Don’t panic!  The role of the security services is in part to deal with some very dangerous ideas and events. But the point is to deal with them in such a way that does not cause public disorder or even panic. We clearly don’t want every report detailing specific threats to be made public, especially if it is reporting something that could be devastating but there is a low risk of it actually occurring. If such information is taken the wrong way it can potentially cause panic, either over nothing, or else in such a way that it damages any possible response to the crisis. Unfortunately the media and the public often misunderstand risk. For example preventing terrorism has been regularly cited in polls as being the Americans top foreign policy goal with more than 80% thinking it very important in Gallup polls for over a decade [1] even when the chance of being killed by terrorism in Western countries is very low. If the public misunderstands the risk the response is unlikely to be proportionate and can be akin to yelling fire in a packed theatre.  While it is not (usually) a security, but rather a public health issue, pandemics make a good example. The question of how much information to release is only slightly different than in security; officials want to release enough information that everyone is informed, but not so much that there is panic whenever there is an unusual death. [2] In 2009 the WHO declared swine flu to be a pandemic despite it being a relatively mild virus that did not cause many deaths, so causing an unnecessary scare and stockpiling of drugs. [3]  [1] Jones, Jeffrey M., ‘Americans Say Preventing Terrorism Top Foreign Policy Goal’, Gallup Politics, 20 February 2013  [2] Honigsbaum, Mark, ‘The coronavirus conundrum: when to press the panic button’, guardian.co.uk, 14 February 2013  [3] Cheng, Maria, ‘WHO’s response to swine flu pandemic flawed’, Phys.org, 10 May 2011


Transparency can result in normalisation  While something is secret it is clearly not a normal every day part of government, it is deniable and the assumption is that when it comes to light it has probably been wound up long ago. However making something transparent without winding it up can be a bad thing as it makes it normal which ultimately makes a bad policy much harder to end.  The use of drones by the CIA may turn out to be an example of this. At the moment we are told almost nothing about drones, not even how many strikes there are or how many are killed. There have however been recent suggestions that the drone program could be transferred to the Department of Defence. This would then make the targeted killing that is carried out seem a normal part of military conflict, somehting it clearly is not. [1] And the public reacts differently to covert and military action; already more Americans support military drones doing targeted killing (75%) than CIA ones (65%). [2]  [1] Waxman, Matthew, ‘Going Clear’, Foreign Policy, 20 March 2013  [2] Zenko, Micah, ‘U.S. Public Opinion on Drone Strikes’, Council on Foreign Relations, 18 March 2013


The fact that it is a Representative highlights the fact that the EU is based on consultation and consensus, and that is a positive thing.  While the new ‘EU High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy’ marks only a bold first step towards a more unified voice for the EU, the decisions are indeed still based on a state by state consultation mechanism – hence the name representative. This should however not to be downplayed as a less significant change in how the EU approaches its foreign policy. The consultation aspect is in fact essential to reaching agreement and the importance of not only presenting a united front to the rest of the world (the EU is exemplary in trade policy and environmental policy, but less important when it comes to presenting a united voice in foreign policy as Belgian Foreign minister Mark Eyskens put it in 1991 “Europe is an economic giant, a political dwarf, and a military worm” 1, but also creating a united front through collaboration and debate. One should thus see this not only as a means to an end, but rather as an important mechanism in itself, whereby new identities are slowly created along with a deeper sense of commitment to a common set of values.  1. Craig R Whitney, ‘WAR IN THE GULF: EUROPE; Gulf Fighting Shatters Europeans’ Fragile Unity’,


The EU has already been unifying on multiple fronts, this is just a step in the same direction.  The EU has slowly been building up its own common military framework, with the UK and France leading the effort to pool European military capacity. In addition, the EU itself has created new institutional bodies such as the Political and Security Committee, a Military Committee and military staff. The EU has had military envoys in Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina and has committed itself to the creation of a Common Security and Defense Policy with 3-4,000 troops on permanent standby in multilateral ‘battlegroups’ ready for immediate deployment(see Rockwell Schnabel’s article listed below)1. While incremental, these are steps not to be ignored. The Union has also placed that military capacity within the broader context of a security strategy designed to promote international peace, justice and development.  1. Schnabel, Rockwell A., 'U.S. Views on the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy', The Brown Journal of World Affairs, Vol. IX. Issue2., (Winter/Spring 2003) accessed 1/8/11


The creation of the post of a High Representative marked an important change in the EU.  The creation of a post of High Representative and Vice President of the Commission (HRVP) marks an important change in the decision making process at the EU level with regards to foreign policy. Agreement on the post showed a clear commitment to the pursuit of a common EU foreign policy and to developing a unique cooperative model for foreign and defense policy decision making that goes beyond the nation state. Member states should now deliver on that commitment by seeking as much common ground as possible to ensure that the High Representative’s role is truly significant. The goal of a common foreign and security policy should thus be supported not only as a mechanism to streamline EU’s position and role in world politics, but also to reinforce notions of cooperation and consultation essential for maintaining a stable international system, in line with the stated goals of the EU. (The 12 stars in a circle is meant to symbolize the ideals of unity, solidarity and harmony among the peoples of Europe)1.  1 Europa.eu, 'Symbols',accessed 1/8/11


The High Representative will be a catalyst and a facilitator for decision-making.  The High Representative will not only act as a spokesman for EU nations when they agree on foreign policies, but will act as a catalyst around which external policy will increasingly become coordinated. By chairing meetings of EU foreign ministers, he or she will be able to shape the agenda and influence the outcomes of meetings, encouraging member states increasingly to think in terms of common foreign policy positions. They will have added authority from their ability to speak for the EU in the UN Security Council. The High Representative will also direct the EU’s new External Action Service, which brings together policy specialists from both the Council and Commission in a unique manner (ranging from the Arctic region to nuclear safety and enlargement) 1. With representatives all over the world the EU will develop a foreign service capable of creating and articulating policy positions in a manner that few national governments can match. Over time this will promote the evolution of a true EU foreign and security policy, and will contribute significantly to increased European consciousness among EU citizens and further moves to political unity.  1. European Union External Action, Policies, accessed 1/8/11


The previous arrangement of having two foreign policy centers (in the Commission and in the Council) was arguably inefficient, but consolidating these into a single office-holder has created more complexity and at significantly greater expense.  Creating a position of EU High Representative is not objectionable in itself. Previously the EU was in the ludicrous situation of having two foreign affairs spokesmen, one from the Council and the other from the Commission. Rivalry and duplication of efforts, staffs and resources results, and so focusing all the EU’s external affairs work around one person makes some sense. What it does not mean is that the High Representative should lead a drive for a stronger common foreign policy position. Only when member states agree (which may not be often) will he or she have a role. In fact, by weakening the foreign affairs role within the Commission, this development may actually limit the pretensions of Brussels to develop its own agenda and dictate foreign policy to the member states.


There have been tests on the EU's ability to create a common foreign policy that it has failed.  The War in Iraq, along with previous notable failures to deal with the breakup of former Yugoslavia, has been an excellent test for the extent to which the EU can claim to have a common approach to world politics and foreign policy in particular. It has clearly pointed out a whole range of diverse and often opposed national interests, and national publics that were unwilling to make compromises along EU lines of commitment. It has also showed that the economic power of the EU is not enough to turn it into a major player on the international scene: the lack in military power and presence speaks for itself. The EU still lies very much under the umbrella of NATO and US military power and as long as this military dependency continues, the EU will not be able to have its own independent voice in world politics. 1  1.  ">


The post of a High Representative is merely a shadow of what it should have been, and its failure shows the EU's inability to consolidate foreign policy.  While seemingly groundbreaking, the current agreement on the EU reform treaty was nothing but a lame attempt to salvage a much bolder initiative: an EU Constitution. The rejection of the EU Constitution in the Dutch and French referendums, as well as the extreme difficulty in getting even its watered-down version accepted, shows the extent to which the member states of the EU are not yet ready to think and act in unison. The UK representatives successfully insisted that the language of the reform treaty clearly states that major foreign policy decisions will continue to be taken at the state level.


Devolution has demonstrated the ability of Scots to govern themselves not only as well as Westminster but with more civility  Not only has the policy agenda been different in Scotland but so has the model of politics. It has seen the emergence of new political parties and a better representation of the diversity within existing ones.  The nature of political discourse, although vigorous and not as consensual as initially hoped, has proved to be more consensual – both during the time of the SNP minority administration and the preceding coalitions than politics south of the border. [i]  The contrast between the coalition governments at Holyrood, the Scottish parliament, where Scottish Labour and the Scottish Liberal Democrats were allied between 1999 and 2007, and the internecine warfare going on between Conservative and Liberal members of the current Westminster coalition could not be more stark.  [i] Cairney, Paul, ‘Coalition and Minority Government in Scotland’, Political Studies Associations Conference, 1 April 2010,


Scotland has a proud history and has demonstrated since devolution different political interests  The Union has now passed its 300th birthday and throughout that time Scotland has maintained as distinct role and identity. This is grounded in a tradition and history that is quite different from that south of the Border and includes legal and education systems that have always been separate.  That has manifested itself in a distinct policy agenda since devolution and areas such as free care for the elderly and the abolition of student tuition fees.  Despite the opinions of doomsayers before devolution it has been proved as a remarkable success and massive approval throughout the UK with 70% saying it has been a success. [i]  [i] The Scotsman. “70% of Britons support devolution for Scotland, poll suggests” 8 May 2009.


An independent Scotland has enormous economic potential to join other small European nations, especially as a leader in technology and renewable energy  Many of Scotland’s problems are grounded in the fact that its potential has consistently been held back. Because the focus for economic development from a Westminster perspective has focused for generations on North Sea oil and the coal fields of Lanarkshire, huge opportunities were missed and the best and the brightest tended be dragged down south for jobs worthy of their skills.  Even with the limited powers allowed by devolution a burgeoning life-sciences sector, a growing IT sector in silicon glen are adding to the traditional industries. Since 2003 Scotland has generally had faster economic growth than the UK with 13% during the period from 2003-2007 compared to the UK’s 11.4%. [i] Independence would stretch people still further.  [i] CPPR Centre for Public Policy for Regions, ‘The changing pattern of Scotland’s economic growth since Devolution’, CPPR Briefing Note, June 2011,


The union has worked for over three hundred years and most people feel comfortable with the joint Scots/British identity  For over three centuries the two nations have cooperated much to their mutual advantage. The majority of Scots are happy with their British-ness.  In terms of culture and art the two nations have maintained distinctive traditions but ones which have been enhanced by their interaction. There are many people who have relatives from Scotland and another of the Home Nations for whom British is the more obvious identity. [i]  After centuries of fighting with each other the Union brought peace and mutual benefit.  [i] Mitchell, David, ‘If Scotland does secede, I won’t be alone in mourning for my country’, The Observer, 15 May 2011,


Scotland needs English economic muscle as through the Barnett formula England, especially the Southeast effectively subsidizes the rest of the UK in general and Scotland in particular  The Barnett established the model by which money is divided up within the regions and nations of the UK. The formula works greatly to Scotland’s advantage with a net flow of funding heading north.  The English taxpayer subsidizes Scots to the tune of £19bn a year (2009-10). [i] Without that subsidy The Scottish government would not have been able to give away the many benefits that have been handed out by the devolved authorities.  Scotland needs English support financially just as she does in terms of diplomatic representation or political muscle.  [i] McLaren, John et al., ‘Financial Implications of Different Fiscal Arrangements For Scotland’, CPPR Centre for Public Policy for Regions, June 2011,


Deliberately turning away from the international clout the UK brings to play on the global scene is simply odd  The UK acts as a big player on the international scene sitting at the top table of most international institutions. It is questionable as to whether the remaining part of the UK would continue to sit on the UN Security Council; one thing that is certain is that Scotland would not. Equally they would have little clout on European bodies, damaging their influence on key Scottish interests such as fisheries policy.  It would also lose the advantage that many companies see Edinburgh as a convenient base within the UK but would be unlikely to see much benefit to it as a base in an independent Scotland [i] .  [i] David Sinclair. “Issues surrounding Scottish independence.” September 1999. Published by the Constitution Unit, Tavistock House.


They fuel colourism in society  Allowing the use of racial overtones – the perception that a product will bring a person towards a “white ideal” is harmful for several reasons. It could cause communities to generate a form of inferiority complex, and it reinforces the structural difference rather than aiming to minimize it. While it may sound absurd, in the US darker-skinned African Americans (and darker skinned latinos) are less well educated and have lower incomes [1] . Elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere, such as in Brazil, race is seen as an issue of colour and socio-economic background, not ancestry highlighting a much more obvious link between whitening creams and racism [2] .  Is it not the role of the state to reduce that discrimination, not to fuel it? Banning such creams would help prevent such harmful effects by discouraging the notion that people should aim to make themselves lighter skinned.  [1] Hunter, Margaret L., “If you’re light you’re alright: light skin color as social capital for women of color”, Gender and Society, 2002,  , p.35  [2] Telles, Edward, Race in Another America: The Significance of Skin Colour in Brazil, 2004, online sample chapter,


These products are dangerous  Skin whitening creams often contain a wide variety of harmful ingredients – in some cases, mercury. These can cause various health problems; mercury in particular causes renal (kidney) damage, major skin problems as well as mental health issues [1] .  States, throughout the world, ban consumer products because they are harmful regardless of whether this is for consumption or for cosmetics. This is just another case where that is appropriate in order to prevent the harm to health that may occur.  [1] World Health Organization, “Mercury in skin lightening products”, WHO.int, 2011,


Monetizing colonialism  Skin whitening can be seen as an attempt to fit in with a form of a neo-colonialist mind-set; a form of cultural imperialism driven by capitalism.  These products, often sold by big international FMCG (fast moving consumer goods) companies feed off a neo-colonialist mind-set – one of a cultural inferiority complex. These products form part of the process of tying African people into a globalised consumer world where non-westerners feel compelled to buy western products that they don’t need. They are therefore kept in a colonial situation where they are dependent on the west both mentally and in terms of the products they buy. That is reason enough for nations that have been victims of colonialism by the Global North to take action against them.


Prohibition is counterproductive  As tempting as it is to feel that banning is the solution to problems, it doesn’t work. Almost all states prohibits certain drugs, but that does not stop them being used. [1] Despite being banned in Ghana, skin whitening creams are still openly advertised on billboards [2] .  Counterfeit cosmetics of all types exist worldwide [3] , they are illegal for a variety of reasons, not least intellectual property abuse: banning skin lighting creams would simply give more space to the counterfeits. A ban could lead users towards either a homemade substance, or pills and injections which would almost certainly be more damaging as a result of a lack of regulation.  [1] See the Debatabase debate ‘ This House supports the legalisation of drugs’  [2] Al Jazeera English, “The Stream: Fair Beauty”, YouTube, 22 August 2013,  , roughly 18 minutes in  [3] RIA Novosti, “Counterfeit cosmetics: Turning beauties in to beasts”, RT, 08 November 2010,


Run education campaigns instead  Education is an alternative. Campaigns such as #darkisbeautiful (dark is beautiful) in India are the model for advancing equality and marginalizing colourism in India. The campaign has had some success attracting stars, including some such as Vishaka Sing who have modelled for fairness creams, to campaign against the prejudice against darker skin tones. [1]  The heavy hand of legislation is not the correct tool – other methods from social media campaigns to changing practices in the fashion, beauty and media industries (such as has occurred in Dakar Fashion Week [2] ) will reduce the cultural demand.  [1] Krupa, Lakshmi, ‘Dark is beautiful’, The Hindu, 8 September 2013,   [2] Reuters, “Dakar fashion week bans models who use skin lightning cream”, South China Morning Post, 01 July 2013,


Banning these is papering over the issue  It would be all too tempting for governments to consider that a ban on these products would sort out issues of skin tone discrimination as they would be hidden away from public view.  Class and race are both divisive issues, and are often inextricably linked. Those with lighter skin will still have advantages over those with darker skin hues. The banning of whiteners will simply reduce the ability of individuals to change how others perceive them. We can all agree that there needs to be less colourism but that has to be achieved by reducing prejudices. Only broader education on the issue of skin colour discrimination can achieve such a change.


Personal autonomy  Like many other debates, this simply boils down to personal autonomy. Individuals should be free to take actions, even ones harmful to them as long as they do not harm others, at least not without good reason. Thus things that are almost entirely harmful such as smoking are allowed.  It is a matter of personal choice – to suggest otherwise non-white women do not have the capacity to make that choice.


People are given too much choice, which makes them less happy.  Advertising leads to many people being overwhelmed by the endless need to decide between competing demands on their attention – this is known as the tyranny of choice or choice overload. Recent research suggests that people are on average less happy than they were 30 years ago - despite being better off and having much more choice of things to spend their money on1. The claims of adverts crowd in on people, raising expectations about a product and leading to inevitable disappointment after it is bought. A recent advertisement for make-up was banned in Britain due to the company presenting its product as being more effective than it actually was2. Shoppers feel that a poor purchase is their fault for not choosing more wisely, and regret not choosing something else instead. Some people are so overwhelmed that they cannot choose at all.  1Schwartz, The Tyranny of Choice, 2004.  2 Kekeh , Too Beautiful? British MP Draws Line in Sand for Cosmetic Ads , 2011.


Advertisements tell children that they should have everything they want.  Advertising gives the impression, especially to children, that they can and should have everything they want. This makes people too interested in material things. People are becoming more selfish and obsessed with their possessions, and losing their values of patience, hard work, moderation and the importance of non-material things like family and friends. This harms their relationships and their personal development, which has serious effects for society as a whole.


There are too many advertisements in everyday life.  The sheer volume of advertising in our society is incredible. You cannot watch television, ride on a bus or even walk down the street without someone trying to sell you something or inform you of something. Recent research suggests people living in a city today sees up to 5,000 advertisements a day1. 50% of those surveyed said they thought 'advertising today was out of control'1. People shouldn't have to go about their lives having their minds saturated with such a vast quantity of, in most cases, redudant and profiteering information. They should be able to go about their daily lives in peace without being forced to watch, listen or view an advertisement.  1 Anywhere the Eye Can See, It's Likely to See an Ad. New York Times.


Advertisements are an attempt to brainwash customers.  People cannot just choose to ignore advertising, because advertisers use many underhand methods to get their message across. Posters have attention grabbing words, or provocative pictures. Some adverts today are even being hidden in what seem like pieces or art or public information so people don't realise they are being marketed to. The introduction of digital screens allows businesses to alter their advertising to respond to specific events, making advertisements not only everywhere, but seemingly all-knowing1. By targeting people's unconscious thoughts adverts are a form of brainwashing that take away people's freedoms to make choices.  1 Anywhere the Eye Can See, It's Likely To See an Ad. The New York Times.


Advertisements try to make people feel bad about not having the product  Many adverts do more than just advertising products. Some try to make people feel inferior if they don't have the product, or if they have something which the product would change. Perceptions of beauty and fashion in particular have been terribly distorted. Many young people have low self-esteem, and lead unhealthy lifestyles because they feel they should be thinner and more attractive like the models they see in adverts. This leads to serious problems like eating-disorders and self-harm. Research that proved this effect also concluded that 'the media can boost self-esteem (happiness with one's self) where it is providing examples of a variety of body shapes. However, it often tends to portray a limited (small) number of body shapes'1.  1 Skinny models 'send unhealthy message'. The Guardian.


Advertising helps us choose between different goods.  Advertising has a positive role to play in modern society, helping us choose between competing goods. Many adverts are drawing our attention to products with new features, for example more powerful computers, telephones which are also cameras and music players, or foods with added vitamins. Other adverts try to compete on price, helping us seek out the cheapest or best value products. In most cases advertising does not make us go shopping – we would be planning to buy food, clothes, gifts and entertainment anyway. What advertising does is to help us make better decisions about how to spend our money, by giving us more information about the choices available.


Advertising is only as annoying as you want it to be.  No-one is forced to put advertising on their property - for many companies it is an important part of their income. Football teams would have much less money if they were not sponsored. Manchester United's shirt sponsorship deal with Aon is worth £80 million. For the small annoyance of having to have a logo on the shirt, the football club can afford to buy new players and hopefully win more games. And no-one is forced to look at advertising - you can turn the TV off between shows, or just flick past adverts in newspapers. If you don't want to see the adverts, then just ignore them.


Advertisements promote healthy products and lifestyles.  Advertising is used to promote healthy activities, products and lifestyles and is further regulated to ensure that unhealthy products are not promoted. The School Food Trust in Britain, for example, used celebrities in advertisements to promote healthy eating in 20071. Furthermore, adverts which promote seriously unhealthy things are becoming very rare. Cigarette advertising is all but extinct, and alcohol adverts are being more restricted. With adverts such as fast food we see as well that companies are changing their message to promote healthier options. This is because it is bad for businesses to be viewed as harming children. Public pressure and successful regulation will always bring any advertising problems back under control.  1 Schools Food Trust uses celebs to promote healthy eating. Campaign Live.


Small businesses need advertisements to make their products known.  If there wasn't advertising then small businesses would have no chance at all to make their product well known. Adverts can actually level the playing field - if you have a good new product, and market it in a clever way then it doesn't matter how small your company is, you can still make consumers interested. The more you restrict the freedom of information, the more this helps the large companies who everyone already knows about.


We have a duty to protect individuals from the worst reactions to art  Those who see the artwork, or hear of it, must be considered. Often, social disgust stems from the violation of those values that are most central to an individual.  An individual’s right not to have their most central values abused or ridiculed is surely of more importance than the desire of an artist to be entirely unrestricted in their work: the harm caused to individuals by the continuing acceptance by society, (and consequent exposure) of art they find disgusting, can be great, and the reasonable modern society recognises such harms and does not impose them unnecessarily.  For example, the case of the Chapman brothers’ repeated use of Hitler and Nazi imagery: for the Chapmans the horror of WW2 might be distant and historical, and therefore for them the time may have come for Hitler to simply be mocked; however, for others that horror is altogether more current. Other people may feel a greater connection, for example, because of the impact on their close family, which cannot simply be ignored. In a situation like this, clearly the impact is infinitely more negative for that individual whose trauma is, in effect, being highlighted as now acceptable for comic material, than the positive gain is for the Chapmans: if restricted, they are simply caused to move on to other subjects.


Just shock-tactics, at the cost of better art  Sometimes artists go too far in a bid to get their message across. Simply grabbing the headlines with shock tactics does not constitute art of the sort that should be receiving either public support or attention. It is important to recognise that public displays and funding of art are limited commodities, so every time one piece is chosen for an exhibition, or an artist is given money, this comes at the cost of other possible pieces of art. It is surely better to support those artists who have chosen to express their ideas and messages in a way that does not rely on simple attention-grabbing horror: it is surely more artistically meritorious to create a work that conveys its message in a way that rewards close attention and careful study, with layers of meaning and technique.


The power of the visual  Art differs from other forms of media with regard to the expression of ideas. Unlike other methods of conveying ideas, art has a visceral impact that is instant and has a lasting effect.  In a discussion, for example, there are often clues that ideas that might make people feel uncomfortable are about to arise. Thus, people are in a better position to consent to the sorts of challenges controversy within a conversation may pose (similarly, we tend to look more positively on taboo subjects raised within a conversational context than we do when they are, for example, shouted about in the street).  In the case of art, particularly that which is displayed in public spaces (like squares, parks and museums) people are unable to consent in this way, but rather, may be confronted suddenly by something that they find disgusting, because it has forced them to confront something they find horrific or traumatic, in a manner which has a great impact, and that, because of the power of the visual, they find difficult to forget.


Freedom of speech  Artists ought to be allowed to express themselves, and display the world they see, as they see it.  Freedom of speech is considered integral to the modern democracy, and with good reason! Free speech makes a vital contribution to a plurality of ideas. It is only when a great number of ideas are expressed and challenged, such that people’s beliefs remain fluid, and can be formed and reformed, that we are able to arrive at such a point where we are likely to progress. This ‘marketplace of ideas’ prevents us from stagnating; from continuing harmful practices and modes of thought simply because they are traditional.  The more free speech is limited, the less able we are to access this plurality of ideas, and thus the less able we are to truly challenge harmful habits.


Restriction based on social disgust prevents socially liberal ideas from flourishing  Great, socially liberal movements have always been controversial, and always been supported, encouraged and propagated by art. Art is a realm wherein an artist’s expression is less limited by social structures (like the necessity of pleasing your box; of being ‘commercially viable’). Subsequently it has easily, and often, been utilised as a means of changing public opinion.  Some of these movements, for example, the breaking down of stereotypes and norms surrounding sexuality (in particular female sexuality) and gender that Sarah Lucas, Tracey Emin and others contributed to in the liberalising 80s and 90s, attract social disgust. In any situation where a taboo is being attacked, this will happen. The converse however, is not the case: it is almost impossible to provoke social disgust by maintaining the status quo.  As a result, restriction of art that provokes social disgust will disproportionately attack the socially liberal, and thus help to maintain the status quo, regardless of whether it is worthy of such protection.


Social disgust can be central to artwork  Some forms of art rely strongly on the provocation of disgust or other strong reactions. For example, conceptual artists often rely heavily upon the provocation of strong emotions in the viewer as a way of drawing attention to important, taboo areas (e.g. death, religion and sexuality). If they are banned from doing this, then we lose an entire branch of art: we are left instead with forms of art that choose not to engage with these areas at all.  Particularly in cases where people want to draw attention to what they see as unnecessary taboos, shock is integral. For example, the work of Sarah Lucas explored taboos surrounding sexuality and gender: her work drew attention to stereotyping and taboo in a way that (necessarily) many people found disgusting. Further, it is possible to critically engage with that disgust. It is wrong to assume that the end point of a provocative piece of art is “oh, I’ve been provoked”. Rather, this emotional first response is only the beginning when it comes to the contemplation of that work. Thinking about the reasons for your disgust, and its context, allows us a greater insight into the work, which if you believe ideas are central to pieces of art (which conceptual artists do) is vital.


The default of total copyright is harmful to the spreading of information and experience  Current copyright law assigns too many rights, automatically, to the creator. Law gives the generator of a work full copyright protection that is extremely restrictive of that works reuse, except when strictly agreed in contracts and agreements. Making Creative Commons licenses the standard for publicly-funded works generates a powerful normalizing force toward a general alteration of people’s defaults on what copyright and creator protections should actually be like. The creative commons guarantees attribution to the creator and they retain the power to set up other for-profit deals with distributors. [1] At base the default setting of somehow having absolute control means creators of work often do not even consider the reuse by others in the commons. The result is creation and then stagnation, as others do not expend the time and energy to seek special permissions from the creator. Mandating that art in all its forms be released under a creative commons licensing scheme means greater access to more works, for the enrichment of all. This is particular true in the case of “orphan works”, works of unknown ownership. Fears over copyright infringement has led these works, which by some estimates account for 40% of all books, have led to huge amounts of knowledge and creative output languishing beyond anyone’s reach. A mix of confusion over copyright ownership and unwillingness of owners to release their works, often because it would not be commercially viable to do so, means that only 2% of all works currently protected by copyright are commercially available. [2] Releasing these works under creative commons licenses will spawn a deluge of enriching knowledge and creative output spilling onto the market of ideas. It would mark a critical advancement in the democratization and globalization of knowledge akin to the invention of the printing press.  [1] Creative Commons. “About the Licenses”. 2010.   [2] Keegan, V. “Shorter Copyright Would Free Creativity”. The Guardian. 7 October 2009.


Intellectual property is a legal fiction created for convenience in some instances, but copyright should cease to be protected under this doctrine  An individual’s idea only truly belongs solely to them so long as it rests in their mind alone. When they disseminate their ideas to the world they put them in the public domain, and should become the purview of everyone to use. Artists and creators more generally, should not expect some sort of ownership to inhere in an idea they happen to have, since no such ownership right exists in reality. [1] No one can own an idea. Thus recognizing something like a property right over intangible assets is contrary to reason, since doing so gives monopoly power to individuals who may not make efficient or equitable use of their inventions or products. Physical property is a tangible asset, and thus can be protected by tangible safeguards. Ideas do not share the same order of protection even now because they exist in a different order to physical reality. However, some intellectual property is useful in encouraging investment and invention, allowing people to engage their profit motives to the betterment of society as a whole. To an extent one can also sympathize with the notion that creators deserve to accrue some additional profit for the labour of the creative process, but this can be catered for through Creative Commons non-commercial licenses which reserve commercial rights. [2] These protections should not extend to non-commercial use of the various forms of arts. This is because art is a social good of a unique order, with its purpose not purely functional, but creative. It only has value in being experienced, and thus releasing these works through creative commons licenses allows the process of artistic experience and sharing proceeds unhindered by outmoded notions of copyright. The right to reap some financial gain still remains for the artists, as their rights still hold over all commercial use of their work. This seems like a fair compromise of the artist’s right to profit from their work and society right to experience and grow from those works.  [1] Fitzgerald, Brian and Anne Fitzgerald. Intellectual Property: In Principle. Melbourne: Lawbook Company. 2004.  [2] Walsh, K., “Commercial Rights Reserved proposal outcome: no change”, Creative Commons, 14 February 2013,


The creative commons is a more effective means for artists to build and expand their reach and markets than traditional copyright licensing arrangements  The nature of the internet and mass media on the 21st century is such that many artists can benefit from the freedom and flexibility that creative commons licenses furnish to them. Wider use by other artists and laymen alike helps artistic works “go viral” and to gain major impact that allow the artist to generate a name for his or herself and to attain the levels of earnings conventional copyrights are meant to help artists generate but that ultimately hamstring them. A major example of this is the band Nine Inch Nails, which opted in 2008 to begin releasing its albums through the creative commons. [1] Creative commons licenses are so remarkable because they can be deployed by artists to expand their markets, and to profit even more from their greater recognition. After all, the artists still retain control of the commercial uses of their work and are guaranteed under creative commons licensing regulations to be credited by users of their content. [2] Giving undue artistic and distribution control to the artists through constricting and outmoded copyright may mean less significant reach and impact of the work. The state should thus facilitate the sharing by mandating the distribution of art of all kinds under creative commons licenses.  [1] Anderson, N., “Free Nine Inch Nails albums top 2008 Amazon MP3 sales charts”, arstechnica, 7 January 2009,   [2] Creative Commons. “About the Licenses”. 2010.


The costs of monitoring copyright by states, artists, and lawyers far outweigh the benefits, and is often simply ineffective  The state incurs huge costs in monitoring for copyright infringement, in arresting suspected perpetrators, in imprisonment of those found guilty, even though in reality nothing was stolen but an idea that, once released to it, belonged to the public domain more or less. [1] Furthermore, the deterrent effect to copyright piracy generated by all the efforts of the state and firms has proven generally minimal. In fact, the level of internet piracy of books, music, and films has increased dramatically year on year for several years, increasing by 30% in 2011 alone. [2] This is because in many cases copyright laws are next to unenforceable, as the music and movie industries have learned to their annoyance in recent years, for example ninety percent of DVDs sold in China are bootlegs while even western consumers are increasingly bypassing copyright by using peer to peer networks. [3] Only a tiny fraction of perpetrators are ever caught, and though they are often punished severely in an attempt to deter future crime, it has done little to stop their incidence. Copyright, in many cases, does not work in practice plain and simple. Releasing works under a creative commons licensing scheme does a great deal to cope with these pressures. In the first instance it is a less draconian regime, so individuals are more willing to buy into it as a legitimate claim by artists rather than an onerous stranglehold on work. This increases compliance with the relaxed law. Secondly, the compliance means that artists are given the vocal crediting under the license rules that gives them more public exposure than clandestine copying could not. Ultimately this adaptation of current copyright law would benefit the artist and the consumer mutually.  [1] World Intellectual Property Organization. “Emerging Issues in Intellectual Property”. 2011   [2] Hartopo, A. “The Past, Present and Future of Internet Piracy”. Jakarta Globe. 26 July 2011.   [3] Quirk, M., “The Movie Pirates”, The Atlantic, 19 November 2009,


Artists should retain the right to control their work’s interaction with the public space even if their work is publicly funded  Art is the expression of its creator’s sense of understanding of the world, and thus that expression will always have special meaning to him or her that no amount of reinterpretation or external appreciation can override. How a work is used once released into the public sphere, whether expanded, revised, responded to, or simply shown without their direct consent, thus remains an active issue for the artist, because those alternative experiences are all using a piece of the artist in its efforts. Artists deserve to have that piece of them treated in a way they see as reasonable. It is a simple matter of justice that artists be permitted to maintain the level of control they desire, and it is a justice that is best furnished through the conventional copyright mechanism that provides for the maximum protection of works for their creators, and allows them to contract away uses and rights to those works on their own terms. Many artists care about their legacies and the future of their artistic works, and should thus have this protection furnished by the state through the protection of copyright, not cast aside by the unwashed users of the creative commons. Samuel Beckett is a great example of this need. Beckett had exacting standards about the fashion in which in his plays could be performed. [1] For him the meaning of the art demanded an appreciation for the strict performance without the adulteration of reinterpretation. He would lack that power under this policy, meaning either the world would have been impoverished for want of his plays, or he would have been impoverished for want of his rights to his work. These rights are best balanced through the aegis of copyright as it is, not under the free-for-all of the creative commons license.  [1] Catron, L. “Copyright Laws for Theatre People”. 2003.


Artists often rely on copyright protection to financially support themselves and their families  Artists as they are often not paid for anything else may rely on their creative output to support themselves. This is certainly no crime, and existing copyright laws recognize this fact. Artists often rely wholly on their ability to sell and profit from their work. This policy serves to drain them of that potential revenue, as their work is shunted into creative commons, and available to all. Artists often also have families to support, and putting the added financial burden on them of stripping them of their copyright only serves to further those problems as they exist. A robust system of copyright is a much better protection to struggling and successful artists alike who like all talented individuals seek to assuage their material wants. Artists cannot live on appreciation alone. With much less secure copyright many would have to find other work.


The lack of control over, and profit from, art will serve as a serious disincentive to artistic output  Profit is as much a factor in artists’ decision to produce work, if not more so, than the primordial urge to create. Without the guarantee of ownership over one’s artistic work, the incentive to invest in its creation is certainly diminished. Within a strong copyright system, individuals feel free to invest time in their pursuits because they have full knowledge that the final product of their labours will be theirs to enjoy. [1] Without copyright protections the marginal cases, like people afraid to put time into actually building an installation art piece rather than doing more hours at their job, will not opt to create. If their work were to immediately leave their control, they would most certainly be less inclined to do so. Furthermore, the inability of others to simply duplicate existing works as their own means they too will be galvanized to break ground on new ideas, rather than simply re-tread over current ideas and to adapt existing works to markets. Art thrives by being new and original. Copyright protections shield against artistic laziness and drive the creative urges of the artistically inclined to ever more interesting fields.  [1] Greenberg, M. “Reason or Madness: A Defense of Copyright’s Growing Pains”. John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law. 2007.


Artists have a fundamental property right over their creative output  Whatever the end product, be it music, film, sculpture, or painting, artistic works are the creations of individuals and a property right inheres within them belonging to their creators. An idea is just an idea so long as it remains locked in someone’s mind or is left as an unfinished sketch, etc. But when the art is allowed to bloom in full, it is due to the artist and the artist only. The obsession, the time, the raw talent needed to truly create art is an incredible business, requiring huge investment in energy, time, and effort. It is a matter of the most basic, and one would have hoped self-evident, principle that the person who sacrificed so much to bring forth a piece of art should retain all the rights to it and in particular have the right to profit from it. [1] To argue otherwise would be to condone outright theft. The ethereal work of the artist is every bit as real as the hard work of a machine. Mandating that all forms of art be released under a creative commons license is an absolute slap in the face to artists and to the artistic endeavour as a whole. It implies that somehow the work is not entirely the artist’s own, that because it is art it is somehow so different as to be worthy of being shunted into the public sphere without the real consent of the artist. This is a gross robbing of the artist’s right over his or her own work. If property rights are to have any meaning, they must have a universal protection. This policy represents a fundamental erosion of the right to property, and attacks one sector of productive life that is essential for the giving of colour to the human experience. This policy serves only to devalue that contribution.  [1] Greenberg, M. “Reason or Madness: A Defense of Copyright’s Growing Pains”. John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law. 2007.


Women have a right to be free of stereotyping.  Women's rights to be free from stereotyping, prejudice, discrimination and objectification should be a matter of deep concern as they infringe on human rights related to gender. Advertising messages influence younger generations as well as send stereotypical images of men. As a result the objectification and violence against women will continue. Gender inequality and sexual harassment in the work place is not likely to diminish.1 This means that women will continue to suffer from discrimination based upon their gender. 1 Newswise.com, "Study Find Rise in Sexualized Images of Women." 2010


Sexist advertising is harmful to society, especially women.  Sexist advertising harms women through objectification and diminishing of self-image. The United Nations Convention to Eliminate Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) links stereotypes about women to prejudice based on gender.1 Through visual and verbal messages women are portrayed as subservient to men. Women are seen increasingly as sex objects and these ads legitimize violence against women.2 Sexist advertising also harms women's self-image by portraying an ideal stylized body.3 The implied message is that consumers should seek to acquire these images even if they are contrary to the reality of body types and features. Eating disorders and obsessive beauty products consumption results in order to attain ideal beauty images presented in the media.4 Sexist ads also harm men through stereotyped images of masculinity.5 1 Object.Org. "Women not Sex Objects." 2011/ August 24 2 Newswise.com. "Study Find Rise in Sexualized Images of Women." 2011/08/10 3 Kilbourne, Jean. "Beauty... and the Beast of Advertising "


Since advertising is pervasive in mediated messages, it has the power to influence social attitudes.  Adverts occupy more public space than ever before in history. Due to technology, public space is global and ads can been seen around the world, in 2009 the UK became the first major economy where advertisers spend more on internet advertising than on television advertising1. Through such dominance, ads contribute to attitudes and values. Due to their power to influence attitudes within a society, serious attention should be paid to the content of advertising. 1 Sweney, Mark, 'Internet overtakes television to become biggest advertising sector in the UK', The Guardian, 30 September 2009


Policies should be established which ban the promotion of sexist attitudes in advertising.  Norway and Denmark have already developed policies to restrict sexist advertising1. In 2008, the UN Committee to Eliminate Discrimination Against Women calls upon states to taken action and in particular the United Kingdom government to address this issue.2 In May of 2011 Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe 's Committee on Equal Opportunity for Women made a case for sexist advertising as a barrier to gender equality. In that report standards were presented and methods to cope with sexist advertising were suggested.3In Australia a government advisory board has developed a list of principles to guide both advertising and the fashion industry.4 1 Holmes, Stefanie. "Scandinavian split on sexist ads." BBC news. 2008/April 25 accessed 2011/08/25 2 Object.com. "Women are not Sex Objects." 3 Parliamentary Assembly of 26 May 2011, The Council of Europe. 4 Kennedy, Jean. "Fashion Industry asked to adopt body image code." ABCNews. 2010/June 27


Sexist advertising is subjective so would be too difficult to codify.  Effective advertising appeals to the social, cultural, and personal values of consumers. Through the connection of values to products, services and ideas, advertising is able to accomplish its goal of adoption. Failure to make meaningful appeals to audience members seriously diminishes the outcomes of marketing. Since differing beliefs about beauty, body types, sexuality, and gender roles exist across societies and cultures, universal definitions of sexist advertising are too difficult to determine. As an example, biological differences exist between women and what may be considered excessively thin in one society may not be so in another. Any type of censoring calls into questions such as who will censor and how will such censorship be applied. The development of standards could favour cultural imperialism. Therefore, sexist advertising is too difficult to codify.


Individuals have a choice and right to respond to ads and their meaning.  Consumers have a choice to expose themselves to advertising through their own personal behaviour. Advertisements can be ignored by the consumer and deleted at will. Interpretation of the ad depends on the attitudes of the receiver. The purchase and consumption of beauty products is the personal choice of a buyer. How ads attract and influence is determined by individual beliefs and values of the audience member. Some feminists believe that institutional power structures set up a "victim" mentality in women and fail to empower them by placing dependence upon power structures to make choices for women.1 If consumers wish to embrace the ideals or values represented in ads, this should be their choice. Therefore the right to self determine one's consumer behaviour should be left to the individual. 1 Thomas, Christine. "The New Sexism." Socialism Today, Issue #77. 2003/September


Any changes in advertising should come from businesses themselves rather than through banning.  Banning requires a legal framework and enforcement mechanism. External organizations interfere with the ability of business to conduct business. Should the social cultural environment change, businesses are likely to respond to the attitudes of their consumers. A recent change in the California Milk Board's website occurred due to public pressure.1 Social corporate responsibility is another possibility which business could embrace if changing social attitudes develop.2Banning is a repressive method which interferes with competition. Self determined methods should be allowed to competitors in the economic marketplace. Therefore, any changes in advertising should come from the business community rather than through banning. 1 Kumar, Sheila. "Milk Board Alters Sexist PMS-Themed Ad Campaign." The Huffington Post. 2011/July 22. 2 Skibola, Nicole. "Gender and Ethics in Advertising: The New CSR." Forbes.com. 2011/August 4


Sexist advertising is profitable  Business has a compelling self interest to make a profit and advertising is integral to that endeavour. The profit from business allows for economic growth without which individual states and the world's economy could not survive. Competition drives the marketplace of products and ideas. And, advertising is the primary method through which those products, services and ideas are made known to the public. When banning is placed upon advertising, the ability to compete and survive in the economic marketplace is threatened. Therefore, the compelling need to make a profit is legitimizes the need for advertising.


The failure of rule of law  As the anthropologist and lawyer Sally Falk-Moore observed “law is only ever a piecemeal intervention by the state in the life of society.” [i]  Laws are, ultimately, social norms that are taught, enforced and arbitrated on by the state. The value of these norms is such that they are deemed to be a vital part of a society’s identity and the state is entrusted with their protection. However, this ideal can be difficult to achieve. Debate as to which norms the state should be custodian of is constant. Where there is a disconnect between a law and the daily lives, aspirations and struggles of a society, it becomes unlikely that that law will be complied with. Generally, a state will not be able to give a pronouncement the force of law if it does not reflect the values held by a majority of a society.  Compliance with the law can be even harder to obtain in highly plural societies. Even in plural societies ruled peacefully by an effective central government (such as India), communities’ conceptions of children’s rights may be radically different from those set down in law. The Indian child marriage restraint act has been in force since 1929, but the practice remains endemic in southern India to this day [ii] . Governments can attempt to enforce compliance with a law, through education, incentives or deterrence.  What if the state that is intended to mount the “piecemeal intervention” of banning the use of child soldiers is weak, corrupt or non-existent? What if a state cannot carry out structured interventions of the type described above? Norms that state that the conscription of children is acceptable- due to tradition or need- will be dominant.  Situations of this type will be the rule rather than the exception in underdeveloped states and states where conflict is so rife that children have become participants in warfare. The ICC has jurisdiction to prosecute individuals with command over military units who use children as combatants [iii] , but how should the concept of a “commander” be defined in these circumstances?  In order for the juristic principles underlying the authority of the ICC to function properly, it is necessary for there to be a degree of certainty and accessibility underlying laws promulgated by a state. While ignorance of the law is not a defence before the ICC, it impossible to call a system of law fair or just that is not overseen by a stable or accepted government. This is not possible if a state is so corrupt that it does not command the trust of its people; if a state is so poor that it cannot afford to operate an open, reliable and transparent court and advocacy system; if territory with a state’s borders is occupied by an armed aggressor. Western notions of rule-of-law are almost impossible to enforce under such conditions. All of these are scenarios encountered frequently in Africa, and central and southern Asia.  Some regions within developing nations are so isolated from the influence of the state, or so heavily contested in internecine conflicts, that communities living within them cannot be expected to know that the state nominally responsible for them has signed the Convention of the Rights of The Child or the Rome Statute. Nor can the state attempt to inform them of this fact. Laws still exist and are enforced within such communities, but these are not state-made forms of law.  For an individual living within a community of the type described above- an individual living in the DRC, in pre-secession South Sudan [iv] or an ethnic minority enclave on the border of Myanmar [v] - the question is a simple one. Does the most immediate source of authority and protection within his world- his community- condone the role that children play in armed conflict? He should not be made liable for abiding by laws and norms that have sprung up to fill a void created by a weak or corrupt central state. There is little hope that he will ever be able to access the counter-point that state sponsored education and engagement could provide.  Child soldiers and their commanders are simply obeying the strongest, the most effective and the most stable source of law in their immediate environment.  [i] “Comparative Law in a Global Context: The Legal Systems of Asia and Africa”, Werner Menski, Cambridge University Press, 2006  [ii] “State of the World’s Children 2009”, UNICEF, United Nations, 2008  [iii] “Elements of Crimes”, International Criminal Court,   [iv] “Child Soldiers: Global Report 2008”, Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers, 2007, p315,   [v] “Child Soldiers: Global Report 2008”, Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers, 2007, p240,


Cultural relativism and adapting to conflict  The issues underlying all debates on child soldiers go to the very heart of intercultural justice, politics and governance. International and supranational legislation notwithstanding, the notion that children should be protected from all forms of violence at any cost is expressly western.  The facts stated in the introduction are not sufficient to support the creation of a defence of cultural relativism to charges of recruiting and using child soldiers. “Cultures” are not simply sets of practices defined by history and tradition. They are also methods of living, of survival and of ordering societies that change and develop in response to societies’ environments. Within many communities, children are inducted (or induct themselves) into military organisations as a result of necessity. The traditional providers of physical safety within a society may have been killed or displaced by war. Communities left vulnerable by long running and vaguely defined conflicts may have no other option but to begin arming their children, in order to help them avoid violent exploitation. A great many child soldiers in South Sudan actively sought out units of the rebel army known to accept child recruits [i] . Following the death of parents and the dispersal of extended families, children gravitated towards known sources of safety and strength – organisations capable of providing protection and independence within nations utterly distorted and ruined by conflict.  Western notions of inviolate childhood, free of worry and violence, are merely a cultural construct. This construct cannot be duplicated in societies beset by forms of privation and conflict that have been alien to western liberal democracies for the last seventy years. Attempting to enforce this construct as law- and as a form of law that can trump domestic legislation- endangers vulnerable communities, inhibits the creation of democratic norms and can even criminalise the children it claims to protect.  [i] “Raised by war: Child Soldiers of the Southern Sudanese Second Civil War”, Christine Emily Ryan, PhD Thesis, University of London, 2009


Removing barriers to demobilisation, disarmament and rehabilitation  It can easily be conceded, without weakening the resolution, that war and combat are horrific, damaging experiences. Over the last seventy years, the international community has attempted to limit the suffering that follows the end of a conflict by giving soldiers and civilians access to medical and psychological care. This is now an accepted part of the practice of post-conflict reconstruction, referred to as Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration (DDR) [i] .  The effects of chronic war and chronic engagement with war are best addressed by a slow and continuous process of habituation to normal life. Former child soldiers are sent to treatment centres specialising in this type of care in states such as Sierra Leone [ii] .  What is harmful to this process of recovery is the branding of child soldiers as war criminals. The stigma attached to such a conviction would condemn hundreds of former child soldiers to suffering extended beyond the end of armed conflicts.  Sentencing guidelines binding on the ICC state that anyone convicted of war crimes who is younger than eighteen should not be subject to a sentence of life imprisonment. Their treatment, once incarcerated, is required to be oriented toward rehabilitation.  Many child soldiers become officers within the organisations that they join. Alternately, they might find themselves ordered to seek more recruits from their villages and communities. For these children participation in the conflict becomes participation in the crime itself. What began as a choice of necessity during war-time could, under the status quo, damage and stigmatise a child during peace-time [iii] . Even if their sentence emphasises reform and education, a former child soldier is likely to become an uninjured casualty of the war, marked out as complicit in acts of aggression. When labelled as such children will become vulnerable to reprisal attacks and entrenched social exclusion.  Discussing attempts to foster former Colombian child combatants, the Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers state that, “The stigmatization of child soldiers, frequently perceived as violent and threatening, meant that families were reluctant to receive former child soldiers. Those leaving the specialized care centres moved either to youth homes or youth protection facilities for those with special protection problems. While efforts continued to strengthen fostering and family-based care, approximately 60 per cent of those entering the DDR program were in institutional care in 2007.” [iv]  Crucially, fear of being targeted by the ICC may lead former child soldiers to avoid disclosing their status to officials running demobilisation programs. They may be deterred from participating in the DDR process [v] .  Moreover, the authority of the ICC is often subject to criticism on the international stage by politicians and jurists linked to both democratic states [vi] and the non-liberal or authoritarian regimes most likely to become involved in conflicts that breach humanitarian law. It cannot assist the claims of the ICC to be a body that represents universal concepts of compassion and justice if it is seen to target children- often barely in their teens- in the course of prosecuting war crimes.  As the Child Soliders 2008 Global Report notes, “Prosecutions should not, by focusing solely on the recruitment and use of child soldiers, exclude other crimes committed against children. Such an approach risks stigmatizing child soldiers and ignores the wider abuses experienced by children in conflict situations. It is on these grounds that some have questioned the exclusive child-soldier focus of the ICC’s charges against Thomas Lubanga. After all, the Union of Congolese Patriots (UPC/L), the armed group he led, is widely acknowledged to have committed numerous other serious crimes against children, as well as adults.” [vii]  [i] “Case Studies in War to Peace Transition”, Coletta, N., Kostner, M., Widerhofer, I. The World Bank, 1996  [ii] “Return of Sierra Leone’s Lost Generation”, The Guardian, 02 March 2000,   [iii] “Agony Without End for Liberia’s Child Soldiers”, The Guardian, 12 July 2009,   [iv] “Child Soldiers: Global Report 2008”, Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers, 2007, p103,   [v] “Child Soldiers: Global Report 2008”, Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers, 2007, p16,   [vi] “America Attacked for ICC Tactics”, The Guardian, 27 August 2002,   [vii] “Child Soldiers: Global Report 2008”, Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers, 2007, pp32-33,


The cultural construction of armed conflict  The jurisdiction of the ICC is primarily exercised according to culturally constructed assumptions about the way war works – that there will be a clear division between aggressors and defenders, that armies will be organised according to chains of command, the civilians will not be targeted and will be evacuated from conflict zones. But countless conflicts in Africa and central Asia have proven these assumptions to be flawed.  It should not be forgotten that almost all formulations of this motion define cultural relativism only as a defence to the use of child soldiers. It will still be open for ICC prosecutors to prove that the use of child soldiers has been systematic, pernicious and deliberate, rather than the product of uncertainty, necessity and unstable legal norms. Moreover, not all defences are “complete” defences; they do not all result in acquittal, and are often used by judges to mitigate the harshness of certain sentences.  It can be argued that it was never intended for the ICC to enforce laws relating to child soldiers against other children or leaders of vulnerable communities who acted under the duress of circumstances. At the very least, those responsible for arming children in these circumstances should face a more lenient sentence than a better-resourced state body that used child soldiers as a matter of policy.  Due to the nature of conflicts in developing nations, where the geographic influence of “recognised” governments is limited, and multiple local law-making bodies may contribute to an armed struggle, it is difficult for the international community to directly oversee combat itself. United Nations troops are often underfunded, unmotivated and poorly trained, being sourced primarily from the same continent as the belligerent parties in a conflict. When peacekeepers are deployed from western nations, their rules of engagement have previously prevented robust protection of civilian populations. Ironically, this is partly the result of concerns that western states might be accused of indulging in neo-colonialism. It is outrageous for the international community to dictate standards of war-time conduct to communities and states unable to enforce them, while withholding the assistance and expertise that might allow them to do so.  Therefore, the ICC, as a specialist legal and investigative body, should be encouraged to use the expertise it has accumulated to distinguish between child military participation driven by a desire to terrorise populations or quickly reinforce armies, and child military participation that has arisen as a survival strategy.


Punishing objectively harmful conduct  Of the tens of thousands of children exposed to armed conflict throughout the world, most are recruited into armed political groups. Quite contrary to the image of child soldiers constructed by the proposition, these youngsters are not de-facto adults, nor are they seeking to defend communities who will be in some way grateful for their contributions and sacrifices. Child soldiers join groups with defined political and military objectives.  Children may volunteer for military units after encountering propaganda. Many children join up to escape social disintegration within their communities. Several female child soldiers have revealed that they joined because to escape domestic violence or forced marriage. Many children who do not volunteer can be forcibly abducted by military organisations. One former child soldier from Congo reported that “they gave me a uniform and told me that now I was in the army. They said that they would come back and kill my parents if I didn’t do as they said.” [i]  Once inducted into the army, children are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. They are usually viewed as expendable, employed as minesweepers or spies. The inexperience and gullibility of children is used to convince them that they are immune to bullets, or will be financially rewarded for committing atrocities. Many children are controlled through the use of drugs, to which they inevitably become addicted [ii] .  For every account the proposition can provide of a child who took up arms to defend his family, there are many more children who were coerced or threatened into becoming soldiers. Whatever standard of relativist morality side proposition may choose to employ, actions and abuses of the type described above are object4ively harmful to children.  Moreover, the process of turning a child into a soldier is irreversible and often more brutal and dehumanising than combat itself. Proposition concedes that child soldiers will be in need of care and treatment after demobilising, but they underestimate the difficulty of healing damage this horrific.  The use of child soldiers is an unpardonable crime, which creates suffering of a type universally understood to be unnecessary and destructive. It should not be diluted or justified by relativist arguments.  It would undermine the ICC’s role in promoting universal values if officers and politicians complicit in the abuses described above were allowed to publicly argue cultural relativism as their defence. Moreover, it would give an unacceptable air of legitimacy to warlords and brigands seeking to operate under the pretence of leading legitimate resistance movements  [i] Child Soldiers International,   [ii] “Child Soldiers: Global Report 2008”, Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers, 2007, p299,


Universal rights and collective compromises  Cultural relativism is the philosophical belief that all cultures and cultural beliefs are of equal value and that right and wrong are relative and dependant on cultural contexts. Accordingly, relativists hold that universal human rights cannot exist, as there are no truly universal human values. If rights are relative, the laws that protect them must also be relative.  If we accept proposition’s contention that culturally relative values can evolve in response to conflicts and crises, then any perverse or destructive behaviour given the force of ritual and regularity by a group’s conduct can be taken to be relative. If the group believes that a practice is right, if it ties into that group’s conception of what is just and good or beneficial to their survival, then there can be no counter argument against it – whether that practice has been continuous for a hundred years or a hundred days.  Systems of law, however, reflect the opinions, practices and values of everyone within a state’s territory, no matter how plural its population may be. Similarly, objections to specific aspects of the universal human rights doctrine are fragmentary, not collective. While a handful of communities in Yemen may object to a ban on the use of child soldiers, many more throughout the world would find this a sensible and morally valuable principle. It is necessary for both the international community and individual nation states to adjust their laws to reconcile the competing demands of plural value systems. Occasionally, a value common among a majority of cultures must overrule the objections of the minority.  It is perverse to give charismatic leaders who convince impoverished communities to send their sons and daughters into combat an opportunity to use cultural relativism to excuse their culpability for what would otherwise be a war crime. Officers, politicians or dissident commanders are much more likely than Yemeni tribesmen or orphaned Sudanese boys to understand the intricacies of such a defence, and much more likely to abuse it. The commanders of child soldiers are the only class of individuals who should fear the ICC.


Making children military targets  The purpose of the ban on the use of child soldiers is to prevent the normalisation of such tactics in conflict zones. It is not an inflexible implementation of a lofty European ideal. The ban, and the role of the ICC in enforcing it, is designed to reduce the likelihood that civilians will be deliberately targeted in developing world war zones. Why is this necessary?  If the defence set out in the motion is used to reduce the number of war crimes convictions attendant on the use of child soldiers, not only will numbers of child soldiers rise, but children themselves will become military targets. Communities ravaged and depleted by war, under the status quo, may be seen as minimally threatening. Armies are not likely to target them as strategic objectives if it is thought that they will offer no resistance. However, if there is no condemnation and investigation of the use of child soldiers, they will become a much more common feature of the battlefield. The increasing militarisation of children will make those children who do not wish to participate in armed conflict- children pursuing some alternate survival strategy- automatic targets. All children will be treated as potential soldiers. The communities that children live in will become military targets.  The resolution, although seeking to enable children to protect themselves, will simply make them targets of the massacres, organised displacement and surprise attacks that characterise warfare in Africa and central Asia.


performers are at risk of exploitation  Children are generally considered to be too young to make important decisions for themselves, and so decision-making falls to parents, teachers, etc. For child performers, there are additional decision-makers: their agents. Since agents benefit financially from the child’s getting a role or doing well in a sporting event, there is a definite risk of exploitation. Exploitation can also come from parents, as in the famous case of American television child stars Jackie Coogan and Gary Coleman, who both sued their parents for spending the money they had earned as children [1] [2] or of Macaulay Culkin, who blocked his parents from having access to his earnings.  [1] AP, ‘The Kid’ To Get $126,000 For His Share’  [2] The Deseret News, ‘Former Child Star Wins $1.3 Million Judgment’


Just as the state creates laws to protect child performers it could ban child performers  Child performers are currently protected by laws about all sorts of things from the minimum amount of education they may get to their pay and how many hours they can work. Many of these laws would be much more difficult to enforce than a blanket ban. It would be simple to enforce as child performers would in most cases be easy to spot – as they are performing for the public. The government could then bring charges against those who are employing the child and fine them.


Allowing children to perform pushes them to grow up too soon  Child performers are exposed to a much higher level of responsibility than their peers, without the maturity to deal with it. They may be exposed to sex, drugs, or alcohol, in a context too far removed from a normal life that they don’t learn adequate coping mechanisms. It is no surprise that many child performers “burn out” by the time they reach adulthood, often experiencing problems long before, as in the case of actress Drew Barrymore, who entered rehab at the age of 13. [1] Children should not be encouraged to enter into these adult worlds of acting, modeling, dancing, etc. Michael Jackson attributed his obsession with children and childhood as a consequence of having missed out on a childhood himself.  [1] Barrymore, Little Girl Lost


Being a performer limits a child’s formal education  Spending so much time either performing or training limits the amount of formal education the child can receive. For example, in the UK and other countries, child performers are only required to be educated for three hours each day. [1]  Additionally, the focus on the specialised skill of the child (e.g., acting, dancing, etc.) may detract from their family’s or their own interest in formal education.  [1] The Children’s Legal Centre, ‘What are the hours that a child performer may work?’


It is unethical to expose children to the pressures of performing  Even experienced adults can find it difficult to deal with stage fright or performance anxiety. Children, more emotionally vulnerable than adults by nature, should not be exposed to this sort of pressure. This is especially true in situations where the child is being paid for their performance, since the added necessity to perform well can lead to even more pressure. Although suicide among children is rare, it is believed often to occur as a result of the child feeling like she is under too much pressure, or failing to meet the expectations of others. [1]  There are also consequences that continue long past the child has stopped performing; former child actors often have the problem as young adults as feeling as having already ‘peaked’ and find themselves without a sense of drive or ambition or a coherent adult identity, consequentially they often suffer from substance abuse and addiction  [1] Lipsett, ‘Stress driving pupils to suicide, says union’


Being a performer can make the child physically vulnerable  Children involved at a professional level in sports are at a higher risk than their peers of physical problems like breaking bones. In some cases, these physical problems can be fatal; e.g., Julissa Gomez, who died from complications of a vaulting injury contracted when she was 15 in warm-ups for a gymnastics competition. [1]  Even in careers like acting and dancing there are risks for child performers. Actors and dancers are usually encouraged to stay thin, often to an unhealthy degree. Because children are particularly vulnerable, they are more susceptible to the perils of over-exercising for athletes and eating disorders for performers. It has been found, for example, that girls who dance in their childhood are more likely than their peers to develop anorexia nervosa in later life. [2] Lena Zavaroni, the childhood winner of ‘opportunity knocks’ in the 1970’s, struggled with eating disorders for all of her life and died aged 34.  With the damage eating disorders can do to a person’s body, it should be illegal to expose children to such risks.  [1] Hoffman, ‘Obituaries’  [2] BBC News, ‘Anorexia linked to child dancers’


If child performers were banned, many children would find a way to perform illegally, now without legal protection.  While being a child performer is legal, these children’s working circumstances are under the protection of the law and monitored by government departments such as the Inland Revenue, Health and Safety, etc. Were child performers to be banned, it is certain that some children would still perform, but would not be thus protected. This has already happened in certain professional sports where athletes can benefit by lying about their age. For example, it is easier for Latin American baseball players to sign with U.S. Major League teams if the teams think they are young. As a result, countless players have lied about their age, including a number of high-profile cases, such as Miguel Tejada who was named Most Valuable Player in 2002. [1] Many of these young players, however, have been less successful. There are too many unfortunate examples of players who came to the United States at a young age and, under the increased pressure, fell victim to serious drug problems, often resulting in overdose and death. [2] [3] A ban would not prevent children from performing; it would actually further expose them to whatever risks may be involved.  [1] Schmidt and Schwartz. “Baseball’s Use of DNA Raises Questions.”  [2] Zirin, “Can’t Knock the Hassle: Chavez Challenges Baseball.”  [3] Helfgott, “The international game.”


The government has no right to prevent children from doing what they enjoy and are good at  Many child performers would undoubtedly protest if their right to perform were taken away from them, and justly so. This can be seen in quotes from the likes of Roddy McDowall, who said in an interview in 1963 that he “had a particularly wonderful time” as a child actor, [1] and would presumably have been quite upset had a ban been enforced in his lifetime. It is beyond the rights of the government to make illegal an opportunity that allows those talented on the stage, in front of a camera, on the pitch, etc. (who might well not be so strong in other, e.g., academic, areas) to make a living from doing what they do best.  Some child performers have also proved to be extremely business savvy – the ‘Olsen Twins’ have built a massive industry off of their Disney stardom.  [1] BBC News. ‘Actor McDowall dies aged 7 0


Child performers are necessary for roles in some films, television shows, etc., and for the survival of some sports  In some films or television shows, child actors are absolutely necessary in order to realistically portray society and the roles children play. The incredibly popular Harry Potter films, for example, would not have been half as convincing without the large cast of actors under the age of 18 playing the schoolchildren. Child actors are also necessary in the advertising industry, in order to make products appealing to a younger audience. Some sports, too, would be endangered if children were not allowed to compete. Ice skaters and dancers, for example, benefit greatly from training starting at an early age. [1]  [1] Sagolla, ‘Dance Training for Children and Teens’


Bilingual Education is expensive and encourages balkanization  One of the goals of the government in providing education is to prepare students for success in the work place, and therefore the government has an obligation to spend its money in the most efficient way possible to accomplish this.  This is relevant because Bilingual education is expensive, requiring the hiring of bilingual teachers, the organization of bilingual classes, and the acquisition of bilingual curriculum materials. [1]  These costs might be justified if they actually helped students. But the reality is that they do not. For one thing, they allow students to get by without learning English. One of the great obstacles to learning a new language is the fact that parents of students may well speak another language at home. If students suddenly use that language at school as well, they will spend the vast majority of their day speaking a language other than English, with the consequence that they may not pick it up at all, and find themselves at a large disadvantage when they attempt to join the workforce.  As a consequence, it seems likely that the money could be better used subsidizing tutoring for students learning English than running an entirely separate and parallel educational system.  [1] Rossell, Christine, ‘Does Bilingual Education Work? The Case of Texas’, Texas Public Policy Foundation, September 2009,


The Identity and History of the United States are intrinsically linked to the English Language  From its very founding, English was the common language of the United States, and full participation in the national life was dependent on the ability to speak it. Theodore Roosevelt himself once noted that "We have one language here, and that is the English language, and we intend to see that the [assimilation] crucible turns our people out as Americans ” [1]  Declaring English as the official language will give legal force to this history, and help provide unity to Americans at a time when many come from different backgrounds and hold different political views.  Furthermore, it will help immigrants with the process of assimilation. Rather than simply learning English for pragmatic reasons, the act of learning English will tie immigrants into a political and historical tradition going back to Thomas Jefferson.  [1] Opposing Views, ‘Linguistic Unity Is Critical in an Increasingly Diverse Society’, 2010,


Avoids self-segregation  In a time when the US has begun to overcome racial segregation, and legal discrimination in other fields, one of the great challenges it faces is self-segregation.  Linguistic diversity worsens these problems because it inevitably leads to self-segregation. All things being equal, and even if they are not, people like to be around people they can communicate with.  This was not a huge problem in years past when most immigrant groups were small enough to be easily swallowed, and too small to maintain their linguistic unity, but the Hispanic population in the United States has grown at such a rate, that it is possible to get by with Spanish in many major US cities. Restaurants, businesses and services all exist which cater to it, and there is an entire industry of Spanish language television available.  This in turn makes the risk of social balkanization much stronger. While a small minority of people may learn new languages because they want to, the vast majority learn them when they have to – and if individuals can get by without doing so, it’s likely that they will not. Rather than assimilation, you will have a divergence between the linguistic minority and the majority.


Bilingual education hurts students  Bilingual education segregates students in its system from those outside it. This limits the opportunities for interaction.  This is harmful in a number of ways. For one thing, it limits their interaction with peers who will speak English. While it’s possible they may practice English with their friends in a bilingual school, it seems unlikely, as it would be easier to talk in the existing language.  Furthermore, it also limits the exposure of English-speaking students to immigrants who don’t speak English, allowing negative stereotypes to arise out of ignorance that then can influence governmental policy through the ballot box.  Finally, this segregation may extend to within bilingual schools themselves, since not everyone seeking bilingual education has the same non-English language. The result might well be that students would group socially into groups based on country of origin, and due to simple demographics this would place the Spanish-speaking students at a significant advantage as there are nearly 30 million of them in the country. This polarization in turn could lead to splits between minority language groups that could reduce their overall social capital.


It specifically denies a rich cultural heritage which is uniquely American of groups that spoke English but not as a first language  Almost no one in the United States knows English, but then chooses not to use it to make some sort of political statement. The language is far too omnipresent in the economy, culture, and everyday life to make such a choice attractive or even sane.  Nor do people generally choose not to learn English. The advantages and opportunities it opens up, and the stigmas and discrimination facing non-English speakers mean that learning English is one of the first things any immigrant is going to try and do.  In reality therefore we are going to be talking about people who can’t speak English, either because they have not learned it yet, or because they can’t learn it. Perhaps they don’t have the time between working two jobs, or perhaps they find it difficult.  In any case, if this policy is simply symbolic it will stigmatize these people. If it goes further, it will actively make their lives worse, and perhaps make it even harder for them to learn English.


The US has a long tradition of multiple languages  There is a long historical tradition in the United States to which different languages contributed. Most Americans do not have ancestors who arrived from England prior to 1776, and even among the colonists before independence there were Frenchman, Dutch, Swedes, Scots and Irish. [1] The languages of these early immigrants remain, for example Cajun, an offshoot of French remains a de facto official language in Louisiana. [2]  The historical importance of Native American languages or of the immigrants who came in and contributed so much is also ignored. All of these groups are stigmatized and their contributions ignored.  The descendants of most of the groups listed above speak English today, so the issue is not an ease of access one. It is however one of historical justice and giving full recognition to the full-range of contributors to American history.  [1] ‘Ethnic Composition of the Thirteen Colonies, 1750’, teacher’s Brunch,   [2] Melancon, Megan, ‘Cajun English’, PBS,


Even within the United States people speak English differently  Even within the United States people speak many different dialects. From Boston to New York to the rural South, accents and diversity within the English language express the exact same types of historical, cultural, and even political traditions that those pushing English find so horrifying if made in another language.  It would be hard to set a standard for what is English, and ignore the fact that Americans have long used linguistic differences as a sign of identity. It therefore makes no sense to try to paper over these linguistic differences by imposing English as an official language; rather the diversity of languages and dialects should be celebrated.


In the current environment, moves to make English the official language are specifically targeted at Hispanic immigrants  Historically, efforts to declare English the official language tend to come up when certain elements in the American body politic become threatened. It became an issue in the First World War, when resentment rose against German immigrants, and the present movement, though nominally not signalling anyone out, is clearly aimed at Hispanics.  This can be inferred from the fact that they are by far the largest non-English linguistic group in the country, and on occasion such views have been let slip, as the leader of one of the largest lobbying groups for a National Language did.[1]  Even if such legislation is not aimed specifically at Hispanics, everyone will assume that it is, and many Hispanics will nevertheless believe that they are the intended targets.  The practical result of this will be the alienation of the Hispanic population as many Hispanics see themselves under attack, which will cause many Hispanics to concentrate together, undermining many of the arguments for assimilation the government has made.  Furthermore, to the extent it stigmatizes Spanish speakers as the ‘other’, it may well encourage bullying against Hispanic students, and discrimination against those who can’t speak English, who are a far larger group than those who chose not to speak it.  [1] ‘English Only Movement FAQ File’, Mass. English Plus,


Cultural appropriation is parallel to stolen intellectual property and should be treated in the same way.  There are high standards of global intellectual property laws such as copyright and patenting for things such as medicines, and creative designs. However, these laws only apply to a few areas so this proposal would effectively widen its remit by taking intellectual property as a template for what might be considered ‘cultural property’. Many minority communities, including the Native American Navajo tribe have had their names, designs, and culture stolen or misused and have not received compensation. This highlights the embedded systematic inequalities where justice may not be brought to those of minority cultures. Reparations, monetary or otherwise, should be paid in these cases as other case studies [1].  The closest this has actually come to happening is with the Native American Navajo community. They had their name printed and used on products such as underwear, dresses and hipflasks at the popular retail store Urban Outfitters [2]. There was outrage in the community and a 'cease and desist' notice was filed in court for the products to be recalled. In addition to this the Navajo tribe called for monetary reparations to compensate for the damage done in the name of their community however, this was not granted. As the Navajo name was copyrighted this case was made much simpler before the law – as we propose cultural property theft should be.  It is important to point out that many other communities which have been exploited previously have not copyrighted their name and so do not have this same opportunity [3]. This is important as with many cases, the outcome may have not resulted in anything further.  The practise of reparations should be used universally as it is disrespectful to misuse the names, symbols and property of other cultures without consent.  In a democracy where everybody is equal before the law, communities and individuals should be able to sue those for not giving recognition, or misusing cultural practises that have historic meaning and importance. Culture is embedded in communities with long standing traditions, theories and practises. This is evident as we do not (yet) have a single global culture, even though one might argue there is one slowly emerging.  [1] Schutte, Shane, ‘6 famous copyright cases’, realbusiness, 11th August 2014,   [2] Siek, Stephanie, ‘Navajo Nation sues Urban Outfitters for alleged trademark infringement’, CNN, 2nd March 2012,   [3] Johnson, Maisha J., ‘What is wrong with cultural appropriation; These 9 Answers Reveal Its Harm’, everydayfeminism, 14th June 2015,


Compensation rights a wrong  Compensation is a basic principle of justice in any legal system. By definition it can be given to those who have had harm to reputation or dignity, emotional distress and loss of opportunities, including potential earnings. It is important to give compensation as it provides something for those who have suffered from disadvantages as a result of someone else’s actions, and it therefore helps to level out the playing field. Cultural appropriation causes clear harms – lost business, less awareness of that culture, and a feeling of inferiority. Theoretically, compensation is also beneficial as Rawls believes that it achieves 'some of the intent' of the principle of redress. This is in line with an egalitarian point of view [1]. While individual cases of cultural appropriation may not intend to harm they have an externality of harm by damaging the culture and identity as a while. This is in much the same way that those polluting often don’t intend harm, just to make a profit.  [1] Gaus, Gerald F., ‘Does Compensation Restore Equality’, Compensatory Justice, Vol.33, 1991, pp.45-81,


Compensation is important to give the communities credit they deserve.  Compensation can be used to level out the playing field of inequality to those who have been oppressed. They help to give communities the recognition they deserve and help to reverse intuitionally reinforced negative stereotypes. The reparations can be used to benefit the community; for example, within the community and externally in order to educate people appropriately about the struggles of a repressed community. It would help fund efforts based on the model of the US Governments of Education and State Boards of Education to develop a 'robust curriculum' involving greater accuracy in black history as well as the involvement of African American figures in history on local, national and global scales [1].  This inequality is why the reform has to be state led; it is up to the state to protect minorities. Professor Matthew Rimmer from the Queensland University of Technology believes that ''At an international level, more should be done to implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in respect of Indigenous intellectual property''. This was said after Chanel made a A$2,000 boomerang [2] which would seem to be in opposition to the declaration which Australia has endorsed.  [1] Humphries, Arielle, and Stahly-Butts, Marbre, ‘A Vision for Black Lives’, Centre for Popular Democracy, July 2016,   [2] ‘Chanel’s $2,000 boomerang sparks complaints and confusion from Indigenous Australians’, ABC News, 17th May 2017,