19/2/2007

"Should Catholic adoption agencies be
allowed to turn away gay couples?"

Monday 19th February saw the eighth Public Speaking Forum of 2006/7. The topic was "Should Catholic adoption agencies be allowed to turn away gay couples?". The speakers were Steve Molloy and James Fraser in favour of the proposition and Anna Welsh against. James Nolan acted as Chairman. The meeting took place in the Hub due to the unavailability of any other rooms in the Guild. No cake was present due to the impecuniosity of Steve, however Cadbury's Snaps were provided. The initial vote was cast in favour of the opposition.

Steve opened the discussion by making the point that this debate is about two conflicting rights; the right to freedom of religion and conscience, and the right not to be discriminated against. In this instance he put forward the point that by forcing Catholic adoption agencies to accept gay couples, the government is proposing to infringe on what is essentially a conscience issue and would thus depart from present government practice such as MPs not facing the party whip when a conscience issue is voted upon, and the rights of doctors with consciencious objections to abortion not being forced to partake in them. He stated also that the Catholic agencies have both religious and social reasons for refusing to allow homosexual couples to adoption and that these should be respected in these specific instances rather than simply being dismissed as bigoted.

James approached the issue from that of pragmatism against principalism. He proposed that for society as a whole allowing gay couples to adopt is a positive step, but also that Catholic adoption agencies, acting as voluntary organisations, perform a very valuable service to society, yet in any event the agencies amount to only 4% of the total. He expounded the view that the loss of these agencies, which have high success rates with difficult cases, would represent a greater blow to society than allowing that 4% to continue with their discriminatory policies. He emphasised the fact that allowing these agencies to continue as such would not represent a barrier to gay adoption as the agencies had already agreed that they would provide a list of other organisations to gay couples should the agencies be approached by them, and that this represented a pragmatic way forward in which gay adopters would not be shut out of the system, whilst allowing Catholic agencies to act in a way which did not infringe their strongly held religious convictions. The alternative being that they would close forever and thus society would lose the valuable service they provide.

Anna, opposing the idea, stated that to allow one instance of discrimination may be just the start of legitimising a form of discrimination insofar as the government would appear hypocritical in stating that discrimination is wrong and yet allowing it to continue on the basis of the religious beliefs of a minority group. She explored the notion that once legislation is passed, many religious groups slowly but surely modify their position so that it is compatible with the law of the land as this enables easier co-existence, and that it is the job of the government to lead the way in showing clearly which actions are acceptable and which are not in an increasingly secularised society. She made the point that essence people are entitled to their religious beliefs and to manifest them where they do not affect others, but where that manifestation affects the rights of those who do not share those beliefs, then it is legitimate for governments to legislate against them.

There then followed the usual audience debate in which these and other issues were discussed including the fact that some agencies will only place children with families commensurate with the child's cultural heritage, and whether that amounted to discrimination, the dichotomy betwen criteria applied on a case-by-case basis and the blanket ban in the presently discussed situation, and of course the old chestnut of the suitability of BNP supporters to be adoptive parents.

The final vote went in favour of the proposition, quite a swing. It was resolved that the next week's forum would be "The Internet: On balance a good thing or a bad thing?".

20/11/2006

"This house would abolish the Monarchy and replace it with an Elected Head of State".

Monday 20th November saw the seventh Public Speaking Forum of the 2006/7 academic year in the Harold Wilson Room. The topic this week was "This house would abolish the Monarchy and replace it with an Elected Head of State".

To propose the motion we were delighted to welcome two guest speakers, Mr. John Campbell, a former student at the University of Liverpool and Mrs. Suzanne Campbell, Liberal Democrat Parliamentary candidate for the Vale of Glamorgan in 2005. Both spoke in their capacities as members of Republic: The Campaign for an Elected Head of State. Speaking against the motion were Tom (surname) and Steve Molloy. Craig Williams acted as Chairman. Cakes present were Chocolate Indulgence, Coffee, Carrot and Orange, French Fancies and Viennese Whirls. The floor vote was taken and was found to be narrowly in favour of the proposition.

Mr Campbell opened the debate by setting the scene, explaining the inherantly undemocratic nature of the monarchy, the fact that it is a relic from an era which supported priviledge, aristocracy and snobbery over democracy and achievement, and that everyone should have the chance of achieving the role of head of state rather than a person receiving the role by accident of birth.

Tom replied by speaking of the idea that under the monarchical system there is a consensus that the people give up a certain degree of freedom in return for the protections that monarchy offers. He argued that an elected head of state would almost certainly be political in nature and that this would be less desirable as the monarchy in the U.K. is essentially benign compared to a head of state such as that in the U.S.A.

Mrs Campbell argued that the monarchy is an institution which is grossly over-resourced and has undue influence behind the scenes, giving many examples in which Royal powers being exercised on behalf of the Crown have had negative impacts upon the lives of ordinary people. She advocated a system in which an elected head of state would have a ceremonial role, citing Ireland as an excellent example of a benign head of state.

Steve closed the debate by arguing that the monarchy has practical benefits, that it is a stabilising influence and that in any event many progressive European Union member states are also monarchies but conceded that most of these had a more reformed system than that of the U.K. He cited the popularity of this form of government where the option to restore monarchies had been taken, for example in Spain. He proposed that it would be better to reform the present system rather than abolish it, and that there is little evidence that republics are inherently more progressive in the policies and governments they produce.

There followed a lively and prolonged floor debate, following which the floor vote indicated a further swing towards the proposition. Mr and Mrs Campbell were thanked for their excellent and insightful speeches, and engaged members in further informal conversation.

It was resolved that next week's forum would be on the topic of religion and its effects on the advancement of knowledge.

The Committee of the University of Liverpool Debating and Public Speaking Society would like to thank Mr and Mrs Campbell once again for a most enjoyable and thought-provoking evening.

13/11/2006

"Should Saddam Hussein Hang?"

This week's lively and highly controversial forum "Should Saddam Hussein hang?" was recorded and broadcast on Icon Radio.

6/10/2006

"Can colonialism be a force for good?"

Monday 6th November saw the fifth Public Speaking Forum of 2006/7 in the Harold Wilson Room. The topic this week was "Can colonialism be a force for good?" The speakers were Anna Welsh for the proposition and Kymn Butcher opposing. James Fraser acted as Chairman. Cakes present were Chocolate Indulgence, Coffee Cream and French Fancies. The initial vote was cast in favour of the proposition with a large number of abstentions.

Anna opened the debate citing the economic issues behind colonialism, how the colonial experience was founded on trade and brought with it a number of advantages to colonised countries. She cited the vast developments made during the colonial era including opportunities for education of colonised peoples, and the benefits of economic development.

Kymn argued that the colonial experience was for many a bad thing, and that these percieved benefits did not outweigh the disadvantages including the wiping out of many indiginous peoples through disease brought upon them unintentionally by the colonial powers, the loss of indiginous heritage, citing the example of the Caribbean where descendents of African slaves have little concept of their African heritage, be it language, culture or even knowing from which part of Africa one's ancestors originated. Furthermore the imposition of cultural norms by the colonial powers had the effect of creating an idealism towards European cultural ideals to the detriment of indiginous culture.

There followed a floor discussion in which various issues were discussed including the remaining colonial possessions and the relationships with their colonial masters, the different experiences of different parts of the world (for example India and the African continent), the difference in approach between France and Britain on integration of their colonies into the state. The final vote was cast in favour of the proposition but with an even swing, so the debate was declared a draw. It was resolved that the topic of the next forum would be "Should Saddam Hussein be hanged?" following the previous day's news that the former Iraqi dictator had been sentenced to death for crimes against humanity.

23/10/2006

"When in Rome, do as the Romans do?"

Monday 23rd December 2006 saw the fourth Public Speaking Forum of the 2006/2007 academic year in the Harold Wilson Room, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do?". David Hewitt spoke in favour of the proposition with Benjamin Lyon against. Steve Molloy acted as Chairman. Cakes present were: Chocolate indulgence, Almond slices, Angel Slices and Mini-Battenburgs. The initial vote was a tie with most abstaining.

David opened the debate with a speech on the negative effects of multiculturalism and the perceived lack of a desire to integrate on the part of some sections, in particular, of the Muslim community. He argued that the wearing of the veil marked a difference which set some Muslims apart from mainstream British society and the practical effects this could have, for example, in schools where communication was a major issue. He stated that respect for other cultures should not encompass insisting on changes to the indiginous culture of a country- "when in Saudi Arabia", he stated, "I would not wear revealing western clothes".

Benjamin replied with a speech calling for tolerence and moderation. He argued that British values of freedom and individual liberty would best be reflected in allowing people to wear whatever they so desired. He argued that since 9/11, (or should that be 11/9 in the UK? ed.) the Muslim community has felt itself under pressure from the media who have constantly sought to vilify it. It is only natural, therefore, that Muslims are more wary and thus more sensitive about British attitudes towards them, and that banning the wearing of the veil would only make more women want to wear it. Furthermore he elucidated that the Qu'ran, like other religious texts, is open to interpretation, and that there can thus be no "right" or "wrong" interpretation concerning the veil. He conceded that in practical terms, there may be situations in which it would be desirable for women to refrain from wearing it, however.

There followed a lively floor discussion in which the debate was widened. Questions were asked concerning the concept of "Britishness". What is it? Does it even exist? To what extent should people be expected to integrate? Do schemes which have been derided by some as "political correctness" help or hinder integration of minorities in the U.K?

The final vote went in favour of the oppositon, still with a majority abstaining. It was resolved that next week's forum would be on the subject of colonialism. James, the esteemed President and "Gaffer" then invited those assembled for a kickabout in Sefton Park at 1pm on Sunday. Those assembled then disgorged to the Augustus John.

16/10/2006

"The present nuclear powers should be able to maintain the status quo."

Monday 16th September 2006 saw the third Public Speaking forum of the 2006/2007 academic year. The topic of choice followed the announcement the previous week of the ascent of North Korea to the world's nuclear club. There were three speakers each presenting a different perspective on the issue; David Hewitt proposed that the status quo should be maintained, Mohammed Al Mannai spoke in favour of the idea that all nuclear weapons should be banned, and Chris Wright advocated allowing all nations of the world to have their own nuclear weapons. James Fraser acted as Chairman. Cakes present were: Chocolate Indulgence, Organic Flapjacks, French Fancies, Lemon Slices and Almond Slices (much to the delight of el Presidente!)

No vote was taken initially as it was felt that the positions of the speakers required further exposition before the audience could reach an informed decision.

David opened the discussion rather un-conventionally by presenting an audio-visial powerpoint presentation (done in the dark with candles, in glorious breach of the Guild's Health and Safety Policy in all probability!) showing the devastating consequences of the use of nuclear weapons including images of the aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He argued that the status quo was desirable as the past 60 years had shown that responsible nations could use nuclear weapons as an effective deterrent, but that to allow unstable dictatorships to also gain access to nuclear weapons would destabilise this. He elaborated that while it would be desirable to get rid of nukes altogether, this was an unrealistic aspiration.

Chris continued the debate by stating that the only real way to ensure no nation could bully any other is for every nation to be afforded the opportunity to possess nuclear weapons. That way no country would ever invade another as the threat of nuclear retaliation would be too great a risk to take. To allow every country to possess nuclear weapons, he argued, would maintain peace on the basis of mutually assured destruction and would thus never need to be used and would ensure safety and security for all.

Mohammed, by contrast, took the view that the cause of world peace would best be served by advocating the end of nuclear weapons worldwide as a gradual and incremental process. He elaborated that as a start, all nations of the world would need to acknowledge, by treaty or otherwise, that nuclear proliferation is a "bad" thing in the same way that every nation has officially condemned torture although some still practice it. It is hoped, he added, that this would spur the nuclear superpowers into a process of nuclear disarmament and dissuade non nuclear states from seeking to develop nuclear weapons. He stressed that this would need to be a gradual approach but could realistically could work in time.

There followed a passionate floor debate in which various issues were raised such as the practicality of disarmament, who should be in charge of who can and cannot possess nukes?, the realities of nuclear politics over the past 60 years, North Korea and doubts over the trustworthiness of dictators not to use nukes aggressively. The idea that civilian nuclear programmes should also be banned as they could easily be converted for weapons use or become a target was also discussed, as was the notion that terrorists could get hold of nuclear weapons on the black market if countries officially disarmed, but kept some nuclear weapons secretly hidden "in their back pocket".

A vote was held after a long series of discussions and the vote was cast in favour of David's proposition, followed by Mohammed's, then Chris's. It was resolved that the topic of next week's forum would be "When in Rome, do as the Romans do?" following the recent controversies over religious forms of dress in Britain.

9/10/2006

"Some extreme views are so abhorrent they should not be afforded the benefit of a public platform"

Monday 9th October 2006 saw the second Public Speaking Forum of 2006-2007. The topic was "Some extreme views are so abhorrent they should not be afforded the benefit of a public platform" The speakers were James Fraser for the proposition and Steve Molloy opposing, Craig Williams acted as Chairman. There was again a full house! Cakes present were: Coffee, Chocolate Indulgence, Raspberry Sponge and French Fancies. The initial audience vote was cast in favour of the opposition.

James opened the debate with an analysis of the proposition that by being allowed a public platform, such extreme groups as the BNP are given the opportunity to espouse their hate filled rhetoric whilst maintaining the facade of respectability. This would be detrimental to society as it would serve as a recruitment vehicle for a party already given far too much publicity for the size, membership and vote. He continued that while it is unlikely that the BNP would ever threaten the major parties on a national level, it is the concentration of the BNP vote in deprived yet ethnically diverse areas at local elections which proves the greatest cause for worry as the party and its supporters pray on people's fears about deprivation in their area through a campaign of misinformation, scaremongering and criminal activity. He stressed that while seeking to ban such a party would be an unlikely proposition, keeping them in the position where they are not allowed a public platform in the same way as mainstream parties is ultimately beneficial.

Steve responded by arguing that while the BNP and their like are an abhorrently racist party who's views are at odds with those of mainstream society, it is neverthess a mainstream value that those with unpalatable views should be allowed to air those views. He argued that a policy of preventing the BNP from speaking at events other politicians are permitted to attend, their appeal may be widened insofar as they will be able to portray themselves as martyrs, and as a result those who are already disillusioned with mainstream parties will find themselves more attracted to their message. He stressed that allowing groups such as the BNP to take part in such events, the other parties would be able to expose the BNP policies for what they are, and as a result of intelligent debate, members of the public who may have been attracted to BNP rhetoric will be better informed about what they really stand for, which would in turn lessen their support without society being hypocritical about the issue of free expression.

There followed a lively audience debate in which several other issues were raised including the criminal activity of BNP supporters, the free speech provisions in other parts of the world, the already-noted practical effects of giving the BNP publicity and how one would judge which views are "extreme".

The final vote went to the opposition with quite a swing, though it must be noted that a number of late-comers also voted which muddied the waters and it was difficult to ascertain what the actual swing (if any) might have been.

It was resolved that next week's forum would be on the topic of nuclear weapons proliferation, following the announcement that day that North Korea had tested a nuclear device.