You cannot own an idea, and thus cannot hold patents, especially to vital drugs  An individual's idea, so long as it rests solely in his mind or is kept safely hidden, belongs to him. When he disseminates it to everyone and makes it public, it becomes part of the public domain, and belongs to anyone who can use it. If individuals or firms want to keep something a secret, like a production method, then they should keep it to themselves and be careful with how they disseminate their product. One should not, however, expect some sort of ownership to inhere in an idea one has, since no such ownership right exists1. No one can own an idea. Thus recognizing something like a property right over something like a drug formula is contrary to reason, since doing so gives monopoly power to individuals who may not make efficient or equitable use of their asset. Physical property is a tangible asset, and thus can be protected by tangible safeguards. Ideas do not share this right to protection, because an idea, once spoken, enters the public domain and belongs to everyone. This should apply all the more with vital drugs that are fundamentally for the public good by improving health.  1Fitzgerald, Brian and Anne Fitzgerald. 2004. Intellectual Property: In Principle. Melbourne: Lawbook Company.


The current patent system is unjust and creates perverse incentives that benefit large pharmaceutical companies at the expense of ordinary citizens  The current drug patent regime is largely designed to benefit and shield the profits of large pharmaceutical companies. This is due to the fact that most of the laws on drug patents were written by lobbyists and voted upon by politicians in the pay of those firms. The pharmaceutical industry is simply massive and has one of the most powerful lobbies in most democratic states, particularly the United States. The laws are orchestrated to contain special loopholes, which these firms can exploit in order to maximize profits at the expense of the taxpayer and of justice. For example, through a process called "evergreening", drug firms essentially re-patent drugs when they near expiration by patenting certain compounds or variations of the drug1. This can extend the life of some patents indefinitely ensuring firms can milk customers at monopoly prices long after any possible costs of research or discovery are recouped. A harm that arises from this is the enervating effect that patents can generate in firms. When the incentive is to simply rest on one's patents, waiting for them to expire before doing anything else, societal progress is slowed. In the absence of such patents, firms are necessarily forced to keep innovating to stay ahead, to keep looking for profitable products and ideas. The free flow of ideas generated by the abolition of drug patents will invigorate economic dynamism.  1 Faunce, Thomas. 2004. "The Awful Truth About Evergreening". The Age. Available:


Production of generic drugs reduce medical costs by allowing increased production and the development of superior production methods, increasing market efficiency  The sale of generic drugs invariably reduces costs to consumers. This is due to two reasons. It may be the case that an individual or firm with a patent, essentially a monopoly right to the production of something, may not have the ability to efficiently go about meeting demand for it. Patents slow, or even stop the dissemination of the production methods, especially when a patent-holder is unwilling to license production to others1. Such an outcome is deleterious to society, as with no restrictions on drug production an efficient producer, or producers, will emerge to meet the needs of the public, producing an amount of drugs commensurate with demand, and thus equilibrating market price with that demand2. This market equilibration is impossible under conventional patent laws, as it is in the interest of firms to withhold production and to engage in monopolist rent-seeking from consumers3. This leads firms to deliberately under-produce, which they have been shown to do in many cases, as for example the case of Miacalcic, a drug used to treat Paget's Disease, in which its producer deliberately kept production down in order to keep prices high4. When a firm is given monopoly power over a drug it has the ability to abuse it, and history shows that is what they are wont to do. By allowing the production of generic drugs, this monopoly power is broken and people can get the drugs they need at costs that are not marked far above their free market value.  1 Kinsella, Stephan. 2010. "Patents Kill: Compulsory Licenses and Genzyme's Life-Saving Drug". Mises Institute. Available: 2Stim, Rishand. 2006. Profit from Your Idea: How to Make Smart Licensing Decisions. Berkeley: Nolo. 3 Lee, Timothy. 2007. "Patent Rent-Seeking". Cato at Liberty. Available: 4 Flanders Today. 2010. "Big Pharma Denies Strategic Shortages". Flanders Today.


When generic drugs are legalized firms and individuals no longer feel the incentive to misallocate resources to the race to patent new drugs and to monitor existing patents, or to spend resources stealing from one another  Patent regimes cause firms to inefficiently allocate resources. One such inefficiency arises from the duplication of effort by firms seeking to develop the same or very similar drugs, though only the first to do so may profit from it due to the winner-takes-all patent system. This leads to brutal races and excessive expenditure of resources to be first over the line and to monopolize the production, at least for a time. These races can thus lead to efforts by firms to steal research from one another, thus resulting in further wastes of resources in engaging and attempting to prevent corporate espionage. Another serious inefficiency arises in the production of similar products to existing ones, seeking to get around existing patents. Such has been the case for years in the pharmaceutical industry, which has succeeded, for example, in curing erectile dysfunction dozens of times. An overemphasis on such spinning off of similar products is the result of patent-generated inefficiency 1. The inefficiency does not end with production, however, as firms likewise devote great amounts of resources and effort to the development of non-duplicable products, in monitoring for infringement, and in prosecuting offenders, all of which generates huge costs and little or no return 2. Furthermore, the deterrent effect to patent piracy generated by all the efforts of the state and firms has proven generally minimal. Clearly, in the absence of patent protection for pharmaceuticals, markets and firms will behave more efficiently. This is shown by the introduction of generic antiretroviral drugs for treating AIDS where the introduction of generic drugs forced the price of the branded drugs down from $10439 to $931 in September/October 2000 3.  1 Gabb, Sean. 2005. "Market Failure and the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Proposal for Reform". National Health Federation. Available: 2 World Intellectual Property Organization. 2011. "Emerging Issues in Intellectual Property". Available: 3 Avert.org, "AIDS, Drug Prices and Generic Drugs",


Patent rights allow firms to more readily release their products and methods into the public domain, particularly through licensing  Without patent protection, innovative and enterprising firms lacking the capacity to market successfully or efficiently produce new drugs might develop new drugs and never release them, since it would simply result in others profiting from their efforts. After all, no one likes to see others profit by their hard work, and leaving them nothing; such is tantamount to slavery. Patent protection encourages the release of new ideas and products to the public, which serves to benefit society generally1. The main mechanism for this is the system of licensing, by which firs can retain their right of ownership over a drug while essentially renting the ability to produce it to firms with productive capacities that would better capitalize on the new product. Furthermore, the disclosure of ideas to the public allows firms to try to make the product better by "inventing around" the initial design, or by exploiting it once the term of the patent expires2. If the drug formula never enters the public, it might never do so, leaving society bereft of a potentially valuable asset.  1 Rockwell, Llewellyn. 2011. "The Google Pharm Case". Mises Daily. Available: 2 Business Line. 2007. "Patents Grant Freedom to Invent Around". Hindu Business Line. Available:


Robust drug patent laws incentivize investment of time and money in developing new products  When a real chance of profit exists in the development of a new product or drug, people and firms put the effort into developing and creating them. The incentive to profit drives a great deal of people's intellectual endeavors. Research and development, for example, forms a major part of industries' investment, as they seek to create new products and inventions that will benefit consumers, and thus society as a whole. Research and development is extremely costly, however. The US pharmaceutical industry alone spends tens of billions of dollars every year on researching new drugs1. The fear of theft, or of lack of profit stemming from such research, will serve as a powerful disincentive to investment. Without the protection of patents, new drugs lose much of their value, since a second-comer on the field can simply take the formula and develop the same product without the heavy costs of research involved, leaving the innovative company worse off than its copycat competitor. This will lead to far less innovation, and will hamper companies currently geared toward innovative and progressive products. Patent protection is particularly important to companies with high fixed costs and low marginal costs, such as pharmaceutical firms. Without the guarantee of ownership over intellectual products, the incentive to invest in their development is diminished as they will not be guaranteed a payback for their research costs as a competitor could simply take the product off them. Within a robust patents system, firms compete to produce the best product for patenting and licensing that will give them a higher market share and allow them to reap high profits. These incentives lead firms to "invent around" one another's patents, leading to gradual improvements in drugs and treatments, benefiting all consumers2. Without patents the drugs companies are trapped in a kind of prisoners' dilemma where both are individually better off by refusing to innovate, yet both suffer if neither innovates. Patents are the solution to this: if a company innovates, it alone can reap the rewards of the new invention3. In the absence of patent protection there is no incentive to develop new drugs, meaning in the long run more people will suffer from diseases and ailments that might have been cured were it profitable to invest in developing them. Clearly, patent protection is essential for a dynamic, progressive pharmaceutical industry.  1 Congressional Budget Office. 2006. Research and Development in the Pharmaceutical Industry". The Congress of the United States. Available: 2 Nicol, Dianne and Jane Nielsen. 2003. "Patents and Medical Biotechnology: Empirical Analysis of Issues Facing the Australian Industry". Center for Law and Genetics Occasional Paper 6. Available: 3 Yale Law & Technology. 2011, "Patents: Essential, if flawed", Available:


The product of a firm's intellectual endeavor is the property of that firm, and it deserves to profit from it  When a firm directs individuals to mix their labor with its capital or other resources, part of that firm's identity inheres in the product that arises from the effort. This is the origin of, and fundamental philosophical justification for, property rights. Property rights are an unquestioned mainstay of life in all developed countries, and are an essential prerequisite for stable markets to develop and function1. The law protects patent rights in much the same way as more conventional physical property, as well it should. Individuals and firms generating ideas and using their effort to produce an intangible good, such as a new drug formula, have a property right on those ideas and the products that arise from them. It is the effort to produce a real good, albeit an intangible one, that marks the difference between an idea in someone's head that he does not act up, and intellectual property that can be protected by a patent. Developing a new drug is a very intensive endeavor, taking time, energy, and usually a considerable amount of financial investment2. The cost of developing a new drug varies widely, from a low of $800 million to nearly $2 billion per drug and is rising3. People and firms deserve as a matter of principle to benefit from the products of the effort of creation. For this reason, stealing intellectual property, which developing generic drugs is, is the same as stealing an actual physical product. Each is a real thing, even if one can be touched while the other is intangible in a physical sense. As a matter of principle, property rights can be assigned to intangible assets like drug formulae, and in practice they are a necessity to many firms' financial survival.  1Fitzgerald, Brian and Anne Fitzgerald. 2004. Intellectual Property: In Principle. Melbourne: Lawbook Company. 2 Congressional Budget Office. 2006. Research and Development in the Pharmaceutical Industry". The Congress of the United States. Available: 3 Masia, Neal, 2008, "The Cost of Developing a New Drug", Focus on Intellectual Property Rights, America.gov, Available:


Generic drugs often prove to be less effective than their brand name counterparts, and can even be dangerous  Generic drugs are meant to retain a substantial degree of bioequivalence with their brand name predecessors. Yet, even under strict testing laws in this regard, generic drugs have on several cases been shown to manifest side effects not present in their parent products. For example, a generic version of Wellbutrin XL, an anti-depressant, that was ostensibly chemically equivalent to the brand name drug, caused suicidal episodes in several users1. This demonstrates that no amount of chemical testing can guarantee true bioequivalence, and thus generic drugs cannot be considered as identical to brand name drugs in terms of safety. While improving testing of generics would go some way toward fixing this problem, it would not do so entirely, as the market for new drugs will be so greatly widened with the approval of generic production that the cost of screening will be very high and the likelihood of poor knock-offs reaching consumers, particularly in the developing world where screening is less robust, is increased substantially2. Brand name drugs may be more expensive, but their safety is more thoroughly guaranteed. Flooding the market with cheap, potentially dangerous alternative drugs helps no one but the undertaker.  1 Childs, Dan. 2007. "Generic Drugs: Dangerous Differences?". ABC News. Available: 2 Mercurio, Bryan. 2007. "Resolving the Public Health Crisis in the Developing World: Problems and Barriers of Access to Essential Medicines". Northwestern University Journal of International Human Rights. Available:


Although there are many accounts of the efficacy of alternative cancer treatments, not one has been demonstrated to work in a clinical trial  The National Centre for Conventional and Alternative Medicines has spent over $2.5bn on research since 1992. The Dutch government funded research between 1996 and 2003. Alternative therapies have been tested in mainstream medical journals and elsewhere. Not only have thousands of research exercises failed to prove the medical benefit ”alternative” treatments for severe and terminal diseases, serious peer-reviewed studies have routinely disproved them.  It’s all well and good to pick at mistakes in individual studies. Indeed, this tactic often forms the mainstay of pleas for legitimacy made by members of the alternative medical community. However, the odds against such consistently negative results would be extraordinary.  By contrast, conventional medicine only prescribes medicines and treatments that are proven, and vigorously proven, to work.


Many alternative remedies, such as homeopathy, offer nothing but a false hope and can discourage patients from consulting a doctor with what may be serious symptoms  There are good reasons why new therapies are tested in scientific trials first, rather than just released on the public that it might work. The first is to weed out side-effects but the other is that if you give most people a medicine they will, not unreasonably, expect it to make them better.  An entire industry has grown out of alternative medicines. No doubt many alternative practitioners are well meaning, but this does not change the fact that people are making money out of something that, as far as anyone can determine, is basically snake oil.  Although many people take both alternative and established treatments, there are a growing number of patients who reject conventional medical wisdom ( there’s an account of one such case here [i] ) in cases that prove fatal the availability of alternative medicines raises serious ethical and legal concerns, and also undermines the stringent regimes of monitoring and supervision that qualified medical professionals are subjected to..  [i] David Gorski. “Death by ‘Alternative Medicine”: Who’s to blame?”. Science-Based Medicine 2008.


Overwhelmingly alternative therapies are used in conjunction with established remedies - oddly the latter tends not to get the credit for the miracle cure  Thankfully only 4.4% of the 60million or so Americans who say they use alternative therapies rely on them exclusively. It is odd that in the cases of anecdotal accounts of the success of alternative medicines this statistic is rarely mentioned [i] .  Equally, the impact of other treatment which may have been used by patients eager to credit complementary and alternative medicines with curing their conditions, tend not to get a look in, neither do the relative successes of conventional medicine.  This is probably why in every trial alternative medicine has a success rate of between 0% and 0%. By contrast there needs only be one instance of harm caused to demonstrate that this motion must stand. Interestingly, although conventional medicine publishes its mistakes in an effort to correct them, nothing similar exists for alternatives. Moreover, there are many accounts of fatalities caused by alternatives – both directly and indirectly through delaying accurate diagnosis as seen above (Oh, the same applies to animals too [ii] ).  The food supplements industry alone is worth $250 a year worldwide, with little examination of the medical impact of merrily shoving things into your system that were bought at WalMart or Tesco.  [i] JA Astin “Why patients use alternative medicine: results of a national survey” Journal of the American Medical Association 279 (19) 1548-53. May 1998.  [ii]


The pharmaceutical and medical industries are worth billions of dollars annually. They have an interest in ignoring the efficacy of remedies that are, for the most part, free or considerably cheaper  It’s understandable that the medical establishment has an interest in ignoring treatments that are freely available. Pharmaceutical companies make billions each year selling drugs that cost pennies to manufacture.  There is an enormous vested interest in insuring that the world in general- and the West in particular-remain tied to the idea that the only solution to disease is to swallow a pill provided by a man in a white coat. There are other solutions that have been used for thousands of years before anybody worked out how to make a buck out of it. For much of the world these therapies continue to be the ones people rely on and the rush of pharmaceutical companies to issue patents on genes of some of these traditional remedies suggests that there must be at least some truth in them.


Alternative medical practitioners tend to spend more time with their patients and get a better understanding of them as a whole, as a result they are more likely to treat the person than the symptom  Modern medicine tends to treat an individual symptom without putting it in the context of the whole person and so will often fail to see it as part of a wider pathology.  Alternative practitioners tend to spend more time with their patients and so are better placed to asses individual symptoms as a part of the person as a whole rather than just dealing with symptoms one as a time as the crop up.


A huge number of fully accepted medical practices started being seen as something a bit off the wall, it’s wrong to deny sick people access to a treatment that may be mainstream in 20 years  There is a fine line between what is considered alternative and what is thought of as mainstream. Techniques do move across that line and when they do so, they are seen as mainstream. However, this process of reform, refinement and acceptance takes time.  In the meantime it is simply unfair to deny treatment to patients who want it because the medical establishment is beholden to a conservative academic orthodoxy and drug and treatment providers with vested interests in ensuring that particular cures and techniques will continue to be purchased and utilised.


Those who are in the late stages of a terminal disease have a horrific future agead of them  The gradual decline of their body, the failure of their organs and the need for artificial support. In some cases, the illness will slowly destroy their minds, the essence of themselves; even if this is not the case, the huge amounts of medication required to ‘control’ their pain will often leave them in a delirious and incapable state. At least five percent of terminal pain cannot be controlled, even with the best care. Faced with this, it is surely more humane that those people be allowed to choose the manner of their own end, and have the assistance of a doctor to die with dignity. One particular account was of Sue Rodriguez who died slowly of Lou Gehrig's disease. She lived for several years with the knowledge that her muscles would, one by one, waste away until the day came when, fully conscious, she would choke to death. She begged the courts to reassure her that a doctor would be allowed to assist her in choosing the moment of death. They refused. Rodriguez did not accept the verdict and with the help of an anonymous physician committed suicide in February 1994. [1]  [1] Chris Docker, Cases in history, euthanasia.cc, 2000  (accessed 6/6/2011)


Every human being has a right to life  Perhaps the most basic and fundamental of all our rights. However, with every right comes a choice. The right to speech does not remove the option to remain silent; the right to vote brings with it the right to abstain. In the same way, the right to choose to die is implicit in the right to life. The degree to which physical pain and psychological distress can be tolerated is different in all humans. Quality of life judgements are private and personal, thus only the sufferer can make relevant decisions. [1] This was particularly evident in the case of Daniel James. [2] After suffering a spinal dislocation as the result of a rugby accident he decided that he would live a second-rate existence if he continued with life and that it was not something he wanted to prolong. People are given a large degree of autonomy within their lives and since deciding to end your life does not physically harm anyone else, it should be within your rights to decide when you wish to die. While the act of suicide does remove option to choose life, most cases in which physician assisted suicide is reasonable, death is the inevitable and often imminent outcome for the patient regardless if by suicide or pathological process. The choice for the patient, therefore, is not to die, but to cease suffering and tto chose the time and manner of their death.  [1] Derek Humphrey, 'Liberty and Death: A manifesto concerning an individual's right to choose to die', assistedsuicide.org 1 March 2005,  (accessed 4/6/2011)  [2] Elizabeth Stewart, 'Parents defend assisted suicide of paralysed rugby player', guardian.co.uk, 17 October 2008,  (accessed 6/6/2011)


Suicide is a lonely, desperate act, carried out in secrecy and often as a cry for help  The impact on the family who remain can be catastrophic. Often because they were unaware of how their loved one was feeling. Suicide cases such as Megan Meier, an American teenager who committed suicide by hanging herself in 2006, [1] as the parents have to launch police investigations into why their child might have felt so desperate. By legalising assisted suicide, the process can be brought out into the open. In some cases, families might have been unaware of the true feelings of their loved one; being forced to confront the issue of their illness may do great good, perhaps even allowing them to persuade the patient not to end their life. In other cases, it makes them part of the process: they can understand the reasons behind their decision without feelings of guilt and recrimination, and the terminally ill patient can speak openly to them about their feelings before their death.  [1] Wikipedia, "Suicide of Megan Meier", en.wikipedia.org,  (accessed 6/6/2011)


If someone is threatening to kill themselves it is your moral duty to try to stop them  Those who commit suicide are not evil, and those who attempt to take their own lives are not prosecuted. However, it is your moral duty to try and prevent people from committing suicide. You would not, for example, simply ignore a man standing on a ledge and threatening to jump simply because it is his choice; and you would definitely not assist in his suicide by pushing him. In the same way, you should try to help a person with a terminal illness, not help them to die. With the exception of the libertarian position that each person has a right against others that they not interfere with her suicidal intentions. Little justification is necessary for actions that aim to prevent another's suicide but are non-coercive. Pleading with a suicidal individual, trying to convince her of the value of continued life, recommending counseling, etc. are morally unproblematic, since they do not interfere with the individual's conduct or plans except by engaging her rational capacities (Cosculluela 1994, 35; Cholbi 2002, 252). [1] The impulse toward suicide is often short-lived, ambivalent, and influenced by mental illnesses such as depression. While these facts together do not appear to justify intervening in others' suicidal intentions, they are indicators that the suicide may be undertaken with less than full rationality. Yet given the added fact that death is irreversible, when these factors are present, they justify intervention in others' suicidal plans on the grounds that suicide is not in the individual's interests as they would rationally conceive those interests. We might call this the ‘no regrets' or ‘err on the side of life’ approach to suicide intervention (Martin 1980; Pabst Battin 1996, 141; Cholbi 2002). [2]  [1] Cholbi, Michael, "Suicide", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),  #DutTowSui (accessed 7/6/2011)  [2] Cholbi, Michael, "Suicide", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),  #DutTowSui (accessed 7/6/2011)


It would have a damaging effect on society  Some people who do not agree with voluntary euthanasia argue that if it was legalised, it would damage the moral and social foundation of society by removing the traditional principle that man should not kill, and reduce the respect for human life. It might also be the case that once voluntary euthanasia has been legalised, this might lead to cases of involuntary euthanasia being carried out. With people deciding that someone else's life such as the elderly or the terminally ill is not worth living and therefore performing euthanasia without their consent. [1] A recent study discovered that some sufferers of locked-in syndrome – as many as three out of four of the main sample – were happy and did not want to die. [2]  [1] The case against, religiouseducation.co.uik  (accessed 4/6/2011).  [2] Barbara Ellen, Who is to judge which lives are worth living?, guardian.co.uk, 17 April 2011  (accessed 6/6/2011)


Only God can give and take away life  Life is Sacred so no one has the right to take a life, this includes ones own. As a result both suicide and assisted suicide are wrong. There are many passages within the bible that speak of the idea that God has appointed a time for all to die, 'Hebrews 9:27, “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgement:” Ecclesiastes 3:1-2, “To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;” Ecclesiastes 7:17, “Be not over much wicked, neither be thou foolish: why shouldest thou die before thy time?” [1] In addition to this, physicians are nowhere in Scripture given authority to take someone's life. Apart from the government in the case of capital punishment, all other human beings are given the commandment “Thou shalt not kill,” Exodus 20:13 and “Thou shalt do no murder,” Matthew 19:18. [2]  [1] Pastor Art Kohl, 'The Bible Speaks on Euthanasia', Political Science and the Bible, 2002  (accessed 6/6/2011)  [2] Pastor Art Kohl, 'The Bible Speaks on Euthanasia', Political Science and the Bible, 2002  (accessed 6/6/2011)


It is vital that a doctor's role not be confused  The guiding principle of medical ethics is to do no harm: a physician must not be involved in deliberately harming their patient. Without this principle, the medical profession would lose a great deal of trust; and admitting that killing is an acceptable part of a doctor’s role would likely increase the danger of involuntary euthanasia, not reduce it. Legalising assisted suicide also places an unreasonable burden on doctors. The daily decisions made in order to preserve life can be difficult enough; to require them to also carry the immense moral responsibility of deciding who can and cannot die, and the further responsibility of actually killing patients, is unacceptable. This is why the vast majority of medical professionals oppose the legalisation of assisted suicide: ending the life of a patient goes against all they stand for. The Hippocratic Oath that doctors use as a guide states 'I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.' [1]  [1] Medical Opinion, religiouseducation.co.uk  (accessed on 4/6/2011)


Broadening participation  The talent pool in South African rugby is not as racially diverse as one would expect from the “Rainbow Nation” – some commentators have argued that England and France produce more top level black players than South Africa [1] . This is because top level players are a result of development from the grassroots up.  Targets or quotas could not only improve the talent pool of today, but could broaden it for the future. A new generation of youth across all races in South Africa would be able to see that rugby union is a sport that accepts people from their backgrounds, making them more likely to participate in rugby union, either as players, coaches, referees or as a general part of the rugby fraternity.  [1] Blackwell, James, ‘South African Rugby Quotas – Right or Wrong?’, Sporting Mad, 16 September 2013,


Radical action needed for racial equality in South Africa  It is plain for all to see how unrepresentative rugby union in South Africa is. While there is not necessarily a deliberate policy of racism, it is very easy for biases to creep in. Across the division where the quotas will come in only about 6% of players are black, a number that should increase to 33%. [1] Quotas could help concentrate the mind to ensure that the best team is picked.  At grass roots level, there have been some cases of flat-out racial abuse of non-white players, including using racial terms that are particularly offensive in a South African context.  [1] Peacock, James, ‘Peter de Villiers says racial quotas are ‘waste of time’, BBC Sport, 15 August 2013,


Most South Africans support quotas  In 2006, the South African Social Attitudes Survey revealed that most South Africans (56%) support a quota system [1] . This support remained roughly the same over a four year period. Sport should reflect the will of the population of the country, if the population wants quotas then there should be quotas. There is particularly strong support from quotas among black people (63%) implying they feel that something needs to be done in order to let them into the sport. Doing nothing will simply ensure the status quo with very few non-white rugby players remains indefinitely.  [1] Struwig, Jare, and Roberts, Ben, ‘The numbers game Public support for sports quotas’, South African Social Attitudes Survey, p.13,


IRB rules  Racial quotas are a breach of the views of the world governing body of Rugby Union, the International Rugby Board [1] . If this were found to be the case then it would have a large negative impact on South African rugby.  An IRB intervention would lead to at least interference by the governing body, which would be highly embarrassing for the SARU (as well as difficult for a sport which has had major political rows before), or even worse, some form of sanction or expulsion – things that could lead to long term instability in the sport, which should be avoided.  [1] SARugbymag.co.za, ‘Saru quotas ‘breach IRP rules’’, 3 December 2013,


Racial quotas don’t develop new players  The quota system could lead to moving players from the regional teams who generally have less non-white players pilfering them from other unions, rather “Home growing” them [1] .  Former Springboks coach Peter de Villiers, the first non-white person in that role, has described quotas as a “waste of time [2] ”.  Depending on the exact phraseology of the rules, this could even allow black players from outside South Africa (from, for example, England) to be used to fill the quota.  [1] McGregor, Liz, ‘New Year, new model for SA Rugby? Here’s hoping’, Books Live, 30 December 2013,   [2] Peacock, James, ‘Peter de Villiers says racial quotas are ‘waste of time’, BBC Sport, 15 August 2013,


Quotas can drive players away.  Policies of racial quotas can have the effect of driving players abroad. Such policies have had similar affects in cricket. Kevin Pietersen stated that racial quotas in domestic competition, requiring four non-white players per team, were a key reason for his decision to leave South Africa and move to England. Eligible due to playing in England for four years and an English parent, he successfully had an England career. In rugby union, Brian Mujati left South Africa to play in England as he did not want to be selected to fill a racial quota [1] .  [1] Foy, Chris, ‘Last orders at the bar for master brewer – prop Mujati calls time on Saints career’, MailOnline, 19 April 2013,


Meritocracy  It is a value of sport in general that it should be outside the sphere of social ills like racial, religious and political tensions. Sport should be based on merit only; those who play best get onto the team.  Racial quotas will lead to any non-white player in a team in a competition where quotas are being employed to being under a suspicion that they are not good enough and were only selected due to their race. As Peter de Villiers, the first black coach of the Springboks, says “Everybody will believe that these players will be picked because people are looking out for them.” [1] The result could be more racial abuse of players, not less.  [1] Peacock, James, ‘Peter de Villiers says racial quotas are ‘waste of time’, BBC Sport, 15 August 2013,


Boycotting Euro 2012 will highlight Ukraine’s backsliding on human rights  European leaders must take a stand on human rights in their own back yard if they are to be taken seriously on the issue anywhere in the world. There are numerous human rights abuses in Ukraine; migrants "risk abusive treatment and arbitrary detention", Roma and people with dark skin in particular face governmental and societal discrimination and some xenophobic attacks and may be prosecuted for acting in self defense. [1] Amnesty International has highlighted abuse of power by the police “numerous cases in Euro 2012 host cities in which police have tortured people in an attempt to extort money, extract a confession, or simply because of the victims’ sexuality or ethnic origin”. [2] If Europe turns a blind eye to these kinds of abuses in neighbouring states without even a minor diplomatic snub it will not have the moral authority to confront worse abuses elsewhere in the world. States that are abusing their own citizens would shrug off criticism believing that European states will not back their criticism up with any action.  [1] Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, ‘2010 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices Report’, U.S. Department of State, 8 April 2011.  [2] ‘Ukraine: Euro 2012 jeopardised by criminal police force – New Amnesty report’, Amnesty.org.uk, 2 May 2012 .


Europe must not give approval to this regime.  Viktor Yanukovych fairly came to power in 2010 however since then he has set about attacking the country’s fragile democracy. There are numerous cases showing this democratic decline. For example changes to the constitution that occurred after the Orange revolution have been rolled back to give more power to the presidency. [1] Most visibly opponents of the regime such as Yulia Timoshenko have been jailed in politically motivated trials. At the same time there have been attacks on the freedom of the media and Ukraine has fallen down rankings of press freedom in 2010-11 with its score from freedom house falling from 56 to 59 with its ranking falling to 130th. [2]  Ukraine, like its neighbours Russia and Belarus, has become a ‘virtual mafia state’ where the SBU (Ukraine’s successor to the KGB) is all powerful and the elite are unaccountable. [3] It is becoming more and more corrupt as is shown by its fall down the Corruption Perceptions Index from 118th in 2007 to 152nd in 2011. [4] Ukraine is clearly going in the wrong direction and European leaders need to stand up and show that the will not allow this to continue.  [1] Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, ‘2010 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices Report’, U.S. Department of State, 8 April 2011.  [2] Karlekar, Karin Deutsch and Dunham, Jennifer, ‘Press Freedom in 2011: Breakthroughs and Pushback in the Middle East’, Freedom House, 2012, pp.7, 16.  [3] Luzio, Taras, ‘Ukraine, Like Russia, Is Becoming a ‘Virtual Mafia State’’, Atlantic Council, 1 March 2012.  [4] Transparency International, Corruption Perceptions Index 2011 , Transparency International, Corruption Perceptions Index 2007 .


Boycotting Euro 2012 is proportional  Diplomacy is necessary with any regime almost no matter how oppressive they are however that does not show approval of a regime to the world in the way that high profile visits and events can. Just as the Beijing Olympics were the People’s Republic of China’s coming out party so Euro 2012 is an ideal chance for Ukraine to show itself off to Europe and the rest of the world. If there was not a boycott this would implicitly show that Europe approves of Ukraine and the actions of its government.  In a list of possible diplomatic responses that range from verbal diplomatic complaints right up to sanctions a boycott represents a mid-point. A boycott is perhaps the best action that the European Union leaders could take is it takes away the shine that the event would otherwise give the Yanukovych. It will be denying him the political benefits of the Euros while highlighting rights concerns. A boycott is also proportional because it gives Ukraine’s leaders a chance to reform before beginning any further measures that would have a much deeper effect on diplomatic relations.


A boycott won’t help resolve the issues at question  European leaders need to consider whether their methods are likely to achieve the result they want. What Europe’s leaders want is first of all Yulia Timoshenko released and secondly improvements in Ukrainian human rights. Timoshenko is unlikely to be released as she has been convicted on charges of abuse of office and sentenced to seven years in prison; the best that could be hoped for is an improvement in her treatment. Similarly the result is not likely to be positive for human rights and democracy. There might be an improvement during the games while the eyes of the world are on Ukraine but long term there will be no impact unless Yanukovych is persuaded that improvements are in his benefit. This would require more concrete and long term actions than one off boycotts.  Past boycotts have demonstrated a lack of success in changing the situation on the ground. In the 1980 Olympics held in Moscow during the Cold War the USA boycotted in response to the 1979 invasion by the USSR of Afghanistan. The result was that the Soviet Union stayed in Afghanistan, won most medals in the Olympics and retaliated by boycotting the 1984 games held in Los Angeles. [1]  [1] Gera, Vanessa, ‘Boycott of Ukraine During Euro 2012 Carries Risk’, Associated Press, 11 May 2012.


Europe needs to prevent Russian influence in Ukraine  If Europe shuns Ukraine then Yanukovych has an obvious alternative he can turn to; Russia. Putin, the newly re-elected President of Russia, is holding out the option of a customs union with Ukraine which Yanukovych despite initially rejecting [1] is now showing more interest in joining. [2] Only a few years ago Ukraine was being touted for possible NATO membership and Vice President Biden called Ukraine a “European country where democracy rules”. [3] A turn towards Russia therefore represents a failure of the European Union and NATO’s policy towards its eastern neighbours where the aim is to promote democracy and human rights.  [1] Interfax-Ukraine, ‘Putin: Yanukovych statement Ukraine will not join Customs Union conveys political emotions’, Kyiv Post, 16 September 2011 .  [2] Interfax-Ukraine, ‘Official: Ukraine shows keen interest in Customs Union’, Kyiv Post, 15 March 2012 .  [3] ‘Biden: U.S. supports Ukraine’s NATO bid’, USA Today, 21 July 2009 .


Boycotts did not take place for the 2008 Olympics despite the far worst human rights background  It would be hypocritical for European leaders to boycott the Euro 2012 finals because of Ukraine’s recent human rights record. It an absurd overreaction when the focus is on the poor treatment of one woman, Timoshenko. Countries with poor human rights records have hosted major sporting events before without there being boycotts. President Bush was urged by some in the US such as former president Clinton to boycott the Beijing Olympics and only a few countries boycotted on human rights grounds. This was despite China having a considerably worse human rights record than Ukraine and engaged in a violent crackdown in Tibet in the run up to the games. [1] Similarly Russia will be hosting the next Winter Olympics in 2014 should leaders essentially commit to boycotting these games too?  [1] ‘Bush will attend opening of Beijing Olympics’ CNN, 3 July 2008.


The boycott would affect Poland and the Ukrainian people as well as Yanukovych  A boycott of Euro 2012 even if it was meant to be limited to Ukraine would negatively impact on the whole tournament. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tust argued "It is in Poland's undisputed interest to hold the games in Poland and Ukraine without a hitch and to prevent politics from ruining the great effort", [1] any boycott would unnecessarily move the attention away from the games itself towards politics.  It should also be remembered that Viktor Yanukovych does not represent the whole of Ukraine and only won by a narrow margin with 48.95% of the vote compared to Yulia Timoshenko’s 45.47% in the second round. [2] Arseniy Yatsenyuk leader of the Front for Change has urged leaders not to boycott "The best scenario would be if the European leaders attended the championship, but did not meet President Yanukovych. It's supposed to be a visit to Ukrainians, not to Yanukovych". [3] This would show that European countries support the Ukrainian people and their democratic aspirations and even hope they may be eventually will join the European Union while showing displeasure at Yanukovych’s policies and lack of support for democracy.  [1] ‘ Poland slams calls for Ukraine Euro 2012 boycott’, The Warsaw Voice online, 4 May 2012.  [2] Nesterov, Andrei, ‘How the News is Reported in Russia’, School of Russian and Asian, 19 February 2010.  [3] Dorosh, Svitlana, ‘Ukraine fights Euro 2012 boycott’, BBC Ukrainian, 9 May 2012.


This is a sports event not a political event  Sport and politics are separate and should be kept separate. This is the position of the organisers “Uefa has no position and will not take any regarding the political situation in Ukraine, and will not interfere with internal government matters.” [1] Euro 2012 is a football tournament that is about entertainment and bringing nations together in a common love of a game in a non-political sphere. Even pro-democracy activists such as Vatali Klitschko are “against the politicization of sports”. [2] Politicization would be exactly what politicians are doing by engaging in cheap political stunts, such as a boycott, to promote their own human rights agendas.  [1] Scott, Matt, ‘Sports minister Hugh Robertson could boycott Ukraine during Euro 2012’, The Telegraph, 2 May 2012.  [2] Keating, Joshua, ‘European leaders consider Euro Cup boycott over Tymoshenko’, Passport Foreignpolicy.com, 1 May 2012.


Hosting stimulates regeneration in local areas  Hosting stimulates regeneration. The IOC is enthusiastic about bids that will leave a lasting impact and have looked favourably on cities that locate their Olympic Villages and stadia in deprived areas in need of regeneration. The 1992 Barcelona Olympics were used as a means to completely overhaul the port and coast of the city creating an artificial beach and waterside cultural area that became a lasting tourist attraction. Along with cleaning up areas and new stadia, Olympic Villages release between 5,000 and 20,000 new homes which governments can chose to hand over as low-cost housing (as is proposed for London 2012). Whilst these projects could be completed without the Olympics, the need to provide an overall package (transport, accommodation, stadia, greenery etc.) for a set deadline means that there is far more incentive to get the projects done. An example of this in London is the plan for a new £15bn underground rail system called ‘Crossrail’, first proposed over 20 years ago but only now being developed because of the attention surrounding the London 2012 bid.1 The fact that international scrutiny will follow the building program means that it is far more likely to be completed to a high standard (consider the detailed coverage of the preparations for Athens 2004).  1 Hayes, S. (2011, April 19). Crossrail will leave a positive legacy. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from Wharf


Hosting creates a 'feel-good' factor  Hosting creates a 'feel-good factor'. It is hard to put a price on the buzz that surrounds international sporting events. Think of Paris during the World Football Cup in 1998 or Sydney during the 2002 Olympics. Even sporting success abroad can unite a nation (for example the England Rugby Union Team's victory in the 2003 Rugby World Cup in Australia). Governments are aware of the huge potential for boosting national pride and national unity. The Paris 2012 bid has used a well-known footballer, Zinedine Zidane, who is the son of an immigrant to stress how hosting the Olympics would bring Parisians of all backgrounds together. It is partly because of this 'feel-good factor' that so many people want their city to host the Olympics (97% of Parisians and 87% of Londoners want the 2012 Olympics).


COUNTERPOINT Any large expenditure in one area will stimulate regeneration. Considering that the cost of hosting the London 2012 Olympics is predicted at £2.375 billion, expected to rise far higher, regeneration is the least that can be expected as a le  The Olympics are a showcase. Hosting the Olympics can be a way of making a strong political point because of the intense media scrutiny that accompanies the games. During the Cold War both Moscow 1980 and Los Angeles 1984 were used by the USSR and USA to show their economic strength. Seoul in 1988 used the games to demonstrate South Korea's economic and political maturity. The Beijing Olympics in 2008 are seen by many as evidence of China's acceptance into the global community and a way for her to showcase her economic growth and acceptance of the West. For New York, the 2012 bid is a way of showing that the post-9/11 healing process has been completed and that the city is 'open for business' despite the terrorist attacks.


Hosting has wide-reaching economic benefits  Hosting creates an economic boost. Whilst none of the Olympics of recent times have made an immediate profit, the cost of the regeneration and improved infrastructure means that this is not a big problem as long as the losses are not huge. The Olympics showcases the host nation to the world and most hosts have seen a boost in tourism in the years after the Olympics (Australia estimates it gained£2bn extra tourist revenue in the four years after Sydney 2000). During the games between 60,000 (Paris 2012 estimate) and 135,000 (New York 2012 estimate) jobs are created providing skills and training to local people.


The bidding process is too long, tying up funds and land  The bidding process takes too long. Bidding officially takes only two years (unless a city fails to make the shortlist), but most cities spend nearly a decade working on their bids. Obviously the bidding process costs money but it also ties up the land needed for any future Olympic Village or stadia from being developed until the bid outcome is known, as well as diverting government funds away from other sporting events and activities. Furthermore, the way the IOC works with each member deciding which city they wish to vote for means that personal relationships and international tension can count for more than the quality of the bid. For example, American foreign policy is thought to be disadvantaging New York in the 2012 bidding process. Given that the Olympics are 'rotated' between continents, if a city fails to be selected it will be 12 years before it has another chance.


Hosting is very expensive  Hosting is very expensive. In recent times the Olympics have never made a direct profit. The bidding process alone for 2012 will cost each bidding city around £20m and whichever is selected will expect to pay at least £6.5bn (Paris). With increased security fears Athens spent $1.5bn on security out of a total of $12bn on the 2004 games. The burden of this cost falls on government (and therefore the taxpayer), companies and individuals. Both Paris and London’s local governments have put aside around £2.4bn which will mean £20 per year extra in tax for every household in the cities. Big projects are notoriously hard to budget for (so much so that London is estimating the total cost may go up by up to 50%) and residents in Los Angeles have only just stopped paying for the over-budget 1984 Olympics through their local taxes. If cities want to regenerate or improve their infrastructure then they should use this money directly on those projects rather than wasting it on subsidising a sporting event.


Hosting only affects one city  In large countries like the United States or China, the benefits of the Olympics are almost entirely focused on the host city. Even in smaller countries, the benefits of a event played outside the host city or a training camp are negligible. Capital cities are often chosen (after failed bids from Birmingham in 1992 and Manchester in 1996 and 2000 the IOC told the United Kingdom that only a bid from London was likely to win), which concentrates growth and development where it is least needed. 90% of the economic impact of London 2012 is expected to come to London1; not surprising given that 'seventy-five pence in every pound on the Games is going towards the regeneration of East London.'2Furthermore, house prices have been seen to rise in host cities like Barcelona and Sydney around the time of their Olympics, without comparable rises elsewhere in Spain and Australia respectively2. As such, hosting only serves to entrench geographical economic divides.  1 Grobel, W. (2010, April 15). What are the London 2012 Olympics 2012 worth? Retrieved May 13, 2011, from Intangible Business:  2 Ormsby, A. (2010, May 21). Benefits of hosting Olympics unproven. Retrieved June 29, 2011 from Reuters:


Collisions are a part of the game.  First, collisions are part of the tradition of baseball. They have been part of the game for a very long time. Fans, players, and managers all expect home plate hits to occur from time to time. “Some things are part of the game. There’s not a whole lot you can do,” said Red Sox catcher Jason Varitek, who has been on the receiving end of numerous crashes in his career. [1] Varitek’s manager at the time, Terry Francona, agreed: “Nobody wants to see anybody get hurt, but you got to play the game.” [2] And former catcher Brad Ausmus, who had also been hit multiple times in his career, echoed the sentiment: “[I]t's part of the game.… When you put on the shin guards and chest protector, you know that if there’s a play at the plate and you’re blocking the plate, you could take a hit at any moment.” [3] As the Associated Press put it, many people believe “home plate collisions are as much a part of baseball tradition as peanuts and Cracker Jacks and the seventh-inning stretch.” [4]  Second, home plate hits are an essential element of playing the game hard. Without them, baseball would be much less deserving of its nickname “hardball.” One commentator notes, “[An injury is] extremely unfortunate, but it's the result of a hard-nosed play that is as old as the game itself. To take away the potential for a high-intensity, physical play in an otherwise non-physical sport would be a mistake.” [5] In that vein, collisions are also part of the dynamic between the offense and defense that, once removed, will make the game much poorer: “A baserunner wants to get there at all costs, whereas a catcher wants to protect it at all costs. The mutual discomfort that's evoked in both the catcher and the baserunner as a play at the plate develops is one of the intriguing peculiarities that makes the game of baseball so great.” [6]  [1] Antonio Gonzalez, “Posey’s injury stirs debate on baseball collisions,” Associated Press, May 27, 2011,  .  [2] Ibid.  [3] Jayson Stark, “On a collision course,” ESPN.com (Rumblings & Grumblings blog), May 28, 2011,  .  [4] Ibid.  [5] Ricky Doyle, “Buster Posey’s Injury Unfortunate, But Home-Plate Collisions Still Have Place in Baseball,” NESN, May 29, 2011,  .  [6] Ibid .


Collisions are exciting and fun to watch.  Baseball is a form of entertainment, and few plays are as entertaining as bang-bang plays (a close call on whether the runner is thrown out) at the plate. As a sport that’s often criticized for being too slow and boring—“baseball has no clock,” the saying goes [1] —it’s important that it hold onto perhaps the most dramatic, vivid play it has to offer. One columnist described it this way: “When [collisions] do occur, they’re exciting. We watch to see how well the catcher blocks the plate, how hard the runner slides, and whether the catcher can hold the ball. As dangerous as that play may be, it’s exciting to watch.” [2]  Other sports—like American football, ice hockey, and rugby—feature plenty of violent hits. Baseball has so few of them that when they do happen, they are doubly entertaining. It is just not necessary for baseball to prohibit a small dose of something that is extremely common in other sports.  [1] William Deresiewicz, “Metaphors We Play By,” American Scholar, June 6, 2011,  .  [2] Nick Cafardo, “Let’s keep rule change off our plate, please,” Boston Globe, May 29, 2011,  .


Collisions are not as dangerous as they’re feared to be.  Some hits lead to injury, but the vast majority do not. One commentator challenged proponents of a rule change “to name as many as five MLB catchers in the last 30 years who have had their careers ended or shortened as a result of a home plate collision. Personally, I can’t think of one.” [1] In posing some—though not a substantial—risk, home plate collisions are very much like other aspects of the sport. Every time a pitcher throws a pitch, the batter could get struck and hurt. Every time two outfielders converge on a fly ball, there’s a risk of injury. Baseball, as with many other sports, inherently involves the risk of injury. It makes little sense to focus on this play, which doesn’t often result in significant injury.  Moreover, catchers are trained to position their bodies in ways that minimize the injury risk from crashes. [2] If catchers do as they’re trained, they’re very unlikely to get hurt.  [1] Joe Janish, “Buster Posey Aftermath: What Should Be Done?,” On Baseball, May 30, 2011,  (internal quotation marks omitted).  [2] See, for example, “Relays, Cutoffs, and Plays at Home,” Baseball-Catcher.com,  .


Without collisions, either the catcher or the runner would have an enormous and unfair advantage.  There are two often-discussed ways to change the rules: require the runner to slide, just as they must do when attempting to reach other bases; or disallow catchers to block runners’ paths. Each results in an imbalance between the catcher and runner. A commentator describes this dynamic very well:  “If Major League Baseball was to employ a rule stating that runners must avoid contact with the catcher—similar to the ‘slide or avoid’ rule employed in amateur baseball—it would give the advantage to the catcher. The catcher would have the benefit of dictating the course of action that a baserunner must take, and would—perhaps more importantly—have peace of mind knowing that there is no chance of an ensuing collision. If Major League Baseball was to make a rule stating that the catcher cannot block the plate, the advantage would certainly go to the baserunner, who would enjoy the luxury of a straight path to the most sacred ground on a baseball diamond.” [1]  Allowing collisions is the fairest, most even match between the catcher and runner.  [1] Ricky Doyle, “Buster Posey’s Injury Unfortunate, But Home-Plate Collisions Still Have Place in Baseball,” NESN, May 29, 2011,  .


Collisions are an example of violence that has no place in baseball.  Baseball is not a contact sport. It is not a sport that is supposed to rely on violence. This is one commentator’s point: “if you want to watch violent collisions, you can watch [American] football. Or hockey. Or MMA. There’s no reason baseball needs to have similar kinds of plays; it’s an entirely different sport with a different premise and different rules.” [1]  Baseball tries to make the game safe for its players. That’s why beanballs—pitches that endanger hitters—are disallowed. Baseball should not promote violence, and it certainly shouldn’t allow it when players’ careers hang in the balance.  [1] Dave Cameron, “It’s Time to End Home Plate Collisions,” FanGraphs, May 26, 2011,  .


Collisions heighten antagonisms.  When someone gets hurt in a collision at the plate, the injured player’s teammates are more likely to hold a grudge—and to try to get even. There are numerous opportunities to do that, whether by aiming a pitch at that player, or by seeking another opportunity to hurt him. When Posey was injured, the Giants’ General Manager Brian Sabean said, “If I never hear from Cousins [who hit Posey] again or if he never plays another game in the big leagues, I think we’ll all be happy.... We’ll have a long memory.” [1] This is exactly the unsportsmanlike behaviour engendered by these dangerous and unnecessary plays.  Former MLB catcher Mike Matheny noted that catchers don’t forget when they get hit, saying, “I think you just put a mark in the column that that kid took a run at a catcher. To me as a catcher I know the next time I get the ball I'm going to stick it to him. You make those notes as a catcher.” [2]  [1] “Source: Joe Torre to call Brian Sabean,” ESPN.com News Services, June 3, 2011,  .  [2] R.B. Fallstrom, “Matheny critical of Cousins’ hit on Posey,” Associated Press, May 30, 2011,  .


Collisions are unnecessary.  Baseball doesn’t need collisions. By requiring the runner to slide, just as they must do when attempting to reach other bases, or disallowing catchers to block runners’ paths, or—best of all—requiring both those steps, baseball can eliminate collisions.  Unlike in football or rugby, hits at the plate are not a necessary component of the sport. The game is played quite well at the amateur level without such brutal physical contact. [1] Collisions occur relatively infrequently, and the complexion of the game will not be dramatically different without them. Yet the benefits of improved safety are dramatic.  [1] See, for example, American Legion Baseball Rules, Rule 1(E),  .


Collisions are dangerous and lead to injury.  Ray Fosse and Buster Posey (mentioned above in the Introduction) are just two examples of players who suffered major injuries in crashes at home plate. Texas Rangers star Josh Hamilton, reigning Most Valuable Player of the American League, broke his arm when he collided with a catcher in 2011. In August 2010, Cleveland Indians catcher Carlos Santana suffered a season-ending knee injury when he was hit by Red Sox runner Ryan Kalish. To go back a few more seasons, Braves catcher Greg Olson was having a career year in 1992 until Ken Caminiti broke his leg in a collision. There have been literally dozens of severe injuries suffered in bang-bang plays at the plate.  This high rate of injury should come as no surprise, given the physics involved in this type of play. A simulation with a crash-test dummy wired with sensors showed that a catcher can get hit by a runner travelling 18 miles per hour, resulting in 3,200 pounds of force—much worse than an American football hit, with much less padding. [1]  Teams make heavy investments in their players, paying them millions of dollars a year. Thus, serious injuries are very expensive, both because of the treatment required and because the player is missing many games. This is why the Oakland Athletics instructed their top catcher, Kurt Suzuki, to avoid blocking the plate—because their investment in him is worth more than whatever runs he allows by failing to stop the runner from scoring. [2]  When players are injured in these plays, it’s also bad for fans, who will lose the opportunity to see their favourite athletes on the field. As Bruce Bochy, Busty Posey’s manager with the Giants, told the media after he lost his star catcher to injury: “And here’s a guy that’s very popular in baseball. Fans want to see him play, and now he’s out for a while.” [3]  [1] Joel Siegel, Barbara Pinto, and Tahman Bradley, “Catcher Collision Ignites Baseball Rules Debate,” ABC News, May 28, 2011,  .  [2] Buster Olney, “Billy Beane issues home plate directive,” ESPN The Magazine, June 1, 2011,  .  [3] Tim Kawakami, “Bochy on Posey’s injury: ‘Hopefully the guys are not happy—I’m certainly not happy,’” MercuryNews.com (Talking Points blog), May 26, 2011,  .


Radio is cheap to produce and easily accessible.  Community radio relies on the power of its ideas and the thirst for those ideas among its audience. It accepts the notion that it is the exchange of information and views, freely given and received, that is more important than the ideas themselves.  It doesn’t require massive budgets and radio waves can be received on equipment that costs pennies; more importantly it can be shared.  For all of its pretensions of accessibility the devices used to access the Internet tend to be expensive and they also tend not to be shared – unlike radios [i] .  To give some context to this, even paying Western prices, a small radio station can be started for as little as $10,000 with monthly costs of $1,000 [ii] . Some of that, of course, relates to government issued licences, clearly this does not apply if the station is planning to be ignored by the authorities. These costs can be further reduced when the founders have a pre-existing knowledge of radio engineering or work with a partner organisation such as the BBC World Service or the various NGOs who specialise in the field [iii] .  [i] Plunkett, John, Community radio: A rare success story. The Guardian. 9 March 2009.  [ii] Prometheus Radio Project.  [iii] Wikipedia. Community Radio.


Community radio gives voices to the people rather than imposing those of the powerful.  The events of the Arab Spring (and previous events such as the revolutions of 1989) have shown that effective means of communicating are vital. In a country where people have heard only one perspective, anything that can break the monopoly is to be welcomed. As Orwell put it, 'In an age of universal deceit, to tell the truth is a subversive act'.  Community radio can both encourage an initial outpouring of democracy and, just as importantly, ensure that a diversity of opinions means that one autocratic regime is not just replaced by another.  In almost all other forms of mass communication, genuinely democratic voices are easily swamped by those with either the power or the money to drown out the competition [i] . As the focus of community radio is public service, rather than profit, responsible to – and frequently produced by – their listener base there do not have commercial advertisers’ aversion to upsetting authority – either political or cultural. As a result they are free to eschew the bland lowest common denominator approach that is so typical of commercial radio.  [i] AMARC (World Association of Community Radio) booklet. What is Community Radio? 1998.


Community radio evens the playing field against state and corporate broadcasters.  Autocracy has, at its root, the premise that only one perspective, or group of perspectives is legitimate. Certain assumptions are unquestionable, certain rules inviolable and, more often than not, certain voices unchallengeable.  It’s all too easy for that state of affairs to be normalised. Community radio offers another voice. More to the point it offers many.  As well as the value of the messages themselves, the very fact that they are there and broadcast is a powerful statement against autocratic assumptions. The process of establishing and running a community radio station is, in and of itself, a powerful fillip for community cohesion.  Giving voices to communities supports them as groups in their own right; cohesive, engaged and worthy of respect. In doing so it can provide a focus which increases the homogeneity of those communities without requiring the approval of a central structure of control [i] . In addition to well known examples such as Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, radio stations across the Middle East And, especially, Africa have been key movers in the shift to democracy [ii] .  [i] Siddharth. Riding the radio wave; Community radio in South-East Asia. Culture360.org 18 February 2010.  [ii] Buckley, Steve, President, World Association for Community Radio Broadcasters. Community Broadcasting: good practice in policy, law and regulation. UNESCO. 2008.


Radio is yesterday’s technology.  Proposition is right to point out the role that has traditionally been filled by relatively small scale radio – providing a relatively cheap method of getting in touch with anybody willing to listen. However, that has, effectively, been rendered redundant by Internet technology. The power of Facebook, Youtube and other sites to disseminate ideas and information as well as phone texting has not only matched that role but surpassed it.  With no capital costs in an era of internet cafes and omnipresent cell phones, the free exchange of information through digital and portable technology has met exactly the needs and concerns Proposition highlights. [i]  Suggesting that community radio will somehow supplement or enhance that process it taking a step backwards; support for the relatively monolithic radio model runs all of the risks of empowering extremists already mentioned without even equalling the benefits of texting and social media [ii] .  [i] Helling, Alex, ‘This House would use foreign aid funds to research and distribute software that allows bloggers and journalists in non democratic countries to evade censorship and conceal their online activities’, freespeechdebate.idebate.org, 18 May 2012.  [ii] Hood, Michael, NPR CEO: Internet will replace broadcast radio in 5-10 years. Blatherwatch, 3 June 2010.


Community radio is just a platform, there is nothing innately democratic about it.  To associate a medium with a particular virtue is missing the point. Radio has been used for atrocity and tyranny (Rwanda would be an obvious example) just as much as the promotion and development of democracy. Equally the suggestion that community radio has a more significant role to play in this regard as opposed to, say, the BBC world Service, is ignoring the facts.  Particular media cannot be said to support democratic renewal any more than particular languages can. Equally, the revolutions of 1989 demonstrated the reality that taking control of the national radio station is, in some situations, more important than seizing the Presidential Palace. Neither the ‘community’ element nor the ‘radio’ aspect are innately democratic.  Different media have, undeniably, produced different types of social change – but they all have possibilities for democratic progress [i] .  [i] Sedra, Mark, Revolution 2.0: democracy promotion in the age of social media. The Globe and Mail. 2 February 2011.


Community radio just gives a megaphone to extremists.  Experience suggests that the airwaves, unregulated, tend to attract pedagogues seeking followers more than democrats seeking the views of others. Particularly in areas of high sectarian divisions, technologies that propagate the views of every mullah with a mic are unlikely to help democracy in the middle east. Indeed the experience with the nearest equivalent in the US, talk radio, shows how fantastically divisive it can be. [i]  Community radio in areas that do not have a history of plurality and diversity of opinion would be likely to see the spread of radio stations pandering to the specific views of every shard and splinter of opinion, reinforcing that particular set of beliefs while ignoring all others – it is difficult to imagine a more toxic – and less democratic – option to encourage in the Arab world [ii] .  The difficulty, as shown in the reference given in the previous paragraph, is that exactly the same ease of access applies to fanatics as to democrats – who may, frequently, be the same people. In the instance of Rwanda, extremists inciting violence (almost entirely Hutus) had acquired small scale radio equipment. The government couldn’t afford the jamming equipment (the US jamming flights would cost $8500 per hour) and sought assistance from the Americans. The UN objected as such actions were clearly sectarian. However, the wide use of Radio – initially funded by the West – which, in part at least had lead to the genocide then left a toxic legacy of fanatics dominating the airwaves, those involved were eventually convicted in 2003. [iii]  [i] Noriega, Chin A, and Iribarren, Francisco Javier, ‘Quantifying Hate Speech on Commercial Talk Radio’, Chicano Studies Research Center, November 2011.  [ii] Wisner, Frank G., ‘Memorandum for deputy assistant to the president for national security affairs, national security council, Department of Defense, 5 May 1994.  [iii] Smith, Russell, ‘The impact of hate media in Rwanda’, BBC News, 3 December 2003.  Dale, Alexander C., ‘Countering hate messages that lead to violence: The United Nations’s chapter VII authority to use radio jamming to halt incendiary broadcasts’, Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law, Vol 11. 2001.


Many people find the views expressed by much of the church offensive, those views are given airtime, a public service broadcaster should provide a level playing field for ideas.  The role of a public service broadcaster, especially one of the stature of the BBC, is to provide a portal for ideas from all perspectives. There are many who take either irritation or offence at the idea that the Corporation devotes a disproportionate time and resources to what, in modern Britain, is a strictly minority interest [i] with fewer than seven per cent of people regularly attending religious worship.  Many perceive commonly held positions in the mainstream churches – let alone more extreme sects – to be offensive or reactionary and, in some cases, a cover for homophobic, illiberal or sexist opinions.  If religious opinion is to be granted this airtime for the benefit of a small, if vocal, minority then it seems both unfair and unprofessional for that broadcaster to be constrained by that groups views in relation to the rest of its output.  The BBC, like most major broadcasters, meets the challenge of divergent or conflicting views by providing some output that is considered likely to be of interest to each viewpoint.  [i] National Secular Society. Press Release: “BBC Must Not Become the Evangelical Wing of the Church of England.” 9 February 2010.


This was a piece of art, advertised and described as such, those likely to be offended were quite welcome not to watch it.  The allegation made by those who objected to the airing of this show was that it was blasphemous. There were also objections to the graphic nature of the language and sexual reference. It seems staggeringly unlikely that 55,000 [i] people had accidently been watching opera on BBC 2 having failed to watch any of the warnings in advance or the fairly extensive media discussion in advance of the broadcast.  Therefore, those who watched it made a choice to do so – and it seems reasonable to consider that an informed choice. A free society is predicated on the fact that adults have the right to make choices. In turn that is based on the shared understanding that those choices have consequences; which may, potentially, cause some degree of harm to the person making that choice. Having been warned that watching the broadcast may cause them offence, viewers still chose to and some, it seems, were duly offended.  It seems reasonable, therefore, to assume that the shock was either feigned or a matter of pretence. Which leaves the matter of blasphemy; an offence against a belief system. There was no secret that religious issues were likely to feature in the broadcast and no secret was made of the fact that those views were likely to be both critical and forthright. Tuning in, specifically to be offended by something that the viewer had been warned they might find offensive seems perverse.  By contrast, art lovers who wished to see the production - which had received four Lawrence Olivier Awards among other tributes – had the opportunity to experience a theatrical work they would have had a limited opportunity to witness had it not been broadcast nationally.  It would be bizarre to disadvantage those who wanted to – and actually did – see the performance (about 1.7 million [ii] )because of the views of those who neither wanted to see it or refused to do so  [i] Wikipedia entry: “Jerry Springer: The Opera”  [ii] BBC News Website. “Group to Act Over singer Opera.” 10 January 2005.


There is a duty for a broadcaster that is not dependent on either commercial or state funding to give a platform to controversial works of art.  The BBC is in an unusual position, simply because of its funding structure, to promote new or challenging works of art. The licence fee means that it is freed of many of the pressures brought to bear by either commercial or political masters. Although it has never taken that to mean it has a carte blanche, it does allow for opportunities simply not available to many broadcasters in terms showcasing new works of art and encouraging creative development.  The BBC’s global audience in 2007 was 233 million [i] . That audience provides some context for the 1,500 who actively protested this particular broadcast.  It seems reasonable to suggest that many of those millions follow the BBC because they trust the Corporation’s approach of providing the widest possible range of output and opinion. For such an organisation to capitulate to a prudish group – who were outside BBC venues at the time so couldn’t have seen the broadcast – would be a huge betrayal of that trust.  [i] BBC News Website. “BBC Global Audience Hits New High”. 21 May 2007.


It is simply impractical for a major international broadcaster to hand out powers of veto to small sectional interests.  The BBC would quickly be left with a content either devoid of interest or of content were it to allow such a veto to become normative. Especially were it, as appears to be the case here, to offer such a veto to people who didn’t watch the programme.  As a result, although some of the responsibility for avoiding offence lies with the broadcaster at least an equal share must lie with the viewer. Even at the more basic level of ‘will I like this’, responsibility lies with both parties. The BBC undertakes to provide a diverse range of programming so that there is a reasonable chance that the overwhelming majority should be able to find something of interest but does so on the assumption that people will watch what they find interesting.  Likewise, it is reasonable to assume that people will not go out of their way to watch things that they already expect to find offensive.


Tens of thousands of licence fee payers objected to this, ultimately they are the BBC’s key stakeholder and that view is worthy of respect.  As an institution, the BBC may like to position itself as a global media brand but that doesn’t alter the fact that it is funded by, and chartered to serve, the British population. The whole British population. That combination – paying the pipers and calling the tune – would suggest that the corporation might be sensitive to that group.  If 50,000 to 60,000 users of any other brand registered their protest or objection to a product put forward by that brand, it would cause chaos, resignations, sackings and a rethink of whatever strategy had caused the problem in the first place.  In the case of the BBC, it caused a few slightly dismissive comments from senior managers, one editor resigned because he felt that the protesters comments were not being taken seriously and the organisation continued as though nothing had happened.  The sheer arrogance required for that response beggars belief. The BBC, as a public institution has a duty of care that might be thought of as greater than that of a private corporation. And yet it gave the impression of acting like it was just one of the other venues who had staged the opera. There is clearly a difference between a theatre that I choose to attend or not – and choose whether to support financially – and the national broadcaster which is beamed into people’s living room paid for by a compulsory licence fee.


Why should those who foot the bill have chunks of airtime from which they are, effectively, excluded.  How can it be okay for a broadcaster, funded by a compulsory levy on anyone who owns a television, to willingly produce programmes they know will cause offence to that consumer?  The charge of blasphemy is far more than saying ‘I didn’t enjoy this’ or ‘not my kind of show’, it is a deeply held belief that what has been said is a deliberate and willful attack on values and beliefs that the viewer holds sacred and fundamental to who they are.  All major broadcasters, including the BBC, routinely test shows and monitor audience response and yet, in this particular regard, feel relaxed about producing material that certain viewers would consider it not only uncomfortable but sinful to watch. By definition, those viewers cannot watch those shows or, quite probably, that station and yet they are still expected to pay for it.  Even if a British viewer were to choose never to watch the BBC again because of the offence caused by programmes such as Jerry Springer: The Opera, they would still be paying the salaries of those who had caused the offence in the first place. That cannot be reasonable by any standard.


If this work had been an attack on Mohammed it would never have been broadcast, the BBC is applying double standards.  A week before the broadcast of the opera, protest by Sikhs in Birmingham about the play Bezthi by the Birmingham Rep, brought the show to a close. Like many organisations, the BBC panics when it believes it has caused offence to some religions and yet Christianity – by far the world’s most populous and diverse creed [i] - is routinely ignored or expected to ‘take it on the chin.  Christian symbols and imagery are routinely profaned by major broadcasters, publishers and others in a way that would simply not be tolerated if they were directed at ‘minority’ faiths in the UK.  Article Four (4) of the BBC’s charter [ii] stipulates quite clearly that all of the UK’s communities should be reflected in all of its activities. Despite this the interests of the community that is represented by the established church of the country, headed by the monarch, receives the least support or consideration from the institution.  [i]   [ii] BBC Charter.


The people are interested in the health of their leader  The health of the leader of the state is an issue that the people and the media inevitably want to know about. There will always be a lot of interest in it. Occasionally this can be played by the administration as with Kissinger saying he was ill and using time to fly to Beijing to arrange for Nixon’s visit without press attention. But most of the time keeping things from the press is purely negative; it drives rumors.  This was the case of John Atta Mills, people were not allowed to know about his health. The presidential staff and communication members constantly lied about his health but there were two reports that he had died. Mills spent time in a US hospital, on returning to Ghana, he was made to jog around the airport to show the media that he was healthy. 1  1 Committee for Social Advocacy, 'Who and what killed President John Evans Atta Mills?', Modern Ghana, 13 August 2012,


The head of state/government must be accountable to the people  Secrecy in relation to the leader’s health shows a distrust or distain of the electorate. Not being open about health issues almost invariably means that the administration is lying to those who elected them, those who they are accountable to. A couple of days before John Atta Mills died Nii Lantey Vanderpuye a candidate for Mills’ party stated “He [Mills] is stronger and healthier than any presidential candidate”, information that in retrospect was clearly untrue. 1  1 Takyi-Boadu, Charles, ‘Confusion Hits Mills’, Modern Ghana, 21 July 2012,


Transparency allows citizens to choose for a healthy leader as to ensure proper functioning  The health and fitness of a leader is a vital issue when choosing a leader; the electorate deserves to know if they are likely to serve out their term. When health conditions are hidden from the people they may mistakenly elect a leader who is unable to serve a full term or is at times not in control of the country. There would be little point in voting for a leader who will often not truely be in charge of the country, if voters are told it becomes their choice whether this is a problem. Transparency in terms of clear, accurate and up-to-date information is necessary for the electorate to judge the fitness of a leader which is a necessary precondition for election. In a democracy a leader needs to be accountable, he can only be accountable if the elctorate knows such vital information.


A lack of transparency can endanger the leader  A person is most likely to survive when they have an accident, a heart attack, or some other condition if they get prompt treatment and doctors are aware of any underlying conditions. Mills may well have lived, or lived longer if there had been more transparency about his death. There had been no prior warning that the president might be rushed to hospital despite the doctors having been called in the previous day. For the same reason his outriders were not available leading to indecision over whether to send off the ambulance. And finally he was initially turned away from the emergency ward because they did not know it was the President they were being asked to treat. 1 Transparency would allow procedures to be in place and advance notice given possibly gaining a few minutes and enabling survival.  1 Daily Guide, ‘How Mills died: Sister tells it all’, My Joy Online, 31 August 2012,


Rivals could misuse the opportunity  While the leader suffers from an illness, rivals can use the opportunity to ease the leader out of office. A period of illness is a period of vulnerability in which the government is less able to respond to external and internal threats. Not telling the public about the leader's health during an illness helps prevent such attempts. The same is the case with a leader's death; a few days of secrecy allows for smooth succession as the appointed successor has the time to ensure the loyalty of the government, army and other vital institutions. In 2008 when General Lansana Conte of Guinea died power should have been transferred to the president of the National Assembly Aboubacar Sompare with an election within 90 days. Instead a group of junior military officers took advantage of the quick announcement to launch a coup. 1  1 Yusuf, Huma, ‘Military coup follows death of Guinea’s President’, The Christian Science Monitor, 23 December 2008,


Damages diplomacy to be too open  Diplomacy can be very personal; diplomatic initiatives are often the result of a single person, and the individual leader is necessary to conclude negotiations. Transparency about a leader's health may therefore prevent deals being done; Nixon went to China despite Mao's ill heath meaning the supreme Chinese leader contributed little to the historic change in diplomatic alinements. 1 Would such a momentous change in alignment have been possible if both the Chinese and American public knew about Mao's ill health? The Americans would have considered any deal unreliable as they could not be sure it was Mao who made the decision, while opponents in China could have argued that it was advisers like Zhou Enlai who made the deal not Mao himself potentially enabling them to repudiate or undermine the deal.  1 Macmillan, Margaret, Seize the Hour When Nixon met Mao, John Murray, London, 2006, p.76


Markets like stability  Business and the markets prize political stability. Clearly when the leader of a country is ill this stability is damaged but the damage can be mitigated by being transparent. The markets will want to know how ill the leader is, and that the succession is secure so that they know what the future holds. Secrecy and the consequent spread of rumour is the worst option as businesses can have no idea what the future holds so cant make investment decisions that will be influenced by the political environment.  Leaders do matter to the economy; they set the parameters of the business environment, the taxes, subsidies, how much bureaucracy. They also influence other areas like the price of energy, the availability of transport links etc. It has been estimated that “a one standard deviation change in leader quality leads to a growth change of 1.5 percentage points”. 1 The leader who follows may be of the same quality in which case there will be little difference but equally it could mean a large change.  1 Jones, Benjjamin F., and Olken, Benjamin A., 'Do Leaders Matter? National Leadership and Growth Since World War II', Quarterly Journal of Economics, February 2005,


Denial of privacy to the leaders  The leaders of states deserve privacy in exactly the same way as anyone else. Just like their citizens leaders want and deserve privacy and it would be unfair for everyone to know about their health. Leaders may suffer from diseases such AIDS/HIV or embarrassing illnesses which could damage a leader.  The people only a need for the people to know when the illness significantly damages the running of the government. The government can function on its own without its leader for several days; only if the illness incapacitates the leader for a long period is there any need to tell the people. Clearly if the President is working from his bed he is still doing the job and his government is functioning. William Pitt the Younger, Prime Minister of Great Britain was toasted as 'the Saviour of Europe' while he was seriously ill but still running the country during the height of the Napoleonic Wars. 1  1 Bloy, Marjie, 'William Pitt the Younger (1759-1806)', Victorian Web, 4 January 2006,


A bargaining chip  In much the same way that material investment in countries can be used as a bargaining chip to secure improvements in areas of legislation, so cultural investment can be used to secure rights associated with related fields of endeavour. Free speech is merely the most obvious. It is reasonable for a western university to insist that its graduates will need to have access to the fruits of a free press and democratic speculation of experts and the wider public [i] .  The cases of the lecturer, Chia Thye Poh who is arguably the world’s longest serving prisoner of conscience or the political opposition leader, Vincent Cheng who was barred from addressing a talk organised the History Society of NUS at the national library [ii] both give examples of how Singaporean government actions impact directly on university life and academic freedoms. In the light of this, it seems the height of reasonableness for Western universities to say that they will only operate in areas that offer the same academic freedoms they would expect in their home country. If the Singaporean government wants that benefits that Yale graduates can bring, they should be prepared to accept such a change.  [i] Stateuniversity.Com. western Europe – Educational roots, reform in the twentieth century, contemporary reform trends, future challenges.  [ii] Ex-detainee Vincent Cheng barred from speaking in history seminar, The Online Citizen, 28 May 2010


The academic tradition of the West  The growth of universities as beacons of free speech has been a fundamental part of their history in the West; notably during the renaissance, reformation and enlightenment. The democratisation of that process with the expansion of the university sector in recent decades is merely the latest stage in an ongoing process.  However, that entire process has been driven (along with the artistic, cultural and scientific changes they have inculcated) on the basis that universities allow for the free exchange of ideas and flourish in environments where that approach is standardised throughout society [i] . Marxist scholars have gone further in calling for a critical pedagogy in which perspectives other than academic orthodoxy are normalised within universities.  Such institutions produce the best graduates because they have the best academics and the best academics will stay where they are free to publish whatever their research is and express their own views. For example in the 1990s 55.7% of those who had immigrated to the USA from the USSR described themselves as academics, scientists, professional or technical workers. [ii] Those academics in turn respect the intellectual tradition of dissent and critical scrutiny of which they are the inheritors. To take something else and slap the name ‘Yale’– or for that matter Oxford, Harvard or ETH Zurich – on it and pretend that nothing has changed devalues the qualification. Without the intellectual dissent and freedom of academic inquiry it is intellectually dishonest to call the degree the same thing.  [i] The Nebraskan. Doug Anderson. Learning depends on the free exchange of ideas, Nebraskan says.  [ii] Harvard, ‘Russians and East Europeans in America’


Maintaining the value of the degree  Employers and others expect certain degrees to mean certain things; they are more than just an expensive badge. In the case of elite western universities part of what that means is a critical approach to the world and the willingness to challenge ideas, regardless of the authority that holds them. Part of their exclusivity derives from their admission standards, partly from the academic rigour of their scholars and partly from the simple fact that there are only a relatively small number of graduates.  In other areas universities are all too aware of selling their reputation – impartiality, avoiding plagiarism and so forth – the same should be true here. If a degree from a western university does not mean that it recognises issues such as creativity and free thinking then it devalues the degree itself.  As a result the very governments that are so keen to acquire the creative, critical skills offered by graduates of western-style education will end up undermining the very thing that they seek. This impacts not only the graduates from Asian campuses of western universities but also their peers at the home institution [i] .  [i] US-China Today. Jasmine Ako. Unraveling Plagiarism in China. 28 March 2011.


‘Separation of town and gown’  There are two parties involved in this interaction, the state and the university. To pretend that is an entirely one way process is to ignore reality. Contrary to the belief of many Senior Common Rooms, states do not exist for the convenience of universities. Indeed universities quite happily accept the political and economic stability provided by states at exactly the same time as criticising the methods they need to use to maintain it.  However, ultimately universities are service providers from the point of view of the state, training and skilling the workforce. The university provides its expertise in exchange for funding and student fees. Where, exactly, the opinions of the faculty enter into such an equation is not clear and appears to have been assumed by proposition. Of course individual academics and students have the right to their own political views but the idea that a university as an institution has rights distinct from, say, a supermarket chain is impossible to justify. If a supermarket announced that it should be free to ignore local laws and adopt those of its base state instead, that would clearly be rejected. Just as when a food chain invests in a country for, say, beef, the arrangement is predicated on the understanding that both parties benefit and each has a little room for negotiation. [i] The same should apply here. If prop were to argue that Asian nations should relax there approach to cannabis so that it students could enjoy a more genuine ‘Western student experience’ the statement would be the subject of ridicule, so should this be.  [i] Smith, David, ‘Tesco should give us some of these billions’, guardian.co.uk, 15 May 2009,


Universities should exchange ideas not impose them  Of all possible institutions, for a university to suggest that it is not open to defending its ideas rather than insisting that they be artificially imported seems counter-intuitive. As Asian and European intellectual traditions increasingly interact as a result of economic interaction there are going to be clashes between and attempts to integrate the Confucian and Socratic approaches [i] . Part of that is the relationship between academia and the state. Western institutions seeking to establish themselves as a presence in Asia should at least be open to the idea that a different approach may have something to offer. After all a willingness to accept new ideas and attitudes is key to the ethic of any university – the assumption that such an exchange would only flow in one direction is astonishingly arrogant.  [i] This is true at every level, including simple things such as the approach taken by students to their studies. Inevitably, universities have responded to these in different ways in the two traditions.  Paton, Michael, ‘Asian Students, Critical Thinking and English as an Academic Lingua Franca’, Analytic teaching and philosophical praxis, Vol.32, No.1, pp.27-39 p.28


Argument One: Contact leads to the dissemination of values  There is certainly some evidence to suggest the view that trade with a country can benefit human rights as increased wealth provides many with more choice and better standards of living. [i] Certainly that argument has been made by governments and multi-nationals based in the West. It is not unreasonable to suspect that this may relate to academic cooperation as well, as Richard Levin suggests in the introduction. However it seems likely that in this latter case, as in the former, that a gradualist approach is the sensible one to take. We build on existing strengths while agreeing to differ in certain areas. To extend the trade example, China, the US and the EU all manage to trade with each other despite differing approaches to the death penalty. They trust that through cooperation over time, changes can be achieved. This will happen slowly in some instances – as with the ‘drip, drip’ affect in China - or quickly in others as has been the case in Burma [ii] .  On key difference to note with the shift towards establishing elite universities around the world rather than shipping the world’s elite in to attend them in the UK and the US is that it opens opportunities to a much wider social group. For decades a small handful – children of the wealthy and political elite - have had the opportunity to have a Western education before returning home as well-educated tyrants and sycophants. Expanding the learning opportunities to the rest of the nation seems both just and reasonable.  [i] Sirico, Robert A., ‘Free Trade and Human Rights: The Moral Case for Engagement’, CATO Institute, Trade Briefing Paper no.2, 17 July 1998  [ii] Education has long been seen as a critical starting point for the development of human rights in any country as is examined in this UNESCO report .