(bbc.co.uk)
A woman whom I had only very vaguely heard of, but of whom I read an interview with in today's
Guardian.I was by turns, bemused, shocked, annoyed, and left wondering how it is that those who start off right-wing end up very left wing, as opposed to those who start off left wing ending up very right-wing, which I find equally interesting.
It can't be so much a total beliefs of absolutes, as I am very committed to the principle of absolute truths and, by political definition, am a centerist. But then my political philosophy which has led me to the old right of the Labour Party (The values of Gaitskell, Healey, Hattersley, and Brown), is governed by my inate Christian belief that all human beings are fallible, occasionally downright stupid, and cannot be trusted to build utopias on Earth. It is that which has led me to being a 'Social Democrat', believing that a nations day-to-day life run mainly by the state, or by private enterprise, is doomed to failure because it is run by failing human beings.
And that is why I found Fox's views difficult and offensive. It doesn't properly take into account that people (and I am not being snobbishly patrician, I count myself here as well) have moral compasses that can go way off-kilter in certain circumstances.
For a start I found it unsettling that Fox and her Institute of Ideas are allegedly linked to American pro-gun groups, and had links in the past to a very nasty Trotskyist organisation.
She has also stood up for Gary Glitter downloading child porn, backed GM technology, and attacked multicultural society.
And at the root of it, Fox argues for the 'Freedom of the individual'. You see where that belief gets you when you take the idea by itself.
Fact is, decisions have cosnequences. The easy access to guns have had far reaching and damaging consequences. You only have to ask the families of those killed in Columbine, as well as widows of celebrities such as Yoko Ono and Ethel Kennedy to know that. As I said in an earlier post, some laws are there to protect society from the lack of self-control of others, not to deprive people of their general freedoms.
Then there are the Trotskyist groups. I have always looked at the far left and far right in this country with dripping, if not equal contempt. I have seen the damage their views have done, the scars they have left on people, the fear they cause, and the incalculable damage done to the political careers of those who worked hard to serve their respective communities. In the 1980s it was the Trotskyist faction
Millitant Tendency, which ripped at the heart of many Labour Party CLP's, damaged livelihoods, and harmed the decent hard work committed by many councils up and down the land. They also helped keep Margaret Thatcher in power, and with the creation of some of the dissatisfied right-wing of the Labour Party of the
SDP, helped make sure that there was no cohesive opposition to the Conservative Government. The damage caused by Millitant was well put by the then Labour Leader, Neil Kinnock at his speech at the Labour Party Conference in Bournemouth in 1985:
"I'll tell you what happens with impossible promises. You start with far fetched resolutions. They are then pickled into a rigid dogma, a code, and you go through the years sticking to that, out-dated, misplaced, irrelevant to the real needs, and you end in the grotesque chaos of a Labour council - a Labour council - hiring taxis to scuttle round a city handing out redundancy notices to its own workers."As for downloading child porn. Fox states that it is better than actual abuse!?!
To put it plainly, that is disgraceful. Generally speaking, thoughts and ideas can easily lead to actions. The damage done in child abuse can be incalculable and horrific. I only wonder if Fox is prepared to accept that her own ideas can have far fetched and damaging consequences.
When the photographer asked if he could take a photo of Fox next to some posters with suggestive words, Fox agreed to be photographed next to the words 'Rigor', 'Accesibility','Originality', 'Experience', but refused to be photographed next to the word 'Pragmatism'.
Typical of someone from the hard-left or hard-right, the inhability to realise that pragmatism and a strong moral compass is needed to help keep society alive and that whilst ideas are one thing, the falibility of human nature is something else.