Cutting off bit of children’s bodies for no apparent reason is simply wrong  If this is simply a matter of performing a procedure with no apparent benefit to the patient – in most cases a young child – then it does rather raise the question of “Why”. If the procedure were, say, cutting off a toe or an earlobe then all involved would require a clear and compelling case for such a practice. There are grown adults that think that cutting off a finger is the next stage up from getting a tattoo or a piercing [i] . At best most people would consider such a practice odd, at worst unstable. However, these are grown adults who have made the decision to mutilate their bodies for themselves and as a statement they feel appropriate.  Consider society’s reaction if the fingers of unwilling adults were forcibly removed. What about unwilling children? What about the fingers of babies fresh out of the womb? The only sane response to such an action would be condemnation – and probably an arrest. The logic of this argument does not change if “finger” is replaced with “foreskin”.  Research undertaken by the World Health Organization found that the overwhelming determining factor in the decision as to whether a boy should be circumcised was whether the father had been [ii] .  Although the report suggest a correlation with a reduction in the possibility in the spread of AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa it also comments, “If correctly planned, increased provision of accessible, safe adult male circumcision services could also increase opportunities to educate  men in areas of high HIV prevalence about a variety of sexual and reproductive health topics, including hygiene, sexuality, gender relations and the need for ongoing combination prevention strategies to further decrease risk of HIV acquisition and transmission.”  Out with this area the rate of adult male circumcision is very low, suggesting that when the individual is of an age to give consent, they chose not to. Performing an act on a child that would not be consented to by an adult except in extremis would seem a fairly reasonable definition of child abuse.  [i] Shannon. “De-Fingered: Finger Amputations in BME News/Publishers’ Ring”. BME News. 11 March 2008.  [ii] “Male Circumcision: Global Trends and Determinants of Prevalence, Safety and Acceptability”. World Health Organisation and the Joint United Nations Council on HIV AIDS. 2007.


In any other situation involving minors a precautionary principle would be applied  Any risk needs to be justified against some benefit. In the absence of any demonstrable benefit then there is no need to tolerate any risk, particularly in the case of a newborn baby who cannot express his opinion one way or another and will not be able to do so for years to come.  The risks of circumcision have been repeatedly demonstrated. Though they may be rare, they run from septicemia through to blood hemorrhage and heart attacks. There is little research conducted on the long term effects of the procedure; however there is a growing body of evidence that a surgical complication rate is about 1 in 500 and the post-surgical rate of attrition is believed by many to be higher [i] .  [i] Paul M. Fleiss, MD. “The Case Against Circumcision”. Mothering: The Magazine of Natural Family Living, Winter 1997, pp. 36--45.


A practice that is thousands of years old and has not been found to cause harm during that time is unlikely to now  Where there compelling evidence from medical science that a process that predates it had some proven harm then there might be good reason to restrict it but that evidence simply isn’t there. What is known is that circumcisions have been performed for millennia without causing widespread difficulties. In addition, historically, the procedure has been performed in circumstances far less safe than the confines of a modern, well-equipped hospital where it usually takes place now, and to no apparent ill effect.  Even using the term ‘abuse’ to describe such a practice shows a lack of respect for those people who are genuinely victims of abuse.


Parents have the right to use their best judgment, in the light of medical advice, as to what is in the best interest of their child  There is compelling evidence that shortly after birth is the best time to perform this operation and that the rate of complications at this age is generally agreed to be between 0.2 and 0.4 percent. When performed later in life the risk of complications increases ten-fold to between two and four percent. In the light of this it is appropriate to recognize the rights of parents to approve a procedure that would be riskier if elected later in life on behalf of their child [i] .  [i] Michael Benatar. "How Not to Argue About Circumcision". The American Journal of Bioethics. 2003


There is no proven cause of harm and parents routinely make medical decisions for children to give their consent or otherwise  Circumcision is akin, in many ways, to vaccination; a routine and simple procedure with miniscule risks and compelling probable benefits. We acknowledge the right of parents to take these decisions on the behalf of their children, even if the benefits in question are primarily cultural and spiritual, and relativistic in character.  Parents routinely make decisions with far greater implications for their children’s futures in terms of their education and general welfare on a regular basis and this should really be seen as no different [i] .  As has been established, even in the most impromptu settings, male circumcision, unlike FGM, runs almost no risk of causing severe injury or infection. MGM does not endanger or restrict a child's development, or his ability to living and normal, fulfilled adult life. Parents make much more damaging choices for their children all the time - choices that do not involve modification of a child's body.  The cost of raising a child as a junior rugby player is an increased risk that the child may sustain life changing injuries. The cost of sending a child to a Montessori nursery as opposed to a curriculum-based institution is the possibility that they may lack personal discipline or respect for authority later in life.  Parents are still permitted to make these decisions, despite the impact they may have on a child’s development. Why not allow them to submit their children to a relatively minor and inconsequential aesthetic procedure?  [i] Dr. Brian Morris, Professor of Molecular Medical Sciences. "Circumcision Should Be Routine; is Akin to a Safe Surgical ‘Vaccine’". Opposing Views


Poor families would be helped far more by investment in education and healthcare  This has been an urban and political obsession from the outset. The idea that the hungry and homeless need condoms more than food and shelter is clearly absurd. The poor would be better helped through “accessible education, better hospitals and lesser government corruption.” [i] Rather than interfering in the moral life of the nation, parliamentarians would be better exercised in tackling these concerns.  This issue has consumed political energy for over a decade and received massive national and international attention and yet there are far more pressing concerns for the nation – and its political leaders.  Instead this bill, which carries the marks of both political and moral corruption has been the main focus of the president and congress. At the very least this suggests a questionable sense of priority, at worst a gross lack of interest in the welfare of the Filipino people.  [i] Villegas, Socrates B., ‘Contraception is Corruption!’, CBCP News, 15 December 2012,


The appropriate setting for sexual relations is within marriage, contraception encourages pre-marital sex  The population of the Philippines are overwhelmingly Catholic, it seems reasonable to accept that many, if not most, accept the teaching of the Church that safe sex is married sex. Appropriate sexual relations between husband and wife can lead to a fulfilling family life including children.  However, freely available contraception leads to a rise in premarital sex with the rises in unwanted pregnancies that go along with that. In the US, women having premarital sex increased from 2% in 1920 to 75% in 1999, a period that saw a massive increase in the availability of contraception [i] .. This runs against the teaching of the Church, which, itself, is one of the cornerstones of Filipino culture.  The first Mass was celebrated in 1521 and by the early 1600s, Catholicism was unquestionably the countries’ dominant creed [ii] . The teaching of the Church on this issue is absolutely clear – and for four centuries those have been the values of the Filipino people. This bill undermines that understanding, it will lead to an increase in pre-marital sex with devastating consequences for, particularly, the young people of the archipelago [iii] . There is a reason why the Church argues against contraception and those values – that sex should take place within marriage, are deeply ingrained in the Filipino way of life.  [i] Greenwood, Jeremy and Nezih Guner “Social Change: The Sexual Revolution.” Population Studies Center PSC Working Paper Series University of Pennsylvania.2009   [ii] Wikipedia. Roman Catholicism in the Philippines.  [iii] Bishop Filomeno Bactol, ‘Naval diocese continues fight against RH’,. CBCP News., 23 December 2012,


The bill violates the Philippine values of harmony and respect  Perhaps the most important values in the Philippines are social harmony and respect for the family. [i] The Reproductive Health bill undermines both. Allowing contraception will take away a psychological barrier that prevents pre-marital or casual sex and once that barrier is crossed the individual will have higher sexual activity. [ii] In the Philippines this will mean greater numbers of teen pregnancies and pregnancies out of marriage because abortion will remain illegal.  In terms of politics these values mean support for democracy but also being against corruption and graft. [iii] Obviously the bill has been very politically divisive so undermining social harmony but also to pass this bill many parliamentarians had to be bribed so undermining this social harmony. The Reproductive Health bill represents the worst excesses of the pork barrel buffet. With a single-mindedness of purpose, the presidential palace has put everything on the table to shore up the votes required in parliament. Legislators, who had previously voted against the legislation, often repeatedly, where threatened with the loss of programmes in their constituencies if they failed to back the project, which has been at the heart of the presidential agenda [iv] .  [i] Dolan, Ronald E., ed., Philippines: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1991.   [ii] Arcidiacono, Peter, et al., ‘Habit Persistence and Teen Sex: Could Increased Access to Contraception have Unintended Consequences for Teen Pregnancies’,  P.30  [iii] Talisayon, Serafin D., ‘Teaching values in the natural and physical sciences in the Philippines’, University of the Philippines,   [iv] Philippine Daily Inquirer. Philip Tubeza. ‘Philippine President accused of ‘bribing’ Congress’. Reported on Yahoo News 19 December 2012.


There are clear and proven benefits to the health of the Filipino families, especially women  Both sides of this debate have spoken about the need to respect the rights and lives of women. It is, however, difficult to see how exactly opponents of the legislation reconcile this with their actions. Decades’ worth of research demonstrates that educational, health and nutritional levels all fall once a family outgrows its means. In the slums of Manila that research is unnecessary as it is all too apparent at a glance. However the research is there [i] to provide grisly commentary to the narrative folding out on the streets.  Investigations on a personal, national and global level demonstrate that effective family planning is at the heart of eradicating poverty [ii] . When families have less children they are more able to afford better education for those they do have and have a greater incentive to do so as they need their child to be able to support them when they are retired. [iii] Proposition is keen that this money should have been spent on eradicating poverty – they fail to realise, deliberately or otherwise, that that is exactly what it is being spent on.  [i] Rauhala, Emily, ‘The Philippines’ Birth Control Battle’, Time, 6 June 2008.   [ii] Brown, Lester, ‘Smart Family Planning Improves Women’s Health and Reduces Poverty’, guardian.co.uk 14 April 2011.   [iii] Merrick, Thomas, W., ‘Population and P{overty: New Views on an Old Controversy’, International Family Planning Perspectives, Vol.28, No.1, March 2002,


Any body of values that claims to respect the rights of the individual must recognise the right of a woman to choose  Even the doctrines of the Church accepts that pregnancy is not, in and of itself, a virtue – there is no compulsion to maximise the number of pregnancies; there is simply a disagreement about how they should be avoided. The Church recommends that couples may minimise the chance without ever making it impossible through a chemical or physical barrier.  In some parts of the world a pregnancy, even one that is not planned, is seen as a time for joy – a blessing for the family that will lead to a new and happy life bringing pleasure to both parents, their society and the child. That ideal is very far from the experience of much of the world where a child is another mouth to feed on impossibly little income. For all too much of the world, that life will be cruel, nasty and short. In slums, favellas and barren wastes that life is likely to be one marked more by dysentery or diarrhea, malnutrition and misery than by the sanitised, idealised image promoted in the West. That is, of course, not to say that children everywhere cannot be a cause for joy, of course they can. Indeed even within the poorest of situations, a new child can be the focus of great joy in an otherwise hard life.  However, if that is to be the case, that child must be planned and prepared for. Overwhelmingly, the mother is likely to have paramount responsibility for the child; so that planning and preparation needs to be theirs. It is difficult to imagine the scenario that would reach the objective observer to reach the conclusion that the right group of individuals to reach that decision were a group of celibate men who had never met the parents and would take to role in the care or support of the child. Yet that, astonishingly, is what Proposition would like us to believe.


This is a victory for democracy – a precious Filipino value - clear majorities in both houses and in the wider public support it  Opposition have conveniently glossed over one critical issue in this debate – that the RH Bill has significant popular support [i] . It also, as has been demonstrated that a majority of elected representatives support it. In itself these two facts provide evidence that modern Filipinos are sick of the fact that around half of the 3.4 million pregnancies each year are unplanned or the atrocious reality that 90,000 women a year seek the help of back street abortionists. When many of these go wrong, they were denied access to medical care and around 1,000 die each year as a result [ii] .  The values for the respect for the life of the mother, the value of life of the child, respect for the opinions of the majority, respect for democracy and placing the future of individuals and society above the outdated mythology of the Church would seem to be alive and well in the decision to pass this bill.  [i] Rauhala, Emily, ‘Culture Wars: After a decade of debate, the Philippines passes Reproductive Health Bill’, Time, 17 December 2012.   [ii] Ibid.


Religious symbols cause problems in schools.  As well as division in society in general, religious symbols are also a source of division within school environments. The Hijab causes schools many problems. It is potentially divisive in the classroom, marking some children out as different from the others and above the rules that the school enforces for everyone else. This may lead to alienation and bullying. Full headscarves may also be impractical or dangerous in some lessons, for example PE, swimming, or in technology and science lessons where machinery is being operated. In the same way, there have been discussions as to whether to ban the display of Crucifixes in public classrooms. Authorities in Italy have followed through with the ban saying that such a Christian symbol segregates those who are not Christian.1  1 'Decision due in Crucifix ban case', Times of Malta, March 17th 2011 , accessed on 24th July 2011


Western societies are secularly focused  Many societies are founded on secular values that do not permit the sponsorship of any religion by the state. British society aspires to this and has consciously acted to separate religion from state authority with many organisations such as the National Secular Society encouraging the suppression of any religious expression in public places.1 In this climate it is important that all citizens of the state are seen as equal. If some dress differently to others, deliberately identifying themselves as members of one religion, this can harm the unity and ethos of the state. This holds particularly true for institutions of the state like schools and government offices. In this way, it is possible to deduce that religious symbols are detrimental to the secular and equality focused identity of Western society.  1 'UK: One Law for all and the National Secular Society Back Bill that Aims to Curb Sharia Courts', 11th June 2011 , accessed on 23rd July 2011


Many symbols are seen as a symbol of oppression on women.  Religious symbols are seen to, in some cases, increase the equality divide between genders. As an example, the Muslim Hijab is considered by some as a very powerful symbol for the oppression of women, particularly in countries such as Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan where it is compulsory. Therefore, when it is worn in Western countries that encourage democracy and equality, the wearing of the Hijab is seen as almost counter-productive to the goals of democratic society. For this reason Belgium has recently banned the wearing of the full Muslim veil, much like France in 2010.1 Often Muslim dress rules for women are seen as more severe than those for men. Inequality between men and women is a form of discrimination and liberal societies should fight all forms of discrimination.  1 ' Belgian ban on full veils comes into force', BBC News Europe, 23rd July 2011, accessed on 23rd July 2011


Religious symbols cause division within Western society.  Religious symbols can be seen as possible tools for fuelling division within society. When some women wear the Hijab it creates pressure on other Muslim women to also cover their heads. Pressure comes both socially from wanting to look like other women in their community and religiously from imams and family leaders pressing for observance. As such, Muslims themselves are divided and religious oppression against women is internalized.1 Approving of Muslim head coverings in society cements the Hijab as an essential tenet of Islam, in the minds of non-Muslims as well as believers. However, many different schools of Islam exist and as on other issues, they often disagree how to interpret the Koran's dress prescriptions. Moderate interpretations accept modest forms of modern dress while severe interpretations require full covering with the Burka or similar veil. Banning the veil furthers the cause of moderate interpretations and prevents the entrenchment of severe interpretations.  1 Rumy Hassan, 'Banning the hijab', Workers Power 283 February 2004, accessed on 24th July 2011


A ban would be simple to enforce.  A ban would be simple to create and enforce. Religious symbols are for the most part meant to be shown therefore it is simple for police or authorities to check that someone is not wearing them. There are many societies that have had bans on a religious symbol in public buildings, for example in France where there is a ban on religious symbols in schools has been in force since 2004. In France the ban is made even easier to enforce by restricting it to 'conspicuous' religious apparel.1 Moreover when the ban is only when entering public buildings it can be enforced by the teacher, or the building's security guards rather than being an issue for the police to deal with.  1 BBC News, 'French scarf ban comes into force', 2 September 2004 , accessed 28/8/11


Religious symbols are personal, therefore, they should not matter to others.  At the end of the day, the wearing of religious symbols is the choice of the individual. Many have considered intervention in the practice of religion and symbolism as an intrusion into privacy and individuality. The recent bans on the full Muslim veil, particularly in Belgium, have been criticised for causing those who feel they have an obligation to wear it to be ostracised and forced to be confined within their own home.1  1 'Belgian ban on full veils comes into force', BBC News Europe, 23rd July 2011 , accessed on 23rd July 2011


It is their culture and religion.  Religions themselves tend to encompass their own distinctive culture and, to many of their members, this culture and its methods comes before anything secular. For this reason, Muslims should be allowed to wear personal items as it states in the ruling of their religious book to do so. Had a particular garment been required in the Christian religious book - The Bible - then no doubt those stout Christians would follow this particular ruling. The question is, would it be wrong to take away something close and meaningful to these religions? Surely, a religious symbol or method is purely personal, and, therefore, banning such symbols would be an intrusion into their individuality.1  1 Jessica Shepherd, 'Uniform Dissent', The Guardian, 9th October 2007 , accessed on 24th July 2011


If you ban one thing, you have to ban lots of things.  Every religious symbol should be treated equally so as not to cause discrimination. It's just not viable to ban one symbol. If you ban something, for example, as sacred and religious as the Muslim veil, people will then start rallying cries for other things to be banned. At the end of the day, if the Government feels that it is in the best interests of society not to ban the veil, then we have to believe them. Really if one thing is banned then the uproar that would happen would have significantly worse consequences than before the ban. There have been worries about the banning of the Sikh Kirpan because outsiders regard it as a possible weapon and a danger to people in public places.1 However, in the Sikh perspective, the Kirpan is a sacred symbol very similar to other religions' symbols.  1 'Timeline: The Quebec kirpan case', CBC News Online, 2nd March 2006, accessed on 25th July 2011


Banning religious symbols is just a way of unfairly targeting people.  Banning religious symbols could be viewed as just a way of targeting a group of people. In a nutshell, religious symbols would be used as a scapegoat in order to both highlight and blame for problems that are much bigger. Removing the hijab, the Crucifix or the Jewish skullcap would take away someone's culture, religion and heritage, and, therefore, banning them would cause more problems.1 It could potentially increase hatred within religious groups, and lead to more racism and more criticism, ultimately making the country a worse place to live.  1 at 'Belgian ban on full veils comes into force', BBC News Europe, 23rd July 2011 , accessed on 23rd July 2011


Integration and the acceptance of Western values are important  Arranged marriages have not been a part of the cultures of most European countries for many years now. Part of the reason for this is because ideas about marriage have become more progressive, with people accepting that men and women of any orientation should be allowed to choose their own partners. This was even the case during the socially conservative era of the 1950s, when it was generally accepted in countries like Britain that people would court and meet their partners independently of their parents. [1]  Arranged marriages also conform to a view of women in particular which regards them as chattel. This does not fit in with the type of egalitarianism many European countries seek to practice, and thus does not conform to Western notions of individual rights. [2] It is also hypocritical to adopt a double-standard with diaspora communities, turning a blind eye to practices which many other majority groups find reprehensible. The rights and norms of a country of block of countries such as the EU must apply to all.  [1] Cook, Hera, ‘No Turning Back: Family forms and sexual mores in modern Britain,’ History & Policy -  (accessed on 19 September 2012)  [2] ‘Human Rights with Reference to Women,’ UKEssays.com -  (accessed on 19 September 2012)


Individual Freedom  Even if marriages are not made absolutely mandatory, covert family pressure can still propel people into unions where they will be unhappy. This is a form of restricted liberty as the consequences of people rebelling against arranged marriages can include being forced to leave home or suffering stigmatisation and reduced contact with family members. The stigma may also be the other way with the family feeling shame when their children reject their arrangements this in turn can lead to attempts at compulsion and even some cases like that of Shafilea Ahmed murder for the rejection of the marriage. [1] Clearly there is a thin line between arranged and forced marriages. Although things like stigmatisation are harder to police than physical intimidation or violence, it is only right that the state steps in to regulate these harms, giving people the legal mandate to challenge the practice as well as to discourage relatives from attempting it from the outset.  [1] Carter, Helen, ‘Shafilea Ahmed killed by parents for bringing shame on family, court hears’, guardian.co.uk, 21 May 2012,


Women in arranged marriages in Europe are disproportionately likely to suffer abuse  Arranged marriages are often different when practiced in the home countries of many immigrant families in Europe, where women often have networks of friends and relatives to rely on. The danger with allowing arranged marriages to happen in EU countries are that the women at the centre are often far more vulnerable, away from their own family, unfamiliar with the local language and fully reliant on their husband’s family. This makes it easier for domestic abuses to go undetected which is simply compounding problems of underreporting. [1] It is therefore likely that there is more domestic violence within arranged marriages. [2]  This is shown even amongst women who still consented to arranged marriages but faced abuse from their husbands – such as with the case of Razia Sodagar, whose husband abandoned her for another woman after she failed to fall pregnant. [3]  This illustrates how it is not always easy to draw a clear division between arranged marriages and forced marriages, as the former can often bear the same characteristics as the latter. It would therefore be safer to outlaw both.  [1] ‘Ethnic domestic violence ‘hidden’’, BBC News, 20 September 2007,   [2] Gotrik, Jennifer, ‘India domestic abuse more common in ‘arranged’ marriages’, Womennewsnetwork, 12 September 2011,   [3] ‘Fighting Arranged Marriage Abuse,’ BBC, 12 July 1999 -


It will cause resentment and make certain communities feel targeted.  Arranged marriages are seen as a very important aspect of the identity of lots of Euro-Asian communities. At a time when tensions between non-Muslims and Muslims in Europe are high enough, for example there were protests in London against the film innocence of Muslims, [1] targeting a practice carried out by many Muslim families could help extremist tendencies to flare up. It is important not try and cloak laws that are little more than blind intolerance with terms that make them seem like secular liberalism. Attempting to ban practices like wearing the veil in the name of inclusion have been proven to only inflame tensions, not improve integration. [2] Banning arranged marriages outright would therefore not only be intolerant, but potentially dangerous.  [1] Walker, Paul, ‘Anti-US protesters in London condemn controversial film’, guardian.co.uk, 16 September 2012,   [2] Younge, Gary, ‘Europe: Hotbed of Islampobic Extremism,’ 14 June 2012 -


The state should not be allowed to intrude in such personal matters  Matters relating to how individuals conduct themselves in a private and consensual environment are arguably not the concern of the state. This extends to how people get married and within which tradition, religion or denomination. European states are increasingly allowing non-traditional marriages such as gay marriages [1] so not allowing arranged marriages for those who want them would be a perverse step backwards. Given that arranged marriages in themselves do not have any proven harms, and that, as it has already been asserted, the harmful side of arranged marriages, like forced marriages have already been outlawed, the state cannot keep regulating something with such an arbitrary and wide-ranging definition that includes so many consenting adults.  Were EU states to do this, the harm caused would risk infringing on the very rights of the people the proposition claims they are meant to be protecting in the first place.  [1] ‘Countries Where Gay Marriage Is Legal: Netherlands, Argentina & More, The Daily Beast, 9 May 2012,


It’s impossible to police such a law.  There is simply no feasible way of enforcing laws against arranged marriages, particularly as it is almost guaranteed that many communities will continue to practice them regardless. It will be impossible to tell whether a marriage has been started by arrangement if the community and the couple are unwilling to go to the police and most will be unwilling to report their own families when practicing a cultural tradition. Those who are deeply dissatisfied and beaten may do so but in this instance the law already allows divorce and abuse is punishable by the full force of the law.  Given that forced marriages have already been outlawed and that it has been established that arranged marriages in themselves cause few provable harms, the resources of any police force would arguably be wasted on enforcing such a law; investigations would be very intrusive and labour intensive.  Furthermore, given the continuation of practices like honour killings, [1] as well as rape and domestic violence, law enforcement personnel would be better placed targeting far more heinous crimes than arranged marriages. A tangible harm could arise from the police being made to direct their energies towards such minor misdemeanours, in that there could be fewer resources available for more serious crimes.  [1] ‘Europe Grapples with “Honour Killings,” DW.de -  (accessed 17 September 2012)


The government here may legitimately limit ‘free speech’.  We already set boundaries on what constitutes ‘free speech’ within our society. For example, we often endorse a ‘balancing act’ [1] an individual may express their beliefs or opinions, but only up to the point where it does not impede the ‘protection of other human rights’ [2] – other peoples’ right not to be abused. In this case, if an individual expresses abuse towards another – especially racism - they may be deemed to be outside of the boundaries or free speech and can be punished for it. This motion is simply an extension of this principle; the kinds of sites which would be banned are those which perpetuate hatred or attack other groups in society, an so already fall outside of the protection of free speech. The harms that stem from these kinds of sites outweigh any potential harm from limiting speech in a small number of cases.  [1] Hera.org, ‘Freedom of Expression’, Human Rights Education Association,  on 09/09/11  [2] Hera.org, ‘Freedom of Expression’, Human Rights Education Association,  on 09/09/11


Governments have a moral duty to protect its citizens from harmful sites.  In recent years, supposedly innocent sites such as social networking sites have been purposely used to harm others. Victims of cyber bullying have even led victims to commit suicide in extreme cases [1] [2] . Given that both physical [3] and psychological [4] damage have occurred through the use of social networking sites, such sites represent a danger to society as a whole. They have become a medium through which others express prejudice, including racism, towards groups and towards individuals [5] . Similarly, if a particularly country has a clear religious or cultural majority, it is fair to censor those sites which seek to undermine these principles and can be damaging to a large portion of the population. If we fail to take the measures required to remove these sites, which would be achieved through censorship, the government essentially fails to act on its principles by allowing such sites to exist. The government has a duty of care to its citizens [6] and must ensure their safety; censoring such sites is the best way to achieve this.  [1] Moore, Victoria, ‘The fake world of Facebook and Bebo: How suicide and cyber bullying lurk behind the facade of “harmless fun”’, MailOnline, 4 August 2009,  on 16/09/11  [2] Good Morning America, ‘Parents: Cyber Bullying Led to Teen’s Suicide’, ABC News, 19 November 2007,  on 16/09/11  [3] BBC News, ‘England riots: Two jailed for using Facebook to incite disorder’, 16 August 2011,  on 16/09/11.  [4] Good Morning America, ‘Parents: Cyber Bullying Led to Teen’s Suicide’, ABC News, 19 November 2007,  on 16/09/11  [5] Counihan, Bella, ‘White power likes this – racist Facebook groups’, The Age, 3 February 2010,  on 16/09/11  [6] Brownejacobson, ‘Councils owe vulnerable citizens duty of care’, 18 June 2008,  09/09/11


Even sites that appeared innocent have had a devastating effect on society.  Some governments, such as the Vietnamese government [1] , have already seen sufficient cause to ban social networking sites such as Facebook. Recently in the UK, many major cities witnessed devastation and destruction as social networking sites were used to co-ordinate wide-scale riots which rampaged over London, Manchester, Birmingham, Worcestershire, Gloucester, Croydon, Bristol, Liverpool and Nottingham [2] . Rioters contacted each other through Facebook and blackberry instant messenger to ensure that they could cause maximum damage [3] , which resulted in the destruction of property [4] , physical violence towards others [5] , and even the deaths of three young men [6] . These events prove that seemingly innocent Internet sites can be used by anybody, even apparently normal citizens, to a devastating effect which has caused harm to thousands [7] . To protect the population and maintain order, it is essential that the government is able to act to censor sites that can be used as a forum and a tool for this kind of behaviour when such disruption is occurring.  [1] AsiaNews.it, ‘Internet censorship tightening in Vietnam’, 22 June 2010,  09/09/11  [2] BBC News, ‘England Riots’, 8 February 2012,  on 09/09/11  [3] BBC News, ‘England riots: Two jailed for using Facebook to incite disorder’, 16 August 2011,  on 09/09/11  [4] Hawkes, Alex, Garside, Juliette and Kollewe, Julia, ‘UK riots could cost taxpayer £100m’, guardian.co.uk, 9 August 2011,  on 09/09/11.  [5] Allen, Emily, ‘We will use water cannons on them: At last Cameron orders police to come down hard on the looters (some aged as young as NINE)’, Mail Online, 11 August 2011,  on 09/09/11.  [6] Orr, James, ‘Birmingham riots: three men killed ‘protecting homes’’, The Telegraph, 10 August 2011,  on 09/09/11.  [7] Huffington Post, ‘UK Riots: What Long-Term Effects Could They Have?’, 10 August 2011,  on 09/09/11.


As an extensive form of media, the Internet should be subject to regulation just as other forms of media are.  Under the status quo, states already regulate other forms of media that could be used malevolently. Newspapers and books are subject to censorship [1] , and mediums such as television, film and video receive a higher degree of regulation [2] because it is widely recognised that moving pictures and sound can be more emotive and powerful than text and photographs or illustrations. The internet has many means of portraying information and opinion, including film clips and sound, and almost all the information found on television or in newspapers can be found somewhere on the internet [3] , alongside the millions of uploads from internet users themselves [4] .  [1] Foerstel, Herbert N., ‘Banned in the Media’, Publishing Central,  on 09/09/11  [2] CityTVweb.com, ‘Television censorship’, 27 August 2007,  on 09/09/11.  [3] Online Newspapers Directory for the World, ‘Thousands of Newspapers Listed by Country & Region’,  on 09/09/11  [4] Boris, Cynthia, ’17 Percent of Photobucket Users Upload Video’s Once a Day’, Marketing Pilgrim, 9 September 2011,  on 09/09/11


The Internet is a free domain and cannot becontrolled by the government.  Given that the Internet is used as an international [1] and public space [2] , the government has no right over the information which may be presented via the Internet. In Western liberal democracies, governments are elected on the basis by which they can serve their own country – how they will create or maintain laws that pertain specifically to that nation, and how they will govern the population. The Internet is not country-specific, but international and free. As such, no individual government should have a right to the information on it. Asserting false authority over the internet would paint the government as dictatorial and a ‘nanny state’ [3] , demonstrating a lack of respect for its citizens by assuming that they cannot protect themselves or recognise the nature of extremist or potentially harmful sites and take the individual decision to distance themselves from such sites.  [1] Babel, ‘Towards communicating on the Internet in any language’,   [2] Papacharissi, Zizi, ‘The virtual sphere’, New Media & Society, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp 9-27, February 2002,  on 09/09/11  [3] BBC. ‘A Point of View: In defence of the nanny state’. Published 04/02/2011. Accessed from  on


People often react poorly to being censored by their governments.  In countries that do currently practice censorship of Internet information, their citizens often interpret this as suspicious and dictatorial behaviour. For example, in China growing discontent with the government’s constant censorship has led to public outrage [1] , and political satire which heavily criticises the government [2] . Censorship can easily be used malevolently and is not always in public interest; this motion supports the ignorance of the population by hiding information and the reality of the situation. Therefore the cost of suspicion by the population of the state makes censorship of any kind less than worthwhile and it is better to allow individuals to make their own choices.  [1] Bennett, Isabella, ‘Media Censorship in China’, Council on Foreign Relations, 7 March 2011,  on 09/09/11  [2] Bennett, Isabella, ‘Media Censorship in China’, Council on Foreign Relations, 7 March 2011,  on 09/09/11.


Censorship is fundamentally incompatible with the notion of free speech.  Censoring particular material essentially blinds the public to a complete world view by asserting the patronising view that ordinary citizens simply cannot read extreme material without recognising the flaws in it. This motion assumes that those who have access to material such as religious opinion sites will be influenced by it, rather than realising that it is morally dubious and denouncing it. The best way to combat prejudice is to expose it as a farce; this cannot be done if it is automatically and unthinkingly censored. Meanwhile, it is paradoxical for a government to assert the general benefits of free speech and then act in a contradictory and hypocritical manner by banning certain areas of the Internet. Free speech should not be limited; even if it is an expression of negativity, it should be publicly debated and logically criticised, rather than hidden altogether.


Animal research causes severe harm to the animals involved  The point of animal research is that animals are harmed. Even if they don’t suffer in the experiment, almost all are killed afterwards. With 115 million animals used a year this is a big problem. Releasing medical research animals in to the wild would be dangerous for them, and they would not be usable as pets. [4]. The only solution is that they are wild from birth.  It is obvious that it’s not in the interest of animals to be killed or harmed. Research should be banned in order to prevent the deaths of millions of animals.


It would send out a consistent message  Most countries have animal welfare laws to prevent animal cruelty but have laws like the UK’s Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, [10] that stop animal testing being a crime. This makes means some people can do things to animals, but not others. If the government are serious about animal abuse, why allow anyone to do it?


Animals shouldn’t be harmed  The difference between us and other animals is a matter of degree rather than type [2]. Their bodies resemble ours, as do their ways of conveying meaning. They recoil from pain, appear to express fear of a tormentor, and appear to take pleasure in activities; a point clear to anyone who has observed a pet dog on hearing the word “walk”.  We believe other people experience feelings like us because they are like us in appearance and behaviour. An animal sharing our anatomical, physiological, and behavioural characteristics is surely likely to have feelings like us.  If people have a right to not be harmed, we must ask ourselves what makes animals different? If animals feel what we feel, and suffer like us, to condemn one to testing because of them being of a different species is similar to racism or sexism.[3]


It isn’t necessary  We don’t know how we will be able to develop new drugs without animal testing until we end it. We now know how most chemicals work, and computer simulations of chemicals are very good.[6] Experimenting on tissue can show how drugs work, without the need for actual animals. Even skin left over from surgery can be experiment on, and being human, is more useful.  The fact that animal research was needed in the past isn’t a good excuse any more. We still have all the advancements from animal testing in the past, but it’s no longer needed. [7]


Most animals can suffer more than some people  It’s possible to think of people that can’t suffer, like those in a persistent vegetative state, or with significant intellectual disabilities.  We could go for one of three options. Either we could experiment on animals, but not such people, which is morally not consistent. We could allow both, but do we want to do painful medical research on the disabled? Or, we could do neither.[9]


People will die if we don’t do animal testing  Every year, 23 new drugs are introduced in the UK alone.[13] Almost all will be tested on animals. A new drug will be used for a long time. Think of all the people saved by the use of penicillin. If drugs cost more to test, that means drug companies will develop less. This means more people suffering and dying


Research animals are well treated  Animals used in research generally don’t suffer. While they may be in pain, they are generally given pain killers, and when they are put down this is done humanely. [16] They are looked after, as healthy animals mean better experimental results. These animals live better lives than they would in the wild.  As long as animals are treated well there shouldn’t be a moral objection to animal research. This is exactly the same as with raising animals that will be used for meat.


Animal research is only used when it’s needed  EU member states and the US have laws to stop animals being used for research if there is any alternative. The 3Rs principles are commonly used. Animal testing is being Refined for better results and less suffering, Replaced, and Reduced in terms of the number of animals used. This means that less animals have to suffer, and the research is better.


Testing is needed for really new drugs  The real benefit of animal testing is making totally new drugs, which is about a quarter of them. After non-animal and then animal tests, it will be tested on humans. The reason why the risk is low (but not non-existent) for these brave volunteers, is because of the animal tests.  These new chemicals are the ones most likely to produce improvements to people’s lives, because they are new. You couldn’t do research on these new drugs without either animal testing or putting humans at a much higher risk.


Animals don’t have human rights  Humans have large brains, form social groups, communicate and are generally worthy of moral consideration. We also are aware of ourselves and of the nature of death. Some animals have some of these characteristics but not all so should not have the same rights. In harming animals to benefit humans, we enter in to a good moral trade-off to create a greater good. [11]


Facebook provides an information point  Undoubtedly, one of the most important aspects which will influence your efforts to improve your life is your ability to take advantage of every opportunity which comes up. Obviously, one of the, if not the, best way to do this is to stay connected with the world around you, this enables you to be able to quickly find out about job opportunities, sporting competitions or social events in your area. Facebook created and developed an efficient, extremely widely visited platform on which millions of users can get in touch with each other. This can prove to be an extremely useful tool both for companies or event planners and direct customers. No matter if we are talking about Google's new hiring policy or Toyota's new discount, an upcoming music festival or a football tournament for amateur players, Facebook is informing the individuals about these events, keeping them connected with their community.  Social networks are more efficient to serving this purpose than other more conventional means like TV commercials because it is free. A very good example of this is the Kony 2012 campaign, which informed the people about the atrocities that happened in Uganda at the time, mainly relying only on social media. The Youtube video telling its story has more than 98 million views and also there were more posts on Facebook about Kony on March 6th and 7th than even Apple’s new iPad or TV releases. (1) No matter if we talk about TV ads, radio commercials or billboards, the price that has to be paid in order to promote an event is a big drawback for anyone who wants to inform the population. As a result, Facebook as with other social media is the online, cheap, efficient equivalent to an info point.  (1) Kyle Willis “Kony 2012 Social Media Case Study “, March 8, 2012


Facebook encourages socialisation  One of the most crucial elements in any child's development is the ability to socialize with peers. By having a large circle of friends to talk to and share interests, the child gains trust, self-esteem and self-confidence. If you have people to talk to when you have a problem, it is much easier to overcome any problems.  Facebook and social networks in general help teenagers on multiple levels to maintain and expand their circle of friends. Firstly, it lets you remain in touch with friends even if you are very far apart. As we live in an increasingly globalized world, friend circles tend to be broken up very easily. As a result, individuals need to be able to keep in touch in spite of the physical distance. Facebook enables them to do that. (1)  Secondly, by allowing people with shared opinions, hobbies or interests to gather, social networks allow users to expand their circle of friends, something that is more applicable the bigger the social network. Thirdly, it allows young people to spend more time with the friends and people they already know through chat conversations, shared photos or status updates. As a result, people who are engaged on these social networks have more self esteem, more confidence in them, feel more appreciated and tend to be happier in general due to their wide circle of friends. (2)  (1) Keith Wilcox and Andrew T. Stephen “Are Close Friends the Enemy? Online Social Networks, Self-Esteem, and Self-Control” Journal of Consumer Research, 2012   (2) Brittany Gentilea, Jean M. Twengeb, Elise C. Freemanb, W. Keith Campbella “The effect of social networking websites on positive self-views: An experimental investigation” 2012


Facebook is good for democracy  Social networks aid our society on multiple levels, one of them being the democratic process. This happens both in autocracies, where the democratic process is basically nonexistent and in western liberal democracies where Facebook acts as a megaphone for the will of the population.  Firstly, when talking about oppressive regimes, Facebook allows the population to organize themselves in massive protests which can, in time, overthrow the government. This is of particular importance as the population cannot organize protests "offline" in the real world, because government forces would quickly find them and stop the protests before they even started. These people need a safe house, where government intervention is minimized, so that they can spread the news and organize the protests. The online environment is the best options. We have seen this happening in the Arab Spring(1), Brazil (2), Turkey(3) as well as for protests in democracies as in Wisconsin(4)  For western liberal democracies too Facebook plays a very important role in aiding the democratic process. Even in a democracy the government often engages in unpopular policies. Unfortunately, as we are talking about countries with tens of millions of people, citizens often feel they can’t make a difference. Luckily, here's where Facebook comes in. It connects all the people who share the same disapproval of government actions, removing the feeling that you can do nothing as there is no one backing you. Millions can come together to voice their opinions. Therefore there is more likely to be dissent. Moreover, the internet allowed individuals to start massive campaigns of online petition gathering, which they will later use as an irrefutable argument to the government showing the desire for change. There are a lot of sites, one of the biggest being Avaaz.org which facilitates this process, which use Facebook as a medium through which the petition is shared and so grows.  (1) Sonya Angelica Diehn “Social media use evolving in Egypt”, DW , 04.07.2013   (2) Caroline Stauffer “Social media spreads and splinters Brazil protests”, Reuters ,June 22, 2013   (3) “Activists in Turkey use social media to organize, evade crackdown As protests continue across Turkey against the government”   (4)Wikipedia


Facebook has some dangerous consequences  Facebook is becoming more and more integrated into our lives, but unfortunately the uncertainty of who is at the other end of the computer is proving to be a massive threat to our mental and physical safety.  First of all, undoubtedly, rape is one of the most serious and unforgiveable crimes anyone can commit, as it leaves permanent physical and mental scars on women. Unfortunately, Facebook is used by troubled men to take advantage of naive women. They use Facebook in order to get in touch with their victims (often posing as someone who he is not), and after they get to know each other, after he gained the victims trust he deceives her into meeting him, a mistake she’ll regret forever. As physical integrity is one of the rights most fundamental rights, and as Facebook is facilitating the violation of this right, it is absolutely clear that these social networks are detrimental to the society.(1)(2)  Secondly, another level on which Facebook is harmful is cyber bullying. It affects many adolescents and teens on a daily basis. Cyber bullying involves using technology to bully or harass another person. Sending mean Facebook messages or threats to a person, spreading rumours online or posting hurtful or threatening messages on social networking sites are just a few of the ways in which a lot of children get bullied every single day.  “Despite the potential damage of cyber bullying, it is alarmingly common among adolescents and teens. According to Cyber bullying statistics from the i-SAFE foundation:  Over half of adolescents and teens have been bullied online, and about the same number have engaged in cyber bullying. More than 1 in 3 young people have experienced cyberthreats online.”(3)  (1) Justin Davenport “Hunt for ‘Facebook rapists’ before they can strike again” London Evening Standard, 15 November 2012   (2) “Two men gang-rape girl in Kota after befriending her on Facebook”, Times of India, Aug 21, 2013   (3) Bullying Statistics


Facebook has a negative impact on learning  For many students, the constant flow of news, status updates, pictures and comments which comes through Facebook every single hour is proving to be a very distracting, which not surprisingly affects their educational progress. It negatively impacts learning. Studies show that students who checked in on social networks while studying had grades that were 20% lower than the grades of those who didn’t.(1)  A 20% difference in grades can be the difference from being awarded a scholarship at a prestigious university at being obliged to enrol in the community college, or very easily between passing and failing. Education is one of the most important things in anybody’s life as it greatly affects future prospects. Of course socialising is important as well but we should try to avoid one negatively affecting the other.  (1) Julie D. Andrews “Is Facebook Good Or Bad For Students? Debate Roils On” April 28, 2011   (2) Larry Rose ”Social Networking’s Good and Bad Impacts on Kids“ American Psychological Association August 6, 2011


Facebook is bad for life satisfaction  Every single day, there are millions of users sharing photographs, messages and comments across Facebook. Unfortunately, this type of “online socialization” that Facebook has initiated is nothing but detrimental to the teenagers, the most frequent users of the platform. The emotion which is most common when staying online is envy. “Endlessly comparing themselves with peers who have doctored their photographs, amplified their achievements and plagiarised their bons mots can leave Facebook’s users more than a little green-eyed.”(1)  Not only do they get envious, but they also lose their self esteem. As a result, they have the tendency to be isolated and find it harder to socialize and make new friends due to the bad impression they have for themselves. In a poll, 53 per cent of the respondents said the launch of social networking sites had changed their behaviour - and of those, 51 per cent said the impact had been negative.(2 ) One study also backs this statistics up by finding that the more the participants used the site, the more their life satisfaction levels declined.(3)  In conclusion, daily use of social networks has a negative effect on the health of all children and teenagers by making them more prone to anxiety, depression, and other psychological disorders.(4)  (1) “Facebook is bad for you”, The Economist, Aug 17th 2013   (2) Laura Donnelly “Facebook and Twitter feed anxiety, study finds” The Telegraph, 08 Jul 2012   (3) “Facebook use 'makes people feel worse about themselves' “, BBC News, 15 August 2013   (4) Larry Rose ”Social Networking’s Good and Bad Impacts on Kids“ American Psychological Association August 6, 2011


Cyber attacks can do serious damage to the state  Large scale cyber attacks can result in substantial harms to the state equivalent to those of an armed attack. Many states are dependent on flawless functioning of government and financial services online, and attacking them would cause mass disruption. For example, massive cyber attacks can cause serious disruption to economy by targeting financial, banking and commercial services; they can target government websites and steal confidential information that would compromise country's security, as was the case with USA in 2007 [10]; they could target power grids and shut down infrastructure on a massive scale across the country. All these instances cause disruption and leave the targeted country vulnerable with the government unable to operate successfully. This way, for instance, a large scale cyber attack from Russia on Georgia 2008 caused massive disruption to government, banking services, and communication within and outside of the country [11]. For these reasons USA's Pentagon decided to consider a cyber attack that 'produces the death, damage, destruction or high-level disruption that a traditional military attack would cause' an act of war [12]. Given the damage of possible attacks to the state, large-scale cyber attacks should be considered an act of war.


Cyber attacks are no different from traditional attacks  The world has developed along with the new digital medium. Lots of crucial business and government services have moved online. While the military modernised in relation to digital developments, a definition of an act of war has not caught up with it yet. It is now being suggested that the digital domain is the new realm of warfare for the 21st century. States have already been using cyber attacks in hostilities and as acts of aggression against each other. For instance, USA and Israel have released a virus Stuxnet that sabotaged parts of Iran's nuclear programme in 2010, followed by retaliatory cyber attacks by Iran on USA [7]. In the 1998 war over Kosovo the USA successfully hacked Serbia's air defence systems, which left Serbia vulnerable to air attacks [8] [9]. Cyber attacks are thus attacks that can be perpetrated by states against other states in an effort to weaken the other state, the same way armed attacks are used. Given these realities large scale cyber attacks should be considered acts of war.


Currently there is no way to legally respond to cyber attacks by other states  Currently international law on how a state can respond to cyber attacks by another state is lacking: it only covers cyber attacks during armed conflicts or those are tantamount to an armed conflict [15]. An attacked state thus has no legitimate means to respond to cyber attacks. This leaves them no option of self-defence, which is an important element in international law. Moreover, without international law regulating cyber warfare between states, there is no actual illegitimacy for cyber attacks. Despite their far-reaching and grave consequences, cyber attacks by other states do not feature heavily in the news. Few people actually know about cyber attacks between USA and Iran, which would be an unimaginable situation should these states resorted to military attacks. This apparent lack of condemnation and attention in the wider society to cyber attacks further decreases ability of the state to defend themselves or even call out an aggressor publically as there is little to fear from global opinion for such actions


Cyber attacks are difficult to trace  Cyber attacks are very difficult to trace as cyber attackers hide their digital tracks [20]. Cyber attackers also often launch attacks from poorly protected computers in other countries, which in no way implicates that the state was responsible for attacks – for instance, roughly 10% of spam comes from computers in China, but that is not Chinese spam [21]. The situation is different with traditional warfare, where there is evidence of weapons used, uniforms spotted, and reports of witnesses on site. Of course, we can expect states to lie about launching cyber attacks, thus China and the USA trade accusations about responsibility for cyber attacks, but there is no good way to test the truth. All of this means that an act of war would be judged based on incomplete and misleading information about another state’s involvement, threatening international peace and resulting in the loss of human life for no good reason.


Definition of a large scale cyber attack is extremely vague  Armed acts of aggression are a good method of judging if an action is an act of war because they result in actual destruction, violence and loss of human life. Cyber attacks, on the other hand, do not and thus there is no objective way to tell what scale of a cyber attack is enough to constitute an act of war. While Pentagon claims a cyber attack that is equivalent of damage caused by traditional warfare as a standard, how is it supposed to be applied if pretty much all of the cyber attacks have been bloodless [24]? For instance, stealing large amounts of confidential data from a country is a large scale cyber attack, and could have an immense economic impact, but it is bloodless and so how much damage does there need to be before it can be a casus belli? It is very difficult to measure the impact of even a very evident and intense cyber attack, as NATO found out when assessing a cyber attack on Georgia in 2008 [25]. While the Pentagon might have a nice theoretical framework, in reality there are too many unanswered (and possible impossible to answer) questions. This can lead to abuse of justifications for war and unnecessary violence.


Cyber attacks are often carried out by non-state actors  Cyber attacks are often carried out by non-state actors, such as cyberterrorists or hacktivists (social activists who hack), without any involvement of the actual state. For instance, in 2007 a massive cyber attack launched on Estonia was blamed on Russia due to the then on-going tensions between these two states [17]. However, the attacks on Estonia were generated from all over the world; and even those from Russia could not have been linked to the Russian authorities, who denied involvement. Similarly, a huge wave of cyber attacks dubbed GhostNet that compromised computers in 103 countries in 2009 was blamed on China, not the least for hacking computers of Tibetan authorities. However, it could not be conclusively proven that this was an attack perpetrated by the Chinese authorities [18]. Any retaliation against a state for a cyber attack can never be certain to be against the right target – the state should not be blamed for the actions of its individual citizens.


Electronic communication facilitates sexual misconduct.  Social networking websites have proven to be particularly effective for child grooming by pedophiles [1] . Teachers are already in a position of power and trust in the relationship with their students. Being allowed to communicate with students via facebook would greatly facilitate misconduct by a teacher who wants to start an inappropriate relationship with a student, by giving him virtually unlimited access to the students after school. In fact, many such relationships do involve some form of electronic contact1. By banning this form of communication, the law would make it harder for teachers with bad intentions to carry them through.  [1] Choo, Kim. “Online child grooming: a literature review on the misuse of social networking sites for grooming children for sexual offences” Australian Institute of Criminology. 2009.


A teacher-student relationship is not one between friends or equals.  According to Carol Shakeshaft an expert in sexual misconduct by teachers: “[e]ducators who use social media for personal and intimate conversations and contact are not much different from those who spend their time hanging out with students at the beach. You have to ask why a teacher would do this. The honest answer is that it rarely has anything to do with student learning. [1] ” Interacting with one’s teachers the same way as with one’s friends, sharing personal information, can only erode the respect and distance that a teacher needs in order to be an authority figure and a mentor for her young charges. Even if such ‘friendships’ were entirely innocent, they would still cast enough suspicion on the teacher-student relationship to put considerable strain on the teacher’s role as educator and their ability to do the job.  [1] Shakeshaft, Carol. “Using Social Media to Teach: Keep it Transparent, Open and Safe.” The New York Times. 19 December 2011.


Acting as a warning signal for children at risk.  It is very difficult for a child to realize that he is being groomed; they are unlikely to know the risk1. After all, a teacher is regarded as a trusted adult. But, if the child is aware that private electronic contact between teachers and students is prohibited by law, the child will immediately know the teacher is doing something he is not supposed to if he initiates private electronic contact. This will therefore act as an effective warning sign to the child and might prompt the child to tell a parent or another adult about what is going on.


Teacher’s personal life might undermine educational message.  Access to a teacher’s private information and photos may lead to weakening her position as an educator. How can a teacher convincingly speak against smoking or substance abuse if students have access to pictures portraying the teacher themselves drinking or smoking [1] ? For example, a principal from the Bronx, who had been trying to impose a strict dress code at her school, was branded a ‘hypocrite’ by her students when a risqué photo of her was found on her facebook page [2] . And even if the teacher will be careful not to post anything inappropriate on her page, a friend or acquaintance might thereby undermining the teacher. A strict separation of personal and professional life would prevent such incidents from happening.  [1] Preston, Jennifer. ”Rules to Stop Pupil and Teacher from Getting too Social Online”. The New York Times. 17 December 2011. nytimes.com/2011/12/18/business/.../rules-to-limit-how-teachers-and-students-interact-online.html.  [2] Keneally, Megan. ”Pupils at scandal hit school post sexy Facebook shot of principal over hallways.” The Daily Mail. 5 December 2011.


The law would violate freedom of speech and association.  Under this law a random person who the student has never met, even a potential predator, would be allowed to send a message via facebook or twitter. And yet a teacher doing the same thing, regardless of the content of that message, would be instantly committing an offence. Every person is allowed to speak to and associate with whomever they choose. That is a fundamental right that the government is not allowed to take away [1] . A person’s status as a teacher should not be an excuse to violate their rights.  [1] Solove, Daniel. “Missouri Bans Teachers from Friending Students on Social Networking Webistes.” The Huffington Post. 02 August 2011.


The law would be hard to enforce.  It would be difficult to find out whether a student and teacher have had contact over the internet. If a teacher were having a relationship with a student, and this law was in effect, both parties would try to conceal it from others and from the authorities. There is then a question about how the state would find out about such behaviour. Would the state be allowed to access private facebook accounts, personal computers, or internet service provider records to make sure teachers and students are not communicating with each other? That would constitute a serious intrusion and privacy violation.


Teachers can be essential in supervising cyberspace.  Social media has become the primary way in which children interact with their peers. These interactions are largely unsupervised by any adult, and yet they have a fundamental impact on the development of the children involved. Adolescents use social networking websites to gage peer opinion about themselves which may subsequently influence identity formation [1] . With so much cyber bullying happening on such websites, and postings of inappropriate behaviour that may later surface to affect a student’s chances of getting into college or getting a job, it would be useful to have a teacher supervise these interactions to make sure no harm comes to the children involved.  [1] Pempek, Yermolayeva, and Calvert. ”College students social networking experiences on facebook.” Journal of Applied Developmental Pshychology. Vol. 30. 2009.


Social media can be powerful educational resources.  Many teachers have been using social media as an extension of the classroom, some of them setting up discussion pages, or allowing students to contact them about homework or things that they did not understand in the classroom, it allows the teachers to provide extra help whenever the student needs it. This keeps students interested and makes learning fun by using a tool that they are already fond of. The enormous success of tools like ‘The Khan Academy’, which uses youtube videos to deliver lectures to kids, is proof of that [1] . It also allows even those students who are too shy to speak out in class or ask for help, to participate3. Tools like facebook and twitter have the advantage of being ready-made platforms that lend themselves well to extending classroom discussions through groups, pages, pictures, and videos. Not all schools have access to the funding to set up such pages separately and not all teachers have the skills to create them. It would be a mistake for schools to dismiss their use and their value.  [1] Khan, Salman. ”Turning the Classroom Upside Down.” The Wall Street Journal. 9 April 2011.


A strategic missile defense shield will be an effective defense against ballistic missile attacks targeted at the United States and its allies  The missile defense shield the United States intends to build is the most effective and complete ballistic missile shield ever devised. When fully armed with a complement of anti-ballistic missiles both within the United States itself, and in allied nations in Europe, the shield will be virtually impregnable to external missile attack. This means the chance of a nuclear attack succeeding against it will be very unlikely, reducing the chance not only of a full-scale nuclear war between the United States and another nuclear power, but also against missiles fired by rogue states or terrorists, the biggest threats in terms of actual use of nuclear weapons (The Economist, 2009). Technologically speaking, anti-ballistic missile missiles have developed by leaps and bounds in recent years. The current system being put into operation by the United States is the Aegis combat system, designed for deployment on US Naval vessels. This new development has served to sidestep the problems associated with ground and space-based missile defense arrays, due to the slow response time of ground missiles, and the still unfeasible orbital deployment. The sea-based defense array, furthermore, lacks the problem of the land-based system in that it does not need to be placed in countries other than the United States in order to be effective (thus avoiding the political problems of the past). Technology and diplomacy have clearly made a national missile defense system highly desirable.


As a matter of principle, every country, including the United States, has the right to defend itself to the best of its technological and economic ability  The nation-state is the fundamental building block of the international system, and is recognized as such in all international treaties and organizations (Mearsheimer, 1993). States are recognized as having the right to defend themselves, and this right must extend to the possession of a strategic national missile defense system. The United States has every right to develop such a system if it will furnish a greater measure of defense for its citizens and interests. US military technology is the most advanced and prodigiously financed in the world, which is why it is generally the United States that stands at the forefront of new defense and combat systems. The National Missile Defense program is simply the newest tool in the arsenal of the world’s greatest military, whose purpose is entirely defensive. To shield itself from potential ballistic missile, and even nuclear, attack the United States has the right to build a missile shield to defend itself and its allies under its aegis. There is no principled justification for a country to not pursue defense initiatives that benefit itself and that it wishes to pursue.


A robust missile defense shield will provide the protection previously afforded by the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction, allowing the US to dismantle much of its dangerous nuclear arsenal  With a fully functioning missile defense shield deployed, nuclear-armed ballistic missiles become obsolete, unable to ever reach their targets. This means countries’ strategic obsession with second-strike capacity, the ability to return fire with nuclear weapons should they be attacked by them (Mutually Assured Destruction), will cease to be an issue, as first-strikes are destined to be wiped out before they hit a single target. What this means is that countries with missile defense systems can feel secure without the need of retaining massive nuclear arsenals. This will alleviate the pressure to have stockpiles of warheads and will promote disarmament. Mutually Assured Destruction has become a far less secure strategy as nuclear proliferation has occurred to states with different strategic conceptions. This has been seen in the United States, which since its full adoption of the Aegis system has actively pursued a policy of reaching a new accord with Russia on nuclear arms reduction. This culminated in 2010 with the signing of the New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty), an accord to reduce the number of strategic nuclear missile launchers by half (Associated Press, 2011). This new step toward nuclear disarmament could not be politically possible in the United States without a replacement defense, which only a national missile defense system can provide.


Strategic missile defense technology is substantially more advanced and discriminating in application than nuclear weapons, making potential future wars less potentially devastating  An operational national missile defense system renders nuclear weapons, and intercontinental ballistic missiles generally, obsolete. When a country can shoot down all enemy missiles, those weapons lose their power. The future of war, once countries have access to the technology to build missile shields, will no longer be marked by fingers held over the proverbial red button. Rather, the incentive for conflict between states armed with effective missile defenses will be to seek diplomatic solutions to problems. The technology will likely be in the hands of many nations very soon, as the United States has already provided the technology to Japan and Australia, and will be building defense batteries in Romania from 2015 (McMichael, 2009). Furthermore, even should war break out, they will necessarily be far less destructive, as they will not feature the city-leveling power of nuclear missiles. With missile defense, war will be less likely and, should it occur, less destructive.


The political consequences of the system make the world less safe  Many countries look upon the national missile defense program of the United States as a serious threat to their security. Russia stands at the forefront of this group, and has for several years actively opposed the development of an anti-ballistic missile technology. If the program is a success and only the United States and its close strategic allies possess the ability to develop such defenses, they will have a marked advantage over all other countries in terms of fighting ability, as the United States would be able to use its own ballistic missiles to intimidate and attack its opponents while being effectively immune to retaliation. Fears over the development of the system have led Russia to make extremely threatening postures on its European border; when the United States planned to deploy a battery of interceptor missiles in Poland in 2008, Russia responded by increasing troop numbers along its European borders and even threatened to deploy its own battery of short-range nuclear missiles on the border (Harding, 2007). This sort of conflict is extremely dangerous, and raises the chance of international conflict escalating into war. Such an outcome is extremely undesirable, and the defensive capabilities of a missile shield are not enough to warrant such risks. Furthermore, the United Nations has sought to end research into anti-ballistic missile technology, and has on several occasions called on the United States to stop its testing (Reuters, 1999). Much of the international community fears the instability that might arise from the breaking down of the current world order of nuclear deterrence between states.


The system is an incredibly expensive venture that may not even work  Research and development of effective strategic defense systems has been ongoing since the Reagan administration, to little lasting benefit. The US government has spent hundreds of billions of dollars in the past two decades on developing missile defense technology, including nearly $60 billion in the past five years, and still it is incomplete and its effectiveness questionable. Many scientists have attested to the ineffectiveness of missile defense, as it currently stands. It is very difficult to hit a flying missile with another missile, and test-runs of the technology have been patchy at best (Sessler et. al., 2000). The dream of an effective missile defense shield that can successfully intercept enemy intercontinental ballistic missiles has yet to come to fruition. It would be better to stop throwing good money after bad and to fold up the project entirely.


Mutually Assured Destruction breaks down when national missile defense systems are introduced, destabilizing world security:  Nuclear weapons create stability, as described in the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Countries with nuclear weapons have no incentive to engage in open military conflict with one another; all recognize that they will suffer destruction if they choose the path of war (Waltz, 1981). If countries have nuclear weapons, fighting simply becomes too costly. This serves to defuse conflicts, and reduce the likelihood of the outbreak of war. When states have nuclear weapons they cannot fight, making the world a more peaceful place. Furthermore, armed with a nuclear deterrent, all states become equal in terms of ability to do harm to one another (Jervis, 2001). If a large state attempts to intimidate or to invade a smaller neighbor, it will be unable to effectively subdue it, since the small state will have the power to seriously injure, or even destroy, the would-be invader with a few well-placed nuclear missiles (Mearsheimer, 1993). The dynamics created by MAD are entirely lost when national missile defense systems are brought into the equation. Anti-ballistic missile missiles effectively eliminate the surety of MAD; it becomes a gamble of whether one’s nuclear arsenal will be able to penetrate the missile shield of the enemy. This increases the chance of a nuclear war, since an aggressor state can count on its missile shield to deflect the second-strike attempted by its opponent. Furthermore, in the case where both states in a conflict have missile defense arrays, as will likely occur as the technology is disseminated, the outbreak of war is also more likely, since each will try to race the other to the ability to counter each other’s offensive and defensive missiles. Clearly, the technology will only destabilize world relations, not offer greater security.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Genetically modified food is a danger to eco-systems.  GM foods also present a danger to the environment. The use of these crops is causing fewer strains to be planted. In a traditional ecosystem based on 100 varieties of rice, a disease wiping out one strain is not too much of a problem. However, if just two strains are planted (as now occurs) and one is wiped out the result is catastrophic. In addition, removing certain varieties of crops causes organisms, which feed on these crops, to be wiped out as well, such as the butterfly population decimated by a recent Monsanto field trial. [1] This supports the concerns that GM plants or transgenes can escape into the environment and that the impacts of broad-spectrum herbicides used with the herbicide tolerant GM crops on the countryside ecosystems have consequences. One of the impacts was that the Bacillus Thuringiensis toxin was produced by Bt crops (GMOs) on no-target species (butterflies), which lead to them dying. [2]  Another concern is also that pollen produced from GM crops can be blown into neighboring fields where it fertilizes unmodified crops. This process (cross-pollination) pollutes the natural gene pool. [3] This in turn makes labeling impossible which reduces consumer choice. This can be prevented with the terminator gene. However, use of this is immoral for reasons outlined below. Furthermore, not all companies have access to the terminator technology.  [1] Whitman D., Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful, published April 2000,  , accessed 09/02/2011  [2] WWF Switzerland, Genetically modified Organisms (GMOs): A danger to sustainable development of agriculture, published May 2005, www.panda.org/downloads/trash/gmosadangertosustainableagriculture.pdf , p.4 , accessed 09/02/2011  [3] Whitman D., Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful, published April 2000,  , accessed 09/02/2011


Genetically modified food is too new and little researched to be allowed for public use.  There are two problems associated with scientifically testing the impact of genetically modifying food. The first is that 'Peer review' (the checking of scientific test results by fellow scientists) is often made impossible by the unwillingness of biotechnology companies to give up their results for review. [1]  Furthermore, government agencies are often unwilling to stop GM foodstuffs reaching the shelf because of the clout that the companies have with their government. So in regards to research, there have not yet been unbiased findings showing that GMO crops are safe.  It is true, that in the US, there have been no adverse consequences from over 500 field releases in the United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) evaluated in 1993 data on genetically modified organisms regarding safety claims. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) believes that the USDA evaluation was too small scale, to actually asses the risks. Also many reports also failed to mention or even measure any environmental risks connected with GM food commercialisation. [2]  Also, there are a number of dangers associated with the food itself, even without scientific evaluations. For example, the addition of nut proteins to soybeans caused those with nut allergies to go into shock upon eating the soybeans. Although this was detected in testing, sooner or later a transferred gene will cause risk to human health because the scientists did not conceive it could be a problem. [3] This will become a greater problem as more modifications are introduced. There are also possible dangers associated with the scientific technique itself by which the DNA is modified, an example is the spread of antibiotic resistance.  [1] Pusztai A., Genetically modified foods: Are they a risk to Human/Animal Health ?, published June 2001,  , accessed 09/02/2011  [2] Shah A., Is GE food safe ?, Global Issues,  , accessed 09/02/2011  [3] European Federation of Biotechnology, Allergies from GM food, published September 2000,  , accessed 09/02/2011