October 27, 2008
Honour Amongst Thieves
The recent furor about the Mandleson-Osborne-Rothschild-Deripaska funding controversy is, all-in-all, fantastically depressing.
Some commentators – e.g. Nick Cohen in yesterday’s Observer - suspect that Rothschild shopped Osborne because of related interests in Deripaska’s aluminium enterprises, which were threatened by Osborne’s exposing of The Prince of Darkness’ cossying up to some of Russia’s wealthiest and slimiest. There may be something in this, but all things considered this looks more like an exercise of power by Nat Rothschild who was aiming to re-enforce the (until now) unspoken rule of ‘what is said on holiday stays on holiday’. By exposing Osborne – a childhood friend, no less – in this manner Rothschild has made two things perfectly clear. Firstly, he believes it is totally acceptable for his politician friends to meet up on multi-million pound yachts and discuss methods by which the wealthy and powerful can by-pass the checks and ballances established by democratic regimes in order to stay, well, democratic. The only thing that is not acceptable according to Rothschild is to go off blabbing about these activities at a later date. This is honour amongst thieves of the highest order.
The second thing Rothschild has made clear is where a great deal of the power lies. A clear message has been sent, not just to Osborne, but also to Mandleson and any other politicians thinking of courting Rothschild ands ilk: get involved with us and we can – and will – break you if we so choose. Osborne is on the ropes, and Rothschild put him there. Maybe – as some have suggested – Mandleson orchestrated this entire situation. That’s certainly possible: the two things we know about Mandy are that he is a master of political maneuvering, and that he is as crooked as they come (hence he might simply have been in Corfu doing something he shouldn’t have been). Yet even if that’s the case, the fact remains that a Russian oligarch has just called into doubt the career of a man whom a week ago many were assuming would be our next Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Last summer the Russian state gave the foreign policy equivalent of two-fingers to the world regarding the South Osettia debacle. It confidently asserted its sphere-of-influence and declared who would be the in charge of its back yard. Last week, a member of Russia’s new, post-Soviet ruling class demonstrated that Russia’s sphere of influence extends beyond matters military, and in turn further than just the Russian backyard.
Of course, it might be argued that this entire affair required politicians in Britain to behave in such a way that somebody like Rothschild was given the opportunity to exercise this sort of power. That without the poor judgement of Mandleson and Osborne, power could have been kept safely within these shores. Yet however one looks at the situation, it is in truth dire. Either Britain’s major political parties are so broke that they need to cuddle-up to some of the most dangerous businessmen on the planet, whose enormous wealth ranks amongst some of the most unscrupulously acquired and maintained. Or alternatively, the major figures of Britain’s biggest political parties think that there is nothing at all unacceptable, dangerous or wrong with associating with such figures, whether it be to solicit funds or just to party in the summer sun. In any case, the entire affair is a very sad – and deeply troubling – indictment of the current political situation.
In my crazy ideal fantasy world, our politicians – or at the very least, our Labour politicians - would refuse to step onto the luxury yachts of the super rich out of principle: that some could have so much when others have so litte in this world is abhorent, and is abhorent even before the question of acquisition is raised. I can just about deal with being considered naive and idealistic for supposing that politicians might not have to play lap-dog to the super-rich. But I can’t quite shake the feeling that it is terribly sad that the focus of media coverage has been predominantly upon the question of whether or not Osborne (or Mandleson) broke any rules regarding fund-raising during their dealings with various Russian billionaires. In my ideal fantasy-land people and the media would be up in arms, that’s for sure. But they would be up in arms not so much at the news that Osborne is a crook and the non-news that Mandleson is too. They would be outraged at the mere revelation that these two had been anywhere near the luxury Corfu yachts, those physical manifestation of extreme wealth, at a time when the world economy was starting to unravel and when millions of ordinary people were suddenly at risk of losing everything through no fault of their own.
But then, maybe my fantasy-land isn’t that crazy after all. Though the credit crunch will bring with it a great deal of pain, perhaps it will also lead people to question the continued existence of Russian oligarchs and other members of the super-rich class. And in turn, the existence and function of politicians happy to be entertained by them may also be called into question.
October 24, 2008
Sex Education – More Than Just Mechanics
Blogging has been extremely light of late, as I have been trying to sort out my life with varying degrees of success. Things are potentially stabilising, and so more frequent service will hopefully follow soon. For now, just a quickie. Pun intended.
In today’s Independent there is an article about the introduction of sex education for children “as young as 5″. Apparently between the ages of 5-7 (or “Key Stage 1″ as the government has classified that segment of childhood) children are to be taught about the biological differences between boys and girls, and also about how animals reproduce. Sex education about human beings will come at age 11 (or the end of “Key Stage 2″ if you speak Ofsted-ease). Aside from wondering if it is not either naive or dishonest to publicly operate on the assumption that between Key Stages 1 and 2 children will not be able to work out from what they have learned about animals (especially after considering their own bits and bobs) that human beings work the same as cows and pigs, I’m initially in favour of increasing levels of sex education – but with one highly important caveat.
Of course, this issue is red-flag-to-bull for the usual suspects. For example, Stephen Green – national director of Christian Voice - stated that teaching young children about sex was “a wickedness” and that the government wishes to see “a whole generation fornicating” [Source: The Independent, 24/10/08]. Clearly, Mr Green thinks this is a bad thing – yet I find myself in vehement opposition to the likes of Mr Green. For the idea that it is “wicked” to know about sex, and by implication, about the biological facts of sex – the bits and bobs human beings have – is extremely unhealthy, and in a certain respect downright destructive. This is because the attitude that we should not discuss the sexual act or our sexual organs leads straightforwardly to the promotion of feelings of shame – and in this case shame is an undesirable and unhealthy emotion. Ignoring the biology of our bodies and of the sexual act leads to many kinds of shame: shame at one’s own (God-given?) body, shame at the urges one will later develop or has developed, shame even at the very thought of that most natural of acts, reproduction. It seems to me a terrible thing to raise generation of children who will be – no, let’s be honest, given the hopelessly inadequate levels of sex education currently in existence, are – ashamed of their bodies and urges, because those bodies and urges are shrouded in ignorance, whispers, taboo and embarrasment. Furthermore, shame leads typically to other unhealthy emotions, particularly guilt and self-loathing. Surely these are emotions that we should not be building into the psyches of our children, and especially not regarding something as important and central to all our lives as sex. (And this applies equally also to those not getting any: the next time you see an advertisement, there’s a fair chance the subtext will be sex and how to get more of it).
Yet having said that, I don’t wholly back the new government pronouncements either. For what appears to be on offer is effectively an extension of an approach which is not only inadequate but also deficient in a respect which is of the utmost importance. That is, the sex education system at present serves to teach children solely about the mechanics of sex – and what-is-more, only the mechanics between men and women. If children are very lucky they might get detailed anatomy lessons and may even practice putting condoms on cucumbers. For those who are less lucky and attend faith schools (as I did), they may simply receive a one-off biology lesson at age 11, punctuated by embarrassed giggles and silences – and then nothing more (ever). And you can forget about children being introduced to the possibility that sex might not only take place between one man and one woman. After all, state education is in public denial about the existence (let alone the legitimacy!) of homosexual relations. Partly this is due to the ongoing educational myth that sex is simply for reproduction and not pleasure. Partly it’s a testament to the still latent homophobia in modern society.
This approach is not good enough, because there is far more to sex than simply mechanics. The new proposals simply advocate the teaching of mechanics at an earlier age. Yet where is the emphasis on the importance of love or trust in a sexual relationship? Where is the explanation that men can love men – not just a factual truth, but surely an important lesson if our society is truly to move beyond homophobia, be it institutional or parochial. Where is the emphasis ppon the explanations of how people can be sexually vulnerable and must be cared for, or of how it is common to feel possessive of sexual partners? Of why it is important for both girls and boys to respect their bodies by seeing sex as part of a wider array of human emotions and interactions? Of explaining that sex is a deeply psychological act which can affect one’s well-being over and above the contraction of various unpleasant venereal diseases, not to mention the risk of un-planned pregnancy?
Our society is one which remains paradoxically hung-up about sex in many ways: infinite products are sold on the back of (sometimes not very subtle) appeals to sex and sexuality, yet many parents struggle to discuss the act which created their children with those very same offspring (and even fewer – I would guess – are able to discuss the emotional aspects even if they can discuss the mechanics). Sex is not acceptable conversation in polite company – and yet we almost all have or aim to have it regularly. This strangely paradoxical situation contributes to the feelings of shame, guilt, and self-loathing which are deeply harmful to people’s well-being, and which we ought not to be instilling in our children.
Which all leads me to an irony-laden conclusion. Mr Green believes he is standing up for the Christian tradition when he denounces the government’s plans. Yet it seems that, if anything, the government is continuing the Christian tradition. It is fairly undeniable that Christianity has vigorously fostered and promoted the notions of guilt, self-loathing and shame – and done so especially in relation to sex and sexuality (and even more so in same-sex cases). By teaching children only about mechanics, the most fundamental aspects of sexuality and the sexual act – and correspondingly an understanding of all the good and bad consequences that go along with the emotions of sex – will continue to be left out. But if those fundamental aspects are left out – if we don’t teach our children that there is more to sex than sticking bits into each other (something I didnt learned until I was 21, despite the best efforts of a feminist and sometimes embarrassingly frank mother) – then how will we leave behind the shame, the guilt, and the self-loathing? In that respect, the government does not seem to be offering a radical break with the Christian tradition at all, but merely a re-packaging of it. Mr Green need not be so concerned.
October 2, 2008
Decomposing Cameron
I’ve had a few hours to mull over David Cameron’s speech at the Tory Party Conference, and also some time to cool down. When I saw the ‘high’lights on the news, I wanted to throw things at the television. Luckily nobody else was in, as for the duration I shouted some very rude things in my annoyance. I dislike Cameron intensley, and the thought that this thinly-disguised Thatcherite will in all likelihood be the next Prime Minister makes me rather sad, not to mention angry.
As I say, though, i’ve had time to cool down. I’m going to focus here on a couple of things Cameron mentioned in his speech, and attempt to show what is wrong with them. My targets will be, firstly, Cameron’s attack on “the human rights society” and, secondly, his troubling rhetoric regarding the family.
Unfortunately there doesn’t appear to be a transcript up anywhere of Cameron’s speech (and I cannot face watching the whole thing), so i’m going to have to do this from memory. Let’s kick things off with the following soundbite, which i’m afraid isn’t verbatim but should be close enough. Cameron railed against the “human rights culture”, which apparently, from the tone of his voice, is a bad thing.
It’s easy to see why Cameron (or perhaps better, Cameron’s speech writing team) played this move. There is a considerable back(?)lash against the idea of human rights, as evinced by many articles to be found in the Daily Mail, or from frequent commentors on the BBC’s Have Your Say section (for some of the best examples of this, and for a good laugh at the very worst offenders, go here). By railing against the “human rights culture” Cameron is playing a safe card; he’s pandering to those voters who are fond of saying that people have “too many” human rights, and who blame the Human Rights Act for “giving asylum seekers a free ride”, etc. Indeed, i’ve frequently come into contact with precisely these kinds of attitudes, typically voiced by the children of such voters, whom i’ve periodically helped teach a class on the political philosophy of human rights to. So this is something of a personal hobby-horse for me.
It’s worth reflecting on what Cameron might mean when he talks of overturning the human rights culture. There seem to me to be two ways in which a Cameron government could go. I call the first the Tony’s Gift model, and the second the Arbitrary Conferal model. Let’s talk about Tony’s Gift first.
The Tony’s Gift model is named after Tony Blair, who has a conception of rights nicely encapsulated thus:
Rights correlate to duties. They are privileges of citizenship. But citizenship also brings with it duties: duties to behave as a good citizen should. After all, why should good, decent, law-abiding citizens be taxed to fund the lives of those who do not live good, decent law-abiding lives?
Before we can decompose Cameron we must first decompose Blair. The first part of the quote is mere political bluster; any political philosopher will tell you that rights correlate to duties – that is a matter of logic and nothing more. At this stage, nothing substantial has been said. The first significant thing Blair says is the second sentence: that rights are privileges of citizenship. I disagree, fiercely. For I adhere to a school of political and ethical thought which – for long and complex reasons I will not delve into here – believes that human beings have rights by virtue of the fact they are human beings. They are born with them. Rights are not acquired after being handed down from those in positions of authority – in other words they are not privileges of citizenship at all, but are rather prerequirements of meaningful citizenship. The next move in the Blair speech (“citizenship also brings with it duties: duties to behave as a good citizen should”) is also one I object to. The thought process goes like this: ‘rights are a privilege conferred onto citizens, and only so conferred when citizens perform the duties demanded by the rights conferrer. The rights conferrer is the State, and hence individuals don’t get rights until they perform the duties the State demands of them’.
This thought process is one I object to, deeply. It basically says that you – and me, and everyone else – get rights on condition of good behaviour, where good behaviour is defined by the State. Now you don’t need to be a revolutionary anarcho-syndicalist to see that this has the following consequence: you don’t get rights until you behave, and you lose rights when you misbehave, and therefore you don’t have the right to misbehave. And when misbehaviour is defined by the state, that has the severe implication of meaning that you lose political rights. But as history shows, it is those activities the state does not like which are the ones typically protected by political rights, for the sake of the liberties and wellbeing of ordinary people. Furthermore, some people – myself included – would class many political rights as human rights. For example freedom of speech and association, but also more complex rights like a right to equal political representation or equal entitlement to the protections and services of the state, are in my opinion both human rights and political rights.
I’ll leave the Blair quote alone now, but if you want more on that stuff go here (note that the piece is controversial within political philosophy, but is well-written and thought-provoking so even more worth reading). The Tony’s Gift model should now be easy enough to understand. It is the view of rights according to which people get them only on the condition of good behaviour, and this puts political rights – many of which are human rights, I suggest – in jeopardy of being gifts only conferred upon citizens when the State chooses to confer them, and taken away when the State so decides. And a little look at history will indicate that this makes such rights effectively worthless. And that is a bad thing.
So if Cameron opts to replace the “human rights culture” with a Tony’s Gift model, he will be advocating an approach to rights which puts all the power in the State’s hands. That, I suggest, is antithetical to the tradition of political and human rights, and in turn to any tradition of the freedom of the citizen.
Defenders of Cameron will of course say that this is nonsense – Cameron is railing against precisely the Blair approach! He doesn’t want to impose some technical, statist, pro-big government concept of rights – after all he’s a Conservative for crying out loud. No, he wants to go back to “common sense”, to reverse what Labour has done and make things good again. If that is the case, then as far as I can see – but if you see an alternative please do respond – that leaves the following option: the Arbitrary Conferral model.
The Arbitrary Conferral model is more simplistic than Tony’s Gift and works like this. We scrap all this talk of “rights”, and of people being able to claim “duties” from the state on the basis of some abstract concept they have at birth. Likewise we scrap the talk of the State dishing out rights. Instead we go back to “common sense”.
What, exactly, is “common sense”?
From what I can tell, when people on the right talk of “common sense” they mean something like the following: cases should be decided on an arbitrary basis, appealing to established traditions and the prevailing moral intuitions of those in authority. Instead of upholding the “rights” of a person, whom sassy liberal lefties like myself believe have the same rights as everyone else and an equal claim to have those rights respected and considered, we instead defer to the personal judgements – and prejudices – of the policeman, or the bureaucratic form-filler, or the judge, or whoever happens to find that they have power over the lives of others. Some people may find that model appealing. Personally, I find it terrifying. And not only do I find it terrifying, it strikes me as a terrible backwards step. Though of course, if you are against the “human rights” culture, steps backwards may be desirable, aiding the hope of stepping all the way back to before the nasty 1960s when all the oiks and women and wogs got above their stations. (Sorry I got carried away there, but i’ve been good so far so you’ll have to forgive me).
Now I’m not going to say something overblown and silly along the lines of claiming that everything about human rights is straightforward and easy, especially their application. That would be daft and plainly false. But what I am going to say is that a world in which people are viewed as having fundamental human rights (which are possessed by simple virtue of being human) is far preferable to a world run along the lines of either Tony’s Gift or Arbitrary Conferral. So when David Cameron says he wants to get rid of the human rights culture, I take him to be attacking a fundamental precept of a free society and of the equal concern and respect for all human beings. That is, the view that all human beings have certain rights, rights which they have not because the State chooses to confer them, or because arbitrary figures of authority or power choose to act favourably, but because of the simple fact they are human.
My second gripe with Cameron’s speech is slightly quicker to deal with (you’ll be glad to hear). It’s Cameron’s incessant rhetoric of the importance of family values, and in particular his proposal to promote the traditional family with economic rewards, specifically in the form of tax-breaks.
“What’s wrong with helping families?” I hear you cry. Well, on the one hand families of course should be helped (especially poor families, i would add). After all, raising kids is hard and expensive, so perhaps we should welcome tax breaks. But why, exactly, for married couples? It seems rather wrong-headed, as surely the right targets should be those raising children full stop, whether they be single-parent or same-sex parent families. And it might also be asked whether all families should get tax breaks. While at first glance it seems OK if members of society without children help support those with, on second glance things aren’t so clear if the non-parent is poor and the two-parent married couple is considerably richer.
Let’s, however, put to one side those particular economic issues and focus on something else. Married heterosexual families are frequently happy and successful. Of course, sometimes they are not. Marriage is not a miracle cure. Remember that Cameron is supposed to be a Man with a Plan, not a miracle worker, and he’s claiming to be the one who can “fix our broken society” (though it is worth asking whether people thought it was broken before he started telling them it was). Yet it does seem a little miracle-esque to suppose that if more people get married – and to suppose that tax-breaks will a) encourage marriage, b) encourage marriage for the right reasons, and c) hold marriages together in the face of, say, more pressing emotional difficulties – then society will be helped to be “fixed”. Marriage can be good, but it can also be bad – for men, women and often for children. It is therefore dishonest – though of course politically astute – to equate more marriage with a better society. It is plausible that other things like, for example, poverty, have more of an impact and that targetting things like (possibly through tax-breaks, possibly not) would be a more substantial measure. But then, that wouldn’t be a very Conservative thing to do, would it?
Furthermore, it is worth reflecting on what tax breaks for married couples means: it is an economic incentive which discriminates against the un-married and the non-hetrosexual. If you are married you already stand to benefit from significant economic benefits vis-a-vis the unmarried. Cameron proposes to make that even more the case. Thus if you are gay, you will be poorer than many hetrosexuals. If you are unlucky enough never to meet the right person, you will be poorer than others who are so lucky. Indeed, you may be so poor as to feel it is worth entering into a marriage for primarily economic reasons. But is that the kind of marriage Cameron’s Tories want to endorse? I suspect not, but there’s no avoiding that particular upshot.
Finally, let us not forget that the family is still, in many cases, a predominantly sexist institution. Women in most families will bear the burden of domestic chores, of raising children, of balancing a paid job with an unpaid one (being a housewife). What is more, due to the structure of our capitalist economy women who choose to have children are very likely to fall behind their male counterparts in terms of promotion, pay (which is already very often lower for women) and opportunity for advancement. The net result is a loss of economic independence and an increasing dependence upon the breadwinner, who will often be the man. This creates an economic asymmetry between man and woman, and puts power in the hands of men. Now, of course, when a family is healthy and happy these things might fade into the background. But how many families go wrong? How many women stay with their partners because they feel too economically vulnerable to leave – and not just for their own sakes, but for that of their children? Given that this is the existing situation, Cameron’s proposal to re-enforce the economic benefits of marriage, and to make not being married economically less viable, is effectively endorsing the extension of a system in which women are more vulnerable than men. And ensuring that this increased vulnerability is endorssed and facilitated by the State.
Given all of this, and given the fact that the appeal to the ‘traditional’ family clearly discriminates against non-hetrosexuals, I think we can conclude that, as with the question of human rights, Cameron is endorsing steps backwards, proposing to take us back to a more unjust society, one that we had made steps to leave behind. On the analysis of just two components in Cameron’s speech, I would suggest that the following is straightforwardly incorrect:
He [Cameron] also claimed the Conservatives were now the party of the NHS and the “party of social justice,” summing up his philosophy as “progressive ends, Conservative means”. [BBC News website].
Cameron is not a progressive, nor does he advocate social justice. But he is a Conservative, through and through. Nothing’s changed there.
