Fiat justitia ruat caelum

Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss is under fire for having taken the chair to inquire into allegations of historic establishment cover up of child abuse, when her brother stands accused of being party to such cover up. There is indeed a prima facie conflict of interest here, and I've been thinking this one over all day, (off and on, among other things). Now I think I have reached a personal conclusion.

What needs inquiring into, (among other important things, but this one’s pretty central), is this: we had people in positions of authority and responsibility who are alleged to have been conflicted when they became aware of allegations of wrongdoing, but failed to pursue those allegations because that may have disadvantaged them in some way. Perhaps politically, perhaps in their career aspirations, perhaps because it threatened to bring into disrepute a social group to which they belonged. We've accepted these people into positions of authority and responsibility with the unspoken bargain that they should in return exercise such powers responsibly, for the benefit of wider society and not for personal protection or advancement.  And we've been let down: by cash for questions; by the MPs expenses scandal; by the failure to hold Jimmy Savile to account; by disgraceful cover ups over Hillsborough; by the phone hacking scandal.

It seems to me that there will be no one in the establishment with the authority to inquire into this matter, who is not tainted in some way by association.  And despite the appearance of conflicted interests, that is not what we need. What is needed is someone who has the integrity to rigorously inquire into these allegations despite it being potentially damaging to the good name of a close family member, and not someone whose potential embarrassment remains concealed.

All commentators who seem well enough informed to judge her describe Dame EBS as possessing impeccable integrity and unparalleled qualifications to chair this inquiry.  And continuing to chair the inquiry would give her the opportunity to set an example to those pillars of the establishment and inquire into this matter as rigorously as they all perhaps should have done all those years ago, and damn the consequences.

I think she should proceed, and show them what integrity looks like, because it's a lesson many in the establishment need to learn.

Profile: Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss
Fiat justitia ruat caelum

Halal or Not Halal? That is the Question.

Today's news is full of stories that Halal meat is being sold in the UK without being labelled as such. Now let's get this clear: according to the BBC, 90% of UK Halal meat is from animals which have been pre-stunned, so they conform to legal requirements without the religious exemption. So what's the issue?

During the Foot & Mouth crisis, having seen videos of a man running around a field with a bolt gun after a sheep, I decided to look into legal slaughter practices, (he should have been imprisoned in my opinion), and in doing so I also looked into Halal practices.

The biggest issue for me, way bigger than whether someone speaks magic spells over my food, is that correctly carried out, to the spirit and letter of the law, legal slaughter in the UK is as humane as it's reasonably practical to be. And in my view it's far preferable to death from predation or disease in the wild.

The problem I have is that human nature does not pre-dispose us to treat other humans, let alone other animals, with the dignity, respect and humanity required when there is so much potential for suffering. So we need far greater safeguards against the darker side of our nature in the slaughtering process. I have some in mind, which include routine oversight by independent observers, but the cost would be unacceptable to many people who just want a cheap meal to feed their families.

There are three main requirements for the practice of Halal slaughter: ritual cleanliness; hygienic cleanliness; and minimising the suffering of the animal being slaughtered. Whatever you think of Islam today, these requirements clearly underlie Halal practices and they are entirely consistent with the best ethical practice in humane animal slaughter.

Considering the time when these requirements were established, there was not the knowledge of disease causes we have today, and the distinction between ritual and hygienic cleanliness was entirely blurred. Speaking magic spells over the animal was just as important as ensuring that the animal did not have a communicable disease. The strict requirements of the blade, and the manner in which it is used, are clearly intended to minimise pain and bring about unconsciousness as quickly as possible, both requirements for humane slaughter.

The prohibition on pre-stunning prevents botched attempts which could cause unimaginably greater suffering than a clean Halal kill. And given the state of knowledge over a thousand years ago, when these requirements were founded, I cannot in all conscience condemn it. And having read the scientific literature examining both sides, I find it hard even to insist on pre-stunning, but on balance I do support it.

So, the Halal requirements for cleanliness and the humane treatment of animals are precisely the same as those which underlie our legal requirements today. If Halal practices could be refined in the light of new scientific evidence, then I have no doubt that they would allow carefully prescribed pre-stunning, and place less emphasis on magic spells. Halal practices were introduced for precisely the same reasons we want humane slaughter today, and dogmatically holding to the letter of scripture, while denying improvements in the light of new knowledge, which support its spirit and clear purpose, can be neither just nor holy.

According to the BBC, 90% of UK Halal meat is from animals which have been pre-stunned, so they conform to legal requirements. There is no legal prohibition on magic spells, since we all know they do nothing so cannot possibly do us harm. Therefore, I would be perfectly content to buy and eat Halal meat from animals treated according to secular law, including careful pre-stunning, with or without the magic spells and added Halal requirements, and whether labelled as such or not.

The final issue troubles me as a secular Humanist: compare two circumstances.

1) The legal, ritual slaughter of animals by a devoutly religious person, who believes he is being watched over by an invisible master who requires the animal to be treated with respect.

2) The slaughter by the hand of the kind of person I can imagine applying for and doing the job of slaughterman in a secular abattoir, without independent oversight.

In the light of this comparison, and knowledge of the requirements for Halal slaughter and secular slaughter, I do have a hard time condemning Halal practice.

This is an emotive subject, but I do have one request. Before condemning my heresy, please do read up on the details and argue from a position of knowledge of the subject. Then please feel free to weigh in.

The Atheist's Tale

Who has the burden of proof for an extraordinary claim?  Those who make the claim or those who challenge the claim?

At first, it is quite reasonable to give benefit of the doubt to a man who makes a claim, such as "I have a unicorn in my garden". After all, we have not searched his garden and have no proof that he has no unicorn, and it seems reasonable to take the word of a man who has not been shown to lie. So reasonably, we take his word at face value and allow that he may indeed have a unicorn in his garden.

When we visit his home, we are interested to see the unicorn, but when asked the man says he has a big garden and the unicorn isn't around the house at the moment, but it is there nonetheless. We're disappointed, of course, but we have no reason to disbelieve him.

Later the man makes a moral judgement about our behaviour, such as "it is wrong to eat wheat on a Wednesday", and when asked why this is so, the man replies that his unicorn told him so. We are irritated by such judgement, and surprised that not only this man claims to have a unicorn, but that it can speak also. So we ask to see this unicorn and ask why it is wrong to eat wheat on a Wednesday. We search the garden with the man and find no unicorn, but have no proof that none exists. When challenged to produce the unicorn, the man now claims that the unicorn is invisible, and is in all parts of the garden at the same time.

Now the man's claim is looking extraordinary for a number of reasons:
1. We have never seen a unicorn, and they are popularly believed to be fictional;
2. We have never heard an animal speak, and most people accept that only humans speak;
3. The man changed his story to suit his needs as we enquired further about his talking unicorn;
4. We have never had experience of invisible animals, and invisibility has never been demonstrated; and
5. The concept of something being everywhere at once appears contradictory.

So we conclude that on the balance of probability, the man's claim is bogus and put the onus on him to prove the existence of his unicorn.

We tell the man not to be so silly and judgemental about our wheat eating habits, and go about our business, trying to avoid aggravating someone who appears not to have a firm grasp on reality.

Then we find that the man is a teacher is our children's school and is telling them that his unicorn is real, that they should not eat wheat on Wednesdays and other rules about how to live their lives which he cannot substantiate, other than by claiming his invisible unicorn told him so, and the children must believe him.

So now we are angry that our children are being indoctrinated and ask the school to stop him. When we find that the school governors are unicorn believers too, that none of them can prove the existence of unicorns either, but fully support the indoctrination of our children, we are outraged. We speak to local politicians and media, and mount a campaign to stop this silliness. But then the government, many members of whom turn out to believe in pixies or leprechauns, equally without foundation, object that we are trying to restrict people's right to believe what they choose to believe, and criticise us for being arrogant and intolerant.

We hold our heads in our hands, wondering how these people can be so deluded, and how we can have our children taught math, English and science, without all this mumbo-jumbo. We realise that it is we who are in the minority, and the world deluded.

What should we do?

The Great Debate

Scientists, religious advocates and lay people have long held as truth the view that science can describe how the world works, but can say nothing about the purpose of life or the values by which we should live.

Advances in neuroscience and evolutionary psychology have been pushing against this barrier for some years now and finally seem to be breaking through.  We may well be at the brink of a new scientific revolution, one which sees for the first time a rational basis for values and ethics and allows people to choose religion or not without the fear of undermining moral values.  Indeed such a rational basis for values may at last give us a sound progressive morality without the need to hold on to archaic origin myths, the authority of morally corrupt religious leaders and without the need quietly to brush under the carpet some of the indefensible practices advocated in scripture.

A new rational ethics can extend beyond believers in 'our religion' to encompass all people, and maybe even all sentient animals as well.  And if different capacities for suffering can be understood scientifically, then different values can be applied to mice and men without logical inconsistency.

Is such expectation justified?  Can values have a scientific basis at all?  Can science tell us what is right and wrong?  This last question is the basis for a debate which recently took place at the Arizona State University, and is presented in the videos below.  The total running time is 2 hours, in 7 sections, and is well worth it for thinking people interested in science, religion, philosophy or ethics.

For a short-cut summary, scroll down to Steven Pinker's 12 min address which I think cuts through to the heart of the matter.



Part 1 - Introduction by Roger Bingham then Sam Harris



Part 2 - Patricia Smith Churchland



Part 3 - Peter Singer



Part 4 - Lawrence Krauss



Part 5 - Simon Blackburn



Part 6 - Steven Pinker




Part 7 - The Debate Panel