_id
stringlengths 23
47
| text
stringlengths 70
6.67k
|
|---|---|
validation-education-eggrhwbfs-pro03a | Faith schools are inherently divisive. At the age at which children are sent to faith schools, they are too young to have decided their religion for themselves, and so, their parents must have decided it for them. The proposition accepts that parents have a right to decide a child’s religion on its behalf but this means that faith schools end up segregating children based on the faith that they inherit. School should be about bringing children together not segregating them. In the UK the government allows faith schools to ask for confirmation of attendance at a relevant place of worship [1] which is inherently discriminatory and divisive. Proposition believes that separating children based on what families they are born into creates communities which find it difficult to associate with people from outside their community and therefore cause massive divisions in society based on what religion people were born into. [2] [1] Directgov, “Applying for a school place: admissions criteria”, direct.gov.uk, [2] “The Churches and Collective Worship in Schools.” The Catholic Education Service. 2006. |
validation-education-eggrhwbfs-con03b | Shows submission to religion. As explained above, the proposition believes that allowing organised religion to act on behalf of the state indicates that organised religions have as much authority as the state. It is important that religious people recognise that they are answerable to the state before they are answerable to religion. Showing that religion is below the state, therefore, is actually a positive step. |
validation-education-eggrhwbfs-con01b | This is not the government’s responsibility. The government does not have a responsibility to educate a child within the exact parameters that their parents dictate. If this were true, then each individual set of parents would be allowed to pick and choose what parts of the national curriculum they wished their child to learn. |
validation-education-eggrhwbfs-con02a | Relationship with organised religion. Passing this legislation with be sending a signal to the religious groups that are running faith schools that we do not think they are capable of running schools. The state’s relationship with organised religion is already a fractured one. This legislation would cause a lot of tension between the government and religious communities within the country, as well as between the state and states which hold religion more highly. [1] [1] Gay, Kathlyn. “Church and State.” Millbrook Press. 1992. |
validation-education-eggrhwbfs-con05a | Faith schools can be necessary for a religious upbringing. Sometimes faith schools are necessary for children to get a full picture of the religion that they have been born into, particularly religions, like Islam, that are based mainly in societies unlike our own and far away from our countries. In these cases, banning faith schools is tantamount to preventing parents from bringing their children up in the faith they want them brought up in. The opposition believes that this legislation is, therefore, equivalent to depriving people of religion. [1] [1] Glenn, Charles L. “The Ambiguous Embrace: Government and Faith-based Schools and Social Agencies.” Princeton University Press. 2002. |
validation-education-eggrhwbfs-con03a | Relationship with religious people. This legislation would send a message of no confidence in religion and would be tantamount to the government condemning religion. It is wrong for government to suggest that faith schools are divisive as “the average grade awarded by Ofsted to secondary-level faith schools for promoting community cohesion was "substantially and significantly" better than the average grade awarded to community schools.” [1] This will lead to religious people feeling undermined and insulted by their government who would be attacking their faith with no justification based upon the performance of the schools. [1] Pritchard, John, “Church of England schools must serve the whole community”, guardian.co.uk, 5th May 2011, |
validation-education-eggrhwbfs-con05b | This is not the government’s responsibility. The government has a responsibility to educate and to allow its people to practise whatever religion they wish to. The government does not have a responsibility to facilitate the practise of a religion where it would cause harms to its people in other ways. Since it is outlined in the main proposition case that it would cause harms in other ways, this is over and above the responsibility of the government. |
validation-education-eggrhwbfs-con04b | Creates animosity towards religious groups. The fact that faith schools perform better than ordinary schools is an advantage only for the children who are lucky enough to attend. This causes feelings of resentment on the part of parents and children who were not of the correct faith and were, therefore, forced to go to a more poorly performing school. This resentment grows into a general feeling of animosity towards the religious group running the school and to religion in general. The proposition believes this is far more harmful in the long run than a minor reduction in quality of education for a small number of children. |
validation-education-sthwiyrs-pro07b | Year-round schooling will probably mean increased administrative costs, as well as ensuring that overheads such as catering, heating and security have to be paid year-round rather than for just part of the year, as at present. [1] Education funding in many countries has been under pressure for many years, and most schools have explored all sorts of ways of maximising the effective use of their resources and facilities. The best solution to strains on resources is to make more money available to schools, not to stretch them ever thinner. [1] Richmond, Emily. “Year Round School Could Face Calendar Shift”, Las Vegas Sun, 16th March 2010. |
validation-education-sthwiyrs-pro05b | It is certainly true that children from disadvantaged families do not do as well as their luckier peers, but it is not clear why changing the pattern of school attendance will change this. The overall proportion of the year spent away from school will not change, so there is no reason to believe that year-round schooling will benefit students whose homes and families do not provide a positive learning environment [1] . [1] Newland, Christopher, “Letter to Auburn School Board”, 20th October 1998. |
validation-education-sthwiyrs-pro04b | Again, there is nothing intrinsic to year-round schooling that makes it easier for families with several children. A single mother who struggles with young children will not be any better off having to take care of their children every six weeks instead of six months. Year-round schooling is unlikely to be applied in exactly the same way in different schools, and different classes or groups of students may well be on different timetables – thus, parents may find themselves having to take care of children almost year-round rather than having time off, as at present. |
validation-education-sthwiyrs-pro04a | Year-round learning can help reduce the burden on parents. For many parents, particularly those with more than one child, summer vacations can be a stressful and difficult time. Without the structure provided by school attendance, children become bored easily and parents struggle to cope. This is especially true for mothers who may be bringing up children without a father present, or those who wish to continue or resume their careers after the first few years of motherhood; trying to combine a full-time job with the rigours of motherhood is hard but trying to do so during a three month school holiday is almost impossible. Year-round schooling makes such a work-life balance easier for young parents and allows women to return to the workplace on their own terms. [1] [1] Schulte, Brigid, “The Case For Year-Round School”, Washington Post, June 7th 2009. |
validation-education-sthwiyrs-con03a | Damaging to extra-curricular activities. A lot of extra-curricular activities take place during summer holidays. Summer camps, trips abroad - even debating competitions. Summer holidays are a sensible time to hold such activities, partly due to the weather but also because different regions or school boards often have different vacation schedules and summer is the only time when students are all likely to have free time. Year-round schooling would reduce the opportunities for such activities. Some families use long holidays to arrange extra tuition in certain subjects, either as remedial education or to give their children an advantage [1] . Year-round schooling would make it harder for families who wish to exercise this choice, too. [1] “Summer School”, US Education Commission of the States, 2011. |
validation-education-sthwiyrs-con01a | Places unfair burden on students. Many children don’t enjoy school. Even those who do still look forward to summer holidays as a time when they can relax and stop worrying about work for a while. And for some students, school life is difficult in other ways – social awkwardness or bullying being a common problem. Taking away summer holidays would mean that students have to work hard year-round, and short small breaks don’t offer the chance to relax as a proper summer holiday does. For those who dislike school, year-round schooling would mean year-round stress and unhappiness. [1] [1] “Academic Performance Top Cause Of Teen Stress”, Associated Press, 23rd August 2007. |
validation-education-sthwiyrs-con02b | Year-round schooling will increase costs in some areas but more than offset these with efficiency savings in other areas (see argument 7, above). It makes no sense for buildings to sit idle for a third of the year. As for the argument about air-conditioning, this is only an issue in some countries round the world; in many others it would not be an issue. |
validation-education-shwmsems-con02a | Sex education damages the education system Sex education damages the education system by confusing the children and by alienating some parents. When children receive mixed signals from home and at school they can suffer real confusion. When parents tell their children that the teacher is wrong about sex, it causes the student to raise his mental defences toward the school thereafter and become less engaged in the process of education. [1] Children will be told by their parents, and will thus come to believe, that the school is promoting a liberal view that is fundamentally contrary to their own. For example, a Muslim girl will find schooling a horrific and alienating experience if she is forced to attend a sex education class that conflicts with her faith as this will be clashing with what she has been taught at home. This will alienate the parents of these children who hold the view that discussion of sex in such a framework is morally repugnant. [1] Pogany, Sex Smart, 1998 |
validation-politics-ghbfsabun-pro01a | Federal states are economically stronger Federal states are able to remove trade barriers between members which would otherwise exist if there were independent states (such as difficulties in moving goods due to borders). This increases internal trade and economic growth and encourages investors.1 Federal units are able to share resources and concentrate on producing what they are best at (called comparative advantage) at a better economy of scale. Even in cases of agreed free trade areas between states, there is no overarching authority to ensure timely compliance to agreements.2Finally, larger economic units are more able to influence international trade regimes.3 1 EU Business, 2007, 'EU Single Market- benefits,' Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, 2007, 'Guide to Benefits of the EU,' 2 BBC , 2011, 'US and Mexico end cross-border trucking dispute 3 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2010, 'Federalism |
validation-politics-ghbfsabun-pro01b | Free trade areas are able to operate quite successfully even if they lack an overarching authority and full integration of currencies, such as NAFTA.1 Economic homogenisation is not necessarily a good thing. Common currencies are best deployed in Optimal Currency Area, which are areas with sufficiently similar economies that a common currency can successfully function. Problems exist where there is a lack of political capital between nations in a federation or when there are logistical barriers (such as the different languages within the EU or the differing strength of public finances).2 There is no reason why federal states are required for comparative advantage to exist, though economies of scale could be less. 1 Office of the United States Trade Representative, 2004, 'NAFTA: A Decade of Success,' . 2 Wikipedia , 2011, 'Optimal Currency Are |
validation-politics-ghbfsabun-con03b | Often decisions are forced on states by powerful neighbours. Examples include the South African policy of dumping crops in neighbouring states, Russia's brief war with Georgia and the United States' treatment of Latin America.1 Under the proposition they at least have the ability to influence and challenge decisions that are being made.2 There are also the comparative benefits of being within the federal state, detailed in the Proposition section. 1 'A Good neighbour? South Africa forcing GM maize onto African markets and policy makersACB Briefing Paper p. 14 'The Russia-Georgia war, three years onThe Economist 'Bullying Latin AmericaQuarterly Americas 2 'FederalismSection 3.1, Stanford |
validation-politics-ghbfsabun-con01b | The comparative situation is that of a resource rich region being surrounded by aggressive neighbours which desire its resources. Weak states are usually incapable of defending their borders and thus fall victim to invasion and occupation (such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo).1 Long term control by a federal state is preferable to repeated violence and conflict as outside forces move in and out of the region. Moreover, being part of a federal state ensures that there is only one party attempting to control the region rather than multiple competing governments which are likely to bring long term violence. Finally, there is the other side to the opposition's case. By being part of a federal state, there is international pressure for members of that resource rich federal unit to have something in return and for their state to adequately look after them. 1 Consultancy Africa Intelligence, 2010, 'Security Situation in the DRC: A case of a weak state leaning on the UN,' |
validation-politics-ghbfsabun-con04a | Federal States often have persistent losers. Within federal states, some federal units are often persistently weaker within the state that others and thus have to repeatedly accommodate (this links to the argument above).1 In countries such as Nigeria, resource rich parts of the country are consistently used by the rest of the country as a source of wealth with insufficient investment in return.2 1 Centre for European Economic Research, 2011, 'Poor States, Rich Federal Government- Winners and Losers of the Emissions Trading Scheme,' Houseofnames.com, 'German Unification,' 2 Tai Ejibunu, Hassan. 'Nigeria's Niger Delta Crisis: Root Causes of Peacelessness.' European University Center for Peace Studies Research Papers. 07. 2007. |
validation-politics-ghbfsabun-con01a | It is harder to deal with internal repression than the invasion of another sovereign state. Federal states offer convenient guises for the exploitation of resource rich areas or areas of strategic importance. The Niger Delta is used by the Nigerian government to provide oil wealth that is insufficiently invested in the Delta leading to insurgencies1. The Nigerian government is able to remove international pressure to reform by allying itself with UN principles of non-intervention in sovereign states which is only rarely overridden in cases of serious, systemic and widespread human rights abuses when 'all peaceful means have failed'.2 In reality, this gives government's considerable leeway to commit abuses within their own territory. If the Niger Delta were a separate country, there would be much more political capital to ensure it was appropriately treated and a stronger legal basis to hold Nigeria to account. 1 Tai Ejibunu, Hassan. 'Nigeria's Niger Delta Crisis: Root Causes of Peacelessness.' European University Center for Peace Studies Research Papers. 07. 2007. 2 United Nations, 'An Agenda for Peace: Preventative Diplomacy, peacemaking and peace-making,' |
validation-politics-ghbfsabun-con04b | This point ignores the fact that weak federal units would make weak states unable to protect their interests anyway. Mississippi would have very little global influence if it were not in the USA. Within the USA it gains the benefit of collective bargaining. Weaker federal units together are more powerful than apart and have the protection of more powerful units in global diplomacy. |
validation-politics-ghbfsabun-con02b | Compromise is not necessarily a bad thing; it prevents federal units from selecting extreme policies which could harm minority groups.1Moreover, the devolved power structure of federal states means that the decisions which have to be collective are normally in areas of collective interest, for example defence, where there is a "whole" which should have preference over individual federal units. Whilst different levels of federal arrangements will have different interests, this reflects their different functions and prevents any one function from being overridden completely. Finally, this argument ignores the comparative which includes the benefits of federation to the constituent units 1 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2010, 'Federalism,' |
validation-politics-glvhwetleb-pro02b | People are not stupid. They will not vote for someone who is using the powers of the executive to enrich himself. Rather, leaders will only be able to stay in power so long as they do what the people want. If leaders are maintaining their power by other means, such as institutionalized corruption and force, it is not because there are no term limits on the leader, but rather because of other fundamental problems of government in those states, in such cases as with Chavez the executive will have enough power simply to override the imposed term limits. [1] [1] Shifter, Michael. 2011. “If Hugo Goes”, ForeignPolicy.com, 28th June 2011, Available: |
validation-politics-glvhwetleb-pro03b | Voters will choose the leader they think will do the best job, if this is the incumbent then that is democracy. Election machines and lobby groups may be able to help an incumbent somewhat, but at the end of the day the leader must be able to convince the people that he has done a good job and is still suitable to lead. As to the issue of countries like Zimbabwe, if the people want to keep electing a revolutionary hero, that is their choice. The overruling of election results, as occurred in the most recent Zimbabwean election, however, is not democratic and thus unacceptable for a mature state. Mugabe’s ability to flaunt the will of the people was not due to a lack of term limits, however, but on an inadequate separation of powers inherent in the system. [1] Adding term limits to that system, and indeed any system, will do little to redress imbalances between branches of government. The case of Vladimir Putin is similarly instructive, despite stepping down after his second term, he thereafter took the office of Prime Minister and maintained effective power. Term limits are no barrier to those determined and popular enough to hang on to power. [1] Jones, Charles and Bruce MacLaury. 1994. The Presidency in a Separated System. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. |
validation-politics-glvhwetleb-pro01a | The executive branch of government, having no countervailing voices to the leader s’ within it, must be checked by limiting tenancy in office. Term limits are a necessary check on executive power to prevent an over mighty executive. Whereas the legislature and judiciary are composed of many competing views, with members of various parties and outlooks represented, the executive of a country speaks with a single voice. In legislatures, party leaders are not the sole sources of power, with factions and alternative nexuses of influence forming throughout that branch of government. [1] Executive power, on the other hand, rests solely in the hands of the leader, usually a president. The leader has full power over the policies of the executive branch of government. Cabinets, which form part of the executive in practice, are usually directly answerable to the leader, and ministers can be dismissed if they are uncooperative or dispute the leader’s policies. Even in parliamentary systems, leaders with a majority and a strong party whip can command the same powers as a strong president, if not more. It is thus necessary to have a check on the highly individual power that is the executive. Term limits are the best such check. Term limits allow leaders to enact their policies over a set time period and then usher them out of office. [2] This is essential, because too much power in the hands of a single individual for too long can upset the balance of power in a country and shift power in favour of the executive, thus damaging the protections to society that checks provide. This is exactly what happened in the United Kingdom under Tony Blair where from the start cabinet government virtually disappeared Former Cabinet Secretary Lord Butler said “In the eight months I was cabinet secretary when Tony Blair was prime minister, the only decision the cabinet took was about the Millennium Dome,” [3] and power continued to be ever more centralized in response to terrorism. [1] Jones, Charles and Bruce MacLaury. 1994. The Presidency in a Separated System. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. [2] Chan, Sewell. 2008. “Debating the Pros and Cons of Term Limits”. New York Times. Available: [3] Press Association. 2007. “Blair cabinet ‘took one decision in eight months’”, guardian.co.uk, 29th May 2007, Available: |
validation-politics-glvhwetleb-pro01b | Leaders may have a single view and be the sole centre of power in the executive branch, but that does not mean the leader’s remaining in office will somehow shift power away from the other branches. The separation of powers is constitutionally protected in most countries, and leaders’ powers will be circumscribed by these whether term-limited or not. In the example of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown while Blair was centralizing power in Number 10 Brown at the Treasury always had an independent voice and enough power to prevent the prime minister getting his way on domestic policy. |
validation-politics-glvhwetleb-pro04b | A leader who is term-limited suffers from the effects of being a lame duck. A final term leader will not be able to command the same degree of leverage as one who can potentially serve another term. Furthermore, as to lobby-group support, a leader on the way out who cannot seek another term has an incentive to favour groups and firms that will place him on their boards, a potentially highly lucrative retirement package for leaders, paid for often at the expense of the public. |
validation-politics-glvhwetleb-pro03a | Term limits check the power of incumbency as an election-winning tool and allow new and energetic leaders and ideas to flourish. Incumbency provides a huge election advantage. Leaders and politicians generally, almost always win re-election. Such has been the case in the United States, for example, where presidents are almost always re-elected for a second term. Leaders are re-elected because they have better name recognition both with the electorate and with lobby groups. People have a tendency to vote for those who they recognize, and firms tend to support past winners who will likely continue to benefit their interests. This problem has become particularly serious in developing world in which revolutionary leaders from the original independence movements are still politically active. These leaders often command huge followings and mass loyalty, which they use to maintain power in spite of poor decisions and corruption in many cases. Such has been the case in Zimbabwe with Robert Mugabe winning presidential elections in spite of mass corruption and mismanagement. [1] Only recently have the people finally voted against him, but it was too late, as his power had become too entrenched to unseat him. The uphill battle that will always exist to unseat incumbents makes term limits necessary. Countries need new ideas and new leaders to enact them. Old leaders using election machines to retain power do their country a disservice. Power is best used when it changes hands over time in order allow for dynamic new solutions to be mooted in a changing world. [1] Meredith, Martin. 2003. Mugabe: Power and Plunder in Zimbabwe. Oxford: Oxford University Press. |
validation-politics-glvhwetleb-con01b | Term limits protect democracy. While people may not be able to vote for a leader again who has reached his limit of service, they can still vote for a continuation of his policies by voting for his chosen successor or for his political party’s candidate. Limiting individual leaders to specified terms, however, prevents them from becoming too powerful and damaging the democratic system of checks and balances. |
validation-politics-glvhwetleb-con03a | A strong, consistent executive may be desirable in many cases. Continuity and experience in leadership has real value. Experienced hands can be best for navigating the often-treacherous waters of politics, and such experience is especially necessary in the executive. Furthermore, the prospect of future tenure gives incumbent leaders the leverage to get things done. When there are no term limits, lame duck leaders are generally eliminated. The status quo undermines the ability of last-term leaders to act effectively, since members of the other branches of government, and the public, know they are on the way out and thus lack the same ability to enact policy. [1] Eliminating term limits allows leaders to make the most of every term they serve to enact policy. It also allows leaders to focus on long-term projects that might take more than the time allotted to them by their term limits. When considering the ascension of new leaders, it is necessary to consider that they will always take some time acclimating themselves to their new office, time that is thus not put to efficient use in governing. Constant changing of leadership brought about by term limits serves only to exacerbate this problem. In other words, leadership is like anything else—one gets better with experience. Additionally, lobbyists and powerful legislators will more easily exploit amateurish newcomers to leadership. Naiveté on the part of new leaders who are unused to the system will leave them vulnerable and exploitable. Continuity in leadership is especially important in times of crisis. For example, the United States needed the continuity and strength of Franklin Roosevelt during Great Depression, and later during World War II. Americans were willing to break with the tradition of presidents serving only two terms of office for the sake of that leadership. [2] Clearly, it is better to have a tried and tested leader in times of struggle than a potentially disastrous, untested newcomer. [1] Green, Eric. 2007. “Term Limits Help Prevent Dictatorships”. America.gov. Available: [2] Jones, Charles and Bruce MacLaury. 1994. The Presidency in a Separated System. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. |
validation-politics-glvhwetleb-con04b | A leader who has to constantly concern himself with re-election is likely to be far more beholden to special interest groups and lobbyists than one who is term-limited. While a term-limited leader may suffer to a degree from lame duck status, the need to continuously seek electoral support is far more damaging to the ability to do what is right for the nation. Leaders who are not term-limited will spend more time doing what is popular than what is necessary. It is far better to have a leader who has only a limited time to enact the policies he envisions, so that he actively seeks to implement his vision. Furthermore, reducing the incentive to pander to self-interest groups in one’s final term can be achieved through offering good retirement benefits to ex-leaders, including international jobs. [1] [1] Ginsburg, Tom, James Melton and Zachary Elkins. 2011. “On the Evasion of Executive Term Limits.” William and Mary Law Review. Available: |
validation-politics-pggsghwip-pro02a | Women must gain positions in Parliament quickly as they would raise awareness about 'less important' issues such as family and employment rights Whilst is it possible for men to speak on women's issues, some topics of debate (e.g. on family issues or equality in the workplace) are still seen as less important than economics or foreign policy. Creating more female MPs would encourage more debates about social policy, and so do more to produce constructive legislation of relevance to real people's lives. For example, Harriet Harman is the first MP to seriously confront the gaps in the treatment of women and other minorities in the workplace1. This was previously seen as a 'soft' issue unworthy of parliamentary attention; she was more in touch with women's (and, of course, many men's) priorities and acted upon them. If we want our political system to be in touch with the priorities of everyone, we must to act to increase women's representation. 1 'Harman pushes discrimination plan', BBC, 26th June 2008 |
validation-politics-pggsghwip-pro03b | Representative democracy is there to represent the interests of every sector of the population, which may be done without MPs visibly being strictly representative. To ensure parliament exactly reflects society's demographic makeup is impossible. Besides, how can we be sure that by increasing numbers of women, women's views will be any better represented?1 By allowing political parties to fix these election shortlists, it may prevent constituencies from voting for the candidate they feel best represents their views. True, legislation plays a role in the formation of attitude but any legislation that seeks to restrict a people freedom of choice is an affront to the very pillar of democracy where freedom of choice is a must. 1 'All-women shortlists: a route to equality?' by Mediocre Dave, Dreaming Genius, 9th June 2011 |
validation-politics-pggsghwip-pro01b | A true role model has to be admired. Encouraging more women to stand for election should not be about 'making up numbers': women are extremely capable of becoming elected without help from male party leaders. Shirley Chisholm, in a famous speech on gender equality to Congress in Washington, U.S., on 21st May 1969, aired a similar sentiment: "women need no protection that men do not need. What we need are laws to protect working people, to guarantee them fair pay, safe working conditions, protection against sickness and layoffs and provision for dignified, comfortable retirement. Men and women need these things equally. That one sex need protection more than the other is a male supremacist myth as ridiculous and unworthy of respect as the white supremacist myth that society is trying to cure itself of at this time"1. Apportioning a quota of seats for women or all-women shortlists will be a patronising implication that women cannot succeed off the back of their own merits, and that men are innately superior. This does not create inspirational role models. 1 Full transcript of speech, 'Equal Rights for Women' by Shirley Chisholm: |
validation-politics-pggsghwip-pro03a | Parliament must be representative of our society and that requires a substantial increase in the number of women which only positive discrimination can achieve In a 'representative' democracy it is vital that every part of the population be accurately and proportionately represented. The present lack of female voices in parliaments across the world symbolises the continuing patriarchal societal bias. Women are over half of the population, yet less than 20% of the House of Commons is made up of women. As of 2011, there are only 72 women (constituting 16.6% of all Representatives) serving in the House of Representatives in the US. In order to truly have a representative government, numbers must be increased to fairly mirror numbers in society. All women shortlists and other artificial means are a quick and effective way of doing this. Even David Cameron, a traditional opponent to positive discrimination for women, when asked whether a meritocracy was more desirable, said "It doesn't work"; "we tried that for years and the rate of change was too slow. If you just open the door and say 'you're welcome, come in,' and all they see is a wave of white [male] faces, it's not very welcoming"1.Indeed, a recent report by the Hansard Society2 said that the numbers of women in UK Parliament could fall unless positive action is taken3. Sarah Childs, launching the report, said that "unless all parties use equality guarantees, such as all-women shortlists, it is most unlikely that they will select women in vacant seats" 3. Compulsion is necessary to begin to achieve parity of representation4. The Labour party used all-women shortlists in the 1990's and many well-known female MPs were elected this way. Positive action is vital for reasons of justice and fairness. 1 'David Cameron: I will impose all-women shortlists' by Rosa Prince, The Telegraph, 18th February 2010 2 The Hansard Society 3 'All-women shortlists a must, says report' by Oliver King, The Guardian, 15th November 2005 4 'Call for all-women shortlists' by David Bentley, The Independent, 11th January 2010 |
validation-politics-pggsghwip-con02a | Artificial increases in numbers of women are not necessary, as there are other, less intrusive, alternatives to increase visibility of women in politics Positive discrimination is an extremely heavy-handed way of increasing the numbers of women in parliament. Women should of course have the same opportunities for participation in politics (and other male-dominated institutions should as business) as men; but they should not have more; Ann Widdecombe has argued that female campaigners, such as the Suffragettes, "wanted equal opportunities not special privileges"1. Many believe that other empowerment programs, such as education, would be much more effective for creating equal opportunities and create less controversy which could end up being counter-productive for the cause. Statistically, 1 billion people in the world are illiterate; two thirds of them are women2. Education is the most crucial tool to give women the same opportunities of men, particularly in developing countries. That will insure that women too are participating in the governance of their countries. It is also important to note that the situation is improving across the world on its own. Canada elected a record 76 candidates in the 2011 election, up from 69 the previous election3. Nordic countries average around 40% women candidates, which is about the ideal given that competency must be taken into account and 50-50 is unlikely4. Even in Iraqi elections, all political parties had to submit lists of candidates where every third person was a woman; this guarantees at least 25% of all elected delegates are women4. The numbers of women in power are also increasing: 20 countries currently have a female leader5, and to that list must be added Thailand who recently elected Yingluck Shinawatra as prime minister6. With this rate of change, equality will be achieved fairly quickly and the controversy and heavy-handedness of positive discrimination is not necessary. It may even be detrimental to the cause. 1 'All women shortlists', Wikipedia 2 'Women and Literacy', SIL International 3 'Record number of women elected' by Meagan Fitzpatrick, CBC News, 3rd May 2011 4 'Women's representation worldwide', Fairvote 5 'Female World Leaders Currently in Power' 6 'Thailand: Yingluck Shinawatra wins key election', BBC, 3rd July 2011 |
validation-politics-pggsghwip-con03a | Positive discrimination for women is discrimination Merely glossing 'positive' discrimination does not hide the fact that it is still discrimination. The Labour Party's policy in the 1990s of discriminating in favour of women in selecting candidates for parliament was rightly found to be in breach of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 as it disadvantages potential male candidates1. The law may have been changed, but the principle of the objection remains and all-women shortlists are only legal until 20152which demonstrates a level of uncertainty and reservation about its true legality. Equality is enough to compensate for past unfairness. MPs should be the best on offer, and the one chosen freely by constituents, otherwise this is not democracy. All-Women shortlists seem to, in some ways, detract from the purpose of having elections if candidate lists are restricted. 1 'All women shortlists', Wikipedia 2 'Election bill will make all-women shortlists legal' by Marie Woolf, The Independent, 18th October 2001 |
validation-politics-pggsghwip-con01a | All-women shortlists or quotas restrict a constituent's freedom of choice Article 21 of the Human Rights Act, clauses 1 and 3, state that "everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives and the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedure". Candidates on all-women shortlists would not be freely chosen by constituents but imposed upon them. Some constituencies would have all-women shortlists, and some wouldn't, and this would be completely arbitrary; people's choice of candidate would vary immensely according to where they live, and this is undemocratic. By allocating a specific number of seats to women in parliament parties would be infringing this universal law which will impact upon the fundamental human rights of the voters. |
validation-politics-pggsghwip-con04b | If people feel that a woman has been appointed simply for her gender rather than for her talents, then this will damage rather than enhance the status of female MPs1: they will, many argue, become simply "token women"2. Many leading female MPs oppose all-women shortlists on a matter of principle. Ann Widdecombe claims they are "an insult to women": she said, "Neither Margaret Thatcher nor I needed this kind of help to get into Parliament"3. At a different time, Ann Widdecombe has said: "The concept of merit is going out of the window. I don't care whether an MP is male or female, black or white, rich or poor, old or young. What matters is the merit they bring. We really cannot have targets for particular categories. It's frankly insulting because it suggests women and ethnic minorities cannot get there on their own merit"4. Whether it is true that a lesser-able candidate gets an easier ride in on all-women shortlists, the fact remains that people will perceive that as having been the case. This may result in their views being taken less seriously than MPs elected in an open ballot, and this is not democratic. It is far better than women fight their way in and are respected once they are in parliament. 1 'Women-only shortlists are a patronising stunt |
validation-politics-pggsghwip-con02b | Other options will not have a large enough or fast enough impact on the state of politics. Most women have found that "Even where women have indicated willingness and self-confidence to stand for public office, their efforts had been thwarted by male dominated and administrative structures"1. Certainly women must be empowered through education and other such indirect methods, but that is not enough alone to increase female MPs. Shortlists and quotas are a necessary step to raise the profile of women in politics, and would only be needed up until the point where their representation is equal without this. Education is a crucial part of a long-term strategy, but we also need short term impetus. Positive discrimination gives women a temporary platform from where they can make a difference for generations to come. 1 'Director calls for affirmative action for women into leadership positions', Modern Ghana, 19th December 2006 |
validation-politics-dhwdtnw-pro05a | All countries have an inherent right to self-defense even when they lack the capacity to do so with conventional weapons. States, as the building blocks of international society, have an inviolable right to self-defense, and this right extends to the possession of miniature, tactical nuclear weapons. Often states lack the capacity to defend themselves with conventional weapons. This is particularly true of small and poor states. Even wealthy, small states are susceptible to foreign attack, since their wealth cannot make up for their lack of manpower. When armed with tactical nuclear weapons, all states become equal in terms of capacity to do harm to one another. If a large state attempts to intimidate, or even invade a smaller neighbor, it will be unable to effectively cow it, since the small state will have the power to severely damage, or even destroy, the would-be invader's military capacity with a few well-placed miniature nuclear missiles [1]. An example of this is the 2008 invasion of Georgia by Russian troops, which would likely never have occurred had Georgia possessed an arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons, as Russia would have thought twice when considering that its large tank formations could be wiped out by a single well-placed tactical warhead. Clearly, nuclear weapons serve in many ways to equalize states irrespective of size, allowing them to more effectively defend themselves. [1] The Economist. 2011. “A Rivalry that Threatens the World”. The Economist. Available: |
validation-politics-dhwdtnw-pro04b | The unwillingness of the United States and Russia to give up tactical nuclear weapons shows some of the hypocrisy running through the New START. The treaty should make an effort to eliminate nuclear weapons completely, not just some. Furthermore, tactical nuclear weapons are more dangerous than their larger strategic counterparts because they are much smaller, and thus lend themselves to actually be used, which raises serious risks of escalation. |
validation-politics-dhwdtnw-pro04a | The feeling of security generated by possession of tactical nuclear weapons will give states the political will to decommission standing nuclear arsenals. Development and deployment of tactical nuclear weapons can be viewed as a suitable replacement for the thousands of strategic nuclear missiles and launchers being decommissioned as part of the recently ratified New START between Russia and the United States, which represents a major step toward non-proliferation of strategic nuclear weapons. The treaty exempts tactical nuclear weapons by omitting them from the language of the treaty, including as yet undeveloped miniature warheads, as both the United States and Russia have come to see the possession and deployment of tactical nuclear weapons as key to their national security. Replacing large numbers of strategic nuclear weapons with a smaller quantity of lower capacity tactical weapons marks a major movement away from proliferation of potentially world-destroying weaponry. Furthermore, the movement from proliferation of unusable strategic weapons to tactically viable, smaller nuclear weapons can be used as a means of allaying the fears of citizens in the United States, Russia, and other countries pursuing policies of non-proliferation that their countries nuclear defenses are not only still viable, but more practicable. |
validation-politics-dhwdtnw-con03b | Safeguards can be put in place to ensure that power over nuclear weapons is not devolved too far. Central control of launch codes, for example, can allow dispersed deployment and tactical control, without compromising the overall strategic security of the weapons. Furthermore, in the case of Pakistan, it seems more likely that its deployment of tactical nuclear weapons will simply serve as an additional deterrent to potential Indian incursions into the country. It is Pakistan's right to defend itself by whatever means available to it, tactical nuclear weapons included. |
validation-politics-dhwdtnw-con04a | The development of tactical nuclear weapons by one state would lead to a new global arms race. When one state develops a new military technology that could potentially tip the strategic balance in its favor, other countries are quick to take notice and to attempt to develop the technology themselves. During the Cold War, the nuclear arms race between the United States and Soviet Union reached a fever pitch, with both states spending vast quantities of money and resources to build newer, deadlier, and ever more plentiful nuclear arsenals. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, however, the nuclear arms race has been at low ebb. Recent moves by the United States, as well as Russia and China, to develop newer, smaller nuclear weapons, as well as to open discussion of tactical application of such weapons outside the paradigm of MAD, however, threaten to bring the nuclear arms race into the 21st century1. If nuclear weapons begin to permeate the tactical decisions of states, from use in bunker-busting to destroying armor formations, they will cease to hold the special power of fear that has kept them from ever being employed in combat since World War II. A race to develop easier to use, less accountable weapons, while eroding the taboo against their use, spells a recipe for disaster. 1 Jervis, Robert. 2001. "Weapons Without Purpose? Nuclear Strategy in the Post-Cold War Era". Foreign Affairs. |
validation-politics-dhwdtnw-con03a | The way tactical nuclear weapons need to be deployed control of their use is devolved to field commanders, vastly increasing the probability that in the event of conflict they would be used. Tactical nuclear weapons are much smaller than their strategic counterparts, and are designed to be deployed in higher numbers and nearer the enemy. This reality has a number of very negative consequences when considering the likelihood of nuclear war. First, control over tactical nuclear weapons is necessarily devolved to field commanders, since they control both the warheads and delivery systems for the weapons deployed near the enemy. This necessarily increases the likelihood of trigger-happy commanders using nuclear weapons, and little practical means of stopping them. Second, because of their deployment positions, should an enemy make an incursion into a country's territory, its tactical nuclear weapons batteries could risk capture by the invader. This generates a "use them or lose them" problem, and when coupled with the fact that the weapons are under the direct control of individual field commanders, the weapons might well be used. The result would likely be rapid escalation of hostilities, and possibly full-scale nuclear war. In Pakistan, for example, tactical nuclear weapons have been deployed and war games practiced for the eventuality of an Indian invasion (The Economist, 2011). The risks of war and of nuclear holocaust are only raised by tactical nuclear weapons. 1 The Economist. 2011. "A Rivalry that Threatens the World". The Economist. |
validation-politics-dhwdtnw-con01a | Tactical nuclear weapons are very expensive to design and build, yet will likely have no new strategic value. Countries have spent many billions of dollars developing tactical nuclear weapons in recent decades in the hope of maintaining their positions as nuclear powers with access to a whole range of terrifying weapons. However, little real applicability exists for most of these weapons. Weapons such as the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP), being developed in the United States at enormous cost, is designed to burrow deep underground to destroy enemy bunkers, yet it is as yet unusable, since the weapon cannot as yet burrow even a tenth of the distance underground necessary to prevent considerable radioactive fallout in the area surrounding the blast site1. In fact, many scientists say the weapon is a chimera and will never be capable of doing what it is meant to without risking huge collateral damage. Furthermore, it is unlikely that many states would consider the use of nuclear weapons appropriate, regardless of size. This international taboo should be considered a positive step toward peace, and not be tampered with by overzealous governments seeking strategic advantage. Overall, tactical nuclear weapons will likely prove to be little more than expensive dust-gatherer in most cases. 1 Union of Concerned Scientists. 2005. "Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator". |
validation-politics-dhwdtnw-con02b | MAD is not an effective means of maintaining world security. It relies upon states being too afraid to ever attack one another with nuclear weapons, but the risk of one doing so remains, irrespective of the doctrine. It has too many inherent risks and raises the very real chance, as weapons amass and proliferate, of their being used1. At the same time, should a nuclear weapon be used by a rogue state against another country, that country must have some means of retaliation. The problem is that the weapon likely to be used in such an attack will be crude and incapable of doing the sort of damage that a refined nuclear weapon of the Western nuclear powers could. This makes the question of what constitutes a proportional response difficult to answer. Should North Korea, for example, ever be able to attack the United States or its allies with nuclear weapons, its crude missiles will warrant a response, but quite possibly not a strategic nuclear missile-sized response. For this reason, the development of smaller, more versatile nuclear weapons makes these strategic considerations easier to manage, and allows for a range of responses left unavailable by the current blunt instrument of strategic nuclear missiles. 1 Sagan, Scott D. 1993. The Limits of Safety: Organizations, Accidents, and Nuclear Weapons. Princeton: Princeton University Press. |
validation-politics-pgvhwlacc-pro03b | Even under the most radical proposals for reform, loopholes will exist and enable candidates to spend more or reach their audiences through alternative means. This was precisely the kind of development which led reformers to want to close the soft-money loophole. As with the tax system, the more elaborate the regulation, the more obscure and distorting the ways that are adopted to get around it. There is actually a higher turnover in public office than some critics of the present campaign finance systems would like to admit. Retirements, scandals, and careful allocation of party resources make turnover possible under a variety of scenarios. Turnover also has significant negative effects, as critics of term limits have pointed-out. The more often new officeholders begin their jobs the steeper the "learning curve" for a new Congress or other legislative body becomes. Moreover, the effect for challengers could be different. Finance limitations benefit the most popular candidates who already have a large base of support. Political minorities, newcomers, and outcasts will find it difficult to reach enough people to raise the money they need through many small contributions. The financial limitations further limit the possibilities for such campaigns in the future. |
validation-politics-pgvhwlacc-pro05a | Anonymity increases the distortive effects of money in American politics. Allowing anonymity of contribution to “Issue Ads” and to Super PACs only amplifies the corrosive effect money has on American politics. Without knowing where the funding for particular “Issue Ads” come from, the intentions of contributors can be obfuscated and issues can be easily branded into political palatable campaigns by allowing contributors to keep themselves and their agendas hidden [1] . Using names such as the “America Future Fund” [2] and the “Coalition of American Seniors” [3] political allegiances and agendas are hidden from view, removing a much needed critical evaluation of those who contribute and what their ends are. Further to this, the anonymity of Super PACs make it easy for foreign contributors, who are banned by US law from contributing to campaigns, to secretly contribute to campaigns, helping to skew American democracy by giving undue political influence to foreign corporations and their interests [4] . Anonymity of Super PACs allows people to obfuscate their intentions and turn campaigns into opaque propaganda, removing the capacity for proper democracy and political debate. [1] "Campaign Finance: Ignore that $800,000 behind the curtain." Economist 04 Oct 2010, n. pag. Web. 30 Nov. 2011. [2] ibid [3] "ibid [4] Parnell, Sean. "A campaign finance 'reform' twofer from Think Progress." Campaign Freedom. Center for Competitive Politics, 05 Oct 2010. Web. 29 Nov. 2011. |
validation-politics-pgvhwlacc-pro05b | Releasing the names of individual people who have contributed to a campaign will in no way indicate what interests were at play in creating a particular political campaign ad or strategy. Moreover, this is at best an argument against propagandizing political ads, not one for releasing the names of people who financially donated to that ad. The campaign finance reform failed to achieve political equality and does not affect wealthy donors or prominent candidates. Often, the most authentic grassroots candidates and campaigns are burdened by such regulations. In 2000, Mac Warren ran for Congress in Texas and spent just $40, 000, half of his money. 2 pieces of the literature failed to contain the required notice that the literature was paid for by the committee and his campaign was fined by $1,000. [1] [1] Smith, Bradley. "The Myth of Campaign Finance Reform." Campaign Finance: The Problems and Consequences of Reform. Ed. Robert Boatright. New York: International Debate Education Association, 2011. 46-62. P.59 |
validation-politics-pgvhwlacc-pro04b | Even the most radical campaign finance reform proposals have yet to eliminate corporate or union contributions. Short of such bans, the potential for large organizations to swamp the donations of individual voters still exists. Additionally, limitations on the voice of unions, businesses and special interest groups are another form of potential infringement on the rights of free speech and assembly. Who is to say that a union member’s contribution to their organization’s political action committee is not significant speech comparable to the individual gesture they make when they donate to a candidate themselves? It is reasonable that union members or shareholders choose to trust their leaders to use their money in order to best advance their interests. |
validation-politics-pgvhwlacc-pro03a | Further reforms would create a level playing field A further reform limiting super PACs would have the effect of leveling the playing field for candidates. Candidates with enormous leadership potential but small wallets have failed due to the lack of resources. Under a reformed campaign finance system, it will be more difficult for well-financed candidates to win purely because of the money they have. Incumbent candidates have a unique advantage over challengers in the present system because of their direct connections to important sources of money. Campaign finance reform will make elections more competitive and thus enhance higher turnover or "fresh blood" in politics. This is essential for challenging old orthodoxies and bringing in new ideas. It will also make it easier for members of ethnic minorities and the working class to seek office - such groups are disproportionately deterred from candidacy by the current need to raise large sums of money. Quantitative analysis of elections involving incumbents from twenty-five states across three election cycles indicate that more stringent campaign finance laws increase the likelihood of new challengers to the current incumbent. [1] Financing laws limiting fundraising increase the likelihood of minority-party and independent challengers and produce higher rate of election competition. As a result challengers feel they have better chances against the incumbents. [1] Hamm, Keith E., and Hogan, Robert E., “Campaign Finance Laws and Candidacy Decisions in State Legislative Elections”, Campaign Finance: The Problems and Consequences of Reform. Ed. Robert Boatright. New York: International Debate Education Association, 2011, 2011. 171-191. |
validation-politics-pgvhwlacc-con03b | It is exactly because certain organizations have particular interests that it is important to reveal when they fund Issue Ads or campaign initiatives [1] . People hold these biases and views of organizations like the National Rifle Association for a reason. If the involvement of this organisation invokes suspicion in a conscientious voter, then that voter has the right to be alerted about that suspicion. [1] McIntire, Mike. "The Secret Sponsors." New York Times 02 Oct 2010, n. pag. Web. 30 Nov. 2011. |
validation-politics-pgvhwlacc-con03a | Anonymity Ensures that Campaigning Rises above Identity Attacks. Certain political groups are politically disenfranchised because of perceptions about them that exist of in the society. Some groups are considered as being political enemies by their counterparts from more powerful opposing political parties and therefore, they cannot engage meaningfully in the political discourse without being dismissed at the get-go. Allowing anonymity in Issue Ads allows people and groups to fund political speech and support certain policies and political discussions without having social perceptions of their membership to certain groups taint their political activity. This is especially important in America where membership to certain groups is considered to coincide with political allegiance like in the case of the National Rifle Association and the Republican Party. 39% of people say that they would be less likely to support a candidate if they were supported by the NRA so it is clear that the NRA can best support a campaign anonymously. [1] Anonymity will enfranchise certain forms of political activity by individuals and associations which otherwise would have been dismissed by voters. Therefore, allowing anonymity allows for less partisan policy discussion. [1] Jensen, Tom, “Americans consider NRA endorsement to be a negative”, Public Policy Polling, 5 February 2013, |
validation-politics-pgvhwlacc-con01a | Corporations are fundamentally different than individuals and have the right to influence politics differently. The rules under which an individual citizen operate are different from those of corporations and should remain that way. Corporations and individuals are two completely different entities and they represent different interests. While an individual accounts for her interests, a company represents a large number of people and may not fully represent the views of any of them. Thus many big companies while favoring one party or the other actually give to both parties, Honeywell International for example to July 2012 had given more than $2.2million with 63% going to the Republicans and the rest to the Democrats. [1] These companies clearly then bet on both sides, presumably however their senior staff are actually supporting one or the other. Empirical evidence suggests that large sums from corporation almost never buys votes but access to policy-makers at key moments of policymaking after campaigns which has serious implications on the levels of corruption. While individuals often contribute as an act of democratic participation, the interest groups donate money in campaigns as investment. Therefore, the rules regulating them should be different. Reforms like the BCRA that limit donations from corporations and unions enable individual contributions and minimize the role and influence of interest groups. [1] McIntyre, Douglas A., and Hess, Alexander E. M., “10 Companies Making the Biggest Political Donations: 24/7 Wall St.”, Huffington Post, 2 July 2012, |
validation-politics-pgvhwlacc-con02b | Although it may not be immediately apparent to the average TV-watcher who is funding these campaigns, the importance of releasing the names of funders is to allow investigative journalists to conduct research on these names and draw together any conclusions the public may need to know about who is funding candidates. This also applies to other techniques that corporations may employ to get around publicity. Nevertheless, there is a much better chance that the dots will be connected for the public if the names of donors are released. |
validation-politics-tsihsspa-pro02b | Airport profiling is a violation of individual rights because it targets and harms certain groups more than others. Muslims and ethnic minorities will be especially harmed by security profiling as it will predominantly be members of these groups who are detained at departure gates and subjected to extra scrutiny. This will make them feel like second-class citizens; they will believe that the government presumes them to be terrorists, even when they are innocent. Consequently, Arab, Asian and African Muslims, and migrants from majority Muslim states will benefit much less from security profiling than whites and non-Muslims do. If the proposition is correct and profiling is successful these groups may benefit from being safer when flying, however many more of them will also suffer far more and more detailed checks in order to be able to fly. Individual rights suffer when a particular person or group is subject to unwarranted discrimination; something which profiling, particularly if it had an ethnic component would bring. The government violates individual rights here by treating and benefitting its citizens unequally on the grounds of race and religion. |
validation-politics-tsihsspa-pro02a | Profiling is consistent with individual rights: Profiling is not about demonizing people or violating their rights. As Mark Farmer argues: "It still amazes me how words can be so quickly demonized, so the very mention of the word causes irrational outrage. “Profile” doesn’t mean baseless discrimination against a certain nationality or race — in this case, it means judging people at airports by set of criteria which raise a red flag." [1] Profiling, by making security more effective, would in fact better safeguard everyone’s rights. Khalid Mahmood, a Muslim Labour MP for Birmingham, argues: "I think most people would rather be profiled than blown up. It wouldn't be victimisation of an entire community. I think people will understand that it is only through something like profiling that there will be some kind of safety. If people want to fly safely we have to take measures to stop things like the Christmas Day plot. Profiling may have to be the price we have to pay. The fact is the majority of people who have carried out or planned these terror attacks have been Muslims.” [2] The state has a duty to protect its citizens by ensuring that its security apparatus is effective and adaptable, even if this means running afoul of political correctness and the rights of those individuals affected. According to Michael Reagan, president of The Reagan Legacy Foundation: "Political correctness killed innocent people at Fort Hood, an Army base in Texas, when Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan gunned down 13 people and wounded many others despite the fact that his fellow officers were aware of his attachment to radical Islamism and all that it implied. It is the same political correctness that is stopping us today from doing what we truly need to be doing at airports and other public places: profiling all passengers." [3] As long as there is a net benefit to everyone of increased security, then individual rights are actually better protected, as everyone who travels has a greater chance of not being blown up. The state should accord a higher priority- when balancing the competing rights claims of citizens- to policies and powers that protect individuals from terrorist attacks than to protecting citizens from the transient feelings of victimisation and isolation that result from profiling. The harm that results from failing to uphold the former is much, much greater than the harm that would attach to the later. Therefore the state should protect the individual rights of its citizens by ensuring that they are protected first –by instituting security profiling at airports. [1] Reagan, Michael. "Profiling is answer for U.S. airport security." Athens Banner-Herald. 27 November 2010. [2] Sawer, Patrick. “Muslim MP: security profiling at airports is ‘price we have to pay’”. The Telegraph. 2 January 2010. [3] Reagan, Michael. "Profiling is answer for U.S. airport security." Athens Banner-Herald. 27 November 2010. |
validation-politics-tsihsspa-pro01a | Profiling is effective and necessary: It is an unavoidable fact that most terrorists today fit into certain demographics and categories, and so it is worth creating profiles of these categories and investigating more thoroughly anyone who fits into these profiles, as they are far more likely to be potential terrorists. As Asra Q. Nomani argued in 2010: "As an American Muslim, I’ve come to recognize, sadly, that there is one common denominator defining those who’ve got their eyes trained on U.S. targets: MANY of them are Muslim—like the Somali-born teenager arrested Friday night for a reported plot to detonate a car bomb at a packed Christmas tree-lighting ceremony in downtown Portland, Oregon. We have to talk about the taboo topic of profiling because terrorism experts are increasingly recognizing that religious ideology makes terrorist organizations and terrorists more likely to commit heinous crimes against civilians, such as blowing an airliner out of the sky. Certainly, it’s not an easy or comfortable conversation but it’s one, I believe, we must have." [1] This resolution would not require the targeting of all Muslims, but rather those who meet further profile characteristics. As Dr Shaaz Mahboob, of British Muslims for Secular Democracy, said in 2010: "We have seen that certain types of people who fit a certain profile – young men of a particular ethnic background – have been engaged in terror activities, and targeting this sort of passenger would give people a greater sense of security. Profiling has to be backed by this type of statistical and intelligence-based evidence. There would be no point in stopping Muslim grandmothers." [2] Profiles would be compiled and acted on using a range of information, not just details of passengers’ ethic and racial backgrounds. Information about passengers is already voluntarily provided so this information can be used to eliminate the 60-70% of passengers who are of negligible risk.. State-of-the art screening technologies could then be applied to the remaining pool of passengers, for which less information is known. As a consequence, these individuals may be subjected to the highest level of security screening, and in some cases, prevented from flying. [3] Philip Baum, editor of Aviation Security International, argues: "I have been an ardent supporter of passenger profiling for many years. It is the only solution that addresses the problems of the past as well as those of the future. The problem is the word “profiling” itself, as it conjures up negative connotations. A traveler’s appearance, behavior, itinerary and passport are factors to consider in effective profiling. Effective profiling is based on the analysis of the appearance and behavior of a passenger and an inspection of the traveler’s itinerary and passport; it does not and should not be based on race, religion, nationality or color of skin. We need an intelligent approach to aviation security that deploys common sense to the security checkpoint. We require highly trained, streetwise, individuals who can make risk assessments of passengers as they arrive at the airport and determine which technology should be used for screening." [4] Intelligent, well designed and responsive profiling systems study passenger’s behavior in-situ in addition to their background and appearance. Police officers and security camera operators can be trained to recognize signs of nervous or apprehensive behavior that passengers might exhibit. Brigitte Gabriel, founder and president of ACT! for America, said in December of 2009: "We're not talking only about profiling Muslims. We need to take a lesson from the Israelis. When you go through security checkpoints in Tel Aviv airport, you have very highly trained screeners. Someone who is about to carry on a terrorist attack acts nervous, acts suspicious [under such scrutiny]." [5] Profiling would probably have picked up on would-be Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who notably paid for his ticket in cash, did not have any checked luggage, had booked a one-way ticket to the United States, and claimed he was coming to a religious ceremony. [6] Together, these actions are extremely suspicious and it would have been correct, justified and indeed prudent for airport security to have investigated him on the basis that he met the profile of a possible terrorist. It was only later luck which meant that he was caught instead of succeeding in his attack, all on the basis of the absence of security profiling – fully eight years after the 9/11 attacks. Passenger profiling has a record of success in Israel. As Thomas Sowell, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, argues: "No country has better airport security than Israel – and no country needs it more, since Israel is the most hated target of Islamic extremist terrorists. Yet, somehow, Israeli airport security people don't have to strip passengers naked electronically or have strangers feeling their private parts. Does anyone seriously believe that we have better airport security than Israel? Is our security record better than theirs? 'Security' may be the excuse being offered for the outrageous things being done to American air travelers, but the heavy-handed arrogance and contempt for ordinary people that is the hallmark of this [G. W. Bush] administration in other areas is all too apparent in these new and invasive airport procedures. [...] What do the Israeli airport security people do that American airport security does not do? They profile. They question some individuals for more than half an hour, open up all their luggage and spread the contents on the counter - and they let others go through with scarcely a word. And it works.” [7] Therefore until such security resources are used appropriately, we will never achieve a secure air transportation system, and terrorism and its awful human consequences will remain a constant threat and fear. [1] Nomani, Asra Q. "Airport Security: Let's Profile Muslims". The Daily Beast. 29 November 2010. [2] Sawer, Patrick. “Muslim MP: security profiling at airports is ‘price we have to pay’”. The Telegraph. 2 January 2010. [3] Jacobson, Sheldon H. "The Right Kind of Profiling". New York Times Room for Debate. 4 January 2010. [4] Baum, Philip . "Common Sense Profiling Works." New York Times Room for Debate. 4 January 2010. [5] Groening, Chad. “U.S. airport security - 'profiling' a must”. OneNewsNow. 31 December 2009. [6] Groening, Chad. “U.S. airport security - 'profiling' a must”. OneNewsNow. 31 December 2009. [7] Sowell, Thomas. "Profiling at airports works for Israel". The Columbus Dispatch. 24 November 2010. |
validation-politics-tsihsspa-con03b | Terrorists have asserted justifications for their acts long before the idea of security profiling was even suggested. For example, Osama Bin Laden justified the 9/11 attacks on the grounds of the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia, US support for Israel, and sanctions against Iraq. [1] Airport security profiling will make no significant difference to terrorist grievances against the west, but could well make a significant difference to the efficacy of security. Most Muslims will continue to cooperate with Western security forces, as their interests are the same: preventing terrorism and bombings helps protect their lives and livelihoods as well. Even if the policy is disliked their cooperation will continue, as there is simply no workable alternative (short of becoming terrorists themselves, which is something which the vast, vast majority of Muslims find abhorrent and would never even consider). [1] Plotz, David. “What does Osama Bin Laden want?”. Slate. 14 September 2001. |
validation-politics-gvhwauec-pro05a | The electoral college weakens incentives for voting and party building. There is no incentive for candidates to mobilize voters in states they are sure to win – or sure to lose, and voters have little incentive to vote in noncompetitive states where their vote is likely not to matter. Some states like Texas just have a fairly predictable voting record- they have voted republican 9 out of the last 10 presidential elections. Democratic presidential candidates do not spend much time in Texas for that reason. [1] [1] “Texas” 270 to Win. |
validation-politics-gvhwauec-pro05b | This argument is suggestion that there is simply a strategy behind elections- which is true for every election. The electoral college framework does make a candidate have to acquire a number of states, in order to win, and while there may be some states that it is not the best use of time and resources to campaign as hard in. But this does require candidates have a broad base of support in order to win the presidency. |
validation-politics-gvhwauec-pro04b | The propositions argument is not only a logical fallacy, but also discourages democracy. It is illogical to argue that because Ralph Nader got a few votes in New Hampshire and Florida that if he was not on ballot they would have voted for Al Gore instead. Furthermore, the American electoral framework is comprised almost exclusively of a two party system, and any candidate who runs on a third party ballot needs to be given extra support just to have any chance at all of even securing just a few votes. |
validation-politics-gvhwauec-pro04a | The electoral college allows small third parties to tip the balance in a state and distort the preferences of the voters. In 2000, Ralph Nader siphoned a few votes from Al Gore in New Hampshire and Florida, costing Gore victories and thus the election. Nevertheless, Gore was the preferred choice of voters in a match up with George W. Bush. [1] [1] Archives.gov, ‘Historical Election Results’, ‘Electoral College Box Scores 1789-1996’, |
validation-politics-gvhwauec-con03b | The electoral college encourages third parties. Under the electoral college, a third party with regional support can win something: a state. The winner take all aspect of direct election of the president with no runoff discourages third parties because they have to come in first to win anything. |
validation-politics-gvhwauec-con05a | The electoral college forces candidates to win broad coalitions across the country, encouraging national harmony. In direct election of the president, candidates might appeal to clusters of voters, whose votes could be aggregated across states and regions, perhaps representing only one strata of society. |
validation-politics-gvhwauec-con04a | Casting votes by state forces candidates to be attentive to local interests, which they would otherwise ignore in a national campaign. The electoral college is helping promote democracy through implementing a mechanism that make candidates pay attention to local issues, and actually do what they are elected to do- serve the interests of their constituents. A presidential candidate is of course going to focus on a more national level interest, but in order to visit and campaign across the country, the candidate must be at least aware of the issues that of particular interest to the local area. |
validation-politics-gvhwauec-con05b | Candidates ignore large areas of the country in their campaigns. Moreover, George W. Bush lost most major demographic groups in winning election in 2000 under the electoral college. |
validation-politics-gvhwauec-con04b | Candidates do not focus on local interests because of the electoral college. The evidence is overwhelming. Candidates do not campaign in most states, nor do they run advertisements in them. Instead, the electoral college provides incentives to focus on competitive states, especially large competitive states. Moreover, candidates do not focus on local interests in the states they do visit. We do not need a presidency responsive to parochial interests in a system that is already prone to gridlock and which offers minority interests extraordinary access to policymakers and opportunities to thwart policies they oppose. |
validation-digital-freedoms-phbphnrp-pro02a | Citizens have a right to know who is being elected to represent them Beyond the discussion of the balancing of the right to privacy, it is important to understand the nature of representatives as stand-ins for the citizens who elect them. In other words, politicians are surrogates. Their duty is to represent the people in public life across all issues and policies. [1] Yet it is impossible to ascertain the desires of the citizens on all issues in the course of an election campaign. Even harder is to understand political decision-making in a context that had not existed at the time of the election. For example, if a war was to begin suddenly in a country that had not expected any conflict and had not elected representatives on the basis of how they stood on fighting this war. But that is exactly why politicians are elected as much for who they are as what their avowed policy aims are. We elect politicians who we believe will act best under such changing conditions; the ‘3 am phone call’, how a candidate will react in a crisis, is often a major issue in U.S. Presidential elections and temperament is often the only way to judge this. [2] Mitt Romney as candidate in the 2012 election was widely considered to have lost out to Obama on this measure. [3] Understanding the personal lives of politicians allows voters to elect one who best represents them in the sense of being able to act in their place in a changing world. Thus it is critical for the good electoral decision-making that the right to privacy of politicians be infringed. [1] Hughs, J. “Does the Public Really Have the Right to Know About Politicians’ Private Lives”. University of Phoenix Online. 27 June 2011, [2] Fallows, James, “Mitt Romney Drops His 3 a.m. Phone Call”, the Atlantic, 12 September 2012, [3] Drum, Kevin, “Obama Wins the 3 a.m. Phone Call Test”, Mother Jones, 14 October 2012, |
validation-digital-freedoms-phbphnrp-pro03b | All intense scrutiny will do is make fewer people be willing to enter politics. This does not mean the most capable will stay, only those with a higher tolerance for media intrusion, and those with a talent for concealment and spin. The result is not better governance, because the pool of potential leaders is reduced by the added pressures of losing all hope of privacy. Loss of the right privacy means worse governance. |
validation-digital-freedoms-phbphnrp-pro01a | The right to privacy is not absolute and is sacrificed in standing for public office A right such as that to privacy is not absolute. Rights are general statements of principle that are then caveated and curtailed in the interests of society. When an individual seeks elevation to public office, he or she must accept that the role is a special one in society. As the representative of the people, the politician is more than just the holder of a job appointed by the people, but is the elected servant, whose duty is to lead. Leadership includes leading by example as well as simply directing policy. It is a strange relationship, and it is one that demands the utmost confidence in the holder. But confidence can only be developed through increased scrutiny and transparency. This means understanding the private life of the politician, since it so often informs their public life. Thus, when citizens place their political power in the hands of an elected representative, they gain the reciprocal right over that representative to have his or her life and character laid bare for their approval. This is the only way true representativeness may be achieved. |
validation-digital-freedoms-phbphnrp-pro01b | Even if one concedes that such rights are not entirely sacrosanct, it is important to recognise that rights should apply universally and should still be defended. The right to privacy is also important, and must include politicians who, while fulfilling an important societal role, are not so special as to merit significant curtailment of rights. So long as politicians do their duty by representing the interests of those that elected them in a legislative framework, they are fulfilling their end of the covenant with the people, leaving no room for any nebulous additional right of citizens over politicians. They are elected to do a job not for their life. |
validation-digital-freedoms-phbphnrp-pro04b | The power structures that command people are best challenged through attention to policy and shaping the discourse in a positive manner. Attention to private lives is simply salacious and does nothing to actually forward the cause of groups outside the elite. In fact, focus on the foibles of the few serves only to confuse and misdirect public sentiment away from where it might do the most good in the furtherance of change. If anything deserves intense scrutiny it is the power structures themselves, such as Oxbridge in the United Kingdom, not on the individuals who are mere products of it. |
validation-digital-freedoms-phbphnrp-pro03a | Heavy scrutiny forces politicians to dedicate themselves fully to their public service When politicians see themselves constantly under the lens of public scrutiny, they are essentially forced to dedicate themselves wholesale to their duties as representatives. They are disincentivized in the extreme to pursue any transgressive or hypocritical activities behind closed doors, resulting in more energy dedicated to legislating, and less to lining their pockets or chasing interns, since the added risk of being discovered increases the cost of trying to conceal their foibles. [1] Having a culture of scrutiny of politicians private lives will mean those who most see their work as a public service and so will be dedicated to it will be the ones who seek to become politicians. Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s lurid sex life has thrown light on the sexual misconduct rife in French politics and has actually sparked a major effort to reform the system and a change to a more demanding culture towards politicians. [2] Politicians are human, after all, and susceptible to the base human urges that power unchecked is wont to accommodate. A powerful probe into politicians’ private lives can only serve the cause of better governance. [1] Hughs, J. “Does the Public Really Have the Right to Know About Politicians’ Private Lives”. University of Phoenix Online. 27 June 2011, [2] Clifford, C. and Vandoorne, S. “Scandals Put a Spotlight on France’s Hidden Sexism, Privacy Laws”. CNN. 3 June 2011, |
validation-digital-freedoms-phbphnrp-pro04a | Heavy scrutiny serves to challenge existing power structures The power structures that command peoples’ lives are often difficult to identify. While there are usually multiple candidates to choose from at election time, in many polities they all tend to come out from small-based elite. Oxford and Cambridge, for example, serve as the incubators of power in the United Kingdom. They hold vastly disproportionate sway in composition of Parliament and other political posts, and tend to dominate the front benches of all the parties. What media scrutiny, particularly with the advent of new media, has served to be is a massive check on entrenched elites. They challenge them in their lofty offices and strike at their very hearts when they behave in ways inappropriate or hypocritical. [1] This scrutiny is often one of the only pure democratic powers available to ordinary people, even in a liberal democracy. [1] Thompson, J. 2011. “Shifting Boundaries of Public and Private Life”. Theory Culture Society 28(4): 49-70. |
validation-digital-freedoms-phbphnrp-con01b | Even if privacy is a fundamental human right, it is certainly not an absolute one. When the authorities have probable cause they can search the property, residence, and computers of suspects in pursuit of greater societal justice. Politicians are not simply doing a job for the electorate they are in a special position as the effective embodiment of the people’s will, and as a result the powers they wield, which is far vaster than that of any private agent, demands a higher level of scrutiny into their backgrounds, which means looking into their private lives. This is exactly the same as outside politics; the more senior and powerful the job the more rigorous the checking of the qualifications and background of the candidate must be. |
validation-digital-freedoms-phbphnrp-con02b | While it is no doubt unfortunate that the innocent family members of politicians might feel unpleasant scrutiny, it remains essential to the promulgation of political accountability. Furthermore, it is valuable that citizens understand who their leaders are, and what kind of people they are, which necessitates knowing what kind of people they associate with in their private lives. Obviously, not all personal associations, such as biological family, may be chosen, but all the same those relationships can reveal much valuable information about the politician’s character. All of this is part of the trade-off politicians must accept if good, accountable government is to be achieved and maintained. |
validation-digital-freedoms-gthwaueai-pro02b | Our political situation is not as dire as this point makes it seem; it is easy to manipulate statistics between voting and reality televisions by discounting the fact that many people who vote in television shows vote multiple times – often as many as ten [1] . Young people are not completely detached from the political or the non-electronic world. Many are passionate about politics and exercising their right to vote [2] . Low voter turnout is a general trend across the nation, and if young people are failing to vote then this too reflects disillusionment with government. For example, many young people who voted for the Liberal Democrats in the UK recently were shocked when he expressly went against his promise to prevent tuition fee rises [3] . Political disillusionment among young people is also a problem in the USA [4] and Europe [5] . It is the state of politics itself, rather than the literal process of voting, which deters people from full political participation. [1] , accessed 24/08/11 [2] , accessed 24/08/11 [3] , accessed 24/08/11 [4] , accessed 24/08/11 [5] , accessed 24/08/11 |
validation-digital-freedoms-gthwaueai-pro02a | Modernisation In modern, developed countries, many people spend both work and leisure time on the internet or using electronic devices [1] [2] [3] [4] . Our traditional voting systems, with polling stations and paper slips, is out of line with how many of the population now live their lives. When we see an overwhelming number of people – especially young people [5] – voting for reality television programmes such as The X Factor [6] , it demonstrates a valuable method of engagement which the political system is missing out on. This had led to sources such as the BBC darkly questioning ‘Is Big Brother really more popular than election?’ [7] , indicating that while the overall number of votes in the 2005 general election in the UK outweighed those cast for Big Brother and Fame Academy, the proportion of votes by young voters (18-34) could be understood to show more engagement with these television shows than with the general election [8] . In any case, it is clear that we should bring our voting systems up to date in order to engage young people and the wider population. [1] In the UK: , accessed 24/08/11 [2] In Europe: , accessed 24/08/11 [3] In Asia: , accessed 24/08/11 [4] In the USA: , accessed 24/08/11 [5] , accessed 24/08/11 [6] , accessed 24/08/11 [7] , accessed 24/08/11 [8] , accessed 24/08/11 |
validation-digital-freedoms-gthwaueai-pro05a | Remote electronic voting can be conducted very safely. Our online security is improving every day; people feel safe enough to trust their most important details, such as bank details, to the internet [1] – why not their vote? Secure software and encryption protocols have allowed online markets to flourish, with companies such as PayPal inspiring a sense of security among their customers [2] . Any software for remote electronic voting could be scrutinised well in advance. It also removes the potential for identity fraud, which is a problem with current postal voting systems [3] . Each voter could be given a unique password, if necessary alongside something like a special swipe card, ensuring that everybody who is entitled to vote gets a single vote. Given that in many jurisdictions, traditional polling stations do not require voters to provide ID [4] , it would arguably be a security improvement on the current situation. [1] , accessed 24/08/11 [2] , accessed 24/08/11 [3] , accessed 24/08/11 [4] , accessed 24/08/11 |
validation-digital-freedoms-gthwaueai-pro01a | Electronic voting can make the franchise more accessible In many Western democracies, voter turnout has been falling while voter apathy appears to be rising. In the UK, voter turnout fell sharply between 1997-2000, and the last general election in 2010 saw only 65% of potential voters cast a vote [1] . In the USA, the federal election of 2010 saw only 37.8% of potential voters cast their vote [2] . Voter turnouts across Europe follow this trend [3] . When so few people participate in the key act of democracy – voting for the political leader of the country – it begins to raise worrying questions about the legitimacy of that democracy in the first place. If electronic or internet voting was introduced as an option alongside more traditional polling methods, it would expands the accessibility of the voting system in general. Internet or electronic voting would be a strategic practical measure. It would make voting convenient for busy modern citizens because it minimalises the amount of effort each individual has to contribute – namely, they do not have to travel to the polling stations [4] . As such, it removes physical restrictions on the voting process and becomes more universally accessible. This would prevent people from being unable to vote because they are ‘too busy’ [5] – whether this is simply because their local polling station is too far away for them to commute to, or to fit in alongside their other daily responsibilities based at work or home [6] [7] . [1] , accessed 22/08/11 [2] , accessed 22/08/11 [3] , accessed 22/08/11. [4] , accessed 25/08/11 [5] , accessed 22/08/11 [6] In the USA: , accessed 22/08/11 [7] In the UK: , accessed 22/08/11 |
validation-digital-freedoms-gthwaueai-pro04b | The elderly far more frequently find electronic voting to be a hindrance rather than a help. Those who are partially sighted are unable to see the position on the text blocks on the screen; small controls such as buttons or touch screens create problems; and some cognitively impaired people may find it difficult to remember a PIN number which is used to authenticate the vote [1] . A simple paper ballot is a far more commonly-recognised and straightforward method. In terms of cost, the electronic voting machines or voting programmes would certainly cost a great deal to implement and run [2] . Ultimately, the great risk that electronic voting machines or systems will lose votes [3] outweighs the cost argument: you cannot put a price on a crucial process at the core of every democratic state. [1] , accessed 24/08/11 [2] , accessed 24/08/11 [3] , accessed 24/08/11 |
validation-digital-freedoms-gthwaueai-pro03a | Efficiency Because it would not require manual counting and tallying, remote electronic voting would allow the results to be known much faster [1] , and would also eliminate the potential for human error, which is a common problem with the current system [2] . For example, in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election of 2011, a clerk discovered around 14,000 unrecorded votes which had been missed by human error – and actually changed the outcome of the election [3] . The clerk is now being questioned regarding her party allegiances under suspicion that she was trying to turn the election into a victory for her favoured candidate [4] – yet another potential for abuse under the current system. Machines, of course, are impartial concerning party allegiances and so eliminate the potential for individual corruption. [1] , accessed 24/08/11 [2] , accessed 24/08/11 [3] , accessed 24/08/11 [4] , accessed 24/08/11 |
validation-digital-freedoms-gthwaueai-con02a | Electronic voting may harm the principle of democratic accountability The numerous faults experienced in trials and small-scale use of electronic voting [1] [2] shows that this system is not yet ready for wide use in elections, and gives no indication that it ever will be. The argument that they can provide a faster vote-count is negated by the fact that in many cases they aren’t counting all the votes, but instead missing some out [3] . If the results cannot be trusted, there is no merit in implementing an electronic vote. Furthermore, this motion neglects those who do not have access to electronic systems or the internet; they may end up being disenfranchised if voting went online. This is particularly pertinent for senior citizens who lack the skills to ‘find, retrieve and evaluate’ information found electronically [4] . It is also a disadvantage for those who with a limited income and education, who are ‘most likely to not use the internet or even understand how to use a computer’ [5] . 37% of low-income households do not regularly use the internet [6] ; this motion would create a two-tier system where already under-represented groups are allowed to fall behind the rest of society. Even public libraries and state-provided resources are suffering cuts under the economic depression [7] , which further reduces access for those from poorer backgrounds. This allows real issues of discrimination and alienation to rise. [1] , accessed 24/08/11 [2] , accessed 24/08/11 [3] , accessed 24/08/11 [4] , accessed 24/08/11 [5] , accessed 24/08/11 [6] , accessed 24/08/11 [7] , accessed 24/08/11 |
validation-digital-freedoms-gthwaueai-con04a | Democratisation If it worked, online voting could allow more use of direct democracy methods. However, direct democracy is not in itself a better system, and still contains many dangers. Snap online polls could easily express an opinion which has not been properly thought through; the current voting system is more likely to result in considered voting as citizens have to make the effort to get to the polling stations in the first place. Furthermore, a low turnout or insecure systems could allow motivated minorities to use frequent online ballots in order to impose their will on the majority. The very ease of online voting could actually result in worse policy than under the status quo. |
validation-digital-freedoms-gthwaueai-con02b | Computer literacy is constantly on the rise [1] [2] . In state-run secondary schools, children are provided with information and technology classes which helps to bridge any existing divide [3] , and there are discussions about extending these lessons to primary schools. Easily-accessible community classes are also available to seniors [4] [5] . Moreover, given the opportunity to save money through electronic voting rather than having to pay for polling station venues, manual vote counters and so on, this money could easily be redirected to provide computer lessons for those from disadvantaged backgrounds, or to funnel into state libraries and public computer resources. This mechanism is a much more efficient way of making sure that everybody is able to participate. [1] Children in the UK: , accessed 24/08/11 [2] In the USA: [3] , accessed 24/08/11 [4] Across the USA: , accessed 24/08/11 [5] In the UK: , accessed 24/08/11 |
validation-religion-cshbcesbsb-pro02b | Separation of Church and State would do exactly the opposite; it would create animosity towards other cultures. This separation would be seen by many people, including extremist groups, as pandering to non-Christian religions and cultures in an attempt to show a greater level of acceptance. This would result in people blaming non-Christian religious groups and cultures for the changes and giving ammunition to extremist groups who wish to incite racism. Rather than benefitting immigrants and people who follow non-Christian religions, this would actively harm them. [1] [1] Iannaccone, Laurence R. “Religious extremism: Origins and consequences” Contemporary Jewry. Volume 20. 1996. |
validation-religion-cshbcesbsb-pro02a | Separation would show acceptance of other religions. It is important to note that it is not religion in general which has this special access to the state in the UK but the Church of England specifically. This means that the state is showing favouritism to the Church of England over other religions by allowing it a far greater contribution to the running of the state. Therefore, separating the church and the state would put all of the religions in the country on an even level of contribution, which is none, and in the process show acceptance of these other religions. [1] This is especially important as the number of people who identify as following religions other than Christianity in the UK has doubled in the last 20 years. [2] Additionally, many people identify more with their religion than with any country and so this move would help show acceptance of those cultures by the British state. [1] Hannan, Daniel. “The Conservative Case for Disestablishing the Church.” The Telegraph. 2008. [2] Lee, Lucy, “Religion.” In Curtice, John et al. eds., British Social Attitudes Survey 2009. p.180. |
validation-religion-cshbcesbsb-pro03b | There are little to no barriers to non-religious people contributing to the state. In present day UK, there are no issues with non-religious people being or feeling unable to contribute to the state. It is far from a necessity to be part of a religious group, or to even be religious, in order to be part of, or contribute it any way, to the government. [1] The idea, therefore, that it is important to make non-religious people feel as if their contributions are more valued, or that the separation of the church and state would achieve this, is ridiculous. [1] Gay, Kathlyn. “Church and State.” Millbrook Press. 1992. |
validation-religion-cshbcesbsb-pro03a | Separation would show non-religious people that their contributions to the state are valued. In the last 25 years, the number of people in the UK who identify as non-religious has gone up from 31% to 50% of the population, while people in the UK who identify as religious has gone down by the same amount. [1] Clearly then, there are growing numbers of non-religious people in the UK and falling numbers of religious people. Separating the church and the state would highlight that one does not have to be part of a certain religion to contribute to the state. With the non-religious now making up half the population it no longer makes sense for one denomination of Christianity to have such an official connection to the state. [1] Lee, Lucy, “Religion.” In Curtice, John et al. eds., British Social Attitudes Survey 2009. p.173. |
validation-religion-cshbcesbsb-pro04a | International signalling. As a government, the UK aims to promote democracy in the international community while reducing the number of countries adhering to other forms of government that do not listen to their people. This includes opposition to theocracies, where the country is run by a religious group according to religious doctrines, particularly in the case of Iran. It is difficult for the UK to legitimately condemn such a governmental system while the Church of England has such a heavy role in the running of its own government. Although these are not on the same level, it can still be perceived as hypocrisy by the international community and the separation of church and state would greatly benefit the UK’s ability to condemn these states. |
validation-religion-cshbcesbsb-con03b | The government is not going to suddenly stop listening to the views of religious minorities in the country and will keep listening to the views of the Church of England. It will simply stop the government being prejudicial towards the Church of England compared to any other religion or belief. Currently what we see is the Church of England having privileges that other religious groups do not have. Religious groups and people do not see this as a representation of the involvement of religion in general in the government, they see this as the involvement of the Church of England in the government. The separation of the church and the state, therefore, will actually be inclusive to religious people who do not identify as Church of England. [1] [1] Hannan, Daniel. “The Conservative Case for Disestablishing the Church.” The Telegraph. 2008. |
validation-religion-cshbcesbsb-con03a | Disestablishment sidelines all religious people. Rather than other religious groups seeing the removal of the Church of England’s involvement of the state as them all being put on a level playing field, it is more likely to be seen as a total removal of religion from the government. [1] Bishop John Pritchard of Oxford argues that Anglican Bishops can be seen as acting as community leaders for all faiths and are respected as such, as a result they often support other religion’s such as Pritchard himself arguing a mosque in Oxford should be allowed to issue the call to prayer. [2] This separation of church and state, therefore, will be seen as a declaration by the government that religious groups have nothing to contribute to the operation of the state. Since nearly 50% of people in the UK identify as religious [3] this is likely to cause a feeling of being undervalued amongst a huge part of society. [1] Gay, Kathlyn. “Church and State.” Millbrook Press. 1992. [2] Bardsley, Fran, ‘Bishop backs mosque’s call to prayer’, The Oxford Times, 11 January 2008. [3] Lee, Lucy, “Religion.” In Curtice, John et al. eds., British Social Attitudes Survey 2009. p.173. |
validation-religion-cshbcesbsb-con01a | Separating Church and State in England would be harmful to national identity. The reason the Church of England has the involvement that it does in the state is because it is important part of the UK’s cultural heritage. Completely separating the Church of England from the state would be perceived to many people as severely damaging to British national identity. As a national church the Church of England has been at the heart of the country’s political and cultural life since the sixteenth century, religion helped make Britain the country it is today. [1] A separation would be the country turning its back on this history and its own culture. [1] MacCulloch, Diarmaid, ‘How God Made the English’, BBC, 2012 |
validation-religion-cshbcesbsb-con02b | Separation would be inclusive to immigrants and non-Christians. People will not be disillusioned by the separation of church and state at all, it is even less likely that they will look for a scapegoat upon whom to pin the blame. The Church of England routinely condemns racist and extremist attitudes and separation will not change this. [1] [1] The Church of England, ‘Countering Racist Politics’. |
validation-religion-cfhwksdr-pro02b | Legislation already exists in most countries where this issue is in dispute – including the UK where the NOP poll was conducted – have the option to opt out of working on a Sunday [i] . In addition there is an entire body of case law in the USA where various states have upheld the rights of individual workers not to work on a Sunday should they so choose [ii] . The contention that a shared day of rest is beneficial to the community simply ignores the fact that for many those leisure activities require others to be working. For example eating out, going to bars or shopping routinely feature as among peoples’ favourite pastimes [iii] . [i] ACAS Guidance on Sunday Working [ii] Estate of Thornton v. Calder, Inc. (1985) and others [iii] “Statistical Abstract of the United States 2009”. Landmark Research. |