If anyone from Labour happens to be passing, you might be able to help with a question that's been nagging away at me. As I understand it, your party believes that the more abortion rights that women have, the better. Yvette Cooper said the other day that Labour (alone among all major political parties) thinks that the Scottish Parliament can't be trusted to assume control over abortion law because Nicola Sturgeon isn't able to bind her successors. In other words, Westminster might decide to keep the law in England and Wales as it is, while the Scottish Parliament might eventually restrict access to abortion. That's possible, but there are of course are at least three other possible outcomes of devolving abortion law -
1) Westminster (which after all has far more social conservatives in it than Holyrood) might restrict access to abortion in England and Wales, while the Scottish Parliament keeps the Abortion Act 1967 unchanged in Scotland.
2) Westminster might keep the law unchanged in England and Wales, while the Scottish Parliament liberalises the law to grant greater abortion rights in Scotland.
3) Both jurisdictions might grant greater abortion rights, with one following the example set by the other.
Two of these three scenarios would lead (from the perspective that Labour claims to take) to improved rights for women in Scotland, while the other would mean that devolution of abortion law had directly prevented women's rights in Scotland from being eroded. If that came to pass, is it something that Labour would welcome? Or would they continue to insist on "equality" across Great Britain even when that amounts to an equal lack of rights for women?
If the latter, it seems to me there's a fairly obvious British nationalist agenda at play here, rather than a feminist one.
* * *
There was an interesting exchange on Twitter the other day between RevStu and Jamie Ross of BuzzFeed. RevStu asked Ross if he was comfortable with the "sneering protective wall" that the media had constructed around J K Rowling's abusive and misogynistic friend "Brian Spanner". Ross replied that he didn't think there was any protection, merely a "realisation that no one outside Twitter knows or cares about Brian Spanner". That's something of a circular argument, because there's one reason and one reason only why no-one outside Twitter knows or cares about Brian Spanner, which is that the media haven't told anyone about him. In fact, they went to extraordinary lengths to edit him out of their extensive coverage of Rowling v McGarry, even though that story made no sense whatever without him. Contrast that with their eagerness last year to out SNP candidate Neil Hay as "Paco McSheepie" - a Twitter troll account that was far, far less abusive than Brian Spanner, and that, again, nobody would have known or cared about unless journalists had told them.
It's not as if the media aren't in a position to out Spanner. After my two recent blogposts pointing out the astonishing and totally coincidental links between Spanner and popular journalist Euan McColm, I was struck by the large number of people who came out with a close variation on the following theme : "I have been told by someone I trust that it's not McColm." To state the bleedin' obvious, it's not possible to know for a fact that Spanner is not McColm (or Deerin, or Daisley, or even Rowling herself) unless you already know the guy's real identity. That means there are an awful lot of people out there protecting him. My strong impression is that many of those people are journalists, but even if that isn't the case, it would surely be pretty easy for the media to find out who he is and break the story. So why don't they? Was it really in the public interest to out McSheepie, but to protect Spanner? If so, why? Or would it be closer to the mark to say that Spanner is a mate of several leading right-wing journalists, and that they're happy to let him act with impunity?
* * *
I was at Murrayfield yesterday for my first ever Scotland-England game, and I fear I must report that triumphalist England supporters murdering what was once a perfectly respectable Christian song aren't any more lovable in the flesh than they are on TV. You might also be amused to hear that I was sitting next to a kilt-wearing, Scotland-supporting Brit Nat who was incensed that the announcer referred to God Save the Queen as "our visitors' anthem", and got his revenge by belting it out with the England supporters. He then proceeded to sing Flower of Scotland, but not quite as lustily. I suppose I've always known that people like that existed, but it was educational to come across one for real.
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Sunday, February 7, 2016
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
Hasn't it occurred to Cathy Newman that devolving abortion law could help PREVENT the Abortion Act 1967 from being repealed in Scotland?
If you're in any doubt that Scotland currently has a second-class parliament, take a look at the very helpful list at the bottom of this document. It sets out the powers that Westminster plans to hold back from the Welsh Assembly after a 'reserved powers' model is introduced, and explains in each case whether the same power is devolved in Scotland and Northern Ireland. As you can see, there are several examples of important powers that are devolved in Northern Ireland but not in Scotland, including abortion, film classification, consumer protection, electricity, coal, "time", energy conservation, child support, regulation of the professions, industrial relations, and medicines. You'll be hard-pressed to find reverse examples of powers that are devolved in Scotland but not in Northern Ireland. I can only spot two - public order, and referendums on devolved subject matters. The new Scotland Bill will of course give Scotland powers over income tax that Northern Ireland won't have for the time being, but that just makes it even more anomalous that the Scottish Parliament should be weaker than the Northern Ireland Assembly in so many key respects.
The Tory government has made a modest gesture on that front by agreeing at the last minute to devolve abortion law to Scotland, which went through the House of Commons a few hours ago with a comfortable majority. As long as the Lib Dems don't withdraw their support, there should be no problem getting it through the Lords, in spite of Labour's boneheaded intransigence on the topic. But unfortunately the boneheadedness seems to be rapidly spreading from the red benches to the media. Cathy Newman of Channel 4 News, who of course already has SNP-bashing form after her bizarre and entirely false allegations about the Scottish Government "cutting its contribution to the monarchy", has now waded in on the abortion issue. She claims that "reopening an issue that has been settled since 1967" will erode women's hard-won reproductive rights.
There's just one little flaw in that line of reasoning, Cathy : devolving abortion law DOES NOT RE-OPEN THE ISSUE.
It really is that simple. You'd think from Newman's article that removing abortion from the list of reserved powers will somehow compel the Scottish Parliament to hold a vote on abortion law, but it won't. The GB-wide Abortion Act 1967, as amended by subsequent legislation, will remain fully in force in Scotland until and unless MSPs decide to repeal or change it. They are under no obligation to take any action at all, and the likelihood is that they won't for the foreseeable future. By the same token, refusing to devolve abortion would not have prevented Westminster MPs from reopening the issue and changing the law, and they would at the very least have been no less likely to do so than their Scottish counterparts. Indeed, they'll still be able to do so - but in England and Wales only.
There are plenty of people on both sides of the debate who don't regard the current legislation as some kind of world-leading gold standard. But for those who do take that view, it should be noted that Scotland will now be able to prevent social conservatives at Westminster (and I don't see how it can be denied that there are far more social conservatives at Westminster than at Holyrood) from repealing or diluting the Abortion Act 1967. It may not have occurred to the likes of Cathy Newman that a liberalising Westminster law from the 60s could eventually be scrapped in England while remaining in force in devolved Scotland, but that is precisely the position.
* * *
UPDATE : I've just caught up with the Yvette Cooper article in the Guardian which seems to have triggered the outbreak of illogicality elsewhere. In contrast to Cathy Newman, who truly doesn't seem to understand how devolution works, it's pretty clear that Cooper is being downright disingenuous.
"The SNP government says women shouldn’t worry, because they have no plans to change the abortion law. I’m sure they don’t. But that’s not how it works. This amendment to devolve abortion to Scotland wasn’t put forward initially by the SNP or Conservative government – it was proposed by a small group of backbench MPs who publicly oppose abortion."
Rubbish. Absolute rubbish. Any amendment to the Scotland Bill tabled by backbench MPs was preceded by broad agreement between the SNP, the Conservatives, the Greens and the Liberal Democrats that the devolution of abortion law should form part of the Smith recommendations. That plan was vetoed by Labour, and by Labour alone, at a very late stage in proceedings.
And the idea that the SNP were never interested in having powers over abortion law transferred until pro-lifers started whispering in their ears is self-evidently risible. The SNP have always wanted ALL powers transferred from Westminster to Holyrood. By definition that includes abortion.
"If abortion law is devolved to Scotland...at most, it will mean a new bout of lobbying that makes women feel uncomfortable about their choices and puts medical professionals under pressure. At the very least, it means different laws north and south of the border."
No it doesn't. As I pointed out earlier, after the power is devolved there will still be a GB-wide law on abortion. That will not change until either the Scottish Parliament, or the UK Parliament acting on behalf of England and Wales only, decides to alter the law. Neither is under any obligation to do so. In principle, there's no reason why the current law shouldn't remain in place on both sides of the border indefinitely. Yvette Cooper is too experienced a parliamentarian not to realise that's the case, so it's hard to avoid the conclusion that she's intentionally misleading people.
* * *
Click here for the Scot Goes Pop fundraiser : closes on 16th November.
The Tory government has made a modest gesture on that front by agreeing at the last minute to devolve abortion law to Scotland, which went through the House of Commons a few hours ago with a comfortable majority. As long as the Lib Dems don't withdraw their support, there should be no problem getting it through the Lords, in spite of Labour's boneheaded intransigence on the topic. But unfortunately the boneheadedness seems to be rapidly spreading from the red benches to the media. Cathy Newman of Channel 4 News, who of course already has SNP-bashing form after her bizarre and entirely false allegations about the Scottish Government "cutting its contribution to the monarchy", has now waded in on the abortion issue. She claims that "reopening an issue that has been settled since 1967" will erode women's hard-won reproductive rights.
There's just one little flaw in that line of reasoning, Cathy : devolving abortion law DOES NOT RE-OPEN THE ISSUE.
It really is that simple. You'd think from Newman's article that removing abortion from the list of reserved powers will somehow compel the Scottish Parliament to hold a vote on abortion law, but it won't. The GB-wide Abortion Act 1967, as amended by subsequent legislation, will remain fully in force in Scotland until and unless MSPs decide to repeal or change it. They are under no obligation to take any action at all, and the likelihood is that they won't for the foreseeable future. By the same token, refusing to devolve abortion would not have prevented Westminster MPs from reopening the issue and changing the law, and they would at the very least have been no less likely to do so than their Scottish counterparts. Indeed, they'll still be able to do so - but in England and Wales only.
There are plenty of people on both sides of the debate who don't regard the current legislation as some kind of world-leading gold standard. But for those who do take that view, it should be noted that Scotland will now be able to prevent social conservatives at Westminster (and I don't see how it can be denied that there are far more social conservatives at Westminster than at Holyrood) from repealing or diluting the Abortion Act 1967. It may not have occurred to the likes of Cathy Newman that a liberalising Westminster law from the 60s could eventually be scrapped in England while remaining in force in devolved Scotland, but that is precisely the position.
* * *
UPDATE : I've just caught up with the Yvette Cooper article in the Guardian which seems to have triggered the outbreak of illogicality elsewhere. In contrast to Cathy Newman, who truly doesn't seem to understand how devolution works, it's pretty clear that Cooper is being downright disingenuous.
"The SNP government says women shouldn’t worry, because they have no plans to change the abortion law. I’m sure they don’t. But that’s not how it works. This amendment to devolve abortion to Scotland wasn’t put forward initially by the SNP or Conservative government – it was proposed by a small group of backbench MPs who publicly oppose abortion."
Rubbish. Absolute rubbish. Any amendment to the Scotland Bill tabled by backbench MPs was preceded by broad agreement between the SNP, the Conservatives, the Greens and the Liberal Democrats that the devolution of abortion law should form part of the Smith recommendations. That plan was vetoed by Labour, and by Labour alone, at a very late stage in proceedings.
And the idea that the SNP were never interested in having powers over abortion law transferred until pro-lifers started whispering in their ears is self-evidently risible. The SNP have always wanted ALL powers transferred from Westminster to Holyrood. By definition that includes abortion.
"If abortion law is devolved to Scotland...at most, it will mean a new bout of lobbying that makes women feel uncomfortable about their choices and puts medical professionals under pressure. At the very least, it means different laws north and south of the border."
No it doesn't. As I pointed out earlier, after the power is devolved there will still be a GB-wide law on abortion. That will not change until either the Scottish Parliament, or the UK Parliament acting on behalf of England and Wales only, decides to alter the law. Neither is under any obligation to do so. In principle, there's no reason why the current law shouldn't remain in place on both sides of the border indefinitely. Yvette Cooper is too experienced a parliamentarian not to realise that's the case, so it's hard to avoid the conclusion that she's intentionally misleading people.
* * *
Click here for the Scot Goes Pop fundraiser : closes on 16th November.
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Mad World Part 2 : it's "anti-women" to agree with the views of millions of women
You might remember the tagline of Mr Eugenides' old blog was "holding back the rage". I sometimes used to think that could also apply to this blog when I find myself in full-on rant mode, but I now realise that I'd be hard-pressed to match Edinburgh Eye on that score, judging by the strength of her reaction to my last post -
"Alex Neil isn’t fit to be Health Secretary if he thinks he can express such anti-women, anti-healthcare views in public. He should either retract or resign, since if Alex Salmond continues to keep him as Health Secretary, it’s a clear indication that to Salmond, Alex Neil’s views aren’t objectionable...
Oddly enough, my first stumble across the story was in James Kelly’s blog instructing me that what Alex Neil thought about abortion didn’t matter and shouldn’t affect my views on independence and I must be “thick” if I thought it should.
Other SNP defenders suggested that it didn’t matter what Alex Neil thought because as Health Secretary he didn’t really have anything to do with abortion. Or that it didn’t matter that Alex Neil was only as bad as David Cameron because Jeremy Hunt was much worse. None of these are good defenses, because none of them deal with the real problem – the SNP has appointed a man who holds anti-choice views on abortion to be Health Secretary: instead they create a huge problem, which is that with every defence of Alex Neil, the SNP is building itself up to be the anti-choice party in Scotland, the party not to be trusted on human rights."
Well, of course I wasn't 'instructing' anyone to do or think anything. Quite the contrary, in fact - I was objecting to the idea that all women must dutifully hold the views on abortion and independence prescribed for them by the Labour party. So I decided to set the record straight, and it developed into the following exchange...
Me : “Oddly enough, my first stumble across the story was in James Kelly’s blog instructing me that what Alex Neil thought about abortion didn’t matter and shouldn’t affect my views on independence and I must be “thick” if I thought it should.”
Actually, I didn’t say that, and I suspect you know I didn’t say that. I said that Labour must think that women are thick, based on a suggestion from one of their activists that practically every woman would now desert the pro-independence cause simply because of what Alex Neil said.
“Other SNP defenders suggested that it didn’t matter what Alex Neil thought because as Health Secretary he didn’t really have anything to do with abortion.”
He doesn’t. It’s a fact. Abortion law is wholly reserved to Westminster, and if it was ever transferred to Holyrood it would continue to be decided by a free vote. This is the point you’re missing – the Scotland on Sunday article was indeed misleading, but not because Neil was misquoted. It was their interpretation that “the government is signalling a change” that was misleading – or, to put it more bluntly, a lie. By definition, a free vote means that the government will not be taking a collective view on this at all, let alone signalling a change.
In one very limited sense you’re right – Alex Neil’s personal view DOES matter, but only because he has one vote out of 129. That’s it.
Edinburgh Eye : "I said that Labour must think that women are thick, based on a suggestion from one of their activists that practically every woman would now desert the pro-independence cause simply because of what Alex Neil said."
Yes. And the follow-on from that is that any woman who does reject independence because its adherents are all rallying round to support Alex Neil, must be thick.
Thanks so much.
"It was their interpretation that “the government is signalling a change” that was misleading – or, to put it more bluntly, a lie. By definition, a free vote means that the government will not be taking a collective view on this at all, let alone signalling a change."
Yep. The SNP had the option of avoiding this implication by promptly sacking Alex Neil as Health Secretary. They opted not to.
Me : "And the follow-on from that is that any woman who does reject independence because its adherents are all rallying round to support Alex Neil, must be thick."
Nope. This slipperiness isn't doing your argument any favours. First of all I wasn't talking about women who reject independence for the reason you suggest ("its adherents are rallying round"), and neither was the activist I responded to. He was suggesting that women would reject independence simply because they didn't like Alex Neil's personal views, and yes, if he really believes that, he must think women are pretty stupid.
I certainly wouldn't describe someone as stupid or thick because they turn against independence on the grounds that they don't like the SNP's support for Alex Neil, but I do think such a reaction is demonstrably irrational. The SNP is not independence, and independence is not the SNP. There will be an election to decide which party or parties governs an independent Scotland. If you have an issue with the SNP, vote for another party in that election.
A second aspect to the reason why that activist must think women are stupid is that he evidently perceives them as herd-like, with entirely uniform views. He believes diversity of opinion and individuality of thought on the subject of abortion is a male preserve. That's what I was getting at (as made abundantly clear in point 1 of my blogpost), so it just doesn't make sense to claim that it's a 'follow-on' from what I said that any individual woman must be thick if she reacts in a certain way.
"Why didn’t it occur to the vast majority of the SNP supporters, even those who say they disagree with Alex Neil, to actually step up and say that Alex Neil should cease to be Health Secretary?"
Well, I can't speak for other SNP supporters, but I'll tell you why it didn't occur to me. I not only think that Alex Neil is a fit and proper person to be Health Secretary, I think it would be utterly outrageous if he was sacked for simply expressing a perfectly legitimate and mainstream view that is also held by a significant proportion of the public, and indeed is held by more women than men -
"Polls consistently show the opposite – that women are more likely than men to support a reduction on the abortion limit. In the 2011 YouGov poll 28% of men supported a reduction, 46% of women did. In the 2012 YouGov poll 24% of men supported a reduction, 49% of women did. In the Angus Reid poll 35% of men supported a reduction in the limit, 59% of women did. In the ICM poll 45% of men supported a reduction to 20 weeks, 59% of women did."
Is it really "anti-women" to express support for the political views of millions of women?
* * *
One other point is worth making. Margaret Thatcher supported the reintroduction of capital punishment during her entire eleven-and-a-half years as Prime Minister. For most of that period, her party had a Commons majority of over 100. This was also a time when, unlike now, membership of the Council of Europe and the European Community would not have precluded the return of the death penalty. Mrs Thatcher of course sometimes expressed her personal view in public, just as Alex Neil has now done on an equivalent matter of conscience, and it did not lead to a rebellion against her leadership. On Edinburgh Eye's logic that means there was an "implication" that the Thatcher government was collectively in favour of capital punishment. But that logic is wrong, as a succession of parliamentary votes in the 1980s handily demonstrates.
The views of individual political leaders really are neither here nor there on the matters of conscience that are traditionally decided by a free vote. If control over abortion law is transferred to Scotland, it will be exclusively a matter for parliament, not for the government, and certainly not for the Health Secretary acting on his own initiative.
* * *
UPDATE : And some more...
Edinburgh Eye : Alex Neil is anti-choice: he's been appointed Health Secretary: the SNP supporters are rallying round to defend having a Health Secretary with anti-choice views: this turns me off independence because I don’t want to live in a country run by people like that.
And your reaction is to say you think I'm pretty stupid. You're still not being convincing.
Why defend Alex Neil and attack his opposition?
Me : "Alex Neil is anti-choice"
He isn't. That simply isn't true, and won't become true no matter how many times you repeat it. He favours a small reduction in the time limit on abortion. If simply being in favour of ANY time limit on abortion is "anti-choice", then practically the entire population of this country is anti-choice.
"this turns me off independence because I don't want to live in a country run by people like that."
And thus you prefer to live in a country run by people like Jeremy Hunt who, er, wants to cut the time limit on abortion much further than Alex Neil does. Yup, that makes perfect sense.
"And your reaction is to say you think I'm pretty stupid."
The one and only thing I think is stupid is your determination to convince yourself that I've called you stupid, in spite of repeated explanations that I've done no such thing.
"Why defend Alex Neil and attack his opposition?"
Probably because I think he's a principled man who has expressed an entirely appropriate personal view on a subject that is not covered by collective cabinet responsibility. I've "attacked his opposition" because they appear to be intolerant zealots who think there ought to be no place in public life for someone with the "wrong" views on a matter of conscience.
I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this.
"Alex Neil isn’t fit to be Health Secretary if he thinks he can express such anti-women, anti-healthcare views in public. He should either retract or resign, since if Alex Salmond continues to keep him as Health Secretary, it’s a clear indication that to Salmond, Alex Neil’s views aren’t objectionable...
Oddly enough, my first stumble across the story was in James Kelly’s blog instructing me that what Alex Neil thought about abortion didn’t matter and shouldn’t affect my views on independence and I must be “thick” if I thought it should.
Other SNP defenders suggested that it didn’t matter what Alex Neil thought because as Health Secretary he didn’t really have anything to do with abortion. Or that it didn’t matter that Alex Neil was only as bad as David Cameron because Jeremy Hunt was much worse. None of these are good defenses, because none of them deal with the real problem – the SNP has appointed a man who holds anti-choice views on abortion to be Health Secretary: instead they create a huge problem, which is that with every defence of Alex Neil, the SNP is building itself up to be the anti-choice party in Scotland, the party not to be trusted on human rights."
Well, of course I wasn't 'instructing' anyone to do or think anything. Quite the contrary, in fact - I was objecting to the idea that all women must dutifully hold the views on abortion and independence prescribed for them by the Labour party. So I decided to set the record straight, and it developed into the following exchange...
Me : “Oddly enough, my first stumble across the story was in James Kelly’s blog instructing me that what Alex Neil thought about abortion didn’t matter and shouldn’t affect my views on independence and I must be “thick” if I thought it should.”
Actually, I didn’t say that, and I suspect you know I didn’t say that. I said that Labour must think that women are thick, based on a suggestion from one of their activists that practically every woman would now desert the pro-independence cause simply because of what Alex Neil said.
“Other SNP defenders suggested that it didn’t matter what Alex Neil thought because as Health Secretary he didn’t really have anything to do with abortion.”
He doesn’t. It’s a fact. Abortion law is wholly reserved to Westminster, and if it was ever transferred to Holyrood it would continue to be decided by a free vote. This is the point you’re missing – the Scotland on Sunday article was indeed misleading, but not because Neil was misquoted. It was their interpretation that “the government is signalling a change” that was misleading – or, to put it more bluntly, a lie. By definition, a free vote means that the government will not be taking a collective view on this at all, let alone signalling a change.
In one very limited sense you’re right – Alex Neil’s personal view DOES matter, but only because he has one vote out of 129. That’s it.
Edinburgh Eye : "I said that Labour must think that women are thick, based on a suggestion from one of their activists that practically every woman would now desert the pro-independence cause simply because of what Alex Neil said."
Yes. And the follow-on from that is that any woman who does reject independence because its adherents are all rallying round to support Alex Neil, must be thick.
Thanks so much.
"It was their interpretation that “the government is signalling a change” that was misleading – or, to put it more bluntly, a lie. By definition, a free vote means that the government will not be taking a collective view on this at all, let alone signalling a change."
Yep. The SNP had the option of avoiding this implication by promptly sacking Alex Neil as Health Secretary. They opted not to.
Me : "And the follow-on from that is that any woman who does reject independence because its adherents are all rallying round to support Alex Neil, must be thick."
Nope. This slipperiness isn't doing your argument any favours. First of all I wasn't talking about women who reject independence for the reason you suggest ("its adherents are rallying round"), and neither was the activist I responded to. He was suggesting that women would reject independence simply because they didn't like Alex Neil's personal views, and yes, if he really believes that, he must think women are pretty stupid.
I certainly wouldn't describe someone as stupid or thick because they turn against independence on the grounds that they don't like the SNP's support for Alex Neil, but I do think such a reaction is demonstrably irrational. The SNP is not independence, and independence is not the SNP. There will be an election to decide which party or parties governs an independent Scotland. If you have an issue with the SNP, vote for another party in that election.
A second aspect to the reason why that activist must think women are stupid is that he evidently perceives them as herd-like, with entirely uniform views. He believes diversity of opinion and individuality of thought on the subject of abortion is a male preserve. That's what I was getting at (as made abundantly clear in point 1 of my blogpost), so it just doesn't make sense to claim that it's a 'follow-on' from what I said that any individual woman must be thick if she reacts in a certain way.
"Why didn’t it occur to the vast majority of the SNP supporters, even those who say they disagree with Alex Neil, to actually step up and say that Alex Neil should cease to be Health Secretary?"
Well, I can't speak for other SNP supporters, but I'll tell you why it didn't occur to me. I not only think that Alex Neil is a fit and proper person to be Health Secretary, I think it would be utterly outrageous if he was sacked for simply expressing a perfectly legitimate and mainstream view that is also held by a significant proportion of the public, and indeed is held by more women than men -
"Polls consistently show the opposite – that women are more likely than men to support a reduction on the abortion limit. In the 2011 YouGov poll 28% of men supported a reduction, 46% of women did. In the 2012 YouGov poll 24% of men supported a reduction, 49% of women did. In the Angus Reid poll 35% of men supported a reduction in the limit, 59% of women did. In the ICM poll 45% of men supported a reduction to 20 weeks, 59% of women did."
Is it really "anti-women" to express support for the political views of millions of women?
* * *
One other point is worth making. Margaret Thatcher supported the reintroduction of capital punishment during her entire eleven-and-a-half years as Prime Minister. For most of that period, her party had a Commons majority of over 100. This was also a time when, unlike now, membership of the Council of Europe and the European Community would not have precluded the return of the death penalty. Mrs Thatcher of course sometimes expressed her personal view in public, just as Alex Neil has now done on an equivalent matter of conscience, and it did not lead to a rebellion against her leadership. On Edinburgh Eye's logic that means there was an "implication" that the Thatcher government was collectively in favour of capital punishment. But that logic is wrong, as a succession of parliamentary votes in the 1980s handily demonstrates.
The views of individual political leaders really are neither here nor there on the matters of conscience that are traditionally decided by a free vote. If control over abortion law is transferred to Scotland, it will be exclusively a matter for parliament, not for the government, and certainly not for the Health Secretary acting on his own initiative.
* * *
UPDATE : And some more...
Edinburgh Eye : Alex Neil is anti-choice: he's been appointed Health Secretary: the SNP supporters are rallying round to defend having a Health Secretary with anti-choice views: this turns me off independence because I don’t want to live in a country run by people like that.
And your reaction is to say you think I'm pretty stupid. You're still not being convincing.
Why defend Alex Neil and attack his opposition?
Me : "Alex Neil is anti-choice"
He isn't. That simply isn't true, and won't become true no matter how many times you repeat it. He favours a small reduction in the time limit on abortion. If simply being in favour of ANY time limit on abortion is "anti-choice", then practically the entire population of this country is anti-choice.
"this turns me off independence because I don't want to live in a country run by people like that."
And thus you prefer to live in a country run by people like Jeremy Hunt who, er, wants to cut the time limit on abortion much further than Alex Neil does. Yup, that makes perfect sense.
"And your reaction is to say you think I'm pretty stupid."
The one and only thing I think is stupid is your determination to convince yourself that I've called you stupid, in spite of repeated explanations that I've done no such thing.
"Why defend Alex Neil and attack his opposition?"
Probably because I think he's a principled man who has expressed an entirely appropriate personal view on a subject that is not covered by collective cabinet responsibility. I've "attacked his opposition" because they appear to be intolerant zealots who think there ought to be no place in public life for someone with the "wrong" views on a matter of conscience.
I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
It's official : Labour think women are thick
Or at least that's the impression you'll have got if you've been viewing Labour activists' tweets over the last few hours. Here are two particular gems -
"If any thinking person wants another reason not to vote for Scottish independence, Alex Neil has just provided it."
"Just wondering if @womenforindy will be shortest lived indy support group ever?"
It seems what we're supposed to infer from the latter comment is the following -
1) Every single woman in Scotland has an identical view on abortion. The apparent diversity of views on the subject is an aberration caused entirely by the existence of the male gender.
2) Women who are both pro-choice and pro-independence are too feeble-minded to believe they can actually win the debate on abortion in a democratic independent Scotland. Alex Neil has pronounced, therefore the only option left for females of the species is to look to strong London men for protection. Step forward Jeremy Hunt. Talking of whom...
3) The fact that the Scottish Government's Health Secretary doesn't want to cut the time limit on abortion by anything like as much as the UK Government's Health Secretary is all a bit too complicated for pro-choice women to grasp. They're bound to get it entirely the wrong way round, and conclude that they'd much rather put their faith in Jeremy Hunt and co to make the best decision.
4) Women are not capable of understanding the concept of a free vote in parliament - or else they're under the impression that the idea works fine in Westminster, but for some reason not in Holyrood. Up here all free votes go the way Alex Neil wants.
Of course in spite of Scotland on Sunday's creative attempts to sensationalise it, this is a story about abortion, not about independence. Yes, Mr. Neil was talking about his views on what should happen if abortion law is transferred to Holyrood, but that eventuality is not contingent on independence - Northern Ireland already decides abortion law for itself. David Steel, the proposer of the liberalising 1967 legislation, attempted to have control over abortion law transferred to Holyrood in the late 1990s. It was pointed out at the time that Scotland is not Ireland, and that there was absolutely no way of guessing whether the Scottish Parliament would be more or less likely than Westminster to tighten the law. That remains as true now as it was then. Regardless of whether the decision is taken in London or Edinburgh, there will be a mixture of pro-choice and pro-life unionists voting on it, along with a mixture of pro-choice and pro-life nationalists.
But heaven forbid that anyone should actually engage with the substance of Alex Neil's personal view, rather than inviting women to shut down all thought and chant "INDEPENDENCE IS UN-FEMALE" to themselves every night before they go to bed.
"If any thinking person wants another reason not to vote for Scottish independence, Alex Neil has just provided it."
"Just wondering if @womenforindy will be shortest lived indy support group ever?"
It seems what we're supposed to infer from the latter comment is the following -
1) Every single woman in Scotland has an identical view on abortion. The apparent diversity of views on the subject is an aberration caused entirely by the existence of the male gender.
2) Women who are both pro-choice and pro-independence are too feeble-minded to believe they can actually win the debate on abortion in a democratic independent Scotland. Alex Neil has pronounced, therefore the only option left for females of the species is to look to strong London men for protection. Step forward Jeremy Hunt. Talking of whom...
3) The fact that the Scottish Government's Health Secretary doesn't want to cut the time limit on abortion by anything like as much as the UK Government's Health Secretary is all a bit too complicated for pro-choice women to grasp. They're bound to get it entirely the wrong way round, and conclude that they'd much rather put their faith in Jeremy Hunt and co to make the best decision.
4) Women are not capable of understanding the concept of a free vote in parliament - or else they're under the impression that the idea works fine in Westminster, but for some reason not in Holyrood. Up here all free votes go the way Alex Neil wants.
Of course in spite of Scotland on Sunday's creative attempts to sensationalise it, this is a story about abortion, not about independence. Yes, Mr. Neil was talking about his views on what should happen if abortion law is transferred to Holyrood, but that eventuality is not contingent on independence - Northern Ireland already decides abortion law for itself. David Steel, the proposer of the liberalising 1967 legislation, attempted to have control over abortion law transferred to Holyrood in the late 1990s. It was pointed out at the time that Scotland is not Ireland, and that there was absolutely no way of guessing whether the Scottish Parliament would be more or less likely than Westminster to tighten the law. That remains as true now as it was then. Regardless of whether the decision is taken in London or Edinburgh, there will be a mixture of pro-choice and pro-life unionists voting on it, along with a mixture of pro-choice and pro-life nationalists.
But heaven forbid that anyone should actually engage with the substance of Alex Neil's personal view, rather than inviting women to shut down all thought and chant "INDEPENDENCE IS UN-FEMALE" to themselves every night before they go to bed.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
It may be inconvenient, but we can't just stop thinking about abortion
I don't have any great pearls of wisdom to offer on the subject of abortion. As someone who in general holds socially liberal views, but who was also subject to the full force of Catholic indoctrination throughout my childhood, probably the most I'll ever be able to say is that I can see both sides of the argument. But perhaps it's my very uncertainty on the issue that caused me to react with such anger to an extraordinarily provocative piece on Yahoo by Ian Dunt, in which he asserts that the debate is now over, the pro-choice side has won, and everyone should just stop talking (and presumably thinking) about it. Dream on, Ian.
Despite the seeming polarisation on abortion, there are in fact two separate dividing lines on the issue, not just one. The first is whether abortion can be regarded as morally justifiable, and the second is whether it should remain legal. A great many people would answer 'no' to the first question, but 'yes' to the second. Dunt himself offers a useful summary of why that apparent contradiction is perfectly rational -
"Society is the process of settling competing freedoms among members. For instance, the smoker wishes to smoke inside the restaurant, the non-smoker does not want to breathe his smoke. That's a debate, right there. That's a debate worth having. In the case of abortion the balance is between the woman's right to do what she wants with her own body, and the right of a foetus to live...
There are two kinds of political problems: those which can be solved, and those which cannot be solved. You deal with the second category through management, which usually takes the form of regulation and harm reduction. Drug use and prostitution are two prime examples of human behaviour which simply will not stop, will never stop, and therefore must be managed rather than banned, so we can ensure they do as little harm to society as possible. Abortion is identical. It will happen. There is nothing you can do to stop it...Back street abortions kill. They are sickening and a sign of a morally bankrupt society..."
So that's a very compelling argument for why the answer to the question "should abortion be legal?" ought to be 'yes', within certain constraints (although I would contend that there's still plenty of room for debate over what those constraints should be). But what's infuriating about Dunt's article is that he then tries to blur the distinction between that point and his other - far less compelling - arguments for why abortion itself is positively desirable in a lot of cases. That may seem a fine distinction, but it's one that really matters, because it's perfectly possible for a country that intends to keep abortion legal to nevertheless make it an objective of public policy to minimise the abortion rate by non-legislative means. Conversely, a country in which Dunt's views hold sway wouldn't care one way or the other if the number of abortions continued to soar.
Dunt's most outrageous suggestion is that a high abortion rate is a good thing in the sense that it suppresses crime, because the unwanted babies of today are the criminals of tomorrow. Yes, that may in theory be an argument in favour of abortion, but to be logically consistent about it you'd also have to favour a selective cull of unloved children and disaffected young adults. Unless, of course, you can first establish that unborn babies are qualitatively different from other human beings.
Dunt makes the familiar assertion that a foetus is not actually a human being at all, it is a "thing". That's a perfectly defensible belief to hold, but he goes much further by implying that science has settled the matter beyond dispute. How he can credibly do so is beyond me, given that most of the science seems merely to relate to whether the foetus is conscious and experiences pain. None of that actually addresses the central (and much more elusive) question of its humanity, because adult humans can also in some circumstances not be conscious or aware of pain. I doubt if even most advocates of euthanasia would argue that such adults have forfeited their right to life, unless a living will has been submitted. Dunt also seems to think it is hugely significant that a foetus is not "recognisably humanoid" (presumably he means well before the 24-week limit). Well, neither are some of the most severely disabled adults - does that make them, in Dunt's words, just a "thing" or a "bag of cells"?
He also makes this point about gender politics -
"For women to be equal to men, they must be able to approach the sexual act in the same way. They must be able to walk away from it. Men skip in and out of women's lives, dumping them with life changing consequences. Things will never be as easy for women, despite contraceptives and abortion. But we must strive to equalise the sexual experience as far as is medically and morally possible. It is the only way to secure full equality."
Up to a point, Lord Copper. The double standards sometimes cut both ways. I once spotted the female writer of an advice column using abortion to have her cake and eat it on the principle of 'responsibility'. A young pregnant woman was reassured that she was not yet a mother, and would only become one if she made the free choice not to have a termination. But a young man whose girlfriend was expecting a child was sternly informed that he was already a father, and that he'd better start thinking and acting like one. Now, it would of course have been reasonable to point out that he no longer had any choice over whether he was about to become a father, but if a foetus is just a "thing" it's impossible to justify the claim he already was one. In any case, according to the hard reality this columnist was so keen to acquaint men with, which gender is it that truly has the unequal opportunity to walk away from the sexual act? And which gender is enslaved to the potential long-term consequences (in financial terms, at a minimum) from the instant sex takes place?
Just to reiterate for the sake of clarity, I'm not trying to make an anti-abortion case. But Dunt's belief that we should essentially shut down all thought on the unresolved moral contradictions thrown up by this issue is extremely troubling. Indeed, wouldn't the lack of conscious thought reduce us at a stroke to a mere "bag of cells"?
Despite the seeming polarisation on abortion, there are in fact two separate dividing lines on the issue, not just one. The first is whether abortion can be regarded as morally justifiable, and the second is whether it should remain legal. A great many people would answer 'no' to the first question, but 'yes' to the second. Dunt himself offers a useful summary of why that apparent contradiction is perfectly rational -
"Society is the process of settling competing freedoms among members. For instance, the smoker wishes to smoke inside the restaurant, the non-smoker does not want to breathe his smoke. That's a debate, right there. That's a debate worth having. In the case of abortion the balance is between the woman's right to do what she wants with her own body, and the right of a foetus to live...
There are two kinds of political problems: those which can be solved, and those which cannot be solved. You deal with the second category through management, which usually takes the form of regulation and harm reduction. Drug use and prostitution are two prime examples of human behaviour which simply will not stop, will never stop, and therefore must be managed rather than banned, so we can ensure they do as little harm to society as possible. Abortion is identical. It will happen. There is nothing you can do to stop it...Back street abortions kill. They are sickening and a sign of a morally bankrupt society..."
So that's a very compelling argument for why the answer to the question "should abortion be legal?" ought to be 'yes', within certain constraints (although I would contend that there's still plenty of room for debate over what those constraints should be). But what's infuriating about Dunt's article is that he then tries to blur the distinction between that point and his other - far less compelling - arguments for why abortion itself is positively desirable in a lot of cases. That may seem a fine distinction, but it's one that really matters, because it's perfectly possible for a country that intends to keep abortion legal to nevertheless make it an objective of public policy to minimise the abortion rate by non-legislative means. Conversely, a country in which Dunt's views hold sway wouldn't care one way or the other if the number of abortions continued to soar.
Dunt's most outrageous suggestion is that a high abortion rate is a good thing in the sense that it suppresses crime, because the unwanted babies of today are the criminals of tomorrow. Yes, that may in theory be an argument in favour of abortion, but to be logically consistent about it you'd also have to favour a selective cull of unloved children and disaffected young adults. Unless, of course, you can first establish that unborn babies are qualitatively different from other human beings.
Dunt makes the familiar assertion that a foetus is not actually a human being at all, it is a "thing". That's a perfectly defensible belief to hold, but he goes much further by implying that science has settled the matter beyond dispute. How he can credibly do so is beyond me, given that most of the science seems merely to relate to whether the foetus is conscious and experiences pain. None of that actually addresses the central (and much more elusive) question of its humanity, because adult humans can also in some circumstances not be conscious or aware of pain. I doubt if even most advocates of euthanasia would argue that such adults have forfeited their right to life, unless a living will has been submitted. Dunt also seems to think it is hugely significant that a foetus is not "recognisably humanoid" (presumably he means well before the 24-week limit). Well, neither are some of the most severely disabled adults - does that make them, in Dunt's words, just a "thing" or a "bag of cells"?
He also makes this point about gender politics -
"For women to be equal to men, they must be able to approach the sexual act in the same way. They must be able to walk away from it. Men skip in and out of women's lives, dumping them with life changing consequences. Things will never be as easy for women, despite contraceptives and abortion. But we must strive to equalise the sexual experience as far as is medically and morally possible. It is the only way to secure full equality."
Up to a point, Lord Copper. The double standards sometimes cut both ways. I once spotted the female writer of an advice column using abortion to have her cake and eat it on the principle of 'responsibility'. A young pregnant woman was reassured that she was not yet a mother, and would only become one if she made the free choice not to have a termination. But a young man whose girlfriend was expecting a child was sternly informed that he was already a father, and that he'd better start thinking and acting like one. Now, it would of course have been reasonable to point out that he no longer had any choice over whether he was about to become a father, but if a foetus is just a "thing" it's impossible to justify the claim he already was one. In any case, according to the hard reality this columnist was so keen to acquaint men with, which gender is it that truly has the unequal opportunity to walk away from the sexual act? And which gender is enslaved to the potential long-term consequences (in financial terms, at a minimum) from the instant sex takes place?
Just to reiterate for the sake of clarity, I'm not trying to make an anti-abortion case. But Dunt's belief that we should essentially shut down all thought on the unresolved moral contradictions thrown up by this issue is extremely troubling. Indeed, wouldn't the lack of conscious thought reduce us at a stroke to a mere "bag of cells"?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)