Monday, November 04, 2002

 

FOXHUNTING

I reproduce below another article on the recent crazy ban on hunting to hounds in Britain. It was written by “N. Onymous” of Florida, in the USA and was written while the British legislation was still going through Parliament. It was originally written for a primarily American audience.

*************

Take note across the pond.

If you pay any attention to such matters, you may have come across a little storm raging over in Britain. The quite charming Brits are all of a tither over foxes -- no silly, not the drop dead, gorgeous ones, the cute furry ones.

As of a couple of days ago, a bill approved by the House of Commons, proposes legislation, making it against the “Law of the land” to hunt with hounds, or in plainer language, fox hunting is to be banned.

Now, before you sneer and launch into your best British upper crust impersonation, poking fun at all and sundry: consider this. While being no great fan of blood sports myself, I am drawn to the cause of those country folk, who will now see a way of life turned into a criminal act by parliamentary fiat brought about by means of militant agitation and a misplaced sentimentality of the majority of the population. In short, Tony Blair’s “New Labour” party, with an election looming, saw a target of opportunity and went hunting for votes (pun intended).

Anyone who fails to see the blatant cynicism in this maneuver, has obviously been watching too much of the sports channel on TV. What’s that, I hear you say? Who cares about foxes? Who cares about Brits in the country? Well, you should. I don’t know about you, but I get a tiny bit nervous when I see one of the cornerstones of liberty, of a great, free nation, dug out of its very foundations: - and to serve such venal ambition no less.

What a fuss, it’s only fox hunting, after all... or is it? Anyone who does not realize that man’s treatment of the lesser animals within his domain is as cruel and savage as anything in the animal kingdom is naive in the extreme. It is the way of nature. If you object to it you can opt out and become a vegetarian. That’s your choice. But do not seek to impose your views upon others, either by force of argument or militant agitation.

Did we not learn that lesson with religion and look where that fight has left us. As always, the truth suffers mightily at the hands of intolerance. I do not mean to sound cold, but a fundamental truth is at stake here and we would do well to consider more carefully, before bowing to the actions of extremists and cynical manipulative politicians.

Nature of course is very cruel -- as any one who has seen any number of nature programs on television can attest. Given the singular facet of their content, it is fairly plain to see that the vast majority of people get a deal of satisfaction out of watching the “horror of the kill”. So it would appear that something of a double standard is at play here.

It is the height of foolishness to allow those elected to office to manipulate your good intentions for the purpose of gaining your vote. Any one who thinks that the Labour party or any other party for that matter is driven by compassion for foxes is wrong. It is not in the nature of the political animal to effect great exertions on anything other than the garnering of votes and/or toeing the party line. One or two individual’s maybe.

The propensity of governments to make criminals out of its citizenry is actually no more than the unintentional by product of collectivist actions. When we trample the rights of individuals, we place the chains of servitude around our own shoulders, for what is someone else’s misdeeds today can all too easily become yours tomorrow.

I am not making light of the tiny fox; indeed he has his place in the scheme of things. He is a beautiful creature to behold in his natural environment. However, to cast aside the freedom of those with whom we do not agree seems to me to be short sighted and dangerous.

A new influence appears on the political landscape, a self-righteous mobocracy has won a large victory (I refuse to say great) over freedom and common sense. By sheer imposition of force and intimidation, one section of the community will impose its will upon another section of lesser strength. The sentiments of the mob are very fickle and inclined to be swayed by passions driven by ungovernable and unpredictable forces. We are very ill served, when we allow the rights of others to be trampled upon, no matter what the motivation of our intentions.

If any of the noble sentiments, expressed so eloquently by our ancestors and so admired by many of us today, are not to become suitable wall paper for the guest bathroom, we had better get up off our own self righteous backsides. The likes of Voltaire and Burke, of Jefferson and Paine, must be groaning in their graves at our slothful indifference to these assaults on liberty.

*********************

Posted by John Ray

**************************

You may have to click the "Archive" link at the top above to get the earlier article about foxhunting on this site.
Then click on the earliest archive and "Voila!"

**********************

posted by JR 3:08 PM

Sunday, November 03, 2002

 

RIGHTISTS REALLY CARE

I thought I had better put up here a copy of Bettina Arndt's summary of an interesting debate before The Sydney Morning Herald takes it down from their site. It shows that both the Left and the Right take an interest in welfare but the Right approach it less simplistically:

The original link was: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/10/24/1035416933269.html

***********



Same name but vastly different thinking in the great welfare debate
October 25 2002

Two professors are slugging it out in print on the issue of self-reliance v dependency, writes Bettina Arndt.


Saunders v Saunders. No, it's not a messy divorce case. This is a far more cerebral battle where the skirmishes are taking place not over the kitchen sink but in rarified academic journals. Surprisingly, the two protagonists have the same name - Peter Saunders.

The original Professor Peter Saunders is director of the Social Policy Research Centre at the University of New South Wales where he has been for more than 20 years.

The new Peter Saunders is also a professor, fomerly of the University of Sussex, who last year was appointed director of social policy research programs at the Centre for Independent Studies (CIS), a Sydney-based think tank.

Same name, similar titles, but diametrically opposed views.

Saunders the New is challenging what he regards as the "old-style socialist thinking", long favoured by Saunders the Old and most of our academic policy analysts - particularly on poverty and welfare issues. Next week Saunders the New will publish a harsh review of Saunders the Old's just published book, The Ends and Means of Welfare, claiming he used biased evidence to promote unashamedly one-eyed ideological analysis in a manner which is "quite ill-tempered and prejudicial".

The review, to be published in the CIS journal Policy, concludes: "What the book is really about is how awful social welfare policies have been since the 1980s, how unfair it is that some people earn a lot more than others, and how we need the government to put all this right by spending lots more of our money than it currently spends."

In The Ends and Means of Welfare, Saunders the Old argues the end goal of welfare is to provide everyone with a decent income.

Employment is presented as one means to this end, and doling out welfare benefits as another, and it doesn't seem to matter much which route we encourage people to take.

He suggests "there may be advantages in allowing those with the weakest attachment to the world of work to 'opt out"' and live on an "unconditional basic income" financed by the rest of us.

Saunders the New argues that social policy should be about encouraging self-reliance, not fostering dependency on welfare payments. His "classical liberal" position regards it as "immoral for the government to take money away from people who are maintaining themselves and their families through their own efforts and to redistribute it to people who have no intention of even trying to achieve self-reliance".

So there it is - the gloves are off!

How fascinating to have the two Saunders openly debating the assumptions underpinning our treatment of welfare and poverty issues.

The issues they raise are particularly relevant in the light of the announcement this week of an inquiry by a Senate committee into poverty and Amanda Vanstone's discussion paper on welfare reform, due to be released in the next few weeks.

For instance, Saunders the Old pushes the line that poverty is mainly a "structural" problem and that poor people are rarely, if ever, responsible for their own plight. Any attempt to push them towards self-reliance is seen as "blaming the victim".

Advocates of this position - including many in the media - pour scorn on anyone who tries to draw a distinction between those who genuinely want to help themselves and those who don't.

Saunders the New believes this is confusing the question of responsibility with the issue of blame. "Even if all those who suffer disadvantage were to turn out to be victims of circumstances beyond their control, it still would not follow that the best strategy for them would be to absolve them of all responsibility for getting their lives back on track," he writes in Poverty in Australia: Beyond the Rhetoric, due to be published next month. He quotes Jesse Jackson, who once told his black followers in America: "If a white man knocks you down, it's his fault: if you don't get up, it's yours."

Add to these skirmishes the huge gulf between the two men on the extent of poverty in Australia - Saunders the Old claims disadvantage is increasing, while the New cites evidence to show it remains constant - and the scene is set for challenging new input into the poverty and welfare debates.

**************************

Posted by John Ray

**************************

posted by JR 6:06 PM

Saturday, November 02, 2002

 

CONTENTS:

There are five stories here at the moment. On Burglary, head size, "Dezis", foxhunting and the late Pim Fortuyn.

I put up here articles by other people that might not otherwise be available online.

***************************

The Story below is from the Brisbane "Sunday Mail" of November 3rd, 2002
The original link is: http://www.thesundaymail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,5413461%255E421,00.html
but newspaper links tend not to last.


Burglary capital of western world

By Chris Taylor
03nov02

AUSTRALIA has become the burglary capital of the Western world - and robbers are snubbing their noses at the justice system.

Latest Australian Bureau of Statistics figures obtained by The Sunday Mail reveal 269 criminals were jailed when charged with burglary as their main offence in Queensland's higher criminal courts during 2000-01.

In the same period, more than 77,000 break-ins were reported on Queensland homes and businesses.

The ABS figures showed another 190 burglars were given community service, probation or a fine after appearing before the state's District Courts.

Shadow attorney-general Lawrence Springborg said many burglars, especially juvenile offenders, were laughing at the justice system.

Criminologists estimate at least 5000 burglars are operating across the state.

According to the Insurance Council of Australia, they are getting away with an average $1000 booty from each raid. Overwhelmed police solve little more than one in 10 break-ins.

Queensland Police Union president Gary Wilkinson said the court system was a constant source of frustration to officers whose hours of investigation more often than not resulted in "slap on the wrist punishments".

A Federal Parliamentary inquiry into crime in the community has been told that one in 20 Australian households was robbed each year.

The inquiry was told Australia had the worst break-in rate of 17 Western nations, including Britain, France, Spain, Canada and the United States.

Last year, 435,524 break-ins were reported to Australian police, up 13 per cent since 1995.

Griffith University criminologist Tim Prenzler said today's breed of young burglars did not see prison as a reality if they were caught. Four in five burglars were young males, aged 15-25, with a record of school failure, family conflict and substance abuse, he said.

"These are young men, in their late teens, with delusions of immortality," said Mr Prenzler.

Mr Springborg said logic needed to prevail because juvenile offenders did not expect to be greeted by the full force of the law.

"The courts need to get tougher because a small minority of offenders are responsible for a large percentage of property crime," he said.

The officer in charge of Brisbane Central CIB, Inspector Ben Hanbidge, said police did the best they could.

"In many cases in the absence of physical evidence, it's sometimes difficult to substantiate more than one charge against a person, even though a particular offender may be responsible for countless break and enters," Insp Hanbidge said.

"His arrest won't reflect in any way on clear-up rates but it will affect future crime levels."

****************************************

Posted by John Ray

**************************

posted by JR 1:55 PM

Thursday, October 31, 2002

 

BIG HEADS = BIG BRAINS

This report originally appeared here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/UK/This_Britain/2000-09/he­ad260900.shtml

but has now been taken down.

A reference to the academic journal (a journal in which I myself have had quite a bit published) from which the report derives is however given for those who wish to explore the matter further.

*********

Big heads are the smart ones, but pointy heads are not

By Roger Dobson 26 September 2000

Bigheads really do have something to brag about - they are cleverer, say scientists. A team of psychologists in America have found that people with big heads, especially fat heads, are more likely to have higher IQs than those with smaller heads. But pointy heads - people with taller as opposed to wider heads of academic inclination - may be the least intellectually endowed of all.

Although it is known that people with larger brains can be more intelligent, probably because they have more brain cells, the role of head size itself has been less well studied. Some, indeed, have believed head size to be independent of brain size, arguing along the lines of big garages not necessarily having big cars inside. But the researchers from the University of Western Ontario set out to show that bigger really is better.

They measured pairs of brothers aged 20 to 35, noting the width, depth and height of their heads, and scanned their brains to calculate brain volume. After taking the measurements, the psychologists put the men through a battery of intelligence and cognition tests. They found that greater width, length and perimeter all pointed to greater intelligence. Reporting their findings in the journal Personality and Individual Differences, the researchers said: "A larger head size indicates greater intelligence. Overall, the indication is quite clear that the size of the head predicts the size of the brain." However, they noted: "Oddly, head height was negatively correlated with IQ.'' The widest head in their study group measured 16cm between ears, and the narrowest, 13.5cm. Length, from front to back, ranged from 21.2cm and 18.2cm. The tallest was 17cm, and the shortest, 14.6cm.

*************************

Posted by John Ray

**************************

posted by JR 7:18 PM

Monday, October 28, 2002

 

Comments? Email John Ray:
Email: jonjayray@hotmail.com.
HomePage
See also: http://jonjayray.blogspot.com

posted by JR 4:31 AM

Sunday, October 27, 2002

 

Another good observation:


ROGER SAUSE ON "DEZIS"

I have recently received an interesting email from Roger Sause. Excerpts:

" Over the years the Left has garnered tremendous political capital out of smearing conservatives as "Fascists" and "Nazis." The truth is however, that these Democratic Socialists or "Dezis" have far and away more in common with Hitler's "Nationalist Socialist" (Nazi) movement:

The Nazis rose to power after World War I left Germany in a fractured sociopolitical divide. The Dezis rose to power after the Vietnam War left America in a fractured sociopolitical divide.

The Nazis attacked their political adversaries (the incumbent republican
government) as "November criminals" who sold the working class out with the
Versailles treaty and other "covenants" to protect the financial interests of
the German aristocracy.

The Dezis accuse Republicans of protecting the special interests of "Big Oil," insurance and pharmaceutical companies, ect., at the "expense of the working poor" and the environment.

The Nazis used class warfare tactics by assailing the rich as "blood suckers" who siphoned all of their wealth from the "working class" through dubious means.

The Dezis demagogue about "tax cuts for the rich," "the people versus the
powerful," and "fighting for working families."

The Nazis demonized a religious sect (Jews) as being subversives who sought political power and the imposition of their values on the German people.

The Dezis demonize a religious sect (Christian conservatives) by leveling
similar accusations today.

The Nazis made gun sweeps and disarmed the German people before they made
their most egregious moves on other civil liberties.

The Dezis advocate banning the Second Amendment (the right to keep and bear arms) and have incrementally moved us in that direction over the last thirty years.

The Nazis drove a wedge into the nuclear family by organizing the Hitler Youth movement, where they sought to indoctrinate the "future of Fatherland" at the earliest age possible.

The Dezis have exploited the public education system to indoctrinate our children to a more Left wing sociopolitical sympathy, and seek to expand this influence with things like "universal preschool" and "Early Head Start."

The Nazis infiltrated the news media and arts to create their "Ministry of Propaganda" and shape social mores.

The Dezis pulled a similar coup where today 90% of the news media and 95% of Hollywood vote in lock step to support them and their ideals.

The Nazis were so successful at all of these tactics that their constituencies were willing to ignore the criminal backgrounds, shady associations, and other warning signs surrounding Hitler and his henchmen.

The Dezis too have been successful at diverting attention away from the criminal activity and overall sleazy behavior of Bill and Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Al Sharpton, Tom Hayden, Marion Berry, etc.".

*************************

Posted by John Ray

**************************

posted by JR 7:46 PM

Tuesday, October 08, 2002

 

CONTENTS:

Below are two articles by Ron Brunton.
The first deals with the place of fox-hunting in British life
The second deals with generally Leftist politicians who are relabelled as Right-wing only because they oppose immigration.

***********

Copies of his papers were kindly provided by Ron Brunton and posted here by: John Ray: jonjayray@hotmail.com.

posted by JR 6:37 AM

Sunday, October 06, 2002

 

Class Envy Hits a Tribal Ritual

(From: Brisbane Courier-Mail
5 October 2002)

By:
Ron Brunton


There are few recreational activities I am less likely to take up than fox hunting. But had I been in London last Sunday week, I would have joined the 400,000 people who participated in the Countryside Alliance’s Liberty and Livelihood march, which was called largely to protest against the British Labour government’s attempts to ban fox hunting and other forms of hunting with dogs.

The campaign against hunting offers a telling example of the sentimental humbug and authoritarianism that are widespread amongst contemporary progressives, and not just in Britain. For once I find myself in agreement with Prince Charles, who suggested that if fox hunting was a pastime beloved by ‘blacks and gays’, it would not be subjected to such an onslaught. Ethnic and minority cultures are protected and celebrated, while venerable home-grown traditions are despised, particularly if they are associated with the hated ‘establishment’.

Fox hunting using dogs is an ancient practice, which in some parts of Europe can be traced back two thousand years. In England, the late 14th century verse romance Sir Gawain and the Green Knight included a detailed account of horsemen hunting a wily fox with hounds and horns, although at that time the nobility usually preferred to hunt deer and wild boar. But as these latter species declined, and as changes in landholding and methods of enclosing land increased the required skills as well as the dangers of fox hunting, it became more popular.

By the 18th century, fox hunting had developed into an organised sport, and the English carried it with them to their colonies across the world. It is Australia’s oldest equestrian sport, dating back to 1811, when the Sydney Hunt Club was formed.

Nevertheless, calling it a ‘sport’ may not fully capture the essence of fox hunting. A number of observers have argued that it has all the distinguishing features found in rituals amongst tribal and other traditionally oriented peoples. In support of this interpretation, the English anthropologist Garry Marvin recently listed the relevant characteristics of fox hunting: ‘its pageantry and ceremony, its highly regulated and formal nature, its direction by specialists, the attention paid to elaborate dress codes, a complex lexicon not easily understood by outsiders, archaic forms of address between human participants, the continual references to notions of tradition, and the use of a specific form of music’.

And just like ritual in tribal cultures, fox hunting plays an important social role in many parts of rural Britain, bringing together a wide variety of individuals in a co-operative activity that enhances communal solidarity and people’s sense of purpose. Indeed, despite all its associations with the upper classes, fox hunting has long been a socially inclusive activity, drawing enthusiastic participants from all walks of rural life.

There are even parallels between the reverential attitudes that tribal hunters are said to adopt towards their prey, and those held by British hunters. Kaoru Fukuda, a Japanese anthropologist who studied fox hunting in the Scottish border country, wrote that many of her informants spoke of their admiration and respect for the fox, and their attempts to ‘get inside the mind of the quarry’ and ‘experience the environment and the event as animals do’. This is not so different from the kind of assertions about hunting that are made by contemporary spokespeople for North American Indian and Aboriginal groups.

So why is there such an overlap between the people who go into a frenzy of righteous anger over the hunting of foxes and other species by Britons and other Westerners, and those who are enchanted by the cultural practices of tribal hunters?

Despite what sentimental urban-dwellers might believe, this differential outrage cannot be justified in terms of the relative amount of suffering that animals experience. Of the many ways of killing foxes, hunting with hounds is amongst the most humane. The British government appointed Burns Committee of Inquiry acknowledged that ‘in the vast majority of cases’ insensibility and death ‘follow within a matter of seconds once the fox is caught’. While the same could be perhaps be said of animals targeted by experienced contemporary tribal hunters if they are using properly maintained rifles, other tribal hunting methods can be much less benign.

Neither is it reasonable to claim that fox hunting is purely for pleasure, whereas tribal hunting is a subsistence necessity. In today’s world, many Aborigines and other tribal peoples are no longer dependent on hunting for their food, but continue to hunt because they want to maintain their cultural traditions, and because they enjoy the experience. And fox hunting, as well as providing the sole source of employment for many thousands of people in Britain, also helps to control the numbers of what is, after all, a significant agricultural pest.

Certainly, there are animal rights activists who do express their concern about tribal hunting practices, and who say that they should be more regulated or otherwise restricted. But these politely voiced concerns never coalesce into passionate campaigns of angry protest and civil disobedience of the kind that have been mounted against fox hunting for decades.

The key to the difference is that perennial blight on British society, class envy. The majority of the population appears happy for the government to ban an activity that has shaped cultural traditions in rural Britain for generations, because they see it as a kick in the face for those arrogant toffs who like to strut around in fancy hunting gear. Preserving culture will always take second place to social resentment.

encompass@m140.aone.net.au


**********************************





What's Right is Wrong Except When It's Left

(From Brisbane Courier-Mail, 11 May 2002)

By:
Ron Brunton


What do you call an openly gay man who believes in same sex marriage, gender equality and liberalised drug laws, and who criticises a religion which he sees as intolerant and homophobic? If progressive commentators are any guide, the correct answer seems to be a 'far rightist', or 'right wing extremist'. It sounds like a poor joke; but this how large sections of the world's media have chosen to describe Pim Fortuyn, the maverick Dutch politician who was murdered this week by a genuine extremist from the environmental group, Ecology Offensive.

Worse, some of those who cheerfully called Fortuyn an extremist drew the line at using comparable terms to describe his alleged assassin, Volkert van der Graaf. Van der Graaf was merely an 'activist' - or at worst, a 'militant' - and there was no suggestion that his organisation might be associated with the left.

Fortuyn was basically a social libertarian, and many of his views were those advocated by the counter-cultural movements which developed in the 1960s and 1970s. His often quoted remark that immigration should end because his country was 'now full up' would have passed without comment had it come from a green complaining about environmental unsustainability. In any case, the remark was not inherently unreasonable, given that the Netherlands has the highest population density of any country in the European Union, with 16 million people living in an area two thirds the size of Tasmania.

Similarly, had it been Christian fundamentalism which Fortuyn condemned, attacking the unwillingness of bigoted 'bible bashers' to accept the personal freedoms allowed in a liberal secular society, the left would have praised him. But it was Islam which he criticised, urging that Moslem immigrants should assimilate to Dutch society and culture and accept mainstream values of tolerance and equality.

Nevertheless, unlike many of his adversaries who denounced him in the name of cultural diversity, Fortuyn's views on freedom of speech were consistent. After a Muslim cleric in his home city of Rotterdam was charged with making strongly anti-gay statements, Fortuyn defended the man's right to express his views, stating 'an Imam should be able to say about me that homosexuals are worse than pigs. My only demand is that you mustn't incite violence'.

So labelling Fortuyn as 'far right' only seems to emphasise the obsolescence of the categories of 'left' and 'right' as useful descriptors of differing political positions. To a large extent, 'left' and 'right' serve merely as tribal identifiers, although their unequal moral status in contemporary discourse means that there is considerable asymmetry in their use. People on the 'left' are much more likely to use the tag for public self-identification, and to use 'right' as a way of demonising their opponents, than the other way round.

Certainly, the differences between the views of people who proudly locate themselves on the 'left' and the views of many of those whom they characterise as being on the 'far right' are not nearly as all-embracing as the left's animosity might suggest.

As an example, take Jean-Marie Le Pen, the French politician who suffered a massive defeat in last Sunday's second round elections for the presidency after the left held its nose and voted for the scandal-mired Jacques Chirac with the slogan, 'better the crook than the fascist'. Le Pen - a genuinely unpleasant character who can fairly be described as a reactionary - denounces globalisation and America, two of the left's chief hatreds. He places himself on the side of the 'little people' against corrupt and wealthy elites, and claims to be 'socially on the left', though 'financially on the right'. But even so - again like many of his bitter opponents on the left - he supports strongly protectionist economic policies. Indeed, as a number of European commentators have pointed out, many of the people who now vote for him formerly voted for parties of the far left, such as the Communists.

One of the charges levelled at Le Pen - with some justification - is that he is anti-Jewish. In 1987 he made the notorious remark that the Nazi gas chambers 'were a mere detail in the history of the Second World War'. But the left's condemnation of Le Pen's anti-Semitic sentiments would be more credible if it displayed similar outrage about the wave of physical attacks on Jewish individuals and property that have engulfed France over the past eighteen months, and which are overwhelmingly being committed by radical Muslims. Unfortunately, significant sections of the French left are allowing their pro-Palestinian sympathies to expand into an anti-Semitism that is far more threatening to French Jews than Le Pen's more old fashioned version.

Nevertheless, there is one issue that really does seem to divide the left from the disparate collection of views which leftists lump together as being on 'the far right' - the attitude towards the West. Leftists have become at best highly ambivalent about Western culture and institutions, and at worst extremely hostile. As a consequence, assimilation, which the left once strongly championed in the face of racism, has become anathema.

Of course, Western traditions are neither homogeneous nor internally consistent, and authoritarian collectivists like Le Pen can appeal to them as readily as libertarian individualists like Fortuyn. But this doesn't matter; what the left cannot abide is any claim that Western values and achievements are superior to those of other societies. Those who make such claims have to be demonised. And that is why Pim Fortuyn was called a 'right wing extremist'.

encompass@m140.aone.net.au

*****************************

Posted by John Ray

**************************

posted by JR 11:03 PM