Hate speech  The enforcement of the laws proposed in this article will be fraught, complex and difficult. However, the difficulty of administering a law is never a good argument for refusing to enforce it.  The censorship of the written word ended in England with the Lady Chatterley and Oz obscenity trials, but this liberalisation of publication standards has not prevented the state from prosecuting hate speech when it appears in print. It is clear that, although we have more latitude than ever to say or write what we want (no matter how objectionable), standards and taboos continue to exist. We can take it that these taboos are especially important and valuable to the running of a stable society, as they have persisted despite the legal and cultural changes that have taken place over the last fifty years.  Hate speech is prosecuted and censored because of its power to intrude into the lives of individuals who have not consented to receive it. As pointed out in Jeremy Waldron’s response [1] to Timothy Garton Ash’s piece [2] on hate speech, hateful comments are not dangerous because they insight gullible individuals to abandon their inhibitions and engage in race riots. Hate speech is harmful because it recreates- cheaply and in front of a very large audience- an atmosphere in which vulnerable minorities are put in fear of becoming the targets of violence and prejudice. Additionally, hate speech harms by defaming groups, by propagating lies and half-truths about practices and beliefs, with the objective of socially isolating those groups.  Gangsta rap does all of these things, yet legal responses to the publication of songs containing such lyrics as “Rape a pregnant bitch and tell my friends I had a threesome,” have been timid at best. Even if we maintain our liberal approach to taboo breaking forms of expression, we can still link hip hop to many of the harms that hate speech produces.  Gangsta rap gives the impression that African-American and Latin-American neighbourhoods throughout the USA are violent, lawless places. Even if the pronouncements of rappers such as 50 cent and NWA are overblown or fictitious they enforce social division by vividly discouraging people from entering or interacting with poor minority communities. They damage those communities directly by creating a fear of criminality that serves to limit trust and cohesion among individual community members. Finally, violent hip hop is also defamatory. It propagates an image of minority communities that emphasises violence, poverty and nihilism, whilst loudly proclaiming its authenticity. It is completely irrelevant that these images of minority communities are produced by members of those communities.  It is on this basis, however protracted the process of classification must become, that the content of hip hop songs should be assessed and censored. Liberal democracies are prepared to go to great lengths to adjudicate on speech that could potentially promote racial or religious hatred. The same standards should be applied to hip hop music, because it is capable of producing identical harms.  [1] Waldron, J. “The harm of hate speech”. FreeSpeechDebate, 20 March 2012.  [2] Garton-Ash, T. “Living with difference”. FreeSpeechDebate, 22 January 2012.


Classification, not censorship  We should expect fans of an art form that is subjected to public criticism and vilification to leap to its defence. Some of these aficionados- whether the medium in question is cinema, fine art or pop music- make the case for the value of their favourite mode of expression by overstating its positive effects.  Hip hop has long been the focus of controversies surrounding violent music. Hip hop is closely associated with low-level criminality, as noted above. A number of highly successful hip hop artists have been attacked or killed as a result of feuds within the industry and links between managers, promoters and criminal gangs.  As the academic John McWhorter has pointed out in numerous [1] publications [2] , the positive political and social impact of rap music has been massively overstated, as a result of highly charged media coverage of hip hop-linked violence. As a result, attempts to address some of the hips hops most objectionable content- lyrics that are misogynist and blankly and uncritically violent- have been condemned as unjust assaults on the right to free expression. Attacks on negative content in hip hop have been made all the more emotive, because they appear to be an attempt to restrict the speech of members of vulnerable and marginalised communities.  Side proposition agrees with McWhorter that listening to music that contains violent themes will not, in the absence of other factors, cause individuals to behave in a violent way. However, the content of rap, and its strong links with the youngest inhabitants of marginalised, stigmatised urban areas mean that it damages the developmental opportunities of teenagers and young people, and harms others’ perceptions of the communities they live in.  Hip hop trades on its authenticity – the extent to which it faithfully portrays the lived experience of the inhabitants of deprived inner city areas. The greater the veracity of a hip hop track, the greater its popularity and cache among fans. Musicians have gained public recognition as a result of being directly involved in street crime and gang activities. 50 Cent, a high profile “gansta” artist owes his popularity, in part, to a shooting in 2000 that left him with 9 bullet wounds [3] . This supposed link to reality is the most dangerous aspect of contemporary hip hop culture. Unlike the simplistic make-believe of, say, action films, the “experiences” related by rappers are also their public personas and become the rationale for their success.  Rap, through materialist boasting and sexualised music videos tells vulnerable young men and women from isolated neighbourhoods that their problems can be solved by adopting similarly nihilistic personas. The poverty that affects many of the communities that hip hop artists identify with does more than separate individuals from economic opportunity. It also confines the inhabitants of these communities geographically, politically and culturally. It prevents young men and women from becoming aware of perspectives on the world and society that run contrary to the violence of main stream rap. With television dominated by the gangsta motif, marginalised youngsters are left with little in the way of dissenting voices to convince them that hip hop takes a subjective and commercialised approach to the lives and communities that rappers claim to represent.  In effect, controversial hip hop is capable of sponsoring violent behaviour, when it is marketed as an accurate portrayal of relationships, values and principles. Under these circumstances, adolescents, whose own identity is nascent and malleable can easily be misled into emulating the exploits and attitudes of rappers [4] .  Side proposition advocates the control and classification of controversial forms of music, including but not limited to hip hop. Consistent with principles 1 and 10, classification of this type will follow similar schemes applied to movies and videogames. Assessments of the content of music will be conducted by a politically independent organisation; musicians and record companies will have the ability to appeal the decisions of this body. Crucially, the “ban” on music containing violent lyrics will take the form of a categorisation scheme. Content will not be blocked from sale or censored. Instead, as with the sale of pornographic material in many liberal democratic states, music found to contain especially violent lyrics will be confined to closed off areas in shops, to which only adults (as defined in law) will be admitted. Its performance on television, radio and in cinemas will be banned. Live performances of restricted music will be obliged to enforce strict age monitoring policies. Online distributors of music will be compelled to comply with similar age restrictions and intentionally exposing minors to violent music will be punishable under child protection laws.  This approach has the advantage of limiting access to violent content only to consumers who are judged, in general, to be mature enough to understand that its “message” and the posturing of singers does not equate to permission to engage in deviant behaviour.  [1] McWhorter, J. “How Hip-Hop Holds Blacks Back.” City Journal, Summer 2003. The Manhattan Institute.  [2] McWhorter, J. “All about the Beat: Why Hip-Hop Can’t Save Black America.”  [3] “What’s In a name?” The Economist, 24 November 2005.  [4] Bindel, J. “Who you calling bitch, ho?” Mail & Guardian online, 08 February 2008.


Defending hip hop artists’ right to free speech  The intervention of the state is necessary in order to ensure that aggressive forms of hip hop remain accessible only to adults, especially in neighbourhoods and home environments that are not part of a cohesive, caring community. Some degree of public control over the content of hip hop will also help to preserve the diversity, accessibility of the genre in the face of commercial dominance by violent forms of rap.  Mainstream success in hip hop has become synonymous with gangsta rap, and with artists who have backgrounds that lend veracity to their lurid verses. However, many of these supposedly “authentic” experiences consist of little more than exaggeration and invented personas. When being interviewed about the controversial content of her son’s single “Fuck tha’ police”, the mother of rapper Ice Cube commented that “I don’t see [him] saying those curse words. I see him like an actor.”  The existence of pornography attests to the market for forms of media that fulfil base and simplistic human fantasies. Much the same can be said for the violent and cynical content of rap singles. Unlike the relationship between cinema and pornography, however, many commentators appear to regard gangsta rap as being synonymous with hip hop – a position as deceptive as a film critic claiming that all movies are inevitably tied to pornography.  The significant public profile and poor regulation of hip hop have meant that gangsta rap fans have become the genre’s dominant class of consumer. The amount of money that fans are willing to spend on singles, albums, concert tickets and associated branded goods means that labels that cultivate relationships with gangsta rappers have become the gatekeepers of the hip hop genre in general. “Conscious” rappers, who do not glorify violence, along with musicians working in other hip hop genres must work with labels that promote acts containing violent lyrics in order to publish their own music.  Either consciously, or by design, the terrain of contemporary hip hop is hostile to musicians who are not prepared to discuss “guns, bitches and bling” in their work. This constitutes a significant barrier to rappers ability to communicate novel messages and listeners’ ability to receive them. It could be called a market failure – the pervasive public presence of gangsta rap has effectively denied an audience to other rappers.  Classification has the potential to maximise the freedom and effectiveness of musical expression by hip hop artists who choose not to trade in brutality and misogyny.  The alternative is to allow hip hop to continue to be dominated by businesses such as Death Row Records, Low Life Records and Machete Music. This will lead to hip hop as a medium becoming inextricably linked with violent lyrics and the dubious businesses practices of gangsta labels’ bosses. Popular disengagement is much more likely under these circumstances, and will actively deny a voice, and opportunities, to musicians with a different perspective on hip hop.


A ban will be ineffective  A new legal prohibition on any type of behaviour or conduct can only be set up by investing large amounts of political capital in order to transform vague proposals into a legislative document and then into a fully-fledged law. This expense can only be justified if the ban is effective – if it is seen as a legitimate use of a state’s power; is enforceable; and if it brings about some form of beneficial social change. The change being sought in this instance is a reduction in the violence, criminality and social disaffection that some people associate with hip hop music and its fans.  Laws do not create changes in behaviour simply because they are laws. It is unlikely that the consumers of hip hop will refrain from listening to it. The ease with which music can be distributed and performed means that any ban on violent songs will, inevitably, be ineffective. File sharing networks and cross border online stores such as eBay and Silk Road already enable people to obtain media and controlled goods with little more than a credit card and a forwarding address. The total value of all of the music illegally pirated during 2007 is estimated to be $12.5 billion. The same network of file sharing systems and data repositories would be used to distribute banned music if proposition’s policies became law.  Current urban music genres are already defined and supported by grassroots musicians who specialise in assembling tracks using minimal resources before sharing them among friends or broadcasting them on short-range pirate radio stations. Just as the internet contains a resilient, ready-made distribution network for music, urban communities contain large numbers of ambitious, talented amateur artists who will step into fill the void created by large record company’s withdrawal from controversial or prohibited genres.  Although a formal ban on the distribution of music has yet to happen within a western liberal democracy, similar laws have been created to restrict access to violent videogames. Following widespread reports of the damaging effects that exposure to violent videogames might have on children, Australia banned outright the publication of a succession of violent and action-oriented titles. However, in several instances, implementation of this ban led only to increased piracy of prohibited games through file sharing networks and attempts by publishing companies to circumvent the ban using websites based in jurisdictions outside Australia. Similar behaviour is likely to result in other liberal democracies following any ban on music with violent lyrics.  If banned, controversial music will move from the managed, regulated space occupied by record companies and distributors- where business entities and artists’ agents can engage in structured, transparent debate with classification bodies- to the partly hidden and unregulated space of the internet. As a consequence it will be much more difficult to detect genuinely dangerous material, and much harder for artists who do not trade in violent clichés to win fans and recognition.  As discussed in principle 10, effective control and classification of controversial material can only be achieved if it is discussed with a high specificity and a nuanced understanding of the shared standards that it might offend. This would not be possible under a policy that effectively surrenders control of the content of music to the internet.


A ban will further marginalise young members of impoverished communities  Hip hop is an extremely diverse musical genre. Surprisingly, this diversity has evolved from highly minimal series of musical principles. At its most basic, raping consists of nothing more than rhyming verses that are delivered to a beat. This simplicity reflects the economically marginalised communities that hip hop emerged from. All that anyone requires in order to learn how to rap, or to participate in hip hop culture, is a pen, some paper and possibly a disc of breaks – the looped drum and bass lines that are used to time rap verses. Thanks to its highly social aspect, hip hop continues to function as an accessible form of creative expression for members of some of impoverished communities in both the west and elsewhere in the world.  Point 7 suggests that free speech flourishes when we respect believers but are not forced to respect their beliefs. Free Speech Debate discusses this principle in the light of religious belief and religious expression. However, it is also relevant when we consider how our appraisal of an individual’s background, culture and values affects our willingness to accept or dismiss what she says.  The positive case for banning- or at least condemning- hip hop often rests on its ability to reinforce the negative stereotypes of impoverished and marginalised communities that are propagated by majority communities. Critics of hip hop note that black men have often been stigmatised as violent, uncivilised and predatory. They claim that many hip hop artists cultivate a purposefully brutal and misogynist persona. The popularity of hip hop reflects the acceptance of this stereotype, and further entrenches discrimination against young black men. This line of thinking portrays hip hop artists as betrayers or exploiters of their communities, reinforcing damaging stereotypes and convincing adolescents that a violent rejection of mainstream society is a way to achieve material success.  Arguments of this type fail to recognise the depth of nuance and meaning that words and word-play can convey. They are predicated on an assumption that the consumers of hip hop engage with it in a simplistic and uncritical way. In short, such arguments see hip hop fans as being simple minded and easily influenced. This perspective neglects the “recognition respect”, the recognition of equality and inherent dignity that is owed to all contributors of a debate. Moreover, it also bars us from properly assessing the “appraisal respect” owed to the content of hip hop and other controversial musical genres. When hip hop is seen as being inherently harmful, and as being targeted at an especially impressionable and vulnerable part of society, we both demean members of that group and prevent robust discussion of rap lyrics themselves. Academics such as John McWhorter see only the advocacy of violence and nihilism in lyrics such as  “You grow in the ghetto, living second rate/ and your eyes will sing a song of deep hate”.  But these are words that can also be interpreted as astute observation on the brutality that is bred by social exclusion. In point of fact, there is little in the previous verse, or those that follow it,  “You’ll admire all the numberbook takers/ thugs, pimps and pushers, and the big money makers”,  that could be interpreted as permitting, popularising or endorsing violence. That is, unless the individual reading the verse had already concluded that its intended audience lacked his own critical perspective and understanding of social norms and values.  Even if an observer were ultimately conclude that a particular hip hop track had no redeeming value, a broad interpretation of point 7 suggests that he should, at the very least, credit its artists and listeners with a modicum of intelligence and reflectiveness. When we approach music with a custodial mind-set, determined to protect young listeners from what we see as harm or exploitation, we prevent those individuals from access a form of speech that may be the only affordable method of expression open to them.  Just as we allow individuals the right to be heard in a language of their choosing (see point 1), we should also accept that perspectives from marginalised communities may not appear in a conventional form. Under these circumstances, it would be dangerous for us to curtail and marginalise a form of speech geared toward discussing the problems faced by impoverished young people that has, against the odds, penetrated the mainstream. We are likely to deepen existing prejudices by viewing rappers and their fans as infantile, impressionable and in need of protection.


Violent imagery can serve different purposes.  Calls for a ban on music that references or glorifies violence are frequently based on an overly simplistic understanding of contemporary and popular musical genres. It is instructive that the loudest voices of protest raised against violent content in hip hop and rock music are, overwhelmingly, white, middle class, middle-aged newspaper columnists. Any ban created under these circumstances would reduce the diversity and depth of popular musical genres, by preventing musicians from commenting- in any way- on violent events.  Banning particular musical tracks due only to the fact that they discuss violent acts would be damaging to the creative industries and would not reflect methods currently used to classify and restrict content appearing in other media. Criminal acts are punished when an act results in a damaging outcome and because that act is performed with a particular dishonest or malicious intention. Generally, someone cannot be found guilty of murder if they did not intend to kill their victim. Similarly, it is unusual for films or videogames to be censored or banned because they happen to depict violent acts. The intention that underlies the use of graphic images or words must also be examined. As BBC director general Mark Thompson noted when discussing the controversial religious content of Jerry Springer: The Opera with freespeechdebate.com  “… Jerry Springer I saw without feeling that it was offensive to me because the intention of the piece was so clearly a satire about an American talk show host and his world rather than the religious figures as such.”  Classification boards will look at the context in which an offensive act is shown. The violence of war is portrayed vividly in Saving Private Ryan, but the film has not been banned on this basis. Private Ryan portrays violence and suffering in order to remind us of the inhumanity that pervaded the Second World War. It uses violence to make a didactic point, to move its audience to sympathy and disgust. If a film were to use images of extreme violence or suffering as a form of entertainment, inviting the audience to take pleasure in brutality, a classification board would try to restrict or censor its content.  Comparably, “violent” music can use brutal language and themes to make moving and engaging observations about the world. Violent music does not automatically glorify violence, nor does it cause its audience to see violence as something that is glamorous.  Listened to out of context, without any attempt to critically analyse the imagery of the song and the intentions of the artists, it is easy to condemn many acclaimed examples of popular music as containing violent lyrics. By giving into the populist pressure that is represented and generated by newspaper columnists and talk show hosts, we risk creating a chilling effect, not only on mainstream hip hop culture, but on any other musical form that dares to discuss themes that fall outside narrowly and arbitrarily defined limits of social acceptability.


Because religion promotes certainty of belief, divinely inspired hatred is easy to use to justify and promote violent actions and discriminatory practices.  Free speech must come second when there is the potential for that speech to cause harm. The mantra of “With God on our side” has been used, and continues to be used, to justify massacre and barbarity throughout history. Although it is rarely the prelates and preachers who do the killing the certainty they promote gives surety to those who do.  The purpose of the Act [1] used in this particular case was an entirely practical one. It’s main role was to tidy up existing legislation on rioting and public disorder but one section recognised that homophobic and racist language do lead to violence. It is all well and good to talk of freedom of speech but the reality is that homophobic speeches, particularly those of a religious nature, may well lead to violence. For example in New York there were a series of homophobic attacks after anti-gay statements by republican politicians. [2] Preventing hate speech helps prevent that violence from occurring so justifying restrictions on freedom of speech.  [1] Legislation.gov.uk, ‘Public Order Act 1986’, The National Archives, 1986 c.64.  [2] Harris, Paul, ‘US shaken by sudden surge of violence against gay people’, The Observer, 17 October 2010 .


Religion simply justifies reactionary views which many find offensive. There is no reason for vitriol to be tolerated just because it presents a mask of religion.  Views on issues such as abortion, women, and what constitutes an acceptable family expressed by those who are extremely religious are simply bigoted views which are given credibility by being wrapped in a cassock.  It is in the nature of religious belief that any set of views can adopt a religious justification and there is no objective measure against which to hold the views. For example the homophobic views which have common currency in many churches can be contrasted with a gay liberation trend discernible in others. In the light of this, it makes sense to judge the views on their own basis, regardless of the religiosity surrounding them.  The views expressed by Harry Hammond, and others [1] , need to be stripped of their religious veneer and shown that at their heart they are simply offensive. There is absolutely no reason why LGBT people should have to endure vitriol and condemnation as they go about their daily lives. It is a useful exercise to consider how we would respond to a secular speaker saying that the actions of two people who were in love with each other should condemn them to torment and suffering. Oddly however, the moment this is done in the name of God, it somehow becomes acceptable.  [1] Blake, Heidi. “Christian Preacher Arrested for Saying Homosexuality is a Sin”. The Daily Telegraph, 2 May 2010.


Ill-informed prejudice has no place in society. The veneer of religion has been used to justify hatred, prejudice and division and should be confronted.  Homophobia is the last respectable prejudice [1] and should be tackled with the same passion and force that others have been, and continue to be, confronted. If the speaker had been condemning black people or women they would have been arrested for public disorder if they represented an organisation that was overtly racist, it would be quite likely to be banned.  For some reason Churches that hold views on homosexuality that are comparable in their vitriol to those on race held by neo-Nazi groups are not only tolerated but frequently supported by the state.  Hatred is hatred and there is no reason why homophobia should be given a free pass that would not be given to racism or sexism.  All of the Abrahamic faiths have, at their core, an authority focussed on maintaining ‘the natural order’. From the fourteenth century on – although interestingly less so before that point – homosexuality has been singled out as one of the gravest of sins [2] , with the Catechism identifying it as one of four sins that “calls out to Heaven for vengeance”. That is not merely offensive but dangerous in a modern society.  [1] Maguire, Daniel C., ‘Heterosexism in Contemporary World Religion’, The Religious Consultation.  [2] Boswell, John, The Marriage of Likeness, Harper Collins, Chapter Eight.


There is no right not to be offended, enforcing what is acceptable to be thought or said places far too much power in the hands of the state.  It is impossible to ensure that nobody is ever offended and it is questionable as to whether it is even desirable [1] . There is simply no way of protecting against offence. The state clearly has a role in protecting the physical safety of citizens and in other relevant areas such as preventing dismissal from employment on the grounds of sexuality but this is not the case with speech that may cause offense.  Governments that attempt to lead, ahead of public opinion, on matters such as this do little to resolve the problem. In doing so in this manner, they may well pour fuel on the fire of the very prejudice they are aiming to combat as well as creating additional problems by justifying the idea that it is okay to silence views simply because you happen to disagree with them.  Banning the expression of ideas has, historically, be the recourse of those who have run out of arguments to defeat them; doing so is an acknowledgement that the proposal is a weak one. Admitting that – or appearing to do so – for the principle of equality set a dangerous precedent.  [1] Harris, Mike, “It shouldn’t be a crime to insult someone”. Guardian.co.uk, 18 January 2012.


Silencing views that are considered offensive is self-defeating and would be detrimental to those attempting to advance gay rights.  If freedom of speech is to mean anything then it needs to be a principle that is universally applied. Unless speech represents a direct and immediate threat to public safety then it should not be curtailed. The overwhelming majority of the world would agree with Hammond. Globally this is a significant, possibly a majority, view. Certainly the 24% of people in the UK who believe that homosexual sex should be illegal [1] could be assumed to be sympathetic. These people might well consider gay pride marches to be offensive and a threat to public order but these are allowed to go ahead and so should Hammond’s protest and those like it. The freedom of expression must be allowed equally in both cases.  [1] The Guardian. “Sex uncovered poll: Homosexuality”. 28 August 2008.


Regardless of the views expressed, freedom of speech means that all opinions should be heard.  Allowing politicians to regulate what it is acceptable to say – or think – is not something that has a happy history. This isn’t the result of a purely intellectual construct but one of altruistic self-interest; once people start banning ideas, they tend not to stop at one.  Voltaire’s comment that “I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it” is a statement of the very same principle that that demands equality for all groups in society.  In exactly the same way that all views are, at the very least, worthy of a hearing, so are all lifestyles acceptable. Locking people up in the name of liberty makes no sense at all. Equally, banning statements on the basis that it might be offensive to some people has been used as an excuse to prevent social and cultural developments, the process of being offended usually made society and culture stronger for it. We tend to fear or hate that which is hidden or unspoken. The emancipation and liberation of other groups has tended to suggest that open debate is a more productive answer than trying to ban opinions and views.


Pluralism and Political Interference  The removal of ‘The Spear’ from the Goodman Gallery and the City Press also hints at a threat to pluralism, especially when one considers the political nature of the campaign to have such images removed.  While Jacob Zuma attempted to have the image banned in a personal capacity, the intensive campaigning by both the ANC and the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) against both the Goodman Gallery and City Press [1] hints at a dangerously political action taken by those with close access to power over the South African state.  This should be cause to worry. Chapter Two of the Constitution of South Africa, in place since 1997, protects freedoms such as Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association. [2] The intimidation of Art Galleries and Newspapers threatens the free exchange of ideas that occurs in these areas, as well sending an implicit image by its supports that criticism of the Government cannot be tolerated.  If neither the Gallery nor City Press removed the image of ‘The Spear’ from public view, then a clear message would have been sent that the principles of Free Speech, Free Association and Freedom of Intimidation outlined in the Constitution is to be upheld at all times, regardless of who may take offence at what is being said. It is important in the South African context to protect the right to criticise the government and voice opinions that vary from the ideals of the majority. It is worrying what kind of message is sent by those close to the South African Government that intimidation seems to be the appropriate response to criticism such as this rather than asking why such criticism is there in the first place.  [1] Mthembu, Jackson, ‘ANC calls on all South Africans to boycott buying City Press Newspaper and to join the protest match to the Goodman Gallery’, African National Congress, 24 May 2012,   [2] ‘Constitution of the Republic of South Africa’, Statutes of the Republic of South Africa, 4 February 1997,


Artistic Freedom  A core principle of art is that it should be free from any form of inhibition, as the particular artwork is an expression of the particular views and ideals of the artist. The subject matter in many instances is their own choice; therefore they have the right to say what they want about the subject matter, safe in the knowledge that is their opinion alone being portrayed.  The artist that painted ‘The Spear’, Brett Murray, created the piece as part of an exhibition that reflected his own discontent at the lack of major progress since the ruling African National Congress took power in South Africa after the end of Apartheid in 1994. Murray used his work to promulgate an idea that he has, allowing for others to see the art work for themselves and make up their own minds about President Zuma and the ANC. [1]  Art Galleries have a right to display any artist they feel will attract visitors as well showcase the forms of art that they believe is suitable. The Goodman Gallery saw no issue with Murray’s work to the extent that they prevented any particular works from being displayed. As it was their venue which was the setting for ‘The Spear’s display, The Goodman Gallery had the right to take decisions independently of external pressure. The removal of the exhibit sets a dangerous precedent whereby government can unduly censor artworks, threatening the free actions of artists and the galleries that display their work in turn affecting plural, democratic discourse. [2]  [1] Du Toit, ‘Artist Brett Murray explains why he painted ‘The spear’, 2 Ocean’s Vibe, 2012,   [2] Robins. P, ‘The spear that divided the nation’, Amandla, 2012,


Racialised Opposition  Some critics of ‘The Spear’ have criticised the artwork on the grounds that it ‘dehumanises’ black people in general [1] and President Zuma in particular and criticises him based upon his personal life rather than policy, using vulgar means to do it. This line of opposition is part of a dog-whistle tactic that the ANC has consistently used against white critics of its government in the past. [2]  ANC criticisms of its white critics, including the opposition Democratic Alliance have made discreet reference to the injustices of the past as a means of creating distrust in the minds of poor, black voters who maintain ANC support as a result. Some politicians within the ANC, most notably the former President of its youth wing Julius Malema, have made incendiary statements that could be seen to stoke up hatred against whites.  It is against this back drop that the double standards over criticism of Murray should be viewed. Murray, a white artist, has been criticised roundly for ‘The Spear’, while black artists have created works that could be seen to denigrate President Zuma in a similar manner to ‘The Spear’. A noticeable example is ‘Ngcono ihlwempu kunesibhanxo sesityebi’ (Better a fool than a rich man’s nonsense) by Ayanda Mabulu, that carried a much more graphic depiction of the President and other leading politicians of the past and present with barely a murmur raised. [3]  By bowing to the pressure exerted by the ANC and its followers, the Goodman Gallery and City Press have bowed to pressure, denying criticism of the government and accepting the implied view that White South Africans are unable to criticise the government without seeking to re-assert any forms of superiority that had existed under Apartheid. Whilst there may still be underlying problems of Far-Right activity in South Africa, to smear anyone who criticises the government based on their race does nothing to help move the country on from autocracy and institutionalised racism. The Goodman Gallery and City Press should have stood by displaying the image as it represented the opinion of Brett Murray, free from intimidation or race based slander.  [1] Dana, Simphiwe, ‘The 'Sarah Baartmanisation' of the black body’, Mail & Guardian, 12 June 2012,   [2] Hlongwane, Sipho, ‘The ANC's best friend: Brett Murray & The Spear’, Amandla,   [3] Ndlovu, Andile, ‘'Spear' sparks hot Twitter debate’, Times Live, 23 May 2012,


Infantilisation and Prejudice  Those who dismiss the reaction to ‘The Spear’ forget the historical context which may trigger the sorts of responses seen to the artwork. [1]  South Africa’s past problems can be seen to derive from the gross caricaturing of Black people and Black Men in particular as lascivious, overtly sexual and threatening, playing into a narrative of Blacks as ‘inferior beings’ justifying inhumane treatment over a number of centuries.  Portraying the President with his genitals exposed could also be seen to pass negative comment upon his polygamy, which is permitted in his Zulu culture. Such comment upon something which can determine social standing can also be viewed as offensive by many, triggering such reactions. [2]  With this in mind then the right action for both The Goodman Gallery and City Press to take would be to remove such offensive art to avoid any hurt caused and to quell the protest which were borne out of genuine offence, not political grandstanding as opposition seem to imply.  [1] Hlongwane, Sipho, ‘The Spear: Millions of people were insulted’, Daily Maverick, 28 May 2012,   [2] Dana, Simphiwe, ‘The 'Sarah Baartmanisation' of the black body’, Mail & Guardian, 12 June 2012,


Masculinity  The problem with leaving the painting, the spear, up is that to many young men President Zuma symbolises what excessive wealth can ‘buy’ you. He is the figure head of the nation, the pinnacle of capitalism and masculinity, of which the penis and sex are instrumental in this image. By leaving the painting up, it encourages hyper-masculinity (which is inherently violent), [1] because it assumes there is an inherent link between power and the penis. This is unhelpful, both for women and men who are trying to live in equity.  [1] Scheff, Thomas J., ‘Hypermasculinity and Violence as a Social System’, Universitas, Vol.2, Issue 2, Fall 2006,


Public Decency  Freedom of Speech is something that is highly valued, particularly in a country such as South Africa, where it was in short supply for a large part of its history, but surely for such speech to be worthwhile, it has to be able to convey a message that actually enriches the public domain. Such messages can be critical of government, but it must be best if they do not cause widespread offence in the process.  The problem with ‘The Spear’ is that is causes widespread offence with the graphic depiction of the male genitalia. As a result, the underlying message that Brett Murray is trying to convey is lost in the offence image of the exposed penis, causing needless controversy in the process. [1]  The utilisation of an exposed penis in ‘The Spear’ breaches all notions of public decency, not only causing offence in the public domain, but also personal offence, by depicting President Zuma in such a lewd manner. As such, it is right to ask for the removal of the artwork from public display to prevent further offence from being caused.  [1] Robins. P, ‘The spear that divided the nation’, Amandla, 2012,


Defamation  While South African Law does allow for freedom of speech, and the constitution is one of the most liberal in the world for protecting such freedoms, it must be measured against the need for responsibility in the use of such freedoms to prevent offence.  Whatever one believes about ‘The Spear’ it is clear that Murray attacked President Zuma based upon his personal life rather than any critique of policy. The depiction of the President with his penis exposed is a reminder of the accusations of rape against him, of which he was acquitted in 2007.  To remind those who view the painting of the accusation is to hint at Zuma’s guilt in the case despite it being proved otherwise in a court of law. This is effectively libel and as such defames Zuma’s character. As such, Zuma was right to sue for defamation and it was right for the artwork to be removed as it implied and spread a falsehood in the public domain that is damaging to Zuma.


Governments have always struggled with the idea of press investigation and freedom of information, claiming Assange is not a journalist is simply a stunt.  We know that most governments struggle with the idea of not having control over information and are suspicious of the media. In a pre-Internet age working with a handful of proprietors made controlling information far easier.  Since the creation of the Internet, the idea of controlling the media has become harder, now there are those who can broadcast themselves directly; a mass of information and opinion that doesn’t rely on the patronage of publishers or political favour.  Assange has simply taken a journalistic position that makes sense for the new media age.  In contrast to the opinion driven mainstream press and much of the blogosphere, Wikileaks actually breaks new stories [1] . New media requires new skills and attitudes of its journalists because the relationship with their readers has changed dramatically but the core of the role, speaking truth to power, remains the same. Furthermore they do so in such a way as allows them to publish their source material and allow the reader themselves to make a judgement as to whether their story really reflects that material. This ability, reflecting effectively limitless capacity for providing textual information, meets the frequently heard desire for news without spin – routinely featured in research into people’s views on the press. This may be a new approach, just as Assange is a new type of Journalist but he is still a journalist.  [1] John Pilger and Julian Assange discuss citizen journalism here .


The concept of what is a journalist needs to be clarified to deal with the reality of new forms of mass communication. Assange gathers, collates and disseminates information, ergo, he is a journalist.  Few industries have been changed more radically by the advent of the Internet than journalism. The traditional role of the journalist, disseminating information to which they had special or privileged access, has changed beyond recognition. Now readers and viewers have direct access to much of that information and can access it at their own convenience and through their own choice of media. Sales of newspapers are in freefall and the stranglehold of a handful of broadcasters on political access has been lost forever. There are still extraordinary journalists finding news and genuinely affecting the society around them. For the most part, however, journalists increasingly comment on the news rather than directly collecting it. In many ways, Assange has taken journalism back to basics – acquiring information to which most people do not have access and making it public. The very fact that the powerful and the privileged dislike what he is doing so much could even be taken to suggest that he has to be doing something right as one of the roles of the fourth estate is to act as a check on government. [1]  At a time when much of the traditional media seems to have lost its sense of what its role is, Wikileaks is providing a timely reminder [2] .  [1] Hume, Ellen, ‘Freedom of the Press’, Issues of Democracy, December 2005,   [2] The Guardian. Julian Assange Wins Martha Gellhorn Journalism Prize. Jason Deans. 2 June 2011.


There is a difference between actual journalists and those who like having their names published in newspapers. Assange has far more claim to the description than many of them.  One of the things that the Leveson Inquiry [1] has made all too apparent is that simply working for a newspaper or broadcaster is not a satisfactory definition of journalist. In terms of maintaining a professional ethic, the difference between those who hacked into phones – including that of murdered schoolgirl Millie Dowler – and the journalists who broke the story, Nick Davies and Amelia Hill [2] could not be starker. Equally many popular blogs that focus exclusively on opinion or areas of news far more specialist than has traditionally been considered the role of the daily media.  A more useful definition, it would seem, relates more to the ethics and aims of the individual or organisation involved. This has the advantage of ruling out those organisations devoted to advertising (such as listings magazines or shopping channels) or those focused purely on entertainment.  A Journalist should therefore have a commitment to revealing and disseminating information that is held by those with power to those over whom they wield that power. This means that the journalist gains access to information through various sources and then publicises that information as a story. Anonymous sources such as those used by Assange are a key part of journalism with many of the biggest stories such as Watergate only being published because of anonymity. [3]  By such a definition, Assange would clearly qualify [4] . This was clearly felt to be the case by the New York Times, the Guardian, Le Monde and others who reprinted his original material and drew conclusions from it. It would come as something of a surprise to such publications to discover they were not staffed by journalists.  [1] For a link to the inquiry’s website, click here  [2] The Guardian. “Missing MIlly Dowler’s Voicemail was Hack by News of the World”. Nick Davies and Amelia Hill. 5 July 2011.  [3] Myers, Steve, ‘Study: Use of anonymous sources peaked in 1970s, dropped by 2008’, Poynter.org, 9 August 2011,   [4] The Spectator. “Yes, Julian Assange is a Journalist”. Alex Massie. 2 November 2010.


It is a basic principle of journalism that sources should be checked and verified by another, independent, source.  British Foreign Secretary William Hague has pointed out that the actions of Wikileaks put British lives at risk. [1] Congressman Peter King described the mass leaking of documents as “Worse even than a physical attack” on America and Assange as “an enemy combatant”. [2] Vice-President Joe Biden refers to him as a “High-tech terrorist.” [3]  He has condemned governments, endangered operations and undermined diplomatic activities, all without knowing the identity or motives of his sources. For all we know the information could be quite false or released only in part by someone with an axe to grind. Those parties who are damned by the revelations are hardly in a position to say, “No that isn’t one of our cables and here’s the real one to prove it."  Furthermore, as the site itself proudly proclaims, it has no way of knowing who the source is and, therefore, no way of knowing the accuracy of the information published beyond the educated guesswork of their editorial staff [4] . Who is it making these guesses? It is impossible to say as only Assange’s name is associated with the site.  It’s an interesting exercise – how many other Editors-in-Chief could you name? How many star reporters can you name? Wikileaks must be the only media organisation – or such is its claim – where the only name that is widely known is that of the publisher.  It is a fairly basic principle of journalism that not only should more than one person know the identity of the source but that the information should be possible to ratify. To prove the confidence that journalist has in the source, they are prepared to put their name to it.  Assange cannot say whether he has confidence in the sources because he has no way of telling whether that is really a person with access to information or whether it is the agent of and unfriendly power, a disaffected employee or is simply making the whole thing up  [1] BBC News, 'Julian Assange ready to meet police says his lawyer', 7 December 2010,   [2] James, Frank, 'Wikileaks Is A Terror Outfit: Rep. Peter King', NPR, 29 November 2010,   [3] The Sydney Morning Herald, 'Joe Biden calls Julian Assange a 'hi-tech terrorist', 20 December 2010,   [4] The Slate. “The Wikileaks Paradox: Is Radical Transparency Compatible with Total Anonymity?” Farhad Manjoo. 28 July 2010,


Wikileaks is not a news organisation, it exists exclusively to disseminate classified information, no genuine news organisation has such an agenda.  News organisations provide a variety of functions, from reporting the weather to breaking news. Even the most hardened investigative outlet does not dedicate itself exclusively to revealing classified information. It appears to have no interest in what that information is or whether its disclosure causes more harm than good, the sole interest is that it is classified.  That isn’t journalism, at best it’s prurience and, at worst, egocentricity – ‘I know something you don’t know’. The fallout for people’s jobs, liberty and safety appears not to interest those involved.  Their own ‘About Us’ section makes a point of stating that “We accept (but do not solicit) anonymous sources of information [1] .” Interestingly, the whole of the rest of the page talks about maintaining anonymity for both readers and sources and little else. It provides screeds of text about themselves, a free press and the importance of releasing classified information. Unusually for a media organisation, there are no details about how to complain if a reader feels they or someone else has been misrepresented. This means that Wikileaks is denying someone’s freedom of speech by not giving them a right to reply and have corrections published.  In an age where even the most stentorian paper of record enshrines such rights, one might assume that such devout proclaimers of free speech would shout it from their mast head. Instead, their Chat page is mostly full of dire warnings that security forces are watching the reader’s every keystroke. Hardly encouraging for the little guy wishing to clear their name.  [1] The link to the page is here .


Assange is mostly interested in self-promotion, not being a serious journalist.  Journalists are judged by far more than their ability to acquire and disseminate knowledge or information. The quality of their writing, the skills and contacts developed to acquire it, the training used to enter the trade (which incidentally would have included the difference between the legitimate use of privileged information and espionage) and many other characteristics.  Assange doesn’t seem to have taken any interest in any of this. He undertook no formal training – he studied but did not graduate in Physics – and worked as a computer programmer and hacker before founding Wikileaks. His interest in data seems to do with the technological side of the process rather than the ideas.  Were a printer in the same situation to attempt the same defence, it would be ignored. Assange is an irresponsible geek, self-proclaimed hacker and someone who clearly has no interest in, or understanding of, the notion that there are occasions when a responsible journalist does not release information, frequently out of concern for those whose lives it might engender.  His entire background has been in hacking, he is described as a cryptographer in articles written by or about him before the launch of Wikileaks. This sudden commitment to journalism seems awfully convenient in the event of the threat of a trial.


Other religions have the right to wear prescribed clothing enshrined in British law, it is hypocritical not to offer Christianity the same protection.  Legislation should be consistent; otherwise it is, by definition, discriminatory. [i] If some faiths are allowed to show outward demonstrations of their faith in the workplace, then that should apply across the board.  Christianity is an established part of the state, as shown by the monarch being head of the Church of England. So it is perverse for two national brands to accept attire that demonstrates an employee’s profession of other faiths but to reject one that is universally recognised as a symbol of Christianity.  The very fact that both women were willing to risk, and lose, their jobs over the issue shows that they considered wearing the cross to be an important part of their faith. That should be enough to demonstrate that it is a matter of conscience. It is demonstrably true that allowing other religious symbols to be worn does not create immense difficulties, both the NHS and Heathrow airport allow sikh’s to wear a kirpan (small dagger). [ii] Their right to do so is respected because it is important to the individual concerned. The same is clearly true here.  Either legislation should respect that commitment in all faiths or it should not do so in any.  [i] The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th ed., Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000,   [ii] The Kirpan, A submission to the Department of Communities and Local Government (UK), British Sikh Consultative Forum, April 2009, P12


Declaration of the faith is a key part of Christianity and that should be respected.  The UK is a nation that claims to be tolerant of all faiths and to respect religious beliefs. If that is the case then it must be accepted that the law should respect actions in accordance with those beliefs insofar as they do not harm or infringe on the rights of others. Demonstrating one’s commitment to the cross is part of that faith [i] and should, therefore be shown some respect in a religiously diverse and tolerant society.  There may be more militant forms of religious profession that would be inappropriate in a workplace but wearing a simple piece of jewellery causes no harm or offence to others.  Both women have stated that they felt that wearing the cross was an important part of their faith [ii] and respect for those beliefs should be shown if society’s claims of tolerance and diversity are to have credibility.  As with the demonstration of any right, the fact that its exercise may not be convenient does not supersede its validity. Indeed the only way of demonstrating that a society is, in fact, a tolerant one is, by definition, when it tolerates the exercise of legitimate practices which are inconvenient.  [i] Galatians 6:14 among others  [ii] BBC News Website. “Shirley Chaplin and Nadia Eweida Take Cross Fight to Europe.” 12 March 2012.


The confession of religious faith is far more important than the rather petty rules that banned the wearing of the cross.  People of faith attest that those beliefs determine the nature of their own identity and their place in the Universe. In the case of Nadia Eweida, at least, the employer’s case was based on the idea that wearing a symbol of that faith might not enhance their uniform. The difference between the significance of the claims could not be greater.  Indeed, British Airways, Eweida’s employer, has since changed their policy to permit staff to wear religious or charitable imagery [i] in large part because of the absurdity of the position.  The case against Chaplin was based on health and safety legislation - but not because the cross and chain posed a risk to others but to herself [ii] ; a risk she was, presumably, prepared to accept.  On one hand there are individuals protecting their sincere beliefs in the most profound of issues and, on the other, managers applying what the Archbishop of Canterbury described as “wooden-headed bureaucratic silliness”. [iii] There is no suggestion that harm to another could have been caused here and, therefore, no reason not to respect the heartfelt beliefs of the individuals involved.  [i] BBC News Website. “Christian Airline Employee Loses Cross ban Appeal”. 12 February 2010.  [ii] Daily Mail. “It's a very bad day for Christianity: Nurse's verdict after tribunal rules she can't wear crucifix at work”  [iii] The Telegraph, ‘Archbishop of Canterbury hits out at cross ban’, 4 April 2010,


Freedom of expression, like any right is fairly meaningless if it’s only respected when it’s convenient.  Recognising rights when there is no inconvenience to anybody involved is verging on the irrelevant. This is, perhaps, especially true, with freedom of expression. If I recognise your right to express yourself freely - so long as I never have to see, hear or be aware of you doing – rather misses the point.  Likewise if the individual is free only so long as there aren’t any rules saying they shouldn’t be, goes somewhat against the grain of defending liberties. Indeed the history of the idea that people can exercise all the freedom they like as long as it’s out of sight, out of mind and doesn’t break any rules is not a noble one; among other absurd forms of “freedom”, it was used to justify both segregation and apartheid.  Although the effect and extent of the prejudice is clearly different here, the logic is the same: you are completely free to do whatever I think you should do.  Having a right to freely express oneself means to do so when it is inconvenient, challenging or offensive to others [i] . The rules being broken here were, as has already been mentioned, fairly petty and the sanctions comparatively minor – although the loss of someone’s livelihood should not be understated. The case is important because of the precedent it sets; what if the two women were risking not just their jobs but their liberty?  The UK considers itself to be a tolerant country. Tolerance means accepting those declarations and statements that are inconvenient. If the law is incapable of defending a statement as benign as wearing a small piece of jewellery, it is worrying to think how it would cope with something more forthright.  [i] UN Declaration of Human Rights. Articles 18, 19 and 23.


Both employers acted out of concern for the interests of their clients, employees should respect that.  Employers don’t introduce rules because it’s fun but, rather, because they serve a purpose. Ms. Chaplin has expressed concern about the legal costs incurred by the NHS Trust which employed her in fighting the action she initiated. Health and safety rules exist, in part, to avoid the possibility of subsequent legal action; it might be reasonable for her to support such rules given her concern [i] .  Likewise, airlines have uniform policies to make their services, well, uniform. It’s what their customers expect. In much the same way as many Christians refuse to receive communion from a woman or a homosexual, it simply goes with the job.  For any workplace to function, the lifestyles of the employees need to accommodate the needs of the customers or users of the service provided by the employer. Clearly there is a degree of balance involved and the values of the employee need to be respected. However, this case isn’t about the values of the employee – they weren’t fired for being Christian – it was about and active decision in how to demonstrate those values. A decision not taken by their co-religionists and one that seemed to owe more to belligerence than to belief.  [i] Daily Mail. “It's a very bad day for Christianity: Nurse's verdict after tribunal rules she can't wear crucifix at work”


If this were about wearing a badge with a political slogan or something similar, everyone would agree that it was inappropriate. The same principle should apply to iconography.  If the image they were wearing endorsed a political candidate or another company, the issue would never have got to court. Neither complainant was employed in a capacity where their religious conviction was relevant to the job. If the situation were reversed and they were compelled to profess a religious faith in such a situation there would, rightly, be an outcry.  In neither situation would the consumer of the service being provided expect to be confronted with endorsements for which candidate to vote for or which soda to drink.  The question then arises, if political and corporate branding is out, why should suggestions about which god to pray to be okay? The very fact that they were willing to pursue this action demonstrates that images and symbols carry meaning beyond the explicit statement they make. If that is true, then it is equally true that others may object to, or be offended by, what that symbol represents. People who have bought airline tickets or are in need of healthcare should not be confronted by imagery they may find unpleasant.


Employers impose rules relating to conduct in the workplace, it’s one of the things that everyone accepts when they take and continue in a job.  Put simply, if you don’t like the rules, don’t do the job. The fact that the world of work and the life of faith can come into conflict should hardly have come as a surprise to the women concerned. From Biblical times onward, that has been a reality.  However, they chose these particular jobs and that choice comes with consequences. Their actions would seem to suggest that they prize their faith more highly than their jobs, the solution seems fairly straightforward – get another job.  Religious belief is also a choice. Nobody is compelling the two women into one particular faith and nobody, including the Church, is compelling them to wear a cross as a demonstration of that decision.  The problem seems to have arisen because one thing they chose to do was in conflict with another thing they chose to do. It is difficult to see how that is the responsibility of either the employer or the courts.


The expansion of Heathrow is vital for the economy  Expanding Heathrow would ensure many current jobs as well as creating new ones. Currently, Heathrow supports around 250,000 jobs. [1] Added to this many hundreds of thousands more are dependent upon the tourist trade in London which relies on good transport links like Heathrow. Loosing competitiveness in front of other European airports not only could imply wasting the possibility to create new jobs, but lose some of those that already exist. Expansion of Heathrow would also be building a vital part of infrastructure at a time when British infrastructure spending is very low as a result of the recession so helping to boost growth. Good flight connections are critical for attracting new business and maintaining current business. This is because aviation infrastructure is important for identifying new business opportunities. The UK’s economic future depends on trading not just with traditional destinations in Europe and America but also with the expanding cities of China and India, cities such as Chongqing and Chengdu. [2] Businesses based in these cities will be much more likely to invest in Britain with direct flights. [3]  [1] BBC News, ‘New group backs Heathrow expansion’, 21 July 2003,   [2] Duncan, E., ‘Wake up. We need a third runway’. The Times, 2012,   [3] Salomone, Roger, ‘Time to up the ante on roads and airports’, EEF Blog, 2 April 2013,


Heathrow is full; it must expand  Put simply Heathrow is at the limits of its capacity so there needs to be expansion. Heathrow is already at 99% capacity and running so close to maximum capacity means that any minor problem can result in large delays for passengers. London’s major rivals have four-runway hub airports Paris, Frankfurt, even Madrid [1] this means these cities have much greater capacity as they can take up to 700,000 flights a year compared to Heathrow’s 480,000. [2] Britain does not want to be left behind, crumbling in the dust. These airports therefore clearly have the capacity to take flights that would otherwise be going to Heathrow. Heathrow needs to expand to maintain its competitiveness so that the airport retains its position the most popular place to stop-over in before catching a connecting flight. Colin Matthews, the chief executive of Heathrow (formerly BAA) has argued that Heathrow’s lack of hub capacity currently costs the UK £14billion. [3] Heathrow is in danger of falling behind continental rivals in Frankfurt and Amsterdam.  [1] Leunig, T., ‘A third runway? Yes, and a fourth too, please’ The Times, 2012,   [2] Lundgren, Kari, “Heathrow Limit Costs U.K. 14 Billion Pounds, Airport Says”, Bloomberg, 15 November 2012,   [3] Topham, Gwyn., ‘Heathrow must be expanded or replaced, airport chief announces’ The Guardian, 15 November 2012,


Heathrow is in the best location for London  Flying is critical for business. Heathrow is well located for the people that will pick up the bill funding its expansion. People need to be able to get to their homes and work easily from the airport otherwise it is impractical. According to the Civil Aviation Authority 25% of business passengers start their journey within 30 minutes of Heathrow, far more than any other airport. [1] This demonstrates that the demand for Heathrow’s services from the local area is real and pronounced. Heathrow is closer to London than its rivals Gatwick and Stansted and has better transport links through the Piccadilly line and Heathrow Express. A new airport could potentially be closer, but finding space within the M25 for a large airport without attracting the same kind of opposition that expanding Heathrow has would be next to impossible  [1] Leunig, Tim, ‘A bigger and quieter Heathrow is the answer to our aviation capacity problem’, The Spectator, 5 October 2012,


Expanding Heathrow would be at the expense of the environment  Expanding Heathrow will directly contribute to climate change and make it impossible for the UK to stay within the EU legal limits. The EU has established limits on the levels of harmful pollution and the UK has signed a commitment to reduce Green House Gases by 80% by 2050 and also to emit no more CO2 in 2050 than it did in 2005. However, building a third runway would be enabling and encouraging greater number of flights which would result in Heathrow becoming the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the country. [1] Attempts by the government to weaken pollution laws by lobbying Brussels would enable the third runway but at a deeply nefarious price, that of human health, currently fifty deaths a year are linked to Heathrow but with expansion this would go up to 150. [2]  [1] Stewart, John, ‘A briefing on Heathrow from HACAN: June 2012’   [2] Wilcockm David, and Harrism Dominic, ‘Heathrow third runway ‘would triple pollution deaths’’, The Independent, 13 October 2012,


The economic case for expansion does not add up  A study conducted by the NEF revealed that the cost of expansion will outweigh the benefits by at least £5billion. [1] London has six airports and seven runways meaning that London already has the best connections globally. Together, London airports have a greater number of flights to the world’s main business destinations than other European cities, despite serving less ‘leisure’ destinations than Paris’s airports. [2] The solution to making air travel efficient lies in increasing the size of planes and filling them up rather than running half empty flights on small planes, something which is particularly prevalent on short haul flights. Short haul flights could also be re-directed to alternative airports such as Gatwick, City airport, Luton and Stansted so as to free up more space at Heathrow.  The expansion case also assumes ever increasing numbers flying, yet passenger numbers dropped for the first time in the wake of the recession, [3] and eventually technology may reduce demand for business travel. There are also other restrictions aside from runway capacity that prevents more flights, for example the UK has an agreement with China that restricts the UK to 62 flights to China per week. [4]  [1] New Economics Foundation, ‘A new approach to re-evaluating Runway 3’, 19 April 2010,   [2] Stewart, John, ‘No economic case for expansion’, November 2011,   [3] Rutherford, Tom, “Air transport statistics’, House of Commons Library, 4 July 2011, SN/SG/3760, p.4 www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN03760.pdf  [4] HACAN, ‘BAA challenged on claim that it is lack of runway capacity at Heathrow that is limiting flights to China’, airportwatch, 14 November 2012,


The third run-way would cause noise and pollution problems  The high population density of the area around Heathrow means it is not an ideal location for a bigger airport. It makes sense to increase capacity in an area with lower population density instead of trying to do so within a location that is constrained by adjacent urbanized areas. Expanding Heathrow airport would mean increasing the problem of noise for the about 700,000 people living under the flight path. According to the HACAN report the Department for Transport only accepts that noise is a problem if a community is subjected to over 57 decibels of noise over the course of a year according to a 1985 Government study. In which case only the boroughs of Richmond and Hounslow would be affected. However this does not tie in with Londoner’s experiences. BAA says that 258,000 people are currently affected by high noise levels but the local community believes the real number is more like 1 million people affected. [1] Any argument that states that noise levels will not increase is flawed at best and outright fraudulent at worst, clearly a large expansion in the number of flights will increase the amount of noise and possibly the numbers affected.  [1] Johnson, Tim, ‘Approach Noise at Heathrow: Concentrating the Problem’, HACAN, March 2010,  p.12


Online gambling affects families  A parent who gambles can quickly lose the money their family depends on for food and rent. It is a common cause of family break-up and homelessness, so governments should get involved to protect innocent children from getting hurt [5]. Each problem gambler harmfully impacts 10-15 other people [6]. The internet makes it easy for gamblers to bet secretly, without even leaving the house, so people become addicted to gambling without their families realising what is going on until too late.


Gambling is bad for you.  Gamblers may win money from time to time, but in the long run, the House always wins. Why should governments allow an activity that helps their citizens lose the money they have worked so hard to earn? The harm is not just the loss of money and possible bankruptcy; it causes depression, insomnia, and other stress related disorders [4]. The internet has made gambling so much easier to do and encouraged lots of new people to place bets so dramatically multiplying the harm.


Gambling is addictive.  Humans get a buzz from taking a risk and the hope that this time their luck will be in, this is similar to drug addicts [7]. The more people bet, the more they want to bet, so they become hooked on gambling which can wreck their lives. Internet gambling is worse because it is not a social activity. Unlike a casino or race track, you don’t have to go anywhere to do it, which can put a brake on the activity. The websites never shut. There won’t be people around you to talk you out of risky bets. There is nothing to stop you gambling your savings away while drunk.


Online gambling encourages crime  Human trafficking, forced prostitution and drugs provide $2.1 billion a year for the Mafia but they need some way through which to put this money into circulation. Online gambling is that way in. They put dirty money in and win clean money back [8]. Because it is so international and outside normal laws, it makes criminal cash hard to track. There is a whole array of other crime associated with online gambling; hacking, phishing, extortion, and identity fraud, all of which can occur on a large scale unconstrained by physical proximity [9]. Online gambling also encourages corruption in sport. By allowing huge sums of money to be bet internationally on the outcome of a game or race, it draws in criminals who can try to bribe or threaten sportsmen.


Cant enforce an online gambling ban  Governments can’t actually do anything to enforce a ban on the world wide web. Domestic laws can only stop internet companies using servers and offices in their own country. They cannot stop their citizens going online to gamble using sites based elsewhere. Governments can try to block sites they disapprove of, but new ones will keep springing up and their citizens will find ways around the ban. So practically there is little the government can do to stop people gambling online. Despite it being illegal the American Gambling Association has found that 4% of Americans already engage in online gambling [11].


Government only objects to online gambling because they dont benefit  Governments are hypocritical about gambling. They say they don’t like it but they often use it for their own purposes. Sometimes they only allow gambling in certain places in order to boost a local economy. Sometimes they profit themselves by running the only legal gambling business, such as a National Lottery [15] or public racecourse betting. This is bad for the public who want to gamble. Online gambling firms can break through government control by offering better odds and attractive new games.


Other forms of online gambling  What is the difference between gambling and playing the stock market? In each case people are putting money at risk in the hope of a particular outcome. Gambling on horse-racing or games involves knowledge and expertise that can improve your chances of success. In the same way, trading in bonds, shares, currency or derivatives is a bet that your understanding of the economy is better than that of other investors. Why should one kind of online risk-taking be legal and the other not?


Only regulation can mitigate harms  It is where the sites operate, not where they are set up that matters for regulation. It is in gambling sites interest to run a trustworthy, responsible business. Whatever they are looking for online, internet users choose trusted brands that have been around for a while. If a gambling site acts badly, for example by changing its odds unfairly, word will soon get around and no one will want to use it. Regulation will mean that sites will have to verify the age of their users and prevent problem gamblers from accessing their site. When there is regulation consumers will go to the sites that are verified by their government and are providing a legal, safe service [13].


Personal freedom  Gambling is a leisure activity enjoyed by many millions of people. Governments should not tell people what they can do with their own money. Those who don’t like gambling should be free to buy adverts warning people against it, but they should not be able to use the law to impose their own beliefs. Online gambling has got rid of the rules that in the past made it hard to gamble for pleasure and allowed many more ordinary people to enjoy a bet from time to time. It provides the freedom to gamble, whenever and wherever and with whatever method the individual prefers.


Those who have more owe more to the state  Wealthier people benefit from the state more than do those who are worse off for two reasons. First, they have more to lose in the absence of the state. Without the rule of law, people would no longer be bound by any power to respect one another’s property rights. A rich person has much more to lose should there be a reversion to the state of nature; nothing would shield him from the mob. For this reason it is in the interest of the wealthy to preserve the just rule of law in the state and to uphold its institutions. It does so by funding it through taxation, and those who have more to lose have a greater interest in paying more to ensure its continuity. The second benefit the rich have is that they have gained more from the state than have the poor and less well off. It is only within a state system that maintains order and provides vital services that markets can form and be maintained. [1] Warren Buffett, for example, has argued that he could never have amassed anywhere near the sort of wealth he has in a country without the rule of law, such as Bangladesh. [2] Wealthy business owners and corporations use state utilities far more than poorer individuals quite often, when for example they use public roads to move their vast fleets of trucks, while individuals only drive their personal car. The state guarantees property rights, which allows markets to form and provides the protections and services to businesses that need them to function. Those who profit from that have an obligation to contribute to its upkeep.  [1] Lakoff, George and Bruce Budner. “Hidden Truths of Progressive Taxes”. Institute for America’s Future. 2007. Available:   [2] Terkel, Amanda. “Warren Buffett: ‘I Should Be Paying a Lot More in Taxes’”. Huffington Post. 2010. Available:


A well-implemented progressive taxation scheme serve to promote economic growth  Progressive taxation can serve very effectively to increase the economic welfare and development of societies. It does so in three ways. First, it lifts the poor out of poverty by redistributing the tax burden from them onto the wealthy who are more able to pay, and gives them more disposable income to put back into the economy, which increases the velocity of money in the system, increasing growth. [1] Second, workers will be more likely to work harder since they will feel the system is more equitable; perceptions of fairness are very important to individuals. People will still work and save since they will want the goods and services they always did in the presence of progressive taxation, and will thus not be less motivated as detractors of progressive systems suggest. Third, progressive taxes serve as an automatic stabilizer in the event of recessions and temporary downturns in the market, in the sense that a loss of wages due to unemployment or wage cuts places an individual in a lower tax bracket, dampening the blow of the initial income loss. The American economy is a perfect example of how progressive taxation promotes broader economic growth; data shows that average yearly growth has been lessened since the 1950s after the reduction in progressively in the tax system. In the 1950s annual growth was 4.1%, while in the 1980s, when progressively in taxes fell dramatically, growth was only 3%. [2] Clearly, a progressive tax regime is best for workers and the economy generally.  [1] Boxx, T. William and Gary Quinlivan. The Cultural Context of Economics and Politics. Lanham: University Press of America. 1994.  [2] Batra, Ravi. The Great American Deception: What Politicians Won’t Tell You About Our Economy and Your Future. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 1996.


Those able to pay more should pay more into the tax system  The wealthy have more disposable income and are more financially secure than are the poor and economically tenuous. For this reason, a progressive system of taxation puts the tax burden more heavily on the wealthy which has the wherewithal to pay. Progressive taxes make everyone sacrifice equally, since true equality of taxation means equality of sacrifice. [1] It is ludicrous to expect the poor and less well-off to pay the same proportional amount in taxes as the wealthy since they have to spend most of their income on essential goods like food and shelter; it is unjust to gain all state revenues from regressive taxes like VAT, since the wealthy have excess resources they can do without while not overly influencing their standard of living. [2] Progressive taxation serves to help the poor and worst off while not leaving the wealthier worse off, since they still have more money. Clearly, progressive taxation is just in terms of burdens on individual taxpayers.  [1] Young, H. Peyton. 1990. “Progressive Taxation and Equal Sacrifice”. The American Economic Review 80(1): 253-266.  [2] Shapiro, Robert. “Flat Wrong: New Tax Schemes Can’t Top Old Progressive Wrongs”. Washington Post. 1996. Available:


The state should promote the efficient distribution of income in order to maximize the utility derived by society from its economic resources  All goods suffer from diminishing marginal utility, and this includes money. The more money someone, the less happy they are made from each successive addition of wealth after a certain point. One might be able to buy a second car or a second house with extra money, but eventually one runs out of things one particularly wants to buy or own. [1] When wealth is unevenly distributed in society, the wealth of society is inefficiently distributed. The aim of the state must be to attempt to maximize the aggregate utility of its citizens insofar as it is able without damaging the economy. With progressive taxation, wealth is effectively reallocated to poorer people, who gain more utility than the wealthy lose in the process. The state has a right to do this not only because it generates a more efficient distribution of income than the market does, but also because income is partly a collective good. [2] Ownership rights to property and the ability to expand them is only possible within the framework of the state; thus the state can make a moral ownership claim to some of the products of the services it provides, and does so most effectively through the mechanism of progressive taxation.  [1] Thune, Kent. “The Diminishing Marginal Utility of Wealth”. The Financial Philosopher. 2008. Available:   [2] Weisbrod, Burton. Public Interest Law: An Economic and Institutional Analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1978.


Progressive taxation promotes a more equal, more harmonious society  Progressive taxation provides real equality of opportunity, and serves to level the playing field so that social classes are not fixed. Everyone deserves a chance to climb the economic ladder, but without a regime of progressive taxation this is nearly impossible. [1] If tax revenues are generated by flat or regressive taxes the poor will necessarily have to contribute substantial portions of their own income to the state, cutting into their ability to consume and save. Social services must still be financed, and the best way to do that is through a progressive tax regime that makes those most able to pay more pay more; if more of the burden is placed on the poor and disadvantaged, as it must in a flat-rate system, fewer people will be able to climb out from the social strata in which they are born. [2] The more equal society created by these taxes is thus more equitable, since it affords people greater opportunities. It is also more harmonious, since well-funded services keep people from feeling desperate and to turn to such things as crime. But greater equality itself can also be beneficial, as it reduces distinctions between groups in society, and prevents stratification into social classes based on wealth. People who are more alike can sympathize and empathize more with one another. Progressive taxation thus promotes a very real and powerful social message that can greatly benefit social cohesion.  [1] Young, H. Peyton. 1990. “Progressive Taxation and Equal Sacrifice”. The American Economic Review 80(1): 253-266.  [2] Benabou, Roland. “Social Mobility and the Demand for Redistribution: The Poum Hypothesis”. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2001. Available:


Progressive taxes place an unfair and disproportionate burden on the wealthy  The revenues the state acquires through taxation are used to pay for various services and benefices. Lower income individuals consume these services to a disproportionate degree. It is they who require income supplements and child benefits when they lack the wherewithal to provide for themselves, and they avail more readily than the wealthy of such things as public healthcare and transport services. There is thus clearly no correlation between the amount people pays in taxes and amount of benefits they receive from them. [1] The rich make less use of such services, often preferring to use of privately provided services, yet they are expected to pay a greater proportion of their wealth to the public services they do not use under a progressive system of taxation. As a matter of fairness it is only just that everyone contribute to the provision of public services equally, in accordance with their wherewithal to do so. Wealthier people thus can pay more units of wealth to the system than poor people justly, but when they are expected to pay a disproportionate percentage of wealth, through a system that levies contributions according to a progressive rather than proportional scale, they are being used unfairly and being stripped of their rightful possessions to the use of others.  [1] Mayer, David. “Wealthy Americans Deserve Real Tax Relief”. On Principle 7(5). 1999. Available:


The aim of taxation should be to provide equality of opportunity, not of outcom  Taxation should not be about trying to engineer a more equal society. The purpose of taxes is to furnish necessary services people need to become competitive free agents in the economy. Progressive taxes take unduly from some to give to others in the hope of fostering social equality. Yet such efforts can only be harmful, as they breed resentment from rich toward the poor for taking undue amounts of their wealth for their consumption, and feelings of entitlement from poor who feel the wealthy owe them the money they pay, and thus feel happy to levy ever more odious taxes from them. [1] Society is best served by promoting a system of taxation that fosters equality of opportunity, by providing essential services to which everyone contributes in accordance with their ability to pay. This is better serviced through a system of flat-taxes, such as in Russia where there is a flat tax of 13%, [2] that promote a system of proportionality in taxation, rather than progressive taxes that focus unduly upon the contributions of the few to the many.  [1] The Frugal Libertarian. “Immorality of Progressive Income Tax”. Nolan Chart. 2008. Available:   [2] Mardell, Mark, ‘Pros and cons of Rick Perry’s flat tax plan’, BBC News, 26 October 2011,


Progressive systems are invariably highly complex and inefficient in implementation, breeding the knock-on inefficiencies of evasion and avoidance  The modern progressive tax system has created whole industries of firms and specialists geared toward helping people file their taxes and to ensure the system runs smoothly. It has also bred armies of officials who oversee and audit tax issues, costing the United States for example more than $11 billion a year to operate its tax collection and verification systems. [1] People are forced under the progressive system to waste hours filling out returns, to hoard and sift through receipts to be accurate and to maximize their rebates. There is thus a huge efficiency loss in terms of people’s time as they are forced to dedicate effort and resources to the often arduous task of filing taxes in an ever more complicated system, arising from a progressive regime. The extreme complexity of the system has generated further negative incentives, encouraging the wealthy to seek ways around the system, to exploit loopholes in the bloated system for their personal benefit. [2] The very wealthy can thus evade obligations through the manipulation of complex tax codes and loopholes, and can sometimes even lead less scrupulous people to pay less than less wealthy people. Flat and regressive consumption taxes, on the other hand, offer an easier mechanism of taxation that is easier to understand, less time consuming to deal with, and harder to manipulate.  [1] White, James. “Internal Revenue Service: Assessment of the 2008 Budget Request and an Update of 2007 Performance”. United States Government Accountability Office. Available:   [2] Wolk, Martin. “Why the Tax System Keeps Getting More Complex”. MSNBC. 2006. Available:


The ability to orchestrate a progressive taxation regime gives undue and dangerous power to the state  The power to tax is power to destroy. A state with power over a progressive taxation system can put the wealthy in effective thrall, and use them to benefit its own ends. This is exacerbated by such phenomena as the tyranny of the majority which can lead the majority of less wealthy and have-nots to demand more and more services and paying for them by inflicting ever more onerous taxes on the wealthy while diminishing their own burdens. Furthermore, so long as the tax burden is disproportionately leveled on the few, no one can see the growing size of the state. [1] With flat or regressive consumption tax everyone can feel the growth of the state. They can also understand the costs associated with it, driving them to have more realistic preferences and to make more rational demands of the state rather than treating the rich as a perpetual piggy bank.  [1] Dorn, James. “Ending Tax Socialism”. Cato Institute. 1996. Available:


Individuals’ property and income are an index of deserving achievement, and of value contributed in the market place to society  A progressive taxation system essentially assumes that the property rights of the poor are more sacred than those of the wealthy. Somehow the wealthy have a less proportionate ownership right than do the less well-off simply by dint of their greater wealth. [1] This is the height of injustice. An individual’s income is a measure of his overarching societal worth, by reflecting his ability to produce goods and services people find socially desirable and to signify his level of competence and desirability by his employer. The state should not punish people for this greater social worth by taxing them disproportionally to others. When it does so it expects people to work for the sake of others to an extent that is not fair, effectively consigning them to a kind of forced labor, by which parts of the wealth they work to acquire is appropriated by the state to a degree beyond which it is willing to do to others. [2] Such a regime is manifestly unjust.  [1] Seligman, Edwin. “Progressive Taxation in Theory and Practice”. Publications of the American Economic Association 9(1): 7-222. 1894.  [2] Nozick, R. Anarchy, State and Utopia. New York: Basic Books. 1974.


The effects of unemployment  Unemployment has been linked to several health and wellbeing effects. Firstly, the psychological impact of unemployment involve a range of issues - from confidence to mental well-being. Issues of mental health problems - such as depression, suicide, anxiety, and substance abuse, need recognition in Africa. The impact of mental health may not only be on the individual, but dispersed within families and across generations. Secondly, unemployment may result in a loss of social networks and networking skills. The power of social capital, or networks, in reducing vulnerability has been widely noted. Therefore encouraging women to participate within the labour market ensures new networks are built and retained through the vital communication skills used. Finally. unemployment may affect physical health status.  Unemployment may place individuals in a downward spiral, making it harder to re-enter the job market.


The importance of jobs in livelihoods - money  Jobs are empowerment. Building sustainable livelihoods, and tackling poverty in the long term, requires enabling access to capital assets. A key asset is financial capital. Jobs, and employment, provide a means to access and build financial capital required, whether through loans or wages. When a woman is able to work she is therefore able to take control of her own life. Additionally she may provide a second wage meaning the burden of poverty on households is cumulatively reduced. Having a job and the financial security it brings means that other benefits can be realised such as investing in good healthcare and education. [1] .  Women working from home in Kenya, designing jewellery, shows the link between employment and earning an income [2] . The women have been empowered to improve their way of life.  [1] See further readings: Ellis et al, 2010.  [2] See further readings: Petty, 2013.


Labour participation and rights  Labour participation enables an awareness, and acquirement, of equal gender rights. Firstly, labour participation is challenging cultural ideologies and norms of which see the woman’s responsibility as limited to the reproductive sphere. Entering the productive sphere brings women equal work rights and the right to enter public space. By such a change gender norms of the male breadwinner are challenged. Secondly, labour force participation by women has resulted in the emergence of community lawyers and organisations to represent them. The Declaration of the African Regional Domestic Workers Network is a case in point. [1] With the rising number of female domestic workers, the network is working to change conditions - upholding Conferences, sharing information, and taking action.  [1] See


Women need alternatives for empowerment  Empowerment cannot be gained for women through employment, alternatives are required. A gender lens needs to be applied to women’s life course from the start. To tackle the discriminatory causes of gender inequality access to sexual and reproductive health rights is required for women. Access to such rights ensures women in Africa will be able to control their body, go to school, and choose the type of employment they wish to enter into.  The importance of enabling sexual and reproductive health rights for women is being put on the agenda for Africa [1] . There is a lot to be done beyond workforce participation - ending violence against women, promoting equal access to resources, opportunities and participation. Such features will reinforce women’s labour market participation, but in the jobs they want.  [1] See further readings: Chissano, 2013; Puri, 2013.


Where are the men?  Is the feminisation of labour emerging with a de-masculinisation of jobs? If so, how do women cope in the work environment? Are methods being integrated to ensure a just work environment is maintained?  Overa’s (2007) study on gender relations within the informal economy indicates how tensions emerge with women and men being forced into similar occupations. The informal economy of retail trade in Ghana is becoming overcrowded as men enter into female jobs; competition is causing reductions in returns, and further, frustrations are rising against the state. Therefore if more women are entering male jobs, what are the reactions?


Who are the women?  Women are a diverse group, and the feminisation of labour has incorporated a range of women of different ages, race, socioeconomic backgrounds and education. Such intersectionalities are important to recognise, as not all women are empowered and the empowerment is not equal.  For example, a study by Atieno (2006) revealed female participation in the labour market was influenced by education. Human capital influenced the transition into work: who was able to access labour opportunities, and which ones. Therefore inequalities among women determine the degrees, and capability, of empowerment it is therefore not labour force participation that empowers but education.


The double burden  Despite a feminising labour market there has been no convergence, or equalisation, in unpaid domestic and care work. Women still play key roles in working the reproductive sphere and family care; therefore labour-force participation increases the overall burden placed on women. The burden is placed on time, physical, and mental demands.  We need to recognise the anxieties and burdens women face of being the bread-winner, as survival is becoming ‘feminised’ (Sassen, 2002). Additionally, women have always accounted for a significant proportion of the labour market - although their work has not been recognised. Therefore to what extent can we claim increased labour force participation is empowering when it is only just being recognised?


Multilateralism is preferable to bilateralism.  It is preferable for Latin American countries to band together when negotiating trade deals with the US and Canada, to better protect their interests. After FTAA negotiations failed, the US focused on bilateral strategies and trade deals where the imbalance of power was much greater in favour of the US, and it therefore could more easily dictate terms of the agreement that were detrimental to the interests of the developing country. For example, El Salvador, who is a member of CAFTA (Central America Free Trade Agreement), together with only five other Central American countries, has found itself under legal attacks by foreign investors when it refused to lower its environmental standards in the gold mining industry [1] . Having an emerging global power, like Brazil, be part of the agreement, would counterbalance US influence over the terms.  [1] Gallager, Kevin. “Stop private firms exploiting poor states.” The Guardian. 5 February 2010.


Free trade is good for development and growth.  Free trade essentially removes barriers for companies to do business across countries and regions. This leads to competition between countries in those regions, and between companies and industries in those countries. It leads to the sharing of innovation, drives down the cost of production, and allows workers to move freely where their labour and skills are needed. This is good for all those involved in the transaction. It is good for companies, because they have more resources and markets at their disposal, good for consumers, because competition between companies drives down prices and drives the innovation that improves products, and it is good for workers, because they have greater opportunities to find employment for their labour and skills [1] .  [1] DanBen-David, Håkan Nordström, LAlanWinters. “Trade, Income Disparity and Poverty”. World Trade Organization. 1999.


Trade is good for democracy.  Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez has been making sustained efforts to boost his influence in Latin America, with regional tours and substantial investments in neighbouring economies, fuelled by Venezuela’s oil money [1] . He is staunchly anti-American and a supporter of Iran. Meanwhile, he has been restricting freedom of speech in his own country, has done away with presidential term limits, and has essentially proven himself as yet another Latin American dictator in the making. If the US hopes to counterbalance his influence, it needs to become more economically connected to Latin America. Showing that the United States is willing to trade fairly with Latin America would undermine his message. This would not only be the case for the United States as it would also allow Brazil and other successful democratic Latin American states to boost their influence.  [1] Carroll, Rory. “Chavez Opens His Wallet Wider to Boost Latin American Influence.” The Guardian. 9 August 2007.