In-Debate

Fully Briefed: Boris vs. Ken

danieldc — Fri, 04 May 2012 22:57:14 +0000

Fully Briefed: Economic Turmoil?

danieldc — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 18:22:15 +0000

Fully Briefed: Kony 2012

danieldc — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 09:21:46 +0000

Fully Briefed: Out-of-Date Laws

danieldc — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 13:47:56 +0000

Fully Briefed: Doomed Conservatives?

danieldc — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 10:26:52 +0000

Gay Marriage?

danieldc — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 13:21:54 +0000

By Andre Langlois

AT LAST year’s Conservative party conference Prime Minister David Cameron announced that gay marriage would be legalised in the UK before the next general election. A consultation will assess only how it should be implemented. Dismissed by some as a shallow and unwarranted bid to appeal to a younger electorate, and by others as a fudge, not permitting weddings in religious establishments. Whatever your opinion, with pressures mounting on the government it is a political gamble. Opinion polls vary but the public appears to lean in favour of gay marriage and even if opposition is in the minority it will be a fervent and vocal one. Is it the state’s role to redefine such an institution? Is it time for true equality of sexuality? Or is this move an assault on freedom of religion? >>

1. Commitment

“I DON’T support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I’m a Conservative”. So said David Cameron in a striking turn of phrase at last year’s Tory Party conference when announcing a consultation on legalising gay marriage, “Yes, it’s about equality, but it’s also about something else: commitment”. In an era when the fleeting nature of relationships is oft bemoaned by conservative commentators, a move to encourage stronger commitment within relationships should surely be applauded. The new Dean of St Paul’s, Dr David Ison, certainly thinks so: “I’m encouraged that a good number of gay people want to take on the virtues of marriage. For Christian gay people to model that kind of faithfulness, in a culture which, historically, has often been about promiscuity, is a very good thing to do.”

2. Human Right

IN A pronouncement, sure to be contested, the European Court of Human Rights ruled: “The European Convention on Human Rights does not require member states’ governments to grant same-sex couples access to marriage”. Staunch opponent of gay marriage Cardinal Keith O’Brien had earlier written: “In Article 16 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, marriage is defined as a relationship between men and women”. This is not correct. It actually says: “Men and women of full age…have the right to marry and to found a family”. A man and a woman is not specified. Cardinal O’Brien continued: “Their proposal represents a grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right”. But the right, as he defines it, is not “universally accepted”. Gay couples should have the right to marry. And this would in no way impact heterosexual couples’ right to marry.

3. Equality in Love

IN ANNOUNCING the consultation David Cameron recognised the equality in members of society. His equalities minister, the Liberal Democrat Lynne Featherstone, stressed the equality of love between two people: “It’s about celebrating love. We believe marriage is a good thing, we believe it should be extended to anyone – whatever their gender”. It could be argued that it is not the government’s place to legislate on matters of the heart, matters of love, but the fact is it does. It does not just recognise property rights, at least since the Church of England separated from Rome it has recognised that the relevance of the loss of love.

4. Think of the children

CARDINAL Keith O’Brien said: “All children deserve to begin life with a mother and father; the evidence in favour of the stability and well-being which this provides is overwhelming and unequivocal. It cannot be provided by a same-sex couple, however well-intentioned they may be”. But he is wrong. In an enlightened society we have come to realise that there are many ways to live and that the well being of children is not dependent on the family unit that conservative Britain recognises. Many single parents do terrific jobs and some don’t. The same can be said of husband and wife parents. But this is beside the point. When looking at the wellbeing of children it is not the statistics that matter, but the particular circumstances. Stability in a relationship can be a great help; sharing the load and providing mutual support for parents. Encouraging gay couples can only be a good thing for children in their care.

5. It is about equality

AT PRESENT homosexual couples can join in civil partnership but can’t get married. Heterosexual couples can get married but cannot choose a civil partnership, despite the religious connotations inherent in marriage. The government’s plans at present mean that homosexual couples will be able to get a civil marriage if they wish. However they will not be able to have a religious wedding, even if the religious institution in question is happy to embrace gay marriage. Confusing? Surely equality suggests that the government should recognise all marriages equally and allow organised religion to choose which particular ceremonies they perform.

1. There is no need

CIVIL partnerships already give gay couples equal rights in the eyes of the law. In a letter read out at masses throughout England the archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Nichols, leader of the Catholic church in England and Wales, and Peter Smith, the archbishop of Southwark said: “Neither the church nor the state has the power to change this fundamental understanding of marriage itself. The reasons given by our government for wanting to change the definition of marriage are those of equality and discrimination but our present law does not discriminate unjustly when it requires both a man and a woman for marriage. It simply recognises and protects the distinctive nature of marriage.”

2. It is an assault on religion

MARRIAGE as a concept is inherently religious and so tinkering with it diminishes freedom of religion. Lord Singh, head of the Network of Sikh Organisations, said: “It’s being changed and for no real gain because the law rightly gives every respect to a civil partnership. It is more of a sideways assault on religion, that ‘we can dilute your beliefs and values’, and I find that concerning”. Rabbi Yitzchak Schochet, who advises the Chief Rabbi on family issues, has similar concerns: “Ultimately, of course, it’s not for me to dictate to government and start telling them what to do, I can just simply decry what is going on the basis of what I consider to be, from a religious biblical perspective, an assault on religious values”.

3. What next? Polygamy?

ALTHOUGH the more fear-mongering voices conjuring the prospect of marriage to children or animals are easily refuted, there is a real fear that the arguments in favour of gay marriage could be fielded to support legalised polygamy, and for most of the western world this would be unacceptable. Cardinal O’Brien said: “If marriage is simply about adults who love each other, on what basis can three adults who love each other be prevented from marrying?”. For some liberal writers this is not an argument that needs refuting. Writing on the Guardian website, science writer Martin Robbins said: “What’s wrong with polygamy? It seems to be that a child brought up by three loving parents would have some quite big economic advantages, and humans have cooperated in child-rearing since the year dot”.

4. Social engineering

BY MEDDLING with our use of language the government is stepping into the arena of social engineering. Brendan O’Neill in The Times wrote that when the Civil Marriage Act 2005 was passed in Canada it resulted in official documents being rewritten to remove gender terms such as ‘husband’, ‘wife’, ‘mother’ and ‘father’. He said “Because this is not simply about elevating gay relationships, as we are so often told. More importantly, it is about demoting and devaluing traditional relationships, as built on marriage as it was once understood. Who in their right mind introduces their husband or wife as their “spouse”? What normal woman describes herself as “Parent 1″ to her children rather than ‘mother’?”. Outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams argued that the issues at stake should not be dealt with through legislation: “I believe, that issues like stigma and marginalisation have to be addressed at the level of culture rather than law, the gradual evolving of fresh attitudes in a spirit of what has been called ‘strategic patience’ by some legal thinkers.”

5. Church is part of the state

IN ENGLAND there is not a clear separation of powers between church and state. The archbishop of York, John Sentamu, has pointed out: “They have got a problem because the definition of marriage is in the 1662 prayer book and article 30 of the Church of England, which both are acts of parliament”. Although Lynne Featherstone has said “My understanding is that Parliament can legislate to do what it wishes”, it may not prove to be that simple.

Fully Briefed: Panic Buy?

danieldc — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 13:09:19 +0000

Syrian Intervention?

danieldc — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:22:41 +0000

By Phoebe Hollond

SYRIA has been a bloodbath since the first uprisings on the 26th January 2011 and it is now estimated that over 9,000 people have lost their lives. The violence in Homs seems to have ceased but only due the fact Assad has crushed the opposition there. The world is debate about what to do; Assads regime is killing its own, and committing blatant human rights violations. Although Assad has agreed to Kofi Annan’s peace plan, there are still cries for us to get involved just like we did in Libya to stop any more blood shed. But can we really get involved? Can we really commit our already over-stretched armed forces to a conflict that has all the hallmarks of a civil war? Or is it our moral imperative to protect as many lives as we possible could, and despite the cost we have a duty to help? >>

1. There is a gross human rights violation

THE UN has highlighted the most prominent argument for our involvement in Syria, that being Bashar al-Assad and his government and military supporters are breaching people’s basic human rights. Those that protest against the government are faced with violent means, leading to serious harm and/or death. Bashar al -Assad ensures the infringement of the basic right to freedom of speech. The city of Deraa has been under siege since the 25th April 2011, many people have been killed, and there has been mass imprisonment and many disappearing. There is no electricity, no communication, no food supply, this is a clear breach of human rights, thus illustrating the moral obligation we have to become involved. Surely this complete and utter disrespect makes us move to do something, it seems absurd that we just sit by and observe these immoral killings and destruction of human life.

2. It is under state control

THE SYRIAN government controls newspapers, the internet, and radio stations. Everything in the media is controlled and censored by the state, and now the Syrian government has taken it a step even further by banning iPhones. The Syrian government is clearly trying to hide and prevent any information about the unethical and devastating events that are occurring. The regime has had it’s people under siege for forty years, argue the revolutionaries. With their public and private lives always being controlled and monitored, the West see this as an autocratic and totalitarian society, which must be freed. For Syria to be freed, the UK must get involved is a position one could take. We should get involved because it makes no sense for us to believe that one society should be run in a particular way, that being democratic and then not actually do anything about it, not actually get involved and help other societies become democratic. It is one thing to say that something is wrong and another to act upon it and make it right.

3. We should help Syria as we did Libya

IF THE UK helped Libya, why would we not do the same for Syria, is it fair or moral to help one country and not another? Many of the revolutionaries in Syria, including Lieutenant Waluta al Abdullah of the Free Syrian Army have told reporters that the West can help, we can help make the regime crumble. He says that if there was a no fly zone in Syria, just like the one the Nato imposed over Libya then the regime would be over. However they believe help is not on it’s way and the longer they are without help, everyday the conflict will deepen. It seems rather unfair to say the least that we would pick and chose which country deserves help, which lives deserve saving because at the end of the day a human life is a human life.

4. Sanctions are not enough

ON MAY 18th 2011, Obama imposed sanctions on the Syrian government. However a crucial issue is that the sanctions imposed on Bashar al – Assad are not good enough because they do not actually affect him. Bashar supposedly has billions stashed away so the imposition of sanction is on a whole ineffective and it therefore seems that we are doing nothing. This means that it could be argued that the only viable option of involvement is foreign military intervention. The position that sanctions are useless means that we should get more involved because right now we are doing nothing to protect innocent lives.

5. Use just war theory

MICHAEL WALZER argues that if a state is clearly acting against human rights then it is not only just for another state to intervene but it is a “moral obligation”. Therefore, this demonstrates that one could take a position that not to intervene and to not get involved would be immoral. The UN have clearly stated that over 5000 people have been killed. Navi Pillay told the UN Security Council that the “the widespread and systematic nature of the killings, the detentions, and the acts of torture” perpetrated by the Syrian authorities constituted crimes against humanity. “Inaction by the international community will embolden Syrian authorities, and ensure perpetrators go unpunished,” she added. Therefore using Walzer’s theory we have a moral obligation to intervene.

1. What about the Arab League

THE ARAB LEAGUE that is composed of 22 members has been dealing with the crisis, and surely they can resolve Syria without the help of the UK’s military. They are after all the League that led to Egypt’s Mubarak fall, it also had voted to suspend Gaddafi’s Libya and assisted with antigovernment forces there. The Arab League also ensured the crucial no fly zone vote in Libya, which enabled the Nato to play a decisive role in swinging the war to the rebels side. The League has been dealing with Syria, they have condemned, suspended and imposed sanctions on Syria, therefore there is no need for our intervention. What more can the UK do that the League is not doing?

2. Turkey should get involved

TURKEY being one of the neighbouring countries of Syria must have the capability and capacity to deal with Syria, it would seem unnecessary to bring troops and foreign help from so far away, geographically. Turkey has already been providing for the Free Army so why should we get involved if they already have help from Turkey? It is in the best interest of Turkey to resolve the problem in Syria because of the major influx of refugees into Turkey from Syria and the instability of vital trade routes linking Turkey to lucrative Arab markets made by the Syrian crisis. Therefore a position against our involvement would be that it is up to Turkey and other neighbouring countries to negotiate an exit strategy for Bashar to avoid the stark outcome of Civil war. Russia’s foreign minister accused the West of an “immoral” stance on Syria, saying it should also condemn the opposition, whom he accused of trying to provoke a “humanitarian catastrophe” to get foreign help. Russia joined China in October to block Western efforts to pass a Security Council resolution condemning the crackdown in Syria.

3. Sanctions are the safest way

A COUNTER argument depicting the usefulness of sanctions rather than the complete ineffective attribute is that sanctions are the safest and best option for the time being. Given Syria’s crucial geographical position it would not be favourable for the government to be overthrown. Bashar’s Syria is predominately Shia, however if the Sunni’s were to gain power in Syria, there would be a ripple effect in that it would boost the Sunni’s in Iraq politically dominant under the deceased Saddam Hussein.

4. Israel is affected

ANOTHER fundamental reason why the UK or USA should not have any foreign military intervention is that without Bashar leading Syria, Israel would be in even more trouble because Israel would be even less protected. Bashar over the years had at least made efforts to find peace with Israel and engage in a peace dialogue. So in some ways if Bashar’s regime was to come to an end it would not be favourable for the Israeli’s. Bashar’s regime could be seen as the favourable scenario because it has been proven containable. The BBC News reports that “ironically, Israel’s proximity and the sensitivities it arouses are the strongest deterrent to a Libya – style Western intervention in Syria.”

5. “Benevolent Neglect”

ROBIN LUSTIG writes in his Trying to Make Sense of the World a piece on Arab Uprising: Is it best to do nothing? that all revolutions have lead to rebuilding a new political order, such as the French, Communists and so on. However he does maintain that they are often “a difficult and unpredictable process.” Lustig draws upon Professor Walt’s theory of “benevolent neglect”. Professor Walt claims that “History… warns us that outside powers have at best limited influence over the outcomes of a genuine revolutionary process. Even well intentioned efforts to aid progressive forces can backfire, as can overt efforts to thwart them. Overall the policy of benevolent neglect may be a more prudent course.” (Professor Stephen Walt of Harvard University for Foreign Policy) Peter Harling, the Syrian Analyst of the International Crisis Group also takes this position, he writes that “at a time when the international community is feeling a compulsion to so something, the overriding principle should remain to do no harm”.

Fully Briefed: Special Relationship?

danieldc — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 10:41:18 +0000

Fully Briefed: Time To Leave Afghanistan

danieldc — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 09:08:35 +0000