Diary
Still no referendum
30 August, 2007
Wonders will never cease in British politics. Now it appears that some Liberal Democrats may be ready to join forces with Labour and Conservative MPs in demanding a referendum on the EU Constitution. If true, this should worry Gordon Brown enormously. It would mean he would have to contend, not just with a huge backbench demand for a vote and strong opposition from the trade unions, but with a loss of support from Britain’s most unashamedly pro European party.
Thus far Gordon Brown has resisted calls for a referendum, insisting that the new Treaty is fundamentally different to the old Constitution. But just listen to the views of those who helped frame the treaty. For Angela Merkel the proposed new treaty used ‘different terminology’ without ‘changing the legal substance’ of the original constitution. For Bertie Ahern the treaty preserved ‘90% of the original constitution’ while others put the figure at closer to 98%. The fundamentals of the old Constitution (a President, foreign secretary, more powers for Europol and the Court of Justice) are all in the ‘Treaty’ while the size of the two documents is very nearly the same too. The Brown argument is as absurd as it is risible.
Of course the main reason for Gordon Brown’s political defiance is an entirely rational belief that he would lose a referendum. It was the same reasoning that lay behind the infamous 5 tests for entry into the Euro. The only test that mattered was that the government could win a referendum but, given the Euroscepticism of our island race, such a prospect was always a mighty tall order. But this is certainly not an argument for steamrolling the treaty through Parliament. Nearly all MPs made a solemn manifesto pledge to proceed with a referendum prior to ratifying the Constitution. To renege on this pledge now would be politically unforgivable.
If the government thinks the treaty/Constitution is in our interest, they should call a referendum and make the best case for signing up. In the 1970s the arguments for joining the Common Market were put to a Eurosceptic British people and the yes campaign won an important victory. It is up to the government and the other EU-philes to do the same now. If they win, our national sovereignty will be further undermined but no longer will British people be able to claim that it was done by stealth. But if they lose, it may at last signal the chance for Britain to renegotiate its relationship with the EU. Now there’s a thought.
topOur 'broken society' will not be mended by half measures
27 August, 2007
The shocking killing of an 11 year old boy has added to the spate of concerns about crime in the UK. Yet again a senseless, horrific and inexplicable act of violence has claimed the life of a young innocent and torn a family to pieces. It is a sad reminder of the amoral gangland culture which is affecting a section of British youth and plaguing communities up and down the land.
The government has responded to all this with the usual combination of spin and denial. We are assured that violent crime is falling and that offences with guns are on the wane when the Home Office’s own figures show otherwise. Next we are told there will be neutral drop off zones where illegal firearms can be dumped. But a rebellious law breaker, sneering at the very notion of authority, is hardly likely to comply with such a request by discarding (what is to them) a valuable status symbol.
In the last decade, we have witnessed one feeble attempt after another to deal with youth disorder, ranging from on the spot fines to ASBO’s to Acceptable Behaviour Contracts. All the while the organs of law and order have been systematically eroded by the government. A target setting culture has kept police officers busy filling in forms rather than making them visible on patrol. But a heightened, sustained and visible police presence is essential to restoring public confidence and deterring criminality.
Indeed we would do well to copy the ‘zero tolerance’ approach to policing launched by Mayor Giuliani in New York. In that experiment the smallest symptoms of lawlessness, such as graffiti and broken windows, were systematically dealt with by the police. Crime as a result dramatically fell over a number of years. We also need tougher prison sentences and a speedier process of justice. Persistent offenders should be hauled before the courts swiftly and given genuine deterrent penalties for law breaking.
But once again the government has been found wanting. They have overseen the automatic release scheme whereby a criminal can expect to be released from prison half way through a sentence with good behaviour. That is, of course, if they have been in a prison in the first place. Thanks to Chancellor Brown, the prison service was starved of funds, leading to the prison overcrowding fiasco and the early release of thousands of potentially dangerous prisoners.
But if we are to understand why sections of British youth are displaying such violent and anarchic behaviour, we must move away from the fashionable explanations offered by the progressive intelligentsia. For at least 3 decades, an unholy triumvirate of social workers, social psychologists and educationalists has blamed criminality on socio-economic causes, such as growing poverty and the growing divide between the rich and poor. They have rammed this econocentric view so far down our throats that even those who should know better blame Thatcherism for our crime wave.
Of course in one sense the progressives are right: we must invoke some social causes to explain criminality. But they have latched on to the wrong social causes. In a brilliant article in today’s Telegraph, Janet Daley exposes how a ‘progressive movement’ in the 60s and 70s helped to trash the concepts associated with a more ordered society. Out went the notion of respecting elders and authority figures, together with self discipline and the unquestioned belief in right and wrong.
Armed with this insurrectionary doctrine, the progressives eroded our public institutions, including the media, the judiciary and the education system. All were persuaded to adopt some form of cultural and moral relativism and a new doctrine of extreme individualism. It was at this terrible juncture that the family, the bedrock of civilized society and the primary means for transmitting moral values, broke down. As divorce rates rocketed and single parenthood became more fashionable, governments of various colours made it financially viable for parents to stay apart, rather than rewarding parents who stayed together.
As more and more children grew up without a father figure to impose discipline, the state entrenched a culture of welfare dependency which dispensed benefits to those out of work and effectively created an underclass with no sense of connection to the wider world. The Victorians were the first to recognize that welfare dependency would breed irresponsible behaviour and, eventually, reckless criminality. We are seeing the same linkage today. All the while, standards of good and evil were eroded by the prevailing doctrines of moral relativism and multiculturalism. Thus at the very moment when moral values needed to be urgently reimposed on a new generation, those values themselves became suspect.
If we are to reverse this appalling lapse in social standards, we must tackle the problems in the here and now, as well as the social culture that has bred them. More police on the streets (and zero tolerance policing), more prisons equipped to educate and civilize their inmates, tougher sentencing guidelines and a speedier process of justice must form the bedrock of our response to youth crime. But our politically correct culture has to change too. That means the state recognizing marriage through the tax system and ending the culture of welfare dependency it has so ignominiously spawned. Most importantly our public bodies, including our schools, have to send out (and act on) the message that there are basic moral values that apply to us all. In other words, that moral relativism is ideologically and morally defunct. This also means that schools have to be freer to impose a stern discipline code which rewards good behaviour but excludes troublemakers.
Of course, this is all easier said than done. But public bodies have to match the public will to change our ‘broken society’. If they do not, we will only see more and more parents cradling dead children in their arms.
topSomething is wrong in the world of human rights
23 August, 2007
The decision to allow Learco Chindamo to remain in the UK when he is eventually released from prison sums up everything that is wrong with Britain’s human rights culture. We now live in an age when rights are decoupled from responsibilities and when the rights of criminals supersede those of their victims.
The government’s efforts to have Chindamo deported after his release were scuppered when the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal ruled that deporting him to Italy would violate his right to a family life. This right came under Section 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which was incorporated into the Human Rights Act. Hardly surprisingly Mrs. Lawrence was left to state the obvious, namely that this Act has sidelined her children’s right to public safety in favour of upholding the more dubious rights of her late husband’s convicted killer.
In 2000 the Blair government incorporated the Convention on Human Rights into English law, hailing a major breakthrough in the quest to reform the Constitution. But in effect it undermined the English common law, which had served us so well for centuries, and gave precedence to a Continental system of law which cited universal rights and values as the basis for legislation. Foreign conceptions of law, resting on no national or democratic mandate, became the guiding principles of the judiciary.
But that is not the only problem with this human rights legislation. All rights have to be balanced against each other requiring a great deal of legal interpretation and subjective judgment, often termed 'judicial activism' when judges stray into areas that are the prerogative of politicians. The end process should be one where the rights of innocent victims of crime, and law abiding citizens generally, trump those of the criminals who threaten them. But that is not how the courts see things. When a group of Afghan men highjacked a plane which landed in the UK, they asked for asylum on the basis that they would face ill treatment back at home. Despite the government arguing that the men has committed a crime and would not face persecution in Afghanistan, they remained in the UK.
When the government sought to extradite terror suspects, such as the notorious jihadi Abu Hamza, the courts blocked extradition on the grounds that they would face torture overseas. The right of people in the UK not to face blood curdling calls for jihad on their own doorstep apparently matter little. Then there was the case of a London jeweller who was prohibited from distributing CCTV images of a thief in case…you guessed it, it breached his human rights. Understandably the Human Rights Act has become the handmaiden of Britain’s growing compensation culture.
Rights require responsibilities and a commitment to uphold the rule of law. When that compact is broken, some rights should be forfeited. Certainly, Mr. Chindamo has paid a penalty for his crime by spending time in prison, though the sentence seems excessively lenient. But the Asylum and Immigration tribunal were informed by the Home Office that Chindamo on his release would pose a genuine danger to those around him because of his notoriety. Common sense suggests therefore that he should be deported, especially to a country where he will not face the threat of torture. By failing to uphold the rights of innocent people, the courts have acted absurdly, revealing the bankruptcy of the Human Rights Act and those who interpret it.
topIt’s time the police reclaimed the streets
21 August, 2007
Last week Garry Newlove, a 47 year old father of 3, was killed, allegedly at the hands of a vicious gang that he had confronted outside his home. Almost immediately Chief Constable Fahy offered a scathing analysis of the factors that lay behind an upsurge in violent teenage crime. He cited first the low cost of alcohol being sold in supermarkets. Then he rounded on the parents of drunken teenagers, demanding that they cease turning a blind eye to their offspring’s recalcitrant behaviour. He called for more police powers to stop drinking in public places and an increase in the age limit for purchasing alcohol.
But what Fahy omitted from his analysis was the most obvious point of all - that the police themselves have systematically failed to deal with violent crime. Local residents, blighted by youth crime and alcohol fuelled violence, have usually cited this last factor as the most worrying of their concerns. Naturally some of what Mr. Fahy says does make sense. Many of the senseless killings witnessed in recent months do appear to be alcohol related and many youths come from chaotic family backgrounds, where the absence of a father figure allows a substitute gang culture to emerge.
If we are going to solve gang culture, we cannot allow the many to suffer for the sins of the few. Restricting the areas where people drink will end up penalizing the majority of decent, law abiding drinkers who choose not to cause havoc in residential neighbourhoods. Increasing the age limit for buying alcohol will send out the signal that no 18-21 year olds can be trusted with alcohol while increasing its cost will scarcely prevent a determined offender from obtaining an illicit supply. Most of Chief Constable Fahy’s ideas represent nothing more than a form of collective punishment.
What is required is a visible, heightened and sustained police presence in the areas where teenage crime is rampant. The police need to target problem areas before murders take place and disincentive the anti social behaviour that blights local communities. In too many cases the police are reactive to these problems and too often, they act too late. Last year another young father, Peter Woodhams, was shot dead by a gang after confronting them outside his home in Canning Town. Weeks before his death, his fiancé had reportedly contacted police about an earlier incident in which he had been stabbed, yet the police failed to take a statement or deal with the problems on the estate. No doubt we will soon discover how limited the police role was in the case of Mr. Newlove.
But the police problems do not stop there. Chief Constable Fahy said that ordinary citizens had to feel as if they could still tackle trouble makers with impunity. If only we lived in such a world. Did he stop to think that one reason why people are terrified of confronting youths is that they will end up on the wrong side of the law themselves? There are cases, too many to mention, where innocent victims of crime have taken on their assailant, only to find themselves under arrest on suspicion of assault. It may be true that convictions rarely result but the suspicion remains that the police are on the side of the criminals, upholding their ‘human rights’ at the expense of their victims. This is intolerable.
David Cameron rightly highlighted the importance of families yesterday and his call for recognizing marriage through the tax system is welcome. But this is a long term solution to violent crime, not a short term panacea. The police must reclaim the streets and restore public confidence before this surge of violent crime gets out of control. Crime cannot be solved by form filling and bureaucracy in police stations.
Before the last election Tory leader Michael Howard, who had shown himself to be a tough Home Secretary in the 1990s, proclaimed that a Tory government would liberate the police from unnecessary form filling and bureaucracy. This would help the police return to their public duties where they could tackle yob culture head on. Now David Cameron must decide where he stands on this issue before the next general election is called. ‘Hugging hoodies’ is simply not an option.
topThe Redwood Commission
18 August, 2007
The latest proposals by John Redwood’s Economic Competitive Commission have offered the Conservatives a real platform for political opposition. The review, co-authored by John Redwood and Simon Wolfson, the Chief Executive of the Next group, outlines some sensible proposals for increasing competitiveness and reducing the stranglehold of bureaucracy and regulation. The most eye catching proposal is undoubtedly the proposal to abolish inheritance tax, which brings the Treasury 4 billion pounds a year. Also worth mentioning are the proposals to lower corporation tax, raise the threshold for the highest rate of taxation and scrap stamp duty on shares. The report has focused on much more, including suggestions for reforming building regulations, opting out of the EU social chapter and reducing carbon emissions. But the centerpiece is the idea of targeted tax reductions in certain key areas that would eventually save billions of pounds.
The Tories, of course, are not obliged to take up these policy suggestions. But there seems to be some sympathy for what Redwood and Wolfson have put forward. In George Osborne’s view, inheritance tax could be scrapped by an incoming Tory government and here is his statement yesterday: ‘I believe lower taxes help businesses to succeed.’ Has there been a behind the scenes Damascene Conversion? Has the Tory leadership been so stung by Grammargate and the local elections farce as to throw a sop to the right of the party? Well it appears not.
Yesterday, George Osborne repeated the mantra that there would be no commitment to ‘upfront tax cuts’ as the priority remained ‘economic stability.’ And then: ‘It is our intention in government to share the proceeds of economic growth between spending on important public services and reductions in tax.’ Elsewhere the Tories’ boy wonder argued that he did not want to sacrifice people’s mortgages by reckless tax cuts. Presumably what he meant was that reducing tax could fuel inflation which could, in turn, see a rise in interest rates, which would then translate into higher mortgage bills. It did not seem to occur to him how much mortgage payers would save if less of their hard earned money went into their own pockets instead of Treasury coffers!
Putting stability ahead of tax cuts is the language of the clunking fist. It is Brownese economics in Tory clothing rather than a concerted effort to defy the status quo. As I have argued elsewhere, moving to a lower tax, lower regulation economy would (in theory) allow for an increase in economic growth that would then produce the revenue allowing for investment in public services or whatever pet project the government had in mind. But the Tories are not trying to present the argument for fear of being called ‘right wing.’ Of course there is nothing right wing about giving people more freedom with their savings or removing the barriers to would be entrepreneurs. It is hard working families and businesses that suffer the most under the status quo, not the rich.
The logical consequence of all this is that any tax reductions that the Tories do accept would have to be offset by tax rises elsewhere. The favourite candidate at the moment seems to be ‘green taxes’ on aviation which puts the Tories in agreement with the other main parties. But then all they are really proposing is a philosophy of tax redistribution, not tax reduction.
This Commission offers the Tories a great starting point for opposition. Sadly they are once again flunking the challenge.
topChannel 4 versus the Islamists. So who's really stirring up hatred?
9 August, 2007
There will be no further posts until the end of the week as I am on holiday.When you listen to British apologists for Islamic extremism you often need to pinch yourself to make sure you‘re hearing correctly. Many people yesterday will have been bewildered by the decision of West Midlands police to report Channel 4 over the Dispatches documentary ‘Undercover mosque’. This brave piece of investigative journalism, screened in January 2007, reported on how foreign born (mainly Saudi) preachers were infiltrating British mosques to spread a message of religious and racial hatred.
The documentary was extremely disturbing to watch but left you in no doubt about the views of the extremists. One preacher, Dr Mian, told Muslims that they could not ‘accept the rule of the Kaffir’ or non Muslims. Muslims had to ‘rule the others’ he told him and until then, live ‘in a state within a state’. Abu Usamah, one of the most violent of the preachers, warned that if any Muslim changed his religion, it was necessary to ‘kill him.’ He went on to praise the killing of British soldiers in Afghanistan stating that ‘The hero of Islam is the one who separated his head from his shoulders’. He also called for homosexuals to be put to death. Sheikh Al Faisal thundered: ‘You have to bomb the Indian businesses, and as for the Jews you kill them physically.’ DVD’s and books featuring the sermons of Saudi hatemongers were openly on sale at religious centres and mosques, also promoting a vicious ideology. By any standards, the material was explosive, inflammatory, racist, homophobic and sexist.
But this is not how the CPS sees things. Channel 4, according to one CPS lawyer, spliced together extracts from longer speeches which ‘completely distorted what the speakers were saying.’ Channel 4 stands accused of unfairly representing what the preachers said and undermining community cohesion in the process. Instead of stating the glaringly obvious, namely that Muslim institutions were (and are) allowing radical, violent demagogues to whip up hatred of non Muslims in this country, the police have reached the opposite conclusion. Apparently reporting the hate speech of Muslim preachers is itself a hate crime and (this is most laughable) it risks undermine community cohesion. So perhaps if Channel 4 had resisted the urge to enlighten us about these sermons, relations between Jews, Christians, gays and Saudi extremists would be so much better. Oh dear.
Naturally in any 9 month investigation you are going to obtain far more material than you could possibly show in one programme. Lengthy speeches can hardly be reproduced in full, making shorter extracts necessary. But as the Commissioning Editor of Channel 4 has been at pains to make clear, these extracts still ‘speak for themselves.’ To suggest that the extracts have been taken ‘out of context’ seems ludicrous, particularly given what we know about the intolerant ideology of Saudi Wahhabism. What is the ‘proper’ context for the statement that Jews ‘should be killed physically’ or that ‘Hindu businesses should be attacked’ other than a blatant attempt at stirring up racial hatred?
For those who remain unconvinced, try this little thought experiment. Suppose there was a Channel 4 documentary about the activities of some right wing political group such as the BNP. The researchers produce 60 hours of undercover footage, much of which shows party activists unashamedly talking of restricting immigration, banning extremists and reintroducing the death penalty. (I am not suggesting this is typical of a BNP rally but please indulge me). But then every so often, some party activists talk of shooting immigrants on the streets, burning down mosques and attacking black school children. Do you think the police would take the same lenient view and argue that these activists have been ‘quoted out of context?’ I don’t think so either.
The main reason why the police have erred so badly is that they remain hyper sensitive to the charge of racism. Ever since they were branded ‘institutionally racist’ in the 1990s, following their bungled investigation into the Stephen Lawrence case, the police have gone out of their way to avoid giving offence to any minority group, whether it be gays, lesbians, the disabled or Muslims. In effect they have bent over backwards to be perceived as anti racist and avoid the paralyzing charge of prejudice. The problem here is that British Muslims are gripped by a victim mentality which sees offence merely in the suggestion that Islam is fuelling extremism. The moment that someone brings up the question of Islamic extremism, they are instantly branded as an Islamophobe.
In order to accommodate Muslim sensitivities, the police have had to adopt their own victim centred view of the world, which includes denying that Islam has anything to do with extremism. This must be why Brian Paddick, the Met’s Deputy Assistant Commissioner, said on 7th July that ‘Islam and terrorism are two words that do not go together.’ The government has been desperate not to alienate the mainstream Muslim community because it wants to use them to tackle extremism from within. Such a strategy sounds far sighted enough until you realize that mainstream mosques, supposedly on ‘our’ side in the war on terror, are inviting in foreign imams whose sole purpose is to ignite a separatist agenda at best, and start a racial war at worst.
The police may think they are doing the Muslim community a favour here. But if so, this is nothing more than a short sighted and craven form of appeasement. They are effectively providing ideological endorsement for the twisted thought processes of the Islamists who interpret every criticism of Islam (including Islamic radicalism) as an automatic attack on Muslims. Thus our last line of defence against home grown extremists is actively defending the extremists against their (potential) victims. Not even Alice in Wonderland could make it up!
The sad fact is that the police have joined Britain's growing dhimmi brigade at a time when we desperately need some moral and intellectual clarity. Too little has been learnt since July 7th.
topMessage to Gordon: Don't ditch the US for the UN
6 August, 2007
If Gordon Brown wanted to put clear blue water between himself and President Bush he certainly succeeded last week. There was little of the genial, mutual back slapping of the Blair years, no smiles, jokes or hugs for the cameras. It was straight down to business for ‘a full and frank discussion’, and barely a Colgate moment in sight. Then it was off to the United Nations to call for a ‘coalition of conscience’ to right the world’s wrongs, solve AIDS, deliver Darfur from genocide and put peacekeepers around the globe.
Brown is obviously a shrewd politician. He can see George Bush clinging to life in Washington, derided by friends and enemies alike and resented by large sections of the British population. He seems to have every domestic reason to keep the President at arms length. And Brown surely had his domestic audience in mind when he suggested that any departure of British troops from Iraq would be dictated by a British, rather than American, timetable. Notice too the disappearance from the Brown camp of that phrase ‘war on terror.’ Apparently the new internationalism dictates that terrorists are criminals rather than Islamists. All of which will go down well with Labour MPs and the British public.
The problem is that if Brown wants to solve the world’s problems, he has to be a realist and ditching Dubya is just the easy option. The harder part is finding an alternative. For all its ills, America remains the world’s dominant military power with a formidable record at standing up to dictators and leading its own coalitions against evil. The UN by contrast has a pretty poor record. It stood by while countless thousands died in Rwanda and was powerless to intervene during the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans. Add to that its failures in Iraq and you have a pretty dismal record, all in all. But it was to the United Nations that Brown went in search of a solution to the crisis in Darfur. Over the last few years, anything from 200,000 to 400,000 people have been killed at the brutal hands of the government backed Janjaweed while millions more have been displaced. Yet incredibly the UN refused to even call Darfur a case of ‘genocide’ while Congress took a very different view. Brown has now helped obtain a UN resolution authorizing more UN and AU peacekeepers in Darfur to buttress the forces already there.
But here’s the downside. These peacekeepers are not allowed to disarm the militias or seize their weapons, nor is there any hint of sanctions against the Sudanese regime. These conditions were necessary to prevent China, a permanent member of the Security Council with economic interests in Sudan, from vetoing the resolution. But what has resulted is an entirely limp approach to international diplomacy. The killings will continue in Darfur, as they did in Rwanda and Bosnia, while UN forces act as passive bystanders. In the Balkans in the 1990s, as elsewhere, it is only military force (or the threat of force) that makes dictators think twice. That threat cannot come from the UN but it can come from America.
What Brown fails to see is that a UN coalition of ‘conscience’ would have to exclude the majority of its members, that is those states that are undemocratic, authoritarian and corrupt, and which regularly violate the rights of their citizens. And some of them, such as China, wield positions of enormous international influence at the UN. If Brown was a serious multilateralist, he would be calling for a radical transformation of the UN, not implementing another impotent resolution or appointing Mark Malloch-Brown, an apologist for UN corruption. He would be calling for the inclusion of other powerful countries on the Security Council, perhaps India as a permanent member, while arguing that the status of member nations ought to depend on their degree of good governance and implementation of human rights. To quote a former UN ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, the unreformed UN remains ‘the executive committee of the Third World dictatorships.’
This is not an argument for unilateralism or the abandonment of international law. Military action, without legal authority, is a recipe for tyranny. But equally, legality without power is a recipe for impotence. The two must be brought together if we are to live in a lawful and secure world. But as things stand, the United Nations is too morally compromised and corrupt to be an effective international body. Gordon should see that too.
Ditching Dubya for the UN may score points at home. But if the PM is serious about Darfur and AIDS, it may prove to be a hollow victory.
topThe IPCC report
03 August, 2007
The long awaited IPCC report into the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes has raised serious questions about the competence of the Met and, in particular, of Sir Ian Blair. What emerges from the report is a catalogue of misinformation, poor communication, confusion and irresponsible briefings that would put any organization to shame. On the day of the shooting the Met informed the public that a man had been challenged by police and then shot. We were told that the man bolted through barriers and refused to stop when requested by police and also that he wore suspicious clothing. Sir Ian Blair briefed the press that the man was linked to the ongoing investigation into previous terrorist incidents including the attacks of 7th July, when others in the force already knew this was not the case.
At no point during the day was Sir Ian properly informed that Mr. de Menezes was an innocent victim of a police blunder. While this was cause for relief for Sir Ian, he can hardly be exonerated. The heads of any organization must ensure they are in full possession of the facts, rather than be the passive bystanders of events. In the absence of the reliable information that was clearly available, he effectively slandered an innocent man and undermined the credibility of his force.
The tragedy of an innocent man being shot dead has led people to question further the Met’s strategy for dealing with terrorists. In particular, the shoot to kill policy has come in for particular scrutiny, where it is seen by many as an ineffective, immoral and inappropriate way of dealing with the security threat. But it is the exact nature of this threat that must not be forgotten here. This shooting came two weeks after Britain’s worst terrorist atrocity in which 52 people died. It came one day after a more audacious attack was foiled by the incompetence of the would be killers. The police were faced with the threat of a protracted campaign of mass murder on the streets of London and were understandably on the highest alert. Without wishing to justify this killing, which was clearly based on botched intelligence and planning (i.e. there was no just cause for killing), the police clearly needed to use all the tools at their disposal in safeguarding the rest of us. That included, as a last resort, a shoot to kill policy.
In retrospect Mr. de Menezes should not have been targeted nor should the police have so badly handled the aftermath. Some heads must surely roll here. But one tragedy should not be allowed to hamper the vital work of the police in protecting us from Islamist extremism.
topDon't knock marriage
01 August, 2007
Yesterday’s proposals by the Law Commission to extend rights to cohabiting couples should worry all those who believe in the institution of marriage. The Law Commission has proposed that unmarried couples who split up after living together for at least two years can make financial claims against the other party to the relationship, the claims including a share of the other’s wealth. This financial remedy would be a response to ‘the economic impact of the parties’ contributions to the relationship’ and would, for example, take into account whether one of the parties had given up work in order to look after the house.
Already the Law Commission has moved to counter arguments that this will undermine marriage, arguing that their proposals do not give cohabiting couples the same rights as married ones. But undeniably it is part of a process of blurring the distinction between cohabitation and marriage with deleterious consequences for the latter.
Many will seize on these proposals as proof that the existing rights of cohabiting couples are inadequate. Many will claim that these relationships are no less valid than those of married couples. But such a claim is disingenuous. Marriage is a far more stable and long lasting relationship in general than cohabitation. It is more stable because it involves a genuine commitment made between two people whereas cohabitation, by its nature, involves a looser and more flexible relationship with an easier get out ‘clause’ for both parties. True, the divorce rate for married couples is at an all time high, indeed at astronomic levels compared to 50 years ago. But this ignores the fact that cohabiting couples with young children are statistically far more likely to split up than married couples in the same position.
And it is precisely because of the advantages in life that children receive from married parents that should make us think twice before slating marriage. The children of married parents (as opposed to lone parents) are statistically likely to have better educational attainment than if raised by lone parents. The children of lone parents are far more likely to have leave school before 16, more likely to drink heavily, smoke, take drugs and have under age sex, are more likely to be excluded from school, and are more prone to persistent crime.
In most two parent families, a father figure generally exercises a positive and controlling influence over his offspring. Given the benefits of marriage, it seems only right that it is extolled as an institution and accorded a set of legal and financial rights not found in other relationships. And if cohabitees wish to claim the financial and legal protection enjoyed by married couples, there is nothing to stop them from getting married themselves.
top