The focus of politics and politicians should be on policy  Delving into the private lives of politicians does nothing to improve citizens’ understanding of who represents them except to show that a certain politician may have issues in his or her private life that is unsavoury, or slightly hypocritical. But that focus on hypocrisy is itself legislatively meaningless. If voters select a representative who then votes in accordance with their wishes, then he is doing his duty, irrespective of how he lives his own life. Thus when Newt Gingrich, for example, as Speaker of the House sought to increase federal recognitions and incentives towards stable, monogamous relationships, while at the same time leading an extramarital affair of his own, he was not acting in bad faith with the voters who backed him, but doing their will, which is the duty of a politician at base. [1] Furthermore, when personal lives are open to attack, candidates can focus their energies on denigrating their opponents instead of addressing the issues that matter. The result is worse elections, as voters are unable to distinguish candidates effectively on the basis of policy, but are rather pushed to make decisions on the basis of personal lives, which results in decision-making that is less thoroughly in their interest.  [1] Kurtz, K. “Legislatures and Citizens: Communication Between Representatives and their Constituents”. National Conference of State Legislatures. December 1997,


The private lives of politicians are a harmful distraction for the media  When the lives of politicians are fair game, they necessarily become a major target for journalists. Salacious gossip sells much better than more complicated stories about policy, so they are given pride of place. The result is the media wasting time and resources on pursuing stories that are ultimately generally useless in divining policy and progress in a society. The media is society’s watchdog, and its duty is to protect the people from untruths in policy and to shield them from wicked decisions. Focusing on the personal lives does nothing to serve the actual material interests of the people. Thus when the media reports on the private lives of politicians over the more meaty issues of the day, it abrogates its most fundamental duty to its citizens. The best example of this occurring is certainly the Lewinski affair in America. While it was deeply unfortunate that the president would use his power to solicit the sexual favours of an intern, the near maniacal fixation with which the media attended the story served to halt the process of government for many months. Bill Clinton spent much of his time and energy obfuscating and apologising for his private life, while the Congress dithered over who could be the most righteous in their opposition to the president. [1] The result was one of the most farcical standstills in the history of American governance. Absent the media reporting on this story and delving into the lives of those involved, America might well have been able to focus on the things that mattered.  [1] Gitlin, T. “The Clinton-Lewinsky Obsession: How the Press Made a Scandal of Itself”. The Washington Monthly. December 1998,


All individuals have a legitimate right to privacy  Privacy is a fundamental human right that is universal, a right that should be defended for all citizens, including those who govern us. [1] What people get up to in their private lives is by and large their own business. People generally speaking have a basic respect for privacy. While some people may think their politicians owe them a special duty and thus have to give up certain privileges like privacy, the covenant between citizen and representative cannot be justified on such stringent grounds. A politician is effectively an employee of his constituents and the citizens of the polity. If this was justification for scrutiny into the private lives of elected officials then why should it not also be justification for intrusion into the private lives of unelected civil servants? Both these groups are doing a job for the public, but undertraining this job does not give the public the authority to intrude into their privacy beyond questions about whether they are qualified for the job. The duty of an elected politician is not so special as to demand an abrogation of his or her ability to enjoy a private life. If a right is to have meaning, it must apply to everyone with a semblance of equality. Making politicians fair game for reporters only serves to undermine the rights all citizens enjoy.  [1] Privacy International. “Privacy as a Political Right”. Index on Censorship 2010 39(1): 58-68.


Politicians are not merely elected to enact policies as stated but to act as a surrogate for the views and values of the voters who elect them. That is why politicians are expected, and are considered legitimate in doing so, to legislate on issues not necessarily discussed on the campaign trail. It is the scrutiny of private lives that allows the public to know how a politician will represent their views with regards to questions that are not asked in the election. That is why it is essential to understand the private life and character of the representative. With regard to political attacks, voters are trusted to select leaders, and can reasonably be expected to make decisions in their genuine interests. Thus they can be expected to discern policy from the campaigns effectively only in the case of access to the candidates’ private lives will they now have additional information to make an even better decision.


While it is no doubt unfortunate that the innocent family members of politicians might feel unpleasant scrutiny, it remains essential to the promulgation of political accountability. Furthermore, it is valuable that citizens understand who their leaders are, and what kind of people they are, which necessitates knowing what kind of people they associate with in their private lives. Obviously, not all personal associations, such as biological family, may be chosen, but all the same those relationships can reveal much valuable information about the politician’s character. All of this is part of the trade-off politicians must accept if good, accountable government is to be achieved and maintained.


Our political situation is not as dire as this point makes it seem; it is easy to manipulate statistics between voting and reality televisions by discounting the fact that many people who vote in television shows vote multiple times – often as many as ten [1] . Young people are not completely detached from the political or the non-electronic world. Many are passionate about politics and exercising their right to vote [2] . Low voter turnout is a general trend across the nation, and if young people are failing to vote then this too reflects disillusionment with government. For example, many young people who voted for the Liberal Democrats in the UK recently were shocked when he expressly went against his promise to prevent tuition fee rises [3] . Political disillusionment among young people is also a problem in the USA [4] and Europe [5] . It is the state of politics itself, rather than the literal process of voting, which deters people from full political participation.  [1]  , accessed 24/08/11  [2]  , accessed 24/08/11  [3]  , accessed 24/08/11  [4]  , accessed 24/08/11  [5]  , accessed 24/08/11


Modernisation  In modern, developed countries, many people spend both work and leisure time on the internet or using electronic devices [1] [2] [3] [4] . Our traditional voting systems, with polling stations and paper slips, is out of line with how many of the population now live their lives. When we see an overwhelming number of people – especially young people [5] – voting for reality television programmes such as The X Factor [6] , it demonstrates a valuable method of engagement which the political system is missing out on. This had led to sources such as the BBC darkly questioning ‘Is Big Brother really more popular than election?’ [7] , indicating that while the overall number of votes in the 2005 general election in the UK outweighed those cast for Big Brother and Fame Academy, the proportion of votes by young voters (18-34) could be understood to show more engagement with these television shows than with the general election [8] . In any case, it is clear that we should bring our voting systems up to date in order to engage young people and the wider population.  [1] In the UK:  , accessed 24/08/11  [2] In Europe:  , accessed 24/08/11  [3] In Asia:  , accessed 24/08/11  [4] In the USA:  , accessed 24/08/11  [5]  , accessed 24/08/11  [6]  , accessed 24/08/11  [7]  , accessed 24/08/11  [8]  , accessed 24/08/11


Voting machines are far from reliable in this instance. Experts have expressed concern that ‘hackers, software bugs . . . or power outages could intentionally or accidentally erase or alter voting data’ recorded by the machines [1] . In this case, while the machines may be politically impartial, they are still subject to potential human corruption alongside the opportunity for technical faults and breakdowns. Electronic vote-counting machine errors led to almost 2 million ballots being disqualified in the 2000 USA election [2] . Electronic voting systems need a lot more work before we should even consider using them; they certainly do not solve any problems currently raised by manual counting.  [1]  , accessed 24/08/11  [2]  ,, accessed 24/08/11


Remote electronic voting can be conducted very safely.  Our online security is improving every day; people feel safe enough to trust their most important details, such as bank details, to the internet [1] – why not their vote? Secure software and encryption protocols have allowed online markets to flourish, with companies such as PayPal inspiring a sense of security among their customers [2] . Any software for remote electronic voting could be scrutinised well in advance. It also removes the potential for identity fraud, which is a problem with current postal voting systems [3] . Each voter could be given a unique password, if necessary alongside something like a special swipe card, ensuring that everybody who is entitled to vote gets a single vote. Given that in many jurisdictions, traditional polling stations do not require voters to provide ID [4] , it would arguably be a security improvement on the current situation.  [1]  , accessed 24/08/11  [2]  , accessed 24/08/11  [3]  , accessed 24/08/11  [4]  , accessed 24/08/11


Electronic voting can make the franchise more accessible  In many Western democracies, voter turnout has been falling while voter apathy appears to be rising. In the UK, voter turnout fell sharply between 1997-2000, and the last general election in 2010 saw only 65% of potential voters cast a vote [1] . In the USA, the federal election of 2010 saw only 37.8% of potential voters cast their vote [2] . Voter turnouts across Europe follow this trend [3] . When so few people participate in the key act of democracy – voting for the political leader of the country – it begins to raise worrying questions about the legitimacy of that democracy in the first place. If electronic or internet voting was introduced as an option alongside more traditional polling methods, it would expands the accessibility of the voting system in general. Internet or electronic voting would be a strategic practical measure. It would make voting convenient for busy modern citizens because it minimalises the amount of effort each individual has to contribute – namely, they do not have to travel to the polling stations [4] . As such, it removes physical restrictions on the voting process and becomes more universally accessible. This would prevent people from being unable to vote because they are ‘too busy’ [5] – whether this is simply because their local polling station is too far away for them to commute to, or to fit in alongside their other daily responsibilities based at work or home [6] [7] .  [1]  , accessed 22/08/11  [2]  , accessed 22/08/11  [3]  , accessed 22/08/11.  [4]  , accessed 25/08/11  [5]  , accessed 22/08/11  [6] In the USA:  , accessed 22/08/11  [7] In the UK:  , accessed 22/08/11


Voter apathy cannot be solely attributed to having to walk to your local polling station. It can also be attributed to general disillusionment with the campaigning political parties, and the idea that none of them will perform well in government [1] . Political parties which focus more strongly on national rather than constituency campaigning can also inspire voter apathy [2] . The problems behind voter apathy are far greater than can be solved by trying to change the practical aspect of voting; it is the fact that voters often feel neglected by their government which is a far greater concern [3] .  [1]  , accessed 24/08/11  [2]  , accessed 24/08/11  [3]  , accessed 24/08/11


The most ‘secure’ of websites have been recently hacked. For example, Paypal was hacked by Lulzsec in response to the Wikileaks scandal [1] . Lulzsec also hacked the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) [2] , supposedly the source of all their national intelligence and top secret information. If anything, recent events have shown us that the internet is an unstable medium for people to conduct personal or professional affairs; we certainly should not allow our voting systems to become even more vulnerable to this kind of attack. A better way to prevent identity fraud would be the simple measure of now requiring polling stations to ask for ID, rather than going to the extreme of online voting.  [1]  , accessed 24/08/11  [2]  , accessed 24/08/11


The elderly far more frequently find electronic voting to be a hindrance rather than a help. Those who are partially sighted are unable to see the position on the text blocks on the screen; small controls such as buttons or touch screens create problems; and some cognitively impaired people may find it difficult to remember a PIN number which is used to authenticate the vote [1] . A simple paper ballot is a far more commonly-recognised and straightforward method. In terms of cost, the electronic voting machines or voting programmes would certainly cost a great deal to implement and run [2] . Ultimately, the great risk that electronic voting machines or systems will lose votes [3] outweighs the cost argument: you cannot put a price on a crucial process at the core of every democratic state.  [1]  , accessed 24/08/11  [2]  , accessed 24/08/11  [3]  , accessed 24/08/11


Efficiency  Because it would not require manual counting and tallying, remote electronic voting would allow the results to be known much faster [1] , and would also eliminate the potential for human error, which is a common problem with the current system [2] . For example, in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election of 2011, a clerk discovered around 14,000 unrecorded votes which had been missed by human error – and actually changed the outcome of the election [3] . The clerk is now being questioned regarding her party allegiances under suspicion that she was trying to turn the election into a victory for her favoured candidate [4] – yet another potential for abuse under the current system. Machines, of course, are impartial concerning party allegiances and so eliminate the potential for individual corruption.  [1]  , accessed 24/08/11  [2]  , accessed 24/08/11  [3]  , accessed 24/08/11  [4]  , accessed 24/08/11


Electronic voting will create a more cost effective franchise  Electronic voting would also save a great deal of money which is currently spent on employing counters and renting venues to be used as polling stations. For example the UK general election in 2005 cost over £80 million to organise [1] , Canada’s 2008 election cost around $300 million [2] , and the USA presidential election of 2008 was estimated to cost up to $5.3 billion [3] . Electronic voting also brings the opportunity to increase access to those who currently find it difficult to register their votes; for example, electronic voting could be conducted in a minority language for those who find English difficult [4] . In the past, trials of this have been shown to improve voter turnout among minority groups [5] . Electronic voting could also benefit the elderly, as many find it difficult to use the lever-operated ballots currently in use. [6] Using electronic voting ensures that no groups are left out of an essentially democratic process.  [1]  , accessed 24/08/11  [2]  , accessed 24/08/11  [3]  , accessed 24/08/11  [4]  , accessed 24/08/11  [5]  , accessed 24/08/11  [6]  , accessed 24/08/11


It is impossible to tackle potential problems in party politics without an input from the electorate. Young people may have the opinion that politics itself is inaccessible, but this will never change if they refuse or fail to vote. A democratic government can only ever be truly representative when everybody casts their vote. At least this mechanism is an attempt to reach those young people – and in cases where they say they do not know enough about politics, to try a different medium of teaching. Ultimately, those who have no intention of voting will continue to refuse. However, this is at least a step towards educating and enabling those who do wish to vote, but perhaps do not currently feel well-equipped enough to do so.


Our understanding of online security is improving every day; people feel safe enough to trust their most important details, such as bank details, to the internet [1] – why not their vote? Secure software and encryption protocols have allowed online markets to flourish, with companies such as PayPal inspiring a sense of security among their customers [2] . Any software for remote electronic voting could be scrutinised well in advance. It also removes the potential for identity fraud, which is a problem with current postal voting systems [3] . Each voter could be given a unique password, if necessary alongside something like a special swipe card, ensuring that everybody who is entitled to vote gets a single vote. Given that in many jurisdictions, traditional polling stations do not require voters to provide ID [4] , it would arguably be a security improvement on the current situation.  [1]  , accessed 24/08/11  [2]  , accessed 24/08/11  [3]  , accessed 24/08/11  [4]  , accessed 24/08/11


Electronic voting may harm the principle of democratic accountability  The numerous faults experienced in trials and small-scale use of electronic voting [1] [2] shows that this system is not yet ready for wide use in elections, and gives no indication that it ever will be. The argument that they can provide a faster vote-count is negated by the fact that in many cases they aren’t counting all the votes, but instead missing some out [3] . If the results cannot be trusted, there is no merit in implementing an electronic vote. Furthermore, this motion neglects those who do not have access to electronic systems or the internet; they may end up being disenfranchised if voting went online. This is particularly pertinent for senior citizens who lack the skills to ‘find, retrieve and evaluate’ information found electronically [4] . It is also a disadvantage for those who with a limited income and education, who are ‘most likely to not use the internet or even understand how to use a computer’ [5] . 37% of low-income households do not regularly use the internet [6] ; this motion would create a two-tier system where already under-represented groups are allowed to fall behind the rest of society. Even public libraries and state-provided resources are suffering cuts under the economic depression [7] , which further reduces access for those from poorer backgrounds. This allows real issues of discrimination and alienation to rise.  [1]  , accessed 24/08/11  [2]  , accessed 24/08/11  [3]  , accessed 24/08/11  [4]  , accessed 24/08/11  [5]  , accessed 24/08/11  [6]  , accessed 24/08/11  [7]  , accessed 24/08/11


Engagement with democracy  If voting were conducted electronically, we would have no guarantee that an individual’s vote was privately and freely made. Instead, voting becomes open to manipulation where the head of the household, or another figure, may cast votes for others to try and ensure their preferred outcome. Indeed, under the status quo there are still instances of organised corruption where votes are sold or bullied out of people [1] [2] , despite the fact that this was the exact reason that the secret ballot was originally introduced [3] . Electronic voting would just take corruption further out of our hands by hiding it from public view; this would be detrimental to democratic process.  [1]  , accessed 24/08/11  [2] www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN03667.pdf , accessed 24/08/11  [3]  , accessed 24/08/11


Democratisation  If it worked, online voting could allow more use of direct democracy methods. However, direct democracy is not in itself a better system, and still contains many dangers. Snap online polls could easily express an opinion which has not been properly thought through; the current voting system is more likely to result in considered voting as citizens have to make the effort to get to the polling stations in the first place. Furthermore, a low turnout or insecure systems could allow motivated minorities to use frequent online ballots in order to impose their will on the majority. The very ease of online voting could actually result in worse policy than under the status quo.


Voter apathy  The need to travel to a polling station might be a minor consideration, but growing disillusionment with the political system in general is a far bigger cause of voter apathy. Young people in particular believe that their vote will not make a difference [1] , or are confused over politician’s aims [2] and intentions. Others do not believe that a change in government necessarily means a change in real life situations [3] , or state that they do not feel as if they know enough about politics to make a decision [4] . Some have even stated that they are embarrassed and patronised by politicians’ eagerness over using the internet to ‘harness’ the votes of young people [5] . Using the internet to portray party policies does not necessarily tackle the problems with the policies themselves. It is politics more generally, rather than the practical system of voting, which is seen as inaccessible.  [1]  , accessed 24/08/11  [2]  , accessed 24/08/11  [3]  , accessed 24/08/11  [4]  , accessed 24/08/11  [5]  , accessed 24/08/11


At what stage do we deem that an individual has considered their vote enough to cast it? Would we stop less-educated people from voting at all in case they hadn’t fully considered it? This argument goes completely against any democratic principle which values everybody’s vote as equal, and denounces the idea that one person’s vote is worth more than another’s. Even if a low turnout means that a minority can impact more on society, this is still legitimate – as long as everybody has the opportunity to vote. If the majority choose not to voice their concerns in online elections, then they lose the right to complain about the outcome. Many general or presidential elections have had a low turnout [1] [2] , but we still see them as legitimate. If we did not, nobody would ever be elected and progress could never occur.  [1]  , accessed 24/08/11  [2]  , accessed 24/08/11


Electronic voting is vulnerable to fraud and subversion  No networked commuter system is immune to attack or subversion. By their very nature, electronic voting systems must be inter connected and in continuous communication with one another. As a consequence, the devices and methods used to gather votes can also serve as access points to the larger network of vote gathering and counting systems. The most ‘secure’ of websites have been recently hacked. For example, Paypal was hacked by Lulzsec in response to the Wikileaks scandal [1] . Lulzsec also hacked the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) [2] , supposedly the source of all their national intelligence and top secret information. If anything, recent events have shown us that the internet is an unstable medium for people to conduct personal or professional affairs; we certainly should not allow our voting systems to become even more vulnerable to this kind of attack. A better way to prevent identity fraud would be the simple measure of now requiring polling stations to ask for ID, rather than going to the extreme of online voting.  [1]  , accessed 24/08/11  [2]  , accessed 24/08/11


Computer literacy is constantly on the rise [1] [2] . In state-run secondary schools, children are provided with information and technology classes which helps to bridge any existing divide [3] , and there are discussions about extending these lessons to primary schools. Easily-accessible community classes are also available to seniors [4] [5] . Moreover, given the opportunity to save money through electronic voting rather than having to pay for polling station venues, manual vote counters and so on, this money could easily be redirected to provide computer lessons for those from disadvantaged backgrounds, or to funnel into state libraries and public computer resources. This mechanism is a much more efficient way of making sure that everybody is able to participate.  [1] Children in the UK:  , accessed 24/08/11  [2] In the USA:   [3]  , accessed 24/08/11  [4] Across the USA:  , accessed 24/08/11  [5] In the UK:  , accessed 24/08/11


Separation of Church and State would do exactly the opposite; it would create animosity towards other cultures. This separation would be seen by many people, including extremist groups, as pandering to non-Christian religions and cultures in an attempt to show a greater level of acceptance.  This would result in people blaming non-Christian religious groups and cultures for the changes and giving ammunition to extremist groups who wish to incite racism. Rather than benefitting immigrants and people who follow non-Christian religions, this would actively harm them. [1]  [1] Iannaccone, Laurence R. “Religious extremism: Origins and consequences” Contemporary Jewry. Volume 20. 1996.


Separation would show acceptance of other religions.  It is important to note that it is not religion in general which has this special access to the state in the UK but the Church of England specifically. This means that the state is showing favouritism to the Church of England over other religions by allowing it a far greater contribution to the running of the state. Therefore, separating the church and the state would put all of the religions in the country on an even level of contribution, which is none, and in the process show acceptance of these other religions. [1]  This is especially important as the number of people who identify as following religions other than Christianity in the UK has doubled in the last 20 years. [2] Additionally, many people identify more with their religion than with any country and so this move would help show acceptance of those cultures by the British state.  [1] Hannan, Daniel. “The Conservative Case for Disestablishing the Church.” The Telegraph. 2008.  [2] Lee, Lucy, “Religion.” In Curtice, John et al. eds., British Social Attitudes Survey 2009. p.180.


There are little to no barriers to non-religious people contributing to the state. In present day UK, there are no issues with non-religious people being or feeling unable to contribute to the state. It is far from a necessity to be part of a religious group, or to even be religious, in order to be part of, or contribute it any way, to the government. [1]  The idea, therefore, that it is important to make non-religious people feel as if their contributions are more valued, or that the separation of the church and state would achieve this, is ridiculous.  [1] Gay, Kathlyn. “Church and State.” Millbrook Press. 1992.


The church’s involvement undermines the role of the state.  The role of the state is to protect its people and to create the conditions for its people’s prosperity. The Church does not share these objectives. The Church’s objectives are, instead, to either convert as many people as possible to its own religion, and to ‘save souls’ brining people into its own perceived afterlife. [1] The Anglican church itself considers its mission to be “transformation - transforming individual lives, transforming communities and transforming the world.” “that calling is carried out at the national level of the Church of England in evangelism, development of parish congregations”. [2] Such a mission is inherently aimed solely at benefiting those within the church or those who can be converted not society as a whole.  The current confusion of state and Church, therefore, is likely to cloud the state’s judgement and limit the state’s ability to provide the maximum possible prosperity and security for its people.  [1] Weller, Paul. “Time for a Change: Reconfiguring Religion, State & Society.” T&T Clark Int’l. 2005.  [2] Church of England, ‘Mission’.


The Church does not have enough of an involvement in UK politics for the objectives of the Church of England to have any impact upon how the country is run. The UK government is still run in an entirely democratic way. While the Church is consulted in certain decisions and bishop have seats in the House of Lords, final decisions are still taken democratically by the government.  There is in no way enough involvement by the church in the state for it to actually undermine the role of the state. [1]  [1] Gay, Kathlyn. “Church and State.” Millbrook Press. 1992.


Separating Church and State would not increase Britain’s moral high ground. No one would mistake the UK for a theocracy and as a result no one will consider that a full separation of Church and State is necessary for the UK to be able to condemn states where religion has too much influence over policy. In just the same way that democracies can criticise other democracies so a state that has a state religion is capable of outspoken criticism of other states where religion has an influence.


Separation would show non-religious people that their contributions to the state are valued.  In the last 25 years, the number of people in the UK who identify as non-religious has gone up from 31% to 50% of the population, while people in the UK who identify as religious has gone down by the same amount. [1] Clearly then, there are growing numbers of non-religious people in the UK and falling numbers of religious people.  Separating the church and the state would highlight that one does not have to be part of a certain religion to contribute to the state. With the non-religious now making up half the population it no longer makes sense for one denomination of Christianity to have such an official connection to the state.  [1] Lee, Lucy, “Religion.” In Curtice, John et al. eds., British Social Attitudes Survey 2009. p.173.


International signalling.  As a government, the UK aims to promote democracy in the international community while reducing the number of countries adhering to other forms of government that do not listen to their people. This includes opposition to theocracies, where the country is run by a religious group according to religious doctrines, particularly in the case of Iran.  It is difficult for the UK to legitimately condemn such a governmental system while the Church of England has such a heavy role in the running of its own government. Although these are not on the same level, it can still be perceived as hypocrisy by the international community and the separation of church and state would greatly benefit the UK’s ability to condemn these states.


The government is not going to suddenly stop listening to the views of religious minorities in the country and will keep listening to the views of the Church of England. It will simply stop the government being prejudicial towards the Church of England compared to any other religion or belief. Currently what we see is the Church of England having privileges that other religious groups do not have. Religious groups and people do not see this as a representation of the involvement of religion in general in the government, they see this as the involvement of the Church of England in the government. The separation of the church and the state, therefore, will actually be inclusive to religious people who do not identify as Church of England. [1]  [1] Hannan, Daniel. “The Conservative Case for Disestablishing the Church.” The Telegraph. 2008.


The existence and operation of the Church of England can be considered part of the UK’s national identity but its involvement in running the country cannot. English culture would remain the same regardless of the position of the Church of England in relation to the governance of the country. Culture and identity are not things that can disappear as a result of a change in the country’s constitutional setup.


Separation would create animosity towards immigrants and non-Christians.  Currently, we already see problems in the UK with extremist groups blaming immigrants and non-Christian religious groups for pretty much everything from unemployment among whites to a lack of patriotism. Completely separating the church and the state could be seen as a move made due to political correctness and/or to try not to offend immigrants or those from non-Christian religious backgrounds.  This would be providing ammunition to extremist groups, as well as inspiring people who do not share these views to sympathise with them. This would be extremely harmful to the groups who are perceived as responsible for this change. [1]  [1] Iannaccone, Laurence R. “Religious extremism: Origins and consequences” Contemporary Jewry. Volume 20. 1996.


Minimal practical effect.  As it stands, the Church of England’s involvement in the state actually has little effect on it. Decisions are taken by the Prime Minister and his/her government rather than by religious officials and indeed the Church of England can often be a vehicle for the government’s views rather than the Church having an influence on government. As Bishop of Rochester Nazir-Ali states ‘The church is seen simply as the religious aspect of society, there to endorse any change which politicians deem fit to impose upon the public.’ [1] Therefore, separating the church and the state will make little difference in terms of the way the state is actually run but may result in a reduction of the influence of the government on some of the population. [2]  [1] Liddle, Rod, ‘The C of E has forgotten its purpose. Why, exactly, does it exist?’, The Spectator, 7 April 2009.  [2] Gay, Kathlyn. “Church and State.” Millbrook Press. 1992.


Disestablishment sidelines all religious people.  Rather than other religious groups seeing the removal of the Church of England’s involvement of the state as them all being put on a level playing field, it is more likely to be seen as a total removal of religion from the government. [1] Bishop John Pritchard of Oxford argues that Anglican Bishops can be seen as acting as community leaders for all faiths and are respected as such, as a result they often support other religion’s such as Pritchard himself arguing a mosque in Oxford should be allowed to issue the call to prayer. [2]  This separation of church and state, therefore, will be seen as a declaration by the government that religious groups have nothing to contribute to the operation of the state. Since nearly 50% of people in the UK identify as religious [3] this is likely to cause a feeling of being undervalued amongst a huge part of society.  [1] Gay, Kathlyn. “Church and State.” Millbrook Press. 1992.  [2] Bardsley, Fran, ‘Bishop backs mosque’s call to prayer’, The Oxford Times, 11 January 2008.  [3] Lee, Lucy, “Religion.” In Curtice, John et al. eds., British Social Attitudes Survey 2009. p.173.


Separating Church and State in England would be harmful to national identity.  The reason the Church of England has the involvement that it does in the state is because it is important part of the UK’s cultural heritage. Completely separating the Church of England from the state would be perceived to many people as severely damaging to British national identity. As a national church the Church of England has been at the heart of the country’s political and cultural life since the sixteenth century, religion helped make Britain the country it is today. [1] A separation would be the country turning its back on this history and its own culture.  [1] MacCulloch, Diarmaid, ‘How God Made the English’, BBC, 2012


That the separation will have little practical effect is just as much an argument for separation as against it. If there will be little change as a result then why should we stick with the status quo? The practical effect of the change may not be immense but the symbolism of the act would be much greater.


Separation would be inclusive to immigrants and non-Christians. People will not be disillusioned by the separation of church and state at all, it is even less likely that they will look for a scapegoat upon whom to pin the blame. The Church of England routinely condemns racist and extremist attitudes and separation will not change this. [1]  [1] The Church of England, ‘Countering Racist Politics’.


Legislation already exists in most countries where this issue is in dispute – including the UK where the NOP poll was conducted – have the option to opt out of working on a Sunday [i] . In addition there is an entire body of case law in the USA where various states have upheld the rights of individual workers not to work on a Sunday should they so choose [ii] .  The contention that a shared day of rest is beneficial to the community simply ignores the fact that for many those leisure activities require others to be working. For example eating out, going to bars or shopping routinely feature as among peoples’ favourite pastimes [iii] .  [i] ACAS Guidance on Sunday Working  [ii] Estate of Thornton v. Calder, Inc. (1985) and others  [iii] “Statistical Abstract of the United States 2009”. Landmark Research.


A shared day when there is no commercial activity encourages family life and recreation  There is extensive evidence that reserving one day for communal recreation has benefits in areas as diverse as community cohesion and the reduction of childhood obesity. The Colombian initiative, Ciclovia, which closes some streets altogether on a Sunday has demonstrated impressive results in these areas in the thirty years it has been established. [i]  An NOP consumer poll in 2005 showed that 85% of respondents in the UK suggested that they would rather have a shared day off for community, family and recreational activities than see shopping hours extended on a Sunday.  Representatives of those employed in the retail sector routinely condemn the impact that Sunday trading has on the family lives of those required to work [ii] .  [i] Hernandez, Javier C., ‘Car-Free Streets, a Colombian Export, Inspire Debate’, The New York Times, 24 June 2008  [ii] “USDAW lobbyists say extending Sunday shopping hours would be ‘bad news’ for shopworkers’ families” USDAW Press Release. 9 May 2006.


For many marginalised workers the opportunity to work what many would consider antisocial hours is their only chance of employment. Legislating to enforce leisure time removes a valuable opportunity for earning.  There are entire micro-economies based around this reality and it is unsurprising that marginalised individuals, families and communities operate within these sectors.  As a result their leisure time is also shared. It is worth noting that were members of these groups excluded from the opportunity to earn would considerably diminish their capacity to enjoy any leisure time at all.


Peoples’ rights to freedom of worship would be undermined if they were compelled to work on a Sunday  The right to freedom of religious practice and association is acknowledged by most countries and is enshrined in Article 18 of UN Declaration of Human Rights [i] . In those countries that can, on the basis of their history be deemed to be Christian nations it makes sense to recognise this fact by acknowledging Sunday, the Sabbath which was made for all mankind, [ii] as a day free for worship or leisure as the individual sees fit.  Equally Article 24 of the same Declaration maintains the right to reasonable leisure time. It seems only practical for governments to recognise the confluence of these two principles by reserving the same day.  [i] The United Nations Declaration of Universal Human Rights.  [ii] New International Version, Mark 2:27, 2011


Compelling individuals to take their leisure time on one particular day undermines the entire nature of that right. The whole principle of leisure is that it should not be forced or required, it is that time when the individual is not bound to comply with the dictates of any authority – be that an employer, the state or a religion.  Leisure should be time taken at the convenience – and to the benefit – of the individual. If the individual choses to use that time for religious observance that is their right but the presumption that a day of religious observance is the best day to take is unfair to the many who do not share those views.


Compelling employers to close for a day is the only way to ensure that marginalised groups are not forced to work a seven day week  Unions consistently argue that vulnerable workers – migrants, part-time workers, the young and other groups – are simply unable to choose their leisure time at their own preference. It is unlikely that all members of a family all of whom are in such employment would be likely to have leisure time to share.  It is simply a democratic principle that the right to an active family life and access to shared leisure should not be the preserve of the wealthy.  This divide can only be met by enforcing a day shared by all members of society.


Opposition is making an excellent argument for ensuring that workers should be remunerated at a level to support a reasonable level of existence but does not speak to the issue of keeping Sundays as a day of rest.  Indeed it is possible to take the issue further and suggest that the understanding that everybody has the right to leisure time would require payment at such a level that would allow that time to be enjoyed.  A work-life balance should not be defined purely in terms of time spent active and time spent idle. Rather, it must speak as much to time spent earning and time spent spending and relaxing.


Exactly the same group that Opposition identify are also those least likely to have any leisure time at all. They are also least likely to have leisure at a time when they can share it with their families and communities.  Sunday is already the day when most people are likely to be away from work all enshrining it in legislation would achieve is expanding what is already the case for the majority to those who do not currently benefit from a shared day of rest.


It is prejudicial to other religions to give Sunday a significance not ascribed to the holy days of other traditions  It is already difficult enough for members of minority religions to have time for their own religious celebrations. It seems unlikely that employers would be likely to respect the rights of other religious groups to celebrate their own days of rest if employers were already compelled to recognise Sundays as a compulsory day of rest.  Equally, for the state to identify one particular day as the ‘religious’ day worthy of commemoration would be a statement that one particular religious persuasion was in some way superior to others.


It is simply unfair to force low-paid workers to lose a day’s work if they do not choose to do so  Many people work long hours not out of greed or obsession but out of simple necessity. To deny people the right to work when they need to is unfair and, potentially, financially crippling. In an ideal world everybody would have a good work-life balance but that is not the reality faced by millions of workers, even in developed economies.  Obliging workers to lose a day’s pay when that may impoverish then and their families is unlikely to enhance their family life, their level of relaxation, their spiritual experience or their access to leisure services.


People should be allowed to take their leisure at their own convenience and not on the basis of religious decree  It is unfair to compel people to take their leisure at a time that is not of their convenience. Workers who have to work a certain number of hours per week just to cover their costs should not be obliged to take their leisure time at a time when they cannot access services such as shops and banks.  For those with no religious conviction there is no particular benefit for Sunday being their day of leisure. Instead a more fluid relationship between work and leisure ensures that those with the least available free time can take it to their greatest convenience.


Different cultures have varying traditions of rest. Approaches towards the number of days of vacations taken each year, the length of the working day, which annual festivals should be treated as public holidays, siestas, work levels during Ramadan and so on are all taken on the basis of the culture and history of that particular country. As a result it is not unreasonable for a country with a Christian background to identify Sunday as their designated day of rest.  The work ethic of any country relates to their history as is reflected in the festivals that are given significance. Observation of Christmas or Eid or Cheoseok has little to do with the personal values of the individuals concerned but rather the historical norms of that society.


Realistically speaking, music is not even property - for property to really be property, it needs to be tangible (something physical you can touch). [1] If it is tangible, it is easier to keep you from using it, whereas when it is intangible, I can’t. What if you hear a song on the radio which stays in your head all day long because you liked it so much? In economic terms, we call such a good “non-excludable”. [2]  Private property is both a rival good (see above), and excludable. The above shows that music is neither, even though we happen to call it “intellectual property”. That means that music can’t be private property, and copying it can’t really be theft in any normal sense of the word (see above). In addition, the moral right of the artist to be known as the author of a piece of music is also not broken by downloading. People usually sort the music on mp3-players by musician’s name, which means that we’re always recognizing that a certain artist made a certain song.  [1] Law.jrank.org, ‘Theft – Larceny’,   [2] Blakeley, Nic et al., ‘Non-excludability’, in The Economics of Knowledge: What Makes Ideas Special for Economic Growth, New Zealand Policy Perspective Paper 05/05, November 2005,


A legal transaction is the only way to achieve free exchange of value  Because the artist made the music, it is their property, in this case “intellectual property”. Property means that the owner/artist has the right to ask something from you in exchange for you gaining access to the music. This may be money. It may also be the requirement that you clearly recognize the artist’s moral right to always be mentioned as the creator of that music. This is called the “free exchange of value”, and this is the most fundamental relationship in our free market economy.  Whatever the artist chooses as payment through a legal transaction, it is his/her basic right to ask this of you. The only way to make sure that he/she can actually exercise that right is by making sure you only take music from the artist through a legal transaction, i.e. with their permission. Only then can we be sure that the desired free exchange of value has taken place


It’s true that musicians have to eat, too, but it’s not true that downloading cuts their income. Most of the money spent on music goes to record companies, not to artists, from each retail CD sold the artist only gets between 3 and 10%. [1] Those record companies have been keeping musicians on a leash for decades, paying them less than they could. They paid them enough to make sure they would remain fulltime musicians, but not so much that they didn’t bother to create new albums. So if downloading music files means record companies miss out on some income, we shouldn’t feel bad about it.  [1] Information is Beautiful, ‘How Much Do Music Artists Earn Online?’, 13 April 2010,


Theft is an assumption of property rights  Theft is taking something from someone who is the rightful owner without their permission. It doesn’t matter if the rightful owner keeps an original version or not. If you are downloading music from an unofficial source, you are stealing it: you can start listening to that song, without the permission of the original owner. The only way you can get the right to listen to that song is via a legal transaction from which the rights owner can make a profit


Theft always involves a thief taking something away for themselves with the result that the original owner can’t use it anymore. For example, if I steal your bike, you can’t use it anymore. And this is exactly why theft is wrong: you had something which you wanted to use, and now you can’t anymore, simply because I took it.  That’s why downloading music is not theft because it is a form of copying. You download a copy from an original, but the first owner still has the original on his or her computer, and can still enjoy it. In more complicated terms: music files are “non-rival” goods, meaning that my use of the good does not diminish your future use of it. [1]  [1] Investopedia, ‘Rival Good’,


Musicians have to eat  Apart from the moral reason, there is also a simple societal reason why it is wrong to download music without permission. The reason is that musicians have to eat, too. Suppose you are an up-and-coming young musician thinking about what to do with your future. You can either become a full time musician or take up a job. If you become a fulltime musician, you’ll be doing what you love. But at the same time, everyone will be downloading all your music for free, simply because they can. This means that music won’t be a good, stable source of income for you, and this means you’d rather take up a job. Since you’re not working on your music every day, your talent will be underdeveloped, and the little pieces of music you do write, for example in the weekend, are not as good as they could have been. So, downloading music without permission will lead to fewer good musicians. That’s not only bad for the musicians, but also for us: we’ll have less good music to listen to.


It is a mistake to think that when you’re downloading, there isn’t someone else making a huge profit. Torrent sites and other “pirate” sites gain huge amounts of income from the advertisements on their site. This means that they profit from material which is not theirs. Why should they profit from material they have gotten unfairly and without permission?


Downloading does not fall under the so-called “private copy exception”. The private copy exception only covered those rare cases when you took the effort to make a copy from a lawful source (perhaps putting a song you owned on CD on to a cassette so you could listen to it in your car). With the internet, the situation changed hugely. Firstly, copying became a lot easier. Secondly, the home copy-exception applies to when you borrow an album from a friend - someone you know. Online, you’re downloading from anyone, anywhere who happens to have the song you want. Thirdly, when you start downloading using peer-to-peer software, you will usually also start uploading at the same time. It’s the nature of p2p-technology that you both distribute and consume. So, you’re not just making a copy for yourself, you will also be distributing the same song, and that distribution is in any case wrong. These changes together mean that the three step-test is not met, so downloading does not fall under the private copy exception and is therefore illegal.


Downloading is morally right  Even when downloading is illegal, it still is right from a moral viewpoint. The reason is that by downloading, you’re not hurting the artists, but the record companies. And these record companies have engaged in unfair practices towards consumers for decades. They asked €20 euros for a CD, when a blank CD only costs about 5 cents. They still engage in unfair practices, for example via DRM. DRM stands for Digital Rights Management, and it means that companies limit how and when you can listen to a song. For example, you can buy a song and listen to it on your MP-3 player, but if you want to play it on your laptop, you have to buy the same song again. Moreover, record companies have sued individual consumers for huge fines for downloading just a few songs. Most recently one ordinary woman was fined $1.92 million dollars, which just doesn’t add up to the “damage” these individuals are supposed to have done. [1] That’s unfair, and because it’s unfair, we are justified in download without permission.  [1] Kravets, David, ‘Feds Support $1.92 Million RIAA File Sharing Verdict’, Wired.com, 14 August 2009,


Downloaders spend more on music  Downloading songs could mean more income for musicians. Concerts (plus merchandise like T-shirts) are becoming a bigger source of income. But suppose a new musician comes to town. How am I supposed to know if I want to go to their concert if I don’t know their music? Previously, I wouldn’t have gone since I didn’t want to spend money on first buying their album and then buying the ticket. Now, I can quickly check out their music by downloading some songs to see if I like it, and then go to their concert. I save money on the albums, and will go more to concerts. Indeed a study by Demos has shown that people who illegally download music spend £30 more on music per year than those who do not. [1]  [1] Demos, ‘Illegal downloaders are one of music industry’s biggest customers’, 1 November 2009,


There is a private copy exception  Downloading music without permission is allowed under the “private copy exception”. Practically, the exception meant that you were allowed to copy, but not distribute any music. Downloading music from a torrentsite or newsgroup is essentially the same. People who download music do it purely for their own enjoyment and use. They have no intention to resell the songs and make a profit from it. So, if it was legal to make a copy for personal use before the internet was invented, why then should it suddenly be different afterwards? Indeed while the private copy exception is not universal it is allowed under the Information Society Directive within the EU. [1] And when it comes to peer-to-peer software, you can turn off the option to upload automatically. This allows you to only download, but at a slower speed.  [1] European Parliament, Article 6/4, ‘Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society’, Official Journal, L 167 , 22 June 2001, pp. 10 – 19,


Record companies have been blamed for unfair practices, like DRM, “milking” artists (see opposition argument 3), or suing individual downloaders for unfair damages. But record companies also have a very positive role to play: they scout every day for new talent, and offer training and production studios for up-and-coming musicians. Moreover, they provide valuable marketing services, making sure that new artists get heard instead of drowning in the vast sea of information that is the internet. Consider this, how do you even know which song to download? A large part of that is because record companies get the music out there, on to radio stations, all over MySpace, on MTV, so that you get to hear it for the first time. Those are things a musician is not trained to do and very often does not want to do, which is why it is good to have record companies [1] .  [1] Hole, Max, ‘The future for record companies’, ifpi, June 2007,


People have enough means to protect their careers  Whistleblowers shouldn’t be protected by internet anonymity, but by legal measures, making it illegal to fire people for whistleblowing, and by building a corporate culture that actually ‘prevents whistleblowing by encouraging it’. [1]  In the case of job applications, social networking sites like Facebook might not be anonymous, but lack of anonymity isn’t equal to full publicity. This is why, after criticism, Facebook has increased the visibility and usability of its privacy controls, which means that users themselves have more control over who is allowed to view their pictures and who is allowed to read their newsfeed. [2] If an employer still discovers someone’s fraternity party pictures with just a simple google search, then really the ‘victims’ themselves should take part of the blame by deciding to publish these pictures for all to themselves.  Moreover, when employers take a peek at someone’s Facebook-profile, they might be looking for something different contrary to expectations: a lot of party pictures may be associated with the personality trait of extroversion, which many employers actually consider a good not a bad thing. [3]  [1] Lilanthi Ravishankar, ‘Encouraging Internal Whistleblowing in Organizations’, 2003. Published online for the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, URL:   [2] The Guardian, ‘Facebook to improve privacy controls over public visibility’, December 12, 2012. URL:   [3] Forbes, ‘What employers are thinking when they look at your profile page’, June 3, 2012. URL:


Internet anonymity allows people to speak the truth without fearing harm to their careers  People might do things online that can have negative consequences for their career. Think of ‘whistleblowers’ for example: whistleblowers are employees of a company that have direct and first-hand knowledge of their employer doing something illegal or immoral. If they speak out about it publicly, they might lose their job and therefore their sole source of income. Allowing them to speak out anonymously enables them to invite public scrutiny to their employer without fear of getting fired. [1]  Or think of employers using social media in the job application process. Some people during adolescence (or in their student years) might ‘misbehave’ – where misbehaving can be something as relatively harmless as drinking a bit too much, then doing something silly and then having pictures of that end up on Facebook. Because Facebook doesn’t allow anonymity, this means future employers can easily trace someone’s adolescent shenanigans to a person they are currently considering to hire. Around 37% of companies admit to doing this and take what they find into account when hiring. [2]  [1] IEEE Spectrum, ‘The Whistle Blower’s Dilemma’, april 2004. URL:   [2] Webpronews, ‘Employers Are Still Patrolling Facebook, And Your Drunk Stripper Photos Are Why You’re Not Hired’. April 18, 2012. URL:


Internet anonymity can actually make online non-heteronormative communities less safe  Internet anonymity allows people to ‘catfish’: to create a completely different online identity with the specific purpose of engaging in emotional/romantic relationships. In the case of non-heteronormative identities, a malicious ‘catfisher’ could construct an identity to lure someone into a trap. [1]  But even without malicious intent, catfishing can have negative effects on non-heteronormative communities. Take the example of the ‘Gay Girl from Damascus’, a blog written by a male student from the University of Edinburgh pretending to be a lesbian girl called Amina Arraf in Syria: by faking he inadvertently reaffirmed a heteronormative pattern that marginalized identities can’t speak for themselves. [2] Moreover, some marginalized identities might see the chance to pretend to be heteronormative: the MTV show ‘Catfish’ sometimes shows gay men or women pretending to be of the other sex, to be able to maintain a fake, heteronormative relationship. Obviously, they do this because for them this feels like the only way to reach out and connect – but it nonetheless is a fake identity, and the backlash after they’re found out doesn’t help the public perception of non-heteronormative communities at all. [3]  [1] Real Clear Politics, ‘The Problem with Online Anonymity’, March 13, 2012. URL:   [2] NPR. ‘White privilege and ‘Gay Girl in Damascus’, June 15, 2011. URL:   [3] Daily Mail, ‘'Catfishing:' The phenomenon of Internet scammers who fabricate online identities and entire social circles to trick people into romantic relationships’, January 17, 2013. URL:


Internet anonymity enables citizens to exercise their right to free speech  Citizens have a right to speak their mind without government interference – which is why in the offline world people also have a right to speak anonymously. [1] Internet anonymity guarantees that people can actually exercise their right to free speech: anonymity takes away the fear of potential political consequences.  The reason why governments are cracking down on internet anonymity is exactly this: they don’t like being criticized. For example, China recently introduced a bill requiring ‘real name registration’ of every Chinese internet user, thus hampering free communication and the airing of political dissident opinions. [2]  Conversely, internet anonymity has helped in the Arab Uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia: people used anonymising software like TOR to come online and communicate, organize and criticize freely without fear of political repercussions. [3]  [1] Electronic Frontier Foundation, ‘Anonymity’. URL:   [2] Human Rights Watch, ‘China: Renewed Restrictions Send Online Chill’, January 4, 2013. URL:   [3] University for Peace, ‘Tor, Anonymity, and the Arab Spring: An Interview with Jacob Appelbaum’, August 1, 2011. URL:


Internet anonymity isn’t necessary to exercise citizen’s right to free speech  Even when we accept the theoretical principle of free speech, the past years have shown that internet anonymity is not necessary for citizens to exercise their right to free speech.  First, look at ‘access to the internet’ as a prime factor, regardless of whether it’s anonymous or not: In the case of the Arab spring, the causes of the unrest were increased oppression and a declining economic climate. [1] Internet access wasn’t that much of an enabling factor in the Arab Spring: the countries that saw the highest mobilization of citizens (Egypt, Libya, Syria, Tunisia and Yemen) actually rank lowest in internet penetration of all Arab countries. [2]  Secondly, let’s look at anonymity on the internet, provided that access is given: Again, the Arab Spring shows that anonymity isn’t a decisive factor at all. In Egypt and Tunisia, Facebook was a main vehicle to organize protests, [3] yet Facebook doesn’t allow anonymity – up to the extent that Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks called Facebook ‘the most appalling spying machine that has ever been invented’. [4] All this shows that internet anonymity isn’t as crucial a factor in fostering political dissidence as its proponents like to believe.  [1] Foreign Common Wealth Office, ‘The Causes of the Arab Spring’. URL:   [2] Yale Global, ‘Three Myths About the Arab Uprisings’, July 24, 2012. URL:   [3] The National, ‘Facebook and Twitter key to Arab Spring uprisings: report’, June 6, 2011 URL:   [4] Cnet, ‘Assange: Facebook is an appaling spy machine’, May 3, 2011. URL:


Internet anonymity allows people to experiment and construct with new social identities  People can use the internet to experiment with and construct new identities. Think for example of people who don’t have a heteronormative lifestyle (where heterosexuality is considered the norm/default lifestyle): in their own communities they could be condemned, despised and even prosecuted, but because of internet anonymity, they can safely join an online community without fear of social repercussions. [1]  Or think of people who through certain life-experiences needed to invent a new identity, for example someone who was addicted to drugs but now has come clean and is ready to build a new life – with an ‘authentic’ profile, this person will continuously be confronted with his or her previous identity. [2]  One solution would then be to require social networking sites like Facebook to drop the ‘real-name requirement’, which is something that the regional German data protection agency ULD has been arguing for in court. [3]  [1] TechPresident, ‘In the Middle East, Marginalized LGBT Youth Find Supportive Communities Online’, September 6, 2012. URL:   [2] The Guardian, ‘Online identity: is authenticity or anonymity more important?’, URL:   [3] The Verge, ‘Facebook wins legal battle to force Europeans to use real names online’, February 15, 2013. URL:


Banning internet anonymity wouldn’t decrease cyberbullying and trolling  Cyberbullying is bad, but internet anonymity isn’t the cause of rising suicides - cyberbullying is a circumstantial factor that triggers deeper, underlying problems in its victims. [1] Actually, banning internet anonymity can increase cyberbullying: when World of Warcraft announced their intentions to ban anonymity, female gamers voiced concerns of being forced to reveal their gender to other players, thus generating unwanted attention. [2]  As to the problem of trolling causing discussions under newspaper-articles and forums to go ‘bad’: this isn’t necessarily the case. A mediating factor could be the exact system in place for placing comments: comment systems like Disqus allow people to comment anonymously but still be judged for the quality of their contribution to the discussion. [3] If organizations care about the quality of their online discussions, they will implement systems like this by themselves and wouldn’t need any government regulation.  [1] ScienceNew, ‘Cyberbullying Does Not 'Cause' Teen Suicide’, October 20, 2012. URL:   [2] The Independent, ‘Rhodri Marsden: Online anonymity lets us behave badly’, July 14, 2010. URL:   [3] Silicon Valley Watcher, ‘Disqus: The Importance Of Trolls And Anonymity In Comments’, February 22, 2013. URL:


Banning internet anonymity doesn’t decrease illegal activities  Full traceability across the entire internet is difficult to implement: it would require a centralized worldwide agency certifying who has access to the internet – we don’t even have this for physical passports. But even if activities would be traceable to an IP-address, it doesn’t stop online illegal activities: criminals can remain anonymous by setting up anonymity servers, which allows them to rout their information through anonymous servers, even when their IP-addresses are known. [1] Even worse, malicious hackers can even recruit other people’s computers into engaging in illegal activities, for example in recruiting innocent people’s computers for collecting and distributing child pornography. [2]  [1] Bruce Schneier, ‘Schneier on security. Anonymity and the internet’, blogpost February 3, 2010. URL:   [2] Huffington Post, ‘Internet Virus Frames Users for Child Porn’, September 11, 2009. URL:


Internet anonymity leads to spam  Internet anonymity is a boon for spammers: even though spamming (sending unsolicited mass-emails) is illegal in many countries, the ability to send emails anonymously, either through altering the ‘sent-from’ address in the email or by opening and immediately closing an email address, enables spammers to keep on spamming. [1] Even if spam-fighters do find an email address and domain name from which spam is sent, then privacy protections still make it almost impossible to find out who exactly owns the domain name. [2] By restricting email traffic so that it can only be sent through official email-servers, we can ensure traceability of email senders and thereby increase the likelihood of catching spammers – which is what South-Korea, the world’s second largest generator of spam emails, recently proposed under the ‘Block 25’ proposal. [3]  [1] Spam Reader, ‘Why is it so difficult to catch a spammer?’, March 6, 2013. URL:   [2] Spam Resource, ‘Is Online Anonymity a Bad Thing?’, March 2, 2010. URL:   [3] BBC News, ‘Email spam 'Block 25' crackdown readied in South Korea’, 14 november 2011. URL:


Internet anonymity increases cyberbullying and trolling  In normal social life, people restrain themselves in what they say to others. When anonymously online, people behave differently: whatever they say and do can be said and done without consequence, because it isn’t traceable to them as persons, or, as comic artist John Gabriel is often paraphrased 'Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Idiot’. [1]  The consequences of this behaviour are ugly or downright harmful. Massive Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Games (MMPORGs) like World of Warcraft face a constant atmosphere of verbal abuse created by their players. And there’s worse than simple trolling like this: anonymity increases the effects bullying. For example, where schoolchildren originally were bullied in schools by bullies whose faces they knew, with online anonymity the bullying goes on anonymously online and invades every aspect of the victims’ lives – aggravating their suffering so much that in some cases they actually commit suicide, as for example did Canadian teenager Amanda Todd. [2]  That’s why organizations maintaining online communities, whether they be social networking sites like Facebook, MMORPGs like World of Warcraft and newspaper sites like The Guardian should (legally) be required to (publicly) verify the person behind an account or take it offline if it remains anonymous, as New York senators recently proposed. [3]  [1] The Independent, ‘Rhodri Marsden: Online anonymity lets us behave badly’, July 14, 2010. URL:   [2] Huffington Post, ‘Amanda Todd: Bullied Canadian Teen Commits Suicide After Prolonged Battle Online And In School’, October 11, 2012. URL:   [3] Wired, ‘New York Legislation Would Ban Anonymous Online Speech’, May 22, 2012. URL:


Internet anonymity allows internet users to engage in illegal activities  The internet is being used for illegal activities. Examples of these are trading and trafficking in child pornography, drug trading and planning and coordinating terrorist activities. [1] Anonymity makes it easier for these criminals as they can engage in their activities with less fear of being caught. [2]  By regulating internet anonymity, we can combat illegal activities better, because a key resource for criminals has been diminished. This is exactly why Eugene Kaspersky, founder of antivirus firm Kasperksy Labs, called for an ‘internet passport’ for every internet user, allowing everyone to be identified as persons. [3]  [1] UNODC, Use of the Internet for Terrorist Purposes, 2012. PDF can be downloaded here:   [2] Interpol, ‘Cybercrime’. URL:   UNICRI, ‘Terrorism and the internet’. URL:  2013  [3] Zdnet,’Microsoft OneCare was good enough’, October 16, 2009. URL:


Regulating the internet doesn’t stop spamming  Restricting internet traffic by blocking ports doesn’t reduce spam at all: spam networks will be able to find another means of sending mass-emails within hours, if not seconds. [1]  But there’s another consequence of regulating internet traffic this way: it makes internet traffic and email slower and more cumbersome, hampering small businesses and companies working mostly through online channels. It thus hinders the smooth functioning of the economy and hampers innovation. [2]  [1] Zdnet, ‘South Korea to block port 25 as anti-spam countermeasure’, November 15, 2011. URL:   [2] BBC News, ‘Email spam 'Block 25' crackdown readied in South Korea’, 14 november 2011. URL:


Mobile phones may help us keep in touch over long distances which is useful. However some doctors are concerned that keeping in touch by mobile phone comes at the cost of less face to face talking. When communicating by text message we are losing many parts of communication such as facial expression


Mobile phones enable us to keep in touch  Mobile communication is very useful and its main use is not to keep us safe but to make life easier. It is clearly useful that we can phone to ask to be picked up rather than always having to set a meeting time in advance. It is equally useful that a mobile phone can tell us if it is likely to rain, or if the train is late. We don’t need this information, but it certainly is helpful, and it is just as helpful for children as for adults.


These are certainly good things but we don’t need mobile phones for them. For example most people already have access to the internet. It is also not a good reason for why everyone should have one. If it is being used for learning phones can be used by more than one person.


Mobile phones make sure that we are safe  Mobile phones mean we are never out of contact with our friends, parents, guardians, or if necessary our school. They provide a way we can quickly contact someone if we are in trouble or are lost. Mobiles are most clearly helpful if caught in a large scale disaster such as a flood or earthquake as we can tell rescuers where we are. But they are also helpful for every day security. With a mobile phone parents know where we are and can be quickly contacted if we feel unsafe somewhere.


Phones are certainly a useful tool in helping to keep in contact so can be useful if you get into trouble. But they don’t always help because they don’t always keep us in contact. There are many reasons why a mobile may be useless. There may be no signal. Or the phone may have been turned off. Or the battery may have run low. If any of these things happen then it adds to parents worries as they can’t get in contact when they expected to be able to.


Increased independence for children is not always a good thing. Children should be supervised by adults and mobile phones are no substitute for this. Mobiles simply provide us with another means of communication with the outside world over which parents has little control. This is particularly relevant when the phone has internet access which is not restricted.


Mobile phones help us to learn  Having a mobile phone helps us to learn in a lot of different ways. First we learn about technology; about how to use the mobile phone. Second most phones today have apps (programs) to enable learning using the phone, or else through the internet. Phones can access online courses and lessons which can be provided in fun ways and can in some cases instantly tell you if you have the right answer. It may even sometimes be possible to do homework on a phone and send it to your teacher. Even without the internet phones can be used to provide short assignments, or to provide reminders to study.


Mobile phones lead to increased independence  Mobile phones bring us increased independence. Being able to use a mobile phone is clearly a basic skill to allow children to be independent. It means that they are not dependent on an adult being with them for parents to know where they are. The main reason for parents being unwilling to let children out on their own is fear for their safety. This is a fear that mobiles help prevent. This increased independence has other benefits, such as teaching us to be responsible for ourselves.


No research has shown health risks. The advice is only because we do not yet know the long term results. As studies continue for longer this final worry will also be ended.


Mobiles are not always a distraction. Research has shown that when allowed the use of mobile phones in school children do get better results. This is because it can increase motivation to work. For example, phones can be used to set reminders to do homework.


We should not be encouraging interest in material things  Mobile phones are a part of a desire to keep up with fashion and friends. We all want the biggest and the best. Mobile phone companies know this and regularly bring out flashy new models that are immediately the one everyone must have. The more children have mobiles the more are caught up in this fashion. Our compulsion to want new things all the time is not good for us. Mobile phones, as with many other electronics, are damaging to the environment. Since we buy them and often dispose of the phone only a couple of years later they pile up in gigantic rubbish dumps. Mobile phones are clearly a luxury not something that everyone should have, and we certainly should not keep buying new ones.


Mobile phones are expensive  Mobile phones are expensive. First there is the cost of buying the phone. Then there are all the charges for using it. Often there are more charges for downloading apps and other extras. Sometimes we go over the limits of our call time or data allowance and are charged extra. Finally there may be extra costs when the phone needs to be replaced or upgraded. The average cell phone bill in the United States is $70 for a month but it can sometimes be much higher. Clearly not every child can afford their own mobile and often parents cant either.


There are possible safety concerns  When mobile phones first came out there was a lot of worry about the possible effect on children’s health. We now know there is little risk. But the advice from health experts is still that children should avoid too much use of mobiles. Experts still worry that the use of mobiles could be linked with behavioural problems in children, this can mean problems such as being disruptive or having difficulty sleeping.


Mobile phones distracting  Mobile phones can easily distract us. They can be a particular problem in schools where they discourage us and those around us from working. Using a mobile phone while doing a piece of work will reduce your concentration making it more likely you will make mistakes. Mobile phones, like video games, are also a distraction from doing other things. We don’t just use phones for communication but also for games. Most young people spend well over an hour on their mobiles. As a result there is much less time for other activities.


The expense clearly depends on the kind of phone and how much it is used. Parents clearly have control over these costs; they decide on the deal that their child is on. The parents can then make sure there is little chance of their children running up large bills.


Something being a luxury does not mean it is not something everyone should have. The effect on the planet is minimal and can be reduced if we recycle any phones that we are going to throw away. It would certainly best for the planet if we did not keep buying upgrades but this is not necessary for every child to have a mobile phone.


First off, it is quite possible the gender ratio imbalance is not as large in China as it is thought to be because many families do not register their female children in order to circumnavigate the one-child policy.  Proposition thinks that trafficking will decrease under their policy. We would argue that it would increase or at the very least not decrease. These atrocities take root when a society finds more value in women as economic objects than as people. The cash transfer scheme does little to increase women’s value as people but explicitly and dramatically increases their value as economic objects. This plan does not reduce or create any disincentive for exploitation of women or girls, but it does guarantee a revenue stream from doing so  In some traditional cultures, women are used as tender to settle debts, through forced marriages, or worse. Presumably the cash transfers are to the families, not the girls themselves. This reinforces the powerlessness of women relative to their families and only reinforces their families' potential gain from economic exploitation. With the addition of cash, there would be an increased incentive reason to exploit this renewable resource. We on side Opp feel that this behaviour is dehumanizing and deplorable and the risk of increased objectification and exploitation is, by itself, sufficient reason to side with the Opposition. A higher female birth rate is not a good in of itself if these women are likely to be mistreated worse than the current female population as it is not only life we value but quality of life and it is surely unethical to set policies that will increase the number of people being born into lives of discrimination.


The policy will help alleviate the social problems arising from the imbalance  A balanced gender ratio allows that every man has a woman to marry – theoretically of course as not every individual wants to marry and not every individual is heterosexual. The majority of men and women do want to get married. In China, men face such competition to find a wife that they spend several years living in horrific conditions in order to save up enough money to have a property with which to present a prospective wife. Without a property these men will never find a wife. These men clearly have a desperate desire to find a woman. [1] There are 3 problems with this situation. 1) The dissatisfaction men experience when they strongly desire to marry but cannot is an unhappy thing and surely lowers their quality of life. By 2020 there will be 24 million Chinese men of marrying age with no wives. It has even been suggested that this dissatisfaction is contributing to a rising crime rate in China. [2] 2) Because men are so desperate they will take any woman they can get. The dating agency industry has grown massively in China and parents even gather in town squares to advertise their daughters, rejecting or accepting candidates based only on whether or not they have a property and a good job. This means couples are less likely to be compatible and, though divorce is not as popular in China as in the west, couples are more likely to be unhappily married. Divorce has increased a huge amount as the gender imbalance has increased. [3] 3) Those men who do not find wives often look to prostitution or possibly women trafficked into the country for companionship and sex. 42 000 women were rescued from kidnappers in China between 2001 and 2003. There are clear harms to the women involved in such activities and to women’s rights as a whole when this occurs. There are harms to society as a whole when this occurs in the name of HIV and other STDs. [4] 4) The prevalence of prostitution and trafficking as well as the focus on male wealth when it comes to dating and marriage placed women in a position where they are seen only as a financial asset or commodity to be sold, bought or traded. Placing women in this position will have psychological harms such as lowered self-esteem and more tangible harms when society treats them with less respect and women’s rights cease to develop in a positive direction.  [1] Gladstone, Alex and Well, Greg. “Material girls lose good men.” Shanghai Daily. 2011.   [2] Sughrue, Karen. “China: Too Many Men.” CBS News. 2009.   [3] “More women opt to end unhappy marriages.” China Daily. 2002.   [4] Raymond, Janice. “Health Effects of Prostitution.” The Coalition Against Trafficking of Women. 1999.


We agree that a policy to ban abortion is not conducive to the encouragement of women’s rights. We would argue, however, that more rigorous policing of prenatal gender determination could be effective. For example, an amnesty could be issued for handing in of illegally used ultrasound devices, possibly even with a financial reward for turning these in. Further investigation could be made into rumours of places where one might access prenatal gender determination. It may be difficult but all crime detection is difficult but we do it because it is important.  Propaganda has been known to change age old ideas. It is an extremely powerful force. China has shown the power of propaganda through its censorship of the internet, protectionist policies in the film industry and control of print and radio media which help ensure that the Communist party stays in power. Of course, propaganda can also be used to create positive effects. What’s important to note about propaganda is that it takes time. Propaganda in South Africa which aims to encourage the use of condoms and greater HIV awareness is only now beginning to work after ten years of running such campaigns. New infections in the teenage age group (the age group most exposed to HIV awareness particularly through schools) have decreased. [1] There is no reason why this cannot be a very effective tool in changing people’s mindsets about gender.  Furthermore, some of the changes in society will happen naturally as countries like China and India develop. As more women are educated and get jobs, people will start to realise women’s value and women will probably have more influence in the decision of whether or not to go through with a pregnancy. It is a historical trend that nations offer more freedoms and they become more economically developed. [2] Wealth leads to liberalisation and greater exposure to western ideals.  [1] “HIV/AIDS in South Africa.” Wikipedia.   [2] Mosseau, Michael, Hegre, Havard and Oneal, John. “How the Wealth of Nations Conditions the Liberal Peace.” European Journal of International Relations. Vol. 9 (2). P277-314. 2003. “HIV/AIDS in South Africa.” Wikipedia.


Gender equality  Men and women deserve to enjoy equal rights. In China and India women do not enjoy equal rights. By encouraging couples to produce girls we contribute to the resolution of two problems. Female children are likely to be treated poorly in comparison their brothers. They may be given smaller quantities of food, less education etc. It is not only the physical differences in the upbringing of boys and girls that are noteworthy but also the emotional. Particularly in families without sons, daughters are led to experience guilt and a sense of inferiority because their parents are disappointed in their gender. These girls will grow up in a home without gender equality and therefore will come to accept a smaller share of family wealth as an adult and be unfit psychologically to denounce male dominance. The girls are likely to later perpetuate gender inequality amongst their own children. [1] By making it beneficial for parents to have female children, we make parents less likely to make their daughters feel guilty and inferior for their gender. Furthermore, educational grants will allow girls access to education – which is both intrinsically valuable and valuable in that it will allow the possible financial independence and the confidence to denounce male domination. Similarly, men will receive a message that it is more praiseworthy to produce a son. In essence, allowing selective abortions to take place without taking action against this practise is allowing gender inequality to stagnate in the popular wisdom. It is important to take a stance especially in a country like China where government ideology heavily effects the people.  [1] Gupta, Monica. “Selective Discrimination against Female Children in Rural Punjab, India.” Population and Development Review. Vol.13, No.1, (Mar.1987), p77.


The shortage of women in China has a positive effect on gender equality because there is a shortage of women and men therefore have to compete for romantic attention. Women can afford to be picky. “Many Chinese women place high value on a husband with money and stability. In a now famous moment from a Chinese dating show, a female contestant rejected a suitor with the iconic line, "I would rather cry in the back of a BMW than laugh on the back of a bicycle." [1] One gentleman said, If you're poor, nobody will go with you." [2] This places women in a position of power.  Furthermore, simply increasing the number of female babies alive will not alter the gender dynamics because the preference for male children can be attributed to age old beliefs that men continue the family name and provide financial protection for their parents in their old age as well as to the dowry system in India. [3]  The following is mentioned in the People’s Daily Online regarding the traditional and cultural reasons for the gender ratio disparity: “Demographer Wang Guangzhou at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences said that China’s strong preference for male children, coupled with the lack of social welfare, lay at the heart of the problem. ‘Traditional values will still prevail in some rural areas, where having male heirs is important for ensuring that the family bloodline is preserved,’ Wang said. ‘Furthermore, many Chinese families rely on their children to look after the elderly since a solid social welfare system is still unavailable for much of the population.’” [4]  For more argumentation as to why a discriminatory policy in favour of women will not address gender inequality see the opposition ineffectiveness argument.  [1] Adshade, Marina. “The Dating Surplus for Chinese Women.” 2010.   [2] Sughrue, Karen. “China: Too Many Men.” CBS News. 2009.   [3] Pande, Rohini and Malhotra, Anju. “Son Preference and Daughter Neglect in India: What happens to living girls?” International Center for Research on Women. 2006.   [4] “China faces growing gender imbalance.” BBC News.


We do not disagree that abortion is a generally undesirable thing. Even those who believe that abortion is ethical feel it would be preferable not to have an unwanted pregnancy in the first place. It may be very distressing for mothers if they have not made an autonomous choice to go through with the abortion but the proposition is wrong to assume that they have not. Cultural biases towards male children are often internalised by women. It makes sense that both mothers and fathers would be concerned about who will care for them in old age – not just men. Men and women from the same socio-economic and cultural background are also likely to have similar ethical views and therefore are unlikely to disagree on their ethical standpoint on abortion. Therefore, it is not the case that women suffer because they are forced or coerced into abortions.  Furthermore, this is not a problem exclusive to gender selective abortion. Whilst there is a greater prevalence of abortions of female babies, there are a lot of abortions of male babies as well. Assuming that abortion does cause women a lot of distress, this harm will not be removed by encouraging parents to have girls because they will continue to abort male foetuses. The solution for this problem is to educate people about alternative methods of contraception so that unwanted pregnancies do not occur and also to empower women in their marital relationships by encouraging them to have their own income and so on. This can be better targeted by self-help women’s groups and the like.


Ineffectiveness of alternatives  One possible alternative to our possibly is to better police prenatal sex determination. This is highly unfeasible. In 1982 the Chinese government distributed masses of small, light ultrasound devices to ensure that women who’d already had one child were either sterilized or continuing to wear their intrauterine device. Women started using these devices for prenatal sex determination and therefore “more than 8 million girls were aborted in the first 20 years of the one-child policy.” In China prenatal sex determination is illegal and, though ultrasounds are allowed in certain cases for medical reasons so long as they are on security camera, doctors who reveal the gender of the child can no longer work as doctors. The masses of distributed ultrasound devices, however, are the basis for a large and successful black market.  A second possible approach is propaganda. “The government has launched a campaign to convince parents that having daughters is a good thing: propaganda street banners preach that preferring boys over girls is old thinking.” This too has been unsuccessful. Posters and the like are unlikely to change age-old traditional ways of thinking. [1]  Abortions are still free and legal right up to the ninth month, even as the boy-girl imbalance grows. A third possible approach to the problem could be to ban abortions altogether. This is unlikely to be effective as, with such high demand, a black market for abortion is sure to spring up. Even if it is effective, it may drive parents to commit infanticide instead. It also seems an unfair policy. We promote women’s rights and women’s choice and it seems wrong to prevent women who have, for example, been raped from aborting a child that they had no choice in conceiving and will possible resent.  Therefore, there are seemingly no satisfactory alternatives.  [1] Sughrue, Karen. “China: Too Many Men.” CBS News. 2009.


Abortion  It is estimated that around 10 million female foetuses were aborted in the past 20 years in India. [1] These abortions were motivated by cultural and financial reasons discussed above e.g. dowry, parents fear that daughters can’t care for them in old age, need to continue male lineage. Regardless of what one believes about the ethics of abortion, abortion causes a lot of emotional distress to women. In some cases this is because the woman has formed an emotional attachment to her unborn child. In some cases it may be because the woman has an ethical disagreement with abortion but is unable to refuse the abortion. Women are especially unlikely to have this kind of decision making power in the very countries where men are valued more highly than women and husbands tend to have power over their wives. Our policy changes the incentives that families have to get an abortion. Whereas a female child was one a costly liability, our policy now makes having female children less of a liability, if not a financial asset. This means that fewer women will have to undergo abortions.  [1] Boseley, Sarah. “10 million girl foetuses aborted in India.” The Guardian. 2006.


Whilst the Indian government may have policies that empower women, they do not currently have programs that encourage more female children to be born. Thus, there is a reason to fund both of these independent programmes. This is an investment in creating a socially stable society in the long-run. The benefits of educating women have been seen in other nations. As women become more educated they gain more freedoms as they are better equipped to fight for them and their achievements make it hard for men to argue that they are inferior. This is a long term effect, however, that will not reap the mentioned benefits for some years though it is very important. Extra educational subsidies cna easily be run alongside other policies simply by being well organised and communicative. Again, opposition’s argument applies only to India while there are not educational programmes of this nature in other nations mentioned. Secondly, the pension programme we are proposing directly and immediately deals with the problem by saying to parents ‘Have a female baby and we will support you through old age so you don’t have to worry that the girl won’t do it’.


Our policy provides far more than these existing programmes (which are, we could mention, exclusive to India). By offering parents of females an annual lifelong pension we remove the fear that their female children will not support them in their old age. This will certainly encourage parents whose primary goal in reproducing is to be financially secure in old age to have girls. Giving parents preferential employment and housing benefits would certainly be an effective incentive as 42% of the Indian population lives below the bread line. [1] There are NGOs around the world concerned with women’s rights who will help to fund these initiatives and the UN has existing women’s rights projects in China. [2]  This policy is necessary to ensure that women are born in the first place so that there is a larger united group working towards gender equality within these nations. Furthermore men will not be disgruntled at all because the money that government is supposedly spending on women is in fact going into the pockets of these parents. Whereas tax money might go to roads in parts of the country one might never use or to help people poorer that the taxpayer, this policy places money directly in the pocket of any taxpayer who has a female child. It is very unlikely that men will hate their daughters for bringing in money and for not requiring costly education – if government offers to pay for female education.  [1] “Poverty in India.” Wikipedia.   [2] “United Nations Development Programme.”


Commodifying women.  Surely providing a financial incentive for families to produce women causes women to be likened to a product that needs to be manufactured. Families will continue to have a social stigma against female children and they will be viewed simply as a financial asset. This is not only bad for women in general in the country but for babies that are only alive because they provide income. These children are unlikely to be loved and cared for as a male child might be and it is cruel to encourage them to be brought into the world to live life in such a condition.  Furthermore, the commoditisation of money can only serve to worsen the problem of trafficking mentioned earlier by the proposition.