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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


This creates a dangerous precedent  The idea that corporations can, effectively, buy words and phrases set a pernicious precedent similar to their ability to own genes. There are certain things that, self-evidently, are the property of the people. They are held in common and in trust for future generations. They cannot be sold because they are not owned. Attempts to evade that reality have, generally, been seen as pernicious by history – even where they have not been rectified. European settlers laying claim to land used by indigenous people would be one example.  Recent attempts by pharmaceutical companies to purchase genes [i] and now other Corporations to own chunks of the language – or at least rent them from governments and NGOs that also don’t own them in the first place - seems to come in a similar spirit.  Who can reasonably be said to own, for example, the phrase “London 2012”? If anybody could make such a claim, Londoners living in the city in 2012 would seem to be the obvious answer. However, there is a far more satisfying answer that nobody does.  The London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 extends the scope of protection given to the Olympic and Paralympic Games by making it an infringement of the “London Olympic Association Right” (LOAR) to do anything which is “likely to create in the public mind an association” with the London Olympics [ii] . [iii]  The fact that this is happening in relation to the Olympics makes the precedent particularly troubling as the idea that the Games are for all mankind is at the heart of the Olympic ideal. It is an aspiration of our common humanity and all that entails. If chunks of that are for sale then it raises very real concerns about what else could go under the hammer.  [i] Noonan, Kevin ed., ‘This House would allow the patenting of genes’, Debatabase, 2011.  [ii] International Trademark Association.  [iii] Davies, Malcolm, ‘Intellectual Property and the London 2012 Olympic Games - What businesses need to know’, Intellectual Property Office, November 2009.


All of the other inconveniences mentioned by Opposition have been mitigated as much as possible by the organisers. For example local government and transport bodies have been providing advice and encouragement on arranging different routes and minimizing the need to travel at all for months in advance of the games. In this matter however, the organizers and elected officials have come down firmly on the side of sponsors. The very inconveniences outlined by Opposition are already hurting some traders as people choose to work from home or take the opportunity to leave the city altogether. Denying those traders every opportunity to recoup the lost revenue from their regular clientele is, as a result, doubly unfair.


It would be nice to think that, at least at some level, sponsors offer sponsorship out of a desire to give something back to the customers who create vast profits for them but perhaps that is naïve. Ultimately, however, this exercise in ownership has been counter-productive. It would be difficult to imagine an ‘ambush advertising’ action that would come close to inflicting the damage on corporate reputations that the bad press surrounding this issue has generated. From the point of view of sponsors, this was a real example of the best getting in the way of the good. The net result has been that nobody has benefitted as they could have if the sponsors had not been so set on exclusivity of association.


There is a clear difference between protecting commercial interests in terms of association with a sponsored event and ‘owning words’.  It would be both illegal and impractical for a sponsor to ‘buy’ the word “London”. The rules make it clear that they are not attempting to infringe on, for example, the right of journalists to report the Games nor on people to discuss them. A simple Google search will bring up thousands of articles – like this one – using the Olympic rings, the phrase “London 2012” and many of the others words and phrases that concern Proposition. At no point have the news organisations concerned been asked to pay. There is clearly a world of difference between an existing magazine running a feature about the event – indeed several features – and the creation of a one-off special publication stuffed full of advertising for a direct competitor of the event.  An equivalent would be paying for a meal in a restaurant only to see that everyone else was eating for free. That is the infringement of natural justice. Sponsors have paid to have a certain association with the Games and it is both fair and reasonable that they should get that association in a way that does not allow their competitors to get a free lunch.  It is ridiculous to suggest that this is tantamount to ‘owning words’ as Proposition has done. To start with the preclusions cited here are temporary, additionally they are only in reference to this event. It would seem to be in everyone’s interest for sponsorship of sport and the arts to continue, for that to happen, they sponsors need to get something in return.


Sponsorship is necessary to host major sporting events  It is in the interests of communities and countries to attract sponsorship for events on this scale, as with other areas, such as transport, that requires a little sacrifice. Hosting major events, inevitably, requires some degree of inconvenience for those living in the area trying to go about their daily lives. These inconveniences are tolerated because there are wider benefits. In the instance of the Olympics, a core part of the initial bid was the assumption that hosting them would produce long term benefits for the city in the form of tourism [i] and regeneration. [ii] Whether that proves to be the case remains to be seen although, given the number of historic venues used for events [iii] , it doesn’t seem unreasonable to suppose that it may be likely.  To ensure these future benefits, there is an understanding that there will be some disruption caused and some inconvenience, allowing sponsors a degree of autonomy is comparable to that inconvenience.  LOCOG argues without the sponsors “investment the Games wouldn’t happen.” [iv] Without the Games the future benefits wouldn’t happen – quite the reverse if they simply fell apart after the bid had been won. The smaller traders who feel aggrieved now are exactly the people who will benefit for years to come as people make use of the new facilities or see London as a tourist destination they would not otherwise have considered. It’s a simple quid pro quo.  [i] Woodman, Peter, ‘London 2012: Olympic boost to retailers and tourism new figures show’, The Independent, 6 August 2012.  [ii] ‘Regeneration and economic growth Olympics legacy’, Communities and Local Government, accessed 9th August 2012  [iii] London Olympics: Some Events Set Amid Historic City Landmarks. LA Times. 27 July 2012.  [iv] London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Limited, ‘Rule 40 Guidelines’, July 2011, p.6.


Sponsors pay for the privilege  Sponsors pay an enormous amount of money to support events such as the Olympics, it is only fair that they can protect themselves against ‘ambush advertising’ by competitors. This is an issue of simple financial reality. Although there have been some unpleasant – and probably unwise – accounts of smaller traders getting caught up in the crossfire, and opposition concedes that should be rectified in future events – the purpose of this kind of legislation and the regulations it spawns is to prevent direct competitors of sponsors finding ways to ambush the event [i] .  The issue of concern is not really a lone athletics fan wandering into the final of the Men’s 100m with a can of Pepsi. The intention is clearly to prevent representatives of that company standing outside the venue handing out thousands of free T-shirts.  There have been some problems with the implementation of this legislation but the principle remains sound and serves to the benefit of all. The alternative would be both Coke and Pepsi reps handing out T-shirts outside and the organisers of the event not getting a penny from either. It is only fair that those who pay the piper to a certain extent get to call the tune.  [i] London 2012: Coe Sparks Olympic Sponsorship Row. Shiv Malik. The Guardian. 20 July 2012.


There are examples of Journalists running foul the Olympics and its partners. The most famous being Guy Adams, whose Twitter account was suspended following criticism of NBCUniversal’s coverage of the event. Although NBC are a media partner rather than a sponsor, they paid $1.8bn for the media rights and the principles of belligerent protectionism would still seem to apply [i] . Even if it is just for the duration of the Games, even if it is for one day of them, or one minute of them, this would still be an attack on the freedom of speech of the individuals concerned. By its nature, freedom of speech is indivisible, we either have it or we don’t; the pretence that it is possible to say that ‘people are free to say whatever they like, apart from this’ completely misses that point.  [i] Journalists Twitter Account Restored After Suspension. BBC Website. 30 July 2012.


Let us say, for the sake of argument that the opposition had tabled a motion of impeachment – which would have even less impact in the long run. Would it still be inappropriate to report? What if the allegation were corruption, a partisan approach in Mexico’s interminable and bloody drug wars? Would it still not be correct to report it?  Clearly something which is widely discussed in political circles and, if true, would have grave implications for the political direction of the country should be reported. Aristegui did so with all of the tact and professionalism available.


Aristegui was fairly obviously played by the opposition; she should not have provided the coverage they desired.  Opposition parties in every democracy in the world produce stories or actions calling on those in power to do or say something ridiculous or making unfounded allegations just to get some coverage and damage their opponent’s credibility. Viewers and readers expect journalist to use their professional judgement in choosing where to give real stories the oxygen of publicity and when to ignore something as a publicity stunt. Unfurling banners in parliament is clearly the latter.  As a result journalists are able to present their audience with something they have good reason to believe is true. Instead Aristegui, effectively, came up with “well, some people said these, it might be true, it might not, someone should find out.” That ‘someone’ should have been her.  An equivalent would be the difference between sharing some gossip about someone at work with a colleague and sending a memo about it to that person’s boss [i] .  By mentioning this at all on air, the rumour is given credibility that it did not deserve and the President’s reputation was unfairly sullied.  [i] William Booth (Washington Post). Mexico buzzes over Calderon’s alleged drinking. Printed in the San Francisco Chronicle. 12 February 2011.


The three examples prop cites come from a quite different period in history. President Sarkozy’s personal life, in contrast to his predecessors, received massive scrutiny in the domestic and international press.  Furthermore, alcoholism is a rather different case to measles if, as has been alleged online, Calderón has been drunk to the point of incapacitation at official functions, that impacts on the image of Mexico in the world. This can be shown by the laughing stock that Boris Yeltsin became around the world. [i] It should also be noted that the President having a relatively minor ailment may have been an issue as his secretary highlighted in response to the allegations "During the four years of his administration, he has never missed any event because of health problems". [ii]  [i] BBC News, ‘Boris Yeltsin: Master of surprise’, 31 December 1999  [ii] Booth, William, ‘Respected Mexican journalist fired for addressing Calderon drinking rumor’, Washington Post, 11 February 2011


The journalist in question failed to produce any evidence that this affected Calderón’s job performance.  There is no public interest issue here, otherwise that would have been the main thrust of the story, moreover other news media would have picked up on the story as well. Instead this is a simple case of intrusion into a public figure’s private life, apparently for no reason other than it being a fairly easy story. This is exactly the kind of story that a reasonable distinction between public and private issues is meant to avoid. There is was evidence of alcoholism by President Calderon presented by the banner waving opposition [i] so a good journalist should have either found evidence as if it was affecting Calderon’s ability to govern then there would be evidence that could be found or else she should have dropped the story rather than reporting rumour and insinuation.  The fact that by doing so she endangered not only her own reputation with the president’s office but that of the show and the company clearly makes it a disciplinary matter. Intruding on anyone’s private life unnecessarily is unpleasant invading the privacy of a figure with whom one is likely to need to work in the future is professional stupidity.  On both of these grounds, this particular intrusion was unnecessary. This has nothing to do with Aristegui’s freedom of speech and everything to do with Calderón’s right to privacy [ii] .  [i] Booth, William, ‘Respected Mexican journalist fired for addressing Calderon drinking rumor’, Washington Post, 11 February 2011  [ii] Fox news website. Mexican president denies rumoured drinking problems. 10 February 2011.


It has to be accepted that a person accepts a certain loss of privacy when they stand for office. Beyond that, the issue at stake here is not whether this is good or bad journalism but whether it is journalism. By any reasonable definition a protest staged by leading members of the national legislature and concerning the character of the president would seem to qualify. As Aristegui herself argues “The health status and degree of equilibrium of a president is a matter of clear public interest.” [i]  [i] Booth, William, ‘Respected Mexican journalist fired for addressing Calderon drinking rumor’, Washington Post, 11 February 2011


Alcoholism is a disease, if the story was that the president had measles, it wouldn’t have got a mention.  Let’s take an historical example of the ‘well-being of the head or state’ in ‘democracies around the world’. A majority of US citizens were unaware that FDR was wheel chair bound – even after his death. [i] The fact the Churchill hit the bottle early in the morning was never mentioned to voters in the UK, even at their “darkest hour”, and still remains a matter of debate. [ii] The French have long ignored the streams of mistresses wandering in and out of the Élysée Palace throughout the history of the Fifth Republic. [iii]  All of these things were well known by the journalists of their time but there was no need for the story to be revealed. The allegation of the opposition was that Calderón was a drunk, this then became a suggestion that he was an alcoholic – they’re different things. This rather suggests that now research at all was undertaken into the allegation but that a slur was repeated as though it were news.  Because of popular confusion between the two, it was repeated, presumably, because it was salacious. Hardly the highest standards of journalism [iv] .  [i] Anderson, Stacy, ‘FDR made 'tacit agreement' with public about disability’, The University Record Online  [ii] Richards, Michael, ‘Alcohol Abuser’, The Churchill Centre and Museum at the Churchill War Rooms, London, 19 January 2009  [iii] Rocco, Fiammetta, ‘Widows in weeds, mourning mistresses - plus ca change to the French’, The Independent, 14 January 1996  [iv] UK National Union of Journalists (NUJ) Code of Conduct. The NUJ code is widely seen by British journalists as the final word on journalistic ethics. It is also widely ignored in practice.


All political hothouses are rife with gossip – usually directed upwards. It’s usually not given credence by being repeated by an experienced journalist who should know better. Perhaps she was having a bad day, perhaps it was a momentary lapse of judgement, perhaps there was just nothing else happening that day but it was a pretty foolish thing to say on national television and tarnished both her reputation and that of Calderón.


It’s not a news story, it’s a stunt. A news story would have required the journalist in question to do some work and either substantiate their claims or disprove them. Either could be done by finding evidence of wrongdoing by the president or skulduggery by the legislators. For example “Opposition resort to baseless claim in political fights” would also be a significant story if it were backed up with evidence.  As the story was presented, it was just speculation put in the national media in the full knowledge that mud gets stickier and dirtier the less material it has inside it [i] .  The point about the Paxman incident, as was later demonstrated, is that it was true – and the journalist in question knew it and could prove it.  [i] Guillermo Gustavo Pérez Lara. El president Felipe Calderón, el alcohol y sus secuelas. Suite 101: Política y Sociedad. 8 February 2011.


The job of the reporter is to report the news not to decide what is news and what isn’t.  Any political reporter has a duty, first and foremost, to report on the issues being discussed by political leaders on all sides. The whole point of a democracy is that the people get to chose what and who they believe. The electorate in many countries have proven themselves remarkably willing to turn a blind eye to the peccadilloes of politicians as long as unemployment is low, wages are on the rise and housing is affordable. So for example the electorate ignored Tony Blair’s daliances with the property market and famously Bill Clinton was reelected despite already being plagued by scandals and reached his highest approval ratings after the Lewinski scandal. [i]  However, others will make decisions on the basis of the perceived character of the candidate or elected official [ii] . Many politicians are keen for the virtuous aspects of their private lives – families, personal achievements, sportsmanlike activities – to be shared with a usually uninterested public, it seems only reasonable that their inner demons should enjoy the same publicity has the angels on their shoulders.  Aristegui was doing her job to the letter – reporting the issues exercising the political class of the day and leaving it to the voters to decide what mattered to them and what did not.  [i] ‘Poll: Clinton’s approval rating up in wake of impeachment’, CNN.com, 20 December 1998  [ii] Matthew D’Ancona. Politics in this age of austerity will be a contest of character. The Daily Telegraph. 12 May 2012.


Even accusations affects reputations and therefore ability to do the job  Even if this were only gossip, the fact that the perception existed that the president was an alcoholic would affect how other politicians interacted with him – it is, therefore, a matter for public concern. [i] National leaders are left politically weakened by plenty of things that aren’t true. They are further undermined by things that are true but apparently trivial if they are kept secret. If that is actually what members of congress believe then it will affect their interaction with the president. By contrast, if that is not what they truly believe, then it speaks a great deal to their character that they are willing to resort to the politics of the gutter. Either way Mexicans have a reasonable right to know that the argument is going on.  Aristegui did just that. It is far more worrying that a news organization would even consider dismissing her for doing her job – presumably because it inconvenienced or embarrassed someone powerful [ii] .  [i] Seymour-Ure, Colin, ‘Rumour and politics’, Politics, Vol.17, No.2, 1982, pp.1-9  [ii] Kate Katharine Ferguson. Column: Politicians’ private lives make a difference. We should pay attention. Thejournal.ie. 1 August 2012.


The protest by the opposition was a news story in its own right.  A protest by opposition members of parliament alleging behaviour unbecoming of the office of president is clearly a news story. They have the right to say it – and the media should report it as just that; a claim made by the opposition. A protest with a large banner unfurled would make the news in almost any country.  The British journalist Jeremy Paxman confronted newly elected Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy over his drinking. Much of the media feigned outrage over the action right the way up until he was dumped by his party – as a result of drinking too much. [i]  There is a myth that it’s okay for a privileged few within the professional elites of politics and journalism to know these details about leading politicians but their constituents, the people who ultimately employ them and whose lives they control should be left in the dark that their representative is an addict.  Most people wouldn’t hire a plumber who was known to have a drink problem, why should they be expected to hire a parliamentarian or president in the same situation.  [i] Campbell, Menzies, ‘How drink destroyed Charles Kennedy, by Menzies Campbell’, 14 February 2008


This is simply untrue; journalists decide what counts as news all the time. It’s called professional judgement. Indeed, it’s what they’re paid to do – sift through what is idle gossip and speculation and discover what is both true and relevant. That’s why we trust newspapers and broadcasters of record and have less time for scandal-sheets.  In this incident, the reporter didn’t just say that a protest had happened, she gave it credibility by commenting on it, despite the fact that she had no proof.


Blasphemy laws are unlikely to promote social harmony as readily as the proposition side claims they will. Accusations of blasphemy can enflame tensions between antagonistic groups. Telling people they no longer have recourse to words to voice their disagreements and discontentment might push them to resort to violence instead. Communities with diverging beliefs are unlikely to engage in discussion and negotiation if statements aimed at promoting peace can easily be used to launch expensive libel prosecutions. Exchanges and debates between different communities will not take place if participants fear that they might be arrested if an audience member choses to take offence at their words.  Anti-blasphemy laws would undoubtedly control group violence of the sort that followed the publication of the “Mohammed cartoons”. But they would also spur further social division, and deepen misunderstandings about religion. Anti-blasphemy laws would remove debate on religion from the public sphere and leave both bigots and zealots to propagate their distorted interpretations of religious belief unchallenged in private. To the case more simply, debate and discussion on the nature of religion and the nature of the sacred will always occur. Even if the proposition side successfully extend hate speech laws to encompass blasphemy, they will not be able to prevent private discussion these concepts without abolishing democracy wholesale and advocating the creation of a surveillance state. A blasphemy law would only serve to prevent groups with differing ideas from being brought together to engage in debate and conversation. Contact between groups would cease, because of concerns that allegations of blasphemy might lead, at the very least, to unwelcome and intrusive police and prosecutorial investigations. But discussion of controversial ideas about other faiths would continue. In the absence of dissenting voices, closed and concealed dialog would be vulnerable to manipulation and inaccuracies.  While words can be powerful it is preferable to allow people to speak freely, even if what is said is not always constructive. The alternative is to make the courts and justice system complicit in creating a culture of victimhood and vexatious litigation.  Debate is also likely to suffer under this mechanism. By allowing a group that has been the target of a religious slur to feel victimised and justified in deploying the force of law against their opponents, we disincentivise these same religions from engaging with blasphemers and offering clear and robust justifications for the offence they feel.  The argument that blasphemy laws would bring different parts of society together is nonsense; firstly such laws tend to favour the largest religion in a society which would be to the detriment of minorities but also just because certain discourse is blocked does not mean that individuals will inherently become more educated about other cultures and beliefs. This is the case for example in Pakistan where minorities are rarely protected by blasphemy laws and are often persecuted by it, buts being a member of the Ahmadi sect is synonymous with being blasphemous to Islam and without having to prove intent the law is therefore used to persecute them and other minorities. (Mehmood, ‘Pakistan blasphemy laws retake center stage’, 2011)


Social cohesion and hate speech  Laws combating discrimination- such as the blasphemy law that the proposition side are advocating- promote social cohesion and stability, both important policy objectives in increasingly mobile and cosmopolitan societies.  The United Nations General Assembly in 2006 argued “defamation of religions is among the causes of social disharmony and leads to violations of human rights.” (United Nations General Assembly, ‘Combating defamation of religions’, 2006). Coexistence between communities with radically different creeds, values and viewpoints needs to be carefully supervised in multi-cultural societies. Too often the uncertainty that accompanies migrant life can serve to inspire to give too much credence to the views of zealots and fundamentalists. To prevent communities deliberately isolating themselves from their neighbours; to prevent communal violence, it is necessary for the state to create an environment in which disputes can be resolved by impartial and properly trained prosecutorial authorities. Discrimination laws are instrumental to building peaceful social realities. They signify a welcoming society, in which it is unacceptable to offend entire segments of the population by debasing what they hold most precious.  Blasphemous statements have a power that reaches far beyond “ordinary” hate speech. Acts covered by this law would include intentionally provocative publications such as the cartoons of the prophet Mohammed that featured prominently in a Danish newspaper in 2005. These images led to widespread protests and violence in both western states and majority Muslim countries. The offensive content of the cartoons gave credence and legitimacy to sects and clerics espousing absolutist ideas that have no space for compromise or understanding. Further, the protests also brought individuals who would ordinarily have considered themselves moderates into contact with violent extremists. Neither of these outcomes does anything to promote a culture of free and frank discussion within the societies affected.  The legal measures that side proposition supports do not oblige free thinkers to remain silent in the face of zealotry and bigotry. However, they does require writers, journalists and artists to apply their reason and their sense to content that they want to publish for mass consumption. Much like laws that prevent the negligent operation of businesses, anti-blasphemy laws would set a minimal standard of responsible conduct in order to ensure that publications did not cause a dangerous level of offense to significant numbers ordinary and rational religious believers. Legal definitions and enforcement of standards of responsibility do not preclude individuals from pursuing dangerous or entrepreneurial business ventures or public works. They need not prevent the creation of controversial and challenging forms of free expression either.


Blasphemy a free expression  Blasphemy cannot be shielded by the rationale which is used to defend freedom of speech. Blasphemy constitutes an attack on the religion it is targeted at. Beyond its ability to shock and offend, blasphemy exposes religious believers to ridicule, and perpetuates lies and falsehoods about their faith. Moreover, blasphemy also drives conflict and exclusion within particular faiths, deepening schismatic divisions and encouraging believers to become more hostile to those who do not share their religion.  Blasphemy occupies a distinctly different position in public debate and discussion than civil, respectful discourse about religion. The forms of blasphemy law that were maintained in the legal systems of western liberal democracies throughout the twentieth century criminalised only the most extreme and intentionally provocative forms of religious expression – images of religious figures involved in humiliating or sexualised scenarios; statements about a religion that amounted to hate speech; and words that were intended to mislead and deceive the naïve, credulous or doubting. The English blasphemy case of R v Boulter drew on the conclusions of the sixth report of the commissioners on criminal law, which had observed that a criminal charge could only arise when “irreligion” took the form of an “insult to God and man”. The judge in the case remarked that “if the decencies of controversy are observed, even the fundamentals of religion may be attacked with tout the writer being guilty of blasphemy.”  Ruling in the case of Whitehouse v Lemon, heard in 1977, a senior English judge remarked that blasphemous libel, although thought to have fallen into disuse and irrelevance remained useful in safeguarding “the internal tranquillity of the kingdom.” This principle appears to be an antecedent to the public order justification for hate speech legislation – speech that spurs people to commit violent or disruptive acts should be curtailed to protect public safety. That case restated the idea that “It is not blasphemous to speak or publish opinions hostile to the Christian religion, or to deny the existence of God, if the publication is couched in decent in temperate language.”  This is the sense in which the proposition side will discuss the term “blasphemous”. The proposition side does not intend to limit free speech, but has every intention of ensuring that free speech is not undermined or delegitimised by allowing the unobstructed broadcasting of hateful and provocative statements. We protect freedom of speech in our society not as a good in and of itself, but because through debate of even the most improbable propositions, socially valuable ideas may emerge and concerns that might otherwise be hidden can be expressed. By contrast, language aimed solely at offense has no redeeming value and does not contribute to any wider exchange of ideas and concerns. Blasphemy does not appeal to reason, and by being directly exclusionary and offensive, it limits that ability of believers and non-believers to engage in structured debate.


Blasphemy can be a valuable act of expression. It is misleading to try and conflate blasphemous statements with statements that lack intellectual merit, are bigoted or hateful. The proposition side attempt to exclude “decent and temperate” questioning of religious values from the scope of anti-blasphemy laws, but they fail to recognise that language is a broad, imprecise and malleable tool. Words that may be understood as temperate and even-handed by one speaker may deeply shock another. Even a simple and plainly stated denial of God’s existence was interpreted as tantamount to blasphemy by the early liberal philosopher John Locke. Locke saw acceptance of the core truths of the Christian bible as being a vital indicator of and individual’s trustworthiness and willingness to comply with social norms.  It is easy to envision scenarios in which adherents of certain religions may find any attempt to dispute the historical and philosophical foundations of their faith deeply offensive, no matter how calmly and respectfully the dissenting position is communicated. Discussions of natural selection have become one such battleground. Despite the measures taken by philosophers and scientists to highlight the compatibility between religious faith and scientifically informed ontologies, despite the measured and carefully regulated court cases that have been used to decide this issue, many Christians regard discussion and teaching of evolution as part of natural history threatening and offensive.  Even irreverent humour or mockery can sometimes be used to make valid and useful observations about the structure and values of religions. For example, the act of angering someone by ridiculing their deity, or the tenets of their faith, could make the point that a particular religion is closed-minded or too hidebound. Important aspects of our characters are revealed when we are invited to adopt aggressive or defensive attitudes. It is not for a government to decide whether blasphemous statements contribute to social discourse; it is up to the individuals engaged in that exchange. It is not acceptable, in the absence of an intention to expose a particular group of people to a real risk of physical harm, to allow debate and free speech to be curtailed by the use of legal force.  The meaning of words need not be plain and obvious, either. Implication and allusion play an important role in language. Implied meanings and innuendos have done much to complicate the legal processes used to protect individual reputations against slurs and falsehoods. In a criminal, rather than a civil context, similar principles are likely to make blasphemy prosecutions expensive, unwieldy and inconsistent.


As Timothy Garton ash points out in his commentary on principle 7, there is a supervening value at work in any system of law or social values that obliges religions to demonstrate tolerance for one another and for non-believers. More than a mere value, this supervening idea is identified as a “higher good”. We are told that limitations to religion are necessary in order to prevent free speech from becoming a conduit for conflict. Principle 7 appeals to a universal understanding of risk and safety. It asks us to understand that we risk less conflict in society if we tolerate the existence and pronouncements of other religions. This statement contains that corollary principle that people who wish to see free speech remain a legitimate social force, untroubled by conflict and claims to absolute supremacy, should endeavor to ensure that debates on the fundamental elements of any religion- the existence of God, the divinity (or otherwise) of Jesus, the nature of the revelations received by Mohammed- should be conducted in an open, respectful and structured fashion.  Freedom to engage in a nuanced and calm debate on the nature of a religion is not equivalent to a right to mix the sacred with the taboo, with the specific objective of provoking an outraged reaction. It is revealing that the intended audience for- for example- art works such as “piss Christ” is largely secular and middle class. These are the individuals among whom artists and writers who oppose blasphemy laws wish to encourage debate. But this narrow minded approach does not consider the large numbers of believers who feel shocked and insulted by such images, and who are given the impression that their faith is under attack. If compelled to live in an environment in which unconstrained free speech is given fiat over religious tolerance, religious believers will be less likely to engage in discussions with members of other faiths or non-believers.  Finally, it should be noted that the existence of a state-supervised prosecution process will greatly reduce the possibility that members of a community offended by a blasphemous statement will decide to take action against that statement- be it protest or physical violence- themselves. It also ensures that members of religions that are targeted by blasphemous statements will not feel obliged to become involved in disorganised or violent protest activities.


Oppression within religious communities  Blasphemy laws can be used to enforce oppressive and exclusionary practices within religions. The proposition side have gone out of their way to highlight the harm that can be done to religions by actors external to the religious group. However, this analysis does not fit so comfortably with the problems that occur when a member of a religious community wishes to make controversial and divisive statements about their own religion.  Dissenters within a religious group may often face exclusion from their communities and hostility from friends and family. The current law of western liberal democracies ensures that social disapproval does not transform into threats or violent conduct directed at these individuals. In this way, liberal democratic states recognise the right to speak freely without fear of violent or disproportionate repercussions, irrespective of the social and cultural standards enforced by the community that an individual might belong to.  By criminalising blasphemy, proposition run the risk of discouraging religious dissent within religious communities. Heterodox thinkers who want to share their views on their religion with other believers, must now run the dual risks of effective exile from a social environment that they consider to be their home and prosecution by the state. Anti-blasphemy laws would give communities the ability to indirectly harm and intimidate anyone holding controversial opinions, by directing state power- in the form of prosecutors and the police- against them. Further, anti-blasphemy laws might simply discourage free expression of this type, the prospect of prosecution being sufficient to discourage controversial statements and discussions.  Religions- even if based on divine revelation- develop through human debate, thought and discussion. The proposition position would harm the development of religions if it were realised. It would balance the environment of collective discourse within a religion in favour of conservative and reactionary thinkers.  It should also be noted that it is the state which drafts the law and its organs then apply it, deciding which cases will or will not be prosecuted. It might be enforced unevenly by the government, thus favouring certain religions and victimizing others. It could be used to limit the expression of unpopular ideas, which are the ones that need the most protection, as has happened in the past with the work of artists criticizing the social and political mores of the time with previous cases showing their books being banned from libraries or their paintings from art galleries. Take for example the banning of Salman Rushdie’s novel The Satanic Verses in numerous states around the world. (Bald, M. 2006)


Language and subjectivity  “Blasphemy” is a very subjective term. The cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed referred to above were regarded by many as blasphemy, but to others they were a form of incisive commentary. (Badkhen A. 2006). Side proposition seems content to trigger a prosecution for blasphemy based on ideas of offence that might be confined to only a very small group of religious believers. Indeed, it is extremely difficult to determine how wide spread a sense of offense must be before a comment moves from being insulting to actively blasphemous. Zororastrian, Bahai and Yezidi religious communities exist in vanishingly small numbers in the UK, but members of each of these faiths have been subject to continual historical persecution. Should their experience of victimisation entitle them to more robust protection than the (relatively) large and wealthy Anglican church? Similarly, should the size of these communities mark them out as vulnerable, and deserving of some sort of legal advantage that allow them to more easily access the protection of anti-blasphemy laws?  Religious groups can often become divided over the correct response to attacks and crises. If the guiding principle is what the recipients of a certain type of speech will find offensive, that will vary widely from person to person even within the members of a certain religious group. Legal responses to this conundrum would run the risk of appearing to be arbitrary and failing to properly represent the diversity of views within a religious community. Further opportunities for division and dissatisfaction may also arise during the process of making a complaint and assisting the prosecutors pursuing it. Cases will, necessarily be heard in public and will require participants to repeat the slanderous and controversial statements that caused such offence, possibly spreading them amongst a wider audience. The public nature of court cases may even make them attractive to individuals who wish to draw attention to offensive views linked to particular religions.  This is problematic, because it would fail to provide guidance to citizens with respect to what the law requires of them. Blasphemy prosecutions would offer only the most cursory and indirect forms of redress to alleged victims of blasphemy. Moreover, discussions over the handling of blasphemy prosecutions would likely produce division with religious communities. Many believers might be reluctant to see the blasphemous statements that caused an official offensive reaction repeated in court.


While it is true that blasphemy laws could be open to misuse, this is also true of many other laws that are currently overseen by the state. Liberal democratic legal systems operate safeguards to ensure that laws cannot be abused or used for purposes at odds with fundamental democratic freedoms. On the whole the majority of countries around the world are fair and liberal place that maintain strict separation of judicial, legislative and executive competence. Their courts are capable of recognising vexatious claims and ensuring equality-of-arms between the state and defendants through mechanisms such as legal aid.  In totalitarian nations such as those described by the opposition if blasphemy laws did not exist, authoritarian states would simply find different ways in which to censor that which it deems unfit. In China where religious freedom is severely curtailed, free speech remains subject to significant limitations. It is misleading, then, to associate the intrinsic failings of a political system with a law that might attract opportunistic litigants. On the whole blasphemy law in liberal nations would be handled in a fair judicial manner.


The need for increased capacity on travelled lines can be addressed in a number of ways. Firstly, highways still can be expanded. Highways are much more versatile than rail services as they enable people to get from a single destination to another without any transfers. Given then that highways can be improved, it makes very little sense to not do so and improve the rail system later when this extra capacity created begins to fill up. [1]  Given that cities have different requirements of transport, it makes more sense to allow transport planning to remain decentralised. For example, California is creating a high speed transport system on its state budget because it has need, assuming that other cities do when their governing structures have not determined that is the case is irresponsible and unneeded. [2]  [1] Mobley, Jack. “A Case Against High-Speed Rail.” Merced Sun Star. 11/12/2010   [2] “On the wrong track: Why high-speed trains are not such a green alternative.” The Guardian. 29/04/2010


Highspeed Rail is Better than Upgrading Old Infrastructure  rovements to existing rail networks would ultimately fail to be viable as a replacement for highspeed rail. As British Transport Secretary (now reshuffled) Phillip Hammond states, "Opponents of the project have asked why we cannot simply upgrade our existing infrastructure to deal with this capacity challenge. But no upgrade of existing infrastructure can deliver the huge improvements in journey times and the transformation of our economic geography that a new high speed network would bring. Reliability would also deteriorate as we tried to squeeze ever more capacity out of existing, mixed-use lines. And another major upgrade to the West Coast Main Line would deliver years of disruption and huge economic cost." [1] Upgrading infrastructure may be an answer in some places, but not in all. There may not be the existing infrastructure to upgrade. The United States for example just does not have lines that could take both large numbers of passengers and the large amount of freight they already take. Moreover any upgrade of these existing lines would end up with a rail system which is uncompetitive with road and air transport, exactly why rail passenger transport ended in the 1930-50s in the United States despite having been running faster than Amtrak trains do today. [2]  Further, railroad tracks permit a far higher throughput of passengers per hour than a road the same width. A high speed rail needs just a double track railway, with one track for each direction. For the Eurostar the typical capacity is 15 trains per hour and 800 passengers per train (as for the Eurostar sets), which implies a capacity of 12,000 passengers per hour in each direction. By contrast, the Highway Capacity Manual gives a maximum capacity for a single lane of highway of 2,250 passenger cars per hour (excluding trucks or RVs). [3] Assuming an average vehicle occupancy of 1.57 people, [4] a standard twin track railway has a typical capacity 13% greater than a 6-lane highway (3 lanes each way), while requiring only 40% of the land (1.0/3.0 versus 2.5/7.5 hectares per kilometer of direct/indirect land consumption). This means that typical passenger rail carries 2.83 times as many passengers per hour per meter (width) as a road. [5]  [1] Hammond, Phillip. “High Speed Rail: the case for.” The Telegraph. 26/11/2010   [2] “Ask Trains from November 2008”, Trains, November 2008,   [3] Elefteriadou, Lily, “Chapter 8 Highway Capacity”, Handbook of Transport Engineering, 2004,   [4] U.S. Department of Energy, “Vehicle Occupancy by Type of Vehicle”, Fact #257: March 3, 2003,   [5] High Speed Rail, Railsystem.net


Whilst rail systems can be environmentally friendly, the higher the speed of a system the more fuel said system consumes. Whilst high speed rail might be useful as a transport system, owing to its high speed nature it does not reduce carbon emissions to a significant extent. Further, high speed rail is of limited popularity and as such it will not get enough drivers off the road to have any significant contribution to the environment. [1]  [1] Staley, Samuel. “The Pragmatic Case Against High-Speed Rail.” Reason Foundation. 22/06/2009


High Speed Rail is Better Than Air Travel  Currently intercity travel within the U.S. tends to favour air travel. This is often due to the large distances between cities within the U.S. which mean that driving is not a viable strategy should there be time constraints on travel. However, air travel has significant constraints as well such as long boarding times. This causes problems for those people who frequently commute and high speed rail is set to solve these problems.  High speed rail provides a large number of significant benefits over air travel in this regard. This is because high speed rail can travel to city centres. Where airports, due to their size and the noise pollution they cause, are limited to the outskirts of a city, trains are not limited in the same way. As such, people can arrive in a much more central area, cutting large amounts of time off their journey.  Secondly, high speed rail has no limits on wireless communication or internet in the same way that air travel does. As such, high speed rail is significantly more useful for anyone who wishes to work on the journey.  Finally, the weather is incredibly problematic for air travel. This is especially true in the U.S. where a number of areas can be subject to unexpected snow or storms. By comparison, High Speed rail remains comparatively unhindered. [1]  [1] “Convenience of High Speed Rail.” US High Speed Rail Association.


High Speed rail is unlikely to work in the same way as air travel. Whilst some areas are more convenient, it remains a slower method of transport than air travel and with quoted prices for high speed rail it seems evident that the majority of consumers will simply continue to opt for air travel as it is a significantly faster method of travel to their destination. As such high speed rail will not provide significant extra benefits to consumers. [1]  Further, if the problem with air travel is the location out airports outside of city centres, then that problem is easily solved through the creation of better transportation methods between airports and city centres. With the time saved, a plane ticket that also encompassed a ride to the city centre would still be faster and would probably end up being significantly cheaper than a ticket on high speed rail.  [1] Mobley, Jack. “A Case Against High-Speed Rail.” Merced Sun Star. 11/12/2010


High Speed Rail is environmentally friendly  Trains are the most sustainable and green form of transportation. Electric high speed rail is the most energy efficient of all trains. This is because trains have significantly high capacity but have very low power requirements in order to work by comparison to the number of passengers that they carry. Although this is to some extent dependant on how the power is generated the Eurostar (where power comes from French nuclear plants) emits only 11g GO2 per passenger kilometre from London to Paris compared to 180g for a car containing 1.2 passengers and 150g for a short haul flight. [1]  A national high speed rail system would be the centrepiece of a sustainable America, and would significantly reduce congestion and America’s dependence on cars and the oil that fuels them. This would result in large cuts to carbon emissions. Any new system could be powered by renewable energy including wind, solar, geothermal, and ocean/tidal in order to make it even cleaner. High speed rail could be integrated in to a sustainable network including local commuter rail and tramways so providing public transport networks that solve serious mobility, energy, environmental, economic, health, and social problems simultaneously. [2]  [1] Pearce, Fred, “Greenwash: Time for rail to raise its game and cut emissions”, Greenwash guardian.co.uk, 22 January 2009,   [2] “Sustainability.” US High Speed Rail Association.


The US High Speed Train Association has found a significant number of benefits for high speed rail that mean that it would be beneficial regardless of its success as a business.  Firstly, high speed rail would foster transport oriented development:  "Transit oriented development (TOD) is the exciting new fast growing trend in creating vibrant, compact, liveable, walkable communities centered around high quality train systems. TODs can be stand-alone communities, or a series of towns strung along a rail line like pearls on a string. TODs are the integration of community design with rail system planning. High speed rail is the backbone of a rail-based transportation system. When combined with regional rail, light rail, metro systems, streetcars and trams, a complete and integrated rail network is achieved enabling easy, fast mobility throughout the system. Coordinating and encouraging compact, mixed-use development around the rail stations completes the system by enabling people to live, work, and play along the system without the need for a car much of the time. Together, these save time, money, energy, and lives."  And further, high speed rail would also help businesspeople be more productive:  "High speed rail delivers fast, efficient transportation so riders can spend less time traveling and more time doing business. High speed rail delivers people quickly to their destinations in city centers. Fast boarding times, no security delays, and no waiting for baggage (or lost bags) adds up to much less time spent getting to and from meetings. Adding to these savings, there's also little or no down time - people can be far more productive and efficient during a trip on a train, than flying or driving, and return to the office sooner with a shorter turn-around time. High speed rail allows people to continue working the entire trip using laptops and cell phones. Flexible meeting space is available on the train. Because of the reliability of trains and the reduced total trip time, an overnight stay is not always required - saving additional time and money. High speed rail offers great flexibility to plan last minute trips, purchase tickets on short notice, and make changes to schedules without huge penalties." [1]  And further to all of this high speed rail also frees up existing rail lines for other purposes, such as freight services as well as for commuter services, helping people in the economy to a significant extent. Given that this is true, it seems prudent to subsidise high speed rail even if it is costly as a business. Further, the motor industry already sees incredible subsidies in the U.S. and does not provide nearly as much social benefit as high speed rail is likely to.  [1] “Productivity Gains with High Speed Rail.” US High Speed Rail Association.


This is simply untrue. Yes, if a crash occurs it is likely to be significantly more dangerous than a crash at lower speeds, but this is also the case with cars travelling between cities on highways and even more so with aeroplanes. Exactly because a high speed crash can be so catastrophic high speed rail systems have very high safety standards.  The Japanese Shinkansen high speed rail system is famously safe. During 46 years of commercial operations having taken 7 billion passengers there have been no passenger fatalities or injuries due to train accidents such as derailment or collision. [1] It is also not the case that damage to the track will take the rail system out of operation for years. The Tohuko Shinkansen restarted operations only 49 days after the Tōhoku Earthquake. [2]  [1] California High-Speed Rail Authority, ‘Financing and Costs’,   [2] “How Japan’s Rail Network Survived the Earthquake”, Railwaytechnology.com, 28 June 2011,


High Speed Rail is Not Currently Economically Viable  The economic investment required for a high speed rail system to be implemented in the U.S. is substantial. Currently, the American deficit is at a level that is bad enough that S&P has downgraded the rating on American debt. Given that this is true and that the public spending required for high speed rail is substantial and a situation is caused where the American government would have to increase the flow of money out of its coffers. Even the lowest estimates by the California High-Speed Rail Authority are around $45 billion and it is likely to be much higher. [1] As such the deficit level within the U.S. could stand to increase from a system that would not provide benefit for another five years at least, if it provides benefit at all. At this time, investment in such an area is not needed when the result of such investment could be greater repayments on American bonds that reverse any economic benefits that the system stands to give. [2]  As such, extra spending within the current economic climate needs to show significant long term benefits as well as show at least some signs of being able to immediately help the economy, otherwise there is too great a risk that comes from extra public spending.  [1] California High-Speed Rail Authority, ‘Financing and Costs’,   [2] “US loses AAA credit rating after S&P downgrade.” BBC. 06/08/2011


High Speed Rail will not be a successful long term business investment.  The issue with high speed rail is that it is a case of a government providing what is essentially a private good. The market that will use high speed rail will be people who wish to commute between cities quickly, generally rich businesspeople. As such, the market for such a product is incredibly niche. Further, the price of high speed rail will still be higher than plane and the journey times between most cities that aren’t very close together already will still be longer. As such, it seems that there is an incredibly small market for such a product. The reason a market for this product does not exist already is that no private company could ever make a profit from the product owing to the low demand among consumers for it. [1]  Therefore, the only way to make the product work would be to ensure that the product is significantly cheaper than the competition. Unfortunately the only way to do this would be through large subsidies for train use, meaning that high speed rail would continue to make a net loss for the U.S. government for years to come.  Further, any benefit in terms of jobs created for people in local communities will be incredibly low, for example with automatic barriers very few staff are needed at stations. Instead for the same amount of money, the government could easily implement policies which placed solar panels in every home, allowing them to generate and export their own power. Whilst this wouldn’t create jobs, it would increase income for people in the area and would likely help the environment to a significantly greater extent. [2]  [1] Staley, Samuel. “The Pragmatic Case Against High-Speed Rail.” Reason Foundation. 22/06/2009   [2] “High-Speed Rail and the Case Against Private Infrastructure.” The Atlantic. 16/07/2010


High Speed Rail is Dangerous  Owing to the extremely high speeds of high speed rail, should there be a problem with the trains the chance of a catastrophic accident is greatly increased. This is because there would be no reaction time for the driver. Further, should there be a derailment the impact of the crash will be significant greater owing to the speed of the train.  Should these accidents occur, the damage to the trains will obviously be catastrophic, but also the damage to the lines themselves will be incredibly significant. Should there be an accident and it is likely that if enough time passes there will be, the entire rail system in the area would require years to be able to regenerate. After the Hatfield Crash in the UK large sections of the whole network were shut down for up to a year. [1]  [1] Pook, Sally and McIlroy, A.J., “’Danger’ rail lines may be closed’, The Telegraph, 21 October 2000,


Within an economic climate that is in recession, the best way to avoid recession is to increase public spending. This is because the extra jobs created through public spending stimulate the economy. This is because the spending results in the employment of a number of people who otherwise would have remained unemployed and on a lower wage. As such, these people are more able to consume and more able to spend their money on consumer goods.  In this way, the economy is pushed out of recession as this initial wave of spending means that the people who sold the products to the consumers now have more money themselves to spend elsewhere.  Whilst this is fairly basic Keynesian analysis of the markets, the reason that the spending here is not susceptible to causing inflation and hence negating the effect is that markets take time to adjust to stimuli. The inflation rate will only increase appropriately once the market has reacted to the stimulus. As such, the initial year or two following a stimulus results in a temporary boost to the economy and then results in inflation later. Given that the recession is likely to be over in two years, dealing with inflation in the future is something that the economy can handle in response for a stimulus that might push it out of recession. [1]  [1] “Keynesian Economics.”


It will not give teachers an incentive to improve their teaching. Teaching is a calling, not something you choose for the money. Teachers are what we call 'intrinsically motivated': they want to realize an ideal, in this case, educating and raising responsible citizens. Recasting this ideal into a financial reward system actually demotivates teachers who feel the inherent value of their work now suddenly has become sullied by chiefly monetary rewards, which is why performances pay hasn’t worked in many places. [1]  [1] White, Performance pay for teachers is a terrible idea and here’s why, 2011


It will give teachers an incentive to improve their teaching.  For decades now, teachers have been remunerated based on 'seniority'. This means that they don't have an incentive anymore to improve themselves, no matter how motivated they were at the beginning. Why try to improve yourself if you have nothing to gain from it? Adding a financial reward for exceptional performance will motivate teachers to do their utmost to develop the knowledge and talents of their pupils. [1]  [1] Muralidharan and Sundararaman, “Teacher Incentives in Developing Countries: Experimental Evidence from India”. Podgursky and Springer, “Teacher Performance and Pay” 2007


It will not attract more teachers. As said above, teaching is a calling. Many of the expected new teachers will be motivated solely by the increased pay, not by any intrinsic motivation. Because they are not intrinsically motivated, they will underperform. They might leave again after a year, but in that year they will have taught a class without the requisite skills and inspiration, possibly spoiling the educational experience of an entire class for the rest of their lives.


It is fair to reward teachers on the actual results they achieve.  Just as in the private sector, workers should be judged and rewarded on the actual results they achieve. Whether it's through sheer talent or through hard work, some teachers consistently deliver better results than other teachers. Those teachers are more effective and efficient at providing societal value: with the same amount of work-hours they manage to more effectively educate children. It is therefore only just that their pay is differentiated according to the results they achieve.


It is unfair to reward extra achievements on top of the base level. To provide societal value from education, the base level of performance in education is already set very high. This means that even teachers who perform at base level are already working very hard to provide the societal value we require. Any difference above that already very high level is likely the result of luck and talent, both on the part of students and teachers themselves. Rewarding fortunate individuals for something they themselves didn't create is unjust and can only make other jealous.  Moreover, many students may enter the school system- at various stages- accompanied by a range of external advantages and disadvantages. A student’s home environment is a major influence on their ability to achieve when in the school environment. Although a teacher’s pastoral role is growing, there is little that they can do to address poor parenting, or to encourage the engaged, stimulating parenting that produces some of the most able pupils.


Competition will diminish the quality of education across the board. Teamwork is essential for the effectiveness of schools. Making differences in performance more visible will hamper teamwork because it will create perverse incentives. For instance, teachers who have devised a successful method for teaching a particular subject area will be less likely to share this because sharing it means eroding their 'strategic advantage' in the 'marketplace for teachers'.


It will attract more teachers  eaching salaries for years have remained steady or even declined. This made teaching as a job unattractive and so the influx of new, talented teachers halted. Although the effect of fiscal changes on teachers’ pay has been minimal (controlling for the consequences of the financial crisis), high productivity has become central to many private sector pay schemes. As a result, the contrast between non-responsive pay for teachers and high rewards for talented private sector employees has become more pronounced.  With the opportunity to increase income through performance, teacher pay can rise, making it a more attractive profession financially.


Competition improves the overall quality of education.  Measuring teachers' performances will create a transparent market for teaching talent. Underperforming teachers will be selected out because they are less in demand, unless they adapt and learn from what their competitors apparently do better. So, the overall quality of the teacher pool will rise and this will increase the quality of education for all students.


It will not create uncritical 'learning drone' students. Creative and critical thinking begins with the basics: literacy and numeracy. Even learning to the test will result in literate and numerate students who can then move on to much more critical thinking. We can then define successful criteria that measure general critical thinking skills, like have students write essays or pass oral exams.  Narrowing of the curriculum is a concern in later stages of education, but the growth of a critical approach to humanities subjects has ensured that rote learning has been de-emphasised in these areas. Critical outcomes, nonetheless, remain measurable.


Teachers are the single biggest influence on student performance. Even though many factors influence student performance, the teacher is still the most important schooling factor. For example, having an effective versus and ineffective teacher has been shown to be equivalent to a class size reduction of 10-13 students [1] and can make the differences of more than a full year’s learning growth. [2]  [1] Rivkin et al, “Teachers, Schools and Academic Achievement”, 2005  [2] Hanushek, “The Trade-off between Child Quantity and Quality.” 1992


Teachers will attempt to cheat the system  Cheating is inevitable in any bureaucratic system that holds educational institutions accountable- in any way- for the outcomes of the educational processes that they supervise.  Teachers will have an incentive to cheat the system, for example by altering students' test results or giving them easier tests. [1] On a more 'macro' scale, teachers will have an incentive to only want to teach at 'good' schools with 'advantaged' students who have both the will and the ability, because their chances of a good performance there are higher.  [1] Jacob and Levitt, “Prevalence and Predictors of Teacher Cheating”, 2003


It is impossible to implement.  Students come from very different backgrounds and have very different skill-sets. This makes the attempt to define a measuring system that covers all cases a bureaucratic nightmare. Even if this succeeds, it is still very difficult to define what a 'good performance' is, because a student's individual performance is determined by many other factors than the teacher and also because an individual student's 'performance' is actually a complex set of attitudes, skills and abilities which are in and of themselves hard to operationalize in a standard test. And even if this succeeds, then the questions is how much of a student's performance is attributable to what specific teacher: oftentimes, at least in high school, students will have many different teachers, making it impossible to gauge what teacher was responsible for what test result.  Finally, it should be noted (per the argument included above) that merit based education does not encourage the dissemination and normalisation of best practice. A merit-based pay scheme is likely to collapse when too many of those who work under it meet its criteria for bonus payments, making it too expensive.  Once merit based pay becomes part of the structure of an institution, it will become hard to attract and retain staff if it is removed. Concurrently, performance at the same level will be expected by the public, although an institution may not be able to afford it. For the reasons stated above, good ideas are unlikely to be shared by teaching staff under a merit-based status quo, for fear that they may be giving away a competitive edge over their colleagues.  It might be better to raise standards in education by investing sustainably in improved training for teachers and improved facilities in schools, rather than creating an unsustainable merit-based reward system.


It will create uncritical 'learning drone' students.  Teachers will start 'teaching to the test' to ensure their classes make the grade. Independent, creative, self-reliant thinking will therefore be discouraged as the teacher focuses on getting as high test results for their pupils as they can regardless of whether they really understand the concepts behind what they are doing. If the primary goal of education is to create critical thinking citizens, then merit pay may hinder rather than help achieve that goal.


It is unfair to reward teachers for results they can’t influence  The success of a student depends on many factors, like innate talent, the ability for hard work and concentration and socio-economic background. This means that any progress that a student can make is largely outside of a teacher's control. This will result in some teachers being rewarded just because they happen to teach in a good environment to 'advantaged' children whereas other teachers who do a good job in a bad environment to 'disadvantaged' children are just unlucky.


It is possible to implement. Testing students is not that difficult. After all, we have been examining students with all kinds of standardized test ever since formal education began. Similarly, we can know what teacher is involved in what result: the biology-teacher is relevant for biology, not French or arithmetic.  The economist Dale Ballou, in his 2001 article “Pay for performance in public and private schools” determined that the prevalence of merit-based pay in private schools demonstrates that it can be cost effectively implemented in complex institutional settings [1] .  [1] Ballou, “Pay for performance in public and private schools.” 2012.


Cheating can be prevented by ensuring that the person giving and grading the test is not the same as the person preparing the students for the test. Likewise, the 'macro'-problem can be prevented by designing good measurement systems. If performance is measured as comparing results of individual students across time, then it doesn't matter whether a student comes from a 'disadvantaged' background. The same goes for innate talent: we can design a measurement that rewards any improvement in significantly less talented children sufficiently high to ensure that teachers are motivated in teaching them.


The existence of slums and favelas and their increasing criminality in Latin America cannot be explained by the lack of social subsidies. In fact, quite the opposite is the case: the leftward turn in Latin America with an increase in state subsidies that promised to help poor communities has yet to ease the problems of criminality. Subsidies not only do not help or provide only weak temporary relief, but they are also used to manipulate political opinions and influence the poor particularly around election time. The successful presidential campaigns of Lula da Silva in Brazil, and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela have been run precisely on promises to the poor that for the most part were left unfulfilled. Because government subsidies are not efficient, the large problem of social unrest is not avoided.  Furthermore the poor communities in the suburbs of Paris were already receiving state subsidies for housing and education, but this did not keep them from rioting. Therefore subsidies do not guarantee a reduction in crime.


Poor communities create criminality  The longer suburbs sectioned off for the economically vulnerable are in existence, the more likely they will turn into real slums, creating long lasting problems such as the ones currently experienced in the cities of Latin America. Latin America contains 13 of the 20 countries with the highest intentional homicide rate (Global Burden of Armed Violence, Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence and Development, 2008). Brazil is one of the most criminalized countries of the world with roughly 23.8 homicides per 100,000 residents, muggings, robberies, kidnappings and gang violence (The Economist, ‘No End of Violence’, 2007). These areas have become a haven for criminals and drug lords, who both have a clear interest in keeping these communities poor so that they can continue to exert their influence on them and use them as a hiding and recruiting ground for illegal activities. Subsidies would help people escape poverty and as a result break the cycle of crime.


This kind of idealism and desire to make the world an equal place has already gotten us into quite a bit of trouble, ruining a large part of the world under the rule of communism. The idea that we could solve all the world’s problems through redistribution of wealth through government subsidies is not only naïve but also dangerous. Being committed to new human rights and wanting to offer help to the poor is not the same thing as imposing subsidies. Indeed, in many countries subsidies for particular activities end up favouring well-off landowners and the urban middle classes. Examples include agricultural subsidies in the EU (Financial Programming and Budget, 2011) and the USA, subsidies for power and water in rural India (Press Trust of India, ‘World Bank asks India to cut ‘unproductive’ farm subsidy’, 2007), and subsidies for water or Higher Education in much of Latin America. In each case the well-off benefit disproportionately, while the poor end up paying via the tax system and through reduced economic growth (Farmgate: the developmental impact of agricultural subsidies, ukfg.org.uk). It would be much better to price these activities at commercial levels and to develop economic policies aimed at growth and job creation.


Subsidies are the most efficient way for a state to redistribute wealth within its borders.  Poor communities, often concentrated in rural areas or around large cities, carry a large risk for social instability, whether through epidemic illnesses, crime, drug abuse or political and social revolts. Even the most developed countries find it difficult to deal with these communities without paying proper attention to their development. The suburbs of Paris have recently been in the attention of the press for the violent riots led mainly by poor, unemployed, young men from immigrant families who felt abandoned by their own government (BBC News, ‘Timeline: French Riots’, 2005). France is by no means the only country dealing with such problems, and in order to avoid such high-risk behaviour, the state should be encouraged to create new subsidy schemes that address these communities in particular. For example, employment could be subsidised by paying companies to create new jobs in such deprived areas.


While we do not concede that subsidies are the most efficient means of redistributing wealth even if they are then is this redistribution something we want to see? Poor communities should instead be shown how to pull themselves up rather than having subsidies spoon fed to them. Giving those in poor communities the education and means to better themselves is a much more effective long term solution. Redistribution of wealth through subsidies is simply discouraging the poor from working hard towards the betterment of their lives both because the state is already giving them enough to survive and because they know the state will begin taking what they have earned away if they do manage to work their way up.


Rich communities have a disastrous effect on the environment as well. The question of whether development is possible without manipulating nature and the environment is again entirely separate from the question of subsidies. Ultimately, the problem is one of resources and the best distribution and management of those resources, particularly natural resources. Getting people to understand that forests, water and land are essential resources that need to be preserved is what should be done (Hande, ‘Powering our way out of poverty’, 2009). Subsidies have in fact often created more environmental problems by investing in poorly built infrastructure and housing, and by encouraging people to stay in areas that could otherwise not support them.


Subsidies create a sense of social equality  Subsidies help create the equality and non-discrimination that is essential in the new multi-cultural states of today. With more and more people moving across the globe and the clear realization of inequalities in lifestyles, creating this sense of equality is essential. If we are serious about our commitment to universal human rights, including the right to equal survival chances and opportunities, then we need to consider using subsidies to promote these values. Many of the poorest areas have a disproportionate number of immigrants or ethnic minorities, Seine-Saint-Denis for example has the largest percentage of immigrants in France(Wikipedia, ‘Demographics of France’) and is one of the poorest department’s(Astier, ‘French ghettos mobilise for election’, 2007) so these communities are where the state needs to show that it is committed to non-discrimination by helping with subsidies. Without such a commitment to equality, problems like the unrest in the suburbs of Paris, the reaction to the flooding of New Orleans, crimes in the favelas of Rio de Janeiro and South Africa will simply become uncontrollable.


Substandard living conditions have a broad environmental impact  Unless we do something about it we risk seeing our planet destroyed. The destruction of forests for coal or agricultural land, the destruction of farmland through illegal buildings lacking proper infrastructure, water pollution, deserting arable land in the countryside in order to move to the city are all serious environmental problems and their effects are long lasting (Hande, ‘Powering our way out of poverty’, 2009). Subsidies need to be used to provide incentives for people to act in ways which will preserve the environment for the benefit of all (Hande, ‘Powering our way out of poverty’, 2009).


The change from an agricultural or rural economy to an urban one does not preclude subsidies as a way of lifting people out of poverty it simply means that subsidies have to be more targeted. As most cities continue to grow and attract more and more people from rural areas, the state needs to find a way to address the problem of urban migration, which is closely linked to the formation of poor communities particularly around cities. Illegal immigration also contributes tremendously to this problem, particularly in areas such as the Mexico-California border. Targeted subsidies can slow the pace of migration, by giving those in the countryside and in poorer countries a better standard of living where they already live.


Rather than criticising the inefficiencies of current subsides we should put efforts into improving subsidies so they work efficiently. This is clearly a very complex issue and would involve taking each poor community as individual with different needs. One specific example of where this has been efficient is subsidising housing in poor communities, such as the Gautreaux program in Chicago. This project involved the CHA (Chicago Housing Authority) handing out 7,500 housing vouchers out to residents of deprived communities (thus providing a housing subsidy to those residents). The project was widely considered a success and was supported by the government until its completion in 1998. Longitudinal studies suggested that participants where ‘pleased to be living in safer neighbourhoods with quality schools and greater job opportunities’, which all occurred as a result of the Gautreaux project (Fisher, Gautreaux Assisted Housing Program, 2005). This project shows that subsidies can be successful if we look and attend to at the particular needs of each poor communities.


The risk of creating dependence  Always looking at the state for solutions makes these communities dependent on the government in a world in which the state will continue to gradually lose its power. On an individual level increases in people taking disability benefits over the long term are a good example of dependency, in Australia for example between 1972 and 2004 those receiving the Disability Support Pension rose fivefold well above the increase in the disabled population(Saunders, ‘Disability Poverty and Living Standards’, 2005, p.2). Putting more pressure on increasingly weaker states is probably not the best idea. While strong social-democratic states such as France might be able to handle it, developing countries or unstable states will never be able to withstand these pressures. We need to look for solutions elsewhere, and we need to accept the fact that there might not be one solution for all. Each community, facing different kinds of problems, will have to be addressed differently. The new rise in the field of corporate social responsibility signifies that corporations are looking to take over some of the responsibilities of the state.


Communities should be engineered to be self sufficient  As the introduction and opposition argument 1 explain, subsidising poor communities involves taking money away from wealthy communities. It is unfair to make the wealthy members of a community pay for the benefit of the poorer members, when the poorer members should be putting in the effort to raise and support their own communities. Those who are wealthy have earned their wealth by working hard. If they wish to be subsidizing poor communities they can give to charities that work in poorer areas.


Social change  As modern societies are clearly moving away from an agricultural economy to an industrial and post-industrial economy, new demographic challenge arise with high concentrations of people in urban areas where jobs are available. From 2008 more than 50% of the world’s population lives in cities meaning that poverty is now growing faster in urban than rural areas (UNFPA, ‘Urbanization: A Majority in Cities’, 2007). The solution here is not subsidies, but rather the spreading of jobs across the whole economy, including rural areas, and the re-education of those who need to fill these jobs. These are structural problems that every society will need to address, regardless of how many subsidies the state is providing or not.


Government supervised redistribution of wealth is inefficient  Given that in general state taxation and redistribution systems have been under fire for being inefficient, it is doubtful that subsidies, as a particular form of tax redistribution would be more efficient. Not only is a bureaucratic mechanism for creating and distributing subsidies a nightmare, but the effects of such subsidies have often been questioned as well. Fuels subsidies to keep prices down for example might help the poor to heat their homes but they also encourage wasting fuel and not getting the most efficient heating systems so more fuel is used resulting in more need for subsidies (Jakarta Globe, ‘Subsidies a Costly, Inefficient Crutch’, 2010).  The needs of poor communities, such as the immigrant communities in the suburbs of Paris, as often much larger than the state can provide, and patch solutions are often no solution at all. Subsidies will not be able to solve the problems of unemployment and the concentration of the poor and immigrants in particular areas. Other solutions are required for such problems and oftentimes, the involvement of the private sector has proven to be more efficient. Encouraging a more competitive, dynamic economy by reducing the burdens of taxation and regulation is the best way to provide a route out of poverty, especially if improved educational provision and meritocratic hiring policies are also implemented.


Telling poor communities they should help themselves is not the answer; they already want to help themselves. Poverty often occurs in a cycle, meaning that for many it is inescapable. Education in poor areas is often worse, leading to people being less qualified for higher paying jobs, stuck in badly paid work, therefore living in undesirable housing that often has inadequate education, and thus the cycle continues for their children. The only way for people to escape this cycle is with government subsidies. Some would argue that forcing people to live in these conditions while others live in wealth is more immoral than asking the wealthy to help the poor.


While getting the private sector involved might indeed be a more effective solution, the reality is that many of these poor communities are groups of outsiders. They often discriminated against by the rest of the population, including decision makers from private business. For example in France employers databases often have the abbreviation BBR or NBBR to indicate if someone is white.(SOS Racisme, ‘Discrimination, Présentation’) These communities often find themselves abandoned, and at the mercy of the state. Despite its inefficiencies, the state remains the main organisation capable to reaching out to all different communities, of gathering funds and redistributing them, and of making new investment opportunities in places where the free market would not otherwise have created them. At the risk of some inefficiency, this problem does require solvency, and while ideally things might run otherwise, this is the closest solution to the problem at hand. Governments have also been creative with their subsidies schemes, often getting the private sector involved by providing them with incentives such as tax breaks.


This is exactly what makes HS2 a bad scheme. Yes there is overcrowding but the worst overcrowding is on peak services travelling into London – commuter services – not on long distance trains. It is notable that the operator that is most over capacity is First Great Western which covers a route – to Reading and on to Bristol, South Wales and the West country - which will be unaffected by HS2 which goes north.