More articles like this can be found at www.the-vibe.co.uk
I seem to be falling into the habit of writing whole articles purely in response to an article someone else wrote that I happened to find interesting. This time, it was the recent article “should we decriminalise drugs” that got me interested. The first point that is important to make is the de-criminalisation of drugs is often confused with legalisation. Under de-criminalisation, the law would not change, it would simply no longer be enforced, with the aim of reducing the burden on the criminal justice system by not forcing the police to arrest every guy they catch with a spliff. Only legalisation would lead to the wholesale reforms that advocates say would create a new regulated market, taking power away from drug dealers and curing the social ills normally associated with the use of narcotic substances.
So, why don’t we legalise drugs? I think one point that has been consistently missed in this debate is that drug habits cause crime because drugs cost money – not because they are illegal. Their addictive properties result in what economists call ‘inelastic’ demand. In other words people will pay through the nose to get hold of them regardless of how much money they actually have available to spend on them. Taking drugs out of the hands of gangsters working out of a crack den and placing them with the likes of Glaxo Smith Kline, therefore, would have next to no effect on the root cause of all their associated social problems, their price. This is because, legal or not, the laws of free market economics still apply.
This leads us on to the issue of supply. Most of the hard drugs feeding users’ habits over here come from somehwhere else; Cocaine from South America, for example, and Heroin from Afghanistan. The cultivation of poppy and coca bush fields is a violent business. Many innocent people are drawn into the industry as their only means of escaping poverty, fast becoming dependent on international drug trafficking gangs and paramilitary groups for their livelihoods. Drug farming also has a lot of nasty side effects including massive damage to the envirnoment, as acres of forests are demolished to make way for new farms, and the displacement of other farmers trying to make a living out of useful products…like food. Of course, the laws of economics apply just as readily here and as legalisation would have no effect on demand, it would do nothing to halt the supply of drugs, and all the devastating consequences that come with it, either.
So, what about de-criminalisation? The case of Portugal who, de-criminalised drugs in 2001, is interesting, but needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. Much has been made of a recent Cato Institute study which sung the praises of the Portuguese government’s approach to drugs. Yet, as an outspoken libertarian think tank and proponent of liberalising drugs laws, their impartiality is questionable. Indeed, several critiques of the study have led to accusations that the institute ‘cherry picked’ the start and end years of the various age groups at the centre of their analysis in order to get more favourable results.
However, it is impossible to dismiss all their findings, especially those that clearly indicate a drop in drug related deaths and an increase in the number of people seeking treatment, since the introduction of the laws. In this respect, governments such as our own who go to the other extreme, throwing anyone with a drug problem in jail should take note; addicts need treatment, not jail time. Nevertheless, it is important that drugs remain illegal because the only way to reverse their ruinous effects on society is to take users off the streets until drugs are no longer a viable commercial product, depriving the dealers of their profits. This can only happen by making treatment compulsory under pain of prosecution. In the long term though, we will need more than simple domestic reforms to deal with the supply of drugs, but tackling demand is a good start.
Friday, 14 August 2009
Thursday, 13 August 2009
The case against assisted suicide
The recent success of MS sufferer Debbie Purdy in persuading the country’s most senior judges to back her call for a clarification of the law regarding assisted suicide has prompted a new national debate on the issue. The pro-euthanasia lobby, buoyed by the news that approximately 75% of the population now also support the full legalisation of assisted suicide, are more confident now than ever of achieving this, their ultimate goal. So, is it time for Parliament to reverse its long held position?
If I were an MP, I would need to be convinced of three things to vote for a bill to legalise assisted suicide: 1) that there was a clear need for a change in the law; 2) that there was evidence of clear consent free from external pressure (unscrupulous families and financial difficulties) and unaffected by any internal disorders (clinical depression); 3) that the right to die is as important as the right to life.
1) Does the law need to be changed?
It certainly needs to be clarified as the Law Lords’ ruling pointed out. At present, although no charges for assisting suicide by accompanying a patient to the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland have been brought against anyone, the consequences of doing so remained clouded in uncertainty. This is because the government is all too aware of the rising public support for assisted suicide and does not want the national debate that would surely result from an arrest. Were the polls to change, however, they may be more inclined to throw the book at ‘offenders’. In any case, not pressing charges amounts to a tacit endorsement of assisted suicide, so the government needs to explain its position once and for all.
2) Can clear consent to die ever really be provided?
Consent is a fluid concept. The idea that you can write into law a means of gaging the difference between someone who is 100% certain that they are ready to die and that they have not been pressured into the situation by unscrupulous relatives, their own inability to afford the standard of care they require, or by a serious bout of depression – an expected side effect of being terminally ill – is clearly fallacious. For example, in the U.S state of Oregon, often cited as a model for an assisted suicide law in the UK, last year almost a third of those who decided to end their lives prematurely cited the pressure of being a burden on their families as the main reason for doing so.
3) Is the right to die as important as the right to life?
A 2007 review of Euthanasia in the Netherlands, carried out by the Dutch government, revealed that out of the 3500 people who died through assisted suicide, 900 died by ‘involuntary’ euthanasia. The majority of these patients were either comatose, unable to communicate or suffering from dementia. The most common reasons for ending these patients’ lives given by the physicians responsible included: ‘no hope of recovery’, ‘the family couldn’t take it any more’ and ‘these patients have as much right to die as any other’. Furthermore, the extension of assisted suicide in Holland to include people with severe depression raises the question of how you stop the legalisation of assisted suicide for terminal patients from gradually expanding into assisted suicide on demand for anyone who simply feels they are no longer in control of their life. The answer is you can’t. The abortion laws in this country and the gradual erosion of every safeguard put in place to prevent it being used as a form of contraception as was feared by David Steel, the Liberal politician primarily responsible for its legalisation in 1967, demonstrate this clearly.
In summary, there are few causes more noble than those that aim to minimise or prevent the suffering of others. However, the path to Hell is paved with good intentions which is why the BMA continually refuses to support the calls for legalisation of assisted suicide. It is therefore imperative that Parliament resist these pressures too. Doctors already exercise considerable discretion in helping terminal patients to pass away peacefully and painlessly, while directing the bulk of their efforts to providing the high standard of palliative care our terminal patients enjoy today. One wonders how long the private and public investment that maintains that system would last if death became an alternative form of ‘treatment’ and how many terminal patients, desperate to live out what few years they had left in comfort, would suffer as a result.
If I were an MP, I would need to be convinced of three things to vote for a bill to legalise assisted suicide: 1) that there was a clear need for a change in the law; 2) that there was evidence of clear consent free from external pressure (unscrupulous families and financial difficulties) and unaffected by any internal disorders (clinical depression); 3) that the right to die is as important as the right to life.
1) Does the law need to be changed?
It certainly needs to be clarified as the Law Lords’ ruling pointed out. At present, although no charges for assisting suicide by accompanying a patient to the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland have been brought against anyone, the consequences of doing so remained clouded in uncertainty. This is because the government is all too aware of the rising public support for assisted suicide and does not want the national debate that would surely result from an arrest. Were the polls to change, however, they may be more inclined to throw the book at ‘offenders’. In any case, not pressing charges amounts to a tacit endorsement of assisted suicide, so the government needs to explain its position once and for all.
2) Can clear consent to die ever really be provided?
Consent is a fluid concept. The idea that you can write into law a means of gaging the difference between someone who is 100% certain that they are ready to die and that they have not been pressured into the situation by unscrupulous relatives, their own inability to afford the standard of care they require, or by a serious bout of depression – an expected side effect of being terminally ill – is clearly fallacious. For example, in the U.S state of Oregon, often cited as a model for an assisted suicide law in the UK, last year almost a third of those who decided to end their lives prematurely cited the pressure of being a burden on their families as the main reason for doing so.
3) Is the right to die as important as the right to life?
A 2007 review of Euthanasia in the Netherlands, carried out by the Dutch government, revealed that out of the 3500 people who died through assisted suicide, 900 died by ‘involuntary’ euthanasia. The majority of these patients were either comatose, unable to communicate or suffering from dementia. The most common reasons for ending these patients’ lives given by the physicians responsible included: ‘no hope of recovery’, ‘the family couldn’t take it any more’ and ‘these patients have as much right to die as any other’. Furthermore, the extension of assisted suicide in Holland to include people with severe depression raises the question of how you stop the legalisation of assisted suicide for terminal patients from gradually expanding into assisted suicide on demand for anyone who simply feels they are no longer in control of their life. The answer is you can’t. The abortion laws in this country and the gradual erosion of every safeguard put in place to prevent it being used as a form of contraception as was feared by David Steel, the Liberal politician primarily responsible for its legalisation in 1967, demonstrate this clearly.
In summary, there are few causes more noble than those that aim to minimise or prevent the suffering of others. However, the path to Hell is paved with good intentions which is why the BMA continually refuses to support the calls for legalisation of assisted suicide. It is therefore imperative that Parliament resist these pressures too. Doctors already exercise considerable discretion in helping terminal patients to pass away peacefully and painlessly, while directing the bulk of their efforts to providing the high standard of palliative care our terminal patients enjoy today. One wonders how long the private and public investment that maintains that system would last if death became an alternative form of ‘treatment’ and how many terminal patients, desperate to live out what few years they had left in comfort, would suffer as a result.
Sunday, 26 July 2009
Why we should return to the Moon
It is 40 years since Neil Armstrong took his giant leap for mankind after landing on the Moon on the 20th July 1969. Unfortunately, mankind has stood rather still since then as manned exploration of the unknown has significantly dwindled. It is not hard to see why; the capitulation of the Soviet Union in the race to the Moon eliminated the biggest incentive for going there, competition for national prestige. On top of that, spending cuts and high profile disasters such as the tragic loss of the space shuttles Challenger and Columbia, and their respective crews, also took their toll, while NASA’s failure to impress anyone with repeated moon landings and the International Space Station led to a collapse of public support for space exploration altogether.
The last few years, however, have seen the rebirth of the ‘space race’ as China and India, determined to establish themselves as the world’s newest great powers, have aggressively pursued their own space programmes. It was, after all Lyndon Johnson who said, when the Apollo programme was still in its infancy, that “first in space means first in everything”. Indeed, both nations are acutely aware that they will be playing catch-up in everything until they match and then exceed all of America’s achievements in space. As a result, they are busily planning manned missions to the Moon, resurrecting the extra-terrestrial ambitions of the United States, and indeed the Russian Federation, for the first time in 40 years.
Is it worth all the effort though? Lunar-sceptic Gerard DeGroot argued earlier this year that all space travel is a waste of money in his book Dark Side of the Moon, claiming “If the Chinese want that worthless rock, so be it.” Yet the political implications of winning the space race are well documented and indeed quite daunting. The credibility of a nation’s political system has long been tied to its ability to project its power on the global stage and beyond. It was this obsession with international prestige that drove the space race during the Cold War and it is no less relevant now. The symbolism of China, an autocratic Communist regime, overtaking the West in space would not be lost on the public. Keeping pace with them, therefore, is not just essential to staying first in space, but also to defending the very values upon which liberal democracy itself relies.
However, if we are to justify the expense of travelling to the Moon again, we need to do more than just land on it. Under the Bush administration, NASA drew up plans to establish a base on the Moon by the mid 2020s, followed by a manned mission to Mars shortly after. How likely this remains under President Obama, whose attitude towards space travel appears distinctly cooler than that of his predecessor, is unclear. Nevertheless, if the exploration of outer space is to have any role in the future of humanity, a base – and eventually a human colony – on the Moon will prove essential.
Sending a man, or woman, to Mars and possibly even the moons of Jupiter and Saturn would require the ability to launch and maintain interstellar vessels on a regular basis. The weak gravity of the Moon and the absence of any weather to delay or derail such missions make it an ideal launch and landing pad. Also, the Moon’s resources are ripe for exploitation, presenting the potential for the development of alternative energy sources that could prove vital in man’s battle against climate change right here on Earth. More importantly, as long as the world’s leading nations are investing their time, effort and money in the colonisation of the Moon and beyond, they’re not investing them in state of the art weapons to be used against each other.
There are many valid arguments against expanding the space programme to be sure, the cost and the myriad of alternative problems that the money could be used to resolve chief amongst them. However, such issues should not dissuade us from reaching for the stars; after all, the decade of the Apollo programme was also the decade of the Great Society. Should sceptics remain unconvinced, they would be wise to recall the words of President John F Kennedy in defence of his ambitious plan to land a man on the Moon: “Why climb the highest mountain? Why, thirty five years ago, fly over the Atlantic? We choose to go to the Moon in this decade, and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organise and measure the best of our energies and skills.”
The last few years, however, have seen the rebirth of the ‘space race’ as China and India, determined to establish themselves as the world’s newest great powers, have aggressively pursued their own space programmes. It was, after all Lyndon Johnson who said, when the Apollo programme was still in its infancy, that “first in space means first in everything”. Indeed, both nations are acutely aware that they will be playing catch-up in everything until they match and then exceed all of America’s achievements in space. As a result, they are busily planning manned missions to the Moon, resurrecting the extra-terrestrial ambitions of the United States, and indeed the Russian Federation, for the first time in 40 years.
Is it worth all the effort though? Lunar-sceptic Gerard DeGroot argued earlier this year that all space travel is a waste of money in his book Dark Side of the Moon, claiming “If the Chinese want that worthless rock, so be it.” Yet the political implications of winning the space race are well documented and indeed quite daunting. The credibility of a nation’s political system has long been tied to its ability to project its power on the global stage and beyond. It was this obsession with international prestige that drove the space race during the Cold War and it is no less relevant now. The symbolism of China, an autocratic Communist regime, overtaking the West in space would not be lost on the public. Keeping pace with them, therefore, is not just essential to staying first in space, but also to defending the very values upon which liberal democracy itself relies.
However, if we are to justify the expense of travelling to the Moon again, we need to do more than just land on it. Under the Bush administration, NASA drew up plans to establish a base on the Moon by the mid 2020s, followed by a manned mission to Mars shortly after. How likely this remains under President Obama, whose attitude towards space travel appears distinctly cooler than that of his predecessor, is unclear. Nevertheless, if the exploration of outer space is to have any role in the future of humanity, a base – and eventually a human colony – on the Moon will prove essential.
Sending a man, or woman, to Mars and possibly even the moons of Jupiter and Saturn would require the ability to launch and maintain interstellar vessels on a regular basis. The weak gravity of the Moon and the absence of any weather to delay or derail such missions make it an ideal launch and landing pad. Also, the Moon’s resources are ripe for exploitation, presenting the potential for the development of alternative energy sources that could prove vital in man’s battle against climate change right here on Earth. More importantly, as long as the world’s leading nations are investing their time, effort and money in the colonisation of the Moon and beyond, they’re not investing them in state of the art weapons to be used against each other.
There are many valid arguments against expanding the space programme to be sure, the cost and the myriad of alternative problems that the money could be used to resolve chief amongst them. However, such issues should not dissuade us from reaching for the stars; after all, the decade of the Apollo programme was also the decade of the Great Society. Should sceptics remain unconvinced, they would be wise to recall the words of President John F Kennedy in defence of his ambitious plan to land a man on the Moon: “Why climb the highest mountain? Why, thirty five years ago, fly over the Atlantic? We choose to go to the Moon in this decade, and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organise and measure the best of our energies and skills.”
Wednesday, 15 July 2009
Genetic testing and the corruption of science
Pre-implantation genetic testing or screening IVF embryos for signs of crippling disabilities, to use its sexier title, has been back in the papers again over the last few weeks. In little more than a year, the BBC tells us, a universal gene test, karyomapping, which can detect almost any inherited disease in a newly formed embryo, will go on sale to the masses for a paltry £2,500. Of course that is still dependent on the Bridge Centre Clinic, the developers of the technique, being granted a license to practice by the Human Fertilisation and Embryonic Authority, but then the public pressure generated from ‘good news’ stories like this should help to speed the process along nicely.
Naturally, the press has responded to the news with their trademark ‘slippery slope’ journalism bringing out all their greatest hits from previous debates including: designer babies, the annihilation of the disabled community etc. While genetic testing does carry very serious ethical implications, it always bothers me how we seem unable to debate it without resorting to such hysterics. However, what really bothers me is that nobody seems to have paid much attention to the most important question – does it even work?
The original aim of the technology, when it was first developed back in the 1980s by UK Professor Alan Handyside, was to improve the success rate of IVF by screening the chromosome counts of each newly created embryo before implanting it into the mother to be. An abnormal number of chromosomes automatically results in miscarriage –with the exception of Down’s Syndrome- so by ensuring only embryos with the right number of chromosomes were implanted, doctors hoped, the number of IVF babies successfully carried to term would dramatically increase.
However, a 2004 feature on the technique by New Scientist magazine revealed several problems. First, clinics in the U.S offering genetic tests to IVF patients did not have to report their findings to the government, so there was no impartial oversight of their effectiveness. Second, barely any clinical trials of the technology had been conducted, the most comprehensive one involving just 55 people, nowhere near enough to produce reliable results. Third, and most important, according to Professor Handyside himself, the accuracy of the tests was so questionable that as many as 1 in 10 of embryos discarded as ‘defective’ could actually have developed into healthy newborn babies. What’s more there was no evidence that the test helped more women to conceive using IVF than before.
What was wrong with the tests – aside from the absence of peer review and government oversight? Each screening, the results of which would determine whether to proceed with the IVF treatment in which countless parents had invested their savings, was carried out on just a single embryonic cell. This was problematic due to the fact that it is entirely possible for the extracted cell to possess abnormal numbers of chromosomes, or traces of any number of disabilities for that matter, while the embryo itself remains completely normal. Similarly, the reverse proved equally possible with at least one reported case of a baby being born with Down’s Syndrome after a genetic test failed to detect any problems with the original embryo.
So, what’s changed since then? The range of conditions detected by karyomapping has increased exponentially and the time taken to perform it substantially reduced. As a result, the number of IVF patients turning to genetic testing, and the number of embryos aborted, is likely to sky-rocket too. However the technique itself of testing a single cell for all these conditions remains exactly the same. As for independent oversight, the PHG Foundation, devoted to exploring the application of scientific research to healthcare complained last October that: “there have been no scientific publications describing the details of the new methodology, and no clear explanation of how exactly multiple genetic traits are identified.” To date, no clinical trials have been completed either. Preliminary tests boast a success rate of 100%, but that becomes less impressive upon realising they were carried out on just five embryos.
So, what does Professor Handyside have to say about the technique now? In an interview with the Times on July 1st, he was surprisingly on message, saying: “This is a truly universal test for genetic defects in embryos.” Is this because sometime after that previous interview in 2004, he had an epiphany and a sudden change of heart? Or could it be that as the Director of the Bridge Centre Clinic responsible for pioneering this universal test, he now stands to cash in on the fears and desperation of the IVF patients unable to conceive naturally? But then why let good science stand in the way of such a prime business opportunity?
Naturally, the press has responded to the news with their trademark ‘slippery slope’ journalism bringing out all their greatest hits from previous debates including: designer babies, the annihilation of the disabled community etc. While genetic testing does carry very serious ethical implications, it always bothers me how we seem unable to debate it without resorting to such hysterics. However, what really bothers me is that nobody seems to have paid much attention to the most important question – does it even work?
The original aim of the technology, when it was first developed back in the 1980s by UK Professor Alan Handyside, was to improve the success rate of IVF by screening the chromosome counts of each newly created embryo before implanting it into the mother to be. An abnormal number of chromosomes automatically results in miscarriage –with the exception of Down’s Syndrome- so by ensuring only embryos with the right number of chromosomes were implanted, doctors hoped, the number of IVF babies successfully carried to term would dramatically increase.
However, a 2004 feature on the technique by New Scientist magazine revealed several problems. First, clinics in the U.S offering genetic tests to IVF patients did not have to report their findings to the government, so there was no impartial oversight of their effectiveness. Second, barely any clinical trials of the technology had been conducted, the most comprehensive one involving just 55 people, nowhere near enough to produce reliable results. Third, and most important, according to Professor Handyside himself, the accuracy of the tests was so questionable that as many as 1 in 10 of embryos discarded as ‘defective’ could actually have developed into healthy newborn babies. What’s more there was no evidence that the test helped more women to conceive using IVF than before.
What was wrong with the tests – aside from the absence of peer review and government oversight? Each screening, the results of which would determine whether to proceed with the IVF treatment in which countless parents had invested their savings, was carried out on just a single embryonic cell. This was problematic due to the fact that it is entirely possible for the extracted cell to possess abnormal numbers of chromosomes, or traces of any number of disabilities for that matter, while the embryo itself remains completely normal. Similarly, the reverse proved equally possible with at least one reported case of a baby being born with Down’s Syndrome after a genetic test failed to detect any problems with the original embryo.
So, what’s changed since then? The range of conditions detected by karyomapping has increased exponentially and the time taken to perform it substantially reduced. As a result, the number of IVF patients turning to genetic testing, and the number of embryos aborted, is likely to sky-rocket too. However the technique itself of testing a single cell for all these conditions remains exactly the same. As for independent oversight, the PHG Foundation, devoted to exploring the application of scientific research to healthcare complained last October that: “there have been no scientific publications describing the details of the new methodology, and no clear explanation of how exactly multiple genetic traits are identified.” To date, no clinical trials have been completed either. Preliminary tests boast a success rate of 100%, but that becomes less impressive upon realising they were carried out on just five embryos.
So, what does Professor Handyside have to say about the technique now? In an interview with the Times on July 1st, he was surprisingly on message, saying: “This is a truly universal test for genetic defects in embryos.” Is this because sometime after that previous interview in 2004, he had an epiphany and a sudden change of heart? Or could it be that as the Director of the Bridge Centre Clinic responsible for pioneering this universal test, he now stands to cash in on the fears and desperation of the IVF patients unable to conceive naturally? But then why let good science stand in the way of such a prime business opportunity?
Wednesday, 24 June 2009
Iran election: don't believe everything you read
The Iranian Presidential election, judging by the reaction of the mainstream media across America and Europe, appears to be an open and shut case with the victory of incumbent President Ahmadinejad being widely denounced as a fraud. I have no intention of wading into that debate as only time will tell what really happened in Iran. However, the quality of western reporting on the election has undoubtedly been a major cause for concern.
In America, the New York Times declared the result a massive shock after “unofficial” polls had given Ahmadinejad’s closest rival Mir-Hossein Moussavi a clear lead. In the UK, the Financial Times railed that the “election bears all the hallmarks of a stolen vote” with Germany’s Die Welt adding that: "it seems their real leaders decided that 95 percent control was not enough – they wanted it all".
This has placed western leaders, eager to avoid destroying tentative hopes of detente with Iran, under enormous pressure to condemn the very regime with whom they are seeking to build a relationship. U.S President Barack Obama and UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, wary of their countries’ past involvement in Iran, have wisely refrained from doing so. German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, however, have openly cast doubt on the legitimacy of the result.
To be sure, accurate facts and figures in a world of 24 hour news and instant reaction are often hard to come by even at the best of times. Nevertheless, journalists have to write something and with little time to check their sources, they often resort to hearsay.
The unofficial polls cited by the New York Times and various other publications are a good example of this. Iran has no system for conducting independent polls of its people and the most reliable western poll was carried out three weeks before the election. As a result, the press, eager to be seen as the most authoritative source of public information, took to reporting speculation as news.
The effect of this was to create a narrative, widely accepted by many as fact, that a victory for Moussavi, was a near certainty. So, when the election was called for President Ahmadinejad, the media leapt on opposition claims of widespread fraud as this appeared to fit the story best.
That one reliable poll, however, carried out by American think tank ‘Terror Free Tomorrow’ who published their findings and methodology in full, gave President Ahmadinejad a clear lead of over 2:1. While almost a third of those surveyed had not yet decided who to vote for, an extrapolation of the likely result based on their answers to the remainder of the survey, according to foreign policy blog ‘Just Foreign Policy’, forecast Ahmadinejad winning at least 57% of the popular vote.
The coverage of the protests themselves, however, represents perhaps the most serious manipulation of information by the media. According to former CIA operative and Middle East expert, Robert Baer, the protests have so far been confined to northern Tehran where Mr Moussavi’s most avid supporters reside. Yet they have been depicted by the press as the tipping point of a popular revolution.
Baer claims that “for too many years now, the Western media have looked at Iran through the narrow prism of Iran's liberal middle class — an intelligentsia that is addicted to the Internet and American music and is more ready to talk to the Western press...” Undoubtedly, the Iranian regime has not helped itself though by restricting the movements of journalists, thereby increasing their dependence on the highly one-sided versions of events presented by Tehran’s ‘twitterers’. Moreover, its heavy handed response towards protesters has made it look more like an angry dictatorship than anything close to a democracy.
At the time of writing, Barack Obama has stepped up his criticisms of the Iranian regime following the tragic death of 26 year old student, Neda Soltani. The media, now more than ever have a responsibility to resist the urge to make a bad situation even worse just for the chance to score a prize scoop. The real danger, however, is that instead their willingness to pass off rumours and guesswork as news may end up reaffirming Iranian suspicions of western meddling and fuelling their determination to develop their own nuclear deterrent in response.
In America, the New York Times declared the result a massive shock after “unofficial” polls had given Ahmadinejad’s closest rival Mir-Hossein Moussavi a clear lead. In the UK, the Financial Times railed that the “election bears all the hallmarks of a stolen vote” with Germany’s Die Welt adding that: "it seems their real leaders decided that 95 percent control was not enough – they wanted it all".
This has placed western leaders, eager to avoid destroying tentative hopes of detente with Iran, under enormous pressure to condemn the very regime with whom they are seeking to build a relationship. U.S President Barack Obama and UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, wary of their countries’ past involvement in Iran, have wisely refrained from doing so. German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, however, have openly cast doubt on the legitimacy of the result.
To be sure, accurate facts and figures in a world of 24 hour news and instant reaction are often hard to come by even at the best of times. Nevertheless, journalists have to write something and with little time to check their sources, they often resort to hearsay.
The unofficial polls cited by the New York Times and various other publications are a good example of this. Iran has no system for conducting independent polls of its people and the most reliable western poll was carried out three weeks before the election. As a result, the press, eager to be seen as the most authoritative source of public information, took to reporting speculation as news.
The effect of this was to create a narrative, widely accepted by many as fact, that a victory for Moussavi, was a near certainty. So, when the election was called for President Ahmadinejad, the media leapt on opposition claims of widespread fraud as this appeared to fit the story best.
That one reliable poll, however, carried out by American think tank ‘Terror Free Tomorrow’ who published their findings and methodology in full, gave President Ahmadinejad a clear lead of over 2:1. While almost a third of those surveyed had not yet decided who to vote for, an extrapolation of the likely result based on their answers to the remainder of the survey, according to foreign policy blog ‘Just Foreign Policy’, forecast Ahmadinejad winning at least 57% of the popular vote.
The coverage of the protests themselves, however, represents perhaps the most serious manipulation of information by the media. According to former CIA operative and Middle East expert, Robert Baer, the protests have so far been confined to northern Tehran where Mr Moussavi’s most avid supporters reside. Yet they have been depicted by the press as the tipping point of a popular revolution.
Baer claims that “for too many years now, the Western media have looked at Iran through the narrow prism of Iran's liberal middle class — an intelligentsia that is addicted to the Internet and American music and is more ready to talk to the Western press...” Undoubtedly, the Iranian regime has not helped itself though by restricting the movements of journalists, thereby increasing their dependence on the highly one-sided versions of events presented by Tehran’s ‘twitterers’. Moreover, its heavy handed response towards protesters has made it look more like an angry dictatorship than anything close to a democracy.
At the time of writing, Barack Obama has stepped up his criticisms of the Iranian regime following the tragic death of 26 year old student, Neda Soltani. The media, now more than ever have a responsibility to resist the urge to make a bad situation even worse just for the chance to score a prize scoop. The real danger, however, is that instead their willingness to pass off rumours and guesswork as news may end up reaffirming Iranian suspicions of western meddling and fuelling their determination to develop their own nuclear deterrent in response.
Wednesday, 10 June 2009
Euro-sceptics pose a bigger threat to Britain than BNP
Written for the-vibe.co.uk
Last Sunday, a day after the free world celebrated the 65th anniversary of the defeat of Fascism, the British National Party won its first seats in the European Parliament. While the thought of Nick Griffin representing Britain in Brussels is admittedly horrifying, I found the Queen’s absence from the D-Day celebrations the day before far more disconcerting.
I take comfort in knowing that actually winning two seats in the European Parliament is just about the worst thing that could have happened to the BNP. Denied the freedom of being the in vogue black sheep of British politics (pardon the irony) and constrained by the responsibilities of office and the realities of accountability, their base incompetence and sheer racism will undoubtedly prove their undoing.
Britain’s remaining euro-sceptics, on the other hand, have a simple message. Led by the Conservative party, they say that close ties with the European Union will erode Britain’s sovereignty and undermine the national interest. As a result they have shunned the European People’s Party (EPP), the parliamentary grouping in which most centre-right MEPs sit, on the grounds that it is not euro-sceptic enough.
It is ultimately their overwhelming success in the European elections that will prove far more damaging to Britain’s standing in the world and harder to undo. Their approach to Europe threatens to widen the divide that underlined French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s snub of the Queen last weekend. He saw the D-Day celebrations as a Franco-American occasion. Gordon Brown was only there because he begged for an invitation and Prince Charles had to rely on American diplomacy for his ticket.
This unfortunate episode was symptomatic of a recent shift in global power that has seen France, led by its most pro-American President in years, become the new ‘special friend’ of the United States leaving the United Kingdom sidelined and irrelevant. Indeed, during Barack Obama’s first trip to Europe as President, he singled out as priorities of the transatlantic relationship, European integration and rapprochement with France, whom he hailed as America’s “oldest ally, our first ally”.
The reason for this shift is simple. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have taught America that there are limits to what they can do alone. So, they have sought to repair their relations with Europe. However, as the EU lacks a single foreign policy, a single partner who can maximise American influence in Europe is needed. This was traditionally a role played by the UK, but the Iraq war and the rise of euro-scepticism have since allowed France to take over.
It is true that many European countries, including France and Germany, leaned to the right in last week’s elections, albeit for mostly domestic reasons. However, there is no question over their commitment to the European project of ever-closer integration. While the policy of the UK Conservatives towards Europe though is predictably hazy, their intentions have been made clear by leader David Cameron’s appeasement of the Euro-sceptic wing of his party.
Along with withdrawing his party from the EPP and calling for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, Cameron recently even described the EU as “completely unaccountable to the people of Britain.” During that same speech he also blamed the electorate’s disillusionment with politics on the EU and promised to negotiate the return of powers to Britain.
One can only hope that such promises were designed merely to outmanouver UKIP at the European elections and that in the event of a Conservative victory at the next general election, now a near certainty, he will take a more sensible approach advancing the national interest.
Last Sunday, a day after the free world celebrated the 65th anniversary of the defeat of Fascism, the British National Party won its first seats in the European Parliament. While the thought of Nick Griffin representing Britain in Brussels is admittedly horrifying, I found the Queen’s absence from the D-Day celebrations the day before far more disconcerting.
I take comfort in knowing that actually winning two seats in the European Parliament is just about the worst thing that could have happened to the BNP. Denied the freedom of being the in vogue black sheep of British politics (pardon the irony) and constrained by the responsibilities of office and the realities of accountability, their base incompetence and sheer racism will undoubtedly prove their undoing.
Britain’s remaining euro-sceptics, on the other hand, have a simple message. Led by the Conservative party, they say that close ties with the European Union will erode Britain’s sovereignty and undermine the national interest. As a result they have shunned the European People’s Party (EPP), the parliamentary grouping in which most centre-right MEPs sit, on the grounds that it is not euro-sceptic enough.
It is ultimately their overwhelming success in the European elections that will prove far more damaging to Britain’s standing in the world and harder to undo. Their approach to Europe threatens to widen the divide that underlined French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s snub of the Queen last weekend. He saw the D-Day celebrations as a Franco-American occasion. Gordon Brown was only there because he begged for an invitation and Prince Charles had to rely on American diplomacy for his ticket.
This unfortunate episode was symptomatic of a recent shift in global power that has seen France, led by its most pro-American President in years, become the new ‘special friend’ of the United States leaving the United Kingdom sidelined and irrelevant. Indeed, during Barack Obama’s first trip to Europe as President, he singled out as priorities of the transatlantic relationship, European integration and rapprochement with France, whom he hailed as America’s “oldest ally, our first ally”.
The reason for this shift is simple. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have taught America that there are limits to what they can do alone. So, they have sought to repair their relations with Europe. However, as the EU lacks a single foreign policy, a single partner who can maximise American influence in Europe is needed. This was traditionally a role played by the UK, but the Iraq war and the rise of euro-scepticism have since allowed France to take over.
It is true that many European countries, including France and Germany, leaned to the right in last week’s elections, albeit for mostly domestic reasons. However, there is no question over their commitment to the European project of ever-closer integration. While the policy of the UK Conservatives towards Europe though is predictably hazy, their intentions have been made clear by leader David Cameron’s appeasement of the Euro-sceptic wing of his party.
Along with withdrawing his party from the EPP and calling for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, Cameron recently even described the EU as “completely unaccountable to the people of Britain.” During that same speech he also blamed the electorate’s disillusionment with politics on the EU and promised to negotiate the return of powers to Britain.
One can only hope that such promises were designed merely to outmanouver UKIP at the European elections and that in the event of a Conservative victory at the next general election, now a near certainty, he will take a more sensible approach advancing the national interest.
Tuesday, 2 June 2009
Why the Church was wrong to call for a boycott of the BNP
The latest poll for the European elections has put the Conservatives at the top with over 29% and the British National Party (BNP) at the bottom with just 5%. Yet following a recent call from the Archbishops Sentamu and Williams of York and Canterbury respectively to boycott the BNP, you’d think they were up there with the Conservatives. Consequently, much has been said of whether the nationalists are actually a threat to our democracy, but very little about what kind of threat is posed by the Church telling people who to vote for two weeks before an election.
It is one thing for a political organisation to take sides in an election, but as the officially recognised religion of the United Kingdom, the position of the Anglican Church is particularly tenuous. After all, its Archbishops are handpicked by the government, its Bishops sit in Parliament and, most importantly, the Head of the Church is also the Head of State, the Queen.
In the nineteenth century its power was so immense that anyone who refused to swear an oath to the faith itself was barred from holding any public office. In 1926, they attempted to intervene in the coal miners' strike, prompting then Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin to ask how they would like it if he referred the revision of the Athanasian Creed to the trade unions. Even as recently as two years ago, they attempted to de-rail the Equality Act, outlawing the discrimination and harassment of homosexuals.
If the Church continues to undermine the sovereignty of the people by taking sides in political debates and challenging laws drawn up by their elected representatives, they will risk dividing the loyalties of their own followers, whose numbers are already dwindling. In the best case scenario, they will render themselves irrelevant and undo the funding and support for all their charitable works from which society derives a great benefit. In the worst case scenario, they will trigger a constitutional crisis normally only the stuff of die-hard republicans’ dreams.
Perhaps the single most important reason not to boycott the BNP, however, is that it doesn’t work, as Labour minister Margaret Hodge would surely testify. In 2006, she publicly declared that 8 out of 10 white voters in Barking might support BNP council candidates, after which 11 of them were duly elected. Rather, the way you beat the BNP is not by raising their public profile through needless scaremongering, but by giving the electorate a good reason to vote for somebody else instead.
It is one thing for a political organisation to take sides in an election, but as the officially recognised religion of the United Kingdom, the position of the Anglican Church is particularly tenuous. After all, its Archbishops are handpicked by the government, its Bishops sit in Parliament and, most importantly, the Head of the Church is also the Head of State, the Queen.
In the nineteenth century its power was so immense that anyone who refused to swear an oath to the faith itself was barred from holding any public office. In 1926, they attempted to intervene in the coal miners' strike, prompting then Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin to ask how they would like it if he referred the revision of the Athanasian Creed to the trade unions. Even as recently as two years ago, they attempted to de-rail the Equality Act, outlawing the discrimination and harassment of homosexuals.
If the Church continues to undermine the sovereignty of the people by taking sides in political debates and challenging laws drawn up by their elected representatives, they will risk dividing the loyalties of their own followers, whose numbers are already dwindling. In the best case scenario, they will render themselves irrelevant and undo the funding and support for all their charitable works from which society derives a great benefit. In the worst case scenario, they will trigger a constitutional crisis normally only the stuff of die-hard republicans’ dreams.
Perhaps the single most important reason not to boycott the BNP, however, is that it doesn’t work, as Labour minister Margaret Hodge would surely testify. In 2006, she publicly declared that 8 out of 10 white voters in Barking might support BNP council candidates, after which 11 of them were duly elected. Rather, the way you beat the BNP is not by raising their public profile through needless scaremongering, but by giving the electorate a good reason to vote for somebody else instead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
