Embryo wars - science, morality and a Bill ...

The Embryo Bill finally gets its second reading in Parliament today. The three main questions put to MPs will be:
Hybrid embryos: scientists want to create embryos that are over 99% human for research into stem cells by implanting DNA from an adult human nucleus into a cow or rabbit egg.
Access to IVF for lesbian couples: the bill changes the wording of the current act to remove the "need for a father" provision for children conceived by IVF.
"Saviour siblings". The circumstances in which children genetically matched to a sibling with a genetic disease can be created by IVF are to be relaxed.

Tory MP Nadine Dorries has also tabled amendments to reduce the limit for abortions to 20 weeks instead of the current 24. For more on the proposals see the Guardian.

the debate:

I don’t think there’s been a reasoned debate in the media about the Bill. There’s been hyperbole from Cardinal Keith O'Brien warning against ‘Frankenstein science’, there’s been the question of allowing a free vote on certain aspects but not the entire Bill, but no debate. I wonder how MPs have taken a decision on how to vote on the legislation. What did they read? Whom have they consulted? What principles have they applied?

It is a moral issue. However, as usual, the more liberal voices do not make the news. I believe morality has a place within liberalism (as a philosophy, in fact I believe liberal ideas are fundamentally moral ideas. I would thus welcome moral issues being discussed in the public arena from a liberal point of view, which is what I try to do on this blog. (See BBC on previous stem cell research controversy).

the morality:

Scientific and technological advancements are increasingly entering the sphere of morality. Whilst some neglect the moral implications of medical or scientific research, some others are monopolising the moral discourse and firmly grounding it along absolutist lines, such as embryos having equal value to human beings and so on. I’m not clear what the official or unofficial position of the various groups is as the debate on abortion has been added to the issue of stem cell research and the issue is getting rather muddled.
From my perspective, morality being ‘not in heaven’, but down here, where there are real situations, benefits, harm, good and evil, all at the same time, it cannot be reduce to black and white. It is about choosing what is best, or better or, sometimes, just the lesser evil. There are various interpretations of ‘life’ (especially when it starts and ends) and there are many aspects to its sanctity. This is why you need flexibility, which makes Judaism complex, but isn’t life complex?

From a ‘moral point of view’, I believe society should pursue the common good. Human beings are partners in creation with God and are under moral obligation to fight injustice and suffering, be that coming from our own actions or the natural environment. From the point of view of ‘moral liberalism’, we should strive to reconcile the pursuit of the common good with individual freedom. General moral principles, however, such as the ‘sanctity of life’, require interpretation in the light of knowledge of facts.

science & morality:

In this instance, hybrid embryos are considered by the scientific community to be an avenue to find a cure for diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. There might not be the only one, but a pretty good one. It is true that it is now possible to employ adult stem cells, however this is so because scientists have developed the necessary knowledge based on their research on embryonic stem cells. As such, the case for the pursuit of the common good is, I believe, quite clear. The present Bill seems to be putting in place the right safeguards while allowing research that can save many lives. The Bill does not allow the creation from scratch of embryos, nor are the hybrid embryos allowed to develop after 14 days or to be implanted.

In Judaism (see, for example, Orthodox site Aish), life does not start at conception, but later on. This is mostly derived by the pecuniary sanctions imposed on someone who unintentionally causes a miscarriage by striking a woman (Ex.21,22). It is not a capital crime.
The foetus becomes a full human being once it’s born. Nevertheless, it is protected during the pregnancy and abortion ‘on demand’ is not halachically permitted. There need to be serious grounds for abortion to be allowed, which vary depending on the specific situation. They tend to include psychological trauma to the mother, rape, incest and, for some, disability. Opinions vary, however, on what constitute legitimate grounds, not only between Reform Liberal and Orthodox Judaism, but also within each movement. Most importantly, it cannot be regulated according to general principles; rather it needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis.

That’s why most Jewish leaders from across the religious spectrum have supported the Bill.

Maidenhead Synagogue Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain said:

“Judaism is just as concerned at the sanctity of human life as Catholicism but strongly differs from Cardinal Keith O'Brien's Easter sermon against the Embryology Bill. The creation of human-animal hybrid embryos for medical research is not to be condemned as 'Frankenstein science' but welcomed as a life-saving development that uses our God-given skills in the noblest of causes.
Crossing boundaries always carries risks, but providing safeguards against abuse are put in place, there is no need to fear the future and it is irresponsible to hold-back the progress that could benefit so many lives. The Cardinal is accusing scientists of creating monsters, but maybe it is even more monstrous to obstruct possible cures.”

Bloody Liberals

I don’t know how Americans have come to restrict their vocabulary so much, but the dichotomy Liberals (which in the US is taken to mean left, from centre-left to loony-left) and Conservatives (meaning right-wing) seriously distorts any meaningful understanding of political science. Such acception empties the term ‘liberal’ of its authentic meaning. Liberal does not mean lefty!!!
When such flawed terminology is applied to morality is epistemologically wrong and just bonkers. It leads to the endorsement of an old-fashioned political duality left/right (what about the true liberals?), which in ethics becomes Manichean. In short: it’s nonsense.
The culprit this time are a group of ‘moral psychologists’, including Professor Jonathan Haidt, who has caused me great irritation by entering the world of political theory, philosophy and theology with the instruments of biology. It's a bit like analysing a poem with a ruler.
I’m not against moral psychology per se. It seems obvious to me that human beings, as part of the natural world, would have biological traits that would support the development of ideas and morality. You can’t play music without an instrument (I include the voice as instrument). I have no problem even accepting that some people might have a certain predisposition to behaving in a ‘moral’ way, such as giving to charity, having compassion of others etc. This is why, at least in Judaism, charity is charity when it involves a ‘sacrifice’, when it ‘pains’ you in some way. But this stuff is seriously flawed.

The ‘fun’ part are the tests. Haidt has researched the phenomenon of disgust, but his interpretation of the term is a bit off the wall and its application in the tests simply puzzling. I mean, one might not find eating paper disgusting, but if the question asks you to choose between a piece of fruit and paper, isn’t the one who chooses paper just an eejit?
It turns out my ‘disgust’ scale is higher than average. For Haidt this should mean that I have a strong sense of purity/sanctity, which is linked to mortality, the body, blood etc. I take it to mean that I have good manners!
They are clearly (badly) designed for Americans and many questions just don’t make sense. For example:

- Say something bad about your nation (which you don't believe to be true) while calling in, anonymously, to a talk-radio show in a foreign nation.

Err, just read my blog! I do mean what I say though when I write about Italy and the UK. I do not, however, ascribe the problems I encounter with both countries to inherent characteristics of the (ever changing) populations. I'd like to think my whinges are analyses of the socio-political situation at the present moment.

- Curse the founders or early heroes of your country (in private, nobody hears you).

If it’s in private and if they are dead, what’s the point of cursing them? Seriously, in Europe this doesn't make any sense. Besides, what is a 'curse'? A complaint? An insult? A shout for help? An attempt to break free from authority and affirm one's personhood?

- Renounce your citizenship and take one of another country.

I am a EU citizen, which means there’s no point in changing it to another European national citizenship. I wouldn’t give up my EU citizenship because it gives me more rights than probably any other. Besides, giving it up would require moving or applying for permanent leave and so on. I'm, of course, culturally European but citizenship is a legal category.


The problem with Haidt’s theory. These tests seem to aim to identify a 'instinctive' morality, however morality is contextual. There are always
conditions one is in and consequences for one's action. That's why biology can't measure it.
Haidt has developed the psychological understanding of morality from matters of harm, rights and justice to include other categories such as loyalty and authority, thus going beyond the individual. He claims that there are five psychological foundations for the world’s many moralities: harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity.
He also claims “Cultures vary on the degree to which they build virtues on these five foundations. As a first approximation, political liberals value virtues based on the first two foundations, while political conservatives value virtues based on all five. A consequence of this thesis is that justice and related virtues (based on the fairness foundation) make up half of the moral world for liberals, while justice-related concerns make up only one fifth of the moral world for conservatives.”

Haidt misses the point. He wants people to get on so if liberals and conservatives could understand each other a bit more, the world would be a better place. The point of Liberalism (European acception) is that you do not impose your morals on others. I might be part of a religious/political/cultural community, but I have the right to criticise it, act according to what I think is right, not just what the group or authority decides. So Haidt’s harm and fairness should be replaced with freedom of choice.

1. Language: Haidt makes assumptions about the meaning of the words he employs. This is evident in the tests, where one needs to apply their intended meaning and restrict one’s answers. For example, he mentions chastity in relation to purity/sanctity, what does it mean? To me, chastity can refer to many things, not just sexuality. When referred to sexuality, I interpret it as sex in a respectful and meaningful relationship, since I believe that there is something sacred about (respectful) relationships, love and sexuality (this interpretation of chastity is also part of the Vatican thinking). I would not interpret it, however, as ‘no sex before marriage’. However, I fear that Haidt attaches that narrow meaning to the world. Not to mention ‘purity’ which in Judaism is a rather difficult concept best explained as immanence. It follows that it gets interpreted and re-interpreted according to the context. Haidt’s rigidity of interpretation makes the whole exercise pointless.

2. Liberalism vs. Communitarianism: Haidt could have referred to the dichotomy of liberalism/communitarianism (which might require some political science). Of course, in this context, liberals are NOT Haidt’s lefties. In fact, arguably, many concerns of social justice come from the communitarian tradition rather than the liberal one. Haidt mentions policies of positive discrimination which are clearly not policies descending from liberal philosophy (although they might be adopted by liberal parties). As a liberal, I have some problems with communitarianism, however I believe that my liberalism comes from my morality and that our rights and freedoms are dependent on us living in a society. If I were on a desert island, I wouldn’t have any rights or duties, although I could play lots of records without bothering colleagues ;) (sorry, a Radio 4 moment).

3. Liberalism: real liberalism, unlike Haidt’s broad coalition of lefties, rests upon the idea of individual autonomy above community. It does not however mean that the individual is not in the community. Therefore, individual claims need to be adjusted to the ‘claims’ of the community. The idea of authority also presents difficulties. In traditional societies, the male ‘elders’ might have been the authority dictating the rules of behaviour, but we no longer live in a traditional society. The democratic ideal has sunk deeply into our conscience and ‘traditional authority’ has waned. However, if by ‘authority’ we mean legitimate ‘power’ such as the legal system, we are bound by it.

4. Utilitarianism: Haidt’s lack of political analysis seems to justify a utilitarian position with a streak of relativism. He argues that for those of conservative views, their attachment to order and perceived lack of change serves a human need. Morality goes beyond usefulness. You cannot justify harm or injustice on the basis of usefulness. Human beings are not pawns of society. This is fundamental to religion and to liberalism and this is why I think liberalism has moral foundations.

5. Modernity: personal autonomy is a modern philosophical category (and reality!). This means that I might consider the Talmud or the Bible authoritative, however I would interpret its teaching in the light of the ethical principles I derive from my tradition. This means that I don’t read the Bible literally, which is a relatively recent (200yrs) trend anyway!

6. Morality is contextual: in order to understand a situation in its ethical perspective, one needs to consider the conditions in which of the moral agent acts, the likely consequences, what brings the moral agent to act in a certain way. E.g. we can say that adultery is wrong, but if the adulterer has suffered domestic violence for years and fears leaving the spouse, is most definitely not the same. As I argued before, a moral dilemma is NOT about right and wrong, but wrong and wrong (with a bit of right on both sides probably).

The politics of the West Wing

I feel like being trivial today so here we go: the West Wing. Let me start by saying that I really enjoy the show. It’s well written, has rhythm and is generally well acted. Now, let me demolish it.

The boys' club: There is an underlying patronising attitude to the female characters, which I can't stand. It would have been nice if the writers had put more effort into making these characters more authoritative and credible rather than go for the good looks, shrill voice, 'I'm just a girl' character. That’s entertainment, I suppose.
However, I believe one can still be funny and goofy while making intelligent statements, such as like spilling your tea while pontificating about Rawls, a regular occurrence for some :).
The only ones who do not succumb to this fate are C.J., the First Lady and, to a lesser extent, Donna. Had it been a bit more female-oriented they could have developed the character of Donna, have a little more clash and attraction between Donna and Josh (Mary-Louise Parker as Amy Gardner can’t pull it off). C.J. should have become Chief of Staff at the end of the fourth series with Leo elected to something. With Donna working for the First Lady, the role of the First Lady could have been expanded too. They sort got stuck with a formula and didn't attempt to develop it. Shame.

It’s the economy, stupid: not in the West Wing obviously! The President is supposed to be a Nobel Prize winner in economics (whatever!), but economics and finance are hardly ever spoken of. When they are, the approach is so superficial to the point of irrelevance. I might be biased. I tend to think that there’s an economic aspect to nearly all things, especially in politics, but isn’t there? :)

The smartest kid in the class: there’s a fundamental misunderstanding of genius as dissociated from hard work and perseverance. Luckily, Martin Sheen has gravitas, charisma and tries to be a good guy so he can pull it off.

The retro feeling: the politics of the West Wing seems firmly set in the 1980s. I don’t know much about American politics, but the screen-writers seem to be living in their own bubble and enclose their characters in the West Wing bubble. No wonder the following of the show ended up being restricted to a particular section of society. No wonder only a few bother to vote if politics is so distant.
Everything seems to be happening inside the White House with Congress only getting a mention in passing, never mind the rest of the country. Unbeknown to the authors, theories of government/governance have changed profoundly and gone beyond the State vs. Free Market dichotomy. I don’t expect Aaron Sorkin to know about Public Value Management Theory, but a better grip, even on traditional politics, wouldn’t go amiss. I would have certainly liked more on Congress, the Cabinet and state politics across the US, which is steadily gaining prominence.
The other two big issues, which we are witnessing in the American primaries now, race and gender, are treated with lack of understanding and superficiality. I can’t believe that Amy Gardner, the head of the women’s lobby (whatever!) is asked to comment on the dichotomy ‘stay-at-home mum’ vs. ‘career-girl’ and after thinking about it (yep), she comes out with ‘I don’t care who stays at home as long as it’s their choice’ type of reply. Err … how about some research? How about the fact that the US are one of very few countries were statutory parental pay is not provided? Who can actually choose? What determines choice? How about the fact that women managers have started giving up their careers? Why not taking a look elsewhere where men are starting to value fatherhood and flexible working? Is there a class divide? Is there still a culture of division between work (public sphere) and home (private sphere)? By the way, the ‘fatherhood’ mantra from the feminists was full blown in the 1990s in the States. It needs better articulation in terms of policies and rights, but it has been there a long time.
The West Wing chickens out from the big questions and the difficult issues such as immigration, unemployment, finance and economic and social inequalities. They like international crises too much and don’t manage even to grasp the issues there. What happened to the old saying ‘write something you know about’?

I still enjoyed it though (notwithstanding intense moments of irritation). What I found interesting is the attempt to convey the idea of the American dream, in the tradition of Frank Capra. At first, it feels ... well ... American! It makes you cringe and wince, but then it seeps into you and lets you see a bit more.
It’s the sincere belief in America as an idea, as a country to be built, not inherited. It’s the mentality of a settler society, which is perhaps rather alien to us. Nevertheless, we face similar dilemmas. We would like our country and ourselves to be hospitable, to do the right thing, to uphold the law and defend minorities but we are faced with a very heterogeneous society where 'values' need interpretations that go deeper.
Governments look for answers in definitions of Britishness or Europeanness (remember the Constitution preamble?), and so do religious figures (see previous posts 1 and 2), but I feel they miss the point. They look at the past not for guidance but to pin down who we are and should be. I feel very European (which includes British) in my ways, habits, political philosophy etc. but I am a human being and my values, I believe, are human values. Freedom and equality do not stop at the border and we do not have the copyrights. As a wise man once said:

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."

- Sir Ernest Benn

Italian elections from abroad

I have to say that, like many Italians right now, I flirted with the idea of not voting. There are many reasons for this: Italy is in deep crisis with too many groups defending vehemently their own interest with no regard for the rest of the population and the future of the country (see the opposition to TAV – high-speed trains; the opposition to the sale of Alitalia; opposition to the liberalisation of professions etc.). Italy has always been affected by deeply rooted corporativism, which sits uncomfortably in the globalised economy of the 21st century. There are many things that need to be done and yet political parties are squabbling. There is very little vision, direction and gravity.
Nonetheless I voted. After all, I thought that the people who might not vote at these elections are the moderate ones, those who are fed up with games, sound-bytes and shouts. This leaves the hard-core voters of Alleanza Nazionale (rightwingers), Lega Lombarda (Lombardy League) and the communists … oops the Sinistra Arcobaleno (those who would like to live in Cuba if it wasn’t for the systematic abuse of free speech and civil liberties). This is what made me vote! My vote counts.
The policies are similar and I haven’t got the time to look at the specifics or the costing. So it all comes down to trust, as in most elections.
I have no idea how much I can trust the coalition of the Partito Democratico (Centre-left) of which Italia dei Valori are part. I know I cannot trust Popolo delle Liberta' (Berlusconi’s party). Not because of Berlusconi, but because I don’t trust a party that did all they could to make the government fall. This is NOT responsible politics! It is NOT in the interest of the country, even of those who voted for the opposition.
I hope the new government, whoever they are, will have to guts to challenge the vested interest of small groups and bring Italy into the 21st century. I hope they will promote accountability and trust starting from the local level. And I sincerely hope that the opposition will work with the government to ensure that important reforms go through. We deserve this much!

As mentioned in my previous post, I contacted the main parties’ candidates and asked the same two questions, what they thought of the privatisation of Alitalia and the refuse problem in Naples without giving any hint about my position.
[Needless to say I’d like to see Alitalia sold to AirFrance, that being the best offer, thus giving Italian taxpayers a break as they’ve been dishing out cash to a badly managed ultra-protected company for donkeys years; while the refuse problem needs concerted action starting from tackling the mafia and introducing better ways to manage waste such as recycling, re-using but also green plants producing energy without releasing harmful emissions, yes they do exist! I would also like to see reforms to increase transparency and accountability for universities, the whole administration of justice and, of course, local government.]
The winner was Mr Angelo Berardini (Italia dei Valori – centre-left) with a very exhaustive and balanced reply, which I report below (sorry too long to translate).

Gentilissima Signora Francesca
Grazie per l'attenzione che ha voluto riservare alla mia candidatura nella lista dell'Italia Dei Valori.
I due temi che mi ha sottoposto sono importanti ed anche emblematici della realtà dell'Italia e della sua realtà socio-economica, rispetto all'Alitalia: la privatizzazione è una realtà e nello stesso tempo una necessità, semmai il problema è che in tutti questi anni essa è stata al centro di una politica di protezione che le ha impedito di competre nel mercato come hanno fatto altre compagnie aeree europee e internazionali; ritengo anacronistico ripresentare il tema dell'Italilanità dell'alitalia, è giunto il momento per essa di "navigare" in mare aperto e affrontare le onde e le burrasche con i suoi mezzi, che si attrezzi, che partecipi alla competizione del mercato attingendo alla professionalità, alla competenza e soprattutto all'abbandono del clientelismo di cui è stata vittima e carnefice nello stesso tempo. La questione dell'aeroporto Malpensa è un tema diverso e solo i mistificatori tendono a confondere le acque e a tenere insieme le due questioni.
Rispetto al tema dei rifiuti: prima di tutto chiederei, come del resto ha già fatto Di Pietro, le immediate dimissioni dei principali responsabili, in primis Bassolino e metterei in campo una governance di esperti totalmente indipendenti dal potere politico con il compito solo di portare a soluzione il problema dei rifiuti che per essere risolto ha bisogno di una molteplicità di interventi: educativo (cultura della raccolta differenziata), etico (cultura della legalità della responsabilità),
politico (coinvolgimento di tutti i cittadini singoli e raccolti in associazione in un'azione di denuncia e di ripristino sul tema dei siti), tecnico (bonifica delle scariche e individuazione di luoghi di stoccaggio), costruzione di nuovi e moderni impianti per lo smaltimento), chederei solidarietà e aiuto alle altre regioni (sempre dietro una rassicurazione che la richiesta è una tantum e che partecipa di un progetto integrato per la soluzione del problema, una volta tanto mi rivolgerei al popolo campano sano, quello che ha intelligenza e onestà per sollecitarlo a credere che la soluzione del problema è dipende in larga parte anche da lui.
Capisco che non ho risolto i problemi, ma spero di essere riuscito a far capire che alcune idee possono essere messe in campo.
Se eletto, come ho risposto adesso, così risponderò domani, fornendo soluzioni e accogliendo consigli.

Gerry Adams commends Ian Paisley

Yep! I've never thought I would come across a headline such as this one. There may be many reasons why Adams has commended Paisley, including political strategy. Is the great enemy defeated? However, it's irrelevant. Things are being understood in a different way now, even radicalism is changing. Adams calls Paisley 'a fascinating, gracious man'. He was certainly impressive. The most impressive part, however, was the Northern Ireland where I was lucky enough to work, albeit for a very short period. For many, such as Martin McGuinness, the war is over and they are passionate about delivering good services. This is, ironically, what seems to have led to Paisley's downfall. Have the DUP and Sinn Fein gone too far in cooperating?
I hope the Assembly will not plunged into distrust and divisions. I hope they'll get on with the job of delivering democracy and silence the trouble-making minority that wants failure at all costs.

Law, morality and the Archbishop

I read Rowan Williams’ long pages of ambiguous woolliness and managed not to get too irritated. He’s right, of course, to say that as soon as you mention sharia most people (or the media?) think “it is repressive towards women and wedded to archaic and brutal physical punishments”. No wonder it caused such a bang, which, I assume, was Rowan’s intention to ‘diffuse’ or confuse tensions ahead of Lambeth Conference. It feels, however, that he has miscalculated how loud the bang would be.
The Archbishop in acutely careful language criticises the monopoly of positive law over principles. Law is not the pure positivistic construction the nation-state created. It is only fair that in a pluralist society our diversity is reflected in it by allowing flexibility of interpretation. Sharia, Torah and Christian Canon law are guided by principles and the Archbishop would like to see religious courts exercising a limited role in applying the law according to their principles as a form of ‘supplementary jurisdiction’. Rowan is well aware of the pitfalls to which this suggestion may lead. For example, he states that:

recognition of 'supplementary jurisdiction' in some areas, especially family law, could have the effect of reinforcing in minority communities some of the most repressive or retrograde elements in them, with particularly serious consequences for the role and liberties of women.

To counter this problems, he reassures us that

If any kind of plural jurisdiction is recognised, it would presumably have to be under the rubric that no 'supplementary' jurisdiction could have the power to deny access to the rights granted to other citizens or to punish its members for claiming those rights.

This would mean that one who appeals to the religious courts would be granted all the rights that civil courts guarantee. In what way would it be different than the current situation? Rowan Williams does not explore it in any detail so it is impossible to guess what would be the matters on which the courts could judge legitimately. It is, at best, impractical and expensive for the community.

The point Rowan so badly tried to put across is that he wants more flexibility in interpreting human rights. He’s keen to have more exemptions on the basis of one’s ‘conscience’.

Earlier on, I proposed that the criterion for recognising and collaborating with communal religious discipline should be connected with whether a communal jurisdiction actively interfered with liberties guaranteed by the wider society in such a way as definitively to block access to the exercise of those liberties; clearly the refusal of a religious believer to act upon the legal recognition of a right is not, given the plural character of society, a denial to anyone inside or outside the community of access to that right. The point has been granted in respect of medical professionals who may be asked to perform or co-operate in performing abortions – a perfectly reasonable example of the law doing what I earlier defined as its job, securing space for those aspects of human motivation and behaviour that cannot be finally determined by any corporate or social system. It is difficult to see quite why the principle cannot be extended in other areas.

Actually, it’s very easy to see why the principle cannot be extended in other areas! Leaving the abortion discussion aside for once, I cannot see the deontological validity of the opt-out of professionals from performing legally recognised procedures. I believe a blanket policy in such matters is inevitably discriminatory. More importantly, shouldn’t theologians and religious ministers advise on moral matters rather than other professionals?
If we recognise the opt-out principle, why not the ‘go forward’ one? Both Liberal and Reform Judaism had been celebrating homosexual weddings (albeit in private) well before they became legally recognised in European states. They recognised women as equal and therefore allowed to be rabbis before equality legislation.
Human rights legislation protects individuals regardless of their religion, sex, race, ability/disability, sexual orientation. You might not realise it, Rowan, but your courts, if given legitimacy, would undermine the human rights of all. They would call into question what we’ve so painfully achieved so far and bring relativism back in from the front door.
I believe there are fundamental misunderstandings in this reasoning. Firstly, the law is flexible and changes according to political priorities but also societal changes through government policies, parliamentary legislation and the courts. Religious law does change but it very seldom does so as a result of the community’s will, especially now that we are granted rights and liberties under secular legislation. Who would set the law guiding these courts? Unelected institutions? Unelected theologians?
Secondly and most importantly, legal systems are hierarchical. It follows that the religious courts he’s promoting would not be able to derogate from primary, secondary legislation and, needless to say, EU law. This is the best bit. Leaving aside competition law, the most important document underpinning European legislation is the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, it’s binding! Yes, it’s part of UK law, albeit belatedly!
The funny thing is that (from my perspective) the recognition of the dignity of the human that is enshrined in human rights legislation comes from religion. Human rights are simply the secularised version of the guiding principles of major religions.
Europe has seen many forms of governments including monarchies, empires, city-states, nation-states and now the European Union. With modernity, sovereignty has moved gradually but decisively from the political, ethnic and religious communities of pre-modern times to the individual. The individual and his/her autonomy are at the centre. Thus, following the end of the Second World War and its horrors, the recognition of the individual (=human) was the cornerstone of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Daily Mail is right, it is European (human rights) law that is sovereign and has therefore power to strike down national laws that do not comply. However, European, national and regional courts enforce universal law, albeit ‘translated’ in the local understanding of it (=proportionality).
It will, thus, be a very interesting exercise to recognise religious courts in ‘public life’ as these would be required to uphold common human rights principles. These are ‘common’ because recognised by democratically elected states and therefore are taken to represent the view of the majority and include the recognition of minority rights. There is no need for any 'supplementary' jurisdiction, human dignity is already enshrined in human rights' law.

The Next Revolution

Last week I was telling a friend of mine that if it weren’t for the fact that Italy is a democracy, there would be a revolution. The issues facing the country are deep and permeate the whole of society. They reach far back in history and cannot be summarised easily.
There is the crisis of refuse collection in southern Italy which reaches far back to the re-creation of the mafia near the end of WWII for military expediency, leading to local and then national political patronage which has been exploited by successive governments.
There is the crisis of employment, especially for young people, now always temporary, with no guarantees and badly paid. Whilst salaries have failed to increase across the western world, in Italy the problem is more acute due to static economic structures.
There is the crisis of the ‘caste’, the control over political and economic resources by the vested interest of certain groups. As argued elsewhere, Italy's politics and economy are in crisis because of their subservience to power groupings traditionally dominated by (older) men with strong political links to ensure influence. Such groups hold the key to personal and corporate success. This too reaches far back and was exacerbated (or endorsed?) by the influence being exercised by the USA and USSR during the Cold war.
There was a time after the end of the Cold war, where there was hope. There was hope around the world for a new world order. Italy moved from the First to the Second Republic. Yet, the ‘new’ politicians (who couldn’t be really ‘new’) relied on the old structures of power. It may be that they had no choice in this, but nobody since the early 1990s has ever attempted real structural reforms.
The revolution is under way. Court cases have exposed the unashamed use of political patronage in the academia and business, for example. Everybody knows, everybody has always known. It is now time to change it.
Whilst I recognise that Berlusconi’s electoral tinkering has jeopardised the possibility of a functioning government, I still think Prodi was always too concerned about himself rather than the country.
Walter Veltroni, the now leader of the main centre-left party, was anointed by 3.5m people last autumn at the primaries. What is he going to do?
If I were Veltroni, I would propose a bold manifesto with my vision for Italy and call for a coalition to implement it. I would want transparency for all appointments, I would want structural reforms of the economy, I would want substantial devolution to the regions and cities, I would want new proportional electoral arrangements and, yes, even quotas for women. In this case, and for a limited period, they are indeed essential to allow a new politics. If I were a journalist, I would call on the media to stop play the game of the powers that be, such as the Vatican. If I were the Pope I would be constructive and give money to the priests that are fighting the mafia, the drugs and are helping the victims of the new slave trade. If I were … the revolution is a responsibility of all.
I suppose I just mean reforms, reforms that will reflect the local diversity. So far there have been confused movements of protest, such as the one started by comedian Beppe Grillo, that have fallen into the ‘game’ and conformed. Yet, it’s not impossible, only difficult.

The information market

Sometimes I come across rather frightening blogs where the author twists the information, has no regard for objectivity, historicity and is filled with paranoid propaganda. The sad aspect of this is that the authors of such blogs/sites and many of their readers believe their own nonsense.
Ideology and propaganda have always been around, but the new means of information have much wider availability, audience, and next to zero critical thinking. Next to the blogs and sites where the information is checked and often referenced, there are millions of others that are sheer nonsense. I might be guilty of some nonsense but I’m happy to review what I say or simply be persuaded by a contrary argument.
Persuasion and debate are the foundations of our democracy. A truly plural liberal democracy should encourage diverse groups promoting their interests and identities and reflecting in their arguments their specific viewpoints. I like niche markets and, from a consumerist point of view at least, we should have more. As argued in past posts, I would like to be able to read and watch sites/programmes on topics in which I’m interested regardless of where they are from, especially those in other languages as they offer a different perspective. Yet, it seems that niche markets are not as developed as niche propaganda.
Our democracy is undergoing profound changes but national governments are not gearing up to manage them. The proliferation of groups, interests and identities is an opportunity for increased diversity and flexibility, yet unless governments (in particular local government) engage sensibly with the new Babylon and establish some ground rules to ensure the rights of all, we will be crushed by it. The city of Bologna has issued a charter of rights and duties, which is an interesting example, so if you have others get in touch! But what about misinformation?
I could think of a couple of good examples of misinformation in Cardiff but let’s leave it there! The problem is that I haven’t come across a good way of managing communication. What is the best way for local government, politicians, interest/identity groups, lobbies etc to communicate in the public arena?
When does persuasion become propaganda? How do citizens defend themselves from misinformation? How do we protect the ‘common good’ and the res publica (as in the public democratic space) from the unscrupulous use of propaganda? In ancient Greece and Rome, the art of rhetoric had moral qualities. It was not to further untruths. Greeks and Romans were not that different from us, although they seem to have lots of intelligent people and a relatively small population.
How do we bring morality back in? The more the theo-cons are allowed to monopolise morality, the more our res publica will suffer from their propaganda. Long live liberalism?

Is Muslim the new 'Communist'? Who is the new McCarthy?

I’ve come across an e-mail with rumours that Obama is a Muslim. The details can be found at Urban Legends and more on CNN, Washigton Post etc.
It is clearly a paranoid attack trying to induce fear in the electorate. The most uncomfortable aspect of it is the fact that it implies that American Muslims are not American. It is rather reminiscing of the McCarthy era, although I doubt this is what awaits us. It would be important, however, to see whether there is a new McCarthy out there, be it a group or just stupid individuals. Most importantly, what is causing the paranoia? The media, politicians?
This race for the White House shows that America, like most countries perhaps, has deep-seated issues with race, gender, pluralism and religion. It is claimed that American Muslims are more integrated than British Muslims. Yet, American society’s discomforts about race can potentially radicalise groups on either ‘side’ (albeit not necessarily bringing violence), when all this could be avoided.
The abortion debate in the States seems to me an example of a society that does not really accept pluralism and where fundamentalist groups (such as those who target doctors), gain a voice precisely because they are a niche and are therefore unrepresentative.
I believe pluralism is about liberalism. It is not about creating a million interest or identity groups, but about respecting one’s multiple identities and interests without labelling one. A Catholic is no less a Catholic for not wearing a cross or a Jew no less a Jew for not eating kosher (stop saying that they are ‘not practising’!). Above all, pluralism allows individuals to interpret their tradition and identity and to choose how to express it while respecting others. This is liberal democracy at its best and it does require diversity.

Clinton vs Obama in the 21st century

Yes, Clinton is arrogant, she's not a good communicator and is seen as divisive, but she has brains and substance. More importantly I don't think Obama can win. Europeans are holding the breath and crossing their fingers hoping for something good to come out of the Primaries and the election later this year. After all, the rest of the world is affected by the choice of President Americans make. True we (Europe) should be more independent and assertive, in the meantime ... can we have a Democrat in the White House?
Clinton is not likable but she was the one who put forward a comprehensive plan to expand healthcare. She seems to me as someone who still stands for the right things, in fact someone who stands for something. The problem I have with Obama is that he's insipid, all things to all men. He's smooth and likable and that's what irritates me. Is Hilary she seen as divisive just because she's not woolly? Is the American electorate fed up with the old regime? What's so good about being 'new' and with little life experience? I have noticed quite a few MPs on our shores (across the political spectrum) who are rather young and seem to have lived in a rather cocooned environment. They might be 'new', likable and even good looking, but I can't think anyone less suitable at making decisions and at facing the challenges of the 21st century.
My problem, though, is that way too much power is concentrated at the centre. Cities and states in the US should have more of a say, congress men and women should be elected differently and the American media should have more guts.
I'm amazed that 25 states are in favour of Kyoto (+various cities) and yet the administration doesn't care a jot. The democracy of the 21st century cannot be afraid of diversity, it needs to embrace it. The only way forward is by devolving power down and listening to people and local representatives. Local democracy is ahead of government in finding solutions and tackling global problems. In the post-national 21st the local blends with the global in ways that national governments cannot see. It is time institutions undergo reforms to adapt to the new century.

Nick Cohen: left, right or wrong?

Nick Cohen, the Observer’s journalist, has taken to caricature the Left as a fascist cohort supporting militant Islam. I went to his talk at the Café Philo in Hampstead a week ago or so. He started his talk on 'what's left of the left' by expressing his shock and surprise at the support leftwing politicians and intellectuals give to militant Islam. Not sure what is surprising about some extremists on the left, i.e. those proclaiming that they are ‘all Hitzbollah now’, supporting religious and political obscurantism. After all, it wasn’t such a long time ago when most of the left was supporting of people such as Fidel Castro and even Ho Chi Min. What escapes Cohen is that there’s never been one socialist or liberal tradition, but many. Liberalism and socialism have shaped western democracy. They made possible the recognition of liberty and equality as fundamental to society. They also have a heavy baggage, which ranges from Stalinist dictatorships to unbridled capitalism.
Personally I think liberty and equality are two sides of the same coin of justice. After all, how can one be free to choose if one has no opportunities? There are still women around the world who do not own anything and are prevented to own by the society in which they live, they are often illiterate and simply do not count. The inequality they experience prevents them from being free. This I suppose makes me a liberal-socialist in the tradition of Italian liberal-socialism (a strong and great movement), headed by Carlo and Nello Roselli.
Nick Cohen, obviously ignorant of history, philosophy and politics, bundles together politicians, journalists and various intellectuals from the centre and the left (whatever that means today) under the banner of liberals. His aim is to create an enemy with whom to wage war and thus justify his stance in favour of the war in Iraq. Yes, he’s that pathetic.
It’s the oldest and cheapest trick: decry the opposition instead of engaging with the arguments.
I haven't read his book 'What's left', nor do I plan to read it. However, as I was browsing it, I've stumbled on a heavily loaded sentence where he forces an association between the 3m-strong demonstration against the war in Iraq in Rome back in 2003 with the Italian fascist regime, Rome having been the capital under the Mussolini dictatorship. Except Rome started off as a republic, which makes it, as far as I know, the first example of a republic in history (with Athens being the first democracy).
For Cohen, the war in Iraq is all about removing an evil dictator regardless of the disaster this has brought and regardless of what else could have been done instead. Ultimately, he doesn’t understand that our democracies are grounded on the respect of human life. It is true that there are people who support Hitzbollah and make excuses for radical Islamic terrorism. There are also people who are just as contemptuous of human life and advocate war (in Iraq, Iran etc.) regardless of the consequences. Nick Cohen seems to be one of them. Has Nick Cohen reached the bottom? What's left of him?

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.

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.

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?

Faith schools ought to be funded by the government

With the document ‘Faith in the System’, the Government is moving to support more faith schools, in particular for ‘under-represented religious groups. As reported by the BBC:

"The government recognises that, in relation to the overall size of their populations, there are relatively few faith school places in the maintained sector available to Muslim, Sikh and Hindu children compared to the provision available for Christian and Jewish families."

I have nothing against faith schools per se. In fact I’m all in favour of schools who try to instil some meaning and sense of purpose in their pupils. There are, nevertheless, some issues that need to be addressed and can only be addressed if the schools are not fully independent. This means that it's better is faith schools are funded or partly funded by the government.

Inclusion: faith-schools should be allowed to give precedence to pupils from the school’s religion, otherwise what’s the point of going to a faith school? Besides, by imposing quotas, you can incur in discrimination by possibly excluding pupils from religious households. I would quite like integrated schools like in Northern Ireland. Pupils learn about their own religion, but also about others’ and have common sessions such as school assembly. Most importantly, however, the best times for pupils to mix are for play and sport. Sharing common spaces, such as sports’ facilities, should be relatively easy and would even cut costs. I should think ditching the school uniform (at play & sport time) would be a good thing too, so that pupils would be prone to mix instead of keeping with the crowd wearing the same uniform.
Employment: I can’t see why faith schools should not favour teachers who profess their own religion. Some unions say that this would impinge on the quality of the staff. I assume faith schools want good results and would not jeopardise that in order to employ someone from their religion despite his/her lack of talent.
Curriculum: in government funded schools Ofsted/Estyn inspectors should be able to raise objections if the school goes crazy and starts teaching creationism. There are no controls for independent schools.
Privacy: I have been searching over the internet but I couldn’t find anything specific on the law regulating employment by religious organisations. Every now and then, I come across some cases where a person was sacked or refused employment for being homosexual. If the organisation received government grants, this should not be possible.
Human rights: there have also been cases where women seemed to have been discriminated against in their employment. This issue needs to be clarified and resolved. For religions where women are not allowed to exercise certain functions, discrimination should not be allowed for all other posts. (It would be time for them to change policies, but that might take some time…)
Religion: the tricky part of all this is to determine what constitutes faith precepts, theological doctrines or organisational policies. There are many forms of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism etc., I would not want a codification of policies that would assume the value of dogmas. I think flexibility needs to be exercised and the government should push for it. This means that regardless of one’s denomination or level of practice, one should not be discriminated.

There seems to be a prejudice against religious schools as hot-beds of bigotry. There's plenty of bigotry outside!
The point is to look at the issues calmly and have a commitment from the government and religious groups that discriminatory practices against homosexuals and women would not be carried out, that there will be strong anti-bullying policies, including homophobic bullying, equality training for all the staff etc. Would the government impose any conditions for funding?

The Politics of God - yet more nonsense

Mark Villa’s essay ‘The Politics of God’ (N.Y. Times mag) couldn’t be any more coherent and yet wider of the mark. He claims that there was a ‘Great Separation’ in political thought with Thomas Hobbes, which led to a separation between religion and politics. Professor Villa conveniently separates morality from religion, so that he can blame, at least in part, ‘political theology’ for obscurantism of whatever sort, even Nazism. At first, I wasn’t quite sure where the problem was, so coherent was his argument. Alas, extreme coherence is what generally gives nonsense away: Professor Villa is rather confused about history. Just a few points:

1. Villa projects the present onto the past by inventing ‘political theology’. Beginning with the Emperor Constantine’s embrace of Christianity, political power adopted religion as identity and ideology, not the other way round. In Villa’s theory, theology (although he does not state which and at what particular time and place) is given enormous credit. Theologies are like philosophies, they tend to be for the few who read texts, like systematising the world and their ideas about it. Above all, theologians and philosophers, being human, are influenced by the historical and socio-economic conditions present at a certain point of time and place. Villa confuses theology with ideology.
2. Ideologies are theories with systematic and totalitarian tendencies as they generally claim to explain the world around us, and sometimes beyond, in prescriptive and all-encompassing terms. Ideologies can claim to guide social and political movements, but, even then, only when attached to power. The Reformation had much more to do with politics and economics than Villa would like to admit. More importantly, it would have gone nowhere had it not had political backing.
3. The real revolution was not ushered by Hobbes, but by the industrial revolution. In contrast to Hobbes’ absolute sovereign, the industrial age, dependent on science and technology, opened the door to the autonomous individual, once again arbiter of his/her own destiny, knowledge and beliefs.
4. On a minor point, Villa fantasises about a secular America, where disagreements over abortion, prayer and bioethics are settled within the bounds of the Constitution. Yet, fundamentalist religious ideology, in the United States, is very much encroaching on political rhetoric trampling upon individual autonomy and rights. Sadly, this is starting to happen in Europe as well. It would be wiser to give more credit to liberal religion, rather than running scared of religion per se. Liberal religion, influenced by liberal philosophy and liberal politics, provides theological ground to liberal interpretations of the texts. Fundamentalist religion, by contrast, provides literalist interpretations moulded by reactionary politics and philosophy.
5. Finally, why on earth does he go on and on about God as a ‘He’?

Lawrence killer in Italy? Why not?

It is because I take murder very seriously that I find utterly disgraceful the recent tabloids’ hysteria and the government’s jumping on the ‘Lawrence killer’ bandwagon. Learco Chindamo is now 26, he was 15 when he was jailed for life for killing Philip Lawrence back in 1995. He moved to the UK when he was 5, he has no links to Italy whatsoever. When he was arrested, he didn’t even know how to spell his address, never mind speak Italian. Nevertheless, the tabloids want him extradited to Italy. No surprises there. If Chindamo does indeed pose a threat, he should not be released. End of the story, but this is not what the hysteria is about. The tabloids, the police and the government are not saying that he should not be released; they are saying that he should be sent to Italy.
Leaving aside the legal practicalities, if I were representing the Italian government, I would call the tabloids & UK government’s bluff. Chindamo is no longer illiterate, while guest at H.M. prisons, kindly paid by the taxpayer, he passed GCSEs and he’s now deemed a ‘reformed character’ and therefore ready to be released. The Italian authorities could sponsor him to learn Italian while living and working in Italy, thus contributing towards Italian society and Italian taxes. Can anyone now see how ridiculous this hysteria is?
As an Italian in Britain, I often find distasteful how the media pander to xenophobia. I’ve experienced xenophobia, although mostly veiled; but I’ve also lived in this country for nearly 10 years, contributing to its economy and political life. When I was running for elections in 2004, people greeted me and were happy that I was working hard for them. They didn’t care about my nationality. By pandering to fears and treating foreigners as a threat, the Labour government is showing that is afraid of taking its citizens seriously.

The Century of the Self

I watched the documentary The Century of the Self by Adam Curtis the other day. It’s fascinating, yet Adam Curtis treats human beings as those irrational beings whose minds Edward Bernays wanted to control. In summary, Bernays invented advertising by using his uncle Freud’s ideas about the unconscious. He associated products with desires and got everybody hooked on consumerism. After Nazi Germany, Bernays thought necessary, in order to maintain democracy, that the masses had to be manipulated. Satisfying their desires would have kept their irrational unconscious forces at bay. The equation: consumerism = democracy, was soon advocated by many. In the 1960s, the idea was challenged and psychotherapy was advocating the expression of the inner self. Needless to say that ‘power’ exploited this celebration of the self by tailoring advertising to the ‘Me Generation’. In the final episode, the documentary applies the theory to politics seen more as a victim of the ‘me me me’ mantra trying to give people what they wanted through spin and polls. Curtis seems to think that politics by applying psychology has stopped being about rational debate and has regressed to emotions.
It’s a long documentary so I’ll make only few comments.

1. Adam Curtis’ paranoia: there is no place for complexity and contradictions. There are the good people like Roosevelt who fought against the unrestrained capitalism of the market and the conspirators (= big business, CIA, Bernays, Anna Freud?) who want to control people’s minds, albeit to ensure the preservation of democracy. Err, businesses just wanted to sell more cars!
2. Irrational unconscious desires: only sex, money and power figure as unconscious desires. Leaving aside the definition of unconscious (vs. subconscious and so on), whatever happened to the desire for justice, love and respect? Too noble to be seen as emotions? This twisted idea that human ‘rationality’ is superior to our ‘irrationality’, i.e. feelings, is reminiscent of misogynistic Greek thought. It’s never clear what this phantom rationality is (being able to do sums?) and feels rather reductionist and materialistic.
3. Politics: Curtis seems to regret the fact that politicians have sold their souls to the devil (psychology & spin presumably) and have abandoned rational debate. Once more he implies that emotions are bad and shouldn't be listened to. Whilst I agree that emotions run the risk of turning politics into demagoguery, politics is about ideas and about how you feel about them. There’s no equation to prove ideas’ ‘objectivity’. I believe that individual rights and freedoms are paramount because I’ve always had. Politics is about ideas, symbols (NHS, schools…), identity and many other things, not about what is more practical. In politics, you’re dealing with people’s lives. The practical details can be up for discussions (mostly among civil servants), but people vote for a vision, not a manual. Emotions might be difficult to handle but this is what human beings are made of. Managing expectations and people’s emotions is what makes politics challenging and rewarding.

Adam Curtis forgot that we can choose and we do choose. That’s why businesses had to change tactics and products to make them more personal, what we want rather than what is cheaper to produce. They are ahead. Government is starting to catch up now and move to personalised services because, guess what, people are complex and are not all the same!

Who’s afraid of Europe? The Ryanair revolution

The UK government’s pusillanimous approach to the European constitution (or Reform treaty?) is annoying both pro- and anti-Europeans. Pro-Europeans are mystified by the timidity, when not antipathy, in embracing the liberal democratic values enshrined in the charter of fundamental rights, which are already part of British law and tradition. Anti-Europeans regard the absence of ratification through a referendum as an affront to British democratic sovereignty.
A treaty is generally a document that requires specific legal knowledge. Parliament ought to be given the opportunity to ratify clause by clause any treaty, but I find that a referendum on the new treaty would be like asking people to express their opinions on the constitutional set up of the UK including devolution, the monarchy, House of Lords, House of Commons and the courts. It's a bit like having a referendum on land taxation. It’s that sort of thing. I'm not opposed to a referendum but I think we should have one on European principles and priorities (such as terrorism, climate change etc.)
Of course, the government (any British government that is) is too afraid to take any Euro stuff to the people. Misgivings about the European project have been a traditional feature of British politics, but are they still justifiable?
Undoubtedly, there will always be a number of people who are suspicious of Europe and want the UK government to keep as far away as possible from European institutions.