There is an issue about private morality vs public service - here is a good article about how US politicians and their private actions should be judged. That is by way of an aside, because it doesn't solve the problem in Norfolk, which is about who makes the judgement.
If it were me, I'd say it is significant that the marital indiscretion happened some years ago. But the point is I am not a member of the South-west Norfolk Conservative association. Elizabeth Truss won't be my candidate for MP. She will be the candidate for South West Norfolk and in the end it is the right of the constituency to select her or deselect her, whatever anyone thinks. Isn't that what Localism is all about?
So what if they are too straight-laced, too moralistic for London tastes? The constituency is in Norfolk, not London. The candidate was sent there from London. Elizabeth Truss works for the Reform think tank, based in London. She comes from the London Think tank world; she hob nobs with Conservative functionaries and shadow ministers, who circulate in London. That's her world, not South-West Norfolk. No doubt she is very brilliant. She may be more talented than any of the local candidates; or maybe not. But even if she is more talented, she doesn't have the connection with the constituency that the local candidate has. She is more likely to be oriented to London, not to her own voters. Imagine 600+ MP's whose views and preoccupations are rooted first and foremost in their consituencies. What diversity of thought that would be!
Moreover, she must have had the right views, according to Conservative Central Office, or they wouldn't be promoting her. Allowing local constituencies to select the MPs means that this kind of ideological selection by a clique in the party becomes much more difficult. A greater diversity of views will surface in the parliamentary party. They keep telling us how they want "diversity".
An MP is meant to represent his or her constituents. One of the big themes of the MP expenses scandal is that MPs don't represent the people. So why isn't there an uproar about this? It isn't just South West Norfolk. This is happening in other constituencies, in other parties. The net effect is that most MPs are representative of a London-based political elite rather than the constituencies they represent. Apparently the local conservatives are pretty annoyed with the leadership, which is threatening to impose another candidate. Someone local would be more representative of South-West Norfolk - even a country squire. The gentry are supposed to be part of the privileged classes, incapable of "representing" ordinary people. But most likely they will have lived in the constituency all their lives. And who represents farmers in parliament? or software engineers? or manufacturing towns? (what's left of them).
It is seen as a scandal that the Conservatives don't have all-woman shortlists or that there aren't enough people from an ethnic minority background; but a preponderance of MPs from a closed circle of party apparatchiks, think tanks, journalists and the like doesn't offend the culture police. Yet it is far more toxic, both for an individual constituency and cumulatively for the independence and good standing of Parliament. No matter how talented they are, or how committed or clever, they read similar books, are influenced by the same intellectual fashions and have more in common with each other than with the people who vote for them.
Monday 2 November 2009
Labour immigration policies, more like Treason
That the New Labour Government should consciously encourage immigration to make the country more diverse, as well being as a traitorous putsch, is part of the tyranny of the "enlightened" state over its people. It is no longer left to the electorate to decide on the composition of the people; instead enlightened government has the right to remake the people as it sees fit. Except they are not that englightened: they were motivated by political advantage and downright malice towards the traditional culture of Britain. See Melanie Philips' article on the Spectator at http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/5478436/the-neatherworld-of-britains-busted-political-class.thtml.
New Labour's support for immigration is based not so much on concern for the disenfranchised immigrants as hostilty towards the traditional, white, homogenous, British, Christian culture. By undermining the demographic base of society, they can more easily effect their progressive schemes for a new rational order, based on equality, supranationalism and the rest. They engineer a multi-cultural society, which is so toxic that it has to be managed by a plethora of race equality laws, handouts to "alienated" communities and measures against freedom of speech. The school system has to be monitored for community cohesiveness, the police have to be re-organised so that it is not "institutionally racist". If there were no immigrant masses, the liberal-left would have to invent them, so as to provide a pretext for their attack on western civilisation.
The Modern Conservatives have been very quiet, with Damien Green mouthing a weak, token protest (see end of article). As Melenie Philips said: "If David Cameron won’t raise the roof even over the fact that the British have had their cultural identity deliberately destroyed by stealth, then what on earth is the point of the Conservative party?" [her italics].
It should be stressed that the Conservatives' immigration policy (their website) reserves to the Government the right to choose the composition of the British people. This is tyranny at worst, state managerialism at best. As we discover, the two merge together in practice. See this wikipedia posting on the Managerial state.
New Labour's support for immigration is based not so much on concern for the disenfranchised immigrants as hostilty towards the traditional, white, homogenous, British, Christian culture. By undermining the demographic base of society, they can more easily effect their progressive schemes for a new rational order, based on equality, supranationalism and the rest. They engineer a multi-cultural society, which is so toxic that it has to be managed by a plethora of race equality laws, handouts to "alienated" communities and measures against freedom of speech. The school system has to be monitored for community cohesiveness, the police have to be re-organised so that it is not "institutionally racist". If there were no immigrant masses, the liberal-left would have to invent them, so as to provide a pretext for their attack on western civilisation.
The Modern Conservatives have been very quiet, with Damien Green mouthing a weak, token protest (see end of article). As Melenie Philips said: "If David Cameron won’t raise the roof even over the fact that the British have had their cultural identity deliberately destroyed by stealth, then what on earth is the point of the Conservative party?" [her italics].
It should be stressed that the Conservatives' immigration policy (their website) reserves to the Government the right to choose the composition of the British people. This is tyranny at worst, state managerialism at best. As we discover, the two merge together in practice. See this wikipedia posting on the Managerial state.
Saturday 31 October 2009
Drugs Tsar, that is "scientific expert", sacked
The irony about this Science adviser controversy is that government shouldn't have paid, "independent" advisers in the first place. Why not just ask independent scientists?
The suspicion is that Governments don't hire science advisers to be independent, but to take cover themselves. That way they can implement policy while pretending to be swayed by expert science, and circumvent due democratic process. The advisor will sometimes disagree with the boss, but they will only be hired because they have a similar world view. It looks like Nutt was hired for his liberalism on drugs, which has become embarrassing to New Labour as we approach an election.
In reality, there is unlikely to be a consensus on scientific issues. In a free society rather than a managed democracy, the media would be the conduit for a range of scientific views. Hiring a chief scientist creates the false impression that there is a supreme expert who knows best. While the BBC referred to him a "scientific adviser", the Guardian referred to him as a drugs adviser, the Daily Mail called him the government chief drugs tsar. The left tend to believe in rule by experts. The Daily Mail has a good record on fighting technocratic dictatorship, as has the non-globalist right generally. Although the exception has been control of the money supply by central bankers, which the right have bought into over the past decades: that is what got us into the current financial mess, especially low interest rates.
It also pretends that drugs policy is purely a scientific issue rather than a moral one. After complaining 'But politics is politics and science is science and there's a bit of a tension between them sometimes.', Nutt gave the game away, 'I think we have to accept young people like to experiment – with drugs and other potentially harmful activities – and what we should be doing in all of this is to protect them from harm at this stage of their lives. Surely what society accepts or not, and the costs of either choice, is what we should be arguing about. There are civil liberties issues relating to the police checking people for drugs, so as to actually enforce drug laws; there is the danger to society and to individuals of being dependent on drugs, regardless of whether they are "harmed" in a purely physical sense. It is not primarily a scientific issue at all, although evidence has its place.
A government who believed in scientific evidence rather than information control would sack all its paid advisers. Then let politicians inform the electorate of their views and take those views to the election. Let scientists say what they think also, not because they are the chief expert, because they represent one scientifically informed opinion among many. There will be a range of competing studies and conflicting evidence. In the end, let the public decide.
Then social policy would revert to the democratic arena rather than being the preserve of experts. Government would be improved by elected officials taking responsibility for the policies they implement rather than hiding behind a smokescreen of bureaucrats and "experts". Secondly, the Government, by which I mean the taxpayer, would save money, at least if Government (here I mean the people governing) were not determined to find something else to spend it on.
The suspicion is that Governments don't hire science advisers to be independent, but to take cover themselves. That way they can implement policy while pretending to be swayed by expert science, and circumvent due democratic process. The advisor will sometimes disagree with the boss, but they will only be hired because they have a similar world view. It looks like Nutt was hired for his liberalism on drugs, which has become embarrassing to New Labour as we approach an election.
In reality, there is unlikely to be a consensus on scientific issues. In a free society rather than a managed democracy, the media would be the conduit for a range of scientific views. Hiring a chief scientist creates the false impression that there is a supreme expert who knows best. While the BBC referred to him a "scientific adviser", the Guardian referred to him as a drugs adviser, the Daily Mail called him the government chief drugs tsar. The left tend to believe in rule by experts. The Daily Mail has a good record on fighting technocratic dictatorship, as has the non-globalist right generally. Although the exception has been control of the money supply by central bankers, which the right have bought into over the past decades: that is what got us into the current financial mess, especially low interest rates.
It also pretends that drugs policy is purely a scientific issue rather than a moral one. After complaining 'But politics is politics and science is science and there's a bit of a tension between them sometimes.', Nutt gave the game away, 'I think we have to accept young people like to experiment – with drugs and other potentially harmful activities – and what we should be doing in all of this is to protect them from harm at this stage of their lives. Surely what society accepts or not, and the costs of either choice, is what we should be arguing about. There are civil liberties issues relating to the police checking people for drugs, so as to actually enforce drug laws; there is the danger to society and to individuals of being dependent on drugs, regardless of whether they are "harmed" in a purely physical sense. It is not primarily a scientific issue at all, although evidence has its place.
A government who believed in scientific evidence rather than information control would sack all its paid advisers. Then let politicians inform the electorate of their views and take those views to the election. Let scientists say what they think also, not because they are the chief expert, because they represent one scientifically informed opinion among many. There will be a range of competing studies and conflicting evidence. In the end, let the public decide.
Then social policy would revert to the democratic arena rather than being the preserve of experts. Government would be improved by elected officials taking responsibility for the policies they implement rather than hiding behind a smokescreen of bureaucrats and "experts". Secondly, the Government, by which I mean the taxpayer, would save money, at least if Government (here I mean the people governing) were not determined to find something else to spend it on.
Saturday 17 October 2009
Modern Conservatism, perpetual war
Neil Clark wrote last summer about how the modern Conservative party have been wholly captured by the neo-conservative hawks. I knew about Gove, Hague and Fox, but it turns out that all the key figures in the cabinet have similar views. Neil Clark also touches on how the Cameron campaign was orchestrated by special interests.
So what a Modern Conservative election victory would bring us is more confrontation with Russia, support for sanctions against Iran for what is an entirely legitimate nuclear programme, an escalation of the war in Afghanistan and forays into Somalia (justified by gloopy humanitarianism). And this is a time of austerity, when the middle classes will have to take the hit on welfare benefits and tax rises.
The Eastern Europe watch blog noted how apathetic the poles are about involvement in Afghanistan, a war opposed by the majority there. It also points out the blindingly obvious but politically incorrect observation that there is less muslim immigration in Poland, and therefore less danger of home-grown terrorism. Eight years after 9/11, immigration to Britain continues unabated. The British people are sceptical about the benefits of mass immigration and they are also sceptical about defending Britain by fighting wars on the other side of the world. The ordinary member of the Conservative party to a large extent will reflect the population as a whole.
But Modern Conservatism means you take the power of decision from the rank and file, who are too reactionary and stupid to make the correct decisions and leave them to an enlightened, progressive clique. Who needs democracy? William Hague has said that a conservative goverment would need to turn around public opposition to the Afghanistan war.
It is also noteworthy that the Immigration Advisory Service (IAS) had a presence at the Conservative party conference. At time of writing, there are two postings on the IAS home page. One from Modern Conservative Immigration spokesman, Damien Green, tells the IAS in-crowd that a future government should not follow public opinion. Here Green also talks about Europe-wide solutions. The second posting on the IAS site has an IAS person saying joined up thinking and curbing human rights abuses across the world is the way to fight immigration. Those caring people in the IAS are dispensing a presciption for perpetual interventions and wars across the world in the name of "human rights". Tightening our own border controls and asylum regulations is not the kind of change approved of by Modern Conservatism and its allies. "Joined up thinking": where did we hear that before? Is that Blairism? or Blameronism?
There is a link between immigration and modern utopian wars. The globalist elites, which includes the modern conservative and republican party elites, have given up on controlling their own borders; and in order to make immigration safer, they try to control large tracts of the rest of the world, which are the source for migrant invasions. In order "to make the world safe forglobalism democracy".
The fact that Al-Queda and the Taliban hate Shia Islam as much as they hate West should make these War-on-Terror fanatics think that Iran and the West have common cause. The nebulous concept of "global security" means that all local conflicts are seen through the simplistic prism of Free-world vs Islamic extremists; "global security" necessitates that the vaguest of threats demands a military response from an economically bankrupt and war-weary US and UK. As Ron Paul said, sanctions are an act of war. A vote for Cameron is a vote for the McCain-Cheney axis. George W. Bush was a realist compared to these.
So what a Modern Conservative election victory would bring us is more confrontation with Russia, support for sanctions against Iran for what is an entirely legitimate nuclear programme, an escalation of the war in Afghanistan and forays into Somalia (justified by gloopy humanitarianism). And this is a time of austerity, when the middle classes will have to take the hit on welfare benefits and tax rises.
The Eastern Europe watch blog noted how apathetic the poles are about involvement in Afghanistan, a war opposed by the majority there. It also points out the blindingly obvious but politically incorrect observation that there is less muslim immigration in Poland, and therefore less danger of home-grown terrorism. Eight years after 9/11, immigration to Britain continues unabated. The British people are sceptical about the benefits of mass immigration and they are also sceptical about defending Britain by fighting wars on the other side of the world. The ordinary member of the Conservative party to a large extent will reflect the population as a whole.
But Modern Conservatism means you take the power of decision from the rank and file, who are too reactionary and stupid to make the correct decisions and leave them to an enlightened, progressive clique. Who needs democracy? William Hague has said that a conservative goverment would need to turn around public opposition to the Afghanistan war.
It is also noteworthy that the Immigration Advisory Service (IAS) had a presence at the Conservative party conference. At time of writing, there are two postings on the IAS home page. One from Modern Conservative Immigration spokesman, Damien Green, tells the IAS in-crowd that a future government should not follow public opinion. Here Green also talks about Europe-wide solutions. The second posting on the IAS site has an IAS person saying joined up thinking and curbing human rights abuses across the world is the way to fight immigration. Those caring people in the IAS are dispensing a presciption for perpetual interventions and wars across the world in the name of "human rights". Tightening our own border controls and asylum regulations is not the kind of change approved of by Modern Conservatism and its allies. "Joined up thinking": where did we hear that before? Is that Blairism? or Blameronism?
There is a link between immigration and modern utopian wars. The globalist elites, which includes the modern conservative and republican party elites, have given up on controlling their own borders; and in order to make immigration safer, they try to control large tracts of the rest of the world, which are the source for migrant invasions. In order "to make the world safe for
The fact that Al-Queda and the Taliban hate Shia Islam as much as they hate West should make these War-on-Terror fanatics think that Iran and the West have common cause. The nebulous concept of "global security" means that all local conflicts are seen through the simplistic prism of Free-world vs Islamic extremists; "global security" necessitates that the vaguest of threats demands a military response from an economically bankrupt and war-weary US and UK. As Ron Paul said, sanctions are an act of war. A vote for Cameron is a vote for the McCain-Cheney axis. George W. Bush was a realist compared to these.
Thursday 15 October 2009
Libertarian conservatism should attract socialists, liberals and environmentalists too
"All hope for change lies in a rEVOLution fought not with bullets, but with our minds." Jake Towne
On one of the unofficial Ron Paul websites, http://ronpaulrepublican.com/?p=139, is an article by someone running for office in Pennsylvania called Jake Towne. That's where I got the quote above. Yes it's idealistic, but Towne represents many aspects of the properly conservative mindset - constitutionalism, fiscal solidity, defence of liberty and an aversion to unnecessary wars. It won't solve all our problems, but it is a realistic alternative to established politics, which has left us with a democratic deficit, social decay and a bankrupt economy.
Many socialists are initially motivated by distrust of the establishment and opposition to injustice, and have been disillusioned by the Labour party and changemaker Obama bailing out the banks. The Ron Paul revolution offers a government not in hock to special interests like the finance industry. It's a free-market philosophy, but it blocks the too-cosy relationship between government and the banks.
Classical liberals and democrats should reject the Lib Dems' love of unaccountable supranational institutions like the EU. How can a liberal be happy with the EU-wide arrest warrant? Yet Nick Clegg, Vince Cable et al support it, because they believe that the supra-state apparatus of the EU is essentially benign. The Liberal Democrats support central planning also. Modern day liberals claim continuity with John Locke and 19th Century liberalism; however, Paul E. Gottfried in "After liberalism: the managerial state in the age of mass democracy" convincingly argues that modern liberalism is defined by a faith in progress through government planning by experts. This dictatorship of the bureaucrats, often in the teeth of popular (small 'c' conservative) opposition is clearly the antithesis of the 19th Century liberal belief in individual freedom. Only the name survives, so creating an illusion of continuity.
Some useful reviews of Gottfried's book are to be found here. Or use an Internet search.
Environmentalists who blame the free-market for local noise and air pollution should read Simon Jenkins' article about how how Labour Government policy has been captured by the airline industry. At least part of the answer is more Nimbys - i.e. local residents and awkward anti-government planning types - not Big Government.
On the right of the political divide, so-called Conservatives have bought into the central planning as much as so-called socialists and liberals. The way the Federal Reserve and Bank of England have kept interest rates artificially low, thereby creating the credit and housing bubbles, is a an example of central planning by supposed experts at its worst. The rule of experts is the defining feature of the managerial state, and people who call themselves free-market Conservatives have up to now bought into that.
Socialists who support bailouts for the rich; free-market conservatives who support utopian wars, big government welfarism, centrally planned interest rates and managed inflation, a form of theft; liberals who give more credence to the benefits of the managerial state than individual initiative. The participants of the late 19th/early 20th century ideological wars have been replaced by replicas; by keeping the old names though, they can create the illusion that the battleground is the same.
On one of the unofficial Ron Paul websites, http://ronpaulrepublican.com/?p=139, is an article by someone running for office in Pennsylvania called Jake Towne. That's where I got the quote above. Yes it's idealistic, but Towne represents many aspects of the properly conservative mindset - constitutionalism, fiscal solidity, defence of liberty and an aversion to unnecessary wars. It won't solve all our problems, but it is a realistic alternative to established politics, which has left us with a democratic deficit, social decay and a bankrupt economy.
Many socialists are initially motivated by distrust of the establishment and opposition to injustice, and have been disillusioned by the Labour party and changemaker Obama bailing out the banks. The Ron Paul revolution offers a government not in hock to special interests like the finance industry. It's a free-market philosophy, but it blocks the too-cosy relationship between government and the banks.
Classical liberals and democrats should reject the Lib Dems' love of unaccountable supranational institutions like the EU. How can a liberal be happy with the EU-wide arrest warrant? Yet Nick Clegg, Vince Cable et al support it, because they believe that the supra-state apparatus of the EU is essentially benign. The Liberal Democrats support central planning also. Modern day liberals claim continuity with John Locke and 19th Century liberalism; however, Paul E. Gottfried in "After liberalism: the managerial state in the age of mass democracy" convincingly argues that modern liberalism is defined by a faith in progress through government planning by experts. This dictatorship of the bureaucrats, often in the teeth of popular (small 'c' conservative) opposition is clearly the antithesis of the 19th Century liberal belief in individual freedom. Only the name survives, so creating an illusion of continuity.
Some useful reviews of Gottfried's book are to be found here. Or use an Internet search.
Environmentalists who blame the free-market for local noise and air pollution should read Simon Jenkins' article about how how Labour Government policy has been captured by the airline industry. At least part of the answer is more Nimbys - i.e. local residents and awkward anti-government planning types - not Big Government.
On the right of the political divide, so-called Conservatives have bought into the central planning as much as so-called socialists and liberals. The way the Federal Reserve and Bank of England have kept interest rates artificially low, thereby creating the credit and housing bubbles, is a an example of central planning by supposed experts at its worst. The rule of experts is the defining feature of the managerial state, and people who call themselves free-market Conservatives have up to now bought into that.
Socialists who support bailouts for the rich; free-market conservatives who support utopian wars, big government welfarism, centrally planned interest rates and managed inflation, a form of theft; liberals who give more credence to the benefits of the managerial state than individual initiative. The participants of the late 19th/early 20th century ideological wars have been replaced by replicas; by keeping the old names though, they can create the illusion that the battleground is the same.
Wednesday 14 October 2009
BBC doesn't tell you that Guttmacher is a pro-abortion campaign group
On the 8am Radio 4 News today, the BBC presented the latest publication by the pro-abortion organisation, The Guttmacher Institute, as a report by "sexual health experts". A lot of unsubstantiated figures were reeled out to support this so-called expert opinion.
The BBC don't produce transcripts, but here is the text (with my italics).
"Research suggest the number of abortions performed world wide is falling. The study says that there are no reduction in what it calls unsafe abortions carried out in countries where the practice is heavily restricted. Jane Draper reporting. [Jane Draper:] 'Sexual health experts from the Guttmacher institute analysed official figures and data about medical complications which may have arisen from illegal abortions. Researchers found that since the mid 1990s, the number of abortions worldwide has fallen from 45 milliion to 41 million. This they said was due to increased provision in contraception particularly in Eastern Europe and Africa, but they estimate unsafe abortions cause 70,000 deaths, mainly in developing countries. In N.Ireland terminations are still restricted but some women travel to Britain or abroad to end unwanted pregrancies. A group called Comment for Reproductive Ethics, which campaigns for respect for the human embryo said abortion wasn't the answer and it didn't liberate women.'"
Firstly, SPUC are categorical that these figures are false.
The figures used are highly dubious: what is the source of the "offical data" and how is it compiled? How does anyone get statistics on "unsafe" abortions, which are presumably illegal? Yet the Guttmacher have a history of providing these statistics. The numbers on which the report is based are "estimates" by the researchers themselves. To be fair, Draper inserts "they say" as a rather faint parenthesis, but the figures are to all intents and purposes treated as statistical fact.
And left unstated is the fact that the Guttmacher institute is itself a campaigning organisation. As ever, pro-abortion propaganda is represented as objective and scientific, pro-life campaigners as mere moralists. The reference to CORE is a nod towards balance but CORE are described as campaigners, the Guttmacher people as experts. What would a person who hasn't looked into the matter be led to conclude?
Odd that Draper uses CORE,who are more interested in artificial conception, rather than another anti-abortion group: by focusing on "respect for embryo", Draper obscures the point that many abortions take place on foetuses who can be of 6 or 7 months+ gestation, a practice objectionable to many people who don't concede that the embryo is alive. CORE's response seemed generic also: was it a reply to the Guttmacher report or taken from another context?: there's nothing on their website.
It looks to me like Draper has framed the issue as a debate between scientific researchers and anti-abortion ideologues. That the BBC health correspondent, is reporting this news item is an example of how the debate on abortion is expunged of any moral dimension and treated pseudo-scientifically as a health issue.
There is an oblique swipe at Northern Ireland's restrictive laws, which continue to be a target of pro-abortion campaigners, juxtaposed with the estimate of women killed as a result of "unsafe" abortions. The reporter seems to have incorporated Northern Ireland into the news item on her own initiative.
As Robin Aitken says in Can we Trust the BBC?,abortion is one of those issues on where the BBC promotes its own opinions, although it is required to maintain a pretence of objectivity.
The BBC don't produce transcripts, but here is the text (with my italics).
"Research suggest the number of abortions performed world wide is falling. The study says that there are no reduction in what it calls unsafe abortions carried out in countries where the practice is heavily restricted. Jane Draper reporting. [Jane Draper:] 'Sexual health experts from the Guttmacher institute analysed official figures and data about medical complications which may have arisen from illegal abortions. Researchers found that since the mid 1990s, the number of abortions worldwide has fallen from 45 milliion to 41 million. This they said was due to increased provision in contraception particularly in Eastern Europe and Africa, but they estimate unsafe abortions cause 70,000 deaths, mainly in developing countries. In N.Ireland terminations are still restricted but some women travel to Britain or abroad to end unwanted pregrancies. A group called Comment for Reproductive Ethics, which campaigns for respect for the human embryo said abortion wasn't the answer and it didn't liberate women.'"
Firstly, SPUC are categorical that these figures are false.
The figures used are highly dubious: what is the source of the "offical data" and how is it compiled? How does anyone get statistics on "unsafe" abortions, which are presumably illegal? Yet the Guttmacher have a history of providing these statistics. The numbers on which the report is based are "estimates" by the researchers themselves. To be fair, Draper inserts "they say" as a rather faint parenthesis, but the figures are to all intents and purposes treated as statistical fact.
And left unstated is the fact that the Guttmacher institute is itself a campaigning organisation. As ever, pro-abortion propaganda is represented as objective and scientific, pro-life campaigners as mere moralists. The reference to CORE is a nod towards balance but CORE are described as campaigners, the Guttmacher people as experts. What would a person who hasn't looked into the matter be led to conclude?
Odd that Draper uses CORE,who are more interested in artificial conception, rather than another anti-abortion group: by focusing on "respect for embryo", Draper obscures the point that many abortions take place on foetuses who can be of 6 or 7 months+ gestation, a practice objectionable to many people who don't concede that the embryo is alive. CORE's response seemed generic also: was it a reply to the Guttmacher report or taken from another context?: there's nothing on their website.
It looks to me like Draper has framed the issue as a debate between scientific researchers and anti-abortion ideologues. That the BBC health correspondent, is reporting this news item is an example of how the debate on abortion is expunged of any moral dimension and treated pseudo-scientifically as a health issue.
There is an oblique swipe at Northern Ireland's restrictive laws, which continue to be a target of pro-abortion campaigners, juxtaposed with the estimate of women killed as a result of "unsafe" abortions. The reporter seems to have incorporated Northern Ireland into the news item on her own initiative.
As Robin Aitken says in Can we Trust the BBC?,abortion is one of those issues on where the BBC promotes its own opinions, although it is required to maintain a pretence of objectivity.
Friday 18 September 2009
Geography and demographics: relations with Muslim countries in the future
With all the warmongering talk about Iran as a threat to the West (for a more sceptical view see here), we forget which Muslim states in the decades to come are likely to pose a threat to the independence, if not the very existence, of some western countries, specifically in Southern and South Eastern Europe.
The population of North Africa is increasing fast, while that of Europe ages and declines, so changing the balance of power in the Mediterranean. Mass immigration from the Maghreb into Spain, France and Italy is likely to increase the political influence of Algeria and Morocco in Southern Europe, with more than merely cultural effects. A country like Morocco might be tempted to intervene in Spain if any religious tensions should flare up; or a nuclear-armed (with Pakistani help) Algeria might feel impelled to support Muslim groups in ethno-religious conflicts inside French territory. This conflict could be in the form of rioting or simply non-violent agitation by Muslims for more civil rights, special privileges or concessions to Islamic culture. Ethnic tensions in Europe will as likely to worsen relations between Europe and the Maghreb rather than bring cultures and countries together.
In the Balkans, a populous, industrialised Turkey is likely to extend its influence over weak and sparsely populated Balkan states. The Turkish government seems moderate, but quite understandably it will pursue Turkish self-interest. The old dictum, powers will be powers, applies. A Bulgarian think-tank predicts how Turkish accession will lead to unrestricted turkish immigration overwhelming ethnic Bulgarians; and the Turks will extend their influence in Europe. The US Government, the British Conservatives (in thrall to US foreign policy objectives) as well most neo-conservatives and liberals believe that Turkey can become a bulwark against the supposed main threats to the East, which are geographically more distant from Europe. Even without EU Accession, it has to be said, Turkish influence can only increase; but polite containment of Turkey rather than integration with it will be more attractive to central and Eastern Europeans.
Iran is a long way from Europe. In the days of the Ottoman Empire, Persia acted as a second front for the Ottoman Empire, forcing the Turks to divert resources away from Europe and perhaps saving central Europe from conquest. This dynamic may reassert itself. Iran is likely to be contained by Sunni countries in the Middle East and won't be in a position to pose an existential threat to Israel. The main threat to the Israeli state is demographic - from the Palestinian Arabs in a greater Israel; or even in a 1948-borders Israel.
Iran also has militarised, Sunni Pakistan as a neighbour and relations between the two countries remain strained, according to the neo-conservative Middle East Quarterly. Asia Times reports that Border tensions continue. As a result, Iran is likely to maintain good relations with India in order to contain the Pakistani threat, which includes the spectre of the Sunni bomb. India's rivalry with China will mean that India will be friendly to the West; Pakistan's rivalry with India will mean that it relies more on China, although a Uighur insurgency might distract Pakistan from its strategic interest. Iran again will have interests in common with Europe and America, suggesting a cold alliance. Shia Islam is not likely to be a destabilising ideology for the West in the way that Saudi Wahabiism is.
The population of North Africa is increasing fast, while that of Europe ages and declines, so changing the balance of power in the Mediterranean. Mass immigration from the Maghreb into Spain, France and Italy is likely to increase the political influence of Algeria and Morocco in Southern Europe, with more than merely cultural effects. A country like Morocco might be tempted to intervene in Spain if any religious tensions should flare up; or a nuclear-armed (with Pakistani help) Algeria might feel impelled to support Muslim groups in ethno-religious conflicts inside French territory. This conflict could be in the form of rioting or simply non-violent agitation by Muslims for more civil rights, special privileges or concessions to Islamic culture. Ethnic tensions in Europe will as likely to worsen relations between Europe and the Maghreb rather than bring cultures and countries together.
In the Balkans, a populous, industrialised Turkey is likely to extend its influence over weak and sparsely populated Balkan states. The Turkish government seems moderate, but quite understandably it will pursue Turkish self-interest. The old dictum, powers will be powers, applies. A Bulgarian think-tank predicts how Turkish accession will lead to unrestricted turkish immigration overwhelming ethnic Bulgarians; and the Turks will extend their influence in Europe. The US Government, the British Conservatives (in thrall to US foreign policy objectives) as well most neo-conservatives and liberals believe that Turkey can become a bulwark against the supposed main threats to the East, which are geographically more distant from Europe. Even without EU Accession, it has to be said, Turkish influence can only increase; but polite containment of Turkey rather than integration with it will be more attractive to central and Eastern Europeans.
Iran is a long way from Europe. In the days of the Ottoman Empire, Persia acted as a second front for the Ottoman Empire, forcing the Turks to divert resources away from Europe and perhaps saving central Europe from conquest. This dynamic may reassert itself. Iran is likely to be contained by Sunni countries in the Middle East and won't be in a position to pose an existential threat to Israel. The main threat to the Israeli state is demographic - from the Palestinian Arabs in a greater Israel; or even in a 1948-borders Israel.
Iran also has militarised, Sunni Pakistan as a neighbour and relations between the two countries remain strained, according to the neo-conservative Middle East Quarterly. Asia Times reports that Border tensions continue. As a result, Iran is likely to maintain good relations with India in order to contain the Pakistani threat, which includes the spectre of the Sunni bomb. India's rivalry with China will mean that India will be friendly to the West; Pakistan's rivalry with India will mean that it relies more on China, although a Uighur insurgency might distract Pakistan from its strategic interest. Iran again will have interests in common with Europe and America, suggesting a cold alliance. Shia Islam is not likely to be a destabilising ideology for the West in the way that Saudi Wahabiism is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
