_id
stringlengths 23
47
| title
stringlengths 0
84
| text
stringlengths 2
6.67k
|
|---|---|---|
validation-politics-tsihsspa-con03b | Terrorists have asserted justifications for their acts long before the idea of security profiling was even suggested. For example, Osama Bin Laden justified the 9/11 attacks on the grounds of the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia, US support for Israel, and sanctions against Iraq. [1] Airport security profiling will make no significant difference to terrorist grievances against the west, but could well make a significant difference to the efficacy of security. Most Muslims will continue to cooperate with Western security forces, as their interests are the same: preventing terrorism and bombings helps protect their lives and livelihoods as well. Even if the policy is disliked their cooperation will continue, as there is simply no workable alternative (short of becoming terrorists themselves, which is something which the vast, vast majority of Muslims find abhorrent and would never even consider). [1] Plotz, David. “What does Osama Bin Laden want?”. Slate. 14 September 2001. |
|
validation-politics-tsihsspa-con01b | More screening of travellers who display suspicious behaviour does not mean no or insufficient security surrounding travellers who do not. Security profiling would simply me a part of the security operation. What it does mean is individuals who buy one-way tickets with cash and no luggage will be more closely investigated. Yes terrorists may adapt to this, but this will make it harder for them to operate (as their operatives have to act identically to normal passengers or face exposure) and increase the chances that a ‘slip-up’ of theirs will actually be noticed and investigated by airport security. Moreover it is not so easy for terrorist organisations to find ‘clean’ operatives: the process of radicalization and terrorist training is bound to bring such individuals to the attention of police or security forces at some point, meaning most such individuals will be identified as potential terrorists and observed accordingly. Security profiling could actually aid this process. |
|
validation-politics-tsihsspa-con02a | Profiling is racist: Profiling in many ways would simply result in institutionalized racism, as Mark German argues: “racial profiling is wrong, un-American and unconstitutional. It is institutionalized racism.” [1] Mark Thompson adds: “So it’s not 'political correctness' (aka the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment) that is standing in the way of replacing full-body scans with a strong and effective profiling system: its reality. All that 'political correctness' is preventing is the implementation of an equally (and likely even more) ineffective piece of security theater in which we single out one minority group for intensive screening while giving a pass to everyone else. This would certainly annoy fewer people, but it wouldn’t make us safer and its sole benefits would be accomplished by treating an entire minority group as second-class citizens." [2] In any legal system which claims to give its citizens equal rights or equal protection of the law, security profiling is unacceptable. Profiling will target certain groups more than others. Even innocent members of these groups are made to feel like second-class citizens, and that the government suspects them of being terrorists without evidence – simply because of who they are. These individuals will be very visibly reminded of this every time they are segregated out at airport security, while they watch other non-suspects (who will be predominantly white and Christian, or at least non-Muslim) not being subject to the same scrutiny. The non-suspects will see this as well, and this may re-enforce any notions they have that all Muslims are potential terrorists and thus are suspect. Therefore because security profiling harms certain groups of citizens in unacceptable ways, it should not be instituted. [1] German, Michael. "Wrong and Unworkable". New York Times Room for Debate. 4 January 2010. [2] Thompson, Mark. "Profiling, Political Correctness, and Airport Security." The League of Ordinary Gentleman. 29 November 2010. |
|
validation-politics-tsihsspa-con03a | Profiling will increase terrorism not combat it: Profiling alienates groups needed in the fight against terrorism. Treating all Muslims as suspects, or being perceived as such, undermines efforts to gain intelligence on terrorists. Profiling the very communities we need information from to catch terrorists would be counter-productive as they would be less inclined to come forward. Umar Abdul-Muttallab’s father for example gave us such information to prevent the Dec. 25 terror plot. [1] Even if security profiling did make airport security more effective as supporters claim (although it would not) without personal intelligence and assistance the security situation will be far worse than it is now.. Normal security screening does not alienate these groups in the same way, as it is applied to everyone (and so they do not feel singled out) and it can be applied in culturally sensitive ways (for example, ensuring that pat-downs of Muslim women are always carried out only by female security officers). [2] Profiling also gives terrorists a justification for their acts. As Michael German argues: "when we abandon our principles, we not only betray our values, we also run the risk of undermining international and community support for counterterrorism efforts by providing an injustice for terrorists to exploit as a way of justifying further acts of terrorism." [3] In general profiling contributes to an environment of fear and insecurity, in which some communities feel victimized and others feel under constant threat, leading to even more tensions and an increased risk of violence on either side. Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said in December of 2009 after the Christmas Day Bomber incident: "While everyone supports robust airline security measures, racial and religious profiling are in fact counterproductive and can lead to a climate of insecurity and fear." [4] True success in preventing terrorism will require the active co-operation of Muslim communities, both at home and abroad, in identifying and isolating terrorist suspects and training groups. This cannot be achieved if it is perceived that the West regards all Muslims as terrorist suspects. The distinction which almost all Muslims currently see between themselves and the violent jihadis of the terrorist networks should be fostered, rather than sending the opposite message by implying we cannot tell the difference, or even that we believe there is no difference between them. For this reason, instituting security profiling at airports would be counter-productive, and thus should not be done. [1] Al-Marayati, Salam. "Get the Intelligence Right". New York Times Room for Debate. 4 January 2010. [2] Schneier, Bruce. "Profiling Makes Us Less Safe". New York Times, Room for Debate. 4 January 2010. [3] German, Michael. "Wrong and Unworkable". New York Times Room for Debate. 4 January 2010. [4] Groening, Chad. “U.S. airport security - 'profiling' a must”. OneNewsNow. 31 December 2009. |
|
validation-politics-tsihsspa-con01a | Profiling is ineffective at increasing security: Terrorists simply do not conform to a neat profile. Many suspects linked to past terrorist attacks that have been apprehended or identified come from within the United States and European Union countries. Profiling does not help against individuals with names and ethnic backgrounds like Richard Reid, Jose Padilla, David Headley and Michael Finton. [1] Many terrorists have been European, Asian, African, Hispanic, and Middle Eastern, male and female, young and old. A significant number of domestic and aspiring terrorists have been found to be “clean skins” – individuals with no prior link to known fundamentalists, who have radicalised themselves by seeking out terror related materials on the internet. Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab was Nigerian. Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, was British with a Jamaican father. Germaine Lindsay, one of the 7/7 London bombers, was Afro-Caribbean. Dirty bomb suspect Jose Padilla was Hispanic-American. The 2002 Bali terrorists were Indonesian. Timothy McVeigh was a white American, as was the Unabomber. The Chechen terrorists who blew up two Russian planes in 2004 were female. Palestinian terrorists routinely recruit 'clean' suicide bombers, and have used unsuspecting Westerners as bomb carriers. [2] Racial profiling is a shortcut based on bias rather than evidence. Unfortunately there is no such thing as a “terrorist profile.” There was in 2005a Belgian woman who became a suicide bomber in Iraq, would profiling have picked her up? [3] It is sometimes suggested to target Muslims, reasoning that some are bound to be “radicalized.” But Islam is a global religion. Which characteristics should the security services look at to determine whether someone is a Muslim? Name? Appearance? In 2000 63% of Arab Americans were Christian and only just under a quarter were Muslim. [4] Inevitably only certain groups will be profiled, this then leaves open the possibility that terrorist organisations will simply recruit from other ones, as Michael German (a former FBI agent) argues: “Racial profiling is also unworkable. Once aware of national profiling, terrorists will simply use people from “non-profiled” countries or origins, like FBI most-wanted Qaeda suspect Adam Gadahn, an American. What will we do? Keep adding more countries to the list of 14 until we’ve covered the whole globe?" [5] Terrorists can easily out manoeuvre profiling systems. Profiling creates two paths through airport security: one with less scrutiny and one with more. Terrorists will then want to take the path with less scrutiny. Once a terrorist group works out the profile they will be able to get through airport security with the minimum level of screening every time. [6] Massoud Shadjareh (the chairman of the Islamic Human Rights Commission,) argues: " What's to stop them dressing up as orthodox Jews in order to evade profiling-based searches?" [7] Moreover, the model of security practices, including profiling, in Israel is not applicable to other Western nations, such as the United States. Terrorists that threaten Israel are from well organised local groups, and from a particular group. America on the other hand faces groups from around the world. [8] This makes profiling far more efficacious in Israel and much less so in the United States, for example. [1] Al-Marayati, Salam. "Get the Intelligence Right". New York Times Room for Debate. 4 January 2010. [2] Schneier, Bruce. "Profiling Makes Us Less Safe". New York Times, Room for Debate. 4 January 2010. [3] German, Michael. "Wrong and Unworkable". New York Times Room for Debate. 4 January 2010. [4] World Directory of Minorities, ‘Arab and other Middle Eastern Americans’, [5] German, Michael. "Wrong and Unworkable". New York Times Room for Debate. 4 January 2010. [6] Schneier, Bruce. "Profiling Makes Us Less Safe". New York Times, Room for Debate. 4 January 2010. [7] Sawer, Patrick. “Muslim MP: security profiling at airports is ‘price we have to pay’”. The Telegraph. 2 January 2010. [8] Thompson, Mark. "Profiling, Political Correctness, and Airport Security." The League of Ordinary Gentleman. 29 November 2010. |
|
validation-politics-tsihsspa-con02b | As conservative columnist Deroy Murdock put it: “We are not arguing that the TSA should send anyone named Mohammad to be waterboarded somewhere between the first-class lounge and the Pizza Hut.” [1] There is simply no reason why security profiling necessarily has to be, or be perceived as, racist or targeted against certain groups. The vast majority of Muslim travellers do not display the kinds of suspicious behaviour which profiling will largely be based on, there will be no reason for them to seem nervous, and so will not be negatively impacted: indeed they will benefit by not being forced to submit to invasive pat-downs or body scans. They will similarly benefit from being safer in the air, as security profiling will improve the efficacy of airport security and decrease the chances of a terrorist attack which would kill Muslim and non-Muslim passengers alike. If profiling does end up resulting in more of a particular ethnic group being checked then this will not be because the profiling is racist but because these people are acting suspicious – at very most the ethnic profile would be one among many factors for deciding who should submit to greater security. [1] Nomani, Asra Q. "Airport Security: Let's Profile Muslims". The Daily Beast. 29 November 2010. |
|
validation-politics-gvhwauec-pro02b | The distribution of the vote is more important than the percentages for each candidate. The entire point of having the electoral college is to that it can act as a check on the majority vote is to ensure that the candidate who is best suited and had the broadest amount of support wins the presidency. If it was simply determined by popular vote than certain regions of the country would have a greater influence on the outcome of who won. The electoral college acts as a counterbalance to that. |
|
validation-politics-gvhwauec-pro02a | The electoral college violates the democratic principle that the winner should be the candidate receiving the most votes. In 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and probably 1960, the candidate receiving the most votes for president lost the election [1] . This occurs because all but two states award all their electoral votes to the candidate winning a plurality in the state; because all states receive two electoral votes corresponding to their two US senators; because the number of House seats (which serve as the basis of the remaining electoral votes) often poorly match the population of the state; because states cast electoral votes no matter how many people actually vote; and because the size of the House is arbitrary. [1] Factcheck.org, ‘Presidents Winning Without Popular Vote’, Annenberg Public Policy Center, 24 March 2008, |
|
validation-politics-gvhwauec-pro03b | No one defends this aspect of the electoral college. It is indefensible. However, it is important to note that the election has never come to the House of Representatives choosing the president. It is merely a plan of last resort to ensure that there is a president. |
|
validation-politics-gvhwauec-pro05a | The electoral college weakens incentives for voting and party building. There is no incentive for candidates to mobilize voters in states they are sure to win – or sure to lose, and voters have little incentive to vote in noncompetitive states where their vote is likely not to matter. Some states like Texas just have a fairly predictable voting record- they have voted republican 9 out of the last 10 presidential elections. Democratic presidential candidates do not spend much time in Texas for that reason. [1] [1] “Texas” 270 to Win. |
|
validation-politics-gvhwauec-pro01a | The electoral college violates the democratic principle of equality in voting Under the electoral college, all votes do not count equally. Voters in some states have more say in selecting the president than voters in other states. For example, California has 55 electoral college votes, while Delaware only get 3 votes. There is not equality in that, every state should be equal, California for voting purposes is no more important that Delaware. [1] [1] Electoral Map. Wikipedia. [Online] Available at: |
|
validation-politics-gvhwauec-pro01b | The US is not a pure democracy. The electoral college is one of the checks on majority rule. It is not violating the principle of equality of voting, because it gives every state a proportional voice based on their population. The states that have more of a say also have a larger population of voters, therefore it is proportional. California has the largest population for any state, and therefore gets the largest number of votes in the electoral college. |
|
validation-politics-gvhwauec-pro05b | This argument is suggestion that there is simply a strategy behind elections- which is true for every election. The electoral college framework does make a candidate have to acquire a number of states, in order to win, and while there may be some states that it is not the best use of time and resources to campaign as hard in. But this does require candidates have a broad base of support in order to win the presidency. |
|
validation-politics-gvhwauec-pro04b | The propositions argument is not only a logical fallacy, but also discourages democracy. It is illogical to argue that because Ralph Nader got a few votes in New Hampshire and Florida that if he was not on ballot they would have voted for Al Gore instead. Furthermore, the American electoral framework is comprised almost exclusively of a two party system, and any candidate who runs on a third party ballot needs to be given extra support just to have any chance at all of even securing just a few votes. |
|
validation-politics-gvhwauec-pro03a | If no candidate receives a majority of the electoral vote, the House of Representatives chooses the president, with each state receiving one vote. This provision allows the 7 smallest states with a population of about 4.9 million to outvote the 6 largest states with a population of 119 million. [1] This is blatently unfair. [1] Congress, XII - Manner of Choosing a President and Vice-President, 27 July 1804, |
|
validation-politics-gvhwauec-pro04a | The electoral college allows small third parties to tip the balance in a state and distort the preferences of the voters. In 2000, Ralph Nader siphoned a few votes from Al Gore in New Hampshire and Florida, costing Gore victories and thus the election. Nevertheless, Gore was the preferred choice of voters in a match up with George W. Bush. [1] [1] Archives.gov, ‘Historical Election Results’, ‘Electoral College Box Scores 1789-1996’, |
|
validation-politics-gvhwauec-con03b | The electoral college encourages third parties. Under the electoral college, a third party with regional support can win something: a state. The winner take all aspect of direct election of the president with no runoff discourages third parties because they have to come in first to win anything. |
|
validation-politics-gvhwauec-con01b | There is no such thing as a small state interest. States do not embody coherent, unified interests, nor do they require protection. The Constitution places many constraints on the actions of simple majorities, and the Senate provides extraordinary representation to small states. Moreover, candidates ignore most small states in their campaigns. |
|
validation-politics-gvhwauec-con02a | The electoral college is an essential bulwark of federalism. The electoral college emphasizing the role of states, and abolishing it would weaken federalism. This system reinforces the division and sharing of powers between the states and the national government. Without it the national government would have much greater power over the state governments, and the voice of the people would be quieter. The electoral college is essential to preserving the power of individuals through their state. Additionally, the Electoral College helps reinforce stable institutions that are essential for maintaining a political regime and preserving a free society. [1] [1] England, Trent. “What is ‘National Popular Vote’?” Save Our States. |
|
validation-politics-gvhwauec-con05a | The electoral college forces candidates to win broad coalitions across the country, encouraging national harmony. In direct election of the president, candidates might appeal to clusters of voters, whose votes could be aggregated across states and regions, perhaps representing only one strata of society. |
|
validation-politics-gvhwauec-con04a | Casting votes by state forces candidates to be attentive to local interests, which they would otherwise ignore in a national campaign. The electoral college is helping promote democracy through implementing a mechanism that make candidates pay attention to local issues, and actually do what they are elected to do- serve the interests of their constituents. A presidential candidate is of course going to focus on a more national level interest, but in order to visit and campaign across the country, the candidate must be at least aware of the issues that of particular interest to the local area. |
|
validation-politics-gvhwauec-con03a | The electoral college inhibits the emergence of third parties and thus acts as a bulwark against extremist candidates. The founding fathers had a reason to fear the emergence of extremist parties. A modern day example is with Rwanda. When they gained a multiparty democracy, without checks on majority rule, it allowed for extremist parties to enter politics and made possible the use of public resources to manipulate the population which set the necessary precondition of ethnic hatred that enabled the genocide to occur [1] . [1] Mamdani, M., 2001. When Victims Become Killers. Princeton N.J.: Princeton University Press. p209 |
|
validation-politics-gvhwauec-con05b | Candidates ignore large areas of the country in their campaigns. Moreover, George W. Bush lost most major demographic groups in winning election in 2000 under the electoral college. |
|
validation-politics-gvhwauec-con01a | The electoral college prevents a tyranny of the majority. The interests of states, especially small states, would be lost in a majoritarian national campaign. The electoral college forces candidates to be attentive to state interests. When the founding fathers created the electoral college it was with the many purposes in mind, but the tyranny of the masses is the most appropriate in mind here. It is important to remember the timeframe that the US was created in, there was not a very high literacy rate, and it would become very easy without a check on majority rule for someone to manipulate the population when entering power [1] . [1] United States of America, 1787. The Constitution of the United States. [Online] Available at: [Accessed 27 April 2012]. |
|
validation-politics-gvhwauec-con04b | Candidates do not focus on local interests because of the electoral college. The evidence is overwhelming. Candidates do not campaign in most states, nor do they run advertisements in them. Instead, the electoral college provides incentives to focus on competitive states, especially large competitive states. Moreover, candidates do not focus on local interests in the states they do visit. We do not need a presidency responsive to parochial interests in a system that is already prone to gridlock and which offers minority interests extraordinary access to policymakers and opportunities to thwart policies they oppose. |
|
validation-politics-gvhwauec-con02b | The electoral college is not a federal principle. Federalism was not mentioned at the Constitutional Convention in relation to the electoral college. The electoral college does not enhance the power or sovereignty of states. Federalism is based on representation in Congress and the Constitution’s allocation of powers to the states, not on the electoral college. |
|
validation-digital-freedoms-phbphnrp-pro02b | Politicians are not true stand-ins. They represent the interests of the people on a policy basis not on the basis of their personal lives. Trying to divine personalities in politicians inevitably results in misallocation of the limited resources of time and energy people can generally spend informing themselves about candidates. Rather, the focus of voters should be drawn to the issues, which is where true policy comes from. Of course temperament and actions in one’s private life may be an indicator to how the politician will react but their ideology and policy positions are likely to be a much more certain indicator. Focus on private lives only obscures the truth of policies and reduces the quality of representation as a result. |
|
validation-digital-freedoms-phbphnrp-pro02a | Citizens have a right to know who is being elected to represent them Beyond the discussion of the balancing of the right to privacy, it is important to understand the nature of representatives as stand-ins for the citizens who elect them. In other words, politicians are surrogates. Their duty is to represent the people in public life across all issues and policies. [1] Yet it is impossible to ascertain the desires of the citizens on all issues in the course of an election campaign. Even harder is to understand political decision-making in a context that had not existed at the time of the election. For example, if a war was to begin suddenly in a country that had not expected any conflict and had not elected representatives on the basis of how they stood on fighting this war. But that is exactly why politicians are elected as much for who they are as what their avowed policy aims are. We elect politicians who we believe will act best under such changing conditions; the ‘3 am phone call’, how a candidate will react in a crisis, is often a major issue in U.S. Presidential elections and temperament is often the only way to judge this. [2] Mitt Romney as candidate in the 2012 election was widely considered to have lost out to Obama on this measure. [3] Understanding the personal lives of politicians allows voters to elect one who best represents them in the sense of being able to act in their place in a changing world. Thus it is critical for the good electoral decision-making that the right to privacy of politicians be infringed. [1] Hughs, J. “Does the Public Really Have the Right to Know About Politicians’ Private Lives”. University of Phoenix Online. 27 June 2011, [2] Fallows, James, “Mitt Romney Drops His 3 a.m. Phone Call”, the Atlantic, 12 September 2012, [3] Drum, Kevin, “Obama Wins the 3 a.m. Phone Call Test”, Mother Jones, 14 October 2012, |
|
validation-digital-freedoms-phbphnrp-pro03b | All intense scrutiny will do is make fewer people be willing to enter politics. This does not mean the most capable will stay, only those with a higher tolerance for media intrusion, and those with a talent for concealment and spin. The result is not better governance, because the pool of potential leaders is reduced by the added pressures of losing all hope of privacy. Loss of the right privacy means worse governance. |
|
validation-digital-freedoms-phbphnrp-pro01a | The right to privacy is not absolute and is sacrificed in standing for public office A right such as that to privacy is not absolute. Rights are general statements of principle that are then caveated and curtailed in the interests of society. When an individual seeks elevation to public office, he or she must accept that the role is a special one in society. As the representative of the people, the politician is more than just the holder of a job appointed by the people, but is the elected servant, whose duty is to lead. Leadership includes leading by example as well as simply directing policy. It is a strange relationship, and it is one that demands the utmost confidence in the holder. But confidence can only be developed through increased scrutiny and transparency. This means understanding the private life of the politician, since it so often informs their public life. Thus, when citizens place their political power in the hands of an elected representative, they gain the reciprocal right over that representative to have his or her life and character laid bare for their approval. This is the only way true representativeness may be achieved. |
|
validation-digital-freedoms-phbphnrp-pro01b | Even if one concedes that such rights are not entirely sacrosanct, it is important to recognise that rights should apply universally and should still be defended. The right to privacy is also important, and must include politicians who, while fulfilling an important societal role, are not so special as to merit significant curtailment of rights. So long as politicians do their duty by representing the interests of those that elected them in a legislative framework, they are fulfilling their end of the covenant with the people, leaving no room for any nebulous additional right of citizens over politicians. They are elected to do a job not for their life. |
|
validation-digital-freedoms-phbphnrp-pro04b | The power structures that command people are best challenged through attention to policy and shaping the discourse in a positive manner. Attention to private lives is simply salacious and does nothing to actually forward the cause of groups outside the elite. In fact, focus on the foibles of the few serves only to confuse and misdirect public sentiment away from where it might do the most good in the furtherance of change. If anything deserves intense scrutiny it is the power structures themselves, such as Oxbridge in the United Kingdom, not on the individuals who are mere products of it. |
|
validation-digital-freedoms-phbphnrp-pro03a | Heavy scrutiny forces politicians to dedicate themselves fully to their public service When politicians see themselves constantly under the lens of public scrutiny, they are essentially forced to dedicate themselves wholesale to their duties as representatives. They are disincentivized in the extreme to pursue any transgressive or hypocritical activities behind closed doors, resulting in more energy dedicated to legislating, and less to lining their pockets or chasing interns, since the added risk of being discovered increases the cost of trying to conceal their foibles. [1] Having a culture of scrutiny of politicians private lives will mean those who most see their work as a public service and so will be dedicated to it will be the ones who seek to become politicians. Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s lurid sex life has thrown light on the sexual misconduct rife in French politics and has actually sparked a major effort to reform the system and a change to a more demanding culture towards politicians. [2] Politicians are human, after all, and susceptible to the base human urges that power unchecked is wont to accommodate. A powerful probe into politicians’ private lives can only serve the cause of better governance. [1] Hughs, J. “Does the Public Really Have the Right to Know About Politicians’ Private Lives”. University of Phoenix Online. 27 June 2011, [2] Clifford, C. and Vandoorne, S. “Scandals Put a Spotlight on France’s Hidden Sexism, Privacy Laws”. CNN. 3 June 2011, |
|
validation-digital-freedoms-phbphnrp-pro04a | Heavy scrutiny serves to challenge existing power structures The power structures that command peoples’ lives are often difficult to identify. While there are usually multiple candidates to choose from at election time, in many polities they all tend to come out from small-based elite. Oxford and Cambridge, for example, serve as the incubators of power in the United Kingdom. They hold vastly disproportionate sway in composition of Parliament and other political posts, and tend to dominate the front benches of all the parties. What media scrutiny, particularly with the advent of new media, has served to be is a massive check on entrenched elites. They challenge them in their lofty offices and strike at their very hearts when they behave in ways inappropriate or hypocritical. [1] This scrutiny is often one of the only pure democratic powers available to ordinary people, even in a liberal democracy. [1] Thompson, J. 2011. “Shifting Boundaries of Public and Private Life”. Theory Culture Society 28(4): 49-70. |
|
validation-digital-freedoms-phbphnrp-con03b | Even if the media occasionally distracts from more pressing issues, it does not make the issues attending politicians’ private lives entirely unimportant. The media can be admonished, as it was in the case of Lewinski, to stop getting overly fixated. As society’s watchdog, the media owes a duty to the people to provide as much information as possible, including information about their representatives’ private lives. Without that information they would never be able to adequately gauge who might best represent their interests. |
|
validation-digital-freedoms-phbphnrp-con01b | Even if privacy is a fundamental human right, it is certainly not an absolute one. When the authorities have probable cause they can search the property, residence, and computers of suspects in pursuit of greater societal justice. Politicians are not simply doing a job for the electorate they are in a special position as the effective embodiment of the people’s will, and as a result the powers they wield, which is far vaster than that of any private agent, demands a higher level of scrutiny into their backgrounds, which means looking into their private lives. This is exactly the same as outside politics; the more senior and powerful the job the more rigorous the checking of the qualifications and background of the candidate must be. |
|
validation-digital-freedoms-phbphnrp-con02a | Fixating on personal lives results in infringing the rights of more than just the politicians themselves Politicians, like all people, are not islands. They have loved ones and families. When a citizen chooses to offer him or herself up as a candidate for office he or she takes on many responsibilities. However, the politician’s family can never be considered to have wholly consented to the arrangement, even if they support them in the election. They are in many ways innocent bystanders, yet when politicians are treated as having no freedom of privacy, their families too are stripped of that right unjustly. [1] Thus, the right to privacy is worth protecting for politicians even if it could be shown that they had no real personal right to such respect. Rights exist in part to protect innocent parties, and the families of politicians are innocent, and would undoubtedly be prime victims of limitless media intervention. The recent ads produced by the National Rifle Association that target President Obama’s daughters and their security detail has dragged girls who did not choose to be the president’s daughters into the spotlight. [2] Additionally, the fear of scrutiny of family might well have a serious chilling effect on anyone who might seek public office, resulting in a worse candidate pool, harming everyone. [1] Privacy International. “Privacy as a Political Right”. Index on Censorship 2010 39(1): 58-68. [2] AFP, “White House slams NRA ad targeting Obama daughters”, Google News, 16 January 2013, |
|
validation-digital-freedoms-phbphnrp-con04a | The focus of politics and politicians should be on policy Delving into the private lives of politicians does nothing to improve citizens’ understanding of who represents them except to show that a certain politician may have issues in his or her private life that is unsavoury, or slightly hypocritical. But that focus on hypocrisy is itself legislatively meaningless. If voters select a representative who then votes in accordance with their wishes, then he is doing his duty, irrespective of how he lives his own life. Thus when Newt Gingrich, for example, as Speaker of the House sought to increase federal recognitions and incentives towards stable, monogamous relationships, while at the same time leading an extramarital affair of his own, he was not acting in bad faith with the voters who backed him, but doing their will, which is the duty of a politician at base. [1] Furthermore, when personal lives are open to attack, candidates can focus their energies on denigrating their opponents instead of addressing the issues that matter. The result is worse elections, as voters are unable to distinguish candidates effectively on the basis of policy, but are rather pushed to make decisions on the basis of personal lives, which results in decision-making that is less thoroughly in their interest. [1] Kurtz, K. “Legislatures and Citizens: Communication Between Representatives and their Constituents”. National Conference of State Legislatures. December 1997, |
|
validation-digital-freedoms-phbphnrp-con03a | The private lives of politicians are a harmful distraction for the media When the lives of politicians are fair game, they necessarily become a major target for journalists. Salacious gossip sells much better than more complicated stories about policy, so they are given pride of place. The result is the media wasting time and resources on pursuing stories that are ultimately generally useless in divining policy and progress in a society. The media is society’s watchdog, and its duty is to protect the people from untruths in policy and to shield them from wicked decisions. Focusing on the personal lives does nothing to serve the actual material interests of the people. Thus when the media reports on the private lives of politicians over the more meaty issues of the day, it abrogates its most fundamental duty to its citizens. The best example of this occurring is certainly the Lewinski affair in America. While it was deeply unfortunate that the president would use his power to solicit the sexual favours of an intern, the near maniacal fixation with which the media attended the story served to halt the process of government for many months. Bill Clinton spent much of his time and energy obfuscating and apologising for his private life, while the Congress dithered over who could be the most righteous in their opposition to the president. [1] The result was one of the most farcical standstills in the history of American governance. Absent the media reporting on this story and delving into the lives of those involved, America might well have been able to focus on the things that mattered. [1] Gitlin, T. “The Clinton-Lewinsky Obsession: How the Press Made a Scandal of Itself”. The Washington Monthly. December 1998, |
|
validation-digital-freedoms-phbphnrp-con01a | All individuals have a legitimate right to privacy Privacy is a fundamental human right that is universal, a right that should be defended for all citizens, including those who govern us. [1] What people get up to in their private lives is by and large their own business. People generally speaking have a basic respect for privacy. While some people may think their politicians owe them a special duty and thus have to give up certain privileges like privacy, the covenant between citizen and representative cannot be justified on such stringent grounds. A politician is effectively an employee of his constituents and the citizens of the polity. If this was justification for scrutiny into the private lives of elected officials then why should it not also be justification for intrusion into the private lives of unelected civil servants? Both these groups are doing a job for the public, but undertraining this job does not give the public the authority to intrude into their privacy beyond questions about whether they are qualified for the job. The duty of an elected politician is not so special as to demand an abrogation of his or her ability to enjoy a private life. If a right is to have meaning, it must apply to everyone with a semblance of equality. Making politicians fair game for reporters only serves to undermine the rights all citizens enjoy. [1] Privacy International. “Privacy as a Political Right”. Index on Censorship 2010 39(1): 58-68. |
|
validation-digital-freedoms-phbphnrp-con04b | Politicians are not merely elected to enact policies as stated but to act as a surrogate for the views and values of the voters who elect them. That is why politicians are expected, and are considered legitimate in doing so, to legislate on issues not necessarily discussed on the campaign trail. It is the scrutiny of private lives that allows the public to know how a politician will represent their views with regards to questions that are not asked in the election. That is why it is essential to understand the private life and character of the representative. With regard to political attacks, voters are trusted to select leaders, and can reasonably be expected to make decisions in their genuine interests. Thus they can be expected to discern policy from the campaigns effectively only in the case of access to the candidates’ private lives will they now have additional information to make an even better decision. |
|
validation-digital-freedoms-phbphnrp-con02b | While it is no doubt unfortunate that the innocent family members of politicians might feel unpleasant scrutiny, it remains essential to the promulgation of political accountability. Furthermore, it is valuable that citizens understand who their leaders are, and what kind of people they are, which necessitates knowing what kind of people they associate with in their private lives. Obviously, not all personal associations, such as biological family, may be chosen, but all the same those relationships can reveal much valuable information about the politician’s character. All of this is part of the trade-off politicians must accept if good, accountable government is to be achieved and maintained. |
|
validation-digital-freedoms-gthwaueai-pro02b | Our political situation is not as dire as this point makes it seem; it is easy to manipulate statistics between voting and reality televisions by discounting the fact that many people who vote in television shows vote multiple times – often as many as ten [1] . Young people are not completely detached from the political or the non-electronic world. Many are passionate about politics and exercising their right to vote [2] . Low voter turnout is a general trend across the nation, and if young people are failing to vote then this too reflects disillusionment with government. For example, many young people who voted for the Liberal Democrats in the UK recently were shocked when he expressly went against his promise to prevent tuition fee rises [3] . Political disillusionment among young people is also a problem in the USA [4] and Europe [5] . It is the state of politics itself, rather than the literal process of voting, which deters people from full political participation. [1] , accessed 24/08/11 [2] , accessed 24/08/11 [3] , accessed 24/08/11 [4] , accessed 24/08/11 [5] , accessed 24/08/11 |
|
validation-digital-freedoms-gthwaueai-pro02a | Modernisation In modern, developed countries, many people spend both work and leisure time on the internet or using electronic devices [1] [2] [3] [4] . Our traditional voting systems, with polling stations and paper slips, is out of line with how many of the population now live their lives. When we see an overwhelming number of people – especially young people [5] – voting for reality television programmes such as The X Factor [6] , it demonstrates a valuable method of engagement which the political system is missing out on. This had led to sources such as the BBC darkly questioning ‘Is Big Brother really more popular than election?’ [7] , indicating that while the overall number of votes in the 2005 general election in the UK outweighed those cast for Big Brother and Fame Academy, the proportion of votes by young voters (18-34) could be understood to show more engagement with these television shows than with the general election [8] . In any case, it is clear that we should bring our voting systems up to date in order to engage young people and the wider population. [1] In the UK: , accessed 24/08/11 [2] In Europe: , accessed 24/08/11 [3] In Asia: , accessed 24/08/11 [4] In the USA: , accessed 24/08/11 [5] , accessed 24/08/11 [6] , accessed 24/08/11 [7] , accessed 24/08/11 [8] , accessed 24/08/11 |
|
validation-digital-freedoms-gthwaueai-pro03b | Voting machines are far from reliable in this instance. Experts have expressed concern that ‘hackers, software bugs . . . or power outages could intentionally or accidentally erase or alter voting data’ recorded by the machines [1] . In this case, while the machines may be politically impartial, they are still subject to potential human corruption alongside the opportunity for technical faults and breakdowns. Electronic vote-counting machine errors led to almost 2 million ballots being disqualified in the 2000 USA election [2] . Electronic voting systems need a lot more work before we should even consider using them; they certainly do not solve any problems currently raised by manual counting. [1] , accessed 24/08/11 [2] ,, accessed 24/08/11 |
|
validation-digital-freedoms-gthwaueai-pro05a | Remote electronic voting can be conducted very safely. Our online security is improving every day; people feel safe enough to trust their most important details, such as bank details, to the internet [1] – why not their vote? Secure software and encryption protocols have allowed online markets to flourish, with companies such as PayPal inspiring a sense of security among their customers [2] . Any software for remote electronic voting could be scrutinised well in advance. It also removes the potential for identity fraud, which is a problem with current postal voting systems [3] . Each voter could be given a unique password, if necessary alongside something like a special swipe card, ensuring that everybody who is entitled to vote gets a single vote. Given that in many jurisdictions, traditional polling stations do not require voters to provide ID [4] , it would arguably be a security improvement on the current situation. [1] , accessed 24/08/11 [2] , accessed 24/08/11 [3] , accessed 24/08/11 [4] , accessed 24/08/11 |
|
validation-digital-freedoms-gthwaueai-pro01a | Electronic voting can make the franchise more accessible In many Western democracies, voter turnout has been falling while voter apathy appears to be rising. In the UK, voter turnout fell sharply between 1997-2000, and the last general election in 2010 saw only 65% of potential voters cast a vote [1] . In the USA, the federal election of 2010 saw only 37.8% of potential voters cast their vote [2] . Voter turnouts across Europe follow this trend [3] . When so few people participate in the key act of democracy – voting for the political leader of the country – it begins to raise worrying questions about the legitimacy of that democracy in the first place. If electronic or internet voting was introduced as an option alongside more traditional polling methods, it would expands the accessibility of the voting system in general. Internet or electronic voting would be a strategic practical measure. It would make voting convenient for busy modern citizens because it minimalises the amount of effort each individual has to contribute – namely, they do not have to travel to the polling stations [4] . As such, it removes physical restrictions on the voting process and becomes more universally accessible. This would prevent people from being unable to vote because they are ‘too busy’ [5] – whether this is simply because their local polling station is too far away for them to commute to, or to fit in alongside their other daily responsibilities based at work or home [6] [7] . [1] , accessed 22/08/11 [2] , accessed 22/08/11 [3] , accessed 22/08/11. [4] , accessed 25/08/11 [5] , accessed 22/08/11 [6] In the USA: , accessed 22/08/11 [7] In the UK: , accessed 22/08/11 |
|
validation-digital-freedoms-gthwaueai-pro01b | Voter apathy cannot be solely attributed to having to walk to your local polling station. It can also be attributed to general disillusionment with the campaigning political parties, and the idea that none of them will perform well in government [1] . Political parties which focus more strongly on national rather than constituency campaigning can also inspire voter apathy [2] . The problems behind voter apathy are far greater than can be solved by trying to change the practical aspect of voting; it is the fact that voters often feel neglected by their government which is a far greater concern [3] . [1] , accessed 24/08/11 [2] , accessed 24/08/11 [3] , accessed 24/08/11 |
|
validation-digital-freedoms-gthwaueai-pro05b | The most ‘secure’ of websites have been recently hacked. For example, Paypal was hacked by Lulzsec in response to the Wikileaks scandal [1] . Lulzsec also hacked the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) [2] , supposedly the source of all their national intelligence and top secret information. If anything, recent events have shown us that the internet is an unstable medium for people to conduct personal or professional affairs; we certainly should not allow our voting systems to become even more vulnerable to this kind of attack. A better way to prevent identity fraud would be the simple measure of now requiring polling stations to ask for ID, rather than going to the extreme of online voting. [1] , accessed 24/08/11 [2] , accessed 24/08/11 |
|
validation-digital-freedoms-gthwaueai-pro04b | The elderly far more frequently find electronic voting to be a hindrance rather than a help. Those who are partially sighted are unable to see the position on the text blocks on the screen; small controls such as buttons or touch screens create problems; and some cognitively impaired people may find it difficult to remember a PIN number which is used to authenticate the vote [1] . A simple paper ballot is a far more commonly-recognised and straightforward method. In terms of cost, the electronic voting machines or voting programmes would certainly cost a great deal to implement and run [2] . Ultimately, the great risk that electronic voting machines or systems will lose votes [3] outweighs the cost argument: you cannot put a price on a crucial process at the core of every democratic state. [1] , accessed 24/08/11 [2] , accessed 24/08/11 [3] , accessed 24/08/11 |
|
validation-digital-freedoms-gthwaueai-pro03a | Efficiency Because it would not require manual counting and tallying, remote electronic voting would allow the results to be known much faster [1] , and would also eliminate the potential for human error, which is a common problem with the current system [2] . For example, in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election of 2011, a clerk discovered around 14,000 unrecorded votes which had been missed by human error – and actually changed the outcome of the election [3] . The clerk is now being questioned regarding her party allegiances under suspicion that she was trying to turn the election into a victory for her favoured candidate [4] – yet another potential for abuse under the current system. Machines, of course, are impartial concerning party allegiances and so eliminate the potential for individual corruption. [1] , accessed 24/08/11 [2] , accessed 24/08/11 [3] , accessed 24/08/11 [4] , accessed 24/08/11 |
|
validation-digital-freedoms-gthwaueai-pro04a | Electronic voting will create a more cost effective franchise Electronic voting would also save a great deal of money which is currently spent on employing counters and renting venues to be used as polling stations. For example the UK general election in 2005 cost over £80 million to organise [1] , Canada’s 2008 election cost around $300 million [2] , and the USA presidential election of 2008 was estimated to cost up to $5.3 billion [3] . Electronic voting also brings the opportunity to increase access to those who currently find it difficult to register their votes; for example, electronic voting could be conducted in a minority language for those who find English difficult [4] . In the past, trials of this have been shown to improve voter turnout among minority groups [5] . Electronic voting could also benefit the elderly, as many find it difficult to use the lever-operated ballots currently in use. [6] Using electronic voting ensures that no groups are left out of an essentially democratic process. [1] , accessed 24/08/11 [2] , accessed 24/08/11 [3] , accessed 24/08/11 [4] , accessed 24/08/11 [5] , accessed 24/08/11 [6] , accessed 24/08/11 |
|
validation-digital-freedoms-gthwaueai-con03b | It is impossible to tackle potential problems in party politics without an input from the electorate. Young people may have the opinion that politics itself is inaccessible, but this will never change if they refuse or fail to vote. A democratic government can only ever be truly representative when everybody casts their vote. At least this mechanism is an attempt to reach those young people – and in cases where they say they do not know enough about politics, to try a different medium of teaching. Ultimately, those who have no intention of voting will continue to refuse. However, this is at least a step towards educating and enabling those who do wish to vote, but perhaps do not currently feel well-equipped enough to do so. |
|
validation-digital-freedoms-gthwaueai-con01b | Our understanding of online security is improving every day; people feel safe enough to trust their most important details, such as bank details, to the internet [1] – why not their vote? Secure software and encryption protocols have allowed online markets to flourish, with companies such as PayPal inspiring a sense of security among their customers [2] . Any software for remote electronic voting could be scrutinised well in advance. It also removes the potential for identity fraud, which is a problem with current postal voting systems [3] . Each voter could be given a unique password, if necessary alongside something like a special swipe card, ensuring that everybody who is entitled to vote gets a single vote. Given that in many jurisdictions, traditional polling stations do not require voters to provide ID [4] , it would arguably be a security improvement on the current situation. [1] , accessed 24/08/11 [2] , accessed 24/08/11 [3] , accessed 24/08/11 [4] , accessed 24/08/11 |
|
validation-digital-freedoms-gthwaueai-con02a | Electronic voting may harm the principle of democratic accountability The numerous faults experienced in trials and small-scale use of electronic voting [1] [2] shows that this system is not yet ready for wide use in elections, and gives no indication that it ever will be. The argument that they can provide a faster vote-count is negated by the fact that in many cases they aren’t counting all the votes, but instead missing some out [3] . If the results cannot be trusted, there is no merit in implementing an electronic vote. Furthermore, this motion neglects those who do not have access to electronic systems or the internet; they may end up being disenfranchised if voting went online. This is particularly pertinent for senior citizens who lack the skills to ‘find, retrieve and evaluate’ information found electronically [4] . It is also a disadvantage for those who with a limited income and education, who are ‘most likely to not use the internet or even understand how to use a computer’ [5] . 37% of low-income households do not regularly use the internet [6] ; this motion would create a two-tier system where already under-represented groups are allowed to fall behind the rest of society. Even public libraries and state-provided resources are suffering cuts under the economic depression [7] , which further reduces access for those from poorer backgrounds. This allows real issues of discrimination and alienation to rise. [1] , accessed 24/08/11 [2] , accessed 24/08/11 [3] , accessed 24/08/11 [4] , accessed 24/08/11 [5] , accessed 24/08/11 [6] , accessed 24/08/11 [7] , accessed 24/08/11 |
|
validation-digital-freedoms-gthwaueai-con05a | Engagement with democracy If voting were conducted electronically, we would have no guarantee that an individual’s vote was privately and freely made. Instead, voting becomes open to manipulation where the head of the household, or another figure, may cast votes for others to try and ensure their preferred outcome. Indeed, under the status quo there are still instances of organised corruption where votes are sold or bullied out of people [1] [2] , despite the fact that this was the exact reason that the secret ballot was originally introduced [3] . Electronic voting would just take corruption further out of our hands by hiding it from public view; this would be detrimental to democratic process. [1] , accessed 24/08/11 [2] www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN03667.pdf , accessed 24/08/11 [3] , accessed 24/08/11 |
|
validation-digital-freedoms-gthwaueai-con04a | Democratisation If it worked, online voting could allow more use of direct democracy methods. However, direct democracy is not in itself a better system, and still contains many dangers. Snap online polls could easily express an opinion which has not been properly thought through; the current voting system is more likely to result in considered voting as citizens have to make the effort to get to the polling stations in the first place. Furthermore, a low turnout or insecure systems could allow motivated minorities to use frequent online ballots in order to impose their will on the majority. The very ease of online voting could actually result in worse policy than under the status quo. |
|
validation-digital-freedoms-gthwaueai-con03a | Voter apathy The need to travel to a polling station might be a minor consideration, but growing disillusionment with the political system in general is a far bigger cause of voter apathy. Young people in particular believe that their vote will not make a difference [1] , or are confused over politician’s aims [2] and intentions. Others do not believe that a change in government necessarily means a change in real life situations [3] , or state that they do not feel as if they know enough about politics to make a decision [4] . Some have even stated that they are embarrassed and patronised by politicians’ eagerness over using the internet to ‘harness’ the votes of young people [5] . Using the internet to portray party policies does not necessarily tackle the problems with the policies themselves. It is politics more generally, rather than the practical system of voting, which is seen as inaccessible. [1] , accessed 24/08/11 [2] , accessed 24/08/11 [3] , accessed 24/08/11 [4] , accessed 24/08/11 [5] , accessed 24/08/11 |
|
validation-digital-freedoms-gthwaueai-con05b | At what stage do we deem that an individual has considered their vote enough to cast it? Would we stop less-educated people from voting at all in case they hadn’t fully considered it? This argument goes completely against any democratic principle which values everybody’s vote as equal, and denounces the idea that one person’s vote is worth more than another’s. Even if a low turnout means that a minority can impact more on society, this is still legitimate – as long as everybody has the opportunity to vote. If the majority choose not to voice their concerns in online elections, then they lose the right to complain about the outcome. Many general or presidential elections have had a low turnout [1] [2] , but we still see them as legitimate. If we did not, nobody would ever be elected and progress could never occur. [1] , accessed 24/08/11 [2] , accessed 24/08/11 |
|
validation-digital-freedoms-gthwaueai-con01a | Electronic voting is vulnerable to fraud and subversion No networked commuter system is immune to attack or subversion. By their very nature, electronic voting systems must be inter connected and in continuous communication with one another. As a consequence, the devices and methods used to gather votes can also serve as access points to the larger network of vote gathering and counting systems. The most ‘secure’ of websites have been recently hacked. For example, Paypal was hacked by Lulzsec in response to the Wikileaks scandal [1] . Lulzsec also hacked the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) [2] , supposedly the source of all their national intelligence and top secret information. If anything, recent events have shown us that the internet is an unstable medium for people to conduct personal or professional affairs; we certainly should not allow our voting systems to become even more vulnerable to this kind of attack. A better way to prevent identity fraud would be the simple measure of now requiring polling stations to ask for ID, rather than going to the extreme of online voting. [1] , accessed 24/08/11 [2] , accessed 24/08/11 |
|
validation-digital-freedoms-gthwaueai-con02b | Computer literacy is constantly on the rise [1] [2] . In state-run secondary schools, children are provided with information and technology classes which helps to bridge any existing divide [3] , and there are discussions about extending these lessons to primary schools. Easily-accessible community classes are also available to seniors [4] [5] . Moreover, given the opportunity to save money through electronic voting rather than having to pay for polling station venues, manual vote counters and so on, this money could easily be redirected to provide computer lessons for those from disadvantaged backgrounds, or to funnel into state libraries and public computer resources. This mechanism is a much more efficient way of making sure that everybody is able to participate. [1] Children in the UK: , accessed 24/08/11 [2] In the USA: [3] , accessed 24/08/11 [4] Across the USA: , accessed 24/08/11 [5] In the UK: , accessed 24/08/11 |
|
validation-religion-cshbcesbsb-pro02b | Separation of Church and State would do exactly the opposite; it would create animosity towards other cultures. This separation would be seen by many people, including extremist groups, as pandering to non-Christian religions and cultures in an attempt to show a greater level of acceptance. This would result in people blaming non-Christian religious groups and cultures for the changes and giving ammunition to extremist groups who wish to incite racism. Rather than benefitting immigrants and people who follow non-Christian religions, this would actively harm them. [1] [1] Iannaccone, Laurence R. “Religious extremism: Origins and consequences” Contemporary Jewry. Volume 20. 1996. |
|
validation-religion-cshbcesbsb-pro02a | Separation would show acceptance of other religions. It is important to note that it is not religion in general which has this special access to the state in the UK but the Church of England specifically. This means that the state is showing favouritism to the Church of England over other religions by allowing it a far greater contribution to the running of the state. Therefore, separating the church and the state would put all of the religions in the country on an even level of contribution, which is none, and in the process show acceptance of these other religions. [1] This is especially important as the number of people who identify as following religions other than Christianity in the UK has doubled in the last 20 years. [2] Additionally, many people identify more with their religion than with any country and so this move would help show acceptance of those cultures by the British state. [1] Hannan, Daniel. “The Conservative Case for Disestablishing the Church.” The Telegraph. 2008. [2] Lee, Lucy, “Religion.” In Curtice, John et al. eds., British Social Attitudes Survey 2009. p.180. |
|
validation-religion-cshbcesbsb-pro03b | There are little to no barriers to non-religious people contributing to the state. In present day UK, there are no issues with non-religious people being or feeling unable to contribute to the state. It is far from a necessity to be part of a religious group, or to even be religious, in order to be part of, or contribute it any way, to the government. [1] The idea, therefore, that it is important to make non-religious people feel as if their contributions are more valued, or that the separation of the church and state would achieve this, is ridiculous. [1] Gay, Kathlyn. “Church and State.” Millbrook Press. 1992. |
|
validation-religion-cshbcesbsb-pro01a | The church’s involvement undermines the role of the state. The role of the state is to protect its people and to create the conditions for its people’s prosperity. The Church does not share these objectives. The Church’s objectives are, instead, to either convert as many people as possible to its own religion, and to ‘save souls’ brining people into its own perceived afterlife. [1] The Anglican church itself considers its mission to be “transformation - transforming individual lives, transforming communities and transforming the world.” “that calling is carried out at the national level of the Church of England in evangelism, development of parish congregations”. [2] Such a mission is inherently aimed solely at benefiting those within the church or those who can be converted not society as a whole. The current confusion of state and Church, therefore, is likely to cloud the state’s judgement and limit the state’s ability to provide the maximum possible prosperity and security for its people. [1] Weller, Paul. “Time for a Change: Reconfiguring Religion, State & Society.” T&T Clark Int’l. 2005. [2] Church of England, ‘Mission’. |
|
validation-religion-cshbcesbsb-pro01b | The Church does not have enough of an involvement in UK politics for the objectives of the Church of England to have any impact upon how the country is run. The UK government is still run in an entirely democratic way. While the Church is consulted in certain decisions and bishop have seats in the House of Lords, final decisions are still taken democratically by the government. There is in no way enough involvement by the church in the state for it to actually undermine the role of the state. [1] [1] Gay, Kathlyn. “Church and State.” Millbrook Press. 1992. |
|
validation-religion-cshbcesbsb-pro04b | Separating Church and State would not increase Britain’s moral high ground. No one would mistake the UK for a theocracy and as a result no one will consider that a full separation of Church and State is necessary for the UK to be able to condemn states where religion has too much influence over policy. In just the same way that democracies can criticise other democracies so a state that has a state religion is capable of outspoken criticism of other states where religion has an influence. |
|
validation-religion-cshbcesbsb-pro03a | Separation would show non-religious people that their contributions to the state are valued. In the last 25 years, the number of people in the UK who identify as non-religious has gone up from 31% to 50% of the population, while people in the UK who identify as religious has gone down by the same amount. [1] Clearly then, there are growing numbers of non-religious people in the UK and falling numbers of religious people. Separating the church and the state would highlight that one does not have to be part of a certain religion to contribute to the state. With the non-religious now making up half the population it no longer makes sense for one denomination of Christianity to have such an official connection to the state. [1] Lee, Lucy, “Religion.” In Curtice, John et al. eds., British Social Attitudes Survey 2009. p.173. |
|
validation-religion-cshbcesbsb-pro04a | International signalling. As a government, the UK aims to promote democracy in the international community while reducing the number of countries adhering to other forms of government that do not listen to their people. This includes opposition to theocracies, where the country is run by a religious group according to religious doctrines, particularly in the case of Iran. It is difficult for the UK to legitimately condemn such a governmental system while the Church of England has such a heavy role in the running of its own government. Although these are not on the same level, it can still be perceived as hypocrisy by the international community and the separation of church and state would greatly benefit the UK’s ability to condemn these states. |
|
validation-religion-cshbcesbsb-con03b | The government is not going to suddenly stop listening to the views of religious minorities in the country and will keep listening to the views of the Church of England. It will simply stop the government being prejudicial towards the Church of England compared to any other religion or belief. Currently what we see is the Church of England having privileges that other religious groups do not have. Religious groups and people do not see this as a representation of the involvement of religion in general in the government, they see this as the involvement of the Church of England in the government. The separation of the church and the state, therefore, will actually be inclusive to religious people who do not identify as Church of England. [1] [1] Hannan, Daniel. “The Conservative Case for Disestablishing the Church.” The Telegraph. 2008. |
|
validation-religion-cshbcesbsb-con01b | The existence and operation of the Church of England can be considered part of the UK’s national identity but its involvement in running the country cannot. English culture would remain the same regardless of the position of the Church of England in relation to the governance of the country. Culture and identity are not things that can disappear as a result of a change in the country’s constitutional setup. |
|
validation-religion-cshbcesbsb-con02a | Separation would create animosity towards immigrants and non-Christians. Currently, we already see problems in the UK with extremist groups blaming immigrants and non-Christian religious groups for pretty much everything from unemployment among whites to a lack of patriotism. Completely separating the church and the state could be seen as a move made due to political correctness and/or to try not to offend immigrants or those from non-Christian religious backgrounds. This would be providing ammunition to extremist groups, as well as inspiring people who do not share these views to sympathise with them. This would be extremely harmful to the groups who are perceived as responsible for this change. [1] [1] Iannaccone, Laurence R. “Religious extremism: Origins and consequences” Contemporary Jewry. Volume 20. 1996. |
|
validation-religion-cshbcesbsb-con04a | Minimal practical effect. As it stands, the Church of England’s involvement in the state actually has little effect on it. Decisions are taken by the Prime Minister and his/her government rather than by religious officials and indeed the Church of England can often be a vehicle for the government’s views rather than the Church having an influence on government. As Bishop of Rochester Nazir-Ali states ‘The church is seen simply as the religious aspect of society, there to endorse any change which politicians deem fit to impose upon the public.’ [1] Therefore, separating the church and the state will make little difference in terms of the way the state is actually run but may result in a reduction of the influence of the government on some of the population. [2] [1] Liddle, Rod, ‘The C of E has forgotten its purpose. Why, exactly, does it exist?’, The Spectator, 7 April 2009. [2] Gay, Kathlyn. “Church and State.” Millbrook Press. 1992. |
|
validation-religion-cshbcesbsb-con03a | Disestablishment sidelines all religious people. Rather than other religious groups seeing the removal of the Church of England’s involvement of the state as them all being put on a level playing field, it is more likely to be seen as a total removal of religion from the government. [1] Bishop John Pritchard of Oxford argues that Anglican Bishops can be seen as acting as community leaders for all faiths and are respected as such, as a result they often support other religion’s such as Pritchard himself arguing a mosque in Oxford should be allowed to issue the call to prayer. [2] This separation of church and state, therefore, will be seen as a declaration by the government that religious groups have nothing to contribute to the operation of the state. Since nearly 50% of people in the UK identify as religious [3] this is likely to cause a feeling of being undervalued amongst a huge part of society. [1] Gay, Kathlyn. “Church and State.” Millbrook Press. 1992. [2] Bardsley, Fran, ‘Bishop backs mosque’s call to prayer’, The Oxford Times, 11 January 2008. [3] Lee, Lucy, “Religion.” In Curtice, John et al. eds., British Social Attitudes Survey 2009. p.173. |
|
validation-religion-cshbcesbsb-con01a | Separating Church and State in England would be harmful to national identity. The reason the Church of England has the involvement that it does in the state is because it is important part of the UK’s cultural heritage. Completely separating the Church of England from the state would be perceived to many people as severely damaging to British national identity. As a national church the Church of England has been at the heart of the country’s political and cultural life since the sixteenth century, religion helped make Britain the country it is today. [1] A separation would be the country turning its back on this history and its own culture. [1] MacCulloch, Diarmaid, ‘How God Made the English’, BBC, 2012 |
|
validation-religion-cshbcesbsb-con04b | That the separation will have little practical effect is just as much an argument for separation as against it. If there will be little change as a result then why should we stick with the status quo? The practical effect of the change may not be immense but the symbolism of the act would be much greater. |
|
validation-religion-cshbcesbsb-con02b | Separation would be inclusive to immigrants and non-Christians. People will not be disillusioned by the separation of church and state at all, it is even less likely that they will look for a scapegoat upon whom to pin the blame. The Church of England routinely condemns racist and extremist attitudes and separation will not change this. [1] [1] The Church of England, ‘Countering Racist Politics’. |
|
validation-religion-cfhwksdr-pro02b | Legislation already exists in most countries where this issue is in dispute – including the UK where the NOP poll was conducted – have the option to opt out of working on a Sunday [i] . In addition there is an entire body of case law in the USA where various states have upheld the rights of individual workers not to work on a Sunday should they so choose [ii] . The contention that a shared day of rest is beneficial to the community simply ignores the fact that for many those leisure activities require others to be working. For example eating out, going to bars or shopping routinely feature as among peoples’ favourite pastimes [iii] . [i] ACAS Guidance on Sunday Working [ii] Estate of Thornton v. Calder, Inc. (1985) and others [iii] “Statistical Abstract of the United States 2009”. Landmark Research. |
|
validation-religion-cfhwksdr-pro02a | A shared day when there is no commercial activity encourages family life and recreation There is extensive evidence that reserving one day for communal recreation has benefits in areas as diverse as community cohesion and the reduction of childhood obesity. The Colombian initiative, Ciclovia, which closes some streets altogether on a Sunday has demonstrated impressive results in these areas in the thirty years it has been established. [i] An NOP consumer poll in 2005 showed that 85% of respondents in the UK suggested that they would rather have a shared day off for community, family and recreational activities than see shopping hours extended on a Sunday. Representatives of those employed in the retail sector routinely condemn the impact that Sunday trading has on the family lives of those required to work [ii] . [i] Hernandez, Javier C., ‘Car-Free Streets, a Colombian Export, Inspire Debate’, The New York Times, 24 June 2008 [ii] “USDAW lobbyists say extending Sunday shopping hours would be ‘bad news’ for shopworkers’ families” USDAW Press Release. 9 May 2006. |
|
validation-religion-cfhwksdr-pro03b | For many marginalised workers the opportunity to work what many would consider antisocial hours is their only chance of employment. Legislating to enforce leisure time removes a valuable opportunity for earning. There are entire micro-economies based around this reality and it is unsurprising that marginalised individuals, families and communities operate within these sectors. As a result their leisure time is also shared. It is worth noting that were members of these groups excluded from the opportunity to earn would considerably diminish their capacity to enjoy any leisure time at all. |
|
validation-religion-cfhwksdr-pro01a | Peoples’ rights to freedom of worship would be undermined if they were compelled to work on a Sunday The right to freedom of religious practice and association is acknowledged by most countries and is enshrined in Article 18 of UN Declaration of Human Rights [i] . In those countries that can, on the basis of their history be deemed to be Christian nations it makes sense to recognise this fact by acknowledging Sunday, the Sabbath which was made for all mankind, [ii] as a day free for worship or leisure as the individual sees fit. Equally Article 24 of the same Declaration maintains the right to reasonable leisure time. It seems only practical for governments to recognise the confluence of these two principles by reserving the same day. [i] The United Nations Declaration of Universal Human Rights. [ii] New International Version, Mark 2:27, 2011 |
|
validation-religion-cfhwksdr-pro01b | Compelling individuals to take their leisure time on one particular day undermines the entire nature of that right. The whole principle of leisure is that it should not be forced or required, it is that time when the individual is not bound to comply with the dictates of any authority – be that an employer, the state or a religion. Leisure should be time taken at the convenience – and to the benefit – of the individual. If the individual choses to use that time for religious observance that is their right but the presumption that a day of religious observance is the best day to take is unfair to the many who do not share those views. |
|
validation-religion-cfhwksdr-pro03a | Compelling employers to close for a day is the only way to ensure that marginalised groups are not forced to work a seven day week Unions consistently argue that vulnerable workers – migrants, part-time workers, the young and other groups – are simply unable to choose their leisure time at their own preference. It is unlikely that all members of a family all of whom are in such employment would be likely to have leisure time to share. It is simply a democratic principle that the right to an active family life and access to shared leisure should not be the preserve of the wealthy. This divide can only be met by enforcing a day shared by all members of society. |
|
validation-religion-cfhwksdr-con03b | Opposition is making an excellent argument for ensuring that workers should be remunerated at a level to support a reasonable level of existence but does not speak to the issue of keeping Sundays as a day of rest. Indeed it is possible to take the issue further and suggest that the understanding that everybody has the right to leisure time would require payment at such a level that would allow that time to be enjoyed. A work-life balance should not be defined purely in terms of time spent active and time spent idle. Rather, it must speak as much to time spent earning and time spent spending and relaxing. |
|
validation-religion-cfhwksdr-con01b | Exactly the same group that Opposition identify are also those least likely to have any leisure time at all. They are also least likely to have leisure at a time when they can share it with their families and communities. Sunday is already the day when most people are likely to be away from work all enshrining it in legislation would achieve is expanding what is already the case for the majority to those who do not currently benefit from a shared day of rest. |
|
validation-religion-cfhwksdr-con02a | It is prejudicial to other religions to give Sunday a significance not ascribed to the holy days of other traditions It is already difficult enough for members of minority religions to have time for their own religious celebrations. It seems unlikely that employers would be likely to respect the rights of other religious groups to celebrate their own days of rest if employers were already compelled to recognise Sundays as a compulsory day of rest. Equally, for the state to identify one particular day as the ‘religious’ day worthy of commemoration would be a statement that one particular religious persuasion was in some way superior to others. |
|
validation-religion-cfhwksdr-con03a | It is simply unfair to force low-paid workers to lose a day’s work if they do not choose to do so Many people work long hours not out of greed or obsession but out of simple necessity. To deny people the right to work when they need to is unfair and, potentially, financially crippling. In an ideal world everybody would have a good work-life balance but that is not the reality faced by millions of workers, even in developed economies. Obliging workers to lose a day’s pay when that may impoverish then and their families is unlikely to enhance their family life, their level of relaxation, their spiritual experience or their access to leisure services. |
|
validation-religion-cfhwksdr-con01a | People should be allowed to take their leisure at their own convenience and not on the basis of religious decree It is unfair to compel people to take their leisure at a time that is not of their convenience. Workers who have to work a certain number of hours per week just to cover their costs should not be obliged to take their leisure time at a time when they cannot access services such as shops and banks. For those with no religious conviction there is no particular benefit for Sunday being their day of leisure. Instead a more fluid relationship between work and leisure ensures that those with the least available free time can take it to their greatest convenience. |
|
validation-religion-cfhwksdr-con02b | Different cultures have varying traditions of rest. Approaches towards the number of days of vacations taken each year, the length of the working day, which annual festivals should be treated as public holidays, siestas, work levels during Ramadan and so on are all taken on the basis of the culture and history of that particular country. As a result it is not unreasonable for a country with a Christian background to identify Sunday as their designated day of rest. The work ethic of any country relates to their history as is reflected in the festivals that are given significance. Observation of Christmas or Eid or Cheoseok has little to do with the personal values of the individuals concerned but rather the historical norms of that society. |
|
validation-science-cihbdmwpm-pro02b | Realistically speaking, music is not even property - for property to really be property, it needs to be tangible (something physical you can touch). [1] If it is tangible, it is easier to keep you from using it, whereas when it is intangible, I can’t. What if you hear a song on the radio which stays in your head all day long because you liked it so much? In economic terms, we call such a good “non-excludable”. [2] Private property is both a rival good (see above), and excludable. The above shows that music is neither, even though we happen to call it “intellectual property”. That means that music can’t be private property, and copying it can’t really be theft in any normal sense of the word (see above). In addition, the moral right of the artist to be known as the author of a piece of music is also not broken by downloading. People usually sort the music on mp3-players by musician’s name, which means that we’re always recognizing that a certain artist made a certain song. [1] Law.jrank.org, ‘Theft – Larceny’, [2] Blakeley, Nic et al., ‘Non-excludability’, in The Economics of Knowledge: What Makes Ideas Special for Economic Growth, New Zealand Policy Perspective Paper 05/05, November 2005, |
|
validation-science-cihbdmwpm-pro02a | A legal transaction is the only way to achieve free exchange of value Because the artist made the music, it is their property, in this case “intellectual property”. Property means that the owner/artist has the right to ask something from you in exchange for you gaining access to the music. This may be money. It may also be the requirement that you clearly recognize the artist’s moral right to always be mentioned as the creator of that music. This is called the “free exchange of value”, and this is the most fundamental relationship in our free market economy. Whatever the artist chooses as payment through a legal transaction, it is his/her basic right to ask this of you. The only way to make sure that he/she can actually exercise that right is by making sure you only take music from the artist through a legal transaction, i.e. with their permission. Only then can we be sure that the desired free exchange of value has taken place |
|
validation-science-cihbdmwpm-pro03b | It’s true that musicians have to eat, too, but it’s not true that downloading cuts their income. Most of the money spent on music goes to record companies, not to artists, from each retail CD sold the artist only gets between 3 and 10%. [1] Those record companies have been keeping musicians on a leash for decades, paying them less than they could. They paid them enough to make sure they would remain fulltime musicians, but not so much that they didn’t bother to create new albums. So if downloading music files means record companies miss out on some income, we shouldn’t feel bad about it. [1] Information is Beautiful, ‘How Much Do Music Artists Earn Online?’, 13 April 2010, |
|
validation-science-cihbdmwpm-pro01a | Theft is an assumption of property rights Theft is taking something from someone who is the rightful owner without their permission. It doesn’t matter if the rightful owner keeps an original version or not. If you are downloading music from an unofficial source, you are stealing it: you can start listening to that song, without the permission of the original owner. The only way you can get the right to listen to that song is via a legal transaction from which the rights owner can make a profit |
|
validation-science-cihbdmwpm-pro01b | Theft always involves a thief taking something away for themselves with the result that the original owner can’t use it anymore. For example, if I steal your bike, you can’t use it anymore. And this is exactly why theft is wrong: you had something which you wanted to use, and now you can’t anymore, simply because I took it. That’s why downloading music is not theft because it is a form of copying. You download a copy from an original, but the first owner still has the original on his or her computer, and can still enjoy it. In more complicated terms: music files are “non-rival” goods, meaning that my use of the good does not diminish your future use of it. [1] [1] Investopedia, ‘Rival Good’, |
|
validation-science-cihbdmwpm-pro03a | Musicians have to eat Apart from the moral reason, there is also a simple societal reason why it is wrong to download music without permission. The reason is that musicians have to eat, too. Suppose you are an up-and-coming young musician thinking about what to do with your future. You can either become a full time musician or take up a job. If you become a fulltime musician, you’ll be doing what you love. But at the same time, everyone will be downloading all your music for free, simply because they can. This means that music won’t be a good, stable source of income for you, and this means you’d rather take up a job. Since you’re not working on your music every day, your talent will be underdeveloped, and the little pieces of music you do write, for example in the weekend, are not as good as they could have been. So, downloading music without permission will lead to fewer good musicians. That’s not only bad for the musicians, but also for us: we’ll have less good music to listen to. |
|
validation-science-cihbdmwpm-con03b | It is a mistake to think that when you’re downloading, there isn’t someone else making a huge profit. Torrent sites and other “pirate” sites gain huge amounts of income from the advertisements on their site. This means that they profit from material which is not theirs. Why should they profit from material they have gotten unfairly and without permission? |
|
validation-science-cihbdmwpm-con01b | Downloading does not fall under the so-called “private copy exception”. The private copy exception only covered those rare cases when you took the effort to make a copy from a lawful source (perhaps putting a song you owned on CD on to a cassette so you could listen to it in your car). With the internet, the situation changed hugely. Firstly, copying became a lot easier. Secondly, the home copy-exception applies to when you borrow an album from a friend - someone you know. Online, you’re downloading from anyone, anywhere who happens to have the song you want. Thirdly, when you start downloading using peer-to-peer software, you will usually also start uploading at the same time. It’s the nature of p2p-technology that you both distribute and consume. So, you’re not just making a copy for yourself, you will also be distributing the same song, and that distribution is in any case wrong. These changes together mean that the three step-test is not met, so downloading does not fall under the private copy exception and is therefore illegal. |
|
validation-science-cihbdmwpm-con02a | Downloading is morally right Even when downloading is illegal, it still is right from a moral viewpoint. The reason is that by downloading, you’re not hurting the artists, but the record companies. And these record companies have engaged in unfair practices towards consumers for decades. They asked €20 euros for a CD, when a blank CD only costs about 5 cents. They still engage in unfair practices, for example via DRM. DRM stands for Digital Rights Management, and it means that companies limit how and when you can listen to a song. For example, you can buy a song and listen to it on your MP-3 player, but if you want to play it on your laptop, you have to buy the same song again. Moreover, record companies have sued individual consumers for huge fines for downloading just a few songs. Most recently one ordinary woman was fined $1.92 million dollars, which just doesn’t add up to the “damage” these individuals are supposed to have done. [1] That’s unfair, and because it’s unfair, we are justified in download without permission. [1] Kravets, David, ‘Feds Support $1.92 Million RIAA File Sharing Verdict’, Wired.com, 14 August 2009, |
|
validation-science-cihbdmwpm-con03a | Downloaders spend more on music Downloading songs could mean more income for musicians. Concerts (plus merchandise like T-shirts) are becoming a bigger source of income. But suppose a new musician comes to town. How am I supposed to know if I want to go to their concert if I don’t know their music? Previously, I wouldn’t have gone since I didn’t want to spend money on first buying their album and then buying the ticket. Now, I can quickly check out their music by downloading some songs to see if I like it, and then go to their concert. I save money on the albums, and will go more to concerts. Indeed a study by Demos has shown that people who illegally download music spend £30 more on music per year than those who do not. [1] [1] Demos, ‘Illegal downloaders are one of music industry’s biggest customers’, 1 November 2009, |
|
validation-science-cihbdmwpm-con01a | There is a private copy exception Downloading music without permission is allowed under the “private copy exception”. Practically, the exception meant that you were allowed to copy, but not distribute any music. Downloading music from a torrentsite or newsgroup is essentially the same. People who download music do it purely for their own enjoyment and use. They have no intention to resell the songs and make a profit from it. So, if it was legal to make a copy for personal use before the internet was invented, why then should it suddenly be different afterwards? Indeed while the private copy exception is not universal it is allowed under the Information Society Directive within the EU. [1] And when it comes to peer-to-peer software, you can turn off the option to upload automatically. This allows you to only download, but at a slower speed. [1] European Parliament, Article 6/4, ‘Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society’, Official Journal, L 167 , 22 June 2001, pp. 10 – 19, |