Blood sports cannot be justified by reference to their role in pest control or conservation  All sorts of hunting, shooting, and fishing boil down to slaughtering other animals for pleasure. If the prey is a pest (e.g. foxes), or needs culling (e.g. hares, deer), there are always more humane ways to kill it than hunting it to the point of terror and exhaustion with a pack of hounds- e.g. killing it with a rifle shot. If the prey is being killed for food it is entirely gratuitous. In modern society people do not need to kill food for themselves but can buy it from a source where animals have been killed humanely; indeed no-one needs to eat meat at all and for moral, health, and environmental reasons they should not (see vegetarianism debate). As for fishing, again there is absolutely no need to catch or eat fish; even when anglers throw their catch back in they have first put a hook through its palate.


“Specieism is not merely plausible; it is essential for right conduct, because those who will not make the morally relevant distinctions among species are almost certain, in consequence, to misapprehend their true obligations.” [1]  Conflating specieism with racism or sexism is fallacious because it fails to recognise that the former involves fundamental differences, whereas all people regardless of skin colour or gender are ‘human beings’.  As animals are incapable of moral enquiry they can never acquire rights beyond those that humans choose to bestow on them.  [1] C. Cohan (1986) The case of the use of animals in biomedical research, The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 315, No 14.


The use of animals in sport demeans humans  Other animals may not have the same level of sapience as humans, but they feel fear, stress, exhaustion and pain just as we do. It is immoral to derive pleasure either from the suffering or forced performance of another living being, especially when that being is under one’s power and control.  It would of course be absurd to suggest that animals should have equality with humans on the level of having the right to vote or of criminal responsibility, but they should have equality with us on terms of equal consideration of interests, that is, pain and suffering should be equally significant whether it is a human or an animal that feels it. [1]  [1] For further reading see any work by Peter Singer.


This point assumes a naïve and Disney-like conception of nature. Hunting and fishing are natural activities - many other species in the wild kill and eat each other. If fear, stress, exhaustion and pain are natural parts of the cycle of life then why should there be any particular duty on us to prevent them?  We, like other animals, prefer our own- our own family, the “pack” that we happen to run with, and the larger communities constructed on the smaller ones, of which the largest is the ‘nation-state’.  Suppose a dog menaced a human infant and the only way to prevent the dog from biting the infant was to inflict severe pain on the dog – more pain, in fact, than the bite would inflict on the infant. Any normal person would say that it would be monstrous to spare the dog, even though to do so would be to minimise the sum of pain in the world. We should respect this instinctive moral reaction. [1]  [1] See the arguments of Richard A. Posner from 'Animal Rights debate between Peter Singer & Richard Posner'.


The circus is where children first learn to love animals! The proposition is right to draw attention to issues of animal welfare but again, they do not need to take such an extremist approach. There is evidence that animals enjoy performing and can form close relationships with their trainers and with an audience. Closer scrutiny of circuses and better enforcement of animal welfare laws are desirable, but once those conditions are met the circus can be seen as a celebration of wild animals and the relationships they can form with animal-loving human beings. If the reality falls short of this ideal then reform is called for, not abolition.  We need to strike a balance between human pleasure and animal welfare. The proposition's point of view is much too unbalanced. Putting the animal welfare case at its strongest, we should ban all sports in which animals are treated cruelly, or are at high risk of injury or death. None of the sports mentioned by the proposition here fall into that category. Anyone who works in horse- or dog-racing will tell you that it is in their interest to ensure that the animals are healthy and happy, or else they will not perform well. They will also tell you that most of these animals enjoy racing and enjoy winning. As for polo, horses are rarely injured; the risk of injury is acceptably low.


Treating animals as property prevents them from being perceived as part of the moral community  As long as animals are treated as property, their interests will always be subsidiary to the interests of their owners. To treat animals as property simply because they are not human is specieism [1] and no different to discrimination on race or gender. [2]  For humans, not being a slave is the practical prerequisite of all other rights. So too must it be for animals. Making the treatment of animals more ‘humane’ is an inadequate solution because it does not change the fundamental problem of exploitation.  [1] BBC Ethics guide, ‘The ethics of speciesism’  [2] Gary Francione, ‘The animal rights debate: abolition or regulation?’ p.22


Animals are harmed when used as objects of entertainment, no matter how innocent that entertainment is  The circus is another arena in which human beings abuse other animals. Animals are trained to perform tricks using whips, electronic goads, sticks, food-deprivation etc. Wild animals such as lions, tigers, and elephants are kept in shamefully inadequate conditions in tiny spaces. The necessity of regular transportation means that the circus can never provide an appropriate home for wild animals. These animals are forced to travel thousands of miles in cramped and squalid conditions and frequently end up physically and mentally ill. And what for? Purely for the entertainment of we arrogant exploitative humans. What sort of lesson does it teach our children about non-human animals to take them to the circus and see these great creatures demeaned and controlled by force to perform silly tricks?  Horses and dogs are among the principle victims of exploitation in human sporting activities. The main purpose of horse- and dog-racing is for human beings to indulge their penchant for gambling. The welfare of the animals involved is at best a secondary concern. Horses are frequently injured and die in horse races, especially races over hurdles such as the infamous British 'Grand National'; they are also blinkered and whipped to make them run faster, even the British Horseracing Authority has accepted the use of the whip needs to be limited out of concern for the welfare of the animals. [1] Or the Riverside (Washington)Suicide Race [2] [3] , where horse often die from the nearly 400 foot steep grade of the suicide hill, the riders trying to make it down and through a river. It is unconvincing to claim that the animals can enjoy being subjected to this. As for the conditions the animals are kept in, these may be good for the top dogs and horses, but in the main conditions are poor, and once the animals cease to win races they are likely to be neglected, abandoned, or slaughtered. Horses are also forced to take part in the dangerous contact sport of polo in which collisions and a hard, fast-moving puck pose serious danger to the animals who, unlike their riders, have no choice in whether they take part.  [1] British Horseracing Authority, ‘Whip use and specification’, 2011.  [2] Wikipedia, Suicide Race  [3] Nick Timiraos, ‘The Race Where Horses Die’.


It is consistent to oppose both uses of the animal.  Moreover, Bull fighting is probably the most barbaric exploitation of animals that is still legally practised (in Spain, Portugal, parts of France, Mexico, and, illegally, in the United States). The idea that there is a fair match between the bull and the matador is laughable. The bull dies at the end of every single bullfight (it is either killed by the matador or slaughtered afterwards if it survives); for a matador to be seriously injured is rare and it is very rare indeed for a matador to die as the result of a bull fight. During bull fights the animals are taunted and goaded, and have sharp spears stuck into their bodies until eventually they collapse from their injuries and exhaustion. Matadors are not heroes or artists, they are cruel cowards.


Animals can be used to enhance the quality of human life  Activities involving the hunting or performance of animals are often large scale social activities. The Grand National for example has an audience of 153,000 paying spectators at the event [1] and a further 600 million in 140 countries watch it on television. [2] They can invoke themes of struggle and competition that serve to bring communities together in a shared experience.  [1] Pwc, ‘Attendances rise at UK’s biggest annual sporting events’, 4 August 2011.  [2] Aintree, ‘Broadcasting the Grand National’.


Fighting bulls have a better quality of life than meat-producing bulls  If animal welfare is the primary concern then consistency requires that if one accepts the raising and slaughter of animals for meat then one should also accept the raising and slaughter of animals for entertainment.  “Those who see bullfighting as cruel are, of course, right. It is cruel that man should breed and kill animals for his enjoyment whether as a dinner or a dance. But to my mind the life of an Iberian fighting bull, a thoroughbred animal which lives to a minimum age of four, roaming wild, feasting on Spain's finest pasture, never even seeing a man on foot, is far superior to that of the many thousands of British bulls whose far shorter lives are spent entirely in factory conditions and killed in grim abattoirs so that we can eat beefburgers.” [1]  To condemn bull fighting is to fail to be sensitive to cultural differences and to the true nature of the sport. First, bull fighting is an integral part of traditional Spanish culture that should therefore be respected in the same way that any other minority activity (such as the slaughtering of animals according to certain Jewish or Muslim ritual laws) would be. Secondly, the bull fight is a symbolic enactment of the battle between man and beast; the matador is a highly trained and highly skilled artist and fighter and takes his life in his hands when he enters the ring - it is a match between man and animal. Finally, since the bull would be killed anyway, it is of little consequence how it is killed.  [1] Robert Elms, ‘End bullfighting and you give in to the neutering forces of accepted taste’.


If animal suffering is equal to human suffering then the benefits of exploiting animals in this way are only appropriate if it would also be appropriate to use a mentally disabled human in the same way.


No renewable energy is going to provide the sheer quantity and variety of energy needed to power a developed society. Wind suffers from being unreliable – producing either too little or too much – and as a result would be a bad choice to be the core technology.  The basic staple of the energy supply needs to be predictable as well as clean. Wind may well have a useful role providing a surplus that can be tapped in to at times of high demand. However, it is simply not reliable enough to be the mainstay of the energy blend.  It is worth noting that wind energy requires government subsidies which is simply not viable in the long term, people are unlikely to be keen on the idea of paying for their energy twice; once through their power bill and then again in their taxes [i] .  [i] Industrial Wind Energy Group. 23 August 2008.


Wind energy provides a sustainable alternative to fossil fuels and nuclear power  There is little doubt that the current mix of energy provision is simply unsustainable. Fossil fuels are simply too damaging to the environment and nuclear is just too expensive. Wind power is an established technology providing, for example, 21% of electricity in Denmark. [i]  The research is already done and can be made available around the world.  Once externalities are taken into account nuclear energy is the single most expensive way of producing a therm. Clean coal is, frankly, a myth and the trend for oil and gas is constantly upwards in term of price.  Other renewables are embryonic technologies fraught with development costs whereas wind is an established technology already providing a significant share of the energy mix in several developed economies.  [i] World Wind Energy Association, World Wind Energy Report 2010, April 2010, p.5


The difficulty with wind energy is not whether it will be here in 500 years, it’s whether it will be here next Tuesday. Relying as a long term prospect on something so unreliable is simply building fallibility into the future.  A short term reliance on wind would be risky enough, building it in for the long term would be incredibly dangerous.  This is particularly true in countries where the weather is considerably less reliable that it is in Europe. Not only does wind face the risk of a shortfall but it also risks surges to the network at times of high wind. Denmark which pioneered wind energy in Europe, and remains the largest producer, is compelled to export much of that energy to Norway and Sweden because production frequently outstrips demand. That’s fine if one nation in the region is relying on the technology; if everyone is then the capacity simply isn’t there [i] .  [i] Mark Landler. “Sweden turns to a promising power source, with flaws.” New York Times. 23 November 2007.


Wind energy is an economic form of energy generation reducing both running costs and environmental harm  The installation costs of an entire wind farm are, admittedly, fairly high – although they pale into insignificance compared to an oil station or a nuclear plant – but after that there is almost no associated cost whatsoever. In addition to which farms can be built incrementally; a half completed wind farm is simply one that is half its original size for virtually any other form of power generation it’s an all or nothing proposition [i] .  Furthermore, many experts agree that so-called micro-renewables will play an increasingly important role in the energy future of the planet and wind energy is the example par excellence of how this can be done; the most basic homemade windmill can power a generator and wind power predates electricity – offshore and on – by centuries.  [i] "The Future of Energy. Trade winds". Economist.com. Jun 19th 2008


The pro-wind lobby always dismisses the externalities of wind power when discussing it. No other form of power requires quite so much space to create so small an amount of energy, an average of between 22.4 and 34.5 hectares per MegaWatt. [i]  In some countries that may be an appropriate use of land but in many others it is simply a waste of space. It is interesting that those countries that have moved toward wind energy – Denmark, Spain, Germany, Portugal and Ireland – are all in Europe. Geographically small nations with economies that can support an interesting experiment and with an infrastructure that allows for diverse additions to their power supplies.  Wind is simply not a serious option for most of the world, it is a rich nation’s toy. In most nations, either where land is a premium or where development costs for the transition between technologies are prohibitive, wind cannot be the solution.  [i] Denholm, Paul et al., ‘Land-Use Requirements of Modern Wind Power Plants in the United States’, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, August 2009, p.10


Wind energy provides for price stability in the long-term, wind will be with us for the duration  The critical, and increasing, issue of a reliance on fossil fuels is that the price is not only increasing but is doing so in an unpredictable manner. Oil and gas in particular are subject to the political whim of some of the world’s most unpredictable regimes. Wind, by contrast, is produced domestically or, where it is exported, is produced in stable European nations.  Given the choice between negotiating with Chavez’s Venezuela or Putin’s Russia for oil and gas or with Belgium or Germany for wind energy is really not a difficult choice.  Critically, in addition, any form of mineral-dependent energy is based on a resource that will deplete – be that coal or uranium. Wind, by contrast, is the ultimate sustainable resource.


Both tidal and geo-thermal are untried technologies and have significant environmental implications in their own right.  It also seems highly unlikely that deploying nuclear as a ‘bridge’ technology would be anything like that, certainly the history of energy production does not suggest that industries are likely to plan for their own extinction in favour of more environmentally sensitive technologies.  This is especially true of nuclear power; it simply is not a short-term technology as the reprocessing and containment schedules are enormous. A decision to use nuclear even for a matter of decades would have implications that would run for longer than the history of human civilization to date.  Wind, by contrast, is a developed technology that has no implications for future generations.


Nobody disputes that any energy strategy will have to include a shift away from the way much of the developed world depends on energy. Clearly energy conservation must be part of the process, but so should micro-renewables. In both categories wind power is the best available option – cheap to build and easy for small scale energy users to use as an when they need it and when built in the right place is reliable, in the UK wind energy is generating 75-85% of the time. [i] Moreover any worries over reliability can be alleviated by building numerous wind farms over a wide area as the wind is always blowing somewhere. [ii]  Battery capacity is easier to build on a smaller scale and surplus can be exchanged internationally relatively easily. All power supplies require backup [iii] . Power outages apply just as much in the supposedly stable world of fossil fuels; surplus capacity is built into any system.  [i] RenewableUK, ‘Wind Energy’, 2010  [ii] Green, ‘Wind Power Unreliable? Build More Turbines’, New York Times, 20 January 2010  [iii] Wind Energy Myths. “Wind Powering America Fact Sheet”. May 2005.


Wind turbines represent a threat to the local wildlife habitat  Although the issue of the impact on bird populations has been somewhat exaggerated there is no doubt that wind farms has an impact on bat populations and some impact on birds [i] . [ii]  There are also indirect impacts on local populations of wildlife as a result of the disturbance caused to otherwise remote wildlife communities as a result of the construction and maintenance of wind power sites.  Wind farms impact on migratory routes as they need to be based in areas where there is little human habitation or activity. This is simply humans as a species taking over land which has been the preserve of other creatures which already have few enough areas to live in, away from the voracious implications of human consumption.  [i] ScienceDaily, ‘Why Wind Turbines Can Mean Death For Bats’, 25 August 2008  [ii] Bat Conservation Trust. “Wind Turbines”. February 2007.


The financial support required to further develop wind technology would be better deployed in more consistent processes such as geo-thermal and nuclear  Realistically, there is a set pot of funding to deal with this energy crisis and it is essential to use on technologies that have long term benefits. Several environmentalists have talked about the difference between ‘bridge’ technologies which can provide a temporary solution and long term, sustainable technologies.  There is a broad agreement that nuclear fills the first category and geo-thermal and tidal powers fulfil the latter. Wind simply doesn’t feature.


Wind energy is unreliable and provides only an irregular source of supply – and even then only in some countries  Wind will only ever be a useful additional technology to provide extra capacity at time of high demand. We know it to be both unreliable and unpredictable. We know that unreliable technologies are fraught with expensive difficulties. As a result relying on such a technology would be reckless.  To take one example, the only way of building in a capacity for wind into a regular energy network would require the construction of ‘battery capacity’ such as hydro-power. Developing such a capacity would be both hugely expensive and unreliable – it’s useful if the wind fails to blow for a few hours, if the doldrums last for a few days, then everything grinds to a halt.


Experience teaches us that the natural environment responds to changes in human activity and rebalances itself. By contrast a shift in the entire climate, driven by human activity, would have devastating implications for all species. We know that migration routes can change over time and that, for example, bat colonies can move. However, a shift in climatic process would destroy migration patterns [i] and cause untold damage to wildlife populations.  Dealing with the effects of climate change is not just a responsibility that humanity needs to take on for itself but for all species on the planet. The tiny impact of individual wind farms on local populations is as nothing compared to the catastrophic implications of a significant and mostly unpredictable shift in the climate of the globe.  [i] Alasdair Fotheringham. “Is this the end of migration?” The independent. 18 April 2010.


Quercioli et al (2012)’s study on the relationship between investing in private health care and mortality does not come to clear conclusions about the best course [1] . The results show investments in public sector health services is associated with a 1.47% reduction in ‘avoidable’ mortality. Investing in the public-sector is more cost-effective, and achieves faster results. The rate of return from private investment is slower.  Privatisation is not necessarily best for maternal care.  [1] The research was carried out in Italy.


Improving health care for mother and child  Private-sector investment will provide crucial training for health professionals, infrastructure, and resources to improve maternal and child health care. Providing affordable maternal care acts as a means for promoting gender equality, and empowerment.  Jacaranda Health [1] operate on a business model, meeting the demand, and need, for affordable and high-quality maternal care in East Africa. Through mobile clinics and new maternity hospitals Jacaranda Health is empowering women and children. Within the first year Jacaranda Health provided care for 4,000 women, and changed the lives of 20,000 families.  Additionally, free maternal care holds negative side-effects. As Burundi shows, the social policy ideas implementing ‘free’ maternal health care resulted in overburdening the health resources and understaffed facilities; and putting vulnerable children at greater risk (IRIN, 2013).  [1] See further reading: Jacaranda Health, 2013.


Although mobile technology is introducing innovative approaches, location and physical access is still often required. Disparities cannot be alleviated until the private actors are willing to invest in remote areas. Not all health problems can be dealt with by a mobile conversation with a doctor.  Further, it remains debatable as to whether rural environments receive worse health-care. Debates have been raised as to the extent of an urban bias - do urban populations hold an advantage or penalty in health [1] ? Frequently neglected by private-investors, the urban poor have been identified as vulnerable groups. Investment, planning, and intervention, is required within slums and for the urban poor.  [1] See further readings: Goebel et al, 2010;


Funding solutions to combat disease  Sub-Saharan Africa accounts for 24% of the global disease burden; but only 1% of global health expenditure and 3% of the world’s health workers (McKinsey and Company, 2007). $25-30bn is required to invest in healthcare assets in the next decade to meet needs (McKinsey and Company, 2007). Public resources are not available, so the private-sector is critical.  The private sector can help fill this funding gap; private-sector actors - including Actis - are planning to invest $1.2bn into Adcock Ingram to provide and supply drugs [1] . The investment will provide key funding to enable research; and the availability for ART [2] within Adcock Ingram’s Anti-Retroviral Portfolio. To combat HIV, and other diseases, investors are required for R&D and the distribution of drugs. In 2012, only 34% of the people living with HIV in low and middle-income countries had access to ART showing how necessary such investment is [3] . Furthermore, the private-sector have established partnerships to implement training programmes, improving qualified treatment for HIV, TB and malaria [4] .  [1] See further readings: Private Equity Africa, 2013.  [2] ART (Anti-Retroviral Treatment) involves drugs which prevent the progression of HIV; reduce transmission and mortality.  [3] According to the WHO 2013 guidelines of people eligible for ART. See further readings: UNAID, 2013.  [4] See further reading: AMREF USA, 2013; AMREF, 2013.


In order to combat disease equality needs to be a central component. Drug distribution, new training schemes, and facilities, targeting disease prevention and treatment are influenced by market economics and feasibility. Treatments by Anti-retrovirals should not just be for those who can afford private healthcare.  Further, when considering health care private actors need to broaden horizons. Although funding remains uneven and below target, the specific inclusion of HIV, TB and Malaria within the MDG has distorted the focus on disease. Investment is required in neglected tropical diseases and non-communicable diseases something the private sector has yet to be willing to invest in.


Alleviating rural-urban disparities  Private health is enabling improved access to health services in neglected areas and reducing disparities in access to health.  In Sub-Saharan Africa rural-urban disparities in health-care have received increasing attention. Private investment is bringing services to remote locations. The potential role of technology companies bringing healthcare to areas without it is showcased in Samsung’s investment in mobile solar-powered clinics in rural South Africa [1] . Mobile technology is providing crucial innovations [2] ; used as tools by private investors, mobiles mean individuals can be updated on health status and preventative practices without physical access to doctors, or nurses.  [1] See further readings: All Africa, 2013.  [2] See further readings: Deloitte, 2013, Graham, 2012; Knapp et al, 2010.


Having the government only paying for some health care for those who can’t afford private healthcare is still better than the government paying for all. Competition between both public and private will help raise standards in both.


In seeking to make private health care affordable new models are being introduced. The new models introduced tackle issues over affordability from a demand and supply perspective.  First, multiple health financing schemes have been rolled-out across Sub-Saharan Africa. A range of financing and insurance options are being built, from investing in health providers [1] to including bottom-up approaches. Community based health insurance, as found in Rwanda and Ghana, are ensuring a move towards universal coverage (see USAID, 2012).  Secondly, in tackling supply issues, low-cost private clinics models are being constructed. In Kenya, the Avenue Group provides a positive example working to provide affordable private health care. Risk-pooling, by members, is accepted as a method of payment. Costs are reduced by working with patients, whilst a regular payment source is provided for the caregiver (see Avenue Group, 2013).  [1] The IFC recently announced a $4mn investment in AAR East Africa, expanding out-patient care (see AVCA, 2013).


Unregulated health-care  With the incorporation of a diverse range of private actors, both formal and informal, can health-care still be regulated? Quality and staff need to be regulated, with standards and prices set, but who will enforce regulation and how can we ensure rules are followed? Just treatment is required. Public-sector delivery protects patients from poor, dangerous, treatment.  When looking at regulation in health care, the relationship between private healthcare provision, efficiency and quality is variable. Outcomes depend on the institutional settings (economic, political, and social) and what private actors are involved. Private health providers have a profit incentive to cut corners and provide the cheapest care they can while charging high prices. The theory of a virtuous cycle is far from the reality.


Ideas and interests in a neoliberal model  The ideas driving private health need to be deconstructed. 65% of expenditure received for health care was from the for-profit sector (USAID, 2012). Health care is not a business or market - patients become customers and needs become sidelined by competition when in the private sector. Private health care involves adopting a neoliberal approach to care; competition is central and markets volatile. The market logic focuses on what is a good investment, will the elderly be included when they are a high risk population? This is why even in private systems like in the United States the elderly need public funding.  The privatisation of basic services, across Sub-Saharan Africa, has been shown to be a failure [1] . Access to health care should be based on need, rather than ability to pay.  [1] See further readings: UNDP (2007).


The missing MDG: inequality  Privatising health care cannot be discussed without raising concern over inequality. The privatisation of health care promotes exclusive health care, and is failing to bridge the gap between accessible care for low-income groups and the elite. The model remains unaffordable for many, and therefore ineffective. Even where affordable options are available the quality of care deteriorates. Quality assurance, and affordable care, is needed.  For example, taking the case of South Africa. Health care is provided through both public and private systems. However, the pricing of private health care: whereby better facilities and speed of treatment are found, leaves a majority out-of-pocket and excluded (All Africa, 2013). Prices need to be controlled and affordable options made available. Although formal employers have been involved in supporting access and coverage to health insurance schemes, to prevent a two-tier health system, a majority work within formal employment. If everyone has a ‘right’ to adequate health care, privatisation neglects their rights to health [1] .  [1] See further readings: War on Want (2013).


Being part of a brand ensures investors maintain a standard, and ensure infrastructure, drugs, and medical practices are met. Building franchises for health-care ensures familiarity and is setting standards to follow. Blue Star is a case in point. The Blue Star Network has been rolled out across Africa, and the franchise provides family planning resources and training on sexual and reproductive health. Once the private clinics have completed training, Blue Star recognition is awarded [1] .  Including the private sector in health care provision means a structural shift in the model of care: improved efficiency, quality and methods of care.  [1] See further readings: Marie Stopes International, 2013.


Whether rehabilitation reduces crime more than prison has been the subject of considerable debate for more than a century. [1] Not all treatments work and the twelve step model used by most rehab clinics does not work and almost all the success in treatment for addictive substances (in this case alcohol) comes down to the willpower to initially take treatment rather than the treatment itself. [2] Obviously those who are sentenced to drug treatment programs rather than prison are not making that crucial first step so the programs are unlikely to be very successful.  We also should remember that many of those who are in prison who are addicts are also violent criminals [3] and those who commit criminal acts should got to prison to prevent them being a threat to others as well as to punish that act. Treatment as a sentence is only a sensible alternative if the offender’s only crime is possession of drugs.  [1] Cullen, Francis T., and Gendreau, Paul, ‘Assessing Correctional Rehabilitation: Policy, Practice, and Prospects’, in Policies Processes, and Decisions of the Criminal Justice System, 2000, pp.111-113.  [2] Johnson, Bankole A., ‘We’re addicted to rehab. It doesn’t even work’, The Washington Post, 8 August 2010.  [3] ‘Breaking the Cycle of Drugs and Crime’, 1999 National Drug Control Strategy, 1999.


Judicial and Penal reform is needed  Short of a nationwide restructuring of drug policy, the president’s ability to affect the everyday implementation of drug laws is limited. So far, President Obama has emphasized much needed judicial and penal reform. Currently the United States incarcerates a higher percentage of its population than any other country in the world, and 22 percent of those incarcerated in federal and state prisons are drug offenders. Obama hopes to begin to address these numbers. He has supported alternatives to current detention strategies both in principle and as a cost-cutting technique. Specifically, he supports establishing of special drug courts [1] and sentencing offenders to drug treatment programs rather than prisons. [2] This is necessary because so many crimes are committed while people are high or to fund the habit. For example more than half of people arrested in San Diego had illegal drugs in their system. [3] As a result treatment rather than prison will reduce the numbers of crimes committed. Obama also signed into law the Fair Sentencing Act, which reduces the disparity in sentencing of crack cocaine users as opposed to sentencing for cocaine users. It also eliminated mandatory minimums for possession and increased penalties for traffickers. [4]  These judicial policy changes are cost-effective, pragmatic toward the goal of reducing drug use, and just. Incarceration costs approximately $30,600 annually per inmate, so treatment programs and reduced mandatory minimums for sentencing will save taxpayer dollars. [5] The RAND Corporation (a government-supported non-profit think tank), among others, has found repeatedly that drug policies prioritizing treatment over punishment are more effective, while costing less. [6] [7] [8] Finally, Obama has made US drug policy more just by reducing a sentencing disparity that had unduly punished African Americans for decades. [9]  [1] ‘Drug and Veterans Courts’, Office of National Drug Control Policy.  [2] Obama, Barack, ‘National Drug Court Month’, The White House, 23 May 2012.  [3] Fudge, Tom, ‘Tests Show Majority Of People Arrested In San Diego Are High On Drugs’, KPBS, 6 September 2012.  [4] One Hundred Eleventh Congress, ‘Fair Sentencing Act of 2010’, Government Printing Office, 5 January 2010.  [5] Sabol, William J. et al., ‘Prisoners In 2008’, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 8 December 2009.  [6] Everingham, Susan S., and Rydell, C. Peter, ‘Projecting Future Cocaine Use and Evaluating Control Strategies’, RAND Corporation, RB-6002, 1995.  [7] Caulkins, Jonathan, ‘Cost-Effectiveness of School-Based Drug Programs’, RAND Corporation.  [8] Rydell, C. Peter et al., ‘Enforcement or Treatment? : modelling the relative efficacy of alternatives for controlling cocaine’, RAND Corporation, RP-614, 1997.  [9] CNN Wire Staff, ‘Obama signs bill reducing cocaine sentencing gap’, CNN, 3 August 2010.


Presidents are meant to lead not simply open up national discussions and follow whatever the public wants. While discussion is always welcome it is unlikely to actually provide any answers except telling us what the public wants – most people may consider the war on drugs a failure but that does not mean that they have any idea of what policies they want to replace it. A dialogue also simply kicks the problem down the road; how long is a national discussion going to take? If it is comprehensive this is likely to delay any decisions until after the next election.


The United States must find a ‘third way’  President Obama’s Director of U.S. National Drug Control Policy—or Drug Czar—R. Gil Kerlikowske has rejected the term “War on Drugs,” stating, “the Obama Administration supports a ‘third way’ approach because balanced drug policies such as those in Sweden have accomplished much for the countries that have implemented them.” Nearing the end of the administration’s first term, however, the rhetoric has changed more than the policy. In his Fiscal Year 2013 budget, Obama requested $25.6 billion for drug enforcement—the highest annual total yet. [1]  Despite this if reelected, Obama would take further steps to scale back the so-called War on Drugs. Rejecting the term is a symbolic start as it moves the issue away from being an issue of national security that the term ‘war’ implies it is. A third way would mean reducing the securitization of the issue; changing the view of drug addiction from being a moral crime to being a treatable disease so focusing on education and health. This may eventually mean decriminalising some drugs such as marijuana as happened in Seattle [2] while not actually legalising drugs. In addition to Drug Czar Kerlikowske’s rejection of that term, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has also acknowledged that the United States holds much of the responsibility for the ongoing violence in Mexico. [3] Obama has since expressed willingness to collaborate with Mexican leaders to change policy, but has not proposed a detailed plan to do so.  [1] ‘The National Drug Control Budget: FY 2013 Funding Highlights’, Office of National Drug Control Policy, February 2012.  [2] Good, Chris, ‘Obama’s Drug Czar Stumps for ‘Third Way’ Policy’, abc News, 1 May 2012.  [3] Clinton, Hillary Rodham, ‘Digital Town Hall at TecMilenio University’, U.S. Department of State, 26 March 2009.


Saying you want a third way is simply attempting to find a way to dress up moving away from prohibition as being a new and innovative policy. If there was a golden third way between prohibition and legalisation that prevents crime while allowing choice it would already have been found. While treating drugs as a public health issue may help reduce the number of people who are locked up for possession it does nothing to break drugs cartels or reduce the problem of supply so it is unlikely to be of much help to Mexico as the policy will mean reducing the help provided to Mexico while it is unlikely to have an effect on demand at least in the short to medium term. In short this would mean leaving the door open to the cartels.


The War on Drugs has failed and there needs to be a new dialogue to decide on the course forward  The Obama administration has indicated that it will publicly address the failures of the War on Drugs if it wins a second term. [1] In terms of the direction of drug policy as a whole, several Obama “aides and associates” have indicated that the President will bring drug policy to the forefront of the national discussion if he is reelected, but it is unclear what specific steps he would take, going forward. This would be welcome to most Americans; only 10% of people believe the policy of the war on drugs has been a success against 66% who consider it a failure. [2] A national discussion is the only way to determine whether there should be a fundamental shift in policy.  [1] Ambinder, Marc, ‘Exclusive: In His Second Term, Obama Will Pivot to the Drug War’, GQ, 2 July 2012.  [2] AngusReid, ‘ Americans Decry War on Drugs, Support Legalizing Marihuana’, 6th June 2012.


This makes it sound like the US government does not currently have an education program on drugs, this is not true. The current program is making very little difference to drug use. [1] So Romney’s policy is really the same failed policy being recycled again; more border security and a few measures that will make little impact on the demand side. The White House has been highlighting that it has been spending $5billion on reducing drug use while also increasing border security this is not a change so how can we expect an improvement? [2]  [1] Hanson, Prof. David J., ‘Ineffective DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) Program Remains Popular’, State University of New York.  [2] Napolitano, Janet et al. ‘Administration Officials announce U.S.-Mexico Border Security Policy: A comprehensive response & commitment’, The White House, 24 March 2009.


Privatising prisons does not work – of course it will result in more prisons but it will also result in more convictions and soon those new prisons will be full too. This is because if prisons are privatised they become an industry, often literally meaning the prisoners manufacture goods for as little as 17 cents an hour, [1] and those engaged in law enforcement have a stake. The local sheriffs often run these for profit facilities and so have a financial incentive to keep the prisons full so as to keep the money coming in. [2] It is not correct that the three strikes rule in California have caused crime to fall, it has been similar to declines in states that don’t have the rule, instead there are other explanations for why crime has fallen such as a reduction in the consumption of alcohol. [3] The Punitive policy towards drugs has been tried; it has resulted in one of the highest incarceration rates in the world and little appreciable drop in crime. It is time to change the policy.  [1] Bowie, Nile, ‘Profit Driven Prison Industrial Complex: The Economics of Incarceration in the USA’, Centre for Research on Globalization, 6 February 2012.  [2] Talbot, Margaret, ‘Prisons, Colleges, and the Private-sector Delusion’, The New Yorker, 14 June 2012.  [3] Miller, Bettye, ‘Three-strikes Law Fails to Reduce Crime’, UCR Today, 28 February 2012.


Allowing drug use is wrong – Prohibition must remain  Romney also has a record of preferring prohibitory policies over those that allow drug use with the intention of making it safer. For example, as Governor of Massachusetts, he vetoed a bill to allow the sale of syringes without a prescription. [1] He has not since stated that he would take a different approach as president, and his position on marijuana use suggests that he would continue to support prohibitory laws.  Romney has staunchly opposed calls to legalize and regulate marijuana, making a moral argument against such a change by claiming that pot legalization is simply a pet issue of a “pleasure-seeking generation that never grew up.” [2] While President Obama has not supported the legalization of marijuana, Romney is stronger in calling for harsh penalties for marijuana users in order to demonstrate the seriousness of the crime. He has also gone further than Obama in his opposition to marijuana by coming out against the legalization of the drug for medical use. [3]  [1] U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, ‘Massachusetts: Needle Sales OK’d After Legislature Barely Trumps Veto’, The Body, 18 July 2006.  [2] ‘Mitt Romney on Drugs, Former Republican Governor (MA); presidential nominee-apparent’, On The Issues, 2012.  [3] Mooney, Alexander, ‘Romney confronted with medical marijuana issue’, CNN, 8 October 2007.


The United States can reduce domestic demand for drugs through education  Like Obama, Romney has indicated a willingness to talk to Mexican leaders about collaboration and has admitted the need to address large-scale demand for drugs in the United States. When asked how to improve the War on Drugs, he stated, “We gotta stop the demand here in this country.” [1] And that demand is immense, it is estimated that there are 22.6 million Americans aged 12 of over using illegal drugs. [2] Additionally, he told the Hispanic Leadership Network that along with preventing demand through education, the United States needs to improve its control of the Mexican border. [3]  Romney will try to control domestic demand for drugs by prohibiting their use, educating young people about their harms (as exemplified by his record as Governor of Massachusetts) [4] , and punishing those who break the law. Through education and regulation, the United States can win the War on Drugs, rather than appease drug growers, traffickers, dealers, and users.  [1] Romney, Mitt, ‘Romney Rally Pinkerton Academy Derry, NH’, Youtube, 7 January 2012.  [2] Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, ‘Results from the 2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of National Findings’, NSDUH Series H-41, HHS Publication No. (SMA) 11-4658. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2011.  [3] Romney, Mitt, ‘Mitt Romney Remarks at Hispanic Leadership Network’, C-Span, 27 January 2012.  [4] Harclerode, Kelsey, ‘What Would President Mitt Romney’s Drug Policy Look Like?’, the Atlantic, 2 March 2012.


Drugs policy must be punitive  Governor Romney would not scale back the War on Drugs, as he supports the punitive approach that characterizes drug policy in the status quo. Romney supports punitive strategies toward criminal justice in general, such as “three strikes and you’re out” laws, which impose mandatory sentences for people who have committed three offenses. [1] These policies can be effective in reducing crime, in California after three strikes was implemented the crime rate declined by 43% although the three strikes was only one factor. [2] Romney maintains that those who break current laws should be punished, and therefore has proposed that states should contract with for-profit prison companies to continue expanding prison populations in order to keep up with current rates of incarceration. If larger prisons are necessary in order to keep drug users and dealers off the streets, then they are a necessary cost.  [1] ‘Mitt Romney on Crime, Former Republican Governor (MA); presidential nominee-apparent’, On The Issues, 2012.  [2] ‘A Primer: Three Strikes – The Impact After More Than a Decade’, Legislative Analyst’s Office, October 2005.


Dismissing drug users as a ‘pleasure-seeking generation that never grew up’ almost concedes the point. These people have a right to make the choice for themselves whether to use drugs – the government should make sure the risks are known, and the substance priced accordingly but ultimately there is nothing wrong with seeking pleasure.  Romney further muddies the waters by not allowing the sale of syringes as this is an act that would save lives. A study in the lancet estimated that with a needle exchange program in the US between 10000 and 20000 HIV infections could have been prevented between 187 and 2000. [1]  [1] Lurie, P. and Drucker, E. ‘An opportunity lost: HIV infections associated with lack of a national needle-exchange programme in the USA’. Lancet. 1997 Vol.349 pp.604-608.


Tobacco and fatty foods are different. A balanced diet will include many food groups, including fats. Cigarettes, however, have no health benefits whatsoever.  While smoking is harmful at any level, “junk food” in moderation has no resulting health problems [13] and there is no way to only tax people once they are consuming harmful amounts.


Other taxes try to change behaviour  Taxes that try to change people’s behaviour on things that are not liked have been used since the 16th century, and are commonly applied to alcohol, smoking and gambling.  In the US, when cigarette prices went up 4%, use dropped by 10% [11]. As this worked with tobacco, which creates similar health problems to obesity, this tried and tested strategy can work.  Research has shown that when the price of unhealthy food goes up, people eat less of it [12]. A fat tax would make people healthier.


What the tax would do is just make poorer people spend more on food by taxing them more.  Instead of making healthy food more accessible, it would just make all food less accessible – which wouldn’t work. People who currently eat junk food may just continue to eat what they are used to. All that will happen is that people will spend more on food – not change what they eat, and it would be poor people who pay more.


Being fat causes problems for everyone  Obesity causes huge medical costs - in the USA alone, around 150 billion dollars [6]. This is because obesity is linked to Type 2 Diabetes, cancer, heart problems, strokes, asthma and other medical problems.  Many of these diseases need lifelong treatment following expensive diagnosis, and often emergency treatment.  This not only has human effects, but causes problems for the economy due to being less productive at work and taking lots of medical leave. Due to obesity’s costs (financial and otherwise) to society, it can’t be considered as something that only affects individuals any more [7].


The USA is not a good place to take figures from as its health sector is very expensive and inefficient compared to most other countries [9]. If anything, that is getting worse.  It’s not possible to say if the rising cost of healthcare is due to obesity related disease, as there are numerous other possibilities such as the risk of doctors being sued, an aging population, and spiraling drug costs.  Also, there are other lifestyle choices that can cause problems, for example eating meat can contribute to cancer [10], we should not single out one lifestyle choice that can cause problems over others.


Unhealthy food is cheaper  A reason why people eat unhealthy foods is that it’s often cheaper and easier than cooking something with fresh ingredients. Studies have shown that not only is junk food cheaper, its costs are less likely to increase due to inflation [14]. This was confirmed by research in Australia that showed that while healthy food became more expensive, junk food got cheaper [15].  Obesity is more common amongst poorer people. Because junk food is so cheap, it is eaten more. The best way to change this consumption pattern is to tax unhealthy food so that the healthy option is also the cheaper option.


A fat tax could be offset by subsidizing the price of healthier foods so that the overall food budget is unaffected. No one will be forcing the poor to pay this tax as the intention is to have them change their eating habits.  The families that would be affected by the tax most are those affected most by obesity related disease. Spending some money now on food would save a lot more later in health care. It will also make them more productive at work, meaning a better economy and hopefully higher wages to help compensate. [21]


This is a very limited view of government; today everyone agrees that the government should be allowed to tax things that harm us such as alcohol and tobacco. These, like fat, only indirectly harm others.  Attitudes towards fat are changing as the problem becomes much greater. It is now accepted that when people do things that harm others indirectly the government must have a role. The rise in healthcare costs creates just such costs by increasing the cost of the healthcare system as a whole which is either paid for by everyone through taxes or passed on through higher insurance premiums.


Such a tax would not work  A fat tax would only produce a slight change in behaviour. Research by the London School of Economics said that “those on the very poorest diets will continue to eat badly. [16]”  People like fast fatty food because it is quick and tasty. Eating is something we need to do to live – it solves a specific need quickly, and people are happy to pay for it. [17]  Obesity has many causes. It is not something that can be solved with something as simple as a fat tax. Things like healthy food vending machines, more exercise and better education would be more effective in the long run.


Costs more to those who can’t afford to pay  A fat tax will be a tax on poor people. It will hit the poorest, those who can least afford to pay it. It is the poorest who buy the cheapest food because they can’t afford otherwise and who are least likely to have the kitchen equipment necessary to prepare healthy meals. Because it is what they know they will simply end up paying more taxes and having less money to spend on anything else. The result will be attempts to save by eating even worse food, or cutting back on some other necessity such as heating. [19]  The impact of rising food prices and concerns that the result would be turning to worse food is what stopped Romania from introducing such a tax in 2010. [20]


Free choice  It is the government’s job to provide schools and courts not to tell people what to eat. The government should stop people harming each other. But it’s not the government’s job to tell people what to do to themselves. Consuming fatty food does not harm other so should not be subject to government control.  A fat tax would be like the government trying to prevent us from frivolous spending and getting into debt by being allowed to tax investments it considers to be bad.


Education campaigns, such as Jamie Oliver’s campaign about school dinners to the Change for Life scheme are already being tried. They aren’t working very well [18]. The only thing that really affects behaviour is cost – making unhealthy food expensive and healthy food cheaper.


Does it really work? Efforts to include men is claimed to have failed in several districts across Uganda. Men remain skeptical of letting women use family planning; believing the planning the number of children a woman has is unnatural. Therefore women are vulnerable to abuse if such programs are used [1] .  [1] See further readings: Nangonzi, 2013


Controlling domestic violence  By including men in family planning the ideas, and misconceptions, of what happens when women use family planning can be changed. Gender-based violence is a key concern that can be reduced by involving men in family planning decisions. If they buy into having fewer children then they are less likely to object to using contraception and condoms – something that has other potential benefits such as preventing STDs. The United Nations Development Fund for Women has found that one in four women is abused during pregnancy, teaching men about reproductive health and family planning can prevent this from happening.(International Women’s Health Program)  Although evidence is limited the MAP (Men As Partners) program in South Africa showcases the positive effect of including men. The intervention is changing men’s attitude and behaviors [1] .  [1] See further readings: Peacock and Levack, 2007; Engender Health, 2014.


The idea of family planning is wrong; and it reflects the unequal power structures operating in society. Within African cultures families are polygamous, extended, and far from the ‘normal’ neutral family structure. Therefore by enforcing family planning we are failing to understand what the family is across Africa.  Family planning is simply seeking to limit choice about the structure of the family. Just including man and wife rather than any more extended family is itself encouraging a certain structure that not all Africans agree with or desire for their family.


Gender equality in family planning  By including men in family planning programs and the decisions made concerning family structures equality is enabled. The decisions made, and responsibilities, concerning the ‘family’ are no longer solely the burden of the woman. Men are provided with a voice, and therefore responsibility and obligation to act upon caring for the family.  By introducing men into family planning a platform is provided enabling negotiations on the family to be discussed between man and woman. Men are key actors in decisions made; therefore their inclusion is fundamental. This also means that the man is also much more likely to take on other responsibilities in terms of caring for the family or doing things the woman would have done in the past like collecting medicine (Wasswa, 2012).


Whether gender equality in family planning creates wider gender equality is questionable. Does gender equality emerge by including men in family planning, previously a predominantly female domain (the reproductive sphere), without changing gender structure? For example, what has actually changed? Presumably if the men wanted a say in how many or few children they had before they would have been listened to. Another question is whether the negotiation decisions, and outcomes, equal?  Gender equality requires changing what gender means; and how women, men, and sexuality are experienced. Can we talk about gender equality when socially constructed gender roles remain prevalent? Moreover is there a spillover effect? If there is not then women are simply ceding control over one area without a gain elsewhere; hardly good for equality. Gender equality is a right; therefore universal and it should count everywhere not just in the reproductive sphere.


Involving men is the best way to ensure family planning works  By including men fast action can be taken to control the size, and growth, of families. The patriarchal power structures mean men have a key voice in household decisions. Therefore the involvement of men in family planning is enabling perceptions of what the family should be to change. The cost of raising a family is realized, and intervening methods are being used to have fewer children. Family planning means planning how one can cope with having a child – mentally, emotionally, financially, and physically, and sensitizing couples as to what kind of life standard they want. With the young generation of Ugandans a new culture of a smaller family can emerge [1] .  Men often have limited knowledge about family planning so it is necessary that they are included in learning and the transfer of knowledge (Kaida et al, 2005). When both partners are knowledgeable and involved family planning is far more likely to become a reality.  [1] Wasswa, 2012.


Reducing the cost of family planning; making more contraceptive resources and materials available around the clock; and distributing commodities to hospitals does not ensure access. There is no point increasing funding for programs that will not get used due to a lack of popularity or continued ideas of family planning and management. Improving the ‘alternative essentials’ can only work if those using reproductive resources are supported and in a patriarchal society this means needing the involvement of both men and women.


By including men in family planning programs a new respect emerges towards sex and what men expect women to do. By being made aware of the reproductive costs and demands men are able to respect the bodies and choices of women. Women no longer become passive, but recognized and respected as having their own sexual desires, preferences, and constrains. Family planning does not suppress sexuality, if anything through encouraging the use of contraception and condoms encourages it.


The need to include the wider family  Decisions on how big, or small, a family should be; and how it should be structured are not solely the decisions of husband and wife, or man and woman. Extended family members play a key role. For example, research carried out in Nigeria by Smith (2004) indicates decisions remain influenced by cultural norms and pressures. The pressure for a high fertility, amongst Igbo-speaking Nigerians, is shown to be a paradoxical factor of patron-clientalism and the culture of ‘people power’. High fertility and subsequent kinship networks enable state legibility, resource access, and the continuation of ‘tradition’. Elder family members aim to maintain traditions. A crucial distinction therefore emerges, as it is not simply a rational choice when it comes to family planning but rather influenced by political-economy factors and wider family demands. Therefore including men in Uganda does not necessarily allow an understanding of what role the wider family plays. Decisions on family planning are not simple, or always open for discussion.


Alternative essentials  We should not be focusing on including men, but rather alternative essentials such as funding, resource distribution, and awareness. For example President’s Museveni’s recent commitment to raise government funding for family planning from 3.3 million to 5 million is vital [1] . Further, by improving the supply and distribution of contraception, into the health service sector, President Museveni has drawn attention to the financial constraints in family planning.  [1] Advance Family Planning, 2014.


Family planning is wrong: controlling sexuality  The idea of family planning involves controlling, and suppressing, sexuality. Sex becomes understood as purely a source for reproduction, and women and men in Africa (or Uganda) requiring control.  Additionally the ‘normal’ relationship is identified between man and women. Freedom to express sexuality is repressed by understanding sexuality as heterosexual. The idea of the family is maintained as a heterosexual reality


When it comes to family planning the extended family has little power over intra-household decisions. Extended family members will not be attending clinic meetings, collecting contraception, or engaging in intimate action. The power in family planning returns to man and wife. Additionally, the inclusion of men into family planning will change ideas of reproduction for all. If men are included at all levels ideas will change, and overtime pressures will change. As all men and women learn about family planning they will become much more sympathetic to it within their extended family.


Most athletes can only compete at the elite level when they hit their peak. And the ‘big’ competitions, like the Olympics, don’t come around very often.  So because a coach, in a team they’re not part of, used harsh training methods, they now miss their only chance to compete in the highest competition possible and receive the biggest payout (in terms of wage and sponsorship) opportunity of their career.  Now, this may not weigh against the harm suffered by a beaten athlete, but when you multiply that number out and consider how many people you’re taking this opportunity away from, the harms stack up.


The suffering of those who are treated to harsh training outweighs banning the team  This ban is, admittedly, highly punitive and may be called harsh. It will punish hundreds of athletes and coaches who aren’t implicated in cases of abuse. Yet, on a balance of harms, the disappointment those people feel can’t be compared to the suffering of an athlete who is beaten and starved and conditioned into a mode of thinking where they accept this without putting up a fight.  According to Melanie Lang of Metropolitan University harsh and over intensive training “removes the element of fun that first attracts so many youngsters to sport. It can inhibit bone growth, cause physical and mental burnout and increase the potential for injury and dropout.” [1] And worse the coercion can lead to injury and even death; American gymnast Christy Henrich became anorexic and as a result died weighing only 3st 5lb while Chinese gymnast Sang Lan was paralysed after being cajoled into attempting a vault. [2] It’s more important to ensure all athletes can train in a safe environment free from physical and mental abuse, than it is to safeguard against the disappointment of professional athletes who want to compete. Given that there are major sporting events annually or bi-annually, usually, it’s not as if those forced to miss out can’t compete again soon.  [1] Cassidy, Sarah, ‘Olympic swimming training ‘too hard on young athletes’, The Independent, 4 September 2008,   [2] ‘Beijing Olympics: The Games are not child’s play’, The Telegraph, 16 August 2008,


This simply shows that it is the coaches that are to blame and therefore it is unfair to punish the athletes for what their coaches are persuading them to do. Young manipulatable, athletes do not necessarily know what their coaches responsibilities are and what should be considered abuse. Instead this is the responsibility of the coaching team who therefore are the ones who should be penalised.


Banning countries with harsh training measures from competing would be a strong deterrent  This measure introduces a strong deterrent against those who allow and facilitate abusive training methods.  Firstly, it incentivises national athletic and sporting bodies to diligently check the background of coaches before their employment and continue to investigate them throughout the year. It is now in the interest of every single member of national sporting bodies and teams to ensure abuse doesn’t continue. In most it is currently in your interest to keep quiet, lest you risk disturbing the national programme or being ostracised by your federation.  As a result coaches are far less likely to think these training methods will help them achieve success. Since it could see their athletes banned from the competition and lose their medals it makes using harsh training methods an immense risk to take. It would also mean they’re unlikely to ever get hired again if caught.


This isn’t necessarily true. Consider that currently coaches already are already disincentivised by the use of these training methods by the threat of losing their job. For example in South Korea fourteen Ice Skating coaches resigned after allegations of beatings. [1] Yet these practices continue.  Deterrents rarely work because people don’t think they’ll be caught, and focus on the short term benefit of what they are doing. For example, even if you explain to someone that smoking kills, they may still take a cigarette because they assume they won’t be the one that gets cancer and so the short term benefit can be taken guilt free.  The kind of coaches who already think like this and risk their job are unlikely to change as a result of this proposal. In this case, coaches are unlikely to think they’ll ever get caught, even if people like them are caught and punished, so they’ll think it is pointless to abandon the training methods they think will guarantee them success.  [1] MacIntyre, Donald, ‘Breaking the Ice’, Time Magazine, 15 November 2004,


First this is not all the responsibility of the IAAF to police; the same guidelines state “Athletes must be instructed in health and safety practices and must bear a large degree of responsibility for their own welfare”. [1] The IAAF has already passed laws about what constitutes ‘proper training methods’. [2] The IAAF has therefore done what it needs to do to protect athletes. This duty of responsibility does not extend to a right to impose collective punishment.  Most people wouldn’t argue with the fact that we should try to reduce the amount of harsh training methods being used, where we can. The debate is about how appropriate and effective this punishment is. This policy may lead to less whistleblowing, while simultaneously punishing lots of athletes unfairly. So no matter how high the IAAF’s moral burden is, this policy should not be enacted.  [1] “Principals and Ethical Guidelines”, IAAF,   [2] ‘Principles of Training’, International Association of Athletics Federations,


Athletes are vulnerable to their coaches  Athletes dedicate their lives to their sport and becoming the world’s best at what they do. They are willing to put their body and minds through all sorts of punishment to do this. As such, they’re not in a position to judge what is and isn’t an acceptable training method. If they’re told that starvation makes them more likely to win gold then their intense desire for Olympic glory often clouds their judgment and ability to make rational choices for themselves. Their coaches are authority figures who assumed to have their best interests in mind, and most athletes also assume their coaches know more than them about how to achieve glory. So, if a gymnastics coach tells her athlete that she needs to starve herself to win gold, the athlete will think themselves a bad athlete if they refuse. [1] This is shown by the long history of drug use in the Olympics where both coaches and athletes know it is wrong to use drugs but still do so in the hope it will bring them gold. [2]  Because of this, the IAFF has to make this decision for them. It also means that the chance of whistleblowing is low, since athletes cannot rationally consider whether the training methods are acceptable. So it has to set an incredibly punitive deterrent to make sure coaches aren’t tempted to use a training method they probably won’t be caught for.  [1] Harris, Paul, ‘Secret world of a gymnast: starvation, sex and fear’, The Observer, 27 April 2008,   [2] ‘Historical Timeline History of Performance Enhancing Drugs in Sports’, ProCon.org, 28 February 2012,


The IAAF and the Athletics commission have the highest burden to protect their athletes.  Just as an employer has a responsibility to provide a safe working environment for their employees, the IAAF has a duty to provide a safe environment for their athletes. The sports medical team is responsible for ‘preventing illness and injury’, [1] clearly something that is caused by harsh training. As do all those who are involved in sports.  These athletes only exist in a professional capacity because bodies created the positions for the athletes to exist. If the world wants to pay people to perform and compete for them, then once that offer is made they have a moral duty to ensure that work is safe, since they are culpable in creating that work.  Moreover, we give the IAAF power in the promise that by giving up localised power of judgement over sport, they can better protect athletes and creating a fairer sporting environment.  Abusive training methods are a huge failure on the part of the IAAF and as such they must use the most powerful disincentive possible to them.  [1] “Principals and Ethical Guidelines”, IAAF,


It’s simply untrue to claim that ‘unconnected athletes’ have done nothing wrong. It is the responsibility of every member of the national team to ensure standards are met, because abuses only go tolerated so long as they are allowed by athletes and other coaches to continue. In the case of the victim if they did not whistleblow early then they clearly are responsible for allowing that abusive practice to continue. It is the victim who the harsh regime was supposed to benefit through driving them to glory and if they acquiesced to the treatment then this is likely the reason.


Firstly, this argument assumes consent on the part of the athlete. That’s somewhat unfair as most of these ‘harsh’ training camps are fairly secretive. We know this because even though the Karoyli’s were called out, no punishment could be made due to the difficulty in obtaining conclusive evidence. So it is unlikely athletes really know what they’re getting themselves into.  You can’t consent to abuse, not like this, we wouldn’t let you sign a contract to allow someone to starve you. Moreover, just because athletes would do anything to get gold, doesn’t mean we should let them. Some people would happily sell an organ for money, but we stop them doing that and morally are right to do so. Individuals don’t always know what’s best for them, that’s in-part, why the state exists.


The policy is counter productive  If your goal is, ultimately, to reduce the amount of coaches using this method, this policy is massively counter-productive. For people to get punished, you need athletes to report abuse, this policy makes that less likely to happen.  The athletes being abused won’t want to report their coaches as the abuse is happening, because that means they and their teammates all lose their chance at and competing in the biggest sporting stages which in turn is likely to reduce their chances of ever achieving glory or getting a big payday from sponsorship. It is already the case that sometimes whistleblowers suffer for calling time. In India Dr Sajib Nandi was first removed from his position as a medical officer and then beaten up as a result of whistleblowing about doping. [1] This policy simply makes the stakes and the risks of whistleblowing much higher.  At least now after they’ve been abused athletes come out and report abuse. Why would an athlete do this under this policy? It damages their stock as they become the one responsible for shaming sport in their country. Also, they’re likely to personally know and have training with people still on national programmes, so they’re not going to want to ruin their friends chances of earning more and competing for the top prizes.  [1] NDTV Correspondent, ‘Dope mess: Whistleblower doctor attacked, Sports Minister assures a meeting’, NDTV Sports, 13 July 2011,


Collective punishment is unjust  Under this policy the victim is punished for the crimes of coach. This seems unfair, why should someone have their professional dream denied to them because somebody else did something wrong? Banning an entire nation from a sporting competition expands this, individuals with no or little attachment to cases of abuse will also be punished and suffer, when they have taken no steps that deserve punishment.  Punishments should fit the crime and this means punishing those who are responsible not innocents. It is right that the punishment should be harsh as it needs to deter coaches but this deterrent should be through steep penalties for the coach not for others.


Harsh training methods aren’t necessarily abusive.  Consider that athletes already subject themselves to the kinds of environments that most people actively avoid, and would probably be considered ‘harsh’ by the average person. These routinely involve long days, week after week, often planned out years in advance, practicing special diets and routines [1] and in some countries this may mean being isolated from home and family for years at a time.  Athletes consent to having very harsh training in order to reach the prize, they’re used to putting themselves in extreme discomfort to achieve their goal. To the average person these things may seem abusive but an athlete considers these physical and mental demands differently.  Communist teams used these kinds of training methods frequently and achieved lots of Olympic success, [2] why can’t an athlete choose to emulate these methods in the pursuit of their professional and personal dreams?  [1] Dusen, Allison Van, ‘How To Train Like An Olympian’, Forbes, 8 July 2008,   [2] ‘Olympics: planned economies and the need to succeed’, euronews, 20 July 2012,


The reason athletes don’t report the abuses is because they don’t think the abuse is worse than losing their place on the team. This policy changes that by sending a strong message out. Athletes will attach the gravity of the punishment to the crime and might finally begin to understand that this kind of treatment is utterly unacceptable.  It’s also fairly easy to get around the worry of being blamed for the repercussions by having anonymous tip-offs or witness protection.  The IAAF can compensate for lack of earnings too, but ultimately actually this potential makes abuse less likely to happen. If everyone knows what a risk using harsh methods is, then that’s a good thing. Athletes will be less likely to take it and allow it to continue, and coaches won’t want to risk using them.  Currently it’s worth everyone’s while to shut up and let abuse continue, these changes would mean the risk is too high to let that happen.


Unlike hate speech or defamation, when some burns a flag no one is actually hurt. Some people may feel their sensibilities offended by such acts, but making people feel uncomfortable should not be illegal. The act of flag burning is in itself neutral. The direction of the message the act is meant to convey is what must be considered, not the act itself. Prohibiting flag burning is in this sense pointless. Furthermore, it should be within someone's rights to challenge the values of the nation and to destroy the symbol of those values as evidence of their disagreement. If people cannot challenge those values then society is not free at all.


The First Amendment to the Constitution, which protects freedom of speech and expression, does not extend to particularly inflammatory types of speech and expression, which includes flag burning  Freedom of speech and expression is an important right, which is why it is listed first in the Bill of Rights; it is central to a fair and free democracy. However, it has limits. Some forms of speech are contrary to the values of democracy, namely when they infringe upon or violate the ability of others to enact their own rights and freedoms. This is why such things as incitement to hatred, other violence-promoting speech, as well as defamation and perjury are legislated against; they are expressions that infringe the rights of others, by causing fear and increasing risk of harm in case of hate speech, and by harming reputations and the effective administration of justice in terms of defamation and perjury respectively. Rights stop where harm to others begins. In the case of flag burning, as the dissenting opinion of Justice William Rehnquist on the issue says, the act is an extremely visceral one, and is often perceived as a direct attack on the core values of America itself, which many consider to be representative of those values, leading to feelings of anger and violation1. It is an infringement of these offended people's rights when flags are allowed to be burned.  1Goldstein, Robert. 2000. Flag Burning and Free Speech: The Case of Texas v. Johnson. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.


It is exactly because of the visceral response it causes that flag burning is such an effective tool of protest. It draws media and public attention, thus giving the protestors the chance to speak to a wider audience than they might ever have been able to had they used other methods. While there might be some rhetorical backlash, it is not enough to make it not worthwhile. In the case of violent response, the ability to exercise a right should never be infringed by the potential for a violent response to its exercise. People's rights should be better protected in that case, not restricted.


The flag of the United States is its primary symbol of nationhood, with a unique importance in the eyes of most Americans, and thus should be protected  When destroying the flag of the United States it is the values of the United States that are under attack. Since the birth of the nation the flag of the United States, the eponymous "Star-Spangled Banner", has been flown proudly in all parts of the country. It has become an endemic fixture in American culture and has come to be seen by people all over the United States, and the world, as a representation of the spirit and identity of nation. It appears on every seal of public office, is flown outside every public building and a flag-shaped pin is worn upon the breast of virtually every public figure. The flag has been imbued with a special significance by the citizens of the United States, and is viewed almost universally with extensive reverence1. It has come to be seen as emblematic of all the values and virtues of American society. In a way it is the physical sublimation of those values; at least that is how it is often treated. For this reason, to destroy the flag is to destroy the values they represent, and thus the flag must be protected in order to protect the values of the nation the flag represents.  1Miller, J. Anthony. 1997. Texas v. Johnson: The Flag Burning Case. Berkeley Heights: Enslow Publishers.


The values of the United States are what should be protected, not the flag. One of those values is the upholding of freedom of speech and expression. The right to express ones views and opinions must be held inviolable to an extent. While there is a case for defamation and hate speech laws because they have a very real and direct impact on people, the flag is only important insofar as people ascribe meaning to it. It is foolish to make illegal a view contrary to the mainstream that may not value the flag so highly.


Popular support is not reason enough to deny people their constitutionally protected rights. The framers of the Constitution were wary of popular opinion, having a justifiable fear that the majority might try to circumscribe the rights of the minority. This is why there are so many check and balances within the Constitution and is exactly why the Supreme Court has defended citizens' right to expression irrespective of the will of the legislature or of the majority of people to enforce their views upon a minority. Popular opinion should not concern fundamental rights.


Flag burning does not serve as an effective method of conveying a message, since it is always met only with outrage and sometimes even violent public unrest  It is highly questionable whether burning a flag can be considered a speech or expressive act at all. It seems to offer up no new concepts or true opinions to the "marketplace of ideas". Nothing is genuinely expressed by the act that could not be done through words or other, less fiery means. The act of flag burning does nothing to help the advancement or elucidation of truth, which is why people have the right to freedom of expression in the first place. Rather, it clouds the issue supposedly being furthered by the act. It welcomes the rhetoric of "un-Americanism", whereby critics and commentators question the protestors' general patriotism, not the validity of their underlying cause, which can eventually lead to the same criticism of their cause itself. Anger clouds the discussion, with people viewing the cause in terms of unpatriotic people supporting the cause, and thus calling for patriots to oppose it. Examples of this problem can be seen clearly in the various protests during the Vietnam War in which misguided protestors burned flags to show their opposition to the war and killing of innocents. The response to these protests, however, were accusations of lack of patriotism on the parts of those involved and gave a powerful rhetorical tool to the political groups still supporting the fight1. Furthermore, when anger and rhetoric cloud all discussion of an issue, it can lead to unmeasured, even violent responses from authorities and concerned citizens. Flag burning is thus counterproductive as a tool of protest, since it stops the message being propagated and pollutes the forums of discourse from being able to search for answers reasonably.  1 Amar, Akhil. 1992. "The Case of the Missing Amendments: R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul". Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository.


The popular will calls for a prohibition of flag burning  All national polls conducted in the United States have shown a majority popular support for banning flag burning1. State and federal laws, passed by democratically elected representatives, have for decades passed popularly supported laws aimed at protecting the flag from desecration. The Supreme Court, however, has struck down these laws as being contrary to the rights to free speech, by a narrow 5-4 vote2. Yet popular support for such laws has not diminished. This has led to attempts to pass a Flag Desecration Amendment to the Constitution, which would then necessarily have to be accepted by the Court. In 2006, the House of Representatives passed such an amendment by the requisite supermajority, and it died in the Senate by only a single vote3. Clearly, the vast majority of citizens and legislators actively support legislation to protect the flag. Law should reflect the will of the people and prevent the desecration of the nation's most sacred symbol. Failing to do so gives precedence to the rights of a small minority to perform an act that does not hold any major sway over their lives over the democratic rights of the democratic public.  1 CNN. 2006. "Flag-Burning Amendment Fails by a Vote". CNN. 2Miller, J. Anthony. 1997. Texas v. Johnson: The Flag Burning Case. Berkeley Heights: Enslow Publishers. 3 Hulse, Carl and John Holusha. 2006. "Amendment on Flag Burning Fails by One Vote in Senate". The New York Times.


Banning the burning of flags does not in any way ban opinions about the state or the ideals the flag represents. Arson is an essential tool in the quest for reform. Rather than using such methods that do more to offend than to inform, protestors should focus on actually starting measured discourse in a way that is not simply offensive.


Burning a flag may grab attention, but it will invariably be attention of a kind unwanted by the ones doing the burning. If individuals desecrate a flag with the intent of gathering attention to their cause they will be disappointed when they see that public opinion is turned against them not because of their cause, but because of their methods. An attack on the flag is often seen, and is often portrayed in the media, as being an attack on America itself. For this reason flag burning is almost universally counterproductive to the furtherance of a cause, whether legal or not.


The act of flag burning can be done for patriotic reasons, when an individual considers the government to be doing something unworthy of the national ideals represented by the national flag  Burning a flag may not be an act of "un-Americanism", in the sense of opposing widely held principles considered emblematic of the United States, at all in many cases. Often the flag can be burned as an act of patriotism. When individuals feel the state is doing something contrary to the ideals of the nation, and thus those that the flag represent, burning of a flag can be symbolic of the state's non-adherence to the values it is meant to defend1. The act of burning thus serves to connect the cause of the protestor to the very ideals of the nation, and shows that it is central to the discourse of what the nation's values are and how they should be maintained, rather than simply being the ancillary opinions of a few people that can simply be discarded.  1Welch, Michael. 2000. Flag Burning: Moral Panic and the Criminalization of Protest. Piscataway: Aldine Transaction.


The right to free speech and expression must include the expression of ideas through means not shared by the majority, including flag burning  For society to be free and democratic it must have provision for the expression of views contrary to the mainstream, and even directly oppositional to it. This must furthermore extend to the means by which to convey such messages. Public disgust is certainly not justification enough to deny the right to expression. The exercise of a right can only be denied to someone when there is a direct harm to others by exercising that right. In terms of free speech, the words or expressions used by someone must result in actual harms to others, harms that outweigh the inherent harms of denying someone their rights, which is itself a kind of violation. No such harm exists in the case of flag burning1. Some people have an irrational attachment to the symbolic significance of the flag, but it should not be expected by law that everyone share that view. The flag, like all symbols of beliefs and groups, is not inviolable, nor is anyone's piece of mind or health so attached to its wellbeing that the desecration or defacing of it could cause any true harm. Furthermore, the patriotism of individuals watching a flag burning is not affected by it. This view is upheld, for example, by Supreme Court opinion in Texas v. Johnson, when the opinion argued that there could be no better response to a flag burning by someone opposed to such an action than waving their own flag or saluting and paying respect to the burning flag2. People can thus show their opposition peacefully without infringing the right of a protestor to burn a flag. Banning flag desecration on account of a sense of moral disgust, or of the threat to public order caused by angry counter-protestors, is the prohibition of an otherwise lawful act for the reason that others will commit crimes in response. Clearly, these are not justification for banning flag burning.  1Welch, Michael. 2000. Flag Burning: Moral Panic and the Criminalization of Protest. Piscataway: Aldine Transaction. 2Eisler, Kim. 1993. A Justice for All: William J. Brennan Jr. and the Decision that Transformed America. New York: Simon and Schuster.


Banning flag burning effectively bans questioning of what it represents, and thus bans questioning of the widely held values of the United States  When an individual's views are particularly opposed and contrary to those the national flag is customarily considered to embody, there can be no more valuable way of showing opposition. Should views be judged outdated or in error, people must have a way of showing it in a visceral way that will gain attention and spark discourse. Conventional patriotic views deserve to be challenged, if only to be reaffirmed by the public in the ensuing debate. The problem with prohibiting the act of flag burning is that it necessarily sends the message of banning discourse on the subject of what the flag represents1. It makes those values inviolable, but a free society should be able to question and change its values. Banning flag burning thus essentially bans dissent from the prevailing view. Yet banning something on the basis of majority opinion and their easily offended sensibilities is little more than a heckler's charter. If views are banned simply because the majority disagrees with them, it is little more than the tyranny of the strong over the weak, and thus clearly unjust2. The very reason there are checks and balances in the United States government is to prevent such tyranny. This is exactly why the Supreme Court has stood against the laws passed by the federal and state legislatures banning desecration of the flag; they protect the rights of citizens with a minority opinion from the majority seeking them away3. Flag burning is a form of free speech that helps people question what the United States should be. Banning it only serves to corrupt society.  1Welch, Michael. 2000. Flag Burning: Moral Panic and the Criminalization of Protest. Piscataway: Aldine Transaction. 2Mill, John Stuart. 1859. On Liberty. London: Penguin Classics (1982). 3Eisler, Kim. 1993. A Justice for All: William J. Brennan Jr. and the Decision that Transformed America. New York: Simon and Schuster.


The power of the act of flag burning generates considerable attention making it a very effective tool of expression and protest  Flag burning is such a powerful and useful method of protest for the very reason that it is a visceral expression to which many people will respond. Jarring statements grab attention, and force discourse on the issue1. A conventional protest can be overlooked, but images of a flag being burned immediately drags in media attention and starts a commentary. While some commentary does center on the issue of flag burning itself, it also necessarily brings it to the cause as well. When protesters are called to explain themselves, they get a chance to explain their views and promote their cause to a much wider audience than they might well not have been able to reach otherwise. Thus flag burning can be very valuable for gaining attention, and if done thoughtfully, to generate support.  1Epstein, Lee and Thomas Walker. 1998. Constitutional Law for a Changing America: Rights, Liberties, and Justice. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Inc.


The prevailing will of the majority can outweigh that of individuals with regard to free speech in some instances, namely when there is harm to people from the acts of individuals. Such is the case with things like hate speech, and certainly does so in the case of flag burning. This is because the American people have such a universal attachment to it that the desecration of the national flag is internalized as a personal attack on themselves. This is certainly a serious and real harm that makes the prohibition of flag burning entirely justified.


Regardless of the reasons a protestor chooses to burn the flag, the act of burning is a violation of the nation's ideals and an attack upon the people who uphold them. No intelligent discourse is created regarding the behavior of the state when a flag is burned, but rather is simply counterproductive, as the state is able to declare the opinions of the protestors to be as unpatriotic as the act of burning a flag in protest itself, thus shifting public opinion against them.


It is important not to confuse two issues. The ongoing ‘Battle of the Brands’ between, for example, Coke and Pepsi or McDonalds and Burger King are the focus of the sponsors. It really seems unlikely that the directors of McDonalds lose a lot of sleep over competition from a family butcher in Dorset. The problem has come because the butcher is caught in the crossfire. It’s worth noting that that butcher has received the sort of media coverage that money really can’t buy, so he’s probably not complaining too much. It may have been wise to draft the legislation so that it only applied to companies of a certain size but, in reality, it only affects large-scale efforts to circumvent the rules. [i]  [i] London 2012: Organisers clarify rules on branded clothing for spectators. BBC website. 20 July 2012.


Those unable to respond will be worst hit  Smaller businesses and other organisations see their freedom of expression worst hit by laws that prevent them from associating themselves in any way with major events, to the detriment of their communities. Free speech is not relative or conditional and certainly should not be determined on the basis of the thickness of someone’s chequebook. In this regard, freedom of information is a very real issue. Those organisations without access to huge legal departments are hardest hit, further disadvantaging them against corporations who can already outspend them on advertising. Free speech means that in the world of words and ideas, at least, there is an even playing field and undermining that runs against a sense of natural justice.  Sponsors are simply using this to increase an already fairly unfair advantage; many people supported Britain’s bid for the games on the basis that it would offer great benefits to local businesses, legislation restricting their ability to use their geographical and cultural association with the event make that pledge look extremely hollow.  One of the noticeable failings of the Games is just how little positive impact they have had for small business in East London where most of the events are being held added to this, 62% of small businesses think the games will have no impact while 25% believe the impact will be negative [i] and business outside the capital have actually suffered as a result [ii] .  The major sponsors already went into this situation with massive advantages over small traders who had the sole advantage of the geographical proximity to the events. The idea that, for example, Coca Cola can prevent street vendors in the Olympic Village from selling Pepsi is absurd. Coke isn’t planning to make their money back on direct sales of their product around venues but on the prestige it brings them as a global brand.  [i] FSB News Release, ‘Olympics legacy will be damp squib for small firms’, Federation of Small Businesses, 9 January 2011.  [ii] Now Retailers Outside London Suffer From Olympics Effect. Simon Neville. The Guardian. 3 August 2012.


This is clearly not the same as buying a gene as the timescales are quite different. These are not words sold off in perpetuity, neither were they previously in use by someone else as was the case with land grabs by colonizing settlers. This is a description of an event that would not have taken place without the sponsorship for the duration of that event. Both of the other examples are of the permanent acquisition of something that was previously communal property.


Governments and corporations have been complicit in an effective ‘privatization of language’.  Recent developments in IP legislation, particularly in the UK, have given corporations a carte blanche with regards to protecting their claim on associations with events they are sponsoring. The Olympics, for example, has required vastly more investment from the taxpayer than from any sponsor [i] [ii] and yet those very taxpayers have been prevented from using associations with the event to their advantage. The build-up to the games saw the international media full of stories of small businesses and others banned from using the logo or name of the games for their own advantage [iii] . Sponsors may have ploughed in millions but the taxpayers has invested billions, many of them will see precious little return on that investment and this is exacerbated by the official sponsors buying those terms. Effectively government has conspired with corporations to own chunks of language which morally, linguistically and financially can be said to belong to the public.  Nobody would challenge the right of sponsors to proudly promote their bought association with an event they are sponsoring and to use all of the means at their disposal to declare that association to the world, which they have done. However, there is a world of difference between the positive right to proclaim a particular association and the negative right to prevent anyone else from proclaiming theirs. Of course sponsorship should provide bragging rights and privileged access but that is a world away from buying the silence of others.  [i] London 2012 Olympic Sponsors List: Who Are They And What Have They Paid? Simon Rogers. The Guardian. 19 July 2012.  [ii] London Olympics Could Cost Taxpayer $17Bn. Fred Drier. Forbes Magazine. 10 March 2012.  [iii] Even Sausage Rings Are Put on The Chopping Block. Jere Longman. New York Times. 24 July 2012.


It is a massive overstatement to say that recent events are equivalent to the privatization of language. Were people to be charged every time they used the word “Olympic”, say, that would look like the privatisation of language, this is merely sponsors protecting the association with an event that they paid for in the first place.  Additionally, to portray this as a conspiracy raises the question of, “To what end?” Government works with major organisations as partners all the time, precisely because it saves the taxpayer money to do so. Although the taxpayer has footed a significant bill for the games, it would have been that much larger without sponsors and it is the taxpayer, not the sponsors, who receive the infrastructural benefits, which is what they paid for. The sponsors receive promotion for their brands, which is what they paid for. It’s a simple quid pro quo. Other companies trying to muscle in on the act have paid for nothing – and that is just what they should get. [i] .  [i] London 2012. Olympic Legacy Website.