Parents Banning Books (And Why It's A Bad Idea)

Looking at the list of books that parents want banning in parts of the US is quite eye-opening. I'd have thought that it would be the typical sort of tomes that parents don't want their kids reading until they are more adult - y'know, stuff by Stephen King and Chuck Palahniuk. However, there are some genuine classics in the list of books that cause consternation. Two really stand out to me as books that not only shouldn't be banned from schools, but should be read while at school:

To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee: Offensive language, racism, unsuited to age group

Well, of course there's offensive language and racism in To Kill A Mockingbird. It's about racism, for God's sake. And that's precisely why it should be taught in schools - to introduce the concept of racism in the classroom, where it can be discussed what it is, why it happens and - crucially - why it is wrong. Pretending racism doesn't exist in schools is not going to stop it existing outside of schools. In fact, quite the opposite is true.

Catcher in the Rye by JD Salinger: Offensive language, sexually explicit, unsuited to age group

Yes, Catcher in the Rye has all those elements to it - which is what makes it such a great novel for teenagers. The fact that it is (relatively) explicit and more than a bit nihilistic is exactly what makes it great. Again, this is a perfect novel for teenagers - mainly because it is about being a teenager, and those feelings of discomfort, alienation and the desperation to get to the perceived freedom of adulthood. Yes, it's a grown-up novel, but it is also about growing up - and therefore the perfect time to read it is when you are growing up.

The whole point of reading books at school is not just to be able to say that you have read books - it's to have read thought-provoking (and therefore often provocative) books and then discussed them with your peers and with a teacher. That way, you can learn from To Kill A Mockingbird why racism is wrong and from Catcher in the Rye that you are not alone in feelings of alienation while being a teenager - and what can be done to deal with those feelings.

It is all very well getting kids to read supposed "classics" - but I remember remarkably little from reading such books as The Grapes of Wrath and plays such as Pericles when I was younger. The books that stick in my mind - the ones that actually taught me stuff - were the edgier ones, like The Bell Jar, Lord of the Flies, Nineteen Eighty-Four and (although I still hate it to this day) Wise Children. I value what I got from those books as they taught me a lot about the real world. Which, surely, should be one of the key aspirations of any education?

The desire of parents to ban certain books from school resides in a desire to protect them, to keep them pure and untainted by the real world. Unfortunately, at some point a kid - if they are going to be able to function in the real world - needs to be exposed to that real world, and made aware of all the negative things in it. What better way to do that than through getting them to read a provocative, well-written book and then discuss it the safety of a classroom?

The Burkha Ban and the Tyranny of the Majority

And so it's raising its ugly head again - the talk of a ban on the burka.

Regular readers will know my stance on this; I'm not for any ban on full-face veils. That's not to say that I like the concept of the burka, or the niqab - however I feel the same way about them as I do most religious symbols. They are pointless, but not threatening. I think they are silly, but not offensive. If anything, I think a t-shirt with Che Guevara on it is more offensive than a Muslim veil. And no, I'm not calling for a ban on crass t-shirts. I don't think the state has any right to decide on what its citizens wear - if it starts to, then it may as well give Cabinet positions to those nauseating judgmental gits Trinny and Susannah.

And I also don't believe that the burka is synonymous with misogyny and sexism. I'm sure that some women are forced to wear the burka against their will, but that it doesn't then follow that all women who wear the veil are forced to do so. Some might choose to wear them. To believe that all women are forced into wearing the garment is like arguing that all western women who wear a short skirt are forced to do so by abusive and/or domineering men. That isn't the case; it maybe true in some scenarios, but by no means all. Besides, I think there is something very odd about trying to make the banning of the burka into a feminist crusade - effectively, this is saying that we're going to make women more free by removing the choice of whether or not they can wear the burka.

However, a couple of new arguments have come up from the pro-ban brigade. Firstly, we have the assertion that we should do it because the French have also done it. Sorry, but no dice. The French have done many things throughout their history that we have not done; the fact that another country has chosen to do something does not make it (a) right or (b) something we have to do as well.

Perhaps the better new argument from the pro-ban brigade, though, comes in the shape of the results from a recent poll mentioned in this Daily Telegraph article:

A YouGov survey last week found that 67 per cent of voters wanted the wearing of full-face veils to be made illegal.

And so, the argument goes, if 67% of the people want it, surely we should go for it, given we are a democracy?

Well, first up, polls are notoriously unreliable. According to the polls, Thomas Dewey won the 1948 US Presidential election, and Neil Kinnock won the 1992 UK General Election. Part of the problem with polls is that they don't actually ask the voters - they actually ask a tiny group of voters that they believe is representative of the people as a whole. This then allows for all sorts of distortion, including in how these things are reported. The line from the Telegraph article above should read "67% of the small group of potential voters approached as part of the survery want it" rather than claiming that "67 per cent of voters want it".

The other problem with polls is about the question(s) being asked. You might get 67% of those asked claiming that they want a ban if you ask something like this: "In order to combat the ever-present threat of international terrorism, do you believe the oppressive burka should be banned?" However, if you change the question to something like "do you believe that as an open, tolerant and non-racist country Britain should continue to allow women to chose whether they wish to wear the burka", you might find 67% against the ban. And neither question would test just how much people care about the issue of a burka ban. There is much truth in the idea that you can make polls say pretty much anything you like.

But even if over 50% of the British population were demanding the ban of the burka right now as a matter of absolute top priority, it still wouldn't make it right. Indeed, many liberal theorists committed to democracy were deeply worried about the tyranny of the majority - which is exactly what this would be. 51% of the population can be wrong, and they can be wrong and oppressive...

Ultimately, we won't solve the problem of religious fundamentalism or sexism/misogyny by banning the burka. However, the ban would make Britain a little less liberal and a little less free. And it will also perpetuate the patronising and repugnant myth that all women from ethnic minorities are not capable of making their own decisions, and require others to make them "free" - whether they want this ersatz enforced freedom or not.

Kids, Rugby and Risk

Oh, what fresh hell is this?

Rugby scrums should be banned in schools to protect children involved in a sport which is "not safe enough" for them, an expert has warned.

My God? You mean there's a risk attached to a contact sport? Fuck me, this is a revelation.

I mean, sweet Jesus Christ, this can hardly be news to anyone, surely? And to think people paid to have the research carried out. I could have told you that there is a risk of injury to kids playing rugby, and I'd have done it for the price of a pint of Fosters and some pork scratchings.

But the fact that there is a risk and that injuries do happen doesn't mean that something should be banned. After all, we're not talking about hundreds of kids being wounded a day by egg-chasing. No, we're talking about occasional injuries in a game - nothing more dramatic than that. And kids can get injured at any time, in any number of different ways. You cannot ban every single way in which they might possibly get injured. Not unless you stick them in a bubble and don't let them do anything.

Which is the point. Risk and injury are both parts of life. You can try as much as you like to hide this reality from kids, but you're never going to be able to make them perfectly safe and if you try, then you're arguably not preparing them for real life. At some point they're going to have to take a risk. And at some point they are going to be injured. Banning rugby scrums from schools is not going to change that...

Alcohol Price Control

Well, that didn't take long, did it? The Con-Dems have only be on power for a couple of weeks, and already they've happened upon the dubious charms of bansturbation:

The UK's coalition government has pledged to ban the sale of alcohol below cost price in an effort to cut binge drinking in England and Wales.

The plan is likely to ban retailers from running loss leader promotions on lager, wine and alcopops.

Just for old time's sake, let's rehearse the reasons why this policy is both wrong and pointless. It won't stop binge drinking - that will continue, but people will just have to spend a little more on getting arseholed. It is an impingement on the freedom of business during a feeble recovery from a deep recession. Laws already exist that allow for the refusal to sell/serve alcohol to those who are drunk, and laws already exist that can deal with the anti-social behavior of those who are wasted. We should enforce those laws, rather than creating a new, illiberal rule to punish everyone in society who might want to buy alcohol at a cheap price. I don't think there is anything liberal, democratic or even particularly conservative about this policy - other than the fact that the Con-Dem coalition has jumped on it with unseemly haste.

And it is that unseemly that bothers me. This is blatantly the sort of policy designed to make the tabloids happy. It is Daily Mail friendly politics - the sort of thing that Nu Labour would propose when there was a dip in their approval ratings on when they wanted to get a decent write-up from the right-wing press. It is, in short, the sort of desperate policy that a government should only consider as a short-term way of getting a positive headline. It's the sort of thing that governments normally only consider when their popularity is on the wane.

So it is very worrying that the Con-Dem's have chosen to do this so early. I'd far rather they did what was absolute essential - the rolling back of the intrusive and bloated British state after 13 years of profligate Labour misrule - rather than chasing good press from largely bad newspapers. Get a grip, ladies and gents - you are in government to replace Nu Labour, not to adopt and ape their idiotic PR-obsessed policies.

Facebook, Atheism and Santa

Allow me to introduce you to another Facebook group - Hey Facebook!... Atheist Groups are NOT Hate Groups! Stop Banning Them!

Personally, I was unaware that Facebook was banning atheist groups. I suppose it is possible; most organisations are very tentative and risk averse when it comes to dealing with religion, and if it came down to a straight choice between the God-botherers and God-deniers, then the latter will (more often that not) lose. However, to ban an atheist group because it is a hate group seems to be crass, particularly when you can join the BNP Facebook group. There is nothing hating about atheism; in fact, atheists tend to be more tolerant than the believers.

Yet I can't get too worked up about this. If Facebook wants to ban atheist groups, then let it crack on and do so. It is a private organisation and frankly it can do what it wants with its own website. As an atheist, I can't bring myself to be anything other than mildly peeved that religious groups get a higher profile on Facebook than atheist ones. Because, at the end of the day, this is Facebook - a social networking site with oodles of stupid groups. I honestly don't think that anyone is going to be swayed to atheism or to religion by Facebook. Besides, there is a certain poetic justice in God (Other Public Figure, apparently) sitting on a website that also boasts Santa Claus (classed as a politician, would you believe) as a user.

Still, the group is worth checking out if only for the pictures. This one is probably my favourite.

Banning Islam4UK

Apparently Islam4UK won't be doing their march after all. I dare say that there won't be many lamenting their failure to go ahead with their crass plans.

But in amongst all the guff about this stupid farrago, this comment - from our "beloved" Home Secretary - stand out to me. It is on the subject of banning Islam4UK:

"Proscription is a tough but necessary power to tackle terrorism," he said.

Really? Necessary? Since when? When has banning a group ever done anything more than turn the members of that group into martyrs? How will banning a group - even one as vile as Islam4UK - stop them from holding unpleasant views and paying homage to terrorism? Does the Home Secretary really think that banning this group will make its members and supporters change their views? If he does, then he is even dumber than he looks. And he looks pretty fucking dumb.

And the problems associated with banning a group like Islam4UK are compounded when you consider that it would be Nu Labour ordering the banning. And groups are banned under Nu Labour not because they are vile, but rather because Nu Labour disagrees with them yet is too scared to debate with them. Nu Labour proscribing a group simply shows Nu Labour has no respect for free speech.

Proscription is not necessary in the fight to combat terror. Rather, proscription creates even more people who can claim to be suppressed by an increasingly draconian government. And in doing so, increasing the likelihood of more widespread radicalisation and therefore makes terrorism more likely.

Don't ban Islam4UK, Mr Johnson. Let the chunter away. Because letting them spout their shite will do them far more harm than any ban could ever do.

Banning v. Boycotting

John Demetriou - of Boateng and Demetriou fame - has created some consternation in the Libertarian community with this call:

Enough people have had it brought to their attention. The Mail is a sick, nasty, deranged fascist rag and ought to be shunned, ignored, boycotted and publicly reviled.

Personally, I couldn't agree more. I think the Mail should be ignored, boycotted etc. I can't stand the fucking hatefilled rag. However others don't seem to agree, leading to another post on the same site entitled There's nothing unlibertarian about boycotting. Which is, of course, absolutely true.

There is a difference between a ban and a boycott. The former wants to remove the ability of other people to make a decision about what they read/hear/view, whilst the latter offers advice on what someone might read/hear/view. A boycott on The Daily Mail would not restrict anybody's ability to read such a rag (although heaven knows why they would want to), merely show the outrage some feel about that crappy newspaper. A ban removes freedom of choice and closes down freedom of speech; a boycott allows for freedom of choice and is an exercise in freedom of speech.

And that is why I think that both the Jan Moir article and the various responses to it (including Demetriou's) are fine examples of the freedom of speech in action. Moir has the right to say what she wants in this country - even if her opinions are repugnant and odious. And then everyone else has a right to turn round and tell her what a complete fuckwit she truly is.

The Efficacy of the Smoking Ban

On the face of it, this can only be good news:

Earlier this month it was announced that heart attack rates fell by about 10% in England in the year after the ban on smoking in public places was introduced in July 2007 - which is more than originally anticipated.

But the latest work, based on the results of numerous different studies collectively involving millions of people, indicated that smoking bans have reduced heart attack rates by as much as 26% per year.

Now, whilst I am no fan of the smoking ban (despite not being a smoker myself) I will concede that a drop in the rate of heart attacks can only be a good thing. A 26% drop seems to be a pretty big achievement.

That said, there is something about this study that I do have to question. It is based on a big assumption: namely, that there is a direct correlation between the end of smoking in pubs and the decline in heart attacks. And whilst there is probably some sort of a link between the two, I'm not sure whether it is as comprehensive or conclusive as indicated in this article.

Let me explain. A decline in heart attacks could be the result of other factors. Like healthier lifestyles in other areas, such as the loss of weight and more exercise. It could also be an indicator that preventive medicine is working as well, and people are being caught before they have their first heart attack. It could simply be medical professionals now know when to intervene, and are helping to get that heart attack rate down. And finally, yes, it could be down to people giving up smoking. But it doesn't follow that the giving up of smoking has to be down to the smoking ban.

The assertion that this drop in heart attacks is down the smoking ban doesn't stand up, and also paints a very positive yet unrealistic picture of that ban. It also fails to show the economic consequences of the smoking ban, or what it has meant for the freedom for businesses to choose what they want to happen in their own premises. As a result, this "good news" story actually comes across as part of the wider government campaign to paint smoking as a taboo and a dreadful sin that can only be expurgated with government intervention.

Libertarianism and Banning

Yet another news story containing a call for a ban on something:

The Royal College of Psychiatrists said new plans to keep children safe from internet predators should specifically address the rise of so-called pro-ana and pro-mia sites - which advocate anorexia and bulimia.

Right, now, this is a bit of a tough one. Because as a Libertarian, hearing about a call to ban something activates a little red flag in my mind, and I am left very wary about what freedom could now be condemned to the dustbin of history by pressure groups and the government. Yet when I realise is pro-ana and pro-mia websites, I struggle to get too excited. I wouldn't miss them if they were gone, and I can't imagine they are dreadfully pleasant sites.

Of course, that doesn't mean I agree with the call to ban them.

Now, as Libertarian I do support some bans. For example, the ban on child pornography is one I have no issue whatsoever with supporting. So given I am happy with the ban of one type of utterly unpleasant website, why I am not so keen on a ban for another type of unpleasant website?

It comes down to the harm factor. By definition, child pornography has to involve the rape and/or abuse of children in the process of its creation. The same is not true of the pro-ana and pro-mia websites. Furthermore, I have seen no conclusive proof that they actually do a lot of harm to people. Even the Royal College of Psychiatrists stops short of making the claim that they lead to anorexia and bulimia:

Professor Ulrike Schmidt said: "Pro-ana and pro-mia websites advocate anorexia nervosa or bulimia nervosa as a lifestyle choice, rather than as serious mental disorders. Research shows that, even for healthy young women, viewing such websites induces low mood, low self-esteem and increased body dissatisfaction."

Low mood, low self-esteem and increased body-dissatisfaction may be bad things and part of the road towards anorexia and bulimia, but feeling that way does not automatically mean that a person will become anorexic of bulimic after viewing one of these websites. And lots of other things could provoke a similar feeling in a lot of people - like a day in a comprehensive school.

Furthermore, once you ban one thing to save people from eating disorders, you set a precedent for banning other things for the same reason. The article mentions London Fashion Week as "a showcase for "underweight women."" How long until we get a call to ban that? And if we have already banned pro-ana and pro-mia websites, why wouldn't we ban London Fashion Week? And so on and so on, until we all live bland, homogenised existences free of risk but also devoid of a sense of being alive.

More often than not, a call to ban something comes from a well-meaning but naive source. And the decision to ban, more often than not, comes from a desperate attempt by a far from wise politician to be populist. And a ban itself is a clumsy, unwieldy tool that often damages and affects far more than it intended to. As a result, we need to carefully, objectively and unemotionally interrogate each and every ban, with a view to understanding whether it is actually necessary and what unintended consequences it might have.

Banning something is often very appealing, but is seldom actually the answer.

From the BBC:

Other bills put before the (Scottish) parliament include a minimum pricing strategy aimed at stopping high-strength alcohol being sold for "pocket money prices", without affecting premium products like Scotch whisky.

On face value, this seems to be a clear bid by the SNP for the votes of the middle classes. Maybe it will be a banner in their next election campaign: For The Posh Drinkers, Against The Winos In The Park. Which, I suppose, would be sound politics. After all, the middle class imbibers of Scotch whisky are far more likely to vote SNP than the tramp contingent who are reliant for happiness on cans of Spesh. Not least because those tramps are highly unlikely to vote at all.

Yet the key part of this proposal appears to be in the phrase "pocket money prices". The minimum pricing strategy is "clearly" aimed at those who would spend their pocket money on booze. Kids. Now - and by all means correct me if I am wrong - I'm fairly sure that there are laws, even in Scotland, to stop kids from buying booze. So surely the price of booze would be irrelevant if that law was enforced. After all, kids are legally banned from buying the stuff. Still, why enforce one law when you can weigh down the statute book with another one?

Besides, there is something else at play here. Because this sort of law affects everyone who might buy booze, rather than just kids. If you go into a supermarket or a pub in Scotland if this policy is passed, then you know there will be a minimum amount you have to spend if you want to have a drink with an alcoholic content. On one level, this is typical of the sort of policy pursued by ineffectual teachers - the group punishment, dolled out to all because they cannot control the few. But it is the underlying assumption that is so worrying. Here, we have a government making value judgments about what is good for its citizens. And also what is bad. Booze, it appears, falls resolutely in the latter camp.

It isn't - despite the rhetoric - about protecting kids. Likewise, even if the initial policy doesn't hit the consumer of more premium booze brands, you get bet your bottom dollar that it is a sliding scale towards slapping all drinkers square in the face. Once you've created a law to restrict the sale of drink in one way, you have the precedent to easily apply similar laws to affect it in other ways. And whilst the actions of the Scottish government do not directly affect England, you can be sure that the puritanical prude in charge of this country would have no issue whatsoever with attacking drinkers. Just as his government has had no issue with attacking other groups whose actions it does not approve of.

In an interesting and well-worth reading article at the Kitchen, the Filthy Smoker concludes that:

This is not a coincidence, this is a co-ordinated effort which, I suspect, will come to a head when MPs return to Parliament in October. At every turn there is Don Shenker, Ian bastard Gilmore and all the rest of the tax-it, ban-it, cover-it-up brigade. There is definitely something afoot.

Amen. This proposal from the Scottish Government is yet another in a long line of ongoing attacks in the United Kingdom on those who drink. And I dread to think what the dreadful Brown administration has planned for us next.

The Government's Got Its Banning Hat On!

Now, if I wanted to suggest an increase in government efficiency and a decrease in the number of ministers, I'd strongly argue for centralising all the government departments responsible for banning stuff. Seriously, you could really thin down the Cabinet and make it more efficient. You could have the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, a Defence Secretary, an Education Secretary and the Minister for Banning Stuff. Your one stop shop Minister for all of your banning needs. It would be a busy ministry, though. Particularly since the Labour government now seems to have abandoned any pretence towards having a legislative agenda, and instead is mistaking the implementation of bans as being the sign of an activist government.

Today sees the announcement of the banning of legal highs (guess the manufacturers will have to think of a new category for their products now). Clearly the rip-roaring success of drugs prohibition has encouraged them to add more drugs to the roster of illegal substances. But, like a lot of the government's knee jerk banning, there is a sob story behind this. Listen to the words of the mother of someone who died from one of these soon to be illegal highs:

"I'm delighted. I think the Home Office is moving in the right direction.

"We need to tell people that GBL plus alcohol can equal death. Hester hadn't had that much alcohol and then later on that evening an old friend of hers gave her half a dose of GBL which he said was safe.

"So the two mixed together just sent her into a coma and she didn't wake up.

"She was studying molecular medicine but she was clearly unaware that it was dangerous and I think that is the key message to get across to young people, just because it's legal doesn't mean it's safe."

It is obvious that Hester's mother has suffered an appalling tragedy. But that doesn't mean that her opinion - which, quite naturally, will be anything other than objective under the circumstances - holds any more weight that any other citizen's opinion in this country. It doesn't give her specialist knowledge about GBL. Plus, her assertion that this will raise awareness about the dangers of mixing booze and GBL seems an irrelevance since it has now been made illegal. And finally, lots of stuff is less safe after you've had some booze. Including going up the stairs. Yet no-one is calling for a ban on going upstairs after a few beers.

What is really at the heart of this - and why I object so strongly to the banning of a substance I have never used and never plan to use - is the assumption that adults can't look after themselves and the mistaken idea that banning something is the same as educating people about it. Read these words from the Home Secretary - a man who is, lest we forget, an expert in nothing and is effectively just an over-promoted post man:

"Legal highs are an emerging threat, particularly to young people, and we have a duty to educate them about the dangers.

"There is a perception that many of the so-called legal highs are harmless, however in some cases people can be ingesting dangerous industrial fluids or smoking chemicals that can be even more harmful than cannabis."

These legal highs may be dangerous. They may be more dangerous than dope. And maybe you can make a case for educating people about them. But by banning something, you are not educating people about it. Education should allow people to make an educated choice. You remove that choice when you ban something.

That's what I can't stand, and that is what everyone in this country should be protesting about. It isn't just about the banning of these legal highs. It is about the government assumption that prohibition is the same as education, and deciding what the private individuals in this country should and shouldn't have a choice about. All these sort of decisions mean is that someone like Alan Johnson knows better about what is good for you that you do. And I am not dumb or bovine enough to allow such decisions to pass by without some sort of comment and protest. No longer does nanny know best; this modern state presupposes that a government minister - the most temporary of appointments based more on loyalty than competency - knows what is right for you. And such an idea makes me feel utterly sick.