While the burden of migrants should be shared the burden is not just monetary. Developed countries should not be able to dodge their responsibility to take in large numbers of migrants simply because they can pay poorer countries to take migrants in their place. Being burdened due to geography may be unfair but so is being burdened because you are poor and can be bribed. A truly just system would redistribute migrants within the developed world rather than shifting the burden to those who are still developing.


politics general society immigration minorities house would offer increased aid

Migrants can benefit developing countries  Migrants can bring the benefit of their industriousness to developing countries. When there are crises it is the middle professional classes who are most likely to migrate as they have the resources and knowledge with which to do so. When it comes to economic migrants it is often the educated youth who are looking for better work opportunities; skilled workers make up 33% of migrants from developing countries despite being only 6% of the population. [1] Developed countries already have a highly educated and skilled population, and will take in those migrants with skills they need. Developing countries on the other hand have a much less well educated population so derive more benefit from the influx of skilled workers to help them develop thus counteracting the ‘brain drain’.  [1] Docquier, Frédéric, Lohest, Olivier, and Marfouk, Abdeslam. ‘Brain Drain in Developing Countries’, The World Bank Economic Review. Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 193–218, p.198


Part of the payment of aid would be to ensure that migrants can't simply set off in an attempt to get back into a developed country. The aid would fund sufficiently good living conditions to encourage the migrants that staying where they are is a better option than attempting another harsh and dangerous journey. Moreover a part of the aid would be to ensure monitoring of migrants who have just arrived in the developing country to ensure they remain.


An argument based upon ‘historical responsibility’ and capacity to absorb migrants runs into several problems. First not all developed nations bear historical responsibility for colonialism; should Switzerland and Denmark bear the same historical responsibility as the UK and France? What about countries that were themselves essentially colonies; Finland and Czech Republic? Identifying what counts towards this responsibility is tricky and very open to argument, and even more so working out how many migrants a certain responsibility should result in taking in.  Capacity to absorb migrants is also difficult to judge. A country may have a lot of migrants already showing tolerance but it could also mean that country is already at the point where it can take no more with racism and discrimination rising as a result.


Large influxes of migrants will create conflict in unprepared countries  It is regrettable that difference is a major source of conflict among humans with differences in religion and ethnicity having regularly been the source of conflicts household human history. While many countries have traditions of accepting migrants others don't and even those that are tolerant may not be prepared for a large influx of migrants.  This policy would bring about such an influx in those countries that take up the offer of aid for taking in migrants. A new community is likely to be labelled the ‘other’ by the natives of that country and be blamed for taking jobs and putting pressure on services. This happens because the newcomers are easy to blame and have few influential voices in the country to speak out in their defence.  Places with existing large migrant communities are less likely to experience anti immigrant hostility. Thus in India Delhi with 38.4% of the population immigrants (not just international) has less conflict thant Mumbai with 26.5%, and in the US New Mexico with a 45% Hispanic population has less anti-Hispanic sentiment than Florida with 21%. [1]  [1] ‘Causes of Conflict’, University of North Carolina, accessed 20 August 2015,


Migrants will simply return to the countries they have been sent from  Moving migrants to developing countries in return for quantities of aid is simply not a sustainable policy. Migrants fleeing conflict looking for safety may accept any safe country but the migrant problems affecting rich countries are in large part economic migration. These people are looking to get to a developed country to earn more and have better prospects than they could at home so are unlikely to accept a country at a similar (or potentially lower) level of development as a good alternative. They are therefore likely to simply tray again to make their way to a developed country when they can. There have been examples of migrants such as Rachid from Algeria who has tried to get into Europe three times already and is waiting for a ship to try again, [1] it is unclear how this proposal would alter this problem.  [1] Ash, Lucy, ‘Risking death at sea to escape boredom’, BBC News, 20 August 2015,


Developed countries have a greater responsibility to take in migrants  Developed countries have a responsibility to take in large numbers of migrants. There are several reasons for this. First they have a historical responsibility resulting from a legacy of colonialism, imperialism, and industrialisation that benefited the developed world at the expense of the developing world. This helped create the inequalities in the world that drive migration so developed countries should accept that a greater responsibility for migrants is the price.  Second developed countries have a much greater capacity to absorb migrants than developing countries. Developed countries have more jobs, and the ability to create more through using the state’s financial resources to increase investment. They already have the legal framework for large numbers of migrants; laws that ensure equality and fair treatment regardless of religion or ethnicity. And in many cases they already have sizeable migrant communities (with some exceptions such as Japan) that help create a culture of tolerance that embraces the diversity migrants bring.


Whether a country is developed or not is not necessarily a good indicator of if a country is prepared for a large number of migrants. Nor is whether a country has large numbers of immigrants already; Israel is a country made by immigration yet has still seen anti immigrant riots. [1] In order to prevent social conflict it would be far better to have migrants in countries with a similar culture to their own thus migrants from an Arabic nation would be repatriated to an Arabic country that is participating in the aid scheme. Of course no two countries culture is the same but it should be possible to find cultures with more similarity than the developed country.  [1] Greenwood, Phoebe, ‘Israeli anti-immigration riots hit African neighbourhood of Tel Aviv’, The Telegraph, 24 May 2012,


mployment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining

The public sector being paid extra is something that is acceptable and necessary within society. Workers within the public sector often fulfill roles in jobs that are public goods. Such jobs provide a positive externality for the rest of society, but would be underprovided by the free market. For example, education would likely be underprovided, particularly for the poorest, by the free market but provides a significant benefit to the public because of the long term benefits an educated populace provides.In healthcare the example of the United States shows that private providers will never provide to those who are unable to afford it with nearly 50million people without health insurance.1  Although the average pay received by government employees tends to be higher, the peak earnings potential of a government position is significantly lower than that of other professions. Workers who chose to build long term careers within the public sector forgo a significant amount of money, and assume a heavier workload, in order to serve the needs of society and play a part in furthering its aspirations. As such, and owing to the fact that the people who do these jobs often provide economic benefit beyond what their pay would encompass in the private sector, it makes sense that they be paid more in the public sector. This is because their work benefits the people of the state and as such the state as a whole benefits significantly more from their work.2  1. Christie, Les, “Number of people without health insurance climbs”, CNNmoney, 13 September 2011,   2. “AS Market Failure.” Tutor2u.


Collective bargaining leades to pay crises in the public sector  The public sector is often significantly overpaid. The workers within the public sectors of Western liberal democracies often get paid more than people of equal education and experience who are employed in the private sector. In the United States there is a salary premium of 10-20 percent in the public sector. This means that there is likely a waste of resources as these people are being paid more than they should be by the government.1  The reason this happens is that collective bargaining means that workers can often, through the simple idea that they can communicate with the government and have a hand in the decision making process, make their demands much more easily.  Further, governments in particular are vulnerable during negotiations with unions, due their need to maintain both their political credibility and the cost effectiveness of the services they provide. This is significantly different to private enterprise where public opinion of the company is often significantly less relevant. As such, public sector workers can earn significantly more than their equally skilled counterparts in the private sector. This is problematic because it leads to a drain of workers and ideas from the private sector to the public. This is, in and of itself, problematic because the public sector, due to being shackled to the needs of public opinion often take fewer risks than the private sector and as such results in fewer innovations than work in the private sector.  Biggs, Andrew G. “Why Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker Is Right About Collective Bargaining.” US News. 25/02/2011


Collective bargaining might hurt the democratic process due to its political nature, but the alternative is worse. Without collective bargaining it is incredibly difficult for public sector workers to get across their ideas of what their pay should be to their employers. This leads to worse consequences because public sector workers who feel underpaid or overworked will often move to the private sector for better job opportunities in the future as well as a better collective bargaining position. Further, those public sector workers that do stay will be unhappy in their positions and will likely do a worse job at work.  Given that this is true and the fact that public sector workers often choose to do their jobs out of a sense of duty or love for the profession, it is fair that the taxpayers should be placed in a position where they are required to trust the public sector and the politicians to work out deals that end up being in favour of the entire state, not just a small minority.1  Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011


Collective bargaining is not a right  Whilst the freedom of association exists under the state and it is true that people should be allowed to communicate with one another and form groups to forward their personal and political interests, it is not true that the freedom of association automatically grants access to the decision making process.  Unions in this instance are problematic because whilst other groups do not have access to special privileges, unions are able to exert a significant and disproportionate amount of influence over the political process through the use of collective bargaining mechanisms. This argument applies to private unions as well, although to a lesser extent, and the banning of collective bargaining for private unions would be principally sound. In the case of unions in the private sector they can cause large amounts of disruption which has a large knock on impact on the economy giving leverage over politicians for whom the economy and jobs are always important issues. For example unions in transport in the private sector are just as disruptive as in the public sector. Even more minor businesses can be significant due to being in supply or logistics chains that are vital for important parts of the economy.1 The access to the decision making process that unions are granted goes above and beyond the rights that we award to all other groups and as such this right, if it can be called one at all, can easily be taken away as it is the removal of an inequality within our system.  Further, even if collective bargaining were to be considered a “right,” the government can curtail the rights of individuals and groups of people should it feel the harm to all of society is great enough. We see this with the limits that we put on free speech such that we may prevent the incitement of racial hatred.2  Shepardson, David, “GM, Ford warn rail strike could cripple auto industry”, The Detroit News, 30 November 2011,   Denholm, David “Guess What: There is no ‘right’ to collective bargaining.” LabourUnionReport.com 21/02/2011


Collective bargaining is considered a right because of the great benefit that it provides. Specifically, whilst freedom of association might not allow people to be privy to the negotiation process, when a large enough group of people form together and make a statement regarding their opinion, it is profitable for those in power to listen to them.  Collective bargaining in this situation is a logical extension of that. Given that public sector workers are intrinsic to the continued success of the state, it thus makes sense that the state gives them a platform to make their views in a clear and ordered fashion, such that the state can take them into account easily.1  Further, the knowledge that such a right exists causes unions to act in a way which is more predictable. Specifically, a right to unionise with reduce the likelihood that state employees will engage in strike action. Under existing union law, groups of employees are able to compel a state employer to hear their demands, and to engage in negotiations. Indeed, they may be obliged to do so before they commence strike action. If the resolution were to pass, associations of state employees would be compelled to use strikes as a method of initiating negotiation. Under the status quo, strikes are used as a tactic of last resort against an intractable opponent or as a demonstration of the support that a union official’s bargaining position commands amongst the Union’s rank-and-file members.  1. Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011


Collective bargaining undermines the democractic process  The bargain between normal unions and private enterprise involves all parties being brought to the table and talking about the issues that they might have. However, the public sector represents the benefits of taxpayers, the politicians and the unions. The power that unions exercises means that negotiations can happen without the consent or involvement of the public sector’s stakeholders, the public.  Even though power in a democracy is usually devolved to the politicians for this purpose, given the highly politicised nature of union negotiations, government office-holders who supervise union negotiations may act inconsistently with the mandate that the electorate have given them. This is because public unions often command a very large block of voters and can threaten politicians with this block of voters readily. This is not the same as a private business where officials aren’t elected by their workers. As such, collective bargaining rights for public union undermine the ability of taxpayers to dictate where their money is being spent significantly.1  “Union Bargaining Just A Dream For Many Gov Workers.” Oregan Herald. 27/02/2011


As discussed in the first proposition side argument, we can curtail the rights of individuals if we see that those rights lead to a large negative consequence for the state. In this situation proposition is happy to let some public sector workers feel slightly disenfranchised if it leads to fewer strikes and a situation where public sector workers are not paid too much, then the net benefit to society is such that the slight loss in terms of consistency of rights is worth taking instead.1  Davey, Monica, “Wisconsin Senate Limits Bargaining by Public Workers”, The New York Times, 9 March 2011,


Even if collective bargaining leads to a workforce that is better able to communicate their ideas, it also leads to a situation as mentioned within the proposition arguments that results in unions having significantly more power over their wages and the government than in other situations. This is problematic because it leads to consequences where other unions feel that they should have the same powers as public unions and can hence lead to volatility in the private sector as a result.  Further, given that often the negotiators that work for public unions are often aware of the political power of the public workers, negotiations with public unions often lead to strike action due to the fact that it is likely that the public will be sympathetic to the public workers. As such, allowing public workers to bargain collectively leads to situations that are often much worse for the public.  Further, a lot of opposition’s problems with a lack of collective bargaining can simply be dealt with through implementing a more sensitive and understanding feedback process among workers. If a worker for example raises an issue which might affect a large number of workers, it should be fairly simple for public companies to take polls of workers to understand the gravity of the problem.1  Rabin, Jack, and Dodd, Don, “State and Local Government Administration”, New York: Marcel Dekker Inc 1985, p390


Collective bargaining is a counter to the creation of natural monopolies  Many public industries exist as public industries because they are natural monopolies. For example, rail travel, which is often public in Western Liberal democracies, is a sector in which it makes no sense to build multiple railway lines across the country, each for a different company, when one would simply be more efficient. A similar case can be made for things such as public utilities. As such, these sectors often only have a single, often public company working in that sector.  In the case where there is a monopolist, the workers in the sector often have no other employers that they can reasonably find that require their skills, so for example, teachers are very well qualified to teach, however, are possibly not as qualified to deal with other areas and as such will find difficulty moving to another profession. As such, the monopolist in this area has the power to set wages without losing a significant number of employees. Further, in many of these industries strike action will not be used, for example because teachers have a vocational, almost fiduciary relationship with their students and don’t wish to see them lose out due to a strike.1  “Monopoly Power.”


Collective bargaining has been recognised as an enforcable right  Collective bargaining is a right. If the state allows freedom of association, individuals will gather together and exchange their ideas and views as a natural consequence of this freedom. Further, free association and free expression allows groups to then select a representative to express their ideas in a way that the individuals in the group might not be able to. In preventing people from using this part of their right to assembly, we weaken the entire concept of the right to assembly. The point of the right to assembly is to allow the best possible representation for individuals. When a group of individuals are prevented from enjoying this right then it leads to those individuals feeling isolated from the rest of society who are able to enjoy this right.  This is particularly problematic in the case of public sector workers as the state that is isolating them also happens to be their employer. This hurts the way that people in the public sector view the state that ideally is meant to represent them above all as they actively contribute to the well being of the state.1  Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011


Collective bargaining is a necessary aspect of democracy  Collective bargaining is needed by people in any job. Within any firm there exist feedback structures that enable workers to communicate with managers and executive decision makers. However, there are some issues which affect workers significantly, but run against the principles of profit, or in this case the overall public good that the state seeks to serve.  In this situation, a collection of workers are required. This is primarily because if suggested changes go against public interest then a single worker requesting such a change is likely to be rejected. However, it is the indirect benefit to public interest through a workforce that is treated better that must also be considered. But indirect benefit can only truly occur if there are a large number of workers where said indirect benefit can accrue.  Specifically, indirect benefit includes the happiness of the workforce and thus the creation of a harder working workforce, as well as the prevention of brain drain of the workforce to other professions. When a single person is unhappy for example, the effect is minimal, however if this effect can be proved for a large number of people then an adjustment must be made.  In order for these ideas to be expressed, workers can either engage in a collective bargaining process with their employer, or take more drastic action such as strikes or protests to raise awareness of the problem. Given that the alternate option is vastly more disruptive, it seems prudent to allow people to do collectively bargain.1  “Importance of Collective Bargaining.” Industrial relations.


The opposition argument here is simply a case against natural monopolies. In many Western Liberal democracies, advances in technology have enabled natural monopolies on telecoms and public transport to be broken down. A wide range of necessary public services- such as telecoms and power generation- now function as part of a competitive market. As such, it is feasible that the state could simply deal with this problem by breaking down other natural monopolies in the same way.  Even if the state acts as a monopolist in some industries, public sector workers often have transferrable skills which mean they can move to other industries without that much trouble. For example, a public prosecutor will have acquired professional skills that enable a relatively quick transition into private or commercial civil practice.1  “Identifying the Transferable skills of a Teacher.” North Central College.


onal global law international law politics defence warpeace house supports new

Reducing nuclear arms through New START will not compel others to stop pursuing nukes. The logic behind New START asserts that for every negative development in the area of nuclear proliferation the US needs to take a substantive step in the direction of nuclear disarmament. Ultimately, this approach effectively assumes that the possession of nuclear arms by the US (and Russia) is the incentive driving other nations to pursue nuclear weapons programs so as to be able to deter the United States. Not only is the assumption misplaced, but the policy will undermine deterrence and increase the likelihood of the use of nuclear weapons. It is foolish for the U.S. to take substantive steps toward nuclear disarmament at the same time the nuclear proliferation problem is growing worse. [1] The US should also not seek to improve relations by bribing them with New START at the cost of damaging US defence capabilities.  [1] Spring, Baker. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix". Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. 16 September 2010.


New START will cause American missile and nuclear capabilities to atrophy, not to be maintained. This is because it locks the US in to agreements of defensive reductions which are tied into Russian offensive reductions. This could eventually leave the US badly under-defended by its missile systems when compared against the offensive capabilities of other nuclear states. Moreover, New START leaves in place the pre-existing Russian tactical nuclear advantage harming US capabilities by comparison. [1] Overall New START hams US missile and nuclear capabilities, and further advantages Russia and other nuclear powers, and so should not be supported. As Mitt Romney argued in 2010: "Does New START limit America’s options for missile defense? Yes. For the first time, we would agree to an interrelationship between strategic offensive weapons and missile defense. Moreover, Russia already asserts that the document would constitute a binding limit on our missile defense program. But the WikiLeaks revelation last weekend that North Korea has supplied Iran with long-range Russian missiles confirms that robust missile defense is urgent and indispensable." [2]  [1] Spring, Baker. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix". Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. 16 September 2010.   [2] Romney, Mitt. "Stop START." Boston.com. 3 December 2010.


New START is about national politics, not about the interests of the world or peace. As George Will argued in 2010: "The (Obama) administration's ardor for ratification is understandable, as is Russia's. The president needs a success somewhere; Russia needs psychotherapy. It longs to be treated as what it no longer is, a superpower, and it likes the treaty's asymmetries." [1] New START is about serving these domestic political interests, not securing peace, which it will not achieve as the inspections it puts in place are highly flawed, and there remains a high probability that Russia will cheat on the treaty and augment its nuclear capabilities regardless. All this treaty does is weaken the US, and a situation where one power weakens and the other grows stronger is not good for world peace.  [1] Will, George. "Obama's time-warp focus on the New START treaty". Washington Post. 2 December 2010.


Agreements between the biggest nuclear powers are a good starting point towards disarmament. We cannot expect countries with a very small number of nuclear weapons to be disarming if the countries that have the vast majority of the world’s arsenal have not already begun the process of getting rid of their own. Even the reductions in New START will not bring either Russia or the United States anywhere near the level of any other nuclear power whose nuclear weapons number in the hundreds not thousands. Both countries would need to reduce a very long way before they lose deterrence against China, let alone North Korea. As former secretaries of state argue America has “long led the crucial fight to protect the United States against nuclear dangers… The world is safer today because of the decades-long effort to reduce its supply of nuclear weapons. As a result, President Obama should remain similarly courageous with New START.” [1]  If linkage between the New START and Russian action on Iran exists then this would not always be a bad thing. Linkage has been used successfully in the past, and to the advantage of the U.S., for example Kissinger credited the peace agreement with North Vietnam in Paris in 1973 as being down to linkage which resulted in pressure on North Vietnam from the People’s Republic of China and the USSR. If linkage could be successful in bringing Russia onside in pressurizing Iran on the issue of nuclear weapons it could be to the benefit of the United States.  [1] Kissinger, Henry A. ; Shultz, George P. ; Baker III, James A’ ; Eagleburger , Lawrence S. ; and Powell, Colin L. "The Republican case for ratifying New START". Washington Post. 2 December 2010.


Many of the worries about the impact of the treaty are much more of a political problem than problems with the treaty itself. U.S. missile modernization in particular is still up to the President and Congress to sort out the funding between them – the restrictions are minor. [1] Worries about the impact on missile defense are also a red herring. Missile defense is not aimed at Russia and the United States simply needs to make sure that its defenses are obviously aimed at who it says they are aimed at: rogue states such as Iran and North Korea. Regarding other defence capabilities, the New START Treaty preserves America’s ability to deploy effective missile defenses, and simply prevents it from being effective enough to undermine deterrence, something which Russia would be right in worrying about if the United States had any intention of building such a comprehensive missile defence. The prohibition on converting existing launchers will have little impact on the United States as the military believes that such conversion would be more expensive and less effective than building new purpose built defensive missiles. [2] Finally if Russia did exercise its right to withdraw then both parties would be in no worse a position than they would have been without the new treaty and could simply restart negotiations.  [1] Spring, Baker. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix". Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. 16 September 2010.   [2] Kissinger, Henry A. ; Shultz, George P. ; Baker III, James A’ ; Eagleburger , Lawrence S. ; and Powell, Colin L. "The Republican case for ratifying New START". Washington Post. 2 December 2010.


The verification requirements of New START have satisfied not only the Obama Administration but also a large number of foreign policy experts. A panel including Henry Kissinger argues that New START “emphasizes verification, providing a valuable window into Russia's nuclear arsenal." [1] Howard Baker argues that: "President Reagan was famous for his adage about dealing with the old Soviet Union: “Trust but verify.” Since the last START treaty expired in December 2009, we’ve had no right to conduct inspections of Russian nuclear bases, and thus no way to verify what the Russians are doing with their nuclear weapon systems. For us veterans of the Cold War, that’s an alarming fact and a compelling reason to ratify this New START treaty without further delay." [2]  When the allegations are gone through individually they do not stand up to scrutiny. On the telemetry issue the treaty does not limit throw-weight so the data is not needed; the number of warheads per missile can be verified by other means. There are less facilities being inspected, but more inspections and the decline in Russia’s nuclear forces means that not so many facilities need to be inspected. [3] There is no reason to be worried about the numbers of missiles as there will be a database detailing all the weapons both sides have and inspections to confirm this, [4] this will also mean that there are unique identifier tags on each missile, launcher and bombers so helping inspectors in their counting. [5] Mobile launchers are much less of a problem than they were as we already know the base number the Russia has whereas when START was originally negotiated the US did not know. Technology to track such mobile launchers has also become much more powerful. Finally if worried about the verification of the elimination of delivery vehicles both sides will have the right to inspect the debris and to demand demonstration of the procedures. [6] Neither side will be able to get around the new START’s verification regime.  [1] Kissinger, Henry A. ; Shultz, George P. ; Baker III, James A’ ; Eagleburger , Lawrence S. ; and Powell, Colin L. "The Republican case for ratifying New START". Washington Post. 2 December 2010.   [2] Baker, Howard. "Dangerous if we reject New START." USA Today.   [3] Blook, Oliver, ‘Nothing to Fear with New START Verification’, Center For Strategic & International Studies, 8 July 2010,   [4] Woolf, Amy F., ‘The New START Treaty: Central Limits and Key Provisions’, Congressional Research Service, 24 October 2011, p.3,   [5] ‘Verification of New START’, Union of Concerned Scientists, 13 July 2010,   [6] Blook, Oliver, ‘Nothing to Fear with New START Verification’, Center For Strategic & International Studies, 8 July 2010,


The New START treaty does not help Russia more than it does the United States. Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates argued at the time the Russians are currently “above the treaty limits. So they will have to take down warheads.” [1] If there really is undercounting of missiles on bombers then it affects both sides equally – as Romney says “While we currently have more bombers than the Russians”, so this too should not be a worry. Russia does not currently deploy rail-mobile ICBMs and neither does the United States, explain why the definitions are not there. However the State Department argues that “If a Party develops and deploys rail-mobile ICBMs, such missiles, their warheads, and their launchers would be subject to the Treaty.” As the definitions of ICBM launchers would include them. [2] Finally we should recognize that we do not know that Russia would have reduced its bomber and missile forces without a new treaty, while Russia has more difficulty maintaining its nuclear forces than the United States so has more incentive to reduce them, but without a treaty it might even increase its forces due to a desire to keep parity with the United States while the US has a big lead in conventional weapons. [3]  Furthermore, any agreement made between Russia and the US needs to be one that benefits both parties, it does not matter if someone is getting more than the other. Getting an agreement that meets the needs of both countries is far more important, because it will be upheld more so than one that simple gives both countries the same. Fair and efficent does not mean spilting a pie in half, if one only wanted the crust, and the other only wanted the filling.  [1] Isaacs, John, ‘Rebuttals to Additional Arguments Against “New START”’, The Center For Arms Control And Non-Proliferation,   [2] Bureau of Verification, Compliance, and Implementation, ‘Rail-Mobile Launchers of ICBMs and their Missiles’, U.S. Department of State, 2 August 2010,   [3] Isaacs, John, ‘Rebuttals to Additional Arguments Against “New START”’, The Center For Arms Control And Non-Proliferation,


government religion church religion general secularism house would ban religious

Intolerant schools cause more problems for not allowing freedom of religious expression. In a multicultural society, students should be aware of the different religious practices and cultural traditions of their classmates, and be taught to understand and respect these. Without such respect, religious groups with distinctive symbols, such as Orthodox Jews, Sikhs and Christians, will be driven out of mainstream education and forced to educate their children separately.1 As for the worry about safety issues, particularly concerning hair length, most classroom accidents occur when loose, long hair gets caught in machinery or in a flame which would not be a problem when hair is held in place under a headscarf.  1 'Religious Rights and Wrongs', The Economist, 4th September 2008, accessed 24th July 2011


Religious symbols cause problems in schools.  As well as division in society in general, religious symbols are also a source of division within school environments. The Hijab causes schools many problems. It is potentially divisive in the classroom, marking some children out as different from the others and above the rules that the school enforces for everyone else. This may lead to alienation and bullying. Full headscarves may also be impractical or dangerous in some lessons, for example PE, swimming, or in technology and science lessons where machinery is being operated. In the same way, there have been discussions as to whether to ban the display of Crucifixes in public classrooms. Authorities in Italy have followed through with the ban saying that such a Christian symbol segregates those who are not Christian.1  1 'Decision due in Crucifix ban case', Times of Malta, March 17th 2011 , accessed on 24th July 2011


Muslim women are not the only ones to feel a cultural division over their mode of dress. Most people are affected by the societal norms surrounding them. Fashion trends could be seen in exactly the same light as religious traditions. Banning head coverings is only likely to provoke a more extreme reaction among highly religious communities1. Framing laws to ban only Islamic forms of dress could be considered an attack on one religion. Feeling under attack could cause the Islamic community to close off into itself. They could set up religious schools where their children can dress as they want them to and not mix with children from other faiths. These effects could never be good for the integration of society and would further the influence of extremists. Internationally, the perceived attack on Islamic values would inflame wider Muslim opinion, feed conspiracy theories and add to the dangerous feeling that there is a clash of civilisations.  1 'France Bans Burqas: A Look At Islamic Veil Laws In Europe', Huffpost World, 4th April 2011 , accessed on 24th July 2011


Western societies are secularly focused  Many societies are founded on secular values that do not permit the sponsorship of any religion by the state. British society aspires to this and has consciously acted to separate religion from state authority with many organisations such as the National Secular Society encouraging the suppression of any religious expression in public places.1 In this climate it is important that all citizens of the state are seen as equal. If some dress differently to others, deliberately identifying themselves as members of one religion, this can harm the unity and ethos of the state. This holds particularly true for institutions of the state like schools and government offices. In this way, it is possible to deduce that religious symbols are detrimental to the secular and equality focused identity of Western society.  1 'UK: One Law for all and the National Secular Society Back Bill that Aims to Curb Sharia Courts', 11th June 2011 , accessed on 23rd July 2011


Many symbols are seen as a symbol of oppression on women.  Religious symbols are seen to, in some cases, increase the equality divide between genders. As an example, the Muslim Hijab is considered by some as a very powerful symbol for the oppression of women, particularly in countries such as Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan where it is compulsory. Therefore, when it is worn in Western countries that encourage democracy and equality, the wearing of the Hijab is seen as almost counter-productive to the goals of democratic society. For this reason Belgium has recently banned the wearing of the full Muslim veil, much like France in 2010.1 Often Muslim dress rules for women are seen as more severe than those for men. Inequality between men and women is a form of discrimination and liberal societies should fight all forms of discrimination.  1 ' Belgian ban on full veils comes into force', BBC News Europe, 23rd July 2011, accessed on 23rd July 2011


Religious symbols are not seen as oppressive by those who choose to wear them. Many Muslim women view the veil as a means to protect their modesty and privacy. Just as we would not force any women to be seen in public in her underwear if she did not feel comfortable doing so, why should a woman be forced to show her hair if she does not want to? Modesty is a personal judgement call; some are comfortable in the smallest bikini while others prefer a lot more clothing. No one but the woman herself should make that decision. In fact, concerning the ban of the veil in Belgium, Muslim women have immediately challenged it and regard the ban as discriminatory.1  1 'Belgian ban on full veils comes into force', BBC News Europe, 23rd July 2011 , accessed on 23rd July 2011


Even though the wearing of religious symbols could be a part of that specific religions' culture and practice, it must be remembered that Western society and culture brands itself as secular and, therefore, should take precedence over clashes with minority cultural practices. In Britain there has been controversy over movements to include Sharia Law in the British legal system, which ties in with this same argument of culture clashes concerning religious methods.1 Essentially, the question arises as to how far is tolerance for different cultural practices detrimental for the maintenance of a secular British culture and state.  1 Abul Taher, 'Revealed: UK's first official sharia courts', The Sunday Times, 14th September 2008 , accessed on 23rd July 2011


Deciding what people can and can’t wear should not be the responsibility of schools. Enforcement may be potentially simple but only at the cost of creating a conflict between schools and their Muslim pupils and staff.


Religious symbols cause division within Western society.  Religious symbols can be seen as possible tools for fuelling division within society. When some women wear the Hijab it creates pressure on other Muslim women to also cover their heads. Pressure comes both socially from wanting to look like other women in their community and religiously from imams and family leaders pressing for observance. As such, Muslims themselves are divided and religious oppression against women is internalized.1 Approving of Muslim head coverings in society cements the Hijab as an essential tenet of Islam, in the minds of non-Muslims as well as believers. However, many different schools of Islam exist and as on other issues, they often disagree how to interpret the Koran's dress prescriptions. Moderate interpretations accept modest forms of modern dress while severe interpretations require full covering with the Burka or similar veil. Banning the veil furthers the cause of moderate interpretations and prevents the entrenchment of severe interpretations.  1 Rumy Hassan, 'Banning the hijab', Workers Power 283 February 2004, accessed on 24th July 2011


A ban would be simple to enforce.  A ban would be simple to create and enforce. Religious symbols are for the most part meant to be shown therefore it is simple for police or authorities to check that someone is not wearing them. There are many societies that have had bans on a religious symbol in public buildings, for example in France where there is a ban on religious symbols in schools has been in force since 2004. In France the ban is made even easier to enforce by restricting it to 'conspicuous' religious apparel.1 Moreover when the ban is only when entering public buildings it can be enforced by the teacher, or the building's security guards rather than being an issue for the police to deal with.  1 BBC News, 'French scarf ban comes into force', 2 September 2004 , accessed 28/8/11


It would not be necessary to ban all religious symbols if one was banned. Banning religious symbols that are regarded as dangerous, such as the Kirpan, would be very different from banning crucifixes as the justification would be different.1 And if people start asking for other things to be banned, their cases should be listened to. Some of them may have a point for banning them. However if a symbol poses a risk then it should be banned in order to prevent that risk.  1 'Kirpan incident raises questions about court ruling', The Montreal Gazette, 16th September 2008 , accessed on 25th July 2011


A ban on religious symbols would not be targeting the whole religious group. It would highlight the problems of symbols, such as the veil or Kirpan, within the boundaries of society. At the end of the day, full Muslim veils can be used as a disguise and, therefore, could pose a s a potential problem to the general population of people.1 If hundreds were people were killed by someone wearing a veil, would people be defending it then? In this way, it is the same for people wearing hoodies nowadays. A few tearaways and everyone socially brands them as criminals, or "chavs." This scares people, especially the elderly and as such poses a risk not just to their health, but also to their safety. As a result, the religious symbols such as full veils should be banned due to safety concerns.  1 'Belgian committee votes for full Islamic veil ban', BBC News, 31st March 2010 , accessed 24th July 2011


Religious symbols are personal, therefore, they should not matter to others.  At the end of the day, the wearing of religious symbols is the choice of the individual. Many have considered intervention in the practice of religion and symbolism as an intrusion into privacy and individuality. The recent bans on the full Muslim veil, particularly in Belgium, have been criticised for causing those who feel they have an obligation to wear it to be ostracised and forced to be confined within their own home.1  1 'Belgian ban on full veils comes into force', BBC News Europe, 23rd July 2011 , accessed on 23rd July 2011


It is their culture and religion.  Religions themselves tend to encompass their own distinctive culture and, to many of their members, this culture and its methods comes before anything secular. For this reason, Muslims should be allowed to wear personal items as it states in the ruling of their religious book to do so. Had a particular garment been required in the Christian religious book - The Bible - then no doubt those stout Christians would follow this particular ruling. The question is, would it be wrong to take away something close and meaningful to these religions? Surely, a religious symbol or method is purely personal, and, therefore, banning such symbols would be an intrusion into their individuality.1  1 Jessica Shepherd, 'Uniform Dissent', The Guardian, 9th October 2007 , accessed on 24th July 2011


If you ban one thing, you have to ban lots of things.  Every religious symbol should be treated equally so as not to cause discrimination. It's just not viable to ban one symbol. If you ban something, for example, as sacred and religious as the Muslim veil, people will then start rallying cries for other things to be banned. At the end of the day, if the Government feels that it is in the best interests of society not to ban the veil, then we have to believe them. Really if one thing is banned then the uproar that would happen would have significantly worse consequences than before the ban. There have been worries about the banning of the Sikh Kirpan because outsiders regard it as a possible weapon and a danger to people in public places.1 However, in the Sikh perspective, the Kirpan is a sacred symbol very similar to other religions' symbols.  1 'Timeline: The Quebec kirpan case', CBC News Online, 2nd March 2006, accessed on 25th July 2011


Banning religious symbols is just a way of unfairly targeting people.  Banning religious symbols could be viewed as just a way of targeting a group of people. In a nutshell, religious symbols would be used as a scapegoat in order to both highlight and blame for problems that are much bigger. Removing the hijab, the Crucifix or the Jewish skullcap would take away someone's culture, religion and heritage, and, therefore, banning them would cause more problems.1 It could potentially increase hatred within religious groups, and lead to more racism and more criticism, ultimately making the country a worse place to live.  1 at 'Belgian ban on full veils comes into force', BBC News Europe, 23rd July 2011 , accessed on 23rd July 2011


That the state is secular does not diminish the right to freedom of religion is enshrined in the UN charter, that all states have signed up to, and considered by many to be a basic human right.1 Some religions require special diets, others prayer at specific times. Why shouldn't a religious mode of dress receive as much protection as these other aspects of religious freedom? Surely equality in society is most accurately presented through allowing each individual, including their religious beliefs and modes of expression, to practice their religious traditions without hindrance.  1 'Declaration On The Elimination Of All Forms Of Intolerance And Of Discrimination Based On Religion Or Belief', 1981 Resolution of the UN Charter , accessed on 23rd July 2011


Some argue that religious symbols, particularly those that are clearly seen, are not just for personal benefit. They affect the safety of the society around them. For example, there have been worries about how the Muslim full-veil may be used as a disguise for terrorists and how veils make it harder to ascertain someone's identity. Therefore, some symbols at least involve others, maybe even unintentionally, through the uneasiness and suspicion they cause.  1 'The Islamic Veil Across Europe', BBC News, 15th June 2010 , accessed on 25th July 2011


defence house would employ mercenaries

There is no guarantee of the quality of contracted soldiers often resulting in less being done per soldier. The competitive-business nature of private contractors includes cost reduction as well as profit maximisation, which leads to the recruitment of cheaper, less experienced and ill-prepared staff as well as the use of cheaper and poorer equipment. As no standardised training is in place, the quality of the hired men is never known and may be incompatible with the training of traditional forces and therefore unsustainable. The result of this is in the long run to push up the cost as work that PMCs should have done has not been done to the right standard.


defence house would employ mercenaries

PMCs give value for money  Mercenaries are a cost efficient way of fighting. Although expensive to hire, the government does not have to cover the cost of training, housing, pensions or healthcare. Mercenaries, unlike regular troops, are only paid for the days on which they are used. Outsourcing when necessary will reduce the cost of the force. For example, the US army is around a third smaller than it was in the 1991 Gulf War (PBS News Hour, 2004). This saves taxpayers’ money and avoids the build up of conventional troops, which, in the past, has contributed to the development of arms races which can be cripplingly expensive as shown by the collapse of the Soviet Union.


defence house would employ mercenaries

PMCs can be made much more legitimate by regulation  Currently mercenary work as a profession is not regulated by law, which allows the corruption and lack of guaranteed quality, as well as the problems of accountability to remain problematic. Regulating PMCs encourage a safer, professionalised security sector which can be standardised and controlled. Governments would then legislate, regulate and moderate the use of such forces rather than provide them outright. PMCs today are legitimate businesses, much of their work has nothing to do with fighting and killing MPRI for example "shipped more than $900,000,000 worth of donated food and medical supplies to the newly independent states of the former Soviet Union over a five year period”. These companies are already placing greater emphasis on having a good reputation and are increasingly transparent so many companies would welcome regulation.(Vaknin, 2011)


defence house would employ mercenaries

This image of responsible professionals may not be entirely justified. Some employees of PMCs may have no military experience, those who do may have been dishonourably discharged from duty and some may be implicated in criminal activity or atrocities, such as Eeben Barlow (former officer in South African 32nd Battalion- Assassination squad during Apartheid, now a chief of PMC Executive Outcomes which predominantly employs ex-secret policemen). These people may know how to do the job but they may also not be the kind of people we want working with the military.


defence house would employ mercenaries

PMCs provide a service that may be otherwise unavailable.  Many nation states have achieved sufficient unity to rely on their own armies but for those which cant, mercenary forces provide an invaluable and possibly only mode of protection and security. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw believes that in an era of “small wars and weak states” mercenaries have a “legitimate role” (The Economist, 2002). Mercenaries may be the only way of providing short term security guarantees to allow a government to establish itself without relying on warlords or one side of an ethnic conflict. This could be the only way out of a pattern of coup and counter-coup. Recruiting local mercenaries also has the benefits of reducing transportation costs, instant readiness as well as any knowledge of the local politics, geography and customs which may be highly valuable to a security force. These local recruits may be less inclined to share this information with a government force.


defence house would employ mercenaries

PMCs are a valuable resource  PMCs are a flexible and efficient tool with which to fight 21st Century wars making them a necessity. Private contractors can be hired at short notice and used only when necessary. They can be used to carry out specific missions, to reinforce traditional troops where greater numbers are required or to protect other contractors whilst traditional troops carry out more lucrative missions. Additionally, most PMCs are non-combative but rather defensive, providing security for officials, supply trains etc. As a result they are viewed less as invaders or “the enemy” and more as peace-keepers.


defence house would employ mercenaries

PMCs are ineffective as they do not fit in with a disciplined army. PMCs are not bound by the same rules and standards of conduct and accountability as conventional troops. When problems arise it is often unclear whether army representatives or PMCs should be held responsible. Moreover, the lack of regulation means that there is no means to ensure mercenaries breaking laws are disciplined. Currently most mercenaries can operate outside martial law with relative freedom. Some of the worst offences at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq were committed by “privatised interrogators” (Hersh, 2004) who are yet to be punished.


defence house would employ mercenaries

The use of mercenaries is counterproductive for unstable states. By relying on hired mercenaries weak states encourage private competition rather than reinforcing their own nascent armies. The emergence of powerful local, as well as international, mercenary organisations frustrates the ultimate goal of securing a state monopoly over the use of force. There are many cases where mercenaries have remained in a region long after their official contract ended in an attempt to exploit regional instability in order to further a particular ideological cause or reap financial reward. Colonel Bob Denard fought vaguely “against Communism” in Africa and attempted to overthrow the government of the Comoros Islands off Madagascar on four separate occasions. Similarly, Colonel “Mad” Mike Hoare tried to topple the government of the Seychelles in 1981, arriving with 43 mercenaries disguised as rugby playing members of a beer-tasting club named The Ancient Order of Froth Blowers. Furthermore, PMCs may be helpful in resolving conflicts in the short-term, they are not viable solutions because they do nothing to actually solve the problem in the long-term.


defence house would employ mercenaries

The amount of attention and suspicion depends on what the PMCs are doing not that they are PMCs. Whilst mercenaries appear to be less disliked than American troops in Iraq, in parts of Africa their activities have increased tension. The reputation of a national government is often stained by the activities of hired mercenary groups. The involvement in national military operations of white supremacist adventurers and discredited individuals like Simon Mann is used by men such as Mugabe to challenge the legitimacy of British policy in Africa. These kind of actions by some groups mean that all PMCs are considered with suspicion.


defence house would employ mercenaries

PMCs have an equally strong incentive to perform.  PMCs must perform carefully and effectively to secure future contracts. It is therefore in their interests to ensure their employees are well- trained and well-equipped and perform to the highest standard. Most PMCs recruit ex-service personnel as a way to ensure the quality of their force. In 2004 more SAS soldiers worked privately in Iraq than served in the army. Additionally, governments increasingly recognise the quality of mercenaries. PMCs and regular militaries cross over on occasion: An American PMC -Military Professional Resources Inc - trains the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) on behalf of the US Government (Lock, 2011). The British Ministry of Defence now allows soldiers yearlong sabbaticals to work as mercenaries in the hope they will return having earned more in the private sector. This official recognition suggests that mercenaries have shed their “dogs of war” image. They are no longer disreputable maverick figures operating in failed states but highly trained professionals endorsed by national governments


defence house would employ mercenaries

PMCs attract less attention and suspicion and can carry out their role more effectively.  Mercenaries often arouse less hostility amongst civilians than soldiers fighting for national armies. In ethnic conflict they are perceived as less partisan. The fact that civilians to some extent do not connect mercenaries with a particular ideological cause, invasion or civil war makes them ideal for protecting safe areas and policing reconstruction projects. For example, PMC Global Risk Strategies successfully guarded the Green Zone in Baghdad, the sealed off section inhabited by coalition staff. As they are mercenaries they can be fighting for the national or local government of where their mission even if they have a different paymaster.


defence house would employ mercenaries

A good reputation is vital to any company, including PMCs, so human rights abuses or any other activity which is deemed questionable would be avoided. Mercenaries are not protected by legal immunity would have to face justice for any crime like any other criminal.


defence house would employ mercenaries

PMCs do not really have an interest in conflicts never ending. Like any other organisation in a conflict zone they lose men and material while carrying out their missions. They may wish there to be an environment where they can still be useful but this does not mean stoking a conflict. Even if PMCs were helping to increase conflict to increase their own business it would still only be a very small factor in any conflict.


defence house would employ mercenaries

PMCs are untrustworthy  The possibility of mercenaries pulling out will always remain a risk. PMCs are not fighting for their own country so they can never be threatened with a charge of desertion. PMCs are motivated by money and do not have the interests of their employer at heart. Loyalty is given to the highest bidder and is therefore delicately balanced. “The fact is, they have no other attraction or reason for keeping the field than a trifle of stipend, which is not sufficient to make them willing to die for you. They are ready enough to be your soldiers whilst you do not make war, but if war comes they take themselves off or run from the foe.”(Machiavelli, 1515) Machiavelli considered that it was mercenaries that ruined Italy much as they are now doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.


defence house would employ mercenaries

The role of PMCs has had a negative effect on traditional militaries and their operations.  Soldiers trained at high expense by the state may leave for the greater income of private employment, reducing the power of the state’s military and bolstering the attraction of PMCs. PMCs also have a much more relaxed, business-like attitude to conflict. Being unregulated gives them a freedom to work outside of the law to an extent, using illicit practices such as torture and bribery which goes unnoticed. However, these practices strengthen the morale and line the purses of “the enemy”, such as warlords or the Taliban in Afghanistan, putting the militaries they are fighting alongside in danger.


defence house would employ mercenaries

PMCs violate human rights and International agreements in pursuit of profit or power.  Some PMCs may abuse the power they wield. Simon Mann, founder of PMCs EO and Sandline International, in a recent plot to oust President Obiang in Equatorial Guinea (BBC News, 2008) shows that even mercenary organisations considered legitimate by the British Government remain staffed by corrupt opportunists. It is highly morally questionable whether organisations with such a profound disrespect for the sovereignty of other nation states should be involved with the training of our armed forces, let alone fighting alongside them.


defence house would employ mercenaries

PMCs have an interest in conflict.  ncreased reliance on mercenaries is destabilising in the long term. It allows invaders and local governments to feel that they can get away with not providing sufficiently trained or numerous security forces because there are men on the ground. It also means that the most influential actors, large multi-national companies, no longer have to pressure governments so hard to provide security guarantees for everyone because they can buy their own. That leaves those without influence or money high and dry. This then leads to a proliferation of armed forces in the country, some working for the central government, others for local governments and some for private individuals and firms. These PMCs are hired provide security and to help create stability yet that is not where their interests lie. If the country returns to stability they are out of a job so it is in their interest to keep an unstable situation unstable to result in more work. (Wennmann, 2008)


defence house would employ mercenaries

This does not necessarily mean that there is anything inherently wrong with using PMCs. While it might be true that the United States has sometimes misjudged which private forces to hire, this does not mean that we cannot use PMCs altogether. In fact, there can be solutions to ensure the quality of PMCs, such as legal regulation. The risk of inadvertently funding the enemy temporarily is perhaps worth taking, considering the alternative may be to have them constantly preventing anything being done to help. Short-term compromise could be the best option to long-term victory.


defence house would employ mercenaries

It is in the interest of PMCs to fulfil their contractual obligations to ensure future contracts and avoid the reputation of being treacherous. While PMCs are often considered to be untrustworthy there are very few examples, if any, of them actually running away or switching sides since the end of the cold war.


eneral politics politics general house would limit right bear arms

Guns don’t kill people – people kill people. Restricting gun ownership will do nothing to make society safer as it is the intent of the criminal we should fear, and that will remain the same whatever the gun laws. In the vast majority of crimes involving firearms, the gun used is not legally held or registered. Many of illegal weapons are imported secretly from abroad, or converted from replica firearms rather than being stolen from registered owners.


The legal ownership of guns by ordinary citizens inevitably leads to many accidental deaths  The legal ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens inevitably leads to many unnecessary and tragic deaths. Legally held guns are stolen and end up in the hands of criminals, who would have greater difficulty in obtaining such weapons if firearms were less prevalent in society. Guns also end up in the hands of children, leading to tragic accidents and terrible disasters such as the Columbine High School massacre in the U.S.A. Sometimes even normal-seeming registered gun owners appear to go mad and kill, as tragically happened at Hungerford and Dunblaine in the U.K.


Shooting is a major sport enjoyed by many law-abiding people, both in gun clubs with purpose-built ranges and as a field sport. These people have the right to continue with their chosen leisure pursuit, on which they have spent large amounts of money – an investment the government would effectively be confiscating if their guns were confiscated. In addition, field sports bring money into poor rural economies and provide a motivation for landowners to value environmental protection. While compensation could be given the cost would be huge; in the UK shootings value to the economy was £1.6billion in 2004. [1]  [1] ‘£1,600,000,000 – the value of shooting’, Shooting Times, 27 September 2006,


The only function of a gun is to kill  The only function of a gun is to kill. The more instruments of death and injury can be removed from our society, the safer it will be. In the U.S.A. death by gunshot has become the leading cause of death among some social groups; in particular for African-American males aged from 12 to 19 years old. [1] Quite simply, guns are lethal and the fewer people have them the better.  [1 ‘Study: Homicide leading cause of death among young black males, Jacksonville.com, 5 May 2010,


Prohibition is not the answer, especially not in countries such as the USA where gun ownership is such an entrenched aspect of society. Banning guns would not make them disappear or make them any less dangerous. It is a legitimate right of citizens to own weapons with which they can protect themselves, their family, and their property (see point 4). Many people also need guns for other reasons. For example, farmers need guns in order to protect their stock and crops from pests, e.g. rabbits, birds, deer, foxes, stray dogs attacking sheep, etc.


There are substantial exceptions to that correlation, for example Japan has the world’s 5th highest suicide rate but very low gun ownership. [1]  As the proposition concedes, the availability of firearms is not a direct cause of suicide and thus the restriction of availability of firearms can only have a marginal effect on the suicide rate.  [1]


Sports shooting desensitizes people to the lethal nature of firearms  Shooting as a sport desensitises people to the lethal nature of all firearms, creating a gun culture that glamorises and legitimises unnecessary gun ownership. It remains the interest of a minority, who should not be allowed to block the interests of society as a whole in gun control. Compensation can be given to individual gun owners, gun clubs and the retail firearms trade, in recognition of their economic loss if a ban is implemented.


Gun ownership increases the risk of suicide  There is a correlation between the laxity of a country’s gun laws and its suicide rate – not because gun owners are more depressive, but because the means of quick and effective suicide is easily to hand. As many unsuccessful suicides are later glad that they failed in their attempt, the state should discourage and restrict the ownership of something that wastes so many human lives.


Shooting as a sport has the potential to desensitize people to the lethal nature of all firearms, creating a gun culture that glamorizes and legitimizes unnecessary gun ownership.


Burglary should not be punished by vigilante killings of the offender. No amount of property is worth a human life. Perversely, the danger of attack by homeowners may make it more likely that criminals will carry their own weapons. If a right to self-defence is granted in this way, many accidental deaths are bound to result.  Moreover the value of guns for self-defence is overrated. A firearm kept in the home for self-defence is six times more likely to be used in a deliberate or accidental homicide than against an unlawful intruder. [1]  [1] Drinan, Robert F. ‘Gun Control: The Good Outweighs the Evil’. The Civil Liberties Review. August/September 1976


Gun ownership increases national security within democratic states  “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary top the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” – 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. [1] Any country is much more able to defend itself from aggression if many of its citizens are able to use guns, keeping them for leisure and sporting use. Some countries actively require adult citizens to maintain weapons in their house, and periodically to train in their use. The high levels of firearm availability in Iraq and Afghanistan have been significant contributory factors in allowing for a viable insurrection to form which has the potential to generate the political pressure necessary to cause the withdrawal of foreign occupiers.  Of course, such widespread ownership of weapons is also a safeguard against domestic tyranny.  [1] See also DIstricxt of Columbia v Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)


Effective gun control is not achievable in democratic states with a tradition of civilian gun ownership  Much like the failure of the prohibition era to stop alcohol consumption, trying to restrict the use of guns that are already widely owned and prevalent in a society is an impossible task. [1]  The people who intend to use guns for illegitimate purposes are obviously unconcerned with the fact that it is illegal to acquire the guns in the first place in countries where this is already the case such as in the UK . [2] [3]  [1] Kates, Don B. ‘Why a Civil Libertarian Opposes Gun Control’. The Civil Liberties Review. June/July 1976   [2] The Independent. ‘Up to 4m guns in UK and police are losing the battle’. 4th September 2005.   [3] The Guardian. ‘Firearms: cheap, easy to get and on a street near you’ 30th August 2008.


Sports shooting is a safe activity  Shooting is sport enjoyed by many law-abiding people, both in gun clubs with purpose-built ranges and as a field sport. These people have the right to continue with their chosen leisure pursuit, on which they have spent large amounts of money – an investment the government would effectively be confiscating if their guns were confiscated.


Gun ownership is an integral aspect of the right to self defence  Law-abiding citizens deserve the right to protect their families in their own homes, especially if the police are judged incapable of dealing with the threat of attack. Would-be rapists and armed burglars will think twice before attempting to break into any house where the owners may keep firearms for self-defence. (This can also be applied to the right to carry concealed weapons, deterring potential rapists, muggers, etc.)


Limited restrictions on ownership and use are different in nature to absolute prohibition and are more easily enforced.  Statistical analysis shows that that gun control laws do have a deterrent effect on firearm deaths and that the magnitude of the effect is dependent on how well the rules are enforced. [1] The ineffectiveness of badly drafted or enforced gun control regulations is not an indicator of the ineffectiveness of well drafted and enforced regulations.  [1] Kwon et al. ‘The effectiveness of gun control laws: multivariate statistical analysis’, The American Journal of Economics and Sociology. Jan


The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was written in the age of horse and musket, where a private citizen could gain access to the same (or even better) weaponry that the state did.  Unless the opposition want to remove all barriers on gun ownership completely, no armed citizenry can seriously compete with a modern military armed with tanks, drones and precision weaponry. Popular resistance movements rely upon creating an unaffordable political cost to maintaining the occupation (e.g. The US was eventually forced from Vietnam, despite winning virtually every major battle of the war), but this assumes that the occupying power is vulnerable to that kind of pressure. An undemocratic invader or a domestic tyranny will happily slaughter dissidents with impunity (see the pre-intervention stages of the Libyan civil-war and the 2011 Syrian uprising).


eneral punishment politics government house would grant politicians immunity

No one doubts that politicians have to make morally difficult decisions, where sometimes every option is unpleasant. However, no one wants politicians to have an unrestricted ability to make ethical questionable decisions. That is exactly what immunity would deliver them. A politician who knows that they cannot be touched is incentivized and licensed to be much more brazen in their behavior when in office, and we want a bulwark against unrestricted rule-breaking. A state of affairs wherein politicians can sometimes be prosecuted creates the ideal amount of disincentive for politicians to break rules; they will do so only when there is a pressing need, and only to a moderate degree. Because of the plausible justifications for such acts, politicians need not fear prosecution in the overwhelming majority of cases. For instance, no official from either the UK or USA has been actually indicted with regard to highly-legally-dubious programs to torture detainees [1] [2] . Moreover, politicians are seldom prosecuted anyway, especially because they tend to belong to socioeconomic strata that punished less or not all compared to the rest of society. There is no legitimate need to give them more protection.  [1] Ambinder, Marc, ‘CIA Officers Granted Immunity from Torture Prosecution’, The Atlantic, 16 April 2009,  [Accessed September 9, 2011]  [2] Human Rights Education Association, ‘Torture, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment’, hrea.org,  [Accessed September 9, 2011]


Politicians should be able to make difficult decisions without fear that selecting one option will lead to their incarceration.  By the most popular definition, a state is the entity with the monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a defined territory. Politicians, as the government of that state, necessarily wield the institutions of that state force. This results in the tremendous responsibility of deciding when the overwhelming power of the state is exercised. This pertains to a variety of areas, such as police action against civil unrest, the interrogation of both alleged and convicted terrorists, and economic policies that subsidize industries with state resources. While it is certainly possible to brazenly abuse this power, in many cases politicians are presented with options which are, if at all illegal, marginally so, and made with the good faith interest of the nation at heart. There are even conceivable situations in which a politician may exercise options that are clearly illegal but serve an overwhelming state interest; consider an illegal raid on a private building in order to prevent a nuclear bomb from going off. While documented instances of policy-makers choosing not to act for a particular reason are rare, several senior CIA officials stated that they had become risk averse merely because the idea of prosecuting officials who made security policy had entered the public discourse. [1] We ought to place politicians in a situation where the only factor in their decision-making process is what serves the public interest, rather than having to weigh what they consider to be the right action against the chance it will lead to their incarceration. Attempting to avoid this through a limited system which allowed for the prosecution of apolitical crimes but immunity for political decisions would fail to accomplish the goals of prosecution of politicians, which is primarily to protect against political abuses of state power which threaten the rights of the citizenry.  [1] Crawford, Robert, ‘Torture and the Ideology of National Security’ Global Dialogue, Vol.12 No.1, Winter/Spring 2010, (“A Risk-Averse CIA” subsection)  [Accessed 22 September 2011]


These mechanisms are not immediate enough to put an immediate stop to an aberrant behavior. Impeachment proceedings take months at least; elections may be years away; and reputational damage is even more long-term. Moreover, these punishments are nowhere near a sufficient deterrent. If loss of one’s job, and damage to one’s public image were sufficient deterrents, we would not prosecute business leaders for insider trading, nor celebrities for drunk driving. The fact is that a criminal justice system which punishes everyone equally is not just fair; it’s also a practical method of achieving meaningful deterrence. Finally, even if we are willing to settle for one of these lesser punishments, the threat of a great punishment gives prosecutors leverage to strike deals with the politicians, such as offering not to prosecute in exchange for coming forward with the details of misdeeds.


Prosecutions of politicians are often motivated by partisan concerns.  As noted above, the political life is steeped in difficult decisions, and some of these are bound to result in choices that are at least potentially illegal. The ability to prosecute politicians incentivizes political opponents to search out past actions by said politicians so as to immobilize them politically. Such prosecutions are therefore not motivated by concern for justice, nor are they conducive to a well-functioning, multipartisan political system wherein representatives seek to work together to achieve their political ends. In the most extreme cases, powerful politicians use prosecutions to immobilize their political opponents.


Giving politicians’ immunity from prosecution allows them to focus on performing their duties  The premier reason that most states, even those that allow for the prosecution of politicians, abstain from prosecuting them while they hold office is that being a politician is a job that requires one’s undivided attention. Especially for the holders of prominent national-level offices, writing legislation, responding to crises under one’s purview, consulting one’s constituents, and engaging in campaign work often lead to politicians working an upwards of 12 hour day, every day. To expect politicians cope with all of these concerns will simultaneously constructing a defense against pending charges would be to abandon all hope of them serving their constituents effectively. We are rightly aggravated when politicians take extensive vacations or other extracurricular forays. [1] Being under indictment not only consumes even more of a politician’s time; the stress it causes will inevitably seep into what remaining time they do allocating to fulfilling their duties, further hindering their performance. The impeachment proceedings for Bill Clinton on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice were so intensive that they took tremendous resources away from not only the president himself, but all branches of the federal government for several months [2] , amidst serious domestic and foreign policy concerns such as the ongoing war in Kosovo.  [1] Condon, George E. Jr., ‘The Long History of Criticizing Presidential Vacations’ The Atlantic, 18 August 2011,  [Accessed September 9, 2011]  [2] Linder, Douglas O., ‘The Impeachment Trial of President William Clinton’, UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-KANSAS CITY (UMKC) SCHOOL OF LAW, 2005,  [Accessed September 19, 2011]


Politicians have to divide their focus anyway. As the examples above concede, being a politician means being pulled in several different directions. Elections are particularly distracting, and in jurisdictions with fixed election cycles like the United States can make periods of up to a year prior to the election a write-off for getting real work done. Thus, personal liability is nothing special among the many concerns a politician has. In fact, accountability, of this direct type, and for serious offences, is probably more important than most of the things a politician is forced to consider, and at the very least deserves inclusion among them.


Motivation does not matter. Almost every time someone presses criminal charges, it is for their own personal concerns (such as wanting retribution), rather than concern for the public good; that does not change the fact that if charges are laid, it is because the prosecuting authority has decided that, regardless of why the crime has come to their attention, the interest of society at large requires that the individual be prosecuted. If political motivations are what is needed for politicians to be held accountable, so be it. Even if this is a problem, it can be mitigated with sufficient oversight from an independent prosecuting authority.


If we don’t want politicians hurting the dignity of the office, there is only one thing we can do: not elect politicians likely to commit crimes! Of course, this is often impossible to tell in advance, but the dilemma remains: a crime has been committed, and that hurts the dignity of the office no matter what action we take. One thing that’s worse than having an office’s holder raked over the coals is for them to get away with a behavior that otherwise warrants punishment. See discussion below under “hurts the image of the office.”


In the event of major abuses of power it should be the public that holds politicians to account.  The obvious benefit to prosecuting politicians is that it punishes – and thereby deters – corruption by politicians. However, this benefit can be achieved through other means. Firstly, many western liberal democracies have one form or another of removing a politician from office in the midst of their term, such as impeachment in the American system or a vote of no confidence against the government in the Westminster system. While defenders of immunity oppose impeachment as contrary to the principles outlined above (because of the effect that it may have on political duties), this is an option that remains in cases of gross misconduct. If the political will cannot be mobilized to remove a sitting politician, they are held accountable by the electorate to whom they must answer in the next election, and who will likely punish blatant misuse of political power. Even if the individual politician has reached a limit on their term of office, or does not seek reelection, they are still held in check by the damage that will be done to their party in the event of major misconduct on their part. Finally, most politicians are significantly concerned about their legacy, which is tarnished significantly by corruption even if they are never held legally accountable for it. While Nixon received a full pardon from his success, [1] his name has become synonymous with criminality and scandal: a fate most politicians wish to avoid.  [1] Ford, Gerald R., Proclamation 4311, 8 September 1974,  [Accessed September 9, 2011]


Seeing a politician put on trial hurts the integrity of their office.  It does tremendous damage to the public perception of a given political position to see the holder of that position on trial for criminal acts. Politicians are important role models for the populace at large, and shining light on everyone one of their misdeeds is not conducive to them playing such a role. This hurts the ability of their successors who, though completely innocent, are stepping into an institution now tainted with the image of corruption or scandal. Finally, the very process of prosecution can be damaging to the country, as citizens on opposing sides of the political spectrum disagree over the legitimacy of charges. These effects all deal real damage to the political institutions necessary for the functioning of the state.


The concept of retribution is a narrow and dubious foundation for justice. A modern, civilized legal system should not be geared around delivering payback on behalf of victims, but rather around advancing the best consequences for the future. For exactly this reason legal systems give several ways in which defendants can avoid punishment, even though they are technically guilty, if punishing them would have bad consequences; these include jury nullification and suspended sentences.


See argument above regarding other accountability mechanism. Jeopardizing future electoral success, harming one’s political party, and damage to one’s personal legacy are all meaningful checks on the behavior of politicians. To suggest that, in the absence of prosecutions, an under-used tool anyway, politicians will be able to abuse their station with impunity, is simply untrue.


Politicians who commit crimes are likely unfit to serve.  The sort of person who commits an offense has demonstrated irresponsibility and so is unworthy of the public trust. Would any reasonable citizen wanted to be represented by a domestic abuser, or have a fraudster manage the public treasury? While almost all people are capable of atonement and redemption, someone who commits crimes worthy of prosecution while in office ought to be immediately removed for the betterment of the state.


Immunity creates a perverse incentive to hang on to their office as long as possible.  Prosecutorial immunity brings about a massive side-benefit to being in office. It is easy to get used to a life where minor indiscretions go regularly unpunished, as has happened with dignitaries holding diplomatic immunity. [1] Immunity from prosecution may spur a politician to seek reelection into their old age when they are significantly less effective at performing their duties. This is one reason why in the vast majority of democracies elected representatives, while far from poor, are not paid massive salaries; we don’t want people getting into politics for the wrong reasons.  [1] Uhlig, Mark A., ‘Court Won’t Bar Return of Boy in Abuse Case to Zimbabwe’, The New York Times, 1 January 1988,  [Accessed September 9, 2011]


Immunity for politicians hurts the image of their office  Far from the worst PR for an office being that a holder of it is on trial, the worst possible public perception of a political institution is that it is wracked with corruption, with it not even theoretically possible to hold its members to account. Prosecuting politicians makes it clear that their office is not a den of impunity, and in the wake of a scandal, restoring public confidence in politicians to come. The public wants their politicians to be accountable and granting immunity harms accountability by denying an option.


Immunity for politicians is an unjust double standard  Every victim deserves to have the perpetrator of their suffering answer for their misdeeds. It is unjust that certain offenders would avoid retribution, and certain victims would be denied their day in court, simply because of a factor external to the commission of the crime. Even if the crime is not external to the criminal’s political role, the foundation of a free and fair justice system is that all individuals are treated alike, regardless of perceived importance. Hence, a wealthy philanthropist will not be spared from prosecution simply because they are a pillar of the community. Politicians should receive no greater reprieve.


With regard to this issue, elections are unquestionably an effective alternative mechanism. The act of a politician in a liberal democracy holding on to office for another term, by definition, requires public assent. The citizenry has an out: don’t continue electing politicians who aren’t serving the public interest. Regardless, politicians already have a plethora of motives, both legitimate and self-serving, to hold on to public office; this doesn’t move the barometer on incentives to run. Most elections are at least modestly well contested precisely because many qualified candidates really want the position.


The ability to prosecute politicians is the ultimate protection against the abuse of power.  It is impossible to overstate the power that the threat of prosecution has to stay the hand of anyone, including a politician, from transgressing the laws of the state. In fact, we need more aggressive prosecution of politicians. Not a single person has been prosecuted for approval illegal torture or wiretapping. These are illegal actions actually happening which the populace, with only the blunt instrument of voting for or against a politician on the sum total of their policies, is unable to effectively influence. There is no greater deterrent that could be used against politicians.


The difference between the harm to the office of a politician getting away with a crime and the harm from them being tried for that crime is that the trial is inherently public. Short of widespread corruption – the sort that would probably preclude prosecuting politicians anyway – it is unlikely that unpunished wrongdoing in an office will ever become public. A trial, by contrast, creates a media flashpoint that captures the public consciousness. Thus, even if the damage to the integrity of the office is greater per person in cases of unpunished crimes, the act of punishing the crime informs enough people to outweigh the fact that it may not do as much damage per capita.


This is not necessarily true. A politician could be a brilliant diplomat who happens to commit a minor offence such as drink driving; very few indictable offences correlate directly with one’s ability to discharge the mandate of a political office. Historically, politicians have often had their secret vices, including the rumored drug habits of many 19th century politicians, that have not impeded the performance of their duties.


government local government voting house believes quebec should secede canada

Although there have been flaws in the way that Canada has dealt with Quebec in the past, it simply isn’t true that it is currently denied its right to self-determination. First of all, it is not the will of the people to become an independent nation, shown by the results of the most recent referendum on the issue and recent polling figures [1] . Therefore, it is the will of the Quebecers to be governed as part of Canada and becoming independent would in fact violate this right to self-determination. Second, there have been large steps taken to rectify these past issues of exclusion of the Quebec voice such as in 2006 where Prime Minister Harper’s recognition of Quebec as a distinct nation within Canada [2] .  [1] Chung, Andrew. "Sovereignty "outmoded," Quebec poll indicates." Star 19 May 2010, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. <  .  [2] "Harper: Quebec a nation... within Canada." Canada.com 22 Nov 2006, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. <  .


Quebec has the right to self-determination.  All people have the right to determine their own form of government and representation and Quebec has been systematically denied this right.  Quebec has historically been denied the right to determine its own form of governance systematically and therefore the Canadian government has no right to claim legitimacy over Quebec and cannot stop it from leaving the federation.  The Canadian Constitution was patriated in 1982 in a backroom deal known as the Meech Lake Accord [1] where Quebec was explicitly excluded from the negotiations and their issues were ignored. Specifically, Quebec was attempting to entrench recognition of their special status and needs as a distant society within Canada [2] and this was denied. To this day, Quebec has refused to sign the Canadian constitution as it feels it doesn’t adequately represent its interests and needs [3] .  Therefore, Quebec has the right to independence as its sovereignty was illegitimately taken from it and it is systematically denied adequate representation in Canadian politics.  [1] "The Meech Lake Accord." Peace and Conflict. Historica, n. d. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. <  .  [2] "The Meech Lake Accord." Peace and Conflict. Historica, n. d. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. <  .  [3] "The Meech Lake Accord." Peace and Conflict. Historica, n. d. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. <  .


The right to self-determination does not necessitate independence, but rather determination of their own governance. This principle is widely seen as not being about sovereignty, but rather the right to control local governance for their peoples, a right already extended to the Quebecois. The International Court of Justice, the most important court of international law, has recognized the right of self-determination as being adequately fulfilled by devolved governance. [1]  Moreover, as explained in counterargument one, there is no basis for the Quebecois to claim that they are systematically denied adequate representation, making the international legal precedent on self-determination irrelevant.  [1] Van der Vyver, Johan D., „Self-Determination of the Peoples of Quebec under International law“, Journal of Transnational Law and Policy, Vol. 10, No. 1, <  >, p.11


Quebec needs to be independent to retain its distinct language and culture.  The only way to ensure that Quebecers get to retain their distinct culture is to gain independence as a country and remove themselves from the Canadian federation.  A very big issue for certain Quebecers is the threat that an overwhelmingly English-speaking country has on their pocket of distinct French-Quebecois culture [1] . The unrestricted immigration of English-speaking Canadians to Quebec has diluted the culture of the Quebecois and has set off the process of cultural-loss and the highly feared loss of their language [2] . Moreover, whenever Quebec has tried to put in place provisions to protect their culture and language, such as with Bill 101 [3] , Quebec is called racist and Canadian Federal Courts try to strike down their laws to stop their “discrimination” against English-speaking Canadians in their province [4] .  The only way that Quebec can protect its language and culture is to be able to stop the unrestricted flow of English-speaking immigration into its territory and gain complete control over its own law and cultural policy. The only way to do this is to gain independence from Canada.  [1] "Only Quebec independence can protect French language: PQ strategist." CBS News Canada 26 Nov 2007, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. <  .  [2] "Only Quebec independence can protect French language: PQ strategist." CBS News Canada 26 Nov 2007, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. <  .  [3] "Bill 101." The Canadian Encyclopedia. Web. 1 Dec 2011. <  .  [4] "Bill 101." The Canadian Encyclopedia. Web. 1 Dec 2011. <  .


Although it may be true that traditional Quebecois culture is under threat, this is not necessarily a bad thing. Cultures change and evolve to reflect the rich history of a territory and its peoples and the interaction with Anglophonic Canadians is a very important part of that history that should be reflected in Quebecois culture.  Moreover, Quebec is more than able to institute language laws and cultural policy, as they were able to continue the vast majority of the provisions in Bill 101 [1] after it was struck down once they stripped out the parts that explicitly discriminated against English-speaking Canadians and once they enacted the Constitutional not-withstanding clause that the Canadian constitution has in place to help accommodate Provincial diversity such as this. Further to this, Canada is officially a bilingual country, and thus the linguistic and cultural rights of the French are constitutionally protected by the Federal government not only within Quebec but in wider Canadian society. It is simply fallacious to claim that the Canadian government does not recognize or protect the distinct culture and language of French Canadians.  [1] "Bill 101." The Canadian Encyclopedia. Web. 1 Dec 2011. <  .


International Law Mandates Quebec be allowed Independence  International law recognizes Quebec’s right to self-determination and denying them self-determination is therefore a violation of international law.  International law recognizes the right of all peoples to self-determination. The international community has decided that it is oppressive to individuals to live under a government that is systematically incapable or unwilling to protect them and their interests. [1]  The Quebecois have been systematically denied adequate representation in the federal government of Canada. Quebecois legislation protection their basic rights to retain their language and culture have been met with contempt [2] and legal action by the federal Canadian government and courts. [3] This is but one example of the very clear denial of basic representation and self-governance that afflicts the Quebecois in Canada.  Therefore, Quebec has the legal right to self-determination and independence in international law.  [1] „Reference re Secession of Quebec“, Supreme Court of Canada, 1998, 2 S.C.R. 217, <  >  [2] “Maxime Bernier on Quebec law: ‘We don’t need Bill 101’”, The Canadian Press, 4 February 2011, <  >  [3] Hudon, R., „Bill 101“, The Canadian Encyclopedia, <  >


Many countries in the world have bad economies; this is not a reason to not be an independent country. Economic circumstances can change and be improved through different economic initiatives; this simply isn’t a good enough reason to not secede from Canada. Furthermore, there is significant economic evidence that suggests that smaller states, such as that of Quebec, have a higher chance of thriving economically than larger states such as Canada. [1] Therefore, this argument not only does not justify the opposition case, but also is entirely speculative and likely incorrect. Quebec’s economy could very well benefit significantly from detaching its economy from Canada.  [1] Price, Adam, „Small Is Cute, Sexy, and Successful: Why Independence for Wales and Other Countries Makes Economic Sense“, Harvard Kennedy School Review, 2011, <  >


This is not the will of the people of Quebec.  Secession from Canada would not be a fair or adequate representation of the will of the people of Quebec.  The most recent referendum and all current polling data suggest that an overwhelming majority of Quebecers are opposed to Quebec seeking independence from Canada [1] . The government of Quebec pursuing such a policy is only representative of a very small minority of people in Quebec, and therefore is undemocratic in nature. Moreover, this policy explicitly denies consideration or enfranchisement for the very large populations of Anglophone Quebecers who also deserve representation, and whose interests are being wholly discounted to pursue this one policy on behalf of the Francophones in their province.  Therefore, pursuing secession is both wholly undemocratic, but also specifically disenfranchises a very large portion of the population entirely in a trade-off for one specific policy that doesn’t appeal strongly to anyone beyond a very small minority of citizens.  [1] Chung, Andrew. "Sovereignty "outmoded," Quebec poll indicates." Star 19 May 2010, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. <  .