query_id
stringlengths 32
32
| query
stringlengths 6
5.38k
| positive_passages
listlengths 1
17
| negative_passages
listlengths 9
100
| subset
stringclasses 7
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
aa541773c09b776fe63fa16ed4873ec4
|
Withdrawal from Article 98 agreements would hamper relations with the US
Many of the states in Europe that have signed up to BIA’s are applicant to NATO which leaves them in a difficult position when it comes to withdrawing from such a treaty. While NATO members are exempt from the punitive provisions aimed at states who do not have Article 98 agreements, in order to join NATO the state will need the support of the United States. Such support will be less forthcoming if that country has abandoned an agreement with the United States such as a BIA. Linking issues is not unusual in international relations whether it is linking multiple issues in a single larger negotiation or blocking progress in joining an organisation as a result of a single issue. Perhaps the best example of this occurring is Turkey and the EU where Turkey’s membership has been held up by its dispute with Cyprus over the northern half of the island. [1]
Even if the United States were to allow an application to NATO to proceed despite the abandonment of their bilateral treaty relations will surely be damaged. No state is going to welcome another state unilaterally withdrawing from a treaty they have signed. The Eastern European states value their relationship with the United States due to that country’s commitment to their independence and support during the early 1990s as the soviet bloc broke up. It would not make sense for these small independent countries to risk relations with the world’s most powerful statements over an agreement which is unlikely to ever have a practical relevance.
[1] Rinke, Andreas, and Solaker, Gulsen, “Cyprus remains stumbling block in Turkey’s EU ambition: Merkel”, Reuters, 25 February 2013, http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/25/us-germany-turkey-eu-idUSBRE91O10L20130225
|
[
{
"docid": "7f06465cc11a24599ab2c6d4c0917559",
"text": "international law house would pull out article 98 agreements prevent us soldiers The US is not focusing on encouraging existing NATO members to withdraw from the ICC. Existing NATO members are not subject to the aid-cutting provisions of US law (before and after the Presidential waiver was created), neither are major non-NATO allies – indeed, all EU member states in NATO are ICC members, with the exception of Romania none have signed an Article 98 agreement.\n\nMuch of the US antagonism to the ICC came during the Bush administration, when the ICC was an unproven organization in its infancy.\n\nSince then, US Policy towards the ICC has softened, as can be evidenced by the US voting in favour of referring the situation in Libya to the ICC (compared to abstaining in the referral of Darfur), so it would be unlikely to do much harm to bilateral relations if other states were to expand their co-operation. No EU member state other than Romania has entered in to an Article 98 Agreement with the US. [1]\n\n[1] Barbour, The International Criminal Court, 2010\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "678e8d900537028f62981ddc18d28bc1",
"text": "international law house would pull out article 98 agreements prevent us soldiers The Rome Statute itself does not bind any state to be put on trial – it binds individuals. Individuals violating the criminal law of a state (the Rome Statute also integrating the international criminal law in to the national criminal law) have always been subject to trial and punishment by that state, barring cases of diplomatic immunity or other separate cases. This is nothing new – the Rome Statute respects the sovereignty of a nation within its territory. If anything, it is the use of coercive tactics by a state to give its citizens immunity from the ordinary law that is the violation of national sovereignty.\n\nEven without the BIAs it would only be possible to prosecute Americans if they commit an international crime in the jurisdiction of another state. When this occurs due to the principle of territoriality it has traditionally been the case that the state upon whose territory the act was committed is able to try those who committed the act. It is not a violation of sovereignty to allow the ICC rather than the other state the right to bring the defendant to trial.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "998591681fa6b1868de7d722ee09bc78",
"text": "international law house would pull out article 98 agreements prevent us soldiers Theoretical impunity is still impunity. The concept that any entity should be given special treatment by the law runs contrary to principles of the rule of law. If such immunity is not going to be needed then there is very little reason for the agreements in the first place and there should be little objection to getting rid of them.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "75299c51db4dba14e5c2638e6da0b6b1",
"text": "international law house would pull out article 98 agreements prevent us soldiers While they undermine the court, they are an inevitable quid pro quo of part of diplomatic relations with the US, the last remaining superpower. While impunity is not ideal, it is better than not signing and taking part in international criminal justice at all. Creating BIAs does not mean that the countries in question will absolve their own citizens of wrongdoing instead they are likely to be tried at home and in some cases may still be handed over to the ICC.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f5281c316329b45a6ee3ff3c83a58f26",
"text": "international law house would pull out article 98 agreements prevent us soldiers The United States is not under any form of responsibility to other states to provide them with military and other aid. Aid has always been provided with strings attached to those whose receipt of aid is considered beneficial. It is within the purview of the US to decide who they give aid to, based on their own priorities. This is simply part of the diplomatic process. If the US wishes to provide aid to countries that sign up to treaties then this is its right, it is perfectly normal to provide a sweetener to encourage states to sign up while punishing those that don’t.\n\nThis then is a good reason why these European states should not pull out of their BIAs. To do so would mean losing the financial benefits being provided. At the same time it would also show that these states are not to be trusted when they sign up to international agreements.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "091638ee4a31f600d0f01b5bd05f74cf",
"text": "international law house would pull out article 98 agreements prevent us soldiers The text of the Rome Statute is clear. Article 98(2) is unspecific as to the variety of international agreements that it covers, unlike the narrower Article 98(1) covering diplomatic immunity.\n\nArticle 98 Agreements are a tool that is a legitimate method of the US ensuring that US citizens are not subject to trial and punishment by a court which the United States is not a part of. This would run against the principle that a treaty only affects states that have signed and ratified it, rather than any others.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9aff4b58453e5d9894959cbead15cdaa",
"text": "international law house would pull out article 98 agreements prevent us soldiers Article 98 Agreements are a crucial tool in maintaining American national sovereignty\n\nAs a key part of its national sovereignty, the US should not be required to have its citizens subject to the ICC if it does not ratify the treaty itself of its own choice. It is an accepted principle, as enshrined in Article 34 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, [1] that a treaty only binds the states that have consented to it. Binding citizens of states who are not parties, who may be acting under the orders of a state arm, such as a military, when in the territory of state parties, violates that state’s sovereignty. There have been attempts to put US soldiers on trial. Italy for example put Mario Lozano on trial for the killing of an Italian agent in Iraq, the US maintained he was doing his job at a checkpoint and provided warnings while the Italians considered it murder. In this case the United States was able to refuse to hand the soldier over but BIA’s ensure that such actions will not be a concern whenever troops are deployed abroad. [2]\n\nBilateral Immunity Agreements are a legitimate tool to ensure that this key principle is protected in the case of the International Criminal Court – this has no bearing on the nations that desire to be part of the International Criminal Court.\n\n[1] United Nations. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969, http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf\n\n[2] “Controversial Trial Opens in Rome: Italy Tries US Soldier For Iraq Murder”, Spiegel Online, 17 April 2007, http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/controversial-trial-opens-in-rome-italy-tries-us-soldier-for-iraq-murder-a-477738.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c95eb96e31f9ef122a3b5e436e31e22c",
"text": "international law house would pull out article 98 agreements prevent us soldiers Article 98 Agreements are unlikely to be needed\n\nThe prospect of an Article 98 Agreement actually being relied on is slim. It would require the International Criminal Court to prosecute an American for a crime against humanity, or genocide, that takes place in ICC member state. There is next to no chance of the UN Security Council referring a case against America to the ICC as the US has a veto as a permanent member.\n\nThe ICC already makes only a highly limited number of prosecutions per year, in obvious cases, and so far all of these have been focused on the developing world. While Article 98 agreements may be unsavoury, the chance of them actually being used to grant someone impunity is low.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ccefd06f0ad95844c14d36609caf1d8",
"text": "international law house would pull out article 98 agreements prevent us soldiers The rationale for the BIAs is flawed\n\nThe Bilateral Immunity Agreements that these states have entered in to undermine the court that these states have signed up to. BIAs invalidate the intention for the ICC that any person who is subject to the jurisdiction of the court (which only triggers when an individual is a citizen of a state that has ratified the Rome Statute, or in the territory of a Rome Statute state) and commits the horrific acts covered by the Rome Statute should be brought to trial by providing a get out clause for the powerful. A proliferation in BIAs could potentially render the ICC a court that can only try nationals of small states that do not have the leverage to get others to agree to BIAs, already the ICC is accused of bias in putting Africans on trial and ignoring the rest of the world, such agreements make this worse. [1] BIAs by one state, the United States, creates a precedent for other states to use and as they do so the field that is available for international criminal justice will become smaller and smaller.\n\n[1] Kersten, Mark, “African and the ICC: Some Unsolicited Advice”, Africa at LSE, 28 May 2013, http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/africaatlse/2013/05/28/africa-and-the-icc-some-unsolicited-advice/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b8ad222f5177efb06b64930d417b605",
"text": "international law house would pull out article 98 agreements prevent us soldiers The BIAs were only granted following bully tactics from the United States\n\nThe United States has been accused of using bullying tactics in the pursuit of gaining Article 98 Agreements by, amongst others, Human Rights Watch [1] .\n\nThis has included significant reductions in non-military, development aid, including to countries such as South Africa, the Bahamas [2] and Peru [3] , as well as making threats to accession to NATO in the case of Croatia. [4]\n\nBy signing up to Article 98 Agreements, European nations help contribute to a climate where smaller nations can also be strong-armed in to harming the International Criminal Court by signing them, even if they were not subject to blackmailed in to it themselves.\n\n[1] Roth, Kenneth, “Letter to the US Secretary of State Colin Powell on Bully Tactics against the International Criminal Court”, Human Rights Watch, 2003 http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2003/06/29/letter-colin-powell-us-bully-tactics-against-international-criminal-court\n\n[2] Roth, Letter to Colin Powell, 2003\n\n[3] Keppler, Elise, “The United States and the International Criminal Court: The Bush Administration’s Approach and a Way Forward Under the Obama Administration”, Berkeley Journal of International Law, 2009, 2, p12, http://bjil.typepad.com/Keppler_forPDF_[RC][1].pdf\n\n[4] Roth, Letter to Colin Powell, 2003\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f9ca732effe8db5312b4115ddae03df7",
"text": "international law house would pull out article 98 agreements prevent us soldiers The BIAs are at best bad faith compliance, and worst a blatant violation of the Rome Statute\n\nThe European states have signed and ratified the ICC Statute and should honour it, to do otherwise makes a mockery of the ICC which those states supported throughout its genesis and at least claim to continue to support.\n\nArticle 98(2) was only intended to be a factor where there are other agreements such as status of forces agreements (an agreement entered in to between two states, one having military forces in the other voluntarily, such as British troops in Germany). It was not meant as a broad-brush way for states being able to grant selective immunity to citizens of non-member states who have committed genocide or crimes against humanity inside the jurisdiction of an ICC member state.\n\nSigning an Article 98 Agreement is at best accepting foreign instigation of the abuse of process of a treaty. At worst it is accepting an illegal attempt at circumventing the treaty.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
daffb7b1ce0c562df9fa2573d0d6b30a
|
Custodial sentences make recidivism more likely
A custodial sentence is capable of destroying the relationships and livelihood of an offender. Imprisonment means that an offender will be unable to work and will lose his job, if he has one. Statistics sourced from the Pew Foundation indicate that a criminal record can reduce the likelihood of a black, male American securing a job by up to 57% [i] . The isolation inherent in imprisonment can lead to the breakup of marriages and to the decay of relationships between parents and children. The stigma associated with a custodial sentence may result in an offender being shunned by his friends, his family and his community. He will, in effect, be left with no sources of support once he is released. A former inmate will be left with no incentive to adjust his behaviour and disengage with criminality [ii] . The Pew Foundation notes that 43% of offenders in the United States were returned to prison within three years of release [iii] .
The long-term damage done to an offender’s life is not an intended consequence of custodial sentencing. However, it cannot be claimed to be a proportionate response to crime, as it affects both serious offenders and those accused of non-violent offences such as burglary or fraud. The decay of an offender’s relationships and social support structures is yet another harmful externality of custodial punishment.
A corporal sentence caters to the social imperative to punish criminals, but it also allows offenders to remain with their families and to avoid financial hardship by remaining in employment. In Moskos’ own words, corporal punishment allows society to express its disapproval quickly and efficiently, leaving the offenders to “move on” with the process of reform.
It is in the interests of any effective system of rehabilitation to ensure that a non-violent offender remains in contact with their family and remains in employment (excepting, of course, offenders who have attack or abused family members). Families, spouses and social networks can play an important role in supporting and encouraging an offender to engage with rehabilitation programmes. Wives and children can effectively monitor an offender’s behaviour when trained staff are unavailable, integrating the reform process with the offender’s day to day life.
[i] “Tackling Recidivism: They All Come Home”, The Economist, 20 April 2011, http://www.economist.com/node/18587528
[ii] “A Plague of Prisons: The Epidemiology of Mass Incarceration in America”. Drucker, E. The New Press
[iii] “Tackling Recidivism: They All Come Home”, The Economist, 20 April 2011, http://www.economist.com/node/18587528
|
[
{
"docid": "c6d988e7a7e19a00a76dce25d7ea417d",
"text": "law general punishment corporal punishment adult offenders Rehabilitation programmes are not a panacea – nor are they instantly or reliably effective. The risk of an individual committing crime can only be reduced by long-term engagement with reform schemes. In 2009 violations of parole- the rules, conditions and schemes offenders are required to engage with on being released from prison- led to a third of all state prison admissions in the United States [i] .\n\nThis being the case, the best location in which to rehabilitate offender is prison. Prison serves, in some cases, to separate prisoners from poverty and desperation, and to help them access the structure and routine that was missing from their lives.\n\nMoreover, contrary to the proposition’s argument, offenders are less likely to originate from stable family environments, to have secure employment, or to have the skills that will let them seek employment in the future.\n\nAdditionally, it does not seem proportionate for a white collar fraudster, whose actions could affect the livelihoods of thousands of individuals, to receive a flogging while retaining his freedom and his assets.\n\nPrison also quarantines offenders from the influence of gangs or damaged family structures. Offenders may have difficulty cutting themselves off from close knit social groups of this type; the activities of these groups (drug taking, organised violence) may compete with the positive behaviours fostered by rehabilitation.\n\nIt cannot be assumed that dramatic changes in an offender’s behaviour can be brought about without a correspondingly dramatic change in their environment and lifestyle. Criminality is as dependent on context and environment as it is on the choices and values of the criminal.\n\nIf there are minimal restraints put on an offender’s freedom while he rehabilitates, it will be easier for him to avoid complying with rehabilitation programmes. As noted above, the threat of further floggings will not motivate offenders who have become habituated to brutality and violence.\n\n[i] “Tackling Recidivism: They All Come Home”, The Economist, 20 April 2011, http://www.economist.com/node/18587528\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7c1fd62f28945859eda4521750fae6d9",
"text": "law general punishment corporal punishment adult offenders While the conservative press may advocate the reintroduction of corporal sentences, an equally vocal section of society would condemn any attempt to use flogging as a means of punishment. The inherently pragmatic political discourse that prevails in most liberal democracies would be as reluctant to replace prison with the lash as it currently is to reduce prison populations and confront under-investment in rehabilitation schemes.\n\nIt should be noted that corporal punishment was initially abandoned as a result of the activities of penal reform campaigners in the early eighteen hundreds. These thinkers, politicians and professionals were able to convince members of a much more conservative political class of the wisdom of sentences focussed on rehabilitation. Moreover, they sold the idea of penal reform to a public who lacked the robust defences against disorder and criminality (the police, electronic surveillance, cheap insurance) that we take for granted today. Victorian-era citizens had much more to fear from crime than we do. If such dramatic change could be brought about in the nineteenth century, why should it be out of the grasp of politicians in the twenty first?\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "21e3c6352ab4d37df3811fa934887af4",
"text": "law general punishment corporal punishment adult offenders Through their actions, career criminals and drug offenders often subject their families to misery far in excess of the temporary absence of a loved one, or transient financial hardship. The damaging processes of taking drugs and supporting a habit are normalised for children living with addicts; children exposed to drugs in this way are much more likely to develop an addiction themselves. Criminals who make a business out of thievery may use the family home to store acquisitions. Wives and members of an extended family may be coerced into trading stolen goods. Offenders who trade drugs or store stolen goods in leased or social housing risk eviction if their activities are discovered. This, in turn, would lead to their families being displaced or left homeless. Siblings and parents of gang members can often be the targets of violence resulting from feuds and “territorial disputes”.\n\nAs noted above, rehabilitation does not offer an immediate “cure” for criminality. Neither can it protect families who, through ignorance or misfortune, are maintained by the proceeds of criminal activity. Although a significant number of prison inmates may be normally honest citizens who have made bad or impulsive choices, an equally large number are poorly socialised members of chaotic families. The environment of lawlessness that such individuals create in family homes creates a situation that may lead their spouses and children into deviance themselves.\n\nUnder these circumstances, isolating an offender from his family may give the family an opportunity to break free of a pattern of daily life that would otherwise be saturated with criminality.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9faf630df9ff914211e30bd58913033d",
"text": "law general punishment corporal punishment adult offenders What pretends to be an argument in support of the resolution is in fact an argument in favour of reforming the prison system. It is true that in an alarming number of prisons the rehabilitative objective of incarceration has been forgotten. In many other prisons, however, innovative rehabilitation programmes are flourishing. The prison system is not a monolith – it is a network of different institutions, each serving a specific purpose, each subject to different standards of management. Schemes such as the HOPE (Honest Opportunity Probation) drug offence sentencing programme in Hawaii [i] should be used as an example of best practice, communicated to other prisons and replicated in other jurisdictions.\n\nDoubtless, knowledge sharing, professional standards and levels of accountability could be improved in many prisons. However, this does not mean that a prison sentence will inevitably lead to an offender suffering harm.\n\nMoreover, if an increase in the prison population has failed to reduce rates of offending, an explanation could well be found in a poorly administered corpus of criminal law, rather than poorly run prisons. As a study conducted by The Economist points out, American law makers are fond of attaching criminal sanctions to otherwise innocuous misdemeanours in order to appear tough on crime. An increase in the number of activities being described as criminal can mask the success of prisons in reducing the number of individuals likely to commit truly harmful, truly criminal acts.\n\nIf we cannot be certain that the prison system has failed, if we cannot be certain that the prison system is uniformly harmful to inmates, why should we hasten to replace it with an untested alternative such as “supervised” flogging?\n\nFinally, incarceration, apart from being used to punish criminals, also helps to protect the public, by physically preventing offenders from engaging in criminal activities. Dramatically reducing sentences or attempting to rehabilitate criminals within the community will not prevent them from carrying out further offences. Rehabilitation is not immediately effective; moreover, its usefulness is often reduced when the positive messages that it tries to communicate have to compete with poverty borne of long-term unemployment, or loyalty to a local gang.\n\nThe proposition assumes that the pain associated with corporal punishment will be sufficient to discourage offenders from engaging in further criminal activities while they are being rehabilitated. Empirical proof of this deterrent effect is hard to come by. A large number of offenders live lives characterised by chronic brutality, often the result of parental abuse or long term involvement in gang violence, and they may come to regard state administered flogging as little more than an occupational inconvenience, one more aggressive act among many.\n\n[i] “A revival of flogging?”, The Economist, 25 April 2010, http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/04/crime_and_punishment\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5f8e0cff07ef7360e527df69bd1e3ea",
"text": "law general punishment corporal punishment adult offenders The opposition is unable to conclusively prove that the growth in the prison population and the reduced effectiveness of rehabilitation is a direct result of over-criminalisation.\n\nIt may be true that the list of non-traditional crimes is expanding, but the harm that the resolution is seeking to address arises in the prison system, not in politician’s manifestos.\n\nThe majority of offenders imprisoned in the USA and the UK have committed genuine crimes, albeit of a petty or non violent nature. Once exposed to the prison system the criminal tendencies of these individuals are entrenched, rather than eliminated. The prison system does not transform unwitting and harmless offenders into criminals – it makes criminals out of desperate, poorly socialised or ignorant offenders. The prison system harms those placed in its care because it is no longer able to carry out its rehabilitative objectives.\n\nThe failure to rehabilitate those convicted of “ordinary” criminality impacts on the prison system itself, when recidivism and social exclusion lead to offenders being repeatedly convicted.\n\nThe root cause of the problems in the status quo is not the creation of too many crimes, but a failure to accept the contemporary reality of crime and criminal behaviour. Flogging would allow policy makers to engage with this reality, while satisfying the fundamental need to see wrongdoing punished.\n\nThe danger posed by over-inclusive corporal sentences is neatly eliminated by the balancing of judicial and legislative power in liberal democracies. Judges are given discretion in order to allow them to mitigate the effects of atavistic, unreasonable, disproportionate or populist manipulations of the law. If a judge believes that flogging would be excessive or unnecessary, given the nature of an offence, he will usually be free to hand down a different sentence\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d36e34154922140d27c1c9e1f939bbea",
"text": "law general punishment corporal punishment adult offenders As distasteful as debaters, moral philosophers and constitutional lawyers may find it, society still has a need to punish criminals. Although it seems to lack logic or reason (inflicting suffering on a criminal cannot be recompense for what he has taken, and may even prevent him from properly compensating his victim), a criminal justice system which does not punish will not command the confidence of the public.\n\nIf a criminal justice system is unable to command the confidence of the public, alternative methods of addressing criminal behaviour will be sought. Eliminating the role of punishment in criminal justice would put our entire judicial system at risk.\n\nThe resolution calls for a minimal and carefully controlled use of force by the state. This use of force is necessary in order to provide protection for the state’s citizens in the long term – by leaving the prison system free to treat and control offenders who are truly violent and dangerous, and by preventing the social exclusion of non-violent offenders.\n\nWhile a state should endeavour to demonstrate the virtues of non violence and compromise, it can also fail in its duty to its citizens by being negligent of the needs of offenders, and wilfully ignorant of the most effective solutions to criminality.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3c3261ddc685298e92fe5112a6846600",
"text": "law general punishment corporal punishment adult offenders There is political capital to be gained from adopting a hard line stance on law and order issues, but there is also political capital to be gained from showing that a particular policy has had a positive effect on reoffending. The Pew Foundation report cited above has also determined that some 90% of US voters were in favour of reducing the length of prison sentences and “strengthening” probation and parole systems [i] .\n\nThe opposition assumes that politicians are interested only in cheap, hollow, short term solutions to problem. However, a large number of policy makers are genuinely public spirited, with a sincere interest in solving long-standing social problems. The adversarial nature of politics tends to prevent politicians from seeking elaborate or novel solutions to such issues. Spending money on intangible rehabilitation programmes will always provoke more criticism than spending money on training more police officers.\n\nThe resolution allows politicians to engage with the novel solution to criminality offered by rehabilitation while at the same time meeting a general demand for criminals to be visibly and strictly punished for their actions.\n\nThere will be a cynical minority of politicians who will see the dramatic nature of flogging as an opportunity to disguise cuts to reform programmes. Equally, there will be others who will use corporal sentences as an opportunity to address and resolve the politically intractable problem of criminal deviance.\n\n[i] “Tackling Recidivism: They All Come Home”, The Economist, 20 April 2011, http://www.economist.com/node/18587528\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f9448e0afcd01d3f0a5e064cacd3f044",
"text": "law general punishment corporal punishment adult offenders Prison reform is politically unachievable\n\nThe failures of the prison system are tolerated within political culture and by the public, partly because the privations of the prison environment are seen as a suitable punishment for criminal behaviour. Deprivation of liberty and the emptiness of criminal life are seen as retribution for criminals’ dishonest or violent activities.\n\nPoliticians dare not confront the damaging effects of imprisonment for fear of being labelled as “soft” on crime. There is greater political cache to be gained from introducing policies that prolong prison terms, and remove judges’ discretion to order non custodial sentences. Novel approaches to the problem of criminality are seen as signs of political weakness.\n\nThe use of monitored corporal punishment will keep offenders who have not committed serious crimes out of the prison system. At a nominal rate of five lashes for every year of incarceration, flogging will serve as a clear demonstration of societal disapproval, satisfying popular conceptions of retributive “justice”. Once the need to punish is satisfied, policy makers will be free to institute new rehabilitation schemes that address the root causes of criminal behaviour; these schemes can be set up without sacrificing political capital or appearing to prioritise the rights of criminals over victims or the public.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c1d40864dfa349bdb69f80e61cddf121",
"text": "law general punishment corporal punishment adult offenders Flogging harms offenders less than imprisonment\n\nhe criminologist Peter Moskos [i] observes that most of us, if given the choice, would opt to receive ten lashes rather than spend five years in prison. Paradoxically, a significant number of us would condemn corporal punishment as barbaric and inhumane. If imprisonment is a more rational response to criminal behaviour, why would so many rational individuals opt to receive corporal punishment?\n\nContemporary prisons are the result of a failed utopian experiment. They serve no useful rehabilitative purpose, and exist only to fulfil a common desire to punish deviant behaviour and to segregate criminals from the public at large. Prisons harm inmates and obstruct attempts to reintegrate them into society. It may be necessary to incarcerate certain compulsive and habitually violent criminals, but for a majority of offenders, prison only serves exacerbate underlying social, economic and psychological problems that lead to criminality.\n\nUsing corporal punishment to reduce or replace custodial sentences would provide an effective way to fulfil the social need to punish criminals, while removing the harmful externalities of mass incarceration. Strictly supervised whipping or caning can adequately and proportionately express society’s anger with the criminal, while avoiding the dangers of long-term incarceration and reinvigorating the use of rehabilitation.\n\nIn the United States, the UK and many European countries, prison populations have increased dramatically, but reductions in rates of offending have been minimal or non existent. In the absence of funding, or coherent, centrally administered rehabilitation strategies, prisons have become places devoid of productive activity. Prisoners are not encouraged to address the causes of their offending, or to acquire skills that will help them to live independently in society following their release. Boredom, overcrowding and under-staffing have led to the emergence of gang- and drug-cultures in many prisons. Inmates incarcerated for minor offences quickly become complicit in gang violence, or fall prey to alcoholism and drug addiction. Gang associations and chemical dependencies carry over into inmates’ lives once they are released. The prison system serves only to breed criminality, not to cure it.\n\nThe cost of incarcerating the average offender in the United Kingdom is estimated to be £45000 a year [ii] . Reduced spending on incarceration can be used to fuel an increase in spending on detoxification, rehabilitation and restorative justice schemes. Moreover damaging effects of prison will not cancel out the positive effects of rehabilitation.\n\nThe physical injuries resulting from whipping, although painful, are less severe than the subtler damage wrought on inmates by imprisonment.\n\n[i] “In Defense of Flogging”, The Chronicle of Higher Education, 24 April 2011, http://chronicle.com/article/In-Defense-of-Flogging/127208/\n\n[ii] “Tough on Crime, Tough on Criminals”, The economist, 23 June 2011, http://www.economist.com/node/18867740\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f9e33381e4f5723e673a6611a99df91f",
"text": "law general punishment corporal punishment adult offenders Imprisonment punishes offenders’ families\n\nEven though liberal democratic systems of justice continue to place an emphasis on punishment rather than rehabilitation, sentences are still required to be proportionate to the crime that they punish. Further, a sentence must only punish those judged responsible for the crime. Collective punishment and guilt by association are not tolerated within rational, liberal systems of criminal law.\n\nImprisoning or fining an offender often places an intolerable burden on the offender’s family. If the offender is a breadwinner, the family is denied the income that he would otherwise provide. They may be forced to use inadequate benefit systems. Other members of the family may be forced to take up a second job, adversely affecting childcare arrangements. Any fines that an offender is ordered to pay are often impact upon his family, damaging household budgets and forcing other family members into debt.\n\nThe negative effects of a custodial sentence extend beyond the offender himself. Financial and social deprivation may have a minimal impact on an offender while his is imprisoned, but may cause considerable suffering within his family. Sudden social isolation and poverty have themselves been shown to provoke criminality and increase childhood deviance.\n\nCorporal sentences allow a punishment to be targeted only at the criminal, not at their families.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3836871ef00a57ff7849aba82dd4c64f",
"text": "law general punishment corporal punishment adult offenders Flogging will be over-utilised, rehabilitation will be under-utilised\n\nThe “packaging” of flogging with a revitalised approach to rehabilitation that proposition suggests may be a feasible response to some crimes, but politicians are much more likely to treat the lash as a panacea for any activity or trend that affects the public’s confidence in the justice system.\n\nThe public and the mass media are not inclined the probe the depths of criminal sentencing. Criminals are hard to sympathise with, and public confidence rests largely on the visible aspects of a sentence – has a criminal been locked away? Will they be closely monitored on release? Has a criminal received a sufficient number of lashes? As a consequence, as with custodial sentences, cutbacks to reform programmes can be achieved with little objection, leaving only the empty and brutal gesture of flogging itself. Political reality will neutralise the aspirations of the proposition\n\nLawmakers are currently too keen to invoke imprisonment as a response to crime. They are likely to be just as hasty in ordering the use of whipping as a sanction for criminality. A 1995 US Department of State Report on the use on penal practices in Singapore noted that 3244 sentences had incorporated caning [i] . A subsequent Department of State briefing published in 2008 stated that the Singaporean judiciary had handed down 6404 sentences that included either mandatory or discretionary use of caning [ii] . The corporal sentences handed down to Malaysian women that were discussed above were widely held to have been influenced by a clamp-down on “moral” offences mounted by the Malaysian judiciary [iii] .\n\nFlogging will not prevent politicians from making grabs for political capital by criminalising the ill-judged actions of otherwise harmless, well-adjusted and compliant members of society. Moreover, law makers are likely to discount or overlook the close link between flogging and rehabilitation that the proposition case is dependent on.\n\n[i] “Singapore Human Rights Practices, 1994”, US Department of State, February 1995, http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/democracy/1995_hrp_report/95hrp_report_eap/Singapore.html\n\n[ii] “Singapore”, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, US Department of State, 11 March 2008, http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2007/100537.htm\n\n[iii] “Malaysia canes women for adultery”, Al Jazeera English, 18 February 2010, http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia-pacific/2010/02/201021844619366612.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "502e95b7fbe4fb90f0733fd55f8fcbee",
"text": "law general punishment corporal punishment adult offenders Poorly constructed laws are not an excuse to abandon the prison system\n\nThe proposition does nothing to address the root cause of overcrowding in prisons and “over-inclusive” penal codes. The problems inherent in the status quo are not solved by flogging. The strain placed on penal institutions and systems of sentencing originates in a political culture that cynically exploits public fear of crime and social breakdown to win votes and project power.\n\nAs noted above, many law makers frequently set out to “discover” or “invent” new forms of criminal offence, in order to appear proactive in reducing criminality or protecting communities from state or corporate graft [i] . Dogmatic and over-zealous responses to existing problems can also transform civil or disciplinary issues into crimes. A case in point is Indian anti corruption campaigners’ insistence on the use of a broad and open definition of “bribery” in a proposed open-government law. Under the “three strikes” implemented in the US state of California, approximately 3700 non-violent repeat offenders are serving life sentences [ii] . A US medical specialist received a twenty five year prison term when a number of his patients, without his knowledge, were found to have been illegal selling the drugs he had prescribed to them. Additionally, the practice of electing judicial officials in states such as the US incentives candidates to hand out sentences or file charges that generate a positive public response, whether or not they are suitable response to the actions and circumstances of offenders [iii] .\n\nThe resolution purports to discipline and restrain criminals, but does nothing to discipline and restrain law makers. Simply replacing custodial sentences with flogging will do nothing to address the factors that have led to an unreasonable expansion of penal law. The process of excessive criminalisation may even be accelerated, as the reduced cost of flogging over imprisonment encourages policy makers to turn to corporal punishment as a populist, knee-jerk response to civil disorder or moral panics.\n\nEvidence of the inappropriate use of corporal punishment has already emerged from states such as Singapore, where, in 1995 a 48-year-old French citizen was caned for breaking the conditions of his Visa. Corporal sentences have also been given to Singaporean citizens convicted of vandalism and criticising Singapore’s judiciary. In Malaysia during 2010 and 2009 [iv] , state-sanctioned religious courts ordered the caning of four women who had admitted to extra marital affairs and drinking alcohol [v] – the first sentences of their kind in the history of the modern Malaysian state.\n\n[i] “Rough Justice in America”, The Economist, 22 July 2010, http://www.economist.com/node/16636027\n\n[ii] “Rough Justice in America”, The Economist, 22 July 2010, http://www.economist.com/node/16636027\n\n[iii] “Rough Justice in America”, The Economist, 22 July 2010, http://www.economist.com/node/16636027\n\n[iv] “Malaysia canes women for adultery”, Al Jazeera English, 18 February 2010, http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia-pacific/2010/02/201021844619366612.html\n\n[v] “Malaysia in heated debate over caning of woman”, World Corporal Punishment Research, 25 July 2009, http://www.corpun.com/09archive/myj00907.htm#21492\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e2fd96c045755e1aa0d975ca71a6ff4",
"text": "law general punishment corporal punishment adult offenders States’ duty to avoid the use of force when solving social problems\n\nHow will the severity and legality of flogging be monitored? How will it be reconciled with existing liberal democratic value sets? The majority of western liberal democracies are party to inter-governmental and supranational agreements that expressly forbid states from using torture or degrading or inhuman punishments in any capacity.\n\nThe mark of a modern, liberal state is that it uses authority and engagement rather than raw power to protect its citizens. The use of force or power by the state and its agents is harder to regulate and costlier to compensate when it is misapplied. Liberal democracies, apart from being agents of realpolitik, are also aspirational bodies that should strive to reflect and adhere to the values they were created to defend. Arbitrary, coercive force and violence is one of the core harms that a state must guard against. Violence is said to be the preserve of criminals and those acting against the values of society. Therefore, as an aspirational body, the state should hold itself to a higher standard of behaviour than such individuals.\n\nViolence, as most liberal constitutions make clear, should only ever be employed by the state as a last resort. Where a state has the means to do so, even if those means are costly or politically contentious, it should endeavour to achieve peace and order within its own borders without wielding power.\n\nAt its broadest, the liberal democratic ideology holds that the rights and autonomy of individual citizens should be only be infringed in order to protect the rights and autonomy of other citizens. This principle would be violated if the state resorted to corporal sentencing as a way of satisfying a mob-like demand for visible and harsh criminal sentencing.\n\nNo citizen of a liberal democracy has a right to demand that another citizen, criminal or not, should be subjected to unnecessary pain and suffering by the state.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
e4fb32d16152546e44bddabf8cb71367
|
An African Criminal Court would be a waste of money
International trials are expensive – 14% of the AU’s annual budget for an ICC trial [1] .
The ICC is cheaper than the cost of the tribunal system – the cost of the Charles Taylor trial was roughly two and a half times that of the $20M figure for ICC trials. Africa already contributes little to the budget of the ICC. The ICC will be cheaper than standalone tribunals thanks to economies of scale.
The African Union has a track record of failures as well – NEPAD, the New Partnership for African Development tried to have a quasi-judicial element aiming to create rulings against corruption, but failed [2] .
[1] IRIN, “Analysis: How Close is an African Criminal Court?”, IRIN (Integrated Regional Information Networks), 13 June 2012, http://www.irinnews.org/report/95633/analysis-how-close-is-an-african-criminal-court
[2] Editorial, ‘African Criminal Court Not Viable’, the Star, 17 July 2012, http://allafrica.com/stories/201207180064.html
|
[
{
"docid": "b88e90f207be0945b425e3ada35368e4",
"text": "rnational africa law human rights international law house would create african Peace is cheaper than war – however much a court case costs, in both human lives and money, it is better for there to be a trial.\n\nEven if it is more expensive, justice is priceless – it is not something that can be subjected to cost-benefit analyses or bean counting.\n\nThe reason why Western countries fund the ICC is not some form of imperialism – simply a desire for global peace, justice and security so they would likely be willing to keep paying much of the cost.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "808179268b28c010df8da8c181f7d2a8",
"text": "rnational africa law human rights international law house would create african By being a court for the African continent by the African continent, there will not be room for allegations of imperialism and/or racism that already exist against the International Criminal Court.\n\nIn addition, the African states that are members of the International Criminal Court have chosen to do so – it is not a violation of state sovereignty for a state to voluntarily sign a treaty even if that treaty restricts the actions of future governments.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "649b386d86f17d1848f99a42cab65747",
"text": "rnational africa law human rights international law house would create african An African Criminal Court instead of African ICC membership would not lead to impunity – just more local courts. The principle of complementarity, allowing national courts to take appropriate action – is already enshrined in the ICC. In a particularly bad case, the UN Security Council could still refer a situation to the ICC.\n\nRunning an African Criminal Court in tandem with the ICC would allow another layer of regional justice to bring the Nuremberg precedent – leaders held criminally responsible for criminal actions – in to fruition in Africa.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a65aa9b1a684e74adf1ae0b8ef8bec92",
"text": "rnational africa law human rights international law house would create african If it is a damp squib, so be it – other international organizations have fallen in to disuse – UN institutions that only exist on paper such as the Trusteeship Council are not doing any harm and there would be the fallback of returning to the ICC if things go wrong.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0716ad68ada912f67e398526b5efc635",
"text": "rnational africa law human rights international law house would create african African states have been happy with the ICC in the past – they referred ICC cases to the court themselves.\n\nIf African states were to set up their own court, it would be unclear how it would work with the existing framework of the ICC as some African states may wish to remain ICC members. Also, a regional body would still lead to allegations of a “foreign court”, while at the same time placing the decisions in the hands of judges who may be less insulated from regional geopolitical pressures.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "384d92be50d6986fc292e92ad89bab40",
"text": "rnational africa law human rights international law house would create african Drugs trafficking was considered as a role for the ICC, but rejected as unworkable – an ACC would face the same problems. “Unconstitutonal change of government” would be open to rampant political abuse, allowing existing governments to cling on to power.\n\nNo other supranational regional body has tried having its own prosecution system or criminal courts – not even the European Union. Regional bodies can – and should – have courts to deal with treaty interpretation or human rights treaties, but regional criminal courts are a major step into the unknown. Criminal cases are best served by one nation, or all of them – not a regional bloc with its own tensions.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "74c26d81080da84bc3df5440e3775a55",
"text": "rnational africa law human rights international law house would create african There isn’t such a balancing act – without justice there cannot be peace as it is simply likely to lead to attempts at retribution or vigilante justice. Justice is a universal value, an end in itself. It is not something that can be given away as a bargaining chip.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7df2797e18dc7e72b6aed06c5f468739",
"text": "rnational africa law human rights international law house would create african Almost all of the cases where people have been indicted before the ICC – DR Congo, Uganda, Central African Republic and the Ivory Coast – have been referred to the court by African nations themselves. Those that have not were referred to the UN Security Council. The only case where the Office of the Prosecutor started a case leading to incitement was the Kenya case, Kenya having signed and ratified the Rome Statute. The ICC can only act where it has jurisdiction [1] - it is not a kangaroo court for particular cases.\n\nThe ICC has looked in to cases outside Africa, including in Afghanistan, Honduras, the Mediterranean sea (an Israeli attack on Comorosian, Greek and Cambodian ships), Korea, Colombia, Georgia and Palestine [2] .\n\n[1] Rome Statute, Article 22\n\n[2] Office of the Prosecutor, Report in to Preliminary Examination Activities, 2013, http://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/press%20and%20media/press%20releases...\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bdc4908ee87701689a5d649cd02125f2",
"text": "rnational africa law human rights international law house would create african ACC could destabilize Africa\n\nDepending on how the treaty is drawn up, an African Criminal Court could be open to abuse. If it has too broad powers, it could lead to political trials thanks to judges following orders from their domestic governments, and complaints to it by governments in diplomatic spats rather than actually resolving serious international criminal law crimes.\n\nThe same disputes that exist now within the ICC over issues such as interference with national sovereignty could just be replicated on a smaller scale – but rather than resembling a failure of any international body, it would be a regional body and lead to greater problems. If the ICC indicts a leader there is anger at the international community, if an ACC does the same there is a split in the AU.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4c811bf33add307f08cba9c381eca389",
"text": "rnational africa law human rights international law house would create african Just as much of a violation of sovereignty as the ICC\n\nPart of the calls for an African Criminal Court are based on the perception that the national sovereignty of African nations is being attacked in some way before the International Criminal Court.\n\nHowever, an African Criminal Court would be just as much of a violation of the sovereignty of individual African nations as the ICC; it is a system of courts outside the control of the nation of those it is trying.\n\nEuropean states object to courts outside their control dictating even when they are regional courts – consider the reactions to the European Court of Human Rights on areas like voting for prisoners or to the European Court of Justice. That these are regional not global courts makes little difference to national opinion. It is no surprise then that not even the EU with its close relations has attempted a supra national criminal court system.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "07eecb0db523cfe10a13b188e80299a8",
"text": "rnational africa law human rights international law house would create african Anti-ICC sentiment is a simple desire for impunity\n\nThe sole motive for the anti-ICC arguments raised by organizations such as the African Union is a drive towards impunity – particularly for heads of state. The prosecutions of Uhuru Kenyatta and Omar al-Bashir, so viciously opposed by the AU, are a show that heads of state are and should be subject to the international criminal law – a principle that dates back to Nuremberg.\n\nAn African Criminal Court would simply be granting African leaders’ carte blanche to perform crimes against humanity, as there would be a ready-made court to acquit them.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ef1c2a4aa4301e0e450ed21089c8ae70",
"text": "rnational africa law human rights international law house would create african Regional court is “best of both worlds”\n\nA regional court would be a good way to balance the competing issues between the legitimate concerns of the African states and the International Criminal Court.\n\nIt would be able to provide an African solution to African problems, with no accusations of external interference or colonialism. Similarly, it would have some of the advantages of the ICC particularly its independence from individual states, meaning those in high places are more likely to be held to account. With this accountability to an African court there would be an impression of being held to account by peers not outsiders.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "48067b299a5eed8322888854cadd3ff5",
"text": "rnational africa law human rights international law house would create african ICC doesn’t strike right balance between peace and justice for Africa\n\nThe balance between peace and justice is a complex issue. The ICC has disregarded peace as a priority in cases, focusing exclusively on justice by indicting individuals, which reduces the diplomatic leeway and drives those indicted towards a bunker mentality. The result then may be the conflict goes on longer and more crimes are committed. Peace and preventing future crimes should come before justice for past crimes. The ICC have focused on prosecuting Omar al Bashir, but it may be a better option to focus on diplomatic alternatives to trials for dealing with the conflict in Darfur.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c0512a168c09d99062a9373fd48af598",
"text": "rnational africa law human rights international law house would create african ICC is biased against Africans\n\nAll of the ongoing ICC prosecutions are based on events in Africa, and all those on trial are Africans.\n\nThe ICC has not brought actions following the invasion of Iraq, or the conflicts in Sri Lanka and Colombia. The lack of action in any matter outside sub-Saharan Africa shows that the international community are happy to allow the ICC to exclusively prosecute Africans. The UN Security Council, which contains no African permanent members, can veto any possible prosecution [1] and refer a case to the ICC [2] ..\n\nReplacing the ICC with an African Criminal Court would stop this bias, or perception of bias. This would be done by withdrawing from the Rome statute and the ICC which has been labelled as Western imperialism by people such as Rwandan president Paul Kagame [3] .\n\n[1] Rome Statute, Article 16\n\n[2] Rome Statute, Article 13\n\n[3] Du Plessis, footnote 36 (dead links)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "deb1bcd7ce36249121996ef24da37499",
"text": "rnational africa law human rights international law house would create african ACC could deal with pan-African problems that the ICC does not address\n\nIt has been suggested that offences such as “unconstitutional change of government”, drug trafficking, piracy and corruption [1] should be added to the jurisdiction of an African Criminal Court.\n\nThe ICC is limited to only a small number of crimes. However, an African Criminal Court could not only deal with the existing crimes, but create pan-African solutions in terms of dealing with a number of issues where Africa needs particular solutions.\n\nAn ACC could deal with piracy off the coast of East Africa, where there is no effective court system, due to Somalia amounting to a failed state. Similarly, “unconstitutional change of government” prosecutions could amount to a deterrent to coups.\n\n[1] IRIN, “Analysis: How Close is an African Criminal Court?”, IRIN (Integrated Regional Information Networks), 13 June 2012, http://www.irinnews.org/report/95633/analysis-how-close-is-an-african-cr...\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
4b7708df5135a9ecf6cede67ad32c4a2
|
Makes the affected laws effectively inoperable in their totality.
If people wish to carry knives in public or smoke marijuana, the rational thing for them to do under this legislation is to falsely claim to be Sikh or Rastafarian respectively so that they are not subject to these laws. This logic applies to all laws affected by this legislation.
The government would first have to work out what religions count for this legislation, the government would likely want to exclude at least some extremist cults and would not want to allow individuals or small to make up their own religions. Equally problematic would be that the government would need to regulate what all these beliefs are so as to prevent new beliefs from springing up to get around laws. The government would then have to work out ways of working out if someone is legitimately part of a religion or not, this would be practically impossible. The ultimate effect would be that all laws affected by this legislation would be so easy to get around that they may as well not exist.
Instead the government should look to accommodate religious values within British law by making the necessary changes in specific instances rather that introducing a carte blanche to override the laws of the land. [1]
[1] Petre, Jonathan et al, ‘Bishop: Impossible to have sharia law in UK’, The Telegraph, 8 February 2008,
|
[
{
"docid": "08c6fba2a6c695e622804dcbe6d63936",
"text": "law general philosophy political philosophy religion faith morality house believes This harm can be avoided very easily. Avoiding these laws becoming completely inoperable would actually be quite simple. People who observe nothing but the potentially illegal parts of the religion would not be considered part of that religion, particularly if they only began identifying as part of that religion once this legislation was passed.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e0cc6e1c8d99522d702f956ba62eab4e",
"text": "law general philosophy political philosophy religion faith morality house believes This is a weak slippery slope argument. The proposition does not accept that this legislation puts religion above the law. Religious people and movements do not see the potential to practise their religion to its fullest degree as a way to get one over on the state but a right that they deserve as a human being.\n\nThis legislation will not be seen as weakness but as tolerance.\n\nAs for honour killings, they are not religious but cultural and are denounced by leaders of all the world’s major faiths [1] as such they have nothing to do with this legislation and would not be perceived as having anything to do with this legislation.\n\n[1] “Honour Crimes.” BBC Ethics Guide. 2011.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c58f8a6183a26f22dadac293e66ca7c6",
"text": "law general philosophy political philosophy religion faith morality house believes This treats everyone the same rather than treating people differently. The proposition does not accept that people will perceive this as one set of rules for one group of people and another set of rules for another. This legislation does not create divisions in society but relieves them by ensuring that everyone is allowed to practise their religion to the fullest extent that they wish to.\n\nThe status quo is that some religious groups are allowed to practise their religion to its fullest extent and others are not. The proposition believes that this is far more divisive than this legislation.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe29088f22078b060b0e64f3dd65bc41",
"text": "law general philosophy political philosophy religion faith morality house believes Ignoring the law some of the time undermines the state. The opposition believe that this legislation goes much further than showing solidarity between the government and religion, and is actually the government showing submission to religion. This legislation sets religion as a higher authority than the government and, as such, undermines the government’s power as the ultimate authority.\n\nThe likely effect is that religious groups will begin to see themselves as above the law and will begin to disregard to government to an ever greater extent.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2906bcce159140544f7411d94a572c87",
"text": "law general philosophy political philosophy religion faith morality house believes Religious extremism is not currently considered ‘legitimate’. The community at large have a great disdain for terrorism and similar activity and mainstream religions desperately try to disassociate themselves from extremism, all the while condemning it. [1]\n\nThe opposition believes that this good will be so barely perceptible that it does next to nothing to outweigh all the harms that this legislation will bring.\n\n[1] Iannaccone, Laurence R. “Religious extremism: Origins and consequences” Contemporary Jewry. Volume 20. 1996.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "82d9fed676e20b57c7ba516c38f88b9e",
"text": "law general philosophy political philosophy religion faith morality house believes Undermines the state. Similarly to the point above, the opposition believe that this legislation will actually be seen by organised religion as a sign of submission from the government. It shows organised religious groups that they hold power over the government whenever they choose to use it.\n\nIn terms of international diplomacy, it shows theocratic states and the like that we are moving to become more like them. This legitimises their position, which the opposition thinks is an inherently harmful one as the voice of the people is not heard in non-democratic countries.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "793c71913b2f832ce8971e4c25c540f1",
"text": "law general philosophy political philosophy religion faith morality house believes Rights only exist so long as they do not harm others. Like all rights, the right to practise your religion to its fullest extent, regardless of the consequences for other people and the laws of your state is only a right in as far as it does not affect other people. The opposition believes that laws are in place to stop people from causing harm to one another and allowing religious people to break these laws is putting the rights of the religious people ahead of the rights of everyone else in society.\n\nThe government has a responsibility to respect the rights and standard of life of all people, not just religious people.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c69dec1721c868bb7fdd495d76e150c5",
"text": "law general philosophy political philosophy religion faith morality house believes Sets a standard for religion as it being above the law.\n\nThis legislation essentially indicates that anything to do with religion is not subject to the same laws as everyone else and removes the state from his position as ultimate authority over its subjects. The limits will be very difficult to draw – there are some things that everyone would agree is based upon religious belief such as the Sikhs carry knives but there may be other cases where a minority of the religion believes that something is required by their religion, should this still be allowed? Similarly would this apply to every single religion and sect or would the state have to define what it counts as a religion and limit it only to major religions?\n\nBy extension, this legitimises actions like honour killings, which are killings done in the name of religion. Although they would not be directly allowed by this legislation, they would be implicitly encouraged and those carrying it out would try to claim that it was carrying out a religious belief in order to get protection from the law. Already 1 in 10 young British Asians back honour killings, they do not need any encouragement from changes to the law like this. [1]\n\n[1] BBC News, ‘One in 10 ‘backs honour killings’’, 4 September 2006.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0b1e6f0bb998cc77240318d559deec51",
"text": "law general philosophy political philosophy religion faith morality house believes Causes divisions in society.\n\nOne of the most fundamental things in any democracy is equality between those in that society. Many minorities have been struggling for this equality for decades. This includes religious minorities for example between the reformation in the 16th Century and 1829 Catholics were second class citizens. [1] This demand that religious beliefs should override government laws switches things around and once again means that not everyone is equal before the law.\n\nMoreover making it law that certain groups of people are allowed to behave in a way that other groups of people are not inevitably leads to social divisions. This means people who are unaffected by this legislation will see religious people as getting special treatment, feel side-lined by the government and see religious people as their enemy in this.\n\nThis will promote tension between religious and non-religious communities and will thus create divisions in society as well as deepening pre-existing ones.\n\n[1] Living Heritage, ‘Religion and Belief’, parliament.uk.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d72fafbe564d2a5f4639b98f5987121",
"text": "law general philosophy political philosophy religion faith morality house believes Relationship between state and religious population\n\nPeople who are caused distress and have their religious freedom limited by their government are likely to feel disillusioned with and sidelined by their government. They will wonder why other religious groups can follow all the teachings of their faith while the government limits theirs. This kind of limitation of how to worship or what traditions and beliefs to follow can be part of the cause that leads to members of that religion feeling not welcome and discriminated against, ultimately leading to extremism. Allowing religious beliefs to override government laws would relieve these feelings and dramatically improve religious people’s relationship with the state.\n\nThis improvement in relationship would severely reduce the likelihood of anti-government feelings and general civil unrest.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9260f12dcc697c030a398d5df096044f",
"text": "law general philosophy political philosophy religion faith morality house believes Relationship between state and organised religion.\n\nCurrently, the state and organised religion are often seen as diametrically opposed. [1] For example the state often worries about the threat of religious extremists. This causes 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. As the Bishop of Liverpool puts it “Church and politics are not two parallel lines; rather they are two live wires, side by side, which when they touch should ignite and explode.” [2] Thus when Rowan Williams suggested Sharia might be accommodated his comments created a political storm.\n\nThis legislation would show that we do value and respect religious freedom and rights and would improve our relationships on both of these fronts.\n\n[1] Gay, Kathlyn. “Church and State.” Millbrook Press 1992\n\n[2] The Bishop of Liverpool, ‘Church and Politics: “My Kingdom is not of this world” Really?’, St Wilfrid Lecture, 18th February 2010.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cfd41fb5624a4748ca3869969ad9d846",
"text": "law general philosophy political philosophy religion faith morality house believes People have a right to freedom of religion.\n\nFreedom to religion is widely considered to be a fundamental human right. Freedom of religion is very similar to freedom of expression and is an inalienable right that cannot be taken away by the state. Article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights states “Everyone has the right to freedom of… religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.” [1] In addition to this, many people consider religion to be the single most important thing in their life.\n\nUnder the status quo, many people are inhibited in their ability to practise their religion to its fullest degree. This not only causes them great distress due to how important this is to them but is a breach of their human rights.\n\nThe government has an obligation to provide people with a basic standard of life and thus must pass this legislation.\n\n[1] “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” The United Nations Article 18\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5940350b18169d0b7ab4efd065a10aef",
"text": "law general philosophy political philosophy religion faith morality house believes Delegitimises religious\n\nCurrently, bombings and attacks in the name of religion are a big problem. These are mostly caused by people feeling that their religion is being discriminated against. [1] For example Dr Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury believes that \"There's a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law, as we already do with some other aspects of religious law.\" He believes this would help maintain social cohesion because Muslims would not need to choose between \"the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty\". [2]\n\nIf the government is seen to be supporting all religions then these attacks will lose their credibility and will inevitably be reduced in both severity and frequency.\n\n[1] Iannaccone, Laurence R. “Religious extremism: Origins and consequences” Contemporary Jewry. Volume 20. 1996.\n\n[2] BBC News, ‘Sharia law in UK is ‘unavoidable’’, 7 February 2008.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
4ddae062597a565841b664c596b113bd
|
Arming the police makes communities feel safer
Armed police reassure law-abiding citizens at a time when gun-related crime is increasing in most European countries and parts of North America. In the UK 28 gun crimes are committed every day. [1] Much public opinion holds that something must be done to tackle this. [2]
The sight of armed police officers patrolling the streets will not only deter gangs from harassing residents, but will instil in communities a confidence that they are being properly protected. Gangs are not interested in fighting the police; they are more concerned about attacks from other gangs in their area who are willing to break the law and attack them unprovoked.
People feel safer when they see armed police, especially if they perceive them as a response to a heightened risk. Thus, for example, police officers at British airports routinely carry sub-machine guns, although there is no evidential pattern to suggest that this high-visibility weaponry offers any situational strategic advantage over a more subtle arming.
[1] Hope, Christopher, ’28 gun crimes committed in UK every day’, The Telegraph, 24 January 2008, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576406/28-gun-crimes-committed-in-UK-every-day.html , accessed 20 September 2011
[2] Shearing, Clifford et al., Lengthening the Arm of the Law: Enhancing Police Resources in the Twenty-First Century, (Cambridge Studies in Criminology, 2008)
|
[
{
"docid": "1dccedd462024b104b3aab1f6f0d667f",
"text": "crime policing law general house would arm police Arming police would negatively impact the relationship between the police and the community – this is especially so in relation to some communities which feel that they bear the brunt of heavy, enforcement-led policing (for example young men in urban areas, ethnic minority groups). [1] Arming the police might delegitimise their role as community standard bearers. Many law-abiding citizens who have no connection to the criminal underworld are horrified by armed police, whom they regard as alien to their cultural frame of reference.\n\nGuns potentially place a distance between the people and the police and impact the relationship in a negative way. It impacts not only those who would perform potentially criminal activity, but even day to day police interaction such as breathalysing and spot checks on vehicles. The police would no longer be viewed as ‘upholding the peace’ but rather enforcing through threat.\n\nEven worse than the distancing effect, lethal weaponry is also a potent symbol of brutality. This can undermine the ability of the police to be seen as a key constituent part of civil society. This problem is exacerbated when this symbolic brutality is applied in ways that deviate from the expectations of civil society, for example through unfair racial profiling.\n\nFinally – arming the police may well alter the profile of police recruits. Police managers sometimes remark that the very last person to trust with a firearm is the one who wants one the most.\n\n[1] Jefferson, T. (1990) The Case against Paramilitary Policing, Milton Keynes, Open University Press; P. Scharf and A. Binder 1983 The Badge and the Bullet: Police Use of Deadly Force, New York, Praeger; Kraska, P. and Kappeler, V.E. 1997 Militarizing American Police: The Rise and Normalization of Paramilitary Units Social Problems, Vol. 44, No. 1 (Feb., 1997), pp. 1-18.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6d370c7ca27ce583ccf8b430c675176e",
"text": "crime policing law general house would arm police The police should not be reacting in such a way that they exacerbate those problems. By routinely arming its police officers, the state effectively legitimizes the weapon as a symbol of authority. Whether or not this is pragmatic, it is an implied affirmation of the criminal sub-culture, which will accordingly be strengthened.\n\nThe argument about a rapid increase in gun crime in the UK depends upon a very limited and selective use of crime data. Recorded gun crime did indeed rise by close to 105% between 1998 (when handguns were banned in the UK after the Dunblane tragedy) and 2003, but a large proportion of that increase is attributable to air weapon misuse and non-firing replica weapons. [1] Since then the increase has largely stabilised and even fallen. A temporary trend, now brought under control, is not necessarily a strong argument for changing, for ever, the nature and character of British policing.\n\nBy this policy—especially in the absence of a Constitutional right for citizens to bear arms—the role of the police is essentially defined in opposition to at least part of the citizenry. This can be contrasted to the more common expectation that police and citizens operate under essentially common rules, for shared values and that policing is undertaken in a spirit of the minimum use of force and by ‘public consent’.\n\n[1] Squires, P. 2008 Gun Crime: a Review of Evidence and Policy, Centre for Crime and Justice Studies http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/guncrime.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bea0993927edcc49dce93f36a380a330",
"text": "crime policing law general house would arm police The large majority of policewomen and men go through their whole career without handling firearms. The numbers in the firearms authorised officers are low, only 6780 in 2007-8 out of more than 100,000 police, [1] and even these have been criticised by SAS officers who stated “When the tension starts to rise and the adrenaline is flowing, the ‘red mist’ seems to descend on armed police officers who become very trigger-happy. This has been shown time and again in training exercises.” [2] Any expansion of the numbers of police carrying firearms could result in many more unsuitable police carrying guns.\n\n[1] Coaker, Vernon, ‘Statistics on police use of firearms in England and Wales 2007-08’, Home Office, 2 March 2009, http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/non-personal-data/police/police-firearms-use-2007-2008?view=Standard&pubID=807224 , accessed 20 September 2011\n\n[2] Winnett, Robert, ‘SAS trainers denounce ‘gung ho’ armed police’, The Sunday Times’, 18 September 2005, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article567961.ece , accessed 20 September 2011 (original article is no offline but the quote was not picked up by other newspapers)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "959832e231e0cae6bf4abf8904ff1428",
"text": "crime policing law general house would arm police When a police officer carries a weapon, she faces the risk of having that weapon turned on her by a criminal. It is also more obvious to a criminal that they need to shoot first against an armed officer whereas against an unarmed one they may be more open to listening and less likely to try and pre-empt being shot. So arming the police can sometimes make the police more vulnerable, rather than more protected.\n\nIf, as the opposing argument suggests, legally owned guns are part of the risk profile facing the police, measures ought to be taken to reduce the risk and restrict levels of gun ownership. The police have had a National (legal) Firearms Database since 2006 allowing them to assess whether someone they will be dealing with is a gun owner or whether the premises they are attending contains licensed firearms. Criminal misuse of illegal firearms is a different matter although, as has been argued, protection and safety are not the same as ‘armed’ and more armed police will probably mean more shootings and, equally probably, more mistakes and armed confrontations. [1]\n\n[1] P. Squires and P Kennison 2010 Shooting to Kill: Policing, Firearms and armed response. Oxford, Wiley/Blackwell.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc1c11b9773a4267d2e41bad07b87668",
"text": "crime policing law general house would arm police Arming the police can lead to a spiral of violence. In places where the police are not routinely armed, a portion of criminals will not arm themselves (since, for example, armed robbery often carries a higher sentence than robbery). Once the police are armed, criminals who do not match their capability operate under a strong disadvantage. Therefore, when the police become routinely armed, the criminal world fully arms itself in response. [1] The mere fact of increased weapons possession (by both police and criminals) will in itself result in higher use, since in circumstances where arms may not be currently used (e.g. a police chase), either side carrying weapons will mean that they consider shooting an option which they did not formerly possess. A study comparing police dispute resolution in Norway and Sweden (the former unarmed, the latter armed) [2] tended to confirm that where police have guns, they are much more likely to use them – the Swedish police shot significantly more suspects. Thus gun availability effectively reduces the options currently available to police along the ‘continuum of force’. For example, if the police are armed, they are less likely to use less harmful alternatives such as tasers, “stun guns”, CS spray, and negotiation, even though the lowered lethality of a technology generally seems to imply it will be used more frequently. [3]\n\n[1] Talking Point, ‘Should British police carry guns?’, BBC News, 12 February 2001, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/1156341.stm accessed 20 September 2011\n\n[2] Knutson , J and Strype J. 2003 Police use of Firearms in Norway and Sweden Policing and Society Vol. 13(4) pp. 429-439.\n\n[3] Porter Henry, ‘Should the police ever shoot to kill?’ Liberty Central, 13 May 2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/henryporter/2009/may/13/keith-richards-shoot-to-kill , accessed 20 September 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ca04f781f5b786ee135e5ab5fb87353",
"text": "crime policing law general house would arm police The police themselves are calling for more routine arming in the United Kingdom, through both the unions that represent rank and file policemen, and the bodies which speak for the senior officers. If we want them to uphold law and order, we should trust the police's judgement about the tools they need to carry out their task. To the contrary, recruitment will also suffer if police officers are seen as too vulnerable, as easy targets for criminals because they have no proper means to defend themselves.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1cf14d87e99b74650dbaa6269c19eacf",
"text": "crime policing law general house would arm police Arming police is not mutually exclusive with other policies that could deal with the whole spectrum of crime-related issues. This debate is not suggesting that other issues related to crime will not be dealt with. Rather that in order to facilitate a reduction in crime the criminal justice system will be served by police who are armed. It is untrue to suggest that simply because the police are armed, other integral parts of crime reduction will be ignored.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8bfaf0660d215f32b5ee2d74f7ebaabd",
"text": "crime policing law general house would arm police Violence is already escalating and we need a robust response. Many communities are vulnerable to postcode gangs comprised of young people aged 14 and upwards who are armed and dangerous and making their areas unsafe to live in. Only a robust and proactive response from the police such as patrolling such territories with firearms so as to protect themselves and innocent civilians will address this problem.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc6431987c1735b2b2f7e3a37009c35a",
"text": "crime policing law general house would arm police Armed police already exist in a number of situations and a rise in mistaken shootings that the opposition fear is not evident in these areas.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ff7a4aadded260befd4be283297790b",
"text": "crime policing law general house would arm police The police should be equipped to react to contemporary social problems\n\nThe old-fashioned notions of friendly neighborhood unarmed policing reflect the aspirations of a different age. As armed violence has increased sharply in parts of the developed world, the police need to redefine their role so that it is a more appropriate response to contemporary problems. In the UK, for example, gun crime almost doubled in the decade to 2008, [1] while the rise in London gun crime has tripled, the police need to be able to respond to this. [2] There is also danger in being a state with unarmed police when others states have armed police forces. The unarmed nation may be seen as a “soft touch” compared to other regional nations. This can encourage an importation of criminality.\n\n[1] Whitehead, Tom, 'Gun crime doubles in a decade', The Telegraph 27 October 2009, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6438601/Gun-crime-doubles-in-a-decade.html\n\n[2] Bamber, David, ‘Gun crime trebles as weapons and drugs flood British cities’, The Telegraph, 24 February 2002, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1385843/Gun-crime-trebles-as-weapons-and-drugs-flood-British-cities.html , accessed 20 September 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fae3e43fb6c9e2c96c133a97e1d52ef1",
"text": "crime policing law general house would arm police Arming the police is a necessary step\n\nPolice officers are routinely armed already in a variety of situations. This is a small step, as police officers are routinely armed already in a variety of situations, e.g. at airports and when providing security for political leaders or institutions. As mentioned earlier armed police have even been used before on routine patrols in areas where there has been gun crime. [1] Already rapid-response units of armed officers are available to deal with armed criminals, but these need to be specially summoned and authorised. Often, they arrive too late to do any good. The next obvious step would be to have many more police armed so as to make this response much faster.\n\n[1] BBC News, ‘Armed police patrols withdrawn’, 7 February 2003, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2734997.stm accessed 20 September 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c1b8b7364ac9b6bfa51ca5c9c7e0464",
"text": "crime policing law general house would arm police Policing is a dangerous job. Police officers should be allowed to arm themselves\n\nThere is a global increase in gun ownership, even in countries which did not traditionally think of themselves as having a large criminal gun culture. Presently 1.8 million legally held guns are accounted for in the UK. [1] This increases the risks to frontline police officers of being the victims of gun crime. Police officers should have a right to protect themselves. Fewer officers may die on duty if they were better able to protect themselves. Arming the police is essentially a matter of self-defence rather than being actively involved in regular firearms incidents. This is shown by the fact that most routinely armed police never fire their weapon on active duty in their whole career. [2] If being a police officer is a safer job, then there will be a larger applicant pool to choose from, and thus better, more qualified police forces.\n\n[1] Legal Community Against Violence, ‘Large Capacity Ammunition Magazines’, 2011, http://www.lcav.org/content/large_capacity_ammunition_magazines.pdf , accessed 20 September 2011\n\n[2] BBC News, ‘Q&A: Armed police in the UK’, 8 June 2010, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10260298 , accessed 20 September 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8fa1e8c4571528f85e103d2ea9e4fd2a",
"text": "crime policing law general house would arm police An armed police force will deter criminal behaviour\n\nMost countries in Europe and North America have armed police forces, in part to deter criminal acts, but also to protect officers working in an armed or dangerous environment’ . Armed criminals operate in at least some areas of virtually every jurisdiction. Given this reality, a failure to routinely arm the police gives armed criminals a strong advantage in terms of their ability to threaten and commit violence, without any corresponding risk to themselves. [1] In Bristol in England where police are not routinely armed the deployment of armed police in inner-city areas in 2003 defused gang tensions and reduced crime enough to allow the armed police to be withdrawn again. [2] Only putting armed police in for brief periods will only have a short term impact, having permanently armed police is the only way to keep this deterrence in effect. A world-wide ‘meta-study’ of armed police patrols found some evidence that in high violence areas, targeted armed police patrols could chill down the tensions and reassure the community but the evidence was not very compelling and the authors acknowledged that such a ‘sticking plaster’ approach was no long term solution to urban violence [3] .\n\n[1] Kopel, David B., ed., Guns: Who Should Have Them, Prometheus Books, 1995.\n\n[2] BBC News, ‘Armed police patrols withdrawn’, 7 February 2003, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2734997.stm accessed 20 September 2011\n\n[3] Koper, C.S. and Mayo-Williams E. (2006) Police crackdowns on illegal gun carrying: a systematic review of their impact on gun crime. Journal of Experimental Criminology Vol. 2 pp. 227-261.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "36b112eb802b9537429e22b586a348be",
"text": "crime policing law general house would arm police When the police are armed, mistakes will lead to innocent people getting shot\n\nEven with the special selection measures and intensive training given to firearms officers, mistakes sometimes occur, and innocent people are shot. This can happen either by mistake because the armed officers are acting on inaccurate information, or because they are bystanders caught in the cross-fire of a shoot-out. Arming all police officers would mean ditching the current stringent selection methods for who is armed, and would inevitably result in less training being provided, so mistakes would become much more common and more people would be wounded or killed. Such as the Amadou Diallo shooting in New York in 1999, or the shooting of Jean Charles De Menezes at Stockwell underground station in 2005. [1] Squires and Kennison, in their 2010 book, detail a number of case studies of mistaken police shootings, further details can be found on the IPCC Inquiry reports website. [2]\n\n[1] The New York Times, ‘Amadou Diallo’, http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/d/amadou_diallo/index.html , accessed 20 September 2011\n\n[2] P. Squires and P Kennison 2010 Shooting to Kill: Policing, Firearms and armed response. Oxford, Wiley/Blackwell.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "52579c38052d29fda0ef0e88f17b8612",
"text": "crime policing law general house would arm police Arming the police does not deal with the causes underlying violence\n\nThe real issues that cause crime usually lie in societal issues and a lack of a proper rehabilitation effort in the justice system. The root problems are therefore not being solved by arming the police. This policy only masks the problems societies face. Governments need to make more long-term, sustainable investments. They should be attempting to change the culture that creates violence, providing jobs for those who are in poverty making sure that everyone feels they have a stake in society, rather than rely on a “quick fix” plan that tackles none of the real issues.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "edcfdd27dbfc5b9898e9211df2114cc5",
"text": "crime policing law general house would arm police Recruitment will be adversely affected if the police are armed\n\nThe police are split on this issue at all levels, so it would be wrong to listen only to the loudest voices. The police should also be held firmly under civilian control. Policy areas such as the carrying of firearms or stop-and-search procedure should be subject to political decisions and accountability. Recruitment may well be adversely affected if the police are armed; many current officers opposed to this measure may leave, and others like them will not apply to join the force in the future. Do we want a police force largely composed of people who want to carry a gun every day? Japan’s police force are trained in combat without weapons and they some of the lowest crime rates in the world. The country has a steadily decreasing crime rate, with this year alone, overall crime has decreased by 1.4%. [1]\n\n[1] Eguchi, Arichika, and Kanayama, Taisuke, ‘Japan’s Challenge on the Increase in Crime in the New Century’, Police Policy Research Center, http://www.npa.go.jp/english/seisaku2/crime_reduction.pdf , accessed 20 September 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "05456a5872d94dbed258d8093119fc9c",
"text": "crime policing law general house would arm police Arming the police will cause an escalation in criminal violence\n\nThe British Crime Survey maintains that gun crime is very rare throughout the UK. The reason communities are so afraid is that the over-zealous media continually hype up individual incidences of gun crime in order to attract more readers. The statistics show that knife and gun crime are overrepresented in the news, with 25% of newspapers stories on average being dedicated to crime. [1] Because of this exaggerated coverage, there is a moral panic in which people think that if they are attacked it will be by a knife-wielding maniac. This is simply not true. There is more chance that you will be in a car accident than be attacked on the street.\n\nIntroducing guns onto the streets, even in a legal and well-intentioned manner is a trigger for increasing the number of guns that gangs and organised crime groups bring onto the street.\n\n[1] Media Awareness Network, ‘TV Crime Facts – Teaching Backgrounder’ http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/educational/teaching_backgrounders/crime/tv_crime_facts.cfm , accessed 20 September 2011\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
fe64a3eccdcfebce6d7af6774def4833
|
When the police are armed, mistakes will lead to innocent people getting shot
Even with the special selection measures and intensive training given to firearms officers, mistakes sometimes occur, and innocent people are shot. This can happen either by mistake because the armed officers are acting on inaccurate information, or because they are bystanders caught in the cross-fire of a shoot-out. Arming all police officers would mean ditching the current stringent selection methods for who is armed, and would inevitably result in less training being provided, so mistakes would become much more common and more people would be wounded or killed. Such as the Amadou Diallo shooting in New York in 1999, or the shooting of Jean Charles De Menezes at Stockwell underground station in 2005. [1] Squires and Kennison, in their 2010 book, detail a number of case studies of mistaken police shootings, further details can be found on the IPCC Inquiry reports website. [2]
[1] The New York Times, ‘Amadou Diallo’, http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/d/amadou_diallo/index.html , accessed 20 September 2011
[2] P. Squires and P Kennison 2010 Shooting to Kill: Policing, Firearms and armed response. Oxford, Wiley/Blackwell.
|
[
{
"docid": "fc6431987c1735b2b2f7e3a37009c35a",
"text": "crime policing law general house would arm police Armed police already exist in a number of situations and a rise in mistaken shootings that the opposition fear is not evident in these areas.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7ca04f781f5b786ee135e5ab5fb87353",
"text": "crime policing law general house would arm police The police themselves are calling for more routine arming in the United Kingdom, through both the unions that represent rank and file policemen, and the bodies which speak for the senior officers. If we want them to uphold law and order, we should trust the police's judgement about the tools they need to carry out their task. To the contrary, recruitment will also suffer if police officers are seen as too vulnerable, as easy targets for criminals because they have no proper means to defend themselves.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1cf14d87e99b74650dbaa6269c19eacf",
"text": "crime policing law general house would arm police Arming police is not mutually exclusive with other policies that could deal with the whole spectrum of crime-related issues. This debate is not suggesting that other issues related to crime will not be dealt with. Rather that in order to facilitate a reduction in crime the criminal justice system will be served by police who are armed. It is untrue to suggest that simply because the police are armed, other integral parts of crime reduction will be ignored.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8bfaf0660d215f32b5ee2d74f7ebaabd",
"text": "crime policing law general house would arm police Violence is already escalating and we need a robust response. Many communities are vulnerable to postcode gangs comprised of young people aged 14 and upwards who are armed and dangerous and making their areas unsafe to live in. Only a robust and proactive response from the police such as patrolling such territories with firearms so as to protect themselves and innocent civilians will address this problem.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d370c7ca27ce583ccf8b430c675176e",
"text": "crime policing law general house would arm police The police should not be reacting in such a way that they exacerbate those problems. By routinely arming its police officers, the state effectively legitimizes the weapon as a symbol of authority. Whether or not this is pragmatic, it is an implied affirmation of the criminal sub-culture, which will accordingly be strengthened.\n\nThe argument about a rapid increase in gun crime in the UK depends upon a very limited and selective use of crime data. Recorded gun crime did indeed rise by close to 105% between 1998 (when handguns were banned in the UK after the Dunblane tragedy) and 2003, but a large proportion of that increase is attributable to air weapon misuse and non-firing replica weapons. [1] Since then the increase has largely stabilised and even fallen. A temporary trend, now brought under control, is not necessarily a strong argument for changing, for ever, the nature and character of British policing.\n\nBy this policy—especially in the absence of a Constitutional right for citizens to bear arms—the role of the police is essentially defined in opposition to at least part of the citizenry. This can be contrasted to the more common expectation that police and citizens operate under essentially common rules, for shared values and that policing is undertaken in a spirit of the minimum use of force and by ‘public consent’.\n\n[1] Squires, P. 2008 Gun Crime: a Review of Evidence and Policy, Centre for Crime and Justice Studies http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/guncrime.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bea0993927edcc49dce93f36a380a330",
"text": "crime policing law general house would arm police The large majority of policewomen and men go through their whole career without handling firearms. The numbers in the firearms authorised officers are low, only 6780 in 2007-8 out of more than 100,000 police, [1] and even these have been criticised by SAS officers who stated “When the tension starts to rise and the adrenaline is flowing, the ‘red mist’ seems to descend on armed police officers who become very trigger-happy. This has been shown time and again in training exercises.” [2] Any expansion of the numbers of police carrying firearms could result in many more unsuitable police carrying guns.\n\n[1] Coaker, Vernon, ‘Statistics on police use of firearms in England and Wales 2007-08’, Home Office, 2 March 2009, http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/non-personal-data/police/police-firearms-use-2007-2008?view=Standard&pubID=807224 , accessed 20 September 2011\n\n[2] Winnett, Robert, ‘SAS trainers denounce ‘gung ho’ armed police’, The Sunday Times’, 18 September 2005, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article567961.ece , accessed 20 September 2011 (original article is no offline but the quote was not picked up by other newspapers)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1dccedd462024b104b3aab1f6f0d667f",
"text": "crime policing law general house would arm police Arming police would negatively impact the relationship between the police and the community – this is especially so in relation to some communities which feel that they bear the brunt of heavy, enforcement-led policing (for example young men in urban areas, ethnic minority groups). [1] Arming the police might delegitimise their role as community standard bearers. Many law-abiding citizens who have no connection to the criminal underworld are horrified by armed police, whom they regard as alien to their cultural frame of reference.\n\nGuns potentially place a distance between the people and the police and impact the relationship in a negative way. It impacts not only those who would perform potentially criminal activity, but even day to day police interaction such as breathalysing and spot checks on vehicles. The police would no longer be viewed as ‘upholding the peace’ but rather enforcing through threat.\n\nEven worse than the distancing effect, lethal weaponry is also a potent symbol of brutality. This can undermine the ability of the police to be seen as a key constituent part of civil society. This problem is exacerbated when this symbolic brutality is applied in ways that deviate from the expectations of civil society, for example through unfair racial profiling.\n\nFinally – arming the police may well alter the profile of police recruits. Police managers sometimes remark that the very last person to trust with a firearm is the one who wants one the most.\n\n[1] Jefferson, T. (1990) The Case against Paramilitary Policing, Milton Keynes, Open University Press; P. Scharf and A. Binder 1983 The Badge and the Bullet: Police Use of Deadly Force, New York, Praeger; Kraska, P. and Kappeler, V.E. 1997 Militarizing American Police: The Rise and Normalization of Paramilitary Units Social Problems, Vol. 44, No. 1 (Feb., 1997), pp. 1-18.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "959832e231e0cae6bf4abf8904ff1428",
"text": "crime policing law general house would arm police When a police officer carries a weapon, she faces the risk of having that weapon turned on her by a criminal. It is also more obvious to a criminal that they need to shoot first against an armed officer whereas against an unarmed one they may be more open to listening and less likely to try and pre-empt being shot. So arming the police can sometimes make the police more vulnerable, rather than more protected.\n\nIf, as the opposing argument suggests, legally owned guns are part of the risk profile facing the police, measures ought to be taken to reduce the risk and restrict levels of gun ownership. The police have had a National (legal) Firearms Database since 2006 allowing them to assess whether someone they will be dealing with is a gun owner or whether the premises they are attending contains licensed firearms. Criminal misuse of illegal firearms is a different matter although, as has been argued, protection and safety are not the same as ‘armed’ and more armed police will probably mean more shootings and, equally probably, more mistakes and armed confrontations. [1]\n\n[1] P. Squires and P Kennison 2010 Shooting to Kill: Policing, Firearms and armed response. Oxford, Wiley/Blackwell.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc1c11b9773a4267d2e41bad07b87668",
"text": "crime policing law general house would arm police Arming the police can lead to a spiral of violence. In places where the police are not routinely armed, a portion of criminals will not arm themselves (since, for example, armed robbery often carries a higher sentence than robbery). Once the police are armed, criminals who do not match their capability operate under a strong disadvantage. Therefore, when the police become routinely armed, the criminal world fully arms itself in response. [1] The mere fact of increased weapons possession (by both police and criminals) will in itself result in higher use, since in circumstances where arms may not be currently used (e.g. a police chase), either side carrying weapons will mean that they consider shooting an option which they did not formerly possess. A study comparing police dispute resolution in Norway and Sweden (the former unarmed, the latter armed) [2] tended to confirm that where police have guns, they are much more likely to use them – the Swedish police shot significantly more suspects. Thus gun availability effectively reduces the options currently available to police along the ‘continuum of force’. For example, if the police are armed, they are less likely to use less harmful alternatives such as tasers, “stun guns”, CS spray, and negotiation, even though the lowered lethality of a technology generally seems to imply it will be used more frequently. [3]\n\n[1] Talking Point, ‘Should British police carry guns?’, BBC News, 12 February 2001, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/1156341.stm accessed 20 September 2011\n\n[2] Knutson , J and Strype J. 2003 Police use of Firearms in Norway and Sweden Policing and Society Vol. 13(4) pp. 429-439.\n\n[3] Porter Henry, ‘Should the police ever shoot to kill?’ Liberty Central, 13 May 2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/henryporter/2009/may/13/keith-richards-shoot-to-kill , accessed 20 September 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "52579c38052d29fda0ef0e88f17b8612",
"text": "crime policing law general house would arm police Arming the police does not deal with the causes underlying violence\n\nThe real issues that cause crime usually lie in societal issues and a lack of a proper rehabilitation effort in the justice system. The root problems are therefore not being solved by arming the police. This policy only masks the problems societies face. Governments need to make more long-term, sustainable investments. They should be attempting to change the culture that creates violence, providing jobs for those who are in poverty making sure that everyone feels they have a stake in society, rather than rely on a “quick fix” plan that tackles none of the real issues.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "edcfdd27dbfc5b9898e9211df2114cc5",
"text": "crime policing law general house would arm police Recruitment will be adversely affected if the police are armed\n\nThe police are split on this issue at all levels, so it would be wrong to listen only to the loudest voices. The police should also be held firmly under civilian control. Policy areas such as the carrying of firearms or stop-and-search procedure should be subject to political decisions and accountability. Recruitment may well be adversely affected if the police are armed; many current officers opposed to this measure may leave, and others like them will not apply to join the force in the future. Do we want a police force largely composed of people who want to carry a gun every day? Japan’s police force are trained in combat without weapons and they some of the lowest crime rates in the world. The country has a steadily decreasing crime rate, with this year alone, overall crime has decreased by 1.4%. [1]\n\n[1] Eguchi, Arichika, and Kanayama, Taisuke, ‘Japan’s Challenge on the Increase in Crime in the New Century’, Police Policy Research Center, http://www.npa.go.jp/english/seisaku2/crime_reduction.pdf , accessed 20 September 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "05456a5872d94dbed258d8093119fc9c",
"text": "crime policing law general house would arm police Arming the police will cause an escalation in criminal violence\n\nThe British Crime Survey maintains that gun crime is very rare throughout the UK. The reason communities are so afraid is that the over-zealous media continually hype up individual incidences of gun crime in order to attract more readers. The statistics show that knife and gun crime are overrepresented in the news, with 25% of newspapers stories on average being dedicated to crime. [1] Because of this exaggerated coverage, there is a moral panic in which people think that if they are attacked it will be by a knife-wielding maniac. This is simply not true. There is more chance that you will be in a car accident than be attacked on the street.\n\nIntroducing guns onto the streets, even in a legal and well-intentioned manner is a trigger for increasing the number of guns that gangs and organised crime groups bring onto the street.\n\n[1] Media Awareness Network, ‘TV Crime Facts – Teaching Backgrounder’ http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/educational/teaching_backgrounders/crime/tv_crime_facts.cfm , accessed 20 September 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ff7a4aadded260befd4be283297790b",
"text": "crime policing law general house would arm police The police should be equipped to react to contemporary social problems\n\nThe old-fashioned notions of friendly neighborhood unarmed policing reflect the aspirations of a different age. As armed violence has increased sharply in parts of the developed world, the police need to redefine their role so that it is a more appropriate response to contemporary problems. In the UK, for example, gun crime almost doubled in the decade to 2008, [1] while the rise in London gun crime has tripled, the police need to be able to respond to this. [2] There is also danger in being a state with unarmed police when others states have armed police forces. The unarmed nation may be seen as a “soft touch” compared to other regional nations. This can encourage an importation of criminality.\n\n[1] Whitehead, Tom, 'Gun crime doubles in a decade', The Telegraph 27 October 2009, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6438601/Gun-crime-doubles-in-a-decade.html\n\n[2] Bamber, David, ‘Gun crime trebles as weapons and drugs flood British cities’, The Telegraph, 24 February 2002, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1385843/Gun-crime-trebles-as-weapons-and-drugs-flood-British-cities.html , accessed 20 September 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fae3e43fb6c9e2c96c133a97e1d52ef1",
"text": "crime policing law general house would arm police Arming the police is a necessary step\n\nPolice officers are routinely armed already in a variety of situations. This is a small step, as police officers are routinely armed already in a variety of situations, e.g. at airports and when providing security for political leaders or institutions. As mentioned earlier armed police have even been used before on routine patrols in areas where there has been gun crime. [1] Already rapid-response units of armed officers are available to deal with armed criminals, but these need to be specially summoned and authorised. Often, they arrive too late to do any good. The next obvious step would be to have many more police armed so as to make this response much faster.\n\n[1] BBC News, ‘Armed police patrols withdrawn’, 7 February 2003, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2734997.stm accessed 20 September 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c1b8b7364ac9b6bfa51ca5c9c7e0464",
"text": "crime policing law general house would arm police Policing is a dangerous job. Police officers should be allowed to arm themselves\n\nThere is a global increase in gun ownership, even in countries which did not traditionally think of themselves as having a large criminal gun culture. Presently 1.8 million legally held guns are accounted for in the UK. [1] This increases the risks to frontline police officers of being the victims of gun crime. Police officers should have a right to protect themselves. Fewer officers may die on duty if they were better able to protect themselves. Arming the police is essentially a matter of self-defence rather than being actively involved in regular firearms incidents. This is shown by the fact that most routinely armed police never fire their weapon on active duty in their whole career. [2] If being a police officer is a safer job, then there will be a larger applicant pool to choose from, and thus better, more qualified police forces.\n\n[1] Legal Community Against Violence, ‘Large Capacity Ammunition Magazines’, 2011, http://www.lcav.org/content/large_capacity_ammunition_magazines.pdf , accessed 20 September 2011\n\n[2] BBC News, ‘Q&A: Armed police in the UK’, 8 June 2010, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10260298 , accessed 20 September 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8fa1e8c4571528f85e103d2ea9e4fd2a",
"text": "crime policing law general house would arm police An armed police force will deter criminal behaviour\n\nMost countries in Europe and North America have armed police forces, in part to deter criminal acts, but also to protect officers working in an armed or dangerous environment’ . Armed criminals operate in at least some areas of virtually every jurisdiction. Given this reality, a failure to routinely arm the police gives armed criminals a strong advantage in terms of their ability to threaten and commit violence, without any corresponding risk to themselves. [1] In Bristol in England where police are not routinely armed the deployment of armed police in inner-city areas in 2003 defused gang tensions and reduced crime enough to allow the armed police to be withdrawn again. [2] Only putting armed police in for brief periods will only have a short term impact, having permanently armed police is the only way to keep this deterrence in effect. A world-wide ‘meta-study’ of armed police patrols found some evidence that in high violence areas, targeted armed police patrols could chill down the tensions and reassure the community but the evidence was not very compelling and the authors acknowledged that such a ‘sticking plaster’ approach was no long term solution to urban violence [3] .\n\n[1] Kopel, David B., ed., Guns: Who Should Have Them, Prometheus Books, 1995.\n\n[2] BBC News, ‘Armed police patrols withdrawn’, 7 February 2003, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2734997.stm accessed 20 September 2011\n\n[3] Koper, C.S. and Mayo-Williams E. (2006) Police crackdowns on illegal gun carrying: a systematic review of their impact on gun crime. Journal of Experimental Criminology Vol. 2 pp. 227-261.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2ab0e19beb6ce5b95e0af06535ad5cb7",
"text": "crime policing law general house would arm police Arming the police makes communities feel safer\n\nArmed police reassure law-abiding citizens at a time when gun-related crime is increasing in most European countries and parts of North America. In the UK 28 gun crimes are committed every day. [1] Much public opinion holds that something must be done to tackle this. [2]\n\nThe sight of armed police officers patrolling the streets will not only deter gangs from harassing residents, but will instil in communities a confidence that they are being properly protected. Gangs are not interested in fighting the police; they are more concerned about attacks from other gangs in their area who are willing to break the law and attack them unprovoked.\n\nPeople feel safer when they see armed police, especially if they perceive them as a response to a heightened risk. Thus, for example, police officers at British airports routinely carry sub-machine guns, although there is no evidential pattern to suggest that this high-visibility weaponry offers any situational strategic advantage over a more subtle arming.\n\n[1] Hope, Christopher, ’28 gun crimes committed in UK every day’, The Telegraph, 24 January 2008, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576406/28-gun-crimes-committed-in-UK-every-day.html , accessed 20 September 2011\n\n[2] Shearing, Clifford et al., Lengthening the Arm of the Law: Enhancing Police Resources in the Twenty-First Century, (Cambridge Studies in Criminology, 2008)\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
76503075d1b10d9bdcabb0747e89977b
|
Who are the worst of the worst?
Killing the worst of the worst is essentially arbitrary. Even with a list of aggravators balanced by mitigations the death penalty is hardly going to be left to just the very worst. In the case of Daryl Holton who killed his four children Blecker decides “I remain convinced, but not morally certain, that he deserved to die.” [1] This shows there will always be cases that are borderline. Moreover everyone’s views of the worst of the worst are different. Is Holton the “worst of the worst” or should that category be reserved for Hitler and Pol Pot?
[1] Blecker, p.197
|
[
{
"docid": "cfaa4201bfe4fe52201e4b25fccbd119",
"text": "punishment house supports death penalty worst worst Regardless of the categorisation there are some who are worst of the worst. It is up to individual states and societies to determine who qualifies as the worst of the worst for them.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e741b013d6871ab95be1a25f43957cd9",
"text": "punishment house supports death penalty worst worst The state using the legal process being trusted to do something is different between an individual doing so. The state executing people is the only way that justice can be achieved; there is a moral difference between execution in support of society and murder against society.\n\nThere is an immense difference between a murder and a lawful killing by the state. If the death penalty makes the state no better than a murderer then a soldier is one too. In a more absolutist view, if capital punishment devalues life, do fines for theft devalue property?\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "14cf407a66e45a7c1d9a4603f71fcd4f",
"text": "punishment house supports death penalty worst worst This is not a higher discrepancy than imprisonment, meaning the problems may well be socio-economic rather than justice related.\n\nA reason for this discrepancy may be the felony murder rule – that any death caused by a felony, even if it would normally amount to manslaughter, constitutes murder (in some cases, first degree murder) – if that is the case, the felony murder rule should be abolished. If capital punishment were reserved for the worst of the worst then this racial bias would be almost eliminated. [1]\n\n[1] Blecker, p.237\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c9a95b1d8b63954bf5af8252ce0cdfd",
"text": "punishment house supports death penalty worst worst As in any activity in life, a risk will exist in any justice system – many innocent people are in prisons. But there are also risks inherent in being too lenient and letting the worst of the worst out again in the future.\n\nHowever, capital punishment can be used less, and a higher standard of proof can be used in capital cases. “In the end, we must risk a minuscule possibility of error for the near certainty of justice.” [1]\n\n[1] Blecker, p.275\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c7641581c52fc067e4db6aec0d07dfcc",
"text": "punishment house supports death penalty worst worst The reason why the death penalty is so expensive – 13 executions since 1978 in California costing around $4bn [1] - is the “super due process” that is necessary in capital cases, especially with the large flaws in the US justice system.\n\nBlacker makes no coherent proposal on how he would modify the appeals system. Removing or reducing it would make it very likely that more innocent people would be executed.\n\nTo accuse people who want to prevent criminals deaths of wasting money is more or less victim blaming.\n\n[1] Alarcon, Arthur and Mitchell, Paula, “Executing the will of the voters? A roadmap to mend or end the California legislature’s multi-billion dollar death penalty debacle”, Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 2011, http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/LoyolaCalifCosts.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6cd3ce225e6dce31307e0ff4eac8e0c0",
"text": "punishment house supports death penalty worst worst Those who are murdered are not some public resource – they are not our relatives. We may feel sorrow for the victims and their family but uninvolved members of society have no reason to demand punishment on account of them being members of ‘our family’. What of all those who do not feel such resentment, should society enact a death penalty simply to gratify a part of the population that feels this way. This is not a rational grounds for a death penalty even for the very worst. In order to claim that the society wants the criminals' blood, you have to make sure that a)everyone does; b)the person killed deserves to be avenged.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eeff02b0cf1778c44953be5d2cb9a0db",
"text": "punishment house supports death penalty worst worst While Blecker proposes a three step test in a draft statute, it does not feature much legal certainty – it features a large amount of jury discretion, which was deemed to be a violation of the US constitution [1] . Any such elastic definition would allow prosecutors to make an argument that pretty much any case is within such a category.\n\nIt also continues due use of “death qualified juries”, exclusively made up of death penalty supporters [2] , which are racially skewed toward being whiter. Would this then end up really being for the worst of the worst?\n\n[1] See Furman v Georgia, 408 US 238 (1972) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/408/238/case.html\n\n[2] See Witherspoon v Illinois, 391 US 510 (1968) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/391/510/case.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "609a4711c9adb7cc71faeda0de52bff0",
"text": "punishment house supports death penalty worst worst By keeping a person locked up for life, which may well be appropriate for the “worst of the worst”, they are incapacitated for life. It similarly satisfied any retributive instinct, providing a total punishment, a form of internal banishment and total civil death – if one considers retributive justice desirable.\n\nMoreover this is inconsistent. If we are inflicting an eye for an eye because they deserve it then why should the death penalty reserved for the worst of the worst? Should it not be exactly proportional – which would mean all murderers should face the death penalty.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4abca6bc2fc823a95498f523804b8e87",
"text": "punishment house supports death penalty worst worst Too many innocents killed\n\nCapital punishment in the US kills too many innocent people. Over 143 people who were innocent were exonerated from death row since 1973 [1] . One person executed is too many – it has already happened in the US, with Carlos DeLuna [2] . It is likely that many innocent people have been executed in the US – it is a price not worth paying.\n\n[1] Death Penalty Information Centre, “Innocence list”, DPIC.org, 2013, http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-list-those-freed-death-row\n\n[2] Pilkington, Ed, “The wrong Carlos: how Texas sent an innocent man to his death”, The Guardian, 15 May 2012, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/may/15/carlos-texas-innocent-man-death\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "01c28591bf93c72985a048bc410952e9",
"text": "punishment house supports death penalty worst worst Hypocrisy\n\nSuggesting the death penalty should be used as a deterrent is nothing other than arguing that people should be killed to show that people killing people is wrong. There is little evidence that it works; when Canada abolished the death penalty nationally in 1976, the homicide rate fell from 3.09 in 1975 to 2.31 in 1980. [1]\n\nIn that sense, imposing the death penalty makes the state no better than the murderer, and a murderer in itself by killing a person in such circumstances. If we are using the death penalty to punish the murderer then what should we use to punish the state for its actions?\n\n[1] Amnesty International, ‘Document – The Death Penalty, Questions and Answers’, accessed 3rd January 2014, http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ACT50/010/2007/en/f45ed09c-d3a2-11dd-a329-2f46302a8cc6/act500102007en.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5f8cc316227506f08c37aa3ac6b5c843",
"text": "punishment house supports death penalty worst worst The death penalty is racist\n\nLike the rest of the American criminal justice system, capital punishment in America is institutionally racist: black men make up 6% of the US population as a whole but 40% of those on Death Row [1] . In the US, African-Americans and White people are murdered in almost equal numbers, but 80% of those executed since 1977 were convicted of the murder of a white [2] .\n\n[1] Blecker, p.237\n\n[2] Amnesty International, “United States of America: Death by Discrimination – the continuing role of race in capital cases”, Amnesty International, 2003, http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AMR51/046/2003\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "157113c7af3f39faf6705ee6e334c3d1",
"text": "punishment house supports death penalty worst worst Could be cheaper\n\nWhile budget should not be the primary concern of the justice system, The death penalty, when applied properly, can be cheaper. A lethal injection, or a few bullets, costs far less than keeping a person incarcerated for a long time, especially if they need long term health or other care in old age. The longer someone is in jail the greater the cost to the state.\n\nThe costs of the implementation of the death penalty are driven up by anti-death penalty activists using the appeals system. Since the death penalty would only be applied to the worst of the worst when there is absolute moral certainty there would be less need for extensive appeals because there would be less marginal cases.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "655967cd5568c6984735cb70579e2f55",
"text": "punishment house supports death penalty worst worst Can be reserved for the worst of the worst\n\nFor those who are concerned about some of the practical objections to the American death penalty, it is possible to restrict the death penalty to those most deserving of it: “the worst of the worst”, those like Anders Behring Breivik, Charles Manson and Harold Shipman. The death penalty should not be for people who are convicted as a result of three strikes - in 2004, someone was convicted of first degree murder with a whole life sentence for lending a friend a car [1] – it should not be a default sentence. [2]\n\n[1] Liptak, Adam, “Serving Life for Providing Car to Killers”, The New York Times, 4th December 2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/us/04felony.html?_r=0\n\n[2] Blecker, p.210\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e61a5938de187c2876ee22ad3daf649b",
"text": "punishment house supports death penalty worst worst Necessary for punitive justice\n\nThe concept of punishment is inherently based on retribution. “We don’t punish to prevent crime or remake criminals. We inflict pain-suffering, discomfort-to the degree they deserve to feel it.” [1] Retribution can be distinguished from revenge – retribution does not always seek to impose punishment that is the same as the original act, and never more.\n\nThe punishment must fit the crime so capital punishment is therefore an appropriate punishment for the worst of the worst – an eye for an eye.\n\n[1] Blecker, p.28\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "213b403cd8af02b0955d2d6633408c32",
"text": "punishment house supports death penalty worst worst Killers must die to satisfy society\n\nThose who have damaged society by robbing it of one of its members must pay for their crime. Adam Smith argued “We feel that resentment which we imagine he ought to feel, and which he would feel, if in his cold and lifeless body there remained any consciousness of what passes upon earth. His blood, we think, calls aloud for vengeance.” [1] It is not just the wronged individual who needs there to be retribution but society as a whole. Everyone in society is wronged by particularly heinous crimes as Blecker says of two horrific crimes “Those were my children, my wife that Coker raped and murdered, my sister Speck killed”. [2]\n\n[1] Smith, Adam, ‘The theory of Moral Sentiments”, MetaLibri Sixth Edition, 1790, http://www.ibiblio.org/ml/libri/s/SmithA_MoralSentiments_p.pdf p.62\n\n[2] Blecker, p.30\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
5f2b3456d52d45e55f633ec14b6caea6
|
Our world cultural heritage is extremely important and its destruction would constitute a crime against humanity.
Cultural property is important for many reasons. In this argument, its significance as part of our world cultural heritage will be assessed, while in the second argument, its local significance is examined.
Sites of cultural heritage often carry a large degree of aesthetic value. Renowned World Heritage sites like the Coliseum in Rome or the Pyramids of Giza or the Forbidden City in Beijing are truly stunning and constitute a masterpiece of architecture and a celebration of what the human mind and human culture are capable of. Their stunning beauty alone is sufficient to warrant their protection. However cultural property is more than just aesthetically valuable – they tell a story of human existence. Everything that makes up our society (our moral and aesthetic values, our language, our traditions, our way of life etc.) derives from our ancestors. Cultural property – be it in the form of archaeological sites, monuments or texts and art, provide our only means of connecting with our past. This is invaluable because of the enormous potential for understanding different cultures around the world and how they interact and often conjoin with each other. It offers opportunities for us to learn from the past and forge a better future. Recent atrocities such as the looting of museums in Bagdad and the damage caused to parts of ancient Babylon during the recent Iraq War are hugely harmful to the international community. The loss of part of our world heritage is even greater when one realises that the harms do not only affect our present day society, but all of future humanity.
The far-reaching and global nature of this harm is sufficient for it to be considered a crime against humanity. Indeed, ‘international practice in this field indicates deliberate extensive destruction of cultural heritage may be included among international crimes’. [1] The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), for example, ‘places the destruction of buildings dedicated to religion, or of historical and artistic monuments among war crimes (that are part of the broader concept of crimina juris gentium , or crimes against the peace and the security of mankind’. [2] It is therefore evident that despite the lack of a global mechanism (such as the ICC) that currently condemns the destruction of cultural property as crimes against humanity, international precedent with the ICTY suggests it would be perfectly reasonable to do so.
[1] Francioni, Francesco and Lanzerini, Federico: “The Destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan and International Law”, EJIL (2003), Vol. 14 No. 4, 619–651, Oxford Journals, http://ejil.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/4/619.full.pdf
[2] ibid
|
[
{
"docid": "1f1c08940bd5dfcf619fd276a1d6491a",
"text": "ure culture general traditions law international law house would treat desecration The proposition are not contentious in their claims that our world cultural heritage is valuable. However it is not true that if an item or site of cultural heritage is destroyed, it ceases to have any educational value. If the Taj Mahal were destroyed, of course it would be a great loss in terms of aesthetic value, but its footprint in the world would still exist in the form of the myriad of photographs and academic literature on it. The Dodo may be extinct, but we have sufficient academic records to still have in depth knowledge of how it lived, what it looked like etc. It is evident that the proposition are exaggerating the harms that would result from the destruction of cultural property.\n\nRegarding the ICTY, the precedent it sets is not the one identified by the proposition. Rather than supporting the prosecution of destruction of cultural property as a crime against humanity by the ICC, it suggests that such issues should be dealt with on a case by case basis. This is the case with the ICTY which was set up specifically to deal with crimes committed during the breakup-war of Yugoslavia. This is particularly important with respect to the protection of cultural heritage, because the issues vary immensely in each situation. The looting of museums in Yugoslavia is a very different crime in nature and motive to that committed by the Taliban in their destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan and the damage caused to ancient Babylon by US forces in Iraq. Damage to cultural property should be looked on a case by case basis; it should not fall under a blanket-protection of crimes against humanity by the ICC.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d868bc60453cc06c5cb87d52ea1762ea",
"text": "ure culture general traditions law international law house would treat desecration Obviously the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan was an atrocity, it may have been aimed at a particular group, Buddhists, but it is hard to see how their destruction was crime against humanity because of this. It may have come as a grave harm and insult to Buddhists around the world, however none can be said to have been physically harmed in any meaningful way that would constitute a crime against humanity. The oppression during the Chinese Cultural Revolution may be a better example for the proposition, however even in this case it is hard to compare the crime of destroying old Chinese art and monuments, to the mass killing and imprisonment of Chinese civilians during the same period!\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aacefa7073513521e0e6861a250b208e",
"text": "ure culture general traditions law international law house would treat desecration The kinds of people or groups that attack and destroy sites of cultural heritage are not likely to care much about international law. If anything, making the destruction of cultural property a crime against humanity would further radicalise extremist groups. One only has to look at the proposition’s example of the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas to see this point. The Taliban ordered their destruction in direct defiance of international law, but what’s more, they did it as a direct response and retaliation to sanctions imposed upon them by the international community for hosting and fostering terrorist training camps. [1] A similar sort of retaliation may occur if threats were to be made explicitly regarding the treatment of cultural property. This would then put more precious cultural property in danger.\n\nIn respect to the example of US forces in Iraq, their actions would not actually fall under crimes against humanity even under this proposition anyway. Setting up a base in an archaeological site would not be a crime against humanity, while small scale damage would not either, so it is unclear what effect the proposition will have.\n\n[1] Francioni, Francesco and Lanzerini, Federico: “The Destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan and International Law”, EJIL (2003), Vol. 14 No. 4, 619–651, Oxford Journals, http://ejil.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/4/619.full.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d766b8cc711cc8dddc2496ec2e0f18e",
"text": "ure culture general traditions law international law house would treat desecration Making the destruction of cultural property a crime against humanity is mainly targeted at the wanton destruction of sites of immense value or the systematic destruction on a gross scale, such as that witnessed in the 1960s in China. For the majority of cases, the current UNESCO conventions regarding the protection of cultural property in times of conflict would apply. It is not as though insurgents would be able to hide inside any mosque or museum or ancient site and be totally untouchable.\n\nIt is true, however, that situations are conceivable where military necessity would normally dictate an attack on a high value site or object of cultural heritage, but the proposed legislation would not allow. This is not as peculiar as the opposition suggest. International law has created a vast number of limits on warfare that could potentially be used to gain a vital strategic advantage. There are existing limits on what constitute legitimate military targets (civilian populations are not, for example), and with respect to the kind of weapons that can be used (chemical weapons, cluster bombs etc. are banned). Given the immense cultural value of certain sites and objects, they deserve to receive special protection, even in times of war.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2ffffa97412909003f809ce0f0bb4f8d",
"text": "ure culture general traditions law international law house would treat desecration Firstly, it is not true that human beings are not harmed with the destruction of cultural property. When committed on a systematic and large scale as was seen in China during the 1960s, such attacks are very harmful. The harm comes more from the motivation and symbolism of the acts of desecration and destruction, rather than from the acts themselves. This is because such acts are committed in a highly discriminatory manner. They attack peoples’ culture, their beliefs, their traditions and their very identity and brand them as illegitimate and often as enemies of the state. This is a form of oppression could certainly class as serious “mental injury” which the ICC holds as a criterion for an act to be a crime against humanity.\n\nFurthermore, the fact that the prosecution of such crimes does not under the status quo fall under the duties of the ICC is not a reason for why this should not be changed to include them within their duties. The kind of crimes the proposition has been talking about are sufficiently serious and sufficiently harmful to humanity as a whole such that they should be classified as crimes against humanity and they should be prosecuted by the ICC.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a0891ec7122bc98cfde644e8e8ad2a39",
"text": "ure culture general traditions law international law house would treat desecration The opposition present us with a false dichotomy here. It is not true that we have to make a choice between saving lives and protecting cultural property. The hypothetical situation where a site of high cultural and historical value would have to be destroyed in order to provide famine relief or prevent genocide seems slightly far-fetched.\n\nHowever, even if such a choice had to be made, we should still ensure that the destruction of cultural property was a crime against humanity. It is important to set an international precedent for rules of conduct during warfare in order to minimise harms on a large scale, despite the possibility of small, minority cases where going against that law would be beneficial. This is the case, for example, with the laws about targeting civilians in warfare. In order to safeguard the precedent, the law must apply to all situations despite the fact that in certain cases a war could be won more easily by targeting civilians.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1c4a6341661a579c2ba062981518df54",
"text": "ure culture general traditions law international law house would treat desecration The desecration and destruction of cultural property is often discriminatory and attacks peoples’ identity.\n\nItems and sites of cultural heritage are often destroyed for discriminatory and oppressive reasons. The Maoist onslaught on all “old” aspects of Chinese culture is a prime example while the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan in Afghanistan by the Taliban in 2001 is another recent example. These were violent, ideologically driven attacks on the part of the state against segments of that states own society. The Buddhas of Bamiyan were destroyed by the Taliban simply because they were not part of the Islamic society they were trying to create. Such explicitly discriminatory attacks are particularly harmful to cultures that are the victims of the attacks for two reasons. Firstly because the cultural property in question has increased cultural, religious or historical value for them, and secondly because such discriminatory acts attack the very identity of people part of that cultural group. The international community has a duty to protect cultural groups (especially minority groups) from discrimination. The international community in the form of the United Nations General Assembly has recognised attacks on religious sites as being discrimination based upon belief.[1] Moreover, the ICTY treated discriminatory attacks against cultural property during the break-up of Yugoslavia, as a crime against humanity. Once again, therefore, international precedent facilitates the prosecution of those responsible of those responsible for the desecration or destruction of cultural property.\n\n[1] United Nations General Assembly, ‘Elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief’, 19 December 2006, Resolution 61/161, http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/resguide/r61.htm\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1b5eafcee57721f61419083c741c518a",
"text": "ure culture general traditions law international law house would treat desecration Making destruction of cultural property a crime against humanity would ensure it is protected.\n\nWere the desecration and destruction of items and sites of cultural heritage to be an internationally recognised crime against humanity, people would be more reluctant in causing either intended or collateral damage (in a conflict) to them. Under the status quo, UNESCO conventions alone are insufficient to protect cultural property. Firstly, it provides insufficient protection, since even high-value cultural property under “enhanced protection” can be legally targeted in a conflict, if it is being used by opposition forces. Moreover, the current conventions lack sufficient deterrents to back-up its protective measures. For example, US forces set up military bases in and around ancient Babylon during the Iraq war and even used parts of the ancient site to make sandbags. This constitutes a violation of the UNESCO conventions, because US forces actively caused damage to the cultural property and also, in locating their forces there, made the site of ancient Babylon a legitimate military target for opposing forces. [1] US forces were not concerned with potentially damaging cultural property or going against UNESCO conventions, simply because there were insufficient penalties in place to deter them from doing so. By treating the destruction of cultural property as a crime against humanity, rather than simply a violation of UNESCO conventions, the protection of cultural heritage is seen as an increased moral imperative. Making such crimes punishable by the ICC alongside crimes like genocide would add a deterrent factor and make it less likely people would deliberately destroy cultural property.\n\n[1] CENTCOM Historical/ Cultural Advisory Group: “The Impact of War on Iraq’s Cultural Heritage: Operation Iraqi Freedom”, accessed 20/9/12, http://www.cemml.colostate.edu/cultural/09476/chp04-12iraqenl.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a6122715833878169af10bdc1aa2b3a2",
"text": "ure culture general traditions law international law house would treat desecration Military objectives are more important than that of protecting cultural property.\n\nUltimately the debate between conservation of cultural heritage and the need to secure a military advantage in times of conflict, comes down to a comparison of two different kinds of goods. One the one hand we have cultural goods that are beneficial for aesthetic and educational purposes, and on the other we have more tangible goods that are often sough through military endeavours. When the latter are particularly pressing and important goods, such as the need to prevent genocide, or distribute famine relief or defend one’s security, these benefits far outweigh the benefits of preserving our world cultural heritage. Although it is regrettable that cultural property of significant value may be damaged, it is incomparable to the damage caused by mass killing of individuals or mass curtailing of human rights. The safeguarding of basic human rights such as the right to life, the right to be free from fear, enslavement or torture etc. is a prerequisite for one to be able to appreciate and learn from items, sites and monuments of high cultural and historical value. For these reasons, military and humanitarian objectives must come first, ahead of the need to safeguard cultural property.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "078155b154cb9acb7e6f1e88e68b9ba9",
"text": "ure culture general traditions law international law house would treat desecration Making destroying cultural heritage a crime against humanity would create severe strategic disadvantages for our armed forces.\n\nThe current UNESCO conventions are correct in allowing for the possibility of a waiver on our international duty to protect cultural property should a case of military urgency arise. The Proposition argue for the implementation of overly-rigid international legislation. Although, of course, world cultural heritage should be protected, it is short-sighted to not even allow the possibility of military necessity to outweigh our duty to protect high-value cultural property. The UNESCO conventions already dictate that one can only be justified in attacking or targeting a site of cultural heritage if ‘there is no feasible alternative available to obtain a similar military advantage’ [1] Therefore, the proposition are only making a difference to cases where there is no feasible alternative available. This could prove disastrous and create a significant limitation on the capacity of a state’s armed forces.\n\nThe danger becomes increasingly apparent when one considers that it is highly unlikely that extremist opposing forces and insurgents like the Taliban will adhere to such international law. This is particularly crucial given that the majority of wars fought now by the west are against insurgencies. Such opposing forces will disregard the new international law and endeavour to exploit this to gain a strategic advantage over Western forces. Insurgents may deliberately choose to hide, locate their base or just pass through sites of high cultural value to ensure their safety from western airstrikes and attacks. Allowing this to take place would severely hamper the ability of the west to fight against insurgencies (an already incredibly difficult task in itself). For example in 2000 Lashkar-e-Toiba militants attacked the Red Fort, which was at the time was in part a barracks for the Indian army, killing three in a shootout within the fort. [2] The Red Fort is itself today a world heritage site; would this mean that were a similar attack to happen the Indian security services could do nothing to counter the attack? [3]\n\n[1] UNESCO, “Declaration Concerning the Intentional Destruction of Cultural Heritage”, 17 October 2003, accessed 20/9/12, http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=17718&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html\n\n[2] BBC News, ‘Police hunt Red Fort raiders’, 23 December 2000, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1083710.stm\n\n[3] UNESCO, “Red Fort Complex”, http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/231\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9843b38c119ccf1190638f7437e0f651",
"text": "ure culture general traditions law international law house would treat desecration The protection of cultural property is not within the scope of the ICC.\n\nThough it is true the international Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutes and investigates crimes against humanity, the destruction and desecration of cultural property cannot be categorised as a crime against humanity. This is quite simply because human beings are not directly harmed when cultural property like ancient monuments or old scripts are destroyed. According to the ICC, the following would consist of crimes against humanity: ‘Murder, extermination; enslavement; deportation or forcible transfer of population; imprisonment; torture; rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity; persecution against an identifiable group on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious or gender grounds; enforced disappearance of persons; the crime of apartheid; other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering or serious bodily or mental injury’ [1]. The common factor with all these crimes is that they are committed as part of a ‘widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population’. [2] Thus, it is evident that crimes against humanity possess a very real human element to them. This is simply because the ICC and the international community recognise that the most serious crimes that fall under the category of crimes against humanity are crimes of this nature that violently and systematically attack the wellbeing of civilians on a gross scale. The destruction or damage to any property, be it homes, government buildings, or sites of cultural heritage may well be a crime and a heinous act, but cannot come under the category of crimes against humanity.\n\n[1] ICC website: “What are crimes against humanity?”, accessed 20/9/12, http://www.icc-cpi.int/menus/icc/about%20the%20court/frequently%20asked%20questions/12\n\n[2] ibid\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
4c037705cad969680812635e76368f6b
|
Success depends on military intervention.
There is no reasonable chance of success for the opposition movement absent substantial military re-enforcement by the West.
The Syrian government is uniquely placed for several reasons to be able to quell any opposition movement and to rule by fear and force for an indefinite amount of time. Bashar al-Assad’s legitimacy is and never has been based on any type of democratic mandate or popular support. He rules based on control and, as such, has built up many institutions to entrench this capacity to control the Syrian public over the years. Oil revenues are high and Assad has very deep monetary reserves that allow him to buy loyalty from his military and equip himself beyond the capacity of any domestic opposition group could feasibly do.
Due to these two factors, the only way that Assad will fall is by force and by force that is far greater than can be attained without the support of the West. Therefore, for the humanitarian situation to be solved, the West must invade Syria.
|
[
{
"docid": "b8321c0ff7268139fd56b1495b24c7a5",
"text": "rnational global middle east law human rights politics warpeace house believes west Although it is true that Bashar al-Assad has very strong entrenched powers of control in Syria, there are less risky and damaging ways to undermine this to help support the domestic opposition movements if this is your aim. The crux of this case comes down to the capacity of the government to outspend the opposition movements, international sanctions and freezing of state and personal assets of high-ranking leaders in Syria combined with funding of the opposition movements in Syria would gain this same end without involving Western troops on the ground.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "f0f42ca189fdf4b981180d323cd35650",
"text": "rnational global middle east law human rights politics warpeace house believes west Even if we do have an obligation to end mass suffering and indiscriminate killing, invasion is not the way to do so. Western intervention will inevitably increase the collateral damage by escalating the conflict into a full-scale war. Moreover, there is no guarantee that intervention will solve this conflict in the long-run instead of simply causing another endless war like the one in Afghanistan or Iraq. Therefore, even if we have an obligation to intervention, invasion is not the way to do it.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "946e66dc4e987e92f264f87bf6a46cf3",
"text": "rnational global middle east law human rights politics warpeace house believes west There is no obligation to try every other option if the other options are unlikely to work. People are unjustly suffering now, and we have an obligation to end that suffering as quickly and as efficiently as possible. Sanctions and asset-freezing are notoriously ineffective on oil-producing countries like Syria. Going through the motions of attempting to pass authorization for these actions through the United Nations Security Council, attempting to get the entire world to comply with the sanctions and then watching these actions not help anything. All this will do is prolong the suffering of the Syrian people.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "94b7afaf769356bbba2328980ffd0726",
"text": "rnational global middle east law human rights politics warpeace house believes west The disunity of the opposition movements is the exact reason why we need to invade Syria. The other measures that are usually used to avoid war to aid opposition movements in oppressive dictatorships such as Syria, as outlined in Opposition Argument One, will not work. The only way we can end the slaughter of the Syrian people is through an invasion for this very reason. Although it may be messy, we have a very real obligation to invade. This is one of the reasons that underpinned the decision of the international community to authorize intervention in Libya, an intervention that can be seen to be broadly successful in ending the brutal oppression in Libya [1] .\n\n[1] Clark, David. \"Libyan Intervention was a success, despite the aftermath's atrocities.\" Guardian 28 Oct 2011.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1f2e66b3e011ae4d716fa7e6fc00c5dc",
"text": "rnational global middle east law human rights politics warpeace house believes west We have a duty to launch a humanitarian intervention in Syria.\n\nWidespread indiscriminate killing of human beings is something that everyone in the world has an obligation to end. Mass killing of people is something that affronts the very basic meaning of what it is to be human. It denies the basic empathy and value we afford to each person on the basis of simple personhood and its occurrence is a black mark on all human beings who allow it to occur when they hold the power to end it.\n\nIn Syria today, the government forces are making their people live in fear of death and are routinely taking the lives of innocent people in order to control their population through fear. This week alone, 33 people were slaughtered by government forces include 6 children [1] .\n\nThe West has the moral obligation to intervene in Syria to protect the lives of the innocent people and end the reign of terror of Bashar al-Assad.\n\n[1] \"Syria: UN Human Rights Committee Condemns Crackdown.\" BBC News 23 Nov 2011.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4c1cecadb9743b88cf00e4a466285f87",
"text": "rnational global middle east law human rights politics warpeace house believes west The nature of the opposition movements makes this an unwinnable war.\n\nThe lack of coherent and unified opposition in Syria means that a Western invasion force will have very low chances of meaningful success.\n\nWestern intervention always carries the risk of fracturing a conflict by splintering opposition movements into those who do and those who do not support Western involvement in achieving their cause. This is problematic at best. With Syria specifically, this issue is augmented further still due to already existing lack of coherence and unity in the opposition movements. Absent a proper hierarchy and structure the opposition movement is going to be near impossible to cooperate with and will quickly splinter into an insurgent-style conflict.\n\nThere are multiple issues with this. First, there is very low chance of success in such a situation. Second, this set-up is the type that is most likely to lead to a long, protracted conflict that does not serve the interests of the West or the people of Syria.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "778ff514a63c0ecd3b05b2b002e419e3",
"text": "rnational global middle east law human rights politics warpeace house believes west Invasion is not yet justified.\n\nInvasion is an option of very last resort, especially when dealing with a country of such strategic importance such as Syria.\n\nInvasion is an option of last resort because of the collateral damage it necessarily leads to, the impediment on sovereignty it entails and the escalation of conflict it entails. It’s the nuclear option that is reserved for the very last resort due to the severity and unpredictability of its results.\n\nWith regards to Syria, we simply aren’t at the point of last resort yet. The UN hasn’t even levied sanctions against the Syrian government yet [1] , never mind frozen Assad’s assets, tried negotiations or mediations, assisted domestic opposition groups or applied strong diplomatic pressure beyond a general condemnation.\n\nThe danger you expose the citizens of Syria to combined with the unknowable outcome of an invasion means that it simply isn’t justified to even consider invasion until all other means have been exhausted, which they haven’t been.\n\n[1] \"Syria: UN Human Rights Committee Condemns Crackdown.\" BBC News 23 Nov 2011.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "48645c0092537698adca240efd4d1db3",
"text": "Sanctions are ineffective because it is very difficult to unify an adequate number of countries to cripple an economy.\n\nMany countries must employ sanctions for them to be successful, yet due to competing political objectives unifying enough countries is almost impossible. If sanctions are only imposed by a few countries, the sanctioned nation can replace lost trade from those countries with trade from other allies, deflecting the economic consequences of the sanctions. North Korea is so isolated from the international community that sanctions have had little effect, particularly because their most important trade partner, China, has continued to do business with them1. The UK and US sanctions have not been effective in the case of Myanmar given that the country mainly trades with other ASEAN member states, India, China and Japan. The violation of sanctions often has to do with political motives. In the case of ASEAN, the member countries are concerned that China may use Myanmar for military and naval bases, so they are pouring money into the country and breaking US sanctions to promote their own self-interest in the region and counter China2. Considering that every country has their self-interest in mind, it is ultimately too difficult to forge a united front between enough countries to cripple the country they are sanctioning. 1 Noland, Marcus (2009), \"The (Non-) Impact of UN Sanctions on North Korea\", The National Bureau of Asian Research, [Accessed June 10, 2011]. 2 Heritage Foundation (1997), \"A User's Guide To Economic Sanctions\", , [Accessed June 10, 2011].\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2cb79daa085c8062d0f41f26ce3fbe99",
"text": "Transparency in situations of international tension is tricky; with complete transparency how do you engage in bluffing? The state that is completely transparent is tying one hand behind its back in international negotiations.\n\nIt is also wrong to assume that transparency will always reduce tensions. Sometimes two countries just have completely incompatible interests. In such instances complete transparency is simply going to set them on a collision course. It is then much better for there to be a bit less transparency so that both sides can fudge the issue and sign up to an agreement while interpreting it in different ways.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1bde12ce91b384e5f31ee6a05dc87f44",
"text": "Communities should have a say in what is taught in schools, and many communities want to teach creationism.\n\nSociety is made up of communities with their own views on politics, religion, education, etc. School boards should be able to set curriculum based on the desires of the public, not just on what the scientific elites command to be taught. Children deserve to hear that their beliefs and those of their community are respected in the classroom. This is why Creationism, a belief held to varying extents in many countries, should be taught in the classroom. This is particularly true in the United States, where in several states the majority of people does not accept evolution, but have instead adopted Creationism, considering the evidence for the latter to be more convincing. [1] In a poll in 2009 a majority (57%) said that creationism should be taught in schools either without evolution or alongside it. [2] The teaching of Creationism should not be taught exclusively, but should share time with other prevailing theories, particularly those of evolution and abiogenesis. Furthermore, evolution taught exclusively threatens religious belief, telling children they are no more than animals and lack the spark of grace given by God. It is important for social stability that schools are allowed to teach what communities believe to be true.\n\n[1] Goodstein, Laurie. 2005. “Teaching of Creationism is Endorsed in New Survey”. New York Times.\n\n[2] HarrisInteractive. 2009. “No Consensus, and Much Confusion, on Evolution and the Origin of Species.” BBC World News America/The Harris Poll, 18th February, 2009.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "13f4bec47b972c017834b066695cf87a",
"text": "Negotiations are not needed to isolate terrorists. The vast majority of citizens will abhor violence as they simply desire a quiet life in which they can make a peaceful living. The best way for the government to isolate the terrorists is to ensure the security of the community and meet some of their grievances. When the community sees that they government is in a better position to provide what they want they will support the government. The situation in Iraq was unusual in that there were important people in the community who at one point or another actively supported Al Qaeda so there needed to be negotiations with these people. In most circumstances the important members of the community are on the sidelines so negotiating with them would not be analogous to negotiating with terrorists.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9bd1daaadf4194b133869c33acff14ff",
"text": "Governments already have the majority of this information through passport applications [1] , social security numbers [2] and so on, without enormous objections by the public. Moreover, many have called for increased security since the rise of terrorist attacks [3] and comply with increased security at places like airports. This isn’t pre-emptively condemning people for criminal activity; it is, like all other security checks, a routine check to enhance the safety of the general population. There is not reason not to identify with that as a common aim.\n\n[1] Accessed from http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Foreigntravel/AirTravel/DG_176737 on 10/09/11\n\n[2] Accessed from http://www.ssa.gov/ssnumber/ on 10/09/11.\n\n[3] Accessed from http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Exec.htm on 10/09/11.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "814d81611232746e1b4dcef531183fd3",
"text": "When we don’t just consider battle deaths the extent to which violence is declining is questionable [1] . Furthermore, we cannot suggest women in politics will limit war, conflict, or violence, as anomalies are found – such as Margret Thatcher’s use of violence in closing down industries across the UK and willingness to engage in the Falklands conflict. Furthermore the idea returns to a preconceived image and ideal women. The women are represented as the caregiver, submerged within traditional constructions of women as nurturing and empathetic.\n\n[1] See further readings: WDR, 2011.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "63492699c7d7ed47e766554b49f38d01",
"text": "Protecting the past\n\nThere is a simple case of natural justice in protecting the decisions and reputations of those who have served the state and can no longer speak for themselves [i] . The same applies to events, for better or worse political or military disputes that were settled fifty or a hundred years ago are best left like that, settled.\n\nAll nations have moments in their histories that are unlikely to reflect that country at its best but we judge our own nations and others on a balance of the broad sweep of history rather than the grubby minutiae of particular events.\n\nBy its nature the historical record will always be incomplete – silent on motivations of those involved or the particularities of individual decisions as we can never know everything and not all decision making processes are recorded. We already know the overall outcomes of, for example, wars or elections. It would be impossible to change those results by discovering that they were not handled as one might have wished. Neither is their much to be gained in despoiling the characters of those involved – national psyches need their heroes and villains, making either of them more human in both senses of the phrase adds little and could distract much. For example do we really need to know that Churchill opposed the Nuremburg trials instead favouring execution without trial for senior Nazi leaders? Does it diminish Churchill’s greatness or undermine the results of the Nuremburg trials? No. [ii]\n\n[i] BBC News Website. Secret papers face faster release. 29 January 2009.\n\n[ii] Cobain, Ian, ‘Britain favoured execution over Nuremberg trials for Nazi leaders’, The Guardian, 26 October 2012\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b9a9091bbe3d0e8ac20180562b87156d",
"text": "While there would no longer be a traditional university campus to carry out these activities, it does not mean these activities would disappear. Given the popularity of societies with students, it is expected that other platforms would spring up to fill in the gap. For instance, student clubs can be established in cities or regions, provided either by for-profit entrepreneurs (as in MOOCs platforms) or self-managed by students themselves. The only difference would be that these new platforms might no longer be affiliated to a university but rather be geographically based. This, however, is not a bad development as students would still have an opportunity to join societies. Students can easily be recruited into them via social media and the internet. Maybe not every student will have an option of the society they'd like to join, but that is also the case in lots of traditional universities.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "81131a2154ef0e07108b905452b2d58f",
"text": "The freedom of movement the Schengen area allows increases the difficulties of controlling immigration\n\nThe borderless nature of the Schengen Area makes it increasingly difficult to track and detain illegal immigrants. It is often easier for illegal immigrants to enter through countries such as Italy or Greece (and, as is feared when Bulgaria and Romania eventually join, Eastern European countries) and then continue on to countries like France and Germany [1] . For example, Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi's decision to grant temporary residence permits to more than 20,000 Tunisian migrants fleeing the violent uprisings in April, was made in the knowledge that many of the migrants would end up travelling to France, the former colonial ruler where many of the migrants have relatives [2] . France accused Italy of abusing the Schengen Agreement.\n\n[1] Lipics, Laszlo, ‘Focal points on the external borders of Schengen’, AARMS, Vol. 9, No. 2, 2010 pp.229-239, http://www.zmne.hu/aarms/docs/Volume9/Issue2/pdf/03.pdf has a map of focal points of pressure of illegal immigration, all of which are in Eastern Europe\n\n[2] ‘France and Italy call for tighter border controls’, theparliament.com, 27th April 2011 http://www.theparliament.com/latest-news/article/newsarticle/france-and-...\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc577dad9160a0eafada898e24534da3",
"text": "Romney’s claim that there needs to be reform to campaign finance law are most likely empty words; his complaint over the disadvantage over the use of primary campaign funds demonstrates this because it is only an advantage that one candidate every eight years gets, essentially this then is a complaint at a very marginal advantage the incumbent Obama has over him.\n\nCampaign finance needs much more than just the reform that Romney suggests. It needs a complete overhaul to stop allowing for large corporate spending which in turn results in elected officials being more accountable to corporations rather than their constituents. That is why Obama supports the overturning of the Citizens United case. [1]\n\n[1] Pilkington, Ed. ‘Obama wants to see Citizens United Supreme court ruling overturned’. Guardian.co.uk, 29 August 2012.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
75ecb67f75eb5cccc67a214652a95e8b
|
The scheme does not prevent forgery or identity theft
The entire premise of national security and crime prevention falls when biometric identity cards are in fact incredibly easy to falsify. Microchips have already been forged in a matter of minutes in an experiment to determine their security [1] , and biometric information can be gained remotely by computer through ‘cracking’, ‘sniffing’ and ‘key-logging’ [2] . Moreover, common crimes which would not require any kind of identification to be committed – vehicle theft, burglary, criminal damage, common assault, mugging, rape and anti-social behaviour [3] – would not be combated at all by this measure. Given that hackers have managed to penetrate even the highest-security sites such as the CIA database [4] , there is not only a danger that individual cards would be hacked, but that the greater database of information could be hacked. There is no such thing as an impenetrable security system. We would be far better off using the money which would potentially be funnelled into identity cards to increase computer security and police presence.
[1] The Times. ‘ “Fakeproof” e-passport is cloned in minutes.’ Published on 06/08/2008. Accessed from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4467106.ece on 10/09/11.
[2] Accessed from http://www.idcardandyou.co.uk/crime.html on 10/09/11
[3] Accessed from http://www.idcardandyou.co.uk/crime.html on 10/09/11.
[4] The Telegraph. ‘CIA website hacked by Lulz Security’. Published on 16/06/2011. Accessed from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8578704/CIA-website-hacked-by-Lulz-Security.html on 10/09/11
|
[
{
"docid": "eb163fecde3e10c09901b35f105ee342",
"text": "human rights politics government house would introduce compulsory identity cards While these crimes are obviously a problem, it doesn’t mean that other crimes which can be challenged by this scheme should be allowed to continue. Identity cards would at least make it more difficult for fraud to occur, which in cases of petty criminals would provide an active deterrent for them to try it in the first place.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c47db3b03eb8c77ad8f18779aef7fcde",
"text": "human rights politics government house would introduce compulsory identity cards Governments already have the majority of this information through passport applications [1] , social security numbers [2] and so on, without enormous objections by the public. Moreover, many have called for increased security since the rise of terrorist attacks [3] and comply with increased security at places like airports. This isn’t pre-emptively condemning people for criminal activity; it is, like all other security checks, a routine check to enhance the safety of the general population. There is not reason not to identify with that as a common aim.\n\n[1] Accessed from http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Foreigntravel/AirTravel/DG_176737 on 10/09/11\n\n[2] Accessed from http://www.ssa.gov/ssnumber/ on 10/09/11.\n\n[3] Accessed from http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Exec.htm on 10/09/11.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ef41130b78b9329e502abcf1ec299b0a",
"text": "human rights politics government house would introduce compulsory identity cards This point alludes to a potentially tiny minority of incidents. It is likely that most people, realising the importance of their card, would not lose it. In cases where it is used properly, it could be an enormous benefit to the user and increase their convenience.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ce8c862f935cac99ec49433f5983ba98",
"text": "human rights politics government house would introduce compulsory identity cards If anything, this is a reason to introduce better police training, not to abandon the concept of identity cards altogether. An unfortunate fact is that immigrants, who often come from poor backgrounds or have low levels of education, are more statistically likely to be involved in crime [1] . This ‘disproportionate’ [2] level of crime among immigrants provides a reason for the seemingly disproportionate targeting of minority groups by police authorities.\n\n[1] Accessed from http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/crime/toc.html on 10/09/11.\n\n[2] Accessed from http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/crime/toc.html on 10/09/11.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb05a96868856f0bc0b3e084f7cc3809",
"text": "human rights politics government house would introduce compulsory identity cards Just as some people have difficulty remembering so many passwords, so some people have difficulty remembering where they misplaced their belongings. This motion offers no solution if somebody should lose their identity card; given that it may be used to have access to a bank account, act as a travel card or simply be used to grant general access to the bearer, how could they possibly survive if they lost it? It is reasonable to assume that a biometric identity card might take as long or longer than a passport (which contains some biometric data) to be replaced. Given that in the UK it takes three weeks to receive a new passport if you lose it [1] and can cost between £77.50 and £112.50, this is simply too expensive and too slow for the average citizen to be able to continue with their daily life. A week without access to daily necessities such as your own bank account is too long to wait.\n\n[1] Accessed from http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Passports/howlongittakesandurgentappplications/DG_174148 on 10/09/11\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dce9b839ac2557f89a386647c5ae31b6",
"text": "human rights politics government house would introduce compulsory identity cards It is perfectly legitimate for an innocent citizen to oppose identity cards on the grounds of how they threaten to alter society. The oppressive measure of gaining and essentially holding to ransom everybody’s intimate personal details and biometric data is hardly a soft measure; it is radical and may completely change the way in which society functions. Moreover, the fear that their card will be lost or stolen [1] , or that their information could be hacked and used by somebody else, is more than ample reason to fear or oppose the introduction of identity cards.\n\n[1] Accessed from http://www.idcardandyou.co.uk/crime.html on 10/09/11.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "24f2b00b3fabc0014a9ded3af05a43e4",
"text": "human rights politics government house would introduce compulsory identity cards It’s perfectly fine to acknowledge that medical emergencies require fast action – but that’s the exact reason why we use medical alert bracelets [1] . We already have a simply, non-intrusive way of ensuring that somebody who suffers from an illness such as epilepsy or diabetes can be quickly identified – without the need for an expensive and illiberal measure such as identity cards. Moreover, in the need to contact a relative, why not simply use their mobile number? Even if mobile umbers were now required by the government at all times, this is still far less intrusive than the scheme which proposition proposes.\n\n[ 1 Accessed from http://medicsalertbracelets.com/ on 10/09/11\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b8de43fce00e00c4d8dc4926bdb5e6d5",
"text": "human rights politics government house would introduce compulsory identity cards Many illegal immigrants already take steps to avoid official identification. For example, they frequently take jobs which pay cash-in-hand [1] so that they do not have to set up and authorise a bank account, or have a social security number. There is not reason why this would not continue. Moreover, this measure simply provides more fuel for injustice. These is already a problem of police officers targeting minority groups for ‘stop-and-search- checks [2] ; under this motion, this injustice would be amplified under the guise of checking for illegal immigrants. This measure is contradictory to the notion of democracy.\n\n[1] BBC. ‘The British illegal immigrants’. Published 02/02/2005. Accessed from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4226949.stm on 10/09/11\n\n[2] BBC. ‘Police stop and search powers ‘target minorities’. Published 15/03/2010. Accessed from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8567528.stm on 10/09/11.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22336189ab2a01b673d2f848994a24ee",
"text": "human rights politics government house would introduce compulsory identity cards Many countries – including America [1] and Britain [2] - already use biometric chips in passports to reinforce proof of identity when crossing national borders. If this data does not work in this case, especially since security has increased hugely since 9/11 [3] , there is no evidence to support the idea that it would suddenly be improved if this chip was in an identity card instead of an official national passport. Moreover, the biometric information on these cards has already been proved faulty. Experts have demonstrated that they could copy the biometric information provided on identity cards ‘in minutes’ [4] . Identity cards are unnecessary and will not help to prevent the crimes mentioned.\n\n[1] The Economist. ‘Have chip, will travel.’ Published 17/07/2009. Accessed from http://www.economist.com/node/14066895 on 10/09/11\n\n[2] Accessed from http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Passports/Applicationinformation/DG_174159 on 10/09/11\n\n[3] Accesssed from http://securitysolutions.com/news/security_airport_security_far/ on 10/09/11\n\n[4] The Times. ‘ “Fakeproof” e-passport is cloned in minutes.’ Published 06/08/2008. Accessed from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4467106.ece on 10/09/11.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d59b0ab4f12f14f8d7f183ec370b372",
"text": "human rights politics government house would introduce compulsory identity cards An identity card scheme is open to subversion and abuse\n\nDemanding identity cards has already been shown as a way for police officers and officials to harass minority groups by singling them out for questioning and searches [1] . This motion would simply serve as a thinly-veiled excuse for more intrusive searches which the law would not otherwise allow. This motion could also lead police to believe that those with a criminal record on their identity cards who just happen to be near a crime scene when a crime happens must be involved. This would lead to an unfair perversion of justice as those individuals are seen as the ‘usual suspects’, perhaps blinding the police eye to the real culprits if they did not previously have a criminal record.\n\n[1] Accessed from http://www.civilrights.org/publications/justice-on-trial/ on 10/09/11\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a02a7b040095be3b62f55bfd5bfd8553",
"text": "human rights politics government house would introduce compulsory identity cards The scheme would cause inconvenience and public discontent\n\nThe more information which is incorporated into identity cards, the greater the problems if they are misplaced or stolen. You would be ‘required to report the theft at a police station’ [1] rather than being able to cancel by phone, because the only way to prove that you are the owner of the card would be to have your biological information – like your fingerprints - scanned [2] . Moreover, if your details were stolen online and used without your knowledge, the ‘illusion of security’ [3] surrounding the cards would make it very difficult to probe that it was not in fact you who was using the card. Jerry Fishenden of Microsoft also pointed out that ‘if core biometric details such as your fingerprints are compromised, it is not going to be possible to provide you with new ones’ [4] . It is also unreasonable to expect someone to carry this card on them at all times, particularly if police or other authorities are able to stop and search on demand. Overall, the introduction of biometric identity card would create enormous problems for the everyday user if the slightest thing went wrong.\n\n[1] Accessed from http://www.idcardandyou.co.uk/crime.html on 10/09/11\n\n[2] Accessed from http://www.idcardandyou.co.uk/crime.html on 10/09/11.\n\n[3] Accessed from http://www.idcardandyou.co.uk/crime.html on 10/09/11.\n\n[4] Accessed from http://www.idcardandyou.co.uk/crime.html on 10/09/11.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c9188b5032b758a98977f043a85bfc98",
"text": "human rights politics government house would introduce compulsory identity cards This motion represents an unacceptable intrusion into individual liberty\n\nIntroducing identity cards, and particularly biometric identity cards, would create a ‘Big Brother’ state where each individual is constantly being watched and monitored by the government. An identity card could potentially monitor the movements of each citizen, particularly if it had to be swiped to gain entry to buildings. Moreover, requiring the biometric information of each individual defies the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Under the status quo in the UK, biometric information is only taken during the process of creating a criminal record [1] - in short, we only take biometric data after somebody has been convicted of a crime. This motion presumes that everybody is or will become a criminal. This is obviously a huge injustice to the millions of innocent, honest and law-abiding citizens who would have their data pre-emptively taken. The need to carry this card at all times will only agitate the current problems of prejudicial stop-and-search programmes which already demonstrate bias against racial and ethnic minority groups [2] . Using such an extreme measure without due cause – as most nations are currently in peacetime – is an enormous overreaction and infringes upon individual rights.\n\n[1] Accessed from http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn258.pdf on 10/09/11\n\n[2] Accessed from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8567528.stm on 10/09/11\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6eb4fdb7f6637c0a8f53c3c39f251bd4",
"text": "human rights politics government house would introduce compulsory identity cards Identity cards confer advantages on their users\n\nThe average person is faced with numerous requisitions for identification every day, whether trying to access their own bank account, prove their age or prove their address. The identity card could easily incorporate all of this information to become one convenient for of identification and save the user the hassle of carrying so many documents around with them. Given that ‘the average person now has to remember five passwords, five PIN numbers, two number plates, three security ID numbers and three bank account numbers just to get through everyday life’ [1] , there is evidently a need for a single, concise form of identification. Moreover, it would help them to identify the people they have to interact with. There have been numerous cases of criminals posing as company officials such as gas workers in order to gain access to somebody’s home and steal from them [2] [3] . These identity cards would particularly help vulnerable citizens who are the most at risk of this kind of injustice. For this reason these cards should be compulsory, they would not be much use as identification if not everyone had one that could be checked by anybody.\n\n[1] Accessed from http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/150874/too_many_passwords_or_not_enough_brain_power.html on 10/09/11\n\n[2] Accessed from http://www.enfieldindependent.co.uk/news/localnews/9235106.Edmonton_burglar_who_preyed_on_pensioners_jailed/ on 10/09/11\n\n[3] Accessed from http://www.westmercia.police.uk/news/news-articles/cash-stolen-by-distraction-burglars-in-kidderminster.html on 10/09/11\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6c50872dc1103f17b597e083cda5d0ec",
"text": "human rights politics government house would introduce compulsory identity cards Only those who are guilty have anything to fear from systems that monitor and confirm identities\n\nLaw-abiding citizens who have not and do not intend to commit any crimes should not have a problem with this motion. Carrying a single card is not a huge burden to an individual. Rather they can reap the benefits of convenience to them personally, alongside the added security benefit to their whole nation which will help to keep them safe. As it is to be issued to everyone there will not even be the inconvenience of having to spend a long time applying for the card as it is in the government’s interest to make it as simple as possible with mobile offices taking the relevant biometrics where the people live so as to have the least impact on individual’s lives as possible.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a3c08d6b56ca70f0adc42dbf8f993263",
"text": "human rights politics government house would introduce compulsory identity cards Identity cards can assist in the efficient monitoring of immigration\n\nIllegal immigration is an enormous problem in Western nations. The UK estimates that there are more that one million illegal immigrants living in Britain [1] , likely around 2.2 million [2] . For America, this number could be as high as 11 million [3] . Identity cards would mean that, even if illegal immigrants did succeed in crossing the border, they would most likely be found out because they could not pass routine security checks required on an everyday basis because they would not have been issued an identity card. Given that illegal immigration is frequently linked to international crime such as trafficking [4] , this is clearly a problem which we need to address in a new way.\n\n[1] The Times. ‘UK home to 1m illegal immigrants.’ Published 25/04/2010. Accessed from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7107598.ece on 10/09/11.\n\n[2] The Times. ‘UK home to 1m illegal immigrants.’ Published 25/04/2010. Accessed from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7107598.ece on 10/09/11.\n\n[3] The New York Times. ‘Number of illegal immigrants in US fell, study says.’ Published 01/09/2010. Accessed from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/02/us/02immig.html on 10/09/11.\n\n[4] Accessed from http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/pub45270chap2.html on 10/09/11.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "38381fda5f03ffcd58d50cda57ec879b",
"text": "human rights politics government house would introduce compulsory identity cards Identity cards improve public safety\n\nIdentity cards could prove a key instrument to combat crime, terrorism and fraud. Given that terrorists have used fake passports to cross borders in the past [1] , a sophisticated identity card, possibly containing specific biometric information which cannot be easily faked, could be crucial in preventing terrorist acts in the future. In cases where the police were suspicious, they could rapidly check the identities of many people near a crime scene, which would make their investigation much swifter and more effective. The CBI also believes that ‘the creation of a single source of identity data’ [2] in the form of biometric identity cards would also decrease identity fraud. Given that identity fraud currently costs the UK £2.7 billion per year [3] , Canada over 10 million Canadian dollars per year [4] , and in America identity fraud relating to credit cards alone costs around $8.6 billion per year [5] , this is obviously a serious problem under the status quo. These crimes would be much more difficult if biometric data was required for financial transactions and other activities such as leaving or entering a country; identity cards are the best way forwards. The value of ID cards in combating terrorism and crime is much reduced if not everyone has them as the guilty would be less likely to want to get such cards unless they could somehow fake them.\n\n[1] Accessed from http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010%5C08%5C10%5Cstory_10-8-2010_pg7_17 on 10/09/11\n\n[2] Accessed from http://www.citizenshipfoundation.org.uk/main/page.php?217#arguments_identity_fraud on 10/09/11\n\n[3] Accessed from http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/agencies-public-bodies/nfa/ on 10/09/11\n\n[4] Accessed from http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/scams-fraudes/id-theft-vol-eng.htm on 10/09/11\n\n[5] Accessed from http://www.banking-gateway.com/microsites/oracle/US%20Card%20Fraud.pdf on 10/09/11\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc9f9b1f3b47b9c6a56da736bd11c581",
"text": "human rights politics government house would introduce compulsory identity cards Identity cards can be used to locate individuals who are in danger\n\nAs biometric identity cards would be able to store medical data, they could be instrumental in saving somebody’s life. For example, if somebody suddenly suffered an epileptic fit, it would be much faster for medical staff to find out their illness and medical history no matter where there medical records are held as everyone’s records would be linked to their ID card [1] , allowing them to be treated faster and more efficiently. It would also be easier to contact a friend or relative if they knew the last place where they had used their identity card, allowing faster unity of family in a medical emergency.\n\n[1] Accessed from http://ec.europa.eu/research/research-for-europe/science-eco-bite_en.html on 10/09/11\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
be81414a7cc06839e2b91839f821c80f
|
Warrants are ineffective
One of the main reasons for scraping the warrant-system is because of its ineffectiveness. This system of checks-and-balances was created in order to prevent the government from over monitoring the population, but unfortunately, lately, they have just become another administrative and bureaucratic step in achieving that surveillance.
If we look at the statistics which revolve around the FISA court, the one which emitted warrants for the NSA, we see that it “has rejected .03 percent of all government surveillance requests”(1). This is absolutely preposterous, as one cannot reasonably assume that no abusive requests were submitted. As a result, even if there was a so-called preventive purpose of warrants, they are far from achieving it.
(1) Erika Eichelberger “FISA Court Has Rejected .03 Percent Of All Government Surveillance Requests” Mon Jun. 10, 2013 http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/06/fisa-court-nsa-spying-opinion-reject-request
|
[
{
"docid": "a799adf060c67377394ca7c3253e3088",
"text": "crime policing law general human rights house would require government obtain It is absolutely clear that there exists a need for a system to keep the government in check. We can’t just stand and do nothing, while hoping for the best. There are two reasons why it is justified to keep the warrants.\n\nIt is cases like this that shift opinion and force Government to reverse course. As a result everyone, including FISA and other courts will be much more careful, even with no new laws when scrutinising warrants as nobody is willing to risk another scandal happening.\n\nSecondly, this is an argument for tightening up the warrant system not against warrants themselves. It there is such a problem, let’s make warrants harder to obtain with more scrutiny before they are granted, along with more punitive punishments for abuse, more controls and a higher number of inspections. If so few warrants are being rejected there clearly needs to be more done to prevent the government from abusing its powers.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "990752567391022f71912361f691047e",
"text": "crime policing law general human rights house would require government obtain It may be true that we gave the state the burden and the duty to protect us and it is a very high-ranking priority. But this doesn’t justify sacrificing day-to-day freedom just for the state to fulfil its duty a little bit more.\n\nWe cannot say that the state can do whatever it wants as long as it does that for the safety of our safety. On that logic, it would be OK for the government to have a bodyguard stand next to us without our consent for every single minute of our lives, as that way, we would be more protected. The Supreme Court ruled on this in 2012 and held that police need a warrant to attach at GPS device to a car.(1) One cannot say specifically what the main purpose of the state is, as it’s rather a combination of protecting us and serving us. As it is the population who controls the government and not vice-versa, it must be up to them to decide where to draw the line between security and privacy.\n\nWhat we see on this level is that by engaging in these sorts of operations, the government is not fulfilling its purpose as there are a lot of harmful effects that the citizens would feel if large scale tapping will take place. Maybe some people don’t mind being spied on, but there is a significant majority of people who do. This constant feeling that you are followed translates into fear, anxiety, restlessness or stress. In turn, these emotions affect your day to day life prohibiting you from enjoying it. So on this level, the state is failing at its purpose to improve the lives of the mass population.\n\n(1) Trevor Timm , “Law Enforcement Agencies Demanded Cell Phone User Info Far More Than 1.3 Million Times Last Year”, “Electronic Frontier Foundation” July 9, 2012 https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/07/law-enforcement-agencies-demanded-cell-phone-user-info-much-more-13-million-times\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af83048fed4125081656f8712f69d23d",
"text": "crime policing law general human rights house would require government obtain It is clear that the population has high demands and high expectations from the government, but that is because it should do. It is clear that every time the state fails to protect us, every time it breaks the law and every time it violates our constitutional rights, the state needs to be held to account. But that doesn’t mean the state’s job is impossible and unfeasible simply that it needs to learn and improve from its mistakes, and the only way this will happen is if it is open and transparent about its systems.\n\nIn addition, crime has fallen in the western world, governments can and do both protect the civilians and respect their rights at the same time. Such a system requires warrants and check and balances on government. The population may sway in terms of its demands but this is mostly driven by events; when there is a large terrorist attack there is a response, when government goes too far again the people will respond. This ensures that the government strikes the right balance.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "603b3475cec0d44622203b890e5deea3",
"text": "crime policing law general human rights house would require government obtain It is obvious that warrantless tracking of citizens is not the only way to fight crime. There are other ways which do not negatively impact the citizens to such an extent.\n\nWhen talking exclusively about protection, the government could have better trained police officers, harsher laws in other to deter criminals from committing infractions, improved gun control regulations and a more efficient judicial system. There a lot of alternatives to this, as the elected officials must understand that they need to choose a path which does not hurt the population.\n\nMoreover, if we look at statistics (1), in most of the western world, the crime rate has been decreasing. Slowly but surely, crimes are falling and our societies are becoming safer and safer. Thus, not only we have other ways of fighting crime, but crime is becoming less of a problem, so do we really need new intrusive measures to deal with it?\n\n(1) Eurostat Statistics, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-13-018/EN/KS-SF-13-018-EN.PDF\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "44cca08b05fabbff849352c85ca2cfb1",
"text": "crime policing law general human rights house would require government obtain Those who satisfy these demands by citizens are more likely to be voted back into office. It is in their absolute interest to keep their focus on relevant emails or phone talks, as if they don’t do that, there is another person qualified for the job who will.\n\nSecondly, it is clear that in this quest for protecting society, it is in the government’s interest to obey the law. As recent events have proven, the population is allergic to any state agency’s violation of law, especially when it comes to warrantless tapping. They won’t risk breaking the law in the hope they will catch more criminals as they know there would be a society and media backlash. If anything, it is in any politician’s interest to search and investigate if any government agency is conducting such abuses and to reveal it with the resulting plaudits and votes it will bring. A politician will gain much more if it takes a public stance against that agency by imposing tighter controls and inspections rather than secretly supporting it. Let us not forget that it is the people who keep politicians in office.\n\nThirdly, we must remember that there is a lot of pressure from different NGOs and even whistleblowers that is put on these officials not to make any wrong steps. They know that if the population finds out that they focused on anything else but catching wrong doers, their career is over and there is no coming back.\n\nAs a result, we have every reason to believe that the government will maximize its efforts of protecting us, but abusing its powers won’t benefit it on any level.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc3a75d9a9b7f618bb2eeac38d8b14e6",
"text": "crime policing law general human rights house would require government obtain In order to fully understand the impact of such measure would have over the human mind we must take into consideration that generally people have a very complicated and busy life starting from going to work, taking care of your kids, paying the bills and many more.\n\nMaybe this won’t be the case initially, but as time goes by and as you don’t feel any kind of physical effects from being under surveillance, slowly, this feeling of anxiety would fade away. Individuals will reach the conclusion that nobody is tracking them. Or at least they won’t care about it. This takes place because a person is more likely to focus on the things they love, they do or which generally surround them and have a visible effect on their life like their families, jobs or passions rather than on an uncertain possible action performed by a distant actor, especially which isn’t palpable.\n\nSecond, even if some people do feel this anxiety and can’t seem to be able to find a way to get rid of it, it would still be a small price to pay in order to have a more protected society. It is better to live your life, albeit with some moments when you feel stressed than not being able to live it at all.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "443494a10d0291f255a9694f2fed9a2a",
"text": "crime policing law general human rights house would require government obtain Undeniably, any government needs confidence and trust from the population in order to implement reforms in an efficient way. You need the citizens to be on the same side with the elected officials rather than trying to impede them from doing their job. Despite this, there won’t be any lack of trust as a result of scraping warrants.\n\nIn order to prove this fact, one must look at the source that makes the population trust the government. There might be some mistrust in the beginning as a result of the protests that will come as soon as the scrapping occurs, but this won’t last long. In time, as society becomes safer, as terrorist attacks and crimes become scarcer, there government’s good image will return. Results are what people care about. Let us not forget that the biggest blow that a state’s image can receive happens when it is unable to protect its citizens. No matter if we are talking about 9/11, London Metro Bombings or the ones which happened at Domodedovo Airport in Moscow, each and every time the government was held responsible for its failure to prevent the attacks.\n\nIf we are to talk about the state’s image and legitimacy, as the numbers of these types of regrettable events will decrease, the influence of the government and the way it is perceived can only rise.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a109f45251ca69bf89ad3ec4d6cc7439",
"text": "crime policing law general human rights house would require government obtain What is imperative to understand is that principles are never the end result; they are simply the means to an end. We rely on certain principles like the philosophy of liberty and freedom because in general they have positive outcomes on our lives. The question which rises on this point is what principle, protection freedom, brings more benefits to us.\n\nThe freedom of no one knowing your whereabouts and the right to privacy may sound good in theory, but the truth is they don’t have any effect on the individual. No matter if my phone is connected to the NSA headquarters or not, my day remains exactly the same and nothing changes. I face the same obstacles and joys and I feel the same emotions, as I am not aware of this tracking. But if we prioritize protection over freedom we see that there is significant change in someone’s life. As the government will stop and prevent more crimes happening by tracing and intercepting calls and e-mail s, the lives of the citizens will be drastically improved. Any stopped crime means that the potential victim of that crime has a dramatic improvement in their safety and quality of life.\n\nIn the end, we clearly see that protection must be prioritized over freedom as it has more practical benefits upon the population.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bdfa24e8a13c4e1aad036ecdd9ee4e9a",
"text": "crime policing law general human rights house would require government obtain A safer country\n\nOn this point, there are two levels on which a government which isn’t forced to obtain warrants protects the population better. In 2011 violent crime went up for the first time since 1993 data collected by the Bureau of Justice Statistics in telephone surveys showed a 22 percent increase in assaults so something clearly needs to be done to stop violent crime.(1)\n\nFirst of all, let’s not imagine that there are people hired by the government who will listen to every single word of every single conversation and that every email will be read word for word. In this type of situation, the police uses special software designed to identify certain key words like “murder”, “Al Qaeda”, etc as well as more subtle combinations which could possibly be a clue towards finding certain criminals. If someone is talking or emailing about certain wanted criminals belonging to military militias or terrorist organizations, I would want to know what they were talking about. Now, we have the possibility of doing that, as, last year, for instance, the FBI requested help to develop a social-media mining application for monitoring \"bad actors or groups\".(2) The problem is the initial search needs to be general to find these individuals in the general mass of the world’s population.\n\nThis is an efficient way of discovering new previously-unknown criminals. In the past, there would have been no way of ever discovering these individuals and they would continue to be a threat to innocent civilians.\n\nSecondly, this improved government control over phones and the internet would be an immense deterrent. It would prevent people from engaging in planned crime as the chances of them getting caught are drastically improved. Deterrence relies on the criminal knowing that they are likely to be caught, knowing your communications are monitored will make people believe they are more likely to be caught. So, not only will the police be able to catch active criminals but will prevent other persons from engaging in this type of actions.\n\n(1) Terry Frieden ” U.S. violent crime up for first time in years”, CNN ,October 17, 2012 http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/17/us/violent-crime/index.html\n\n(2) Ryan Gallagher ”Software that tracks people on social media created by defence firm”, The Guardian, 10 February 2013 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/10/software-tracks-social-media-defence\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a5609ae15f298c79e22f95165fea963",
"text": "crime policing law general human rights house would require government obtain Purpose of the state\n\nWe as individuals created the state in order to protect and improve our lives. We gave it the burden of improving our lives from multiple points of view, economically, socially, environmentally, etc. But before these, in order for one to benefit from this advantages that the state brings, he must be alive, therefore the main burden and purpose of the state is the protection of its citizens’ lives. As a result, when judging a principle, one must mainly look if it is helping or preventing the state from reaching its ultimate purpose.\n\nAs a result, it is legitimate to risk sacrificing your right to private life in order for better protection. The existence of mandatory warrants can bring, as an advantage, only a vague feeling of safety and happiness, as there is no real harm for you if someone is tapping your phone, as long as you are a law-abiding citizen.\n\nOn the other hand a world in which the government wouldn’t be forced to obtain warrants would be much safer for the individuals, as the government would be able to intercept and trace more criminals. If one life is saved by this policy, it will be worth it!\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d71d86ff64973818629f36a83083edb",
"text": "crime policing law general human rights house would require government obtain The public can’t decide what they want\n\nSadly, we reached a point in our desperate quest for perfection where the population, through its mutually exclusive demands, has ended up putting the government between a rock and an anvil. The population then blames the government for not being able to fulfill these demands, when actually we are at fault.\n\nWe demand our government protects us from terrorists, criminal organizations and in general people who want to harm us. If it fails to do this job, we blame it and throw dirt at it for being inefficient. But what we see is that although the state has the power to launch a full campaign against wrong-doers through electronic surveillance means, we deny him the possibility of doing that. If, by chance, the government is breaking this law when trying to stop and prevent crimes from happening, like in the example of the NSA, again we launch meaningless offenses and start accusing state agencies for being too intrusive. This fickleness is shown by polling; in 2010 47% of Americans thought that anti-terror programs had not gone far enough to protect the country, three years later that figure had dropped to 35% while those thinking the programs restrict liberties had risen from 32% to 47% with little change in how much was actually being done.(1)\n\n(1) “Few See Adequate Limits on NSA Surveillance Program” July 26, 2013 http://www.people-press.org/2013/07/26/few-see-adequate-limits-on-nsa-surveillance-program/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c7c75c2f4d17df026fd02e6ae2a74939",
"text": "crime policing law general human rights house would require government obtain Warrants are needed to prevent abuse\n\nIn the light of the recent NSA events(1) , we must try and see past this curtain of fog the government has put in front of us, trying to make us believe that everything it does, it does for our own good and that in this process the law is being respected to the letter. Unfortunately, if the necessary system of checks-and-balances between the government and the masses or judicial courts is lacking, it will always find ways to abuse its powers and violate our rights. Even with the warrant currently being mandatory when trying to tap one’s phone, we see that Justice Department’s warrantless spying increased 600 percent in decade(2). If the government is currently invading our lives when we have specific laws banning it from doing so, why should we believe that this phenomenon won’t escalate if we scrap those laws?\n\nThe government's biggest limitation when actively trying to spy or follow a large group of people was technological; it was difficult - if not impossible - to follow a lot of people for days at a time. But with surveillance tools it’s becoming cheaper and easier, as is proven by the astounding 1.3 million demands for user cell phone data in the last year “seeking text messages, caller locations and other information”(3.) Without the resource limitations that used to discourage the government from tracking you without good reason, the limits on when and how geolocation data can be accessed are unclear. A police department, for example, might not have the resources to follow everyone who lives within a city block for a month, but without clear rules for electronic tracking there is nothing to stop it from requesting every resident's cell phone location history.\n\nConsidering these facts, it is clear that, as we live in a time when it would be extremely easy for the government to engage in mass surveillance of the population, we must enforce and harden the current laws for our own protection, rather than abandoning then for good. No matter what, George Orwell’s books should not be perceived as a model for shaping our society.\n\nAt the end of the day, without any oversight, it would be extremely easy for the government to abuse this power given to it by electronic surveillance tools, without us ever knowing it. This system is the only thing left that prevents government agencies to violate our rights.\n\n(1) Electronic Frontier Foundation https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/how-it-works\n\n(2) David Kravets” Justice Department’s Warrantless Spying Increased 600 Percent in Decade”, “Wired” 09.27.12 http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/09/warrantless-surveillance-stats/\n\n(3) Trevor Timm , “Law Enforcement Agencies Demanded Cell Phone User Info Far More Than 1.3 Million Times Last Year”, “Electronic Frontier Foundation” July 9, 2012 https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/07/law-enforcement-agencies-demanded-cell-phone-user-info-much-more-13-million-times\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f7167fa1bcb0843ca4ebd7ba2b037e09",
"text": "crime policing law general human rights house would require government obtain Reducing trust in the state\n\nIn a world where state agencies would have the possibility of tracking everyone’s moves without any person knowing it, we would reach a point in which the population lose their trust in their elected officials. The consequences could then be very damaging to democracy. This phenomenon took place right after the NSA leaks, as the confidence in the US government was near record’s low.(1)\n\nFirst of all, the population would know that the government is spying and tracking their moves, but they wouldn’t know how much. This general lack of information on this matter will create a lot of scepticism relating this process, and inevitably the population will reach the conclusion that the government is conducting massive phone tapping and spying campaigns as no one is checking on them.\n\nDespite potential official document trying to give certain facts regarding this, due to the previous incidents when the state has been releasing little or misleading information, these will have little influence over the population. As a result, trust in the state will suffer a massive blow.\n\nThis is extremely problematic, as you want and need the general population to trust and listen to what the government, and more particularly law enforcement agencies, say in a lot of instances. When promoting non-discrimination, gender equality or increased social welfare contributions for the poor, you need the population to see the state as someone who is on the same side with them and someone who they can trust. Unfortunately, the scepticism with which those beneficial government proposals will be received will drastically reduce their impact and the chances of them being implemented. If I do not trust that the government is looking after my own good, but rather in a lot of instances its interests are mutually exclusive with mine, then I would most probably lose my respect towards authority.\n\nWhen talking about law enforcement agencies, i.e the police, the NSA, etc., it is clear that we have trusted them to protect us and our rights. When it is those very agencies that are conducting these warrantless spying campaigns, it comes as a direct contradiction with their very purpose and thus the impact and the loss of trust is higher on this level.\n\nMoreover, in the long term, the whole electoral process could suffer a lot from this lack of confidence, as individuals aren’t particularly inclined to go to elections any more if they see that no matter what they do, their rights will still be breached.\n\nAs you need the population to trust the government, so that its reforms are being met with positivism and not reluctance, you must not portray the government as an intrusive, harmful and ill-willing element of the society.\n\n(1) Harry J Enten ” Polls show Obama's real worry: NSA leaks erode trust in government”, The Guardian, 13 June 2013 http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/13/poll-obama-nsa-leaks-trust\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2283664fd08aaf8deb2f61573cbe424f",
"text": "crime policing law general human rights house would require government obtain Freedom from government intrusion\n\nOne of the most important pillars on which every single western liberal democracy has been founded is freedom. Allowing the government to be able to track and monitor individuals through mobile or internet connections is against everything we, as a western society, stand for.\n\nFirst of all, it is undisputable that liberty and freedom are indispensable to our society. Every single individual should and must be the master of his own life, he should have the capacity of controlling how much the government or other individuals know about him, the right to private life being the main argument in this dispute.\n\nSecondly, it is clear that phone and internet tracking potentially allow the government to know almost everything about you. Most phones have a GPS incorporated and a lot can be deduced about ones habits by the photos or updates on his social network profile. One who knows all of another’s travels, can deduce whether he is a weekly church goer, a heavy drinker, a regular at the gym, an unfaithful husband, an outpatient receiving medical treatment, an associate of particular individuals or political groups, basically about every activity you have in your life. Remember this data is extremely precise, as your cell phone sends your location back to cell phone towers every seven seconds—whether you are using your phone or not—potentially giving the authorities a virtual map of where you are 24/7.\n\nFinally, we, as individuals, created this artificial structure, i.e the state, to protect our human rights, but also to protect us from each other. We admitted that some rights can be taken away if there is serious concern about the security of other people. Therefore, it is absolutely normal to allow the government to track and follow certain individuals who are believed to have taken part in criminal activities, but there is no ground on which you can violate the right to privacy of a law-abiding citizen, especially if we are talking about such an intrusive policy. If we did so, it would come as a direct contradiction with the very purpose the state was created.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b06b8b3100a6b523457e4656928541e8",
"text": "crime policing law general human rights house would require government obtain Changes in behaviour\n\nSurveillance changes the way we make daily decisions—the same way that a rapidly approaching police car in your rear-view mirror may make you feel nervous even when you are driving completely lawfully. The very existence of a mass surveillance system will negatively influence the behaviour and emotions of a significant majority of the population.\n\nFirst, surveillance affects emotions and mental performance, as it leads to heightened levels of stress, fatigue and anxiety due to the constant feeling that you are being watched.(1)\n\nSecondly, it creates conformity to social norms. “In a series of classic experiments during the 1950s, psychologist Solomon Asch showed that conformity is so powerful that individuals will follow the crowd even when the crowd is obviously wrong. A government that engages in mass surveillance cannot claim to value innovation, critical thinking, or originality.”(2)\n\nThis is of extreme importance as first of all, it is the state’s duty to create the most peaceful and harmonious environment in which the individual can reach its full potential (this one clearly not being it) and second if we don’t feel free to do things that are perfectly legal because we think someone might think it suspicious or out of character then it is difficult to say we are really free.\n\n(1) M.J. Smith, P. Carayon, K.J. Sanders, S-Y. Lim, D. LeGrande “Employee stress and health complaints in jobs with and without electronic performance monitoring”, 1992 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/000368709290006H\n\n(2) Chris Chambers ” NSA and GCHQ: the flawed psychology of government mass surveillance”, The Guardian, 26 August 2013 http://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2013/aug/26/nsa-gchq-psychology-government-mass-surveillance\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
fdb2ee1a9c0200c0c14e45e09c42ccc4
|
Children are bad decision makers
Sex education informs children about sex, and then invites them to make a choice. But as demonstrated all the time, children are bad decision-makers, often choosing what is bad for them. That is why adult society often needs to decide for them – what they should eat, what they should watch on T.V., when they are mature enough to be able to choose whether or not to drink or smoke. Surely sex is just as important as those things – just as dangerous, just as potentially destructive. The abdication of our responsibility in the sexual arena is shameful; we should be unafraid to simply tell children this is something they cannot do, aren’t mature enough to consent to yet – a responsibility we seem to shrink from even though it is reflected by the stated aim of society enshrined in the law of the age of consent. Lessons implicitly lauding the pleasures of intercourse are entirely contrary to that aim.
|
[
{
"docid": "0c8feb4c934924a870c0eda56773f200",
"text": "education general health sex sexuality house would promote safe sex through That logic might sound impressive – but it’s the same one that fails to control underage drinking, underage smoking, the watching of rated movies by those forbidden to do so, the eating of bad food – and underage sex. It’s the same poor parental logic that has seen a generation of children grow up divorced from the society around them, children who die from drugs overdoses and whose parents say (honestly), ‘I just had no idea.’ It’s time to talk to our young people about what they do – honestly, frankly, without frightening them into dishonesty and deception. To do otherwise perpetuates the cycle of ignorance about youth society, and perpetuates the status quo of being able to do nothing to change it.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d36b55cc802c23e8dac1ccf7afe1e476",
"text": "education general health sex sexuality house would promote safe sex through Our children are sexually active. They are making decisions that can affect the rest of their lives. They should be able to choose responsibly and be well-informed about the likely outcomes. They should know about sources of free or cheap contraception, who to turn to when pregnant or if they suspect they have a venereal disease, how to use contraception to avoid both, and, contrary to the impression of abolitionists, they should be told the benefits of abstinence. How can you tell people about that if you refuse to discuss sex? How can you imagine they will take you seriously if you turn a blind eye to something so many of their peers are doing?\n\nThey need an external source of support to resist peer pressure, and have sex later rather than sooner: lamentably, it is presumed amongst many young people that having unprotected sex with many partners at an early age is the norm and they encourage others to do it (and attempt to humiliate those that don’t). We need mechanisms to support those that want to resist that pressure: sex education is such a mechanism. Sex education is part of a package of provisions needed to help our teenagers avoid the terrible pitfalls of unwanted pregnancy and venereal disease. This problem is here – pretending that it isn’t won’t make it go away. How else do opponents of sex education propose to deal with the huge problems of STDs and teen pregnancy? Effective and widely supported sex education programs can achieve real results. For example, in the Netherlands, amongst people having intercourse for the first time, 85% used contraception – compared to 50% in the UK.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cb55764dc3d7f5530e7ff3d63b2088c5",
"text": "education general health sex sexuality house would promote safe sex through Well taught sex education does no such thing. Sex and responsibility classes must tread a fine line, first stressing the importance of waiting until ready before having sex, and pointing to the physical benefits of fewer partners and starting sex later – but must then move on to the reality of modern Britain’s sex-ridden teen culture, without applauding it, and try to decrease the very high levels of STDs and pregnancy. Yes, that’s hard to do – but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it. On the contrary – it’s one of the most important duties society faces today. Arguments about poor teaching apply equally to maths. We often have to try to recruit teachers in unpopular fields – true, difficult, but hardly unique. The answer is to improve teacher training, both for new graduates and for practising teachers, and to bring in outside consultants from the health and social welfare sectors, who have deep experience in this area.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "edce7de578267c1bc8858c25e8c43596",
"text": "education general health sex sexuality house would promote safe sex through Parents often know nothing (or worse, are armed with dangerously naive delusions) of the sexual state of their children. The picture painted by abolitionists is inaccurate – the process of deciding what is taught in schools involves parents’ groups and school governing bodies on a school-by-school basis, so parents do have a role in deciding what is taught. But ultimately, the state should be involved in educating the whole child, not just in doling out academic ideas – and should work hard to safeguard sexual health of youngsters, a field near-impossible to separate from sex education.\n\nThis is a subject just as important for the development of young people as the conventional subjects such as maths and English. The role of ‘teacher’ has to change with time. Once, teachers only instructed the children of the well-off or acted as a branch of the church, now they teach everyone in a secular society. As their role changes, they must remain responsible and obey the law: thus, the scaremongering of suggesting teachers will abuse their students or lure them into relationships is irrelevant, as both sides believe that is wrong, and should be prosecuted.\n\nRules banning discussions of sex in schools can deny teachers the ability to deal with real problems. When an individual student comes to a teacher with a problem, a rule against discussing such things in the classroom will probably mean that this outlet of help the troubled adolescent has sought out, often because he feels the family isn’t the place to get help, will be denied to him, will turn its back on him. Like it or not, in today’s fractured society teachers have taken on the role of counsellor, and this rule will indirectly curtail their ability to fulfil it. The result of that will be appalling.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d613a1f340e9f34dbaa00b01a8fc22b2",
"text": "education general health sex sexuality house would promote safe sex through To not promote abstinence is not a neutral position, it is a position the implicitly encourages sexual promiscuity. Children are at risk of severe psychological and physical harm from having sex too young, and should be encouraged not to do so. Promoting ‘safe sex’ is implicitly encouraging sex by implying that it is safe and a normal thing to be doing. This will encourage young people to believe that there is no risk when this is not the case even if they do follow the prescriptions they have been taught about sex.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "33ad0d3cd1698941a724f1209d029abf",
"text": "education general health sex sexuality house would promote safe sex through True, but nor does it make sense to make the classes mandatory once the child reaches an age where it is legally able to decide whether it wants to partake of them. Nor does this mean that these classes need to be promoting safe sex rather than simply teaching the facts and encouraging abstinence.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "925330abbb8e55a4347b1daf68cb0a34",
"text": "education general health sex sexuality house would promote safe sex through The problem with mandatory sex education is precisely that it presents that information in an organised fashion – by the state. In doing so the right of the parents to raise their children in accordance with their structure of beliefs is usurped.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3276553e6311a0b7ec233abd44247337",
"text": "education general health sex sexuality house would promote safe sex through While a serious disease, AIDS transmission makes up only a tiny proportion of sexually transmitted infections each year. [1]\n\nFirstly the harm of these infections has always been satisfactorily low before public Sex Education, and secondly even if mandatory public education did have a substantive benefit it would not outweigh the infringement on the moral freedom of the parents.\n\n[1] Health Protection Agency, STI Annual Data Tables http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&Page&HPAwebAutoListName/Page/1201094610372\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cad92aea2ab096abaca0ccba911899cc",
"text": "education general health sex sexuality house would promote safe sex through Sex education for underage children undermines the law\n\nSex education classes for those under the age of consent undermines the law. It says, ‘don’t do this – but given that you are, do this, this and this.’ This sends a terrible message about the law – that breaking it isn’t serious, that authority (as represented by teachers) tacitly approves of that illegality, will tolerate it and even encourage it.\n\nSex education fails to tell our children clearly what is right and what is wrong. And remember that these are children, who need clear boundaries to guide their behaviour, and who may not understand the subtleties appreciated by liberal educationalists. In any case, so few teachers want to teach this subject that the quality of teaching is awful. Those that do end up teaching it are often the oddest characters in the teaching establishment. Many teachers happy to ‘cover’ other subjects are uniquely embarrassed by this one, or object to it on moral grounds and will not do so, leaving it to the most liberal members of staff.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f47474dfe17d546a254bcb45a4f64d6b",
"text": "education general health sex sexuality house would promote safe sex through Sex education leads to experimentation and early intercourse, and indirectly encourages promiscuity\n\nSex education leads to experimentation and early intercourse, and indirectly encourages promiscuity. The most moral form of Sex Education says ‘you shouldn’t do this, but we know you are,’ thus pushing children to consider their sexual existence before they need to or indeed should. Thus sex education’s message is invariably confused – on the one hand, by saying ‘here are the perils of teen sex – so don’t do it,’ and on the other hand, ‘here is how to have teen sex safely.’\n\nLess moral forms start by saying, ‘the best form of a relationship is a loving, constant relationship’ and then say, here are the ways to use protection if you’re not in such a relationship’ – a logic which presumes children are in sexual relationships to begin with. The justification for this is that ‘adolescents know all about sex’ – an idea pushed in our permissive society so much it’s almost a truism – but contrary to that bland generalisation, many children don’t do these things early, don’t think about these things – they actually have childhoods, and these lessons stir up confusion, misplaced embarrassment or even shame at slower development. They also encourage children to view their peers in a sexualised context.\n\nThe openness with which education tells students to treat sex encourages them to ask one another the most personal questions (have you lost your virginity? – how embarrassing, how uncool, to have to say no), and to transgress personal boundaries – all with the teacher’s approval. Inhibitions are broken down not just by peer pressure, but by the classroom. As pro-sex education people love to point out, children develop in their own time – but that means that some are learning about this too early, as well as ‘too late.’ We in society are guilty of breaking the innocence of childhood, earlier and earlier – and these lessons are a weapon in the forefront of that awful attack on decent life.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b19c03ad1ed6888347ea96815ac067ee",
"text": "education general health sex sexuality house would promote safe sex through Responsibility for children's moral and sexual upbringing is not the responsibility of schools\n\nThis is none of the state’s business. Teaching this subject en masse in a classroom reduces it to biological notions, group embarrassment and crude jokes. Furthermore, children have never needed this from the state: left alone, they learn from their family and surroundings and grow naturally into adults without the state’s involvement. Few things are responsible for parental disaffection with education more than the teaching of sex and sexuality in ways contrary to their wishes.\n\nParents have a right to determine the moral environment in which their children develop and this is a huge intrusion into that right. That moral environment has been manipulated again and again over the last forty years by a liberal teaching establishment set on undermining traditional values and beliefs. Sex education has been a prime weapon in that social engineering. That tool should be taken away from teachers, who as a body have proven themselves undeserving of it. As for the tedious idea that children somehow need the nanny state to look after their sexuality – who knows children and their needs better than parents? Schools are responsible for so much that is wrong with our children, and by giving them free licence to delve into students’ sexuality, things become so much worse, blurring the line between teacher, adviser, confidante, and sometimes in extremes, between teacher and lover – an abuse of power that bringing sex into the classroom makes so much easier.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "752ad880f3d0d291e91d6dfb9d9be29a",
"text": "education general health sex sexuality house would promote safe sex through Abstinence is an outdated view, based on religious teaching, which may be a personal choice but is not to be expected as the norm for everyone\n\nYoung people express their sexuality as part of their development to adulthood. It is not having sex that is a problem, but having unsafe sex or hurting people through sexual choices. Refusing to promote safe sex would mean not moving with the times. Just because schools do not promote safe sex does not mean that adolescents will not experiment with sex. They will already be exposed to sexual imagery and ideas of sex so it is necessary that they are taught properly how to remain safe.\n\nSchools may also want to talk about abstinence at the same time; it is a way of keeping sexually safe. However schools have to recognise that the majority of pupils are unlikely to stick to abstinence regardless of how much the school promotes it. It is therefore necessary for the school to also promote and educate about safe sex.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9071d8a0c962e544fe786a598df0c819",
"text": "education general health sex sexuality house would promote safe sex through The information age makes attempting to hide information on sex impossible\n\nThe internet provides a vast amount of easily accessible information about sex, of varying degrees of quality. Most children in the west now have access to the internet and are therefore likely to have access to this information on sex, or at least educational materials on sex even if the child’s access to the internet is controlled.\n\nGiven that it is impossible to prevent children from accessing this information if they really want to, it makes sense to present it to them in an organised and accurate fashion. Rather than allowing children to find information on their own through what may well be unreliable resources it is necessary that they should get good reliable information. That this information when there is safe sex education comes from the school means that the children know that they information is reliable. They can then use this information to help them decide how reliable any further information they may find from other sources is.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "91604a6b9a8f3e0b978b82434984ce85",
"text": "education general health sex sexuality house would promote safe sex through Ignorance about sex is the primary cause of the spread of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs)\n\nThe spread of AIDS in the 80s and 90s showed that education and information is more important than ever as exemplified by the slogan in the British 1980’s advertising campaign to prevent AIDS ‘AIDS: Don’t Die of Ignorance’. The campaigns were credited with credited with changing behaviour through warnings on adverts and informing through an information leaflet. [1] This shows that education can work even when starting from scratch. Giving sex education in schools is crucial to the spread of information to each successive generation, and may be supplemented by frank discussion at home.\n\n[1] Kelly, Jon, ‘HIV/Aids: Why were the campaigns successful in the West?’, BBC News Magazine, 28 November 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15886670\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a4a98309d14668eb21d4fe6b9643aa5d",
"text": "education general health sex sexuality house would promote safe sex through Restricting information to children is inconsistent with the age of consent\n\nWith the age of consent being 16 and with young people being able to vote at 18, it does not make sense for parents to have control over whether their children attended sex education classes right up until the age of 19 or whenever they finish full time schooling.\n\nThe age of consent means that there is clearly a need to be taught about sex from that age of consent. This is something that cannot be guaranteed to happen in all individual households if left to the parents whereas it can be ensured in schools.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
e24c4bcd5bbe75a651d253eeb61cfc71
|
Retaining artefacts is a relic of imperialist attitudes to non-occidental cultures
Display of cultural treasures in Western museums may be seen as a last hangover from the imperial belief that “civilised” states such as Britain were the true cultural successors to Ancient Greece and Rome, and that the ‘barbarian’ inhabitants of those ancient regions were unable to appreciate or look after their great artistic heritage. Whether that was true in the 19th century is open to doubt; it certainly is not valid today and the display of imperial trophies in institutions such as the British Museum or the Louvre is a reminder to many developing nations of their past oppression. For instance, the British Museum is refusing to return 700 of the Benin Bronzes to Nigeria despite repeated requests by the Nigerian government [1] . The Rosetta stone has been the subject of demands by the Egyptian government but remains in London. These artefacts become almost souvenirs of Imperialism, a way of retaining cultural ownership long after the political power of Britain has faded. Returning them would be a gesture of goodwill and cooperation.
[1] “The British Museum which refuses to state clearly how many of the bronzes it has is alleged to be detaining has 700 bronzes whilst the Ethnology Museum, Berlin, has 580 pieces and the Ethnology Museum, Vienna, has 167 pieces. These museums refuse to return any pieces despite several demands for restitution.” From Opoku, Kwame, ‘France returns looted artefacts to Nigeria: Beginning of a long process or an isolated act?’ 29th January 2010
|
[
{
"docid": "7e3c1a7cec47b3bab8864e548aa3cc0c",
"text": "aditions education teaching university house would return cultural property For whatever reason the treasures were first collected, we should not rewrite history. There is no reason to politicise this argument; museums have no 'political' agenda but merely wish to preserve historical objects for their intrinsic value. Their reasons for keeping these items may be financial, or in the interests of keeping the artefacts safe and accessible to the public; whatever they may be, they are not political. Don’t the nations who have expended resources protecting and preserving these artefacts deserve in return the right to display them?\n\nAdditionally, not all artefacts held outside their country of origin are the result of imperial or exploitative relationships. The original Medieval Crown of England is held in Munich [1] . Artistic exchange has nothing to do with politics anymore.\n\n[1] Bayerische Verwaltung der staatlichen Schlösser, Gärten und Seen, ‘Treasury (Schatzkammer)'\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c2bd14a252c3073f4858131653bb0c53",
"text": "aditions education teaching university house would return cultural property In the case of the Parthenon marbles, Lord Elgin’s action in removing them was an act of rescue as the Parthenon was being used as a quarry by the local population. [1] The Parthenon had already been destroyed by an explosion in 1687. [2] Having been removed the result was that the British protected them between 1821 and 1833 during the Greek War of Independence was occurring and the Acropolis was besieged twice. [3] Furthermore, if they had been returned upon Greek independence in 1830, the heavily polluted air of Athens would have caused extensive damage to such artefacts that would be open to the elements and Greek attempts at restoration in 1898 were as damaging as the British. [4] Today economic austerity lends new uncertainty to Greece’s commitment to financing culture.\n\nSimilar problems face the return of artefacts to African museums; wooden figures would decay in the humid atmosphere. Artefacts in Northern Africa are at risk because of the recent revolts and civil wars [5] . Wealthier countries sometimes simply have better resources to protect, preserve and restore historical artefacts than their country of origin. Our moral obligation is to preserve the artefact for future generations, and if this is best achieved by remaining in a foreign country then that must be the course of action.\n\n[1] Beard, Mary, ‘Lord Elgin - Saviour or Vandal?’, BBC History, 17 February 2011.\n\n[2] Mommsen, Theodor E., ‘The Venetian in Athens and the Destruction of the Parthenon in 1687’, American Journal of Archaeology, Vol 45, No. 4, Oct-Dec 1941, pp. 544-556.\n\n[3] Christopher Hitchens, The Elgin Marbles: Should They Be Returned to Greece?, 1998,p.viii, ISBN 1-85984-220-8\n\n[4] Hadingham, Evan, ‘Unlocking Mysteries of the Parthenon’ Smithsonian Magazine, February 2008.\n\n[5] Parker, Nick ‘Raiders of the Lost Mubarak’, , The Sun, 1st Feburary 2011.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0458bfaedab7ae6e23a427ef3d7f08da",
"text": "aditions education teaching university house would return cultural property Although some treasures may have been acquired illegally, the evidence for this is often ambiguous. Experts agree that Greece could mount no court case because Elgin was granted permission by what was then Greece's ruling government. Lord Elgin’s bribes were the common way of facilitating any business in the Ottoman Empire, and do not undermine Britain’s solid legal claim to the Parthenon marbles, based upon a written contract made by the internationally-recognised authorities in Athens at the time. The veracity of the document can never be fully dismissed as it is a translation. And while some Benin bronzes were undoubtedly looted, other “colonial trophies” were freely sold to the imperial powers, indeed some were made specifically for the European market.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "25425491faed64ed1cb9731a44fda0c6",
"text": "aditions education teaching university house would return cultural property The artefacts' place of origin has more often than not changed dramatically since they were in situ there. It is therefore unconvincing to argue that the context of modern Orthodox Greece aids visitors’ appreciation of an ancient pagan relic. Too much has changed physically and culturally over the centuries for artefacts to speak more clearly in their country of origin than they do in museums, where they can be compared to large assemblies of objects from a wide variety of cultures. Similarly, a great many cultural treasures relate to religions and cultures which no longer survive and there can be no such claim for their return. Technology has also evolved to the point that Ancient Greece can be just as accurately evoked virtually as it could be in modern Greece [1] .\n\nCountries with cultural heritage retain the attraction of being the original locations of historical events or places of interest even without all the artefacts in place. The sanctuaries of Olympia and Delphi in Greece are a good example of this; they are not filled with artefacts, but continue to attract visitors because the sites are interesting in themselves. In 2009 2,813,548 people visited Athens, with 5,970,483 visiting archaeological sites across Greece [2] , even without the Parthenon marbles. Also, people who have seen an artefact in a foreign museum may then be drawn to visit the area it originated from. It is the tourist trade of the nations where these artefacts are held (mostly northern European nations, like Britain and France) which would suffer if they were repatriated. Lacking the climate and natural amenities of other tourist destinations they rely on their cultural offerings in order to attract visitors\n\n[1] Young Explorers, ‘A brief history of…’ The British Museum.\n\n[2] AFP, ‘New Acropolis Museum leads rise in Greek Museum visitor numbers for 2009’, Elginism, June 8th 2010. (Breakdown of visitor figures according to major destinations. )\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "230483967c57b7583ac0412fb98daedc",
"text": "aditions education teaching university house would return cultural property If the artefacts are of sufficient historical and cultural interest, scholars will travel to any location in order to study them. Indeed, the proximity of artefacts in developing countries may even stimulate intellectual curiosity and increase the quality of universities in there, which would be beneficial for world culture.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c9557ffd34962e176f28388aeea7ca48",
"text": "aditions education teaching university house would return cultural property Returning artefacts to their original locations would in the past have been an unfeasible project simply because of the risk of transporting everything. Now, however, transport is much quicker and easier and we have improved technology to make the transit less damaging to the artefact; for instance, temperature-controlled containers.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3cfe1371df16e92c9275bc37f7afe168",
"text": "aditions education teaching university house would return cultural property Many people from an artefact's country of origin never get to see them because they cannot afford to travel to a foreign museum; as such the cost of access to that museum is a very small part of the total cost. These artefacts are part of their cultural history and national identity, and it is important that local people are given the opportunity to see them. It is not all about quantity of visitors; those closest to the artefacts have the greatest right to see them. For others, it should be a privilege not a right.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a306ee08a2b2dde5f38cb72e26fb0cce",
"text": "aditions education teaching university house would return cultural property Artefacts often have unique religious and cultural connections with the place from where they were taken, but none for those who view them in museum cases. To the descendants of their creators it is offensive to see aspects of their spirituality displayed for the entertainment of foreigners. Meanings may have accumulated around artefacts, but their true significance is rooted in its origins.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5efa9dd2ec86d93d839f5eee8451ca20",
"text": "aditions education teaching university house would return cultural property Many artefacts resting in western museums were acquired illegally. Western states have a duty to retain them.\n\nArtefacts were often acquired illegally. Elgin, for instance, appropriated the Parthenon Marbles from the Ottoman authorities who had invaded Greece and were arguably not the rightful owners of the site; he took advantage of political turmoil to pillage these ancient statues. Doubt has even been cast on the legality of the 1801 document which purportedly gave Elgin permission to remove the marbles [1] . The Axum obelisk was seized from Ethiopia by Mussolini as a trophy of war; fortunately the injustice of this action has since been recognised and the obelisk was restored to its rightful place in 2005 [2] .\n\nUNESCO regulations initially required the return of artefacts removed from their country of origin after 1970,when the treaty came into force, but did not deal with any appropriations before this date due to deadlock in the negotiations for the framing of the convention that prevented inclusion of earlier removals. . However, the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects essentially removes the ambiguity about time limitations of UNESCO’s 1970 convention. Here, nations are required, in all cases, to return cultural artefacts to their countries of origin if those items were once stolen or removed illegally [3] . International law is thus on the side of returning artefacts.\n\n[1] Rudenstine, David, 'Did Elgin cheat at marbles?' Nation, Vol. 270, Issue 21, 25 May 2000.\n\n[2] BBC News, ‘Who should own historic artefacts?’, 26th April 2005,\n\n[3] Odor, ‘The Return of Cultural Artefacts to Countries of Origin’.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "92f25aabb58503e706b81b1aff1439c6",
"text": "aditions education teaching university house would return cultural property Cultural artefacts are enriched when displayed in the context from which they originated\n\nCultural treasures should be displayed in the context in which they originated; only then can they be truly valued and understood. In the case of the Parthenon marbles this is an architectural context which only proximity to the Parthenon itself can provide. In the British Museum they appear as mere disconnected fragments, stripped of any emotional meaning. It may also be useful for academics to have a cultural property in its original context in order to be able to understand it, for example a carved door may be a beautiful artefact but it cannot be truly understood unless we know what the door was used for, where it leads too something for which it is necessary to see the context.\n\nCultural and historical tourism is an important source of income for many countries, and is especially important for developing countries. If their artefacts have been appropriated by foreign museums in wealthy nations then they are being deprived of the economic opportunity to build a successful tourist trade. Both the treasures themselves are being devalued as is the experience of seeing the treasures.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "59e9812697ca8c22f3d7525e812e7342",
"text": "aditions education teaching university house would return cultural property Developing countries are able to guard and preserve their own cultural treasures\n\nIt may have been true that countries such as Greece were not capable of looking after their heritage in the past, but that has now changed. Since 197\n\n5 Greece has been carefully restoring the Acropolis and Athens now has a secure environment to maintain the marbles. The state-of-the-art New Acropolis Museum, which cost $200m, has now been completed to house the surviving marbles [1] , and even contains a replica of the temple, thus the marbles would appear as being exactly the same as on the real temple. Pollution control measures (such as installing pollution monitoring stations throughout metropolitan Athens and ensuring that motor vehicles must comply with emission standards [2] ) have reduced sulphur-dioxide levels in the city to a fifth of their previous levels.\n\nAt the same time the curatorship of institutions such as the British Museum is being called into question, as it becomes apparent that controversial cleaning and restoration practices may have harmed the sculptures they claim to protect. In the 1930s the British museum’s attempt to clean them using chisels caused irreparable damage. [3] They have also been irresponsible when it comes to protecting the fate of many of its artefacts: “The British Museum has sold off more than 30 controversial Benin bronzes for as little as £75 each since 1950, it has emerged”; “The museum now regrets the sales” [4] .\n\n[1] Acropolis museum, Home page.\n\n[2] Alexandros.com, ‘Greece’.\n\n[3] Smith, Helena, ‘British damage to Elgin marbles ‘irreparable’’, The Guardian, 12 November 1999.\n\n[4] BBC News, ‘Benin bronzes sold to Nigeria’, 27th March 2002.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c6f5880a2867f57280b9975a77d2b9de",
"text": "aditions education teaching university house would return cultural property The historical significance of artefacts extends beyond their culture of origin\n\nArtefacts have a historical and symbolic meaning that transcends their origins; over the years they acquire a connection with the place that they are housed. For example, the Egyptian obelisk that stands in the Piazza di San Pietro in Rome was brought to Italy in the reign of Caligula. [1] It is no longer merely an ‘Egyptian’ artefact - it has become a symbol of Roman dominance in the ancient world and the European Christian culture that succeeded it. During the Middle Ages it was believed that the ashes of Julius Caesar were contained in the gilt ball at the top [2] .\n\nFurther, all artefacts are part of a world-wide collective history. Olduvai handaxes (from countries in Eastern Africa such as Tanzania) are held in the British Museum [3] - but the people who made them are our ancestors just as much as they are the ancestors of local people. Holding these in London encourages us to see the common ground we hold with people everywhere in the world, whereas keeping them only in their local country only highlights our differences and tribal identities. “Culture knows no political borders. It never has. It’s always been mongrel; it’s always been hybrid; and it’s always moved across borders or bears the imprint of earlier contact” [4] .\n\n[1] Saintpetersbasilica.org, ‘The Obelisk’.\n\n[2] Wikipedia, ‘List of obelisks in Rome’, And Wikipedia, ‘Saint Peter’s Sqaure’, (Both have useful links and pictures.)\n\n[3] The British Museum, ‘Highlights Olduvai Handaxe’.\n\n[4] Cuno, James, author of ‘Who Owns Antiquity? Museums and the Battle over our Ancient Heritage’, quoted in Tiffany Jenkins, ‘Culture knows no political borders’, The Spectator July 2008.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed1812a845ab633b1d1c03ba362daee2",
"text": "aditions education teaching university house would return cultural property In many cases, returning an artefact may prove to be unreasonably expensive\n\nEven with modern transport links and technology, transporting every artefact in a foreign museum back to its original location would be an impractically mammoth task. The risk of damage to artefacts would be unavoidable, not to mention the possibility of theft or sabotage en route. Important artefacts in transit would be an ideal public target for acts of terrorism. Moreover, the infrastructure of developing countries is probably not sufficient to cope with that volume. Greece may have spent $200m developing a new museum but relatively it is one of the more wealthy countries of origin for artefacts in the British Museum; places such as Nigeria are unlikely to put such emphasis on cultural investment.\n\nMuseums all over the world do loan out their collections [1] . Just because they are held in another country’s museum does not mean that the place of origin would not be able to access artefacts. Creating a generous and dynamic network of sharing relics between museums would be a much more realistic way of sharing and ensuring that all could benefit from seeing them.\n\n[1] The British Museum, ‘Tours and loans’.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5ffcf51c3f169bbf21b3b2fa876bc9ca",
"text": "aditions education teaching university house would return cultural property Scholars will have better access to artefacts, and more opportunities for study and collaboration, if they are stored in the west\n\nIf the Rosetta Stone had not been taken by the British in 1801, the deciphering of the ancient hieroglyphic language of the ancient Egyptian civilizations would have been near impossible. The British Museum is within just hours, and in some cases minutes, of such world-renowned institutions as Cambridge, Oxford, UCL, and Edinburgh. The scientific research that occurs in stable developed countries and scientifically excelling countries is of the highest degree, and parallels to this high level of study are simply non-existent in many underdeveloped countries.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b0b1fa0d0b91b247e7185bcd8a79b13",
"text": "aditions education teaching university house would return cultural property Artefacts should be made accessible to the largest possible number of visitors\n\nArt treasures should be accessible to the greatest number of people and to scholars, because only then can the educational potential of these artefacts be realised. In response to a question about whether museums have any social responsibility, Richard Armstrong, director at the Guggenheim, said “Absolutely, it began with the French Revolution. It is the more than a 200-year-old quest to have the most powerful cultural artefacts available to the greatest number of people. One could say it is the project of democratizing beauty” [1] . In practice this means retaining them in the great museums of the world. Further some of the world great museums, such as those in Britain and the Smithsonian in Washington D.C. are free of charge.\n\n[1] Boudin, Claudia, ‘Richard Armstrong on the Future of the Solomon R Guggenheim Foundation’, 4th November 2008.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
ee668162d7416a8baab4a2810f55249f
|
The bully's intentions are irrelevant
In criminal law, the establishment of culpability does not always depend on the intentions of the perpetrator. If, during a fight on a train platform, I shove someone and that person falls on the tracks and is killed by a train, I will be guilty of manslaughter, whether I intended to kill the person or not, because the harm caused by my actions is so great [1] . The same applies to bullying. Bullies try to hurt their victims through their actions, either physically or psychologically. Whether the bully intended for the victim to die or not, is irrelevant. The bully’s actions were responsible for the victim taking her own life.
[1] Ashworth, Andrew. Principles of Criminal Law, Chapter 7.5. Oxford University Press. 2009.
|
[
{
"docid": "bb0b2903a43f93f6618da174f3cf8517",
"text": "ucation education general law law general house would hold students legally There is a fundamental difference between someone’s actions directly resulting in another person’s death and the case of bullying. In the case of manslaughter, the victim never had a choice. The perpetrator is solely responsible for what happened. But some victims of bullying take a decision to kill themselves, while others do not. The bully cannot be held responsible for someone else’s decision and action, only for her own.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ed699905cba0824e59538f3cb46c5a24",
"text": "ucation education general law law general house would hold students legally The laws are inadequate because it is very hard to define bullying. Almost any act or gesture can constitute bullying depending the victim’s subjective experience of it. Criminalizing bullying would lead to criminalizing behaviour that would be considered normal by most standards.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d97cfcf1407e023d487b6db7ecc5bcd",
"text": "ucation education general law law general house would hold students legally We should always focus on stopping the behaviour before it escalates to the point of the victim’s suicide. Bullies should be held to account early on. We shouldn’t wait until someone dies before they are punished. If victims know there will be early intervention, they will be far less likely to even consider suicide. If they know the bullies won’t be punished until after their death, it might even encourage some distraught victims to kill themselves in the hope of exact vengeance on their tormenters. Early intervention is a much better outcome for everyone.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4e84f60b85e36d9d8b6ea946c2ffe0d5",
"text": "ucation education general law law general house would hold students legally The law should only punish people for their own actions, not those of others. It’s fine to punish bullies for their bullying behaviour, if it is against the law. But ‘bullycide’ implies the bully bears individual responsibility for the death of the victim, just like in the case of murder or manslaughter. But the bully did not pull the trigger, the victim did. While the bully may have intended to harm or berate the victim, she made no attempt on the victim’s life, and cannot be treated like a murderer, who intentionally took the life of another.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cf31a3b8aa01b1e8de325b32e4bc4bc1",
"text": "ucation education general law law general house would hold students legally Under this law, bullies would be held accountable for their own actions, not those of the victim. The law wouldn’t have to equate them with murderers, punish them as harshly, or suggest they bear sole and full responsibility for the victim’s death. But it would make it clear they bear some responsibility for the outcome, and that they should be punished for their role. If they are children, they can be prosecuted as juvenile offenders and given less harsh punishments, like community service.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "734b0ce503bbfe79f556b7d08e2cb7b8",
"text": "ucation education general law law general house would hold students legally Prosecutions of bullies responsible for suicides, and improved safety in schools are not mutually exclusive goals. Programmes need to be set up that stop bullying early on, give victims support, and people to turn to when they are in need. Schools and their administrators can and should also be held accountable to their boards, and the community. But in those cases where tragedies still happen in spite of such measures, the culprits should be held to account.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5805ee00126b1f9714b9a2aa04653b13",
"text": "ucation education general law law general house would hold students legally Of course there will always be ambiguous cases. That is why we have trials, and rights for the defendant. The weight of the evidence presented in court should establish what degree of culpability, if any, the bullies had. If the prosecution does not have a solid case to present, it may even choose not to prosecute. But the law should be in place for those cases where it is needed.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "59430ed83bb977bbe3288b193893a67a",
"text": "ucation education general law law general house would hold students legally We criminalize behaviour when it is truly harmful. Especially when it is so harmful that it leads to someone losing her life. Eye rolling and gossip are not harmful enough to be criminal offences. Nor would they be under this law. What would become a criminal offence would be the sustained and prolonged torment of another person to the point of pushing her to committing suicide, whatever forms that torment takes, whether it’s gay slurs, or physical threats and insults. It has also long been established that there are limits to the freedom of speech or expression we enjoy, if that can result in the direct harm of others. For example, we don’t allow people to incite violence against others.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "62163f65dbf493e1cce257b52193609f",
"text": "ucation education general law law general house would hold students legally Bullies are often children, most of them in their teens. However, they are at an age where they do know right from wrong and can, therefore, be held accountable for their actions. Neither their young age nor their own suffering can justify bearing responsibility for someone else’s death. Most criminal justice systems recognize that children are liable for their behaviour, by allowing children as young as 10, in the UK for example, to be charged with criminal offences. Their age and personal situation can, nevertheless, be taken into account in deciding what punishment they should receive (prison, community service, a fine, etc.). And there is no reason why rehabilitation and education cannot be part, or even the focus, of that punishment.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "391b1a43da8eb486101d5abd80339050",
"text": "ucation education general law law general house would hold students legally The damage wrought by bullying is cumulative\n\nBullying is truly dangerous when it becomes persistent. Any one incident of it, while unpleasant, may be entirely tolerable for the victim. But being unrelentingly subjected to this treatment for months on end can make life truly unbearable and lead that person to suicide. In the case of Phoebe Prince, an Irish immigrant who was bullied at her US high school, she was called expletives, threatened, and even hit with a beverage container before she finally took her life [1] . She may have survived any one of those taunts, but it was their cumulative effect that was too much to bear. Conversely, punishing her bullies for any one act will fail to acknowledge the much greater extent of the overall harm. A different, special offence is needed to recognize the magnified level of harm caused by bullying.\n\n[1] Eckholm, Eric; Zezima, Katie. “Documents Detail a Girl’s Final Days of Bullying”. The New York Times. April 8, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/09/us/09bully.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc4a67952d7596b7229de19a5b391fa5",
"text": "ucation education general law law general house would hold students legally The law should always punish actions that inflict serious harm - whether physical or psychological\n\nBullying can inflict serious psychological harm on its victims, especially in the case of young people. It leads to low self-esteem, depression, and for some kids it leads to suicide [1] . Bullied children are almost 6 times more likely to think about or attempt suicide [2] . This phenomenon has been termed ‘bullycide’ and the law should recognize it. Many forms of behaviour that result in the death of another person are criminal, from murder to negligence. It is the duty of the law to brand such behaviour as unacceptable, deter future incidents, punish the perpetrators, and offer comfort to victims: in this case, the families of those who lost their life to bullying.\n\n[1] O'Moore, Mona, “Understanding School Bullying: A Guide for Parents & Teachers”, Veritas, 1, Dublin, 2010\n\n[2] Kim YS, Leventhal BL, Koh YJ, Boyce WT “Bullying Increased Suicide Risk: Prospective Study of Korean Adolescents”. Arch Suicide Res. Vol. 13, No. 1, pp15-30. 2009.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8c1c1b6ba7c08225e9ae02fb34f90153",
"text": "ucation education general law law general house would hold students legally The current legal regime is not able to prevent or adequately punish bullying\n\nEven when bullies are sometimes prosecuted, they are charged with offences that constitute individual components of the bullying behaviour, like harassment, stalking, causing bodily harm [1] , or invasion of privacy [2] . But these offences were not designed with bullying in mind and fail to capture its overall impact and the harm it causes. While bullies may be charged with several of these offenses this will still not capture the kind of harm being done and would not be as effective as a specifically tailored offense. We need laws that recognize that harm and which punish those who inflict it adequately.\n\n[1] Eckholm, Erick. “Two Students Plead Guilty in Bullying of Teenager.” The New York Times. May 4, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/05/us/05bully.html\n\n[2] Foderaro, Lisa W. “Private Moment Made Public. Then a fatal Jump.” The New York Times. September 29. 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/30/nyregion/30suicide.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "70ddfb3d5f9af53866c48cd14f74be4f",
"text": "ucation education general law law general house would hold students legally Bullys are frequently as disturbed and victimised as those they target\n\nAccording to studies, bullies are often children who are plagued by their own problems: a troubled family situation, feeling of inadequacy, depression, or pressure to fit in [1] . Their bullying behaviour might just be a coping mechanism and a cry for help. These children might need as much support and care as those they bully. Putting them through the harrowing experience of a criminal trial, and potentially throwing them in prison will further damage them. Destroying one young life as retribution for another is a model of justice that should find no place in a compassionate society.\n\n[1] Carroll, Linda. ”Kids with ADHD may be more likely to bully”. MSNBC. 29 January 2008. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22813400/#.Tvmm8iNWoVc\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4aa24435401e5b2b818b809641f4c268",
"text": "ucation education general law law general house would hold students legally Conduct offence\n\nDefining bullying would be nearly impossible. Spreading rumours, giving someone the silent treatment, inviting all your classmates but one to a party, expressing a religious belief about someone’s sexuality, eye rolling, making faces, these can all be hurtful and perceived as bullying [1] . Yet this is perfectly legal behaviour. Criminalizing bullying would amount to criminalizing these acts. They may be offensive, they may even be hurtful, but these gestures should never, ever constitute criminal behaviour in any society that is concerned with human rights, freedom of speech, and of expression. Throwing someone in prison for spreading rumours or eye rolls might be worthy of a totalitarian state, but not a liberal democracy.\n\n[1] Bolton, José, and Stan Graeve. No Room for Bullies: from the Classroom to Cyberspace. Boys Town Press. 2005.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6668013e7c6f3d3d53b0eb6937195168",
"text": "ucation education general law law general house would hold students legally Making bullying a legal issues does not incentivise robust enforcement of anti bullying rules by schools\n\nSchools are educational establishments that parents trust to protect and educate their children. Teachers and school administrators are those who should be keeping a watchful eye on the students in their care and intervene before harm comes to them. If bullying occurs at school, then that school has failed in its duties. In fact, in cases where suicides occurred, it has often later come to light that a bullying culture was widely tolerated at the school, and that school staff that knew about it did nothing to prevent it, with tragic results [1] . To prosecute the bullies would shift responsibility from the woeful failure of the adults around them, who should have known better and done more than the children in their care.\n\n[1] Bazelon, Emily. “What Really Happened to Phoebe Prince? Entry 1”. Slate. July 20. 2010. http://www.slate.com/articles/life/bulle/features/2010/what_really_happe...\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4ff350837e943aacb2e774b4e5002b2c",
"text": "ucation education general law law general house would hold students legally Individuals should only be held responsible for the consequences of their own actions\n\nIn any free and democratic society, criminal law should only hold people accountable for the things they do, not for the actions of others. We are all autonomous, moral agents who make decisions and have to live with their consequences and the consequences of our actions. While it might be justified to punish bullies for their bullying behavior, if it breaks the law, we cannot hold them accountable for another person’s decision to commit suicide.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9fbf54282683c00f87472ab79abaa86a",
"text": "ucation education general law law general house would hold students legally It is difficult to make a direct, legally sound link between a bully's behaviour and a victim's suicide\n\nMany of the children and adolescents who take their own lives allegedly as a result of bullying have a far more complicated background. Some already struggle with depression, and have unstable family situations that make it hard to turn to their parents for help with their problems. Phoebe Prince, for example, was taking anti-depressants, was devastated by her parents’ divorce, was self harming, and had already attempted suicide after a break up. And that was long before she was allegedly bullied to death [1] . She was a very troubled young woman, and anything could have pushed her over the edge. It would be hard to find the bullies criminally responsible for her death.\n\n[1] Bazelon, Emily. “What Really Happened to Phoebe Prince? Entry 2”. Slate. July 20. 2010. http://www.slate.com/articles/life/bulle/features/2010/what_really_happe...\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
ab9a89b0dd752bc5c69d2c11ac9778b9
|
The law should always punish actions that inflict serious harm - whether physical or psychological
Bullying can inflict serious psychological harm on its victims, especially in the case of young people. It leads to low self-esteem, depression, and for some kids it leads to suicide [1] . Bullied children are almost 6 times more likely to think about or attempt suicide [2] . This phenomenon has been termed ‘bullycide’ and the law should recognize it. Many forms of behaviour that result in the death of another person are criminal, from murder to negligence. It is the duty of the law to brand such behaviour as unacceptable, deter future incidents, punish the perpetrators, and offer comfort to victims: in this case, the families of those who lost their life to bullying.
[1] O'Moore, Mona, “Understanding School Bullying: A Guide for Parents & Teachers”, Veritas, 1, Dublin, 2010
[2] Kim YS, Leventhal BL, Koh YJ, Boyce WT “Bullying Increased Suicide Risk: Prospective Study of Korean Adolescents”. Arch Suicide Res. Vol. 13, No. 1, pp15-30. 2009.
|
[
{
"docid": "4e84f60b85e36d9d8b6ea946c2ffe0d5",
"text": "ucation education general law law general house would hold students legally The law should only punish people for their own actions, not those of others. It’s fine to punish bullies for their bullying behaviour, if it is against the law. But ‘bullycide’ implies the bully bears individual responsibility for the death of the victim, just like in the case of murder or manslaughter. But the bully did not pull the trigger, the victim did. While the bully may have intended to harm or berate the victim, she made no attempt on the victim’s life, and cannot be treated like a murderer, who intentionally took the life of another.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "bb0b2903a43f93f6618da174f3cf8517",
"text": "ucation education general law law general house would hold students legally There is a fundamental difference between someone’s actions directly resulting in another person’s death and the case of bullying. In the case of manslaughter, the victim never had a choice. The perpetrator is solely responsible for what happened. But some victims of bullying take a decision to kill themselves, while others do not. The bully cannot be held responsible for someone else’s decision and action, only for her own.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed699905cba0824e59538f3cb46c5a24",
"text": "ucation education general law law general house would hold students legally The laws are inadequate because it is very hard to define bullying. Almost any act or gesture can constitute bullying depending the victim’s subjective experience of it. Criminalizing bullying would lead to criminalizing behaviour that would be considered normal by most standards.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d97cfcf1407e023d487b6db7ecc5bcd",
"text": "ucation education general law law general house would hold students legally We should always focus on stopping the behaviour before it escalates to the point of the victim’s suicide. Bullies should be held to account early on. We shouldn’t wait until someone dies before they are punished. If victims know there will be early intervention, they will be far less likely to even consider suicide. If they know the bullies won’t be punished until after their death, it might even encourage some distraught victims to kill themselves in the hope of exact vengeance on their tormenters. Early intervention is a much better outcome for everyone.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cf31a3b8aa01b1e8de325b32e4bc4bc1",
"text": "ucation education general law law general house would hold students legally Under this law, bullies would be held accountable for their own actions, not those of the victim. The law wouldn’t have to equate them with murderers, punish them as harshly, or suggest they bear sole and full responsibility for the victim’s death. But it would make it clear they bear some responsibility for the outcome, and that they should be punished for their role. If they are children, they can be prosecuted as juvenile offenders and given less harsh punishments, like community service.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "734b0ce503bbfe79f556b7d08e2cb7b8",
"text": "ucation education general law law general house would hold students legally Prosecutions of bullies responsible for suicides, and improved safety in schools are not mutually exclusive goals. Programmes need to be set up that stop bullying early on, give victims support, and people to turn to when they are in need. Schools and their administrators can and should also be held accountable to their boards, and the community. But in those cases where tragedies still happen in spite of such measures, the culprits should be held to account.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5805ee00126b1f9714b9a2aa04653b13",
"text": "ucation education general law law general house would hold students legally Of course there will always be ambiguous cases. That is why we have trials, and rights for the defendant. The weight of the evidence presented in court should establish what degree of culpability, if any, the bullies had. If the prosecution does not have a solid case to present, it may even choose not to prosecute. But the law should be in place for those cases where it is needed.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "59430ed83bb977bbe3288b193893a67a",
"text": "ucation education general law law general house would hold students legally We criminalize behaviour when it is truly harmful. Especially when it is so harmful that it leads to someone losing her life. Eye rolling and gossip are not harmful enough to be criminal offences. Nor would they be under this law. What would become a criminal offence would be the sustained and prolonged torment of another person to the point of pushing her to committing suicide, whatever forms that torment takes, whether it’s gay slurs, or physical threats and insults. It has also long been established that there are limits to the freedom of speech or expression we enjoy, if that can result in the direct harm of others. For example, we don’t allow people to incite violence against others.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "62163f65dbf493e1cce257b52193609f",
"text": "ucation education general law law general house would hold students legally Bullies are often children, most of them in their teens. However, they are at an age where they do know right from wrong and can, therefore, be held accountable for their actions. Neither their young age nor their own suffering can justify bearing responsibility for someone else’s death. Most criminal justice systems recognize that children are liable for their behaviour, by allowing children as young as 10, in the UK for example, to be charged with criminal offences. Their age and personal situation can, nevertheless, be taken into account in deciding what punishment they should receive (prison, community service, a fine, etc.). And there is no reason why rehabilitation and education cannot be part, or even the focus, of that punishment.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "561fcce6a79bdcda5d90d200d7851b0a",
"text": "ucation education general law law general house would hold students legally The bully's intentions are irrelevant\n\nIn criminal law, the establishment of culpability does not always depend on the intentions of the perpetrator. If, during a fight on a train platform, I shove someone and that person falls on the tracks and is killed by a train, I will be guilty of manslaughter, whether I intended to kill the person or not, because the harm caused by my actions is so great [1] . The same applies to bullying. Bullies try to hurt their victims through their actions, either physically or psychologically. Whether the bully intended for the victim to die or not, is irrelevant. The bully’s actions were responsible for the victim taking her own life.\n\n[1] Ashworth, Andrew. Principles of Criminal Law, Chapter 7.5. Oxford University Press. 2009.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "391b1a43da8eb486101d5abd80339050",
"text": "ucation education general law law general house would hold students legally The damage wrought by bullying is cumulative\n\nBullying is truly dangerous when it becomes persistent. Any one incident of it, while unpleasant, may be entirely tolerable for the victim. But being unrelentingly subjected to this treatment for months on end can make life truly unbearable and lead that person to suicide. In the case of Phoebe Prince, an Irish immigrant who was bullied at her US high school, she was called expletives, threatened, and even hit with a beverage container before she finally took her life [1] . She may have survived any one of those taunts, but it was their cumulative effect that was too much to bear. Conversely, punishing her bullies for any one act will fail to acknowledge the much greater extent of the overall harm. A different, special offence is needed to recognize the magnified level of harm caused by bullying.\n\n[1] Eckholm, Eric; Zezima, Katie. “Documents Detail a Girl’s Final Days of Bullying”. The New York Times. April 8, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/09/us/09bully.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8c1c1b6ba7c08225e9ae02fb34f90153",
"text": "ucation education general law law general house would hold students legally The current legal regime is not able to prevent or adequately punish bullying\n\nEven when bullies are sometimes prosecuted, they are charged with offences that constitute individual components of the bullying behaviour, like harassment, stalking, causing bodily harm [1] , or invasion of privacy [2] . But these offences were not designed with bullying in mind and fail to capture its overall impact and the harm it causes. While bullies may be charged with several of these offenses this will still not capture the kind of harm being done and would not be as effective as a specifically tailored offense. We need laws that recognize that harm and which punish those who inflict it adequately.\n\n[1] Eckholm, Erick. “Two Students Plead Guilty in Bullying of Teenager.” The New York Times. May 4, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/05/us/05bully.html\n\n[2] Foderaro, Lisa W. “Private Moment Made Public. Then a fatal Jump.” The New York Times. September 29. 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/30/nyregion/30suicide.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "70ddfb3d5f9af53866c48cd14f74be4f",
"text": "ucation education general law law general house would hold students legally Bullys are frequently as disturbed and victimised as those they target\n\nAccording to studies, bullies are often children who are plagued by their own problems: a troubled family situation, feeling of inadequacy, depression, or pressure to fit in [1] . Their bullying behaviour might just be a coping mechanism and a cry for help. These children might need as much support and care as those they bully. Putting them through the harrowing experience of a criminal trial, and potentially throwing them in prison will further damage them. Destroying one young life as retribution for another is a model of justice that should find no place in a compassionate society.\n\n[1] Carroll, Linda. ”Kids with ADHD may be more likely to bully”. MSNBC. 29 January 2008. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22813400/#.Tvmm8iNWoVc\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4aa24435401e5b2b818b809641f4c268",
"text": "ucation education general law law general house would hold students legally Conduct offence\n\nDefining bullying would be nearly impossible. Spreading rumours, giving someone the silent treatment, inviting all your classmates but one to a party, expressing a religious belief about someone’s sexuality, eye rolling, making faces, these can all be hurtful and perceived as bullying [1] . Yet this is perfectly legal behaviour. Criminalizing bullying would amount to criminalizing these acts. They may be offensive, they may even be hurtful, but these gestures should never, ever constitute criminal behaviour in any society that is concerned with human rights, freedom of speech, and of expression. Throwing someone in prison for spreading rumours or eye rolls might be worthy of a totalitarian state, but not a liberal democracy.\n\n[1] Bolton, José, and Stan Graeve. No Room for Bullies: from the Classroom to Cyberspace. Boys Town Press. 2005.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6668013e7c6f3d3d53b0eb6937195168",
"text": "ucation education general law law general house would hold students legally Making bullying a legal issues does not incentivise robust enforcement of anti bullying rules by schools\n\nSchools are educational establishments that parents trust to protect and educate their children. Teachers and school administrators are those who should be keeping a watchful eye on the students in their care and intervene before harm comes to them. If bullying occurs at school, then that school has failed in its duties. In fact, in cases where suicides occurred, it has often later come to light that a bullying culture was widely tolerated at the school, and that school staff that knew about it did nothing to prevent it, with tragic results [1] . To prosecute the bullies would shift responsibility from the woeful failure of the adults around them, who should have known better and done more than the children in their care.\n\n[1] Bazelon, Emily. “What Really Happened to Phoebe Prince? Entry 1”. Slate. July 20. 2010. http://www.slate.com/articles/life/bulle/features/2010/what_really_happe...\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4ff350837e943aacb2e774b4e5002b2c",
"text": "ucation education general law law general house would hold students legally Individuals should only be held responsible for the consequences of their own actions\n\nIn any free and democratic society, criminal law should only hold people accountable for the things they do, not for the actions of others. We are all autonomous, moral agents who make decisions and have to live with their consequences and the consequences of our actions. While it might be justified to punish bullies for their bullying behavior, if it breaks the law, we cannot hold them accountable for another person’s decision to commit suicide.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9fbf54282683c00f87472ab79abaa86a",
"text": "ucation education general law law general house would hold students legally It is difficult to make a direct, legally sound link between a bully's behaviour and a victim's suicide\n\nMany of the children and adolescents who take their own lives allegedly as a result of bullying have a far more complicated background. Some already struggle with depression, and have unstable family situations that make it hard to turn to their parents for help with their problems. Phoebe Prince, for example, was taking anti-depressants, was devastated by her parents’ divorce, was self harming, and had already attempted suicide after a break up. And that was long before she was allegedly bullied to death [1] . She was a very troubled young woman, and anything could have pushed her over the edge. It would be hard to find the bullies criminally responsible for her death.\n\n[1] Bazelon, Emily. “What Really Happened to Phoebe Prince? Entry 2”. Slate. July 20. 2010. http://www.slate.com/articles/life/bulle/features/2010/what_really_happe...\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
151311f2f2c07fceca292b4f0dbe7b6b
|
Students should be allowed to wear religious dress
If children are religious, they should be allowed to wear the clothes that express their religion, but school a uniform can often restrict this. Religious beliefs can be extremely valuable and important to many children, giving their lives a great deal of meaning and structure and inspiring them to work hard and behave compassionately in a school environment. Some religions place a great deal of value upon worn symbols of faith, such as turbans, headdresses and bracelets. When a school demands that a child remove these symbols, it inadvertently attacks something central to that child’s life. This may cause the child to see her school and her faith as mutually exclusive institutions[1]. Vulnerable young people should not be forced into an adversarial relationship with their school, as close, collaborative involvement with teaching and learning techniques will greatly effect a child’s ability to adapt, learn and acquire new skills in the future.
For example, school skirts are often not long enough for Muslim girls, who believe that they should cover most of their bodies. To allow children to express their religions, we should get rid of school uniforms.
|
[
{
"docid": "c2851d27ab931f461b7338fe0a7ee3fd",
"text": "education general house would ban school uniforms junior Some schools do have different rules for religious students, so that those students can express their beliefs. For example, a school might let Muslim girls wear some of their religious items of clothing mixed with the school uniform (e.g., Reading Girls' School)[2].\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "4e445c3bb0a64c3f1f2cf985bb43f965",
"text": "education general house would ban school uniforms junior Dress codes are a half-way house that does not work. It does not make students look at all uniform and it does not show what school they are from. In the United States there has been a move away from allowing either no uniform or dress codes towards having school uniforms.[6]\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "deed6ed8a480a57a1d2f02dd24f404c4",
"text": "education general house would ban school uniforms junior Schools can foster creativity and individuality without getting rid of school uniform. There are many schools with a uniform which still support creativity and individuality with \"Child Initiated Independent Learning\", and other schemes which encourage children to think for themselves [19, 20]. Also, if children are participating in creative activities like art, it is surely better for them to wear sensible clothes, and it's easier to make sure all children are wearing sensible clothes if they all have to wear the same uniform.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ebc80a5cb95de9b389b2b46f023bcc3d",
"text": "education general house would ban school uniforms junior In many countries, parents can apply for help with the cost of school uniform. For example, in the U.K., parents who don't earn a lot of money can get money from the government to help pay for their child's school uniform[13] . In Australia, the Australian Scholarships Group, which specialises in helping parents save money when it comes to their children's education, has tips for parents to get their child's uniform cheaper.[14]\n\nAlso, parents would probably have to spend a lot more money if their children didn't wear a uniform to school, because they would have to buy them more casual clothes. Since children don't like to wear the same thing too often (in case they get bullied), parents would have to spend a lot of money making sure their children have lots of different outfits.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6035cbc73509c9629d997d675f4175d1",
"text": "education general house would ban school uniforms junior A lot of schools have a choice of uniform so that children can wear what they feel most comfortable in. For example, in Australia, which is a very hot country, schools often have a summer uniform of clothes that are more comfortable in the hot weather [9]. This means that in summer, children might be allowed to wear shorts instead of trousers and short-sleeved instead of long-sleeved shirts.\n\nIf children were allowed to choose their own clothes to wear to school, instead of a uniform, they might choose impractical clothes themselves, like baggy tee shirts or long skirts, or jeans with chains hanging from them. To make sure that children are all wearing sensible clothes in which they will be able to take part in all their school activities, there needs to be one uniform that all children at the school wear.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d467f3d03b516c0a3ec3b57d3697552",
"text": "education general house would ban school uniforms junior There will always be teasing between children. If it's not based on what clothes the kids are wearing, it'll be because of their hair colour[4], or the fact that they wear glasses [5]. Children need to learn from an early age that everyone is different, or how can they learn to accept that? The differences between people should be embraced; in making students wear a uniform, schools are wrongly teaching children that everyone should look the same.\n\nWhen it comes to the opposition's evidence it should be remembered that opinion polls themselves are slippery, depending on the question asked, as is something like a belief in the benefits of school uniforms. There is also no evidence to link parent's belief that it promotes equality to whether it really does.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "069dd68905da82514cf244ffe9b47b55",
"text": "education general house would ban school uniforms junior Researchers have actually found that having to wear a school uniform does not make children better behaved. For example, Brunsma and Rockquemore[22] looked at data for more than 4,500 students and found that those who wore a school uniform did not have fewer behavioural problems or better attendance. School uniform does not encourage discipline, so there is no need to make children wear one.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b208a8f1e96e53c989dc7f5cd1ba4929",
"text": "education general house would ban school uniforms junior School uniforms might help improve the feeling of unity within schools, but pride in one's school is dependent on being distinct and different from another school. This can lead increase rivalry between schools (already present from school sports matches). There are many examples of school rivalry (often made worse by the fact that children from different schools are made to wear different uniforms) leading to children being beaten up or worse. For example, in New Zealand, a boy was beaten up by boys from a rival school; he said that the boys told him he should be shot because he went to a different school, which they could see from his uniform[17]. Because of this rivalry, it might be better for students not to wear school uniforms on outings, where they might encounter children from other schools. Schools can use other things to make sure children don't get lost on school trips, like buddy schemes where each child has a buddy, and having plenty of teachers or assistant teachers. 1 TVNZ, 2007. Boy beaten as school rivalry heats up [online] 21 October.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "75a668c7b8d23df4fad30e06bc53ab25",
"text": "education general house would ban school uniforms junior Dress Codes instead of school uniform\n\nRather than having school uniform, why not have a dress code instead? This has all the benefits of uniform without the many disadvantages. While uniforms force all children to wear the same clothes, dress codes give students a lot of choice what to wear. Only a few unsuitable things are banned - for example, gang colors, very short skirts, crop tops, bare shoulders, etc\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "42b6caff541f7deb13c2aad05051689d",
"text": "education general house would ban school uniforms junior Individuality and creativity should be encouraged\n\nArticle 19 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that \"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression\"[18]. Children's freedom of expression is restricted by school uniforms, because children who have to wear the same clothing as every other child in their school are not able to express their individuality and creativity. We should get rid of school uniform so that all children can express themselves freely.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "42293c62c46398bdf1abe35748a66604",
"text": "education general house would ban school uniforms junior School uniforms are often impractical or uncomfortable\n\nSchool uniforms are often not very comfortable or practical. In state schools (schools for which parents don't have to pay fees) in the U.K., for example, girls often have to wear dresses or skirts, when they might feel more comfortable in trousers, and boys often have to wear button-up shirts and ties, which can also be uncomfortable for active children[7]. In independent schools, uniforms are often even more impractical and uncomfortable, with blazers or even tailcoats for the children to wear[8].\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d3c8a8395c1c1ab31ea9803c00cbb24",
"text": "education general house would ban school uniforms junior School uniforms are often expensive\n\nIf a school has a uniform, parents are expected to buy it, and then buy a new one every time their child outgrows the last. This can be expensive. It has been reported that parents in South Africa[10], Australia[11], and the U.K[12]. have to pay a lot of money for their children's school uniforms, and it is probably the same in other countries too.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f5817ef8b2e10a0c525ad54e4911b9e",
"text": "education general house would ban school uniforms junior School uniforms contribute to the sense of school unity\n\nSchools that have a uniform often say that they do so because wearing a uniform helps their students feel a sense of unity and pride in their school (e.g., Sacred Heart Catholic School, 2010)[15]. The headmistress of Fulham Cross School in London, England, has been quoted as saying that introducing a uniform at her school gave students \"an incredible sense of pride\"; after the introduction of a school uniform, GCSE passes at her school rose from 42 to 53 per cent[16].\n\nThis sense of unity is especially important on school trips, where teachers need to be able to tell which children belong to their school, so that no one gets lost.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eeace09252deabd86bab391b726d4fb1",
"text": "education general house would ban school uniforms junior School uniforms create a sense of equality\n\nSchool catchment areas are diverse and in private schools, some children are there on a scholarship. So, without uniforms there are clear indicators of wealth between what children wear. This makes poorer children stand out, (or even possibly the reverse). Children can then be bullied for being different, which diminishes a child's enjoyment of school. A study in New York has shown that 84% of parents think uniforms promote equality, and 89% of guidance counselors think uniforms help teach children to be more accepting of others who are less fortunate[3]. This perception among parents will help create the same perception among their children. This is also likely to translate to the teachers who will therefore treat their pupils more equally.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a47ba883afae6c39bdbe95ecfbe2da18",
"text": "education general house would ban school uniforms junior School uniforms encourage discipline\n\nHaving to wear smart clothes encourages children to respect their school and their teachers and behave themselves. This is because of the association between smart clothes and work. Casual wear at school can also make students feel over-relaxed and 'at home,' meaning they don't focus as much on work. A lot of schools are bringing back school uniform because they want to improve discipline[21].\n\nMoreover, school uniform can actively encourage students to enter into an adversarial relationship with the curriculum and their teachers. Exercising arbitrary control over children in the interests of “discipline” is likely to convince them that the very sensible, rational principles of learning and critical thought that they acquire during the school day are equally arbitrary and meaningless. By refusing to allow children to participate in enjoyable, beguiling processes of discovery and understanding unless they comply with unjustified and meaningless rules about dress, schools risk being seen as oppressive and capricious by their students.\n\n1 The Telegraph, 2009. School uniforms return in drive to improve school discipline [online] 1 October.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
58815996b534d47db8737947c2ed46b4
|
Poetry is art, art is inseparable from education; art is what makes us human, and that which makes us human is certainly to be taught in schools.
It is fundamental that education teaches students about the human condition in order to enable an understanding of humanity. High school students must therefore gain awareness of not only human ideas but also an awareness of how humans choose to express these ideas, which means they must learn about art. One of the ways in which humans choose to express their emotions is through literature, language and speech- poetry. For example, many Victorian poets such as William Wordsworth and Sir Walter Scott, who spent much time in the Lake District, turned to writing nature poetry, such as Wordsworth's famous poem Daffodils, because they wanted to "see into the life of things",1 and the best way to both investigate and express this was through nature poetry. 1 Lefebure, Molly, The Illustrated Lake Poets, Windward, 1987, p. 144
|
[
{
"docid": "f3dc582367c895f5dec258ff0f8823d9",
"text": "ts education secondary teaching literary classics house believes poetry In failing schools, it IS justifiable to separate art from education. When a high number of students are struggling with basic literacy and numeracy, this is what needs to be addressed. Artistic studies will simply have to take a backseat while teaching of the basics is improved. This is a temporary measure, once teaching and abilities in basic literacy and numeracy improve, schools which have previously been failing can expand back into artistic studies. If this is not the case, and art and poetry continue to have a high profile in failing schools, what will result is a mass of very cultured high school leavers (not necessarily graduates) unable to add up in their head and with poor vocabulary, able to quote Shakespeare effortlessly but no idea how to spell his name.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "63cec0e5709f43a2723fe31bf9b09175",
"text": "ts education secondary teaching literary classics house believes poetry Learning the basics of literature and language is not designed to be fun or enjoyable, it is an essential requirement. It is important that students can get to grips with the basics of their home language and a standard 'look, cover, write, check' method for learning spelling and expanding vocabulary is effective, for it requires the learner to write the words themselves. Simply reading them is not enough, especially not in the context of a poem- unconventional, even strange concepts typical of poetry may well be too demanding for the pupil, whose priority is to learn writing and reading. They can still learn reading through the cultural means of reading novels, in which the extended prose used by the author is far easier to follow.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f43c8a6925926126bb5380d1f99b6d54",
"text": "ts education secondary teaching literary classics house believes poetry We must be realistic in education; we need to prepare our students for the difficulties of the real world. It is those subjects that are vocational in nature and/or life skills, home language (not literature), maths and science and modern languages, business studies, law that must take priority in schools. We must equip and train the new generation to successfully gain employment. Therefore, art subjects like poetry are no priority.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "221d0de7505cf57c7d172b6582d6e212",
"text": "ts education secondary teaching literary classics house believes poetry An appreciation for the true horrors of war can be gained through factual reading. Factual books about the horrors of the First World War offer better understanding the true extent of the atrocities than poetry. Firstly, they are factual and not based upon opinion. Secondly, they are more modern and have been written in the aftermath of the First World War. Therefore, they tell its full story and provide a panoramic view of the Greta War. Thirdly, many of the men who wrote war poetry went mad with shellshock. Trying to find sense in the nonsensical lyrics of poetry by those poor men sent mad is an impossible task; knowledge of and research into shellshock is a relatively new development.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e89ce87f25475b2bdf9592ea907e6268",
"text": "ts education secondary teaching literary classics house believes poetry On the contrary, poetry is helpful to teaching English. Learning poetry involves chanting, exploration of syllables and vowel sounds. As the pupils chant the syllables, they read the letters that go into making that sound and so spelling will be improved. Reading poetry aloud improves reading ability because the student is vocalising the building blocks that form certain sounds to make words. Public speaking ability will also be improved from a vocal exploration of poetry.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "541d41b8902e7607b8ae57f1d4571448",
"text": "ts education secondary teaching literary classics house believes poetry It is unthinkable that a school pupil does not know who his/her national poet is. English school pupils should be familiar with William Shakespeare, Scottish school pupils with Robert Burns and Welsh pupils with Dylan Thomas, Irish ones with James Joyce. Familiarity with one's own national poet is a basic.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "00eb2bf29251abec71a1f01fe61b2daa",
"text": "ts education secondary teaching literary classics house believes poetry Musicians have for some time been awarded poet status. The artist and their personal lifestyle choices can and must be regarded equally. Bob Dylan was originally described thus; \"He sounded like a lung cancer victim singing Woody Gutherie. Now he's a Rolling Stone singing Emmanuel Kant\" (page 36, Uncut Legends [magazine] #1: Dylan, September 2003). In 1992, he was described as \"as good as Keats\" (Ibid). If Bob Dylan can graduate from folk to electric to poet status, modern day musicians must also be allowed to follow suite; to gain the recognition they deserve and become similarly promoted. The poet and their personal lifestyle choices is separable from the poetry they produce. Dylan Thomas, Wales' national poet who is greatly and proudly upheld was an adulterer and an alcoholic. However, this does not make his impressive poetry any less credible. We must not sanitise all the great artists, but accept that the great art they offer as artists forgives them their wrongdoing as people. If we applied the policy of disregarding the art of every artist who has ever done wrong, we would soon lose many canonised ones and several of those who are held in very high esteem.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "593a7e4bab1962d72985458f9c653f02",
"text": "ts education secondary teaching literary classics house believes poetry While great poetry may deal with adult experiences there is poetry that targets a younger audience and methods available to teach this type of poetry. Children’s poetry, for instance, is not complex or dark in subject matter and uses very regular rhythm and rhyme schemes, which young students will enjoy. If age-appropriate poetry is taught in schools then it gives young people the chance to develop an appreciation for poetry and its various techniques. This means that in later years young people will have the skills necessary to properly understand great poetry. Poems that require more mature minds to understand can, and should, be used to stretch students to teach about these contexts as well as about the kind of imagry and analogy used in the poems. Using more difficult poems to stretch puplils will ensure they keep improving.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9670d8098015fda83d7635f1fb62cfda",
"text": "ts education secondary teaching literary classics house believes poetry It is important to honour the memory of the men who fell in the wars in the defence of their nation. War poetry is a fundamental tool to this end.\n\nWar poetry, although foreign to our own experiences of peacetime, enables us as readers to gain insight into the minds of the terrified men who fought for our freedom. Wilfred Owen suffered from shellshock as a result of fighting in the war. In his poem Mental Cases, he describes his time and experiences at Craiglockhart psychiatric hospital in Scotland, where he and Siegfried Sassoon (another WW1 poet) were treated for the condition; \"Who are these? Why sit they here in twilight? Wherefore rock they, purgatorial shadows\" (lines 1-2)1In our time of peace, we will never be able to fully empathise with their terrifying experiences, or successfully decode every observation, but we must read some of their poetry in order to appreciate the true and full horrors of war. We must do this out of respect for those who died for our freedom, and as such war poetry must be taught in schools. 1 Owen Owen, Wilfred, \"Mental Cases\", Wilfred Owen,accessed 1 September 2011.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "97075a99164e4942bb6a2c1cb35502ec",
"text": "ts education secondary teaching literary classics house believes poetry Not teaching poetry in schools opens the gate to eradicating all artistic and creative subjects from the curriculum, which means the entire population would be Spartan and philistines.\n\nWe want cultured people to graduate from high schools. It is undesirable that all high school graduates, who are an educated group of people, will have no knowledge of art and no desire to ever immerse themselves in anything cultural such as a museum, or art gallery. This is what will happen if poetry and other art subjects are not respected in schools. As it is, English literature is the only cultural subject that is compulsory at GCSE level. Because it is the only obligatory cultural GCSE subject, as much culture must be channelled into it as possible i.e. novels and much poetry.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7cbff224fdc23e902b6d336ab42e9d44",
"text": "ts education secondary teaching literary classics house believes poetry If any art is to be taught in schools, it has to be Poetry, for poetry is the only artistic form of a core subject.\n\nIt is an enjoyable way to teach the core subject of home language and literature written therein; interesting and obscure concepts hold the learner's interest when studying their home language and its landmark literature, while simultaneously expanding vocabulary and improving spelling. Poetry offers a fun method of teaching subjects that can otherwise easily be exhaustive and repetitive For examples; Shirley Hughes' poems for young readers such as Best friends introduce young readers to the vowel sounds of their home language. The Charge of the Light Brigade by Alfred, Lord Tennyson teaches the reader about a great historical landmark. The war poetry of Wilfred Owen, Siegfried Sassoon et al teaches students about the First World War and the horrors thereof. Zoe's Earrings by Kit Wright teaches pre-GCSE students about accents.1 1 Wright, Kit, \"Zoe's Earrings\", BBC Learning Zone, accessed 1 September 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fb0a5f34aecbbd46b0df6fa9def9a1d1",
"text": "ts education secondary teaching literary classics house believes poetry In schools where many pupils are failing the basics of English language, they cannot be expected to progress to a more complex level of English study like poetry before the basics have been mastered.\n\nIt is like asking a student who cannot count to solve a highly complex algebraic equation; completely impossible because the groundwork remains a nemesis. If the pupils cannot understand the basics of reading, writing and grammar, they will certainly struggle to with more complex concepts fundamental to the study of poetry such as similies, personifications, metaphors and extended metaphors. Let us take the UK as an example, for it is a country in which many students do not make progress in basic English. A report in 2011 voiced concern at the number of school children struggling with English and the published some horrifying statistics; \"Hundreds of thousands of pupils are falling behind in the basics after starting secondary school, official figures suggest … three in 10 are not making enough progress in English, according to Department for Education data.160,000 did not make enough progress in English.”1\n\n1Press Association, “Many secondary school pupils failing to meet expectations, report reveals”, guardian.co.uk, 9 June 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/jun/09/secondary-school-pupils-... , accessed 1 September 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1c6e7884f11fe80f8b70ac0a26d0c070",
"text": "ts education secondary teaching literary classics house believes poetry The future of poetry teaching looks dismal. It is falling into disrepute by citing rappers as modern day poets.\n\nGiven that the highly respected Royal Holloway University of London is one such institution that supports this, the future of poetry education and even poetry itself does not look hopeful. Sir Andrew Motion, Professor of Creative writing at Royal Holloway, University of London, specified that; \"Poetry is a house of many mansions. It does pupils a disservice only to tell them things they already know. Rap has its own challenges and opportunities - but so do many other kinds of poetry, many of which are neglected in schools\".1 Eminem has caused much offence and controversy over the years with his homophobic lyrics. This is just one example of why rap is not to be encouraged at all, let alone awarded a label of (so-called) \"poetry\". Rappers like him must not be promoted as great artists in the classroom. It is unthinkable that rappers who promote gun crime, drugs and degrade women should be given a platform and even promoted in classrooms. These are simply not the values education can possibly support. 1 Edwards, Paul, \"Why rap should be taught in schools\", Royal Holloway University of London, 28 January 2010, accessed 1 September 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ade120e8e644fc12adaf02155a64d59b",
"text": "ts education secondary teaching literary classics house believes poetry Poetry is a notoriously difficult concept. It is a highly challenging subject to teach, for its identity as an art form is constantly changing and being debated\n\nIf top academics and those highly informed about the subject take issue with poetry, school pupils cannot be expected to fathom it. On December 7th, 2007, The Guardian, a British newspaper affiliated to the Left, noted that this ambiguous identity of poetry renders it very difficult to teach;\"But until education theory asks itself what poetry itself is, and therefore what the teacher is trying to get across, poems will continue largely to figure as teaching aids, exercises and - for teenagers - increasingly tedious, somewhat arbitrary puzzles\".1 The canonised poets and their poetry are concerned with adult life experiences, e.g. love, life, work, history and politics, solitude, loneliness, etc. For this reason, widely acclaimed poetry is deep and requires an adult mind and mature emotional depth to understand, or at least draw something from, this famous poetry. 1 Sampson, Fiona, \"Poetry is not a tool for teaching other things\", guardian.co.uk Books Blog, 7 December 2007, 1 September 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "90c67c223c352c3d450bc71e4b0a5cd7",
"text": "ts education secondary teaching literary classics house believes poetry In countries where students are failing basic literacy, new measures to improve basic literacy skills in schools are required as a matter of urgency. In such cases, schools cannot justify wasting time by teaching poetry.\n\nIn the UK, The Labour Party introduced The Literacy Hour, a programme that meant schools were obliged to dedicate more time to basic literacy (and numeracy) upon their election in 1997. However, as the aforementioned statistics have shown, all that has increased is the number of pupils failing in this basic subject. There are 5 million illiterate people in Scotland alone. All we know is that more time does need to be spent learning the basic literacy and numeracy. Appreciating literature and poetry, the artistic side of the English language, cannot be addressed until learners have fully understood and grasped the tools of reading, writing and vowel sounds that allow for fiction and poetry to be produced. We need an educational programme that recognises reading and writing as a matter of urgency and literary and poetry appreciation as a luxury in order to reduce the number of illiterate pupils.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
fe3f12fb8168bc1d966d7ac6c869bad1
|
Private universities are needed to increase the number of places for students.
British universities are facing cuts in government funding and as a result there will be no new places created to cater for rising demand. Professor Steve Smith, president of Universities UK noted the fact that the budget cuts that could soar to as much as £950,000,000 over three years would decrease the quality of education whilst keeping the numbers of University places stagnant. In 2009, 160,000 students who applied did not go to University. In 2010, 75,000 more people applied.1 Governments in rich countries all over the world are facing squeezed budged over the next few years and will be unable to increase funding for universities. This leaves private universities as the only way to meet increasing demand for higher education.
1Shepherd, 2010
|
[
{
"docid": "3719e21caaa10bc17d4d7a3406ad9570",
"text": "university house would encourage creation private universities uk Encouraging private universities will not increase the number of university places available. Instead they will skim off the students who can afford to pay, but who would be going to university anyway. This will leave remaining publicly funded universities having to pick up the strain, often with less money and just as many potential students without places.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "3dbe6f9123abacb40068206a883a0b23",
"text": "university house would encourage creation private universities uk Universities can't be guided by an \"invisible hand\": the conditions in the higher education market are not such that optimum results will obtain from this sort of \"free market\" idea. There are several reasons why. First, demand for university courses fluctuates, and a low intake for a course one year, and therefore decreased funding, could unfairly penalise other people studying in that department, who are not free to leave (and take their money elsewhere) but simply have to suffer the decrease in quality until the end of their degree course. Second, universities don't operate in a true free-market system: the high start up costs (buildings, libraries) mean that it is very difficult for new universities to enter the market, even if standards in existing ones fall.Thirdly, there will always be those students who are poorer and have to go to the worse universities (if they cannot afford or do not want the burden of a student loan). A poorer student will either get a second rate education and waste valuable time and money or will opt out of higher education all together and accrue none of the benefits, since graduates typically earn more than non-graduates1.\n\n1 Lexington, \"Higher education: Is it really the next bubble?\" The Economist, 21 April 2011,\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8c2f369e3d4d707d7a834a6eae3f3aec",
"text": "university house would encourage creation private universities uk It is unfortunate that the current system constitutes taking from the poor and giving to the rich, but this is justified as long as two things are true: first, overall, the government does redistribute wealth in such a way as to take from the rich and give to the poor, and second, the funding of universities from the public purse is of benefit to the poorer people in society. In this case publicly funding universities gives the poor the option of going to university that they would otherwise not have, even if they fail to take that option up. (The opposition arguments explain why this latter condition is the case.)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fbdb789303f7833d4b092d680aeb0a81",
"text": "university house would encourage creation private universities uk If more diversity is necessary, then governments can change the way in which they fund universities, perhaps by giving a proportion of funding based on student numbers.\n\nHowever, for the large part so-called \"increased diversity\" would not constitute improvements on the quality of academic education, but rather gimmicks to make a university look more attractive to the young people who apply – there are incentives to make the university popular to sixth-form applicants, not to existing undergraduates.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed11bc2796a81b41fcee9ef73624d66d",
"text": "university house would encourage creation private universities uk Allowing market forces to control educational opportunity is as legitimate at university level as it is at school level. Parents wanting the best for their children should be allowed to spend the resources that they have accumulated in any way that they like, rather than have those resources taken from them by the state to create an education system that isn't as good as that which those parents could have funded themselves.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f9fa2f74abb44cf39510e7464957891",
"text": "university house would encourage creation private universities uk With regard to subsiding universities and the student loan schemes, both of these could nevertheless be operated even if universities were privatised. For example, assisted place-schemes,(which-School.co.uk) where the government funded bright students to attend private schools are successfully run in the UK.With regard to pressure to increase diversity in the student population, this merely treats the symptom and not the cause, which is the inadequate educational support given to some groups in society at a lower level: this should be directly addressed instead.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "18b1af381e0cf242156472511a232c74",
"text": "university house would encourage creation private universities uk The reason why people from poorer backgrounds are underrepresented at university is not because they perceive it as something only rich people can do. Instead, it is because their schools did not adequately prepare them: on average, they have fewer/worse qualifications, and are less likely to have performed the myriad extra-curricular activities that give people an advantage when applying to universities1. Making university education private, then, does not disadvantage the poor: if the opposition really wants to help people from poorer backgrounds it would address the deficiencies of school-level education instead.\n\n1 Cassidy, Sarah, \"Quality of education still determined by wealth, says report.\" The Independent, 8 August 2008,\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b88c99d38710110707ff950a29e694e3",
"text": "university house would encourage creation private universities uk Far from reducing the quality of university private universities would increase it. Private Universities would go where most money is, and this is most likely to be at the top where a lot of money can be charged for the degrees. This is what Grayling's proposed New College of the Humanities is doing. The New College of the Humanities will charge fees of £18,0001. With the extra money they will be able to hire the best professors and have a very good student teacher ratio, better than 1:10, with the result that there will be a lot of one to one tuition and student-staff interaction to increase the quality of teaching2.\n\n1 BBC News, “Academics launch £18,000 college in London.” 5 June 2011.\n\n2 New College of the Humanities\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fda60847094121216ed1f00ebdf2c52e",
"text": "university house would encourage creation private universities uk The introduction of more private universities would increase the quality of education by allowing open competition\n\nIn the rest of the economy, when consumers are allowed to choose between goods or services, the higher quality products are successful and the bad ones fail. Similarly, when consumers can makes choices between universities, and are putting money on the line (thus taking a risk) they will choose the good universities, and consider the bad universities as not worth wasting their money on. As a consequence, the best universities will expand, and the worst universities will either improve or fail. The New College of the Humanities for example is aiming to rival Oxford and Cambridge1 so helping to provide these two elite institutions with the necessary competition to force up standards. This will result in a higher quality of education being available to more people.\n\n1 BBC News, \"Academics launch £18,000 college in London.” 5 June 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2454ba0548cb298feccccf9fdee1e6ad",
"text": "university house would encourage creation private universities uk The privatisation of universities encourages course-diversity and provides for students are individuals, not cattle\n\nPrivatisation of universities allows for a greater range of educational provision: universities are no longer restrained by government targets and bureaucracy, and are incentivised by possible profits to set themselves apart and provide \"unique selling points\" that will gain them more students: the current system does not provide this motivation because universities receive their funding regardless of student numbers.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b299e9f00f8059c94b20b319c1bf9ec",
"text": "university house would encourage creation private universities uk The current system constitutes taking from the poor and giving to the rich\n\nThe majority of people in the UK have not benefited from a university education, and graduates earn more, on average, than the rest of the population. Further, universities accept a larger number of richer people than they do poorer people. A National Audit Office report claims \"Socioeconomic background remains a strong determinant of higher education participation. People from lower socioeconomic backgrounds make up around half of the population of England, but represent just 29 per cent of young, full-time, first-time entrants to higher education.\"1 It is therefore wrong on principle to use tax-payers' money to subsidise universities, because when universities are subsidised from a general \"pot\" of taxation, a redistribution of wealth occurs whereby the rich benefit at a cost to the poorer people in society. This is wrong, because we should be using taxation to attempt to mitigate economic inequality, not to exacerbate it.\n\n1 Woolcock, Nicola, \"White working class boys least likely to go to university.\" Times Online, 25 June 2008,\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "981ef2fde71cba75783b54ccde7c120a",
"text": "university house would encourage creation private universities uk Private Universities would risk reducing the quality of university degrees.\n\nNew private universities will not have a long standing reputation to keep up. They may not be as well regulated and they will have no social interest beyond simply getting money from their students. This means that they may well offer cheap and poor quality education in order to find a gap in the market. This could damage the reputation of other universities as Dr Paul Greatrix registrar of Nottingham University worries \"If there are entrants who are on the extreme end of cheap and cheerful, this will damage our international reputation.\"1 In systems that are both private and state funded universities there is an immense divide between a few very good elite institutions that charge immense amounts and a much larger number of poorer quality universities. Take the US system, it is well known for its world class Ivy League universities. Its publicly funded universities however do much less well with only the University of Michigan near the top of the world rankings in 20th place. Of the state universities only those that do not face so much Ivy league competition over in California due to distance do well1. Having Private universities clearly creams off the best students and the funding leaving the public universities in a worse position lowering the overall quality of education.\n\n1 Shepherd, Jessica, \"What universities think of competing for their admissions.\" Guardian.co.uk, 28 June 2011. 2 Hotson, Howard, \"Don't Look to the Ivy League.\" London Review of Books, Vol.33, No.10, 19 May 2011 .\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "416f94240b0dc8d2cc058eb891e8b292",
"text": "university house would encourage creation private universities uk Private universities would increase the divide between the rich and poor\n\nFunding universities through taxation rather than privately allows poorer people in society to access university education because the government can increase access in three key ways. First, it can subsidise universities to decrease the price, second, it can exert pressure on universities to increase diversity within their student populations (by increasing numbers of people from disadvantaged backgrounds) and third, it can easily control peripheral support structures such as student loan schemes that become difficult to manage under a privatised system.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba1b3e79686a057cbf67c24216f96910",
"text": "university house would encourage creation private universities uk Allowing universities to be guided by an invisible hand does more harm than good\n\nUniversity degree programmes, unlike other products like televisions or designer shoes, are tools of social mobility: unlike a TV, a good degree will help you to get other good things later in life (like a higher salary). This means that it is important that people have a fairly equal opportunity to access the best degrees. Market forces will make the best universities more expensive than the others, and mean that the best degree places are awarded not to the cleverest, but to those able to afford it. Universities are already elitist despite being open to all and being publicly funded. In the UK class is a major determinant of where you go to university. Oxford University only has 11.5%, and Cambridge 12.6% of its students coming from a working class background compared to an average of 32.3%1. This is a situation that will only get worse as students have to pay for the best private universities.\n\n1 Davis, Rowenna, \"Does your social class decide if you go to university? Get the full list of colleges.\" Guardian.co.uk, 28 September 2010,\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1f1a009de76d4fa240cdbf6b259fa706",
"text": "university house would encourage creation private universities uk This will increase the perception that universities are just for the rich\n\nTreating university education like any other commodity will increase the perception that, like any other very expensive commodity, it is a luxury, and that therefore those who can't afford it should just see that as an economic reality, and not as an assault against their life chances. This will mean that fewer people from less well-off backgrounds will go to university, even if they are very clever, and thus will decrease social mobility.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
3e250f4dd226a55d4bb5be1646c09210
|
Allowing universities to be guided by an invisible hand does more harm than good
University degree programmes, unlike other products like televisions or designer shoes, are tools of social mobility: unlike a TV, a good degree will help you to get other good things later in life (like a higher salary). This means that it is important that people have a fairly equal opportunity to access the best degrees. Market forces will make the best universities more expensive than the others, and mean that the best degree places are awarded not to the cleverest, but to those able to afford it. Universities are already elitist despite being open to all and being publicly funded. In the UK class is a major determinant of where you go to university. Oxford University only has 11.5%, and Cambridge 12.6% of its students coming from a working class background compared to an average of 32.3%1. This is a situation that will only get worse as students have to pay for the best private universities.
1 Davis, Rowenna, "Does your social class decide if you go to university? Get the full list of colleges." Guardian.co.uk, 28 September 2010,
|
[
{
"docid": "ed11bc2796a81b41fcee9ef73624d66d",
"text": "university house would encourage creation private universities uk Allowing market forces to control educational opportunity is as legitimate at university level as it is at school level. Parents wanting the best for their children should be allowed to spend the resources that they have accumulated in any way that they like, rather than have those resources taken from them by the state to create an education system that isn't as good as that which those parents could have funded themselves.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "3f9fa2f74abb44cf39510e7464957891",
"text": "university house would encourage creation private universities uk With regard to subsiding universities and the student loan schemes, both of these could nevertheless be operated even if universities were privatised. For example, assisted place-schemes,(which-School.co.uk) where the government funded bright students to attend private schools are successfully run in the UK.With regard to pressure to increase diversity in the student population, this merely treats the symptom and not the cause, which is the inadequate educational support given to some groups in society at a lower level: this should be directly addressed instead.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "18b1af381e0cf242156472511a232c74",
"text": "university house would encourage creation private universities uk The reason why people from poorer backgrounds are underrepresented at university is not because they perceive it as something only rich people can do. Instead, it is because their schools did not adequately prepare them: on average, they have fewer/worse qualifications, and are less likely to have performed the myriad extra-curricular activities that give people an advantage when applying to universities1. Making university education private, then, does not disadvantage the poor: if the opposition really wants to help people from poorer backgrounds it would address the deficiencies of school-level education instead.\n\n1 Cassidy, Sarah, \"Quality of education still determined by wealth, says report.\" The Independent, 8 August 2008,\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b88c99d38710110707ff950a29e694e3",
"text": "university house would encourage creation private universities uk Far from reducing the quality of university private universities would increase it. Private Universities would go where most money is, and this is most likely to be at the top where a lot of money can be charged for the degrees. This is what Grayling's proposed New College of the Humanities is doing. The New College of the Humanities will charge fees of £18,0001. With the extra money they will be able to hire the best professors and have a very good student teacher ratio, better than 1:10, with the result that there will be a lot of one to one tuition and student-staff interaction to increase the quality of teaching2.\n\n1 BBC News, “Academics launch £18,000 college in London.” 5 June 2011.\n\n2 New College of the Humanities\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3dbe6f9123abacb40068206a883a0b23",
"text": "university house would encourage creation private universities uk Universities can't be guided by an \"invisible hand\": the conditions in the higher education market are not such that optimum results will obtain from this sort of \"free market\" idea. There are several reasons why. First, demand for university courses fluctuates, and a low intake for a course one year, and therefore decreased funding, could unfairly penalise other people studying in that department, who are not free to leave (and take their money elsewhere) but simply have to suffer the decrease in quality until the end of their degree course. Second, universities don't operate in a true free-market system: the high start up costs (buildings, libraries) mean that it is very difficult for new universities to enter the market, even if standards in existing ones fall.Thirdly, there will always be those students who are poorer and have to go to the worse universities (if they cannot afford or do not want the burden of a student loan). A poorer student will either get a second rate education and waste valuable time and money or will opt out of higher education all together and accrue none of the benefits, since graduates typically earn more than non-graduates1.\n\n1 Lexington, \"Higher education: Is it really the next bubble?\" The Economist, 21 April 2011,\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8c2f369e3d4d707d7a834a6eae3f3aec",
"text": "university house would encourage creation private universities uk It is unfortunate that the current system constitutes taking from the poor and giving to the rich, but this is justified as long as two things are true: first, overall, the government does redistribute wealth in such a way as to take from the rich and give to the poor, and second, the funding of universities from the public purse is of benefit to the poorer people in society. In this case publicly funding universities gives the poor the option of going to university that they would otherwise not have, even if they fail to take that option up. (The opposition arguments explain why this latter condition is the case.)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fbdb789303f7833d4b092d680aeb0a81",
"text": "university house would encourage creation private universities uk If more diversity is necessary, then governments can change the way in which they fund universities, perhaps by giving a proportion of funding based on student numbers.\n\nHowever, for the large part so-called \"increased diversity\" would not constitute improvements on the quality of academic education, but rather gimmicks to make a university look more attractive to the young people who apply – there are incentives to make the university popular to sixth-form applicants, not to existing undergraduates.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3719e21caaa10bc17d4d7a3406ad9570",
"text": "university house would encourage creation private universities uk Encouraging private universities will not increase the number of university places available. Instead they will skim off the students who can afford to pay, but who would be going to university anyway. This will leave remaining publicly funded universities having to pick up the strain, often with less money and just as many potential students without places.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "981ef2fde71cba75783b54ccde7c120a",
"text": "university house would encourage creation private universities uk Private Universities would risk reducing the quality of university degrees.\n\nNew private universities will not have a long standing reputation to keep up. They may not be as well regulated and they will have no social interest beyond simply getting money from their students. This means that they may well offer cheap and poor quality education in order to find a gap in the market. This could damage the reputation of other universities as Dr Paul Greatrix registrar of Nottingham University worries \"If there are entrants who are on the extreme end of cheap and cheerful, this will damage our international reputation.\"1 In systems that are both private and state funded universities there is an immense divide between a few very good elite institutions that charge immense amounts and a much larger number of poorer quality universities. Take the US system, it is well known for its world class Ivy League universities. Its publicly funded universities however do much less well with only the University of Michigan near the top of the world rankings in 20th place. Of the state universities only those that do not face so much Ivy league competition over in California due to distance do well1. Having Private universities clearly creams off the best students and the funding leaving the public universities in a worse position lowering the overall quality of education.\n\n1 Shepherd, Jessica, \"What universities think of competing for their admissions.\" Guardian.co.uk, 28 June 2011. 2 Hotson, Howard, \"Don't Look to the Ivy League.\" London Review of Books, Vol.33, No.10, 19 May 2011 .\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "416f94240b0dc8d2cc058eb891e8b292",
"text": "university house would encourage creation private universities uk Private universities would increase the divide between the rich and poor\n\nFunding universities through taxation rather than privately allows poorer people in society to access university education because the government can increase access in three key ways. First, it can subsidise universities to decrease the price, second, it can exert pressure on universities to increase diversity within their student populations (by increasing numbers of people from disadvantaged backgrounds) and third, it can easily control peripheral support structures such as student loan schemes that become difficult to manage under a privatised system.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1f1a009de76d4fa240cdbf6b259fa706",
"text": "university house would encourage creation private universities uk This will increase the perception that universities are just for the rich\n\nTreating university education like any other commodity will increase the perception that, like any other very expensive commodity, it is a luxury, and that therefore those who can't afford it should just see that as an economic reality, and not as an assault against their life chances. This will mean that fewer people from less well-off backgrounds will go to university, even if they are very clever, and thus will decrease social mobility.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fda60847094121216ed1f00ebdf2c52e",
"text": "university house would encourage creation private universities uk The introduction of more private universities would increase the quality of education by allowing open competition\n\nIn the rest of the economy, when consumers are allowed to choose between goods or services, the higher quality products are successful and the bad ones fail. Similarly, when consumers can makes choices between universities, and are putting money on the line (thus taking a risk) they will choose the good universities, and consider the bad universities as not worth wasting their money on. As a consequence, the best universities will expand, and the worst universities will either improve or fail. The New College of the Humanities for example is aiming to rival Oxford and Cambridge1 so helping to provide these two elite institutions with the necessary competition to force up standards. This will result in a higher quality of education being available to more people.\n\n1 BBC News, \"Academics launch £18,000 college in London.” 5 June 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2454ba0548cb298feccccf9fdee1e6ad",
"text": "university house would encourage creation private universities uk The privatisation of universities encourages course-diversity and provides for students are individuals, not cattle\n\nPrivatisation of universities allows for a greater range of educational provision: universities are no longer restrained by government targets and bureaucracy, and are incentivised by possible profits to set themselves apart and provide \"unique selling points\" that will gain them more students: the current system does not provide this motivation because universities receive their funding regardless of student numbers.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "70f1dd17ae039b1790a0507718768a54",
"text": "university house would encourage creation private universities uk Private universities are needed to increase the number of places for students.\n\nBritish universities are facing cuts in government funding and as a result there will be no new places created to cater for rising demand. Professor Steve Smith, president of Universities UK noted the fact that the budget cuts that could soar to as much as £950,000,000 over three years would decrease the quality of education whilst keeping the numbers of University places stagnant. In 2009, 160,000 students who applied did not go to University. In 2010, 75,000 more people applied.1 Governments in rich countries all over the world are facing squeezed budged over the next few years and will be unable to increase funding for universities. This leaves private universities as the only way to meet increasing demand for higher education.\n\n1Shepherd, 2010\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b299e9f00f8059c94b20b319c1bf9ec",
"text": "university house would encourage creation private universities uk The current system constitutes taking from the poor and giving to the rich\n\nThe majority of people in the UK have not benefited from a university education, and graduates earn more, on average, than the rest of the population. Further, universities accept a larger number of richer people than they do poorer people. A National Audit Office report claims \"Socioeconomic background remains a strong determinant of higher education participation. People from lower socioeconomic backgrounds make up around half of the population of England, but represent just 29 per cent of young, full-time, first-time entrants to higher education.\"1 It is therefore wrong on principle to use tax-payers' money to subsidise universities, because when universities are subsidised from a general \"pot\" of taxation, a redistribution of wealth occurs whereby the rich benefit at a cost to the poorer people in society. This is wrong, because we should be using taxation to attempt to mitigate economic inequality, not to exacerbate it.\n\n1 Woolcock, Nicola, \"White working class boys least likely to go to university.\" Times Online, 25 June 2008,\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
4f2680890c5aaa2b75caa65bc309bfdd
|
Admissions tests such as the LNAT exaggerate small differences in performance
Lawyers are often extremely high paid, and occupy a prestigious position in society. A law degree is key to entry to the top tier of society and high income earners.
|
[
{
"docid": "b29e49a654f25d2b151f8479e96d0c2b",
"text": "university law general house believes legal qualification worth cost Pay in most fields is, to some degree or other, correlated with the cost of entry into that profession or occupation. Because becoming a Lawyer requires up to seven years of education, it does tend to pay more than many other fields. But there are many lawyers who, despite working long hours, do not make vast amounts of money, and there are, furthermore, a dozen part-time associates for every globe-trotting partner at most major firms.\n\nFurthermore, it is unclear how correlated success within Law School is with pay. The highest paid lawyer in America for most of the 1990s and early 2000s went to the University of Mississippi, rather than an Ivy League institution, while software developers and investment bankers regularly make more than lawyers without having to pay exorbitant tuition costs.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "860ad6890ab6e17fa8d4def8113d1ef2",
"text": "university law general house believes legal qualification worth cost Correlation is not causation. The fact that a number of individuals with JDs are working in fields unrelated to the law does not, in and of itself, imply that they gained those positions because of a JD. A JD may help, but it has to be factored against the opportunity cost of everything else you could be doing over three years with the tuition money.\n\nA Harvard Law degree might impress the State Department – but spending a year and a half in South Sudan and writing a book on your experiences would impress them far more. A UCLA degree might impress a movie studio, but producing your own movie, or gaining work in the field as a production assistant would likely impress them even more.\n\nThe fact is that for every individual with a JD or GDL who occupies a senior position in a non-legal field, there are many more high achieving individuals in similar fields who do not have a JD, a BPTC or an MBAs.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "15c63c5a613935e4ca45cc06c4bcc73d",
"text": "university law general house believes legal qualification worth cost You will rarely get the chance to interact with those intelligent individuals, either in Law School, where most of your time will be spent in the library, or at a Law Firm, where any discussions will detract from your ability to bill hours. The legal business model effectively incentivizes long-hours, with most of it going to research. You will rarely if ever see a courtroom, unless you work as a public defender and even there you will spend most of your time on research.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c9047d14b97a7ac97e1d899ba91dc816",
"text": "university law general house believes legal qualification worth cost Side proposition assumes that the European and American economies will eventually improve to the point where the legal sector will begin to grow again. If it does not you may find just as hard to find a job as when you entered Law School.\n\nFurthermore, there is a good chance that you will be in significant debt by the time you have completed your law degree, which will have a major impact on your ability to seek flexible employment within the legal field. It is quite possible that you may be forced to forgo politics or public interest law in favour of higher paying positions in less desirable fields. And if you decide to pursue options outside of the legal field, it is hard to see how there weren’t cheaper ways to spend three years, since going to Law School actively requires you to pay people to keep you unemployed.\n\nEven if you have received scholarships or training contracts, your options may be limited by the conditions of those offers (mandatory public service, work for a specific firm) which will also inhibit your freedom.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2be95492ab2866aa5860b12484731be7",
"text": "university law general house believes legal qualification worth cost This argument is simultaneously both a truism, and beside the point. While it is true that someone will need a JD in order to become a lawyer, individuals pursuing those degrees need to understand that they are investing a huge sum of money for an opportunity to take a difficult series of examinations, which if you pass, allows you to apply for a job in the legal field. These positions are becoming far harder to find, as each year the number of students graduating from law schools increases, while the number of available positions either shrink or remain static. One has to take account of the entire field and its condition before making a leap.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cdd1e1838da56f8afd3e100ae637f404",
"text": "university law general house believes legal qualification worth cost Applicants should of course carefully consider whether or not they actually wish to become lawyers, and afterwards should carefully consider where they wish to enrol. But it is absurd to claim that individuals cannot decide these things for themselves, and the fact is that many individuals do go to Law School with a clear idea of what they want to do, and subsequently enjoy a highly successful experience in the workplace.\n\nIn a lot of ways these criticisms are not unique to the legal field. In fact the same argument could be made for Universities, the number of which is driven by demand for a University education and not by the demand of employers for University graduates. Nonetheless, University graduates almost uniformly make more than non-graduates, and a large number of jobs require degrees. No one could conceivably argue that gaining a college education is either not worth it or a mistake.\n\nIn addition, many individuals who have graduated from less prestigious schools can benefit enormously from getting another degree from a more prominent institution. At the point at which the choice is between a Master’s degree in an unrelated field or a law degree, a law degree opens up far more opportunities for its recipients.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "24e92dfe22b501d162f3e24462156acb",
"text": "university law general house believes legal qualification worth cost It is true that there are opportunities that could stand you in better stead down the road, but those listed by the opposition are both involve a gamble on the same odds as that entailed by a legal career. For every 10 interns in a congressional office or for a lobbying firm, perhaps one gets a job offer. By contrast you will receive a Law Degree if you spend those three years on Law School.\n\nFurthermore, financial aid can be provided for Law School whereas the jobs listed by the opposition would require a large initial investment.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "16ef1676910fe19f37585c2b59c5c9f6",
"text": "university law general house believes legal qualification worth cost These arguments are less compelling if you have the opportunity to attend a top Law School, in which case the sky is the limit in terms of opportunities.\n\nFurthermore, these harms are far from unique to the legal field – they apply to finance and consulting as well, where a good degree with open more doors than a less prestigious one. But individuals still regularly overcome it.\n\nOne way they do is by going to prominent local schools. In the United States, prestige matters most in New York and Boston. Outside of the East Coast, many firms prefer graduates who attended local schools since they are likely to be more familiar with the area and more likely to be able to move and find housing and a social network in the area. A UCLA degree will take you as far in Los Angeles as a Georgetown one.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8dc64bdb432b9b112f5e715c747b3552",
"text": "university law general house believes legal qualification worth cost Law School, especially at the elite level is an opportunity to enter an environment where intellect is valued above all else. Whereas in school or university athletic ability or other talents sometimes trumped academics, in the legal world, academic and mental skills are all that matters.\n\nIt is therefore an opportunity to succeed or fail on one’s own merits, and to meet others who are equally interested in intellectual or academic pursuits.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b3e712542869742e28a68d3df88f15f",
"text": "university law general house believes legal qualification worth cost A legal qualification is a gateway to a number of different career paths.\n\nA JD is not simply a gateway to the legal world. Lawyers work as corporate executives, run movie studios, hold political office, and teach academically. Holding the degree will increase your qualifications, and make it far easier to move up the ladder in whatever field you chose to enter even if it is not a legal one.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e72329464293a7d759f039098e3b06eb",
"text": "university law general house believes legal qualification worth cost Law school helps graduates to think more clearly making them more attractive to other employers.\n\nLaw Schools teaches you to “think” more critically, and legal work offers the opportunity to engage in a largely intellectual pursuit with other highly intellectual individuals. Law students are likely to develop a wider range of intellectual skills throughout their careers, and will be better able to transition in to different jobs and different areas of the legal industry if needed. Moreover, the level of enjoyment that individuals derive from their jobs- and thus the nature of the hedonic calculus that they engage in when determining whether a particular job will fully account for their needs- is linked partly to the variety and difficulty of the tasks they must accomplish. Law represents a sustained and engaging intellectual challenge, and a challenge ideally suited to the skills of most humanities graduates.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0936249c17862daa6ebe3ef10ee29167",
"text": "university law general house believes legal qualification worth cost Law School provides a safe haven from which to wait out a bad economy.\n\nLaw school is a good way to spend your time and wait out the bad economy. By the time a law degree has run its course, the economy will have improved, and you will have a lot more options available, whether you still want to be a lawyer or not. Indeed, the UK based law school BPP has previously advertised its courses as a “recession proof investment”, arguing that returns, in terms of wages, on an individual’s course fees could potentially be greater than equities or risky financial instruments.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "537dbb1d09786ac0b2d97321b6766f93",
"text": "university law general house believes legal qualification worth cost You need a legal qualification to be a lawyer\n\nA law degree is first and foremost a requirement of being a lawyer. Anyone with any interest in working in the legal field, serving as a judge, or even working in a number of governmental and non-profit fields will quite simply need to attend law school at some point. If you are already a recipient of such a degree, it will increase the opportunities for advancement within your chosen career.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "23f1b026cc37828f4fce63ec241470e1",
"text": "university law general house believes legal qualification worth cost The debt incurred in the pursuit of a law degree limits options both within the legal industry, and outside of it, by compelling recipients to seek out the highest paying jobs.\n\nLegal Work is a dog-eats dog world. Law students are forced into a competition with each other for valuable internships, and then in turn face a brutal competition for summer associate positions.\n\nOf every ten junior associates hired, one will be lucky to make partner at a major firm, and the rest will often be faced with a career dead-end at 35 or need to switch careers. For those who do make partner, the opportunities to enjoy the benefits will be limited by pressure to work even harder.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "769fd74239e53ca0f0a3bdbc250a1287",
"text": "university law general house believes legal qualification worth cost Failing a law degree can be extremely costly.\n\nLaw School as a choice has to be weighed against its opportunity cost: what else could someone do with three years and $120,000? How might the long term benefits of this activity weigh up against the consequent benefits of time spent at law school?\n\nThis is an especially important consideration for those interested in careers outside of the legal profession. Spending some of that tuition subsidizing an internship on Capitol Hill or with a Think Tank or Lobbying firm would be far more likely to lead to later employment in politics than earning a JD and likely offer a politically interested potential law student a far more entertaining and enjoyable experience. Joining the Peace Corp or working for an international non-Profit would both impress the State Department more and be far cheaper than a law degree.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6eac7667d72a2957d9cb95efbf2fb317",
"text": "university law general house believes legal qualification worth cost A stint at law school is of little value to those who are not pursuing a legal degree, but nonetheless many applicants treat it as a second shot at an Undergraduate degree.\n\nIndividuals increasingly treat Law School as a second shot at their Undergraduate degree. Applicants who failed to get into Russell group or Ivy League institutions the first time around compete obsessively to achieve their dreams on “second chance” while many other applicants are suckered into the image of rich, successful, attractive lawyers presented by the media. Many universities in England, including Oxford, have begun to offer accelerated undergraduate law degrees, which are highly appealing to those seeking to improve on grades received in science or humanities oriented degrees.\n\nThe result is that a large number of students are not actually thinking about the role that law plays in their communities, or what they want to do with their life, when they apply.\n\nThe result is that supply and demand in the Law School sector is not driven by the actual demand for Lawyers but instead by the demand for law school places by applicants who may or may not be interested in actually being lawyers, and may or may not have any idea of what the job entails.\n\nThe explosion in the number of Law Schools in the last ten years, and the consequent growth in the number of law school graduates has not been accompanied by significant growth in the legal sector. A large portion of Law School graduates are therefore not only unable to find gainful employment within their chosen field, but prohibited by debt from finding opportunities elsewhere.\n\nGraduate employment has now become a buyer’s market. Law firms are now able to dictate the conditions and pay for first year associates and NQs unchallenged. The demands placed upon young lawyers now range from back-breaking to soul crushing.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "02f64ea6eadbf958d3a37144d542e20e",
"text": "university law general house believes legal qualification worth cost The actual opportunities outside of the top ten law schools are quite limited.\n\nBecause of the supply and demand problems, the actual opportunities outside of the top ten law schools are quite limited.\n\nThis is not in fact solely due to their actual quality. It is more a consequence of the fact that the legal job market is so bad, that Firms need to use a proxy for removing applicants from the pool without further consideration, and for many, schools work well.\n\nUS Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scalia had admitted to not hiring Clerks from outside of the top ten law schools, suggesting that he prefers to trust that the admissions offices at these schools did their job properly. He has maintained this policy despite admitting that it would have prevented the hiring of the best clerk he ever had, who had gone to Ohio State University Law School.\n\nWhile the qualitative outcomes are massively different, the price differential between second and third tier law schools and their first year counterparts is next to non-existent. To the extent it exists at all, those schools on top tend to be able to offer more financial aid.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
b5ff35daa0571ce38fb3af41536bd0b5
|
Young people should hear of the opportunities available in the armed services whilst in school
School children are entitled, as part of their education, to a wide range of careers information, including potential roles in the military. It is a school's duty to offer not only paths to employment, but opportunities to engage with future employers like the military. With university places now increasingly competitive, schools must remain more vigilant than ever that they do not encourage purely academic paths to future careers. Furthermore, nationalism is a powerful factor in school curriculums worldwide, and permitting militaries into schools to talk to students is not an extension of already-permitted activities like the recital of the Lord's Prayer in British state schools or the Pledge of Allegiance in American schools. As such, it comes as little surprise that the predominant reason given for enlistment is service to country1. If schools are asked to ensure that such activities are carried out to foster national sentiment, it follows that military service should be, if not actively encouraged, respected sufficiently to grant the armed services an opportunity to engage with students. 1 Accardi, M. (2011, June 15) Army recruiters become a 'partner' In education Retrieved June 16, 2011, from The Huntsville Times:
|
[
{
"docid": "1e2fe681da874a30e56c311ac5fca637",
"text": "education general physical education university politics defence warpeace The armed services have no right to preach to the youth, particularly when they are in a trusting environment like a school. To permit any organization to advertise to schoolchildren about job prospects is misguided at a time when their critical faculties are nascent and they are endowed with the belief that what is taught at school is to be imbibed with little rebuttal. Mandated school activities like the Lord's Prayer and Pledge of Allegiance do serve to promote nationalism, but do not do so in such a way as to threaten the lives or disrupt the career paths of school children. School children must be protected from organizations that have the potential to put pressure on them and guilt trip them into signing away the rest of their young adult life. If their choices are to be respected, they must be left to develop their critical faculties and then permitted to use information available to the general public to make a decision.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "119aa23ac6cfbb0f3d6e6c2cdb665974",
"text": "education general physical education university politics defence warpeace To only ask state-funded schools to accept military recruiters ensures that those entering the military out of school are disproportionally from state-schools rather than privately-funded schools, and therefore more likely to be middle and lower-class. Furthermore, there should be no quid pro quo regarding the funding of schools, conditions for further funding should be related to the success of students and the quality of teaching, not whether the school has furthered the state's desire to see its military substantiated. Schools should in fact protect students, not expose them annually to military recruiters who can incrementally pressurize them into a military career.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "28f374ed3cdd92a168640f08984fd17c",
"text": "education general physical education university politics defence warpeace The need for recruits, however genuine, does not necessitate recruitment within schools. There will of course be certain students who would be attracted voluntarily to a role in the armed services, however these students can be reached through means other than their schools. Furthermore, if the motivation of recruits is paramount, then recruits can do no more to prove their motivation than actively and independently seek out a role in the armed services, rather than having it forced upon them through visits to their schools.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "637268cad38aecca5eed0c0491b5b773",
"text": "education general physical education university politics defence warpeace Young people are not aware and are, in many cases, deliberately misled as to the risks of military service. School children, conditioned by modern television, film and video games as to the heroism of military service, do not often ponder the dangers inherent in conflict. Modern video games, in which war deaths are the norm and immediate 're-spawning' dulls all sensitivity to death, do not serve to educate the youth about the risks but downplay them to the point of banality. Studies indicate that military recruiters, whilst not actively seeking to downplay risks or obscure the truth, are reluctant to volunteer information that would dissuade potential recruits 1. 1 Gee, D. (2008, January). Informed Choice? Armed forces recruitment practice in the United Kingdom. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from Informed Choice:\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d7daf0670a81244a4f15a4c4f8260a53",
"text": "education general physical education university politics defence warpeace However it is dressed up, all the military is interested in schools for is the chance to recruit students. The various educational materials (not always clearly marked as coming from the military) and courses on offer are all intended to interest students in a military career. Such methods are dishonest and should not be allowed in schools; Paul McGarr, a teacher in East London, stated that 'only when recruiting materials gave a true picture of war would he welcome them into his school'1. If students are genuinely interested in joining the military, they can go along to a recruitment centre outside school, potentially with their parents, and ask the necessary questions there. 1 Goff, H. (2008, March 25). Teachers reject 'Army propaganda'. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from BBC News:\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "73a05416c7c08544ca06e79efbbcd035",
"text": "education general physical education university politics defence warpeace School children are not targeted for military service; the intention is to raise awareness about the work that the military do. A Ministry of Defence spokesman in the UK stated that they 'visit about 1,000 schools a year only at the invitation of the school – with the aim of raising the general awareness of their armed forces in society, not to recruit’. Furthermore, children interested in a military career are not instantly signed up, they are granted the time until they turn 18 to decide. In addition, before official enlistment, all potential recruits are sent away on a six-week camp to find out what a career in the army will be like1\n\n1 Goff, H. (2008, March 25). Teachers reject 'Army propaganda'. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7311917.stm\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f9fab9b9817d8edfeca99cd9f07b22c7",
"text": "education general physical education university politics defence warpeace Military recruitment in schools is not illegal in the United States for they have not signed the relevant documents. The USA has not signed the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child referred to opposite, although it has signed the UN's Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict (United Nations General Assembly , 2000). However, the US military does not recruit under-18s anyway, so it is keeping to it's agreement. In any case, neither of these agreements stops recruiters visiting schools in order to make students aware of military career options once they turn 18.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e2d0b51d80643184cae935e9318879ef",
"text": "education general physical education university politics defence warpeace Military presentations in schools are not designed to be propaganda for their institutions, or the state as a whole, but educate the school children as to the undeniably important role that they play. State survival invariably is dependent upon the existence of a strong, well-trained armed force filled with motivated volunteers. Furthermore, demonstrations of modern technology and smart uniforms do not paint an unfair or inaccurate image of contemporary warfare. Such examples in fact illustrate the honesty of militaries in their portrayal to school children of modern combat. They act as not merely an educational tool, but a life lesson, demonstrating that the world of their video games is, in conflict zones at least, very much real.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "52d5f202f5adfa934e0c97f1e6b75385",
"text": "education general physical education university politics defence warpeace Recruiters do not minimise the risks of a military career, rather the armed forces have a good story to tell and they don't prevent themselves from saying so. Furthermore, it is policy for recruitment staff to 'explain the recruits' rights and responsibilities and the nature of the commitment to the Armed Forces'1. There really are great opportunities for keen, talented young people in the military, and almost all soldiers, etc. find it a very satisfying life. And compared with the past, soldiers today are much better looked after in terms of physical, medical and psychological wellbeing. 1 Gee, D. (2008, January). Informed Choice? Armed forces recruitment practice in the United Kingdom. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from Informed Choice:\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "209eed5dc550189a36fc68d5c624bd25",
"text": "education general physical education university politics defence warpeace All high schools accepting state funding should accept military recruiters once a year\n\nThe relationship between the state and the schools that it establishes and funds goes both ways; if schools accept state funding, the state is entitled to use schools as a platform for the military to appeal to future recruits. All state-funded schools, irrespective of location and student demographics but only high schools, would be expected to accept military recruiters once a year to speak to the entire student body. The event would be a condition of further funding for the school, however there would be no limits placed on a minimum number of students that needed to enlist as a result.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "88029ee5195c3812cc69417c53f471df",
"text": "education general physical education university politics defence warpeace The military is an all-volunteer force and needs a percentage of school-age recruits each year\n\nOur military is an all-volunteer force and must recruit openly to keep up its numbers. The army, navy and air force need well-educated and motivated recruits; as the pool of potential recruits shrinks, efforts to attract young people must be permitted to 'intensify and diversify' 1 The alternative is a return to the conscription and national service that offers those recruits little choice. Military recruitment in schools permits the recruitment of only those with an interest in the armed forces, allowing those who wish to pursue other endeavours that opportunity. As such, visits to schools are not about forcing militaristic propaganda on children, but about making sure that 16-18 year olds know about the military as a potential career choice. After all, college representatives and local employers are allowed to make presentations to students, so it would be unfair to keep just the military out. If you accept that we need armed forces, then you must allow them to recruit openly. 1 Gee, D. (2008, January). Informed Choice? Armed forces recruitment practice in the United Kingdom. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from Informed Choice:\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7d372bbd4b78ea9a1cddc0774523a008",
"text": "education general physical education university politics defence warpeace The purpose of the military entering schools is not solely recruitment but awareness\n\nMilitaries provide a public service that too often goes unnoticed and underappreciated; school visits raise the level of understanding for the important job they do. In the UK the army publicly states that it does not directly recruit in schools but does visit many each year \"with the aim of raising the general awareness of the armed forces in society\"1They always visit by invitation of the Head teacher. Compared to the USA fewer young people have local or family connections with the military, so it is important for them to learn about the role the armed forces play in our country. And in both the UK and the USA the military offers other services to schools, from educational materials to leadership courses and team-building exercises. Sgt. Maj. Jerome DeJean, of the U.S. Army's 2nd Recruiting Brigade, describes their role as 'a partner in education\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd853bebc14bbc1e399b91d7006f3010",
"text": "education general physical education university politics defence warpeace Young people are aware of the risks of military service and therefore would not be easily misled by military personnel\n\nYoung people are not stupid – they know that there are risks involved in joining the military. In fact the media usually focuses on the bad news coming out of Afghanistan and Iraq, ignoring the good work of our military there. A career in the military also offers young people a lot of benefits, and it is only right that they should get to hear about those as well. As Donald Rumsfeld noted, ‘for some of our (US) students, this may be the best opportunity they have to get a college education’1. In addition, no one is signed up on the spot in the classroom; they always get the chance to think about it over a few months or more, and to discuss the decision carefully with parents and peers. As such, military recruitment in schools should be seen as no less unethical than the visits to schools of policemen, for whom there is similar risk but little public conjecture.\n\n1Vlahos, K. B. (2005, June 23). Heavy military recruitment at high schools irks some parents. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160406,00.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "718ee9acbf8b5ac0dec3b020efc0b71d",
"text": "education general physical education university politics defence warpeace Military recruiters downplay the risks of a military career, tempting schoolchildren into a career they would not have chosen with honest information.\n\nRecruitment officers often make highly misleading pitches about life in the military. They play up the excitement and chances to travel, as well as the pay and benefits such as college fees and training in special skills. They don't talk about the dangers of military life, the casualty rates in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the thousands of young soldiers who have lost limbs or been emasculated in recent years. And they don't mention the impact of war on soldiers' mental health, or the lack of support when they leave the military. If we must have the military in our schools, then they should be made to give a much more realistic view of military life. Evidence suggests that 'whilst staff are generally willing to answer questions honestly, information that might dissuade potential recruits from enlisting is not routinely volunteered'1. If we are to accept the military in schools, they must similarly accept the moral necessity of presenting the risks of the career in a fair and truthful manner. 1 Gee, D. (2008, January). Informed Choice? Armed forces recruitment practice in the United Kingdom. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from Informed Choice:\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "84b87372d2ed0896bd265d1f15ef10c6",
"text": "education general physical education university politics defence warpeace Military recruitment in schools is illegal\n\nRecruitment in schools is against parts of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. A set of rules that the USA signed up to in 2002 forbids the recruitment of children under the age of 181. Despite this, the American Civil Liberties Union has found that US military recruiters target children as young as 11, visiting their classrooms and making unfair promises to them2. Though the military would argue that its school visits do not constitute recruitment, if recruitment of those under 18 is wrong, then advertising to those under 18 should similarly be considered wrong. In order to live up to its pledge in 2002, the USA should stop trying to recruit in schools. 1 United Nations General Assembly . (2000, May 25). Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights: 2 American Civil Liberties Union. (2008, May 13). Military recruitment practices violate international standards, says ACLU. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from American Civil Liberties Union:\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "df588512243bf0a2ecfddeed40166ccb",
"text": "education general physical education university politics defence warpeace School children are too young to target for military service\n\nSchool children should be protected from targeted appeals for jobs they are unprepared for, both physically and emotionally. The army is short of manpower due to high casualty rates and the unwillingness of current soldiers to reenlist. This means that they are very keen to get into schools to sign up young people. But it is not right to let them get at students who are too young to vote, or even drive. 16 and 17 year olds are not grown-up enough to make life and death decisions, like joining the army. They may not be able to see through exciting presentations or resist a persuasive and experienced recruitment officer. Under the No Child Left Behind Act, military recruiters collect data on 30 million students. The act 'grants the Pentagon access to directories of all public high schools to facilitate contact for military service recruitment'1. A huge database contains their personal details, including social security numbers, email addresses and academic records. The purpose of this is to allow recruiters to pester young people with messages, phone calls and home visits. Schools should be safe places to grow and learn, not somewhere to sign your life away before it has even properly begun. Upon enlisting, recruits enter a contract that legally binds them to the Armed Forces for up to six years2; school children should not be exposed to pressure to sign their young adolescence away. 1 Berg, M. (2005, February 23). Military recruiters have unrivaled access to schools. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from Common Dreams: 2 Gee, D. (2008, January). Informed Choice? Armed forces recruitment practice in the United Kingdom. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from Informed Choice:\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "36bada00b8885950b93c16369a36a4c7",
"text": "education general physical education university politics defence warpeace Military recruitment in schools is less education than propaganda\n\nAllowing members of the military into schools is a form of propaganda. They promote the military and make war seem glamorous. Soldiers in smart uniforms come into classes with specially-made videos and powerful weapons, making violence and state-organised murder seem cool. A recent report into the practice stated 'key messages are routinely tailored to children's interests: military roles are promoted as glamorous…(and) warfare is portrayed as game-like and enjoyable.’1 This encourages young people to support aggressive action abroad. It also promotes an unthinking loyalty to the state, whether its actions are right or wrong. By allowing the military in, schools are signalling to their students that these things are OK.\n\n1 Gee, D. (2008, January). Informed Choice? Armed forces recruitment practice in the United Kingdom. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from Informed Choice: http://www.informedchoice.org.uk/informedchoice/index.php\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
07ecfcb88ffa05f96bf6126f3f1470ca
|
Parents on welfare are more likely to need the incentives to take on the costs of sending children to school.
Parents on welfare benefits are the most likely to need the extra inducements. They generally tend to be less educated and oftentimes be less appreciative of the long-term value of education. In the late 90's, 42% of people on welfare had less than a high school education, and another 42% had finished high school, but had not attended college in the US. Therefore they need the additional and more tangible, financial reasons to send their children to school. Children living in poverty in the US are 6.8 times more likely to have experienced child abuse and neglect1. While attendance might not be a sufficient condition for academic success, it is certainly a necessary one, and the very first step toward it. Some parents might be tempted to look at the short-term costs and benefits. Sending a child to school might be an opportunity cost for the parents as lost labor inside or outside the homes (especially in the third world) the household, or as an actual cost, as paying for things like supplies, uniforms or transportation can be expensive. Around the world there are an estimated 158 million working children, who often need to work to contribute to their family's livelihood2. In the UK it is estimated that sending a child to public school costs up to 1,200 pounds a year. If they lose money by not sending children to school, this would tilt the cost-benefits balance in favor of school attendance. 1 Duncan, Greg and Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne (2000), "Family Poverty, Welfare Reform, and Child Development", Child Development, [Accessed July 21, 2011] 2 http://www.unicef.org/protection/index_childlabour.html [Accessed July 13, 2011].
|
[
{
"docid": "4df6b60ca982395e5ae3cb8d9c1460e1",
"text": "onomic policy education education general house believes payment welfare If school is so expensive, than shouldn't the government be subsidizing school costs instead of forcing parents to send kids to school when they can't afford the books and clothes? It is also unfair to assume that parents on welfare on neglectful and do not value education. Supporting meal programs in schools and subsidizing other costs are much more likely to draw children than forcing parents to send children to school when the kids are hungry and embarrassed1. 1 United States Department of Agriculture, \"The School Breakfast Program\",[Accessed July 21, 2011].\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "304fb446f07e27c5528bda6399f52224",
"text": "onomic policy education education general house believes payment welfare Just because students attend school does not mean that they are going to receive a quality education. The best educated children are those whose parents are involved heavily in their school, helping them with their homework, and pushing them to excel1. Without involved parents, students can become just as easily discouraged. There really need to be programs to involve parents more in school, and provide good mentors and role models for students who don't have them. Schools also need to be improved. Just sending kids to school doesn't mean that they are going to learn and be determined to better themselves. Additionally particularly in the third world if children don't have good schools and qualified teachers, then what is the point of going to school? 1 Chavkin, Nancy, and Williams, David (1989), \"Low-Income Parents' Attitudes toward Parent Involvemet in Education\", Social Welfare, [Accessed July 21, 2011].\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9af00755e6f246e60b5852b300ae42e2",
"text": "onomic policy education education general house believes payment welfare The purpose of welfare is not to better society per se; it is to support those who have fallen into bad times and need extra help. Expecting people to render a service in exchange for help is demeaning and it undermines the purpose of welfare which is to help people get back on their feet versus tell them what they have to do to be considered beneficial to society.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "195c11889d353e981f19412101fdc33b",
"text": "onomic policy education education general house believes payment welfare But the program in Brazil is biased towards rural communities versus cities. In the two largest cities in only 10% of families are enrolled versus 41% in the rural areas of Brazil [1] . To consider the program effective it needs to work equally with all members of the poor, which it does not.\n\n[1] 'How to get children out of jobs and into school', The Economist, 29 July 2010, http://www.economist.com/node/16690887\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "df959e7e599660bdb3d38b6f3cbfa35f",
"text": "onomic policy education education general house believes payment welfare There is nothing that says the two are mutually exclusive. Linking welfare to school attendance could be instituted next to other reforms that overall would create greater incentives for children to do well in school.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee1f10768ea115cd1975324892d12906",
"text": "onomic policy education education general house believes payment welfare It is perfectly just to ask people to adjust behavior in exchange for funds. In fact, if the tax payers' dollars were being poured into an unchanging situation that would be unfair and unproductive. For a long time the US, and countries around the world, have struggled with making welfare a program that can lift people up. Connecting it to schools can help children.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "83899f5fdae4863a8519352939703a32",
"text": "onomic policy education education general house believes payment welfare Yet if kids aren't going to school anyway it doesn't matter if the schools are inadequate. Getting kids in schools is the first step to improving the education situation and the dropout rate. As long as we look at the education system in the US and around the world as dismal and overwhelming, nothing will change.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "420795349ff654dabbded3fbe1fd7889",
"text": "onomic policy education education general house believes payment welfare If families have incentives to send their children to school, and raise their children with a value of education, stressing the need for them to go to school they are more likely to finish high school and lift themselves out of these environments. The reason why some children would rather work then go to school is because they have been raised in an atmosphere that does not stress education and the necessity to finish high school. This type of program would push parents to change their children's values as they grow up. Additionally, a child's sense of duty to their family because of welfare payments being connected to their school attendance would give them further reason not to drop out, even if they do not like or value school.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a806bdd43013838b157d543b1db45aa9",
"text": "onomic policy education education general house believes payment welfare It is morally acceptable to make welfare conditional.\n\nWhen society has to step in and provide for those who've proved themselves unable to provide for themselves that should reasonably create certain expectations on the part of those being helped. In almost every aspect of life, money is given in return for a product, service or behavior. It is the same with welfare payments; money in exchange for children being put in school. We expect parents to do a good job in their role as parents. Ensuring that their children attend school is a crucial part of parental responsibility. Children on welfare in the US are 2 times more likely to drop out of school, however studies have shown that children who are part of early childhood education are more likely to finish school and remain independent of welfare1. Thus, when a parent is a welfare recipient, it is entirely reasonable to make it conditional on sending their kids to school. If tax payers' dollars are being spent on those who cannot provide for themselves, there needs to be a societal return. One of the greatest complaints about welfare is that people work hard for the money that they earn, which is then handed to others with no direct benefit to society. If children of people on welfare are in school it increases the likelihood that they will finish high school, maybe get a scholarship and go to college, and have the necessary tools to contribute to the work force and better society.\n\n1 Heckman, James (2000), \"Invest in the Very Young\", Ounce of Prevention and the University of Chicago, [Accessed July 25, 2011]. and Duncan, Greg and Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne (2000), \"Family Poverty, Welfare Reform, and Child Development\", Child Development, [Accessed July 21, 2011]\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3c592ec3533dcbd70e4fa474e72b95ec",
"text": "onomic policy education education general house believes payment welfare The policy has been effective in the past\n\nThe main goal of this program is increasing school enrollment overall. If it was too much to expect from families, then the program would have failed in the cases that it was instituted. However, the opposite has been the case. 12.4 million families in Brazil are enrolled in a program called Bolsa Familia where children’s attendance in school is rewarded with $12 a month per child. The number of Brazilians with incomes below $440 a month has decreased by 8% year since 2003, and 1/6 of the poverty reduction in the country is attributed to this program [1] . Additionally it is much less expensive than other programs, costing only about .5% of the country’s GDP [2] . Considering that this program has been affordable and successful in both reducing poverty and increasing school enrollment it is worth using as an incentive in more programs around the world.\n\n[1] 'How to get children out of jobs and into school', The Economist, 29 July 2010, http://www.economist.com/node/16690887\n\n[2] 'How to get children out of jobs and into school', The Economist, 29 July 2010, http://www.economist.com/node/16690887\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5cf106b97a4b7dbce4d8a34c98ba63dc",
"text": "onomic policy education education general house believes payment welfare Requiring school attendance allows welfare to be the hand-up that it is meant to be, and keep children out of crime.\n\nIn the US, girls who grow up in families receiving welfare handouts are 3 times more likely to receive welfare themselves within three years of having their first child than girls who's families were never on welfare1. Children living in poverty were 2 times more likely to have grade repetition and drop out of high school and 3.1 times more likely to have children out of wedlock as teenagers2. They are 2.2 times more likely to experience violent crimes. Children of welfare recipients are more likely to end up on welfare themselves. Welfare should be a hand up, not a handout that leads to dependency on the state. It is the latter if we are only leading people to fall into the same trap as their parents. Education is the way to break the vicious cycle. Through education, children will acquire the skills and qualifications they need in order to obtain gainful employment once they reach adulthood, and overcome their condition. In the developing world, primary education has proven to reduce AIDS incidences, improve health, increase productivity and contribute to economic growth3. School can empower children, and give them guidance and hope that they may not receive at home. Getting kids in school is the first step to equipping them with the skills to better their situations, and if encouraged by their parents they might consider scholarships to college or vocational school. The program does not guarantee this for all, but it is likely more effective than the leaving parents with no incentive to push their children. Benefits are supposed to promote the welfare of both parents and children. One of the best ways to ensure that welfare payments are actually benefiting children is to make sure they're going to school. This is simply providing parents with an extra incentive to do the right thing for their children and become more vested in their kids' education. 1 Family Facts, \"A Closer Look at Welfare\", [Accessed July 21, 2011]. 2 Duncan , Greg and Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne (2000), \"Family Poverty, Welfare Reform, and Child Development\", Child Development, [Accessed July 21, 2011] 3http World Bank, \"Facts about Primary Education\",[Accessed July 21, 2011].\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c7ff2b12867c0350b6e6e3d3771de9f",
"text": "onomic policy education education general house believes payment welfare Connecting welfare to failure of parents is unfair.\n\nThis policy requires that parents be held accountable and punished for the actions of their children. It suggests that their failure in instilling good values is because they care less than middle-class, educated parents. That is a broad and stereotypical assumption. Such parents, many of whom are single mothers, find it harder to instill good values in their children because they live in corrupt environments, surrounded by negative influences[1]. They should be aided and supported, not punished for an alleged failure. Just encouraging putting children in schools does not recognize the larger problems. Some families cannot control their children, who would rather make money than go to school. And caps on the number of children these programs can apply to, as is the case in Brazil, creates problems as well for the families[2]. People are doing their best, but the environment is difficult. Providing safer and more low income housing could be a solution versus punishing people for what is sometimes out of their control. 1 Cawthorne, Alexandra (2008), \"The Straight Facts on Women in Poverty\", Center for American Progress, [Accessed July 21, 2011]. 2\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7bd355072e6fc9522a6cd4323efb1270",
"text": "onomic policy education education general house believes payment welfare It is unjust to make welfare conditional\n\nWelfare should not be used as a tool of social engineering. These are people who cannot provide even basic necessities for their families. Asking them to take on obligations by threatening to take away their food is not requiring them to be responsible, it's extortion. It is not treating them as stakeholders and equal partners in a discussion about benefits and responsibilities, but trying to condition them into doing what the rest of society thinks is good for them and their families. There is a difference between an incentive and coercion. An incentive functions on the premise that the person targeted is able to refuse it. These people have no meaningful choice between 'the incentive' or going hungry. This policy does not respect people's basic dignity. There is no condition attached to healthcare and Medicaid that says people have to eat healthily or stop smoking, so why should welfare be conditional? Allowing them and their children to go without food if they refuse is callous. Making welfare conditional is taking advantage of people's situation and telling them what they need to do to be considered valuable to society; it is inherently wrong. It impedes on people's rights to free choice and demeans them as worthless.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e68ff6cd69bbef4d41ccfe431610f26",
"text": "onomic policy education education general house believes payment welfare There should be rewards for success in school, versus punishment for failure to attend.\n\nThis problem could be addressed by subsidizing school supplies or rewarding good attendance records with additional cash. Cutting benefits will only hurt the children we are trying to help, with their families deprived of the resources to feed them or care for them. Free breakfast programs in the US feed 10.1 million children every day1. Providing meals, mentors, programs that support and help students are ways to help them get along better in schools. There are already 14 million children in the US that go hungry, and 600 million children worldwide that are living on less than a dollar a day2. Why punish those families that have trouble putting their kids in school, which only hurts those children more? There should be rewards for good grades, and reduction to the cost of school and above all programs so that children don't have to sit in school hungry and confused. 1 United States Department of Agriculture, \"The School Breakfast Program\",[Accessed July 21, 2011]. 2 Feeding America (2010), \"Hunger in America: Key Facts\", [Accessed July 21, 2011]. and UNICEF, \"Goal: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger\", [Accessed July 21, 2011].\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab1d6df9d4636ceadd69df8ea789fb6c",
"text": "onomic policy education education general house believes payment welfare School does not an education make\n\nSchool attendance is not a positive outcome in and of itself. It should be encouraged only if it is conducive to learning and acquiring the meaningful education needed to break out of the poverty trap. Blaming the poverty cycle on kids failing to attend school ignores the fact that schools are failing children. Public schools are often overcrowded, with poor facilities and lacking the resources necessary to teach children with challenging backgrounds. In 2011, 80% of America's schools could be considered failing according to Arne Duncan who is the secretary of education1. Schools in developing countries often lack qualified teachers, and can suffer from very high staff absenteeism rates2. A more effective school system would result in fewer kids dropping out, not the other way around. Additionally, involved parents are integral to effective education3. Simply blackmailing them with money to do the right thing will not work. In fact, you might actually experience backlash from parents and kids, who'll see school as a burdensome requirement that is met just so you can keep the electricity on. Throwing kids into school where they do not have confidence, support, and the necessary facilities is not productive. 1 Dillon , Sam (2011), \"Most Public Schools May Miss Targets, Education Secretary Says\", New York Times, [Accessed July 21, 2011]. 2 World Bank, \"Facts about Primary Education\",[Accessed July 21, 2011]. 3 Chavkin , Nancy, and Williams, David (1989), \"Low-Income Parents' Attitudes toward Parent Involvemet in Education\", Social Welfare, [Accessed July 21, 2011].\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
942251357a667fdad57d86ba8d654190
|
Animals have a right not to be harmed
The differences between us and other vertebrates are a matter of degree rather than kind. [1] Not only do they closely resemble us anatomically and physiologically, but so too do they behave in ways which seem to convey meaning. They recoil from pain, appear to express fear of a tormentor, and appear to take pleasure in activities; a point clear to anyone who has observed the behaviour of a pet dog on hearing the word “walk”. Our reasons for believing that our fellow humans are capable of experiencing feelings like ourselves can surely only be that they resemble us both in appearance and behaviour (we cannot read their minds). Thus any animal sharing our anatomical, physiological, and behavioural characteristics is surely likely to have feelings like us. If we accept as true for sake of argument, that all humans have a right not to be harmed, simply by virtue of existing as a being of moral worth, then we must ask what makes animals so different. If animals can feel what we feel, and suffer as we suffer, then to discriminate merely on the arbitrary difference of belonging to a different species, is analogous to discriminating on the basis of any other morally arbitrary characteristic, such as race or sex. If sexual and racial moral discrimination is wrong, then so too is specieism. [2]
[1] Clark, S., The Nature of the Beast: are animals moral?, (Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1982)
[2] Singer, P., “All Animals are Equal”, in La Follette (ed.), Ethics in Practice, (Malden, Mass; Oxford : Blackwell Pub, 2007)
|
[
{
"docid": "b5ad0facae7395816f127b64b4ab4556",
"text": "ent animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal Animals do not have such a right not to be harmed; even if they are similar to humans in terms of their feelings (that opposition does not concede) this right is impossible to argue for. The right of a human not to be harmed is a part of a quid pro quo that we will also not do harm to others. Animals are unable to engage in such a contract either to us or to other animals. Animals are not about to stop hunting other animals because the animal that is hunted feel’s pain when it is caught and it even if animal experimentation was to be ended it is unlikely that humanity would stop killing animals either for food, to prevent overpopulation or by accident all of which would have to be the case if animals feeling of pleasure and pain and resulting rights had to be taken into account.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e7ac58cd750dc0710a8ef3d8eba8cad0",
"text": "ent animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal Firstly, due to our larger and more sophisticated brains, one would expect the average human to have a great many more interests than any animal, for those interests to be more complex and interconnected, and for there to be a greater capacity for reflection and comprehension of the satisfaction gleaned from the realisation of such interests. Thus, we can ascribe greater value to the life of a human than an animal, and thus conclude there to be less harm in painlessly killing an animal than a human. Secondly, to the extent that research on animals is of benefit to humans, it is thus permissible to conduct experiments requiring euthanasia of the animal subjects. [1]\n\n[1] Frey, R. G., “Moral Standing: The Value of Life and Specieism”, in La Follette (ed.), Ethics in Practice, (Malden, Mass; Oxford : Blackwell Pub, 2007)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "274cace5e3cdea4268c0dfa2ebea4c8c",
"text": "ent animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal We do not have to justify cock fighting and other acts of animal cruelty as morally permissible. These are different acts to animal research in an important respect. It is not the intention of the researchers to harm the animals, but rather to produce high quality research for the betterment of human lives. Whilst it is true that in some cases harm to the animals is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the research, this is minimised wherever possible, with pain killers, anaesthesia, and attempts to use other research means. There are many exceptions in law which maintain moral consistency due to the intention behind the act. For example, killing someone for money would be murder and illegal, whilst an exception might be made if you were killing in war, or self-defence, as the intention behind the act is held to be both different and morally just.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e37181899c1bd75384b001e6c40182a",
"text": "ent animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal We do not need to justify the moral value of severely cognitively disabled persons, although if we wanted to, we could invoke notions of kinship, and family as providing a justification for acting in an apparently specieist manner. [1] Rather, it is sufficient to highlight the point, that experimenting on humans of any cognitive function, carries with it certain negative externalities. Such persons are likely to have relatives who would be harmed by the knowledge that their loved ones are being used in medical experiments for example. Even in the case of such a person who lacks any relatives, broader society and disabled rights groups could be harmed by a policy that allows treating some disabled persons differently to the rest of our moral community.\n\nSuch externalities would make experimenting on animals, rather than such persons, both preferable and morally consistent.\n\n[1] Fox, M. A., “The Moral Community”, in La Follette (ed.), Ethics in Practice, (Malden, Mass; Oxford : Blackwell Pub, 2007)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c80cab1d21e245a3df67f7078b76bcf1",
"text": "ent animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal Most developed countries, including the United States and the member-states of the European Union, have regulations and laws which require the research methods that do not involve animal models should be used wherever they would produce equally accurate results. In other words, scientists are barred from using animals in research where non-animal methods would be just as effective.\n\nFurther, research animals are extremely expensive to breed, house and care for. Developed countries have very strict laws governing the welfare of animals used in research; obtaining the training and expert advice required to comply with these laws is costly. As a result, academic institutions and medical or pharmaceutical businesses function under constant pressure to find viable alternatives to using animals in research. Researchers have a strong motive to use alternatives to animal models wherever possible.\n\nIf we ban animal research even if research advances continue we will never know how much further and faster that research could have gone with the aid of experiments on animals. Animal research conducted today produces higher quality results than alternative research methodologies, and is thus it is likely necessary for it to remain in order for us to enjoy the rate of scientific advancement we have become used to in recent years. [1] Precisely because we never know where the next big breakthrough is going to come, we do not want to be narrowing research options. Instead, all options - computer models, tissue cultures, microdosing and animal experiments - should be explored, making it more likely that there will be a breakthrough.\n\n[1] Ator, N. A., “Conducting Behavioural Research”, in Akins, C. Panicker, S. & Cunningham, C. L (eds.), Laboratory animals in research and teaching: Ethics, care and methods, (Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association, 2005, Ch. 3.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eef20434c1753d5fef6a9e3e133398f2",
"text": "ent animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal To argue that the ends justify the means does not justify research upon animals. Firstly we do not know the extent to which animals are capable of holding interests or experiencing suffering, as they are unable to communicate with us. Our shared similarities give us cause to believe they must have at least a truncated experience of the world to us, but we cannot know the level of that truncation. Thus in order to avoid committing a significant moral harm upon a being we do not fully understand, a precautionary principle of non-experimentation would be well advised. Secondly, even if we would be achieving a net gain on the utilitarian calculator, that is insufficient justification on its own. By that same logic, experimenting on one person to save the lives of many could be justified, even if it caused them suffering, and even if they did not consent. Common morality suggests that this is an objectionable position to hold, as the moral principle would allow us to treat any being as a means to an end rather than existing as a being of independent value. [1] In short such logic would allow us to experiment not only on animals but also on non-consenting people, and we posit that to be an unreasonable position to hold in this debate.\n\n[1] Crisp. R., Mill on Utilitarianism, (Routledge, 1997)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41a8900f14da09a20f6e8217f8c849b3",
"text": "ent animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal The opposition's conclusions can be attacked in three ways. First, countries that are less economically developed than wealthy North American and European states are not likely to support rules or laws similar to the 3Rs doctrine or Directive 2010/63/EU. In these countries, low animal welfare standards often mean that animal research is cheaper relative to the cost of non-animal methods such as computer models or cell cultures.\n\nSecond, across the world, researchers tend to specialise in certain fields. Animal researchers tend to involve animal work in most of their projects, meaning that they may be less aware of alternative methods that could be used. Essentially, an individual who has spent their entire career as an animal researcher is likely to see all scientific problems in their field of research as solvable through animal experiments.\n\nFinally, toxicology work on new drugs (and sometimes other products) still legally requires animal testing in most countries of the world. The length of time it took to introduce the EU ban on animal testing for cosmetic testing shows the difficulties faced by governments in adopting new methods of regulating animal research.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c38277315f1b1076f91ff4a3bc2de6c7",
"text": "ent animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal This again highlights some of the problems with animal research. In the UK example cited, animal testing had been done, and the dose given to the human volunteers was a tiny fraction of the dose shown to be safe in primates. Animal research is an unreliable indicator of how drugs will react in the human body, and as such alternatives should be sought and improved upon.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ee6fef1fc253049b55ad83b03cb1f2a",
"text": "ent animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal Firstly the vast majority of drugs released today (around 75%) are so called “me too” drugs that add little, if any genuine innovation to the existing body of pharmaceuticals in production. Rather, they represent only a slight molecular tweak on an existing drug line. Such drugs rarely save lives or even relieve much suffering upon their release, as they are only very slightly better, for only some patients, than the drugs available prior to its release. [1] None the less, the development of only technically novel compounds is used as a justification for research on animals, even when the benefit from such research is marginal at best. Secondly, even if there was a small increase in future human suffering, relative to a future where such a policy was not adopted, it would be worth it due to the saving of so much animal suffering, and the moral impermissibility of inflicting that for our own gains.\n\nAll this is notwithstanding the proposition point that much of the research does not necessitate animal testing.\n\n[1] Stanford Medical Magazine. 2005. Me-too drugs: Sometimes They’re Just The Same Old, Same Old.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ae6211d579c5c823fa53a163cc2894f7",
"text": "ent animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal This logic assumes that one positive moral action can cancel out a negative moral action. That an animal is well treated before being involved in animal testing and its suffering during testing is kept to a minimum does not balance the very real suffering the animal experiences during the experiments themselves. Regulation would not be helpful in addressing this contradiction as the suffering during the experiments could never be eliminated as if we knew the effects the experiment will have on the animal the experiment would not be necessary in the first place.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "05c3cadba7c24fb94e0be3b5006cda32",
"text": "ent animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal Animal research necessitates significant harm to the animals involved\n\nAnimal research, by its very nature necessitates harm to the animals. Even if they are not made to suffer as part of the experiment, the vast majority of animals used, must be killed at the conclusion of the experiment. With 115 million animals being used in the status quo this is no small issue. Even if we were to vastly reduce animal experimentation, releasing domesticated animals into the wild, would be a death sentence, and it hardly seems realistic to think that many behaviourally abnormal animals, often mice or rats, might be readily moveable into the pet trade. [1] It is prima fasciae obvious, that it is not in the interest of the animals involved to be killed, or harmed to such an extent that such killing might seem merciful. Even if the opposition counterargument, that animals lack the capacity to truly suffer, is believed, research should none the less be banned in order to prevent the death of millions of animals.\n\n[1] European Commission, 1997. Euthanasia of experimental animals. Luxembourg: Office for official publications\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "97e9e35cf0d57e78acf4104ce3c32ca7",
"text": "ent animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal Would send a positive social message, increasing animal welfare rights more generally in society\n\nMost countries have laws restricting the ways in which animals can be treated. These would ordinarily prohibit treating animals in the manner that animal research laboratories claim is necessary for their research. Thus legal exceptions such as the 1986 Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act in the UK exist to protect these organisations, from what would otherwise be a criminal offense. This creates a clear moral tension, as one group within society is able to inflect what to any other group would be illegal suffering and cruelty toward animals. If states are serious about persuading people against cock fighting, dancing bears, and the simple maltreatment of pets and farm animals, then such goals would be enhanced by a more consistent legal position about the treatment of animals by everyone in society.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "50c8b7a64fbe2fd063e5df7d5d619cfc",
"text": "ent animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal Research can be done effectively without experimenting on living creature\n\nAs experimenting on animals is immoral we should stop using animals for experiments. But apart from it being morally wrong practically we will never know how much we will be able to advance without animal experimentation if we never stop experimenting on animals. Animal research has been the historical gold standard, and in the case of some chemical screening tests, was for many years, by many western states, required by law before a compound could be released on sale. Science and technology has moved faster than research protocols however, and so there is no longer a need for animals to be experimented on. We now know the chemical properties of most substances, and powerful computers allow us to predict the outcome of chemical interactions. Experimenting on live tissue culture also allows us to gain insight as to how living cells react when exposed to different substances, with no animals required. Even human skin leftover from operations provides an effective medium for experimentation, and being human, provides a more reliable guide to the likely impact on a human subject. The previous necessity of the use of animals is no longer a good excuse for continued use of animals for research. We would still retain all the benefits that previous animal research has brought us but should not engage in any more. Thus modern research has no excuse for using animals. [1]\n\n[1] PETA. 2011. Alternatives: Testing Without Torture.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3518b8d8f466e6ae3db04c78ba5e2f87",
"text": "ent animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal Some groups of people have less capacity for suffering than most animals\n\nIt is possible to conceive of human persons almost totally lacking in a capacity for suffering, or indeed a capacity to develop and possess interests. Take for example a person in a persistent vegetative state, or a person born with the most severe of cognitive impairments.\n\nWe can take three possible stances toward such persons within this debate. Firstly we could experiment on animals, but not such persons. This would be a morally inconsistent and specieist stance to adopt, and as such unsatisfactory. We could be morally consistent, and experiment on both animals and such persons. Common morality suggests that it would be abhorrent to conduct potentially painful medical research on the severely disabled, and so this stance seems equally unsatisfactory. Finally we could maintain moral consistency and avoid experimenting on the disabled, by adopting the stance of experimenting on neither group, thus prohibiting experimentation upon animals. [1]\n\n[1] Fox, M. A., “The Moral Community”, in La Follette (ed.), Ethics in Practice, (Malden, Mass; Oxford : Blackwell Pub, 2007)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1afa3c215bb62d829d51d1fd2834e740",
"text": "ent animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal Animals involved in animal research are mostly well treated.\n\nThe vast majority of animals used in research are not subjected to suffering. Where there may be pain, they are given painkillers, and when they are euthanized it is done humanely. [1] They are looked after well, as the health of the animals is usually not only required by law and good practice, but beneficial for the experimental results. Many of these animals live better lives than they might have done had they been born into the wild. Many animals, and indeed humans, die untimely deaths that are due to reasons other than old age, animal experimentation may increase these numbers slightly but so long as the animals are treated well there should be no moral objection to animal research. If the foundation of the argument for banning animal experimentation is therefore based upon the cruel treatment and pain suffered by animals then this is a reason for regulation to make sure there is very little suffering rather than an outright ban.\n\n[1] Herzog, H., “Dealing With the Animal Research Controversy”, in Akins, C. Panicker, S. & Cunningham, C. L (eds.), Laboratory animals in research and teaching: Ethics, care and methods, (Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association, 2005, Ch. 1.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e29396769ae0c5e295f46bc9b6068030",
"text": "ent animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal People would die and suffer needlessly under such a policy\n\n23 new drugs are introduced each year in the United Kingdom alone . [1] . While almost all of these drugs will have been brought to the market after extensive animal testing, the number of animals used to check their safety only seems to be a high cost when the benefits that each drug brings to its users are inadequately considered.\n\nNew drugs that are approved for medical use have the potential to relieve human pain and suffering not only for the first group of patients given access to them, but also for future generations of sick and suffering individuals too. Consider all the lives, all over the world, that have benefitted from penicillin since its discovery in 1928. If drugs cost more to research and develop, then that reduces potential profit margins, and some drugs that would have otherwise been discovered and released will fall below the new threshold of likely profits necessary to fund the research. Adopting this proposition will lead to more people suffering and dying in the future than would have otherwise been the case.\n\n[1] BBC News. 2013. Falling drug breakthroughs 'a myth'. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21519901\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "613846c2125ccbd7ddbc5a96bcf2e07e",
"text": "ent animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal Animal research is only used where other research methods are not suitable\n\nDeveloped countries, including the US and all members of the EU (since EU Directive 2010/63/EU) have created laws and professional regulations that prevent scientists from using animals for research if other, non-animal research methods would produce equally clear and detailed results.\n\nThe principle described above is also enshrined in the \"3Rs\" doctrine, which states that researchers and their employers have a duty to identify ways to refine experiments conducted on animals, so that yield better results and cause less suffering; replace animals used in research the non-animal alternatives where possible; and reduce the number of animals used in research. Not only does the 3Rs doctrine represent a practical way to reconcile the necessity of animal research with the universal human desire not to cause suffering, it also drives scientists to increase the overall quality of the research that they conduct. Governments and academic institutions take the 3Rs doctrine very seriously. In EU countries scientists are required to show that they have considered other methods of research before being granted a license for an animal experiment.\n\nThere are a huge number of ways of learning about our physiology and the pathologies which affect it, including to computer models, cell cultures, animal models, human microdosing and population studies. These methods are used to complement one another, for example animal models may well produce data that creates a computer model. Nonetheless, there is some research which cannot be done any other way. It is difficult to understand the interaction of specific sets of genes without being able to change only these genes – something possible through genetically modified animals.\n\nFinally, as noted above, given the high cost of conducting animal research relative to other methods, there is a financial incentive for institutions to adopt non-animal methods where they produce as useful and accurate results.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "26fc3b99db716d8fafe9f0d026eaecc4",
"text": "ent animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal Animals' rights are of less moral worth than human rights\n\nHumans are complex beings with large well developed brains, that form sizeable social groups, have significant ability to communicate with one another, possess interconnected desires, preferences and interests about the world, have an awareness of their own existence and mortality, and as such are beings worthy of moral consideration. Animals too express some of these characteristics to some degree and thus animals too are worthy of moral consideration. However, animal lives and human lives are of unequal value. This is due to the fact that no animal possesses all of these characteristics to the same degree as the average human, or even comes particularly close. Thus any rights ascribed to animals should be truncated relative to the rights we ascribe to humans. [1] Therefore animals should not rightly possess the same rights to not be experimented upon as humans might. To the extent to which causing some harm to animals brings great benefit to humans, we are morally justified in creating some moral harm, to achieve a far greater moral good.\n\n[1] Frey, R. G., “Moral Standing: The Value of Life and Speciesism”, in La Follette (ed.), Ethics in Practice, (Malden, Mass; Oxford : Blackwell Pub, 2007)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1f0047d79e5cde660623b6c31640c781",
"text": "ent animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal Animal research is necessary for the development of truly novel substances\n\nUndoubtedly then, the most beneficial research to mankind is the development of truly novel drugs. Even according to the proposition this represents about a quarter of all new drugs released, which could be seen as significant given the great potential to relieve the suffering beyond our current capacity that such drugs promise.\n\nAfter the effects, side effects and more complex interactions of a drug have been confirmed using animal and non-animal testing, it will usually pass to what is called a phase I clinical trial - tests on human volunteers to confirm how the drug will interact with human physiology and what dosages it should be administered in. The risk of a human volunteer involved in a phase I trial being harmed is extremely small, but only because animal tests, along with non-animal screening methods are a highly effective way of ensuring that dangerous novel drugs are not administered to humans. In the United Kingdom, over the past twenty years or more, there have been no human deaths as a result of phase I clinical trials.\n\nNovel compounds (as opposed to so-called \"me-too\" drugs, that make slight changes to an existing treatment) are the substances that hold the most promise for improving human lives and treating previously incurable conditions. However, their novelty is also the reason why it is difficult for scientists to predict whether they may cause harm to humans.\n\nResearch into novel compounds would not be possible without either animal testing, or tremendous risk to human subjects, with inevitable suffering and death on the part of the trial volunteers on some occasions. It is difficult to believe that in such circumstances anyone would volunteer, and that even if they did, pharmaceutical companies would be willing to risk the potential legal consequences of administering a substance to them they knew relatively little about. In short, development of novel drugs requires animal experimentation, and would be impossible under the proposition's policy.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
9b4cf07dbeef62d2c977f4b56044792c
|
The technology required for colonizing ‘a second Earth’ would be easier to develop on the moon
The idea of colonizing another planet as either a contingency against a future extinction event or simply as an area for growth. Extinction events are considered to be any event which destroys over 50 per cent of life on Earth and there are believed to have been five of them in the last 540 million years. [i] It is in the nature of such an event that the warning we would have of such an event would not be sufficient to develop the technology required to relocate to another planet and so, by definition that technology needs to be developed when there is not the need. Taking global warming as an analogy, we now know that we should have been changing our lifestyles and economic models back at a time when virtually nobody believed that it was a reality. The moon could be used to develop biosphere and other technology which could be used in such a future colonization.
[i] Sanders, Robert, ‘Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived?’, UC Berkeley News Center, 2 March 2011,
|
[
{
"docid": "a7247ffa797e5b36974310c663d5c255",
"text": "science general universe house would colonize moon This is simply wishful thinking on the basis of current technology getting a manned mission to another planet is simply not on the radar – or even close. In the light of this sobering fact there is no reason to go to the moon as some sort of test run for something we’re never going to do. Even if one were to think that it may one day be possible to travel to other planets, surely the sensible thing would be to spend the money developing that technology rather than blowing it on a manned trip to the moon we may well never need.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "03cf9fcc61553576be7fc32c44f362f2",
"text": "science general universe house would colonize moon The idea of a mining community on the moon is even more absurd than that of a scientific one. However valuable the minerals found the cost of extraction would never be covered. Furthermore the quantities required to meet the cost of extraction, let alone make a profit, would have a downward effect on the price of the commodity on earth. The whole exercise would become self-defeating. Equally, although chemicals such as Helium 3 would be useful if thermonuclear fusion was being used to produce energy it is a technology that does not yet exist. [i] Once again it would seem to make sense to invest the money in fusion technology first, then, if it happens, we how where to find Helium 3 – after there’s a practical use for it, not before.\n\n[i] Lasker, John, ‘Race to the Moon for Nuclear Fuel’, Wired, 15 December 2006\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb1facd450b7c5781e9606799f26e65e",
"text": "science general universe house would colonize moon The modern world is vastly different to either of the periods Prop mentions both in terms of our capacity for the retention of existing knowledge and the speed of developing new solutions to old problems.\n\nIn addition to which this is comparing two completely different things the technology required here is to keep people alive for extended periods of time.\n\nEqually the technology required for a colonization would need to be permanent and designed to be used many times, quite different from the disposable, one-time-only technology of the 1960s. As a result knowledge of those earlier missions may well be a disadvantage.\n\nWe still have the ability to launch and fly spaceships and that knowledge is vastly improved on those early attempts.\n\nAs far as the issue of spinoff technology is concerned, if you’re looking to develop products designed for Earth, developing materials and technologies for extra-terrestrial environments is a very odd way to go about it.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1c5c8e2587acac754937a4df58e8eca3",
"text": "science general universe house would colonize moon Whatever the merits of the search for ET, none of this requires a human presence on the moon all of the observational technology required to undertake the research could be controlled from Earth.\n\nIt doesn’t require a human presence on the moon, indeed if the purpose is for scientific research, there seems to be a strong argument for not having a human presence.\n\nA human presence on the dark side of the Moon provides extra complications – and therefore extra costs – to simply keep the scientists alive. It seems likely that anybody based in such a situation would have to spend a large amount of their time and effort simply staying alive and performing monitoring functions that could as easily be provided from Huston.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b08b0192db8f5897f1248e8857ad2642",
"text": "science general universe house would colonize moon Our fascination with discovery and exploration – especially anything to do with space – is one of the enduring aspects of the human condition. There are many areas of scientific development for which there is little popular support as people don’t really see the point, however space exploration is one which retains support [i] .\n\nPolling levels no are at broadly the same level they were in the 1960s, receiving support from about forty per cent of the electorate. However, it’s worth noting that NASA has consistently higher public approvals than other federal agencies. It seems that, unsurprisingly, people aren’t that happy about the government spending any of their money but, if they’re going to do it, NASA gets more votes than the Environmental Protection Agency or the Internal Revenue Service.\n\n[i] Public Opinion Polls and Perceptions of US Human Space Flight, Roger Launius, Space Policy 19 (2003) 163-175\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b5a76b4d13eb65ba3ba9217181318e7a",
"text": "science general universe house would colonize moon There are many worthy projects that could benefit from this funding, however that doesn’t defeat the importance of returning to the moon and developing a base there. There is absolutely nothing in the history of other manned projects into space that suggests that humanity as a whole is poorer, hungrier, sicker or more stupid because we did so.\n\nRather, we received those remarkable pictures of the Earth from space confirming what we look like in a way no map ever could. The various detritus of the mission in terms of solid rocks as well as ephemeral experience to prove that there is a universe out there waiting for us to find it.\n\nA reminder, even in the darkest of times economically, that humanity has an astonishing capacity for exploration – both of the universe around us and within our own minds. Likewise the capacity of scientists and others to inspire us by showing our place in an extraordinary universe is beyond price.\n\nWe left the cave, went over the hill, crossed the Atlantic, circumnavigated the globe, went into space, went to the Moon…\n\nAnd then stopped.\n\nIt’s time to start again.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cb7ee3af0047fec41b3971870063261d",
"text": "science general universe house would colonize moon Clearly there is more than one way to skin a cat and there is research that can be done away from work that cannot be done here. The benefits that could come from a low-gravity, non-atmospheric research facility are not about ‘collecting moon rocks’ there would be benefits in, for example, the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) would benefit greatly from small radio telescopes based away from the distractions and interferences based on Earth [i] . As has been shown by the International Space Station, there is useful medical research that can be conducted in low or zero gravity, notably research based on aging.\n\n[i] \"Why Go Back to the Moon?\" NASA. January 14, 2008\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7cddc5b6bc3c31ad862d58cd3a07ed92",
"text": "science general universe house would colonize moon We are already losing the technology and knowledge necessary for manned extra-terrestrial travel – critically that required to land people, we owe it to future generations to retain it.\n\nIf we compare the dual experience of Columbus and the Chinese Treasure Fleet of the fifteenth century, the Chinese decided not to pursue exploration and the technology of how to build and sail ships was lost until they were themselves colonized by sea-faring nations. Columbus’ voyages, by contrast were followed up with further expeditions, leading to the largest expansion in the history of humanity.\n\nThe technology required to land human beings on the surface of another planetary body is comparable.\n\nAll of those involved in the original moon landing are now elderly it seems sensible to deploy that expertise before it is lost. Recorded knowledge is all well and good but experience is also valuable.\n\nEqually, one of the biggest justifications for NASA’s relatively modest budget – roughly nine billion dollars at the moment – is the trickledown technology from its innovations. Developing technology for survival in hostile alien environments may have applications on Earth such as inhabiting Antarctica or using resources vastly more efficiently\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b7ea4a03bdc0b5156fe1a62ab0e476d",
"text": "science general universe house would colonize moon It would be the first step in colonizing space – the moon is preferential to Earth as a base for investigating life elsewhere in the universe\n\nColonizing the Moon should not be seen as an end goal in and of itself but rather a platform for reaching out further into the universe. The moon makes a better base than Earth for a number of reasons.\n\nAny civilization that is serious about space exploration would probably have to start with the moon. It’s a comparatively simple mission which would allow us to learn the pitfalls and problems while staying within a few days of earth.\n\nThe moon also provides a better base for SETI than Earth as Radio telescopes on the far side of the moon would be shielded from the interference of Earth. Equally the Moon’s slow rotation would allow light-based observatories to undertake experiments lasting for days at a time.\n\nMost experts are agreed that it is statistically unlikely that Earth is the only life-bearing planet, to date we have not been serious investigating this issue despite the enormous implications it has for almost every area of human thought and activity.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cb3ada169060a41bacf4bdd163f831b8",
"text": "science general universe house would colonize moon We already know something about it and so have a clearer idea of what to look for\n\nIn many ways our trips to the moon so far tell us which questions we need to ask, the next stage is to find the answers. It also has the advantage of being close enough to earth that samples and data can be relatively easily sent between the two.\n\nThe moon functions as a sort of attic for the Earth, a repository of rocks than are no longer found on earth. There are also resources, such as lunar glass and Helium3, which could be potentially very valuable if they are there in sufficient quantities, human beings can simply cover more territory than Robots and make assessments like these more easily. If these rare minerals exist in sufficient quantity they could potentially fund the whole project [i] .\n\n[i] \"Why Go Back to the Moon?\" NASA. January 14, 2008\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9299f425929dc2e8de88dd19b3072518",
"text": "science general universe house would colonize moon There’s nothing more to find out, at least nothing that can’t be done with much cheaper unmanned missions\n\nThere are simply no good scientific reasons to send a manned flight to the moon. The desire to do so may have good justification in science fiction but not science fact [i] .\n\nThis research is simply not related to the reality of modern cosmology, it will tell us nothing about how the universe works or, frankly, anything we don’t even know already or could find out through unmanned missions.\n\nThe idea that there is serious research to be done is simply untrue. Cosmology is being conducted at the edge of the universe and the beginning of time. It’s not about collecting moon rocks.\n\n[i] “Brave New World”, Editorial, Nature, 1 February 2007\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "17942ee39c6369a91be118f30064ce34",
"text": "science general universe house would colonize moon It is impossibly expensive and lacks the kind of popular support required to get the 1969 mission of the ground\n\nTo make the kind of funding this project would require available, massive public and political will would be needed. This simply doesn’t exist.\n\nThe Cold War mentality of the ‘60s provided a justification. Having been beaten to get a man into space, there was an imperative for the American people to beat the USSR to the Moon.\n\nNo such justification exists for going the at all now, let alone going back. The only country in the world with both the technical and financial resources to do this, the United States, simply doesn’t have the political stomach to do it.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6aa54404b7677a1e3da5cad7aba7f241",
"text": "science general universe house would colonize moon There are simply better things to be spending money on\n\nWhichever argument you pursue for going to the moon there are better and cheaper ways to achieve those designated goals. Whether it’s scientific, business-related, or as a ‘practice’ for exploration of deep space, there are better ways of spending the money and deploying the scientists, engineers and technicians. To waste not only the money but, more importantly, the time and expertise in the name of extending a national mythology or a political ego-fix is absurd. The cost of a moon landing, let alone an extended colonization, is foolish when there are other projects in all of those fields that are crying out for public funding.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
3eed93a6e19471287cb5f6bb37043041
|
It is unethical to force a ‘volunteer’ to take the chance of being randomised onto the placebo arm of a trial
Under the status quo, someone with a terminal illness is offered two choices: death, or to join a trial (where such trials exist). However, when they join a trial they face the possibility that they will be given a placebo, not the drug.
Whilst this is probably in the best interest of future patients (a good clinical trial will determine the efficacy of the new treatment), it rides roughshod over the rights of the current patients (not to be sacrificed for future generations) and the duty of physicians to act in the best interests of their present patients.
There are two consequences here: the first is that it is morally dubious to use the present patients as mere means to an end, rather than acting in their own best interests, especially where, if randomized to the placebo arm the outcome of death is a certainty.
The second consequence is a practical one: compliance with the trial is lessened at the point at which patients can take alternative measures to increase their chance of survival. This was best documented during the early stages of the AIDS crisis in the 1980s, where there was evidence of ‘cheating’ during the trials1. People lied or bribed their way into clinical studies; and shared drugs to dilute the ‘risk’ of being on placebo.
This has the obvious impact of casting doubt on the scientific results of the trials: you can no longer be sure who has taken what, and what other conditions they may have.
1 Schüklenk, Udo, and Lowry, Christopher, ‘Terminal illness and access to Phase 1 experimental agents, surgeries and devices: reviewing the ethical arguments’, British Medical Bulletin, Vol.89, 2009, pp.7-22, http://bmb.oxfordjournals.org/content/89/1/7.full.pdf?keytype=ref&ijkey=Ip64J5FUXThKvP0
|
[
{
"docid": "2d1793d851cc5a10046ce067cf3f8227",
"text": "ealthcare philosophy ethics science science general house would grant those First, note that the reason for the existence of the placebo arm is to determine if the drug is more effective than placebo, so in some cases the drug will not be, and nothing will have been lost!\n\nSecond, for this point to stand, it has to be shown why the present generation should be prioritised above all future ones: the consequences of giving the present patients a slightly increased chance of survival is to negatively impact patients in the future in a myriad ways (see opposition arguments).\n\nThird, there are a number of reasons to doubt that this is, in fact in the present patient’s best interest: it is not the case that terminally ill people have ‘nothing to lose’ and can therefore be used as human guinea pigs (providing there is an, as yet unspecified, probability of survival). The large-scale provision of un-trialled drugs may well result in side-effects denigrating the quality of the patient’s remaining years.\n\nFinally, the practical consequence considered can be sidestepped through a) better supervision of trials and b) improved doctor-patient relationships (a particular problem during the AIDS crisis). Further, note that the case of AIDS is something of an anomalous one: AIDS patients were more numerous and politicised than any other group before or since, thus enabling this sort of trial-breaking behaviour.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "4b0c66643b7aab12b9639872e787922c",
"text": "ealthcare philosophy ethics science science general house would grant those It is not cruel if it can be shown that this restriction is in the patient’s own interest. The status quo prevents patients from living out their last days on a stream of experimental drugs. We prevent drug companies from using them as risk-free testing (under your policy drug companies would presumably be able to shrug off any responsibility for adverse consequences by saying that it was the patient’s choice to try an experimental drug), and allow them instead to receive the appropriate support for someone at the end of their life, and come to terms with that.\n\nFurther, it is important to remember that drugs at this stage are not necessarily miracle cures! If someone is refused access to a trial this is normally to reduce the risk of adverse consequences: it is wrong to give someone an experimental drug that could negatively impact the quality of their final days.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "30b5197856294239d45ca974c6d45b27",
"text": "ealthcare philosophy ethics science science general house would grant those It is not the case that this is a policy with no harms other than to the person with a terminal illness (see opposition arguments).\n\nSecond, it seems unreasonable to suggest people are making a free and informed choice in this instance: no-one has sufficient information for taking the drug to represent anything but a gamble; this is why there is a need for tests.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ce40aa7117ea21db6408b1a78b7b1c44",
"text": "ealthcare philosophy ethics science science general house would grant those First, this may well be overridden by the individual rights of present patients (see proposition arguments).\n\nSecond, the greater time taken to recruit is one that may be offset by greater numbers: whilst the trial will be of a lower quality (no control group, etc.) there will nevertheless be a greater number of people willing to take the drug (people who wouldn’t have wanted to be part of a trial, but are willing to try the new treatment). Consequently, it may well be possible to compensate for the other problems with the trial. Further, alternative trialling models can be employed, for example using patients who choose not to take the drug as the control group. Whilst you lose the benefit here of having a double-blind trial (as under the status quo), you gain in terms of the benefits to current patients.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fda16ab9c86c0f781c413c12c414d1cc",
"text": "ealthcare philosophy ethics science science general house would grant those Drugs that are still undergoing clinical trials do not have a complete void of information about them. Presumably this policy covers drugs that have completed at least some testing in humans (say, phase one of the trials), and therefore at least some information would be available on which doctors and patients could base their decisions.\n\nFurther, it is implausible to suggest that doctors are entirely under the sway of advertisers: whilst drug reps under the status quo have some influence in getting a doctor to use one drug rather than another, this is in instances where there is little to choose between those products, and (importantly!) both are licensed, safe and effective. They would clearly not be so reckless as to blindly follow a drugs rep and prescribe an untested product to their patient.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "275ff9e654753184d265d915d885ca9b",
"text": "ealthcare philosophy ethics science science general house would grant those There is no reason why, under this model, you could not retain suitable precautions to ensure that this doesn’t happen.\n\nFor example, you could continue the obligation for companies to sell the drug at cost (they would, naturally, continue to be incentivised by the huge profits they expect to make when the drug is licensed). Further, you could impose financial sanctions on companies that refused to take appropriate action towards completing testing.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5e610a690accade9f18f4a1c964d9211",
"text": "ealthcare philosophy ethics science science general house would grant those Doctors are trained in the presentation of news to their patients. This includes the delivery of bad news, and the dispelling of media-myths. Patients with terminal illnesses are often well-informed about their disease, and (in particular those with chronic conditions) often gain a good understanding of the possibilities of future treatments.\n\nThe risk that they may all get carried away on a wave of false hope is, consequently, minimal. Patients in this circumstance are more than capable of reaching, in conjunction with their physician, an informed decision regarding experimental drugs, and make a choice accordingly. The moderate risk of someone making an error in no way outweighs the chance of giving someone some more time with their family.\n\nCountries that already allow access to treatments that have not completed trials do not just allow the doctor to simply proscribe the drug as with any other. Rather the doctor will need to apply for access to the drug.1 In addition the drugs company will also have to give its approval.2 As a result it is unlikely that the patient will consider this the same way as they do normal drugs.\n\n1 ‘Special Access Programme – Drugs’, Health Canada, 15 August 2005, http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/acces/drugs-drogues/sapfs_pasfd_2002-eng.php\n\n2 ‘Compassionate Use of Unapproved Investigational Product’, Pfizer, http://www.pfizer.com/research/research_clinical_trials/compassionate_use_policy.jsp\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "438d0968c740a4e3300a61eb1cdd5691",
"text": "ealthcare philosophy ethics science science general house would grant those It is cruel to deny people the last hope\n\nAt a point when all ordinary medical avenues have been expended, and the outcome appears bleak, new treatments still undergoing trials can be seen as the last hope.\n\nPeople are often aware of the existence of currently experimental drugs, they are likely to research into possible cures, and indeed there may have been attempts by their doctor to get the patient onto the trial.\n\nHowever, not everyone who could benefit from treatment is accepted onto a clinical trial: some trials, at some stages, restrict their recruitment to, for example, patients with no complicating factors or other illnesses.\n\nIt is unethical and cruel to make people live out their last days knowing that there was something that could have helped, but to which access was restricted through no fault of their own: thus, you should allow anyone with a terminal illness access to such treatments.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2ddb4e4c836783b53ee001be05d58c5c",
"text": "ealthcare philosophy ethics science science general house would grant those Freedom of Choice\n\nWe live in a free society, and accept that people have the right to do as they please; including exposing themselves to risk, as long as in so doing they do not harm others (Mill’s harm principle).1\n\nTo deny people the right to choose to take drugs that are still undergoing testing that, whilst they are risky, may save their lives, is a violation of this principle: in choosing to expose themselves to that risk, no-one else is harmed and indeed in the long run others may be saved as a result of the tests. Further, with the assistance of medical professionals and other support, the decision to take this risk can easily be well-informed and consensual.\n\n1 Wilson, Fred, \"John Stuart Mill\", in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2012 Edition), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2012/entries/mill/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e68c53721053e9e50c73e4cc78aacd46",
"text": "ealthcare philosophy ethics science science general house would grant those This gives people false hope\n\nIf these drugs are made available, you risk giving many people false hope in the last days of their lives. People, particularly when in desperate situations, tend to overestimate a treatment’s efficacy.\n\nGiven that these treatments are still undergoing the trial process, it is possible that they are ineffective, or have side-effects that outweigh any benefits.\n\nThus, to allow such drugs and treatments to be handed out during the testing process, there is a great risk of giving people false hope. This is especially the case given the compromised role of the physician in this scenario: ordinarily, if a patient wants an experimental drug, they can have a discussion with their physician that stresses the ‘in trial’ nature of the drug, and thus the uncertainty of it working. Subsequent experiences (the inconveniences of trials; filling in forms and receiving expenses) reinforce the idea that these drugs were experimental, and that the bulk of the benefit from the trial accrues for future patients.\n\nConsequently, in that scenario it is easier for the physician to help the patient to come to terms with the end of life; to deal with this and to realise that any trial drugs give only a slim chance of improvement. In the scenario envisaged by this proposition, experimental drugs can be acquired as easily as licensed ones, and therefore there is no longer that clear distinction for the patient between ‘doing all you can’ in the ordinary sense, (trying every treatment that is known to be effective) and trying ‘one more (experimental) drug’.\n\nTherefore, the patient is less likely to be able to come to terms with their own condition, and therefore less likely to be able to deal with the emotional trauma inflicted not only upon them, but on close family and loved ones.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "38b206afa952bd9afb8a622745dc946c",
"text": "ealthcare philosophy ethics science science general house would grant those This policy enhances the role of drug reps and advertising, at the cost of evidence-based medicine\n\nBy allowing anyone who is critically ill to use experimental drugs you enhance the already dubious role of drug company reps: especially in the USA, (where doctors do not operate under the NHS guidance found in the UK), there is already a problem of patterns of prescription being altered by the techniques of drug reps, rather than by evidence1. Where drugs are for sale before they have completed testing, there is even less evidence available, and therefore less ability for physicians to contest the claims of either reps or their own patients (who may have heard of the drug during their own research). Hence you magnify the problem of potentially ineffective of even harmful prescription.\n\n1 Harris, Gwyn, ‘Pharmaceutical representatives do influence physician behaviour’, Family Practice, Vol.26 2009, pp.169-70, http://fampra.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/3/169.full\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a00cb4567eb584a31e60870c2b5d42ee",
"text": "ealthcare philosophy ethics science science general house would grant those Disastrous impact on medical trials\n\nWe need medical trials. It is important to have large groups of recruits, which can often be very difficult: a problem with the speed at which new treatments for rare diseases is the rate of recruitment (and therefore the length of time taken to complete the trial)1.\n\nIf you pass this motion, trials will face large problems with recruitment, an area where there are already sometimes shortages2: if people can get access to the drug without a) the possibility of being placed in the placebo arm or b) inconveniences of being part of a trial, there is a reduced chance of them choosing to enter the trial.\n\nConsequently, the sample size in trials will be decreased. This will have a couple of outcomes:\n\nFirst trials will take a longer time to be completed as a result of fewer volunteers and this is bad for patients currently taking the new drug as well as for future patients. This is because it will take longer to determine the safety of the drug meaning if it is dangerous those taking the drug will be taking it for longer before the danger is fully appreciated and if safe then the drug will have taken longer to get to the market than it could have. The longer the trials take to complete, the more people are forced to decide whether to take the drug in the absence of reliable information. This means that, at such a stressful time, people are effectively forced to gamble the quality of their remaining years with the hope of gaining a few more (new drugs are unlikely to be ‘miracle cures’. Rather, they are likely to extend life by driving the disease into remission).\n\nIt is important to remember that, at this stage, it has yet to be determined whether new drugs are more effective than old ones, and second, that the sorts of drugs used to treat terminal illnesses tend to come with substantial side effects. As a consequence, if many people are using a new treatment before trialling has been completed, they may be using something that is not effective and has side-effects that significantly impact the quality of the last years of their life.\n\nFinally, the longer trials are delayed, the greater the chance that future trials will be biased by media hype ad speculation. It is both easy and profitable for media outlets to exaggerate early successes of a drug with claims and headlines such as “wonder drug”.\n\nThis is problematic because of the tendency towards confirmation bias on the part of researchers: the greater their expectation of a positive result, the more likely they are to alter data to receive that result. Note that this is not as a result of deliberate fraud or deception, but rather, the result of any number of small decisions that, cumulatively, create a large result.\n\n1 Jenkins, John, ‘Considerations for Clinical Trial Designs’, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/files/Jenkins.pdf\n\n2 ‘Volunteer for research at UNClinicalStudies.org’, University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, http://www.cancer.med.umich.edu/living/clinical-trials.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f26eb1edf04dd9256ccd10e6da876b17",
"text": "ealthcare philosophy ethics science science general house would grant those This reduces the incentive for pharmaceutical companies to complete the testing process\n\nTesting new drugs is a very expensive process, in 2000 the average cost was estimated at around 86 million for the large scale phase III tests1 however this is contested and it could be much higher it represents 40% of pharmaceutical companies R&D expenditures, which since a recent estimated the development cost of a drug can be up to $5.8billion (due to including failures) the cost of trials would in some cases then be $2billion,2 which is currently funded by pharmaceutical companies. They fund these tests because it is either impossible, very difficult or very risky to access large markets before testing has been completed (e.g. in the USA companies are only allowed to sell new drugs “off-study”, i.e. during trials, at cost3)\n\nIf you allow all terminally ill patients access to experimental drugs, you reduce the incentive for companies to continue testing their products: they will have access to a large market prior to the completion of testing, and will therefore have no incentive to complete trials, which are expensive and risk finding the product ineffective.\n\n1 DiMasi, Joseph A. et al., ‘The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs’, Journal of Health Economics, Vol.22, 2003, pp.151-185, p.162 http://moglen.law.columbia.edu/twiki/pub/LawNetSoc/BahradSokhansanjFirstPaper/22JHealthEcon151_drug_development_costs_2003.pdf\n\n2 Roy, Avik S. A., ‘Stifling New Cures: The True Cost of Lengthy Clinical Drug Trials’, Project FDA Report, No. 5, April 2012, http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/fda_05.htm\n\n3 Schüklenk, Udo, and Lowry, Christopher, ‘Terminal illness and access to Phase 1 experimental agents, surgeries and devices: reviewing the ethical arguments’, British Medical Bulletin, Vol.89, 2009, pp.7-22, http://bmb.oxfordjournals.org/content/89/1/7.full.pdf?keytype=ref&ijkey=Ip64J5FUXThKvP0\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
64e10b3e7bf785e775d6f77a0ec8f534
|
As a business, Google shouldn’t interfere with domestic politics
Business is business and politics is politics – and the two shouldn’t mingle. When a company wants to operate in a foreign country, it should respect the government and its regulations. We require the same when a company wants to operate within our territory: suppose a big Chinese company came to our home country and suddenly started criticizing our domestic policies – these are the policies of the sovereign state whose territory it is, and outsiders have no place to tell it how to run itself. [1]
[1] Nicholas Deleon, TechChrunch, ‘China has every right to be upset with Google right now’, March 23, 2010. URL: http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/23/china-has-every-right-to-be-upset-with-google-right-now/ Last consulted: December 22, 2011
|
[
{
"docid": "c947c1ca6621e791652ec34ec4a9ed89",
"text": "censorship ip internet digital freedoms access information house believes google Google’s business is inseparable from basic human rights\n\nThe World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), a UN conference, affirmed that access to information is a basic human right, a corollary to the freedom of opinion and expression as articulated in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. [1] It is a right because access to information is often basic to human life; to how to live in society, to work and to educate ourselves. China ratified the Universal Declaration back in 1948 when it was accepted by the UN’s General Assembly, and was a party to the WSIS 2003 conference. This means that, if China is to be a responsible member of the international community, we can expect them to uphold the principles they publicly declare.\n\nGoogle’s mission is ‘to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful’. Note that this mission happens to coincide with the basic human right of access to information. This is why Google’s choice to interfere with China’s domestic politics isn’t just ‘big business interfering with a state’s sovereign politics’ – it’s a case of a big business whose business model happens to be providing a basic human right the sovereign state should have, by its own accord, provided a long time ago.\n\n[1] World Summit on the Information Society, ‘Declaration of Principles. Building the Information Society: a global challenge in the new Millennium’, December 12, 2003. URL: http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html Last consulted: December 22, 2011\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "2862c07353b91a36e756b3a4e9922711",
"text": "censorship ip internet digital freedoms access information house believes google Google’s revenues wont decline because of this\n\nGoogle as a company is still going strong – in the third quarter of 2011, it managed to exceed analysts’ expectations and posted impressive revenue growth. Most importantly, the figures showed that finally the revenue from its mobile and video advertising platform started to come in. This means that the revenue for Google is now starting to come from all over their business portfolio, instead of coming from the search platform alone. [1] This result shows that Google’s revenues won’t sag a bit because of this choice.\n\nAlso, as argued above, by staying true to its company motto, Google actually strengthens, not weakens, its position with regards to the rest of the world – and possibly eventually in a democratic China.\n\n[1] Financial Times, ‘Google shares soar on higher earnings’, October 13, 2011. URL: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/f5a8a1c6-f5da-11e0-bcc2-00144feab49a.html#axzz1hJ3EofDe\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f91cc2eee7288f67d7656bb5076a7a5",
"text": "censorship ip internet digital freedoms access information house believes google Staying will not help Chinese internet freedom at all\n\nIf google.cn was to be left uncensored, then within a short period, google.cn would lose its license to operate and will be pulled down. Chinese internet users will then have to rely either on Baidu, which provides more or less the same results as Google, or will have to try to break through the blockades of the Great Firewall to reach the Hong Kong-based Google. If Google does censor itself, it will only state ‘some results have not been shown’ – Chinese citizens still won’t know what has been hidden. Unless they then try to access the Hong Kong based Google, but then the Great Firewall will stop them anyway. Either way, Chinese citizens will be blocked from seeing what their government doesn’t want them to see, so what’s the difference? Google might as well stick to its principles and not censor itself.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5501b8eb3b75a0a4f95dae75c374c011",
"text": "censorship ip internet digital freedoms access information house believes google This doesn’t enhance Google’s business proposition at all\n\nGoogle already censors results all across the globe. It has been censoring digital piracy-related content since early 2011, but this hasn’t led to users abandoning Google for another search engine. [1] It has been leaving a backdoor open for the US Government, but this also hasn’t sent either users or employers packing. [2] Why should the small extra step of censoring according to China’s laws do so?\n\n[1] Sara Yin, Pcmag, ‘Google Censors Piracy-Related Terms from Search Tools’, January 27, 2011. URL: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2376750,00.asp\n\n[2] Bruce Schneier, CNN, ‘U.S. enables Chinese hacking of Google’, January 23, 2010. URL http://edition.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/01/23/schneier.google.hacking/index.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b1aab8d3e9d38e286d9d846b5e150a3e",
"text": "censorship ip internet digital freedoms access information house believes google China won’t budge that easily\n\nChina has already faced trade sanctions for its human rights abuses for years, in particular there are bans on arms sales by the European Union that are still in place more than twenty years after the Tiananmen Square massacre that precipitated them. [1] These haven’t helped a bit. [2] Why would a relatively small move like Google stopping its censorship work?\n\nMoreover: true reform in China has to come from within. When it’s forced from the outside, it will not be accepted. If Google stops cooperating with the government, reform-minded Chinese officials will have a harder time, because they will seem to be losing face in the eyes of more hardline officials. [3]\n\n[1] See debate on EU arms sales to china\n\n[2] James Dorn, ‘Improving Human Rights in China’, February 8, 1999. URL: http://www.freetrade.org/node/169\n\n[3] Shaun Rein, ‘Opposing View: Google’s Big Mistake’, March 28, 2010. URL: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2010-03-29-editorial29_ST1_N.htm\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f6dd79df3d145498576bd9013d5428d",
"text": "censorship ip internet digital freedoms access information house believes google Not censoring doesn’t advance human rights in China at all\n\nHuman rights in China are violated on a daily basis. For example, the incidence of people ‘disappearing’ for no apparent reason has been on the rise. [1] These human rights violations won’t suddenly end if Google were to stop censoring its results.\n\nWhat’s more likely to happen, when Google stops censoring results at google.cn, is that Google.cn will get shut down within days – thus, leaving Chinese citizens with no good way at all to access information, since google.com is on the other side of The Great Firewall and Baidu is a Chinese company fully compliant with the government’s wishes. By staying, Google can at least broaden the access to information the Chinese citizens have, something Google itself had acknowledged in 2006 when entering the Chinese mainland. [2]\n\n[1] Human Rights Watch, ‘China: Enforced Disappearances a Growing Threat’, November 9, 2011. URL: http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/11/09/china-enforced-disappearances-growing-threat\n\n[2] Karen Wickre, ‘Testimony: The Internet in China’, February 15, 2006. URL: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/02/testimony-internet-in-china.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "377336940b793b620898ba6df50b9194",
"text": "censorship ip internet digital freedoms access information house believes google Google will help Chinese internet freedom more by staying\n\nAs Google itself argued in 2006 when it first entered the Chinese domestic market; when Google is fully present in China, it can at least do its very best to allow its Chinese users as much access to all the information that Chinese users are allowed to look up. By expanding their access, Google can at least contribute to a broadening of the amount of information Chinese internet users can gather. The alternative is them relying on an even more censored Chinese search engine called Baidu, or having them try to access a heavily blocked, slowed down, restricted and monitored version of Google outside of China, for example google.com or the Hong Kong-based Google.com.hk. Having a locally accessible version of Google that is censored might not be optimal, but it’s better than nothing. [1]\n\n[1] Karen Wickre, ‘Testimony: The Internet in China’, February 15, 2006. URL: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/02/testimony-internet-in-china.html Last consulted: December 22, 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c3f7fe41d0d712d448e0a00d0acbe81b",
"text": "censorship ip internet digital freedoms access information house believes google Google can’t afford to abandon the Chinese market\n\nIn 2010, the search market in China was valued at $1.7 billion and was expected to grow at an average of 50% per year for the coming few years. [1] After the 2010 incident, Google has been losing market share in China rapidly. [2] From a business perspective, Google just can’t afford to miss out on such a business opportunity: not only will it miss entering this market when it is growing, it will also forfeit a comfortable position in the search market from which it can build its other businesses, like gmail and android, the way it does in other countries. [3]\n\n[1] Melanie Lee, ‘Analysis: A year after China retreat, Google plots new growth’, Reuters, January 13, 2011. URL: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/13/us-google-china-idUSTRE70C1X820110113\n\n[2] Reuters, ‘Google search share slips as Baidu gains report’, July 26, 2010, URL: http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/07/26/us-online-search-market-idUSTRE66M3LI20100726\n\n[3] Kyle Baxter, ‘Android isn’t about building a mobile platform’, January 4, 2011. URL: http://tightwind.net/2011/01/android-isnt-about-building-a-mobile-platform/ Last consulted: December 22, 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5809ba2622ecdb75c09d401e64cd28bd",
"text": "censorship ip internet digital freedoms access information house believes google Not censoring helps Google’s business proposition and corporate identity\n\nGoogle’s corporate motto is ‘don’t be evil’. This is partly an issue of corporate identity, and partly a clever business proposition. In both cases, complying with Chinese censorship rules damages Google as a company.\n\nThe key to Google’s dominance in the search market is that users know Google will always deliver the search results most relevant to them. By adhering to censorship laws, users will trust the relevance of Google’s search results less, which hence erodes Google’s business position as users will be more likely to try alternative search engines. [1]\n\n[1] Rebecca Blood, ‘Google's China decision is pragmatic, not idealistic’, January 2010. URL: http://www.rebeccablood.net/archive/2010/01/im_neither_as_impressed_with.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d34bac88f031e4f6bf735c9bb5babb2f",
"text": "censorship ip internet digital freedoms access information house believes google Not censoring puts global pressure on China to change its free speech policies\n\nGoogle’s decision to stop censoring was world news, and has put internet freedom on everyone’s agenda – even so much so, that U.S. Secretary of State mentioned internet companies ganging up to censor the Chinese corner of the internet specifically as a threat to freedom worldwide in a recent speech. [1] This helps to inform ordinary citizens of other countries who may not know about the ‘great firewall’ what the Chinese government is doing. By making a high-profile decision like this, and by engaging and informing the governments and publics of free and democratic countries like this, Google increases the public and political pressure on China to change its ways.\n\n[1] Hillary Clinton, ‘Conference on Internet Freedom’, December 8, 2011. URL: http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2011/12/178511.htm\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4fd863febfa89b98cd2533b499e1134a",
"text": "censorship ip internet digital freedoms access information house believes google Not censoring its search results is a victory for human rights\n\nThe problem with Google censoring its results, is that in doing so, it is complicit in China’s repression of free speech: it adapts its own search engine to display only the results the Chinese government wants, thereby limiting its citizens’ basic human right to free access to information (a corollary to free speech). By avoiding this complicity, Google is taking a bold, praiseworthy step towards enhancing respect for human rights in China and with it, Google can set an important example for other businesses with dealings in China. [1]\n\n[1] Human Rights Watch, ‘China: Google Challenges Censorship’, January 12, 2010. URL: http://www.hrw.org/node/87654\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
2f5a3a3065e68e8244b76e2d83555f11
|
Humanity in many ways defines itself through exploration, and space is the next logical frontier
Human history is one of exploration. Since the earliest days of Homo sapiens, people have striven to look beyond the horizon, to see what is out there. It was this impetus that led humans out of the small corner of Africa where the species was born, to see new places, to find new fertile lands to explore. It was this impetus also that led the first European explorers to traverse the great waters of the Atlantic Ocean in search of new trade routes, braving the very real risks of storm, disease, piracy, and fatal disorientation, as well as the perceived risks of sea serpents and other monsters awaiting unwary travelers. When the surface of the world was finally mapped, people set their sights on exploration of the sea floor, to climb the highest mountains, and finally to reach the stars themselves, all because they were challenges, unknowns to be made known. [1] Mankind’s place is among the stars. Simply perusing pictures of space sent back by unthinking, unfeeling robots would never be enough to satisfy humanity’s curiosity. Governments should not try to slow Man’s progress to the stars but should promote and fund it, for to do otherwise is to end part of what it is to be human.
[1] Dick, Steven. “Why We Explore”. NASA, 2009.
|
[
{
"docid": "0aa0da442af471f398c3d8daaa360327",
"text": "universe house believes manned space flight Curiosity and the will to explore certainly is a fundamental part of the human condition. But the human body has natural limitations that technology cannot overcome. While artifice can go a long way to making places suitable for the frail human form, it can only go so far. Manned space flight is extremely expensive, costing the US government, the primary investor in space technologies tens of billions of dollars every year, yet there remains no clear plan for humans to return to the moon, let alone Mars and the rest of the solar system. [1] Exploration beyond the solar system remains a pipe dream. The laws of physics likewise seem to make the possibility of human exploration beyond the solar system nigh impossible. Other stars are simply too far away for a human to reach. The reality simply is that manned space flight is too costly and will likely never find application beyond Sol.\n\n[1] Kaku, Michio. “The Cost of Space Exploration”, Forbes, 2009.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "18ab9548696bfa2ec7ed65c2243a7574",
"text": "universe house believes manned space flight Humans are more liability than asset when it comes to space travel. While humans can think outside the box more readily than machines, developments in cognitive science and computer design have resulted in ever more competent computers that are gaining more and more the ability to solve problems on their own. Furthermore, humans are physically fragile; in the event of even slight damage to a spacecraft, all humans on board could be killed. They are also susceptible to health risks in the form of radiation damage and muscle and bone loss due to the zero gravity conditions of space. [1] Unmanned ships are far more capable of surviving the dangers of space, and of completing missions successfully.\n\n[1] Ad Hoc Committee on the Solar System Radiation Environment. \"Space Radiation Hazards and the Vision of Space Exploration.\" National Research Council.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4addac596939a549931e171058dc3967",
"text": "universe house believes manned space flight The probability of any cosmic collision or other destructive event is extremely low and not worth thinking about. In any event, manned space flight would not be viable for the purpose of saving humanity from a dying Earth for many years, if ever. Governments and people should focus their attention on developing this planet, rather than worrying too much about finding new ones to inhabit.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f266a26f3c0f63ac25f04057f681c5ef",
"text": "universe house believes manned space flight While unmanned space exploration is not as romantic as manned space flight, it is more functional. Exploring space is extremely expensive and governments have to consider the practicalities of exploration more than the glamour. Scientifically, little is gained by manned flight over unmanned flight. In terms of increasing interest in space flight, it is questionable whether states encouraging interest in space exploration is the best thing at all. They could simply use space exploration, especially exciting manned voyages, as means of distracting public attention from domestic problems. It is better for people to be focused on life on this planet than on the mysteries of space.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b9149e87d97ae9e8c60da2868c8b65a",
"text": "universe house believes manned space flight The paradigm of exploration is essential to the progression of technology. Space is the last great frontier and represents the perfect object on which to construct and maintain this paradigm. The costs of manned space flight are great, but the core human drive to explore can only be satisfied by supporting it. Furthermore, the spin-off benefits of space exploration are numerous. Computers have become more compact and more powerful due to research conducted under the aegis of space exploration. Even things as ubiquitous and central to everyday life as Velcro, Teflon, and ballpoint pens find their origin in space exploration. [1] The dream of exploration should not be killed for the sake of saving money.\n\n[1] Coalition for Space Exploration. “Benefits of Space”. 2010.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "61a9771714acbce9806317e508a7abe4",
"text": "universe house believes manned space flight Certainly there are many concerns on Earth that must be addressed if mankind hopes to survive. Pollution and climate change are real threats that deserve a great deal of attention from all governments around the world, since everyone is affected. This attention, however, does not need to exclude from the agenda the development and propagation of manned space flight. Rather, states can focus on more than one science-based issue at a time. It is rather disingenuous, in fact, to suggest that it is a matter of one or the other. Furthermore, the international unity created by manned space exploration, binding people not as members of separate nations, but as members of the human race, can serve as a means of promoting unified action on issues affecting the whole planet. Space exploration can thus actually help to ameliorate coordination problems between states in their efforts to deal with global issues. Clearly, when people think of themselves as citizens of the world they are more ready to think globally and consider issues affecting other countries. Space exploration is very real means of promoting such thinking.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a88dda7f285da04a8a07792fa8684d2e",
"text": "universe house believes manned space flight While the technology is still in its infancy there is still much lending itself to the value of interstellar travel. The Earth cannot sustain life forever, and the risk of a catastrophic event such as a giant asteroid impact is always real. [1] Developing technology that can sustain humans aboard spacecraft for several generations as well terra-form potential new homes are of the utmost importance to lasting human survival. Many things in the realm of science fiction today can be made reality given the will and resources. It is essential that humanity dedicate itself to the cause of manned space exploration, for the sake of its will to explore, as well as its will to survive.\n\n[1] Gerakines, Perry. “What is the Chance of an Asteroid Hitting Earth and How Do Astronomers Calculate It?”. Scientific American. 2005.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47da7f04a06cf198e340cd898210cc7c",
"text": "universe house believes manned space flight Some activities in space require human dexterity of both mind and body to succeed\n\nSpace exploration and research have resulted many major advances in science and technology. Everything from Velcro to more efficient and powerful computers has come out of the space program. Many of these developments arose due to the focus on the human element of space travel; scientists had to focus on the very real challenge of getting humans into space and back home safely. [1] Furthermore, there are some experiments that can only be conducted in space and that require the dexterity and problem-solving skills of humans. While robots are very good at carrying out pre-designed programs and collecting data, their ability to think critically and engage in problem solving is quite limited. In order to get the most of space travel and exploration, humans must be present to add their critical thinking and physical capacity to missions. For technology to continue to develop through the space program the paradigm of exploration must be maintained. This can only be done through manned space flight.\n\n[1] Coalition for Space Exploration. “Benefits of Space”. 2010.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd804f33e5ea8e4b0b4699f18e47490a",
"text": "universe house believes manned space flight Manned space flight excites the human imagination more than unmanned missions, allowing members of nations everywhere to see themselves as part of the same human race\n\nPeople do not get excited when they see robots launched into space; there is no romance or adventure in a computer attached to a rocket. To enflame people’s imaginations and enthusiasm for space travel, real-life astronauts must be involved. Furthermore, it is harder for people around the world to develop a sense of connection to an unmanned space flight. Manned missions, however, can become ambassadors of all humanity. In no endeavor have scientists from around the world more readily worked together than in the development of the International Space Station and other space-related enterprises. Looking beyond the Earth serves to unite humanity in a way nothing else can. [1] When the Apollo astronauts first transmitted images of the Earth back to the waiting masses, the sight of that tiny blue-white marble suspended in the vast void profoundly changed the way many people viewed themselves. There was for the first time a sense of oneness, of citizenship of this island Earth. In the exploration of space, astronauts are not just citizens of their home countries, but are emissaries of the entire human race. In this way space exploration actually gives mankind a transcendent purpose, promoting peace and understanding among nations that no amount of conventional diplomacy can create.\n\n[1] Van de Hulst, H. “International Space Cooperation”. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 17(5). 1961\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a6d7af324d502d7eae7caf786058305",
"text": "universe house believes manned space flight Manned space flight, and the new worlds it would serve to unlock, are essential to the long-term survival of humanity\n\nThe Earth has suffered a number of catastrophic events in its history. The galaxy is permeated with giant meteors like the one that struck the Earth 16 million years ago, which succeeded in wiping out the dinosaurs and precipitating an ice age. [1] Other cosmic risks exist as well, such as the threat of deadly radioactive waves given off by supernovae that can span the gulfs between stars and scorch planets many light-years away. Likewise, risks closer to home could prove equally destructive. Intense solar flairs from our sun could scorch a whole side of the planet. While all these occurrences are very rare, they remain possibilities, and should any of them ever occur, it could prove the end of humanity, and even life on Earth. In order to guarantee the survival of the human race, manned space flight must be made viable. One day it may prove necessary to leave this cradle of life in pursuit of a new home, and it would be wise to invest in developing the technology to do so rather than to wait until it is too late and only be able to watch as mankind’s doom arrives.\n\n[1] Gerakines, Perry. “What is the Chance of an Asteroid Hitting Earth and How Do Astronomers Calculate It?” 2005.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "34d3fc345119886c553e7ef74d9263cf",
"text": "universe house believes manned space flight Manned space flight is a technological dead end\n\nManned space flight appears to have little practical use. While its supporters talk about traveling to other planets, the technology simply does not exist, nor may ever exist, to send humans to worlds that could be even potentially habitable. It may be possible to send humans to Mars, or the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, but doing so would have little value other than for the sake of planting boots on alien soil. [1] Any research worth conducting on planets within the solar system can be done just as well by robots, at considerably less expense. The laws of physics seem to show that it is impossible for ships to travel at or past the speed of light, meaning any journey to planets beyond the solar system would take centuries at least. It is unlikely, for this reason, that manned space travel will ever be a practically useful endeavor. Research should be put into technology that can actually lead humanity somewhere. There is nowhere for humans to go in space that robots cannot, and nowhere worth the cost of their going.\n\n[1] Leath, Audrey. “Should Mars Be Human Space Flight Objective?”. American Institute of Physics 2003.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0258651624c182bec9644c910628c69e",
"text": "universe house believes manned space flight Manned space exploration is prohibitively expensive while providing limited spin-off benefits:\n\nSpace exploration costs enormous amounts of money. The United States spends tens of billions of dollars every year on its space program, and the Chinese and European space agencies are seeking to catch up technologically. Overall, the amount of money wasted is astronomical. Even if manned space flight were a desirable goal, the cost is far too great. Unmanned space flight offers the same benefits at far less expense, since unmanned vessels weigh less than those needed to carry humans, and do not require the expensive and sophisticated life-support technology necessary to sustain human life in the harsh wilderness of space. [1] Furthermore, the benefits accrued from spin-off technology resulting from space exploration are generally overstated. NASA, for example, had claimed that protein crystals could be grown in zero gravity that could fight cancer, as well as numerous other claims of benefits. Most of these benefits have never materialized. With all the billions of dollars wasted on manned space flight, most of the spin-off technologies could likely have been created independently, given the resources, and probably at lower overall expense.\n\n[1] Kaku, Michio. “The Cost of Space Exploration”. Forbes. 2009.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "de4ab435cccc40834be1dd62adf18515",
"text": "universe house believes manned space flight The focus of states and individuals should be on fixing the problems of this planet, not with exploring other ones\n\nThe Earth is faced with many problems. Global warming, the destruction of ecosystems, rising sea levels, pollution, and resource depletion are all issues weighing heavily on states and the international community as a whole. Individuals and governments need to rally and fight these growing terrestrial problems. The resources poured into manned space travel that will likely serve no lasting purpose would be better spent in combating the hundreds of serious issues facing the planet today. Space exploration serves only as a distraction, keeping people’s minds off the pressing concerns of the Earth. Furthermore, governments can use manned space flight as a means of distraction quite deliberately. It is often easier to devote attention and resources to headline-grabbing endeavors like putting a man on the moon or on Mars than to address concerns like global warming, which requires extensive international coordination to a degree rarely reached in history. Governments may find utility in keeping people focused on such grand projects while doing comparably little to affect change where it is direly needed. Clearly, humanity’s concerns should be focused wholly on the survival of its home world, not on exploring worlds that might not even exist, and almost certainly cannot sustain human life.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
deb885c21db196735d486cee40327b89
|
Manned space exploration is prohibitively expensive while providing limited spin-off benefits:
Space exploration costs enormous amounts of money. The United States spends tens of billions of dollars every year on its space program, and the Chinese and European space agencies are seeking to catch up technologically. Overall, the amount of money wasted is astronomical. Even if manned space flight were a desirable goal, the cost is far too great. Unmanned space flight offers the same benefits at far less expense, since unmanned vessels weigh less than those needed to carry humans, and do not require the expensive and sophisticated life-support technology necessary to sustain human life in the harsh wilderness of space. [1] Furthermore, the benefits accrued from spin-off technology resulting from space exploration are generally overstated. NASA, for example, had claimed that protein crystals could be grown in zero gravity that could fight cancer, as well as numerous other claims of benefits. Most of these benefits have never materialized. With all the billions of dollars wasted on manned space flight, most of the spin-off technologies could likely have been created independently, given the resources, and probably at lower overall expense.
[1] Kaku, Michio. “The Cost of Space Exploration”. Forbes. 2009.
|
[
{
"docid": "9b9149e87d97ae9e8c60da2868c8b65a",
"text": "universe house believes manned space flight The paradigm of exploration is essential to the progression of technology. Space is the last great frontier and represents the perfect object on which to construct and maintain this paradigm. The costs of manned space flight are great, but the core human drive to explore can only be satisfied by supporting it. Furthermore, the spin-off benefits of space exploration are numerous. Computers have become more compact and more powerful due to research conducted under the aegis of space exploration. Even things as ubiquitous and central to everyday life as Velcro, Teflon, and ballpoint pens find their origin in space exploration. [1] The dream of exploration should not be killed for the sake of saving money.\n\n[1] Coalition for Space Exploration. “Benefits of Space”. 2010.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "61a9771714acbce9806317e508a7abe4",
"text": "universe house believes manned space flight Certainly there are many concerns on Earth that must be addressed if mankind hopes to survive. Pollution and climate change are real threats that deserve a great deal of attention from all governments around the world, since everyone is affected. This attention, however, does not need to exclude from the agenda the development and propagation of manned space flight. Rather, states can focus on more than one science-based issue at a time. It is rather disingenuous, in fact, to suggest that it is a matter of one or the other. Furthermore, the international unity created by manned space exploration, binding people not as members of separate nations, but as members of the human race, can serve as a means of promoting unified action on issues affecting the whole planet. Space exploration can thus actually help to ameliorate coordination problems between states in their efforts to deal with global issues. Clearly, when people think of themselves as citizens of the world they are more ready to think globally and consider issues affecting other countries. Space exploration is very real means of promoting such thinking.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a88dda7f285da04a8a07792fa8684d2e",
"text": "universe house believes manned space flight While the technology is still in its infancy there is still much lending itself to the value of interstellar travel. The Earth cannot sustain life forever, and the risk of a catastrophic event such as a giant asteroid impact is always real. [1] Developing technology that can sustain humans aboard spacecraft for several generations as well terra-form potential new homes are of the utmost importance to lasting human survival. Many things in the realm of science fiction today can be made reality given the will and resources. It is essential that humanity dedicate itself to the cause of manned space exploration, for the sake of its will to explore, as well as its will to survive.\n\n[1] Gerakines, Perry. “What is the Chance of an Asteroid Hitting Earth and How Do Astronomers Calculate It?”. Scientific American. 2005.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "18ab9548696bfa2ec7ed65c2243a7574",
"text": "universe house believes manned space flight Humans are more liability than asset when it comes to space travel. While humans can think outside the box more readily than machines, developments in cognitive science and computer design have resulted in ever more competent computers that are gaining more and more the ability to solve problems on their own. Furthermore, humans are physically fragile; in the event of even slight damage to a spacecraft, all humans on board could be killed. They are also susceptible to health risks in the form of radiation damage and muscle and bone loss due to the zero gravity conditions of space. [1] Unmanned ships are far more capable of surviving the dangers of space, and of completing missions successfully.\n\n[1] Ad Hoc Committee on the Solar System Radiation Environment. \"Space Radiation Hazards and the Vision of Space Exploration.\" National Research Council.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4addac596939a549931e171058dc3967",
"text": "universe house believes manned space flight The probability of any cosmic collision or other destructive event is extremely low and not worth thinking about. In any event, manned space flight would not be viable for the purpose of saving humanity from a dying Earth for many years, if ever. Governments and people should focus their attention on developing this planet, rather than worrying too much about finding new ones to inhabit.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f266a26f3c0f63ac25f04057f681c5ef",
"text": "universe house believes manned space flight While unmanned space exploration is not as romantic as manned space flight, it is more functional. Exploring space is extremely expensive and governments have to consider the practicalities of exploration more than the glamour. Scientifically, little is gained by manned flight over unmanned flight. In terms of increasing interest in space flight, it is questionable whether states encouraging interest in space exploration is the best thing at all. They could simply use space exploration, especially exciting manned voyages, as means of distracting public attention from domestic problems. It is better for people to be focused on life on this planet than on the mysteries of space.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0aa0da442af471f398c3d8daaa360327",
"text": "universe house believes manned space flight Curiosity and the will to explore certainly is a fundamental part of the human condition. But the human body has natural limitations that technology cannot overcome. While artifice can go a long way to making places suitable for the frail human form, it can only go so far. Manned space flight is extremely expensive, costing the US government, the primary investor in space technologies tens of billions of dollars every year, yet there remains no clear plan for humans to return to the moon, let alone Mars and the rest of the solar system. [1] Exploration beyond the solar system remains a pipe dream. The laws of physics likewise seem to make the possibility of human exploration beyond the solar system nigh impossible. Other stars are simply too far away for a human to reach. The reality simply is that manned space flight is too costly and will likely never find application beyond Sol.\n\n[1] Kaku, Michio. “The Cost of Space Exploration”, Forbes, 2009.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "34d3fc345119886c553e7ef74d9263cf",
"text": "universe house believes manned space flight Manned space flight is a technological dead end\n\nManned space flight appears to have little practical use. While its supporters talk about traveling to other planets, the technology simply does not exist, nor may ever exist, to send humans to worlds that could be even potentially habitable. It may be possible to send humans to Mars, or the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, but doing so would have little value other than for the sake of planting boots on alien soil. [1] Any research worth conducting on planets within the solar system can be done just as well by robots, at considerably less expense. The laws of physics seem to show that it is impossible for ships to travel at or past the speed of light, meaning any journey to planets beyond the solar system would take centuries at least. It is unlikely, for this reason, that manned space travel will ever be a practically useful endeavor. Research should be put into technology that can actually lead humanity somewhere. There is nowhere for humans to go in space that robots cannot, and nowhere worth the cost of their going.\n\n[1] Leath, Audrey. “Should Mars Be Human Space Flight Objective?”. American Institute of Physics 2003.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "de4ab435cccc40834be1dd62adf18515",
"text": "universe house believes manned space flight The focus of states and individuals should be on fixing the problems of this planet, not with exploring other ones\n\nThe Earth is faced with many problems. Global warming, the destruction of ecosystems, rising sea levels, pollution, and resource depletion are all issues weighing heavily on states and the international community as a whole. Individuals and governments need to rally and fight these growing terrestrial problems. The resources poured into manned space travel that will likely serve no lasting purpose would be better spent in combating the hundreds of serious issues facing the planet today. Space exploration serves only as a distraction, keeping people’s minds off the pressing concerns of the Earth. Furthermore, governments can use manned space flight as a means of distraction quite deliberately. It is often easier to devote attention and resources to headline-grabbing endeavors like putting a man on the moon or on Mars than to address concerns like global warming, which requires extensive international coordination to a degree rarely reached in history. Governments may find utility in keeping people focused on such grand projects while doing comparably little to affect change where it is direly needed. Clearly, humanity’s concerns should be focused wholly on the survival of its home world, not on exploring worlds that might not even exist, and almost certainly cannot sustain human life.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47da7f04a06cf198e340cd898210cc7c",
"text": "universe house believes manned space flight Some activities in space require human dexterity of both mind and body to succeed\n\nSpace exploration and research have resulted many major advances in science and technology. Everything from Velcro to more efficient and powerful computers has come out of the space program. Many of these developments arose due to the focus on the human element of space travel; scientists had to focus on the very real challenge of getting humans into space and back home safely. [1] Furthermore, there are some experiments that can only be conducted in space and that require the dexterity and problem-solving skills of humans. While robots are very good at carrying out pre-designed programs and collecting data, their ability to think critically and engage in problem solving is quite limited. In order to get the most of space travel and exploration, humans must be present to add their critical thinking and physical capacity to missions. For technology to continue to develop through the space program the paradigm of exploration must be maintained. This can only be done through manned space flight.\n\n[1] Coalition for Space Exploration. “Benefits of Space”. 2010.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd804f33e5ea8e4b0b4699f18e47490a",
"text": "universe house believes manned space flight Manned space flight excites the human imagination more than unmanned missions, allowing members of nations everywhere to see themselves as part of the same human race\n\nPeople do not get excited when they see robots launched into space; there is no romance or adventure in a computer attached to a rocket. To enflame people’s imaginations and enthusiasm for space travel, real-life astronauts must be involved. Furthermore, it is harder for people around the world to develop a sense of connection to an unmanned space flight. Manned missions, however, can become ambassadors of all humanity. In no endeavor have scientists from around the world more readily worked together than in the development of the International Space Station and other space-related enterprises. Looking beyond the Earth serves to unite humanity in a way nothing else can. [1] When the Apollo astronauts first transmitted images of the Earth back to the waiting masses, the sight of that tiny blue-white marble suspended in the vast void profoundly changed the way many people viewed themselves. There was for the first time a sense of oneness, of citizenship of this island Earth. In the exploration of space, astronauts are not just citizens of their home countries, but are emissaries of the entire human race. In this way space exploration actually gives mankind a transcendent purpose, promoting peace and understanding among nations that no amount of conventional diplomacy can create.\n\n[1] Van de Hulst, H. “International Space Cooperation”. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 17(5). 1961\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2904eb4f02db3413397bb5097dc009e5",
"text": "universe house believes manned space flight Humanity in many ways defines itself through exploration, and space is the next logical frontier\n\nHuman history is one of exploration. Since the earliest days of Homo sapiens, people have striven to look beyond the horizon, to see what is out there. It was this impetus that led humans out of the small corner of Africa where the species was born, to see new places, to find new fertile lands to explore. It was this impetus also that led the first European explorers to traverse the great waters of the Atlantic Ocean in search of new trade routes, braving the very real risks of storm, disease, piracy, and fatal disorientation, as well as the perceived risks of sea serpents and other monsters awaiting unwary travelers. When the surface of the world was finally mapped, people set their sights on exploration of the sea floor, to climb the highest mountains, and finally to reach the stars themselves, all because they were challenges, unknowns to be made known. [1] Mankind’s place is among the stars. Simply perusing pictures of space sent back by unthinking, unfeeling robots would never be enough to satisfy humanity’s curiosity. Governments should not try to slow Man’s progress to the stars but should promote and fund it, for to do otherwise is to end part of what it is to be human.\n\n[1] Dick, Steven. “Why We Explore”. NASA, 2009.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a6d7af324d502d7eae7caf786058305",
"text": "universe house believes manned space flight Manned space flight, and the new worlds it would serve to unlock, are essential to the long-term survival of humanity\n\nThe Earth has suffered a number of catastrophic events in its history. The galaxy is permeated with giant meteors like the one that struck the Earth 16 million years ago, which succeeded in wiping out the dinosaurs and precipitating an ice age. [1] Other cosmic risks exist as well, such as the threat of deadly radioactive waves given off by supernovae that can span the gulfs between stars and scorch planets many light-years away. Likewise, risks closer to home could prove equally destructive. Intense solar flairs from our sun could scorch a whole side of the planet. While all these occurrences are very rare, they remain possibilities, and should any of them ever occur, it could prove the end of humanity, and even life on Earth. In order to guarantee the survival of the human race, manned space flight must be made viable. One day it may prove necessary to leave this cradle of life in pursuit of a new home, and it would be wise to invest in developing the technology to do so rather than to wait until it is too late and only be able to watch as mankind’s doom arrives.\n\n[1] Gerakines, Perry. “What is the Chance of an Asteroid Hitting Earth and How Do Astronomers Calculate It?” 2005.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
3043a9828f2e8f5b749723c211639f3a
|
The focus of states and individuals should be on fixing the problems of this planet, not with exploring other ones
The Earth is faced with many problems. Global warming, the destruction of ecosystems, rising sea levels, pollution, and resource depletion are all issues weighing heavily on states and the international community as a whole. Individuals and governments need to rally and fight these growing terrestrial problems. The resources poured into manned space travel that will likely serve no lasting purpose would be better spent in combating the hundreds of serious issues facing the planet today. Space exploration serves only as a distraction, keeping people’s minds off the pressing concerns of the Earth. Furthermore, governments can use manned space flight as a means of distraction quite deliberately. It is often easier to devote attention and resources to headline-grabbing endeavors like putting a man on the moon or on Mars than to address concerns like global warming, which requires extensive international coordination to a degree rarely reached in history. Governments may find utility in keeping people focused on such grand projects while doing comparably little to affect change where it is direly needed. Clearly, humanity’s concerns should be focused wholly on the survival of its home world, not on exploring worlds that might not even exist, and almost certainly cannot sustain human life.
|
[
{
"docid": "61a9771714acbce9806317e508a7abe4",
"text": "universe house believes manned space flight Certainly there are many concerns on Earth that must be addressed if mankind hopes to survive. Pollution and climate change are real threats that deserve a great deal of attention from all governments around the world, since everyone is affected. This attention, however, does not need to exclude from the agenda the development and propagation of manned space flight. Rather, states can focus on more than one science-based issue at a time. It is rather disingenuous, in fact, to suggest that it is a matter of one or the other. Furthermore, the international unity created by manned space exploration, binding people not as members of separate nations, but as members of the human race, can serve as a means of promoting unified action on issues affecting the whole planet. Space exploration can thus actually help to ameliorate coordination problems between states in their efforts to deal with global issues. Clearly, when people think of themselves as citizens of the world they are more ready to think globally and consider issues affecting other countries. Space exploration is very real means of promoting such thinking.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "9b9149e87d97ae9e8c60da2868c8b65a",
"text": "universe house believes manned space flight The paradigm of exploration is essential to the progression of technology. Space is the last great frontier and represents the perfect object on which to construct and maintain this paradigm. The costs of manned space flight are great, but the core human drive to explore can only be satisfied by supporting it. Furthermore, the spin-off benefits of space exploration are numerous. Computers have become more compact and more powerful due to research conducted under the aegis of space exploration. Even things as ubiquitous and central to everyday life as Velcro, Teflon, and ballpoint pens find their origin in space exploration. [1] The dream of exploration should not be killed for the sake of saving money.\n\n[1] Coalition for Space Exploration. “Benefits of Space”. 2010.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a88dda7f285da04a8a07792fa8684d2e",
"text": "universe house believes manned space flight While the technology is still in its infancy there is still much lending itself to the value of interstellar travel. The Earth cannot sustain life forever, and the risk of a catastrophic event such as a giant asteroid impact is always real. [1] Developing technology that can sustain humans aboard spacecraft for several generations as well terra-form potential new homes are of the utmost importance to lasting human survival. Many things in the realm of science fiction today can be made reality given the will and resources. It is essential that humanity dedicate itself to the cause of manned space exploration, for the sake of its will to explore, as well as its will to survive.\n\n[1] Gerakines, Perry. “What is the Chance of an Asteroid Hitting Earth and How Do Astronomers Calculate It?”. Scientific American. 2005.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "18ab9548696bfa2ec7ed65c2243a7574",
"text": "universe house believes manned space flight Humans are more liability than asset when it comes to space travel. While humans can think outside the box more readily than machines, developments in cognitive science and computer design have resulted in ever more competent computers that are gaining more and more the ability to solve problems on their own. Furthermore, humans are physically fragile; in the event of even slight damage to a spacecraft, all humans on board could be killed. They are also susceptible to health risks in the form of radiation damage and muscle and bone loss due to the zero gravity conditions of space. [1] Unmanned ships are far more capable of surviving the dangers of space, and of completing missions successfully.\n\n[1] Ad Hoc Committee on the Solar System Radiation Environment. \"Space Radiation Hazards and the Vision of Space Exploration.\" National Research Council.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4addac596939a549931e171058dc3967",
"text": "universe house believes manned space flight The probability of any cosmic collision or other destructive event is extremely low and not worth thinking about. In any event, manned space flight would not be viable for the purpose of saving humanity from a dying Earth for many years, if ever. Governments and people should focus their attention on developing this planet, rather than worrying too much about finding new ones to inhabit.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f266a26f3c0f63ac25f04057f681c5ef",
"text": "universe house believes manned space flight While unmanned space exploration is not as romantic as manned space flight, it is more functional. Exploring space is extremely expensive and governments have to consider the practicalities of exploration more than the glamour. Scientifically, little is gained by manned flight over unmanned flight. In terms of increasing interest in space flight, it is questionable whether states encouraging interest in space exploration is the best thing at all. They could simply use space exploration, especially exciting manned voyages, as means of distracting public attention from domestic problems. It is better for people to be focused on life on this planet than on the mysteries of space.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0aa0da442af471f398c3d8daaa360327",
"text": "universe house believes manned space flight Curiosity and the will to explore certainly is a fundamental part of the human condition. But the human body has natural limitations that technology cannot overcome. While artifice can go a long way to making places suitable for the frail human form, it can only go so far. Manned space flight is extremely expensive, costing the US government, the primary investor in space technologies tens of billions of dollars every year, yet there remains no clear plan for humans to return to the moon, let alone Mars and the rest of the solar system. [1] Exploration beyond the solar system remains a pipe dream. The laws of physics likewise seem to make the possibility of human exploration beyond the solar system nigh impossible. Other stars are simply too far away for a human to reach. The reality simply is that manned space flight is too costly and will likely never find application beyond Sol.\n\n[1] Kaku, Michio. “The Cost of Space Exploration”, Forbes, 2009.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "34d3fc345119886c553e7ef74d9263cf",
"text": "universe house believes manned space flight Manned space flight is a technological dead end\n\nManned space flight appears to have little practical use. While its supporters talk about traveling to other planets, the technology simply does not exist, nor may ever exist, to send humans to worlds that could be even potentially habitable. It may be possible to send humans to Mars, or the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, but doing so would have little value other than for the sake of planting boots on alien soil. [1] Any research worth conducting on planets within the solar system can be done just as well by robots, at considerably less expense. The laws of physics seem to show that it is impossible for ships to travel at or past the speed of light, meaning any journey to planets beyond the solar system would take centuries at least. It is unlikely, for this reason, that manned space travel will ever be a practically useful endeavor. Research should be put into technology that can actually lead humanity somewhere. There is nowhere for humans to go in space that robots cannot, and nowhere worth the cost of their going.\n\n[1] Leath, Audrey. “Should Mars Be Human Space Flight Objective?”. American Institute of Physics 2003.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0258651624c182bec9644c910628c69e",
"text": "universe house believes manned space flight Manned space exploration is prohibitively expensive while providing limited spin-off benefits:\n\nSpace exploration costs enormous amounts of money. The United States spends tens of billions of dollars every year on its space program, and the Chinese and European space agencies are seeking to catch up technologically. Overall, the amount of money wasted is astronomical. Even if manned space flight were a desirable goal, the cost is far too great. Unmanned space flight offers the same benefits at far less expense, since unmanned vessels weigh less than those needed to carry humans, and do not require the expensive and sophisticated life-support technology necessary to sustain human life in the harsh wilderness of space. [1] Furthermore, the benefits accrued from spin-off technology resulting from space exploration are generally overstated. NASA, for example, had claimed that protein crystals could be grown in zero gravity that could fight cancer, as well as numerous other claims of benefits. Most of these benefits have never materialized. With all the billions of dollars wasted on manned space flight, most of the spin-off technologies could likely have been created independently, given the resources, and probably at lower overall expense.\n\n[1] Kaku, Michio. “The Cost of Space Exploration”. Forbes. 2009.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47da7f04a06cf198e340cd898210cc7c",
"text": "universe house believes manned space flight Some activities in space require human dexterity of both mind and body to succeed\n\nSpace exploration and research have resulted many major advances in science and technology. Everything from Velcro to more efficient and powerful computers has come out of the space program. Many of these developments arose due to the focus on the human element of space travel; scientists had to focus on the very real challenge of getting humans into space and back home safely. [1] Furthermore, there are some experiments that can only be conducted in space and that require the dexterity and problem-solving skills of humans. While robots are very good at carrying out pre-designed programs and collecting data, their ability to think critically and engage in problem solving is quite limited. In order to get the most of space travel and exploration, humans must be present to add their critical thinking and physical capacity to missions. For technology to continue to develop through the space program the paradigm of exploration must be maintained. This can only be done through manned space flight.\n\n[1] Coalition for Space Exploration. “Benefits of Space”. 2010.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd804f33e5ea8e4b0b4699f18e47490a",
"text": "universe house believes manned space flight Manned space flight excites the human imagination more than unmanned missions, allowing members of nations everywhere to see themselves as part of the same human race\n\nPeople do not get excited when they see robots launched into space; there is no romance or adventure in a computer attached to a rocket. To enflame people’s imaginations and enthusiasm for space travel, real-life astronauts must be involved. Furthermore, it is harder for people around the world to develop a sense of connection to an unmanned space flight. Manned missions, however, can become ambassadors of all humanity. In no endeavor have scientists from around the world more readily worked together than in the development of the International Space Station and other space-related enterprises. Looking beyond the Earth serves to unite humanity in a way nothing else can. [1] When the Apollo astronauts first transmitted images of the Earth back to the waiting masses, the sight of that tiny blue-white marble suspended in the vast void profoundly changed the way many people viewed themselves. There was for the first time a sense of oneness, of citizenship of this island Earth. In the exploration of space, astronauts are not just citizens of their home countries, but are emissaries of the entire human race. In this way space exploration actually gives mankind a transcendent purpose, promoting peace and understanding among nations that no amount of conventional diplomacy can create.\n\n[1] Van de Hulst, H. “International Space Cooperation”. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 17(5). 1961\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2904eb4f02db3413397bb5097dc009e5",
"text": "universe house believes manned space flight Humanity in many ways defines itself through exploration, and space is the next logical frontier\n\nHuman history is one of exploration. Since the earliest days of Homo sapiens, people have striven to look beyond the horizon, to see what is out there. It was this impetus that led humans out of the small corner of Africa where the species was born, to see new places, to find new fertile lands to explore. It was this impetus also that led the first European explorers to traverse the great waters of the Atlantic Ocean in search of new trade routes, braving the very real risks of storm, disease, piracy, and fatal disorientation, as well as the perceived risks of sea serpents and other monsters awaiting unwary travelers. When the surface of the world was finally mapped, people set their sights on exploration of the sea floor, to climb the highest mountains, and finally to reach the stars themselves, all because they were challenges, unknowns to be made known. [1] Mankind’s place is among the stars. Simply perusing pictures of space sent back by unthinking, unfeeling robots would never be enough to satisfy humanity’s curiosity. Governments should not try to slow Man’s progress to the stars but should promote and fund it, for to do otherwise is to end part of what it is to be human.\n\n[1] Dick, Steven. “Why We Explore”. NASA, 2009.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a6d7af324d502d7eae7caf786058305",
"text": "universe house believes manned space flight Manned space flight, and the new worlds it would serve to unlock, are essential to the long-term survival of humanity\n\nThe Earth has suffered a number of catastrophic events in its history. The galaxy is permeated with giant meteors like the one that struck the Earth 16 million years ago, which succeeded in wiping out the dinosaurs and precipitating an ice age. [1] Other cosmic risks exist as well, such as the threat of deadly radioactive waves given off by supernovae that can span the gulfs between stars and scorch planets many light-years away. Likewise, risks closer to home could prove equally destructive. Intense solar flairs from our sun could scorch a whole side of the planet. While all these occurrences are very rare, they remain possibilities, and should any of them ever occur, it could prove the end of humanity, and even life on Earth. In order to guarantee the survival of the human race, manned space flight must be made viable. One day it may prove necessary to leave this cradle of life in pursuit of a new home, and it would be wise to invest in developing the technology to do so rather than to wait until it is too late and only be able to watch as mankind’s doom arrives.\n\n[1] Gerakines, Perry. “What is the Chance of an Asteroid Hitting Earth and How Do Astronomers Calculate It?” 2005.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
e1c81e938df287a120c568f1a70245bb
|
Space exploration produces many valuable technological innovations that benefit all of human society:
Space exploration and research have resulted in many major advances in science and technology. Everything from Velcro to more efficient and powerful computers has come out of the space program1. The technological advances produced by the space program would not have been possible were it not for the intensity of focus on the paradigm of exploration. That same paradigm has come to permeate scientific enquiry generally, pushing scientists to seek new answers and to develop new technologies. So long as mankind keeps pushing the barriers of its own knowledge, it will never stagnate, and human understanding of the Universe will continue to grow. Should humanity, however, take an insular view of itself and turn back on a history of pushing of boundaries, the paradigm of progress might dissolve as well. 1 Coalition for Space Exploration. 2010. "Benefits of Space
|
[
{
"docid": "c040b4ad3aa42882f2a4f1fb83b892a2",
"text": "evolution universe house would continue funding attempts contact extra The benefits accrued from spin-off technology resulting from space exploration are generally overstated. NASA, for example, had claimed that protein crystals could be grown in zero gravity that could fight cancer, as well as numerous other claims of benefits. Most of these benefits have never materialized. With all the billions of dollars wasted on space exploration and trying to contact extraterrestrials, most of the spin-off technologies could likely have been created independently, given the resources, and probably at lower overall expense. As to the paradigm of exploration, efforts to explore parts of space, as well as our own planet would continue. The paradigm is not shattered by the choice to take a cautious approach toward extraterrestrial life, which is likely a waste of effort anyway.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "62f7e6989a7c7a1f04e8dfde075107df",
"text": "evolution universe house would continue funding attempts contact extra The appreciation for complex life by all reasoning should be universal among intelligent species. It seems intelligent life is a rarity in the Universe, and thus it would be unlikely for any civilization, no matter how advanced beyond our own, not to appreciate the advent of complex life on Earth and the value of humanity, flawed and inferior as it might appear to them1. The time energy necessary to traverse the stars in order to reach Earth would only be worth spending if it were to a peaceful end. War would yield only the resources of this small planet, hardly the spoils worth an interstellar war, however one-sided it might prove. Human civilization, as short as its span has been, has developed far in terms of both physical and social sciences. The wealth of knowledge that might be had from contacting extraterrestrials is too great an opportunity to pass up. 1 Sagan, Carl. 1973. Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence. Cambridge: MIT Press.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e783a645fb66c471e43cbb39eca3008d",
"text": "evolution universe house would continue funding attempts contact extra The search for extraterrestrial life does not solve the problem of the human propensity toward group distinctions. Even if such projects succeeded in fostering a sense of universal humanity, it only does so at the cost of creating a new in group-out group dynamic, namely humans defining themselves against the out group that is extraterrestrial life. Such redefinition of identity could cause serious problems in the extremely unlikely event that humans ever actually do make contact with extraterrestrial life.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe2008f7f898ff0634e9cda6ad2c3bdd",
"text": "evolution universe house would continue funding attempts contact extra Certainly there are many concerns on Earth that must be addressed if mankind hopes to survive. Pollution and climate change are real threats that deserve a great deal of attention from all governments around the world, since everyone is affected. This attention, however, does not need to exclude from the agenda the effort to contact extraterrestrials. Rather, states can focus on more than one science-based issue at a time. It is rather disingenuous, in fact, to suggest that it is a matter of one or the other. Furthermore, the international unity created by mankind's collective search for intelligent life in space, binding people not as members of separate nations, but as members of the human race, can serve as a means of promoting unified action on issues affecting the whole planet. Space exploration and the search for intelligent life among the stars can thus actually help to ameliorate coordination problems between states in their efforts to deal with global issues. Clearly, when people think of themselves as citizens of the world they are more ready to think globally and consider issues affecting other countries. The search for extraterrestrials is a very real means of promoting such thinking.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a768d0fd87185dda9742060cfd43543f",
"text": "evolution universe house would continue funding attempts contact extra It seems unlikely that humans would not be able to survive a great change of circumstance. The human mind is quite resilient, and while the change in how people viewed themselves and the Universe would likely change substantially, it might well be for the better. In fact, discovery of extraterrestrials might help free people from the shackles of dogmatic religious belief, which has caused untold suffering to many through the ages.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aada69dbdc93c712190e087d1177348c",
"text": "evolution universe house would continue funding attempts contact extra The potential for sharing of knowledge, were extraterrestrials to actually be contacted, might well be more limited and difficult than might first seem. The extraterrestrials will have evolved on a different world, perhaps along lines so alien to that of Earth's life that it would be utterly impossible to understand what they would have to say, even if they could be heard. They could simply be too alien. There is no reason to believe that any aliens are going to benevolent they could very well be hostile. (Brin, 2006) We should not therefore be attempting to contact aliens to share technology rather we should be focusing on advancing our own technology. 1 Brin, David. 2006. \"Shouting at the Cosmos\". Lifeboat Foundation.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a62e931d2d5e197259e1e8cb5dc1664",
"text": "evolution universe house would continue funding attempts contact extra There is no need for us to be searching for alien life to be exploring the universe. The dream of contacting aliens seems to be an example of humanity's dreams gone awry. Earth's beamed messages and questing probes have for their efforts received no return signal. Surely if intelligent life were near enough to have received our signals, they would have replied. Alternatively, if they are too far away, there is no physical means by which they could ever reach Earth, due to the constraints of the laws of physics, which deny objects the power of reaching the speed of light. Furthermore, the value of the drive to explore itself should be questioned, since humanity's track record on the subject is far from stellar; the abysmal treatment of the Native Americans by European settlers, for example, shows that the will to explore can come with terrible costs.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "506a1cf20033ceced9084d2e36030a66",
"text": "evolution universe house would continue funding attempts contact extra Just because efforts to contact extraterrestrials to date have proven unsuccessful does not mean they are not out there. In fact, as communications technology develops over time, humans' ability to project messages and to receive them will increase manifold. Extraterrestrial transmissions could well be beaming toward Earth, but humans might simply lack the capacity to receive them. There could be an interplanetary conversation happening right now, and no one would even know (Sagan, 1973). Only by pushing the boundaries of science and of human imagination can such technological improvements arise. The paradigm of exploration must be maintained with the scouring for life amongst the heavens.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e9af890ef525ef67a9c9dfb7c457ea4",
"text": "evolution universe house would continue funding attempts contact extra There is no way to prevent attempts at contact so they should be official.\n\nThere is no way for us to attempt to prevent everyone in the planet from trying to contact aliens so the attempts might as well be done officially. There are more than 6 billion people on Earth, we cannot control their actions or keep an eye on them all. If we had no official messages going out then we would be allowing private individuals to monopolize the message which could have consequences if there ever is contact as a result of these attempts1. At the same time we can't just turn off all our communication signals. We have been broadcasting our radio and television shows, mobile phone conversations etc. for decades, how would we just shut it all off and make sure nothing leaks further out to space? It is therefore better for governments who are at least the representatives of their people to be controlling the message by themselves attempting to contact extraterrestrial life. 1 http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/04/25/how_do_you_say_realpol... \">Drezner, Daniel, 'How do you say \"realpolitik\" in Klingon?' ForeignPolicy.com, 25th April 201\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "58d0d490897b595b119f7e03f9a49364",
"text": "evolution universe house would continue funding attempts contact extra Humanity in many ways defines itself through exploration, and the search for alien life is part of mankind's exploration of the Universe:\n\nHuman history is one of exploration. Since the earliest days of Homo sapiens, people have striven to look beyond the horizon, to see what is out there. It was this impetus that led humans out of the small corner of Africa where the species was born, to see new places, to find new fertile lands to explore. It was this impetus also that led the first European explorers to traverse the great waters of the Atlantic Ocean in search of new trade routes, braving the very real risks of storm, disease, piracy, and fatal disorientation, as well as the perceived risks of sea serpents and other monsters awaiting unwary travelers. When the surface of the world was finally mapped, people set their sights on exploration of the sea floor, to climb the highest mountains, and finally to reach the stars themselves, all because they were challenges, unknowns to be made known1. Mankind's place is among the stars, and what lies beyond the Earth will also fascinate the human imagination. Nothing is so exciting as the pursuit of other life, other beings with whom to share the knowledge of mankind and the wisdom of the cosmos. Governments should not try to slow Man's progress to the stars but should promote and fund it, for to do otherwise is to end part of what it is to be human. Truly, the quest to discover and contact life amongst the stars is a pursuit of truth and understanding. To not pursue such knowledge is to deny truth itself. 1 Dick, Steven. 2009. \"Why We Explore\". NASA. Available Why_We_/Why_We_05.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3760c4ee4595cdc121659debab9b5e4e",
"text": "evolution universe house would continue funding attempts contact extra The knowledge and technology to be gained from interaction with extraterrestrials is potentially limitless:\n\nHumanity has built, in the relatively few millennia since formal writing was invented, compiled a truly gigantic quantity of information and knowledge, to which it is constantly adding, at increasingly rapid rates. To imagine the treasure trove of knowledge and experience that would become available to humanity in the event of contact with intelligent extraterrestrial life of similar, or even greater, technological and social development is almost impossible1. The wisdom that could be gained, especially considering that alien life would likely have evolved along very different lines than humans, could be of a kind that mankind could never have conceived without such contact. This great potential for the gaining of knowledge is reason enough to devote resources to the effort of making contact. 1 Sagan, Carl. 1973. Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence. Cambridge: MIT Press.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5fa11747c7b9f788aa903baa18707be7",
"text": "evolution universe house would continue funding attempts contact extra Contact with an extraterrestrial civilization more advanced than our own could lead to mass existential crises, putting the existence of human civilization at risk:\n\nAlmost every human belief system, religious or secular, is based on an anthropocentric outlook. Humanity is the collective center of its Universe; the cognitively aware being that can interact with physical reality not simply by impulse, but by self-aware, conscious agency. Human belief in itself is based upon its conception of dominion over the physical world. Mankind shapes its own environment; while weaker, slower, and smaller than many other species, the intelligence of Man makes Him the apex predator. Mankind's image of itself is compromised by the existence of other intelligent life, especially more advanced intelligent life. It seems that most religious belief systems could not effectively survive with such knowledge, since the existence of intelligent, advanced extraterrestrials seems to imply the nonexistence of a creator God with any active interest in humanity over any other species1. The realization that we are not the center of the Universe could shake many people to their cores, particularly the religious, many of whom would likely find great difficulty coming to terms with that reality. It would be better that humans not seek out such revelations about the Universe. If intelligent life does exist elsewhere in the Universe, better not to invite it to Earth. The cost to people's beliefs and sense of being is too high. 1 Peters, Ted. 2011. \"The Implications of the Discovery of Extra-Terrestrial Life for Religion\". Philosophical Transactions of the\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cc65b0c286dc0542e7d6303a03bb5cc1",
"text": "evolution universe house would continue funding attempts contact extra The focus of states and individuals should be on fixing the problems of this planet, not with exploring other ones:\n\nThe Earth is faced with many problems that people should be focusing their efforts on addressing, not on the stars and what may or may not be out there. Global warming, the destruction of ecosystems, rising sea levels, pollution, poverty, and resource depletion are all issues weighing heavily on states and the international community as a whole. Individuals and governments need to rally and fight these growing terrestrial problems1. The resources poured into space exploration and the contacting of extraterrestrials, which will likely serve no lasting purpose, would be better spent in combating the hundreds of serious issues facing the planet today. The search for extraterrestrials serves only as a distraction, keeping people's minds off the pressing concerns of the Earth. To make things worse, governments use manned space flight as a means of distraction quite deliberately. It is often easier to devote attention and resources to headline-grabbing endeavors like efforts to contact extraterrestrials than to address concerns like global warming, which requires extensive international coordination to a degree rarely reached in history. As is shown by developing countries like China and India having space programs while helping to block progress on climate talks and while they still have millions in poverty. Governments may find utility in keeping people focused on such grand projects while doing comparably little to affect change where it is direly needed. Clearly, humanity's concerns should be focused wholly on the survival of its home world, not on trying to get in touch with worlds that might not even exist, and almost certainly cannot sustain human life. 1 Carreau, Mark. 2009. \"NASA Urged to Keep Feet On Earth\". The Chronicle.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eaa8d6163d79d6300db080d3fbe33bcf",
"text": "evolution universe house would continue funding attempts contact extra Extraterrestrials might prove unintelligible, or even hostile toward humanity:\n\nWere extraterrestrials to actually be contacted, an unlikely event in itself, the ability to share in any form of meaningful communication might well prove more difficult than might first seem. The extraterrestrials will have evolved on a different world, perhaps along lines so alien to that of Earth's life that it would be utterly impossible to understand what they said, even if they could be heard. Language is built largely on frames of reference, and when an extraterrestrial, evolving on an entirely alien world, perhaps possessing an entirely alien thought process, and certainly having an entirely alien linguistic frame of reference, no level of communication might be possible. With no conceptual similarities or cognitive common ground, the potential for sharing knowledge between species would likely prove impossible to decipher. They could simply be too alien. Furthermore, the hope that technologically advanced extraterrestrials would be friendly towards humanity is entirely unfounded. They might well prove hostile, and if they are more technologically advanced, they could prove an existential threat to the survival of mankind1. This is especially true if the extraterrestrials were actually capable of physically reaching Earth, which would require an understanding of physics and engineering centuries ahead of that of mankind. Welcoming such creatures to Earth could well spell ruin for humanity, as so advanced a civilization might well consider humanity to be of no higher an order of life than we might consider insects. It is far better than humanity not make such a habit of broadcasting its position. It could prove dangerous, especially if the Universe is not as friendly a place as scientists hope.\n\n1 Brin, David. 2006. \"Shouting at the Cosmos\". Lifeboat Foundation.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e2c51c1d2eefc6dc596fd69b863eb445",
"text": "evolution universe house would continue funding attempts contact extra Attempts to contact extraterrestrial life are a waste of time and money:\n\nBillions of dollars have been spent by a number of countries, principally the United States, on great projects seeking to make contact and signal extraterrestrials. None of these has received so much as a peep in reply. The reason for this is likely that intelligent life is an extreme rarity, with humanity its only exemplar in this part of the galaxy1. If there were intelligent life within receiving range of Earth-based transmissions, the extraterrestrials would have had ample opportunity to respond, or at least make their presence known. The fact that they have not suggests that there are no extraterrestrials within contactable range, or at least none with any interest in talking to Earthlings. If there were extraterrestrials on more distant planets, efforts to contact them would be pointless, as they would be so far away that communication would take many years and would be unreachable physically. Furthermore, the search for extraterrestrials violates reason. Money should only be spent on projects after phenomena worth analyzing have been detected. There is no evidence that intelligent lie other than our own exists at all. Trying to contact little green men in space is just a waste of time. 1 Ward, Peter. 2000. Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe. Philadelphia: Springer.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
ab7664707cd9b359d2f77f0a32268b97
|
The scientific community as a whole overwhelmingly rejects Creationism.
95% of all scientists accept evolution, and only a fraction of those that do not accept Creationism. [1] The numbers are even smaller among biologists, the people most qualified to discuss the relative merits of Creationism and evolution, as the study of life and biological processes are their specialty. There is, in fact, greater consensus in biology than in virtually any other discipline. Evolution is often called one of the most thoroughly proven theories, more so even than such things as the observable laws of physics, which break down at the subatomic level. Evolution is a constant, which is why it has survived as a theory for 150 years. [2] The scientific community always fights any effort to institute Creationism in schools through the political process. [3] This is why, when court cases are brought on the issue of teaching Creationism, the panel of scientists is always on the side of evolution. Only a few discredited cranks support Creationism, and they invariably break down under cross-examination when they can offer no positive evidence for their claims. Furthermore, many scientists have religious faith and accept evolution. They simply see no reason to reject observable reality just to serve faith [4] . Creationists try to portray evolution as contrary to religion, which forms one of the main planks of their political campaigns against it, but such claims are fallacious. Science and faith can be compatible, so long as people are willing to accept observable reality as well as belief. The scientific community rejects creationism because it is not true and is not science.
[1] Robinson, B. 1995. “Public Beliefs About Education and Creation”.
[2] Lenski, Richard. 2011. “Evolution: Fact and Theory”. Action Bioscience.
[3] Irons, Peter. 2007. “Disaster in Dover: The Trials (and Tribulations) of Intelligent Design”. University of Montana Law Review 68(1).
[4] Gould, Stephen. 2002. Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. New York: Ballantine Books.
|
[
{
"docid": "c9da3b15e7f7ed0eee508ffd07adb4d9",
"text": "n primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach The scientific community was once convinced the world was flat. It was also once sure that women's brains were smaller than those of men. The scientific community \"knows\" lots of things only to be proved wrong. The scientific elitist establishment is built on the theory of evolution; many prominent academics' careers were made affirming it. Many people have a lot to lose if science changes and evolution is overturned as the prevailing paradigm in biology. That is why there is such resistance to the evidence piling up that contradicts evolution and affirms Creationism. The unwillingness of the scientific community to hear Creationists out in the scientific forums, where the old guard predominate and have all the power, is what has led them to pursue their objectives in the courts and through politics. The only reason Creationism is not accepted in the mainstream is because scientists fear the loss to themselves. Education is most effective when our children are exposed to the entirety of issues, not just parts. To contextualize and offer completeness to their scientific education, they should hear both sides.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "3024ac474c20281e020d36bd6f8305dd",
"text": "n primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach Creationism is a legitimate scientific endeavor. Researchers struck by the apparent design in organisms look for evidence of that design. There is nothing pseudoscientific in that. There are many issues that evolution cannot explain, but which Creationism can (Behe 1996). Evolutionists can say the gaps in their theory will be filled over time, but that is not a scientific proposition either.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e6c5a76876e5843e0826e70f36148d6e",
"text": "n primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach Evolutionists point to all kinds of evidence \"proving\" their case, yet they still fail to offer a practical demonstration of their theory that would prove that all life could have evolved from a common ancestor. That still requires a great deal of faith on the part of the scientists. As to positive proof for Creationism, there are many co-dependent species relationships, as well as irreducibly complex biological structures which evolutionists have consistently been at a loss to explain. Creationism offers the explanation evolution cannot.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb78a61501b705ef3f78119f4cace7d7",
"text": "n primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach Truth is a complex thing. Scientists claim to know what is true and that schools should only teach their truth. But their truth changes with time. Communities can hold, and desire to hold, beliefs with more constancy. States everywhere recognize the value of communities and often give them special rights and exemptions for the sake of those beliefs. The Amish in America, for example do not need to attend education past the primary level, because the communities do not desire it. Communities give structure and lend stability to broader society, so they should be allowed to behave with a degree of leeway in terms of issues like education. Creationism is a truth for those who adhere to it and see that evidence fits that paradigm more than does evolution. Until irrefutable proof of evolution is given, as the scientific community has yet to do, both paradigms are equally valid and should be available to students in the classroom.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ae056add2957af9eae8ecbb116e1cea",
"text": "n primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach Of course scientific opinion changes over time. It does so because the process of scientific enquiry requires the search for new data. Theories are not rigidly adhered to, but are rather accepted when there is evidence for them. When evidence mounts against a theory it is rejected. The examples cited show this very well. The idea that the world was flat was proposed as a theory without proof but by the end of the classical world Pliny was able to say \"Every one agrees that it has the most perfect figure. We always speak of the ball of the earth, and we admit it to be a globe bounded by the poles.\" [1] as scholars had provided evidence of the earth being spherical. This process of change can harm some scientists' careers, but it can also make others. There is no monolithic scientific establishment setting policy, denying younger researchers from exploring new hypotheses and avenues of inquiry. It is clear from this that Creationism is not a science, because it does not change in light of new evidence, but rather dogmatically adheres to its claims in spite of evidence. Science adapts to new information. Creationism is stagnant and intellectual barren.\n\n[1] Pliny the Elder, The Natural History, John Bostock ed., Taylor and Francis 1855.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d2f715f849dc31b15c02719150f3c9c",
"text": "n primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach Schools should teach what is true. Evolution is one of the most robust theories in contemporary science; it is not the place of communities to propagate lies, even if they are more in keeping with their religious beliefs. Indoctrinating children and denying them access to real science, which happens even if Creationism and evolution are given \"equal time\", is to fundamentally compromise the value of education [1] . It is an inculcation of false belief to suit a communal goal of maintaining a set of beliefs that may not stand up to scientific scrutiny. The Creationists cannot win in the scientific arena because they are not scientists so they have decided to try to subvert the political system. Their goal is to undermine science and reason, and they must be stopped.\n\n[1] Rooney, Brian and Melia Patria. 2008. “Because the Bible Tells Me So?”. ABC News.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dba67a6f2f3f9573c75e5cd38d406ec7",
"text": "n primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach Creationism is not science. It makes no predictions that can be tested in the laboratory or field. Adherents of Creationism do not accept it because of evidence, but rather they shape disparate facts to fit their beliefs. That is the opposite of scientific enquiry; Creationism begins with a conclusion and works backward. Furthermore, all evidence does indeed point to a natural origin of life and its diversity. Experiments are getting consistently closer to creating new life, and there are no evident bounds to evolution. The arguments of Creationism are based on gaps in knowledge; rather than trying to find real answers through scientific enquiry, they fill them with \"the designer did it\". Such answers are the refuge of the ignorant.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "01626f0d5e26f1ecb4e3b44054129c34",
"text": "n primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach There is no design in biology. People tend to anthropomorphize their environment, trying to assign human-like qualities to animals and nature. All of the complexity of life on Earth can be attributed to natural processes; life, diversity, and complexity are all the product of physical and chemical interactions and biological processes. There is no mystery in the basic process. Also, complexity is not at all indicative of design. In fact, evolution has been observed to occur from simple single-celled organisms into multi-cellular organisms under laboratory conditions. That degree of evolution completely refutes any claims about complexity requiring design. Furthermore, there are no irreducibly complex organisms. Every example offered by theists of irreducible complexity has been found inaccurate. The bacterial flagellum, for example, when several key components are removed loses its functionality as a motor, but becomes a form of secretory system that has a separate function. [1] Clearly, complexity is not indicative of a creator.\n\n[1] Miller, Kenneth. 2004. “The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of ‘Irreducible Complexity’” in Ruse, Michael and William Dembski (ed.). Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e886356620e30bf7ab6b806996ab755",
"text": "n primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach There is no controversy. It is not even a matter of most scientists agreeing with evolution, but virtually all of them. This is demonstrated very clearly in the scientific literature, as thousands of papers are submitted for peer review every year on the topic of evolution, all bolstering and upholding the theory. On the other hand, on average zero are submitted supporting Creationism, because such papers would not meet the necessary criteria of being scientific research at all. [1] Some papers at best question evolution, but attacks on one theory are not supports of another. Furthermore, the reason there are public debates and court cases is that Creationists seek to capitalize on the relative scientific illiteracy of the general public, knowing they can only win by spreading disinformation, rather than facing off against real scientists in the academic realm.\n\n[1] Kuhn, Thomas. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f8838e099373c2064dea0d6b2173351",
"text": "n primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach Education should be about truth and facts, not dogma and faith.\n\nScientific enquiry is, at its core, a search for truth [1] . It is about shining light in dark places. Dogmatic adherence to beliefs in spite of evidence, and even trying to cover up facts that contradict those beliefs is academically dishonest and intellectually facile. Evolution is proven fact, a theory so sound that it is the cornerstone of all biology. Nothing in biology makes any sense unless considered in the context of evolution. Schools should teach this fact, not the pseudoscience of religious demagogues. It is a fundamental attack on children's rights to subject them to false information for the sake of upholding outdated and disproved beliefs. It is a right of all people to have a valuable education, because good education is required to be able to take part in the democratic process, to be able to make informed decisions. That right is compromised when the educational system gives them a worthless education in untruths, like Creationism, because informed decisions must be based on fact, and must be objective the way science is, rather than loaded with religious undertones, that skew ones view of the facts. The value of education is only as good as its applicability, either directly or through its fostering of critical thinking. So, when the political process is used to circumvent the curriculum set by teachers and experts, who actually know the subjects they are talking about, and replacing them with the curriculum set by a scientifically illiterate political body, the children suffer as the quality of their education decreases.\n\n[1] Pauling, Linus. 1983. No More War! New York: Dodd Mead.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f15944ccc77bc4b86cc5ead1c3b3206c",
"text": "n primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach Creationism is a religious, not a scientific, explanation of reality.\n\nCreationism is, by definition, not science. It is not based in any empirical evidence. Rather, Creationists start with a presupposed answer and work back from it. They assume there is a designer, so they look for holes in evolutionary theory and claim only a designer can explain the gaps. When new evidence arises that gives a natural explanation of the phenomenon in question, the Creationists backpedal and start looking for new holes. No amount of evidence could convince a Creationist because his belief is not based on evidence, but rather on a usually religion-driven opposition to evolution on a political and belief level. A science proves itself through experimentation and submitting research for peer review. Creationism fears scrutiny by real scientists. Instead supporters of creationism attempt to further its agenda through politics and courts, where science is not the main goal, but popularity and where expertise is not in science but in law (Dawkins, 2006). Creationism couches itself in the language of science and does its best to look respectable in the eyes of the public. For example, in rebranding as Intelligent Design, Creationists sought to appear less overtly religious. These attempts show the illegitimacy of Creationism. The pseudoscience of Creationism must, for the sake of education, be kept out of the classroom.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e8e1e89fbb5b0ad25b970756d8f86d8f",
"text": "n primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach There is no empirical evidence supporting Creationism, whereas all evidence supports abiogenesis and evolution.\n\nCreationists have never once offered a positive evidence for their claims. When challenged, they respond with vitriolic, and often deliberately false, criticisms of evolution and abiogenesis. They behave as if delegitimizing an alternative theory necessarily gives credence to their own. Unfortunately for Creationism, that is not how science works. Positive claims require positive evidence. Even if the Creationists were able to provide evidence that actually refutes evolution it would do nothing to support a theory that intelligent agency is behind the existence and development of life. For Creationism to be true, there would need to be demonstration of living organisms that are unambiguously designed, and not the product of evolution by means of mutation and natural selection. Proponents of Creationism have consistently failed to do so. When they point to things they claim to be irreducibly complex they are invariably forced to back off as soon as scientists appear on the scene to test their claims. [1] The truth is there are no examples of organisms that could not have evolved. Abiogensis and evolution, on the other hand are thoroughly proven by observation and data. [2] In the case of abiogenesis, self-assembling molecules have been observed that are akin to the first proto-life, and hopes have never been higher that they will be able to observe the development under laboratory conditions of fully-formed new life. Evolution likewise is extensively demonstrated. Speciation, phylogenetic mapping, a more and more complete fossil record, structural atavisms, junk DNA, and embryology provide just some of the proofs of evolution. [3] All of these disciples are in agreement with evolution. In fact, only in light of evolution does anything in biology make any sense at all. Clearly, Creationism has no basis in science and thus no place in the classroom.\n\n[1] Miller, Kenneth. 2004. “The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of ‘Irreducible Complexity’” in Ruse, Michael and William Dembski (ed.). Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.\n\n[2] Lenski, Richard. 2011. “Evolution: Fact and Theory”. Action Bioscience.\n\n[3] Colby, Chris. 1997. “Evidence for Evolution: An Eclectic Survey”. TalkOrigins Archive.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9f9ae2d7bb6c8183645d1dda08bedfe7",
"text": "n primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach Scientific opinion often changes; evolution may be accepted in the scientific community now, but it could well be rejected in future.\n\nThe opinion of the scientific community with regard to facts and theories has a great propensity to change with time. Once scientists adamantly maintained that the Earth was flat. For centuries it also maintained that there were two kinds of blood flowing through the human body. Science is not infallible and the prevailing theory is no more than the opinion currently in vogue among scholars. In light of new evidence, theories can change over time, giving way to better explanations [1] . For this reason, the evolutionists' dogmatic adherence to their position in spite of contrary evidence provided by Creationists is hard to understand. However, it becomes clear why the scientific establishment takes such a confrontational position toward Creationism when one considers that many eminent scientists and researchers have built their careers within the paradigm of evolution, and their research often depends wholly on its acceptance. These scientists would lose their exalted position in the light of a paradigm-shift in scientific understanding away from evolution. It is for this reason that scientists who adhere to established norms so often fight things like Creationism, even though they provide explanations where evolution cannot. For science to progress, these conservative impulses must be fought against, which is why it is essential that when science is taught, so are all the prevailing theories concerning branches of the sciences, including Creationism.\n\n[1] Understanding Science. 2011. “Science Aims to Explain and Understand”. University of California Berkeley.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "907c74f9318c44362883bbed427e1cee",
"text": "n primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach Communities should have a say in what is taught in schools, and many communities want to teach creationism.\n\nSociety is made up of communities with their own views on politics, religion, education, etc. School boards should be able to set curriculum based on the desires of the public, not just on what the scientific elites command to be taught. Children deserve to hear that their beliefs and those of their community are respected in the classroom. This is why Creationism, a belief held to varying extents in many countries, should be taught in the classroom. This is particularly true in the United States, where in several states the majority of people does not accept evolution, but have instead adopted Creationism, considering the evidence for the latter to be more convincing. [1] In a poll in 2009 a majority (57%) said that creationism should be taught in schools either without evolution or alongside it. [2] The teaching of Creationism should not be taught exclusively, but should share time with other prevailing theories, particularly those of evolution and abiogenesis. Furthermore, evolution taught exclusively threatens religious belief, telling children they are no more than animals and lack the spark of grace given by God. It is important for social stability that schools are allowed to teach what communities believe to be true.\n\n[1] Goodstein, Laurie. 2005. “Teaching of Creationism is Endorsed in New Survey”. New York Times.\n\n[2] HarrisInteractive. 2009. “No Consensus, and Much Confusion, on Evolution and the Origin of Species.” BBC World News America/The Harris Poll, 18th February, 2009.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a8f97ffb60638fe3131266f35d59a5a4",
"text": "n primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach Much of the complexity of life cannot be explained by evolution, but is perfectly explained by Creationism.\n\nNature is marked by clear design. The complexity of the human body, of ecosystems, and even of bacteria, attests to the existence of creative agency. It is impossible that such things as, for example, interdependent species could come to exist without the guidance of a designer. Likewise, certain organisms can be shown to be irreducibly complex, meaning that if one were to remove any part of it, it would lose all functionality. This refutes the gradualist argument of evolution, since there is no selective pressure on the organism to change when it is functionless. For example, the bacterial flagellum, the \"motor\" that powers bacterial cells, loses all functionality if a single component is removed. [1] Besides design, the only explanation of its development is blind chance, which is nonsensical. Creationism serves to explain the various mysteries of biology currently absent from the evolutionary biologists' picture of the world. The existence of complexity of the order found in the natural world is too great to envisage an origin other than complex design.\n\n[1] Behe, Michael. 1996. Darwin’s Black Box. Glencoe: Free Press.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1cb95d94cba9525c7535cd1857a45e8a",
"text": "n primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach There is a very real controversy regarding the origin and development of life, and children deserve to hear both sides.\n\nMany scientists do not accept the conclusions of the evolutionists. People like Dr. Michael Behe have dedicated themselves to exposing the flaws in evolution and showing that there is very real disagreement within the scientific community. This controversy is highlighted in the many court cases, books, and televised debates occurring in countries all over the world [1] . Children deserve to hear about the controversy, and not to simply be fed one story set for them by the prevailing majority in the scientific community, even if that community cannot claim anything near consensus. Until consensus is reached and indisputable proof of one theory or the other given, both sides should be taught in schools.\n\n[1] Linder, Doug, 2011. “The Evolution Controversy”. University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cfb4384ce738742ac50c338bf438ab5a",
"text": "n primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach Creationism is as valid a scientific theory as those of evolution and abiogenesis, and should therefore be given equal time in the classroom.\n\nCreationism can be drawn as an entirely reasonable scientific hypothesis, and it forms a coherent theory of the origin and development of life that opposes the naturalist theories of abiogenesis and evolution. Abiogenesis describes the development of life from nonliving materials and evolution seeks to explain the development and diversity of life through a gradual process of mutation and natural selection, yet no one has ever demonstrated either process sufficiently in the laboratory. In the case of abiogenesis, all experiments to create an environment similar to the supposed prebiotic soup whence life first sprang have resulted in no new life forming. In the case of evolution, evolutionists consistently fail to show the development of new kinds of organisms [1] . While there is no doubt that some change occurs within species, such as the breeding of wolves into dogs, it appears to happen only within certain limited bounds. Certainly no experiment or study has shown evolution to be capable of explaining such huge diversity in the world of living things. Creationism, on the other hand, offers the explanation that abiogenesis and evolution cannot. The diversity of life and its origin are rationally explicable as the product of intelligent agency. This is not a statement of religious belief, but of scientific observation. Describing the nature of the designer, however, is another question all together, one that need not be answered in order to accept that there is such a designer.\n\n[1] Wells, Jonathan. 2009. “Why Darwinism is False”. Discovery Institute.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
9a0a3f4ee54b9cd473e8bc5f3039d929
|
ISPs are better placed than governments to make decisions on when and who to block
As the access providers for the internet ISPs are best placed to implement policies for blocking extremist sites and so are the natural option for deciding when and which sites to block. Furthermore, because the state is often slow due its extensive bureaucracy, it is less able to respond with alacrity to extremist sites popping up online. ISPs on the other hand are likely to be able to act as soon as they are informed of the existence of a website whereas working through government would simply add an extra layer of requests and orders. The ISPs blocking the site also creates a fire break between the state and the action so not giving the extremists the ammunition that state intervention might give them. Essentially, the good result of eliminating these sites from public access is accomplished faster, more effectively, and with lesser backlash than if any other agent did the blocking.
|
[
{
"docid": "2352b812dc6c8d7606351388e71c244c",
"text": "censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression house would allow Putting the power to censor the internet, no matter how stringent or specific the guidelines, into the hands of a private organization is misguided. It is the state not individual ISPs who are needed to assess how dangerous a site is, whether it is actually promoting extremism, and ultimately make a decision as to whether a site needs to be blocked. The ISPs may end up being the actors that implement the policy but it has to be government that decides which websites to block and why. This also means that the decision would be much more centralised. Leaving this decision to the discretion of individual ISPs will mean that some websites will be blocked on some ISPs and not on others. Only government can ensure that there is consistency.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e03264c65163a7ce0b3e088b1dcb150a",
"text": "censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression house would allow While ISPs are private firms, they perform a public service. They have a special duty in society as providers of information not to bias that information through private censorship policies. When they embark on any form of site-blocking, ISPs cease to be doing their job. Governments should maintain that ISPs act as neutral gatekeepers of information and not take up the role of ad hoc censor. Moreover this would be different from filtering adult content as that is a service that is provided if the subscriber wishes it, if this was the case with extremist content then such a block would be useless as those interested in extremist content would just opt for packages that do not restrict access.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dbebd66ecececaa6a1fed6e8eeeb9e33",
"text": "censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression house would allow Extremist groups will always find ways to organize direct actions, be it via in-person meetings, furtive use of social networking tools, or even by using untraceable black sites online that ISPs cannot block because they cannot see them. The result of blocking these views from the public internet only serves to push the extremists further underground.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d57c5643344c82d1124fd3d0cbf856e4",
"text": "censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression house would allow While it is true that extremists seek to undermine and bend the systems of discourse to be as favorable as possible, they are a tiny fringe minority of opinion, and the number of sites challenging their skewed narrative is far more numerous. Even young people are able to surf the web with great skill, and can easily see that the extremist view is fringe in the extreme. There is also little evidence that preventing access to some sites would make it more difficult for extremists, when large numbers of jihadi websites went offline in 2012 discussion simply moved elsewhere and leaders emphasized recruiting more people offline. [1]\n\n[1] Zelin, A. et al. “The State of Global Jihad Online”. New America Foundation. January 2013. http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/uploads/Documents/opeds /Zelin20130201-NewAmericaFoundation.pdf Pp.10, 15\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "88d8ce03cebf620c8ec01436d9877363",
"text": "censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression house would allow Denying extremists their right to speak threatens everyone’s freedom of speech. It is essential in a free society that people should be able to freely express their views without fear of reprisal, however extreme or unsavory their views are. If you value free speech you must be willing to defend that right for everyone, even for those you find repugnant.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a23d875c69c57b9833f806904d89b7a1",
"text": "censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression house would allow Freedom of speech is important, but must be curtailed when people are threatened. Extremists are a very real threat because their messages and actions galvanize people to take violent, disruptive actions against the state and its citizens. ISPs have a right, and even a responsibility to block extremist websites if it is written into the contract when a user purchases the service. When people opt into an ISP they accept the parameters of the service, so their freedom is not being limited by the blocking of extremist content as they have already accepted that extremist websites are not a part of the access package they bought.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "310b49d26fb3308ff9dad3089f95a04e",
"text": "censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression house would allow Forcing extremists underground can only serve the cause of justice. With them out of the spotlight they are less likely to drag in new recruits among casual, open-minded internet-goers. Underground they are less visible, less legitimate-seeming, and less likely to be able to build an organization capable of violent action.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d7c1d953384ba5a15847cbc621ba9f2d",
"text": "censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression house would allow The ISPs would not be defining the parameters of what constitutes extremism; they would simply be interpreting the parameters that are given to them by government. They do not need to gauge the extent of the harm from a site simply determine whether it falls within the kind of site they are to be blocking. There would be no expectation that the ISPs would need to work out complex cost-benefit analyses. ISPs, as the purveyors of the internet are perfectly capable of policing their own service, and are well-placed to do so because they manage the software that feeds the internet service. Furthermore, as private agents providing a service, they retain the right to alter the extent of that service if they see fit to do so.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "50052fb565bcd09ebc8bc64e76d800d9",
"text": "censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression house would allow Taking a neutral stance is a tacit endorsement of the validity of the message being spread as being worthy of discussion. Extremism does not deserve its day in court, even if the outcome were a thumping victory for reason and moderation. Besides, the nature of extremists is that they are not amenable to being convinced by reason or argument. Their beliefs are impervious to facts, and that is why debate is a pointless exercise except to give them a platform by which to spread their message, organize, and validate themselves to a wider audience.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1674001bc466537b6ef69926257b9d5",
"text": "censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression house would allow While some people might be enticed by the mystique of extremism as transgressors, far more people will be put off by the positive statement of denying them their favored platform from which to speak. There will always be extremists, but their views must always be challenged and their influence curtailed wherever it is found\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eaf0c1dda5ba8ed780504a1f19b91bb2",
"text": "censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression house would allow ISPs are private service providers and should thus be able to have some filters on the most extreme spectrums of extremism\n\nISPs are ultimately private providers of a service. Because of this they should retain the right to restrict that service to certain groups. So long as ISPs make public their policy for what constitutes extremism so that consumers can decide if they want to opt into it, there is no real issue. There are many filters available to users to screen out certain materials already, for example internet providers offer customers the option to block adult content, [1] and this is merely an extension of this approach. Businesses must be able to sort their own ethos. Some ISPs may not opt to use this power given to them by the state, but others may not wish to carry content they consider dangerous. Because extremism is on the very fringe of speech and opinion, and because of the potential dangers that can arise from it, it is only right that the state give some ability to ISPs to block objectionable content.\n\n[1] BBC News, “Internet providers offer parents bar on porn” 11 October 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15252128\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1812220674e4dc2f7390a8ed300e38ff",
"text": "censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression house would allow It makes it more difficult for extremists to organize and spread their message when blocked\n\nThe ISPs are the gatekeepers of information. When the internet places no moral judgments on content and the ISPs let all information through without commentary, it lends an air of permissiveness to the beliefs put forward, that they are held by reasonable people. The internet is a great tool for education, but also one that can be used to sow misinformation and extreme rhetoric. Extremist groups have been able to use the internet to a remarkable extent in promoting their beliefs and recruiting new members. Worse still, the administrators of these extremist sites are able to choke of things like dissenting commenters, giving the illusion that their view is difficult, or even impossible to reasonably challenge. In doing so they create an echo chamber for their ideas that allows them to spread and to affect people, particularly young people susceptible to such manipulation. The best example of this activity is in the international jihadist community and its reaching out to people in the West. Young disaffected Muslims have received an introduction to militant Islamism from sites often based abroad, but also some domestically, increasing the number of believers in an extreme, militant form of that religion. [1] By denying these people a platform on the internet, ISPs are able to not only make a moral stance that is unequivocal, but also to choke off access to new members who can be saved by never seeing the negative messages.\n\n[1] Kaplan, E. “Terrorists and the Internet”. Council on Foreign Relations. 8 January 2009. http://www.cfr.org/terrorism-and-technology/terrorists-internet/p10005\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "48c752e1171af326d40cb0cf095ac131",
"text": "censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression house would allow The freedom of speech can be curtailed when it represents a serious threat to society\n\nFreedom of speech certainly may be curtailed when real harms can be shown to arise from it. Extremist sites serve as centers of dangerous dissent, whose members threaten all of society. They promote a message that is fundamentally bad speech, because it cannot it cannot be argued with and promotes aims that are so anathema to free society that its dissemination represents a true threat to people’s safety. The threat extremists represent to free society demands that their right to speech online be curtailed. [1] By blocking these sites, ISPs certainly are denying some freedom of speech, but it is a necessarily harmful form of speech that has no value in the global commons. Thus, there is essentially no real loss of valuable speech in censoring extremist websites.\n\n[1] Kaplan, E. “Terrorists and the Internet”. Council on Foreign Relations. 8 January 2009. http://www.cfr.org/terrorism-and-technology/terrorists-internet/p10005\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "679755945b88f4a2519d17bba197a37c",
"text": "censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression house would allow Blocking these sites makes it more difficult for extremist groups to coordinate extremist action in the real world\n\nThe greatest fear people have about extremist groups is not their rhetoric, but the actions the rhetoric precipitates. Extremists have proven adept at setting up basic websites through which to build communities to organize and coordinate extreme actions. This means in the most limited form the coordinating of extremist demonstrations and rallies, but also violent and terrorist actions. The best example of this is As-Sahab, al-Qaeda’s media arm, which has used an extensive web presence to galvanize supporters and to coordinate terrorist attacks. [1] In using the tools of the mass media extremists have succeeded in bringing supporters to their cause, people who are often geographically diffuse, into a close community capable of action and disruption that harms all citizens. If blocking these websites entirely ISPs would pose a significant barrier to these extremist groups organising. Even more damaging to these networks in the long terms would be the drop in recruitment due to a reduction in their reach. ISPs can significantly hamper these organizations from ever embarking on serious violent actions, and from coalescing in the first place by denying them their most effective springboard. The most important effect is in the prevention of radicalization in the first place. Preventing, or at least hampering access to extremist materials serves to keep impressionable, swayable people from experiences that might turn them to extremism. [2]\n\n[1] Kaplan, E. “Terrorists and the Internet”. Council on Foreign Relations. 8 January 2009. http://www.cfr.org/terrorism-and-technology/terrorists-internet/p10005\n\n[2] Silber, M. and Bhatt, A., “Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat” The New York City Police Department, 2007. http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/files/NYPD_Report-Radicalization_in_the_West.pdf p.83\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "83bab6bae02c242373b60a9296945f1d",
"text": "censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression house would allow Censorship provides a propaganda victory to its targets\n\nBy denying people the ability to access sites set up by extremists, ISPs serve to increase extremists’ mystique and thus the demand to know more about the movement and its beliefs. When the public appears to oppose something so vociferously that it is willing to have its internet provider set aside the normal freedoms usually taken as granted, people begin to take notice. There are always groups of individuals that wish to set themselves up as oppositional to the norms of society, to transgress against its mores and thus challenge what they see to be a constraining system. [1] When extremist beliefs are afforded this mystique of extreme transgression, it serves to encourage people, particularly young, rebellious people to seek out the group and even join it. Such has been the case of young, disaffected Muslims in Europe, and the United Kingdom in particular. These young people feel discriminated against by the system and seek to express their anger in the public sphere. Islamists have been able to capitalize on this disaffection in their recruitment and have become all the more attractive since their sites have come under attack by the UK government. [2] By allowing free expression and debate, many people would be saved from joining the forces of extremism.\n\n[1] Gottfried, Ted. Deniers of the Holocaust: Who They Are, What They Do, Why They Do It. Brookfield, CT: Twenty-First Century Books, 2001.\n\n[2] Jowitt, T. “UK Government Prepares to Block Extremist Websites”. Tech Week Europe. 9 June 2011. http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news/uk-government-prepares-to-block-extremist-websites-31283\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1cfa76d2001dff278d19c79c30ce40b4",
"text": "censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression house would allow ISPs should be required to maintain Net Neutrality\n\nThe internet is such a great thing because it is a free market of ideas in which all beliefs can be submitted for the scrutiny of the global online community. Debate online and rational argument serves as a major check on the extreme views of the political fringe. By maintaining net neutrality in the provision of internet and not blocking websites, ISPs allow this process of the exchange and scrutinizing of ideas on which liberal democratic society relies. [1] A neutral stance upholds the highest principles of the freedom, and allows people to feel safe in the veracity and representativeness of the internet content they are provided, and unafraid of artificially constructed bias.\n\n[1] Seythal, T. “Holocaust Denier Sentenced to Five Years”. The Washington Post. 15 February 2007. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/15/AR2007021501283.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "541887f20bfec1aa4e360037d3456ce8",
"text": "censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression house would allow Blocking extremists will make anti-terrorism surveillance more difficult as the organizations go underground\n\nA major risk with any extremist organization is that its members, when put under significant legal pressure, will go underground, or find other means of communicating, or use any ISPs that not blocking extremist content. The power of ISPs, or the state for that matter, to actually stop the development of extremist networks is limited, as they will be able still to organize in secret, or even semi-publicly, via social networks and hidden websites that evade detection by the censors. As Mark Burgess, director of the World Security Institute warns ““too much focus on closing down websites could also be counter-productive, since it likely forces terrorist websites to go underground to the so-called ‘deep’ or hidden web.” [1]\n\nTerrorist groups visible profile would be blunted, but it would not guarantee any positive gains in terms of stamping down on the number of extremists. Indeed, when extremists are driven from public channels it will be ever harder for the government to keep track of their doings and of their leaders. The result of this censorship is a more careful organization that now has a sense of victimhood against the society that censors it, which it can use to encourage even more extreme acts from its members and can spin to its advantage during recruitment efforts. By leaving them in the open extremists feel more comfortable acting within the confines of the law and are thus less dangerous, even if they are more visible.\n\n[1] Andrews, S., “The dark side of the web”, PC Pro, 9 March 2010, http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/356254/the-dark-side-of-the-web/4\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aaf28093f7e664be06c684e784fd5de5",
"text": "censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression house would allow Everyone, even extremists, deserve their freedom of expression protected\n\nNo matter how distasteful, or extreme, their opinions may be, everyone should have the right to voice them freely and publicly. That is the very essence of a free society. When groups presume to judge good speech from bad, and to shut off the channel by which the designated bad speech may flow, it abrogates its duty to protect the rights of all. When ISPs do this, which they do when they block sites they designate as extremist, they rob the people of their fundamental role as the final arbiters of acceptable speech in the marketplace of ideas, taking that power unto themselves without any form of democratic or moral mandate. Such a state of affairs is anathema to the continuation of a free society. [1] Speech can be legally curtailed only when there is a very real and manifest harm arising from it. But that is not the case here, where the participants are few and scattered, and those who would take exception to what the extremists have to say can easily opt out online. When extremists try to organize terrorist action online, then the government should step into protect its citizens. That duty does not fall to the ISPs.\n\n[1] Chomsky, Noam. “His Right to Say it”. The Nation. 28 February 1981. http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19810228.htm\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b49a576726c4fde8cf5aed2b44daf55",
"text": "censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression house would allow ISPs are not well placed to make judgments on what constitutes extremism\n\nISPs are businesses, not scholars or governments. They do not have the expertise to effectively define the parameters of what constitutes extremism or when a certain site is such, and cannot gauge the extent of damage the site is having. If governments give the power to ISPs to take down extremist sites they are giving these companies the ability to dissipate the freedom of the internet on the basis of its own judgment. [1] That is a very dangerous power to give the agents that are the gatekeepers of information to the people. Even if the state sets guidelines for ISPs to follow, it will be difficult to police their decisions effectively and will set the dangerous precedent that service providers should have a degree of power over what content citizens can consume. The ISPs also face the risk of legal challenge by groups blocked that claim to not be advocates of extremism at all so burdening the ISPs with long and costly court battles which would effectively be being fought on behalf of the government. Ultimately private actors cannot be given the authority of the public censor.\n\n[1] Mitchell, S. “BT Resists Move to Make ISPs Block Extremist Content”. PC Pro. 7 February 2012. http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/372628/bt-resists-move-to-make-isps-block-extremist-content\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
c5656e1c1cff4160f39d59556fc4954f
|
ISPs should be required to maintain Net Neutrality
The internet is such a great thing because it is a free market of ideas in which all beliefs can be submitted for the scrutiny of the global online community. Debate online and rational argument serves as a major check on the extreme views of the political fringe. By maintaining net neutrality in the provision of internet and not blocking websites, ISPs allow this process of the exchange and scrutinizing of ideas on which liberal democratic society relies. [1] A neutral stance upholds the highest principles of the freedom, and allows people to feel safe in the veracity and representativeness of the internet content they are provided, and unafraid of artificially constructed bias.
[1] Seythal, T. “Holocaust Denier Sentenced to Five Years”. The Washington Post. 15 February 2007. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/15/AR2007021501283.html
|
[
{
"docid": "50052fb565bcd09ebc8bc64e76d800d9",
"text": "censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression house would allow Taking a neutral stance is a tacit endorsement of the validity of the message being spread as being worthy of discussion. Extremism does not deserve its day in court, even if the outcome were a thumping victory for reason and moderation. Besides, the nature of extremists is that they are not amenable to being convinced by reason or argument. Their beliefs are impervious to facts, and that is why debate is a pointless exercise except to give them a platform by which to spread their message, organize, and validate themselves to a wider audience.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "a23d875c69c57b9833f806904d89b7a1",
"text": "censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression house would allow Freedom of speech is important, but must be curtailed when people are threatened. Extremists are a very real threat because their messages and actions galvanize people to take violent, disruptive actions against the state and its citizens. ISPs have a right, and even a responsibility to block extremist websites if it is written into the contract when a user purchases the service. When people opt into an ISP they accept the parameters of the service, so their freedom is not being limited by the blocking of extremist content as they have already accepted that extremist websites are not a part of the access package they bought.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "310b49d26fb3308ff9dad3089f95a04e",
"text": "censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression house would allow Forcing extremists underground can only serve the cause of justice. With them out of the spotlight they are less likely to drag in new recruits among casual, open-minded internet-goers. Underground they are less visible, less legitimate-seeming, and less likely to be able to build an organization capable of violent action.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d7c1d953384ba5a15847cbc621ba9f2d",
"text": "censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression house would allow The ISPs would not be defining the parameters of what constitutes extremism; they would simply be interpreting the parameters that are given to them by government. They do not need to gauge the extent of the harm from a site simply determine whether it falls within the kind of site they are to be blocking. There would be no expectation that the ISPs would need to work out complex cost-benefit analyses. ISPs, as the purveyors of the internet are perfectly capable of policing their own service, and are well-placed to do so because they manage the software that feeds the internet service. Furthermore, as private agents providing a service, they retain the right to alter the extent of that service if they see fit to do so.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1674001bc466537b6ef69926257b9d5",
"text": "censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression house would allow While some people might be enticed by the mystique of extremism as transgressors, far more people will be put off by the positive statement of denying them their favored platform from which to speak. There will always be extremists, but their views must always be challenged and their influence curtailed wherever it is found\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e03264c65163a7ce0b3e088b1dcb150a",
"text": "censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression house would allow While ISPs are private firms, they perform a public service. They have a special duty in society as providers of information not to bias that information through private censorship policies. When they embark on any form of site-blocking, ISPs cease to be doing their job. Governments should maintain that ISPs act as neutral gatekeepers of information and not take up the role of ad hoc censor. Moreover this would be different from filtering adult content as that is a service that is provided if the subscriber wishes it, if this was the case with extremist content then such a block would be useless as those interested in extremist content would just opt for packages that do not restrict access.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2352b812dc6c8d7606351388e71c244c",
"text": "censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression house would allow Putting the power to censor the internet, no matter how stringent or specific the guidelines, into the hands of a private organization is misguided. It is the state not individual ISPs who are needed to assess how dangerous a site is, whether it is actually promoting extremism, and ultimately make a decision as to whether a site needs to be blocked. The ISPs may end up being the actors that implement the policy but it has to be government that decides which websites to block and why. This also means that the decision would be much more centralised. Leaving this decision to the discretion of individual ISPs will mean that some websites will be blocked on some ISPs and not on others. Only government can ensure that there is consistency.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dbebd66ecececaa6a1fed6e8eeeb9e33",
"text": "censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression house would allow Extremist groups will always find ways to organize direct actions, be it via in-person meetings, furtive use of social networking tools, or even by using untraceable black sites online that ISPs cannot block because they cannot see them. The result of blocking these views from the public internet only serves to push the extremists further underground.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d57c5643344c82d1124fd3d0cbf856e4",
"text": "censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression house would allow While it is true that extremists seek to undermine and bend the systems of discourse to be as favorable as possible, they are a tiny fringe minority of opinion, and the number of sites challenging their skewed narrative is far more numerous. Even young people are able to surf the web with great skill, and can easily see that the extremist view is fringe in the extreme. There is also little evidence that preventing access to some sites would make it more difficult for extremists, when large numbers of jihadi websites went offline in 2012 discussion simply moved elsewhere and leaders emphasized recruiting more people offline. [1]\n\n[1] Zelin, A. et al. “The State of Global Jihad Online”. New America Foundation. January 2013. http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/uploads/Documents/opeds /Zelin20130201-NewAmericaFoundation.pdf Pp.10, 15\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "88d8ce03cebf620c8ec01436d9877363",
"text": "censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression house would allow Denying extremists their right to speak threatens everyone’s freedom of speech. It is essential in a free society that people should be able to freely express their views without fear of reprisal, however extreme or unsavory their views are. If you value free speech you must be willing to defend that right for everyone, even for those you find repugnant.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "83bab6bae02c242373b60a9296945f1d",
"text": "censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression house would allow Censorship provides a propaganda victory to its targets\n\nBy denying people the ability to access sites set up by extremists, ISPs serve to increase extremists’ mystique and thus the demand to know more about the movement and its beliefs. When the public appears to oppose something so vociferously that it is willing to have its internet provider set aside the normal freedoms usually taken as granted, people begin to take notice. There are always groups of individuals that wish to set themselves up as oppositional to the norms of society, to transgress against its mores and thus challenge what they see to be a constraining system. [1] When extremist beliefs are afforded this mystique of extreme transgression, it serves to encourage people, particularly young, rebellious people to seek out the group and even join it. Such has been the case of young, disaffected Muslims in Europe, and the United Kingdom in particular. These young people feel discriminated against by the system and seek to express their anger in the public sphere. Islamists have been able to capitalize on this disaffection in their recruitment and have become all the more attractive since their sites have come under attack by the UK government. [2] By allowing free expression and debate, many people would be saved from joining the forces of extremism.\n\n[1] Gottfried, Ted. Deniers of the Holocaust: Who They Are, What They Do, Why They Do It. Brookfield, CT: Twenty-First Century Books, 2001.\n\n[2] Jowitt, T. “UK Government Prepares to Block Extremist Websites”. Tech Week Europe. 9 June 2011. http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news/uk-government-prepares-to-block-extremist-websites-31283\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "541887f20bfec1aa4e360037d3456ce8",
"text": "censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression house would allow Blocking extremists will make anti-terrorism surveillance more difficult as the organizations go underground\n\nA major risk with any extremist organization is that its members, when put under significant legal pressure, will go underground, or find other means of communicating, or use any ISPs that not blocking extremist content. The power of ISPs, or the state for that matter, to actually stop the development of extremist networks is limited, as they will be able still to organize in secret, or even semi-publicly, via social networks and hidden websites that evade detection by the censors. As Mark Burgess, director of the World Security Institute warns ““too much focus on closing down websites could also be counter-productive, since it likely forces terrorist websites to go underground to the so-called ‘deep’ or hidden web.” [1]\n\nTerrorist groups visible profile would be blunted, but it would not guarantee any positive gains in terms of stamping down on the number of extremists. Indeed, when extremists are driven from public channels it will be ever harder for the government to keep track of their doings and of their leaders. The result of this censorship is a more careful organization that now has a sense of victimhood against the society that censors it, which it can use to encourage even more extreme acts from its members and can spin to its advantage during recruitment efforts. By leaving them in the open extremists feel more comfortable acting within the confines of the law and are thus less dangerous, even if they are more visible.\n\n[1] Andrews, S., “The dark side of the web”, PC Pro, 9 March 2010, http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/356254/the-dark-side-of-the-web/4\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aaf28093f7e664be06c684e784fd5de5",
"text": "censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression house would allow Everyone, even extremists, deserve their freedom of expression protected\n\nNo matter how distasteful, or extreme, their opinions may be, everyone should have the right to voice them freely and publicly. That is the very essence of a free society. When groups presume to judge good speech from bad, and to shut off the channel by which the designated bad speech may flow, it abrogates its duty to protect the rights of all. When ISPs do this, which they do when they block sites they designate as extremist, they rob the people of their fundamental role as the final arbiters of acceptable speech in the marketplace of ideas, taking that power unto themselves without any form of democratic or moral mandate. Such a state of affairs is anathema to the continuation of a free society. [1] Speech can be legally curtailed only when there is a very real and manifest harm arising from it. But that is not the case here, where the participants are few and scattered, and those who would take exception to what the extremists have to say can easily opt out online. When extremists try to organize terrorist action online, then the government should step into protect its citizens. That duty does not fall to the ISPs.\n\n[1] Chomsky, Noam. “His Right to Say it”. The Nation. 28 February 1981. http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19810228.htm\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b49a576726c4fde8cf5aed2b44daf55",
"text": "censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression house would allow ISPs are not well placed to make judgments on what constitutes extremism\n\nISPs are businesses, not scholars or governments. They do not have the expertise to effectively define the parameters of what constitutes extremism or when a certain site is such, and cannot gauge the extent of damage the site is having. If governments give the power to ISPs to take down extremist sites they are giving these companies the ability to dissipate the freedom of the internet on the basis of its own judgment. [1] That is a very dangerous power to give the agents that are the gatekeepers of information to the people. Even if the state sets guidelines for ISPs to follow, it will be difficult to police their decisions effectively and will set the dangerous precedent that service providers should have a degree of power over what content citizens can consume. The ISPs also face the risk of legal challenge by groups blocked that claim to not be advocates of extremism at all so burdening the ISPs with long and costly court battles which would effectively be being fought on behalf of the government. Ultimately private actors cannot be given the authority of the public censor.\n\n[1] Mitchell, S. “BT Resists Move to Make ISPs Block Extremist Content”. PC Pro. 7 February 2012. http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/372628/bt-resists-move-to-make-isps-block-extremist-content\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eaf0c1dda5ba8ed780504a1f19b91bb2",
"text": "censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression house would allow ISPs are private service providers and should thus be able to have some filters on the most extreme spectrums of extremism\n\nISPs are ultimately private providers of a service. Because of this they should retain the right to restrict that service to certain groups. So long as ISPs make public their policy for what constitutes extremism so that consumers can decide if they want to opt into it, there is no real issue. There are many filters available to users to screen out certain materials already, for example internet providers offer customers the option to block adult content, [1] and this is merely an extension of this approach. Businesses must be able to sort their own ethos. Some ISPs may not opt to use this power given to them by the state, but others may not wish to carry content they consider dangerous. Because extremism is on the very fringe of speech and opinion, and because of the potential dangers that can arise from it, it is only right that the state give some ability to ISPs to block objectionable content.\n\n[1] BBC News, “Internet providers offer parents bar on porn” 11 October 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15252128\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb997f7e4f46086a6a2a9f28bc7b072e",
"text": "censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression house would allow ISPs are better placed than governments to make decisions on when and who to block\n\nAs the access providers for the internet ISPs are best placed to implement policies for blocking extremist sites and so are the natural option for deciding when and which sites to block. Furthermore, because the state is often slow due its extensive bureaucracy, it is less able to respond with alacrity to extremist sites popping up online. ISPs on the other hand are likely to be able to act as soon as they are informed of the existence of a website whereas working through government would simply add an extra layer of requests and orders. The ISPs blocking the site also creates a fire break between the state and the action so not giving the extremists the ammunition that state intervention might give them. Essentially, the good result of eliminating these sites from public access is accomplished faster, more effectively, and with lesser backlash than if any other agent did the blocking.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1812220674e4dc2f7390a8ed300e38ff",
"text": "censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression house would allow It makes it more difficult for extremists to organize and spread their message when blocked\n\nThe ISPs are the gatekeepers of information. When the internet places no moral judgments on content and the ISPs let all information through without commentary, it lends an air of permissiveness to the beliefs put forward, that they are held by reasonable people. The internet is a great tool for education, but also one that can be used to sow misinformation and extreme rhetoric. Extremist groups have been able to use the internet to a remarkable extent in promoting their beliefs and recruiting new members. Worse still, the administrators of these extremist sites are able to choke of things like dissenting commenters, giving the illusion that their view is difficult, or even impossible to reasonably challenge. In doing so they create an echo chamber for their ideas that allows them to spread and to affect people, particularly young people susceptible to such manipulation. The best example of this activity is in the international jihadist community and its reaching out to people in the West. Young disaffected Muslims have received an introduction to militant Islamism from sites often based abroad, but also some domestically, increasing the number of believers in an extreme, militant form of that religion. [1] By denying these people a platform on the internet, ISPs are able to not only make a moral stance that is unequivocal, but also to choke off access to new members who can be saved by never seeing the negative messages.\n\n[1] Kaplan, E. “Terrorists and the Internet”. Council on Foreign Relations. 8 January 2009. http://www.cfr.org/terrorism-and-technology/terrorists-internet/p10005\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "48c752e1171af326d40cb0cf095ac131",
"text": "censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression house would allow The freedom of speech can be curtailed when it represents a serious threat to society\n\nFreedom of speech certainly may be curtailed when real harms can be shown to arise from it. Extremist sites serve as centers of dangerous dissent, whose members threaten all of society. They promote a message that is fundamentally bad speech, because it cannot it cannot be argued with and promotes aims that are so anathema to free society that its dissemination represents a true threat to people’s safety. The threat extremists represent to free society demands that their right to speech online be curtailed. [1] By blocking these sites, ISPs certainly are denying some freedom of speech, but it is a necessarily harmful form of speech that has no value in the global commons. Thus, there is essentially no real loss of valuable speech in censoring extremist websites.\n\n[1] Kaplan, E. “Terrorists and the Internet”. Council on Foreign Relations. 8 January 2009. http://www.cfr.org/terrorism-and-technology/terrorists-internet/p10005\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "679755945b88f4a2519d17bba197a37c",
"text": "censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression house would allow Blocking these sites makes it more difficult for extremist groups to coordinate extremist action in the real world\n\nThe greatest fear people have about extremist groups is not their rhetoric, but the actions the rhetoric precipitates. Extremists have proven adept at setting up basic websites through which to build communities to organize and coordinate extreme actions. This means in the most limited form the coordinating of extremist demonstrations and rallies, but also violent and terrorist actions. The best example of this is As-Sahab, al-Qaeda’s media arm, which has used an extensive web presence to galvanize supporters and to coordinate terrorist attacks. [1] In using the tools of the mass media extremists have succeeded in bringing supporters to their cause, people who are often geographically diffuse, into a close community capable of action and disruption that harms all citizens. If blocking these websites entirely ISPs would pose a significant barrier to these extremist groups organising. Even more damaging to these networks in the long terms would be the drop in recruitment due to a reduction in their reach. ISPs can significantly hamper these organizations from ever embarking on serious violent actions, and from coalescing in the first place by denying them their most effective springboard. The most important effect is in the prevention of radicalization in the first place. Preventing, or at least hampering access to extremist materials serves to keep impressionable, swayable people from experiences that might turn them to extremism. [2]\n\n[1] Kaplan, E. “Terrorists and the Internet”. Council on Foreign Relations. 8 January 2009. http://www.cfr.org/terrorism-and-technology/terrorists-internet/p10005\n\n[2] Silber, M. and Bhatt, A., “Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat” The New York City Police Department, 2007. http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/files/NYPD_Report-Radicalization_in_the_West.pdf p.83\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
d3ce60ad686d53e53dde5e4eea5cb4d6
|
Universal broadband is a necessary prerequisite to developing more efficient and effective power-grids
Advanced infrastructure technology often relies on the existence of broadband technology universally installed across the grid. Countries like South Korea and Japan have succeeded in expanding their power grids by means of “smart grids”, power-grids that are far more efficient than existing structures in previously leading states like the United States, that make use of the broadband network in the provision of power. The US government has since committed to creating its own new grid, one that would increase efficiency, supply and management, and lower costs of energy provision to its citizens. [1] Such grids depend on the reliable and advanced broadband networks. The incentive for states to employ broadband across their territory is tremendous, beyond mere access to fast internet. This is why private firms will never be sufficient in efficient provision of broadband, because they do not reap all the benefits directly of the smart grid that can arise from its development. The state providing broadband is an essential part of upgrading energy provision for advanced countries in the 21st century.
[1] Kass, D. “FCC Chairman Wants Ultra High Speed Broadband in 100 Million US Households by 2020”. IT Channel Planet. 18 February 2010. http://www.itchannelplanet.com/technology_news/article.php/3865856/FCC-Chairman-Wants-Ultra-High-Speed-Broadband-In-100-Million-US-Households-by-2020.htm
|
[
{
"docid": "9af477d5f7e54853628a7128ad907b7e",
"text": "internet digital freedoms access information house believes state should provide States can develop new power-grids without needing to furnish all citizens with broadband in order to avail of the smart grid. The cost of developing these technologies and implementing them across the board are woefully high, and the inefficient nature of government services means they would only be more costly to the taxpayer. A better solution would be to liberalize the energy markets in order to encourage private firms to invest in the development of the smart grid.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e899be6ea5cc92c228fe79c98e16e90a",
"text": "internet digital freedoms access information house believes state should provide The state is rarely an efficient service provider. Conventionally, it provides a shoddy service when it faces no competition, and when it charges low prices it is usually at the expense of the infrastructure and quality of service. When free of market forces, the state is even more likely to rest on its position of monopoly and provide insufficient service. But even with a state service, prices cannot be guaranteed to be kept low, but rather states can well overcharge and exploit their privileged position.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd2fed6414d3ea10e5f0146e6695b660",
"text": "internet digital freedoms access information house believes state should provide Broadband is a necessary evolution of internet technology that firms would be wise to avail of if they wish to remain competitive. But it is this very desirability that makes the provision of broadband a lucrative business in which many firms participate. Business on a large scale is rarely organised in diffuse patterns, but clustered in major population centres. Economic development can be furnished by the private sector investing in broadband where there is a market. Growth will not be slowed just because some farmers in Nebraska have slower internet. Singapore is an aberrant example, as it is so small and its population so dense that it would be impossible to compare its provision of broadband access to most other countries.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22bc2a2d2168fdf2ab67fd747f994e61",
"text": "internet digital freedoms access information house believes state should provide Internet access is not a fundamental right. It is a useful enabler of rights. But that is not reason to guarantee it to all, any more than states owed every citizen access to a printing press a few centuries ago. Even were it a right, internet access could be provided far more efficiently and effectively through the private, rather than the public, sector.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ce56edba527b17f4e8e0ddc0930f6465",
"text": "internet digital freedoms access information house believes state should provide State firms do not necessarily crowd out private firms. Rather, they can furnish services in areas that private firms consider unprofitable, and can coordinate infrastructural process on a wider area, allowing for gains in economies of scale. Eircom provides an example of this too as its reduction in investment in broadband post privatisation meant that the government had to begin reinvesting in broadband itself. [1] Private firms will still have incentives to develop new technologies because there will still be profits to be made. But absent private firms, innovation will still exist. State investment in innovation and new technology can be very effective, as was the case with the Space Race.\n\n[1] Palcic, D., and Reeves, E., “Privatisation and productivity performance in Ireland”, http://www.forfas.ie/media/productivity_chapter11.pdf P.200\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e6ba946c02d1b638ba22b43c50950f51",
"text": "internet digital freedoms access information house believes state should provide If the state overstepped in its regulation, no doubt private competitors would be able to fill the void. But such an eventuality is rather unlikely given the robustness of civil institutions in free societies and the willingness of people to come out in arms against attacks on their freedoms. The state is not a bogey-man. Rather, it is the best outlet by which to deliver inexpensive, efficient broadband service.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bec9fdc3f10246c280adf696f06844f1",
"text": "internet digital freedoms access information house believes state should provide The private sector will never be able to meet the demands governments would make in order to build a working broadband network and the subsequent smart grid because their profit motives cannot internalize the social benefits of the new grids and technology. Unfortunately the private sector will only build the infrastructure in profitable densely populated areas neglecting rural areas. The state must therefore fill the gap, either by subsidizing private firms to provide service to unprofitable areas, or to service them itself. Furthermore, it can provide the service more freely and more fairly in order to guarantee that citizens get the services they deserve and need to succeed in the 21st century.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1250a3d9ef80e01bfb93a2d8c8eb740b",
"text": "internet digital freedoms access information house believes state should provide It would provide an efficient service for everyone\n\nA single, universal provider of broadband would allow the government to rationalize the management and development of the service. Multiple private service-providers ultimately end up causing three serious problems. The first two are straightforward, that private firms competing in the same area waste money creating multiple distribution channels that are unnecessary for the number of consumers, and that when they opt not to compete they end up dividing up territory into effective utility monopolies. The third problem is especially salient to the state when it is attempting to provide for everyone: many areas are too sparsely populated or economically underdeveloped that private firms are unwilling to invest in them; these areas are entirely dependent on state intervention to allow them to get broadband access. Thus for example, in the United States 19 million people in the United States still have no broadband access. [1] Much like electrical and water utilities, a single provider can create the most efficient outcome for consumers, and when that provider is the state it can guarantee affordable prices and commit to not price-gouging as private firms are wont to do. [2] Broadband should be treated as a utility, and the state has always proven to be the best purveyor of public utilities.\n\n[1] Elgan, M. “Should Wireless Carriers be Nationalized?”. Huffington Post. 10 October 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-elgan/wireless-carriers-nationalized_b_1955633.html\n\n[2] Encyclopaedia Britannica. \"Public Utility.\" Encyclopædia Britannica Online Academic Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc. 2013 http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/482523/public-utility\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e5658c6c84f2341589f6a59f1f01c1ed",
"text": "internet digital freedoms access information house believes state should provide Broad-based access to broadband is essential for countries to be competitive and to excel\n\nInformation technology is critical to the success of contemporary economies, with even the simplest business ventures. Uneven or non-existent penetration of broadband is a major drag on economic progress. [1] The private sector has been unable to effectively adapt with a holistic approach to the provision of data space and internet speed. The state providing these services would guarantee a high quality of service, and penetration across the country, linking all citizens to the network. For a country to compete internationally it needs broadband, and the surest way to provide it, since the private sector has resolutely failed to do so, and where it does provide services, it tends to overcharge. [2] As the Western world is left behind by the internet speeds of erstwhile developing states like Singapore, which has almost total penetration of high quality, state-sponsored broadband, it needs to refocus on what can reverse the trend. [3] Broadband is one of the steps toward the solution.\n\n[1] Elgan, M. “Should Wireless Carriers be Nationalized?”. Huffington Post. 10 October 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-elgan/wireless-carriers-nationalized_b_1955633.html\n\n[2] ibid\n\n[3] Kass, D. “FCC Chairman Wants Ultra High Speed Broadband in 100 Million US Households by 2020”. IT Channel Planet. 18 February 2010. http://www.itchannelplanet.com/technology_news/article.php/3865856/FCC-Chairman-Wants-Ultra-High-Speed-Broadband-In-100-Million-US-Households-by-2020.htm\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a7806f7512dfb94205e935e1ea7c467a",
"text": "internet digital freedoms access information house believes state should provide The information age demands a right to broadband access\n\nAs information technology has come more and more to pervade people’s lives, it has become abundantly clear that a new set of positive rights must be considered. In the forefront of this consideration stands broadband. Broadband allows for far more rapid access to the internet, and thus access to the world of information the internet represents. Today, a citizen of a free society must be able to access the internet if he or she is to be able to fully realise their potential. This is because the ability to access the fundamental rights to freedom of expression and civic and social participation are now contingent upon ready access to the internet. Thus access to the internet has itself become a right of citizens, and their access should be guaranteed by the state. This right has been enshrined by several countries, such as France, Finland, Greece, and Spain, thus leading the way toward a more general recognition of this service as a right in the same way other public services are guaranteed. [1] It is a right derived from the evolution of society in the same fashion that the right to healthcare has grown out of countries’ social and economic development.\n\n[1] Lucchi, N. “Access to Network Services and Protection of Constitutional Rights: Recognizing the Essential Role of Internet Access for the Freedom of Expression”. Cardozo J. of Int’L & Comp. Law, Vol.19, 2011, http://www.cjicl.com/uploads/2/9/5/9/2959791/cjicl_19.3_lucchi_article.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "64957d9d6d89e24b9208a7d29cbdb5c6",
"text": "internet digital freedoms access information house believes state should provide The state can work more effectively through the private sector\n\nIf the state is worried about provision of broadband in areas too sparsely populated or disadvantaged, they can provide subsidies to private firms to develop the areas that are not profitable without needing to develop full government-operated companies. Just because the state is not providing the service does not mean that there cannot be compulsory to provide access to everywhere, many countries post offices for example are obliged to deliver to every address. [1] Government employees tend to be overpaid and underworked, leading to chronic inefficiencies that would be absent in a private firm, even one backed with government money.\n\nFurthermore, the cost to the state is prohibitively expensive to go it alone, because state contracts have a marked tendency to go over budget, ultimately harming the taxpayers. These overruns are a standard part of government projects, but they can be ruinous to large scale information technology projects. Indeed, one-third of all IT projects end with premature cancellation as the direct result of overruns. [2] The future of countries’ economic prosperity cannot be entrusted to an organization that will stack the odds toward failure. This policy does not make sense when it is an area in which the private sector is willing to make substantial contributions to the cost. The only way to guarantee a decent level of service and an appropriate level of cost is to allow the private sector to take the lead, and to supplement it with incentives to build more and better systems. In the United States encouraging private investment in broadbrand infrastructure has led to a total of $1.2trillion ploughed into broadband access while Europe’s more state investment approach is falling behind. [3]\n\n[1] United States Postal Service, “Postal Facts”, 2012, http://about.usps.com/who-we-are/postal-facts/welcome.htm Royal Mail Group, “Universal Service Obligation”, http://www.royalmailgroup.com/regulation/how-were-regulated/universal-service-obligation\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "15a96275fd523239f6bedea678c9bc97",
"text": "internet digital freedoms access information house believes state should provide State intervention would crowd out private firms\n\nThe imposition of a powerful state firm dominating the broadband market would serve to reduce the ability of private providers to compete. The greater resources of the state would be able to give it the power to dictate the market, making it less attractive to private investment. Creating a monopolistic provider would be very dangerous considering that this is a sector upon which much of future national development relies. [1] Crowding out private firms will make them less inclined to invest in new technologies, while the state provider is unlikely to fill the gap, as traditionally state utilities rely upon their power of incumbency and size rather than seeking novel services. An example of this is Eircom which, when it was the state utility, provided broadband of a lower quality and at higher price than most private providers. The end result of state dominance and reduction of private competitors is a loss of innovation, a loss of price competition, and an erosion of customer service.\n\n[1] Atkinson, R. “The Role of Competition in a National Broadband Policy”. Journal on Telecommunications and High Technology Law 7. 2009, http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/jtelhtel7&div=4&g_sent=1&collection=journals\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b1cb1178cd3fd36bcb090484c5f519b9",
"text": "internet digital freedoms access information house believes state should provide It would give undue power to the government over access to the internet\n\nMonopoly, or near-monopoly, power over broadband is far too great a tool to give to governments. States have a long history of abusing rules to curtail access to information and to limit freedom of speech. Domination of broadband effectively gives the state complete control of what information citizens can or cannot consume online. ISPs function generally under the principle of Net Neutrality, in which they are expected to allow the free transit of information online. If they are the sole gatekeepers of knowledge, people may well be kept from information deemed against the public interest. It is harder for opponents of government regulations to voice their opinions online when they have no viable alternative to the state-controlled network. The internet is a place of almost limitless expression and it has empowered more people to take action to change their societies. That great tool of the people must be protected from any and all threats, and most particularly the state that could so profit from the curtailment of internet freedom.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
c2ebf3b153bfa43018112e009fc6c8ab
|
Open source software undermines national security.
Even if closed source software firms are ultimately answerable to their shareholders, their shareholders want them to produce software which meets the needs of their customers so that they can sell their products. That is why Microsoft has offered a cheap version of Windows Vista to developing nations, and has been willing to cut the price of its software in negotiations with governments around the world.
More worrying than the burden that closed source software places on a government’s coffers is the threat that open source software presents to a state’s security.
By definition, the code for open source software is freely available. However, the continual attempts to hack into government computer systems demonstrate that many of the same hackers are now moving beyond mere targets of opportunity. Hackers could well take advantage of the increasing ubiquity of open source code to attack national computer systems.
The additional security that open source software claims to benefit from is an illusion. Rather, it is the lack of ubiquitous open source platforms that has kept OSs such as Linux and BSD safe from attack. The possibility that an might yield some form of a reward is reduced when a hacker is presented with fewer viable targets.
Although open source code may give ethical and honest coders more opportunities to spot the flaws in programmes, it also incentivises hackers to invest their efforts in spotting such flaws first.
|
[
{
"docid": "77a085c102ad7cdcf4016ce3b1b16372",
"text": "internet digital freedoms intellectual property house believes governments should This is a matter of national security and sovereignty, as well as one of cost effectiveness. Governments around the world are increasingly shifting their operations online, which has created a vast number of digital tax returns, criminal records, DNA databases and so on. At present, access to, and use of, this information is dependent on private companies which design software to benefit their shareholders.\n\nOpen source software hands control of the software needed to access that data to the government and the nation itself, and gives it the ability to shape the data and software based on its own interests.\n\nHackers have often attacked Microsoft products because of the ubiquity of its closed source software. Hack and malware attacks are ultimately speculative ventures. They target systems that have not received essential security software updates; systems that are operated by naive and inexperienced users; or delicate specialist systems that can be disrupted by a high volume of legitimate, non-aggressive commands and interactions. Such opportunistic attacks are more likely to succeed if hackers are able to direct their efforts toward uncovering the flaws in a single operating system – such as Windows.\n\nIn the past, attacks have focussed on consumers and small businesses. By moving away from closed source products, governments can decrease the likelihood that crucial government data will be compromised by a hacker or a virus attack.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "cc80a1e9ef6abb12164a02d2c061ea9e",
"text": "internet digital freedoms intellectual property house believes governments should While open source software is not always free, it tends to be significantly cheaper than closed source alternatives. For instance, the Brazilian government’s decision to adopt open source software for its housing department in 2005 has generated savings of $120m a year. [i]\n\nGiven that, the United States government alone spends $80 billion a year on information technology, the potential for total cost savings is enormous. [ii] The money saved could be used to fund more important government expenditure such as healthcare or education – the very activities that, it was claimed, could be delivered more efficiently and cheaply following widespread adoption of IT systems. Furthermore, simply by discussing adopting open source software, Microsoft has been forced to reduce its prices; it cut its prices by $35m to match Linux’s offering to the city of Munich and, when Brazil began discussing its future software plans, Microsoft was forced to offer to release a cheaper version of its new operating system, Windows Vista. [iii] Ultimately, this not only helps governments, but also helps Microsoft, as many developing nations currently rely on pirated copies of Microsoft software which undermines attempts to stop copyright fraud.\n\n[i] Kingstone, Steve, ‘Brazil adopts open-source software’, BBC News, 2/05/2005.\n\n[ii] ‘Using Technology to Drive Productivity Gains’, Performance.gov, accessed 25/07/2013\n\n[iii] Bailey, Dave. “Microsoft faces value challenge.” Computing. 18/06/2003.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d8b90c02151f85bd7340694c4a58f7b",
"text": "internet digital freedoms intellectual property house believes governments should As the demands of government IT departments become more and more complex, software developers are forced to become increasingly specialized. Yet big firms like Microsoft often lack specialist depth and an understanding of niche markets (such as the market for specialist brail screen readers, which blind individuals use to interact with computers). In many instances, governments’ needs will be better met by the open source market, where innovation and flexibility are built in.\n\nOne area where is the open source community’s ability to innovate is particularly relevant to governments is language; Microsoft only supports 33 languages in Windows XP and around 20 in Office XP, as they do not have the economic incentive to provide versions for other languages and dialects. Yet governments often need to provide access to information in dozens of languages and dialects (particularly in countries like Spain with regional languages like Catalan and Basque, or India with its 18 official languages and 1000 dialects). Open source software can easily be adapted to those languages. For instance, OpenOffice has been adapted into 75 languages including Slovenian, Icelandic, Lao, Latvian, Welsh, Yiddish, Basque and Galician, and Indian languages such as Gujarati, Devanagari, Kannada and Malayalam. By using the open-source model of sharing the workload between many users, the Hungarian Foundation for Free Software was able to translate OpenOffice in three days with the help of just over a hundred programmers.\n\nBy providing software specialized for the local market, government can encourage greater IT usage by citizens, thereby increasing the skill level of the workforce and multiplying the cost savings made by shifting government services online.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "be91bbddbb9b10926378e7dcf7c0d5ea",
"text": "internet digital freedoms intellectual property house believes governments should The first firm to shift to the open source approach was Netscape with its Navigator web browser, because it was being outperformed by the closed source Microsoft Internet Explorer; Netscape made the shift out of desperation. This is exactly the same reason why Sun and Real have made their programs open source - Solaris was being squeezed by Windows based server software and RealPlayer by iTunes and Spotify. Similarly, the patents which IBM is sharing and the narrow range of source code that Microsoft is now opening up relate to sectors and product markets where neither firm is dominant and where they hope they can leverage the programming community to boost the quality of the software they are offering. Since Microsoft launched the Open Source Initiative, it has not expanded it in response to other governments threatening to shift to open source software. Therefore, we should not view this initiative as the beginning of a trend.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0b8914d53cbf7ff3e91f7369becc3f30",
"text": "internet digital freedoms intellectual property house believes governments should The network effect is more complex than the argument that, if a government uses a product, then its population will too. Firstly, 90% of desktop PCs use Microsoft products; the cost for companies and citizens to transition from Microsoft to an open source alternative makes it prohibitive in the short term. Secondly, open source software works on the basis of a constant flow of updates and minor changes; this may be suitable for servers (where it has already made most impact) managed by IT professionals, but the average citizen or government worker would require continual training and re-training before they could be trusted to implement and use such updates correctly. Open source software is being jumped on by some governments as a tool to attack Microsoft’s monopoly but, in the end, it will cost them time and money.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "94a63c4271fc88ed19a72fb942700394",
"text": "internet digital freedoms intellectual property house believes governments should Open source software is not bug-proof and requires far more updates than the closed source alternatives. In fact, the most successful open source software after the operating system Linux is Apache, an open-source web-server which holds around 65% of the global market, and MySQL, an open-source database [i] . Both pieces of software are far from innovative; they are essentially just stripped-down versions of closed source programs. Real innovation is driven by the profit motive and comes from the knowledge that a firm can capitalize on a discovery, as Google has done with its search algorithm. For this reason, the open source software movement is doomed to producing mediocrity. As governments choose IT systems for five to ten years, they should look to a reliable closed source solution which provides quality rather than buying into a nebulous idea of ‘moral software’.\n\n[i] “Microsoft’s IIS web server market share is falling.” Webserver. 3 October 2011.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e388e7788a33abbd8d91b216b059d5ea",
"text": "internet digital freedoms intellectual property house believes governments should Open source software is more expensive for governments in the long run.\n\nOpen source software is often confused with free software; in fact, it is usually provided at some cost to the user. More importantly, if a Microsoft product fails, a government IT department knows that it can rely on a patch or technical support. Whereas, with open source software, they are left waiting on a community to get round to tackling the problem. This has meant that governments which choose open source software have had to pay for expensive support packages, which makes the total cost of the IT solution similar to that of the closed source software. This has been to the advantage of major consultancy firms, which are often chosen to put together IT solutions and who can make more money from pushing expensive support contracts than on upfront costs for software.\n\nIn the rush to find the software with the cheapest sticker price, there is a risk that governments will end up paying more overall for open software that lacks the accessibility and features of the closed source alternatives.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2985b7a7dd7fd5030e42fa2e821ffe96",
"text": "internet digital freedoms intellectual property house believes governments should Closed source software is better at meeting consumer needs.\n\nClosed source software companies are more than capable of segmenting their products to reach each part of the market, as Microsoft has shown by producing its new Windows 7 operating system in a record six different versions.\n\nMicrosoft’s monopoly of desktop computers ensures that if a programmer produces a niche software package or software translation for a specialized purpose, that programmer knows that potential clients will almost certainly be able to run the program if it is designed for Windows. If this monopoly is broken up and governments start to push Linux or other open source alternatives, the programmer will either have to develop for two or more platforms, thereby increasing the cost of the final product, or they will have to gamble on a single platform; both options would reduce the likelihood of the niche solution reaching the clients that need it.\n\nWhile open source software does allow anyone to spot a potential market and customize software to sell to that market, that access is also its great undoing. The type of accessibility that many open source products pride themselves on providing leaves projects open to abuse, either by well-meaning amateurs or intentional wreckers. Constant self-policing by the open source community is required, in order to guarantee the stability of the software it creates. An analogy can be drawn with Wikipedia, where the freedom of the mob led to defamatory statements being written about the former editor of USA Today [i] . Governments should be wary of relying on an anarchic, self-organising community to serve their IT needs, no matter how smart and well intentioned the members of that community may be.\n\n[i] Seigenthaler, John. .”A false Wikipedia “biography”.” USA Today. 29 November 2005\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "66c798d3b019ac2c65b0c4b03d120a52",
"text": "internet digital freedoms intellectual property house believes governments should Government contracts can change the software industry for the better.\n\nEven when governments do not ultimately select an open source program, by simply including them in the competitive bidding process, they have been able to radically change the approach that Microsoft and other closed source companies take to producing IT solutions.\n\nUnder threat from Linux, Microsoft has launched the Open Source Initiative through which it shares elements of some of its programs’ source code with key partners to enable the development of software for platforms like Windows Mobile [i] . More dramatically, in 2002, Real Networks opened up the source code for its world renowned RealPlayer media and music software package and, in 2005, IBM offered 500 key patents (out of 40,000) to the open source community. Sun Microsystems released its Solaris server operating system to the open source community under the Common Development and Distribution licence in 2005. If you accept that the open source software industry is a positive force, then simply by considering open source software, governments are doing well.\n\n[i] Ed Hansberry. “Open Source WebOS: A Win For Windows Phone?” Information Week. 12 December 2011.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "403993abd69c179c512d0adf26f8a18a",
"text": "internet digital freedoms intellectual property house believes governments should Governments can re-define industry standards by choosing open source software.\n\nEconomists use the term ‘network effect’ to describe the phenomenon whereby, as several people use the same communication platform (be it a specific device, such as a telephone, or a complicated service, such as Facebook), it becomes more valuable for others to use because they can share and collaborate on work with a wider range of individuals.\n\nNetwork effects explain why Microsoft’s monopoly of around 90% of the desktop market with its Windows and Office software has been so hard to challenge [i] .\n\nGovernments are one of the few organisations which can define industry standards because citizens and businesses increasingly have to interact with governments electronically. Brazil’s Digital Inclusion Program, for example, has selected open source software for 58 government units rather than Windows or Microsoft Office [ii] . The result is that businesses and Brazilian citizens can use the same open source software at home, knowing they will be able to interact with their government. As open source software is often either free or cheaper than closed source alternatives, this approach enables local authorities, private businesses and individual citizens to interact more easily with the state, removing many of the obstacles and objections to the wider adoption of information technology.\n\n[i] Lie, Hakon Wium. “Microsoft’s forgotten monopoly.” CNET News. 19 June 2006.\n\n[ii] Fried, Ina. “Brazil: Digital inclusion, but how?” CNET News. 27 August 2008.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9621a2c5eea031e09362d8c7c511502a",
"text": "internet digital freedoms intellectual property house believes governments should Open source software is more adaptable to government needs.\n\nOpen source software starts from a completely different viewpoint of how products should be created. Rather than resembling a traditional hierarchical organisation (such as an early twentieth century business, an army or a monastic order) where everyone has their own clearly defined role and are told how to proceed by a top-down central authority, open-source software development is more like an open market where everyone is engaged in the same activity but come at it from different directions. [i]\n\nOut of this cacophonous market, a more fluid product emerges. The basic advantage of open source software is that, as users can read, redistribute, and modify the source code for a piece of software, it evolves. This means that users and programmers can improve, adapt and fix the software at a much faster pace than Microsoft or another closed source developer can match. The highly collegiate culture in which contemporary approaches to coding evolved continues to create programmers who are naturally curious about the functions and features of new software. Open source software harnesses the wide range of ideas and methodologies that different coders use to writer software to refine and improve existing programmes. Open source software solicits a wide variety of solutions to particular coding problems; the more solutions that coders generate, the more likely it is that an optimal solution will be discovered.\n\nNot only does the approach described above result in the creation of higher quality programmes, it also allows businesses and individual coders to easily adapt existing programmes to their needs. Monopolistic producers like Microsoft have an incentive to slow the pace of change, whereas the open source community will simply choose the best solution. In this way, open source software is more robust and more responsive to governments’ changing needs than closed source alternatives.\n\n[i] Raymond, Eric. “The Cathedral and the Bazaar.” Cunningham & Cunningham. 18 February 2010.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
3fbf4467097f4757c6c751d16527a08f
|
Advancing national interests
A nation’s foreign policy should be primarily concerned with advancing the national interest. By the national interest we mean promoting the interest of the nation as a whole rather than any of its subnational groups; whether this is building up the state's military power to protect its citizens through alliances or military bases, benefiting the nation's economy through trade deals, or encouraging the creation of friendly governments around the globe. [1] Circumventing censorship helps obtain this last objective for democracies by encouraging peoples in autocracies to find their own voice and push for democracy; a system of government that is more compatible to other democracies. Ultimately this will also provide other benefits; friendly governments with similar political systems are more likely to create trade agreements with each other so providing economic benefits, in the 1990s the volume of trade between a democracy and autocracy was on average 40% less than two democracies. [2] Equally importantly democracies do not fight other democracies so helping to create stability. [3]
[1] Realism emphasises the alliances bit, Liberalism the economic self interest, and constructivists spreading values. Walt, Stephen M, “International Relations: One World, Many Theories”, Foreign Policy, Spring 1998, http://83.143.248.39/faculty/mtzankova/POS%20102%20Readings/Walt_International%20Relations_One%20World,%20Many%20Theories.pdf
[2] Mansfield, Edward D., et al., “Free to Trade: Democracies, Autocracies, and International Trade”, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 94, No. 2, http://www.stanford.edu/class/polisci243b/readings/v0002547.pdf p.318
[3] Rousseau, David L., et al., “Assessing the Dayadic Nature of the Democratic Peace, 1918-88”, The American Political Science Review, Vol.90, No.3, http://people.duke.edu/~gelpi/democ.peace.pdf p.515
|
[
{
"docid": "b2c7dd7b658e3321818d0663e1a24ef9",
"text": "ional global science censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression There is little certainty that undermining an autocracy will benefit the countries that undermine it. No state can full control what goes on in another state; an even more oppressive regime could be the result. Even if there is a transition to a democracy this does not mean it will benefit those who wanted change. This is because democratic governments have to take account of the desires of their own people which may not always be in alignment with the interests of the foreign powers that supported political change. Thus while it would seem that the United States, as a democracy, should be naturally inclined to support a democratic government in Egypt in practice Mubarak operated more in line with US interests by keeping the peace with Israel that the Muslim brotherhood threatens to disrupt.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "583e3cde484321c3e44a2fb200ac9192",
"text": "ional global science censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression It is not up to outside powers to decide what is and what is not in the interest of any peoples but their own. While those attempting to circumvent censorship may see themselves as promoting some kind of universal human rights in practice they are pushing their own notions on other peoples that may not share these ideals. This may be the case even when there are some in that start that share these ideas; thus for example while there are dissidents in China that want democracy, most of the population is not particularly concerned with creating a more democratic system and in 2009 95.9% were satisfied with their government’s performance. [1]\n\n[1] Saich, Tony, “Chinese governance seen through the people’s eyes”, East Asia Forum, 24 July 2011, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/07/24/chinese-governance-seen-through-the-people-s-eyes/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4381fb571d9813549ba4ecde37ce399e",
"text": "ional global science censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression As foreign states are not the legitimate representative of the people it is not legitimate for them to set themselves up as the arbiter for those whom it believes are being deprived of rights. These states that are meddling in the affairs of others cannot know the full consequences of their actions; circumventing censorship could end up simply undermining a stable state without enabling anything to replace it. This is just as the Arab Spring has undermined the Syrian government but has only resulted in a conflict not the creation of a stable democracy. Countries that undermined the Syrian government cannot say that their contribution has been positive when there have been 70,000 killed [1] as a result of the collapse of the state.\n\n[1] Nichols, Michelle, “Syria death toll likely near 70,000, says U.N. rights chief”, Reuters, 12 February 2013, http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/12/us-syria-crisis-un-idUSBRE91B19C20130212\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f753ef10b4a3d48ad5d721b89c261160",
"text": "ional global science censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression The public are rarely interested in foreign policy and want to keep well clear of foreign entanglements; they may like the idea of promoting democracy but if it means anything more than simple public support then they shy away as shown by only around 20-30% considering it a priority. [1] Undermining censorship may seem to be a cheap option for governments but they then have to own the consequences; such as having to pay to build stability which may be much more costly. The American people may have supported the Iraq war but they were against the immense amounts of wealth that was spent to try to put the country back together again. By undermining censorship revolution is being promoted along with the damage and chaos this can bring so the result may be a costly rebuilding process, possibly with troops on the ground.\n\n[1] “Historically, Public Has Given Low Priority to Promoting Democracy Overseas”, Pew Research Center, 4 February 2011, http://www.pewresearch.org/2011/02/04/historically-public-has-given-low-priority-to-promoting-democracy-overseas/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf7f909ed7ec6329fab3a3be278196ce",
"text": "ional global science censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression Proclamations that there can be no interference in another state are simply attempts by elites to cling on to power by preventing any help reaching those campaigning for democracy. These declarations, even the UN Charter, are negotiated, written, and signed by the leaders of governments not their people so favour those who are already in power. Something cannot be considered illegitimate just because it is supported by the status quo.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1dc3a50010ae24d8deb2364ff42c674",
"text": "ional global science censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression The NATO manual does specifically state “network intrusions, the deletion or destruction of data… computer network exploitation, and data theft do not amount to a non-international armed conflict.” [1] Instead it has to be persistent, and be carried out by organised armed groups; likely not criteria that would be ever satisfied by undermining censorship.\n\n[1] Schmitt, Michael N., ed., “The Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare”, Cambridge University Press, 2013, pp.87-88. http://ccdcoe.org/249.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7af1e449f657df6eebb3ab8e3fce4e83",
"text": "ional global science censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression If a regime is so intolerant as to threaten its citizens for using lines of communication that have been opened by another country then that country is clearly in need of greater openness towards freedom of expression and information. This is something that undermining censorship achieves. Clearly in a few cases the attempt to circumvent censorship may be used by the government but the creation of the path to circumvent censorship alone shows that foreign governments are watching. Even the most repressive regimes are less likely to use force when they know the outside world is watching.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4481e77fc54cbcb97822dc13e6547c83",
"text": "ional global science censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression Governments do not have a monopoly on the knowledge of what is best for their people and even the people may themselves make a mistake when deciding on whether to be an open society. Thus even if it appears that many people support censorship it may be legitimate to undermine it. In particular is people have never had a chance to experience life without that censorship how can they be considered to be making an informed choice when deciding to live with censorship?\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "538ec3cec80c3af4c0c122d9a457ed7c",
"text": "ional global science censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression It is legitimate to undermine illegitimate governments to promote human rights\n\nAutocratic governments that breach their people’s human rights have no legitimacy domestically as they do not represent the people or protect their interests. They also have no international legitimacy, as they are violating their obligations that they have signed up to through various international agreements such as the universal declaration of human rights [1] and the international covenant on civil and political rights [2] which oblige states to respect their citizen’s human rights. Other states therefore are legitimate in acting for the people of the repressed state to undermine their government and take up their cause. By imposing censorship the government is violating its people's freedom of expression which that government has promised to uphold therefore it is right that other governments should endeavour to uphold that standard. It was therefore right for the west to undermine the USSR and the communist governments of Eastern Europe through radio broadcasts such as Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, they gained immense audiences, a third of urban adults in the USSR and almost half of East Europeans with these sources often being considered more credible. [3]\n\n[1] UN General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948, 217 A (III), http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b3712c.html\n\n[2] UN General Assembly, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 999, p. 171, http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b3aa0.html\n\n[3] Johnson, A. Ross, and Parta, R. Eugene, “Cold War International Broadcasting: Lessons Learned”, Briefing to the Rancho Mirage Seminar, http://media.hoover.org/sites/default/files/documents/Communicating_with_the_World_of_Islam_A_Ross_Johnson_53.pdf p.54\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "15c41d924b4d9a0127006ec1c2d8299d",
"text": "ional global science censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression It is domestic not international legitimacy that matters\n\nWhat matters for a state when it comes to foreign policy, and therefore with helping to circumvent censorship, is whether the policy is considered legitimate domestically. Since a government's legitimacy is domestically derived from the support of its people if they support the policy then it is legitimate. While it is often not considered a top priority people in democracies usually support promoting human rights and spreading democracy around the world. [1]\n\n[1] Stevenson, Kirsten, “Strong support for democracy promotion in national opinion ballot”, Foreign Policy Association, 23 October 2012, http://www.fpa.org/features/index.cfm?act=feature&announcement_id=175\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f99268f20581b5321ecc09f7cd174546",
"text": "ional global science censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression It is legitimate to enable freedom\n\nCircumventing censorship is a cost effective method of promoting freedom. When a country has refused to recognise the right to freedom of expression of its own people and indeed is actively stopping them from exercising this right then it is legitimate for other countries to step in to act as an enabler of those rights. By circumventing censorship so the freedom of expression is returned to those that have had their voice stripped from them. Doing this costs the state that is acting almost nothing; thus Britain’s Foreign Office is devoting a mere £1.5million to promoting expression online, [1] and yet the benefits for those who it helps can be considerable by helping them to publicise and organise themselves by providing a platform. The small cost should be compared to the benefit of keeping activists one step ahead of the authorities by, for example providing software that helps make sure online communication is anonymous, which can save lives.\n\n[1] “William Hague promises £1.5m to promote freedom of expression online”, BBC News, 30 April 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17895456\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6fccc107021bb2378197eca3740ecb34",
"text": "ional global science censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression Governments enable censorship to protect their citizens\n\nWhat censorship is it legitimate to undermine? Censorship is often created in order to protect the people not to strip them of freedoms. This is most obvious when we consider that filters to prevent hate speech or child pornography are forms of censorship that may be enabled with the intention of protecting citizens not repressing them. Iceland for example has recently decided to ban pornography and it would be enabled in a similar way to censorship by regimes like China or Iran. [1] Even harsher censorship that naturally looks more repressive to us may be considered a legitimate means of protecting the people and their values. When a government is using censorship to ensure stability is that censorship not justified when compared to the alternative? While there may be divisions internally about the legitimacy of this censorship it is certainly not legitimate for outside actors to impose their own idea of how much censorship there should be.\n\n[1] Kiss, Jemima, “Iceland’s porn ban ‘conflicts with the idea of a free society’, say critics”, guardian.co.uk, 28 February 2013, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/28/iceland-porn-ban-free-society\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b01e908e40c8495b199f4553c6956fc6",
"text": "ional global science censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression Aggressive foreign policy is not legitimate foreign policy\n\nForeign policy is legitimate when it is peaceful and based upon mutual respect. It is no surprise that the most controversial foreign policy actions are those that are aggressive whether this is invading another state such as the Iraq war, attempting humanitarian intervention as in Kosovo, or engaging in clandestine actions such as Iran-Contra. This is because there is a powerful norm against aggressive action in international relations in order to maintain stability.\n\nUndermining states by circumventing censorship is simply a new method of engaging in aggressive actions against another state. NATO has accepted that cyber operations can be considered to constitute an armed conflict, [1] so it is increasingly accepted that actions on the internet can be aggressive action. Indeed “If such cyber operations are intended to coerce the government… the operation may constitute a prohibited ‘intervention’”. [2] While no one would argue that this policy will create a war it is not a very big step from considering cyber attacks to be armed conflict to considering undermining states through circumventing censorship to be an aggressive action.\n\n[1] Bowcott, Owen, “Rules of cyberwar: don't target nuclear plants or hospitals, says Nato manual”, The Guardian, 18 March 2013, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/18/rules-cyberwarfare-nato-manual\n\n[2] Schmitt, Michael N., ed., “The Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare”, Cambridge University Press, 2013, p.17. http://ccdcoe.org/249.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "293c4ef2f661c1c3bd859bae60867aca",
"text": "ional global science censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression The international system is based on equality and non-interference\n\nRelations between states are based upon “the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.” The UN Charter emphasises “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state”. [1] Within a state only the government is legitimate as the supreme authority within its territory. [2] Without such rules the bigger, richer, states would be able to pray on the weaker ones. This cannot simply be put aside because one state does not like how the other state runs its own internal affairs. The United Nations has gone so far as to explicitly state “all peoples have the right, freely and without external interference, to determine their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” [3] Circumventing censorship would clearly be another power attempting to impose its own ideas of political cultural and social development.\n\n[1] UN General Assembly, Article 2, Charter of the United Nations, 26 June 1945, http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml\n\n[2] Philpott, Dan, \"Sovereignty\", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2010/entries/sovereignty/\n\n[3] UN General Assembly, “Respect for the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States in their electoral processes”, 18 December 1990, A/RES/45/151 http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/topic,4565c22538,4565c25f437,3b00efe434,0,,,.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e454c85941a377874f01eb349637c96",
"text": "ional global science censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression This policy is not necessary and may be counterproductive\n\nUnless a state wishes to pull the plug on the internet entirely state censorship on the internet is never complete. Dissidents and those who are interested in getting around censorship will manage with or without help from other governments, they will use privately developed software, or proxies to get around censors and protect themselves. Having help from foreign governments to bypass censorship may even put the people this policy is trying to empower in an even worse position. The use of software that is meant to undermine censorship helps to prove that the dissident’s intent is hostile towards the government and the state’s policies – otherwise they would not need to software, and would not resort to using methods developed by foreign countries. Russia is increasingly cracking down on those who have contact or receive help from ‘foreign agents’ particularly foreign NGOs, such a policy could be as easily applied to online help as financial aid. [1]\n\n[1] Earle, Jonathan, “Hundreds of NGOs Checked for Foreign Agents, Extremism”, The Moscow Times, 19 March 2013, http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/hundreds-of-ngos-checked-for-foreign-agents-extremism/477173.html\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
87d5282ca5420ea82dd6916a6484f9b6
|
It is legitimate to enable freedom
Circumventing censorship is a cost effective method of promoting freedom. When a country has refused to recognise the right to freedom of expression of its own people and indeed is actively stopping them from exercising this right then it is legitimate for other countries to step in to act as an enabler of those rights. By circumventing censorship so the freedom of expression is returned to those that have had their voice stripped from them. Doing this costs the state that is acting almost nothing; thus Britain’s Foreign Office is devoting a mere £1.5million to promoting expression online, [1] and yet the benefits for those who it helps can be considerable by helping them to publicise and organise themselves by providing a platform. The small cost should be compared to the benefit of keeping activists one step ahead of the authorities by, for example providing software that helps make sure online communication is anonymous, which can save lives.
[1] “William Hague promises £1.5m to promote freedom of expression online”, BBC News, 30 April 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17895456
|
[
{
"docid": "4381fb571d9813549ba4ecde37ce399e",
"text": "ional global science censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression As foreign states are not the legitimate representative of the people it is not legitimate for them to set themselves up as the arbiter for those whom it believes are being deprived of rights. These states that are meddling in the affairs of others cannot know the full consequences of their actions; circumventing censorship could end up simply undermining a stable state without enabling anything to replace it. This is just as the Arab Spring has undermined the Syrian government but has only resulted in a conflict not the creation of a stable democracy. Countries that undermined the Syrian government cannot say that their contribution has been positive when there have been 70,000 killed [1] as a result of the collapse of the state.\n\n[1] Nichols, Michelle, “Syria death toll likely near 70,000, says U.N. rights chief”, Reuters, 12 February 2013, http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/12/us-syria-crisis-un-idUSBRE91B19C20130212\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "583e3cde484321c3e44a2fb200ac9192",
"text": "ional global science censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression It is not up to outside powers to decide what is and what is not in the interest of any peoples but their own. While those attempting to circumvent censorship may see themselves as promoting some kind of universal human rights in practice they are pushing their own notions on other peoples that may not share these ideals. This may be the case even when there are some in that start that share these ideas; thus for example while there are dissidents in China that want democracy, most of the population is not particularly concerned with creating a more democratic system and in 2009 95.9% were satisfied with their government’s performance. [1]\n\n[1] Saich, Tony, “Chinese governance seen through the people’s eyes”, East Asia Forum, 24 July 2011, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/07/24/chinese-governance-seen-through-the-people-s-eyes/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f753ef10b4a3d48ad5d721b89c261160",
"text": "ional global science censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression The public are rarely interested in foreign policy and want to keep well clear of foreign entanglements; they may like the idea of promoting democracy but if it means anything more than simple public support then they shy away as shown by only around 20-30% considering it a priority. [1] Undermining censorship may seem to be a cheap option for governments but they then have to own the consequences; such as having to pay to build stability which may be much more costly. The American people may have supported the Iraq war but they were against the immense amounts of wealth that was spent to try to put the country back together again. By undermining censorship revolution is being promoted along with the damage and chaos this can bring so the result may be a costly rebuilding process, possibly with troops on the ground.\n\n[1] “Historically, Public Has Given Low Priority to Promoting Democracy Overseas”, Pew Research Center, 4 February 2011, http://www.pewresearch.org/2011/02/04/historically-public-has-given-low-priority-to-promoting-democracy-overseas/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b2c7dd7b658e3321818d0663e1a24ef9",
"text": "ional global science censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression There is little certainty that undermining an autocracy will benefit the countries that undermine it. No state can full control what goes on in another state; an even more oppressive regime could be the result. Even if there is a transition to a democracy this does not mean it will benefit those who wanted change. This is because democratic governments have to take account of the desires of their own people which may not always be in alignment with the interests of the foreign powers that supported political change. Thus while it would seem that the United States, as a democracy, should be naturally inclined to support a democratic government in Egypt in practice Mubarak operated more in line with US interests by keeping the peace with Israel that the Muslim brotherhood threatens to disrupt.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf7f909ed7ec6329fab3a3be278196ce",
"text": "ional global science censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression Proclamations that there can be no interference in another state are simply attempts by elites to cling on to power by preventing any help reaching those campaigning for democracy. These declarations, even the UN Charter, are negotiated, written, and signed by the leaders of governments not their people so favour those who are already in power. Something cannot be considered illegitimate just because it is supported by the status quo.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1dc3a50010ae24d8deb2364ff42c674",
"text": "ional global science censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression The NATO manual does specifically state “network intrusions, the deletion or destruction of data… computer network exploitation, and data theft do not amount to a non-international armed conflict.” [1] Instead it has to be persistent, and be carried out by organised armed groups; likely not criteria that would be ever satisfied by undermining censorship.\n\n[1] Schmitt, Michael N., ed., “The Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare”, Cambridge University Press, 2013, pp.87-88. http://ccdcoe.org/249.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7af1e449f657df6eebb3ab8e3fce4e83",
"text": "ional global science censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression If a regime is so intolerant as to threaten its citizens for using lines of communication that have been opened by another country then that country is clearly in need of greater openness towards freedom of expression and information. This is something that undermining censorship achieves. Clearly in a few cases the attempt to circumvent censorship may be used by the government but the creation of the path to circumvent censorship alone shows that foreign governments are watching. Even the most repressive regimes are less likely to use force when they know the outside world is watching.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4481e77fc54cbcb97822dc13e6547c83",
"text": "ional global science censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression Governments do not have a monopoly on the knowledge of what is best for their people and even the people may themselves make a mistake when deciding on whether to be an open society. Thus even if it appears that many people support censorship it may be legitimate to undermine it. In particular is people have never had a chance to experience life without that censorship how can they be considered to be making an informed choice when deciding to live with censorship?\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "538ec3cec80c3af4c0c122d9a457ed7c",
"text": "ional global science censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression It is legitimate to undermine illegitimate governments to promote human rights\n\nAutocratic governments that breach their people’s human rights have no legitimacy domestically as they do not represent the people or protect their interests. They also have no international legitimacy, as they are violating their obligations that they have signed up to through various international agreements such as the universal declaration of human rights [1] and the international covenant on civil and political rights [2] which oblige states to respect their citizen’s human rights. Other states therefore are legitimate in acting for the people of the repressed state to undermine their government and take up their cause. By imposing censorship the government is violating its people's freedom of expression which that government has promised to uphold therefore it is right that other governments should endeavour to uphold that standard. It was therefore right for the west to undermine the USSR and the communist governments of Eastern Europe through radio broadcasts such as Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, they gained immense audiences, a third of urban adults in the USSR and almost half of East Europeans with these sources often being considered more credible. [3]\n\n[1] UN General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948, 217 A (III), http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b3712c.html\n\n[2] UN General Assembly, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 999, p. 171, http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b3aa0.html\n\n[3] Johnson, A. Ross, and Parta, R. Eugene, “Cold War International Broadcasting: Lessons Learned”, Briefing to the Rancho Mirage Seminar, http://media.hoover.org/sites/default/files/documents/Communicating_with_the_World_of_Islam_A_Ross_Johnson_53.pdf p.54\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "15c41d924b4d9a0127006ec1c2d8299d",
"text": "ional global science censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression It is domestic not international legitimacy that matters\n\nWhat matters for a state when it comes to foreign policy, and therefore with helping to circumvent censorship, is whether the policy is considered legitimate domestically. Since a government's legitimacy is domestically derived from the support of its people if they support the policy then it is legitimate. While it is often not considered a top priority people in democracies usually support promoting human rights and spreading democracy around the world. [1]\n\n[1] Stevenson, Kirsten, “Strong support for democracy promotion in national opinion ballot”, Foreign Policy Association, 23 October 2012, http://www.fpa.org/features/index.cfm?act=feature&announcement_id=175\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "131f5712868a794748311f9c04fd531d",
"text": "ional global science censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression Advancing national interests\n\nA nation’s foreign policy should be primarily concerned with advancing the national interest. By the national interest we mean promoting the interest of the nation as a whole rather than any of its subnational groups; whether this is building up the state's military power to protect its citizens through alliances or military bases, benefiting the nation's economy through trade deals, or encouraging the creation of friendly governments around the globe. [1] Circumventing censorship helps obtain this last objective for democracies by encouraging peoples in autocracies to find their own voice and push for democracy; a system of government that is more compatible to other democracies. Ultimately this will also provide other benefits; friendly governments with similar political systems are more likely to create trade agreements with each other so providing economic benefits, in the 1990s the volume of trade between a democracy and autocracy was on average 40% less than two democracies. [2] Equally importantly democracies do not fight other democracies so helping to create stability. [3]\n\n[1] Realism emphasises the alliances bit, Liberalism the economic self interest, and constructivists spreading values. Walt, Stephen M, “International Relations: One World, Many Theories”, Foreign Policy, Spring 1998, http://83.143.248.39/faculty/mtzankova/POS%20102%20Readings/Walt_International%20Relations_One%20World,%20Many%20Theories.pdf\n\n[2] Mansfield, Edward D., et al., “Free to Trade: Democracies, Autocracies, and International Trade”, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 94, No. 2, http://www.stanford.edu/class/polisci243b/readings/v0002547.pdf p.318\n\n[3] Rousseau, David L., et al., “Assessing the Dayadic Nature of the Democratic Peace, 1918-88”, The American Political Science Review, Vol.90, No.3, http://people.duke.edu/~gelpi/democ.peace.pdf p.515\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6fccc107021bb2378197eca3740ecb34",
"text": "ional global science censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression Governments enable censorship to protect their citizens\n\nWhat censorship is it legitimate to undermine? Censorship is often created in order to protect the people not to strip them of freedoms. This is most obvious when we consider that filters to prevent hate speech or child pornography are forms of censorship that may be enabled with the intention of protecting citizens not repressing them. Iceland for example has recently decided to ban pornography and it would be enabled in a similar way to censorship by regimes like China or Iran. [1] Even harsher censorship that naturally looks more repressive to us may be considered a legitimate means of protecting the people and their values. When a government is using censorship to ensure stability is that censorship not justified when compared to the alternative? While there may be divisions internally about the legitimacy of this censorship it is certainly not legitimate for outside actors to impose their own idea of how much censorship there should be.\n\n[1] Kiss, Jemima, “Iceland’s porn ban ‘conflicts with the idea of a free society’, say critics”, guardian.co.uk, 28 February 2013, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/28/iceland-porn-ban-free-society\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b01e908e40c8495b199f4553c6956fc6",
"text": "ional global science censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression Aggressive foreign policy is not legitimate foreign policy\n\nForeign policy is legitimate when it is peaceful and based upon mutual respect. It is no surprise that the most controversial foreign policy actions are those that are aggressive whether this is invading another state such as the Iraq war, attempting humanitarian intervention as in Kosovo, or engaging in clandestine actions such as Iran-Contra. This is because there is a powerful norm against aggressive action in international relations in order to maintain stability.\n\nUndermining states by circumventing censorship is simply a new method of engaging in aggressive actions against another state. NATO has accepted that cyber operations can be considered to constitute an armed conflict, [1] so it is increasingly accepted that actions on the internet can be aggressive action. Indeed “If such cyber operations are intended to coerce the government… the operation may constitute a prohibited ‘intervention’”. [2] While no one would argue that this policy will create a war it is not a very big step from considering cyber attacks to be armed conflict to considering undermining states through circumventing censorship to be an aggressive action.\n\n[1] Bowcott, Owen, “Rules of cyberwar: don't target nuclear plants or hospitals, says Nato manual”, The Guardian, 18 March 2013, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/18/rules-cyberwarfare-nato-manual\n\n[2] Schmitt, Michael N., ed., “The Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare”, Cambridge University Press, 2013, p.17. http://ccdcoe.org/249.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "293c4ef2f661c1c3bd859bae60867aca",
"text": "ional global science censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression The international system is based on equality and non-interference\n\nRelations between states are based upon “the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.” The UN Charter emphasises “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state”. [1] Within a state only the government is legitimate as the supreme authority within its territory. [2] Without such rules the bigger, richer, states would be able to pray on the weaker ones. This cannot simply be put aside because one state does not like how the other state runs its own internal affairs. The United Nations has gone so far as to explicitly state “all peoples have the right, freely and without external interference, to determine their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” [3] Circumventing censorship would clearly be another power attempting to impose its own ideas of political cultural and social development.\n\n[1] UN General Assembly, Article 2, Charter of the United Nations, 26 June 1945, http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml\n\n[2] Philpott, Dan, \"Sovereignty\", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2010/entries/sovereignty/\n\n[3] UN General Assembly, “Respect for the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States in their electoral processes”, 18 December 1990, A/RES/45/151 http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/topic,4565c22538,4565c25f437,3b00efe434,0,,,.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e454c85941a377874f01eb349637c96",
"text": "ional global science censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression This policy is not necessary and may be counterproductive\n\nUnless a state wishes to pull the plug on the internet entirely state censorship on the internet is never complete. Dissidents and those who are interested in getting around censorship will manage with or without help from other governments, they will use privately developed software, or proxies to get around censors and protect themselves. Having help from foreign governments to bypass censorship may even put the people this policy is trying to empower in an even worse position. The use of software that is meant to undermine censorship helps to prove that the dissident’s intent is hostile towards the government and the state’s policies – otherwise they would not need to software, and would not resort to using methods developed by foreign countries. Russia is increasingly cracking down on those who have contact or receive help from ‘foreign agents’ particularly foreign NGOs, such a policy could be as easily applied to online help as financial aid. [1]\n\n[1] Earle, Jonathan, “Hundreds of NGOs Checked for Foreign Agents, Extremism”, The Moscow Times, 19 March 2013, http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/hundreds-of-ngos-checked-for-foreign-agents-extremism/477173.html\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
a788c7523c1eade525024f56aa711724
|
Technology should not circumvent consumer protection laws
The great appeal of 3D printers is that they make consuming more efficient than normal methods: however, normal methods are inefficient in part because they undergo important checks and balances. Without proper regulations, standards are quickly dropped to save money and the health of thousands of consumers is put at risk. Such is the case in China, where consumer protection regulations are inefficient.7 Through 3D printing this becomes a global problem. Any company, real or fake, can sell products online without them having been approved. This means that people may buy dangerous products from unidentifiable, and thus legally unaccountable, companies. Shifting the burden of ensuring safety standards away from companies and onto consumers, who have significantly less information, is a threat to consumers’ health and safety.
[7] “China again heads EU’s dangerous products list”, EUbusiness. 16 April 2010. http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/china-consumer.454
|
[
{
"docid": "6cd88cfeaa1b5da37b6932c41f47f2fc",
"text": "ent pollution science censorship ip science general house would ban sale 3d If you purchase a poor quality product, you are the one to blame: this is already the case now if one chooses to buy a cheaper product from a less reliable source. Under a 3D printer market you are still likely to be purchasing most of your products from reliable brands with an incentive to keep producing quality products as they want you to return and buy more of their products. If you choose not to, you are aware of the risk you take, and can easily inform yourself of the risks on peer review websites and forums before making your choice.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "4a7f0b69b1c0c1a6dc8143d2db77cd49",
"text": "ent pollution science censorship ip science general house would ban sale 3d This harm, realistically, is minimal. Those who want to buy guns would still buy them illegally without 3D printers. Guns can be cheap in the black market since they can be mass produced, and to print a gun one first has to purchase a printer, the materials and often also the blueprints. This is similarly the case for other illegal substances. The risk that things can be used for harmful purposes is not a sufficient reason, because those who want to harm themselves or others have the means to do so already. That is why the Madrid bombers were able to develop their own bombs from the internet before 3D printers had been developed: where there is a will, there will always be a way, and it is the will and not the way that it is ever useful to tackle.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2be10e64f8b5562e7759d4dd507250f3",
"text": "ent pollution science censorship ip science general house would ban sale 3d For the people for whom the illegality of piracy is not a deterrent, the illegality of owning a domestic 3D printer will not be an obstacle either. Banning 3D printers may only result in large scale 3D printer manufacturing piracy.\n\nUnder this model, on the other hand, even if there is a slight infringement on intellectual property, a tax can be imposed on the private ownership on 3D printers that is used for rewarding innovation.15\n\n[15] See “This house would abolish intellectual property rights”, Debatabase. http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/law/house-would-abolish-intellectual-property-rights\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf3bc2cba5ec8b2cf08369912d1f9a8a",
"text": "ent pollution science censorship ip science general house would ban sale 3d This argument ignores the massive impact 3D printers can have on long-term sustainability, by providing access to the goods the Third World needs to get out of poverty.10 Food, water, medicine and shelter are examples of things that are expensive to transport and difficult to spread, and yet can be produced by 3D printers at a much lower cost. When the things that are scarce in the third world become less scarce, developing countries will be able to compete more fairly with the Western world.\n\nEven in the short term, these harms will not happen. The only short term consequence will be a shift from this labour-intensive form of production into another labour-intensive sector. A massive surplus of cheap labour will still attract new investors in other sectors where 3D printers do not have a monopoly. This is already the case with investment into call centres in India and the Philippines11, and tourism throughout the developing world12.\n\n[10] “A third-world dimension”, The Economist. 3 November 2012. www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21565577-new-manufacturing-technique-could-help-poor-countries-well-rich-ones\n\n[11] McGeown, Kate. “The Philippines: The world´s hotline”. BBC News. 17 July 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14149615\n\n[12] Samimi, Ahmad, Sadeghi, Somaye, and Sadeghi, Soraya. “Tourism and Economic Growth in Developing Countries: P-VAR Approach”, Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research. 2011. http://www.idosi.org/mejsr/mejsr10(1)11/5.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aaab5b011679e903f4638f6af68a496a",
"text": "ent pollution science censorship ip science general house would ban sale 3d Yes, perhaps in the short term the excitement of a 3D printer will make people print more than they can make use of. In the long run, however, it is likely that by making goods more affordable for everyone 3D printers will be able to reduce problems of scarcity. When people have a more equal access to necessities, material possessions cease to become such a symbol of power, and they become less important for people.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "48f280746f3d96261b6f5fbf08569e75",
"text": "ent pollution science censorship ip science general house would ban sale 3d There is still a need for expertise: although they make manufacturing easier, 3D printers require knowledge that most people do not have. Most people will still be unable to create most products from scratch (and it may be dangerous to try). Individuals will therefore still have to rely on companies for their everyday needs. It is also untrue that they will never have to leave their home, since they will also need to purchase and transport printing materials.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "18e23a764d5d9078d80a04e5351a4e53",
"text": "ent pollution science censorship ip science general house would ban sale 3d A post-scarcity society is unrealistic. 3D printers still come with large costs, in terms of machinery, materials and blueprints. Those that can afford the more complex printers and the higher quality materials will benefit much more than others. While these costs exist, and there is no near future in which they do not, scarcity will continue to be a problem. This is especially the case since the need for expertise remains. The vast majority of products of reasonable quality will still be produced by corporations with a profit incentive, and available only to those who can afford them.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "63630949df3029fdfa1408ddcd93d97d",
"text": "ent pollution science censorship ip science general house would ban sale 3d The difference is minimal between only companies having 3D printers and extending them to households. Printer owners would, for example, still have to purchase and transport printing materials. Many printers still involve large levels of waste19, and these are probably the lower quality printers that individual consumers are more likely to afford. Furthermore, household printing can actually harm the environment by provoking people to consume more than they would if price and convenience were deterrents. Industrial printing on its own can make a significant difference in terms of eco-friendly production: this should not be compromised by dropping all limits on production.\n\n[19] Faludi, Jeremy. “Is 3D printing an environmental win?”, GreenBiz. 19 July 2013. http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2013/07/19/3d-printing-environmental-win\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "76fddfa79239e1539ef6cfc39d74faa9",
"text": "ent pollution science censorship ip science general house would ban sale 3d Household 3D printers will, in practice, hamper innovation both from companies and individuals. Firstly, individuals will still be faced with the large barrier to entry of lacking sufficient expertise to produce much of what they want. Any “flow of ideas” that may arise will only be composed of low-quality designs. Secondly, individuals will have less incentive to innovate when the market is out of control and free designs are floating all over the internet. Any attempt at differentiation is impossible.\n\nThirdly, and more importantly, the problems with copyright law once 3D printers are domestic will deter both companies and individuals from innovating. Revolutionary products require effort and knowledge to design: they will not be created without a profit incentive.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47c286e7d54b4f86c6830a4887da379d",
"text": "ent pollution science censorship ip science general house would ban sale 3d The restrictions on what the state can ban are only valid inasmuch as they protect fundamental right. The supposed right to 3D printers is not fundamental, but is derived from a right to own good things, if they are available. If the state can provide an alternative that yields similar benefits it does not actually infringe any fundamental right by banning their domestic use. For example, industrial 3D printed manufacturing also provides cheap and innovative products. On the other hand, the potential harms of domestic printers are exponential, and we do not have a right to anything that causes harm to society. The state therefore has a mandate to ban 3D printers in households.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e2d8aff448355c865636385b27a0c7da",
"text": "ent pollution science censorship ip science general house would ban sale 3d Private 3D printers make it impossible to regulate illegal products\n\nAs the technology develops, it seems likely that guns like the one created by Defense Distributed will continue to appear, becoming cheaper, more functional and more accessible. While the US succeeded in promptly removing the blueprints, removing blueprints from the internet will quickly prove impossible as the phenomenon inevitably becomes more widespread.5\n\nThis is dangerous for all the same reasons that we do not allow people to produce their own weapons: we cannot ensure criminals or mentally ill people do not gain access to them, and we cannot track them after they have been used to commit a crime. Furthermore, they can be made of plastic, thus making them essentially undetectable to most security scans. When weapons become so easily accessible, crimes become easier for terrorists or criminals to commit, and thus more crimes take place. By banning printers before blueprints spread, we could avoid disasters such as the 2004 bombings in Madrid, in which the bombs were produced from instructions on the internet6.\n\nSimilarly, the production of drugs and other illegal substances becomes impossible to regulate when anybody can produce anything in their own homes from plans on the internet. Restricting the spread of blueprints online is impossible, so the physical means of production must be regulated before they become irreversibly accessible. Banning household 3D printers, therefore, is a necessary step to uphold the rules we find important to our safety.\n\n[5] Winter, Jana. “Homeland Security bulletin warns 3D-printed guns may be ‘impossible’ to stop”, FoxNews.com, Fox News. 23 May 2013. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/05/23/govt-memo-warns-3d-printed-guns-may-be-impossible-to-stop/\n\n[6] “Online University: Jihad 101 for Would-Be Terrorists”, Spiegel Online International. 17 August 2006. http://www.spiegel.de/international/al-qaida-s-online-university-jihad-101-for-would-be-terrorists-a-432133.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "72ab768d4c091b1ec3ed1abe221b620b",
"text": "ent pollution science censorship ip science general house would ban sale 3d Solid piracy will become as problematic as virtual piracy\n\nIntellectual property law is split into copyright, design protection, patents, and trademarks. All areas can be easily infringed by 3D printing.13 There is no meaningful way of sustaining these laws against individuals who choose to use 3D printers to benefit from the hard work of others. Much in the same way one can steal music online, blueprints for products can be decoded or stolen and subsequently reproduced at almost no expense. It may be impossible to determine where this has been done.14 This is unjust in itself, but it also creates a large deterrent from innovating by removing the profit incentive. Corporations and individuals will be pushed away from creating high quality innovative products if they know their blueprints can be pirated and spread online for free or for less than they themselves charge, making their effort in creating them worthless.\n\n[13] Gehl, Mary. “The Implications of 3D Printing”, Technology, Koinonia House. September 2012. http://www.khouse.org/articles/2012/1078/\n\n[14] Lawrence, Jon. “3D Printing: legal and regulatory issues”, Economic Frontiers Australia. 8 August 2013. https://www.efa.org.au/2013/08/08/3d-printing-issues/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "816f31e1b686f4f0c18c59c21a16202f",
"text": "ent pollution science censorship ip science general house would ban sale 3d 3D printers promote uncontrolled consumerism\n\nWhile 3D printing may revolutionise professional manufacturing and lead to less waste, in the household it promotes mindless consumerism. By producing anything desired cheaply and more accessibly, without even having to leave your house, they encourage people consume much more than they otherwise would. This happens because individual consumers tend not to be concerned about the sustainability implications of every purchase: they will do so even less when 3D printers allow instant gratification.\n\nOn one hand, it can make people more dependent on material possessions, which makes it harder for them to attain more sustainable forms of happiness. Additionally, this eventually leads to more waste and overproduction, reversing all the potential benefits of industrial 3D printing.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8227840fc3b1c4d1412b1dd656434dbf",
"text": "ent pollution science censorship ip science general house would ban sale 3d Household 3D printing can, in the short term, destroy developing economies\n\nAll nations to develop economically depend on the importation of capital. In most cases, this takes the shape of labour-intense manufacturing. In fact, scarcely any countries have developed without transitioning through having a large manufacturing sector.8 It takes time for these countries to develop the capital and infrastructure to enter higher barrier to entry markets, such as the service sector. Transitioning without of manufacturing is therefore not an option for the majority of developing nations, and the exceptions that have succeeded in creating economic growth without large scale manufacturing, such as India and Sri Lanka, relied on spectacular luck.9 As a result, many developing nations depend on exporting cheap products to the developed world, where consumption is the highest.\n\nIf demand for the goods they produce is satisfied in the developed world, such countries will be unable to export. Because of the labour intensiveness of the manufacturing this will affect a large number of people. Short term drops in growth are particularly harmful in the developing world, where social security is too underdeveloped to cushion their effect. People who work long hours for minimal wages do so because unemployment is not an option. Were these factories to have to close suddenly, the social consequences would be devastating.\n\n3D printers provoke this to happen by satisfying all demand for cheap products. When individuals in Western liberal democracies can get access to cheaper products from their own home, developing nations will be unable to compete, and their exports fall substantially. 3D printers should remain at the industry level, where companies are more likely to rationally prefer importing cheap products over the extra costs of using 3D printers, such as electricity, and are likely to continue trade with the Third World.\n\n[8] “Breaking In and Moving Up: New Industrial Challenges for the Bottom Billion and the Middle Income Countries”, Industrial Development Report, United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO). 2009. http://www.unido.org/fileadmin/user_media/Publications/IDR/2009/IDR_2009_print.PDF\n\n[9] “The Service Elevator”, The Economist. 19 May 2011. http://www.economist.com/node/18712351\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "29145f3314ed5542831ac7c27816ab4d",
"text": "ent pollution science censorship ip science general house would ban sale 3d The state should refrain from imposing bans\n\nIn Western liberal democracies, we generally consider an individual’s private sphere to be worth protecting. We only give the state license to violate it when something is objectively largely harmful to that person or to society. When something is not very clearly harmful we let people make their own decisions because the state is not infallible in its judgements about what lifestyles are better than others.\n\nTherefore, simply saying that there is a risk that printers will be misused is not sufficient grounds for banning them altogether. If technology makes it easier for people to do what they want, this is a good thing; if people then want to do things that we consider harmful this is a problem in itself. The solution is not to ban an entire means of production in order to stop a minority from producing dangerous things, but to educate people about the risks so they can freely make better decisions. Making it harder for people to do bad things is useless, furthermore, since those that wish to purchase a gun or take drugs can already find ways of doing so without 3D printers. One may even argue that it is better for everybody to have access to a gun, for example, and not only those who are willing to break the law to get one.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7122f494a9f14c0ab04a8bb0f6f567fa",
"text": "ent pollution science censorship ip science general house would ban sale 3d Banning 3D printers wastes a chance for innovation\n\nRight now, there are large barriers to entry for individuals and small companies trying to enter any market. Economies of scale make it hard for them to compete with large manufacturers, and they are additionally bound to slow and inefficient quality regulations. This severely limits any kind of innovation. The collective possession of 3D printers would facilitate creation. Anybody could have an idea and implement it into a solid product, which is cheap to produce in your own home without economies of scale. There are already examples all over the world of people creating innovating prototypes and attracting investors16. 3D printing therefore means that anyone can set up in manufacturing without large start-up costs. This means that the flow of ideas in society and the discussion that accompanies it – such as people posting blueprints on blogs and forums and improving each other’s products – would develop infinitely faster than when it is limited to large manufacturers.17\n\n[16] Palermo, Elizabeth. “10 Amazing 3D-Printing Startups”, Business News Daily. 18 June 2013. http://www.businessnewsdaily.com/4646-3d-printing-companies.html\n\n[17] Wainwright, Oliver. “Is DIY design more than a passing fad?”, Architecture and Design Blog, The Guardian. 24 July 2013. http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/architecture-design-blog/2013/jul/24/design-museum-diy-3d-printing\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bed73437cd67166b841cb699f8fe53c5",
"text": "ent pollution science censorship ip science general house would ban sale 3d 3D printing opens the doors to a post-scarcity society\n\nIndustrial 3D printing allows for a cheaper, faster and more sustainable form of production, but somebody still has to sell and purchase the products. Household 3D printers give people the possibility of producing otherwise inaccessible things for a minimal cost, up to hundreds of times cheaper than their current store price20. Numerous websites, such as Thingiverse21, already act as databases for free printable designs. This trend would allow people to save thousands on necessities: food, appliances, medicine, and human organs are some examples. Even systems for power production or more efficient ways of collecting sustainable energy could be created. This would make scarcity disappear as we know it, and thus tackle one of society’s greatest problems. This is a very long way off even with 3D printers but if it is to occur it is essential that the means of production not be monopolised by companies.\n\n[20] Kelly, Heather. “Study: At-home 3-D printing could save consumers ‘thousands’”, What’s Next, CNN. 31 July 2013. http://whatsnext.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/31/study-at-home-3-d-printing-could-save-consumers-thousands/\n\n[21] Thingiverse, Makerbot Industries. http://www.thingiverse.com/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "19119c21baccfdd655c476ccd675b883",
"text": "ent pollution science censorship ip science general house would ban sale 3d Democratising manufacturing gives people more freedom\n\nIndividuals are the most fit to decide for themselves what they need and what they want to be happy. When corporations attempt to match demand they do so imperfectly because they have to cater to large numbers of people. Letting people create and customise whatever they want gives them, quite literally, an infinite selection to choose from. This maximises freedom for the consumer and leads to a better quality of life: most of your needs can be met exactly as you want them, without even having to leave your home.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "60321d6c29392c0f9e0279254cc3d023",
"text": "ent pollution science censorship ip science general house would ban sale 3d Household 3D printers would reduce the environmental harms of consuming\n\nThe more is produced by 3D printing, the better: it makes consuming much more environmentally friendly. They involve less transportation costs, no large scale factories, and by involving additive manufacturing, they can use as little as only a tenth of the material that subtractive manufacturing would require.18 When households, and not only companies, have access to 3D printers, companies will no longer have to move products around the world, but can sell electronic blueprints instead. Furthermore, things are only actually produced after they have been purchased, reducing waste even more.\n\n[18] “Print me a Stradivarius”, The Economist. 10 February 2011. http://www.economist.com/node/18114327\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
08a6a2bd0d5098a066678392ae2f46d2
|
Monitoring allows parents to correct children who are wasting their time.
Parents also need to monitor their children to ensure that they are properly using the time they have with the computer and the mobile phone. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation 40% of 8- to 18-year olds spend 54 minutes a day on social media sites.[1] and that “when alerted to a new social networking site activity, like a new tweet or Facebook message, users take 20 to 25 minutes on average to return to the original task” resulting to 20% lower grades. [2] Thus, parents must constantly monitor the digital activities of their children and see whether they have been maximizing the technology at their disposal in terms of researching for their homework, connecting with good friends and relatives, and many more.
[1] Foehr, Ulla G., Rideout, Victoria J., and Roberts, Donald F., “Generation M2 Media in the Lives of 8- to 18-Year-Olds”, The Kaiser Family Foundation, January 2010, p.21
[2] Gasser, Urs, and Palfrey, John, “Mastering Multitasking”, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, March 2009, p.17
|
[
{
"docid": "52abd307c7909702b022017e99e5b20f",
"text": "internet society family youth digital freedoms privacy house would allow parents Certainly parents should help their children to make most of their time with the computer and their phone. However, monitoring children in order to do so is lazy, or more precisely a form of ‘remote-control parenting’. Parents abuse of their children’s inherent right to privacy and feel that they have satisfactorily fulfilled their parental role when instead they are just lazy and unwilling to talk to their child personally about being a responsible netizen. [1] How are children to develop a healthy relationship to sharing information and privacy protection if they are constantly being surveilled by their own parents? More effective parents would instead choose to personally and positively teach their children about time management.\n\n[1] Shmueli, Benjamin, and Ayelet Blecher-Prigat. “Privacy for Children.” Columbia Human Rights Review. Rev. 759 (2010-2011): 760-795. Columbia Law School. Web. May 2013.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "728dbdcfa9a17de170c56bb9157ed3e5",
"text": "internet society family youth digital freedoms privacy house would allow parents While it is certainly beneficial for parents to immerse themselves in the digital world, it may not be good for them to be partially and informally educated by simple monitoring. Especially for parents who are not already familiar with the internet, monitoring may simply condition them to a culture of cyberstalking and being excessively in control of the digital behavior of their children. As it is, a number of children have abandoned Facebook because they feel that their parents are cyberstalking them. [1] Besides, there are other ways of educating oneself regarding ICT which include comprehensive online and video tutorials and library books that may cater to an unfamiliar parent’s questions about the digital world.\n\n[1] “Kids Are Abandoning Facebook To Flee Their Cyber-Stalking Parents.” 2 Oceans Vibe News. 2 Oceans Vibe Media. 11 Mar 2013. Web. May 2013\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6df45c46107d8d065ff310cdfddbbb90",
"text": "internet society family youth digital freedoms privacy house would allow parents Indeed it is important to consider that children do not receive or send sexually disturbing media. However, as proposition has already stated parents are much less likely to be digitally savvy than their children. Should they wish to learn children are likely to be able to penetrate any elaborate digital monitoring set by a parent. As it is, Defcon, one of the world’s largest hacker conventions, is already training 8- to 16-year olds to hack in a controlled environment. [1] That pornography is so widely available and so desirable is the product of a culture the glorifies sexuality and erotic human interaction. The effects on childrens well-being are by no means clear, indeed it can be argued that much of what parents are no able to communicate to their children in the way of sexual education is communicated to them through Internet pornography. While this brings with it all manner of problems, aside from the outrage of their parents there is little scientific data to suggest that mere exposure to pornography is causing wide-scale harm to children. Instead, it may be that many of the ‘objects’ of these debates on the rights of children are themselves quite a bit more mature than the debates would suggest..\n\n[1] Finkle, Jim. “Exclusive: Forget Spy Kids, try kiddie hacker conference.” Reuters. Thomas Reuters. 23 Jun 2011. Web. May 2013.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "83722c81a40910c39fc1bd944c4ccde2",
"text": "internet society family youth digital freedoms privacy house would allow parents While cyberbullying is indeed a danger to children, it is not an excuse to invade their personal life-worlds. The UNCRC clearly states that “(1) No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation,” and that, “(2) The child has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attack.” These ‘interferences’ or ‘attacks’ not only apply to third parties but to parents as well. [1] Moreover in less traditional ‘offline’ spaces children have far greater ability to choose which information they share with their parents and what they do not. As online spaces are not inherently more dangerous than those offline, it seems reasonable to suggest that similar limitations and restrictions on invasions of privacy that apply online should also apply offline. What a parent can do is to be there for their children and talk to them and support them. They should also spend time surfing the Internet together with them to discuss their issues and problems. But the child should always also have the opportunity to have his or her own protected and private space that is outside the every watchful surveilant eye of the parent..\n\n[1] United Nations Children’s Fund. Implementation Handbook for the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Fully revised 3rd edition. Geneva. United Nations Publications. Google Search. Web. May 2013.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "505289ab0a1fb5846060341c0d64c5f7",
"text": "internet society family youth digital freedoms privacy house would allow parents The individual right to privacy must certainly encompass the digital realm as proposition says. It is also undeniable that individual privacy enhances individuality and independence. However, this privacy can and should be regulated lest parents leave children ‘abandoned’ to their rights. [1] “One cannot compare reading a child’s journal to accessing his or her conversations online or through text messages,” says Betsy Landers, the president of the National Parent-Teacher Association of the US and explains, “It’s simply modern involvement.” [2] Thus, Hillary Clinton argues, “children should be granted rights, but in a stage-by-stage manner that accords with and pays attention to their physical and mental development and capacities.” [1] Applying this principle, children should be given digital privacy to an equitable extent and regulated whereby both conditions depend upon the maturity of the child.\n\n[1] Shmueli, Benjamin, and Ayelet Blecher-Prigat. “Privacy for Children.” Columbia Human Rights Review. Rev. 759 (2010-2011): 760-795. Columbia Law School. Web. May 2013.\n\n[2] Landers, Betty. “It’s Modern Parental Involvement.” New York Times. 28 June 2012: 1. New York Times. May 2013.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b63ac9fe5ffddfb4cd26a0d557e7edfa",
"text": "internet society family youth digital freedoms privacy house would allow parents It is true that trust is a cornerstone of relationships. Admittedly, the act of monitoring may initially stimulate feelings of distrust which are particularly destructive in relationships. But nonetheless, trust is earned, not granted. The only proactive way to gauge how much trust and responsibility to give a child in the digital world is monitoring. By monitoring a child, parents come to assess the initial capability of the child in digital responsibility and ultimately the level of trust and the level of responsibility he or she deserves and to be assigned subsequently. Ideally, the initial level of monitoring and follow-through should be maximum in order to make clear to the child that he is being guided. Only when a child proves himself and grows in digital maturity can monitoring and follow-through be gradually minimized and finally lifted. [1]\n\n[1] Bodenhamer, Gregory. Parents in Control. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995 Inc. Web. May 2013.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "378541bb09666564c50ed738c79cca80",
"text": "internet society family youth digital freedoms privacy house would allow parents While it is practical to use these parental controls, it is not always realistic to set such limited parameters to the digital freedom of children. Children need to understand that they have the capacity to breach their parents’ trust. [1] This not only allows a child to understand how to interact sensibly with the internet, but to experience taking an initiative to actually obey parents in surfing only safe sites. Selectively restricting a child’s digital freedom does not help in this case. Thus, monitoring is the only way for children to experience digital freedom in such a way that they too are both closely guided and free to do as they wish. Moreover, this is also self-contradictory because opposition claimed that children are capable of circumvention which children would be much more likely to do when blocked from accessing websites than simply monitored.\n\n[1] Shmueli, Benjamin, and Ayelet Blecher-Prigat. “Privacy for Children.” Columbia Human Rights Review. Rev. 759 (2010-2011): 760-795. Columbia Law School. Web. May 2013.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1bab4c60134a73f6ecef787bfcc4b144",
"text": "internet society family youth digital freedoms privacy house would allow parents Opposition claims that monitoring is ‘laziness’. Admittedly, monitoring makes digital parenting more efficient and comprehensive. But, such technology makes parenting practical, not ‘lazy’. As it is, many people blame technology for their own shortcomings. [1] Thus, parents need to know that monitoring will not do all the work for them. It is not lazy to monitor your children, it is clearly essential that children are monitored when involved in activities such as sports. The internet is a dangerous environment just as the sports field is and should have similar adult supervision.\n\n[1] Bradley, Tony. “Blaming Technology for Human Error: Trying To Fix Social Problems With Technical Tools.” About. About. 30 Mar 2005.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "681e634ca2ed17b22ecc06e4ace09ed2",
"text": "internet society family youth digital freedoms privacy house would allow parents Monitoring decreases children’s involvement with pornography.\n\nA 2005 study by the London School of Economics found that “while 57 per cent of the over-nines had seen porn online, only 16 per cent of parents knew.” [1] That number is almost certain to have increased. In addition sexting has also become prevalent as research from the UK suggests “over a third (38%) [of] under 18’s have received an offensive or distressing sexual image via text or email.” [2] This is dangerous because this digital reality extends to the real world. [3] W.L. Marshall says that early exposure to pornography may incite children to act out sexually against other children and may shape their sexual attitudes negatively, manifesting as insensitivity towards women and undervaluing monogamy. Only with monitoring can parents have absolute certainy of what their children are doing on the Internet. It may not allow them to prevent children from viewing pornography completely, but regulating the digital use of their children in such a way does not have to limit their digital freedoms or human rights.\n\n[1] Carey, Tanith. “Is YOUR child watching porn? The devastating effects of graphic images of sex on young minds”. Daily Mail. Daily Mail and General Trust. 25 April 2011. Web. May 2013.\n\n[2] “Truth of Sexting Amongst UK Teens.” BeatBullying. Beatbullying. 4 Aug 2009. Web. May 2013.\n\n[3] Hughes, Donna Rice. Kids Online: Protecting Your Children in Cyberspace. Michigan: Fleming H. Revell, 1998. ProtectKids. Web. May 2013.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d64e9c6ee55de3dbae091fc6d12f8dfa",
"text": "internet society family youth digital freedoms privacy house would allow parents Monitoring prevents cyberbullying.\n\nSocial approval is especially craved by teens because they are beginning to shift focus from family to peers. [1] Unfortunately, some teens may resort to cyberbullying others in order to gain erroneous respect from others and eliminate competitors in order to establish superficial friendships. Over the last few years a number of cyberbullying cases have caused the tragic suicides of Tyler Clementi (2010), Megan Meier who was bullied online by a non-existent Josh Evans whom she had feelings for (2006), and Ryan Halligan (2003) among others. [2] Responsible parents need to be one step ahead because at these relevant stages, cognitive abilities are advancing, but morals are lagging behind, meaning children are morally unequipped in making informed decisions in cyberspace. [1] One important way to make this guidance more effective would be if parents chose to monitor their children’s digital behavior by acquiring their passwords and paying close attention to their social network activity such as Facebook and chat rooms, even if it means skimming through their private messages. Applying the categorical imperative, if monitoring becomes universal, then cyberbullying will no longer be a problem in the cyberspace as the perpetrators would be quickly caught and disciplined.\n\n[1] Bauman, Sheri. Cyberbullying: a Virtual Menace. University of Arizona, 2007. Web. May 2013.\n\n[2] Littler, Chris. “8 Infamous Cases of Cyber-Bullying.” The Sixth Wall. Koldcast Entertainment Media. 7 Feb 2011. Web. May 2013 .\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a372698e89a244e34f72254b93e7679d",
"text": "internet society family youth digital freedoms privacy house would allow parents Monitoring raises digital awareness among parents.\n\nParents who are willing to monitor their children’s digital communications also benefit themselves. By setting up the necessary software and apps to secure their children’s online growth, parents familiarize themselves with basic digital skills and keep up with the latest in social media. As it stands there is a need to raise digital awareness among most parents. Sonia Livingston and Magdalena Bober in their extensive survey of the cyber experience of UK children and their parents report that “among parents only 1 in 3 know how to set up an email account, and only a fifth or fewer are able to set up a filter, remove a virus, download music or fix a problem.” [1] Parents becoming more digitally involved as a result of their children provides the added benefit of increasing the number of mature netizens so encouraging norms of good behavior online.\n\n[1] Livingstone, Sonia, and Magdalena Bober. “UK Children Go Online: Surveying the experiences of young people and their parents.” UK Children Go Online. Second Report (2004): 1-61.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a07e36802e1558f022d0d24253755c64",
"text": "internet society family youth digital freedoms privacy house would allow parents Monitoring is lazy parenting.\n\nThe proposition substitutes the good, old-fashioned way of teaching children how to be responsible, with invasions of their privacy, so violating an inherent rights [1]. Such parenting is called remote-control parenting. Parents who monitor their children’s digital behavior feel that they satisfactorily fulfil their parental role when in fact they are being lazy and uninvolved in the growth of their child. Children, especially the youngest, are “dependent upon their parents and require an intense and intimate relationship with their parents to satisfy their physical and emotional needs.” This is called a psychological attachment theory. Responsible parents would instead spend more time with their children teaching them about information management, when to and when not to disclose information, and interaction management, when to and when not to interact with others. [2] That parents have the ability to track their children is true, but doing so is not necessarily likely to make them better adults [3]. The key is for parents and children to talk regularly about the experiences of the child online. This is a process that cannot be substituted by parental monitoring.\n\n[1] United Nations Children’s Fund. Implementation Handbook for the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Fully revised 3rd edition. Geneva. United Nations Publications. Google Search. Web. May 2013.\n\n[2] Shmueli, Benjamin, and Ayelet Blecher-Prigat. “Privacy for Children.” Columbia Human Rights Review. Rev. 759 (2010-2011): 760-795. Columbia Law School. Web. May 2013.\n\n[3] “You Can Track Your Kids. But Should You?” New York Times. 27 June 2012: 1. New York Times. May 2013.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b4340f948f82ffa1b972228316533f2",
"text": "internet society family youth digital freedoms privacy house would allow parents Monitoring is a hindrance to forming relationships both outside and inside the family.\n\nIf children are being monitored, or if it seems to children that they are being monitored, they would immediately lose trust in their parents. As trust is reciprocal, children will also learn not to trust others. This will result in their difficulty in forging human connections, thereby straining their psychosocial growth. For them to learn how to trust therefore, children must know that they can break their parents’ trust (as said by the proposition before). This will allow them to understand, obey, and respect their parents on their own initiative, allowing them to respect others in the same manner as well. [1] This growth would only be possible if parents refuse this proposition and instead choose to educate their children how to be responsible beforehand.\n\n[1] Shmueli, Benjamin, and Ayelet Blecher-Prigat. “Privacy for Children.” Columbia Human Rights Review. Rev. 759 (2010-2011): 760-795. Columbia Law School. Web. May 2013.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c6050f20c978e302187a7bcafe35e1a9",
"text": "internet society family youth digital freedoms privacy house would allow parents This proposal is simply an invasion of privacy.\n\nChildren have as much right to privacy as any adult. Unfortunately there is yet to be a provision on the protection of privacy in either the United States Constitution or the Bill of Rights, though the Supreme Court states that the concept of privacy rooted within the framework of the Constitution. [1] This ambiguity causes confusion among parents regarding the concept of child privacy. Many maintain that privacy should be administered to a child as a privilege, not a right. [2] Fortunately, the UNCRC clearly states that “No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation,” [3] making child privacy an automatic right. Just as children should receive privacy in the real world, so too should they in the digital world. Individual rights, including right to privacy, shape intrafamilial relationships because they initiate individuality and independence. [1]\n\n[1] Shmueli, Benjamin, and Ayelet Blecher-Prigat. “Privacy for Children.” Columbia Human Rights Review. Rev. 759 (2010-2011): 760-795. Columbia Law School. Web. May 2013. P.764\n\n[2] Brenner, Susan. “The Privacy Privilege.” CYB3RCRIM3. Blogspot. 3 April 2009. May 2013.\n\n[3] United Nations Children’s Fund. Implementation Handbook for the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Fully revised 3rd edition. Geneva. United Nations Publications. Google Search. Web. May 2013.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "091ba40a3efeda29ee3f118812d1446e",
"text": "internet society family youth digital freedoms privacy house would allow parents Other parental controls are more practical and reasonable to administer.\n\nMonitoring would be extremely tedious and time-consuming. Many teens send over 100 texts a day, it would clearly be very time consuming to read them all along with all other digital communication.[1] By contrast content filtering, contact management, and privacy protection parental controls, which can be used to block all incoming and outgoing information, require only minimal supervision. Parents who meanwhile deem their children immature when it comes to social networking and gaming can instead impose user restrictions on the relevant websites and devices. [2] Administering these alternative parental controls leave for more quality time with children. In this case, only when children acquire sufficient digital maturity and responsibility can these controls be lifted. As they have learnt to be mature in the digital environment the children would most likely continue to surf safely even when the parental controls are lifted.\n\n[1] Goldberg, Stephanie, “Many teens send 100-plus texts a day, survey says”, CNN, 21 April 2010\n\n[2] Burt, David. “Parental Controls Product Guide.” 2010 Edition. n.d. PDF File. Web. May 2013.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
2a16931b02430d89a811b3a67b51fa73
|
Tradition demands that this instant replay not be used
One of the beautiful aspects of baseball is how little it has changed over the years. Just as it was a century ago, you have nine players on the field, batters swinging wooden bats, and umpires dressed in dark colors rendering the decisions. Maintaining tradition honors baseball’s long history. It also helps to promote comparability over time; the feats of today can be held side-by-side with those of 80 years ago. Moreover, it protects baseball against fads and other calls for change that might be popular at a particular moment, but could prove to be disastrous if implemented.
|
[
{
"docid": "daa02530b6069e15376def8d089026d2",
"text": "team sports house believes instant replay should be used major league baseball Baseball looks a lot like the game played 100 years ago. But it also looks very different in many crucial ways. Minorities can now play. The height of the mound has been changed. Night games are now played, with the help of lights. Technology—from the material of bats to the shape of gloves to the design of cleats—has evolved. Even the composition of baseballs is different. If all these things can change without eliciting much objection, then why would instant replay violate a tradition? And even if it did, it’s not clear that that tradition is a valuable one (as opposed to a neutral one or even a downright undesirable one). [1]\n\n[1] ZombieMonta, “Why baseball purists are dead wrong about instant replay,” Inhistoric, Sept. 5, 2011, http://www.inhistoric.com/2011/9/5/2405135/why-baseball-purists-are-dead-wrong-about-instant-replay .\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "fcf7c5735c32ed6f6a6b9dce45ac9ad3",
"text": "team sports house believes instant replay should be used major league baseball Baseball is indeed a slow sport, but instant replay will simply replace—rather than add to—other aspects that contribute to its snail-like pace.\n\nFirst, every time there is a controversial play where the umpire might have made a bad call, a player or the manager will come out and argue with the umpire. This arguing takes up about as much time as a video review would. But with a video review, there would be no arguing; everyone would know the umpires got it right.\n\nSecond, when an umpire is not certain about his call, he often will confer with the other umpires in a collective attempt for them to arrive at the correct decision. This, too, takes time, and this, too, can be replaced with instant replay, which has the added virtue of being more accurate.\n\nThird, not very many plays will require instant replay, so even if there is a dilatory effect, it will be relatively small.\n\nFinally, if baseball’s pace is such a concern, then MLB should first pursue a host of other steps to speed the game—time limits for pitchers, batters, arguments, seventh-inning stretches, between-inning warm-ups, etc.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e3b8489cd81c91a915a2a355599bb52",
"text": "team sports house believes instant replay should be used major league baseball If a play is part of a longer sequence of events, then don’t use video review for that play. Only permit it for when the ball is dead or play stops immediately upon the conclusion of the play. Continuation plays can easily be placed outside the scope of instant replay.\n\nAlso, there’s no such thing as “normative” calls on a play. If an umpire deems a “phantom tag” sufficient for an out, he is making an incorrect call. The rules do not allow for phantom tags. If instant replay puts an end to this practice, so much the better.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96a5a5231db7def15d42ea12fa0cf6fa",
"text": "team sports house believes instant replay should be used major league baseball Proposition is not arguing for all calls to be made via instant replay. Balls and strikes, for example, are best left to umpires because they are regarded as more subjective, and because there is no video equipment that consistently renders results that are widely viewed as accurate.\n\nBesides, the human element that really matters is that of the players. The umpires’ human element might be substituted for making sure that the players’ human element is what decides the game. The point of the baseball game is for players to win or lose the game, not for umpires to win or lose the game. A baseball game played by robots but umpired by people would have lost its “human element,” but the same certainly would not be said about a baseball game played by humans and officiated by robots (or even just human beings who occasionally consult video footage and interpret it in their human minds).\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "986fcddda82f3f53cb658693231fcc3d",
"text": "team sports house believes instant replay should be used major league baseball Even if instant replay will not result in 100% accuracy, it will improve the chance that any individual reviewed call will be made correctly. In the status quo, umpires make their calls as if they’re certain, so projecting false certainty really should not be a major concern for the Opposition. What video review will do is ensure that the umpire can be at least as confident about his call as the managers, coaches, and millions of viewers watching at home\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "16868e437b1b00e11afefe8ae9aca922",
"text": "team sports house believes instant replay should be used major league baseball Everybody knows umpires make mistakes; it happens often enough that fans and players all recognize it is part of the game. Nobody expects umpires to be perfect, but everyone wants umpires to strive for perfection. It’s just like with players: everybody wants their favourite players to strive to play perfectly, but nobody actually expects them to be perfect. Thus, we can’t sacrifice other elements of the game (discussed elsewhere in this debate) on the altar of perfection.\n\nIt is disingenuous to liken instant replay to eyeglasses or to mere tools to “supplement” umpires’ skill. Instant replay becomes a substitute for—not a supplement to—umpires’ skill. There is no skill involved in watching a slow-motion replay and determining whether a player was tagged; millions of fans do that each night from the comfort of their living rooms. We do not want the fundamental character of baseball to be changed by removing umpires from the equation, which is what happens every time instant replay is used.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e6ed5ba721f5ce705eea9ffcf36f3d8f",
"text": "team sports house believes instant replay should be used major league baseball This debate is clearly highlighting a difference in philosophy about the role of the umpire. Proposition first says that umpires should not be a central part of the game (see Argument Four). Now Proposition says that a game’s outcome is illegitimate if it was decided by a poor call by an umpire. This is the wrong way of looking at it. As long as the umpire tried his best to make an accurate judgment, then his call is “legitimate,” as is anything that flows from it. “Legitimacy” is not the same as “accuracy.” Indeed, the umpire’s call might be the sole source of legitimacy. Proposition previously quoted legendary umpire Bill Klem, but remember two of Klem’s other statements: “Gentlemen, he was out because I said he was out,” and “It ain’t nothin’ till I call it.” [1] There is no such thing as a “legitimate” outcome divorced from the context of an umpire’s call.\n\n[1] “Bill Klem,” Baseball-Reference.com, http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Bill_Klem .\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f2d4233a2560c717ae29259cb328ceb",
"text": "team sports house believes instant replay should be used major league baseball Baseball is not just about the players. It’s about managers, coaches, fans, and umpires too. It is a rather narrow view to argue that baseball umpires should remain invisible. Umpires play a central role in every game. They make signals that are meant to attract attention. When a crucial play occurs in the bottom of the ninth inning, all eyes are on the umpire to see what the outcome will be. Bruce Froemming, who broke Klem’s record for most MLB games umpired, had this rejoinder to Klem: “One of the really wrong theories about officiating is that a good official is one you never notice. The umpire who made that statement was probably a real poor official who tried to get his paycheck and hide behind his partners and stay out of trouble all his life. Control of the ballgame is the difference between umpires that show up for the players and the managers.” [1] Rather than denying umpires’ central role, we should acknowledge it.\n\nJoyce’s blown call—and the sorrow he felt afterward—are as memorable, and as part of the culture of baseball, as any celebration of a perfect game. Joyce’s post-game press conference might not go in the record books, but it will remain as much a part of baseball history as Galarraga’s achievement would have. It is pure assertion to argue that that is not what baseball is about or what fans want to see.\n\n[1] “Umpire Quotes,” Baseball Almanac, http://www.baseball-almanac.com/quotes/umpire_quotes.shtml .\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "58532fb23d965a391e4ca2c9c741d01b",
"text": "team sports house believes instant replay should be used major league baseball Both the arguments provided by the proposition are faulty.\n\nFirst, the vast majority of umpires’ calls might be correct, but that’s because the vast majority of calls are completely uncontroversial. The question is what percentage of difficult calls do umpires get right. And it would appear that umpires do not stack up well. An ESPN study of close calls found that umpires get over 20 percent of them wrong. [1] More frequent use of instant replays might correct some of these calls, but it would do so at the expense of severely damaging umpires’ credibility, which would impair their ability to do all the other important aspects of their job.\n\nSecond, in crucial moments, it’s imperative for umpires to be especially attentive, and for them to make conclusive decisions. If umpires know that they don’t have to get the call right because the cameras can save them, then they’re more likely to get it wrong. And if umpires’ decisions are not final, then what should be the most exciting moments in baseball games will be supplanted by monotonous waiting for umpires to review the footage.\n\n[1] T.J. Quinn and Willie Weinbaum, “Study shows 1 in 5 close calls wrong,” ESPN.com, Aug. 16, 2010, http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/otl/news/story?id=5464015\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd6732e88feacf032ced2f833733d8e8",
"text": "team sports house believes instant replay should be used major league baseball Umpires have to balance several important considerations: ensuring impartiality (and the appearance of impartiality as well); avoiding unnecessary delays in the game; ensuring that all rules are followed; and to behave in a manner that compels respect from all parties. To argue that the umpire’s job comes down to accurate calls is to oversimplify a very complicated role. As the official rules of Major League Baseball instruct umpires: “When you enter a ball park your sole duty is to umpire a ball game as the representative of baseball.... Keep the game moving. A ball game is often helped by energetic and earnest work of the umpires” (Official Baseball Rules, Rule 9.05). [1]\n\n[1] Ibid .\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b834a0f0ac24f3cf1dd447fd7c8ab8c",
"text": "team sports house believes instant replay should be used major league baseball Instant replay might be deceptive or inconclusive\n\nNot all video reviews will lead to an accurate ruling. Sometimes, camera angles could give a tricky, incorrect impression. Or they could shed little light on what actually happened. In these cases, instant replay will afford the appearance of certainty when the reality is much more complicated. In addition, all of the harms of inaccurate calls that Proposition is trying to solve will continue to exist.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bfabc6cc43b09767e877eb29fb30cfc0",
"text": "team sports house believes instant replay should be used major league baseball Instant replay will take the human element out of baseball\n\nBaseball, like all sports, “is the pursuit of transcending imperfection.” [1] It is not supposed to be executed with robotic perfection; it is supposed to involve human beings all trying their best to do the best they can.\n\nFallible umpire calls are part of the drama of baseball. Many people enjoy the excitement that comes with the fallibility of umpire's calls. This sub-plot in baseball in unique and should be preserved.\n\nIndeed, fooling the ump is a time-honored part of the game. [2] It is not cheating; no rule is broken when one pretends to have been hit by a pitch to try to dupe the umpire. It is a colourful, even skilful way to work within the imperfect, very human parameters that the sport.\n\n[1] Mark Coatney, “The Greatness and Perfection of Missing the Call,” Daily Beast, June 2, 2010, http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/06/03/the-greatness-and-perfection-of-missing-the-call.html .\n\n[2] Tom Krasovic, “Dusty Baker Defends Umpires Amid Calls for Expanded Instant Replay,” AOL News, Oct. 9, 2010, http://www.aolnews.com/2010/10/09/dusty-baker-defends-umpires-amid-calls-for-expanded-instant-repl/ .\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "50224dac696fdb35b12dcb58e80fc35d",
"text": "team sports house believes instant replay should be used major league baseball Many plays don’t lend themselves to video review\n\nThere are two types of plays that defy instant replay. The first is one that would belong to a longer sequence of events, called “continuation plays.” Often, when an umpire makes a call, the ball is still in play, and more plays might follow. A commentator offers this scenario: “For example, if the umpire calls a ball foul and replay shows it was fair and the decision is overturned by replay, how do you handle the base runners?” [1] There’s just no easy way for video replay to be used in continuation plays.\n\n[1] Don Hunsberger, “Let’s bring meaningful instant replay to baseball,” Daily Commercial, June 6, 2010, http://www.dailycommercial.com/060610hunsberger .\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b623dd9dfc50619896a902db4c377268",
"text": "team sports house believes instant replay should be used major league baseball Instant replay will take too long\n\nWe already see it with boundary calls: The umpires need to go to the review station, then they need to watch the footage of the play several times, then they need to weigh whether the footage is convincing enough to meet the requisite burden of proof, and then they need to return to the field and signal their decision. In the meantime, tens of thousands of fans are sitting in the stands waiting, millions of people are watching at home, the pitcher is becoming less limber, and any momentum to the game is completely lost. It’s often noted that baseball is a slow sport. “Baseball has no clock,” the saying goes. [1] Instant replay will slow down an already-slow game.\n\n[1] William Deresiewicz, “Metaphors We Play By,” American Scholar, June 6, 2011, http://theamericanscholar.org/metaphors-we-play-by/ .\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b3f65f7d4300f30530736b75b9fbb0e8",
"text": "team sports house believes instant replay should be used major league baseball It’s not possible to get every call right, so instant replay is a necessary supplement to umpires’ skill\n\nUmpires must make split-second judgments, often from bad angles and with many elements to watch simultaneously. Mistakes will happen. Even the official rules acknowledge this when it tells umpires, “You no doubt are going to make mistakes” (Official Baseball Rules, Rule 9.05). [1] Some calls will have to be made from a significant distance away from where the umpire is located—a commonly cited justification of MLB’s adoption of instant replay on boundary calls. [2] Fans hold umpires to an exceptionally high standard; as former umpire Nestor Chylak put it, “They expect an umpire to be perfect on Opening Day and to improve as the season goes on.” [3] But it is impossible for a human to attain perfection on his own, so we should provide him with the tools that will enable him to meet the exacting standards set out for him.\n\nIt is folly to withhold technology that is already available. Even MLB Commissioner Bud Selig, generally an opponent of instant replay, acknowledged “that the extraordinary technology that we now have merits the use of instant replay on a very limited basis” when he announced its adoption on boundary calls. [4] Just as we would never countenance a rule prohibiting umpires from wearing eyeglasses to see calls better, we should also not tolerate a rule that essentially keeps umpires blind to a reality that everyone else—reporters, coaches, and fans—has access to. Well-respected Sports Illustrate columnist Joe Posnanski captured this point well: “Baseball ... should institute replay because it’s just not sustainable in today’s technological world to make bad calls on the field. Those days are over.... You can’t keep giving the fans at home better access to the truth than the home plate umpire.” [5] Instant replay is a necessary tool to help umpires “see” better.\n\n[1] Ibid .\n\n[2] Ed Price, “Baseball Brunch: Upon Further Review…,” AOL News, May 31, 2009, http://www.aolnews.com/2009/05/31/baseball-brunch-upon-further-review/ .\n\n[3] “Umpire Quotes,” Baseball Almanac, http://www.baseball-almanac.com/quotes/umpire_quotes.shtml .\n\n[4] Jack Curry, “Baseball to Use Replay Reviews on Homers,” New York Times, Aug. 26, 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/27/sports/baseball/27replay.html .\n\n[5] Joe Posnanski, “Meals and Squeals,” SI.com, July 27, 2011, http://joeposnanski.si.com/2011/07/27/meals-and-squeals/ .\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0efccc7e8eb773f5324c2e5b8ff6b73f",
"text": "team sports house believes instant replay should be used major league baseball With more accurate calls come more legitimate outcomes to games\n\nThere are times when umpires make incorrect calls that determine the outcomes of games or, worse, World Series championships (e.g., Don Denkinger and the 1985 World Series, mentioned above). These erroneous decisions lead to the team that deserved to win actually losing, and vice versa. In short, the results of the games are illegitimate. This is especially unfortunate when fans invest hours to watch a game (or hundreds of hours watching an entire season), only to see the wrong outcome—which could have been entirely avoidable if umpires were allowed to review their decision.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2ccc28f572672fa5e50cf9eca319a747",
"text": "team sports house believes instant replay should be used major league baseball Instant replay will actually enhance umpires’ stature\n\nInstant replay will lead fans, managers, and players to hold umpires in higher regard. This will occur in two ways.\n\nFirst, the vast majority of umpires’ calls are accurate. Statistical analyses have shown that well over 99 percent of calls are accurate, [1] but this is not always appreciated by spectators. Instant replay will often confirm umpires’ calls, which will call to the public’s attention just how often umpires get it right.\n\nSecond, in cases where umpires’ incorrect judgments could have very bad consequences—for example, in the case of Armando Galarraga’s ruined perfect game, or in deciding the outcome of a crucial game—instant replay will allow a reversal. This will spare the umpire much guilt and shame. Umpire Tim McClelland, who was involved in questionable calls during the 2009 playoffs, said as much about his experience and those of Jim Joyce, the umpire who blew Galarraga’s perfect game: “After watching what I went through in the playoffs last year and then what Jim's going through, I think more and more umpires are coming around to [increased use of replay].” [2]\n\nFormer umpire Don Denkinger expressed a similar sentiment. He blew a call in Game 6 of the 1985 World Series, and probably changed the outcome of the entire season. “I had 30 great years ... and I had one call that’s all anybody ever wants to talk about. It’s not right,” he said, adding that he now supports instant replay. [3]\n\n[1] Gil Imber, “Stats Prove MLB Umpires Call 99.5 Percent of Plays Correctly,” Bleacher Report, Oct. 26, 2011, http://bleacherreport.com/articles/911552-defining-the-human-element-mlb-umpires-call-995-of-plays-correctly .\n\n[2] Paul White, “Expanding instant replay not an easy call to make for MLB,” USA Today, June 12, 2010, http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2010-06-10-instant-replay_N.htm .\n\n[3] ESPN.com News Services, “Denkinger supports replay in baseball,” ESPN.com, June 3, 2010, http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d4ac143b2a7a28c4a40444d5691a995",
"text": "team sports house believes instant replay should be used major league baseball Accurate calls should be the top priority, and instant replay helps provide them\n\nThe main goal of an umpire is to make accurate calls. Umpires are meant to ensure that a player who is out is called out, for example, and that a foul ball is ruled a foul ball. When an umpire makes an incorrect call, he is falling short of fulfilling his primary responsibility. As the official rules of Major League Baseball instruct umpires, “The first requisite is to get decisions correctly.... Umpire dignity is important but never as important as ‘being right’” (Official Baseball Rules, Rule 9.05). [1]\n\nWithout a doubt, instant replay helps to improve the accuracy of calls. When a play can be reviewed after the fact, in slow-motion, from multiple angles, it’s almost inevitable that the result will be a more accurate judgment. Instant replay serves as an additional tool for umpires, allowing closer examination of events. By providing umpires with an extra set of eyes, video cameras will better enable umps to fulfil their purpose.\n\n[1] Major League Baseball, Official Baseball Rules, http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/downloads/y2010/official_rules/2010_OfficialBaseballRules.pdf .\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a6f9637283b260579f0e925c1b1fe0a6",
"text": "team sports house believes instant replay should be used major league baseball Instant replay will place the focus of the game where it belongs—on the players, not the umpires\n\nUmpires are supposed to facilitate a smooth game. When they are the center of attention, it is usually because something has gone wrong. Legendary Hall of Fame umpire Bill Klem accurately stated, “The best umpired game is the game in which the fans cannot recall the umpires who worked it.” [1] The game is supposed to be decided by the feats of the players on the field, not the fallibility of the men in blue. Instant replay will help make this happen.\n\nWith instant replay, we would not have had Jim Joyce, the umpire who blew Galarraga’s perfect game, holding a tearful press conference apologizing for his missed call. Instead, we would have had images of Galarraga celebrating his historical achievement with his teammates. The latter, not the former, is what baseball is supposed to be about, and what fans want to see. Instant replay will ensure that baseball revolves around the players, rather than the officials.\n\n[1] “Bill Klem,” Baseball-Reference.com, http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Bill_Klem .\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
d48b97179d4901df69fb3ff3321c7cc0
|
Technology is more reliable than human judgement
Goals are the ultimate measure of success in football; technology would reduce the risk of teams losing matches unfairly due to controversial decisions (see FIFA World Cup Quarter Final 2010 England v Germany). There is no reason to expose referees to criticism, threats and derision when we have the means to help them. GLT is a tool meant to assist referees in their decisions, not undermine them.
Howard Webb has added his voice to the pro-technology debate: "anything that makes my job easier, that makes me more credible, I've an open mind to. We are still using human opinion in those decisions and maybe on a matter of fact like the goal-line some technology might be the way forward. I personally prefer it when there is no debate about the referees. It's a difficult position, [to judge over the line]. It's at speed, and it ain't easy. Sometimes I feel in a less than privileged position by not having the opportunity [to use technology] but that's where we are. It's for other people to decide where that argument goes."1
Currently, referees are condemned for making honest mistakes when they have not done anything deliberately wrong. There will always be human error when subjective decisions must be made; this cannot be eradicated but we have a responsibility to minimise the risk. GLT may not change many games but its focus is about consistency and quality assurance. 1: Ian Ladyman, Howard Webb calls for goalline technology as World Cup final referee returns to Barclays Premier League duty, MailOnline, 10th September 2010, (accessed 24/05/11)
|
[
{
"docid": "ea226d79cea990a58b313d156f54d37b",
"text": "team sports house would introduce goal line technology football Take, for example, Sunderland’s freak victory at Liverpool in October 2009, the so called ‘Beachball incident’ where a winning goal was deflected off a large red beach ball, it may well have gone in anyway but it undoubtedly distracted the keeper.1 GLT and instant replays would not have resolved the controversy, as the ambiguity was legal; the law did not have a clear position on the incident. GLT would have been useless here; it is only as useful as the laws and humans behind it.\n\nIn March 2010 FIFA president Sepp Blatter argued added: \"No matter which technology is applied, at the end of the day a decision will have to be taken by a human being. This being the case, why remove the responsibility from the referee to give it to someone else?”2\n\nDecisions would still be at the discretion of the person watching the video (a second referee, of sorts), who must interpret what he or she sees in a limited space of time.\n\n1 ‘Freak goal was wrongly allowed’, BBC Sport, 18th October 2009, accessed 25/05/11\n\n2 Blatter: Goal-line technology would have wrecked football and been too expensive, Mirrorfootball, 11th March 2010, accessed 24/05/11\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1106820c6ae02181ad894eecc008b648",
"text": "team sports house would introduce goal line technology football It would still require a large initial outlay of cash in order to equip all stadiums with the technology and train officials in using it. Also, the technology would need to be constantly re-designed and re-developed so that it could keep up with technological advances; this would be extremely expensive and endless, but necessary to keep technology up-to-date, relevant and fit for purpose. Some people suggest that the money would be better spent improving existing official options, such as improving refereeing academies.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3ea72b67cd34bc37b6bb125bb968e1fa",
"text": "team sports house would introduce goal line technology football Challenges in tennis and cricket are limited to three per side – here the number of challenges are potentially unlimited and GLT could be invoked whenever a team senses the possibility of gaining an advantage. Without limitations, the game could be endlessly stopped while officials turn to technology to confirm their decisions.\n\nFootball is a continuous game, with a natural ebb and flow, which the interruptions caused by GLT would disrupt.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc997cc31ceff1071428157d0bb77ed2",
"text": "team sports house would introduce goal line technology football Football has operated successfully for over 100 years without GLT. Two assistant referees were introduced in 1891, 28 years after the rules of association football were coined; a fourth official was introduced in 1991; and FIFA recently introduced two additional assistant referees in Europa League games. Football has demonstrated that it is willing and capable to adjust to the demands of wider exposure without having to resort to GLT.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9fa1840bb7d304d0a44d2386be6dc14c",
"text": "team sports house would introduce goal line technology football GLT would not be used to assess any and every incident in a match; it would only be invoked to support a referee when a goal-line decision was particularly difficult to judge from a distance. The referees would exercise due diligence in referring to it, and it is likely that many games would pass without it being necessary.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a3956d202be8dd1f22b477944b520947",
"text": "team sports house would introduce goal line technology football The frequency of use is not the point of GLT. It is a back-up system, a support infrastructure, whose purpose is to help minimise inconsistencies and serve justice when called upon. The cost is a small price to pay for the transformative effect it could have upon the one game where it matters. Early in the 2009/10 season Crystal Palace had a goal ruled out against Bristol City after it had actually gone in the net and bounced out.1 They lost two points because neither the referee nor the assistant referee saw the ball go in the net, and if Palace had not beaten Sheffield Wednesday on the final day of the season, they would have been relegated because of it. Given Palaces' dire financial situation, this would almost certainly have resulted in the club being liquidated. Just because it is rare, that does not mean it is not valuable.\n\n1 Palace denied replay over ‘goal’, BBC Sport, 27th August 2009, accessed 25/05/11\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d5773b18dcd66a5d7f9ca03ad3a0e58a",
"text": "team sports house would introduce goal line technology football Supporters love the game, not the soap opera. As Howard Webb articulated, \"Controversy is not the reason why I watch football but we need to be careful not to change what draws millions to football. I still keep an open mind of the future. It's a tricky thing to do.\"1We must progress on terms of reason, not tradition.\n\n1 Ian Ladyman, Howard Webb calls for goalline technology as World Cup final referee returns to Barclays Premier League duty, MailOnline, 10th September 2010, (accessed 24/05/11)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8195686863b32efe3d75e73e033f0fd2",
"text": "team sports house would introduce goal line technology football it is a fallacy to say that if GLT cannot be applied to all levels of football it should not be applied at all. Nobody is suggesting that GLT be set up for all games down to grassroots level. Compromise is necessary in order to encourage reform within in a game whose stance on technology is anachronistic.\n\nAlso, other sports have only implemented technology in the professional sphere. They recognise that there is a massive amount of money and emotion invested in the professional game, and fairness is deserved as a reward.\n\nIf both teams know the rules, they can both play the game according to the same standard; GLT would not make teams play with different rules, it would just mean that some games are better equipped.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "557bcb71c63239e05d27c8aba9cafa7e",
"text": "team sports house would introduce goal line technology football Technology is available\n\nGLT technology is readily available and could be quickly implemented. Hawkeye, used in tennis and cricket, would serve the GLT purpose very well. Though eventually dismissed, it was suggested that GPS technology could measure whether players are offside or not. Cameras are already set up for television with enough angles to make decisions; it would be simple to set up monitors pitch-side so that officials could watch replayed footage. Currently, viewers watching at home are able to make much more informed decisions than match officials.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d8f786d200b3380ddc2008777414d1d3",
"text": "team sports house would introduce goal line technology football GLT is used across a range of other sports\n\nTechnology has been proven to work across a wide range of sports from tennis, cricket and rugby. A survey of its implementation in the 2011 Australian Open demonstrates the impact that guaranteeing correct decisions had on several games.1 It has become a natural aid to sport. GLT would only be used on a goal decision, much like tennis uses challenges only once a rally has stopped. Football is no more fluid a sport than any of the others. If a debatable goal were scored, play would stop anyway while one team celebrates and the other protests to the officials. 1 Kelvin Goodchild, Hawk-eye: Big Impact at Crucial Moments, TennisLife Magazine, 29th January 2011, (accessed 25/05/11)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "21676529c81372cdba11f5873bda16ad",
"text": "team sports house would introduce goal line technology football The introduction of technology is inevitable\n\nFootball is moving into the twenty-first century, yet the refusal to embrace GLT is completely out-dated. Nowhere in FIFA policy does it state that referees cannot use the influence of technology. In FIFAs disciplinary code (2009), Article 72 states that: 1) \"During matches, disciplinary decisions are taken by the referee\", and 2) \"These decisions are final\"1. The referee already \"acts on the advice of the assistant referees regarding incidents that he has not seen\" and can change decisions based on advice2. All referees also have an earpiece (introduced in 2006) linking the two assistant refs and the fourth official, which already demonstrates technology's successful impact in football. GLT is simply the next step.\n\n1 FIFA Disciplinary Code 2009 edition, FIFA, December 2008, p.41, (accessed 24/05/11)\n\n2 Laws of the Game 2010/11, FIFA, p.22, (accessed 24/05/11)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc093dfb9399f8719b0e971fb1c58d6e",
"text": "team sports house would introduce goal line technology football The cost would not match FIFA's aim of opening football to the world\n\nOnly professional clubs and national federations have the resources to install the technology in stadiums. This would further increase the gap that is emerging between local clubs and high-revenue leagues such as the Premier League, La Liga, the Bundesliga and Serie A.\n\nFurther, currently amateur teams playing on Sundays play the same game, with the same rules and ethos, as the professionals. With GLT, many argue that this would no longer be the case. In a press conference in March 2010, FIFA president Sepp Blatter wrote: \"One of the main objectives of FIFA is to protect the universality of the game of association football... If you are coaching a group of teenagers in any small town around the world, they will be playing with the same rules as the professional players they see on TV.\"1\n\nFor example, the FA Cup has 4 or 5 qualifying rounds consisting of amateur and semi-professional knock-out phases because the Premier League teams with GLT capability are introduced. This could mean that games are run according to different rules at different stages of the same competition (and, indeed, possible even the same round if some clubs draw Premier League teams and others are small-club affairs).\n\n1 Blatter: Goal-line technology would have wrecked football and been too expensive, Mirrorfootball, 11th March 2010, accessed 24/05/11\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "53ff58fa214fe1d6f2f47a16648eb4b2",
"text": "team sports house would introduce goal line technology football The cost of GLT is unjustified for a relatively rare scenario\n\nIn order for a goal to stand, the ball must completely cross the line; to have a situation where this is in doubt is very rare. Introducing GLT would be to completely change the nature of football for the least significant occurrence.\n\nThese incidents tend to balance out over the season. Teams do not win leagues or are not relegated because of one isolated incident in one game; they win because of skill, strength and tactics, over the course of 90 minutes for a game, and a whole season for a league.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5c082d2053f963b9eaecffee50f70cd",
"text": "team sports house would introduce goal line technology football The dynamics of football as a game are very different from other sports which currently use technology\n\nIn other sports there is just one question: was the ball in or out? Was the player safe or out? In football, the issue would not be that simple. Not only would the GLT-operative have to consider whether the ball was wholly over the line or not, but they would also have to look at the build up to ensure that the goal was legitimate. Was there a foul? An offside? As in the notorious case of the 2010 World Cup Qualifier Play-off France v Ireland, was there a handball? This would not only be extremely time-consuming and thus detract from the spectacle of the game, but could also be potentially endless. In cricket or tennis this delay is more natural as matches are expected to take several hours; one of the hallmarks of football is it’s frenetic pace. Challenges could not be limited in an attempt to prevent this, because if a team were to run out and a blatant wrong decision were noticed they would be in the same position as they are now; GLT would have achieved nothing.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d64d41edc42da873284bd30c9ba4a76d",
"text": "team sports house would introduce goal line technology football Controversy and debate are a part of the game\n\nControversy will always be a part of the game; because laws must be interpreted by an individual, fouls will always be called on the basis of opinion, even if that is someone re-watching the incident on a monitor. If fans accepted mistakes as exactly that, they would cease to matter; the authority of the referee would be absolute and the game would move on without undue mention. GLT is unnecessary.\n\nSepp Blatter famously argued that \"Fans love to debate any given incident in a game. It is part of the human nature of our sport\"1. Supporters love to hate the referee; it provides them with a scapegoat for defeat. With GLT, the authority of referees would be irrevocably diminished. They would become merely cogs in a mechanic process of decision making. If we come to rely on cameras to govern the game, the passion is drained from it.\n\n1 Ian Ladyman, Howard Webb calls for goalline technology as World Cup final referee returns to Barclays Premier League duty, MailOnline, 10th September 2010, (accessed 24/05/11)\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
a2e2b6edce610a1a2aba7f9254f8fdcd
|
Controversy and debate are a part of the game
Controversy will always be a part of the game; because laws must be interpreted by an individual, fouls will always be called on the basis of opinion, even if that is someone re-watching the incident on a monitor. If fans accepted mistakes as exactly that, they would cease to matter; the authority of the referee would be absolute and the game would move on without undue mention. GLT is unnecessary.
Sepp Blatter famously argued that "Fans love to debate any given incident in a game. It is part of the human nature of our sport"1. Supporters love to hate the referee; it provides them with a scapegoat for defeat. With GLT, the authority of referees would be irrevocably diminished. They would become merely cogs in a mechanic process of decision making. If we come to rely on cameras to govern the game, the passion is drained from it.
1 Ian Ladyman, Howard Webb calls for goalline technology as World Cup final referee returns to Barclays Premier League duty, MailOnline, 10th September 2010, (accessed 24/05/11)
|
[
{
"docid": "d5773b18dcd66a5d7f9ca03ad3a0e58a",
"text": "team sports house would introduce goal line technology football Supporters love the game, not the soap opera. As Howard Webb articulated, \"Controversy is not the reason why I watch football but we need to be careful not to change what draws millions to football. I still keep an open mind of the future. It's a tricky thing to do.\"1We must progress on terms of reason, not tradition.\n\n1 Ian Ladyman, Howard Webb calls for goalline technology as World Cup final referee returns to Barclays Premier League duty, MailOnline, 10th September 2010, (accessed 24/05/11)\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "9fa1840bb7d304d0a44d2386be6dc14c",
"text": "team sports house would introduce goal line technology football GLT would not be used to assess any and every incident in a match; it would only be invoked to support a referee when a goal-line decision was particularly difficult to judge from a distance. The referees would exercise due diligence in referring to it, and it is likely that many games would pass without it being necessary.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a3956d202be8dd1f22b477944b520947",
"text": "team sports house would introduce goal line technology football The frequency of use is not the point of GLT. It is a back-up system, a support infrastructure, whose purpose is to help minimise inconsistencies and serve justice when called upon. The cost is a small price to pay for the transformative effect it could have upon the one game where it matters. Early in the 2009/10 season Crystal Palace had a goal ruled out against Bristol City after it had actually gone in the net and bounced out.1 They lost two points because neither the referee nor the assistant referee saw the ball go in the net, and if Palace had not beaten Sheffield Wednesday on the final day of the season, they would have been relegated because of it. Given Palaces' dire financial situation, this would almost certainly have resulted in the club being liquidated. Just because it is rare, that does not mean it is not valuable.\n\n1 Palace denied replay over ‘goal’, BBC Sport, 27th August 2009, accessed 25/05/11\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8195686863b32efe3d75e73e033f0fd2",
"text": "team sports house would introduce goal line technology football it is a fallacy to say that if GLT cannot be applied to all levels of football it should not be applied at all. Nobody is suggesting that GLT be set up for all games down to grassroots level. Compromise is necessary in order to encourage reform within in a game whose stance on technology is anachronistic.\n\nAlso, other sports have only implemented technology in the professional sphere. They recognise that there is a massive amount of money and emotion invested in the professional game, and fairness is deserved as a reward.\n\nIf both teams know the rules, they can both play the game according to the same standard; GLT would not make teams play with different rules, it would just mean that some games are better equipped.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1106820c6ae02181ad894eecc008b648",
"text": "team sports house would introduce goal line technology football It would still require a large initial outlay of cash in order to equip all stadiums with the technology and train officials in using it. Also, the technology would need to be constantly re-designed and re-developed so that it could keep up with technological advances; this would be extremely expensive and endless, but necessary to keep technology up-to-date, relevant and fit for purpose. Some people suggest that the money would be better spent improving existing official options, such as improving refereeing academies.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ea226d79cea990a58b313d156f54d37b",
"text": "team sports house would introduce goal line technology football Take, for example, Sunderland’s freak victory at Liverpool in October 2009, the so called ‘Beachball incident’ where a winning goal was deflected off a large red beach ball, it may well have gone in anyway but it undoubtedly distracted the keeper.1 GLT and instant replays would not have resolved the controversy, as the ambiguity was legal; the law did not have a clear position on the incident. GLT would have been useless here; it is only as useful as the laws and humans behind it.\n\nIn March 2010 FIFA president Sepp Blatter argued added: \"No matter which technology is applied, at the end of the day a decision will have to be taken by a human being. This being the case, why remove the responsibility from the referee to give it to someone else?”2\n\nDecisions would still be at the discretion of the person watching the video (a second referee, of sorts), who must interpret what he or she sees in a limited space of time.\n\n1 ‘Freak goal was wrongly allowed’, BBC Sport, 18th October 2009, accessed 25/05/11\n\n2 Blatter: Goal-line technology would have wrecked football and been too expensive, Mirrorfootball, 11th March 2010, accessed 24/05/11\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3ea72b67cd34bc37b6bb125bb968e1fa",
"text": "team sports house would introduce goal line technology football Challenges in tennis and cricket are limited to three per side – here the number of challenges are potentially unlimited and GLT could be invoked whenever a team senses the possibility of gaining an advantage. Without limitations, the game could be endlessly stopped while officials turn to technology to confirm their decisions.\n\nFootball is a continuous game, with a natural ebb and flow, which the interruptions caused by GLT would disrupt.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc997cc31ceff1071428157d0bb77ed2",
"text": "team sports house would introduce goal line technology football Football has operated successfully for over 100 years without GLT. Two assistant referees were introduced in 1891, 28 years after the rules of association football were coined; a fourth official was introduced in 1991; and FIFA recently introduced two additional assistant referees in Europa League games. Football has demonstrated that it is willing and capable to adjust to the demands of wider exposure without having to resort to GLT.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc093dfb9399f8719b0e971fb1c58d6e",
"text": "team sports house would introduce goal line technology football The cost would not match FIFA's aim of opening football to the world\n\nOnly professional clubs and national federations have the resources to install the technology in stadiums. This would further increase the gap that is emerging between local clubs and high-revenue leagues such as the Premier League, La Liga, the Bundesliga and Serie A.\n\nFurther, currently amateur teams playing on Sundays play the same game, with the same rules and ethos, as the professionals. With GLT, many argue that this would no longer be the case. In a press conference in March 2010, FIFA president Sepp Blatter wrote: \"One of the main objectives of FIFA is to protect the universality of the game of association football... If you are coaching a group of teenagers in any small town around the world, they will be playing with the same rules as the professional players they see on TV.\"1\n\nFor example, the FA Cup has 4 or 5 qualifying rounds consisting of amateur and semi-professional knock-out phases because the Premier League teams with GLT capability are introduced. This could mean that games are run according to different rules at different stages of the same competition (and, indeed, possible even the same round if some clubs draw Premier League teams and others are small-club affairs).\n\n1 Blatter: Goal-line technology would have wrecked football and been too expensive, Mirrorfootball, 11th March 2010, accessed 24/05/11\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "53ff58fa214fe1d6f2f47a16648eb4b2",
"text": "team sports house would introduce goal line technology football The cost of GLT is unjustified for a relatively rare scenario\n\nIn order for a goal to stand, the ball must completely cross the line; to have a situation where this is in doubt is very rare. Introducing GLT would be to completely change the nature of football for the least significant occurrence.\n\nThese incidents tend to balance out over the season. Teams do not win leagues or are not relegated because of one isolated incident in one game; they win because of skill, strength and tactics, over the course of 90 minutes for a game, and a whole season for a league.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5c082d2053f963b9eaecffee50f70cd",
"text": "team sports house would introduce goal line technology football The dynamics of football as a game are very different from other sports which currently use technology\n\nIn other sports there is just one question: was the ball in or out? Was the player safe or out? In football, the issue would not be that simple. Not only would the GLT-operative have to consider whether the ball was wholly over the line or not, but they would also have to look at the build up to ensure that the goal was legitimate. Was there a foul? An offside? As in the notorious case of the 2010 World Cup Qualifier Play-off France v Ireland, was there a handball? This would not only be extremely time-consuming and thus detract from the spectacle of the game, but could also be potentially endless. In cricket or tennis this delay is more natural as matches are expected to take several hours; one of the hallmarks of football is it’s frenetic pace. Challenges could not be limited in an attempt to prevent this, because if a team were to run out and a blatant wrong decision were noticed they would be in the same position as they are now; GLT would have achieved nothing.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "557bcb71c63239e05d27c8aba9cafa7e",
"text": "team sports house would introduce goal line technology football Technology is available\n\nGLT technology is readily available and could be quickly implemented. Hawkeye, used in tennis and cricket, would serve the GLT purpose very well. Though eventually dismissed, it was suggested that GPS technology could measure whether players are offside or not. Cameras are already set up for television with enough angles to make decisions; it would be simple to set up monitors pitch-side so that officials could watch replayed footage. Currently, viewers watching at home are able to make much more informed decisions than match officials.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d8f786d200b3380ddc2008777414d1d3",
"text": "team sports house would introduce goal line technology football GLT is used across a range of other sports\n\nTechnology has been proven to work across a wide range of sports from tennis, cricket and rugby. A survey of its implementation in the 2011 Australian Open demonstrates the impact that guaranteeing correct decisions had on several games.1 It has become a natural aid to sport. GLT would only be used on a goal decision, much like tennis uses challenges only once a rally has stopped. Football is no more fluid a sport than any of the others. If a debatable goal were scored, play would stop anyway while one team celebrates and the other protests to the officials. 1 Kelvin Goodchild, Hawk-eye: Big Impact at Crucial Moments, TennisLife Magazine, 29th January 2011, (accessed 25/05/11)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "21676529c81372cdba11f5873bda16ad",
"text": "team sports house would introduce goal line technology football The introduction of technology is inevitable\n\nFootball is moving into the twenty-first century, yet the refusal to embrace GLT is completely out-dated. Nowhere in FIFA policy does it state that referees cannot use the influence of technology. In FIFAs disciplinary code (2009), Article 72 states that: 1) \"During matches, disciplinary decisions are taken by the referee\", and 2) \"These decisions are final\"1. The referee already \"acts on the advice of the assistant referees regarding incidents that he has not seen\" and can change decisions based on advice2. All referees also have an earpiece (introduced in 2006) linking the two assistant refs and the fourth official, which already demonstrates technology's successful impact in football. GLT is simply the next step.\n\n1 FIFA Disciplinary Code 2009 edition, FIFA, December 2008, p.41, (accessed 24/05/11)\n\n2 Laws of the Game 2010/11, FIFA, p.22, (accessed 24/05/11)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eaa3af28af346358727f5f0097e9cfae",
"text": "team sports house would introduce goal line technology football Technology is more reliable than human judgement\n\nGoals are the ultimate measure of success in football; technology would reduce the risk of teams losing matches unfairly due to controversial decisions (see FIFA World Cup Quarter Final 2010 England v Germany). There is no reason to expose referees to criticism, threats and derision when we have the means to help them. GLT is a tool meant to assist referees in their decisions, not undermine them.\n\nHoward Webb has added his voice to the pro-technology debate: \"anything that makes my job easier, that makes me more credible, I've an open mind to. We are still using human opinion in those decisions and maybe on a matter of fact like the goal-line some technology might be the way forward. I personally prefer it when there is no debate about the referees. It's a difficult position, [to judge over the line]. It's at speed, and it ain't easy. Sometimes I feel in a less than privileged position by not having the opportunity [to use technology] but that's where we are. It's for other people to decide where that argument goes.\"1\n\nCurrently, referees are condemned for making honest mistakes when they have not done anything deliberately wrong. There will always be human error when subjective decisions must be made; this cannot be eradicated but we have a responsibility to minimise the risk. GLT may not change many games but its focus is about consistency and quality assurance. 1: Ian Ladyman, Howard Webb calls for goalline technology as World Cup final referee returns to Barclays Premier League duty, MailOnline, 10th September 2010, (accessed 24/05/11)\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
e5bd13c5b8be82de37d35f26cc22fe04
|
There is no distinction between "natural" and synthetic methods of performance enhancement
The natural/unnatural distinction is untenable. Already athletes use all sorts of dietary supplements, exercises, equipment, clothing, training regimes, medical treatments, etc. to enhance their performance. There is nothing ‘natural’ about taking vitamin pills, wearing whole-body Lycra suits, having surgery on ligaments, spending every day in a gym pumping weights or running in shoes with spikes on the bottom. Diet, medicine, technology, and even just coaching already give an artificial advantage to those athletes who can afford the best of all these aids. Since there is no clear way to distinguish from legitimate and illegitimate artificial aids to performance, they should all be allowed. So taking these drugs is no more unnatural than what happens today.
A practical example of an unnatural aid is the Speedo worn in 2008 at the Beijing Olympics. FINA, the world governing body of swimming was concerned about the extraordinary statistics in Beijing where swimmers wearing the Speedo LZR Racer swimsuit won 90 per cent of all available medals and broke 23 world records. Since Speedo launched the suit in 2008, 108 world records have fallen (until February 2009) (1).
Simon Hart, Swimwear giant Speedo hit back at 'unfair advantage' claims, 02/19/2009,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/swimming/4699498/Swimwear-giant-Speedo-hit-back-at-unfair-advantage-claims.html ,accessed 15/05/2011
|
[
{
"docid": "40e12446898329701c46096e333aa72c",
"text": "e health crime policing science sport olympics house would permit use performance It is true that it is difficult to decide where to draw the line between legitimate and illegitimate performance enhancement. However we should continue to draw a line nonetheless. This line should be drawn at protecting athletes from harmful drugs and preserving the spirit of fair play and unaided competition between human beings in their peak of natural fitness.\n\nThe special diet and sport training equipment, which may seem very hard and exeptional, have been designed based on serious scientific research proved and tested to fit with long-term training of athletes. Hard practice to achieve the best performance with help of these professional methods is completely a different from taking steroids and growth hormones for immediate result.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "dfc8111b6daf364101a10a07465aa059",
"text": "e health crime policing science sport olympics house would permit use performance There will always be a black market for cheaper or for new untested drugs that will give an athlete an edge before others have a chance to try it. Legalization is therefore unlikely to result in large health benefits as the competitiveness of sport will always result in athletes being willing to take a risk.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3afd41bdadaa0c45d5c6b1ac4b6935e3",
"text": "e health crime policing science sport olympics house would permit use performance Rich athletes from wealthier countries will always have access to the latest, highest quality performance enhancers. On the other side, athletes from poorer countries which do not have the same medical and scientific advances will not be able to keep up. They will always be at a disadvantage regardless of whether performance enhancing drugs are legal or not.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee266416539baf228806b1b2ce9089cf",
"text": "e health crime policing science sport olympics house would permit use performance Simple analogy: If a person were to kill himself for the sake of entertaining the crowd, this act would still be considered illegal by the government and efforts to hinder and discourage it would be created.\n\nAn appropriate example is the one of dangers of alcohol and tobacco, which were not known until after they had become normalized in society. Once the dangers were known, the public were so used to it, that they wouldn’t condone a ban by the State. If alcohol were introduced tomorrow it would be banned, as shown by the attitude towards narcotics and steroid use has shown. Governments have tried to reduce sales by having high levels of tax on tobacco and alcohol anyway. Moreover many states are restricting choice in tobacco and alcohol by introducing limited bans, such as on smoking in public places. The proposition cannot use the fact that tobacco and alcohol are legal as a defense of the use of drugs. This should be seen as an equally detrimental act and thus illegal.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "59679773137a924ed93c6979eeb63227",
"text": "e health crime policing science sport olympics house would permit use performance Sport is also about the spectacle for spectators.\n\nSport has become a branch of the entertainment business and the public demands “higher, faster, stronger” from athletes. If drug-use allows world records to be continually broken, and makes American Football players bigger and more exciting to watch, why deny the public what they want, especially if the athletes want to give it to them?\n\nThe criterion that athletes should only be applying their ‘natural abilities’ runs into trouble. The highly advanced training technologies, health programs, sports drinks, use of such things as caffeine pills, and other energy boosters seem to defeat the notion that athletes are currently applying only their 'natural abilities'. Performance enhancing drugs would not go too far beyond the current circumstances for athletes.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f3923864136a3665825977052b61c125",
"text": "e health crime policing science sport olympics house would permit use performance The temptation of youth to try illegal substances is not just a problem in sports. In all environments you will have age restrictions.\n\nTo say that we should uphold the ban for the sake of children is as if we would advocate a ban of alcohol for everyone, because some teenagers like to socialize with adults who are legally able to drink alcohol. There is always going to be an age restriction and it is the duty of institutions, trainers and athletes to uphold it, so that later in life as adults, athletes can make an informed decision.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "06e3dfe91fae896ee9647a176671b3a1",
"text": "e health crime policing science sport olympics house would permit use performance Sport is dangerous. Today’s athletes decide to endanger their lives by participating in sports all the time. They decide to participate in sports with the informed decision that they might get hurt as it is part of the sport. Performance enhancing drugs are no different.\n\nIn the USA every year there are nearly 300,000 sports-related traumatic brain injuries (TBIs). Athletes involved in sports such as football, hockey and boxing are at significant risk of TBI due to the high level of contact inherent in these sports. Head injuries are also extremely common in sports such as cycling, baseball, basketball and skateboarding. Many head injuries acquired, playing these sports, lead to permanent brain damage or worse. Yet we do not impose a law to ban athletes from participating in those sports. We trust their assessment of risk (1).\n\nAll about Traumatic Brain Injuries: http://www.allabouttbi.com/sports-related-traumatic-brain-injury/ , accessed 05/15/2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ef62705d2fc3162c0aebc1c2d6b4ecbe",
"text": "e health crime policing science sport olympics house would permit use performance There is no such thing as a forced decision. Everyone has complete control over their own body and their own decisions. Everyone has an absolute right to possession of one’s own body. If you own your body then you can choose what to do with it, and any exchange, such as money to an employer in exchange for use of your body (labour) is justified, because it was a voluntary exchange and you still possess yourself. If you choose to take drugs, you have not been forced into it no matter the peer pressure you may be under or that other having taken the drugs may make you uncompetitive.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3ff2c3c4a2d4c7c8dfd9e906c5c4e04",
"text": "e health crime policing science sport olympics house would permit use performance Controlling, rather than ignoring, performance enhancing substances will improve competitive standards in sport\n\nThe use of performance enhancing drugs is based on advances in science. When new drugs and therapies are found, athletes turn to them and as a result are much of the time ahead of the anti-doping organizations, which need to develop methods of athlete testing whenever a new drug that is meant to be untraceable is created. In 2008 it was a big shock when Riccardo Ricco (a cyclist) was caught using the performance-enhancing drug Mircera, which had been considered undetectable for a number of years.\n\nThe fact is that a ban of performance enhancing drugs enables mainly athletes from wealthy countries and teams that can afford the newest technology to go undetected, whilst others are disadvantaged (1). So because it gives an unfair advantage to the wealthy one who can pay for the undetectable drugs, we should legalize it.\n\nMillard Baker, Riccardo Ricco Tests Positive\n\nfor Undetectable New Drug Mircera at 2008 Tour de France, 07/18/2008, http://steroidreport.com/2008/07/18/riccardo-ricco-and-mircera-pegylated-epo/ , accessed 05/20/2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "71f5ae592905bd2e83ad7a6ca2f9a72e",
"text": "e health crime policing science sport olympics house would permit use performance Athletes should be free to take risks when training and competing\n\nFreedom of choice: If athletes wish to take drugs in search of improved performances, let them do so. They harm nobody but themselves and should be treated as adults, capable of making rational decisions upon the basis of widely-available information.\n\nEven if there are adverse health effects in the long-term, this is also true of tobacco, alcohol and boxing, which remain legal. We allow world class athletes to train for 23 hours a week (on average), adjust their diets and endanger themselves by pushing the boundaries of their body. We let them do it, because it is what they chose which is best for them. According to the NFL Player Association the average life expectancy of an NFL player is 58 years of age (1). Thus already we allow athletes to endanger their lives, give them the choice of a lifestyle. Why not also extend this moral precedent to drugs?\n\nJudd Bissiotto, 15 Surprising facts about world athletes,\n\nhttp://strengthplanet.com/other/15-surprising-facts-about-world-class-athletes.htm , accessed 05/18/2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "13e266a0ede6781e5097587547a8aa77",
"text": "e health crime policing science sport olympics house would permit use performance Improving safety standards in sport\n\nIt does not take a lot for chemists to produce performance enhancing drugs, the Scientific American reports: “Rogue scientists start with testosterone or its commercially available analogues and then make minor structural modifications to yield similarly active derivatives.” The underground chemists make no effort to test their creations for effectiveness or safety, of course. Production of a simple new steroid compound would require \"lab equipment costing maybe $50,000 to $100,000,\". Depending on the number of chemical reactions needed for synthesis, \"some of them could be made in a week or two. Others might take six months to a year.\"(1) As a result of legalizing performance-enhancing drugs a backstreet industry can become regulated as a result there will be much more control and testing to ensure the health and safety of the athletes who take the drugs.\n\nSteven Ashley, Doping by Design, Scientific American 01/12/2004, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=doping-by-design , accessed 05/19/2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96dd01f755b6516dc55972002ed965f4",
"text": "e health crime policing science sport olympics house would permit use performance Permitting the use of performace enhancers would have a coercive effect on athletes who would otherwise avoid drug use\n\nOnce some people choose to use drugs to enhance their performance, other athletes have their freedom of choice infringed upon: if they want to succeed they have to take drugs too. Athletes are very driven individuals, who would go to great lengths to achieve their goals. The chance of a gold medal in two years’ time may out-weigh the risks of serious health problems for the rest of their life. We should protect athletes from themselves and not allow anyone to take performance-enhancing drugs. An example of the pressure is cycling. The American Scientific magazine explains: “Game theory highlights why it is rational for professional cyclists to dope: the drugs are extremely effective as well as difficult or impossible to detect; the payoffs for success are high; and as more riders use them, a “clean” rider may become so noncompetitive that he or she risks being cut from the team.” (1)\n\nMichael Shermer, The Dopping Dillema, 03/31/2008, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-doping-dilemma accessed 05/15/2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c041cac96781db3cd98ed1255428d486",
"text": "e health crime policing science sport olympics house would permit use performance Protecting young and vulnerable athletes\n\nEven if performance-enhancing drugs were only legalized for adults, the definition of this varies from country to country, something which would be problematic for sports that are global. Teenage athletes train alongside adult ones and share the same coaches, so many would succumb to the temptation and pressures to use drugs, if these were widely available and effectively endorsed by legalization. Not only are such young athletes unable to make a fully rational, informed choice about drug-taking, the health impacts upon growing bodies would be even worse than for adult users. It would also send a positive message about drug culture in general, making the use of “recreational drugs” with all their accompanying evils more widespread.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "55f303c2205919fb24e40b3fdbc9b04c",
"text": "e health crime policing science sport olympics house would permit use performance Drugs will undermine the central philosophy of sport\n\nThe show and the celebration of human physical achievement is what makes sport enjoyable to the public. The reason people enjoy sport is because it is a demonstration of what other fellow human beings can achieve and what humans can achieve collectively, as a species.\n\nA spectacle is designed to amaze. It doesn’t need to be human achievement to be amazing (no one would call monster truck driving a sport). So, when humans start taking drugs to improve performance, it is no longer a sport, it is a spectacle, because there is no human physical achievement, but instead a chemical achievement.\n\nIt also becomes a celebration not of human physical achievement, but of human intellectual achievement, of who can design the best drugs. Even with fancy running shoes, we are still celebrating human achievement, which will not happen once you take it to the extreme of allowing drug use.\n\nThis doesn’t benefit athletes in the long run. Athletes won’t be celebrated but scientists will!\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eb0fe07cd2d5a9e16a77b09ac6b69c1d",
"text": "e health crime policing science sport olympics house would permit use performance Protecting the health of athletes\n\nLaws should in general protect people from making uninformed decisions. Due to the potential severe consequences the ban has to be upheld. An analogy with the seatbelt can be used: the government forces people to use them, because of the possibility of severe injury in case we do not use it.\n\nThe use of performance-enhancing drugs is the opposite – use can lead to severe health problems.\n\nThus, if all people are treated as equals under law, then the law should equally protect athletes as the law does other would- be drug users.\n\nEquality before law also means athletes can’t be exempt from the moral standards we have for others. Firstly due to value of life and secondly because many times athletes themselves are not aware of the severe consequences of performance enhancing drugs.\n\nBBC Drugs and Sports (GCSE Bitesize): http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/pe/performance/1_performance_drugsinsport_rev1.shtml , accessed 05/15/2011\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
0b4a860567c69b15a933088fbcba15fc
|
Protecting young and vulnerable athletes
Even if performance-enhancing drugs were only legalized for adults, the definition of this varies from country to country, something which would be problematic for sports that are global. Teenage athletes train alongside adult ones and share the same coaches, so many would succumb to the temptation and pressures to use drugs, if these were widely available and effectively endorsed by legalization. Not only are such young athletes unable to make a fully rational, informed choice about drug-taking, the health impacts upon growing bodies would be even worse than for adult users. It would also send a positive message about drug culture in general, making the use of “recreational drugs” with all their accompanying evils more widespread.
|
[
{
"docid": "f3923864136a3665825977052b61c125",
"text": "e health crime policing science sport olympics house would permit use performance The temptation of youth to try illegal substances is not just a problem in sports. In all environments you will have age restrictions.\n\nTo say that we should uphold the ban for the sake of children is as if we would advocate a ban of alcohol for everyone, because some teenagers like to socialize with adults who are legally able to drink alcohol. There is always going to be an age restriction and it is the duty of institutions, trainers and athletes to uphold it, so that later in life as adults, athletes can make an informed decision.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "59679773137a924ed93c6979eeb63227",
"text": "e health crime policing science sport olympics house would permit use performance Sport is also about the spectacle for spectators.\n\nSport has become a branch of the entertainment business and the public demands “higher, faster, stronger” from athletes. If drug-use allows world records to be continually broken, and makes American Football players bigger and more exciting to watch, why deny the public what they want, especially if the athletes want to give it to them?\n\nThe criterion that athletes should only be applying their ‘natural abilities’ runs into trouble. The highly advanced training technologies, health programs, sports drinks, use of such things as caffeine pills, and other energy boosters seem to defeat the notion that athletes are currently applying only their 'natural abilities'. Performance enhancing drugs would not go too far beyond the current circumstances for athletes.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "06e3dfe91fae896ee9647a176671b3a1",
"text": "e health crime policing science sport olympics house would permit use performance Sport is dangerous. Today’s athletes decide to endanger their lives by participating in sports all the time. They decide to participate in sports with the informed decision that they might get hurt as it is part of the sport. Performance enhancing drugs are no different.\n\nIn the USA every year there are nearly 300,000 sports-related traumatic brain injuries (TBIs). Athletes involved in sports such as football, hockey and boxing are at significant risk of TBI due to the high level of contact inherent in these sports. Head injuries are also extremely common in sports such as cycling, baseball, basketball and skateboarding. Many head injuries acquired, playing these sports, lead to permanent brain damage or worse. Yet we do not impose a law to ban athletes from participating in those sports. We trust their assessment of risk (1).\n\nAll about Traumatic Brain Injuries: http://www.allabouttbi.com/sports-related-traumatic-brain-injury/ , accessed 05/15/2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ef62705d2fc3162c0aebc1c2d6b4ecbe",
"text": "e health crime policing science sport olympics house would permit use performance There is no such thing as a forced decision. Everyone has complete control over their own body and their own decisions. Everyone has an absolute right to possession of one’s own body. If you own your body then you can choose what to do with it, and any exchange, such as money to an employer in exchange for use of your body (labour) is justified, because it was a voluntary exchange and you still possess yourself. If you choose to take drugs, you have not been forced into it no matter the peer pressure you may be under or that other having taken the drugs may make you uncompetitive.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "40e12446898329701c46096e333aa72c",
"text": "e health crime policing science sport olympics house would permit use performance It is true that it is difficult to decide where to draw the line between legitimate and illegitimate performance enhancement. However we should continue to draw a line nonetheless. This line should be drawn at protecting athletes from harmful drugs and preserving the spirit of fair play and unaided competition between human beings in their peak of natural fitness.\n\nThe special diet and sport training equipment, which may seem very hard and exeptional, have been designed based on serious scientific research proved and tested to fit with long-term training of athletes. Hard practice to achieve the best performance with help of these professional methods is completely a different from taking steroids and growth hormones for immediate result.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dfc8111b6daf364101a10a07465aa059",
"text": "e health crime policing science sport olympics house would permit use performance There will always be a black market for cheaper or for new untested drugs that will give an athlete an edge before others have a chance to try it. Legalization is therefore unlikely to result in large health benefits as the competitiveness of sport will always result in athletes being willing to take a risk.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3afd41bdadaa0c45d5c6b1ac4b6935e3",
"text": "e health crime policing science sport olympics house would permit use performance Rich athletes from wealthier countries will always have access to the latest, highest quality performance enhancers. On the other side, athletes from poorer countries which do not have the same medical and scientific advances will not be able to keep up. They will always be at a disadvantage regardless of whether performance enhancing drugs are legal or not.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee266416539baf228806b1b2ce9089cf",
"text": "e health crime policing science sport olympics house would permit use performance Simple analogy: If a person were to kill himself for the sake of entertaining the crowd, this act would still be considered illegal by the government and efforts to hinder and discourage it would be created.\n\nAn appropriate example is the one of dangers of alcohol and tobacco, which were not known until after they had become normalized in society. Once the dangers were known, the public were so used to it, that they wouldn’t condone a ban by the State. If alcohol were introduced tomorrow it would be banned, as shown by the attitude towards narcotics and steroid use has shown. Governments have tried to reduce sales by having high levels of tax on tobacco and alcohol anyway. Moreover many states are restricting choice in tobacco and alcohol by introducing limited bans, such as on smoking in public places. The proposition cannot use the fact that tobacco and alcohol are legal as a defense of the use of drugs. This should be seen as an equally detrimental act and thus illegal.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96dd01f755b6516dc55972002ed965f4",
"text": "e health crime policing science sport olympics house would permit use performance Permitting the use of performace enhancers would have a coercive effect on athletes who would otherwise avoid drug use\n\nOnce some people choose to use drugs to enhance their performance, other athletes have their freedom of choice infringed upon: if they want to succeed they have to take drugs too. Athletes are very driven individuals, who would go to great lengths to achieve their goals. The chance of a gold medal in two years’ time may out-weigh the risks of serious health problems for the rest of their life. We should protect athletes from themselves and not allow anyone to take performance-enhancing drugs. An example of the pressure is cycling. The American Scientific magazine explains: “Game theory highlights why it is rational for professional cyclists to dope: the drugs are extremely effective as well as difficult or impossible to detect; the payoffs for success are high; and as more riders use them, a “clean” rider may become so noncompetitive that he or she risks being cut from the team.” (1)\n\nMichael Shermer, The Dopping Dillema, 03/31/2008, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-doping-dilemma accessed 05/15/2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "55f303c2205919fb24e40b3fdbc9b04c",
"text": "e health crime policing science sport olympics house would permit use performance Drugs will undermine the central philosophy of sport\n\nThe show and the celebration of human physical achievement is what makes sport enjoyable to the public. The reason people enjoy sport is because it is a demonstration of what other fellow human beings can achieve and what humans can achieve collectively, as a species.\n\nA spectacle is designed to amaze. It doesn’t need to be human achievement to be amazing (no one would call monster truck driving a sport). So, when humans start taking drugs to improve performance, it is no longer a sport, it is a spectacle, because there is no human physical achievement, but instead a chemical achievement.\n\nIt also becomes a celebration not of human physical achievement, but of human intellectual achievement, of who can design the best drugs. Even with fancy running shoes, we are still celebrating human achievement, which will not happen once you take it to the extreme of allowing drug use.\n\nThis doesn’t benefit athletes in the long run. Athletes won’t be celebrated but scientists will!\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eb0fe07cd2d5a9e16a77b09ac6b69c1d",
"text": "e health crime policing science sport olympics house would permit use performance Protecting the health of athletes\n\nLaws should in general protect people from making uninformed decisions. Due to the potential severe consequences the ban has to be upheld. An analogy with the seatbelt can be used: the government forces people to use them, because of the possibility of severe injury in case we do not use it.\n\nThe use of performance-enhancing drugs is the opposite – use can lead to severe health problems.\n\nThus, if all people are treated as equals under law, then the law should equally protect athletes as the law does other would- be drug users.\n\nEquality before law also means athletes can’t be exempt from the moral standards we have for others. Firstly due to value of life and secondly because many times athletes themselves are not aware of the severe consequences of performance enhancing drugs.\n\nBBC Drugs and Sports (GCSE Bitesize): http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/pe/performance/1_performance_drugsinsport_rev1.shtml , accessed 05/15/2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d78e3e456dd77b5f4fc740984616878c",
"text": "e health crime policing science sport olympics house would permit use performance There is no distinction between \"natural\" and synthetic methods of performance enhancement\n\nThe natural/unnatural distinction is untenable. Already athletes use all sorts of dietary supplements, exercises, equipment, clothing, training regimes, medical treatments, etc. to enhance their performance. There is nothing ‘natural’ about taking vitamin pills, wearing whole-body Lycra suits, having surgery on ligaments, spending every day in a gym pumping weights or running in shoes with spikes on the bottom. Diet, medicine, technology, and even just coaching already give an artificial advantage to those athletes who can afford the best of all these aids. Since there is no clear way to distinguish from legitimate and illegitimate artificial aids to performance, they should all be allowed. So taking these drugs is no more unnatural than what happens today.\n\nA practical example of an unnatural aid is the Speedo worn in 2008 at the Beijing Olympics. FINA, the world governing body of swimming was concerned about the extraordinary statistics in Beijing where swimmers wearing the Speedo LZR Racer swimsuit won 90 per cent of all available medals and broke 23 world records. Since Speedo launched the suit in 2008, 108 world records have fallen (until February 2009) (1).\n\nSimon Hart, Swimwear giant Speedo hit back at 'unfair advantage' claims, 02/19/2009,\n\nhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/swimming/4699498/Swimwear-giant-Speedo-hit-back-at-unfair-advantage-claims.html ,accessed 15/05/2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3ff2c3c4a2d4c7c8dfd9e906c5c4e04",
"text": "e health crime policing science sport olympics house would permit use performance Controlling, rather than ignoring, performance enhancing substances will improve competitive standards in sport\n\nThe use of performance enhancing drugs is based on advances in science. When new drugs and therapies are found, athletes turn to them and as a result are much of the time ahead of the anti-doping organizations, which need to develop methods of athlete testing whenever a new drug that is meant to be untraceable is created. In 2008 it was a big shock when Riccardo Ricco (a cyclist) was caught using the performance-enhancing drug Mircera, which had been considered undetectable for a number of years.\n\nThe fact is that a ban of performance enhancing drugs enables mainly athletes from wealthy countries and teams that can afford the newest technology to go undetected, whilst others are disadvantaged (1). So because it gives an unfair advantage to the wealthy one who can pay for the undetectable drugs, we should legalize it.\n\nMillard Baker, Riccardo Ricco Tests Positive\n\nfor Undetectable New Drug Mircera at 2008 Tour de France, 07/18/2008, http://steroidreport.com/2008/07/18/riccardo-ricco-and-mircera-pegylated-epo/ , accessed 05/20/2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "71f5ae592905bd2e83ad7a6ca2f9a72e",
"text": "e health crime policing science sport olympics house would permit use performance Athletes should be free to take risks when training and competing\n\nFreedom of choice: If athletes wish to take drugs in search of improved performances, let them do so. They harm nobody but themselves and should be treated as adults, capable of making rational decisions upon the basis of widely-available information.\n\nEven if there are adverse health effects in the long-term, this is also true of tobacco, alcohol and boxing, which remain legal. We allow world class athletes to train for 23 hours a week (on average), adjust their diets and endanger themselves by pushing the boundaries of their body. We let them do it, because it is what they chose which is best for them. According to the NFL Player Association the average life expectancy of an NFL player is 58 years of age (1). Thus already we allow athletes to endanger their lives, give them the choice of a lifestyle. Why not also extend this moral precedent to drugs?\n\nJudd Bissiotto, 15 Surprising facts about world athletes,\n\nhttp://strengthplanet.com/other/15-surprising-facts-about-world-class-athletes.htm , accessed 05/18/2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "13e266a0ede6781e5097587547a8aa77",
"text": "e health crime policing science sport olympics house would permit use performance Improving safety standards in sport\n\nIt does not take a lot for chemists to produce performance enhancing drugs, the Scientific American reports: “Rogue scientists start with testosterone or its commercially available analogues and then make minor structural modifications to yield similarly active derivatives.” The underground chemists make no effort to test their creations for effectiveness or safety, of course. Production of a simple new steroid compound would require \"lab equipment costing maybe $50,000 to $100,000,\". Depending on the number of chemical reactions needed for synthesis, \"some of them could be made in a week or two. Others might take six months to a year.\"(1) As a result of legalizing performance-enhancing drugs a backstreet industry can become regulated as a result there will be much more control and testing to ensure the health and safety of the athletes who take the drugs.\n\nSteven Ashley, Doping by Design, Scientific American 01/12/2004, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=doping-by-design , accessed 05/19/2011\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
facdc3beca6a147e3b9184dfdb246c58
|
Drugs will undermine the central philosophy of sport
The show and the celebration of human physical achievement is what makes sport enjoyable to the public. The reason people enjoy sport is because it is a demonstration of what other fellow human beings can achieve and what humans can achieve collectively, as a species.
A spectacle is designed to amaze. It doesn’t need to be human achievement to be amazing (no one would call monster truck driving a sport). So, when humans start taking drugs to improve performance, it is no longer a sport, it is a spectacle, because there is no human physical achievement, but instead a chemical achievement.
It also becomes a celebration not of human physical achievement, but of human intellectual achievement, of who can design the best drugs. Even with fancy running shoes, we are still celebrating human achievement, which will not happen once you take it to the extreme of allowing drug use.
This doesn’t benefit athletes in the long run. Athletes won’t be celebrated but scientists will!
|
[
{
"docid": "59679773137a924ed93c6979eeb63227",
"text": "e health crime policing science sport olympics house would permit use performance Sport is also about the spectacle for spectators.\n\nSport has become a branch of the entertainment business and the public demands “higher, faster, stronger” from athletes. If drug-use allows world records to be continually broken, and makes American Football players bigger and more exciting to watch, why deny the public what they want, especially if the athletes want to give it to them?\n\nThe criterion that athletes should only be applying their ‘natural abilities’ runs into trouble. The highly advanced training technologies, health programs, sports drinks, use of such things as caffeine pills, and other energy boosters seem to defeat the notion that athletes are currently applying only their 'natural abilities'. Performance enhancing drugs would not go too far beyond the current circumstances for athletes.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "f3923864136a3665825977052b61c125",
"text": "e health crime policing science sport olympics house would permit use performance The temptation of youth to try illegal substances is not just a problem in sports. In all environments you will have age restrictions.\n\nTo say that we should uphold the ban for the sake of children is as if we would advocate a ban of alcohol for everyone, because some teenagers like to socialize with adults who are legally able to drink alcohol. There is always going to be an age restriction and it is the duty of institutions, trainers and athletes to uphold it, so that later in life as adults, athletes can make an informed decision.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "06e3dfe91fae896ee9647a176671b3a1",
"text": "e health crime policing science sport olympics house would permit use performance Sport is dangerous. Today’s athletes decide to endanger their lives by participating in sports all the time. They decide to participate in sports with the informed decision that they might get hurt as it is part of the sport. Performance enhancing drugs are no different.\n\nIn the USA every year there are nearly 300,000 sports-related traumatic brain injuries (TBIs). Athletes involved in sports such as football, hockey and boxing are at significant risk of TBI due to the high level of contact inherent in these sports. Head injuries are also extremely common in sports such as cycling, baseball, basketball and skateboarding. Many head injuries acquired, playing these sports, lead to permanent brain damage or worse. Yet we do not impose a law to ban athletes from participating in those sports. We trust their assessment of risk (1).\n\nAll about Traumatic Brain Injuries: http://www.allabouttbi.com/sports-related-traumatic-brain-injury/ , accessed 05/15/2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ef62705d2fc3162c0aebc1c2d6b4ecbe",
"text": "e health crime policing science sport olympics house would permit use performance There is no such thing as a forced decision. Everyone has complete control over their own body and their own decisions. Everyone has an absolute right to possession of one’s own body. If you own your body then you can choose what to do with it, and any exchange, such as money to an employer in exchange for use of your body (labour) is justified, because it was a voluntary exchange and you still possess yourself. If you choose to take drugs, you have not been forced into it no matter the peer pressure you may be under or that other having taken the drugs may make you uncompetitive.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "40e12446898329701c46096e333aa72c",
"text": "e health crime policing science sport olympics house would permit use performance It is true that it is difficult to decide where to draw the line between legitimate and illegitimate performance enhancement. However we should continue to draw a line nonetheless. This line should be drawn at protecting athletes from harmful drugs and preserving the spirit of fair play and unaided competition between human beings in their peak of natural fitness.\n\nThe special diet and sport training equipment, which may seem very hard and exeptional, have been designed based on serious scientific research proved and tested to fit with long-term training of athletes. Hard practice to achieve the best performance with help of these professional methods is completely a different from taking steroids and growth hormones for immediate result.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dfc8111b6daf364101a10a07465aa059",
"text": "e health crime policing science sport olympics house would permit use performance There will always be a black market for cheaper or for new untested drugs that will give an athlete an edge before others have a chance to try it. Legalization is therefore unlikely to result in large health benefits as the competitiveness of sport will always result in athletes being willing to take a risk.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3afd41bdadaa0c45d5c6b1ac4b6935e3",
"text": "e health crime policing science sport olympics house would permit use performance Rich athletes from wealthier countries will always have access to the latest, highest quality performance enhancers. On the other side, athletes from poorer countries which do not have the same medical and scientific advances will not be able to keep up. They will always be at a disadvantage regardless of whether performance enhancing drugs are legal or not.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee266416539baf228806b1b2ce9089cf",
"text": "e health crime policing science sport olympics house would permit use performance Simple analogy: If a person were to kill himself for the sake of entertaining the crowd, this act would still be considered illegal by the government and efforts to hinder and discourage it would be created.\n\nAn appropriate example is the one of dangers of alcohol and tobacco, which were not known until after they had become normalized in society. Once the dangers were known, the public were so used to it, that they wouldn’t condone a ban by the State. If alcohol were introduced tomorrow it would be banned, as shown by the attitude towards narcotics and steroid use has shown. Governments have tried to reduce sales by having high levels of tax on tobacco and alcohol anyway. Moreover many states are restricting choice in tobacco and alcohol by introducing limited bans, such as on smoking in public places. The proposition cannot use the fact that tobacco and alcohol are legal as a defense of the use of drugs. This should be seen as an equally detrimental act and thus illegal.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96dd01f755b6516dc55972002ed965f4",
"text": "e health crime policing science sport olympics house would permit use performance Permitting the use of performace enhancers would have a coercive effect on athletes who would otherwise avoid drug use\n\nOnce some people choose to use drugs to enhance their performance, other athletes have their freedom of choice infringed upon: if they want to succeed they have to take drugs too. Athletes are very driven individuals, who would go to great lengths to achieve their goals. The chance of a gold medal in two years’ time may out-weigh the risks of serious health problems for the rest of their life. We should protect athletes from themselves and not allow anyone to take performance-enhancing drugs. An example of the pressure is cycling. The American Scientific magazine explains: “Game theory highlights why it is rational for professional cyclists to dope: the drugs are extremely effective as well as difficult or impossible to detect; the payoffs for success are high; and as more riders use them, a “clean” rider may become so noncompetitive that he or she risks being cut from the team.” (1)\n\nMichael Shermer, The Dopping Dillema, 03/31/2008, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-doping-dilemma accessed 05/15/2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c041cac96781db3cd98ed1255428d486",
"text": "e health crime policing science sport olympics house would permit use performance Protecting young and vulnerable athletes\n\nEven if performance-enhancing drugs were only legalized for adults, the definition of this varies from country to country, something which would be problematic for sports that are global. Teenage athletes train alongside adult ones and share the same coaches, so many would succumb to the temptation and pressures to use drugs, if these were widely available and effectively endorsed by legalization. Not only are such young athletes unable to make a fully rational, informed choice about drug-taking, the health impacts upon growing bodies would be even worse than for adult users. It would also send a positive message about drug culture in general, making the use of “recreational drugs” with all their accompanying evils more widespread.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eb0fe07cd2d5a9e16a77b09ac6b69c1d",
"text": "e health crime policing science sport olympics house would permit use performance Protecting the health of athletes\n\nLaws should in general protect people from making uninformed decisions. Due to the potential severe consequences the ban has to be upheld. An analogy with the seatbelt can be used: the government forces people to use them, because of the possibility of severe injury in case we do not use it.\n\nThe use of performance-enhancing drugs is the opposite – use can lead to severe health problems.\n\nThus, if all people are treated as equals under law, then the law should equally protect athletes as the law does other would- be drug users.\n\nEquality before law also means athletes can’t be exempt from the moral standards we have for others. Firstly due to value of life and secondly because many times athletes themselves are not aware of the severe consequences of performance enhancing drugs.\n\nBBC Drugs and Sports (GCSE Bitesize): http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/pe/performance/1_performance_drugsinsport_rev1.shtml , accessed 05/15/2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d78e3e456dd77b5f4fc740984616878c",
"text": "e health crime policing science sport olympics house would permit use performance There is no distinction between \"natural\" and synthetic methods of performance enhancement\n\nThe natural/unnatural distinction is untenable. Already athletes use all sorts of dietary supplements, exercises, equipment, clothing, training regimes, medical treatments, etc. to enhance their performance. There is nothing ‘natural’ about taking vitamin pills, wearing whole-body Lycra suits, having surgery on ligaments, spending every day in a gym pumping weights or running in shoes with spikes on the bottom. Diet, medicine, technology, and even just coaching already give an artificial advantage to those athletes who can afford the best of all these aids. Since there is no clear way to distinguish from legitimate and illegitimate artificial aids to performance, they should all be allowed. So taking these drugs is no more unnatural than what happens today.\n\nA practical example of an unnatural aid is the Speedo worn in 2008 at the Beijing Olympics. FINA, the world governing body of swimming was concerned about the extraordinary statistics in Beijing where swimmers wearing the Speedo LZR Racer swimsuit won 90 per cent of all available medals and broke 23 world records. Since Speedo launched the suit in 2008, 108 world records have fallen (until February 2009) (1).\n\nSimon Hart, Swimwear giant Speedo hit back at 'unfair advantage' claims, 02/19/2009,\n\nhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/swimming/4699498/Swimwear-giant-Speedo-hit-back-at-unfair-advantage-claims.html ,accessed 15/05/2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3ff2c3c4a2d4c7c8dfd9e906c5c4e04",
"text": "e health crime policing science sport olympics house would permit use performance Controlling, rather than ignoring, performance enhancing substances will improve competitive standards in sport\n\nThe use of performance enhancing drugs is based on advances in science. When new drugs and therapies are found, athletes turn to them and as a result are much of the time ahead of the anti-doping organizations, which need to develop methods of athlete testing whenever a new drug that is meant to be untraceable is created. In 2008 it was a big shock when Riccardo Ricco (a cyclist) was caught using the performance-enhancing drug Mircera, which had been considered undetectable for a number of years.\n\nThe fact is that a ban of performance enhancing drugs enables mainly athletes from wealthy countries and teams that can afford the newest technology to go undetected, whilst others are disadvantaged (1). So because it gives an unfair advantage to the wealthy one who can pay for the undetectable drugs, we should legalize it.\n\nMillard Baker, Riccardo Ricco Tests Positive\n\nfor Undetectable New Drug Mircera at 2008 Tour de France, 07/18/2008, http://steroidreport.com/2008/07/18/riccardo-ricco-and-mircera-pegylated-epo/ , accessed 05/20/2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "71f5ae592905bd2e83ad7a6ca2f9a72e",
"text": "e health crime policing science sport olympics house would permit use performance Athletes should be free to take risks when training and competing\n\nFreedom of choice: If athletes wish to take drugs in search of improved performances, let them do so. They harm nobody but themselves and should be treated as adults, capable of making rational decisions upon the basis of widely-available information.\n\nEven if there are adverse health effects in the long-term, this is also true of tobacco, alcohol and boxing, which remain legal. We allow world class athletes to train for 23 hours a week (on average), adjust their diets and endanger themselves by pushing the boundaries of their body. We let them do it, because it is what they chose which is best for them. According to the NFL Player Association the average life expectancy of an NFL player is 58 years of age (1). Thus already we allow athletes to endanger their lives, give them the choice of a lifestyle. Why not also extend this moral precedent to drugs?\n\nJudd Bissiotto, 15 Surprising facts about world athletes,\n\nhttp://strengthplanet.com/other/15-surprising-facts-about-world-class-athletes.htm , accessed 05/18/2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "13e266a0ede6781e5097587547a8aa77",
"text": "e health crime policing science sport olympics house would permit use performance Improving safety standards in sport\n\nIt does not take a lot for chemists to produce performance enhancing drugs, the Scientific American reports: “Rogue scientists start with testosterone or its commercially available analogues and then make minor structural modifications to yield similarly active derivatives.” The underground chemists make no effort to test their creations for effectiveness or safety, of course. Production of a simple new steroid compound would require \"lab equipment costing maybe $50,000 to $100,000,\". Depending on the number of chemical reactions needed for synthesis, \"some of them could be made in a week or two. Others might take six months to a year.\"(1) As a result of legalizing performance-enhancing drugs a backstreet industry can become regulated as a result there will be much more control and testing to ensure the health and safety of the athletes who take the drugs.\n\nSteven Ashley, Doping by Design, Scientific American 01/12/2004, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=doping-by-design , accessed 05/19/2011\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
bf85aacc52e569c04dfff3e1f46be49c
|
Women’s sports do not provide the same economic incentives for media coverage as men’s.
Media coverage is dependent on one crucial factor: financial incentive. The journalism industry is hugely competitive and media companies constantly have to compete with rivals for viewers and numbers of papers and magazines sold, often just in order to survive. [1] This is important for two reasons. Firstly because more sales obviously means more revenue, and secondly because the volume of sales or viewers attracts more money from advertisers and sponsors who want to maximise the exposure of their adverts to the general public. Therefore, for media companies to prosper, they must cover subjects that are most popular and likely to receive most attention by the public.
Given the difference in popularity between women and men’s sport, media companies have to focus on men’s sporting events as that will largely enable them to compete with rivals and secure greater revenue.
[1] Creedon, Pamela J.: “Women, Sport, and Media Institutions: Issues in Sports Journalism and Marketing”, taken from Media Sport, Wenner, Lawrence A. (ed), Routledge, 1998.
|
[
{
"docid": "3db92da81f8aa6eb73c181ad047e5e3f",
"text": "e media gender sport sport general house would force media display promote and The lack of financial incentive to provide media coverage of women’s sporting event is not a reason to not go ahead with this motion. There is often no financial incentive to provide basic welfare needs or provide funding for the development of pharmaceuticals, but the government still pursues such endeavours. In such cases, extra financial incentives can be provided to private companies from the part of the government, or the government itself may be in charge of the scheme. In the case of sports media, state run media do not require a financial incentive to provide equal coverage, while private media companies could either be provided with benefits for covering women’s sport and/or disincentivised from not providing equal coverage by having sufficiently heavy fines in place.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d4bcf368f97f14b4996fbba4b59b0efc",
"text": "e media gender sport sport general house would force media display promote and The media can and often is used as a tool for public policy. Examples of this include the broadcasting of public information campaigns against drink-driving or smoking or else bans on certain advertising such as smoking advertisements or sponsorship appearing on TV.[1] What’s more the government has a huge influence in what it deems to be worthwhile news or television programs and documentaries. This is because of the existence of state controlled media organisations, like the BBC, and on a more subtle level, with the imposition on restrictions as to what can and cannot be published or broadcast.\n\nThe media coverage inequality between women and men’s sport is a different issue to that made out by the opposition. Floods in Queensland Australia are more relevant to Australians than Europeans because they are more likely to have been affected by them. Women’s sports, however, are potentially as relevant to people’s lives as men’s sports. The increased participation in women’s sport indicates that media coverage is likely to be relevant to more and more people. Even if this was not the case women’s sport should still get air time; with the internet and digital TV it is wrong to suggest that more coverage of women’s sport will come at the expense of men’s sports as there is enough airspace.\n\n[1] ‘Law ends UK tobacco sponsorship’, BBC News, 31 July 2005.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "503594c7f1090ea5c81f36a9494ebcf3",
"text": "e media gender sport sport general house would force media display promote and The government can to a degree cover for any potential drop in funding from private sector sources. Focus can remain on developing grass-roots and sports at schools in order to incentivise new generations of athletes, so the harms mentioned by the opposition will by and large not occur. In time, popularity of women’s sport will increase such that it will once again attract large lucrative TV rights deals and large investments from sponsors.\n\nIt must also be mentioned that the opposition to an extent present a false dichotomy with their argument. Increased coverage of women’s sport need not take valuable air time away from more popular men’s sport in the way the opposition claims. Matches can be scheduled so that they do not clash with each other, and more TV channels can be created (such as the BBC’s red button service). Additionally, air-time is often packed trivial stories and programs other than popular men’s sporting events. Examples from American TV include reports ‘on supremely unhealthy hamburgers on sale at a minor league baseball parks or basketball star Shaquille O’Neal’s contest with a 93-year-old woman’ [1]. Such programs could easily and painlessly be replaced with women’s sporting news or live broadcasting.\n\n[1] Deggans, Eric: “Continued apathy by sports media toward women’s sport a bigger problem than first meets the eye”, National Sports Journalism Centre, June 8 2010.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "13e2c1b708f35f1fe395d1aa5e2595b1",
"text": "e media gender sport sport general house would force media display promote and The proposition is wrong in assuming that increased media coverage will have the drastic effects it claims on changing public perceptions towards women’s sport. The problem with lack of interest in women’s sport is not caused by a lack of media coverage. It is because of deep-rooted social conceptions of gender roles and sport (as the prop have acknowledged). Sports like figure-skating and gymnastics have traditionally been viewed as female-appropriate whereas high-contact sports like football, rugby, American football or basketball are generally seen as male-appropriate. [1]\n\nCrucially, the proposition are wrong in claiming that such social perceptions are easily changed. Simply providing more media coverage will not have the proposition’s desired effects. In the United States increased participation by women in sport has not lead to changes in perceptions so it seems unlikely media coverage will.[2] This is what was observed when the newly formed Women’s Soccer Association (WSA) in the United States which signed a lucrative TV-rights agreement in 1999. This proved to be overly ambitious for the WSA which, despite having a huge amount of air-time, failed to generate interest and viewer ratings were very low. Subsequently, the WSA collapsed in 2003 setting women’s professional soccer in the USA back immensely. [3]\n\nThis is evidence that media coverage cannot change public perceptions in the way the proposition wants. Instead, increased funding to development programs for women’s sport and, more importantly, time are what is needed. Over the last decades, women’s sport has moved on from female-appropriate sports only, to sports like tennis, athletics and swimming that are now largely seen as gender-neutral. This is clear evidence that women’s sport is heading in the right direction despite the fact that media coverage is low. It time, contact sports traditionally viewed as male-appropriate will also become normalised for women.\n\n[1] Cavanaugh, Maureen and Crook, Hank: “Why Women’s Sports Struggle to Gain Popularity”, These Days Archive, KPBS, July 27, 2009.\n\n[2] Hardin, Marie, and Greer, Jennifer D., ‘The Influence of Gender-role Socialization, Media Use and Sports Participation on Perceptions of Gender-Appropriate Sports’, Journal of Sport Behavior, Vol.32 No.2.\n\n[3] Cavanaugh, Maureen and Crook, Hank: “Why Women’s Sports Struggle to Gain Popularity”, These Days Archive, KPBS, July 27, 2009.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a730d0e401c3fd8fa246a049687569d",
"text": "e media gender sport sport general house would force media display promote and The unpopularity of the events sports media would be forced to cover would mean less money, not more money going into sports. This is because incentives for lucrative TV rights deals, sponsorships and advertising only exist where there is a high expectation of positive returns for the advertisers and media companies. For example, if Sky Sports feel there is not much scope in broadcasting every single women’s football league match in the UK, it is unlikely to make a particularly lucrative offer. If anything it will detract from valuable air-time that could be used to show other more popular events that are seen as more profitable.\n\nMoreover, it is not true that media coverage is necessary to incite government funding. For example, the British Government offered for the huge amount of funding for relatively unknown sports for the Beijing and London Olympics, not because they are popular [1], but because the government independently believed it was a worthwhile investment. The fact that such government schemes have succeeded in attracting young girls despite of the lack of media coverage is indicative of this.\n\n[1] BBC News: “Funding for Britain’s Olympic sports extended to Rio 2016”, BBC News, 12 August, 2012.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b937781d14e3007996f4dcd08f3a7a12",
"text": "e media gender sport sport general house would force media display promote and The proposition themselves have mentioned three examples of female athletes that are excellent role models for young girls. The huge publicity received by female athletes at the Olympic Games alone, but also at Tennis Grand Slams indicates that there are already sufficient sporting role models for girls to admire. Of course more would be better but this should not come about through mandatory extra coverage.\n\nIf the proposition’s concern lies in the lack of female role models in traditionally masculine sports like football, then the proposition are still going about this the wrong way. You cannot simply artificially create role models. Sporting heroes may be glorified by the media, but they are not made by them. For a sporting hero to be glorified, the athlete needs to prove himself or herself as exceptional in his or her field and distinguish him or herself. When relatively unknown athletes and sports teams do distinguish themselves, they receive due credit and glorification in the media. Examples include the victory of the USA Women’s soccer team winning the world cup in 1999, and Ireland’s remarkably successful campaign in the 2007 cricket world cup. Both were relatively minor sports with low fan bases and did receive media coverage for their achievements. This indicates that the status quo is sufficient for providing role models even in more niche sports. The proposition may complain that the media attention in such situations is always short-lived, but this is only natural. As we saw with the example of women’s soccer in the USA, media coverage where demand remains limited is unsustainable.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1efb116bca5614fd71ae51c0f3eb8ba8",
"text": "e media gender sport sport general house would force media display promote and The skew in media coverage is not down to personal preferences of sports journalists. If journalists simply reported on what interested them, media companies would not be very successful. Instead, they focus on reporting on sporting events that are more popular and are likely to attract more public attention. The large amount of media coverage of women’s sport in the Olympic Games and Tennis Grand Slams is testimony to this point. It shows that sports journalists are not all subconsciously sexist as the proposition might suggest, they simply cover what they deem to be appropriate and of interest to the public. The Olympics and Wimbledon are sufficiently high-profile to warrant high coverage of the women’s events. The national women’s football league in the UK, however, does not.\n\nMoreover, media coverage is not a matter of fairness as the proposition suggest. It is to do with popularity. If fairness was the main priority, then media would have to cover all stories no-matter what their significance to the general public, to the same level. This would simply be pointless and impractical.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4be16b70149587a046539a3e76c3d94a",
"text": "e media gender sport sport general house would force media display promote and Men’s sports are more popular than women’s and so should receive more media coverage.\n\nThe role of the media is not to be a tool for the implementation of social policy. It is instead to inform the public and provide entertainment. However, it would be naïve and short-sighted to believe that the media should report and cover everything equally so as to perfectly inform the public. The nature of media coverage is such that there is a limited amount each media company can cover. There is a limit on air-time available to radio and TV stations and there is a limit to the number of pages newspapers can print. Media companies thus have to make a choice regarding what to report and to what extent. It makes sense for more coverage to be offered for stories and events that are deemed to be of greater importance by the general public (irrespective of its objective value). For example, news about local flooding in Queensland Australia may be hugely important for Australians, but considerably less so for people in Europe or the Americas. Similarly, a British victory at the World Schools Debating Championships would not be (by and large) seen as important as a British victory in the Football or Rugby World Cup. We would thus expect the media to cover each story according to its popularity. Given the considerably lower public interest in most women’s sport compared to men’s, it thus makes sense for men’s to receive more media coverage. That coverage is based on popularity rather than media bias is shown by more than two thirds of media reports not in any way enhancing stereotypes, the media are therefore not specifically discriminating against women in sport.[1]\n\n[1] ‘Sports, Media and Stereotypes Women and Men in Sports and Media’, Centre for Gender Equality, 2006, p.19.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b3751217dff7f6c04bd20df56f456e8",
"text": "e media gender sport sport general house would force media display promote and Equalising media coverage will cause a drop in funding for sport in general\n\nThe proposition have acknowledged that media coverage is a crucial source of revenue for sport in the form of sponsorship deals and TV rights. However, forcing media companies to provide equal coverage of men’s and women’s sport, inevitably leads to a thoroughly imperfect and inefficient market within the sports media industry. Sponsors and advertisers would not be as inclined to spend money on media coverage since they would deem that their advertising would reach fewer people and so have less of an impact. Moreover, sports newspapers and magazines are likely to suffer since the vast majority of readers are men interested in men’s sports.\n\nThe consequences of an impaired sports media industry would have negative effects on both women’s and men’s sport because they will receive less funding. Let us examine how the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) is funded, as a case study. The overwhelming majority of the ECB’s funds come from TV rights sales. In 2012 alone contracts were signed with Sky and ESPN worth a total of £385 million. [1] Forcing these media giants to show an equal amount of women’s cricket as men’s would be destructive simply because interest in women’s cricket is nowhere near as high. Consequently, the ECB would see its TV rights value slashed and its income severely lowered.\n\nA similar story to this described above would ensue with many other team sports like football and rugby where the men’s sport has a huge fan base. The result would be hugely diminished funding for all facets of sport, most likely including women’s. Consequently, all the benefits the proposition are trying to achieve with this motion would not be achieved, and if anything one would observe a decline in participation and standards of facilities and coaching. This is because the development, facilities and grass roots programs funded by organisations like the ECB and the Football Association (FA) are all funded from the same pool of money, whether the income has come from men’s or women’s sport. Crucially, this explains the proposition’s identification of growing female participation in sport while media coverage remains low.\n\n[1] Hoult, Nick: “England and Wales Cricket Board to step up security in wke of new £125m Asian TV rights deal”, The Telegraph, 17 May, 2012.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba30c695c7e71b4a8bc14e0e2680bb33",
"text": "e media gender sport sport general house would force media display promote and Increased media coverage changes public perceptions towards gender roles and women’s sport.\n\nThe male world-view which dominates sports media and conveys to the public that women’s sport are inferior to men’s reinforce traditional gender stereotypes and deter young girls from becoming active in sport. Gender perceptions have obviously come a long way in the last 100 years, but the media classification of women’s sport as inferior to men’s is severely slowing this progress in the field of sport.\n\nHumans are social beings with esteem needs, and as social beings we like to be viewed in a positive light by our peers. This is best achieved on a general level by conforming to social expectations and norm. This also applies for societal conceptions of gender. The fact that the media deems women’s sport to be of lesser importance which (as we have seen) conveys to the public this message, reinforces the notion that sport is not a worthwhile activity for women and girls. Instead, it is an activity more appropriate for men and boys. This kind of discourse has the effect of moulding gender identities both in terms of how men perceive women and how women perceive themselves. In this way, the lack of media coverage of women’s sport fuels a self-affirming perception of gender which effectively denies many young girls a realistic choice of becoming engaged in sport as perceptions affect confidence in one’s ability; as a result of this gender bias boys as young as six rate themselves as being much more competent in sports than girls do.[1]\n\nBy forcing the media to provide equal coverage of both men’s and women’s sport, we take an effective step in breaking these societal discourses and transforming gender perceptions. This is because increased coverage will make sport seem like a worthwhile activity for girls and women. As more women take part in sport, this has a further cyclical effect of re-affirming gender conceptions around sport which, in turn, induces further women to become engaged in sport. This is a desirable outcome from the government’s perspective because sport has a positive impact on the health of those who are physically active. Those who are physically active are not only less likely to suffer from things like Coronary Heart Disease and cancer, but they have also been shown to lead more psychologically happy lives due to the endorphins released while exercising, and the joy of feeling physically fit.\n\n[1] Jacobs, Janis E., and Eccles, Jacquelynne S., ‘The Impact of Mopthers’ Gender-Role Stereotypic Beliefs on Mothers’ and Children’s Ability Perceptions’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 63, No. 6, 1992, pp.932-944, p.934.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "acd33eaa0e4043bb231323014ae46396",
"text": "e media gender sport sport general house would force media display promote and Increased media coverage creates more role models for young girls to engage in sport.\n\nA more obvious problem with the limited coverage of women’s sport is the distinct lack of sports role models available as sources of inspiration for girls. Having sports role models is crucial for children to attain the desire and motivation to partake in sport. Boys often want to be like Lionel Messi in football, or Lebron James in basketball. Boys can access such figureheads because they are world famous. Their sporting achievements and prowess are glorified in all forms of media and people can very easily watch them play their sport live on TV. The same does not exist for girls because female athletes receive nowhere near as much media attention as their male counterparts. Girls often can’t even name any female sports stars so lack role models in sport.[1] Although it is true that children can have role models of either sex, the divide in the sports world between men’s and women’s sports means girls cannot aspire to compete alongside the likes of Usain Bolt or Michael Phelps.\n\nThe successes of British female athletes like Rebecca Adlington, Jessica Ennis and Victoria Pendleton, or the young Katie Ledecky from the USA in the recent Olympics have captured the hearts and imagination of a huge number of young girls across the UK and already, as local sports centres and athletics clubs have seen participation amongst girls soar during and after the London Olympics. This is no coincidence – it is because of the media attention and glorification female athletes receive. The Olympic Games are an example of what equal media coverage of men’s and women’s sport can achieve, The equal coverage of Grand Slam tennis and the subsequent glorification of the likes of Maria Sharapova and Serena Williams is another example. We must take action to provide the same sort of role models across all sporting events.\n\n[1] ‘Girls’ attitudes explored… Role models’, Girlguiding UK, 2012, p.14\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dbb2d21dcd4ab8f204e8fadd106a0aa1",
"text": "e media gender sport sport general house would force media display promote and The sports world is unfairly dominated by a male-orientated world-view.\n\nSport is dominated by a male-orientated world view. This is the case in two respects:\n\nIn terms of the way sports media is run. Sports media are almost entirely run by men, who somewhat inevitably are more interested in men’s sport.[1] In the news media for example only 27% of top management jobs were held by women.[2] In addition, women who enter the world of sports media are subjected to those male-orientated perceptions. For them to succeed as journalists they feel a need to cover men’s sport. [3] These two factors explain why the gap between media coverage of men’s and women’s sport is not closing despite the increase in participation and interest in women’s sport.\n\nThe media dictates what is “newsworthy”. Public opinion is hugely influenced by the media. Stories, events or sports that receive a large amount of coverage give the impression to the public that they are important issues that are worthy of being reported on. Similarly, sports that are not covered appear to the public as being of lesser importance. This applies in the case of women’s sport which in the male-dominated world of sport media will always be perceived as of lesser importance.\n\nThis male dominated world-view is unfair on female athletes. Sport is supposed to be a celebration of the human mind and body, and it is right that athletes that push themselves to the brink in search for glory receive due praise. The hugely skewed coverage of sport against women’s sports caused by the male world-view in the media is hugely unfair on female athletes, as they do not get the deserved recognition their male counterparts receive.\n\n[1] Turner, Georgina, “Fair play for women’s sport”, The Guardian, 24 January 2009.\n\n[2] ‘Global Report: Men Occupy Majority of Management Jobs in News Companies’, International Women’s Media Foundation.\n\n[3] Creedon, Pamela J.: “Women, Sport, and Media Institutions: Issues in Sports Journalism and Marketing”, taken from Media Sport, Wenner, Lawrence A. (ed), Routledge, 1998.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a5b6e2aeda2516f83442c589a91fc8f",
"text": "e media gender sport sport general house would force media display promote and Increased media coverage will lead to increased funding towards women’s sport\n\nIncreased media coverage will lead to more money going into women’s sport. This will happen for several reasons.\n\nIn the short-term, increased media coverage means more money from advertising and sponsorship, both through the media and directly sponsoring sporting events, clubs and athletes. Increased media involvement also generates revenue for sports in the form of TV and radio licenses (i.e. broadcasting rights). Importantly, as women’s sport increases in popularity, so will the competitiveness to secure sponsorship deals and TV rights in those sports. [2] This will further push up the amount of funding going into women’s sport.\n\nThe Government invests in social projects it deems to be worthwhile. As we have seen, the media has a huge influence in forming public opinion as to what constitutes a worthwhile activity. Thus, increased media coverage will create more demand for increased government funding in women’s sport. This phenomenon was observed in the Government funding that went towards the British Olympic team. The increased popularity in the Olympics led to huge increases in funding for the Beijing and London Olympics. [1]\n\nIncreased Government funding is desirable because it leads to better facilities and coaching, increased public awareness, increased participation and, ultimately, in improved results on the sporting field (as was seen in both Beijing and London for team GB).\n\n[1] UK Government, London 2012 Funding, accessed 7/9/2012.\n\n[2] Cavanaugh, Maureen and Crook, Hank: “Why Women’s Sports Struggle to Gain Popularity”, These Days Archive, KPBS, July 27, 2009.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
6888d62ecdef766f27c84fb987ceb51d
|
Equalising media coverage will cause a drop in funding for sport in general
The proposition have acknowledged that media coverage is a crucial source of revenue for sport in the form of sponsorship deals and TV rights. However, forcing media companies to provide equal coverage of men’s and women’s sport, inevitably leads to a thoroughly imperfect and inefficient market within the sports media industry. Sponsors and advertisers would not be as inclined to spend money on media coverage since they would deem that their advertising would reach fewer people and so have less of an impact. Moreover, sports newspapers and magazines are likely to suffer since the vast majority of readers are men interested in men’s sports.
The consequences of an impaired sports media industry would have negative effects on both women’s and men’s sport because they will receive less funding. Let us examine how the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) is funded, as a case study. The overwhelming majority of the ECB’s funds come from TV rights sales. In 2012 alone contracts were signed with Sky and ESPN worth a total of £385 million. [1] Forcing these media giants to show an equal amount of women’s cricket as men’s would be destructive simply because interest in women’s cricket is nowhere near as high. Consequently, the ECB would see its TV rights value slashed and its income severely lowered.
A similar story to this described above would ensue with many other team sports like football and rugby where the men’s sport has a huge fan base. The result would be hugely diminished funding for all facets of sport, most likely including women’s. Consequently, all the benefits the proposition are trying to achieve with this motion would not be achieved, and if anything one would observe a decline in participation and standards of facilities and coaching. This is because the development, facilities and grass roots programs funded by organisations like the ECB and the Football Association (FA) are all funded from the same pool of money, whether the income has come from men’s or women’s sport. Crucially, this explains the proposition’s identification of growing female participation in sport while media coverage remains low.
[1] Hoult, Nick: “England and Wales Cricket Board to step up security in wke of new £125m Asian TV rights deal”, The Telegraph, 17 May, 2012.
|
[
{
"docid": "503594c7f1090ea5c81f36a9494ebcf3",
"text": "e media gender sport sport general house would force media display promote and The government can to a degree cover for any potential drop in funding from private sector sources. Focus can remain on developing grass-roots and sports at schools in order to incentivise new generations of athletes, so the harms mentioned by the opposition will by and large not occur. In time, popularity of women’s sport will increase such that it will once again attract large lucrative TV rights deals and large investments from sponsors.\n\nIt must also be mentioned that the opposition to an extent present a false dichotomy with their argument. Increased coverage of women’s sport need not take valuable air time away from more popular men’s sport in the way the opposition claims. Matches can be scheduled so that they do not clash with each other, and more TV channels can be created (such as the BBC’s red button service). Additionally, air-time is often packed trivial stories and programs other than popular men’s sporting events. Examples from American TV include reports ‘on supremely unhealthy hamburgers on sale at a minor league baseball parks or basketball star Shaquille O’Neal’s contest with a 93-year-old woman’ [1]. Such programs could easily and painlessly be replaced with women’s sporting news or live broadcasting.\n\n[1] Deggans, Eric: “Continued apathy by sports media toward women’s sport a bigger problem than first meets the eye”, National Sports Journalism Centre, June 8 2010.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d4bcf368f97f14b4996fbba4b59b0efc",
"text": "e media gender sport sport general house would force media display promote and The media can and often is used as a tool for public policy. Examples of this include the broadcasting of public information campaigns against drink-driving or smoking or else bans on certain advertising such as smoking advertisements or sponsorship appearing on TV.[1] What’s more the government has a huge influence in what it deems to be worthwhile news or television programs and documentaries. This is because of the existence of state controlled media organisations, like the BBC, and on a more subtle level, with the imposition on restrictions as to what can and cannot be published or broadcast.\n\nThe media coverage inequality between women and men’s sport is a different issue to that made out by the opposition. Floods in Queensland Australia are more relevant to Australians than Europeans because they are more likely to have been affected by them. Women’s sports, however, are potentially as relevant to people’s lives as men’s sports. The increased participation in women’s sport indicates that media coverage is likely to be relevant to more and more people. Even if this was not the case women’s sport should still get air time; with the internet and digital TV it is wrong to suggest that more coverage of women’s sport will come at the expense of men’s sports as there is enough airspace.\n\n[1] ‘Law ends UK tobacco sponsorship’, BBC News, 31 July 2005.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3db92da81f8aa6eb73c181ad047e5e3f",
"text": "e media gender sport sport general house would force media display promote and The lack of financial incentive to provide media coverage of women’s sporting event is not a reason to not go ahead with this motion. There is often no financial incentive to provide basic welfare needs or provide funding for the development of pharmaceuticals, but the government still pursues such endeavours. In such cases, extra financial incentives can be provided to private companies from the part of the government, or the government itself may be in charge of the scheme. In the case of sports media, state run media do not require a financial incentive to provide equal coverage, while private media companies could either be provided with benefits for covering women’s sport and/or disincentivised from not providing equal coverage by having sufficiently heavy fines in place.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "13e2c1b708f35f1fe395d1aa5e2595b1",
"text": "e media gender sport sport general house would force media display promote and The proposition is wrong in assuming that increased media coverage will have the drastic effects it claims on changing public perceptions towards women’s sport. The problem with lack of interest in women’s sport is not caused by a lack of media coverage. It is because of deep-rooted social conceptions of gender roles and sport (as the prop have acknowledged). Sports like figure-skating and gymnastics have traditionally been viewed as female-appropriate whereas high-contact sports like football, rugby, American football or basketball are generally seen as male-appropriate. [1]\n\nCrucially, the proposition are wrong in claiming that such social perceptions are easily changed. Simply providing more media coverage will not have the proposition’s desired effects. In the United States increased participation by women in sport has not lead to changes in perceptions so it seems unlikely media coverage will.[2] This is what was observed when the newly formed Women’s Soccer Association (WSA) in the United States which signed a lucrative TV-rights agreement in 1999. This proved to be overly ambitious for the WSA which, despite having a huge amount of air-time, failed to generate interest and viewer ratings were very low. Subsequently, the WSA collapsed in 2003 setting women’s professional soccer in the USA back immensely. [3]\n\nThis is evidence that media coverage cannot change public perceptions in the way the proposition wants. Instead, increased funding to development programs for women’s sport and, more importantly, time are what is needed. Over the last decades, women’s sport has moved on from female-appropriate sports only, to sports like tennis, athletics and swimming that are now largely seen as gender-neutral. This is clear evidence that women’s sport is heading in the right direction despite the fact that media coverage is low. It time, contact sports traditionally viewed as male-appropriate will also become normalised for women.\n\n[1] Cavanaugh, Maureen and Crook, Hank: “Why Women’s Sports Struggle to Gain Popularity”, These Days Archive, KPBS, July 27, 2009.\n\n[2] Hardin, Marie, and Greer, Jennifer D., ‘The Influence of Gender-role Socialization, Media Use and Sports Participation on Perceptions of Gender-Appropriate Sports’, Journal of Sport Behavior, Vol.32 No.2.\n\n[3] Cavanaugh, Maureen and Crook, Hank: “Why Women’s Sports Struggle to Gain Popularity”, These Days Archive, KPBS, July 27, 2009.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a730d0e401c3fd8fa246a049687569d",
"text": "e media gender sport sport general house would force media display promote and The unpopularity of the events sports media would be forced to cover would mean less money, not more money going into sports. This is because incentives for lucrative TV rights deals, sponsorships and advertising only exist where there is a high expectation of positive returns for the advertisers and media companies. For example, if Sky Sports feel there is not much scope in broadcasting every single women’s football league match in the UK, it is unlikely to make a particularly lucrative offer. If anything it will detract from valuable air-time that could be used to show other more popular events that are seen as more profitable.\n\nMoreover, it is not true that media coverage is necessary to incite government funding. For example, the British Government offered for the huge amount of funding for relatively unknown sports for the Beijing and London Olympics, not because they are popular [1], but because the government independently believed it was a worthwhile investment. The fact that such government schemes have succeeded in attracting young girls despite of the lack of media coverage is indicative of this.\n\n[1] BBC News: “Funding for Britain’s Olympic sports extended to Rio 2016”, BBC News, 12 August, 2012.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b937781d14e3007996f4dcd08f3a7a12",
"text": "e media gender sport sport general house would force media display promote and The proposition themselves have mentioned three examples of female athletes that are excellent role models for young girls. The huge publicity received by female athletes at the Olympic Games alone, but also at Tennis Grand Slams indicates that there are already sufficient sporting role models for girls to admire. Of course more would be better but this should not come about through mandatory extra coverage.\n\nIf the proposition’s concern lies in the lack of female role models in traditionally masculine sports like football, then the proposition are still going about this the wrong way. You cannot simply artificially create role models. Sporting heroes may be glorified by the media, but they are not made by them. For a sporting hero to be glorified, the athlete needs to prove himself or herself as exceptional in his or her field and distinguish him or herself. When relatively unknown athletes and sports teams do distinguish themselves, they receive due credit and glorification in the media. Examples include the victory of the USA Women’s soccer team winning the world cup in 1999, and Ireland’s remarkably successful campaign in the 2007 cricket world cup. Both were relatively minor sports with low fan bases and did receive media coverage for their achievements. This indicates that the status quo is sufficient for providing role models even in more niche sports. The proposition may complain that the media attention in such situations is always short-lived, but this is only natural. As we saw with the example of women’s soccer in the USA, media coverage where demand remains limited is unsustainable.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1efb116bca5614fd71ae51c0f3eb8ba8",
"text": "e media gender sport sport general house would force media display promote and The skew in media coverage is not down to personal preferences of sports journalists. If journalists simply reported on what interested them, media companies would not be very successful. Instead, they focus on reporting on sporting events that are more popular and are likely to attract more public attention. The large amount of media coverage of women’s sport in the Olympic Games and Tennis Grand Slams is testimony to this point. It shows that sports journalists are not all subconsciously sexist as the proposition might suggest, they simply cover what they deem to be appropriate and of interest to the public. The Olympics and Wimbledon are sufficiently high-profile to warrant high coverage of the women’s events. The national women’s football league in the UK, however, does not.\n\nMoreover, media coverage is not a matter of fairness as the proposition suggest. It is to do with popularity. If fairness was the main priority, then media would have to cover all stories no-matter what their significance to the general public, to the same level. This would simply be pointless and impractical.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3ddffce71b7662359725083990432327",
"text": "e media gender sport sport general house would force media display promote and Women’s sports do not provide the same economic incentives for media coverage as men’s.\n\nMedia coverage is dependent on one crucial factor: financial incentive. The journalism industry is hugely competitive and media companies constantly have to compete with rivals for viewers and numbers of papers and magazines sold, often just in order to survive. [1] This is important for two reasons. Firstly because more sales obviously means more revenue, and secondly because the volume of sales or viewers attracts more money from advertisers and sponsors who want to maximise the exposure of their adverts to the general public. Therefore, for media companies to prosper, they must cover subjects that are most popular and likely to receive most attention by the public.\n\nGiven the difference in popularity between women and men’s sport, media companies have to focus on men’s sporting events as that will largely enable them to compete with rivals and secure greater revenue.\n\n[1] Creedon, Pamela J.: “Women, Sport, and Media Institutions: Issues in Sports Journalism and Marketing”, taken from Media Sport, Wenner, Lawrence A. (ed), Routledge, 1998.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4be16b70149587a046539a3e76c3d94a",
"text": "e media gender sport sport general house would force media display promote and Men’s sports are more popular than women’s and so should receive more media coverage.\n\nThe role of the media is not to be a tool for the implementation of social policy. It is instead to inform the public and provide entertainment. However, it would be naïve and short-sighted to believe that the media should report and cover everything equally so as to perfectly inform the public. The nature of media coverage is such that there is a limited amount each media company can cover. There is a limit on air-time available to radio and TV stations and there is a limit to the number of pages newspapers can print. Media companies thus have to make a choice regarding what to report and to what extent. It makes sense for more coverage to be offered for stories and events that are deemed to be of greater importance by the general public (irrespective of its objective value). For example, news about local flooding in Queensland Australia may be hugely important for Australians, but considerably less so for people in Europe or the Americas. Similarly, a British victory at the World Schools Debating Championships would not be (by and large) seen as important as a British victory in the Football or Rugby World Cup. We would thus expect the media to cover each story according to its popularity. Given the considerably lower public interest in most women’s sport compared to men’s, it thus makes sense for men’s to receive more media coverage. That coverage is based on popularity rather than media bias is shown by more than two thirds of media reports not in any way enhancing stereotypes, the media are therefore not specifically discriminating against women in sport.[1]\n\n[1] ‘Sports, Media and Stereotypes Women and Men in Sports and Media’, Centre for Gender Equality, 2006, p.19.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba30c695c7e71b4a8bc14e0e2680bb33",
"text": "e media gender sport sport general house would force media display promote and Increased media coverage changes public perceptions towards gender roles and women’s sport.\n\nThe male world-view which dominates sports media and conveys to the public that women’s sport are inferior to men’s reinforce traditional gender stereotypes and deter young girls from becoming active in sport. Gender perceptions have obviously come a long way in the last 100 years, but the media classification of women’s sport as inferior to men’s is severely slowing this progress in the field of sport.\n\nHumans are social beings with esteem needs, and as social beings we like to be viewed in a positive light by our peers. This is best achieved on a general level by conforming to social expectations and norm. This also applies for societal conceptions of gender. The fact that the media deems women’s sport to be of lesser importance which (as we have seen) conveys to the public this message, reinforces the notion that sport is not a worthwhile activity for women and girls. Instead, it is an activity more appropriate for men and boys. This kind of discourse has the effect of moulding gender identities both in terms of how men perceive women and how women perceive themselves. In this way, the lack of media coverage of women’s sport fuels a self-affirming perception of gender which effectively denies many young girls a realistic choice of becoming engaged in sport as perceptions affect confidence in one’s ability; as a result of this gender bias boys as young as six rate themselves as being much more competent in sports than girls do.[1]\n\nBy forcing the media to provide equal coverage of both men’s and women’s sport, we take an effective step in breaking these societal discourses and transforming gender perceptions. This is because increased coverage will make sport seem like a worthwhile activity for girls and women. As more women take part in sport, this has a further cyclical effect of re-affirming gender conceptions around sport which, in turn, induces further women to become engaged in sport. This is a desirable outcome from the government’s perspective because sport has a positive impact on the health of those who are physically active. Those who are physically active are not only less likely to suffer from things like Coronary Heart Disease and cancer, but they have also been shown to lead more psychologically happy lives due to the endorphins released while exercising, and the joy of feeling physically fit.\n\n[1] Jacobs, Janis E., and Eccles, Jacquelynne S., ‘The Impact of Mopthers’ Gender-Role Stereotypic Beliefs on Mothers’ and Children’s Ability Perceptions’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 63, No. 6, 1992, pp.932-944, p.934.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "acd33eaa0e4043bb231323014ae46396",
"text": "e media gender sport sport general house would force media display promote and Increased media coverage creates more role models for young girls to engage in sport.\n\nA more obvious problem with the limited coverage of women’s sport is the distinct lack of sports role models available as sources of inspiration for girls. Having sports role models is crucial for children to attain the desire and motivation to partake in sport. Boys often want to be like Lionel Messi in football, or Lebron James in basketball. Boys can access such figureheads because they are world famous. Their sporting achievements and prowess are glorified in all forms of media and people can very easily watch them play their sport live on TV. The same does not exist for girls because female athletes receive nowhere near as much media attention as their male counterparts. Girls often can’t even name any female sports stars so lack role models in sport.[1] Although it is true that children can have role models of either sex, the divide in the sports world between men’s and women’s sports means girls cannot aspire to compete alongside the likes of Usain Bolt or Michael Phelps.\n\nThe successes of British female athletes like Rebecca Adlington, Jessica Ennis and Victoria Pendleton, or the young Katie Ledecky from the USA in the recent Olympics have captured the hearts and imagination of a huge number of young girls across the UK and already, as local sports centres and athletics clubs have seen participation amongst girls soar during and after the London Olympics. This is no coincidence – it is because of the media attention and glorification female athletes receive. The Olympic Games are an example of what equal media coverage of men’s and women’s sport can achieve, The equal coverage of Grand Slam tennis and the subsequent glorification of the likes of Maria Sharapova and Serena Williams is another example. We must take action to provide the same sort of role models across all sporting events.\n\n[1] ‘Girls’ attitudes explored… Role models’, Girlguiding UK, 2012, p.14\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dbb2d21dcd4ab8f204e8fadd106a0aa1",
"text": "e media gender sport sport general house would force media display promote and The sports world is unfairly dominated by a male-orientated world-view.\n\nSport is dominated by a male-orientated world view. This is the case in two respects:\n\nIn terms of the way sports media is run. Sports media are almost entirely run by men, who somewhat inevitably are more interested in men’s sport.[1] In the news media for example only 27% of top management jobs were held by women.[2] In addition, women who enter the world of sports media are subjected to those male-orientated perceptions. For them to succeed as journalists they feel a need to cover men’s sport. [3] These two factors explain why the gap between media coverage of men’s and women’s sport is not closing despite the increase in participation and interest in women’s sport.\n\nThe media dictates what is “newsworthy”. Public opinion is hugely influenced by the media. Stories, events or sports that receive a large amount of coverage give the impression to the public that they are important issues that are worthy of being reported on. Similarly, sports that are not covered appear to the public as being of lesser importance. This applies in the case of women’s sport which in the male-dominated world of sport media will always be perceived as of lesser importance.\n\nThis male dominated world-view is unfair on female athletes. Sport is supposed to be a celebration of the human mind and body, and it is right that athletes that push themselves to the brink in search for glory receive due praise. The hugely skewed coverage of sport against women’s sports caused by the male world-view in the media is hugely unfair on female athletes, as they do not get the deserved recognition their male counterparts receive.\n\n[1] Turner, Georgina, “Fair play for women’s sport”, The Guardian, 24 January 2009.\n\n[2] ‘Global Report: Men Occupy Majority of Management Jobs in News Companies’, International Women’s Media Foundation.\n\n[3] Creedon, Pamela J.: “Women, Sport, and Media Institutions: Issues in Sports Journalism and Marketing”, taken from Media Sport, Wenner, Lawrence A. (ed), Routledge, 1998.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a5b6e2aeda2516f83442c589a91fc8f",
"text": "e media gender sport sport general house would force media display promote and Increased media coverage will lead to increased funding towards women’s sport\n\nIncreased media coverage will lead to more money going into women’s sport. This will happen for several reasons.\n\nIn the short-term, increased media coverage means more money from advertising and sponsorship, both through the media and directly sponsoring sporting events, clubs and athletes. Increased media involvement also generates revenue for sports in the form of TV and radio licenses (i.e. broadcasting rights). Importantly, as women’s sport increases in popularity, so will the competitiveness to secure sponsorship deals and TV rights in those sports. [2] This will further push up the amount of funding going into women’s sport.\n\nThe Government invests in social projects it deems to be worthwhile. As we have seen, the media has a huge influence in forming public opinion as to what constitutes a worthwhile activity. Thus, increased media coverage will create more demand for increased government funding in women’s sport. This phenomenon was observed in the Government funding that went towards the British Olympic team. The increased popularity in the Olympics led to huge increases in funding for the Beijing and London Olympics. [1]\n\nIncreased Government funding is desirable because it leads to better facilities and coaching, increased public awareness, increased participation and, ultimately, in improved results on the sporting field (as was seen in both Beijing and London for team GB).\n\n[1] UK Government, London 2012 Funding, accessed 7/9/2012.\n\n[2] Cavanaugh, Maureen and Crook, Hank: “Why Women’s Sports Struggle to Gain Popularity”, These Days Archive, KPBS, July 27, 2009.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
d38332b413a20feb17b94f4a11fbc1cd
|
Introducing chess would preserve the spirit of the ancient Olympic Games
When the IOC spokeswoman Emmanuelle Moreau stated that “mind sports, by their nature, cannot be part of the program”6, she contradicted Olympic history. The Ancient Greek Panhellenic Games (forerunners of the modern Olympic Games) indeed emphasised musical, theatrical and painting competitions.7 Even the modern Olympic Games had non-physical competitions such as painting, design and poetry between 1912 and 1952.8 Through chess, the cultural and mental aspect now lost in the Olympic Games is protected. The limits of human capability can be investigated from a new, intellectual, angle. This would allow the Games to celebrate, as intended, human potential in its entirety.
[6] Haire, Meaghan. “Should Chess Be an Olympic Sport?” TIME, 5 August 2008. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1827716,00.html
[7] "Pythian Games." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online Academic Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2013. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/485272/Pythian-Games
[8] Conway, Richard. “The Curious History of Olympic Art Competitions”, Huffington Post, 26 July 2012. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-conway/history-of-olympic-art-competitions_b_1705248.html
|
[
{
"docid": "2b0c83edf7ce135f9fb7094da35fcdeb",
"text": "olympics house would introduce chess olympics It is not a good in itself to make modern Olympics resemble the ancient events as much as possible. Ancient Games, for instance, only allowed men to compete, and many of the sports involved today did not exist then. Progress is generally considered a good thing, and the purpose and meaning of the Olympics has progressed since then. This does not mean that art and culture have no place, and indeed there are cultural festivities surrounding every Olympic event. But modern Olympics have an identity of their own, and the question of whether chess belongs to it is a different one.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "0f955e6303cbbfebc42ccf90044dbbbb",
"text": "olympics house would introduce chess olympics Chess is not as appealing to an ignorant observer as other sports, by virtue of not being physical. Most people can relate to the impressive nature of Olympic gymnastics or a goal-scoring back-flip, even without knowing the rules or the complex strategies involved. This is not the case for chess: it requires a more patient and informed audience. Even if it is viewer friendly for its strong fan base, it is unlikely to gather more support in the Olympics, where many other more established sports are also at their most available.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1132ab795c85acf460a2f92a22c89356",
"text": "olympics house would introduce chess olympics The benefits of chess should be promoted in their right context: a competition exclusively about chess can emphasise these aspects. The Olympics’ motto, on the other hand, is “Faster, higher, stronger”11: chess is very much in the periphery of its message. Such an event is incapable of emphasising all of chess’ merits without a serious and controversial transformation. It is even unlikely to gather more viewers for chess when it competes with other sports, closer to the Olympics’ purpose.\n\n[11] “Opening Ceremony”, International Olympics Committee, 2002. http://www.olympic.org/Documents/Reports/EN/en_report_268.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "00f6d54fbc79c6c9b249cc9a3a6c325b",
"text": "olympics house would introduce chess olympics The fact that the body is the vessel in shooting, curling and taekwondo is more relevant than this argument suggests. It means that the final determining factors are physical ones, such as speed, control, and precision. In chess, although stamina is involved, it could never be sufficient to win a game. The determining factors are intellectual, such as the mind’s precision in calculating many moves into the future. The brain is an organ: but we do not call anything that tires our brain a sport.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac5b18b8a5726fe9217c6ee425cbfb75",
"text": "olympics house would introduce chess olympics Attempts to separate chess from other sports merely misunderstand the discipline. There is much more than this to chess: it requires precision, speed, stamina, and commitment. Unlike many other games the element of chance does not exist. Furthermore, chess has an infinite number of variations, so it provides a timeless platform on which to measure human ability. It would cohere perfectly with Olympic goals and values.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c802c866da33ca8a0afc3a8a159bf90",
"text": "olympics house would introduce chess olympics All other Olympic sports have their own competitions. Even if the Olympiad was to fade out due to clashes, other prestigious competitions will doubtless remain as in any other sport.\n\nBeing recognised as an Olympic sport would be a great gain for the chess community. Exposure creates attention and support: for example, chess had its first boom in Norway after Magnus Carlsen became internationally recognised18. Being part of the Olympics will show people the benefits of chess and provide a higher platform towards which amateurs can strive.\n\n[18] “Norway makes its international chess move”, News & Events, Norway: The Official Site in the UK, 3 September 2010. http://www.norway.org.uk/News_and_events/Current-Affairs/Norway-makes-its-move-in-the-international-chess-world/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa8928cd8163d47213ce35c823a0ef4e",
"text": "olympics house would introduce chess olympics The Olympic does not hold precedence as a justification for including a given sport. They do not have fixed guidelines, and they include sports on a case by case basis. Therefore, it seems unlikely that this would force the IOC to accept other mind games. Bridge and poker, for instance, rely on an element of chance, which chess does not. This is a criterion that impacts their appropriateness for assessing human potential, and a ground on which other mind sports ought not to be included.\n\nFurthermore, it may well be true that the Olympics cannot continue expanding due to lack of space, and the inability of most countries to host such large events. However, chess is one of the examples where the least space and infrastructure is required. This is an argument for not having infinite sports, but it provides no reason to exclude chess from a finite selection.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1de6fa819ddc6dd72f79eb034e53ff4",
"text": "olympics house would introduce chess olympics It has consistently proven impossible to prevent doping in any Olympic sport. Despite many scandals we still have cycling, for example, in the Olympics. It will too get harder to prevent this, as drugs develop at a similar rate to technology to be more easily concealed. This is therefore no reason to exclude chess: we should merely take steps towards stricter controls and sanctions in the discipline.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f855f15022867283a2f2510237f1c8d0",
"text": "olympics house would introduce chess olympics Chess is proven to have great cognitive benefits: increasing its support is objectively good\n\nThe sports in the Olympics promote good values: they display attributes and disciplines that we want to encourage in society and children in particular. Chess is no different from this. Numerous studies have shown that chess has large cognitive benefits, strengthening a wide range of skills: problem-solving, decision-making, memory, mathematics, logic, and creative thinking.9, 10 These are skills we want to actively promote, and thus if including chess in the Olympics would increase its support, we should do so.\n\nMaking chess an Olympic sport would make it more accessible to people who would otherwise not watch it. It would also incentivise young enthusiasts to become more involved in the hope of participating in such a recognised competition. Bringing chess to a highly recognised event would doubtless increase support, and thus have an objectively positive impact on society.\n\n[9] Dr Dauvergne, Peter. “The Case for Chess as a Tool to Develop Our Children’s Minds”, University of Sydney, July 2000. http://www.auschess.org.au/articles/chessmind.htm\n\n[10] Dr Ferguson, Robert. “Chess in Education: Research Summary”, for the BMCC Chess in Education, “A Wise Move” Conference. http://uschesstrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/chess-in-education-research-summary-by-robert-ferguson.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c1381972b6c6a776e0b072c62b33c14",
"text": "olympics house would introduce chess olympics Chess ought to qualify as an Olympic sport\n\nChess is not a predominantly physical sport, yet neither are shooting and curling (which, in fact, has been nicknamed “chess on ice”5). The opposition may respond that the determining factor in these is still physical, such as speed and precision. However, chess too requires precise calculation in short periods of time. There is no relevant distinction to be drawn between the human brain and other organs: both can be trained and strained, and doing so should be equally rewarded.\n\nMore importantly, taekwondo is a further example of what may be called a mind sport. As in chess, both participants have the same set of moves which can be combined in a near infinite number of ways: it thus becomes a battle of intellect and strategy rather than strength. The body merely becomes the vessel through which to compete, precisely as a chess board. Although the vessels are different, the fundamental activity is the same, and thus if taekwondo is valid as an Olympic sport, so should chess be.\n\n[5] Tomlinson, Brett. “Chess on ice”, Princeton Alumni Weekly, 28 January 2009. http://paw.princeton.edu/issues/2009/01/28/pages/5296/index.xml\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca8b53899e635478e49245c35c3ffc10",
"text": "olympics house would introduce chess olympics Chess is highly popular and should be represented\n\nChess is among the sports with the greatest number of federations and of active participants worldwide.12 Its large fan base, however, is completely unrepresented in the world’s largest sports competition.\n\nChess, furthermore, is highly viewer friendly, so its popularity would only flourish from its representation. It is possible to broadcast any game online, for all to watch at home. Games also often feature high commentary action explaining and analysing the players’ strategies, to make them approachable and exciting to the public. Furthermore, it could take the shape of a team sport in the Olympics, leaving greater space for tactics and discouraging draws, once again making it more appealing for a broad audience.\n\n[12] “FIDE – World Chess Federation”, FIDE, 8 April 2009. http://www.fide.com/fide.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0a4a1b8f5f4163d58ee251d9f23db7c6",
"text": "olympics house would introduce chess olympics Chess cannot ensure fair play\n\nEven if we were to accept all other reasons for including chess in the Olympic Games, it is actually not implementable. The Olympics have strict regulations against any form of cheating in their sports14, and have thus required chess competitions to be subject to drug tests before they can be considered. However, cheating in chess goes far beyond doping. There have been abundant chess scandals where players used computer programmes to aid them throughout the game. As technology develops, it is likely that these will become even harder to detect.\n\nFurthermore, another form of cheating that is impossible to prevent is collusion. Players can meet beforehand and agree to draw games for their mutual advantage15. Both of these kinds of cheating are impossible to regulate, and thus chess cannot compatible with the Olympics’ zero-tolerance regulations.\n\n[14] “Factsheet: The fight against doping and promotion of athletes’ health”, International Olympic Committee. January 2013. http://www.olympic.org/Documents/Reference_documents_Factsheets/Fight_against_doping.pdf\n\n[15] Everding, Gerry. “Cheating in world chess championships is nothing new, study suggests”, Newsroom, Washington University in St. Louis, 9 October 2006. http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/7935.aspx\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cbd0fa345f38701f9cdaf106956c7d31",
"text": "olympics house would introduce chess olympics Chess-specific competitions create a better event for chess players than the Olympics\n\nIt would not benefit chess to become a part of the Olympics. In the status quo, the World Chess Federation organises a Chess Olympiad every second year, clashing with the Olympic Games. If the motion passed, the Chess Olympiad and many other chess competitions would, if not disappear, at least lose much of their prestige and popularity.\n\nThis is harmful for the chess community. Although chess-specific tournaments are less renown internationally than the Olympics, they have a high status within its fan base. In the Olympics, chess would become meshed with other sports with which it shares nothing. Having to compete for viewers with other sports’ Olympic tradition, it would be unlikely to amass great support. Thus, chess would risk both losing its own successful competitive events, and failing to obtain an equally high status in the Olympics.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f1ed6f886c578805cc7afbfadc5787f2",
"text": "olympics house would introduce chess olympics Chess lacks the necessary physical activity\n\nSports are about the perfection of our bodies, and therefore the competitive aspect of sport should relate directly to that perfection. In the Fundamental Principles of Olympism in the Olympic Charter the first is “combining in a balanced whole the qualities of body, will and mind”.13 Although we value the mental battle between athletes, we find that kind of exertion secondary, and not the core of sport which is the physical aspect. Chess consists only of the mind and to a lesser extent the will. It does not matter how well you can move the pieces from one square to the other. Therefore, chess celebrates a different aspect of the human condition than the Olympics and sports as a whole do: it cannot be an Olympic sport.\n\n[13] “Fundamental Principles of Olympism”, Olympic Charter, 8 July 2011, http://www.olympic.org/Documents/olympic_charter_en.pdf p.10\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d3927437a04960d18ab61e6a8f7116f",
"text": "olympics house would introduce chess olympics Opening up the Olympics for borderline sports is bad in itself\n\nOpening up the Olympics for chess leads to a dangerous slippery slope. After this concession it becomes extremely difficult to draw the line for bridge, poker, or even videogames. This is problematic, because in the status quo there are many sports that are universally recognised as such (unlike those mentioned above), and yet have to be excluded from the Olympics due to lack of space. These include bandy, baseball, bowling, cricket, netball, rugby, softball and rugby. All of these already have massive support internationally and form a coherent category. As a result of this lack of space some sports are sometimes replaced, for example at the moment wrestling is not certain to take place at the 2020 Olympics with baseball and squash vying to take its place.16\n\nChess, bridge, and similar games, on the other hand, have a very different nature. It makes more sense for the future of both categories to draw a distinction between conventional sports on one hand, and mind games on the other. That way, as many players as possible can participate in a top level competition, with more space in the Olympics for physical sports, and competitions such as the World Mind Sports Games dedicated to mind games.17\n\n[16] AP “Wrestling, baseball-softball, squash make 2020 Olympics short list”, CBS, 29 May 2013, http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-400_162-57586663/wrestling-baseball-softball-squash-make-2020-olympics-short-list/\n\n[17] “History”, International Mind Sports Association. http://www.imsaworld.com/wp/about-imsa/history/\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
3bb90822d64d1bb53ca3b302db0855f8
|
Chess ought to qualify as an Olympic sport
Chess is not a predominantly physical sport, yet neither are shooting and curling (which, in fact, has been nicknamed “chess on ice”5). The opposition may respond that the determining factor in these is still physical, such as speed and precision. However, chess too requires precise calculation in short periods of time. There is no relevant distinction to be drawn between the human brain and other organs: both can be trained and strained, and doing so should be equally rewarded.
More importantly, taekwondo is a further example of what may be called a mind sport. As in chess, both participants have the same set of moves which can be combined in a near infinite number of ways: it thus becomes a battle of intellect and strategy rather than strength. The body merely becomes the vessel through which to compete, precisely as a chess board. Although the vessels are different, the fundamental activity is the same, and thus if taekwondo is valid as an Olympic sport, so should chess be.
[5] Tomlinson, Brett. “Chess on ice”, Princeton Alumni Weekly, 28 January 2009. http://paw.princeton.edu/issues/2009/01/28/pages/5296/index.xml
|
[
{
"docid": "00f6d54fbc79c6c9b249cc9a3a6c325b",
"text": "olympics house would introduce chess olympics The fact that the body is the vessel in shooting, curling and taekwondo is more relevant than this argument suggests. It means that the final determining factors are physical ones, such as speed, control, and precision. In chess, although stamina is involved, it could never be sufficient to win a game. The determining factors are intellectual, such as the mind’s precision in calculating many moves into the future. The brain is an organ: but we do not call anything that tires our brain a sport.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "2b0c83edf7ce135f9fb7094da35fcdeb",
"text": "olympics house would introduce chess olympics It is not a good in itself to make modern Olympics resemble the ancient events as much as possible. Ancient Games, for instance, only allowed men to compete, and many of the sports involved today did not exist then. Progress is generally considered a good thing, and the purpose and meaning of the Olympics has progressed since then. This does not mean that art and culture have no place, and indeed there are cultural festivities surrounding every Olympic event. But modern Olympics have an identity of their own, and the question of whether chess belongs to it is a different one.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f955e6303cbbfebc42ccf90044dbbbb",
"text": "olympics house would introduce chess olympics Chess is not as appealing to an ignorant observer as other sports, by virtue of not being physical. Most people can relate to the impressive nature of Olympic gymnastics or a goal-scoring back-flip, even without knowing the rules or the complex strategies involved. This is not the case for chess: it requires a more patient and informed audience. Even if it is viewer friendly for its strong fan base, it is unlikely to gather more support in the Olympics, where many other more established sports are also at their most available.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1132ab795c85acf460a2f92a22c89356",
"text": "olympics house would introduce chess olympics The benefits of chess should be promoted in their right context: a competition exclusively about chess can emphasise these aspects. The Olympics’ motto, on the other hand, is “Faster, higher, stronger”11: chess is very much in the periphery of its message. Such an event is incapable of emphasising all of chess’ merits without a serious and controversial transformation. It is even unlikely to gather more viewers for chess when it competes with other sports, closer to the Olympics’ purpose.\n\n[11] “Opening Ceremony”, International Olympics Committee, 2002. http://www.olympic.org/Documents/Reports/EN/en_report_268.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac5b18b8a5726fe9217c6ee425cbfb75",
"text": "olympics house would introduce chess olympics Attempts to separate chess from other sports merely misunderstand the discipline. There is much more than this to chess: it requires precision, speed, stamina, and commitment. Unlike many other games the element of chance does not exist. Furthermore, chess has an infinite number of variations, so it provides a timeless platform on which to measure human ability. It would cohere perfectly with Olympic goals and values.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c802c866da33ca8a0afc3a8a159bf90",
"text": "olympics house would introduce chess olympics All other Olympic sports have their own competitions. Even if the Olympiad was to fade out due to clashes, other prestigious competitions will doubtless remain as in any other sport.\n\nBeing recognised as an Olympic sport would be a great gain for the chess community. Exposure creates attention and support: for example, chess had its first boom in Norway after Magnus Carlsen became internationally recognised18. Being part of the Olympics will show people the benefits of chess and provide a higher platform towards which amateurs can strive.\n\n[18] “Norway makes its international chess move”, News & Events, Norway: The Official Site in the UK, 3 September 2010. http://www.norway.org.uk/News_and_events/Current-Affairs/Norway-makes-its-move-in-the-international-chess-world/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa8928cd8163d47213ce35c823a0ef4e",
"text": "olympics house would introduce chess olympics The Olympic does not hold precedence as a justification for including a given sport. They do not have fixed guidelines, and they include sports on a case by case basis. Therefore, it seems unlikely that this would force the IOC to accept other mind games. Bridge and poker, for instance, rely on an element of chance, which chess does not. This is a criterion that impacts their appropriateness for assessing human potential, and a ground on which other mind sports ought not to be included.\n\nFurthermore, it may well be true that the Olympics cannot continue expanding due to lack of space, and the inability of most countries to host such large events. However, chess is one of the examples where the least space and infrastructure is required. This is an argument for not having infinite sports, but it provides no reason to exclude chess from a finite selection.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1de6fa819ddc6dd72f79eb034e53ff4",
"text": "olympics house would introduce chess olympics It has consistently proven impossible to prevent doping in any Olympic sport. Despite many scandals we still have cycling, for example, in the Olympics. It will too get harder to prevent this, as drugs develop at a similar rate to technology to be more easily concealed. This is therefore no reason to exclude chess: we should merely take steps towards stricter controls and sanctions in the discipline.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e90874d0dbeabee72eb2d5f33bfc2d3b",
"text": "olympics house would introduce chess olympics Introducing chess would preserve the spirit of the ancient Olympic Games\n\nWhen the IOC spokeswoman Emmanuelle Moreau stated that “mind sports, by their nature, cannot be part of the program”6, she contradicted Olympic history. The Ancient Greek Panhellenic Games (forerunners of the modern Olympic Games) indeed emphasised musical, theatrical and painting competitions.7 Even the modern Olympic Games had non-physical competitions such as painting, design and poetry between 1912 and 1952.8 Through chess, the cultural and mental aspect now lost in the Olympic Games is protected. The limits of human capability can be investigated from a new, intellectual, angle. This would allow the Games to celebrate, as intended, human potential in its entirety.\n\n[6] Haire, Meaghan. “Should Chess Be an Olympic Sport?” TIME, 5 August 2008. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1827716,00.html\n\n[7] \"Pythian Games.\" Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online Academic Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2013. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/485272/Pythian-Games\n\n[8] Conway, Richard. “The Curious History of Olympic Art Competitions”, Huffington Post, 26 July 2012. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-conway/history-of-olympic-art-competitions_b_1705248.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f855f15022867283a2f2510237f1c8d0",
"text": "olympics house would introduce chess olympics Chess is proven to have great cognitive benefits: increasing its support is objectively good\n\nThe sports in the Olympics promote good values: they display attributes and disciplines that we want to encourage in society and children in particular. Chess is no different from this. Numerous studies have shown that chess has large cognitive benefits, strengthening a wide range of skills: problem-solving, decision-making, memory, mathematics, logic, and creative thinking.9, 10 These are skills we want to actively promote, and thus if including chess in the Olympics would increase its support, we should do so.\n\nMaking chess an Olympic sport would make it more accessible to people who would otherwise not watch it. It would also incentivise young enthusiasts to become more involved in the hope of participating in such a recognised competition. Bringing chess to a highly recognised event would doubtless increase support, and thus have an objectively positive impact on society.\n\n[9] Dr Dauvergne, Peter. “The Case for Chess as a Tool to Develop Our Children’s Minds”, University of Sydney, July 2000. http://www.auschess.org.au/articles/chessmind.htm\n\n[10] Dr Ferguson, Robert. “Chess in Education: Research Summary”, for the BMCC Chess in Education, “A Wise Move” Conference. http://uschesstrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/chess-in-education-research-summary-by-robert-ferguson.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca8b53899e635478e49245c35c3ffc10",
"text": "olympics house would introduce chess olympics Chess is highly popular and should be represented\n\nChess is among the sports with the greatest number of federations and of active participants worldwide.12 Its large fan base, however, is completely unrepresented in the world’s largest sports competition.\n\nChess, furthermore, is highly viewer friendly, so its popularity would only flourish from its representation. It is possible to broadcast any game online, for all to watch at home. Games also often feature high commentary action explaining and analysing the players’ strategies, to make them approachable and exciting to the public. Furthermore, it could take the shape of a team sport in the Olympics, leaving greater space for tactics and discouraging draws, once again making it more appealing for a broad audience.\n\n[12] “FIDE – World Chess Federation”, FIDE, 8 April 2009. http://www.fide.com/fide.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0a4a1b8f5f4163d58ee251d9f23db7c6",
"text": "olympics house would introduce chess olympics Chess cannot ensure fair play\n\nEven if we were to accept all other reasons for including chess in the Olympic Games, it is actually not implementable. The Olympics have strict regulations against any form of cheating in their sports14, and have thus required chess competitions to be subject to drug tests before they can be considered. However, cheating in chess goes far beyond doping. There have been abundant chess scandals where players used computer programmes to aid them throughout the game. As technology develops, it is likely that these will become even harder to detect.\n\nFurthermore, another form of cheating that is impossible to prevent is collusion. Players can meet beforehand and agree to draw games for their mutual advantage15. Both of these kinds of cheating are impossible to regulate, and thus chess cannot compatible with the Olympics’ zero-tolerance regulations.\n\n[14] “Factsheet: The fight against doping and promotion of athletes’ health”, International Olympic Committee. January 2013. http://www.olympic.org/Documents/Reference_documents_Factsheets/Fight_against_doping.pdf\n\n[15] Everding, Gerry. “Cheating in world chess championships is nothing new, study suggests”, Newsroom, Washington University in St. Louis, 9 October 2006. http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/7935.aspx\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cbd0fa345f38701f9cdaf106956c7d31",
"text": "olympics house would introduce chess olympics Chess-specific competitions create a better event for chess players than the Olympics\n\nIt would not benefit chess to become a part of the Olympics. In the status quo, the World Chess Federation organises a Chess Olympiad every second year, clashing with the Olympic Games. If the motion passed, the Chess Olympiad and many other chess competitions would, if not disappear, at least lose much of their prestige and popularity.\n\nThis is harmful for the chess community. Although chess-specific tournaments are less renown internationally than the Olympics, they have a high status within its fan base. In the Olympics, chess would become meshed with other sports with which it shares nothing. Having to compete for viewers with other sports’ Olympic tradition, it would be unlikely to amass great support. Thus, chess would risk both losing its own successful competitive events, and failing to obtain an equally high status in the Olympics.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f1ed6f886c578805cc7afbfadc5787f2",
"text": "olympics house would introduce chess olympics Chess lacks the necessary physical activity\n\nSports are about the perfection of our bodies, and therefore the competitive aspect of sport should relate directly to that perfection. In the Fundamental Principles of Olympism in the Olympic Charter the first is “combining in a balanced whole the qualities of body, will and mind”.13 Although we value the mental battle between athletes, we find that kind of exertion secondary, and not the core of sport which is the physical aspect. Chess consists only of the mind and to a lesser extent the will. It does not matter how well you can move the pieces from one square to the other. Therefore, chess celebrates a different aspect of the human condition than the Olympics and sports as a whole do: it cannot be an Olympic sport.\n\n[13] “Fundamental Principles of Olympism”, Olympic Charter, 8 July 2011, http://www.olympic.org/Documents/olympic_charter_en.pdf p.10\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d3927437a04960d18ab61e6a8f7116f",
"text": "olympics house would introduce chess olympics Opening up the Olympics for borderline sports is bad in itself\n\nOpening up the Olympics for chess leads to a dangerous slippery slope. After this concession it becomes extremely difficult to draw the line for bridge, poker, or even videogames. This is problematic, because in the status quo there are many sports that are universally recognised as such (unlike those mentioned above), and yet have to be excluded from the Olympics due to lack of space. These include bandy, baseball, bowling, cricket, netball, rugby, softball and rugby. All of these already have massive support internationally and form a coherent category. As a result of this lack of space some sports are sometimes replaced, for example at the moment wrestling is not certain to take place at the 2020 Olympics with baseball and squash vying to take its place.16\n\nChess, bridge, and similar games, on the other hand, have a very different nature. It makes more sense for the future of both categories to draw a distinction between conventional sports on one hand, and mind games on the other. That way, as many players as possible can participate in a top level competition, with more space in the Olympics for physical sports, and competitions such as the World Mind Sports Games dedicated to mind games.17\n\n[16] AP “Wrestling, baseball-softball, squash make 2020 Olympics short list”, CBS, 29 May 2013, http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-400_162-57586663/wrestling-baseball-softball-squash-make-2020-olympics-short-list/\n\n[17] “History”, International Mind Sports Association. http://www.imsaworld.com/wp/about-imsa/history/\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
49c7ea1b0edb7e9107ecdc8716e0f845
|
Chess is highly popular and should be represented
Chess is among the sports with the greatest number of federations and of active participants worldwide.12 Its large fan base, however, is completely unrepresented in the world’s largest sports competition.
Chess, furthermore, is highly viewer friendly, so its popularity would only flourish from its representation. It is possible to broadcast any game online, for all to watch at home. Games also often feature high commentary action explaining and analysing the players’ strategies, to make them approachable and exciting to the public. Furthermore, it could take the shape of a team sport in the Olympics, leaving greater space for tactics and discouraging draws, once again making it more appealing for a broad audience.
[12] “FIDE – World Chess Federation”, FIDE, 8 April 2009. http://www.fide.com/fide.html
|
[
{
"docid": "0f955e6303cbbfebc42ccf90044dbbbb",
"text": "olympics house would introduce chess olympics Chess is not as appealing to an ignorant observer as other sports, by virtue of not being physical. Most people can relate to the impressive nature of Olympic gymnastics or a goal-scoring back-flip, even without knowing the rules or the complex strategies involved. This is not the case for chess: it requires a more patient and informed audience. Even if it is viewer friendly for its strong fan base, it is unlikely to gather more support in the Olympics, where many other more established sports are also at their most available.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "2b0c83edf7ce135f9fb7094da35fcdeb",
"text": "olympics house would introduce chess olympics It is not a good in itself to make modern Olympics resemble the ancient events as much as possible. Ancient Games, for instance, only allowed men to compete, and many of the sports involved today did not exist then. Progress is generally considered a good thing, and the purpose and meaning of the Olympics has progressed since then. This does not mean that art and culture have no place, and indeed there are cultural festivities surrounding every Olympic event. But modern Olympics have an identity of their own, and the question of whether chess belongs to it is a different one.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1132ab795c85acf460a2f92a22c89356",
"text": "olympics house would introduce chess olympics The benefits of chess should be promoted in their right context: a competition exclusively about chess can emphasise these aspects. The Olympics’ motto, on the other hand, is “Faster, higher, stronger”11: chess is very much in the periphery of its message. Such an event is incapable of emphasising all of chess’ merits without a serious and controversial transformation. It is even unlikely to gather more viewers for chess when it competes with other sports, closer to the Olympics’ purpose.\n\n[11] “Opening Ceremony”, International Olympics Committee, 2002. http://www.olympic.org/Documents/Reports/EN/en_report_268.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "00f6d54fbc79c6c9b249cc9a3a6c325b",
"text": "olympics house would introduce chess olympics The fact that the body is the vessel in shooting, curling and taekwondo is more relevant than this argument suggests. It means that the final determining factors are physical ones, such as speed, control, and precision. In chess, although stamina is involved, it could never be sufficient to win a game. The determining factors are intellectual, such as the mind’s precision in calculating many moves into the future. The brain is an organ: but we do not call anything that tires our brain a sport.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac5b18b8a5726fe9217c6ee425cbfb75",
"text": "olympics house would introduce chess olympics Attempts to separate chess from other sports merely misunderstand the discipline. There is much more than this to chess: it requires precision, speed, stamina, and commitment. Unlike many other games the element of chance does not exist. Furthermore, chess has an infinite number of variations, so it provides a timeless platform on which to measure human ability. It would cohere perfectly with Olympic goals and values.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c802c866da33ca8a0afc3a8a159bf90",
"text": "olympics house would introduce chess olympics All other Olympic sports have their own competitions. Even if the Olympiad was to fade out due to clashes, other prestigious competitions will doubtless remain as in any other sport.\n\nBeing recognised as an Olympic sport would be a great gain for the chess community. Exposure creates attention and support: for example, chess had its first boom in Norway after Magnus Carlsen became internationally recognised18. Being part of the Olympics will show people the benefits of chess and provide a higher platform towards which amateurs can strive.\n\n[18] “Norway makes its international chess move”, News & Events, Norway: The Official Site in the UK, 3 September 2010. http://www.norway.org.uk/News_and_events/Current-Affairs/Norway-makes-its-move-in-the-international-chess-world/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa8928cd8163d47213ce35c823a0ef4e",
"text": "olympics house would introduce chess olympics The Olympic does not hold precedence as a justification for including a given sport. They do not have fixed guidelines, and they include sports on a case by case basis. Therefore, it seems unlikely that this would force the IOC to accept other mind games. Bridge and poker, for instance, rely on an element of chance, which chess does not. This is a criterion that impacts their appropriateness for assessing human potential, and a ground on which other mind sports ought not to be included.\n\nFurthermore, it may well be true that the Olympics cannot continue expanding due to lack of space, and the inability of most countries to host such large events. However, chess is one of the examples where the least space and infrastructure is required. This is an argument for not having infinite sports, but it provides no reason to exclude chess from a finite selection.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1de6fa819ddc6dd72f79eb034e53ff4",
"text": "olympics house would introduce chess olympics It has consistently proven impossible to prevent doping in any Olympic sport. Despite many scandals we still have cycling, for example, in the Olympics. It will too get harder to prevent this, as drugs develop at a similar rate to technology to be more easily concealed. This is therefore no reason to exclude chess: we should merely take steps towards stricter controls and sanctions in the discipline.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e90874d0dbeabee72eb2d5f33bfc2d3b",
"text": "olympics house would introduce chess olympics Introducing chess would preserve the spirit of the ancient Olympic Games\n\nWhen the IOC spokeswoman Emmanuelle Moreau stated that “mind sports, by their nature, cannot be part of the program”6, she contradicted Olympic history. The Ancient Greek Panhellenic Games (forerunners of the modern Olympic Games) indeed emphasised musical, theatrical and painting competitions.7 Even the modern Olympic Games had non-physical competitions such as painting, design and poetry between 1912 and 1952.8 Through chess, the cultural and mental aspect now lost in the Olympic Games is protected. The limits of human capability can be investigated from a new, intellectual, angle. This would allow the Games to celebrate, as intended, human potential in its entirety.\n\n[6] Haire, Meaghan. “Should Chess Be an Olympic Sport?” TIME, 5 August 2008. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1827716,00.html\n\n[7] \"Pythian Games.\" Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online Academic Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2013. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/485272/Pythian-Games\n\n[8] Conway, Richard. “The Curious History of Olympic Art Competitions”, Huffington Post, 26 July 2012. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-conway/history-of-olympic-art-competitions_b_1705248.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f855f15022867283a2f2510237f1c8d0",
"text": "olympics house would introduce chess olympics Chess is proven to have great cognitive benefits: increasing its support is objectively good\n\nThe sports in the Olympics promote good values: they display attributes and disciplines that we want to encourage in society and children in particular. Chess is no different from this. Numerous studies have shown that chess has large cognitive benefits, strengthening a wide range of skills: problem-solving, decision-making, memory, mathematics, logic, and creative thinking.9, 10 These are skills we want to actively promote, and thus if including chess in the Olympics would increase its support, we should do so.\n\nMaking chess an Olympic sport would make it more accessible to people who would otherwise not watch it. It would also incentivise young enthusiasts to become more involved in the hope of participating in such a recognised competition. Bringing chess to a highly recognised event would doubtless increase support, and thus have an objectively positive impact on society.\n\n[9] Dr Dauvergne, Peter. “The Case for Chess as a Tool to Develop Our Children’s Minds”, University of Sydney, July 2000. http://www.auschess.org.au/articles/chessmind.htm\n\n[10] Dr Ferguson, Robert. “Chess in Education: Research Summary”, for the BMCC Chess in Education, “A Wise Move” Conference. http://uschesstrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/chess-in-education-research-summary-by-robert-ferguson.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c1381972b6c6a776e0b072c62b33c14",
"text": "olympics house would introduce chess olympics Chess ought to qualify as an Olympic sport\n\nChess is not a predominantly physical sport, yet neither are shooting and curling (which, in fact, has been nicknamed “chess on ice”5). The opposition may respond that the determining factor in these is still physical, such as speed and precision. However, chess too requires precise calculation in short periods of time. There is no relevant distinction to be drawn between the human brain and other organs: both can be trained and strained, and doing so should be equally rewarded.\n\nMore importantly, taekwondo is a further example of what may be called a mind sport. As in chess, both participants have the same set of moves which can be combined in a near infinite number of ways: it thus becomes a battle of intellect and strategy rather than strength. The body merely becomes the vessel through which to compete, precisely as a chess board. Although the vessels are different, the fundamental activity is the same, and thus if taekwondo is valid as an Olympic sport, so should chess be.\n\n[5] Tomlinson, Brett. “Chess on ice”, Princeton Alumni Weekly, 28 January 2009. http://paw.princeton.edu/issues/2009/01/28/pages/5296/index.xml\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0a4a1b8f5f4163d58ee251d9f23db7c6",
"text": "olympics house would introduce chess olympics Chess cannot ensure fair play\n\nEven if we were to accept all other reasons for including chess in the Olympic Games, it is actually not implementable. The Olympics have strict regulations against any form of cheating in their sports14, and have thus required chess competitions to be subject to drug tests before they can be considered. However, cheating in chess goes far beyond doping. There have been abundant chess scandals where players used computer programmes to aid them throughout the game. As technology develops, it is likely that these will become even harder to detect.\n\nFurthermore, another form of cheating that is impossible to prevent is collusion. Players can meet beforehand and agree to draw games for their mutual advantage15. Both of these kinds of cheating are impossible to regulate, and thus chess cannot compatible with the Olympics’ zero-tolerance regulations.\n\n[14] “Factsheet: The fight against doping and promotion of athletes’ health”, International Olympic Committee. January 2013. http://www.olympic.org/Documents/Reference_documents_Factsheets/Fight_against_doping.pdf\n\n[15] Everding, Gerry. “Cheating in world chess championships is nothing new, study suggests”, Newsroom, Washington University in St. Louis, 9 October 2006. http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/7935.aspx\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cbd0fa345f38701f9cdaf106956c7d31",
"text": "olympics house would introduce chess olympics Chess-specific competitions create a better event for chess players than the Olympics\n\nIt would not benefit chess to become a part of the Olympics. In the status quo, the World Chess Federation organises a Chess Olympiad every second year, clashing with the Olympic Games. If the motion passed, the Chess Olympiad and many other chess competitions would, if not disappear, at least lose much of their prestige and popularity.\n\nThis is harmful for the chess community. Although chess-specific tournaments are less renown internationally than the Olympics, they have a high status within its fan base. In the Olympics, chess would become meshed with other sports with which it shares nothing. Having to compete for viewers with other sports’ Olympic tradition, it would be unlikely to amass great support. Thus, chess would risk both losing its own successful competitive events, and failing to obtain an equally high status in the Olympics.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f1ed6f886c578805cc7afbfadc5787f2",
"text": "olympics house would introduce chess olympics Chess lacks the necessary physical activity\n\nSports are about the perfection of our bodies, and therefore the competitive aspect of sport should relate directly to that perfection. In the Fundamental Principles of Olympism in the Olympic Charter the first is “combining in a balanced whole the qualities of body, will and mind”.13 Although we value the mental battle between athletes, we find that kind of exertion secondary, and not the core of sport which is the physical aspect. Chess consists only of the mind and to a lesser extent the will. It does not matter how well you can move the pieces from one square to the other. Therefore, chess celebrates a different aspect of the human condition than the Olympics and sports as a whole do: it cannot be an Olympic sport.\n\n[13] “Fundamental Principles of Olympism”, Olympic Charter, 8 July 2011, http://www.olympic.org/Documents/olympic_charter_en.pdf p.10\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d3927437a04960d18ab61e6a8f7116f",
"text": "olympics house would introduce chess olympics Opening up the Olympics for borderline sports is bad in itself\n\nOpening up the Olympics for chess leads to a dangerous slippery slope. After this concession it becomes extremely difficult to draw the line for bridge, poker, or even videogames. This is problematic, because in the status quo there are many sports that are universally recognised as such (unlike those mentioned above), and yet have to be excluded from the Olympics due to lack of space. These include bandy, baseball, bowling, cricket, netball, rugby, softball and rugby. All of these already have massive support internationally and form a coherent category. As a result of this lack of space some sports are sometimes replaced, for example at the moment wrestling is not certain to take place at the 2020 Olympics with baseball and squash vying to take its place.16\n\nChess, bridge, and similar games, on the other hand, have a very different nature. It makes more sense for the future of both categories to draw a distinction between conventional sports on one hand, and mind games on the other. That way, as many players as possible can participate in a top level competition, with more space in the Olympics for physical sports, and competitions such as the World Mind Sports Games dedicated to mind games.17\n\n[16] AP “Wrestling, baseball-softball, squash make 2020 Olympics short list”, CBS, 29 May 2013, http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-400_162-57586663/wrestling-baseball-softball-squash-make-2020-olympics-short-list/\n\n[17] “History”, International Mind Sports Association. http://www.imsaworld.com/wp/about-imsa/history/\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
3f01a843b57fe6ef033150684252c6b0
|
It is important to maintain and enforce the principle of the rule of law, and a fence does that.
Illegal immigrants are openly flaunting the law, and permitting them to enter the country in this way demeans the hard-working individuals who immigrated legally. If people become angrier about illegal immigrants because more of them are coming in without a fence, this may also lead to the negative outcome of poorer treatment of Latinos who live and work legally in the United States. If there were no or very few illegal immigrants, there would be much less tension in communities since everyone would know that all the inhabitants had come there legally.
|
[
{
"docid": "6faa8ef08d25d7aeca3a064acce0c73a",
"text": "ional americas society immigration house believes mexico us border fence Just because something is a law does not mean that it is justified or morally correct. There have been many bad and unjustified laws on the books of the legal codes of many countries. Any means of carrying out the ends of a just law that will have terrible impacts are themselves also unjustified. When there are hundreds of people who have died in attempts to cross deserts or dangerous terrain to go around the fence in order to find gainful employment, that is a good indication that a policy is failing.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "06d38ad84a31527c2c48b7bd4aa17e9c",
"text": "ional americas society immigration house believes mexico us border fence Just because many people are in favour of a policy does not mean it is normatively justified. Policies that have little to no efficacy and actually even create the opposite outcome than is desired are certainly not justified by this logic. People only want a fence because they think that it will protect American jobs and border security. If a closer examination of the economics of illegal immigration demonstrates that immigration actually grows the economy, it seems nonsensical to continue maintaining the fence. This just perpetuates racist attitudes.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "34b5187caf6c617169becc0efc203ee6",
"text": "ional americas society immigration house believes mexico us border fence The border fence is a waste of money. It and the associated measures was given a budget of $1.2billion [i] and it is not likely to be a comprehensive fix. If the fence just covers current high crossing areas then these areas will simply move to more inhospitable areas or migrants will find other ways around – such as travelling through the gulf of Mexico by boat as occurs between in the Mediterranean for migrants travelling from North Africa to Europe.\n\n[i] Weisman, Jonathan. \"With Senate Vote, Congress Passes Border Fence Bill.\"\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7be6cf9dbfb62993832dbc1b1b12d516",
"text": "ional americas society immigration house believes mexico us border fence Safety arguments are a red herring; terrorism will not be effectively prevented by the erection of the border fence. We need a proactive strategy that gathers intelligence and works with counterterrorism officials abroad to disrupt recruitment and training centers for terrorist groups.1 If some immigrants can slip through, so can some terrorists. At any rate, the 9/11 hijackers and other Al-Qaeda terrorists traditionally have not come through the Mexican border but rather from abroad and by airplanes or seaports, or they are homegrown radicals. Spending billions of dollars in a vain series of attempts to seal ourselves in an impenetrable fortress simply helps terrorists fulfill their goals of making us live in a culture of perpetual fear. As for drug trafficking, this problem is largely born of the tremendous market for it that still exists in the United States. If the demand dried up, so would the suppliers; on the other hand, if there is still an incredibly lucrative market, no fence will stop them from ferrying large amounts of drugs over the border, and most of the weapons the narcotics traffickers use actually come from the United States as well.2 We need to look to other solutions besides simplistic fences.\n\n1 Bruguire, Jean-Louis. \"The holes in America's anti-terror fence.\"\n\n2McGreal, Chris. \"The battle of the US-Mexico frontier.\"\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f111c8022d93c8df57675e2c9f3766e8",
"text": "ional americas society immigration house believes mexico us border fence This assumes the fence is efficacious and therefore the cause of the reduction. It is not – there are numerous bypasses, ranging from simple ladders on pickup trucks to complex tunnels for the movement of people and drugs.1 While it may seem to be the case that the fence has caused the reduced numbers of illegal immigrants attempting to cross, in actuality this is because of the economic downturn in the United States.2,3 If there are no jobs, it stands to reason there is not going to be an influx of workers.\n\nEven if it were efficacious, however, the idea that immigrants steal jobs is fundamentally flawed. Immigrants fill gaps in the domestic labour market.4 They are non-competitive for most types of jobs, such as supervisor positions.5 And anyways, most economists say that immigration grows the economy by expanding demand for goods and services that immigrants consume, and consequently this actually creates more jobs. While immigrants certainly may push down wages for some occupations, the net effect is to increase average wages for non-immigrant Americans.\n\nFinally, the economies of many border towns on the United States’ side of the fence will suffer because of decreased demand for their goods and services.\n\n1McGreal, Chris. “The battle of the US-Mexico frontier.”\n\n2Associated Press. “U.S.-Mexico border fence almost complete.”\n\n3Archibold, Randal and Preston, Julia. “Homeland Security Stands by Its Fence.”\n\n4Cowen, Tyler. “How Immigrants Create More Jobs.”\n\n5Novak, Viveca. “Does Immigration Cost Jobs?”\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2839f88ecc05fbe08e5812cc1c46af60",
"text": "ional americas society immigration house believes mexico us border fence While environmental concerns are certainly serious and warrant consideration, we need to balance the competing interests here. It is only a handful of species that would be threatened by this project, and any such endangered species can be moved into specially-designed preservation facilities that mimic the natural habitat. On the other hand, there is no other truly effective way to stop illegal immigrant crossings. In this sense, the local environment is a sacrifice of necessity. A related environmental concern is the pollution border-crossers leave in the desert and surrounding habitats, which would actually be reduced if fewer of them were crossing.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "119c2d919f66a38a3ddb92d162fe084d",
"text": "ional americas society immigration house believes mexico us border fence The role of concentrated fencing around urban areas in particular is to prevent immigrants from blending immediately into a town population, and in that sense, it is effective.1Even if you divert some illegal immigrant traffic elsewhere along the border, fencing still reduces overall rates of crossing by forcing those who would cross to go through more dangerous and barren territory; this is a significant deterrent. 2 Additionally, you can step up border patrols in the areas that do not cover the fence to catch drug smugglers and other illegal border crossers.3 This reduces the numbers of border patrol agents necessary to create an effective net to catch would-be illegal immigrants, and consequently reduces the long-term costs of border protection measures. The fence is meant to be merely a tool in the tool box, not a comprehensive solution to the problem of illegal immigration.4\n\n1Associated Press. \"U.S.-Mexico border fence almost complete.\"\n\n2Wood, Daniel. \"Where U.S.-Mexico border fence is tall, border crossings fall.\"\n\n3Hendricks, Tyche. \"Border security or boondoggle?\"\n\n4Archibold, Randal and Preston, Julia. \"Homeland Security Stands by Its Fence.\"\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "39e3693877e58e5d248126579f9928a5",
"text": "ional americas society immigration house believes mexico us border fence The United States has consistently demonstrated that it is a true partner in the war on organized crime in Northern Mexico. For instance, it has used unmanned drones like the ones in Pakistan to gather intelligence on Mexican drug lords.1 The relationship is healthy and Mexican officials frequently cooperate; it is certainly possible that there are underlying domestic political motivations for those politicians to be making such strong statements, and we should not necessarily take them at face value as representing the best picture of Mexican-American relations.\n\n1 Defense News. \"US Drones Track Drug Lords Over Mexic\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bba126dbb99267ac155950754e2ade68",
"text": "ional americas society immigration house believes mexico us border fence We have no absolute moral obligation to everyone in the world. Many individuals are now calling for serious reductions in foreign aid and in foreign interventions in order to help Americans who are also suffering. That suffering is no less worthy of support just because it is not as highly publicized or televised on international news. Times may be difficult in Mexico, but they are difficult in America as well, and a country has an obligation to its citizens first, and then everyone else. It is legitimate and justified to build a fence to protect the American economy.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "953fd9f6f9a6603716c5ee2a18e81415",
"text": "ional americas society immigration house believes mexico us border fence This argument is based on drastically different goals than the one that would support the fence being raised. While some individuals may want to take in illegal immigrants and provide them with generous welfare benefits and call that \"comprehensive immigration reform\", that is not what the majority of Americans want. They want illegal immigrants kept out of the country, and that in and of itself is a solution from their perspective, so to say that a fence distracts from the goal is just a straw-man. In the sense that it helps keep people out, it is working just as intended.\n\nErecting the fence and taking other measures (such as investigating employers who hire illegal immigrants) are by no means mutually exclusive, and we can do both to ensure that American jobs are going to people who are in America legally.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f650caa1d2c1ab26e19f80109449295b",
"text": "ional americas society immigration house believes mexico us border fence A state has a fundamental right to set immigration policies and take the necessary steps to make them work.\n\nIronically, even Mexico recognizes this when it attempts to increase border enforcement along its own southern border with Guatemala1,2. If those policies are lawfully set by the people and legislature, then regardless of how efficacious a particular tool is, it is justified. It is clear that the fence is wildly popular – well over half of the United States supports it3 , and many individuals are so adamant about increasing border security that they are willing to make donations for these purposes4. The social contract of the United States means that the government is democratically elected and therefore accountable to its people. If they want to focus on securing the borders instead of providing more extensive welfare programs or reforming education or anything else they could be spending money on, that is their prerogative.\n\n1Thompson, Ginger. “Mexico Worries About Its Own Southern Border.”\n\n2Cutler, Michael. “Hypocrisy: Mexico Building Security Fence Against Guatemala.”\n\n3Rasmussen Reports. “Support for Mexican Border Fence Up to 68%.”\n\n4Crawford, Amanda. “Arizona’s State-Owned Mexico Border Fence Attracts Donors From Across U.S.”\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ddfab4f9bb1938e64a81b6853a58a69e",
"text": "ional americas society immigration house believes mexico us border fence The fence is a practical way to stop immigration and large parts of it have been built.\n\nThe Secure Fence Act of 2006 authorized the construction of at least two layers of reinforced fencing in high-crossing and high-risk sections along the border. This includes around the border town of Tecate, Calif., and a huge expanse stretching from Calexico, Calif., to Douglas, Ariz., which is virtually the entire length of Arizona's border with Mexico. Another section would stretch over most of the southern border of New Mexico. An additional section will wind through Texas, from Del Rio to Eagle Pass, and from Laredo to Brownsville. This would not only be a fence but will include technology to secure \"operational control\" of the border by using unmanned aerial vehicles, ground-based sensors, radar, satellites and cameras.1\n\n1Weisman, Jonathan. \"With Senate Vote, Congress Passes Border Fence Bill.\"\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a1e2d340694194b9f16cd64729e87631",
"text": "ional americas society immigration house believes mexico us border fence A fence would dramatically increase American safety.\n\nMexican violence between drug cartels frequently spills over and threatens the lives and peace-of-mind of Americans as well. The Council on Foreign Relations has said that Mexico's levels of violence and lawlessness over the past few years exceed even those in Iraq or Afghanistan.1 That has forced a costly increased police presence in border areas, and even that often proves insufficient to quell the killings. But even if the violent common criminals were somehow suppressed because of stepped up actions by the Mexican government, an easily penetrated border presents a national security threat. The FBI has warned that it is likely that Al Qaeda operatives and other terrorist groups will use the porous Mexican border as a means of infiltrating the country and launching deadly plots against American citizens in future. To prevent the carrying out of attacks, America needs secure borders.\n\n1 McGreal, Chris. \"The battle of the US-Mexico frontier.\"\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a2f929c61c666ae496c537cf406c9b17",
"text": "ional americas society immigration house believes mexico us border fence A fence would help defend the economy of the United States.\n\nA fence would help defend the economy of the United States during difficult times by protecting American jobs. It is a popular misconception that immigrants only do the types of jobs that native-born Americans will not take. Many professions encompassing construction, grounds-maintenance, housekeeping, and janitorial services actually have the majority of jobs performed by native-born Americans.1 Furthermore, illegal immigrants constitute a tremendous drain on various public benefits. These include medical treatment (because no one who is seriously injured or sick can be turned away from the emergency room as a result of a law called EMTALA)2 , municipal services like fire and police protection, food stamps, and education in public schools. Every dollar that gets spent on illegal immigrants is a dollar that could have been spent on law-abiding American citizens, who need all the help they can get during these difficult times.\n\n1 Camarota, Steven and Jensenius, Karen. \"Jobs Americans Won't Do?\"\n\n2Jordan, Miriam. \"Illegal Immigration Enters the Health-Care Debate.\"\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6dd49712ba693ba81958ceb42c237be7",
"text": "ional americas society immigration house believes mexico us border fence The fence only seems to solve the problem and detracts from dialogue about real solutions.\n\nThe fence serves as a band-aid fix, seemingly solving the problem while not really advancing comprehensive immigration reform. Maintenance of the fence and stringent border patrol contingents drains money that could be used to facilitate better solutions to the supposed problems immigration creates.1Additionally, the perception that something is already being done about illegal immigration saps the political will to find better solutions to the problem. This enables us to ignore the need to investigate shady business practices by employers, for instance.\n\n1 Emmott, Robin. \"A costly U.S.-Mexico border wall, in both dollars and deaths.\"\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "77f8343f2a49d4a48787e3e842eedf73",
"text": "ional americas society immigration house believes mexico us border fence The fence is morally wrong and inhumane\n\nBecause it does not create an airtight border, it simply forces crossings at more dangerous locales like the hot, snake-infested deserts. Thousands of Mexicans have died since 2000 attempting the crossing, while less than 300 people died attempting to cross the Berlin Wall in almost three decades.1 The bodies of at least four hundred people were found in 2010.2 Simply put, barriers do not diminish the desire for a better life.3 That sort of catastrophic disregard for the fundamental humanity of these people demeans America as a nation. It is hard to reconcile this disregard with our considerable humanitarian support for starving people in Somalia and all over the world. We should work together to help hard-working individuals provide for their families. Most border-crossers are not drug runners, but people who just want legitimate jobs so they can feed their families.\n\n1 Defense News. \"US Drones Track Drug Lords Over Mexico.\"\n\n2McGreal, Chris. \"The battle of the US-Mexico frontier.\"\n\n3McFadyen, Jennifer. \"Immigration Issues: US-Mexico Border Fence Pros and Cons.\"\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5bae4ad5c4877b91d4978c76a8eb6f35",
"text": "ional americas society immigration house believes mexico us border fence The fence is ineffective at carrying out its stated goals.\n\nNot all illegal immigrants who are in the United States arrive by means of crossing the border; some overstay legally-acquired work visas. Attempts to implement \"virtual\" components of the fence have failed on several grounds. Images were too blurry, the systems performed poorly in bad weather, and there were false detections because of the inability to distinguish between animals and people.1 The technology also suffered from software bugs, and ultimately squandered billions of dollars.2 Because not all of the approximately 2000 mile border is covered by actual fencing, and even the physical fencing that exists is not continuous and relied on virtual components to cover the gaps, immigrants can easily go around the fence or through the weak points.3 In the past, immigrants have also used ladders or deception techniques (like cars with hollowed out dashboards) to bypass the fence. Additionally, drug runners have developed extensive and sophisticated tunnels to duck the wall and clear any sort of security checkpoints, rendering this defense mechanism with a price tag in the billions of USD4 (and expensive upkeep costs to boot) virtually useless.5 Finally, many individuals who cross the border looking for employment do so repeatedly, even when they are deported or turned back at the border by agents.6 In jurisdictions where these individuals are held in detention on misdemeanour charges, they contribute to overcrowding in prison facilities and consume valuable prosecutorial resources.7\n\n1Ryan, Jason. \"Homeland Security Axes Bush-Era 'Virtual Fence' Project.\"\n\n2NYT Editors. \"Virtual Failure on the Border.\"\n\n3The Economist. \"Good neighbours make fences.\" 4McFadyen, Jennifer. \"Immigration Issues: US-Mexico Border Fence Pros and Cons.\"\n\n5Global Security. \"US-Mexico Border Fence.\"\n\n6Federation for American Immigration Reform. \"US Mexico Border Fence and Patrol Operations.\"\n\n7Archibold, Randal and Preston, Julia. \"Homeland Security Stands by Its Fence.\"\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "69cd83e6f062bc11354319844814ccfd",
"text": "ional americas society immigration house believes mexico us border fence The fence is a serious environmental threat and endangers wildlife.\n\nBy cutting off components of the habitat, the fence diminishes gene flow and reduces the ability for survival, or creates remnant populations that are too small to sustain the species.1 Counter-intuitively, even certain winged species which fly low to the ground would be at risk. Climate change is forcing more migrations, and this would also prevent animals from carrying those out.2 This has been so lightly regarded by U.S. officials that at one point Mexico actually threatened to file a claim with the International Court of Justice.3\n\n1Goldstein, Rob. \"US-Mexico border fence putting wildlife at risk of extinction.\"\n\n2Marshall, Jessica. \"U.S.-Mexico Border Fence May Snag Wildlife.\"\n\n3Magee, Megan. \"The U.S.-Mexico Border Wall: An Environmental And Human Rights Disaster.\"\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b4383802dc8f973a3c3d74adc0e80eef",
"text": "ional americas society immigration house believes mexico us border fence A fence hurts our political relationship with Mexico.\n\nThe United States needs to demonstrate that it is interested in being a true partner with Mexico in efforts to reduce drug trafficking and the pervasive cartel-driven violence of northern Mexico. Trying to simply keep all the Mexicans out is offensive; the governor of the Mexican state Coahuila has called the fence a \"wall of hate\",1 and in 2005 Mexican President Vincente Fox called the situation \"disgraceful and shameful.\"2 Many individuals in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas have family and friends on the Mexican side and speak fluent Spanish, and don't support the wall. On the other hand, Arizona's demographics reflect population growth as the result of many Midwestern \"snowbirds\" with little experience of Latino culture moving there, and thus Arizona has much harsher prejudices against Mexicans.3 If we do not cooperate with Mexico, they will be less likely to share information valuable to our national security or cooperate with us on foreign policy initiatives.\n\n1Hylton, Hillary. \"Opponents of the Border Fence Look to Obama.\"\n\n2Global Security. \"US-Mexico Border Fence.\"\n\n3The Economist. \"Good neighbours make fences.\"\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
97fed8bae25127190ac0fc72231f1eef
|
The inferiority complex within older generations in the developing countries affects intellectuals’ sense of belonging while in their countries
An inferiority complex still exists among the older generations in the developing countries as regards the western technical know-how and organisation. A persisting attitude to place more confidence in the experts and specialists belonging to the developed countries than the educated nationals of the country (3) could foster a feeling of underestimation amongst intellectuals while in their countries, and becomes an additional driver of the continuous intellectual migration.
|
[
{
"docid": "6ac250e58500f536ce6b70eb602eab55",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities It seems hardly likely that feeling undervalued for their skills is a main reason for moving. When moving abroad many will instead encounter racism and concern about increasing numbers of migrants which would at least balance against being undervalued at home. They go instead because the ‘value’ of their skills is monetary – therefore about opportunities – not in terms of reputation and confidence or belonging.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "64aa77aa17441f5f9cd331fd3fbe6f5e",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Education is a crossover point; migrating for education may be about a sense of belonging but it is also an opportunity. A conservative culture that does not educate young women is not providing them with an opportunity that is available elsewhere.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1583fd3ecaad82e7536bb9c0776a47e2",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities If these young intellectuals really are politically conscious then they should desire to stay in their native country and change its system of government. It is the intellectuals who are needed to create, and then grow a democracy so that it represents the whole spectrum of opinion within the country and respects intellectual freedoms.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c346bd8c8417e2de508059e80bb68ceb",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Intellectual migrants do not necessarily discard a traditional value to replace it with a corresponding western value. For example, they seldom renounce their religion in favor of a western one (3).\n\nA weaker sense of nationalism does not have to mean greater internationalism. Instead there may be greater ties to traditional culture, to a region or village. There may be fewer ties to nation, but throughout much of the developing world religion has a far greater adherence than in the west. Thus with a couple of exceptions (Communist states such as China and North Korea) it is more developed countries that are mostly non religious.(12)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0921e01d55dfd6c684d4845b95dd9064",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities If there is really no freedom then these migrants will be asylum seekers and refugees not true intellectual migrants by choice.\n\nEven if there is some alienation from their own native culture these migrants are still travelling to a much more alien culture. This being the case it seems unlikely that alienation is the main cause. Rather they are travelling to a culture that is more alien because they believe there are better opportunities there.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "443d6d4ce43416e6aea93888a75f1ad9",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Most job vacancies in African countries ask for a university degree even if a degree is ultimately not the most important attribute for the job. (13) So the opportunities are there for those who would be considered to be intellectuals, it is everyone else for whom opportunities in their native land are lacking.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "21bdbc175a9f66897d1ae923a9b1ec24",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Making a start in encouraging entrepreneurship and gender identity is not likely to be enough to make a county attractive when compared against countries that are much further down the path. According to the Global Gender Gap Report 2016 Tunisia is still in the bottom quartile of the rankings on gender equality.(15)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "daf4815370e09ad2c46523171caee6bd",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities A strong national identity does not necessarily result in a strong sense of belonging. That national identity may have precluded other senses of belonging such as religion, or even close community ties and interactions.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7db79888d6b1ac0a26c0adac94b74e5f",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Intellectual women migrants outnumber intellectual men migrants\n\nThe need of belonging is greater for women than for men – Bardo and Bardo found that they miss home much more (5). On the other hand, unequal and discriminatory norms can be strong drivers of intellectual female migration (1). More young women than men now migrate for education and, in several European countries today, highly skilled migrant women outnumber highly skilled migrant men (1). Between 2000 and 2011, the number of tertiary-educated migrant women in OECD countries rose by 80%, which exceeded the 60% increase in the number of tertiary-educated migrant men. In Africa for example, the average emigration rates of tertiary-educated women are considerably higher than those of tertiary-educated men (27.7% for women and 17.1% for men).\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "da05cf90f18e2436072174f33d923a83",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Intellectual migrants are more impregnated by ideas of internationalism and universalism\n\nThe concept of nationalism as developed in Europe during the 19th century did not undergo the same evolution in the developing countries. Intellectuals do not identify themselves with their countries the way Europeans do. They are more impregnated by ideas of internationalism and universalism than the western nationalist – for example Mohsin Hamid argues our views of liberal values should be extended beyond nation states with their often unnatural borders. Thus, if they stay abroad after having adhered to the western way of life, they consider themselves part of the great human lot, value free movement as a basic human right, and do not necessarily suffer from complexes of disloyalty towards their home country (3).\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "255a656359afb8c0d7f52fcfbca2bd5c",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Some intellectual migrants already feel a certain degree of alienation towards their national culture before leaving their country\n\nIntellectuals need stimulation, organisation, freedom, and recognition (3) that they usually struggle to find in their countries of origin. Some intellectuals from developing countries already feel a certain degree of alienation towards their national culture before leaving their own country (3). This may be a result of government policy; a lack of intellectual freedom, or because of a generally conservative culture. Thus, they experience a strong lack of intellectual belonging despite the arising economic opportunities resulting from their countries’ investments.\n\nFamily ties also play a strong role in aggravating or mitigating alienation. This is why it is the young, who don’t have dependents themselves, who are often the likeliest to migrate.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9507ac868d83a8515fef53528ffc1227",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Most young intellectuals from developing countries are politically conscious and want to be \"actors\" in policy making\n\nYoung intellectuals from developing countries are to a very large extent politically conscious and active. They want to be \"actors\" and not \"spectators\" in policy making, all the more so when their specialism is impacted by government policy. Those who grow up in an autocratic, or not very democratic state are likely to want to go where they can use their voice. Even in many democracies intellectuals often largely liberal views both for government and teaching are not readily approved by the conservative regimes of their countries where usually the older generation is in power and constitutes a barrier against their progress.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fdc0f223e39a7aecaf5fdc512263aa13",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Many migrants come from countries with strong sense of belonging\n\nMany migrants come from countries with strong sense of belonging, national identities, and political consciousness. For instance, they are European migrants, and in 2016, they were 19.3 million residing in a different EU Member State from the one where they were born (7). With migration an issue even from countries with strong national identities it is clear that that identity is not the major driver of movement.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ffd1df9e1f3b8aa38579a5a392ee2e08",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Developing countries have high unemployment rates and need to invest in job creation\n\nDeveloping countries invest in education and job creation because they have high unemployment rates (6). They need to address the lack of opportunities in order to improve their economy and reduce migration. This is as much the case for those at graduate level as for those who have less of an education. Africa’s 668 universities produce almost 10 million graduates a year, but only half find work.(14) It should therefore be no surprise that many migrate overseas for opportunities.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0cdfaffffd134e1bae4a94db30b0368d",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Many developing countries support entrepreneurship and gender equality\n\nIn many developing countries, entrepreneurship is supported to create jobs and dynamic work conditions, and women are empowered and politically represented reducing any concerns of feeling as if they don’t belong.\n\nFor example in Tunisia, many initiatives are being introduced to promote the entrepreneurship ecosystem including angel investing and attempts to reduce administrative barriers (9). Moreover, regarding gender equality, Tunisia’s Parliament has approved an amendment ensuring that women have greater representation in local politics. This amendment includes a proposal for gender parity in electoral law. (10)\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
d7f8dc36b559d119dc9d73569abc14a7
|
Many developing countries support entrepreneurship and gender equality
In many developing countries, entrepreneurship is supported to create jobs and dynamic work conditions, and women are empowered and politically represented reducing any concerns of feeling as if they don’t belong.
For example in Tunisia, many initiatives are being introduced to promote the entrepreneurship ecosystem including angel investing and attempts to reduce administrative barriers (9). Moreover, regarding gender equality, Tunisia’s Parliament has approved an amendment ensuring that women have greater representation in local politics. This amendment includes a proposal for gender parity in electoral law. (10)
|
[
{
"docid": "21bdbc175a9f66897d1ae923a9b1ec24",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Making a start in encouraging entrepreneurship and gender identity is not likely to be enough to make a county attractive when compared against countries that are much further down the path. According to the Global Gender Gap Report 2016 Tunisia is still in the bottom quartile of the rankings on gender equality.(15)\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "443d6d4ce43416e6aea93888a75f1ad9",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Most job vacancies in African countries ask for a university degree even if a degree is ultimately not the most important attribute for the job. (13) So the opportunities are there for those who would be considered to be intellectuals, it is everyone else for whom opportunities in their native land are lacking.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "daf4815370e09ad2c46523171caee6bd",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities A strong national identity does not necessarily result in a strong sense of belonging. That national identity may have precluded other senses of belonging such as religion, or even close community ties and interactions.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "64aa77aa17441f5f9cd331fd3fbe6f5e",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Education is a crossover point; migrating for education may be about a sense of belonging but it is also an opportunity. A conservative culture that does not educate young women is not providing them with an opportunity that is available elsewhere.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6ac250e58500f536ce6b70eb602eab55",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities It seems hardly likely that feeling undervalued for their skills is a main reason for moving. When moving abroad many will instead encounter racism and concern about increasing numbers of migrants which would at least balance against being undervalued at home. They go instead because the ‘value’ of their skills is monetary – therefore about opportunities – not in terms of reputation and confidence or belonging.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1583fd3ecaad82e7536bb9c0776a47e2",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities If these young intellectuals really are politically conscious then they should desire to stay in their native country and change its system of government. It is the intellectuals who are needed to create, and then grow a democracy so that it represents the whole spectrum of opinion within the country and respects intellectual freedoms.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c346bd8c8417e2de508059e80bb68ceb",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Intellectual migrants do not necessarily discard a traditional value to replace it with a corresponding western value. For example, they seldom renounce their religion in favor of a western one (3).\n\nA weaker sense of nationalism does not have to mean greater internationalism. Instead there may be greater ties to traditional culture, to a region or village. There may be fewer ties to nation, but throughout much of the developing world religion has a far greater adherence than in the west. Thus with a couple of exceptions (Communist states such as China and North Korea) it is more developed countries that are mostly non religious.(12)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0921e01d55dfd6c684d4845b95dd9064",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities If there is really no freedom then these migrants will be asylum seekers and refugees not true intellectual migrants by choice.\n\nEven if there is some alienation from their own native culture these migrants are still travelling to a much more alien culture. This being the case it seems unlikely that alienation is the main cause. Rather they are travelling to a culture that is more alien because they believe there are better opportunities there.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fdc0f223e39a7aecaf5fdc512263aa13",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Many migrants come from countries with strong sense of belonging\n\nMany migrants come from countries with strong sense of belonging, national identities, and political consciousness. For instance, they are European migrants, and in 2016, they were 19.3 million residing in a different EU Member State from the one where they were born (7). With migration an issue even from countries with strong national identities it is clear that that identity is not the major driver of movement.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ffd1df9e1f3b8aa38579a5a392ee2e08",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Developing countries have high unemployment rates and need to invest in job creation\n\nDeveloping countries invest in education and job creation because they have high unemployment rates (6). They need to address the lack of opportunities in order to improve their economy and reduce migration. This is as much the case for those at graduate level as for those who have less of an education. Africa’s 668 universities produce almost 10 million graduates a year, but only half find work.(14) It should therefore be no surprise that many migrate overseas for opportunities.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7db79888d6b1ac0a26c0adac94b74e5f",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Intellectual women migrants outnumber intellectual men migrants\n\nThe need of belonging is greater for women than for men – Bardo and Bardo found that they miss home much more (5). On the other hand, unequal and discriminatory norms can be strong drivers of intellectual female migration (1). More young women than men now migrate for education and, in several European countries today, highly skilled migrant women outnumber highly skilled migrant men (1). Between 2000 and 2011, the number of tertiary-educated migrant women in OECD countries rose by 80%, which exceeded the 60% increase in the number of tertiary-educated migrant men. In Africa for example, the average emigration rates of tertiary-educated women are considerably higher than those of tertiary-educated men (27.7% for women and 17.1% for men).\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4a6227e3793ac6c69352683ef99dcc17",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities The inferiority complex within older generations in the developing countries affects intellectuals’ sense of belonging while in their countries\n\nAn inferiority complex still exists among the older generations in the developing countries as regards the western technical know-how and organisation. A persisting attitude to place more confidence in the experts and specialists belonging to the developed countries than the educated nationals of the country (3) could foster a feeling of underestimation amongst intellectuals while in their countries, and becomes an additional driver of the continuous intellectual migration.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "da05cf90f18e2436072174f33d923a83",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Intellectual migrants are more impregnated by ideas of internationalism and universalism\n\nThe concept of nationalism as developed in Europe during the 19th century did not undergo the same evolution in the developing countries. Intellectuals do not identify themselves with their countries the way Europeans do. They are more impregnated by ideas of internationalism and universalism than the western nationalist – for example Mohsin Hamid argues our views of liberal values should be extended beyond nation states with their often unnatural borders. Thus, if they stay abroad after having adhered to the western way of life, they consider themselves part of the great human lot, value free movement as a basic human right, and do not necessarily suffer from complexes of disloyalty towards their home country (3).\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "255a656359afb8c0d7f52fcfbca2bd5c",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Some intellectual migrants already feel a certain degree of alienation towards their national culture before leaving their country\n\nIntellectuals need stimulation, organisation, freedom, and recognition (3) that they usually struggle to find in their countries of origin. Some intellectuals from developing countries already feel a certain degree of alienation towards their national culture before leaving their own country (3). This may be a result of government policy; a lack of intellectual freedom, or because of a generally conservative culture. Thus, they experience a strong lack of intellectual belonging despite the arising economic opportunities resulting from their countries’ investments.\n\nFamily ties also play a strong role in aggravating or mitigating alienation. This is why it is the young, who don’t have dependents themselves, who are often the likeliest to migrate.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9507ac868d83a8515fef53528ffc1227",
"text": "employment international global society immigration minorities Most young intellectuals from developing countries are politically conscious and want to be \"actors\" in policy making\n\nYoung intellectuals from developing countries are to a very large extent politically conscious and active. They want to be \"actors\" and not \"spectators\" in policy making, all the more so when their specialism is impacted by government policy. Those who grow up in an autocratic, or not very democratic state are likely to want to go where they can use their voice. Even in many democracies intellectuals often largely liberal views both for government and teaching are not readily approved by the conservative regimes of their countries where usually the older generation is in power and constitutes a barrier against their progress.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
a8fba51a51d2ed289a4578a4411424e3
|
Remarriage rate shows that even people who go through failed marriages retain faith in the institution of marriage
50% of all divorcees in the UK go on to remarry. (National Office for Statistics 1999) This shows that, although their own marriage failed, they retain faith in the institution of marriage. The fact that, even when marriage has failed to work for them once, many people wish to give it another go shows that it is still meaningful to society. If an institution is so meaningful and relevant to modern society in this way, it cannot possibly be outdated.
|
[
{
"docid": "692b5988e58b59190a5f826654e23dfa",
"text": " marriage society family house believes marriage outdated institution The fact that 50% of all divorcees (National Office for Statistics 1999) go on to remarry does not, as the opposition claims, show that marriage is a meaningful and relevant institution but quite the opposite. What this means is that a huge number of people vow to spend the rest of their life with another person, forsaking all others until death do them part, on multiple occasions. This does not show that society still has faith in marriage, it shows that society no longer respects the institution of marriage.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "3888d82475a809ab59a257ccf194a71b",
"text": " marriage society family house believes marriage outdated institution The fact that 40% of marriages end in divorce and that this is on the rise (National Office for Statistics 1999) shows that marriage clearly does not offer the stability that the opposition claims it does. In fact, it seems that marriage offers no more stability than a stable relationship, thus making it redundant in terms of raising children.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "79c7e1db9e1b4ebf2c51c8cf0e019421",
"text": " marriage society family house believes marriage outdated institution In the last 20 years, the number of people in the UK who identify as religious has declined by 20%. This shows that religion as a whole is becoming less important and, with it, marriage is becoming less important. (British Social Attitudes Survey 2007)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e330fc3db5e5dde4b933139926adbea4",
"text": " marriage society family house believes marriage outdated institution If marriage’s main function is to protect against bereavement and divorce then it is essentially protecting against harms that it itself brings. Without marriage, bereavement and divorce would cease to be as serious harms as they currently are.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f273563719ebac89d18ff1c5f3f290b4",
"text": " marriage society family house believes marriage outdated institution These statistics do not conclusively prove that married life is a better way to raise a child in every case. It is harmful to promote a message that a marriage is always a better way to raise a child than a single parent family. For instance, in the case of an abusive relationship or an individual who is clearly a completely unsuitable parent, it would be better for the parent who was suitable to raise the child by themselves than to hold up a marriage that was harmful to the raising of that child.\n\nThe choice is not always between a good marriage and single parent life but often between a harmful marriage and single parent life, so marriage does not necessarily promote a better way to raise children. (Cherlin 2009)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b8873c1ed9365c4b717ca20d34f78bbb",
"text": " marriage society family house believes marriage outdated institution This argument only works under the assumption that we live in a society where divorce does not exist. If a person enters into a marriage without full awareness of what they have committed to and later need to get out of that marriage, they are free to.\n\nBeing able to leave a marriage, though, does not make marriage a meaningless charade, as the proposition claims. It is still more difficult to leave a marriage than it is to leave a non-marital committed relationship and so it makes a big difference.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d620de9855343e04fe3af18cf96473e2",
"text": " marriage society family house believes marriage outdated institution The idea that the existence of marriage undermines other methods of raising children is ridiculous. This is equivalent to saying that making it legal for same-sex couples to adopt undermines raising children as a heterosexual couple or as a single parent.\n\nSome people choosing to raise children in a certain way does not prevent or inhibit other people doing so in a different way.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba56acb2f6277c0ac3a51af5b686948e",
"text": " marriage society family house believes marriage outdated institution Firstly, the opposition does not accept that the proposition have proven that marriage has no function outside of religion. However, even if they had proven this, they still have not proven that marriage has no religious function and, therefore, have lost the debate anyway.\n\nThe proposition asserts that because numbers of religious people in the UK are declining, this means marriage is no longer relevant religiously. The fact is that nearly 50% of people in the UK still identify as religious. (British Social Attitudes Survey 2007)The fact that this is less than before is meaningless; it is still the case that marriage has religious significance for nearly half the country.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f9dc27f0bfb2863f191a5bef950f1ad1",
"text": " marriage society family house believes marriage outdated institution The purpose of marriage is not an eternal, unrelenting union, whether it is wanted or not. The purpose of marriage is to foster a more stable relationship than would be possible without marital vows. Therefore, the fact that divorce is becoming more common and easier to obtain does not undermine the institution of marriage at all.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b88dba4f5f81f7ec5c90b72b55714079",
"text": " marriage society family house believes marriage outdated institution Once a couple get married, they have made an official and legal commitment, which makes it more difficult for them to split up. This means that, irrespective of divorce statistics, adding marriage to a relationship will only serve to make it more stable and give the children of that relationship more security. Therefore marriage still gives benefits in modern society and is not outdated. (Waite 2000)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "240ce9d8fa739c66ca618ebb147c879e",
"text": " marriage society family house believes marriage outdated institution Marriage promotes a better way to raise children\n\nMarriage promotes raising children as part of a monogamous couple. Without marriage, the frequency of single parent families would rise. Statistically, children who come from single parent families are more likely to live under the poverty line, more likely to be convicted of a criminal offence, more likely to become ill, less likely to complete every level of education and more likely to grow up to have low incomes themselves. (O’Neill 2002) Clearly then, marriage provides a lot of goods to children of married families, thus it provides goods in modern society and therefore cannot be outdated.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ae0f396b4f664b56e65f3f5fcbe59220",
"text": " marriage society family house believes marriage outdated institution Marriage is an important institution to religious people\n\nNearly 50% of people in the UK identify as being part of some religion. (British Social Attitudes Survey 2007) Marriage is an integral part of most major religions, particularly Christianity, where it is one of the sacraments(Lehmkuhl, 1910) which are necessary for salvation (Vatican.va). which encompasses over 40% of the population of the UK. (British Social Attitudes Survey 2007) While there are still such huge numbers of people who practice religions to which marriage is integral, marriage cannot be outdated.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "14e4c6fe8bea0767b6484dfac8b75e57",
"text": " marriage society family house believes marriage outdated institution Removes the transient and casual aspects of a monogamous relationship, thus giving a child a far more stable environment.\n\nMarriage represents a commitment and a bond that is, although not unbreakable, difficult to break. This may not be appropriate for couples who wish to have a more casual relationship, however, it offers a more stable and official relationship, which is far preferable to a more transient relationship when it comes to raising a child. (Waite 2000)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e1f9000d74cfb685c521b8f16defa85e",
"text": " marriage society family house believes marriage outdated institution Marriage represents a legal bond which protects both parties in a relationship\n\nMarriage has relevance to modern society in not only an emotional, religious and practical sense but also in a legal sense. According to Sir Mark Potter in English Law marriage is regarded as an \"age-old institution\" that is \"by longstanding definition and acceptance\" a formal relationship between a man and a woman primarily designed for producing and rearing children. It gives many rights in areas like property rights and pension benefits.(Travis, 2011) A marital bond gives important rights to both parties in cases of events such as severe injury, bereavement or even divorce. An institution cannot be outdated if it retains legal importance in modern society.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e7c836302b3dfbfa5784b17503213c72",
"text": " marriage society family house believes marriage outdated institution Unreasonable commitment to expect of people\n\nThe average age, in the UK, to get married is approximately 30 years old. (Office for National Statistics 1999) Life expectancy in the UK is approximately 80 years. (Office for National Statistics 1999) This means the average marriage expects people to commit to maintain a certain way of life for a period that is longer than they have actually been alive. This goes hand in hand with the rise of social acceptability of people having more than one life partner in their life to show that either marriage is an unreasonable expectation of someone or a meaningless charade that is not actually expected to be maintained.(Cherlin 2009)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "315969d778cbf02d86992788119d9596",
"text": " marriage society family house believes marriage outdated institution Undermines same-sex couples and single parent families as legitimate ways of raising children\n\nAs explained in the first proposition point, one of the primary functions of marriage is seen to be to raise children. Marriage is therefore seen as the best way to raise children. This undermines same-sex couples and single parent families raising children.\n\nThe existence of marriage is essentially saying that same-sex couples and single parents are less able of raising children than heterosexual couples. Marriage, therefore, can be seen to promote outdated ideals that our society no longer holds and, as such, is itself an outdated institution.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c5273f3f81a4639dc02bae12b51782c2",
"text": " marriage society family house believes marriage outdated institution Frequency and accessibility of divorce undermines the entire purpose of marriage\n\nWith pre-nuptials, which essentially amount to pre-planning for divorce, heavily on the rise, and divorces becoming ever easier to obtain, it is clear that our society no longer respects marriage as a permanent institution. Serial monogamy is also becoming ever more common, with 50% of all divorcees in the UK going on to remarry. (Office for National Statistics)\n\nSince the purpose of marriage has always been to foster a stable and permanent relationship, it is clearly an entirely outdated institution as it no longer leads to a stable or permanent relationship.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8c2343b5deb8c15c9d0d0ed1525104a5",
"text": " marriage society family house believes marriage outdated institution Does not provide any more of a stable environment for child rearing than a regular monogamous relationship\n\nThe main objective of marriage is often said to be bringing up children in a stable environment. However in 2010 in the UK there were 119589 divorces; 11.1 per 1000 married population. Furthermore in the same year, the median duration of a marriage remained at a low level of 11.4 years.(Rogers, 2011) This clearly does not fulfill the initial basic aim of marriage as so many marriages end In divorce with the resulting splits affecting the children. In fact, a much more stable environment can be provided by a better relationship, even without matrimonial vows (Cherlin 2009). This relationship should not have to be through marriage; rather it would simply be a partnership in the way that many couples already live today.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "196d17f6bf15a34336392b19bcd758d0",
"text": " marriage society family house believes marriage outdated institution Marriage should be for all by Marriage is a religious institution in a society of declining religion\n\nThe proposition believes that they have proven that marriage no longer has a social or practical function. This leaves its only function as one of religious significance. However, with the percentage of people in the UK who identify as having no religion having risen by nearly 20% in the last 20 years and the percentage of people who identify as religious having dropped by approximately the same amount (British Social Attitudes Surveys 2007). Church attendance is even lower at a mere 6%(whychurch.org.uk). As a result there needs to be a new more inclusive institution that is open to all religions and those of no religion. It is clear that marriage can no longer perform this function for everyone in society.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
8fe75201b873040b4ad2145aabc90b66
|
Land titles are being granted in high-risk areas.
Land title provision for women across Africa is occurring in informal settlements and slums - therefore the question is whether titles provide an ability to relocate through the property market. First, land titles in the case of South Africa have left inhabitants stuck on the lower-end of the property market [1] . Lemanski (2010) shows homeownership, in Cape Town, does not bring the hoped for financial return. Low-income households are unable to trade their asset (land or home) due to low returns, preventing movement into upgraded houses and areas. Second, dangers emerge as to the degree of future sustainability when considering climate change and the hazardous nature of environments. In Mathare slum, Kenya, landslides are a frequent occurrence. The provision of titles in such areas does not have sustainable.
[1] Lemanski, 2010.
|
[
{
"docid": "ef49c4e05ea566e32d5cf605b0b141d2",
"text": "economic policy international africa society gender family immigration house Real empowerment needs to enable strategic, and practical, gender needs (Moser, 1989). Land titling for women enables women to change their position in society and thus how they are viewed by the state and communities. Having a land title means women in high-risk areas can demand changes to be made by the state.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d6c6e529021d7ba072d5df4f9f9edf15",
"text": "economic policy international africa society gender family immigration house The possession of a formally recognised entitlement to land presents a win-win scenario - being an indicator of good governance and enabling the promotion of good governance. Land titles represent an effective economic institution in society, of which enables democratic, political institutions, such as an accountable state. Land titles mean corruption and rent-seeking behaviour can be monitored.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "02b99e4f9b924f006ac0036e0f352249",
"text": "economic policy international africa society gender family immigration house Renting holds fewer benefits for women than ownership. For empowerment more women need to become home, and landowners. The provision of land titles to women means they have a sense of stability. In the case of Johannesburg, South Africa, a majority of young, female renters engage in different forms of transactional sex due to the expense of renting [1] . Equality in land titling will ensure women are able to save and seek safer livelihood options.\n\n[1] See further readings: Action Aid, 2012.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c2a510f5084e32ccefdbd052d4d2efe0",
"text": "economic policy international africa society gender family immigration house Female-headed households are not the poorest of the poor, and taxation is required. Taxation is vital resource to enable the government to mobilise key services and as a redistributive tool. By developing an effective functioning taxation system, social policies can be put on the agenda in Africa - providing social support and security to those in need.\n\nHaving access to titles will reduce poverty by encouraging entrepreneurialism, productive use of land, security, better health, and opportunity to enter property markets.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3dd5cc31a8e49697af4728ca899565e",
"text": "economic policy international africa society gender family immigration house Programmes implemented have taken action to reduce costs. The recent government program in Ethiopia has been government-sponsored and used a participatory model to ensure affordability across a large-scale.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "86a5a5f12e72cb447026bef00c70c2bf",
"text": "economic policy international africa society gender family immigration house Although titles may initiate slum upgrading the quality and time-scale of services provided remains questionable. Services can be of poor-quality as states rush to meet demands, and the area whereby women are given titles may remain unsafe and unhealthy spaces. Titling therefore does not fundamentally improve, or provide, services and infrastructure.\n\nFurther, women are given the burden (time and physical) of building decent homes. The provision of land titling transfers responsibility from the state to women.\n\nIn many cases across Africa land is not owned by the state, but rather private actors and international organisations. Such realities have implications in whether women are able to invest in, and build, homes as land titles need to be respected, and recognised, by multiple actors not only the state.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "75c8a82e2e4f0cad286617a61e17ccc2",
"text": "economic policy international africa society gender family immigration house Having rights does not ensure there will be an awareness of how to use rights and education on what such rights do. To ensure land titles contribute to promoting gender equalities women, and girls, need to be made aware of the meaning of rights and how to use them. Land titles are not the means of providing inter-generational equality, but rather one piece of the puzzle. To ensure equality education and awareness is required.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c253966c3bf0aaa6b6acbcd62311d16d",
"text": "economic policy international africa society gender family immigration house The case of Kenya is not representative of evidence across all African nations. In Rwanda, where post-conflict recovery has put gender equality as a fundamental objective, underlying tensions are emerging. Land titles have been distributed to women however male counterparts are beginning to raise doubts over the extent of gender 'equality', arguing policies reflect a gender bias in favour of women. [1]\n\nIn societies where women live in a ‘man’s world’ land titles are not the means of safety and security. Rape, harassment, and abuse occur in public spaces across cities, due to fear, police relations, and social acceptance.\n\n[1] Bikorimana, 2012.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "83806ff0daa2d575f84a57cd03552429",
"text": "economic policy international africa society gender family immigration house Are women really able to access credit and finance, and should they be able to enter such markets if there is an inability to return payments or get equal profits? Accessing credit with a high interest rate may put women are greater risk. We need to think about the credit lenders, what they charge, and if it can be paid back. Women may be less willing to use their primary asset to gain credit due to the potential risk of loss.\n\nStudies in Madagascar [1] have shown limited differences in the degree of plot investment on land whereby titles were held, or not. The provision of a title has minimal impact in the case of rural Madagascar, suggesting women will be no more ‘entrepreneurial’ than initially believed [2] . Land speculation may become more of a concern with the provision of titles, as land is believed to be of value and thus occupied, but with minimal investments made.\n\n[1] Jacoby and Minten, 2007.\n\n[2] See further readings: Fenske, 2011.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6ca151a1c458a4bac3430a8cb26e501e",
"text": "economic policy international africa society gender family immigration house Land titles mean women will be recognised as citizens, with rights. Women will be included in the system of justice and their rights to occupy, build, and use, land, recognised. Titles will provide bottom-up empowerment. A physical and psychological sense of security will be provided; and a sense of social belonging, and place, is enabled. Legal security has benefits for health (mental and physical) and reduces risk. For example, access to titles will reduce the vulnerability of women to ‘property grabbing’.\n\nIn the case of Ethiopia, the introduction of joint land-titling and household registration in 2003 [1] has been shown to have changed women’s perception of tenure security. Previously, the prevalence of polygamous relationships meant only the first wife was granted legal rights and recognition, leaving other wives and households without rights to land. The provision of land titles ensures women equal security within a legal framework. Women are entitled to rights; and titles provide the security to use the legal system.\n\n[1] The Joint titling program in Ethiopia was a implemented as a partnership between the government and World Bank, see further readings: Girma and Giovarelli, 2013; Barne, 2010; and Deninger, 2008.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2dc2bd3ed271e16a6f83fa9ecc52b420",
"text": "economic policy international africa society gender family immigration house Land titles are not affordable to poor women\n\nThe cost of obtaining land titles is higher than the benefits sought. Research has shown that although there is a desire, by women, to obtain land titles the reality is land titles remain unaffordable. To empower land titles need to be more affordable to include a diverse range of women able to obtain titles and rights [1] . Having expensive titles limits empowerment to the comparatively wealthy. To make matters worse the provision of titles increases the burden on women - introducing additional costs, time commitments, and worries on top of normal activities.\n\nCheaper, and more effective, alternatives are available to provide rights and security of tenure for women. For example Toulmin (2009) emphasises the potential role of using local institutions to register rights. Community organisations, for saving (etc) as in South Africa which prevent the need to go to loan sharks, are a positive alternative to empower women. [2] For real empowerment women need to be included in the process of designing land titles.\n\n[1] See further readings for the case of Dar-es-Salaam: Ayalew et al, 2013.\n\n[2] Frederikse 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "09bcecf7a550ded169e03ffbf64e7910",
"text": "economic policy international africa society gender family immigration house Land titles do not solve the main issue for women - rental markets.\n\nAbout 50% of the poor across Africa, including women, used rental accommodation [1] , many are landless. Although it remains debatable as to whether women enter the rental market by choice or not, renting has been noted to provide a greater degree of flexibility. Renting provides flexibility to relocate and manage finances effectively over a short-term. Land titles may therefore increase immobility to those using the rental markets; and enable landlords to raise prices of renting. Titles don’t help those who rent.\n\n[1] Edwards, 1990, p.255\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0873ad891ccd5ccb2bab6bc66ac33123",
"text": "economic policy international africa society gender family immigration house Land titles, and markets, in Africa remain corrupt.\n\nOn the one hand, land titles do not provide increased tenure security for women and will legitimise gentrification. In urban areas, if women are granted rights over a desired plot of land holding titles may be more of a curse. Poor women may be forced, and enticed, to sell their homes at prices under their market value. Titles often results in urban gentrification, as the spaces become legally mapped and property markets work for the elite.\n\nOn another hand, land titles in African states are based on bad governance, rent-seeking, and corrupt desires. The idea land titles will provide empowerment, security and poverty reduction is based on a Western model of the state. However, the boundary between what is legal and illegal in African states remains less clear-cut. The case of Zimbabwe’s ‘Operation Murambatsvina’ (‘Restore Order’) in 2005 is a case in point. Mass evictions occurred despite the homes being classified as ‘legal’ and titles being held. Livelihoods were destroyed as a result. The ability for land titles to empower in a repressive or mercurial state is questionable. Propositions for land titling are based on inadequate blueprints and ideas of the state.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5d9d835da781cf5473ac002ec434e265",
"text": "economic policy international africa society gender family immigration house Land titling will increase female poverty.\n\nTitles provide a path for the state to gain, and mobilise, resources - such as taxation. Therefore the provision of land titles to women will mean they are forced to pay taxes (including land tax and additional government taxes). Such a reality has major consequences for single female-headed households who represent a disproportionate number of the poor [1] . Increased expenses will impact multiple dimensions of their livelihoods.\n\n[1] For debates on Female-Headed Households in Africa as the ‘poorest of the poor’ see further readings: Chant, 2007.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5da7f8c98fc524122736dd85ef4cdd3a",
"text": "economic policy international africa society gender family immigration house Land titles mean single women can build decent homes.\n\nDue to a lack of access to formal titling women have been pushed into acquiring, and living in, slums [1] . Land titling programmes benefit slum dwellers and inhabitants living in informal housing across African cities. Titles for women mean a sense of security to inhabit space is provided; and women will be encouraged to invest in their land. Titling provision has resulted in slum upgrading, investing in changing the structure of urban Africa.\n\nSecond, being recognised as title holders means women are able to demand new services - such as access to water, sanitation, and lights. Such demand will ensure improved health for women. Women are able to use the law to interact with the state and change their future by demanding crucial services.\n\n[1] Slums are officially defined as a group of individuals living in a household which lacks safe housing, sufficient living space, access to water, adequate sanitation, and/or security of tenure (UN-Habitat, 2003).\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eec67ef926e9aa6c2032ae00cca2824c",
"text": "economic policy international africa society gender family immigration house Land titles for women today will provide inter-generational equalities for the future.\n\nGiving women the right to land will provide the path for gender equality in the present and future. Girls will be granted equal access rights to family land and inheritance in the future, and decisions around marriage dowry can be changed.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a916d4cbd76a255ecd538a6fae45b5a8",
"text": "economic policy international africa society gender family immigration house Land titles will develop entrepreneurial women.\n\nAccess to titles is a means of poverty alleviation for female-headed households and women. Having recognised land rights means first, their land becomes exchangeable and profits can be gained through different strategies. Second, women are able to access credit and finance with the granting of a formal land title. Women are able to become entrepreneurs establishing businesses, agricultural cultivation, and the ability to sell property and land. Such investments have positive benefits for the whole economy. For example by encouraging crop cultivation to small-scale farmers food security can be provided, and the agrarian market revitalised. [1]\n\nIn the case of Ethiopia, the economy remains highly dependent on agricultural production. The security land titles provides has encouraged agricultural cultivation to women nationwide. Women are able to build a new food market and earn an income to sustain their livelihoods.\n\n[1] See further readings: Oseni, 2013.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d411f5d4e36c3cc1417f3e58c7a3769a",
"text": "economic policy international africa society gender family immigration house Land titles provide a voice in the legal system.\n\nLand titles mean women will be recognised as citizens, with rights. Women will be included in the system of justice and their rights to occupy, build, and use, land, recognised. Titles will provide bottom-up empowerment. A physical and psychological sense of security will be provided; and a sense of social belonging, and place, is enabled. Legal security has benefits for health (mental and physical) and reduces risk. For example, access to titles will reduce the vulnerability of women to ‘property grabbing’.\n\nIn the case of Ethiopia, the introduction of joint land-titling and household registration in 2003 [1] has been shown to have changed women’s perception of tenure security. Previously, the prevalence of polygamous relationships meant only the first wife was granted legal rights and recognition, leaving other wives and households without rights to land. The provision of land titles ensures women equal security within a legal framework. Women are entitled to rights; and titles provide the security to use the legal system.\n\n[1] The Joint titling program in Ethiopia was a implemented as a partnership between the government and World Bank, see further readings: Girma and Giovarelli, 2013; Barne, 2010; and Deninger, 2008.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dff7f6815b91aa5fe2e74d1fbe29a337",
"text": "economic policy international africa society gender family immigration house Land titles will help end violence against women.\n\nOne of the main forms of gender-based violence includes violent acts carried out by husbands or partners [1] . Evidence shows the provision of land titles reduce risks to female health and vulnerabilities to violence. Women become accepted as, and confident, decision makers within their homes as titling redistributes power within households. Furthermore possessing a land title enables safer sexual relations by offering legal protection. Research in Kenya has shown titles will reduce the risk of spreading HIV/AIDS and rape [2] . Due to gender norms widows are forced into traditional ‘cleansing’ rituals, rape and forced marriage, in order to hold onto physical assets and inherit their rightful land from in-laws. Land titles are therefore a means of tackling gender discrimination and providing freedom of choice on how women can act. Women are less likely to be forced into unsafe sex, following the death of their husband or divorce, to occupy the land.\n\nAdditionally, returning to the case of Kenya, FIDA have reported how a woman's choice to divorce her partner often leaves many property-less [3] . Women may be more likely to remain in an unhappy, dangerous, marriage without changes in property legal systems.\n\n[1] Defined by WHO, 2013.\n\n[2] Sweetman, 2008.\n\n[3] Migiro, 2013.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
af40389145e8c7f586dc55a4a4aeeb11
|
Land titling will increase female poverty.
Titles provide a path for the state to gain, and mobilise, resources - such as taxation. Therefore the provision of land titles to women will mean they are forced to pay taxes (including land tax and additional government taxes). Such a reality has major consequences for single female-headed households who represent a disproportionate number of the poor [1] . Increased expenses will impact multiple dimensions of their livelihoods.
[1] For debates on Female-Headed Households in Africa as the ‘poorest of the poor’ see further readings: Chant, 2007.
|
[
{
"docid": "c2a510f5084e32ccefdbd052d4d2efe0",
"text": "economic policy international africa society gender family immigration house Female-headed households are not the poorest of the poor, and taxation is required. Taxation is vital resource to enable the government to mobilise key services and as a redistributive tool. By developing an effective functioning taxation system, social policies can be put on the agenda in Africa - providing social support and security to those in need.\n\nHaving access to titles will reduce poverty by encouraging entrepreneurialism, productive use of land, security, better health, and opportunity to enter property markets.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d6c6e529021d7ba072d5df4f9f9edf15",
"text": "economic policy international africa society gender family immigration house The possession of a formally recognised entitlement to land presents a win-win scenario - being an indicator of good governance and enabling the promotion of good governance. Land titles represent an effective economic institution in society, of which enables democratic, political institutions, such as an accountable state. Land titles mean corruption and rent-seeking behaviour can be monitored.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "02b99e4f9b924f006ac0036e0f352249",
"text": "economic policy international africa society gender family immigration house Renting holds fewer benefits for women than ownership. For empowerment more women need to become home, and landowners. The provision of land titles to women means they have a sense of stability. In the case of Johannesburg, South Africa, a majority of young, female renters engage in different forms of transactional sex due to the expense of renting [1] . Equality in land titling will ensure women are able to save and seek safer livelihood options.\n\n[1] See further readings: Action Aid, 2012.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3dd5cc31a8e49697af4728ca899565e",
"text": "economic policy international africa society gender family immigration house Programmes implemented have taken action to reduce costs. The recent government program in Ethiopia has been government-sponsored and used a participatory model to ensure affordability across a large-scale.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ef49c4e05ea566e32d5cf605b0b141d2",
"text": "economic policy international africa society gender family immigration house Real empowerment needs to enable strategic, and practical, gender needs (Moser, 1989). Land titling for women enables women to change their position in society and thus how they are viewed by the state and communities. Having a land title means women in high-risk areas can demand changes to be made by the state.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "86a5a5f12e72cb447026bef00c70c2bf",
"text": "economic policy international africa society gender family immigration house Although titles may initiate slum upgrading the quality and time-scale of services provided remains questionable. Services can be of poor-quality as states rush to meet demands, and the area whereby women are given titles may remain unsafe and unhealthy spaces. Titling therefore does not fundamentally improve, or provide, services and infrastructure.\n\nFurther, women are given the burden (time and physical) of building decent homes. The provision of land titling transfers responsibility from the state to women.\n\nIn many cases across Africa land is not owned by the state, but rather private actors and international organisations. Such realities have implications in whether women are able to invest in, and build, homes as land titles need to be respected, and recognised, by multiple actors not only the state.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "75c8a82e2e4f0cad286617a61e17ccc2",
"text": "economic policy international africa society gender family immigration house Having rights does not ensure there will be an awareness of how to use rights and education on what such rights do. To ensure land titles contribute to promoting gender equalities women, and girls, need to be made aware of the meaning of rights and how to use them. Land titles are not the means of providing inter-generational equality, but rather one piece of the puzzle. To ensure equality education and awareness is required.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c253966c3bf0aaa6b6acbcd62311d16d",
"text": "economic policy international africa society gender family immigration house The case of Kenya is not representative of evidence across all African nations. In Rwanda, where post-conflict recovery has put gender equality as a fundamental objective, underlying tensions are emerging. Land titles have been distributed to women however male counterparts are beginning to raise doubts over the extent of gender 'equality', arguing policies reflect a gender bias in favour of women. [1]\n\nIn societies where women live in a ‘man’s world’ land titles are not the means of safety and security. Rape, harassment, and abuse occur in public spaces across cities, due to fear, police relations, and social acceptance.\n\n[1] Bikorimana, 2012.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "83806ff0daa2d575f84a57cd03552429",
"text": "economic policy international africa society gender family immigration house Are women really able to access credit and finance, and should they be able to enter such markets if there is an inability to return payments or get equal profits? Accessing credit with a high interest rate may put women are greater risk. We need to think about the credit lenders, what they charge, and if it can be paid back. Women may be less willing to use their primary asset to gain credit due to the potential risk of loss.\n\nStudies in Madagascar [1] have shown limited differences in the degree of plot investment on land whereby titles were held, or not. The provision of a title has minimal impact in the case of rural Madagascar, suggesting women will be no more ‘entrepreneurial’ than initially believed [2] . Land speculation may become more of a concern with the provision of titles, as land is believed to be of value and thus occupied, but with minimal investments made.\n\n[1] Jacoby and Minten, 2007.\n\n[2] See further readings: Fenske, 2011.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6ca151a1c458a4bac3430a8cb26e501e",
"text": "economic policy international africa society gender family immigration house Land titles mean women will be recognised as citizens, with rights. Women will be included in the system of justice and their rights to occupy, build, and use, land, recognised. Titles will provide bottom-up empowerment. A physical and psychological sense of security will be provided; and a sense of social belonging, and place, is enabled. Legal security has benefits for health (mental and physical) and reduces risk. For example, access to titles will reduce the vulnerability of women to ‘property grabbing’.\n\nIn the case of Ethiopia, the introduction of joint land-titling and household registration in 2003 [1] has been shown to have changed women’s perception of tenure security. Previously, the prevalence of polygamous relationships meant only the first wife was granted legal rights and recognition, leaving other wives and households without rights to land. The provision of land titles ensures women equal security within a legal framework. Women are entitled to rights; and titles provide the security to use the legal system.\n\n[1] The Joint titling program in Ethiopia was a implemented as a partnership between the government and World Bank, see further readings: Girma and Giovarelli, 2013; Barne, 2010; and Deninger, 2008.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b5962a8f09c108dc5718994841e2779a",
"text": "economic policy international africa society gender family immigration house Land titles are being granted in high-risk areas.\n\nLand title provision for women across Africa is occurring in informal settlements and slums - therefore the question is whether titles provide an ability to relocate through the property market. First, land titles in the case of South Africa have left inhabitants stuck on the lower-end of the property market [1] . Lemanski (2010) shows homeownership, in Cape Town, does not bring the hoped for financial return. Low-income households are unable to trade their asset (land or home) due to low returns, preventing movement into upgraded houses and areas. Second, dangers emerge as to the degree of future sustainability when considering climate change and the hazardous nature of environments. In Mathare slum, Kenya, landslides are a frequent occurrence. The provision of titles in such areas does not have sustainable.\n\n[1] Lemanski, 2010.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2dc2bd3ed271e16a6f83fa9ecc52b420",
"text": "economic policy international africa society gender family immigration house Land titles are not affordable to poor women\n\nThe cost of obtaining land titles is higher than the benefits sought. Research has shown that although there is a desire, by women, to obtain land titles the reality is land titles remain unaffordable. To empower land titles need to be more affordable to include a diverse range of women able to obtain titles and rights [1] . Having expensive titles limits empowerment to the comparatively wealthy. To make matters worse the provision of titles increases the burden on women - introducing additional costs, time commitments, and worries on top of normal activities.\n\nCheaper, and more effective, alternatives are available to provide rights and security of tenure for women. For example Toulmin (2009) emphasises the potential role of using local institutions to register rights. Community organisations, for saving (etc) as in South Africa which prevent the need to go to loan sharks, are a positive alternative to empower women. [2] For real empowerment women need to be included in the process of designing land titles.\n\n[1] See further readings for the case of Dar-es-Salaam: Ayalew et al, 2013.\n\n[2] Frederikse 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "09bcecf7a550ded169e03ffbf64e7910",
"text": "economic policy international africa society gender family immigration house Land titles do not solve the main issue for women - rental markets.\n\nAbout 50% of the poor across Africa, including women, used rental accommodation [1] , many are landless. Although it remains debatable as to whether women enter the rental market by choice or not, renting has been noted to provide a greater degree of flexibility. Renting provides flexibility to relocate and manage finances effectively over a short-term. Land titles may therefore increase immobility to those using the rental markets; and enable landlords to raise prices of renting. Titles don’t help those who rent.\n\n[1] Edwards, 1990, p.255\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0873ad891ccd5ccb2bab6bc66ac33123",
"text": "economic policy international africa society gender family immigration house Land titles, and markets, in Africa remain corrupt.\n\nOn the one hand, land titles do not provide increased tenure security for women and will legitimise gentrification. In urban areas, if women are granted rights over a desired plot of land holding titles may be more of a curse. Poor women may be forced, and enticed, to sell their homes at prices under their market value. Titles often results in urban gentrification, as the spaces become legally mapped and property markets work for the elite.\n\nOn another hand, land titles in African states are based on bad governance, rent-seeking, and corrupt desires. The idea land titles will provide empowerment, security and poverty reduction is based on a Western model of the state. However, the boundary between what is legal and illegal in African states remains less clear-cut. The case of Zimbabwe’s ‘Operation Murambatsvina’ (‘Restore Order’) in 2005 is a case in point. Mass evictions occurred despite the homes being classified as ‘legal’ and titles being held. Livelihoods were destroyed as a result. The ability for land titles to empower in a repressive or mercurial state is questionable. Propositions for land titling are based on inadequate blueprints and ideas of the state.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5da7f8c98fc524122736dd85ef4cdd3a",
"text": "economic policy international africa society gender family immigration house Land titles mean single women can build decent homes.\n\nDue to a lack of access to formal titling women have been pushed into acquiring, and living in, slums [1] . Land titling programmes benefit slum dwellers and inhabitants living in informal housing across African cities. Titles for women mean a sense of security to inhabit space is provided; and women will be encouraged to invest in their land. Titling provision has resulted in slum upgrading, investing in changing the structure of urban Africa.\n\nSecond, being recognised as title holders means women are able to demand new services - such as access to water, sanitation, and lights. Such demand will ensure improved health for women. Women are able to use the law to interact with the state and change their future by demanding crucial services.\n\n[1] Slums are officially defined as a group of individuals living in a household which lacks safe housing, sufficient living space, access to water, adequate sanitation, and/or security of tenure (UN-Habitat, 2003).\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eec67ef926e9aa6c2032ae00cca2824c",
"text": "economic policy international africa society gender family immigration house Land titles for women today will provide inter-generational equalities for the future.\n\nGiving women the right to land will provide the path for gender equality in the present and future. Girls will be granted equal access rights to family land and inheritance in the future, and decisions around marriage dowry can be changed.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a916d4cbd76a255ecd538a6fae45b5a8",
"text": "economic policy international africa society gender family immigration house Land titles will develop entrepreneurial women.\n\nAccess to titles is a means of poverty alleviation for female-headed households and women. Having recognised land rights means first, their land becomes exchangeable and profits can be gained through different strategies. Second, women are able to access credit and finance with the granting of a formal land title. Women are able to become entrepreneurs establishing businesses, agricultural cultivation, and the ability to sell property and land. Such investments have positive benefits for the whole economy. For example by encouraging crop cultivation to small-scale farmers food security can be provided, and the agrarian market revitalised. [1]\n\nIn the case of Ethiopia, the economy remains highly dependent on agricultural production. The security land titles provides has encouraged agricultural cultivation to women nationwide. Women are able to build a new food market and earn an income to sustain their livelihoods.\n\n[1] See further readings: Oseni, 2013.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d411f5d4e36c3cc1417f3e58c7a3769a",
"text": "economic policy international africa society gender family immigration house Land titles provide a voice in the legal system.\n\nLand titles mean women will be recognised as citizens, with rights. Women will be included in the system of justice and their rights to occupy, build, and use, land, recognised. Titles will provide bottom-up empowerment. A physical and psychological sense of security will be provided; and a sense of social belonging, and place, is enabled. Legal security has benefits for health (mental and physical) and reduces risk. For example, access to titles will reduce the vulnerability of women to ‘property grabbing’.\n\nIn the case of Ethiopia, the introduction of joint land-titling and household registration in 2003 [1] has been shown to have changed women’s perception of tenure security. Previously, the prevalence of polygamous relationships meant only the first wife was granted legal rights and recognition, leaving other wives and households without rights to land. The provision of land titles ensures women equal security within a legal framework. Women are entitled to rights; and titles provide the security to use the legal system.\n\n[1] The Joint titling program in Ethiopia was a implemented as a partnership between the government and World Bank, see further readings: Girma and Giovarelli, 2013; Barne, 2010; and Deninger, 2008.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dff7f6815b91aa5fe2e74d1fbe29a337",
"text": "economic policy international africa society gender family immigration house Land titles will help end violence against women.\n\nOne of the main forms of gender-based violence includes violent acts carried out by husbands or partners [1] . Evidence shows the provision of land titles reduce risks to female health and vulnerabilities to violence. Women become accepted as, and confident, decision makers within their homes as titling redistributes power within households. Furthermore possessing a land title enables safer sexual relations by offering legal protection. Research in Kenya has shown titles will reduce the risk of spreading HIV/AIDS and rape [2] . Due to gender norms widows are forced into traditional ‘cleansing’ rituals, rape and forced marriage, in order to hold onto physical assets and inherit their rightful land from in-laws. Land titles are therefore a means of tackling gender discrimination and providing freedom of choice on how women can act. Women are less likely to be forced into unsafe sex, following the death of their husband or divorce, to occupy the land.\n\nAdditionally, returning to the case of Kenya, FIDA have reported how a woman's choice to divorce her partner often leaves many property-less [3] . Women may be more likely to remain in an unhappy, dangerous, marriage without changes in property legal systems.\n\n[1] Defined by WHO, 2013.\n\n[2] Sweetman, 2008.\n\n[3] Migiro, 2013.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
b4ecc4cbc58b867604db5891cf30bdea
|
Receiving countries should not and cannot afford to further protect migrants because they often free ride on health, education, and welfare systems.
Because immigrants are frequently less well off financially, and they sometimes come to a new country illegally, they cost a lot for receiving countries, and so they should not be further protected. Immigrants make heavy use of social welfare, and often overload public education systems, while frequently not pulling their weight in taxes. Illegal immigrants alone have already cost the United States “billions of taxpayer-funded dollars for medical services. Dozens of hospitals in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, have been forced to close” because they are required by law to provide free emergency room services to illegal immigrants. In addition, half a billion dollars each year are spent to keep illegal immigrant criminals in American prisons. [1] The money spent to build and maintain schools for immigrant children, and to teach them, takes away from the education of current schools, existing students, and taxpayers. This is unfair. Increasing social and economic protections and rights for migrants means increasing migration and increasing benefits that migrants receive from societies. This could be a burden that a state's welfare system is not capable of handling.
[1] Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform, "Economic costs of legal and illegal immigration," accessed June 30, 2011, http://www.cairco.org/econ/econ.html .
|
[
{
"docid": "f49549e41a1dced5aa94c2ee0b55f9c4",
"text": "ional global society immigration minorities house believes nations world should The receiving countries to which most migrants move are the richest countries in the world so are able to afford increased protection. While migrants may sometimes cost these countries money in services like healthcare they are in countries that can afford to pay this cost. It should also not be assumed that migrants just take from the public purse. As most migrants are legal they also pay taxes. Even those who are illegal will still pay some taxes such as VAT or duties on cigarettes and alcohol. The UK government estimates that “in 1999/2000, first generation migrants in the UK contributed £31.2 billion in taxes and consumed £28.8 billion in benefits and public services – a net fiscal contribution of £2.5 billion”. [1] This will obviously vary from country to country but stories that immigrants are costing huge amounts and putting nothing into the collective pot are plain wrong.\n\n[1] Home Office, The Economic and Fiscal Impact of Immigration, A Cross-Departmental Submission to the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs, October 2007, p.8, http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm72/7237/7237.pdf\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7a2df5431b464a19dc48da4dce259621",
"text": "ional global society immigration minorities house believes nations world should There is plenty of international law on the books, and it is legitimate when it protects rights that ought to be universal for the individual, no matter what country you are in. The right to have a family is not a Chilean right, or a German right, or a Malaysian right; it is a human right. As is the right to work without being harassed. The huge increase in migration over the past two decades shows that individual well-being has developed into a more important concern in the world today than state sovereignty. Migrant protections are moral because they reflect this change.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "94de909ee769c80b7e1523621f44eb64",
"text": "ional global society immigration minorities house believes nations world should The effect of migration on unemployment is actually positive: it provides cheap labor for receiving countries, and lowers the supply of labor in source countries where employers can often not afford to pay sufficient wages to their workers. The claim that immigrants take jobs away from native citizens is unfounded. In the United States, for example, visa applications for skilled foreign workers are extremely difficult to receive and are limited to a small number of people. Foreign students at U.S. universities even need special authorization to work a summer job. Immigrants cannot undercut U.S. workers wages, taking their job away for less money, because foreign workers must be paid a minimum salary, mandated by law. [1] Even illegal immigrants who do not follow these regulations tend to take very-low-paying jobs that are unwanted by U.S. citizens and that would not otherwise exist.\n\n[1] Farhad Sethna, “Immigrants Don’t Take Away U.S. Jobs!” Immigration Law Blog, July 9, 2009, accessed June 30, 2011, http://blog.immigration-america.com/archives/131 .\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b4a1f2f27aa9a5fb07171874579bf1d9",
"text": "ional global society immigration minorities house believes nations world should While every state may have different issues and problems, the human rights of individuals must be protected by all of them. States may choose to protect their national identity and tradition through museums and festivals and other cultural institutions; it is not necessary that they keep migrants out, or suppress those who have already immigrated.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3645bf5baa7124b161fbfacf20680266",
"text": "ional global society immigration minorities house believes nations world should Those who are being ‘drained’ from the source countries are those who are more highly skilled and so in less need of protections in the first place as these people are leaving to find much more highly skilled and therefore highly paid jobs. The ‘brain drain’ may not be a drain at all, either on the source countries or the receiving country. In fact the ‘brain drain’ might be better considered as a ‘brain gain’. This is because the lure of migration means that individuals are much more likely to increase their education or learn skills with the intention of migrating. This decision to increase their human capital is a decision that would not have been made if the possibility of migration was not present. Of course in the short term much of this gain will migrate abroad as intended some will not and others will return home later. The result is therefore that both the source country and the receiving country have more highly skilled workforces. [1]\n\n[1] Stark, Oded, ‘The New Economics of the Brain Drain’, World Economics, Vol 6, No. 2, April – June 2005, pp.137-140, p.137/8, http://ostark.uni-klu.ac.at/publications/2005/THE%20NEW%20ECONOMICS%20OF%20THE%20BRAIN%20DRAIN%20World%20Economics%20Vol.%206%20No.%202%20April-June%202005_neu.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "84e19b54c5f46a20f779aa1a2e8e1658",
"text": "ional global society immigration minorities house believes nations world should The proposed right of family reunification is too much of a burden on receiving countries, making it an obstacle to a migrant rights treaty. Indeed, states have levelled as an argument against the Migrant Workers Convention, and against other possible international migrant treaties, concerns about a robust right of family reunification to all migrant workers present in migrant-receiving countries. This could offer family members a right to migrate into the state in question, resulting in large increases in population size. And, there is no doubt that the text of the Migrant Workers Convention aims to create a \"right\" to family reunification. Even if it provides flexibility on how a nation attempts to facilitate reunification, it still requires that states reunite families in some way. Under this treaty, therefore, any migrant could sue the state for not allowing his family (and perhaps extended family) to immigrate as well. In overpopulated and strained migrant-receiving countries, particularly in Western Europe, such a proposition is untenable, which is why so many migrant-receiving nations oppose the treaty.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "920cb640113f6320ae2cdad9b298531a",
"text": "ional global society immigration minorities house believes nations world should In most democratic, developed countries—which are those that receive the most immigrants—people share equal rights in the workplace, as long as they immigrated legally. People who broke the law to come to the country do not deserve these rights. Because they usually come to work, the workplace is even the ideal place to discover illegal immigrants. Not only are they not allowed to unionize, but they are not allowed to get paid. Workplace rights do not need to be strengthened for legal migrants, and they should not be for illegal migrants. Similarly it is impossible for the conditions for illegal migrants to be improved; if they are found they will be deported and so there is no need to improve their conditions, although of course they should be well treated while in the process of deportation. Moreover improving minimum conditions would be counterproductive as they would attract more migrants to immigrate illegally knowing that they will get minimum living conditions that may well be considerably better than those that they had in their home country.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b962304c7f4ba5920f21d6a8590bc86",
"text": "ional global society immigration minorities house believes nations world should Migration puts too heavy a burden on receiving countries, and it essentially means giving up on source countries. It is not a mechanism of the market, but rather an unfair system of taking money from taxpayers in certain countries and giving it to people other countries, this money is then sent abroad and spend abroad resulting in a net loss to the economy. Not all migration is bad, but legislation that would protect the right of immigrants to send money home would solidify this unfair system. Remittances are a short-term fix. If migrants are not allowed to send home remittances, it is possible that the most skilled workers would stay in their home country and work to rebuild the economy for the long-term.\n\nThe supposed intangible benefit to receiving countries of “innovation and invention” is much less important than the real cost that these countries feel as a result from the unemployment and increased cost of health, education, and welfare systems that migrants cause.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2983052f04c620aa1b2afa101af16b37",
"text": "ional global society immigration minorities house believes nations world should The receiving countries would not accept a regulatory body. The current international regulatory bodies such as the WTO and World Bank are essentially run by the rich countries for the benefit of the rich countries and so they accept it. Any body regulating migrants’ rights would, however, be doing the opposite-- benefiting the poorest -- meaning the rich countries would try to prevent the creation of such an organisation.\n\nIn the unlikely event that the regulatory body could be created it would face a gargantuan task. How could global migration be monitored and regulated by an international body when even national bodies in rich countries are not able to keep track of all migrants in their nations? Yet the international body would also have to monitor the conditions of migrants in many much poorer countries where the infrastructure currently does not exist.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "db217489e4e966ee9503765bc3c8fdda",
"text": "ional global society immigration minorities house believes nations world should Migrant rights are already protected under human rights law. If a nation violates existing international human rights law against a migrant, perhaps with exploitative working conditions, wrongful imprisonment, seizure of property, discrimination, or violence, existing international law already adequately protects them. There is no need to expand human rights law to create a separate category and separate protections for migrants. Even if the international community decided it wanted to better protect the human rights of migrants, an international treaty will not necessarily advance that cause, as international law has proven to be very difficult to enforce. This will continue to be a problem into the foreseeable future.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "71dc94a2cd3ff272f2cea20d551800d0",
"text": "ional global society immigration minorities house believes nations world should Protection of migrants causes “brain drain,” which further damages the economies of source countries.\n\nThe countries from which workers emigrate often struggle from failing economies, and through migration they can lose their most skilled workers, who are needed at home to turn their economy around. Strengthened protections of migrants would further incentivize migration, and so brain drain would become more of a problem. India for example has seen more than 300,000 people migrate to the United States and more than 75% of these migrants had a tertiary education [1] meaning the vast majority of these migrants were among the most educated from a country where only 7% of the population is able to goes to university. [2]\n\n[1] Carrington, William J., and Detragiache, Enrica, ‘How Extensive is the Brain Drain?’, Finance and Development, Volume 36, No. 2, June 1999, http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/1999/06/carringt.htm\n\n[2] ‘When More Is Worse’, Newsweek, 8 August 2008, http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/08/09/when-more-is-worse.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6ea199bc13cf9a5637bb075f85835156",
"text": "ional global society immigration minorities house believes nations world should Migration policy should be crafted on a state-by-state basis, allowing countries to protect their national identities.\n\nEvery state has different issues and problems related to migration. There is no monolithic economic and social crisis facing migrants around the globe. It is inappropriate, therefore, to call for all nations to improve their protections in some standard manner. Instead, immigration policy and even rights need to be approached on a case-by-case, nation-by-nation basis.\n\nThis approach would allow each state to pass a law that fits its needs, particularly those of protecting its national identity, which is a concern international law cannot approach. Maintaining an original ethnic and cultural structure is important to many states, especially those that are populated by one ethnic group. Is Israel, for example, wrong to term itself a \"Jewish state\"? There is nothing inherently wrong with its efforts to maintain this identity, even if that effort constrains the expansion of migrant rights.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a6aa2803432b530a1f3dd0997269f651",
"text": "ional global society immigration minorities house believes nations world should Protections of migrants will hurt the economies of receiving countries by overcrowding them and taking away jobs from citizens.\n\nIncreasing protections of migrant rights has the general effect of increasing migration. Indeed, one policy goal of many migrant rights activists is for open borders and free and unrestricted migration across them. A right to family reunification would also increase migration. This can be problematic in many countries. It may worsen overpopulation problems, increase tensions between ethnic and/or religious groups, and raise unemployment rates. The economies of many receiving countries are barely managing to fight unemployment in the status quo. If migrants receive further protection, they will take more jobs, making it harder for citizens to find employment. Everybody should have the opportunity to work in his home country, but the economic protection of migrants overcrowds receiving countries, driving up unemployment. In America, for example, between 40 and 50 percent of wage-loss among low-skilled workers is caused by immigration, and around 1,880,000 American workers lose their jobs every year because of immigration. [1] In addition to unemployment problems, overcrowding can have a variety of negative consequences affecting air pollution, traffic, sanitation, and quality of life. So, why are migrants deserving of \"protection\"? It should be the other way around: the national workers of a state deserve protection from migrant workers and the jobs they are taking.\n\n[1] Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform, “Economic Costs.” http://www.cairco.org/econ/econ.html .\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "782441ebf5661969bb619dbcd2e37f6d",
"text": "ional global society immigration minorities house believes nations world should Universal migrant “protections” are an affront to state sovereignty.\n\nInternational law, like the U.N. Migrant Rights Convention, and any international regulatory body that requires the nations of the world to increase protections for migrants would be a violation of state sovereignty. Not all international law is necessarily bad, but these protections go too far, because they force a huge burden on certain nations, and not others. It is fair for an international body to say that all nations should treat their citizens with equality and respect, but it is not fair to say that certain countries should have to provide for many citizens from less-well-off ones.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a009443289950a43c2be3ad7ef4b0347",
"text": "ional global society immigration minorities house believes nations world should Migrants ought to have a right to family reunification.\n\nThe right to family is widely recognized as an essential human right. Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that the family is the fundamental unit of society. Within the right to family is the right to family reunification for migrants who are separated from their loved ones. The Human Rights Education Associates argue, “states are obliged to facilitate contacts and deal with requests to enter or leave a state party for the purpose of reunification in a humane and expeditious manner.” [1] This right is especially important for refugees, who have often been torn from their families by force, and although they have not been separated by force economic migrants are also separated from their families and at the very least should be able to visit their families, and it is not granted by many countries.\n\n[1] Asmita Naik, “The Right to Family,” Human Rights Education Associates,” Accessed June 30, 2011, http://www.hrea.org/index.php?doc_id=425 .\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ccfbbfb959cd0e65c8ca04b292d0a5a3",
"text": "ional global society immigration minorities house believes nations world should Economic and social protections prevent the exploitation of migrants.\n\nMigrants face a number of challenges when they reach their destination, such as finding housing and in integrating into the workforce, and the opportunities to exploit them can be dangerous. According to Dr Tasneem Siddiqui, \"In 1929, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) identified the migrant workers as the most vulnerable group in the world. Seventy years have elapsed since then, but they still belong to that group.\" [1]\n\nThis is something that the U.N. Convention attempts to address creating specific changes in many countries that would make migrants less vulnerable. For example, in all of the Gulf States, migrants are prohibited or at least restricted from “participation in independent trade union activities.” [2] Protecting the right to unionize, as the U.N. Convention does with Article 40(1), allows migrants to fight for their own rights in the workplace, allowing migrants to fight and ensure their own rights is the best way to ensure that they will be protected in the long-term.\n\nMigrants have the same fundamental rights as any other segment of the population as recognised by all states when they signed the universal declaration of human rights. Yet while migrants often initially migrate due to the dream of a better life they often find themselves in terrible living conditions, even in developed countries like Britain they often end up in what are essentially shanty towns, in London for example even if they manage to stay off the streets many new immigrants are housed in sheds and garages. [3] All governments should recognise their responsibility to ensure the minimum rights of migrants when it comes to shelter, education, and health are protected.\n\n[1] Daily Star, “Ratify UN convention on migrant workers’ rights,” May 3, 2009, http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=86583 .\n\n[2] Human Rights Watch, “Saudi Arabia/GCC States.”\n\n[3] Rogers, Chris, ‘The illegal immigrants desperate to escape squalor of Britain’, BBC News, 28 February 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17183171\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a3b69f9ad1c19b5e8735ec4a2b20e4b",
"text": "ional global society immigration minorities house believes nations world should An international regulatory body should exist for global migration.\n\nWith an international regulatory body, states would be held accountable for protecting migrant rights, and migrant policies and protections would be better coordinated. The international community has created a number of regulatory bodies that have helped the global economy adapt to rising globalization, such as the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. Migration is an essential part of globalization, but there is no international body regulating the flow of workers around the world. Jason Deparle of the New York Times writes, “The most personal and perilous form of movement is the most unregulated. States make (and often ignore) their own rules, deciding who can come, how long they stay, and what rights they enjoy.\" [1] Because migrant rights are a growing problem and an essential part of globalization, an international regulatory body would be an effective way of improving human rights around the world.\n\n[1] Deparle, \"Global Migration.” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/27/weekinreview/27deparle.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "02eb38c17b287698b9afef582f7bc6d7",
"text": "ional global society immigration minorities house believes nations world should Further protections are required to grant migrants full human rights.\n\nUnless migrants receive equal social and economic rights, they will never be seen as equal in a human sense. According to Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has the right to leave or enter a country, as well as to move within it (internal migration). This freedom of movement is often not granted under current laws.\n\nHuman rights also include fair treatment under the welfare state, and increased economic protections for migrants is necessary in many states for them to receive such treatment. Without this equal treatment, common myths about migrants will continue to be widely believed. These myths claim that immigrants are criminals and that they steal jobs from natives. The organization Migrant Rights says, “All these myths rob migrant workers and refugees of their humanity, and are aimed at portraying them as less deserving of our sympathy and help.” [1]\n\nIt is a violation of migrants’ human rights to be treated this way, and they will only be seen as equals when they are granted economic protection that allows them to work alongside natives.\n\n[1] Migrant Rights, \"Fact-checking the Israeli government’s incitement against migrants and refugees,\" October 1st, 2010 , accessed June 30, 2011, http://www.migrant-rights.org/2010/10/01/fact-checking-the-israeli-gover... .\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d5992db8c2390db32d18b6bc7f5eb215",
"text": "ional global society immigration minorities house believes nations world should Protections would benefit the economies of receiving as well as source countries.\n\nEconomic protections are not only good for the migrants themselves, but they benefit all countries involved. Migrants move from countries that have a lot of workers but not a lot work available, to countries with a lot of work available, but not enough workers. Migration is a market mechanism, and it is perhaps the most important aspect of globalization.\n\nThe growth of the world’s great economies has relied throughout history on the innovation and invention of immigrants. This is particularly the case in the United States, which is famously a nation of immigrants, where the architect of the Apollo program Wernher von Braun immigrated from Germany and Alexander Graham Bell the inventor of the telephone was born in Scotland. More recently immigration has been instrumental in the success of Silicon Valley co-founder of Google Sergey Brin is Russian born while the co-founder of Yahoo Jerry Yang came from Taiwan. [1] The new perspective brought by migrants leads to new breakthroughs, which are some of the most important benefits to receiving countries from migration. The exploitation of migrant workers that exists in the status quo creates tensions and prejudices that hamper this essential creative ability of migrants in the workplace.\n\nSource countries are equally aided by migration. Able workers who would be unemployed in their home land are able to work in a new country, and then send money—“remittances”—back to their families. Migrants sent home $317 billion in remittances in 2009, which is three times the world’s total foreign aid, and in at least seven countries this money accounted for more than a quarter of the gross domestic product. [2] One of the important goals of migrant rights is to protect these remittances, and thus to protect the economies of source countries that require them to survive.\n\nIrene Khan shows that migrant protections are important for everybody involved: \"When business exploits irregular migrants, it distorts the economy, creates social tensions, feeds racial prejudice and impedes prospects for regular migration. Protecting the rights of migrant workers -- regular and irregular -- makes good economic and political sense for all countries -- whether source, destination or transit.\" [3] Both sides are likely to benefit more if migrants are welcomed and allowed to join the formal economy; they will be better able to work, they will pay taxes and national insurance to the host country and they themselves will be more secure so will be able to send more home. This benefit to the source state could be even greater if the benefits from paying national insurance were made portable and continue to be paid when they return.\n\n[1] Marcus Wohlson, ‘Immigration chief seeks to reassure Silicon Valley’, USA Today, 22 February 2012, http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/story/2012-02-22/silicon-valley-tech-i...\n\n[2] Human Rights Watch, \"Saudi Arabia/GCC States: Ratify Migrant Rights Treaty,\" April 10th, 2003 , http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2003/04/10/saudi-arabiagcc-states-ratify-migr... .\n\n[3] Irene Khan, \"Invisible people, irregular migrants,\" The Daily Star, June 7th, 2010 , http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=141601 .\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
3957c1bae770a3f70ac83b68549973a3
|
Migrants need to learn the language to improve job prospects
An immigrant that studies in the local language will be a citizen that is better integrated in the society, respected by the natives and with more economic opportunities. First of all, we have to acknowledge that going to a school for natives will permit the development of personal relations with people that are not from the same community community. Interaction will be possible with everybody in school and in the country. The first step towards becoming friends with someone is by understanding them. This is only possible if they can communicate properly in a single language. Secondly, the native language is necessary for most jobs. Jobs require interaction with natives and ability to discuss and work alongside co-workers. Immigrants are forced most of the time to do low-skilled jobs like working in constructions or agriculture because they are not able to speak the local language, though even in these sectors language skills would be useful. By promoting mother tongue education this problem will exacerbated. Language proficiency for immigrants that are trying to find a job in the United Kingdom increases employment probabilities by 17% to 22% and gives them an earning advantage of 18-20%. [1] Getting a new job is already hard, so why should the state through its education policy wish to damage the chances of immigrants of finding one that requires them to know the language of the country they are in?
[1] Dustmann. Christian, and Fabbri, Francesca, ‘Language proficiency and labour market performance of immigrants in the UK’, The Economic Journal, Vol.113, July 2003, pp.695-717 http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctpb21/Cpapers/languageproficiency.pdf , p.707
|
[
{
"docid": "e5efff599f26590cb58093c28e85095a",
"text": "n education general society immigration minorities house would stimulate or The simple premise of this argument is wrong. Immigrants are not discriminated by the fact that they don’t know the language. Discrimination is much more often a matter of skin color, religion and social background. Mexicans in the United States, at least American citizens of Mexican origins know very well how to speak English but they are still discriminated by the majority population. This shows in the unemployment statistics. In 2011, while the rate of unemployment for Whites was 7.9%, the jobless rate was 11.5% for Hispanics. [1]\n\nThe link between language and low skilled jobs is also open to question. Immigrants are not finding these jobs because they don’t speak the native language but because these are the jobs the natives don’t want. There is a demand for labor that the native population will not fulfill. Less fussy migrants however are more willing. These are also likely to be the jobs that the migrants have done in the past if coming from less developed countries so they have the relevant skillset. On the other hand where the migrant is skilled they will go into a job that suits those skills.\n\n[1] ‘Labour Force Characteristics by Race and Ethnicity, 2011’, U.S. Bureau of Labor, August 2012, http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsrace2011.pdf\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "0f48e30d95f7a3c330dd0347d38bbc06",
"text": "n education general society immigration minorities house would stimulate or The premise that states that second generation immigrants lack incentive to learn the local language is flawed. Although they might choose to learn in their mother tongue, they will still have a big incentive to learn the local language. Learning the language of the country in which they live will provide to them more opportunities and better integration. Those who find they don’t know the language will take courses to learn the language of the country in which they reside. Most certainly, their friends will not only be from their own community so they will feel obliged to talk German, or English or French. The example of Papua simply shows this is the case; promoting a national language is not incompatible with learning in another language.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "457598d9bf7d862686860eeefe1b1b1a",
"text": "n education general society immigration minorities house would stimulate or It is wrong to assume that people who can’t speak the language will not be able to access government services; the government also provides interpreters. For example in the United States and Canada, interpreters are trained and paid by the health authority to address the problems of large immigrant groups. In Ottawa, you additionally have the option of hiring interpreters from local agencies. [1]\n\n[1] Taylor, Louisa, ‘For immigrants, language barrier is a health barrier’, The Ottowa Citizen, 27 April 2012, http://www.ottawacitizen.com/health/immigrants+language+barrier+health+barrier/6207455/story.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5cb6282f622768673fa758a2ea55763",
"text": "n education general society immigration minorities house would stimulate or This idea is rather flawed if you decide to take into consideration the whole aspect of one’s life. This just kicks the communication problem down the road when it needs to be dealt with early rather than essentially discouraging the child from learning the language until they have to get a job.\n\nIt is also in many cases likely to be wrong; the child will already have started learning the language of the country in which they are living. Even if the father and the mother are only able to talk their first language, kids go to nursery school or have child minders because their parents have to work. A perfect example would be the one of Mexicans in the United States. Two-thirds of Mexican-origin Hispanics ages 5 and older speak English proficiently. More than that, about nine-in-then native-born Mexicans speak English proficiently. [1] The whole idea of parents not being able to talk the local language might be true for first generation immigrants, but not for others. Even when the grasp of the language is less than perfect school is the obvious place to learn it.\n\n[1] Gonzalez-Barrera, Ana, and Lopez, Mark Hugo, ‘A Demographic Portrait of Mexican Origin Hispanics in the United States’, PewResearch, 1 May 2013, http://www.pewhispanic.org/2013/05/01/a-demographic-portrait-of-mexican-origin-hispanics-in-the-united-states/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2857f11bfe9563dee37dadb6565db673",
"text": "n education general society immigration minorities house would stimulate or Actively promoting mother-tongue education for immigrants that are part of a large group will create a segregated society in which people are not able to communicate and relate one to another. Integration will be harder to achieve in these conditions - the state may gain some goodwill from the concession but it is unlikely to last. The difficulty in communicating with the state, even for everyday tasks such a doctor’s appointment, will surely sour relations more. Different languages create a segregated society in which foreigners are not able to integrate.\n\nSecondly, diplomacy and trade matters have no connection with the way immigrants are treated on a minor issue like this. Those immigrants who want to trade and promote links between their old home and their new one will continue to do so regardless.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "17dcace5ae33a451a80aa1dc13412b5f",
"text": "n education general society immigration minorities house would stimulate or The idea that immigrants that are part of large groups are not able to conserve their language and culture without the help of the foreign state is flawed.\n\nFirst of all, on the broadest level large immigrant groups come from countries with big population and their culture or language is not in danger of any kind. Just to take a couple of examples, Turkey has almost a 76 million population, while Mexico has a population of almost 120 million.\n\nSecondly, there is no clear link between education in the mother tongue and the willingness of the people to conserve their own culture. Those who are educated in the language of the culture in which they are living are just as likely to be interested about their roots and culture as those in their mother tongue.\n\nThirdly while there may be a link between language and thought does this extend on to culture; are Japanese unable to enjoy and take part in Taiko drumming if they don’t speak the language as well as the language of their host nation? Only in a few areas, like literature is it vital and if someone is interested in the literature of their mother country they will learn the language as a part of that interest.\n\nFinally this assumes that all immigrants should desire to preserve their own culture rather than partake in the culture of the country to which they have migrated. Integration is the best solution. In order to achieve integration for large immigrant groups you need to convince them to be opened towards your national culture and language and not make them learn in their mother tongue.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5f1b2cc4f259ed7d0cdf8cbb3c431287",
"text": "n education general society immigration minorities house would stimulate or The state has indeed certain obligations towards the immigrant groups both to individuals and if they represent a large part of the population to the group. Once you leave your country, you are no longer under the legislation of the country. You decide to sign a new social contract with the country that you emigrated to and therefore you are under their jurisdiction, obliged to respect their laws. Minority rights are respected in the sense that immigrants are not obliged to use the local language everywhere and at any time. You are still able to use your mother tongue language to talk to your family, your foreign friends and other people from the same country. These are the fundamentals and there are cases where linguistic rights are not respected, where the minority population is forbidden to talk or write in their mother tongue. This was the case if Turkey which forbade Kurds to speak their native language until 1991. [1] While these rights should be respected there is not ‘right’ for the state to provide, or subsidize, education in languages that are not the official language of the state. If large minority groups wish to provide such education that is their prerogative.\n\n[1] Akreyi, Minhaj, ‘19th Century mentality in 21st Century: Kurdish language still banned in Turkey’, Alliance for Kurdish Rights, 12 March 2011, http://kurdishrights.org/2011/03/12/19th-century-mentality-in-21st-century-kurdish-language-still-banned-in-turkey/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac0b766a2ee1bf445de26822e1e82852",
"text": "n education general society immigration minorities house would stimulate or Services offered the government cannot be used if the user does not know the language\n\nAnyone who does not know the native of the place where they reside will find themselves having problems with health-care, job centers or the taxman because they are not able to understand or communicate with these people. It doesn’t matter where you live, as a citizen you will have to use different services provided by the government. A good example will be hospitals. Hospital staff are unlikely to know the immigrant’s language so making communication difficult, a problem exacerbated by all the specialized language that may be required. Being incapable of telling your doctor what the problem is or not being able to tell a police officer what happened may have devastating consequences. Sarah Bowen, a professor at the University of Alberta and expert on access to health care believes that language is the most important barrier preventing some immigrants from staying healthy. [1] This is a barrier that remains if a little of the native language has been learnt because it is still unclear if there is mutual understanding when communicating. It is therefore clear that second generation immigrants need to be taught in the language of everyday life in the country in which they live rather than just learning it on the side as a ‘foreign’ language.\n\n[1] ‘For newcomers, language is the most important barrier to staying healthy’, Canadian Immigrant, 27 February 2012, http://canadianimmigrant.ca/news-and-views/for-newcomers-language-is-most-important-barrier-in-staying-healthy\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5117a9a3c5e1c723e97ccdaf6f8526a",
"text": "n education general society immigration minorities house would stimulate or A common language is necessary for a unified national community\n\nThe moment when the governments starts subsidizing mother tongue education for large immigrant groups is the moment when they will lose any incentive to learn the local language. Because most of these children do not interact with the local language until the age they should go to school, under the proposition plan they will not interact with it at all and therefore creating a major gap between native population and immigrants. A common language represents a unifying framework under which a state can function properly by promoting mutual help and understanding inside the population. [1] When people talk different languages, there is no unifying framework and the state as a whole loses its ability to promote unity within its borders. This is the case of Papua New Guinea where there is no central authority. The tribes live separately and are not able to one with another because there are over 800 different languages spoken at this moment in the country. [2] As a result during the post-colonization era efforts were made to create and promote a common language to help trade and understanding between tribes. The language that was called Tok Plsin is now the most widely spoken language in the country and one of the three official languages. [3] Because mutual-help and overall social stability can be achieved only with a strong communication between different parties, promoting mother tongue language for immigrants will only slow the road towards progress.\n\n[1] Center for Child Well Being, ‘The Importance of Language’, education.com, 15 July 2013, http://www.education.com/reference/article/Ref_Importance_Language/\n\n[2] ‘Papua New Guinea’s tribes and traditions’, The Telegraph, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/picturegalleries/7196218/Papua-New-Guineas-tribes-and-traditions.html\n\n[3] Siegel, Jeff, ‘Tok Pisin’, Hawaii.edu, http://www.hawaii.edu/satocenter/langnet/definitions/tokpisin.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ecc267164947aa6912cb21b6e9b87883",
"text": "n education general society immigration minorities house would stimulate or Educating in their mother tongue is the best option for children’s education\n\nBecause parents that are immigrants teach their kids only the mother tongue, at the age in which they should go to school they barely know the local language. Their parents sometimes don’t know the language of the country that they live in and other times they choose not to use it at home. Therefore, at the age when children have to go to school, they have little or no interaction with the language of the country they live in. In the United States, 72% of immigrant families speak a language other than English at home and 26% live in households where no one has a strong command of the English language. [1] This simply hands over the problem of language to the school damaging education across all subjects. This is because the children will not be able to communicate with other kids in school or understand what the teacher is saying. Because of the exclusion that the immigrants feel when going to school and the fact that they are not able to understand much of what is taught, they choose to leave school early. 70% of Turkish children in Germany have no General Certificate of Secondary Education [2] ; as they leave before completing secondary school. By far the most sensible way to solve this problem is to send these children to a school where they do understand the language in which they are being taught.\n\n[1] Shields, Margie K., and Behrman, Richard E., ‘Challenges Faced by Children of Immigrants’, Children of Immigrant Families, Vol.14, No.2, Summer 2004, http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=39&articleid=123&sectionid=808\n\n[2] Greenfield, Daniel, ‘80% of Turkish Muslim Settlers in Germany Live off Welfare’, Frontpage Mag, 31 March 2013, http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/80-of-turkish-muslim-settlers-in-germany-live-off-welfare/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b813710fc8890ff4182e368a154269ab",
"text": "n education general society immigration minorities house would stimulate or Conserving languages and immigrant community cultures\n\nBeing able to learn and teach in our own language will preserve the culture of large immigrant groups as part of another state, this is both good for that community and for the nation. For the community and the individual speaking and learning their own language will give immigrants a sense of belonging. They are part of a community that they know and understand because it speaks the same language even before they come to know the rest of the country. This provides security, belonging, and close contact with relatives. For the community it means keeping their own customs and identity alive, in a few cases this may actually be contributing to conserving a language. For the country as a whole this does not represent a threat as there can be many different levels of identity that all intermix. Instead it provides an opportunity; it diversifies the country. It gains the benefit of a different perspective on problems and new ideas as people who speak different languages think about things in different ways so it is useful for innovation to have many different communities brought up in different languages interacting. [1] It also gains from having another culture add diversity to its own; there are new festivals, concerts, art, and perhaps most commonly encountered a greater diversity of cuisines to be sampled through restaurants.\n\n[1] Bordoditsky, Lera, ‘Lost in Translation’, The Wall St Journal, 23 July 2010, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703467304575383131592767868.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c45887ab1342c402f8692a28b05872c",
"text": "n education general society immigration minorities house would stimulate or Minorities deserve linguistic rights\n\nEveryone should have the right to communicate in their own mother tongue so enabling them to maintain their roots with their mother country. In a world of change, where people are able to move their residence from a country to another country, protecting minority rights becomes necessary. Some migrations are historically and economically driven, take place over decades, and involve large numbers. For example, an estimated 33.7 million Hispanics of Mexican origin live in the United States, with 11.4 million immigrants born in Mexico, accounting for almost 3.5% of the US population [1] . In Europe, a lot of migration there have been successive waves of migration, as a result of World War II, the end of empires, economic boom and the European Union. To take Germany first there was an influx from lands Germany lost as a result of the war, of Turks to help power the economic miracle meaning that now more that 2.6 million Turks live in Germany [2] , and recently there has been an influx from Eastern and Southern Europe as Germany’s economy has held up in the Economic crisis. Each wave, or group of immigrants, forms a distinct community within their host nation. There is no reason why these groups should be forced to entirely give up their old identity as they embrace a new identity as a part of their host nation. Just as every human has rights so does every immigrant. Part of these rights should be education in the mother tongue. Language is what connects people and makes them able to communicate their feelings, emotions and ideas. A person should be able to communicate and express ideas in its own mother tongue in order to be able to create a connection with their family and the immigrant community that they live in.\n\n[1] Gonzalez-Barrera, Ana, and Lopez, Mark Hugo, ‘A Demographic Portrait of Mexican Origin Hispanics in the United States’, PewResearch, 1 May 2013, http://www.pewhispanic.org/2013/05/01/a-demographic-portrait-of-mexican-origin-hispanics-in-the-united-states/\n\n[2] The Economist, ‘Two unamalgamated worlds’, 3 April 2008, http://www.economist.com/node/10958534\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a60b3757bae59eff45fcd3af254bb64",
"text": "n education general society immigration minorities house would stimulate or This policy would benefit the state and provide trade\n\nIf the government decides to promote mother tongue education for large immigrant groups it will be enhancing mutual understanding between its own population and another nation as the immigrants provide a go between. The state will send a positive message towards the large immigrant groups by allowing them to study in their first language. It will acknowledge the importance of such groups in the national society by providing this additional opportunity. The importance of cooperation between immigrant groups and the state is often recognized, for example in combating extremism, this kind of measure encourages such cooperation as it brings with it the good will of the immigrant community.\n\nOn the other hand, promoting diversity will promote understanding between countries. A favorable treatment towards the large immigrant groups will be seen positively by the country the immigrants come from. Having migrants creates a link between the two countries. This may produce clear advantages for both parties, in the form of collaboration, diplomacy and trade. The effect of migrants on trade is often ignored but studies have shown that in the case of Spain from 1995-2008 exports are boosted by having immigrant communities; “doubling the number of immigrants from a certain country in a province leads to an increase of the export values from the destination province to the country of the immigrants’ origin by around 10%.” The reason was because new exporting firms are created – immigrants know the conditions in their own country so can access that market, something that would be impossible without a native understanding of the language. [1]\n\n[1] Peri, Giovanni, and Requena-Silvente, Francisco, ‘Do immigrants create exports? Evidence from Spain’, VOX, 26 January 2010, http://www.voxeu.org/article/do-immigrants-create-exports-new-evidence-spain\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
0d8f110effec747ecc2cdef2f73532c3
|
The U.N. Convention is the best available mechanism for addressing the widespread problem of migrant rights.
Because the issue of migrant rights is a global one, concerned with human rights and the domestic and international actions of states, a U.N. convention is an appropriate solution. The U.N. is the best body to act because although the situation for migrant workers may be slightly different in each state, there are basic rights that they all deserve. In addition, even if each state sought individually to protect migrant rights, they might not be able to, because governing migration takes coordination between states. With international legislation, states would be held accountable for protecting migrant rights; and, migrant policies and protections would be better coordinated. The international community has helped the global economy adapt to rising globalization, with such bodies as the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. Migration is an essential part of globalization, but there is no international body regulating the flow of workers around the world. Jason Deparle of the New York Times writes, “The most personal and perilous form of movement is the most unregulated. States make (and often ignore) their own rules, deciding who can come, how long they stay, and what rights they enjoy." [1] The U.N. Convention would fill this gap.
Indeed, the U.N.’s solution to regulate migration represents a reasonable and thorough approach. It is reasonable because it does not ask too much of states, requiring only that they provide migrants with basic rights. It is thorough because it provides protection for each of the many challenges and injustices facing migrant workers. Because migrant rights are a growing problem and an essential part of globalization, an international regulatory body would be an effective way of improving human rights around the world.
[1] Deparle, Jason. "Global Migration: A World Ever More on the Move," New York Times. June 26, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/27/weekinreview/27deparle.html
|
[
{
"docid": "c91b2a86cafb4e0db33e6adbb873de4e",
"text": "immigration minorities all states should immediately ratify un convention rights Even if the international community decided it wanted to better protect the human rights of migrants, an international treaty will not necessarily advance that cause, as international law has proven to be very difficult to enforce. This will continue to be a problem into the foreseeable future.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "47298bb11cc3c2e4109e5d4492df2d8e",
"text": "immigration minorities all states should immediately ratify un convention rights Even seriously talking about full ratification of the U.N. Convention would actually cause international tensions. This is especially true in the European Union, which has tried to avoid the issue as much as possible. Stanley Pignal, of the Financial Times, calls migration “among the most sensitive topics in any of its 27 member states.” [1] Since its formation when it allowed for internal migration, the European Union has tried to avoid this difficult issue. Many of the protections that are proposed are very unpopular there, as well as in the United States. These include particularly the right of family reunification, and any measures that clear a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Even broaching the topic of the Convention would cause diplomatic fights between many of the world’s leading countries, who must stay friendly in order to keep a state of peace.\n\n[1] Stanley Pignal, \"EU faces threat to migration principle,\" Financial Times,September 28 2010 , http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/46e8fc58-cb24-11df-95c0-00144feab49a.html .\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f49e4123d14b76b9ce804a89d28514ba",
"text": "immigration minorities all states should immediately ratify un convention rights Migration puts too heavy a burden on receiving countries, and it essentially means giving up on source countries. It is not a mechanism of the market, but rather an unfair system that takes money from taxpayers in certain countries and gives it to people in other countries. Not all aspects of migration are bad, but in addition to its workplace protections, the U.N. Convention would protect the right of immigrants to send money home. This would solidify the current unfair system (Article 47). Remittances are a short-term fix that come at a high cost for receiving and source countries. If migrants are not allowed to send home remittances, it is possible that the most skilled workers would stay in their home country and work to rebuild the economy for the long-term.\n\nThe supposed intangible benefit of “innovation and invention” is much less important than the real cost that these countries feel as a result from the unemployment and increased cost of health, education, and welfare systems that migrants cause.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20d428438f54556d488560defbdde4a7",
"text": "immigration minorities all states should immediately ratify un convention rights In most democratic, developed countries—which are those that receive the most immigrants—all people share equal rights in the workplace, as long as they immigrated legally. The workplace protections in the U.N. Convention that only apply to legal migrants. Ratifying the Convention would thus not make much positive change for migrant workers around the world.\n\nThe workplace protections in the U.N. Convention that apply to illegal immigrants are unjust, as migrants surrender the right to work when they come to a country illegally. Article 26, which provides the right to unionize, applies to all migrant workers, but countries cannot be expected to grant illegal immigrants these powers. People who broke the law to come to the country do not deserve these rights. In fact, because they usually come to work, the workplace is the ideal place to discover illegal immigrants. Not only are they not allowed to unionize, but they are not allowed to get paid. Workplace rights do not need to be strengthened for legal migrants, and they should not be for illegal migrants.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c93dae85b6fefa0798cc9b2290c44f8c",
"text": "immigration minorities all states should immediately ratify un convention rights Migration is a problem; not migrant rights. Migrant rights are already protected under human rights law. If a nation violates existing international human rights law against a migrant, perhaps with exploitative working conditions, wrongful imprisonment, seizure of property, discrimination, or violence, existing international law already adequately protects them. There is no need to expand human rights law to create a separate category and separate protections for migrants.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "64cc087bd1c13e95283fc032b8ddf6b2",
"text": "immigration minorities all states should immediately ratify un convention rights There is plenty of international law on the books, and it is legitimate when it protects rights that ought to be universal for the individual, no matter what country you are in. The right to have a family is not a Chilean right, or a German right, or a Malaysian right; it is a human right. As is the right to work without being harassed. The huge increase in migration over the past two decades shows that individual well-being has developed into a more important concern in the world today than state sovereignty. Migrant protections are moral because they reflect this change.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5dbefb0c1c3f159462cf2f2b66697ab9",
"text": "immigration minorities all states should immediately ratify un convention rights While every state may have different issues and problems, the human rights of individuals must be protected by all of them. States may choose to protect their national identity and tradition through museums and festivals and other cultural institutions; it is not necessary that they keep migrants out, or suppress those who have already immigrated.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0fb9222dc86524b1ef6b87e00159bfea",
"text": "immigration minorities all states should immediately ratify un convention rights The effect of migration on unemployment is actually positive: it provides cheap labor for receiving countries, and lowers the supply of labor in source countries where employers can often not afford to pay sufficient wages to their workers. The claim that immigrants take jobs away from native citizens is unfounded. In the United States, for example, visa applications for skilled foreign workers are extremely difficult to receive and are limited to a small number of people. Foreign students at U.S. universities even need special authorization to work a summer job. Immigrants cannot undercut U.S. workers wages, taking their job away for less money, because foreign workers must be paid a minimum salary, mandated by law. [1] Even illegal immigrants who do not follow these regulations tend to take very-low-paying jobs that are unwanted by U.S. citizens and that would not otherwise exist.\n\n[1] Farhad Sethna, “Immigrants Don’t Take Away U.S. Jobs!” Immigration Law Blog, July 9, 2009, accessed June 30, 2011, http://blog.immigration-america.com/archives/131 .\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a1e0c5008751265c7e5f64e0480570f7",
"text": "immigration minorities all states should immediately ratify un convention rights While it is true that migrants are poorer than natives, or they would likely not be migrating to that country, it is not the case that they are costly for the receiving country. Immigrants come for a reason; to work. It therefore stands to reason that these people are going to be working and paying taxes. In the US in 2010 the labor force participation rate for foreign born men was 80.1%, much higher than among native born men. They are at the same time likely to be young, and therefore healthy so relatively less of a burden on healthcare, and in many cases leave their families behind so are not a burden on the education system. The typical immigrant in the United States and their descendants represent an $80,000 gain to the government. [1]\n\n[1] Daniel T. Griswold, “Immigration and the Welfare State”, CATO Journal, Vol.32, No.1, Winter 2012, http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/2012... p.163\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f719507e30393ac2d32657f0253ee32",
"text": "immigration minorities all states should immediately ratify un convention rights It is in the nature of international treaties that they represent a compromise, if it was not a compromise receiving nations were willing to make they should have made changes during the negotiations. However the convention does not impose a heavy burden on states wishing to deport migrants, it simply ensures that their human rights are upheld. Suggestions such as “Migrant workers… who are subjected to any form of detention or imprisonment… shall enjoy the same rights as nationals of those States who are in the same situation.” (Article 17) is simply asking for equality for all rather than allowing the current inequality to continue.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7daa66c275e265e773d5f4686079c570",
"text": "immigration minorities all states should immediately ratify un convention rights Ratifying the U.N. Convention would improve diplomacy between source countries and receiving countries.\n\nMigrant rights is a major diplomatic issue between receiving and source countries, and ratifying the U.N. Convention would improve relations, clearing the way for states to work together to solve other international problems.\n\nThe diplomacy of western liberal states depends on the principle of rights for all, which is somewhat delegitimized by the unresolved issue of migrant rights. The International Federation for Human rights argues, “Non-ratification [of the U.N. Convention of migrant rights] brings the core values of the EU into question.” [1] If receiving countries were to join source countries in strengthening protections for migrants, it would send a message that they are committed to freedom for all citizens of the world, and so it would improve their legitimacy in international diplomacy.\n\n[1] International Federation for Human Rights, \"Europe, It's Time to Ratify the Migrant Workers Convention,\" June 21, 2010 , accessed June 27, http://www.fidh.org/Europe-it-s-time-to-ratify-the-Migrant-Workers .\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aed5c0513bd81bca15bbd7f8728f1153",
"text": "immigration minorities all states should immediately ratify un convention rights Ratifying the U.N. Convention would benefit the economies of the countries that have not yet done so\n\nMigrants face a number of challenges in integrating into a new workforce, and the opportunities to exploit them can be dangerous. These challenges include the right to join unions as well as inhumane working conditions. According to Dr Tasneem Siddiqui, \"In 1929, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) identified migrant workers as the most vulnerable group in the world. Seventy years have elapsed since then, but they still belong to that group.\" [1] Ratifying the U.N. convention would create specific changes in many countries that would finally make migrants less vulnerable. For example, Articles 26 and 40 provide all migrant workers the right to join and form trade unions, which is banned for them in all of the Arab Gulf states. [2] Protecting the right to unionize, allows migrants to fight for their own rights in the workplace, which is the best way to ensure that they will be protected in the long-term.\n\nIn addition to the right to unionize, the Convention ensures, in Article 25, “Migrant workers shall enjoy treatment not less favourable than that which applies to nationals” in the workplace. All states that have not already done so ought to immediately ratify the U.N. Convention so that migrant workers will receive equal treatment in the workplace.\n\n[1] Daily Star, “Ratify U.N. convention on migrant workers’ rights,” May 3, 2009, http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=86583 .\n\n[2] Human Rights Watch. \"Saudi Arabia/GCC States: Ratify Migrant Rights Treaty.\" April 10th, 2003. http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2003/04/10/saudi-arabiagcc-states-ratify-migr... .\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c5c5b4dd6109fd2de2b5953edd430d4f",
"text": "immigration minorities all states should immediately ratify un convention rights Migrants face a growing human-rights problem that needs fixing.\n\nMigrants around the world are often seen as second-class citizens, and this inequality is encouraged by legislation. Unless migrants receive equal social and economic rights, they will never be seen as equal in a human sense. According to Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has the right to leave or enter a country, as well as to move within it (internal migration). This freedom of movement is often not granted under current laws.\n\nHuman rights also include fair treatment under the welfare state, which migrants are often denied. Without this equal treatment, common myths about migrants will continue to be widely believed. These myths claim that immigrants are criminals and that they steal jobs from natives. The organization Migrant Rights says, “All these myths rob migrant workers and refugees of their humanity, and are aimed at portraying them as less deserving of our sympathy and help.” [1]\n\nIt is a violation of migrants’ human rights to be treated this way, and they will only be seen as equals when there is a sweeping change in their legal protections in and between the nations of the world.\n\n[1] Migrant Rights, \"Fact-checking the Israeli government’s incitement against migrants and refugees,\" October 1st, 2010 , accessed June 30, 2011, http://www.migrant-rights.org/2010/10/01/fact-checking-the-israeli-gover... .\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8621aba55030cef10a784d120a24f1ff",
"text": "immigration minorities all states should immediately ratify un convention rights Ratifying the U.N. Convention would benefit the economies of the countries that have not yet done so.\n\nThe economic protections in the U.N. Convention are not only good for migrants themselves; they benefit all countries involved. Migrants move to countries with a lot of work available, but not enough workers. In a globalized world, migration is a market mechanism, and it is perhaps the most important aspect of globalization.\n\nThe growth of the world’s great economies has relied throughout history on the innovation and invention of immigrants. The new perspective brought by migrants leads to new breakthroughs, which are some of the most important benefits to receiving countries from migration. The exploitation of migrant workers that exists in the status quo creates tensions and prejudices that hamper this essential creative ability of migrants in the workplace.\n\nIrene Khan shows that migrant protections are important for everybody involved: \"When business exploits irregular migrants, it distorts the economy, creates social tensions, feeds racial prejudice and impedes prospects for regular migration. Protecting the rights of migrant workers -- regular and irregular -- makes good economic and political sense for all countries -- whether source, destination or transit.\" [1] The U.N. Convention works to combat this exploitation, ensuring equal treatment for migrants in the workplace, and requiring, in many Articles (e.g. Article 17) covering various aspects of political life, that migrants are treated with respect. This will create an atmosphere in which migrants can contribute their invaluable input as well as their low-wage labor, to help boom the economies of the receiving countries that have not yet ratified the Convention.\n\n[1] Irene Khan, \"Invisible people, irregular migrants,\" The Daily Star, June 7th, 2010 , http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=141601 .\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d2e87e2fbfe25c55b56f185a079dc94",
"text": "immigration minorities all states should immediately ratify un convention rights The U.N. Convention would make it harder for states to deport illegal immigrants who broke the law by entering the country.\n\nStates have the right to deport people who entered the country illegally, and the U.N. Convention would make that more difficult. The Convention gives extensive rights even to illegal immigrants, especially in the realm of the justice system (Article 17). Indeed, migrant activists often see deportation policies as immoral. Yet, a state has every right to arrest, imprison, and deport illegal immigrants. When an illegal immigrant commits a crime (in addition to unlawful entry into the country), states are often forced to pay to keep the criminal in prison, rather than deport him. The United States loses half-a-billion dollars each year this way. [1] Ultimately it's a matter of enforcing national laws, sovereignty, and the integrity of a nation's welfare-system.\n\n[1] Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform. \"Economic costs of legal and illegal immigration.\" Accessed June 30, 2011. http://www.cairco.org/econ/econ.html .\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "87b4ee7beea8072f5a162003556972fb",
"text": "immigration minorities all states should immediately ratify un convention rights Receiving countries should not and cannot afford to ratify the U.N. Convention because of the burden it would put on their health, education, and welfare systems.\n\nBecause immigrants are frequently less well off financially, and they sometimes come to a new country illegally, they cost a lot for receiving countries. Therefore it is not practical for countries to grant them the equal access to health, education, and welfare systems, as they would have to under the U.N. Convention. Immigrants make heavy use of social welfare, and often overload public education systems, while frequently not pulling their weight in taxes. Illegal immigrants alone have already cost the United States “billions of taxpayer-funded dollars for medical services. Dozens of hospitals in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, have been forced to close” because they are required by law to provide free emergency room services to illegal immigrants. In addition, half a billion dollars each year are spent to keep illegal immigrant criminals in American prisons. [1] The money spent to build and maintain schools for immigrant children, and to teach them detracts from the education of current schools, existing students, and taxpayers. This is unfair. Increasing social and economic protections and rights for migrants means increasing migration and increasing benefits that migrants receive from societies. This could be a burden that a state's welfare system is not capable of handling.\n\n[1] Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform, \"Economic costs of legal and illegal immigration,\" accessed June 30, 2011, http://www.cairco.org/econ/econ.html .\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "049d7798ecc452d0bc94bcc9d4956fb2",
"text": "immigration minorities all states should immediately ratify un convention rights If states were to ratify the U.N. Convention, many of them would not be able to protect their national identities.\n\nA state-by-state approach would allow each state to pass a law that fits its needs, particularly those of protecting its national identity, which is a concern international law cannot approach. Maintaining an original ethnic and cultural structure is important to many states, especially those that are populated by one ethnic group. Is Israel, for example, wrong to term itself a \"Jewish state\"? There is nothing inherently wrong with its efforts to maintain this identity, even if that effort constrains the expansion of migrant rights.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d09c641d92e15b1c36eccb50664f236",
"text": "immigration minorities all states should immediately ratify un convention rights States should form their own migration policy, because the U.N. Convention violates state sovereignty.\n\nEvery state has different issues and problems related to migration. There is no monolithic economic and social crisis facing migrants around the globe. It is inappropriate, therefore, to call for all nations to ratify a piece of one-size-fits-all legislation, like the U.N. Convention. Instead, immigration policy and migrant rights need to be approached on a case-by-case, nation-by-nation basis.\n\nThe U.N. Convention would violate state sovereignty. Not all international law is necessarily bad, but these protections go too far, because they force a huge burden on certain nations, and not others. It is fair for an international body to say that all nations should treat their citizens with equality and respect, but it is not fair to say that certain countries should have to provide for many additional citizens from less-well-off states. It is not surprising that only source countries have ratified the Convention thus far; that is because those are the countries that would benefit from the changes, at the expense of those countries that are still holding out.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "935deb833b0cfc1a1b674887494e11e5",
"text": "immigration minorities all states should immediately ratify un convention rights Ratifying the U.N. Convention would increase unemployment rates in receiving countries at a time when they are already painfully high\n\nIncreasing protections of migrant rights has the general effect of increasing migration. Article 8 of the U.N. Convention grants all workers the right to leave their state of origin. This implies an obligation of other states to receive them, and so it would protect increased migration. Further, the right to family reunification for documented migrants, found in Article 50, would also increase migration.\n\nThis increase in migration would be problematic in many countries. It could worsen overpopulation problems, increase tensions between ethnic and/or religious groups, and raise unemployment rates. The economies of many receiving countries are barely managing to fight unemployment in the status quo. If migrants receive further protection, they will take more jobs, making it harder for citizens to find employment. Everybody should have the opportunity to work in his home country, but the economic protection of migrants overcrowds receiving countries, driving up unemployment. In America, for example, between 40 and 50 percent of wage-loss among low-skilled workers is caused by immigration, and around 1,880,000 American workers lose their jobs every year because of immigration. [1] In addition to unemployment problems, overcrowding can have a variety of negative consequences affecting air pollution, traffic, sanitation, and quality of life. So, why are migrants deserving of \"protection\"? It should be the other way around: the national workers of a state deserve protection from migrant workers and the jobs they are taking.\n\n[1] Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform. \"Economic costs of legal and illegal immigration.\" Accessed June 30, 2011. http://www.cairco.org/econ/econ.html .\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
00ed315affe2a15d2df0076ed9c64cd3
|
Migrants face a growing human-rights problem that needs fixing.
Migrants around the world are often seen as second-class citizens, and this inequality is encouraged by legislation. Unless migrants receive equal social and economic rights, they will never be seen as equal in a human sense. According to Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has the right to leave or enter a country, as well as to move within it (internal migration). This freedom of movement is often not granted under current laws.
Human rights also include fair treatment under the welfare state, which migrants are often denied. Without this equal treatment, common myths about migrants will continue to be widely believed. These myths claim that immigrants are criminals and that they steal jobs from natives. The organization Migrant Rights says, “All these myths rob migrant workers and refugees of their humanity, and are aimed at portraying them as less deserving of our sympathy and help.” [1]
It is a violation of migrants’ human rights to be treated this way, and they will only be seen as equals when there is a sweeping change in their legal protections in and between the nations of the world.
[1] Migrant Rights, "Fact-checking the Israeli government’s incitement against migrants and refugees," October 1st, 2010 , accessed June 30, 2011, http://www.migrant-rights.org/2010/10/01/fact-checking-the-israeli-gover... .
|
[
{
"docid": "c93dae85b6fefa0798cc9b2290c44f8c",
"text": "immigration minorities all states should immediately ratify un convention rights Migration is a problem; not migrant rights. Migrant rights are already protected under human rights law. If a nation violates existing international human rights law against a migrant, perhaps with exploitative working conditions, wrongful imprisonment, seizure of property, discrimination, or violence, existing international law already adequately protects them. There is no need to expand human rights law to create a separate category and separate protections for migrants.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c91b2a86cafb4e0db33e6adbb873de4e",
"text": "immigration minorities all states should immediately ratify un convention rights Even if the international community decided it wanted to better protect the human rights of migrants, an international treaty will not necessarily advance that cause, as international law has proven to be very difficult to enforce. This will continue to be a problem into the foreseeable future.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47298bb11cc3c2e4109e5d4492df2d8e",
"text": "immigration minorities all states should immediately ratify un convention rights Even seriously talking about full ratification of the U.N. Convention would actually cause international tensions. This is especially true in the European Union, which has tried to avoid the issue as much as possible. Stanley Pignal, of the Financial Times, calls migration “among the most sensitive topics in any of its 27 member states.” [1] Since its formation when it allowed for internal migration, the European Union has tried to avoid this difficult issue. Many of the protections that are proposed are very unpopular there, as well as in the United States. These include particularly the right of family reunification, and any measures that clear a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Even broaching the topic of the Convention would cause diplomatic fights between many of the world’s leading countries, who must stay friendly in order to keep a state of peace.\n\n[1] Stanley Pignal, \"EU faces threat to migration principle,\" Financial Times,September 28 2010 , http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/46e8fc58-cb24-11df-95c0-00144feab49a.html .\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f49e4123d14b76b9ce804a89d28514ba",
"text": "immigration minorities all states should immediately ratify un convention rights Migration puts too heavy a burden on receiving countries, and it essentially means giving up on source countries. It is not a mechanism of the market, but rather an unfair system that takes money from taxpayers in certain countries and gives it to people in other countries. Not all aspects of migration are bad, but in addition to its workplace protections, the U.N. Convention would protect the right of immigrants to send money home. This would solidify the current unfair system (Article 47). Remittances are a short-term fix that come at a high cost for receiving and source countries. If migrants are not allowed to send home remittances, it is possible that the most skilled workers would stay in their home country and work to rebuild the economy for the long-term.\n\nThe supposed intangible benefit of “innovation and invention” is much less important than the real cost that these countries feel as a result from the unemployment and increased cost of health, education, and welfare systems that migrants cause.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20d428438f54556d488560defbdde4a7",
"text": "immigration minorities all states should immediately ratify un convention rights In most democratic, developed countries—which are those that receive the most immigrants—all people share equal rights in the workplace, as long as they immigrated legally. The workplace protections in the U.N. Convention that only apply to legal migrants. Ratifying the Convention would thus not make much positive change for migrant workers around the world.\n\nThe workplace protections in the U.N. Convention that apply to illegal immigrants are unjust, as migrants surrender the right to work when they come to a country illegally. Article 26, which provides the right to unionize, applies to all migrant workers, but countries cannot be expected to grant illegal immigrants these powers. People who broke the law to come to the country do not deserve these rights. In fact, because they usually come to work, the workplace is the ideal place to discover illegal immigrants. Not only are they not allowed to unionize, but they are not allowed to get paid. Workplace rights do not need to be strengthened for legal migrants, and they should not be for illegal migrants.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "64cc087bd1c13e95283fc032b8ddf6b2",
"text": "immigration minorities all states should immediately ratify un convention rights There is plenty of international law on the books, and it is legitimate when it protects rights that ought to be universal for the individual, no matter what country you are in. The right to have a family is not a Chilean right, or a German right, or a Malaysian right; it is a human right. As is the right to work without being harassed. The huge increase in migration over the past two decades shows that individual well-being has developed into a more important concern in the world today than state sovereignty. Migrant protections are moral because they reflect this change.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5dbefb0c1c3f159462cf2f2b66697ab9",
"text": "immigration minorities all states should immediately ratify un convention rights While every state may have different issues and problems, the human rights of individuals must be protected by all of them. States may choose to protect their national identity and tradition through museums and festivals and other cultural institutions; it is not necessary that they keep migrants out, or suppress those who have already immigrated.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0fb9222dc86524b1ef6b87e00159bfea",
"text": "immigration minorities all states should immediately ratify un convention rights The effect of migration on unemployment is actually positive: it provides cheap labor for receiving countries, and lowers the supply of labor in source countries where employers can often not afford to pay sufficient wages to their workers. The claim that immigrants take jobs away from native citizens is unfounded. In the United States, for example, visa applications for skilled foreign workers are extremely difficult to receive and are limited to a small number of people. Foreign students at U.S. universities even need special authorization to work a summer job. Immigrants cannot undercut U.S. workers wages, taking their job away for less money, because foreign workers must be paid a minimum salary, mandated by law. [1] Even illegal immigrants who do not follow these regulations tend to take very-low-paying jobs that are unwanted by U.S. citizens and that would not otherwise exist.\n\n[1] Farhad Sethna, “Immigrants Don’t Take Away U.S. Jobs!” Immigration Law Blog, July 9, 2009, accessed June 30, 2011, http://blog.immigration-america.com/archives/131 .\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a1e0c5008751265c7e5f64e0480570f7",
"text": "immigration minorities all states should immediately ratify un convention rights While it is true that migrants are poorer than natives, or they would likely not be migrating to that country, it is not the case that they are costly for the receiving country. Immigrants come for a reason; to work. It therefore stands to reason that these people are going to be working and paying taxes. In the US in 2010 the labor force participation rate for foreign born men was 80.1%, much higher than among native born men. They are at the same time likely to be young, and therefore healthy so relatively less of a burden on healthcare, and in many cases leave their families behind so are not a burden on the education system. The typical immigrant in the United States and their descendants represent an $80,000 gain to the government. [1]\n\n[1] Daniel T. Griswold, “Immigration and the Welfare State”, CATO Journal, Vol.32, No.1, Winter 2012, http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/2012... p.163\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f719507e30393ac2d32657f0253ee32",
"text": "immigration minorities all states should immediately ratify un convention rights It is in the nature of international treaties that they represent a compromise, if it was not a compromise receiving nations were willing to make they should have made changes during the negotiations. However the convention does not impose a heavy burden on states wishing to deport migrants, it simply ensures that their human rights are upheld. Suggestions such as “Migrant workers… who are subjected to any form of detention or imprisonment… shall enjoy the same rights as nationals of those States who are in the same situation.” (Article 17) is simply asking for equality for all rather than allowing the current inequality to continue.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e6f539023b4a5a58a6b437b6e4548611",
"text": "immigration minorities all states should immediately ratify un convention rights The U.N. Convention is the best available mechanism for addressing the widespread problem of migrant rights.\n\nBecause the issue of migrant rights is a global one, concerned with human rights and the domestic and international actions of states, a U.N. convention is an appropriate solution. The U.N. is the best body to act because although the situation for migrant workers may be slightly different in each state, there are basic rights that they all deserve. In addition, even if each state sought individually to protect migrant rights, they might not be able to, because governing migration takes coordination between states. With international legislation, states would be held accountable for protecting migrant rights; and, migrant policies and protections would be better coordinated. The international community has helped the global economy adapt to rising globalization, with such bodies as the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. Migration is an essential part of globalization, but there is no international body regulating the flow of workers around the world. Jason Deparle of the New York Times writes, “The most personal and perilous form of movement is the most unregulated. States make (and often ignore) their own rules, deciding who can come, how long they stay, and what rights they enjoy.\" [1] The U.N. Convention would fill this gap.\n\nIndeed, the U.N.’s solution to regulate migration represents a reasonable and thorough approach. It is reasonable because it does not ask too much of states, requiring only that they provide migrants with basic rights. It is thorough because it provides protection for each of the many challenges and injustices facing migrant workers. Because migrant rights are a growing problem and an essential part of globalization, an international regulatory body would be an effective way of improving human rights around the world.\n\n[1] Deparle, Jason. \"Global Migration: A World Ever More on the Move,\" New York Times. June 26, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/27/weekinreview/27deparle.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7daa66c275e265e773d5f4686079c570",
"text": "immigration minorities all states should immediately ratify un convention rights Ratifying the U.N. Convention would improve diplomacy between source countries and receiving countries.\n\nMigrant rights is a major diplomatic issue between receiving and source countries, and ratifying the U.N. Convention would improve relations, clearing the way for states to work together to solve other international problems.\n\nThe diplomacy of western liberal states depends on the principle of rights for all, which is somewhat delegitimized by the unresolved issue of migrant rights. The International Federation for Human rights argues, “Non-ratification [of the U.N. Convention of migrant rights] brings the core values of the EU into question.” [1] If receiving countries were to join source countries in strengthening protections for migrants, it would send a message that they are committed to freedom for all citizens of the world, and so it would improve their legitimacy in international diplomacy.\n\n[1] International Federation for Human Rights, \"Europe, It's Time to Ratify the Migrant Workers Convention,\" June 21, 2010 , accessed June 27, http://www.fidh.org/Europe-it-s-time-to-ratify-the-Migrant-Workers .\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aed5c0513bd81bca15bbd7f8728f1153",
"text": "immigration minorities all states should immediately ratify un convention rights Ratifying the U.N. Convention would benefit the economies of the countries that have not yet done so\n\nMigrants face a number of challenges in integrating into a new workforce, and the opportunities to exploit them can be dangerous. These challenges include the right to join unions as well as inhumane working conditions. According to Dr Tasneem Siddiqui, \"In 1929, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) identified migrant workers as the most vulnerable group in the world. Seventy years have elapsed since then, but they still belong to that group.\" [1] Ratifying the U.N. convention would create specific changes in many countries that would finally make migrants less vulnerable. For example, Articles 26 and 40 provide all migrant workers the right to join and form trade unions, which is banned for them in all of the Arab Gulf states. [2] Protecting the right to unionize, allows migrants to fight for their own rights in the workplace, which is the best way to ensure that they will be protected in the long-term.\n\nIn addition to the right to unionize, the Convention ensures, in Article 25, “Migrant workers shall enjoy treatment not less favourable than that which applies to nationals” in the workplace. All states that have not already done so ought to immediately ratify the U.N. Convention so that migrant workers will receive equal treatment in the workplace.\n\n[1] Daily Star, “Ratify U.N. convention on migrant workers’ rights,” May 3, 2009, http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=86583 .\n\n[2] Human Rights Watch. \"Saudi Arabia/GCC States: Ratify Migrant Rights Treaty.\" April 10th, 2003. http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2003/04/10/saudi-arabiagcc-states-ratify-migr... .\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8621aba55030cef10a784d120a24f1ff",
"text": "immigration minorities all states should immediately ratify un convention rights Ratifying the U.N. Convention would benefit the economies of the countries that have not yet done so.\n\nThe economic protections in the U.N. Convention are not only good for migrants themselves; they benefit all countries involved. Migrants move to countries with a lot of work available, but not enough workers. In a globalized world, migration is a market mechanism, and it is perhaps the most important aspect of globalization.\n\nThe growth of the world’s great economies has relied throughout history on the innovation and invention of immigrants. The new perspective brought by migrants leads to new breakthroughs, which are some of the most important benefits to receiving countries from migration. The exploitation of migrant workers that exists in the status quo creates tensions and prejudices that hamper this essential creative ability of migrants in the workplace.\n\nIrene Khan shows that migrant protections are important for everybody involved: \"When business exploits irregular migrants, it distorts the economy, creates social tensions, feeds racial prejudice and impedes prospects for regular migration. Protecting the rights of migrant workers -- regular and irregular -- makes good economic and political sense for all countries -- whether source, destination or transit.\" [1] The U.N. Convention works to combat this exploitation, ensuring equal treatment for migrants in the workplace, and requiring, in many Articles (e.g. Article 17) covering various aspects of political life, that migrants are treated with respect. This will create an atmosphere in which migrants can contribute their invaluable input as well as their low-wage labor, to help boom the economies of the receiving countries that have not yet ratified the Convention.\n\n[1] Irene Khan, \"Invisible people, irregular migrants,\" The Daily Star, June 7th, 2010 , http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=141601 .\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d2e87e2fbfe25c55b56f185a079dc94",
"text": "immigration minorities all states should immediately ratify un convention rights The U.N. Convention would make it harder for states to deport illegal immigrants who broke the law by entering the country.\n\nStates have the right to deport people who entered the country illegally, and the U.N. Convention would make that more difficult. The Convention gives extensive rights even to illegal immigrants, especially in the realm of the justice system (Article 17). Indeed, migrant activists often see deportation policies as immoral. Yet, a state has every right to arrest, imprison, and deport illegal immigrants. When an illegal immigrant commits a crime (in addition to unlawful entry into the country), states are often forced to pay to keep the criminal in prison, rather than deport him. The United States loses half-a-billion dollars each year this way. [1] Ultimately it's a matter of enforcing national laws, sovereignty, and the integrity of a nation's welfare-system.\n\n[1] Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform. \"Economic costs of legal and illegal immigration.\" Accessed June 30, 2011. http://www.cairco.org/econ/econ.html .\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "87b4ee7beea8072f5a162003556972fb",
"text": "immigration minorities all states should immediately ratify un convention rights Receiving countries should not and cannot afford to ratify the U.N. Convention because of the burden it would put on their health, education, and welfare systems.\n\nBecause immigrants are frequently less well off financially, and they sometimes come to a new country illegally, they cost a lot for receiving countries. Therefore it is not practical for countries to grant them the equal access to health, education, and welfare systems, as they would have to under the U.N. Convention. Immigrants make heavy use of social welfare, and often overload public education systems, while frequently not pulling their weight in taxes. Illegal immigrants alone have already cost the United States “billions of taxpayer-funded dollars for medical services. Dozens of hospitals in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, have been forced to close” because they are required by law to provide free emergency room services to illegal immigrants. In addition, half a billion dollars each year are spent to keep illegal immigrant criminals in American prisons. [1] The money spent to build and maintain schools for immigrant children, and to teach them detracts from the education of current schools, existing students, and taxpayers. This is unfair. Increasing social and economic protections and rights for migrants means increasing migration and increasing benefits that migrants receive from societies. This could be a burden that a state's welfare system is not capable of handling.\n\n[1] Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform, \"Economic costs of legal and illegal immigration,\" accessed June 30, 2011, http://www.cairco.org/econ/econ.html .\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "049d7798ecc452d0bc94bcc9d4956fb2",
"text": "immigration minorities all states should immediately ratify un convention rights If states were to ratify the U.N. Convention, many of them would not be able to protect their national identities.\n\nA state-by-state approach would allow each state to pass a law that fits its needs, particularly those of protecting its national identity, which is a concern international law cannot approach. Maintaining an original ethnic and cultural structure is important to many states, especially those that are populated by one ethnic group. Is Israel, for example, wrong to term itself a \"Jewish state\"? There is nothing inherently wrong with its efforts to maintain this identity, even if that effort constrains the expansion of migrant rights.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d09c641d92e15b1c36eccb50664f236",
"text": "immigration minorities all states should immediately ratify un convention rights States should form their own migration policy, because the U.N. Convention violates state sovereignty.\n\nEvery state has different issues and problems related to migration. There is no monolithic economic and social crisis facing migrants around the globe. It is inappropriate, therefore, to call for all nations to ratify a piece of one-size-fits-all legislation, like the U.N. Convention. Instead, immigration policy and migrant rights need to be approached on a case-by-case, nation-by-nation basis.\n\nThe U.N. Convention would violate state sovereignty. Not all international law is necessarily bad, but these protections go too far, because they force a huge burden on certain nations, and not others. It is fair for an international body to say that all nations should treat their citizens with equality and respect, but it is not fair to say that certain countries should have to provide for many additional citizens from less-well-off states. It is not surprising that only source countries have ratified the Convention thus far; that is because those are the countries that would benefit from the changes, at the expense of those countries that are still holding out.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "935deb833b0cfc1a1b674887494e11e5",
"text": "immigration minorities all states should immediately ratify un convention rights Ratifying the U.N. Convention would increase unemployment rates in receiving countries at a time when they are already painfully high\n\nIncreasing protections of migrant rights has the general effect of increasing migration. Article 8 of the U.N. Convention grants all workers the right to leave their state of origin. This implies an obligation of other states to receive them, and so it would protect increased migration. Further, the right to family reunification for documented migrants, found in Article 50, would also increase migration.\n\nThis increase in migration would be problematic in many countries. It could worsen overpopulation problems, increase tensions between ethnic and/or religious groups, and raise unemployment rates. The economies of many receiving countries are barely managing to fight unemployment in the status quo. If migrants receive further protection, they will take more jobs, making it harder for citizens to find employment. Everybody should have the opportunity to work in his home country, but the economic protection of migrants overcrowds receiving countries, driving up unemployment. In America, for example, between 40 and 50 percent of wage-loss among low-skilled workers is caused by immigration, and around 1,880,000 American workers lose their jobs every year because of immigration. [1] In addition to unemployment problems, overcrowding can have a variety of negative consequences affecting air pollution, traffic, sanitation, and quality of life. So, why are migrants deserving of \"protection\"? It should be the other way around: the national workers of a state deserve protection from migrant workers and the jobs they are taking.\n\n[1] Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform. \"Economic costs of legal and illegal immigration.\" Accessed June 30, 2011. http://www.cairco.org/econ/econ.html .\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
0a6a8a3405c3155b6929598c84f3a105
|
Privatising social security will increase the amount of money that reitrees can draw on
Private accounts would provide retirees with a higher rate of return on investments. [1] Privatization would give investment decisions to account holders. This does not mean that Social Security money for the under 55’s would go to Wall Street.. This could be left to the individual's discretion. Potentially this could include government funds. But with government’s record of mismanagement, and a $14 trillion deficit, it seems unlikely that many people would join that choice. [2]
As Andrew Roth argues, "Democrats will say supporters of personal accounts will allow people's fragile retirement plans to be subjected to the whims of the stock market, but that's just more demagoguery. First, personal accounts would be voluntary. If you like the current system (the one that [can be raided by] politicians), you can stay put and be subjected to decreasingly low returns as Social Security goes bankrupt. But if you want your money protected from politicians and have the opportunity to invest in the same financial assets that politicians invest in their own retirement plans (most are well-diversified long term funds), then you should have that option." [3
Social Security privatization would actually help the economically marginalised in two ways. Firstly, by ending the harm social security currently does; Those at the poverty level need every cent just to survive. Even those in the lower-middle class don’t money to put into a wealth-generating retirement account. They have to rely on social security income to pay the bills when they reach retirement. Unfortunately, current social security pay-outs are at or below the poverty level. The money earned in benefits based on a retiree’s contributions during their working life is less than the return on a passbook savings account. [4]
Secondly, these same groups would be amongst the biggest 'winners' from privatization. By providing a much higher rate of return, privatization would raise the incomes of those elderly retirees who are most in need.
The current system contains many inequities that leave the poor at a disadvantage. For instance, the low-income elderly are most likely to be dependent on Social Security benefits for most or all of their retirement income. But despite a progressive benefit structure, Social Security benefits are inadequate for the elderly poor's retirement needs. [5]
Privatizing Social Security would improve individual liberty. Privatization would give all Americans the opportunity to participate in the economy through investments. Everyone would become capitalists and stock owners reducing the division of labour and capital and restoring the ownership that was the initial foundation of the American dream. [6]
Moreover, privatized accounts would be transferable within families, which current Social Security accounts are not. These privatized accounts would be personal assets, much like a house or a 401k account. On death, privatised social security accounts could pass to an individual’s heirs. With the current system, this cannot be done. Workers who have spent their lives paying withholding taxes are, in effect, denied a proprietary claim over money that, by rights, belongs to them. [7]
This would make privatization a progressive move. Because the wealthy generally live longer than the poor, they receive a higher total of Social Security payments over the course of their lifetimes. This would be evened out if remaining benefits could be passed on. [8] Privatizing Social Security increases personal choice and gives people control over what they paid and thus are entitled to. Overall, therefore, privatizing Social Security would increase the amount of money that marginalised retirees receive and would give all retirees more freedom to invest and distribute social security payments.
[1] Tanner, Michael. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html
[2] Roth, Andrew. "Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14110
[3] Roth, Andrew. "Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14110
[4] Tanner, Michael. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html
[5] Tanner, Michael. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html
[6] Tanner, Michael. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html
[7] Roth, Andrew. "Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14110
[8] Tanner, Michael. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html
|
[
{
"docid": "76d70ad791f3e3d4fe603b681972abdc",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes Nobel Laureate economist Paul Krugman. Argued in 2004 that: “Social Security is a government program that works, a demonstration that a modest amount of taxing and spending can make people's lives better and more secure. And that's why the right wants to destroy it.\" [1] The problem with Social Security is not that it does not work, nor that it fails the poor. Rather, as Krugman notes, social security uses limited taxation to implement a clear and successful vision of social justice. As a consequence, the social security system has been repeatedly attacked by right wing and libertarian politicians. Such attacks are not motivated by the merits or failure of the social security system itself, but by political ambition and a desire to forcefully implement alternative normative schema within society.\n\nPrivatizing Social Security would require costly new government bureaucracies. From the standpoint of the system as a whole, privatization would add enormous administrative burdens – and costs. The government would need to establish and track many small accounts, perhaps as many accounts as there are taxpaying workers—157 million in 2010. [2] Often these accounts would be too small so that profit making firms would be unwilling to take them on. There would need to be thousands of workers to manage these accounts. In contrast, today’s Social Security has minimal administrative costs amounting to less than 1 per cent of annual revenues. [3]\n\nIt is also unlikely that individuals will be able to invest successfully on their own, although they may believe they can, leading to a great number of retirees actually being worse off after privatization.\n\n[1] Paul Krugman. \"Inventing a crisis.\" New York Times. 7 December 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=2&scp=539&sq...\n\n[2] Wihbey, John, ‘2011 Annual Report by the Social Security Board of Trustees’, Journalist’s Resource, 9 June 2011, http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/politics/social-security-report-2011/\n\n[3] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea\". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "dd073ce604993483721216eee3fb2aa5",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes Social Security is not in crisis and there is no need for privatization. Social Security is completely solvent today, and will be into the future because it has a dedicated income stream that covers its costs and consistently generates a surplus, which today is $2.5 trillion.\n\nProposition’s dire prediction of the collapse of social security’s financial situation is misleading. The Social Security surplus will grow to approximately $4.3 trillion in 2023, and that reserves will be sufficient to pay full benefits through to 2037. Even after this it would still be able to pay 78%. Moreover, there are plenty of ways to reform Social Security to make it more fiscally sound without privatizing it, including simply raising taxes to fund it better. [1]\n\nFurthermore the problem that affects social security of falling numbers of contributors to each retiree will also affect private pensions, at least in the short to medium term, just in a different way. If all younger pensioners went over to just paying for their own future retirement who is to pay for current retirees or those who are shortly to retire. These people will still need to have their pensions paid for. They will not have time to save up a personal pension and so will be relying on current workers – but such workers will not want to pay more when they are explicitly just paying for someone else as they are already paying for themselves separately.\n\n[1] Roosevelt, James.\"Social Security at 75: Crisis Is More Myth Than Fact.\" Huffington Post. 11 August 11 2010. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-roosevelt/social-security-at-75-cri_...\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dddb9c67da7f54d1e7a089718b93c701",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes Privatizing Social Security would harm economic growth, not help it. Privatization during the current economic crisis would have been disaster, and so doing it now is a risk for any upcoming or future crisis. Privatization in the midst of the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression would have caused households to have lost even more of their assets, had their investments been invested in the U.S. stock market or in funds exposed to complicated and high risk financial instruments.\n\nPrivatizing social security might therefore increase economic growth in the boom times but this would be at the expense of sharper downturns. Proposition’s argument implicitly assumes that the money at the moment does not improve economic growth. On the contrary the government is regularly investing the money in much the same way as private business would – and often on much more long term projects such as infrastructure that fit better with a long term saving than the way that banks invest.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0add56b3247e2cde35ac948db12e56d9",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes Most of these arguments can be undercut by noting that the privatization of Social Security accounts would be voluntary, and thus anyone who believed the argument that the government invests better would be free to leave their account as it is, unchanged.\n\nThose who believe they can do a better job of investing and managing their money on their own should be given the freedom to do so. In this respect it is important to remember the origin of the money in these accounts: it has been paid in by the individuals themselves. As James Roosevelt (CEO of the health insurance firm Tufts Health Plan) notes: \" Those ‘baby boomers’ who are going to bust Social Security when they retire? They have been paying into the system for more than 40 years, generating the large surplus the program has accumulated. Much of the money that baby boomers are and will be drawing on from Social Security, is, and will be, their own.” [1] As it is their money which they have paid in in the first place, members of the baby boomer generation should have a right to choose how they invest –it. If that means choosing to go private and pursue riskier investments, so be it. The money paid out by the social security system belongs to those who paid it in, and the government should not deprive taxpayers from exercising free choice over the uses to which their money is put. Moreover, none of the other arguments adduced by side opposition do anything to address the ways in which Social Security currently harms the poor, the redressing of which alone justifies privatizing Social Security.\n\n[1] Roosevelt, James.\"Social Security at 75: Crisis Is More Myth Than Fact.\" Huffington Post. 11 August 11 2010. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-roosevelt/social-security-at-75-cri_b_677058.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c99d7dfeece009eb28480730912d3df3",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes The American people do not oppose privatization -in fact, most support it. A 2010 poll showed overwhelming support for personal accounts. Republican voters support it 65-21, but even Democrat voters like it, 50-36. [1] A poll commissioned by the Cato Institute through the prestigious Public Opinion Strategies polling company showed that 69 percent of Americans favored switching from the pay-as-you-go system to a fully funded, individually capitalized system. Only 11 percent said they opposed the idea. [2] A 1994 Luntz Research poll found that 82 percent of American adults under the age of 35 favored having at least a portion of their payroll taxes invested instead in stocks and bonds. In fact, among the so-called Generation Xers in America, by a margin of two-to-one they think they are more likely to encounter a UFO in their lifetime than they are to ever receive a single Social Security check.\n\nEven more remarkable, perhaps, was a poll taken in 1997 by White House pollster Mark Penn for the Democratic Leadership Council, a group of moderate Democrats with whom President Clinton was affiliated prior to his election. That poll found that 73 percent of Democrats favor being allowed to invest some or all their payroll tax in private accounts. [3] Moreover, the 'alternatives liks raising taxes and reducing benefits are merely kicking the problem further down the road but it will still become a problem at some point. At the same time either raising taxes or reducing benefits would be unfair – raising taxes because it would mean today’s generation of workers paying more than their parents for the same benefit and cutting benefits because it would mean that retirees would be getting less out than they were promised.'\n\nThe alternatives would also be particularly devastating for the poor. Individuals who are hired pay the cost of the so-called employer's share of the payroll tax through reduced wages. Therefore, an increase in the payroll tax would result in less money in workers' going to workers. It is also important to remember that the payroll tax is an extremely regressive tax. Likewise a reduction in benefits would disproportionately hurt the poor since they are more likely than the wealthy to be dependent on Social Security benefits. [4]\n\n[1] Roth, Andrew. \"Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!\". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14110\n\n[2] Crane, Edward. \"The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System.\" CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html\n\n[3] Crane, Edward. \"The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System.\" CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html\n\n[4] Tanner, Michael. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c9c92305e7c32e3a69a360a31071ecf0",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes Privatization would increase national savings and provide a new pool of capital for investment that would be particularly beneficial to the poor. As it stands, Social Security is a net loss maker for the American taxpayer, and this situation will only continue to get worse unless privatization is enacted: those born after the baby boom will forfeit 10 cents of every dollar they earn in payments towards the up keep of the Social Security system.\n\nBy contrast, under privatization people would actually save resources that businesses can invest. As Alan Greenspan has pointed out, the economic benefits of privatization of Social Security are potentially enormous. In Chile, as Dr. Piñera has noted, there has been real economic growth of 7 percent a year over the past decade, energized by a savings rate in excess of 20 percent. [1]\n\nMartin Feldstein, a Harvard economist, formerly Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under President Reagan, estimated that the present value to the U.S. economy of investing the future cash flow of payroll taxes in real assets would be on the order of $10 to $20 trillion. That would mean a permanent, significant boost to economic growth. [2]\n\n[1] Crane, Edward. \"The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System.\" CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html\n\n[2] Crane, Edward. \"The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System.\" CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a5602cdc1b9ecadb195fa7dc3dbf794",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes The social security system is unsustainable in the status quo\n\nSocial Security is in Crisis. Social Security in the United States, as in most western liberal democracies, is a pay-as-you-go system and has always been so. As such, it is an intergenerational wealth transfer. The solvency of the system therefore relies on favourable demographics; particularly birth rate and longevity. In the United States the birth rate when Social Security was created was 2.3 children per woman but had risen to 3.0 by 1950. Today it is 2.06. The average life expectancy in 1935 was 63 and today it is 75. While this may be representative of an improvement in quality-of-life for many Americans, these demographic changes also indicate the increasing burden that social security systems are being put under. [1]\n\nAs a result of changing demographic factors, the number of workers paying Social Security payroll taxes has gone from 16 for every retiree in 1950 to just 3.3 in 1997. This ration will continue to decline to just 2 to 1 by 2025. This has meant the tax has been increased thirty times in sixty-two years to compensate. Originally it was just 2 percent on a maximum taxable income of $300, now it is 12.4 percent of a maximum income of $65,400. This will have to be raised to 18 percent to pay for all promised current benefits, and if Medicare is included the tax will have to go to nearly 28 percent. [2]\n\nSocial Security is an unsuitable approach to protecting the welfare of a retiring workforce. The social security system as it stands is unsustainable, and will place an excessive tax burden on the current working population of the USA, who will be expected to pay for the impending retirement of almost 70 million members of the “baby boomer” generation. This crisis is likely to begin in 2016 when- according to experts- more money will be paid out by the federal government in social security benefits than it will receive in payroll taxes. [3]\n\nIn many ways Social Security has now just become a giant ponzi scheme. As the Cato Institute has argued: “Just like Ponzi's plan, Social Security does not make any real investments -- it just takes money from later 'investors' or taxpayers, to pay benefits to the scheme’s earlier, now retired, entrants. Like Ponzi, Social Security will not be able to recruit new \"investors\" fast enough to continue paying promised benefits to previous investors. Because each year there are fewer young workers relative to the number of retirees, Social Security will eventually collapse, just like Ponzi's scheme.” [4]\n\nFaced with this impending crisis, privatizing is at worst the best of the 'bad' options. It provides an opportunity to make the system sustainable and to make it fair to all generations by having everyone pay for their own retirement rather than someone else’s. [5]\n\n[1] Crane, Edward. \"The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System.\" CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html\n\n[2] Crane, Edward. \"The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System.\" CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html\n\n[3] San Diego Union Tribune. \"Privatizing Social Security Still a Good Idea.\" San Diego Union Tribune. http://www.creators.com/opinion/daily-editorials/privatizing-social-security-still-a-good-idea.html\n\n[4] Cato Institute. “Why is Social Security often called a Ponzi scheme?”. Cato Institute. 11 May 1999. http://www.socialsecurity.org/daily/05-11-99.html ;\n\n[5] Kotlikoff, Lawrence. \"Privatizing social security the right way\". Testimony to the Committee on Ways and Means. 3 June 3 1998. http://people.bu.edu/kotlikof/Ways&Means.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20abfc8041b3c327acdf4ec1ac129e8d",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes Privatising social security would improve economic growth\n\nPrivatizing social security would enable investment of savings. Commentator Alex Schibuola argues that: \"If Social Security were privatized, people would deposit their income with a bank. People actually save resources that businesses can invest. We, as true savers, get more resources in the future.\" [1] As a result private accounts would also increase investments, jobs and wages. Michael Tanner of the think tank the Cato Institute argues: \"Social Security drains capital from the poorest areas of the country, leaving less money available for new investment and job creation. Privatization would increase national savings and provide a new pool of capital for investment that would be particularly beneficial to the poor.\" [2]\n\nCurrently Social Security represents a net loss for taxpayers and beneficiaries. Social Security, although key to the restructuring the of USA’s social contract following the great depression, represents a bad deal for the post-war American economy. Moreover, this deal has gotten worse over time. 'Baby boomers' are projected to lose roughly 5 cents of every dollar they earn to the OASI program in taxes net of benefits. Young adults who came of age in the early 1990s and today's children are on course to lose over 7 cents of every dollar they earn in net taxes. If OASI taxes were to be raised immediately by the amount needed to pay for OASI benefits on an on-going basis, baby boomers would forfeit 6 cents of every dollar they earn in net OASI taxes. For those born later it would be 10 cents. [3]\n\nChange could be implemented gradually. Andrew Roth argues: “While Americans in retirement or approaching retirement would probably stay in the current system [if Social Security were to be privatized], younger workers should have the option to invest a portion of their money in financial assets other than U.S. Treasuries. These accounts would be the ultimate \"lock box\" - they would prevent politicians in Washington from raiding the Trust Fund. The truth is that taxpayers bail out politicians every year thanks to Social Security. Congress and the White House spend more money than they have, so they steal money from Social Security to help pay for it. That needs to stop and there is no responsible way of doing that except with personal accounts.” [4] This would make social security much more sustainable as there would no longer be the risk of the money being spent elsewhere.\n\nPut simply, privatizing Social Security would actually boost economic growth and lead to better-protected investments by beneficiaries, benefiting not only themselves but the nation at large. Thus Social Security should be privatized.\n\n[1] Schibuola, Alex. \"Time to Privatize? The Economics of Social Security.\" Open Markets. 16 November 2010. http://www.openmarket.org/2010/11/16/time-to-privatize-the-economics-of-...\n\n[2] Tanner, Michael. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html\n\n[3] Kotlikoff, Lawrence. \"Privatizing social security the right way\". Testimony to the Committee on Ways and Means. 3 June 3 1998. http://people.bu.edu/kotlikof/Ways&Means.pdf\n\n[4] Roth, Andrew. \"Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!\". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/ ?\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ce5fa88bb8fe7aa1c5c22d1a89fb944",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes Privatising the social security system would harm economic growth\n\nCreating private accounts could have an impact on economic growth, which in turn would hit social security's future finances. Economic growth could be hit as privatizing Social Security will increase federal deficits and as a result debt significantly, while increasing the likelihood that national savings will decline which will happen as baby boomers retire anyway and draw down their savings.\n\nAn analysis by the Centre on Budget and Policy Priorities shows that the proposed privatization by Obama would add $1 trillion in new federal debt in its first decade of implementation, and a further $3.5 trillion in the following decade. [1] Because households change their saving and spending levels in response to economic conditions privatization is actually more likely to reduce than increase national savings. This is because households that consider the new accounts to constitute meaningful increases in their retirement wealth might well reduce their other saving. Diamond and Orszag argue, 'If anything, our impression is that diverting a portion of the current Social Security surplus into individual accounts could reduce national saving.' That, in turn, would further weaken economic growth and our capacity to pay for the retirement of the baby boomers.\" [2]\n\nThe deficit, and as a result national debt, would increase because trillions of dollars which had previously been paying for current retirees would be taken out of the system to be invested privately. Those who are already retired will however still need to draw a pension so the government would need to borrow the money to be able to pay for these pensions. [3]\n\nContrary to side proposition’s assertions, privatization also would not increase capital available for investment. Proponents of privatization claim that the flow of dollars into private accounts and then into the equity markets will stimulate the economy. However, as the social security system underwent the transition into private ownership, each dollar invested in a financial instrument via the proprietary freedoms afforded to account holders, would result in the government borrowing a dollar to cover pay outs to those currently drawing from the social security system.\n\nThus, the supposed benefit of a privatised social security system is entirely eliminated by increased government borrowing, as the net impact on the capital available for investment is zero. [4]\n\nWhile four fifths of tax dollars for social security is spent immediately the final fifth purchases Treasury securities through trust funds. Privatization would hasten depletion of these funds. President Bush proposed diverting up to 4 percentage points of payroll tax to create the private accounts but with payroll currently 12.4% this would still be significantly more than the one fifth that is currently left over so depleting reserves. Funds now being set aside to build up the Trust Funds to provide for retiring baby boomers would be being used instead to pay for the privatization accounts. The Trust Funds would be exhausted much sooner than the thirty-eight to forty-eight years projected if nothing is done. In such a short time frame, the investments in the personal accounts will not be nearly large enough to provide an adequate cushion. [5]\n\n[1] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea\". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf\n\n[2] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea\". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf\n\n[3] Spitzer, Elliot. \"Can we finally kill this terrible idea?\" Slate. 4 February 2009. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_best_policy/2009/02/privatize_social_security.html\n\n[4] Spitzer, Elliot. \"Can we finally kill this terrible idea?\" Slate. 4 February 2009. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_best_policy/2009/02/privatize_social_security.html\n\n[5] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea\". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cb7308b4b5642271b0783acb8e78eb71",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes Privatising social security will harm retirees\n\nAs Greg Anrig and Bernard Wasow of the non-partisan think tank the Century Foundation argue: \"Privatization advocates like to stress the appeal of 'individual choice' and 'personal control,' while assuming in their forecasts that everyone’s accounts will match the overall performance of the stock market. But… research by Princeton University economist Burton G. Malkiel found that even professional money managers over time significantly underperformed indexes of the entire market.” [1] Most people don’t have the knowledge to manage their own investments. A Securities and Exchange Commission report showed the extent of financial illiteracy for example half of adults don’t know what a stock market is, half don’t understand the purpose of diversifying investments and 45% believe it provides “a guarantee that [their] portfolio won’t suffer if the stock market falls” [2] Including all the management costs it is safe to say that growth from individual accounts will be lower than the market average.\n\nThe private sector is therefore in no better a position to make investment decisions than the state. Privatised accounts would bring their own problems. They are vulnerable to market downturns. Despite crashes the long term return from shares has always been positive. But this does not help those that hit retirement age during a period when the stock market is down. With private pensions people would be relying on luck that they retire at the right time or happened to pick winning stocks. [3]\n\nThe economist Paul Krugman has pointed out, privatizers make incredible assumptions about the likely performance of the market in order to be able to justify their claim that private accounts would outdo the current system. The price-earnings ratio would need to be around 70 to 1 by 2050. This is unrealistic and would be an immense bubble as a P/E ratio of 20 to 1 is considered more normal today. [4]\n\nIf returns are low then there the added worry that privatized social security may not beat inflation. This would mean that retiree’s pensions become worth less and less. At the moment Social Security payouts are indexed to wages, which historically have exceeded inflation so providing protection. Privatizing social security would have a big impact on those who want to remain in the system through falling tax revenues. Implementing private accounts will take 4 per-cent of the 12.4 per-cent taken from each worker’s annual pay out of the collective fund. Thus, almost a 3rd of the revenue generated by social security taxes will be removed. Drastic benefit cuts or increased taxes will have to occur even sooner, which is a recipe for disaster. [5]\n\nIt is for reasons such as these that privatization of similar social security systems has disappointed elsewhere, as Anrig and Wasow argue: \"Advocates of privatization often cite other countries, such as Chile and the United Kingdom, where the governments pushed workers into personal investment accounts to reduce the long-term obligations of their Social Security systems, as models for the United States to emulate. But the sobering experiences in those countries actually provide strong arguments against privatization. A report last year from the World Bank, once an enthusiastic privatization proponent, expressed disappointment that in Chile, and in most other Latin American countries that followed in its footsteps, “more than half of all workers [are excluded] from even a semblance of a safety net during their old age.”” [6] Therefore privatizing Social Security would actually harm retirees and undermine the entire system, and so Social Security should not be privatized.\n\n[1] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea\". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf\n\n[2] Office of Investor Education and Assistance Securities and Exchange Commission, ‘The Facts on Saving and Investing’, April 1999, http://www.sec.gov/pdf/report99.pdf pp.16-19\n\n[3] Spitzer, Elliot. \"Can we finally kill this terrible idea?\" Slate. 4 February 2009. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_best_policy/2009/02/privatize_social_security.html\n\n[4] Spitzer, Elliot. \"Can we finally kill this terrible idea?\" Slate. 4 February 2009. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_best_policy/2009/02/privatize_social_security.html\n\n[5] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea\". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf\n\n[6] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea\". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d5902944c6af806efa2c5a456a40b26d",
"text": "economic policy society family house would privatize usas social security schemes The problems with the social security are systemic, not inherent\n\nSocial security is currently solvent and will be into the future due to its dedicated income stream that consistently generates a surplus, which today is $2.5 trillion. This surplus will even grow to approximately $4.3 trillion in 2023, It is only after 2037 when there will begin to be a deficit.(11)\n\nSide opposition will concede that there is a long-run financing problem, but it is a problem of modest size. There would only need to be revenues equal to 0.54% of GDP to extend the life of the social security trust fund into the 22nd century, with no change in benefits. This is only about one-quarter of the revenue lost each year because of President Bush's tax cuts. [1]\n\nBudget shortfalls- of the sort that side proposition’s case is based on- Nobel Laureate economist Paul Krugman argues: \" has much more to do with tax cuts - cuts that Mr. Bush nonetheless insists on making permanent - than it does with Social Security. But since the politics of privatization depend on convincing the public that there is a Social Security crisis, the privatizers have done their best to invent one.\" [2]\n\nKrugman goes on to argue against the twisted logic of privatization: “My favorite example of their three-card-monte logic goes like this: first, they insist that the Social Security system's current surplus and the trust fund it has been accumulating with that surplus are meaningless. Social Security, they say, isn't really an independent entity - it's just part of the federal government… the same people who claim that Social Security isn't an independent entity when it runs surpluses also insist that late next decade, when the benefit payments start to exceed the payroll tax receipts, this will represent a crisis - you see, Social Security has its own dedicated financing, and therefore must stand on its own. There's no honest way anyone can hold both these positions, but very little about the privatizers' position is honest. They come to bury Social Security, not to save it. They aren't sincerely concerned about the possibility that the system will someday fail; they're disturbed by the system's historic success.” [3]\n\nThere are many other ways to improve and reform Social Security without privatizing it. Robert L. Clark, an economist at North Carolina State University who specializes in aging issues, formerly served as a chairman of a national panel on Social Security's financial status; he has said that future options for Social Security are clear: \"You either raise taxes or you cut benefits. There are lots of ways to do both.\" These alternatives are also backed by the American people. The American people, despite voting for Republicans, have said over and over in polls that they would pay more in taxes to save entitlements such as Social Security. [4] Therefore Social Security is not fundamentally unsound, and alternative reforms should be made without privatizations.\n\n[1] Paul Krugman. \"Inventing a crisis.\" New York Times. 7 December 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=2&scp=539&sq...\n\n[2] Paul Krugman. \"Inventing a crisis.\" New York Times. 7 December 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=2&scp=539&sq...\n\n[3] Paul Krugman. \"Inventing a crisis.\" New York Times. 7 December 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=2&scp=539&sq...\n\n[4] Dick, Stephen. \"Op-Ed: Yes, leave Social Security alone.\" CNHI News Service. 19 November 2010. http://record-eagle.com/opinion/x877132458/Op-Ed-Yes-leave-Social-Securi...\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
351a25cea8292648bef6b5786a7b0c26
|
Forced evictions are political land grabbing.
Politics justifies, and legitimises, forced evictions. Previous cases across African cities [1] show how ethnicity, race, and political party preferences, are heavily embedded in the process. Inhabitants may have legal rights to occupy land - however, as in the case of the 1990 Muoroto demolition in Kenya [2] , ‘legal rights’ were trumped by ethnic tribalism and inter-party competition.
Further, a majority of African cities are built informally, therefore what can be defined as illegal? Forced evictions will fail where entire cities are built on a state of informality.
[1] Examples include: Zimbabwe (Operation Murambatsvina), Kenya, South Africa, Tanzania, Nigeria, Ghana.
[2] See further readings: Klopp, 2008; and Ocheje, 2007.
|
[
{
"docid": "f663fdab18ead375d1674af947765588",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Within cities land grabbing is a myth. A number of cases shown as political land-grabbing and rent-seeking are misrepresented, and misunderstood. Difficulties remain in defining what is a land grab and the extent of which the state, and politics, are involved in land speculations.\n\nThe media coverage of evictions in Mogadishu showcase the myth and hyperbole surrounding African politics and evictions. The government are entitled to reclaim land and reform it for public use [1] .\n\n[1] See BBC News (2013) for full debate, whereby Mohammed Yusuf, an Official at Mogadishu City, defends the eviction.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6502b1826a4beee48d2884b257ee068a",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Slums and informal settlements are constraining African cities from becoming global players. Space needs to be cleared and new investors attracted, which will bring positive development. As a result of Johannesburg’s global status, Johannesburg’s Stock Exchange has continued to grow and improve [1] . Exchange Square, in Johannesburg, shows what African cities need to become. To become integrated into the global-economy city space, and priorities, need to be redesigned.\n\n[1] See Johannesburg Stock Exchange (2011), whereby classified as first for regulation of security exchanges.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ae82879a25e048325459807737c7ae24",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Evictions show the government are recognising residents as holding rights and entitlements - rights to live in a safe environment, rights to a home, and rights to sanitary conditions. The Millenium Development Goals will be met as a result of such policies - ensuring environmental sustainability, reducing child mortality, improving maternal health, and combating diseases [1] .\n\n[1] UN MDGs, 2013.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "daa77ca0ab522a064a65612bed4c99a3",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are following, and imposing, the law. A heavy hand is need for rights to be granted to all in the future. A majority of informal settlements are also illegal, future cities in Africa need to be built on a sense of legality and law.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1e26c7645be620fce7c403014cb24d4",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are needed to resolve the crisis. The crisis is emerging not out of a mismatch between supply and demand, but rather a lack of space and the inefficient use of space available. Plans need to be followed for housing to meet need, and evictions ensure such ambitions can be achieved. Evictions provide space to build housing effectively.\n\nTake the newly proposed Kigali City Plan 2040 [1] . 34,000 affordable homes will be built, in estates, for different socioeconomic groups. Space and organised planning - based on evictions - are essential to achieve this.\n\n[1] See further readings: Nuwagira, 2013; and Kigali City Plan 2040.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "de93f2f7c122cd039e7791c2392973d6",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes There remains a danger of not learning from past mistakes. Forced evictions are unlawful, and have minimal benefits in terms of human development [1] . Evictions only show the natural path of the lawless nature of capitalism. Within capitalism, public space becomes privatised over time in order to enable the creation, and circulation, of profits.\n\nCities are social spaces, and therefore need to be designed for, and around, people not profits. Evictions dispossess of their land, livelihoods, and homes; while the city is redesigned for investors, the elite, and footloose companies. Social development and security needs to be seen as the natural path of development.\n\nFurther, comparatively, the context of African cities differs to that of Europe and the US.\n\n[1] For more information see further readings: United Nations Human Development Reports.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "904fec3fd29e31375cdde2a15a8b4161",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Since 2000, over 2mn experienced forced evictions in Nigeria [1] . Recent plans to implement the Eko Atlantic project along Lagos’ coastline has been designed with an intention for reducing emissions, protecting the vulnerability of Victoria Island to climate change, and promoting sustainable development. However, an exclusive landscape has been planned - targeting commuters, financial industries, and tourists. The need to include quotas for providing adequate housing or public services has been neglected. Furthermore, the designs present the construction of exclusive open spaces. Informal workers, such as street traders, will become unwelcome, destroying livelihoods.\n\n[1] COHRE, 2008.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "84ebccd5963239f0a9cd52fea8f3c2f0",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes The idea of promoting a ‘slum-free’ environment is often used to justify evictions. However, for just urban planning, alternative methods need to be used. On the one hand, cases show how slum upgrading can be achieved through community organisations and the provision of tenure security. Organisations such as Abahlali BaseMjondolo and Muungano wa Wanavijiji are positive examples.\n\nOn another hand, the Master Plan’s [1] , justifying evictions, are wrong. Exclusive spaces are created as the new developments cater to elites and the right to health becomes accessible by a minority. Additionally, slums persist as forced evictions have a different agenda. Slum-dwellers are merely relocated to new settlements, with poor sanitation, inaccessible, and insecure.\n\nFurthermore, in the case of Kenya’s 2030 Vision, a number of cases indicate tensions are emerging. Rights over land, and therefore who receives compensation, are contested. Slum dwellers are given little warning on when the eviction will occur. Displacement resulted as residents were unable to afford new builds and not granted a new build.\n\n[1] See further readings.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96ca371c86331b2966246b9869b5d660",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are not solutions as those displaced will simply build new shanty towns so it will not stop rapid growth. They fail to tackle underlying issues across African cities - such as the lack of access to adequate housing, services, and bad governance.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d88334ef416ed35690931124e2a39bb7",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes It remains questionable whether the FIFA World Cup has been a success for South Africa, and for the majority of South Africa's citizens. The costs of forced evictions have outweighed the benefits in the international arena. The publicised nature of evictions across South Africa, in the build up to FIFA 2010, highlighted a negative image of urban planning in Africa and the unresolved issues of equality and rights. Forced evictions have resulted in the loss of architectural heritage for new builds, homelessness, and the publication of communities living without freedom to rights.\n\nThe Western Cape Anti-Eviction Campaign is a clear example. The social movement gained momentum to expose the undemocratic world poor communities live in and fight evictions. The communities were relocated into 'Tin Can Towns' and 'Transit Camps'. [1] The negativity raised will have future repercussions.\n\n[1] For more information see further readings: Smith (2010) and War on Want (2013).\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "38cfe060a39a7d2b7451ff3633d34f21",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes The housing crisis is unresolved by forced evictions.\n\nAcross African cities there is a housing crisis - whereby there is a mismatch between housing demand and supply. Kigali, capital of Rwanda, for example needs to build half a million new homes. [1] As evictions continue the crisis is being exacerbated. Evictions displace individuals by destroying homes; are forcing lives’ to be rebuilt; and cause a rise in homelessness. In addition, in cases whereby resettlement housing is provided issues emerge. The new locations of resettlement show the crisis is unresolved. Residents are rehoused into unsanitary areas, areas far from employment opportunities, and on undesired land. Slums, and informal settlements, will continue to re-emerge in new locations as solutions are not being provided. Residents are forced out of central locations without being provided with an effective, affordable, alternative replacement.\n\nAlternatives need to be introduced and considered.\n\n[1] Agutamba, 2013\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "06036059e6a0aeed37281ce4f90da73e",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Denying individuals rights to the city commons.\n\nForced evictions create an exclusive city. The process of evictions means individuals are targeted, and criminalised, particularly the poor. The right to the city - to use the city, live in the city, and build the city - is denied to the poor and criminalised. Such denials have implications for the livelihood strategies of the poor.\n\nFor example, in the case of Johannesburg, South Africa, informal street traders have been evicted from using open, public space within the city centre. Such spaces are their means of employment, and as Abahlali Base Mjondolo show, the evictions represent a denial of legal and human rights [1] .\n\n[1] Abahlali Base Mjondolo are a movement of shack-dwellers based in Durban and operating across South Africa. Updated articles are provided.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "02e180d2eb6fb7ab314f1ef6954d2463",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes African cities should not aim for ‘global city’ status.\n\nThere is debate as to the extent to which Africa is experiencing rapid urbanisation. Data shows that across several countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, in reality, urbanisation is slowing or static [1] . A process of counter-urbanisation is occurring as a result of return migration and fictitious data. The political discourse of Africa’s rapid urbanisation and Megacities promotes unjustified dangerous intervention, such as forced evictions.\n\nAfrican cities are unique, and need to promote an alternative image to define their status. A different brand and image of global city status is required, rather than following the current definition. The current definition fails to recognise the diversity of what cities do. The definition of global cities introduces a criteria to follow, and forces conformity in cities worldwide. Mega cities are not negative but have been constructed as being so. There remains a danger of following a path towards 'worlding' cities: who is included and invited to participate in it?\n\n[1] Potts, 2009.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7aea426c940b949d7dc41536ddaf1063",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are inhumane, and make state violence an increasing reality in African cities.\n\nForced evictions are unjust and reflect a threat to human rights. By carrying out such events, the state has become a key actor enforcing violence, fear and insecurity to those whom remain in need of protection [1] . In Luanda, Angola, where 18 mass evictions have been noted between 2002-2006 by the Human Rights Watch [2] , individuals have been killed and imprisoned in the process. Intimidation by the state and government officials becomes a dangerous norm; and inhabitants are not treated as humans.\n\n[1] Amnesty International Campaign.\n\n[2] Human Rights Watch, 2007.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8eedbfad406eb277abb3324e1a75bf83",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are a natural path of development.\n\nForced evictions have occurred globally across time, they show the natural progression of development. Cases across Europe and the USA show evictions were a feature of cities and urbanisation in the past. London experienced numerous ‘slum clearances’ from the 18th to the 20th Century, one such clearance was the building of the Metropolitan railway to the City which destroyed the slums around Farringdon and forced relocation of 5-50,000 people from 1860-4. [1] Firstly, as modernisation theory shows transition occurs as society progresses from ‘traditional’ to an ‘age of mass consumption’. Evictions often occur where inhabitants may not have the legal titles to occupy land. Evictions enable the transition from communities who occupy land based on traditional laws and beliefs to the emergence of a refined legal system.\n\nSecondly, development can only progress once new land becomes available - investment requires space. Therefore space has to be cleared for the city to be re-planned and new investments made. New investments can ensure African cities become sites of prosperity and continue to attract investors.\n\n[1] Temple, 2008\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e5837eecf7b8c18fb56b31faf6234d7d",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions pave the road for African cities to set a trend towards Eco-Cities.\n\nA key character of global cities are the global connections made. Whether financial, economic, political, or cultural - global cities become a fundamental hub providing key resources. Forced evictions provide space in overcrowded, unorganised, cities whereby new architecture and districts can be built, and new trends set. Forced evictions provide spaces for new financial districts and beautiful cities to emerge across Africa.\n\nRecently plans have been set to implement 'Eco' projects across African cities. Proposed projects include the Konza Techno City, Nairobi; Eko Atlantic, Lagos; HOPE, Ghana; and Kampala Tower, Kampala, as part of the Venus Project.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c55dfc29266c7592f38f3fa14af7a53",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are a means to control rapid urbanisation and gain global city status.\n\nAfrica is undergoing rapid urbanisation of 3.5% per year (by comparison China’s is only2.3%). [1] With the rising number of ‘Megacities’ [2] across Africa, the government need to introduce methods to control the sprawling nature of cities and create a sense of order.\n\nMega, and Million, cities have become a representation of Africa’s urban future. Urbanisation in Africa is occurring much faster than the governments are able to cope with. As Mike Davis (2007) suggests African nations showcase a new type of city - a city of slums, decay, and prevailing revolution. The government need to take more control to effectively build future cities and define the path of urbanisation.\n\n[1] Worldstat info, 2013\n\n[2] ‘Megacities’ are defined as cities with over 10 million inhabitants (Wikipedia, 2013).\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f158a12e474a350877bc31dae34198b6",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions are necessary to change perceptions.\n\nWestern media and institutions often present an image of 'Africa' which fails to understand the reality, and continues to position 'Africa' as the 'other', 'unknown', and in need of assistance. Cities across Africa are an opportunity to change this idea of Africa. Forced evictions enable local, and national, governments to redesign African cities. Taking the case of South Africa forced evictions, in cities, have been central in promoting its new image.\n\nIn 2010, South Africa hosted the FIFA World Cup. Stadiums were built in Johannesburg, Cape Town, and Durban and provided the international community an opportunity to see the beauty of South Africa and confirm its ability to deliver as a BRIC country. Evictions occurred to create an aesthetic city, for the greater good. The evictions were only a small cost in the broader scale, whereby a better city would be built for all to enjoy, employment created, and tourists attracted [1] .\n\n[1] Although accurate figures of the number of evictions carried out, and/or number of residents displaced, are unavailable, cases have been reported where around 20,000 people could have been evicted in one settlement. See further readings: Werth, 2010.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c59cdff029ea28c08fa9511038a14bbe",
"text": "economic policy international africa society family immigration house believes Forced evictions will create cities without slums in the long-run.\n\nSlums and informal settlements need upgrading; and the percentage of slums remains highest in Sub-Saharan Africa [1] where slums can be up to 72% of the urban population. [2] Slums are unhealthy spaces - spaces where disease festers, there is limited access to sanitation and services, and overcrowding presents a squalid environment. Forced evictions are an effective urban planning tool to build healthier cities. Residents need to be evicted to enable infrastructure to be built (i.e. roads, lighting, sewage), and services constructed (i.e. hospitals and schools). Evictions enable a healthier environment and homes to be built in the process of redevelopment, beneficial for inhabitants in the long-run.\n\nThis has been the motive of Kenya Vision 2030 [3] which aims to provide access to adequate housing and a secure environment for urban dwellers. In upgrading slums, such as Kibera, the first stage required relocating residents in Kibera to multiple sites (i.e. Soweto East).\n\n[1] Fox, 2013.\n\n[2] Tibaijuka, 2004\n\n[3] Kenya Vision 2030, 2013.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
b46b225ed059b65e713df28fce3b690d
|
Are the women representative of all women?
How can it be assured the women entering African politics are representative of the women in that African nation? Further, will the leader implement politically popular ideas or required policies?
If we are introducing quotas for women in politics we need to think about what women are entering. The concern with race, ethnicity, age, sexuality, and class is fundamental as if we accept the principle that an unrepresented group should get a quota of parliamentarians this should not just apply to women. We need to think about who the women are, what they represent, and who. Even for women simple quotas do not ensure effective representation of what all women want, or ensure the means for change. Women are heterogeneous, as are their challenges in life.
|
[
{
"docid": "9dc159e106e83f4f1e4a5f1c2c35a0a2",
"text": "ional africa politics government leadership voting society gender house would The women’s quota is a vital start to tackle underlying inequalities. Quotas of multiple identities such as race, class, age, sexuality, class and ethnicity will need to be included following the implementation of a women’s quota.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1e272ee645cbaa05e4388f634278756e",
"text": "ional africa politics government leadership voting society gender house would It remains difficult to compare the experiences of women in Scandinavia and Africa. The contexts – history, ideas, and social geographies – are completely different. While Scandinavia may well not need quotas to change perceptions in Africa it may be the best way to do so. Women in Africa need a voice, and therefore politics provides a platform for their empowerment both vocally and in their use of public space. Quotas are a fast-track. It’s not forcing change but guiding and enabling it.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a0eedd0937534dcc529d4ccf627c5089",
"text": "ional africa politics government leadership voting society gender house would Working within gender departments does not mean a woman will be limited in integrating with departments of security. Politics is integrated, and interconnected, therefore learning how to run one political department shows how to run another. Having a woman represent a department shows them in a position of power regardless of the department. We should not believe that the department of health is somehow less important than Defense.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b21ac5a6d39e3d3d329071c3561f4d8",
"text": "ional africa politics government leadership voting society gender house would Suggesting that feminising African politics will stop poverty and provide empowerment returns to the ideas we attach to women. Women are often associated with domesticity, care, and reproductivity. Who’s to say that this is what women are or what they stand for? Basing quota systems on what women are believed to do is dangerous – in reality behaviour cannot be predicted, as women remain diverse and heterogeneous. A study has shown that there is no relationship between the number of women cabinet members and the sex of the executive implying that women don’t really help other women in politics (Jalalzai, p.196).\n\nAdditionally who is to say that by having women in political roles they will instantly be able to implement and act on their desired policies? How resources and power are distributed within the political system is key. Resources may remain controlled by men.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3ebdfbeff8b8fdc06d8a76cd70925267",
"text": "ional africa politics government leadership voting society gender house would When we don’t just consider battle deaths the extent to which violence is declining is questionable [1] . Furthermore, we cannot suggest women in politics will limit war, conflict, or violence, as anomalies are found – such as Margret Thatcher’s use of violence in closing down industries across the UK and willingness to engage in the Falklands conflict. Furthermore the idea returns to a preconceived image and ideal women. The women are represented as the caregiver, submerged within traditional constructions of women as nurturing and empathetic.\n\n[1] See further readings: WDR, 2011.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1bfb98bbeb6c9ca1eedd99c7f457f589",
"text": "ional africa politics government leadership voting society gender house would Women become integrated into a man’s world. But the territory may not be changed. First, women may become like men in response to the jobs they take up and how one is expected to act in the given role. When we consider what conditions women are introduced, potentially with limited training in public speaking, confidence or acceptance, how will they fare? Their best way forward is to get help from the men already in parliament.\n\nSecondly, how do women experience work and are they treated at work? Quotas introduce more women, however, they may experience gender-based harassment and unfair treatment at work. In the case of Kenya, a female politician was publicly slapped [1] . Who will ensure their rights are protected and they are treated equally in a political world?\n\nFinally, is power redistributed? Frequent protests in Senegal show that despite quota systems being implemented women do not end up with power despite being in parliament. [2] Women are legally enrolled into local and national parties but do their seats ensure they can lead political parties? Does being a local candidate ensure the potential for national progression?\n\n[1] African Spotlight, 2013.\n\n[2] Kabwila, 2012.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5ede1d3556d3f4de9a05b9f22ada345a",
"text": "ional africa politics government leadership voting society gender house would Having more women does not mean a representative democracy is built as it is not just gender balance that needs to be considered but ethnicity, language groups etc. as well.\n\nAdditionally, the bias quota system will cause future problems. In the future men will need to be targeted and receive help. For example in Rwanda the focus on including women has pushed men out of politics. Implementing quotas favours the creation of a certain ‘representative democracy’. The democracy becomes ‘represented’ by what we think democracy should look like.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4180f30b56a7ff8c057076132dc000fc",
"text": "ional africa politics government leadership voting society gender house would The woman’s ‘political job’\n\nQuotas mean more women are able to enter the political world; however, how is it decided what political jobs and positions they can utilise? The inclusion of women into politics in Africa has mainly been in certain departments i.e. gender and health. More powerful women are needed in positions that remain masculinised – such as defence and security. Therefore the quota may introduce more women in politics, however, how active are they in deciding what area of politics? The quota may well be seen merely a means to introduce women passively into new distinct gender roles.\n\nIf women are believed to be granted positions as a result of the quotas, rather than it being a position they have earned, they may be more at risk of marginalisation at work. Having a quota provides a reason to argue that an exceptional woman has received her place no based upon merit but due to the quota. This may be used as an excuse to prevent women reaching the most important positions.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c1a2675ab6ec04741f3195beaa502024",
"text": "ional africa politics government leadership voting society gender house would Assuming causality: Africa Vs Scandinavia\n\nScandinavian countries – Norway, Sweden and Denmark – have high female participation rates in parliament. However, Rwanda is one African nation that has even greater female parliamentary representation. In Scandinavia the quota has been introduced but is only implemented by some parties. Nevertheless there is little difference between parties in Denmark, for example, that utilise the quota and those that do not. This shows that voluntary quotas can work but also that they are not really necessary. This is because the position of women and capability to engage in politics was tackled first. The key thing is the perception of women; if they are perceived equally and voted for on their own merits women will win as often as men. This shows, crucially, political participation by women should not be dependent on quotas. We should not rely on quotas for gender equality.\n\nWomen face multiple barriers to political participation; deeper action is required to adjust imbalances rather than simple quotas. Having quotas simply encourages a perception that gender matters in politics when the desired outcome is the opposite; a belief by the electorate that politics is genderless with both as able to perform the role. In Senegal for example, the quota is being criticised as challenging traditional culture and patriarchal society norms it is however those norms that need to be changed not just the number of women in politics [1] .\n\n[1] See further readings: Hirsch, 2012.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "42c8031f251d9fc9b87083bc75410928",
"text": "ional africa politics government leadership voting society gender house would Feminising the state: women helping women\n\nIncluding women in politics helps enable poverty to be tackled. Poverty is a women’s issue; women are more likely to live in poverty than men, and women are needed in politics to change this. Women understand each other, and what they need.\n\nFurthermore, although data varies, evidence shows gender inequalities remain intertwined to poverty and impoverishment [1] [2] . Women in positions of power and leadership can put the issues women face on the agenda and apply action. There is clearly a need to get women into politics to counter the current ‘boys club’ that exists in most countries where men help each other into positions of power squeezing out women and other methods of doing things.\n\n[1] See further readings: Gender Inequality Index, 2014.\n\n[2] See further readings: Chant, 2003.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "121be8cbf786f1e407c5caf2c3e2279c",
"text": "ional africa politics government leadership voting society gender house would Changing the male territory\n\nAfrican politics remains masculinised and strongly male dominated. Implementing quotas shows a commitment to change gender inequalities by increasing women’s political participation (Bachelet, 2013). More women mean gender imbalances can be changed, women empowered, and the territorial boundaries defining what men and women do will become blurred.\n\nAdditionally women in African politics can change the ‘boys club’ of bad governance in Africa. Bad governance can be tackled as the prominence of males controlling decisions will be changed, and internal political relations altered. The least corrupt countries on the continent; Rwanda and Botswana both have some form of quota system(quotaproject, 2014, Transparency International, 2013)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "68f89ef70032d11eb55e0ecff28d5a06",
"text": "ional africa politics government leadership voting society gender house would Democracy must be representative\n\nQuotas are building representative democracies. Through the quota system women are given a voice in society. Quotas mean women are represented in politics. Women are half of the electorate so should be around half of the legislature. Although not there yet the rising numbers symbolise positive change. In 2012, on average, 1/5 of MPs in sub-Saharan Africa were women (The Economist, 2013). In South Africa and Rwanda the number is far above this. Women make up 42% of parliament seats in South Africa, and 64% in Rwanda (ibid.). At present, in Africa we have 2 female presidents (Liberia; Malawi); and 1 prime minister (Aminata Toure, Senegal). Notably Malawi, Rwanda, Senegal, and South Africa all have some form of quota system (quotaProject, 2014).\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "77f4c02884207e2d868832940744c3e8",
"text": "ional africa politics government leadership voting society gender house would A safer world\n\nInternational relations debates, and conflict theories, suggest more women in politics makes for a safer world. In Pinker’s (2011) book the feminisation of politics is identified as a key factor to explain the decline in conflict and violence – battle deaths have declined from 20 per 100,000 people to only 1 or 2 today. Women are more inclined to call for peace resolution and being ‘maternal beings’ reflect nurturing behaviours.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
844b0cfba060100747cfdc4ef2ff2a7c
|
This is a gateway privilege that allows these people to integrate into American society.
Drivers licenses are used a major form of identification in America and so granting illegal immigrants these forms of identification can help enfranchise one of the most exploited minorities in America.
Despite American feelings on illegal immigrants, they are there in their society, contribute to their communities and are a group of people that are routinely and unjustly exploited because of their lack of access to state protection. Despite popular opinion of this being a punishment for breaking their laws, these people operate like any other citizen in American society and are human beings who deserve to be treated as such and to be offered at least some level of protection for the fact that they are human and for what they contribute to America communities and society.
Providing these people with a proper form of identification, especially a driver’s license, which is almost universally accepted as an adequate form of identification to access services from the state and to interact with the rest of society. Specifically, this allows immigrant communities to not feel as though they are confined to an isolated area as they now can travel further distances to gain better employment without fear of being caught and thrown into jail [1] . Moreover, this allows them access to all services offered by the state that require identification such as voter registration.
Therefore, this helps enfranchise a group that is normally exploited in America society.
[1] "Driver's Licenses for Undocumented Aliens." Institute of Governmental Studies. UC Berkeley, n. d. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. http://igs.berkeley.edu/library/research/quickhelp/policy/social/immigra...
|
[
{
"docid": "cd3fc53af9fe2c62e6d83617aafd509a",
"text": "immigration minorities house would give illegal immigrants drivers licenses These people do not deserve to use the services of the USA. They are not citizens, they are law-breakers and society has no obligation to make life easier or more comfortable for those who break the law. Regardless of their contributions to society or the economy, illegal immigrants have broken the law. The consequences of their breaches of the law should be remedied. If necessary, illegal immigrants should be punished in proportion to the harm that their act has caused. Under no circumstances should illegal acts allow these individuals to gain access to the status and legal privileges that citizenship confers.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e082c742e104c78de213420834320064",
"text": "immigration minorities house would give illegal immigrants drivers licenses This is a marginal impact at best. The vast majority of illegal immigrants will try to flee the scene of a crash because they would be worried that the police might be called in to investigate the crash and find out they are illegal and therefore deport them. Although this isn’t always a realistic expectation, it is an expectation that most people in the illegal immigrant community have because of their paranoia over the state pursuing them and wanting to deport them. This fear is only exacerbated by the anti-illegal immigrant rhetoric that permeates American society at present and makes them feel that the state will try to seek them out however they can to get rid of them.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5f500c8d1fca26947c30c019c11b975",
"text": "immigration minorities house would give illegal immigrants drivers licenses It is very unlikely that illegal immigrants will even opt into this scheme. Illegal immigrants are notoriously paranoid about going to the state for any form of assistance as they are afraid of deportation. The vast majority of them would rather risk getting caught driving without a license then they would risk going to the state as an illegal to receive a license in the first place.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "39d15832f944892ed57213b8e7602fff",
"text": "immigration minorities house would give illegal immigrants drivers licenses There is a very big difference between rewarding people for breaking the law and taking positive action to prevent them being exploited and financially marginalised. The United States’ legal system supposedly exists to protect everyone resident within its borders – not just individuals possessing citizenship. Giving illegal immigrants basic access to very rudimentary things such as the driver’s education does not reward law-breaking or undermine the rule of law. Even if side opposition disagree with granting illegal immigrants any rights, this argument is still defeated by the beneficial consequences of ensuring that a much larger number of drivers have received training on the rules of the road. Under the resolution, America’s highways and cities will generally safer for both pedestrians and other drivers.\n\nOn the point of deterrence, there are already very large deterrents to trying to immigrate illegally. The trek is long, dangerous and controlled by violent groups on either side of the border. Bandits and people smugglers engage in robberies and people trafficking on the Mexican side; extremist groups such as the minutemen attempt to assault or shoot immigrants in transit from the American side. Not being able to get a driver’s license once here is not in any way a deterrent that holds any weight when put in context.\n\nBeing able to drive is a necessary skill in the US, where under-investment in public transport infrastructure has led to workers developing a dependence on private transport. The weak bargaining position of an immigrant seeking work would be completely undermined if she were unwilling to drive for or to her job. Even the most risk averse migrant labourer accepts that the possibility of being caught driving without a licence is a risk that they have no choice but to take.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a517155c80097c47766f496c2f5328aa",
"text": "immigration minorities house would give illegal immigrants drivers licenses The first problem with this argument is that it assumes that illegal immigrants are easily identifiable without a driver’s license. It is not like illegal immigrants walk around with a giant red sign that says “Potential Security Threat” at present, and that when we give them licenses they will finally get to put down their signs.\n\nOn this basis, the security risk presented by this policy is minimal. Moreover, for what security risk might exist, it is very easily mitigated or gotten rid of all together. For example, if identification is needed for access to something that is vulnerable to security threat, it is very easy for the government or relevant officials to say that the only sufficient form of ID is a passport instead of a license, due to the risk people may pose.\n\nThe additional harms identified by side opposition are the result of service providers’ discriminatory practices. Federal and state race equality laws prevent businesses and government employees from refusing service to individuals based on their physical characteristics or ethnicity. Therefore, official discrimination cannot exist. At best, this will simply be soft discrimination.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "da5bfa99befb79407b342c9825fda73e",
"text": "immigration minorities house would give illegal immigrants drivers licenses The state should never allow mob mentality to govern its policies and specifically should never let prejudice of its people allow the state to let exploitation and abuse of human beings go unaddressed. This resentment and assumption that all Hispanics are illegal immigrants leeching from the state is something that is already a perception that permeates US thought. This policy will at worst marginally increase that sentiment, and even if it does, the state has a duty to ignore blind hate and not let it drive state policy.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2597f61f43a71f727b31fa9133e8544d",
"text": "immigration minorities house would give illegal immigrants drivers licenses This allows illegal immigrants to get drivers insurance, which makes safer and fairer roads.\n\nInsurance is a key component in making the streets safe for all drivers on the road. Allowing illegal immigrants to get driver’s licenses allows them to gain driver’s insurance.\n\nDriving absent insurance means that there is an incentive to drive off if you cause an accident to avoid having to pay for the damages you have caused and being criminally punished for driving without insurance. This leaves the other driver having to foot their own bill for the repairs to their vehicles [1] . Moreover, even if the uninsured driver stays at the scene, illegal immigrants are characteristically very poor as they must engage in exploitative work to make a wage because they must hide from the state and do not get the same protections from the state, so would still be unable to pay for the damages they have caused. Moreover, having uninsured drivers on the road increases insurance premiums for all insured drivers on the road, as they have to de-facto pay for the risk and damage these uninsured drivers cause [2] .\n\nTherefore, offering illegal immigrants driver’s licenses allows for more fair and accountable systems of insurance and driving conditions on the road.\n\n[1] Confessore, Nicholas, and Danny Hakim. \"Licenses for Immigrants Find Suppot.\" New York Times 09 Oct 2007, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/nyregion/09license.html?ref=todayspaper\n\n[2] Confessore, Nicholas, and Danny Hakim. \"Licenses for Immigrants Find Suppot.\" New York Times 09 Oct 2007, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/nyregion/09license.html?ref=todayspaper\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c99b91528cb591154a40bd83ca6f947d",
"text": "immigration minorities house would give illegal immigrants drivers licenses The provision of driver’s licenses makes the streets safer.\n\nOffering drivers licenses to illegal immigrants makes the streets safer by giving drivers training to people who would otherwise be driving on the streets without adequate education. Unlicensed drivers are five times more likely to get into a fatal crash than licensed drivers [1] .\n\nA fact that needs to be acknowledged is that illegal immigrants have a necessity to drive and the vast majority will do so regardless of if they are given licenses or not. This is very dangerous both for them and for those who they share the road with as they are operating motor vehicles with a proper education on the rules of the road or any form of driving instruction or test to ensure that they can competently and safely drive on the streets [2] .\n\nIllegal immigrants are very likely to opt into this system of driver’s education and licensing because it is in their own interest to avoid breaking the law to avoid detection, but also because it is very much in their interest to get instruction on how to drive as they are as much a danger to themselves as they are to the rest of society when they drive without instruction [3] .\n\nTherefore, offering illegal immigrants driver’s licenses will help make the streets safer by giving drivers access to the education and instruction they need to be safe and competent drivers.\n\n[1] \"Immigration: Let them drive.\" Economist 25 Oct 2007, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. http://www.economist.com/node/10024818?story_id=10024818\n\n[2] \"Immigration: Let them drive.\" Economist 25 Oct 2007, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. http://www.economist.com/node/10024818?story_id=10024818\n\n[3] \"Driver's Licenses for Undocumented Aliens.\" Institute of Governmental Studies. UC Berkeley, n. d. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. http://igs.berkeley.edu/library/research/quickhelp/policy/social/immigra...\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e07f89397672d8ac861a30e7dd6b518",
"text": "immigration minorities house would give illegal immigrants drivers licenses This will foster further resentment of the Hispanic community in America.\n\nThis policy will only further the resentment that exists for illegal immigrants in America, and will make life harder for the entire Hispanic community as a result.\n\nIt is no secret that the idea of granting illegal immigrants driver’s licenses is a very unpopular idea. In New York, for example, 70% of the electorate is against this policy [1] . Looking to California, not only are drivers licenses out of the question, but in 1994 the state passed a bill denying illegals access to welfare, healthcare and education by a 59% margin [2] . Resentment for the community is high and it is undeniable that this policy will be wildly unpopular with the vast majority of Americans.\n\nThe issue with Americans being unhappy with this policy is that they will channel their unhappiness toward all immigrant communities and the Hispanic community more generally. The concept of driver’s licenses especially fuels this hatred because Americans believe that this will allow them to “masquerade” as normal Americans and therefore will assume all Hispanics are these illegals that are masquerading as legal immigrants in their communities. This will only engender more hate and discrimination against these communities.\n\nTherefore, this will seriously harm the Hispanic-American community by fuelling hatred against them in the American majority.\n\n[1] \"Immigration: Let them drive.\" Economist 25 Oct 2007, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. http://www.economist.com/node/10024818?story_id=10024818\n\n[2] \"Driver's Licenses for Undocumented Aliens.\" Institute of Governmental Studies. UC Berkeley, n. d. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. http://igs.berkeley.edu/library/research/quickhelp/policy/social/immigra...\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "10f4a0e9623fc6a9ba401a0642eb4902",
"text": "immigration minorities house would give illegal immigrants drivers licenses This rewards law-breaking.\n\nThis policy rewards those who break the law and therefore is unjustified.\n\nThere are immigration policies for a reason, and to skirt them because you do not want to wait in line like everyone else does not entitle you to be treated on the same level as those who adhere to American laws and immigration procedures. Allowing illegal immigrants to get driver’s licenses simply because they made it here is just rewarding them for being good at breaking our laws.\n\nWe have a moral obligation to continue to deny illegal immigrants the perks of citizenship because they have undermined the very laws and processes that citizenship relies on in America. Moreover, if we simply treat them the same as legal immigrants in our country, there is no deterrent left to stop people from just ignoring our immigrant processes and trying to immigrate illegally to avoid the queue.\n\nTherefore, we shouldn’t give illegal immigrants drivers licenses because that simply rewards law-breaking and undermines the legal system and immigration policy we rely on.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c0b906c423d41e203003e32feba59708",
"text": "immigration minorities house would give illegal immigrants drivers licenses This allows illegals to masquerade as normal immigrants.\n\nAllowing illegal immigrants to get drivers licenses is a security issue for America.\n\nIllegal immigrants are a threat to the US because they have not gone through the necessary background checks that all immigrants are supposed to go through before being allowed into the US to ensure that they are not going to harm American citizens.\n\nGiving illegal immigrants documents that- as proposition argument three says- could grant them access to state services and to a wider range of private services is dangerous [1] . There is no way for frontline state and business staff to determine whether drivers licence holders are migrants who have undergone appropriate police screening, or criminals with a history of dishonest or exploitative behaviour. The resolution may, therefore, allow disreputable individuals to falsely claim to be normalised American citizens.\n\nAlternatively, and more likely, the resolution will undermine the value and utility of state drivers licences – for Latin-American US citizens at the very least. As it becomes known that immigrants from the south bearing licences might be more likely to be dishonest, banks, stores and hospitals will become less willing to accept drivers licences as conclusive proof of a Latin-American individual’s identity.\n\nIf the degree to which service providers will trust a driving licence is reduced, the improvements to illegal immigrants’ quality of life that the resolution brings about will be short lived. Moreover, legally resident Latin-Americans will find that their lives become much more difficult. Service providers will adopt a stance of suspicion toward Latin-American individuals, assuming that a Latino-American’s driving licence offers no useful indication as to his immigration status and background. Therefore, this policy constitutes a large security threat to America and its citizens, and a significant danger to the integration and lifestyles of thousands of Latino-American individuals.\n\n[1] \"Position Paper: No Drivers Licenses for Illegal Aliens.\" News Blaze. Realtime News, 23 Sep 2001. Web. 30 Nov. 2011. http://newsblaze.com/story/20070923120657tsop.nb/topstory.html\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
2457d86eb558ce458eb928b39b79c360
|
This will foster further resentment of the Hispanic community in America.
This policy will only further the resentment that exists for illegal immigrants in America, and will make life harder for the entire Hispanic community as a result.
It is no secret that the idea of granting illegal immigrants driver’s licenses is a very unpopular idea. In New York, for example, 70% of the electorate is against this policy [1] . Looking to California, not only are drivers licenses out of the question, but in 1994 the state passed a bill denying illegals access to welfare, healthcare and education by a 59% margin [2] . Resentment for the community is high and it is undeniable that this policy will be wildly unpopular with the vast majority of Americans.
The issue with Americans being unhappy with this policy is that they will channel their unhappiness toward all immigrant communities and the Hispanic community more generally. The concept of driver’s licenses especially fuels this hatred because Americans believe that this will allow them to “masquerade” as normal Americans and therefore will assume all Hispanics are these illegals that are masquerading as legal immigrants in their communities. This will only engender more hate and discrimination against these communities.
Therefore, this will seriously harm the Hispanic-American community by fuelling hatred against them in the American majority.
[1] "Immigration: Let them drive." Economist 25 Oct 2007, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. http://www.economist.com/node/10024818?story_id=10024818
[2] "Driver's Licenses for Undocumented Aliens." Institute of Governmental Studies. UC Berkeley, n. d. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. http://igs.berkeley.edu/library/research/quickhelp/policy/social/immigra...
|
[
{
"docid": "da5bfa99befb79407b342c9825fda73e",
"text": "immigration minorities house would give illegal immigrants drivers licenses The state should never allow mob mentality to govern its policies and specifically should never let prejudice of its people allow the state to let exploitation and abuse of human beings go unaddressed. This resentment and assumption that all Hispanics are illegal immigrants leeching from the state is something that is already a perception that permeates US thought. This policy will at worst marginally increase that sentiment, and even if it does, the state has a duty to ignore blind hate and not let it drive state policy.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "39d15832f944892ed57213b8e7602fff",
"text": "immigration minorities house would give illegal immigrants drivers licenses There is a very big difference between rewarding people for breaking the law and taking positive action to prevent them being exploited and financially marginalised. The United States’ legal system supposedly exists to protect everyone resident within its borders – not just individuals possessing citizenship. Giving illegal immigrants basic access to very rudimentary things such as the driver’s education does not reward law-breaking or undermine the rule of law. Even if side opposition disagree with granting illegal immigrants any rights, this argument is still defeated by the beneficial consequences of ensuring that a much larger number of drivers have received training on the rules of the road. Under the resolution, America’s highways and cities will generally safer for both pedestrians and other drivers.\n\nOn the point of deterrence, there are already very large deterrents to trying to immigrate illegally. The trek is long, dangerous and controlled by violent groups on either side of the border. Bandits and people smugglers engage in robberies and people trafficking on the Mexican side; extremist groups such as the minutemen attempt to assault or shoot immigrants in transit from the American side. Not being able to get a driver’s license once here is not in any way a deterrent that holds any weight when put in context.\n\nBeing able to drive is a necessary skill in the US, where under-investment in public transport infrastructure has led to workers developing a dependence on private transport. The weak bargaining position of an immigrant seeking work would be completely undermined if she were unwilling to drive for or to her job. Even the most risk averse migrant labourer accepts that the possibility of being caught driving without a licence is a risk that they have no choice but to take.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a517155c80097c47766f496c2f5328aa",
"text": "immigration minorities house would give illegal immigrants drivers licenses The first problem with this argument is that it assumes that illegal immigrants are easily identifiable without a driver’s license. It is not like illegal immigrants walk around with a giant red sign that says “Potential Security Threat” at present, and that when we give them licenses they will finally get to put down their signs.\n\nOn this basis, the security risk presented by this policy is minimal. Moreover, for what security risk might exist, it is very easily mitigated or gotten rid of all together. For example, if identification is needed for access to something that is vulnerable to security threat, it is very easy for the government or relevant officials to say that the only sufficient form of ID is a passport instead of a license, due to the risk people may pose.\n\nThe additional harms identified by side opposition are the result of service providers’ discriminatory practices. Federal and state race equality laws prevent businesses and government employees from refusing service to individuals based on their physical characteristics or ethnicity. Therefore, official discrimination cannot exist. At best, this will simply be soft discrimination.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e082c742e104c78de213420834320064",
"text": "immigration minorities house would give illegal immigrants drivers licenses This is a marginal impact at best. The vast majority of illegal immigrants will try to flee the scene of a crash because they would be worried that the police might be called in to investigate the crash and find out they are illegal and therefore deport them. Although this isn’t always a realistic expectation, it is an expectation that most people in the illegal immigrant community have because of their paranoia over the state pursuing them and wanting to deport them. This fear is only exacerbated by the anti-illegal immigrant rhetoric that permeates American society at present and makes them feel that the state will try to seek them out however they can to get rid of them.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd3fc53af9fe2c62e6d83617aafd509a",
"text": "immigration minorities house would give illegal immigrants drivers licenses These people do not deserve to use the services of the USA. They are not citizens, they are law-breakers and society has no obligation to make life easier or more comfortable for those who break the law. Regardless of their contributions to society or the economy, illegal immigrants have broken the law. The consequences of their breaches of the law should be remedied. If necessary, illegal immigrants should be punished in proportion to the harm that their act has caused. Under no circumstances should illegal acts allow these individuals to gain access to the status and legal privileges that citizenship confers.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5f500c8d1fca26947c30c019c11b975",
"text": "immigration minorities house would give illegal immigrants drivers licenses It is very unlikely that illegal immigrants will even opt into this scheme. Illegal immigrants are notoriously paranoid about going to the state for any form of assistance as they are afraid of deportation. The vast majority of them would rather risk getting caught driving without a license then they would risk going to the state as an illegal to receive a license in the first place.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "10f4a0e9623fc6a9ba401a0642eb4902",
"text": "immigration minorities house would give illegal immigrants drivers licenses This rewards law-breaking.\n\nThis policy rewards those who break the law and therefore is unjustified.\n\nThere are immigration policies for a reason, and to skirt them because you do not want to wait in line like everyone else does not entitle you to be treated on the same level as those who adhere to American laws and immigration procedures. Allowing illegal immigrants to get driver’s licenses simply because they made it here is just rewarding them for being good at breaking our laws.\n\nWe have a moral obligation to continue to deny illegal immigrants the perks of citizenship because they have undermined the very laws and processes that citizenship relies on in America. Moreover, if we simply treat them the same as legal immigrants in our country, there is no deterrent left to stop people from just ignoring our immigrant processes and trying to immigrate illegally to avoid the queue.\n\nTherefore, we shouldn’t give illegal immigrants drivers licenses because that simply rewards law-breaking and undermines the legal system and immigration policy we rely on.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c0b906c423d41e203003e32feba59708",
"text": "immigration minorities house would give illegal immigrants drivers licenses This allows illegals to masquerade as normal immigrants.\n\nAllowing illegal immigrants to get drivers licenses is a security issue for America.\n\nIllegal immigrants are a threat to the US because they have not gone through the necessary background checks that all immigrants are supposed to go through before being allowed into the US to ensure that they are not going to harm American citizens.\n\nGiving illegal immigrants documents that- as proposition argument three says- could grant them access to state services and to a wider range of private services is dangerous [1] . There is no way for frontline state and business staff to determine whether drivers licence holders are migrants who have undergone appropriate police screening, or criminals with a history of dishonest or exploitative behaviour. The resolution may, therefore, allow disreputable individuals to falsely claim to be normalised American citizens.\n\nAlternatively, and more likely, the resolution will undermine the value and utility of state drivers licences – for Latin-American US citizens at the very least. As it becomes known that immigrants from the south bearing licences might be more likely to be dishonest, banks, stores and hospitals will become less willing to accept drivers licences as conclusive proof of a Latin-American individual’s identity.\n\nIf the degree to which service providers will trust a driving licence is reduced, the improvements to illegal immigrants’ quality of life that the resolution brings about will be short lived. Moreover, legally resident Latin-Americans will find that their lives become much more difficult. Service providers will adopt a stance of suspicion toward Latin-American individuals, assuming that a Latino-American’s driving licence offers no useful indication as to his immigration status and background. Therefore, this policy constitutes a large security threat to America and its citizens, and a significant danger to the integration and lifestyles of thousands of Latino-American individuals.\n\n[1] \"Position Paper: No Drivers Licenses for Illegal Aliens.\" News Blaze. Realtime News, 23 Sep 2001. Web. 30 Nov. 2011. http://newsblaze.com/story/20070923120657tsop.nb/topstory.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2597f61f43a71f727b31fa9133e8544d",
"text": "immigration minorities house would give illegal immigrants drivers licenses This allows illegal immigrants to get drivers insurance, which makes safer and fairer roads.\n\nInsurance is a key component in making the streets safe for all drivers on the road. Allowing illegal immigrants to get driver’s licenses allows them to gain driver’s insurance.\n\nDriving absent insurance means that there is an incentive to drive off if you cause an accident to avoid having to pay for the damages you have caused and being criminally punished for driving without insurance. This leaves the other driver having to foot their own bill for the repairs to their vehicles [1] . Moreover, even if the uninsured driver stays at the scene, illegal immigrants are characteristically very poor as they must engage in exploitative work to make a wage because they must hide from the state and do not get the same protections from the state, so would still be unable to pay for the damages they have caused. Moreover, having uninsured drivers on the road increases insurance premiums for all insured drivers on the road, as they have to de-facto pay for the risk and damage these uninsured drivers cause [2] .\n\nTherefore, offering illegal immigrants driver’s licenses allows for more fair and accountable systems of insurance and driving conditions on the road.\n\n[1] Confessore, Nicholas, and Danny Hakim. \"Licenses for Immigrants Find Suppot.\" New York Times 09 Oct 2007, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/nyregion/09license.html?ref=todayspaper\n\n[2] Confessore, Nicholas, and Danny Hakim. \"Licenses for Immigrants Find Suppot.\" New York Times 09 Oct 2007, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/nyregion/09license.html?ref=todayspaper\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5427854acf5918aee14f6fd4ad7c2101",
"text": "immigration minorities house would give illegal immigrants drivers licenses This is a gateway privilege that allows these people to integrate into American society.\n\nDrivers licenses are used a major form of identification in America and so granting illegal immigrants these forms of identification can help enfranchise one of the most exploited minorities in America.\n\nDespite American feelings on illegal immigrants, they are there in their society, contribute to their communities and are a group of people that are routinely and unjustly exploited because of their lack of access to state protection. Despite popular opinion of this being a punishment for breaking their laws, these people operate like any other citizen in American society and are human beings who deserve to be treated as such and to be offered at least some level of protection for the fact that they are human and for what they contribute to America communities and society.\n\nProviding these people with a proper form of identification, especially a driver’s license, which is almost universally accepted as an adequate form of identification to access services from the state and to interact with the rest of society. Specifically, this allows immigrant communities to not feel as though they are confined to an isolated area as they now can travel further distances to gain better employment without fear of being caught and thrown into jail [1] . Moreover, this allows them access to all services offered by the state that require identification such as voter registration.\n\nTherefore, this helps enfranchise a group that is normally exploited in America society.\n\n[1] \"Driver's Licenses for Undocumented Aliens.\" Institute of Governmental Studies. UC Berkeley, n. d. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. http://igs.berkeley.edu/library/research/quickhelp/policy/social/immigra...\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c99b91528cb591154a40bd83ca6f947d",
"text": "immigration minorities house would give illegal immigrants drivers licenses The provision of driver’s licenses makes the streets safer.\n\nOffering drivers licenses to illegal immigrants makes the streets safer by giving drivers training to people who would otherwise be driving on the streets without adequate education. Unlicensed drivers are five times more likely to get into a fatal crash than licensed drivers [1] .\n\nA fact that needs to be acknowledged is that illegal immigrants have a necessity to drive and the vast majority will do so regardless of if they are given licenses or not. This is very dangerous both for them and for those who they share the road with as they are operating motor vehicles with a proper education on the rules of the road or any form of driving instruction or test to ensure that they can competently and safely drive on the streets [2] .\n\nIllegal immigrants are very likely to opt into this system of driver’s education and licensing because it is in their own interest to avoid breaking the law to avoid detection, but also because it is very much in their interest to get instruction on how to drive as they are as much a danger to themselves as they are to the rest of society when they drive without instruction [3] .\n\nTherefore, offering illegal immigrants driver’s licenses will help make the streets safer by giving drivers access to the education and instruction they need to be safe and competent drivers.\n\n[1] \"Immigration: Let them drive.\" Economist 25 Oct 2007, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. http://www.economist.com/node/10024818?story_id=10024818\n\n[2] \"Immigration: Let them drive.\" Economist 25 Oct 2007, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. http://www.economist.com/node/10024818?story_id=10024818\n\n[3] \"Driver's Licenses for Undocumented Aliens.\" Institute of Governmental Studies. UC Berkeley, n. d. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. http://igs.berkeley.edu/library/research/quickhelp/policy/social/immigra...\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
7a73b10fb8695178a371f35b933a816b
|
Having children is extraordinarily expensive
For majority of people children are the biggest expenditure they ever undertake. The United States Department of Agriculture reported in 2008 that the average annual expenses associated with raising a child can be as high as $22,960.* If we assume that a child will live with their parents until the age of 18 and add average cost of sending a child for 4 years to college, we arrive at the conclusion that bringing up a child in a developed country costs around $500,000. This money can be far better spent, for instance, on enhancing the standard of education or health care, subsidising economic initiative in developing countries, investing in green technologies, etc.
*Boy Scouts of America, 2011, http://www.scouting.org/filestore/media/ES_Finances.pdf
|
[
{
"docid": "a7a4c8ec72684177736b66faf240e168",
"text": "hy life society family house would never have children Any money spent on children is well used. Is there a better way to invest money than to use them to support future generations? The more we spend on children’s health care, the more productive our society will be; the more we spend on their education, the wiser our society will be; the more we spend on their cultural awareness, the more conscious of art our society will be. There is no better use of money than spending them on our kids.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "aa1cedffeb2709732bf13eaf746844b4",
"text": "hy life society family house would never have children Having children enriches parents emotionally. The experience of parenting triggers deep and genuine emotions, which parents would not experience otherwise. Attachment, caring, compassion, understanding, moral outrage, joy, and wonder are all inevitably a part of parenting. Many parents claim that they have never loved anybody as much as their children. Thus, having children actually enlarges both the spectrum and the intensity of emotional experiences for parents. Worrying for kids is a natural consequence of praising them so much. The more valuable something is, the more attention we pay to it. The fact that parents worry about their children that much is only a further evidence of how much children’s contribution means to parents.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5e5fce5bfcf67f99076bbb8367c467f0",
"text": "hy life society family house would never have children Not having children is not a good way to combat environmental problems. The real answer to environmental issues is developing clean technology and promoting ecological awareness. If we start to produce energy from renewable resources, switch to electrical transportation, recycle waste etc. we won’t need to reduce population in order to sustain the environment. Furthermore, a higher population living in a more eco-friendly manner would be less harmful than the current level of population with its lifestyles.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20548e106d2b26c2ba236e1fc92f1642",
"text": "hy life society family house would never have children There is no better present for somebody than to give him a life. Our lives are not just about money. There are so many valuable emotions, situations, experiences that have nothing to do with wealth level, for example falling in love or simply being enchanted by the world’s beauty. Even if the child is born to an impoverished family that doesn’t mean he won’t be able to rise out of the poverty. There are numerous sponsored programmes that encourage social mobility in both developing and developed countries. However, we need to accept this simple truth that life is not a sequence of only joyful events, and sometimes we have to experience a difficult situation to be able to appreciate all the good out there. Additionally, positive experiences in lives usually outweigh those negative, that’s why a vast majority of us would never change our lives for not being born. Therefore, giving a child a life is more than morally right.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2e1185f141069b66d2b1562f573ffcef",
"text": "hy life society family house would never have children Having children is one of the most fulfilling and rewarding experiences in life. When people become parents obviously they experience a major change in their lives. However, change doesn’t mean a change for worse. Raising children is not easy, but it brings about a feeling of fulfillment. For many people, having children is the main purpose in their lives. Kids enable parents to rediscover the world around them. Additionally, parents feel empowered as they can shape another human being to a previously inexperienced extent. Relationships with kids seem to be the deepest, most enduring ones. These are the very reasons why people become so upset when they cannot have children. The development of treatments such as in vitro fertilization proves how much we want to have babies. There is also substantial evidence supporting the claim that having children has a constructive rather than destructive influence on parents. Dr. Luis Angeles from the University of Glasgow in the UK has just published in the Journal of Happiness Studies, claiming that the research he has conducted suggests that having children improves married peoples' life satisfaction, making them happier.* A recent Newsweek Poll also found that children add to general levels of parents’ happiness. Fifty percent of surveyed Americans said that adding new children to the family tends to increase their happiness levels. Only one in six (16 percent) said that adding new children had a negative effect on the parents' happiness.** The evidence that having children has a devastating effect is mixed at best and in many cases outright wrong.\n\n*Bayaz, 2009, http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/169018.php\n\n**Newsweek, 2008, http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/06/28/having-kids-makes-you-happy.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "48c5b8e2e8136ff82b2e88752c63541a",
"text": "hy life society family house would never have children There are better ways of eliminating gender inequality. First of all, inequality between sexes is far more complex of an issue than the proposition would like us to believe. There are many reasons why gender inequalities prevail in the society. They are grounded in different physical, psychological and social features of males and females. Moreover, they date back to prehistoric times when men and women occupied themselves with different tasks and had different responsibilities. It is too simplistic to say that by not having children gender inequalities will be eradicated. Furthermore, there are other more effective and less damaging ways of heading towards equality between sexes, such as education, affirmative action and social policy encouraging men to participate in childcare on equal basis with women.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e7ea2554b4ec1a70f1efa556ee4acb12",
"text": "hy life society family house would never have children People are free to choose whether or not to have children. Human beings are granted freedom of choice. The decision to have offspring is, like many others, only a matter of personal choice and there is no duty here that we can talk about. The only real responsibilities towards society that people have are those imposed on them by law. (Paying taxes or protecting a country being prime examples of these). Because society has not chosen to create a law forcing everybody to have children, we see that choosing not to bear offspring is accepted by society.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d41c7dfab2eb7cec907020eb4e104f8f",
"text": "hy life society family house would never have children Having children can be counterproductive in achieving a desirable society. First of all, having children is by no means necessary for possessing all those valuable traits. All of them can be developed though other experiences as well. Secondly, having kids may actually lead to society being less desirable. For instance, parents being exhausted by constant absorption with their children become less productive. They can also become disillusioned or frustrated by their offspring, which will result in their general bitterness.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "70be5701827d057de79f2651b6adb06d",
"text": "hy life society family house would never have children There is no causal link between having children and being supported later in life. After children leave home they become fully independent individuals. They haven’t chosen to be born and so they shouldn’t be burdened by the parents. If kids do look after their parents it should be out of choice as it is not their duty to do so. It is government’s responsibility to take care of its citizens, so that the elderly can spend their last years in fair conditions with the possibility to live in decent old people’s homes if necessary.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "abf365bba4cb2fa0ba0732559da0a613",
"text": "hy life society family house would never have children There is a lot more in humans’ lives than having children. There are numerous differences between humans and other animals. While it may be true that the purpose of animals’ lives is to produce offspring, it is not the case when we talk about humans. People, being much more complex creatures, can contribute to society in many other ways than by having kids (for instance by artistic or scientific activities). So, although our physiology and behaviour may point to reproduction as the main purpose of our lives, these indicators are simply misleading.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "853eecd8ccdc129f1a6112bfb0c195d0",
"text": "hy life society family house would never have children Having children is emotionally draining for parents\n\nThe level of emotional involvement in bringing the child up is immense. Parents pour all their souls into children, who, in turn, often leave them disenchanted and exhausted. Parents also have to share their child’s problems, fears and traumas, so that the amount of grief that parents take on themselves doubles (or even triples, depending on how troublesome the child is). Not only that, but those who have offspring also become more vulnerable. They worry about their kids from the moment they are born until the day they themselves die. Parents’ to-worry-about list is endless: from child’s nutrition to summer camps, from accidents to social acceptance, from choosing a school to moving out. Having raised children, parents become emotional wrecks. All parents agree that it is emotionally draining and stressful, in 1975, advice columnist Ann Landers asked her readers, “If you had it to do over again, would you have children?” seventy percent of respondents said “no.”*\n\n*Goldberg, 2003, http://dir.salon.com/mwt/feature/2003/05/06/breeding/index2.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "73d0cd45b4e9ebf08257cc3ce50285a3",
"text": "hy life society family house would never have children Not having children is environmentally friendly\n\nThe more people consume in the world, the greater the environmental damage. An average American produces 52 tons of garbage by the age of 75.* However, producing extra litter and pollution is not the only hazard that every child poses to the planet. Increasing world’s population also places incredible stress on Earth’s resources. It is estimated, for instance, that by 2025 three billion people will live in water-scarce countries. By reducing the number of human beings we will manage to avoid numerous overpopulation crises and reverse the damage done to the environment.\n\n* Tufts Climate Initiative., 2006, http://sustainability.tufts.edu/?pid=106\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a02c89ba37d2997d2bbf9978aee62303",
"text": "hy life society family house would never have children Not having children promotes gender equality\n\nSocial and economic inequalities between men and women stem primarily from the fact that women are the child bearers, and mothers overwhelmingly spend more time on childrearing tasks than do their male spouses. Not surprisingly then, many employers still discriminate against women when recruiting to work. They view females as those responsible for parenting and thus not reliable, devoted or loyal as employees. Even when there is little or no discrimination in recruitment women often hit a ‘glass ceiling’ due to breaking their careers in order to have children, in the UK a recent report by the Chartered Management Institute found it would take until 2109 to close the pay gap.* On a social level, not having children will mean more gender equality as there will be no ground for justifying an unequal labour division.\n\n*Goodley, 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/aug/31/cmi-equal-pay-report\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "977f349fa198d238654aad2a3ea13656",
"text": "hy life society family house would never have children Having children has a devastating effect on lives of parents\n\nParenting effectively prevents people from pursuing their own interests and fulfilling their own goals. The child becomes the center and the only valid part of parents’ lives. By having kids, people turn from free individuals into servants. They often have to abandon their careers in order to take care of the offspring. Women’s careers are most heavily affected, as women usually end up being the major childcare provider. Furthermore, people with children have much less time for socializing resulting in losing friends. Couples’ relationships are also bound to deteriorate as mother and father become more interested in a baby than in themselves. It has also been proven that couples with kids engage in sexual activities far less often than those who are childless. All of these reasons contribute to general dissatisfaction of parents who feel they have lost their own lives. As the evidence for that we can quote Daniel Gilbert, who holds a chair in psychology at Harvard. Based on his research findings, he reports that childless marriages are far happier.* Such a view is supported also by Madelyn Cain, a teacher at the University of Southern California, who says \"Statistics show childless couples are happier. Their lives are self-directed, they have a better chance of intimacy, and they do not have the stresses, financial and emotional, of parenthood.\"**\n\n*Kingston, 2009, http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/07/24/no-kids-no-grief/3/\n\n**Goldberg, 2003, http://dir.salon.com/mwt/feature/2003/05/06/breeding/index2.htm\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca91234c18cba07c1b371a070fffc603",
"text": "hy life society family house would never have children It is morally wrong to bring children to this cruel and miserable world.\n\nFour out of every five children will be born to families whose members survive on less than $10 a day. Around one third of children in developing countries is estimated to be underweight or stunted.* Research suggests that even in the USA, 20% of children live in poverty. And such an extreme plight of the child is only the beginning. Even if a child is born into a relatively well-off family, there are endless devastating situations he has to face during his life: war, death of family members, chronic illness, divorce, crime, and social exclusion. The list can go on and on forever. Having children is the equivalent of forcing innocent people, against their will, to experience the misery of life. Thus, it is inhumane.\n\n*Shah 2010, http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "80fbe3385e8fc1cb296476b8ce436190",
"text": "hy life society family house would never have children Having children is the essence of existence for every creature\n\nThe most basic purpose of every human being, like of any other animal, is to reproduce, thus ensuring the continuity of ones species. Reproduction is even included in our very definition of life “the state or quality that distinguishes living beings or organisms from dead ones and from inorganic matter, characterized chiefly by metabolism, growth, and the ability to reproduce and respond to stimuli”.* Our bodies (physiological features), behaviour (flirting, dressing up) and sexual drives all point to that fundamental aim of our lives. It is only by having children that we can fulfil the most natural goal of our existence. Until very recently the family and ensuring its continuance has been the goal of almost every human. This is shown by how hereditary has been one of the defining features of almost every society in history, whether it is in government; through monarchy or an aristocracy, in the economy; through passing wealth down from one generation to the next.\n\n* Collins English Dictionary, 2003, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/life\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3058ec8cdae86db6ccbbc450f8b64a79",
"text": "hy life society family house would never have children The act of having children makes people more desirable citizens.\n\nNot only does parenting teach responsibility, but it also triggers such feelings as love, compassion and helps develop such features as patience, devotion, tenderness, understanding. For instance, if parents learn the benefits of being patient towards their children, they are more likely to react patiently in other life situations, which in turn will lead to less aggressive society. Therefore, the more people have children, the more desirable our society becomes.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e2033fa1def3a1446174edc019cfa5f8",
"text": "hy life society family house would never have children Having children is our duty and responsibility\n\nWe cannot live without the society; it is that very society that provides us with basic goods and services such as education, health care, transportation, work. We can only interact with other people and fulfil our most basic needs if we live within the society. Therefore, we owe it to the society to ensure its continuation. It is only by having children that we can do this. Falling rates of population growth in developed countries highlight how dire the need for reproduction is. If people don’t have children today, the society will run into an enormous economic crisis tomorrow, as there will not be enough citizens to work for the growing numbers of the elderly. In the long run, not having children will lead to human beings’ extinction. If present trends continued it would only be 25 generations before Hong Kong’s female population shrank from today’s 3.75 million to just one. Similarly on current trends Japan, Germany, Russia, Italy and Spain will not reach the year 3000.* It is therefore clear that by not having children people fail to fulfil their most fundamental duty.\n\n*The Economist Online, 2011, http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/populations\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e1f50599790aa907e3abc1294d2dfee4",
"text": "hy life society family house would never have children Having children guarantees support for parents\n\nFrom parents’ point of view it is also beneficial to have children as they are the only guarantee of help and support when parents get old. It has been one of the most prevailing practices around the globe for children to return their parents care and dedication. When they become elderly, parents that have lost their spouse often come and live with their children. Additionally, kids tend to look after their parents when they get chronically ill towards the end of their days. It is also the child that visits its parent in hospital. Moreover, many kids support their parent financially, which may become crucial in an era of population ageing, which will bring about drastic reductions in pensions. In China a traditional saying is “Raise children in preparation for one’s old age’ as families often have to care for senior citizens but with a declining population each person may soon be caring for two parents. There is very little in the way of social care there are old-age beds for only 1.8% of the population in China, compared with 5% to 7% in most developed and 2% to 3% in developing countries.* The best way to secure a safe future is to have children to care for you rather than assuming an overburdened state will provide.\n\n*Worldcrunch, 2011, http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2091308,00.html?iid=pf-mai...\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
d8388a756e49edbff9b0ba6d65922cef
|
The response will be to impose more control over the movement of women.
While it is cliché that every action has an equal and opposite reaction in this case the reaction is likely to be bad. If the European Union wants to open up to women from countries that discriminate against women then the clear recourse for those countries is to make sure their women can’t leave. More government and family control will mean more rights will be infringed and leaving the country will be impossible even for tourism. If men are worried about their wives claiming asylum when on holiday why would they give them the opportunity? The state could respond by taking away, or regulating the possibility for women to leave the country. If in the present day, where the EU is not offering asylum, countries in the Middle East and Africa have the certainty that women will come back after their visa expires, this certainty will no longer be in place after we approve the motion. It is in no interest for national governments to lose population and therefore they will act towards infringing this right and many others to keep women at home.
|
[
{
"docid": "fb686d8b9e8e4670bdb9b5464dc714ff",
"text": "n rights international law society gender immigration house believes eu should It is wrong to suggest that the EU should not take an action because some countries might use it as an excuse to clamp down on women’s rights. Europe needs to respond to its own problem that in the Status Quo women who get to the European Union are denied asylum even when they have every reason not to wish to return home. The UK asylum system represents an example of a system that regularly denies women asylum even when they have been persecuted. Second of all, it is absurd to believe that countries like Saudi Arabia or Yemen will definitely close their borders for women to leave as to do so would likely bring retaliation from the EU, these countries if proposing such a move clearly don’t think much of the value of their women so why would they wish to lock them in when to do so will result in less trade. Second refugees are for the most part those fleeing persecution – not those leaving under a passport. Many are already travelling without the permission of their state. If their state revokes their right to leave it will simply demonstrate the appropriateness of the EU letting them in.\n\nWomen for Refugee Women, ‘Refused: the experiences of women denied asylum in the UK’, refugeewomen.com, 2012, http://www.refugeewomen.com/index.php/what-we-do/research\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "4d5d3c71f5c3c090135ec90114609c05",
"text": "n rights international law society gender immigration house believes eu should At a first glance this might be true but let’s take a deeper view upon these societies. The example of Saudi Arabia where women are slowly being given the vote is true but this is not much of a gain in a country where the parliament has almost no power. In a culture where it is normal that they require the approval of their husband or father in order to be able to vote or do anything the result is simply another vote for the man. More than that, in countries like Saudi Arabia, basic rights like the right of movement are denied to women who cannot get a driving license. That there is progress in some areas does not mean that there is no reason for a policy of welcoming women asylum seekers. Far from it, such a policy would increase the pressure on these countries to step up their reforms. We should also remember that progress can go into reverse – thus the trend towards more governments that are less secular in the Middle East should be a worrying reminder of why the EU needs to let these women in.\n\nGoss, Crystal, ’10 of the World’s Worst Countries to Live in as a Woman’, Take Part, 20 August 2012, http://www.takepart.com/photos/worst-countries-women/pakistan\n\nShane, Daniel, ‘Saudi in new crackdown on female drivers’, Arabian Business.com, 25 August 2013, http://www.arabianbusiness.com/saudi-in-new-crackdown-on-female-drivers-514912.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eef16e4bd5856db194ff02621d194e89",
"text": "n rights international law society gender immigration house believes eu should Women will chose to remain in their country because they have a family, a husband, friends and most likely a place to live. Not every woman who is a leader will simply think of helping themselves, many will want to stay and help their country overcome its discrimination. And we should not suggest that those who do go to start a new life in the EU will not benefit the cause of women’s rights at home. They can learn from the example of the state they end up in, learn to lead organisations and mobilise people so that they can be more effective at promoting social change at home.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a52b4ddcae7a62330a7b34aa1379dd57",
"text": "n rights international law society gender immigration house believes eu should No violence or incitement to violence can be justified by changes in legislation. It is not a cultural attack of any kind towards the Islamic religion or a certain culture. We must acknowledge that even the Quran clearly states, “Both men and women should be equal”. Implementing such a measure is simply highlighting that these nations are not living up to their obligations and applying rights that they themselves have accepted are universal by signing up to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is a reminder that every country has the duty to respect its citizens and offer equal opportunities disregarding sex, religion, skin color etc. The intention of the European Union is simple and clear: you have to respect the international law and common sense. Furthermore with the example of South Park there is a fundamental difference in that portraying Mohammed is a fundamental attack on a religion where encouraging equality for women is simply encouraging change in a country’s legislation. The latter is considerably less inflammatory.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "89af9834be6f03a86cd87a4c5c3ca894",
"text": "n rights international law society gender immigration house believes eu should It is not true that the human rights situation for women is deteriorating. The Social Institutions and Gender Index has found between 2009 and 2012 there has generally been improvement for example “The number of countries with specific legislation to combat domestic violence\n\nhas more than doubled from 21 in 2009 to 53 in 2012”. Women rights can be improved through the United Nations. This has the legitimacy to convince governments to change their policies and liberalize them. Also, the power of the United Nations comes form the number of countries involved, adding besides the EU, the powerful US, China, Russia, and South Africa etc. More than that, the UN has a lot of experience in dealing with these kind of cases. A perfect example is the economic and diplomatic sanctions imposed on the South African government in order to convince them to leave behind the apartheid regime. Moreover one of the reasons for the United Nations is the promotion of universal human rights, and this applies to women as well as anyone else; there are 187 states that are a party to the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women.\n\nSIGI, '2012 SIGI', OECD, 2012, http://genderindex.org/sites/default/files/2012SIGIsummaryresults.pdf\n\nReddy, Enuga S., ‘The United Nations: Partner in the Struggle against Apartheid’, un.org, http://www.un.org/en/events/mandeladay/apartheid.shtml\n\nUnited Nations, ‘Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women’, United Nations Treaty Collection, Status at 9 October 2013, http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-8&chapter=4&lang=en\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b11e8bd4a65009af00baaaff4162f06f",
"text": "n rights international law society gender immigration house believes eu should Rather than being selfish and wanting for these women only to be able to achieve their full potential in the European Union, we should consider doing something in order to change the way they are treated at home. Most women are not able to run away from home, or travel hundreds of miles in order to get into Europe to apply for asylum and have this opportunity for development. Even if they were the EU could not take every woman in. The European Union needs to look at the bigger picture and encourage those countries that discriminate against women to become much more liberal in their attitudes to women. This can be done by aid, sanctions, and diplomacy. The EU simply needs to persuade these countries of the massive loss they are sustaining by not allowing half of their population to realize their potential.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "05f38f1af1a386511b5ff40315ece13b",
"text": "n rights international law society gender immigration house believes eu should The image of the European Union, even on human rights, does not result from how they treat the foreign citizens of some distant country but more on how they treat their own citizens. As with any nation or union of countries the EU’s primary responsibility is to fulfill its duties towards its own citizens. More than that, the social balance and economic stability are much more important factors in the European Union’s image abroad than how the union is treating women in faraway countries. So if we decide to talk about image, granting asylum will not improve nor damage the unions. On the other hand, its duty is to protect the European citizens and many things can still be done in this direction. There is no reason in wanting to help people abroad when you can do so much for your own.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "227abefb042d53f65e8edbe5cdbb2537",
"text": "n rights international law society gender immigration house believes eu should With regards to a life threatening situation under which women might face severe consequences upon their return, it should be noted that the European Union will not send someone back if it is believed their life is at risk if they are sent back. They will not be forced to leave the country even if asylum is not granted as they will be granted humanitarian protection or discretionary leave to remain which will allow them to remain until the threat is lifted. If the country in question wishes to return the asylum seeker then it will take steps to negotiate with the asylum seeker's country of origin in order to obtain guarantees that the asylum seeker will not be harmed upon their return.\n\nUNHCR, ‘The Facts: Asylum in the UK’, unhcr.org.uk, June 2013, http://www.unhcr.org.uk/about-us/the-uk-and-asylum.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4e3fb815ed09bd41dd8e0c0a9cdd48da",
"text": "n rights international law society gender immigration house believes eu should The EU is responsible for its own citizens and not for those that live in other countries or regions. Its burden is to protect human rights for European citizens and not for the entire world. At the moment, because of the economic crisis and austerity measures imposed, all the EU attention should be focused on delivering basic human rights (in terms of basic necessities such as food, shelter and employment) for people in Greece, Spain, Italy and other countries in distress. The burden lies here because the government of a country serves the people of that country and as a union each country accepts some of the burden for others in that union. Others that are outwith that union are not giving any direct benefits for the European Union and therefore should they not be our focus. Any more egregious violations of human rights in these countries would already be sufficient cause for granting asylum without a further offer presented to women who are discriminated against.\n\nDouglas-Scott, Sionaidh, ‘The European union and Human Rights after the Treaty of Lisbon’, Human Rights Law Review, Vol.11, No.4, 2011, http://hrlr.oxfordjournals.org/content/11/4/645.abstract\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eed49c37bf847aef40cc257f388108da",
"text": "n rights international law society gender immigration house believes eu should Allowing women asylum will damage feminist movements\n\nIn order to drive social change, these regions need women who are open-minded and want to be part of feminist movements. By giving them the “easy way-out”, social change will be delayed in countries with a legal system that discriminate against women. Females will have two options. First of all, they can leave the country and come in the European Union where the situation is already better. Second, they can choose to remain in their national country and fight for their rights. It is only human to take the easy way out. Movements for women’s rights will therefore lose many of those who want to change something and are willing to take action and as a result a lot of power. Those who migrate will be those who are more independent, more willing to do something to change their situation. Their energies will be directed outwards to leaving their home rather than to improving their situation where they are which would help millions of other women as well as themselves. This is the case with emigration more generally those who leave are those who are more entrepreneurial and are more likely to be leaders – in the United States 18% of small businesses were owned by immigrants, higher than the 13% share of the total population that are immigrants. As such movements for women’s rights will not only be deprived of numbers, but they will lose the leadership of the women who would be most likely to push for change.\n\nEditorial, ‘Immigrants and Small Businesses’, The New York Times, 30 June 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/opinion/sunday/immigrants-and-small-bu...\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e1ebe6b55ac8e436b9e323f1e9d01cb",
"text": "n rights international law society gender immigration house believes eu should The situation in these countries is improving, no need for a new policy.\n\nSuch an extreme measure as granting asylum to all women from these countries is not required as the situation in countries that discriminate against women is improving. Moreover, such an approach might be seen as an attack and make Middle Eastern and African countries react badly. Most of these countries are moving towards a more liberal approach and starting to promote the rights of women and reduce legislated discrimination. They already have an interest in aligning with western conditions in order to increase their international reputation. More than that, people in these societies are becoming more liberal demanding more and more rights as we see in the Arab Spring. In Kuwait, female suffrage has been allowed since 2005, whereas Saudi Arabia permitted women to vote and participate in municipal election from 2011. The right for national election will follow in 2015, with King Abdullah changing his country’s ultraconservative approach. The wind of change has left Europe and is heading toward the Middle East and Africa, promoting social reform and equality between men and women. If practices like female genitalia mutilation were widely used ten years ago, now they are enforced only in tribal parts of Africa, affecting less and less women. In conclusion, there is no need to worry about female that have residence in these countries because they are becoming more liberal and along with that, the whole country is changing. Diplomacy is working, there is no need for a new asylum policy.\n\nAjami, Fouad, ‘The Arab Spring at One’, Foreign Affairs, March/April 2012, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137053/fouad-ajami/the-arab-spring-at-one\n\nBBC News, ‘Kuwaiti women win right to vote’, BBC News, 17 May 2005, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4552749.stm\n\nBBC News, ‘Women in Saudi Arabia to vote and run in elections’, 25 September 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15052030\n\nStewart, Catrina, ‘Saudi women gain vote for the first time’, The Independent, 26 September 2011, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-women-gain-vote-for-the-first-time-2360883.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d06422372c11f0385df00b4d25145af1",
"text": "n rights international law society gender immigration house believes eu should Offering asylum for women will be seen as a case of cultural imperialism\n\nOffering asylum to women who live under Sharia Law or other forms of discriminatory systems will be seen as a cultural attack made by the West against Islamic and Africa values. The European Union’s actions will be seen as neo-colonialism meant to influence foreign states population. Ultraconservative Islamic countries are already suspicious of the west of social and cultural issues; this will simply show that they are correct in their concerns. Let’s take the example of South Park, an American comedy TV-Show that portrayed Muhammad as a bear during one of its episodes. A website known for supporting jihad against the West published a warning against the creator, threatening to kill them if they don’t remove the episode. Despite being a cartoon for a western audience it was seen as an attack on Islam. A policy which would appear to be in large part directed at Islamic states would be needlessly inflammatory.\n\nThe European Union would be showing that they do not care for the cultural values of others. Instead it would be promoting an imperial notion that western values are superior to those of other cultures. This is then legitimizing any notion that there is some kind of clash of cultures as it draws a line between the European Union and these states, a notion that would then be used by extremists on both sides as a propaganda tool and justification for violence.\n\nLeo, Alex, ‘South Park’s Depiction of Muhammad Censored AGAIN’, Huffington Post, 22 April 2010, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/22/south-park-mohammed-censo_n_547484.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a0912188c706dd79c2ef49e224ab98bd",
"text": "n rights international law society gender immigration house believes eu should Asylum is the only way to protect women\n\nThe European Union is not able to protect women in other countries that are not a part of the union. Countries that have legislation discriminating against women are clearly not listening to European urgings on human rights. They will not respond to these urgings social and cultural traditions are deeply ingrained and only slowly change. Where women are seen as second-tier citizens it is seen as a natural part of the society can barely walk to the corner of the street without the consent of their husband. Moreover, the situation in countries with legislated discrimination against women is not improving, in countries which were previously secular there is increasingly a challenge from Islamism as in Libya and Egypt during the 'Arab Spring'. Moreover the influence of the European Union is declining; it has always been primarily financial, through aid which is declining, and through investment which, at least in the MENA, region has reversed as a result of those same revolutions. By granting asylum we can help them escape a legal system that clearly is against them and replace it with a European Union legal system that grants them those rights they never had.\n\nKausch, Kristina, 'If Europe is to preserve influence in the Middle East and North Africa, it must move on from technocratic policies towards more flexible cooperation.' LSE European politics and Policy, 21 December 2012, http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2012/12/21/europe-middle-east-north-africa-cooperation/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5710dcacfbbe81742955f522b6186996",
"text": "n rights international law society gender immigration house believes eu should We would allow discriminated women to reach their full potential\n\nWomen who are constantly threatened by their husbands or who are in societies where they are considered to represent less than a man will most certainly lack ambition to achieve their full potential – or even if they do have the ambition will be restrained from fulfilling it. When you live under a system that considers you inferior to the other gender and denies you opportunities on the basis of gender – sometimes including education the individual is clearly never going to have a chance to make their life worthwhile for its own sake. They won’t be able to take up jobs that will have an impact on the world, they won’t control their own economic circumstances as their husband is the only breadwinner, and they will be denied the opportunity to express their ideas and views. By giving them asylum in a place where women and men are treated equally, we give them the opportunity to do whatever they wanted to do before. Besides the security that they will gain, they will be able to go to school or get a job more easily than in their native country. There is no reason for which we don’t want these women to be a part of our European cultural identity. It is shameful to give this opportunity only to your citizens when women from countries that discriminate against them might be able to contribute so much more than they are able to under their circumstances in their native country.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b03c5708b66c6208d1ddced3b5b3999",
"text": "n rights international law society gender immigration house believes eu should The status quo involves sending women back to the threat of persecution\n\nSometimes, women who are persecuted by their government end up running from their country just to be sent back from the EU when their asylum application is rejected. Under the current legal system, the problems of women from countries that implement Sharia Law and other forms of discrimination are often not considered sufficient grounds for asylum. This is because refugees are only considered to be refugees ‘owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion’, so it does not include persecution for gender. The consequences can be of two kinds. The first and the worst is sending them back home where to face harsh punishment for trying to leave. This was the case with two women who applied for asylum in Great Britain in 1997 and were denied this right even though they faced death by stoning upon return.\n\nEven if the women are not sent home immediately due to a prolonged appeals process they are left in detention centers, in uncomfortable conditions and unable to get a job or do anything while they wait. Those who are denied entry are left with nothing only a long depressing wait to be returned to the horrible conditions from which they thought they had escaped.\n\nCleaver, Olivia F., ‘Women Who Defy Social Norms: Female Refugees Who Flee Islamic States and Their Fight to Fit into American Immigration Law’, Rutgers Journal of Law & Religion, http://lawandreligion.com/sites/lawandreligion.com/files/Cleaver.pdf\n\nWomen for Refugee Women, ‘Refused: the experiences of women denied asylum in the UK’, refugeewomen.com, 2012, http://www.refugeewomen.com/index.php/what-we-do/research\n\nThe United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, ‘Convention and Protocol relating to the status of refugees’, unhcr.org, 1951, http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html p.14\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "78682513a133c986fe6b9dd87dd2faf5",
"text": "n rights international law society gender immigration house believes eu should The EU needs to help those suffering from human rights abuses\n\nEveryone is equal. Women who live under legal system that permits discrimination against them are being denied of basic human rights whether this is the right to vote, to a fair trial, or bodily integrity. Sharia Law, for example, clearly denies them human rights like equality before the law, a basic human need according to Universal Declaration of Human Rights. \"All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.\" Under Sharia a woman’s testimony is worth half a man’s and she gets half the inheritance of her male siblings. Second of all, bodily integrity is affected when women are stoned to death or beaten by their husbands without them even being punished. The importance of self-determination and autonomy are neglected in Saudi Arabia where women are not allowed to drive or go alone in public. Female genital mutilation, which causes bleeding, infections and infertility, and is almost always done without the girl's consent, is a big problem in many African countries. Asylum given by the EU shall be the only way for these women to leave the system that persecutes them and be able to have their human needs respected and therefore creating a healthier, safer and better environment.\n\nKaitlin, ‘Women’s Rights Under Islamic Law’, Inside Islam: Dialogues & Debates, 25 November 2008, http://insideislam.wisc.edu/2008/11/womens-rights-under-islamic-law/\n\nPizano, Pedro, ‘Where Driving Is a Crime and Speaking About It Leads to Death Threats’, Huffington Post, 6 June 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pedro-pizano/saudi-women-driving_b_1575969.html\n\nUnited Nations, ‘The Universal Declaration of Human Rights’, un.org, 10 December 2948, http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/\n\nWorld Health Organisation,’ Female genital mutilation’, WHO Fact sheet, no.241, February 2013, http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/\n\nMahmoud, Nahla, ‘Here is why Sharia Law has no place in Britain or elsewhere’, National Secular Society, 6 February 2013, http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2013/02/here-is-why-sharia-law-has-no-...\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b941b092ed58ca5d4360c154d5eb7420",
"text": "n rights international law society gender immigration house believes eu should The EU’s reputation can only benefit from a strong policy on women’s rights\n\nThere is a moral obligation for such a powerful and diverse group of nations to protect not only their own citizens but also people in desperate need all around the world. All the countries in the EU have signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and therefore stand behind its principles. As the world biggest economic power the EU is fully capable of doing so. The Union is wealthy enough that it can take in the extra migrants that would occur as a result of taking in women from countries where they face discriminatory legislation.\n\nThe European Union’s international image is not based on its military might but upon its economy and on being upstanding in its promotion of a human rights agenda. Granting asylum to women that live under discriminatory legal system reinforces this image of being concerned for human rights. The European Union has signed up to the United Nations’ Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women by which signatories “agree to pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating discrimination against women” while the convention is calling for the elimination of discrimination internally it is fully in the spirit of the convention to undertake actions that encourage others to fulfill the Convention. By being willing to grant asylum to women from countries that have not lived up to the standards of the convention – which includes “To adopt appropriate legislative and other measures, including sanctions where appropriate, prohibiting all discrimination against women” – the European Union will put pressure on these regimes, helping to highlight their unequal systems.\n\n‘Article 2’, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, UN Women, 1979, http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/text/econvention.htm\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
6ed13779c78b5965d24824be4e091dc3
|
Single child families are economically efficient
The one child policy is economically beneficial because it allows China to push its population growth rate well below its growth rate in GDP.
This has allowed the standard of living in China for the average Chinese citizen to improve significantly since the policy was implemented. Specifically speaking, since 1978 the income of the urban population in China has increased tenfold. Per capita housing space has also increased both in towns and in rural areas allowing Chinese people to enjoy a higher standard of living.
Further, the individual savings rate has increased since the introduction of the One Child Policy. This has been partially attributed to the policy in two respects. First, the average Chinese household expends fewer resources, both in terms of time and money, on children, which gives many Chinese more money with which to invest. Second, since young Chinese can no longer rely on children to care for them in their old age, there is an impetus to save money for the future.
On top of this, the one child policy has also been instrumental in the eradication of poverty in China. Often, the greatest problem with poverty is that families grow to unsustainably large sizes and as such the entire family is forced to be hand to mouth. However, the one child policy prevents this from happening and as such allows for the single child to be educated properly without providing too much strain on the family. Hence, by improving educational attainment and by reducing the financial pressures bearing on poor families, the one child policy has contributed significantly to reducing poverty within China.1
1 “Family Planning in China.” Information Office of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China. 1995. http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ce/cegv/eng/bjzl/t176938.htm
|
[
{
"docid": "1a6049087cb9e00faac86ada348e98f3",
"text": "gender family youth house believes peoples republic china should abandon one The Chinese economy may well have grown anyway; correlation is not causation. It was not the one child policy that has caused China’s incredible economic growth but the opening up of the Chinese economy to the market.\n\nMoreover the economic benefits from the one child policy do not come without costs.\n\n“An associate professor of economics at Columbia University, Lena Edlund, found that a 1% increase in the ratio of males to females equates to an increase in violent and property crime of as much as 6%, \"suggesting that male sex ratios may account for 28% to 38% of the rise in crime.”\n\nFurther to this, the economic benefits of the one child policy do not outweigh the harms to human rights that the one child policy causes.1\n\n1 “One-Child Policy, Chine Crime Rise Linked by Study.” New Yorks Sun. 19-11-2007. http://www.nysun.com/business/one-child-policy-china-crime-rise-linked-by-study/66657/\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ab9d05dcbc2fd89daf2cfdb5960fdf54",
"text": "gender family youth house believes peoples republic china should abandon one Interventions and contraceptive techniques such as condoms and sex education have proven to be more effective than the one child policy in aiding population control. Thailand and Indonesia for example achieved the same ends as China in reduction of their population just using these methods of birth control and family planning.\n\nFurther, the benefits of one child in population control are often exaggerated. From 1970 to 1979, through education and an emphasis on having smaller families and more time between pregnancy the Chinese government was able to reduce its birth rate from 5.2 to 2.9.\n\nPopulation growth within China at a stable rate, which a replacement fertility level of 2.1 would bring, might actually be beneficial. The extra man power will be useful to China, it would mean that instead of having its population decline from 1. 341 billion today to 941 million by 21001 as is currently projected there would be a more stable population which would result in less problems with an aging population.2\n\nOther critics question the assertion that the One-Child policy is effective at achieving population control in the first place. Fertility levels dropped between 1970 and 1979 due to government policies that pushed for later marriages and fewer births.3 Additionally, economic growth and social programs are likely to encourage smaller family sizes -- this phenomena has been observed in other countries without similar government policies.4 In cities and wealthier rural areas, surveys indicated that women on average wanted to have fewer than two children, which is below the \"replacement rate\" of 2.1 children per couple.5 It is difficult to isolate the One-Child policy as the primary cause of declining birth rates when other socioeconomic factors also affect families' decisions.\n\n1 ‘China Population (thousands) Medium variant 2010-2100’, United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2010 revision, http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/unpp/panel_population.htm\n\n2 “The most surprising demographic crisis.” The Economist. 05-05-2011. http://www.economist.com/node/18651512\n\n3 Feng, Wang. \"Can China Afford to Continue its One-Child Policy?\" Analysis from the East-West Center. No. 77. March 2005. http://www.eastwestcenter.org/fileadmin/stored/pdfs/api077.pdf\n\n4 Engelman, Robert. \"What happens if China's 'one child' is left behind?\" Worldwatch Institute. 03-03-2008. http://www.enn.com/top_stories/article/32162\n\n5 The Economist. \"The child in time.\" 10-08-2010. http://www.economist.com/node/16846390\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "630506f5151e598cd8886944e2147f55",
"text": "gender family youth house believes peoples republic china should abandon one The benefits for women in this situation could easily be enforced via legislation, without the need for a one child policy to begin with. The gain from mothers who are able to work could easily be replicated through family planning and a greater focus on equality between genders in the country. As it is, the one child policy as defined in side opposition’s case causes women’s rights to be violated and often results in the deaths of otherwise healthy baby girls.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8784006b50d9101a3ac739ad9054cd98",
"text": "gender family youth house believes peoples republic china should abandon one The policy itself has no malicious intent and is not aimed to harm different communities to a different level. An argument about the rich ignoring the one child policy is an argument for better regulation of the current policy, which is meant to be completely fair no matter a family’s status or wealth, not the abolition of the policy itself.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "38ffcc54a8f13a226c4e0b9ef9e2a8e3",
"text": "gender family youth house believes peoples republic china should abandon one The Chinese authorities outlaw forced abortions. The violations of human rights are outliers and rarely occur. When they do they are punished badly.\n\nSuch violations are regrettable; however the one child policy carries a number of benefits for the vast majority of Chinese families. Since the implementation of the policy family planning in China has become significantly better and thus the overall benefit to all of China outweighs the harm that is incurred by a tiny minority of people. 1\n\nWithout population control measures, quality of life in China would decline for all citizens who must compete for limited jobs, healthcare resources, and access to social services, particularly in rural areas.2\n\n1 Associated Press. “China Will Outlaw Selective Abortions.” MSNBC. 07-01-2005. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6800405/#.TrhsabJVO90\n\n2 \"Family Planning in China.\" Information Office of the State Council of the People's Republic of China. http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ce/cegv/eng/bjzl/t176938.htm\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "afcf91f5a9eade5554e97fa9bdb2315e",
"text": "gender family youth house believes peoples republic china should abandon one The Chinese authorities are getting better at preventing selective abortion of females since it was banned in 2005. Whilst the demographic changes resulting from the one child policy are regrettable, they are ultimately what the Chinese authorities are seeking from the one child policy. 40 million men who cannot marry are unlikely to have children and contribute to China’s population problems.\n\nWhilst there is harm to society from these men being unable to marry, the problem of overpopulation in China’s future which is being prevented by the one child policy outweighs this harm significantly.1\n\n1 Associated Press. “China Will Outlaw Selective Abortions.” MSNBC. 07-01-2005. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6800405/#.TrhsabJVO90\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a624b80fdfbc319f893d5a485b374fb2",
"text": "gender family youth house believes peoples republic china should abandon one One child benefits women\n\nIt is reported that the focus of China on population control helps provide a better health services for women and a reduction in the risks of death and injury associated with pregnancy. At family planning offices, women receive free contraception and pre-natal classes. Help is provided for pregnant women to closely monitor their health. In various places in China, the government rolled out a ‘Care for Girls’ programme, which aims at eliminating cultural discrimination against girls in rural and underdeveloped areas through subsidies and education.\n\nWithin many Chinese communities, women have traditionally been the primary caregivers for children; however, with fewer children, they have more time to invest in their careers, increasing both their personal earnings and the national GDP.1,2\n\n1 “Family Planning in China.” Information Office of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China. 1995. http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ce/cegv/eng/bjzl/t176938.htm\n\n2 Taylor, John. “China-One Child Policy,” Foreign Correspondent. 02-08-2005. http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2005/s1432717.htm\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "09f7c1bb6bc6b2f2aee117aaa715bc04",
"text": "gender family youth house believes peoples republic china should abandon one The one child policy is needed for population control\n\nThe One Child policy in China acts as an extremely powerful check on the population. With 1.3 billion people, problems of overcrowding and resource depletion in China are bad and will get significantly worse without change.1\n\nThe reality of the abolition of the one child policy is that with an increase in birth rate from the current level of 1.7 to 2.1 which is not unreasonable given population growth in other countries, there would be 5 million more births per year in China than there are now resulting in 250 million more people by the middle of this century.\n\nGiven that China is already one of the biggest contributors to global warming in the world, the addition of another 250 million people would be catastrophic in the prevention of damage to the climate. Ecological damage of this kind has been a common feature of overpopulated societies, china included, for centuries. Soil erosion, depletion of soil nutrients in arable land and pollution of water sources are already an increasing problem in China, desertification for example causes US $6.5billion of losses to the country each year.2 Further, the strain on Chinese resources would also be incredible. The policy also prevents other problems associated with overpopulation, such as epidemics and the growth of slums.3 Stable and balanced population growth requires that the policy remain in place for the time being.4\n\n1 \"Family Planning in China.\" Information Office of the State Council of the People's Republic of China. http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ce/cegv/eng/bjzl/t176938.htm\n\n2 People’s Daily, ‘China Faces Challenge of Desertification’, 1 September 2001, http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200109/01/eng20010901_79027.html\n\n3 Revkin, Andrew. “An End to One-Child Families in China?” New York Times.28-02-2008. http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/an-end-to-one-child-families-in-china/\n\n4 Yardley, Jim. \"China Sticking with One-Child Policy.\" http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/world/asia/11china.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d5c627ff215831a8d44f92e4dfca9ada",
"text": "gender family youth house believes peoples republic china should abandon one The one child policy is ignored by Chinas elite\n\nThe one child policy is a policy that can be ignored fairly easily by richer people within China. Through their ability to bribe officials as well as their ability to hide extra children using foster parents and the like, it is easily possible for richer people to flout the one child policy. This has shown itself in the form of many wealthy Chinese officials, entrepreneurs and celebrities who have been caught ignoring the one child policy. For example between 2000 and 2005 1968 government officials in Hunan violated the one child policy.1\n\nGiven that this is true, the one child policy serves to create social division in China. It is perceived by the poorest Chinese communities as an obstacle to prosperity. By imposing harsh penalties (both moral and fiscal) on parents who attempt to maximise not only their future welfare, but also their family’s economic prosperity by trying for a son, the one child policy undermines social development within China’s rural and working classes. Moreover, it serves to entrench negative perceptions of Chinese officials and business owners as corrupt tyrants. How else will marginalised communities relate to a law that undermines the cohesion of their families and that the wealthy can exempt themselves from? 2\n\n1 Liu, Melinda, ‘China’s One Child Left Behind’, Newsweek, 19 January 2008, http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/01/19/china-s-one-child-left-behind.html\n\n2 ibid\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ebdb7ed787baeeb0adc2fe14e9279848",
"text": "gender family youth house believes peoples republic china should abandon one The one child policy results in sweeping human rights violations\n\nThe One Child policy is often strictly enforced in China and many parents are given information about contraception to prevent any chance of an unplanned pregnancy. However a large number of pregnancies- within any population- are inevitable, despite the precautions that parents may take. Whether as a result of defective medication, irresponsible behaviour, or simple bad luck, sufficiently frequent sexual activity will always lead to pregnancy.\n\nReports from human rights workers indicate that the Chinese states deals with such eventualities by forcing women to have abortions against their will. By some accounts, the state directly detains and punishes women who resist family planning policies.1 The psychological trauma caused by this is almost indescribable. Not only does a forced abortion represent a significant attack on a woman’s bodily autonomy, procedures of this type are officially contextualised as correcting the results of wrongdoing. The woman is not counselled or assured that she is not morally culpable for her actions; she is placed in a position where the destruction of her foetus is portrayed as the inevitable result of her own lack of responsibility. Chinese women are made to feel directly responsible for the loss of their unborn children or for the circumstances that gave rise to their pregnancy.\n\nFurther the Chinese authorities often force people to be sterilised against their will. This has happened in some cases almost immediately after birth, which is incredibly traumatic for the people involved. Further, should these people ever leave China it prevents them from raising a family in the future with more than a single child. Again, forced sterilisation in this way causes large psychological harms due to the manner in which the person’s body is violated.2\n\n1 Life Site News. \"Forced Abortion Still a Reality in China Says New Amnesty Report.\" Life Site News. 27-05-2005. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2005/may/05052706\n\n2 Elegant, Simon. “Why Forced Abortions Persist in China.” Time. 30-04-2007. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1615936,00.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2ed3a9354811bdcb5d83120a5d802251",
"text": "gender family youth house believes peoples republic china should abandon one The one child policy skews gender demographics\n\nMany Asian cultures have a preference for sons over daughters due to traditions involving inheritance. Further, in rural communities a son is often preferable to a daughter simply because of the amount of work that they can do for the family. As well as this, sons act as primary caregivers for the parents when they go into retirement and the son’s parents are often treated better than the daughter’s.\n\nIt is for these reasons that often when a Chinese family finds out that they are set to have a daughter they attempt to selectively abort it and try again for a son. This is technically illegal in China, however, this has only led to back alley abortions which often carry a much higher chance of mortality for the mother. Further, it has also led to parents abandoning female children or leaving them to starve so that they may try again with a son. In China’s rural provinces it is much more difficult for the authorities to deal with every case given the sheer number of people over such a large area and as such these crimes often go unprosecuted or punished.\n\nThis process not only leads to human rights violations, as mentioned, but it also skews the gender balance of the Chinese population. Specifically, since the implementation of the policy in 1979 many men are finding there are simply no women to marry. By 2020 it is estimated there will be 40 million men unable to marry in China simply because of the lack of females.1\n\n1 Baculino, Eric. “China Grapples with legacy of its ‘missing girls.” MSNBC. 09-14-2004. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5953508/ns/world_news/t/china-grapples-legacy-its-missing-girls/#.TrhyCLJVO90\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
d51b98ecc5ecf292551587ea44f69b0f
|
The Gulf states want to solve the root of the refugee crisis; getting rid of Assad
Gulf countries have been trying to fix the problem politically rather than taking in a few refugees, which would be beneficial to most of the Syrians? The vast majority of Syrians would prefer to go home to a Syria with the civil war over and preferably with Assad gone. The gulf starts, are the main powers working to see this happen. While the US has helped arm some rebel groups the funding for this was provided by Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states have gone further than the west in terms of providing arms. [1]
[1] Mazzetti, Mark and Apuzzo, Matt, ‘U.S. Relies Heavily on Saudi Money to Support Syrian Rebels’, The New York Times, 23 January 2016, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/world/middleeast/us-relies-heavily-on-saudi-money-to-support-syrian-rebels.html?_r=0
|
[
{
"docid": "9973310dc530736641655309a4967e1b",
"text": "ional middle east society immigration minorities house believes gulf states The effort to fund and arm the rebels has not shown any result, it’s been over 4 years and yet nothing has solved the problem. Rather the situation has got steadily worse with moderate opposition first losing out to Daesh, and then to Assad since Russian air support tipped the balance. Arming rebel groups simply helps to perpetuate the civil war and ensure that refugees cannot return home.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "a1ccd6f958e8616cd028cf2fcdd25fa2",
"text": "ional middle east society immigration minorities house believes gulf states Refugees can’t be choosers in a situation where their country has been destroyed. A survey conducted among refugees arriving in Germany showed that around 68% of the people fled just to save themselves from the imminent threat. [1] The Gulf States may not be a model of democracy and human rights but migrants would be considerably safer than in Syria.\n\n[1] Von Martin, ‘Survey amongst Syrian refugees in Germany – Backgrounds’, adopt a revolution, 7 October 2015, https://www.adoptrevolution.org/en/survey-amongst-syrian-refugees-in-germany-backgrounds/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ee138b7c59bacebacc551e854265f5d",
"text": "ional middle east society immigration minorities house believes gulf states The incidents that occurred in Europe were involving native Europeans themselves, although they did travel to and back from Syria.\n\nJust like Europe could have home grown terrorists, the same likeliness applies to the gulf states. In fact statistics even show that one of the highest number of recruits for Daesh has been those from Saudi Arabia. [1]\n\n[1] The Economist, ‘It ain’t half hot here, mum’, 28 August 2014, http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21614226-why-and-how-westerners-go-fight-syria-and-iraq-it-aint-half-hot-here-mum\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0b245cdea1d9749ba092c577abbdac5f",
"text": "ional middle east society immigration minorities house believes gulf states Moral responsibility is not about comparisons if it were then what about those European countries that have not been open armed like in Hungary they have made it illegal to help Syrian refugees [1] . Riot police in Hungary have used teargas and water cannon to send them off. [2] Saudi Arabia has been doing enough to account for its moral responsibility; it has given residency to 100,000 Syrians. [3]\n\n[1] Frayer, Lauren, ‘Risking Arrest, Thousands of Hungarians offer help to refugees’, NPR, 29 September 2015, http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/09/29/444447532/risking-arrest-thousands-of-hungarians-offer-help-to-refugees\n\n[2] Weaver, Matthew, and Siddique, Haroon, ‘Refugee crisis: Hungary uses teargas and water cannon at Serbia border – as it happened’, theguardian.com, 16 September 2015, www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/sep/16/first-refugees-head-for-croatia-after-hungarys-border-crackdown-live-updates\n\n[3] The Guardian, ‘Saudi Arabia says criticism of Syria refugee response ‘false and misleading’, 12 September 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/12/saudi-arabia-says-reports-of-its-syrian-refugee-response-false-and-misleading\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "02e4e762995acc5407fd95821ef01ee2",
"text": "ional middle east society immigration minorities house believes gulf states Unfortunately the refugee crisis is not happening at a good time economically for the Gulf. Oil prices have slumped. As a result there is a turbulent economy with many losing their jobs. [1] There is high levels of competition for those jobs that do exist and in the gulf people often get their jobs through influence (Wasta, as it is known in gulf countries) of acquaintances/friends, which would serve to shut refugees out of the jobs market.\n\n[1] Reuters, ‘FGB announces 100 job cuts in UAE’, Gulf News, 24 November 2015, http://gulfnews.com/business/sectors/banking/fgb-announces-100-job-cuts-in-uae-1.1625342\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "091c9af5adf0081d54f2d589b3c9941c",
"text": "ional middle east society immigration minorities house believes gulf states Taking in refugees is not the only thing that countries can contribute in combating the Syria refugee crisis. Gulf countries are known to have donated a total of around £589m in addition to other aid they have delivered. This is vital to make the camps that have sprung up along Syria’s borders liveable.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4513d182175547ca0a4d8e1dc81e88c6",
"text": "ional middle east society immigration minorities house believes gulf states The affinity as a result of joint linguistic and cultural ties between Syrians and the gulf may be of little use if the refugees are heavily restricted in where they live or can do. If they are put into camps with little contact with the outside world the refugees could simply be cut off from this social network. Syria’s neighbours have generally been unwilling to integrate refugee populations; Jordan has had Palestinian refugees for almost half a century yet nearly 370,000 are still in refugee camps. [1]\n\n[1] ‘Where we work; Jordan’ United Nations Relief and Works Agency, 1 July 2014, http://www.unrwa.org/where-we-work/jordan\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "39559426ade9d13c276e07bbbdf4e464",
"text": "ional middle east society immigration minorities house believes gulf states ISIS could infiltrate to Gulf States\n\nThe 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris show that ISIS has the ability to infiltrate countries through refugees. Although the participants in these attacks had been living in France and Brussels some had also been to fight in Syria and at least one, Abdelhamid Abaaoud, returned along the migrant route. [1] This shows that influxes of refugees could pose great threat to gulf countries and Daesh has already claimed terrorist attacks in Kuwait. [2] Even before the rise of ISIS gulf states were concerned about the security risks posed by migrant workers with Bahrain’s Minister of Labour Majid Al-Alawi stating migrant workers are a strategic threat. [3]\n\n[1] Holehouse, Matthew, and Samuel, Henry, ‘Terrorist ringleader got into EU as ‘refugee’’, The Telegraph, 20 November 2015, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/12006892/International-manhunt-underway-after-French-police-let-Paris-attacks-suspect-slip-through-their-fingers.html\n\n[2] Cafiero, Giorgio, ‘The ‘Islamic State’ Attacks Kuwait’, Huffington Post, 1 July 2015, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/giorgio-cafiero/the-islamic-state-attacks_b_7690374.html\n\n[3] Rahman, Anisur, ‘Migration and Human Rights in the Gulf’, Middle East Institute, 2 February 2010, http://www.mei.edu/content/migration-and-human-rights-gulf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2fbd72c30d790f01d2126c33a888c771",
"text": "ional middle east society immigration minorities house believes gulf states The Gulf states are themselves not bastions of freedom\n\nSyrians are leaving Syria as a result of a civil war born out of the Arab Spring, it was an attempt to gain more freedom within a dictatorship. [1] Such a population is unlikely to wish to move to a country where freedoms are often restricted. All the countries of the Gulf are monarchies, often with only the barest touch of democracy electing rubber stamp parliaments. Organisations such as Human Rights Watch have highlighted the violence which many migrants suffer and large numbers are exploited. [2]\n\n[1] Ali, Jasim, ‘Gulf states need to aim higher on freedom parameter’, Gulf News, 4 September 2015, http://gulfnews.com/business/analysis/gulf-states-need-to-aim-higher-on-freedom-parameter-1.1578190\n\n[2] Begum, Rothna, ‘Gulf States Fail to Protect Domestic Workers From Serious Violence’, hrw.org, 16 October 2015, https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/10/16/gulf-states-fail-protect-domestic-workers-serious-violence\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "53d8b04d8344c99482fb81c5555d0b05",
"text": "ional middle east society immigration minorities house believes gulf states The Gulf states have a moral responsibility to take in Syrian refugees\n\nIt is a moral responsibility for gulf states to take in Syrian refugees both in terms of common humanity and as they all belong to the same culture and regional organisations (i.e. The Arab League). The numbers taken by the gulf states look particularly irresponsible looking it as a comparison to the number that European countries have taken in. Amnesty International has accused the gulf states of offering zero resettlement places. [1]\n\n[1] Amnesty International, ‘Facts & Figures: Syria refugee crisis & international resettlement’, 5 December 2014, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2014/12/facts-figures-syria-refugee-crisis-international-resettlement/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9767dc489b7e7bb4f0ea6067f88e52c7",
"text": "ional middle east society immigration minorities house believes gulf states European countries have taken in a huge number of refugees while gulf states have taken none\n\nThere were 1,294,000 claims for asylum in Europe in 2015 with more than a fifth of these coming originally from Syria. [1] Although many Arab states have shouldered their share of the burden, particularly neighbouring Jordan and Lebanon, the Gulf at the same time have taken in almost nil refugees. The Gulf states are rich countries, particularly by comparison to their neighbours that are taking up the burden. Per capita income in Jordan is $5,160 compared to $25,140 in Saudi Arabia and $44,600 in UAE as such they can afford to do much more. [2]\n\n[1] BBC News, ‘Migrant crisis: Migration to Europe explained in seven charts’, 18 February 2016, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34131911\n\n[2] World Bank, data.worldbank.org, http://data.worldbank.org/country/jordan\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8c36c4302a081e03e7f754bfe928ac9f",
"text": "ional middle east society immigration minorities house believes gulf states The Gulf states are a convenient place to settle Syrian refugees\n\nWith language being the basis of communication, and most of the gulf state’s population speaking in Arabic, which is the language widely spoken by Syrians the Gulf states are a natural choice to take in refugees. Syria and the Gulf states also have similar cultures. Both of these make it easier for refugees to interact with natives, build up a social network, and find work. Studies from the US have implied that it is best to send migrants (refugees) to places where there is such a network they can quickly plug into which improves the prospects of the migrants getting jobs. [1]\n\n[1] Beaman, Lori A., ‘Social Networks and the Dynamics of Labour Market Outcomes: Evidence from Refugees Resettled in the U.S.’, Berkeley University, 15 November 2006, http://are.berkeley.edu/documents/seminar/JMP_Social%20Networks.pdf , P.31\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a68fab22e1ce901965b69659246b7bb1",
"text": "ional middle east society immigration minorities house believes gulf states Gulf countries could benefit from refugees\n\nJust like Gulf countries have greatly benefitted from expat immigration, the U.A.E being a great example of such growth where the expat population is estimated to be 84% of the UAE population [1] , Gulf countries in the same way can make use of Syrian refugees immigrating. Syrian refugees can provide cheap labour on the Gulf states ambitious construction projects as well as helping to provide an educated workforce that can help diversify the gulf states economies away from oil.\n\n[1] Al Qassemi, Sultan Sooud, ‘Give expats and opportunity to earn UAE citizenship’, Gulf News, 22 September 2013, http://gulfnews.com/opinion/thinkers/give-expats-an-opportunity-to-earn-uae-citizenship-1.1234167\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
08a6a2bd0d5098a066678392ae2f46d2
|
Monitoring allows parents to correct children who are wasting their time.
Parents also need to monitor their children to ensure that they are properly using the time they have with the computer and the mobile phone. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation 40% of 8- to 18-year olds spend 54 minutes a day on social media sites.[1] and that “when alerted to a new social networking site activity, like a new tweet or Facebook message, users take 20 to 25 minutes on average to return to the original task” resulting to 20% lower grades. [2] Thus, parents must constantly monitor the digital activities of their children and see whether they have been maximizing the technology at their disposal in terms of researching for their homework, connecting with good friends and relatives, and many more.
[1] Foehr, Ulla G., Rideout, Victoria J., and Roberts, Donald F., “Generation M2 Media in the Lives of 8- to 18-Year-Olds”, The Kaiser Family Foundation, January 2010, p.21
[2] Gasser, Urs, and Palfrey, John, “Mastering Multitasking”, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, March 2009, p.17
|
[
{
"docid": "52abd307c7909702b022017e99e5b20f",
"text": "internet society family youth digital freedoms privacy house would allow parents Certainly parents should help their children to make most of their time with the computer and their phone. However, monitoring children in order to do so is lazy, or more precisely a form of ‘remote-control parenting’. Parents abuse of their children’s inherent right to privacy and feel that they have satisfactorily fulfilled their parental role when instead they are just lazy and unwilling to talk to their child personally about being a responsible netizen. [1] How are children to develop a healthy relationship to sharing information and privacy protection if they are constantly being surveilled by their own parents? More effective parents would instead choose to personally and positively teach their children about time management.\n\n[1] Shmueli, Benjamin, and Ayelet Blecher-Prigat. “Privacy for Children.” Columbia Human Rights Review. Rev. 759 (2010-2011): 760-795. Columbia Law School. Web. May 2013.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "728dbdcfa9a17de170c56bb9157ed3e5",
"text": "internet society family youth digital freedoms privacy house would allow parents While it is certainly beneficial for parents to immerse themselves in the digital world, it may not be good for them to be partially and informally educated by simple monitoring. Especially for parents who are not already familiar with the internet, monitoring may simply condition them to a culture of cyberstalking and being excessively in control of the digital behavior of their children. As it is, a number of children have abandoned Facebook because they feel that their parents are cyberstalking them. [1] Besides, there are other ways of educating oneself regarding ICT which include comprehensive online and video tutorials and library books that may cater to an unfamiliar parent’s questions about the digital world.\n\n[1] “Kids Are Abandoning Facebook To Flee Their Cyber-Stalking Parents.” 2 Oceans Vibe News. 2 Oceans Vibe Media. 11 Mar 2013. Web. May 2013\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6df45c46107d8d065ff310cdfddbbb90",
"text": "internet society family youth digital freedoms privacy house would allow parents Indeed it is important to consider that children do not receive or send sexually disturbing media. However, as proposition has already stated parents are much less likely to be digitally savvy than their children. Should they wish to learn children are likely to be able to penetrate any elaborate digital monitoring set by a parent. As it is, Defcon, one of the world’s largest hacker conventions, is already training 8- to 16-year olds to hack in a controlled environment. [1] That pornography is so widely available and so desirable is the product of a culture the glorifies sexuality and erotic human interaction. The effects on childrens well-being are by no means clear, indeed it can be argued that much of what parents are no able to communicate to their children in the way of sexual education is communicated to them through Internet pornography. While this brings with it all manner of problems, aside from the outrage of their parents there is little scientific data to suggest that mere exposure to pornography is causing wide-scale harm to children. Instead, it may be that many of the ‘objects’ of these debates on the rights of children are themselves quite a bit more mature than the debates would suggest..\n\n[1] Finkle, Jim. “Exclusive: Forget Spy Kids, try kiddie hacker conference.” Reuters. Thomas Reuters. 23 Jun 2011. Web. May 2013.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "83722c81a40910c39fc1bd944c4ccde2",
"text": "internet society family youth digital freedoms privacy house would allow parents While cyberbullying is indeed a danger to children, it is not an excuse to invade their personal life-worlds. The UNCRC clearly states that “(1) No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation,” and that, “(2) The child has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attack.” These ‘interferences’ or ‘attacks’ not only apply to third parties but to parents as well. [1] Moreover in less traditional ‘offline’ spaces children have far greater ability to choose which information they share with their parents and what they do not. As online spaces are not inherently more dangerous than those offline, it seems reasonable to suggest that similar limitations and restrictions on invasions of privacy that apply online should also apply offline. What a parent can do is to be there for their children and talk to them and support them. They should also spend time surfing the Internet together with them to discuss their issues and problems. But the child should always also have the opportunity to have his or her own protected and private space that is outside the every watchful surveilant eye of the parent..\n\n[1] United Nations Children’s Fund. Implementation Handbook for the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Fully revised 3rd edition. Geneva. United Nations Publications. Google Search. Web. May 2013.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "505289ab0a1fb5846060341c0d64c5f7",
"text": "internet society family youth digital freedoms privacy house would allow parents The individual right to privacy must certainly encompass the digital realm as proposition says. It is also undeniable that individual privacy enhances individuality and independence. However, this privacy can and should be regulated lest parents leave children ‘abandoned’ to their rights. [1] “One cannot compare reading a child’s journal to accessing his or her conversations online or through text messages,” says Betsy Landers, the president of the National Parent-Teacher Association of the US and explains, “It’s simply modern involvement.” [2] Thus, Hillary Clinton argues, “children should be granted rights, but in a stage-by-stage manner that accords with and pays attention to their physical and mental development and capacities.” [1] Applying this principle, children should be given digital privacy to an equitable extent and regulated whereby both conditions depend upon the maturity of the child.\n\n[1] Shmueli, Benjamin, and Ayelet Blecher-Prigat. “Privacy for Children.” Columbia Human Rights Review. Rev. 759 (2010-2011): 760-795. Columbia Law School. Web. May 2013.\n\n[2] Landers, Betty. “It’s Modern Parental Involvement.” New York Times. 28 June 2012: 1. New York Times. May 2013.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b63ac9fe5ffddfb4cd26a0d557e7edfa",
"text": "internet society family youth digital freedoms privacy house would allow parents It is true that trust is a cornerstone of relationships. Admittedly, the act of monitoring may initially stimulate feelings of distrust which are particularly destructive in relationships. But nonetheless, trust is earned, not granted. The only proactive way to gauge how much trust and responsibility to give a child in the digital world is monitoring. By monitoring a child, parents come to assess the initial capability of the child in digital responsibility and ultimately the level of trust and the level of responsibility he or she deserves and to be assigned subsequently. Ideally, the initial level of monitoring and follow-through should be maximum in order to make clear to the child that he is being guided. Only when a child proves himself and grows in digital maturity can monitoring and follow-through be gradually minimized and finally lifted. [1]\n\n[1] Bodenhamer, Gregory. Parents in Control. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995 Inc. Web. May 2013.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "378541bb09666564c50ed738c79cca80",
"text": "internet society family youth digital freedoms privacy house would allow parents While it is practical to use these parental controls, it is not always realistic to set such limited parameters to the digital freedom of children. Children need to understand that they have the capacity to breach their parents’ trust. [1] This not only allows a child to understand how to interact sensibly with the internet, but to experience taking an initiative to actually obey parents in surfing only safe sites. Selectively restricting a child’s digital freedom does not help in this case. Thus, monitoring is the only way for children to experience digital freedom in such a way that they too are both closely guided and free to do as they wish. Moreover, this is also self-contradictory because opposition claimed that children are capable of circumvention which children would be much more likely to do when blocked from accessing websites than simply monitored.\n\n[1] Shmueli, Benjamin, and Ayelet Blecher-Prigat. “Privacy for Children.” Columbia Human Rights Review. Rev. 759 (2010-2011): 760-795. Columbia Law School. Web. May 2013.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1bab4c60134a73f6ecef787bfcc4b144",
"text": "internet society family youth digital freedoms privacy house would allow parents Opposition claims that monitoring is ‘laziness’. Admittedly, monitoring makes digital parenting more efficient and comprehensive. But, such technology makes parenting practical, not ‘lazy’. As it is, many people blame technology for their own shortcomings. [1] Thus, parents need to know that monitoring will not do all the work for them. It is not lazy to monitor your children, it is clearly essential that children are monitored when involved in activities such as sports. The internet is a dangerous environment just as the sports field is and should have similar adult supervision.\n\n[1] Bradley, Tony. “Blaming Technology for Human Error: Trying To Fix Social Problems With Technical Tools.” About. About. 30 Mar 2005.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "681e634ca2ed17b22ecc06e4ace09ed2",
"text": "internet society family youth digital freedoms privacy house would allow parents Monitoring decreases children’s involvement with pornography.\n\nA 2005 study by the London School of Economics found that “while 57 per cent of the over-nines had seen porn online, only 16 per cent of parents knew.” [1] That number is almost certain to have increased. In addition sexting has also become prevalent as research from the UK suggests “over a third (38%) [of] under 18’s have received an offensive or distressing sexual image via text or email.” [2] This is dangerous because this digital reality extends to the real world. [3] W.L. Marshall says that early exposure to pornography may incite children to act out sexually against other children and may shape their sexual attitudes negatively, manifesting as insensitivity towards women and undervaluing monogamy. Only with monitoring can parents have absolute certainy of what their children are doing on the Internet. It may not allow them to prevent children from viewing pornography completely, but regulating the digital use of their children in such a way does not have to limit their digital freedoms or human rights.\n\n[1] Carey, Tanith. “Is YOUR child watching porn? The devastating effects of graphic images of sex on young minds”. Daily Mail. Daily Mail and General Trust. 25 April 2011. Web. May 2013.\n\n[2] “Truth of Sexting Amongst UK Teens.” BeatBullying. Beatbullying. 4 Aug 2009. Web. May 2013.\n\n[3] Hughes, Donna Rice. Kids Online: Protecting Your Children in Cyberspace. Michigan: Fleming H. Revell, 1998. ProtectKids. Web. May 2013.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d64e9c6ee55de3dbae091fc6d12f8dfa",
"text": "internet society family youth digital freedoms privacy house would allow parents Monitoring prevents cyberbullying.\n\nSocial approval is especially craved by teens because they are beginning to shift focus from family to peers. [1] Unfortunately, some teens may resort to cyberbullying others in order to gain erroneous respect from others and eliminate competitors in order to establish superficial friendships. Over the last few years a number of cyberbullying cases have caused the tragic suicides of Tyler Clementi (2010), Megan Meier who was bullied online by a non-existent Josh Evans whom she had feelings for (2006), and Ryan Halligan (2003) among others. [2] Responsible parents need to be one step ahead because at these relevant stages, cognitive abilities are advancing, but morals are lagging behind, meaning children are morally unequipped in making informed decisions in cyberspace. [1] One important way to make this guidance more effective would be if parents chose to monitor their children’s digital behavior by acquiring their passwords and paying close attention to their social network activity such as Facebook and chat rooms, even if it means skimming through their private messages. Applying the categorical imperative, if monitoring becomes universal, then cyberbullying will no longer be a problem in the cyberspace as the perpetrators would be quickly caught and disciplined.\n\n[1] Bauman, Sheri. Cyberbullying: a Virtual Menace. University of Arizona, 2007. Web. May 2013.\n\n[2] Littler, Chris. “8 Infamous Cases of Cyber-Bullying.” The Sixth Wall. Koldcast Entertainment Media. 7 Feb 2011. Web. May 2013 .\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a372698e89a244e34f72254b93e7679d",
"text": "internet society family youth digital freedoms privacy house would allow parents Monitoring raises digital awareness among parents.\n\nParents who are willing to monitor their children’s digital communications also benefit themselves. By setting up the necessary software and apps to secure their children’s online growth, parents familiarize themselves with basic digital skills and keep up with the latest in social media. As it stands there is a need to raise digital awareness among most parents. Sonia Livingston and Magdalena Bober in their extensive survey of the cyber experience of UK children and their parents report that “among parents only 1 in 3 know how to set up an email account, and only a fifth or fewer are able to set up a filter, remove a virus, download music or fix a problem.” [1] Parents becoming more digitally involved as a result of their children provides the added benefit of increasing the number of mature netizens so encouraging norms of good behavior online.\n\n[1] Livingstone, Sonia, and Magdalena Bober. “UK Children Go Online: Surveying the experiences of young people and their parents.” UK Children Go Online. Second Report (2004): 1-61.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a07e36802e1558f022d0d24253755c64",
"text": "internet society family youth digital freedoms privacy house would allow parents Monitoring is lazy parenting.\n\nThe proposition substitutes the good, old-fashioned way of teaching children how to be responsible, with invasions of their privacy, so violating an inherent rights [1]. Such parenting is called remote-control parenting. Parents who monitor their children’s digital behavior feel that they satisfactorily fulfil their parental role when in fact they are being lazy and uninvolved in the growth of their child. Children, especially the youngest, are “dependent upon their parents and require an intense and intimate relationship with their parents to satisfy their physical and emotional needs.” This is called a psychological attachment theory. Responsible parents would instead spend more time with their children teaching them about information management, when to and when not to disclose information, and interaction management, when to and when not to interact with others. [2] That parents have the ability to track their children is true, but doing so is not necessarily likely to make them better adults [3]. The key is for parents and children to talk regularly about the experiences of the child online. This is a process that cannot be substituted by parental monitoring.\n\n[1] United Nations Children’s Fund. Implementation Handbook for the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Fully revised 3rd edition. Geneva. United Nations Publications. Google Search. Web. May 2013.\n\n[2] Shmueli, Benjamin, and Ayelet Blecher-Prigat. “Privacy for Children.” Columbia Human Rights Review. Rev. 759 (2010-2011): 760-795. Columbia Law School. Web. May 2013.\n\n[3] “You Can Track Your Kids. But Should You?” New York Times. 27 June 2012: 1. New York Times. May 2013.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b4340f948f82ffa1b972228316533f2",
"text": "internet society family youth digital freedoms privacy house would allow parents Monitoring is a hindrance to forming relationships both outside and inside the family.\n\nIf children are being monitored, or if it seems to children that they are being monitored, they would immediately lose trust in their parents. As trust is reciprocal, children will also learn not to trust others. This will result in their difficulty in forging human connections, thereby straining their psychosocial growth. For them to learn how to trust therefore, children must know that they can break their parents’ trust (as said by the proposition before). This will allow them to understand, obey, and respect their parents on their own initiative, allowing them to respect others in the same manner as well. [1] This growth would only be possible if parents refuse this proposition and instead choose to educate their children how to be responsible beforehand.\n\n[1] Shmueli, Benjamin, and Ayelet Blecher-Prigat. “Privacy for Children.” Columbia Human Rights Review. Rev. 759 (2010-2011): 760-795. Columbia Law School. Web. May 2013.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c6050f20c978e302187a7bcafe35e1a9",
"text": "internet society family youth digital freedoms privacy house would allow parents This proposal is simply an invasion of privacy.\n\nChildren have as much right to privacy as any adult. Unfortunately there is yet to be a provision on the protection of privacy in either the United States Constitution or the Bill of Rights, though the Supreme Court states that the concept of privacy rooted within the framework of the Constitution. [1] This ambiguity causes confusion among parents regarding the concept of child privacy. Many maintain that privacy should be administered to a child as a privilege, not a right. [2] Fortunately, the UNCRC clearly states that “No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation,” [3] making child privacy an automatic right. Just as children should receive privacy in the real world, so too should they in the digital world. Individual rights, including right to privacy, shape intrafamilial relationships because they initiate individuality and independence. [1]\n\n[1] Shmueli, Benjamin, and Ayelet Blecher-Prigat. “Privacy for Children.” Columbia Human Rights Review. Rev. 759 (2010-2011): 760-795. Columbia Law School. Web. May 2013. P.764\n\n[2] Brenner, Susan. “The Privacy Privilege.” CYB3RCRIM3. Blogspot. 3 April 2009. May 2013.\n\n[3] United Nations Children’s Fund. Implementation Handbook for the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Fully revised 3rd edition. Geneva. United Nations Publications. Google Search. Web. May 2013.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "091ba40a3efeda29ee3f118812d1446e",
"text": "internet society family youth digital freedoms privacy house would allow parents Other parental controls are more practical and reasonable to administer.\n\nMonitoring would be extremely tedious and time-consuming. Many teens send over 100 texts a day, it would clearly be very time consuming to read them all along with all other digital communication.[1] By contrast content filtering, contact management, and privacy protection parental controls, which can be used to block all incoming and outgoing information, require only minimal supervision. Parents who meanwhile deem their children immature when it comes to social networking and gaming can instead impose user restrictions on the relevant websites and devices. [2] Administering these alternative parental controls leave for more quality time with children. In this case, only when children acquire sufficient digital maturity and responsibility can these controls be lifted. As they have learnt to be mature in the digital environment the children would most likely continue to surf safely even when the parental controls are lifted.\n\n[1] Goldberg, Stephanie, “Many teens send 100-plus texts a day, survey says”, CNN, 21 April 2010\n\n[2] Burt, David. “Parental Controls Product Guide.” 2010 Edition. n.d. PDF File. Web. May 2013.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
fb6328c6080d03fd0655469b864349c2
|
Gay people have the right to a family life.
Getting married and raising a family is considered in most societies one of the most important and fulfilling experiences one can aspire to. It is so important it is considered a human right (Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights states "Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence."1) It is considered so important for people to be able to become parents that some governments (the UK, for example) fund fertility treatments for couples who are reproductively challenged, and a majority of the population supports that policy2. But members of the LGBT community are stopped from pursuing this human right by repressive and discriminatory laws.
1 Council of Europe, The European Convention on Human Rights, 4th November 1950 ,( accessed 2nd August 2011)
2 Schwartz, John. "Florida Court Calls Ban on Gay Adoption Unlawful". New York Times. 22 September 2010 .(accessed 2 August 2011).
|
[
{
"docid": "8060473852549e0caf8a628e1d011c2e",
"text": "gender family house believes homosexuals should be able adopt Just because the government will protect people's right to have a family from outside interference, and will publicly fund the treatment of a medical condition, such as infertility, it doesn't mean the government has to give children to those who don't or are unable to have any in order to protect their right to a family life.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "f790813660a4af2ad4510e5e9029aeb0",
"text": "gender family house believes homosexuals should be able adopt The scientific debate is not as settled as proponents of gay rights claim. The studies, while positive in their conclusions, have generally been based on very small samples, not more than a dozen families. Some experts claim that there is also a volunteer bias, with the subjects of these studies usually supportive of the gay rights agenda and therefore keen on reporting positive results. Lastly, the researchers themselves can be biased and willing to find evidence to back a political agenda1.\n\n1 Parke, Mary. \"Are Married Parents Really Better for Children?\".Center for Law And Social Policy. May 2003. (accessed 2 August 2011).\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5f99dffc8e371704ea2289ef695f9897",
"text": "gender family house believes homosexuals should be able adopt States place many restrictions on adoptions. China, for example, does not permit adoptions by couples who are too old, have disabilities or are obese1. It doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with being overweight, old, or disabled. But the Chinese authorities are trying to decrease the likelihood of the adopted child losing a parent before the age of 18, which for these kids can be especially traumatic. If the parents being gay can be shown to be inherently harmful or less desirable for a child than straight parents, then such a ban would not constitute discrimination. It would be a decision based on a relevant and valid criterion.\n\n1 Belkin, Lisa. \"An End to Gay-Adoption Bans?\". New York Times. 28 July 2010 .(accessed 2 August 2011)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a103bf46e008edc6ca2d251acaa2547",
"text": "gender family house believes homosexuals should be able adopt Because no democratic government should ever attempt to regulate people's reproductive rights and dictate who is or isn't allowed to have children. And unless a massive harm can be shown to the child, the government usually doesn't take children away from their parents, as that might be more harmful. But the government is allowed to define what a family is or should be, under the law.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd079a53ef8f84b622cb63191784b8d2",
"text": "gender family house believes homosexuals should be able adopt These kids won't be completely deprived of models from the opposite sex to their parents'. They will still have contact with grandparents, teachers, friends, etc. But even if they didn't, why would the opposition just assume that gender roles are a valuable thing to learn? Why would we want to teach children to act and think differently based on being a boy or a girl? Parents should help them develop as individuals, based on their own interests and propensities.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "012392cdbaa0fec15687ffe1fa7d46ff",
"text": "gender family house believes homosexuals should be able adopt Even if it were true, that the ideal environment for a child is a mother and father, which studies show it isn't, that still wouldn't justify a flat-out ban. Most governments still allow single people to apply for adoption, and even single gay people1. That is because there won't be an 'ideal' family available for every child who needs a home. So other options should be considered. After all, a child is better off with 'non-ideal' parents than with no parents at all. With adoptions, there is generally great demand for babies and toddlers, but older children are generally unwanted2 and end up in foster care until they're 18.\n\nProposition fails to tell us what studies they are referring to which does leave the question open whether these studies have taken into account other factors such as whether or not the biological parents were drug users. The heritage left by the biological parents needs to be remembered.\n\n1 United Nations General Assembly, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights , (accessed 2nd August 2011)\n\n2 James Madison et al., Constitution of the United States ,(accessed 2nd August 2011)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a2904e17cd6c4931572b1b83986d5c2d",
"text": "gender family house believes homosexuals should be able adopt These studies often confuse correlation and causation. The reason why children do best in these unions is not because there is some type of magical component to traditional marriage. It is the quality of the relationship not the form of it that benefits children. The government should encourage people to be stable, committed, loving parents, regardless of their marital status or gender. The stability of a relationship is what causes children to thrive, and it is merely usually correlated to heterosexual marriage, not produced by it. Also, there are more children up for adoption than there are opposite-sex couples willing to adopt, in this sort of a world it is clearly better for children to get out of the foster care system and into a loving home. Gay parents have also faced more discrimination and exclusion than most straight parents, which makes them especially able to help children who feel unwanted or out of place in the world.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f6bd7c91c4be89e99d151a021c665caa",
"text": "gender family house believes homosexuals should be able adopt There is no fact-based evidence for this exclusion.\n\nThe overwhelming majority of scientific studies on this issue have convincingly shown that children raised by gay couples are certainly not worse off than those raised by straight parents1. Some studies have gone as far as to demand that in the face of this evidence, gay bans be ended2. Based on the robust nature of the evidence available, the courts in Florida were satisfied in 2010 that the issue is beyond dispute and they struck down the ban3. When there isn't any scientific evidence to support the differential treatment of one group, it is only based on prejudice and bigotry, which should have no place in a democratic society.\n\n1 Carey, Benedict. \"Experts Dispute Bush on Gay-Adoption Issue\". New York Times. 29 January 2005. (accessed 2 August 2011).\n\n2 Wikipeida. \"LGBT adoption status around the world\" .(accessed 2 August 2011).\n\n3 Foster Care 1999 Statistics. Adoption.com .(accessed 2 August 2011).\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e4d7a099188a79ad7555e31856313ac9",
"text": "gender family house believes homosexuals should be able adopt Gay adoption bans amount to state sponsored discrimination against gay people.\n\nDiscrimination is the practice of treating people differently based not on individual merit but on their membership to a certain group. The adoption bans are a clear example. Rather than assessing gay couples individually, it is simply assumed that they would all make bad parents because they are gay, while straight couples are assessed based on their individual merit. This breaches the fundamental right of all people to be treated equally under the law and it should be stopped. This principle is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; article 1 \"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.\"1 And also many other national and regional legal texts (e.g. The US Constitution,2 The European Convention on Human Rights).\n\n1 United Nations General Assembly, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights , (accessed 2nd August 2011)\n\n2 James Madison et al., Constitution of the United States ,(accessed 2nd August 2011)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa536a7a5024f1389d4fef3b61e3baea",
"text": "gender family house believes homosexuals should be able adopt Where same-sex households exist, they should have equal rights as opposite-sex households.\n\nThere are still many ways for gay people to become parents. Some of them are able to pay for a surrogate; some may have a natural child from a previous (heterosexual) relationship and then raise the child with a gay partner. In effect, what this law does is make it impossible for two gay people to have legal rights over a child they may already be raising together. These kids deserve the security of two legally recognized parents. If being raised by gay parents is really that harmful, why would the law allow two gay people to raise a child together as parents but refuse to legally recognize them as such?\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "04c6ffaab607b98ac0d9f1b1156d8ef3",
"text": "gender family house believes homosexuals should be able adopt The government's interest in protecting traditional families.\n\nNumerous studies have shown that children do best when they are raised by two married, biological parents1. In the case of adopted children that is impossible, but a man and a woman is the best approximation of that family. Since that is the best environment to raise children, the government has to encourage and promote these traditional unions, not undermine them. Allowing gay couples to legally become parents, would legally and socially redefine what a family is and society as a whole may suffer. Children who are adopted already face bullying and exclusion in school because of their difference, placing them in same-sex households will double their exclusion and make their lives much harder than if placed in an opposite-sex household.\n\n1 Council of Europe, The European Convention on Human Rights, 4th November 1950 ,( accessed 2nd August 2011)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e112df29789ba39490e3523ec2e6d7be",
"text": "gender family house believes homosexuals should be able adopt Gender roles.\n\nChildren raised by gay couples will find it more difficult to learn appropriate gender roles in the absence of male and female role-models. Although not an exact match single parents provide a similar case where there has not been someone of the other gender as a role model. Although the evidence is not nearly as conclusive as is often claimed1 there have been many studies that have shown that two parents from different genders is beneficial to the child in its development2. Similarly it is often claimed that boys develop negative attitudes to study because there are very few male teachers in primary schools3.\n\n1 Flood, Michael, Fatherhood and fatherlessness, The Australia institute, Discussion Paper Number 59, (November 2003), p.xi ,(accessed 2nd August 2011)\n\n2 Sarkadi, Anna et al., 'Father's involvemen and children's developmental outcomes: a systematic review of longitudinal studies, ActaPaediatrica, 97 (2008) pp.153-158, p.155 (accessed 2nd August 2011)\n\n3 Gerver, Richard, 'Lack of male role models a primary concern', The Telegraph, 22nd March 2009, (accessed 2nd August 2011)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b1767116a7a8ed65dd8b9fd076bbeb7f",
"text": "gender family house believes homosexuals should be able adopt The welfare of the adopted child as the primary concern of the state.\n\nThe focus of this debate should not be on gay rights, but on what is in the best interest of the adopted child. The adoption process' goal is to find the most suitable parents for that child, not to resolve other social inequalities and injustices. Being raised in a traditional family, by a mother and father, is the best environment for a child. Studies have shown that children who are raised by homosexual couples can have problems with substance abuse, violence and 'at risk' behaviour. Therefore the state has the obligation to try to provide the child with that environment.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
b73da8ae0ab5b5147448b53d8b5ccc52
|
Marketing aimed at children should be subject to strict regulations.
Unlike adults, children are not able to make healthy decisions for themselves. They don’t understand what calories, sodium content, or saturated fats are. They are unable to comprehend the long-term effects that fast food might have on their health and development. On the other hand, a toy is instantly appealing to them and offers a straightforward incentive to opt for such a meal. As long as the negative consequences cannot be explained to kids in a clear and compelling manner, we should not make unhealthy food even more desirable for them. We should not allow children to make bad choices based on information they don’t understand [1] .
[1] Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity. “Fast Food FACTS: Evaluating Fast Food Nutrition and Marketing to Youth.” Yale University. November 2010. http://www.fastfoodmarketing.org/media/FastFoodFACTS_Report.pdf
|
[
{
"docid": "dd6fb302f2b3f0b6650d353fe8f06df9",
"text": "ealth general weight society youth tthw prohibit sale childrens toys part fast Children may have a strong preference for a certain type of meal over another, but young kids don’t buy their own food. Parents do. And if kids might not understand that fast food is bad for them, their parents should. If a child is eating too much fast food, that is not a marketing success, it’s a parenting failure.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "828999fb9c4f3d36f323c34404018b05",
"text": "ealth general weight society youth tthw prohibit sale childrens toys part fast If a parent gives into pressure from a young child so easily, even when she knows it’s the wrong thing to do, then she has bigger parenting problems to worry about than the presence of toys in fast food meals. The government cannot possibly step in to eliminate all temptations and negative influences on children’s choices. Parents need to be firm and provide their kids with the guidance necessary to choose what is best.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "64a8af8e1a1c0ae42115de0151da0c8e",
"text": "ealth general weight society youth tthw prohibit sale childrens toys part fast Even if we were to accept that the government has a role in combatting the so-called ‘obesity epidemic’, that does not justify it taking any measures it deems appropriate. The government should at the very least be able to prove that there is some link between the toys sold with the fast food meals and the rise in obesity. After all, the toys have been around since the late 70s. The ‘obesity epidemic’ is a far more recent phenomenon.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6aa19fdba3f2adb3cf742f42fafa1172",
"text": "ealth general weight society youth tthw prohibit sale childrens toys part fast It is important to instil good habits in children at an early age. But the manner in which it is done is equally important. Kids should be taught to make choices based on what is best for them, through information and appropriate explanations, rather than just being shielded from potential dangers. That kind of behaviour, predicated on reason and understanding, will have a far more lasting impact on the way they make choices, than just protecting them from temptation, with which they will inevitably have to cope later in life.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe9e416bd3747a492956449b5e624f98",
"text": "ealth general weight society youth tthw prohibit sale childrens toys part fast This is not exactly a ban on the sale of fast food to children. This ban does not affect the options of bad foods that parents can continue to feed to their young children if they choose to do so. They will even be able to continue buying happy meals – simply without the toy. It merely alters the incentives slightly toward promoting better, healthier choices by making fast food less appealing.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "419da13a3348c670550ff761edd3edd2",
"text": "ealth general weight society youth tthw prohibit sale childrens toys part fast While McDonald’s may have found a way to circumvent the ban, the significant pressure that was applied to them in the process led the company to improve the quality of the Happy Meal, by providing clients with fresh fruit and healthier drink options. Therefore, the ban could be considered a success.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "badc284aca3c7b4144ceefadd5d99ede",
"text": "ealth general weight society youth tthw prohibit sale childrens toys part fast Of course there is no such thing as a silver bullet solution to a problem as complex as childhood obesity. This ban would need to be part of a bigger push to regulate the fast food industry’s marketing to children and to provide kids and parents with better choices and information. That doesn’t mean the ban has no merit or that it would not play a beneficial role in the fight against obesity.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ddb5f9acdc67728171b06f77ef8b3508",
"text": "ealth general weight society youth tthw prohibit sale childrens toys part fast Making it easier for parents to raise their children well.\n\nAs well meaning as parents may be in trying to guide their kids toward better nutritional choices, they face a formidable opponent: the fast food marketing machine that spends over 4 billion dollars on advertising a year, much of it targeted directly at kids [1] . This can create enough ‘pester power’ [2] from the kids themselves, seduced by the toy that comes with the meal, that it can persuade parents to make bad choices they wouldn’t otherwise make. By eliminating at least one layer of negative pressure, this law would help parents make those healthy choices that they already know are best.\n\n[1] Philpott, Tom. “The fast-food industry’s 4.2 billion marketing blitz.” Grist. November 10. 2010. http://www.grist.org/article/food-2010-11-09-the-fast-food-industrys-4.2...\n\n[2] “San Francisco Happy meal Toy Ban Takes Effect, Sidestepped by McDonald’s.” Huffington Post. November 2011. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/30/san-francisco-happy-meal-ban_n_...\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c9a0237194dc9d23e3c8f4692a6cd89f",
"text": "ealth general weight society youth tthw prohibit sale childrens toys part fast Bad nutrition habits start during childhood.\n\nGiving away toys with meals that are calorie laden and of poor nutritional quality creates an emotional attachment between the child and fast food [1] . This bond will then follow that child into adulthood, making it harder for her to make better nutritional choices in order to become a healthy individual. This ban would break that bond and make it easier for children to grow up to be healthier adults.\n\n[1] Storm, Stephanie. “McDonald’s Trims Its Happy Meal.” The New York Times. July 26, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/27/business/mcdonalds-happy-meal-to-get-h...\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a21699b856d4bf8f558b4e17a5a26d89",
"text": "ealth general weight society youth tthw prohibit sale childrens toys part fast Obesity is a public health issue .\n\nAll around the world, obesity has become a serious threat to public health. And the problem starts early on. In the US, for example, 17% of youth are obese4. Obesity itself has many consequences; most obviously on health such as increasing the risk of numerous diseases like heart disease, there are however economic costs both for treatment of these diseases, lost working days and due to less obvious costs such safety on transport and its resulting fuel cost. [1] Tackling obesity is therefore well within the purview of government policy. A failure to act might seriously affect the economic productivity of the nation, and even bankrupt healthcare systems [2] . A measure like the toy ban would be a first step to tackling the problem at the root, preventing children from growing up into obese adults.\n\n[1] Zahn, Theron, “Obesity epidemic forcing ferries to lighten their loads”, seattlepi, 20 December 2011, http://www.seattlepi.com/local/komo/article/Obesity-epidemic-forcing-fer...\n\n[2] “Obesity ‘could bankrupt the NHS’”. BBC. 15 December 2006. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6180991.stm\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c564dc51672321bd42f34672c2075721",
"text": "ealth general weight society youth tthw prohibit sale childrens toys part fast The ban is ineffective in addressing the problem of obesity.\n\nStudies have shown that only a very small amount of the calories consumed by children come from foods like the Happy Meal. And while kids are eating at fast food restaurants at an alarming rate, it is their parents who make the decision to take them there 93% of the time. Of the kids who do want to go to McDonald’s, only 8% cite the toy as the primary reason. Therefore, this piece of legislation seems to tackle a perceived problem rather than a real one. Legislators would be better off focusing their attention where it matters: providing information to parents about making better choices for their kids, and improving the quality of school lunches, which are actually provided by the government and are eaten by kids every single day, often as their main meal [1] .\n\n[1] Eskenazi, Joe, and Wachs, Benjamin. “How the Happy Meal ban explains San Francisco.” San Francisco Weekly. January 19, 2011. http://www.sfweekly.com/content/printVersion/2330057/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "82a9702c0a351ee89d7cee4e6242309d",
"text": "ealth general weight society youth tthw prohibit sale childrens toys part fast This ban constitutes serious governmental intrusion into parental responsibilities and private choices.\n\nParents, not politicians, should be responsible for guiding the choices their children make and the food they eat, especially when they pay for it with their own money. Parents may have other reasons for wanting their children to have the meal with a toy, for example the toy is a useful distraction for the child. Governments should not try to impose their own idea of what constitutes appropriate food choices for children on parents and on businesses. Governments may aim to promote and educate, but imposing bans on private businesses goes too far [1] .\n\n[1] Martinez, Michael. “Mayor vetoes San Francisco ban on Happy Meals with toys.” CNN. November 13 2010. http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/11/12/california.fast.food.ban/index.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c62464078699f228e4cc2fd49d653056",
"text": "ealth general weight society youth tthw prohibit sale childrens toys part fast Such bans are easy to side step.\n\nThe San Francisco ban has already been circumvented by McDonalds who has started selling their Happy Meals without the toys and then selling the toys separately for a nominal price [1] . Banning the sale of any toys in fast food restaurants would be difficult without prompting legal action from the companies. The steep legal costs of defending such a law would waste public resources that could easily be put to better use.\n\n[1] Eskenazi, Joe. “Happy Meal Ban. McDonlad’s Outsmarts San Francisco.” San Francisco Weekly. November 29, 2011. http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/11/happy_meal_ban_mcdonalds_out...\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
53dbcbe2225a66bab51a1a3ee918cb93
|
Obesity is a public health issue .
All around the world, obesity has become a serious threat to public health. And the problem starts early on. In the US, for example, 17% of youth are obese4. Obesity itself has many consequences; most obviously on health such as increasing the risk of numerous diseases like heart disease, there are however economic costs both for treatment of these diseases, lost working days and due to less obvious costs such safety on transport and its resulting fuel cost. [1] Tackling obesity is therefore well within the purview of government policy. A failure to act might seriously affect the economic productivity of the nation, and even bankrupt healthcare systems [2] . A measure like the toy ban would be a first step to tackling the problem at the root, preventing children from growing up into obese adults.
[1] Zahn, Theron, “Obesity epidemic forcing ferries to lighten their loads”, seattlepi, 20 December 2011, http://www.seattlepi.com/local/komo/article/Obesity-epidemic-forcing-fer...
[2] “Obesity ‘could bankrupt the NHS’”. BBC. 15 December 2006. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6180991.stm
|
[
{
"docid": "64a8af8e1a1c0ae42115de0151da0c8e",
"text": "ealth general weight society youth tthw prohibit sale childrens toys part fast Even if we were to accept that the government has a role in combatting the so-called ‘obesity epidemic’, that does not justify it taking any measures it deems appropriate. The government should at the very least be able to prove that there is some link between the toys sold with the fast food meals and the rise in obesity. After all, the toys have been around since the late 70s. The ‘obesity epidemic’ is a far more recent phenomenon.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "828999fb9c4f3d36f323c34404018b05",
"text": "ealth general weight society youth tthw prohibit sale childrens toys part fast If a parent gives into pressure from a young child so easily, even when she knows it’s the wrong thing to do, then she has bigger parenting problems to worry about than the presence of toys in fast food meals. The government cannot possibly step in to eliminate all temptations and negative influences on children’s choices. Parents need to be firm and provide their kids with the guidance necessary to choose what is best.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6aa19fdba3f2adb3cf742f42fafa1172",
"text": "ealth general weight society youth tthw prohibit sale childrens toys part fast It is important to instil good habits in children at an early age. But the manner in which it is done is equally important. Kids should be taught to make choices based on what is best for them, through information and appropriate explanations, rather than just being shielded from potential dangers. That kind of behaviour, predicated on reason and understanding, will have a far more lasting impact on the way they make choices, than just protecting them from temptation, with which they will inevitably have to cope later in life.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd6fb302f2b3f0b6650d353fe8f06df9",
"text": "ealth general weight society youth tthw prohibit sale childrens toys part fast Children may have a strong preference for a certain type of meal over another, but young kids don’t buy their own food. Parents do. And if kids might not understand that fast food is bad for them, their parents should. If a child is eating too much fast food, that is not a marketing success, it’s a parenting failure.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe9e416bd3747a492956449b5e624f98",
"text": "ealth general weight society youth tthw prohibit sale childrens toys part fast This is not exactly a ban on the sale of fast food to children. This ban does not affect the options of bad foods that parents can continue to feed to their young children if they choose to do so. They will even be able to continue buying happy meals – simply without the toy. It merely alters the incentives slightly toward promoting better, healthier choices by making fast food less appealing.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "419da13a3348c670550ff761edd3edd2",
"text": "ealth general weight society youth tthw prohibit sale childrens toys part fast While McDonald’s may have found a way to circumvent the ban, the significant pressure that was applied to them in the process led the company to improve the quality of the Happy Meal, by providing clients with fresh fruit and healthier drink options. Therefore, the ban could be considered a success.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "badc284aca3c7b4144ceefadd5d99ede",
"text": "ealth general weight society youth tthw prohibit sale childrens toys part fast Of course there is no such thing as a silver bullet solution to a problem as complex as childhood obesity. This ban would need to be part of a bigger push to regulate the fast food industry’s marketing to children and to provide kids and parents with better choices and information. That doesn’t mean the ban has no merit or that it would not play a beneficial role in the fight against obesity.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ddb5f9acdc67728171b06f77ef8b3508",
"text": "ealth general weight society youth tthw prohibit sale childrens toys part fast Making it easier for parents to raise their children well.\n\nAs well meaning as parents may be in trying to guide their kids toward better nutritional choices, they face a formidable opponent: the fast food marketing machine that spends over 4 billion dollars on advertising a year, much of it targeted directly at kids [1] . This can create enough ‘pester power’ [2] from the kids themselves, seduced by the toy that comes with the meal, that it can persuade parents to make bad choices they wouldn’t otherwise make. By eliminating at least one layer of negative pressure, this law would help parents make those healthy choices that they already know are best.\n\n[1] Philpott, Tom. “The fast-food industry’s 4.2 billion marketing blitz.” Grist. November 10. 2010. http://www.grist.org/article/food-2010-11-09-the-fast-food-industrys-4.2...\n\n[2] “San Francisco Happy meal Toy Ban Takes Effect, Sidestepped by McDonald’s.” Huffington Post. November 2011. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/30/san-francisco-happy-meal-ban_n_...\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c9a0237194dc9d23e3c8f4692a6cd89f",
"text": "ealth general weight society youth tthw prohibit sale childrens toys part fast Bad nutrition habits start during childhood.\n\nGiving away toys with meals that are calorie laden and of poor nutritional quality creates an emotional attachment between the child and fast food [1] . This bond will then follow that child into adulthood, making it harder for her to make better nutritional choices in order to become a healthy individual. This ban would break that bond and make it easier for children to grow up to be healthier adults.\n\n[1] Storm, Stephanie. “McDonald’s Trims Its Happy Meal.” The New York Times. July 26, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/27/business/mcdonalds-happy-meal-to-get-h...\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cb8d51365f0ade342a91da99a3fe8de6",
"text": "ealth general weight society youth tthw prohibit sale childrens toys part fast Marketing aimed at children should be subject to strict regulations.\n\nUnlike adults, children are not able to make healthy decisions for themselves. They don’t understand what calories, sodium content, or saturated fats are. They are unable to comprehend the long-term effects that fast food might have on their health and development. On the other hand, a toy is instantly appealing to them and offers a straightforward incentive to opt for such a meal. As long as the negative consequences cannot be explained to kids in a clear and compelling manner, we should not make unhealthy food even more desirable for them. We should not allow children to make bad choices based on information they don’t understand [1] .\n\n[1] Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity. “Fast Food FACTS: Evaluating Fast Food Nutrition and Marketing to Youth.” Yale University. November 2010. http://www.fastfoodmarketing.org/media/FastFoodFACTS_Report.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c564dc51672321bd42f34672c2075721",
"text": "ealth general weight society youth tthw prohibit sale childrens toys part fast The ban is ineffective in addressing the problem of obesity.\n\nStudies have shown that only a very small amount of the calories consumed by children come from foods like the Happy Meal. And while kids are eating at fast food restaurants at an alarming rate, it is their parents who make the decision to take them there 93% of the time. Of the kids who do want to go to McDonald’s, only 8% cite the toy as the primary reason. Therefore, this piece of legislation seems to tackle a perceived problem rather than a real one. Legislators would be better off focusing their attention where it matters: providing information to parents about making better choices for their kids, and improving the quality of school lunches, which are actually provided by the government and are eaten by kids every single day, often as their main meal [1] .\n\n[1] Eskenazi, Joe, and Wachs, Benjamin. “How the Happy Meal ban explains San Francisco.” San Francisco Weekly. January 19, 2011. http://www.sfweekly.com/content/printVersion/2330057/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "82a9702c0a351ee89d7cee4e6242309d",
"text": "ealth general weight society youth tthw prohibit sale childrens toys part fast This ban constitutes serious governmental intrusion into parental responsibilities and private choices.\n\nParents, not politicians, should be responsible for guiding the choices their children make and the food they eat, especially when they pay for it with their own money. Parents may have other reasons for wanting their children to have the meal with a toy, for example the toy is a useful distraction for the child. Governments should not try to impose their own idea of what constitutes appropriate food choices for children on parents and on businesses. Governments may aim to promote and educate, but imposing bans on private businesses goes too far [1] .\n\n[1] Martinez, Michael. “Mayor vetoes San Francisco ban on Happy Meals with toys.” CNN. November 13 2010. http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/11/12/california.fast.food.ban/index.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c62464078699f228e4cc2fd49d653056",
"text": "ealth general weight society youth tthw prohibit sale childrens toys part fast Such bans are easy to side step.\n\nThe San Francisco ban has already been circumvented by McDonalds who has started selling their Happy Meals without the toys and then selling the toys separately for a nominal price [1] . Banning the sale of any toys in fast food restaurants would be difficult without prompting legal action from the companies. The steep legal costs of defending such a law would waste public resources that could easily be put to better use.\n\n[1] Eskenazi, Joe. “Happy Meal Ban. McDonlad’s Outsmarts San Francisco.” San Francisco Weekly. November 29, 2011. http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/11/happy_meal_ban_mcdonalds_out...\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
5f33e8d0dc3d9cce6342601a5b86c218
|
There is no respect among the population for ASBOS
Newspapers are full of examples of absurd ASBOs. They make an ass of the law and show that the nanny state is overreaching. People trying to kill themselves really aren’t going to be put off by the prospect of breaching their ASBO. [1]
Other examples include a prostitute who was prohibited from carrying condoms in an area that included her drug clinic, a prohibition on mobile soup vans that fed the homeless and a deaf girl who was banned from spitting in public. [2]
[1] BBC News, ‘Suicide woman banned from river’, 25 February 2005, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/4297695.stm
[2] Select Committee on Home Affairs, ‘Anti-Social Behaviour Orders – Analysis of the First Six Years’ http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmhaff/80/80we20.htm
|
[
{
"docid": "5e9dfaaed57dcac195c1ee85eb689b87",
"text": "e policing law general punishment society youth house would scrap anti social The wackier examples of ASBOs are actually demonstrations of what the order can do and other laws cannot. The woman who has an ASBO restraining her from jumping into rivers shows that the order can help with the thorny problem of actions that aren’t illegal, but place huge burdens on the emergency services and place the police and other citizens at risk.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "bb58c1a4d73a63d6f716ef97c5993f32",
"text": "e policing law general punishment society youth house would scrap anti social ASBOs offer a wide flexibility to the sentencing authority as they are not only a punishment for past actions but also a form of restraint to prevent future misbehaviour. They permit the judge or magistrate to forbid the offender to go to a certain place, avoid a certain person, and ban them from participating in a particular activity. Without such powers, our courts will never be able to deal with the rising tide of yobbish behaviour that is, whilst not criminal, hugely damaging our communities.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8183e2eb6d7f9a86c7274eb8b46e0617",
"text": "e policing law general punishment society youth house would scrap anti social The problem of service and enforcement of ASBOs is identical that of all other court orders and can be solved the same way – in the proposition example the obvious solution would be to ensure that the youth in question had had the order fully explained to him on service.\n\nAn ASBO can only be made after a court hearing where both sides have the opportunity to have their say. The burden of proof remains on the person seeking the order to show why it is necessary. An impartial magistrate oversees the hearing. People subject to ASBOs are typically allowed to breach it several times before serious enforcement action is taken against them.\n\nThe fact is that the system of ASBOs is perfectly just and a much more liberal alternative to simply criminalising minor anti-social behaviour altogether\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2bb8a75873ae2bdb630ef57d2867e075",
"text": "e policing law general punishment society youth house would scrap anti social Something meaningful has to exist to punish actions that don’t merit criminal punishment, but damage the quality of life of others, especially through constant repetition. The ASBO is such a tool. It is intended to be the primary weapon in a ‘zero tolerance’ environment. ASBOs allow communities to take back their streets and estates from intimidating and out of control youths, and to establish proper norms of behaviour. In this way a slide into more serious lawlessness and criminality can be prevented, and the rights of the law-abiding majority to walk the streets and live peacefully with their neighbours can be secured.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "558f9fbec6b5b3e1144687b0749e4612",
"text": "e policing law general punishment society youth house would scrap anti social Sentencing shouldn’t be affected by such considerations. If we need more prisons, we should build them. The point is that offenders should get the punishment they deserve. If they only need light punishment, fine – but don’t argue that those who should otherwise go to prison must get ASBOs for economic reasons – this is an affront to victims and to society and dilutes the disincentive to offend.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "da30783a7f89b08579a859c1d8a994bf",
"text": "e policing law general punishment society youth house would scrap anti social Criminal behaviour ought to be dealt with by the ordinary criminal law – not through various forms of civil order.\n\nWhile much discussed, criminality is criminality, and non-criminal anti-social behaviour, while anti-social, should not be criminalized directly or indirectly.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ef7bdc99ad0e87eb4daaef3fde57bf34",
"text": "e policing law general punishment society youth house would scrap anti social 58% of ASBOs have been breached, [1] with little resulting punishment. Only 2% of those who breach their ASBO are currently punished with a prison sentence. [2] This brings the justice system into disrepute. It doesn’t seem to matter if they’re breached – so people don’t care about getting them. Furthermore, they’re not granted in anything like the proportions needed to have an effect: 5,000 were supposed to be imposed every year, but instead only 3,800 were used in the first five years.\n\n[1] ‘Statistical Notice: Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) Statistics - England and Wales 2012’, gov.uk, 2013, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/253535/Anti-Social_Behaviour_Order_Statistical_Notice_2012.pdf\n\n[2] ‘No prison for Asbo-breaching yobs’, Metro, http://www.metro.co.uk/news/61949-no-prison-for-asbo-breaching-yobs\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "792d458af3437a36d2db1c95718cbca3",
"text": "e policing law general punishment society youth house would scrap anti social ASBOS encourage antisocial behavour\n\nASBOs are explicitly intended to deal with bad juvenile behaviour. But they encourage rather than deal with such problems. They are viewed as badges of honour that boosts street credibility amongst young gangs – the ‘naming and shaming’ just increases this. [1] They push people that could be helped by social work or proper attention into an unenviable category of ‘offender’ – they criminalise people for behaviour that isn’t criminal.\n\n[1] BBC News, ‘Asbos viewed as ‘badge of honour’, 2 November 2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6107028.stm\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4c6a4d968f6508fdb27caa07df05bc85",
"text": "e policing law general punishment society youth house would scrap anti social ASBOS breach basic principles of justice\n\n“A youth recently appeared in Court in Manchester for breach of his ASBO. The Order had been made in the youth's absence without his being able to give his side of the story (one of the main concerns about ASBOs and one that can lead to misuse). The day after the Order was made someone came to his house to \"serve\" it on him. This consisted of his being handed a copy of what was a fairly bulky document running to several dozen pages with no attempt to explain it or even to ascertain if he was literate enough to read it. The Order included an restriction preventing him entering a particular estate nearby and another preventing him from associating with certain others. Unfortunately, he went out before reading the Order and beached it twice that day. The next day he went out again and breached it three times by mistake as he had not read the part covering the particular restriction. He now faces possibly custody although he has never been convicted of a criminal offence.” [1]\n\nThe issuing of ASBOs is inconsistent and almost amounts to a geographical lottery. People can be jailed for breaching an ASBO where the original offence was itself non-imprisonable – i.e. A civil procedure is being used to create and expand criminal sanctions. ASBOs have also been imposed on people with mental health problems where treatment would have been more appropriate.\n\n[1] Select Committee on Home Affairs, ‘Anti-Social Behaviour Orders – Analysis of the First Six Years’ http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmhaff/80/80we20.htm\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e2e5b312386e27e2cbdeb1a849f71b17",
"text": "e policing law general punishment society youth house would scrap anti social ASBOs do not address the real problem\n\nASBOs address the symptom, not the condition. Their powers are wide and undefined – too wide, meaning that Judges and magistrates can do pretty much whatever they like. Certainly there are problems in the way people conduct themselves – but if such behaviour isn’t criminal, then it’s up to families and communities to fix it. The ASBO is the latest example of excessive state interference in the lives of citizens. Either conduct is criminal, or it is not. The law of nuisance exists. Restraining orders exist. ASBOs aren’t intended to deal with that kind of problem: they’re the tool of the state controlling behaviour. Just because a problem exists, doesn’t mean it’s the job of the state to try and fix it. The powers granted to the state in its efforts are disproportionate to the problems concerned.\n\nIndeed, the current trend is against such interference both as shown by the potential replacement of ASBOs and by court decisions such as one that people should not be punished for hurling obscenities. [1]\n\n[1] Kelly, Jon, ‘Should swearing be against the law?’, BBC News Magazine, 21 November 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15816761\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "31cc1d22a7cb47684710f58c66f542ed",
"text": "e policing law general punishment society youth house would scrap anti social No system is perfect\n\nOf course, some ASBOs fail. But no aspect of the justice system has a 100% success rate, and by their nature ASBOs are more likely to be abused because (unlike prison) the offender remains in his own environment. Should more in breach of ASBOs be punished? Sure. That’s not an argument against ASBOs though, is it? Neither is the fact that not enough are handed down. Although the use of ASBOs around the country is still patchy, some authorities have made very effective use of them to improve life in many local communities.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e095a789985185cfc97b693a65131514",
"text": "e policing law general punishment society youth house would scrap anti social We need to imprison fewer people\n\nThe prison population is soaring, to 87749 on 5th November 2011 in England and Wales, and we have to find ways to keep it down, or at least slow the speed of its rise. Talking about crushing sentences for all may arouse the passions of a certain type of voter but we have to have a pragmatic look at the pressures on the system. The UK has the second highest incarceration rate in western Europe and 63% of prisons overcrowded in September 2011 and several times over the few years the prison population has come close to going over the capacity of the prison service resulting in having to use cells in police stations. [1] ASBOs are one way to punish offenders while still ensuring they have continuing access to education, family support, job opportunities, etc., and they are much cheaper than the alternative of prison.\n\n[1] Berman, Gavin, ‘Prison population statistics’, House of Commons Library, 7 November 2011, www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN04334.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "75311c8573bcc7b7325727d2982e0487",
"text": "e policing law general punishment society youth house would scrap anti social Useful tool to combat anti-social behaviour\n\nASBOs are a useful tool in the armoury in order to combat anti-social behaviour. Anti-social behaviour is a serious problem in the wider community (76% thinking it is a moderate or big problem in 2006 [1] ) – abolishing them would send out a message that such behaviour is acceptable.\n\n[1] Weaver, Matt, ‘UK ‘has worst behaviour problem in Europe’’, theguardian.com, 9 May 2006, http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/may/09/ukcrime.britishidentity\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
b0845f89c680afbbd9e3164e85aeb1c5
|
Lowering the age of consent will cause criminal dangers.
Lowering the age of consent (or worse, getting rid of it entirely) legalises, legitimises and brings above ground the many problems that we are fighting underground. It will provide an opportunity for paedophile networks to expand, by allowing them to target even younger children – now lawfully. The problem of paedophilia is already a rapidly growing one, made worse by its expansion into ‘related’ avenues such as child pornography. In addition to the obvious problem of paedophilia, the problem of the sexual predation of young children also encompasses the problem of youth prostitution (since prostitution is itself already legal in many countries), and the international traffic in boys and girls.
|
[
{
"docid": "1d033cce92fddaacae31d94b2bfaa8c5",
"text": "gender youth house believes age consent laws should be made more liberal lowered Liberalising age of consent laws will not encourage paedophilia or make sexual exploitation any easier. That is simply a false nightmare scenario propagated by scaremongers. Many countries have lowered the basic age of consent while strengthening their ‘plus elements’. For example, by making ‘sexual grooming’ an offence (to stop rings of internet paedophiles); by making it an offence to have sex with a young child if you are above a certain age or if the age differential between the partners is above a certain limit (to target adult paedophiles while allowing teens their sexual freedom); and by making it an offence to have sex with someone who is in a relationship of trust of dependency with you (to stop sexual exploitation).\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "9bafd012c33583575727da9515e8494c",
"text": "gender youth house believes age consent laws should be made more liberal lowered Even if we can accept that children need protection from sex, is it right to use the full force of the criminal law – which includes the threat of criminal prosecution and the prospect of a criminal sentence – to do it? It is contrary to both justice and common sense for people who have merely had consensual sex with a teen who happens to be under-16 to be arrested, tried, branded with a criminal label (‘statutory rapist’, ‘sex offender’), thrown in prison, and thereby treated on the same footing as real (sometimes violent) rapists, arsonists and kidnappers.\n\nThe debate surrounding the age of consent raises the broader point of the role of the criminal law. The function of the criminal law is to preserve public order and decency, not to intervene in the lives of citizens, especially those who have mutually consented to taking part in a harmless activity in private. To accept otherwise would be to disregard the crucial notion of human autonomy and the free will of the individual, which are expressed, regardless of one’s age, each time a person presents his or her consent. This is why it is so important that the law recognises the sanctity of consent.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4535e57c4f035f2b6341ee3a7b5b21c0",
"text": "gender youth house believes age consent laws should be made more liberal lowered Age of consent laws are also arbitrary as children become sexually and emotionally mature at very different rates, so any artificially imposed limit will be too high for many and too low for others.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "00f6c8b87b6e3be48ec25b12fd825177",
"text": "gender youth house believes age consent laws should be made more liberal lowered The principle reason some countries have higher ages of consent for males compared to females [1] is simply because of the medical evidence that males reach sexual maturity at a later age than females. [2] This has nothing to do with discriminating against homosexual sex. However it is true that when it comes to children, some countries do view underage homosexual as slightly more dangerous than underage heterosexual sex. Largely because there is the higher risk of HIV infection in the case of the former. [3]\n\n[1] Canadian Department of Justice, ‘Age of Consent to Sexual Activity’, justice.gc.ca, http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/dept-min/clp/faq.html\n\n[2] Neinstein, Lawrence S., ‘Puberty: Normal Growth and Development’, Adolescent Health Curriculum: University of Southern California, http://www.usc.edu/student-affairs/Health_Center/adolhealth/index.php\n\n[3] HIV, AIDS and Young Gay Men, AVERT: Averting HIV & AIDS, http://www.avert.org/young-gay-men.htm\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd39f3273ded34d7116bac89573e40b1",
"text": "gender youth house believes age consent laws should be made more liberal lowered It seems important to note that the age of consent could be maintained – or raised- while allowing people who need advice on or access to contraceptives, or other services to access them. The idea would be that school students are still taught about sex, contraceptives and consequences, and doctors are to give free, impartial and –most importantly- confidential advice, and contraception to be readily available to all\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e5fb12a5d2931cd6fd73389873f0dc9d",
"text": "gender youth house believes age consent laws should be made more liberal lowered Liberals tend to assume that many young boys and girls would want to have sex if not for age of consent laws. In reality many boys and girls themselves actually do not want to have sex or sexual contact, but lack the social and emotional confidence to say ‘no’. Age of consent laws protect such children, by preventing others from putting them in such a difficult position and help them against peer pressure.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "653f324d756cf32feb65d25cc566de10",
"text": "gender youth house believes age consent laws should be made more liberal lowered Those who are underage are not 'expressing' themselves through sex. They are unlikely to fully know what they are doing so this is not an area where they are going to be expressing themselves. Children have freedom of expression in many other areas and through technology gaining more and more options. This is therefore a step that is unnecessary if all it is about is 'freedom of expression'.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9d0ca0c002c04567e7edcc9b6b01d154",
"text": "gender youth house believes age consent laws should be made more liberal lowered We must protect the vulnerable from themselves.\n\nIt is undeniable that young children form a special and vulnerable group in society. Nowhere is this truer than in the context of sex – so much so that we often need to protect them by placing limitations on what they do sexually. Below a certain minimum age, children are at risk of not having the physiological, biological and, most importantly, emotional development to cope with sex, and with the many possible consequences of having sex, which include teen pregnancy, illegal or legal abortion, childbirth, parental and societal disapproval, unsupported parenthood, legal consequences and increased risk of cervical cancer. [1]\n\nUnfortunately everyone matures a different age. That does not mean that choosing an average, approximate age for consensual sex, such as 16, is arbitrary or wrong. There is no great harm in asking “early developers” to wait for a year or two before they begin to have sex. Especially young people are not always as mature as they believe they are.\n\n[1] BBC News, ‘Cervical cancer link to early sex’, 21 December 2009, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8420690.stm ,\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b80ce4d828f5a9cd4d926b8ed1158e35",
"text": "gender youth house believes age consent laws should be made more liberal lowered We must protect the vulnerable in society.\n\nEven without resorting to a moralistic view of the criminal law (i.e. that its function is to stem moral disintegration and to uphold the ‘shared morality’ of society), there is adequate justification for age of consent laws. Society has a vital interest in ensuring that its naturally weaker members are protected from harm, and doing so is precisely the function of the persuasive and coercive powers of the criminal law. It is therefore legitimate for the law to aim to prevent sexual harm to children by criminalising sex with them. Indeed, age of consent sex laws are not the only laws dependent on age. In many countries it is also an offence, for example, to sell tobacco to children, or to employ children below a certain age in the entertainment industry, whether or not the child ‘consents’. Society must recognise the reality that the apparent expression of ‘consent’ by a child is often different from consent expressed an adult. In the case of the former, therefore, it is not always true that saying ‘yes’ is a true expression of human autonomy.\n\nThe argument that these laws may cause injustice to someone who truly thought his partner was above the legal age is also a poor one – many countries already provide a defence for such situations\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6daefc65a0dfa8074c09cb8306ec2da6",
"text": "gender youth house believes age consent laws should be made more liberal lowered Consent Laws are discriminatory.\n\nSome countries have one age of consent for young females (say 16) and a different, higher age of consent for young males or for having anal sex (say 18). This means that a heterosexual adult male who wants to have sex with a 17-year-old female is free to do so, but a homosexual adult male cannot have intercourse with a young man who is 17. [1] Not only are such laws clearly discriminatory, they entrench and perpetuate the myths, stereotypes, and prejudices against homosexuals and homosexual sex. Age of consent laws, if we are to have them at all, should be equalised across the genders.\n\n[1] HIV, AIDS and Young Gay Men, AVERT: Averting HIV & AIDS, http://www.avert.org/young-gay-men.htm , ‘Worldwide ages of Consent’, AVERT: averting HIV & AIDS, http://www.avert.org/age-of-consent.htm , HIV, AIDS and Young Gay Men, AVERT: Averting HIV & AIDS, http://www.avert.org/young-gay-men.htm\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b4cd790eb2af6164b7871d0b9b45f23d",
"text": "gender youth house believes age consent laws should be made more liberal lowered The censorship laws are a relic from the past.\n\nThe idea that young people should not be having sex is a leftover relic from the past: its justifications are anachronistic and have little place in modern times. Age of consent laws were the product of a ‘purity campaign’ in Britain in the 1800s, when it was believed that sex was a ‘male privilege’, that it led to the sexual ruin of young women, that it meant the loss of their virtue, which was a fate worse than death, and that it contributed to women’s second class citizenship. [1] In the UK the age of 16 was chosen and set in 1885, more than 100 years ago, and has remained ever since. [2] Today these ideas would offend both men and women.\n\n[1] Harman, Lillian, ‘Understanding the Age of Consent in the Context of the 1800’s’, Liberty No. 235, pp.3-4 from Age Of Consent, http://www.ageofconsent.com/comments/numberten.htm\n\n[2] Bullough, Vern L, ‘The Age of Consent’, Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality Volume 16, Issue 2-3, 2005\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b49aef37d3137cc65c9f0fff06c4f75a",
"text": "gender youth house believes age consent laws should be made more liberal lowered We should defend children’s freedom of expression.\n\nThe freedom of sexual expression (and exploration) is not only a matter of choice which is fundamental to the individual – it is also particularly important to young people as they proceed through the stage of adolescence into young adulthood. Age of consent laws place artificial limits on this freedom. Sex is entirely natural and should be celebrated in the context of loving relationships, not criminalised and put under the prying eye of an authoritarian state. Violence, coercion and exploitation in sexual relationships should still be punished, but not consensual activity. Such restrictions go against the human rights to privacy and of freedom of expression.\n\nThe concept that young people do not know what they are doing is flawed, because every person who has gone through sexual development has learnt by doing. There is no process of suddenly coming into full knowledge without acting and exploration. Such exploration would be more safely done in an environment that doesn't criminalize it. Such criminalization can actaully lead to the very harm that the law ostensibly seeks to avoid, coercion and exploitation, for it is people who are naturally more inclined to coercion and exploitation that will disregard the law anyway. This feeds the lambs to the wolves.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "83c19b35a29e30c12da1fd7800162d9f",
"text": "gender youth house believes age consent laws should be made more liberal lowered Age of consent laws prevent the most vulnerable receiving contraceptives.\n\nAge of consent laws are in fact dangerous because they drive underground the very people who should be, and are in most need of, receiving contraceptives, advice on safe sex, and access to health and other educational services. This is true both of the ‘statutory rapist’ as well as the under-16 consenting ‘victim’, who may worry about having assisted in the commission of a crime. Both parties then become real victims as they are put at greater risk of contracting STDs or unwanted pregnancies.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
efad4d0e8a987f4e57b1a5f2db59fd35
|
Coalition government is a good thing.
Adversarial democratic systems such as the United States, Britain and Australia have been becoming increasingly dysfunctional with politics simply being a shouting match. Coalition governments lead to cooperation and compromise between parties.(Woldring, 2011) Governments which are forced to acknowledge a wide range of public opinion are less likely to introduce policies which victimise minorities or ride roughshod over public opinion for ideological reasons; for example, the poll tax in the UK, 1988-92. Empirically, countries with PR systems, such as Germany, show that great prosperity can result from the policies of such governments.
|
[
{
"docid": "949014faf098fd1c1e367494e30411ed",
"text": "politics general government leadership local government voting house would adopt Cooperation and compromise often does not happen and acknowledging a wide range of public opinion is the main reason why they cant compromise. Firstly, they frequently won’t agree, which will lead to tortuously slow progress or even to having no government for the country. This happened after the general election in Belgium in 2010, when the record was broken for the time taken to form a new democratic government after an election (The Telegraph, ‘Belgium wins Guinness World Record for political impasse’). This occurred because none of the parties are willing to compromise over election promises and yet do not want to have to fight another election. However if a government is to be formed the parties involved will have to make compromises and resulting in tearing up some of their promises, betraying those who voted for them. The alternative is the expense of going to the country again, with no guarantee of a different result.(DW-world.de, 2011)\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6d8aace72b837332afa1968d4dc31847",
"text": "politics general government leadership local government voting house would adopt If seats are safe, that is because people are continuing to vote for a party that they are satisfied with. Furthermore, it is perfectly possible for politicians to lose safe seats if the electorate is no longer happy with them; for example, in 2008, the Scottish National Party (SNP) won Glasgow East, one of Labour’s safest seats (BBC News, ‘SNP stuns Labour in Glasgow East’).\n\nIn almost every constituency the number of people who do not vote outnumbers the vote of the winning party. This means if those who don’t vote all got out and voted the election could go any way, they could elect in a fringe party if voting together. So look at Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, one of the safest seats in the country, former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s seat. In 2010 Labour won with 65.2% of the vote,(Electoral Calculus, 2010) with 29559 labour votes compared to 6550 SNP a majority of 23009.(Wells, 2010) However in this seat turnout was only 62.2% that means that 27863 people did not vote, considerably more than voted for Labour. If they voted together for someone else those who do not vote could always throw out the party in power. No seat is therefore really a safe seat, they are safe because who believe their vote is not worthwhile do not bother to vote when in reality if they did they could make a difference. Indeed in the Scottish elections of 2011 the SNP managed to take a large part of this same seat.(Vote 2011, 2011)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f66fe9576651e79fff5b63a02756d11",
"text": "politics general government leadership local government voting house would adopt There is no reason to assume that there will be an increase in political engagement. Votes will simply not count in different ways. If there are more coalitions, people could feel their vote doesn’t count even more strongly, as they will see that the parties they vote for change their policies once in government. What is the point in voting for a platform if the party that is pledging to fulfil these promises is simply going to drop them as soon as the election is over and the negotiations begin?\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e1195b35b617808eba14430d8be5ca1f",
"text": "politics general government leadership local government voting house would adopt As there are many different forms of proportional representation some of them will be fairer than others. Implementing AV for example may help sort out the problem of MPs not receiving a majority in their constituency as they will now need to receive 50% of the vote in order to be elected. Yet it will do nothing for the other two problems identified. Minority parties are still unlikely to get any seats and parties with their vote uniformly spread across the country will still be punished. AV in both cases still favours geographically centered parties and still favors the top two parties over any smaller one as the small parties will drop out as the ballots are counted.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2b34c19f9cec1981def757fb75bdf74c",
"text": "politics general government leadership local government voting house would adopt A lot of successful countries use PR, so clearly it doesn’t lead to instability. In particular coalitions don’t always mean weak government. For example, Germany uses PR and has coalitions, yet is one of the strongest economies in the world and a significant power within Europe. Furthermore, Canada, India and the UK use FPTP and all have had coalitions. The UK coalition has so far proven to be both strong and radical. Michael Portillo, a former Conservative Minister of Defence has argued \"They have been more radical on deficit reduction than say Margaret Thatcher was, but on top of doing that very difficult fiscal adjustment, they are also reformed schools, health, welfare, and pensions - areas where Margaret Thatcher didn't care to tackle.\"(Today, 2011)\n\nThe assumption that Proportional Representation leads to coalition also needs to be examined. Australia has for decades had strong single party government under the Alternative Vote.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "386e1a5c2a0e156b267991a877e93baa",
"text": "politics general government leadership local government voting house would adopt A proportional electoral system is more likely to return seats for smaller parties. Amongst these smaller parties, it is likely that we will find parties on either extreme of the left-right spectrum. The British National Party campaigned for PR for this reason (Channel 4 Fact Check, ‘Would AV help or hinder the BNP?’). Potentially even more extreme parties, such as the English Defence League, could get members of parliament under some proportional systems. It is not beneficial to the country to have extremist groups like this in parliament.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "23fe3987ef0d3fb0cf0245b2d76fbf92",
"text": "politics general government leadership local government voting house would adopt On the contrary having several manifestos used by a coalition actually means that there are many more people who get some of the policies they voted for passed. Under FPTP only a minority has ever voted for the manifesto that wins and gets implemented. If there is a coalition created by PR then more than 50% of the electorate will be getting a large amount of the policies they voted for implemented.\n\nThe whole issue of manifesto promises also makes the assumption that parties always stick to them when they get into power. This is not the case even under single party government. Election promises are often not implemented as politicians are simply using them to win an election, they may realise that the policy will not form the basis of a sensible government policy, or be too politically difficult to implement. Creation of a democratically elected House of Lords was in every New Labour manifesto, yet after three terms in power was at best half complete.(Summers, Labour’s attempts to reform the House of Lords)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2274886da1680e0b3c89ab1dd1706713",
"text": "politics general government leadership local government voting house would adopt Junior partners are by definition junior. It is the biggist party in the coalition that gets the top job; President or Prime Minister while the minor party has to make do with much more junior roles – the Foreign Ministry has been popular in Germany. In the UK Conservative-Liberal democrat coalition the senior partner the conservatives hold all the big offices: Prime Minister, Chancellor, Foreign Office and Home Office. Even if they have to compromise on some issues it is the senior partner that is setting the government agenda.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0441e9fd0577eb67e5b243cc3ab540bb",
"text": "politics general government leadership local government voting house would adopt PR increases political engagement which benefits society.\n\nPR results in more engagement in politics as every vote counts (CPA/Wilton Park conference, ‘How can Parliamentarians best re-engage the public?’). Political participation is good and we should care about the low voter turnout in elections that has been caused by first past the post. Surveys show that that those who vote are more engaged in the community in other ways and have better personal wellbeing. Research in Switzerland has shown that voting does make people happier as well as being better informed citizens. The higher the stake the person has, and the more likely their vote is to count the more effort they will make to find out the facts so as to make informed choices.(Marks et al., 2005, p5-6)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "372f970b3567b1612e06ca3ecf9dbeb9",
"text": "politics general government leadership local government voting house would adopt PR produces fairer results\n\nFirst past the post (FPTP) often results in a party without majority support being able to dominate parliament. Minority parties, such as the Green party and UKIP (in the UK), which can win 5-10% or so of the vote all over the country, can fail to win a single seat. In the UK 2010 general election, UKIP received 919,546 votes across the country, but not a single seat (BBC News, UK 2010 general election results). Parties with a uniform vote across the country are punished unfairly. Thus in Singapore’s general election of 2011 the National Solidarity Party contested 24 seats and won 39.25% of the valid votes across the wards it contested yet still failed to win any seats.(Wikipedia, Singaporean general election, 2011) Theoretically parties could win huge numbers of votes, potentially up to 49% in every constituency, without ever getting any representation in parliament. As such FPTP favours parties that appeal to local issues or to particular segments of the population these parties that are losing out are likely to be those parties that either appeal to a broad segment of the population or whose support is based upon an issue that affects everyone. Furthermore, in the UK 2010 general election, two thirds of MPs were elected without receiving a majority of the votes in their constituency (Lodge, 2011). This suggests that most people are being represented by people they didn’t vote for.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "24ce3ad3cf9cf52cc3bf8f227431daec",
"text": "politics general government leadership local government voting house would adopt Safe seats will be reduced.\n\nAll political parties have seats that they consider safe and unlikely to lose. If a person in an inner city constituency that has a strong Labour history, wishes to vote for someone other than Labour, then their vote is effectively null and void. Labour will win a majority however they vote. The fact that the seat is so safe means that there is effectively very little effect people can have, resulting in thousands of people's vote being wasted and having no effect when it comes to forming a government. In the 2010 UK general election the result was decided by less than 460,000 voters in only 111 constituencies. This gives an unfair amount of political influence to a tiny minority of the electorate while making the majority’s votes close to worthless.(Miliband, 2011)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d615278227af83cd8ab6582a726a5bcb",
"text": "politics general government leadership local government voting house would adopt PR creates an unfair balance of power.\n\nCoalition government is actually unfair, as small parties with only a few percent of support nationally can hold the balance of power. This can result in them being able to force through unpopular or sectarian policies with no national mandate as a price for their support in parliament; for example, the Dutch coalition lost its majority in 2011, meaning it may have to rely on the support of the SGP, a very small conservative Christian party that does not even allow women to be members (Financial Times, ‘Dutch Coalition loses Senate majority).\n\nParticularly when there is only one potential small party that could be a coalition partner for the biggest party(s) that small party potentially holds a lot more power than their number of seats in parliament would imply. When either of the main parties could form a government the small party can negotiate with both to get the best deal possible. And once in government they can threaten to walk out if they do not get their way on the issues that matter to them.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22bad868d26f769a3e11246c1e257156",
"text": "politics general government leadership local government voting house would adopt The link between constituencies and Members of Parliament is important.\n\nMost PR systems would result in a break between the constituency and parliament. It is important that there is a single MP that represents a particular area. Having constituencies means that every citizen feels that they have a personal representative in parliament. Much of the work of an MP is constituency business, resolving problems encountered by constituents and raising the particular concerns of their geographical area with the government. The importance of this link can be shown in the difference in feeling towards individual’s own representative and the parliament as a whole. In 2010 there was a dissatisfaction in parliament as a whole of 38% whereas only 16% were dissatisfied with the job of their own MP.(Hansard Society, Audit of Political Engagement 7, p.29, p.88)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c6cf3b1370d6e3b0115ef3e43f1b758a",
"text": "politics general government leadership local government voting house would adopt PR leads to weaker government.\n\nTypically under PR, no one party gains a majority of the popular vote, so coalition governments have to be formed often between four or more parties. This tends to produce unstable governments, changing as parties leave or join the governing coalition, and frequent elections. Governments are unable to put a clear, positive legislative agenda in place over several years or act decisively in time of crisis. Compare this to the strong governing majorities produced by FPTP, such as the Conservatives in the 1980s in the UK, which allowed them to push through unpopular but necessary policies, such as tackling trade unions and reducing inflation.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c0ef063a1c1912decdd6a442a02e6862",
"text": "politics general government leadership local government voting house would adopt PR decreases political engagement.\n\nPR results in less engagement in politics as voters do not get what they voted for – instead post-election deals between the parties create coalitions which do not feel bound by manifesto promises. In order to create coalitions there is a need for parties to be flexible on their manifestos especially where they contradict each other. As elections seldom result in all the parties in a governing coalition leaving power, in practice accountability is blurred and voters feel alienated from the political process. In addition, many PR systems are very complex and off-putting for voters.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
e92662039a89c1e771826d50e8a88d2c
|
The link between constituencies and Members of Parliament is important.
Most PR systems would result in a break between the constituency and parliament. It is important that there is a single MP that represents a particular area. Having constituencies means that every citizen feels that they have a personal representative in parliament. Much of the work of an MP is constituency business, resolving problems encountered by constituents and raising the particular concerns of their geographical area with the government. The importance of this link can be shown in the difference in feeling towards individual’s own representative and the parliament as a whole. In 2010 there was a dissatisfaction in parliament as a whole of 38% whereas only 16% were dissatisfied with the job of their own MP.(Hansard Society, Audit of Political Engagement 7, p.29, p.88)
|
[
{
"docid": "386e1a5c2a0e156b267991a877e93baa",
"text": "politics general government leadership local government voting house would adopt A proportional electoral system is more likely to return seats for smaller parties. Amongst these smaller parties, it is likely that we will find parties on either extreme of the left-right spectrum. The British National Party campaigned for PR for this reason (Channel 4 Fact Check, ‘Would AV help or hinder the BNP?’). Potentially even more extreme parties, such as the English Defence League, could get members of parliament under some proportional systems. It is not beneficial to the country to have extremist groups like this in parliament.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "2b34c19f9cec1981def757fb75bdf74c",
"text": "politics general government leadership local government voting house would adopt A lot of successful countries use PR, so clearly it doesn’t lead to instability. In particular coalitions don’t always mean weak government. For example, Germany uses PR and has coalitions, yet is one of the strongest economies in the world and a significant power within Europe. Furthermore, Canada, India and the UK use FPTP and all have had coalitions. The UK coalition has so far proven to be both strong and radical. Michael Portillo, a former Conservative Minister of Defence has argued \"They have been more radical on deficit reduction than say Margaret Thatcher was, but on top of doing that very difficult fiscal adjustment, they are also reformed schools, health, welfare, and pensions - areas where Margaret Thatcher didn't care to tackle.\"(Today, 2011)\n\nThe assumption that Proportional Representation leads to coalition also needs to be examined. Australia has for decades had strong single party government under the Alternative Vote.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "23fe3987ef0d3fb0cf0245b2d76fbf92",
"text": "politics general government leadership local government voting house would adopt On the contrary having several manifestos used by a coalition actually means that there are many more people who get some of the policies they voted for passed. Under FPTP only a minority has ever voted for the manifesto that wins and gets implemented. If there is a coalition created by PR then more than 50% of the electorate will be getting a large amount of the policies they voted for implemented.\n\nThe whole issue of manifesto promises also makes the assumption that parties always stick to them when they get into power. This is not the case even under single party government. Election promises are often not implemented as politicians are simply using them to win an election, they may realise that the policy will not form the basis of a sensible government policy, or be too politically difficult to implement. Creation of a democratically elected House of Lords was in every New Labour manifesto, yet after three terms in power was at best half complete.(Summers, Labour’s attempts to reform the House of Lords)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2274886da1680e0b3c89ab1dd1706713",
"text": "politics general government leadership local government voting house would adopt Junior partners are by definition junior. It is the biggist party in the coalition that gets the top job; President or Prime Minister while the minor party has to make do with much more junior roles – the Foreign Ministry has been popular in Germany. In the UK Conservative-Liberal democrat coalition the senior partner the conservatives hold all the big offices: Prime Minister, Chancellor, Foreign Office and Home Office. Even if they have to compromise on some issues it is the senior partner that is setting the government agenda.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "949014faf098fd1c1e367494e30411ed",
"text": "politics general government leadership local government voting house would adopt Cooperation and compromise often does not happen and acknowledging a wide range of public opinion is the main reason why they cant compromise. Firstly, they frequently won’t agree, which will lead to tortuously slow progress or even to having no government for the country. This happened after the general election in Belgium in 2010, when the record was broken for the time taken to form a new democratic government after an election (The Telegraph, ‘Belgium wins Guinness World Record for political impasse’). This occurred because none of the parties are willing to compromise over election promises and yet do not want to have to fight another election. However if a government is to be formed the parties involved will have to make compromises and resulting in tearing up some of their promises, betraying those who voted for them. The alternative is the expense of going to the country again, with no guarantee of a different result.(DW-world.de, 2011)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d8aace72b837332afa1968d4dc31847",
"text": "politics general government leadership local government voting house would adopt If seats are safe, that is because people are continuing to vote for a party that they are satisfied with. Furthermore, it is perfectly possible for politicians to lose safe seats if the electorate is no longer happy with them; for example, in 2008, the Scottish National Party (SNP) won Glasgow East, one of Labour’s safest seats (BBC News, ‘SNP stuns Labour in Glasgow East’).\n\nIn almost every constituency the number of people who do not vote outnumbers the vote of the winning party. This means if those who don’t vote all got out and voted the election could go any way, they could elect in a fringe party if voting together. So look at Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, one of the safest seats in the country, former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s seat. In 2010 Labour won with 65.2% of the vote,(Electoral Calculus, 2010) with 29559 labour votes compared to 6550 SNP a majority of 23009.(Wells, 2010) However in this seat turnout was only 62.2% that means that 27863 people did not vote, considerably more than voted for Labour. If they voted together for someone else those who do not vote could always throw out the party in power. No seat is therefore really a safe seat, they are safe because who believe their vote is not worthwhile do not bother to vote when in reality if they did they could make a difference. Indeed in the Scottish elections of 2011 the SNP managed to take a large part of this same seat.(Vote 2011, 2011)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f66fe9576651e79fff5b63a02756d11",
"text": "politics general government leadership local government voting house would adopt There is no reason to assume that there will be an increase in political engagement. Votes will simply not count in different ways. If there are more coalitions, people could feel their vote doesn’t count even more strongly, as they will see that the parties they vote for change their policies once in government. What is the point in voting for a platform if the party that is pledging to fulfil these promises is simply going to drop them as soon as the election is over and the negotiations begin?\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e1195b35b617808eba14430d8be5ca1f",
"text": "politics general government leadership local government voting house would adopt As there are many different forms of proportional representation some of them will be fairer than others. Implementing AV for example may help sort out the problem of MPs not receiving a majority in their constituency as they will now need to receive 50% of the vote in order to be elected. Yet it will do nothing for the other two problems identified. Minority parties are still unlikely to get any seats and parties with their vote uniformly spread across the country will still be punished. AV in both cases still favours geographically centered parties and still favors the top two parties over any smaller one as the small parties will drop out as the ballots are counted.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d615278227af83cd8ab6582a726a5bcb",
"text": "politics general government leadership local government voting house would adopt PR creates an unfair balance of power.\n\nCoalition government is actually unfair, as small parties with only a few percent of support nationally can hold the balance of power. This can result in them being able to force through unpopular or sectarian policies with no national mandate as a price for their support in parliament; for example, the Dutch coalition lost its majority in 2011, meaning it may have to rely on the support of the SGP, a very small conservative Christian party that does not even allow women to be members (Financial Times, ‘Dutch Coalition loses Senate majority).\n\nParticularly when there is only one potential small party that could be a coalition partner for the biggest party(s) that small party potentially holds a lot more power than their number of seats in parliament would imply. When either of the main parties could form a government the small party can negotiate with both to get the best deal possible. And once in government they can threaten to walk out if they do not get their way on the issues that matter to them.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c6cf3b1370d6e3b0115ef3e43f1b758a",
"text": "politics general government leadership local government voting house would adopt PR leads to weaker government.\n\nTypically under PR, no one party gains a majority of the popular vote, so coalition governments have to be formed often between four or more parties. This tends to produce unstable governments, changing as parties leave or join the governing coalition, and frequent elections. Governments are unable to put a clear, positive legislative agenda in place over several years or act decisively in time of crisis. Compare this to the strong governing majorities produced by FPTP, such as the Conservatives in the 1980s in the UK, which allowed them to push through unpopular but necessary policies, such as tackling trade unions and reducing inflation.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c0ef063a1c1912decdd6a442a02e6862",
"text": "politics general government leadership local government voting house would adopt PR decreases political engagement.\n\nPR results in less engagement in politics as voters do not get what they voted for – instead post-election deals between the parties create coalitions which do not feel bound by manifesto promises. In order to create coalitions there is a need for parties to be flexible on their manifestos especially where they contradict each other. As elections seldom result in all the parties in a governing coalition leaving power, in practice accountability is blurred and voters feel alienated from the political process. In addition, many PR systems are very complex and off-putting for voters.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0a90a0ab6d97ee5f24ac78e07322aa6a",
"text": "politics general government leadership local government voting house would adopt Coalition government is a good thing.\n\nAdversarial democratic systems such as the United States, Britain and Australia have been becoming increasingly dysfunctional with politics simply being a shouting match. Coalition governments lead to cooperation and compromise between parties.(Woldring, 2011) Governments which are forced to acknowledge a wide range of public opinion are less likely to introduce policies which victimise minorities or ride roughshod over public opinion for ideological reasons; for example, the poll tax in the UK, 1988-92. Empirically, countries with PR systems, such as Germany, show that great prosperity can result from the policies of such governments.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0441e9fd0577eb67e5b243cc3ab540bb",
"text": "politics general government leadership local government voting house would adopt PR increases political engagement which benefits society.\n\nPR results in more engagement in politics as every vote counts (CPA/Wilton Park conference, ‘How can Parliamentarians best re-engage the public?’). Political participation is good and we should care about the low voter turnout in elections that has been caused by first past the post. Surveys show that that those who vote are more engaged in the community in other ways and have better personal wellbeing. Research in Switzerland has shown that voting does make people happier as well as being better informed citizens. The higher the stake the person has, and the more likely their vote is to count the more effort they will make to find out the facts so as to make informed choices.(Marks et al., 2005, p5-6)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "372f970b3567b1612e06ca3ecf9dbeb9",
"text": "politics general government leadership local government voting house would adopt PR produces fairer results\n\nFirst past the post (FPTP) often results in a party without majority support being able to dominate parliament. Minority parties, such as the Green party and UKIP (in the UK), which can win 5-10% or so of the vote all over the country, can fail to win a single seat. In the UK 2010 general election, UKIP received 919,546 votes across the country, but not a single seat (BBC News, UK 2010 general election results). Parties with a uniform vote across the country are punished unfairly. Thus in Singapore’s general election of 2011 the National Solidarity Party contested 24 seats and won 39.25% of the valid votes across the wards it contested yet still failed to win any seats.(Wikipedia, Singaporean general election, 2011) Theoretically parties could win huge numbers of votes, potentially up to 49% in every constituency, without ever getting any representation in parliament. As such FPTP favours parties that appeal to local issues or to particular segments of the population these parties that are losing out are likely to be those parties that either appeal to a broad segment of the population or whose support is based upon an issue that affects everyone. Furthermore, in the UK 2010 general election, two thirds of MPs were elected without receiving a majority of the votes in their constituency (Lodge, 2011). This suggests that most people are being represented by people they didn’t vote for.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "24ce3ad3cf9cf52cc3bf8f227431daec",
"text": "politics general government leadership local government voting house would adopt Safe seats will be reduced.\n\nAll political parties have seats that they consider safe and unlikely to lose. If a person in an inner city constituency that has a strong Labour history, wishes to vote for someone other than Labour, then their vote is effectively null and void. Labour will win a majority however they vote. The fact that the seat is so safe means that there is effectively very little effect people can have, resulting in thousands of people's vote being wasted and having no effect when it comes to forming a government. In the 2010 UK general election the result was decided by less than 460,000 voters in only 111 constituencies. This gives an unfair amount of political influence to a tiny minority of the electorate while making the majority’s votes close to worthless.(Miliband, 2011)\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
183a885d6e7945986f1b7ce2af5cf1b2
|
Cyber Mercenaries
There is a new form of mercenary appearing on the continent which is hired to use technology, rather than a gun, to fight. Cyber mercenaries are a relatively recent phenomenon. In 2013, British intelligence service GCHQ stated that nations were beginning to employ hackers to ‘attack their enemies’28. Kenya experienced attacks by cyber mercenaries in 2013, with 91% of its organisations coming under attack from these hired hackers29. There is potential for this to become a substantial form of mercenary work in the future.
28) The Age ‘Hackers turn into cyber-mercenaries as nations battle a virtual war’ 2013
29) Murule,R. ‘Kenya: Firms Battle Cyber Crime’ 2013
|
[
{
"docid": "ee57edd0828fd94d679eeca597fb1d0f",
"text": "onal africa politics defence warpeace house believes prevalence african Hired hackers don’t count as real mercenaries. While it is true that they are not a citizen of either state’s military structure and that they seek to gain profit from their venture, they do not qualify under the UN mercenary convention. To be a mercenary, one must qualify under all the conditions listed in the convention. Cyber mercenaries are not directly involved in acts of violence, which disqualifies them under Article 1, sub-section 2.A of the UN mercenary convention30. Definitions will have to be updated in the future if cyber-mercenaries are going to be considered anything other than criminals.\n\n30) United Nations ‘United Nations Mercenary Convention’ 1989\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "03e2136a4295a2d8c5c7738e24caf8e7",
"text": "onal africa politics defence warpeace house believes prevalence african Firstly, the emergence of the African Union (AU) as a peacekeeping force on the continent negates the need for mercenaries. The AU’s has become increasingly involved in peacekeeping since 200316. They are more willing to involve themselves in African affairs than the West, and have deployed the lion’s share of soldiers in peacekeeping operations as in the Central African Republic17.\n\nSecondly, the UN has condemned mercenary use in general and it would seem hypocritical to begin hiring them. The UN’s weaker states have been reluctant to agree to UN mercenaries for fear they could be used against them18. The UN has actively criticised humanitarian mercenaries in the past for their lack of appreciation of conflict dynamics19, making them unlikely to employ dogs of war.\n\n16) Pan,E. ‘African Peacekeeping Operations’ December 2005\n\n17) Felix,B. ‘Militia attack Muslim neighbourhoods in Central African Republic’s Capital’ 2013\n\n18) Avant,D. ‘Mercenaries’ pg.26\n\n19) Chrisafis,A. ‘UN and aid groups criticise “Humanitarian Mercenaries’ 2007\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f7f17eeceab615fac269bcfce9f016d",
"text": "onal africa politics defence warpeace house believes prevalence african NGOs are actively discouraged from hiring mercenaries. In 2003, UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw strongly advised against the use of mercenaries by British companies on the Ivory Coast. In addition to government deterrence, many charities are more likely to depend on the United Nations to secure conflict zones before they operate. In Darfur, aid agencies relied upon the United Nations to set up refugee camps in the region rather than seek protection from mercenaries27.\n\n27) Pham,J. ‘Send in the Mercenaries’ 2006\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8839c4589e2c6da25f08b6d2f944af3e",
"text": "onal africa politics defence warpeace house believes prevalence african Coups are becoming less frequent and less successful. The number of coups, which some mercenaries headed personally, has decreased from an average twenty per decade between 1960 and 1990 to ten a decade23. Success has also been less forthcoming; Simon Mann’s attempted coup in Equatorial Guinea was met with failure when he was arrested in Zimbabwe, and Bob Denard was eventually arrested by French forces for disgracing France’s reputation abroad with his frequent coups24.\n\n23) August,O. ‘Africa Rising: A Hopeful Continent’ 2013\n\n24) Mwagiru,C. ‘They Kill Africans, paid by Africans’ 2012\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1db14b0870bcd14e2c46460676b20e88",
"text": "onal africa politics defence warpeace house believes prevalence african The majority of these laws have done little to prevent citizens from seeking a career as a mercenary. While they are commendable on principle, mercenary specific legislation has not translated in to a high number of prosecutions for mercenarism in Africa7. Examples such as Angola and Zimbabwe are rare exceptions. Mercenaries generally operate in conflict zones, where government control is weak. This makes it difficult for the state to enforce such laws, especially as the mercenaries may be working for opposition factions.\n\n7) Fallah,K. ‘Corporate actors: the legal status of mercenaries in armed conflict’, 2006 pg. 610\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2850e1e3d28b08e0af5353d9d8214658",
"text": "onal africa politics defence warpeace house believes prevalence african More than half of African countries are ruled by dictatorships. Authoritarian regimes remain numerous enough, and the opposition still prominent enough, for there to be adequate instability for mercenaries to gain employment. During the Libyan revolution, caused by the poor governance of Gaddafi’s regime, South African mercenaries attempted to extract Gaddafi from Libya with supposed Tuaregs joining his force as guns for hire14.\n\n14) Hicks,C. ‘Tuareg rebels make troubled return from Libya to Mali’ 2012\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a73f8ea73f4063e1e3b042efb358f562",
"text": "onal africa politics defence warpeace house believes prevalence african There are still enough wars and rebel movements to provide opportunity for employment. By 2013 there were 23 conflicts in Africa, with many other small militia groups actively fighting low-intensity wars. This stream of conflicts has ensured revenue for mercenaries. Reports have surfaced that ex-commander for the anti-terror unit in Liberia, Benjamin Yeaten, raised a mercenary force to fight against the army of the Ivory Coast between 2012 and 201311 With the prediction of ‘forever wars’ by Gettlemen12, where rebels have no object except banditry, mercenaries could maintain their prevalence in Africa for a long time.\n\n11) Heritage ‘Liberia: UN reports- Yeaten remains a threat to peace and security in Liberia’ 2013\n\n12) Gettlement,J. ‘Africa’s Forever Wars’ Foreign Policy 2012\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "402313ad97b475fb2cc2abb59e2c45dd",
"text": "onal africa politics defence warpeace house believes prevalence african PMCs are just mercenaries under a different name, demonstrating a continued prevalence of the dogs of war in Africa. To escape the name, and the illegal status, of mercenary a PMC must only avoid one of the several clauses laid out by the United Nations Mercenary Convention4 While they are rarely hired for fighting roles, companies such as Military Professional Resources Inc. have demonstrated a willingness to engage in military operations; making them guns for hire5. Executive Outcomes’ operations in Sierra Leone equated to mercenary work, as they undertook offensive military operations with a force of foreign soldiers for profitable gain. In this sense, mercenaries still maintain their position on the continent.\n\n4) Sheimer,M. ‘Separating Private Military Companies From Illegal Mercenaries in International Law’, 2009 Pg. 624\n\n5) Milliard,S. ‘Overcoming Post-Colonial Myopia: A Call to Recognise and Regulate Private Military Companies’, 2003 Pg.16\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "44dcc8fb8be6a654504c6d17ed9de79d",
"text": "onal africa politics defence warpeace house believes prevalence african Mercenaries still have a presence in coups\n\nAfrican Mercenaries have been crucial to the success of many coups in the 21st Century, and are a ‘ubiquitous factor in the continent’s conflicts over the years, often determining the duration or outcomes of such conflicts’20. The 2013 coup in the Central African Republic saw President Francois Bozizi ousted from power and was accomplished with support of mercenaries from Chad and the Sudan21. An attempted coup by Simon Mann against Equatorial Guinea failed in 2004 and Bob Dernard’s five coups against the Comoros22 demonstrate that mercenaries still have a role in the changing of political leaders within Africa.\n\n20) Mwagiru,C. ‘Mercenaries: Are the ‘dogs of war’ still prevalent in Africa?’ 2012\n\n21) Melly,P. ‘Central African Republic: France and the CAR- Now Comes the Hard Part’ 2013\n\n22) Mwagiru,C. ‘They Kill Africans, paid by Africans’ 2012\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47274ff028029be5916848bd8401d959",
"text": "onal africa politics defence warpeace house believes prevalence african Humanitarian mercenaries\n\nMercenaries are finding a more ethical role in the form of humanitarian missions. The idea of humanitarian mercenaries is a concept of hired guns employed by governments and the United Nations to prevent genocide in the place of nation state militaries. The major benefit of using mercenaries would be the absence of a political cost should there be mercenary causalities as seen in Iraq15. There will not be waning political support from the military’s home country. Early examples include the use of mercenaries in Sierra Leone. When the Revolutionary Unified Front (RUF) was advancing on the capital Executive Outcomes and other mercenaries held back the RUF, preventing a massacre. They would later seek out and destroy elements of the rebel group. The lack of political cost makes them ideal for operations where other countries have no domestic political will to intervene.\n\n15) Raffin,R. ‘Humanitarian Mercenaries’ 2008\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "067a2c4b77071cb2e243d0887ca64ab2",
"text": "onal africa politics defence warpeace house believes prevalence african Mercenaries are still hired by NGOs\n\nNon-Governmental organisations struggle to operate in conflict zones, and still hire mercenaries to protect them. Extractive industries also require security for their installations and operations in unstable regions25. The massacre of 74 civilians at a Chinese oil field in Ethiopia in 2007 and the 2013 Amenas siege demonstrate the continued need for security, which mercenaries can provide. Charities have employed mercenaries in the past to ensure better security. In 2002, mercenaries were hired by the African Rainforest and Rivers Conservation Organisation to seek out elephant poachers who they could not pursue themselves26.\n\n25) Avant,D. ‘Mercenaries’2004, pg.26\n\n26) Astill,J. ‘Charities hire gunmen to stop elephant poachers’ 2002\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "31f03d73a268fce36b9b21a3a164c6f1",
"text": "onal africa politics defence warpeace house believes prevalence african Legislation against mercenaries\n\nNation states and the United Nations have passed laws making mercenary activity illegal. Legislation against mercenaries prevent either seeking employment as a mercenary or hiring one. Western states such as Austria and Germany have made it illegal for citizens to become mercenaries, revoking their citizenship if they choose to do so anyway6. South Africa, a major source of hired guns, passed the ‘foreign military assistance act’ in 1998 which prohibited citizens from joining foreign wars with the exception of humanitarian intervention. In international law, the United Nations has outlawed mercenaries through the UN Mercenary Convention of 1989 which bans the use of foreign soldiers from fighting for profit. Finally, many African states have passed further legislation which restricts mercenaries operating in their countries. The trial of thirteen mercenaries in Angola and the arrests of Simon Mann’s unit Zimbabwe in 2004 were both due to their mercenary status. The increased legal pressure is a symptom of changing attitudes towards the use of mercenaries in Africa.\n\n6) Mian,Q. ‘Legal status of mercenaries’\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b1c98da9ea40d166161160335db43612",
"text": "onal africa politics defence warpeace house believes prevalence african Decreased Conflict and the end of the mercenary age\n\nThe decline of conflicts and mercenary freedom on the African continent has meant less work for mercenaries. The Congo conflict of the 1960s, is seen as the first mercenary age8. Hired guns fought on all sides of the conflict and enjoyed the freedom to act at their discretion. The 1976 execution of mercenaries in Angola was seen as a symbolic ending of this age. That said, mercenaries were still prevalent into the 1990s and early 2000s.\n\nSince the peak of the 1990s, however, there has been a noticeable decrease in the number of conflicts in Africa from 27 civil wars and 9 interstate wars to 5 major civil wars and no interstate wars9,10 . As wars and civil unrest are an obvious source of employment for mercenaries; this decrease in conflict leaves them with fewer opportunities. The African Union’s promise to end war on the continent by 2020 also puts the future prospects of mercenaries in to question.\n\n8) Keane,F. ‘There will be work for mercenaries in Africa until democracy replaces dictatorships’ 2004\n\n9) The World Bank ‘World Development Report 2011’ pg.52\n\n10) Wikipedia ‘List of ongoing armed conflicts’\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e6e406a8a925eef33577c58b5b862c1d",
"text": "onal africa politics defence warpeace house believes prevalence african Private corporations have replaced mercenaries\n\nPrivate Military Companies (PMCs) are independent, registered, corporate actors who have risen in prominence and replaced mercenaries in their security function. PMCs are different to mercenaries in the sense that mercenaries will fight for the highest bidder. PMCs on the other hand will only work for legitimate governments and intergovernmental organisations such as the UN1. Their main roles include; support services, logical support, humanitarian support and the upholding of law and order and defensive military action2. PMC activity has seen corporations operating on behalf of the Somalian government training coast guards to deal with the threat of piracy which peaked in 20093. The legal status of PMCs, compared with mercenaries, makes them a preferable choice for the aforementioned tasks reducing the prominence of illegal hired guns.\n\n1) Jefferies,I. ‘Private Military Companies- A Positive Role to Play in Today’s International System’, 2002 Pg.106\n\n2) Jefferies,I. ‘Private Military Companies- A Positive Role to Play in Today’s International System’, 2002 Pg.107\n\n3) Stupart,J. ‘Somalia’s PMCs: What’s the Big Deal?’, 2012\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "72febde79a3f57d1afa0f240354f4058",
"text": "onal africa politics defence warpeace house believes prevalence african The expansion of democracy\n\nThe increased presence of democracies on the African continent has led to greater security. Mercenary activity is usually associated with the presence of bad governance, which is most commonly featured in dictatorships. Dictatorships generally lead to corruption, unrest and economic collapse. The dispossessed in society then begin to resist, with the ensuing conflict providing employment opportunities for mercenaries. A prime example of this being Equatorial Guinea, where mercenary Simon Mann planned to use popular support to remove the infamous Teodoro Nguema13. Since the first mercenary age, however, the number of democracies has increased from 3 to 25 which has reduced instability on the continent in some regions, reducing opportunities for mercenaries.\n\n13) Keane,F. ‘There will be work for mercenaries in Africa until democracy replaces dictatorships’ 2004\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
f252af8c8874fef7af4dee239211f8d7
|
Cyber attacks are no different from traditional attacks
The world has developed along with the new digital medium. Lots of crucial business and government services have moved online. While the military modernised in relation to digital developments, a definition of an act of war has not caught up with it yet. It is now being suggested that the digital domain is the new realm of warfare for the 21st century. States have already been using cyber attacks in hostilities and as acts of aggression against each other. For instance, USA and Israel have released a virus Stuxnet that sabotaged parts of Iran's nuclear programme in 2010, followed by retaliatory cyber attacks by Iran on USA [7]. In the 1998 war over Kosovo the USA successfully hacked Serbia's air defence systems, which left Serbia vulnerable to air attacks [8] [9]. Cyber attacks are thus attacks that can be perpetrated by states against other states in an effort to weaken the other state, the same way armed attacks are used. Given these realities large scale cyber attacks should be considered acts of war.
|
[
{
"docid": "ff445cc210bc3d1bdabf6b21b1a37383",
"text": "warpeace science internet house would consider large scale cyber attack act war An important thing about recognising something as an act of war is that it allows countries to retaliate. This includes military retaliation that causes human casualties, and political and economic sanctions, which impose suffering on the civilian population. The crucial difference between armed conflicts and cyber conflicts, is that in cyber attacks people, military or civilians, do not actually get killed. However, if we recognise cyber attacks as acts of war, this would allow an attacked state to retaliate with force resulting in human casualties. There is no way one could equate disruption in computer services to that of loss of human lives, therefore recognising cyber attacks as acts of war would be disproportional and unjust. Serbia's example that included human casualties following a cyber attack is not relevant as the cyber attack was as a part of a larger military attack.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1946d52a01b6496f4160d7d3d443cf8b",
"text": "warpeace science internet house would consider large scale cyber attack act war Cyber attacks might be disruptive, but they do not result in destruction, violence, injury and death the same way traditional armed aggressions do. For the majority of businesses and citizens, disruptions to online baking might be very inconvenient, but they are in no way equal to actual bombings and deaths. Targeted power grids, if they result in power outages, is mostly a discomfort in contrast to actual killings and atrocities that happen during wars. Plus, the infrastructure that really matters in a conflict, such as nuclear plants or military weaponry, cannot be hacked as they are not connected to the internet [13] [14]. Developed countries might be very used to amenities and comfort of online services and computers, however, a definition of armed conflicts as acts of war is much more universal because everywhere a human life is more important than any form of comfort. This is why people have a right to life and not a right to internet.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4674e1e25879d61b235f0fc42a93eaec",
"text": "warpeace science internet house would consider large scale cyber attack act war While a modification to international law is needed in terms of acknowledging the gravity of cyber attacks, it does not mean that these should be considered acts of war. There are many things that states do that other states do not like and even find harmful, but these things are not considered to be equal with acts of war. Instead they are things that states need to reach agreements over to control. War is the last possible resort in such cases, there are other less drastic options such as sanctions to encourage the hostile state to desist.[27]\n\nMoreover, it is not true that cyber attacks are not condemned enough. The reason that countries generally do not engage in cyber attacks openly is because of fear of international condemnation [16].\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cf398764a0189358deccd1e298fc2853",
"text": "warpeace science internet house would consider large scale cyber attack act war In case of non-state actors attack, many practitioners in international law agree that the state can still retaliate in self-defence if another state is 'unwilling or unable to take effective action' to deal with attacks coming from within their territory [19]. This applies to traditional warfare, but the same way it can apply to cyberwarfare. If a country is not doing anything, or not doing enough, in order to ensure cyber security and persecute cyber attackers, then the attacked country has a right to take measures against cyber attackers.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ebd092d487c980525548a42e3ba63c67",
"text": "warpeace science internet house would consider large scale cyber attack act war A definition of aggression in traditional warfare is the act that threatens sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another state [26] – a definition which is expected to be used with cyber attacks too. It is highly unlikely to see a small scale cyber attack corresponding to this definition. For instance, taking down a media web page (as the Syrian Electronic Army did) does not threaten political independence of another state in a way that taking down all the government websites, and thus rendering the state incapable of functioning, does. Recognising that a cyber attack can be an act of war, does not mean that any cyber attack, will be considered such. In practice this same ambiguity is inherent in war – a country might consider it a casus belli if another’s military chases terrorists onto its territory but this would be similarly ambiguous if there were no casualties and it was not a direct attack.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b8efa0d24724dc30afe75fc4ba533061",
"text": "warpeace science internet house would consider large scale cyber attack act war It is unlikely that states would freely attack other states when there is unclear evidence as to who the perpetrator was. In any country that is going to engage in military action regardless of the reason there is intense public debate this would apply all the more if the reason was novel (for instance, those on interfering against Syria's Assad's regime), so we can expect public scrutiny to apply to cyberwarfare as well.\n\nFurthermore, there are also cases when cyber attacks can be traced to a particular country hostile country or even particular group within the country. This can happen when the country or groups within it themselves admit to the attack, as the Syrian Electronic Army, sympathetic to Assad's regime, cyber attacking USA in 2013 [22]. Or through intensive investigation. Tools to track cyber attacks are also constantly being perfected. For example, IPv6 (the latest version of the internet protocol) is the most effective at decreasing anonymity of cyber attackers [23]. So there are scenarios when cyber attackers are known and can be tracked, and the states have a right to treat them as acts of war.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cc3d6775a71a6ef11086365faeef63ba",
"text": "warpeace science internet house would consider large scale cyber attack act war Cyber attacks can do serious damage to the state\n\nLarge scale cyber attacks can result in substantial harms to the state equivalent to those of an armed attack. Many states are dependent on flawless functioning of government and financial services online, and attacking them would cause mass disruption. For example, massive cyber attacks can cause serious disruption to economy by targeting financial, banking and commercial services; they can target government websites and steal confidential information that would compromise country's security, as was the case with USA in 2007 [10]; they could target power grids and shut down infrastructure on a massive scale across the country. All these instances cause disruption and leave the targeted country vulnerable with the government unable to operate successfully. This way, for instance, a large scale cyber attack from Russia on Georgia 2008 caused massive disruption to government, banking services, and communication within and outside of the country [11]. For these reasons USA's Pentagon decided to consider a cyber attack that 'produces the death, damage, destruction or high-level disruption that a traditional military attack would cause' an act of war [12]. Given the damage of possible attacks to the state, large-scale cyber attacks should be considered an act of war.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1f972b36a0767bbc2d48b4496704c8e0",
"text": "warpeace science internet house would consider large scale cyber attack act war Currently there is no way to legally respond to cyber attacks by other states\n\nCurrently international law on how a state can respond to cyber attacks by another state is lacking: it only covers cyber attacks during armed conflicts or those are tantamount to an armed conflict [15]. An attacked state thus has no legitimate means to respond to cyber attacks. This leaves them no option of self-defence, which is an important element in international law. Moreover, without international law regulating cyber warfare between states, there is no actual illegitimacy for cyber attacks. Despite their far-reaching and grave consequences, cyber attacks by other states do not feature heavily in the news. Few people actually know about cyber attacks between USA and Iran, which would be an unimaginable situation should these states resorted to military attacks. This apparent lack of condemnation and attention in the wider society to cyber attacks further decreases ability of the state to defend themselves or even call out an aggressor publically as there is little to fear from global opinion for such actions\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "33e43387c1899a331f2b2b94ad141a33",
"text": "warpeace science internet house would consider large scale cyber attack act war Cyber attacks are difficult to trace\n\nCyber attacks are very difficult to trace as cyber attackers hide their digital tracks [20]. Cyber attackers also often launch attacks from poorly protected computers in other countries, which in no way implicates that the state was responsible for attacks – for instance, roughly 10% of spam comes from computers in China, but that is not Chinese spam [21]. The situation is different with traditional warfare, where there is evidence of weapons used, uniforms spotted, and reports of witnesses on site. Of course, we can expect states to lie about launching cyber attacks, thus China and the USA trade accusations about responsibility for cyber attacks, but there is no good way to test the truth. All of this means that an act of war would be judged based on incomplete and misleading information about another state’s involvement, threatening international peace and resulting in the loss of human life for no good reason.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9ff6fb493a55b5f2240b54b2e9d2c3d8",
"text": "warpeace science internet house would consider large scale cyber attack act war Cyber attacks are often carried out by non-state actors\n\nCyber attacks are often carried out by non-state actors, such as cyberterrorists or hacktivists (social activists who hack), without any involvement of the actual state. For instance, in 2007 a massive cyber attack launched on Estonia was blamed on Russia due to the then on-going tensions between these two states [17]. However, the attacks on Estonia were generated from all over the world; and even those from Russia could not have been linked to the Russian authorities, who denied involvement. Similarly, a huge wave of cyber attacks dubbed GhostNet that compromised computers in 103 countries in 2009 was blamed on China, not the least for hacking computers of Tibetan authorities. However, it could not be conclusively proven that this was an attack perpetrated by the Chinese authorities [18]. Any retaliation against a state for a cyber attack can never be certain to be against the right target – the state should not be blamed for the actions of its individual citizens.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc1908c221d70bae2e85d1796635b168",
"text": "warpeace science internet house would consider large scale cyber attack act war Definition of a large scale cyber attack is extremely vague\n\nArmed acts of aggression are a good method of judging if an action is an act of war because they result in actual destruction, violence and loss of human life. Cyber attacks, on the other hand, do not and thus there is no objective way to tell what scale of a cyber attack is enough to constitute an act of war. While Pentagon claims a cyber attack that is equivalent of damage caused by traditional warfare as a standard, how is it supposed to be applied if pretty much all of the cyber attacks have been bloodless [24]? For instance, stealing large amounts of confidential data from a country is a large scale cyber attack, and could have an immense economic impact, but it is bloodless and so how much damage does there need to be before it can be a casus belli? It is very difficult to measure the impact of even a very evident and intense cyber attack, as NATO found out when assessing a cyber attack on Georgia in 2008 [25]. While the Pentagon might have a nice theoretical framework, in reality there are too many unanswered (and possible impossible to answer) questions. This can lead to abuse of justifications for war and unnecessary violence.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
b5f3846da6a8490a22f58d4cdeab9731
|
Term limits are undemocratic and suggest, falsely, that voters cannot make intelligent decisions about their representatives without guidance:
Term limits are flagrantly undemocratic. If a legislator is popular and desired by the people to continue to represent them, then it should be their choice to reelect him. The instituting of term limits assumes voters cannot act intelligently without proper guidance. This is a serious insult to voters' intelligence. The electorate can discern for itself whether a legislator is doing a good job and will vote accordingly. Preventing a potentially popular candidate from standing for reelection simply removes the right from people to make important political decisions. It is not the duty of the state to encourage more candidates to run in elections to replace politicians who are already popular and doing a suitable job1. Should the US people have not been allowed to elect Franklyn D. Roosevelt for his third term? FDR was a very popular and successful president who brought the United States out of depression and won the Second World War and it was those very successes that lead the American people to reelect him. The people, if they have the freedom to choose who should represent them, should have the freedom to choose incumbents, and to do so indefinitely if that is what the popular will demands. 1 Marcus, Andrew. 2010. "Dodd and Other 'Retiring' Democrats Show Why Term Limitsare a Bad Idea". Big Government.
|
[
{
"docid": "e9ae5832dc351613bf08cdec2cc66ddf",
"text": "eneral philosophy political philosophy politics government house would enforce Term limits promote greater choice in candidates and protect democracy1. While people may not be able to vote for a legislator 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 politicians to specified terms, however, prevents them from becoming too powerful and damaging the democratic system through efforts at self-enrichment and influence-peddling.\n\n1 Bandow, Doug. 1995. \"Real Term Limits: Now More Than Ever\". Cato Institute Policy Analysis.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "5e3c201f7b2e12d52de95ba7eee54751",
"text": "eneral philosophy political philosophy politics government house would enforce The dynamics of party primaries are not the same in all jurisdictions, and efforts at promoting moderate and capable candidates can still be made after the institution of term limits. Furthermore, new politicians may in fact be more willing to work on bipartisan projects, as they are not inculcated in the culture of confrontation that predominates between political parties in many legislatures. For this reason politicians of longer standing might actually be a hindrance to bipartisan compromise. It is far better to allow for a preponderance of political views by making the legislature more open. The best way to accomplish this is clearly to impose term limits.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6f1f3f113cc74c6e31b6cbc67f03f0e0",
"text": "eneral philosophy political philosophy politics government house would enforce Legislators may gain skill in maneuvering in the legislative arena with time, but they also gain a propensity for power grabbing and self-advancement. Politicians of long standing use their knowledge of the working of the legislature as much for the lobbyists and interest groups, who they prefer to work with rather than young, inexperienced legislators. The power of lobbyists is magnified by the solidity of the channels of political influence created by high rates of incumbency. Term limits actually serve to restrict the power of interest groups, and instead places emphasis on the production of progressive legislation.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e776144044ad5974868eed3c9de2b52e",
"text": "eneral philosophy political philosophy politics government house would enforce A politician who has to constantly concern himself with reelection has a much greater likelihood of being beholden to special interest groups and lobbyists than one who is term-limited so will actually engage in more corruption. While a term-limited legislator may suffer to a degree from lame duck status, the need to continuously seek electoral support is far more damaging to his ability to do what is right for the nation. Politicians who are not term-limited will spend more time doing what is popular than what is necessary. It is far better to have a representative who has only a limited time to enact the policies he envisions, so that he actively seeks to implement his vision, rather focusing on the short-term goal of reelection.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d645d00abb9dc32cd922137ca8cfa1ce",
"text": "eneral philosophy political philosophy politics government house would enforce Term-limiting legislators insults the intelligence of the electorate. Individuals can make prudent decisions about who to vote for, and it so happens that that decision is often to keep incumbents in power. If the reason for such high reelection rates is due to an uneducated or disaffected electorate, then the problem is not be solved by simply instituting term limits. Rather, such results mean an effort must be made to educate voters and to fight voter apathy. Neither of those things is accomplished by limiting the choice of the voters.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0810f74853940a6486aca1b022592731",
"text": "eneral philosophy political philosophy politics government house would enforce A term-limited legislator suffers from the effects of being a lame duck. A final term legislator will not be able to command the same degree of leverage as one who can potentially serve another term. Building the necessary support for worthy legislation might thus prove far more difficult than it would have had the legislator not been a lame duck. Furthermore, with regard to lobby-group support, a politician on the way out who cannot seek another term has an incentive to favor groups and firms that will place him on their boards, a potentially highly lucrative retirement package for outgoing legislators, paid for often at the expense of the public.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "00b4e2c434f89dd66d3297c392ddf777",
"text": "eneral philosophy political philosophy politics government house would enforce People are intelligent enough to recognize whether a representative is benefiting them or not. They will not vote for someone who is using his privileged position in the legislature to enrich himself or build a fiefdom of influence. Rather, legislators will only be able to stay in office so long as they do what their constituents want. If legislators are maintaining their power by other means, such as institutionalized corruption and force, it is not because there are no term limits on them, but rather because of other fundamental problems of government in those states.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5b2202869706a40ec8d3af59805e15a8",
"text": "eneral philosophy political philosophy politics government house would enforce If people wish to pursue a career in politics, then it is their right to do so. There is nothing wrong with career politicians so long as they obey the will of their people and accurately represent the desires of their constituents. While there should be no bar to people seeking to enter politics on a temporary basis, placing that form of political participation over a more lasting one makes no sense. Furthermore, career politicians have valuable experience that can be extremely useful in the forming of legislation and the conducting of public business. Term limits destroy this valuable resource by casting people out of the halls of government at a fixed point, regardless of the worth they might still impart to the legislative process.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b13d0fe58ee0906cec3e903e2cdbbf4",
"text": "eneral philosophy political philosophy politics government house would enforce The incentive for corruption and self-enrichment in office is increased by term limits:\n\nWith term limits, a legislator will, after he enters his final permitted term of office, not have to face the electorate again, meaning he can do whatever wants, to an extent. This encourages corruption and self-enrichment on the part of legislators in their final term of office when they do not need to face the people to answer for poor management. There is likewise less incentive to follow through on election promises to supporters, since their withdrawing support can have little tangible impact on a lame duck. A study into term limits in Brazil found that \"mayors with re-election incentives are signi?cantly less corrupt than mayors without re-election incentives. In municipalities where mayors are in their ?rst term, the share of stolen resources is, on average, 27 percent lower than in municipalities with second-term mayors.\"(Ferraz, 2010) Furthermore, lame duck politicians can devote time to buddying up to businesses and organizations in order to get appointments to lucrative board seats after they leave office. This has often been the case in Western democracies, where former parliamentarians, cabinet ministers, senators, etc. find themselves being offered highly profitable positions upon their retirement (Wynne, 2004). Imposing term limits necessarily increases this sort of behavior, as politicians look more toward their retirement during their final years of office, rather than to the interests of the people. 1 Ferraz, Claudio and Finan, Frederico, (2010). \"Electoral Accountability and Corruption: Evidence from the Audits of Local Governments\" Berkeley, 2 Wynne, Michael. 2004. \"Politics, Markets, Health and Democracy\". University of Wolongong.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba226c45f2b725aceb524669a4a40bb7",
"text": "eneral philosophy political philosophy politics government house would enforce Term limits tend to increase partisanship between political parties and factions:\n\nTerm limits on legislators serve to exacerbate partisan tensions between political parties1. This is due to several causes. First, the increased iteration of primary elections, caused by politicians being forced out of office by term limits, in which there tends to be low voter turnout, and higher voter apathy when they happen to regularly. This leads to the selection of more conservative candidates from the right, and more radical candidates from the left. These more opposed groups forming large portions of political parties' representation will lead to more tension in the legislature. Second, newly elected politicians are often more likely to readily take the party whip when they enter the legislature. These results in more disciplined voting, which restricts the ability of moderates on either side to build consensuses on legislation. Third, the ability to build consensus and support from other parties relies on experience and deft political acumen, which are usually garnered through lengthy participation in the legislative process.2 Term limits exclude many skilled politicians from being able to use their expertise in the building of such consensus efforts. Fourth, concerns for their post-legislative career can lead to greater partisanship from retiring legislators. This is due to their need to court appointments to positions at party-affiliated, or party-leaning, think tanks, and on corporate boards favorable to their party. All of these factors lead to a less cooperative legislature when term limits are instituted. 1 Marcus, Andrew. 2010. \"Dodd and Other 'Retiring' Democrats Show Why Term Limitsare a Bad Idea\". Big Government. 2 Kouser, Thad. 2004. Term Limits and the Dismantling of State Legislative Professionalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "da7f21b5ce41aac087c3f7588f874bde",
"text": "eneral philosophy political philosophy politics government house would enforce Experienced legislators who understand the workings of the legislative system are needed for their expertise and wisdom:\n\nThe process of drafting legislation and shepherding it through the legislature often requires a delicate and practiced hand, especially when the issue under discussion is of a controversial nature. By forcing politicians out of the legislature on the basis of term limits, the depth of knowledge and experience available to the assembly is reduced, often to its serious detriment [1] . Seasoned politicians are also needed to help newcomers acclimate to the environment of the legislature; something first-time elected individuals are completely unused to. Naiveté on the part of new policymakers who are unused to the system will leave them vulnerable and exploitable. Lobbyists and special interest groups will seek to influence politicians while they develop their first impressions of life in the legislature, and will immediately capitalize upon any perceived vulnerability. Luann Ridgeway a Republican senator in the Missouri senate argues that term limits mean “we rely more on the trustworthiness of those established -- government relations individuals and staff persons -- because we have to”, [2] this would include more taking advice from the long standing lobbyists. Furthermore, legislation often requires lengthy periods of negotiation, that require not only the experienced hand of long-standing legislators, but also the continuity they offer. If legislators are constrained by term limits their time horizons are narrowed causing them to put too much emphasis on near-term, rather than long-term legislation. Clearly, term limits undermine the effective operation of government and deny the legislature an invaluable source of experience and ability.\n\n[1] Kouser, Thad. 2004. Term Limits and the Dismantling of State LegislativeProfessionalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.\n\n[2] Coleman, Emily and Bushnel, Michael, (2009). “Legislators attribute heightened partisanship to term limits”, Missourian, 16th May 2009\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4871dcd4932c37e8f2f53eb850a40ac5",
"text": "eneral philosophy political philosophy politics government house would enforce Term limits create more competitive elections for public office that empower new leaders and ideas:\n\nIncumbency provides a huge election advantage. Politicians almost always win reelection. The frequency with which they win varies over time and between states, but incumbency is always a powerful advantage. This is seen most visibly in the United States Congress of the past 30 years, in which it has become virtually impossible to unseat an incumbent legislator. Legislators are reelected because they have better name recognition both with the electorate and with lobby groups. People have a tendency to vote for whom they recognize, and firms tend to support past winners who will likely continue to benefit their interests. Term limits actually increase voter choice by making elections more competitive and encouraging more candidates to run. In areas where term limits have been instituted there is far higher turnover amongst legislators, giving voters far more choice in who should represent them. In California, the institution of term limits on state legislators caused a rush of retirements, which led to 50 percent more candidates than would otherwise have been expected, as well as a marked increase in the diversity of the backgrounds of those elected [1] . Ultimately, old legislators using election machines to retain power do their country and constituents a disservice. Power is best used when it changes hands over time in order to allow for dynamic new solutions to be mooted in a changing world.\n\n[1] Bandow, Doug. 1995. \"Real Term Limits: Now More Than Ever\". Cato Institute Policy Analysis.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "adc486a8ae20a6bf72037b39af2ef6e4",
"text": "eneral philosophy political philosophy politics government house would enforce The longer a politician remains in office, the more entrenched his grip becomes, and the more likely he is to use his office to his personal advantage:\n\nPower is highly intoxicating; it can corrupt even the most scrupled individual given enough exposure over time. For this reason, power should not be left in the hands of specific individuals for too long. When a politician is firmly entrenched, he may seek to enrich himself at the expense of the public. He may seek to shower benefices on family and allies in order to maintain and strengthen his powerful position. Without term limits legislators often become self-serving individuals, more interested in craving out personal power bases than with serving the people who elected them. Because legislators are so likely to be reelected, lobbyists and special interest groups find the lines of power in states' capitals largely predictable, and are thus able to buy the influence of the permanent power nexuses in the legislature with relative ease1. Term limits serve to limit the ability of individuals to put forward self-serving legislation and to retain power indefinitely 2. Instead, by maintaining term limits, legislators have only a limited time in power, which tends to shift their focus toward genuinely benefiting the public.\n\n1 Bandow, Doug. 1995. \"Real Term Limits: Now More Than Ever\". Cato Institute Policy Analysis. 2 Green, Eric. 2007. \"Term Limits Help Prevent Dictatorships\". America.gov.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bdbcff5fb65e9d12021f770faad0d993",
"text": "eneral philosophy political philosophy politics government house would enforce Term limits restore a concept of rotation in public office, and reestablish the concept of the citizen legislature:\n\nIt is gravely unfortunate that politics has become an accepted career path for citizens of democratic states. It is far better that participation in government be brief. To end politics as a lifetime sinecure, thereby making legislative service a leave of absence, rather than a means of permanently absconding from a productive career in the private sector, requires that there be term limits 1. Without term limits, the temptation to remain in office for life will keep people seeking reelection long after they have accomplished all the legislative good of which they are capable. It does not take long for legislators to become more occupied with their relationships with each other and with lobbyists, than with their constituents. Representative assemblies work best when they function as citizen legislatures, in which people who pursue careers other than politics enter the legislative forum for a brief time to do their country service, and then leave again to reenter society as private citizens2. Such citizen legislators who enter politics to make their mark and then leave are far more desirable than the career politicians of today who focus only on building their own power influence, rather than considering the people they were elected to represent. US states with 'citizen legislatures', where the state legislature is part time with short sessions so allowing its members to hold other jobs, were at the top of freedom indexes. New Hampshire was both the most minimal parliament and the state with most fiscal freedom according to the Ruger-Sorens Index.3 1 Will, George. 1993. Restoration: Congress, Term Limits, and the Restoration of Deliberative Democracy. New York: Free Press. 2 Bandow, Doug. 1995. \"Real Term Limits: Now More Than Ever\". Cato Institute Policy Analysis. 3 Rugar, William and Sorens, Jason. 2011. \"The Citizen Legislature: How Reasonable Limits on State Legislative Salaries, Staff and Session Lengths Keep Liberty Alive\" Policy Brief, Goldwater Institute,\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b7cdb32b0e926b6e6c8346972feda03d",
"text": "eneral philosophy political philosophy politics government house would enforce The need to constantly fight elections compromises a politician's ability to make the difficult and unpopular decisions that may be needed at a given time:\n\nA major focus of a legislator hoping to serve another term is on the next election and on vote getting. It is often the case that hard decisions need to be made by legislators, but it is difficult for them to do so when they are fixated on being reelected. Legislators have an incentive to put tough decisions off if they can retain power by doing so. An example of such seemingly perpetual procrastination is observable in the United States Congress's attitude toward social security. The fund is set to become insolvent, by some estimates, in less than two decades, yet congressmen and senators have chosen time and again to put off enacting painful, but necessary reform to the system. They find it easier to delay a decision until the next Congress, preferring their own reelection to the good of the nation. When constrained by term limits, legislators must make the most of their limited time in office, resulting in greater prioritization of difficult decisions and reform1. Furthermore, the need to constantly fight elections places politicians in the pocket of lobby-groups and election supporters to a greater degree, as they will always need to go back to them for support, and thus cannot make decisions that are in the national interest alone. While there will always be some of this behavior, it is curtailed by term limits, as legislators will, in their final term at the very least, not be beholden to as many special interests as they cannot run again. Bolder legislative action is observed from retiring legislators in the United States Congress, for example. When a congressman or senator does not intend to seek reelection, his tendency to vote along strict party lines diminishes substantially. Term limits, just like voluntary retirement, leads legislators to vote more on the basis of principle than on party stance2. The result of this is a more independent legislature, with a greater interest in actually serving the people.\n\n1 Chan, Sewell. 2008. \"Debating the Pros and Cons of Term Limits\". New York Times. 2 Scherer, Michael. 2010. \"Washington's Time for Bipartisanship: Retirement\". Time.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
c8bdc22a5bf45050b5951d8ff3f674df
|
Intervention would be legitimate
If Syria uses, or looks as if it is about to use, chemical weapons then this would be a clear escalation that would require action. Syria has never signed the Chemical Weapons Convention [1] but it should be considered to be a part of customary international law so binding even on those who have not signed. [2]
The use of chemical weapons would also clearly be an attempt to cause huge numbers of casualties and large scale suffering. In 2005 with the United Nations World Summit the nations of the world signed up to “If a State is manifestly failing to protect its populations, the international community must be prepared to take collective action to protect populations.” [3] So any intervention would be fully justifiable, and indeed should occur as Syria would be demonstrating that it is “failing to protect its populations” by using chemical weapons on them. There is no doubt that the world has a moral responsibility to prevent atrocities in Syria, these atrocities are already happening, but the world cannot stand by while the Syrian government escalates their scale through the use of chemical weapons.
[1] ‘Non-Member States’, Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, http://www.opcw.org/about-opcw/non-member-states/
[2] ‘United States of America Practice Relating to Rule 74. Chemical Weapons’, ICRC, 2013, http://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_cou_us_rule74
[3] Office of the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, ‘The Responsibility to Protect’, United Nations, 2012,
|
[
{
"docid": "7c74347b77b1a6783bdc24ca99953a5a",
"text": "onal asia politics defence warpeace house would intervene syria prevent or Intervention would only be legitimate if it was sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council or another country came directly under attack. What is being suggested while abhorrent does not meet either of these conditions. The Security Council is unlikely to agree to an intervention now and Syria would be very foolish to use their chemical weapons on a neighbour so inviting attack. The use of chemical weapons may be banned by international law but that does not mean that their use authorizes an intervention against a sovereign nation. [1]\n\n[1] Ku, Julian, ‘Would Syria’s Use of Chemical Weapons Change the Legality of U.S. Intervention?’, Opinio Juris, 7 December 2012, http://opiniojuris.org/2012/12/07/would-syrias-use-of-chemical-weapons-change-the-legality-of-u-s-intervention/\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "9c7bb3e752aaa45ee74d3e3e6602df08",
"text": "onal asia politics defence warpeace house would intervene syria prevent or This is all supposition; we have no way of knowing if Syria will test any set red lines, or that they will use chemical weapons if there is no response. Instead it may be the response that causes the use of chemical weapons. The Syrian Foreign Ministry has said in the past that chemical and biological weapons “will never be used unless Syria is exposed to external aggression.” [1] Clearly an intervention aiming to stop the use of chemical weapons would constitute just such external aggression.\n\n[1] Associated Press, ‘Syrian regime makes chemical warfare threat’, guardian.co.uk, 23 July 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/23/syria-chemical-warfare-threat-assad\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0409541d4478846a55848aa3481f8b00",
"text": "onal asia politics defence warpeace house would intervene syria prevent or Attacking chemical weapons stores prevents a threat in itself as it runs the risk of blowing up the weapons and therefore dispersing them into the air. [1] This risk would potentially be even higher with any biological weapons as they would not become harmless through dispersal as Chemical weapons would.\n\nQuite apart from the risks of setting off the arsenals when attacking them such attacks would be very unlikely to be successful. While Syria’s chemical weapons may be held in a few large centers this would seem to be unlikely given the history of attacks on unconventional weapons programs. Syria itself has had a nuclear weapons program destroyed as a result of an Israeli air attack in 2007. [2] This would have been a powerful lesson in the need to disperse these weapons to prevent their destruction from the air.\n\n[1] ‘Preventing Syrian Chemical Weapons Threat From Becoming Deadly Reality’, PBS Newshour, 5 December 2012, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/july-dec12/syria2_12-05.html\n\n[2] Harel, Amos, ‘Five years on, new details emerge about Israeli strike on Syrian reactor’, Haaretz, 10 September 2012, http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/five-years-on-new-details-emerge-about-israeli-strike-on-syrian-reactor-1.464033\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fb7f1629bb9697ac96056a5c1a663a6f",
"text": "onal asia politics defence warpeace house would intervene syria prevent or All killing is abhorrent and one life is worth as much as any other. But while the lives lost are the same it is not true that the use of chemical weapons to kill is the same as conventional weapons; the difference is that one is banned and the other is not, their use makes intervention possible in a way it is not during a conventional conflict. The threat from chemical weapons is also of an order of magnitude greater than that of conventional weapons. They can kill immense numbers quickly and indiscriminately. The use of chemical weapons is an escalation that must not be allowed to happen.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "136c5edf8460d5d3aa4493c342b9a470",
"text": "onal asia politics defence warpeace house would intervene syria prevent or According to Russia Syria has centralised its chemical weapons into just one or two locations which makes it possible to attack and destroy the weapons comparatively easily. [1] This might not destroy all Syria’s chemical weapons but would still severely restrict their access to these weapons.\n\n[1] ‘Syria ‘secures chemical weapons stockpile’’, Al Jazeera, 23 December 2012, http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/12/201212221532021654.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ca358ef927c0064953f06d529d4a2f5",
"text": "onal asia politics defence warpeace house would intervene syria prevent or The use of chemical weapons would change the Chinese and Russian positions. Syrian officials have been reported as saying they would not use chemical weapons because “We would not commit suicide” as the support from Russia and China would be lost. [1] While China and Russia do have interests in Syria these interests are nothing like those China has in maintaining the North Korean regime.\n\n[1] Blair, Charles P., ‘Why Assad Won’t Use His Chemical Weapons’, Foreign Policy, 6 December 2012, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/12/06/why_assad_wont_use_his_chemical_weapons\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4bed55c8ded3100255aed40684d3c1eb",
"text": "onal asia politics defence warpeace house would intervene syria prevent or No reaction will embolden the regime\n\nNot responding to Syrian moves to use chemical weapons will be enabling the Syrian government to use chemical weapons. It has already been reported that some chemical weapons are being made ready for use such as the combining of the two chemical precursors, isopropanol and methylphosphony difluoride, needed to weaponize sarin gas. It means that “Physically, they’ve gotten to the point where the can load it up on a plane and drop it”. [1] If there is no response to this then Syria will be more likely to use weapons.\n\nIf there is no response to the limited use of chemical weapons, such as the use of Agent 15 in Homs, then there the regime will be encouraged to think that there will be no response to larger uses of chemical weapons. Syria would slowly escalate to see what it can get away with, an escalation that US officials think could “lead to a mass-casualty event” without the appropriate response. [2]\n\n[1] Shachtman, Noah, and Ackerman, Spencer, ‘Exclusive: U.S. Sees Syria Prepping Chemical Weapons for Possible Attack’, Wired Danger Room, 3 December 2012, http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/12/syria-chemical-weapons-3/\n\n[2] Rogin, Josh, ‘Exclusive: Secret State Department cable: Chemical weapons used in Syria’, Foreign Policy The Cable, 15 January 2013, http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/01/15/secret_state_department_cable_chemical_weapons_used_in_syria\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "06b7dfe9a286a6710e6c7f5e8bc6822d",
"text": "onal asia politics defence warpeace house would intervene syria prevent or No fly zones and bombing could eliminate the threat of chemical weapons\n\nOne of the reasons why there has not been an intervention in Syria already is the difficulty of doing so. Preventing or limiting the use of chemical weapons however does represent a defined objective that is smaller, and therefore easier, than bringing peace to Syria. It however has to be accepted that if Assad’s regime is determined to use chemical weapons then some are likely to get through and how much is prevented is largely dependent on intelligence.\n\nInterdicting chemical weapons during transport and bombing the storage facilities to make it much more difficult to move the weapons would be easiest to accomplish. [1] But if chemical weapons are about to be used then attacking the delivery vehicles would be necessary; any intervention would have overwhelming air superiority so would prevent the option of aircraft and helicopters being used to deliver the weapons.\n\nMore difficult to destroy are ballistic missiles, and particularly artillery [2] but even these are much easier to hit than infantry would be. In the conflict against Gaddafi successfully used precision guided weapons to destroy tanks and artillery. [3] Moreover an intervening force would not need to destroy every missile and artillery brigade only find those that are being issued with chemical weapons.\n\n[1] Eisenstadt, Michael, ‘Chemical Reaction’, Foreign Policy, 18 January 2013, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/01/18/chemical_reaction\n\n[2] Fargo, Matthew, ‘Targeting Syria’s Chemical Weapons – A Dangerous Proposition’, Center for Strategic & International Studies, 25 July 2012, http://csis.org/blog/targeting-syrias-chemical-weapons-dangerous-proposition\n\n[3] Hebert, Adam J., ‘Libya: Victory Through Airpower’, Airforce-Magazine.com, December 2011, http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2011/December%202011/1211edit.aspx\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cb1718075259dbb156667cdd7fdd97fe",
"text": "onal asia politics defence warpeace house would intervene syria prevent or The use of weapons may not change the diplomatic situation\n\nRussia and China have been vetoing U.N. action on Syria throughout the crisis. [1] It is precisely the intervention to prevent a massacre that the Russians and Chinese are trying to avoid, for fear that this would simply be a pretext for regime change as happened in Libya. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has explicitly stated “We’ll not allow the Libyan experience to be reproduced in Syria.” [2] When Obama said that chemical weapons use was a red line Xinhua, China’s state news agency, responded “Obama's \"red line\" warnings merely aimed to seek new pretext for Syria intervention” urging continued negotiations instead. [3] While the use of chemical weapons is odious and would make Assad even more of a pariah than he already is it should be remembered that China supports an equally odious regime in North Korea, so may not see Chemical weapons as sufficient reason to change position.\n\n[1] Lynch, Colum, ‘Russia, China veto U.N. action on Syria … and the blame game begins’, Foreign Policy Turtle Bay, 4 February 2012, http://turtlebay.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/02/04/russia_china_veto_un_action_on_syria_and_the_blame_game_begins\n\n[2] ‘Russia Rules Out Libyan Scenario in Syria’, RIANovosti, 9 December 2012, http://en.rian.ru/russia/20121209/178024186.html\n\n[3] Chang, Liu, ‘Obama’s “red line” warnings merely aimed to seek new pretext for Syria intervention’, Xinhua, 22 August 2012, http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2012-08/22/c_131800638.htm\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c03cb703dcf10e6b826bff6be45ac7c6",
"text": "onal asia politics defence warpeace house would intervene syria prevent or Do chemical weapons really make a difference?\n\nChemical and biological weapons are among the most horrifying weapons ever created by man; it is with good cause that they are banned. However if there have already been 60,000 [1] people killed by the conflict in Syria then would the use of chemical weapons, unless it was on a massive scale, would not make much difference in terms of the numbers of people the Assad regime is killing. [2] It is morally inconsistent to consider chemical weapons somehow different if they are not changing the scale of the killing. It is human lives that matter, or rather does not matter as has been made clear by the unwillingness to do anything, not the type of weapon that kill those people. If Syria kills a few thousand more by using chemical weapons then what is the difference to killing thousands more using conventional weapons?\n\n[1] ‘Data suggests Syria death toll could be more than 60,000, says UN human rights office’, UN News Centre, 2 January 2013, http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=43866#.UPbBiXcnh8E\n\n[2] Eisenstadt, Michael, ‘Chemical Reaction’, Foreign Policy, 18 January 2013, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/01/18/chemical_reaction\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d2ed2283adf5084bdb8211b8228fee4f",
"text": "onal asia politics defence warpeace house would intervene syria prevent or Cannot prevent the use of chemical weapons\n\nNo intervention could prevent the use of chemical weapons of the Assad regime had decided to use them. No outside force could ever be certain they know where all Syria’s weapons are [1] and destroy them in time if they were distributed for use; even full scale air strikes might not be enough, the pentagon thinks it would require 75,000 troops to secure the arsenal in the event of Syria’s collapse. [2] The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Martin Dempsey, admits that even if acting before the use of Chemical weapons by the Syrian government the United States would not be able to stop their use. \"The act of preventing the use of chemical weapons would be almost unachievable... because you would have to have such clarity of intelligence, you know, persistent surveillance, you'd have to actually see it before it happened, and that's -- that's unlikely, to be sure,\" [3] If widespread chemical weapons use had already occurred then the intervention could hardly be to prevent their use in the first place but to punish their use. Responding to the use of chemical weapons would seem to be pointless; the deaths will have occurred already. Syria may have more chemical weapons in its arsenal still to use but an attack would simply make them more likely to use everything they have.\n\n[1] Stares, Paul B., ‘Preventing Chemical Weapons Use in Syria’, Council on Foreign Relations, 19 December 2012, http://www.cfr.org/syria/preventing-chemical-weapons-use-syria/p29701\n\n[2] Alexander, Kris, ‘Syria’s Collapse Could be a Chem Weapon Nightmare’, Wired Danger Room, 16 July 2012, http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/07/syria/\n\n[3] Rogin, Josh, ‘Exclusive: Secret State Department cable: Chemical weapons used in Syria’, Foreign Policy The Cable, 15 January 2013, http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/01/15/secret_state_department_cable_chemical_weapons_used_in_syria\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
142650874bae2aa16db24d0ddcc9f390
|
The United States need to maximise the effectiveness of its atomic weaponry program before it could be compromised
There was no possibility of keeping nuclear weapons under wraps; scientists from several countries had been working on them. They were ripe for discovery. Robert Oppenheimer pointed out “it is a profound and necessary truth, that deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them” [1] If Atomic bombs were going to be developed anyway there was a compelling reason to be the first to own these weapons, even to be the first to use them. Deterrence, would not work if suspected to be a bluff or a dud, having used the bomb twice it could not be doubted that the US was willing to use it again in extremis.
The cost of building the bomb was enormous. At 2.2 billion dollars the Manhattan project cost about the same as the drive to get to the moon in the sixties, but the comparison is not adjusted for inflation. [2] The vast majority of the cost, and of the 130,000 employed in the project, was not in the development but in the building of the factories to produce the fissile material. The opportunity cost of that 2.2 billion is surely huge, how many more bombers and tanks or how many more medicines and bandages could it have bought? Not using the bomb and squandering that investment would bring that opportunity cost to life; the question is not just how many would die in months more war but how many might not have to build something unused.
[ 1 Robert Oppenheimer quoted by Richard Rhodes, ‘The Atomic Bomb in the Second World War’ in C. C. Kelley (ed.), Remembering the Manhattan Project : Perspectives on the Making of the Atomic Bomb and Its Legacy, (River Edge NJ, 2005), p.18
[2] ibid p.22
|
[
{
"docid": "26be805bc1f3fffa6bb93d26948b966c",
"text": "y ethics politics warpeace house believes use atomic bombs against hiroshima and Having a weapon is hardly a good argument for using one, society would fall apart if ‘I have a gun thus I must shoot someone’ became an accepted maxim. Since war is policy by other means the ultimate weapon is one that achieves its policy objectives without the need to be actually be used. As to the cost, the $2.2bn translates to a little below $7,000 for each Japanese life taken.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "93538c037ecde8be75b55c0f06102150",
"text": "y ethics politics warpeace house believes use atomic bombs against hiroshima and The alternatives to either invasion or atomic bombing are covered in the previous counterpoint. It can only be said that none of them are without a high human cost, though invasion spearheaded by an atomic barrage is surely the worst. The principle of advantage of the conventional bombing option being that it would be easily justifiable as only quantitively different to what the Japanese had already meted out themselves. The blockade similarly has easy justification in not being a deviation from any accepted standards as well as only indirectly attacking the home islands while putting the onus on the Japanese government to avoid starvation. Really in order to find a less costly alternative then diplomacy has to be raised for which refer to the second response argument.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a1dc1fc2bb3e16568753ed019dcb0396",
"text": "y ethics politics warpeace house believes use atomic bombs against hiroshima and It can be argued that conventional bombing could have brought about a Japanese surrender without the recourse to the use of the atomic bombs. Compared to conventional bombings the atomic bombs caused disproportionate amounts of civilian casualties. The Strategic Bombing survey estimated that in the 9 months prior to the surrender there were 806,000 Japanese civilian casualties inclusive of A-bombs, of which 330,000 were deaths. Therefore nearly a third of civilian deaths were as a result of the atomic bombings (and that is only counting those who died immediately). In Hiroshima 72% of buildings were destroyed, in Nagasaki 37.5% of buildings were destroyed. However in a conventional raid Yokohama was 47% destroyed in an hours bombing, for the comparatively light cost of 5,000 civilian fatalities. [1] Of course some conventional raids, particularly fireraids caused very heavy casualties, in particular the Tokyo firebombing of March 9th 1945 killed 100,000 and destroyed 15.8 square miles. However that is still three times the area destroyed of Hiroshima. Since the only possible justification for attack on cities is the destruction of infrastructure conventional bombing was similarly effective while being the cause of many fewer civilian deaths.\n\nAccording to the United States Strategic Bombing Survey “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” [2] The accuracy of this prediction has since been called into question, [3] after all the allies dropped far more bombs on Nazi Germany without securing surrender. However the fact remains that the conventional bombing campaign was only just starting to get going and might have achieved decisive results.\n\nPossibly even more important for the prospects of a conventional victory, and one not clouded by the stigma of massive bombing campaigns against civilians, was the maritime blockade. By the end of the war Japan had only 700,000 tons of shipping remaining, she had started the war with 6,337,000 tons. Of 122,000 sailors in the merchant marine 27,000 were killed 89,000 wounded. For an island nation reliant on imports not just to run its industry but also to keep its people fed this was devastating. The result was starvation in the Japanese home islands. After the war it was reported that up to 10 million would die of starvation without American food aid, as a post war report to the Diet (Japanese Parliament) put it ‘the greatest cause of defeat was the loss of shipping’. [4]\n\n[1] United States Strategic Bombing Survey: Summary Report (Pacific War), http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm pp.20, 23-24.\n\n[2] United States Strategic Bombing Survey: Summary Report (Pacific War), http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm p.26.\n\n[3] Gian Peri Gentile, ‘Advocacy or Assessment? The United States Strategic Bombing Survey of Germany and Japan’, in Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism, (Columbia, 2007) pp.123-4.\n\n[4] Joel Ira Holwitt, “Execute against Japan”: The US decision to conduct unrestricted submarine warfare, (College Station TX, 2008) pp.166-9\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "29787c3dd1578282676477f9e0e6a32c",
"text": "y ethics politics warpeace house believes use atomic bombs against hiroshima and The justification for the second bomb relies principally upon the argument that Japan would presume there was only one A-bomb if another was not dropped, so the destruction of Nagasaki was a necessary evil to force surrender just as much as that at Hiroshima. Indeed senior Japanese figures did argue that there was only one bomb, and even in one case that the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was not atomic at all, simply a very big conventional bomb. The Chief of the Naval General Staff Toyoda Soemu thought “it is questionable whether the United States will be able to use more bombs in rapid succession.” [1] This was a view that Anami Korechika, the army minister, shared until it was shattered by the second bomb although even then he said “The appearance of the atomic bomb does not spell the end of war” [2]\n\n[1] Admiral Toyoda quoted by Sadao Asada, ‘The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan’s Decision to Surrender - A Reconsideration’ in Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism, p.37.\n\n[2] Army Minister Anami quoted by Sadao Asada, ‘The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan’s Decision to Surrender - A Reconsideration’ in Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism, p.40.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4c75ff97267cbda9488f0ac3d3670efd",
"text": "y ethics politics warpeace house believes use atomic bombs against hiroshima and Before Hiroshima and Nagasaki the use of the Atomic Bomb did not raise profound moral questions with allied policymakers. Civilians had been intentionally targeted from the air since the start of the war and both Japanese and German cities had been already subjected to relentless bombardment. There was no compelling reason for politicians to view the Atomic bomb any differently from the London blitz or the Dresden raid. [1]\n\nThe Hague conventions had been systemically honoured only in the breach for the previous six years and so would not have given Truman or his advisors any particular heartache. The radiation effects were as yet unknown and so there was no reason to treat atomic bombs as anything more sinister than a mighty conventional bomb would be. Had the radiation been known about then it might have moved them into a category akin to chemical or biological weapons, which were already frowned upon. Chemical weapons were banned by the Hague convention in 1899. [2] This did not of course prevent their widespread use in WWI but the horrified reaction to the use of mustard gas and other agents lead to the Geneva Protocol [3] which came into force in 1928 although the US was not a signatory. In practice Atomic weapons have not been since treated as equivalent to poison gas or other ‘analogous devices’ and thus the International Court of Justice has said that they do not breach the Hague conventions or the Geneva Protocol. [4] Therefore as these were the only international laws in force at the time of the action the dropping the bombs were not illegal acts.\n\n[1] Barton J. Bernstein, ‘The Atomic Bombings Reconsidered’, Foreign Affairs, vol.74, no.1, Jan.- Feb., 1995. p.135.\n\n[2] Declaration on the Use of Projectiles the Object of Which is the Diffusion of Asphyxiating or Deleterious Gases; July 29, 1899; http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dec99-02.asp\n\n[3] Geneva Protocol to Hague Convention http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Geneva_Protocol_to_Hague_Convention\n\n[4] International Court of Justice advisory opinion of 8 July 1996 Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, paragraphs 54-6. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/7495.pdf?PHPSESSID=61c346606e8c49...\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "21505edbc8f11949bc9bc5a491ab4c48",
"text": "y ethics politics warpeace house believes use atomic bombs against hiroshima and Offering the preservation of the Monarchy was unlikely to have altered the outcome of the conflict by bringing peace before August 6th. This was the only concession to the Japanese that was even considered by the US government. It was thought that even this would be very hard for the American public to swallow. Truman’s personal feeling was also that nothing short of an unconditional surrender would do to avenge Pearl Harbour. [1]\n\n[1] Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, Racing the enemy: Stalin, Truman and the surrender of Japan, (Cambridge, 2005) p.291.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "edaf2e3ad9da8d1974f35d34d0c9da84",
"text": "y ethics politics warpeace house believes use atomic bombs against hiroshima and The continuation of a conventional war would have been much costlier than an atomic attack\n\nThe US was planning for a massive invasion of the Japanese Home Islands (Operation Olympic). Nine divisions were to land on the southern Japanese island of Kyushu. However the Japanese had ten divisions in southern Kyushu by August, and 600,000 troops on the whole island. [1]\n\nThe US army widely disseminated a figure of half a million casualties for the conquest of Japan. This was however only the figure for public consumption and some calculations went much higher. [2] On top of the US losses the same amount and probably considerably more Japanese deaths would have to be added. The estimates of US losses were so bad that atomic bombs were actually considered for use in clearing the landing beaches.\n\nChief of Staff George C. Marshall argued “We had to visualize very heavy casualties unless we had enough atomic bombs at the time to supplement the troop action.” [3] Invasion was therefore not really an alternative to the A-bomb use at all. Although the use of the bomb in a battlefield situation might be more justifiable that it was considered shows the ignorance of the radiation effects that might well have been a disaster for US forces as well as Japanese.\n\n[1] Edward J. Drea, ‘Intelligence Forecasting for the Invasion of Japan: previews of Hell, Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism, (Columbia, 2007) p.59,71\n\n[2] D. M. Giangreco, \"A score of bloody Okinawas and Iwo Jimas\": President Truman and casualty estimates for the invasion of Japan’, Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism, (Columbia, 2007), p.88\n\n[3] Edward J. Drea, ‘Intelligence Forecasting for the Invasion of Japan: previews of Hell’, pp.74-5.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e382a2b36147cd3e8125c9b831273594",
"text": "y ethics politics warpeace house believes use atomic bombs against hiroshima and The use of atomic bombs was the only was to persuade Japan's rulers to surrender\n\nFrom late 1944 Japan’s defeat was certain. The Japanese leadership knew this, but this knowledge did not equate acceptance nor did it translate into action. The Americans felt that some sort of game changer was needed to push the Japanese into surrender.\n\nAccording to Henry L. Stimson “We, [the administration] felt that to extract a genuine surrender from the Emperor and his military advisors, they must be administered a tremendous shock which would carry convincing proof of our power to destroy the Empire.” [1]\n\nThe United States Strategic Bombing Survey reckoned that to cause equivalent damage done by the Atomic Bombs using conventional weapons would require 345 B29’s. [2] However it is not the fact that the Atomic bombs saved hundreds of B29 missions that is the crucial element. That is the sheer terror that the destructive power of the atomic bombs. This made the Atomic bombs of a different order to any number of conventional B29 missions and was a crucial factor in bringing about the Japanese surrender. If the fact that a city could be levelled in a single night could make the Japanese surrender they would have done so many months previously, and many times over. Important members of the Japanese government agreed with Stimson’s assessment of the importance of shock. Prime Minister Suzuki said “The atomic bomb provided an additional reason for surrender as well as an extremely favorable opportunity to commence peace talks. I believed such an opportunity could not be afforded by B-29 bombings alone.” [3]\n\n[1] Secretary of War, Henry Stimson quoted by Rudolph A. Winnacker, ‘The Debate About Hiroshima’, Military Affairs, vol.11, no.1, Spring 1947, p.27.\n\n[2] United States Strategic Bombing Survey: Summary Report (Pacific War), http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm p.24.\n\n[3] Suzuki Kantaro quoted by Sadao Asada, ‘The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan’s Decision to Surrender - A Reconsideration’ in Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism, (Columbia, 2007) p. 35\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "70579bb0e13982874812b3170776e845",
"text": "y ethics politics warpeace house believes use atomic bombs against hiroshima and A negotiated peace would have been preferable to the dropping of the atomic bombs\n\nIt is conventional to argue that Japan was defeated already and so the bombings were unnecessary as Sadao Asada points out this confuses defeat with surrender. However such a position seems equally to confuse surrender with peace. That there had to be an unconditional surrender seems almost unquestioned. Most wars do not end in an unconditional surrender of one side or the other, Japanese defeat was plain so a negotiated peace would normally have been set in motion when the US saw the terrible casualties it might be forced to take in its push for total victory. The Americans learnt of Japanese willingness to negotiate in July, on the 13th Secretary of the Navy Forrestal wrote in his diary “The first real evidence of a Japanese desire to get out of the war came today... Togo said further that the unconditional surrender term of the Allies was about the only thing in the way of termination of the war” [1] Stimson, Grew and Forrestal aimed at persuading president Truman to offer the Japanese promise of the preservation of the monarchy as an alternative to unconditional surrender. [2] Ultimately the Potsdam declaration set the unconditional surrender policy in stone. [3] Offering such a condition would certainly have strengthened the peace party within the Japanese cabinet and allowed them to present further resistance by the generals and admirals as endangering the monarchy. [4] However, on its own this would probably not have lead to peace, the cabinet would still have been split 3-3 with the Army and Navy ministers both opposed and with vetoes on policy. Even the most belligerent of the Japanese Cabinet, Army Minister Anami’s conditions were preservation of the Imperial institution, no military occupation of the home islands, Japanese forces were to demobilize and disarm themselves and war criminals were to be prosecuted by the Japanese themselves. [5] While these conditions are obviously ripe for exploitation, would they really disarm and try war criminals? they are not unreasonable. Just because there was no hope that the US would accept these conditions, they fly in the face of the Potsdam Declaration from which the allies would not deviate, does not mean that another alternative to unconditional surrender should not be considered as an alternative to the dropping of the Nuclear bombs.\n\n[1] Secretary Forrestal quoted by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, Racing the enemy: Stalin, Truman and the surrender of Japan, (Cambridge MA, 2005) p134.\n\n[2] Campbell Craig and Sergay Radchenko, The Atomic Bomb and the Origins of the Cold War, (New Haven, 2008) p.69\n\n[3] Potsdam Declaration, http://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/etc/c06.html\n\n[4] Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, Racing the enemy: Stalin, Truman and the surrender of Japan, (Cambridge, 2005) pp.290-1.\n\n[5] Sadao Asada, ‘The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan’s Decision to Surrender - A Reconsideration’ in Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism, p. 39.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7d50904f3b97201a460a74b9f2a2edd9",
"text": "y ethics politics warpeace house believes use atomic bombs against hiroshima and It was not necessary to use atomic weapons on a population centre\n\nThe first bomb, on Hiroshima was sufficient to achieve the objective of surrender without the use of the second bomb after only a very short period of time. There was only three days between the two bombings, an unpardonably short period. Communications between Hiroshima and Tokyo had unsurprisingly been severed, so the full effect had yet to sink in on some policy makers by the time ‘Fat Man’ was dropped. It had however already convinced Foreign Minister Togo, Prime Minister Suzuki and crucially the Emperor himself. He said upon hearing the news of Hiroshima: “Now that things have come to this impasse, we must bow to the inevitable. ... We should lose no time in ending the war so as not to have another tragedy like this.” [1] The rest of the cabinet was as yet unmoved, but even if they had been it is unlikely they would have been able to actually surrender before the second bomb was dropped.\n\nThere were significant other factors in play as well. Before the second bomb was dropped the Japanese had learnt of the Soviet attack which dashed their last hopes of mediation for a favourable settlement and they were not optimistic of their chances in that conflict, even the army’s planners expected Manchukuo’s capital Changchun would fall in two weeks. [2] Although the Cabinet was deadlocked 3 to 3 this was the case both before and after the news of Nagasaki came in, the point of fact that the US had more than one bomb although a shock to those opposed to surrender did not alter their position. Ultimately the Emperor was forced to intervene on the side of the proponents of peace, his mind had been made up even before the first bomb. It is arguable that Hiroshima was necessary to push him into acting, which was unprecedented but the Nagasaki bombing was entirely superfluous. Historian Sadao Asada’s opinion is that the second bomb was unnecessary. [3]\n\n[1] Emperor Hirohito quoted by Sadao Asada, ‘The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan’s Decision to Surrender - A Reconsideration’ in Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism p.33.\n\n[2] Sadao Asada, ‘The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan’s Decision to Surrender - A Reconsideration’ in Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism, p.36.\n\n[3] Sadao Asada, ‘The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan’s Decision to Surrender - A Reconsideration’ in Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism, pp.38, 41-2.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e920c2ef5843de9528cc41a7f2cc4620",
"text": "y ethics politics warpeace house believes use atomic bombs against hiroshima and The bombing was immoral and illegal\n\nThe use of the Atomic bomb raised immediate moral questions as to its use.\n\nAlbert Einstein argued “The American decision [to use the bomb] may have been a fatal error, for men accustom themselves to thinking a weapon which has been used once can be used again... [on the other hand] Our renunciation of this weapon as too terrible to use would have carried great weight” [1] So far Einstein has been proved wrong and the precedent thus set has not been followed. That the bombs are ‘to terrible to use’ does seem to have sunk in.\n\nThe use of the bombs was also illegal as it would have breached the Hague conventions of 1899 and 1907, signed by the US. Of Hague IV The Laws and Customs of War on Land it probably breached articles 23, forbidding the use of weapons that cause ‘unnecessary suffering’, and article 25 forbidding the attack of undefended towns. It would certainly by its indiscriminate nature have breached article 27 “In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes” [2] as well as the attendant declaration forbidding attack from aircraft!\n\nClearly such sections forbidding attack from aircraft, or balloons in the 1899 version make the Hague convention seem antiquated but the laws of war in general remain even now as they were codified in 1907. [3] The International Court of Justice has referred back to these precedents “In the view of the vast majority of states as well as the writers there can be no doubt as to the applicability of humanitarian law to nuclear weapons. The Court shares that view.” [4] That humanitarian law included the Hague conventions. The court reconfirmed the view that “States must never make civilians the object of attack and must consequently never use weapons that are incapable of distinguishing between civilian and military targets” [5] It is noteworthy that dissensions from a position of banning the use of nuclear weapons entirely focus on the possible use with minimal civilian casualties. [6] Since the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings did not attempt to minimize civilian casualties the implication is that their use was illegal based upon the Hague conventions that were already in force.\n\n[1] Albert Einstein, quoted by Rudolph A. Winnacker, ‘The Debate About Hiroshima’, Military Affairs, vol.11, no.1, Spring 1947, p.25.\n\n[2] Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague04.asp\n\n[3] Malcom H. Shaw, International Law (Cambridge, 1997), p.807.\n\n[4] International Court of Justice advisory opinion of 8 July 1996 Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, paragraphs 85-6. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/7495.pdf?PHPSESSID=61c346606e8c49...\n\n[5] ibid. para. 78.\n\n[6] ibid. para. 91.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
81a473cae01b11ca834098a45889d7f2
|
A single army would enhance the political integration of EU members states
The European Union has significant integration and convergence of the political and economic spheres. Integration of defence policy and the establishment of a European Defence Force should be the logical next step. The African Union took this step and has achieved success in combat missions defending the Union [1] .
[1] The UN Refugee Agency (31 January, 2008) Comoros: Military invasion of Anjouan imminent, government warns. Accessed September 7, 2011 from: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,,,COM,,47b4614c0,0.html
|
[
{
"docid": "fe3540d63d6bd43ead1cbca0dcc66ccb",
"text": "onal europe politics defence government house would create single european union We have seen variations in opinion regarding political and economic issues (e.g. monetary union) in the EU. In the far more thorny area of defence policy, the EU member-nations’ interests are even more divergent. For example, the French position on Algeria may be different from the United Kingdom’s. This difference in priorities will ultimately lead to deadlock, as no country wishes to see its soldiers dying on a battlefield that provides no direct strategic interest to itself.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "2d40eb8bde945ee2a380f8d0d1c6659c",
"text": "onal europe politics defence government house would create single european union Although there is instability in neighbouring regions, most of Europe is in complete and utter peace. The new force would simply be another layer of defence in a stable continent that simply doesn’t need it. War in Europe is completely inconceivable in the 21st century, and considering the threat of war should be the primary reason for holding a standing army, it seems that an EU army has no reasonable case for existence.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3816660f48af0b2d29903d5d0d1b80a",
"text": "onal europe politics defence government house would create single european union Even if we assume that the massive costs of a standing military force can be borne by the EU and its members, the key barriers to establishing a standing defence force are often political. Creating a European Defence Force de novo would require us to decide on several thorny questions, namely the command structure, whether the role should be merely defensive or include peacekeeping, the choice of equipment and supplier, creating a common defence policy, and choosing a language of communication. All of these questions involve political considerations or economic vested interests, all of which are likely to result in on-going wrangling that will yield a stillborn EDF.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f72fe5242d3ad7ad3a3b84a09cb760c7",
"text": "onal europe politics defence government house would create single european union NATO and the proposed European Defence Force are designed to address very different concerns. NATO exists to deal with situations of such magnitude that the nations of Western Europe are likely to adopt a common defence policy. In contrast, the EDF is targeted at smaller geopolitical incidents which would otherwise be ‘beneath’ the notice of NATO. Unfortunately smaller incidents by their nature do not have uniform effects on all EU member-nations, and are therefore unlikely to generate a consensus of policy among EU nations.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7340b9cd858484e9dbb734e69589ea59",
"text": "onal europe politics defence government house would create single european union NATO has successfully defended the interests of Western Europe for several decades now – why rock the boat? It is hard to see a problem which NATO cannot solve, which the European Defence Force could instead. In any case, we will always have to consider Russia’s sensibilities when engaging in peacekeeping operations in Eastern Europe, and it is far better to have America’s bargaining power and geopolitical clout backing us when we negotiate with Russia. If we create a European Defence Force, we will marginalise NATO and the United States. This will lead to a reduced US engagement in Europe, which may in turn diminish our influence when having discussions with Russia over security issues in Europe and beyond.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c7f29e840a44aab5b0559a3491ac73ed",
"text": "onal europe politics defence government house would create single european union The EU has managed to pass similar large amounts of apparently ‘unconstitutional’ legislation through member state legislatures. The Lisbon Treaty, for example, managed to be signed. And so, it seems that archaic constitutional convention cannot stop EU integration – the European Project is simply turning its eyes upon defence: integration has occurred in many walks of life, now it is defence policy’s turn.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f5ba32d00d1424c0a1d1eeb3d4c67e0",
"text": "onal europe politics defence government house would create single european union It might not have been the original aim to integrate defence. Nevertheless, it doesn't mean that defence integration should not be done. The aims are changeable; they should be reconsidered and revised, according to requirements and demands of current situations. Few would have imagined how far Europe would come in other areas such as freedom of movement or the creation of a European Common Foreign policy from a mere industrial coalition between few countries. The EDF will be a rationally reasonable step for the EU, considering the advances that the community has made in integration in other areas of policy. To protect all its achievements, to connect its member states, and to provide its citizens with more safety the EU needs a dedicated defence force.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c7d9b6a112d8f0c8095ee6ec39121583",
"text": "onal europe politics defence government house would create single european union This is mostly speculation. The proposition takes a more optimistic view of US-EU relations after the creation of a European Defence Force. America will more than welcome a strong friend in the region, anything to calm the instability in the near regions of North Africa and the Middle East, not to mention the global markets.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "157acbbefccfa5ddd7cbfa97786704d7",
"text": "onal europe politics defence government house would create single european union The status of Germany is an irrelevant issue. What has happened in the past should have no bearing on judging the Germany of today. Their whole system of government and culture has changed with a new constitution and the maturity of an open-minded youth born after WW2. It’s simply an insult to judge those Germans who have done everything they can to make up for the past atrocities of their nation, by once again digging up the past.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "984c018df9ce3056ac7e4b93e7ad2a59",
"text": "onal europe politics defence government house would create single european union The proposition believes in a more liberal and open-minded average European soldier. There will be no communication issues in the 21st century where translators and bilingual officers are easy to come by. There will be no accountability issues when we create a proper command structure. And there will be no racism because to believe that there would be is to prejudge the whole of Europe and insult the culture-shapers’ attempts to respect and learn from Europe’s dark past, not to repeat it.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd1c25433e145202028142d86021e6b6",
"text": "onal europe politics defence government house would create single european union Regional instability in certain areas of continental europe necessitates the creation of an EU defence force\n\nConstant political instability and war in and near the Middle East call for a united single force charged with the defence of EU countries lying close to the volatile areas.. Turkey is a prime candidate for EU membership, and with its location on the border of both Syria and Iraq, will require support if its refugee problem is to remain manageable. The revolutions in Northern Africa also call for a stabilising force in the region, particularly in Italy where a ‘refugee crisis’ has coincided with the attempts of anti-Gaddafi Libyans to flee the country [1] . If the EU is to take its growing role upon the world stage seriously, it needs a dedicated defence force to make an impact in the region.\n\n[1] Day, M. (14 May, 2011) Flood of North African refugees to Italy ends EU passport-free travel. Accessed September 7, 2011 from: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/flood-of-north-african-re...\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6934ee5e497d6d61a2f748c4500fac0f",
"text": "onal europe politics defence government house would create single european union NATO has established a precedent for multilateral military action\n\nNATO has been crucial to maintaining the balance of power during the cold war. Although there have been some arguments amongst its member states, NATO has shown us that a standing multinational defence force is possible and more importantly works well overall. The recent NATO deployment in Libya is an example of its regional influence and military flexibility [1] . Considering many members of NATO are also members of the EU, the proposed European Defence Force could follow its example and complement it.\n\n[1] BBC News (26 August, 2011) Libya conflict: Nato jets hit Gaddafi Sirte bunker. Accessed September 7, 2011 from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14677754\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6975744076bcc5e424275c851ffcfa79",
"text": "onal europe politics defence government house would create single european union The EU needs a dedicated defence force\n\nIt is important for the EU to have a defence policy independent of NATO. With its origins in the Cold War, and its preponderance of American influence, NATO carries a great deal of historical and geopolitical baggage. This means that NATO cannot easily intervene in Eastern Europe without incurring the displeasure of Russia. This was best proven during the 2008 conflict between Russia and Georgia, when Georgia’s impending accession to NATO was seen as part of the incentive for Russian support to the ‘break-away’ regions in Georgia [1] . The European Defence Force will allow the EU to deal with crises in Eastern and Central Europe more effectively, as they will not have to tiptoe around Russia as much.\n\n[1] Parsons, R. (8 August, 2008). Georgia pays price for its NATO ambitions. Accessed September 7, 2011 from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/2524629/Georgia...\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "364144d388371b37ae78651fe9da4e69",
"text": "onal europe politics defence government house would create single european union The economic strength of the EU enables the creation of a strong military\n\nWith the growing industrial and economic maturity of the European Union and its members, it is now financially feasible for the EU to have its own standing defence force [1] . The proposed EDF would also create a great many jobs as European defence contractors could be recruited into supplying equipment and weaponry.\n\n[1] Amadeo, K.. The EU has replaced the U.S. as the world’s largest economy. Accessed September 7, 2011 from About: http://useconomy.about.com/od/grossdomesticproduct/p/largest_economy.htm\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e2ea0d4b76ca4cd73d5b45037b72737e",
"text": "onal europe politics defence government house would create single european union A large and diverse collective defence for would be impossible to command and develop\n\nIt does not take an in-depth analysis to imagine the issues, on the ground and at HQ, such as army would face. There would be communication issues, would the force use French, Spanish or English? There would be accountability questions [1] , who would be in charge and who would pay for resources? Finally, there would be hostilities within the army and potentially inherent racism between the nations involved. Such a force would not be effective in a combat situation, and valuable lives and resources would be wasted.\n\n[1] Ioannides, I. (4 September, 2002). The European Rapid Reaction Force: Implications for Democratic Accountability. Accessed September 7, 2011 from: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1398915\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "55ea85aee3e32cc46d587ea4c362c829",
"text": "onal europe politics defence government house would create single european union Germany\n\nEurope has been torn apart twice in the 20th century and on both occasions a German Army has been the aggressor. If the E.U. ever had a defence force, no doubt German troops would be at the heart of it. It is just over 60 years ago that German troops invaded many of the countries that today will be forced to fight alongside them. This, especially for the people who fought against a German Army and are alive today, is at best insulting and at worst, political provocation. This is even without mentioning the Holocaust and its ever-present artifacts that litter eastern Europe; a constant reminder to Europeans of the horrors a German Army had once committed.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "959ce3c9b65d5dcb41f0d47632a0d881",
"text": "onal europe politics defence government house would create single european union The creation of a standing army would be contrary to the spirit and purpose of the EU\n\nIt was not the aim of the original European Community to integrate defence. The original partnership was called the European Coal and Steel Community for a reason [1] , designed as a union for mutual economic development and the sharing of scarce resources [2] . The acceleration of the EU has therefore gotten out of hand, and it’s high time it came to an end. A defence force would be one step to far – it would signal the creation of some sort of federal super state, something that not many people in Europe want.\n\n[1] CVCE (18 April, 1951). Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community. Accessed September 7, 2011 from: http://www.cvce.eu/viewer/-/content/11a21305-941e-49d7-a171-ed5be548cd58...\n\n[2] The Irish Times (26 August, 2011). A thirst for peace. Accessed September 7, 2011 from: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/innovation/2011/0826/1224302795053.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "05599767ff3da23cc747f2ff27a3c529",
"text": "onal europe politics defence government house would create single european union Constitutional obstructions\n\nEvery EU country would have an incredibly hard time making the constitutional changes necessary for the handing over of a part of defence policy to an EU institution. In fact, for many EU countries it would be unworkable. In the U.K., constitutional issues might not be as bad as say in France – but this does not change the fact that it would require deft political skill and manoeuvring, often undemocratic and without any sort of referendum, in order to make the constitutional changes necessary to create this force [1] .\n\n[1] Wagner, W. (May 19, 2007). The Democratic Deficit in the EU’s Security and Defense Policy – why bother? . Accessed September 7, 2011 from: http://aei.pitt.edu/8061/1/wagner-w-07b.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c69e537d70fccff570d482a911554d3e",
"text": "onal europe politics defence government house would create single european union The creation of an EU army could harm diplomatic relations with the USA\n\nWe are completely ignoring the issue of geopolitics and how the creation of this entity would be a direct move to replace NATO as the primary defender of Europe. This would of course mean a rejection of the US, as the heart of NATO. What would follow from this would be an extremely unpredictable and volatile place to practice international relations. One thing that we can predict, however, will be the ‘cold shoulder’ the US would suddenly show the EU. The US would feel as if its ally had used it to gain strength after WWII (The Marshall Plan), and now that it’s back on its feet again can forget and even challenge America’s supremacy.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
0eeeef52fb016778b0a2009fc06082ce
|
A large and diverse collective defence for would be impossible to command and develop
It does not take an in-depth analysis to imagine the issues, on the ground and at HQ, such as army would face. There would be communication issues, would the force use French, Spanish or English? There would be accountability questions [1] , who would be in charge and who would pay for resources? Finally, there would be hostilities within the army and potentially inherent racism between the nations involved. Such a force would not be effective in a combat situation, and valuable lives and resources would be wasted.
[1] Ioannides, I. (4 September, 2002). The European Rapid Reaction Force: Implications for Democratic Accountability. Accessed September 7, 2011 from: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1398915
|
[
{
"docid": "984c018df9ce3056ac7e4b93e7ad2a59",
"text": "onal europe politics defence government house would create single european union The proposition believes in a more liberal and open-minded average European soldier. There will be no communication issues in the 21st century where translators and bilingual officers are easy to come by. There will be no accountability issues when we create a proper command structure. And there will be no racism because to believe that there would be is to prejudge the whole of Europe and insult the culture-shapers’ attempts to respect and learn from Europe’s dark past, not to repeat it.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c7f29e840a44aab5b0559a3491ac73ed",
"text": "onal europe politics defence government house would create single european union The EU has managed to pass similar large amounts of apparently ‘unconstitutional’ legislation through member state legislatures. The Lisbon Treaty, for example, managed to be signed. And so, it seems that archaic constitutional convention cannot stop EU integration – the European Project is simply turning its eyes upon defence: integration has occurred in many walks of life, now it is defence policy’s turn.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f5ba32d00d1424c0a1d1eeb3d4c67e0",
"text": "onal europe politics defence government house would create single european union It might not have been the original aim to integrate defence. Nevertheless, it doesn't mean that defence integration should not be done. The aims are changeable; they should be reconsidered and revised, according to requirements and demands of current situations. Few would have imagined how far Europe would come in other areas such as freedom of movement or the creation of a European Common Foreign policy from a mere industrial coalition between few countries. The EDF will be a rationally reasonable step for the EU, considering the advances that the community has made in integration in other areas of policy. To protect all its achievements, to connect its member states, and to provide its citizens with more safety the EU needs a dedicated defence force.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c7d9b6a112d8f0c8095ee6ec39121583",
"text": "onal europe politics defence government house would create single european union This is mostly speculation. The proposition takes a more optimistic view of US-EU relations after the creation of a European Defence Force. America will more than welcome a strong friend in the region, anything to calm the instability in the near regions of North Africa and the Middle East, not to mention the global markets.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "157acbbefccfa5ddd7cbfa97786704d7",
"text": "onal europe politics defence government house would create single european union The status of Germany is an irrelevant issue. What has happened in the past should have no bearing on judging the Germany of today. Their whole system of government and culture has changed with a new constitution and the maturity of an open-minded youth born after WW2. It’s simply an insult to judge those Germans who have done everything they can to make up for the past atrocities of their nation, by once again digging up the past.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe3540d63d6bd43ead1cbca0dcc66ccb",
"text": "onal europe politics defence government house would create single european union We have seen variations in opinion regarding political and economic issues (e.g. monetary union) in the EU. In the far more thorny area of defence policy, the EU member-nations’ interests are even more divergent. For example, the French position on Algeria may be different from the United Kingdom’s. This difference in priorities will ultimately lead to deadlock, as no country wishes to see its soldiers dying on a battlefield that provides no direct strategic interest to itself.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d40eb8bde945ee2a380f8d0d1c6659c",
"text": "onal europe politics defence government house would create single european union Although there is instability in neighbouring regions, most of Europe is in complete and utter peace. The new force would simply be another layer of defence in a stable continent that simply doesn’t need it. War in Europe is completely inconceivable in the 21st century, and considering the threat of war should be the primary reason for holding a standing army, it seems that an EU army has no reasonable case for existence.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3816660f48af0b2d29903d5d0d1b80a",
"text": "onal europe politics defence government house would create single european union Even if we assume that the massive costs of a standing military force can be borne by the EU and its members, the key barriers to establishing a standing defence force are often political. Creating a European Defence Force de novo would require us to decide on several thorny questions, namely the command structure, whether the role should be merely defensive or include peacekeeping, the choice of equipment and supplier, creating a common defence policy, and choosing a language of communication. All of these questions involve political considerations or economic vested interests, all of which are likely to result in on-going wrangling that will yield a stillborn EDF.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f72fe5242d3ad7ad3a3b84a09cb760c7",
"text": "onal europe politics defence government house would create single european union NATO and the proposed European Defence Force are designed to address very different concerns. NATO exists to deal with situations of such magnitude that the nations of Western Europe are likely to adopt a common defence policy. In contrast, the EDF is targeted at smaller geopolitical incidents which would otherwise be ‘beneath’ the notice of NATO. Unfortunately smaller incidents by their nature do not have uniform effects on all EU member-nations, and are therefore unlikely to generate a consensus of policy among EU nations.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7340b9cd858484e9dbb734e69589ea59",
"text": "onal europe politics defence government house would create single european union NATO has successfully defended the interests of Western Europe for several decades now – why rock the boat? It is hard to see a problem which NATO cannot solve, which the European Defence Force could instead. In any case, we will always have to consider Russia’s sensibilities when engaging in peacekeeping operations in Eastern Europe, and it is far better to have America’s bargaining power and geopolitical clout backing us when we negotiate with Russia. If we create a European Defence Force, we will marginalise NATO and the United States. This will lead to a reduced US engagement in Europe, which may in turn diminish our influence when having discussions with Russia over security issues in Europe and beyond.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "55ea85aee3e32cc46d587ea4c362c829",
"text": "onal europe politics defence government house would create single european union Germany\n\nEurope has been torn apart twice in the 20th century and on both occasions a German Army has been the aggressor. If the E.U. ever had a defence force, no doubt German troops would be at the heart of it. It is just over 60 years ago that German troops invaded many of the countries that today will be forced to fight alongside them. This, especially for the people who fought against a German Army and are alive today, is at best insulting and at worst, political provocation. This is even without mentioning the Holocaust and its ever-present artifacts that litter eastern Europe; a constant reminder to Europeans of the horrors a German Army had once committed.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "959ce3c9b65d5dcb41f0d47632a0d881",
"text": "onal europe politics defence government house would create single european union The creation of a standing army would be contrary to the spirit and purpose of the EU\n\nIt was not the aim of the original European Community to integrate defence. The original partnership was called the European Coal and Steel Community for a reason [1] , designed as a union for mutual economic development and the sharing of scarce resources [2] . The acceleration of the EU has therefore gotten out of hand, and it’s high time it came to an end. A defence force would be one step to far – it would signal the creation of some sort of federal super state, something that not many people in Europe want.\n\n[1] CVCE (18 April, 1951). Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community. Accessed September 7, 2011 from: http://www.cvce.eu/viewer/-/content/11a21305-941e-49d7-a171-ed5be548cd58...\n\n[2] The Irish Times (26 August, 2011). A thirst for peace. Accessed September 7, 2011 from: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/innovation/2011/0826/1224302795053.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "05599767ff3da23cc747f2ff27a3c529",
"text": "onal europe politics defence government house would create single european union Constitutional obstructions\n\nEvery EU country would have an incredibly hard time making the constitutional changes necessary for the handing over of a part of defence policy to an EU institution. In fact, for many EU countries it would be unworkable. In the U.K., constitutional issues might not be as bad as say in France – but this does not change the fact that it would require deft political skill and manoeuvring, often undemocratic and without any sort of referendum, in order to make the constitutional changes necessary to create this force [1] .\n\n[1] Wagner, W. (May 19, 2007). The Democratic Deficit in the EU’s Security and Defense Policy – why bother? . Accessed September 7, 2011 from: http://aei.pitt.edu/8061/1/wagner-w-07b.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c69e537d70fccff570d482a911554d3e",
"text": "onal europe politics defence government house would create single european union The creation of an EU army could harm diplomatic relations with the USA\n\nWe are completely ignoring the issue of geopolitics and how the creation of this entity would be a direct move to replace NATO as the primary defender of Europe. This would of course mean a rejection of the US, as the heart of NATO. What would follow from this would be an extremely unpredictable and volatile place to practice international relations. One thing that we can predict, however, will be the ‘cold shoulder’ the US would suddenly show the EU. The US would feel as if its ally had used it to gain strength after WWII (The Marshall Plan), and now that it’s back on its feet again can forget and even challenge America’s supremacy.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d43ce0c9d1676dbe432b143f77ef5433",
"text": "onal europe politics defence government house would create single european union A single army would enhance the political integration of EU members states\n\nThe European Union has significant integration and convergence of the political and economic spheres. Integration of defence policy and the establishment of a European Defence Force should be the logical next step. The African Union took this step and has achieved success in combat missions defending the Union [1] .\n\n[1] The UN Refugee Agency (31 January, 2008) Comoros: Military invasion of Anjouan imminent, government warns. Accessed September 7, 2011 from: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,,,COM,,47b4614c0,0.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd1c25433e145202028142d86021e6b6",
"text": "onal europe politics defence government house would create single european union Regional instability in certain areas of continental europe necessitates the creation of an EU defence force\n\nConstant political instability and war in and near the Middle East call for a united single force charged with the defence of EU countries lying close to the volatile areas.. Turkey is a prime candidate for EU membership, and with its location on the border of both Syria and Iraq, will require support if its refugee problem is to remain manageable. The revolutions in Northern Africa also call for a stabilising force in the region, particularly in Italy where a ‘refugee crisis’ has coincided with the attempts of anti-Gaddafi Libyans to flee the country [1] . If the EU is to take its growing role upon the world stage seriously, it needs a dedicated defence force to make an impact in the region.\n\n[1] Day, M. (14 May, 2011) Flood of North African refugees to Italy ends EU passport-free travel. Accessed September 7, 2011 from: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/flood-of-north-african-re...\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6934ee5e497d6d61a2f748c4500fac0f",
"text": "onal europe politics defence government house would create single european union NATO has established a precedent for multilateral military action\n\nNATO has been crucial to maintaining the balance of power during the cold war. Although there have been some arguments amongst its member states, NATO has shown us that a standing multinational defence force is possible and more importantly works well overall. The recent NATO deployment in Libya is an example of its regional influence and military flexibility [1] . Considering many members of NATO are also members of the EU, the proposed European Defence Force could follow its example and complement it.\n\n[1] BBC News (26 August, 2011) Libya conflict: Nato jets hit Gaddafi Sirte bunker. Accessed September 7, 2011 from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14677754\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6975744076bcc5e424275c851ffcfa79",
"text": "onal europe politics defence government house would create single european union The EU needs a dedicated defence force\n\nIt is important for the EU to have a defence policy independent of NATO. With its origins in the Cold War, and its preponderance of American influence, NATO carries a great deal of historical and geopolitical baggage. This means that NATO cannot easily intervene in Eastern Europe without incurring the displeasure of Russia. This was best proven during the 2008 conflict between Russia and Georgia, when Georgia’s impending accession to NATO was seen as part of the incentive for Russian support to the ‘break-away’ regions in Georgia [1] . The European Defence Force will allow the EU to deal with crises in Eastern and Central Europe more effectively, as they will not have to tiptoe around Russia as much.\n\n[1] Parsons, R. (8 August, 2008). Georgia pays price for its NATO ambitions. Accessed September 7, 2011 from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/2524629/Georgia...\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "364144d388371b37ae78651fe9da4e69",
"text": "onal europe politics defence government house would create single european union The economic strength of the EU enables the creation of a strong military\n\nWith the growing industrial and economic maturity of the European Union and its members, it is now financially feasible for the EU to have its own standing defence force [1] . The proposed EDF would also create a great many jobs as European defence contractors could be recruited into supplying equipment and weaponry.\n\n[1] Amadeo, K.. The EU has replaced the U.S. as the world’s largest economy. Accessed September 7, 2011 from About: http://useconomy.about.com/od/grossdomesticproduct/p/largest_economy.htm\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
0106683eabd5069f478379e0bf8e0986
|
UAVs allow more care and safeguards before shooting.
When engaging in covert operations it is essential that the right target is identified so that the correct target is eliminated. This is something that using UAVs allows as they are able to track their target, sometimes for days, before attacking. This means there is much more time for scrutiny of targets and possible collateral damage.
This also means that there is plenty of room for the decisions to be made right at the top. Every person on the kill list gets discussed at a weekly meeting of more than 100 members of the US government’s security apparatus. President Obama himself signs off on strikes and can change the decision if the situation on the ground changes. Former National Security Advisor Jones says “Many times… at the 11th hour we waved off a mission simply because the target had people around them and we were able to loiter on station until they didn’t.” [1]
While UAVs may be ‘unmanned’ they are certainly heavily monitored as each drone has 43 military personnel rotating in three shifts. They include seven joystick pilots, seven system operators, and five mission coordinators, there is also from the CIA 66 people, including 34 video crew members, and 18 intelligence analysts. [2] This means that there are a large number of eyeballs to make sure that the right person is being targeted, to check he is with as few others as possible before the strike. None of this would be possible with other forms of attack where the emphasis has to be on the speed of the operation.
[1] Becker, Jo, and Shane, Scott, ‘Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will’, The New York Times, 29 May 2012 .
[2] Kaplan, Fred, ‘Who’s Afraid of the Kill List’, Slate, 15 June 2012.
|
[
{
"docid": "f92811388da0963da8c16f0e6489f2e2",
"text": " rights politics terrorism house would use unmanned aerial vehicles strike This is incorrect; It makes the assumption that UAVs could not be used at all if they were not being used to attack targets. They could still be used in a surveillance role so providing the same amount of time to deliberate before striking in a different fashion, one that is appropriate to the situation.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "2dc1953d948509dde653c458111a70c8",
"text": " rights politics terrorism house would use unmanned aerial vehicles strike It is wrong to simply make drones “a default strategy to be used anywhere”. Yes some of the time drones will be the right choice for catching terrorists and other militants but much of the time they won’t be. Instead of spurning institutions like the ISI and Pakistan’s Military we should be relying on them to fight extremism. This targeting of terrorists is happening in other countries sovereign territory. Their sovereignty should be respected wherever possible meaning that the Pakistanis, the Somalis and the Yemenis should be the ones who carry out these engagements.\n\nAgain here there is the difficulty of not knowing how many were killed in drone strikes (see counter to prop 1). We cannot compare other types of strikes unless we have more reliable figures. This is something that sending special forces in would help with; they would have much more accurate figures of who they kill and could check whether they really killed the person they were supposed to be targeting. This would prevent any attempt to inflate the kill count through including those they are not sure of as terrorists. [1]\n\n[1] Becker, Jo, and Shane, Scott, ‘Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will’, The New York Times, 29 May 2012.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2e699e2a5e0468d04472bc769dddb7ec",
"text": " rights politics terrorism house would use unmanned aerial vehicles strike Today most forms of conflict do not have much risk to western militaries. While the attacks were carried out from high in the sky NATO did not suffer a single loss in combat operations over Kosovo in 1999. [1] Moreover this lack of danger with UAVs is potentially immoral; we no longer have a war in which both sides are at risk rather a shooting range for drones to kill ‘terrorists’. Having at least some danger is needed as a restraint on the use of force. A good litmus test to use for the authorisation of lethal force would be whether the public would find the goals of the action worthwhile even if it did result in the loss of several soldiers.\n\n[1] Gallis, Paul E., ‘Kosovo: Lessons Learned from Operation Allied Force’, CRS Report for Congress, 19 November 1999, p.8\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f9ea9d33d3e8f348109d1b7ce1d9828f",
"text": " rights politics terrorism house would use unmanned aerial vehicles strike Because drones are not on the ground and can’t check the identities of those who are killed there is no way of knowing if they really do cause less civilian casualties; what the proposition calls ‘collateral damage’. We also do not know what damage would be caused by other forms of attack on the same targets. It is however definitely open to question whether these attacks really do cause less civilian casualties. Local activists believe that around 3,000 people have been killed in Waziristan of whom only 185 were named al Qaeda operatives – a very poor ratio of 16 civilians for every al Qaeda man killed. [1] The Brookings institution meanwhile estimates that for every al Qaeda and Taliban militant killed there are ten civilian casualties. [2] If either of these estimates are anywhere near the mark then there are very large number of civilian casualties, much higher than proposition believes, and probably higher than other forms of strikes would cause.\n\n[1] Shackle, Samira, ‘Drones and the “bugsplats” they cause’, New Statesman, 13 June 2012.\n\n[2] Byman, Daniel L., ‘Do Targeted Killings Work?’, ForeignPolicy.com, 14 July 2009.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "898a8b74c1a4775886e2043bc3f88b7e",
"text": " rights politics terrorism house would use unmanned aerial vehicles strike Getting special forces or allies on the ground is not always an option. In countries like Somalia and Yemen where there have been conflicts between factions the authorities will not always cooperate and even if they do they may not control the territory where the strike team would need to operate. There will also be many times where it is simply too dangerous to try and snatch someone. If that person is a danger they need to be stopped in the quickest way possible; and that will be by the use of the UAV that is already far above monitoring the target.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "09eebf96bf3ebb42d0fb5196a7a7d34a",
"text": " rights politics terrorism house would use unmanned aerial vehicles strike Any other nation seeking to take a precedent from the use of drones would have to be involved in a conflict against a terrorist organisation that poses a credible, clear, and present danger and not be able to fight those terrorists by other means. The situation in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia is in many ways unique in that these are states that have either failed or are near failure. As a result the sovereign government cannot be relied to combat terrorists on their own soil.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "217843c5c6f52f214fd0e5998ab72417",
"text": " rights politics terrorism house would use unmanned aerial vehicles strike This is a conflict situation, a war, pure and simple. While this is a new kind of conflict; when the opponent is a non-state actor states have to be able to strike at these groups that intend to attack them even when they are sheltering in other states. Such attacks should also not include the state where those groups are sheltering unless that state is supporting that group as was the case in Afghanistan.\n\nYes the distinction between civilian and combatant is blurred by this conflict but this is something that happens regardless of whether the United States uses UAVs. It is the terrorists themselves who through their horrific attacks by ‘civilians’ on civilian targets that strip away the distinction. The United States has to be able to respond with whatever method is most likely to prevent more of these terrorist attacks.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a4384ca1e46c491b8b6dff71be6f407c",
"text": " rights politics terrorism house would use unmanned aerial vehicles strike It is absolutely not the case that UAVs will mean unnecessary attacks that would not otherwise be made; all the targets are checked by a large number of national security experts and the attacks are signed off by the President himself. The attacks are therefore taken very seriously by the administration. Moreover that the attacks are low cost is exactly what we want – the capability to strike our enemies without losses to ourselves or any collateral damage should be prized not shunned.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "42c48551c2afcbba3e577d502760abe1",
"text": " rights politics terrorism house would use unmanned aerial vehicles strike UAVs are the best possible weapon for the job.\n\nWe need to eliminate terrorists somehow and UAVs are the best possible equipment with which to carry out this mission. All the other options either would result in significantly more casualties or would have other problems that would likely allow terrorists to escape.\n\nFirst there is the collateral damage that would be caused by using other alternatives to striking terrorists. Professor Plaw of the University of Massachusetts says that when terrorists were being confronted by the Pakistani Army, who were attacking at the behest of the United States, 46% of casualties were collateral damage. A similar number of 41% was the figure when Israel was targeting Hamas. [1] When compared to the 16 or 28% collateral damage figures for UAVs the choice should be easy.\n\nMoreover other options have other disadvantages. Sending a hit squad in to eliminate terrorists may mean little collateral damage but would cause a diplomatic crisis as it would be tantamount to invading another country. Using a missile or local support on the other hand significantly increases the chances of the target escaping. Pakistan’s ISI, military intelligence, has for example been accused of helping the Taliban – they could hardly be trusted to kill them. [2]\n\n[1] Shane, Scott, ‘The Moral Case for Drones’, The New York Times, 14 July 2012.\n\n[2] Perlez, Jane, ‘Pakistan Scorns U.S. Scolding on Terrorism’, The New York Times, 23 September 2011.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "badb9b999d4618984e074e2f828f951c",
"text": " rights politics terrorism house would use unmanned aerial vehicles strike UAVs cause less collateral damage.\n\nThere are only two things that really matter when targeting terrorists; is the terrorist eliminated, and is collateral damage kept to a minimum? In Pakistan there have been a total of 334 strikes by UAVs between 2004 and June 2012 with the total reported killed at 2496-3202 of which only 482-832 were civilians according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. [1] Moreover the number of civilians killed in strikes is falling; 28 percent of casualties in 2008 were civilians but by 2011 this had fallen to 16 percent [2] and this is a figure that is likely to continue falling as drones improve technologically making identification easier and making strikes more precise. These figures show that the United States in its use of drones is not only hitting a lot of terrorist targets and eliminating them but is causing very little collateral damage in comparison to the number of strikes made.\n\n[1] Woods, Chris, and Serle, Jack, ‘June Update – US covert actions in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalis’, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, 2 July 2012.\n\n[2] Shane, Scott, ‘The Moral Case for Drones’, The New York Times, 14 July 2012.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d9bd89be83c1a83604d2bc9ccfc4eab",
"text": " rights politics terrorism house would use unmanned aerial vehicles strike Using UAVs prevents soldiers from being killed.\n\nTo put it bluntly any military or intelligence service wants to keep its own men safe while carrying out its missions; Unmanned Aerial Vehicles are the ultimate capability with which to manage this. No military or civilian personnel are going to be killed if the delivery vehicle is controlled from the United States. This means that unlike in other methods of attack the UAV can take its time even if it is at risk. In the war in Kosovo NATO air forces had to launch their attacks from 15,000 feet due to worries they would be shot down. [1] Attacking from such a height from a fast moving aeroplane makes missing the target much more likely.\n\n[1] Thomas, Timothy, ‘Kosovo and the Current Myth of Information Superiority’, Parameters, Spring 2000, pp.13-29.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f4032191574b4b85a62c5936505ae1c3",
"text": " rights politics terrorism house would use unmanned aerial vehicles strike The use of drones makes the use of force easier to sanction.\n\nUsing drones encourages the use of lethal force rather than alternatives. The reason for this is obvious – it is much easier to resort to violence if you know there is no risk to yourself. With the operators thousands of miles away in the United States the only risk of using drones is the loss of equipment. As Christof Heyns, the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, has said “The term 'targeted killing' is wrong because it suggests little violence has occurred. The collateral damage may be less than aerial bombardment, but because they eliminate the risk to soldiers they can be used more often.” [1]\n\nThe use of drones is also politically expedient in a way that otherwise the use of force would not be. Dennis Blair, the former director of national intelligence, points out that the strike campaign is dangerously seductive as it is “low cost, no U.S. casualties, gives the appearance of toughness… It plays well domestically, and it is unpopular only in other countries. Any damage it does to the national interest only shows up over the long term.” [2] The use of force therefore becomes the first choice not the option of last resort. Even those within the U.S. administration such as Secretary of state Clinton have worried about a drones-only approach that ignored other options and does not look at solving the larger problems. [3]\n\n[1] Bowcott, Owen, ‘Drone strikes threaten 50 years of international law, says UN rapporteur’, guardian.co.uk, 21 June 2012.\n\n[2] Becker, Jo, and Shane, Scott, ‘Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will’, The New York Times, 29 May 2012, p.8\n\n[3] ibid, p.8\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "46c36783ebeb9fe19836f8240a1f2b26",
"text": " rights politics terrorism house would use unmanned aerial vehicles strike The use of drones creates a precedent that other states may use.\n\nThe United States is the first state with a large number of drones and other unmanned military vehicles. It is also the first country to use them. This inevitably means that the US is creating the precedent for how they will be used in future. The United States is aware of this potential and President Obama’s counterterrorism adviser John Brennan has stated “Other nations also possess this technology, and many more nations are seeking it, and more will succeed in acquiring it. President Obama and those of us on his national security team are very mindful that as our nation uses this technology, we are establishing precedents that other nations may follow, and not all of those nations may — and not all of them will be nations that share our interests or the premium we put on protecting human life, including innocent civilians.” [1] This is exactly the problem; do we really want to live in a world where any country can carry out targeted killings of people who are in another nation? Such a world would have the ever present risk of a covert conflict becoming a much more open shooting war.\n\n[1] McNeal, Greg, ‘Is the U.S. Setting Precedents in its Drone Wars’, Forbes, 6 June 2012.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "70a9bf90d7696c535e2c3580f6b37eee",
"text": " rights politics terrorism house would use unmanned aerial vehicles strike The use of drones means shoot to kill is the only option.\n\nUsing drones cuts down the options on the ground. A drone can only keep circling or go in for the attack; their only option is to kill a target or let them escape. Using ground forces; either your own, or in this case the Pakistani or Yemeni military, provides the third option of capturing the target. This is ethically a much better position for the United States to be in as it means that the terrorists can be given the option to surrender rather than simply being killed. This in turn would provide the benefit of allowing a trial helping to show the justice of the operation. Moreover these captured militants would likely be valuable intelligence assets who could be questioned which may well lead the intelligence services to other terrorists.\n\nFinally using drones is a very aggressive and provocative stance as it prevents any possibility of a peaceful resolution. The usage of drones immediately eliminates the possibility of negotiation because drones are remote from their operators. This means that drones are unlikely to be useful in the many situations that could be helped by any form of contact.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "935c20bdf1dc9942820303f070e07e59",
"text": " rights politics terrorism house would use unmanned aerial vehicles strike Using drones blurs the distinction between war and peace.\n\nThe use of drones further blurs the already worryingly indistinct line between a state of war and a state of peace. The drone attacks are taking place in countries where the United States does not have any legal authority. The United States is not officially at war with Pakistan, Yemen, or Somalia, yet has launched hundreds of attacks on these countries and their citizens. The assumption is that a state can be at war with a non-state actor such as a terrorist group and therefore is free to target them wherever this group may be found. This means that the US is prosecuting a war in which only it thinks it is at war while sovereign countries like Pakistan are targeted despite believing they are at peace. It is the use of drones that makes it easy to circumvent sovereignty and attack targets on another country’s soil so creating the ambiguity.\n\nEqually worryingly is the blurring of the distinction between civilian and combatant. Firstly the U.S. has decided to define any adult male in the target area as a terrorist when many are most likely nothing of the sort. [1] Secondly the Geneva conventions and their 1977 additions at their heart have the assumption that civilians cannot engage in a war – they are innocent bystanders. This however has been changed by the use of drones; it is a civilian agency, the CIA, which controls the drones and pulls the trigger. This makes the CIA combatants so breaking the obligation not to engage as soldiers. This means that U.S. civilians lose their protected status and the U.S. can’t complain if U.S. citizens are targeted in retaliation as the terrorists can no longer distinguish between those who are targeting them and those who are not. [2]\n\n[1] Hammond, Jeremy R., ‘The Immoral Case for Drones’, Foreign Policy Journal, 16 July 2012.\n\n[2] Hallinan, Conn, ‘CIA’s Drone Wars Blurs Distinction Between Military and Civilian Combatants’, Foreign Policy In Focus, 6 October 2011.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
2d764f31a0bc7f2d08244a1e825e82bb
|
The law prevents US and EU governments from funding terrorist groups.
Hamas is a terrorist organisation, responsible for killing hundreds of civilians, often by sending suicide bombers into Israel. Both the European Union and the US State Department have recognised this by listing Hamas as a terrorist organisation. Their governments are barred by law from providing any funding to such groups. [1] It is extremely worrying that such a violent organisation managed to win power in the most recent Palestinian election, and that committed terrorists are in government in Gaza and in control of the Palestinian budget and security forces. In 2007 both Western law, and the moral disgust at the thought that aid funding could be used to fund terror attacks, required the EU and US to stop funding the Palestinian Authority while under a Hamas government, the same would almost certainly be the case again if Hamas were to regain power.
[1] Schulenburg, John. “Fatah Reconciles With Hamas.” Gateway Pundit. 27/04/2011. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/04/fatah-reconciles-with-hamas-us-now-officially-funding-islamic-terrorism-how-will-obama-proceed/
|
[
{
"docid": "7e7d70aade2df4e2a43267fb61c5dc6d",
"text": "onal global middle east politics terrorism house believes eu usa and other It is these western governments themselves who define what groups are terrorist groups. They both make the definitions of terrorism and decide what groups fall into these definitions. For example the United Kingdom regarded the IRA (Irish Republican Army) as being a terrorist group while the United States did not consider them a terrorist organisation. [1] Therefore if these countries wished to deal with and provide financial aid to a new Palestinian government, even if it was the political arm of a terrorist organisation they could simply redefine it, as would almost certainly be the case if the terrorist organisation was perceived as doing something that is in the interests of these western nations.\n\n[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_organizations\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "afce57641fe2bc36e2028f679098bd18",
"text": "onal global middle east politics terrorism house believes eu usa and other If the terrorist organisation was elected as Hamas was it is likely that as in 2006/7 when much of the power in the PA remained with the Fatah President, Mahmood Abbas, one or other of the presidency or the parliament would remain in non-terrorist hands so funding should be continued in order to strengthen that party. In any case, any party that is willing to stand and contest relatively free and fair elections, is in the long term likely to want to bring peace. Working with such a government would encourage the moderates within that organisation, and allow them to understand that helping the Palestinian people to a better future requires compromise and negotiation. This move from terrorism to a political process will take time in order for attitudes to change and trust to build. It can only be achieved by western commitment to work with the new government rather than to cut it off entirely.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "34d5f6d1ced18e951949a592dbaf5768",
"text": "onal global middle east politics terrorism house believes eu usa and other It would be anti-democratic to punish the Palestinian people for exercising their right to vote. Their vote may not be a vote for terrorism or against the peace process, but rather a response to the corruption and anarchy of the ruling party, currently Fatah, and its mismanagement of the Palestinian National Authority. Withdrawing funding is not just a signal of disapproval for the party which is elected, but a clear attempt to bring down the PNA government and overturn the election result. After all the years of western criticism of corrupt dictatorial regimes, what message does it send to Arab governments and people if the west refuses to respect the result of an election and imposes a collective punishment?\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f42fbc89ebb9b507df5bb663943518dc",
"text": "onal global middle east politics terrorism house believes eu usa and other Arab and Muslim states won’t necessarily make up any budget shortfall if the EU and USA stop funding the PNA. Many Arab governments would be deeply unhappy at seeing Islamists in government and even though they do not like Israel, they have no wish to inflame the situation further. More moderate countries in the region recognise Israel and want the peace process to move forward so would be just as likely to demand that a terrorist group gives up terror and disarms as the west. Iran may be more sympathetic, but almost all Palestinians are Sunni rather than Shia Muslims, and Iran has its own international problems such as sanctions that are making an economic impact so it may not be in a position to subsidize other governments.\n\nThere is also no evidence that the Palestinians would turn to such states. In December 2007, 87 countries and international organisations, including Serbia and Nicaragua, pledged to donate $7.4 billion to the PNA over three years. [1] This amount is far more than previous US and EU funding and there is no evidence that its acceptance has led to Palestine depending on anti-Israel regimes.\n\n[1] Stotsky, Steven. “Does Foreign Aid Fuel Palestinian Violence?” Middle East Quarterly. Summer 2008. http://www.meforum.org/1926/does-foreign-aid-fuel-palestinian-violence\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b670b565c4fe1160fd82dbe23ee7eb5a",
"text": "onal global middle east politics terrorism house believes eu usa and other This assumes that it is Hamas that is elected or another group that has been involved in running welfare programmes. It should however be noted that while Hamas has effectively provided welfare programmes it has at the same time used those same civilians as human shields. During its time in power in Gaza Hamas has had little impact except for starting a conflict with Israel, as a result Gaza is in a worse position than the West Bank with 80% of the population dependent on international aid, 61% are food insecure and 90% of water supplied is not suitable for drinking. [1]\n\n[1] Hasan, Mehdi, ‘No end to the strangulation of Gaza’, New Statesman, 6 January 2011, http://www.newstatesman.com/middle-east/2011/01/gaza-israeli-documents-s...\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c74a6663ab571ee0cdb0b51d297d9178",
"text": "onal global middle east politics terrorism house believes eu usa and other The history of the IRA does not provide a useful precedent for dealing with Hamas. Leaving aside questions of how genuine the IRA’s conversion to peace and democracy really is, parallels with Hamas and the Palestinian conflict are misleading. Compared to the religious fundamentalism of Hamas, Irish republicans were pretty secular and focused on gaining and using power in this world. They wanted to force Britain out of Northern Ireland, but not to wipe Britain itself off the map. There has never been an IRA suicide bomber and, faced with a failing armed struggle, the movement’s leaders chose to compromise. Hamas is entirely different in its beliefs and attitudes, and there is no reason to suppose that funding it in power will encourage it to change its strategy or aims.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5d51cf1cf70cabd6186d8b86783e1982",
"text": "onal global middle east politics terrorism house believes eu usa and other Cutting off aid to the PNA need not result in mass suffering among the Palestinian people. Humanitarian aid would certainly continue, although this could no longer be channelled through the PNA but rather to individual schemes run by non-governmental organisations. In any case, the greatest suffering is caused by a lack of a peace process with Israel. A commitment to peace talks shown by a terrorist group pledging to end terrorism would help allow the economic development needed to create jobs and relieve poverty in the Palestinian territories.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e716c7f8a99677c7478b5e8abb316d00",
"text": "onal global middle east politics terrorism house believes eu usa and other Withholding funds will prevent PNA terrorism and anti-Semitism.\n\nIt is clear what Hamas, or any other terrorist organisation, has to do in order to convince western governments to continue funding the Palestinian National Authority with it in charge. It must formally give up terror, accept the existence of the state of Israel and drop any anti-Semitic ideology. Yasser Arafat’s PLO and Fatah Party made these commitments in the early 1990s, and this allowed them to become negotiating partners in the Oslo Peace process. [1] Hamas has to take the same steps if it wants to enjoy the same level of support from western donors which the previous Fatah government had. Until it makes these public changes, there would not be any funding.\n\n[1] Schlaim, Avi. “The Rise and Fall of the Oslo Peace Process.” International Relations of the Middle East. 2005. http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/The%20Rise%20and%20Fall%20of%20the%20Oslo%20Peace%20Process.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "853b11cc9cb4a3a1b7526512c937acf9",
"text": "onal global middle east politics terrorism house believes eu usa and other The outcome of the Palestinian elections should not be rewarded with aid.\n\nA terrorist organisation such as Hamas may be democratically elected, but that does not mean we have to fund its government. Respecting the decision of the Palestinian people is not the same thing as liking their choice or rewarding it with aid. The Palestinian people should realise that a vote for Hamas or any other terrorist organisation is a vote for international isolation. Showing our clear disapproval of terrorists in government sends a clear message for future elections both in Palestine and in other countries.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d195402cd87a0f8c58ee1348cdec6431",
"text": "onal global middle east politics terrorism house believes eu usa and other The loss of funding would destabilise and radicalise Palestine.\n\nPalestine is very dependent on foreign aid, the PNA is dependent on aid for 50% of its budget and per head the Palestinians are the biggest recipients of aid in the world. [1] The loss of funding would therefore destabilise both the Palestinian National Authority and Palestinian society as a whole. 140,000 PNA jobs are dependent upon the income from western funding, and these workers in turn help support more than a third of the Palestinian population. [2] Cutting funding could lead to the collapse of any government system and cause great suffering among the people who would lose their chief source of income has gone. Both these things are likely to radicalise the Palestinian people further and make peace less likely.\n\n[1] Levy, Judith, ‘Palestinian economy dangerously dependent on foreign aid’, The Washington Times Communities, 27 May 2011, http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/israel-online/2011/m...\n\n[2] “Palestinians ‘face financial crisis’.” BBC News. 21/02/2006. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4732090.stm\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "95795d83cd49b7385518960a0a099082",
"text": "onal global middle east politics terrorism house believes eu usa and other Western donors should support fair government\n\nThe west should support democratically elected, just, uncorrupted government no matter who provides it. Hamas could make a much better government than Fatah, it is a religious movement dedicated to political and social action. For many years it has run the most effective welfare programmes in the Palestinian territories, especially Gaza, including orphanages, schools, clinics and help for the needy. [1] The honesty and discipline of its leaders and followers provide a stark contrast with the corruption and chaos of the Fatah-run administration of Yasser Arafat and Mahmood Abbas. They paid lip service to the peace process but either could not, or would not control their followers so as to make a clear commitment to peace. At least with Hamas in power, the Palestinians would be better and more honestly governed, and billions of dollars in aid money will no longer be stolen by a corrupt elite. Hamas in Gaza by comparison has established an efficient public administration and has an ambitious infrastructure program. [2] In addition, militias and security forces are likely to be under much more effective control, making genuine negotiations about a long-term ceasefire between Israel and the Palestinians much more plausible. After all, a deal which excludes Hamas has no chance at all of holding.\n\n[1] Putz, Ulrike. “Uncle Hamas Cares for Palestinians.” Spiegel. 12/20/2006. http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,455632,00.html\n\n[2] Shaikh, Salman, ‘Don’t Forget Gaza’, ForeignPolicy.com, 24 January 2011, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/24/don_t_forget_gaza\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8904de4288a1adc33877fc9916a24e4c",
"text": "onal global middle east politics terrorism house believes eu usa and other Withholding funds will cause Palestine to rely on anti-Israeli regimes.\n\nCutting off aid to the Palestinian National Authority would be counter-productive no matter who is elected in. The PNA would have to replace funding from somewhere, this would inevitably mean turning for aid to Muslim and Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran as Hamas did. [1] The west may therefore simply force the Palestinians in to the arms of countries that are much more hostile to Israel resulting in the Palestinians simply being more hard-line to please their new paymasters. Allowing the Palestinians to become dependent upon such anti-Israel regimes will end any influence the west has had with the PNA and push it in a more extremist direction. Potentially, such alliances could make a regional conflict more likely.\n\n[1] Watt, Nicholas. “US urges Arab states to fund Palestinians after Hamas victory.” The Guardian. 31/01/2006. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jan/31/israel/print\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d2f8ea9c8d296c71fe7d311b0d15e5f",
"text": "onal global middle east politics terrorism house believes eu usa and other Engaging with Hamas is the best way to secure a peace deal between Israel and Palestine.\n\nThere is a clear precedent for engaging with terrorist groups moving towards a political track. Like Hamas in recent years, at the end of the 1970s, the IRA was a terrorist organisation which rejected the political process. In the early 1980s, Sinn Fein, the political wing of the IRA, decided to stand for elections. As elected representatives grappled with local issues and had to work with others on councils and committees, the movement changed and, in 1994, the IRA declared a ceasefire. [1] More recently, Sinn Fein leaders have held ministerial positions in Northern Ireland and the IRA has ended the armed struggle. This was a long process but it shows clearly how, if we respect any elected terrorist group’s popular mandate and are prepared to engage with them, they may be encouraged to give up terrorism and make concessions for peace. Indeed some hard liners in Hamas controlled Gaza worry that exactly such a scenario may happen. [2]\n\n[1] Schmidt, William E. “Cease-Fire in Northern Ireland.” New York Times. 01/09/1994. http://www.nytimes.com/1994/09/01/world/cease-fire-northern-ireland-overview-ira-declares-cease-fire-seeing-new.html?pagewanted=all\n\n[2] Shaikh, Salman, ‘Don’t Forget Gaza’, ForeignPolicy.com, 24 January 2011, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/24/don_t_forget_gaza?page=0,1\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
3a51abf137a7cd4b9800c881ff69fc27
|
NATO has brought peace and security
“NATO’s primary objective in Afghanistan is to enable the Afghan authorities to provide effective security across the country and ensure that the country can never again be a safe haven for terrorists.” [1] The invasion of Afghanistan was initially about destroying al-Qaeda and with the killing of Osama bin Laden in 2011 in Pakistan this objective has been met. There are still efforts to destroy al Qaeda but these have mostly moved out of Afghanistan and into Pakistan and other countries such as Yemen.
NATO has also brought Afghanistan to the point where the Afghani’s can look after themselves and exercise their own security. On 18th June Afghanistan took over the lead from NATO on security nationwide having previously been taking control district by district. Handing over security also itself improves security with Afghanis in Kandahar saying “Now that the foreigners are gone, the security situation in the city and in the districts is much better”. [2]
[1] ‘NATO and Afghanistan’, nato.int
[2] Loyn, David, ‘Afghans take nationwide security lead from NATO’, BBC News, 18 June 2013
|
[
{
"docid": "1a4ddd4c6b28814364149443ab8ab5a0",
"text": "defence terrorism warpeace house believes nato has succeeded afghanistan The conflict clearly is ongoing in Afghanistan; in 2012 there were 245 drone strikes in Afghanistan compared to only 44 in Pakistan and 28 in Yemen. [1] Even if those drones are not being used to attack al Qaeda but instead the Taliban in Afghanistan it is impossible to say that peace and security has been brought to the country.\n\nIt is also impossible to say that the handover to Afghan forces shows that the NATO mission has been a success; a handover could occur no matter how peaceful or otherwise the country is. In Vietnam the United States declared victory by signing the Paris Peace Accords and handing over to South Vietnam only for the country to be overrun two years later in the spring of 1975. [2]\n\n[1] Woods, Chris, and Ross, Alice, K., ‘Revealed: US and Britain launched 1,200 drone strikes in recent wars’, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, 4 December 2012\n\n[2] The Learning Network, ‘April 30, 1975 | Saigon Falls’, The New York Times, 30 April 2012\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "a9cb4ff80bb1ef56a30767b363440095",
"text": "defence terrorism warpeace house believes nato has succeeded afghanistan Peace talks starting just 18 months before all NATO forces have left is clearly leaving it too late to ensure success. There will be little to persuade the Taliban to compromise as they believe their situation is only going to get better when there is no fear of military defeats. The Taliban has walked away from talks before and could easily do so again. It is notable that a Taliban spokesman says “There is no ceasefire now. They are attacking us and we are attacking them” which makes the chances of breakdown in the talks high. [1] To make matters worse the Afghan government has only been lukewarm about the talks complaining that allowing the Taliban an office in Doha “gave the Taliban an official identity, something we didn't want” and responded by suspending negotiations with the United States on a security agreement that would determine how many US soldiers stay in the country after the NATO mission has ended. [2]\n\n[1] ‘US to hold direct peace talks with Taliban’, Al Jazeera, 19 June 2013\n\n[2] Shalizi, Hamid, ‘Afghan government irked over U.S. talks with Taliban’, Reuters, 19 June 2013\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a4a252e49f61c7eaaf9950f78aa0e3c",
"text": "defence terrorism warpeace house believes nato has succeeded afghanistan There are still immense problems with infrastructure in Afghanistan, more roads and railways are needed if large scale investment by China and others is to be made a success. There is little point in huge investment in mines if the product of those mines then can’t be transported out of the country to the markets as a result of either poor infrastructure or security concerns. There are also cases where infrastructure built by the US military has been allowed to deteriorate when handed over to Afghan control; there have been problems maintaining almost half the infrastructure projects built by the US in Laghman province. [1]\n\n[1] Boak, Josh, ‘U.S.-funded infrastructure deteriorates once under Afghan control, report says’, Washington Post, 4 January 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "38f84ffbcaf5c52f38a12186303f05b6",
"text": "defence terrorism warpeace house believes nato has succeeded afghanistan Some elections may be better than no elections but where the west has control there really should have been exemplary elections. The 2009 Presidential elections in particular have been accused of having been riddled with fraud. The election observers from the National Democratic Institute said “polling was marred by widespread fraud” and the opposition candidate Abdullah Abdullah pulled out of the run off pointing to there being no measures taken to prevent the fraud recurring. [1] If Afghan elections are so marred by fraud when the US and NATO still have a lot of control over the country how bad will it be when there is no outside check? And if democracy may not survive the transition from NATO control what hope is there for human rights and particularly women’s rights? [2]\n\n[1] National Democratic Institute, ‘The 2009 Presidential and Provincial Council Elections in Afghanistan’, 2010\n\n[2] UN News Centre, ‘Georgette Gagnon: Raising the bar on respect for human rights in Afghanistan’, un.org, 28 May 2013\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b6d2a53c8a22ec5bf11b91ed7c9366d",
"text": "defence terrorism warpeace house believes nato has succeeded afghanistan In a country where the insurgents are more opposed to the foreign occupiers than their nominal opponents in the Afghan government the complete withdrawal of troops will actually be good for peace and security. Yes Afghanistan is still dangerous but the aim is not necessarily to provide security through NATO forces but to train Afghan forces to do it.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "36ffdc464b31094006d5e6f1b290dd5e",
"text": "defence terrorism warpeace house believes nato has succeeded afghanistan In a country as rugged as Afghanistan there is always going to have to be a lot of decentralisation and at the moment this means warlords having a lot of power in individual areas. However this is better than the alternative of a centralising Taliban which would still have many factions and elements but these would be much more extreme than today’s warlords. It is also difficult to see how this impacts on the success of NATO in Afghanistan. They can be bad but can also bring benefits as they have an incentive to deliver stability and reconstruction to their local areas. [1]\n\n[1] Milhopadhyay, Dipali, ‘Warlords as Bureaucrats: The Afghan Experience’, Carnegie Papers, Number 101, August 2009\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bdcbbef5c1a36831b5738f82098428ff",
"text": "defence terrorism warpeace house believes nato has succeeded afghanistan There will still be aid after NATO leaves and Afghanistan is not simply going to be abandoned as the troops go home. Economic growth since the fall of the Taliban has been spectacular with average growth of 9.1% of GDP since 2009 while it is true that this has been in part fueled by aid there are more sustainable sources of growth in the form of the mineral wealth of Afghanistan which can go to the giant and growing economies of India and China. [1]\n\n[1] Al Jazeera and agencies, ‘Afghanistan’s economy at a glance’, Al Jazeera, 19 February 2012\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "acc7f7259385e6dcaa17c1bc72100850",
"text": "defence terrorism warpeace house believes nato has succeeded afghanistan There is little reason to believe that the Taliban will succeed in rapidly forcing the Karzai government out of power. The Taliban has been failing to retake the ground they have lost after offensives by NATO forces so even if the Afghan National Army fails to take more ground it seems unlikely the Taliban will quickly succeed in driving on Kabul. [1] In the unlikely event that the Taliban does begin winning the US and other NATO states are not going to sit back and let the Afghan government fall. David Cameron, the British Prime Minister has said “The clear message is to the Taliban that you can't just wait this out until foreign forces leave in 2014. We will be firm friends and supporters to Afghanistan long beyond that.” [2]\n\n[1] American Enterprise Institute, ‘Why we must win in Afghanistan’, 17 October 2012\n\nBiddle, Stephen, ‘Salvaging Governance Reform in Afghanistan’, Council on Foreign Relations, April 2012\n\n[2] Mason, Rowena, ‘David Cameron: Taliban could be waiting for British troops to leave before trying to take Afghanistan’, The Telegraph, 19 July 2012\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a41251472ed5a00adbfa5db98ddafc88",
"text": "defence terrorism warpeace house believes nato has succeeded afghanistan Negotiations to ensure lasting peace\n\nNATO is also ensuring that peace and security remain in Afghanistan as they draw down by opening up negotiations with the Taliban. Peace can only be assured by bringing together the sides so that almost everyone accepts the status quo and does not want to destroy that status quo through force. United States officials say “We have long said this conflict won't be won on the battlefield” with the deputy national security advisor, Ben Rhodes, adding “The United States will be supporting a process that is fundamentally Afghan-led” meaning that NATO is no longer key to the process. [1] NATO handing over control to the Afghans and eventually withdrawing entirely will make peace more likely to succeed as the Taliban “considerers it its religious and national duty to gain independence from the occupation” with this goal it wants “to support a political and peaceful solution”. [2] Lasting peace is then only possible when NATO leaves.\n\n[1] Roberts, Dan, ‘Taliban peace talks: ‘Peace and reconciliation’ negotiations to take place in Qatar’, The Guardian, 19 June 2013\n\n[2] Taliban, ‘Taliban agree to peace talks with US over Afghanistan – full statement’, guardian.co.uk, 18 June 2013\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ecc06c6f747da87a0c32fddc12f67faa",
"text": "defence terrorism warpeace house believes nato has succeeded afghanistan Democracy has been brought to Afghanistan\n\nSome of the biggest benefits of the NATO occupation have been through the increase in democracy and human rights. While these were not specific aims of the NATO mission they were among the goals set out by the United Nations. [1] There have been two Presidential elections, one in 2004 the other in 2009, and two parliamentary elections, 2005 and 2010 none have been perfect but it is a clear advance from no elections at all. The most notable human rights increase has been in women’s rights. Under the Taliban Afghanistan strictly limited the activities of women but today 27.3% of the representatives in the Parliament are women (better than in the UK or US) and the first female governor is in office. The literacy rate is still low but they now make up 36.6% of those in primary school up from almost nothing. [2] There have been similar gains in other human rights such as a reduction in the use of corporal punishments such as amputating hands for theft.\n\n[1] Annex III Request to the United Nations by the participants at the UN talks on Afghanistan, S/2001/1154, UNDemocracy.com\n\n[2] Haidari, M. Ashraf, ‘Afghan women as a measure of progress’, The AfPak Channel Foreign Policy, 18 March 2013\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8acc5b499fd850be0912cc596aeffeb7",
"text": "defence terrorism warpeace house believes nato has succeeded afghanistan Investment in Afghanistan; rebuilding the economy\n\nThe ‘rehabilitation’ of Afghanistan’s infrastructure has not been an immense success due to the continuing bombing campaign which inevitably damages infrastructure but there have been big economic benefits from the NATO presence. There have been more than 4,000 schools built and 175,000 teachers trained, although more is needed this is an immense boost to education in Afghanistan. [1] Another benefit of increased stability is a renewal of outside investment, from China in particular. China has been investing billions, Several mining firms have made a $4.4 billion investment in one project; an immense undeveloped copper reserve in Aynak. [2] In total there is more than $20 billion being invested in infrastructure by Afghanistan’s Asian neighbours, as these investments are looking for profit they are clearly believed to be sustainable, by comparison the United States has only funded $1.6billion since 2006. [3]\n\n[1] ‘Afghanistan’, USAID, February 2013\n\n[2] Downs, Erica S., ‘China Buys into Afghanistan’, Brookings, 21 February 2013\n\n[3] Barfield, Thomas, ‘Two Diverging Roads in Afghanistan’, YaleGlobal, 11 January 2013\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96c9e17a286c2e0a6e35cf5f4aeed632",
"text": "defence terrorism warpeace house believes nato has succeeded afghanistan The Taliban will likely take over when the NATO forces leave\n\nEven if they are willing to negotiate a peaceful US exit this does not mean the Taliban will not wish to use force when the United States has left. In their statement on peace talks they highlighted “the establishment of an independent Islamic system and true security which is the want and aspiration of the nation.” [1] They also style themselves as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan clearly showing their political goal is regaining power in Afghanistan which would mean overthrowing the democratically elected government. Some Afghan experts such as Gilles Dorronsoro believe that this is what will happen “After 2014, the level of US support for the Afghan regime will be limited and, after a new phase in the civil war, a Taliban victory will likely follow” though this would have the advantage of bringing stability as the Taliban did before the US invasion it would represent a complete failure for the US. [2]\n\n[1] Taliban, ‘Taliban agree to peace talks with US over Afghanistan – full statement’, guardian.co.uk, 18 June 2013\n\n[2] AFP, ‘Afghan govt will collapse and Taliban will rule again, Afghan expert says’, news.com.au, 27 September 2012\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e70ba0b110771d17efb231c5748e44e",
"text": "defence terrorism warpeace house believes nato has succeeded afghanistan An Afghanistan dominated by warlords.\n\nUnder the Taliban up to the US invasion Afghanistan was at least united. Today however there is little central control beyond the NATO forces; the Taliban clearly controls some areas but there are also powerful warlords. Appointments are based on nepotism and tribal affiliations not on merit or education and those who were part of the northern alliance that fought on the US side (Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Hazaras) are taking advantage of the opportunity of the overthrow of Pashtun dominance in the country to grab power and resources. [1] Already the conflict has an ethnic dimension as almost all of the Taliban is made up of Pashtuns. The Taliban meanwhile believes that the other ethnicities want a partition of the country through a very decentralised federal state. In almost any peace scenario with NATO gone there is a large chance that one faction will walk out setting off a civil war and fragmentation of the country. [2]\n\n[1] Noor, Ahmad, ‘Power Politics of ethnic groups and the future of Afghanistan’, World Security Network, 8 July 2011\n\n[2] Rafiq Arif, ‘The Coming Civil War in Afghanistan’, Foreign Policy, 3 February 2012\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1bb396c7ca6d26f5bbd1062bf8a6163f",
"text": "defence terrorism warpeace house believes nato has succeeded afghanistan Afghanistan is still a dangerous place\n\nPeace talks or no peace talks, NATO military leadership of Afghan would all appear to make no difference. Only hours after the Taliban said it would hold peace talks and the United States handed over control of military operations to the Afghan National Army four US soldiers were killed in a mortar attack at Bagram Airbase one of the centres of NATO operations. [1] Clearly then NATO has not brought peace and security to Afghanistan. The effect of handovers to the Afghans have already been seen; August to October of last year saw a 28% spike in killings from the same period the year before at a time when NATO was handing over control implying that the Afghan army is not yet ready to protect civilians. [2]\n\n[1] Roberts, Dan, ‘Taliban peace talks: ‘Peace and reconciliation’ negotiations to take place in Qatar’, The Guardian, 19 June 2013\n\n[2] Borger, Julian, ‘Can Afghan troops hold off the Taliban after Nato withdraws?’, The Guardian, 1 January 2013\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "117a7d4a765caefb0e397726f6e5448a",
"text": "defence terrorism warpeace house believes nato has succeeded afghanistan NATO has failed to solve Afghanistan’s economic problems\n\nWhile some progress has been made on the economic and development front in Afghanistan it is difficult to consider it a success. There are still 20% of households who are chronically food insecure and another 18% in need of assistance in some of the year with the result that nearly 40% of children under three are malnourished. [1] Afghanistan is immensely dependent on aid for its economic progress with foreign aid to the country representing 100% of GDP in 2011 which makes the country vulnerable to a change in priorities. Clearly the withdrawal will represent such a change; when NATO goes aid, and spending as a result of the military occupation, will drop at the very least constraining growth and likely taking the Afghan economy with it. [2] Already the International Labour Organisation has been warning that this will mean increasing child labour in the country as lower profit margins force families to use their children to boost incomes. [3]\n\n[1] UNDP Afghanistan, ‘Eradicated Extreme Poverty and Hunger’, United Nations Development Programme, 21 July 2011\n\n[2] ‘The hand that feeds’, The Economist, 14 July 2012\n\n[3] Ferris-Rotman, Amie, ‘Afghan child labor fears grow as aid dries up’, Reuters, 7 February 2012\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
9002b8ab4579b3d7e62f427a26ee0ec6
|
NATO has failed to solve Afghanistan’s economic problems
While some progress has been made on the economic and development front in Afghanistan it is difficult to consider it a success. There are still 20% of households who are chronically food insecure and another 18% in need of assistance in some of the year with the result that nearly 40% of children under three are malnourished. [1] Afghanistan is immensely dependent on aid for its economic progress with foreign aid to the country representing 100% of GDP in 2011 which makes the country vulnerable to a change in priorities. Clearly the withdrawal will represent such a change; when NATO goes aid, and spending as a result of the military occupation, will drop at the very least constraining growth and likely taking the Afghan economy with it. [2] Already the International Labour Organisation has been warning that this will mean increasing child labour in the country as lower profit margins force families to use their children to boost incomes. [3]
[1] UNDP Afghanistan, ‘Eradicated Extreme Poverty and Hunger’, United Nations Development Programme, 21 July 2011
[2] ‘The hand that feeds’, The Economist, 14 July 2012
[3] Ferris-Rotman, Amie, ‘Afghan child labor fears grow as aid dries up’, Reuters, 7 February 2012
|
[
{
"docid": "bdcbbef5c1a36831b5738f82098428ff",
"text": "defence terrorism warpeace house believes nato has succeeded afghanistan There will still be aid after NATO leaves and Afghanistan is not simply going to be abandoned as the troops go home. Economic growth since the fall of the Taliban has been spectacular with average growth of 9.1% of GDP since 2009 while it is true that this has been in part fueled by aid there are more sustainable sources of growth in the form of the mineral wealth of Afghanistan which can go to the giant and growing economies of India and China. [1]\n\n[1] Al Jazeera and agencies, ‘Afghanistan’s economy at a glance’, Al Jazeera, 19 February 2012\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "3b6d2a53c8a22ec5bf11b91ed7c9366d",
"text": "defence terrorism warpeace house believes nato has succeeded afghanistan In a country where the insurgents are more opposed to the foreign occupiers than their nominal opponents in the Afghan government the complete withdrawal of troops will actually be good for peace and security. Yes Afghanistan is still dangerous but the aim is not necessarily to provide security through NATO forces but to train Afghan forces to do it.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "36ffdc464b31094006d5e6f1b290dd5e",
"text": "defence terrorism warpeace house believes nato has succeeded afghanistan In a country as rugged as Afghanistan there is always going to have to be a lot of decentralisation and at the moment this means warlords having a lot of power in individual areas. However this is better than the alternative of a centralising Taliban which would still have many factions and elements but these would be much more extreme than today’s warlords. It is also difficult to see how this impacts on the success of NATO in Afghanistan. They can be bad but can also bring benefits as they have an incentive to deliver stability and reconstruction to their local areas. [1]\n\n[1] Milhopadhyay, Dipali, ‘Warlords as Bureaucrats: The Afghan Experience’, Carnegie Papers, Number 101, August 2009\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "acc7f7259385e6dcaa17c1bc72100850",
"text": "defence terrorism warpeace house believes nato has succeeded afghanistan There is little reason to believe that the Taliban will succeed in rapidly forcing the Karzai government out of power. The Taliban has been failing to retake the ground they have lost after offensives by NATO forces so even if the Afghan National Army fails to take more ground it seems unlikely the Taliban will quickly succeed in driving on Kabul. [1] In the unlikely event that the Taliban does begin winning the US and other NATO states are not going to sit back and let the Afghan government fall. David Cameron, the British Prime Minister has said “The clear message is to the Taliban that you can't just wait this out until foreign forces leave in 2014. We will be firm friends and supporters to Afghanistan long beyond that.” [2]\n\n[1] American Enterprise Institute, ‘Why we must win in Afghanistan’, 17 October 2012\n\nBiddle, Stephen, ‘Salvaging Governance Reform in Afghanistan’, Council on Foreign Relations, April 2012\n\n[2] Mason, Rowena, ‘David Cameron: Taliban could be waiting for British troops to leave before trying to take Afghanistan’, The Telegraph, 19 July 2012\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a9cb4ff80bb1ef56a30767b363440095",
"text": "defence terrorism warpeace house believes nato has succeeded afghanistan Peace talks starting just 18 months before all NATO forces have left is clearly leaving it too late to ensure success. There will be little to persuade the Taliban to compromise as they believe their situation is only going to get better when there is no fear of military defeats. The Taliban has walked away from talks before and could easily do so again. It is notable that a Taliban spokesman says “There is no ceasefire now. They are attacking us and we are attacking them” which makes the chances of breakdown in the talks high. [1] To make matters worse the Afghan government has only been lukewarm about the talks complaining that allowing the Taliban an office in Doha “gave the Taliban an official identity, something we didn't want” and responded by suspending negotiations with the United States on a security agreement that would determine how many US soldiers stay in the country after the NATO mission has ended. [2]\n\n[1] ‘US to hold direct peace talks with Taliban’, Al Jazeera, 19 June 2013\n\n[2] Shalizi, Hamid, ‘Afghan government irked over U.S. talks with Taliban’, Reuters, 19 June 2013\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a4a252e49f61c7eaaf9950f78aa0e3c",
"text": "defence terrorism warpeace house believes nato has succeeded afghanistan There are still immense problems with infrastructure in Afghanistan, more roads and railways are needed if large scale investment by China and others is to be made a success. There is little point in huge investment in mines if the product of those mines then can’t be transported out of the country to the markets as a result of either poor infrastructure or security concerns. There are also cases where infrastructure built by the US military has been allowed to deteriorate when handed over to Afghan control; there have been problems maintaining almost half the infrastructure projects built by the US in Laghman province. [1]\n\n[1] Boak, Josh, ‘U.S.-funded infrastructure deteriorates once under Afghan control, report says’, Washington Post, 4 January 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "38f84ffbcaf5c52f38a12186303f05b6",
"text": "defence terrorism warpeace house believes nato has succeeded afghanistan Some elections may be better than no elections but where the west has control there really should have been exemplary elections. The 2009 Presidential elections in particular have been accused of having been riddled with fraud. The election observers from the National Democratic Institute said “polling was marred by widespread fraud” and the opposition candidate Abdullah Abdullah pulled out of the run off pointing to there being no measures taken to prevent the fraud recurring. [1] If Afghan elections are so marred by fraud when the US and NATO still have a lot of control over the country how bad will it be when there is no outside check? And if democracy may not survive the transition from NATO control what hope is there for human rights and particularly women’s rights? [2]\n\n[1] National Democratic Institute, ‘The 2009 Presidential and Provincial Council Elections in Afghanistan’, 2010\n\n[2] UN News Centre, ‘Georgette Gagnon: Raising the bar on respect for human rights in Afghanistan’, un.org, 28 May 2013\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1a4ddd4c6b28814364149443ab8ab5a0",
"text": "defence terrorism warpeace house believes nato has succeeded afghanistan The conflict clearly is ongoing in Afghanistan; in 2012 there were 245 drone strikes in Afghanistan compared to only 44 in Pakistan and 28 in Yemen. [1] Even if those drones are not being used to attack al Qaeda but instead the Taliban in Afghanistan it is impossible to say that peace and security has been brought to the country.\n\nIt is also impossible to say that the handover to Afghan forces shows that the NATO mission has been a success; a handover could occur no matter how peaceful or otherwise the country is. In Vietnam the United States declared victory by signing the Paris Peace Accords and handing over to South Vietnam only for the country to be overrun two years later in the spring of 1975. [2]\n\n[1] Woods, Chris, and Ross, Alice, K., ‘Revealed: US and Britain launched 1,200 drone strikes in recent wars’, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, 4 December 2012\n\n[2] The Learning Network, ‘April 30, 1975 | Saigon Falls’, The New York Times, 30 April 2012\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96c9e17a286c2e0a6e35cf5f4aeed632",
"text": "defence terrorism warpeace house believes nato has succeeded afghanistan The Taliban will likely take over when the NATO forces leave\n\nEven if they are willing to negotiate a peaceful US exit this does not mean the Taliban will not wish to use force when the United States has left. In their statement on peace talks they highlighted “the establishment of an independent Islamic system and true security which is the want and aspiration of the nation.” [1] They also style themselves as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan clearly showing their political goal is regaining power in Afghanistan which would mean overthrowing the democratically elected government. Some Afghan experts such as Gilles Dorronsoro believe that this is what will happen “After 2014, the level of US support for the Afghan regime will be limited and, after a new phase in the civil war, a Taliban victory will likely follow” though this would have the advantage of bringing stability as the Taliban did before the US invasion it would represent a complete failure for the US. [2]\n\n[1] Taliban, ‘Taliban agree to peace talks with US over Afghanistan – full statement’, guardian.co.uk, 18 June 2013\n\n[2] AFP, ‘Afghan govt will collapse and Taliban will rule again, Afghan expert says’, news.com.au, 27 September 2012\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e70ba0b110771d17efb231c5748e44e",
"text": "defence terrorism warpeace house believes nato has succeeded afghanistan An Afghanistan dominated by warlords.\n\nUnder the Taliban up to the US invasion Afghanistan was at least united. Today however there is little central control beyond the NATO forces; the Taliban clearly controls some areas but there are also powerful warlords. Appointments are based on nepotism and tribal affiliations not on merit or education and those who were part of the northern alliance that fought on the US side (Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Hazaras) are taking advantage of the opportunity of the overthrow of Pashtun dominance in the country to grab power and resources. [1] Already the conflict has an ethnic dimension as almost all of the Taliban is made up of Pashtuns. The Taliban meanwhile believes that the other ethnicities want a partition of the country through a very decentralised federal state. In almost any peace scenario with NATO gone there is a large chance that one faction will walk out setting off a civil war and fragmentation of the country. [2]\n\n[1] Noor, Ahmad, ‘Power Politics of ethnic groups and the future of Afghanistan’, World Security Network, 8 July 2011\n\n[2] Rafiq Arif, ‘The Coming Civil War in Afghanistan’, Foreign Policy, 3 February 2012\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1bb396c7ca6d26f5bbd1062bf8a6163f",
"text": "defence terrorism warpeace house believes nato has succeeded afghanistan Afghanistan is still a dangerous place\n\nPeace talks or no peace talks, NATO military leadership of Afghan would all appear to make no difference. Only hours after the Taliban said it would hold peace talks and the United States handed over control of military operations to the Afghan National Army four US soldiers were killed in a mortar attack at Bagram Airbase one of the centres of NATO operations. [1] Clearly then NATO has not brought peace and security to Afghanistan. The effect of handovers to the Afghans have already been seen; August to October of last year saw a 28% spike in killings from the same period the year before at a time when NATO was handing over control implying that the Afghan army is not yet ready to protect civilians. [2]\n\n[1] Roberts, Dan, ‘Taliban peace talks: ‘Peace and reconciliation’ negotiations to take place in Qatar’, The Guardian, 19 June 2013\n\n[2] Borger, Julian, ‘Can Afghan troops hold off the Taliban after Nato withdraws?’, The Guardian, 1 January 2013\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a41251472ed5a00adbfa5db98ddafc88",
"text": "defence terrorism warpeace house believes nato has succeeded afghanistan Negotiations to ensure lasting peace\n\nNATO is also ensuring that peace and security remain in Afghanistan as they draw down by opening up negotiations with the Taliban. Peace can only be assured by bringing together the sides so that almost everyone accepts the status quo and does not want to destroy that status quo through force. United States officials say “We have long said this conflict won't be won on the battlefield” with the deputy national security advisor, Ben Rhodes, adding “The United States will be supporting a process that is fundamentally Afghan-led” meaning that NATO is no longer key to the process. [1] NATO handing over control to the Afghans and eventually withdrawing entirely will make peace more likely to succeed as the Taliban “considerers it its religious and national duty to gain independence from the occupation” with this goal it wants “to support a political and peaceful solution”. [2] Lasting peace is then only possible when NATO leaves.\n\n[1] Roberts, Dan, ‘Taliban peace talks: ‘Peace and reconciliation’ negotiations to take place in Qatar’, The Guardian, 19 June 2013\n\n[2] Taliban, ‘Taliban agree to peace talks with US over Afghanistan – full statement’, guardian.co.uk, 18 June 2013\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ecc06c6f747da87a0c32fddc12f67faa",
"text": "defence terrorism warpeace house believes nato has succeeded afghanistan Democracy has been brought to Afghanistan\n\nSome of the biggest benefits of the NATO occupation have been through the increase in democracy and human rights. While these were not specific aims of the NATO mission they were among the goals set out by the United Nations. [1] There have been two Presidential elections, one in 2004 the other in 2009, and two parliamentary elections, 2005 and 2010 none have been perfect but it is a clear advance from no elections at all. The most notable human rights increase has been in women’s rights. Under the Taliban Afghanistan strictly limited the activities of women but today 27.3% of the representatives in the Parliament are women (better than in the UK or US) and the first female governor is in office. The literacy rate is still low but they now make up 36.6% of those in primary school up from almost nothing. [2] There have been similar gains in other human rights such as a reduction in the use of corporal punishments such as amputating hands for theft.\n\n[1] Annex III Request to the United Nations by the participants at the UN talks on Afghanistan, S/2001/1154, UNDemocracy.com\n\n[2] Haidari, M. Ashraf, ‘Afghan women as a measure of progress’, The AfPak Channel Foreign Policy, 18 March 2013\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "04a005dfcf1a75284e9eac3cc805aea5",
"text": "defence terrorism warpeace house believes nato has succeeded afghanistan NATO has brought peace and security\n\n“NATO’s primary objective in Afghanistan is to enable the Afghan authorities to provide effective security across the country and ensure that the country can never again be a safe haven for terrorists.” [1] The invasion of Afghanistan was initially about destroying al-Qaeda and with the killing of Osama bin Laden in 2011 in Pakistan this objective has been met. There are still efforts to destroy al Qaeda but these have mostly moved out of Afghanistan and into Pakistan and other countries such as Yemen.\n\nNATO has also brought Afghanistan to the point where the Afghani’s can look after themselves and exercise their own security. On 18th June Afghanistan took over the lead from NATO on security nationwide having previously been taking control district by district. Handing over security also itself improves security with Afghanis in Kandahar saying “Now that the foreigners are gone, the security situation in the city and in the districts is much better”. [2]\n\n[1] ‘NATO and Afghanistan’, nato.int\n\n[2] Loyn, David, ‘Afghans take nationwide security lead from NATO’, BBC News, 18 June 2013\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8acc5b499fd850be0912cc596aeffeb7",
"text": "defence terrorism warpeace house believes nato has succeeded afghanistan Investment in Afghanistan; rebuilding the economy\n\nThe ‘rehabilitation’ of Afghanistan’s infrastructure has not been an immense success due to the continuing bombing campaign which inevitably damages infrastructure but there have been big economic benefits from the NATO presence. There have been more than 4,000 schools built and 175,000 teachers trained, although more is needed this is an immense boost to education in Afghanistan. [1] Another benefit of increased stability is a renewal of outside investment, from China in particular. China has been investing billions, Several mining firms have made a $4.4 billion investment in one project; an immense undeveloped copper reserve in Aynak. [2] In total there is more than $20 billion being invested in infrastructure by Afghanistan’s Asian neighbours, as these investments are looking for profit they are clearly believed to be sustainable, by comparison the United States has only funded $1.6billion since 2006. [3]\n\n[1] ‘Afghanistan’, USAID, February 2013\n\n[2] Downs, Erica S., ‘China Buys into Afghanistan’, Brookings, 21 February 2013\n\n[3] Barfield, Thomas, ‘Two Diverging Roads in Afghanistan’, YaleGlobal, 11 January 2013\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
d13d8dc7b2035356c29c39fe23fed8e3
|
Private investors have a right to privacy
The public scrutiny on think tank funders may backlash on perfectly innocent investors. Investors may be accused of corruption if think tanks that share their values independently reach favourable conclusions. Alternatively, minor investors may become guilty by association, for instance, if notorious companies or political parties have been seen supporting the same think tanks – even if this is done for completely different reasons. The motivations of think tanks cannot be made synonymous with their funders, but these funders should also not be made synonymous with each other. Thus for example Policy exchange is both seen as a think tank for UK conservative modernisers – the progressive wing of the party while also having been labelled as a “neo-con attack dog”. [1]
[1] Helm, Toby, and Hope, Christopher, “The top twelve think tanks in Britain”, The Telegraph, 24 January 2008, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/1576447/The-top-twelve-think-tanks-in-Britain.html
|
[
{
"docid": "00c8c5865be0557fd85f7c9cb4be7fe5",
"text": "politics general government digital freedoms access knowledge house would force This is not an inherent flaw in the system. In the status quo, large investors can still publically advertise the fact that they are funding a project, and this too can have repercussions and bring negative associations for other investors. It is a risk anyone makes when investing in a given idea. The right to privacy of investors in political campaigns was discarded once evidence of potential abuses and political arrangements surfaced. Similarly, this right cannot apply to think tank funders. [1]\n\n[1] “The Political Activity of Think Tanks: The Case for Mandatory Contributor Disclosure”, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 115, No. 5, March 2002, pp. 1502-1524. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1342554\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "fd956914362225d03f157449dc22d685",
"text": "politics general government digital freedoms access knowledge house would force Such a system, in which one allows think tanks to accept substantial anonymous donations, has immense downsides. It is simply too easy for a think tank to claim all, or most, of its funding is anonymous to them when it is questioned, while in fact they have been having informal strategic talks with potential funders days prior to, during, or after the donation. We cannot adopt a policy that is so easy too abuse, and since all think tanks must know who their funders are, we are not restricting their independence any further by asking them to make it public.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "39d3fbe29a57d3dba9eb783fcd6fbe85",
"text": "politics general government digital freedoms access knowledge house would force People are capable of assessing a biased idea after discovering its bias, while it is dangerous to present potentially biased ideas as genuine, for this limits discussion. This is especially so in the status quo, where the suspicions of who may be funding think tanks remain when they choose not to disclose their funders. A blanket obligation of all think tanks to reveal their funding allows for open discourse and thus more space to discuss the ideas themselves.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41a481616e8a917e8b2644be4b1bd48e",
"text": "politics general government digital freedoms access knowledge house would force On the other hand, by disclosing funders more corporations and individuals will have an incentive to fund think tanks. They will be assured that they will be publically recognised for it, and thus be rewarded when the think tanks they support produce good ideas.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2ca65d4bb5dfaaad96d22b2db8351fa9",
"text": "politics general government digital freedoms access knowledge house would force It does not matter if think tanks are used in this way, so long as the conclusions that are reached by the think tanks are true. If there is objective value in an idea it should be communicated as well as possible. If this cannot be done with conventional marketing, it is good for it to be possible through a think tank. If the think tank’s idea and conclusion is wrong, the fact that it is presented objectively makes it no less falsifiable. Think tanks do not exist in a vacuum, and for every false idea presented as positive there will be another think tank to scrutinise it. In either case, the consumer is given useful information in an accessible way that can still be questioned.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "35ebeff8f48663593149b91e12692373",
"text": "politics general government digital freedoms access knowledge house would force There is no necessity to disclose think tank funding publically in order to circumvent this issue. As long as there are public institutions that scrutinise think tanks and are also bound to secrecy unless there are anomalies, the risk of terrorism can be successfully regulated. Being a think tank does not prevent an organisation from having to be transparent to government about their finances. It is unnecessary to expose think tanks that do not act illicitly to the general public.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d7ec776eefda45a786afd59ef4f9b32d",
"text": "politics general government digital freedoms access knowledge house would force Think tanks can choose transparency in the status quo anyway (as shown by nef): this benefit is relatively small. On the other hand, it harms the many other think tanks that need to protect the information of who funds them if, for instance, the funders do not wish to disclose it. It is a loss of freedom for the majority, not a gain.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1c931582b35e3dc1fee95fa3df9f976d",
"text": "politics general government digital freedoms access knowledge house would force It is already in the interest of think tanks to be transparent. Think tanks exist in societies that depend on open communication and the free flow of ideas. Numerous organisations exist to criticise and unmask non-transparent think tanks: [1] this is sufficient incentive for them to reveal their funding. There may be exceptions in which the benefits of non-disclosure overrule the disadvantages in terms of trust, but these are rare, and it does not follow that it will be abused.\n\n[1] Who Funds You, Political Innovation, http://www.whofundsyou.org/about\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "017db6388bf9893ceb55e0258778651e",
"text": "politics general government digital freedoms access knowledge house would force Think tanks don’t have any legislative power. At the end of the day, what they do is merely make suggestions. If they were active lobbyists they would lose their privileged legal position as an academic organisation. [1] Even if there may be other benefits of them being transparent, the legal concept of transparency cannot be extended to them. That would open the door to forcing other independent private institutions to reveal details of their organisation. Furthermore, think tanks rarely claim to be completely impartial. They usually have an agenda and are aligned with a political party. This concession in terms of impartiality merits equal concessions in terms of demanded transparency. At the end of the day it is their work that influences the agenda and that same work shows where their sympathies lie.\n\n[1] “The Political Activity of Think Tanks: The Case for Mandatory Contributor Disclosure”, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 115, No. 5, March 2002, pp. 1502-1524. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1342554\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c48cc922a13b07ccf629565e7b32f73f",
"text": "politics general government digital freedoms access knowledge house would force Overregulating think tanks sets a dangerous precedent\n\nThe public scrutiny on think tank funders may backlash on perfectly innocent investors. Investors may be accused of corruption if think tanks that share their values independently reach favourable conclusions. Alternatively, minor investors may become guilty by association, for instance, if notorious companies or political parties have been seen supporting the same think tanks – even if this is done for completely different reasons. The motivations of think tanks cannot be made synonymous with their funders, but these funders should also not be made synonymous with each other. Thus for example Policy exchange is both seen as a think tank for UK conservative modernisers – the progressive wing of the party while also having been labelled as a “neo-con attack dog”. [1]\n\n[1] Helm, Toby, and Hope, Christopher, “The top twelve think tanks in Britain”, The Telegraph, 24 January 2008, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/1576447/The-top-twelve-think-tanks-in-Britain.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d60125ea41777a1ef35f48e9b148ecc3",
"text": "politics general government digital freedoms access knowledge house would force Think tanks should be assessed by the value of their ideas, not by who funds them\n\nOne can conceive of an infinite amount of cases in which results of a think tank’s research are completely independent of their funders. Their opposition, however, will be likely to signal corruption, when in fact there may be no relation between a funder and certain results. Even if they are associated by sharing a perspective or an aim, this is not a sign of corruption or bias, and it should not enter into the value of a think tank. There has been one study of charity donations (as think tanks are) that concludes that anonymous donations are “a costly signal of a charity’s quality by an informed donor”. [1]\n\n[1] Peacey, Mike W., “Masked Heroes: endogenous anonymity in charitable giving”, Centre for Market and Public Organisation Bristol Institute of Public Affairs, May 2013, p.27 http://www.bristol.ac.uk/cmpo/publications/papers/2013/wp303.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b4c705148c5f0b3a11f1c9fe17b908ff",
"text": "politics general government digital freedoms access knowledge house would force Think tanks should be able to choose not to know who funds them\n\nThe information think tanks provide can be extremely useful to society. Therefore we should be hesitant to restrict their key strength, which is their independence. There may be scenarios in which think tanks, in need of funding for a purely positive project, ask for donations from anyone who believes in their values. Wanting to avoid any negative associations or any accusations of bias, they choose not to find out who their funders are, and thus they cannot disclose that information. For think tanks who claim independence by only asking for anonymous donors, this is no longer an option when they are forced to disclose. The attempt to create more objectivity actually removes one of the ways of being perfectly impartial.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b7c7a6d78ae25a3be5653b0fdb990030",
"text": "politics general government digital freedoms access knowledge house would force Being subject to scrutiny discourages investors from supporting good projects\n\nThink tanks depend largely on voluntary funding for their projects, [1] so they must be careful when risking potential investments. Investors are likely to be put off from funding think tanks with good aims if this funding will be scrutinised and their interests questioned. [2] They are likely not to wish to risk being associated with seemingly biased results: a system by which funders can support ideas in themselves, perhaps even anonymously for the think tanks themselves, is the one in which think tanks best flourish and best produce results. Those that produce the best and most interesting ideas will be those who succeed in obtaining funding.\n\n[1] Think Tank Funding, On Think Tanks, http://onthinktanks.org/topic-pages/think-tank-funding/ accessed 11 June 2013\n\n[2] Butcher, Jonathan, “Does it Matter Who Funds You?” One World Trust, 12 July 2012, http://www.oneworldtrust.org/blog/?p=579/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c23a9df94634f7a495bec4b16c38bf71",
"text": "politics general government digital freedoms access knowledge house would force Think tanks’ power of objectivity is the best form of marketing for biased views\n\nThink tanks are considered more credible than corporate marketing. [1] In the case of corporate marketing the recipient is aware that he is being sold a product. In the case of think tanks, the recipient believes he is being given unbiased information. Therefore, it is tempting for corporations to finance think tanks and encourage them to reach the conclusions that they otherwise would promote through marketing. This way, think tanks can be powerful tools for promoting a biased agenda: if done successfully the same message is communicated but in the form of credible information rather than manipulative marketing. In fact, it is common practice for journalists to quote think tanks without labelling their political bias. [2] And they most certainly don’t say if there is funding from a particular interest for example with the supposedly free market Institute of Public Affairs in Australia that somehow ends up arguing for government investment and intervention in Northern Australia – a position suspiciously close to several big mining companies. [3] This violates people’s freedom to make an informed decision, and can give biased views disproportionate and undue influence. By forcing them to disclose, any corruption or bias will become obvious to all.\n\n[1] Mayer, Jane. “Covert Operations”, A Reporter at Large, The New Yorker. 30 August 2010 http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer\n\n[2] Dolny, Michael. “What’s in a Label?”, Extra!, FAIR. 1 May 1998 http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/Whats-in-a-Label/\n\n[3] MediaWatch, “Disclosing the funding of think tanks”, ABC News, 27 May 2013, http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3768536.htm\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e0f412099090421d2c67d771bb92975b",
"text": "politics general government digital freedoms access knowledge house would force Think tanks may become smoke screens for criminal groups\n\nIn the status quo, the ability of think tanks to be non-transparent potentially provides a framework for criminal groups, or in extreme cases organisations, to handle large amounts of money without revealing where their money comes from or goes. We are allowing extremist groups to be exempt from answering to the government or shareholders in their management of money or information. In the US and Canada, think tanks are also exempt from tax. [1] By this mechanism, false think tanks can be used, for example, to channel money from openly extremist groups that could otherwise not access those parts of the world.\n\n[1] 26 USC § 501 - Exemption from tax on corporations, certain trusts, etc., Legal Information Institute http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/501\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "59d994924db321c3f242f1406bca53e8",
"text": "politics general government digital freedoms access knowledge house would force The status quo promotes non-transparency\n\nNon-disclosure can be perceived as objectivity. It is easier for the public to criticise a think tank that is openly associated with a particular funder. That kind of prejudice is stronger than the more general the prejudice against non-disclosure. A person might distrust a non-transparent think tank, but dislike a think tank that is funded by an organisation they are already prejudiced towards. [1] In any comparison between two such organisations the distrusted organisation will have greater impact than the disliked organisation. [2] This gives non-transparent think tanks an advantage over transparent and honest ones. Billionaires are then able to buy influence by secretly funding organisations such as the Global Warming Policy Foundation or the Institute of Economic Affairs that is then listened to, by the media and therefore the public, when their own views would simply be dismissed due to the personal motivations of the backers. [3] By forcing all think tanks to reveal their funding, we level the playing field.\n\n[1] Bentley, Guy. “The state funding swindle: how left wing think-tanks are pulling taxpayer-funded wool over our eyes”, Commentary, The Commentator. 20 September 2012, http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1679/the_state_funding_swindle_how_left_wing_think_tanks_are_pulling_taxpayer_funded_wool_over_our_eyes\n\n[2] “The Political Activity of Think Tanks: The Case for Mandatory Contributor Disclosure”, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 115, No. 5, March 2002, pp. 1502-1524. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1342554\n\n[3] Monbiot, George. “The educational charities that do PR for the rightwing ultra-rich”, Comment is Free, The Guardian. 18 February 2013 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/18/charities-pr-rightwing-ultra-rich\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c71f37838e2a32d8481029579ae3ccf9",
"text": "politics general government digital freedoms access knowledge house would force People have a right to know where their information comes from\n\nDemocracies rely on transparency. Our commitment to transparency means surrendering part of our autonomy for the collective. This does not mean that our autonomy does not still belong to us; the institutions that affect our lives are under a constant obligation to justify their decisions and existence in relation to us. I do not have a right to know everything about the local football club (if I don’t play football and they are not a public company their decisions don’t affect me). Think tanks, however, are highly influential, and directly affect the society in which we live: some have, for example, lobbied successfully against action to prevent global warming. [1] Therefore they are to be considered a power in society, and the principle of transparency must be extended to them.\n\n[1] Monbiot, George. “The educational charities that do PR for the rightwing ultra-rich”, Comment is Free, The Guardian. 18 February 2013, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/18/charities-pr-rightwing-ultra-rich\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3df1f14c6d635227d6aff347a4b39866",
"text": "politics general government digital freedoms access knowledge house would force Legally requiring disclosure from all benefits think tanks\n\nEven think tanks benefit from the introduction of this policy. The status quo leaves disclosure as a strategic device: think tanks are unwilling to disclose more than their competition for fear of being unfavourably portrayed. Such negative competition, i.e. competition in factors that do not improve the products of the market, makes them unable to make rational decisions about their funding if, for instance, potential funders want to contribute only on the condition that this funding be made public. As a consequence, the advent of organisations who call for transparency has been praised by prominent think tanks like the New Economics Foundation. [1] By depriving everybody of the strategic tool of revealing none or only a part of their funding, think tanks cannot be pressured into hiding or providing certain information about their funders, and they can thus act more independently.\n\n[1] Read, Sam. “Think tank funding matters: it’s central to democracy”, the nef blog, 22 June 2012, http://www.neweconomics.org/blog/entry/think-tank-funding-matters-its-central-to-democracy\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
09bb8475e0aab4e3b59b0f4d1b14ea7f
|
Civic duty
Voting is a civic duty, just as paying taxes and jury service. As a citizen of your nation it is your duty to take thirty minutes out of your day every few years to go and vote in an election. This duty is not a very onerous one but it is an important one because the foundation of our government is that it is democratic, and how can it be democratic if the people won’t vote? If the government is to represent the people the people must vote for it. Some civic duties such as taxes are compulsory and while it is not the case that voting is compulsory in the UK and USA it is elsewhere for example Australia and Belgium. [1] That it is not compulsory is consistent with our freedoms so there is the possibility of making the active choice not to vote. With the right to vote comes the responsibility to use it.
[1] ‘ Compulsory Voting’, Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, updated 21 March 2012 also see our debate on compulsory voting
|
[
{
"docid": "48d9445f7fd02447470ce492caad928e",
"text": "voting it worth voting first past post systems Many voters are making an active choice when they decide not to vote, they are either showing that they recognise how little impact their vote will have, or else that they do not believe that it is worth their while spending the time to vote. [1] Finally even if they are not making an active choice not to vote and don’t vote due to ignorance is that really a dereliction of their civic duty? Does it not show that politics, politicians, and parties have not done enough to engage with these voters and tell them why, when and where they can vote? It should be up to politicians to persuade us that they are worthy of our votes.\n\n[1] Caryl, Christian, ‘In Praise of Apathy’, Foreign Policy, 24 October 2012\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "975d3468ed5bdbd9bf27a31dd6aa2373",
"text": "voting it worth voting first past post systems I am only one of thousands of voters who elect my MP so my vote is not going to help hold ‘my’ representative to account. In the UK the average number of voters in each constituency is 68,175 [1] and some have majorities of tens of thousands. In the US House of Representatives the figure is more than ten times this number at 710,767 [2] with so many other voters how will my attempt to hold them to account actually matter?\n\n[1] ‘Parliamentary constituencies’, parliament.uk\n\n[2] Burnett, Kristin D., ‘Congressional Apportionment’, 2010 Census Briefs, November 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "642d1950ba36efc5b2c50785df1bd1c6",
"text": "voting it worth voting first past post systems The chances of you being the one who matters in a marginal contest are infinitesimally small. First most elections are not won on narrow margins and second you are unlikely to be in the right place at the right time. The FPTP system means that very few votes actually matter like this unlike in a proportional system where almost every vote would have a very similar worth.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d7cb72fd93e9ac78c1a24f0f7ab4245",
"text": "voting it worth voting first past post systems The question here then essentially lies in do we appreciate our democracy? Does voting every 5 years actually count as a democracy? Does the fact that we have a first past the post system represent our views as a democracy should? The history of voting and the ability of other around the world to vote really has very little bearing on whether we should vote. Voting for the one party, or an other, or none at all is not going to result in me not being able to vote in the future. If losing the vote becomes a real possibility in the future then we can be sure that many currently apathetic voters will turn out because such a vote really would matter.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a699a4f45f14ee6627f5f342f2bb0cff",
"text": "voting it worth voting first past post systems The idea that someone who has voted might be more entitled to complain about things is absurd. Yes they have shown how they want the government to run but the idea that their voice is heard on all these particular issues is patently silly.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e1794c6da8ee4f5b8e1f64ccd938f626",
"text": "voting it worth voting first past post systems This is nearly always not actually a reason not to vote as because in almost every constituency the number of people who do not vote outnumbers the vote of the winning party this means if everyone who does not vote did as you will do and all get out and vote the vote could go any way, even a fringe party could be elected if the non-voters vote together. To illustrate lets take a look at Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, one of the safest seats in the UK, former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s seat. In 2010 Labour won with 65.2% of the vote, [1] with 29559 labour votes compared to 6550 SNP a majority of 23009. [2] However in this seat turnout was only 62.2% that means that 27863 people did not vote, considerably more than voted for Labour. If they voted together for someone else those who do not vote could always throw out the party in power. No seat is therefore really a safe seat, they are safe because who believe their vote is not worthwhile do not bother to vote when in reality if they did they could make a difference. Indeed in the Scottish elections of 2011 the SNP managed to take a large part of this same seat. [3]\n\n[1] Electoral Calculus, Majority Sorted Seats\n\n[2] Wells, Anthony, Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, UKPollingReport, 2010\n\n[3] ‘Vote 2011 Scotland elections, Kirkcaldy’, BBC News, 11 May 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e182c12f8e0e3bc26020f80cd9b48be",
"text": "voting it worth voting first past post systems We can never be sure what these apathetic voters are saying because they have not said it – some might want a change in the electoral system, or might rouse themselves to vote if one of the options becomes extreme but this may not be the case. In the UK voters rejected the option of changing the electoral system to the alternative vote [1] which would have been more representative so making their voice matter more in future elections. [2]\n\n[1] Hawkins, Ross, ‘Vote 2011: UK rejects alternative vote’, BBC News, 7 May 2011\n\n[2] Jones, Charlotte R., ‘This House would adopt the alternative vote’, Debatabase, 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb7f07a8c8f248a9ac1b209a90fa0e4a",
"text": "voting it worth voting first past post systems Yes politicians will sometimes break their promises or for some reason not be able to fulfil them. When the Liberal Democrats made their manifesto they did not expect to be in coalition with the Conservatives, with two incompatible manifestos some things were going to have to be dropped. Equally sometimes the party in power will find they can’t get through the changes they want. The point of voting when events might overtake a manifesto is that the party’s ideology will tell you how they are likely to react – a libertarian in 10 Downing Street would have let the banks go bust or a communist would have nationalised them. Many could have anticipated that a Labour government would engage in some kind of bail out to save savers and the system. By having voted for the Labour party voters were saying they wanted a slightly left of centre response to events.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "da646f51223401a5f1fe88dcac7c53bc",
"text": "voting it worth voting first past post systems Parties go to the centre because that is where the votes are. You are perfectly at liberty to vote for more minor parties. If you want nationalisation vote communist, clean energy vote green etc. Your vote may not elect a representative but the person who becomes your representative is likely to see which single issue parties received votes in his constituency and act accordingly. Ultimately only one party can govern at a time so it will never be the case that everyone can get their way on the issues they are interested in, but if you don’t vote no one will pay any attention at all.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "87f3b12cf143dfae02d1b10a8be69f0a",
"text": "voting it worth voting first past post systems Hold politicians to account\n\nFor the most part in countries with FPTP we don’t like our politicians. In the United States Congress has a job approval rate of 21% and it is often lower [1] while in the UK in 2009 only 1% were ‘very satisfied’ with MPs (total of 29% satisfied 44% dissatisfied). [2] Well elections are your chance to hold them to account by voting for someone else. Elected politicians are there to represent you but if you don’t vote your voice wont be heard and you wont be able to hold your representative to account for what they have done during their time in office. There are increasingly websites which will show you how your MP voted making it simple to find out if they are representing you as you would wish and so making it possible to decide how you will vote on the basis of your representative’s record rather than just their stated intentions at the time of the election.\n\n[1] Jones, Jeffrey M., ‘U.S. Congress’ Approval Rating at 21% Ahead of Elections’, Gallup Politics, 24 October 2012\n\n[2] ‘Satisfaction with Members of Parliament 1991-2009’, Ipsos MORI, 4 March 2010 , (NB satisfaction with own MP is always higher)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d4426268187076a180caef39ecf5fc93",
"text": "voting it worth voting first past post systems Have your say\n\nDemocracy allows you to have your say and it is important you take advantage of that. It is unusual that your particular vote will make an immense difference but just occasionally it might make all the difference. Barak Obama’s 2012 campaign is running an ad called 537 the ad says this is \"the difference between what was and what could have been.” As it is the number of votes that won the Presidency for George W. Bush over Al Gore in Florida in 2000. “So this year if you're thinking that your vote doesn't count, that it won't matter, well, back then there were probably 537 people who felt the same way. Make your voice heard.\" [1] There will always be places where there are victories by such a small margin. Most of the time it will be known where these marginal contests are but if enough people who have not voted in the past vote previous votes or the pollsters may count for nothing. You never know it might be you who makes the difference, so go vote!\n\n[1] Rama, Padmananda, ‘Obama Campaign Invokes ‘537’ To Get Out The Vote’, NPR, 24 October 2012\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "58b687b997de1f7471a3d65b9589e147",
"text": "voting it worth voting first past post systems No right to complain\n\nWe all complain, whether it is about the lack of places for schools, higher university fees, trains not running on time, or about how we are being ripped off by the shops. In almost every case the things we may complain about can be influenced by the government either directly as with education policy or indirectly through taxation or regulation. Voting is your one chance to show what agenda you want to government to take; do you want more regulation or less, do you want tuition fees paid by the government or individuals? Of course not everything will be contested in every election but some will be. But next time you complain about something if it actually matters find a party that wants to do something about it and vote for them.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2669a0aeb3ff18d8da6a9e39a3ff7c1f",
"text": "voting it worth voting first past post systems We don’t just vote for ourselves\n\nYou are very lucky that you have the chance to vote to choose and influence your government. Most people throughout history have not had this chance; in the UK women only received the vote in 1918 and most men only received the right in the nineteenth century. [1] In the United States the timings were similar with freed slaves not voting until 1970 (even in 1940 only 3% of African Americans in the south were registered) and women not until 1919. [2] We should remember the sacrifices of all those who have fought for the right to vote. Moreover huge numbers of people live in countries where these rights have not yet been won – just think of the 1.3 billion people in China who have no input into the change in the leadership, the Politburo Standing Committee, every ten years. [3] As voting has not been an automatic right throughout history you need to vote not just for yourself but for your children and their children in order to ensure that they have the benefit of growing up in a democracy such as the one you live in.\n\n[1] ‘Chartists Key dates’, parliament.uk\n\n[2] ‘ Timeline: Voting Rights Act’, American Civil Liberties Union\n\n[3] Li, Cheng, ‘The Battle for China’s Top Nine Leadership Posts’, The Washington Quarterly, Vol.35, No.1, pp.131-145, Winter 2012\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3c443e51dd597d0d42a7876f975e83b6",
"text": "voting it worth voting first past post systems Politicians don’t engage with issues that are important to me\n\nPolitical parties are not about issues, they are either about ideologies or are purely about trying to triangulate on enough issues so that they can get into power. With relatively few parties able to get representation in the Parliament how can I be sure that my views on issues will be represented. If I want isolationism then who should I vote for in the US election? Both candidates say they want similar policies which are not at all isolationist. [1] Often there is little choice; in the US there are only two real options, the democrats and the republicans, [2] while in the UK all three main parties occupy very similar ground in the centre. [3] The problem is similar if I am interested in multiple issues but no party has a similar portfolio of views.\n\n[1] Helling, Alex, ‘The debate for the rest of the world’, idebate.org, 23 October 2012\n\n[2] Caryl, Christian, ‘In Praise of Apathy’, Foreign Policy, 24 October 2012\n\n[3] Parker, George, and Pickard, Jim, ‘Centre prize: why UK political parties look more and more the same’, Financial Times, 4 March 2008\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7bb3a053a50696645d0fac8695db1550",
"text": "voting it worth voting first past post systems Not voting is voicing an opinion that is as important as any vote\n\nIn both the UK and the US non voters are the biggest block in the country. Governments are routinely voted in with only 30% of the eligible voters – and once it is counted compared against the total population it becomes lower still. We should therefore not assume that these people are all not trying to tell us anything rather they are pointing out that they know how little their vote counts so see no point in casting it. In the United States only 32% of voters agree that only having two parties is good. The non-voters could well therefore be telling us that there needs to be a radical change in the system before it is worth their while voting – ‘you make our vote count and we will begin voting again’. [1]\n\n[1] Caryl, Christian, ‘In Praise of Apathy’, Foreign Policy, 24 October 2012\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9bb4328b07351c96efe7ea7893e3b29d",
"text": "voting it worth voting first past post systems My vote does not count\n\nIn safe seats, indeed right across the country there will be millions of votes that will not count when everything is added up because of our first past the post system. [1] Essentially the system means that all the votes that are cast for those who are not the winning candidate do not count at all. In a safe seat there is no way a single vote is going to help overturn some of the immense majorities the party in power has, they could put a monkey for election in these seats and it would still get in.\n\n[1] In the UK take a look at the voter power index to see how worthwhile or otherwise your vote is\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "156864ea24d1fdab36645fd1836a95c9",
"text": "voting it worth voting first past post systems Politicians will simply ignore how we vote\n\nEven if I do vote who is to say that politicians will actually listen to what I say. A lot of government policy is responding to events, no one who voted for Tony Blair in 2005 voted for bail outs of banks in 2008 by what was then a new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, who had not even faced the electorate. Moreover political parties do not seem to feel that they are tied to their own manifestos. In the United States Obama promised to close Guantanamo yet it is still open. [1] In the UK the Liberal Democrats said in their manifesto they would not raise tuition fees for UK Universities yet this is exactly what they did when they got into government. [2]\n\n[1] Negrin, Matt, ‘Guantanamo Bay: Still Open, Despite Promises’, ABC News, 3 July 2012, also follow our Securing Liberty blog for updates on Guantanamo Bay and other civil liberties issues:\n\n[2] Robinson, Nick, ‘Senior Lib Dems apologise over tuition fees pledge’, BBC News, 20 September 2012\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
de6865e0bcd408efdf15fa21441598c4
|
Politicians don’t engage with issues that are important to me
Political parties are not about issues, they are either about ideologies or are purely about trying to triangulate on enough issues so that they can get into power. With relatively few parties able to get representation in the Parliament how can I be sure that my views on issues will be represented. If I want isolationism then who should I vote for in the US election? Both candidates say they want similar policies which are not at all isolationist. [1] Often there is little choice; in the US there are only two real options, the democrats and the republicans, [2] while in the UK all three main parties occupy very similar ground in the centre. [3] The problem is similar if I am interested in multiple issues but no party has a similar portfolio of views.
[1] Helling, Alex, ‘The debate for the rest of the world’, idebate.org, 23 October 2012
[2] Caryl, Christian, ‘In Praise of Apathy’, Foreign Policy, 24 October 2012
[3] Parker, George, and Pickard, Jim, ‘Centre prize: why UK political parties look more and more the same’, Financial Times, 4 March 2008
|
[
{
"docid": "da646f51223401a5f1fe88dcac7c53bc",
"text": "voting it worth voting first past post systems Parties go to the centre because that is where the votes are. You are perfectly at liberty to vote for more minor parties. If you want nationalisation vote communist, clean energy vote green etc. Your vote may not elect a representative but the person who becomes your representative is likely to see which single issue parties received votes in his constituency and act accordingly. Ultimately only one party can govern at a time so it will never be the case that everyone can get their way on the issues they are interested in, but if you don’t vote no one will pay any attention at all.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e1794c6da8ee4f5b8e1f64ccd938f626",
"text": "voting it worth voting first past post systems This is nearly always not actually a reason not to vote as because in almost every constituency the number of people who do not vote outnumbers the vote of the winning party this means if everyone who does not vote did as you will do and all get out and vote the vote could go any way, even a fringe party could be elected if the non-voters vote together. To illustrate lets take a look at Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, one of the safest seats in the UK, former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s seat. In 2010 Labour won with 65.2% of the vote, [1] with 29559 labour votes compared to 6550 SNP a majority of 23009. [2] However in this seat turnout was only 62.2% that means that 27863 people did not vote, considerably more than voted for Labour. If they voted together for someone else those who do not vote could always throw out the party in power. No seat is therefore really a safe seat, they are safe because who believe their vote is not worthwhile do not bother to vote when in reality if they did they could make a difference. Indeed in the Scottish elections of 2011 the SNP managed to take a large part of this same seat. [3]\n\n[1] Electoral Calculus, Majority Sorted Seats\n\n[2] Wells, Anthony, Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, UKPollingReport, 2010\n\n[3] ‘Vote 2011 Scotland elections, Kirkcaldy’, BBC News, 11 May 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e182c12f8e0e3bc26020f80cd9b48be",
"text": "voting it worth voting first past post systems We can never be sure what these apathetic voters are saying because they have not said it – some might want a change in the electoral system, or might rouse themselves to vote if one of the options becomes extreme but this may not be the case. In the UK voters rejected the option of changing the electoral system to the alternative vote [1] which would have been more representative so making their voice matter more in future elections. [2]\n\n[1] Hawkins, Ross, ‘Vote 2011: UK rejects alternative vote’, BBC News, 7 May 2011\n\n[2] Jones, Charlotte R., ‘This House would adopt the alternative vote’, Debatabase, 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb7f07a8c8f248a9ac1b209a90fa0e4a",
"text": "voting it worth voting first past post systems Yes politicians will sometimes break their promises or for some reason not be able to fulfil them. When the Liberal Democrats made their manifesto they did not expect to be in coalition with the Conservatives, with two incompatible manifestos some things were going to have to be dropped. Equally sometimes the party in power will find they can’t get through the changes they want. The point of voting when events might overtake a manifesto is that the party’s ideology will tell you how they are likely to react – a libertarian in 10 Downing Street would have let the banks go bust or a communist would have nationalised them. Many could have anticipated that a Labour government would engage in some kind of bail out to save savers and the system. By having voted for the Labour party voters were saying they wanted a slightly left of centre response to events.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "975d3468ed5bdbd9bf27a31dd6aa2373",
"text": "voting it worth voting first past post systems I am only one of thousands of voters who elect my MP so my vote is not going to help hold ‘my’ representative to account. In the UK the average number of voters in each constituency is 68,175 [1] and some have majorities of tens of thousands. In the US House of Representatives the figure is more than ten times this number at 710,767 [2] with so many other voters how will my attempt to hold them to account actually matter?\n\n[1] ‘Parliamentary constituencies’, parliament.uk\n\n[2] Burnett, Kristin D., ‘Congressional Apportionment’, 2010 Census Briefs, November 2011\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "642d1950ba36efc5b2c50785df1bd1c6",
"text": "voting it worth voting first past post systems The chances of you being the one who matters in a marginal contest are infinitesimally small. First most elections are not won on narrow margins and second you are unlikely to be in the right place at the right time. The FPTP system means that very few votes actually matter like this unlike in a proportional system where almost every vote would have a very similar worth.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d7cb72fd93e9ac78c1a24f0f7ab4245",
"text": "voting it worth voting first past post systems The question here then essentially lies in do we appreciate our democracy? Does voting every 5 years actually count as a democracy? Does the fact that we have a first past the post system represent our views as a democracy should? The history of voting and the ability of other around the world to vote really has very little bearing on whether we should vote. Voting for the one party, or an other, or none at all is not going to result in me not being able to vote in the future. If losing the vote becomes a real possibility in the future then we can be sure that many currently apathetic voters will turn out because such a vote really would matter.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a699a4f45f14ee6627f5f342f2bb0cff",
"text": "voting it worth voting first past post systems The idea that someone who has voted might be more entitled to complain about things is absurd. Yes they have shown how they want the government to run but the idea that their voice is heard on all these particular issues is patently silly.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "48d9445f7fd02447470ce492caad928e",
"text": "voting it worth voting first past post systems Many voters are making an active choice when they decide not to vote, they are either showing that they recognise how little impact their vote will have, or else that they do not believe that it is worth their while spending the time to vote. [1] Finally even if they are not making an active choice not to vote and don’t vote due to ignorance is that really a dereliction of their civic duty? Does it not show that politics, politicians, and parties have not done enough to engage with these voters and tell them why, when and where they can vote? It should be up to politicians to persuade us that they are worthy of our votes.\n\n[1] Caryl, Christian, ‘In Praise of Apathy’, Foreign Policy, 24 October 2012\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7bb3a053a50696645d0fac8695db1550",
"text": "voting it worth voting first past post systems Not voting is voicing an opinion that is as important as any vote\n\nIn both the UK and the US non voters are the biggest block in the country. Governments are routinely voted in with only 30% of the eligible voters – and once it is counted compared against the total population it becomes lower still. We should therefore not assume that these people are all not trying to tell us anything rather they are pointing out that they know how little their vote counts so see no point in casting it. In the United States only 32% of voters agree that only having two parties is good. The non-voters could well therefore be telling us that there needs to be a radical change in the system before it is worth their while voting – ‘you make our vote count and we will begin voting again’. [1]\n\n[1] Caryl, Christian, ‘In Praise of Apathy’, Foreign Policy, 24 October 2012\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9bb4328b07351c96efe7ea7893e3b29d",
"text": "voting it worth voting first past post systems My vote does not count\n\nIn safe seats, indeed right across the country there will be millions of votes that will not count when everything is added up because of our first past the post system. [1] Essentially the system means that all the votes that are cast for those who are not the winning candidate do not count at all. In a safe seat there is no way a single vote is going to help overturn some of the immense majorities the party in power has, they could put a monkey for election in these seats and it would still get in.\n\n[1] In the UK take a look at the voter power index to see how worthwhile or otherwise your vote is\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "156864ea24d1fdab36645fd1836a95c9",
"text": "voting it worth voting first past post systems Politicians will simply ignore how we vote\n\nEven if I do vote who is to say that politicians will actually listen to what I say. A lot of government policy is responding to events, no one who voted for Tony Blair in 2005 voted for bail outs of banks in 2008 by what was then a new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, who had not even faced the electorate. Moreover political parties do not seem to feel that they are tied to their own manifestos. In the United States Obama promised to close Guantanamo yet it is still open. [1] In the UK the Liberal Democrats said in their manifesto they would not raise tuition fees for UK Universities yet this is exactly what they did when they got into government. [2]\n\n[1] Negrin, Matt, ‘Guantanamo Bay: Still Open, Despite Promises’, ABC News, 3 July 2012, also follow our Securing Liberty blog for updates on Guantanamo Bay and other civil liberties issues:\n\n[2] Robinson, Nick, ‘Senior Lib Dems apologise over tuition fees pledge’, BBC News, 20 September 2012\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "87f3b12cf143dfae02d1b10a8be69f0a",
"text": "voting it worth voting first past post systems Hold politicians to account\n\nFor the most part in countries with FPTP we don’t like our politicians. In the United States Congress has a job approval rate of 21% and it is often lower [1] while in the UK in 2009 only 1% were ‘very satisfied’ with MPs (total of 29% satisfied 44% dissatisfied). [2] Well elections are your chance to hold them to account by voting for someone else. Elected politicians are there to represent you but if you don’t vote your voice wont be heard and you wont be able to hold your representative to account for what they have done during their time in office. There are increasingly websites which will show you how your MP voted making it simple to find out if they are representing you as you would wish and so making it possible to decide how you will vote on the basis of your representative’s record rather than just their stated intentions at the time of the election.\n\n[1] Jones, Jeffrey M., ‘U.S. Congress’ Approval Rating at 21% Ahead of Elections’, Gallup Politics, 24 October 2012\n\n[2] ‘Satisfaction with Members of Parliament 1991-2009’, Ipsos MORI, 4 March 2010 , (NB satisfaction with own MP is always higher)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d4426268187076a180caef39ecf5fc93",
"text": "voting it worth voting first past post systems Have your say\n\nDemocracy allows you to have your say and it is important you take advantage of that. It is unusual that your particular vote will make an immense difference but just occasionally it might make all the difference. Barak Obama’s 2012 campaign is running an ad called 537 the ad says this is \"the difference between what was and what could have been.” As it is the number of votes that won the Presidency for George W. Bush over Al Gore in Florida in 2000. “So this year if you're thinking that your vote doesn't count, that it won't matter, well, back then there were probably 537 people who felt the same way. Make your voice heard.\" [1] There will always be places where there are victories by such a small margin. Most of the time it will be known where these marginal contests are but if enough people who have not voted in the past vote previous votes or the pollsters may count for nothing. You never know it might be you who makes the difference, so go vote!\n\n[1] Rama, Padmananda, ‘Obama Campaign Invokes ‘537’ To Get Out The Vote’, NPR, 24 October 2012\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "58b687b997de1f7471a3d65b9589e147",
"text": "voting it worth voting first past post systems No right to complain\n\nWe all complain, whether it is about the lack of places for schools, higher university fees, trains not running on time, or about how we are being ripped off by the shops. In almost every case the things we may complain about can be influenced by the government either directly as with education policy or indirectly through taxation or regulation. Voting is your one chance to show what agenda you want to government to take; do you want more regulation or less, do you want tuition fees paid by the government or individuals? Of course not everything will be contested in every election but some will be. But next time you complain about something if it actually matters find a party that wants to do something about it and vote for them.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7a96d02e2a539853b898cc3f2d56b138",
"text": "voting it worth voting first past post systems Civic duty\n\nVoting is a civic duty, just as paying taxes and jury service. As a citizen of your nation it is your duty to take thirty minutes out of your day every few years to go and vote in an election. This duty is not a very onerous one but it is an important one because the foundation of our government is that it is democratic, and how can it be democratic if the people won’t vote? If the government is to represent the people the people must vote for it. Some civic duties such as taxes are compulsory and while it is not the case that voting is compulsory in the UK and USA it is elsewhere for example Australia and Belgium. [1] That it is not compulsory is consistent with our freedoms so there is the possibility of making the active choice not to vote. With the right to vote comes the responsibility to use it.\n\n[1] ‘ Compulsory Voting’, Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, updated 21 March 2012 also see our debate on compulsory voting\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2669a0aeb3ff18d8da6a9e39a3ff7c1f",
"text": "voting it worth voting first past post systems We don’t just vote for ourselves\n\nYou are very lucky that you have the chance to vote to choose and influence your government. Most people throughout history have not had this chance; in the UK women only received the vote in 1918 and most men only received the right in the nineteenth century. [1] In the United States the timings were similar with freed slaves not voting until 1970 (even in 1940 only 3% of African Americans in the south were registered) and women not until 1919. [2] We should remember the sacrifices of all those who have fought for the right to vote. Moreover huge numbers of people live in countries where these rights have not yet been won – just think of the 1.3 billion people in China who have no input into the change in the leadership, the Politburo Standing Committee, every ten years. [3] As voting has not been an automatic right throughout history you need to vote not just for yourself but for your children and their children in order to ensure that they have the benefit of growing up in a democracy such as the one you live in.\n\n[1] ‘Chartists Key dates’, parliament.uk\n\n[2] ‘ Timeline: Voting Rights Act’, American Civil Liberties Union\n\n[3] Li, Cheng, ‘The Battle for China’s Top Nine Leadership Posts’, The Washington Quarterly, Vol.35, No.1, pp.131-145, Winter 2012\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
3dd682f1c7858d31c1b75d39d23cf1e7
|
Open primaries will lead to an intensification of lobbying activities
Elections, particularly in the United States, can be prone to excessive lobbying by various interest groups who fund candidates who are more likely to support their point of view whilst also pouring efforts into ensuring the defeat of those who are opposed to their interests (See the fate of Rep. Richard Pombo, who was defeated after a campaign by the Sierra Club [1] ).
Primary elections exacerbates this, with 527 groups affiliated to certain interest groups being able to lobby and fund numerous candidates in the primary to ensure that regardless of the result, their interests are best preserved. This can be harmful as it further allows for corporate capture of the election cycle, with candidates positioning themselves in relation to the aims of those who helped them gain the candidacy rather than the voters who put them there. This undermines the ability of legislators to arbitrate between competing claims when making law, creating less effective government.
[1] Carlton, Jim, ‘Pombo Embarks on Fresh Path’, The Wall Street Journal, 22 February 2010, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703455804575058372413222414.html
|
[
{
"docid": "7430ee2ca1e1af3d964fa306179b93e7",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes open primaries are most There is a large problem with lobbying in the United States but the influence they exert would be worse if there was no system. The efforts of interest groups would be exerted upon one candidate from each party, whereas Primaries make it harder for interest groups and 527’s to gain access to power as there are multiple hurdles for their candidate to overcome to win power and gain influence over policy. Primaries can also prevent capture of entire parties by interest groups as can happen in countries where funding of candidates comes directly from the central party such as the United Kingdom (where the role Trade Unions for example have 50% of the vote in the labour party conference [1] ). Candidate discretion is more likely in Primary systems, giving more choice over what the general election candidate will support as opposed to just following the lead of the party leadership, which causes more disillusionment to politics in the long run.\n\n[1] ‘Ed Miliband ‘plans to water down trade unions’ influence over labour’’, The Telegraph, 3 August 2011, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/8678413/Ed-Miliband-plans-to-water-down-trade-unions-influence-over-Labour.html\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "9f947e91a2165e9713c6646928dc1cb4",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes open primaries are most Open Primaries have proven themselves to be a means of engagement in the political process, providing scrutiny of individual candidates before approving the program that they stand for. Open Primaries maintain scrutiny over individual action as opposed to merely scrutinising the actions of the party as a whole, giving voters a chance to provide a nuanced results in elections. Politicians can still focus on their job of representing the people under an Open Primary system, as it is their actions in conducting that particular role that will decide their success in reselection by the electorate they represent.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d214d1003100e67b72ee12f71f98e4a",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes open primaries are most This Argument does not stack up. The large numbers of people voting in Primary elections will mean many ‘apoliticals’ will counter the worst partisan tactics (if any) being used in the election. If there has been any impact of opposition party involvement upon the internal politics of a party, it has been to elect more centrist candidates that the greatest number of voters can find palatable. That in itself is no bad thing, as politics can become extremely partisan at times, it does help to have candidates who can be moderate and be more prepared to compromise in order to the best possible outcome for all they represent.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "572b626367f709bc313c0d4b31defb53",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes open primaries are most While centrist candidates maybe preferred in Primary elections, but it is a choice that has been made by the people when presented with a full ideological spectrum by the range of candidates standing for elections.\n\nAppeal to Swing voters is what matters in elections anyway so what Open Primaries do is make that abundantly clear, with the candidate most likely to carry swing voters in the general election most likely to win the candidacy. This makes party leaderships think hard about what voters want and how to incorporate that into policy.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b97ae20a5f979f7a2dbb192d28edb467",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes open primaries are most Only in exceptional circumstances are major splits caused by Primary election. What tends to happen is that Primaries act as a stimulus to healthy debate over what the party stands for, with candidates from all parts of the political spectrum engaging in a contest to define the party in line with the wishes of the electorate.\n\nCandidates focus on themselves, while the party leaderships can still play the role of holistically overseeing proceedings to make sure that the focus still remains the general election and what happens after the ballots in the primary election have been counted. It is possible to have rigorous primary campaigns without there being major splits that harm the party’s performance in the general election (The performance of The Democratic Party in 1992 bears this out).\n\nWhile there maybe an emphasis on candidacy and personality, it helps to form a clear of what the party stands for in the general elections, marking out a clear choice between the parties at election time.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "071a7b880f8104815811d48c5713900c",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes open primaries are most This happens in theory but in practise does not work this way. Precedent in the United States has shown that political discourse is still fractious despite the presence of Open Primaries as it is still the ideologically focussed base that that vote and decide such elections on a low turnout.\n\nEven if Propositions contentions were true, it can be argued that it is the lack of clear dividing lines between parties that can cause major disillusionment in politics, with many parties now subscribing to a broadly neoliberal world view as has happened in the UK where parties regularly cross-dress, appeal to the same groups and steal each other’s policies. [1] The lack of clear ideology engendered by Open Primaries would make such disillusionment worse. Two parties that agree on everything would seriously damage turnout as no clear choice is presented to the electorate.\n\n[1] Ash, Timothy Garton, ‘If our political parties did not exist would we ever need to invent them?’, The Guardian, 25 October 2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/oct/25/comment.eu\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4a918a907a744b296fde48705c59b0bd",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes open primaries are most Contests between those of the same party are in their nature divisive and distract from the aim of winning the general election. Debates about Ideological nuance are not major reasons for non-political voters to go to the polls. Debates about those issues have largely been the preserve of those who are party members and as a result should stay within that sphere.\n\nGreater competition can be engendered through other means, such as Proportional Representation that leads to real competition between all parties in all areas of a country as opposed to a contest between candidates who have no real differences of opinion.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a18ab42624aeb4992249a311d75cc90",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes open primaries are most Party power is exercised heavily in countries where Open Primaries exist. In the United States, it is common for a political party to openly back a candidate in Primary Elections for Congressional seats. This can give said candidate a major head start, with the massive financial backing and exposure in the public eye that follows resulting in predictable results. [1] Only special circumstances see incumbents defeated (See the rise of the Tea Party and its effect on the US Republican Party), with Primaries being largely predictable affairs. These results in a lack of interest in many Primary contests, making them little more than sideshows that distract from the process of government.\n\n[1] ‘“Open” Primaries and the Illusion of Choice’, open salon, 9 June 2010, http://open.salon.com/blog/front_porch_republic/2010/06/09/open_primaries_and_the_illusion_of_choice\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0da37d7058c7fd54d76f5e73b6a69263",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes open primaries are most The whole point of Democracy is that there are losers as well as winners. It is not up to political parties to accommodate those who disagree with them by accommodating their policies. Parties and the candidates who stand on their behalf must be able to justify their own views and polices to the electorate, without them being diluted by the outside influence of those who may actually fundamentally disagree with what the party believes in. Those on the fringe are better off advocating their policies better instead of voting for candidates of the party they do not support.\n\nVery occasionally an open primary may allow an independent to seriously run, but this will be so rare that it will not compensate for having their independent platforms at elections.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "32572489e29097f8f5d535cbe84a09a8",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes open primaries are most People feel disengaged with politics in general not because they don’t have a say over candidacies, but because of the constant merry-go-round that is electoral politics. The voter fatigue that comes from the constant chase for votes from parties will not decrease. If anything, it will increase as candidates and media coverage is dominated by speculation over who will be a candidate for office rather than who will gain the office actually up for election, causing further disillusionment with the political process.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9fe040c89460ab58f5fcb72630fea0b8",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes open primaries are most Open primaries will lead to an increase in disputes internal to political parties\n\nPrimary elections can be extremely damaging to parties as it engenders cleaves and splits which damage chances of election. Election campaigns between candidates from the same party can become feverish, particularly if the contest is close (See the Democratic Presidential Primary in 2008).\n\nThis can be damaging as parties are made to spend their time focussing their energies on themselves instead of the opposition only to create an image of a divided party that alienates voters who prefer parties who can convey a coherent message about what they can provide for the future.\n\nPrimaries obscure what a party is about, changing the focus from being about policy and the message of the party to the candidate with personal attributes such as image being of importance. This makes politics much more superficial than it already is.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "00e47b09b83b14901b8fcd7bab1cfce0",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes open primaries are most Open primaries obscure the distinctions between political parties\n\nPrimaries tend to favour candidates that are more centrist in nature, as non-committed voters are more likely to vote for such a candidate than grass roots members of the party hosting the primary, who are much more likely to prefer a candidate who is more ideological.\n\nThe dominance of centrist candidates in primaries may lead to convergence between the major parties to the extent that there is little difference between them for voters to choose from in the general election. [1] This creates the harm of not presenting a clear democratic choice to voters, which can help feed the discontent with politics that discontent hopes will be countered by Open Primaries.\n\n[1] White, Stuart, ‘Why open primaries are a really bad idea’, NextLeft, 26 May 2009, http://www.nextleft.org/2009/05/why-open-primaries-are-really-bad-idea.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "93af40c29db7872d460fd72ec3beaddf",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes open primaries are most Open primaries will distract and confuse the majority of the electorate\n\nPrimary Elections do little more than provide a distraction to the political process. Instead of focusing on the political process for the maximum time possible between elections, politicians are constantly distracted by electioneering, not just to be re-elected but also to seek selection as their party’s candidate.\n\nThis may create a dangerous precedent of politics being little more than one constant election cycle, with decision being made to please constituents in order to win two elections. We see this the most in the US House of Representatives, where decisions influencing ‘pork-barrel’ spending are made with the main aim of keeping constituents happy in order to avoid primary defeat, to the detriment of government being more disposed to dysfunction. [1]\n\nThe constant election cycle can cause disillusionment with voters who fail to see tangible effects of what the politicians the elect do yet face constant electioneering. By only hosting general elections, a clear focus is provided for candidates and electorate alike, allowing for scrutiny to be based upon the actions of politicians and the party they represent against the opposition who seek to replace them.\n\n[1] Rauch, Jonathan, ‘Earmarks Are A Model, Not A Menace’, NationalJournal, 14 March 2009, http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/st_20090314_4955.php\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "25ac5445d430b8fdbf7485aecb2dabc9",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes open primaries are most Open primaries are open to manipulation\n\nBecause political persuasion is no bar to voting in a Primary election, it can make the internal elections within parties be open to manipulation from those hostile to the aims of the party and the candidates running for election.\n\nWe have seen instances where ‘unelectable’ candidates have been elected by Open Primary as means of discrediting a party and helping their opponents win the general election. A famous instance of this was in the Democratic Primary for the US Senate seat in South Carolina, where the winner, Alvin Greene became the candidate with little advertising or successful fundraising, leading to accusations of a Republican campaign to make re-election of their incumbent, Jim DeMint, much easier. [1]\n\nIn other instances, it is also possible that the opposition party can use the election as a means of electing a candidate that most reflects their views, neutering the effect of losing the general election. Either way, Open Primaries can be manipulated to create unrealistic outcomes that neither the party nor the electorate truly want, damaging the political process.\n\n[1] ‘Alvin Greene’s implausible S.C. victory: 6 theories’, the week, 10 June 2010, http://theweek.com/article/index/203864/alvin-greenes-implausible-sc-victory-6-theories\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9dfbf0c4f9f9e0aaf6149870d042d42e",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes open primaries are most Open primaries promote moderate, non-partisan politics\n\nBy creating a situation whereby all voters have a potential say in selecting candidates, it can prevent overweening control by party grass roots who may vote for overtly ideological candidates who turn off the moderate voters needed to win elections.\n\nAn Open Primary is more likely to choose more centrist candidates for the general election, providing a degree of moderation to the process of election and politics in general. This in turn can help foster a consensual atmosphere in political discourse with general agreed points, focusing the debate on more core issues between the main parties. [1]\n\nThis then means that much more is likely to get done. At the moment American politics is plagued by gridlock both in the states and in Congress. Individuals elected under open primaries are much more likely to be willing to compromise across the aisle. [2] As a result government will begin moving again.\n\n[1] ‘Editorial: California should switch to open primary elections’, The Stanford Daily, 12 May 2010, http://www.stanforddaily.com/2010/05/12/editorial-california-should-switch-to-open-primary-elections/\n\n[2] Michael Alvarez, R., and Sinclair, Betsy, ‘Electoral Institutions and Legislative Behavior: The Effects of Primary Processes’, P.2 http://home.uchicago.edu/betsy/papers/Sinclair_BlanketPrimary.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6315beb786700d1d37281067ad62767d",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes open primaries are most Open primaries allow the electorate to express nuanced polling choices\n\nOpen Primaries allows for the electorate to make a considered choice between candidate and party, with other considerations beyond the partisan being up for consideration.\n\nIn safe districts, voters are given a choice between members of the same party, allowing for voters to effectively choose the next member based upon past record and views on big issues, allowing for the ideological cleavages within parties to brought under closer examination, with voters in the safe seat choosing the type of Conservatism/Liberalism/Socialism they prefer. [1]\n\nThis can help to provide choice even when one party is already assured of winning the seat, thus providing a degree of competition in the district, engaging voters in the electoral process.\n\n[1] Skelton, George, ‘California open primaries? Give them a chance’, Los Angeles Times, 11 February 2010, http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/11/local/la-me-cap11-2010feb11\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "db36d89d68f6e60e538602774aa34001",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes open primaries are most Open primaries promote engagement with political minorities\n\nA major problem with general elections, specifically in countries such as the United States, United Kingdom and Canada which use Majoritarian Simple Plurality electoral systems, is that only two major parties (e.g. Democrats and Republicans) are in contention for power or in some cases representation, leaving those that have loyalties elsewhere feeling disenfranchised from a political system that does not take into account of their point of view.\n\nOpen Primaries counters this by allowing these voters a chance to vote for candidates of a major party that are closer to their own political persuasion, thus giving as many people as possible the opportunity to register their opinion on who will be their representative for the next term, ending disillusionment with predictable election results. This means that third party candidates may become serious candidates in elections when they pass the primary test. [1]\n\n[1] Nielson, Susan, ‘Open Oregon’s primaries’, The Oregonian, 13 October 2008, http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2008/10/open_oregons_primaries.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a2551157f59aca0780b027887a3b06a",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes open primaries are most Increasing voter engagement\n\nA major problem with politics in Western Liberal Democracies is that electorates feel disengaged from the political process as they are generally presented with a choice between parties at irregular intervals without much oversight over the calibre of candidate presented to them by each party.\n\nThis issue would be countered by introducing Open Primaries for candidates to elections. By making candidates from the same party compete for a party candidacy by appealing to the same group that will choose between all parties in General Elections, voters will have a chance to greater examine each prospective candidate at greater detail, allowing for a more considered choice of candidate than the binary choice made at elections. [1]\n\nBy giving more time to voters, this will increase interest in what candidates have to say, and allow those of all political persuasions to contribute to the debate, turning contests away from ideology and towards representation.\n\n[1] Hannan, Daniel, ‘Conservative Democrats prove the case for open primaries’, The Telegraph, 18th July 2009, http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100003880/conservative-democrats-prove-the-case-for-open-primaries/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "605f335c057550242797ad8675277bec",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes open primaries are most Open primaries prevent the centralisation of party power\n\nPolitical Parties are able to wield considerable power, controlling their party members and representatives, particularly in Parliamentary political systems. Through use of patronage and the threat of sanctions such as deselection, party leaders are able to manipulate representatives to fulfil their own aims rather than those of constituents. [1]\n\nBy instituting Open Primaries, the focus of representatives shifts from the party leadership to the constituents whom prospective candidates hope to represent. Scrutiny over the representative’s conduct would be in the hands of the voters, with reselection in an Open Primary being contingent upon the member looking after the interests of their constituents, rather than the interest of the party as is the case in many countries that do not have Open Primary systems. [2] By using Open Primaries, elections once again becomes about representing the people as opposed to being a means to power as is the case under the status quo in countries that do not use it.\n\n[1] Stone, Daniel, ‘Prop 14’s Winners and Losers’, Newsweek, 8 June 2010, http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/06/09/prop-14-s-winners-and-losers.html\n\n[2] Triggs, Matthew, ‘Open primaries’, Adam Smith Institute, 16 September 2010, http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/politics-and-government/open-primaries\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
c792582c3bfc4f3353f172a5226c946b
|
Open primaries will distract and confuse the majority of the electorate
Primary Elections do little more than provide a distraction to the political process. Instead of focusing on the political process for the maximum time possible between elections, politicians are constantly distracted by electioneering, not just to be re-elected but also to seek selection as their party’s candidate.
This may create a dangerous precedent of politics being little more than one constant election cycle, with decision being made to please constituents in order to win two elections. We see this the most in the US House of Representatives, where decisions influencing ‘pork-barrel’ spending are made with the main aim of keeping constituents happy in order to avoid primary defeat, to the detriment of government being more disposed to dysfunction. [1]
The constant election cycle can cause disillusionment with voters who fail to see tangible effects of what the politicians the elect do yet face constant electioneering. By only hosting general elections, a clear focus is provided for candidates and electorate alike, allowing for scrutiny to be based upon the actions of politicians and the party they represent against the opposition who seek to replace them.
[1] Rauch, Jonathan, ‘Earmarks Are A Model, Not A Menace’, NationalJournal, 14 March 2009, http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/st_20090314_4955.php
|
[
{
"docid": "9f947e91a2165e9713c6646928dc1cb4",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes open primaries are most Open Primaries have proven themselves to be a means of engagement in the political process, providing scrutiny of individual candidates before approving the program that they stand for. Open Primaries maintain scrutiny over individual action as opposed to merely scrutinising the actions of the party as a whole, giving voters a chance to provide a nuanced results in elections. Politicians can still focus on their job of representing the people under an Open Primary system, as it is their actions in conducting that particular role that will decide their success in reselection by the electorate they represent.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7430ee2ca1e1af3d964fa306179b93e7",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes open primaries are most There is a large problem with lobbying in the United States but the influence they exert would be worse if there was no system. The efforts of interest groups would be exerted upon one candidate from each party, whereas Primaries make it harder for interest groups and 527’s to gain access to power as there are multiple hurdles for their candidate to overcome to win power and gain influence over policy. Primaries can also prevent capture of entire parties by interest groups as can happen in countries where funding of candidates comes directly from the central party such as the United Kingdom (where the role Trade Unions for example have 50% of the vote in the labour party conference [1] ). Candidate discretion is more likely in Primary systems, giving more choice over what the general election candidate will support as opposed to just following the lead of the party leadership, which causes more disillusionment to politics in the long run.\n\n[1] ‘Ed Miliband ‘plans to water down trade unions’ influence over labour’’, The Telegraph, 3 August 2011, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/8678413/Ed-Miliband-plans-to-water-down-trade-unions-influence-over-Labour.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d214d1003100e67b72ee12f71f98e4a",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes open primaries are most This Argument does not stack up. The large numbers of people voting in Primary elections will mean many ‘apoliticals’ will counter the worst partisan tactics (if any) being used in the election. If there has been any impact of opposition party involvement upon the internal politics of a party, it has been to elect more centrist candidates that the greatest number of voters can find palatable. That in itself is no bad thing, as politics can become extremely partisan at times, it does help to have candidates who can be moderate and be more prepared to compromise in order to the best possible outcome for all they represent.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "572b626367f709bc313c0d4b31defb53",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes open primaries are most While centrist candidates maybe preferred in Primary elections, but it is a choice that has been made by the people when presented with a full ideological spectrum by the range of candidates standing for elections.\n\nAppeal to Swing voters is what matters in elections anyway so what Open Primaries do is make that abundantly clear, with the candidate most likely to carry swing voters in the general election most likely to win the candidacy. This makes party leaderships think hard about what voters want and how to incorporate that into policy.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b97ae20a5f979f7a2dbb192d28edb467",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes open primaries are most Only in exceptional circumstances are major splits caused by Primary election. What tends to happen is that Primaries act as a stimulus to healthy debate over what the party stands for, with candidates from all parts of the political spectrum engaging in a contest to define the party in line with the wishes of the electorate.\n\nCandidates focus on themselves, while the party leaderships can still play the role of holistically overseeing proceedings to make sure that the focus still remains the general election and what happens after the ballots in the primary election have been counted. It is possible to have rigorous primary campaigns without there being major splits that harm the party’s performance in the general election (The performance of The Democratic Party in 1992 bears this out).\n\nWhile there maybe an emphasis on candidacy and personality, it helps to form a clear of what the party stands for in the general elections, marking out a clear choice between the parties at election time.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "071a7b880f8104815811d48c5713900c",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes open primaries are most This happens in theory but in practise does not work this way. Precedent in the United States has shown that political discourse is still fractious despite the presence of Open Primaries as it is still the ideologically focussed base that that vote and decide such elections on a low turnout.\n\nEven if Propositions contentions were true, it can be argued that it is the lack of clear dividing lines between parties that can cause major disillusionment in politics, with many parties now subscribing to a broadly neoliberal world view as has happened in the UK where parties regularly cross-dress, appeal to the same groups and steal each other’s policies. [1] The lack of clear ideology engendered by Open Primaries would make such disillusionment worse. Two parties that agree on everything would seriously damage turnout as no clear choice is presented to the electorate.\n\n[1] Ash, Timothy Garton, ‘If our political parties did not exist would we ever need to invent them?’, The Guardian, 25 October 2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/oct/25/comment.eu\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4a918a907a744b296fde48705c59b0bd",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes open primaries are most Contests between those of the same party are in their nature divisive and distract from the aim of winning the general election. Debates about Ideological nuance are not major reasons for non-political voters to go to the polls. Debates about those issues have largely been the preserve of those who are party members and as a result should stay within that sphere.\n\nGreater competition can be engendered through other means, such as Proportional Representation that leads to real competition between all parties in all areas of a country as opposed to a contest between candidates who have no real differences of opinion.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a18ab42624aeb4992249a311d75cc90",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes open primaries are most Party power is exercised heavily in countries where Open Primaries exist. In the United States, it is common for a political party to openly back a candidate in Primary Elections for Congressional seats. This can give said candidate a major head start, with the massive financial backing and exposure in the public eye that follows resulting in predictable results. [1] Only special circumstances see incumbents defeated (See the rise of the Tea Party and its effect on the US Republican Party), with Primaries being largely predictable affairs. These results in a lack of interest in many Primary contests, making them little more than sideshows that distract from the process of government.\n\n[1] ‘“Open” Primaries and the Illusion of Choice’, open salon, 9 June 2010, http://open.salon.com/blog/front_porch_republic/2010/06/09/open_primaries_and_the_illusion_of_choice\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0da37d7058c7fd54d76f5e73b6a69263",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes open primaries are most The whole point of Democracy is that there are losers as well as winners. It is not up to political parties to accommodate those who disagree with them by accommodating their policies. Parties and the candidates who stand on their behalf must be able to justify their own views and polices to the electorate, without them being diluted by the outside influence of those who may actually fundamentally disagree with what the party believes in. Those on the fringe are better off advocating their policies better instead of voting for candidates of the party they do not support.\n\nVery occasionally an open primary may allow an independent to seriously run, but this will be so rare that it will not compensate for having their independent platforms at elections.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "32572489e29097f8f5d535cbe84a09a8",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes open primaries are most People feel disengaged with politics in general not because they don’t have a say over candidacies, but because of the constant merry-go-round that is electoral politics. The voter fatigue that comes from the constant chase for votes from parties will not decrease. If anything, it will increase as candidates and media coverage is dominated by speculation over who will be a candidate for office rather than who will gain the office actually up for election, causing further disillusionment with the political process.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9fe040c89460ab58f5fcb72630fea0b8",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes open primaries are most Open primaries will lead to an increase in disputes internal to political parties\n\nPrimary elections can be extremely damaging to parties as it engenders cleaves and splits which damage chances of election. Election campaigns between candidates from the same party can become feverish, particularly if the contest is close (See the Democratic Presidential Primary in 2008).\n\nThis can be damaging as parties are made to spend their time focussing their energies on themselves instead of the opposition only to create an image of a divided party that alienates voters who prefer parties who can convey a coherent message about what they can provide for the future.\n\nPrimaries obscure what a party is about, changing the focus from being about policy and the message of the party to the candidate with personal attributes such as image being of importance. This makes politics much more superficial than it already is.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "00e47b09b83b14901b8fcd7bab1cfce0",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes open primaries are most Open primaries obscure the distinctions between political parties\n\nPrimaries tend to favour candidates that are more centrist in nature, as non-committed voters are more likely to vote for such a candidate than grass roots members of the party hosting the primary, who are much more likely to prefer a candidate who is more ideological.\n\nThe dominance of centrist candidates in primaries may lead to convergence between the major parties to the extent that there is little difference between them for voters to choose from in the general election. [1] This creates the harm of not presenting a clear democratic choice to voters, which can help feed the discontent with politics that discontent hopes will be countered by Open Primaries.\n\n[1] White, Stuart, ‘Why open primaries are a really bad idea’, NextLeft, 26 May 2009, http://www.nextleft.org/2009/05/why-open-primaries-are-really-bad-idea.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3ba10a01d59f55e15b5186625b261306",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes open primaries are most Open primaries will lead to an intensification of lobbying activities\n\nElections, particularly in the United States, can be prone to excessive lobbying by various interest groups who fund candidates who are more likely to support their point of view whilst also pouring efforts into ensuring the defeat of those who are opposed to their interests (See the fate of Rep. Richard Pombo, who was defeated after a campaign by the Sierra Club [1] ).\n\nPrimary elections exacerbates this, with 527 groups affiliated to certain interest groups being able to lobby and fund numerous candidates in the primary to ensure that regardless of the result, their interests are best preserved. This can be harmful as it further allows for corporate capture of the election cycle, with candidates positioning themselves in relation to the aims of those who helped them gain the candidacy rather than the voters who put them there. This undermines the ability of legislators to arbitrate between competing claims when making law, creating less effective government.\n\n[1] Carlton, Jim, ‘Pombo Embarks on Fresh Path’, The Wall Street Journal, 22 February 2010, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703455804575058372413222414.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "25ac5445d430b8fdbf7485aecb2dabc9",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes open primaries are most Open primaries are open to manipulation\n\nBecause political persuasion is no bar to voting in a Primary election, it can make the internal elections within parties be open to manipulation from those hostile to the aims of the party and the candidates running for election.\n\nWe have seen instances where ‘unelectable’ candidates have been elected by Open Primary as means of discrediting a party and helping their opponents win the general election. A famous instance of this was in the Democratic Primary for the US Senate seat in South Carolina, where the winner, Alvin Greene became the candidate with little advertising or successful fundraising, leading to accusations of a Republican campaign to make re-election of their incumbent, Jim DeMint, much easier. [1]\n\nIn other instances, it is also possible that the opposition party can use the election as a means of electing a candidate that most reflects their views, neutering the effect of losing the general election. Either way, Open Primaries can be manipulated to create unrealistic outcomes that neither the party nor the electorate truly want, damaging the political process.\n\n[1] ‘Alvin Greene’s implausible S.C. victory: 6 theories’, the week, 10 June 2010, http://theweek.com/article/index/203864/alvin-greenes-implausible-sc-victory-6-theories\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9dfbf0c4f9f9e0aaf6149870d042d42e",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes open primaries are most Open primaries promote moderate, non-partisan politics\n\nBy creating a situation whereby all voters have a potential say in selecting candidates, it can prevent overweening control by party grass roots who may vote for overtly ideological candidates who turn off the moderate voters needed to win elections.\n\nAn Open Primary is more likely to choose more centrist candidates for the general election, providing a degree of moderation to the process of election and politics in general. This in turn can help foster a consensual atmosphere in political discourse with general agreed points, focusing the debate on more core issues between the main parties. [1]\n\nThis then means that much more is likely to get done. At the moment American politics is plagued by gridlock both in the states and in Congress. Individuals elected under open primaries are much more likely to be willing to compromise across the aisle. [2] As a result government will begin moving again.\n\n[1] ‘Editorial: California should switch to open primary elections’, The Stanford Daily, 12 May 2010, http://www.stanforddaily.com/2010/05/12/editorial-california-should-switch-to-open-primary-elections/\n\n[2] Michael Alvarez, R., and Sinclair, Betsy, ‘Electoral Institutions and Legislative Behavior: The Effects of Primary Processes’, P.2 http://home.uchicago.edu/betsy/papers/Sinclair_BlanketPrimary.pdf\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6315beb786700d1d37281067ad62767d",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes open primaries are most Open primaries allow the electorate to express nuanced polling choices\n\nOpen Primaries allows for the electorate to make a considered choice between candidate and party, with other considerations beyond the partisan being up for consideration.\n\nIn safe districts, voters are given a choice between members of the same party, allowing for voters to effectively choose the next member based upon past record and views on big issues, allowing for the ideological cleavages within parties to brought under closer examination, with voters in the safe seat choosing the type of Conservatism/Liberalism/Socialism they prefer. [1]\n\nThis can help to provide choice even when one party is already assured of winning the seat, thus providing a degree of competition in the district, engaging voters in the electoral process.\n\n[1] Skelton, George, ‘California open primaries? Give them a chance’, Los Angeles Times, 11 February 2010, http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/11/local/la-me-cap11-2010feb11\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "db36d89d68f6e60e538602774aa34001",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes open primaries are most Open primaries promote engagement with political minorities\n\nA major problem with general elections, specifically in countries such as the United States, United Kingdom and Canada which use Majoritarian Simple Plurality electoral systems, is that only two major parties (e.g. Democrats and Republicans) are in contention for power or in some cases representation, leaving those that have loyalties elsewhere feeling disenfranchised from a political system that does not take into account of their point of view.\n\nOpen Primaries counters this by allowing these voters a chance to vote for candidates of a major party that are closer to their own political persuasion, thus giving as many people as possible the opportunity to register their opinion on who will be their representative for the next term, ending disillusionment with predictable election results. This means that third party candidates may become serious candidates in elections when they pass the primary test. [1]\n\n[1] Nielson, Susan, ‘Open Oregon’s primaries’, The Oregonian, 13 October 2008, http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2008/10/open_oregons_primaries.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a2551157f59aca0780b027887a3b06a",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes open primaries are most Increasing voter engagement\n\nA major problem with politics in Western Liberal Democracies is that electorates feel disengaged from the political process as they are generally presented with a choice between parties at irregular intervals without much oversight over the calibre of candidate presented to them by each party.\n\nThis issue would be countered by introducing Open Primaries for candidates to elections. By making candidates from the same party compete for a party candidacy by appealing to the same group that will choose between all parties in General Elections, voters will have a chance to greater examine each prospective candidate at greater detail, allowing for a more considered choice of candidate than the binary choice made at elections. [1]\n\nBy giving more time to voters, this will increase interest in what candidates have to say, and allow those of all political persuasions to contribute to the debate, turning contests away from ideology and towards representation.\n\n[1] Hannan, Daniel, ‘Conservative Democrats prove the case for open primaries’, The Telegraph, 18th July 2009, http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100003880/conservative-democrats-prove-the-case-for-open-primaries/\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "605f335c057550242797ad8675277bec",
"text": "politics general government voting house believes open primaries are most Open primaries prevent the centralisation of party power\n\nPolitical Parties are able to wield considerable power, controlling their party members and representatives, particularly in Parliamentary political systems. Through use of patronage and the threat of sanctions such as deselection, party leaders are able to manipulate representatives to fulfil their own aims rather than those of constituents. [1]\n\nBy instituting Open Primaries, the focus of representatives shifts from the party leadership to the constituents whom prospective candidates hope to represent. Scrutiny over the representative’s conduct would be in the hands of the voters, with reselection in an Open Primary being contingent upon the member looking after the interests of their constituents, rather than the interest of the party as is the case in many countries that do not have Open Primary systems. [2] By using Open Primaries, elections once again becomes about representing the people as opposed to being a means to power as is the case under the status quo in countries that do not use it.\n\n[1] Stone, Daniel, ‘Prop 14’s Winners and Losers’, Newsweek, 8 June 2010, http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/06/09/prop-14-s-winners-and-losers.html\n\n[2] Triggs, Matthew, ‘Open primaries’, Adam Smith Institute, 16 September 2010, http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/politics-and-government/open-primaries\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
b46b225ed059b65e713df28fce3b690d
|
Are the women representative of all women?
How can it be assured the women entering African politics are representative of the women in that African nation? Further, will the leader implement politically popular ideas or required policies?
If we are introducing quotas for women in politics we need to think about what women are entering. The concern with race, ethnicity, age, sexuality, and class is fundamental as if we accept the principle that an unrepresented group should get a quota of parliamentarians this should not just apply to women. We need to think about who the women are, what they represent, and who. Even for women simple quotas do not ensure effective representation of what all women want, or ensure the means for change. Women are heterogeneous, as are their challenges in life.
|
[
{
"docid": "5568d107c8026ff3e513578363886e6f",
"text": "onal africa politics government leadership voting society gender house would The women’s quota is a vital start to tackle underlying inequalities. Quotas of multiple identities such as race, class, age, sexuality, class and ethnicity will need to be included following the implementation of a women’s quota.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "80171865a4e3a709b67cee0813374080",
"text": "onal africa politics government leadership voting society gender house would It remains difficult to compare the experiences of women in Scandinavia and Africa. The contexts – history, ideas, and social geographies – are completely different. While Scandinavia may well not need quotas to change perceptions in Africa it may be the best way to do so. Women in Africa need a voice, and therefore politics provides a platform for their empowerment both vocally and in their use of public space. Quotas are a fast-track. It’s not forcing change but guiding and enabling it.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2b919f0eeca1d336d008eb1e928eff7e",
"text": "onal africa politics government leadership voting society gender house would Working within gender departments does not mean a woman will be limited in integrating with departments of security. Politics is integrated, and interconnected, therefore learning how to run one political department shows how to run another. Having a woman represent a department shows them in a position of power regardless of the department. We should not believe that the department of health is somehow less important than Defense.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0b355f45042ee661dc59608adee4f22d",
"text": "onal africa politics government leadership voting society gender house would Suggesting that feminising African politics will stop poverty and provide empowerment returns to the ideas we attach to women. Women are often associated with domesticity, care, and reproductivity. Who’s to say that this is what women are or what they stand for? Basing quota systems on what women are believed to do is dangerous – in reality behaviour cannot be predicted, as women remain diverse and heterogeneous. A study has shown that there is no relationship between the number of women cabinet members and the sex of the executive implying that women don’t really help other women in politics (Jalalzai, p.196).\n\nAdditionally who is to say that by having women in political roles they will instantly be able to implement and act on their desired policies? How resources and power are distributed within the political system is key. Resources may remain controlled by men.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed1c2a8b3c6454d5a743c81d9c34d25c",
"text": "onal africa politics government leadership voting society gender house would When we don’t just consider battle deaths the extent to which violence is declining is questionable [1] . Furthermore, we cannot suggest women in politics will limit war, conflict, or violence, as anomalies are found – such as Margret Thatcher’s use of violence in closing down industries across the UK and willingness to engage in the Falklands conflict. Furthermore the idea returns to a preconceived image and ideal women. The women are represented as the caregiver, submerged within traditional constructions of women as nurturing and empathetic.\n\n[1] See further readings: WDR, 2011.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "94e55f82c9aad7fb494200fbaa62dffe",
"text": "onal africa politics government leadership voting society gender house would Women become integrated into a man’s world. But the territory may not be changed. First, women may become like men in response to the jobs they take up and how one is expected to act in the given role. When we consider what conditions women are introduced, potentially with limited training in public speaking, confidence or acceptance, how will they fare? Their best way forward is to get help from the men already in parliament.\n\nSecondly, how do women experience work and are they treated at work? Quotas introduce more women, however, they may experience gender-based harassment and unfair treatment at work. In the case of Kenya, a female politician was publicly slapped [1] . Who will ensure their rights are protected and they are treated equally in a political world?\n\nFinally, is power redistributed? Frequent protests in Senegal show that despite quota systems being implemented women do not end up with power despite being in parliament. [2] Women are legally enrolled into local and national parties but do their seats ensure they can lead political parties? Does being a local candidate ensure the potential for national progression?\n\n[1] African Spotlight, 2013.\n\n[2] Kabwila, 2012.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f46cc57642a456ce3d9c4837a2c99280",
"text": "onal africa politics government leadership voting society gender house would Having more women does not mean a representative democracy is built as it is not just gender balance that needs to be considered but ethnicity, language groups etc. as well.\n\nAdditionally, the bias quota system will cause future problems. In the future men will need to be targeted and receive help. For example in Rwanda the focus on including women has pushed men out of politics. Implementing quotas favours the creation of a certain ‘representative democracy’. The democracy becomes ‘represented’ by what we think democracy should look like.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b345632378bb09deb2bd78e0b51e941",
"text": "onal africa politics government leadership voting society gender house would The woman’s ‘political job’\n\nQuotas mean more women are able to enter the political world; however, how is it decided what political jobs and positions they can utilise? The inclusion of women into politics in Africa has mainly been in certain departments i.e. gender and health. More powerful women are needed in positions that remain masculinised – such as defence and security. Therefore the quota may introduce more women in politics, however, how active are they in deciding what area of politics? The quota may well be seen merely a means to introduce women passively into new distinct gender roles.\n\nIf women are believed to be granted positions as a result of the quotas, rather than it being a position they have earned, they may be more at risk of marginalisation at work. Having a quota provides a reason to argue that an exceptional woman has received her place no based upon merit but due to the quota. This may be used as an excuse to prevent women reaching the most important positions.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8fd800a19e1725efc2067d3233c0c215",
"text": "onal africa politics government leadership voting society gender house would Assuming causality: Africa Vs Scandinavia\n\nScandinavian countries – Norway, Sweden and Denmark – have high female participation rates in parliament. However, Rwanda is one African nation that has even greater female parliamentary representation. In Scandinavia the quota has been introduced but is only implemented by some parties. Nevertheless there is little difference between parties in Denmark, for example, that utilise the quota and those that do not. This shows that voluntary quotas can work but also that they are not really necessary. This is because the position of women and capability to engage in politics was tackled first. The key thing is the perception of women; if they are perceived equally and voted for on their own merits women will win as often as men. This shows, crucially, political participation by women should not be dependent on quotas. We should not rely on quotas for gender equality.\n\nWomen face multiple barriers to political participation; deeper action is required to adjust imbalances rather than simple quotas. Having quotas simply encourages a perception that gender matters in politics when the desired outcome is the opposite; a belief by the electorate that politics is genderless with both as able to perform the role. In Senegal for example, the quota is being criticised as challenging traditional culture and patriarchal society norms it is however those norms that need to be changed not just the number of women in politics [1] .\n\n[1] See further readings: Hirsch, 2012.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b3152581da2614e706767f824c87ed55",
"text": "onal africa politics government leadership voting society gender house would Feminising the state: women helping women\n\nIncluding women in politics helps enable poverty to be tackled. Poverty is a women’s issue; women are more likely to live in poverty than men, and women are needed in politics to change this. Women understand each other, and what they need.\n\nFurthermore, although data varies, evidence shows gender inequalities remain intertwined to poverty and impoverishment [1] [2] . Women in positions of power and leadership can put the issues women face on the agenda and apply action. There is clearly a need to get women into politics to counter the current ‘boys club’ that exists in most countries where men help each other into positions of power squeezing out women and other methods of doing things.\n\n[1] See further readings: Gender Inequality Index, 2014.\n\n[2] See further readings: Chant, 2003.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5ceabc96b02a3adf14846e12c87c1fa9",
"text": "onal africa politics government leadership voting society gender house would Changing the male territory\n\nAfrican politics remains masculinised and strongly male dominated. Implementing quotas shows a commitment to change gender inequalities by increasing women’s political participation (Bachelet, 2013). More women mean gender imbalances can be changed, women empowered, and the territorial boundaries defining what men and women do will become blurred.\n\nAdditionally women in African politics can change the ‘boys club’ of bad governance in Africa. Bad governance can be tackled as the prominence of males controlling decisions will be changed, and internal political relations altered. The least corrupt countries on the continent; Rwanda and Botswana both have some form of quota system(quotaproject, 2014, Transparency International, 2013)\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5e612c797adb5e3683610388da90050c",
"text": "onal africa politics government leadership voting society gender house would Democracy must be representative\n\nQuotas are building representative democracies. Through the quota system women are given a voice in society. Quotas mean women are represented in politics. Women are half of the electorate so should be around half of the legislature. Although not there yet the rising numbers symbolise positive change. In 2012, on average, 1/5 of MPs in sub-Saharan Africa were women (The Economist, 2013). In South Africa and Rwanda the number is far above this. Women make up 42% of parliament seats in South Africa, and 64% in Rwanda (ibid.). At present, in Africa we have 2 female presidents (Liberia; Malawi); and 1 prime minister (Aminata Toure, Senegal). Notably Malawi, Rwanda, Senegal, and South Africa all have some form of quota system (quotaProject, 2014).\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8c1da7a0543566c67a8d442829aa2c6d",
"text": "onal africa politics government leadership voting society gender house would A safer world\n\nInternational relations debates, and conflict theories, suggest more women in politics makes for a safer world. In Pinker’s (2011) book the feminisation of politics is identified as a key factor to explain the decline in conflict and violence – battle deaths have declined from 20 per 100,000 people to only 1 or 2 today. Women are more inclined to call for peace resolution and being ‘maternal beings’ reflect nurturing behaviours.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
177ac082d4ce3f76ea5f2f0148395005
|
A growing alliance that defies party lines and the definitions of the last century
A libertarian agenda is one that draws people from across the political spectrum. The crisis in the financial sector has confirmed for many that government and large financial institutions have simply got too close. Republicans say they can reduce the size of government but never do, Democrats say they can regulate corporations but show no sign of doing so.
The primary reason why people can approach libertarianism from across the political spectrum is that, as a philosophy, it doesn’t seek to judge individual policies. So policies traditionally associated with the left – the legalization of drugs or gay rights – as well as those of the right - independence for schools and reducing taxation – both fall within a Libertarian agenda that simply says that none of these issues are any business of the state [i] .
[i] Brian Micklethwaite. “How to Win The Libertarian Argument”. 1990
|
[
{
"docid": "25155461bab0ed0bc74462f66243a67a",
"text": "y political philosophy politics government house would be libertarian right or Experience teaches us that if you simply remove the government then those who are currently strong get stronger and those who are weak get destroyed. Tackling issues such as prejudice in the workplace, health and safety, protecting the vulnerable, managing immigration and a million others require not only the involvement of the state but for a government that is actively engaged in countering private interests. To allow the market to run unfettered seems unlikely to protect the rights of the individual but, rather would cede hard fought rights to the rapacious interests of corporations.\n\nWithout compulsion by government, it is unlikely that the disadvantaged in society would be paid much heed [i] .\n\n[i] \"Libertarianism\". Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "afe29a9fc94e4270e0ff7fdc073893b3",
"text": "y political philosophy politics government house would be libertarian right or The appropriate response, in a democracy, to a hegemonic political class is not to scrap the State altogether but simply to vote for someone else.\n\nIt is also interesting to note the large number of people who are claiming that ‘nothing can be done’ or that ‘voting never changes anything’ are themselves elected representatives.\n\nIn those countries where there is a dominance of two major parties, those parties also tend to reflect a wide diversity of views, thus in the United States and Britain there can be as much division within the parties as between them.\n\nThe fact that there is a broad consensus on certain key issues, such as the general structure of the economic model, reflects not the imposition or a worldview but the assumption of a worldview shared by the vast majority in those societies.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d257df305cc9844fb350e43488810946",
"text": "y political philosophy politics government house would be libertarian right or It is impossible in any modern state to pretend that the state simply isn’t there or that individuals on their own can act against multinationals or government departments and agencies.\n\nThe Libertarian perspective is the stuff of fantasy; neither taxes nor markets are going anywhere anytime soon however much a ragbag of theorists may wish for it.\n\nBenjamin Franklin argued that “All property, indeed, except the savage's temporary cabin, his bow, his matchcoat and other little Acquisitions absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the creature of public Convention. Hence, the public has the rights of regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the quantity and uses of it. All the property that is necessary to a man is his natural Right, which none may justly deprive him of, but all Property superfluous to such Purposes is the property of the Public who, by their Laws have created it and who may, by other Laws dispose of it.” [i]\n\nThe point is that an individual cannot walk up to a chemical plant and tell them to move it, only a government, elected through collective action can do that.\n\n[i] Franklin, Benjamin, ‘Benjamin Franklin to Robert Morris’, 25 December 1783, in The Founders’ Constitution, Vol. 1. Chapter 16, Document 12, http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s12.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9de9a09a6846c150cd19be0e44e72c1c",
"text": "y political philosophy politics government house would be libertarian right or Libertarianism is not about abolishing the state, simply about returning it to an appropriate size. In the era following WWII the state in most Western nations expanded into almost every area of citizen’s lives. In the USA in 1929 government expenditures accounted 9.46% by 2008 this had risen to 35%, this is mirrored elsewhere, in Sweden at the beginning of the 20th century government expenditure was 7% of GDP, it has now risen to over 50%. [i] The period of high expenditure is the historical anomaly, not the norm.\n\nThe libertarian movement seeks to return the level of governance to the more traditional ‘night watchman state’ where the government has responsibility for protecting the borders, maintaining domestic security and the provision of a level of support that prevents destitution.\n\nBeyond that the state should not really have a role. It certainly does not have the moralising, semi-parental role it has taken on.\n\n[i] Hyman, David N., Public Finance A Contemporary Application of Theory to Policy, Tenth Edition, South Western Cengage Learning, 2010, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rB1MBVA7GBAC&lpg=PA14&ots=d3yCq04CFZ&... pp.15-16\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "65e66baad17755b942b1188e3c1c815f",
"text": "y political philosophy politics government house would be libertarian right or The reduction in the size of the state is a process and not an event. Rolling back the state can be done over time giving people responsibility and power over their lives on a growing range of issues. The presumption that the state should only act when individuals can’t, however, would reverse the direction of legislation which has tended to see the intervention of the state into the lives of its citizens as beneficial in and of itself – not just the nanny state but the further assumption that ‘nanny knows best’.\n\nThe role of government should only to be that all have equal access to the available freedoms and that those freedoms are not abused. These principles are known as the law of equal liberty\n\nand the non-aggression principle between the two of them they comfortably control and define the role of the state.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c857b89a3a2ac6b748cd8dc2c341ce83",
"text": "y political philosophy politics government house would be libertarian right or It is absolutely the case that an individual has the right not to be harmed by the actions of another but it would be impossible to argue that they have the right not to be offended.\n\nThe presumption should always be in favour of the fact that people are free to do in their own lives whatever they wish so long as it doesn’t cause harm. That is an attractive position to many but, inevitably, those interested in lifestyles or policies that do not fall within the ‘standard model’ as a result libertarian policies have tended to receive their most vociferous support at the margins of the policy agenda, that does not mean however, that the approach is not equally beneficial to those with a more mainstream view.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed64bbd98222d0c4dedda2c5557aba99",
"text": "y political philosophy politics government house would be libertarian right or There is very little meaningful choice left in many societies with the major parties all singing from the same score\n\nOne of principal reasons for the growth of libertarian parties, especially in the West, is the dominance of one particular ideological viewpoint that is broadly shared by all the major parties.\n\nAs a result anyone who does not share this viewpoint are effectively disenfranchised and have the world view of a de facto governing class imposed upon them. The only sensible response is to reduce the impact of that government altogether.\n\nIndeed in the United States, where the libertarian argument has been made most vociferously, the entire political system is designed on the predicate of a minimalist state and is poorly designed to deal with the behemoth that the Federal Government has become.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd580f15e6888bf065943928e9aff470",
"text": "y political philosophy politics government house would be libertarian right or Neither citizen nor subject, consumer nor customer: the supremacy of the individual\n\nA sensible Libertarian position accepts the rights of people to do whatever they like as long as it doesn’t infringe upon the life of anyone else. That may sound like something that anyone could sign up to but the reality is not so simple. The Right may defend corporate greed and the Left government intervention but there is a clearer principle; I have the right not to have my air poisoned by your chemical company which means I don’t have to pay for any government body to clear up the mess.\n\nThe Oglala Sioux activist and actor, Russell Means has argued that “A libertarian society would not allow anyone to injure others by pollution because it insists on individual responsibility.”\n\nAll too often the line between consumer and citizen is blurred because the interest of both state and private actors have become conjoined leaving little or no room for the individual between them. A libertarian approach would break that cozy consensus.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "98cbdf1b018a916a52bd0c301e34020a",
"text": "y political philosophy politics government house would be libertarian right or Libertarianism is really a coalition of the unwilling; the fringes of the left and right, happy to criticize but without a single policy on which they can agree\n\nThe alliance supporting libertarianism is an interesting one, consisting mostly of right-wing pragmatists who don’t want to pay taxes and left wing idealist who think that everyone would be kind and helpful in a free society.\n\nWhat both groups simply ignore is that there are many issues, such as the redistribution of income or prohibition of drugs, where there is a settled will of society that supports the status quo. Even the very presence of, for example, wide-spread drug use would be an offence to very large numbers of people and unfairly impinge upon their lives which is why so few people actually vote for libertarian parties once they find out the realities.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "629c31855dd75856d7a5a890c60d15da",
"text": "y political philosophy politics government house would be libertarian right or Libertarians would return society to a state of nature where ‘life is cruel, bloody and short’.\n\nThere is no denying that government is ultimately responsible for maintaining the series of compromises that we all adopt as part of the social contract. Destroying that capacity would, in effect, destroy the contract it underpins. The process of governance may at times be cumbersome and apparently interventionist but the results of those interventions are collective security. Without it society as we know it would return to a state of nature where all except those with the means to pay for their own protection – physical and financial – would be at risk.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "046a21ec5c54b866ed775bd2c0adda86",
"text": "y political philosophy politics government house would be libertarian right or Libertarianism only works – even in theory – if you start off with a level pl\n\nIt is entirely possible, if one were constructing a hypothetical society from scratch, that you wouldn’t end up with one looking like an actual society that has evolved over centuries or millennia. However in the real world there are interest groups and those who to a greater or lesser degree are advantaged or disadvantaged, everyone may have equal rights but we do not always naturally have an equal capability to defend our rights. The role of the state is to provide some degree of balance. Simply removing the mechanisms in place would accentuate those differences that existed within society at the time of their removal.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
78b26a8e33e02b3d6015558485550960
|
Neither citizen nor subject, consumer nor customer: the supremacy of the individual
A sensible Libertarian position accepts the rights of people to do whatever they like as long as it doesn’t infringe upon the life of anyone else. That may sound like something that anyone could sign up to but the reality is not so simple. The Right may defend corporate greed and the Left government intervention but there is a clearer principle; I have the right not to have my air poisoned by your chemical company which means I don’t have to pay for any government body to clear up the mess.
The Oglala Sioux activist and actor, Russell Means has argued that “A libertarian society would not allow anyone to injure others by pollution because it insists on individual responsibility.”
All too often the line between consumer and citizen is blurred because the interest of both state and private actors have become conjoined leaving little or no room for the individual between them. A libertarian approach would break that cozy consensus.
|
[
{
"docid": "d257df305cc9844fb350e43488810946",
"text": "y political philosophy politics government house would be libertarian right or It is impossible in any modern state to pretend that the state simply isn’t there or that individuals on their own can act against multinationals or government departments and agencies.\n\nThe Libertarian perspective is the stuff of fantasy; neither taxes nor markets are going anywhere anytime soon however much a ragbag of theorists may wish for it.\n\nBenjamin Franklin argued that “All property, indeed, except the savage's temporary cabin, his bow, his matchcoat and other little Acquisitions absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the creature of public Convention. Hence, the public has the rights of regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the quantity and uses of it. All the property that is necessary to a man is his natural Right, which none may justly deprive him of, but all Property superfluous to such Purposes is the property of the Public who, by their Laws have created it and who may, by other Laws dispose of it.” [i]\n\nThe point is that an individual cannot walk up to a chemical plant and tell them to move it, only a government, elected through collective action can do that.\n\n[i] Franklin, Benjamin, ‘Benjamin Franklin to Robert Morris’, 25 December 1783, in The Founders’ Constitution, Vol. 1. Chapter 16, Document 12, http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s12.html\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "25155461bab0ed0bc74462f66243a67a",
"text": "y political philosophy politics government house would be libertarian right or Experience teaches us that if you simply remove the government then those who are currently strong get stronger and those who are weak get destroyed. Tackling issues such as prejudice in the workplace, health and safety, protecting the vulnerable, managing immigration and a million others require not only the involvement of the state but for a government that is actively engaged in countering private interests. To allow the market to run unfettered seems unlikely to protect the rights of the individual but, rather would cede hard fought rights to the rapacious interests of corporations.\n\nWithout compulsion by government, it is unlikely that the disadvantaged in society would be paid much heed [i] .\n\n[i] \"Libertarianism\". Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "afe29a9fc94e4270e0ff7fdc073893b3",
"text": "y political philosophy politics government house would be libertarian right or The appropriate response, in a democracy, to a hegemonic political class is not to scrap the State altogether but simply to vote for someone else.\n\nIt is also interesting to note the large number of people who are claiming that ‘nothing can be done’ or that ‘voting never changes anything’ are themselves elected representatives.\n\nIn those countries where there is a dominance of two major parties, those parties also tend to reflect a wide diversity of views, thus in the United States and Britain there can be as much division within the parties as between them.\n\nThe fact that there is a broad consensus on certain key issues, such as the general structure of the economic model, reflects not the imposition or a worldview but the assumption of a worldview shared by the vast majority in those societies.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9de9a09a6846c150cd19be0e44e72c1c",
"text": "y political philosophy politics government house would be libertarian right or Libertarianism is not about abolishing the state, simply about returning it to an appropriate size. In the era following WWII the state in most Western nations expanded into almost every area of citizen’s lives. In the USA in 1929 government expenditures accounted 9.46% by 2008 this had risen to 35%, this is mirrored elsewhere, in Sweden at the beginning of the 20th century government expenditure was 7% of GDP, it has now risen to over 50%. [i] The period of high expenditure is the historical anomaly, not the norm.\n\nThe libertarian movement seeks to return the level of governance to the more traditional ‘night watchman state’ where the government has responsibility for protecting the borders, maintaining domestic security and the provision of a level of support that prevents destitution.\n\nBeyond that the state should not really have a role. It certainly does not have the moralising, semi-parental role it has taken on.\n\n[i] Hyman, David N., Public Finance A Contemporary Application of Theory to Policy, Tenth Edition, South Western Cengage Learning, 2010, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rB1MBVA7GBAC&lpg=PA14&ots=d3yCq04CFZ&... pp.15-16\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "65e66baad17755b942b1188e3c1c815f",
"text": "y political philosophy politics government house would be libertarian right or The reduction in the size of the state is a process and not an event. Rolling back the state can be done over time giving people responsibility and power over their lives on a growing range of issues. The presumption that the state should only act when individuals can’t, however, would reverse the direction of legislation which has tended to see the intervention of the state into the lives of its citizens as beneficial in and of itself – not just the nanny state but the further assumption that ‘nanny knows best’.\n\nThe role of government should only to be that all have equal access to the available freedoms and that those freedoms are not abused. These principles are known as the law of equal liberty\n\nand the non-aggression principle between the two of them they comfortably control and define the role of the state.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c857b89a3a2ac6b748cd8dc2c341ce83",
"text": "y political philosophy politics government house would be libertarian right or It is absolutely the case that an individual has the right not to be harmed by the actions of another but it would be impossible to argue that they have the right not to be offended.\n\nThe presumption should always be in favour of the fact that people are free to do in their own lives whatever they wish so long as it doesn’t cause harm. That is an attractive position to many but, inevitably, those interested in lifestyles or policies that do not fall within the ‘standard model’ as a result libertarian policies have tended to receive their most vociferous support at the margins of the policy agenda, that does not mean however, that the approach is not equally beneficial to those with a more mainstream view.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c270c9e163ff2a0dc39508ff9edf70d3",
"text": "y political philosophy politics government house would be libertarian right or A growing alliance that defies party lines and the definitions of the last century\n\nA libertarian agenda is one that draws people from across the political spectrum. The crisis in the financial sector has confirmed for many that government and large financial institutions have simply got too close. Republicans say they can reduce the size of government but never do, Democrats say they can regulate corporations but show no sign of doing so.\n\nThe primary reason why people can approach libertarianism from across the political spectrum is that, as a philosophy, it doesn’t seek to judge individual policies. So policies traditionally associated with the left – the legalization of drugs or gay rights – as well as those of the right - independence for schools and reducing taxation – both fall within a Libertarian agenda that simply says that none of these issues are any business of the state [i] .\n\n[i] Brian Micklethwaite. “How to Win The Libertarian Argument”. 1990\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed64bbd98222d0c4dedda2c5557aba99",
"text": "y political philosophy politics government house would be libertarian right or There is very little meaningful choice left in many societies with the major parties all singing from the same score\n\nOne of principal reasons for the growth of libertarian parties, especially in the West, is the dominance of one particular ideological viewpoint that is broadly shared by all the major parties.\n\nAs a result anyone who does not share this viewpoint are effectively disenfranchised and have the world view of a de facto governing class imposed upon them. The only sensible response is to reduce the impact of that government altogether.\n\nIndeed in the United States, where the libertarian argument has been made most vociferously, the entire political system is designed on the predicate of a minimalist state and is poorly designed to deal with the behemoth that the Federal Government has become.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "98cbdf1b018a916a52bd0c301e34020a",
"text": "y political philosophy politics government house would be libertarian right or Libertarianism is really a coalition of the unwilling; the fringes of the left and right, happy to criticize but without a single policy on which they can agree\n\nThe alliance supporting libertarianism is an interesting one, consisting mostly of right-wing pragmatists who don’t want to pay taxes and left wing idealist who think that everyone would be kind and helpful in a free society.\n\nWhat both groups simply ignore is that there are many issues, such as the redistribution of income or prohibition of drugs, where there is a settled will of society that supports the status quo. Even the very presence of, for example, wide-spread drug use would be an offence to very large numbers of people and unfairly impinge upon their lives which is why so few people actually vote for libertarian parties once they find out the realities.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "629c31855dd75856d7a5a890c60d15da",
"text": "y political philosophy politics government house would be libertarian right or Libertarians would return society to a state of nature where ‘life is cruel, bloody and short’.\n\nThere is no denying that government is ultimately responsible for maintaining the series of compromises that we all adopt as part of the social contract. Destroying that capacity would, in effect, destroy the contract it underpins. The process of governance may at times be cumbersome and apparently interventionist but the results of those interventions are collective security. Without it society as we know it would return to a state of nature where all except those with the means to pay for their own protection – physical and financial – would be at risk.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "046a21ec5c54b866ed775bd2c0adda86",
"text": "y political philosophy politics government house would be libertarian right or Libertarianism only works – even in theory – if you start off with a level pl\n\nIt is entirely possible, if one were constructing a hypothetical society from scratch, that you wouldn’t end up with one looking like an actual society that has evolved over centuries or millennia. However in the real world there are interest groups and those who to a greater or lesser degree are advantaged or disadvantaged, everyone may have equal rights but we do not always naturally have an equal capability to defend our rights. The role of the state is to provide some degree of balance. Simply removing the mechanisms in place would accentuate those differences that existed within society at the time of their removal.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
1086558818a53e8b88cd68404fad8861
|
The army is not the best institution to run a country
If the country is in trouble is the army the best placed to take over and manage the country better than it has been in the past? This may plausibly be true if the reason democracy is failing is a large scale insurgency or near civil war but in almost every other case it is not the best institution. The army is trained to fight not to govern. The generals who take over top positions are used to running a bureaucracy that has to respond to politicians, not one that has to respond to the people.
Politicians may be corrupt, venal, or unpopular but at the least they are open about what they stand for. They have a manifesto and a clear ideology which if the people don't agree with they wont be voted for. This is not the case with generals; the chances are they have a bureaucratic desire to maintain the power and funding for the military but otherwise there is likely to be little known about their politics.
Finally for those who are being overthrown the electorate has had a chance to investigate their policies, their past, to question their views and catch the candidate out when they are not consistent. The candidate came through an electoral test and media grilling. When there is a coup there is no such chance to determine if the coup leader is the right man for the job.
|
[
{
"docid": "d742464aaebe6a8b3f6848aa2708f000",
"text": "defence government leadership voting house believes launching military coup Whether or not the head of the army is the right man to run the country is immaterial as he will be passing on to another administration quickly. This will either be a temporary civilian administration in which top technocrats are brought in or it will be as a result of new elections. If a military man is still in power after an election, as with Sisi in Egypt, then they have come through the same test as a politician would have done.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "92f4cb82ee7471d469bb53c020f5f5c8",
"text": "defence government leadership voting house believes launching military coup Elections do not always return a government that has true popular support; the system may be gerrymandered so it is much easier for one party to win seats. Additionally in many democracies there is a large number of people who don't vote so even a party that is elected may not have a true mandate. If the abstaining majority want a different government should the military not respect their democratic wish?\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c90c9d455327af4234ea3a5dbed37c88",
"text": "defence government leadership voting house believes launching military coup Military intervention is most likely to happen only when trust in democracy has already been damaged. In Thailand democracy was already distrusted due to corruption and vote buying, the military acted because of that distrust. When intervention is to clean up corruption and create greater separation of powers the coup may actually improve trust in democracy.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "78cfb1551a9bb2174f401a955ff5f5d9",
"text": "defence government leadership voting house believes launching military coup In a corrupt system the military is likely to be corrupt too. It will have its own sectional interest; getting as much funds for itself, or hyping possible threats. The military interest can often lead to far worse things than corruption – such as wars. 1 In countries where the military is powerful it is likely to have large private interests too; in Egypt the military's holdings in the economy is estimated at anywhere from 5 to 60% of GDP though the military itself says its revenue from its private businesses is only 1% this is still a large interest. 2\n\n1 Snyder, Jack, Myths of Empire, Cornell University Press, 1991\n\n2 Hauslohner, Abigail, 'Egypt's 'Military Inc' expands its control of the economy', Guardian Weekly, 18 March 2014, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/18/egypt-military-economy-power-elections\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e92963451f9536e1e6238bcb82268a5c",
"text": "defence government leadership voting house believes launching military coup The argument that the military is restoring democracy from a democracy makes no sense. Only once a democracy has been turned into an autocracy can it be said to be restoring democracy. So long as the system is still democratic then there should be constitutional ways to replace an increasingly authoritarian government; elections, vote of no confidence, or the judiciary.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "be6c47cef8251f2241a631cb96c96829",
"text": "defence government leadership voting house believes launching military coup A military government may well be as riven by factionalism and division as the system which it replaces. The main interests of the military is often simply to maintain or increase the position of the military, this makes it likely there will be disagreement on other issues including over how quickly to return to democratic government. The military will often opt to return to barracks rather than have such splits become too deep “Military regimes thus contain the seeds of their own destruction” as there is almost bound to be a split into factions at some point when governing a country. 1\n\n1 Geddes, Barbara, 'What do we know about democratization after twenty years?', Annual Review of Political Science, Vol.2, 1999, pp.115-144, http://ussc.edu.au/s/media/docs/other/Geddes1.pdf , p.131\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d35a4eec3a132347b57b91ca6aefde1f",
"text": "defence government leadership voting house believes launching military coup In a country that is so polarised that there is violence at elections the chances are the military is not neutral. In Thailand the royalists had been calling for military intervention because they know it is unlikely they will win an election. A coup cannot therefore be considered to be likely to end violence; Egypt is a case in point as there have been more than 3,200 deaths in the 7 months after the coup against President Morsi. 1\n\n1 'More than 3,200 Egyptians killed since coup', Middle East Monitor, 9 April 2014, https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/africa/10798-more-than-3200-egyptians-killed-since-coup\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3ce465bfd445d732fb9cb757bea23ddd",
"text": "defence government leadership voting house believes launching military coup A coup makes it more difficult to trust in democracy\n\nMilitary intervention damages trust in democracy even if the intent of the coup is to return to democratic rule as quickly as possible. There are two ways in which democracy is damaged. The first is that it undermines the point of majority rule if the military may just step in and take over if they don't like the result. Secondly if a democratic government is making a mess of ruling and the military steps in to clean things up then this may create an impression that they will do so again, so absolving politicians to clean up their own act.\n\nThis may well be what happens in Thailand. Since the end of military rule in 1973 Thailand has now had seven coups; 1976, 77, 81, 86, 91, 2007 and 2014. 1 In the 2007 and 2014 coups the government being overthrown was very popular; in 2005 Shinawatra's Thai Rak Thai party won 60.7% of the vote while in 2011 his sister won 48.41% if the military simply steps in after a few years of rule by a clearly elected majority then what is the point in voting? Already the middle class supporters of a coup argue that elections do not mean democracy to justify military intervention thus undermining the concept of democracy. 2\n\n1 Winichakul, Thongchai, 'Toppling Democracy', Journal of Contemporary Asia, Vol.38, No.1, February 2008, pp.11-37, http://www.polsci.chula.ac.th/viengrat/thpolgovt/Thongchai%20-%20Toppling%20Democracy.pdf , p.15\n\n2 Ibid, p.27\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a40c8474e154a507c18f03967829adb",
"text": "defence government leadership voting house believes launching military coup The response must be democratic\n\nIt is never appropriate to overthrow a democratically elected government which the people have chosen. The government is legitimised by being the choice of the people, a coup is by definition not legitimate in such a way. The response to a government that has lost the trust of the electorate, unable to prevent violence, or is corrupt, is to hold an election. In the worst case and an elected government is using its power as a government to manipulate any election then the responsibility is with the judiciary to convict a government which is responsible for such a\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac78e02f4d3e6dd171850944d4c4ea3a",
"text": "defence government leadership voting house believes launching military coup A technocratic government is needed to prevent corruption\n\nDemocracy does not mean that a country is not corrupt, or that the political leadership is not corrupt. There are many countries where democratic elections stand side by side with a large amount of corruption; Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq countries that have recently had elections following western intervention are ranked 175, 172, and 171 out of 177 on the corruption perceptions index. Even countries with long established democracies can be perceived as being corrupt, India is 94th. 1 If the political class is incapable of reforming itself it may be necessary for another actor to do it for them.\n\nThere have been several coups in which the military has taken power in order to reform the political system before handing over to a civilian government at elections; Turkey in 1960, Portugal in 1974, and the relatively recent coup in Bangladesh in 2007. 2\n\n1 Transparency International, 'Corruptions Perceptions Index 2013', http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2013/results/\n\n2 Marinov, Nikolay, and Goemans, Hein, 'Coups and Democracy', British Journal of Political Science, 2013, http://www.nikolaymarinov.com/wp-content/files/GoemansMarinovCoup.pdf , p.5\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9d6df2e741bdc0dd57b0f6a2408ba4d0",
"text": "defence government leadership voting house believes launching military coup A neutral party\n\nDemocracies can turn into an intractable conflict between two political parties with neither side ruling in their national interest but simply using power in an attempt to defeat the other side. Bangladesh is a good example of this as there are two main parties; the Awami League and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party. Neither are willing to talk to the other, the competition has at times been violent and attempts to create neutral caretaker governments are scotched by one side or the other as occurred at the start of 2014. 1 The 2007 coup resulted in the arrests of the leaders of both parties along with a major anti corruption drive. 2 Unfortunately this did not prevent Bangladesh quickly falling into the same two party system with the same parties and leaders once civilian rule was restored.\n\n1 Budhwar, Kailash 'Bangladesh elections: The 'battling begums'', Al Jazeera, 4 January 2014, http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2014/01/bangladesh-elections-battling-begums-20141492730547677.html\n\n2 Voice of America, 'Former Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Arrested', voanews.com, 27 October 2009, http://www.voanews.com/content/a-13-2007-07-16-voa21-66720297/560572.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "45d72d0c55a7b642b346d469bb856cb5",
"text": "defence government leadership voting house believes launching military coup Necessary to restore peace to the country\n\nThe clearest, and most common, reason for the military stepping in is to restore peace to the country. When the stakes are so high, power through control of government, the ability to distribute resources, it is something well worth fighting for. The result can be that democracies become unstable and violent with election campaigns particular flashpoints. The runup to the Thai elections in 2014 shortly before the coup left 10 dead and 600 injured 1 with no sign of stability returning after the flawed elections General Prayuth Chan-ocha the head of the army said the coup was necessary “in order for the country to return to normality quickly, and for society to love and be at peace again.” 2 When there violence creating violence it is the military's role to step in the prevent such instability.\n\n1 Wilkinson, Laura, 'Thailand elections: Violent clashes in Bangkok over disputed poll', The Independent, 2 February 2014, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/thailand-elections-violent-clashes-in-bangkok-over-disputed-poll-9101656.html\n\n2 Hodal, Kate, 'Coup needed for Thailand 'to love and be at peace again' – army chief', The Guardian, 23 May 2014, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/22/military-coup-thailand-peace-general-prayuth-chan-ocha\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "87bce6f6ac39f5fe980871c5df6ceb6e",
"text": "defence government leadership voting house believes launching military coup Restoring democracy\n\nA coup that is against an elected government that is however becoming increasingly anti democratic is justified. When an elected government is increasingly concentrating power in its own hands, and particularly if elections are postponed then it is necessary for the military to step in to ensure democracy continues to function. From 1991-2006 31 of 43 coups resulted in an election within five years so far from damaging democracy were often restoring it. 1\n\n1 Marinov, Nikolay, and Goemans, Hein, 'Coups and Democracy', British Journal of Political Science, 2013, http://www.nikolaymarinov.com/wp-content/files/GoemansMarinovCoup.pdf , p.2\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
a44ed2364002315da78e9657bd3a86e9
|
Excessive regulation on the private sector puts burdens on free enterprise both in terms of administration and cost. By doing so it reduces consumer choice and acts as a drag on innovation and growth
Government regulation assumes not only irresponsible companies but also stupid consumers. Although, realistically, very little regulation has any direct impact on the consumer but tends to involve time-consuming paperwork demonstrating compliance so that some civil servant can tick a box to prove that something that was already being done can be shown to have been be done.
The effect of this tends to fall hardest on smaller businesses that don’t have large financial or legal departments. As a result it not only takes up valuable time that could be spent developing the business itself but more importantly acts to discourage people from starting in the first place. This is particularly so when it’s considered that many people who start up a new company do so after many years of working for someone else within the same sector. As a result they see the pressure that needless and time-consuming regulation puts upon that company.
|
[
{
"docid": "dfd903e952aef10755da02b5dd9f1d1d",
"text": "conomic policy tax philosophy political philosophy politics government house This again is a myth routinely put forward by the right. Governments already distinguish between regulations that should apply to all companies and those, more onerous ones, that apply to larger companies only. There are certain standards in terms of health and safety of foodstuffs, products and so forth. However, there is clearly a different role when it comes to regulating larger companies such as banks, insurance companies and major employers.\n\nThere are particular sectors that require more regulation than others but the bulk of regulation is there to protect both staff and customers and it is part of the reality of doing business.\n\nThe idea that regulation harms small business is simply absurd as they benefit from the regulation of larger businesses who may be either their suppliers or customers are also regulated.\n\nEqually start-up companies benefit from the fact that regulation evens up the playing field with more established competitors. If nobody is allowed to cut corners or perform other mildly criminal acts it is clearly an advantage to the new starters.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "adbb9f3a894e27ddb586d65209d95f50",
"text": "conomic policy tax philosophy political philosophy politics government house Were the theory put forward true, and that is debatable, it would require tax cuts to benefit the lowest paid individuals and the smallest companies. However the political reality is that it never does. Poor people and small companies do indeed spend money which has a stimulating effect on the economy, but spending only stimulates the economy if it is spent in the right way. It is not possible to guarantee that the funds that flow into a state’s economy as a result of tax cuts will benefit that economy exclusively. Most forms of good and commodity now exist within a global market; manufacturing and production have become concentrated within states such as China. Useful and productive business activity will always require that a proportion of a business’s funds be spent overseas.\n\nThe advantage of government funding is that it can be directed into the weakest areas of the domestic economy, with a degree of dynamism and control that the markets will never be able to achieve. However, recent history has suggested that tax cuts have tended to be directed to the wealthy and to large corporations who are under no obligation to spend or invest either domestically or immediately.\n\nThere is little benefit to any economy in allowing wealthy individual and organizations to further expand stagnant wealth or to invest in high end products bought internationally.\n\nThere is also a matter of scale, government has a capacity for borrowing against its own security of wealth that is simply not matched by any private individual or corporation. Equally government is uniquely placed to undertake infrastructural investment such as house building projects which directly supports sectors that are otherwise the hardest hit during times or economic downturn.\n\nEven where tax cuts are directed or fall evenly across all income ranges there is still no control over the areas of probable expenditure and are also unlikely to stimulate sectors such as construction.\n\nMost importantly tax cuts have no direct benefit for the unemployed which, of course, the creation of jobs by government itself does.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b1df299511e7f520aa9f7259c52fb355",
"text": "conomic policy tax philosophy political philosophy politics government house The myth of the greater efficiency in the private sector is one of the enduring fallacies of the politics of the right. Even the slightest glance at those areas where governments routinely outsource capital projects- defense procurement, major infrastructural projects and IT projects- there is astonishing inefficiency and it seems questionable as to how the public sector could be any less efficient.\n\nIt is an innate aspect of private companies that they need to make a profit, which is by nature an inefficiency, in that it takes resources out of any system. It is a strange thing that those who most passionately support the efficiency and effectiveness of the private sector become meek when it comes to the most important elements of public life- defense of the nation, policing the streets, educating the young. Equally when the astonishing levels of inefficiency and, frequently, incompetence that exist within the private sector come to light in the collapse of companies, be those banks or auto-giants, apparently it becomes fine for state to intervene to pick up the pieces and put things back together again.\n\nIt is equally wrong to suggest that the lack of culpability of senior managers has an impact on efficiency: the ultimate senior manager of a public service is a minister- either elected or appointed by someone who is- and is therefore accountable at the ballot box for the services provided. By contrast senior managers, in the shape of boards of directors, in the private sector seem relaxed about paying themselves huge salaries and bonuses even when their companies are running huge losses and shedding jobs: this scarcely suggests a high level of personal responsibility for success or failure.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab02e0ca144babccca9bf4c81f22a1c5",
"text": "conomic policy tax philosophy political philosophy politics government house There is the world of difference between establishing basic rights and interfering in matters that are best agreed at a community or state level. That is the reason why the states collectively agree to constitutional amendments that can be considered to affect all citizens.\n\nHowever, different communities regulate themselves in different ways depending on both practical needs and the principles they consider to be important. Having the opinions of city-dwellers, who have never got closer to rural life than a nineteenth landscape in a gallery instruct farming communities that they cannot work the land to save a rare frog is absurd.\n\nTrying to establish policies such as a minimum wage or the details of environmental protection at a federal level simply makes no sense, as the implications of these things vary wildly between different areas of the country.\n\nEqually local attitudes towards issues such as religion, marriage, sexuality, pornography and other issues of personal conscience differ between communities and the federal government has no more business banning prayer in Tennessee than it would have mandating it in New York. These are matters for the states and sometimes for individual communities.\n\nThe nation was founded on the principle that individual states should agree, where possible, on matters of great import but are otherwise free to go their separate ways.\n\nIn addition to which, pretending that the hands of politicians and bureaucrats are free of blood in any of these matters is simply untrue – more than untrue, it is absurd.\n\nIf the markets are driven by profit- a gross generalisation - then politics is driven by the hunger for power and the campaign funds that deliver it. Business at least has the good grace to earn, and risk, its own money whereas government feels free to use other peoples for whatever is likely to buy the most votes. Likewise business makes its money by providing products and services that people need or want. Government, by contrast, uses other people’s money to enforce decisions regardless of whether they are wanted or needed by anyone.\n\nUltimately it is the initiative and industry of working Americans that has provided the funds for the great wars against oppression as well as the ingenuity to solve environmental and other technical solutions to the problems faced by humankind.\n\nPharmaceutical companies produce medicines – not the DHHS; engineering companies produce clean energy solutions – not the EPA; farmers put food on families’ tables – not the Department of Agriculture.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0aead680d568e029ea3877398db88acd",
"text": "conomic policy tax philosophy political philosophy politics government house The primary difficulty with governments retaining surpluses is that the government has no proprietary right to the funds in its coffers. The taxpayer effectively subsidizes the government, on the understanding that it will undertake functions necessary for the defence, continued operation and normative improvement of the state and society.\n\nClearly defense has to be one of the core functions of government and there are a few others, such as maintaining law and order. For government to say that the only way of securing its own finances is running a small surplus in its current account budget is palpably not true when there is astonishing waste in government expenditure, which is in turn already bloated and intervenes into areas of public life where it simply does not belong.\n\nIn terms of using government expenditure as a tool to respond to recessions, there may well be a role in terms of how government uses its own purchasing power and it makes sense that should be used for domestic purchasing wherever possible, however there is little to be gained by government creating imaginary jobs undertaking roles that simply don’t produce anything.\n\nInstead the most useful role that government can play during a recession is not expanding its own size and, therefore, the final cost to the taxpayer, but reducing it. Cutting the size of government reduces the tax burden on business and individuals and cuts back on regulatory pressure. Both actions free up money for expenditure which creates real jobs in the real economy, producing real wealth, in turn spent on real products, which in turn create jobs. This beneficial cycle is the basis of economics, creating imaginary jobs simply takes skills out of the real economy and reduces the pressure on individuals to take jobs that they might not see as ideal.\n\nThe most sensible response to a government surplus is not to hoard it on the basis that it might come in useful at some undefined point in the future but to give it back to the people who earned it in the first place. Doing so means that it is spent in the real economy, creating real wealth and real jobs and thereby avoiding the prospect of recession in the first place.\n\nUltimately it comes down to a simple divide as to whether you believe governments or people are better at spending money. The evidence of waste and incompetence in government expenditure is compelling and it seems an absurd solution to governments mismanaging the money they already have to give them more.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5c0d5b089d2762520dc28095f8931af7",
"text": "conomic policy tax philosophy political philosophy politics government house No country can pay its bills or increase the prosperity of its citizens if it is wasting money on unnecessary programmes. The principle problem with government funding is that it is not addressing any of the problems that Proposition raises. In many countries, The ideology of state intervention is has made government ever larger, building ever more excessive and bloated bureaucratic empires with fiefdoms and sinecures for every busybody and apparatchik more interested in monitoring change than making it, and more concerned with process than people.\n\nIt is not uncommon – indeed it is not even unusual - for private sector organisations to shed ten percent of their workforce when the judge themselves to have become uncompetitive, unprofitable or administratively unwieldy. Both the governments of France and Canada have done that in recent years and yet maintain high standards of government support [i] .\n\nFor average public sector wages to be out stripping those of the private sector (who ultimately pay them) is ridiculous. It becomes more worrying when preferential health and pension plans – where the public sector outstrips the private by nearly four to one are taken into account [ii] .\n\nThere is no question that it would be great if everybody could earn more, have more lucrative and more secure pensions, the world would be a nicer place. However, to penalise those who are making the money to subsidise those who aren’t simply makes no sense.\n\nTypically a government’s solution to an issue like child poverty is to establish a commission to discuss it – when it reports several years later it informs the waiting nation who paid for it that the solution might well be if their parents had a job. Most people could have figured this out in two minutes and at no cost [iii] .\n\n[i] \"Big government: Stop!\" The Economist. January 21st, 2010\n\n[ii] Dan Arnall. ABC News. Working in America: Public vs. Private Sector. 18 February 2011.\n\n[iii] Michael Cloud. “Why Not Big Government. Five Iron Laws.” The Centre for Small Government.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "82e5fa316a9377aa4a78987e97b58208",
"text": "conomic policy tax philosophy political philosophy politics government house Reducing the size of government and, therefore, the amount it takes in tax frees up money which consumers can spend on goods or for companies to expand: Both create jobs\n\nGovernment costs money. That’s an indisputable fact. So that raises the question of whether that’s the best way of spending it. It is clear that money could be spent in other ways and so if this is the choice there is an opportunity cost in that decision as there is in any other.\n\nThere is compelling evidence that reducing the government’s take of total GDP stimulates the economy through freeing up funds to create jobs especially in manufacturing.\n\nThere is compelling evidence [i] that reducing the tax burden and unleashing the dynamism of the market by cutting regulation has a far greater effect than government massaging unemployment figures by expanding its own employment base. Indeed it also appears to be the case that the relatively high level of government salaries in fact just puts greater pressure on employers in the private sector to compete the resulting wage inflation has a dampening effect on the economy as a whole at a time when it can least afford it.\n\nIt’s further worth noting that jobs created during a recession tend to morph into permanent positions thereby building in an ever-continuing expansion in the size of the state unless it is periodically and deliberately culled.\n\nConversely the investment directly into the private sector creates wealth producing jobs that are paid at a level that is sustainable and is responsive to the health of the wider economy.\n\n[i] Alesina, Ardagna, Perotti, Schiantarelli. “Fiscal Policy, Profits and Investments”. National Bureau of Economic Research. 1999\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "517b71775ad8a237ca9fd8be016a539b",
"text": "conomic policy tax philosophy political philosophy politics government house Government has a tendency to be inefficient as it has no need to compete in an open marketplace, and jobs in state institutions are safe because of the guarantees both of the tax base and government’s greater borrowing capacity.\n\nGovernments both as a whole and in terms of individual employees have a tendency towards astonishing inefficiency, because state institutions are not subject to any meaningful competitive pressures. Indeed, many government employees earn as much or more than those in comparable jobs in the private sector, have preferential pension and benefit plans, lower hours and longer vacations. It is of course unsurprising that anyone in possession of such a job would be reluctant to give it up but also suggests a lower level of competition for keeping it. In the private sector such preferential returns would suggest that a worker would be likely to work longer hours to keep them.\n\nEqually, because senior managers are not spending their own money and rarely have their salaries indexed to efficiency and effectiveness- in a way that is automatic for most companies- there is little pressure to find cost and operational efficiencies. As a result it is usually cheaper and more effective for services to be provided by the private sector wherever possible and appropriate. Although there are some areas which must be managed by the public sector, such as elections and the criminal justice system, it is difficult to see the benefits in other areas.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2cfefb44ba819f1a74b0e45c379926ec",
"text": "conomic policy tax philosophy political philosophy politics government house Government was required to drive through major changes such as drives for equality within society, universal education, and preservation of the environment. Mostly in the teeth of big business\n\nNobody would deny the role that remarkable individuals have played in the major social changes of history. They have, however, ultimately required the actions of government. Many of these have been achieved despite, rather than because of, the interests of business. Critically they have tended to be to the benefit of the weak, the vulnerable and the neglected.\n\nGovernments have been responsible for social reforms ranging from the abolition of slavery and child labor to the removal of conditions in factories and on farms that lead to injury and death, in addition to minimum wage regulations that meant that families could feed themselves. By contrast, the market was quite happy with cheap cotton sown by nimble young fingers.\n\nIn turn profit was given preference over any notion of job security or the right to a family life, the market was quite happy to see water poisoned and the air polluted – and in many cases is still happy with it. The logic of the market panders to slave-labor wages to migrant workers or exporting jobs where migrants are not available. Either way it costs the jobs of American citizens, pandering to racism and impoverishing workers at home and abroad. Although the prophets of the market suggest that the only thing standing between the average American and a suburban home - with a pool, 4x4 and an overflowing college-fund is the government, the reality could not be further from the truth.\n\nThe simple reality of the market is this: the profit motive that drives the system is the difference between the price of labor, plant and materials on one hand and the price that can be charged on the other. It makes sense to find the workers who demand the lowest wages, suppliers who can provide the cheapest materials and communities desperate enough to sell their air, water and family time. Whether those are at home or abroad. The market, by its nature has no compassion, no patriotism and no loyalty.\n\nThe only organization that can act as a restraint on that is, in the final reckoning, government which has legislative power to ensure that standards are maintained. It is easy to point to individual acts that have been beneficial but the reality is that the untrammeled market without government oversight has had a depressing tendency to chase the easiest buck, ditch the weakest, exploit where it can, pollute at will, corrupt where necessary and bend, break or ignore the rules.\n\nIt requires government as the agent of what the people consider acceptable to constrain the profit motive.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3af1f8704bd6cab9c5b91db0999efc22",
"text": "conomic policy tax philosophy political philosophy politics government house Big government can provide the stimulus the economy needs in the bad years as long as surpluses are not squandered during the boom years\n\nGovernment expenditure is the single biggest tool in times of economic difficulty. Those that are the quickest to complain about taxation and regulation during the good times are also the fastest to rush for a bailout during the lean times. Likewise, those that call for tax cuts in a boom also tend to be the first to criticize a deficit or public expenditure during a recession.\n\nThere is in all of this one simple economic reality: the government acts as the banker of last resort.\n\nThis only works, as Keynes understood, if the government holds on to reserves in the good years so that it can spend them in the tough ones to stimulate jobs and growth. On the other hand, where surpluses are blown on tax cuts- or expensive wars for that matter- then will be nothing left in the bank and government cannot fulfill its most useful role of using its own financial clout to balance the economy over the course of a financial cycle.\n\nSo-called small government Conservatives have been consistently profligate in recent history and have tended to leave fiscally cautious liberals to pick up the pieces. The party of small government never seems to find itself short of billions of dollars for expensive white elephants like the SDI missile shield or asserting American military power overseas in pursuit of yet another doomed cause – whether that’s’ propping up Latin American dictators or settling familial grudge matches in the Middle East.\n\nThe military adventurism of the Reagan presidency as well as those of both Bush senior and junior were conducted not just at the cost of domestic social stability, but also fiscal security.\n\nInstead of preserving a budget surplus from the Clinton presidency, the Bush administration spent it recklessly – not, as is widely declared, on the War Against Terror – on tax cuts for the wealthiest in society. As a result Bush, his cabinet and his backers robbed the country of the possibility of reserves when the economy was in a less positive situation.\n\nAs far as the War On Terror is concerned, the total cost of two international wars, $1.283tn, stands in stark contrast to the relatively cheap police-style operation that actually caught Osama Bin Laden. It is also worth noting that of that huge sum an entire 2%, according to the Congressional Research service, has been spent homeland security – anti-terror surveillance and enforcement within the USA’s borders [i] .\n\nSo called ‘Big Government’, withholding surpluses for a rainy day, provides financial security for American businesses and workers. So-called ‘small-government’ presidents spend trillions of dollars on free money to the super-rich and on military adventurism in other countries and, apparently, in space.\n\n[i] Amy Belasco. “The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11”. Congressional Research Service. March 29 2011.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "27e7b6facea7ef2e3cfae097acd19248",
"text": "conomic policy tax philosophy political philosophy politics government house Ultimately government has a responsible to provide a level playing field to ensure that everybody gets a far start in life and can at least survive throughout it\n\nGovernment, especially in a developed nation and even more so in the wealthiest nation in the world, should be able to ensure that children are not hungry, the mentally ill are not living on the streets, borders are policed, veterans don’t live in squalor, the population can read, crime is controlled, the elderly don’t freeze to death and a million other markers of a civilized society.\n\nThis is particularly true of children but most people need a helping hand at one time or another in life. However, the obscenity of children destined to fail before their lives have even started- condemned to schools that offer no hope and communities that offer no safety- would be disturbing anywhere in the world.\n\nIn a nation that prides itself as having the highest standard of living on the planet- and is unquestionably the richest and most powerful- levels of poverty and despair that are seen nowhere else in the developed world are simply obscene. By every measure, infant mortality, life expectancy, educational standards, child poverty, percentage of incarcerated adults, homicides per thousand deaths and many more, America lags considerably behind Japan, Canada, Western Europe, Australia and the rest of the developed world [i] .\n\nAll of the indicators mentioned above have been adversely affect during the thirty year obsession with pushing the government back in the name of handing unfettered control over to big business and the vicissitudes of the market.\n\nAmericans pay lower taxes than Western Europe and get, as a result, a much worse return on their money [ii] .\n\n[i] Newsweeks Interactive Graphic of the World’s Best Countries. Hosted on the Daily Beast and elsewhere.\n\n[ii] Jeffrey Sachs. \"The Case for Bigger Government.\" Time. January 8th, 2009\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
3f44e2e61848b90fa15c215509414a12
|
Reducing the size of government and, therefore, the amount it takes in tax frees up money which consumers can spend on goods or for companies to expand: Both create jobs
Government costs money. That’s an indisputable fact. So that raises the question of whether that’s the best way of spending it. It is clear that money could be spent in other ways and so if this is the choice there is an opportunity cost in that decision as there is in any other.
There is compelling evidence that reducing the government’s take of total GDP stimulates the economy through freeing up funds to create jobs especially in manufacturing.
There is compelling evidence [i] that reducing the tax burden and unleashing the dynamism of the market by cutting regulation has a far greater effect than government massaging unemployment figures by expanding its own employment base. Indeed it also appears to be the case that the relatively high level of government salaries in fact just puts greater pressure on employers in the private sector to compete the resulting wage inflation has a dampening effect on the economy as a whole at a time when it can least afford it.
It’s further worth noting that jobs created during a recession tend to morph into permanent positions thereby building in an ever-continuing expansion in the size of the state unless it is periodically and deliberately culled.
Conversely the investment directly into the private sector creates wealth producing jobs that are paid at a level that is sustainable and is responsive to the health of the wider economy.
[i] Alesina, Ardagna, Perotti, Schiantarelli. “Fiscal Policy, Profits and Investments”. National Bureau of Economic Research. 1999
|
[
{
"docid": "adbb9f3a894e27ddb586d65209d95f50",
"text": "conomic policy tax philosophy political philosophy politics government house Were the theory put forward true, and that is debatable, it would require tax cuts to benefit the lowest paid individuals and the smallest companies. However the political reality is that it never does. Poor people and small companies do indeed spend money which has a stimulating effect on the economy, but spending only stimulates the economy if it is spent in the right way. It is not possible to guarantee that the funds that flow into a state’s economy as a result of tax cuts will benefit that economy exclusively. Most forms of good and commodity now exist within a global market; manufacturing and production have become concentrated within states such as China. Useful and productive business activity will always require that a proportion of a business’s funds be spent overseas.\n\nThe advantage of government funding is that it can be directed into the weakest areas of the domestic economy, with a degree of dynamism and control that the markets will never be able to achieve. However, recent history has suggested that tax cuts have tended to be directed to the wealthy and to large corporations who are under no obligation to spend or invest either domestically or immediately.\n\nThere is little benefit to any economy in allowing wealthy individual and organizations to further expand stagnant wealth or to invest in high end products bought internationally.\n\nThere is also a matter of scale, government has a capacity for borrowing against its own security of wealth that is simply not matched by any private individual or corporation. Equally government is uniquely placed to undertake infrastructural investment such as house building projects which directly supports sectors that are otherwise the hardest hit during times or economic downturn.\n\nEven where tax cuts are directed or fall evenly across all income ranges there is still no control over the areas of probable expenditure and are also unlikely to stimulate sectors such as construction.\n\nMost importantly tax cuts have no direct benefit for the unemployed which, of course, the creation of jobs by government itself does.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "b1df299511e7f520aa9f7259c52fb355",
"text": "conomic policy tax philosophy political philosophy politics government house The myth of the greater efficiency in the private sector is one of the enduring fallacies of the politics of the right. Even the slightest glance at those areas where governments routinely outsource capital projects- defense procurement, major infrastructural projects and IT projects- there is astonishing inefficiency and it seems questionable as to how the public sector could be any less efficient.\n\nIt is an innate aspect of private companies that they need to make a profit, which is by nature an inefficiency, in that it takes resources out of any system. It is a strange thing that those who most passionately support the efficiency and effectiveness of the private sector become meek when it comes to the most important elements of public life- defense of the nation, policing the streets, educating the young. Equally when the astonishing levels of inefficiency and, frequently, incompetence that exist within the private sector come to light in the collapse of companies, be those banks or auto-giants, apparently it becomes fine for state to intervene to pick up the pieces and put things back together again.\n\nIt is equally wrong to suggest that the lack of culpability of senior managers has an impact on efficiency: the ultimate senior manager of a public service is a minister- either elected or appointed by someone who is- and is therefore accountable at the ballot box for the services provided. By contrast senior managers, in the shape of boards of directors, in the private sector seem relaxed about paying themselves huge salaries and bonuses even when their companies are running huge losses and shedding jobs: this scarcely suggests a high level of personal responsibility for success or failure.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dfd903e952aef10755da02b5dd9f1d1d",
"text": "conomic policy tax philosophy political philosophy politics government house This again is a myth routinely put forward by the right. Governments already distinguish between regulations that should apply to all companies and those, more onerous ones, that apply to larger companies only. There are certain standards in terms of health and safety of foodstuffs, products and so forth. However, there is clearly a different role when it comes to regulating larger companies such as banks, insurance companies and major employers.\n\nThere are particular sectors that require more regulation than others but the bulk of regulation is there to protect both staff and customers and it is part of the reality of doing business.\n\nThe idea that regulation harms small business is simply absurd as they benefit from the regulation of larger businesses who may be either their suppliers or customers are also regulated.\n\nEqually start-up companies benefit from the fact that regulation evens up the playing field with more established competitors. If nobody is allowed to cut corners or perform other mildly criminal acts it is clearly an advantage to the new starters.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab02e0ca144babccca9bf4c81f22a1c5",
"text": "conomic policy tax philosophy political philosophy politics government house There is the world of difference between establishing basic rights and interfering in matters that are best agreed at a community or state level. That is the reason why the states collectively agree to constitutional amendments that can be considered to affect all citizens.\n\nHowever, different communities regulate themselves in different ways depending on both practical needs and the principles they consider to be important. Having the opinions of city-dwellers, who have never got closer to rural life than a nineteenth landscape in a gallery instruct farming communities that they cannot work the land to save a rare frog is absurd.\n\nTrying to establish policies such as a minimum wage or the details of environmental protection at a federal level simply makes no sense, as the implications of these things vary wildly between different areas of the country.\n\nEqually local attitudes towards issues such as religion, marriage, sexuality, pornography and other issues of personal conscience differ between communities and the federal government has no more business banning prayer in Tennessee than it would have mandating it in New York. These are matters for the states and sometimes for individual communities.\n\nThe nation was founded on the principle that individual states should agree, where possible, on matters of great import but are otherwise free to go their separate ways.\n\nIn addition to which, pretending that the hands of politicians and bureaucrats are free of blood in any of these matters is simply untrue – more than untrue, it is absurd.\n\nIf the markets are driven by profit- a gross generalisation - then politics is driven by the hunger for power and the campaign funds that deliver it. Business at least has the good grace to earn, and risk, its own money whereas government feels free to use other peoples for whatever is likely to buy the most votes. Likewise business makes its money by providing products and services that people need or want. Government, by contrast, uses other people’s money to enforce decisions regardless of whether they are wanted or needed by anyone.\n\nUltimately it is the initiative and industry of working Americans that has provided the funds for the great wars against oppression as well as the ingenuity to solve environmental and other technical solutions to the problems faced by humankind.\n\nPharmaceutical companies produce medicines – not the DHHS; engineering companies produce clean energy solutions – not the EPA; farmers put food on families’ tables – not the Department of Agriculture.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0aead680d568e029ea3877398db88acd",
"text": "conomic policy tax philosophy political philosophy politics government house The primary difficulty with governments retaining surpluses is that the government has no proprietary right to the funds in its coffers. The taxpayer effectively subsidizes the government, on the understanding that it will undertake functions necessary for the defence, continued operation and normative improvement of the state and society.\n\nClearly defense has to be one of the core functions of government and there are a few others, such as maintaining law and order. For government to say that the only way of securing its own finances is running a small surplus in its current account budget is palpably not true when there is astonishing waste in government expenditure, which is in turn already bloated and intervenes into areas of public life where it simply does not belong.\n\nIn terms of using government expenditure as a tool to respond to recessions, there may well be a role in terms of how government uses its own purchasing power and it makes sense that should be used for domestic purchasing wherever possible, however there is little to be gained by government creating imaginary jobs undertaking roles that simply don’t produce anything.\n\nInstead the most useful role that government can play during a recession is not expanding its own size and, therefore, the final cost to the taxpayer, but reducing it. Cutting the size of government reduces the tax burden on business and individuals and cuts back on regulatory pressure. Both actions free up money for expenditure which creates real jobs in the real economy, producing real wealth, in turn spent on real products, which in turn create jobs. This beneficial cycle is the basis of economics, creating imaginary jobs simply takes skills out of the real economy and reduces the pressure on individuals to take jobs that they might not see as ideal.\n\nThe most sensible response to a government surplus is not to hoard it on the basis that it might come in useful at some undefined point in the future but to give it back to the people who earned it in the first place. Doing so means that it is spent in the real economy, creating real wealth and real jobs and thereby avoiding the prospect of recession in the first place.\n\nUltimately it comes down to a simple divide as to whether you believe governments or people are better at spending money. The evidence of waste and incompetence in government expenditure is compelling and it seems an absurd solution to governments mismanaging the money they already have to give them more.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5c0d5b089d2762520dc28095f8931af7",
"text": "conomic policy tax philosophy political philosophy politics government house No country can pay its bills or increase the prosperity of its citizens if it is wasting money on unnecessary programmes. The principle problem with government funding is that it is not addressing any of the problems that Proposition raises. In many countries, The ideology of state intervention is has made government ever larger, building ever more excessive and bloated bureaucratic empires with fiefdoms and sinecures for every busybody and apparatchik more interested in monitoring change than making it, and more concerned with process than people.\n\nIt is not uncommon – indeed it is not even unusual - for private sector organisations to shed ten percent of their workforce when the judge themselves to have become uncompetitive, unprofitable or administratively unwieldy. Both the governments of France and Canada have done that in recent years and yet maintain high standards of government support [i] .\n\nFor average public sector wages to be out stripping those of the private sector (who ultimately pay them) is ridiculous. It becomes more worrying when preferential health and pension plans – where the public sector outstrips the private by nearly four to one are taken into account [ii] .\n\nThere is no question that it would be great if everybody could earn more, have more lucrative and more secure pensions, the world would be a nicer place. However, to penalise those who are making the money to subsidise those who aren’t simply makes no sense.\n\nTypically a government’s solution to an issue like child poverty is to establish a commission to discuss it – when it reports several years later it informs the waiting nation who paid for it that the solution might well be if their parents had a job. Most people could have figured this out in two minutes and at no cost [iii] .\n\n[i] \"Big government: Stop!\" The Economist. January 21st, 2010\n\n[ii] Dan Arnall. ABC News. Working in America: Public vs. Private Sector. 18 February 2011.\n\n[iii] Michael Cloud. “Why Not Big Government. Five Iron Laws.” The Centre for Small Government.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b2941168556dc7418aea0e4c99eec252",
"text": "conomic policy tax philosophy political philosophy politics government house Excessive regulation on the private sector puts burdens on free enterprise both in terms of administration and cost. By doing so it reduces consumer choice and acts as a drag on innovation and growth\n\nGovernment regulation assumes not only irresponsible companies but also stupid consumers. Although, realistically, very little regulation has any direct impact on the consumer but tends to involve time-consuming paperwork demonstrating compliance so that some civil servant can tick a box to prove that something that was already being done can be shown to have been be done.\n\nThe effect of this tends to fall hardest on smaller businesses that don’t have large financial or legal departments. As a result it not only takes up valuable time that could be spent developing the business itself but more importantly acts to discourage people from starting in the first place. This is particularly so when it’s considered that many people who start up a new company do so after many years of working for someone else within the same sector. As a result they see the pressure that needless and time-consuming regulation puts upon that company.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "517b71775ad8a237ca9fd8be016a539b",
"text": "conomic policy tax philosophy political philosophy politics government house Government has a tendency to be inefficient as it has no need to compete in an open marketplace, and jobs in state institutions are safe because of the guarantees both of the tax base and government’s greater borrowing capacity.\n\nGovernments both as a whole and in terms of individual employees have a tendency towards astonishing inefficiency, because state institutions are not subject to any meaningful competitive pressures. Indeed, many government employees earn as much or more than those in comparable jobs in the private sector, have preferential pension and benefit plans, lower hours and longer vacations. It is of course unsurprising that anyone in possession of such a job would be reluctant to give it up but also suggests a lower level of competition for keeping it. In the private sector such preferential returns would suggest that a worker would be likely to work longer hours to keep them.\n\nEqually, because senior managers are not spending their own money and rarely have their salaries indexed to efficiency and effectiveness- in a way that is automatic for most companies- there is little pressure to find cost and operational efficiencies. As a result it is usually cheaper and more effective for services to be provided by the private sector wherever possible and appropriate. Although there are some areas which must be managed by the public sector, such as elections and the criminal justice system, it is difficult to see the benefits in other areas.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2cfefb44ba819f1a74b0e45c379926ec",
"text": "conomic policy tax philosophy political philosophy politics government house Government was required to drive through major changes such as drives for equality within society, universal education, and preservation of the environment. Mostly in the teeth of big business\n\nNobody would deny the role that remarkable individuals have played in the major social changes of history. They have, however, ultimately required the actions of government. Many of these have been achieved despite, rather than because of, the interests of business. Critically they have tended to be to the benefit of the weak, the vulnerable and the neglected.\n\nGovernments have been responsible for social reforms ranging from the abolition of slavery and child labor to the removal of conditions in factories and on farms that lead to injury and death, in addition to minimum wage regulations that meant that families could feed themselves. By contrast, the market was quite happy with cheap cotton sown by nimble young fingers.\n\nIn turn profit was given preference over any notion of job security or the right to a family life, the market was quite happy to see water poisoned and the air polluted – and in many cases is still happy with it. The logic of the market panders to slave-labor wages to migrant workers or exporting jobs where migrants are not available. Either way it costs the jobs of American citizens, pandering to racism and impoverishing workers at home and abroad. Although the prophets of the market suggest that the only thing standing between the average American and a suburban home - with a pool, 4x4 and an overflowing college-fund is the government, the reality could not be further from the truth.\n\nThe simple reality of the market is this: the profit motive that drives the system is the difference between the price of labor, plant and materials on one hand and the price that can be charged on the other. It makes sense to find the workers who demand the lowest wages, suppliers who can provide the cheapest materials and communities desperate enough to sell their air, water and family time. Whether those are at home or abroad. The market, by its nature has no compassion, no patriotism and no loyalty.\n\nThe only organization that can act as a restraint on that is, in the final reckoning, government which has legislative power to ensure that standards are maintained. It is easy to point to individual acts that have been beneficial but the reality is that the untrammeled market without government oversight has had a depressing tendency to chase the easiest buck, ditch the weakest, exploit where it can, pollute at will, corrupt where necessary and bend, break or ignore the rules.\n\nIt requires government as the agent of what the people consider acceptable to constrain the profit motive.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3af1f8704bd6cab9c5b91db0999efc22",
"text": "conomic policy tax philosophy political philosophy politics government house Big government can provide the stimulus the economy needs in the bad years as long as surpluses are not squandered during the boom years\n\nGovernment expenditure is the single biggest tool in times of economic difficulty. Those that are the quickest to complain about taxation and regulation during the good times are also the fastest to rush for a bailout during the lean times. Likewise, those that call for tax cuts in a boom also tend to be the first to criticize a deficit or public expenditure during a recession.\n\nThere is in all of this one simple economic reality: the government acts as the banker of last resort.\n\nThis only works, as Keynes understood, if the government holds on to reserves in the good years so that it can spend them in the tough ones to stimulate jobs and growth. On the other hand, where surpluses are blown on tax cuts- or expensive wars for that matter- then will be nothing left in the bank and government cannot fulfill its most useful role of using its own financial clout to balance the economy over the course of a financial cycle.\n\nSo-called small government Conservatives have been consistently profligate in recent history and have tended to leave fiscally cautious liberals to pick up the pieces. The party of small government never seems to find itself short of billions of dollars for expensive white elephants like the SDI missile shield or asserting American military power overseas in pursuit of yet another doomed cause – whether that’s’ propping up Latin American dictators or settling familial grudge matches in the Middle East.\n\nThe military adventurism of the Reagan presidency as well as those of both Bush senior and junior were conducted not just at the cost of domestic social stability, but also fiscal security.\n\nInstead of preserving a budget surplus from the Clinton presidency, the Bush administration spent it recklessly – not, as is widely declared, on the War Against Terror – on tax cuts for the wealthiest in society. As a result Bush, his cabinet and his backers robbed the country of the possibility of reserves when the economy was in a less positive situation.\n\nAs far as the War On Terror is concerned, the total cost of two international wars, $1.283tn, stands in stark contrast to the relatively cheap police-style operation that actually caught Osama Bin Laden. It is also worth noting that of that huge sum an entire 2%, according to the Congressional Research service, has been spent homeland security – anti-terror surveillance and enforcement within the USA’s borders [i] .\n\nSo called ‘Big Government’, withholding surpluses for a rainy day, provides financial security for American businesses and workers. So-called ‘small-government’ presidents spend trillions of dollars on free money to the super-rich and on military adventurism in other countries and, apparently, in space.\n\n[i] Amy Belasco. “The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11”. Congressional Research Service. March 29 2011.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "27e7b6facea7ef2e3cfae097acd19248",
"text": "conomic policy tax philosophy political philosophy politics government house Ultimately government has a responsible to provide a level playing field to ensure that everybody gets a far start in life and can at least survive throughout it\n\nGovernment, especially in a developed nation and even more so in the wealthiest nation in the world, should be able to ensure that children are not hungry, the mentally ill are not living on the streets, borders are policed, veterans don’t live in squalor, the population can read, crime is controlled, the elderly don’t freeze to death and a million other markers of a civilized society.\n\nThis is particularly true of children but most people need a helping hand at one time or another in life. However, the obscenity of children destined to fail before their lives have even started- condemned to schools that offer no hope and communities that offer no safety- would be disturbing anywhere in the world.\n\nIn a nation that prides itself as having the highest standard of living on the planet- and is unquestionably the richest and most powerful- levels of poverty and despair that are seen nowhere else in the developed world are simply obscene. By every measure, infant mortality, life expectancy, educational standards, child poverty, percentage of incarcerated adults, homicides per thousand deaths and many more, America lags considerably behind Japan, Canada, Western Europe, Australia and the rest of the developed world [i] .\n\nAll of the indicators mentioned above have been adversely affect during the thirty year obsession with pushing the government back in the name of handing unfettered control over to big business and the vicissitudes of the market.\n\nAmericans pay lower taxes than Western Europe and get, as a result, a much worse return on their money [ii] .\n\n[i] Newsweeks Interactive Graphic of the World’s Best Countries. Hosted on the Daily Beast and elsewhere.\n\n[ii] Jeffrey Sachs. \"The Case for Bigger Government.\" Time. January 8th, 2009\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
3ff0af18ca74d2b825434ca8217599f4
|
Bush squandered an extraordinary economic legacy on tax cuts for the wealthy and too expensive and unnecessary wars.
The Clinton legacy was one of extraordinary economic health including an enormous $4,000 billion surplus. This could have been used to improve services and create jobs. Instead the Bush administration squandered this, mostly on tax cuts for the wealthy and two expensive wars. He turned the surplus on its head, leaving a budget deficit of $482 billion in 2009 with, frankly, not a lot to show for it [i] .
[i] Andrew Taylor. “Bush Leaving Next President Record Federal Deficit”. Huffington Post. 28 July 2008.
|
[
{
"docid": "3c40c6c6fc23af45e1649d38d23ed0ec",
"text": "conomic policy tax politics government house doesnt trust republicans economy The logic behind tax cuts is two-fold. The first is that it isn’t the government’s money, it belongs to the people who worked hard to earn it. The second is that cash in people’s pockets acts as a stimulus to the economy which it doesn’t sitting in the government’s vaults.\n\nIn terms of who benefited from the cuts, a single person earning $30,000 a year was paying $4,500 by the end of Bush’s presidency as opposed to $8,400 at the end of Clinton’s.\n\nIt’s easy to create a surplus if you simply take people’s money away from them [i] .\n\n[i] “Taxes: Clinton vs Bush”. Snopes.com 22 April 2008.\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "42d027489222663603a05833a07d794e",
"text": "conomic policy tax politics government house doesnt trust republicans economy The reason for the apparent superiority of Democrat administrations is that they use government as a job creation service; using taxpayers’ money to create jobs in a bloated federal administration [i] .\n\nUltimately, these are not real jobs as they are not actually producing wealth, merely circulating what already exists. Real growth and real economic health comes from unleashing the innovativeness and industry of the American people to create new businesses and expand existing ones. The Democrat approach leads to taxes rising The Republicans can reduce taxes because they leave the creation of jobs where it belongs – in the private sector.\n\n[i] “Historical U.S. Job Creation – Under Democratic and Republican Presidents and President Obama” Democraticunderground.com. 2 September 2011.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "31005eaa688749809b70dbad365e3018",
"text": "conomic policy tax politics government house doesnt trust republicans economy The events of late 2008 had a variety of complex causes. To try and blame them on one thing alone is not to understand the problem.\n\nWhat is clear however is that an active financial sector creates jobs and wealth for the American people providing them with the security of a job, a pension and a home in a way that government can only dream of.\n\nThere is also no doubt that light regulation allows business to grow and create jobs, the only way out of recession is to allow business to do what it does best; grow America for all our futures.\n\nAs Ronald Reagan put it “Government is not the solution to our problems. Government is the problem”.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e9d8f21a06bdfb05c6af826623c424b",
"text": "conomic policy tax politics government house doesnt trust republicans economy It is really not up to the Government to decide when a job is “good enough”, frankly when the alternative is welfare any job looks fairly attractive. It is also much easier to find new work when you are already in the job market. As well as providing an income, jobs also give the worker pride and self-respect.\n\nIt is in the interests of employers to pay as much as the market can bear – this way they get the best person for the job, however, it is not the role of government to tell them how much they should be paying as this removes the incentive to work hard.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8dbc2cdc16a5965c4ebdaab2bb83c3e0",
"text": "conomic policy tax politics government house doesnt trust republicans economy George Bush announced that cutting government was one of his greatest priorities, his actions could not have been further from this ambition. As with most Republican presidents, government spending grew considerably on his watch. Indeed no president since FDR presided over a larger rate of growth in the federal budget. The largest recipient has been the military with over $5tn dollars spent on defence during his two terms. To take one example, when the Transportation Security Administration took a guess at the cost of a national computer system in 2002, it pegged the price at $1bn. A few years later the price was running at five times that [i] .\n\n[i] Jon Ward. “Big Government Gets Bigger”. The Washington Times. 19 October 2008.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e02b543322ce9c6bd6be85d49374621e",
"text": "conomic policy tax politics government house doesnt trust republicans economy The Obama administration received one of the worst political legacies in US history. A broken economy, half a trillion dollars’ worth of debt, two expensive wars, a sick healthcare system and much more besides. In just three short years he has stopped the country haemorrhaging Money in Iraq and Afghanistan, introduced a healthcare system based on medical need rather than the ability to pay and has made progress in improving the economy. Although things are still difficult for many Americans and there are not enough jobs, the idea that having the Republicans back in the Whitehouse is clearly untrue. They were in large part responsible for creating the economic mess in the first place with reckless over-spending and unjustified tax hikes. They turned one of the best economic inheritances in history on its head, leaving the country broke, in debt and with nowhere to go.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b8942e96e09b8a259520840891d213c8",
"text": "conomic policy tax politics government house doesnt trust republicans economy The idea that free markets are innately linked to democracy in some way is simply untrue. Equally there is a difference between markets that are free and those that are unfettered.\n\nFree markets are good to the extent that they create jobs and generate wealth. They cease to be good when they become an end in themselves, indeed when that happens, it very rarely encourages democracy.\n\nIn a situation where corporations are, by law, required to maximise profits no matter what there is clearly a role for government in setting some parameters in terms of what terms of what can be considered acceptable behaviour for corporate citizens within a civilized society.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f94bd03dc8c149265110d982819997b4",
"text": "conomic policy tax politics government house doesnt trust republicans economy Historically Democrats have presided over more economic stability whereas the GOP is the party of boom and Bust\n\nDuring the past 60 years Democrats have been considerably more likely to preside over a balanced budget than their Republican rivals. Since the OPEC shocks of the mid-70s the average unemployment rate under Republican Presidents has been 6.7 % as opposed to 5.5% under democrats. Even expanding that period out to the whole of the post-war period, unemployment has averaged 4.8% under democrats and 6.3% under democrats [i] .\n\nRepublican presidencies have been marked by higher unemployment, bigger deficits and lower wages.\n\n[i] Larry Bartels. “Why the economy fares much better under Democrats.” Christian Science Monitor. October 21st, 2010 .\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "10cda30f2535d441372d807eb54829cc",
"text": "conomic policy tax politics government house doesnt trust republicans economy Democrats focus on increasing wages, creating better consumers.\n\nQuality customers can only be created by paying people enough to allow them to purchase goods and services. You can create as many jobs as you like but if they’re created at a level where consumers can’t even afford to survive it does absolutely nothing to stimulate the economy. Instead Democrats believe in working with labour to ensure that wages are set at levels that both respect the worker and have a positive effect on the economy. [i]\n\n[i] Mark Pash, CFP_ wi8th Brad Parker. “Progressive Economic Principles: Creating a Quality Economy.”\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7287b1d7d45cb44e462299682e59200a",
"text": "conomic policy tax politics government house doesnt trust republicans economy Deregulation contributed to the banking crises and, therefore the 2009 economic crash\n\nIt is clear that the economic meltdown was, in large part, caused by deregulation of the banking and financial sectors. The Republican obsession causes not only environmental damage and low wages but it doesn’t even succeed in its avowed aim of leaving the market free to generate wealth. In just a way of letting the parties friends in the boardrooms of corporate America to get even richer by gambling with the homes and pensions of ordinary, hard-working Americans [i] .\n\nThe Congressional Republican response to the 2008 crash was to pass a bill that curtailed 38 environmental regulations, blaming the EPA for the stalled economy. Why is anyone’s guess.\n\n[i] “Why Government Becomes the Scapegoat”. Governemtnisgood.com\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c406732ae999f47a9b236178e5b13fd1",
"text": "conomic policy tax politics government house doesnt trust republicans economy Republicans more enthusiastically support market capitalism\n\nA free market is at the core of many of the other freedoms we enjoy. When government gets too involved in the running of commerce – whether through taxation, regulation or the state ownership of companies, history has shown us that they start controlling other aspects of citizens lives in an effort to get the economic outcomes that they want. Corporations – along with organised religion – provide useful counter-balance to too much government power. As nice as it sounds that we should divert the wages of the rich to bring the poor up to middle class standards of living, it just doesn’t work [i] .\n\n[i] “Why am I a Republican?” Early Riser. 7 February 2006.\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d265d75f49afde1d49a77ca3316197bb",
"text": "conomic policy tax politics government house doesnt trust republicans economy Republicans are the best at stimulating economic growth\n\nThe tax cuts proposed by President Bush and passed by a Republican Congress ensured that real, after-tax income was up 15% by 2006. The Dow Jones hit record Highs during his time in office.\n\nThese tax cuts were responsible for the creation of 6.6 million jobs, primarily in the private sector – real jobs producing real goods and providing real services not tax-payer funded sinecures to mask the reality of the economic situation. [i]\n\n[i] The White House, “Fact Sheet: Job Creation Continues – More than 6.6 Million Jobs Created Since August 2003”, 6 October 2006, http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061006-1.html\n",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "502837c153e79d192625e76d7dbddc2b",
"text": "conomic policy tax politics government house doesnt trust republicans economy “After three years, it is clear that President Obama’s budget-busting policies have not created jobs and have only added to our debt,”\n\nThe Obama administration has been profligate with taxpayers’ money, has failed to deal with the economic crisis and has increased the debt. His policies on health care show that he is more interested in controlling people’s lives than he is in encouraging enterprise and industry. It’s the same story that is always heard from Democrats; they say that they’re interested in encouraging business but instead all they really want to focus on is getting the government involved in as many areas of life as possible – especially in the running of the market. After three years in office Obama has done nothing to improve the life chances of the American people, growth and employment have stagnated, GDP growth has been under 1% per year while unemployment is up to 9.1% from 7.8%, [i] while regulation and taxation have blossomed.\n\n[i] Kristol, William, ‘Weekly Standard: Obama No FDR ON Unemployment’, npr, 2 September 2011, http://www.npr.org/2011/09/02/140137506/weekly-standard-obama-no-fdr-on-unemployment\n",
"title": ""
}
] |
arguana
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.