Category Archives: freedom of speech

beliefs, current affairs, freedom of speech, medical, nudism, personal, science, sexuality, thoughts

Taboo!

2 Comments

I’ve been thinking recently about our taboos. What I find curious is where we individually draw the boundary lines between what’s acceptable, what’s unacceptable and what falls in the grey area between. This is partly because some of my views are diametrically opposed to the norms of our society, but also because as a society, and as a collection of individuals, we seem to be sleep-walking into far too many important decisions.

We can probably all agree on a common set of things we think should be outlawed: child abuse, female circumcision, rape, gratuitous animal cruelty. And a set of things which are (generally) OK: sweets, alcohol, blood transfusions, prison for offenders. Although I know there are people who will abhor even these.

Most people would not discuss – and are not comfortable with – pornography, nudity, sex, bodily functions, incest or death. And then of course there are things which are for many on the borderline: animal cruelty for food (aka. abattoirs), abortion, stem cell research.

But this is not where I, personally, would draw the line. For me there is no problem with pornography, sex, nudity, bodily functions and I think even death (it is after all an inevitable consequence of life, at least as we know it). Incest I would say is borderline at worst and under some circumstances OK – why should a brother and sister not have a loving sexual relationship if they wish, as long as they remain aware of the possible dangers.

For me – and I stress this is just my personal opinion – there are far more important things to worry about and which I find at best questionable and at worst objectionable; some I would probably class as obscene – not a word I use lightly or often. The above list of common taboos is a good start to this list with most of them, at least some of the time, being in the obscene category.

However my questionable or unacceptable list contains other things most people find OK: IVF, male circumcision, genetic modification, airport expansion, a federal Europe, positive discrimination, religion, capital punishment, cosmetic surgery (for the sake of personal vanity rather than as a real medical necessity). And my jury is still out on stem cell research.

What I find interesting about this is not that I have different opinions (I’m an eccentric; I expect to have my own, different opinions) but that so few people appear to do likewise.

Society’s taboos, taken as a whole, are essentially the aggregate set of beliefs the majority of individuals find abhorrent – at least as enacted by the great and the good we elect to speak on our behalf and make law (politicians, religious leaders, etc.). It is only by people with differing opinions questioning and challenging this status quo which eventually results in the shift of the agreed set of taboos. Such is how we make progress.

All of this has so far left aside the more personal things. Do you have to be totally private, behind a locked door, in the bathroom or bedroom? Why is sex with the light on such a no-no? Are you OK with sleeping in the nude? As many will realise by now I am pretty open. We’re comfortable with social nudity – indeed any nudity. We both sleep au naturel and prefer it that way. Doors are never shut (except possibly to exclude the cats, and even that is rare). We actively dislike net curtains. We share the bathroom. In fact I think the only thing I have any possible hang-ups about is someone watching me wipe my arse – and even that isn’t a discomforting as it used to be. I was also wary of seeing my late father’s ileostomy – I felt this was intruding too far onto something private to him, although it didn’t seem to worry him; and let’s be fair it is not the most tasteful of things. Why I felt like this I don’t know; it surprised me. Indeed having been brought up to be slightly bohemian, think for myself and have my own opinions, I find it rather odd that I have any taboos at all.

As one of your “working thinkers” (to quote Douglas Adams) what I find distressing is that the majority of people don’t think about such things. There was a research finding a few years ago, which I now cannot place, that found 5% of people are unable to think; 5% of people can think and do so; the remaining 90% of people can think but just don’t. Even sadder is that many of this 90% are content to be told what they think by others, and that means mostly the tabloid press, politicians (who usually seem to have a vested interest) and religious bigots – plus a few cranky academics and do-gooders who manage to get “air time”. But then, despite the fuss some of this “silent majority” make, they probably don’t actually much care as long as someone keeps them in the credit card debt they’ve become attuned to.

Come on guys, wake up at the back! If you want things to get better you need to engage your brains and think through the consequences of your (our) actions. Think about the long term consequences of IVF, air travel, stem cell research. Use what brain cells you have; engage in dialogue with other people. Nobody asks that you are high-powered philosophical thinkers, just that you think as best you can about what is right and make up your own mind. If you then decide you’re happy with the consequences of these things, that’s fine. If you’re not, then you need to be heard. Doing nothing leaves those who do think to fight it out with those with vested interests – and the outcome may well not be the right one – or the one you actually want, whatever that is.

current affairs, freedom of speech, thoughts

Human Rights and MPs' Expenses

3 Comments

Bystander, over at The Magistrate’s Blog, has posted the list of our human rights, as promulgated in the European Convention on Human Rights and enacted in the UK via the Human Rights Act 1998. This list is:

  • the right to life
  • freedom from torture and degrading treatment
  • freedom from slavery and forced labour
  • the right to liberty
  • the right to a fair trial
  • the right not to be punished for something that wasn’t a crime when you did it
  • the right to respect for private and family life
  • freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and freedom to express your beliefs
  • freedom of expression
  • freedom of assembly and association
  • the right to marry and to start a family
  • the right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights and freedoms
  • the right to peaceful enjoyment of your property
  • the right to an education
  • the right to participate in free elections
  • the right not to be subjected to the death penalty

Nothing there which one can reasonably object to, of course. Although all these rights (with the exception of torture) are not absolutes and can be overridden by the authorities, eg. in order to arrest a suspect.

The one which stood out to me reading this was

the right not to be punished for something that wasn’t a crime when you did it

I am not a lawyer but this seems to me to negate the whole of the MPs’ expenses fiasco. What MP’s have done was (mostly) not forbidden when they did it. That doesn’t say the rules, and therefore what was done, were right, only that the rules allowed what was done. It is only now that what the MPs did is being made forbidden, retrospectively. That seems contrary to the above right.

Is that alone not grounds for a judicial review? And what is anyone therefore complaining at the MPs for?

Remember that anything not explicitly forbidden by the rules (or legal precedent) is permitted. And if something is permitted, someone will (quite legally) take advantage of it, even if that was not your intent when making the rules.

You can try arguing, as the Daily Mail no doubt will, that the MPs “should have known better”. But really this doesn’t hold water. Why should MPs be any more (or less) moral than the rest of us? They were taking advantage of the rules in good faith (even if perhaps somewhat cynically) in the quite reasonable belief that they would (could) not be changed retrospectively. We all do exactly the same every day of our lives. For example: the law allows me today to drive at 50mph along the A40; in doing so I have a reasonable expectation that I will not be prosecuted for my action today, after the limit is lowered to 40mph tomorrow.

Yes, by all means campaign for the rules on MPs’ expenses, or indeed anything else, to be changed. But don’t vilify someone for adhering to those rules just because you (retrospectively) decide you don’t like them. At worst this violates that great institution “natural justice” and at best it is contrary to our legally enshrined human rights. Perhaps the tabloid press should be prosecuted under the Human Rights Act 1998?

PS. Note that I am not saying whether I agree or disagree with the rules on MPs’ expenses. My personal opinion is of no importance here as I am making a purely logical point about my understanding of our legally enshrined human rights.

beliefs, books, freedom of speech, thoughts

More Philosophical Thoughts

Another selection of powerful thoughts from philosopher AC Grayling’s The Form of Things. (See here for the previous post.)

Sympathy
[…] without opportunities for reflection, information in any quantity is valueless. A synoptic view is needed, a larger picture, a review of what has been acquired and learned – and concomitantly, of the extent and nature of our ignorance. The Greeks thought of the gods as having such a perspective, looking at the affairs of men from the peak of Olympus. ‘Olympian detachment’ might be possible for gods if there were such beings, but from the human perspective in the midst of the fray, such a view is a lot – and perhaps too much – to ask; the best we can do is to pause and take stock.

The History of Knowledge and Ignorance
An example is provided by the complex of sixteenth-century events which, for brevity, is called ‘the Reformation’. A large part of what drove these events was impatience with restraints on enquiry imposed by the Church. The Church taught that human reason is fallen and finite, and therefore that attempts to penetrate nature’s secrets are impious. But the Reformed sensibility saw reason as a divine gift, and believed that mankind had been set a challenge by God to read the ‘Great Book of the World’. There was also a school of thought in Christendom which believed that the world was given to man to expropriate at will – which meant that it was as open to the curiosity of the scientist as to the craft of the hunter or husbandman.

[…]

From the earliest times man has invented cosmogonies (theories of how the universe began) and cosmologies (theories of the ultimate nature of the universe). They are grand theories designed to make sense of the world, its past and the laws (or powers) that govern it; and they suggest ways of influencing or even controlling it (in those earlier times, by sacrifice and prayer). In this sense religions are primitive versions of science and technology. They aspire to offer explanations: to tell us who we are, why we are here, what we must do and where we are going. The growth of contemporary science conflicts with religion thus conceived, because it offers explanations of the same phenomena in wholly different ways.

[…]

Politically, human beings have advanced little from their long evolutionary history of conflict. They are still tribal, territorial and ready to kill one another for beliefs, and for control of goods and resources. Indeed, much of the world’s wealth and energy is poured into arms and armies for these very reasons. But the growth of knowledge has replaced the spear with the computer-guided nuclear missile. This mixture of stone-age politics and contemporary science is […] extraordinarily perilous.

Answering Critics
Two classes of my own critics cause me amusement rather than otherwise, for which I owe them gratitude. One consists in folk of a religious turn of mind, who are annoyed by my dislike of religion and my attacks upon it, on the grounds of its falsehood, its moralising oppressiveness and the terrible conflicts it has caused throughout history, and causes still. These critics call me dogmatic, narrow-minded, intolerant and unfair in what I say about their superstitions and the systems of moral tyranny erected upon them. Well: as experts in dogma and narrow-mindedness, they are doubtless in a good position to recognise it when they find it.

Moral Outrage
A mature society is one that reserves its moral outrage for what really matters: poverty and preventable disease in the third world, arms sales, oppression, injustice. Bad language and sex might offend some, who certainly have a right to complain; but they do not have a right to censor. They do not have to watch or listen if they are offended: they have an ‘off’ button on their television sets and radios. After all, it is morally outrageous that moral outrage should be used as an excuse to perpetrate the outrage of censorship on others.

Science and Modern Times
Everywhere that religion has ever held temporal power, the result has approximated Taliban-style rule. We forget, in the West, how much it took to escape orthodoxy enforced by burnings at the stake, and how recently: indeed, at the beginnings of modern times with the rise of science.

Faith Schools
Just two words state the objection to faith-based schools: ‘Northern Ireland’. The segregation of Catholic and Protestant school-children has been one of the major causes and sustainers of inter-community tensions in that troubled region. Why have the bitter lessons thus taught not been learned?

beliefs, books, freedom of speech, thoughts

Philosophical Thoughts

1 Comment

In the last few days I’ve been reading a philosophy book. “OMG what is this guy on? He reads philosophy – for fun!”

Well in truth it isn’t a very taxing philosophy book, because what I’ve been reading is The Form of Things by AC Grayling. Grayling is Professor of Philosophy at Birkbeck College, University of London and writes regularly for a number of periodicals including my favoured New Scientist. He is also a literary journalist and a broadcaster. So he’s not just a thinker, but he writes well and in an intelligible style.

The Form of Things is a collection of short (mostly 2-3 pages) essays drawn from his recent journalistic writings. Its subtitle: Essays on Life, Ideas and Liberty in the 21st Century tells you precisely what it’s about. It ranges widely over subjects such as language, beauty, funerals, reflections on people, fox-hunting and ID cards. It is a book to dip into rather than read cover to cover; and that’s how I’ve approached it as each of the essays stands in its own right. Let me give you a few gems (the title of each piece is the essay from which it comes). Whether you agree with them or not, they should at least thought provoking…

Dance
At almost any exhibition of contemporary art the thought that crosses one’s mind is: Is this rubbish, or am I missing the point? One could take the view that most of it is indeed rubbish, but of a useful kind: for it takes a lot of compost to make a flower -and flower lovers live in hope. Cynics say that the problem is the existence of art colleges, where people spend their time gluing cereal boxes to bicycle tyres (conceptual art), or demand that people watch them doing it (performance art) …

Hedonism
Human history has been weighed down with ordinances of denial from those who claim to know what the gods want of us – which seems mainly to be that we should not enjoy ourselves, even though they have given us natures attuned to pleasure.

God and the European Constitution
No one has ever fought a war because of disagreements in geology or botany; but humanity has bled to death over the question of whether a wafer of bread becomes human flesh when a priest whispers incantations over it. This stark contrast needs to be taken seriously; for until it is, we condemn ourselves to repeat the futile quarrels of the past.

Humanism and Religion
Religious folk try to turn the tables on people of a naturalistic and humanistic outlook by charging them with ‘faith’ in science or ‘faith’ in reason. Faith, they seem to have forgotten, is what you have in the face of facts and reason […] No such thing is required to ‘believe in’ science or reason. Science is always open to challenge and refutation, faith is not; reason must be rigorously tested by its own lights, faith rejoices in unreason. Once again, a humanistic outlook is as far from sharing the characteristics of religion as it can be. By definition, in short, humanism is not religion, any more than religion is or can be a form of humanism.

Rochester and the Libertines
The word ‘libertine’ was first applied in the 1550s to a sect of Protestants in northern Europe who, with unimpeachable logic, reasoned that since God had ordained all things, nothing could be sinful. They proceeded to act accordingly. Their views were regarded with horror by both Catholics on one side and Calvinists on the other…

Free Speech
It should by now be a commonplace, though alas it is not, that the right response to attempts by violent enemies to coerce our society is to reassert the very liberties and values that make them attack us in the first place. To restrict ourselves out of fear of what they might do is to give them the victory they seek. If they were able to impose their will on our society, they would deprive us of many of the liberties distinctive of a Western democracy. Why do it to ourselves?

Maybe more later.

current affairs, freedom of speech

Depositing the Bankers?

There’s an interesting piece in yesterday’s Times by Sir Ken McDonald, QC, the recently retired DPP. In it he takes the West’s (and especially Britain’s) politicians and legislators to task for getting the balance of the criminal justice system wrong, viz:

[…] If you mug someone in the street and you are caught, the chances are that you will go to prison. In recent years mugging someone out of their savings or their pension would probably earn you a yacht […] too many people and too many institutions function as though they are beyond the reach of the criminal law.

In Britain we had an additional burden: legislators who preferred criminal justice to be an auction of fake toughness […] So no one likes terrorists? Let’s bring in lots of terror laws, the tougher the better. Let’s lock up nasty people longer, and for longer before they are charged. Let’s stop medieval clerics winding up the tabloids. Let’s stop off-colour comedians outraging homophobic preachers. Let’s pretend that outlawing offensiveness makes the world less offensive.

This frequently made useful headlines. But it didn’t make our country or any other country a better or safer place to live. It didn’t respect our way of life. It brought us the War on Terror and it didn’t make it any easier for us to progress into the future with comfort and security.

Our legislators faltered because they seemed to ignore the fact that what makes good politics doesn’t always make good policy. And they didn’t want to tackle the more complex issues that really affect safety in people’s lives. It was easier to throw increasingly illiberal sound bites at a shadowy and fearsome enemy.

In Britain, no one has any confidence that fraud in the banks will be prosecuted as crime. But it is absolutely critical to public confidence that it should be […] Do people believe this will happen? No, they don’t […]

Forget the paranoiac paraphernalia of national databases, identity cards and all the other liberty-sapping addictions of the Home Office. Forget the rhetoric and do something useful. If the Government really wants to protect people beyond armoured-vest posturing, here is the opportunity […]

Let’s have fewer terrorism acts, fewer laws attacking our right to speak frankly and freely. Let’s stop filling our prisons with junkies, inadequates and the mentally damaged. How apposite in 2009 to have, instead, a few more laws to confront the clever people who have done their best to steal our economy.

Hat-tip: Bystander at The Magistrate’s Blog

beliefs, freedom of speech, nudism, quotes, thoughts

Osho on Nudity

1 Comment

[…] man has created his own artificial world around him. Animals are naked – that’s why we don’t want to be nude. And if somebody is nude suddenly he hits our civilization totally, he cuts the very roots. That’s why there is so much antagonism against naked people, all over the world.

If you go and move naked in the street, you are not hurting anybody, you are not doing any violence to anybody; you are absolutely innocent. But immediately the police will come, the whole surroundings will become agitated. You will be caught […] and put into jail. But you have not done anything at all! A crime happens when you do something. You have not been doing anything, simply walking naked! But why does the society get so angry? The society is not so angry even against a murderer. This is strange. But a naked man, and society is absolutely angry.

It is because murder is still human. No animal murders. They kill for eating […] So it is human, the society can accept it. But nudity the society cannot accept, because suddenly the naked man makes you aware that you are all animals. Howsoever hidden behind clothes, the animal is there, the nude, the naked animal is there, the naked ape is there.

You are against the nude man not because he is nude but because he makes you aware of your nudity.

[Osho, Sex Matters, p125]

beliefs, freedom of speech, personal, thoughts

The Atheist's Prayer

I found this somewhere on the intertubes the other day and thought it should be more widely known.

The Atheist’s Prayer

Our brains, which art in our heads,
treasured be thy name.
Thy reasoning come.
Thy best you can do be done on earth as it is.
Give us this day new insight to help us
resolve conflicts and ease pain.
And lead us not into supernatural explanations;
deliver us from denial of logic.
For thine is the kingdom of reason,
and even though thy powers are limited,
and you’re not always glorious,
you are the best evolutionary adaptation
we have for helping this earth now and
for ever and ever.
So be it.
beliefs, environment, food+drink, freedom of speech, history, medical, science, sexuality

Science Catch-up

I originally started off the previous post intending to write this one. So, having been diverted, here is the post I’d intended to write …

Having been “under the cosh” recently I’ve missed writing about a number of science items which have caught my eye. This is by way of a quick update on some of them.

Food Production & Agriculture
I’ve blogged a number of times about the need for a major restructuring of world-wide agriculture (see here, here and here). New Scientist on 14 June carried an article and an editorial on this subject. Sadly, being part of the “mainstream science establishment” (my term)they don’t get the need for restructuring. They see the solution only in terms of improved varieties, increased production and a decrease in food prices, with all the sterility that implies. They’re unable to see the problem in terms of overproduction of animal protein and a reduction in useful farmland due to poor methods and bio-fuel production. All very sad.

Don’t Blame it all on the Gods
The same issue of New Scientist – it was an especially interesting issue – carried a short article with the above title. I’ll let the introduction speak for itself …

Once phenomena that inspired fear and foreboding, lunar and solar eclipses can now be predicted down to the second, forecast centuries into the future, and “hindcast” centuries into the past. The person who started us down the path from superstition to understanding has been called the “Einstein of the 5th century BC”, and was known to his contemporaries as “The Mind”. He went on trial for his impious notions, was banished from his adopted home, but nevertheless influenced generations of later scholars. He was Anaxagoras, a native of Ionia in what is now Turkey, and the first great philosopher to live in Athens. Now this little-known scholar is being seen by some as the earliest known practitioner of the scientific method.

Worth searching out if you’re interested in the history of science or the Ancient Greeks.

America’s Abortion Scandal
This is the title of the third article I’ve picked from 14 June New Scientist. In the article Pratima Gupta, a (female) practicing obstetrician-gynaecologist, argues against the prevailing belief amongst US medics that abortion is always psychologically damaging for the woman. Gupta sees no evidence for this and rails against “personal moral beliefs trumping scientific evidence [and even] individuals’ personal beliefs”. What’s worse is that there appears to be covert censorship making abortion something which cannot be researched or discussed. All very interesting when put up against the case of Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin whose unmarried 17-year-old daughter is pregnant, being made (as I read it) to have the child and marry the father (see here, for example).

Cut!
Finally, this time from New Scientist of 19 July, which contains an article on male circumcision; again something I’ve blogged about before (see here and here). Quite predictably there is a rumpus brewing about the medical profession’s desire for all males to be circumcised – at least in Africa and by implication world-wide – egged on by the WHO. The studies which showed such huge benefits from circumcision are being criticised for their design, for being stopped early and for their assumptions. Surveys which question people’s experience of circumcision are also highly criticised. And of course being a mainstream science journal, New Scientist totally ignore any question of human rights, abuse and mutilation. It’s about time the medical and scientific professions woke up and smelt the coffee.

beliefs, current affairs, freedom of speech, quotes

Democracy in Action

3 Comments

This is today’s Quotation of the Day entry:

If somebody tries to stop the march to democracy, we will seek them out and kill them! We must be tougher than hell! This Vietnam stuff, this is not even close. It is a mind-set. We can’t send that message. It’s an excuse to prepare us for withdrawal.

There is a series of moments and this is one of them. Our will is being tested, but we are resolute. We have a better way. Stay strong! Stay the course! Kill them! Be confident! Prevail! We are going to wipe them out! We are not blinking!

[George W Bush, during a 2004 videoconference with national security and military officials. Quoted in Lt Gen Ricardo S Sanchez’s memoir, Wiser in Battle: A Soldier’s Story an at www.mydd.com/story/2008/6/2/114955/1042]

I was going to say this is scary, but it isn’t; it is obscene (and that’s a word I don’t often use). What price democracy and Christian tolerance now? Anyone still like to argue that Dubya isn’t dangerous and bigoted?