The Death of Principle

Mr Christopher Charles writes, rather patronisingly that I am 'Don Quixote with an intellect'. He then says: 'This marriage stuff is from another age. That battle has been lost. [Understand, I'm not approving, but accepting].'
But that's the whole point of having proper principles, based on eternal truths. You don't have to change your mind about fundamentals, just because fashion is running against you. On the contrary, if you have principles , you can't do so. I'm amused by the growing trend among English women to take the Islamic veil (I suspect many of these would never dream of entering a Christian church, precisely because it is the religion of their parents and grandparents) because I see in it a sign of a strong unanswered yearning in our society for moral certainty and discipline. In the 18th century, the Wesleys found a similar yearning in a morally chaotic England, and we still feel the benefits of their re-evangelisation of Britain, which reached their peak a century ago and are now in severe decline.

This time round, I fear that it will be Islam, with its simple message, that will fill the gap. Both Mr Charles and I would, I think, be greatly surprised if we could be teleported into the London of 2110. But I suspect Mr Charles would be much more surprised than I would be.

Mr Potter writes: 'His (Henry VIII) actions contributed significantly to what I consider the Church of England's indifferent attitude towards the sanctity of marriage, or at least its relaxed attitude to ending one's marriage.'

What is Mr Potter talking about? The Church of England did not in any way sanction or countenance divorce for the first three hundred years of its existence. Read the relevant chapter in my 'Abolition of Britain', for a discussion of the changing attitudes of the Bishops, who collapsed on this issue (as did almost everyone else) in the 1960s. There were many causes for this, and I suppose you could argue that the C of E's independence of Rome *permitted* it to commit this treachery against the teaching of Our Lord. But you could hardly say it impelled it. It is perfectly possible that, under different circumstances (particularly had there been no First World War and no invention of the Contraceptive Pill, also discussed at length in 'Abolition of Britain') the C of E would still be standing fast on divorce. Blaming Henry is absurd.

'Claire H' writes: 'The way Hitchens writes suggests it is almost certain that anti-depressants do cause suicides or violent behaviour- when in reality only a fraction of people taking them have such side-effects.' I am not sure what she means about 'the way I write'. I pointed out that two recent suicides were both recorded as having been on prescribed drugs which ought - if they do what it says on the packet - to have made them less rather than more likely to take this tragic path.

How big a fraction would be enough for Ms 'H' to be concerned? I personally do not know, which is why I seek an inquiry. What I point out is that a growing number of reports suggest a cause for concern. I don't call for the pills to be banned. I do not say they invariably lead to such outcomes. What I say is that there are worrying indications. I also cast doubt on the validity of the science which lies behind these prescriptions. The answer to my criticisms is not to attack me for raising questions, but to answer those questions, scientifically and calmly, in such a way that I and others are reassured. It is, in my view, never wrong to raise concerns - and often an urgent duty to raise concerns which are unpopular or unfashionable.

I still don't understand why what I am paid has anything to do with my right to comment on the size and nature of the welfare state. In many ways, on the contrary. The more I'm paid, the more tax I pay and the more I finance that welfare state, so these critics should want me to be paid more. Of course I'm conscious of my good fortune in doing the job I do and getting the pay I do. But I'm also conscious that nobody would gain anything if I ceased to do so, except the person who took my job.

Mr Harold Stone makes a ridiculous comment in his curiously spiteful posting, with its weird remarks about my difficulties with publishers and booksellers. Am I not allowed to raise any subject without being accused of it being my main preoccupation? He says: 'Eastern Europeans work willingly and more cheaply than our own in order to send money home, not because they have a better attitude necessarily. The comparatively low cost of living in Poland, Estonia and the like makes this an economically viable proposition. There is nothing new of course in the claim that immigrants "do the jobs natives refuse to." This has been trotted out repeatedly by our politicians since the 1940's, after the Windrush docked, a time of austerity when immigration was the last thing we needed, and by which time Attlee (a communist who used to add "workers of the world unite" as a footnote to personal correspondence) was anxious to justify selling out his own people with the British Nationality Act of 1948.'

I think the statement that Clement Attlee was a communist is more than a little absurd. If distinctions have any meaning at all, then it simply isn't true. But more importantly, Mr Stone seems to think that we are the same country we were in 1948. Of course there is something new in the allegation that migrants do the jobs natives refuse to do. It may not have been true in the past. It is demonstrably true now. He seems not to have heard of the collapse of British education, or of the devastating family breakdown that has accompanied it, which makes so many British-raised young people unemployable by anyone who values his business. Nor does he seem aware of the grotesque welfare system, which acts as a disincentive to low-paid work.

Whereas Poles, for the most part raised in Christian homes and benefiting from the rigorous education system of that country, are a much better bargain for anyone who wants to get work done. I add, yet again, that I am against the immigration solution to our problems. But it is absurd to pretend that the superior work ethic of the Poles, and the poor quality, as employees, of many British-raised young men and women (through no fault of their own) has nothing to do with it.

If you want to comment on Peter Hitchens, click on Comments and scroll down.