text: Every human being has a right to life  Perhaps the most basic and fundamental of all our rights. However, with every right comes a choice. The right to speech does not remove the option to remain silent; the right to vote brings with it the right to abstain. In the same way, the right to choose to die is implicit in the right to life. The degree to which physical pain and psychological distress can be tolerated is different in all humans. Quality of life judgements are private and personal, thus only the sufferer can make relevant decisions. [1] This was particularly evident in the case of Daniel James. [2] After suffering a spinal dislocation as the result of a rugby accident he decided that he would live a second-rate existence if he continued with life and that it was not something he wanted to prolong. People are given a large degree of autonomy within their lives and since deciding to end your life does not physically harm anyone else, it should be within your rights to decide when you wish to die. While the act of suicide does remove option to choose life, most cases in which physician assisted suicide is reasonable, death is the inevitable and often imminent outcome for the patient regardless if by suicide or pathological process. The choice for the patient, therefore, is not to die, but to cease suffering and tto chose the time and manner of their death.  [1] Derek Humphrey, 'Liberty and Death: A manifesto concerning an individual's right to choose to die', assistedsuicide.org 1 March 2005,  (accessed 4/6/2011)  [2] Elizabeth Stewart, 'Parents defend assisted suicide of paralysed rugby player', guardian.co.uk, 17 October 2008,  (accessed 6/6/2011)


title: disease healthcare philosophy ethics life house believes assisted suicide should

text: There is no comparison between the right to life and other rights. When you choose to remain silent, you may change your mind at a later date; when you choose to die, you have no such second chance. Arguments from pro-life groups suggest that nearly ninety-five percent of those who kill themselves have been shown to have a diagnosable psychiatric illness in the months preceding suicide. The majority suffer from depression that can be treated. [1] If they had been treated for depression as well as pain they may not have wanted to commit suicide. Participating in someone’s death is also to participate in depriving them of all choices they might make in the future, and is therefore immoral.  [1] Herbert Hendin, M.D., Seduced by Death: Doctors, Patients, and Assisted Suicide (New York: W.W. Norton, 1998): 34-35.  (accessed 4/6/2011)


text: Suicide is a lonely, desperate act, carried out in secrecy and often as a cry for help  The impact on the family who remain can be catastrophic. Often because they were unaware of how their loved one was feeling. Suicide cases such as Megan Meier, an American teenager who committed suicide by hanging herself in 2006, [1] as the parents have to launch police investigations into why their child might have felt so desperate. By legalising assisted suicide, the process can be brought out into the open. In some cases, families might have been unaware of the true feelings of their loved one; being forced to confront the issue of their illness may do great good, perhaps even allowing them to persuade the patient not to end their life. In other cases, it makes them part of the process: they can understand the reasons behind their decision without feelings of guilt and recrimination, and the terminally ill patient can speak openly to them about their feelings before their death.  [1] Wikipedia, "Suicide of Megan Meier", en.wikipedia.org,  (accessed 6/6/2011)


text: Were the disposal of human life so much reserved as the peculiar province of the almighty, that it were an encroachment on his right for men to dispose of their own life, it would be equally criminal to act for the preservation of life as for its destruction' [1] . If we accept the proposition that only God can give and take away life then medicine should not be used at all. If only God has the power to give life then medicines and surgeries to prolong people's life should also be considered wrong. It seems hypocritical to suggest that medicine can be used to prolong life but it cannot be used to end someone's life.  [1] David Hume, Of Suicide, cited in Applied Ethics ed. Peter Singer (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986) p.23


text: At the moment, doctors are often put into an impossible position. A good doctor will form close bonds with their patients, and will want to give them the best quality of life they can; however, when a patient has lost or is losing their ability to live with dignity and expresses a strong desire to die, they are legally unable to help. To say that modern medicine can totally eradicate pain is a tragic over-simplification of suffering. While physical pain may be alleviated, the emotional pain of a slow and lingering death, of the loss of the ability to live a meaningful life, can be horrific. A doctor’s duty is to address his or her patient’s suffering, be it physical or emotional. As a result, doctors will in fact already help their patients to die – although it is not legal, assisted suicide does take place. Opinion polls suggest that fifteen percent of physicians already practise it on justifiable occasions. Numerous opinion polls indicate that half the the medical profession would like to see it made law. [1] It would be far better to recognise this, and bring the process into the open, where it can be regulated. True abuses of the doctor-patient relationship, and incidents of involuntary euthanasia, would then be far easier to limit. The current medical system allows doctors the right to with-hold treatment for patients. Though, this can be considered to be a more damaging practise than allowing assisted suicide.  [1] Derek Humphrey, Frequently asked questions, Finalexit.org  (accessed 4/6/2011)


text: If someone is threatening to kill themselves it is your moral duty to try to stop them  Those who commit suicide are not evil, and those who attempt to take their own lives are not prosecuted. However, it is your moral duty to try and prevent people from committing suicide. You would not, for example, simply ignore a man standing on a ledge and threatening to jump simply because it is his choice; and you would definitely not assist in his suicide by pushing him. In the same way, you should try to help a person with a terminal illness, not help them to die. With the exception of the libertarian position that each person has a right against others that they not interfere with her suicidal intentions. Little justification is necessary for actions that aim to prevent another's suicide but are non-coercive. Pleading with a suicidal individual, trying to convince her of the value of continued life, recommending counseling, etc. are morally unproblematic, since they do not interfere with the individual's conduct or plans except by engaging her rational capacities (Cosculluela 1994, 35; Cholbi 2002, 252). [1] The impulse toward suicide is often short-lived, ambivalent, and influenced by mental illnesses such as depression. While these facts together do not appear to justify intervening in others' suicidal intentions, they are indicators that the suicide may be undertaken with less than full rationality. Yet given the added fact that death is irreversible, when these factors are present, they justify intervention in others' suicidal plans on the grounds that suicide is not in the individual's interests as they would rationally conceive those interests. We might call this the ‘no regrets' or ‘err on the side of life’ approach to suicide intervention (Martin 1980; Pabst Battin 1996, 141; Cholbi 2002). [2]  [1] Cholbi, Michael, "Suicide", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),  #DutTowSui (accessed 7/6/2011)  [2] Cholbi, Michael, "Suicide", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),  #DutTowSui (accessed 7/6/2011)


text: It would have a damaging effect on society  Some people who do not agree with voluntary euthanasia argue that if it was legalised, it would damage the moral and social foundation of society by removing the traditional principle that man should not kill, and reduce the respect for human life. It might also be the case that once voluntary euthanasia has been legalised, this might lead to cases of involuntary euthanasia being carried out. With people deciding that someone else's life such as the elderly or the terminally ill is not worth living and therefore performing euthanasia without their consent. [1] A recent study discovered that some sufferers of locked-in syndrome – as many as three out of four of the main sample – were happy and did not want to die. [2]  [1] The case against, religiouseducation.co.uik  (accessed 4/6/2011).  [2] Barbara Ellen, Who is to judge which lives are worth living?, guardian.co.uk, 17 April 2011  (accessed 6/6/2011)


text: Only God can give and take away life  Life is Sacred so no one has the right to take a life, this includes ones own. As a result both suicide and assisted suicide are wrong. There are many passages within the bible that speak of the idea that God has appointed a time for all to die, 'Hebrews 9:27, “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgement:” Ecclesiastes 3:1-2, “To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;” Ecclesiastes 7:17, “Be not over much wicked, neither be thou foolish: why shouldest thou die before thy time?” [1] In addition to this, physicians are nowhere in Scripture given authority to take someone's life. Apart from the government in the case of capital punishment, all other human beings are given the commandment “Thou shalt not kill,” Exodus 20:13 and “Thou shalt do no murder,” Matthew 19:18. [2]  [1] Pastor Art Kohl, 'The Bible Speaks on Euthanasia', Political Science and the Bible, 2002  (accessed 6/6/2011)  [2] Pastor Art Kohl, 'The Bible Speaks on Euthanasia', Political Science and the Bible, 2002  (accessed 6/6/2011)


text: It is vital that a doctor's role not be confused  The guiding principle of medical ethics is to do no harm: a physician must not be involved in deliberately harming their patient. Without this principle, the medical profession would lose a great deal of trust; and admitting that killing is an acceptable part of a doctor’s role would likely increase the danger of involuntary euthanasia, not reduce it. Legalising assisted suicide also places an unreasonable burden on doctors. The daily decisions made in order to preserve life can be difficult enough; to require them to also carry the immense moral responsibility of deciding who can and cannot die, and the further responsibility of actually killing patients, is unacceptable. This is why the vast majority of medical professionals oppose the legalisation of assisted suicide: ending the life of a patient goes against all they stand for. The Hippocratic Oath that doctors use as a guide states 'I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.' [1]  [1] Medical Opinion, religiouseducation.co.uk  (accessed on 4/6/2011)


text: However, the idea that we should not kill is not absolute, even for those with religious beliefs — killing in war or self-defence is justified by most. We already let people die because they are allowed to refuse treatment which could save their life, and this has not damaged anyone's respect for the worth of human life. Concerning the notion that legalised voluntary euthanasia might lead to involuntary euthanasia being carried out, there is no evidence to suggest this. As Ronald Dworkin states, 'Of course doctors know the moral difference between helping people who beg to die and killing those who want to live.' [1]  [1] Ronald Dworkin, stated in The case against, available at  (accessed 4/6/2011).


text: Society recognises that suicide is unfortunate but acceptable in some circumstances – those who end their own lives are not seen as evil. It seems odd that it is a crime to assist a non-crime. The illegality of assisted suicide is therefore particularly cruel for those who are disabled by their disease, and are unable to die without assistance. For example, in March 1993 Anthony Bland had lain in persistent vegetative state for three years before a Court Order allowed his degradation and indignity to come to a merciful close. [1] It might cause unnecessary pain for people if they make an attempt at suicide themselves and subsequently fail. Rather than the pain-free methods that could be available through doctors and modern medicine.  [1] Chris Docker, Cases in history, euthanasia.cc, 2000  (accessed 6/6/2011)


title: ational africa sport team sports house supports racial quotas south african rugby

text: Changing the demographics on the field will not be likely to change the demographics in the stands. Economic equality is still an issue – which means the change that is needed are changes in matters such as ticket prices, in order to bring in a broader base of spectators.  The way to broaden the talent pool is through policies to make it larger, not to distribute positions within it. In other words, what’s needed is resources, and a commitment to take the game in to communities where it is not so popular currently – the best players will rise to the top no matter their ethnicity.


text: Broadening participation  The talent pool in South African rugby is not as racially diverse as one would expect from the “Rainbow Nation” – some commentators have argued that England and France produce more top level black players than South Africa [1] . This is because top level players are a result of development from the grassroots up.  Targets or quotas could not only improve the talent pool of today, but could broaden it for the future. A new generation of youth across all races in South Africa would be able to see that rugby union is a sport that accepts people from their backgrounds, making them more likely to participate in rugby union, either as players, coaches, referees or as a general part of the rugby fraternity.  [1] Blackwell, James, ‘South African Rugby Quotas – Right or Wrong?’, Sporting Mad, 16 September 2013,


text: 2006 was a while ago, at a time when quotas were in force. Even so, popular support does not mean that something is a good idea. Sport should be distanced from the popular will. Most rugby fans are white, a group that had in the survey only 14% of people in favour of a quotas. Among the people that might be considered the electorate of the sport, the fans, quotas are not wanted


text: Radical action needed for racial equality in South Africa  It is plain for all to see how unrepresentative rugby union in South Africa is. While there is not necessarily a deliberate policy of racism, it is very easy for biases to creep in. Across the division where the quotas will come in only about 6% of players are black, a number that should increase to 33%. [1] Quotas could help concentrate the mind to ensure that the best team is picked.  At grass roots level, there have been some cases of flat-out racial abuse of non-white players, including using racial terms that are particularly offensive in a South African context.  [1] Peacock, James, ‘Peter de Villiers says racial quotas are ‘waste of time’, BBC Sport, 15 August 2013,


text: Even if action is needed to create racial equality, are quotas the solution? There is no doubt that rugby is a sport where South Africa could be stronger if it was popular in all racial groups, but they are a blunt instrument: the way to pick the best team is to simply pick the best team. Racial equality comes when no one is picked as a result of race whether that is through negative or positive discrimination.


text: Most South Africans support quotas  In 2006, the South African Social Attitudes Survey revealed that most South Africans (56%) support a quota system [1] . This support remained roughly the same over a four year period. Sport should reflect the will of the population of the country, if the population wants quotas then there should be quotas. There is particularly strong support from quotas among black people (63%) implying they feel that something needs to be done in order to let them into the sport. Doing nothing will simply ensure the status quo with very few non-white rugby players remains indefinitely.  [1] Struwig, Jare, and Roberts, Ben, ‘The numbers game Public support for sports quotas’, South African Social Attitudes Survey, p.13,


text: Kevin Pietersen isn’t anything too unusual: English sporting teams have always had a number of South African and New Zealand rejects. It is natural for players to move to where they think they will be most likely to have the best prospects.


text: In a society where race affects everything, can there ever be such a thing as a legitimate meritocracy? Not everyone will get the same opportunities in life. You cannot pretend factors are not there when they are. Positive discrimination such as racial quotas helps to counter act some of these factors that are weighed heavily against non-whites in playing rugby helping to create a much truer meritocracy.


text: IRB rules  Racial quotas are a breach of the views of the world governing body of Rugby Union, the International Rugby Board [1] . If this were found to be the case then it would have a large negative impact on South African rugby.  An IRB intervention would lead to at least interference by the governing body, which would be highly embarrassing for the SARU (as well as difficult for a sport which has had major political rows before), or even worse, some form of sanction or expulsion – things that could lead to long term instability in the sport, which should be avoided.  [1] SARugbymag.co.za, ‘Saru quotas ‘breach IRP rules’’, 3 December 2013,


text: Racial quotas don’t develop new players  The quota system could lead to moving players from the regional teams who generally have less non-white players pilfering them from other unions, rather “Home growing” them [1] .  Former Springboks coach Peter de Villiers, the first non-white person in that role, has described quotas as a “waste of time [2] ”.  Depending on the exact phraseology of the rules, this could even allow black players from outside South Africa (from, for example, England) to be used to fill the quota.  [1] McGregor, Liz, ‘New Year, new model for SA Rugby? Here’s hoping’, Books Live, 30 December 2013,   [2] Peacock, James, ‘Peter de Villiers says racial quotas are ‘waste of time’, BBC Sport, 15 August 2013,


text: Quotas can drive players away.  Policies of racial quotas can have the effect of driving players abroad. Such policies have had similar affects in cricket. Kevin Pietersen stated that racial quotas in domestic competition, requiring four non-white players per team, were a key reason for his decision to leave South Africa and move to England. Eligible due to playing in England for four years and an English parent, he successfully had an England career. In rugby union, Brian Mujati left South Africa to play in England as he did not want to be selected to fill a racial quota [1] .  [1] Foy, Chris, ‘Last orders at the bar for master brewer – prop Mujati calls time on Saints career’, MailOnline, 19 April 2013,


text: Meritocracy  It is a value of sport in general that it should be outside the sphere of social ills like racial, religious and political tensions. Sport should be based on merit only; those who play best get onto the team.  Racial quotas will lead to any non-white player in a team in a competition where quotas are being employed to being under a suspicion that they are not good enough and were only selected due to their race. As Peter de Villiers, the first black coach of the Springboks, says “Everybody will believe that these players will be picked because people are looking out for them.” [1] The result could be more racial abuse of players, not less.  [1] Peacock, James, ‘Peter de Villiers says racial quotas are ‘waste of time’, BBC Sport, 15 August 2013,


text: Even if it doesn’t increase the numbers at the grass roots and youth levels, it will create more players who can be selected by the provinces for Currie Cup competition. This, in turn, could give more non-white players the development and the experience they need to make it in to the national team.


text: The IRB did not take action against the previous system of quotas: why would they be likely to take action against a new system?  Also, there is a clear difference between the sort of racial discrimination that occurred in the sport during the apartheid era, and affirmative action policies. Positive discrimination does not prevent anyone from having a chance at playing; it simply gives those who are less fortunate a leg up.


title: olympics team sports house would boycott euro 2012 ukraine unless yulia timoshenko

text: Boycotting the football will not highlight Ukraine’s human rights abuses any more than they already have been by the international press as a result of the calls to boycott. Whether leaders boycott or not the human rights abuses have been highlighted. Choosing to attend will not show that leaders are unwilling to take action simply that this is not the way for them to take action. Leaders could attend the matches and still diplomatically rebuke Ukraine’s leader.


text: Boycotting Euro 2012 will highlight Ukraine’s backsliding on human rights  European leaders must take a stand on human rights in their own back yard if they are to be taken seriously on the issue anywhere in the world. There are numerous human rights abuses in Ukraine; migrants "risk abusive treatment and arbitrary detention", Roma and people with dark skin in particular face governmental and societal discrimination and some xenophobic attacks and may be prosecuted for acting in self defense. [1] Amnesty International has highlighted abuse of power by the police “numerous cases in Euro 2012 host cities in which police have tortured people in an attempt to extort money, extract a confession, or simply because of the victims’ sexuality or ethnic origin”. [2] If Europe turns a blind eye to these kinds of abuses in neighbouring states without even a minor diplomatic snub it will not have the moral authority to confront worse abuses elsewhere in the world. States that are abusing their own citizens would shrug off criticism believing that European states will not back their criticism up with any action.  [1] Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, ‘2010 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices Report’, U.S. Department of State, 8 April 2011.  [2] ‘Ukraine: Euro 2012 jeopardised by criminal police force – New Amnesty report’, Amnesty.org.uk, 2 May 2012 .


text: A boycott can’t be proportional because politics and sport can’t be linked. A proportional response would involve some real action that would hurt Ukrainian leaders such as freezing some of their corruptly gained assets rather than a symbolic boycott.


text: Europe must not give approval to this regime.  Viktor Yanukovych fairly came to power in 2010 however since then he has set about attacking the country’s fragile democracy. There are numerous cases showing this democratic decline. For example changes to the constitution that occurred after the Orange revolution have been rolled back to give more power to the presidency. [1] Most visibly opponents of the regime such as Yulia Timoshenko have been jailed in politically motivated trials. At the same time there have been attacks on the freedom of the media and Ukraine has fallen down rankings of press freedom in 2010-11 with its score from freedom house falling from 56 to 59 with its ranking falling to 130th. [2]  Ukraine, like its neighbours Russia and Belarus, has become a ‘virtual mafia state’ where the SBU (Ukraine’s successor to the KGB) is all powerful and the elite are unaccountable. [3] It is becoming more and more corrupt as is shown by its fall down the Corruption Perceptions Index from 118th in 2007 to 152nd in 2011. [4] Ukraine is clearly going in the wrong direction and European leaders need to stand up and show that the will not allow this to continue.  [1] Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, ‘2010 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices Report’, U.S. Department of State, 8 April 2011.  [2] Karlekar, Karin Deutsch and Dunham, Jennifer, ‘Press Freedom in 2011: Breakthroughs and Pushback in the Middle East’, Freedom House, 2012, pp.7, 16.  [3] Luzio, Taras, ‘Ukraine, Like Russia, Is Becoming a ‘Virtual Mafia State’’, Atlantic Council, 1 March 2012.  [4] Transparency International, Corruption Perceptions Index 2011 , Transparency International, Corruption Perceptions Index 2007 .


text: Attending football matches is not giving approval to a country’s government. Leaders when attending international football matches are simply supporting their team and often hoping that they will be seen as such giving them a good photo op for the audience back home.


text: Boycotting Euro 2012 is proportional  Diplomacy is necessary with any regime almost no matter how oppressive they are however that does not show approval of a regime to the world in the way that high profile visits and events can. Just as the Beijing Olympics were the People’s Republic of China’s coming out party so Euro 2012 is an ideal chance for Ukraine to show itself off to Europe and the rest of the world. If there was not a boycott this would implicitly show that Europe approves of Ukraine and the actions of its government.  In a list of possible diplomatic responses that range from verbal diplomatic complaints right up to sanctions a boycott represents a mid-point. A boycott is perhaps the best action that the European Union leaders could take is it takes away the shine that the event would otherwise give the Yanukovych. It will be denying him the political benefits of the Euros while highlighting rights concerns. A boycott is also proportional because it gives Ukraine’s leaders a chance to reform before beginning any further measures that would have a much deeper effect on diplomatic relations.


text: A boycott of the events in Ukraine could even be good for the events in Poland as more will go there instead. It is difficult to see how the Ukrainian people are negatively affected by foreign leaders not attending matches in Ukraine. This is an action that only affects the elite.


text: Sports and politics have always been intertwined and so can’t be separated. That political leaders were thinking of attending in anything beyond a private capacity proves the linking of international football and politics. Yanukovych himself no doubt hoped for a political payoff and has opened the new stadia such as the Olympic Stadium declaring “The successful reconstruction of the NSC Olympiyskiy has become the most telling project for Ukraine's image.” [1]  [1] Buga, Bogdan, ‘Olympic Stadium opens in Kyiv’, uefa.com, 8 October 2011 .


text: A boycott won’t help resolve the issues at question  European leaders need to consider whether their methods are likely to achieve the result they want. What Europe’s leaders want is first of all Yulia Timoshenko released and secondly improvements in Ukrainian human rights. Timoshenko is unlikely to be released as she has been convicted on charges of abuse of office and sentenced to seven years in prison; the best that could be hoped for is an improvement in her treatment. Similarly the result is not likely to be positive for human rights and democracy. There might be an improvement during the games while the eyes of the world are on Ukraine but long term there will be no impact unless Yanukovych is persuaded that improvements are in his benefit. This would require more concrete and long term actions than one off boycotts.  Past boycotts have demonstrated a lack of success in changing the situation on the ground. In the 1980 Olympics held in Moscow during the Cold War the USA boycotted in response to the 1979 invasion by the USSR of Afghanistan. The result was that the Soviet Union stayed in Afghanistan, won most medals in the Olympics and retaliated by boycotting the 1984 games held in Los Angeles. [1]  [1] Gera, Vanessa, ‘Boycott of Ukraine During Euro 2012 Carries Risk’, Associated Press, 11 May 2012.


text: Europe needs to prevent Russian influence in Ukraine  If Europe shuns Ukraine then Yanukovych has an obvious alternative he can turn to; Russia. Putin, the newly re-elected President of Russia, is holding out the option of a customs union with Ukraine which Yanukovych despite initially rejecting [1] is now showing more interest in joining. [2] Only a few years ago Ukraine was being touted for possible NATO membership and Vice President Biden called Ukraine a “European country where democracy rules”. [3] A turn towards Russia therefore represents a failure of the European Union and NATO’s policy towards its eastern neighbours where the aim is to promote democracy and human rights.  [1] Interfax-Ukraine, ‘Putin: Yanukovych statement Ukraine will not join Customs Union conveys political emotions’, Kyiv Post, 16 September 2011 .  [2] Interfax-Ukraine, ‘Official: Ukraine shows keen interest in Customs Union’, Kyiv Post, 15 March 2012 .  [3] ‘Biden: U.S. supports Ukraine’s NATO bid’, USA Today, 21 July 2009 .


text: Boycotts did not take place for the 2008 Olympics despite the far worst human rights background  It would be hypocritical for European leaders to boycott the Euro 2012 finals because of Ukraine’s recent human rights record. It an absurd overreaction when the focus is on the poor treatment of one woman, Timoshenko. Countries with poor human rights records have hosted major sporting events before without there being boycotts. President Bush was urged by some in the US such as former president Clinton to boycott the Beijing Olympics and only a few countries boycotted on human rights grounds. This was despite China having a considerably worse human rights record than Ukraine and engaged in a violent crackdown in Tibet in the run up to the games. [1] Similarly Russia will be hosting the next Winter Olympics in 2014 should leaders essentially commit to boycotting these games too?  [1] ‘Bush will attend opening of Beijing Olympics’ CNN, 3 July 2008.


text: The boycott would affect Poland and the Ukrainian people as well as Yanukovych  A boycott of Euro 2012 even if it was meant to be limited to Ukraine would negatively impact on the whole tournament. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tust argued "It is in Poland's undisputed interest to hold the games in Poland and Ukraine without a hitch and to prevent politics from ruining the great effort", [1] any boycott would unnecessarily move the attention away from the games itself towards politics.  It should also be remembered that Viktor Yanukovych does not represent the whole of Ukraine and only won by a narrow margin with 48.95% of the vote compared to Yulia Timoshenko’s 45.47% in the second round. [2] Arseniy Yatsenyuk leader of the Front for Change has urged leaders not to boycott "The best scenario would be if the European leaders attended the championship, but did not meet President Yanukovych. It's supposed to be a visit to Ukrainians, not to Yanukovych". [3] This would show that European countries support the Ukrainian people and their democratic aspirations and even hope they may be eventually will join the European Union while showing displeasure at Yanukovych’s policies and lack of support for democracy.  [1] ‘ Poland slams calls for Ukraine Euro 2012 boycott’, The Warsaw Voice online, 4 May 2012.  [2] Nesterov, Andrei, ‘How the News is Reported in Russia’, School of Russian and Asian, 19 February 2010.  [3] Dorosh, Svitlana, ‘Ukraine fights Euro 2012 boycott’, BBC Ukrainian, 9 May 2012.


text: Russian influence in Ukraine is not a real concern. Given the possibility of joining the European Union or a Russian lead customs union any Ukrainian government even one lead by a pro-Russian such as Yanukovych would choose Europe. The Ukrainians know that the Russian’s price is likely to be high and so will continue to try to balance between their two larger neighbouring blocks. As a result any boycott will not seriously affect long term relations. [1]  [1] ‘Call foul, Viktor Yanukovych’s thuggish autocracy is heading in a dangerous direction’, the Economist, 5 May 2012 .


text: This is a sports event not a political event  Sport and politics are separate and should be kept separate. This is the position of the organisers “Uefa has no position and will not take any regarding the political situation in Ukraine, and will not interfere with internal government matters.” [1] Euro 2012 is a football tournament that is about entertainment and bringing nations together in a common love of a game in a non-political sphere. Even pro-democracy activists such as Vatali Klitschko are “against the politicization of sports”. [2] Politicization would be exactly what politicians are doing by engaging in cheap political stunts, such as a boycott, to promote their own human rights agendas.  [1] Scott, Matt, ‘Sports minister Hugh Robertson could boycott Ukraine during Euro 2012’, The Telegraph, 2 May 2012.  [2] Keating, Joshua, ‘European leaders consider Euro Cup boycott over Tymoshenko’, Passport Foreignpolicy.com, 1 May 2012.


text: In a global event such as the Beijing 2008 Olympics of the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi many more nations would need to boycott to have an effect. In Euro 2012 by contrast liberal democracies who claim to be concerned about human rights make up the majority of the participants making their actions much more significant.


text: Because these issues are domestic to Ukraine European nations cannot directly resolve them however actions such as boycotting of the tournament show that the international community wants these problems resolved. Without any action at all how will the issues ever be resolved? You don’t prevent human rights abuses by brushing them under the carpet.


title: y business finance government sport olympics house believes hosting olympics good

text: Any large expenditure in one area will stimulate regeneration. Considering that the cost of hosting the London 2012 Olympics is predicted at £2.375 billion, expected to rise far higher, regeneration is the least that can be expected as a legacy (Carlin, 2006).1 Controversially, a large part of this (£625 million) is being financed by London’s own citizens through a rise in council tax bills (Buksh, 2007).2 Jobs are promised, but there is no guarantee that these jobs will last beyond the Olympics itself. Furthermore, the £15 billion Crossrail system planned for East London is money not spent on fixing the increasingly fragile Underground lines currently servicing Central London.  Regeneration is also only available to those areas who are fortunate enough to be hosting Olympic events. This typically means a couple of areas of one city, using funds derived from a much larger population spread over a far greater territory. The East London regeneration expected for 2012 threatens merely to substantiate the already expansive North-South divide in the United Kingdom (Ruddick, 2011).3  1 Carlin, B. (2006, November 22). Cost of London Olympics could hit £10bn. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from Telegraph  2 Buksh, A. (2007, March). Grey rebellion against Olympics Levy. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from BBC News  3 Ruddick, G. (2011, April 1). North-South divide exists on whether games will benefit whole of UK. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from The Telegraph


text: Hosting stimulates regeneration in local areas  Hosting stimulates regeneration. The IOC is enthusiastic about bids that will leave a lasting impact and have looked favourably on cities that locate their Olympic Villages and stadia in deprived areas in need of regeneration. The 1992 Barcelona Olympics were used as a means to completely overhaul the port and coast of the city creating an artificial beach and waterside cultural area that became a lasting tourist attraction. Along with cleaning up areas and new stadia, Olympic Villages release between 5,000 and 20,000 new homes which governments can chose to hand over as low-cost housing (as is proposed for London 2012). Whilst these projects could be completed without the Olympics, the need to provide an overall package (transport, accommodation, stadia, greenery etc.) for a set deadline means that there is far more incentive to get the projects done. An example of this in London is the plan for a new £15bn underground rail system called ‘Crossrail’, first proposed over 20 years ago but only now being developed because of the attention surrounding the London 2012 bid.1 The fact that international scrutiny will follow the building program means that it is far more likely to be completed to a high standard (consider the detailed coverage of the preparations for Athens 2004).  1 Hayes, S. (2011, April 19). Crossrail will leave a positive legacy. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from Wharf


text: The Olympic spotlight is not always a positive experience for the host nation and its government; for example, the run-up to the Beijing Games in 2008 was hijacked by the issue of Tibetan autonomy. The event designed ostensibly to celebrate China's coming-of-age was instead framed through their poor human rights record. German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy were sufficiently concerned to boycott the opening ceremony in protest, causing significant embarrassment for Olympic organisers.


text: Hosting creates a 'feel-good' factor  Hosting creates a 'feel-good factor'. It is hard to put a price on the buzz that surrounds international sporting events. Think of Paris during the World Football Cup in 1998 or Sydney during the 2002 Olympics. Even sporting success abroad can unite a nation (for example the England Rugby Union Team's victory in the 2003 Rugby World Cup in Australia). Governments are aware of the huge potential for boosting national pride and national unity. The Paris 2012 bid has used a well-known footballer, Zinedine Zidane, who is the son of an immigrant to stress how hosting the Olympics would bring Parisians of all backgrounds together. It is partly because of this 'feel-good factor' that so many people want their city to host the Olympics (97% of Parisians and 87% of Londoners want the 2012 Olympics).


text: There is no guarantee that a city will experience a 'feel-good factor'. In Athens many of the events had empty seats as the Greek team failed to do well enough to capture the local imagination. Where tournaments and games have successfully created a 'buzz' it has been because the host nation has done well (England reached the semi-final of Euro 96, France won the World Cup in 1998). The fact that this 'feel-good factor' can be had even if the team is winning on the other side of the world means that there is no need to host the Olympics in order to get it. Furthermore, a study of British youth in 2011 found that 70% were not inspired to take part in more sport despite the media attention given to London 20121. In any case, any Olympic excitement will be short-lived compared to the years of disruption and congestion which a host city will suffer in the run-up to the games, due to the massive building work and security worries which are now necessary.  1 Magnay, J. (2011, June 21). London 2012 Olympics: British youth not inspired by Games, survey shows. Retrieved June 29, 2011 from The Daily Telegraph:


text: Hosting does not leave a beneficial legacy. As a study found in 2010, 'there is insufficient evidence to show that major multi-sport events benefit or harm the health and economy of the host population.'1 The demands of the Olympics are very particular, an 80,000 all-seater stadium, pools, horse tracks, beach volleyball etc. Many of these stadia will never be used again after the end of the games. Even in Australia, which has a very strong sporting ethic, underused stadia in Sydney are costing the taxpayer $32m a year in maintenance1. In the long term, the money spent on these stadia would be much better off used to build affordable homes and transport infrastructure which is designed with local residents in mind rather than with the intention of impressing IOC members. As far as tourism goes, Greece may even have lost out economically in 2002-03 as potential visitors stayed away, frightened off by stories of disruptive building works, security worries and fears of over-crowding.  1 Ormsby, A. (2010, May 21). Benefits of hosting Olympics unproven. Retrieved June 29, 2011 from Reuters:  2 Davenport, C. (2004, September 1). A post-Olympic hurdle for Greece: the whopping bill. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from The Christian Science Monitor:


text: COUNTERPOINT Any large expenditure in one area will stimulate regeneration. Considering that the cost of hosting the London 2012 Olympics is predicted at £2.375 billion, expected to rise far higher, regeneration is the least that can be expected as a le  The Olympics are a showcase. Hosting the Olympics can be a way of making a strong political point because of the intense media scrutiny that accompanies the games. During the Cold War both Moscow 1980 and Los Angeles 1984 were used by the USSR and USA to show their economic strength. Seoul in 1988 used the games to demonstrate South Korea's economic and political maturity. The Beijing Olympics in 2008 are seen by many as evidence of China's acceptance into the global community and a way for her to showcase her economic growth and acceptance of the West. For New York, the 2012 bid is a way of showing that the post-9/11 healing process has been completed and that the city is 'open for business' despite the terrorist attacks.


text: Hosting has wide-reaching economic benefits  Hosting creates an economic boost. Whilst none of the Olympics of recent times have made an immediate profit, the cost of the regeneration and improved infrastructure means that this is not a big problem as long as the losses are not huge. The Olympics showcases the host nation to the world and most hosts have seen a boost in tourism in the years after the Olympics (Australia estimates it gained£2bn extra tourist revenue in the four years after Sydney 2000). During the games between 60,000 (Paris 2012 estimate) and 135,000 (New York 2012 estimate) jobs are created providing skills and training to local people.


text: The economic benefit of the event is in its legacy. Regarding London specifically, a lot of the money will be spent on the regeneration of parts of East London that are currently underdeveloped. When the games are over the new facilities will still benefit the local communities and the prestige of hosting the games should bring new life and investment to the area. Furthermore, London's reputation as a tourist destination has taken a knock from the threat of terrorism since the underground bombings of 7/7. The games will be a way of bringing international attention back to the positive aspects of the UK's capital, bringing foreign visitors and their spending power back to Britain. London's population of 7.7m people is expected to be temporarily expanded by 12% during the Olympics alone1.  1 Grobel, W. (2010, April 15). What are the London 2012 Olympics 2012 worth? Retrieved May 13, 2011, from Intangible Business:


text: Hosting has an impact on the whole nation. The Olympics involves hundreds of events and sports and so provides an opportunity for the whole nation to feel like they have taken part. Training camps are often located outside the host city, as are events such as rowing, sailing, canoeing and shooting, so that the rest of the country benefits too. During Beijing 2008 for example, the equestrian events were held in Hong Kong, drawing both tourism and prestige away from Beijing and towards other parts of the country. The lasting impact of this will be a generation of young people who are excited about sport. Given rising levels of childhood obesity and declining amounts of sport in schools, this can only be a good thing.


text: The bidding process is too long, tying up funds and land  The bidding process takes too long. Bidding officially takes only two years (unless a city fails to make the shortlist), but most cities spend nearly a decade working on their bids. Obviously the bidding process costs money but it also ties up the land needed for any future Olympic Village or stadia from being developed until the bid outcome is known, as well as diverting government funds away from other sporting events and activities. Furthermore, the way the IOC works with each member deciding which city they wish to vote for means that personal relationships and international tension can count for more than the quality of the bid. For example, American foreign policy is thought to be disadvantaging New York in the 2012 bidding process. Given that the Olympics are 'rotated' between continents, if a city fails to be selected it will be 12 years before it has another chance.


text: Hosting is very expensive  Hosting is very expensive. In recent times the Olympics have never made a direct profit. The bidding process alone for 2012 will cost each bidding city around £20m and whichever is selected will expect to pay at least £6.5bn (Paris). With increased security fears Athens spent $1.5bn on security out of a total of $12bn on the 2004 games. The burden of this cost falls on government (and therefore the taxpayer), companies and individuals. Both Paris and London’s local governments have put aside around £2.4bn which will mean £20 per year extra in tax for every household in the cities. Big projects are notoriously hard to budget for (so much so that London is estimating the total cost may go up by up to 50%) and residents in Los Angeles have only just stopped paying for the over-budget 1984 Olympics through their local taxes. If cities want to regenerate or improve their infrastructure then they should use this money directly on those projects rather than wasting it on subsidising a sporting event.


text: Hosting only affects one city  In large countries like the United States or China, the benefits of the Olympics are almost entirely focused on the host city. Even in smaller countries, the benefits of a event played outside the host city or a training camp are negligible. Capital cities are often chosen (after failed bids from Birmingham in 1992 and Manchester in 1996 and 2000 the IOC told the United Kingdom that only a bid from London was likely to win), which concentrates growth and development where it is least needed. 90% of the economic impact of London 2012 is expected to come to London1; not surprising given that 'seventy-five pence in every pound on the Games is going towards the regeneration of East London.'2Furthermore, house prices have been seen to rise in host cities like Barcelona and Sydney around the time of their Olympics, without comparable rises elsewhere in Spain and Australia respectively2. As such, hosting only serves to entrench geographical economic divides.  1 Grobel, W. (2010, April 15). What are the London 2012 Olympics 2012 worth? Retrieved May 13, 2011, from Intangible Business:  2 Ormsby, A. (2010, May 21). Benefits of hosting Olympics unproven. Retrieved June 29, 2011 from Reuters:


text: The bidding process is not too long and does not tie up funds or land that would otherwise be developed. Furthermore, the Olympic bidding process would not be as difficult, expensive or long if the benefits to the eventual victor were not deemed worth all the time and effort. The unsuccessful bids are not wasted, the plans drawn up and experience of the process can be utilized for later bids. Moreover, the exposure granted to land earmarked for Olympic redevelopment can both generate interest in the area and lead to further development in the area regardless of an unsuccessful Olympic bid. The bidding process is now open and trustworthy. Whilst the 1998 Salt Lake City scandal did reveal huge levels of endemic corruption, IOC president Jacques Rogge has taken significant steps to stamp it out. Cities can now be confident that the best bid will win and that they should not be put of bidding to host because they fear they will lose simply for not being corrupt enough.


title: team sports house believes major league baseball should continue allow collisions

text: Collisions are much less a part of the game than people believe. The notion that collisions have been in the game for ages is a widely held misconception. In fact, collisions were specifically banned in baseball’s early history, and the collisions we see today came about only since around the late 1960s. Bill James, one of the best-respected authorities on baseball, wrote: “Basepath obstruction was a major problem in the 1880s and nineties, when baseball was in danger of becoming a contact sport. In 1897 the rules on obstruction were tightened up, and the principle of free access to the bases met with general acceptance at the other three positions. There was always something of a problem with catchers blocking the plate, but there were always limits.... I think it has changed a lot just in the last fifteen or twenty years. . . . I don’t remember [well-respected catchers] Elston Howard or Bill Freehan doing some of the things that [catchers] do now [in the 1980s].” [1]  Clearly, collisions are not a necessary part of the balance between offense and defense. Baseball did quite well for decades without allowing runners to crash into catchers. Just because something is now erroneously regarded as a “tradition” does not make it deserving of respect. Toughness in baseball is better measured by playing hard every day, rather than by meaningless, destructive collisions.  [1] “The MLB Rulebook, Bill James, and the Buster Posey–Scott Cousins Collision,” Misc. Baseball, May 26, 2011,  .


text: Collisions are a part of the game.  First, collisions are part of the tradition of baseball. They have been part of the game for a very long time. Fans, players, and managers all expect home plate hits to occur from time to time. “Some things are part of the game. There’s not a whole lot you can do,” said Red Sox catcher Jason Varitek, who has been on the receiving end of numerous crashes in his career. [1] Varitek’s manager at the time, Terry Francona, agreed: “Nobody wants to see anybody get hurt, but you got to play the game.” [2] And former catcher Brad Ausmus, who had also been hit multiple times in his career, echoed the sentiment: “[I]t's part of the game.… When you put on the shin guards and chest protector, you know that if there’s a play at the plate and you’re blocking the plate, you could take a hit at any moment.” [3] As the Associated Press put it, many people believe “home plate collisions are as much a part of baseball tradition as peanuts and Cracker Jacks and the seventh-inning stretch.” [4]  Second, home plate hits are an essential element of playing the game hard. Without them, baseball would be much less deserving of its nickname “hardball.” One commentator notes, “[An injury is] extremely unfortunate, but it's the result of a hard-nosed play that is as old as the game itself. To take away the potential for a high-intensity, physical play in an otherwise non-physical sport would be a mistake.” [5] In that vein, collisions are also part of the dynamic between the offense and defense that, once removed, will make the game much poorer: “A baserunner wants to get there at all costs, whereas a catcher wants to protect it at all costs. The mutual discomfort that's evoked in both the catcher and the baserunner as a play at the plate develops is one of the intriguing peculiarities that makes the game of baseball so great.” [6]  [1] Antonio Gonzalez, “Posey’s injury stirs debate on baseball collisions,” Associated Press, May 27, 2011,  .  [2] Ibid.  [3] Jayson Stark, “On a collision course,” ESPN.com (Rumblings & Grumblings blog), May 28, 2011,  .  [4] Ibid.  [5] Ricky Doyle, “Buster Posey’s Injury Unfortunate, But Home-Plate Collisions Still Have Place in Baseball,” NESN, May 29, 2011,  .  [6] Ibid .


text: Collisions increase the risk of injury dramatically. Though it’s true that most collisions do not result in significant injury, they result in a higher rate of injury than almost any other baseball play. And just because a collision doesn’t necessarily result in an injury that derails a player’s entire career does not mean that it didn’t take a toll. This is especially true now that we’re learning more about concussions, which might be suffered without someone immediately realizing it. After a catcher on his team suffered a concussion in a collision, Yankees manager Joe Girardi referred to this type of injury as “so unpredictable. That’s what’s so scary.... You just don’t know what’s going to happen” with a concussion. [1]  When catchers are trained to block the plate, they’re taught how to reduce the risk of injury, not how to eliminate the risk of injury. No matter how a catcher positions himself, there will still be a risk of injury, and it will still be much higher than for any other play in baseball.  (Opposition Point #1 elaborates more upon the risk of injury.)  [1] Mark Feisand, “Yankees manager Joe Girardi not counting out catcher Francisco Cervelli for postseason roster,” New York Daily News, Sept. 17, 2011,  .


text: Collisions are exciting and fun to watch.  Baseball is a form of entertainment, and few plays are as entertaining as bang-bang plays (a close call on whether the runner is thrown out) at the plate. As a sport that’s often criticized for being too slow and boring—“baseball has no clock,” the saying goes [1] —it’s important that it hold onto perhaps the most dramatic, vivid play it has to offer. One columnist described it this way: “When [collisions] do occur, they’re exciting. We watch to see how well the catcher blocks the plate, how hard the runner slides, and whether the catcher can hold the ball. As dangerous as that play may be, it’s exciting to watch.” [2]  Other sports—like American football, ice hockey, and rugby—feature plenty of violent hits. Baseball has so few of them that when they do happen, they are doubly entertaining. It is just not necessary for baseball to prohibit a small dose of something that is extremely common in other sports.  [1] William Deresiewicz, “Metaphors We Play By,” American Scholar, June 6, 2011,  .  [2] Nick Cafardo, “Let’s keep rule change off our plate, please,” Boston Globe, May 29, 2011,  .


text: Collisions are often not entertaining, and when they are, it’s for the wrong reasons. Most collisions do not show two athletes engaged in a skilled showdown; they feature athletes awkwardly trying to achieve their goal (scoring or getting the out) without injuring themselves. It’s not fun or exciting.  Fans also tend to be horrified by the injuries they witness in these crashes. Watching Buster Posey’s leg snap at an odd angle was hardly entertaining or amusing; it was stomach-turning.  And if fans do find this sort of thing entertaining, they’re wrong to do so. Violence should not be glorified, at least not in this sport. Nobody should delight in watching baseball players put their careers in jeopardy. Baseball is fundamentally different from other sports; if people want to see athletes impose harmful blows on each other, they can watch boxing or ice hockey or ultimate fighting.


text: In the match-up between catchers and runners, home plate should be treated like the other bases. At first base, second base, or third base, fielders are expected not to block the base and runners are expected not to collide with the fielder. By imposing both of these requirements, neither the catcher nor the runner would have an unfair advantage. Each player would be required to contribute to a situation that allows both of them to avoid a collision.


text: Collisions are not as dangerous as they’re feared to be.  Some hits lead to injury, but the vast majority do not. One commentator challenged proponents of a rule change “to name as many as five MLB catchers in the last 30 years who have had their careers ended or shortened as a result of a home plate collision. Personally, I can’t think of one.” [1] In posing some—though not a substantial—risk, home plate collisions are very much like other aspects of the sport. Every time a pitcher throws a pitch, the batter could get struck and hurt. Every time two outfielders converge on a fly ball, there’s a risk of injury. Baseball, as with many other sports, inherently involves the risk of injury. It makes little sense to focus on this play, which doesn’t often result in significant injury.  Moreover, catchers are trained to position their bodies in ways that minimize the injury risk from crashes. [2] If catchers do as they’re trained, they’re very unlikely to get hurt.  [1] Joe Janish, “Buster Posey Aftermath: What Should Be Done?,” On Baseball, May 30, 2011,  (internal quotation marks omitted).  [2] See, for example, “Relays, Cutoffs, and Plays at Home,” Baseball-Catcher.com,  .


text: Without collisions, either the catcher or the runner would have an enormous and unfair advantage.  There are two often-discussed ways to change the rules: require the runner to slide, just as they must do when attempting to reach other bases; or disallow catchers to block runners’ paths. Each results in an imbalance between the catcher and runner. A commentator describes this dynamic very well:  “If Major League Baseball was to employ a rule stating that runners must avoid contact with the catcher—similar to the ‘slide or avoid’ rule employed in amateur baseball—it would give the advantage to the catcher. The catcher would have the benefit of dictating the course of action that a baserunner must take, and would—perhaps more importantly—have peace of mind knowing that there is no chance of an ensuing collision. If Major League Baseball was to make a rule stating that the catcher cannot block the plate, the advantage would certainly go to the baserunner, who would enjoy the luxury of a straight path to the most sacred ground on a baseball diamond.” [1]  Allowing collisions is the fairest, most even match between the catcher and runner.  [1] Ricky Doyle, “Buster Posey’s Injury Unfortunate, But Home-Plate Collisions Still Have Place in Baseball,” NESN, May 29, 2011,  .


text: Collisions are an occasionally necessary part of the game. When two professional athletes are involved in a dramatic, exciting play that could change the direction of a game (or decide the outcome of the entire season), they will do whatever they can to ensure the play turns out favourably for their team. That means that collisions will occur. To try to remove this aspect of baseball is to ask the players to do something that is completely at odds with their objective: to score, or to prevent the run from scoring.  Though home-plate collisions are prohibited in amateur leagues, the stakes are different. MLB players are paid millions of dollars to score—or prevent—runs. They should be permitted to do what they’re handsomely paid to do.


text: Collisions are not as dangerous as they’re made out to be. (Proposition Argument #3 is directly relevant here, though it’s not repeated in this cell.) People remember vivid example of injuries in home-plate crashes, but that does not mean that they happen as often as people believe. This is a textbook example of the availability heuristic: people believing that an event is much more likely because they can think of an example of it very easily. [1] Yes, those injuries were quite bad, but it was their very severity that leads people to overestimate the frequency and severity of home-plate collisions in general.  Any simulation of a hit at home plate will be imperfect. In a game situation, a runner will have to make a split-second decision of whether to slide around the catcher or to barrel into him, and this will often reduce his speed or remove the decisiveness of his impact. The catcher is also wearing protective pads. The crash-test dummy does not accurately represent reality.  If a team does not want its catchers to be involved in collisions, it can instruct them to avoid collisions, just as the Oakland Athletics did. This is their choice; they have decided that the risk is not worth it. But this is not a reason for MLB to step in and change the rules.  Fans want to see players playing their hardest. A player is much less exciting to watch if he’s always worried first and foremost about whether a particular action is going to injure him. Yes, there’s always a risk of injury, but fans understand that, and they still want to see collisions and players giving their all.  [1] See Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman, “Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability,” Cognitive Psychology, 1973, 4, pp. 207-232,  .


text: Collisions are an example of violence that has no place in baseball.  Baseball is not a contact sport. It is not a sport that is supposed to rely on violence. This is one commentator’s point: “if you want to watch violent collisions, you can watch [American] football. Or hockey. Or MMA. There’s no reason baseball needs to have similar kinds of plays; it’s an entirely different sport with a different premise and different rules.” [1]  Baseball tries to make the game safe for its players. That’s why beanballs—pitches that endanger hitters—are disallowed. Baseball should not promote violence, and it certainly shouldn’t allow it when players’ careers hang in the balance.  [1] Dave Cameron, “It’s Time to End Home Plate Collisions,” FanGraphs, May 26, 2011,  .


text: Collisions heighten antagonisms.  When someone gets hurt in a collision at the plate, the injured player’s teammates are more likely to hold a grudge—and to try to get even. There are numerous opportunities to do that, whether by aiming a pitch at that player, or by seeking another opportunity to hurt him. When Posey was injured, the Giants’ General Manager Brian Sabean said, “If I never hear from Cousins [who hit Posey] again or if he never plays another game in the big leagues, I think we’ll all be happy.... We’ll have a long memory.” [1] This is exactly the unsportsmanlike behaviour engendered by these dangerous and unnecessary plays.  Former MLB catcher Mike Matheny noted that catchers don’t forget when they get hit, saying, “I think you just put a mark in the column that that kid took a run at a catcher. To me as a catcher I know the next time I get the ball I'm going to stick it to him. You make those notes as a catcher.” [2]  [1] “Source: Joe Torre to call Brian Sabean,” ESPN.com News Services, June 3, 2011,  .  [2] R.B. Fallstrom, “Matheny critical of Cousins’ hit on Posey,” Associated Press, May 30, 2011,  .


text: Collisions are unnecessary.  Baseball doesn’t need collisions. By requiring the runner to slide, just as they must do when attempting to reach other bases, or disallowing catchers to block runners’ paths, or—best of all—requiring both those steps, baseball can eliminate collisions.  Unlike in football or rugby, hits at the plate are not a necessary component of the sport. The game is played quite well at the amateur level without such brutal physical contact. [1] Collisions occur relatively infrequently, and the complexion of the game will not be dramatically different without them. Yet the benefits of improved safety are dramatic.  [1] See, for example, American Legion Baseball Rules, Rule 1(E),  .


text: Collisions are dangerous and lead to injury.  Ray Fosse and Buster Posey (mentioned above in the Introduction) are just two examples of players who suffered major injuries in crashes at home plate. Texas Rangers star Josh Hamilton, reigning Most Valuable Player of the American League, broke his arm when he collided with a catcher in 2011. In August 2010, Cleveland Indians catcher Carlos Santana suffered a season-ending knee injury when he was hit by Red Sox runner Ryan Kalish. To go back a few more seasons, Braves catcher Greg Olson was having a career year in 1992 until Ken Caminiti broke his leg in a collision. There have been literally dozens of severe injuries suffered in bang-bang plays at the plate.  This high rate of injury should come as no surprise, given the physics involved in this type of play. A simulation with a crash-test dummy wired with sensors showed that a catcher can get hit by a runner travelling 18 miles per hour, resulting in 3,200 pounds of force—much worse than an American football hit, with much less padding. [1]  Teams make heavy investments in their players, paying them millions of dollars a year. Thus, serious injuries are very expensive, both because of the treatment required and because the player is missing many games. This is why the Oakland Athletics instructed their top catcher, Kurt Suzuki, to avoid blocking the plate—because their investment in him is worth more than whatever runs he allows by failing to stop the runner from scoring. [2]  When players are injured in these plays, it’s also bad for fans, who will lose the opportunity to see their favourite athletes on the field. As Bruce Bochy, Busty Posey’s manager with the Giants, told the media after he lost his star catcher to injury: “And here’s a guy that’s very popular in baseball. Fans want to see him play, and now he’s out for a while.” [3]  [1] Joel Siegel, Barbara Pinto, and Tahman Bradley, “Catcher Collision Ignites Baseball Rules Debate,” ABC News, May 28, 2011,  .  [2] Buster Olney, “Billy Beane issues home plate directive,” ESPN The Magazine, June 1, 2011,  .  [3] Tim Kawakami, “Bochy on Posey’s injury: ‘Hopefully the guys are not happy—I’m certainly not happy,’” MercuryNews.com (Talking Points blog), May 26, 2011,  .


text: A clean hit will not heighten tensions between teams. Players recognize when a collision is “dirty” and when it is entirely within the rules and spirit of the game. After the Posey hit, a baseball columnist summed up “the consensus viewpoint” of baseball professionals and journalists: “It was a clean play.” [1]  In the 2011 playoffs, Texas Rangers Mike Napoli was barrelled over by Sean Rodriguez of the Los Angeles Angels. Napoli said afterward, “It was a fine, clean play. He was trying to score. I’m going to try to do the same thing if I’m trying to score and a guy is blocking the plate in that moment.” [2] As long as a player is not intending to hurt another and does not use unnecessary force, players on both teams are unlikely to hold grudges.  The threat of retaliation for “dirty” hits is actually a useful deterrent to gratuitous force. Players are much less likely to hurt each other if they know that there will be consequences for that behaviour.  [1] Bruce Jenkins, “Buster Posey’s injury provokes anger, reflection,” San Francisco Chronicle, May 27, 2011,  .  [2] Richard Durrett, “Catcher Mike Napoli fine after collision,” ESPN.com, October 5, 2011,  .


text: Some level of violence is called for in baseball. Just because most plays in baseball do not involve contact does not mean that no plays should involve contact. It has been a part of the game for decades, so it is false to argue that it is not part of the game, or to assert that baseball is not a contact sport at all.  There is also a clear difference between violence that is intended to injure an opponent—for example, in a boxing match or an ice hockey fight—and physical contact that is aimed at a valid objective, such as scoring a run. A beanball is not a way to achieve a valid objective. In addition, a beanball is much more dangerous than a collision at home plate. A beanball has resulted in a fatality at an MLB game [1] ; no home-plate collision has even come close.  [1] “Beaned by a Pitch, Ray Chapman Dies,” New York Times, Aug. 17, 1920,  .


title: media and good government house believes community radio good

text: While it is inexpensive to set up and run this is relatively expensive for the community compared to commercial radio, which is free to the user and perfectly capable of promoting the ideas of the free market which have had a proven benefit to democratic structures the world over.  In addition to which, realistically, democratic participation will end up involving larger national bodies such as trades union, political parties and civil society organisations who need to operate on a nationwide basis but also have larger budgets.


text: Radio is cheap to produce and easily accessible.  Community radio relies on the power of its ideas and the thirst for those ideas among its audience. It accepts the notion that it is the exchange of information and views, freely given and received, that is more important than the ideas themselves.  It doesn’t require massive budgets and radio waves can be received on equipment that costs pennies; more importantly it can be shared.  For all of its pretensions of accessibility the devices used to access the Internet tend to be expensive and they also tend not to be shared – unlike radios [i] .  To give some context to this, even paying Western prices, a small radio station can be started for as little as $10,000 with monthly costs of $1,000 [ii] . Some of that, of course, relates to government issued licences, clearly this does not apply if the station is planning to be ignored by the authorities. These costs can be further reduced when the founders have a pre-existing knowledge of radio engineering or work with a partner organisation such as the BBC World Service or the various NGOs who specialise in the field [iii] .  [i] Plunkett, John, Community radio: A rare success story. The Guardian. 9 March 2009.  [ii] Prometheus Radio Project.  [iii] Wikipedia. Community Radio.


text: Once again, Proposition is conflating things that tend to go along with community development and those that cause it. The fact that vibrant and active communities, duly engaged in wider society, frequently set up institutions such as community radio in no way demonstrates that it encourages civic participation.


text: Community radio gives voices to the people rather than imposing those of the powerful.  The events of the Arab Spring (and previous events such as the revolutions of 1989) have shown that effective means of communicating are vital. In a country where people have heard only one perspective, anything that can break the monopoly is to be welcomed. As Orwell put it, 'In an age of universal deceit, to tell the truth is a subversive act'.  Community radio can both encourage an initial outpouring of democracy and, just as importantly, ensure that a diversity of opinions means that one autocratic regime is not just replaced by another.  In almost all other forms of mass communication, genuinely democratic voices are easily swamped by those with either the power or the money to drown out the competition [i] . As the focus of community radio is public service, rather than profit, responsible to – and frequently produced by – their listener base there do not have commercial advertisers’ aversion to upsetting authority – either political or cultural. As a result they are free to eschew the bland lowest common denominator approach that is so typical of commercial radio.  [i] AMARC (World Association of Community Radio) booklet. What is Community Radio? 1998.


text: Community radio can indeed do the many wondrous things that Prop seems to trust it to do. It can also do more or less anything else. If proposition is trying to demonstrate that community radio, per se, supports democracy, then it needs to demonstrate how it does so more than, say, libraries or coffee shop discussion groups. It may be a public service that is responsible to the community but that does not mean that it cannot be infiltrated and controlled by the state like any other service.


text: Community radio evens the playing field against state and corporate broadcasters.  Autocracy has, at its root, the premise that only one perspective, or group of perspectives is legitimate. Certain assumptions are unquestionable, certain rules inviolable and, more often than not, certain voices unchallengeable.  It’s all too easy for that state of affairs to be normalised. Community radio offers another voice. More to the point it offers many.  As well as the value of the messages themselves, the very fact that they are there and broadcast is a powerful statement against autocratic assumptions. The process of establishing and running a community radio station is, in and of itself, a powerful fillip for community cohesion.  Giving voices to communities supports them as groups in their own right; cohesive, engaged and worthy of respect. In doing so it can provide a focus which increases the homogeneity of those communities without requiring the approval of a central structure of control [i] . In addition to well known examples such as Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, radio stations across the Middle East And, especially, Africa have been key movers in the shift to democracy [ii] .  [i] Siddharth. Riding the radio wave; Community radio in South-East Asia. Culture360.org 18 February 2010.  [ii] Buckley, Steve, President, World Association for Community Radio Broadcasters. Community Broadcasting: good practice in policy, law and regulation. UNESCO. 2008.


text: It is a platform, but it’s a platform with history – one that has allowed small or marginalised groups to have a voice. Of course a radio station won’t build democratic strength on its own but it is an important tool in normalising the concept that the voices of those communities have both worth and power.


text: Opposition is letting state-sanctioned media off the hook fantastically lightly. Just staying within the Arab world, the number of broadcasters that sully the name of journalism by acting as apologists for butchers and torturers is astonishing. One example of this – selected utterly at random from an embarrassment of riches – was the state media’s declaration of historic victories by both Milosovich and Saddam Hussein after both had received drubbings from Western allies [i] . There is at least a chance that a broadcaster won’t be just a voice for the state if it isn’t funded or run by the president or one of his closest allies or appointees.  [i] Ash, Timothy Garton, Facts are Subversive. The Strange Toppling of Slobodan Milošević. Atlantic Books. 2009. This account is one of many, many others that highlight the importance of the control of media centres in democratic shift. However, it highlights the Serbian state media’s proclamation of Milošević’s ‘victories’ against the west but also the impact of this when, fallowing the dictator’s fall, it was the seizure of the state TV and Radio stations, rather than parliament or the presidential palace, that denoted victory.


text: Radio is yesterday’s technology.  Proposition is right to point out the role that has traditionally been filled by relatively small scale radio – providing a relatively cheap method of getting in touch with anybody willing to listen. However, that has, effectively, been rendered redundant by Internet technology. The power of Facebook, Youtube and other sites to disseminate ideas and information as well as phone texting has not only matched that role but surpassed it.  With no capital costs in an era of internet cafes and omnipresent cell phones, the free exchange of information through digital and portable technology has met exactly the needs and concerns Proposition highlights. [i]  Suggesting that community radio will somehow supplement or enhance that process it taking a step backwards; support for the relatively monolithic radio model runs all of the risks of empowering extremists already mentioned without even equalling the benefits of texting and social media [ii] .  [i] Helling, Alex, ‘This House would use foreign aid funds to research and distribute software that allows bloggers and journalists in non democratic countries to evade censorship and conceal their online activities’, freespeechdebate.idebate.org, 18 May 2012.  [ii] Hood, Michael, NPR CEO: Internet will replace broadcast radio in 5-10 years. Blatherwatch, 3 June 2010.


text: Community radio is just a platform, there is nothing innately democratic about it.  To associate a medium with a particular virtue is missing the point. Radio has been used for atrocity and tyranny (Rwanda would be an obvious example) just as much as the promotion and development of democracy. Equally the suggestion that community radio has a more significant role to play in this regard as opposed to, say, the BBC world Service, is ignoring the facts.  Particular media cannot be said to support democratic renewal any more than particular languages can. Equally, the revolutions of 1989 demonstrated the reality that taking control of the national radio station is, in some situations, more important than seizing the Presidential Palace. Neither the ‘community’ element nor the ‘radio’ aspect are innately democratic.  Different media have, undeniably, produced different types of social change – but they all have possibilities for democratic progress [i] .  [i] Sedra, Mark, Revolution 2.0: democracy promotion in the age of social media. The Globe and Mail. 2 February 2011.


text: Community radio just gives a megaphone to extremists.  Experience suggests that the airwaves, unregulated, tend to attract pedagogues seeking followers more than democrats seeking the views of others. Particularly in areas of high sectarian divisions, technologies that propagate the views of every mullah with a mic are unlikely to help democracy in the middle east. Indeed the experience with the nearest equivalent in the US, talk radio, shows how fantastically divisive it can be. [i]  Community radio in areas that do not have a history of plurality and diversity of opinion would be likely to see the spread of radio stations pandering to the specific views of every shard and splinter of opinion, reinforcing that particular set of beliefs while ignoring all others – it is difficult to imagine a more toxic – and less democratic – option to encourage in the Arab world [ii] .  The difficulty, as shown in the reference given in the previous paragraph, is that exactly the same ease of access applies to fanatics as to democrats – who may, frequently, be the same people. In the instance of Rwanda, extremists inciting violence (almost entirely Hutus) had acquired small scale radio equipment. The government couldn’t afford the jamming equipment (the US jamming flights would cost $8500 per hour) and sought assistance from the Americans. The UN objected as such actions were clearly sectarian. However, the wide use of Radio – initially funded by the West – which, in part at least had lead to the genocide then left a toxic legacy of fanatics dominating the airwaves, those involved were eventually convicted in 2003. [iii]  [i] Noriega, Chin A, and Iribarren, Francisco Javier, ‘Quantifying Hate Speech on Commercial Talk Radio’, Chicano Studies Research Center, November 2011.  [ii] Wisner, Frank G., ‘Memorandum for deputy assistant to the president for national security affairs, national security council, Department of Defense, 5 May 1994.  [iii] Smith, Russell, ‘The impact of hate media in Rwanda’, BBC News, 3 December 2003.  Dale, Alexander C., ‘Countering hate messages that lead to violence: The United Nations’s chapter VII authority to use radio jamming to halt incendiary broadcasts’, Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law, Vol 11. 2001.


text: For all of its potential, the idea that the Internet is a worldwide force is something of a Western conceit. That fact is doubly the case when discussing the social media sites that Op seems to think are such a panacea. These sites – and the Internet in general – are overwhelmingly white, Western and wealthy.


title: nothing sacred house believes bbc should be free blaspheme

text: Proposition are obfuscating attacks on the right to a free expression of religious faith, free of ridicule or threat for doing so behind the BBCs obligation to be fair. This right is established in national and international law where it is not treated as comparable to what someone might find interesting as part of the nights viewing. The latter is clearly trivial by comparison to the former.  Those leading the protests have been quite clear that they have no objection to free speech and discussing, and disagreeing with, various religious themes – so long as that is done in a respectful manner. It was offensive that it had been shown at the National Theatre and then in Cambridge; for it to be broadcast on the de facto ‘flag carrier’ of British broadcasting is simply unfair to the many Christian licence fee payers who help fund the BBC’s output [i] .  [i] The Christian Voice. Statement from their website in 2005.


text: Many people find the views expressed by much of the church offensive, those views are given airtime, a public service broadcaster should provide a level playing field for ideas.  The role of a public service broadcaster, especially one of the stature of the BBC, is to provide a portal for ideas from all perspectives. There are many who take either irritation or offence at the idea that the Corporation devotes a disproportionate time and resources to what, in modern Britain, is a strictly minority interest [i] with fewer than seven per cent of people regularly attending religious worship.  Many perceive commonly held positions in the mainstream churches – let alone more extreme sects – to be offensive or reactionary and, in some cases, a cover for homophobic, illiberal or sexist opinions.  If religious opinion is to be granted this airtime for the benefit of a small, if vocal, minority then it seems both unfair and unprofessional for that broadcaster to be constrained by that groups views in relation to the rest of its output.  The BBC, like most major broadcasters, meets the challenge of divergent or conflicting views by providing some output that is considered likely to be of interest to each viewpoint.  [i] National Secular Society. Press Release: “BBC Must Not Become the Evangelical Wing of the Church of England.” 9 February 2010.


text: It is wrong to suggest that the BBC has any duty on account of its relative funding freedom to give a platform to controversial works of art. On the contrary the BBC has a higher obligation to viewers not to offend them because they are also licence payers. Highlighting the BBC’s global audience also has little meaning as the global audience did not all have the opportunity to watch the programme – the numbers are global and include radio. The 1,500 protesters outside BBC studios was a small slice of the tens of thousands who voiced their protest in one form or another. These protests took place outside productions around the world involving Christians from many walks of life as well as the numerous complaints. However the BBC, dominated by an out of touch urban elite, clearly had little interest in the huge amount of offence that it had caused.


text: This was a piece of art, advertised and described as such, those likely to be offended were quite welcome not to watch it.  The allegation made by those who objected to the airing of this show was that it was blasphemous. There were also objections to the graphic nature of the language and sexual reference. It seems staggeringly unlikely that 55,000 [i] people had accidently been watching opera on BBC 2 having failed to watch any of the warnings in advance or the fairly extensive media discussion in advance of the broadcast.  Therefore, those who watched it made a choice to do so – and it seems reasonable to consider that an informed choice. A free society is predicated on the fact that adults have the right to make choices. In turn that is based on the shared understanding that those choices have consequences; which may, potentially, cause some degree of harm to the person making that choice. Having been warned that watching the broadcast may cause them offence, viewers still chose to and some, it seems, were duly offended.  It seems reasonable, therefore, to assume that the shock was either feigned or a matter of pretence. Which leaves the matter of blasphemy; an offence against a belief system. There was no secret that religious issues were likely to feature in the broadcast and no secret was made of the fact that those views were likely to be both critical and forthright. Tuning in, specifically to be offended by something that the viewer had been warned they might find offensive seems perverse.  By contrast, art lovers who wished to see the production - which had received four Lawrence Olivier Awards among other tributes – had the opportunity to experience a theatrical work they would have had a limited opportunity to witness had it not been broadcast nationally.  It would be bizarre to disadvantage those who wanted to – and actually did – see the performance (about 1.7 million [ii] )because of the views of those who neither wanted to see it or refused to do so  [i] Wikipedia entry: “Jerry Springer: The Opera”  [ii] BBC News Website. “Group to Act Over singer Opera.” 10 January 2005.


text: As Proposition suggest, the broadcast had been widely discussed in the media before the event and there had been reviews of the stage performance as well as coverage of the subsequent awards. It cannot have come as a huge surprise that this would attract attention from, and cause great offence to, many people with an interest in the popular portrayal of religion. The trick of deliberately stoking allegations of blasphemy and obscenity to improve the ratings of a fairly obscure art form is as old as it is contemptible.  Equally there is a secondary level of impact in terms of how the deep beliefs of people of faith will be represented to those who choose to watch and are not offended. They are hardly likely to have their perceptions of those beliefs enhanced by seeing matters portrayed in this way. There is, therefore, the risk that the interaction between those two groups will be effected in a deleterious way.


text: There is clearly a different threshold between the questions “do I like soap operas?” and “do I appreciate having my beliefs excoriated on national TV?” The difficulty here is that many who took offence saw the programme as a direct attack on themselves personally, their beliefs and the others who shared their faith.


text: There is a duty for a broadcaster that is not dependent on either commercial or state funding to give a platform to controversial works of art.  The BBC is in an unusual position, simply because of its funding structure, to promote new or challenging works of art. The licence fee means that it is freed of many of the pressures brought to bear by either commercial or political masters. Although it has never taken that to mean it has a carte blanche, it does allow for opportunities simply not available to many broadcasters in terms showcasing new works of art and encouraging creative development.  The BBC’s global audience in 2007 was 233 million [i] . That audience provides some context for the 1,500 who actively protested this particular broadcast.  It seems reasonable to suggest that many of those millions follow the BBC because they trust the Corporation’s approach of providing the widest possible range of output and opinion. For such an organisation to capitulate to a prudish group – who were outside BBC venues at the time so couldn’t have seen the broadcast – would be a huge betrayal of that trust.  [i] BBC News Website. “BBC Global Audience Hits New High”. 21 May 2007.


text: It is simply impractical for a major international broadcaster to hand out powers of veto to small sectional interests.  The BBC would quickly be left with a content either devoid of interest or of content were it to allow such a veto to become normative. Especially were it, as appears to be the case here, to offer such a veto to people who didn’t watch the programme.  As a result, although some of the responsibility for avoiding offence lies with the broadcaster at least an equal share must lie with the viewer. Even at the more basic level of ‘will I like this’, responsibility lies with both parties. The BBC undertakes to provide a diverse range of programming so that there is a reasonable chance that the overwhelming majority should be able to find something of interest but does so on the assumption that people will watch what they find interesting.  Likewise, it is reasonable to assume that people will not go out of their way to watch things that they already expect to find offensive.


text: The BBC may be unusual but it is designed to fulfill particular functions. The very reason for its existence is to provide a platform for the free expression of a wide range of views, tailored to a wide range of viewers. Within that context, it cannot be expected that everyone will feel equally comfortable with every programme – indeed if that were the case, they would be breaching their own commitments to reflect diverse, often special, interests. There are other services and broadcasters who receive support from the licence fee, so those who wish to view elsewhere are not throwing away their investment. [i]  [i] Holmwood, Leigh et al., ‘Digital Britain: BBC licence fee to help fund broadband and ITV local news’, the Guardian, 16 June 2009.


text: BBC Director General, Mark Thompson, who is himself a practising Christian, said that he found ‘nothing blasphemous’ about the programme [i] . The protests were small and overwhelmingly organised by one group. There is simply no case for a right not to be offended by something you’ve seen; far less for something you haven’t. This would equally apply if the programme had been offensive to some Muslims as it does to a programme that is offensive to some Christians.  [i] BBC News Website. “Protests as BBC Screens Springer”. 10 January 2005.


text: Tens of thousands of licence fee payers objected to this, ultimately they are the BBC’s key stakeholder and that view is worthy of respect.  As an institution, the BBC may like to position itself as a global media brand but that doesn’t alter the fact that it is funded by, and chartered to serve, the British population. The whole British population. That combination – paying the pipers and calling the tune – would suggest that the corporation might be sensitive to that group.  If 50,000 to 60,000 users of any other brand registered their protest or objection to a product put forward by that brand, it would cause chaos, resignations, sackings and a rethink of whatever strategy had caused the problem in the first place.  In the case of the BBC, it caused a few slightly dismissive comments from senior managers, one editor resigned because he felt that the protesters comments were not being taken seriously and the organisation continued as though nothing had happened.  The sheer arrogance required for that response beggars belief. The BBC, as a public institution has a duty of care that might be thought of as greater than that of a private corporation. And yet it gave the impression of acting like it was just one of the other venues who had staged the opera. There is clearly a difference between a theatre that I choose to attend or not – and choose whether to support financially – and the national broadcaster which is beamed into people’s living room paid for by a compulsory licence fee.


text: Why should those who foot the bill have chunks of airtime from which they are, effectively, excluded.  How can it be okay for a broadcaster, funded by a compulsory levy on anyone who owns a television, to willingly produce programmes they know will cause offence to that consumer?  The charge of blasphemy is far more than saying ‘I didn’t enjoy this’ or ‘not my kind of show’, it is a deeply held belief that what has been said is a deliberate and willful attack on values and beliefs that the viewer holds sacred and fundamental to who they are.  All major broadcasters, including the BBC, routinely test shows and monitor audience response and yet, in this particular regard, feel relaxed about producing material that certain viewers would consider it not only uncomfortable but sinful to watch. By definition, those viewers cannot watch those shows or, quite probably, that station and yet they are still expected to pay for it.  Even if a British viewer were to choose never to watch the BBC again because of the offence caused by programmes such as Jerry Springer: The Opera, they would still be paying the salaries of those who had caused the offence in the first place. That cannot be reasonable by any standard.


text: If this work had been an attack on Mohammed it would never have been broadcast, the BBC is applying double standards.  A week before the broadcast of the opera, protest by Sikhs in Birmingham about the play Bezthi by the Birmingham Rep, brought the show to a close. Like many organisations, the BBC panics when it believes it has caused offence to some religions and yet Christianity – by far the world’s most populous and diverse creed [i] - is routinely ignored or expected to ‘take it on the chin.  Christian symbols and imagery are routinely profaned by major broadcasters, publishers and others in a way that would simply not be tolerated if they were directed at ‘minority’ faiths in the UK.  Article Four (4) of the BBC’s charter [ii] stipulates quite clearly that all of the UK’s communities should be reflected in all of its activities. Despite this the interests of the community that is represented by the established church of the country, headed by the monarch, receives the least support or consideration from the institution.  [i]   [ii] BBC Charter.


text: In the same way that the BBC is routinely criticised from the political Right for its Left-wing bias and from the Left for a supposed favouritism to the Right, maintaining balance in any sphere of life is difficult. Freedom of speech demands that such a balance is maintained, however hard to do. That balance can mean that last week’s bosom buddies may be this week’s fiercest foes. The reality of both free expression and a public service ethos mean that one cannot, constantly yield to the cry of ‘more of what I like’. Any broadcaster could not show a greater disrespect to its viewers than by assuming they could not be capable of dealing with new ideas.


title: free speech and privacy health general international africa politics

text: The media always want a good story; they are interested in the health of celebrities when there is no clear reason why they should have any right to this private information. The health of the leader is not something that the press or public needs to know about unless it is an illness that is likely to affect the president’s capacity to make decisions. A government’s decision should not be based upon the possibility that information on the leader’s health will leak and should take a consistent line that it is a private matter or provide a bare minimum of information.


text: The people are interested in the health of their leader  The health of the leader of the state is an issue that the people and the media inevitably want to know about. There will always be a lot of interest in it. Occasionally this can be played by the administration as with Kissinger saying he was ill and using time to fly to Beijing to arrange for Nixon’s visit without press attention. But most of the time keeping things from the press is purely negative; it drives rumors.  This was the case of John Atta Mills, people were not allowed to know about his health. The presidential staff and communication members constantly lied about his health but there were two reports that he had died. Mills spent time in a US hospital, on returning to Ghana, he was made to jog around the airport to show the media that he was healthy. 1  1 Committee for Social Advocacy, 'Who and what killed President John Evans Atta Mills?', Modern Ghana, 13 August 2012,


text: Administrative capabilities should not be compared to health. Unhealthy leaders may perform better than the healthy ones, people could be misled to choose inappropriate leaders while taking health as a black spot while the leader could actually have a better potential than the rest. If the electorate had just elected on the basis of health, or had been fully informed about presidents health then it is plausible that neither FD Roosevelt of JF Kennedy would have been elected. Neither completely hid their illnesses but they were not discussed and did not become election issues as they would have in a modern election. 1  1 Berish, Amy, ‘FDR and Polio’, Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum,


text: The head of state/government must be accountable to the people  Secrecy in relation to the leader’s health shows a distrust or distain of the electorate. Not being open about health issues almost invariably means that the administration is lying to those who elected them, those who they are accountable to. A couple of days before John Atta Mills died Nii Lantey Vanderpuye a candidate for Mills’ party stated “He [Mills] is stronger and healthier than any presidential candidate”, information that in retrospect was clearly untrue. 1  1 Takyi-Boadu, Charles, ‘Confusion Hits Mills’, Modern Ghana, 21 July 2012,


text: If a candidate has a condition during an election campaign then there is a clear right to know when the electorate is making the decision. But does such a right to know apply at other times when it will make no difference to the people? There can only be a right to know if it is going to affect the people, something that many illnesses won’t do.


text: All of these procedures could be put in place even if there is secrecy. Doctors are already committed to patient-doctor confidentiality so are unlikely to tell the press if they are told beforehand to be ready to receive the President.


text: Transparency allows citizens to choose for a healthy leader as to ensure proper functioning  The health and fitness of a leader is a vital issue when choosing a leader; the electorate deserves to know if they are likely to serve out their term. When health conditions are hidden from the people they may mistakenly elect a leader who is unable to serve a full term or is at times not in control of the country. There would be little point in voting for a leader who will often not truely be in charge of the country, if voters are told it becomes their choice whether this is a problem. Transparency in terms of clear, accurate and up-to-date information is necessary for the electorate to judge the fitness of a leader which is a necessary precondition for election. In a democracy a leader needs to be accountable, he can only be accountable if the elctorate knows such vital information.