Perspectives AV Special PDF

8/7/2019 Perspectives AV Special PDF

1/8

Welcome to the final issue of Perspectives for 2010/11, a special edition dedicated

to the referendum on the Alternative Vote electoral system. We are a bi-termlyindependent political magazine produced by the Politics Society, and publishedwith the support of Warwick PAIS. We hope that you have enjoyed reading themagazine this year; weve certainly enjoyed putting it together. So before yousurrender your life to exams, peruse this issue and be sure to vote on May 5th!! ! ! ! {The Editing Team}

2011

Editor: Jonny Goggs

Deputy Editor: Peter Gambrill

MAY 11 NO.12AV SPECIAL ISSUE

The Alternative Vote referendum: A condensed version{Joseph OLeary}

Never before in the history of human discourse have two seeminglyrandom letters been spoken so often byso many, yet understood by so few. TheUK Referendum on 5th May, only thesecond ever national referendum to beput to the British people, is indeed abizarre affair. In the midst of drasticausterity measures and a stutteringeconomy, we are politely asked to takea moment out of protesting and losingour jobs to vote on how we elect our MPs. The question we face: At present,the UK uses the First Past the Postsystem to elect MPs to the House of Commons. Should the Alternative Votesystem be used instead?

So what is AV? Well, looking onWikipedia, AV is a cable connectingtwo devices, a cycle car, a month in theHebrew calendar, an aircraft company,

a camera setting, an airline code, an

explicit Hong-Kong film, and anabbreviation for two different votingsystems. Little wonder then that theYes side of the debate call themselvesYes to Fairer Votes since at leastpeople have an idea of what fairer votes actually means (at least intheory). The No side keep it simpleand call themselves No2AV.

The mechanics of AV work asfollows: voters rank candidates in order of preference; 1, 2, 3 and so on, andmay rank as many or as few options asthey wish. If one candidate gets amajority of the first-preference votesthen they win, similar to First Past thePost. However, if no candidate gets amajority, the weakest candidate on firstpreferences is eliminated from thecontest and his or her secondpreferences, if they exist, are examinedand redistributed to the remaining

candidates. This process continues until

one candidate has achieved a majorityof the valid votes, and that candidatethen wins. Ballot papers that dont stateenough preferences are discardedduring transfer and do not counttowards the final result.

AV is not in fact new to the UK itcame close to being adopted (cont.p.2 )

Inside this issue: Just Vote: Back again for 2011 ! 2 YES: An AV thought experiment! 3NO: The reformers case for no " 4

YES: NO2AVs appeal to stupidity " 5NO: AV not a credible alternative ! 6The SDSR: Rethinking defence! 7Unveiling the burqa ban " 8


2/8

AV: A condensed version cont.!

" (cont.p.1) nearly a century ago. It was advocated by aRoyal Commission in 1910, and in both 1917 and 1931 itreceived approval from the House of Commons, only to bedefeated both times by the House of Lords. Voters in Londonare already familiar with the concept of casting multiple

preferences after a variant on AV called the SupplementaryVote was introduced in 2000. SV, however, only allowsvoters to rank two candidates and only has two rounds,whereas AV allows more and can last longer." AV is currently used by Australia, Papua New Guineaand Fiji for their parliamentary elections. It is also used byseveral US States to elect mayors, by Labour and the LibDems to elect their leaders, in the Oscars to choose winningfilms, and by various other bodies such as Warwick StudentsUnion. However the Australian system is quite different to our proposed version in that voters must rank all the candidateswithout fail in order to cast a valid ballot, even if there aredozens of people on the ballot paper. In Papua New Guinea,voters are only allowed to cast three preferences, and in Fijivoters probably wont be able to cast any preferences thanksto a recent military coup.!

...this is not merely a hyper-technical debate confined to lecture theatresand the corridors of power, but onethat both affects and concerns a great number of ordinary people.

" Since the start of the campaign both Yes to Fairer Votesand No2AV have been at each others throats in their battleto convince the public of their arguments. But there are areason which both agree: Firstly, that this is an important decision.Whether it is a Yes supporter telling you it will improve our political culture, or a No advocate claiming it will damageour historic voting principles, both sides tend to acknowledgethat this is not merely a hyper-technical debate confined tolecture theatres and the corridors of power, but one that bothaffects and concerns a great number of ordinary people.Secondly, there is an acknowledgement that AV is not aproportional system there is no proven relationship betweenusing AV on a local level and delivering more proportionalnational outcomes. Academic studies have shown that someparliaments would have been more proportional under AV,and others less so.!

One can only hope that people will demonstrate engagement with theissue to make the result on May 5thtruly legitimate either way.

Hence the rise of a third campaign known as No2AV, Yes toPR that in effect rejects the premise of the referendumquestion. It is no secret that the Liberal Democrats, someLabour ranks and other reformers such as the ElectoralReform Society have long expressed a preference for PR and

many are unhappy with the compromise reached by theCoalition Government. They join ranks with the ConservativeParty, whose elites are almost united in their opposition to AVand predominantly express a direct preference for the sweetsimplicity of First Past the Post." On campus, both campaigns have already begun to takeup arms and are preparing for the final push. Non-partisangroup Just Vote is also back following its successes at theGeneral Election last year and has been at work helpingstudents register to vote and, as usual, encouraging a healthyturnout. It looks like it will be needed: the average turnoutacross all national and regional referenda in the UKs historyis a meagre 56.2%, and more recent referenda held in Walesand London barely encouraged one in three voters to turn outon polling day.

" It remains for me to merely encourage you, the Warwick student,to consider the arguments laid out by

each side carefull y and make up y our own mind when the time comes. It might not be a great choice, but itsstill a choice. Make it a good one.

" On the whole it is regarded as a question that fewpeople really care about and even fewer really understand.One can only hope that people will demonstrate engagementwith the issue to make the result on May 5th truly legitimateeither way. It remains for me to merely encourage you, theWarwick student, to consider the arguments laid out by each

side carefully and make up your own mind when the timecomes. It might not be a great choice, but its still a choice.Make it a good one.

Visit the following websites for more information about thereferendum, and how you can make your choice about May 5th:

For concise explanations of how the two systems would work in practice, different ways you can vote and much more:www.aboutmyvote.co.uk The YES campaign: www.yestofairervotes.org

The NO campaign: www.no2av.org
http://www.yestofairervotes.org/http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/http://www.no2av.org/http://www.no2av.org/http://www.yestofairervotes.org/http://www.yestofairervotes.org/http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/


3/8

Yes to AV: A thought experiment

{Richard Metcalf]

Alternative Vote (AV) is, in my opinion, a better electoral system than First-Past-The-Post (FPTP), because ittakes full account of the wishes of the whole electorate, andnot just those who vote for the two leading candidates. Itmakes tactical voting unnecessary, allowing the individual tovote for the candidate she really likes best, without worryingabout wasting her vote. I have conjured up an example inmy imagination, to show how things might be different in myhome constituency under AV. As far as the voter isconcerned, when he enters the polling station, theprocedure is very simple indeed. She numbers thecandidates on the ballot paper in order of preference, likeso:

Mark Garnier Conservative

Richard Taylor Kidderminster Health Concern

2

Nigel Knowles Labour 1

Neville Farmer Liberal Democrat 3

Michael Wrench UKIP

Gordon Howells BNP

Note that if at any point she finds all of the remainingcandidates equally abhorrent, she can leave some of thespaces blank. In practice it will be rare that fourth and fifthpreferences are used in the counting of the votes anyway.Making some assumptions about voter behaviour, we canpredict what the outcome might have been in 2010 under AV. Firstly, here is the actual election result for the aboveconstituency:

Mark Garnier Conservative 18,793 (36.9%)

Richard Taylor KHC 16,150 (31.7%)

Nigel Knowles Labour 7,298 (14.3%)

Neville Farmer Liberal Democrat 6,040 (11.9%)

Michael Wrench UKIP 1,498 (2.9%)

Gordon Howells BNP 1,120 (2.2%)

Now, let us assume that if the election had been carriedout under AV, the first preference votes would havecorresponded exactly to the result under FPTP. This isextremely unlikely to be the case in reality, since voters arelikely to have voted tactically under FPTP. For instance, a

UKIP supporter may have felt that his candidate wasunlikely to win under FPTP, and chosen to vote for theConservative candidate instead, in order to prevent KHC or Labour winning the seat. As we shall see, under AV, he doesnot need to do so, since if UKIP are eliminated, his secondpreference vote will be counted. Nevertheless, for thepurpose of this demonstration, I will use these results as thefirst preference votes.

So what happens to these results under AV? Well, as

we can see, no candidate has won an outright majority, sowe must proceed to round two. The candidate with thelowest proportion of votes cast, the BNPs Gordon Howellsin this case, is eliminated, and the second preference votesof his supporters are added on to the remaining candidatesscores. If we imagine that the BNP bases second preferencevote was split more or less evenly between UKIP, theConservatives and Labour, we still do not arrive at amajority, so we proceed quickly to round three. We shallassume for simplicitys sake that all of the UKIP voters nextpreferences will be for the Conservative candidate, and thetable looks something like this:

Mark Garnier Conservative 41%

Richard Taylor KHC 31.7%

Nigel Knowles Labour 15.4%

Neville Farmer Liberal Democrat 11.9%

Already we can see that over 5% of the population,who, under FPTP, threw away their votes on radical parties,

have been given a second chance to determine the result. If we now assume that the Lib Dem second preference voteswent overwhelmingly to the Tories, they would finallyachieve the approval of over 50% of the constituency andwin the seat. However, this seems unlikely, so lets imagineinstead that the Lib Dem support was divided more or lessequally between Garnier, Taylor and Knowles:

Mark Garnier Conservative 45%

Richard Taylor KHC 35.7%

Nigel Knowles Labour 19.3%

The Conservatives in this scenario are still five percentshy of winning the endorsement of the majority in WyreForest, and since it is inconceivable that the hardcore of Labour voters would prefer a Tory to Dr Taylor, the latter would have romped home with 55% in the final round of counting.

Of course, this example is merely an illustrative thought-experiment. It is impossible to predict how the electoratewould actually behave when given the opportunity to rankcandidates in order of preference. But it does show that theoutcome of an AV vote can be very different from theoutcome of a FPTP vote, and, crucially, that the outcome isthat which satisfies (or fails to disappoint) the greatestproportion of the constituency.


4/8

" No to AV: The reformers case{James Entwhistle}

During the current AV campaign, I have been calledmany things. More often than not the term Tory has beenused to insult a person who has been a long-term Labour activist. However, this is an alternative reason to be votingno on May 5th, as I will be doing, that doesnt attempt tobrand me as a dinosaur in the same way as many of theNo2AV supporters.

Principally, I am a believer in electoral reform. I believethat this country deserves a proportional and just system. Ihave always accepted the downsides that this stand entails.And I struggled for a long time risking the hypothetical lossof an Atlee government for the eradication of a Thatcher government. (Both never achieved 50% of the vote.)Nevertheless, in a democracy, a vote must have an equalweight and all must count towards the election of a newparliament. This has never been delivered by First Past thePost. What encourages me to vote no in the upcomingreferendum is the belief that equally AV wont deliver thevalues of a modern democratic society either.

There are two core reasons, of equal importance, that Iwant to explain to you, in this, my virgin article for Perspectives, which will lead me to vote no on May 5th.

As a long term supporter of the Electoral ReformSociety, it has been argued to me on many occasions that

AV is an improvement, and that a yes vote is aprogressive step. However, the origins of AV which areincredibly partisan, as well as its likely effect on futurechange, which the yes campaign constantly ignores. AVwas first suggested by a pessimistic Labour party some timein 2009. With the prospect of a hung Parliament increasing,incentives to win over the Liberal Democrats were discussed.The reform that was chosen was one that was leastprogressive and most in the Labour partys interest. This wasAV. It was taken up by David Cameron as part of theCoalition Agreement, primarily because the Conservativesrealised that with the tectonic plates of British politics again

in shift, the remaining Liberal Democrats would less likelysecond preference the Labour party, which has alwaysbeen expected, and more likely choose their coalitionpartners. Finally the Conservative party wasnt the girl at theball nobody wanted to dance with. This isnt the way theBritish constitution should be handled. AV was and still is amiserable little compromise, and not the reform the yescampaign is attributing to it.

Secondly, I believe in proportional representation. Notfor my own partisan benefit. In fact the Labour party is mostlikely to lose out from a change to PR, and I accept this as itcreates an incentive for my party to better reflect thedemands of the British people and to never again shamefullydeceive or misrepresent the progressive majority.Nonetheless, I dont want to settle for anything less that PR,and therefore the entire process of this referendum isultimately flawed, and I believe indefensible. The LiberalDemocrats, the long term supporter of real reform, theparty that always stood for principles until that summers

afternoon in the Rose Garden, had their opportunity tomake real change. Their dismantling of age-old promises ontuition fees, VAT and the NHS is shameful, equal to their abandoning of their core values on electoral reform.Although I have never, in a sense, done the nasty with theLiberal Democrats, to see them succumb to ministerial carsand perks instead of standing up to the Conservatives andforcing through an open choice in the referendum was a

little disheartening. An open choice was suggested at thetime by then Shadow Health Secretary Alan Johnson, theLiberal Democrats just needed the political will to stand upfor it. As you will see on your ballot paper, there is no suchoption. We are only offered one bad option. It was aserious mishandling on a serious issue. As Lord Owen hassuggested, either way the referendum results, real reform isdeterred. A no vote kicks electoral reform out of thepolitical arena for a generation, a yes vote equally endsmost discussion on the issue, certainly within the Labour party, abandoning it to the fringes of political discussion. Aonce in a generation chance was ruined by the Liberal

Democrats. For those who hope that further change can beengineered through backroom deals after future elections,they should be ashamed of themselves. As a supporter of reform, I want to see a real democratic mandate for change.I want to go out knocking on doors, stuffing leaflets inenvelopes, (Ive never actually done that, in fact I dontknow what use it would be.) and talking to people across thecountry about the need for proportional representation. For those on the yes campaign who want to use theundemocratic features of our constitution for change, I give anote of warning.

In conclusion, thanks to the massive miscalculations andmischievous Machiavellian mistreatment of the issue, we willhave a referendum that nobody wants, nobody ever wantedbefore, and one that, with the savage knife of GeorgeOsborne destroying the social fabric the people of thiscountry have worked so hard to achieve, most dont careabout. In short, proportional representation is doomed for ageneration, either way. AV is not a perfect system, not by along shot, thats what weve been told by countlessexperts, including the current Deputy Prime Minister. AVpromotes damp cloths removing the radical and exciting inBritish politics. Its election bias to pathetic consensuscandidates (most likely the Liberal Democrats), is as bad asthe pitfalls of FPTP. Both systems are inadequate. (The

Jenkins Commission agreed with me.) Those who want thereal change in British politics should openly reject thecompromise, and actively demonstrate, that the no vote isnot a Conservative vote, (Regardless of what the WarwickNO2AV Facebook admins suggest.) but that it is aprogressive vote, because we will settle for nothing less thanproportional representation, a fair vote, the vote wedeserved.


5/8

NO2AVs appeal to stupidity

{Jasper Pearce]In a referendum season that has dramatically failed to

excite public interest, the most interesting parts of the debateso far have been the populist sensationalism of the NOcampaign. Currently, the stance can be summarised thus -Alternative Vote (AV) is both a more proportional and lessproportional system than First Past The Post (FPTP), formsweak governments but exaggerates majorities, and createsbroad, centrist candidates in better-performing extremistparties, which hold the balance of power in a parliamentwhich is hung, drawn and quartered.

A political panacea, AV isnt - it is not the biggest shakeup of our democracy since 1832. It will be a modest changeto the way we vote, but a good one, and the only argumentsmade against have so far been wild and contradictory. Tothe chagrin of the NO campaigners, the public doesnt seemquite so opposed to an electoral system that was chuckedinto the Coalition agreement in the rush to get Nick Clegg hisministerial salary.

Normal election tactics dont seem to work for the NOcampaign: there is no enemy to besmirch, no vestedeconomic interest to fly a flag for, nor a real emotional issueto exploit. There is no real stereotype of a swing voter in thisreferendum and, worse still, people who want to change the

voting system are far more likely to bother turning up to votethan those dont. In order to prevail in this referendum, theNO campaign would have to reach beyond the normal class-based electoral strategies, because in an irony reminiscent of AV, this Tory-led, run and funded campaign has to appealfor over 50% of the vote.

The NO campaign intends to keepthe voter as uninformed as possible...to stir up as much fear as possibleand prevent [AVs] accuraterepresentation.

The first of these efforts seems to be what could becalled an appeal to stupidity. The NO campaign intends tokeep the voter as uninformed as possible about the votingsystem being discussed, to stir up as much fear as possibleand prevent its accurate representation. AV isnt acomplicated system, in any sense of the word, nor will itrequire electronic voting machines or divert funding from theNHS, and the cost of a referendum will be the same whether it passes or fails.

One accusation that just wont go away is that AV isbetter for extremist parties, and the British National Party. If the BNP are an example of an extremist party whose viewsare so outrageous that they would never get enough votesunder FPTP to win a constituency, then under AV their

election would become nigh on impossible. Under AV, theBNP could never convince over 50% of a constituency togive them their support. To suggest that AV will let far-rightparties with racist views have more influence is to suggestthat over 50% of the British public are definitively racist.

Another theory is that AV will lead to consensuscandidates with broad, likeable policies that aim to winsecond preferences. All AV does is ensure that the votes castreflect the preferences of the electorate, rather than thepreference that they would go for if another similar candidate wasnt a more likely winner (as in FPTP). If thatleads to candidates appealing to the greater electoraterather than just voter bases, then thats a good thing, andis a basic premise of democratic election. AV is seen by itsopponents in the Conservative and Labour Parties as a goodenough system to elect their party leader. It seems that whenits within their own party, and doesnt affect their politicalhegemony, they care about whether voting is fair or not.

The Conservatives are employing conscious archaism,using the fact that FPTP has been used for hundreds of yearsin hundreds of countries as if its anything more than proof of how suitable it is for the vested interests of two-party systems.Any tactic will be employed to prevent the electorate seeingthis referendum for what it is: a choice between a better,fairer and more accurate electoral system, and the choice of an entire class of politicians who have benefited most fromFPTP.

A vote for the Alternative Votesystem is our only weapon...tothreaten the political superiority of the vested interest.

A recent poster pictured the result of a boxing match,with the caption under AV, the loser can win. #In a boxingmatch the result is patently the same under both FPTP andthe Alternative Vote. A more promising analogy would be amatch between three competitors, where one candidatestands at the edge and does little but wait for the two other candidates to tire. We live in a nation in which anincreasingly reactionary ruling party has always exploitedthe split in the vote that is necessitated by the existence of two broadly centre-left opposition parties, and has beenpropped up eternally by First Post the Post. A vote for theAlternative Vote system is our only weapon that is currentlyavailable to threaten the political superiority of the vestedinterest. On May 5th, we would do well to remember that .


6/8

AV - Not a credible alternative{Gordon Lee}

AV has worked well in Papua New Gunea because itspolitics were split along ethnic and tribal lines, before AV forcedparties to reach beyond their communal base to more voters for second preference votes. Specialists in voting systems know this,

and supports of AV promote AV on this criterion. But this is theexact opposite of the problems in Britain, where the threelargest parties are increasingly being criticised of being toosimilar. Under AV, parties are incentivised to say to supportersof other parties Look, we are not that different, so please putus as your second choice. In the end, parties become morecentrist, and voter choice is significantly reduced.

As the independent parliamentary report headed by Lord Jenkins in 1998

put it, AV is disproportionate and

dangerously unpredictable. Indeed, the benefits of AV are often not as clear as they

seem, and only under close scrutiny do they start to collapse.Supporters point to the deficiencies of the current system, anduphold AV as a silver bullet for current problems ranging aswide as unfair votes, low voter turnout, poor voter choice,tactical voting and disproportionality. Under FPTP, each voter has one single vote of confidence, and the candidate who isbest able to command the confidence of the electorate wins theelection. Much has been said about the limitations of FPTP, solets now turn our attention to AV.

Even the credibility of AV being a fair system is beingchallenged because it not only makes second and thirdpreference votes worth as much as first preference votes, but italso allows second and third preference votes to be counted ina totally arbitrary manner.

Lets examine a hypothetical (and likely) situation:

Candidate 1st Vote 2nd Vote

A 40 30 - C10 - B

B 30 25 - C5 - A

C 25 20 - B5 - A

Under AV, votes for candidate C will be redistributed andcandidate B wins the election with 50 votes (out of 95). Thereason why supporters of candidate C gets to make a secondvote is arbitrary (arising only because C got the least number of first preference votes), despite AV placing equal weightage onfirst and second preference votes. For if voters for candidate Agets their second preference votes redistributed, candidate Cwould win with 55 votes. One person one vote, and each voteof equal weight? That golden principle of fairness does not

seem to be upheld under AV.As the independent parliamentary report headed by Lord Jenkins in 1998 put it, AV is disproportionate anddangerously unpredictable. Because AV is still a one-member-one-constituency system, it cannot claim to be morerepresentative. In fact, empirical research into past electionsalso suggests that results would be distorted and could be moredisproportionate under AV than under FPTP - because of thenature of the AV voting system which Winston Churchill saidwas the stupidest, the least scientific and the most unreal. Thisunpredictability also leads to increased frequency of coalitionsforming after elections - with parties tearing up their manifestosand drafting new coalitions agreements to legitimise thebreaking of election promises.

Both voting system have their flaws - but I am not convincedthat AV is any better than the tried-and-tested FPTP. On balance,I would say that FPTP is a better system - and thats why I will bevoting no on the 5th of May.

Introduction to: The ReferendumThe Alternative Vote referendum was

agreed to as part of the CoalitionAgreement. The proposal for a referendumwas first presented in Parliament in July2010 and eventually gained Royal Assenton 16 February 2011 as part of the

Parliamentary Voting System andConstituencies Act. This will be only thesecond occasion that a referendum hasbeen taken throughout the whole of theUK; the first was in 1975. It will also be thefirst UK-wide referendum that is legallybinding on the executive branch of government, regardless of the result on 5thMay.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendumhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum


7/8

The SDSR: Rethinking defence{Jen McPherson}

Military intervention is now a key feature of the UKsforeign policy decision-making process, as demonstrated by thedecision by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) topass a resolution authorising a no-fly zone across Libya. #Thisdecision raises serious questions about whether or not thedefence cuts, as detailed in the Strategic Defence and SecurityReview (SDSR) last autumn, are justified.

These questions were raised in an open letter (published inthe Independent on Sunday earlier this month) signed by 50senior military figures, politicians and academics calling for theSDSR to be reopened in light of recent developments in NorthAfrica and the Middle East. The letter voices concerns that thereview seems to be have been driven by financial rather thanmilitary considerations.

The security landscape haschanged radically since the SDSRmapped out its grand plan...fivemonths ago.

Harold Wilson famously remarked that a week was along time in politics. The security landscape has changed

radically since the SDSR mapped out its grand plan of Securing Britain in an Age of Uncertainty five months ago. #Inthis Age of Uncertainty few could have foreseen the revolutionsparked by a fruit seller in Tunisia that would sweep throughoutthe Arab world.

There is an ideological choice to be made: the UK couldtake a back seat and sacrifice its role as a global leader following the fatally flawed interventionist policies over the pastdecade, or it could continue to take a more active role inforeign policy in the face of emerging humanitarian crises.

Following David Camerons decisive push for interventionin Libya, it seems that the coalition - for the time being - has

favoured the latter path, which appears increasingly at oddswith the defence cuts. # Alongside the deep cuts in militaryequipment (the HMS Ark Royal and Harrier jets havecontroversially been scrapped) the main concern is that of military overstretch given that the UK already has 10,000troops in Afghanistan.

Michael Clarke, director of the Royal United ServicesInstitute think-tank, has warned that in light of our ongoingcommitment in Afghanistan, The key issue is the enablers - theAWACs aircraft, refuelling aircraft, intelligence assets andSpecial Forces units acting as potential forward air controllers.#These are the assets that are in short supply andany long-term commitment would have an impact on the

availability of these in two theatres of operationssimultaneously.

Speaking to the BBC ahead of the UNSCs decision onThursday, senior Conservative politician David Davis voicedconcerns about the SDSR saying that it was time to go backand look at it again.

This might be easier said than done given that Labour lefta severe budget deficit of 36 billion in the MoD budget.Whilst this deficit must be dealt with, it is absolutely imperativethat the government does not limit our military capabilities.One issue that both the previous and current government havefailed to tackle seriously enough is that of Trident.

Throughout the past week, the worlds attention has beenfixed upon Japans unfolding humanitarian disaster followingthe countrys devastating earthquake and tsunami and resultingnuclear fallout. The only country in the world to haveexperien ced the sheer horro r of nuclear weapons isunsurprisingly a vehement campaigner for nuclear disarmament; a lesson from which UK governments willhopefully start to listen to one day.

Whether one takes a pro or anti-nuclear weapon stance, itappears difficult to reconcile the costs of an outdated nuclear arsenal, at an estimated 100 billion over the next 20 yearswhen put against the 36 billion shortfall in the defencebudget. Described as virtually irrelevant two years ago bythree retired military generals, it seems wasteful to pump somuch taxpayers money into w eapons that we w ould never even use in the first place.

The events in Libya and the wider Arab world havereignited the thorny issue of humanitarian military interventionin an age where our defence capabilities are being stretched totheir limits.#

It is evident in the 21st century age of Kofi Annans"responsibility to protect"#that the UK government must consider revising the SDSR sooner rather than later. If we fail to live upto this responsibility, we allow the blood of Rwanda, Darfur and countless other atrocities to continue to stain our humanconscience. {Originally published in The Student Journals}
http://www.iciss.ca/report-en.asphttp://www.iciss.ca/report-en.asphttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5531461.ecehttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5531461.ecehttp://www.iciss.ca/report-en.asphttp://www.iciss.ca/report-en.asphttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5531461.ecehttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5531461.ecehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12775452http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12775452http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12775452http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12775452http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/03/18/uk-libya-britain-military-idUKTRE72H7KY20110318?pageNumber=2http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/03/18/uk-libya-britain-military-idUKTRE72H7KY20110318?pageNumber=2http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/03/18/uk-libya-britain-military-idUKTRE72H7KY20110318?pageNumber=2http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/03/18/uk-libya-britain-military-idUKTRE72H7KY20110318?pageNumber=2http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/03/18/uk-libya-britain-military-idUKTRE72H7KY20110318?pageNumber=2http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/03/18/uk-libya-britain-military-idUKTRE72H7KY20110318?pageNumber=2http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/03/18/uk-libya-britain-military-idUKTRE72H7KY20110318?pageNumber=2http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/03/18/uk-libya-britain-military-idUKTRE72H7KY20110318?pageNumber=2http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/03/18/uk-libya-britain-military-idUKTRE72H7KY20110318?pageNumber=2http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/03/18/uk-libya-britain-military-idUKTRE72H7KY20110318?pageNumber=2http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/03/18/uk-libya-britain-military-idUKTRE72H7KY20110318?pageNumber=2http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/03/18/uk-libya-britain-military-idUKTRE72H7KY20110318?pageNumber=2http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/03/18/uk-libya-britain-military-idUKTRE72H7KY20110318?pageNumber=2http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/03/18/uk-libya-britain-military-idUKTRE72H7KY20110318?pageNumber=2http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/03/18/uk-libya-britain-military-idUKTRE72H7KY20110318?pageNumber=2http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/03/18/uk-libya-britain-military-idUKTRE72H7KY20110318?pageNumber=2http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/random-fallacious-arrogant-the-governments-confused-defence-strategy-2233612.htmlhttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/random-fallacious-arrogant-the-governments-confused-defence-strategy-2233612.htmlhttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/random-fallacious-arrogant-the-governments-confused-defence-strategy-2233612.htmlhttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/random-fallacious-arrogant-the-governments-confused-defence-strategy-2233612.htmlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/18/un-security-council-resolution-key-pointshttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/18/un-security-council-resolution-key-points


8/8

Unveiling the Burqa Ban{Siraj Datoo}

The shocking situation in France would be laughable if itwasnt quite so scary. The so-called burqa ban wronglynamed by the way came into force earlier this month. The ban,which does ban the burqa, in fact targets the niqab, a garmentsome Muslim women wear to cover their face (the burqa alsoadds a layer of mesh where the niqab would leave a gap).

Well, I should be able to see the face of the person Imspeaking to, you might say. Engaging in a conversation withsomeone whose face is covered is difficult and uneasy, you wouldimagine. It appears that most of France imagines this also. After all, with conservative figures suggesting that only 2,000 Frenchwomen (of a total population of 62 million) wear the garment,the majority of those living in France will have barely (if at all)noticed the garment.

What strikes me as most odd is that the statistics given aboveare simply estimates leaked to a French national newspaper, LeFigaro. Surely if a countrys governing officials wish to debate acontroversial issue, one that affects a persons basic rights, itwould be a modest assumption that there would have been areport giving us official statistics.

Since it doesnt exist, is it safe to say that a report wascreated and not publicised upon the revelation that, as somefigures suggest, there are only 350 niqab-clad women in thecountry? I assume, then, the French public may not have reactedas well to their elected officials spending countless hours

debating a law that affects so few while the country faces aneconomic crisis and has an unemployment rate of 9.6%.

Yet the President of the French Republic, Nicolas Sarkozy,stands by his decision to ban the niqab. Indeed, in 2009 hedeclared that the burqa was not welcome in France. Butperhaps I am a little harsh on Sarkozy. Perhaps he really doescare about these 350 women. He says about the niqab thatFrance cannot accept in our country women imprisoned behinda mask, deprived of all social life of their identity.

He seems like such a caring man, does Monsieur lePrsident, looking out for these poor women by refusing them theright to dress how they wish. However, lets get it straight: the

Quran doesnt tell Muslim women to wear the niqab, this Iconcede. In fact, I would even go so far as saying that I have,once, found it challenging to talk to a woman wearing the niqab.But unlike the President of France, I respect these women enoughto give them the choice.

This leads us to question the niqab ban a little further. If awoman wears the niqab or burqa in public, they will be fined

$ 150 or forced to attending citizenship classes while if it is foundthat they have been forced to wear it, that person will besentenced to a years imprisonment and fined $ 30,000. Surely if the ban was to protect women, only the latter should be upheld.Otherwise the woman is choosing to wear the garment out of her own freedom and is thus being denied the liberty to do so. Thisleads me to ask why a woman would choose to wear this sign of enslavement?

Many who wear the niqab do so as they believe it is anindication of modesty practiced for their deity. Therefore thesewomen are wearing the niqab as a religious garment and itwould appear that France is in violation of Article 18 of theUnited Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, whichstates that everyone has the right to freedom of thought,conscience and religion: this right includes freedomto manifesthis religion. To add insult to injury Syria, who previously bannedthe niqab from private and public universities, have reversed their own law.

Yet while Bashar al-Assad has taken the opposing action tothat of his French counterpart, the reasons for doing so are

remarkably similar. In Syria, the turnaround is an attempt to quella political uprising; in France, its a meagre attempt to fashion apolitical miracle. Sarkozys approval rating is at its lowest point,29%, and the extreme right-wing National Fronts Marine le Penis just below at 28%.

It becomes quite apparent therefore that Sarkozy haspushed so vehemently for this bill because there are electionsnext year. Pandering to the escalating sense of Islamophobiawithin mainland France, Sarkozy has certainly chosen the righttarget; targeting Muslims has become a rather fashionable trendin France. Some months ago Le Pen compared Muslims prayingoutside a mosque as an occupying force, comparing their actionsto those of the Nazis in occupied France.

Indeed the grand rabbi Gilles Bernheim told Le Monde: "It'soften difficult to be a Muslim in France. This difficulty is worsetoday in this unhealthy climate, aggravated by talk that dividesrather than unites."

What is worse, appalling even, is that if Sarkozy truly caredabout the women he seems to be so passionately trying toprotect, he would have thought of the consequences of hisactions, the collateral damage of his political pandering if youmay. Those women who were forced into wearing the niqab - andlets not pretend they dont exist - will in fact face worseconditions now this law has come into force. After all, theyllsimply be forced to stay at home and out of the view of rest of the population.

Nicolas Sarkozy must now take the only morally acceptableoption and undo this law. But of course, with the elections nextyear, helping Muslims wont win him any votes. The only chanceof this law being overturned is by the European Council of Human Rights. Its the only way of protecting Sarkozy fromhimself.{Originally published in The Student Journals}
http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2009/09/09/01016-20090909ARTFIG00040-deux-mille-femmes-portent-la-burqa-en-france-.phphttp://www.sirajdatoo.com/2010/07/liberte-335-liberte-1.htmlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/14/sarkozy-villepin-manifesto-president-2012http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/14/sarkozy-villepin-manifesto-president-2012http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/14/sarkozy-villepin-manifesto-president-2012http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/14/sarkozy-villepin-manifesto-president-2012http://www.sirajdatoo.com/2010/07/liberte-335-liberte-1.htmlhttp://www.sirajdatoo.com/2010/07/liberte-335-liberte-1.htmlhttp://www.sirajdatoo.com/2010/07/liberte-335-liberte-1.htmlhttp://www.sirajdatoo.com/2010/07/liberte-335-liberte-1.htmlhttp://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2009/09/09/01016-20090909ARTFIG00040-deux-mille-femmes-portent-la-burqa-en-france-.phphttp://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2009/09/09/01016-20090909ARTFIG00040-deux-mille-femmes-portent-la-burqa-en-france-.php

Documents

Perspectives AV Special PDF