been much less provocative i.e. missile testing rather than military actions.  [1] Lankov, Andrei, ‘Weep Not for Kim Jong Il’, Foreign Policy, 23 December 2011,   [2] ‘The Conventional Military Balance on the Korean Peninsula’, The International Institute for Strategic Studies, 2012,   [3] Mc Devitt, Michael, ‘Deterring North Korean Provocations’, Brookings, February 2011,

North Korea is an unresolved conflict it can’t simply be ignored  Even if the provocations are sometimes relatively small and ineffective, such as the failed missile launch in April 2012, as a conflict zone they cant simply be ignored by anyone even if they themselves are unlikely to be drawn into any potential conflict. After Rwanda the United Nations promised never again would it allow genocide; [1] how much worse would it be to ignore something that could be a spark to a conflict that could cost millions of lives when we already know there is the potential. The United Nations was created “To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace… to bring about … settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace” [2] therefore all nations should be attempting to resolve this frozen conflict that could so easily become a shooting war. Wars in Korea have in the past drawn in all the surrounding powers; the Imjin war involved China and Japan, China and Japan again fought over Korea in 1894-5, and the Korean War 1950-53 brought in both the USA and China while Russia and Japan were both involved as supply bases. Clearly the possibility of conflict is not something any power with a stake in Northeast Asia can simply ignore.  It is essential that there is a reaction to every incident just in case that is the incident that spins out of control.  [1] Power, Samantha, ‘Remember the Blood Frenzy of Rwanda’, Los Angeles Times, 4 April 2004,   [2] ‘Article 1 The Purposes of the United Nations are:’, United Nations, 26 June 1945,

Ignoring North Korea wont resolve the situation  While the great powers can try to keep on with business as usual how will this be helpful? The situation is unstable and needs to be resolved which is something that ignoring the North will not do. Commentators thought that the North would collapse as a result of the withdrawal of support that was given by the USSR in the early 1990s but it did not happen. The regime will likely be able to hang on in the status quo situation pretty much indefinitely.  There is also no reason to believe that the provocations may not become bigger should smaller provocations be ignored. While North Korea can attract the world’s attention with a missile test launch it is likely to keep doing such small and relatively harmless actions. Should such actions fail the regime may resort to bigger incidents such as the sinking of the South Korean corvette Cheonan in 2010 which resulted in 46 deaths which may have been an attempt at coercive diplomacy against a regime that was unwilling to engage in negotiations. [1]  [1] Cha, Victor, ‘The Sinking of the Cheonan’, Center for Strategic &amp; International Studies, 22 April 2010,

North Korea is an irrational regime that is a strategic threat to numerous great powers  North Korea is an irrational and irresponsible regime that can’t simply be ignored. As the United States National Security Council spokesman Tonny Vietor said in response to the 12th December 2012 missile test “This action is yet another example of North Korea's pattern of irresponsible behavior.” As a power that is willing to defy international sanctions and resolutions such as “Resolution 1874, which demands the DPRK not to conduct "any launch using ballistic missile technology" and urges it to "suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile programme"” [1] it is essential that there is engagement to prevent the regime breaking more international norms.  It is impossible simply to ignore a regime with such a propensity to engage in provocative actions when it borders you, as is the case with China and Russia, or when it has tested missiles that can potentially hit targets 6000km away, so most of Asia, including numerous US bases. [2]  [1] ‘North Korea rocket: International reaction’, BBC News, 12 December 2012,   [2] ‘North Korea’s missile programme’, BBC News, 12 December 2012,

While the United Nations is about creating peace that does not mean that it needs to keep trying the same failed formula. It is clear that multilateral discussions and sanctions have not succeeded in creating positive change in relation to North Korea. Trying new tactics does not mean giving up on the goal of international peace and security.

This ‘injustice’ needs to be weighed against the effects of the policy. If you prohibit celebrities from participating in party-political campaigns, commit an injustice against the celebrities.  You violate the right to self-expression of the celebrity. Everyone in a free society has the right to express their political views; indeed, this is something we hold to be a hallmark of such freedom. Celebrities should be no different, and should hold those same rights. Further, they cannot be said to have consented into such a loss of rights (given that not all chose the level of fame and power they find themselves with).  Further, it is a bit melodramatic to suggest that people with influence ‘effectively have more votes’. By this metric, we would have to also prohibit the persuasive from participating in political campaigns. People have differences in their abilities to persuade others to follow their lead, and this is something that we simply have to take measures to ensure does not disproportionately impact upon any given party.

edia politics voting house believes film stars music stars and other popular

This is an unjust use of unelected power  Politicians want endorsements because they know it will bring votes; it is estimated that Oprah’s endorsement of Obama in the Democratic Primary of 2008 brought an additional 1 million votes to Obama. [1] It is unjust for celebs to use their influence in this way. Celebrities have an ability to influence the political sphere that bears no necessary relationship with their knowledge of the subjects concerned, or qualifications otherwise to do so.  Consequently, they represent an unelected, unaccountable pressure on the democratic system: they have been given power and influence, with no mechanism of checking that power, or way to prevent them from misleading the public (unlike, for example, political journalists, news channels and other sources of political information).  This is principally unjust: the optimum democratic system is the one that holds the closest to the principle of “one person, one vote”, and attempts to ensure that those votes are as informed as possible. Celebrity involvement in politics is a hindrance to that, effectively handing the famous more votes than is their due.  [1] Garthwaite, Craig, and Moore, Timothy J., ‘Can Celebrity Endorsements Affect Political Outcomes? Evidence from the 2008 US Democratic Presidential Primary’, Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 2012,

This is not necessarily the case: there remains a diverse assortment of news sources, and with the explosion in size and quality of the blogosphere, people are increasingly accessing information from a wide range of sources. Thus it is decreasingly the case that space in the news can be conceived of as limited in this way.  Further, providers of political analysis might find it easier to sell papers/shows to a wider audience when they can use a celebrity image or quote as well, resulting in a more, not less, informed population.

Personality politics is harmful to the democratic process  Celebrity involvement in the political process may increase the extent to which politicians need to court media attention in order to promote their policies.  Many people get their political information from ‘soft-news’ outlets [1] , i.e. entertainment channels and magazines that often focus on ‘celebrity gossip’. Shows such as Oprah Winfrey get millions of viewers many of whom don’t get news through other mediums and although soft news is the preferred format for a minority (10.2%) for a great many more it is in their top three. [2] The involvement of celebrities in the political sphere increases the power of “soft-news” over the political process: due to the wide reach of “soft-news” it is not possible to counter its effects using narrow-reach opinion pieces and policy analysis. Rather, politicians are forced either to package their ideas in a way acceptable to these magazines and talk shows (i.e. reduce the analysis; ‘dumb down’), for example Obama in 2009 became the first sitting president to appear on a late night comedy show; Tonight Show with Jay Leno, [3] or to counter attack by seeking celebrity endorsement of their own.  This makes political debate increasingly shallow, and voters’ decisions correspondingly less well-informed. The harmful impacts upon our democratic process are two-fold: first, voters being less informed means they are less likely to truly be voting in a way that is aligned with their best interests or political beliefs; second, the debate is skewed towards ideas that can be conveyed in short ‘sound-bites’ and away from ideas that require more complicated discussion.  [1] Drezner, Daniel W., ‘Foreign Policy Goes Glam’, The National Interest, Nov./Dec. 2007,   [2] Prior, Markus, ‘Any Good News in Soft News? The Impact of Soft News Preferences on Political Knowledge’, Political Communication, Vol. 20, 2003, pp.149-171, p.151   [3] Baum, Matthew A., and Jamison, Angela, ‘Soft News and the four Oprah effects’, November 2011,

The accusation of ‘dumbing down’ is misguided: politicians will increasingly be able to reach a wider voter base if they are willing to repackage their ideas and policies, but this does not require ‘dumbing down’, simply a change in focus of the explanation. So not only is dumbing down not necessary, but politicians’ ideas are reaching more voters!  For example, the ‘war on women,’ has gained considerable attention in the media, and this has given a platform for female celebrities like Eva Longoria, to participate in events like the Democratic National Convention [1] . Eva Longoria and politicians who feel that women are being unfair attacked in regards to their body are now having these issues highlighted. Having celebrities involved in political campaigns like Eva Longoria does not mean the campaign was ‘dumbed down’ it means that it was accessible to a larger audience because they understood what she was talking about. Surely, that cannot be a bad thing.  It should be remembered that those who consume this soft news will be much better informed and be consistent in voting than those who consume no news at all. [2] As a result they will be more likely to vote and soft news will give them some awareness of why they are voting even if a celebrity endorsement has some baring on that vote.  [1] ‘Eva Longoria Speech Draws Cheers At Democratic National Convention’, Huffington Post, 6 September 2012,   [2] Baum, Matthew A., and Jamison, Angela, ‘ The Oprah Effect: How soft news helps inattentive citizens to vote consistently’, The Journal of Politics, Vol.68, No.4, November 2006, pp.946-959, p.955,

People will have less information about politicians’ manifestos and ideas.  Celebrity endorsement distracts those who normally provide information to voters. Newspapers, blogs and other online media all have limited space, and, because celebrities sell, will use that space showing who is supporting whom, rather than covering debate about a politician’s policies and ideas.  Though the presence of celebrities may actually give the masses more avenue to relate to electoral processes, the fact still stands that in status quo people are more interested in the activities of their favorite celebrities which will thus blot out the candidates themselves. When voters see celebrity endorsements they are no longer thinking about how these future politicians can make an impact on their lives. In some cases the celebrity may help show the platform of policies the candidate is standing on but most of the time they are simply taking airtime from more in depth analysis. What is worse when wooing celebrities becomes important for politicians the politicians themselves have less time to formulate and articulate their policies.  This is detrimental to the democratic process. People having less information than they would otherwise impairs their ability to make an informed choice about how they would like to vote. A prohibition on celebrity interference in political debate would remove this obscuring effect.  All of the above adds to the depoliticisation of politics. If the celebrity endorsement continues to thrive, younger generations will disengage with the important political issues at hand. Instead of learning about the fundamental issues surrounding their country, they will be exposed to party tactics that are of no use to their political development.

This may well be a side-benefit of celebrity involvement in politics, however, the effect celebrities have on the promotion of minority interests is not decreased by their prohibition from party-politics. They can still engage in general advocacy and campaigning on specific issues important to them without endorsing parties or candidates.  The policy-vote relationship that celebrities have with voters works in the opposite direction than for politicians: where politicians must choose the policies they believe will attract voters, celebrities first attract voters and then advocate for particular policies. This adds to the danger of celebrity participation; a celebrity may be endorsing a particular candidate because of that candidate’s support on that issue. Fans of the celebrity who may be influenced by the endorsement may have no interest or even be opposed to the issue for which the celebrity is endorsing the candidate. This would make celebrity endorsements as a result of minority issues positively counterproductive.

There is no particular reason why someone who is interested in a particular politician-endorsing celebrity would choose to do political research. Given, in particular, the segregation of news, where magazines and blogs tend to specialise (on, say, politics or celebrity life) it is hard to see why crossover would occur.  The internet, whilst it makes information more accessible, accentuates this problem: where you can skip from news item to news item so easily, you are less likely to read an in-depth piece of political analysis by your favourite celebrity if you are not, in the first place, interested in politics.  Further, it is worth considering a balance of harms here: on the one hand you have a smaller, but better informed voter base (those interested in politics without celebrities), and on the other hand a larger but less well-informed voter base (assuming not all the people who see a celebrity endorsement and go on to vote do any research first). That former scenario, without the uninformed voters, is the most likely to lead to the best political outcome.

Celebrity involvement counters financial power to the benefit of the disenfranchised  Parties advocating policies that benefit the most financially powerful (big business etc.) are able to make large revenues from donations from wealthy business personalities involved in those industries.  Film and music stars tend towards the ‘liberal’ or ‘left’ wing of politics [1] . Consequently, in being prevented from exerting non-financial power (through endorsement) the different political parties are not equally affected: rather, you disproportionately punish the liberal parties. This is significant, given the necessity of a counter-balance to the power of big business (through donations – for example in the USA 90% of donations from mining and the automotive industry goes to the republicans [2] ) over our political system (which is not being similarly banned).  [1] Meyer, D., Gamson, J. ‘The Challenge of Cultural Elites: Celebrities and Social Movements’, Sociological Inquiry. Vol.65 No.2, 1995, pp.181-206  [2] Duffy, Robert J., ‘Business, Elections, and the Environment’, in Michael E. Kraft and Sheldon Kamieniecki, Business and Environmental Policy, 2007, pp.61-90, p.74,

Celebrity involvement can highlight minority interests  There exists a problem with regards to advocacy for minority issues within mainstream political movements. This motion would exacerbate that problem.  Voters tend to base their decisions on key issues (things like education, the state of the economy, healthcare policy etc.). Whilst they may care about more marginal issues (e.g. gay rights, religious freedoms, environmental issues), they are often unwilling to sacrifice something they think has a greater impact on them for something that has a lesser impact.  Minority issues suffer particularly here: by their very nature, there are fewer people who feel directly affected than there are people who feel indirectly affected or indifferent. Consequently, there are never a great enough proportion of votes that could be gained by a political party concentrating on these particular issues in a way which might be detrimental. See, for example, the public reaction in the UK to Cameron’s position on gay marriage: whilst most people feel that gay marriage should be allowed [1] , Cameron has not received a political boost as a result of this decision, but rather, has faced hostility from those who believe it is a “distraction” [2] , where they would rather he focused on issues like the economic crisis.  [1] ‘Same-sex marriage in the United Kingdom’, Wikipedia, accessed 10 September 2012,   [2] Telegraph editor, ‘Gay marriage: A pointless distraction’, The Telegraph, 26 July 2012,

Celebrity involvement can act as a ‘gateway’ to get more people engaged in politics  Celebrity endorsement of a candidate does more than make people vote, drone-like, for the candidate endorsed by their favourite celebrity. Rather, it encourages people who might not otherwise have thought politics was interesting to pay attention to it. Especially in an age of easily accessible information, people can easily access sufficient information about political personalities and policies to cast a meaningful vote.  As a consequence, you have more potential voters, from a wider cross-section of society, note the key role played by personalities like will.i.am in engaging young people during the Obama campaign. Rock the Vote with a large amount of celebrity support registered 2.6million voters in 2008 and it and other celebrity campaigns had been prominent in 2004 as well which was probably a key factor in 2million more 18-29 year olds voting in 2008 compared to 2004 or 6.5million over 2000. [1]  Some of the people thus enthused may go on further with their interest in the political system, some may simply start listening to news shows or reading blogs that they would otherwise have shunned. Either way, celebrity involvement has a beneficial impact on our political system that it would be foolish to discard: the larger and more diverse the voter base, the more politicians are held to account and the more likely we are to reach the best political outcomes.  [1] Brubaker, Jennifer, ‘It doesn’t affect my vote: Third-person effects of Celebrity Endorsements on College Voters in the 2004 and 2008 Presidential Elections’, American Communication Journal, Vol.13 Issue 2, Summer 2011, p.8.

If the celebrity involvement can be proven to be otherwise harmful or unjust then it is immaterial that it impacts one side more than another: if it really does advance the cause of some more than others, if we can prove this is an unfair and therefore illegitimate advantage, it should be stopped.  Similarly, we place limits on the relationship between big businesses and politicians, with laws that attempt to prevent corruption and undue influence.

This has simply not been the case; since the launch of the Euro in 2002, London has consolidated her position as the financial centre of Europe. There is no need for Britain to join the Euro, she can profit from the financial influence London exercises while her mainland European counterparts use the single currency. As explained by Anthony Browne in The Euro: Should Britain join?, “at the launch of the Euro…that what were effectively regional financial centres –such as Paris- lost any reason for their existence and saw all European business drain away to Europe’s real financial centre, London.”1 Moreover, Britain is not wholly reliant on her European counterparts for business; “More people work in financial services in London than live in Frankfurt, its only likely rival. We have the English language and a time zone that means we can deal with New York and Tokyo in the working day.”1 If the British economy does not even need mainland Europe for business, even less it needs the single currency.  1Browne, A., 2001, "The Euro: Should Britain Join". page 93

conomic policy economy general international europe politics government house

Britain may not like losing the Queen's head on banknotes but London will be at a huge economic disadvantage if Britain stays out.  London will further lose its position as Europe’s financial centre, and the financial influence this brings with it. Britain’s staying out of the Euro has already depleted London’s status as the European financial centre. As explained by Anthony Browne in The Euro: Should Britain join?, “The European Central Bank – the second most powerful in the world – had a natural home in London, but ended up in Frankfurt because of our indecision over the Euro.”1 Germany used this to her advantage, for it “reinvigorated Germany’s bid to ensure that Frankfurt becomes Europe’s financial centre, with a massive office-building programme to rival London’s Docklands.”1Germany seizing London’s sphere of influence will only increase if Britain stays out of the Euro. Moreover, if Britain’s indecision over the Euro continues, “it would lead to a serious rethink by foreign owners of many of the City’s financial institutions about where their core activities should be located.”1 If Britain does not join the Euro, her economic activity both at home and between fellow Member States will be badly affected.  1Browne, A., 2001, "The Euro: Should Britain Join?", page 92

No; cheaper goods come at a high monetary price and a high price of a chaotic turnaround. Even before the Euro has taken effect, it is going to be costly; "Converting to the Euro will also cost businesses, and shops in particular, billions of pounds, and that is bound to be passed on to their customers."1 Once it fully takes effect, "The Euro will also lead to higher inflation and more red tape, encumbering businesses and their customers with even higher costs". 1 And so the initial monetary costs and inconvenience are not going to be short lived, but will in fact spread. Any silver lining of cheaper goods prices eventually is not going to be worth the upheaval of complications and inflation its creation entails. 1 The Euro: Should Britain join?, Anthony Browne, p. 102

Britain will lose economically if she stays out of the Euro over the long term.  Joining the European single currency (the Euro) may appear unfavourable to Britain, but the negative effect of not joining would be more unfavourable. As explained by Anthony Browne in The Euro: Should Britain join?, "Euroland businesses are now…able to raise money for investment across the entire single currency zone, making it easier and cheaper. British companies, on the other hand, are still largely constrained to drumming up money from within Britain if they want to expand.”1Eurozone businesses find it easy to raise money, for they are spared currency conversion charges. The carmaker Nissan has previously told the British government that eliminating exchange rate risk by siting production in the same currency zone as its sales market will be its preferred option’2.  1Browne, A., "The Euro: Should Britain Join?", Page 89  2Morgan, O. "Nissan tells Blair 'join Euro'", 27 May 2011, The Guardian

Britain does not have to become a part of the Euro to benefit from the EU economically. Britain has already struck the right balance between EU involvement and managing her own economy. "We are already part of the single market, and getting rid of the barriers put up by having separate currencies will make little difference. It was the removal of all the other barriers– such as tariffs – that mattered far more. The economies of scale are already here – from the EU’s almost 300 million consumers – having an effect.”1.Accepting the Euro could very well upset this balance with very negative effects; “Staying out, we have the advantage of a more flexible economy, more adaptable labour market, and lower taxes.” Therefore, it is more advantageous for Britain to keep the pound whilst maintaining EU membership.  1Browne, A., 2001, "The Euro: Should Britain Join", Page 91

This theory does not transfer to practice successfully. Questions of lifestyle (such as holidays) under the Euro cannot be treated in isolation. Converting to the Euro will have a series of knock –on effects which are all interconnected, affecting and effected by one another. One of these is the inevitability of higher inflation. With increased inflation, there will be increased unemployment; There will be even more British jobless who cannot afford to go on holiday. Moreover, as explained by Anthony Browne in The Euro: Should Britain join?, “These savings are a mere fraction of the total cost of going on holiday.”1  1Browne, A., 2001, "The Euro: Should Britain Join?", page 103

Amid all the Euroscepticism (sic) and xenophobic scaremongering so typical of the British tabloids, Britain forgets the advantage of cheaper goods would come with her entry into the European single currency.  There will be initial conversion costs and inflation, but this will be short lived. If Britain accepts the Euro, “There will be far more powerful forces – price transparency and economies of scale in a massive single market – that will continuously push the price of British goods down to European levels [resulting in] massive savings.”1. The end of cheaper goods justifies the means of attaining them.  1Browne, A., 2001, "The Euro: Should Britain Join", Page 91

Joining the Euro would reduce the cost of travel in Europe.  Before the arrival of the single currency, holiday makers would spend much money on preparing for the trip, before they had even bought a single souvenir or postcard; “travellers touring this fragmented continent could spend large amounts of their money simply changing it from one currency to another.”1 The loss incurred by currency conversion would be eliminated and accommodation abroad will also be cheaper and easier to book; “Joining the Euro will also make it cheaper to send money around Europe. Sending money to book a holiday cottage in another country with another currency can cost £40. Within Euroland, it would cost less than one Euro - much less than one pound.”2  1Browne, A., 2001, "The Euro: Should Britain Join". page 102  2Browne, A., 2001, "The Euro: Should Britain Join". page 103

The Queen's head on British money will not be entirely lost. This nostalgia is simply ridiculous; the head of Queen Elizabeth II has only appeared on English banknotes "since 1960, having been made impossible by the nationalisation of the Bank of England in 1946."1 (Moreover, Scotland and Northern Ireland have never had the reigning monarch's head on their banknotes; and so no change will incur. The Queen's head will be lost from banknotes but "By contrast, we have had the monarch's head on our coins since the Middle Ages, and that will continue. Countries in Euroland can put a symbol- such as their monarch- on one side of each coin."1 The attitude expressed alongside is irrational fear of change. 1 Anthony Browne, The Euro: Should Britain join? Page 83.

No; Unemployment will rise if Britain stays out of the single currency. Britain's indecision over joining the single currency has already discouraged foreign investors from doing business with her, and this will only worsen if she stays out, thus reducing the number of jobs there. Britain has to be in the single currency to retain a presence in the European business scene if she is to prosper and make any profit at all. As explained by Anthony Browne in The Euro: Should Britain join?; "Without access to the single currency zone, foreign investors who are here will move out, closing factories and businesses; new ones will set up in Euroland in preference to the UK." London's position as the European financial centre has already been depleted by Frankfurt and this situation will only deteriorate if Britain stays out of the Euro. The pound is no longer a source of hope for Britain. 1 Anthony Browne, The Euro: Should Britain join? Page 52

In joining the single currency, Britain would have to surrender her sovereignty and allow Brussels (where the EU is based) to dictate her financial affairs.  If she accepted the Euro as her currency, Britain would have to hand the control she has over her economy over to Brussels. EU Committees would dictate how she may spend and tax. It is too dangerous for any country to have her economic affairs dictated by another country. This is an issue even Europhiles (those who support the EU) are sceptical about. "Joining the euro would involve a major surrendering of our sovereignty, severely hindering our ability to run the economy as we see fit. We would lose control over interest rates, and the ability to manage the economy through taxing and spending. Instead, it would be run by European committees… Even British politician Kenneth Clarke, nicknamed “Europe’s biggest friend” and one of the leading campaigners for the euro, admits that Britain’s ability to tax is central to its democracy.”1  1Browne, A., 2001, "The Euro: Should Britain Join?", page 70

Losing the Queen's head on banknotes is NOT a minor issue, it symbolises Britain losing her identity and control over her own economy.  This must not be dismissed as petty nostalgia, desire for outdated British tradition and fear of change. The fact that Britain does not want to lose the national symbol of her Queen on the banknotes is surely a sign that the British want to hold on to their own identity and keep control of their own economy. As explained by Alan Clark, "The European Commission Press Office chose that moment to release facsimiles of the new euro banknotes in their various denominations. The unfamiliar, but so obviously foreign, appearance made many people uneasy. Polls showed that the electorate, for most of the time indifferent to European squabbling, whose technicalities they could not be bothered to master, disliked the removal of their Sovereign's head from the currency of the realm. The sceptics took fresh heart and the likelihood of the dispute fading …became still more remote.”1 This highlights the depth and strength of anti-Euro sentiment in the British psyche. It is surely unfair for both Britain and those fellow EU Member states that ARE under the Euro to enter the single currency while not entirely convinced by it.  1Alan Clarke, The Tories: Conservatives and the Nation State 1922-1997, page 435-6.

For Britain to join the single currency is simply unthinkable; jobs will be lost  The EU creates economic conditions that threaten jobs. As explained by Anthony Browne in The Euro: Should Britain join?, "Joining the Euro would damage the British economy with 'one size fits all' interest rates, and so destroy jobs."1 This is not merely a product of anti-EU propaganda created by the British tabloid press; The evidence speaks for itself; "In 2000, (Euro was launched 1st January, 1999) unemployment in Euroland averaged about 10 per cent, compared to under 6 per cent in the UK" Britain must also learn from the mistakes of history; "Past experience has already shown us that locking ourselves into inappropriate interest rates destroys jobs. After we joined the Exchange Rate Mechanism, 100,000 businesses went bankrupt and unemployment doubled before we were finally forced out in 1992." Repetition of this is to be avoided at all costs and by Britain staying out of the Euro.  1Browne, A., 2001, "The Euro: Should Britain Join?"

These restraints exist to ensure that all countries contribute to the European Community. Surprisingly, Britain's sovereignty will actually increase by joining the Euro. As explained by Anthony Browne in The Euro: Should Britain join?, "When it comes to interest rates, we would in some ways get more sovereignty. Being represented in the ECB (European Central Bank) would give us more influence over the business cycle, because we would be there as part of the decision-making process, not just having to accept decisions made by others that would have a profound effect on us."1 Joining the single currency and by attachment the ECB would help Britain to better oversee and predetermine her economic activity, thereby improving the handle she has on her finances.  1Browne, A., 2001, "The Euro: Should Britain Join?"

conomic policy eurozone crisis finance international europe politics government

This idea is nonsense. Political parties do try and capture the ‘disadvantaged groups’ vote, specifically in order to convince them that voting is in their best interest. As opposed to compulsory voting, a voluntary system in fact encourages political parties to target policies at the disadvantaged in order to convince them to get out and vote , rather than accept that the disadvantaged will simply vote for the opposition. The Labour Party shifted to the right in the UK specifically because no-one was voting for it; the majority of the population, from across the social spectrum, no longer believed in its socialist agenda and it altered its policies to be more in line with the majority of the population. Low turnout is best cured by more education, for example, civics classes could be introduced at school. In addition, the inclusion of these ‘less-interested’ voters will increase the influence of spin as presentation becomes more important. It will further trivialise politics and bury the issues under a pile of hype. Another alternative could be reforming the voting system of the individual countries to better accommodate its population.

y political philosophy politics government voting house would make voting

Compulsory voting broadens representation of disadvantaged groups  Voter apathy is highest among the poorest and most excluded sectors of society. As the Institute for Public Policy Research highlight, “the higher the income a citizen enjoys, and the higher the educational qualifications attained, the more likely it is that he or she will turn out to vote”. Since they do not vote, the political parties do not create policies for their needs, which leads to a vicious circle of increasing isolation. By making the most disenfranchised vote the major political parties are forced to take notice of them and this would reduce political polarisation 1. An example of this is in the UK where the Labour party abandoned its core supporters to pursue ‘middle England’. Political parties are drawn towards those groups to whom favourable policies will be rewarded in the form of vote. Compulsory voting ensures that all stakeholders in society are proportionally considered in governmental policy.  1 William Galston, 'Mandatory Voting Would Loosen Partisan Gridlock' US News and World Report, July 8th 2010

Forcing the population to vote will not stop people expressing their wish not to vote. Tucker notes that in Australia 5% of eligible voters did not caste a valid vote. Most countries that use compulsory voting give voters a legal opportunity to abstain. For example, in Australia valid explanations might include being overseas, trying to vote but failing for some reason, or belonging to a religious order which prohibits voting ( Electoral Commission ). Moreover people who vehemently refuse to vote find a way to do so such as paying the fine straight away (for those who can afford to) or attending the polling station but submitting a blank ballot. McAllister et al (1992)1 conclude that compulsory voting has led to a higher level of non-votes because the only legal method of political protest is to spoil the ballot paper or leave it blank deliberately 2. However, in non-compulsory jurisdictions voters so motivated would boycott the ballot.  Furthermore, forcing people to vote will lead to more meaningless votes. People who are forced to vote against their will won’t make a proper considered decision. At best they will vote randomly which disrupts the proper course of voting. Compared to countries that have no compulsory voting laws, in countries where such laws exist there is an increase in donkey votes (where voters simply chose the candidate at the top of the ballot), random votes, "just for the fun of it" votes, protest votes and abstentions. This does not contribute to improved legitimacy of the government. It merely allows the government to say 'because there is a 100% turnout, this government is 100% legitimate', which is clearly not the case. There is a reason why some people are less politically active. They neither know nor care about politics. How can their forced inputadd legitimacy to the mix?  And this is before issues such as controversy about the aged in nursing homes being 'asissted' with their votes.  1. Mackerrassa and McAllister. "Compulsory voting, party stability and electoral advantage in Australia."  2. Laverdea 1991

It will reduce the power of special interest groups  A benefit of compulsory voting is that it makes it more difficult for special interest groups to vote themselves into power. Under a non-compulsory voting system, if fewer people vote then it is easier for smaller sectional interests and lobby groups to control the outcome of the political process. A notable example would be the disproportionate influence of agriculture in policy making as seen in both European politics and well as American with enormous amounts of subsidies for farmers who represent a minute percentage of the population. 1 2  The outcome of the election therefore reflects less the will of the people (Who do I want to lead the country?) but instead reflects who was logistically more organized and more able to convince people to take time out of their day to cast a vote (Do I even want to vote today?).  1 Ira M. Sheskin and Arnold Dashefsky, "Jewish Population of the United States, 2006," in the American Jewish Year Book 2006, Volume 106, David Singer and Lawrence Grossman, Editors. NY: American Jewish Committee, 2006. 2: Mark Weber, Feb. 2009, 'A Straight Look at the Jewish Lobby', Institute for Historical Review (Accessed 10/06/2011)

Voting is a civic duty  Other civic duties also exist “which are recognised as necessary in order to live in a better, more cohesive, stable society” 1 like paying taxes, attending school, obeying road rules and, in some countries, military conscription and jury duty. All of these obligatory activities require far more time and effort than voting does, thus compulsory voting can be seen as constituting a much smaller intrusion of freedom than any of these other activities.  The right to vote in a democracy has been fought for throughout modern history . In the last century alone the soldiers of numerous wars and the suffragettes of many countries fought and died for enfranchisement. It is our duty to respect their sacrifice by voting.  1. Liberal Democrat Voice , 2006

A democracy is based on the principle of respecting basic human rights, such as free choice. This principle is directly violated by compulsory voting. With many civil rights there is a choice to choose to engage in the activity or not. Voting has carries that option, citizens of a democracy have the choice to either vote or not, despite being encouraged to vote. It does not matter why a person chooses to vote or not, it is the fact of principle that they have the right to choose. Compulsory voting goes against such ideas of the freedom of choice, and on that grounds should not be compulsory.  The proposition speaks of those who died for the right to vote, and respecting their sacrifice by voting. Unfortunately the proposition misconstrued the point of their sacrifice- to give us the freedom of choice. That right of choice must be upheld, as it is the cornerstone of a democratic society. Compulsory voting would be infringing upon that.

The power of lobbying groups is a benefit to politics at large. Their ability to publicize issues that are important to specific interest groups are invaluable to the political process. Similarly, they are able to propel and sustain wider interest in the political agenda, ensuring oversight over public policy and recommending necessary changes. To reduce their power in favour of ‘less-interested’ voters will increase the influence of spin as presentation, not substance, becomes more important. It will further trivialise politics and bury the issues under a pile of hype. Furthermore, by removing incentives for political parties to mobilise their support, compulsory voting favours established parties over minor parties and independents, whose supporters tend to be more inherently motivated.

That it has been implemented successfully in Australia does not mean that compulsory voting will work everywhere. Australia has a small population so the system does not have to be as bureaucratic as it would be in a much bigger nation. Moreover Australia has a law abiding culture and fast and efficient courts so most people will vote even if they object to it being compulsory. In a country with either a slower court system or a population that is less inclined to follow the law the number of cases of failing to vote facing the court could be overwhelming.

It will cause more people to become interested in politics  Compulsory voting increases the number of people who cast their vote 1. People who know they will have to vote will take politics more seriously and start to take a more active role. Compulsory voting will potentially encourage voters to research the candidates' political positions more thoroughly. This may force candidates to be more open and transparent about their positions on many complex and controversial issues. Citizens will be willing to inform themselves even about unpopular policies and burning issues that need to be tackled. Better-informed voters will, therefore, oppose a plan that is unrealistic or would present an unnecessary budget-drain. This means that such a system could produce better political decisions that are not contradicting each other, quite upon the contrary.  1 Peter Tucker, The median Australian voter and the values that influence their vote choice presented by the author at the 3rd European Consortium for Political Research Conference in Budapest, September 10, 2005.

Compulsory voting has been implemented successfully.  Australia is one of the most notable examples of compulsory voting and shows how it can be implemented. In Australia Compulsory voting was introduced at federal elections in 1924 1. Every Australian citizen who is over eighteen has to vote unless they have a ‘valid and sufficient reason for failing to vote’ which is decided by the electoral commission whether a reason is sufficient 2. If the elector who fails to vote does not provide such a reason they pay a penalty and if (s)he does not pay then the matter is dealt with in court 3. There is little reason to believe that this would be more difficult to implement in any other country. 1 Evans, Tim, 'Compulsory voting in Australia', Australian Electoral Commission, (January 2006), (accessed 4/8/11) 2 Harrison, Brianna, and Lynch, Philip. Votes for the Homeless, (March 2003), (accessed 4/8/11) 3 Voter Turnout for Referendums and Elections 1901 , Australian Electoral Commission, 2010

The benefits obtained from compulsory voting cannot be gained from any of the strategies mentioned by the opposition. Compulsory voting can enhance a sense of community, as everyone is in it together. This can be especially helpful in bringing new people in to community life. It also forces the silent majority to think about elections which safeguards from extremism.

As noted elsewhere, forced attendance would lead to increased political awareness, and an abstention option would offer a 'none of the above'/'I don't mind or care' choice instead of people spoiling the ballot.  Because the number of voters would increase, politicians would have to be active in engaging with the public and therefore become "more deserving of the public's trust".  Citizenship classes don't negate the need for compulsory voting but should be used in conjunction to compulsory voting.  If people are genuinely not interested in voting or politics, educating them in school would not change that fact. The education is likely to vary from school to school and is only likely to have an impact if the student likes the subject. Compulsory voting would force those parts of the population who are usually disinterested to voice some form of opinion- created a more balanced democracy.  Besides, who pays for the education? Taxpayers. Who often don't want to vote.

Policing and financing the system is unmanageable  If a large proportion of the population decided not to vote it would be impossible to make every non-voter pay the fine. For example, if just 10% of the UK voters failed to do so the government would have to chase up about £4 million in fines. Even if they sent demand letters to all these people, they could not take all those who refused to pay to court. Ironically, this measure hurts most those who the proposition are trying to enfranchise because they are least able to pay.  The cost of policing this system will impact upon tax payers. The Government will need to expand and more civil servants positions will be needed to create, administer and enforce the processes. It is especially prudent that we look closely at the impact it would have financially on individual countries. For example, the US has more than ten times the voting population of Australia “the financial cost for the two nations is vastly different. Since it costs the Australian government roughly five dollars for every ballot they evaluate, the greater number of voters in America would exponentially increase bureaucratic costs".1  1 Iowaprodigal

There are alternatives that tackle the real causes of voter disengagement  Compulsory voting hides the problem which is causing people to be disengaged from politics; it allows politicians to ignore measures that can tackle the true causes of political disengagement.  States instead should seek on strategies that will eliminate barriers to voting along with reducing the costs of turnout for its citizens, weekend voting, making election days a holiday, simple registration procedures, reforms such as to the party finance rules to widen the playing field, and the creation of a centralized, professional bureaucracy concerned with all aspects of election administration. In the UK, for example, adopting a more proportional system will allow for a political spectrum rather than the three major parties that currently dominate.

Persuasion is more effective than coercion  Forcing people into voting when they are disengaged from the politic process will exacerbate this problem; no one likes doing something simply because they have to. The election results from compulsory voting may not be a representative view of society, than the current systems. Just because people are required to vote does not mean they become more politically engaged than they were before.  Rather than forcing people to vote, more should be done to engage the public in political life. Government transparency should be further encouraged as well as evaluating to what extent the current voting system causes low voter turnout.  Low turnout is best cured by more education. Instead of trying to engage people by force, how about introducing political education in schools and encouraging political conversation. How about educating the public on how politics affects them?  Citizenship classes should be taught to students who are approaching voting age, as it would teach the importance of the electoral process, and the history of the suffragette movement, the reform bills of the 19th century and the responsibilities of living in a democracy.  The government should be trying to engage people by other means, not compulsory voting. Compulsory voting may improve low turnout but will not affect the root problem- what people actually think about politics. In essence it is just relieving the side effects without curing the disease.

Because mandatory voting means that no large campaign funds are needed to goad voters to the polls, the role of money in politics will decrease. Compulsory voting will reduce spending such as campaign spending on voter turnout. It can also lead to a reduction in the incentive for negative advertising “as there is little to be gained from tactics aimed purely at persuading opposition voters to stay at home” 1.  States that sanction fines usually sanction a very low fine, which even the poorest members can afford. Besides, government like the British seem to manage speeding fines just fine, there is no reason to think they wouldn’t be able to manage non-voting fines. However, other measures such as disenfranchisement (Belgium) and denial of public services (Peru, Greece) can be used, which don’t incur a cost for the individual.  1 Electoral Reform Society

Providing money to developing countries to provide for the migrants they take in does not ensure that the money will be spent on those who it is meant to be spent on. In some developing countries aid is badly spent or is badly affected by corruption; in 2012 the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon stated “Last year, corruption prevented 30 per cent of all development assistance from reaching its final destination.” [1]  Moreover even if the aid is spent on those it is earmarked for there are problems. Many developing countries are affected by poverty, poor housing, and few government services. Aid being provided to pay for such services for migrants is likely to cause resentment among a population that does not have the same access as the newcomers.  [1] Ki-moon, Ban, ‘Secretary-General's closing remarks at High-Level Panel on Accountability, Transparency and Sustainable Development’, un.org, 9 July 2012,

politics general society immigration minorities house would offer increased aid

Aid can ensure better treatment of migrants  Migrants in developed countries are often not very well treated, for example the Traiskirchen migrant camp in Austria, one of the richest countries in the EU was condemned for its inhumane conditions by Amnesty in August 2015. [1] The aid provided can be earmarked to ensure that migrants being well treated and provided for through safe transportation and access to essential government services such as healthcare and welfare.  The advantage of this provision in developing rather than developed countries is cost. The same amount of money goes a lot further in a developing country. This provision therefore makes sense in a time were many developed countries are both struggling with greater numbers of migrants and with austerity. Greece, which has had 124,000 migrants arrive in the first seven months of 2015, a 750% rise over the same period in 2014, is a notable case. [2]  [1] ‘'No respect' for human rights at Traiskirchen camp’, The Local at, 14 August 2015,   [2] Spindler, William, ‘Number of refugees and migrants arriving in Greece soars 750 per cent over 2014’, UNHCR, 7 August 2015,

Migrants also benefit developed countries albeit in a slightly different way. Migrants, often even those who are highly educated, provide a cheap workforce doing the jobs that native workers don't want to do. This is particularly the case in agriculture in developed countries where anything that is labour intensive relies upon cheap migrant, often illegal, labour. In the US somewhere between a quarter and a half of the farm workers are illegal immigrants. [1] This results in goods and services being cheaper in the developed country than they otherwise would be benefiting the whole country.  [1] Baragona, Steve, ‘US Farmers Depend on Illegal Immigrants’, Voice of America, 11 August 2010,

It is just to redistribute migrants  It is an accident of geography, or history, simple bad luck that has resulted in some countries getting large numbers of immigrants while many others get none. The first developed country on migrant routes get large numbers as those wishing to seek asylum have to apply in the first safe country. Similarly those countries next to conflict zones, or places affected by natural disasters, get very large influxes of migrants who hope to return home as soon as possible; there are more than 1.1 million refugees from Syria in Lebanon [1] a country of less than 6million. It is right that there should be a mechanism to help even out the burden of migrants and that rich developed countries should be those who pay that cost.  [1] ‘Syria Regional Refugee Response’, data.unhcr.org,  , accessed 19th August 2015

While the burden of migrants should be shared the burden is not just monetary. Developed countries should not be able to dodge their responsibility to take in large numbers of migrants simply because they can pay poorer countries to take migrants in their place. Being burdened due to geography may be unfair but so is being burdened because you are poor and can be bribed. A truly just system would redistribute migrants within the developed world rather than shifting the burden to those who are still developing.

Migrants can benefit developing countries  Migrants can bring the benefit of their industriousness to developing countries. When there are crises it is the middle professional classes who are most likely to migrate as they have the resources and knowledge with which to do so. When it comes to economic migrants it is often the educated youth who are looking for better work opportunities; skilled workers make up 33% of migrants from developing countries despite being only 6% of the population. [1] Developed countries already have a highly educated and skilled population, and will take in those migrants with skills they need. Developing countries on the other hand have a much less well educated population so derive more benefit from the influx of skilled workers to help them develop thus counteracting the ‘brain drain’.  [1] Docquier, Frédéric, Lohest, Olivier, and Marfouk, Abdeslam. ‘Brain Drain in Developing Countries’, The World Bank Economic Review. Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 193–218, p.198

Part of the payment of aid would be to ensure that migrants can't simply set off in an attempt to get back into a developed country. The aid would fund sufficiently good living conditions to encourage the migrants that staying where they are is a better option than attempting another harsh and dangerous journey. Moreover a part of the aid would be to ensure monitoring of migrants who have just arrived in the developing country to ensure they remain.

An argument based upon ‘historical responsibility’ and capacity to absorb migrants runs into several problems. First not all developed nations bear historical responsibility for colonialism; should Switzerland and Denmark bear the same historical responsibility as the UK and France? What about countries that were themselves essentially colonies; Finland and Czech Republic? Identifying what counts towards this responsibility is tricky and very open to argument, and even more so working out how many migrants a certain responsibility should result in taking in.  Capacity to absorb migrants is also difficult to judge. A country may have a lot of migrants already showing tolerance but it could also mean that country is already at the point where it can take no more with racism and discrimination rising as a result.

Large influxes of migrants will create conflict in unprepared countries  It is regrettable that difference is a major source of conflict among humans with differences in religion and ethnicity having regularly been the source of conflicts household human history. While many countries have traditions of accepting migrants others don't and even those that are tolerant may not be prepared for a large influx of migrants.  This policy would bring about such an influx in those countries that take up the offer of aid for taking in migrants. A new community is likely to be labelled the ‘other’ by the natives of that country and be blamed for taking jobs and putting pressure on services. This happens because the newcomers are easy to blame and have few influential voices in the country to speak out in their defence.  Places with existing large migrant communities are less likely to experience anti immigrant hostility. Thus in India Delhi with 38.4% of the population immigrants (not just international) has less conflict thant Mumbai with 26.5%, and in the US New Mexico with a 45% Hispanic population has less anti-Hispanic sentiment than Florida with 21%. [1]  [1] ‘Causes of Conflict’, University of North Carolina, accessed 20 August 2015,

Migrants will simply return to the countries they have been sent from  Moving migrants to developing countries in return for quantities of aid is simply not a sustainable policy. Migrants fleeing conflict looking for safety may accept any safe country but the migrant problems affecting rich countries are in large part economic migration. These people are looking to get to a developed country to earn more and have better prospects than they could at home so are unlikely to accept a country at a similar (or potentially lower) level of development as a good alternative. They are therefore likely to simply tray again to make their way to a developed country when they can. There have been examples of migrants such as Rachid from Algeria who has tried to get into Europe three times already and is waiting for a ship to try again, [1] it is unclear how this proposal would alter this problem.  [1] Ash, Lucy, ‘Risking death at sea to escape boredom’, BBC News, 20 August 2015,

Developed countries have a greater responsibility to take in migrants  Developed countries have a responsibility to take in large numbers of migrants. There are several reasons for this. First they have a historical responsibility resulting from a legacy of colonialism, imperialism, and industrialisation that benefited the developed world at the expense of the developing world. This helped create the inequalities in the world that drive migration so developed countries should accept that a greater responsibility for migrants is the price.  Second developed countries have a much greater capacity to absorb migrants than developing countries. Developed countries have more jobs, and the ability to create more through using the state’s financial resources to increase investment. They already have the legal framework for large numbers of migrants; laws that ensure equality and fair treatment regardless of religion or ethnicity. And in many cases they already have sizeable migrant communities (with some exceptions such as Japan) that help create a culture of tolerance that embraces the diversity migrants bring.

Whether a country is developed or not is not necessarily a good indicator of if a country is prepared for a large number of migrants. Nor is whether a country has large numbers of immigrants already; Israel is a country made by immigration yet has still seen anti immigrant riots. [1] In order to prevent social conflict it would be far better to have migrants in countries with a similar culture to their own thus migrants from an Arabic nation would be repatriated to an Arabic country that is participating in the aid scheme. Of course no two countries culture is the same but it should be possible to find cultures with more similarity than the developed country.  [1] Greenwood, Phoebe, ‘Israeli anti-immigration riots hit African neighbourhood of Tel Aviv’, The Telegraph, 24 May 2012,

The public sector being paid extra is something that is acceptable and necessary within society. Workers within the public sector often fulfill roles in jobs that are public goods. Such jobs provide a positive externality for the rest of society, but would be underprovided by the free market. For example, education would likely be underprovided, particularly for the poorest, by the free market but provides a significant benefit to the public because of the long term benefits an educated populace provides.In healthcare the example of the United States shows that private providers will never provide to those who are unable to afford it with nearly 50million people without health insurance.1  Although the average pay received by government employees tends to be higher, the peak earnings potential of a government position is significantly lower than that of other professions. Workers who chose to build long term careers within the public sector forgo a significant amount of money, and assume a heavier workload, in order to serve the needs of society and play a part in furthering its aspirations. As such, and owing to the fact that the people who do these jobs often provide economic benefit beyond what their pay would encompass in the private sector, it makes sense that they be paid more in the public sector. This is because their work benefits the people of the state and as such the state as a whole benefits significantly more from their work.2  1. Christie, Les, “Number of people without health insurance climbs”, CNNmoney, 13 September 2011,   2. “AS Market Failure.” Tutor2u.

mployment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining

Collective bargaining leades to pay crises in the public sector  The public sector is often significantly overpaid. The workers within the public sectors of Western liberal democracies often get paid more than people of equal education and experience who are employed in the private sector. In the United States there is a salary premium of 10-20 percent in the public sector. This means that there is likely a waste of resources as these people are being paid more than they should be by the government.1  The reason this happens is that collective bargaining means that workers can often, through the simple idea that they can communicate with the government and have a hand in the decision making process, make their demands much more easily.  Further, governments in particular are vulnerable during negotiations with unions, due their need to maintain both their political credibility and the cost effectiveness of the services they provide. This is significantly different to private enterprise where public opinion of the company is often significantly less relevant. As such, public sector workers can earn significantly more than their equally skilled counterparts in the private sector. This is problematic because it leads to a drain of workers and ideas from the private sector to the public. This is, in and of itself, problematic because the public sector, due to being shackled to the needs of public opinion often take fewer risks than the private sector and as such results in fewer innovations than work in the private sector.  Biggs, Andrew G. “Why Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker Is Right About Collective Bargaining.” US News. 25/02/2011

Collective bargaining might hurt the democratic process due to its political nature, but the alternative is worse. Without collective bargaining it is incredibly difficult for public sector workers to get across their ideas of what their pay should be to their employers. This leads to worse consequences because public sector workers who feel underpaid or overworked will often move to the private sector for better job opportunities in the future as well as a better collective bargaining position. Further, those public sector workers that do stay will be unhappy in their positions and will likely do a worse job at work.  Given that this is true and the fact that public sector workers often choose to do their jobs out of a sense of duty or love for the profession, it is fair that the taxpayers should be placed in a position where they are required to trust the public sector and the politicians to work out deals that end up being in favour of the entire state, not just a small minority.1  Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011

Collective bargaining is not a right  Whilst the freedom of association exists under the state and it is true that people should be allowed to communicate with one another and form groups to forward their personal and political interests, it is not true that the freedom of association automatically grants access to the decision making process.  Unions in this instance are problematic because whilst other groups do not have access to special privileges, unions are able to exert a significant and disproportionate amount of influence over the political process through the use of collective bargaining mechanisms. This argument applies to private unions as well, although to a lesser extent, and the banning of collective bargaining for private unions would be principally sound. In the case of unions in the private sector they can cause large amounts of disruption which has a large knock on impact on the economy giving leverage over politicians for whom the economy and jobs are always important issues. For example unions in transport in the private sector are just as disruptive as in the public sector. Even more minor businesses can be significant due to being in supply or logistics chains that are vital for important parts of the economy.1 The access to the decision making process that unions are granted goes above and beyond the rights that we award to all other groups and as such this right, if it can be called one at all, can easily be taken away as it is the removal of an inequality within our system.  Further, even if collective bargaining were to be considered a “right,” the government can curtail the rights of individuals and groups of people should it feel the harm to all of society is great enough. We see this with the limits that we put on free speech such that we may prevent the incitement of racial hatred.2  Shepardson, David, “GM, Ford warn rail strike could cripple auto industry”, The Detroit News, 30 November 2011,   Denholm, David “Guess What: There is no ‘right’ to collective bargaining.” LabourUnionReport.com 21/02/2011

Collective bargaining is considered a right because of the great benefit that it provides. Specifically, whilst freedom of association might not allow people to be privy to the negotiation process, when a large enough group of people form together and make a statement regarding their opinion, it is profitable for those in power to listen to them.  Collective bargaining in this situation is a logical extension of that. Given that public sector workers are intrinsic to the continued success of the state, it thus makes sense that the state gives them a platform to make their views in a clear and ordered fashion, such that the state can take them into account easily.1  Further, the knowledge that such a right exists causes unions to act in a way which is more predictable. Specifically, a right to unionise with reduce the likelihood that state employees will engage in strike action. Under existing union law, groups of employees are able to compel a state employer to hear their demands, and to engage in negotiations. Indeed, they may be obliged to do so before they commence strike action. If the resolution were to pass, associations of state employees would be compelled to use strikes as a method of initiating negotiation. Under the status quo, strikes are used as a tactic of last resort against an intractable opponent or as a demonstration of the support that a union official’s bargaining position commands amongst the Union’s rank-and-file members.  1. Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011

Collective bargaining undermines the democractic process  The bargain between normal unions and private enterprise involves all parties being brought to the table and talking about the issues that they might have. However, the public sector represents the benefits of taxpayers, the politicians and the unions. The power that unions exercises means that negotiations can happen without the consent or involvement of the public sector’s stakeholders, the public.  Even though power in a democracy is usually devolved to the politicians for this purpose, given the highly politicised nature of union negotiations, government office-holders who supervise union negotiations may act inconsistently with the mandate that the electorate have given them. This is because public unions often command a very large block of voters and can threaten politicians with this block of voters readily. This is not the same as a private business where officials aren’t elected by their workers. As such, collective bargaining rights for public union undermine the ability of taxpayers to dictate where their money is being spent significantly.1  “Union Bargaining Just A Dream For Many Gov Workers.” Oregan Herald. 27/02/2011

As discussed in the first proposition side argument, we can curtail the rights of individuals if we see that those rights lead to a large negative consequence for the state. In this situation proposition is happy to let some public sector workers feel slightly disenfranchised if it leads to fewer strikes and a situation where public sector workers are not paid too much, then the net benefit to society is such that the slight loss in terms of consistency of rights is worth taking instead.1  Davey, Monica, “Wisconsin Senate Limits Bargaining by Public Workers”, The New York Times, 9 March 2011,

Even if collective bargaining leads to a workforce that is better able to communicate their ideas, it also leads to a situation as mentioned within the proposition arguments that results in unions having significantly more power over their wages and the government than in other situations. This is problematic because it leads to consequences where other unions feel that they should have the same powers as public unions and can hence lead to volatility in the private sector as a result.  Further, given that often the negotiators that work for public unions are often aware of the political power of the public workers, negotiations with public unions often lead to strike action due to the fact that it is likely that the public will be sympathetic to the public workers. As such, allowing public workers to bargain collectively leads to situations that are often much worse for the public.  Further, a lot of opposition’s problems with a lack of collective bargaining can simply be dealt with through implementing a more sensitive and understanding feedback process among workers. If a worker for example raises an issue which might affect a large number of workers, it should be fairly simple for public companies to take polls of workers to understand the gravity of the problem.1  Rabin, Jack, and Dodd, Don, “State and Local Government Administration”, New York: Marcel Dekker Inc 1985, p390

Collective bargaining is a counter to the creation of natural monopolies  Many public industries exist as public industries because they are natural monopolies. For example, rail travel, which is often public in Western Liberal democracies, is a sector in which it makes no sense to build multiple railway lines across the country, each for a different company, when one would simply be more efficient. A similar case can be made for things such as public utilities. As such, these sectors often only have a single, often public company working in that sector.  In the case where there is a monopolist, the workers in the sector often have no other employers that they can reasonably find that require their skills, so for example, teachers are very well qualified to teach, however, are possibly not as qualified to deal with other areas and as such will find difficulty moving to another profession. As such, the monopolist in this area has the power to set wages without losing a significant number of employees. Further, in many of these industries strike action will not be used, for example because teachers have a vocational, almost fiduciary relationship with their students and don’t wish to see them lose out due to a strike.1  “Monopoly Power.”

Collective bargaining has been recognised as an enforcable right  Collective bargaining is a right. If the state allows freedom of association, individuals will gather together and exchange their ideas and views as a natural consequence of this freedom. Further, free association and free expression allows groups to then select a representative to express their ideas in a way that the individuals in the group might not be able to. In preventing people from using this part of their right to assembly, we weaken the entire concept of the right to assembly. The point of the right to assembly is to allow the best possible representation for individuals. When a group of individuals are prevented from enjoying this right then it leads to those individuals feeling isolated from the rest of society who are able to enjoy this right.  This is particularly problematic in the case of public sector workers as the state that is isolating them also happens to be their employer. This hurts the way that people in the public sector view the state that ideally is meant to represent them above all as they actively contribute to the well being of the state.1  Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011

Collective bargaining is a necessary aspect of democracy  Collective bargaining is needed by people in any job. Within any firm there exist feedback structures that enable workers to communicate with managers and executive decision makers. However, there are some issues which affect workers significantly, but run against the principles of profit, or in this case the overall public good that the state seeks to serve.  In this situation, a collection of workers are required. This is primarily because if suggested changes go against public interest then a single worker requesting such a change is likely to be rejected. However, it is the indirect benefit to public interest through a workforce that is treated better that must also be considered. But indirect benefit can only truly occur if there are a large number of workers where said indirect benefit can accrue.  Specifically, indirect benefit includes the happiness of the workforce and thus the creation of a harder working workforce, as well as the prevention of brain drain of the workforce to other professions. When a single person is unhappy for example, the effect is minimal, however if this effect can be proved for a large number of people then an adjustment must be made.  In order for these ideas to be expressed, workers can either engage in a collective bargaining process with their employer, or take more drastic action such as strikes or protests to raise awareness of the problem. Given that the alternate option is vastly more disruptive, it seems prudent to allow people to do collectively bargain.1  “Importance of Collective Bargaining.” Industrial relations.

The opposition argument here is simply a case against natural monopolies. In many Western Liberal democracies, advances in technology have enabled natural monopolies on telecoms and public transport to be broken down. A wide range of necessary public services- such as telecoms and power generation- now function as part of a competitive market. As such, it is feasible that the state could simply deal with this problem by breaking down other natural monopolies in the same way.  Even if the state acts as a monopolist in some industries, public sector workers often have transferrable skills which mean they can move to other industries without that much trouble. For example, a public prosecutor will have acquired professional skills that enable a relatively quick transition into private or commercial civil practice.1  “Identifying the Transferable skills of a Teacher.” North Central College.

onal global law international law politics defence warpeace house supports new

Intolerant schools cause more problems for not allowing freedom of religious expression. In a multicultural society, students should be aware of the different religious practices and cultural traditions of their classmates, and be taught to understand and respect these. Without such respect, religious groups with distinctive symbols, such as Orthodox Jews, Sikhs and Christians, will be driven out of mainstream education and forced to educate their children separately.1 As for the worry about safety issues, particularly concerning hair length, most classroom accidents occur when loose, long hair gets caught in machinery or in a flame which would not be a problem when hair is held in place under a headscarf.  1 'Religious Rights and Wrongs', The Economist, 4th September 2008, accessed 24th July 2011

government religion church religion general secularism house would ban religious

Religious symbols cause problems in schools.  As well as division in society in general, religious symbols are also a source of division within school environments. The Hijab causes schools many problems. It is potentially divisive in the classroom, marking some children out as different from the others and above the rules that the school enforces for everyone else. This may lead to alienation and bullying. Full headscarves may also be impractical or dangerous in some lessons, for example PE, swimming, or in technology and science lessons where machinery is being operated. In the same way, there have been discussions as to whether to ban the display of Crucifixes in public classrooms. Authorities in Italy have followed through with the ban saying that such a Christian symbol segregates those who are not Christian.1  1 'Decision due in Crucifix ban case', Times of Malta, March 17th 2011 , accessed on 24th July 2011

Muslim women are not the only ones to feel a cultural division over their mode of dress. Most people are affected by the societal norms surrounding them. Fashion trends could be seen in exactly the same light as religious traditions. Banning head coverings is only likely to provoke a more extreme reaction among highly religious communities1. Framing laws to ban only Islamic forms of dress could be considered an attack on one religion. Feeling under attack could cause the Islamic community to close off into itself. They could set up religious schools where their children can dress as they want them to and not mix with children from other faiths. These effects could never be good for the integration of society and would further the influence of extremists. Internationally, the perceived attack on Islamic values would inflame wider Muslim opinion, feed conspiracy theories and add to the dangerous feeling that there is a clash of civilisations.  1 'France Bans Burqas: A Look At Islamic Veil Laws In Europe', Huffpost World, 4th April 2011 , accessed on 24th July 2011

Western societies are secularly focused  Many societies are founded on secular values that do not permit the sponsorship of any religion by the state. British society aspires to this and has consciously acted to separate religion from state authority with many organisations such as the National Secular Society encouraging the suppression of any religious expression in public places.1 In this climate it is important that all citizens of the state are seen as equal. If some dress differently to others, deliberately identifying themselves as members of one religion, this can harm the unity and ethos of the state. This holds particularly true for institutions of the state like schools and government offices. In this way, it is possible to deduce that religious symbols are detrimental to the secular and equality focused identity of Western society.  1 'UK: One Law for all and the National Secular Society Back Bill that Aims to Curb Sharia Courts', 11th June 2011 , accessed on 23rd July 2011

Many symbols are seen as a symbol of oppression on women.  Religious symbols are seen to, in some cases, increase the equality divide between genders. As an example, the Muslim Hijab is considered by some as a very powerful symbol for the oppression of women, particularly in countries such as Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan where it is compulsory. Therefore, when it is worn in Western countries that encourage democracy and equality, the wearing of the Hijab is seen as almost counter-productive to the goals of democratic society. For this reason Belgium has recently banned the wearing of the full Muslim veil, much like France in 2010.1 Often Muslim dress rules for women are seen as more severe than those for men. Inequality between men and women is a form of discrimination and liberal societies should fight all forms of discrimination.  1 ' Belgian ban on full veils comes into force', BBC News Europe, 23rd July 2011, accessed on 23rd July 2011

Religious symbols are not seen as oppressive by those who choose to wear them. Many Muslim women view the veil as a means to protect their modesty and privacy. Just as we would not force any women to be seen in public in her underwear if she did not feel comfortable doing so, why should a woman be forced to show her hair if she does not want to? Modesty is a personal judgement call; some are comfortable in the smallest bikini while others prefer a lot more clothing. No one but the woman herself should make that decision. In fact, concerning the ban of the veil in Belgium, Muslim women have immediately challenged it and regard the ban as discriminatory.1  1 'Belgian ban on full veils comes into force', BBC News Europe, 23rd July 2011 , accessed on 23rd July 2011

Even though the wearing of religious symbols could be a part of that specific religions' culture and practice, it must be remembered that Western society and culture brands itself as secular and, therefore, should take precedence over clashes with minority cultural practices. In Britain there has been controversy over movements to include Sharia Law in the British legal system, which ties in with this same argument of culture clashes concerning religious methods.1 Essentially, the question arises as to how far is tolerance for different cultural practices detrimental for the maintenance of a secular British culture and state.  1 Abul Taher, 'Revealed: UK's first official sharia courts', The Sunday Times, 14th September 2008 , accessed on 23rd July 2011

Deciding what people can and can’t wear should not be the responsibility of schools. Enforcement may be potentially simple but only at the cost of creating a conflict between schools and their Muslim pupils and staff.

Religious symbols cause division within Western society.  Religious symbols can be seen as possible tools for fuelling division within society. When some women wear the Hijab it creates pressure on other Muslim women to also cover their heads. Pressure comes both socially from wanting to look like other women in their community and religiously from imams and family leaders pressing for observance. As such, Muslims themselves are divided and religious oppression against women is internalized.1 Approving of Muslim head coverings in society cements the Hijab as an essential tenet of Islam, in the minds of non-Muslims as well as believers. However, many different schools of Islam exist and as on other issues, they often disagree how to interpret the Koran's dress prescriptions. Moderate interpretations accept modest forms of modern dress while severe interpretations require full covering with the Burka or similar veil. Banning the veil furthers the cause of moderate interpretations and prevents the entrenchment of severe interpretations.  1 Rumy Hassan, 'Banning the hijab', Workers Power 283 February 2004, accessed on 24th July 2011

A ban would be simple to enforce.  A ban would be simple to create and enforce. Religious symbols are for the most part meant to be shown therefore it is simple for police or authorities to check that someone is not wearing them. There are many societies that have had bans on a religious symbol in public buildings, for example in France where there is a ban on religious symbols in schools has been in force since 2004. In France the ban is made even easier to enforce by restricting it to 'conspicuous' religious apparel.1 Moreover when the ban is only when entering public buildings it can be enforced by the teacher, or the building's security guards rather than being an issue for the police to deal with.  1 BBC News, 'French scarf ban comes into force', 2 September 2004 , accessed 28/8/11

It would not be necessary to ban all religious symbols if one was banned. Banning religious symbols that are regarded as dangerous, such as the Kirpan, would be very different from banning crucifixes as the justification would be different.1 And if people start asking for other things to be banned, their cases should be listened to. Some of them may have a point for banning them. However if a symbol poses a risk then it should be banned in order to prevent that risk.  1 'Kirpan incident raises questions about court ruling', The Montreal Gazette, 16th September 2008 , accessed on 25th July 2011

A ban on religious symbols would not be targeting the whole religious group. It would highlight the problems of symbols, such as the veil or Kirpan, within the boundaries of society. At the end of the day, full Muslim veils can be used as a disguise and, therefore, could pose a s a potential problem to the general population of people.1 If hundreds were people were killed by someone wearing a veil, would people be defending it then? In this way, it is the same for people wearing hoodies nowadays. A few tearaways and everyone socially brands them as criminals, or "chavs." This scares people, especially the elderly and as such poses a risk not just to their health, but also to their safety. As a result, the religious symbols such as full veils should be banned due to safety concerns.  1 'Belgian committee votes for full Islamic veil ban', BBC News, 31st March 2010 , accessed 24th July 2011

Religious symbols are personal, therefore, they should not matter to others.  At the end of the day, the wearing of religious symbols is the choice of the individual. Many have considered intervention in the practice of religion and symbolism as an intrusion into privacy and individuality. The recent bans on the full Muslim veil, particularly in Belgium, have been criticised for causing those who feel they have an obligation to wear it to be ostracised and forced to be confined within their own home.1  1 'Belgian ban on full veils comes into force', BBC News Europe, 23rd July 2011 , accessed on 23rd July 2011

It is their culture and religion.  Religions themselves tend to encompass their own distinctive culture and, to many of their members, this culture and its methods comes before anything secular. For this reason, Muslims should be allowed to wear personal items as it states in the ruling of their religious book to do so. Had a particular garment been required in the Christian religious book - The Bible - then no doubt those stout Christians would follow this particular ruling. The question is, would it be wrong to take away something close and meaningful to these religions? Surely, a religious symbol or method is purely personal, and, therefore, banning such symbols would be an intrusion into their individuality.1  1 Jessica Shepherd, 'Uniform Dissent', The Guardian, 9th October 2007 , accessed on 24th July 2011

If you ban one thing, you have to ban lots of things.  Every religious symbol should be treated equally so as not to cause discrimination. It's just not viable to ban one symbol. If you ban something, for example, as sacred and religious as the Muslim veil, people will then start rallying cries for other things to be banned. At the end of the day, if the Government feels that it is in the best interests of society not to ban the veil, then we have to believe them. Really if one thing is banned then the uproar that would happen would have significantly worse consequences than before the ban. There have been worries about the banning of the Sikh Kirpan because outsiders regard it as a possible weapon and a danger to people in public places.1 However, in the Sikh perspective, the Kirpan is a sacred symbol very similar to other religions' symbols.  1 'Timeline: The Quebec kirpan case', CBC News Online, 2nd March 2006, accessed on 25th July 2011

Banning religious symbols is just a way of unfairly targeting people.  Banning religious symbols could be viewed as just a way of targeting a group of people. In a nutshell, religious symbols would be used as a scapegoat in order to both highlight and blame for problems that are much bigger. Removing the hijab, the Crucifix or the Jewish skullcap would take away someone's culture, religion and heritage, and, therefore, banning them would cause more problems.1 It could potentially increase hatred within religious groups, and lead to more racism and more criticism, ultimately making the country a worse place to live.  1 at 'Belgian ban on full veils comes into force', BBC News Europe, 23rd July 2011 , accessed on 23rd July 2011

That the state is secular does not diminish the right to freedom of religion is enshrined in the UN charter, that all states have signed up to, and considered by many to be a basic human right.1 Some religions require special diets, others prayer at specific times. Why shouldn't a religious mode of dress receive as much protection as these other aspects of religious freedom? Surely equality in society is most accurately presented through allowing each individual, including their religious beliefs and modes of expression, to practice their religious traditions without hindrance.  1 'Declaration On The Elimination Of All Forms Of Intolerance And Of Discrimination Based On Religion Or Belief', 1981 Resolution of the UN Charter , accessed on 23rd July 2011

Some argue that religious symbols, particularly those that are clearly seen, are not just for personal benefit. They affect the safety of the society around them. For example, there have been worries about how the Muslim full-veil may be used as a disguise for terrorists and how veils make it harder to ascertain someone's identity. Therefore, some symbols at least involve others, maybe even unintentionally, through the uneasiness and suspicion they cause.  1 'The Islamic Veil Across Europe', BBC News, 15th June 2010 , accessed on 25th July 2011

There is no guarantee of the quality of contracted soldiers often resulting in less being done per soldier. The competitive-business nature of private contractors includes cost reduction as well as profit maximisation, which leads to the recruitment of cheaper, less experienced and ill-prepared staff as well as the use of cheaper and poorer equipment. As no standardised training is in place, the quality of the hired men is never known and may be incompatible with the training of traditional forces and therefore unsustainable. The result of this is in the long run to push up the cost as work that PMCs should have done has not been done to the right standard.

PMCs give value for money  Mercenaries are a cost efficient way of fighting. Although expensive to hire, the government does not have to cover the cost of training, housing, pensions or healthcare. Mercenaries, unlike regular troops, are only paid for the days on which they are used. Outsourcing when necessary will reduce the cost of the force. For example, the US army is around a third smaller than it was in the 1991 Gulf War (PBS News Hour, 2004). This saves taxpayers’ money and avoids the build up of conventional troops, which, in the past, has contributed to the development of arms races which can be cripplingly expensive as shown by the collapse of the Soviet Union.

PMCs can be made much more legitimate by regulation  Currently mercenary work as a profession is not regulated by law, which allows the corruption and lack of guaranteed quality, as well as the problems of accountability to remain problematic. Regulating PMCs encourage a safer, professionalised security sector which can be standardised and controlled. Governments would then legislate, regulate and moderate the use of such forces rather than provide them outright. PMCs today are legitimate businesses, much of their work has nothing to do with fighting and killing MPRI for example "shipped more than $900,000,000 worth of donated food and medical supplies to the newly independent states of the former Soviet Union over a five year period”. These companies are already placing greater emphasis on having a good reputation and are increasingly transparent so many companies would welcome regulation.(Vaknin, 2011)

This image of responsible professionals may not be entirely justified. Some employees of PMCs may have no military experience, those who do may have been dishonourably discharged from duty and some may be implicated in criminal activity or atrocities, such as Eeben Barlow (former officer in South African 32nd Battalion- Assassination squad during Apartheid, now a chief of PMC Executive Outcomes which predominantly employs ex-secret policemen). These people may know how to do the job but they may also not be the kind of people we want working with the military.

PMCs provide a service that may be otherwise unavailable.  Many nation states have achieved sufficient unity to rely on their own armies but for those which cant, mercenary forces provide an invaluable and possibly only mode of protection and security. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw believes that in an era of “small wars and weak states” mercenaries have a “legitimate role” (The Economist, 2002). Mercenaries may be the only way of providing short term security guarantees to allow a government to establish itself without relying on warlords or one side of an ethnic conflict. This could be the only way out of a pattern of coup and counter-coup. Recruiting local mercenaries also has the benefits of reducing transportation costs, instant readiness as well as any knowledge of the local politics, geography and customs which may be highly valuable to a security force. These local recruits may be less inclined to share this information with a government force.

PMCs are a valuable resource  PMCs are a flexible and efficient tool with which to fight 21st Century wars making them a necessity. Private contractors can be hired at short notice and used only when necessary. They can be used to carry out specific missions, to reinforce traditional troops where greater numbers are required or to protect other contractors whilst traditional troops carry out more lucrative missions. Additionally, most PMCs are non-combative but rather defensive, providing security for officials, supply trains etc. As a result they are viewed less as invaders or “the enemy” and more as peace-keepers.

PMCs are ineffective as they do not fit in with a disciplined army. PMCs are not bound by the same rules and standards of conduct and accountability as conventional troops. When problems arise it is often unclear whether army representatives or PMCs should be held responsible. Moreover, the lack of regulation means that there is no means to ensure mercenaries breaking laws are disciplined. Currently most mercenaries can operate outside martial law with relative freedom. Some of the worst offences at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq were committed by “privatised interrogators” (Hersh, 2004) who are yet to be punished.

The use of mercenaries is counterproductive for unstable states. By relying on hired mercenaries weak states encourage private competition rather than reinforcing their own nascent armies. The emergence of powerful local, as well as international, mercenary organisations frustrates the ultimate goal of securing a state monopoly over the use of force. There are many cases where mercenaries have remained in a region long after their official contract ended in an attempt to exploit regional instability in order to further a particular ideological cause or reap financial reward. Colonel Bob Denard fought vaguely “against Communism” in Africa and attempted to overthrow the government of the Comoros Islands off Madagascar on four separate occasions. Similarly, Colonel “Mad” Mike Hoare tried to topple the government of the Seychelles in 1981, arriving with 43 mercenaries disguised as rugby playing members of a beer-tasting club named The Ancient Order of Froth Blowers. Furthermore, PMCs may be helpful in resolving conflicts in the short-term, they are not viable solutions because they do nothing to actually solve the problem in the long-term.

The amount of attention and suspicion depends on what the PMCs are doing not that they are PMCs. Whilst mercenaries appear to be less disliked than American troops in Iraq, in parts of Africa their activities have increased tension. The reputation of a national government is often stained by the activities of hired mercenary groups. The involvement in national military operations of white supremacist adventurers and discredited individuals like Simon Mann is used by men such as Mugabe to challenge the legitimacy of British policy in Africa. These kind of actions by some groups mean that all PMCs are considered with suspicion.

PMCs have an equally strong incentive to perform.  PMCs must perform carefully and effectively to secure future contracts. It is therefore in their interests to ensure their employees are well- trained and well-equipped and perform to the highest standard. Most PMCs recruit ex-service personnel as a way to ensure the quality of their force. In 2004 more SAS soldiers worked privately in Iraq than served in the army. Additionally, governments increasingly recognise the quality of mercenaries. PMCs and regular militaries cross over on occasion: An American PMC -Military Professional Resources Inc - trains the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) on behalf of the US Government (Lock, 2011). The British Ministry of Defence now allows soldiers yearlong sabbaticals to work as mercenaries in the hope they will return having earned more in the private sector. This official recognition suggests that mercenaries have shed their “dogs of war” image. They are no longer disreputable maverick figures operating in failed states but highly trained professionals endorsed by national governments

PMCs attract less attention and suspicion and can carry out their role more effectively.  Mercenaries often arouse less hostility amongst civilians than soldiers fighting for national armies. In ethnic conflict they are perceived as less partisan. The fact that civilians to some extent do not connect mercenaries with a particular ideological cause, invasion or civil war makes them ideal for protecting safe areas and policing reconstruction projects. For example, PMC Global Risk Strategies successfully guarded the Green Zone in Baghdad, the sealed off section inhabited by coalition staff. As they are mercenaries they can be fighting for the national or local government of where their mission even if they have a different paymaster.

A good reputation is vital to any company, including PMCs, so human rights abuses or any other activity which is deemed questionable would be avoided. Mercenaries are not protected by legal immunity would have to face justice for any crime like any other criminal.

PMCs do not really have an interest in conflicts never ending. Like any other organisation in a conflict zone they lose men and material while carrying out their missions. They may wish there to be an environment where they can still be useful but this does not mean stoking a conflict. Even if PMCs were helping to increase conflict to increase their own business it would still only be a very small factor in any conflict.

PMCs are untrustworthy  The possibility of mercenaries pulling out will always remain a risk. PMCs are not fighting for their own country so they can never be threatened with a charge of desertion. PMCs are motivated by money and do not have the interests of their employer at heart. Loyalty is given to the highest bidder and is therefore delicately balanced. “The fact is, they have no other attraction or reason for keeping the field than a trifle of stipend, which is not sufficient to make them willing to die for you. They are ready enough to be your soldiers whilst you do not make war, but if war comes they take themselves off or run from the foe.”(Machiavelli, 1515) Machiavelli considered that it was mercenaries that ruined Italy much as they are now doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The role of PMCs has had a negative effect on traditional militaries and their operations.  Soldiers trained at high expense by the state may leave for the greater income of private employment, reducing the power of the state’s military and bolstering the attraction of PMCs. PMCs also have a much more relaxed, business-like attitude to conflict. Being unregulated gives them a freedom to work outside of the law to an extent, using illicit practices such as torture and bribery which goes unnoticed. However, these practices strengthen the morale and line the purses of “the enemy”, such as warlords or the Taliban in Afghanistan, putting the militaries they are fighting alongside in danger.

PMCs violate human rights and International agreements in pursuit of profit or power.  Some PMCs may abuse the power they wield. Simon Mann, founder of PMCs EO and Sandline International, in a recent plot to oust President Obiang in Equatorial Guinea (BBC News, 2008) shows that even mercenary organisations considered legitimate by the British Government remain staffed by corrupt opportunists. It is highly morally questionable whether organisations with such a profound disrespect for the sovereignty of other nation states should be involved with the training of our armed forces, let alone fighting alongside them.

PMCs have an interest in conflict.  ncreased reliance on mercenaries is destabilising in the long term. It allows invaders and local governments to feel that they can get away with not providing sufficiently trained or numerous security forces because there are men on the ground. It also means that the most influential actors, large multi-national companies, no longer have to pressure governments so hard to provide security guarantees for everyone because they can buy their own. That leaves those without influence or money high and dry. This then leads to a proliferation of armed forces in the country, some working for the central government, others for local governments and some for private individuals and firms. These PMCs are hired provide security and to help create stability yet that is not where their interests lie. If the country returns to stability they are out of a job so it is in their interest to keep an unstable situation unstable to result in more work. (Wennmann, 2008)

This does not necessarily mean that there is anything inherently wrong with using PMCs. While it might be true that the United States has sometimes misjudged which private forces to hire, this does not mean that we cannot use PMCs altogether. In fact, there can be solutions to ensure the quality of PMCs, such as legal regulation. The risk of inadvertently funding the enemy temporarily is perhaps worth taking, considering the alternative may be to have them constantly preventing anything being done to help. Short-term compromise could be the best option to long-term victory.

It is in the interest of PMCs to fulfil their contractual obligations to ensure future contracts and avoid the reputation of being treacherous. While PMCs are often considered to be untrustworthy there are very few examples, if any, of them actually running away or switching sides since the end of the cold war.

Guns don’t kill people – people kill people. Restricting gun ownership will do nothing to make society safer as it is the intent of the criminal we should fear, and that will remain the same whatever the gun laws. In the vast majority of crimes involving firearms, the gun used is not legally held or registered. Many of illegal weapons are imported secretly from abroad, or converted from replica firearms rather than being stolen from registered owners.

eneral politics politics general house would limit right bear arms

The legal ownership of guns by ordinary citizens inevitably leads to many accidental deaths  The legal ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens inevitably leads to many unnecessary and tragic deaths. Legally held guns are stolen and end up in the hands of criminals, who would have greater difficulty in obtaining such weapons if firearms were less prevalent in society. Guns also end up in the hands of children, leading to tragic accidents and terrible disasters such as the Columbine High School massacre in the U.S.A. Sometimes even normal-seeming registered gun owners appear to go mad and kill, as tragically happened at Hungerford and Dunblaine in the U.K.

Shooting is a major sport enjoyed by many law-abiding people, both in gun clubs with purpose-built ranges and as a field sport. These people have the right to continue with their chosen leisure pursuit, on which they have spent large amounts of money – an investment the government would effectively be confiscating if their guns were confiscated. In addition, field sports bring money into poor rural economies and provide a motivation for landowners to value environmental protection. While compensation could be given the cost would be huge; in the UK shootings value to the economy was £1.6billion in 2004. [1]  [1] ‘£1,600,000,000 – the value of shooting’, Shooting Times, 27 September 2006,

The only function of a gun is to kill  The only function of a gun is to kill. The more instruments of death and injury can be removed from our society, the safer it will be. In the U.S.A. death by gunshot has become the leading cause of death among some social groups; in particular for African-American males aged from 12 to 19 years old. [1] Quite simply, guns are lethal and the fewer people have them the better.  [1 ‘Study: Homicide leading cause of death among young black males, Jacksonville.com, 5 May 2010,

Prohibition is not the answer, especially not in countries such as the USA where gun ownership is such an entrenched aspect of society. Banning guns would not make them disappear or make them any less dangerous. It is a legitimate right of citizens to own weapons with which they can protect themselves, their family, and their property (see point 4). Many people also need guns for other reasons. For example, farmers need guns in order to protect their stock and crops from pests, e.g. rabbits, birds, deer, foxes, stray dogs attacking sheep, etc.

There are substantial exceptions to that correlation, for example Japan has the world’s 5th highest suicide rate but very low gun ownership. [1]  As the proposition concedes, the availability of firearms is not a direct cause of suicide and thus the restriction of availability of firearms can only have a marginal effect on the suicide rate.  [1]

Sports shooting desensitizes people to the lethal nature of firearms  Shooting as a sport desensitises people to the lethal nature of all firearms, creating a gun culture that glamorises and legitimises unnecessary gun ownership. It remains the interest of a minority, who should not be allowed to block the interests of society as a whole in gun control. Compensation can be given to individual gun owners, gun clubs and the retail firearms trade, in recognition of their economic loss if a ban is implemented.

Gun ownership increases the risk of suicide  There is a correlation between the laxity of a country’s gun laws and its suicide rate – not because gun owners are more depressive, but because the means of quick and effective suicide is easily to hand. As many unsuccessful suicides are later glad that they failed in their attempt, the state should discourage and restrict the ownership of something that wastes so many human lives.

Shooting as a sport has the potential to desensitize people to the lethal nature of all firearms, creating a gun culture that glamorizes and legitimizes unnecessary gun ownership.

Burglary should not be punished by vigilante killings of the offender. No amount of property is worth a human life. Perversely, the danger of attack by homeowners may make it more likely that criminals will carry their own weapons. If a right to self-defence is granted in this way, many accidental deaths are bound to result.  Moreover the value of guns for self-defence is overrated. A firearm kept in the home for self-defence is six times more likely to be used in a deliberate or accidental homicide than against an unlawful intruder. [1]  [1] Drinan, Robert F. ‘Gun Control: The Good Outweighs the Evil’. The Civil Liberties Review. August/September 1976

Gun ownership increases national security within democratic states  “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary top the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” – 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. [1] Any country is much more able to defend itself from aggression if many of its citizens are able to use guns, keeping them for leisure and sporting use. Some countries actively require adult citizens to maintain weapons in their house, and periodically to train in their use. The high levels of firearm availability in Iraq and Afghanistan have been significant contributory factors in allowing for a viable insurrection to form which has the potential to generate the political pressure necessary to cause the withdrawal of foreign occupiers.  Of course, such widespread ownership of weapons is also a safeguard against domestic tyranny.  [1] See also DIstricxt of Columbia v Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Effective gun control is not achievable in democratic states with a tradition of civilian gun ownership  Much like the failure of the prohibition era to stop alcohol consumption, trying to restrict the use of guns that are already widely owned and prevalent in a society is an impossible task. [1]  The people who intend to use guns for illegitimate purposes are obviously unconcerned with the fact that it is illegal to acquire the guns in the first place in countries where this is already the case such as in the UK . [2] [3]  [1] Kates, Don B. ‘Why a Civil Libertarian Opposes Gun Control’. The Civil Liberties Review. June/July 1976   [2] The Independent. ‘Up to 4m guns in UK and police are losing the battle’. 4th September 2005.   [3] The Guardian. ‘Firearms: cheap, easy to get and on a street near you’ 30th August 2008.

Sports shooting is a safe activity  Shooting is sport enjoyed by many law-abiding people, both in gun clubs with purpose-built ranges and as a field sport. These people have the right to continue with their chosen leisure pursuit, on which they have spent large amounts of money – an investment the government would effectively be confiscating if their guns were confiscated.

Gun ownership is an integral aspect of the right to self defence  Law-abiding citizens deserve the right to protect their families in their own homes, especially if the police are judged incapable of dealing with the threat of attack. Would-be rapists and armed burglars will think twice before attempting to break into any house where the owners may keep firearms for self-defence. (This can also be applied to the right to carry concealed weapons, deterring potential rapists, muggers, etc.)

Limited restrictions on ownership and use are different in nature to absolute prohibition and are more easily enforced.  Statistical analysis shows that that gun control laws do have a deterrent effect on firearm deaths and that the magnitude of the effect is dependent on how well the rules are enforced. [1] The ineffectiveness of badly drafted or enforced gun control regulations is not an indicator of the ineffectiveness of well drafted and enforced regulations.  [1] Kwon et al. ‘The effectiveness of gun control laws: multivariate statistical analysis’, The American Journal of Economics and Sociology. Jan

The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was written in the age of horse and musket, where a private citizen could gain access to the same (or even better) weaponry that the state did.  Unless the opposition want to remove all barriers on gun ownership completely, no armed citizenry can seriously compete with a modern military armed with tanks, drones and precision weaponry. Popular resistance movements rely upon creating an unaffordable political cost to maintaining the occupation (e.g. The US was eventually forced from Vietnam, despite winning virtually every major battle of the war), but this assumes that the occupying power is vulnerable to that kind of pressure. An undemocratic invader or a domestic tyranny will happily slaughter dissidents with impunity (see the pre-intervention stages of the Libyan civil-war and the 2011 Syrian uprising).

No one doubts that politicians have to make morally difficult decisions, where sometimes every option is unpleasant. However, no one wants politicians to have an unrestricted ability to make ethical questionable decisions. That is exactly what immunity would deliver them. A politician who knows that they cannot be touched is incentivized and licensed to be much more brazen in their behavior when in office, and we want a bulwark against unrestricted rule-breaking. A state of affairs wherein politicians can sometimes be prosecuted creates the ideal amount of disincentive for politicians to break rules; they will do so only when there is a pressing need, and only to a moderate degree. Because of the plausible justifications for such acts, politicians need not fear prosecution in the overwhelming majority of cases. For instance, no official from either the UK or USA has been actually indicted with regard to highly-legally-dubious programs to torture detainees [1] [2] . Moreover, politicians are seldom prosecuted anyway, especially because they tend to belong to socioeconomic strata that punished less or not all compared to the rest of society. There is no legitimate need to give them more protection.  [1] Ambinder, Marc, ‘CIA Officers Granted Immunity from Torture Prosecution’, The Atlantic, 16 April 2009,  [Accessed September 9, 2011]  [2] Human Rights Education Association, ‘Torture, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment’, hrea.org,  [Accessed September 9, 2011]

eneral punishment politics government house would grant politicians immunity

Politicians should be able to make difficult decisions without fear that selecting one option will lead to their incarceration.  By the most popular definition, a state is the entity with the monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a defined territory. Politicians, as the government of that state, necessarily wield the institutions of that state force. This results in the tremendous responsibility of deciding when the overwhelming power of the state is exercised. This pertains to a variety of areas, such as police action against civil unrest, the interrogation of both alleged and convicted terrorists, and economic policies that subsidize industries with state resources. While it is certainly possible to brazenly abuse this power, in many cases politicians are presented with options which are, if at all illegal, marginally so, and made with the good faith interest of the nation at heart. There are even conceivable situations in which a politician may exercise options that are clearly illegal but serve an overwhelming state interest; consider an illegal raid on a private building in order to prevent a nuclear bomb from going off. While documented instances of policy-makers choosing not to act for a particular reason are rare, several senior CIA officials stated that they had become risk averse merely because the idea of prosecuting officials who made security policy had entered the public discourse. [1] We ought to place politicians in a situation where the only factor in their decision-making process is what serves the public interest, rather than having to weigh what they consider to be the right action against the chance it will lead to their incarceration. Attempting to avoid this through a limited system which allowed for the prosecution of apolitical crimes but immunity for political decisions would fail to accomplish the goals of prosecution of politicians, which is primarily to protect against political abuses of state power which threaten the rights of the citizenry.  [1] Crawford, Robert, ‘Torture and the Ideology of National Security’ Global Dialogue, Vol.12 No.1, Winter/Spring 2010, (“A Risk-Averse CIA” subsection)  [Accessed 22 September 2011]

These mechanisms are not immediate enough to put an immediate stop to an aberrant behavior. Impeachment proceedings take months at least; elections may be years away; and reputational damage is even more long-term. Moreover, these punishments are nowhere near a sufficient deterrent. If loss of one’s job, and damage to one’s public image were sufficient deterrents, we would not prosecute business leaders for insider trading, nor celebrities for drunk driving. The fact is that a criminal justice system which punishes everyone equally is not just fair; it’s also a practical method of achieving meaningful deterrence. Finally, even if we are willing to settle for one of these lesser punishments, the threat of a great punishment gives prosecutors leverage to strike deals with the politicians, such as offering not to prosecute in exchange for coming forward with the details of misdeeds.

Prosecutions of politicians are often motivated by partisan concerns.  As noted above, the political life is steeped in difficult decisions, and some of these are bound to result in choices that are at least potentially illegal. The ability to prosecute politicians incentivizes political opponents to search out past actions by said politicians so as to immobilize them politically. Such prosecutions are therefore not motivated by concern for justice, nor are they conducive to a well-functioning, multipartisan political system wherein representatives seek to work together to achieve their political ends. In the most extreme cases, powerful politicians use prosecutions to immobilize their political opponents.

Giving politicians’ immunity from prosecution allows them to focus on performing their duties  The premier reason that most states, even those that allow for the prosecution of politicians, abstain from prosecuting them while they hold office is that being a politician is a job that requires one’s undivided attention. Especially for the holders of prominent national-level offices, writing legislation, responding to crises under one’s purview, consulting one’s constituents, and engaging in campaign work often lead to politicians working an upwards of 12 hour day, every day. To expect politicians cope with all of these concerns will simultaneously constructing a defense against pending charges would be to abandon all hope of them serving their constituents effectively. We are rightly aggravated when politicians take extensive vacations or other extracurricular forays. [1] Being under indictment not only consumes even more of a politician’s time; the stress it causes will inevitably seep into what remaining time they do allocating to fulfilling their duties, further hindering their performance. The impeachment proceedings for Bill Clinton on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice were so intensive that they took tremendous resources away from not only the president himself, but all branches of the federal government for several months [2] , amidst serious domestic and foreign policy concerns such as the ongoing war in Kosovo.  [1] Condon, George E. Jr., ‘The Long History of Criticizing Presidential Vacations’ The Atlantic, 18 August 2011,  [Accessed September 9, 2011]  [2] Linder, Douglas O., ‘The Impeachment Trial of President William Clinton’, UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-KANSAS CITY (UMKC) SCHOOL OF LAW, 2005,  [Accessed September 19, 2011]

Politicians have to divide their focus anyway. As the examples above concede, being a politician means being pulled in several different directions. Elections are particularly distracting, and in jurisdictions with fixed election cycles like the United States can make periods of up to a year prior to the election a write-off for getting real work done. Thus, personal liability is nothing special among the many concerns a politician has. In fact, accountability, of this direct type, and for serious offences, is probably more important than most of the things a politician is forced to consider, and at the very least deserves inclusion among them.

Motivation does not matter. Almost every time someone presses criminal charges, it is for their own personal concerns (such as wanting retribution), rather than concern for the public good; that does not change the fact that if charges are laid, it is because the prosecuting authority has decided that, regardless of why the crime has come to their attention, the interest of society at large requires that the individual be prosecuted. If political motivations are what is needed for politicians to be held accountable, so be it. Even if this is a problem, it can be mitigated with sufficient oversight from an independent prosecuting authority.

If we don’t want politicians hurting the dignity of the office, there is only one thing we can do: not elect politicians likely to commit crimes! Of course, this is often impossible to tell in advance, but the dilemma remains: a crime has been committed, and that hurts the dignity of the office no matter what action we take. One thing that’s worse than having an office’s holder raked over the coals is for them to get away with a behavior that otherwise warrants punishment. See discussion below under “hurts the image of the office.”

In the event of major abuses of power it should be the public that holds politicians to account.  The obvious benefit to prosecuting politicians is that it punishes – and thereby deters – corruption by politicians. However, this benefit can be achieved through other means. Firstly, many western liberal democracies have one form or another of removing a politician from office in the midst of their term, such as impeachment in the American system or a vote of no confidence against the government in the Westminster system. While defenders of immunity oppose impeachment as contrary to the principles outlined above (because of the effect that it may have on political duties), this is an option that remains in cases of gross misconduct. If the political will cannot be mobilized to remove a sitting politician, they are held accountable by the electorate to whom they must answer in the next election, and who will likely punish blatant misuse of political power. Even if the individual politician has reached a limit on their term of office, or does not seek reelection, they are still held in check by the damage that will be done to their party in the event of major misconduct on their part. Finally, most politicians are significantly concerned about their legacy, which is tarnished significantly by corruption even if they are never held legally accountable for it. While Nixon received a full pardon from his success, [1] his name has become synonymous with criminality and scandal: a fate most politicians wish to avoid.  [1] Ford, Gerald R., Proclamation 4311, 8 September 1974,  [Accessed September 9, 2011]

Seeing a politician put on trial hurts the integrity of their office.  It does tremendous damage to the public perception of a given political position to see the holder of that position on trial for criminal acts. Politicians are important role models for the populace at large, and shining light on everyone one of their misdeeds is not conducive to them playing such a role. This hurts the ability of their successors who, though completely innocent, are stepping into an institution now tainted with the image of corruption or scandal. Finally, the very process of prosecution can be damaging to the country, as citizens on opposing sides of the political spectrum disagree over the legitimacy of charges. These effects all deal real damage to the political institutions necessary for the functioning of the state.

The concept of retribution is a narrow and dubious foundation for justice. A modern, civilized legal system should not be geared around delivering payback on behalf of victims, but rather around advancing the best consequences for the future. For exactly this reason legal systems give several ways in which defendants can avoid punishment, even though they are technically guilty, if punishing them would have bad consequences; these include jury nullification and suspended sentences.

See argument above regarding other accountability mechanism. Jeopardizing future electoral success, harming one’s political party, and damage to one’s personal legacy are all meaningful checks on the behavior of politicians. To suggest that, in the absence of prosecutions, an under-used tool anyway, politicians will be able to abuse their station with impunity, is simply untrue.

Politicians who commit crimes are likely unfit to serve.  The sort of person who commits an offense has demonstrated irresponsibility and so is unworthy of the public trust. Would any reasonable citizen wanted to be represented by a domestic abuser, or have a fraudster manage the public treasury? While almost all people are capable of atonement and redemption, someone who commits crimes worthy of prosecution while in office ought to be immediately removed for the betterment of the state.

Immunity creates a perverse incentive to hang on to their office as long as possible.  Prosecutorial immunity brings about a massive side-benefit to being in office. It is easy to get used to a life where minor indiscretions go regularly unpunished, as has happened with dignitaries holding diplomatic immunity. [1] Immunity from prosecution may spur a politician to seek reelection into their old age when they are significantly less effective at performing their duties. This is one reason why in the vast majority of democracies elected representatives, while far from poor, are not paid massive salaries; we don’t want people getting into politics for the wrong reasons.  [1] Uhlig, Mark A., ‘Court Won’t Bar Return of Boy in Abuse Case to Zimbabwe’, The New York Times, 1 January 1988,  [Accessed September 9, 2011]

Immunity for politicians hurts the image of their office  Far from the worst PR for an office being that a holder of it is on trial, the worst possible public perception of a political institution is that it is wracked with corruption, with it not even theoretically possible to hold its members to account. Prosecuting politicians makes it clear that their office is not a den of impunity, and in the wake of a scandal, restoring public confidence in politicians to come. The public wants their politicians to be accountable and granting immunity harms accountability by denying an option.

Immunity for politicians is an unjust double standard  Every victim deserves to have the perpetrator of their suffering answer for their misdeeds. It is unjust that certain offenders would avoid retribution, and certain victims would be denied their day in court, simply because of a factor external to the commission of the crime. Even if the crime is not external to the criminal’s political role, the foundation of a free and fair justice system is that all individuals are treated alike, regardless of perceived importance. Hence, a wealthy philanthropist will not be spared from prosecution simply because they are a pillar of the community. Politicians should receive no greater reprieve.

With regard to this issue, elections are unquestionably an effective alternative mechanism. The act of a politician in a liberal democracy holding on to office for another term, by definition, requires public assent. The citizenry has an out: don’t continue electing politicians who aren’t serving the public interest. Regardless, politicians already have a plethora of motives, both legitimate and self-serving, to hold on to public office; this doesn’t move the barometer on incentives to run. Most elections are at least modestly well contested precisely because many qualified candidates really want the position.

The ability to prosecute politicians is the ultimate protection against the abuse of power.  It is impossible to overstate the power that the threat of prosecution has to stay the hand of anyone, including a politician, from transgressing the laws of the state. In fact, we need more aggressive prosecution of politicians. Not a single person has been prosecuted for approval illegal torture or wiretapping. These are illegal actions actually happening which the populace, with only the blunt instrument of voting for or against a politician on the sum total of their policies, is unable to effectively influence. There is no greater deterrent that could be used against politicians.

The difference between the harm to the office of a politician getting away with a crime and the harm from them being tried for that crime is that the trial is inherently public. Short of widespread corruption – the sort that would probably preclude prosecuting politicians anyway – it is unlikely that unpunished wrongdoing in an office will ever become public. A trial, by contrast, creates a media flashpoint that captures the public consciousness. Thus, even if the damage to the integrity of the office is greater per person in cases of unpunished crimes, the act of punishing the crime informs enough people to outweigh the fact that it may not do as much damage per capita.

This is not necessarily true. A politician could be a brilliant diplomat who happens to commit a minor offence such as drink driving; very few indictable offences correlate directly with one’s ability to discharge the mandate of a political office. Historically, politicians have often had their secret vices, including the rumored drug habits of many 19th century politicians, that have not impeded the performance of their duties.

Although there have been flaws in the way that Canada has dealt with Quebec in the past, it simply isn’t true that it is currently denied its right to self-determination. First of all, it is not the will of the people to become an independent nation, shown by the results of the most recent referendum on the issue and recent polling figures [1] . Therefore, it is the will of the Quebecers to be governed as part of Canada and becoming independent would in fact violate this right to self-determination. Second, there have been large steps taken to rectify these past issues of exclusion of the Quebec voice such as in 2006 where Prime Minister Harper’s recognition of Quebec as a distinct nation within Canada [2] .  [1] Chung, Andrew. "Sovereignty "outmoded," Quebec poll indicates." Star 19 May 2010, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. &lt;  .  [2] "Harper: Quebec a nation... within Canada." Canada.com 22 Nov 2006, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. &lt;  .

government local government voting house believes quebec should secede canada

Quebec has the right to self-determination.  All people have the right to determine their own form of government and representation and Quebec has been systematically denied this right.  Quebec has historically been denied the right to determine its own form of governance systematically and therefore the Canadian government has no right to claim legitimacy over Quebec and cannot stop it from leaving the federation.  The Canadian Constitution was patriated in 1982 in a backroom deal known as the Meech Lake Accord [1] where Quebec was explicitly excluded from the negotiations and their issues were ignored. Specifically, Quebec was attempting to entrench recognition of their special status and needs as a distant society within Canada [2] and this was denied. To this day, Quebec has refused to sign the Canadian constitution as it feels it doesn’t adequately represent its interests and needs [3] .  Therefore, Quebec has the right to independence as its sovereignty was illegitimately taken from it and it is systematically denied adequate representation in Canadian politics.  [1] "The Meech Lake Accord." Peace and Conflict. Historica, n. d. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. &lt;  .  [2] "The Meech Lake Accord." Peace and Conflict. Historica, n. d. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. &lt;  .  [3] "The Meech Lake Accord." Peace and Conflict. Historica, n. d. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. &lt;  .

The right to self-determination does not necessitate independence, but rather determination of their own governance. This principle is widely seen as not being about sovereignty, but rather the right to control local governance for their peoples, a right already extended to the Quebecois. The International Court of Justice, the most important court of international law, has recognized the right of self-determination as being adequately fulfilled by devolved governance. [1]  Moreover, as explained in counterargument one, there is no basis for the Quebecois to claim that they are systematically denied adequate representation, making the international legal precedent on self-determination irrelevant.  [1] Van der Vyver, Johan D., „Self-Determination of the Peoples of Quebec under International law“, Journal of Transnational Law and Policy, Vol. 10, No. 1, &lt;  &gt;, p.11

Quebec needs to be independent to retain its distinct language and culture.  The only way to ensure that Quebecers get to retain their distinct culture is to gain independence as a country and remove themselves from the Canadian federation.  A very big issue for certain Quebecers is the threat that an overwhelmingly English-speaking country has on their pocket of distinct French-Quebecois culture [1] . The unrestricted immigration of English-speaking Canadians to Quebec has diluted the culture of the Quebecois and has set off the process of cultural-loss and the highly feared loss of their language [2] . Moreover, whenever Quebec has tried to put in place provisions to protect their culture and language, such as with Bill 101 [3] , Quebec is called racist and Canadian Federal Courts try to strike down their laws to stop their “discrimination” against English-speaking Canadians in their province [4] .  The only way that Quebec can protect its language and culture is to be able to stop the unrestricted flow of English-speaking immigration into its territory and gain complete control over its own law and cultural policy. The only way to do this is to gain independence from Canada.  [1] "Only Quebec independence can protect French language: PQ strategist." CBS News Canada 26 Nov 2007, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. &lt;  .  [2] "Only Quebec independence can protect French language: PQ strategist." CBS News Canada 26 Nov 2007, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. &lt;  .  [3] "Bill 101." The Canadian Encyclopedia. Web. 1 Dec 2011. &lt;  .  [4] "Bill 101." The Canadian Encyclopedia. Web. 1 Dec 2011. &lt;  .

Although it may be true that traditional Quebecois culture is under threat, this is not necessarily a bad thing. Cultures change and evolve to reflect the rich history of a territory and its peoples and the interaction with Anglophonic Canadians is a very important part of that history that should be reflected in Quebecois culture.  Moreover, Quebec is more than able to institute language laws and cultural policy, as they were able to continue the vast majority of the provisions in Bill 101 [1] after it was struck down once they stripped out the parts that explicitly discriminated against English-speaking Canadians and once they enacted the Constitutional not-withstanding clause that the Canadian constitution has in place to help accommodate Provincial diversity such as this. Further to this, Canada is officially a bilingual country, and thus the linguistic and cultural rights of the French are constitutionally protected by the Federal government not only within Quebec but in wider Canadian society. It is simply fallacious to claim that the Canadian government does not recognize or protect the distinct culture and language of French Canadians.  [1] "Bill 101." The Canadian Encyclopedia. Web. 1 Dec 2011. &lt;  .

International Law Mandates Quebec be allowed Independence  International law recognizes Quebec’s right to self-determination and denying them self-determination is therefore a violation of international law.  International law recognizes the right of all peoples to self-determination. The international community has decided that it is oppressive to individuals to live under a government that is systematically incapable or unwilling to protect them and their interests. [1]  The Quebecois have been systematically denied adequate representation in the federal government of Canada. Quebecois legislation protection their basic rights to retain their language and culture have been met with contempt [2] and legal action by the federal Canadian government and courts. [3] This is but one example of the very clear denial of basic representation and self-governance that afflicts the Quebecois in Canada.  Therefore, Quebec has the legal right to self-determination and independence in international law.  [1] „Reference re Secession of Quebec“, Supreme Court of Canada, 1998, 2 S.C.R. 217, &lt;  &gt;  [2] “Maxime Bernier on Quebec law: ‘We don’t need Bill 101’”, The Canadian Press, 4 February 2011, &lt;  &gt;  [3] Hudon, R., „Bill 101“, The Canadian Encyclopedia, &lt;  &gt;

Many countries in the world have bad economies; this is not a reason to not be an independent country. Economic circumstances can change and be improved through different economic initiatives; this simply isn’t a good enough reason to not secede from Canada. Furthermore, there is significant economic evidence that suggests that smaller states, such as that of Quebec, have a higher chance of thriving economically than larger states such as Canada. [1] Therefore, this argument not only does not justify the opposition case, but also is entirely speculative and likely incorrect. Quebec’s economy could very well benefit significantly from detaching its economy from Canada.  [1] Price, Adam, „Small Is Cute, Sexy, and Successful: Why Independence for Wales and Other Countries Makes Economic Sense“, Harvard Kennedy School Review, 2011, &lt;  &gt;

This is not the will of the people of Quebec.  Secession from Canada would not be a fair or adequate representation of the will of the people of Quebec.  The most recent referendum and all current polling data suggest that an overwhelming majority of Quebecers are opposed to Quebec seeking independence from Canada [1] . The government of Quebec pursuing such a policy is only representative of a very small minority of people in Quebec, and therefore is undemocratic in nature. Moreover, this policy explicitly denies consideration or enfranchisement for the very large populations of Anglophone Quebecers who also deserve representation, and whose interests are being wholly discounted to pursue this one policy on behalf of the Francophones in their province.  Therefore, pursuing secession is both wholly undemocratic, but also specifically disenfranchises a very large portion of the population entirely in a trade-off for one specific policy that doesn’t appeal strongly to anyone beyond a very small minority of citizens.  [1] Chung, Andrew. "Sovereignty "outmoded," Quebec poll indicates." Star 19 May 2010, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. &lt;  .

Quebec would not be able to be economically viable on its own.  Quebec independence simply will not work because Quebec would not be financially viable as an independent economy.  Quebec has been financially dependent on the rest of Canada for years [1] specifically being dependent on “have” provinces such as Alberta to prop-up its economy as a “have-not” provinces through equalization payments [2] . Moreover, all financial indicators point to the situation staying as it is or worsening, with no signs of improvement in the economy visible [3] .  If Quebec were to gain independence, it simply would not be able to sustain itself as an independent country. Quality of life would necessarily have to drop for all those living in Quebec and the economy would only crash further as confidence in it would dwindle once you remove the credibility the support of the Canadian government and economy that currently gives it.  Therefore, Quebec should not secede from Canada as it would only serve to harm their economy and the livelihoods of the people they supposedly are there to protect.  [1] Van Praet, Nicolas. "No progress in Quebec prosperity: report." Financial Post 30 Aug 2011, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. &lt;  .  [2] Van Praet, Nicolas. "No progress in Quebec prosperity: report." Financial Post 30 Aug 2011, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. &lt;  .  [3] Van Praet, Nicolas. "No progress in Quebec prosperity: report." Financial Post 30 Aug 2011, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. &lt;  .

Quebec is in a unique position as the homeland for French-speaking Canadians and therefore has a very different mandate than a normal state or province. Quebec has an obligation to the rights of French Canadians as a group due to its unique position, and just because Anglo-Canadians have migrated to Quebec does not mean that the primacy of this special obligation has disappeared because the mandate’s representation within its territory has been diluted.

While elections can create a focal point for protest and violence this may actually make things more predictable not less. Countries without elections are not without opposition groups and protests, all this means is that the spark for the protests is going to be different; police beating someone up, a particularly extravagant piece of corruption, an attempted cover up, the disappearance of an opposition activist. Not having elections simply prevents the divisions in society from being highly visible; it does not get rid of the divisions, indeed it gets rid of one of the safety valves.

government voting house would have no elections rather sham elections

Avoids the costs and uncertainty of elections  It is hard to see what the benefit of an election that can change nothing is, but there are certainly all the costs associated with a normal election. Elections can be costly in financial terms, the United States elections cost several billion dollars but even much smaller and less extravagant elections need financing. Zimbabwe’s elections in 2013 forced the government to ask its neighbours for $85 million to carry out the polls, for a nation that is essentially bankrupt this is a lot of money. [1]  Another cost is uncertainty. In fully democratic elections the uncertainty is with what the policies will be when the government changes. With sham elections the uncertainty is whether the elections will be a focus for violence. Sometimes this is during campaigning itself as with Zimbabwe in 2008 where up to 200 people were killed. [2] Otherwise violence occurs when there is a perception that an election has been stolen so the Green Movement in Iran took to the streets and was met with a violent crackdown in 2009. [3]  [1] VOA News, ‘Zimbabwe Seeks Help to Cover Election Costs’, Voice of America, 10 July 2013,   [2] ‘Zimbabwe: No Justice for Rampant Killings, Torture’, Human Rights Watch, 8 March 2011,   [3] AFP, ‘Iran opposition says 72 killed in vote protests’, Google, 3 September 2009,

There is little evidence that countries without elections are more willing to take difficult decisions, or able to take wise decisions, than those that face some form of election. Many petro states have failed to diversify their economies despite having the money to do so – often investing in wild ideas such as Saudi Arabia investing $84 billion in agriculture in the desert from 1985-2000. [1]  [1] Alterman, Jon B., ‘Water and National Strength in Saudi Arabia’, Center for Strategic &amp; International Studies, March 2011,

Having no elections is honest  Holding sham elections is fundamentally dishonest as it is asking the people to choose a government and then ignoring their choice. Not holding elections is at least honestly telling the people that they get no say in who is in power. Holding a sham election inevitably means having to lie to the people somewhere along the line; whether it is in preventing people registering, or voting, or in manipulating the results. The people usually know the result is a sham or at least are suspicious – in the latest Zimbabwean election the headlines in the newspapers included “ZANU-PF gloats over victory”. [1]  Without a sham election the government can at least be honest with their people so enabling a level of trust or even a kind of contract between the two – the government and the people each lets the other get on with it. Thus for example in China trust in government in 2012 was 76% against the world average of 51%. [2]  [1] Chinaka, Cris, ‘Africa and West at odds over disputed Zimbabwe election’, Reuters, 4 August 2013,   [2] Sedghi, Ami, and Rogers, Simon, ‘Do we trust our government? See how your country compares’, TheGuardian.com, 24 January 2012,

Being honest about depriving the people of their right to choose the government is not beneficial. An unwillingness to hold elections does not build any trust even when the government has proved itself capable at governing because an unwillingness to hold elections fundamentally shows distrust by government of the people. If the government trusted the people in return it would trust them to elect a competent government and representatives.

The problem with good governance and economic success as the basis of legitimacy is that a crisis of legitimacy is created whenever growth falters or corruption comes to light. Legitimacy based upon performance also has the problem that if a certain performance becomes normal then the benchmarks must be higher and higher over time to continue to provide legitimacy. [1] Having legitimacy at least in part based on periodic elections, even if these are somehow rigged, is more sustainable as the legitimacy is renewed whenever there is a new election or change in government. This has the added benefit that as fairer elections are seen as more legitimate there is a greater chance that sham elections will become real elections to ensure the regime has more legitimacy even at the risk of it being voted out - as shown recently by Burma being willing to take the democratic route.  [1] Lam, Jon-Jon, ‘Performance Legitimacy: an Unstable Model for Sustaining Power’, The Politic, 10 January 2013,

Allows the ruler to make necessary but unpopular decisions  Democracy and elections are about popularity but popular decisions are not always the right ones. Even mature democracies have sometimes seen their government’s make use of the levers of government to boost their electoral chances; for example Margaret Thatcher’s government stoked the economy in the Lawson boom in 1987 which just happened to be an election year. [1] Governments without elections can engage in long term planning and make unpopular decisions without fear of the consequences. Thus for example Saudi Arabia is willing to pump less oil (and so get less money in the short term at least) in order to create stability in the oil market by having enough excess capacity to prevent price spikes.  [1] Congdon, Tim, Keynes, the Keynesians and Monetarism, 2007, p.73

Forces the ruler to find another way to placate the people  Not having any elections – or only elections for a powerless advisory parliament – may actually have a benefit in putting responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the rulers. Only a country that is comparatively well governed, or successful, can manage without a democratic safety valve. It is notable that the remaining absolute monarchies or those where the King rules as well as reigns are mostly very wealthy petro states. Several of the remaining communist regimes, China and Vietnam, rely on rapid economic growth to cement their legitimacy combined with meritocracy in their selection of leaders. In both cases there is an incentive for good governance by those in power as they are in for the long term. The leaders know they are not going to be elected out of office so have the motivation to reduce corruption and create long term growth through investment in infrastructure because this will benefit them in the future. [1]  [1] Feldman, Noah, ‘Feldman examines corruption and political legitimacy in China’, Harvard Law School, 11 March 2013,

If the government were genuinely interested in what the people want then there would be far more reliable ways than through an election. Polling could be done on each individual policy providing a much finer granularity of response to tell policymakers what they really want. All that a government will be able to tell from a sham election is that the people don’t like the government.

States can have elections that have almost no chance of changing the government for decades. These elections can actually set back the cause for genuine democracy. There are several reasons for this. First having elections, or marginally expanding the number of parties or franchise, so providing liberal political reform can be used to keep the opposition on side through constantly dangling the prospect of further reform. Thus Sadat in 1977 allowed elections in response to discontent over peace overtures to Israel and in 1984 following his assassination Mubarak made these elections multiparty. [1]  Secondly having elections can be used to disrupt the opposition as coalitions of disparate elements are difficult to create so it will likely lead to internal squabbling and victory for the ruling party. Encouraging such squabbling will then prevent there being a single recognised opposition party or figure than can be seen as able to take over. When there is no clear path after a revolution the people are going to be much more likely to stick with the dictator they know.  [1] Lust, Ellen, ‘The Multiple Meanings of Elections In Non-Democratic Regimes: Breakdown, Response and Outcome in the Arab Uprisings’, Yale University, p.5.

Elections of any sort force rulers to meet their people  Elections almost anywhere in the world mean politicians getting out and campaigning. Regardless of the legitimacy of the final election the leadership of the country will be going out and meeting voters. In many of these events individuals won’t be able to express their views but there are also likely to be protests and meetings where individuals can get their views across. This provides an opportunity for the leader to stay in touch with the people – often a problem with dictators who have been in power too long.  Dictators will want to, and often believe that they are likely to win even without resort to fraud, as Marcos did in 1985. [1] They are then are much more likely to consider the views of the electorate to still be relevant if there are elections than if there are not. Thus for example Mugabe in the most recent elections made a bid for, and won, the youth vote by promising a direct stake in the economy, [2] so responding to their desire for jobs. [3]  [1] Kline, William E., ‘The Fall of Marcos: A Problem in U.S. Foreign Policymaking’, Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, 1992,  p. 10  [2] Agyemang, Roy, ‘Why a Robert Mugabe victory would be good for Zimbabwe’, theguardian.com, 2 August 2013,   [3] AFP, ‘Youth, rural voters may hold key to Zimbabwe election’, Fox News, 27 July 2013,

Sham elections do not mean the elections have no influence or impact.  For an autocracy the election for the top job needs to be predetermined, but the other elections do not. This means that elections for the legislature can still be competitive. The seats do have some influence, provide patronage, and have status attached so there are plenty of people who want to contest them. In the Arab world before the Arab spring there was a less than 25% incumbency rate for legislatures. [1] Having elections that determine control in local areas or allow opposition some control in parliament is far preferable to the alternative where the government appoints everyone. Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy in Burma have for example gained entry into Parliament and have despite being a minority had an impact. This has particularly been the case internationally. They have helped liberalise the new Foreign Investment Law and have encouraged more liberalised freedom of the press and association. [2]  [1] Lust, Ellen, ‘The Multiple Meanings of Elections In Non-Democratic Regimes: Breakdown, Response and Outcome in the Arab Uprisings’, Yale University, p.7.   [2] Turnell, Sean, ‘Myanmar has made a good start to economic reform’, East Asia Forum, 27 March 2013,

Even a sham election demonstrates what the people want  In an election the people show what their policy preferences will be. Even if the government is engaging in vote rigging or voter intimidation they will still know how the people voted or wanted to vote (if they stuffed the ballot they will know how many extra votes they added) so will have some guidance as to the policies that the people wish implemented. If there are multiple different parties competing in the elections then it will be possible to tell which party platforms are the most popular and so which to take ideas from.  If there are elections then there are opposition parties and independent MPs who are given much more space than they would be without elections. Being MPs gives the opposition some status and gives them a controlled setting in which to criticise the government. This provides the opposition with the chance to channel the voice of the people and encourage change from the governing party.

Some kind of election is more likely to lead to real democracy than no election  The acceptance by most autocrats that there need to be elections shows the idea that legitimacy derives from the people is generally accepted. Meaning that these states are already part way to having a genuine democracy. Having regular elections, even if the outcome is preordained, means that the electorate becomes used to voting and the idea of voting to make their voice heard. In such circumstances eventually they are going to want their vote to really count. If there is a creeping process of reform eventually this will result in free and fair elections.  Having any kind of elections means that there are people who are recognised as an opposition. This means that there is a viable alternative to the ruling party which can be turned to in a crisis, or can take on the leadership role when the regime is finally toppled. For example in Philippines the opposition was able to create a united opposition party in 1984 and coalesce around Corazon Aquino in the snap elections of 1985. [1] This meant that Aquino was in a position to swiftly set up a government following the people power revolution and flight of Marcos. [2]  [1] Kline, William E., ‘The Fall of Marcos: A Problem in U.S. Foreign Policymaking’, Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, 1992,  Pp.4, 10  [2] Reaves, Joseph A., ‘Marcos Flees, Aquino Rules’, Chicago Tribune, 26 February 1986,

This is simply co-opting the opposition in an attempt to allow the regime to survive longer than it would otherwise done. As Morgan Tsvangirai of the Movement for Democratic Change in Zimbabwe has found out even being in a coalition government with a dictator does not give you the power to change the outcome over the long term. He has called his election defeat “coup by ballot” reflecting the vote rigging that he believes occurred to keep President Mugabe in power. [1] The Movement may have had a significant impact during its time in government economically but it totally failed to prise the real power out of the hands of Zanu PF.  [1] Smith, David, ‘Morgan Tsvangirai loses hope following election defeat’, The Guardian, 4 August 2013,

There is little difference between a stage managed election and stage managed events without elections. In either case the chances of the autocrat meeting real people who present opinions that are not on the party message are slim.

An elected mayor would give the appearance of accountability, but at the risk of stifling democratic debate. At present policies are debated by council committees, and then by the full council, which represents a wide spectrum of views and interests; the public and media can usually attend these meetings, so overall proposals have to survive detailed examination. Focusing power in the hands of one person risks policy mistakes, ignores the interests of minorities, and allows for the possibility of corruption, especially if they are in office for four years and cannot be removed by vote of the council. Ken Livingstone, who was Mayor of London for eight years, argues “It’s easy to avoid serious scrutiny – Boris has had six press conferences in four years. When you come to see how the assembly gets to question him once a month that’s not the same as a detailed scrutiny by a council committee.” [1] Greater accountability could instead be achieved by use of citizens’ juries to consider particular local issues, and local referenda on issues such as the level of council tax.  [1] Waterson, James, ‘Ken: Mayor has too much power for one person’, City A.M., 18 April 2012.

Mayors would be more accountable than a council  Electing mayors would improve accountability in local government. A Mayor would have a bigger mandate, which could be up to 500,000 votes compared to 5,000 for individual councillors making them more directly accountable to the city’s electorate. [1] They are also more visible; 57% of people could name their mayor when they had one compared to only 8% being able to name their council leader and so they are more likely to be held to account for their individual policies. [2] By comparison where there are not mayors an elaborate and confusing series of committees make decisions in most areas, making it easy for individual councillors or parties to dodge responsibility for unpopular decisions or failed policies. Bristol is a good example of this with wobbly coalitions resulting from backroom deals and constantly shifting politics; the council changed hands seven times in the ten years to 2012. [3] Placing this power in the hands of an elected mayor would streamline decision-making and increase accountability. A mayor who failed to improve local services or in other ways implement their campaign promises would have little chance of re-election.  [1] Sims, Sam, ‘Electing mayors for more English cities would increase local democratic accountability and widen political participation. But the government must grant them real power and freedom’, blogs.lse.ac.uk, 7 October 2011.  [2] Gash, Tom, ‘A turning point for England’s big cities’, Institute for Government, 29 March 2012.  [3] The Economist, ‘Why elected mayors matter’, 19 April 2012.

Talented individuals with a proven track record are unlikely to seek mayoral office unless local government is given much greater autonomy by central government. With the powers for each city not yet clear many may not be willing to take the risk. The reason for the lack of talent in councils is therefore not because they work as a body rather than one prominent individual but that councils themselves have too little power. Regardless of the system of election, if real power is offered, real leaders will be attracted by the prospect of wielding it and will rise to prominence.

Electing a Mayor will revitalise local democracy  An elected mayor would revitalise local democracy. At present many people have no idea who their local councillors are, or who leads their council, perhaps because collective decision-making is generally unexciting. It is not surprising then that turnout is only around 30% and in some urban areas in Britain fewer than 1 in 4 adults bother to vote in local elections – the worst turnout in the EU. [1] An elected mayor would act as a focus for local people, both symbolically and as someone with real power to improve their lives. Local elections would gain more coverage and more people’s attention as they are voting for one recognisable figure rather than a number of councillors. This in turn would turn attention to local democracy and increase turnout in elections.  [1] Shakespeare, Tom, ‘For Good Measure Devolving Accountability for Performance and Assessment to Local Areas’, Localis, 2010, p.17

Directly elected mayors would do little to renew local democracy. In the past, councils in the UK used to have a great deal of power, controlling schools, housing and local utilities, and setting budgets and raising revenues more or less as they wished. Since 1979 these powers have been greatly reduced with power increasingly centralised in Whitehall, which also greatly limits councils’ financial freedom so that local taxes bear little relation to local expenditure. [1] Not surprisingly, as the real decision-making power of local councils has diminished, so has the proportion of citizens who think it is worth voting for them. There is no reason to think that people will flock in greater numbers to vote for a mayor who may well end up with similar restrictions placed upon them.  [1] Parry, Keith, ‘Local government: timeline from 1979’, House of Commons Library, 10 January 2008.

Electing a maverick candidate could do the image of a town or city a great deal of harm rather than good. Cities such as Birmingham have already been highly successful at attracting inward investment under the present system of local government. In any case, the major bureaucratic constraints on investment relate to issues of subsidy and tax-breaks, which are outlawed by the EU, and to national taxation and planning policies, set in Whitehall, none of which will be affected by an elected mayor.

Elected Mayors would attract the best candidates to run for office.  Elected mayors would allow talented individuals to make a difference, regardless of their party affiliation. The present system rewards long-serving and loyal party hacks rather than innovative managers, thinkers and leaders; polls show that the public think councillors put party politics above the needs of their community. Those who are most talented who are elected are simply using the council as a stepping stone for running for national office. If mayors were directly elected, local parties would have to find dynamic candidates with a proven ability to solve problems and manage big organisations, or risk such candidates running and winning as independents. This has already been shown to be the case in London where Ken Livingstone (who initially became Mayor as an independent) and Boris Johnson, both established and well known politicians, ran for Mayor, and in Birmingham where Lam Byrne, formally no.2 at the treasury, has expressed an interest in running. [1]  [1] BBC News, ‘Labour’s Liam Byrne wants to run for Birmingham mayor’, 30 March 2012.

Mayors would raise the profile of the city they represent  Elected mayors would speak on behalf of their communities, raising the profile of their town or city nationally and internationally. This could be particularly valuable when negotiating with businesses, helping to draw valuable investment into their area and overcoming bureaucratic hurdles that typically hinder development. Chambers of commerce in cities that are holding referendums believe a figurehead will provide a focal point for business relations and a single point of contact that champions the city’s interests. [1] In addition, mayors would give local government in general a higher profile after years of increasing centralisation by national government. Acting collectively, and through the change in attitudes their higher media profile would generate, mayors would be able to draw power away from the centre once again and bring it closer to the people.  [1] Carter, Andrew, ‘Mayors and Economic Growth’, in Tom Gash and Sam Sims eds., What can elected mayors do for our cities? Institute for Government, 2012, pp.37-42, p.41

While there may be some extra costs to having a mayor this is likely to be marginal and overall costs may well fall, as Prime Minister Cameron argues “if you end up with a mayor, you’ll actually save money, because mayors can bang heads together, get rid of bureaucracy, and right now, any mayor worth their salt will be trying to get bills down.” [1] There are many layers of funding which create needless overlaps and administration; in Leicester it is estimated for economic development it costs £135 million in overheads to spend £176 million on projects, [2] an inefficiency the new mayor would be in a good position to get to grips with.  [1] ITV News, ‘Bristol mayor will save money, says Prime Minister’, A Mayor for Bristol, 24, April 2012.  [2] Carter, Andrew, ‘Mayors and Economic Growth’, in Tom Gash and Sam Sims eds., What can elected mayors do for our cities? Institute for Government, 2012, pp.37-42, p.42

Electing a mayor would not concentrate power too much in the hands of one individual. Although models of local government vary, mayors usually have to pick a cabinet from among the elected councillors and to seek approval for their policies and budget from the whole elected council. A mayor would thus have to persuade and build a consensus in order to govern effectively. This is a more transparent approach to local decision making than the present one, and should therefore be free from the accusations of corruption and nepotism that have been levied at the old system.

Directly elected mayors provide opportunities for populists.  The position of elected mayor is likely to attract populist and maverick candidates, who will seek to capitalise on the unpopularity of party politics with “single issue sloganising, glib promises and headline grabbing” (Ken Walker, Labour leader of Middlesbrough council). [1] A good example is Paul Massey, who has had 25 convictions in the past and yet is running to be Mayor of Salford and could even have a chance of winning. [2] In office such candidates are likely to alienate elected councillors and other crucial local partners, to disappoint voters as their promises run up against the actual limitations of their power, and to neglect many aspects of local government in favour of their own pet issue. This danger is even greater if a far-right candidate were to exploit local concerns about immigration and asylum-seekers to inflame racial tensions. Again Lutfur Rahman of Tower Hamlets is a good example of how this could happen, he has links to a Muslim extremist group, and only needed a mere 23,000 votes, 13% of the electorate because there was such low turnout. [3]  [1] Hetherington, Peter, ‘Vote for US-style mayors exposes deep Labour rifts’, The Guardian, 20 October 2001.  [2] Gilligan, Andrew, ;The town hall dictator taking over near you’, The Telegraph, 22 April 2012.  [3] ibid

Mayors could split economic regions  The value of a mayor is dependent upon that mayor having a distinct area of control. However often this area is set too small. Cities are the hubs for neighbouring towns and countryside as well as the inner city. This could then end up splitting up economic regions. Birmingham and Coventry are very close to each other but at some point in the future could potentially have different city mayors. There would then be confusion; who runs regional transport policy or the West Midlands police that affects both cities? [1]  [1] McCabe, Steve, ‘An executive mayor – can we afford it?, Birmingham Mail, 17 April 2012.

Mayors will come at a cost  Having Mayors is costly. First of all there is the referendum and the election of the Mayor himself which Bristol council has said could cost up to £400,000. [1] This is then followed by the extra administrative cost created by having a Mayor who will of course have to have deputies, staff, offices, cars and a publicity budget, which could mean up to £3 million a year. [2] This is money that at a time where councils are facing budget cuts could be better spent on shoring up the services councils provide.  [1] The Economist, ‘Why elected mayors matter’, 19 April 2012.  [2] McCabe, Steve, ‘An executive mayor – can we afford it?, Birmingham Mail, 17 April 2012.

Mayors would result in too much centralisation of power.  An elected mayor would have too much power, making the prospect of its misuse alarming. If the mayor has the power to choose their own cabinet of councillors, this could be as small as three members, all of whom could be sacked at will for opposing the wishes of the mayor. If the mayor has the right to delegate powers to his cabinet members, they equally have the authority to reserve all the real powers to themselves. And those councillors outside the cabinet would have little to do other than to monitor broken streetlights and the standard of refuse collection in their ward. Why would talented and ambitious people stand for council in these circumstances, and what would the absence of such people do for the council’s oversight of the mayor?

Coordinating between a few mayors in a region is considerably easier than between hundreds of councillors. The whole point of devolving power is to let local people have more influence and decide for themselves. Neighbouring areas could eventually have referendums to become part of the area controlled by the mayor if it is seen as being necessary just as they would to get a mayor of their own.

If the position of Mayor is given powers then it will attract a wide range of candidates, which may include extremists. However these candidates are no more likely to win than they would be in any other election. As with any other election voters are likely to vote for centrist candidates that have strong manifestos and good ideas about how to solve the city’s problems.

First, it is not clear whether such a position is topical. Second, it is better to support protesters in this case, rather than taking the lead.  To begin with, it is not clear that assisting individuals in the fight for democracy is a valid interpretation of the phrase "imposing democracy": if the majority of people want it, perhaps it is not really an imposition. But second and more importantly, if internal movements exist, foreign nations should seek to strengthen and support those movements rather than impose a government. Democratic governments gain legitimacy through popular support: both in origin and in survival. A government chosen and filled by the citizenry is far more legitimate, and thus more likely to command respect and maintain order, than one enforced by a foreign regime.

y political philosophy politics defence government house would impose democracy

Imposing democracy can be a way to support individuals unable to fight for democracy themselves.  If the people within a nation want democracy, it is not wrong -- indeed it may even be morally required -- for us to assist them by imposing democracy against the will of the governing class. Often internal movements lack resources, weapons, or organization, making the fight for democracy very difficult. When individuals seek to defend their rights against an oppressive regime, other nations do them a disservice by allowing evil to win out. Thus NATO's intervention in Libya was in support of rebels often seen as part of the 'Arab spring' wave of democratization but the internal movement even if it had large amounts of support was being suppressed and would have been destroyed without outside intervention1.  1 Traub, James. "Stepping In", Foreign Policy

First, democracies are not necessarily more peaceful than other governments. Second, imposition of democracy is likely to fuel terrorism. First, it is not entirely clear that democracies have not gone to war: for example the Central Powers in WWI, although not classified as democracies per se, did have elected parliaments just like the Allies. Further, just because democracies have not gone to war in the past does not mean they will not in the future: a culture of negotiation within the democracy does not necessarily translate into a lack of aggression externally. Second, even if democracies are more peaceful, the imposition of democracy can threaten to world peace by fuelling terrorist movements. Invasions, particularly by Western nations, increase East-West tensions, galvanize terrorist groups by validating their claims that Western nations pose a threat. Indeed, in Osama bin Laden's public "letter to the American people," he cited interventions in Somalia, Palestine, India, Chechnya, Lebanon and Iraq as reasons for the 9/11 attacks1/2.  1 "Do Democracies Fight Each Other?" BBC.  2 bin Laden, Osama. "Full Text: bin Laden's 'Letter to America.' The Guardian.

Interventions can be successful given the right conditions.  Certain factors may increase the chance of success: for example imposing democracy on a nation with which there were once colonial relationships increases the expected lifespan of the democracy. Democratic transitions in general also tend to be more successful if economic conditions are better. Obviously we are not advocating imposing democracy on every country which does not have it, but if there are strong enough institutions and conditions, imposition can work and there have been past successes like Germany and Japan post WWII that show the worth of imposing democracy1/2.  1 Enterline, Andrew J. and Greig, J. Michael."Against All Odds? Historical Trends in Imposed Democracy &amp; the Future of Iraq &amp; Afghanistan."  2 Przeworski et al "What Makes Democracies Endure?" Journal of Democracy.

Interventions are far more likely to fail than to succeed. As explained further in Opposition Argument 2, empirically and logically imposed democracy is likely to fail. Governments can try and minimize the risk of failure, but it is inherent to the nature of imposition that a government is being instated against the country's will. It is consequently very unlikely to generate support and remain stable.

There are two problems: democracy is not necessarily the best form of government, and even if it is that does not mean it is our obligation to impose it.  First, just because we believe that political self-determination is an important value, it does not mean that it is logically more important than other values. If, for example, a society places great value on stability, it may not want a government that changes every few years. If a society is very religious, its people may prefer to be ruled by a government claiming divine authority. Second, even if democracy is objectively better than other governments, that does not mean we must or should intervene in other countries to impose it. Perhaps we should intervene in the case of serious rights abuses-- such as genocide-- but the lack of complete political freedom is not a life-threatening issue.

Promoting democracy promotes peace.  By most accounts, there has not been a war between two democracies in the past 200 years. Immanuel Kant argued in Perpetual Peace (1795) that a) democratic governments are more constrained by their people's opposition to war and b) that a democratic culture of negotiation, as well as the checks and balances inherent in such a system, make war less likely. Thus by promoting democracy through imposing it, we increase the chance of a peaceful world. Furthermore, terrorism may be less likely to arise in democratic countries, where people are allowed to air their views and human rights norms prevent feelings of marginalization. This is good for human rights worldwide, including the rights and safety of individuals in our own country.1  1 "Do Democracies Fight Each Other?" BBC.

Because democracy is the best form of government, it is not wrong-- and indeed may even be our obligation-- to bring it to those who do not have it.  Democratic regimes are the best form of government, and it is our obligation to try and provide that to others. Democracy is the only form of government which upholds the value of political self-determination: that each individual has a right to form his/her government, and to vote out governments s/he does not like. To deny this right is to deny the inherent worth and freedom of the individual. Political autonomy also has instrumental value insofar as it allows individuals to check abusive governments which may seek to violate other human rights. Thus it is certainly not wrong -- and may even be our humanitarian obligation -- to bring democracy to those who do not have it, just as we would intervene in other situations in which serious rights were being abused1.  1 Fish, Stanley. "Why Democracy?" The New York Times.

Even if individuals within a nation do not overtly support democracy, that does not mean that democracy does not serve their interests, and that they will not support it once it exists.  There are two reasons this might be true. First, individuals may be too scared to show support for democracy, for fear of repercussion. Second, individuals may not realize that they want democracy, but come to understand and appreciate it once it is there. Power analysis theory helps us understand how individuals are manipulated into supporting systems that work against their interests: for example anti-feminists during the early and mid 20th century, who accepted male dominance as a necessary and desirable fact of life. Thus, it may take some foreign intervention to create support for democracy. And, despite the fact that imposed democracy often does fail, there have been success stories (as well as Germany and Japan, less oft-cited examples, like Sri Lanka), suggesting that democracy can be imposed with the right strategy and under the right conditions.

Imposed democracy is better than no democracy. Ideally, every democratic government would be created by the people. However, given that this is often not possible -- corrupt governments are too powerful, populations lack the unity to organize, the lack of democratic tradition precludes effective transition without external guidance-- it is surely better to have imposed democracy than no democracy. Even if theoretically a democratic government is formed by the people, practically speaking that may not be a possibility, and we should not let abstract philosophical ideas prevent us from effecting real positive change.

Unilateral action is burdensome, and dangerous.  POINT  The motion suggests that a particular government is imposing democracy, but in fact it is far better to try and encourage democracy multilaterally. Multilateral assistance, like the UN Democracy Fund which seeks to "strengthen the voice of civil society, promote human rights, and encourages the participation of all groups in the democratic process"1, is better, because it makes the support seem less political and colonial, and more honest. By using the international community to encourage democracy in a given country, we increase the chances of the people in that country respecting and supporting our attempts, rather than viewing them with suspicion2.  1 United Nations Democracy Fund, 'About UNDEF', 2010,  2 Doyle , Michael. "Promoting Democracy is Not Imposing Democracy." The Huffington Post.

Attempting to impose democracy may escalate conflict.  Intervening in a country, and attempting to impose a different government, is likely to a) result in backlash and b) destabilize the country by destroying infrastructure and disrupting services. Both these things make it far more likely that violent conflict will emerge, either between the country and the imposers, or within the country, as rival factions are forced to compete for scarce resources and rights protection. Iraq is a prime example of intervention causing a civil war. The previous gulf war combined with sanctions and weeks of bombing destroyed Iraq's infrastructure resulting in what General Odierno called 'societal devastation'1 and the disbanding of the army and debaathification forced the experienced administrators who ran the country out of their jobs.(Kane, 'Don't repeat the mistakes of Iraq in Libya', 2011) The result was the attempt to impose democracy was bloody and only partially successful.  1 Parrish, Karen, "Odierno, Crocker: Iraq's Future Still Hinges on U.S. Support", American Forces Press Service, November 15, 2010,  2 Kane, Sean., 'Don't repeat the mistakes of Iraq in Libya', ForeignPolicy.com, April 27, 2011,

The imposition of democracy violates national sovereignty  Countries have a right to choose the form of government they want, and we do not have the right to violate this right by imposing the form of government we think is best. Nations may want to be ruled by, for example, religious or tribal law, or a Communist system which aims to remove government altogether. We can encourage nations to adopt democracy if we think it is better, but ultimately nations are self-directing entities which can only be interfered with in extreme situations. The United Nations has states as equals no matter their government and only authorises force in the case of an act of aggression towards another state1.  1 United Nations, Charter of the United Nations, 1945,

The desire for, and fight for, democracy must come from within or else democratic government will not be sustainable.  Unless the people within a country want democracy, they will not respect it. Unlike military dictatorships, democratic governments do not rely solely -- or even mainly-- on force to enforce the law. Rather, most people obey the law at least in part because they believe those laws are legitimate, as the result of free and fair elections. If citizens do not want such an electoral system, then there is no reason for them to obey the law, pay taxes etc. and the government will be unable to maintain order. Indeed, foreign-imposed democracies often slide back into authoritarian regimes because they find that they cannot uphold the law (at least without foreign support). Enterline and Greig found in a 2007 empirical study that half of imposed democracies fail within 30 years, and that this failure reduces the likelihood of democracy being successfully established in the future1/2.  1 Enterline, Andrew J. and Greig, J. Michael. "Against All Odds? Historical Trends in Imposed Democracy &amp; the Future of Iraq &amp;Afghanistan."  2 Doyle, Michael. "Promoting Democracy is Not Imposing Democracy." The Huffington Post.

Governments can take actions to help reduce conflict. Most people agree that the strategy behind the Iraq War was extremely weak. Furthermore, it was clear that the American government had ulterior motives and that establishing democracy was not the only -- or even the most important -- goal, thus reducing the American government's legitimacy in the eyes of Iraqis and the international community. Alternately, in nations where backlash against dictatorships causes violent conflict -- like in Syria or Libya -- imposing democracy could bring a chance of stability and a government that people actually trusted.

Democracy by its very nature cannot be imposed.  Democratic government is not only government for the people, but also government by and of the people. A foreign-imposed government is not a government established by the people which it rules, meaning that it lacks the legitimacy necessary to claim democratic status. It is wrong to force a government upon people, and imposers of 'democracy' do just that. This is exacerbated by the fact that foreign-imposed democracies often have a great deal of trouble governing themselves independently (like the Iraqi and Afghani governments, which are still very much reliant on the United States), thus de- legitimizing the government even further1.  1 Doyle, Michael. "Promoting Democracy is Not Imposing Democracy." The Huffington Post.

It is wrong to suggest that the rule of law, or protection of civil rights, is less important in different regions. The fact is that democracy is the only form of government which respects every individual's right to political self determination (as explained in Proposition Argument 1). States may have the right to self-direct, but they do not have the right to deny their citizens basic political freedoms.

To rely on multilateral action is utopian. First, the motion does not exclude multilateral cooperation; this house may impose democracy with the support of others. But second, the UN doctrine of non-intervention in the domestic affairs of independent nations means that unilateral or bi-lateral actions are often the only realistic possibilities. This is especially important given that China has a veto on the Security Council and other Security Council regular members are not themselves democracies. If other countries are not willing to help us impose or fight for democracy, why should we not try ourselves?

The accusation that the House of Lords is inherently conservative is an unjust accusation, as proven by their siding with the people on unpopular government policies such as student tuition fees and the 42 days detention. Today no party has a majority in the Chamber, with independent peers holding the balance of power in any vote.

The House of Lords has an inbuilt conservative majority.  The traditional provenance of the House of Lords translates to an in-built Conservative majority. Even so called Liberal and Labour peers are usually conservative in their opinions. They represent a social and economic elite and seem to flaunt diversity monitoring in a house with only 181 female peers and a staggeringly low 31 peers from ethnic minorities. [1] This unfair skew in the favour of the conservative has the power to slow down and revise legislation and is a gross misrepresentation of the British population. The House of Lords should be reformed in order to better reflect the British people so that their actions and decisions benefit the whole of society and not just their own.  [1] Smith, Ben, ‘Ethnic Minorities in Politics, Government and Public Life’, House of Commons Library (18 November 2008) and see  viewed 1 June 2011

House of Lords reform defeats the point; firstly the election process would deter many industry experts and attract political opportunists instead, thus eliminating the current worth of the House of Lords. It likely that if elected the House of Lords would simply become a mirror for the House of Commons. By being non-elected the House of Lords is free from political sways and can work in the long-term interests of the country.

The House of Lords is out of touch with the electorate.  The 19th century US President Abraham Lincoln stated that democracy should be ‘Government of the people, by the people, for the people’ [1] Therefore peers who sit in the house based on noble birth right or their membership of the Church of England, that is itself largely ignored by the people, do not represent the people of Britain.  [1] A' Short Definition of Democracy’, Democracy-building.info, 2005, viewed on 1 June 2011

The House of Lords may not be representative of the British population but instead they represent an array of educated experts who can give informed advice on Government policy.

Although the House of Lords may not be a true expression of ‘democracy’, it has a positive function in the governing of the country and is based in a tradition and heritage that the people of Britain should not try and abandon. One could argue in return that those very decisions and wars that Britain is in involved in to defend ‘democracy’ do not reflect the will of the people and that modern states are not true democracies at all. In practice the British people have a limited say in how the country is run and it would be naïve to champion the idea of Britain being a ‘democracy’ by ignoring the existence of such an overpowering state machine.

Reform would strengthen the House of Lords  Reform of the House of Lords would strengthen the legitimacy of the house and therefore improve its functions. By electing the second chamber they would gain the legitimacy to not simply stall bills but reject them all together or drafts bills of their own, thus facilitating a more dynamic government, able to change. Using a different electoral technique, for example Proportional Representation with members sitting for longer periods would allow them to still be of a different composition to the House of Commons and not sway to short-term political popularity. Electing different portions at different times would also guard against a freak landslide result affecting the house’s balance. By creating a worthy opposition to the House of Commons all issues would be debated and decided upon more fairly and government would be more closely monitored.

The current House of Lords is undemocratic  The House of Lords is undemocratic. Currently the members of the House of Lords consist of hereditary peers, senior members of the Church of England and those appointed by political parties. Whether or not there is an abuse of power or the outcome of the House of Lords is beside the point – its very existence in its current state is undemocratic and as such it should be reformed. It seems nonsensical that a country that lectures to the rest of the world the importance of democracy, to the point of war, should overlook such a grievance in their own society.

The fear of controversy or of an ‘unworkable’ government is not reason to stall reform. If we adopt the stance that a government knows best or if we excuse a government to override the will of its people in the name of the greater good, then we pave the way for the misuse of power. Democracy should be held in the highest regard, only free societies can be secure and developed as shown in numerous historic example. Only fundamentally free societies can be fundamentally secure and developed, which is backed up by many examples from history. [1] Democracy has proved itself as better than the alternatives, where autocracies, oligarchies and theocracies have failed, democracy has prevailed.  [1] Grizold, Professor Anton, Peacebuilding and the impact of post-conflict areas on European security (Department of Political Science, University of Ljublana)

Although a small number of members of the House of Lords are industry experts the fact remains that there is still a proportion of hereditary peers, which guarantees no expertise whatsoever. Furthermore political parties can elect peers which is simply absurd, parties should not be able to appoint their own watch dogs: David Cameron has already appointed 117 peers in less than a year. [1]  [1] Barrett, Matthew, ‘Full House: Cameron warned against appointing more peers’, (20 April 2011) viewed 1 June 2011

Reform would make the House of Lords simply a mirror of the House of Commons  An elected House, even one elected every ten years, would still think about policies that are popular in the short term rather than the long-term welfare of the country, making it closer to the House of Commons in its interest and reducing its role as a balance. By subjecting the second chamber to election there would be two outcomes: if elected at the same time the House of Lords would simply become a mirror-image of the House of Commons rendering it pointless, if elected mid-term the composition of the House of Lords would reflect the tendency for a government to be unpopular mid-term, thus creating gridlock and making the system unworkable. Reform of the House of Lords is impractical and undesirable.

The public is apathetic to reform.  Whether or not reform of the House of Lords should be a top priority in the current economic climate is debateable, let alone whether or not a coalition government would be able to initiate and drive through such measures. Attempts to reform the House of Lords have been delayed time and time again, demonstrating the House of Commons’ reservations on change. [1] A feeling that is no doubt echoed in popular British opinion – as demonstrated by the recent outcome of the Alternative Vote – the public are either adverse to the idea of change or apathetic to it. [2]  [1] Summers, Deborah, ‘Labour's attempts to reform the House of Lords’, The Guardian (27 January, 2009), viewed on 1 June 2011   [2] BBC News, ‘Vote 2011: UK rejects alternative vote, 7 May 2011,

Democracy should not be the end-point aspiration of government.  One should not assume that the lack of democracy is wholly negative; do the majority of people know what is best for the country? Or do industry experts? Could the public reach a consensus on important governing decisions? Government can see the bigger picture and balance the needs of different interest groups to produce the best outcome for all: ‘true’ democracy is simply unworkable and can too easily lead to the ‘tyranny of the majority’ as described by Fareed Zakaria. [1] Perhaps the best way to illustrate this point is to look at the two champions of democracy: France and America. France overturned its monarchy and government in the name of liberty, yet quickly descended into mob-rule and violence; ‘democracy’ had a bloody birth. [2] Similarly one only has to look at the appalling levels of inequality within the United States of America to question the nature and worth of ‘democracy’. [3] So if the nature of government is not simply to fulfil notions of ‘democracy’ but to ensure good governance then the House of Lords is still an important institution.  [1] Zakaria, Fareed, The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy Home and Abroad (New York, 2003)  [2] Doyle, William, The French Revolution: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford, 2001)  [3] American Political Science Association Task Force, ‘American Democracy in an Age of Rising Inequality’, Perspectives on Politics, 2 (2004)

The House of Lords allows a number of experts to influence government policy.  While the members of the House of Lords may represent a small section of society, they also include expert peers including lawyers, scientists, businesspeople, academics, doctors and civil servants that can balance out the sometimes short term, political opportunism present in the House of Commons. Election does not guarantee these expertise and knowledge, so having a second chamber that is appointed rather than elected improves the quality of the governance of the country.

The AV campaign cannot be compared to reform to the House of Lords, furthermore one should not mistake a misinformed public due to political spin, with apathy. Often voters express that they are apathetic because they feel that they can’t change anything, that there vote won’t count: reform that ensures the people running the country are directly elected by the people would help to counter these feelings.

The House of Lords could be elected on a longer term basis than the House of Commons – ten years for example. Furthermore elections could be staggered during this period so the House of Lords would never simply be a ‘mirror’. Furthermore the House of Lords should be democratically elected and it should reflect the will of the people, whether or not this is a ‘mirror’ of the other house is not relevant as it reflects the results in a fair vote. Similarly if elected mid-term and the House of Lords reflected mid-term unpopularity of the ruling party, then this too would be the will of the people – any clashes would be part of the democratic process.

Being a citizen does not come with a right to know everything that the state does. In much the same way being a shareholder does not mean you get to know absolutely everything every person in a business does. Instead you get the headlines and a summary, most of the time the how the business goes about getting the results is left to the management. Ultimately the state’s purpose is to protect its citizens and this comes before letting them know everything about how that is done.

ch debate media and good government politics defence government digital freedoms

Citizens have a right to know what is done in their name  The nation exits for its citizens; it depends on their consent to maintain order and to raise finances. The main purpose of the state is law and order, and national defence, both of which are covered by security. As an area that is so central to the role of the government it is vital that the stakeholders in that government, its citizens, know what it is the state is doing in their name for their security.  The Obama administration for example refuses to acknowledge that it is carrying out a campaign using drones while at the same time saying it is “the only game in town in terms of confronting and trying to disrupt the al-Qaeda leadership.” [1] If the US government is bombing another country then the US people have a right to know with much less ambiguity what exactly is being done, who is being hit, when and where. They also need to be informed of any possible consequences.  [1] Kaufman, Brett, ‘In Court Today: Fighting the CIA’s Secrecy Claims on Drones’, ACLU, 20 September 2012

Transparency in situations of international tension is tricky; with complete transparency how do you engage in bluffing? The state that is completely transparent is tying one hand behind its back in international negotiations.  It is also wrong to assume that transparency will always reduce tensions. Sometimes two countries just have completely incompatible interests. In such instances complete transparency is simply going to set them on a collision course. It is then much better for there to be a bit less transparency so that both sides can fudge the issue and sign up to an agreement while interpreting it in different ways.

Transparency prevents public relations disasters  Transparency is necessary to avoid public relations disasters; particularly in countries where the media has some freedom to investigate for themselves. It is clearly the best policy for the military to make sure all the information is released along with the reasons behind actions rather than having the media finding individual pieces of a whole and speculating to fill the gaps.  A good example would be a collision on 16th January 1966 between a B-52 bomber and a KC-135 tanker while attempting to refuel that destroyed both planes. Accidents happen, and this one cost 11 lives, but could have been much worse as the B-52 had four nuclear bombs on board were not armed and did not detonate. In this case an initial lack of information rapidly turned into a public relations disaster that was stemmed by much more openness by the military and the US Ambassador in Spain. The release of the information reduces the room for the press to fill in the gaps with harmful speculation. [1] In this case there was never much chance of national security implications or a break with Spain as the country was ruled by the dictator Franco, someone who would hardly pay attention to public opinion. But in a democracy a slow and closed response could seriously damage relations.  [1] Stiles, David, ‘A Fusion Bomb over Andalucia: U.S. Information Policy and the 1966 Palomares Incident’, Journal of War Studies, Vol.8, No.1, Winter 2006, pp.49-67, p.65

Transparency is a good in and of itself  The most essential commodity within a state is trust. Trust is essential in all sorts of aspect of our lives; we trust that the paper money we have is actually worth more than a scrap of paper, that doctors performing surgery know what they are doing, that we won't be attacked in the street, and that the government is looking after our interests. In order to create that trust there needs to be transparency so that we know that our institutions are trustworthy. It is the ability to check the facts and the accountability that comes with transparency that creates trust. And this in turn is what makes them legitimate. [1]  The need for trust applies just as much to security as any other walk of life. Citizens need to trust that the security services really are keeping them safe, are spending taxpayers’ money wisely, and are acting in a fashion that is a credit to the country. Unfortunately if there is not transparency there is no way of knowing if this is the case and so often the intelligence services have turned out to be an embarrassment. As has been the case with the CIA and it’s the use of torture following 9/11, for which there are still calls for transparency on past actions. [2]  [1] Ankersmit, Laurens, ‘The Irony of the international relations exception in the transparency regulation’, European Law Blog, 20 March 2013  [2] Traub, James, ‘Out With It’, Foreign Policy, 10 May 2013

Trust goes two ways; the people have to trust that on some issues, such as security, the government is doing the right thing to protect them even when it cannot release all relevant information. But even if the military and security services do claim to be completely transparent then how is everyone to know that it really is being as transparent as they say? Unfortunately there are information asymmetry’s between members of the public and the government; the member of the public is unlikely to have the capability to find out if the government if hiding something from them. [1] Other countries too are likely to be suspicious of ‘complete transparency’ and simply believe that this is cover for doing something more nefarious. Trust then cannot only about being transparent in everything.  [1] Stiglitz, Joseph, ‘Transparency in Government’, in Roumeen Islam, The right to tell: the roll of the mass media in economic development, World Bank Publications, 2002, p.28

This is clearly not always the case. Often transparency means that the public becomes aware when there is little need for them to know. There had been previous nuclear accidents that had caused no damage, and had not been noticed, such as in Goldsboro, N.C. in 1961. [1] If there had been a media frenzy fuelled by released information there would clearly have been much more of a public relations disaster than there was with no one noticing. Since there’re was no harm done there is little reason why such a media circus should have been encouraged. And even without media attention the incident lead to increase safeguards.  [1] Stiles, David, ‘A Fusion Bomb over Andalucia: U.S. Information Policy and the 1966 Palomares Incident’, Journal of War Studies, Vol.8, No.1, Winter 2006, pp.49-67, p.51

Transparency may mean that mistakes or problems are found faster, but it does not mean they are going to be corrected faster. Waste in the defense budget has been known about for years yet it still keeps coming up. Transparency shines a light on the problem but that is not helpful if it does not result in action to solve the problem.

Transparency helps reduce international tension  Transparency is necessary in international relations. States need to know what each other are doing to assess their actions. Without any transparency the hole is filled by suspicion and threat inflation that can easily lead to miscalculation and even war.  The Cuban missile crisis is a clear example where a lack of transparency on either side about what they were willing to accept and what they were doing almost lead to nuclear war. [1] It is notable that one of the responses to prevent a similar crisis was to install a hotline between the White House and Kremlin. A very small, but vital, step in terms of openness.  Today this is still a problem; China currently worries about the US ‘pivot’ towards Asia complaining it “has aroused a great deal of suspicion in China.” “A huge deficit of strategic trust lies at the bottom of all problems between China and the United States.” The result would be an inevitable arms race and possible conflict. [2]  [1] Frohwein, Ashley, ‘Embassy Moscow: A Diplomatic Perspective of the Cuban Missile Crisis’, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service, 7 May 2013  [2] Yafei, He, ‘The Trust Deficit’, Foreign Policy, 13 May 2013

Transparency prevents, or corrects, mistakes  Transparency is fundamental in making sure that mistakes don’t happen, or when they do that they are found and corrected quickly with appropriate accountability. This applies as much, if not more, to the security apparatus than other walks of life. In security mistakes are much more likely to be a matter of life and death than in most other walks of life. They are also likely to be costly; something the military and national security apparatus is particularly known for. [1] An audit of the Pentagon in 2011 found that the US Department of Defense wasted $70 billion over two years. [2] This kind of waste can only be corrected if it is found out about, and for that transparency is necessary.  [1] Schneier, Bruce, ‘Transparency and Accountability Don’t Hurt Security – They’re Crucial to It’, The Atlantic, 8 May 2012  [2] Schweizer, Peter, ‘Crony Capitalism Creeps Into the Defense Budget’, The Daily Beast, 22 May 2012

The public is rational and can make its own assessment of risk. The best course in such cases is transparency and education. If all relevant information is released, along with analysis as to the risk presented by the threat, then the public can be best informed about what kind of threats they need to be prepared for. Terrorism has been blown out of proportion because they are single deadly incidents that are simple to report and have a good narrative to provide 24/7 coverage that the public will lap up. [1] As a result there has been much more media coverage than other threats. It can then be no surprise that the public overestimate the threat posed by terrorism as the public are told what risks are relevant by the amount of media coverage. [2]  [1] Engelhardt, Tom, ‘Casualties from Terrorism Are Minor Compared to Other Threats’, Gale Opposing Viewpoints, 2011  [2] Singer, Eleanor, and Endreny, Phyllis Mildred, Reporting on Risk: How the Mass Media Portray Accidents, Diseases, Disasters and Other Hazards, Russell Sage Foundation, 1993

Drones are an unusual example (though not unique) because they are a new form of warfare over which there are few clear rules and norms. This means that making it transparent will create new norms. However in the vast majority of covert operations if made public they would clearly be illegal and would have to be ended. Drones are also unusual in that the public sees few downsides to the killing, this means there would be less public pressure than in most such operations.

Provides information to competitors  Where there is international competition transparency can be a problem if there is not transparency on both sides as one side is essentially giving its opponent an advantage. This is ultimately why countries keep national security secrets; they are in competition with other nations and the best way to ensure an advantage over those states is to keep capabilities secret. One side having information while the other does not allows the actor that has the information to act differently in response to that knowledge. Keeping things secret can therefore provide an advantage when making a decision, as the one with most information is most likely to react best. [1] Currently there is information asymmetry between the United States and China to the point where some analysts consider that the United States provides more authoritative information on China’s military than China itself does. [2]  [1] National Security Forum, No More Secrets, American Bar Association, March 2011, p.7  [2] Erickson, Andrew S., ‘Pentagon Report Reveals Chinese Military Developments’, The Diplomat, 8 May 2013

In security too much transparency endangers lives  Transparency is all very well when it comes to how much is being spent on a new tank, aircraft, or generals houses, but it is very different when it comes to operations. Transparency in operations can endanger lives. With intelligence services transparency would risk the lives of informants; it is similar with the case of interpreters for US forces in Iraq who were targeted after they were told they could not wear masks because they are considered to be traitors. [1]  In military operations being open about almost anything could be a benefit to the opposition. Most obviously things like the timing and numbers involved in operations need to be kept under wraps but all sorts of information could be damaging in one way or another. Simply because a state is not involved in a full scale war does not mean it can open up on these operations. This is why the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mike Mullen in response to WikiLeaks said “Mr. Assange can say whatever he likes about the greater good he thinks he and his source are doing… But the truth is they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family.” [2]  [1] Londoño, Ernesto, ‘U.S. Ban on Masks Upsets Iraqui Interpreters’, Washington Post, 17 November 2008  [2] Jaffe, Greg, and Partlow, Joshua, ‘Joint Chiefs Chairman Mullen: WikiLeaks release endangers troops, Afghans’, Washington Post, 30 July 2010

Transparency can lead to conflict  The idea that transparency is good assumes that the people watching the government be transparent are likely to provide a moderating influence on policy. This is not always the case. Instead transparency can lead to more conflict.  First a nationalist population may force the government into taking more action than it wants. One obvious way to quiet such sentiment is to show that the country is not ready for war; something that may not be possible if being transparent. Instead if it is transparent that the military could win then there is nothing to stop a march to war. It then becomes possible for multiple interest groups to form into coalitions each with differing reasons for conflict trading off with each other resulting in overstretch and conflict. [1]  Secondly when there is a rapidly changing balance of power then transparency for the rising power may not be a good thing. Instead as Deng Xiaoping advised they should “Hide your strength, bide your time”. [2] Showing in the open how your military is expanding may simply force action from the current dominant power. Transparency, combined with domestic media worrying about the other’s build up can make the other side seem more and more of a threat that must be dealt with before it can get any more powerful. It is quite a common international relations theory that one way or another relative power and the quest for hegemony is the cause for war, [3] transparency simply encourages this. William C. Wohlforth points out when studying the cause of the First World War that it is perception of relative power that matters. Germany’s leaders believed it had to strike before it out of time as a result of Russia rapidly industrialising. [4] Transparency unfortunately reduces the ability of the government to manage perception.  [1] Snyder, Jack, Myths of Empire, Cornell University Press, 1991, p.17  [2] Allison, Graham, and Blackwill, Robert D., ‘Will China Ever Be No.1?’, YakeGlobal, 20 February 2013  [3] Kaplan, Robert D., ‘Why John J. Mearsheimer Is Right (About Some Things)’, The Atlantic, 20 December 2011  [4] Wohlforth, William C., ‘The Perception of Power: Russia in the Pre-1914 Balance’, World Politics, Vol.39, No.3, (April 1987), pp.353-381, p.362

Don’t panic!  The role of the security services is in part to deal with some very dangerous ideas and events. But the point is to deal with them in such a way that does not cause public disorder or even panic. We clearly don’t want every report detailing specific threats to be made public, especially if it is reporting something that could be devastating but there is a low risk of it actually occurring. If such information is taken the wrong way it can potentially cause panic, either over nothing, or else in such a way that it damages any possible response to the crisis. Unfortunately the media and the public often misunderstand risk. For example preventing terrorism has been regularly cited in polls as being the Americans top foreign policy goal with more than 80% thinking it very important in Gallup polls for over a decade [1] even when the chance of being killed by terrorism in Western countries is very low. If the public misunderstands the risk the response is unlikely to be proportionate and can be akin to yelling fire in a packed theatre.  While it is not (usually) a security, but rather a public health issue, pandemics make a good example. The question of how much information to release is only slightly different than in security; officials want to release enough information that everyone is informed, but not so much that there is panic whenever there is an unusual death. [2] In 2009 the WHO declared swine flu to be a pandemic despite it being a relatively mild virus that did not cause many deaths, so causing an unnecessary scare and stockpiling of drugs. [3]  [1] Jones, Jeffrey M., ‘Americans Say Preventing Terrorism Top Foreign Policy Goal’, Gallup Politics, 20 February 2013  [2] Honigsbaum, Mark, ‘The coronavirus conundrum: when to press the panic button’, guardian.co.uk, 14 February 2013  [3] Cheng, Maria, ‘WHO’s response to swine flu pandemic flawed’, Phys.org, 10 May 2011

Clearly transparency in real time might cause some problems allowing the disruption of ongoing operations. However most of the time information could be released very shortly afterwards rather than being considered secret for 25-30 years. [1] A much shorter timeframe is needed if the transparency is to have any meaning or impact upon policy. In the case of WikiLeaks most of the information was already a couple of years old and WikiLeaks said it made sure that there was no information that could endanger lives released.  We should also remember that a lack of transparency can also endanger lives; this might be the case if it leads to purchases of equipment of shoddy equipment without the proper oversight to ensure everything works as it should. For example many countries purchased bomb detectors that are made out of novelty golf ball finders, just plastic, that do not work from a Briton looking to make a fast buck. It has for example been used to attempt to find car bombs in Iraq. A little transparency in testing and procurement could have gone a long way in protecting those who have to use the equipment. [2]  [1] National Security Forum, No More Secrets, American Bar Association, March 2011, p.8  [2] AFP, ‘Iraq still using phony bomb detectors at checkpoints’, globalpost, 3 May 2013

Transparency can result in normalisation  While something is secret it is clearly not a normal every day part of government, it is deniable and the assumption is that when it comes to light it has probably been wound up long ago. However making something transparent without winding it up can be a bad thing as it makes it normal which ultimately makes a bad policy much harder to end.  The use of drones by the CIA may turn out to be an example of this. At the moment we are told almost nothing about drones, not even how many strikes there are or how many are killed. There have however been recent suggestions that the drone program could be transferred to the Department of Defence. This would then make the targeted killing that is carried out seem a normal part of military conflict, somehting it clearly is not. [1] And the public reacts differently to covert and military action; already more Americans support military drones doing targeted killing (75%) than CIA ones (65%). [2]  [1] Waxman, Matthew, ‘Going Clear’, Foreign Policy, 20 March 2013  [2] Zenko, Micah, ‘U.S. Public Opinion on Drone Strikes’, Council on Foreign Relations, 18 March 2013

Coalitions can form behind expansionist policies regardless of whether there is transparency. If there is no transparency then it is simply an invitation for these groups to overestimate the strength of their own state compared to their opponents. Where there is transparency the figures will at least be available to counter their arguments. It should not be surprising that interest groups do not have as much influence in creating expansionist policy in democracies. [1]  Transparency showing when a state is to be eclipsed is a greater concern but a lack of transparency in such a case is just as bad. No transparency will simply encourage the fears of the state that is to be eclipsed that the rising state is hostile and not to be trusted.  [1] Snyder, Jack, Myths of Empire, Cornell University Press, 1991, p.18

Transparency clearly does not have to extend to things like technical specifications of weapons. Such information would be a clear benefit to a competitor allowing them to build their own while being of little help in terms of transparency as most people could not understand it. On the other hand knowing what a weapons system does simply prevents misunderstanding and misjudgement.

onal europe politics defence leadership house favours common eu foreign policy

It may well be the case that the model of politics at Westminster needs to be reviewed but that does not speak to the issue of independence. Furthermore, it is interesting how many of the parties’ ‘big beasts’ (influential) chose to stay at Westminster – including Alex Salmond for a term.  Equally, in the light of the credit crunch, it is questionable as to whether constantly giving away populist freebies such as free eye-tests [i] when the parliament is not responsible for raising the taxes to pay for it hardly represents good politics.  Furthermore, in its brief life, there has been no shortage of political scandal at Holyrood, including the resignation of one First Minister in disgrace over an expenses scandal.  [i] BBC News, ‘Scotland brings in free eye tests’, 31 March 2006,

government local government house supports scottish independence

Devolution has demonstrated the ability of Scots to govern themselves not only as well as Westminster but with more civility  Not only has the policy agenda been different in Scotland but so has the model of politics. It has seen the emergence of new political parties and a better representation of the diversity within existing ones.  The nature of political discourse, although vigorous and not as consensual as initially hoped, has proved to be more consensual – both during the time of the SNP minority administration and the preceding coalitions than politics south of the border. [i]  The contrast between the coalition governments at Holyrood, the Scottish parliament, where Scottish Labour and the Scottish Liberal Democrats were allied between 1999 and 2007, and the internecine warfare going on between Conservative and Liberal members of the current Westminster coalition could not be more stark.  [i] Cairney, Paul, ‘Coalition and Minority Government in Scotland’, Political Studies Associations Conference, 1 April 2010,

Firstly, if these industries are already emerging under the devolved powers then there seems to be little reason for expanding those powers. Nationalism has always relied on the fantasy that magically everything about the country will change the day after independence. [i]  The reality is not quite so rosy; with a disproportionately high level of employment in the public sector [ii] as well as consistently high levels of multi-generational unemployment, pretending that these problems would be swept away following autonomy is just fantasy. These constitutional wrangles are a distraction from the real issues of addressing employment and chronic ill-health are much higher concerns.  [i] Chakrabortty, Aditya, ‘Can Scotland pay its own way?’, The Guardian, 20 May 2011,   [ii] Simon Rogers. “The public sector employment map of the UK: the full data.” The Guardian. 21 November 2011.

Scotland has a proud history and has demonstrated since devolution different political interests  The Union has now passed its 300th birthday and throughout that time Scotland has maintained as distinct role and identity. This is grounded in a tradition and history that is quite different from that south of the Border and includes legal and education systems that have always been separate.  That has manifested itself in a distinct policy agenda since devolution and areas such as free care for the elderly and the abolition of student tuition fees.  Despite the opinions of doomsayers before devolution it has been proved as a remarkable success and massive approval throughout the UK with 70% saying it has been a success. [i]  [i] The Scotsman. “70% of Britons support devolution for Scotland, poll suggests” 8 May 2009.

There are many differences between devolution and independence. Surviving events such as the banking crisis and the European sovereign debt crisis are much easier within the confines of a larger, richer state such as the UK.  Nobody denies that devolution has, broadly speaking, been a success. However, it’s been achieved in quite a different context than that facing a nation state.  It has left difficult decisions to Westminster. It allows the Scottish Executive the luxury of being oppositionist on issues such as nuclear power, fantasists on renewables while leaving the problem of how to keep the lights on to politicians at Westminster.

An independent Scotland has enormous economic potential to join other small European nations, especially as a leader in technology and renewable energy  Many of Scotland’s problems are grounded in the fact that its potential has consistently been held back. Because the focus for economic development from a Westminster perspective has focused for generations on North Sea oil and the coal fields of Lanarkshire, huge opportunities were missed and the best and the brightest tended be dragged down south for jobs worthy of their skills.  Even with the limited powers allowed by devolution a burgeoning life-sciences sector, a growing IT sector in silicon glen are adding to the traditional industries. Since 2003 Scotland has generally had faster economic growth than the UK with 13% during the period from 2003-2007 compared to the UK’s 11.4%. [i] Independence would stretch people still further.  [i] CPPR Centre for Public Policy for Regions, ‘The changing pattern of Scotland’s economic growth since Devolution’, CPPR Briefing Note, June 2011,

The Scottish budget runs at a surplus of about 1%, unlike the UK’s, and so the Scots are actually subsidizing their neighbours. [i] It is also important to take into account the vast amount of wealth that has fled south in the shape of North Sea oil revenue and the talent that has been sucked up by London in terms of not only work but also with the number of Scots soldiers sent to fight English wars.  Perhaps the best example of this historically is Glasgow which literally built the British Empire – mostly to English benefit – only to be discarded to some of the worst poverty in the developed world when it was no longer useful  [i] Chakrabortty, 2011

Scotland already has a distinct global profile including world-class national brands such as whiskey and salmon. Arguing that Scotland would have ‘less influence’ as an independent state is frankly absurd as, at the moment, it has none. Westminster leads in international negotiations and rarely considers Scottish interests.  Additionally, considering the damage that the UK government has managed to do to its international reputation with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan putting some clear, tartan water between Edinburgh and London would seem to be quite a strong diplomatic move.

The union has worked for over three hundred years and most people feel comfortable with the joint Scots/British identity  For over three centuries the two nations have cooperated much to their mutual advantage. The majority of Scots are happy with their British-ness.  In terms of culture and art the two nations have maintained distinctive traditions but ones which have been enhanced by their interaction. There are many people who have relatives from Scotland and another of the Home Nations for whom British is the more obvious identity. [i]  After centuries of fighting with each other the Union brought peace and mutual benefit.  [i] Mitchell, David, ‘If Scotland does secede, I won’t be alone in mourning for my country’, The Observer, 15 May 2011,

Scotland needs English economic muscle as through the Barnett formula England, especially the Southeast effectively subsidizes the rest of the UK in general and Scotland in particular  The Barnett established the model by which money is divided up within the regions and nations of the UK. The formula works greatly to Scotland’s advantage with a net flow of funding heading north.  The English taxpayer subsidizes Scots to the tune of £19bn a year (2009-10). [i] Without that subsidy The Scottish government would not have been able to give away the many benefits that have been handed out by the devolved authorities.  Scotland needs English support financially just as she does in terms of diplomatic representation or political muscle.  [i] McLaren, John et al., ‘Financial Implications of Different Fiscal Arrangements For Scotland’, CPPR Centre for Public Policy for Regions, June 2011,

Deliberately turning away from the international clout the UK brings to play on the global scene is simply odd  The UK acts as a big player on the international scene sitting at the top table of most international institutions. It is questionable as to whether the remaining part of the UK would continue to sit on the UN Security Council; one thing that is certain is that Scotland would not. Equally they would have little clout on European bodies, damaging their influence on key Scottish interests such as fisheries policy.  It would also lose the advantage that many companies see Edinburgh as a convenient base within the UK but would be unlikely to see much benefit to it as a base in an independent Scotland [i] .  [i] David Sinclair. “Issues surrounding Scottish independence.” September 1999. Published by the Constitution Unit, Tavistock House.

Ignoring the fact that Opp is putting forward a version of history that is decades rather than centuries old there are other flaws. Scottish cultural traditions were actively destroyed by English dominance and continue to receive very limited support.  Linguistic traditions such as Scots and Gaelic were completely ignored and frequently suppressed.  In addition it has not been 300 years of mutual benefit as Scotland has been largely overwhelmed by its more populous neighbour. Scotland’s resources, including its intellectual ones, have been – and continued to be – effectively stolen by England.

Banning skin whitening on such a basis also requires the acceptance of the racial overtones. Some form of tan is popular in many societies of people of European ethnic origins – that is not a racial matter, it is more based on economic social perceptions (that of holidays to warmer climates). Ascribing a racial element to everything to do with skin tone is at best a lazy analysis.  Irrespective of issues of race and perceptions of ethnic origins, and its intersection with beauty standards, some people will be given advantages in life due to their appearance. Banning a certain form of cosmetic, even if it can have some racial and ethnic undertones, won’t change that.

media modern culture international africa house believes african nations should

They fuel colourism in society  Allowing the use of racial overtones – the perception that a product will bring a person towards a “white ideal” is harmful for several reasons. It could cause communities to generate a form of inferiority complex, and it reinforces the structural difference rather than aiming to minimize it. While it may sound absurd, in the US darker-skinned African Americans (and darker skinned latinos) are less well educated and have lower incomes [1] . Elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere, such as in Brazil, race is seen as an issue of colour and socio-economic background, not ancestry highlighting a much more obvious link between whitening creams and racism [2] .  Is it not the role of the state to reduce that discrimination, not to fuel it? Banning such creams would help prevent such harmful effects by discouraging the notion that people should aim to make themselves lighter skinned.  [1] Hunter, Margaret L., “If you’re light you’re alright: light skin color as social capital for women of color”, Gender and Society, 2002,  , p.35  [2] Telles, Edward, Race in Another America: The Significance of Skin Colour in Brazil, 2004, online sample chapter,

If there is a demand for it, people want it. Not only do indigenous skin-whitening products exist, they are so widespread and popular it cannot be ascribed to a “cringe” on a small area of society.  It is wrong to consider skin whitening to just be a colonial import as if being white is all about looking like a westerner. Many cultures, particularly in Asia but also some in Africa such as Egypt, valued lighter skin tones before colonisation; such tones showed that you were a woman of leisure who did not need to toil under the hot tropical sun. [1]  Maintaining a desire to look lighter may therefore neither be an effect of a neo-colonial mind-set nor create neo-colonial business ties.  [1] Goon, Patricia, and Craven, Allison, ‘Whose Debt?: Globalisation and Whitefacing in Asia’, Intersections: Gender, History and Culture in the Asian Context, issue 9, August 2003,

These products are dangerous  Skin whitening creams often contain a wide variety of harmful ingredients – in some cases, mercury. These can cause various health problems; mercury in particular causes renal (kidney) damage, major skin problems as well as mental health issues [1] .  States, throughout the world, ban consumer products because they are harmful regardless of whether this is for consumption or for cosmetics. This is just another case where that is appropriate in order to prevent the harm to health that may occur.  [1] World Health Organization, “Mercury in skin lightening products”, WHO.int, 2011,

Skin whitening creams often contain a wide variety of harmful ingredients – in some cases, mercury. These can cause various health problems; mercury in particular causes renal (kidney) damage, major skin problems as well as mental health issues [1] .  States, throughout the world, ban consumer products because they are harmful regardless of whether this is for consumption or for cosmetics. This is just another case where that is appropriate in order to prevent the harm to health that may occur.  [1] World Health Organization, “Mercury in skin lightening products”, WHO.int, 2011,

Monetizing colonialism  Skin whitening can be seen as an attempt to fit in with a form of a neo-colonialist mind-set; a form of cultural imperialism driven by capitalism.  These products, often sold by big international FMCG (fast moving consumer goods) companies feed off a neo-colonialist mind-set – one of a cultural inferiority complex. These products form part of the process of tying African people into a globalised consumer world where non-westerners feel compelled to buy western products that they don’t need. They are therefore kept in a colonial situation where they are dependent on the west both mentally and in terms of the products they buy. That is reason enough for nations that have been victims of colonialism by the Global North to take action against them.

No-one is pretending that a ban on whitening products is a solution to every social ill. What is being suggested is that these products are harmful, and that the culture they create is also potentially harmful.  A race-colour-class nexus exists – that is why the proposition is concerned about the normalization of skin bleaching.

States can and do ban products that are physically or socially harmful – that’s not illiberalism, it is common sense. It clearly does not suggest that non-white women do not have the capacity; white countries such as the USA engage in similar bans for health reasons.  Anyway, In a society with mass media and celebrity-lead marketing campaigns, do people really make entirely autonomous decisions? Consumers almost never have complete information about what they are buying. When they don’t the government has to prevent them from making mistakes that may be harmful to themselves.

Prohibition is counterproductive  As tempting as it is to feel that banning is the solution to problems, it doesn’t work. Almost all states prohibits certain drugs, but that does not stop them being used. [1] Despite being banned in Ghana, skin whitening creams are still openly advertised on billboards [2] .  Counterfeit cosmetics of all types exist worldwide [3] , they are illegal for a variety of reasons, not least intellectual property abuse: banning skin lighting creams would simply give more space to the counterfeits. A ban could lead users towards either a homemade substance, or pills and injections which would almost certainly be more damaging as a result of a lack of regulation.  [1] See the Debatabase debate ‘ This House supports the legalisation of drugs’  [2] Al Jazeera English, “The Stream: Fair Beauty”, YouTube, 22 August 2013,  , roughly 18 minutes in  [3] RIA Novosti, “Counterfeit cosmetics: Turning beauties in to beasts”, RT, 08 November 2010,

Run education campaigns instead  Education is an alternative. Campaigns such as #darkisbeautiful (dark is beautiful) in India are the model for advancing equality and marginalizing colourism in India. The campaign has had some success attracting stars, including some such as Vishaka Sing who have modelled for fairness creams, to campaign against the prejudice against darker skin tones. [1]  The heavy hand of legislation is not the correct tool – other methods from social media campaigns to changing practices in the fashion, beauty and media industries (such as has occurred in Dakar Fashion Week [2] ) will reduce the cultural demand.  [1] Krupa, Lakshmi, ‘Dark is beautiful’, The Hindu, 8 September 2013,   [2] Reuters, “Dakar fashion week bans models who use skin lightning cream”, South China Morning Post, 01 July 2013,

Banning these is papering over the issue  It would be all too tempting for governments to consider that a ban on these products would sort out issues of skin tone discrimination as they would be hidden away from public view.  Class and race are both divisive issues, and are often inextricably linked. Those with lighter skin will still have advantages over those with darker skin hues. The banning of whiteners will simply reduce the ability of individuals to change how others perceive them. We can all agree that there needs to be less colourism but that has to be achieved by reducing prejudices. Only broader education on the issue of skin colour discrimination can achieve such a change.

Personal autonomy  Like many other debates, this simply boils down to personal autonomy. Individuals should be free to take actions, even ones harmful to them as long as they do not harm others, at least not without good reason. Thus things that are almost entirely harmful such as smoking are allowed.  It is a matter of personal choice – to suggest otherwise non-white women do not have the capacity to make that choice.

Educational campaigns can and do work on many issues. However, they can only do so much in terms of making genuine progress. If you want to change attitudes – generally subconscious – more concrete action is needed. Legislation affects everyone while a campaign will only ever reach comparatively small numbers.

Obviously, not every policy is 100% effective. However, a ban on products that is well created and adequately enforced could at least reject a material from the mainstream, and signals disapproval. Not everyone will follow a ban but many will see that the ban is there for a good reason and will not seek alternatives.  Counterfeit cosmetics are a different issue – one is the attempt to capitalize off of a brand, the other is to provide a product to achieve people’s goals.

People are unhappy because they can't have everything, not because they are given too much choice and find it stressful. In fact, advertisements play a crucial role in ensuring that what money people have, they spend on the most appropriate product for themselves. If advertisements were not permitted, people would waste money on an initial product when, given the choice, they clearly would go for another.  A meta-analysis incorporating research from 50 independent studies found no meaningful connection between choice and anxiety, but speculated that the variance in the studies left open the possibility that choice overload could be tied to certain highly specific and as yet poorly understood pre-conditions1.  1 ^ Scheibehenne, Benjamin; Greifeneder, R. &amp; Todd, P. M. (2010). "Can There Ever be Too Many Options? A Meta-Analytic Review of Choice Overload" . Journal of Consumer Research 37: 409-425.

People are given too much choice, which makes them less happy.  Advertising leads to many people being overwhelmed by the endless need to decide between competing demands on their attention – this is known as the tyranny of choice or choice overload. Recent research suggests that people are on average less happy than they were 30 years ago - despite being better off and having much more choice of things to spend their money on1. The claims of adverts crowd in on people, raising expectations about a product and leading to inevitable disappointment after it is bought. A recent advertisement for make-up was banned in Britain due to the company presenting its product as being more effective than it actually was2. Shoppers feel that a poor purchase is their fault for not choosing more wisely, and regret not choosing something else instead. Some people are so overwhelmed that they cannot choose at all.  1Schwartz, The Tyranny of Choice, 2004.  2 Kekeh , Too Beautiful? British MP Draws Line in Sand for Cosmetic Ads , 2011.

Adverts which use very sly methods like subliminal images (images which are shown so quickly the viewer doesn't consciously realise they saw them) are already banned. The other forms of advertising are just companies being creative. There is no difference from supermarkets being painted bright colours to make their food seem more appetising or even people wearing make-up to improve their image. People make unconscious judgements all the time, and we frequently try to influence these choices by the way we present ourselves. This isn't brainwashing, so neither is advertising.

Advertisements tell children that they should have everything they want.  Advertising gives the impression, especially to children, that they can and should have everything they want. This makes people too interested in material things. People are becoming more selfish and obsessed with their possessions, and losing their values of patience, hard work, moderation and the importance of non-material things like family and friends. This harms their relationships and their personal development, which has serious effects for society as a whole.

There are too many advertisements in everyday life.  The sheer volume of advertising in our society is incredible. You cannot watch television, ride on a bus or even walk down the street without someone trying to sell you something or inform you of something. Recent research suggests people living in a city today sees up to 5,000 advertisements a day1. 50% of those surveyed said they thought 'advertising today was out of control'1. People shouldn't have to go about their lives having their minds saturated with such a vast quantity of, in most cases, redudant and profiteering information. They should be able to go about their daily lives in peace without being forced to watch, listen or view an advertisement.  1 Anywhere the Eye Can See, It's Likely to See an Ad. New York Times.

Though there are a great many advertisements in everyday life, there are not so many that they can't simply be ignored. Advertisements attempt to get you to buy a product, if you're not interested, then don't buy the product. For every person who finds all the advertisements stressful, another person finds them enjoyable and something to read or watch while they make their daily journey to work or school. Out of control could mean simply that customers think businesses are spending too much on advertising. Without proof that the number of advertisements is having a negative effect, the point is worthless.

Our society is built around the idea that companies produce things that people want, and this is what makes us prosperous. If consumers suddenly stopped wanting to buy so many products then what happens to the people whose job it is to make them? The economy will suffer terribly. Of course some people take materialism too far, but most people buy just what they need and then a little extra when they treat themselves. This is a much better situation than one in which people can only afford to buy the things they need - that would be a step backwards.

The media and celebrity magazines do much more harm, by mocking unattractive or overweight people, and glorifying models who are often dangerously thin. Adverts never criticise people - that would be terrible for the companies behind them. Their aim is to understand and provide what people want, and so their adverts only ever reflect what people think. If people's perceptions are wrong, then it not the advertisers' job to put them right, but politicians, the media and schools.

Advertisements are an attempt to brainwash customers.  People cannot just choose to ignore advertising, because advertisers use many underhand methods to get their message across. Posters have attention grabbing words, or provocative pictures. Some adverts today are even being hidden in what seem like pieces or art or public information so people don't realise they are being marketed to. The introduction of digital screens allows businesses to alter their advertising to respond to specific events, making advertisements not only everywhere, but seemingly all-knowing1. By targeting people's unconscious thoughts adverts are a form of brainwashing that take away people's freedoms to make choices.  1 Anywhere the Eye Can See, It's Likely To See an Ad. The New York Times.

Advertisements try to make people feel bad about not having the product  Many adverts do more than just advertising products. Some try to make people feel inferior if they don't have the product, or if they have something which the product would change. Perceptions of beauty and fashion in particular have been terribly distorted. Many young people have low self-esteem, and lead unhealthy lifestyles because they feel they should be thinner and more attractive like the models they see in adverts. This leads to serious problems like eating-disorders and self-harm. Research that proved this effect also concluded that 'the media can boost self-esteem (happiness with one's self) where it is providing examples of a variety of body shapes. However, it often tends to portray a limited (small) number of body shapes'1.  1 Skinny models 'send unhealthy message'. The Guardian.

Advertisers don't have the good of society in mind when they do their work - they only care about making profit. This means that they regularly advertise unhealthy or harmful things. Fast food adverts are a large part of the reason so many children are obese. Researchers have found that children aged 6-13 who were shown commercials for junk food were more likely to pick meals that were bad for them1. The adverts just try to make children eat as much bad food as possible without any concern for the health costs.  1 Junk Food Harmful for Kids. Hindustan Times

Advertising in fact gives an unfair advantage to big businesses. Small companies might have much better products, but they cannot afford to advertise them as well and so people don't find out about them. In the film industry, the big film studios spend more than $75 million on advertising alone1. Small films cannot compete. This restricts the quality of products for consumers, and places a huge roadblock to the success of small businesses.  1 When Is Too Much Advertising Too Much? Spinoff Online.

Advertising helps us choose between different goods.  Advertising has a positive role to play in modern society, helping us choose between competing goods. Many adverts are drawing our attention to products with new features, for example more powerful computers, telephones which are also cameras and music players, or foods with added vitamins. Other adverts try to compete on price, helping us seek out the cheapest or best value products. In most cases advertising does not make us go shopping – we would be planning to buy food, clothes, gifts and entertainment anyway. What advertising does is to help us make better decisions about how to spend our money, by giving us more information about the choices available.

Advertising is only as annoying as you want it to be.  No-one is forced to put advertising on their property - for many companies it is an important part of their income. Football teams would have much less money if they were not sponsored. Manchester United's shirt sponsorship deal with Aon is worth £80 million. For the small annoyance of having to have a logo on the shirt, the football club can afford to buy new players and hopefully win more games. And no-one is forced to look at advertising - you can turn the TV off between shows, or just flick past adverts in newspapers. If you don't want to see the adverts, then just ignore them.

Advertisements promote healthy products and lifestyles.  Advertising is used to promote healthy activities, products and lifestyles and is further regulated to ensure that unhealthy products are not promoted. The School Food Trust in Britain, for example, used celebrities in advertisements to promote healthy eating in 20071. Furthermore, adverts which promote seriously unhealthy things are becoming very rare. Cigarette advertising is all but extinct, and alcohol adverts are being more restricted. With adverts such as fast food we see as well that companies are changing their message to promote healthier options. This is because it is bad for businesses to be viewed as harming children. Public pressure and successful regulation will always bring any advertising problems back under control.  1 Schools Food Trust uses celebs to promote healthy eating. Campaign Live.

Small businesses need advertisements to make their products known.  If there wasn't advertising then small businesses would have no chance at all to make their product well known. Adverts can actually level the playing field - if you have a good new product, and market it in a clever way then it doesn't matter how small your company is, you can still make consumers interested. The more you restrict the freedom of information, the more this helps the large companies who everyone already knows about.

It is hard to ignore advertising when it is everywhere in modern life. Advertising may be welcomed by companies which profit from their sponsorship, but fans do not like it nor necessarily want it. Barcelona in Spain went without commercial advertising on their shirts for a long time, proving sponsorship is not necessary to win trophies and buy players.

Advertising does not help us choose, it merely confuses customer who are not sure who is offering what. This is particularly true with advertisements that compare products with other businesses. In Britain, advertising for broadband (internet) services confuse nine out of ten people1. With different costs and add-ons, it's hard to for a customer to know what they are actually paying for and whether it is better than going somewhere else. As a result, many customers end up stressed and confused.  1 Misleading broadband advertising confuses customers. Virgin.

Whilst it is the case in individual instances that, if one piece of art is censored, another on a different topic may be produced, when looked at in a wider context this is not the case. If we restrict artists in all cases where someone is disgusted, an enormous quantity of subjects will be off limits. This will have, not only a negative impact on that artist, but a deleterious effect on whole branches of art.  Further, restricting any art that could cause social disgust is an unreasonable restriction to place upon society (or gallery curators, or grant allocation committees). It is difficult to know at what point a piece will cross the line from simply ‘provocative’ to ‘disgusting’. Consequently, people will be forced to err on the side of caution, leading to an excessive caution and restriction: overcensorship.  When weighed against these harms, it is far from clear that individual disgust can be elevated to this extent!

arts human rights thbt social disgust legitimate grounds restriction artistic

We have a duty to protect individuals from the worst reactions to art  Those who see the artwork, or hear of it, must be considered. Often, social disgust stems from the violation of those values that are most central to an individual.  An individual’s right not to have their most central values abused or ridiculed is surely of more importance than the desire of an artist to be entirely unrestricted in their work: the harm caused to individuals by the continuing acceptance by society, (and consequent exposure) of art they find disgusting, can be great, and the reasonable modern society recognises such harms and does not impose them unnecessarily.  For example, the case of the Chapman brothers’ repeated use of Hitler and Nazi imagery: for the Chapmans the horror of WW2 might be distant and historical, and therefore for them the time may have come for Hitler to simply be mocked; however, for others that horror is altogether more current. Other people may feel a greater connection, for example, because of the impact on their close family, which cannot simply be ignored. In a situation like this, clearly the impact is infinitely more negative for that individual whose trauma is, in effect, being highlighted as now acceptable for comic material, than the positive gain is for the Chapmans: if restricted, they are simply caused to move on to other subjects.

We are no less able to consent to art than we are to every other manifestation of individuality in society. We are similarly unable to consent to, but strongly impacted by, all sorts of things, from music videos and adverts to people dressed strangely on the street.  However, as a society we accept that people’s core values ought to be robust enough to survive challenges in the public sphere: we allow debate, art and music on many topics that have enormous personal ramifications, from euthanasia to deportation.  As a consequence, it is only legitimate to restrict the worst excesses, whose impact can be measured objectively, before display: we set rules in this regard restricting the worst instances of, for example, exploitation and pornography.  Further, those who are worst affected can self-limit their exposure: it is rare that people are entirely unaware of the existence of a controversial piece of art, and as such people can choose not to view it, or to view it only briefly. They should not have the right to prevent everyone else from seeing such a piece.

Just shock-tactics, at the cost of better art  Sometimes artists go too far in a bid to get their message across. Simply grabbing the headlines with shock tactics does not constitute art of the sort that should be receiving either public support or attention. It is important to recognise that public displays and funding of art are limited commodities, so every time one piece is chosen for an exhibition, or an artist is given money, this comes at the cost of other possible pieces of art. It is surely better to support those artists who have chosen to express their ideas and messages in a way that does not rely on simple attention-grabbing horror: it is surely more artistically meritorious to create a work that conveys its message in a way that rewards close attention and careful study, with layers of meaning and technique.

Who determines whether something is too disgusting? It is also hard to separate a piece of work’s artistic merit from its impact. It is perfectly possible for a work of art to display great technical competence, and yet fail to have an emotional impact on its audience, and so as a consequence it seems most sensible to allow, display and fund as wide a display of art as possible.  Limiting the forms of art that we display or give funding to those considered ‘artistically meritorious’ will result in the loss of innovation in the art world: if we only encourage those pieces that are ‘good’ under present-day metrics, we lose those pieces of art that, though considered controversial, or ‘not art’ now, may in the future be considered masterpieces (e.g. Picasso’s Guernica).

The power of the visual  Art differs from other forms of media with regard to the expression of ideas. Unlike other methods of conveying ideas, art has a visceral impact that is instant and has a lasting effect.  In a discussion, for example, there are often clues that ideas that might make people feel uncomfortable are about to arise. Thus, people are in a better position to consent to the sorts of challenges controversy within a conversation may pose (similarly, we tend to look more positively on taboo subjects raised within a conversational context than we do when they are, for example, shouted about in the street).  In the case of art, particularly that which is displayed in public spaces (like squares, parks and museums) people are unable to consent in this way, but rather, may be confronted suddenly by something that they find disgusting, because it has forced them to confront something they find horrific or traumatic, in a manner which has a great impact, and that, because of the power of the visual, they find difficult to forget.

Social change does not come from pieces of art. It comes from real, concrete political action and struggles, over time. It is unclear, therefore, why it should not be the case that we ought first to campaign for changes to society, and then display (newly) acceptable art reflecting upon the changes we have made. To do otherwise is to suggest that artists should be allowed special dispensation to run ‘ahead’ of the norms the rest of us feel bound by: note that it is not always the case that disgusting art later becomes acceptable. Not all transgressions are for the sake of future changes to society; some simply remain transgressions.

First, it seems implausible that there are ideas that can only be conveyed by instant, emotional responses. It must surely be possible to convey these ideas in other ways.  Second, it is unclear why it is so important that these reactions are provoked: surely if something is incredibly shocking it is that way for a reason? Something cannot provoke social disgust without taking a clear stride over the line of what we consider to be acceptable in society.  The taboos that exist in society are not meaningless: rather, they express inviolable values that are present throughout time, and in many different societies.

Freedom of speech  Artists ought to be allowed to express themselves, and display the world they see, as they see it.  Freedom of speech is considered integral to the modern democracy, and with good reason! Free speech makes a vital contribution to a plurality of ideas. It is only when a great number of ideas are expressed and challenged, such that people’s beliefs remain fluid, and can be formed and reformed, that we are able to arrive at such a point where we are likely to progress. This ‘marketplace of ideas’ prevents us from stagnating; from continuing harmful practices and modes of thought simply because they are traditional.  The more free speech is limited, the less able we are to access this plurality of ideas, and thus the less able we are to truly challenge harmful habits.

Restriction based on social disgust prevents socially liberal ideas from flourishing  Great, socially liberal movements have always been controversial, and always been supported, encouraged and propagated by art. Art is a realm wherein an artist’s expression is less limited by social structures (like the necessity of pleasing your box; of being ‘commercially viable’). Subsequently it has easily, and often, been utilised as a means of changing public opinion.  Some of these movements, for example, the breaking down of stereotypes and norms surrounding sexuality (in particular female sexuality) and gender that Sarah Lucas, Tracey Emin and others contributed to in the liberalising 80s and 90s, attract social disgust. In any situation where a taboo is being attacked, this will happen. The converse however, is not the case: it is almost impossible to provoke social disgust by maintaining the status quo.  As a result, restriction of art that provokes social disgust will disproportionately attack the socially liberal, and thus help to maintain the status quo, regardless of whether it is worthy of such protection.

Social disgust can be central to artwork  Some forms of art rely strongly on the provocation of disgust or other strong reactions. For example, conceptual artists often rely heavily upon the provocation of strong emotions in the viewer as a way of drawing attention to important, taboo areas (e.g. death, religion and sexuality). If they are banned from doing this, then we lose an entire branch of art: we are left instead with forms of art that choose not to engage with these areas at all.  Particularly in cases where people want to draw attention to what they see as unnecessary taboos, shock is integral. For example, the work of Sarah Lucas explored taboos surrounding sexuality and gender: her work drew attention to stereotyping and taboo in a way that (necessarily) many people found disgusting. Further, it is possible to critically engage with that disgust. It is wrong to assume that the end point of a provocative piece of art is “oh, I’ve been provoked”. Rather, this emotional first response is only the beginning when it comes to the contemplation of that work. Thinking about the reasons for your disgust, and its context, allows us a greater insight into the work, which if you believe ideas are central to pieces of art (which conceptual artists do) is vital.

Freedom of speech is evidently not an absolute right: it is not something that we consider to be inviolable and able to ‘trump’ all other rights. Note, for instance, that many countries have restrictions on freedom of speech preventing hate speech and other transgressions.  We can, therefore, limit freedom of speech in instances where the benefits outweigh the harm: the benefit in this instance being the prevention of harm to individuals as a result of the art.

There are many ways to correct for the dearth of some works on the market such as orphan works. By simplifying copyright law, reducing lengths of copyright and more robust searches for legal provenance can all help correct for the shortfalls without eroding an important part of law and material rights. Or indeed the law might be revised simply to free works that have unclear ownership from copyright by default. Creators should retain, no matter how annoying it may be to would-be enjoyers of their work, control over their artistic output. Artists’ creations are fundamentally their own, not the property of the state or society.

arts science censorship ip digital freedoms access knowledge house believes all

The default of total copyright is harmful to the spreading of information and experience  Current copyright law assigns too many rights, automatically, to the creator. Law gives the generator of a work full copyright protection that is extremely restrictive of that works reuse, except when strictly agreed in contracts and agreements. Making Creative Commons licenses the standard for publicly-funded works generates a powerful normalizing force toward a general alteration of people’s defaults on what copyright and creator protections should actually be like. The creative commons guarantees attribution to the creator and they retain the power to set up other for-profit deals with distributors. [1] At base the default setting of somehow having absolute control means creators of work often do not even consider the reuse by others in the commons. The result is creation and then stagnation, as others do not expend the time and energy to seek special permissions from the creator. Mandating that art in all its forms be released under a creative commons licensing scheme means greater access to more works, for the enrichment of all. This is particular true in the case of “orphan works”, works of unknown ownership. Fears over copyright infringement has led these works, which by some estimates account for 40% of all books, have led to huge amounts of knowledge and creative output languishing beyond anyone’s reach. A mix of confusion over copyright ownership and unwillingness of owners to release their works, often because it would not be commercially viable to do so, means that only 2% of all works currently protected by copyright are commercially available. [2] Releasing these works under creative commons licenses will spawn a deluge of enriching knowledge and creative output spilling onto the market of ideas. It would mark a critical advancement in the democratization and globalization of knowledge akin to the invention of the printing press.  [1] Creative Commons. “About the Licenses”. 2010.   [2] Keegan, V. “Shorter Copyright Would Free Creativity”. The Guardian. 7 October 2009.

Choosing to release one’s work into the viral market may be a shrewd business and artistic move, or it might not. All of this depends on the individual artist and the individual work. Nine Inch Nails both has the money that they can afford to take the risk and the name recognition that means they can be sure some fans will purchase the music, this is not the case with most artists. Thus the decision can really only be made effectively and fairly by the artists themselves. Trying to usurp that choice through a state mandate only serves to undermine the artist’s creative vision of how he or she wishes to portray and distribute their work to the world.

Intellectual property is a legal fiction created for convenience in some instances, but copyright should cease to be protected under this doctrine  An individual’s idea only truly belongs solely to them so long as it rests in their mind alone. When they disseminate their ideas to the world they put them in the public domain, and should become the purview of everyone to use. Artists and creators more generally, should not expect some sort of ownership to inhere in an idea they happen to have, since no such ownership right exists in reality. [1] No one can own an idea. Thus recognizing something like a property right over intangible assets is contrary to reason, since doing so gives monopoly power to individuals who may not make efficient or equitable use of their inventions or products. Physical property is a tangible asset, and thus can be protected by tangible safeguards. Ideas do not share the same order of protection even now because they exist in a different order to physical reality. However, some intellectual property is useful in encouraging investment and invention, allowing people to engage their profit motives to the betterment of society as a whole. To an extent one can also sympathize with the notion that creators deserve to accrue some additional profit for the labour of the creative process, but this can be catered for through Creative Commons non-commercial licenses which reserve commercial rights. [2] These protections should not extend to non-commercial use of the various forms of arts. This is because art is a social good of a unique order, with its purpose not purely functional, but creative. It only has value in being experienced, and thus releasing these works through creative commons licenses allows the process of artistic experience and sharing proceeds unhindered by outmoded notions of copyright. The right to reap some financial gain still remains for the artists, as their rights still hold over all commercial use of their work. This seems like a fair compromise of the artist’s right to profit from their work and society right to experience and grow from those works.  [1] Fitzgerald, Brian and Anne Fitzgerald. Intellectual Property: In Principle. Melbourne: Lawbook Company. 2004.  [2] Walsh, K., “Commercial Rights Reserved proposal outcome: no change”, Creative Commons, 14 February 2013,

Although ideas are not tangible intellectual property generally, and copyright in particular, is far from a fiction. Rather it is a realization of the hard work and demiurgic force that sparks the generation and fulfilment of artistic endeavour. The property right assigned over these things to their creators is a very real one that recognizes their fundamental right over these works as owners, and the right to profit from them. The artist must have the right to prevent even non-commercial use of the idea if it is to maintain its value and so retain for the creator the ability to commercialise it. These protections are critical to the moral understanding of all property and must be rigorously protected, not eroded for the benefit of some nebulous notion of social good.

It may be costly and sometimes ineffective to police copyright, but that does not make them any less of a right worth protecting. If artists or firms feel that they might benefit from fighting infringers of their rights, they should have the right to do so, not simply be expected to roll over and give in to the pirates and law breakers. The state likewise, has an obligation to protect the rights, physical and intangible, of its citizens and cannot give up on them simply because they prove difficult and costly to enforce. Furthermore, the ensuring health of the economy is a primary duty of the state and this means aiding its domestic businesses and one of the ways it does that is by acting to enforce copyright both internally and if possible externally.

The creative commons is a more effective means for artists to build and expand their reach and markets than traditional copyright licensing arrangements  The nature of the internet and mass media on the 21st century is such that many artists can benefit from the freedom and flexibility that creative commons licenses furnish to them. Wider use by other artists and laymen alike helps artistic works “go viral” and to gain major impact that allow the artist to generate a name for his or herself and to attain the levels of earnings conventional copyrights are meant to help artists generate but that ultimately hamstring them. A major example of this is the band Nine Inch Nails, which opted in 2008 to begin releasing its albums through the creative commons. [1] Creative commons licenses are so remarkable because they can be deployed by artists to expand their markets, and to profit even more from their greater recognition. After all, the artists still retain control of the commercial uses of their work and are guaranteed under creative commons licensing regulations to be credited by users of their content. [2] Giving undue artistic and distribution control to the artists through constricting and outmoded copyright may mean less significant reach and impact of the work. The state should thus facilitate the sharing by mandating the distribution of art of all kinds under creative commons licenses.  [1] Anderson, N., “Free Nine Inch Nails albums top 2008 Amazon MP3 sales charts”, arstechnica, 7 January 2009,   [2] Creative Commons. “About the Licenses”. 2010.

The costs of monitoring copyright by states, artists, and lawyers far outweigh the benefits, and is often simply ineffective  The state incurs huge costs in monitoring for copyright infringement, in arresting suspected perpetrators, in imprisonment of those found guilty, even though in reality nothing was stolen but an idea that, once released to it, belonged to the public domain more or less. [1] Furthermore, the deterrent effect to copyright piracy generated by all the efforts of the state and firms has proven generally minimal. In fact, the level of internet piracy of books, music, and films has increased dramatically year on year for several years, increasing by 30% in 2011 alone. [2] This is because in many cases copyright laws are next to unenforceable, as the music and movie industries have learned to their annoyance in recent years, for example ninety percent of DVDs sold in China are bootlegs while even western consumers are increasingly bypassing copyright by using peer to peer networks. [3] Only a tiny fraction of perpetrators are ever caught, and though they are often punished severely in an attempt to deter future crime, it has done little to stop their incidence. Copyright, in many cases, does not work in practice plain and simple. Releasing works under a creative commons licensing scheme does a great deal to cope with these pressures. In the first instance it is a less draconian regime, so individuals are more willing to buy into it as a legitimate claim by artists rather than an onerous stranglehold on work. This increases compliance with the relaxed law. Secondly, the compliance means that artists are given the vocal crediting under the license rules that gives them more public exposure than clandestine copying could not. Ultimately this adaptation of current copyright law would benefit the artist and the consumer mutually.  [1] World Intellectual Property Organization. “Emerging Issues in Intellectual Property”. 2011   [2] Hartopo, A. “The Past, Present and Future of Internet Piracy”. Jakarta Globe. 26 July 2011.   [3] Quirk, M., “The Movie Pirates”, The Atlantic, 19 November 2009,

Few artists ever see much profit from their work anyway, many choosing the life of bohemian squalor in order to keep producing art rather than taking up more profitable pursuits. Vincent van Gogh sold almost nothing, but his drive to create never abated. No doubt the true artists will continue to feel the urge to create under this policy, and the loss of a few marginal cases must be weighed against the massive losses to art in general, such as the huge curtailment of exploration of and response to existing works, which are often artistically meritorious in their own right, and also the rendering unavailable of much of the artistic output of the world.

People deserve recompense for their work, but the stifling force of current copyright prevents the proper sharing and expansion of the artistic canon, to the intellectual and spiritual impoverishment of all. Creative commons licenses strike an important balance, by leaving artists with the power over commercial uses of their work, including selling it themselves, while permitting it to permeate the public sphere through non-commercial channels. This is the best way to weigh these competing needs in a complex society. It is not preventing the creator from profiting from his work. It is not a total abrogation of people’s rights, but a giving over of some rights for the benefit of all.

Artists should retain the right to control their work’s interaction with the public space even if their work is publicly funded  Art is the expression of its creator’s sense of understanding of the world, and thus that expression will always have special meaning to him or her that no amount of reinterpretation or external appreciation can override. How a work is used once released into the public sphere, whether expanded, revised, responded to, or simply shown without their direct consent, thus remains an active issue for the artist, because those alternative experiences are all using a piece of the artist in its efforts. Artists deserve to have that piece of them treated in a way they see as reasonable. It is a simple matter of justice that artists be permitted to maintain the level of control they desire, and it is a justice that is best furnished through the conventional copyright mechanism that provides for the maximum protection of works for their creators, and allows them to contract away uses and rights to those works on their own terms. Many artists care about their legacies and the future of their artistic works, and should thus have this protection furnished by the state through the protection of copyright, not cast aside by the unwashed users of the creative commons. Samuel Beckett is a great example of this need. Beckett had exacting standards about the fashion in which in his plays could be performed. [1] For him the meaning of the art demanded an appreciation for the strict performance without the adulteration of reinterpretation. He would lack that power under this policy, meaning either the world would have been impoverished for want of his plays, or he would have been impoverished for want of his rights to his work. These rights are best balanced through the aegis of copyright as it is, not under the free-for-all of the creative commons license.  [1] Catron, L. “Copyright Laws for Theatre People”. 2003.

Artists often rely on copyright protection to financially support themselves and their families  Artists as they are often not paid for anything else may rely on their creative output to support themselves. This is certainly no crime, and existing copyright laws recognize this fact. Artists often rely wholly on their ability to sell and profit from their work. This policy serves to drain them of that potential revenue, as their work is shunted into creative commons, and available to all. Artists often also have families to support, and putting the added financial burden on them of stripping them of their copyright only serves to further those problems as they exist. A robust system of copyright is a much better protection to struggling and successful artists alike who like all talented individuals seek to assuage their material wants. Artists cannot live on appreciation alone. With much less secure copyright many would have to find other work.

The lack of control over, and profit from, art will serve as a serious disincentive to artistic output  Profit is as much a factor in artists’ decision to produce work, if not more so, than the primordial urge to create. Without the guarantee of ownership over one’s artistic work, the incentive to invest in its creation is certainly diminished. Within a strong copyright system, individuals feel free to invest time in their pursuits because they have full knowledge that the final product of their labours will be theirs to enjoy. [1] Without copyright protections the marginal cases, like people afraid to put time into actually building an installation art piece rather than doing more hours at their job, will not opt to create. If their work were to immediately leave their control, they would most certainly be less inclined to do so. Furthermore, the inability of others to simply duplicate existing works as their own means they too will be galvanized to break ground on new ideas, rather than simply re-tread over current ideas and to adapt existing works to markets. Art thrives by being new and original. Copyright protections shield against artistic laziness and drive the creative urges of the artistically inclined to ever more interesting fields.  [1] Greenberg, M. “Reason or Madness: A Defense of Copyright’s Growing Pains”. John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law. 2007.

Artists have a fundamental property right over their creative output  Whatever the end product, be it music, film, sculpture, or painting, artistic works are the creations of individuals and a property right inheres within them belonging to their creators. An idea is just an idea so long as it remains locked in someone’s mind or is left as an unfinished sketch, etc. But when the art is allowed to bloom in full, it is due to the artist and the artist only. The obsession, the time, the raw talent needed to truly create art is an incredible business, requiring huge investment in energy, time, and effort. It is a matter of the most basic, and one would have hoped self-evident, principle that the person who sacrificed so much to bring forth a piece of art should retain all the rights to it and in particular have the right to profit from it. [1] To argue otherwise would be to condone outright theft. The ethereal work of the artist is every bit as real as the hard work of a machine. Mandating that all forms of art be released under a creative commons license is an absolute slap in the face to artists and to the artistic endeavour as a whole. It implies that somehow the work is not entirely the artist’s own, that because it is art it is somehow so different as to be worthy of being shunted into the public sphere without the real consent of the artist. This is a gross robbing of the artist’s right over his or her own work. If property rights are to have any meaning, they must have a universal protection. This policy represents a fundamental erosion of the right to property, and attacks one sector of productive life that is essential for the giving of colour to the human experience. This policy serves only to devalue that contribution.  [1] Greenberg, M. “Reason or Madness: A Defense of Copyright’s Growing Pains”. John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law. 2007.

Artists rarely make all that much money in the first place, and a great many only work as an artist part time. More importantly, they can still profit from their art, since they retain exclusive commercial rights to their work. Oftentimes they will actually benefit from operation under a creative commons license because it provides wider dispersal of their work, which builds a broader name and market for their work.

Upon entering the public arena works of art take on characters of their own, often far different than their original creators did, or could have, imagined. The art is consumed, absorbed, and reimagined and takes on its own identity that the artist cannot claim full ownership over. It is important that art as a whole be able to thrive in society, but this is only possible when artists are able to make use of, and actively reinterpret and utilize existing works. That art does, due to its origination belong more to the people, who should have access, even if the artist, like Beckett has bizarrely rigorous feelings about the work.

Bans on sexist advertising will not necessarily solve the harms presented and could instead cause harm to businesses through restricting their ability to compete for audiences and consumers. Gender differences and beliefs about sex existed before advertising. There is no certainty changing the content of ads would bring about change within individual societies and cultures which have their own independent attitudes. Cultures have a right to their own ideals and own values.

media modern culture television gender house would ban sexist advertising

Women have a right to be free of stereotyping.  Women's rights to be free from stereotyping, prejudice, discrimination and objectification should be a matter of deep concern as they infringe on human rights related to gender. Advertising messages influence younger generations as well as send stereotypical images of men. As a result the objectification and violence against women will continue. Gender inequality and sexual harassment in the work place is not likely to diminish.1 This means that women will continue to suffer from discrimination based upon their gender. 1 Newswise.com, "Study Find Rise in Sexualized Images of Women." 2010

All types of messages are prevalent and advertisements do not possess any more influence than news or entertainment programming. Advertising is simply integral to pubic space messages and represents the increase of all messages through the advancement of technologies. Advertising is also necessary to support all of types of other mediated messages like news, politics, and entertainment. Additionally, due to the overload of messages of all kinds, consumers learn to screen out and limit their reception of information. Through technology, a viewer can eliminate advertisements from program content.

Sexist advertising is harmful to society, especially women.  Sexist advertising harms women through objectification and diminishing of self-image. The United Nations Convention to Eliminate Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) links stereotypes about women to prejudice based on gender.1 Through visual and verbal messages women are portrayed as subservient to men. Women are seen increasingly as sex objects and these ads legitimize violence against women.2 Sexist advertising also harms women's self-image by portraying an ideal stylized body.3 The implied message is that consumers should seek to acquire these images even if they are contrary to the reality of body types and features. Eating disorders and obsessive beauty products consumption results in order to attain ideal beauty images presented in the media.4 Sexist ads also harm men through stereotyped images of masculinity.5 1 Object.Org. "Women not Sex Objects." 2011/ August 24 2 Newswise.com. "Study Find Rise in Sexualized Images of Women." 2011/08/10 3 Kilbourne, Jean. "Beauty... and the Beast of Advertising "

Sexist advertising reflects current social attitudes. Attitudes and perceptions are based on culturally specific values and beliefs. It is difficult to determine a universal definition of harm and sexist advertising to determine if harm occurs. Some studies have been questioned regarding their rigor in examining the direct link from advertising to violence against women.1Violence to women is not debatable but the cause of that violence is. In addition, studies related to body image and beauty are often restricted to those sharing certain genetic characteristics yet biological differences exist between women. What is an idealized body image exactly? Some current advertising has broadened images of women to include a variety of body types, cultures, and ages to define beauty outside traditional stereotypes. Advertising also portrays women in roles of power and success and not always as sex objects as claimed. 1 Young,Toby. "The Home Office report on child sexualisation is a 100-page Cosmopolitan article." Telegraph.com. 2010/February 26

Policies which ban will interfere with business practices, restrict free expression, and be are difficult to standardize. If ads do not sell, they will be rejected and when ads are effective they are likely to continue in pursuit of gaining consumers. Business has the right to set business practices which work for them. Restricting the content of advertising restricts free expression. In fact, Sweden rejected a ban on sexist advertising because it was believed to restrict free expression.1 1 Holmes, Stefanie. "Scandinavian split on sexist ads" BBCNews

Since advertising is pervasive in mediated messages, it has the power to influence social attitudes.  Adverts occupy more public space than ever before in history. Due to technology, public space is global and ads can been seen around the world, in 2009 the UK became the first major economy where advertisers spend more on internet advertising than on television advertising1. Through such dominance, ads contribute to attitudes and values. Due to their power to influence attitudes within a society, serious attention should be paid to the content of advertising. 1 Sweney, Mark, 'Internet overtakes television to become biggest advertising sector in the UK', The Guardian, 30 September 2009

Policies should be established which ban the promotion of sexist attitudes in advertising.  Norway and Denmark have already developed policies to restrict sexist advertising1. In 2008, the UN Committee to Eliminate Discrimination Against Women calls upon states to taken action and in particular the United Kingdom government to address this issue.2 In May of 2011 Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe 's Committee on Equal Opportunity for Women made a case for sexist advertising as a barrier to gender equality. In that report standards were presented and methods to cope with sexist advertising were suggested.3In Australia a government advisory board has developed a list of principles to guide both advertising and the fashion industry.4 1 Holmes, Stefanie. "Scandinavian split on sexist ads." BBC news. 2008/April 25 accessed 2011/08/25 2 Object.com. "Women are not Sex Objects." 3 Parliamentary Assembly of 26 May 2011, The Council of Europe. 4 Kennedy, Jean. "Fashion Industry asked to adopt body image code." ABCNews. 2010/June 27

Even though some businesses have responded to public opinion, there are sufficient international commitments which address gender inequality in all societies. The Universal Declaration of Human rights and subsequent conventions have acknowledged the overwhelming need to set policies and practices into motion which deal with the rights of women and children. Waiting upon the private sector to respond to needed changes in social attitudes which demean certain groups of citizens, is to slow, too inefficient, and until actions are taken does not solve the inherent problems we have discussed. Eating disorders, diminished self images, and the promotion of women as sexual objects has immediate harms for women and influences the socialization of children. Men as well suffer from stereotypes about attractiveness, body images, and sexuality. Therefore problems created from sexist advertising need to be addressed now rather than around the hope that business fuelled by its concern for profit will take appropriate action to create and design ads that avoid sexist advertising. Advertising campaigns need to be planned with standards in mind not simply wait for public response when ads have be found offensive. The California Mild board example you provide illustrates this after-the-fact approach.

Although business has a compelling self interest to make a profit and advertising is integral to that endeavour, business does not necessarily sacrifice its profit when curbing sexist advertising. If messages are harmonizing with social attitudes, then advertising which appeals to the greater good of gender equality does not necessarily harm but could enhance business credibility. The Benneton ads have often embraced a social consciousness to promote the public good while making a profit. The affirmative has acknowledged that for advertising to be effective they have to connect to values held within the community. As more awareness develops about the negative influence of sexist advertising, business is likely to benefit from the banning of sexist ads.

Sexist advertising is subjective so would be too difficult to codify.  Effective advertising appeals to the social, cultural, and personal values of consumers. Through the connection of values to products, services and ideas, advertising is able to accomplish its goal of adoption. Failure to make meaningful appeals to audience members seriously diminishes the outcomes of marketing. Since differing beliefs about beauty, body types, sexuality, and gender roles exist across societies and cultures, universal definitions of sexist advertising are too difficult to determine. As an example, biological differences exist between women and what may be considered excessively thin in one society may not be so in another. Any type of censoring calls into questions such as who will censor and how will such censorship be applied. The development of standards could favour cultural imperialism. Therefore, sexist advertising is too difficult to codify.

Individuals have a choice and right to respond to ads and their meaning.  Consumers have a choice to expose themselves to advertising through their own personal behaviour. Advertisements can be ignored by the consumer and deleted at will. Interpretation of the ad depends on the attitudes of the receiver. The purchase and consumption of beauty products is the personal choice of a buyer. How ads attract and influence is determined by individual beliefs and values of the audience member. Some feminists believe that institutional power structures set up a "victim" mentality in women and fail to empower them by placing dependence upon power structures to make choices for women.1 If consumers wish to embrace the ideals or values represented in ads, this should be their choice. Therefore the right to self determine one's consumer behaviour should be left to the individual. 1 Thomas, Christine. "The New Sexism." Socialism Today, Issue #77. 2003/September

Any changes in advertising should come from businesses themselves rather than through banning.  Banning requires a legal framework and enforcement mechanism. External organizations interfere with the ability of business to conduct business. Should the social cultural environment change, businesses are likely to respond to the attitudes of their consumers. A recent change in the California Milk Board's website occurred due to public pressure.1 Social corporate responsibility is another possibility which business could embrace if changing social attitudes develop.2Banning is a repressive method which interferes with competition. Self determined methods should be allowed to competitors in the economic marketplace. Therefore, any changes in advertising should come from the business community rather than through banning. 1 Kumar, Sheila. "Milk Board Alters Sexist PMS-Themed Ad Campaign." The Huffington Post. 2011/July 22. 2 Skibola, Nicole. "Gender and Ethics in Advertising: The New CSR." Forbes.com. 2011/August 4

Sexist advertising is profitable  Business has a compelling self interest to make a profit and advertising is integral to that endeavour. The profit from business allows for economic growth without which individual states and the world's economy could not survive. Competition drives the marketplace of products and ideas. And, advertising is the primary method through which those products, services and ideas are made known to the public. When banning is placed upon advertising, the ability to compete and survive in the economic marketplace is threatened. Therefore, the compelling need to make a profit is legitimizes the need for advertising.

It is true that individuals do have the right to consume media and have some power over how they perceive and respond to media. However, since the nature of advertising is always planned for public consumption, then ads contribute to existing attitudes inside a person. When slaves in the U.S. were marketed and sold according to the content of advertising, a social system was being perpetrated. When the injustices of slavery were acknowledged both the business and the marketing of slaves ceased to exist. When the greater social good of justice is held over individual choice, social good should prevail. Advertising which demeans the value of certain groups of citizens is not appropriate for the public marketplace. Although Individual choice and freedom of choice are to be valued, public messages by the nature of their public audience, must serve the greater society. Pornography in the public airways is often regulated and banned because it is seen as potentially harmful to women and children of a society. Due to the public nature of advertising then, the greater society has a more important right than that of individuals.

Although there is a claim that sexist advertising is to difficult to codify, such codes have and are being developed to guide the advertising industry. These standards speak to advertising which demeans the status of women, objectifies them, and plays upon stereotypes about women which harm women and society in general. Earlier the Council of Europe was mentioned, Denmark, Norway and Australia as specific examples of codes or standards for evaluating sexist advertising which have been developed.

Opposition agree that the culture and law of a nation has a prodigious impact on the conscience of its civilians. However, according to Alcinda Honwana, an anthropologist and authority on the topic of child soldiers, the problem does not "have its roots in African traditional culture." [i] Although culture has an impact on society, the issue of child soldiers is not affiliated with it.  Side proposition implied that conscripting children should be excusable if it is permitted by an authoritative body of local law. However, are laws based on value-sets that do not aspire to an accessible law making process more valid than the abiding law of that nation? No. Side opposition believe that the "rule of law is a legal maxim according to which no one is immune to the law.” The fundamental purpose of government is the maintenance and promotion of basic security and public order. Without it the nation will deteriorate.  The proposition mentioned the Democratic Republic of Congo as an example. The DRC signed the “Convention on the Rights of the Child” on 21 September 1990. During this time era, Congo was not a declared democracy. However they have hitherto developed a more democratic and stable government. Additionally, DRC has not withdrawn from the Convention on the Rights of the Child, thus accentuating the fact that they are strongly against conscription of children.  Being oblivious of the fact that conscripting child soldiers is illegal is no defence. As side opposition’s substantive material will show, both national and international systems of law are expected to take account of the fact that cultural, environmental and social plurality will lead to variable rates of compliance with particular laws. While it may be difficult to make community leaders liable for the creation of child soldiers, the ICC frequently seeks to make officials linked to state actors liable for failing to protect children from military recruitment [ii] .  Moreover, cultural relativism originally assumed some degree of parity and open exchange between communities with diverging cultural values. There is no parity between the value-sets of stable liberal democratic states and the adaptations that vulnerable cultures undergo in order to survive amongst prolonged military conflict.  Finally, it would damage the reputation and reduce the efficiency of the ICC if states were permitted to argue that regions in which child soldiers were active had an established tradition of military activity among the young.  [i] “Children’s Involvement in War: Historical and Social Contexts”, Alcinda Honwana, The Journal of the history of Childhood and Youth, Vol 1 2007  [ii] The Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dylio, The International Criminal Court,

traditions law human rights international law society family house would require

The failure of rule of law  As the anthropologist and lawyer Sally Falk-Moore observed “law is only ever a piecemeal intervention by the state in the life of society.” [i]  Laws are, ultimately, social norms that are taught, enforced and arbitrated on by the state. The value of these norms is such that they are deemed to be a vital part of a society’s identity and the state is entrusted with their protection. However, this ideal can be difficult to achieve. Debate as to which norms the state should be custodian of is constant. Where there is a disconnect between a law and the daily lives, aspirations and struggles of a society, it becomes unlikely that that law will be complied with. Generally, a state will not be able to give a pronouncement the force of law if it does not reflect the values held by a majority of a society.  Compliance with the law can be even harder to obtain in highly plural societies. Even in plural societies ruled peacefully by an effective central government (such as India), communities’ conceptions of children’s rights may be radically different from those set down in law. The Indian child marriage restraint act has been in force since 1929, but the practice remains endemic in southern India to this day [ii] . Governments can attempt to enforce compliance with a law, through education, incentives or deterrence.  What if the state that is intended to mount the “piecemeal intervention” of banning the use of child soldiers is weak, corrupt or non-existent? What if a state cannot carry out structured interventions of the type described above? Norms that state that the conscription of children is acceptable- due to tradition or need- will be dominant.  Situations of this type will be the rule rather than the exception in underdeveloped states and states where conflict is so rife that children have become participants in warfare. The ICC has jurisdiction to prosecute individuals with command over military units who use children as combatants [iii] , but how should the concept of a “commander” be defined in these circumstances?  In order for the juristic principles underlying the authority of the ICC to function properly, it is necessary for there to be a degree of certainty and accessibility underlying laws promulgated by a state. While ignorance of the law is not a defence before the ICC, it impossible to call a system of law fair or just that is not overseen by a stable or accepted government. This is not possible if a state is so corrupt that it does not command the trust of its people; if a state is so poor that it cannot afford to operate an open, reliable and transparent court and advocacy system; if territory with a state’s borders is occupied by an armed aggressor. Western notions of rule-of-law are almost impossible to enforce under such conditions. All of these are scenarios encountered frequently in Africa, and central and southern Asia.  Some regions within developing nations are so isolated from the influence of the state, or so heavily contested in internecine conflicts, that communities living within them cannot be expected to know that the state nominally responsible for them has signed the Convention of the Rights of The Child or the Rome Statute. Nor can the state attempt to inform them of this fact. Laws still exist and are enforced within such communities, but these are not state-made forms of law.  For an individual living within a community of the type described above- an individual living in the DRC, in pre-secession South Sudan [iv] or an ethnic minority enclave on the border of Myanmar [v] - the question is a simple one. Does the most immediate source of authority and protection within his world- his community- condone the role that children play in armed conflict? He should not be made liable for abiding by laws and norms that have sprung up to fill a void created by a weak or corrupt central state. There is little hope that he will ever be able to access the counter-point that state sponsored education and engagement could provide.  Child soldiers and their commanders are simply obeying the strongest, the most effective and the most stable source of law in their immediate environment.  [i] “Comparative Law in a Global Context: The Legal Systems of Asia and Africa”, Werner Menski, Cambridge University Press, 2006  [ii] “State of the World’s Children 2009”, UNICEF, United Nations, 2008  [iii] “Elements of Crimes”, International Criminal Court,   [iv] “Child Soldiers: Global Report 2008”, Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers, 2007, p315,   [v] “Child Soldiers: Global Report 2008”, Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers, 2007, p240,

The proposition understates the extent to which the needs of child soldiers are catered to by international justice bodies. The Paris Principles [i] , which are used to guide the formation and functions of national human rights organisations, state that  “3.6 Children who are accused of crimes under international law allegedly committed while they were associated with armed forces or armed groups should be considered primarily as victims of offences against international law; not only as perpetrators...  3.7 Wherever possible, alternatives to judicial proceedings must be sought, in line with the Convention on the Rights of the Child and other international standards for juvenile justice.”  Although not strictly binding, an onus is placed on bodies such as the ICC to seek alternatives to the trial process when dealing with children. (The Principles define a child as anyone less than 18 years of age).  Even where children are placed in the role of officers or recruiters, they are unlikely to be tried in the same fashion as an adult.  This leaves only the issue of social exclusion following the process of demobilisation and treatment. Many of the problems of reintegration highlighted by the proposition do not seem to be uniquely linked to ICC prosecutions. Columbian child soldiers are as likely to be perceived as threatening whether or not they have come to the attention of the ICC. The ICC does not create negative stereotypes of former child soldiers.  As noted above, it seems perverse to give military commanders an opportunity to use cultural relativism to excuse their culpability for what would otherwise be a war crime. Ranking officers are much more likely than Yemeni tribesmen or orphaned Sudanese boys to understand the intricacies of such a defence, and much more likely to abuse it. Realistically, the commanders of child solders, and the politicians who sanctioned their use are the only class of individuals pursued by the ICC.  Where the boundaries between community leader, military officer and political leader become blurred, the court will always be able to fall back on its discretion. Practically, however, this mixing of roles is only likely to be observed in marginal communities a few major conflict zones. This does not favour stepping away from established judicial practice in order to create an entirely new form of defence.  [i] “Principles and Guidelines On Children Associated With Armed Forces or Armed Groups”, International Workshop on National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, 2007,

Cultural relativism and adapting to conflict  The issues underlying all debates on child soldiers go to the very heart of intercultural justice, politics and governance. International and supranational legislation notwithstanding, the notion that children should be protected from all forms of violence at any cost is expressly western.  The facts stated in the introduction are not sufficient to support the creation of a defence of cultural relativism to charges of recruiting and using child soldiers. “Cultures” are not simply sets of practices defined by history and tradition. They are also methods of living, of survival and of ordering societies that change and develop in response to societies’ environments. Within many communities, children are inducted (or induct themselves) into military organisations as a result of necessity. The traditional providers of physical safety within a society may have been killed or displaced by war. Communities left vulnerable by long running and vaguely defined conflicts may have no other option but to begin arming their children, in order to help them avoid violent exploitation. A great many child soldiers in South Sudan actively sought out units of the rebel army known to accept child recruits [i] . Following the death of parents and the dispersal of extended families, children gravitated towards known sources of safety and strength – organisations capable of providing protection and independence within nations utterly distorted and ruined by conflict.  Western notions of inviolate childhood, free of worry and violence, are merely a cultural construct. This construct cannot be duplicated in societies beset by forms of privation and conflict that have been alien to western liberal democracies for the last seventy years. Attempting to enforce this construct as law- and as a form of law that can trump domestic legislation- endangers vulnerable communities, inhibits the creation of democratic norms and can even criminalise the children it claims to protect.  [i] “Raised by war: Child Soldiers of the Southern Sudanese Second Civil War”, Christine Emily Ryan, PhD Thesis, University of London, 2009

Side proposition are attempting to make an argument in favour of reforming the ICC’s prosecution guidelines, but are doing so in terms of the culturally relative definition of adulthood. In other words, side proposition are trying to discuss war, realpolitik and international justice using the language of social anthropology. This approach is flawed.  Arguments about the appropriate age to allow a child to hunt, to leave school or to marry pale beside the life-and-death significance of participation in warfare. A child does not become an adult by acting like a soldier, and those who recruit children into military organisations do not necessarily view them as adults. Indeed, children are seen as easy targets for recruitment, due to their emotional immaturity, their gullibility and deference to those who wield authority.  Children may join armed groups out of necessity, and in the interests of survival, but this does not mean that those armed groups should accept child volunteers, or should escape criminal liability when they do so. Although the west is now a safe and prosperous place to live, the categories of war crime that the ICC prosecutes were created in response to the depravity and ruthlessness of conflicts that liberal-democracies experienced directly.  The developed, liberal democratic world is not blind to the sense of necessity that drives children to take up arms. However, it understands only too well that child soldiers are unnecessary. Children do not autonomously organise into armed militias – they are recruited by states and groups with defined political and military objectives. Such groups should be aware that there is no value or necessity underlying the use of children in combat, and should be made legally accountable when they flaunt this norm.

The ICC is not likely to target children or the leaders of marginalised communities when prosecuting the use of child soldiers. Officials of states parties who play a role in commanding and deploying military units can be held liable for failing to prevent the use of child soldiers at a local level.  If the agony of their circumstances forces a community to recruit ever younger boys into its militia, then officers, ministers or heads of state, along with the commanders of non-state actors, can be brought to trial for allowing children to be used as soldiers. This will be the case whether these individuals do so negligently or by omission. A guilty party need not engage in a positive act.  ICC prosecutors and judges exercise their discretion in order to avoid the types of injustice that the proposition describes. The lack of prosecutions relating to the ad-hoc use of child soldiers by pro-independence groups in South Sudan underlies this fact [i] .  Moreover, the ICC is bound by the principle of complementarity, an obligation to work alongside the domestic courts and legislators of the states that refer potential war crimes to the international community. If a state’s corpus of law allows for a margin of appreciation in judging the actions of isolated and endangered communities, these principles must also be reflect in the investigation and inquiries conduct by the ICC.  Complementarity enables the ICC to function with the flexibility and insight that proposition assume it lacks.  [i] “Raised by war: Child Soldiers of the Southern Sudanese Second Civil War”, Christine Emily Ryan, PhD Thesis, University of London, 2009

Removing barriers to demobilisation, disarmament and rehabilitation  It can easily be conceded, without weakening the resolution, that war and combat are horrific, damaging experiences. Over the last seventy years, the international community has attempted to limit the suffering that follows the end of a conflict by giving soldiers and civilians access to medical and psychological care. This is now an accepted part of the practice of post-conflict reconstruction, referred to as Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration (DDR) [i] .  The effects of chronic war and chronic engagement with war are best addressed by a slow and continuous process of habituation to normal life. Former child soldiers are sent to treatment centres specialising in this type of care in states such as Sierra Leone [ii] .  What is harmful to this process of recovery is the branding of child soldiers as war criminals. The stigma attached to such a conviction would condemn hundreds of former child soldiers to suffering extended beyond the end of armed conflicts.  Sentencing guidelines binding on the ICC state that anyone convicted of war crimes who is younger than eighteen should not be subject to a sentence of life imprisonment. Their treatment, once incarcerated, is required to be oriented toward rehabilitation.  Many child soldiers become officers within the organisations that they join. Alternately, they might find themselves ordered to seek more recruits from their villages and communities. For these children participation in the conflict becomes participation in the crime itself. What began as a choice of necessity during war-time could, under the status quo, damage and stigmatise a child during peace-time [iii] . Even if their sentence emphasises reform and education, a former child soldier is likely to become an uninjured casualty of the war, marked out as complicit in acts of aggression. When labelled as such children will become vulnerable to reprisal attacks and entrenched social exclusion.  Discussing attempts to foster former Colombian child combatants, the Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers state that, “The stigmatization of child soldiers, frequently perceived as violent and threatening, meant that families were reluctant to receive former child soldiers. Those leaving the specialized care centres moved either to youth homes or youth protection facilities for those with special protection problems. While efforts continued to strengthen fostering and family-based care, approximately 60 per cent of those entering the DDR program were in institutional care in 2007.” [iv]  Crucially, fear of being targeted by the ICC may lead former child soldiers to avoid disclosing their status to officials running demobilisation programs. They may be deterred from participating in the DDR process [v] .  Moreover, the authority of the ICC is often subject to criticism on the international stage by politicians and jurists linked to both democratic states [vi] and the non-liberal or authoritarian regimes most likely to become involved in conflicts that breach humanitarian law. It cannot assist the claims of the ICC to be a body that represents universal concepts of compassion and justice if it is seen to target children- often barely in their teens- in the course of prosecuting war crimes.  As the Child Soliders 2008 Global Report notes, “Prosecutions should not, by focusing solely on the recruitment and use of child soldiers, exclude other crimes committed against children. Such an approach risks stigmatizing child soldiers and ignores the wider abuses experienced by children in conflict situations. It is on these grounds that some have questioned the exclusive child-soldier focus of the ICC’s charges against Thomas Lubanga. After all, the Union of Congolese Patriots (UPC/L), the armed group he led, is widely acknowledged to have committed numerous other serious crimes against children, as well as adults.” [vii]  [i] “Case Studies in War to Peace Transition”, Coletta, N., Kostner, M., Widerhofer, I. The World Bank, 1996  [ii] “Return of Sierra Leone’s Lost Generation”, The Guardian, 02 March 2000,   [iii] “Agony Without End for Liberia’s Child Soldiers”, The Guardian, 12 July 2009,   [iv] “Child Soldiers: Global Report 2008”, Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers, 2007, p103,   [v] “Child Soldiers: Global Report 2008”, Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers, 2007, p16,   [vi] “America Attacked for ICC Tactics”, The Guardian, 27 August 2002,   [vii] “Child Soldiers: Global Report 2008”, Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers, 2007, pp32-33,

The cultural construction of armed conflict  The jurisdiction of the ICC is primarily exercised according to culturally constructed assumptions about the way war works – that there will be a clear division between aggressors and defenders, that armies will be organised according to chains of command, the civilians will not be targeted and will be evacuated from conflict zones. But countless conflicts in Africa and central Asia have proven these assumptions to be flawed.  It should not be forgotten that almost all formulations of this motion define cultural relativism only as a defence to the use of child soldiers. It will still be open for ICC prosecutors to prove that the use of child soldiers has been systematic, pernicious and deliberate, rather than the product of uncertainty, necessity and unstable legal norms. Moreover, not all defences are “complete” defences; they do not all result in acquittal, and are often used by judges to mitigate the harshness of certain sentences.  It can be argued that it was never intended for the ICC to enforce laws relating to child soldiers against other children or leaders of vulnerable communities who acted under the duress of circumstances. At the very least, those responsible for arming children in these circumstances should face a more lenient sentence than a better-resourced state body that used child soldiers as a matter of policy.  Due to the nature of conflicts in developing nations, where the geographic influence of “recognised” governments is limited, and multiple local law-making bodies may contribute to an armed struggle, it is difficult for the international community to directly oversee combat itself. United Nations troops are often underfunded, unmotivated and poorly trained, being sourced primarily from the same continent as the belligerent parties in a conflict. When peacekeepers are deployed from western nations, their rules of engagement have previously prevented robust protection of civilian populations. Ironically, this is partly the result of concerns that western states might be accused of indulging in neo-colonialism. It is outrageous for the international community to dictate standards of war-time conduct to communities and states unable to enforce them, while withholding the assistance and expertise that might allow them to do so.  Therefore, the ICC, as a specialist legal and investigative body, should be encouraged to use the expertise it has accumulated to distinguish between child military participation driven by a desire to terrorise populations or quickly reinforce armies, and child military participation that has arisen as a survival strategy.

As noted above, the definition of adulthood accepted within western liberal democracies is not a cultural absolute. It can be argued that the legal cut-off point- be it sixteen, eighteen or twenty-one years of age- is largely arbitrary. Children who care for disabled parents take on adult responsibilities inconceivable to many undergraduate students. Many developing world cultures would regard the under-emphasis of practical skills and physical training that exists in the education systems of knowledge-based western economies to be tantamount to neglect.  In both war-torn Afghanistan and peaceful Botswana, a boy of fourteen is considered old enough and able enough to hunt; to protect his younger siblings; to marry or to be responsible for a harvest. Why should an Afghani child or his parents be condemned for allowing him to participate in the defence of his community? A family in a similar position in Botswana may never have been confronted with that choice. Although they might find the idea appalling in peace-time, the pressing necessity of war can cause opinions and beliefs to become highly flexible.  This restatement of cultural relativism goes hand in hand with side proposition’s concluding objection. Although a culture can quickly assimilate and normalise necessary practices- such as arming children- it need not think that they are objectively good and valuable. It may be keen to abandon the practice.  A community that responds to an urgent need to arm children may not want to arm children.  Side opposition regard the use of child soldiers as symptomatic of cultural depravity, of a callous attitude to suffering. This approach patronises communities subject to privations and abuses now unknown in the west. It assumes that traditions cannot be overturned and that societies in the developing world will hasten to use their children as cannon-fodder for without devoting any thought or debate to the risks involved.

The purpose of the resolution is not to eliminate conflict in the developing world. Side proposition are merely seeking to remove the harmful side effects of the way in which the use of child soldiers is currently prosecuted – the risk of criminalising children and teenagers, the stigma attached to being a child soldier, and the condemnation of communities that rely on child soldiers for protection.  Children are already the victims of atrocities perpetrated against civilians. They already volunteer to engage in military service. Armed groups that target civilian populations have already broken international law and have proven willing to do so repeatedly. Children will always be a target, whether or not they have sought out the means with which to defend themselves.  With the international community unwilling to provide wide-ranging policing and supervision of international legal norms, it is not just to condemn individuals and communities who unwillingly take up arms to try to survive attacks by groups who flagrantly disregard international law.  Peaceful communities forced to adopt abnormal survival strategies in the face of lawless aggression should be given the opportunity to compel the ICC to make situation specific judgments.

Punishing objectively harmful conduct  Of the tens of thousands of children exposed to armed conflict throughout the world, most are recruited into armed political groups. Quite contrary to the image of child soldiers constructed by the proposition, these youngsters are not de-facto adults, nor are they seeking to defend communities who will be in some way grateful for their contributions and sacrifices. Child soldiers join groups with defined political and military objectives.  Children may volunteer for military units after encountering propaganda. Many children join up to escape social disintegration within their communities. Several female child soldiers have revealed that they joined because to escape domestic violence or forced marriage. Many children who do not volunteer can be forcibly abducted by military organisations. One former child soldier from Congo reported that “they gave me a uniform and told me that now I was in the army. They said that they would come back and kill my parents if I didn’t do as they said.” [i]  Once inducted into the army, children are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. They are usually viewed as expendable, employed as minesweepers or spies. The inexperience and gullibility of children is used to convince them that they are immune to bullets, or will be financially rewarded for committing atrocities. Many children are controlled through the use of drugs, to which they inevitably become addicted [ii] .  For every account the proposition can provide of a child who took up arms to defend his family, there are many more children who were coerced or threatened into becoming soldiers. Whatever standard of relativist morality side proposition may choose to employ, actions and abuses of the type described above are object4ively harmful to children.  Moreover, the process of turning a child into a soldier is irreversible and often more brutal and dehumanising than combat itself. Proposition concedes that child soldiers will be in need of care and treatment after demobilising, but they underestimate the difficulty of healing damage this horrific.  The use of child soldiers is an unpardonable crime, which creates suffering of a type universally understood to be unnecessary and destructive. It should not be diluted or justified by relativist arguments.  It would undermine the ICC’s role in promoting universal values if officers and politicians complicit in the abuses described above were allowed to publicly argue cultural relativism as their defence. Moreover, it would give an unacceptable air of legitimacy to warlords and brigands seeking to operate under the pretence of leading legitimate resistance movements  [i] Child Soldiers International,   [ii] “Child Soldiers: Global Report 2008”, Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers, 2007, p299,

Universal rights and collective compromises  Cultural relativism is the philosophical belief that all cultures and cultural beliefs are of equal value and that right and wrong are relative and dependant on cultural contexts. Accordingly, relativists hold that universal human rights cannot exist, as there are no truly universal human values. If rights are relative, the laws that protect them must also be relative.  If we accept proposition’s contention that culturally relative values can evolve in response to conflicts and crises, then any perverse or destructive behaviour given the force of ritual and regularity by a group’s conduct can be taken to be relative. If the group believes that a practice is right, if it ties into that group’s conception of what is just and good or beneficial to their survival, then there can be no counter argument against it – whether that practice has been continuous for a hundred years or a hundred days.  Systems of law, however, reflect the opinions, practices and values of everyone within a state’s territory, no matter how plural its population may be. Similarly, objections to specific aspects of the universal human rights doctrine are fragmentary, not collective. While a handful of communities in Yemen may object to a ban on the use of child soldiers, many more throughout the world would find this a sensible and morally valuable principle. It is necessary for both the international community and individual nation states to adjust their laws to reconcile the competing demands of plural value systems. Occasionally, a value common among a majority of cultures must overrule the objections of the minority.  It is perverse to give charismatic leaders who convince impoverished communities to send their sons and daughters into combat an opportunity to use cultural relativism to excuse their culpability for what would otherwise be a war crime. Officers, politicians or dissident commanders are much more likely than Yemeni tribesmen or orphaned Sudanese boys to understand the intricacies of such a defence, and much more likely to abuse it. The commanders of child soldiers are the only class of individuals who should fear the ICC.

Making children military targets  The purpose of the ban on the use of child soldiers is to prevent the normalisation of such tactics in conflict zones. It is not an inflexible implementation of a lofty European ideal. The ban, and the role of the ICC in enforcing it, is designed to reduce the likelihood that civilians will be deliberately targeted in developing world war zones. Why is this necessary?  If the defence set out in the motion is used to reduce the number of war crimes convictions attendant on the use of child soldiers, not only will numbers of child soldiers rise, but children themselves will become military targets. Communities ravaged and depleted by war, under the status quo, may be seen as minimally threatening. Armies are not likely to target them as strategic objectives if it is thought that they will offer no resistance. However, if there is no condemnation and investigation of the use of child soldiers, they will become a much more common feature of the battlefield. The increasing militarisation of children will make those children who do not wish to participate in armed conflict- children pursuing some alternate survival strategy- automatic targets. All children will be treated as potential soldiers. The communities that children live in will become military targets.  The resolution, although seeking to enable children to protect themselves, will simply make them targets of the massacres, organised displacement and surprise attacks that characterise warfare in Africa and central Asia.

It is not sufficient to observe that there exist groups that use brutality to recruit and control child soldiers. As accounts of conflicts in South Sudan and Myanmar show, politically motivated recruitment of children is less common than children volunteering through necessity.  Side opposition should not overlook the fact that there are few constructive alternatives available to children in such situations. Educational institutions are often the first forms of state support to be withdrawn when war breaks out. Many children are orphaned as a result of the indiscriminate targeting of civilians. Taking flight as a refugee may postpone a child’s exposure to conflict, but is rarely useful in escaping it.  Proposition have already established that child soldiers do not originate exclusively within state-based bodies or organised opposition groups seeking control of a state. They are just as likely to be the products of necessity or non-western conceptions of adulthood. The status quo is blind to this distinction, failing to recognise that military involvement is entirely consistent with other norms of adulthood in certain non-western cultures. Further, taking up arms as part of an organised, coherent force is often preferable to remaining a vulnerable, untrained civilian.  Finally, it should be noted that very few opposition-side speakers are likely to argue that individuals, including children, do not have a right to defend themselves against aggression. However, a right to self-defence can be rendered meaningless if weak individuals are not permitted to combine their strength and resources to defend themselves. For ICC prosecutors this would likely be seen as the first step to forming a militia. For a physically weak fourteen year old, it is simply a survival strategy.

With the number of child performers on the increase, [1] parents are becoming more aware of what to expect from their child’s agent, and thus less likely to unwittingly allow exploitation. Additionally, laws exist to prevent parents from spending their child’s wages; for example, the “Coogan Law” dictates that parents in California must open a trust account for their child in which 15% of that child’s earnings must be put aside. [2]  [1] Sand, ‘Child performers working in the entertainment industry around the world’.  [2] Screen Actors Guild, ‘Coogan Law’

media modern culture television youth sport house would ban child performers

performers are at risk of exploitation  Children are generally considered to be too young to make important decisions for themselves, and so decision-making falls to parents, teachers, etc. For child performers, there are additional decision-makers: their agents. Since agents benefit financially from the child’s getting a role or doing well in a sporting event, there is a definite risk of exploitation. Exploitation can also come from parents, as in the famous case of American television child stars Jackie Coogan and Gary Coleman, who both sued their parents for spending the money they had earned as children [1] [2] or of Macaulay Culkin, who blocked his parents from having access to his earnings.  [1] AP, ‘The Kid’ To Get $126,000 For His Share’  [2] The Deseret News, ‘Former Child Star Wins $1.3 Million Judgment’

Just as the state creates laws to protect child performers it could ban child performers  Child performers are currently protected by laws about all sorts of things from the minimum amount of education they may get to their pay and how many hours they can work. Many of these laws would be much more difficult to enforce than a blanket ban. It would be simple to enforce as child performers would in most cases be easy to spot – as they are performing for the public. The government could then bring charges against those who are employing the child and fine them.

Children will always feel pressure in certain areas of their lives, whether with exams or school plays. It may be true that pressure is greater for child performers, but children who perform at a professional level are generally more skilled, and so they are often better at dealing with this pressure. At the very least, they gain enough experience at a young age, that they learn the skills needed to succeed, even in high-pressure situations. Given the pressures all children face, [1] surely it is ethical to allow children into a world where they can learn how to deal with these stresses and protect themselves against possible future problems.  [1] Etchingham, ‘Are we putting our kids under too much pressure?’

Allowing children to perform pushes them to grow up too soon  Child performers are exposed to a much higher level of responsibility than their peers, without the maturity to deal with it. They may be exposed to sex, drugs, or alcohol, in a context too far removed from a normal life that they don’t learn adequate coping mechanisms. It is no surprise that many child performers “burn out” by the time they reach adulthood, often experiencing problems long before, as in the case of actress Drew Barrymore, who entered rehab at the age of 13. [1] Children should not be encouraged to enter into these adult worlds of acting, modeling, dancing, etc. Michael Jackson attributed his obsession with children and childhood as a consequence of having missed out on a childhood himself.  [1] Barrymore, Little Girl Lost

Being a performer limits a child’s formal education  Spending so much time either performing or training limits the amount of formal education the child can receive. For example, in the UK and other countries, child performers are only required to be educated for three hours each day. [1]  Additionally, the focus on the specialised skill of the child (e.g., acting, dancing, etc.) may detract from their family’s or their own interest in formal education.  [1] The Children’s Legal Centre, ‘What are the hours that a child performer may work?’

It is entirely possible for child performers to achieve high grades. For example, Jodie Foster graduated magna cum laude from Yale University, despite having been a child star. [1] Child performers who spend a lot of hours on-set will also have access to a certified teacher who acts as their personal tutor during that time. [2]  In addition, as long as the child performer obtains a sufficient understanding of the core academic curriculum, it doesn’t matter if they are more interested in their chosen career area than in formal education, especially if they plan on continuing on that career path into adulthood.  [1] Yale Office of Public Affairs &amp; Communications, ‘Yale Alumni Go to the Oscars’  [2] On Location Education, ‘Teacher Requirements’

Cases like Drew Barrymore’s are rare, and many young performers have happy and successful careers. All young people are likely to be exposed to adult experiences at some point in their childhood, and it should be left to parents and teachers to educate children of the dangers of alcohol, drugs, etc., no matter what activities the child takes part in outside of school or the home. For many of the areas that involve child performers, there are also laws in place to ensure children are not exposed to age-inappropriate situations. For example, in North America and other countries laws exist to ensure children in the entertainment industry are not “put at risk physically (no dangerous stunts),” “exposed to morally compromising situations,” or ever allowed to “be nude or partially nude,” or “be engaged in overt sexual acts”. [1]  [1] Moore, ‘Protecting Child Stars: Laws and Regulations’

Banning child performers could be successful for professional child performers in regulated industries but it would be much more difficult to prevent child performers on a small scale. It will also be very difficult to get a balance between allowing children to develop in their chosen profession or sport while preventing them from actually engaging in any performance that displays that talent.

The added risk for most child athletes and performers is very low, and there is professional help in place for them to manage it.  Children who compete professionally in sporting events are only exposed to real risk in very rare, extreme situations. Some elements of risk exist in all aspects of life: children who are allowed to play on rollerblades are slightly more at risk of injury than those who are not; children who live in cities are at more risk of traffic accidents than those who live in the countryside, who are at more risk of falling out of trees, etc. Adults and children alike make decisions in which they take risks in the name of the greater benefits. For children who play a sport professionally, the physical training they receive can build strength and muscle and increase fitness levels, which provide the child with improved health and protection from injury in future. If child performers were banned, there would be no way of making sure that any children who still ended up in the business (i.e., illegally) had access to the support staff (e.g., physiotherapists, nutritionists) currently available. [1]  When it comes to the possibility of eating disorders in child performers, professionals also exist for the prevention thereof. For example, in New York the Child Performer Advisory Board to Prevent Eating Disorders (Labor Law Section 154) exists to educate and provide information for child performers and their guardians. [2]  [1] Canadian Athletic Therapists Association, ‘Athletic Therapy’  [2] New York Department of Labor, ‘Child Performer Advisory Board’

It is unethical to expose children to the pressures of performing  Even experienced adults can find it difficult to deal with stage fright or performance anxiety. Children, more emotionally vulnerable than adults by nature, should not be exposed to this sort of pressure. This is especially true in situations where the child is being paid for their performance, since the added necessity to perform well can lead to even more pressure. Although suicide among children is rare, it is believed often to occur as a result of the child feeling like she is under too much pressure, or failing to meet the expectations of others. [1]  There are also consequences that continue long past the child has stopped performing; former child actors often have the problem as young adults as feeling as having already ‘peaked’ and find themselves without a sense of drive or ambition or a coherent adult identity, consequentially they often suffer from substance abuse and addiction  [1] Lipsett, ‘Stress driving pupils to suicide, says union’

Being a performer can make the child physically vulnerable  Children involved at a professional level in sports are at a higher risk than their peers of physical problems like breaking bones. In some cases, these physical problems can be fatal; e.g., Julissa Gomez, who died from complications of a vaulting injury contracted when she was 15 in warm-ups for a gymnastics competition. [1]  Even in careers like acting and dancing there are risks for child performers. Actors and dancers are usually encouraged to stay thin, often to an unhealthy degree. Because children are particularly vulnerable, they are more susceptible to the perils of over-exercising for athletes and eating disorders for performers. It has been found, for example, that girls who dance in their childhood are more likely than their peers to develop anorexia nervosa in later life. [2] Lena Zavaroni, the childhood winner of ‘opportunity knocks’ in the 1970’s, struggled with eating disorders for all of her life and died aged 34.  With the damage eating disorders can do to a person’s body, it should be illegal to expose children to such risks.  [1] Hoffman, ‘Obituaries’  [2] BBC News, ‘Anorexia linked to child dancers’

Children might feel as if their rights are being taken away, but there is a reason why children are not given free reign over the way they live their lives. Governments have already stepped in to prevent children from endangering their health by consuming too much junk food, [1] [2] and indeed from working in non-performance fields. So too must they take charge in this issue and act so as to prevent children from becoming susceptible to the emotional and physical risks involved in being a child performer.  [1] BBC News, ‘Junk food banned in school meals’  [2] Harris, ‘A Federal Effort to Push Junk Food Out of Schools’

In a lot of films, television shows, and stage productions, it is possible to have young adult actors playing child roles. For example, in the popular American television show The O.C., the main characters were played by young adults ranging from 18 to 29 years of age but all portraying teenagers. [1] Sports needn’t suffer either: the minimum age of competition for gymnastics has already been raised, [2] [3] and others can surely follow their example without suffering from it. If professional leagues are not allowed to roster athletes below the age of 18, for example, children will compete in amateur and educational leagues where the pressure and commitment is lower, but where they can still train for the professional arena.  [1] IMDB, ‘The O.C.’  [2] Hanley, ‘Gymnastics – Minimum age will soon rise to 16.’  [3] The Telegraph, London 2012 Olympics: artistic gymnastics guide

If child performers were banned, many children would find a way to perform illegally, now without legal protection.  While being a child performer is legal, these children’s working circumstances are under the protection of the law and monitored by government departments such as the Inland Revenue, Health and Safety, etc. Were child performers to be banned, it is certain that some children would still perform, but would not be thus protected. This has already happened in certain professional sports where athletes can benefit by lying about their age. For example, it is easier for Latin American baseball players to sign with U.S. Major League teams if the teams think they are young. As a result, countless players have lied about their age, including a number of high-profile cases, such as Miguel Tejada who was named Most Valuable Player in 2002. [1] Many of these young players, however, have been less successful. There are too many unfortunate examples of players who came to the United States at a young age and, under the increased pressure, fell victim to serious drug problems, often resulting in overdose and death. [2] [3] A ban would not prevent children from performing; it would actually further expose them to whatever risks may be involved.  [1] Schmidt and Schwartz. “Baseball’s Use of DNA Raises Questions.”  [2] Zirin, “Can’t Knock the Hassle: Chavez Challenges Baseball.”  [3] Helfgott, “The international game.”

The government has no right to prevent children from doing what they enjoy and are good at  Many child performers would undoubtedly protest if their right to perform were taken away from them, and justly so. This can be seen in quotes from the likes of Roddy McDowall, who said in an interview in 1963 that he “had a particularly wonderful time” as a child actor, [1] and would presumably have been quite upset had a ban been enforced in his lifetime. It is beyond the rights of the government to make illegal an opportunity that allows those talented on the stage, in front of a camera, on the pitch, etc. (who might well not be so strong in other, e.g., academic, areas) to make a living from doing what they do best.  Some child performers have also proved to be extremely business savvy – the ‘Olsen Twins’ have built a massive industry off of their Disney stardom.  [1] BBC News. ‘Actor McDowall dies aged 7 0

Child performers are necessary for roles in some films, television shows, etc., and for the survival of some sports  In some films or television shows, child actors are absolutely necessary in order to realistically portray society and the roles children play. The incredibly popular Harry Potter films, for example, would not have been half as convincing without the large cast of actors under the age of 18 playing the schoolchildren. Child actors are also necessary in the advertising industry, in order to make products appealing to a younger audience. Some sports, too, would be endangered if children were not allowed to compete. Ice skaters and dancers, for example, benefit greatly from training starting at an early age. [1]  [1] Sagolla, ‘Dance Training for Children and Teens’

If child performers were banned, it would be the duty of the government to ensure children were not illegally performing, just as it is currently their duty to protect current child performers. In the United States, for example, Major League Baseball has begun to institute DNA testing for international players, in order to ensure that they are being truthful about their age when they come to America. [1] Banning child performers is possible, and it is the only way to truly protect children’s rights and to prevent them from the inherent physical and emotional risks.  [1] Schmidt and Schwartz. “Baseball’s Use of DNA Raises Questions.”

Bilingual education is exactly that – bilingual. Students do not simply abandon the English language – they intensively study it. The only bilingual classes are provided in other fields such as math and science - subjects critical for future employment to ensure they do not fall top far behind.  On the contrary, while immersion may teach English better, there is a lot of evidence that it tends to increase drop-out rates substantially, [1] indicating that for a number of students it is in fact less effective since it is hard to learn anything in school if you don’t attend.  Even those who don’t drop out tend to fall substantially behind, hurting their educational efforts, and undermining their position in the workplace. A mathematician or scientist does not need perfect English – they do need good grades in other courses.  [1] Vaznis, James, ‘Boston students struggle with English-only rule’, boston.com, 7 April 2009,

culture general education education general house would make english official

Bilingual Education is expensive and encourages balkanization  One of the goals of the government in providing education is to prepare students for success in the work place, and therefore the government has an obligation to spend its money in the most efficient way possible to accomplish this.  This is relevant because Bilingual education is expensive, requiring the hiring of bilingual teachers, the organization of bilingual classes, and the acquisition of bilingual curriculum materials. [1]  These costs might be justified if they actually helped students. But the reality is that they do not. For one thing, they allow students to get by without learning English. One of the great obstacles to learning a new language is the fact that parents of students may well speak another language at home. If students suddenly use that language at school as well, they will spend the vast majority of their day speaking a language other than English, with the consequence that they may not pick it up at all, and find themselves at a large disadvantage when they attempt to join the workforce.  As a consequence, it seems likely that the money could be better used subsidizing tutoring for students learning English than running an entirely separate and parallel educational system.  [1] Rossell, Christine, ‘Does Bilingual Education Work? The Case of Texas’, Texas Public Policy Foundation, September 2009,

English-only policies are not about encouraging acceptance of diversity, and to the extent they are about bringing people together it is by forcing immigrants to abandon their culture.  From the very beginning of the English-only movement during the First World War, when anti-German sentiment led to attacks on German-speaking immigrants, the idea of English as a an official language has been brought up to stigmatize immigrants . [1] The very debate over the implementation of the policy would do more to stigmatize immigrants than could be made up for by any benefits it could provide.  It may well be that forcing Immigrants to speak English and work in it would help them to assimilate but so would deporting them across the country where they would be forced to sink or swim. We don’t do that because it would be wrong.  Secondly, all of the government’s benefits are based on the assumption that individuals can learn English quickly if they are forced to do so. But learning languages is a long process, and the government’s policies would leave large numbers of people worse off before they managed to pick up the language, assuming they ever did.  [1] Opposing views, ‘English-Only Laws Are Offensive to Our Nation’s Cherished Diversity’, 2010,

The Identity and History of the United States are intrinsically linked to the English Language  From its very founding, English was the common language of the United States, and full participation in the national life was dependent on the ability to speak it. Theodore Roosevelt himself once noted that "We have one language here, and that is the English language, and we intend to see that the [assimilation] crucible turns our people out as Americans ” [1]  Declaring English as the official language will give legal force to this history, and help provide unity to Americans at a time when many come from different backgrounds and hold different political views.  Furthermore, it will help immigrants with the process of assimilation. Rather than simply learning English for pragmatic reasons, the act of learning English will tie immigrants into a political and historical tradition going back to Thomas Jefferson.  [1] Opposing Views, ‘Linguistic Unity Is Critical in an Increasingly Diverse Society’, 2010,

English is the de facto official language of the United States already and that is not under threat at this time. There is no prospect of it being replaced with Swahili and of children three generations in the future being unable to read the declaration of independence.  As a consequence the major impacts of this move will be symbolic. First of all, it will enshrine and endorse the idea that the true Americans were the first Americans, that the English colonists who arrived on the continent speaking the language already were the only real Americans, and that everyone who arrived later is an American by integration.  Not only is this untrue – the Dutch settled New York [1] – but it also places a stigma on that integration. By tying American identity to the British colony the United States was rather than the ideals the nation was founded on, the government would adopting an exclusive definition that in some ways goes against those ideals, including for instance, the inclusion in the US constitution that anyone born within the territory of the United States would automatically be a citizen.  [1] New Netherlands Project, ‘New Amsterdam’,

The segregation of students in this case is not a function of their language skills, but of their lack thereof. Simply placing non-English speakers in a normal school will not suddenly make them friends with everyone, especially if they cannot communicate. If there are other speakers of their language, they will likely form a separate social group with those students, speaking their home language among themselves, which will undermine efforts to teach them English. At the same time they will likely do poorly in school as they will struggle to comprehend the content of their classes. [1]  If other ESL students don’t exist, they will likely become socially isolated, with all the negative results this can potentially lead to such as depression or even in extreme cases suicide.  [1] Vaznis, James, ‘Boston students struggle with English-only rule’, boston.com, 7 April 2009,

Avoids self-segregation  In a time when the US has begun to overcome racial segregation, and legal discrimination in other fields, one of the great challenges it faces is self-segregation.  Linguistic diversity worsens these problems because it inevitably leads to self-segregation. All things being equal, and even if they are not, people like to be around people they can communicate with.  This was not a huge problem in years past when most immigrant groups were small enough to be easily swallowed, and too small to maintain their linguistic unity, but the Hispanic population in the United States has grown at such a rate, that it is possible to get by with Spanish in many major US cities. Restaurants, businesses and services all exist which cater to it, and there is an entire industry of Spanish language television available.  This in turn makes the risk of social balkanization much stronger. While a small minority of people may learn new languages because they want to, the vast majority learn them when they have to – and if individuals can get by without doing so, it’s likely that they will not. Rather than assimilation, you will have a divergence between the linguistic minority and the majority.

Bilingual education hurts students  Bilingual education segregates students in its system from those outside it. This limits the opportunities for interaction.  This is harmful in a number of ways. For one thing, it limits their interaction with peers who will speak English. While it’s possible they may practice English with their friends in a bilingual school, it seems unlikely, as it would be easier to talk in the existing language.  Furthermore, it also limits the exposure of English-speaking students to immigrants who don’t speak English, allowing negative stereotypes to arise out of ignorance that then can influence governmental policy through the ballot box.  Finally, this segregation may extend to within bilingual schools themselves, since not everyone seeking bilingual education has the same non-English language. The result might well be that students would group socially into groups based on country of origin, and due to simple demographics this would place the Spanish-speaking students at a significant advantage as there are nearly 30 million of them in the country. This polarization in turn could lead to splits between minority language groups that could reduce their overall social capital.

All of those accents are varieties of English. The meaning of English as a unifying force is that across Americans’ differences of religion, politics, history, and yes dialect, at the end of the day they are all brought together by a common language and a common ability to communicate within it.

It may well be that some people backing the push to make English the official language have questionable motives, but the movement should be evaluated based on its results.  Right now Hispanics are already stigmatized, whether on one hand as temporary labourers unable to speak English and therefore destined for the worst jobs, or as an invading horde planning to conquer the United States.  For better or worse, the self-segregation of the community reinforces many of these beliefs, while it also prevents their kids from learning English. If this policy helps to break this self-segregation up, and the children of Hispanic Immigrants become as American as the children of German immigrants became in the early 20th century then their opportunities will be greatly increased.

It specifically denies a rich cultural heritage which is uniquely American of groups that spoke English but not as a first language  Almost no one in the United States knows English, but then chooses not to use it to make some sort of political statement. The language is far too omnipresent in the economy, culture, and everyday life to make such a choice attractive or even sane.  Nor do people generally choose not to learn English. The advantages and opportunities it opens up, and the stigmas and discrimination facing non-English speakers mean that learning English is one of the first things any immigrant is going to try and do.  In reality therefore we are going to be talking about people who can’t speak English, either because they have not learned it yet, or because they can’t learn it. Perhaps they don’t have the time between working two jobs, or perhaps they find it difficult.  In any case, if this policy is simply symbolic it will stigmatize these people. If it goes further, it will actively make their lives worse, and perhaps make it even harder for them to learn English.

The US has a long tradition of multiple languages  There is a long historical tradition in the United States to which different languages contributed. Most Americans do not have ancestors who arrived from England prior to 1776, and even among the colonists before independence there were Frenchman, Dutch, Swedes, Scots and Irish. [1] The languages of these early immigrants remain, for example Cajun, an offshoot of French remains a de facto official language in Louisiana. [2]  The historical importance of Native American languages or of the immigrants who came in and contributed so much is also ignored. All of these groups are stigmatized and their contributions ignored.  The descendants of most of the groups listed above speak English today, so the issue is not an ease of access one. It is however one of historical justice and giving full recognition to the full-range of contributors to American history.  [1] ‘Ethnic Composition of the Thirteen Colonies, 1750’, teacher’s Brunch,   [2] Melancon, Megan, ‘Cajun English’, PBS,

Even within the United States people speak English differently  Even within the United States people speak many different dialects. From Boston to New York to the rural South, accents and diversity within the English language express the exact same types of historical, cultural, and even political traditions that those pushing English find so horrifying if made in another language.  It would be hard to set a standard for what is English, and ignore the fact that Americans have long used linguistic differences as a sign of identity. It therefore makes no sense to try to paper over these linguistic differences by imposing English as an official language; rather the diversity of languages and dialects should be celebrated.

In the current environment, moves to make English the official language are specifically targeted at Hispanic immigrants  Historically, efforts to declare English the official language tend to come up when certain elements in the American body politic become threatened. It became an issue in the First World War, when resentment rose against German immigrants, and the present movement, though nominally not signalling anyone out, is clearly aimed at Hispanics.  This can be inferred from the fact that they are by far the largest non-English linguistic group in the country, and on occasion such views have been let slip, as the leader of one of the largest lobbying groups for a National Language did.[1]  Even if such legislation is not aimed specifically at Hispanics, everyone will assume that it is, and many Hispanics will nevertheless believe that they are the intended targets.  The practical result of this will be the alienation of the Hispanic population as many Hispanics see themselves under attack, which will cause many Hispanics to concentrate together, undermining many of the arguments for assimilation the government has made.  Furthermore, to the extent it stigmatizes Spanish speakers as the ‘other’, it may well encourage bullying against Hispanic students, and discrimination against those who can’t speak English, who are a far larger group than those who chose not to speak it.  [1] ‘English Only Movement FAQ File’, Mass. English Plus,

England today owes much to Roman settlers, and for nearly four centuries it was governed by a French speaking nobility – yet this is not a reason for Britain to have either French or Latin as official languages.  The fact is that we can recognize that all Americans today speak English, while also recognizing that their parents, grandparents, and great-grand-parents may not have. In fact that is exactly what making English the official language will recognize, the role English has played in bringing people together and creating a national identity by making these people Americans.

This policy does not stigmatize people who cannot speak English. It rather affirms the hard work of those who have. There are numerous stories of how proud immigrants have been to take their citizenship test, and by strengthening the idea of identity it makes it more meaningful.  Secondly, if money is redirected from bilingual education to providing individual tutoring, it may well help individuals who have trouble learning English in a class environment. It has never been suggested that the government has no role to play in helping people learn English.

If it is something like a name that can already be considered intellectual property then this broadening is unnecessary, compensation will be made through the courts anyway.  Culture as a whole is something that evolves overtime, it is not something that can be comparable to intellectual property. Culture is not as clear cut and rigid as the cases of intellectual property as it consists of things such as shared values and common knowledge which often has overlaps between different cultures and no true owner. Therefore, cultural appropriation cannot be parallel to stolen intellectual property and they should be handled in different ways.  Reparations for something as arbitrary and subjective as culture is a system very open to exploitation. It may encourage exploitative behaviour with minorities encourages to pursue cases through the courts to gain reparations even when the case is slim. In some instances, designs or ideas may really have been made independently but be pursued due to similarity with a cultural idea.

traditions house believes compensation should be paid those who have had their

Cultural appropriation is parallel to stolen intellectual property and should be treated in the same way.  There are high standards of global intellectual property laws such as copyright and patenting for things such as medicines, and creative designs. However, these laws only apply to a few areas so this proposal would effectively widen its remit by taking intellectual property as a template for what might be considered ‘cultural property’. Many minority communities, including the Native American Navajo tribe have had their names, designs, and culture stolen or misused and have not received compensation. This highlights the embedded systematic inequalities where justice may not be brought to those of minority cultures. Reparations, monetary or otherwise, should be paid in these cases as other case studies [1].  The closest this has actually come to happening is with the Native American Navajo community. They had their name printed and used on products such as underwear, dresses and hipflasks at the popular retail store Urban Outfitters [2]. There was outrage in the community and a 'cease and desist' notice was filed in court for the products to be recalled. In addition to this the Navajo tribe called for monetary reparations to compensate for the damage done in the name of their community however, this was not granted. As the Navajo name was copyrighted this case was made much simpler before the law – as we propose cultural property theft should be.  It is important to point out that many other communities which have been exploited previously have not copyrighted their name and so do not have this same opportunity [3]. This is important as with many cases, the outcome may have not resulted in anything further.  The practise of reparations should be used universally as it is disrespectful to misuse the names, symbols and property of other cultures without consent.  In a democracy where everybody is equal before the law, communities and individuals should be able to sue those for not giving recognition, or misusing cultural practises that have historic meaning and importance. Culture is embedded in communities with long standing traditions, theories and practises. This is evident as we do not (yet) have a single global culture, even though one might argue there is one slowly emerging.  [1] Schutte, Shane, ‘6 famous copyright cases’, realbusiness, 11th August 2014,   [2] Siek, Stephanie, ‘Navajo Nation sues Urban Outfitters for alleged trademark infringement’, CNN, 2nd March 2012,   [3] Johnson, Maisha J., ‘What is wrong with cultural appropriation; These 9 Answers Reveal Its Harm’, everydayfeminism, 14th June 2015,

Firstly, communities can be given credit for designs and things of other cultural significance without the use of reparations which are arbitrary and pointless.  Secondly, reparations are also ineffective, it throws a one-off lump sum to the formerly oppressed. They do not benefit the most deprived in society (economically). They are not effective in combatting racism.

Compensation rights a wrong  Compensation is a basic principle of justice in any legal system. By definition it can be given to those who have had harm to reputation or dignity, emotional distress and loss of opportunities, including potential earnings. It is important to give compensation as it provides something for those who have suffered from disadvantages as a result of someone else’s actions, and it therefore helps to level out the playing field. Cultural appropriation causes clear harms – lost business, less awareness of that culture, and a feeling of inferiority. Theoretically, compensation is also beneficial as Rawls believes that it achieves 'some of the intent' of the principle of redress. This is in line with an egalitarian point of view [1]. While individual cases of cultural appropriation may not intend to harm they have an externality of harm by damaging the culture and identity as a while. This is in much the same way that those polluting often don’t intend harm, just to make a profit.  [1] Gaus, Gerald F., ‘Does Compensation Restore Equality’, Compensatory Justice, Vol.33, 1991, pp.45-81,

Compensation may be fundamental, but only when it is possible to quantify the harm, and decide who the harm was done to. With cultural appropriation both are often muddy. Taking a part of culture may not have a monetary benefit for the one taking that cultural item or a proportional loss for the original culture. If this is the case how is a figure put on compensation? Then who does the compensation go to; split between everyone in that culture? But who and how is it defined who is a part of that group?

The notion of compensation in the case of cultural appropriation is limited. Firstly, culture is subjective and essentially defined to individual interpretation and perception, there are limited definitive lines. As a result of this, compensation would be extremely difficult to both claim and give out every time a cultural appropriation is claimed by an individual or group.

Compensation is important to give the communities credit they deserve.  Compensation can be used to level out the playing field of inequality to those who have been oppressed. They help to give communities the recognition they deserve and help to reverse intuitionally reinforced negative stereotypes. The reparations can be used to benefit the community; for example, within the community and externally in order to educate people appropriately about the struggles of a repressed community. It would help fund efforts based on the model of the US Governments of Education and State Boards of Education to develop a 'robust curriculum' involving greater accuracy in black history as well as the involvement of African American figures in history on local, national and global scales [1].  This inequality is why the reform has to be state led; it is up to the state to protect minorities. Professor Matthew Rimmer from the Queensland University of Technology believes that ''At an international level, more should be done to implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in respect of Indigenous intellectual property''. This was said after Chanel made a A$2,000 boomerang [2] which would seem to be in opposition to the declaration which Australia has endorsed.  [1] Humphries, Arielle, and Stahly-Butts, Marbre, ‘A Vision for Black Lives’, Centre for Popular Democracy, July 2016,   [2] ‘Chanel’s $2,000 boomerang sparks complaints and confusion from Indigenous Australians’, ABC News, 17th May 2017,

Compensation has the potential to reverse damaged caused by Cultural Appropriation.  Compensation is necessary in the case of cultural appropriation as it helps to provide victims with the resources they need or deserve as compensation for exploitative behaviour. Often it can be easily quantified as would be the case with the Navajo Urban Outfitters case. With stronger legislation and rulings on the provision for compensation for cultural appropriation, minority communities would be significantly better off. This would be a major step towards reversing the damage of said appropriation as it would allow the community to develop and gain recognition for traditional designs and ideas.  Compensation can bring back some justice to small, minority communities as they can gain the appropriate recognition they deserve as well as the benefits that come along with it. It was estimated in 2005 that nearly half of the US $1billion market from native American Arts and Crafts come from the sale of counterfeit goods [1]. Compensation would help protect sales from native American businesses as well as their culture.  [1] Padilla, Helen B., ‘Padilla: Combating fake Indian Arts and Crafts: a proposal for action’, Indian Country Today, 14 October 2008,

Who gets compensated would have to be clearly defined and yes there would be losers and some perverse outcomes. But what matters is that the system as a whole would be beneficial. While culture is complex any case would only be looking at one isolated aspect of culture; one custom. Defining this one aspect and who it belongs to would not be difficult. Compensation would not usually go to all individuals of a community but to help that community; to their community centres, NGOs etc., or to those individuals who have directly lost income as it would be with intellectual property.

Whilst globalisation is occurring and creating multibillion dollar industries all over the world, cultures are not fully immersed in each other. Nor should we want them to be as we don’t want a global monoculture. Far from sparking divisions compensation can create harmony as it forces cultures to understand and tolerate each other by learning what is acceptable and what is not. Preventing stealing of culture will encourage greater attribution of where ideas come from preventing smaller cultures from becoming marginalised in a globalised world.

Reparations and the use of the term 'cultural appropriation' is a mask for more deep-rooted issues of racism in society.  The use of compensation as a means of redress for cultural appropriation doesn’t tackle the root problems that are expressed. The problems given as examples of cultural appropriation, like a Caucasian person wearing their hair in dreadlocks- a style that has meaning and historic prejudice to the afro-Caribbean community is redirecting attention and division. The individuals wearing their hair in this fashion however are not the problem. Demanding compensation from them 'does not challenge racism in any meaningful way' [1]. Instead targeting and punishing those who actively discriminate against those with the dreadlock style of hair is more effective and encourages equality.  [1] Malik, Kenan, ‘The Bane of Cultural Appropriation’, AlJazeera, 14th April 2016,

No feasible system of which grounds of compensation can occur because of the fluidity of culture and cultural identity  How a person identifies themselves aligns with the culture they are a part of. Szewczak and Snodgrass argue this is as the values of an individual “are influenced and modified by membership of other professional, organisational, ethnic, religious, and various other social groups, each of which has its own specialized culture and value set. Thus, individuals vary greatly in the degree in which they espouse, if at all, values by a single cultural group, such as their national culture” [1]. As a result, people can identify with several different cultures often at one time. This creates difficulties in allowing one person to seek compensation from another purely on the basis of identity politics – individuals at least partially define their own culture and it may only be one among multiple cultures they identify with.  Culture itself has a complex nature; it adapts, borrows and evolves. It also influences lives in different ways and to different extents. No culture is fully homogenous. Because of this, any model for the extent of compensation would almost be impossible. Somebody with a long distant relative of which they haven't met, could potentially gain compensation for something that doesn’t directly affect them. They may even identify with the majority culture that is doing the compensating. Conversely some who identify with the culture being compensated may not be eligible for compensation even if they are directly affected.  [1] Snodgrass, Coral R., &amp; Szweczak, Edward J. "The Substitutability of Strategic Control Choices: An Empirical Study". The Journal of Management Studies. Vol. 25. 1990.

globalisation and multiculturalism.  Cultural appropriation prevents assimilation between members of society and creates further divisions based on arbitrary features of one’s ancestry or appearance. If reparations (through the use of compensation) were to occur in addition to this, it would create a more polarised and divided society as an 'us and them' culture is created.  A consequence of globalisation is the movement of people and the diffusion of knowledge [1]. This happens on a mass scale where it is possible for a person from India to travel across the globe to the United Kingdom (UK) and get there within 24 hours of booking their flight. With this, the spread of technology and knowledge it is inevitable that culture and identity does not remain fixed either. It also means that an increasing amount of people have more than one culture. A direct consequence of increased migration is that migrants are likely to bring with them their cultural customs. An example of this can be seen in the UK. As the UK faced more migrants from the Sub-continent of India, the popularity of different curries increased, and not just among those of Indian decent. In such circumstances cultures begin to merge as the traditional 'Chicken Tikka' recipe was adapted into a localised version called 'Chicken Tikka Masala' and was, in 2001, declared the UK's national dish.  Without globalisation, Britain's £3.6bn Indian restaurant industry would not exist and it would fail to employ approximately 100,000 people [2]. Any reparations would be paltry compared to the jobs that this industry has created over decades.  This is a positive thing; it brings cultures together, encourages understanding, innovation and cooperation. Forcing people to compensate for the appropriation of a culture may mean that there is less social harmony as divisions are forced between cultures. For the following generations of migrants will be forced to choose a culture as cultural appropriation encourages division between the two.  [1] Stief, Colin, ‘Globalization’, ThoughtCo., 3rd March 2017,   [2] Wintor, Patrick, ‘Chicken tikka Britain is new Cook recipe’, The Guardian, 19 April 2001,

The use of compensation is effective in combating more 'deep-rooted' issues of racism in society. This is because compensation gives the minority communities the recognition, credit and any financial benefit that comes with this, of which they deserve. Highlighting other cultures and their achievements by preventing cultural appropriation will change attitudes so encouraging equality of treatment.

It is simply not true that people are bothered by their personal information getting out, or at least they are unwilling to do anything about it. In a recent survey 85% of respondents said they were aware that they were being profiled by advertisers as they browse the Internet. [1] They know that this data is what companies use to enable sophisticated advertising directed at them and to determine what the market wants. While some people feel it a bit disconcerting that their computer seems to know what might interest them, as in the case with targeted advertising based on personal search data, many others have found that the targeted advertising has made the seeking out of desired goods and services far easier. Also, a policy of disclosure such as that mandated in the EU might be employed in which services inform users that their data will be collated and give them the option to leave the site before this occurs so as to ensure that individuals really are aware.  [1] Ives, D., “Anonymizer, Inc. Survey Finds Most Consumers Confused About Online Safety Measures”, Anonymizer, 19 October 2010,

privacy house would not allow companies collectsell personal data their

Consumers tend to feel alienated by spreading of their personal information for profit  People experiencing the use of their personal details by companies have largely been found to see the process as extremely invasive and unsettling. Many have felt violated by the exploitation of their personal lives to market them products, often from people to whom they never consented to hand over information. This feeling has been demonstrated through significant public outcry and backlash, as well as empirical results showing these attitudes becoming more and more widespread, particularly in the case of online targeted advertising, which is the most well-known use of personal information. The best example of such backlash is the result of Amazon.com’s “dynamic pricing” system, in which the company varied its offerings and pricings to customers based on information gathered about them from prior uses. The result was a severe backlash that cost Amazon business until it ended the policy. [1] This has led to a blunting of the desired outcome of such marketers who experience declines in uptake rather than increased and more efficient reach of marketing. Furthermore, the targeted marketing that arises from these forms of information storage and sale can tend toward stereotypes, using programmes that favour broad brushstrokes in their marketing, resulting in stereotyped services on the basis of apparent race and gender. When this happens it is all the more alienating.  [1] Taylor, C., “Private Demands and Demands For Privacy: Dynamic Pricing and the Market for Customer Information”, Duke University, September 2002,  p.1

Companies have been making great strides in the realm of data protection and will no doubt continue to do so as it is in their interest to keep any information they have to themselves. They have far more resources and much more sophisticated equipment than the hackers, and while there are resourceful individuals out there, the power of the corporate structure allows them to fend off attacks with greater and greater effectiveness. As these security technologies become more advanced people should feel more and more comfortable with companies holding their data.

Collecting and selling personal information is a major violation of privacy  The gathering of personal data that companies undertake is done in a fashion that is fundamentally invasive of individuals’ privacy.  When individuals go online they act as private parties, often enjoying anonymity in their personal activities. Companies, particular online services, collate information and seek to use it to market products and services that are specifically tailored to those individuals. In the context of the internet, this means that individuals’ activities online are in fact susceptible to someone else’s interference and oversight, stealing from them the privacy and security the internet has striven to provide since its inception. At the most basic level, the invasion of privacy that collating and using private data gleaned from customers is unacceptable. [1] There is a very real risk of the information being misused, as the data can be held, and even resold to third parties that the customers never consented to giving their data and might well not want to come into possession of their personal details. This can lead to serious abuses of individuals’ private information by corporations, or indeed other agents that might have less savoury uses for the information, most obviously the more places your personal information is the more likely it is to be lost in a data breach with 267million records exposed in 2012. [2] Even when the information is not exposed it may be used in ways that have a real impact on the individual such as determining credit scores. [3] People as a matter of principle should have control over who gets access to their private information. Giving companies that are driven by profit motive to sell on their customers’ data to anyone that might offer a suitable price stands as an absolute theft of personal information and privacy.  [1] The Canadian Press. “Academics Want Watchdog to Probe Online Profiling”. CTV News. 28 July 2008.   [2] Risk Based Security, “2012 Sets New Record for Reported Data Breaches”, PR Newswire, 14 February 2013,   [3] Morris, J., and Lacandera, E., “Why big companies buy, sell your data”, CNN, 23 August 2012,

Much of the “personal” data that is kept, collated, and sold is freely available online already and can be protected in many ways. The programmes that are used to collect information online, where most of this collation takes place, often do not ever gain real access to individuals’ identities, but rather only have access to search details. It is highly unlikely that any of this information could be used to identify actual individuals, and where it can it is safeguarded by laws regarding privacy. Furthermore, the information in question is put into the public sphere by individuals availing of services and may well not be guaranteed any form of special protection. They exist and are revealed in the public sphere, and belong there.

Data breaches can result in huge amounts of personal data falling into unscrupulous hands  The data collected and sold by companies is not safe. Servers with even the most sophisticated security systems are susceptible to hackers and other miscreants seeking to exploit the personal data of unsuspecting customers. Identity theft is a ubiquitous threat in the Information Age, one that increases every year as the arms race between data protection designers and invaders rages on. Data breaches have been rapidly increasing [1] and although the total number declined from 412 million exposed records in 2011 to 267 million in 2012 this has increasingly been due to hacking rather than simple negligence. [2] The result of these breaches is huge costs to individuals who have their identities and also to firms that appear to be unsafe. As individuals see companies as being uncaring of their information they tend to punish them in the market. [3] There is no opt-in because the individual has no means of seeing to whom the data is sold, and how secure their servers might be, putting them doubly at risk. Firms are better off not playing with fire and keeping data that could have huge potential costs to them if it is lost, and individuals are better off not having their information disseminated across cyberspace without any guarantee of its safety.  [1] Federal Trade Commission. “Privacy online: Fair information practices in the electronic marketplace: A report to Congress. Technical report, Federal Trade Commission”. May 2000.   [2] Risk Based Security, “Historically, Over 1.2 Billion Records Exposed According to Risk Based Security, Inc.” Risk Based Security, 22 February 2012,   Risk Based Security, “2012 Sets New Record for Reported Data Breaches”, PR Newswire, 14 February 2013,   [3] Acquisti, A. “The Economics of Personal Data and the Economics of Privacy”. OECD. 2010,

It is not particularly reassuring that it is large organisations and in particular big business that keeps these immense datasets. They have their own agendas for how they use this information and if this is simply for pushing products then many people would want no part of it. Analysis are wary about how big businesses will use big data as there is the concern that it will be manipulated, misread or even just plain wrong. [1] While the information may benefit small businesses it is not these companies that have control of the data; they are reliant on it being shared with them by the already dominant much bigger firms who are likely to choose to do business with other big businesses.  [1] PewInternet, “The Future of Big Data”, Pew Research Center, 20 July 2012,

It is difficult to see how this advertising is better for business overall. The consumer still has the same amount of money so will overall still spend the same amount. They may spend it on different things as a result of more targeted advertising, assuming that the consumer is not alienated by the personalised advertising, but is that a benefit? Moreover even if companies are successful in advertising their wares more effectively to their customers, it does not change the fundamental violation of privacy upon which such advertising relies. The norm of selling personal data is hugely dangerous to engender in society, as it produces more and more a sense of entitlement to others’ personal lives.

The sort of information being kept and sold is legitimate for firms to utilize in this fashion  Personal information given to companies is dispersed into the public sphere in a limited fashion. Once placed into the hands of a firm it ceases to be any sort of absolutely protected private right (if it ever was), and is instead now within the sphere of the company with which the individual has opted to interact. It is the natural evolution of how people’s information informs the economic sphere. [1] With regard to selling that information on, it is clearly information the individual is willing to disclose in the realm of commerce so it should make little difference what commercial entity is in possession of the data, especially considering that the information is then only utilized to make their experience online more efficient and valuable. It is also important to consider the exact kinds of information conventionally revealed through the personal data mining efforts of firms. They rarely even access the true identity of the user, but rather make use of second-hand information gathered from search histories, cookies, etc. to generate a consumer profile the firm hopes reflects the preference map of the user. The individual's identity is not revealed in these most frequent cases and the information is usable through the impermeable intermediary of security settings, etc. Thus firms get information about users without ever being able to ascertain the actual identity of those individuals, protecting their individual privacy, if such is a concern. [2] For this reason it cannot be said that there is any true violation of privacy. All of these data-gathering efforts of companies reflect the continuation of firms’ age-old effort to better understand their clients in order to best cater to their desires.  [1] Acquisti, A. “The Economics of Personal Data and the Economics of Privacy”. OECD. 2010,   [2] Story, L. “AOL Brings Out the Penguins to Explain Ad Targeting”. New York Times. 3 September 2008,

The storing and sale of personal data aids companies by making marketing more efficient and allows niche markets to thrive  Businesses have been able to use consumers’ personal information to produce far better, more efficient, and more targeted advertising. Traditionally advertisement has been used to reach mass markets and has thus been used mostly as a blunt instrument, targeting the largest and wealthiest demographics in order to get the most efficient use of scarce advertising budgets. The focus on large markets has often left smaller, more niche, markets by the wayside. [1] Yet with the advent of the internet, targeted marketing, and data collection services, firms have been able to create whole new markets that cater to less homogenous needs and wants. The result has been a Renaissance of specialty manufacturers and service providers that could never arise if it were not for the collection of personal consumer data. By targeting their advertising, firms have been able to scale back on the broader advertising, making the whole endeavour less costly and more efficient. On the broader level, companies are able to utilize the vast amounts of individual data compiled to allow them to determine broader changes in society’s consumer desires, to establish aggregate trends. [2] E-commerce accounts for more than $300 billion in the US. This information gathering makes all businesses more responsive to consumer demands and to cause them to change their offered services and products far more swiftly, to the benefit of all consumers. Businesses have thus been able to flourish that might once have languished without access to a means of accessing their market or been unable to change with changing tastes. Because of the proliferation of personal information aggregation we can enjoy a far more efficient business world, with lots of producers that can compete with the larger mainstream on a more even footing, and a mainstream that is more able to meet the ever-changing demand structure of consumers.  [1] Columbus Metropolitan Library. “Using Demographics to Target Your Market”. 2012.

The sale of personal data makes for better advertising that benefits consumers  By targeting demographics and personal profiles by way of acquiring and utilizing personal data, businesses are able to put forward their services in a more targeted fashion in order to reach their target markets and to more effectively understand the broader market more generally. The limited budgets that constrain all companies has traditionally forced producers in the mass market to advertise to broad demographics and majority markets, resulting in a relative dearth of niche markets and breadth of services available in the mass market. Utilizing personal data effectively allows firms to enrich the lives of all consumers by expanding the range of marketable products and the furnishing of services to more eclectic tastes. [1] The vast numbers of websites and services proliferating online makes it much harder for people to find what they are looking for, but more importantly what they are not looking for but would want if they knew it existed. Data-mining allows for the channels of information to flow more effectively to consumers (Columbus, 2012). On the individual level companies are able to create individual profiles from information, so they can target them directly with things that might interest them. This strategy is used on Facebook, for example, users are shown ads that most fit their profiles giving them access to services they might not have ever found without the service.  [1] Deighton, J. and J. Quelch, “Economic Value of the Advertising-Supported Internet Ecosystem”. IAB Report. 2009,

Firms’ data collection serves as a very real threat to individuals’ privacy and identity on the internet. Anonymity is certainly not wholly guaranteed through these tactics, and the information is not entirely safe. When individuals use the internet they often do not pay close attention to what is happening with their personal data. When they do not even know what information they are giving out they cannot meaningfully keep track of their privacy. Many hackers have made use of companies’ data collection efforts to gain access to peoples’ personal information, thus revealing information that individuals clearly never consented to. There must be some boundaries in the physical and digital world that marketers should not cross. Keeping and selling potentially sensitive information of clients certainly falls in this category.

The first firm to shift to the open source approach was Netscape with its Navigator web browser, because it was being outperformed by the closed source Microsoft Internet Explorer; Netscape made the shift out of desperation. This is exactly the same reason why Sun and Real have made their programs open source - Solaris was being squeezed by Windows based server software and RealPlayer by iTunes and Spotify. Similarly, the patents which IBM is sharing and the narrow range of source code that Microsoft is now opening up relate to sectors and product markets where neither firm is dominant and where they hope they can leverage the programming community to boost the quality of the software they are offering. Since Microsoft launched the Open Source Initiative, it has not expanded it in response to other governments threatening to shift to open source software. Therefore, we should not view this initiative as the beginning of a trend.

digital freedoms intellectual property house believes governments should

Government contracts can change the software industry for the better.  Even when governments do not ultimately select an open source program, by simply including them in the competitive bidding process, they have been able to radically change the approach that Microsoft and other closed source companies take to producing IT solutions.  Under threat from Linux, Microsoft has launched the Open Source Initiative through which it shares elements of some of its programs’ source code with key partners to enable the development of software for platforms like Windows Mobile [i] . More dramatically, in 2002, Real Networks opened up the source code for its world renowned RealPlayer media and music software package and, in 2005, IBM offered 500 key patents (out of 40,000) to the open source community. Sun Microsystems released its Solaris server operating system to the open source community under the Common Development and Distribution licence in 2005. If you accept that the open source software industry is a positive force, then simply by considering open source software, governments are doing well.  [i] Ed Hansberry. “Open Source WebOS: A Win For Windows Phone?” Information Week. 12 December 2011.

The network effect is more complex than the argument that, if a government uses a product, then its population will too. Firstly, 90% of desktop PCs use Microsoft products; the cost for companies and citizens to transition from Microsoft to an open source alternative makes it prohibitive in the short term. Secondly, open source software works on the basis of a constant flow of updates and minor changes; this may be suitable for servers (where it has already made most impact) managed by IT professionals, but the average citizen or government worker would require continual training and re-training before they could be trusted to implement and use such updates correctly. Open source software is being jumped on by some governments as a tool to attack Microsoft’s monopoly but, in the end, it will cost them time and money.

Open source software is more adaptable to government needs.  Open source software starts from a completely different viewpoint of how products should be created. Rather than resembling a traditional hierarchical organisation (such as an early twentieth century business, an army or a monastic order) where everyone has their own clearly defined role and are told how to proceed by a top-down central authority, open-source software development is more like an open market where everyone is engaged in the same activity but come at it from different directions. [i]  Out of this cacophonous market, a more fluid product emerges. The basic advantage of open source software is that, as users can read, redistribute, and modify the source code for a piece of software, it evolves. This means that users and programmers can improve, adapt and fix the software at a much faster pace than Microsoft or another closed source developer can match. The highly collegiate culture in which contemporary approaches to coding evolved continues to create programmers who are naturally curious about the functions and features of new software. Open source software harnesses the wide range of ideas and methodologies that different coders use to writer software to refine and improve existing programmes. Open source software solicits a wide variety of solutions to particular coding problems; the more solutions that coders generate, the more likely it is that an optimal solution will be discovered.  Not only does the approach described above result in the creation of higher quality programmes, it also allows businesses and individual coders to easily adapt existing programmes to their needs. Monopolistic producers like Microsoft have an incentive to slow the pace of change, whereas the open source community will simply choose the best solution. In this way, open source software is more robust and more responsive to governments’ changing needs than closed source alternatives.  [i] Raymond, Eric. “The Cathedral and the Bazaar.” Cunningham &amp; Cunningham. 18 February 2010.

Open source software is not bug-proof and requires far more updates than the closed source alternatives. In fact, the most successful open source software after the operating system Linux is Apache, an open-source web-server which holds around 65% of the global market, and MySQL, an open-source database [i] . Both pieces of software are far from innovative; they are essentially just stripped-down versions of closed source programs. Real innovation is driven by the profit motive and comes from the knowledge that a firm can capitalize on a discovery, as Google has done with its search algorithm. For this reason, the open source software movement is doomed to producing mediocrity. As governments choose IT systems for five to ten years, they should look to a reliable closed source solution which provides quality rather than buying into a nebulous idea of ‘moral software’.  [i] “Microsoft’s IIS web server market share is falling.” Webserver. 3 October 2011.

Governments can re-define industry standards by choosing open source software.  Economists use the term ‘network effect’ to describe the phenomenon whereby, as several people use the same communication platform (be it a specific device, such as a telephone, or a complicated service, such as Facebook), it becomes more valuable for others to use because they can share and collaborate on work with a wider range of individuals.  Network effects explain why Microsoft’s monopoly of around 90% of the desktop market with its Windows and Office software has been so hard to challenge [i] .  Governments are one of the few organisations which can define industry standards because citizens and businesses increasingly have to interact with governments electronically. Brazil’s Digital Inclusion Program, for example, has selected open source software for 58 government units rather than Windows or Microsoft Office [ii] . The result is that businesses and Brazilian citizens can use the same open source software at home, knowing they will be able to interact with their government. As open source software is often either free or cheaper than closed source alternatives, this approach enables local authorities, private businesses and individual citizens to interact more easily with the state, removing many of the obstacles and objections to the wider adoption of information technology.  [i] Lie, Hakon Wium. “Microsoft’s forgotten monopoly.” CNET News. 19 June 2006.  [ii] Fried, Ina. “Brazil: Digital inclusion, but how?” CNET News. 27 August 2008.

As the demands of government IT departments become more and more complex, software developers are forced to become increasingly specialized. Yet big firms like Microsoft often lack specialist depth and an understanding of niche markets (such as the market for specialist brail screen readers, which blind individuals use to interact with computers). In many instances, governments’ needs will be better met by the open source market, where innovation and flexibility are built in.  One area where is the open source community’s ability to innovate is particularly relevant to governments is language; Microsoft only supports 33 languages in Windows XP and around 20 in Office XP, as they do not have the economic incentive to provide versions for other languages and dialects. Yet governments often need to provide access to information in dozens of languages and dialects (particularly in countries like Spain with regional languages like Catalan and Basque, or India with its 18 official languages and 1000 dialects). Open source software can easily be adapted to those languages. For instance, OpenOffice has been adapted into 75 languages including Slovenian, Icelandic, Lao, Latvian, Welsh, Yiddish, Basque and Galician, and Indian languages such as Gujarati, Devanagari, Kannada and Malayalam. By using the open-source model of sharing the workload between many users, the Hungarian Foundation for Free Software was able to translate OpenOffice in three days with the help of just over a hundred programmers.  By providing software specialized for the local market, government can encourage greater IT usage by citizens, thereby increasing the skill level of the workforce and multiplying the cost savings made by shifting government services online.

While open source software is not always free, it tends to be significantly cheaper than closed source alternatives. For instance, the Brazilian government’s decision to adopt open source software for its housing department in 2005 has generated savings of $120m a year. [i]  Given that, the United States government alone spends $80 billion a year on information technology, the potential for total cost savings is enormous. [ii] The money saved could be used to fund more important government expenditure such as healthcare or education – the very activities that, it was claimed, could be delivered more efficiently and cheaply following widespread adoption of IT systems. Furthermore, simply by discussing adopting open source software, Microsoft has been forced to reduce its prices; it cut its prices by $35m to match Linux’s offering to the city of Munich and, when Brazil began discussing its future software plans, Microsoft was forced to offer to release a cheaper version of its new operating system, Windows Vista. [iii] Ultimately, this not only helps governments, but also helps Microsoft, as many developing nations currently rely on pirated copies of Microsoft software which undermines attempts to stop copyright fraud.  [i] Kingstone, Steve, ‘Brazil adopts open-source software’, BBC News, 2/05/2005.  [ii] ‘Using Technology to Drive Productivity Gains’, Performance.gov, accessed 25/07/2013  [iii] Bailey, Dave. “Microsoft faces value challenge.” Computing. 18/06/2003.

Open source software undermines national security.  Even if closed source software firms are ultimately answerable to their shareholders, their shareholders want them to produce software which meets the needs of their customers so that they can sell their products. That is why Microsoft has offered a cheap version of Windows Vista to developing nations, and has been willing to cut the price of its software in negotiations with governments around the world.  More worrying than the burden that closed source software places on a government’s coffers is the threat that open source software presents to a state’s security.  By definition, the code for open source software is freely available. However, the continual attempts to hack into government computer systems demonstrate that many of the same hackers are now moving beyond mere targets of opportunity. Hackers could well take advantage of the increasing ubiquity of open source code to attack national computer systems.  The additional security that open source software claims to benefit from is an illusion. Rather, it is the lack of ubiquitous open source platforms that has kept OSs such as Linux and BSD safe from attack. The possibility that an might yield some form of a reward is reduced when a hacker is presented with fewer viable targets.  Although open source code may give ethical and honest coders more opportunities to spot the flaws in programmes, it also incentivises hackers to invest their efforts in spotting such flaws first.

Closed source software is better at meeting consumer needs.  Closed source software companies are more than capable of segmenting their products to reach each part of the market, as Microsoft has shown by producing its new Windows 7 operating system in a record six different versions.  Microsoft’s monopoly of desktop computers ensures that if a programmer produces a niche software package or software translation for a specialized purpose, that programmer knows that potential clients will almost certainly be able to run the program if it is designed for Windows. If this monopoly is broken up and governments start to push Linux or other open source alternatives, the programmer will either have to develop for two or more platforms, thereby increasing the cost of the final product, or they will have to gamble on a single platform; both options would reduce the likelihood of the niche solution reaching the clients that need it.  While open source software does allow anyone to spot a potential market and customize software to sell to that market, that access is also its great undoing. The type of accessibility that many open source products pride themselves on providing leaves projects open to abuse, either by well-meaning amateurs or intentional wreckers. Constant self-policing by the open source community is required, in order to guarantee the stability of the software it creates. An analogy can be drawn with Wikipedia, where the freedom of the mob led to defamatory statements being written about the former editor of USA Today [i] . Governments should be wary of relying on an anarchic, self-organising community to serve their IT needs, no matter how smart and well intentioned the members of that community may be.  [i] Seigenthaler, John. .”A false Wikipedia “biography”.” USA Today. 29 November 2005

Open source software is more expensive for governments in the long run.  Open source software is often confused with free software; in fact, it is usually provided at some cost to the user. More importantly, if a Microsoft product fails, a government IT department knows that it can rely on a patch or technical support. Whereas, with open source software, they are left waiting on a community to get round to tackling the problem. This has meant that governments which choose open source software have had to pay for expensive support packages, which makes the total cost of the IT solution similar to that of the closed source software. This has been to the advantage of major consultancy firms, which are often chosen to put together IT solutions and who can make more money from pushing expensive support contracts than on upfront costs for software.  In the rush to find the software with the cheapest sticker price, there is a risk that governments will end up paying more overall for open software that lacks the accessibility and features of the closed source alternatives.

This is a matter of national security and sovereignty, as well as one of cost effectiveness. Governments around the world are increasingly shifting their operations online, which has created a vast number of digital tax returns, criminal records, DNA databases and so on. At present, access to, and use of, this information is dependent on private companies which design software to benefit their shareholders.  Open source software hands control of the software needed to access that data to the government and the nation itself, and gives it the ability to shape the data and software based on its own interests.  Hackers have often attacked Microsoft products because of the ubiquity of its closed source software. Hack and malware attacks are ultimately speculative ventures. They target systems that have not received essential security software updates; systems that are operated by naive and inexperienced users; or delicate specialist systems that can be disrupted by a high volume of legitimate, non-aggressive commands and interactions. Such opportunistic attacks are more likely to succeed if hackers are able to direct their efforts toward uncovering the flaws in a single operating system – such as Windows.  In the past, attacks have focussed on consumers and small businesses. By moving away from closed source products, governments can decrease the likelihood that crucial government data will be compromised by a hacker or a virus attack.

There is little evidence that cutting off the internet or mobile phone networks would be effective. Riots occurred before mobile phones and the internet were invented and spread just as worryingly. Cutting off access would be an inconvenience but little more than that. Blaming the technology is not helpful to finding the real solutions to preventing rioting which is engaging with the underlying problems. [1]  [1] Metcalf, J., and Taylor, M., “Technology has always been blamed in times of unrest”, guardian.co.uk, 7 December 2011.

access information house would block access social messaging networks

Non violent methods of disrupting riots must be tried before using force  When riots are on-going then the police needs to act but the safety of everyone involved should be considered to be paramount. If a riot will not disperse peacefully then the police often find they need to use batons, water cannon, or even in extremis tear gas or rubber bullets. It is the police’s duty to bring back public order by stopping riots through these methods. However this should not be at the expense of a much more preventative approach that shutting down social media networks would allow. If during instances of rioting the police are able to prevent those rioters from encouraging their friends to join them so expanding the riots then this is the right course of action to take. Rioters used social media like activists, to outmanoeuvre the police targeting areas where there was little police presence. Cutting off their means of communication would make this much harder and less effective. [1] This has been used effectively in the past; the San Francisco BART, shut down mobile phones on its network to prevent protests which it feared could lead to clashes with commuters, it may well have been the reason why there were no such protests, but it did spark outrage over violations of freedom of speech. [2]  [1] O’Rourke, Simon, “Empowering protest through social media”, Edith Cowan University Research Online, 2011,  P.51  [2] Cabanatuan, M., “BART admits halting cell service to stop protests”, SFGate,

Preventing word from getting out through social media and stopping those who inevitably try to take advantage of the rioting to ferment violence elsewhere is not something the police should be doing. In a free country anyone should be allowed to report on what they are doing and on riots that are occurring. Moreover a shutdown would be ineffective at preventing the news getting out as the traditional media would still be broadcasting. In 270 interviews done by researchers into the riots more than 100 people said they heard about the riots through TV news, more than through social media. [1]  [1] Adegoke, Y., and Ball, J., “Twitter? Facebook? Rioters saw it on TV”, guardian.co.uk, 7 December 2011.

Free speech is not useful in this context, as riot is never legitimate in a free society  Riots should not be tolerated in a free society as there are already legal and peaceful methods of dissenting such as through demonstrations, petitions, and contacting your representative in Parliament. It demonstrates a fundamental unwillingness to engage with not only the apparatus of the state, but society more generally. Rioters have no regard for the public, and the violence and damage they cause harms everyone. Riots tend to do little to actually challenge the state, but rather they tend to harm the most disadvantaged, those who happen to be in the vicinity of the mobs. The freedom of speech social media provides to its users is being fundamentally misused in the context of riots. [1] When speech is used to organize violence, it must be curtailed for the sake of society as individuals security and safety is more important that freedom of speech that is briefly curtailed. Violence damages long after the event whereas those who have their freedom of speech curtailed for a few hours can swiftly voice their opinions once the riot has ended and the block lifted.  [1] Thomson, A. and Hutton, R., “UK May Block Twitter, Blackberry Messaging Services in Future Riots”. Bloomberg. 11 August 2011.

Of course we do not want freedom of speech to be misused to incite and organise rioting and violence but that does not mean that it is always illegitimate. Riots may sometimes be the natural outgrowth of bad policy and a government that has been unwilling to listen to peaceful forms of protest. Disenfranchised groups may be forced in extremity to turn to these sorts of activities and the state should take heed when they occur instead of seeking to wield its power over the internet and mobile phones to crush dissent. This is what happened in the revolutions in the Arab world. When a riot does have a substantive cause then it is essential that social media is accessible as it is the way for the rioters to get their side of the story across.

Rioters will always find tools by which to organize. The internet is a remarkably fecund environment, one in which solutions to problems are quickly found. If the government were to block Twitter, enterprising demonstrators would quickly find an alternative. The violence will still escalate, and blocking out a website will fail to accomplish anything other than alienate Twitter users from the state and anger at its impositions.

Would stop riots from spreading  The police must try to stop riots from spreading and stop copycat rioting elsewhere. Knowledge of rioting happening elsewhere is often the Oxygen of riots; the riots in Manchester and elsewhere outside of London in 2011 were mostly as a result of media exposure. According to Greater Manchester Police chief Peter Fahy "A certain group of people saw what was happening in London and decided they seemed to be getting away with it. We knew what was absolutely critical was that there needed to be control of London. Because that was just creating more and more copycat violence up here." [1] Cutting off social media would have helped prevent the riots from spreading so ensuring that they remain small and a localised problem.  [1] Pilkington, D., “Rioting in London sparked 'copycat' behaviour”, The Independent, 14 November 2011.

Social networks serve as a powerful signalling device for the expansion of violent behaviour  By using Twitter to signal the start of riots it attracts people to join the mob. People in riots generally look to those around them in order to see what is considered acceptable behaviour. As boundaries are crossed, such as the change from indiscriminate vandalism to looting, and reported on Twitter, the same behaviour echoes elsewhere. The lens through which rioters determine acceptable behaviour is expanded, so the chance of behaviours like looting rippling across the various mob groups within a locale increases. One escalation of violence becomes multiple escalations. Twitter is thus a serious danger to society during periods of social unrest and rioting, because it acts as a catalyst for further mayhem. By blocking Twitter governments are able to manage flashpoints and prevent them from expanding violence to other locations. This makes riot situations both less likely to escalate, and easier to break up.

Private companies have no right to do business when that business is facilitating violence even if that facilitating is unintentional. Sometimes brief impositions are necessary to secure public order. In the course of a riot Twitter can be blocked temporarily to have a meaningful effect on its coordination, extent, and level of violence. This however need not cause problems with those uninvolved not receiving prior warnings as the police could do this before shutting down the network in the local area. And of course when the riot is over the service can return as normal. Ultimately the disruption is very brief, and not likely to ruffle too many feathers overmuch.

Internet users rely on high visibility for their comments to be significant. When Twitter is shut down, or its replacement, the new sites that pop up must start again in building numbers. [1] Without sufficient numbers on the network they will be able to build up momentum for riots online. The result is a significant blunting of the network’s ability to develop or act in a riot scenario; a site is not useful for directing riots if most of those who would riot or are rioting are not on that network.  [1] Berger, J.M., “#unfollow”, Foreign policy, 20 February 2013.

Blocking social networks denies people the ability to mobilize on genuine social issues  The state may not be the best placed to gauge the legitimacy of riots. Oftentimes riots are the result of massive social pressures, like poverty or limited integration of immigrant communities. When these issues are not properly addressed, or outright ignored by the ruling elites, they boil over. Positive things can come from riots. They can put the issues on the table and bring them screaming into the public consciousness. This is the difference between the Arab Spring that was considered legitimate and the London riots that were not, apart from the initial peaceful protests the riots did not have an agenda to create change. [1] The government suppressing legitimate demonstrations, whether they do it with physical force or internet repression, ultimately serves only to push away the problem, to continue to ignore it. [2] Blocking social networks therefore only seeks to muzzle the expression of outrage that is sometimes entirely justified. The media attention and organizing power of social networks serves to get people engaged, motivated, and visible. The government should not seek to stop that. They should seek to prevent protest and demonstration from spilling into violence. Blocking access to social networks will not aid in that endeavour.  [1] Stylianou, A., “Cyber Regulation and the Riots”, Legal matters, Autumn 2011.   [2] Dugan, L. “Blocking Twitter During Riots a Bad Idea, Study Proves”. Media Bistro. 2011.

It is better to monitor riots through the social media rioters are using  It is wrong to suggest that social networks only provide advantages to the rioters in a riot. Many of the networks that can be used are open to the public and even where they are not as with blackberry messenger the police and intelligence services can likely gain access. This means that the police can also benefit from rioters use of social networks. Allowing the rioters to communicate can help the police to track what the rioters are doing and potentially to intercept any plans before they can be put into action. The same logic is used with websites that promote extremist ideologies; it is often better to monitor them for the intelligence they provide. The police already monitor protest groups in this way during demonstrations and even use it to help police impromptu raves so will surely apply it to riots. [1] Yet the social media is useful in other ways, particularly after the rioting it can be used to work out who was involved and to provide evidence against them so making the police much more efficient at catching and charging rioters.  [1] Rawlinson, K., “Activists warned to watch what they say as social media monitoring becomes 'next big thing in law enforcement”, The Independent, 1 October 2012,

The state can use blocking Twitter and its ilk as precedent to censor the internet in the “public interest”  The state always likes to expand its powers over speech, particularly when that speech is damaging to the government’s credibility. The freedom of speech is a critical right in all free societies precisely because it is the ultimate check ordinary citizens have to challenge the powers that be, to express dissent, and to organize with like-minded people dissatisfied with the way government is running. The internet has been the most powerful and valuable tool in the expansion of individuals’ power of their governments. [1] The state quakes at the raw people power services like Twitter provides. It is the last frontier largely free of the state’s power, and the state has sought to expand its influence. By blocking Twitter the government would be able to get its first foothold in blocking free speech online. [2] The power of that beachhead would serve to give it further credibility in censoring other services online in the public interest. It is much better that the government be kept entirely out of these services, than let them begin the slow creep of intervention that would be a serious threat to the freedom of individuals on the internet.  [1] Anti-Defamation League. “Combating Extremism in Cyberspace”. 2000.   [2] Temperton, J. “Blocking Facebook and Twitter During Riots Threatens Freedom”. Computer Active. 15 August 2011.

Police should not block the communications and freedom of expression of law-abiding citizens  The blocking of social networks, of the internet, or of mobile phone networks in times of riot would be an illegitimate curtailment of a private company’s right to do business and serve its customers. Social networks are business and have many users. Even more important is the impact on everyone who is not associated with the rioting. When these actions are taken it harms everyone, perhaps even millions of people at a given time. [1] The action taken by the state to seek to prevent the spreading of the riots is not only ineffective it is also a massive imposition on the rights of the citizens of the polity. Their freedom of speech is curtailed, business is harmed, and the riots continue. Studies of the use of Twitter during the riots in London showed that during rioting it was mostly used to react to the riots to send warnings to avoid trouble rather than incite violence. [2] Blocking access or cutting off communications would therefore mean putting at risk those people who otherwise would have been warned not to go near areas with rioting.  [1] Temperton, J. “Blocking Facebook and Twitter During Riots Threatens Freedom”. Computer Active. 15 August 2011.   [2] Ball, J., and Lewis, P., “Riots database of 2.5m tweets reveals complex picture of interaction”, The Guardian, 24 August 2011.

Monitoring a riot does not prevent the damage, destruction, and potentially loss of human riot that the riot causes. Rather than taking a reactive passive approach the police have a duty to try and save lives by making use of every tool they have to limit the size and extent of the rioting.

Blocking social networks will not work  How are the police to block social networks when riots are ongoing? The idea that blocking an individual network like Twitter would stop online networking and reporting during riots is laughable and misunderstands the rapidity with which the internet community adapts to changed circumstances and attempts at censorship. Blocking Twitter might work once, but never again. This is why there have been suggestions that the police would go further and either cut off the internet or phone networks as they would effectively need to impose a communications blackout in order for it to be successful, much as the Chinese does in Tibet when there is unrest. [1] Even then the action may not work, rioters will likely simply post pictures and encouragement for the next night’s rioting once the internet and mobile connections are restored as governments would have to do if they did not want to affect the law abiding majority during the day.  [1] Branigan, T., “China cut off internet in area of Tibetan unrest”, The Guardian, 3 February 2012.

The state curtails all kinds of speech when it is genuinely in the public interest. Blocking Twitter and other social networks during times of riot is a very particular case of intervention, one with specific manifest benefits for society. The internet is indeed a fantastic tool for social organization and dissent, but it cannot be abused at the expense of the public.

Even if their message is worth being spread, rioting and violence is not the way to do it. Using the tactic of riot to further an aim only serves to alienate the public which is brutalized by the violence in the streets. In effect when a protest turns into a riot it delegitimises itself and tarnishes its message. Blocking social networks will not occur when those protests are seeking to spread their message relatively peacefully but will only happen when they have already turned to violence when it becomes a useful tool in the arsenal of the state to forestall the worst violence by denying its ability to be spread rapidly through the internet.

As in the offline world, free speech isn’t unlimited  Even in free societies, free speech isn’t always free. Free speech can be demeaning and hurtful to certain people or can even incite hatred and violence. [1] The first reason is why, under internet libel law, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are asked to remove defamatory material and blogs take to moderating their comments more, [2] and the second is why Germany and France have outlawed Holocaust denial and Nazism.  As in the previous arguments, accountable governments are attempting to strike a balance between free speech and where this can harm others. [3] A carefully struck balance between rights in the offline world shouldn’t have to be abolished, just because we’re now in the online world. [4]  [1] Waldron, ‘The harm of hate Speech’, 2012  [2] Alibhai-Brown, ‘Freedom of speech can’t be unlimited’, 2009.  [3] Minister: The UK “emphatically” supports free speech online but there are limits, 2012  [4] Schellekens, “What holds off-line, also holds on-line?”, 2006

Internet regjulation is a euphemism for censorship  Governments are trying to control what citizens can and can’t say online and what they can and can’t access. This can vary from France and Germany requiring Google to suppress Nazism in search results [1] to the Great Firewall of China, where the Chinese government almost fully controls what’s said and seen on the internet and has an army of censors. [2]  This type of internet censorship is bad because citizens should have freedom of speech and uninhibited access to information, [3] a right so fundamental that we have enshrined it in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [4] and reaffirmed by the participants of the World Summit on the Information Society in 2003. [5]  [1] Zittrain and Edelman, Localized Google search result exclusions, 2005  [2] Internet censorship in China, 2010  [3] Free Speech Debate, 2012  [4] article 19, Universal Declaration of Human Rights  [5] Declaration of Principles, article 4, 2003

With the government as final decision-maker, at least the citizens and consumers have some say  Regulatory capture does sometimes happen and when it does, it’s bad. But the risk of regulatory capture isn’t a sufficient argument to keep the government away from regulating the internet, because governments can also protect citizens and consumers from big companies.  An example is the net neutrality debate. Content providers could have started paying Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to have their websites load faster than any other website (paid prioritization). Entertainment companies that also provide internet are currently being investigated for not allowing their competitors in the entertainment segment access to their network as internet provider. [1] This threatens the freedom of choice of the consumer, which is why governments have stepped in to ensure that companies aren’t allowed favour some websites. [2] If the government wouldn’t have been involved in regulating the internet, it couldn’t have stood up for consumers’ and citizens’ rights like this.  [1] DOJ Realizes That Comcast &amp; Time Warner Are Trying To Prop Up Cable By Holding Back Hulu &amp; Netflix, 2012  [2] Voskamp, ‘GOP Attempt to Overturn FCC’s Net Neutrality Rules Fails in Senate’, 2011

Regulating the Internet is a means for governments to spy on their citizens  Governments around the world are tracking their citizens’ activities online. [1] They can use all sorts of techniques, like automated data-mining (i.e. via trawling your Facebook and Twitter accounts) and deep packet inspection of each electronic message sent (i.e. intercepting and reading your email). All these methods are violations of important principles.  The automated data-mining violates the principle that people shouldn’t be investigated by their governments unless there is warrant for it (so there is reasonable suspicion that they have been involved in a crime). Also, data mining creates many false positives, leading to citizens being thoroughly investigated without probable cause. [2] Deep packet inspection violates people’s fundamental right to secrecy of correspondence, which is a violation of privacy.  The problem with these government policies is that they’re hard to control – even in democracies: much of the spying is done by intelligence agencies, which are often able to evade democratic control on account of the need for secrecy rather than transparency. [3]  [1] Reporters Without Borders, Enemies of the internet, 2012 and Kingsley, Britain won’t be the only country snooping on people’s internet use, 2012  [2] US Researchers Decide Spying On Citizens Is Bad, 2008  [3] Electronic Frontier Foundation, ‘NSA Spying’.

‘Spying on the internet’ is nothing different from a normal police investigation  Obviously, governments also use the internet and social media to investigate suspects. But when they’re doing this, they’re only using information that’s publicly available online. The technical term for this is ‘OSINT’, which stands for ‘Open Source Intelligence’, which means that it’s the kind of information that anyone with access to Google and a lot of spare time could have found. [1]  When police investigations turn up more severe suspicions, then more extreme methods can be used to obtain evidence if needed, sometimes even actively asking hackers for help. [2]  But methods like these are not necessarily bad: their disadvantages in use have to be weighed against their significant benefits. And governments are doing this, as is for example shown in Canada’s ‘Technical Assistance for Law Enforcement in the 21st Century Act’: governments try to extend the principles of due process and probable cause to the internet, but at the same time they need to be able to defend their citizens from harm. [3]  [1] Wikipedia, ‘Open source intelligence’, 2012.  [2] ‘NSA chief seeks help from hackers’, 2012  [3] ‘Technical Assistance for Law Enforcement in the 21st Century Act’, 2012

Internet regulation is an attempt by big interest groups to regulate the internet in their favour  Large companies have an active interest in shaping the structure of the internet. One example of this is the Stop Online Piracy-Act (SOPA), [1] wherein U.S.-based music and movie companies proposed that they themselves would be able to police copyright infringements against websites that are hosted outside of the United States. [2]  The phenomenon whereby companies succeed in shaping government policies according to their own wishes is called ‘regulatory capture’. Another example from the telecommunications industry is the lobby effort by several large corporations, who have succeeded in eroding consumer protection in their favour. [3] If the government wouldn’t have been involved in regulating the internet in the first place, big companies wouldn’t have had any incentive to attempt regulatory capture.  [1] 112th Congress, ‘H.R.3261 – Stop Online Piracy Act’  [2] Post, ‘SOPA and the Future of Internet Governance’, 2012  [3] Kushnick, ‘ALEC, Tech and the Telecom Wars: Killing America's Telecom Utilities’, 2012

Government shouldn’t interfere with the internet economy  It almost never ends well when governments interfere with the internet economy. The graduated response policy against the unauthorized downloading of copyrighted content is one example: it violates the same principles as a filter against child sex abuse material, but it also doesn’t succeed in its’ goal of helping content businesses innovate their business models, which is why France is considering discontinuing it. [1] Also, other businesses are slowly replacing the old fashioned music-industry, showing that companies on the internet are fully able to survive and thrive by offering copyrighted content online. [2]  When governments do become active in the internet economy, they’re likely to run very high risks. IT projects are very likely to fail, run over budget and time, [3] especially when it concerns governments. [4] This means that governments shouldn’t be ‘going digital’ anytime soon, as the data governments handle is too sensitive. The case of digital signatures is a good example: when the provider of digital signatures for tax and business purposes, DigiNotar, was hacked, it not only comprised the security of Dutch-Iranian citizens, [5] but also hampered government communications. [6]  [1] ‘French anti-p2p agency Hadopi likely to get shut down’. 2012.  [2] Knopper, ‘The New Economics of the Music Industry’. 2011.  [3] Budzier and Flyvbjerg, ‘Why your IT project may be riskier than you think’. 2011.  [4] ‘Government IT Projects: How often is succes even an option?’. 2011.  [5] ‘Fake DigiNotar web certificate risk to Iranians’, 2011.  [6] ‘Dutch government unprepared for SSL hack, report says’, 2012.

Internet regulation isn’t an effective and legitimate means to create a safe internet  Setting up CERTs aren’t an effective means to create a safer internet, because most of the threats are a result of ‘social engineering’, which means that hackers use social cues to con people into believing frauds. People usually fall for this because of their own gullibility and naïveté, like in Nigerian email scams. [1] The most effective means of combating these threats is to educate citizens directly, the FBI already does this with Nigerian email scams. [2] People and corporations are primarily responsible for their own actions, which includes taking care of their own internet security by obtaining anti-virus software, and which also includes corporations making sure their websites are safe to use or else face liability charges if they turn out not to be.  Moreover, CERTs are illegitimate. They are illegitimate because they facilitate the sharing of information on specific persons across private and public organizations and because they are hard to control democratically. For example: the US-CERT is an agency residing under the department of Homeland Security. Through the sharing of information with private parties, these private parties, unwittingly, run the risk of becoming one of the government’s watch dogs. Moreover, this sharing of information is hard to control democratically: much of the information could be classified as secret, which means that citizens have no way of verifying whether public and private organizations are complying with data sharing regulations.  [1] Plumer, ‘Why Nigerian email scams are so crude and obvious’. 2012.  [2] FBI, ‘Nigerian letter or “419” fraud’.

Internet governance is necessary to combat heinous crimes committed via the internet  The internet is a means of communication – therefore also a means of communication between criminals. And because it is global it creates global crime problems that need coordinated responses. One type of crime that has particularly become a problem on the internet is child sexual abuse material: the internet allows for an easy and anonymous distribution method which can even be secured by modern encryption methods. [1]  Governments can help fight this by requiring ISPs and mobile companies to track people’s internet histories, hand over data when requested, and allow police to get information from them without a search warrant, something which has been proposed by the Canadian government. [2] In Australia, the government even proposed mandatory filtering of all internet traffic by ISPs to automatically filter out all child sexual abuse material. [3]  Admittedly, these measures seem drastic – but in cases like these, or similar cases like terrorism, the harm prevented is more important.  [1] ‘Child Pornography on the Rise, Justice Department Reports’. 2010.  [2] ‘Current laws not focused enough to combat child porn online’. 2012.  [3] Mcmenamin, Bernadette, ‘Filters needed to battle child porn’. 2008.

Internet regulation is necessary to ensure a working economy on the internet  As seen above, the internet has enabled many types of criminal behavior. But it has also enabled normal citizens to share files. Music, movie and game producers have difficulty operating in a market where their products get pirated immediately after release and spread for free instantaneously on a massive scale. The internet enables violation of their right of ownership, gained through providing the hard work of creating a work of art, on a massive scale. Since it’s impractical to sue and fine each and every downloader, a more effective and less invasive policy would be government requiring Internet Service Providers to implement a graduated response policy, which has ISPs automatically monitor all internet traffic and fine their users when they engage in copyright violation. Something along these lines has already been tried in France, called HADOPI, which has succeeded in decreasing the downloading of unauthorized content. [1]  Apart from this, governments also need to think about how to translate everyday offline activities onto the internet. For example, when you file your tax report offline, you would sign it with your handwritten signature. The online variant would be a digital signature. [2] Developing and deploying a digital signature would enable citizens and corporations to do business, file their tax reports and pay their taxes online.  [1] Crumley, ‘Why France’s Socialists Won’t Kill Sarkozy’s Internet Piracy Law’, 2012  [2] Wikipedia, ‘Digital Signatures’, 2012.

Internet regulation is necessary to ensure a safe internet  Citizens, corporations, and public organizations face several security threats when online: critical infrastructure systems can be hacked, like the energy transport system, [1] citizens can fall victim to identity theft, [2] and phishing, [3] whereby hackers gain access to bank accounts or other sensitive information. Specifically, it seems that the public sector is attacked the most. [4]  In response to cyber-threats like these, many governments have set up Computer Emergency Response Teams (CERTs), Incident Response and Security Teams (IRTs), or Computer Security and Incident Response Teams (CSIRT; the fact that we haven’t settled on a fitting acronym yet shows how much it is still a novel phenomenon): agencies that warn citizens and organizations alike when a new threat emerges and provides a platform for (the exchange of) expertise in methods of preventing cyber-threats and exchanging information on possible perpetrators of such threats. Oftentimes, these (inter)governmental agencies provide a place where private CSIRTs can also cooperate and exchange information. [5]  These agencies provide a similar function online as the regular police provides offline: by sharing information and warnings against threats, they create a safer world.  [1] ‘At Risk: Hacking Critical Infrastructure’. 2012.  [2] ‘Identity theft on the rise’. 2010.  [3] ‘Phishing websites reach all-time high’. 2012.  [4] ‘Public sector most targeted by cyber attacks’. 2012.  [5] see for example the About Us page of the US-CERT or the About the NCSC page of the Dutch CERT

Battling hideous crimes shouldn’t lead us to draconian and ineffective policies  Everyone is against child sexual abuse material. But in their drive to battle it, governments might go too far. For example, granting the police the right to search without (full) warrant is a harm to citizens’ basic right to privacy and freedom from unwarranted government surveillance. [1]  The automatic internet filtering and data retention are possibly an even worse infringement on basic civil liberties: it designates all internet traffic and therefore all internet using citizens as suspect, even before a crime has been committed. This overturns the important principle that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty.  Moreover, instead of the police and prosecution changing their behavior, internet filters hardwire these new assumptions into the architecture of the internet itself. [2] This means it is more all-pervasive and less noticeable, thus constituting an even worse violation.  These draconian measures might even seem worth it, until you realise they don’t work: blocking and filtering technology makes mistakes and can be circumvented easily. [3]  [1] ‘Online surveillance bill critics are siding with ‘child pornographers’: Vic Toews’. 2012.  [2] Lessig, ‘Code is Law’. 2000.  [3] ‘Why government internet filtering won’t work’. 2008.

This doesn’t enhance Google’s business proposition at all  Google already censors results all across the globe. It has been censoring digital piracy-related content since early 2011, but this hasn’t led to users abandoning Google for another search engine. [1] It has been leaving a backdoor open for the US Government, but this also hasn’t sent either users or employers packing. [2] Why should the small extra step of censoring according to China’s laws do so?  [1] Sara Yin, Pcmag, ‘Google Censors Piracy-Related Terms from Search Tools’, January 27, 2011. URL:   [2] Bruce Schneier, CNN, ‘U.S. enables Chinese hacking of Google’, January 23, 2010. URL

p ip internet digital freedoms access information house believes google

Not censoring helps Google’s business proposition and corporate identity  Google’s corporate motto is ‘don’t be evil’. This is partly an issue of corporate identity, and partly a clever business proposition. In both cases, complying with Chinese censorship rules damages Google as a company.  The key to Google’s dominance in the search market is that users know Google will always deliver the search results most relevant to them. By adhering to censorship laws, users will trust the relevance of Google’s search results less, which hence erodes Google’s business position as users will be more likely to try alternative search engines. [1]  [1] Rebecca Blood, ‘Google's China decision is pragmatic, not idealistic’, January 2010. URL:

China won’t budge that easily  China has already faced trade sanctions for its human rights abuses for years, in particular there are bans on arms sales by the European Union that are still in place more than twenty years after the Tiananmen Square massacre that precipitated them. [1] These haven’t helped a bit. [2] Why would a relatively small move like Google stopping its censorship work?  Moreover: true reform in China has to come from within. When it’s forced from the outside, it will not be accepted. If Google stops cooperating with the government, reform-minded Chinese officials will have a harder time, because they will seem to be losing face in the eyes of more hardline officials. [3]  [1] See debate on EU arms sales to china  [2] James Dorn, ‘Improving Human Rights in China’, February 8, 1999. URL:   [3] Shaun Rein, ‘Opposing View: Google’s Big Mistake’, March 28, 2010. URL:

Not censoring its search results is a victory for human rights  The problem with Google censoring its results, is that in doing so, it is complicit in China’s repression of free speech: it adapts its own search engine to display only the results the Chinese government wants, thereby limiting its citizens’ basic human right to free access to information (a corollary to free speech). By avoiding this complicity, Google is taking a bold, praiseworthy step towards enhancing respect for human rights in China and with it, Google can set an important example for other businesses with dealings in China. [1]  [1] Human Rights Watch, ‘China: Google Challenges Censorship’, January 12, 2010. URL:

Not censoring doesn’t advance human rights in China at all  Human rights in China are violated on a daily basis. For example, the incidence of people ‘disappearing’ for no apparent reason has been on the rise. [1] These human rights violations won’t suddenly end if Google were to stop censoring its results.  What’s more likely to happen, when Google stops censoring results at google.cn, is that Google.cn will get shut down within days – thus, leaving Chinese citizens with no good way at all to access information, since google.com is on the other side of The Great Firewall and Baidu is a Chinese company fully compliant with the government’s wishes. By staying, Google can at least broaden the access to information the Chinese citizens have, something Google itself had acknowledged in 2006 when entering the Chinese mainland. [2]  [1] Human Rights Watch, ‘China: Enforced Disappearances a Growing Threat’, November 9, 2011. URL:   [2] Karen Wickre, ‘Testimony: The Internet in China’, February 15, 2006. URL:

Not censoring puts global pressure on China to change its free speech policies  Google’s decision to stop censoring was world news, and has put internet freedom on everyone’s agenda – even so much so, that U.S. Secretary of State mentioned internet companies ganging up to censor the Chinese corner of the internet specifically as a threat to freedom worldwide in a recent speech. [1] This helps to inform ordinary citizens of other countries who may not know about the ‘great firewall’ what the Chinese government is doing. By making a high-profile decision like this, and by engaging and informing the governments and publics of free and democratic countries like this, Google increases the public and political pressure on China to change its ways.  [1] Hillary Clinton, ‘Conference on Internet Freedom’, December 8, 2011. URL:

Google’s business is inseparable from basic human rights  The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), a UN conference, affirmed that access to information is a basic human right, a corollary to the freedom of opinion and expression as articulated in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. [1] It is a right because access to information is often basic to human life; to how to live in society, to work and to educate ourselves. China ratified the Universal Declaration back in 1948 when it was accepted by the UN’s General Assembly, and was a party to the WSIS 2003 conference. This means that, if China is to be a responsible member of the international community, we can expect them to uphold the principles they publicly declare.  Google’s mission is ‘to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful’. Note that this mission happens to coincide with the basic human right of access to information. This is why Google’s choice to interfere with China’s domestic politics isn’t just ‘big business interfering with a state’s sovereign politics’ – it’s a case of a big business whose business model happens to be providing a basic human right the sovereign state should have, by its own accord, provided a long time ago.  [1] World Summit on the Information Society, ‘Declaration of Principles. Building the Information Society: a global challenge in the new Millennium’, December 12, 2003. URL:  Last consulted: December 22, 2011

Google’s revenues wont decline because of this  Google as a company is still going strong – in the third quarter of 2011, it managed to exceed analysts’ expectations and posted impressive revenue growth. Most importantly, the figures showed that finally the revenue from its mobile and video advertising platform started to come in. This means that the revenue for Google is now starting to come from all over their business portfolio, instead of coming from the search platform alone. [1] This result shows that Google’s revenues won’t sag a bit because of this choice.  Also, as argued above, by staying true to its company motto, Google actually strengthens, not weakens, its position with regards to the rest of the world – and possibly eventually in a democratic China.  [1] Financial Times, ‘Google shares soar on higher earnings’, October 13, 2011. URL:

Google will help Chinese internet freedom more by staying  As Google itself argued in 2006 when it first entered the Chinese domestic market; when Google is fully present in China, it can at least do its very best to allow its Chinese users as much access to all the information that Chinese users are allowed to look up. By expanding their access, Google can at least contribute to a broadening of the amount of information Chinese internet users can gather. The alternative is them relying on an even more censored Chinese search engine called Baidu, or having them try to access a heavily blocked, slowed down, restricted and monitored version of Google outside of China, for example google.com or the Hong Kong-based Google.com.hk. Having a locally accessible version of Google that is censored might not be optimal, but it’s better than nothing. [1]  [1] Karen Wickre, ‘Testimony: The Internet in China’, February 15, 2006. URL:  Last consulted: December 22, 2011

As a business, Google shouldn’t interfere with domestic politics  Business is business and politics is politics – and the two shouldn’t mingle. When a company wants to operate in a foreign country, it should respect the government and its regulations. We require the same when a company wants to operate within our territory: suppose a big Chinese company came to our home country and suddenly started criticizing our domestic policies – these are the policies of the sovereign state whose territory it is, and outsiders have no place to tell it how to run itself. [1]  [1] Nicholas Deleon, TechChrunch, ‘China has every right to be upset with Google right now’, March 23, 2010. URL:  Last consulted: December 22, 2011

Google can’t afford to abandon the Chinese market  In 2010, the search market in China was valued at $1.7 billion and was expected to grow at an average of 50% per year for the coming few years. [1] After the 2010 incident, Google has been losing market share in China rapidly. [2] From a business perspective, Google just can’t afford to miss out on such a business opportunity: not only will it miss entering this market when it is growing, it will also forfeit a comfortable position in the search market from which it can build its other businesses, like gmail and android, the way it does in other countries. [3]  [1] Melanie Lee, ‘Analysis: A year after China retreat, Google plots new growth’, Reuters, January 13, 2011. URL:   [2] Reuters, ‘Google search share slips as Baidu gains report’, July 26, 2010, URL:   [3] Kyle Baxter, ‘Android isn’t about building a mobile platform’, January 4, 2011. URL:  Last consulted: December 22, 2011

Staying will not help Chinese internet freedom at all  If google.cn was to be left uncensored, then within a short period, google.cn would lose its license to operate and will be pulled down. Chinese internet users will then have to rely either on Baidu, which provides more or less the same results as Google, or will have to try to break through the blockades of the Great Firewall to reach the Hong Kong-based Google. If Google does censor itself, it will only state ‘some results have not been shown’ – Chinese citizens still won’t know what has been hidden. Unless they then try to access the Hong Kong based Google, but then the Great Firewall will stop them anyway. Either way, Chinese citizens will be blocked from seeing what their government doesn’t want them to see, so what’s the difference? Google might as well stick to its principles and not censor itself.

Consumers will find ways to evade detection  Evading detection for most of the surveillance methods are relatively easy: consumers could start relying on proxy servers to hide their IP-addresses or start encrypting everything they share online to avoid being detected by fingerprinting-software.  In fact, recent experience in France with its Haute Autorité pour la diffusion des œuvres et la protection des droits sur internet (HADOPI) law suggests that despite a graduated response-policy, piracy is actually on the increase. [1] This shows that graduated response won’t do what it is supposed to do; stem online piracy.  [1] Torrentfreak, ‘Piracy Rises In France Despite Three Strikes Law’, March 9, 2010. URL:

p ip internet digital freedoms intellectual property house would use

A graduated response will be an effective deterrent  Research has shown that consumers are likely to stop downloading from unauthorized sources when warned by their ISP. For example: Seven out of ten (72%) UK music consumers would stop illegally downloading if told to do so by their ISP, and 90 per cent of consumers would stop illegally file-sharing after two warnings from their ISP. [1]  This shows that the threat of a possible disconnection together with a friendly warning is enough to stop most consumers from downloading from illegal source. The reasoning behind it is simple: consumers can now download without a cost, a graduated response mechanism first raises awareness scaring off those who are only casually downloading out of convenience and then heightens the expected cost of infringement and thus makes it more likely consumers will use legal sources. [2] [1] IFPI, Digital Music Report 2009. 2009. URL for PDF:   [2] Olivier Bomsel and Heritania Ranaivoson, ‘Decreasing copyright enforcement costs: the scope of a graduated response’. 2009. Review of Economic Research on Copyright Issues, Volume 6(2), p. 13 – 29. URL for PDF:

Graduated response is a draconian punishment  Citizens these days rely on their internet connection for their everyday lives: banking transactions, filing tax forms, and other forms of essential communication are all done online. Cutting access to these basic services is a draconian punishment: it basically amounts to making daily life a whole lot harder. Even if essential services were to remain accessible to the offender they could lose access to things somehow considered less vital such as their online social life. The punishment in no way is proportionate to the ‘crime’ of downloading a song that would have cost 99 cents on iTunes.

The unauthorised downloading of copyrighted material should be addressed and prevented by the state  Copyrighted material is intellectual property: someone worked hard for it to produce it. Downloading this content without paying the proper rights holder for it amounts to theft.  Furthermore, downloading copyrighted material from an unauthorized source creates an impossible market for producers of copyrighted content, because they have to ‘compete with free’. Why would the average consumer want to pay for a download from an authorized website, when she can get the same movie from a pirate-site for free? To build a commercially viable content industry online, we need to protect this industry from the unfair competition of the parallel market. [1]  [1] Piotr Stryszowski , Danny Scorpecci, Piracy of Digital Content. 2009, OECD Publishing. URL for purchase:

Downloading isn’t a crime  Downloading content is not comparable to theft of material things, like cars: after downloading the original owner can still use his or her own copy.  Moreover: governments have always allowed consumers some leeway for replicating content for themselves under the ‘private copying exception’ or ‘fair use’-policy. [1] Before the internet came along, this exception ensured it was legal that one person could copy a song from a radio broadcast transmission for personal use. Why should downloading a song from the internet be any different?  Finally, research has shown that those who download the most from pirate sites are also the ones who buy the most music online legally – why would the content industry want to punish their biggest and most loyal customers?. [2]  [1] Natali Helberger &amp; P. Bernt Hugenholtz, ‘No place like home for making a copy: private copying in European copyight law and consumer law’. 2007. Berkely Technology Law Journal, volume 22, p. 1061 -1098. URL for PDF:   [2] Ars Technica, ‘Study: pirates biggest music buyers. Labels: yeah, right’. April 2009. URL:

A graduated response is the fairest way to enforce copyright legislation  First, the sanction after three warnings can be tailored to fit general notions of justice, the punishment need not be severe and could fit the crime: maybe a consumer would be cut off of the internet for only two weeks, or only cut off from accessing download sites but still be allowed to access government and banking sites, or receive a small fine.  Secondly, the consumer has ample time to change his or her behaviour: a consumer can insist on infringing copyright at least two times before the sanction takes place. The consumer can easily avoid being cut off (even temporarily), meaning the punishment likely doesn’t even have to take place. [1]  [1] Barry Sookman, ‘Graduated response and copyright: an idea that is right for the times’, January 10th, 2010. URL:

Graduated response can be done prudently  Many companies have ‘Terms of Agreement’, violation of which automatically leads to cancellation of service. Suppose you don’t pay your library subscription for a year: no one would complain of ‘lack of due process’ if your subscription was subsequently cancelled. A Graduated response policy is no different.  Moreover, the graduated response policy can be made to fit the rules of due process. For example, in the French HADOPI-law, after a third violation, the case gets referred to an ‘expedited judicial procedure’, typically used for minor traffic violations, after which that judge will decide.  Compare this to the unfairness before a graduated response policy is implemented: copyright holders might detect and sue one single consumer and extract a very heavy penalty, whilst the rest of the downloading consumers got away. Both the uncertainty and the height of the fine made the situation before a graduated response-policy an ‘enforcement lottery’. [1]  [1] Nathan Lovejoy, JOLT Digest ‘Procedural Concerns with the HADOPI Graduated Response Model’, January 13, 2011. URL:

Graduated response is not a massive privacy violation  Firstly, ISPs already use Deep Packet Inspection right now, to engage in what they call ‘network management’, like checking whether users aren’t hogging up bandwidth by downloading too much via peer-to-peer software. But moreover, it is hard to see how exactly every form of deep packet inspection is a privacy violation: the inspecting is done by automated software and only checks for infringements. If no infringement is detected, no one will know what was ‘in the information packet’. Take the example of monitoring for the presence digital watermarks: basically, the monitoring-software has a database of specific ‘watermarks’ that content holders put into their videos, for example a unique combination of pixels. The software only checks whether that combination is present. If it’s not present, the software has no way of ‘seeing’ the information itself. Hence, even though it might sound scary, the technology can be designed in such a way that one can prevent it from becoming privacy violation. [1]  [1] see wikipedia: Digital Watermarking

ISP will not cooperate with a graduated response policy  The graduated response model requires cooperation from all Internet Service Providers. If just one ISP refuses, users will flock towards that ISP to be able to keep on downloading. Therefore there will always be an incentive to be the ISP that refuses so as to gain custom from others who have agreed to cooperate. ISPs will also have an incentive to not cooperate because the cost of monitoring and identifying is large, and significantly more so for smaller ISPs: initial estimates of the cost of graduated response for ISPs were around 500 million pounds over a period of ten years. [1]  [1] Michael Geist, ‘Estimating the cost of a three strikes and you’re out system’, January 26, 2010. URL:

The graduated response is a violation of the basic right to due process  Detection of copyright infringement isn’t usually done by a detective sitting behind a computer. It relies on software like automated crawlers and fingerprinting, often created by commercial vendors and hired by the copyright holders. This software automatically sends detected infringements to the ISP, without someone actually checking if this allegation is correct. This means many consumers can be unjustly accused of copyright infringement.  Moreover, most graduated response policies proposed require no judicial intervention at all for the sanction to be invoked. This means private organisations get to decide who has committed a crime and deserves the punishment. The ISPs and copyright holders therefore act as accuser, prosecution, judge and executioner. On top of this if a consumer would go to court, he would also face a reversal of the burden of proof: since he is suing against being fined, he has to prove that he is not guilty, a reversal of the presumption of innocence. [1]  [1] Peter K. Yu, ‘The Graduated Response’. 2010. Florida Law Review, Volume 62. Available for download (PDF) at:

The graduate response policy constitutes an invasion of privacy by the state  Graduated response would require huge amounts of monitoring and logging of all internet traffic using technical systems called ‘deep packet inspection’ (DPI) equipment. This means that a computer program will look in close detail at all of the information someone sends over the internet in order to check whether it violates some protocol, for example a ‘fingerprint’ of copyrighted data that the content creator put in.  This means a copyright holder, or a third party paid by the copyright holder to monitor internet traffic, suddenly has access to everything every consumer sends over the internet. This is a massive violation of privacy. Given the fact that advertising companies are already using DPI illegitimately for targeted advertising, it is obvious that content companies will also feel tempted to ‘do more’ with all that data they suddenly have access to. [1]  [1] Angela Daly, ‘The Legality of Deep Packet Inspection’, 2010. Presented at the First Interdisciplinary Workshop on Communications Policy and Regulation 'Communications and Competition Law and Policy – Challenges of the New Decade', University of Glasgow 17 June 2010. URL for download:

ISPs will gladly cooperate with graduated response  Almost a decade ago, ISPs engaged in a competitive battle to gain as much broadband penetration as possible. Now that markets have matured and broadband penetration has more or less ‘maxed out’ in developed countries, ISPs need to find new value propositions to attract customers. One of these value propositions is being able to offer high quality content at high speeds. To be able to offer this, ISPs will need the cooperation of content providers – who can ask something in return, like graduated response. [1] That this actually happens is borne out by the fact that in many countries ISPs are actually getting together to make sector-wide agreements, for example in the USA where the major ISPs have agreed to implementing graduated response. [2]  [1] Olivier Bomsel and Heritania Ranaivoson, ‘Decreasing copyright enforcement costs: the scope of a graduated response’. 2009. Review of Economic Research on Copyright Issues, Volume 6(2), p. 13 – 29. URL for PDF:   [2] David Kravets, Wired, ‘ISPs to Disrupt Internet Access of Copyright Scofflaws’, July 7, 211. URL:

The freedom of speech does not mean that there is a right to reach as broad an audience as possible. It does not mean there is a fundamental right to access the internet or any other individual medium of communication. If indeed there is some kind of ‘gap’ in human rights it does not mean that it has to be filled by creating some spurious new right for individuals to enjoy. If there was a lack of recognition of a freedom of readership then this is because there is no need for the human right to exist let alone in a form that privileges access to the internet over other forms of information access.

The right to internet access fills a gap in traditional human rights.  In our traditional human rights there is a hole when it comes to a right to receive and be able to seek out information. Almost everyone would consider freedom of speech and freedom of expression to be human rights but these rights are not very effective if there is not a way for those who wish to access that information. Michael L Best contends that Article 19 of the universal declaration of human rights on freedom of expression implies some symmetry but that freedom of authorship is privileged over freedom of readership. [1] In short governments could allow freedom of expression while ensuring that those expressing dissenting views have a very minimal audience without breaking human rights.  A right to the internet is the perfect human right to fill this gap. The internet is estimated to have over 35 billion web pages, [2] and the most recent digital universe study estimates that 1.8 trillion gigabytes would be created in 2011. [3] The sheer size of the internet means that it is the ideal medium for providing this right to access information. [4] The internet is also increasingly accessible to everyone making it possible to be considered universal; it is no longer something that the poor cannot hope to have access to. There are already over 2.1 billion people using the internet worldwide including 118 million in Africa. [5]  [1] Best, Michael L., ‘Can the Internet be a Human Right?’ Human Rights and Human Welfare, Vol.4 2004, p.23 (n.b. this link comes up with a warning when opened, dont worry it is safe - ahelling)  [2] World Wide Web Size.com, ‘The size of the World Wide Web (The Internet)’, 17 April 2012 .  [3] McGaughey, Katryn, ‘World’s Data More Than Doubling Every Two Years – Driving Big Data Opportunity, EMC2, 28 June 2011.  [4] Best, Michael L., ‘Can the Internet be a Human Right?’ Human Rights and Human Welfare, Vol.4 2004, p.23  [5] Clayton, Nick, ‘Internet has More Than 2 Billion Users’, TechEurope The Wall Street Journal, 19 January 2012.

This is taking the freedom of expression too far. A freedom to impart information does not mean the freedom to impart it through whatever medium the individual wishes simply through a method of communication. It is also taking it too far to consider that the government has a duty to prevent others from interfering with individual’s access as this is impractical. Governments should not have the power to interfere with private businesses that may wish to deny internet users access for things like not paying their bills. The third interpretation is interpreting this freedom much too broadly, human rights are meant to prevent the government from oppressing their citizens rather than forcing government to provide something.

Internet access as a new human right.  Access to the internet can be considered a separate human right in and of itself. The UN special rapporteur in June 2011 published a report that implied that access to the internet is a human right “The Special Rapporteur remains concerned that legitimate online expression is being criminalized in contravention of States' international human rights obligations.” [1]  The right to internet access can meet the necessary conditions to be a human right; as a right is should be universal, everyone should have access not just a few. The internet is becoming much more than just a tool but is becoming a fundamental part of society creating a new sphere of interaction that everyone has a right to have access to.  Creating a right to internet access would be addressing a specific contemporary problem as with other human rights that are specific such as a right to basic schooling, enshrined in article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights. Not having access to the internet is similar to not having basic schooling; it considerably narrows people’s options and their horizons. As Tim Berners-Lee, the founder of the world wide web, argues "Given the many ways the web is crucial to our lives and our work, disconnection is a form of deprivation of liberty." [2]  [1] La Rue, Frank, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Human Rights Council, Seventeenth session, A/HRC/17/27, 16 May 2011, p.10 .  [2] Burkeman, Oliver, ‘Inside Washington’s high risk mission to beat web censors’, guardian.co.uk, 15 April 2012.

Creating a human right specifically for internet access is an example of ‘human rights inflation’ where by every group wants their issue to be a human right and as a result human rights that are not necessary or are too specific begin to devalue the whole concept of human rights. [1] While there may be a new ‘society’ operating online the internet is certainly not essential for the existence of society. An online society is an interesting distraction for people and indeed there are many who spend immense amounts of time cultivating virtual relationships but this virtual sphere does not need a human right to enable it to continue. The internet is in some ways a free for all and there have already been internet social networks that have collapsed or been taken offline. This may be disruptive for those who relied on this network as their online society but they can simply find another. If unable to access the internet they still have access to other forms of society in the real world. Thus while forming and taking part in society is fundamental for humanity that this should be possible online is not.  [1] Bleisch, Barbara, ‘The human right to water – normative foundations and ethical implications’, Ethics and Economics, 4 (2), 2006, p.8

Internet access is a necessary part of the right to freedom of information and expression.  Freedom of expression and speech and freedom of information is a fundamental freedom and is article 19 in the universal declaration of human rights. This is usually taken to have three parts for governments to uphold: a duty to respect, for the government not to interfere with the freedom to impart information, a duty to protect, preventing interference with lawful communications and, a duty to fulfil, a duty to provide government held information. [1] Access to the internet falls within this. The duty to respect means that governments cannot block access for people wishing to use the internet to express themselves. The duty to protect means government should prevent others from interfering with internet users and the duty to fulfil could easily be taken just a little bit further to having to provide access to the internet. Freedom of expression therefore covers a freedom to access the internet as it already provides for a freedom to access mediums to express ones’ self.  [1] Callamard, Agnes, ‘Towards a Third Generation of Activism for the Right to Freedom of Information’, in Freedom of Expression, Access to Information and Empowerment of People, UNESCO, 2009 pp.43-57. p.44

The conduit to access information is just as important as the information itself. There is little point in the information if we are cut off from the flows of that information and are unable to access it. [1] Having immense libraries may be an alternative method of accessing information for some but only for a tiny minority. As human rights are concerned with access to everybody the right an egalitarian method that allows everyone to access the information is needed just as much as the right to access the information. There is little point in a right to information without a corresponding right to access the internet or some other equally egalitarian method of obtaining that information.  [1] Best, Michael L., ‘Can the Internet be a Human Right?’ Human Rights and Human Welfare, Vol.4 2004, p.24

Human rights are meant to protect the individual from the state rather than being dependent upon the state. The state cannot decide what these human rights are and can only constrain human rights if it is necessary to protect the human rights of another. [1] Human rights are necessary precisely because states ignore the freedoms of their citizens so often. The sources of international law are irrelevant when referring to human rights as these are a higher law natural law that overrides a system of international law that has been created only over the last couple of hundred years.  [1] Brown, Chris, ‘Human rights’, in John Baylis and Steve smith The globalization of world politics 2nd ed Oxford University Press 2001, pp.599-614 p.604

Internet access is a commodity not a human right.  If a human right is inherent and inalienable then if something is to be a human right it has to be freely available for all rather than being much more available to those who are rich. The internet however is a commodity. We are charged for access to it and can be cut off for not paying our bills. We are charged more to be able to download more, in effect to have greater access to this human right. There has never been any suggestion that the equally great media advances of TV and telephones are technologies worthy of being considered a human right. As with the internet these increased the ability to express opinions to a wide audience, they helped democratise news and making it much more international. They meant that human rights violations could be much more easily told to the world in much the same way the internet does.

Internet access cannot be a human right when it is not available to all.  If human rights are inalienable and inherent in humans then no technology can be a human right as not everyone can ever expect access all of the time. Certainly at the moment huge swathes of the world have no internet access and this does not mean that their governments are violating their human rights.  The analogy might be given to freedom of movement. Freedom of movement is a human right however we don’t need the aid of a car to be able to exercise this right the technology itself is unnecessary as we have an inherent ability to move just as we do to communicate.

Internet access is an enabler of rights not a right in itself.  The internet is an enabler and so has little value on its own. [1] No one would consider the internet a human right if there was no content or information on the internet, what good would be a right to stare at a screen? It is not therefore access to the internet that is the human right it is access to information. The internet is obviously useful for this but it is not essential. If someone was denied access to the internet while being locked in a library would he or she really have had any right to information infringed? In such a case the only argument for a right to the internet is that it faster to access the information through the internet than it would be to look it up in the books that are all around. There cannot therefore be considered to be a right to the internet even as part of any right to information because the right to information would simply require that a government provides access to this information not that it has to be via the internet. Moreover as an enabling technology it is quite possible that the internet may at some point be out of date and replaces by some new method of storing information. As something that is transitory it does not make sense to consider there to be any kind of inalienable right to the internet.  [1] Cerf, Vinton G., ‘Internet Access Is Not a Human Right’, The New York Times, 4 January 2012.

Human rights are dependent upon the state  There is clearly not universal or even widespread acceptance of the idea that internet access should be a human right. Human rights are dependent upon the state, the desires of the community, and that depends upon the state’s socio economic context. [1] The internet cannot therefore be considered a universal human right because not all states are advanced enough to take responsibility for this right.  International law is based upon several sources; state practice, customary law, treaties and judicial decisions. [2] None of these sources yet recognise internet access as a human right, indeed if state practice is taken as deciding if human rights exist then the whole concept of human rights is open to question. [3]  [1] Turkin, G., Theory of International Law, 1974, p.81  [2] Shaw, Malcolm N., International Law 4th ed., Cambridge University press, 1997, Chapter 3.  [3] Watson, J.S., Legal theory, efficacy and validity in the development of human rights norms in international law, University of Illinois law forum, 1979, p.609

Human rights are as much aspirational as they are fact. When the universal declaration of human rights came out the majority of people in the world did not have “the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.” [1] Having the internet as a human right will increase access as it makes it more difficult for governments to deny access and increases the priority to provide access. [2]  [1] United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948, Article 21.  [2] Wagner, Adam, ‘Is internet access a human right?’, Guardian Legal Network, 11 January 2012.

Being a human right does not prevent commoditization going alongside this. Everyone has a right to own property, as enshrined in the universal declaration of human rights, but it is accepted that property is also valuable in a commercial sense. Or more generally everyone has a right to shelter and this means that governments provide council housing and shelters for the homeless at the same time as houses often having very high prices. The human right is for a very basic level while those who wish can pay for more.

There have been wrongful arrests during the war against terror. Riwaan Sabir was wrongfully arrested under the terrorism act in 2008 for downloading an al-Qaida training manual despite the manual having been downloaded from a US government website and been for his master’s degree at the University of Nottingham. [1] Since the offence was online it is certainly possible that information from spying was a part of the cause for the arrest. It is true that we probably have less cause for concern when it is foreign governments doing the spying but this could still have consequences such as being denied entry if you wish to travel to or through the country.  [1] Townsend, Mark, ‘Police ‘made up’ evidence against Muslim student’, The Guardian, 14 July 2012,

e free speech and privacy politics government digital freedoms privacy

You are not going to be arrested because the government has access to your communications  Clearly much of the time you really do have nothing to worry about when it comes to intelligence agencies having information about you. People are not regularly arrested without just cause and we have little evidence that democratic governments use this information to put pressure on their citizens. There have been no known cases of this happening since the start of the war on terror. [1] When it comes to foreign governments this is even less of a cause for concern; while your own government might be interested in various aspects of your life to help it with the services it provides foreign governments only have one motivation; their own national security. If you are not a threat to that national security the chances of them ever taking any action against you are essentially nonexistent.  [1] Posner, Eric, ‘I Don’t See a Problem Here’, The New York Times Room for Debate, 10 June 2013,

In the UK case this is not all it appears. The Intelligence Services Commissioner is comparatively toothless, and both it and the Interception of Communications Commissioner are immensely understaffed for monitoring all UK intelligence agencies. Some experts such as Professor Peter Sommer have even suggested “I am not sure that ministers or the ISC would know what questions to ask.” [1] Moreover this is trusting that ministers have the best interests of the people at heart, in the case of this conservative government which seems perfectly happy to introduce bills that erode freedoms such as the ‘snoopers charter’ this seems unlikely.  [1] Hopkins, Nick, ‘William Hague on spying scandal: what he said … and what he didn't say’, guardian.co.uk, 10 June 2013,

There is no physical risk  In terms of physical risk it is almost certainly true that you have nothing to fear from government having loads of information. With the exception perhaps of the Russian FSB and despite the James Bond films intelligence agencies in democracies are not in the habit of bumping people off this mortal coil. In this sense it does not matter at all what information the intelligence services have on you; no matter how naughty you may have been it is not going to be worth some kind of physical retaliation. Essentially the argument here is that it does no harm, and even does some good, so why should it not continue?

Physical risk is not the only risk that people worry about. Denying someone their liberties such as privacy or freedom of expression does not pose a physical risk to them but that act is still wrong and it is still worth worrying about. Citizens have the right to go about their own business without their government spying on them. They should not have to concern themselves with what information the government does or does not have.

Clearly if no one ever actually looked at any information provided by surveillance then there would be no point in conducting it. Even if it were true that no one looks at any of the data being watched is still an intrusion that affects behaviour. It will affect decisions that are perfectly lawful because there will always be the slight worry that someone who you don’t want to have that information because they will think differently of you will obtain it. When the information is out of your hands you can no longer be certain who will obtain it. [1] Since people have been arrested for the information that has been conducted, clearly sometimes the information is checked and used.  [1] Moore, Mica, and Stein, Bennett, ‘The Chilling Effects of License-Plate Location Tracking’, American Civil Liberties Union, 23 July 2013,

There are safeguards to prevent misuse  In democracies there are numerous safeguards and levels of oversight to prevent abuse. In the UK for example there is a “strong framework of democratic accountability and oversight”. Agencies are required “to seek authorisation for their operations from a Secretary of State, normally the Foreign Secretary or Home Secretary.” The Secretary is given legal advice and comments from civil servants. Once the Secretary has given assent they are “subject to independent review by an Intelligence Services Commissioner and an Interception of Communications Commissioner… to ensure that they are fully compliant with the law”. [1]  [1] Hague, William, ‘Prism statement in full’, politics.co.uk, 10 June 2013,

No one will ever actually look at the information  If the concern is privacy then there really should be little concern at all because there is safety in numbers. The NSA and other intelligence services don’t have the time or motivation to be tracking down all of our foibles. [1] If the intelligence agencies are watching everyone then they clearly do not have the personnel to be watching the actual communications. Instead certain things or patterns will raise alarm bells and a tiny number will be investigated more closely.  [1] Walt, Stephen M., ‘The real threat behind the NSA surveillance programs’, Foreign Policy, 10 June 2013,

The circumstances in the cold war were clearly different to today so this kind of abuse of power would be unlikely to happen. More broadly yes there is the potential for abuse in much the same way that there are people in banks who could steal large quantities of other people’s money. That there is a potential opportunity does not mean it is ever used. Abuse can never be totally avoided but if abuse is a concern then whether or not there is a program of surveillance is not the highest concern. Even if there were not wide ranging surveillance problems those in intelligence looking to abuse their position would be able to obtain the information because they have the technology to do so.

Far from threatening democracy the intelligence agencies are using this information to protect democracy from terrorists who wish to overthrow the whole concept of democratic governance. Intelligence agencies are clearly under civilian control and have several layers of oversight to ensure that this kind of misuse does not take place. In the United States this means there is oversight from Congress and in the UK from Parliament. There is also judicial oversight in the form of the Interception of Communications Commissioner and Intelligence Services Commissioner in the UK [1] and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in the US. [2]  [1] ‘Judicial Oversight’, Security Service MI5,   [2] ‘Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court’, Federal Judicial Center,

Lack of trust  The problem is that when it comes to privacy it is not really our personal physical security that we are worried about. Part of the problem is that we value our right to a private life and that we should have control over that to the extent of being able to decide how much information others know about us. To a large extent this is an issue of trust; we (sometimes wrongly) trust our friends and others with information about us. We often trust faceless entities; companies and governments too though usually to less of an extent. But a lot of that trust is as a result of their willingness to tell us what they know about us, to provide information in return, or to provide methods for us to restrict what they know. In cases like this that trust has not been earned; we were not asked, and not obviously given anything back, and there seems little change of us changing the terms of the relationship.

Loss of Privacy  It is wrong to state that we only have anything to ‘fear’ if we have done something wrong; a great many people want to keep things private where what they have done is morally perfectly right and justifiable. It is perfectly justified for a married couple to want to keep a video of them having sex private – even if it is sent from one partner to the other by email, or for someone to keep his/her sexual orientation secret even if they have told someone about it. [1] If we want such information to be kept private does the state have any business picking that information up from our emails? It may not go any further than the intelligence agency, it is possible no one there will look at it but it is still an invasion of privacy.  [1] Phillipson, Gavin, ‘Q&amp;A: The right to privacy’, BBC Religion, 14 June 2013,

The use of meta data causes unintentional harm  The other possible harm is unintentional. The amount of data involved is huge and too much even for a vast organization like the NSA to actually physically look at. Instead it uses data mining. This is why the NSA wants data that may seem useless to others. The records of which phone numbers are phoning who, as the NSA was obtaining of Verizon, might seem useless but can tell them who you are contacting, and how much contact time they have. In turn they could look at who your contacts have been talking to and if it turns out that several of them talk regularly to suspected terrorists then even if you are innocent a finger of suspicion might be pointed. There has even been a study showing that individuals can be identified from just the time of call and nearest cell phone tower after just four calls. [1] PRISM gives the NSA even more ‘useless’ data to play with. The results of this data mining may usually be accurate but will not always be so and the result of being flagged like this can be problematic for individuals. It may mean additional airport security, having problems getting a visa, [2] or in the worst case finding its way onto a no fly list.  [1] De Montjoye, Yves-Alexandre, et al., ‘Unique in the Crowd: The privacy bounds of human mobility’, Scientific Reports, 3, 25 March 2013,   [2] Brown, Ian, ‘Yes, NSA surveillance should worry the law-abiding’, guardian.co.uk, 10 June 2013,

Abuse of information and power by intelligence agencies  Even when the government does not intend harm there are still cases where direct harms can occur as a result of surveillance. The most worrying are where the state abuses the information it holds. Abuse of power and of the information held by government is perhaps the main reason why it is difficult to trust in intelligence agencies. In one historical example from the 1950s FBI agents interviewed a Brooklyn liquor importer for repeating a rumor that the FBI Director J Edgar Hoover might be a “queer”. This clearly necessitated a reminder through questioning that Hoover’s “personal conduct is beyond reproach,” leading to the man quickly agreeing that “he thinks Mr. Hoover has done a wonderful job.” [1] Did this have anything to do with national security? No. Was it an abuse of power and surveillance? Yes. So far as we are aware the intelligence agencies don’t do things quite like this anymore but the revelations like PRISM, or the waterboarding a decade ago, show they are still happy to abuse their position from time to time. This is hardly a good way to build trust.  [1] Gage, Beverly, ‘It’s Not About Your Cat Photos’, Slate, 10 June 2013,

Is it really an invasion of privacy if no one else knows about it even if that information is added to some giant computer database? The information we wish to keep secret remains a secret, in the unlikely event that some analyst reads the information they are never going to broadcast it to others as keeping secrets is a part of what intelligence agencies do.

A threat to democracy  Yes the NSA is unlikely to look at individual’s personal information if the person in question is nobody of interest yet there are people who may be of interest to the state who are essentially innocent of anything except annoying the state. The ability for almost anyone in the intelligence apparatus to look up personal information has to worry anyone who might otherwise dissent, investigate the government, or turn whistleblower. Intelligence officials can hold the information as a weapon to ensure compliance and ruin careers if they don’t get their way. [1] This has happened before. In the US when diplomat Joseph C. Wilson published about the manipulation of intelligence on uranium from Niger being used as part of the justification for the invasion of Iraq his wife had her cover blown and career destroyed by people within the Department of Defense. [2] When we know that the Obama administration has been more determined than ever to prevent leaks and prosecute perpetrators can it really be said there is no damage to democracy if these courageous people are not coming forward?  [1] Walt, Stephen M., ‘The real threat behind the NSA surveillance programs’, Foreign Policy, 10 June 2013,   [2] Wilson, Joseph C., ‘What I Didn’t Find in Africa’, The New York Times, 6 July 2003,   Lewis, Neil A., ‘Source of C.I.A. Leak Said to Admit Role’, The New York Times, 30 August 2006,

Metadata and data-mining are not new they are simply becoming more frequent, and more accurate as a result of more information. In the past there have been other ways of collecting data; tax records, voter registration, reverse telephone directories. [1] At the same time government and the intelligence agencies are not even those who make most use of this, there are whole private companies devoted to sifting this data. [2] There is little reason why we should particularly worry about this being done by intelligence agencies.  [1] Gomez, David, ‘Hoovered’, Foreign Policy, 11 June 2013,   [2] See the debatabase debate ‘ This House would not allow companies to collect/sell the personal data of their clients ’.

The intelligence agencies are not violating any right to privacy if they are not actually looking at the content of any emails, even less so as they in almost all cases won’t even be looking at the metadata. It is not possible for intelligence agencies to be asking the people before engaging in every surveillance policy as even knowing the broad outlines of what the surveillance involves could allow the targets of that surveillance to avoid that surveillance. While individual citizens are not asked this is where the people’s representatives should be trusted, it is ministers and members of parliament that allow surveillance and hold the agencies to account.

This has absolutely nothing to do with censorship – not having net neutrality will not stop users accessing certain sites, just make it slower. Data from some points of origin, especially games and file-sharing programmes slow down the entire network. It’s unfair to other users.

e internet freedom digital freedoms access information house supports

Risk of a two-tier Internet  As things stand there are relatively flat rate services. The concern is that ISP would charge higher rates for full Internet access or act to ensure that their own content arrived seamlessly and smoothly, while that of competitors was delayed or poorer quality or that higher bandwidth applications end up with a higher price-tag [i] .  This is of concern both to end users and to the producers of content. There are very real concerns here, as a result, about the impact this has on freedom of expression. The best way to avoid censorship – either commercial or political – is to ensure that it remains impossible to achieve in the first place.  Once it becomes possible to give preference to some forms of content or points of origin, then commercial censorship at least becomes a great deal easier.  [i] BBC News Website. “BT Content Connect service faces ‘two-tier net’ claims. 4 January 2011.

The idea that there is a virtue in providing things for free takes a somewhat cavalier attitude toward jobs. It is a predicate of this, and many other, arguments that the Internet should be either free or very cheap, but this does little for protecting genuine sources of expertise. Equally the costs incurred by ISPs for carrying the huge data loads of heavy users will simply end up being met by users who aren’t using that level of data. It doesn’t seem that unreasonable that those using the data should be paying for that at least. After all, they’re already avoiding paying the studio, the writer, the actors, musicians [i] and many others involved in the production of goods. Freeware may be freely given, but plenty of other pieces of intellectual property aren’t. Why should those people then have the data usage subsidised by others as well?  [i] Songwriters Guild of America. Rick Carnes. “Demythologizing Net Neutrality.

Privacy  This was the clinching argument in the Dutch example. Labour MP Martijn van Dam, one of the bill’s co-authors said that Dutch ISP KPN was similar to “a postal worker who delivers a letter, looks to see what’s in it and then claims he hasn’t read it. It is simply a basic principle of the Internet that for it to continue working as it does now, all data needs to be treated the same otherwise judgements will be formed on ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ data [i] .  The principle here is that the data being used is simply none of the ISPs business. Their job is simply to provide an agreed bandwidth, at an agreed price to the end user. How the end user makes use of that band width is up to them. If, for example, they’re choosing to Skype from a mobile device – one of the points of contention – it’s hard to see what that has to do with the ISP.  [i] PCWorld. Matthew Honan, MacWorld. “Inside Net Neutrality: Privacy and BitTorrent. 14 February 2008.

The postal worker analogy is an interesting one. Certainly, the end user wouldn’t want the worker snooping through their mail; however they would expect to pay more for the stamp if they were sending a parcel – the equivalent of sending voice messages or receiving films rather than email and text. It is also not directly analogous to a postman looking at the contents of someone’s mail because to tell what type of data it is and the size ISPs don’t read the content of the data.

Threats to Freeware, Shareware and Objectivity  There are very real concerns that ISPs have a commercial interest in guiding people away from certain sites – especially when those sites provide services or products for nothing when the ISP or a related company charges for a competing product. File sharing more generally is an obvious target. The example of Comcast against NetFlix and other file sharing sites is simply the most obvious [i] .  There are also concerns about the impact on objectivity more generally; the Internet works most effectively as a tool because it is, by definition cross-referencing. Although there are many mistakes on many sources as a whole it is possible to reach something resembling the truth. Essentially, “We need freeware, we need shareware, and we need open access. People need to be able to trust sources that they can find on the internet, rather than have them controlled in a small number of hands or by the government.” [ii] Making some sites more accessible than others reduces users’ choice and their ability to check multiple sites so preventing this cross-referencing.  [i] A useful overview of some of the more notorious examples can be found here .  [ii] Bob Gibson, Executive Director of the University of Virginia’s Sorensen Institute for Political Leadership, on the Charlottesville, VA, politics interview program Politics Matters with host and producer Jan Madeleine Paynter discussing journalism

It’s no secret that many companies have had difficulty working out effective models for dealing with the internet. That doesn’t justify simple price-gouging. Neither does it justify an invasion of privacy. It’s the equivalent of a restaurant waiting for customers to order, eat their meal and then set the prices.

The reverse also applies. In most countries the costs of basic infrastructure are shared. Taxpayers don’t get a discount if they don’t have kids in education, any more than they would just because they disagreed with a war that their taxes help to pay for. The argument doesn’t make sense.

Allow ISPs to monitor and remove illegal or unwanted data  Many ISPs are responding to user interests when cutting out particular types of data. At the request of the user why shouldn’t they be able to monitor what is delivered to a certain IP address. Most ‘net nanny’ software is not that difficult to get around [i] .  Why not let parents who bought their kids a computer to help with their homework not be able to block them from making calls or watching movies?  If you compel net neutrality then, say, the ISP who caters for religious customers can no longer deliver the service that they have requested. Denying freedom of choice seems a high price to pay so that someone can get movies without paying for them.  Equally, if ISPs themselves want to stay within the law and prevent people from accessing illegal or otherwise unpleasant sites, why shouldn’t they?  [i] Foss Force: Keeping Tech Free. Caesar Tjalbo. “Top 10 Reasons ISPs are against net neutrality”.

Realistic costs for users and providers of bandwidth and phones  The example of mobile devices is, perhaps the most clear-cut. Manufacturers of mobile devices expect to make their money back and make a profit. They need to do this to pay salaries, invest in the next project and keep their shareholders happy. To do that they make a calculation based on the price of the original product and what additional revenue they are likely to make over the lifetime of that product’s use.  Phone companies in particular have complained that major content providers are simply not paying a fair share of the costs with the VP of Verizon, for example, accusing Google of getting “a free lunch” at the expense of network providers [i] .  Net neutrality compels some companies to ignore basic financial realities [ii] . For all that Proposition – and others such as politicians in Amsterdam and Santiago – may think that changing the basic rules of economics is a good idea, they have yet to explain how this Socialist utopia will work.  [i] Washington Post. Ashad Mohammed. “Verizon Executive Calls for End to Google’s ‘Free Lunch”. 7 February 2006.  [ii] The Economist. “The Difference Engine: Download Dilemma”. 6 May 2011.

Incentivise ISPs to provide more data capacity  If the ISPs were actually making their money on the basis of data provision rather than bandwidth then it’s in their interest to provide it. If they can’t, they don’t make money.  If they want to sell more data, they have to provide more bandwidth, otherwise they can’t do it. This way both the data gluttons and the dieters get what they want. The gluttons get a fast provision of the resources they want or the capacity to share those resources at a reasonable speed and the dieters get cheaper provision.  Measures being pursued by the European Commission aim to do exactly this. They will allow ISPs to control the passage of data across their networks but must, at the same time, make it clear what they are doing and offer low data use price plans accordingly [i] .  This is more so with mobile devices than with ‘plumbed in’ ones. For many people, it wouldn’t occur to them to use Skype for a call and a phone – even a smart one – is primarily just that, a phone. Why should they pay for a capacity they will never use because others can’t take a bus journey without watching a movie?  [i] Out-Law.com: Legal news and guidance from Pinsent Masons. European Commission to propose net neutrality measures. 30 May 2012 .

Censorship has routinely been presented in terms of ‘protecting public morals’ or ‘defending national security’ or some similar euphemism, with legislation aimed at pornography but catching everything else in its track as simply the most obvious example [i] . It doesn’t change what it is [ii] . In addition to which, there are very real reasons to believe that the incentives of ISPs here are more financial than moral – they would, after all, stand to make quite a lot of money.  [i] The New Statesman. Nelson Jones. “The Censored Isle”. 6 August 2012.  [ii] Boston College Law Review. Prof. Jonathan Zittrain. “Internet Points of Control”. Vol. 44, pg. 653, 2003.

Most suffering and pain can be accounted for by the free will that humans exercise; God made us free and we use that freedom for evil as well as for good. As for illness and disease, it is hard for us to know the mind of God, but it may be that these trials are a necessary part of a world in which free and spiritual human beings can evolve and develop.

The problem of suffering  The world is full of suffering and pain among innocent people. If God is good and all-powerful then why is this the case? Either God does not exist or he is not worth believing in since he does not care about human suffering.

This is an inaccurate caricature of the relationship between science and religion. In fact most of the great scientists of history, such as Descartes, Newton and Einstein, have been religious believers, and the more we learn about the physical world (e.g. the fine balance between the fundamental forces of the universe, necessary for organic life to develop) the more it seems that it has been designed to produce human life by an intelligent God. The fact that there is a physical side to reality does not, in any case, mean that there cannot also be a spiritual dimension. Nor does the fact that the mind and brain are closely correlated mean that they are the same thing.

The Null Hypothesis  With regards to any proposition the only consistent and rational view is to assume that it is not true unless sufficient evidence is put forward to nullify that assumption.  The proposition need also be falsifiable, that is to say, there must be some potential fact that could be proven in order to disprove it. God is unfalsifiable because there is nothing.

Religious belief is completely irrational  There is no evidence that God exists. Reported miracles, healings etc. are never reliably proved actually to have happened, and in any case everyone’s religious experiences are different and point to the psychological differences between human beings not to any objective divine reality. Belief in God is simply wish-fulfilment. It would be nice if there was a loving all powerful being watching over us, but there isn’t.

There is good evidence that God exists and there are good arguments for accepting religious beliefs. The fact that we live in a beautiful, orderly universe in which human beings exist and have special moral and spiritual awareness points clearly to the existence of a divine Creator behind the universe. Billions of people have had religious experiences of one sort or another - all of them revealing the existence of divine reality - the only good explanation of this fact is that the divine reality is really there.

All beliefs rely upon some form of presupposition as their grounding. The null hypothesis presupposes a natural world – but belief in God presupposes a supernatural world. It is unfair therefore to apply the null hypothesis to religious faith.  Moreover, belief in God is a different to belief in an object in the physical world that we would expect to be physically verifiable. [1]  [1] Wolf, Gary. ‘The Church of the Non-Believers’ WIRED Magazine. November 2006.

Religion may have been the occasion for various social and political wrongs, but it is not the cause. You can be quite sure that if you took away all the world’s religions people would still identify themselves with national and political groups and go to war over territory, political conflict etc. Equally elitism and bigotry are, sadly, parts of human nature with or without religion. In fact religious belief, when taken seriously and sincerely, is a force for good in the world, promoting humility, morality, wisdom, equality, and social justice. Social justice is at the heart of the Christian gospel.

The God hypothesis is unnecessary  Science provides us with the tools to form a comprehensive view of the Universe which does not include a supernatural being. From Galileo to Darwin to the modern day, scientists have continually uncovered the true natural mechanisms behind the creation and evolution of the universe. There are no gaps left for God to act in [1] - science has revealed a closed natural order governed by natural laws. Brain science has shown that there is not a ‘soul’ but that all our mental states are simply caused by brain activity. There is, therefore, no reason to believe in life after death - one of the main tenets of religious belief.  [1] Bube, Richard H, ‘Man Come of Age: Bonhoeffer’s Response to the God-of-the-gaps’, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society,  , p.207

Religions have no true claim to special moral knowledge  Religions through the ages, and still today, have been agents of repression, sexism, elitism, homophobia, and - most of all - conflict, war, and racial hatred. The very nature of belief in received wisdom means that it must be, at its core, a conservative and regressive force. Moreover the positive moral rules that religions claim to promote tend to have existed independently of those religions – the world did not have to wait for the ten commandments to learn that murder and theft was wrong, but it waited until the 19th Century to reach a consensus that Slavery was wrong.  Whatever small amount of psychological comfort religious belief may give, the evils it is responsible for in the social and political worlds easily outweigh it.

This argument is based on a subtle fallacy – the only reason we are here to observe the fact that the Earth is so well suited to support life is that fact that it is so well suited to support life – if the Earth was a barren rock then we would not exist to see it. It shouldn’t be surprising therefore that out of the billions of solar systems in the Universe; we live on the planet that is suited to our survival.  Additionally, while the conditions necessary for life appear to be rare (and our ability to observe planets from even relatively nearby solar systems is limited), the Universe has billions and billions of chances to ‘get it right’. It is very unlikely that you will win the lottery, but with millions of people playing it is actually very likely that somebody will win the lottery.

This is just special pleading; firstly there is no reason to consider Godly wisdom as being beyond our capacity to comprehend; and secondly there are discernable flaws in that wisdom as it is presented in a way that humans are supposed to be able to perceive and understand.

The Prime Mover  The universe follows rules of causality – cause precedes effect. But it cannot be the case that cause and effect regress infinitely into the past – there must be a ‘prime cause’. There is an identifiable point for this – the Universe was formed about 14 billion years ago with the Big Bang, before which we cannot detect any chain of causality. What was the prime mover? It had by definition to be a being existing outside of our conception of reality – the natural answer being ‘God’.

The rareness of Life  Life requires an extremely fine set of conditions in order to exist. The right distance from the Sun, a magnetic field to deflect solar radiation, the right atmospheric composition and conditions etc. These conditions are extremely rare; indeed only on Earth have we observed that they are just right for life to have evolved. [1] This is so unlikely that it leads to the conclusion that God must have intervened.  [1] McAlpine, Kate, ‘Extraterrestrial life could be extremely rare’, physicsworld.com, 1 August 2011,

Revealed wisdom  Godly wisdom is not the same as human wisdom and cannot be subject to the same criticism. The nature of humanity means that our ability to understand God’s wisdom is fundamentally limited; and thus arguments based on morality or science are irrelevant – what matters is that God has revealed Himself.

This argument is an attempt to shoehorn God into one of the ever-shrinking gaps in our knowledge of the Universe and should be treated as such – it doesn’t really give reasons why one should believe in God, it throws up conjecture and asks ‘why not’?  If everything needs a prime cause, what is the prime cause of God? If God can be an exception, why can't the universe be one especially since it is more rational with accordance to Occam's Razor - that the simplest hypothosis is most likely to be correct. This point is merely a substitution of one problem by another.

Evil may be thought of as the absence of good. It is a privation of goodness, just as darkness is the absence of light. God is good and the embodiment of goodness, but humans have been endowed with free will; they can make the choice not to follow the path of good. People have the ability to make both good and bad choices; if they did not then they would not truly be free. God’s greatest gift to humanity is thus also a heavy burden. [1]  [1] Kekes, John. 1990. Facing Evil. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

y epistemology religion church faith religion general god morality secularism

If there is a benevolent deity, then there should not be the kinds of evil observable in the world and He would likely show more interest in His creation than He appears to have done so far:  If God, or the gods, were good there would be no evil in the world. Disasters would not kill millions of innocents, disease and hunger would not claim the lives of children every day, war and genocide would not slaughter people indiscriminately as they have done for countless bloody millennia. The world is awash with blood, pain, and suffering. No loving God would make a world so imperfect and troubled. [1] The world’s ills are perfectly explained by the natural, amoral development of the Universe, of life, and of humanity. The reality of the Universe, however, is incompatible with a God of goodness, as He is conventionally described by today’s predominant religions, which stem from the Abrahamic tradition.  [1] Tooley, Michael. 2009. “The Problem of Evil”. Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. Available:

entirely natural theories can adequately explain belief in God and the development of religions, so an existent God is superfluous to the understanding of the phenomenon:  The reason people believe in God and why religions have formed can be explained perfectly well by natural processes and psychology. Religion is an outgrowth of humans’ brain architecture developed through the process of evolution; it developed as a by-product of other useful cognitive processes. [1] For example, survival capability is promoted by an ability to infer the presence of potentially hostile organisms, the ability to establish causal narratives for natural occurrences, and the ability to recognize that other people are independent agents, with their own minds, desires, and intentions. [2] These cognitive mechanisms, while invaluable to human survival and communal development, have the effect of causing humans to imagine supernatural purposefulness behind natural phenomena that could not be explained by other means. No gods are required to explain religious belief, so the existence of such belief is no reason to believe in such beings. Religion was a cradle during mankind’s childhood and adolescence. The time has come to grow up as a species and accept that there are no gods.  [1] Henig, Robin. 2007. “Darwin’s God”. The New York Times. Available:   [2] Pinker, Steven. 2004. “The Evolutionary Psychology of Evolution”. Annual Meeting of the Freedom from Religion Foundation. Available:

The question of God’s existence does matter, not only to those who believe, but to understanding of life and its meaning. If there is a God and He has a plan for humanity and the Universe, then in order to understand the plan and to become an active part in it, one must try to understand in some sense the nature of God. However, even if God were disinterested in His creation, that would do little to affect whether He exists or not.

It is unreasonable to suggest that God must reveal Himself to humanity, or to make His existence manifestly clear because that would undermine the value of faith. [1] Belief is an important component of all religious teachings because it is what allows the soul to transcend the material world and to commune with the divinity. For the religious, a life without faith is meaningless. Furthermore, if God were to make His desires and commands known, then free will would be undermined. It is necessary to the exercise of individual human agency that God not dictate every command to people. That is why God leaves life, at least on the surface, up to humans.  [1] Maitzen, Stephen. 2006. "Divine Hiddenness and the Demographics of Theism". Religious Studies 42.

In reality there are only two theological positions, atheism and theism; agnosticism is nothing but timid atheism:  God, like unicorns, has never been shown to exist, and thus it is logical to accept that He, just like unicorns, does not exist. That is why a position like agnosticism makes no sense. There are no agnostics on the subject of unicorns; there are only agnostics on the subject of God because people tend to be reticent to say they are atheists due to the prevalence of belief of God even in the most secular societies. But fantasy is fantasy, and an agnostic is really just an atheist by another name. Were someone to claim that dragons exist, the person he told it to would not be justified responding saying he did not know whether they exist and that it must be an open question until evidence is presented to corroborate the claim. [1] Rather, he would likely respond with disbelief in the absence of evidence. That is how reasoning works. Thus agnosticism is a philosophically meaningless position. There is either belief or lack of belief, atheism or theism. Opponents of atheism seeking to hide in the nebulous realm of agnosticism, or who claim that because one cannot know there is no God one must be agnostic, hold a position that is philosophically bankrupt.  [1] Dawkins, Richard. 2006. The God Delusion. Ealing: Transworld Publishers.

Entirely natural theories can adequately explain the existence and development of the Universe and all it contains, making God irrelevant to the discussion of reality:  Physics and cosmology explain the development and evolution of the Universe and the bodies within it. Chemistry explains the interactions of substances and the origin of life. Biology explains the development of life’s complexity through the long process of evolution. God, or gods, is a superfluous entity in the discussion of existence; He is entirely unnecessary to human scientific understanding. [1] At best, believers can point to various missing links in science’s explanation, using God to fill the gaps. The God of the Gaps is a weak God whose domain grows smaller each day as science progresses. Furthermore, there is no evidence of the supernatural existing at all, if that is what God is meant to be. The burden of proof in a debate concerning the existence of something is on the individual making the positive claim. In a debate over the existence of God, it is up to the believer to provide evidence for that belief. [2] The rational position in the absence of evidence is atheism. It is not a positive claim about anything, but is merely the absence of belief in God, which makes sense in the light of there being no positive evidence of God’s existence. If believers claim God lives outside the Universe, or that He cannot be empirically identified due to His ethereal nature, then in truth they are saying nothing. Only the natural world exists insofar as humans can demonstrate. The supernatural is pure fantasy.  [1] Boyer, Pascal. 2001. Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought. New York: Basic Books.  [2] Russell, Bertrand. 1952. “Is There a God?” Campaign for Philosophical Freedom. Available:

Even if atheism was wrong and God did exist His seeming lack of interest and interaction with the Universe as far as humans can perceive means his existence is irrelevant:  It seems as if life goes on whether God exists or not. Theologians, philosophers, and laypeople have been fighting both in academia and on the actual battlefield over the question of God’s existence, yet in all the centuries no definitive answer one way or the other has been given by either side. [1] It seems there is little value to belief one way or the other, so arguing for God’s existence seems simply to be a waste of time. If God were proved to exist, or not to exist, little in life would change at all. Thus a position of atheism serves to relieve the hassle of pointless debate.  [1] Borne, Étienne. 1961. Atheism. New York: Hawthorn Books.

Science cannot explain everything. People have spoken of the existence of the soul and of God through the ages because reason and logic are sometimes not enough to explain the complexity and depth of the human experience. God is far more than the occupier of the gaps in scientific knowledge. However, the gaps are indicative of the limitations of science and show that faith and God can still have a place in human comprehension of the world.

There is no strict dichotomy in theology. It is perfectly reasonable for someone unsure of whether God exists to take up a position of agnosticism, refusing to emphatically accept the existence of God or to deny it. Atheism is a positive claim insofar as it is a statement about the nonexistence of God. The burden of proof is thus not so clearly on the shoulders of theism alone. Rather, they are rival claims that each side must be supported by positive evidence.

Not everything about religion can be explained by evolutionary psychology. The existence of the soul and the concept of an ethereal God not directly connected to the processes of the world could not simply come about by way of evolution. Rather, there must be true meaning in these concepts, or they must at least be indicative of something other than the strictly material, contradicting the denials of atheism.

Just because God cannot be understood by conventional understandings of physics and logic does not invalidate His existence. In fact, it is unsurprising that trying to discuss the attributes of God would confound human reason. That is why faith is essential to understanding, and why science and reason are limited tools. Thus even if one considers the conventional description of God to be unsatisfactory, it is not sufficient reason to conclude that God does not exist. That is why one should at best adopt a position of agnosticism.

If there were a God there would be irrefutable evidence of His existence and people would feel compelled to belief by the fact of it:  Many people do not believe in God, and the ranks of atheists are growing every day, particularly in the developed world. It seems that as human knowledge of the Universe expands and as social institutions develop and improve, people feel less dependent upon the crutch of religious faith, and place greater store in reason. [1] If God existed He would make His existence clear to all humanity, not just to a chosen few. In so doing His wisdom would naturally drown out an earthly knowledge, which would obviously be inferior to any that might be furnished by an omniscient being. [2] God has clearly never imparted His wisdom to people since no such divine wisdom exists in any holy book. Were there a correct holy book currently in use, it would necessarily be the only one, because everyone would acknowledge its superiority at once. Reality shows all holy books to be flawed works of flawed men. There is no glimmer of divine spark in any of them, and the only thing that separates most of them from the ravings of madmen is that large groups of people have chosen to believe them. The more reasonable conclusion is one of atheism, and that people believe in God out of ignorance, not revelation.  [1] Drange, Theodore. 1998. "Nonbelief as Support for Atheism". Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy.  [2] Schellenberg, John. 2005. "The Hiddenness Argument Revisited". Religious Studies 41.

The nature of God as it is conventionally described is logically contradictory:  A creator god is a logical absurdity, as demonstrated by empirical fact and rational reflection. Certainly God cannot exist outside of the Universe, as such a concept is effectively meaningless. In fact, physics explains that when the Universe expanded as an inflating field of space and time as the result of a quantum fluctuation, causality itself arose from the process, making a causative agent “prior” to the Universe not only unnecessary, but also impossible. Furthermore, the idea of an omnipotent God is logically contradictory because if God were omnipotent He would be able to create an entity greater than Himself, yet that is impossible. [1] The very attribute is logically unfounded, making the conventional explanation of God invalid. Thus atheism, the absence of belief in gods, is the only logically justified theological position.  [1] Savage, C. 1967. "The Paradox of the Stone". Philosophical Review 76(1).

If everything has a cause, then so too must the creator. Trying to place the deity outside of the spatio-temporal realm of the Universe is not a good argument, as nothing can be said meaningfully about what is “outside” the Universe, since we cannot observe or detect it. [1] Furthermore, saying God, or a creator, is uncaused and always existed is a poor argument because again this cannot be verified in any meaningful way. Irrespective of these problems, however, the argument falls down because it presupposes that the Universe has a cause, which is not necessarily the case. The very notion of causation is built into a temporal understanding of physics, which may not have been the case in the “pre-Universe”. Atheism can survive in the presence of science, theism cannot. If theism cannot survive, then neither can the agnostic middle ground based on the plausibility of theism.  [1] Mackie, J. L. 1982. The Miracle of Theism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

The rational position in the absence of positive evidence about God is not agnosticism, but atheism. While there is always a degree of doubt in every statement, this does not mean that negative claims about an entities existence can never be made. One can rationally state that fairies do not exist, even if there is no positive evidence for their non-existence. The very fact that no evidence exists for the existence of fairies, in the same way there is no evidence for the existence of God, is evidence of the negative. Thus, in the evidence of positive evidence for God, the rational default position is atheism.

The complexity of the universe and of life cannot be explained by atheism:  Atheism suggests that the Universe came about by chance and the interaction of natural properties. Yet nature is marked by clear design that atheism cannot explain. The complexity of the human body, of planets, stars, and galaxies, and even of bacteria attests to the existence of creative agency. It is impossible that such things as interdependent species could come to exist without the guidance of a higher power. [1] Likewise, certain organisms can be shown to be irreducibly complex, meaning that if one were to remove any part of it, it could not function. This refutes the gradualist argument of evolution, since there is no selective pressure on the organism to change when it is functionless. For example, the bacterial flagellum, the “motor” that powers bacterial cells, loses all functionality if a single component is removed. [2] Besides design, the only explanation of its development is blind chance, which seems less sensible. Atheism cannot account for these facts and thus collapses into nonsense.  [1] Ratzsch, Del. 2009. "Teleological Arguments for God's Existence" The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy.   [2] Davis, Percival and Dean Kenyon. 1989. Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins. Richardson: Foundation for Thought and Ethics.

Everything that begins to exist must have a cause. Since the Universe began to exist it must be caused:  Every human, every being, every object in the Universe is a finite and contingent being. These all have causes, yet a causal chain cannot be infinitely long. Humans are born, stars form from gases, even the Universe had a beginning 4.3 billion years ago. Nothing in the Universe causes itself. In order to escape the logical impossibility of the infinite causality loop it is necessary to posit the existence of an uncaused cause. This cause exists outside of the Universe, as it is cause of the Universe. [1] Without a creator, the Universe is a logical absurdity. Atheism cannot provide an alternative explanation to a creator, and thus fails quite literally from the beginning.  [1] Craig, William Lane. 1979. The Kalam Cosmological Argument. London: MacMillan.

In the absence of positive evidence for the existence of God the rational position is agnosticism, not atheism:  In a situation where there is an absence of either positive evidence for a claim or definite negative evidence for it, the natural response is not rejection of the claim, but rather skepticism and admission of lack of knowledge one way or the other. [1] In the case of religion and God, this position is agnosticism. Humans are fallible organisms, and thus all statements about truth and about the Universe must be qualified by some degree of doubt. Positively rejecting the existence of God, as atheism does, ignores this requisite doubt even though it cannot prove that there is no God. Rather, in the absence of evidence for or against the existence of God, the most the atheist can say honestly is that he does not know. The claims of atheism are positive ones and thus require evidence; an atheist position is thus faith-based in the same way a theist one is.  [1] Hume, David. 1748. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. New York: Oxford University Press (2008).

Atheism does not seek to explain the origin of the Universe, life, etc.; that is what science is for. Atheism is about the existence of God. The atheist position is supported, however, by the fact that there is no evident design in the Universe. People tend to anthropomorphize their environment, trying to assign human-like qualities to animals and nature. All of the complexity in the Universe can be attributed to natural processes; the Universe, stars, and life are all the product of physical and chemical interactions. There is no mystery in the basic process. Complexity can be shown to arise from less complex conditions without aid of intelligent agency. Clearly, complexity is not indicative of a creator. The complexity of the Universe does nothing to support claims for the existence of a deity, but rather showcases the wondrousness of the natural world.

There are, of course, risks in any medical procedure. However circumcision remains astonishingly safe. Furthermore, denying the parents of a child the right to raise that child in accordance with their own beliefs would represent an unacceptable intrusion by the state into its citizens’ private and religious lives.  By implementing the resolution, a western liberal democratic state is obliging, say, orthodox Jewish parents, to compromise some of their most important moral and cultural beliefs. Ultra-orthodox Jewish groups believe, literally and without equivocation, that whoever breaks the covenant with God by not submitting to circumcision will be condemned for all eternity. The state should not compel parents (and children) to endure the moral, psychological and ideological turmoil associated with such a compromise; ultra-orthodox Jewish parents will see the state as forcing infinite harm upon their children.  There are risks to giving a child a bike or taking them on a plane. Parents are aware of this but act in what they consider to be the best interests of their child.  If we were to prevent parents from every taking a decision that might be risky for their children, they would never cross the street, eat a Big Mac or take up sports.

w crime policing religion religion general religions house believes male infant

There is always a risk associated with surgery and taking such a risk for no particular reason is irresponsible  A report by the Royal Dutch Medical Association noted that there was not a single medical body in the world that could point, categorically to a medical need for circumcision of infants. It further concluded that “The fact that this practice is not medically necessary and entails a genuine risk of complications means that extra-stringent requirements must be established with regard to this type of information and advice.” Yet this is a practice that is performed around the world by people with little or no medical training and accepted by parents as an instruction from God.  Studies from the US suggest that around 230 baby boys die in America every year as a direct result of hemorrhaging following circumcision [i] .  [i]

The precautionary principle is alive and well but risks are inevitable in any procedure. There is no reliable data on fatalities directly related to circumcision.  The causes of the 10 million or so neonatal deaths that occur around the world each year are closely linked to the income and educational level of the mother, with diarrhea and malnutrition being the leading causes.  By contrast children that are born with access to modern surgery and informed parents are likely to do well.

Cutting off bit of children’s bodies for no apparent reason is simply wrong  If this is simply a matter of performing a procedure with no apparent benefit to the patient – in most cases a young child – then it does rather raise the question of “Why”. If the procedure were, say, cutting off a toe or an earlobe then all involved would require a clear and compelling case for such a practice. There are grown adults that think that cutting off a finger is the next stage up from getting a tattoo or a piercing [i] . At best most people would consider such a practice odd, at worst unstable. However, these are grown adults who have made the decision to mutilate their bodies for themselves and as a statement they feel appropriate.  Consider society’s reaction if the fingers of unwilling adults were forcibly removed. What about unwilling children? What about the fingers of babies fresh out of the womb? The only sane response to such an action would be condemnation – and probably an arrest. The logic of this argument does not change if “finger” is replaced with “foreskin”.  Research undertaken by the World Health Organization found that the overwhelming determining factor in the decision as to whether a boy should be circumcised was whether the father had been [ii] .  Although the report suggest a correlation with a reduction in the possibility in the spread of AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa it also comments, “If correctly planned, increased provision of accessible, safe adult male circumcision services could also increase opportunities to educate  men in areas of high HIV prevalence about a variety of sexual and reproductive health topics, including hygiene, sexuality, gender relations and the need for ongoing combination prevention strategies to further decrease risk of HIV acquisition and transmission.”  Out with this area the rate of adult male circumcision is very low, suggesting that when the individual is of an age to give consent, they chose not to. Performing an act on a child that would not be consented to by an adult except in extremis would seem a fairly reasonable definition of child abuse.  [i] Shannon. “De-Fingered: Finger Amputations in BME News/Publishers’ Ring”. BME News. 11 March 2008.  [ii] “Male Circumcision: Global Trends and Determinants of Prevalence, Safety and Acceptability”. World Health Organisation and the Joint United Nations Council on HIV AIDS. 2007.

Neo-natal circumcision is an operation that has been performed, perhaps, more than any other. It is performed mostly for cultural or religious reasons but there is also a body of evidence that suggest health benefits. There is very little suggestion in any study of any harm to the child.  In all sorts of situations societies allow parents to make decisions on behalf of their child.  In the absence of proven harm and in the presence of possible benefits in terms of health and hygiene there is really no danger in allowing the parents this option.  Those problems that can arise from the surgery are both very rare and as a result of faulty surgery rather than any risks innate within the process itself [i] .  This is mostly a religious or cultural decision that has survived within communities for thousands of years without howls of protest and with no proven harm. In the absence of a sizable body of opinion calling for it to be ended, why do so?  [i] Philip G. Koltz MD. “In Defence of Circumcision.” Letters to the Journal, Journal of the Canadian Medical Association. 29 October 1966.

In any other situation involving minors a precautionary principle would be applied  Any risk needs to be justified against some benefit. In the absence of any demonstrable benefit then there is no need to tolerate any risk, particularly in the case of a newborn baby who cannot express his opinion one way or another and will not be able to do so for years to come.  The risks of circumcision have been repeatedly demonstrated. Though they may be rare, they run from septicemia through to blood hemorrhage and heart attacks. There is little research conducted on the long term effects of the procedure; however there is a growing body of evidence that a surgical complication rate is about 1 in 500 and the post-surgical rate of attrition is believed by many to be higher [i] .  [i] Paul M. Fleiss, MD. “The Case Against Circumcision”. Mothering: The Magazine of Natural Family Living, Winter 1997, pp. 36--45.

It is possible to perform this operation at any time during a person’s life and there is no compelling need to perform it on extremely young children. Doing so violates the child’s right to be free from pain. Indeed the deliberate and unnecessary infliction of pain on a minor in any other circumstance would be considered abusive, it is clearly illogical not to consider it so in this instance. The only reason why circumcision is not considered abusive is that it is so commonplace. However, only a couple of generations ago (and to this day in many nations) so was the routine use of physical punishment in schools, which many now consider abusive and repugnant.

Parents do not have the right to presume their children’s consent for procedures that are medically unnecessary, as in the case of circumcision.  Ultimately this is a choice that has more to do with culture than with medical need. The purported benefits are, at best, questionable and the results are irreversible.  The medical benefits of vaccination, by contrast, are undisputed and widely publicized. In those interests where the balance of risk is even remotely questioned, as in the case of the MMR vaccine, there is significant public debate and many parents have chosen to avoid the practice all together [i] .  [i] Paul M. Fleiss, MD. "The Case Against Circumcision". Mothering. Winter 1997

A practice that is thousands of years old and has not been found to cause harm during that time is unlikely to now  Where there compelling evidence from medical science that a process that predates it had some proven harm then there might be good reason to restrict it but that evidence simply isn’t there. What is known is that circumcisions have been performed for millennia without causing widespread difficulties. In addition, historically, the procedure has been performed in circumstances far less safe than the confines of a modern, well-equipped hospital where it usually takes place now, and to no apparent ill effect.  Even using the term ‘abuse’ to describe such a practice shows a lack of respect for those people who are genuinely victims of abuse.

Parents have the right to use their best judgment, in the light of medical advice, as to what is in the best interest of their child  There is compelling evidence that shortly after birth is the best time to perform this operation and that the rate of complications at this age is generally agreed to be between 0.2 and 0.4 percent. When performed later in life the risk of complications increases ten-fold to between two and four percent. In the light of this it is appropriate to recognize the rights of parents to approve a procedure that would be riskier if elected later in life on behalf of their child [i] .  [i] Michael Benatar. "How Not to Argue About Circumcision". The American Journal of Bioethics. 2003

There is no proven cause of harm and parents routinely make medical decisions for children to give their consent or otherwise  Circumcision is akin, in many ways, to vaccination; a routine and simple procedure with miniscule risks and compelling probable benefits. We acknowledge the right of parents to take these decisions on the behalf of their children, even if the benefits in question are primarily cultural and spiritual, and relativistic in character.  Parents routinely make decisions with far greater implications for their children’s futures in terms of their education and general welfare on a regular basis and this should really be seen as no different [i] .  As has been established, even in the most impromptu settings, male circumcision, unlike FGM, runs almost no risk of causing severe injury or infection. MGM does not endanger or restrict a child's development, or his ability to living and normal, fulfilled adult life. Parents make much more damaging choices for their children all the time - choices that do not involve modification of a child's body.  The cost of raising a child as a junior rugby player is an increased risk that the child may sustain life changing injuries. The cost of sending a child to a Montessori nursery as opposed to a curriculum-based institution is the possibility that they may lack personal discipline or respect for authority later in life.  Parents are still permitted to make these decisions, despite the impact they may have on a child’s development. Why not allow them to submit their children to a relatively minor and inconsequential aesthetic procedure?  [i] Dr. Brian Morris, Professor of Molecular Medical Sciences. "Circumcision Should Be Routine; is Akin to a Safe Surgical ‘Vaccine’". Opposing Views

Just because a practice is old doesn’t make it right. In addition to which societies’ attitudes, especially in the West, have changed radically in relationship to how we view both the body and childhood.  There is no other area where the physical violation of a child’s body would be tolerated, regardless of how old the process is. Indeed society tends now to reject ancient traditions as they relate to children, specifically because they are archaic, as is the case with corporal punishment. There is good reason to suspect that what may have been appropriate, possibly even beneficial, for semi-nomadic desert tribes is of little use in modern society.

It is undeniably true that greater investment in public services would help the poor. It is however, difficult to see how these two things are mutually exclusive. Indeed the results of this measure look set to considerably increase the chances of an education and healthcare for every child.

church marriage religions society gender family house believes reproductive

Poor families would be helped far more by investment in education and healthcare  This has been an urban and political obsession from the outset. The idea that the hungry and homeless need condoms more than food and shelter is clearly absurd. The poor would be better helped through “accessible education, better hospitals and lesser government corruption.” [i] Rather than interfering in the moral life of the nation, parliamentarians would be better exercised in tackling these concerns.  This issue has consumed political energy for over a decade and received massive national and international attention and yet there are far more pressing concerns for the nation – and its political leaders.  Instead this bill, which carries the marks of both political and moral corruption has been the main focus of the president and congress. At the very least this suggests a questionable sense of priority, at worst a gross lack of interest in the welfare of the Filipino people.  [i] Villegas, Socrates B., ‘Contraception is Corruption!’, CBCP News, 15 December 2012,

It should be remembered that other values within the 1987 constitution include ecological balance and the recognition of the role of women, [i] both of which are advanced by giving women access to birth control. Pork barrel politics is an all too real tradition of Filipino politics, it is hardly unique to this bill. The fact that its use lead to the implementation of a policy that enjoys popular support is difficult to square with the somewhat wild claims of the Church about corruption. The CBCP has also been fairly free on allegations in this regard but very, very short on proof. The amount of political pressure required had more to do with calming fears of the Catholic establishment intervening directly in elections than with the views of the people.  [i] Talisayon, Serafin D., ‘Teaching values in the natural and physical sciences in the Philippines’, University of the Philippines,

The appropriate setting for sexual relations is within marriage, contraception encourages pre-marital sex  The population of the Philippines are overwhelmingly Catholic, it seems reasonable to accept that many, if not most, accept the teaching of the Church that safe sex is married sex. Appropriate sexual relations between husband and wife can lead to a fulfilling family life including children.  However, freely available contraception leads to a rise in premarital sex with the rises in unwanted pregnancies that go along with that. In the US, women having premarital sex increased from 2% in 1920 to 75% in 1999, a period that saw a massive increase in the availability of contraception [i] .. This runs against the teaching of the Church, which, itself, is one of the cornerstones of Filipino culture.  The first Mass was celebrated in 1521 and by the early 1600s, Catholicism was unquestionably the countries’ dominant creed [ii] . The teaching of the Church on this issue is absolutely clear – and for four centuries those have been the values of the Filipino people. This bill undermines that understanding, it will lead to an increase in pre-marital sex with devastating consequences for, particularly, the young people of the archipelago [iii] . There is a reason why the Church argues against contraception and those values – that sex should take place within marriage, are deeply ingrained in the Filipino way of life.  [i] Greenwood, Jeremy and Nezih Guner “Social Change: The Sexual Revolution.” Population Studies Center PSC Working Paper Series University of Pennsylvania.2009   [ii] Wikipedia. Roman Catholicism in the Philippines.  [iii] Bishop Filomeno Bactol, ‘Naval diocese continues fight against RH’,. CBCP News., 23 December 2012,

It is simply untrue to suggest that Catholic hegemony is one and the same as Filipino values and that the two are – or have ever been – indistinguishably intertwined. Even where popular support for this very bill not sufficient proof, the very fact that the Filipino constitution states quite clearly that there is a division between the secular and ecclesiastical should be enough [i] .  [i] Constitution of the Philippines. Article III (Bill of Rights). Section Five.

The bill violates the Philippine values of harmony and respect  Perhaps the most important values in the Philippines are social harmony and respect for the family. [i] The Reproductive Health bill undermines both. Allowing contraception will take away a psychological barrier that prevents pre-marital or casual sex and once that barrier is crossed the individual will have higher sexual activity. [ii] In the Philippines this will mean greater numbers of teen pregnancies and pregnancies out of marriage because abortion will remain illegal.  In terms of politics these values mean support for democracy but also being against corruption and graft. [iii] Obviously the bill has been very politically divisive so undermining social harmony but also to pass this bill many parliamentarians had to be bribed so undermining this social harmony. The Reproductive Health bill represents the worst excesses of the pork barrel buffet. With a single-mindedness of purpose, the presidential palace has put everything on the table to shore up the votes required in parliament. Legislators, who had previously voted against the legislation, often repeatedly, where threatened with the loss of programmes in their constituencies if they failed to back the project, which has been at the heart of the presidential agenda [iv] .  [i] Dolan, Ronald E., ed., Philippines: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1991.   [ii] Arcidiacono, Peter, et al., ‘Habit Persistence and Teen Sex: Could Increased Access to Contraception have Unintended Consequences for Teen Pregnancies’,  P.30  [iii] Talisayon, Serafin D., ‘Teaching values in the natural and physical sciences in the Philippines’, University of the Philippines,   [iv] Philippine Daily Inquirer. Philip Tubeza. ‘Philippine President accused of ‘bribing’ Congress’. Reported on Yahoo News 19 December 2012.

It is difficult to see how the life of anyone is improved by reducing sex to a cheap form of entertainment. Certainly not the unborn children and not the objectified women. Proposition is more than happy for women to take control of their own fertility – indeed we would go further and suggest that their boyfriends and husbands should do so as well. Recreational sex, within wedlock and during times of infertility removes all of these problems; a little planning and restraint achieves that aim. It also means that both parents need to show that they are responsible for the results; Op seems happy to say that people are uncontrollable beasts with no control over their desires – hardly an edifying concept.

Opposition have conveniently glossed over one critical issue in this debate – that the RH Bill has significant popular support [i] . It also, as has been demonstrated that a majority of elected representatives support it. In itself these two facts provide evidence that modern Filipinos are sick of the fact that around half of the 3.4 million pregnancies each year are unplanned or the atrocious reality that 90,000 women a year seek the help of back street abortionists. When many of these go wrong, they were denied access to medical care and around 1,000 die each year as a result [ii] .  The values for the respect for the life of the mother, the value of life of the child, respect for the opinions of the majority, respect for democracy and placing the future of individuals and society above the outdated mythology of the Church would seem to be alive and well in the decision to pass this bill.  [i] Rauhala, Emily, ‘Culture Wars: After a decade of debate, the Philippines passes Reproductive Health Bill’, Time, 17 December 2012.   [ii] Ibid.

There are clear and proven benefits to the health of the Filipino families, especially women  Both sides of this debate have spoken about the need to respect the rights and lives of women. It is, however, difficult to see how exactly opponents of the legislation reconcile this with their actions. Decades’ worth of research demonstrates that educational, health and nutritional levels all fall once a family outgrows its means. In the slums of Manila that research is unnecessary as it is all too apparent at a glance. However the research is there [i] to provide grisly commentary to the narrative folding out on the streets.  Investigations on a personal, national and global level demonstrate that effective family planning is at the heart of eradicating poverty [ii] . When families have less children they are more able to afford better education for those they do have and have a greater incentive to do so as they need their child to be able to support them when they are retired. [iii] Proposition is keen that this money should have been spent on eradicating poverty – they fail to realise, deliberately or otherwise, that that is exactly what it is being spent on.  [i] Rauhala, Emily, ‘The Philippines’ Birth Control Battle’, Time, 6 June 2008.   [ii] Brown, Lester, ‘Smart Family Planning Improves Women’s Health and Reduces Poverty’, guardian.co.uk 14 April 2011.   [iii] Merrick, Thomas, W., ‘Population and P{overty: New Views on an Old Controversy’, International Family Planning Perspectives, Vol.28, No.1, March 2002,

Any body of values that claims to respect the rights of the individual must recognise the right of a woman to choose  Even the doctrines of the Church accepts that pregnancy is not, in and of itself, a virtue – there is no compulsion to maximise the number of pregnancies; there is simply a disagreement about how they should be avoided. The Church recommends that couples may minimise the chance without ever making it impossible through a chemical or physical barrier.  In some parts of the world a pregnancy, even one that is not planned, is seen as a time for joy – a blessing for the family that will lead to a new and happy life bringing pleasure to both parents, their society and the child. That ideal is very far from the experience of much of the world where a child is another mouth to feed on impossibly little income. For all too much of the world, that life will be cruel, nasty and short. In slums, favellas and barren wastes that life is likely to be one marked more by dysentery or diarrhea, malnutrition and misery than by the sanitised, idealised image promoted in the West. That is, of course, not to say that children everywhere cannot be a cause for joy, of course they can. Indeed even within the poorest of situations, a new child can be the focus of great joy in an otherwise hard life.  However, if that is to be the case, that child must be planned and prepared for. Overwhelmingly, the mother is likely to have paramount responsibility for the child; so that planning and preparation needs to be theirs. It is difficult to imagine the scenario that would reach the objective observer to reach the conclusion that the right group of individuals to reach that decision were a group of celibate men who had never met the parents and would take to role in the care or support of the child. Yet that, astonishingly, is what Proposition would like us to believe.

This is a victory for democracy – a precious Filipino value - clear majorities in both houses and in the wider public support it  Opposition have conveniently glossed over one critical issue in this debate – that the RH Bill has significant popular support [i] . It also, as has been demonstrated that a majority of elected representatives support it. In itself these two facts provide evidence that modern Filipinos are sick of the fact that around half of the 3.4 million pregnancies each year are unplanned or the atrocious reality that 90,000 women a year seek the help of back street abortionists. When many of these go wrong, they were denied access to medical care and around 1,000 die each year as a result [ii] .  The values for the respect for the life of the mother, the value of life of the child, respect for the opinions of the majority, respect for democracy and placing the future of individuals and society above the outdated mythology of the Church would seem to be alive and well in the decision to pass this bill.  [i] Rauhala, Emily, ‘Culture Wars: After a decade of debate, the Philippines passes Reproductive Health Bill’, Time, 17 December 2012.   [ii] Ibid.

Different systems of matrimony can easily co-exist. Arranged marriages encourage family over individualism, placing emphasis on a more considerate view of relationships that encourages development and patience rather than Hollywood romance. It is however not a rejection of western values to practice arranged marriages.  As pointed out by those who have written extensively on arranged marriages, [1] people in them often have a view of relationships that sees their spouse as a companion and source of support, but not as their only source of happiness. Learning to love a spouse as opposed to being with someone with whom there already exists a romantic interest can mean learning to value smaller gestures rather than having overblown expectations from a relationship.  The notion that all marriages have to be based on clichéd and unrealistic notions of love is delusional and deeply flawed. The fact that so few marriages measure up to the conventional Western ideal could help to explain why divorce rates are so high upon non-arranged marriages. In societies that claim to be plural and tolerant, contrasting views of marriage existing side-by-side should surely be encouraged.  [1] ‘Would you be happier in an arranged marriage?’ Redbook.com -  (accessed 20 September 2012)

marriage society gender family house would ban arranged marriages eu countries

Integration and the acceptance of Western values are important  Arranged marriages have not been a part of the cultures of most European countries for many years now. Part of the reason for this is because ideas about marriage have become more progressive, with people accepting that men and women of any orientation should be allowed to choose their own partners. This was even the case during the socially conservative era of the 1950s, when it was generally accepted in countries like Britain that people would court and meet their partners independently of their parents. [1]  Arranged marriages also conform to a view of women in particular which regards them as chattel. This does not fit in with the type of egalitarianism many European countries seek to practice, and thus does not conform to Western notions of individual rights. [2] It is also hypocritical to adopt a double-standard with diaspora communities, turning a blind eye to practices which many other majority groups find reprehensible. The rights and norms of a country of block of countries such as the EU must apply to all.  [1] Cook, Hera, ‘No Turning Back: Family forms and sexual mores in modern Britain,’ History &amp; Policy -  (accessed on 19 September 2012)  [2] ‘Human Rights with Reference to Women,’ UKEssays.com -  (accessed on 19 September 2012)

Domestic violence is hardly exclusive to arranged partnerships. Surely focusing exclusively on arranged marriages is missing the point somewhat. Domestic violence, especially against women, pervades many relationships across many European countries. There are just as many arranged marriages that are abuse-free, just as is the case with non-arranged marriages. To be logically coherent, the natural conclusion of the proposition’s argument would be to ban every kind of relationship so as to completely eliminate the risk of domestic violence.  One can find numerous examples to illustrate this. One is that of Sai Srinivasan and Uma Viswanathan, who were brought together by their families, each with the choice of rejecting the other if they felt there was no fit, and have had a happy union ever since. [1]  More resources should therefore be channelled towards addressing violence against women (and men) in relationships of any sort – not simply targeting those that have more uninformed ‘western’ prejudices attached to them.  [1] Black, Lisa, ‘Arranged – not forced - marriages a good match in many cultures,’ Chicago Tribune, 27 July 2011 -

Individual Freedom  Even if marriages are not made absolutely mandatory, covert family pressure can still propel people into unions where they will be unhappy. This is a form of restricted liberty as the consequences of people rebelling against arranged marriages can include being forced to leave home or suffering stigmatisation and reduced contact with family members. The stigma may also be the other way with the family feeling shame when their children reject their arrangements this in turn can lead to attempts at compulsion and even some cases like that of Shafilea Ahmed murder for the rejection of the marriage. [1] Clearly there is a thin line between arranged and forced marriages. Although things like stigmatisation are harder to police than physical intimidation or violence, it is only right that the state steps in to regulate these harms, giving people the legal mandate to challenge the practice as well as to discourage relatives from attempting it from the outset.  [1] Carter, Helen, ‘Shafilea Ahmed killed by parents for bringing shame on family, court hears’, guardian.co.uk, 21 May 2012,

Such understandings of arranged marriages are insensitive and misleading. The reality of many arranged marriages is far from the one presented here. Often individuals do have a say in who they marry, and although parents may make the first move in introducing the potential bride and groom, many would not insist the marriage go ahead if the two personalities do not sync. [1] Parents often see it as a partnership between themselves and their children to decide who would be a future suitable spouse, with all sides having a say in the arrangement.  Arranged marriages are also a cultural norm in many societies, and to impose an outright ban on such an entrenched practice with so many nuances and variations would be a deeply insulting and ignorant gesture.  [1] Acharya Ingrum, Pri, ‘The Reality of Arranged Marriages’ -  (accessed on 21 September 2012)

Women in arranged marriages in Europe are disproportionately likely to suffer abuse  Arranged marriages are often different when practiced in the home countries of many immigrant families in Europe, where women often have networks of friends and relatives to rely on. The danger with allowing arranged marriages to happen in EU countries are that the women at the centre are often far more vulnerable, away from their own family, unfamiliar with the local language and fully reliant on their husband’s family. This makes it easier for domestic abuses to go undetected which is simply compounding problems of underreporting. [1] It is therefore likely that there is more domestic violence within arranged marriages. [2]  This is shown even amongst women who still consented to arranged marriages but faced abuse from their husbands – such as with the case of Razia Sodagar, whose husband abandoned her for another woman after she failed to fall pregnant. [3]  This illustrates how it is not always easy to draw a clear division between arranged marriages and forced marriages, as the former can often bear the same characteristics as the latter. It would therefore be safer to outlaw both.  [1] ‘Ethnic domestic violence ‘hidden’’, BBC News, 20 September 2007,   [2] Gotrik, Jennifer, ‘India domestic abuse more common in ‘arranged’ marriages’, Womennewsnetwork, 12 September 2011,   [3] ‘Fighting Arranged Marriage Abuse,’ BBC, 12 July 1999 -

When the harm spills over into society, the personal becomes public. Arranged marriages do pose provable harms to the women of diaspora communities in the European Union. In such situations where vulnerable individuals are at risk, the state has a right to step in. This is already the case in other issues linked to inter-marital relations, such as the criminalisation of rape within marriage in Britain. [1]  Although the threats posed by arranged marriages are not always so clear-cut, the fact that within them they contain the potential for women to be abused and ill-treated means that state intervention is required. The harm that could arise as a result is that of continued threats to women in African and Asian ex-patriot communities across the EU.  [1] ‘Guideline on rape: in marriage or by a partner,’ Rape Crisis -  (accessed 23 September 2012)

The new laws can set a precedent, even if it takes time. Bringing into practice such a law would arguably help send a message that certain practices do not sync with the sorts of societies European countries try to forge – this includes cases of Female Genital Mutilation, honour killings and forced marriages. Although the law is likely to be hard to police initially, in time it could allow for greater respect for values about the rights of individuals to be adopted by diaspora communities in Europe. ­­­­­ Other countries have adopted measures that are equally as far-reaching, such as the banning of wearing religious symbols in French schools. [1] Countries outside of Europe demand that ex-patriot Europeans within their borders comply with specific laws that arte designed to benefit the whole nation. It is therefore hardly unreasonable for EU countries to do the same.  [1] ‘French Scarf Ban Comes into Force,’ BBC, 2 September 2004 -

It will cause resentment and make certain communities feel targeted.  Arranged marriages are seen as a very important aspect of the identity of lots of Euro-Asian communities. At a time when tensions between non-Muslims and Muslims in Europe are high enough, for example there were protests in London against the film innocence of Muslims, [1] targeting a practice carried out by many Muslim families could help extremist tendencies to flare up. It is important not try and cloak laws that are little more than blind intolerance with terms that make them seem like secular liberalism. Attempting to ban practices like wearing the veil in the name of inclusion have been proven to only inflame tensions, not improve integration. [2] Banning arranged marriages outright would therefore not only be intolerant, but potentially dangerous.  [1] Walker, Paul, ‘Anti-US protesters in London condemn controversial film’, guardian.co.uk, 16 September 2012,   [2] Younge, Gary, ‘Europe: Hotbed of Islampobic Extremism,’ 14 June 2012 -

The state should not be allowed to intrude in such personal matters  Matters relating to how individuals conduct themselves in a private and consensual environment are arguably not the concern of the state. This extends to how people get married and within which tradition, religion or denomination. European states are increasingly allowing non-traditional marriages such as gay marriages [1] so not allowing arranged marriages for those who want them would be a perverse step backwards. Given that arranged marriages in themselves do not have any proven harms, and that, as it has already been asserted, the harmful side of arranged marriages, like forced marriages have already been outlawed, the state cannot keep regulating something with such an arbitrary and wide-ranging definition that includes so many consenting adults.  Were EU states to do this, the harm caused would risk infringing on the very rights of the people the proposition claims they are meant to be protecting in the first place.  [1] ‘Countries Where Gay Marriage Is Legal: Netherlands, Argentina &amp; More, The Daily Beast, 9 May 2012,

It’s impossible to police such a law.  There is simply no feasible way of enforcing laws against arranged marriages, particularly as it is almost guaranteed that many communities will continue to practice them regardless. It will be impossible to tell whether a marriage has been started by arrangement if the community and the couple are unwilling to go to the police and most will be unwilling to report their own families when practicing a cultural tradition. Those who are deeply dissatisfied and beaten may do so but in this instance the law already allows divorce and abuse is punishable by the full force of the law.  Given that forced marriages have already been outlawed and that it has been established that arranged marriages in themselves cause few provable harms, the resources of any police force would arguably be wasted on enforcing such a law; investigations would be very intrusive and labour intensive.  Furthermore, given the continuation of practices like honour killings, [1] as well as rape and domestic violence, law enforcement personnel would be better placed targeting far more heinous crimes than arranged marriages. A tangible harm could arise from the police being made to direct their energies towards such minor misdemeanours, in that there could be fewer resources available for more serious crimes.  [1] ‘Europe Grapples with “Honour Killings,” DW.de -  (accessed 17 September 2012)

You can extend that argument to any kind of illiberal practice. The same could easily be said of practices like FGM. Choosing not to ban certain traditions just because they are culturally entrenched could be extended to anything, from slavery to torture. The fact of the matter is that some practices simply cannot be allowed. There are already cases where the police choose not to intervene in cases of domestic violence where a south  Asian family is involved, giving rise to claims that they feel to timid to bring the same laws into practice for fear of infringing upon the cultural practices of minorities. [1] Furthermore, many writers like Pragna Patel [2] have claimed that the more illiberal elements of communities such as the South Asian diaspora are merely fabrications designed to oppress women. It is important not to fall into the trap of condoning practices that have no place in any society by allowing them to shelter behind the veil of ‘cultural differences.’  [1] Patel, Pragna, ‘The Use and Abuse of Honour-Based Violence in the UK,’ Open Democracy,6 June 2012 -   [2] Ibid.,

Outright banning this kind of prejudice does not directly tackle it – it ignores it. A better way for the government to tackle derogatory and prejudicial speech is to engage with it in a public forum and reasonably point out the flaws and ignorance that it embodies, rather than desperately trying to hide it from public view. In this way, those who are being attacked by these websites would feel as if the government is actively protecting them and their rights and punishing those who have violated them, rather than simply closing a few websites and allowing their authors to continue in other ways. This motion does not solve the problem of prejudice in the way it claims to.

censorship ip internet digital freedoms access information house would censor

The government here may legitimately limit ‘free speech’.  We already set boundaries on what constitutes ‘free speech’ within our society. For example, we often endorse a ‘balancing act’ [1] an individual may express their beliefs or opinions, but only up to the point where it does not impede the ‘protection of other human rights’ [2] – other peoples’ right not to be abused. In this case, if an individual expresses abuse towards another – especially racism - they may be deemed to be outside of the boundaries or free speech and can be punished for it. This motion is simply an extension of this principle; the kinds of sites which would be banned are those which perpetuate hatred or attack other groups in society, an so already fall outside of the protection of free speech. The harms that stem from these kinds of sites outweigh any potential harm from limiting speech in a small number of cases.  [1] Hera.org, ‘Freedom of Expression’, Human Rights Education Association,  on 09/09/11  [2] Hera.org, ‘Freedom of Expression’, Human Rights Education Association,  on 09/09/11

Given the number of people who actually use Facebook [1] and other social networking sites, these occurrences were remarkably small [2] . These riots cannot be attributed to Facebook; it was the mindset of the rioters rather than Facebook itself which provided the raw determination for these riots to occur. If Facebook had been censored, they may have simply used mobile phones to co-ordinate their actions instead. Censoring these sites would not prevent such events, and would anger those who use Facebook to communicate with friends [3] and share photos [4] innocently.  [1] BBC News, ‘Facebook hits 500m user milestone’, 21 July 2010,  09/09/11.  [2] BBC News, ‘UK Riots: Trouble erupts in English cities’, 10 August 2011,  on 09/09/11.  [3] Santos, Elena, “The ultimate social network”, softonic,  on 09/09/11.  [4] Santos, Elena, “The ultimate social network”, softonic,  on 09/09/11.

Governments have a moral duty to protect its citizens from harmful sites.  In recent years, supposedly innocent sites such as social networking sites have been purposely used to harm others. Victims of cyber bullying have even led victims to commit suicide in extreme cases [1] [2] . Given that both physical [3] and psychological [4] damage have occurred through the use of social networking sites, such sites represent a danger to society as a whole. They have become a medium through which others express prejudice, including racism, towards groups and towards individuals [5] . Similarly, if a particularly country has a clear religious or cultural majority, it is fair to censor those sites which seek to undermine these principles and can be damaging to a large portion of the population. If we fail to take the measures required to remove these sites, which would be achieved through censorship, the government essentially fails to act on its principles by allowing such sites to exist. The government has a duty of care to its citizens [6] and must ensure their safety; censoring such sites is the best way to achieve this.  [1] Moore, Victoria, ‘The fake world of Facebook and Bebo: How suicide and cyber bullying lurk behind the facade of “harmless fun”’, MailOnline, 4 August 2009,  on 16/09/11  [2] Good Morning America, ‘Parents: Cyber Bullying Led to Teen’s Suicide’, ABC News, 19 November 2007,  on 16/09/11  [3] BBC News, ‘England riots: Two jailed for using Facebook to incite disorder’, 16 August 2011,  on 16/09/11.  [4] Good Morning America, ‘Parents: Cyber Bullying Led to Teen’s Suicide’, ABC News, 19 November 2007,  on 16/09/11  [5] Counihan, Bella, ‘White power likes this – racist Facebook groups’, The Age, 3 February 2010,  on 16/09/11  [6] Brownejacobson, ‘Councils owe vulnerable citizens duty of care’, 18 June 2008,  09/09/11

While in a tiny minority of cases, such social networking sites can be used malevolently, they can also be a powerful force for good. For example, many social networking pages campaign for the end to issues such as domestic abuse [1] and racism [2] , and Facebook and Twitter were even used to bring citizens together to clean the streets after the riots in the UK in 2011. [3] Furthermore, this motion entails a broader move to blanket-ban areas of the internet without outlining a clear divide between what would be banned and what would not. For example, at what point would a website which discusses minority religious views be considered undesirable? Would it be at the expression of hatred for nationals of that country, in which case it might constitute hate speech, or not until it tended towards promoting action i.e. attacking other groups? Allowing censorship in these areas could feasibly be construed as obstructing the free speech of specified groups, which might in fact only increase militancy against a government or culture who are perceived as oppressing their right to an opinion of belief [4] .  [1] BBC News, ‘Teenagers’ poem to aid domestic abuse Facebook campaign’, 4 February 2011,  on 16/09/11  [2] Unframing Migrants, ‘meeting for CAMPAIGN AGAINST RACISM’, facebook, 19 October 2010,  on 16/09/2011.  [3] BBC News, ‘England riots: Twitter and Facebook users plan clean-up.’ 9 August 2011,  on 16/09/11.  [4] Marisol, ‘Nigeria: Boko Haram Jihadists say UN a partner in “oppression of believers”’, JihadWatch, 1 September 2011,  on 09/09/11

Any information from television or newspapers has already been regulated, so it is not a problem that it may now appear somewhere on the internet. It is exactly because the internet is a forum for free information and expression that so many people engage with it; removing this is a dictatorial move against ordinary citizens who seek information without bias and undue censorship.

Even sites that appeared innocent have had a devastating effect on society.  Some governments, such as the Vietnamese government [1] , have already seen sufficient cause to ban social networking sites such as Facebook. Recently in the UK, many major cities witnessed devastation and destruction as social networking sites were used to co-ordinate wide-scale riots which rampaged over London, Manchester, Birmingham, Worcestershire, Gloucester, Croydon, Bristol, Liverpool and Nottingham [2] . Rioters contacted each other through Facebook and blackberry instant messenger to ensure that they could cause maximum damage [3] , which resulted in the destruction of property [4] , physical violence towards others [5] , and even the deaths of three young men [6] . These events prove that seemingly innocent Internet sites can be used by anybody, even apparently normal citizens, to a devastating effect which has caused harm to thousands [7] . To protect the population and maintain order, it is essential that the government is able to act to censor sites that can be used as a forum and a tool for this kind of behaviour when such disruption is occurring.  [1] AsiaNews.it, ‘Internet censorship tightening in Vietnam’, 22 June 2010,  09/09/11  [2] BBC News, ‘England Riots’, 8 February 2012,  on 09/09/11  [3] BBC News, ‘England riots: Two jailed for using Facebook to incite disorder’, 16 August 2011,  on 09/09/11  [4] Hawkes, Alex, Garside, Juliette and Kollewe, Julia, ‘UK riots could cost taxpayer £100m’, guardian.co.uk, 9 August 2011,  on 09/09/11.  [5] Allen, Emily, ‘We will use water cannons on them: At last Cameron orders police to come down hard on the looters (some aged as young as NINE)’, Mail Online, 11 August 2011,  on 09/09/11.  [6] Orr, James, ‘Birmingham riots: three men killed ‘protecting homes’’, The Telegraph, 10 August 2011,  on 09/09/11.  [7] Huffington Post, ‘UK Riots: What Long-Term Effects Could They Have?’, 10 August 2011,  on 09/09/11.

As an extensive form of media, the Internet should be subject to regulation just as other forms of media are.  Under the status quo, states already regulate other forms of media that could be used malevolently. Newspapers and books are subject to censorship [1] , and mediums such as television, film and video receive a higher degree of regulation [2] because it is widely recognised that moving pictures and sound can be more emotive and powerful than text and photographs or illustrations. The internet has many means of portraying information and opinion, including film clips and sound, and almost all the information found on television or in newspapers can be found somewhere on the internet [3] , alongside the millions of uploads from internet users themselves [4] .  [1] Foerstel, Herbert N., ‘Banned in the Media’, Publishing Central,  on 09/09/11  [2] CityTVweb.com, ‘Television censorship’, 27 August 2007,  on 09/09/11.  [3] Online Newspapers Directory for the World, ‘Thousands of Newspapers Listed by Country &amp; Region’,  on 09/09/11  [4] Boris, Cynthia, ’17 Percent of Photobucket Users Upload Video’s Once a Day’, Marketing Pilgrim, 9 September 2011,  on 09/09/11

Governments are often obliged to do things that the population doesn’t like – raising taxes is an obvious example. However, it is also recognised that sometimes the government has to do these things in order to represent the long-term, best interest of its people – whether or not it is a popular measure at the time.

We already frown upon certain forms of speech [1] as we recognise that it is important to protect groups form prejudice and hatred. Allowing the expression of hatred does not automatically mean that ordinary people will denounce it as evil; rather, it normalises hatred and is more likely to be acceptable in the public domain. It also appears to show implicit acceptance or even support from the government when we take no steps to prevent this kind of damaging expression; as such, the government fails in its duty to ordinary citizens to protect them and represent their best interests.  [1] Tatchell, Peter, ‘Hate speech v free speech’, guardian.co.uk, 10 October 2007,  on 09/09/11.

The Internet is a free domain and cannot becontrolled by the government.  Given that the Internet is used as an international [1] and public space [2] , the government has no right over the information which may be presented via the Internet. In Western liberal democracies, governments are elected on the basis by which they can serve their own country – how they will create or maintain laws that pertain specifically to that nation, and how they will govern the population. The Internet is not country-specific, but international and free. As such, no individual government should have a right to the information on it. Asserting false authority over the internet would paint the government as dictatorial and a ‘nanny state’ [3] , demonstrating a lack of respect for its citizens by assuming that they cannot protect themselves or recognise the nature of extremist or potentially harmful sites and take the individual decision to distance themselves from such sites.  [1] Babel, ‘Towards communicating on the Internet in any language’,   [2] Papacharissi, Zizi, ‘The virtual sphere’, New Media &amp; Society, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp 9-27, February 2002,  on 09/09/11  [3] BBC. ‘A Point of View: In defence of the nanny state’. Published 04/02/2011. Accessed from  on

People often react poorly to being censored by their governments.  In countries that do currently practice censorship of Internet information, their citizens often interpret this as suspicious and dictatorial behaviour. For example, in China growing discontent with the government’s constant censorship has led to public outrage [1] , and political satire which heavily criticises the government [2] . Censorship can easily be used malevolently and is not always in public interest; this motion supports the ignorance of the population by hiding information and the reality of the situation. Therefore the cost of suspicion by the population of the state makes censorship of any kind less than worthwhile and it is better to allow individuals to make their own choices.  [1] Bennett, Isabella, ‘Media Censorship in China’, Council on Foreign Relations, 7 March 2011,  on 09/09/11  [2] Bennett, Isabella, ‘Media Censorship in China’, Council on Foreign Relations, 7 March 2011,  on 09/09/11.

Censorship is fundamentally incompatible with the notion of free speech.  Censoring particular material essentially blinds the public to a complete world view by asserting the patronising view that ordinary citizens simply cannot read extreme material without recognising the flaws in it. This motion assumes that those who have access to material such as religious opinion sites will be influenced by it, rather than realising that it is morally dubious and denouncing it. The best way to combat prejudice is to expose it as a farce; this cannot be done if it is automatically and unthinkingly censored. Meanwhile, it is paradoxical for a government to assert the general benefits of free speech and then act in a contradictory and hypocritical manner by banning certain areas of the Internet. Free speech should not be limited; even if it is an expression of negativity, it should be publicly debated and logically criticised, rather than hidden altogether.

The Internet may be a global resource, but if information on it is have a detrimental effect upon a particular country, it certainly is that government’s responsibility and right to tackle it. If it affects their society and the citizens within it, it affects the government and the means by which they can govern, particularly in relation to social policy. Moreover these websites, and specifically religious opinion websites, often seek to ‘recruit’ others to their school of thought or even to action; their purpose is often to gather support and followers [1] . Therefore there certainly is a risk that these people, who are often very intelligent and persuasive [2] , might lure others to them without protection by the government. It is a very real danger, and needs real protection.  [1] Kiley, Sam, ‘Terrorists ‘May Recruit On Social Networks’’, SkyNews, 12 July 2011,  on 09/09/11.  [2] Ali, Iftakhar, ‘Terrorism – The Global Menace’, Universal Journal The Association of Young Journalists and Writers,  on 09/09/11.

It is true that a society in which information is widely available to the public is desirable, but what must be recognized that this argument of “social platform publicity” encounters two main problems.  First of all, unless your information is lucky enough to go viral if you really want efficient online advertising you will have to pay for it, even when it comes to social networks. “When Facebook launched its log-out screen ads, reports suggested it was charging $700,000 for them, but in reality they came bundled with a homage ad commitment, too. Buyers say they’re now selling log-out ads standalone for around $100,000.”(1). As a result, you can hardly call them “free”.  Secondly, online advertising comes merely as a back-up or as an addition to full-time campaign ads. No matter what kind of event we are talking about, if it is of general interest, the information will be distributed to the population. It will be either promoted by the company itself, if we are talking about a massive price discount for the new Toyota, or by the local or national media, if we are talking about a concert or a sporting event. The information will be more efficiently transmitted through advertising mechanisms, as this allows the targeting of certain groups of individuals who are interest in those events rather than relying on people stumbling onto a Facebook page. For example posting an ad announcing a new soccer competition in a sports magazine will be more effective as we know the readers will be interested. There are other means which serve the purpose of promoting information, the promoters will pick the best ones, which may or may not mean Facebook.  (1) Jack Marshall “What Online Ads Really Cost”, February 22, 2013

computers phones internet society youth digital freedoms privacy house would join

Facebook provides an information point  Undoubtedly, one of the most important aspects which will influence your efforts to improve your life is your ability to take advantage of every opportunity which comes up. Obviously, one of the, if not the, best way to do this is to stay connected with the world around you, this enables you to be able to quickly find out about job opportunities, sporting competitions or social events in your area. Facebook created and developed an efficient, extremely widely visited platform on which millions of users can get in touch with each other. This can prove to be an extremely useful tool both for companies or event planners and direct customers. No matter if we are talking about Google's new hiring policy or Toyota's new discount, an upcoming music festival or a football tournament for amateur players, Facebook is informing the individuals about these events, keeping them connected with their community.  Social networks are more efficient to serving this purpose than other more conventional means like TV commercials because it is free. A very good example of this is the Kony 2012 campaign, which informed the people about the atrocities that happened in Uganda at the time, mainly relying only on social media. The Youtube video telling its story has more than 98 million views and also there were more posts on Facebook about Kony on March 6th and 7th than even Apple’s new iPad or TV releases. (1) No matter if we talk about TV ads, radio commercials or billboards, the price that has to be paid in order to promote an event is a big drawback for anyone who wants to inform the population. As a result, Facebook as with other social media is the online, cheap, efficient equivalent to an info point.  (1) Kyle Willis “Kony 2012 Social Media Case Study “, March 8, 2012

There are immense problems with using Facebook to facilitate protests in oppressive regimes. Firstly, due to the anonymity of users, it would be extremely easy for government forces to disguise themselves as being protesters and find out future protest locations, thus allowing them to be one step ahead every time to crush the protest before it starts. Second of all, if all of these fail, the government could always shut down ISPs (Internet Service Providers), exactly in the way the Egyptian forces did. Their mistake was that they didn’t shut them down soon enough, but it won’t be repeated by future oppressive governments as they have the Arab Spring’s example.(1) [1]  Surely, it is of great importance that people express their opinions through any means possible, even through mass protest. For this reason, over time western societies were shaped to encourage any discontented individual to express his or her view. We allowed the media to be free, it being the so called “fourth estate” due to its ability to pinpoint and underline any problem regarding government policies or actions. There is no need for Facebook or Twitter or any kind of social network to reveal any discontent in the population as we already have the media who is doing this. All the news agencies and TV stations are always looking for the sensational, looking for places where the government has failed in order to attract audience. One of the best ways of doing this is by polling and trying to reveal any group of individuals who were either discriminated or hurt by the government. As a result, if there are the necessary reasons for people to start protesting, we shouldn’t worry about people not finding out that other individuals share their views as we have the media, one of the most influential elements of the society who is actively trying to do that.  (1) Marko Papic and Sean Noonan “Social Media as a Tool for Protest” ,Stratfor, February 3, 2011   [1] For more on this see ‘ This House would use foreign aid funds to research and distribute software that allows bloggers and journalists in non-democratic countries to evade censorship and conceal their online activities ’ and ‘ This House would incentivise western companies to build software that provides anonymity to those involved in uprisings ’

Facebook encourages socialisation  One of the most crucial elements in any child's development is the ability to socialize with peers. By having a large circle of friends to talk to and share interests, the child gains trust, self-esteem and self-confidence. If you have people to talk to when you have a problem, it is much easier to overcome any problems.  Facebook and social networks in general help teenagers on multiple levels to maintain and expand their circle of friends. Firstly, it lets you remain in touch with friends even if you are very far apart. As we live in an increasingly globalized world, friend circles tend to be broken up very easily. As a result, individuals need to be able to keep in touch in spite of the physical distance. Facebook enables them to do that. (1)  Secondly, by allowing people with shared opinions, hobbies or interests to gather, social networks allow users to expand their circle of friends, something that is more applicable the bigger the social network. Thirdly, it allows young people to spend more time with the friends and people they already know through chat conversations, shared photos or status updates. As a result, people who are engaged on these social networks have more self esteem, more confidence in them, feel more appreciated and tend to be happier in general due to their wide circle of friends. (2)  (1) Keith Wilcox and Andrew T. Stephen “Are Close Friends the Enemy? Online Social Networks, Self-Esteem, and Self-Control” Journal of Consumer Research, 2012   (2) Brittany Gentilea, Jean M. Twengeb, Elise C. Freemanb, W. Keith Campbella “The effect of social networking websites on positive self-views: An experimental investigation” 2012

On this point, there are two levels of analysis which will demonstrate that, at the end of the day, Facebook has a detrimental effect on one’s social abilities.  First of all, of course having a lot of friends has numerous advantages and it is undoubtedly beneficial to one’s development, but being active on a social network isn’t an indispensable prerequisite for this. As an individual, you can meet, talk, connect and share feelings and emotions in real life with your friends without any problems. People nowadays are not more socially bonded than before the appearance of Facebook and other social networks, because what Facebook did was merely shifting the face-to-face socialization to an online version of it. Moreover, you don’t need the “Rock Fans” group on Facebook in order to meet new people who are also interested in rock music, as you have real rock events and concerts where you can meet with people with whom you have shared interests and thus expand your friend group.  Secondly, when using social networks as a tool to socialize, teenagers tend to rely too much on them, getting comfortable chatting behind a glass monitor, but this can mean having problems exiting this comfort-zone. This happens as you feel less exposed if you are not talking to someone in person, but when you are forced to socialize in the real world you feel uncomfortable and awkward. As a result, their ability to socialize is diminished even more.

Facebook is good for democracy  Social networks aid our society on multiple levels, one of them being the democratic process. This happens both in autocracies, where the democratic process is basically nonexistent and in western liberal democracies where Facebook acts as a megaphone for the will of the population.  Firstly, when talking about oppressive regimes, Facebook allows the population to organize themselves in massive protests which can, in time, overthrow the government. This is of particular importance as the population cannot organize protests "offline" in the real world, because government forces would quickly find them and stop the protests before they even started. These people need a safe house, where government intervention is minimized, so that they can spread the news and organize the protests. The online environment is the best options. We have seen this happening in the Arab Spring(1), Brazil (2), Turkey(3) as well as for protests in democracies as in Wisconsin(4)  For western liberal democracies too Facebook plays a very important role in aiding the democratic process. Even in a democracy the government often engages in unpopular policies. Unfortunately, as we are talking about countries with tens of millions of people, citizens often feel they can’t make a difference. Luckily, here's where Facebook comes in. It connects all the people who share the same disapproval of government actions, removing the feeling that you can do nothing as there is no one backing you. Millions can come together to voice their opinions. Therefore there is more likely to be dissent. Moreover, the internet allowed individuals to start massive campaigns of online petition gathering, which they will later use as an irrefutable argument to the government showing the desire for change. There are a lot of sites, one of the biggest being Avaaz.org which facilitates this process, which use Facebook as a medium through which the petition is shared and so grows.  (1) Sonya Angelica Diehn “Social media use evolving in Egypt”, DW , 04.07.2013   (2) Caroline Stauffer “Social media spreads and splinters Brazil protests”, Reuters ,June 22, 2013   (3) “Activists in Turkey use social media to organize, evade crackdown As protests continue across Turkey against the government”   (4)Wikipedia

On this point, it may be true that children who get distracted easily use Facebook as an excuse not to study, but that doesn’t mean that social networks are the cause of this phenomenon. These children tend to use them as social networks are very accessible. Almost every single moment you are surrounded by technology that can connect to social networking sites; a smartphone, a laptop or a computer, which you can use to log in on Facebook. Even if it weren’t for these social networks, those kids would likely still be getting 20% worse grades than other students, as they would just find other activities to replace it with. There will be no change in their mentality, perception of learning or process of decision making.  If the student is using Facebook at least there is a chance they are using it productively, for example, by participating in a Facebook group created by a professor for students of a particular class, then the social network may have a positive influence.  Moreover, Facebook makes students feel socially connected, with a greater sense of community. This can be beneficial in boosting students’ self-esteem. Past studies have shown that students who are active on Facebook are more likely to participate in extra-curricular activities.(1)  (1) Julie D. Andrews “Is Facebook Good Or Bad For Students? Debate Roils On” April 28, 2011

Facebook enhances people’s lives and brings numerous advantages. Facebook provides information and social support through the creation of a network of friends; sometimes this communication will bring them into contact with material that makes them envious. The need then it to focus on the things in Facebook that are positive. It is clear that people prefer a Facebook which is concentrated around subjects of interest, friends’ updates and funny pictures rather than one which is constantly reminding them about their failures or about their acne.  Therefore, users will try to block any type of harmful information, as generally you dislike being reminded about things that make you feel bad about yourself. At the end of the day, no matter of user, the accent will always be on meeting new people, having fun and making the connection with people that you already know stronger rather than searching for reasons to be envious on other people. If life satisfaction declines when using Facebook more often then users will log in to Facebook less often, but this is far from being a reason to abandon social networks entirely. Facebook is a commercial enterprise: if it is bad for people’s life satisfaction they will vote with their feet. At the moment it is clearly perceived as being positive.

Facebook has some dangerous consequences  Facebook is becoming more and more integrated into our lives, but unfortunately the uncertainty of who is at the other end of the computer is proving to be a massive threat to our mental and physical safety.  First of all, undoubtedly, rape is one of the most serious and unforgiveable crimes anyone can commit, as it leaves permanent physical and mental scars on women. Unfortunately, Facebook is used by troubled men to take advantage of naive women. They use Facebook in order to get in touch with their victims (often posing as someone who he is not), and after they get to know each other, after he gained the victims trust he deceives her into meeting him, a mistake she’ll regret forever. As physical integrity is one of the rights most fundamental rights, and as Facebook is facilitating the violation of this right, it is absolutely clear that these social networks are detrimental to the society.(1)(2)  Secondly, another level on which Facebook is harmful is cyber bullying. It affects many adolescents and teens on a daily basis. Cyber bullying involves using technology to bully or harass another person. Sending mean Facebook messages or threats to a person, spreading rumours online or posting hurtful or threatening messages on social networking sites are just a few of the ways in which a lot of children get bullied every single day.  “Despite the potential damage of cyber bullying, it is alarmingly common among adolescents and teens. According to Cyber bullying statistics from the i-SAFE foundation:  Over half of adolescents and teens have been bullied online, and about the same number have engaged in cyber bullying. More than 1 in 3 young people have experienced cyberthreats online.”(3)  (1) Justin Davenport “Hunt for ‘Facebook rapists’ before they can strike again” London Evening Standard, 15 November 2012   (2) “Two men gang-rape girl in Kota after befriending her on Facebook”, Times of India, Aug 21, 2013   (3) Bullying Statistics

Facebook has a negative impact on learning  For many students, the constant flow of news, status updates, pictures and comments which comes through Facebook every single hour is proving to be a very distracting, which not surprisingly affects their educational progress. It negatively impacts learning. Studies show that students who checked in on social networks while studying had grades that were 20% lower than the grades of those who didn’t.(1)  A 20% difference in grades can be the difference from being awarded a scholarship at a prestigious university at being obliged to enrol in the community college, or very easily between passing and failing. Education is one of the most important things in anybody’s life as it greatly affects future prospects. Of course socialising is important as well but we should try to avoid one negatively affecting the other.  (1) Julie D. Andrews “Is Facebook Good Or Bad For Students? Debate Roils On” April 28, 2011   (2) Larry Rose ”Social Networking’s Good and Bad Impacts on Kids“ American Psychological Association August 6, 2011

Facebook is bad for life satisfaction  Every single day, there are millions of users sharing photographs, messages and comments across Facebook. Unfortunately, this type of “online socialization” that Facebook has initiated is nothing but detrimental to the teenagers, the most frequent users of the platform. The emotion which is most common when staying online is envy. “Endlessly comparing themselves with peers who have doctored their photographs, amplified their achievements and plagiarised their bons mots can leave Facebook’s users more than a little green-eyed.”(1)  Not only do they get envious, but they also lose their self esteem. As a result, they have the tendency to be isolated and find it harder to socialize and make new friends due to the bad impression they have for themselves. In a poll, 53 per cent of the respondents said the launch of social networking sites had changed their behaviour - and of those, 51 per cent said the impact had been negative.(2 ) One study also backs this statistics up by finding that the more the participants used the site, the more their life satisfaction levels declined.(3)  In conclusion, daily use of social networks has a negative effect on the health of all children and teenagers by making them more prone to anxiety, depression, and other psychological disorders.(4)  (1) “Facebook is bad for you”, The Economist, Aug 17th 2013   (2) Laura Donnelly “Facebook and Twitter feed anxiety, study finds” The Telegraph, 08 Jul 2012   (3) “Facebook use 'makes people feel worse about themselves' “, BBC News, 15 August 2013   (4) Larry Rose ”Social Networking’s Good and Bad Impacts on Kids“ American Psychological Association August 6, 2011

It is absolutely regrettable that men use Facebook in order take advantage of certain women, but we must not forget that because of these very situations Facebook and many NGO’s initiated campaigns to prevent these kind of tragedies happening again(1). Such campaigns have informed thousands of women about the dangers of meeting strangers, both the virtual world and in the real one, and how to avoid them. These campaigns both help women avoid the threat in the first place and encourage them to make sure they are protected, for example by carrying pepper spray, so at the end of the day, a significant number of women are now more protected against being rape because of these social networks. Facebook has clearly not increased the incidence of rape as statistics (2) show that the number of rape cases has dropped dramatically since the start of the world wide web.  Cyber bullying is potentially a problem. On this level too, Facebook recognized the possibility of certain teenagers posting harmful or offending information about another party so it took action in order to try and stop this from happening in the future. As Facebook officials are declaring, they will “update the training for the teams that review and evaluate reports of hateful speech or harmful content on Facebook. To ensure that our training is robust, we will work with legal experts. We will increase the accountability of the creators of content that does not qualify as actionable hate speech but is cruel or insensitive by insisting that the authors stand behind the content they create “(2). Facebook has an entire department to try to prevent such cyber bullying. Moreover Facebook is comparatively secure from cyber bullying compared to some sites; it is not anonymous and users can unfriend people and prevent people who they don’t know from accessing their profile.  (1) Facebook   (2) Federal Bureau of Investigation   (3) Facebook

Cyber attacks might be disruptive, but they do not result in destruction, violence, injury and death the same way traditional armed aggressions do. For the majority of businesses and citizens, disruptions to online baking might be very inconvenient, but they are in no way equal to actual bombings and deaths. Targeted power grids, if they result in power outages, is mostly a discomfort in contrast to actual killings and atrocities that happen during wars. Plus, the infrastructure that really matters in a conflict, such as nuclear plants or military weaponry, cannot be hacked as they are not connected to the internet [13] [14]. Developed countries might be very used to amenities and comfort of online services and computers, however, a definition of armed conflicts as acts of war is much more universal because everywhere a human life is more important than any form of comfort. This is why people have a right to life and not a right to internet.

warpeace science internet house would consider large scale cyber attack act war

Cyber attacks can do serious damage to the state  Large scale cyber attacks can result in substantial harms to the state equivalent to those of an armed attack. Many states are dependent on flawless functioning of government and financial services online, and attacking them would cause mass disruption. For example, massive cyber attacks can cause serious disruption to economy by targeting financial, banking and commercial services; they can target government websites and steal confidential information that would compromise country's security, as was the case with USA in 2007 [10]; they could target power grids and shut down infrastructure on a massive scale across the country. All these instances cause disruption and leave the targeted country vulnerable with the government unable to operate successfully. This way, for instance, a large scale cyber attack from Russia on Georgia 2008 caused massive disruption to government, banking services, and communication within and outside of the country [11]. For these reasons USA's Pentagon decided to consider a cyber attack that 'produces the death, damage, destruction or high-level disruption that a traditional military attack would cause' an act of war [12]. Given the damage of possible attacks to the state, large-scale cyber attacks should be considered an act of war.

While a modification to international law is needed in terms of acknowledging the gravity of cyber attacks, it does not mean that these should be considered acts of war. There are many things that states do that other states do not like and even find harmful, but these things are not considered to be equal with acts of war. Instead they are things that states need to reach agreements over to control. War is the last possible resort in such cases, there are other less drastic options such as sanctions to encourage the hostile state to desist.[27]  Moreover, it is not true that cyber attacks are not condemned enough. The reason that countries generally do not engage in cyber attacks openly is because of fear of international condemnation [16].

Cyber attacks are no different from traditional attacks  The world has developed along with the new digital medium. Lots of crucial business and government services have moved online. While the military modernised in relation to digital developments, a definition of an act of war has not caught up with it yet. It is now being suggested that the digital domain is the new realm of warfare for the 21st century. States have already been using cyber attacks in hostilities and as acts of aggression against each other. For instance, USA and Israel have released a virus Stuxnet that sabotaged parts of Iran's nuclear programme in 2010, followed by retaliatory cyber attacks by Iran on USA [7]. In the 1998 war over Kosovo the USA successfully hacked Serbia's air defence systems, which left Serbia vulnerable to air attacks [8] [9]. Cyber attacks are thus attacks that can be perpetrated by states against other states in an effort to weaken the other state, the same way armed attacks are used. Given these realities large scale cyber attacks should be considered acts of war.

An important thing about recognising something as an act of war is that it allows countries to retaliate. This includes military retaliation that causes human casualties, and political and economic sanctions, which impose suffering on the civilian population. The crucial difference between armed conflicts and cyber conflicts, is that in cyber attacks people, military or civilians, do not actually get killed. However, if we recognise cyber attacks as acts of war, this would allow an attacked state to retaliate with force resulting in human casualties. There is no way one could equate disruption in computer services to that of loss of human lives, therefore recognising cyber attacks as acts of war would be disproportional and unjust. Serbia's example that included human casualties following a cyber attack is not relevant as the cyber attack was as a part of a larger military attack.

Currently there is no way to legally respond to cyber attacks by other states  Currently international law on how a state can respond to cyber attacks by another state is lacking: it only covers cyber attacks during armed conflicts or those are tantamount to an armed conflict [15]. An attacked state thus has no legitimate means to respond to cyber attacks. This leaves them no option of self-defence, which is an important element in international law. Moreover, without international law regulating cyber warfare between states, there is no actual illegitimacy for cyber attacks. Despite their far-reaching and grave consequences, cyber attacks by other states do not feature heavily in the news. Few people actually know about cyber attacks between USA and Iran, which would be an unimaginable situation should these states resorted to military attacks. This apparent lack of condemnation and attention in the wider society to cyber attacks further decreases ability of the state to defend themselves or even call out an aggressor publically as there is little to fear from global opinion for such actions

A definition of aggression in traditional warfare is the act that threatens sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another state [26] – a definition which is expected to be used with cyber attacks too. It is highly unlikely to see a small scale cyber attack corresponding to this definition. For instance, taking down a media web page (as the Syrian Electronic Army did) does not threaten political independence of another state in a way that taking down all the government websites, and thus rendering the state incapable of functioning, does. Recognising that a cyber attack can be an act of war, does not mean that any cyber attack, will be considered such. In practice this same ambiguity is inherent in war – a country might consider it a casus belli if another’s military chases terrorists onto its territory but this would be similarly ambiguous if there were no casualties and it was not a direct attack.

In case of non-state actors attack, many practitioners in international law agree that the state can still retaliate in self-defence if another state is 'unwilling or unable to take effective action' to deal with attacks coming from within their territory [19]. This applies to traditional warfare, but the same way it can apply to cyberwarfare. If a country is not doing anything, or not doing enough, in order to ensure cyber security and persecute cyber attackers, then the attacked country has a right to take measures against cyber attackers.

Cyber attacks are difficult to trace  Cyber attacks are very difficult to trace as cyber attackers hide their digital tracks [20]. Cyber attackers also often launch attacks from poorly protected computers in other countries, which in no way implicates that the state was responsible for attacks – for instance, roughly 10% of spam comes from computers in China, but that is not Chinese spam [21]. The situation is different with traditional warfare, where there is evidence of weapons used, uniforms spotted, and reports of witnesses on site. Of course, we can expect states to lie about launching cyber attacks, thus China and the USA trade accusations about responsibility for cyber attacks, but there is no good way to test the truth. All of this means that an act of war would be judged based on incomplete and misleading information about another state’s involvement, threatening international peace and resulting in the loss of human life for no good reason.

Definition of a large scale cyber attack is extremely vague  Armed acts of aggression are a good method of judging if an action is an act of war because they result in actual destruction, violence and loss of human life. Cyber attacks, on the other hand, do not and thus there is no objective way to tell what scale of a cyber attack is enough to constitute an act of war. While Pentagon claims a cyber attack that is equivalent of damage caused by traditional warfare as a standard, how is it supposed to be applied if pretty much all of the cyber attacks have been bloodless [24]? For instance, stealing large amounts of confidential data from a country is a large scale cyber attack, and could have an immense economic impact, but it is bloodless and so how much damage does there need to be before it can be a casus belli? It is very difficult to measure the impact of even a very evident and intense cyber attack, as NATO found out when assessing a cyber attack on Georgia in 2008 [25]. While the Pentagon might have a nice theoretical framework, in reality there are too many unanswered (and possible impossible to answer) questions. This can lead to abuse of justifications for war and unnecessary violence.

Cyber attacks are often carried out by non-state actors  Cyber attacks are often carried out by non-state actors, such as cyberterrorists or hacktivists (social activists who hack), without any involvement of the actual state. For instance, in 2007 a massive cyber attack launched on Estonia was blamed on Russia due to the then on-going tensions between these two states [17]. However, the attacks on Estonia were generated from all over the world; and even those from Russia could not have been linked to the Russian authorities, who denied involvement. Similarly, a huge wave of cyber attacks dubbed GhostNet that compromised computers in 103 countries in 2009 was blamed on China, not the least for hacking computers of Tibetan authorities. However, it could not be conclusively proven that this was an attack perpetrated by the Chinese authorities [18]. Any retaliation against a state for a cyber attack can never be certain to be against the right target – the state should not be blamed for the actions of its individual citizens.

It is unlikely that states would freely attack other states when there is unclear evidence as to who the perpetrator was. In any country that is going to engage in military action regardless of the reason there is intense public debate this would apply all the more if the reason was novel (for instance, those on interfering against Syria's Assad's regime), so we can expect public scrutiny to apply to cyberwarfare as well.  Furthermore, there are also cases when cyber attacks can be traced to a particular country hostile country or even particular group within the country. This can happen when the country or groups within it themselves admit to the attack, as the Syrian Electronic Army, sympathetic to Assad's regime, cyber attacking USA in 2013 [22]. Or through intensive investigation. Tools to track cyber attacks are also constantly being perfected. For example, IPv6 (the latest version of the internet protocol) is the most effective at decreasing anonymity of cyber attackers [23]. So there are scenarios when cyber attackers are known and can be tracked, and the states have a right to treat them as acts of war.

Child grooming, and having a sexual relationship with a minor are already criminal offences. If that doesn’t stop a potential predator, breaking the ‘facebook law’ in the process is unlikely to. A teacher who intends to abuse a child will still find ample opportunity to do so. This law takes a powerful educational tool from the hands of good teachers while doing very little to stop bad ones from acting inappropriately.

n science internet house would ban teachers interacting students social

Electronic communication facilitates sexual misconduct.  Social networking websites have proven to be particularly effective for child grooming by pedophiles [1] . Teachers are already in a position of power and trust in the relationship with their students. Being allowed to communicate with students via facebook would greatly facilitate misconduct by a teacher who wants to start an inappropriate relationship with a student, by giving him virtually unlimited access to the students after school. In fact, many such relationships do involve some form of electronic contact1. By banning this form of communication, the law would make it harder for teachers with bad intentions to carry them through.  [1] Choo, Kim. “Online child grooming: a literature review on the misuse of social networking sites for grooming children for sexual offences” Australian Institute of Criminology. 2009.

Even assuming the child already knows about the law and therefore that online contact with their teachers is not allowed, which will often not be the case, a child will trust the authority figure closest to him. The teacher can easily convince the child that the rule is not that important or that their relationship is an exception.

A teacher-student relationship is not one between friends or equals.  According to Carol Shakeshaft an expert in sexual misconduct by teachers: “[e]ducators who use social media for personal and intimate conversations and contact are not much different from those who spend their time hanging out with students at the beach. You have to ask why a teacher would do this. The honest answer is that it rarely has anything to do with student learning. [1] ” Interacting with one’s teachers the same way as with one’s friends, sharing personal information, can only erode the respect and distance that a teacher needs in order to be an authority figure and a mentor for her young charges. Even if such ‘friendships’ were entirely innocent, they would still cast enough suspicion on the teacher-student relationship to put considerable strain on the teacher’s role as educator and their ability to do the job.  [1] Shakeshaft, Carol. “Using Social Media to Teach: Keep it Transparent, Open and Safe.” The New York Times. 19 December 2011.

This law assumes the worst of teachers and frames all teacher-student interaction in a negative way. Yet so many educators have found contact through social media to be a powerful tool in facilitating learning and expanding knowledge. It may be more appropriate to establish some guidelines for how to use such media safely and professionally, rather than banning their use altogether.

Teachers should always be careful about what they post and how they portray themselves on the internet, whether they are friends with their students or not. Such pictures might surface even if students don’t have direct access to them. An educator should lead by example and someone who is of dubious moral character may not be the best-suited person to teach at a school in the first place.

Acting as a warning signal for children at risk.  It is very difficult for a child to realize that he is being groomed; they are unlikely to know the risk1. After all, a teacher is regarded as a trusted adult. But, if the child is aware that private electronic contact between teachers and students is prohibited by law, the child will immediately know the teacher is doing something he is not supposed to if he initiates private electronic contact. This will therefore act as an effective warning sign to the child and might prompt the child to tell a parent or another adult about what is going on.

Teacher’s personal life might undermine educational message.  Access to a teacher’s private information and photos may lead to weakening her position as an educator. How can a teacher convincingly speak against smoking or substance abuse if students have access to pictures portraying the teacher themselves drinking or smoking [1] ? For example, a principal from the Bronx, who had been trying to impose a strict dress code at her school, was branded a ‘hypocrite’ by her students when a risqué photo of her was found on her facebook page [2] . And even if the teacher will be careful not to post anything inappropriate on her page, a friend or acquaintance might thereby undermining the teacher. A strict separation of personal and professional life would prevent such incidents from happening.  [1] Preston, Jennifer. ”Rules to Stop Pupil and Teacher from Getting too Social Online”. The New York Times. 17 December 2011. nytimes.com/2011/12/18/business/.../rules-to-limit-how-teachers-and-students-interact-online.html.  [2] Keneally, Megan. ”Pupils at scandal hit school post sexy Facebook shot of principal over hallways.” The Daily Mail. 5 December 2011.

This shift in the role of the teacher from educator to supervisor may actually negatively affect teachers. What if a teacher sees her students post pictures of themselves in inappropriate circumstances, drinking or smoking or scantily clad? What if she discovers cyber bullying? Does she have an obligation to intervene or contact the parents of the children involved? Might that do more harm than good? What if the teacher fails to act and a child gets hurt? Should the teacher be held professionally or legally responsible for that failure? Until clear guidelines are established on what exactly the responsibility of teachers would be in such a situation, the supervision of social media use by children should probably be left to parents rather than educators.

Even if this were a great educational tool, some kids may not have access to it. Poverty or a parent’s life style choice might leave kids without access to a computer or the internet, preventing them from joining into such online discussions. This might make them feel more isolated from their peers and leave them behind in their work. The classroom is a space where everyone can be equal and have equal access to learning. The internet may not provide equal access and may hinder some students as a result. The use of such resources may also be to the detriment of other more traditional methods. For example the teacher may feel there is less need to explain homework if anyone who has difficulties while doing the homework can simply ask over the internet.

The law would violate freedom of speech and association.  Under this law a random person who the student has never met, even a potential predator, would be allowed to send a message via facebook or twitter. And yet a teacher doing the same thing, regardless of the content of that message, would be instantly committing an offence. Every person is allowed to speak to and associate with whomever they choose. That is a fundamental right that the government is not allowed to take away [1] . A person’s status as a teacher should not be an excuse to violate their rights.  [1] Solove, Daniel. “Missouri Bans Teachers from Friending Students on Social Networking Webistes.” The Huffington Post. 02 August 2011.

The law would be hard to enforce.  It would be difficult to find out whether a student and teacher have had contact over the internet. If a teacher were having a relationship with a student, and this law was in effect, both parties would try to conceal it from others and from the authorities. There is then a question about how the state would find out about such behaviour. Would the state be allowed to access private facebook accounts, personal computers, or internet service provider records to make sure teachers and students are not communicating with each other? That would constitute a serious intrusion and privacy violation.

Teachers can be essential in supervising cyberspace.  Social media has become the primary way in which children interact with their peers. These interactions are largely unsupervised by any adult, and yet they have a fundamental impact on the development of the children involved. Adolescents use social networking websites to gage peer opinion about themselves which may subsequently influence identity formation [1] . With so much cyber bullying happening on such websites, and postings of inappropriate behaviour that may later surface to affect a student’s chances of getting into college or getting a job, it would be useful to have a teacher supervise these interactions to make sure no harm comes to the children involved.  [1] Pempek, Yermolayeva, and Calvert. ”College students social networking experiences on facebook.” Journal of Applied Developmental Pshychology. Vol. 30. 2009.

Social media can be powerful educational resources.  Many teachers have been using social media as an extension of the classroom, some of them setting up discussion pages, or allowing students to contact them about homework or things that they did not understand in the classroom, it allows the teachers to provide extra help whenever the student needs it. This keeps students interested and makes learning fun by using a tool that they are already fond of. The enormous success of tools like ‘The Khan Academy’, which uses youtube videos to deliver lectures to kids, is proof of that [1] . It also allows even those students who are too shy to speak out in class or ask for help, to participate3. Tools like facebook and twitter have the advantage of being ready-made platforms that lend themselves well to extending classroom discussions through groups, pages, pictures, and videos. Not all schools have access to the funding to set up such pages separately and not all teachers have the skills to create them. It would be a mistake for schools to dismiss their use and their value.  [1] Khan, Salman. ”Turning the Classroom Upside Down.” The Wall Street Journal. 9 April 2011.

The state wouldn’t need blanket access to teachers’ personal accounts. If suspicions arose that a teacher were breaking the law, as with all cyber-laws, the state could subpoena the information needed as proof. This law would work mainly as a deterrent for teachers to contact their students via social media. Knowing that they’d be committing an offence that could result in sanctions or losing their job, would be a strong disincentive against it.

Speech can be restricted in order to protect the vulnerable groups, like children, from harm. Such a law does not attempt to keep educators from communicating or associating with their students. It merely insures such interactions happen in an appropriate manner and forum.

Anti-ballistic missile systems are a largely unproven technology, and still have many problems that do not make them a viable option for strategic defense, at least not at present. Furthermore, there is the excessively high cost of designing and building such a system, which has been in development for 25 years. It has cost billions of dollars over the decades, including $53 billion between 2004 and 2009, the largest single line on the Pentagon’s budget for those years. For all this, only an unproven system of questionable efficacy has been produced. It would be better to stop throwing good money after bad trying to develop a technology that may never be useful. Also, even if the technology were made effective, the same technology could be used as a countermeasure by enemy countries against the interception of their missiles, making the system even less effective, if not useless (Sessler, et al., 2000). Furthermore, the system does not protect the vital interests of the United States because it angers countries like Russia, which has actually begun increasing its conventional force distributions on its Western border with the rest of Europe, and to threaten to deploy short-range nuclear missiles on its border. The political destabilization caused by the missile defense program is not worth its ephemeral benefits.

defence science science general house supports development missile defence

A strategic missile defense shield will be an effective defense against ballistic missile attacks targeted at the United States and its allies  The missile defense shield the United States intends to build is the most effective and complete ballistic missile shield ever devised. When fully armed with a complement of anti-ballistic missiles both within the United States itself, and in allied nations in Europe, the shield will be virtually impregnable to external missile attack. This means the chance of a nuclear attack succeeding against it will be very unlikely, reducing the chance not only of a full-scale nuclear war between the United States and another nuclear power, but also against missiles fired by rogue states or terrorists, the biggest threats in terms of actual use of nuclear weapons (The Economist, 2009). Technologically speaking, anti-ballistic missile missiles have developed by leaps and bounds in recent years. The current system being put into operation by the United States is the Aegis combat system, designed for deployment on US Naval vessels. This new development has served to sidestep the problems associated with ground and space-based missile defense arrays, due to the slow response time of ground missiles, and the still unfeasible orbital deployment. The sea-based defense array, furthermore, lacks the problem of the land-based system in that it does not need to be placed in countries other than the United States in order to be effective (thus avoiding the political problems of the past). Technology and diplomacy have clearly made a national missile defense system highly desirable.

Nuclear capability has historically created more stable international relations between countries, as described in the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). The United States and Russia never engaged one another in open conflict during the whole span of the Cold War, for example, for fear of setting off a nuclear cataclysm neither could survive (Waltz, 1981). MAD breaks down, however, with the advent of national missile defense systems. This is due to the fact that when a state cannot guarantee its second-strike, or even first-strike capability it becomes vulnerable. Countries without missile defense systems will be defenseless against those that have them. Furthermore, as the technology is disseminated and more countries possess missile defense systems, stability decreases as it will become a gamble as to which country can more successfully counteract the offensive and defensive missile systems of the enemy. Missile defense makes the world less, not more safe.

As a matter of principle, every country, including the United States, has the right to defend itself to the best of its technological and economic ability  The nation-state is the fundamental building block of the international system, and is recognized as such in all international treaties and organizations (Mearsheimer, 1993). States are recognized as having the right to defend themselves, and this right must extend to the possession of a strategic national missile defense system. The United States has every right to develop such a system if it will furnish a greater measure of defense for its citizens and interests. US military technology is the most advanced and prodigiously financed in the world, which is why it is generally the United States that stands at the forefront of new defense and combat systems. The National Missile Defense program is simply the newest tool in the arsenal of the world’s greatest military, whose purpose is entirely defensive. To shield itself from potential ballistic missile, and even nuclear, attack the United States has the right to build a missile shield to defend itself and its allies under its aegis. There is no principled justification for a country to not pursue defense initiatives that benefit itself and that it wishes to pursue.

It is not always within the right of a state to develop weapons and technology, since international treaties ban, for example, the development of chemical and nuclear weapons. Furthermore, when the development of weapons will be detrimental to the state that builds them, it is in their interest no to do so. In the case of national missile defense, the United States is angering several countries, particularly Russia, and potentially upsetting the balance of mutually assured destruction (Harding, 2007). Clearly more than a right to self-defense must be considered when developing new kinds of armament.

Conventional war is a nasty thing, and can be just as destructive as nuclear war, if not as immediate. The threat of war is only increased with the breaking down of MAD, as countries will be able to engage one another without fear of the existential threat of nuclear holocaust. Furthermore, if many countries have access to missile defense systems they will likely be able to employ countermeasures against their enemies’ systems, bringing the chance of nuclear weapons deployment back to the fore.

A robust missile defense shield will provide the protection previously afforded by the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction, allowing the US to dismantle much of its dangerous nuclear arsenal  With a fully functioning missile defense shield deployed, nuclear-armed ballistic missiles become obsolete, unable to ever reach their targets. This means countries’ strategic obsession with second-strike capacity, the ability to return fire with nuclear weapons should they be attacked by them (Mutually Assured Destruction), will cease to be an issue, as first-strikes are destined to be wiped out before they hit a single target. What this means is that countries with missile defense systems can feel secure without the need of retaining massive nuclear arsenals. This will alleviate the pressure to have stockpiles of warheads and will promote disarmament. Mutually Assured Destruction has become a far less secure strategy as nuclear proliferation has occurred to states with different strategic conceptions. This has been seen in the United States, which since its full adoption of the Aegis system has actively pursued a policy of reaching a new accord with Russia on nuclear arms reduction. This culminated in 2010 with the signing of the New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty), an accord to reduce the number of strategic nuclear missile launchers by half (Associated Press, 2011). This new step toward nuclear disarmament could not be politically possible in the United States without a replacement defense, which only a national missile defense system can provide.

Strategic missile defense technology is substantially more advanced and discriminating in application than nuclear weapons, making potential future wars less potentially devastating  An operational national missile defense system renders nuclear weapons, and intercontinental ballistic missiles generally, obsolete. When a country can shoot down all enemy missiles, those weapons lose their power. The future of war, once countries have access to the technology to build missile shields, will no longer be marked by fingers held over the proverbial red button. Rather, the incentive for conflict between states armed with effective missile defenses will be to seek diplomatic solutions to problems. The technology will likely be in the hands of many nations very soon, as the United States has already provided the technology to Japan and Australia, and will be building defense batteries in Romania from 2015 (McMichael, 2009). Furthermore, even should war break out, they will necessarily be far less destructive, as they will not feature the city-leveling power of nuclear missiles. With missile defense, war will be less likely and, should it occur, less destructive.

While missile defense technology still has problems that need to be worked out, its future is very promising. The most recent technology, Aegis, is far more effective in testing than its predecessors and has been deployed on a number of Navy warships and in Japan and Australia (McMichael, 2009). The technology will with time become extremely effective at stopping enemy missiles. In a world with more and more countries developing nuclear weapons, many who oppose the United States and its allies, it is imperative that the United States has an effective defense against them. A missile defense system is the most promising such defense.

MAD is not an effective means of maintaining world security. It relies upon states being too afraid to ever attack one another with nuclear weapons, but the risk of one doing so remains, irrespective of the doctrine. In terms of deterring conventional warfare, that assumes that the state being attacked would chose mutual destruction over potential, transitory subjugation. MAD has too many inherent risks and raises the very real chance, as weapons amass and proliferate, of their being used (Sagan, 1993). National missile defense systems provide a very real defense against not only full-scale attacks by other states, but against nuclear-capable rogue states, such as North Korea, which is seeking to develop intercontinental ballistic missile technology of its own. Should North Korea ever be able to attack the United States or its allies with nuclear weapons, the world will need the ability to counter it. National missile defense is simply a strategic necessity of the modern world in which nuclear weapons may fall into the hands of unstable, aggressive states who might actually try to use them.

The political consequences of the system make the world less safe  Many countries look upon the national missile defense program of the United States as a serious threat to their security. Russia stands at the forefront of this group, and has for several years actively opposed the development of an anti-ballistic missile technology. If the program is a success and only the United States and its close strategic allies possess the ability to develop such defenses, they will have a marked advantage over all other countries in terms of fighting ability, as the United States would be able to use its own ballistic missiles to intimidate and attack its opponents while being effectively immune to retaliation. Fears over the development of the system have led Russia to make extremely threatening postures on its European border; when the United States planned to deploy a battery of interceptor missiles in Poland in 2008, Russia responded by increasing troop numbers along its European borders and even threatened to deploy its own battery of short-range nuclear missiles on the border (Harding, 2007). This sort of conflict is extremely dangerous, and raises the chance of international conflict escalating into war. Such an outcome is extremely undesirable, and the defensive capabilities of a missile shield are not enough to warrant such risks. Furthermore, the United Nations has sought to end research into anti-ballistic missile technology, and has on several occasions called on the United States to stop its testing (Reuters, 1999). Much of the international community fears the instability that might arise from the breaking down of the current world order of nuclear deterrence between states.

The system is an incredibly expensive venture that may not even work  Research and development of effective strategic defense systems has been ongoing since the Reagan administration, to little lasting benefit. The US government has spent hundreds of billions of dollars in the past two decades on developing missile defense technology, including nearly $60 billion in the past five years, and still it is incomplete and its effectiveness questionable. Many scientists have attested to the ineffectiveness of missile defense, as it currently stands. It is very difficult to hit a flying missile with another missile, and test-runs of the technology have been patchy at best (Sessler et. al., 2000). The dream of an effective missile defense shield that can successfully intercept enemy intercontinental ballistic missiles has yet to come to fruition. It would be better to stop throwing good money after bad and to fold up the project entirely.

Mutually Assured Destruction breaks down when national missile defense systems are introduced, destabilizing world security:  Nuclear weapons create stability, as described in the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Countries with nuclear weapons have no incentive to engage in open military conflict with one another; all recognize that they will suffer destruction if they choose the path of war (Waltz, 1981). If countries have nuclear weapons, fighting simply becomes too costly. This serves to defuse conflicts, and reduce the likelihood of the outbreak of war. When states have nuclear weapons they cannot fight, making the world a more peaceful place. Furthermore, armed with a nuclear deterrent, all states become equal in terms of ability to do harm to one another (Jervis, 2001). If a large state attempts to intimidate or to invade a smaller neighbor, it will be unable to effectively subdue it, since the small state will have the power to seriously injure, or even destroy, the would-be invader with a few well-placed nuclear missiles (Mearsheimer, 1993). The dynamics created by MAD are entirely lost when national missile defense systems are brought into the equation. Anti-ballistic missile missiles effectively eliminate the surety of MAD; it becomes a gamble of whether one’s nuclear arsenal will be able to penetrate the missile shield of the enemy. This increases the chance of a nuclear war, since an aggressor state can count on its missile shield to deflect the second-strike attempted by its opponent. Furthermore, in the case where both states in a conflict have missile defense arrays, as will likely occur as the technology is disseminated, the outbreak of war is also more likely, since each will try to race the other to the ability to counter each other’s offensive and defensive missiles. Clearly, the technology will only destabilize world relations, not offer greater security.

The United States has rarely bent the knee to international pressure with regard to issues directly affecting its security, nor should it. Not only does the United States have a right, as do all states, to defend itself against any potential foreign aggression, it is also the primary purveyor of the public good of international security, policing the sea lanes and serving as the United Nations’ primary peacekeeper (Brooks and Wohlforth, 2008). This role places the United States in particular danger because it means it often contends with, and gains the enmity of, some of the most dangerous groups in the world. North Korea, for example, has been at odds with the United States for many years. Furthermore, the United States’ development of a missile defense shield has allowed it to feel safer. It is thus more willing to engage in dialogue concerning and implementation of nuclear arms reduction programs, as occurred with the recent New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) with Russia (Associated Press, 2011). This reduction is in compliance with the wishes of the United Nations, and is arguably more important for international security. Additionally, in the case of Russia, the United States has been able to reach a compromise by which Russia will not oppose its sea-based missile defenses, so long as they are not built on land on the Russian frontier.

The fears about GM food have been nothing more than a media spin. The media have created a story about nothing due to headlines such as 'Frankenfood'. Simply because people are scared they assert that there are not enough testing of the benefits of GM foods.  The proposition is mainly falling into a media trap because at the moment all reasonable precautions are being taken for ensured safety. There is no reason why many different strains of GM crops cannot be produced and planted - where this is not happening at present, it should be.  However, the need for many different strains is not an argument against some or all of those being GM. Adding or removing genes from natural varieties does not make the rest of their DNA identical. Furthermore, there is no concrete scientific evidence of what harm is done by the spreading of GM pollen. [1]  All these effects are considered when a genetically modified crop is to be approved for agricultural use, if a product would cause any of the above mentioned effects, it would not be approved. [2]  [1] Open Forum on Agricultural Biotechnology in Africa, Biotechnology FAQ, Would the spread of GMO traits into traditional maize be a serious problem ?,  , accessed 09/07/2011  [2] Bionetonline.org, Is it safe to grow genetically modified foods ?,  , accessed 09/02/2011

science general house would ban development genetically modified organisms

Genetically modified food is a danger to eco-systems.  GM foods also present a danger to the environment. The use of these crops is causing fewer strains to be planted. In a traditional ecosystem based on 100 varieties of rice, a disease wiping out one strain is not too much of a problem. However, if just two strains are planted (as now occurs) and one is wiped out the result is catastrophic. In addition, removing certain varieties of crops causes organisms, which feed on these crops, to be wiped out as well, such as the butterfly population decimated by a recent Monsanto field trial. [1] This supports the concerns that GM plants or transgenes can escape into the environment and that the impacts of broad-spectrum herbicides used with the herbicide tolerant GM crops on the countryside ecosystems have consequences. One of the impacts was that the Bacillus Thuringiensis toxin was produced by Bt crops (GMOs) on no-target species (butterflies), which lead to them dying. [2]  Another concern is also that pollen produced from GM crops can be blown into neighboring fields where it fertilizes unmodified crops. This process (cross-pollination) pollutes the natural gene pool. [3] This in turn makes labeling impossible which reduces consumer choice. This can be prevented with the terminator gene. However, use of this is immoral for reasons outlined below. Furthermore, not all companies have access to the terminator technology.  [1] Whitman D., Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful, published April 2000,  , accessed 09/02/2011  [2] WWF Switzerland, Genetically modified Organisms (GMOs): A danger to sustainable development of agriculture, published May 2005, www.panda.org/downloads/trash/gmosadangertosustainableagriculture.pdf , p.4 , accessed 09/02/2011  [3] Whitman D., Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful, published April 2000,  , accessed 09/02/2011

The immoral behavior of some people towards this technology is not a reason to ban it unless it can be shown that more harm than good is caused. This research is important to deal with global climate change which is reducing the landmass of the earth that can grow food, whilst the global population is rising.  Regulation may be better than outright banning, as we do with many aspects of business. For example gene patenting and the discovery of new genes is an area very similar to genetically modified foods. In the US gene patenting is allowed and when the company Myriad Genetics found the gene BRCA1 and BRCA2 (connected with breast cancer) and made too many restrictions on the use of it (so it hurt people in general), the court stepped in and allowed others to use it, gave them more rights over the “patented product”. [1] With this we see, that there can always be regulation of products if a company attempts to profit out of the misery of others. The same can be done with GMOs. If the company is demanding too high prices, preventing farmers from doing their work, the courts and legal system can always step in. Just because one company acts unethically, this does not mean that all must. There is a market for ethical consumerism, so the actions of a few corporations are not a reason to ban GMOs entirely.  [1] Nature.com, Testing time for gene patents, published 04/15/2010,  , accessed 09/02/2011

Genetically modified food is too new and little researched to be allowed for public use.  There are two problems associated with scientifically testing the impact of genetically modifying food. The first is that 'Peer review' (the checking of scientific test results by fellow scientists) is often made impossible by the unwillingness of biotechnology companies to give up their results for review. [1]  Furthermore, government agencies are often unwilling to stop GM foodstuffs reaching the shelf because of the clout that the companies have with their government. So in regards to research, there have not yet been unbiased findings showing that GMO crops are safe.  It is true, that in the US, there have been no adverse consequences from over 500 field releases in the United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) evaluated in 1993 data on genetically modified organisms regarding safety claims. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) believes that the USDA evaluation was too small scale, to actually asses the risks. Also many reports also failed to mention or even measure any environmental risks connected with GM food commercialisation. [2]  Also, there are a number of dangers associated with the food itself, even without scientific evaluations. For example, the addition of nut proteins to soybeans caused those with nut allergies to go into shock upon eating the soybeans. Although this was detected in testing, sooner or later a transferred gene will cause risk to human health because the scientists did not conceive it could be a problem. [3] This will become a greater problem as more modifications are introduced. There are also possible dangers associated with the scientific technique itself by which the DNA is modified, an example is the spread of antibiotic resistance.  [1] Pusztai A., Genetically modified foods: Are they a risk to Human/Animal Health ?, published June 2001,  , accessed 09/02/2011  [2] Shah A., Is GE food safe ?, Global Issues,  , accessed 09/02/2011  [3] European Federation of Biotechnology, Allergies from GM food, published September 2000,  , accessed 09/02/2011

This debate should be decided on the basis of hard facts, not woolly assertions and environmental sentiment. Until scientific tests show there to be some real risk of harm from farming and eating GM food there is no case for a ban or a moratorium.  Not only is genetically modification well understood but extensive testing is applied to every new GM foodstuff before it is placed on the market.  The European Food Safety Authority explains that tests of GMOs include a comparative assessment between the GMO and its non-GMO counterpart and there is a case by case evaluation of every single GMO entering the market – however, because products are so different there is no “by the book” procedure for testing. [1]  Researcher Nina Fedoroff from the Penn State University explains: “Genetically modified foods are as safe to eat as foods made from plants modified by more traditional methods of plant breeding. In fact, they are very probably safer, simply because they undergo testing that has never been required for food plants modified either by traditional breeding techniques or by mutagenesis, both of which can alter a plant's chemical composition.” [2]  [1] European Food Safety Agency, FAQ on genetically modified organisms,  , accessed 09/05/2011  [2] Pacchioli D., Are genetically modified foods safe to eat ?,  , accessed 08/28/2011

GMOs would create too much dependency on biotechnology companies  The legislative framework and historical behavior governing and guiding the operation of big business is geared towards maximizing shareholder returns. This propensity has been demonstrated time and again and might suggest that the GM companies are not modifying the food in the interests of better health, but of better profit. This is reinforced by the nature of many of the GM modifications, including terminator seeds (infertile seed requiring a re-purchase of seed stock each season), various forms of pest and herbicide resistance potentially leading to pests (and weeds) resistant to the current crop of chemical defenses. One of the more disturbing manifestations of this is the licensing of genes that are naturally occurring and suing those who dare to grow them, even if they are there because of cross contamination by wind-blown seeds or some other mechanism. [1] One has only to look at the history of corporations under North American and similar corporations’ law to see the effect of this pressure to perform on behalf of the shareholder. The pollution of water supplies, the continued sale of tobacco, dioxins, asbestos, and the list goes on. Most of those anti-social examples are done with the full knowledge of the corporation involved. [2]  The example of potato farmers in the US illustrates big company dependence: "By ''opening and using this product,'' it is stated, that farmers only have the license to grow these potatoes for a single generation. The problem is that the genes remain the intellectual property of Monsanto, protected under numerous United States patents (Nos. 5,196,525, 5,164,316, 5,322,938 and 5,352,605), under these patents, people are not allowed to save even crop for next year, because with this they would break Federal law of intellectual property. [3]  [1] Barlett D., Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear, published May 2008,  , accessed 08/27/2011  [2] Hurt H., The Toxic Ten, published 02/19/2008,  , accessed 09/05/2011  [3] Pollan M., Playing God in the Garden, published 10/25/1998,  , accessed 09/02/2011

Genetic modification is unnatural. There is a fundamental difference between modification via selective breeding and genetic engineering techniques. The former occurs over thousands of years and so the genes are changed much more gradually. Genetic modification will supposedly deliver much but we have not had the time to assess the long-term consequences. [1] A recent study by the Soil Association actually proves that many of the promises companies gave were false. GM crops did not increase yield. Another example is a frost-resistant cotton plant that ended up not ripening. [2] GMOs do not reliably produce the benefits desired because we do not know the long term effects of utilizing them. Given the risks, we should seek to ban them.  [1] Pusztai A., Genetically modified foods: Are they a risk to Human/Animal Health ?, published June 2001,  , accessed 09/02/2011  [2] University of Alberta, Genetic Ethics Lecture, published Fall 2008,  , accessed 09/02/2011

Genetically modified organisms can solve the problem of food supply in the developing world.  The possible benefits from GM food are enormous. Modifications which render plants less vulnerable from pests lead to less pesticide use, which is better for the environment. Other modifications lead to higher crop yield, which leads to lower food prices for all. However, This technology really comes into its own in developing countries. Here where water is at a shortage, modifications (which lead crops to needing less water), are of vital importance. The World Health Organization predicts that vitamin A deficiency, with the use of GMOs, could be wiped out rapidly in the modern world. The scientists developed the strain of rice, called “golden rice”, which produces more beta-carotene and this way produces 20 times more vitamins than other strains, creating a cure for childhood blindness in developing countries. [1]  The fact that it has not is illustrative of the lack of political and economic will to solve these problems. GM food provides a solution that does not rely on charity from Western governments. As the world population increases and the environment deteriorates further this technology will become not just useful but necessary.  [1] Black R., GM “golden rice” boosts vitamin A, published 03/25/2005,  , accessed 09/02/2011

Genetically modified organisms will prevent starvation due to global climate changes.  The temperature of the earth is rising, and the rate of increase is itself increasing. As this continues, foods that grow now will not be acclimatized to the hotter conditions. Evolution takes many years and we simply do not have the time to starve while we wait for this to occur. Whilst there may be a vast supply of food now, we need to look to the future and how our current crops will withstand our changing environment. We can improve our food supply for the future if we invest in GM crops now. These crops can be made specifically to deal with the hotter conditions.  Moreover, Rodomiro Ortiz, director of resource mobilization at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre in Mexico, is currently conducting trials with GM crops to get them to grow is drought conditions. [1] This has already in 2007 been implemented by Monsanto in South Africa and has shown that genetically modified maize can be grown in South Africa and so prevent starvation. [2]  In other countries, this would also mean that foods could be cultured where organic foods would not be able to. This would mean those in third world countries could grow their own crops on their low nutrient content soil. This has the additional benefit of not impacting on the environment as no transport would be needed to take the food to the places where it is needed; this would have to occur with organic foods grown in areas of good soil and weather conditions. [3]  [1] Ortiz R., Overview on Crop Genetic Engineering for Drought-prone Environments, published December 2007,  , accessed 09/05/2011  [2] African Center for Biosafety, Monsanto’s genetically modified drought tolerant maize in South Africa,  , accessed 09/02/2011  [3] Rosenthal E., Environmental Costs of Shipping Groceries around the World, published 04/26/2008,  , accessed 09/02/2011

Genetically modified food is no different from any other scientific advance, thus should be legal to use.  Genetic modification is entirely natural. The process of crop cultivation by selective breeding, which has been performed by farmers for thousands of years, leads to exactly the same kind of changes in DNA as modern modification techniques do. Current techniques are just faster and more selective. In fact, given two strands of DNA, created from the same original strand, one by selective breeding and one by modern modification techniques it is impossible to tell which is which. The changes caused by selective breeding have been just as radical as current modifications. Wheat, for example, was cultivated, through selective breeding, from an almost no-yield rice-type crop into the super-crop it is today. [1]  [1] Trewas A. and Leaver C., How Nature itself uses genetic modification,Published January 6 2000, Nature,  , accessed 09/05/2011

GM food will do nothing to help solve the problems in developing countries. The problem there is not one of food production but of an inability to distribute the food (due to wars, for example), the growing and selling of cash crops rather than staple crops to pay off the national debt and desertification leading to completely infertile land. Bob Watson, the chief scientist at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), has stated that GM technology is oversold. The problem is not that there is not enough food, but that the food that is available is not being distributed. “Today the amount of food available per capita has never been higher, how costs are still low, and yet still around 900m people go to bed hungry every night” [1] . Instead of money being invested into genetic modification, what should be looked at is which areas allow food to go to waste and which areas need food, and then a redistribution needs to occur. Better transport and roads is where money should be invested. Not with potentially hazardous GM crops.  In addition, the terminator gene prevents the farmer from re-growing the same crop year after year and instead must buy it annually from the producer. Abolishing the terminator gene leads to the other problem of cross-pollination and companies demanding reparations for the “re-use” of their crops.  [1] Sample I, Nearly a billion people go hungry every day – can GM crops help feed them?, published 01/23/2009  , accessed 09/05/2011

It is incredibly unlikely that any randomly selected member of a particular group would be attempting to commit a crime. Racial, ethnic and identity groups are extremely large. Terrorist organisations, even al Qaeda, rarely contain more than a few hundred members. The relative proportion of individuals belonging to any particular identity group who also belongs to a terrorist organisation is likely to be impossibly small.  The impact of the perceptions of the communities involved, however, would be significant, allowing for accusations of racism and persecution.  Statistically, profiling would have very little impact: in 2005, US Airlines carried 745.7 million passengers. [i] Faced with figures like that random stoppages make far more sense.  Although exact figures are not available even if just two or three million fell within the profile group, it would be impossible to search all of them. The use of profiling, however, as a result of the PATRIOT Act, led to, among others, the late Sen. Ted Kennedy being stopped; it does not and cannot work. [ii]  [i] ‘2005 Total Airline System Passenger Traffic Up 4.6 Percent From 2004’, Research and Innovative Transport Administration, 2006,   [ii] ‘Senetor? Terrorist? A Watch List Stops Kennedy at Airport’, Swarns, Rachel L., The New York Times, 20 August 2004,

terrorism society minorities inequality house would use racial profiling part

Profiling would have caught many of the perpetrators of terrorism in recent years.  Profiling takes account of many more characteristics than an individual’s ethnicity. Targeted checks would have caught, for example, the so called Christmas Day Bomber. Individuals who pay in cash for a one way flight while carrying no luggage, as Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab [i] did, are a fairly small group and it makes sense to target them.  Profiling is a great deal more subtle than a decision to target a single ethnic group. It is entirely possible to identify patterns in the behaviour of terrorists, drug mules and smugglers, and to respond to that accordingly.  Obviously, the more refined the profile can be, the better. It is incredibly unlikely that an affluent, Caucasian businessman with a return ticket for the following day is either a suicide bomber or a drug smuggler. Both common sense and statistics show this to be the case.  [i] “Obama vows to repair intelligence gaps behind Detroit airplane incident”. The Washington post, 30 December 2009.

The scale of flights in Israel- both domestic and international- is tiny. Compared with the North American and European aviation markets, screening passengers entering and leaving Israeli territory requires an entirely different approach. Equally the racial diversity of Tel Aviv is quite different to New York and London.  The Pew Research Centre estimates that there are 2.6 million Muslims living in the US [i] , a number equal to twice the population of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv combined. The pressures on airports between a small state in the Middle East and the transportation hubs of the US and Europe are totally different. The very account cited by Proposition talks about some passengers being interviewed for up to half an hour, that is a rather different prospect when dealing with JFK or Heathrow. It is just not a practical solution.  [i] “The future of the global muslim population”. Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, January 2011.

When you know terrorists are likely to be members of particular national and ethnic groups, it is simply more practical to focus searches on those groups.  The reality is that all of the major terrorist attacks against Western targets in recent years have been perpetrated by young, Muslim men. It doesn’t require any prejudice at all to realise that they are the most sensible group to check and recheck.  Although it is important to respect people’s rights and liberties regardless of ethnicity or religious belief, a sensible security policy must force police officers and security officials to make decisions based on factual information. Everybody- including most members of the groups identified by profiling- has an interest in not being blown up on an aeroplane. They will, therefore, accept that this is a regrettable necessity. Airport staff can only stop so many people and it makes sense to target groups that terrorists are likely to be part of.

The presumption of innocence is a principle worth defending and an important part of this is rejecting policing strategies that assume certain groups are more likely to be engage in criminal activity than others. In the last ten years, a few dozen people, at most, have been involved in terrorist acts at airports. Meanwhile, millions upon millions of young, Muslim men have flown across continents and oceans without the slightest disruption.  It is both unfair and foolish to target a single group as being more likely to contain terrorists. It builds resentment among the group concerned and is unlikely to reveal any practical results because of the numbers concerned.

The experience of Israel proves that profiling works  Israel has been using profiling for decades to identify those individuals at airports that should be stopped, questioned and have their luggage thoroughly checked [i] .  Despite the massive threats that Israel faces, the Israeli state does not feel the need to invade the privacy of most passengers because they simply know what and who they are looking for. This approach has meant that, despite high odds, hijackings and bombings are not the routine affairs on El Al flights that one might expect it to be.  As the focus for terrorist atrocities has now become the US and the UK, it simply makes sense to follow the example of a nation that has been such a target since its creation.  [i] “Exposing hostile intent”. SecuritySolutions.com.

This opposition argument is potentially contradictory. It argues that the majority of Muslims are reasonable people and then, on the other hand, that the moment reasonable security measures are put into place there will be a massive increase in radicalised young people willing to act as suicide bombers.  Everybody accepts that security checks are necessary at airports and for the most part they are applied universally. However, if opposition is correct, it would seem absurd to suggest that millions of reasonable people would suddenly take affront at the simple fact that they happen to be part of a social group that has an unusually high number of rogue elements. Indeed, suggesting such a thing could be construed as a racist act; implying that the people concerned are in some way incapable of reaching this regrettable, if logical, conclusion.

The use of the term “racism” suggests that assumptions made by screeners are based on prejudice, not fact. Profiling, which takes far more than race into account, has a solid basis in fact. It is entirely sensible to attempt to prevent criminal acts by being particularly cautious in the investigation of those groups and individuals that are most likely to pose a risk to other passengers.  Risking the lives of innocent passengers in the name of political correctness is simply absurd. These are measures that protect the security of thousands of passengers at the cost of minor inconvenience to a few.  Any reasonable traveller- Arab or not- would accept that there is a reason for these actions in the same way that passengers realise that delays caused by security controls and passport checks are an unavoidable nuisance in an era of routine international travel.

Randomly checking passengers’ identities is much safer than allowing terrorists to know in advance who the authorities are seeking.  Making statements in advance as to who is likely to be stopped at airports is the most dangerous action any government could take. There are innumerable ways in which it would be possible to perform a terrorist act, and random checks mean that all possible routes are equally likely to be apprehended.  By contrast, actively and visibly subjecting members of particular ethnic groups to stricter security checks will enable terrorists to determine where surveillance in airports is at its most lax. The most dangerous terrorist groups operate on an international level, recruiting attackers from a wide range of backgrounds and ethnic groups. It would therefore be comparatively easy for an organisation such as al Qaeda to mount an attack using only individuals who do not conform to the authorities’ profile of a potential terrorist.  More importantly random checks mean that all people, regardless of the background, age or appearance are equally deterred from considering criminal or terrorist acts.  On the basis that it would be impossible to search everyone at a major international airport, the deterrence factor offered by random stops is far more effective than searching a tiny proportion of a designated group.

Profiling exacerbates terrorism as it reinforces the perception that Muslims and marginalised ethnic groups face prejudice.  The reality is that if a plane can be held up with a box-cutter, a broken glass bottle from duty free or flammable alcohol from the same source could be just as threatening.  However, increased use of air marshals- armed plainclothes police officers who travel secretly on certain flights- means that even these desperate tactics are likely to be ineffectual.  Institutionalising prejudice and assumption will add legitimacy and grativas to terrorist propaganda that seeks to radicalise curious or confused young people.  Not only is profiling ineffectual, it is likely to exacerbate the situation.

Profiling is simply institutionalizing racism an reduces minorities to the status of second class citizens  Profiling is, in the end, simply wrong. Britain suffered for decades from the ‘innocent until proven Irish’ attitude of their security forces, which did nothing but engender resentment among Irish individuals who were trying to live and work in the United Kingdom. For western nations to make the same mistake in their approach to Muslims would be the gravest folly.  Aviation authorities are, ultimately, under the control of the state, and if a government announces that they consider all members of a group to be potential criminals, it sends out a very provocative message.

In other areas of enforcement it is routine to use simple common sense when identifying security risks. A group of students coming off a cheap flight from Amsterdam are simply more likely to have illegal drugs in their possession than a group of pensioners returning from a tour of museums in St Petersburg.  Of course it is important that airport authorities should be vigilant and avoid making damaging assumptions, but that is no reason for them to be reckless.  There are a limited number of people that can be stopped and searched or questioned at an airport; wasting that time on passengers who are extremely unlikely to pose any threat presents a substantial risk of peoples’ lives and safety.

If there is no equal access to education and training opportunities, this measure does not address gender inequality. On the contrary, gender quotas are likely to bring inefficiencies because companies face sanctions if they do not abide by the legislation.  Introducing this legislation on the overall population of the EU rather than simply on matters regarding qualified women will introduce impediments to businesses across sectors. The EU member states uphold gender equality in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Therefore, women do not face particular institutional obstacles to their employment. On the contrary, they have the legal support of the EU law.  Moreover, evidence shows the effects of quotas are distortive. In the case of Sweden, the short-term effects of quotas suggest some negative impact on firm returns. The companies had to reorganise their activities to compensate for this consequence. [1] Even in Norway, many firms changed their status (e.g. they moved to other countries) to avoid the sanctions for non-compliance while those who introduced the compromise experienced a relative decline in annual profits over assets associated with the quota. [2]  [1] Pande, Rohini &amp; Deanna Ford, “Gender Quotas and Female Leadership: A Review” , Background Paper for the World Development Report on Gender, 2011  [2] Matsa, David, and Amalia Miller. "A Female Style in Corporate Leadership? Evidence from Quotas." American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 30 April 2012

gender house believes gender quotas eu are advantageous economies member states

More women in the labour market leads to higher GDP  By introducing gender quotas to ensure gender equality, one could not only increase the labour force by bringing more women but also enhance the labour productivity and the available talent pool in a country. This would stimulate businesses to expand, innovate, and compete. This process has an effect of raising tax revenue and social security payments. The overall effect is the positive growth of the economy.  Therefore, addressing social injustice and higher economic returns are mutually supportive goals.  This argument is particularly relevant for qualified women who could be hired at executive positions, but are prevented from doing so due to cultural beliefs, societal practices, and lack of economic and institutional support. A study by Asa Löfström on the links between economic growth and productivity in the labour market argues that if women’s productivity level rises to the level of men’s, Europe’s GDP could grow 27% which makes women’s participation is of crucial importance to Europe’s economy. [1] Quotas would allow for a better utilisation of the talent pool; as currently, 59% of the students graduating from Europe’s higher educational institutes are women. [2] With the current access to education and the introduction of quotas against barriers of existing prejudices, women will have incentives and support to increase their productivity  In the case of Norway, the quota law requires all public, state-owned , municipal, inter-municipal and cooperative companies to appoint at least 40% women on their boards per 2008. The law led to a fast increase from 6% women on boards of public limited companies in 2002 to  36% in 2008. [3]  [1] Löfström, Asa. Gender Equality, Economic Growth and Employment. Swedish Presidency of the European Union, 2009. Web.  [2] European Parliament, “Gender Quotas in Management Boards”, 2012  [3] Working Paper: “The Quota-instrument: Different Approaches across Europe”. N.p.: European Commission’s Network to Promote Women in Decision-making in Politics and the Economy, 2011. Web.

There is no clear and conclusive statistical data to support the long-term link between quotas and women’s participation on highest executive positions. The introduction of quotas around the world has not increased the number of women on high positions in some male-dominated sectors and there is no certainty that such policy measures in the EU will change the current status quo. For example, despite the 40% increase in women in executive positions, there was no significant change in the number of female CEOs .  Moreover, there should not be a one-size fits all binding quota, but member states should come with their own rules that change gender mentality in the respective country. Gender equality and women’s choice of career have cultural and industry-specific implications which common gender quotas do not address

Gender equality is based on fundamental human rights endorsed by the EU which needs to be addressed  Gender equality at the workplace is an important principle that businesses should follow. If we consider men and women to be equal then they should be equally represented at the top levels of politics, society, and business. This is not simply a national issue, but a pan-EU problem of justice and equal rights. Gender equality is linked to the fundamental human rights that the EU endorses and the lack of progress in terms of women in high positions of Europe requires a proactive stance. As Morin-Chartier argues, the EU directives are about being a model for one another and the quotas will serve as an archetype for others worldwide. Therefore, the quotas are necessary to encourage progress in this field as other tools have not brought equal gender representation.

Gender equality comes from the society. Businesses operate in a different way than the overall society and imposing quotas on them will not necessarily change the gender inequality. Businesses require skills to expand and progress and, therefore, quotas undermine them by affecting their employment process. At the same time, these measures do not address the origins of inequality which are linked to tradition and cultural background of a society and thus, will not bring progress in this field.

It is difficult to evaluate whether a business institution change its values due to the increased number of women on board. On the contrary, companies stick to their values and hire people who behave according to them.  Also, it may be early to measure the positive impact of the quotas in Norway. A University of Michigan study found that the increased presence of women on boards in Norway led to slight losses in companies’ value. [1] One of the possible reasons is that women hired after the quotas implementation often had less upper management experience than the employees hired before that and who had to leave their posts, so companies could fulfil the quotas.  [1] Sweigart, Anne. "Women on Board for Change: The Norway Model of Boardroom Quotas As a Tool For Progress in the United States and Canada." Northwestern Journal of International Law &amp; Business 32.4, 2012

Quotas encourage women to pursue education and professional job positions  Quotas attempting to maximise the number of educated and skilled women in executive positions could improve corporate performance and help raise national productivity. But doing so will depend on keeping ambitious, well-qualified women moving up the management ranks. Gender quotas will encourage more women to pursue education and career options leading to the top of executive positions. Quotas create incentives for women to adapt their job preferences to the more accessible boardroom positions and develop necessary skills which would reduce the need for positive discrimination in the future. Encouraged to develop relevant skills, women will contribute to the long-term talent pool and the economy. According to McKinsey report, women’s interest in being leaders increases as they progress from entry level to middle management [1] which is exactly what the principle behind quotas aims to encourage - more women following professional career development. This is very important in the short run during which, according to research, women who have high position stimulate other women’s interest in traditionally male-dominated sectors and encourage them to pursue similar career paths. [2]  [1] Barsh, Joanna, and Lareina Yee. "Unlocking the Full Potential of Women in the US Economy." McKinsey &amp; Company. N.p., 2011. Web .  [2] Australian Human Rights Commission, “Women in leadership”

Quota-led gender equality in executive boards will help shape a gender sensitive and highly performing business environment.  There are many reports showing that there is a positive correlation between the number of women on high positions and the companies’ performance. A report from The McKinsey Organizational Health Index (OHI) argues that companies with three or more women in top positions (executive committee and higher) scored higher than their peers. Companies that score highly on all the OHI measures have also shown superior financial performance. [1]  This is often related to the high overall education level of women on boards. In Norway, there has been some advancement in firms’ human capital as a result of the quotas, [2] which may result in increased profits in the future due to the increasing number of well educated women.  Female managers tend to promote a communal and collaborative style of leadership that can improve a company’s performance and work culture. Organizations with women in top leadership positions are also more likely to provide work-life assistance to all employees. [3] Norwegian scholars have found that the increased number of women on boards has led to more focused and strategic decision-making, increased communication, and decreased conflict. [4] In fact, many successful business women, such as Sheryl Sandberg, also argue that more women in business could change business ethics and the male-associated image of successful business model that will bring competitive advantages to companies and thus, to the EU economies. [5]  [1] Barsh, Joanna, and Lareina Yee. "Unlocking the Full Potential of Women in the US Economy." McKinsey &amp; Company. N.p., 2011. Web .  [2] Sandberg, Sheryl, Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead, New York, 2013  [3] Matos, Kenneth, and Galinsky, Ellen, “2012 National Study of Employers”, Families and Work Institute, 2012, p.45  [4] Sweigart, Anne. "Women on Board for Change: The Norway Model of Boardroom Quotas As a Tool For Progress in the United States and Canada." Northwestern Journal of International Law &amp; Business 32.4, 2012  [5] Sandberg, Sheryl, Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead, New York, 2013

Binding quotas are more effective than most of the other tools, particularly voluntary quotas. Member states, however, could implement any other policy instrument they find suitable alongside the quotas. Yet, binding gender quotas bring quicker results especially in the short run. According to the a report on gender quotas published by the European Department, they are the most successful mechanism to narrow the gender gap in corporate boards and achieve the economic targets by giving the progress on women’s participation on boards. Once targets are reached, policy instruments of positive discrimination will be abolished; therefore, gender quotas are the optimal solution due to their quick effects as in the case of Norway. [1]  [1] European Parliament, “Gender Quotas in Management Boards”, 2012

Gender equality in the work force will most certainly have a positive effect on the economy. The US economy would have been 27% smaller without women expanding their job share from 37% to 48% between 1970 and 2009, women went from holding 37% of all jobs to nearly 48%. [1] In addition, the economic history of OECD shows that a large proportion of post-war economic growth was due to the increased presence of women in the labour market. [2] The introduction of quotas will ensure this more skilled women working in many industries which will help these industries expand. A study by Asa Löfström on the links between economic growth and productivity in the labour market argues that if women’s productivity level rises to the level of men’s, Europe’s GDP could grow 27% which makes women’s participation is of crucial importance to Europe’s economy. [3] Such growth is crucial for the EU in the context of the economic crisis.  [1] Barsh, Joanna, and Lareina Yee. "Unlocking the Full Potential of Women in the US Economy." McKinsey &amp; Company. N.p., 2011. Web .  [2] Sweigart, Anne. "Women on Board for Change: The Norway Model of Boardroom Quotas As a Tool For Progress in the United States and Canada." Northwestern Journal of International Law &amp; Business 32.4, 2012  [3] Löfström, Asa. Gender Equality, Economic Growth and Employment. Swedish Presidency of the European Union, 2009. Web.

Public and private institutions should hire people based on skills not gender to achieve positive economic impact  Businesses advance when they hire the best person for a job who can unite people and create value. These qualities are individual and enhanced through training rather than not gender-specific. Letting both private and public companies to hire according to their needs and those who meet them is a more efficient way to ensure economic growth.  In some countries in the EU the proportion of women with relevant education is lower and such a measure will bring structural inefficiencies in the short to mid - term for the companies and the overall economy. The empirical data from Norway, for example, reveals that after being exposed to a severe limitation on their choice of directors, boards experienced large declines in value. [1] Often women hired after the quotas implementation had less upper management experience than the previously hired employees. However, since the average size of boards did not increase, male employees were dismissed and less experienced female professionals hired, so that companies could fulfil the quotas.  [1] Ahern, Kenneth, and Amy Dittmar. "The Changing of the Boards: The Impact on Firm Valuation of Mandated Female Board Representation." The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2012.

There are other policy options that are less distortive and more advantageous for the economy.  Quotas are discriminatory and could be anti-constitutional in countries like France while there are other policy instruments that could be easier to implement.  Rather than implementing quotas as a top-down approach, for example, there could be more access to capital and less regulatory obstacles for starting businesses for women. However, women in OECD enterprise account for an average 30% of all entrepreneurs and there are more self-employed or firm-owners. These gender gaps are particularly large in Ireland, Iceland, and Sweden. [1] Entrepreneurs or individuals starting up new firms are crucial to productivity in all countries. In the OECD area, the levels of entrepreneurship are highest in countries showing the fastest growth. The number of women entrepreneurs, as seen in female to male start-up ratios, is also growing fastest in these countries, which include the United States and Canada. Enhanced access to credit and less red tape for women-owned ventures is a promising source of business and job creation without the distortive effects of quotas on business competitiveness.  Other non-legislative instruments encouraging gender equality in companies are labels, awards, charter signing, and rankings. [2] They do not require externally imposed structural changes but stimulate companies to commit to gender equality in a manner acceptable to them.  Moreover, even if quotas are implemented, they should be flexible and voluntary. A one-size fits all binding quota scheme could easily harm more national economies than it would help. Even by implementing voluntary rather than obligatory quotas in addition to existing national efforts for gender equality, the EU could avoid economic distortions and constitutional complications.  [1] OECD, “Gender and Sustainable Development: Maximising the economic, social and environmental role of women”, 2008, p.35  [2] European Parliament, “Gender Quotas in Management Boards”, 2012

There is no clear link between gender quota and economic growth  As Pande and Ford found in their report, countries often adopt gender quotas as a response to changing attitudes to women. However, these countries more often than not are Western advanced economies characterised by efficiency. [1] Therefore, the correlations between gender quotas and good economic performance cannot be attributed entirely to the gender equality measures.  Moreover, the competitiveness of the EU economies is damaged by domestic policies and the sovereign debt crisis which will have a larger negative impact on the European economies rather than this measure. Therefore, the expected spillover effects on the economy are unlikely to be realised. [2]  Such sceptic views on quotas when accompanied by bad economic factors are shared by international institutions like the International Labour Organisation (ILO). Breaking the glass ceiling may require affirmative action like gender quotas, but if supply-side barriers remain, even such proactive policies will not necessarily lead to the desired result of gender equality and economic advantages. [3]  [1] Pande, Rohini &amp; Deanna Ford, “Gender Quotas and Female Leadership: A Review” , Background Paper for the World Development Report on Gender, 2011  [2] ibid  [3] Gerecke, Megan, “A policy mix for gender equality? Lessons from high-income countries”, International Labour Organisation, 2013, p.13

Inefficiencies related to outcomes are not necessarily related to the quotas. There are other factors affecting a company performance regardless of changes in staff, such as the general conditions of the industry, national and world economies. The quotas allow for flexibility in terms of technical solutions to different types of companies and ensure women candidates are successful in being selected for a certain share of eligible places. It does not aim to undermine advantages of existing decision-making, but to bring a change in the corporate world and to strengthen EU’s competitiveness by using the full capacity of its talent pool. There are more women (59%) than men graduating from European universities [1] and their talent is underutilised at high decision-making levels where they are necessary. Quotas that are legally binding will bring quick results in that regard.  [1] European Parliament, “Gender Quotas in Management Boards”, 2012

Pornography does not objectify people, for they are portrayed as acting. Objects do not act, subjects do.  Telling people what they cannot do is a greater loss of identity than any way by which they may be portrayed by pornography, for only the latter can be challenged.  Sex is not negative towards women, repression is, sex is liberating not dehumanizing! The only thing that is dehumanizing is the belief that natural impulses as sex should have negative moral conotation, including the expression of it(in this case porn).

media modern culture pornography society gender family house believes feminist

Porn is inherently dehumanising  Pornography necessarily objectifies people: it presents a sexual desire, an urge, which is immediately attended by another person, often performing acts which we would find demeaning, until the original urge is satisfied. The use of others for pleasure treats them as means to one’s own ends, and denies them any value as rational subjects with a will of their own. This affects, naturally, the participants in pornography, but also their viewers who adopt corrupted notions of what to value in others, and furthermore other women who are later affected by men using the same metric to interact with them.

Women may indeed be harmed through these ideals. However, all forms of media, fashion posters, [1] and razors, all carry the same risk of people potentially hurting themselves with it. This is not grounds for a ban.  Furthermore, placing the blame on pornography for this kind of attitudes is very problematic in that it removes responsibility from the real culprits in society, the men who treat women in this manner when they are not acting.  [1] See the debatabase debate ‘ This House would ban sexist advertising ’

The feminist movement should not allow women to sell themselves  In most cases, pornography is not entered into willingly. Similarly to prostitution, the sale of one’s own body and one’s dignity is so drastic that consent is often not sufficiently informed to be legitimate. There are patriarchal structures in society that force women into these industries, particularly when they are vulnerable and this seems to be a good last resort. This leads to a loss of integrity, a strong stigma in society, and most importantly, abusive conditions in the production process. As well as high risks of unwanted pregnancies or sexually transmitted diseases, violent sex practices and abusive conditions after filming often occur (Lubben). [1]  Furthermore, the harms of pornography do not exclusively affect the consenting participants. Other women across the world who are not supporting this industry are equal victims of society and the norms promoted by pornography of how women should be, and how it is acceptable to treat them. These people have not consented.  [1] Lubben, Shelley. “Ex-Porn Star Tells the Truth About the Porn Industry.” Covenant Eyes. 28 October 2008.

What is the difference between working as a pornographic artist and working as a street sweeper, or someone who unblocks the drains? Neither of those is an ideal job, and will rarely be a youth’s first career option. Both involve the use of my body for a sometimes unpleasant task. Yet one of them is considered dehumanising, and the other a valuable service to society. The fact is there is little difference between pornography and any other job. The comparison to prostitution is invalid: the key problem faced by prostitutes is the lack of security, since it is set in contexts that make them particularly vulnerable to violence and abuse.  In pornography, health and security risks such as STDs are addressed in many countries, and can be done so more: in California, for instance, porn actors are required to wear condoms on set. These problems can be tackled in the same way as is the failure to comply with regulations in any other industry. Non-consensual sex, violence, extreme pornography, and child pornography, are all illegal: the problems with pornography must go beyond these (Section 63 - Possession of extreme pornographic images). [1]  [1] “Section 63 - Possession of extreme pornographic images.” Criminal Justice and Immigration Act. 2008.

We live in a society in which no judge will recognise “I saw it on the TV” as a valid excuse for a crime. We allow people to watch violent films believing they will be able to distinguish between pornography and reality. For cases such as Ted Bundy, clearly issues other than pornography must have been at play: there have to be pre-existing anti-women values and, in such extreme cases, mental instability.  Furthermore, the link between pornography and violence is not intrinsic; it is nothing the feminist movement cannot change through greater influence and/or restrictions.

Pornography fuels unreachable ideals  Pornography presents a distorted perception of people, sexuality, and relationships, which has a further effect on a broader societal level. It promotes unreachable ideals of how both women and men should be in bed, and pushes both in the direction of what is idealised in pornography. This may push men to be more dominating than otherwise and women to suffer from anorexia, low self-esteem, and promiscuity. We can expect women to be the most affected by this, simply because the porn industry is owned almost entirely by men, and because there are pre-existing patriarchal structures in society ready to promote the idea that women are there to serve men.  Altogether, pornography merely promotes a new stereotype: that women are generally happy to have sex at any time, that they will respond positively to any man’s advances, and if a woman does not, there is something wrong with her.

Pornography eroticises violence  Many forms of media are often accused of inciting violence, promoting stereotypes, or indoctrinating in some form or another. While this is contentious, the key principle that ‘sex sells’ is more obvious. Pornography is not like other media in that, while most other films are aimed at entertainment, this is aimed at arousal. That is, it is aimed at immediate and fully selfish pleasure, which is much more forceful and addictive than mere laughter.  The psychological effect of pornography is harmful due to the associations it conditions its audience to make. It eroticises violence through portrayals (fake or genuine) of rape and a general treatment of women that is comparable to torture, yet presented in a context that necessarily biologically excites its viewers. Through continuous exposure to the link between abuse and intense pleasure, this link is easily extended to personal relationships. The master-slave dialectic suddenly becomes acceptable. Compulsive rapists, such as Ted Bundy, are often found to have consumed mass amounts of pornography (Benson). [1] More subtle, yet certainly still present is the force of such associations on young teenagers who have not yet had a sexual relationship and rely on pornography for guidance. This has a potentially massive impact given that 11 is the average age of first internet porn exposure (Techmedia Network). [2]  [1] Benson, Rusty. “Vile Passions.” AFA Journal August 2002.   [2] Techmedia Network. Feminist Porn Award.

Even if achieving a fully effective ban is impossible, it is the responsibility of the feminist movement to take a stance and not condone practices that harm women in practice and promote dangerous messages. Making it illegal will limit it at least an extent, and due to all the harms pornography causes the smallest improvement is an important goal.  It is an exaggeration to claim pornography would have such an effect. The reasons for banning pornography would be the same as for banning prostitution (coercion issues for the participants) and other forms of media that incite to directly offensive acts towards particularly vulnerable people.  It is, rather, the actual sexual culture and view of people’s relationships promoted by pornography that leads to higher levels of rape and harassment.

The consent women supposedly show in the pornographic industry is no more valid than it is considered in prostitution or sex trafficking. Non-pornographic actresses are often coerced into pornography by their agents or producers. The pornographic industry preys on vulnerable parties: poor, psychologically vulnerable, or dependent people.  Furthermore, even if some do give full consent, this does not apply to all the women who are forced into prostitution or pornography, raped, sexually harassed, or generally oppressed as a result of the harms produced by pornography. Pornography makes the emancipation of women from men impossible, and the feminist movement cannot condone it even at the expense of a few women who want to express themselves. Other safer forms of art exist for this purpose.

Pornography liberates women  Pornography is massively produced and distributed: this provides women with a vast platform through which to define their sexual identity. This has been a great tool in the past: in the 1920’s America, the flapper became a great role model for women by promoting revolutionary values of a strong, sexual woman: she danced wildly in jazz clubs, was openly lesbian, and sexually active. This image spread throughout the country thanks to the boom of the film industry in the Roaring Twenties (Rosenberg). [1] Now pornography plays, or at least can play, this same role.  Pornography breaks the taboo of sexuality for women, and promoting the continuation of taboos is a label and a stereotype which the feminist movement must oppose. Instead, it should use pornography to spread its values. There is nothing intrinsic about pornography that makes it anti-women. There is female-friendly pornography, and in fact there are Feminist Porn Awards granted every year since 2006 (Techmedia Network). [2] There is also homosexual porn and porn that presents women as dominant: this can empower women and break current stereotypes, not only that women are not sexual, but that women in general cannot be powerful in society. The feminist movement should seek to promote this flow of ideas of what gender can be and allow women to influence the way their sexuality is perceived by men.  [1] Rosenberg, Jennifer. Flappers in the Roaring Twenties. About.com,   [2] Techmedia Network. Feminist Porn Award.

The feminist movement cannot afford to alienate itself from society  The term ‘feminism’ is often associated with men-hating and the radical view that women are superior to men as opposed to gender equality. This happens because extreme feminists who uphold such opinions are consistently given greater media coverage by virtue of having the loudest voices and creating headlines that sell. As a result, the feminist movement is currently lacking the support it deserves and even those who take feminist positions often don’t want to call themselves feminists. (Scharff) [1]  It would be a bad move for it to further radicalise itself and attempt to ban something as present in society as pornography. It will never work, and it will merely make women and men more reluctant to espouse feminist ideologies for fear of being associated with a ‘hate group’.  [1] Scharff, Christina, “Myths of man-hating feminists make feminism unpopular”, Economic &amp; Social Research Council, 7 March 2013,

Attempting to ban it would only cause further problems  There is no guarantee that a ban on pornography would improve gender stereotypes: in fact, it seems to be quite the opposite. Pornography is a flourishing industry with incredibly high demand, and much like with prohibition in the past, it is naïve to believe a ban can make a difference. It is actually even harder with pornography, because of the ease through which it can be distributed through the net. Rather, a ban would expand the black market with all the problems that come with it today: child and non-consensual pornography, violence, unhealthy conditions, and a general lack of regulations. Furthermore, the extent that a ban could ever limit pornography, this would lead to further problems. On one hand, the feminist movement sends a worrying message that sex is harmful to women, and by extension that sex is for the benefit of men. Restoring a taboo on sexuality actively confines women to being dominated in bed, and in society in general.  Secondly, if pornography is limited, the vessels through which men can satisfy their sexual urges are also restricted. This can lead, at best, to greater sexual harassment, greater pressure on women to provide sexual services, and to more infidelity. At worst, and most probably, it leads to higher levels of rape.

Freedom of expression is essential for women  Social movements should limit themselves to pushing for the rights of social groups, not restricting them. The feminist movement, as a social movement, should not limit the voices of women in the same way their oppressors have throughout history. Banning pornography would directly restrict the freedom of choice of women who want to manifest their sexuality and express themselves in revolutionary ways in art and media. Examples such as amateur and improvised porn, which are independent of a director, show the deep value of self-expression and self-definition women can find in this form of art. The desire of some actresses to become internationally recognised as ‘sex symbols’, become porn stars, or simply convey that sex is for women too, is a legitimate one, and not an act of desperation. This must be taken into account in cases of pornography between consenting adults, for consenting adults.

The feminist movement must, above all, strive to protect the people who are oppressed by anti-women structures in society: it cannot ignore the problems women face. Social movements are there because the rights of minorities in society are being ignored: they are necessarily going against the flow of public opinion, and sometimes they need to be radical in order to uphold the rights others ignore. A big problem requires big changes.

It is simplistic to assume that the problems women face now, are the same that they faced in the 1920’s. All they have in common is that, in some sense, women are used for men’s ends. In the 1920’s it was primarily as housewives, but now, it is as sexual objects. The kinds of images of women employed in advertisement and most kinds of media testify to this, and in pornography these views are expressed in a particularly forceful way.  Furthermore, it is a misconception to say that pornography can lead to revolutionary gender stereotypes when fundamentally it depends on stereotypes, the sexy teacher/nurse/friends’ mother being common themes. Through pornography, the best women can achieve is to jump through one label to another. Why? Because it is an industry fundamentally controlled by men, for men.  As a result, furthermore, there can be no self-expression when you are doing what a director (often male) tells you to do.  Even if the feminist movement has in fact succeeded in promoting their values in a portion of pornographic films, this will have no effect if people do not watch it. There is nothing to indicate that soft, female-friendly pornography will be more appealing to men than what is currently all over the net: over 100,000 sites offer illegal child pornography, and over 10,000 hard-core pornography films are released every year and the numbers increase exponentially (Techmedia Network). [1]  [1] Techmedia Network. Internet Pornography Statistics. TopTenReviews, n.d.

In the twenty years of a patent’s duration, any prospective research is carried out in fear of recriminations and law-suits from the patent-holder. Laboratories offering patented genetic tests for research studies have been asked to “cease and desist” unless they refer materials to or get a license from the patent holder 1. Where one company has the right of exploitation, they possess a monopoly and inevitably will be able to charge what they like. It is only after countries threatened or actually invoked provisions of the WTO Treaty, for example, that companies offered to decrease the price of their Aids medicines for African countries 2. Those provisions would have permitted the governments to grant compulsory licenses.Further on, gene-patent holders can often control the useof ‘their’ gene; if they have the claim for the test, they can prevent a doctor from testing a patient’s blood for a specific genetic mutation and can stop anyone from doing research to improve a genetic test or to develop a gene therapy based on that gene 3.So any further research is in the mercy of the patent owner. Even if information is public, if it is not possible to use it and build upon it without permission. It is therefore possible for the patent holder simply to horde patents and prevents any research using that patent to the detriment of science, medicine and the patients who could be benefiting.  1. Cook-Deegan R., Gene patents, The Hastings Center,  , accessed 07/20/2011  2. BBC News, “Brazil to break AIDS drug patent”,  , accessed 15/9/2011.  3. CRS Report for Congress, Gene Patents: A Brief Overview of Intellectual Property Issues, 2006,  , accessed 07/21/2011

Patenting enables knowledge sharing  Patents are typically granted for twenty years only. After this period the monopoly ends. All companies ask is that for a limited time they are able to benefit from their investments, and that in that period if another company wishes to pursue a project in their area then they should have to give their permission for the use of the patent. Patenting does not mean withholding information in secrecy.  On the contrary, patents actively encourage openness in science, because if you were not able to disclose your findings without fear of exploitation, then you would keep your findings secret. This would be to the detriment of medical advancement.  For example the Human Genome Sciences’ patented their discovery of the CCR5 receptor gene, which was then discovered by other scientists at the National Institutes of Health, that the small number of people missing the receptor appear to be immune to HIV 1. This could be done because Human Genome Sciences has a policy that "we do not use our patents to prevent anyone in academics or the nonprofit world from using these materials for whatever they want, so long as it is not commercial.2"  Patenting makes sure that the information is registered and shared. The other option, whereby companies do not patent the information and keep it as a “trade secret”, hurts everybody much more and slows down the rate of scientific progress.  1. Dutfield G., DNA patenting: implications for public health research, WHO  2. Chartrand, Sabra, "Human Gene Patented as Potential Fighter Against AIDS" The New York Times, 6 March 2000,

Genes are intellectual property thus patentable  The patenting office stipulates that a successful patent applicant must have found something in nature, isolated it, and found a way to make something useful with it.The genome research of companies satisfies these criteria, so why should it be any different? The genome companies have invested resources to create intellectual property (patents), which refers to “creations of the mind.” Under US law includes intellectual property inventions, literary and artistic works, symbols, names, images, designs, and trade secrets. The law states, that any person who “invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent.” In biomedicine the patentable inventions include materials, such as new drugs or new cell lines, and methods for deriving or growing them, such as extraction or cloning techniques.1  1. Merz J., Mildred K., What are gene patents and Why are people worried about them ?, Community Genetics 2005

Of course genes should be treated different from any product or other invention; genes are the very basis for human life and to claim that anyone has the right to be regarded as the ‘owner’ of a particular gene, which we all share in our bodies, shows a venal disregard for humanity. If companies want to patent treatments which target specific genes, then that’s okay, but not the genes themselves.The University of Colorado explains: “Inventions include new processes, products, apparatus, compositions of matter, living organisms, and/or improvements to existing technology in those categories can be patented. Abstract ideas, principles, and phenomena of nature cannot be patented.”1  1. Patents FAQ Patents FAQ, University of Colorado,

We are happy to put a price on our ideas and knowledge, which are as much building blocks of life as our genes. Each individual already sells his ideas and has a price tag so patenting makes no further devaluation than that which is already there.Even if ownership of another person’s parts is immoral, morality never had a lot to do with gene patenting.Patent agencies allow such immoral things as poisons, explosives, extremely dangerous chemical substances, devices used in nuclear power stations, agro-chemicals, pesticides and many other things which can threaten human life or damage the environment to be patented. This is despite the existence of the public order and morality bar in almost all European countries.1So why make a difference with gene patenting, which does not harm, but may actually benefit a great amount of people.  1. Annabelle Lever , Is It Ethical To Patent Human Genes?, UCL 2008,

Firstly, it is not self-evident, that people have a right to use and possess something, such as medicine that they did not create.So why should people have the right to use a product that someone else discovered through the power of their own cognitive abilities. Actually demands to not patent and just research for the greater good are contradictory to the government taking care of all their people. The best way for the government to encourage medical research that provides these benefits is through patents. Patenting of genes is therefore a right that is based on the right to ownership of your own thoughts and should therefore be granted to the companies / individuals. There is no consistent legal basis for deciding that genes are not patent-eligible without deciding that many other ‘natural products’ are also ineligible.

Patenting inhibits research and therapeutics  The prevailing belief is that this is an area of such great importance and potential benefit to mankind, as such there should be no, self-interested impediment to genome research. The only barriers should be those of conscience.  The Human Genome Project is one of the government funded projects that makes all its research freely and publicly available. They are not driven by profit and offer information on their discoveries for free enabling others to build upon their findings.  The problem with patents is that companies claim ownership without regard towards moral issues. It is purely in the pursuit of their profits that they decide not to allow others to build on their findings and make the process of discovering treatments far more difficult. An example of this is the Myriad company which, whilst holding patents on BRCA 1 &amp; 2, genes connected with breast cancer, prevented the University of Pennsylvania from using a test for these genes which was substantially cheaper than the company’s own screening procedure. 1  Instead of protecting their research investment, companies should have a moral duty to facilitate in any way they can to the development of cheap, available treatments and screenings for diseases which are so dangerous to so many people.  1. Spektor, Michelle, "Genes Are Still Patentable, Federal Appeals Court Rules", Science Progress, 17 August 2011,

A liability regime not patents.  There are alternatives to the kind of blanket patenting that stifles innovation and drives up prices . The most obvious is to have no patents at all for genes which would result in a free for all but might have the result the proposition argues it would, that without any kind of pay back for the research no one will do the research in the first place.  However there are alternatives that prevent many of the problems of patents while still bringing in many of the benefits . This would be to have some kind of rights for the discover. Unlike patents there would be no right to refuse or provide conditions for access to the discovery. This would be a use now pay later system. Anyone could research using the discovery or seek to commercialize it but would have to pay a fee which would depend upon what the application was1. Palombi has proposed the creation of ‘Genetic Sequence Rights’ “the GSR would be administered using… the present ‘international’ patent system so as to minimize establishment costs and to facilitate its adoption. A GSR would be granted to the first person to file and disclose a genetic sequence defining genetic material of any origin and explaining its function and utility… The GSR would become part of an international electronic database which would be freely accessible by any person.  Upon registration the GSR holder would have the right to a GSR use fee (GSR fee). The GSR fee would vary depending on the nature of the use. For publicly funded institutions such as universities, experimental use would not attract a GSR fee, but for commercial entities, the GSR fee would apply commensurately with the nature of the use2.” This would therefore create a much fairer system that both encourages research for commercial purposes and for academic purposes.  1. Dutfield G., DNA patenting: implications for public health research, WHO   2. Palombi, Luigi, “The Genetic Sequence Right: A Sui Generis Alternative to the Patenting of Biological Materials”, Patenting Lives Conference, 1-2 December 2005, p.18.  ,

Immoral to own a human life  Patenting genes and DNA fragments is immoral because of their significance for human life and welfare. It is immoral to own building blocks of the human life. Commercialization of human genes degrades value of human life. Once we give people the possibility to put an ownership tag on genes (basics of life), there is people who value human life merely based on monetary value. Bidding for the best gene, highest price and making the basics of life the same as buying a car. Andy Miah in his essay on Ethical Issues in Genetics argues: "Evidence of such disaffection has appeared most recently from the emergence of Ron's Angels, a company set up for the auctioning of female eggs and male sperm to infertile couples seeking 'exceptional' children. Whilst numerous companies of this kind now exist, Ron's Angels is interesting not simply for having arranged a standard and reasonable price for such genes; far from it. Rather, as indicated above, eggs and sperm are awarded to the highest bidder."1 Thus making the perception of human life what people believe is "fair to pay" and creating a race to figure out the cheapest ways of buying parts of the human body. 1 10) Miah, A., Patenting Human DNA. In Almond, B. &amp; Parker, M. (2003) Ethical Issues in the New Genetics: Are Genes Us?

Patenting drives up the cost of therapies and renders them unaffordable to the poor  The government and its laws should take care of all their people. Because the state is a construct built by all the people, who all pay taxes to support it, laws should also be based to benefit the greatest amount of people possible.In the case of the Myriad company, which holds, together with the University of Utah Research Foundation, rights over tests for ovarian cancer, it prevented cheaper tests being offered to the public. As a result, Myriad is the only company that can market a test for the mutations, and it charges as much as $3,000 . That is a price that for many is inaccessible. Patients’ state: “There is no other, cheaper test that you could go get in another laboratory, because they have the exclusive patent,” she explained, adding that Myriad also controls the efficacy of the test—second opinions are only available for certain surgeries 1.Because patenting harms the accessibility of diagnostics and testing, it should not be allowed.  1. Pratt P.A., Court Rules That DNA Is Information, Not Intellectual Property, published March 30th 2010,  , accessed 07/20/2011

Patenting in general is creating more possibilities for patients than if there was no patenting and less competition for development. Even if treatments and diagnostics for some diseases are expensive, they are at least there and are beginning to benefit the people that need them most. If the government is that concerned for the well-being of its poor patients, the issue of private and public dis-allocations is far more troubling than patents.  However, if the government does believe that such a treatment in necessary for the greater good of the country, which happens in very few cases, there still are mechanisms to loosen patent rights. The Hastings Center explains that governments and other organizations can encourage research on needed therapies, such as a malaria vaccine, by setting up prizes for innovation related to them or by promising to purchase the therapies once they are developed 1. Other measures rely on voluntary action. Patented drugs can be sold at little or no mark-up in poor countries. Scientists and their employers can decide not to patent an invention that might prove useful to other researchers, or they might patent it but license it strategically to maximize its impact on future research and its availability to people in need. For example, when the scientist Salk believed he has developed a vaccination that should be basic health care, he decided not to patent his polio vaccine, which saved millions 2.Also, companies like GlaxoSmithKline have initiatives for having drugs made more available and affordable to poor countries 3. Governments and NGOs can also contribute.  Experts in research analysis (Professors Walsh, Cohen, and Charlene Cho) concluded that patents do not have a “substantial” impact upon basic biomedical research and that “...none of a random sample of academics reported stopping a research project due to another’s patent on a research input, and only about 1% of the random sample of academics reported experiencing a delay or modification in their research due to patents 4.”Most of the newly developed gene therapies / genes are not that essential to be for free for everyone and further on for those few, that are, there are different methods of abuse prevention.  1. Cook-Deegan R., Gene patents, The Hastings Center,  , accessed 07/20/2011  2. Josephine Johnston, Intellectual Property in Biomedicine, The Hastings Center,  , accessed 07/21/2011  3. IB Times, “GSK lead initiative to help poorer countries”,  accessed 07/20/2011  4. CRS Report for Congress, Gene Patents: A Brief Overview of Intellectual Property Issues, 2006,  , accessed 07/21/2011

The concept of a nation is an artificial one [1] – there is no logical reason why we should draw lines on maps and declare that people may not pass from one side of a line to another without permission. Moreover xenophobia and racism can only be tackled by exposure to people from other cultures, not insulation from them – and in any case, policy should not be dictated by the prejudices of a few racists.  [1] Anderson, Benedict, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, London 1991, p.5.

society immigration minorities house believes right asylum should not be absolute

States must be responsible to their own citizens first  There will always be trafficking as long as there aren't open borders. And we should maintain strict controls on both immigration and asylum. States must focus on the needs of their people first, and the reaction of citizens in accepting countries is quite rightly the feeling that their hospitality and good intentions are being abused at the moment. The social harms that these feelings cause - suspicion, xenophobia, racism and disruption of social harmony and tolerance [1] - are too large and too damaging to the actual citizens of states to justify the maintenance of a failing system that may help some few outsiders. The responsibilities of governments to their own citizens must come first.  [1] Lægaard, Sune, ‘Immigration, Social Cohesion, and Naturalisation’, Centre for the Study of Equality and Multiculturalism, p.2

There have been no serious links between terrorism and the asylum system. The 9/11 hijackers all had visas and recent terror cells in Europe have all been 'home grown'. If anything an asylum system provides more security and border control for states. Even if there was no asylum system, people would still flee persecution but instead they would be forced to turn to people traffickers to circumvent all border controls, and thus never be documented or assessed at all. This would also increase the already huge numbers of migrants, especially women, who are exploited by traffickers in sex and underground industries, and also the sheer number of people present in a country of which the authorities have no knowledge.

The Whole System is broken  It is not clear that the system works at all. The majority of those who apply for asylum are working-age males, [1] which implies that there is a strong economic angle. And worse still, even if countries decide that an applicant has no basis to their claim they are frequently unable to deport them because they often go missing, as 75,000 in Britain have, [2] or because, perversely, they may be punished on return to their country for having sought refuge. So essentially the asylum system provides a loophole for unrestricted immigration, which is both expensive, and dangerous for states. In the age of global terrorism it is a huge risk to allow undocumented individuals to enter and roam freely within any country.  [1] Blinder, Scott, ‘Migration to the UK: Asylum’, The Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford, 23 March 2011.  [2] Whitehead, Tom, ’75,000 asylum seekers have gone missing in past 20 years’, The Telegraph, 6 April 2011.

Much of the fear of the asylum system being used by economic migrants is simply media hysteria and xenophobia. The vast majority of asylum claims (in the UK around 75%) are still rejected, which shows the system works. [1] Also it is not being abused in the way many people believe. Very few people are willing to leave their family and community, pay to travel thousands of miles to new country, in risky circumstances, with only a small chance of being accepted there, unless they have real reason to fear for their safety. The numbers of people seeking asylum are not historically unprecedented either, and most applicants still come from countries we recognise as dangerous, such as Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan. Compared to other forms of immigration the numbers who are accepted via the asylum regime are negligible.  [1] Blinder, ‘Migration to the UK: Asylum’, 2011

The system is open to abuse  It is extremely difficult to tell if someone is a genuine asylum seeker or not; for obvious reasons many will have little or no documentation, and all the evidence that they have suffered persecution may be in a faraway country and impossible to obtain. In many cases it may be impossible to prove that the person claiming asylum is even from the country that they claim to be from.  Asylum decisions are therefore based largely on a judgement call by the investigating officer on whether they thing the person in front of them is being truthful or not – that leaves the system open to motivated people who are economic migrants or may even pose a security threat.

Democratic nations can support like-minded groups in all manner of other ways, such as funding and training opposition groups, giving them international representation, and by applying pressure to oppressive governments. With individual asylum applicants they are still faced with the same problem of assessing who has genuinely taken a “brave and noble” step, which is very hard. Furthermore it is not at all clear that the hope of asylum is a motivator towards political action. Revolutions and resistance forces existed long before the creation of any formal asylum regime, and continue in the contemporary absence of any access to them. Often by harbouring those who have opposed oppressive regimes, perhaps in a similarly violent manner, states drastically reduce their ability to negotiate with and apply leverage to the authoritarian governments that are the problem in the first place.

It would be nice to offer safety to everyone who genuinely deserved it, but practically it is almost impossible to tell who is genuinely fleeing persecution, and who is simply seeking economic benefit. In many cases there may be a combination of the two. Tracking down the histories of applicants to verify their claim is frequently impossible, and enormously expensive. The point of moral obligations as opposed to legal obligations is that it is the donor who decides how great their sacrifice should be. States may perfectly fairly decide to try to protect refugees in more affordable and uncontroversial ways, such as providing aid to refugee camps and foreign governments who work nearer crisis areas. Accepting refugees is not obligatory.

The rights of refugees are a cornerstone of international law  Signatories of The 1951 Convention on Refugees have a legal responsibility to offer asylum to any foreign national who has a well-founded fear of persecution, for political, religious, ethnic or social reasons, and who is unwilling to return home. Moreover the refugee is protected against forcible return when his life may be threatened, something which is an obligation even for countries which are not parties to the convention bust respect as it is part of international customary law. [1] This treaty is one of the cornerstones of international human rights law, and as such states should uphold it to the letter.  [1] Jastram, Kate, and Achiron, Marilyn, Refugee Protection: A Guide to International Refugee Law’, P.14.

We must practice what we preach  Democratic nations preach the language of freedom, human rights and justice. They encourage those who live under oppression to oppose their rulers and work towards these goals. This is all rendered hollow, and hypocritical if they then refuse to protect individuals who are persecuted for taking the brave and noble step of working to improve their societies. Not only is this a moral failing but practically very harmful too. It is in the interests of democratic nations to spread democracy and peaceful forms of government. If the people of authoritarian nations don't feel they have the support of other, then the incentive for them to risk everything and stand up in the name of freedom is diminished, and so too the best chance of change in such oppressive regimes.

We have a duty to help the persecuted  The principles which underlie the asylum regime are as valid as ever. Millions still face persecution, death and torture globally because of who they are or because of their convictions. Democratic countries still have a moral obligation to offer protection to these people. We all recognise it as a horrendous failing by the countries who turned away Jewish refugees in the early days of Nazism where both the United States and the UK turned away large numbers or refugees, [1] and only the Dominican Republic was willing to take in large numbers. [2] This should never happen again. Developed nations have both the wealth and security to make them the best destinations for those seeking refuge.  [1] Perl, William R., ‘The Holocaust conspiracy: an international policy of genocide’, 1989, pp.37-51  [2] Museum of Jewish Heritage, ‘”A Community Born in Pain and Nurtured in Love” Jews who were given refuge by Dominican Republic’, 8 January 2008.

The Convention on Refugeehood was written in, and for, a totally different world. Its framers would never have anticipated the ease with which global travel is now possible, allowing huge numbers both legitimate and illegitimate to apply for asylum. Migrants can now move between countries with ease, 'shopping' for the place they see as being softest. If democracies feel these numbers are too great they should always put restricting them ahead of out of date laws.

On the contrary, poetry is helpful to teaching English. Learning poetry involves chanting, exploration of syllables and vowel sounds. As the pupils chant the syllables, they read the letters that go into making that sound and so spelling will be improved. Reading poetry aloud improves reading ability because the student is vocalising the building blocks that form certain sounds to make words. Public speaking ability will also be improved from a vocal exploration of poetry.

In schools where many pupils are failing the basics of English language, they cannot be expected to progress to a more complex level of English study like poetry before the basics have been mastered.  It is like asking a student who cannot count to solve a highly complex algebraic equation; completely impossible because the groundwork remains a nemesis. If the pupils cannot understand the basics of reading, writing and grammar, they will certainly struggle to with more complex concepts fundamental to the study of poetry such as similies, personifications, metaphors and extended metaphors. Let us take the UK as an example, for it is a country in which many students do not make progress in basic English. A report in 2011 voiced concern at the number of school children struggling with English and the published some horrifying statistics; "Hundreds of thousands of pupils are falling behind in the basics after starting secondary school, official figures suggest … three in 10 are not making enough progress in English, according to Department for Education data.160,000 did not make enough progress in English.”1  1Press Association, “Many secondary school pupils failing to meet expectations, report reveals”, guardian.co.uk, 9 June 2011,  , accessed 1 September 2011

Musicians have for some time been awarded poet status. The artist and their personal lifestyle choices can and must be regarded equally. Bob Dylan was originally described thus; "He sounded like a lung cancer victim singing Woody Gutherie. Now he's a Rolling Stone singing Emmanuel Kant" (page 36, Uncut Legends [magazine] #1: Dylan, September 2003). In 1992, he was described as "as good as Keats" (Ibid). If Bob Dylan can graduate from folk to electric to poet status, modern day musicians must also be allowed to follow suite; to gain the recognition they deserve and become similarly promoted. The poet and their personal lifestyle choices is separable from the poetry they produce. Dylan Thomas, Wales' national poet who is greatly and proudly upheld was an adulterer and an alcoholic. However, this does not make his impressive poetry any less credible. We must not sanitise all the great artists, but accept that the great art they offer as artists forgives them their wrongdoing as people. If we applied the policy of disregarding the art of every artist who has ever done wrong, we would soon lose many canonised ones and several of those who are held in very high esteem.

Poetry is a notoriously difficult concept. It is a highly challenging subject to teach, for its identity as an art form is constantly changing and being debated  If top academics and those highly informed about the subject take issue with poetry, school pupils cannot be expected to fathom it. On December 7th, 2007, The Guardian, a British newspaper affiliated to the Left, noted that this ambiguous identity of poetry renders it very difficult to teach;"But until education theory asks itself what poetry itself is, and therefore what the teacher is trying to get across, poems will continue largely to figure as teaching aids, exercises and - for teenagers - increasingly tedious, somewhat arbitrary puzzles".1 The canonised poets and their poetry are concerned with adult life experiences, e.g. love, life, work, history and politics, solitude, loneliness, etc. For this reason, widely acclaimed poetry is deep and requires an adult mind and mature emotional depth to understand, or at least draw something from, this famous poetry. 1 Sampson, Fiona, "Poetry is not a tool for teaching other things", guardian.co.uk Books Blog, 7 December 2007, 1 September 2011

While great poetry may deal with adult experiences there is poetry that targets a younger audience and methods available to teach this type of poetry. Children’s poetry, for instance, is not complex or dark in subject matter and uses very regular rhythm and rhyme schemes, which young students will enjoy. If age-appropriate poetry is taught in schools then it gives young people the chance to develop an appreciation for poetry and its various techniques. This means that in later years young people will have the skills necessary to properly understand great poetry. Poems that require more mature minds to understand can, and should, be used to stretch students to teach about these contexts as well as about the kind of imagry and analogy used in the poems. Using more difficult poems to stretch puplils will ensure they keep improving.

It is unthinkable that a school pupil does not know who his/her national poet is. English school pupils should be familiar with William Shakespeare, Scottish school pupils with Robert Burns and Welsh pupils with Dylan Thomas, Irish ones with James Joyce. Familiarity with one's own national poet is a basic.

The future of poetry teaching looks dismal. It is falling into disrepute by citing rappers as modern day poets.  Given that the highly respected Royal Holloway University of London is one such institution that supports this, the future of poetry education and even poetry itself does not look hopeful. Sir Andrew Motion, Professor of Creative writing at Royal Holloway, University of London, specified that; "Poetry is a house of many mansions. It does pupils a disservice only to tell them things they already know. Rap has its own challenges and opportunities - but so do many other kinds of poetry, many of which are neglected in schools".1 Eminem has caused much offence and controversy over the years with his homophobic lyrics. This is just one example of why rap is not to be encouraged at all, let alone awarded a label of (so-called) "poetry". Rappers like him must not be promoted as great artists in the classroom. It is unthinkable that rappers who promote gun crime, drugs and degrade women should be given a platform and even promoted in classrooms. These are simply not the values education can possibly support. 1 Edwards, Paul, "Why rap should be taught in schools", Royal Holloway University of London, 28 January 2010, accessed 1 September 2011

In countries where students are failing basic literacy, new measures to improve basic literacy skills in schools are required as a matter of urgency. In such cases, schools cannot justify wasting time by teaching poetry.  In the UK, The Labour Party introduced The Literacy Hour, a programme that meant schools were obliged to dedicate more time to basic literacy (and numeracy) upon their election in 1997. However, as the aforementioned statistics have shown, all that has increased is the number of pupils failing in this basic subject. There are 5 million illiterate people in Scotland alone. All we know is that more time does need to be spent learning the basic literacy and numeracy. Appreciating literature and poetry, the artistic side of the English language, cannot be addressed until learners have fully understood and grasped the tools of reading, writing and vowel sounds that allow for fiction and poetry to be produced. We need an educational programme that recognises reading and writing as a matter of urgency and literary and poetry appreciation as a luxury in order to reduce the number of illiterate pupils.

In failing schools, it IS justifiable to separate art from education. When a high number of students are struggling with basic literacy and numeracy, this is what needs to be addressed. Artistic studies will simply have to take a backseat while teaching of the basics is improved. This is a temporary measure, once teaching and abilities in basic literacy and numeracy improve, schools which have previously been failing can expand back into artistic studies. If this is not the case, and art and poetry continue to have a high profile in failing schools, what will result is a mass of very cultured high school leavers (not necessarily graduates) unable to add up in their head and with poor vocabulary, able to quote Shakespeare effortlessly but no idea how to spell his name.

Learning the basics of literature and language is not designed to be fun or enjoyable, it is an essential requirement. It is important that students can get to grips with the basics of their home language and a standard 'look, cover, write, check' method for learning spelling and expanding vocabulary is effective, for it requires the learner to write the words themselves. Simply reading them is not enough, especially not in the context of a poem- unconventional, even strange concepts typical of poetry may well be too demanding for the pupil, whose priority is to learn writing and reading. They can still learn reading through the cultural means of reading novels, in which the extended prose used by the author is far easier to follow.

It is important to honour the memory of the men who fell in the wars in the defence of their nation. War poetry is a fundamental tool to this end.  War poetry, although foreign to our own experiences of peacetime, enables us as readers to gain insight into the minds of the terrified men who fought for our freedom. Wilfred Owen suffered from shellshock as a result of fighting in the war. In his poem Mental Cases, he describes his time and experiences at Craiglockhart psychiatric hospital in Scotland, where he and Siegfried Sassoon (another WW1 poet) were treated for the condition; "Who are these? Why sit they here in twilight? Wherefore rock they, purgatorial shadows" (lines 1-2)1In our time of peace, we will never be able to fully empathise with their terrifying experiences, or successfully decode every observation, but we must read some of their poetry in order to appreciate the true and full horrors of war. We must do this out of respect for those who died for our freedom, and as such war poetry must be taught in schools. 1 Owen Owen, Wilfred, "Mental Cases", Wilfred Owen,accessed 1 September 2011.

Not teaching poetry in schools opens the gate to eradicating all artistic and creative subjects from the curriculum, which means the entire population would be Spartan and philistines.  We want cultured people to graduate from high schools. It is undesirable that all high school graduates, who are an educated group of people, will have no knowledge of art and no desire to ever immerse themselves in anything cultural such as a museum, or art gallery. This is what will happen if poetry and other art subjects are not respected in schools. As it is, English literature is the only cultural subject that is compulsory at GCSE level. Because it is the only obligatory cultural GCSE subject, as much culture must be channelled into it as possible i.e. novels and much poetry.

Poetry is art, art is inseparable from education; art is what makes us human, and that which makes us human is certainly to be taught in schools.  It is fundamental that education teaches students about the human condition in order to enable an understanding of humanity. High school students must therefore gain awareness of not only human ideas but also an awareness of how humans choose to express these ideas, which means they must learn about art. One of the ways in which humans choose to express their emotions is through literature, language and speech- poetry. For example, many Victorian poets such as William Wordsworth and Sir Walter Scott, who spent much time in the Lake District, turned to writing nature poetry, such as Wordsworth's famous poem Daffodils, because they wanted to "see into the life of things",1 and the best way to both investigate and express this was through nature poetry. 1 Lefebure, Molly, The Illustrated Lake Poets, Windward, 1987, p. 144

If any art is to be taught in schools, it has to be Poetry, for poetry is the only artistic form of a core subject.  It is an enjoyable way to teach the core subject of home language and literature written therein; interesting and obscure concepts hold the learner's interest when studying their home language and its landmark literature, while simultaneously expanding vocabulary and improving spelling. Poetry offers a fun method of teaching subjects that can otherwise easily be exhaustive and repetitive For examples; Shirley Hughes' poems for young readers such as Best friends introduce young readers to the vowel sounds of their home language. The Charge of the Light Brigade by Alfred, Lord Tennyson teaches the reader about a great historical landmark. The war poetry of Wilfred Owen, Siegfried Sassoon et al teaches students about the First World War and the horrors thereof. Zoe's Earrings by Kit Wright teaches pre-GCSE students about accents.1 1 Wright, Kit, "Zoe's Earrings", BBC Learning Zone, accessed 1 September 2011

We must be realistic in education; we need to prepare our students for the difficulties of the real world. It is those subjects that are vocational in nature and/or life skills, home language (not literature), maths and science and modern languages, business studies, law that must take priority in schools. We must equip and train the new generation to successfully gain employment. Therefore, art subjects like poetry are no priority.

An appreciation for the true horrors of war can be gained through factual reading. Factual books about the horrors of the First World War offer better understanding the true extent of the atrocities than poetry. Firstly, they are factual and not based upon opinion. Secondly, they are more modern and have been written in the aftermath of the First World War. Therefore, they tell its full story and provide a panoramic view of the Greta War. Thirdly, many of the men who wrote war poetry went mad with shellshock. Trying to find sense in the nonsensical lyrics of poetry by those poor men sent mad is an impossible task; knowledge of and research into shellshock is a relatively new development.