Hypocrisy in Action

Many members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom are upset and distressed because the government will curtail the time available for them to introduce legislation to prevent a “no deal” Brexit by a few days. They complain that this is constitutional. They have had more than three years to introduce such legislation, but this apaprently has not been long enough.

They fail to mention that in the EU Parliament (which they want the UK to remain linked to by preventing Brexit) no member of that Parliament has ever had the right or ability to introduce legislation to prevent the EU from doing anything.

Parliament seeks to thwart the will of the People

In the present maneuvers over Brexit all sides claim that they are acting democratically. All sides have their own interpretation of democracy.

The Prime Minister says that he is acting democratically in ensuring that the will of the people, who voted by a majority to leave the EU, takes precedence over the will of Members of Parliament most of whom were elected on a promise that they would implement Brexit. But promises by those seeking election cannot be relied upon.

Many Members of Parliament claim that preventing members of Parliament from changing the law to enable Brexit not to take place or to be delayed is undemocratic. Nicola Sturgeon, First Minister of Scotland, claims that interfering with Parliament is the act of a dictator by which I suppose she means that implementing the will of the majority of the people is the act of a dictator.

As I see it, the majority of the people of the UK voted to leave the EU. Members of Parliament derive their authority from the people. Members of Parliament in seeking to delay or prevent Brexit are thwarting the will of the majority of the people. To thwart the will of the majority of the people is undemocratic: it is as simple as that.

Gender Stereotyping

Two advertisements have been censored by the Advertising Standards Authority. One advertisement showed two men not caring well for a young child. the other advertisement shows men doing adventurous activities while a woman sat on a park bench next to a pram.

The reason for banning these advertisements was that the ASA say that this kind of stereotyping causes “real world harms”.

It is hard for me to see what “real world harms” will arise if some advertisers indulge in humorous stereotyping. It is harder still for me to understand what qualifications the ASA has in being able to assess whether an advertisement can create real world harms.

For example, there are numerous television and newspaper advertisements for gambling companies all permitted by the ASA. Certainly gambling creates more harm than gender stereotyping. Certain types of “fast food” create plenty of real world harm to those who eat the foods and to the environment. Air travel causes almost irreversible real world harms. Fossil fuel based energy probably causes the greatest world harms that we face at the moment probably planet threatening and life threatening as a cause of climate change , but the ASA decides to pick on gender stereotyping, leaving greater real world harms alone.

I do not find the ASA’s behaviour odd. When I was running a solar panel business, years ago, the ASA asked me to prove with documentary evidence that solar panels worked off light, and could produce energy on cloudy days. I suggested they consult an elementary book on physics and educate themselves before wasting people’s time. That suggestion still holds good today.

What I find odd is that the ASA assume gender stereotyping is harmful based on some academic theses, ignoring those theses who claim that it is not harmful. I find it even odder that short humorous television adverts are considered as ascribing to an individual woman or man specific attributes, characteristics, or roles by reason only of her or his membership in the social group of women or men.

Two Things I do not Understand

  1. Why the second amendment to the US constitution permits assault rifles but not nuclear weapons or even depleted uranium shells;
  2. Why those who lead a live of great privilege and immense wealth lecture the poorer people about reducing their carbon footprints;

Implementing the Will of the People

Mr Corbyn, leader of the opposition in Parliament, has claimed that it would be an anti democratic abuse of power should the government remove the United Kingdom from the European Union while an election campaign is underway.

I can understand if Mr Corbyn thinks such removal undesirable but I fail to see how it can be anti-democratic. This claim is sophistry. The people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the EU on 23 June 2016 – more than three years ago, and if anything is an abuse of power and anti-democratic it is the fact three years later the UK has not left the EU. OK, leaving the EU would be complicated and would take time but three years?

The vote was a tight run thing, but that is no reason to discount it. There are many whose prosperity will be adversely affect by the UK leaving the EU, and that too is no reason avoid implementing the vote.

Either we are a democracy or we are not a democracy. If we are a democracy then we must implement the will of the people, even if the people’s will might make us poorer or create some inconveniences. Of course, once we have left there is nothing to prevent political parties campaigning in the next election to re-join the EU, and if those parties so campaigning win enough seats the UK will rejoin the EU – that is how democracy works.

Democracy might well be inconvenient, unwise, unsound economically, foolish, raucous, troublesome, exasperating, loathsome, appalling and have all sorts of other undesirable features but it is the least worse system of government that we have discovered and infinitely better than rule by dictatorship, autocracy, or monarchy, or oligarchy, or bureaucracy, or by the military, or by a select and privileged coterie of like minded people determined to impose their will on the people they govern.