This is Peter Hitchens's Mail on Sunday column Here’s an example. Our absurd obsession with terrorism is encouraged by long-faced ‘security experts’ and used to justify enormous state spending on surveillance and other creepy activities. Currently we are in a new frenzy of concern about suicide bombers. We examine the life of Taimour Abdulwahab Al-Abdaly, who blew himself up in Stockholm, and wonder how we could have known that he would do this, and so have stopped him. We couldn’t have. His life did not follow any obvious pattern which would lead to this disgusting end. Compare this with the known fact that each year 100 entirely innocent people will be killed at random by mental patients released on to the streets by our indefensible ‘care in the community’ policy. Many of these killers give many clues to their likely future actions. Many will have had their brains scrambled in the first place by using the technically illegal drugs a feeble State has allowed to spread throughout society. The deaths they cause are often just as gruesome as those in terror attacks. The victims’ families are just as stricken. By a simple reform, the ending of ‘care in the community’ and the recreation of proper mental hospitals, we could avoid almost all these killings. By following the severe Swedish policy of penalising drug use, we could reduce the number of unhinged people in our population. But we do neither. Just as we refuse to take the basic steps which would enormously reduce crime and disorder, especially reintroducing the preventive police foot patrols which everyone wants, which are promised constantly, but which never happen. If there is a covenant between government and people, it is based on one thing: the ruler is given power in return for his ability and willingness to guard the population from evil and danger. Is something similar now happening among the nation’s militant homosexuals? I only ask because I really cannot see why a homosexual couple would have sought out Chymorvah, the seaside hotel currently being sued for its policy on allocating bedrooms. Has anyone asked this pair how often they stay in such establishments, or how they came to choose it? I haven’t seen the answer if so. But, alas, as he proved beyond doubt last week, he is an ill-informed, susceptible nitwit who has swallowed whole all the dishonest and mischievous propaganda of the ‘legalise drugs’ lobby. Lots of people who ought to know better fall for this stuff, when a tiny bit of research would show them it is folly. You can always spot them, when they talk about ‘Prohibition’, as if Eliot Ness of the Untouchables were stalking the land, smashing up drug dens with an axe, when in fact cannabis possession is effectively legal (most users get off with a meaningless warning, if the police bother them at all) and millions of pounds of your taxes are spent on dosing criminal heroin users with legal methadone, to keep them stupefied and happy. They also babble about a ‘war on drugs’. Well, if the lavishing of money and social workers on deliberate criminals, who are encouraged to continue in their criminal way, is a ‘war’ then the word doesn’t mean what I thought it meant. These thought-free burblings will earn Mr Ainsworth applause from supposedly intelligent media commentators such as Simon Jenkins, once editor of The Times, who really ought to know better. And of course they are given enormous prominence on the BBC, which I suspect is crammed with former and current drug abusers, just like David Cameron’s Tory high command. But they will earn him the curses of parents whose children’s lives have been – or are yet to be – ruined by drugs, and of a society which will find out too late what it is like to live in a state where pleasure and self-stupefaction have driven out self-discipline and the work ethic. What, you may wonder, leads a middle-aged white-collar trade unionist into the wacky world of drug legalisation? I have no idea. Was it something they discussed during those meetings of the International Marxist Group that Mr Ainsworth once attended? Or is the moustache a giveaway? Like so many of his age group, did Mr Ainsworth see the 1967 release of Sergeant Pepper – and the druggies’ anthem A Day In The Life – as a seminal moment in the cultural revolution? There, we were told, the evil Serbs were oppressing the saintly Kosovars. Our Armed Forces (having been forbidden to fight our actual enemies, the IRA) were ordered into action in support of the Kosovo Liberation Army, a sinister outfit of evil repute, as all serious observers knew at the time. Now, and not a moment too soon, the grisly truth about the KLA has begun to emerge, including credible stories of victims murdered, as they pleaded piteously for mercy, so that their corpses could be harvested for organs. I have no doubt that Slobodan Milosevic’s Serbia committed many evil deeds. But I did not think then that they were the only people in the Balkans who were guilty. And the crude anti-Serb propaganda which was used to bamboozle the British people into supporting the bombing of Belgrade was a dry run for the worse manipulation which took us to Baghdad. Will we learn from this that it is unwise to go to war on the basis of emotive propaganda? I doubt it.
Our gutless rulers get in a flap over one unhinged killer - but do nothing to stop 100 others
The Rapid Reaction Unit writes...
Matthew 'Twister' Parris, Dope and the Guardian, Prisons and Punishment, Bed and Breakfast accommodation, Parasites - All Human Life is Here
Sunday, 19 December 2010
Our elite and our media are always worrying about the wrong things. We fret and legislate about matters we cannot alter, and we do nothing about things we can change.
Our current governing class lacks the courage, the decisiveness or the sense to do this. It prefers the noisy pretence to the dogged and unspectacular reality. That is why it is time it was replaced.
Militants looking for trouble
Irish Republicans used to travel many miles to attend, and be offended by, the Orange Parade at Drumcree in Northern Ireland. When they got there, they would stand about for hours, making sure they were thoroughly upset by the ghastly sight of red-faced, middle-aged men hobbling by in bowler hats.
It seems to me that the law on this subject is now being used as a sword for militants rather than as a shield for the wrongly persecuted. Who wants or needs this?
A dopey day in the life of ‘Bob the Beatle’
I rather like Bob Ainsworth, a relatively straightforward man among the menagerie of slimy, fanged creatures that populates Westminster.
Does he imagine himself sitting among the Fab Four, suspended above reality atop a sweet-smelling cloud? It would explain a lot.
Kosovo, a dry run for our great Iraq disaster
The seeds of the Iraq War were sown in Kosovo.
Now that their hero Julian Assange has a) fallen victim to the European Arrest Warrant and b) is the subject of anonymous accusations of sexual assault in which there can be no indisputable evidence, can we expect the same Left suddenly to discover that these things – over which they have long been complacent – are pernicious threats to liberty and justice?
If the Irish people wish to abolish their admirable laws protecting unborn children from murder, then that is up to them. But it is no business of bureaucrats in Strasbourg calling themselves a ‘Court of Human Rights’.
I shall not be posting - apart from my Mail on Sunday column - until some days after the Feast of the Nativity (commonly called Christmas Day). In fact I doubt if I shall be posting until after the Holy Innocents’ Day, on which I hope as many of you as possible will recall with sorrow the continuing massacre of innocent unborn babies, our society’s greatest and deepest shame, and the one of which it most hates to be reminded.
As it’s not yet Christmas, but still the penitential season of Advent, I’ll save any Christmas greetings for when the twelve days have actually begun.
I hope that the coming months will see a continuing rise in the standard of discussion here. Work has begun on the promised index, which will enable us to avoid re-teaching new pupils various simple lessons, from which most contributors to this site have already benefited. I’m grateful to those who have stepped up to repeat the simple position on drugs which I have so often stated, and to rebut the ‘wot abaht alcohol, then?’ drivel, presumably taught these days in PSHE classes by dope-smoker teachers, which so many pro-cannabis contributors wearisomely repeat.
None of my critics has grasped the simple point I make about crime statistics - that by their nature they simply do not cover all matters which most sensible people regard as crimes. Therefore their claims that ‘crime has fallen’ cannot be taken as a rebuttal of my counter-claim that the general level of lawbreaking and disorder is far too high (immensely higher than at any time in modern British history), and continues to rise. Both sides here are working in the dark. Both have opinions and are entitled to them. The mistake is to claim that the opinion of the state is a fact, when it’s not. Oh, and of course I ‘have an agenda’. Who could doubt it, as I am utterly clear about it? But doesn’t the state have an agenda? Doesn’t the BBC? Doesn’t the Academy? Would that they were as clear about their ‘agenda’ as I am about mine.
Meanwhile a short message to Mr MacDougall. He may well be right that the government is very hard on car owners. But this is simply because of its unceasing desire for tax revenue, not because it wishes to discourage car use and encourage people to use other forms of transport. On the contrary, it continues in its planning to assume ever-increasing car use. If it really wanted to persecute the motorist out of his car and on to his feet, or his bicycle, or the bust, train or tram, I’d support it. But he should believe me when I say that the lot of the railway user (and the bus user, come to that) is no better. As for us cyclists, we are not fooled by a few miles of cycle lanes, so brightly painted that they are visible from the Moon, but which function mainly as car parks and which end abruptly where they are most needed.
I've placed answers to postings by Mr Charles, Mr 'Craze' and Mr Everett in the appropriate threads. I'll make responses to some other comments here.
If Mr Puhse thinks I am 'out of my depth' with cannabis, whatever that means, can he explain in what way? Otherwise I shall just conclude that he disagrees with me but is not prepared - or able - to state the grounds on which he does so.
'Malcolm' from behind a name which does not actually identify him, claims that Robin Murray, a noted professor, has been 'discredited'. This is a serious allegation. Can he please tell me when and where and by whom this alleged discrediting was done? Or I shall conclude that what he means is that he does not like what Professor Murray says. Which is not the same thing.
Doctor (of what?) Sean Thomas says: 'I am fed up with Peter Hitchens' hypocrisy (in terms of using false argumentation and sophistry), and I have a particular distaste for his use of the straw-man. He states: “The contention that self-stupefaction is a private matter with no effect beyond the individual (false in a hundred ways) is directly negated by this furious, hate-filled pressure group, which almost invariably prefers misrepresentation to debate, and abuse to argument.” Just one point for now: how is the contention (that self-stupefaction is a private matter...) “false in a hundred ways”? Since I'm feeling generous, I'm happy to give you the opportunity to provide ten distinct reasons. But 100 is nonsensical hyperbole, and deserves retraction (or at the very least, modification).'
I had not heard this definition of hypocrisy before. I thought it consisted of publicly preaching one form of behaviour while privately practising another.
If his use of language is this imprecise, one has to wonder about his doctorate in whatever it is.
Nor is the example he cites an example of the straw man, so far as I can see.
What he means is that he disagrees with me. Presumably he does not wish to say this, as he will then need to explain why. And he does not wish to do so, or is unable to do so. Easier by far to attack me instead, eh, doc?
Here are several ways in which the user of illegal drugs might have an effect on lives beyond his own.
1.Personal distress to his immediate family (I will list this as one, though it encompasses so many different griefs, disappointments, miseries and pains, from despair and loss to actual theft and violence that it really counts as dozens)
2.Disadvantage to work colleagues who have to cover for his decreased competence and diligence (accompanied by his invariable inability to recognise that they *are* decreased)
2.Disadvantage to those who suffer from the crimes he is more likely to commit, especially theft
4.Disadvantage to those who will suffer from his inattention, sloth or incompetence on the roads
5.Disadvantage to those who might suffer from the above in his workplace
6.Disruption of the education of those who are at the same educational establishment
7.Costs to society in general of his damaged health, wrecked education and diminished productivity
8. Cost to society in general in the increased need for drug testing and surveillance as drug abuse becomes more prevalent
9. Increased level of crime caused by the demoralisation of each individual who seeks stupefaction through drugs
10. Decreased liberty of law-abiding individual in areas where drug users congregate
All these factors radiate outwards in dozens of different ways into any society which tolerates drug abuse. Two other effects are the growing vociferousness and power of self-serving lobbies demanding that society be made worse to suit their greasy pleasures. Ultimately, if they are successful, we could see political parties and governments subsidised by the makers and sellers of narcotics, and find ourselves, openly or covertly, living in a corrupt narco-state. I doubt whether any of these is enough for Doctor Thomas. I wonder why that would be.
Tarquin states: 'It's a pity that you cannot prove what you say about crime figures. It may well be true, figures are fiddled, crimes are unrecorded, but without any sort of evidence aside from selective horror stories found usually in this dear publication, we have no way of knowing how bad crime is.'
I don't know about 'selective horror stories'. They are only selective in so far as they are a small minority of the huge catalogue of crimes of which newspapers are aware, which have to be increasingly horrifying and spectacular to attract the notice of national media at all. I sometimes see murder reports in my local paper so full of grisly violence that they would once have been national newspaper front page leads, but are now so commonplace that they are relegated to inside pages in provincial weeklies.
My case is that those who claim that official figures 'prove' that crime is falling are both naive and wilfully self-deluding. They misunderstand the nature of official statistics, which are not gathered or presented in a neutral fashion or with neutral purposes. And they ignore my clearly reasoned point, that by their nature they do not record a great deal which the public regard as crime.
I have also pointed out one of the major flaws in the BCS, which 'Tarquin' simply ignores.
What seems clear to me is that the experience of most people is that they are less safe in their homes or in the streets than they used to be, and that disorder of the kind I describe, which is regarded as important by its victims and as trivial by the authorities, is growing and uncontrolled.
'Tarquin' suggests: ‘How about bringing a solution to the table so we can actually find out how bad it really is?’
I'd reply that we know all too clearly how bad it is. The immediate solutions are the restoration of preventive police foot patrolling and the restoration of the principle of punishment in the justice system, backed up by a long-term restoration of the married family and parental authority in childhood. I do like that word 'restoration'. Yes, you can turn the clock back.
I refer William MacDougall to my chapter on cars and railways in 'The Cameron Delusion'.
Amazingly, there are still readers of this weblog who believe government statistics. There are two rules about such statistics, which ought to be grasped by all informed persons. One is that all politically important statistics are massaged. The other is that in socialist societies governed by utopian idealists (such as ours) most statistics are subject to what is known as the 'Bikini effect', namely that what they conceal is more interesting than what they reveal.
One such believer is Grant Price, who (as well as using the ghastly dead cliche about the 'Elephant in the Room', a cliche which ought to be shot) writes: 'The statistics clearly show the country heading in the opposite direction [to the one suggested by me]. Crime is falling, and falling significantly, and when one considers that a staggering proportion of crime is perpetrated by foreigners (thanks to Labour's incontinent immigration policy), the level of criminality amongst the British is falling even more rapidly, despite decades of “liberal” misrule.'
I'm sorry. But where do I begin? 'Recorded' crime is that which has been recorded by the police, which is to say that which the police have entered on the forms which they have to fill in. By definition, that which is recorded excludes that which is not recorded. Much modern crime is not recorded. How might a crime not be recorded? Well, one common case would be when the victim doesn't think it worth reporting. So (for example) the multiple victim of burglary on the sink estate, who probably never had insurance and certainly doesn't now, so has no need of the 'crime number' which is the sole police response to most crime these days, has no reason to report the latest, and many reasons not to. Becoming known as a 'grass' in these parts of our country is a ticket to utter misery.
Then again, the police (who long ago maximised crime figures in order to press for higher funding) now have many ways of massaging them downwards to satisfy ministers (of all parties) who currently want to claim that crime is falling.The first and easiest way of doing this is to be largely absent from the streets, to close police stations or move them to remote locations, to take a very long time to answer the phone and to be of no great help if and when they eventually do arrive at a crime scene. If people (known contemptuously by the police as 'civilians') continue to persist with the charade of calling the constabulary for crimes which the force, I mean service, regards as 'trivial', then thefts are reclassified as lost property, multiple burglaries in one building somehow appear as one crime, etc etc. Not to mention murders somehow ending up in court as manslaughter.
I agree that some figures can't be fiddled, and some aren't. Totals such as those of arrests (though these are often unobtainable) or of convictions are incontrovertible. But these do not represent accurate figures on the numbers of crimes actually committed. Even the remaining diligent and anti-crime police officers (as shown in my 'Abolition of Liberty') are justifiably reluctant to embark on the form-filling nightmare which follows an arrest. They have an incentive to avoid it.
Homicide, I suspect, has sometimes fallen absolutely as hospital trauma surgery skills have increased (and they have, enormously) and as ambulance services have grown faster and more effective, and their crews better-trained in keeping the badly-injured alive. It has certainly fallen in relation to the amount of homicidal violence taking place. Put simply, it is now much easier to make a savage attack on someone without killing him or her. I have said many times that if we still had the medical techniques of 1965, we would have an annual homicide rate far higher than it is. Many who would have died 40 years ago now survive, and their cases are classified as wounding or attempted murder. (See my book 'A Brief History of Crime'.) Bank Robbery is increasingly the resort of the unbelievably stupid, as precautions against it are now so elaborate that the chances of a successful theft are virtually nil.
Then there are those things which are perceived as crimes or as illegal disorder by many of us - mainly to do with loutish gatherings of youths in streets, the kicking of footballs against homes, other similar miseries perpetrated by the young and strong against the old and vulnerable, the feral harassment of the old or handicapped or different (see the case of Francesca Pilkington), uncontrolled public drunkenness, which in the not so distant past would have been dealt with by the police and which they now simply ignore. These are pandemic in urban areas, but almost totally unrecorded. As for the possession of drugs, I think we may be sure that the enormous number of cannabis warnings given are a fraction of the number of offences to which the police turn a blind eye, or about which they do not know because they are not specially interested in finding out.
Above all there is the increasing switch from classic crime statistics to the British Crime Survey as the main source of supposed information about this subject. The British Crime Survey is not an assembly of gathered figures, but an opinion poll with all the faults of such things, and a rather flawed one at that, specially bad at noticing crimes committed against the young, who are the principal victims of many offences. Those who wish to believe that crime (and disorder) in this country are genuinely diminishing are welcome to their belief, even though it must be hard to maintain for any but the most sequestered. But they are deluding themselves. You might equally well believe that the amount of dangerous and careless driving has diminished, when the opposite is obviously the case, or that hardly anyone ever uses a mobile phone while driving, or hardly any cyclists run red lights. Of course they do, but it goes unrestrained by authorities who have ceded the Tarmac to the motorist, and so it also goes unrecorded.
Twister Alert
How can I get it across to some readers that my pursuit of Matthew 'Twister' Parris is not motivated by personal distress, or because I am 'upset' - but by a desire to uphold truth and pursue justice, both of which have been wounded by this episode? It is the truth which has been insulted, not I.
On the matter of truth, Mr Parris twisted my words in a public place, ignored my immediate protests and my subsequent ones, and refused multiple chances to put this right in a civilised fashion. He lives by his tongue and pen, which are surely devalued by the twisting of the words of others. He also has a reputation for being a 'decent guy', 'reasonable' etc, which in my view conflicts with this behaviour.
On the pursuit of justice: Some of you may have begun to guess that the more often I mention Mr Parris's behaviour, the more references to it will find their way on to the World Wide Web, and the harder it will be for him to encounter people who are unaware of his twisting of my words. He may put this right at any time by admitting that he twisted what I said and (preferably) apologising so that I can forgive him, as I wish to do - but currently cannot.
Mr 'Richie Craze’ (really? I suppose it's possible) states: 'Perhaps you can explain what part of what Mr Parris said you said you disagree with?'
Though whether Mr 'Craze' actually reads anything here, or just imagines it all to suit his own prejudices, I don't know, given what he goes on to say, which is: 'Given that you've consistently written scornfully of homosexuals, or gays, to use the modern parlance;'
Have I so?
Perhaps Mr 'Craze' could produce examples of these 'scornful' writings.
Mr 'Craze' then adds: 'and stand in opposition to giving them equal rights (I believe you stated not too long ago that decriminalising homosexuality was as far as you would have liked the law to go)'
This on the other hand is more or less correct, though there are important qualifications about the loaded phrase 'equal rights'.
Mr Craze then lurches over a set of non-existent points on to the track he wishes to be on (a common fault in my critics, who even so seldom realise that they have become derailed) by adding: 'then surely Mr Parris's comment was merely an extrapolation of a view you do in fact hold?'
Well no, it surely wasn't - as I have been at pains to explain. I might add that it also certainly wasn't what I said or intended in the discussion at issue. Mr Parris, to his credit, has not sought to seek refuge in this dispute by the wretched excuse that this is what he thinks I meant in general (as opposed to what I actually do think) about the subject, therefore it is all right to pretend that it is what I actually said on this specific occasion, when in fact I didn't. So I advise his defenders not to do so either. It makes them look very cheap. If you say somebody said something, then it is wise to be able to show that he said it, rather than that you thought he thought it.
Bed and Breakfast
Some contributors have mentioned a curious case at Bristol County Court - once again a Bed and Breakfast run by a Christian couple seems to be the object of a mighty legal action. Wasn't the last one about Muslims being upset? This one is about homosexual rights.
There are many interesting things about this case, but what fascinates me about it (and I have yet to see any reports which answer my question) is why the homosexual couple involved chose the Chymorvah House private hotel given that there must be so many such establishments in the area? Was it personal recommendation? Did they search the web? Or what? Even if they had no idea of the hotel's policy stated upon its website ('Here at Chymorvah we have few rules, but please note that as Christians we have a deep regard for marriage (being the union of one man to one woman for life to the exclusion of all others). Therefore, although we extend to all a warm welcome to our home, our double bedded accommodation is not available to unmarried couples – Thank you.'), how did they happen upon it?
I'd also be interested to know how often they go on bed-and-breakfast seaside holidays together or singly, and when was the last time and where it was?
Just curious, I guess.
Prisons and Punishment, a 'New Parties'
Mr Everett ludicrously misrepresents an answer I gave to a question seeking examples of actions a conservative government might take which I regard as desirable and which would be against the interests of capitalism. He turns this into a programme for a 'new party'. I mentioned neither programme nor party, nor set these forward as such. Why do people do such things? There can be no new party until there is a vacancy, and the electorate showed at the last election that they did not wish to create such a vacancy, being content to be controlled by the existing social democratic political class. I have laid aside talk of political reform until it once again seems practicable. But I'm happy to discuss those things which I favour.
I do not care, by the way, that my wish to place heavy restrictions on private motor cars might make me unpopular. No worthwhile cause exists without this risk. I think the growth of private motor traffic is so damaging to civilisation, peace and beauty that I believe it is time someone addressed it directly. I am sure many others (including many involuntarily enslaved by our car-worshipping society) share this view but fear to express it.
The fact that many goods are distributed by road does not mean that they *should* do so or that no better way can be found than this filthy, destructive, dangerous, noisy method, which makes us dependent for our transport and economy upon some of the nastiest and most unstable regimes on earth.
Likewise, the fact that most car use is irrational and wasteful, and much of it dictated by town planning which creates the need for cars where none existed before, does not mean that all use of private motor vehicles is irrational. There's an excellent case for taxis, and for private cars in remote and hilly rural areas which cannot be practically reached by rail.
Oh, yes, and prisons. I'd like to repeat here a response I left on the previous thread to Mr James Staunton: 'James Staunton, in a post dripping with knowing and superior scorn, accuses me of making a “sweeping assertion” that most criminals don't reach prison until they have a long string of previous offences behind them (he then gives an oddly partial quote from what I said).
‘Try this, from the Government's own “Sentencing Statistics, England and Wales, 2009” (p.76) “Those offenders with a substantial previous criminal history are most likely to receive a custodial sentence. In 2009, 38 per cent of sentenced offenders with 15 or more previous convictions or cautions received a custodial sentence compared with 15 per cent for those with only one or two previous sanctions. Although there are a substantial number of sentenced first time offenders receiving custodial sentences, 26 per cent in 2009 compared with 18 per cent in 2000, these are offenders whose first conviction is for a relatively serious offence in contrast to the majority of offenders who have a longer criminal history of minor offences.
‘ “In 2009, seven per cent of juveniles receiving a custodial sentence had no previous criminal history compared with 10 per cent for adult offenders. For both age groups the proportion of custodial sentences given to offenders with 15 or more previous sanctions has risen steadily since 2000.”
‘The accompanying Table 6.2 backs this up. I would go into more detail, but alas the Ministry of Injustice confesses that it does not possess or tabulate statistics on this subject which address the matter more closely. I have no doubt that, were they available all figures would back up my contention. Does Mr Staunton know any better?
‘He also objects that I don't provide the Soma report, as mentioned. I had thought I'd given enough co-ordinates for anyone to find it. He might try here:
‘http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/attachements.cfm/att_53373_EN_emcdda-cannabis-mon-vol1-ch4-web.pdf’
Guardians of what?
This arose out of a brief letter I wrote to the Guardian in my defence, after Decca Aitkenhead's original article was published. The paper's comment section generously and properly offered me a little extra space in which to make my point. The response to this which came from the readers of that newspaper is very telling. Hardly a single comment actually addressed the point I make. Almost all were marinated in personal fury, resentment and loathing. It is shocking to realise that most of these people probably imagine themselves to be well-educated.
After reading these comments, I reflected that:
I didn't say I have no prejudices - of course I do, and so does any man. But I did say that I don't let them get in the way of facts, as Ms Aitkenhead and Professor David Nutt had suggested in the pages of the Guardian. To support this defence I cited evidence of scientific concern about the effects of cannabis on mental illness, a matter on which I had wrongly been accused of 'baseless alarmism'.
And I pointed out that in this case the facts were on my side, as Professor Nutt had made a statement about the treatment of cannabis possession in which he appeared to have let prejudice get in the way of the facts.
That, basically, was it. I am more and more convinced (and there is evidence of this here too) that drug abuse makes its victims angry and intolerant lobbyists for selfishness. I don't mind them disagreeing. But I am alarmed by the intolerant, censorious rage with which they attack my freedom to disagree with them. The contention that self-stupefaction is a private matter with no effect beyond the individual (false in a hundred ways) is directly negated by this furious, hate-filled pressure group, which almost invariably prefers misrepresentation to debate, and abuse to argument.
Parasites
Some points. No, I don't regard children, incapable of fending for themselves, as parasites. Nor do I regard old or sick people, who through age, accident or illness must now rely on the rest of us to care for them, as such. I reserve the term for those who could shift for themselves but prefer to rely on others, and - while doing so - sink their teeth into the hand that feeds them. I doubt whether many of those involved in the violence of recent weeks are in fact students in any serious meaning of the word.
Today I'll try to respond to some points raised since Sunday, and perhaps to one or two older issues still alive on earlier postings.
The Blair-Hitchens event in Toronto
I'm asked to comment on my brother's encounter (styled by some a 'debate') with Anthony Blair in Toronto, recently broadcast on BBC radio. Delighted as I am that the BBC (which can and often does reduce an important Parliamentary event to three jokey minutes) has taken to broadcasting debates on major issues on Radio 4, I do wonder whether the habit will last, and why this particular one made it so swiftly on to the air.
I haven't in fact heard it in full, and don't expect to, though I've read a few accounts. I have in the past watched or listened to YouTube versions of many of my brother's meetings with opponents. These were at least interesting because his opponents were in fact opponents, and in many cases also scientists or theologians of note.
But I know from long experience and observation that Mr Blair is not an intellect of any kind, knows little about anything important and speaks (with a vacuous charm that passes me by) in cliches, both mental and verbal. I've also had for some time a grave problem with his self-description as a man of faith. When his actions are questioned, on Christian grounds, by leading exponents of that faith, Mr Blair tends to assume that he is right, and to imply that, in that case, we really ought to find another Pope, Archbishop, Moderator etc. He certainly took that view on the Iraq war, and I think his views on the Church's positions on sexual politics are of a similar sort.
Which is my second reason for reluctance to bother with this occasion. I'd also place Mr Blair - who famously said in Stevenage in April 1997, days before he came to office, 'I am a modern man. I am part of the rock and roll generation—the Beatles, colour TV, that’s the generation I come from' - very much on the same side as my brother in the moral and cultural arguments of our time. Perhaps he should really have said 'Rolling Stones' rather than 'Beatles' to achieve full congruence. He would now, but at that stage he was worried about votes.
I used this quotation as the opening epigraph in the original version of my 1999 book 'The Abolition of Britain' (it's not in the new edition, which has a new and different introduction) and was recently fascinated to discover on the web an account of the Stevenage evening by that fine writer Ian Jack, in the 'Independent'. In this, it's clear that Mr Blair greatly pleased his audience by promising not to spend any money on the Royal Yacht, and by underlining his commitment to sexual liberation.
In fact, I'm quite sure that both men owe a lot of the popularity and success of their lives to being in tune with the post-1968 Age of Aquarius ethos of a whole generation of successful, prosperous and self-satisfied baby-boomers. The two men's radical interventionist, anti-sovereignty, utopian support for the Iraq War (though entirely consistent with this position) goes a little too far for most boomers, whose strong sense of their own goodness forbids them to support any sort of war. I seem to recall an occasion a couple of years ago when my brother actually took a ride in Mr Blair's armoured car, for a friendly chat about the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
But, interestingly, most of my brother's fan club are prepared to forgive and forget about Iraq, and even for his sympathy with the Blair creature, because what really matters to them is the liberation from 'old-fashioned' and 'mediaeval' and 'repressive' moral systems, which is the real foundation for 21st century militant Godlessness. And it is his espousal of that position which has propelled him into intellectual superstardom in the USA. The ditching of Christianity is, alas, an idea whose time has come among the college-educated young of the USA.
After all, the same people generally still hate and despise me (where they've heard of me), even though I opposed the Iraq war, which they also opposed. And it's my attitude towards sex, drugs and rock and roll which causes them to do so.
Whereas what passes for the conservative movement in the USA (and to some extent here) is actually much more comfortable with my brother (thanks to his enthusiastic anti-Islamism, the badge of membership of the neo-conservative movement) than it is with me, with my inconvenient insistence on domestic conservatism which they find difficult and unattractive, and my preference for actual liberty over illusory security. My opposition to mass immigration (which some of my sillier critics like to pretend I never voice) also has something to do with this.
This is most educational, and it was pondering upon it which caused me to write 'The Cameron Delusion', where these paradoxes are addressed.
I'd also say that my brother gives more or less the same speech at all these debates, whoever his opponent is. I've joked for years that there was a major problem with the sound system at our clash in Grand Rapids, which meant that the speakers could not hear what the other one was saying properly (at one point I sat on the edge of the stage trying to catch what he was saying, and it was still so difficult to hear that I pondered going to sit in the audience. I probably should have done, and stayed there). While this bothered me quite a lot, it didn't trouble him, since he would have said pretty much the same thing whatever I said, and his assembled fan club (mystified by their very recent discovery of my very existence, and none too pleased by that discovery) would have whooped with joy over it.
Like many jokes, this is founded in truth. If I hear that thing about North Korea and the Celestial Dictatorship one more time, or the one about 'Created sick and commanded to be well', my eyelashes will start to ache. One of the pleasures of our recent non-debate, rightly described as a 'conversation', in Washington DC was that neither of us was performing, and so there were one or two genuine exchanges.
So I doubt if I'll get around to listening to the whole thing. And the reason I place the word 'debate' in inverted commas is that, like many others, I wondered - when I heard about the event - who was going to be on the other side.
By the way, a few words about the votes on these occasions, under which one side or the other is said to have 'won' - often because of a large switch of votes during the evening. I am suspicious, even when I win by these rules. Very few people come to such debates with an open mind or anxious to hear the other side. The system of taking a preliminary vote (in which the voters know that they will be polled again at the end) is an invitation to the mischievous and partisan to give a false or misleading vote the first time, and follow their real inclinations at the end - thus giving a false and misleading impression of the debating powers of those involved. This is so obvious, and such an obvious trick to play, that I am amazed nobody else ever seems to even ponder it, and that such votes are taken at face value.
I'm told by someone who was present at my brother's (and Stephen Fry's) attack on the RC Church in Central Hall Westminster that the size of the pro-RC vote at the beginning was absurdly out of tune with the whole mood of the audience. Of course that 'vote' had collapsed at the end.
This is no surprise. The debate-going classes in central London are far more likely to be urban secular liberals than suburban Christians, for a thousand obvious reasons.
Drink versus Cannabis - again
Mr Steve Tracey accuses me of ‘playing fast and loose with the statistics’. He adds: ‘It may be true that more people had taken cannabis than other “hard” drugs, but that does not mean causality. I’m sure that a far higher percentage of the recently convicted had consumed alcohol or a cola type drink in the in the four weeks prior to their crime, this does not mean that it was the cause.’
Well, I object to that because I rather feel I had detected the Injustice Ministry playing fast and loose. And when I compared the Green Paper with the Ministry's own 'compendium on reoffending' I also found the following interestingly conflicting statements. The Green Paper observes that ’44 per cent of offenders assessed in 2008 had problems with alcohol misuse which may have required treatment.’
The compendium, by contrast, says when discussing the recently imprisoned that: ‘Alcohol was also a problem, but was far less widespread than drugs, with only a minority of the sample likely to be problematic alcohol users.
I've no doubt that the laxity of the licensing laws leads to more crime, and support (to the rage and derision of some 'libertarian' contributors here ) the reimposition of the 1915 licensing laws which seemed to me to work pretty well, and whose abolition has been followed by, if not wholly responsible for, the recent explosion of drunkenness on British streets.
But I've never seen why the undoubted dangers of alcohol are an argument for permitting any more intoxicating poisons. If alcohol's bad, that's surely an argument for restricting its sale as far as possible, not for legalising dope.
I'm also accused of wanting to throw all current cannabis users into prison. Those who claim this are either stupid or disingenuous. Leave aside that I have repeatedly said here that I favour a system of: First conviction - Warning that subsequent use will lead to immediate imprisonment. Second conviction - Immediate imprisonment (briefly, but under harsh and austere conditions). Third conviction - immediate imprisonment (same conditions, longer period). Etc.
A few months of this policy, effectively applied, and the use of cannabis would drop very sharply, I think. The number of people in prison for this offence would inevitably rise during the initial months, but, once it became clear that the law meant what it said, would rapidly reduce. Lawbreaking is almost invariably a rational calculation of odds, costs and benefits. Most lawbreakers are highly rational, as is demonstrated by their excellent knowledge of their legal rights on arrest.
If I am right, many other crimes would also reduce in number, once drugtaking, with its generally demoralising effects, began to decline. A fascinating paper produced by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), 'Soma, the Wootton Report and Cannabis law reform in Britain during the 1960s and 1970s', demonstrates that the use of this dangerous drug was a minor problem before the successful campaign to semi-legalise it mounted by a rich and powerful lobby (read the paper) in the late 1960s.
Now for the point about causality. I don't think even Mr Tracey contests that large numbers of lawbreakers are also abusers of illegal drugs. They may also be drinkers of cola, as he facetiously says, imagining he is clever but in fact walking straight into a Heffalump Trap of his own devising.
The fact that they are both does not mean either a) that the two things have equal effects on them (though in the case of alcohol an argument can be made, and of course many mix alcohol and cannabis) or b) that the fact that cola-drinking has nothing to do with their criminality means that cannabis use is equally irrelevant.
Why should the use of cannabis promote criminality? One, the use of such drugs is itself an immoral and selfish act, the seeking of euphoria which is undeserved by work, human love or achievement. This attempt to break the link between reward and effort is a step down the pathway to dishonesty and theft (which is permitted by the same fundamental belief - that a person has a 'right' to things for which he has not worked). Combine that with some of the effects of cannabis use, which renders its users less fit for work than others (and, I might add, less fit for work than they believe themselves to be) and you then have a baleful combination of circumstances. A self-stupefying, selfish transgressor, who has dispensed with one of the most essential moral rules of any advanced civilisation, who desires things he cannot afford and is not capable of working for the money to pay for them, nor does he believe he is required to. Bravo! What do you think might happen next?
On Parasites
My glancing blow at student demonstrators as 'parasites' has excited some harsh and angry reactions. I don't really see why. If you are not paying for your own keep, either by current work or savings from past labour, a parasite is what you are - and you ought to be aware of it and guide your actions by that knowledge.
Yes, I was a teenage parasite myself, indeed I was a parasite until I began regular paid work in September 1973. Should I, as suggested, pay back the college and university grant and fees money provided for me by postmen, coalminers, school dinner ladies and others, out of their taxes all those years ago?
Well, I am in favour of restitution where possible. Some years ago I shamefacedly returned the cutlery I had dishonestly 'borrowed' from various York University dining halls 30 years before. By putting it back I turned my initial lie into a sort of truth, but I think the lapse of time was pretty indefensible. I have one or two other outstanding debts which I have not yet found a way of paying, and some which, alas, I shall never be able to pay in this life. But I believe I have paid so much tax since I began work that I have more than covered the cost of my youthful parasitism. The essential thing is to understand that this is what it was - and still is. I was not entitled to what I was given, and I would have been a better person - and less sure of my own righteousness- if I had realised that. I hope others will make the same discovery earlier than I made it.
So what is a liberal, exactly?
Mr Powlesland complains: ‘For someone who consistently (and justifiably) complains of others misrepresenting and fabricating his views, I would submit that your simplified and stereotyped views of what “liberals” believe are the height of hypocrisy. If you do not like others ascribing opinions to you that you do not have, or misrepresenting your opinions, why do you feel it is acceptable to do the same for millions of liberals? For my own part, I consider myself a liberal and disagree with some of the views you ascribe to me.’
I think there is a sharp distinction here between ascribing views to a political and cultural tendency, and ascribing them to an individual.
Mr Powlesland also isn't very good at distinguishing his views from those I describe. For example, he cites one of my summaries of liberal opinion: ' "Q. Why can’t we simply build more prisons?
“A. Liberal answer: Because prisons are horrid, crime is caused not by human wickedness but by deprivation, and we don’t like being responsible for such a harsh system."
‘Actually, I (Mr Powlesland) believe that when we are apparently so poor that we cannot afford to educate our young people, spending billions of pounds on new prisons is not a spending priority.'
This is just shifting the question about. Priorities in spending are at the heart of real politics, and are decided by moral, social and cultural views. A person who believes a) that greater education spending means better education and b) that enforcing the law might not be as important as educating the young (for who then will protect all these educated people from violence and theft?) is making political statements. He is just making them in a cryptic way, rather less honest than I find desirable. Does Mr Powlesland truly maintain that views such as the ones I set out haven't influenced him towards his chosen spending priorities?
But there is a question here about the definition of 'liberal' which is undoubtedly troubling. It is made worse by the fact that no existing political party openly and clearly stands for election on the programme of social, moral and cultural liberalism which it actually follows. So we have to deduce their positions from their actions. What I describe as 'liberal' positions are those which seem to me to have been followed by various governments of supposedly differing parties for many years (see my book 'The Abolition of Liberty'). Note, by the way, my inclusion of Michael Howard's vacuous 'Prison Works' slogan as a liberal position. When tested, it turned out to mean that prison 'worked' solely by keeping criminals off the streets while they were inside - but not as a systematic means of imposing punishment aimed at altering future behaviour, or as a deterrent to those criminally inclined but rationally influenced into good behaviour by the realistic fear of effective retribution.
I note that a lazy Internet critic has claimed that I take the view that 'Prison works', when in fact I say the opposite. How typical of my critics, who can only sustain their assaults on my arguments by directly misrepresenting what I actually say. Which is not what I have done to Mr Powlesland.
Matthew 'Twister' Parris - latest developments
Some of you may have been disappointed that I was unable to continue my pursuit of Matthew 'Twister' Parris in my most recent column, because I devoted the whole page to one subject. So here is the latest news. Interested by what I had said, the London 'Evening Standard' approached me and Mr Parris, to ask if we would write our own accounts of the dispute, in which I maintain that Mr Parris twisted my opinions in a speech to a large London audience.
I said 'Yes'. Mr Parris said 'No'.
Posts
