Stop ‘balancing’ articles when the evidence on either side doesn’t match up

Plans to switch off street lights over night by Essex County Council have met fierce opposition in the form of Charles March, a pensioner from Pitsea. He’s started a campaign against it on the basis that:

the plans…would be a nightmare and violent crime would inevitably rocket.

the move would not save much taxpayers’ money and would have little effect on the environment.

They’re talking nonsense about the environment. It won’t have the slightest effect in the overall picture.

When the council has to deal with billions of pounds, it’s hardly going to save that much money either.

What Mr March fails to do is qualify his claims with any tangible evidence. In actual fact, the switching off of street lights has already happened in suburban Essex, with:

a police report [showed] that crime in the two districts which trialled the scheme has actually fallen

Another report, this time by Greater Manchester Police, pointed out that lighting can actually be the catalyst for criminal activity:

In certain situations, lighting may aid or encourage congregation, crime and disorder.

I’m not saying that the concerns about criminal activity increasing shouldn’t be aired or addressed, my argument is that with a little bit of research on the part of the journalist, they can make an informed judgement on how to present the article. The Council does get a chance to reply to Mr March, whereby they highlight that there isn’t a correlation between an increase in criminal activity and street lights being switched off, as well as them saving a third on energy costs if they do partake in the scheme – blowing Mr March’s arguments out of the water:

The council said that in areas where the scheme was trialled, the number of crimes fell, while costs were saved because electricity usage fell by a third, which was better for the environment.

Scott Wilson, county council spokesman, said a safer communities committee was looking at whether the scheme could be applied countywide, but had not made a decision yet.

He said: “There are all sorts of exceptions. It’s only areas that are least used.

Main roads, town centre lights and lights around the town centre would not be turned off.”

The weight that the original Echo story gave to Mr March’s criticisms was far too much. They led with the headline:

Street lights switch off ‘will cause more crime’

It implies that the assertion of a definite increase in crime is given by a credible authority, when in reality it’s just an ordinary member of the public who is basing their arguments on no statistics or factual evidence. The Echo also publishes Mr March’s claim that crime would “inevitably sky-rocket”. Why would it? What is he basing this on? The Echo should have challenged him on this, and if he provided nothing to substantiate what he is saying then write it into the article.

By giving a ‘fair’ representation of both sides you over legitimise arguments that aren’t very well founded. By giving equal weight, or even more weight towards Mr March as it appears, you do the public an injustice by allowing them to make a poorly informed judgement.

Sorry Evening Echo, you got it wrong.

Sarkozy and burqas – the right outcome via the wrong approach

Scooting around the blogosphere on my lunch break today led me to a Conservative stalwart blog called Letters from a Tory. There’s an open letter to Nicolas Sarkozy, praising the French President for speaking out against the burka and other Islamic religious wear and making the first steps to banning them. Here’s the original Daily Mail report. The reason this has come to the fore is because:

A group of 58 MPs from the Left and Right has called on Parliament to take action against  women who are adopting what they called oppressive head-to-toe Islamic dress that ‘breaches individual freedoms’

LFT states:

First and foremost, you deserve congratulations for even considering this issue.  Unfortunately in the UK, no-one can mention the word ‘Islam’ without being accused of racism or lacking cultural awareness or some other complete rubbish.

This is typical rhetoric from those not willing to listen to the other side of the argument. Frequently from the right-wingers we hear bleating about what they ‘aren’t allowed to say’, as they bathe themselves in a swamp of paranoia. You can mention Islam, create a debate about the legitimacy of certain aspects of Islam in a progressive society and have a full and frank discussion without it amounting to being called a ‘racist’. LFT is yet another person in a band of many who rule out a debate before they’ve even started, rendering themselves thought-criminals and creating a huff about nothing. The opposition you believe to be up against is a fabrication of your own mind, LFT. Once you’ve finished sulking in the corner you can join the rest of us for a real debate.

On the issue of the burqa, LFT eventually brings himself to his argument:

On the issue of Muslim attire, I don’t think there are any laws in Islam which state the women have to wear a burka or niqab.  In fact, there seems to be some debate within the Islamic world as to whether they are needed at all – some think they are, some don’t, hence the number of variations in the style of headdresses and outfits.  Personally, I don’t see how anyone can complain about headscarves because there are no grounds to claim that women are being victimised in any way, and I’m sure many Muslim women are proud to assert their identity in this way.  However, telling women to cover almost their entire bodies in front of men they don’t know is really pushing the boundary.

How can this be anything other than an attempt to repress women and their individuality?  Obviously the burka is more common in Islamic states such as Saudi Arabia and I don’t think many people would question the submissive role that women play in such societies.  Personally, I have no wish to see such attitudes in any Western country and there is a strong argument to ban the burka and similar attire on these grounds.

LFT, in a way, undoes his own argument when he claims that their isn’t any Islamic law that dictates a burqa to be a necessity. Well, perhaps this means that women have more of a choice than you’d lead us to believe?

In any case, how would banning the burqa make any difference to how the patriarchs of the Islamic families who have burqa-clad women feel? Surely more efforts should be spent on getting the moderate Islamic community to work with the stricter faction, in a bid to persuade rather than coerce. Banning them would cause a ruction and greater isolation of strict Muslims, who already live far enough away from mainstream society as it is. Why do we want to push them further back when it’s bringing them closer that will ultimately lead to progress?

I don’t particularly want to see women wearing burqas. But banning them is just a superficial emancipation of the women who do wear them. It’s sweeping the issue under the carpet and offers no real solution to the fundamental issue. Taking measures to outlaw certain religious practices pushes people away, creating even more of a ‘them and us’ situation. If Sarkozy really did care about the female repression that it represents then he’d target the root cause.

The real issue is why people feel they should put a burka on – and that’s what we need to tackle.

Win that battle and there’d be no need to legislate.

Politics in the National Curriculum is a must

Politics needs to be taught in schools from the age of 11 onwards as a compulsory subject. If we want to start engaging the population in political discussion in a bid to defeat the tide of apathy, we need to get people involved at an early age. Teaching children the basics at the start – the history of the vote (Chartists, Suffragettes), how our system works, how the EU works, different types of political beliefs and so on – would ensure that we don’t have a wave of ignorance towards our democratic system and politics in general. Pupils, once they have the background knowledge of the ‘way it works’, can debate with each other about current affairs. This will, guided by a teacher as a mediator, help children to learn about all sides of an argument, allowing an informed opinion. It would quash extremism, because extremist belief is based around ignorance or bigotry – both on the left and right.

Getting kids fired up about current affairs rather than celebrity or sports gossip is essential to our future as a country. If we can create a system whereby we get a generation of politically informed adults, whose opinions have foundations in core knowledge of politics and an understanding of the opposing views, we’d find ourselve in a much more progressive society, free from the intolerance and bigotry that plagues us today.