Time for Some Dialogue

Today I'll try to respond to some points raised since Sunday, and perhaps to one or two older issues still alive on earlier postings.

The Blair-Hitchens event in Toronto

I'm asked to comment on my brother's encounter (styled by some a 'debate') with Anthony Blair in Toronto, recently broadcast on BBC radio. Delighted as I am that the BBC (which can and often does reduce an important Parliamentary event to three jokey minutes) has taken to broadcasting debates on major issues on Radio 4, I do wonder whether the habit will last, and why this particular one made it so swiftly on to the air.

I haven't in fact heard it in full, and don't expect to, though I've read a few accounts. I have in the past watched or listened to YouTube versions of many of my brother's meetings with opponents. These were at least interesting because his opponents were in fact opponents, and in many cases also scientists or theologians of note.

But I know from long experience and observation that Mr Blair is not an intellect of any kind, knows little about anything important and speaks (with a vacuous charm that passes me by) in cliches, both mental and verbal. I've also had for some time a grave problem with his self-description as a man of faith. When his actions are questioned, on Christian grounds, by leading exponents of that faith, Mr Blair tends to assume that he is right, and to imply that, in that case, we really ought to find another Pope, Archbishop, Moderator etc. He certainly took that view on the Iraq war, and I think his views on the Church's positions on sexual politics are of a similar sort.

Which is my second reason for reluctance to bother with this occasion. I'd also place Mr Blair - who famously said in Stevenage in April 1997, days before he came to office, 'I am a modern man. I am part of the rock and roll generation—the Beatles, colour TV, that's the generation I come from' - very much on the same side as my brother in the moral and cultural arguments of our time. Perhaps he should really have said 'Rolling Stones' rather than 'Beatles' to achieve full congruence. He would now, but at that stage he was worried about votes.

I used this quotation as the opening epigraph in the original version of my 1999 book 'The Abolition of Britain' (it's not in the new edition, which has a new and different introduction) and was recently fascinated to discover on the web an account of the Stevenage evening by that fine writer Ian Jack, in the 'Independent'. In this, it's clear that Mr Blair greatly pleased his audience by promising not to spend any money on the Royal Yacht, and by underlining his commitment to sexual liberation.

In fact, I'm quite sure that both men owe a lot of the popularity and success of their lives to being in tune with the post-1968 Age of Aquarius ethos of a whole generation of successful, prosperous and self-satisfied baby-boomers. The two men's radical interventionist, anti-sovereignty, utopian support for the Iraq War (though entirely consistent with this position) goes a little too far for most boomers, whose strong sense of their own goodness forbids them to support any sort of war. I seem to recall an occasion a couple of years ago when my brother actually took a ride in Mr Blair's armoured car, for a friendly chat about the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

But, interestingly, most of my brother's fan club are prepared to forgive and forget about Iraq, and even for his sympathy with the Blair creature, because what really matters to them is the liberation from 'old-fashioned' and 'mediaeval' and 'repressive' moral systems, which is the real foundation for 21st century militant Godlessness. And it is his espousal of that position which has propelled him into intellectual superstardom in the USA. The ditching of Christianity is, alas, an idea whose time has come among the college-educated young of the USA.

After all, the same people generally still hate and despise me (where they've heard of me), even though I opposed the Iraq war, which they also opposed. And it's my attitude towards sex, drugs and rock and roll which causes them to do so.

Whereas what passes for the conservative movement in the USA (and to some extent here) is actually much more comfortable with my brother (thanks to his enthusiastic anti-Islamism, the badge of membership of the neo-conservative movement) than it is with me, with my inconvenient insistence on domestic conservatism which they find difficult and unattractive, and my preference for actual liberty over illusory security. My opposition to mass immigration (which some of my sillier critics like to pretend I never voice) also has something to do with this.

This is most educational, and it was pondering upon it which caused me to write 'The Cameron Delusion', where these paradoxes are addressed.

I'd also say that my brother gives more or less the same speech at all these debates, whoever his opponent is. I've joked for years that there was a major problem with the sound system at our clash in Grand Rapids, which meant that the speakers could not hear what the other one was saying properly (at one point I sat on the edge of the stage trying to catch what he was saying, and it was still so difficult to hear that I pondered going to sit in the audience. I probably should have done, and stayed there). While this bothered me quite a lot, it didn't trouble him, since he would have said pretty much the same thing whatever I said, and his assembled fan club (mystified by their very recent discovery of my very existence, and none too pleased by that discovery) would have whooped with joy over it.

Like many jokes, this is founded in truth. If I hear that thing about North Korea and the Celestial Dictatorship one more time, or the one about 'Created sick and commanded to be well', my eyelashes will start to ache. One of the pleasures of our recent non-debate, rightly described as a 'conversation', in Washington DC was that neither of us was performing, and so there were one or two genuine exchanges.

So I doubt if I'll get around to listening to the whole thing. And the reason I place the word 'debate' in inverted commas is that, like many others, I wondered - when I heard about the event - who was going to be on the other side.

By the way, a few words about the votes on these occasions, under which one side or the other is said to have 'won' - often because of a large switch of votes during the evening. I am suspicious, even when I win by these rules. Very few people come to such debates with an open mind or anxious to hear the other side. The system of taking a preliminary vote (in which the voters know that they will be polled again at the end) is an invitation to the mischievous and partisan to give a false or misleading vote the first time, and follow their real inclinations at the end - thus giving a false and misleading impression of the debating powers of those involved. This is so obvious, and such an obvious trick to play, that I am amazed nobody else ever seems to even ponder it, and that such votes are taken at face value.

I'm told by someone who was present at my brother's (and Stephen Fry's) attack on the RC Church in Central Hall Westminster that the size of the pro-RC vote at the beginning was absurdly out of tune with the whole mood of the audience. Of course that 'vote' had collapsed at the end.

This is no surprise. The debate-going classes in central London are far more likely to be urban secular liberals than suburban Christians, for a thousand obvious reasons.

Drink versus Cannabis - again

Mr Steve Tracey accuses me of 'playing fast and loose with the statistics'. He adds: 'It may be true that more people had taken cannabis than other "hard" drugs, but that does not mean causality. I'm sure that a far higher percentage of the recently convicted had consumed alcohol or a cola type drink in the in the four weeks prior to their crime, this does not mean that it was the cause.'

Well, I object to that because I rather feel I had detected the Injustice Ministry playing fast and loose. And when I compared the Green Paper with the Ministry's own 'compendium on reoffending' I also found the following interestingly conflicting statements. The Green Paper observes that '44 per cent of offenders assessed in 2008 had problems with alcohol misuse which may have required treatment.'

The compendium, by contrast, says when discussing the recently imprisoned that: 'Alcohol was also a problem, but was far less widespread than drugs, with only a minority of the sample likely to be problematic alcohol users.

I've no doubt that the laxity of the licensing laws leads to more crime, and support (to the rage and derision of some 'libertarian' contributors here ) the reimposition of the 1915 licensing laws which seemed to me to work pretty well, and whose abolition has been followed by, if not wholly responsible for, the recent explosion of drunkenness on British streets.

But I've never seen why the undoubted dangers of alcohol are an argument for permitting any more intoxicating poisons. If alcohol's bad, that's surely an argument for restricting its sale as far as possible, not for legalising dope.

I'm also accused of wanting to throw all current cannabis users into prison. Those who claim this are either stupid or disingenuous. Leave aside that I have repeatedly said here that I favour a system of: First conviction - Warning that subsequent use will lead to immediate imprisonment. Second conviction - Immediate imprisonment (briefly, but under harsh and austere conditions). Third conviction - immediate imprisonment (same conditions, longer period). Etc.

A few months of this policy, effectively applied, and the use of cannabis would drop very sharply, I think. The number of people in prison for this offence would inevitably rise during the initial months, but, once it became clear that the law meant what it said, would rapidly reduce. Lawbreaking is almost invariably a rational calculation of odds, costs and benefits. Most lawbreakers are highly rational, as is demonstrated by their excellent knowledge of their legal rights on arrest.

If I am right, many other crimes would also reduce in number, once drugtaking, with its generally demoralising effects, began to decline. A fascinating paper produced by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), 'Soma, the Wootton Report and Cannabis law reform in Britain during the 1960s and 1970s', demonstrates that the use of this dangerous drug was a minor problem before the successful campaign to semi-legalise it mounted by a rich and powerful lobby (read the paper) in the late 1960s.

Now for the point about causality. I don't think even Mr Tracey contests that large numbers of lawbreakers are also abusers of illegal drugs. They may also be drinkers of cola, as he facetiously says, imagining he is clever but in fact walking straight into a Heffalump Trap of his own devising.

The fact that they are both does not mean either a) that the two things have equal effects on them (though in the case of alcohol an argument can be made, and of course many mix alcohol and cannabis) or b) that the fact that cola-drinking has nothing to do with their criminality means that cannabis use is equally irrelevant.

Why should the use of cannabis promote criminality? One, the use of such drugs is itself an immoral and selfish act, the seeking of euphoria which is undeserved by work, human love or achievement. This attempt to break the link between reward and effort is a step down the pathway to dishonesty and theft (which is permitted by the same fundamental belief - that a person has a 'right' to things for which he has not worked). Combine that with some of the effects of cannabis use, which renders its users less fit for work than others (and, I might add, less fit for work than they believe themselves to be) and you then have a baleful combination of circumstances. A self-stupefying, selfish transgressor, who has dispensed with one of the most essential moral rules of any advanced civilisation, who desires things he cannot afford and is not capable of working for the money to pay for them, nor does he believe he is required to. Bravo! What do you think might happen next?

On Parasites

My glancing blow at student demonstrators as 'parasites' has excited some harsh and angry reactions. I don't really see why. If you are not paying for your own keep, either by current work or savings from past labour, a parasite is what you are - and you ought to be aware of it and guide your actions by that knowledge.

Yes, I was a teenage parasite myself, indeed I was a parasite until I began regular paid work in September 1973. Should I, as suggested, pay back the college and university grant and fees money provided for me by postmen, coalminers, school dinner ladies and others, out of their taxes all those years ago?

Well, I am in favour of restitution where possible. Some years ago I shamefacedly returned the cutlery I had dishonestly 'borrowed' from various York University dining halls 30 years before. By putting it back I turned my initial lie into a sort of truth, but I think the lapse of time was pretty indefensible. I have one or two other outstanding debts which I have not yet found a way of paying, and some which, alas, I shall never be able to pay in this life. But I believe I have paid so much tax since I began work that I have more than covered the cost of my youthful parasitism. The essential thing is to understand that this is what it was - and still is. I was not entitled to what I was given, and I would have been a better person - and less sure of my own righteousness- if I had realised that. I hope others will make the same discovery earlier than I made it.

So what is a liberal, exactly?

Mr Powlesland complains: 'For someone who consistently (and justifiably) complains of others misrepresenting and fabricating his views, I would submit that your simplified and stereotyped views of what "liberals" believe are the height of hypocrisy. If you do not like others ascribing opinions to you that you do not have, or misrepresenting your opinions, why do you feel it is acceptable to do the same for millions of liberals? For my own part, I consider myself a liberal and disagree with some of the views you ascribe to me.'

I think there is a sharp distinction here between ascribing views to a political and cultural tendency, and ascribing them to an individual.

Mr Powlesland also isn't very good at distinguishing his views from those I describe. For example, he cites one of my summaries of liberal opinion: ' "Q. Why can't we simply build more prisons?
"A. Liberal answer: Because prisons are horrid, crime is caused not by human wickedness but by deprivation, and we don't like being responsible for such a harsh system."
'Actually, I (Mr Powlesland) believe that when we are apparently so poor that we cannot afford to educate our young people, spending billions of pounds on new prisons is not a spending priority.'
This is just shifting the question about. Priorities in spending are at the heart of real politics, and are decided by moral, social and cultural views. A person who believes a) that greater education spending means better education and b) that enforcing the law might not be as important as educating the young (for who then will protect all these educated people from violence and theft?) is making political statements. He is just making them in a cryptic way, rather less honest than I find desirable. Does Mr Powlesland truly maintain that views such as the ones I set out haven't influenced him towards his chosen spending priorities?

But there is a question here about the definition of 'liberal' which is undoubtedly troubling. It is made worse by the fact that no existing political party openly and clearly stands for election on the programme of social, moral and cultural liberalism which it actually follows. So we have to deduce their positions from their actions. What I describe as 'liberal' positions are those which seem to me to have been followed by various governments of supposedly differing parties for many years (see my book 'The Abolition of Liberty'). Note, by the way, my inclusion of Michael Howard's vacuous 'Prison Works' slogan as a liberal position. When tested, it turned out to mean that prison 'worked' solely by keeping criminals off the streets while they were inside - but not as a systematic means of imposing punishment aimed at altering future behaviour, or as a deterrent to those criminally inclined but rationally influenced into good behaviour by the realistic fear of effective retribution.

I note that a lazy Internet critic has claimed that I take the view that 'Prison works', when in fact I say the opposite. How typical of my critics, who can only sustain their assaults on my arguments by directly misrepresenting what I actually say. Which is not what I have done to Mr Powlesland.

Matthew 'Twister' Parris - latest developments

Some of you may have been disappointed that I was unable to continue my pursuit of Matthew 'Twister' Parris in my most recent column, because I devoted the whole page to one subject. So here is the latest news. Interested by what I had said, the London 'Evening Standard' approached me and Mr Parris, to ask if we would write our own accounts of the dispute, in which I maintain that Mr Parris twisted my opinions in a speech to a large London audience.

I said 'Yes'. Mr Parris said 'No'.

I think this tells us quite a lot.

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