No, this is not a feminist issue. It is a morality one! Let's not forget the violence the living suffer: the estimated over 50,000 rapes women suffer every year in the UK alone, the women who are beaten and die as a result of domestic violence and the women and, indeed, children trafficked and used as sex slaves. Why is nobody doing anything? Here's an interview with Emma Thompson. Here's her video where she impersonates a victim, made available by La Repubblica. Now watch it.
29 October 2007
22 October 2007
Abortion rights and wrongs
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, wrote a very measured piece on the Observer yesterday about modern attitudes towards abortion. He expressed concerns that there has been a “weakening of the feeling that abortion is a last resort”. He laments the fact that there’s no longer the presumption of marriage as a lifelong union, that marriage and family are no longer seen as the “foundational things in a properly nurturing and stable society”, rather, people choose not to marry in ever greater numbers. Of course, he is not condemning anything, not against divorce, not against civil partnerships. In fact, he does not even suggest to outlaw abortion, but to tighten the law. … And?
I’m not sure whether Rowan Williams is trying to boost his liberal profile after the hard line taken against the American Episcopalians recently, or simply get some press coverage ahead of the anniversary of the Abortion Act 1967 and show that he’s doing something. He might just be concerned and want a more stringent law. But why?
The law generally reflects society’s morals; it does not teach them. If Williams is right and abortion is no longer seen as ‘last resort’, but another form of contraceptive, which I’m afraid is what is being inferred here, the law would not change people’s minds a bit. This is the fundamental misunderstanding of some Pro-Life groups: they want the law changed to enforce their view. That’s why, I believe, in the US extremist Pro-Life groups went on to become violent. After all, if you think right and proper to force a particular moral view, the logical step is to force it by ‘other means’. It feels like the Catholic Church is smarter and better at the game. Whilst they do their bit of condemning, they concentrate on instilling their views in people’s minds. Nevertheless, it’s probably impossible to tell if it works given that any comparison between the US and Catholic countries would need to take into consideration too many factors influencing one’s behaviour in this matter.
The problem I have with all this stuff is that I can’t help finding it self-indulgent. Let me first say where I stand: I do consider abortion morally wrong because it’s ending potential life. In Judaism, foetuses are not equal to human beings, so abortion is not murder. Nevertheless, I believe abortion should indeed be last resort. This should not impact on a woman’s right to choose what to do with her life and future. Let's be clear: nobody wants more abortions. I, like everybody else, would like to see fewer abortions, I’d like a world where women are not raped, where they can demand the use of contraceptives without being thought of as ‘difficult’ or ‘fussy’, where couples have meaningful and respectful relationships. If pro-lifers were serious about this, they would try to find out why people resort to abortions rather than passing judgement. How many abortions are sought as a result of rape/incest? How many as a result of medical complications? How many simply as a result of ‘inconvenience’? All the abortion cases have their own story, their own real people facing a dilemma. By the way, a dilemma is a choice between wrong and wrong, not between right and wrong!
The language of ‘foetal rights’ obfuscates the reality of abortion and instils a presumption that many women choose lightly to have an abortion and treat it as another form of contraceptive. Even if this was the case, it would be symptomatic of the need for better sex education, which would include the discussion of human relationships, for moral, financial or human support.
Nevertheless, one cannot help thinking that some groups advocating morality devote more attention to ‘foetal rights’ than to the deeply immoral injustice, poverty, discrimination and violence many people experience every day in the UK. Morality is a political issue. Let’s bring it to the fore of public debate: let’s talk about violence, injustice and poverty.
I’m not sure whether Rowan Williams is trying to boost his liberal profile after the hard line taken against the American Episcopalians recently, or simply get some press coverage ahead of the anniversary of the Abortion Act 1967 and show that he’s doing something. He might just be concerned and want a more stringent law. But why?
The law generally reflects society’s morals; it does not teach them. If Williams is right and abortion is no longer seen as ‘last resort’, but another form of contraceptive, which I’m afraid is what is being inferred here, the law would not change people’s minds a bit. This is the fundamental misunderstanding of some Pro-Life groups: they want the law changed to enforce their view. That’s why, I believe, in the US extremist Pro-Life groups went on to become violent. After all, if you think right and proper to force a particular moral view, the logical step is to force it by ‘other means’. It feels like the Catholic Church is smarter and better at the game. Whilst they do their bit of condemning, they concentrate on instilling their views in people’s minds. Nevertheless, it’s probably impossible to tell if it works given that any comparison between the US and Catholic countries would need to take into consideration too many factors influencing one’s behaviour in this matter.
The problem I have with all this stuff is that I can’t help finding it self-indulgent. Let me first say where I stand: I do consider abortion morally wrong because it’s ending potential life. In Judaism, foetuses are not equal to human beings, so abortion is not murder. Nevertheless, I believe abortion should indeed be last resort. This should not impact on a woman’s right to choose what to do with her life and future. Let's be clear: nobody wants more abortions. I, like everybody else, would like to see fewer abortions, I’d like a world where women are not raped, where they can demand the use of contraceptives without being thought of as ‘difficult’ or ‘fussy’, where couples have meaningful and respectful relationships. If pro-lifers were serious about this, they would try to find out why people resort to abortions rather than passing judgement. How many abortions are sought as a result of rape/incest? How many as a result of medical complications? How many simply as a result of ‘inconvenience’? All the abortion cases have their own story, their own real people facing a dilemma. By the way, a dilemma is a choice between wrong and wrong, not between right and wrong!
The language of ‘foetal rights’ obfuscates the reality of abortion and instils a presumption that many women choose lightly to have an abortion and treat it as another form of contraceptive. Even if this was the case, it would be symptomatic of the need for better sex education, which would include the discussion of human relationships, for moral, financial or human support.
Nevertheless, one cannot help thinking that some groups advocating morality devote more attention to ‘foetal rights’ than to the deeply immoral injustice, poverty, discrimination and violence many people experience every day in the UK. Morality is a political issue. Let’s bring it to the fore of public debate: let’s talk about violence, injustice and poverty.
21 October 2007
Liberal Democracy and multiculturalism according to the Chief Rabbi
Jonathan Sacks, Chief Orthodox Rabbi, has jumped on the latest bandwagon blaming multiculturalism for the demise of society, morality, the nation and all things Tory. There are so many things wrong with his piece that it’s difficult to rebut concisely, but here are a few thoughts.
According to Sacks, multiculturalism, notwithstanding the good intentions, has resulted in segregation of groups, rather than integration and, subsequently, in a fragmentary identity politics which endangers liberal democracy.
Whilst it is true that many groups live separately, this is not the inevitable fruit of multiculturalism, rather it is the negative outcome of ill-conceived government policies and laisser-faire attitude. As such, segregation can only be tackled through a reinvigorated local democracy and policies aimed at substantive participation, rather than putting a cross on a ballot paper every four years. (By the way, this is also what I wanted to do my PhD on, so if you feel particularly generous and want to fund me, let me know!).
Sacks falls prey of a particularly pernicious type of nostalgia wishing the return to one common national culture and morality. This manufactured identity was always authoritarian and oppressive excluding those who did not fit the script. Thus, the Welsh were not allowed to speak Welsh and women could not be doctors, lawyers or academics.
Not content with all this, Sacks gets into a deeper mess by holding multiculturalism responsible for the demise of morality confusing individual autonomy with the excessive individualism and consumerism of the 1980s.
Individualism has indeed affected how we relate to the res publica, the shared polity, but this has nothing to do with the ability of the individual to make choices about his/her life, such as having homosexual relationships. Paradoxically, his dream of Britain as ‘one nation, one morality’ was dreamt by quite a few people before him including the English monarchs who expelled the Jews in 1290, the Spanish Kings who followed the same policy in 1492, and … oops Adolf Hitler!
I’m sure he doesn’t mean it this way, but perhaps he should think things through before publishing a book. This approach inevitably leads to authoritarianism due to the missing element of diversity. He also refers obliquely to Alisdair MacIntyre by mentioning ‘after virtue’, with which MacIntyre refers to modern ethics as devoid of meaning.
There is a big difference between excessive individualism where nobody cares about the res publica, the shared polity, and individual autonomy. As I have argued many times, individual autonomy is the inheritance of the Enlightenment, allowing us to be autonomous moral agent, no longer dependent on authority on matters that regard our own lives. The liberal democracy Sacks wants defended is predicated upon the same freedom and equality that he attacks, fruit of the meeting and often clashing of cultures throughout many centuries, and not of a 'one nation' myth. Democracy happens when individuals’ diversity and rights are respected just as much as groups’ diversity and rights. The alternative is the tyranny of the majority.
Previous posts on similar topics are on freedom of conscience, law and morality, the century of the self and testing britishness.
According to Sacks, multiculturalism, notwithstanding the good intentions, has resulted in segregation of groups, rather than integration and, subsequently, in a fragmentary identity politics which endangers liberal democracy.
Multiculturalism has led not to integration but to segregation. It has allowed groups to live separately, with no incentive to integrate and every incentive not to. …
Liberal democracy is in danger. Britain is becoming a place where free speech is at risk, non-political institutions are becoming politicised, and a combination of political correctness and ethnic-religious separatism is eroding the graciousness of civil society. Religious groups are becoming pressure groups. Boycotts and political campaigns are infecting professional bodies. Culture is fragmenting into systems of belief in which civil discourse ends and reasoned argument becomes impossible.
Whilst it is true that many groups live separately, this is not the inevitable fruit of multiculturalism, rather it is the negative outcome of ill-conceived government policies and laisser-faire attitude. As such, segregation can only be tackled through a reinvigorated local democracy and policies aimed at substantive participation, rather than putting a cross on a ballot paper every four years. (By the way, this is also what I wanted to do my PhD on, so if you feel particularly generous and want to fund me, let me know!).
Sacks falls prey of a particularly pernicious type of nostalgia wishing the return to one common national culture and morality. This manufactured identity was always authoritarian and oppressive excluding those who did not fit the script. Thus, the Welsh were not allowed to speak Welsh and women could not be doctors, lawyers or academics.
Not content with all this, Sacks gets into a deeper mess by holding multiculturalism responsible for the demise of morality confusing individual autonomy with the excessive individualism and consumerism of the 1980s.
But there was something else happening at the same time, of great consequence: the slow demise of morality itself, conceived as the moral bond linking individuals in the shared project of society. …
In 1961, suicide ceased to be a crime. This might seem a minor and obviously humane measure, but it was the beginning of the end of England as a Christian country; that is, one in which Christian ethics was reflected in law. It was a prelude to other and more significant reforms. In 1967 abortion was legalised, as was homosexual behaviour. …
Individualism has indeed affected how we relate to the res publica, the shared polity, but this has nothing to do with the ability of the individual to make choices about his/her life, such as having homosexual relationships. Paradoxically, his dream of Britain as ‘one nation, one morality’ was dreamt by quite a few people before him including the English monarchs who expelled the Jews in 1290, the Spanish Kings who followed the same policy in 1492, and … oops Adolf Hitler!
I’m sure he doesn’t mean it this way, but perhaps he should think things through before publishing a book. This approach inevitably leads to authoritarianism due to the missing element of diversity. He also refers obliquely to Alisdair MacIntyre by mentioning ‘after virtue’, with which MacIntyre refers to modern ethics as devoid of meaning.
There is a big difference between excessive individualism where nobody cares about the res publica, the shared polity, and individual autonomy. As I have argued many times, individual autonomy is the inheritance of the Enlightenment, allowing us to be autonomous moral agent, no longer dependent on authority on matters that regard our own lives. The liberal democracy Sacks wants defended is predicated upon the same freedom and equality that he attacks, fruit of the meeting and often clashing of cultures throughout many centuries, and not of a 'one nation' myth. Democracy happens when individuals’ diversity and rights are respected just as much as groups’ diversity and rights. The alternative is the tyranny of the majority.
Previous posts on similar topics are on freedom of conscience, law and morality, the century of the self and testing britishness.
20 October 2007
Science and prejudice
James Watson, Nobel prize for discovering DNA (thanks to Rosalind Franklin’s research), got himself into trouble by suggesting in an interview with the Independent that blacks are less intelligent than whites. This is only the latest in a series of very unscientific statements. As detailed in the Independent,
Watson sees the world through a deterministic kaleidoscope that makes him misunderstand genetics itself. He might think that he’s a free thinker, a real scientist who questions morality, culture, politics in the light of … that is the problem. There are no facts supporting his views only prejudice. In this latest episode, Watson equates intelligence with IQ tests, a culture specific measurement of certain abilities, which leave out intelligence that is difficult when not impossible to measure. All this stuff is very similar to the countless research done trying to find genetic, and presumably unalterable, differences between men and women. In reality, genetics is predicated upon mutability, upon the interaction between environment and genotypes. This pseudo-science of seeing genetics as some sort of pre-ordained system determining one’s abilities runs contrary to evolutionary theory and enlightenment philosophy.
Therefore, the Science Museum was quite right to cancel Watson’s talk. Watson’s comments were bad science and bad morality, but there’s more. If perverting science in order to justify and rationalise prejudices wasn't enough, help is at hand from people such as Professor Colin Blakemore, chief executive of the Medical Research Council and a professor of neuroscience at Oxford University, who defended Watson’s ‘freedom of speech’, clearly not understanding science, ethics and freedom of speech.
There is a fundamental misunderstanding here. Freedom of speech is not at stake. Watson can say and write what he wants, and we are free to say he’s an eejit. More to the point, if an educational institution, such as the Science Museum, engages a scientist to give a talk about science and he turns out not to be the brightest torch in the box, the institution would be quite right to decide to spend their money in a better way!
But, indeed, there would be a better way: just get them all back in the classroom to write "I'm thick" on the blackboard 100 times.
In 1997 he suggested in a newspaper interview that a woman should have the right to abort a foetus if it was found to be carrying a "gay" gene. His attempts to justify his stance only made matters worse. He had been speaking in favour of choice for women, he said, but added "because most women want to have grandchildren ... it's common sense". …
Then in 2000 in a lecture at Berkeley University, after showing images of women in bikinis and veiled Muslim women, he suggested that there is a link between exposure to sunlight and libido. "That's why you have Latin lovers," he said. "You've never heard of an English lover. Only an English patient." He then went on to show a photograph of Kate Moss and assert that thin people are unhappy and therefore ambitious. "Whenever you interview fat people, you feel bad, because you know you're not going to hire them," he added. Fat people may also be more sexual, he suggested, because their bloodstreams contain higher levels of leptin. …
He has talked about a gene for stupidity and suggested that stupid people should be aborted.
Watson sees the world through a deterministic kaleidoscope that makes him misunderstand genetics itself. He might think that he’s a free thinker, a real scientist who questions morality, culture, politics in the light of … that is the problem. There are no facts supporting his views only prejudice. In this latest episode, Watson equates intelligence with IQ tests, a culture specific measurement of certain abilities, which leave out intelligence that is difficult when not impossible to measure. All this stuff is very similar to the countless research done trying to find genetic, and presumably unalterable, differences between men and women. In reality, genetics is predicated upon mutability, upon the interaction between environment and genotypes. This pseudo-science of seeing genetics as some sort of pre-ordained system determining one’s abilities runs contrary to evolutionary theory and enlightenment philosophy.
Therefore, the Science Museum was quite right to cancel Watson’s talk. Watson’s comments were bad science and bad morality, but there’s more. If perverting science in order to justify and rationalise prejudices wasn't enough, help is at hand from people such as Professor Colin Blakemore, chief executive of the Medical Research Council and a professor of neuroscience at Oxford University, who defended Watson’s ‘freedom of speech’, clearly not understanding science, ethics and freedom of speech.
There is a fundamental misunderstanding here. Freedom of speech is not at stake. Watson can say and write what he wants, and we are free to say he’s an eejit. More to the point, if an educational institution, such as the Science Museum, engages a scientist to give a talk about science and he turns out not to be the brightest torch in the box, the institution would be quite right to decide to spend their money in a better way!
But, indeed, there would be a better way: just get them all back in the classroom to write "I'm thick" on the blackboard 100 times.
16 October 2007
Liberal Democrats Italian style?
The Lib Dems have managed to lose three leaders in a couple of days; it shows how much a small group of determined people can achieve given the chance. I wish we were like that at election time. Lembit Opik MP resigned from his leadership role of the Welsh Lib Dems, Mike German AM announced he will step down as leader of the Welsh Lib Dems in the Assembly next year and, of course, Menzies Campbell MP is the victim of the latest coup. They were all pushed to a certain extent. This makes me feel rather uneasy although I can see the need for renewal and I can think of some good candidates. The wound caused by the backstabbing of Charles Kennedy is still fresh in our minds. I strongly deplored it then and still do so now. Kennedy should have been told to check himself into a detox clinic, end of the story. But ego is everything in politics so some MPs ditched the leader. Or was it what the Lib Dems meant by ‘decapitation strategy’ during the elections 2005?
There must be a different way. I wasn’t too convinced by the idea of ‘primaries’ as recently carried out by the Italian Democrats. However, whilst the press were scathing, 3 and ½ million Italians turned out to vote for the new leader. That alone would be quite a result, but the minimum fee in order to vote was 1Euro and many people gave much more. Yep, 3 and ½ million people paid to choose a party political leader. This is made even more incredible by the fact that, in the past few months, Italy has gone through an ‘anti-politics’ time, led by a high profile comedian embarking in a crusade against politicians of every party. The outrageous perks, the indifference, the nepotism, all was made public, no stone was left unturned. Yet, democracy works. If you give people the opportunity to participate, they’ll feel empowered. For many people in power, it is easy to be complacent, to take people for granted and think that they have nothing to do with party politics. But why should membership alone, or even worse MPs, decide the face of the Party? Party activists generally vote for campaigners while ‘armchair members’ vote for recognisable faces, MPs … let’s leave it there! Given that political party membership is at an all time low, why don’t we ask people who they think would make a better leader?
There must be a different way. I wasn’t too convinced by the idea of ‘primaries’ as recently carried out by the Italian Democrats. However, whilst the press were scathing, 3 and ½ million Italians turned out to vote for the new leader. That alone would be quite a result, but the minimum fee in order to vote was 1Euro and many people gave much more. Yep, 3 and ½ million people paid to choose a party political leader. This is made even more incredible by the fact that, in the past few months, Italy has gone through an ‘anti-politics’ time, led by a high profile comedian embarking in a crusade against politicians of every party. The outrageous perks, the indifference, the nepotism, all was made public, no stone was left unturned. Yet, democracy works. If you give people the opportunity to participate, they’ll feel empowered. For many people in power, it is easy to be complacent, to take people for granted and think that they have nothing to do with party politics. But why should membership alone, or even worse MPs, decide the face of the Party? Party activists generally vote for campaigners while ‘armchair members’ vote for recognisable faces, MPs … let’s leave it there! Given that political party membership is at an all time low, why don’t we ask people who they think would make a better leader?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)