Why ethics alone can't save the world

Green is the new black. Any government that wants to get re-elected and any political party that wants to usurp them is putting the environment at the core of their rhetoric and political campaigns lest they find themselves in a perpetual political wilderness. This is of course as far as it goes. The government commits itself to drastically reducing carbon emissions at Kyoto only to see them rise; David Cameron, leader of the Conservatives, rides his bike to work only to have his car follow him; whilst the Lib Dems, despite consistently saying the right things on the subject, are unlikely to find themselves challenged to put them into practice any time soon.

Why is this the case though? The electorate can spot hypocrisy when they see it and they don't settle for rhetoric without action when it comes to issues like the economy and terrorism. Hence successive governments introduce whatever measures are necessary to address them whether this means taking on powerful trade unions or moving to jail people without charge for six weeks. Quite simply, the answer is that as high as the environment may poll on any survey of voter priorities, few people are prepared to make the sacrifices entailed by a committment to save the environment. Few people are willing to sort their rubbish into recyclables and non-recyclables or to forgo their plastic bags and bottled water. Even fewer are willing to sacrifice their cheap flights abroad. This of course is no revelation. It is taken as a given that the only way to force the government to put its money where its mouth is is to launch a grassroots movement and turn Britain Green from the bottom upwards.

So, activists, concerned citizens and even a few well meaning politicians set about winning people's hearts and minds and exploiting the sensitive ethical dillemnas that are intrinsically, although by no means exclusively, linked to the problems of climate change. These include the perils of buying cheap goods highlighted not just for the damage their importation does to the environment but also for the manner in which they are manufactured. Thus, clothes from Primark are condemned for the carbon footprint they leave after being shipped from abroad whilst perpetuating child labour in the Far East. Plastic bags are reviled not just because they take centuries to decompose but also because of the pictures of small animals dying in their droves after ingesting them.

People who show little regard or knowledge of these problems are often held in such contempt -especially by many members of the party to which I belong, the Liberal Democrats- that their actions appear both incomprehensible and unjustifiable. They find it unfathomable that anyone could hold any higher priority than the safety of the planet; that anyone would even think twice about paying more for their clothes and their food if it meant minimising their carbon footprint and putting the sponsors of child labour out of busniness at the same time.

I am always instinctively wary of such people who look down on others and say things like: "I can't understand why they would do this". In a single sentence, they dismiss the circumstances of such an individual and emphasise how they would never do the same, subtly concluding that the only variable factor must be that they are just a better person. Add to this that many of those leading these 'grassroots' movements come from privileged backgrounds where the costs of food and clothing don't need to be carefully considered, and indeed weighed up against each other, and the picture becomes clearer. Consider further the fact that those who currently benefit the most from cheap clothing, food and air travel would suffer the most from restrictions on these things whilst their richer counterparts would barely even feel a tickle let alone a pinch and the challenge of forging a coherent plan of action becomes greater still.

Celebrities are frequently the worst offenders when it comes to this, not to say that a political opinion should be disregarded just because it comes from Hollywood. That said, I can't help but raise an eyebrow at pop stars who fly thousands of miles to hold concerts aimed at raising awareness of Global Warming. Others lecture the masses on the perils of climate change, stopping only to sip from their plastic bottles of water shipped directly to them from the far reaches of the earth. Similarly, even for those whose actions are consistent with their actions, no good deed goes unpunished. In the mid 1990s, according to UNICEF, a boycott of Nepalese carpets hand made by child labourers led their employers to go bust and fire all their workers. Consequently, over 5,000 Nepalese girls went from being child labourers to being child prostitutes.

Another obstacle to concerted action to tackle Climate Change in the UK is the overwhelming sense of futility felt across our small country, that without the co-operation of the biggest pollutors, namely the U.S and China, anything we do is rather inconsequential. This fatalism is not wholly unreasonable either. The biggest pollutors in the world are the most reluctant to do anything about it with the Bush administration only just beginning to concede that global warming may just be a problem after all. In addition, all things being equal even if the UK was to go carbon neutral overnight, any benefits to the environment would be quickly offset by China and India.

In sum, only a far-reaching, legally binding multi-lateral effort would prevent the efforts of the most dedicated activists from going to waste, protect the most vulnerable from the fallout and justify the most hefty sacrifices. So, I urge my fellow Lib Dems to forgive me when I say: don't blame individuals, especially those who struggle enough with the everyday circumstances of life, for the failures of government. As for the government, although they have the power and indeed the duty to tackle climate change, they are not omnipotent and have re-election and international power politics to contend with. Furthermore, as pressing as climate change is, it is not as immediate a threat as an asteroid or a tsunami even if it is of far greater proportions. Rather, to paraphrase that great source of modern political wisdom, 'The West Wing', only two things can force a government's hand: politics and money.

History shows that economics is indeed the key to energy efficiency, particularly in the United States. Currently one of the most woeful polluters in the world in spite of the growing acceptance that climate change is a man-made phenomenon which requires urgent solutions, in the eight years between 1973 and 1981, when Climate Change was not the serious consideration it has now become, energy consuption per unit of GNP actually declined by 18%. This was achieved thanks mainly to President Jimmy Carter's reforms such as creating the first cabinet level Department of Energy which oversaw a centrally co-ordinated shift from oil to alternative energy; amendments to the Clean Air Act which forced auto-makers to improve the energy efficiency of cars across the country; extra layers of insulation built into new houses to cut gas bills and tax breaks for people using solar power to meet their energy needs. What prompted such sweeping reforms? A severe oil crisis and the prospect of an immediate economic catastrophe as a result.

Now, it is familiar tensions prompting another push towards energy efficiency in the United States whilst carbon emissions trading, an initiative pioneered by the European Union, is offering a cash incentive for companies to take action. These markets, like any markets however, require greater regulation to ensure their aims are actually achieved - a critical article in the Economist some time ago highlighted how lapses in regulation of markets such as the Chicago Climate Exchange have led to the undermining of its environmental credentials as loggers plundering the Amazon rainforest get rich off the scheme by using ethanol powered trucks. Nonetheless, the benefits are there to be reaped.


So, whilst well meaning people may say that ethics are the key to recycling, at the end of the day it's money that makes the world go round. In time, money can make the world go green too.

Gordon Brown Trousers - a gift to the Lib Dems

When I heard the news that there was to be no election after all either this Autumn or, in all likelihood, next year, I thought to myself: 'this stinks' - and I wasn't just talking about Gordon Brown's pantelones. I was looking forward to the contest, especially in my home constituency where we have by far the best candidate of all three parties along with control of most of its wards. However, given a day to reflect, I have concluded that this is in fact the best thing that could have happened to the Lib Dems. Don't get me wrong, they could have done well if an election was called for November, even if they lost a few seats, because Labour and the Tories would finish so close together, the balance of power would rest with us - I mean the Liberal Democrats. It was this that got me thinking today.


The Liberal Democrats have perpetually been in something of a political quagmire since their inception in 1988. They have no track record on being in power nationally - not since the days of Lloyd George anyway- and with no real natural core vote like Labour or the Tories and no distinctive identity to make clear how a Lib Dem government would be different from any other, many people dismiss them as being merely a protest party despite the fine work of many Lib Dem councils and MPs throughout the country. The elctorate needs to believe that the party they're voting for can run the country, and as long as the Lib Dems lack this experience, a natural core vote and a distinictive identity to get them up the opinion polls, their future chances of forming a government will remain increasingly bleak. In other words, at this point, the only way the Liberal Democrats could convince the people they were ready to govern would be if they were in government.

Ironically, however, the resurgence of both Labour and the Tories, albeit at the Lib Dems' expense, marks a unique opportunity for them for if there had been an election in November, regardless of who won, the Lib Dems share of seats would almost certainly have exceeded the difference between the Tories' and Labour's totals, forcing whichever of the two formed a government to court the party's support in order to get their own legislation through Parliament.

It is this that should be shaping the Lib Dem campaign; not trying to form a government and be the biggest party in Parliament - even the most enthusiastic supporter knows that won't be happening any time soon- but on holding Labour and the Conservatives, regardless of which one forms a government in 2009, to account. Furthermore, the party leadership should refrain from making any major policy proposals to allow Parliamentary candidates to tailor their campaigns to the most pressing local issues in each seat, deciding centrally only the party's key positions and beliefs. This would prevent major inconsistencies in party pledges from emerging whilst concentrating the leadership's efforts on crafting a truly unique and comprehensive identity for the party. Most importantly though, it would allow the Lib Dems to do what they do best; vigorous and committed local campaigning focusing on local issues and increasing the party's share of seats in Parliament constituency by constituency.

The logic of such a strategy is that the party need not worry about appearing as the protest party when the public already perceive them to be just that. Instead, such a perception should be welcomed and recognised for what it is - a license to criticise without the expectation of proposing policy. At a time when vast swathes of the public are highly suspicious of the two leading parties' motives and methods and unclear at times of how the two are even any different, a party that marketed itself specifically as the Devil's advocate would surely be welcomed with open arms by the electorate.

Once the election was over, with the difference in seats between the Tories and Labour likely to be quite small, the Lib Dems would then be able to use their presence to influence if not decide the passage of legislation, either as an independent third party or as a coalition partner in the government. Hence, by building on the step by step progress in constitutencies across the country and their existing MPs' enduring reputations for commitment, competence and candour along with a freshly forged and distinctive identity and presence in government, the Lib Dems could finally be a force to be reckoned with. However, such a transformation would also require the party to address the issues of party unity, funding and leadership that continue to hinder its progress.

Until then, Ming Campbell and the Liberal Democrats need to recognise that the public cannot be fooled that easily -as Gordon Brown is learning right now- and that they will need to do more than pretend they are as big as the Conservatives and Labour to convince the public they are. So rather than constantly trying to punch above their weight, they should embrace their size and the opportunities that come with being the protest party and simply say: we may be small, but we bite! Thankfully, Gordon Brown has given them an extra two years to find their feet and become the real opposition.

Throw out the targets, Camden needs more bobbies on the beat!

Last night I attended the Swiss Cottage Safer Neighbourhoods meeting, a recent innovation of the Metropolitan Police Force...whoops I mean Metropolitan Police Service - the difference being that now if your local constable fails to deliver your justice on time and with a smile on their face, you are encouraged to put a complaint in their comments box.

Seriously though, these meetings are a great idea and you do feel like you're being given an opportunity to air your grievances to those who need to hear it most and hold them accountable for it. The panel is composed of two PCs and two PCSOs and is chaired by a sergeant, but appears to be run clandestinely by Waitrose where two of the panel members work as managers. Their secret identity was only revealed last night when one of the audience members questioned the chain's security policy following her grand-daughter's harrassment by another customer only to be assiduously rebuffed by them as if they had been personally accused of the offence themselves. On the other hand, this tiny hall, temporarily converted into a bastion of local democracy, was inundated by free food and drink to encourage people to attend and stay after...all courtesy of Waitrose of course, so the jury's still out. Nevertheless, I am eagerly awaiting the day I see one of their Ocado delivery vans engaged in a high speed car chase down Finchley Road with makeshift police sirens loosely attached to the roof.

However, the meeting was not all poops and giggles. There were many complaints that the police were not doing enough to tackle street violence, gang culture and general acts of agression, wreckless disregard and intimidation ranging from loud drunkards to erratic drivers. Indeed, several members of the audience each had a story to tell about how they had suffered over the last few months and their displeasure at the police service's perceived unresponsiveness. Their frustration was exacerbated when the panel reviewed their top three target crimes in ascending order of priority, identifying where local police efforts should be concentrated - robbery 3rd, motor vehicle crime 2nd and burglary top of the list - only to exclude anti-social behaviour or even violence against the person entirely from this list. When called up on this, they insisted that it would not be a practical use of police resources.

Now this would seem quite a shocking statement to make at the best of times to an audience that had just raised anti-social behaviour as their biggest concern, but consider in addition to this the Met's own crime figures for August of this year and it becomes simply astonishing. For example 'Violence against the person' accounted for 510 of 2,903 crimes committed in Camden, exceeding the combined totals of robbery (79) and motor vehicle crime (382) over the same period. Nevertheless the panel defended their position on the grounds that the police service is so small that the only way it can effectively tackle crime is to isolate key areas where crimes most frequently occur and post officers there to ward off and arrest criminals. Similarly, they have targets for dealing with crimes most frequently reported which also help to determine where their officers will be posted. The problem with tackling anti-social behaviour and even violence and intimidation therefore is that a) it can, and does, happen anywhere in around the area and b) due to the sporadic nature of such crimes, people don't always report them, especially if it's just a case of being disturbed or scared by noisy louts where the offence is more psychological than physical, as there is little the police can do for them after the incident has occured.

As taken aback as I was by the frankness of the panel in responding to these questions as they essentially refused to take any action on the grounds that doing so would confound their complex targeting system, I also had a lot of sympathy for them. They were, after all, just doing their best with what they had and indeed had been successful in overseeing a reduction in crime on the same period last year. However, the meeting did open my eyes to the real problem which lies in the the transformation of the police from a force to a service. Where once, the police might have guarded their respective communities through a decisive presence on the streets in the form of the revered bobby on the beat with the sole aim of enforcing the law, they are now constrained by targets, regulations and endless paperwork where the aims are now to offer value for money and avoid getting sued. Don't get me wrong, I have no wish to see Judge Dredd chairing the next Safer Neighbourhoods meeting, but when you consider the closest thing we have to regular bobby patrols these days are Police Community Support Officers who seem to only just have the power to give offenders a stern talking to and a mean stare as if to say "you're lucky that this uniform gives me as much power to arrest you as that guy from the Village People, otherwise you'd be in big trouble", then you've got to wander, surely there's got to be a better way.

I'm confused by Barack Obama's declaration on foreign policy

It's official. If Barack Obama becomes President he will seek the elimination of nuclear weapons as well as increasing foreign aid and deliver a state of the world address. There's more of course, but that's the general jist of it. His justification for these proposals is that the Soviet Union does not exist any more, so does not need to be defended against from the threat of nuclear war, and that instead the focus should be on keeping nukes out of the hands of terrorists - the new threat.

I have just one question: why?

By that, I don't mean to question his intentions but his logic. Nuclear disarmament and nuclear proliferation are two different concepts, so why make a pledge that effectively bags the two together? Furthermore, not only is it possible to restrict proliferation without necessitating disarmament, but on the contrary it is vital. Indeed, to claim that the threat of nuclear war disappeared along with the Soviet Union is dangerously naive. This is not just because of the rekindling of traditional Cold War rivalry of late, but also because it is impossible to predict the future and to be sure that those openly hostile to us won't develop nuclear weapons or that those who already possess them won't one day become our rival or even our enemy.

That said, I completely share Mr Obama's desire to halt proliferation to keep weapons out of the hands of terrorists or hostile nation states. Although there are those who argue that the world would be safer place if every nation on the earth had nuclear weapons, installing the MAD mentality that kept the U.S.A and the Soviet Union at arm's length for so may years, such proliferation would be catastrophic. For a start, accidents can happen, not all leaders (especially dictators) are rational actors and arms races are uneven meaning that some states would develop nukes before others, increasing the temptation to launch a pre-emptive strike. Furthermore though, unless every country had the same number of nuclear weapons and the same targeting systems that enable US and Russian missiles alone to take out not just their rivals' biggest cities but the missile silos themselves in one strike, the MAD mentality would be replaced with an incentive to strike first, not second.

The problem with leading by example to achieve this end, however, is that it is impossible to monitor the progress of other countries especially when you consider that the way Pakistan, India and Israel managed to get round the supposedly comprehensive nuclear non-proliferation treaty was to not sign it the first place. Rather, providing security guarantees within the framework of sophisticated alliances between like-minded liberal democratic states such as NATO would be far more effective. Of course, it is essential that these alliances be reinforced by the political and economic support crucial to building and sustaining stable democracies offered by the European Union and their rapidly developing regional counterparts such as the African Union and the Association of South East Asian Nations.

So, I would cautiously embrace Mr Obama's core foreign policy principles just as long as he remembers that making the world a safer place need not take priority over the security of his own country.

Why Chris Booker and his band of europhobes have got it wrong

Yesterday's Daily Mail saw Christopher Booker go off on one about the EU -total shocker- but whereas conspiracy theories such as his are for the most part laughable in their innaccuracy, they become a problem when they stand to misinform the good readers of the Daily Mail about an issue that could go to a referendum and is vital to the national interest.

Now, conspiracy theories as they go appeal to people in large because they conveniently fit certain key facts around a given theory, as opposed to fitting the theory around all the key facts. This allows such theorists, whether they argue that Elvis is still alive, the Bush administration orchestrated 9/11 or, as in this case, that the EU is a pseudo fourth reich gradually taking control of Europe armed not with a vast military, but a vast bureaucracy, to swagger around with a heightened sense of righteous indignation about them.

Of course, it helps to get the facts right.

The reviled EU bureacracy for example, is no bigger than Birmingham city council (not that an army of brummies marching over Europe is to be taken at all lightly) and yet still more productive than the entire of Whitehall.

Booker, however, gave several specific examples to justify his claim that the Brown government was perpetrating a fraud against the public by not calling a referendum on the upcoming Reform Treaty. I will focus on two of them.

He first claimed that the chaos surrounding Britain's waste disposal service is down solely to the EU, specifically that everything ranging from "the plethora of different coloured bins into which we are expected to put our waste to the national epidemic of flytipping." Now, being concerned about the sovereignty of one's country is one thing, but blaming the fiendish act of flytipping on Brussels too? Don't get me wrong, if someone sees a Eurocrat flying over here from Belgium, with his rubbish and dumping it in High Street litter bins, they should be taken down like anyone else, but otherwise I think we Brits will have to shoulder the blame for that one.

As for the wider issue of waste, it is true that we are bound by certain directives such as the landfill directive which sets targets of by how much we must reduce our dependence on landfill sites over a phased period of years. However, it should be remembered that such directives must be approved by the Council which means getting the approval of the UK government and also that most of the measures put in place to meet these requirements have been at the behest of our own government.

Another wild accusation that Booker made was that the Common Foreign and Security Policy was to blame for the horrendous quagmire facing British troops in the Middle East. How an earth did he come to this conclusion? Apparently the EU is now forcing us to buy Eurofighters and navy carriers "all to equip us to fight imaginary wars in the future." Even if we ignore the fact that the EU does not have the power to send the British military to Tesco due to the national veto over all things defence, the Eurofighter has been in the works since the 1970s. Granted the process of actually ordering, building and deploying the damn things has been woeful, but this has nothing to do with the EU. In any case, only the MoD is to blame for failing to properly equip the brave men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and if anything Booker owes them an apology for trying to make political hey out of their plight.

As for the navy carriers and the imaginary wars, I wonder if Booker voiced the same concerns when it came to replacing Trident. And when he referred to imaginary wars was he discounting the two far away wars we're already fighting as they've already happened? Does he not understand that the UK's interests abroad are the same as those of our continental neighbours and the United States? That the Rapid Reaction Force exists in recognition of European states' inability to fight today's wars of high technology and hugely advanced -and expensive- weaponry on a single defence budget and therefore seeks to make the most of what we have? That it is designed to consolidate our presence in NATO and to work with the American military machine in providing support or speedy and decisive intervention? Needless to say, it is quite mind-boggling how he and other euro-phobes like him can throw stones at the EU over the issue of sovereignty only to pay little if any regard to the importance of national security above all. But then, the national interest has never been top of the europhobe agenda. To the contrary, their stance is built on misplaced ideology at best and pure xenophobia at worst.

Of course, his main gripe though, as with all europhobes at the moment was with the Reform Treaty which he insisted is the Constitution in disguise. This latest treaty does include some of the provisions from the constitutional treaty it is true, but some of the most contraversial elements such as: the constitutional label, that would have done away with the convention of progress by international treaty alone, the flag and anthem, charter of human rights and the reference to 'free and undistorted competition' as the EU's key goal have been dropped. The items kept in, such as a legal personality for the EU -this already exists in the WTO- a permanent EU foreign affairs representative, extended qualified majority voting, as well a mechanism for national parliaments to directly scrutinise EU draft legislation, will have far less impact on British sovereignty than the Maastricht treaty or the Single European Act, neither of which were deemed to warrant a referendum.

Ultimately, of course we cannot retain absolute sovereignty and remain in the European Union, just as we can't retain it and remain in NATO or the World Trade Organisation. But sovereignty is not an end in itself, certainly not in international politics. The aim is the maximisation of the national interest which in turn gauarantees the security of the nation. The retention of absolute sovereignty was not in the national interest at the height of the Cold War with the Soviet Union and it certainly isn't now with the resurgence of Russia and the emergence of China. The pooling of sovereignty in Europe has also served to gurantee the economic, political and military security of its constituent members. The EU's funds have been used to propel member states' economic growth such as Ireland, to assist countries in a state of emergency such as Greece this summer and to offer the institutional and economic support necessary to protect fledgling democracies, emerging from brutal dictatorships.

Most importantly, through binding member states economies, it has delivered peace in Europe. Although, the role of NATO cannot be understated in protecting Europe from itself through threat of American military intervention, since the demise of the Soviet Union, that responsibility has been transferred to the EU. Indeed, rather than simply preventing Germany from invading France again, as NATO achieved, the EU has taken this one step further by converting the two from warring neighbours to resolute allies and it has achieved this by forcibly binding their interests together. It is no coincidence that steel was the first industry to be merged in the infancy of the EU, it is the most crucial industry for a country at war.

In turn, the benefits of the EU to the individual citizens are unparalled anywhere else. The common market has provided for the free exchange of goods, turning the EU into an economic superpower. Europeans also enjoy freedom of movement whilst the rights they enjoy at home are replicated abroad whether it be in the guise of cheap phonecalls or legal representation. EU directives on the environment, investment in regional development and resolute defence of human rights have done far more for individuals in this country than the government could ever have done alone. I often find it strange that the Conservative party of all parties harbour the most europhobes. They are meant to be for free markets and a strong international presence yet they harp on about sovereignty and allege that the EU stifles British business through its regulations and undermines Parliamentary democracy. The even more phobic UKIP on the Far Right of British politics, and compeltely in step with Booker's views, paint a picture of European Commissioners goose-stepping through Brussels, twirling the ends of whisker-like moustaches as they plot their conquest of Britain through the back door.

The problem with all this is that the EU is almost never the instigator of these decisions heralded as the death of democracy. It is often big businesses, organisations or national leaders themselves who fuel European legislation through their demands for harmonisation across the EU of their respective industries or laws because of the benefits of such legislation to them. Every directive has to be authorised by the Council and the ECJ with Parliamentary oversight scrutinising their every move. Indeed, even the very sub-committees of the Commission that draft EU legislation constantly work with member state representatives as well as the various lobbyists that occupy so much of Brussels' office space.

There are some who assert that we'd be better off ditching Europe altogether and joining NAFTA and creating an English Speaking Union. This is proposterous. Not just because the trade agreements we enjoy with America right now actually exceed the provisions of NAFTA, but also because a Britain outside of Europe is useless to America. We would be useless to American firms investing in Britain without access to the single market and we would be useless to any American government seeking to reinforce the transatlantic relationship, the bedrock of European and American security strategies alike. It was Henry Kissinger who famously asked what phone number he should call for Europe, stressing the American desire to work with a united and secure Europe. For the most part, that number has been Britain's as we have combined the fruits of the Special Relationship with our position at the heart of Europe. However, in the years since the Iraq war, our total compliance with American foreign policy has led to our alienation within Europe. The result was plain to see following Israel's invasion of Lebanon. When the U.S decided to work with the EU to send a UN peacekeeping force into the country, it phoned France, not Britain.

The europhobes' case is not entirely without merit though. There is a definite democratic deficit in the European Union. All the 'high politics', all the bargaining is done behind closed doors, only to be presented to the people in a barely comprehensible format. Prime Ministers and Presidents use the Council to bypass their own Parliaments, relying instead on the precedent set by the treaty their Parliament ratified however many years ago, offering them no opportunity to question or object to their manouevering. This is hardly surprising as such measures are taken to avoid difficult Parliamentary debates over hotly contested issues such as immigration. The European Parliament in turn is rendered impotent even though it yields the authority to constrain its sibling institutions as Premiers have no interest in promoting it and voters find it difficult to identify with it. The only way to rectify this is to open the EU up; tv cameras everywhere -few may actually watch, but it would be start- except for discussion on military matters of course. A great debate is also needed over Britain's place in the EU and where we see ourselves going. It's no surprise that the government is scared of having this debate considering that the media has already made up its mind, but even so every poll says that British people are wholeheartedly in favour of greater European intergration -even the Euro- if it can be shown to be in the national interest.

So, let's have that debate Mr Booker and you're not so merry men, but if you're going to accuse the EU of 'anschluss by other means', then please stick to the facts, even if you do choose just to highlight the ones which support your own position. For that reason alone, I welcome a referendum on the Reform Treaty, even though I don't think we need one.

Should convicted terrorists receive the death penalty?

The last week and a half has seen Britain come face to face with -and ultimately face down once again- the threat of terrorism. The two men who attempted to drive a burnng jeep loaded with explosive gas cylinders into Glasgow airport, prevented from carrying out an unspeakable atrocity only by their imcompetence, have since been apprehended. Once they are brought to trial -should the second suspect survive the extensive burns he suffered in the attempted attack- and are found guilty, they will most likely face the same verdict as the four 21/7 bombers who were yesterday sentenced to life imprisonment.

Of all those arrested and convicted of conspiring to carry out a terrorist attack, these two cases stand out more than most. This is because they are the only cases of the assailants actually being caught in the act. Certainly, there have been other cases of would be terrorists attempting to blow themselves up such as the case of Richard Reid, but such was the calamity of those attempts in that they failed to even partially succeed (thankfully, of course)that I feel that their inclusion would only serve to grossly understate the severity of the threat posed by the 21/7 and Glasgow bombers.

I have heard many people say what they think should be done with such men; what they think should have been done to the second Glasgow bomber as he lay burning on the ground outside the airport. There is no doubt that people see such terrorists as being far more of a threat and filled with far more malice and deserving of a far harsher punishment than a murderer who comits their atrocities with a knife or a gun. Indeed, popular opinion has consistently favoured the return of the death penalty in Britain; only Parliament has consistently opposed this with the last bid to reinstate capital punishment being defeated by a significant majority in the Commons 13 years ago. But that was before September 11th. Do we need to re-evaluate our approach now. Should we bring back the death penalty for charges faced by terrorists such as the Glasgow and 21/7?

Despite the fact that the United Kingdom is bound by the European Human Rights Act which prohibits capital punishment, the government has already been stressing for some time the possibility of suspending it or withdrawing from it in cases such as this. In this case, the issue becomes a question of will. Proponents of the re-introduction of the death penalty argue that terrorism is treason and anyone convicted of carrying out a terrorist attack should be put to death as an enemy of the state. Indeed, prior to the adoption of the European Human Rights Act in 1998, High Treason was the only remaining offence for which one could be sentenced to death. They also cite natural justice as a reason for being in favour of the policy. Through committing such atrocities and taking away the lives of so many innocent individuals, they sacrifice their right to life -especially in instances where mass murder is so deliberate with the assilants demonstrating no remorse of potential for rehabilitation. Execution also sends a sign, it is claimed, to those would be terrorists who harbour the same extremist inclinations, that anyone who tries to kill and maim the British people will face death themselves.

So is terrorism treason? On the face of it, there would appear to be little doubt. In English law, treason is defined as an attack against the Monarch or support for the Monarch's enemies. Even though attacks such as the 7th July bombings were perpetrated against civilians, technically an act of murder, their purpose was clearly to undermine the government and reverse its policies. Indeed these attacks, although carried out mostly by homegrown terrorists for their own reasons, were still conducted in complicity with foreign elements such as Al Qaeda whose raison d'etre is to oppose and destroy states such as the United Kingdom. However, for all the rhetoric floating around on the subject, our conflict with Al Qaeda and terrorism as a whole is not a war. Although the threat is not to be underestimated and our treasured way of life is at stake, the hunt for Osama Bin Laden cannot be compared to D-Day or even Iraq in terms of the military mobilisation and weaponry involved. You do not require an army to fight terrorism but a police force. Whereas in war, the contest is a clash of military might and will only be resolved when one side overpowers the other, no amount of bombs and guns can defeat terrorism as terrorists do not require barracks, fixed headquarters or armies to achieve their goals. Rather, sophisticated intelligence and sensible social policies along with multilateral diplomacy are better suited to win this battle, one of hearts and minds not planes and tanks. Furthermore, in most instances those who engage in terrorist attacks, far from conspiring to aid the conquest of their host country or reacting to some form of oppression, are social recluses who attach their own warped grievances to the actions or beliefs of any organisation they see as sharing their hatred of mainstream society. Indeed, the successor of radical cleric Omar Bakri as leader of his infamous band of followers used to be a member of the Far Right group, Combat 18. However, the conspiratorial nature, level of organisation and intent to cause as much death and destruction as possible of terrorists places their crimes on a different level from those of other murderers.

As for the deterrent argument, it seems to me, largely futile to use the threat of death to deter suicide bombers. The natural justice argument is far more compelling, certainly to the majority of British people who would welcome the re-introduction of the death penalty. It is by far the one which is hardest to argue with. Armchair speculation is easy, but at the end of the day, who wouldn't want to see the killer of their, child, parent or lover suffer the same fate in return? This is natural, but it is not justice. It is revenge and revenge runs totally against the grain of the purpose of an independent judiciary in any liberal democracy. Indeed, the only way justice can be served is to dehumanise the cases brought before them to ensure objectivity and only one thing matters: protecting those who do abide by our laws. As long as we have a functioning prison system to lock away our criminals for as long as necessary, execution is unnecessary. To give in to our human instinct to kill those who have killed would provide no extra protection to the law abiding majority whilst posing the risk of a wrongful execution of someone who was actually innocent. More significantly though, the use of the death penalty makes for a more violent society. After all, the law sets the ultimate example of acceptable behaviour in society. If the courts allows human nature to shape the rule of law and states that to take another life, even if only under certain circumstances, is just, then the value of human life will ultimately be lowered and a greater number of people will consider the killing of another as a justifiable course of action. The death penalty in America has not stopped it from having one of the highest homicide rates in the developed world.

Most importantly though, re-introducing the death penalty represents a victory for those who seek to change our way of life. It should also be noted that the underpinning principle of natural law, that the law should reflect specific moral absolutes that exist beyond the human experience of the world also forms the moral justification for Sharia law. Having seen how the latter can be so devastatingly distorted to suit the goals of dangerous extremists, is it really wise to make this particular form of jurispudence the basis of our own law.

A Toast to British Diplomacy!

Last Thursday finally saw the safe return of the 15 British sailors taken captive by Iranian warships two weeks ago. Upon their return they were subjected to intense media scrutiny with interviews asking them to detail their experiences and questions demanding they explain their refusal to fight back against the Iranians when captured as if they were facing charges of cowardice. Undoubtedly, their capture has ignited the case for war with Iran especially when compounded with the deaths of four British soldiers, killed by bombs allegedly made in Tehran. But before we return to calling out for yet another costly and needless war, we should really take a moment, as should the sailors who have just returned, to thank the British government for a fortnight of diplomacy so skilled, I did not originally believe they could pull it off. Following the Iranians' dramatic escalation and with stakes so high that a single miscalsulation could have led to war, the government and by that I mean the Foreign Office, still managed to control the situation and achieve their goal.

First, it is important to draw the distinction between the Foreign Office and simply the 'Government' as most of British foreign policy has been dominated and ineveitably botched by No 10, the two most significant examples being negotiations over EU economic reform and of course Iraq. A former former office official, based in Tehran for several years, whom I had the luxury of meeting a few years ago at university told me quite bluntly that the decision to go to war in Iraq had been solely driven by Tony Blair and his apparachiks in No 10 with literally everyone in the foreign office arguing against the move. If ever, there was a better example for all those Eurosceptics out there as to why the biggest threat to British sovereignty is not the European Union but the unbridled power of the modern Prime Minister, which only empowerment of local councils on the one hand and of the European Parliament on the other could rectify, then I have yet to see it, but I digress. FYI, this official also told me that it had already become clear to them (back in 2004) that Iran was next on the list, but then I'm not one to fuel unsubstantiated speculation, so I'll just let that one fester in your minds instead.

So, as Mr Blair clearly reasoned that he had neither the strength nor the support to go to war for these sailors and that even if he had such an action would have doubtlessly led to their executions, he decided to leave the Foreign Office to do what they do best. Their tactics were logically based on their best assessment of Iranian foreign policy objectives and processes. For example, the capture of the sailors could have been interpreted as an 'in your face' act of aggression from a power that believed itself to be ready to fight and win a war in the extreme against a militarily stretched and politically fragmented western coalition. Equally aggressive public statements coming from the Iranian President that the sailors could be put on trial, prompted by accusations of British espionage and the parading of the sailors on national television admitting their wrong-doing could have been interpreted as the highest political authority making his country's intentions loud and clear. The American administration for example has time and again taken such declarations from President Ahmadinejad as gospel, directly determining the state of bilateral relations between the two countries.

If the Foreign Office had come to the same conclusion, it would have led to either a dangerous escalation or an embarrassing capitualtion, committing both countries and their allies to positions from which they could not withdraw without provoking the extreme ire of their own people and sacrificing all their original objectives, leading inevitably to increased hostilities perhaps up to and beyond the point of war. Such a dramatic collapse of negotiations would almost certainly have risked the lives of all the sailors as well as a vast array of issues previously up for negotiation that otherwise had no link to this particular crisis, namely the nuclear proliferation question. That said, the capture of the sailors in the first place was unquestionably politically motivated -that strait of water had been patrolled by American sailors as well as British for many years yet the Iranians only chose to act now and only chose to target British personnel and not American. The embarrassing fact of the matter concerning this point is that the Iranians would never have dared arresting American personnel as either they would have fought back starting a war with the full backing of the American people (the current lack thereof I am sure is the only reason why the U.S hasn't yet initiated a war with Iran) or the American Air Force would have literally blown Tehran back to the stone age to get their people back irrespective of the risk to the soldiers' lives such is the 'come back with your shield or on it' mentality of the American military. The good news though from the Foreign Office's perspective would have been that the Iranians' choice of hostages automatically outlined their intention. The Iranians' sought political concessions, such as the release of five Revolutionary Guards (they say they're diplomats)from U.S cutody in Iraq or the downgrading of western hostilities in the form of U.S war games in the Gulf. Therefore, they were clearly banking on the Americans to stay out of it in public at least, seeing no potential risk or gain in terms of their own national interest with few if any Americans prepared to endorse a further commitment of their forces for British lives. The Europeans too, they must have calculated would have only just got round to agreeing to issue a statement once the crisis was already over considering their fraught relations with the UK of late. They therefore reasoned that should the UK capitulate, they would do a deal with the U.S to secure the release of the revolutionary Guards in return for the British Sailors and if the UK escalated, the Americans would do the deal themselves to prevent a war for which they had no appetite from breaking out.

Thus, the two key assumptions that would direct foreign policy in this instance were: 1) Iran did not want war and; 2) the buck in Iran does not stop with the President but the Ayatollahs and therefore his words must be contrasted to the actions of the regime as the delicate balance of hardliners and pragmatists is maintained. The goal of the Foreign Office therefore was to confound the Iranians' expectations and to give the impression that Britain would go to war if necessary and that the only concession they would grant would be to order their army to stand down in exchange for the safe return of all the sailors. They could only achieve this though by securing the whole-hearted support of the Americans, without whom military action would untenable, the European Union due to the massive economic leverage they exercise over Iran and the international community who would also play a prominent role in future decisions over the sanctions imposed on Iran and its nuclear programme.

The first of these key actors to take up the British cause was predictably the international community. Always fearful of anyone taking military action anywhere -especially in response to a breach of a UN mandate such as the patrolling of the waters where the sailors were taken hostage- the UN Security Council expressed its grave concern, the language may have been watered down by the Russians and the Chinese, but to get something so close to an outright condemnation from Iran's two biggest allies and benefactors was something of a diplomatic coup itself. However, it is not impossible to fathom why Russia and China came to Britain's aid. China, for example, may view Iran as a political ally, manifested in their massive investment in Iranian oil supplies, but with little political capital to be gained for China by the crisis and with the economic uncertainty it provoked raising oil prices, there was always going to be a limit to China's complicity with Iran's actions. Although, high oil prices certainly wouldn't bother the Russians, standing alone and vetoing a purely symbolic resolution, jeopardising their already tense relations with the West just wasn't worth it.

So, to the EU and the US. As has already been established, the U.S had no interest in intervening in this affair and would not say let alone do anything -the war games continued throughout the crisis and they made clear from the outset none of the Iranians held in Iraq would be released- unless it cost them nothing to do so. This meant that Britain would have to get the EU on board first to put the pressure on Iran by making it clear that taking British soldiers captive would be an affront not just to the UK but also the EU with serious economic and even military consequences. This was achieved with the governments of both Germany and France summoning their respective Iranian amabassadors to demand the immediate release of the British sailors. This was furthered by Angela Merkel's statement on behalf of all 27 members of the EU (Germany currently holds the rotating EU presidency) declaring their unconditional support for the British, reiterating the demand for the immediate release of the sailors. Only the Foreign Office with its constant record of pro-Europeanism (and anti-Americanism) could have pulled this off, surely prompting a re-evaluation of the significance of lasting relationships with our European partners, something Tony Blair will hopefully come to appreciate much more after this. In the meantime, the Foreign Office and Prime Minister were sticking to their strategy of defiance by insisting no deal would be done and intimating escalation without bluntly saying they were considering militry action.

At this point, the Iranians would have observed that their only powerful friends had deserted them, the UK was only getting more aggressive, Europe was rallying around Britain defiantly at a time when they were struggling economically with the consequences of the sanctions imposed by the UN on them for their nuclear programme and the U.S wasn't offering any deals and wasn't cutting back on the war games. Broadcasting the sailors detailing their 'illegal actions' and sending letters to their families on their behalf was only further inflaming a hostile media and by now, hardliners in their own populations were staging demonstrations outside the British embassy and drawing battle lines demanding tougher action on the sailors as public opinion across the world became more polarised. They were approaching the point of no return and were looking vulnerable. Then, and only then, did President Bush come out and condemn the Iranians for their actions, whilst simultaneously ruling out a deal, the last thing the Iranians expected or wanted.

The next day, on April 1st, the Iranians blinked first. Though still placing the honus for a resolution of the crisis on the British, they added that they were seeking a "moderate approach." Des Browne, defence secretary, signalled that Britain was not beyond reproach yet by publicly reiterating that both countries were in direct bilateral contact. At this point, the Iranians changed spokesman, substituting the President for the foreign minister in line with their change of tone. The following day, Ali Larijani of the Iranian Supreme National Security Council that is directly answerable to the Ayatollahs, spoke directly to Channel 4 to communicate the Iranians' desire to broach a diplomatic solution. In addition, further footage of the sailors' 'confessions' was withheld because of a "positive changes" in the UK's stance. 2 days later, the sailors were released as a gift from the President to avoid giving the impression to the hardliners that their man had been sidelined by the pragmatists. By making themselves look like the generous and forgiving nation they proclaim themselves to be and exploiting their people's pride in Islamic and Persian traditions of hospitality and respect for foreigners, they attempted to appease the hardliners who were demanding the sailors be put on trial.

One question remains though. If capitulating early on and pursuing a deal with the Americans on the Iranians held in Iraq was an option that could have led to the even swifter release of the sailors, then why did the foreign office not pursue this as well? The answer to this at first may appear that behind the scenes, away from overt and public scrutiny that would have negatively affected public opinion, they did. For example, even though the Americans refused to do a deal on the five Iranians in their custody, one Iranian diplomat being held by the Iraqis, but who the Iranians allege was abducted by the Americans, was released the day before the British sailors. In addition, the Iraqi foreign minister stated that his government had also been seeking the release of the five Iranians being held by the U.S in order to facilitate the release of the British sailors. Furthermore, on the day the Iranians released the sailors, U.S House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Democrat) visited Syria to discuss how they could play a constructive role in the middle east, despite the U.S -albeit Republican- administration's insistence that no dialogue with the Syrians or Iranians would be sought. Walid al-Moallem, the Syrian foreign minister, then described, just before Nancy Pelosi left, how Syria had played a key role in the resolution of the crisis with the information minister declaring that "Syrian efforts and the Iranian willingness culminated with the release of the British soldiers". However, I would dispute this on the grounds that such revelations only emerged after the tables had been turned on the Iranians by the British. In addition, I find it hard to believe that the Syrians would have made any effort to cajole the Iranians into releasing the sailors when the political concessions Iran sought such as downgrading hostilities in the Gulf would have stood to benefit the Syrians just as much. Similarly, the Iraqi administration with its close ties to the Iran at such a contraversial time did not want to be tainted as complicit in Iran's act of aggression once it became clear that Iran was not going to win this one. So, the two countries instead decided to show their support for the British cause to avoid attracting the ire of an reinvigorated power with most of the world on it's side.

So, a toast to British diplomacy I say and hopefully a lesson learnt by No 10: the more bridges you build, the more your presence will be felt across the world and the more friends you will make. Tie yourself down to just one and you will make none.

Why Liberals Should Be Pro-Life

The Lib Dems I know and have worked with are generally an open minded sort ready to listen to new and different ideas, never dismissive of anything and anyone and inclusive of all creeds with all views. That is until I told them about my views on abortion. How can I call myself a liberal and not be pro-choice they say, despite the President of their own party being opposed to abortion? So I thought it was about time I clarified my views if for no other reason than to stop those wild accusations of being a closet Christian fundamentalist who invariably hates all women, gays, old people (I'm against euthanasia too) which inevitably ends up somehow making me a fascist who secretly gets off watching the bad guy in "V for Vendetta" as part of a radically right wing socially conservative agenda. Some really cross the line though, and accuse me of being a closet Conservative.

I have always been personally opposed to abortion but in the beginning was outwardly indifferent (as in I didn't consider it a priority as opposed to not giving a damn about others) because even though I felt uncomfortable with the notion of terminating what could be a living breathing human being, I had never really thought about it in much depth. Then one day a couple of years ago, the Evening Standard published pictures, taken courtesy of new technology enabling much more graphic and detailed ultra-sound scans, of an embryo at 24 weeks -the legal limit up until which abortion is permitted here in the UK. The pictures showed the foetus, which looked like any newborn baby appearing to walk in the womb and suck on its thumb. Although hardly a conclusive case for pro-lifers, it did bring the issue of abortion to the front of my mind and made me think about it like never before. Since then, abortion has become much more prominent in the minds of the wider public too as pre-natal genetic engineering, sex selection and disability screening before 24 weeks to offer parents the option to abort early on in the pregnancy have provoked wide-scale debate.

Furthermore, the experts have been split over the issue with one of the UK's leading abortion clinics calling for the upper limit to be reduced back in 2005 and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service calling recently for the abortion laws to be liberalised. The issue has become so prescient that the British Medical Association was led to debate the abortion limit for the first time since 1989, only just deciding to reject calls to revise and reduce it. Indeed even Parliament itself debated reducing the limit and imposing a 10 day 'cooling off period' that would require women to wait ten days after requesting an abortion before undergoing the procedure with the intent of the proposal being to give them time to reconsider their decision. The motion was defeated with Labour MP Chris McCafferty labelling it as "an attack on women's reproductive rights".

So, why do I oppose abortion? First, the issue is not and should not be perceived as life versus choice. The foundation of the pro-choice movement is that they do not consider a foetus that is not viable -cannot survive outside the womb- to be alive. To quote pro-choice feminist Zoe Williams: “if you do not consider this foetus human, then it becomes no more of an issue than getting a tumour removed.” My argument, however, is that within a de facto liberal democracy such as the United Kingdom, the unborn should be considered alive and their right to life protected by and enshrined in the law. There are four reasons why I believe this. 1) The current definition of when life begins is inconsistent, 2) Being uncertain that the unborn are alive is not confirmation that they are not, 3) Far from empowering women, abortion as a solution to unwanted pregnancies undermines the progress of the women's movement, 4) It is morally inconsistent to live in a society which prohibits euthanasia, but permits abortion.

1) The current abortion term limit in the United Kingdom is 24 weeks and requires the consent of two doctors. The limit used to be 28 weeks as established by the Abortion Act of 1967, but was cut to 24 in 1990 following the passing of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. This limit reflects the viability of the foetus i.e. if it can survive outside of the womb and is commonly, but mistakenly, understood to determine when a foetus becomes alive. However, when discussing the origins of human life, there is hardly a consensus around 24 weeks as the starting point. Developmental biologists consider it to be the completion of fertilization. Reproductive physiologists argue that implantation –the beginning of pregnancy- is a more accurate estimate. Indeed, to quote Justice Blackmun who wrote for the majority of the US Supreme Court in the case of Roe v Wade in 1973: “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins.When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.” This is why the viability of a foetus is used to establish the abortion limit. However, as technology improves, more and more premature babies, delivered before 24 weeks survive outside the womb. In addition, most doctors and clinics in the UK today will not consider carrying out a termination after 20 weeks unless it is a medical emergency in which the mother’s life is jeopardised because of the questionable nature of the 24 week limit. This, however, provides only an argument to reduce the current abortion limit– a proposal backed by David Steel, the man responsible for introducing the Abortion Act in 1967 in the first place.

2) As stated above, there is no consensus around when human life begins, contrary to the claims of many such as former President of the National Organisation of Women, Eleanor Smeal who asserted that “everybody knows that life begins only after birth.” As such, the issue of when life begins is fudged by legislators with emphasis being placed instead on viability. Such a judgement presumes then that the foetus is not alive prior to the expiry of the 24 week limit, not even on the 28th day of the 23rd week of pregnancy –bearing in mind at this point that just last week, the world’s most premature baby, born four months ago after less than 22 weeks in the womb, was deemed healthy enough to be taken home by her parents- even though the question of when life begins has not yet been answered, meaning that we are no more certain that the unborn foetus is not alive than we are that it is. In other words, as demonstrated by the words of a supreme court judge as well as the achievments of modern technology, it is entirely possible for a foetus to be alive and to be viable, but still be terminated.

This is significant as no judge in a liberal democracy such as ours that deems the right to life as the most sacrosanct of them all would allow the termination of a foetus considered to be alive and doubtless virtually no woman would request one, except if her life was at risk or her child was destined to be born with severe and life-threatening disabilities as is the rule of thumb now with late term abortions. My question therefore is this: In a liberal democracy where life is sacred and the law chooses sides only when all reasonable doubt has been eliminated; how is it that in the case of the unborn child, the burden of proof is placed on those who argue that it is alive rather than on those who argue that it is not when the evidence is inconclusive at best? Furthermore, why is it that when a bill in Parliament is introduced to amend current abortion law, accepting the premise of viability as an appropriate determinant of the legal abortion limit, to cut that limit in order to reflect the progress of medicine and technology that enables babies born at 22 weeks to survive, is voted out of Parliament and seen as an attack on the progress of women’s rights as if the two were mutually exclusive?

3) One of the most widely held assumptions today is that abortion is a feminist issue and that to be pro-life is to be a shauvinist and misogenist. I would heavily dispute both these assumptions. First, the claim that abortion is a feminist issue is based on the premise that women are entitled to choose what happens to their own body and that to therefore oppose abortion is to oppose a woman’s right to choose –hence pro abortion movements calling themselves pro choice. One look at the reasons why women abort though reveals that such a decision often has very little to do with choice. The top reasons for having an abortion, according to a 1998 study across 27 countries are desire to delay child-bearing, fear of interruption of career or education and financial or relationship instability. If anything, such reasons demonstrate the continuing capitulation of women to a society dominated by men where having a career and children at the same time still carry such a negative stigma, not to mention the remaining disparities between men and women’s rate of pay which directly affect one’s capacity to bring up a child.

More to the point though, historically, feminism has had a substantial pro-life element about it. Some of feminism’s most pioneering activists and thinkers dating back to the 19th century were staunchly anti-abortion. Two of the leading figures of the women’s movement back then included Susan B. Anthony and Victoria Woodhull. Anthony argued that “abortion was the product of a social system that compelled women to remain ignorant about their bodies, that enabled men to dominate them sexually without taking responsibility for the consequences, that denied women support during and after the resulting pregnancies, and that placed far more value on a child’s legitimacy than his or her life and well-being.” Anthony was not just another campaigner loosely associated to the women’s movement though. She was a publisher who regularly wrote about the hypocrisy of society regarding the treatment of women, vociferously campaigned for the abolition of slavery, women’s right to own property and founded the National Woman’s Suffrage Association, playing an instrumental role in the securing of women’s suffrage. Her views on abortion were echoed by the first woman in the United States to become a doctor, Elizabeth Blackwell. Woodhull too asked: “Is it not equally to destroy life, to crush it in its very germ, and to take it when the germ has evolved to any given point in its line of development?” Again, Woodhull was not just your average feminist, she was the first woman to run for President of the United States in 1870. Such sentiments were not exclusive to America either. Many of Britain’s greatest feminists including Mary Wollestoncraft and Emmelline Parkhurst shared very much the same views

4) Euthanasia is relevant to the abortion debate for one simple reason. How can it be deemed just to take a life not yet lived without consent but not a life lived out with consent? True, this is as much an argument in favour of euthanasia, but I am against euthanasia, for reasons to which I will devote a different article. Nevertheless, both camps would surely recognise the same contradiction in the law that deems it criminal to grant the request of an individual who is approaching the end of their life to die because their life has become unlivable, promoting life over choice, whilst sanctioning the termination of the unborn precisely in the name of choice.

To take this argument further what of those who exist in vegetative states, relying on life support machines? Those who show no sense of consciousness or awareness other than minimal reflexes if that? Their guardians, spouses or families are not allowed to decide for them whether they should live or die unless their doctors conclude that they have no hope for improvement. Noting that there is increasing evidence, that unborn foetuses are far more aware of themselves and their surroundings than once presumed. Considering that if carried to term, they would ‘improve’ to the point of being fully developed newborn babies, providing no complications occur during the remainder of the pregnancy, then why does the law not extend the same rights and protections to the unborn as it does to those in vegetative states?

All the above are reasons why I am against abortion, but to ask me whether I would support a ban on abortion such as that imposed by the state of South Dakota in America last year is a different question, one to which I would anwer with a resounding NO. This is not to say I do not believe that access to abortions should be more restricted, I do. I would like to see the UK's abortion law more closely resemble that of Ireland, where only a risk to the mother's life through complications or threat of suicide would warrant an abortion. Such a law would not come with any abortion limit as viability should not be a factor, only life, although I expect that in cases where the baby is viable and the mother's life in risk, emergency caesarions become the more likely option. Such changes should only be made, however, in tandem with a vast array of reforms and initiatives that are missing from these countries' and states' abortion laws. These include revamping systems of state support and counselling for mothers to be, especially those who would otherwise abort because of financial difficulties. The liberalisation of adoption laws in the UK is a massive step forward with gay couples being allowed to adopt to make up for the shortfall of children left at the mercy of the foster system where they are moved from home to home, never allowed to settle with some suffering horrendous abuse at the hands of those entrusted with their safety.

Readdressing the way society addresses sex is another hurdle that needs to be overcome with a real need for increased provision and accessibility of contraception. The socio-economic factors that see so many teenage girls fall pregnant, with the UK having the highest rate of teenage births in Western Europe also urgently need to be addressed. But most importantly of all, women need to be convinced. specifically I mean women who aren't necessarily highly vulnerable individuals, but undergo abortions because they are not ready for childbirth as it risks undermining their careers, their education or their relationship. To scream abuse at women who choose this option, accusing them of being child-murderers who see abortion as just another form of contraception is not just unhelpful, but also unjust especially considering that their actions are entirely legal as things stand. Furthermore the latest research as revealed in a joint study by the Guttmacher Institute and the World Health Organisation shows that abortion rates remain the same in countries where it is banned as in those where it is not with only effective provision of contraception proving to effect a decline in abortion. In any case, as strongly as I feel about abortion, a repetition of the case of a 14 year old girl in Ireland, prevented from leaving the country to go to the UK for an abortion, is something that we must take great pains to avoid. Respect for women and women's rights and a substantive effort to fund and support the alternatives will achieve more than a simple 'crackdown' on abortion, but the law does need to change.