Investment in Afghanistan; rebuilding the economy  The ‘rehabilitation’ of Afghanistan’s infrastructure has not been an immense success due to the continuing bombing campaign which inevitably damages infrastructure but there have been big economic benefits from the NATO presence. There have been more than 4,000 schools built and 175,000 teachers trained, although more is needed this is an immense boost to education in Afghanistan. [1] Another benefit of increased stability is a renewal of outside investment, from China in particular. China has been investing billions, Several mining firms have made a $4.4 billion investment in one project; an immense undeveloped copper reserve in Aynak. [2] In total there is more than $20 billion being invested in infrastructure by Afghanistan’s Asian neighbours, as these investments are looking for profit they are clearly believed to be sustainable, by comparison the United States has only funded $1.6billion since 2006. [3]  [1] ‘Afghanistan’, USAID, February 2013  [2] Downs, Erica S., ‘China Buys into Afghanistan’, Brookings, 21 February 2013  [3] Barfield, Thomas, ‘Two Diverging Roads in Afghanistan’, YaleGlobal, 11 January 2013


There will still be aid after NATO leaves and Afghanistan is not simply going to be abandoned as the troops go home. Economic growth since the fall of the Taliban has been spectacular with average growth of 9.1% of GDP since 2009 while it is true that this has been in part fueled by aid there are more sustainable sources of growth in the form of the mineral wealth of Afghanistan which can go to the giant and growing economies of India and China. [1]  [1] Al Jazeera and agencies, ‘Afghanistan’s economy at a glance’, Al Jazeera, 19 February 2012


In a country where the insurgents are more opposed to the foreign occupiers than their nominal opponents in the Afghan government the complete withdrawal of troops will actually be good for peace and security. Yes Afghanistan is still dangerous but the aim is not necessarily to provide security through NATO forces but to train Afghan forces to do it.


The Taliban will likely take over when the NATO forces leave  Even if they are willing to negotiate a peaceful US exit this does not mean the Taliban will not wish to use force when the United States has left. In their statement on peace talks they highlighted “the establishment of an independent Islamic system and true security which is the want and aspiration of the nation.” [1] They also style themselves as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan clearly showing their political goal is regaining power in Afghanistan which would mean overthrowing the democratically elected government. Some Afghan experts such as Gilles Dorronsoro believe that this is what will happen “After 2014, the level of US support for the Afghan regime will be limited and, after a new phase in the civil war, a Taliban victory will likely follow” though this would have the advantage of bringing stability as the Taliban did before the US invasion it would represent a complete failure for the US. [2]  [1] Taliban, ‘Taliban agree to peace talks with US over Afghanistan – full statement’, guardian.co.uk, 18 June 2013  [2] AFP, ‘Afghan govt will collapse and Taliban will rule again, Afghan expert says’, news.com.au, 27 September 2012


An Afghanistan dominated by warlords.  Under the Taliban up to the US invasion Afghanistan was at least united. Today however there is little central control beyond the NATO forces; the Taliban clearly controls some areas but there are also powerful warlords. Appointments are based on nepotism and tribal affiliations not on merit or education and those who were part of the northern alliance that fought on the US side (Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Hazaras) are taking advantage of the opportunity of the overthrow of Pashtun dominance in the country to grab power and resources. [1] Already the conflict has an ethnic dimension as almost all of the Taliban is made up of Pashtuns. The Taliban meanwhile believes that the other ethnicities want a partition of the country through a very decentralised federal state. In almost any peace scenario with NATO gone there is a large chance that one faction will walk out setting off a civil war and fragmentation of the country. [2]  [1] Noor, Ahmad, ‘Power Politics of ethnic groups and the future of Afghanistan’, World Security Network, 8 July 2011  [2] Rafiq Arif, ‘The Coming Civil War in Afghanistan’, Foreign Policy, 3 February 2012


NATO has failed to solve Afghanistan’s economic problems  While some progress has been made on the economic and development front in Afghanistan it is difficult to consider it a success. There are still 20% of households who are chronically food insecure and another 18% in need of assistance in some of the year with the result that nearly 40% of children under three are malnourished. [1] Afghanistan is immensely dependent on aid for its economic progress with foreign aid to the country representing 100% of GDP in 2011 which makes the country vulnerable to a change in priorities. Clearly the withdrawal will represent such a change; when NATO goes aid, and spending as a result of the military occupation, will drop at the very least constraining growth and likely taking the Afghan economy with it. [2] Already the International Labour Organisation has been warning that this will mean increasing child labour in the country as lower profit margins force families to use their children to boost incomes. [3]  [1] UNDP Afghanistan, ‘Eradicated Extreme Poverty and Hunger’, United Nations Development Programme, 21 July 2011  [2] ‘The hand that feeds’, The Economist, 14 July 2012  [3] Ferris-Rotman, Amie, ‘Afghan child labor fears grow as aid dries up’, Reuters, 7 February 2012


Afghanistan is still a dangerous place  Peace talks or no peace talks, NATO military leadership of Afghan would all appear to make no difference. Only hours after the Taliban said it would hold peace talks and the United States handed over control of military operations to the Afghan National Army four US soldiers were killed in a mortar attack at Bagram Airbase one of the centres of NATO operations. [1] Clearly then NATO has not brought peace and security to Afghanistan. The effect of handovers to the Afghans have already been seen; August to October of last year saw a 28% spike in killings from the same period the year before at a time when NATO was handing over control implying that the Afghan army is not yet ready to protect civilians. [2]  [1] Roberts, Dan, ‘Taliban peace talks: ‘Peace and reconciliation’ negotiations to take place in Qatar’, The Guardian, 19 June 2013  [2] Borger, Julian, ‘Can Afghan troops hold off the Taliban after Nato withdraws?’, The Guardian, 1 January 2013


In a country as rugged as Afghanistan there is always going to have to be a lot of decentralisation and at the moment this means warlords having a lot of power in individual areas. However this is better than the alternative of a centralising Taliban which would still have many factions and elements but these would be much more extreme than today’s warlords. It is also difficult to see how this impacts on the success of NATO in Afghanistan. They can be bad but can also bring benefits as they have an incentive to deliver stability and reconstruction to their local areas. [1]  [1] Milhopadhyay, Dipali, ‘Warlords as Bureaucrats: The Afghan Experience’, Carnegie Papers, Number 101, August 2009


There is little reason to believe that the Taliban will succeed in rapidly forcing the Karzai government out of power. The Taliban has been failing to retake the ground they have lost after offensives by NATO forces so even if the Afghan National Army fails to take more ground it seems unlikely the Taliban will quickly succeed in driving on Kabul. [1] In the unlikely event that the Taliban does begin winning the US and other NATO states are not going to sit back and let the Afghan government fall. David Cameron, the British Prime Minister has said “The clear message is to the Taliban that you can't just wait this out until foreign forces leave in 2014. We will be firm friends and supporters to Afghanistan long beyond that.” [2]  [1] American Enterprise Institute, ‘Why we must win in Afghanistan’, 17 October 2012  Biddle, Stephen, ‘Salvaging Governance Reform in Afghanistan’, Council on Foreign Relations, April 2012  [2] Mason, Rowena, ‘David Cameron: Taliban could be waiting for British troops to leave before trying to take Afghanistan’, The Telegraph, 19 July 2012


There is no age at which you start to be taxed. Rich children with investment funds and child stars all earn money at a young age and are taxed on it. This does not mean that the voting age should be lowered so that these individuals are represented. Similarly every visitor to the UK pays VAT on any goods they buy, this does not entitle them to a say in government.


No taxation without representation  It is unfair to have taxation without representation. Many 16 year olds work and pay tax on their earnings just as any other worker would. Yet unlike other workers at present they are not allowed to have a say in how the government spends their money, nor in how much should be collected from them in taxes. This was famously the grievance of the thirteen colonies that sparked the American revolution. In 2011 in the UK 7.2% of 16-18 year olds were in employment but not being given fair representation. [1] Policies such as the minimum wage and working hours and conditions are also set by governments, and if young people are old enough to have jobs they should be able to have their say in these issues.  [1] ‘Participation of 16 to 18 year olds in education and training, England’, Department of Education, 21 February 2013, Table 1


Earlier voting is not a solution to the low turnout problem, the electoral commission in the UK concluded .here is evidence to suggest that extending the franchise will actually create lower turnout and projections about if it would get higher cannot be sufficiently determined [1] At the moment 18-25 year olds are the least likely to cast a vote at election time. Youth membership of political parties is falling. Lowering the voting age still further is therefore likely to reduce turnout even more. Most people don’t vote because they think the election system is unfair, their vote does not count, or because they don’t trust any of the political parties on offer - lowering the voting age won’t solve these problems. Instead with a generation that is increasingly online, to take the UK 21 million households (80%) had internet access in 2012 [2] , and there are over 6.4 million iPhone users, [3] the answer is therefore to engage them digitally not through trying some magic bullet at the ballot box.  [1] The Electoral Commission, ‘Voting age should stay at 18 says the Electoral Commission’, 19 April 2004  [2] Office for national statistics, ‘Statistical bulletin: Internet Access – Households and Individuals, 2012’, 24 August 2012  [3] NMA Staff, ‘UK iPhone users to reach 6.4m this year’, New media age, 6 August 2010


16 year olds are mature enough to vote  16 year olds are mature enough to make important decisions such as voting. If the government agrees that 16 year olds can have sex, join the army, and apply for a passport, then surely they are mature and responsible enough to decide who runs their country and makes important decisions that affect them. Their bodies are fully adult, they have been educated for at least 10 years, and most of them have some experience of work as well as school. By this time, it is likely a teenager will have developed “Advanced reasoning skills...the ability to think about multiple options and possibilities. It includes a more logical thought process and the ability to think about things hypothetically”. [1] This means they are able to form political views and they should be allowed to put these across at election time. Indeed by 16 children are as tolerant as adults and their political skill (the perceived ability to participate effectively in civil life by writing to political leaders and by speaking publically at meetings) is as high at 16 as for those in their late twenties. [2] There is no magic difference between 16 and 18 - indeed, many 16 year olds are more sensible than some 20 year olds.  [1] Morgan, Erin, and Huebner, Angela, ‘Adolescent Growth and Development’, VirginiaTech, 1 Mary 2009  [2] Atkins, Robert, and Hart, Daniel, ‘American Sixteen and Seventeen Year Olds are Ready to Vote’, The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol 633:201, 2011, p.210


The UK electoral commission agrees that “there is no single definition of maturity” [1] . However it is not the case that most 16 year olds are mature enough to vote. Rather, teenagers are emotionally immature and tend to behave as though “they are “on stage” with the attention of others constantly centred upon their appearance or actions. This preoccupation stems from the fact that adolescents spend so much time thinking about and looking at themselves”. [2] The large majority still live at home and go to school. They may have adult bodies, but their minds are still those of children who have to be protected. By 18 young people have become much more independent and are able to make their own way in the world. Their political views are likely to be more thoughtful compared to 16 year olds, who may just copy their parents’ opinions or else will pull away from their parents and as a result “the peer group takes on a special significance... Members of the peer group often attempt to behave alike, dress alike... and participate in the same activities” [3] .  [1] The Electoral Commission, ‘Voting age should stay at 18 says the Electoral Commission’, 19 April 2004  [2] University of Maryland Medical Center, ‘Adolescent Development-Overview’, University of Maryland, 17 January, 2011  [3] ibid


Since 18-24 year olds already ignore their ability to vote there is no reason to expect that 16-18 year olds will be any more interested. At the moment over 50% of 18-24 year olds don’t vote even though they are eligible. [1] So this kind of change is hardly going to offset aging. It is also wrong to suggest that voters vote according to their age; the elderly are likely to have grandchildren whose interests they may well respect when voting.  [1] Dunleavy, Patrick, and Gilson, Chris, ‘Is the UK Electorate Disengaged?’, British Politics and Policy at LSE, 12 March 2010


Voting at a lower age would increase participation  There is a problem of apathy in many western countries, with low turnouts at elections. Young people are taught citizenship or civics at school with the aim of building “Knowledge and understanding about being informed citizens...Developing skills of enquiry and communication...Developing skills of participation and responsible action” [1] however they don’t get a chance to put this knowledge into practice for several years. Is it surprising that they lose interest in public affairs during this time? Because national elections are usually only held every four years or so, many people have to wait until they are 20 or 21, years after that civic education, before their first chance to cast an important vote. It is noticeable that political interest is much higher among those in education than those who are not. In Austria it was found that 68% of 16 to 18 year olds in education were interested in politics against only 45% of those who are working. [2] By demonstrating trust and promoting inclusion, young people would feel more confident in their views, become less disillusioned and eventually teach their children the same values. Introducing a lower voting age can only have long term benefits for the expansion of democracy.  [1] House of Commons Education and Skills Committee, ‘Citizenship Education’, House of Commons, 21 February 2007  [2] Zeglovits, Eva, and Schwarzer, Steve, ‘Lowering voting age in Austrtia – evaluation of accompanying campaigns for 16-18 year olds’, Paper presented at the 5th ECPR General Conference, Potsdam, Sept 12th-15th 2009, p.9


Voting at 16 would help rebalance voting ages  There is a notable difference between how young people and the elderly are treated. Giving the vote to teenagers would force politicians to take them seriously. Policies on education (e.g. student loans) would have to take their views and interests into account for the first time. 16 year olds today are well-educated and media-savvy, so they can express informed opinions. But at the moment young people’s views are easily ignored by those in power because they don’t have the vote. The vote for 16-18 year olds would help redress the growing age imbalance which is occurring as a result of aging. In the rich world by 2050 one in three will be a pensioner and one in ten over 80. [1] These voters will clearly be looking after their benefits at the expense of the young.  [1] The Economist, ‘A slow-burning fuse’, 25 June 2009


Young people are not the only ones who vote for extremists, the elderly are also more likely to vote for far right parties. [1] It is important in a democracy to include as wide a range of opinion as possible; a tendency to vote for more radical ideas should not be a reason for disenfranchising someone, or even more so disenfranchising a whole group. There are however also reasons to believe that 16 to 18 year olds could potentially use their votes more wisely than their elders. When looking at Austria it was found that those in education paid more attention to political news than those in work. 30% of people working followed political news less than once a week compared to only 15% of those in education. [2] As students are therefore better informed it would seem to be likely they would use their votes more wisely.  [1] Arzheimer, Kai, and Carter, Elizabeth, ‘Political Opportunity Structures and Right-Wing Extremist Party Success’, European Journal of Political Research, 2006, p.4  [2] Zeglovits, Eva, and Schwarzer, Steve, ‘Lowering voting age in Austrtia – evaluation of accompanying campaigns for 16-18 year olds’, Paper presented at the 5th ECPR General Conference, Potsdam, Sept 12th-15th 2009, p.10


This is an odd idea; should parents not be voting for themselves not their children? If they are voting for their children rather than themselves are they not themselves disenfranchised? The fact is that children and their parents have different interests on account of the age gap that is likely to be at least 20 years. Someone who is 16 is much more interested in university fees than someone who is 40 who will be more interested in how much they will have at retirement. Furthermore with turnouts that are often less than 50% a great many children are not being represented by their parents at all. Adults have the choice to not vote, when their parents are choosing not to vote children don’t get this opportunity.


Rights should be gained progressively  Just because 16 year olds have the right to do some things, it doesn’t mean that they should use them. If all 16 year olds left home at 16 and started families it would be considered a disaster. And not all rights are given at 16 - most countries have a higher age for important things such as drinking alcohol, serving on a jury, joining the military, etc. It makes sense for different rights to be gained at different times as young people mature and get used to more responsibility. The more difficult and complex the choices involved in that right and the greater the impact the later a right should be given. Because voting is so important, involves complex decision making, and can potentially have a large impact, it should be one of the last rights to be gained. It then makes sense that it voting should be granted at the time we consider adulthood to be beginning, which was agreed in the declaration of the rights of the child is 18. [1]  [1] Archard, David William, ‘Children's Rights’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)


There needs to be a cut off  Everyone would agree that there has to be a minimum voting age. Most people believe that the line should be drawn at 18 rather than 16. Although some 16 year olds may be mature enough to vote, most have not yet formed political views of their own yet. On average, young people are much more likely to be ready for the responsibility of voting at 18. There is then no reason why 16 would make a better cut off point than 18. At both ages some rights are given, at both there will be some who pay tax who are not given representation, at both some will be immature. There is no clear dividing line so there can be no clear reasoning for lowering the voting age to 16.


Young people would be more likely to misuse their vote  It would be dangerous to give young people the vote. They might use it in foolish ways. For example they will be more likely to make their decision on which party had the best image; so will vote for parties that put up celebrities. They are also more likely to vote for extremists into power or vote without thinking on single issues (e.g. making drugs legal, free university places, cheap beer!). It is notable that in late 1990’s Russia 80% of the Communist party’s members were under 30, and a far right nationalist party, the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, has called to lower the voting age to 16. [1] A study from the University of Nijmegen found that younger people are over represented in voters for extreme right wing parties, [2] and the same goes the other way with younger people more likely to support left wing populist measures at the expense of democracy, rights, and freedoms. [3]  [1] ‘Extremists push for young voters’, Times Higher Education, 7 December 1998  [2] Lubbers, Marcel et al., ‘Extreme right-wing voting in Western Europe’, European Journal of Political Research, vol. 41, 2002, pp345-378, p.364  [3] Seligson, Mitchell, A., ‘The Rise of Populism and the Left in Latin America’, Journal of Democracy, Vol.18 No.3, July 2007, pp.81-95, p.91


Parents are guardians and should be trusted to vote in their children’s interests  Governments do things which affect every age group but that does not mean everyone deserves the vote. Should 12 year olds get the vote because school policies affect them? Should toddlers get the vote because health services affect them? No - we trust parents to cast votes after thinking about the interests of their families. And there are other ways for young people to have a say - they can write to elected representatives and newspapers, sign petitions, speak at public meetings, join youth parliaments, etc. It is notable that sixteen year olds themselves are divided on whether they should have the vote, [1] if many of them trust their parents to vote for them should not the government?  [1] The Electoral Commission, ‘Voting age should stay at 18 says the Electoral Commission’, 19 April 2004


This applies equally to having the cut off at 16 rather than 18. If it is questionable at both ages then since this is an issue of human rights we should err on the side of caution and give the vote to as many as possible. This would mean lowering the voting age.


16 year olds already have other rights. For example, in many countries they have the right to leave school and leave home, and the rights to have sex, marry and have children, they can rent accommodation and consent to surgery [1] . It is not reasonable to have different ages for different rights. It makes sense for the right to vote to be at a younger age precisely because the individual has fewer changes to deal with at a younger age, they will therefore find it easier to learn to vote. [2] If young people are considered old enough to make important choices about their own future, why can’t they have a say in deciding the future of their country?  [1] Thesite.org, ‘What age can I?’, 5 May 2013  [2] Franklin, Mark N., at al., ‘The Generational Basis of Turnout Decline in Established Democracies’, Acta Politica, March 2004, pp.8-9


The general claim here is that opinion polls can be subject to error and lead to questionable information and decision-making by voters. Also, it has been claimed that opinion polls can be manipulated consciously or inadvertently which then should justifies their damnation. The opposition claims that any tool which gathers information could be manipulated or inadvertently misused. Audience polling is simply a method to gather group opinion and audience analysis is as old as Aristotle as a method for speakers to better understand audiences. Audience response is often sought in regard to attitudes and to isolate opinion polls as not useful or necessary because of possible error or corruption. This denies the need for those advocating to understand the position of those these seek to persuade. To say that opinion polls should not be used because of these reasons would suggest that audience feedback never be used because of possible errors in conclusions. It is far better to understand the nature of polling and its risk factors than to simply abandon the use of this important link between the voter and the politician. The nature of audience polling is critical to communication and should not be dismissed because of its potential for misuse.


Opinion polls are subject to bias and often produce faulty information on which decision are made.  Since opinion polls are the products of research, they can also be heavily manipulated by the organization performing or commissioning the poll in question. A bias can easily be created by selecting a certain target group, such as a 2011 AP opinion poll which asked more democrats than republicans, [1] or more usually through asking certain questions or phrasing them in a particular way. For example it has been found that Americans are more likely to support spending for the ‘poor’ than for ‘welfare’. [2] This information can generate false information and untrue or exaggerated claims. Even if the research is done with an objective mindset, the research technique or reporting method can skew the results. For example, the opinion polls seldom report the measure of uncertainty of the conclusions, by for example reporting standards deviations from means, sample size, etc. These measures are usually not published. Reporting the results of opinion polls without further statistical information leads to more misinformation. One such example comes from the exit polls of the 2004 U.S. Presidential election. Many of the election polls predicted a win for Kerry, but didn’t consider the fact that Republicans were less likely to respond to an exit poll leading to inaccurate conclusions about what would occur. [3] Thus, opinion polls are not necessarily trustworthy sources of information on which voters can make good decisions.  [1] Geraghty, Jim, ‘Latest AP Poll Sample Skews to Democrats by 17 Points’, National Review Online, 11 May 2011,   [2] Abroff, Sarah, ‘Question Wording and Issue Salience of Public Opinion Polls: The Energy Crisis Prior to the 2008 Presidential Election’, 6 January 2010,   [3] Benen, Steve, ‘Exit Poll Update…’, Washington Monthly, 17 November 2004,


The proposition claims that tactical voting is bad because unintended consequences could occur. However, tactical voting is a legitimate tool of the democratic process. Voting is used as a voice to sway majorities and the methods to accomplish a long range goal are part of the political process. The very nature of tactical voting includes an element of chance and is a strategic method to influence the outcome. Any activity involving chance and risk could have unintended outcomes. Opinion polls have often existed in the past when the outcome was different than expected whether tactical voting was a strategy in play or not. Tactical voting could occur whether opinion polls existed or not. Therefore, the publication of opinion polls still remains a legitimate tool of the democratic process in which voters have a right to participate.


Politicians will be less likely to engaged in political marketing and speak more directly to substantive issues.  When opinion polls become the constant focus of the media, politicians are forced to pander to an ever-changing public marketplace instead of developing a consistent party or personal philosophy. Candidates become overly involved in defending and explaining poll data. Voters become the consumers of political marketing. The democratic process is diminished when changing opinion polls interrupts substantive dialogue. Without the excessive use of poll data, a candidate’s message can be more than an advertisement. Rather than the marketing of a person, important political ideas and public policy discussion occur. Even though poll data would be available during the earlier election season, a plan to control opinion polls would begin to diminish such a focus. The advantage would be less political marketing and room for better democratic discussion.


: Opinion polls are harmful to the democratic process because they stifle debate  In democratic nations public opinion matters as it is the public who ultimately decides who wins office and opinion polls measure that opinion. As a result politicians have become obsessed with the shifting whims of public opinion upon which the media focuses forcing politicians also focus on popular opinion even between elections. Since the media carries the news, the active use of opinion polls by the media drives the policy agenda. Lack of information on critical issues is likely to result as politicians focus only on areas where the opinion polls highlight.  Democracy is also harmed by the publication of opinion polls as subsequent citizen voter behaviour can be influenced. When , for example, an opinion poll portrays a huge majority for a certain subject, or for a particular party, its opponents might be less vocal since they feel “outnumbered” or that decisions have already been made thus diminishing democratic dialogue. Undecided voters may be apathetic toward the election process since they appear to be a foregone conclusion. The potential influence on voters choices is the reason the France forbids opinion polls shortly before an election. [1]  [1] Blocman, ‘Ban on Publishing Public Opinion Polls’, 1999,


Even though polls may alter public dialogue, an explanation of what stifles debate is not sufficiently provided by the proposition. They seem to infer that ‘stifling’ by opinion polls suggests a that debate shuts down whereas we claim that a politician’s responses to public opinion is exactly what is sought by the public to make them better informed. The stifling of debate does not occur. So even though, the prop suggests that stifling debate is hindering debate, this has not been proven since responses by politicians to opinion polls are simply part of dialogue and not necessarily hindering discussion.  The observation that voter behaviour is some- how unfairly influenced through strength of numbers doesn’t include all of the close results which are often reported between platforms or candidates. The assumption that voters feeling outnumbered will often occur and will change their vote as a result cannot be made. Most citizens are already aware of their political leanings regardless of opinion polls or popular opinion. The undecided voter is not necessarily waiting on opinion polls but more likely the continuing debate occurring through the election cycle. Apathy among voters occurs for many other reasons besides the publication of opinion polls. We cannot be certain that the exclusion of public polls to protect apathetic voters will significantly outweigh the value of a more informed public. That democracy is harmed through opinion polls has not been established.


Even though the proposition promised that political dialogue would improve when focused on substantive issues, the opposition believes that this is simply a promised hope. Political campaigning is advertising by its very nature. Citizens are informed throughout the campaign through a variety of “advertising” methods from slogans to claims about the product itself. And campaigns always do an analysis of the consumer. Opinion polling is not unique.  And, to make the assumption that substantive issues will more likely be addressed without opinion polls suggests that they alone have the power to influence the nature of the dialogue. There are far too many other factors which determine the discussion and debate from immediate events which occur during the campaign to long standing political positions which relate to the development of party consistency or personal philosophy. The outcome the proposition hopes for cannot be guaranteed nor can a position be sensibly made that a political campaign is not one of marketing. To be effective the candidate has the right to all available information which is also critical to better democratic discussion.


The propositions plan restricts the publication of polls only for 2 weeks before the election. However, such restrictions would not make a significant impact on the harms of opinion polls that have been outlined by the proposition. The 2 week window would not diminish all the prior opinion polls which existed and were published. The frequency of these polls have already flooded the media as they have been deemed newsworthy. Many voters have already come to conclusions based on the dialogue conducted up to this point. Only the uncertain and apathetic voter could be influenced and that may not be a significant number to restrict freedom of expression. We have no facts about the size of this population. The dialogue during elections should be a continuous process of free expression and never be unnecessarily limited for uncertain proof that these opinion polls pose a serious harm. If the polls were considered to present harm, then why would they not be censored completely? The two week plan of limiting opinion polls would not solve any problems outlined and could hinder the on-going pre-election dialogue.


Opinion polls can lead to tactical voting which may have unintended outcomes.  Tactical voting is the purposeful casting of votes to sway an outcome. When the outcome is predicted in an opinion poll, it can influence voters to possibly cast a ballot differently than had that poll information not existed. This means that the votes are being cast based upon inaccurate assumptions. For instance, in the 1992 U.K. elections all polls predicted a Labour victory. However, against all expectations, the Conservatives won. It is wholly possible that many people, ensured of a seeming Labour victory, then decided to vote for the Conservatives tactically to ensure that there would be a balance in the House of Commons – or even out of sympathy, the ‘underdog effect’. [1] Or decided to vote for their first preference minor party, such as the liberal democrats, because they believed the Conservatives would be voted out without their needing to cast their votes tactically for Labour. Thus, it is possible that the voters didn’t accomplish the government they actually wanted, as they cast votes based on opinion polls. The unintended outcomes are a result of these opinion polls and tactical voting.  [1] Traugott, Michael W., and Lavrakas, Paul J., The Voter’s Guide to Election Polls, Fourth Edition, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2008,  p.202


Opinion Polls should not be published 2 weeks in advance of an election.  This would ensure a more democratic discussion immediately prior to the decision making process of voting. This does not harm free expression because it is serving a specific purpose at a specific time. For instance, during times of national security or disaster certain citizen behaviour is restricted. Since there is information on public opinion in all of the other weeks of the year, this two week moratorium would solve some of the harms of published opinion polls. There would be less stifling of discussion, voters would not be subjected to possibly biased information or misused statistics at this critical time of thinking and making a wise choice. Tactical voting is likely to be used less, and minority voices are not as likely to be overshadowed by popularly “claimed” opinions. Therefore, we propose that opinion polls not be published 2 weeks prior to an election.


There can be no denial to the position that voters have a right to select their own criteria for making choices. We on the proposition believe in the individual choice of citizens. This position, however, does not change our position that opinion polls diminish public dialogue. Of course, people develop their own criteria; however, our responsibility here is to discuss the value of the opinion poll not the value of religion or astrological predictions as a criterion of choice. The criteria may but up to citizens, but the discussion of what criteria is appropriate is valuable to address. We believe that published opinion polls are not a worthy criteria not that citizens do not have a choice in that criteria. Since elections are a public shared event, then the criteria for voting is the legitimate discussion in which we are now engaged. The proposition believes that the focus of our debate is upon the worthiness of opinion polls.


The claim that opinion polls are public expression cannot be denied. Although freedom of expression is acknowledged within a democracy, absolute freedom of expression does not exist. There are restrictions related to the public good. The right of free expression to cover all aspects of public speech is limited. Some restrictions are considered legitimate within a democratic society.  Also, the claim that any attempt to restrict free expression is bad because of the possible consequences which follow is faulty in reasoning. Stating that one thing “could” lead to another is speculative and not sufficient reason to reject a legitimate need to restrict some expression.  Opinion polls do contain some information which may assist in transparency. However, since as has previously been noted, polls can be biased and manipulated and so could be equally untrustworthy in providing a check on fraud or corruption in the voting process. Therefore the claims provided by the opposition do not by themselves lead to a sufficient reason to reject support for restrictions to opinion polls.


Citizens should be respected for their opinions  Opinion polls may vary in their quality, but we should trust our citizens and politicians to be critical when using them as a basis for decision making. This is a compelling reason to publicize them as much as possible. The more opinion polls on a topic, the more specific questions can be asked, and the greater possibility for critical analysis.  Additionally, there are many opinion polls and there is competition between opinion poll firms. There are differences about how studies are conducted as well as their reliability. Thus opinion polls themselves possess a certain level of credibility. The media and citizens discern the least valuable polls and those with less scientific reliability. Some are likely lose legitimacy, whereas the most trustworthy polls gain more attention. For example, in the U.S., the polls that Fox News runs are seen differently than polls conducted by Pew Research which is likely to receive more widespread recognition.  A well conducted poll can be very accurate. It is reckoned that a sample of 1,000 people can accurately reflect the views of more than 200 million adults to within a few percentage points. [1] Polling is a statistical science with an established literature and the publication of ongoing research. There is no reason that citizens should be denied information on which to base their decisions. It is their right and responsibility to determine the credibility of opinion polls. The media is also likely to check and question the credibility of opinion polls, particularly as many will have been commissioned by rivals. Citizens should be respected as thinking individuals.  [1] ‘Reporting Opinion Polls’, ACE The Electoral Knowledge Network,


Opinion polls provide useful information to politicians.  They provide important information about what people think of their performance during the election process. Politicians have the right to change tactics if need be and opinion polls often provide voter feedback about how a candidate is perceived. Informed candidates can better speak to voter concerns, thus increasing dialogue prior to elections. Candidates who speak more specifically to issues develop a better public trust as well as commitment regarding their future performance to which they can be held accountable. Since candidates or platforms which win the election influence future policies, citizens benefit from informed politicians who can speak to the concerns of citizens and issues of the nation.


Tactical voting is legitimate within the democratic process.  The proposition highlights how tactical voting can be affected by opinion polls. However there is nothing wrong with tactical voting. In fact, it is a crucial feature of a democracy that citizens are not only able to vote for the government they want, but also for the type of opposition that that government will face. Tactical voting also avoids wasted votes under the First-Past-the-Post system Britain and America both use. To enable tactical voting, opinion polls are necessary to inform voters what way they should vote if they wish to vote tactically. That this may sometimes lead to mistakes, is an unfortunate but necessary by-product. Banning opinion polls can therefore have unintended results. In the 1981 French Presidential election once the seven day ban started Chirac’s campaign suggested that their campaign was taking off and he would go through to the second round – which would make it two conservatives in the run off. This frightened communist party supporters into voting tactically to support Mitterand when there may well have been no need. [1]  [1] Bains, Paul, et al., ‘ Public opinion polls: do they do more harm than good?’, Proceedings of the 56th International Statistical Institute Conference, 22-29 August, 2007, Lisboa, Portugal, www.hansardsociety.org.uk/files/folders/3069/download.aspx


Citizens have a fundamental right to vote on whatever the basis they choose.  It is their right to select the criteria for making decisions. Even though it is assumed, certain criteria exist such as prior experience or party affiliation. However, some citizens might turn to astrology or tarot cards to decide their vote. Others may consider a candidate’s religion or appearance. Many decide based upon the opinion of respected others. However much one might personally dislike some of these criteria, every citizen has a right to determine the basis of her/his vote. Therefore opinion polls are a legitimate choice to provide.


It has been claimed by the opposition that opinion polls provide useful information to politicians and are necessary for dialogue between the candidate and the public. The proposition however would like to focus upon the term “useful”. Published opinion polls by their very nature present only a few and briefly stated attitudes of voters which is not useful. Knowing the level of support or agreement with a candidate reveals very little useful information about why a voter holds that attitude or how firmly that attitude is held. Thus polls by their nature do not provide useful information but only broad trends. Audience surveys and other methods of gathering feedback provide much different and more specific information on the nature of voter attitudes and beliefs. Yet, we are not discussing voter feedback, but rather the specific tool of published audience polls. The question remains then whether useful information is provided to the candidate through the availability of published opinion polls which would seem to be unnecessary as candidates could still engage in their own private opinion polls which will keep the politicians informed. [1]  [1] Bains, Paul, et al., ‘ Public opinion polls: do they do more harm than good?’, Proceedings of the 56th International Statistical Institute Conference, 22-29 August, 2007, Lisboa, Portugal, www.hansardsociety.org.uk/files/folders/3069/download.aspx


Opinion polls are a forum for public expression and should be protected  They publicize the opinions of large numbers of citizens and therefore can be considered an exercise in free speech. Any attempt to restrict the free exchange of opinion damages the marketplace of ideas. Citizens have a right to express themselves and for their expression to be heard.  Restricting opinion polls would be a bad precedent and could become the basis for other restrictions of free speech. For example, in India some have proposed banning the publication of horoscopes during the election period.  Democracy itself is safeguarded by opinion polls which represent public expression for they also ensure transparency in public will and choices and can thus discourage or reveal electoral fraud and vote-rigging. Such information could be observed both nationally and internationally. In fact, those regimes which ban or heavily restrict opinion polling are those which are either undemocratic or where corrupt in the election process exists. These regimes know that allowing opinion polling would embarrassingly reveal their lack of legitimacy and could lead to a domestic and international outcry against them. Therefore, opinion polls are a vital form of public expression.


Tactical voting may be legitimate within the democratic process but that does not deny the fact that unexpected outcomes could occur. These unexpected outcomes mean that the will of the people is less likely to be served which is the consequence with which we are concerned. Whether tactics is legitimate does not deny the fact that it may not be good or even dangerous. Tactics can vary in outcomes whether it comes to financial investment, competitive sport or election strategy. Therefore, the tactic of voting one way to achieve another outcome could achieve the desired result or it could not. That tactical voting is a choice available does that mean that it serves the democratic process well. Sometimes it is valuable to limit the choices of citizens so negative unexpected consequences do not occur.


Of course, citizen opinion and intelligence should be respected and we do not disagree on this issue. Our differences lie in the nature of how mediated messages are presented to citizens as well as fair questions into the motives of those responsible for polling and media outlets which provide them to the public. First, the nature of mediated messages requires that they be reduced to brief and simply forms. There is an abundance of messages in competition for listeners’ attention. Therefore the details regarding polling activity is not provided (purposely or not) and citizens are left with insufficient information on which to make critical judgements.  Second, even though the opposition hopes that the natural process of credibility will check this possibility, it cannot be denied that manipulation can occur to the unaware voter. So due to this vulnerability of inaccurate information being disseminated, it is better to acknowledge the problems which occur in mediated messages which are often the primary source of information for voters. This does not deny that polls can be accurate and are constantly being improved; however, the on-going nature of that science is different than the question at hand as to whether they can always be trusted as a form of information for those respected citizens.


Corporate entities have the right to be anonymous if they choose. American elections have to reach an extremely large and spread out audience, and this requires large amounts of funding, which is provided by corporations and individuals. There simply shouldn’t be parity with corporations and individuals because they are not the same thing- it is like comparing apples to beef, you can eat both of them but they are nothing alike.  Corporations can represent thousands of people that they employ or are their shareholders. They are speaking on behalf of their organisation, not as individuals. They are supporting candidates that they believe will help their business so they are speaking for those who wish to keep their jobs at the company.  It is however wrong to assert that citizens united is just about corporations – it is about all groups and therefore about individuals. The Supreme Court in this case recognised that limiting political spending limits speech by limiting citizens ability to deliver their view. In practice the best way for individual citizens to deliver their views is to create groups with other like-minded individuals. Quite the contrary to what democrats may believe this is also necessary for third party candidates such as Ross Perot who would get nowhere without large scale contributions because they have, at least initially, a narrow base of support. [1]  [1] Smith, Bradley A., ‘The Myth of Campaign Finance Reform’, in Boatright, Robert G. ed., Campaign Finance, pp.46-62, p.57-58


More parity is necessary between corporations and the regular individuals.  There is a need to create more parity between individuals and corporations. There is much more campaign funding where there is non-disclosure, there has been little money flowing into ‘super-PACs’ that must disclose donors instead it goes to tax exempts organizations that are not subject to the disclosure requirements. [1] As non-disclosure means higher fundraising figures, then it becomes optimal for every politician to adopt a strategy of opacity in order to fare better than his or her opponents. The culture of corporate electioneering aided by legally-sanctioned anonymity would likely demoralize voters and funnel candidates’ priorities towards courting big business at great cost to the average American citizen during and after the election.  While it may be a stretch to assert that Citizens United granted corporations “personhood,” the impacts of the ruling are far-reaching for campaign finance law. Even small corporations have disproportionate spending power compared to individuals. Oftentimes decisions in corporations are made by boards of executives and not aggregates of working-class citizens, exacerbating the influence of those who already wield greater financial and political capital. If money is indeed speech, then corporations speak much, much louder than individuals from the outset. Some contend that the voices of unions, which are similarly protected under the same ruling, lend a degree of partisan balance—implicitly acknowledging that the divide is indeed tinged with partisanship—but realistically, even the largest union contributions pale in comparison to those of Fortune 500 companies. [2] Distortion in the marketplace of ideas increases reliance on negative campaigning, which hurts voter turnout and morale while usually detracting from substantive dialogue about policy issues. It also raises the barriers of entry for third-party candidates and more moderate candidates during elections and primaries, more deeply entrenching the two-party system. [3]  [1] McIntire, Mike, and Confessore, Nicholas, ‘Tax-Exempt Groups Shield Political Gifts of Businesses’, The New York Times, 7 July 2012.  [2] Pilkington, Ed. ‘Obama wants to see Citizens United Supreme court ruling overturned’. Guardian.co.uk, 29 August 2012.  [3] United States Supreme Court. Citizens United vs. Federal Electoral Commission. October 2009.


Opponents have expressed other problems with the language of the DISCLOSE Act, including seemingly arbitrary exemptions for large and long-standing organizations—criteria which capture most labor unions. This makes the DISCLOSE act like any other campaign finance reform; essentially it is party political benefiting aimed at the Republicans by the Democrats who passed it who have exempted those in their own camp who might be affected. [1] It is designed to benefit the party that passed it rather than really increase transparency.  [1] Smith, Bradley A., ‘The Myth of Campaign Finance Reform’, in Boatright, Robert G. ed., Campaign Finance, pp.46-62, p.53


Elections should be controlled by the people not powerful interests  President Obama famously eschewed large corporate donors in favor of grassroots fundraising and social media in 2008, casting a wide net of supporters. [1] By election day his facebook page had 3.4million supporters, his website My.BarackObama.com had 2million members, the campaign had an email list of 13 million and there were 1 million text message subscribers showing how campaigns should be run by mobilizing people not powerful interests. [2] Following a similar strategy, the 2012 campaign garnered hundreds of thousands supporters in the first several months, shattering 2008 records. [3] President Obama has stated in the public record his support for increased disclosure for corporate and individual donors as well as efforts to limit the high-value contributions from corporations that are permitted under Citizen United v. Federal Election Commission [4] .  In response to the supreme court decision on Citizens United v Federal Election Commission act Obama declared in the 2010 state of the Union “I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people” [5] . In a democracy where the government is supposed to be accountable to the people this should be self-evident; accountable to the people should mean that rather than accountable to corporate interests.  [1] Murray, Shailegh and Bacon, Perry Jr. ‘Obama to Reject Public Funds for Election’. The Washington Post. 20 June 2008.  [2] Corrado, Anthony J. et al., ‘Reform in an Age of Networked Campaigns’, in Boatright, Robert G. ed., Campaign Finance, pp.107-128, p.112  [3] Bingham, Amy. ‘Money Wars: Obama Dominates Fundraising Battle’. ABC News. 1 February, 2012.  [4] United States Supreme Court. Citizens United vs. Federal Electoral Commission. October 2009.  [5] Obama, Barack, ‘2010 State of the Union’, State of the Union Address Library, 27 January 2010.


Corporations have just as much stake in the country as individuals do, they are affected just as much by decisions taken by the president; what regulations there should be, should there be subsidies, should free trade or protectionism promoted etc., and so have just as much interest in being able to make their voice heard in elections. Corporations are unable to vote so the only way for them to do this is to finance campaigns. It is also wrong to suggest that corporations funding campaigns gives them undue influence. When looking at voting patterns in congress it appears that candidates voting behavior is almost entirely based on their own beliefs and their party’s preferences and campaign contributions have next to no impact. [1] In fact it makes so little difference that Ansolabehere et al. in their conclusion say “the question is not why do corporations, unions and other interest groups give so little, but why do they give at all?” [2]  [1] Ansolabehere, Stephen, et al., ‘Why is There so Little Money in U.S. Politics?’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol.17 No.1, Winter 2003, pp.105-130 p.116  [2] Ibid, p.126


Obama has already attempted to increase transparency.  Disclosure laws are intended to bring transparency to the electoral process. By scrutinizing the sources of campaign funds, voters can gain insight into how candidates intend to appoint justices and pass laws while in office. Obama’s attempt at transparency, the DISCLOSE Act, has so far failed to gather a majority of votes in Congress in 2010 [1] but it shows how Obama would like to proceed. This kind of transparency is necessary today because during the 2010 midterms the groups that don’t need to disclose contributions outspent the PACs that must disclose donors by 3 to 2 spending $100million on issue ads. [2]  Without strict disclosure rules, the legislative agendas of elected officials become more opaque, and the public has fewer ways to hold them accountable. Voters would be forced to rely on the goodwill of their elected officials to voluntarily disclose the sources of funding, a system which generates negative incentives to bury the information that is perhaps most critical and relevant to the public interest.  [1] ‘DISCLOSE Act; New Donor Transparency Law Blocked in Senate’. The Washington Post. 16 July 2012.  [2] McIntire, Mike, and Confessore, Nicholas, ‘Tax-Exempt Groups Shield Political Gifts of Businesses’, The New York Times, 7 July 2012.


Romney’s claim that there needs to be reform to campaign finance law are most likely empty words; his complaint over the disadvantage over the use of primary campaign funds demonstrates this because it is only an advantage that one candidate every eight years gets, essentially this then is a complaint at a very marginal advantage the incumbent Obama has over him.  Campaign finance needs much more than just the reform that Romney suggests. It needs a complete overhaul to stop allowing for large corporate spending which in turn results in elected officials being more accountable to corporations rather than their constituents. That is why Obama supports the overturning of the Citizens United case. [1]  [1] Pilkington, Ed. ‘Obama wants to see Citizens United Supreme court ruling overturned’. Guardian.co.uk, 29 August 2012.


The Supreme Court was right with its judgment on the Citizens United case.  A principled commitment to freedom of speech under the First Amendment should not distinguish, through intent or impact, protected speech on the basis of its content or source. The ability of nonprofit and for-profit corporations to directly and freely donate to candidates does not warrant a sufficient governmental interest – decrying negative effects of distortion on elections does not merit federal intervention. Furthermore, the unique harm of corporate speech has yet to be demonstrated.  The Citizens United case allows unlimited spending by non-profit corporations as well as unions so benefits both Republicans and Democrats equally. The Super PAC Priorities USA Action has spent over $20 million supporting President Obama. [1] Current campaign finance policies could be improved, but the system as a whole is fair, and repealing corporate free speech would be unconstitutional.  [1] ‘Super PACs.’ Open Secrets: Center for Responsive Politics. 14 August 2012.


There needs to be reform to campaign finance law.  Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has supported campaign finance law reform. Most of Romney’s recent comments on reform have been in regard to laws governing spending during primaries as opposed to general elections. Primary campaign funds are earmarked as such and forbidden for use in general election campaigns until after the Republican National Convention, so the Republican nominee is at a disadvantage against the Democratic candidate if the convention nomination outcome is evident before August 27. Over the years, Romney has advocated various stances on spending limits: in 1994, he supported capping congressional spending, but in 2007, he disparaged McCain-Feingold warning “We step into dangerous territory when politicians start eviscerating our fundamental freedoms in the name of amorphous principles, like campaign finance reform. If I am elected President, a top priority will be to push for the repeal of this deeply-flawed measure, and restore the full freedom of political participation and expression to the American people.” [1] Romney expressed support for the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United along with concern about the corrupting influence of corporate money in elections. [2]  [1] Romney, Mitt, ‘The Fundamental Flaws in the McCain-Feingold Law’, Townhall.com, 25 April 2007.  [2] Rivoli, Dan. ‘Romney Backs Citizens United, But ‘Not Wild’ about Corporate Campaign Spending’. International Business Times, 4 November 2011.


Campaign spending caps make constitutional arguments about whose speech ought to be protected and under what circumstances.  The fact remains that for-profits corporations can have a much larger say than non profits or individuals. The pharmaceutical company Pfizer spends over $11 million PER YEAR on lobbying irrespective of elections, and this goes up to $13 million in an election year. [1]  While President Obama may have received $20 million for Priorities USA Action pales in comparison to the $82, 491, 407 that Romney has received from the Super PAC Restore Our Future. [2]  [1] ‘Lobbying: Pfizer Inc.’ Open Secrets: Center for Responsive Politics. 14 August 2012.  [2] ‘Super PACs.’ Open Secrets: Center for Responsive Politics. 14 August 2012 .


If the expectation of violence or reprisal is admitted as a legitimate reason not to undertake an action which is protected under freedoms of press and speech, then that effectively stifles a great degree of discourse. This ultimately undermines the purpose of the rights, such as a freedom to publish, and the functioning of western societies like Denmark’s.  It also incentivizes groups who would resort to violence to achieve their aims; if terrorists know that Denmark and other European nations will shy away from certain seemingly controversial or offensive actions if they threaten to kill many people every time, then they can much more easily achieve their goals. We should not welcome violence, but we should not allow it to govern us either.  As the cultural editor who ran the cartoons said, “Words should be answered with words. That’s all we have in a democracy, and if we give that up, we will be locked in a tyranny of silence.” [i]  [i] AFP, ‘Danish book about Muhammad cartoon controversy to go ahead despite threats’, New York Post, 29 September 2010,


Violent reactions to the cartoons could have been predicted and should have been avoided  Printing the cartoons caused the severe exacerbation of already existing tensions between Muslims and Western communities in Europe and around the world. [i] The terrorist attack on 9/11, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the Israel-Palestine conflict had already set the stage for increased cultural animosity in the prior few years, and this was added fuel to the fire that resulted in violent attacks on Danish embassies around the world. As a result of this, innocent people died in riots in Afghanistan and Pakistan when riot police stepped in.  Organized terrorist groups like the Al Qaeda network led by Bin Laden threatened violence against America and the European Union. [ii] Not only did this cause an emotional impact among Danish and European citizens as a result of increased worries of terrorist attacks, but given the number of terrorist plots that have cited the cartoons controversy as part of their inspiration, there is good reason to believe that the Denmark has become a less safe place as a result.  Regardless of the original intention of the editors, they should have been able to see the controversy that would result and the likely practical outcomes of this and so restrain themselves from publishing.  [i] Sullivan, Kevin, ‘Muslims’ Fury Rages Unabated Over Cartoons’, The Washington Post, 11 February 2006,   [ii] Whitlock, Craig, ‘Bin Laden Threatens Europe Over Muhammad Cartoons’, The Washington Post, 20 March 2008,


The publication of the cartoons also resulted in a vigorous debate in Denmark, which saw its Muslim community participate in discourse in the form of debates, opinion pieces in newspapers, protests, and other democratic methods. Ultimately, then, it may well have caused a greater deal of civic integration than discord.  Denmark and journalistic institutions within it ultimately have little sway over the politics and cultures of all the various Islamic countries all around the world. Newspapers in Denmark cannot reasonably be expected to gauge what the expected political reactions and emerging dynamics of Muslim communities in every other country might be because of the publication of an article or cartoon. This particular event was exceptional; newspapers publish potentially inflammatory articles and images quite regularly, but this does not result in an international reaction.


The cartoons constitute a religiously motivated hate crime  The cartoons effectively constituted a series of religious hate crimes, specifically designed to offend and target the Muslim community, whom the editors very well knew would be up in arms over the publication of the cartoons. This is the deliberate association of a venerated religious figure with terrorism. Not only is this in violation of Danish laws and European norms protecting minorities, but it is also simply malicious and immoral.  There was already a widespread tendency to conflate Muslims with terrorists before the cartoons; this high-profile incident risked exposing peaceful Muslims to prejudice, discrimination, and even physical danger from increased xenophobia. The cartoons controversy was soon followed by the desecration of Muslim graves at a cemetery in Denmark, for instance. [i]  Many US journalism companies had the better judgment to report on the issue without reprinting the cartoons. [ii] Similarly, the Danish newspaper could have run opinion pieces describing their qualms with and thoughts on Islamic censorship, without resorting to the vulgar methods they utilized.  [i] ‘Danish PM talks to Muslim group’, BBC News, 13 February 2006,   [ii] Folkenflik, David, ‘U.S. Media Avoid Publishing Controversial Cartoons’, npr, 7 February 2006,


The cartoons were intended as a democratic challenge to self-censorship, and the Danish courts recognized this when they rejected lawsuits that Muslim groups in Denmark filed against the newspaper on the grounds of hate speech. [i]  Furthermore, the cartoons were targeted against the extremist fringe of Islam, and were narrowly tailored to object to the use of violent means in furthering religious causes. There is nothing wrong about pointing out the high incidence rate of terrorism and violence within radical components of a worldwide Islamic community that encompasses many different types of people spread over many nationalities. Ever since 9/11, terrorism and conservative interpretations of Islam have constantly been on the public mind and constitute a legitimate topic for discourse. It is not a hate crime to publicise cartoons that highlight this; cartoons in newspapers target groups who are otherwise in the news all the time, bankers for example, this does not mean they are inciting hatred against that group.  [i] Olsen, Jan M., ‘Danish Court Rejects Suit Against Paper That Printed Prophet Cartoons’, The Washington Post, 27 October 2006,


Individuals are the best actors to determine for themselves what causes they are willing to make sacrifices for. This is why we allow individuals to volunteer for wars they believe are just, to serve as humanitarian aid workers in impoverished countries, or for any number of unpleasant and potentially dangerous things. If they wanted to, no one can tell the editors and cartoonists that they were wrong to take the actions they did on account of personal safety.  But anyway, it is clear that they did not comprehend the scale of the risk they were running by publishing the cartoons, so they cannot be blamed for bringing this upon themselves.


Radical and anti western voices in Islamic communities gained authority and legitimacy as a result of the newspapers' actions  The publication of the cartoons empowered the radical fringes of many Muslim populations, by enabling them to point to the cartoons as tangible evidence of an anti-Muslim bias and anti-Muslim agenda in the West. [i] For instance, in Pakistan, these were used against the president, General Pervez Musharraf, who was perceived as being too closely aligned with the United States. Religious leaders who wanted to make the case that Denmark was deliberately offensive and a hostile environment for Muslims were able to conflate popular knowledge about the cartoon controversy with other incidents (some of them not even in Denmark) and sway support to their anti-ecumenical causes. [ii]  This set back reasonable discourse in Muslim communities about how best to integrate with the West, and ultimately resulted in the weakening of internal forces that encourage acceptance of Western culture. Such a reversal for westernising forces is likely the opposite of what the newspaper would have wanted for the Muslim world.  [i] Witte, Griff, ‘Opportunists Make Use of Cartoon Protests’, The Washington Post, 9 February 2006,   [ii] ‘Background: Muhammad cartoons controversy’, EuropeNews,


Factors motivating publication of the cartoons  On the individual level, the cartoonists and editors would have been wiser to look to their own selfish motivations for self-preservation; they have received many death threats from religious leaders and organizations spanning the globe, in a situation reminiscent of Salman Rushdie’s publication of The Satanic Verses. That Rushdie’s book had met with a similar reaction means that it should have served as a precedent showing what the reaction would be. As the editors should have been able to anticipate the threats they would receive if they were interested in their safety they should not have published.


In as volatile an atmosphere as 2000s Europe, where rates of immigration from Muslim countries into an aging Europe are high, it is clearly not wise to openly antagonize a component of your population that is already having a great deal of difficulty integrating. Unlike America, Europe generally cracks down on a variety of xenophobic and hateful actions much more stringently, and should have in this case as well. Europe is a sufficiently enlightened place to restrict individuals from burning crosses or marching in salute to the Nazi party; one would hope these practices would extend to Islam as well. There therefore in some instances is to a certain extent a right not to be offended – or at least not to have certain offensive things publicized.


There is press freedom, and there is good taste. Simply because some things are permitted in a democratic society, is not an argument for why they should be done. It would have been similarly distasteful if the newspaper had posted cartoons of Jews in concentration camps under gas showers, for instance. Where there are multiple ways to make a point, one must seek to convey one’s message in a manner that is least likely to gratuitously offend others. The editors of the newspaper were simply seeking to cause controversy and garner attention.


Chilling effects of excessive cultural sensitivity  Art should be given a great deal of license. Many European and American media and art outlets create art or journalistic pieces that are offensive to or poorly received by Christians and Jews, or other minorities. By limiting discourse in the form of art, we risk not only unjustly suppressing the artists’ vision, but also cheapening and the artistic community and rendering it more homogenous. Satire has been used with extreme effectiveness in making political statements before, and this was no exception. The cartoons express the cartoonists’ own views and beliefs, and the newspaper was simply providing a medium, not dictating what they should draw.


Controversy, integration and civic participation  The controversy has actually resulted in a much higher degree of civic participation by Danish Muslims than had previously been achieved, including town hall-style meetings, opinion columns, and radio and TV debates. This may have been better than anything else at integrating the Muslim community in Denmark into Western liberal democratic norms of how to resolve conflicts. Just because violence happened elsewhere in the world, where democracy does not currently hold sway, does not mean this was not a victory for Denmark. [i]  [i] Rose, Flemming, ‘Why I Published Those Cartoons’, The Washington Post, 19 February 2006


Citizens of western liberal democracies should never be required to adhere to religious norms that they do not hold  There is no right not to be offended. It is one thing to show a religion respect. One respects Islam by removing shoes when visiting a mosque. However, following the taboos of a particular religion in public society does not constitute respect, but submission, and adherence to the principles of that religion, which is never required. The nature of a democratic society is that there will sometimes be disagreements about how individuals should act; insofar as Denmark has not democratically come to the conclusion that it would be better for it to be illegal to depict the prophet Mohammed in publications, it is permitted and that right must hold. [i]  [i] Rose, Flemming, ‘Why I Published Those Cartoons’, The Washington Post, 19 February 2006,


Free expression and journalistic integrity  Publishing the cartoons was not only an important expression of press freedom, but fulfils the fundamental journalistic mission of exposing the public to important information, by forcing the examination of topics that would otherwise go unexamined. Self-censorship in Islam is an important issue that deserves consideration by a democratic public. There is a clear norm that causes Islam and Muhammad to be treated differently in the Western press than the Christian or Jewish faiths or their leading figures, and the editors felt it was important to violate that norm as a demonstration of a social phenomenon. [i] They were well within their rights to do so, and this furthered legitimate discourse about religion within Denmark and the West. It should also be remembered that demonization of Israel and the West using Christian and Jewish figures is not uncommon in the Islamic press – this is therefore a pernicious double standard. [ii]  Ultimately, the reaction by Muslims was unfortunate, but itself indicated the ways in which Islamic religious depictions in the press differ from their Christian and Jewish counterparts. Christian and Jewish groups have not responded with violence (though they have also sometimes staged protests), and where incidents have taken place, they were isolated and nowhere near the scale of the cartoons controversy.  [i] ‘Q&A: The Muhammad cartoons row’, BBC News, 7 February 2006,   [ii] ‘Q&A: The Muhammad cartoons row’, BBC News, 7 February 2006,


This has not benefitted integration, but rather made Muslims in Denmark feel as though they are under assault and unwelcome in their country. Particularly for new or newer immigrants, this creates a tendency to form enclave communities around a shared religion or culture and resist the mainstream society as a bloc. All the Muslim organizations in Denmark banded together against their oppressors. The few Muslims that spoke out in defence of free speech were severely ostracized by their fellows.


There is a difference between a government banning art, and having the good sense not to do certain things in art. Further, the “artistic skill” in drawing a provocative cartoon is rather minimal; it is not as though cartoonists are held to particularly high technical standards of drawing. Rather, cartoons are usually a vehicle by which a cartoonist conveys a joke (usually at someone or some group’s expense) for a cheap laugh. Cartoons no more constitute art than graffiti with an offensive statement on a factory wall constitutes art – that is to say, not at all.


There are three counter-points that can be used to challenge the proposition. Firstly, the opposition maintain that the Monarchy is highly cost-effective when compared to the expense of maintaining a Presidency with a large staff and equally stringent security requirements. Secondly, Royal residences are held in trust for the nation, and would require the same upkeep costs whether they were inhabited by a monarch or not. Thirdly, and possibly most importantly, the Monarchy more than pays its way through its generation of tourist revenue as millions visit sites associated with royalty, and through its role in promoting trade and industry abroad on royal visits. There is also evidence to suggest that the nation actually benefits financially from the Crown Estate. Figures suggested by Professor David Flint [1] are that in 2009/10 all payments to the Crown came to about £30 million. But the British government received £211 million from the Crown Estate. So the government made a very substantial profit from The Queen – about £181 million.  [1] Professor David Flint, Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, available at  (accessed 31/05/2011)


Supervising and protecting a monarchy is an unjustifiable public expense  The costs of monarchy are unjustifiable. Typically monarchs and their immediate family receive substantial amounts of money from the state to maintain luxurious lifestyles, complete with servants, expensive holidays and hobbies. The state also spends a great deal to maintain and run palaces and other royal residences, which are seldom accessible to the general public who support them through their taxes. In the UK what is officially termed as 'Head of State Expenditure' amounted to £40 million in the 2007-8 financial year. However, this excludes the cost of security for the numerous family members and residences. Although the security costs have not been confirmed, it is estimated that it exceeds £50 million a year [1] .  [1] The Monarchy in Britain, How much do they take from our pockets, available at  (accessed 31/05/2011).


On the other hand, the Monarchy could instead be seen as an institution that retains an important symbolic role as a focus for national unity. The Monarch has a less formal role as 'Head of Nation'. The Sovereign acts as a focus for national identity, unity and pride; gives a sense of stability and continuity; officially recognises success and excellence; and supports the ideal of voluntary service. [1] Since they are unelected figures which are above political conflict and can therefore help countries to avoid the political gridlock that can result from conflict between two differently elected bodies, for example within the U.S.A. between the Republicans and the Democrats. Not only does the Monarch provide a symbol of National unity but also a symbol of world-wide unity. Queen Elizabeth II is the Monarch of 16 independent countries and the Head of the Commonwealth of 54 nations across the globe.  [1] The official website of the British Monarchy, The Role of the Monarchy, available at  (accessed 31/05/2011)


Monarchies, no matter how vestigal, are undemocratic  The concept of Monarchy is undemocratic. If the monarch retains any significant political powers, as they do in Belgium and the U.K. for example, these are unjustifiable. Why should the opinion of just one person, in office purely by accident of birth, be able to influence the outcome of elections or call a government. Legally, in the UK the Monarch has the power to; choose the Prime Minister, dismiss ministers and governments, dissolve parliament, refuse to agree to legislation passed by parliament, pardon convicted criminals, declare a state of emergency and raise a personal militia. [1] And in some countries like Saudi Arabia they have much more absolute power. A recent example where the Monarch had a role in the United Kingdom was within the 2010 elections where no party achieved an overall majority, the Queen therefore had to sign her approval for the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition.  [1] The Monarchy in Britain, What power do they have? Available at  (accessed 31/05/2011)


While the Monarchy has legal rights, the real powers of European Monarchs are negligible. For example, while the Monarch legally has the power to dissolve parliament, no Monarch has done this since William IV in 1834. Technically the Monarchy also has the power to veto any legislation that comes through Parliament, however, this power has not been exercised since Queen Anne in 1708 [1] . To the point of the concept of the Monarchy, Canadian historian Jacques Monet has suggested that ''in choosing to leave the selection of their head of state to this most common denominator in the world -- the accident of birth -- Canadians implicitly proclaim their faith in human equality; their hope for the triumph of nature over political manoeuvre, over social and financial interest; for the victory of the human person." [2]  [1] Republic Organisation UK available at  (accessed 31/05/2011)  [2] Canadian Monarchist Online  (accessed 31/05/2011)


The head of government will already be elected. There is no need to create a competing centre of power that has the same popular legitimacy. Just as there are worries that an elected house of lords would want more powers due to its new found legitimacy an elected head of state could demand the same. Such a change would be disruptive and is not necessary.


There is no divine right to leadership or privilege  Monarchs no longer have divine right to rule. For centuries the main justification of royal authority was a religious one. Catholic rulers had their legitimacy supported by the Papacy, Protestants rulers often headed their own state churches; in both the monarch’s rightful authority was preached in church every Sunday, while the ruler in turn protected a single national church. Currently, the Monarch is termed 'the defender of the Protestant faith'. She or he is required to be a member of the Church of England and is not allowed to marry a Catholic. Today societies are increasingly multi-faith, indeed, fewer than 5% of adults in the United Kingdom are practising Anglicans, and many people have no religion at all; hardly anyone believes the monarch has a spiritual right to exercise authority. Indeed, those whose religion differs from that of the monarch (often ethnic minorities) may be actively alienated by the way in which a particular faith seems to be privileged. [1]  [1] Centre for citizenship, The Monarchy in Britain, Religion and Race, available at  (accessed 31/05/2011)


A presidential position enable the democratic selection of a head-of-state  The alternative to the monarch is obvious. Many states around the world have Presidential systems, either like the United States where the President fulfils both the role of the Head of State and the Head of Government combining the two roles. Or as in Italy or Germany where there is both a head of state (usually president) and a head of government (usually Prime Minister, although Germany’s is Chancellor) where the head of state is respected but is mostly a ceremonial role. Finally there may be both a head of state and head of government where both are powerful as in France. Therefore the head of state can still be in whatever role the state requires. Most importantly in all these cases the head of state is elected rather than simply gaining the position on account of birth.


Conversely, it could be argued that instead of protecting the Nation's heritage, the Monarchy has largely become an embarrassment. In an age of mass-media monarchies are no longer able to maintain the mystique which once set them apart from the common man. Instead kings, queens, princes and princesses are revealed to be mortal, fallible and sometimes foolish creatures. As their wardrobes, squabbles and failing marriages have become constant sources of media scrutiny, so any remaining respect for monarchy as an institution has waned. One key example from the U.K. member of the Monarchy Prince Harry, was his decision to attend a fancy-dress party dressed as a Nazi. Not only was this a horrific lack of judgement but it also under-minded the fact that opposing the Nazis was arguably one of the finest moments of British National Heritage.


Monarchs are not always above politics either and often become national embarrassments who also cannot act as a unifier for the nation. In an age of mass-media monarchies are no longer able to maintain the mystique which once set them apart from the common man. Instead kings, queens, princes and princesses are revealed to be mortal, fallible and sometimes foolish creatures. As their wardrobes, squabbles and failing marriages have become constant sources of media scrutiny, so any remaining respect for monarchy as an institution has waned.


Separating the positions of the head-of-state and prime minister of the government makes great practical sense  The Monarchy undertakes much of the ceremonial work at home and abroad that would be necessary whether there was a monarch or not, leaving the Prime Minister free to focus more effectively upon governing. Since The Queen's first official overseas visit to South Africa in 1947, overseas visits have become one of her most important duties. The Queen pays two outward State visits each year, accompanied by The Duke of Edinburgh. She also regularly tours her other realms and member countries of the Commonwealth, so far the Queen has paid over 60 State visits to foreign governments. As well as overseas state visits, each year the Queen and other members of the Royal Family pay nearly 3,000 visits throughout the United Kingdom. Official functions often feature prominently in such visits, including opening new buildings, meeting local dignitaries and visiting businesses, schools, hospitals and other public buildings as well as community schemes, military units and charities. [1]  [1] The Official website of the British Monarchy, Queen and Royal Visits, available at  (accessed 31/05/2011)


The monarchy can serve as public role models.  Although above party politics, modern monarchs have proved able to raise important and sometimes unpopular issues that would otherwise have been ignored. For example, in the U.K. Prince Charles has legitimised discussion of environmental issues and stimulated a lively debate about the purpose of architecture, while Princess Diana’s work with Aids sufferers helped shift public opinion. Charities are an important part of the Royal family's work, About 3,000 organisations list a member of the Royal Family as patron or president. The Queen has over 600 patronages and The Duke of Edinburgh over 700. [1]  [1] The official website of the British Monarchy, Charities and patronages, available at  (accessed 31/05/2011)


The monarchy is an important preserver of a nation's cultural heritage  The Monarchy acts as a guardian of a nation’s heritage, a living reminder of the events and personalities that have shaped it. The Monarchy is the oldest institution of government. Queen Elizabeth II is directly descended from King Egbert, who united England under his rule in 829. As such it is a powerful focus for loyalty, the Queen's title in Britain is 'Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith'. [1] The Monarchy provides a source of strength in times of crisis, for example World War II, and a reminder of enduring values and traditions. Royal traditions such as the changing of the guard are still carried out today.  [1] The official magazine for Britain, The Monarchy, available at  (accessed 31/05/2011).


The head of state should be a position that is separate and distinct from politics  Monarchy is preferable to the alternative; an elected Presidency. It avoids the partisan nature of a Presidency, inevitably associated with one of the political parties, and thus incapable of uniting the nation as monarchy can. For example in the United States there has been a campaign against President Barak Obama with the most extreme views in the ‘birther’ movement who deny he was even born in the United States. It would be impossible for him to unite the nation while one in four Americans think their President was not born in the USA. [1] In all countries public trust of politicians is sinking to new lows, another reason why an elected Presidency fails to provide a focus for national feeling. Constitutional monarchy is also a more effective system of government, vesting real power clearly in the hands of democratically accountable leaders with a mandate to govern, without all the dangers of political gridlock that can result from conflict between two differently elected bodies (e.g. in the USA or France).  [1] Condon, Stephanie, ‘Poll: One in four Americans think Obama was not born in the U.S.’, CBS News, 21 April 2011,  (accessed 9/9/11)


This could be contested due to the fact that these issues and many more like them were being campaigned for long before the Royal family was involved. While they did provide a focal point for the eye of the media, the media prefer to focus on celebrities fighting for causes. Prime examples are campaigns such as Comic Relief with involves a great deal of celebrity involvement to promote a cause. For example, in the 2011 Comic Relief which raised £102 million, a series of high profile challenges took place including Chris Moyles and Comedy Dave’s 52 hour non-stop radio marathon which raised over £2.6 million and won a Guinness World Record. While nine celebrities took part in the BT Red Nose Desert Trek across the Kasuit Desert in Kenya and raised over £1.3 million in the process. The official Comic Relief mentions that the government contributed £16 million and that the public raised £86 million, however, nowhere does it mention any contribution made by the Royal family. [1] Supporters of the Republic UK also make the point that the Royals could continue to do charity work in a republic. They do not need the official 'royal' statute to raise money for charity. The Republic UK also points out that there is a big difference between simply turning up at engagements and being an engaged patron.  [1] Comic Relief, News: Record breaking £102 million total, available at  (accessed 31/05/2011).


There are others who could carry out these duties apart from the Prime Minister, for example, Deputy Prime-ministers for this exact purpose. Some of the key responsibilities of a Deputy Prime Minister involve both home and foreign affairs. The Deputy Prime Minister has significant responsibilities in other key Cabinet Sub-Committees, notably chairing the Home Affairs Committee which coordinates domestic policy issues including those relating to constitutional and political reform, migration, health, schools and welfare. The Deputy Prime Minister has an important foreign policy role, with responsibility for building a range of strategic relationships in Europe and across the world and for championing the Government’s commitment to the Millennium Development Goals. He is also Deputy Chair of the National Security Council which oversees all aspects of the nation’s security. [1] Those in favour of a Republic also argue that Britain has a professional diplomatic corps to represent the interests of the country both at home and abroad.  [1] Deputy Prime Minister, Role and Responsibilities, available at  (accessed 31/05/2011)


There is nothing wrong with judging people primarily on their physical prowess - we do this all the time in competitive sport, where fitness and strength are major determinants of success. Moreover doing so is little different from judging people on non-physical qualities such as intellect. Every competition, of every kind, values certain qualities over others - we recognise that being able to lift heavy weights isn’t the prime definition of human worth, but we can still give prizes for weightlifting; similarly, we can give a prize to a beautiful woman for her beauty without implying that beauty is all that matters about anyone.


Beauty contests objectify women  Women in beauty contests are judged on their physical appearance rather than on any other qualities they may possess (the existence of a ‘talent’ element in many such contests is all very well, but ugly women simply aren’t going to win). Judging women, but not men, primarily on their looks contributes to the subjugation of women because other qualities, such as intelligence, are not seen as part of ideal femininity and therefore not as things to which women should aspire. Ideal masculinity, while in itself potentially damaging to men, tends to be construed in much wider and less restrictive terms - it is notable that male beauty contests, judging men on their physical appearance, are much less popular than female ones.


Riots often have many causes and it is only the spark that is picked up upon. The example of the riots in Kaduna is misleading; there were serious underlying tensions that were the root cause. [1]  Beauty contests, like sport, can be an important focus of national or regional pride. Despite the declining popularity of competitions such as Miss World in the UK, they hold an important cultural place in many parts of the world. The victories in recent years of Miss India, Miss Turkey and Miss Nigeria in Miss World competitions made many Indians, Turks and Nigerians proud, and were seen as symbolic of those countries’ progress in competing with more powerful countries on their own terms.  [1] Astill, James, ‘The truth behind the Miss World riots’, The Guardian, 30 November 2002


Beauty contests are patriarchal  Beauty contests promote an ideal of female beauty to which only a minority of women can realistically aspire, but which adds to the pressure on all women to conform to it. This can be harmful to women by encouraging dieting, eating disorders and cosmetic surgery, or simply by making them feel inadequate and ugly by comparison to this ‘ideal’ that is promoted. Moreover, these contests force the models and contestants to look even slimmer and perfect all the time, thus encouraging anorexia and bulimia.  Naomi Wolf argues that "in terms of how we feel about ourselves physically, we may actually be worse off than our un-liberated grandmothers." Why? Because of how "cruelly images of female beauty have come to weigh upon us." [1] This pressure has therefore forced a backwards step that reduces freedom of women when in almost every other area of life there have been great advances.  [1] Naomi Wolf, ‘The Beauty Myth’.


Beauty contests are culturally insensitive  The image of female beauty promoted by beauty contests is culturally specific and western - it doesn’t matter how many Asian women win Miss World, they can still only do so if they take part in the swimsuit competition, which may well not be considered appropriate dress in their culture. This clash of cultures has led to numerous protests, demonstrations and even violence when beauty contests are going on. There were demonstrations against Miss World by feminists and Hindu nationalists when it was held in Bangalore in 1996. Riots in Kaduna in northern Nigeria over Miss World 2002 left more than 200 dead and led to the contest being moved to London. [1]  [1] CNN, ‘Obasanjo blames media for Miss World riots’


Beauty Pageants do limit the choice of others due to putting pressure on women to conform to this ideal of beauty which is promoted. This is limiting the lifestyle choices of many more women than choose to take part in the pageants.


Beauty contests are part of the system that values women solely on their appearance. It is better to break down that system than seek to work within it.  Beauty contests fail to challenge harmful political attitudes to women. Despite paying lip-service to feminist keywords such as empowerment and self-confidence, they do nothing concrete to aid the liberation of women; indeed, by reinforcing looks as the most important feminine quality, they harm women’s liberation in general. The fact that the organisers of Miss World 2002 had no problem with holding the contest in Nigeria at the same time as a high-profile case in which a woman was due to be stoned for adultery exposes the competition’s hypocrisy. [1]  Assigning scholarship funds based on physical appearance rather than academic merit is unfair because it neuters the aspirations of many regardless of how hard they might work.  [1] Bloom, Alexis and Cassandra Herrman, Frontline World, ‘Nigeria – The Road North’, PBS, January 2003.


Beauty pagents are about moral than physical aesthetics  Modern Beauty pageants have mandatory talent portions and are more about establishing and striving for an ‘ideal’ than rating physical beauty. This was specifically made mandatory by Lenora Slaughter in the 1938 Miss America Pageant in order to attract “ladies” to participate in the competitions. The modern form of the beauty pageant was designed by women in order to attract women. [1]  [1] Hilary Levey Friedman, ‘There She Goes: A Trailblazing Feminist Beauty Queen’, Huffington Post, 15 March 2011


Self defined feminists do not have the right to dictate how other women relate to their femininity  A ban is a very blunt instrument with which to attack a practice. Banning beauty contests would do little to destroy the ideal of beauty as it is prevalent in many other areas of society which are unrelated to Beauty Pageants such as advertising, fashion and the entertainment industry. The only result of a ban will simply be to reduce the choice of women – who of course do choose to participate. Choice is fundamentally a good thing and everyone should have as much choice as possible so long as they are not limiting the choice of others.


Beauty contests are an avenue of opportunity that women are entitled to pursue  In an environment where women are valued on solely on their appearance, and in which there are more opportunities for men, beauty contests give women an opportunity to improve their situations. Winning a beauty contest can be a first step toward a successful life in the future; the most attractive earn 12% more. [1] Many Hollywood actresses are former beauty queens, and they would not have reached their success without the beauty contests they won. In addition, the winners of high-profile beauty contests are able to publicize charities and causes they feel strongly about - they have a public platform they could not otherwise have gained.  Beauty pageants can also empower in other ways: The Miss America competition is the largest provider of scholarship assistance for women in the world [2] , indeed it pioneered assistance for women in higher education in the 40’s and 50’s. [3]  [1] Day, Elizabeth, ‘Honey Money: The Power of Erotic Capital by Catherine Hakim – review’, The Observer, 28 August 2011.  [2] Miss America, 'Purpose'  [3] Hilary Levey Friedman, ‘There She Goes: A Trailblazing Feminist Beauty Queen’, Huffington Post, 15 March 2011


This is a red herring – beauty pageants are primarily about physical attractiveness. Broadcasting data shows that viewers turn off Miss America for the talent and interview portions of the show while continuing to watch the swimsuit portion. [1]  [1] Peterson, Ivan, ‘A Challenge for Miss America in Reality TV Era’, The New York Times, 9 April 2005