BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Translation allows greater participation by academics in global academia and global marketplace of ideas

Translating academic work for the developed world will not succeed in creating a dialogue between developed and developing world because the effort is inherently unidirectional. The developing world academics will be able to use the translated work, but will lack the ability to respond in a way that could be readily understood or accepted by their developed world counterparts. The only way to become a truly respected academic community is to engage with the global academic world on an even footing, even if that means devoting more resources to learning the dominant global academic languages, particularly English. This is what is currently happening and is what should be the trend for the future.[1] So long as they rely on subsidized work, the academics of the developing world remain subject and subordinate to those of the developed world. [1] Meneghini, Rogerio, and Packer, Abel L., ‘Is there science beyond English? Initiatives to increase the quality and visibility of non-English publications might help to break down language barriers in scientific communication’, EMBO Report, February 2007, Vol.8 No.2, pp.112-116, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1796769/
Translation gives access to students to learn valuable information and develop their human capital and to become academically and economically competitive

While the world is globalizing, it is still in the interest of states to retain their relative competitive advantages. After all, the first duty of a state is to its own citizens. By translating these works and offering them to academics, students, and professionals, the developed world serves to erode one of its only advantages over the cheaper labour and industrial production markets of the developing world. The developed world relies on its advantage in technology particularly to maintain its position in the world and to have a competitive edge. Giving that edge up, which giving access to their information more readily does, is to increase the pace at which the developed world will be outmatched.
Translation expands the knowledge base of citizens to help solve local problems

This translation effort does not pave the future with gold. Intellectual property law still persists and these countries would still be forced to deal with the technologies' originators in the developed world. By instead striving to engage on an even footing without special provisions and charity of translation, developing countries' academics can more effectively win the respect and cooperation of their developed world counterparts. In so doing they gain greater access to, and participation in, the developments of the more technologically advanced countries. They should strive to do so as equals, not supplicants.
It is better to have fewer languages in common use in global academic and economic interrelations

If it is true that people cannot easily get jobs in the developed world for lack of language skills then there will surely still be a pressure to learn the language or languages of international discourse. What this policy offers is access by a much wider audience to the various benefits that expanded academic knowledge can offer. It will expand the developing world's knowledge base and not in any way diminish the desire to learn English and other dominant languages. It should be remembered that it is not just academics that use academic papers; students do as well, as do professionals in everyday life. Clearly there cannot be an expectation that everyone learns English to be able to access research. While there may be fewer languages in academic use there is not such a narrowing of language for everyone else.
Freedom of expression, like any right is fairly meaningless if it’s only respected when it’s convenient.

Recognising rights when there is no inconvenience to anybody involved is verging on the irrelevant. This is, perhaps, especially true, with freedom of expression. If I recognise your right to express yourself freely - so long as I never have to see, hear or be aware of you doing – rather misses the point. Likewise if the individual is free only so long as there aren’t any rules saying they shouldn’t be, goes somewhat against the grain of defending liberties. Indeed the history of the idea that people can exercise all the freedom they like as long as it’s out of sight, out of mind and doesn’t break any rules is not a noble one; among other absurd forms of “freedom”, it was used to justify both segregation and apartheid. Although the effect and extent of the prejudice is clearly different here, the logic is the same: you are completely free to do whatever I think you should do. Having a right to freely express oneself means to do so when it is inconvenient, challenging or offensive to others[i]. The rules being broken here were, as has already been mentioned, fairly petty and the sanctions comparatively minor – although the loss of someone’s livelihood should not be understated. The case is important because of the precedent it sets; what if the two women were risking not just their jobs but their liberty? The UK considers itself to be a tolerant country. Tolerance means accepting those declarations and statements that are inconvenient. If the law is incapable of defending a statement as benign as wearing a small piece of jewellery, it is worrying to think how it would cope with something more forthright. [i] UN Declaration of Human Rights. Articles 18, 19 and 23.
Employers impose rules relating to conduct in the workplace, it’s one of the things that everyone accepts when they take and continue in a job.

Put simply, if you don’t like the rules, don’t do the job. The fact that the world of work and the life of faith can come into conflict should hardly have come as a surprise to the women concerned. From Biblical times onward, that has been a reality. However, they chose these particular jobs and that choice comes with consequences. Their actions would seem to suggest that they prize their faith more highly than their jobs, the solution seems fairly straightforward – get another job. Religious belief is also a choice. Nobody is compelling the two women into one particular faith and nobody, including the Church, is compelling them to wear a cross as a demonstration of that decision. The problem seems to have arisen because one thing they chose to do was in conflict with another thing they chose to do. It is difficult to see how that is the responsibility of either the employer or the courts.
Both employers acted out of concern for the interests of their clients, employees should respect that.

Employers don’t introduce rules because it’s fun but, rather, because they serve a purpose. Ms. Chaplin has expressed concern about the legal costs incurred by the NHS Trust which employed her in fighting the action she initiated. Health and safety rules exist, in part, to avoid the possibility of subsequent legal action; it might be reasonable for her to support such rules given her concern[i]. Likewise, airlines have uniform policies to make their services, well, uniform. It’s what their customers expect. In much the same way as many Christians refuse to receive communion from a woman or a homosexual, it simply goes with the job. For any workplace to function, the lifestyles of the employees need to accommodate the needs of the customers or users of the service provided by the employer. Clearly there is a degree of balance involved and the values of the employee need to be respected. However, this case isn’t about the values of the employee – they weren’t fired for being Christian – it was about and active decision in how to demonstrate those values. A decision not taken by their co-religionists and one that seemed to owe more to belligerence than to belief. [i] Daily Mail. “It's a very bad day for Christianity: Nurse's verdict after tribunal rules she can't wear crucifix at work”
If this were about wearing a badge with a political slogan or something similar, everyone would agree that it was inappropriate. The same principle should apply to iconography.

If the image they were wearing endorsed a political candidate or another company, the issue would never have got to court. Neither complainant was employed in a capacity where their religious conviction was relevant to the job. If the situation were reversed and they were compelled to profess a religious faith in such a situation there would, rightly, be an outcry. In neither situation would the consumer of the service being provided expect to be confronted with endorsements for which candidate to vote for or which soda to drink. The question then arises, if political and corporate branding is out, why should suggestions about which god to pray to be okay? The very fact that they were willing to pursue this action demonstrates that images and symbols carry meaning beyond the explicit statement they make. If that is true, then it is equally true that others may object to, or be offended by, what that symbol represents. People who have bought airline tickets or are in need of healthcare should not be confronted by imagery they may find unpleasant.
Other religions have the right to wear prescribed clothing enshrined in British law, it is hypocritical not to offer Christianity the same protection.

Legislation takes account of particularities. Christianity does not, and never has, required the wearing of the cross as a demonstration of faith and few representations are found before the fifth century[i] – indeed in early Church history it was discouraged. In much of the West, the cross has become simply another piece of jewellery and legislation should reflect that reality. To allow a Christian to wear such an adornment but not to allow a non-Christian to wear exactly the same thing would be unworkable. That is the consistent position. [i] Maurice Dilasser, The Symbols of the Church,  1999, P.21, http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Symbols_of_the_Church.html
The confession of religious faith is far more important than the rather petty rules that banned the wearing of the cross.

Virtually every employee dresses differently for work than they do outside. We accept the fact that there are behaviours and attitudes that must be left at the door when we enter the workplace. Those unwilling to make such an accommodation simply don’t work for organisations with those requirements. If the women concerned had such a great commitment to their faith, then they should find a different job.
Freedom of expression, like any right is fairly meaningless if it’s only respected when it’s convenient.

Proposition is completely over-reacting. Nobody is stopping the women involved from practising their faith but there is nothing within mainstream Christianity that requires the wearing of a cross as a public statement. Furthermore, a tolerant society can only function if it works within a framework of rules that are evenly applied. This case demonstrates that as even the established religion is expected to confine to that framework.
Both employers acted out of concern for the interests of their clients, employees should respect that.

No customer or patient complained in either case. Neither employer demonstrated that wearing the cross prevented either employee from performing their duties efficiently. Indeed, given the size and diversity of both organisations’ client base, a demonstration that they support free expression might be welcomed. The key point here is that both of the employees concerned did believe that the right to not only hold, but proclaim, their beliefs was core to their faith. By denying them the right to express that impeded not just their actions but their beliefs.
If this were about wearing a badge with a political slogan or something similar, everyone would agree that it was inappropriate. The same principle should apply to iconography.

Recognizing that people have different views is a fairly fundamental part of maintaining societal cohesion. Freedom of expression requires the corollary that there is no right not to be offended – it is hard to see how such a right would be manifest in practical terms. It is also worth reiterating that there were no complaints from customers or patients in either case.
Declaration of the faith is a key part of Christianity and that should be respected.

The UK is a nation that claims to be tolerant of all faiths and to respect religious beliefs. If that is the case then it must be accepted that the law should respect actions in accordance with those beliefs insofar as they do not harm or infringe on the rights of others. Demonstrating one’s commitment to the cross is part of that faith[i] and should, therefore be shown some respect in a religiously diverse and tolerant society. There may be more militant forms of religious profession that would be inappropriate in a workplace but wearing a simple piece of jewellery causes no harm or offence to others. Both women have stated that they felt that wearing the cross was an important part of their faith[ii] and respect for those beliefs should be shown if society’s claims of tolerance and diversity are to have credibility. As with the demonstration of any right, the fact that its exercise may not be convenient does not supersede its validity. Indeed the only way of demonstrating that a society is, in fact, a tolerant one is, by definition, when it tolerates the exercise of legitimate practices which are inconvenient. [i] Galatians 6:14 among others [ii] BBC News Website. “Shirley Chaplin and Nadia Eweida Take Cross Fight to Europe.” 12 March 2012.
Other religions have the right to wear prescribed clothing enshrined in British law, it is hypocritical not to offer Christianity the same protection.

Legislation should be consistent; otherwise it is, by definition, discriminatory.[i] If some faiths are allowed to show outward demonstrations of their faith in the workplace, then that should apply across the board. Christianity is an established part of the state, as shown by the monarch being head of the Church of England. So it is perverse for two national brands to accept attire that demonstrates an employee’s profession of other faiths but to reject one that is universally recognised as a symbol of Christianity. The very fact that both women were willing to risk, and lose, their jobs over the issue shows that they considered wearing the cross to be an important part of their faith. That should be enough to demonstrate that it is a matter of conscience. It is demonstrably true that allowing other religious symbols to be worn does not create immense difficulties, both the NHS and Heathrow airport allow sikh’s to wear a kirpan (small dagger).[ii]  Their right to do so is respected because it is important to the individual concerned. The same is clearly true here. Either legislation should respect that commitment in all faiths or it should not do so in any. [i] The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th ed., Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/discriminatory [ii] The Kirpan, A submission to the Department of Communities and Local Government (UK), British Sikh Consultative Forum, April 2009, P12
The confession of religious faith is far more important than the rather petty rules that banned the wearing of the cross.

People of faith attest that those beliefs determine the nature of their own identity and their place in the Universe. In the case of Nadia Eweida, at least, the employer’s case was based on the idea that wearing a symbol of that faith might not enhance their uniform. The difference between the significance of the claims could not be greater. Indeed, British Airways, Eweida’s employer, has since changed their policy to permit staff to wear religious or charitable imagery[i] in large part because of the absurdity of the position. The case against Chaplin was based on health and safety legislation - but not because the cross and chain posed a risk to others but to herself[ii]; a risk she was, presumably, prepared to accept. On one hand there are individuals protecting their sincere beliefs in the most profound of issues and, on the other, managers applying what the Archbishop of Canterbury described as “wooden-headed bureaucratic silliness”.[iii] There is no suggestion that harm to another could have been caused here and, therefore, no reason not to respect the heartfelt beliefs of the individuals involved. [i] BBC News Website. “Christian Airline Employee Loses Cross ban Appeal”. 12 February 2010. [ii] Daily Mail. “It's a very bad day for Christianity: Nurse's verdict after tribunal rules she can't wear crucifix at work” [iii] The Telegraph, ‘Archbishop of Canterbury hits out at cross ban’, 4 April 2010, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7552145/Archbishop-of-Canterbur...
Genetically modified food is too new and little researched to be allowed for public use.

There are two problems associated with scientifically testing the impact of genetically modifying food. The first is that 'Peer review' (the checking of scientific test results by fellow scientists) is often made impossible by the unwillingness of biotechnology companies to give up their results for review.[1] Furthermore, government agencies are often unwilling to stop GM foodstuffs reaching the shelf because of the clout that the companies have with their government. So in regards to research, there have not yet been unbiased findings showing that GMO crops are safe. It is true, that in the US, there have been no adverse consequences from over 500 field releases in the United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) evaluated in 1993 data on genetically modified organisms regarding safety claims. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) believes that the USDA evaluation was too small scale, to actually asses the risks. Also many reports also failed to mention or even measure any environmental risks connected with GM food commercialisation.[2] Also, there are a number of dangers associated with the food itself, even without scientific evaluations. For example, the addition of nut proteins to soybeans caused those with nut allergies to go into shock upon eating the soybeans. Although this was detected in testing, sooner or later a transferred gene will cause risk to human health because the scientists did not conceive it could be a problem.[3] This will become a greater problem as more modifications are introduced. There are also possible dangers associated with the scientific technique itself by which the DNA is modified, an example is the spread of antibiotic resistance. [1] Pusztai A., Genetically modified foods: Are they a risk to Human/Animal Health ?, published June 2001, http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/pusztai.html, accessed 09/02/2011 [2] Shah A., Is GE food safe ?, Global Issues, http://www.globalissues.org/article/189/is-ge-food-safe, accessed 09/02/2011 [3]European Federation of Biotechnology, Allergies from GM food, published September 2000,  http://www.efb-central.org/images/uploads/allergiesGMfoods.pdf, accessed 09/02/2011
Genetically modified food is a danger to eco-systems.

GM foods also present a danger to the environment. The use of these crops is causing fewer strains to be planted. In a traditional ecosystem based on 100 varieties of rice, a disease wiping out one strain is not too much of a problem. However, if just two strains are planted (as now occurs) and one is wiped out the result is catastrophic. In addition, removing certain varieties of crops causes organisms, which feed on these crops, to be wiped out as well, such as the butterfly population decimated by a recent Monsanto field trial.[1] This supports the concerns that GM plants or transgenes can escape into the environment and that the impacts of broad-spectrum herbicides used with the herbicide tolerant GM crops on the countryside ecosystems have consequences. One of the impacts was that the Bacillus Thuringiensis toxin was produced by Bt crops (GMOs) on no-target species (butterflies), which lead to them dying.[2] Another concern is also that pollen produced from GM crops can be blown into neighboring fields where it fertilizes unmodified crops. This process (cross-pollination) pollutes the natural gene pool.[3] This in turn makes labeling impossible which reduces consumer choice. This can be prevented with the terminator gene. However, use of this is immoral for reasons outlined below. Furthermore, not all companies have access to the terminator technology. [1]  Whitman D., Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful, published April 2000,  http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php, accessed 09/02/2011 [2] WWF Switzerland, Genetically modified Organisms (GMOs): A danger to sustainable development of agriculture, published May 2005,  www.panda.org/downloads/trash/gmosadangertosustainableagriculture.pdf, p.4 , accessed 09/02/2011 [3] Whitman D., Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful, published April 2000,  http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php, accessed 09/02/2011
GMOs would create too much dependency on biotechnology companies

The legislative framework and historical behavior governing and guiding the operation of big business is geared towards maximizing shareholder returns. This propensity has been demonstrated time and again and might suggest that the GM companies are not modifying the food in the interests of better health, but of better profit. This is reinforced by the nature of many of the GM modifications, including terminator seeds (infertile seed requiring a re-purchase of seed stock each season), various forms of pest and herbicide resistance potentially leading to pests (and weeds) resistant to the current crop of chemical defenses. One of the more disturbing manifestations of this is the licensing of genes that are naturally occurring and suing those who dare to grow them, even if they are there because of cross contamination by wind-blown seeds or some other mechanism.[1] One has only to look at the history of corporations under North American and similar corporations’ law to see the effect of this pressure to perform on behalf of the shareholder. The pollution of water supplies, the continued sale of tobacco, dioxins, asbestos, and the list goes on. Most of those anti-social examples are done with the full knowledge of the corporation involved.[2] The example of potato farmers in the US illustrates big company dependence: "By ''opening and using this product,'' it is stated, that farmers only have the license to grow these potatoes for a single generation. The problem is that the genes remain the intellectual property of Monsanto, protected under numerous United States patents (Nos. 5,196,525, 5,164,316, 5,322,938 and 5,352,605), under these patents, people are not allowed to save even crop for next year, because with this they would break Federal law of intellectual property.[3] [1] Barlett D., Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear, published May 2008,  http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805, accessed 08/27/2011 [2]Hurt H., The Toxic Ten, published 02/19/2008, http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2008/02/19/10-Worst-Corporate-Polluters/, accessed 09/05/2011 [3] Pollan M., Playing God in the Garden, published 10/25/1998,  http://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/25/magazine/playing-god-in-the-garden.html, accessed 09/02/2011