Archive for November, 2004
God Save Us From Our Latter-Day History Professors
Posted by David Conway in America on 10/11/2004
George Bush’s electoral victory last week has shaken the predominantly left-leaning Anglo-American intellectual elite to its core. How, they collectively have wondered, could the American electorate have been so stupid? And, more pointedly, what do the Democrats have to do to ensure such an electoral debacle will never be repeated in future?
The answers to these questions currently favoured by this elite go as follows. The Republicans won because the American heartland is so heavily populated by bigoted, ignorant Christian fundamentalists. The Republicans were able cleverly to exploit this electoral constituency to its to own advantage by being able to appeal to ‘flag, faith, and family’ in a way in which Democrats did not.
The Nightmare from which the BBC Claims to Have Awoken Us … Continues
Posted by David Conway in Civil Liberty on 08/11/2004
Those domiciled in Britain are obliged to pay an annual license for the privilege of being able to watch any television in that country. The revenue raised from this license fee goes to fund the BBC which justifies its privileged position by claiming its news and current affairs of the highest quality and both well-informed and impartial.
Over the past three weeks, the BBC has broadcast a three-part documentary series entitled, ‘The Power of Nightmares’. Designed to rebut the idea that the West faces any orchestrated threat from an Islamist terror organisation, the series claimed the idea of such a threat to be a neo-conservative myth, deliberately manufactured to fill the public with enough dread to enable its manufacturers to succeed in a cynical and repressive political power-play which threatens civil liberties in the West.
Understanding America
Posted by David Green in America on 08/11/2004
A lot of British commentators on the US election result find it incomprehensible, particularly the central role played by religious campaigners. It’s well worth taking a look at Gertrude Himmelfarb’s explanation in the Sunday Times. The attitude of Americans who thought the election was primarily about moral issues would not have been a mystery to Britons a couple of generations ago. Many Americans have remained true to values once taken for granted here, but now abandoned.
Why the American Electorate was Right to Reject Gay Marriage
Posted by David Conway in Family, Marriage and the Culture on 05/11/2004
Among the various results of Tuesday’s elections in the United States, of only slightly less significance than George Bush’s victory over John Kerry was the decisive rejection by the American electorate of ‘gay’ marriage. In eleven states, voters were given the opportunity to vote for or against amendments to their state constitutions confining marital status to unions between members of the opposite sex . In not a single one of them did voters do other than register their support for such an amendment, often by huge majorities.
In the same week as that in which the political elites of Europe made it plain no European could expect to hold high public office there if prepared openly to call homosexuality a sin, the American public made it plain no Americans could expect to enjoy the benefits of marital status unless prepared to join in union with a member of the opposite sex.
Inciting Intolerance
Posted by David Green in Civil Liberty on 03/11/2004
In a Guardian article entitled ‘Words that inspire killer deeds’, Gareth McLean tries to associate moral persuasion with threats of violence. Rocco Buttiglione, the former candidate for the EU Commission, said that homosexuality was a sin and, thereby according to Mr McLean, helped to create an atmosphere in which homosexuals could be murdered. So too does Sizzla, the Jamaican singer, whose songs include lines such as, ‘Kill dem battyboys’ and ‘I kill sodomites and queers, they bring Aids and disease pon people’.
But this claim fails to distinguish between moral persuasion and violence. Moral persuasion rests on the assumption of moral equality, the founding principle of Western liberalism. It assumes that all are capable of choosing right from wrong. It enjoins people to change. It assumes an inner life, and a thinking mind open to the influence of others. The moral criticism of a Mr Buttiglione is made in the spirit of the Christian cliche, ‘Hate the sin, love the sinner’. Such criticism is a great leveller, implying that all are equal in the sight of God and bear a responsibility to do the right thing.
Sizzla is inciting violence and should be dealt with according to law. There is no comparison with moral criticism grounded in the assumption of moral equality.
Why does the author try to blur the difference between the two when our whole heritage of liberal-democracy rests on settling differences, however strong, through discussion rather than violence? In Gareth McLean’s view, every criticism of a type of behaviour is an incitement to hatred. Yet, if he is right, then his own criticism of Mr Buttiglione, and anyone who agrees with him, is also an incitement to hatred. In truth, refusal to distinguish between moral criticism and violence is an excuse for violence against people who voice non-violent, merely persuasive, criticisms. It is a rationale for aggression – these moralists deserve all they get. Perhaps this attitude explains the intolerance of the majority of the European Parliament.
Our Right to Self-Defence
Posted by David Green in Crime on 02/11/2004
It’s well worth taking a look at Libby Purves’ article in today’s Times about our right to tackle burglars without fear that the police will arrest us. Civilisation’s restraint, she says, “is an admirable thing, but not when it diverges too far from basic perceptions of justice.” She mentions the Oklahoma model, not uncommon in America, which allows victims to use “any degree of physical force” including deadly force against burglars, if they reasonably fear for their own safety, “no matter how slight” the risk. We urgently need to reform our own laws, to permit householders to use whatever force is necessary to protect themselves.