Month: February 2019

One of the objectives of this blog is sometimes to put another view to an issue under discussion. Indeed, you will see it in the, “on the other hand…” subtitle on the Homepage which you might call a mission statement or, just an ordinary statement of intent. With this in mind, I was reading Caitlin Moran’s column in the Times Colour Magazine and was surprised to find that she was so effected by a statement from the BBC that she had “tears in her eyes”. (The Times, 23/02/19) What on earth could Aunty BBC have done to bring on this reaction from Caitlin? Well, it appears that there had been an episode of Call the Midwife which featured abortion in the bad old days of the 1950’s. According to Caitlin, programs featuring complex issues are normally followed by advertising a Helpline for anyone effected by the content of the program. In this case, the BBC did not do this and when pressed, apparently, said that the abortion issue was too contentious. Caitlin reported the BBC response as, “It isn’t possible for the BBC Action Line to offer support for abortion and similarly contentious issues … Doing so could imply the BBC supporting one side or another.” (sic) Caitlin’s problem with the statement was that a ‘progressive public service’ like the BBC has no business describing the abortion issue as contentious. She makes an odd distinction between the discussion about abortion being possibly contentious and the medical act of committing abortion being beyond any controversy. I can only guess that she is making the point that there is only one argument and that is  between 1950’s back street abortions, with all the inherent risks, compared to an abortion carried out by properly qualified medical staff.

If I have understood her correctly, this is the same as comparing medieval executions to those carried out by Pierrepoint who used scientific methods to make hanging more efficient. Hanging was legal in the 1950’s and carried out under medical supervision as is abortion now but both activities are contentious in that they ignore the sanctity of life.

Am I putting forward the case against abortion? The answer is no. However, I am making the point that this is a controversial issue.  It continues to be a controversial issue despite the number of Caitlins ‘aunts, bosses and teachers’  mentioned in the article as having had abortions. We see it in the US where they are pushing for full term abortions (Reproductive Health Act. New York) and so I wonder whether Caitlin is being deliberately disingenuous or engaged in sophistry when she attacks the BBC in her column. The clue is in the small things that she says. In the first place she very interestingly describes the BBC as a, “… progressive, public service broadcaster.” What does she mean by progressive? I doubt very much whether you will find this term in the BBC Charter. What it has come to mean is a belief in a certain liberal idealogy that in the context of the BBC Charter would be described as bias.

Caitlin then shifts her argument as adroitly as any Premier league footballer trying to wrong foot the defence.  She claims that because the BBC did not offer the helpline at the end of the program they have created. “A problem that isolates women from the rest of society – something that women must fix on their own.” Well, possibly in 1950. I remember the introduction of the Act in 1968 and can remember little else on television, with the BBC taking the lead. I think that we can agree that the rate of abortion in the UK will not decrease because of the BBC decision. I understand from her article that Caitlin has had an abortion and that the above quote might have described her own experience but it is difficult to believe she would be unaware that rightly or wrongly,  there are other strongly held views opposing abortion.

I am in unfamiliar territory defending the BBC. Normally, I would be manning the barricades alongside Caitlin calling out BBC bias but not on this issue.

I think that Caitlin has been a bit devious in her line of argument. The issue of abortion is contentious in a way that support for suicides and all of the other good causes mentioned in her article are not. Abortion services are well known and distributed throughout Health services and the wider community, the BBC action will have no effect on access. I would guess that the most effective conduit is provided informally by the 8.7 million women and families who have availed of the service. The real issue is that Caitlin and ”every woman she knows’ believe that there is only one truth and that there can be no other opinion. Both Caitlin and myself are surprised that the BBC has tried to demonstrate some little bit of independence but herself, every woman she knows and the feminist groups she referred to will hunt out the offending spokesperson and make sure that they are re-educated to understand that a ‘progressive, public service broadcaster’ cannot suggest that there may be an alternative to the one progressive truth..

 

Reference : The Times Magazine, Caitlin Moran, 23/02/19, Abortion is not Contentious…

I noted the invitation to make a submission on the subject of a LGBTI inclusion strategy and would make the following comments. In general, I believe that Governments are good at rectifying technical issues and not good at social engineering. Legislation tends to be something of a blunt instrument and although social elements are present in tax and criminal law, they are best kept to a minimum. If there are still legal or tax inequalities then they should be addressed. For example, the issue of one partner being forced to testify against another as against the protection afforded to a married couple is something the legislature has to resolve (Lyons, 2019).

That society changes and presents new challenges is illustrated by the above example but the title of the Strategy relates to the LGBTI community and it would be interesting to know who is being included. A quick search on the Net comes up with something called the LGBTTQQIAA+ (Urban Dictionary, 2011) which is an acronym which I hope you understand because I don’t. I believe that the ‘+’ at the end is meant to be inclusive of any future group that may want to come in under the LGBTTQQIAA umbrella. I only mention this because the term in the Inclusion Strategy is imprecise, subject to constant change and open to political vagary.

There is another problem with the definition which is that it is not only open ended and ill-defined but when applied to both legislation and what might be called positive action, is subject to the principle of unintended consequences. In both cases it leads to exclusion and that is what Matthew Parris calls the Parris Principle. This states that, “statute cannot explicitly include without implicitly excluding.” (Parris, 2019) For example, this is true where a ‘hate crime’ “is perceived to be motivated by hostility or prejudice towards someone based on a personal characteristic.” (Parris, 2019) In the UK there are five groups who are specially listed and if the Law Commission has its way misogyny will be added. In constructing a Strategy for one section of the community we run the risk of alienating the rest. Does this really matter in relation to the proposed strategy? We have seen, in other countries, the instability created by a population who believe that they are excluded from the political process. I would suggest that we saw a manifestation of this in the recent Presidential election in a response to the rather crass remarks by Peter Casey. By seeming to promote one section of the community over another we run the risk of creating a feeling of resentment in the wider community.

The proposed strategy also confirms some in the belief that government agencies are not neutral and even handed. This is evidenced by the intense lobbying of government by activists and minority interest groups where the debate does not seem to include the wider community. The Ashers case would seem to be an example of this. Those inclined towards conspiracy theories might see a connection between two gay customers each requesting a cake with a message supporting gay marriage from a Christian baker, on two continents. In the case of the Equality Commission of Northern Ireland they supported the gay customer all the way to the UK Supreme Court where they were defeated, 5-0 on a ‘compelled speech’ decision. To an observer it seemed that there was more a relationship of client and agent with the plaintive, rather than one of a neutral agency supporting equality for all.

The other strand to the Ashers case was the question of whether one part of the community has superior rights over other parts. In this case the plaintiff might have had a better case under the law of contract rather than equality but this was never really about a message on a cake but was all about pushing the boundaries. To my mind the sort of initiative proposed under the title LGBTI Inclusive Strategy runs the unintended risk of the perception being that the IRHREC and Dept. of Justice do not represent equality for all but only their clients.

• Conclusion
  • Governments are best correcting technical and legal inequalities in tax and employment law, for example
  • Legislation and ‘positive action’ are blunt instruments and are liable to the doctrine of unintended consequences.
  • Inclusive positive action or legislation means excluding someone.
  • There are a growing number of people who feel that they are not being listened to and a strategy of this kind is perceived to be confirmation of that belief.
  • It is difficult to establish a strategy for a group whose membership is open ended.
  • Do not become a hostage to an ideology
• Recognise the whole community rights when considering those of minority groups

 

 

References
Lyons, n. (2019, 1 31). Flanagan Told to Protect Couples. The Times, p. 4.
Parris, M. (2019). We’re on a Slippery Slope. The Times, 16.
Urban Dictionary. (2011, 3 15). Retrieved from https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=LGBTQQIAAP