On Politeness and the "Polite Society"

There's an impolite debate going on at the Skeptic Forum.

On one hand, there is the question as to how one should deal with religious believers who patronize or insult atheists. Just be rude back seems to be one person's view, who is also very rude to the others on the Forum. It seems the "Polite Society" is a repressive entity that limits free speech. If so, it is perhaps a pity that it is not limiting his.

On the other hand, there is the deeper question as to whether politeness goes to form or content. As is stated on the forum, some writers such as Hume, Darwin, Orwell were polite but devastating. They did not need to be rude to challenge conventional thinking.

I can be rude readily, but I cannot think of a single misconceived view which necessarily requires rudeness to either rebut or even refute. It is a nice bonus sometimes, but it is always an optional one.

Out of their control

It has been an interesting week for news: the Mosley verdict, and the Glasgow East byelection result, even the "Canoe Man" verdict.

Courts and elections make real news. Both take matters - just for a short time - out of the hands of the those on the ongoing march of the dishonest, the cynical, the intrusive, and the power-greedy.

Without trials and elections, there would be no block whatsoever on the selfish and the careerists, the exploitative and manipulative. They would just take over, and we would all be barged under. This depressing prospect is just in the nature of things.

It is no wonder that elections and trials are the first thing to go in a totalitarian system. Even in a typical (ie unequal) society, those in power will always seek to minimise the scope of any disruption caused by elections or trials.

The powerful, usually consisting of the "state", media, and big business, really just want it all their own way, though "public interest" rhetoric will often cloak their dominance.

Take the European Union - there really is no electoral and judicial way to check the push towards "ever-closer union". Even referendums have to be repeated until the right answer is given, as the Irish will see. The project cannot be put at risk.

Or look at the police. It is now almost impossible to seek any redress against the exercise of any police power, either in policing demonstrations or in stopping and searching, or in any kind of their intrusions. The citizen is, effectively, electorally and legally impotent against increasing police power. The "war against terror" cannot be put at risk.

(As for the mainstream media, they would love to be as intrusive into the private realm as the police can be, under the slogans "freedom of the press" and the "public's right to know". But they are more stupid than the police, and have less good lawyers, and so their intrusions can be more easily blocked.)

There are still things which elections and trials can still do. The dishonest and the power-hungry hate them, but the upsets caused are genuine, and they are crucial to our civilisation.

It is a happy week, therefore, when the news tells of the dishonest, the intrusive, and the power-greedy, all losing trials and elections, where decisions are outside of their control.

And I hope I never end up bemoaning trials and elections as "distractions" - for then I will have completely fallen in with the humdrum and the grasping too.

On Civility Triumphant

The Mosley judgment is a Good Thing. This country is now more civilised.

Man is not always a social animal. Any person should be entitled to a private space, an area in their life where they can be free from actual or potential intrusion. A place where they can just be themselves, on their own terms. This is their private realm.

This private realm cannot be absolute - there can be times where there should be either restrictions or justified intrusions. Such intrusions can be by either of the key institutions of the public realm - the "state" or the media, but these intrusions should always be lawful and go no further than necessary to serve an (alleged) greater good.

A civilisation should always have the fairest balance between the public and private realms. The Mosley case is an important assertion of the priority of the private realm.

On privacy and the silly press

The English press are a stupid bunch.

They campaigned against privacy legislation, and so the judges have crafted their own privacy law. If, as one dearly hopes, the News of the World gets clobbered in the Mosley trial, then it will not least be because there is now a wide-ranging judge-made privacy law.

(By the way, I really would not want to be a News International lawyer right now. The presentation of their case was simply embarrassing, and their main (indeed only) witness did not even turn up.)

The press would have been better off with a privacy statute. The police and security forces saw the advantage of putting their invasions of privacy onto a statutory basis, hence the notorious RIPA legislation. This statute provides a safe legal basis for the State constantly interfering with human rights and civil liberties.

A similar press and broadcasting statutory code would have probably meant that any "public interest" exemption would now also be routinely invoked, and the courts would then just nod. After all, Parliament would have put in place a statutory scheme for dealing with such interferences, and the Courts would defer accordingly.

But the English press are kneejerks - "no privacy laws" they gormlessly shouted at the meek MPs. The police and security forces were not so stupid.

On Mr Mosley's pleasures

Mr Mosley is clearly introducing us to the pleasures of Sado-Masochism in this highly significant trial.

The pain and humiliation being inflicted in the witness box on Colin Myler, the witless News of the World editor, and Neville Thurlbeck, the pathetic "journalist", will trigger a feeling of delight in many of us...

The aftermath of Mr Lewis

Ray Lewis has resigned. He was right to do so.

But this resignation raises a couple of issues.

These are not only the obvious points about Boris's initial judgment (too trusting) or his subsequent ruthlessness (more like Cameron, and please do contrast with Livingstone/Jasper).
Nor just the points about a self-publicist's economy with the actuality in a CV (Lewis's wishful claim that he was a Justice of the Peace evokes the various boasts of Jeffrey Archer).

First, even taking the allegations against Lewis at their highest, the media campaign against him was ferocious. In part it reminded me of the campaign against the nomination of Clarence Thomas or when John Taylor stood in Cheltenham (and Liberal Democrats should still be very deeply ashamed about their tactics there). It had a whiff of "how dare a man from such a ethnic background support the conservatives".

In this case the ferocity knocked the target over flat. And here the target was right to go (and indeed should not have been appointed so easily, if at all). Nonetheless, it does worry me that anyone from certain ethnic backgrounds who support or work with conservatives has to face this fury - which they would not do if they were from another ethnic background.

Second, Lewis promoted an alternative understanding of youth crime. It was not all the fault of the State/Society/Prejudice. It actually had something to do with changeable behaviour and moral decision-making. This - of course - is a heresy. Lewis's own implementation of this understanding at his "Academy" has triggered concerns. Further investigation may uncover abuses - or he may be cleared. But whatever comes out, I wonder if the understanding he promoted will now also be "discredited"?

On being soft on Brown

Is David Cameron being deliberately soft on Gordon Brown at PMQs?

Some pundits think so. The thinking is that keeping Brown as Prime Minister is better for the Tories at the next general election than a brutal and final attack.

This may well be right. Certainly a weakened John Major led his party into utter defeat.

But there is another view.

The next general election may be two years away. Brown is currently pathetic, like a Spanish bull waiting for that final spear. This could change. The man is ambitious, tenacious, and adaptable.

The ambition really needs no evidence - but I suspect that ambition is to be a great Labour Prime Minister, not the mere holder of the high office. The "will to power" may not yet be spent.

His tenacity is most marked in the way he has overcome genuine personal difficulties. It is also clear in the way that over ten years, both at the Treasury and in the Labour Party, he was able to ensure he had no opposition to finally becoming Prime Minister. In government and in his political party, Brown steadily increased power despite not being (nominally) the senior figure. Indeed, there has never been a more powerful Whitehall department than the Treasury under Brown; and I also suspect the Labour Party has never had a more powerful figure who was not leader. This dominance was notwithstanding ongoing serious knockbacks and livid enemies.

He is also adaptable. He adapted to Blair being an unwanted leader. And he adapted to the Tories' spending plans. The current clumsiness may not endure. Although he is certainly not as deft a tactician as he thought he was - the trip to Baghdad during Tory conference and the non-called general election told us and (one hopes) him this truth - this is not always bound to be the case.

All this said, Cameron's cautious approach may well be the wiser one.

However, bringing down a reluctant leader when they are weak is an opportunity which has a limited time span. And when it is done, the political effects can be profound. The analogy would then not be with Major before 1997, but with Thatcher in 1990. Labour would then perhaps be out of power for a political generation.