DESELECTION - DEMOCRACY VS DECENCY

Helen Hayes - our local MP is under threat

Many people do not know the name of their local Member of Parliament, let alone what he or she looks like. They tend to vote for a party and are often more influenced by the character of the leader of that party than that of its local representative, saying things like I voted for ‘Maggie’ (Thatcher), Blair or Cameron rather than for who actually represents them. I suspect this is particularly true for that all-important group, floating voters in marginal seats.

As it happens, I am engaged enough to know the name of my MP, who is Helen Hayes and, being a member of the Labour Party, actually took part in the selection process of choosing her. I was not allowed to vote for a man in this process as the shortlist was made up entirely of women, an attempt by Labour to increase the number of female MPs – even if the party has never chosen a female leader. Meanwhile the Conservatives have twice been led by a woman (three times if you count the recently departed Scottish leader Ruth Davidson). Both of them became Prime Minister: Margaret Thatcher, with the longest run of the modern era at Downing Street, and Theresa May with a rather shorter, less successful spell. Even the Liberal Democrats are now led by a woman, Jo Swinson. While Labour introduced all-women shortlists, it has never entrusted a woman to run the party, let alone the country. 

Yet it now appears that being female is not enough to guarantee that Helen, as I will refer to her, remains as an MP. She faces deselection as the party is now attempting to increase the number of BAME (black and minority ethnic) and working-class MPs – which I suspect is shorthand for left-wing people who can be relied upon to support Jeremy Corbyn.

It is certainly ironic that, having benefited from her gender, my MP now faces the chop because she does not tick certain other boxes. I would be the first to admit that I am not a very active member of the party and hardly ever go to meetings or knock on doors at election time. I joined Labour in the same way that in the USA you can register to vote as a Republican or Democrat. This gives you the right to vote for both a local candidate and a national leader, a right I use. Apart from that, well, let’s say that I have a life beyond Labour.

What sort of MP is Helen Hayes? There is little doubt she is hard-working and conscientious. She always replies to my queries and represents the people of our constituency very well but she may prove to be not left-wing enough to satisfy the activists who increasingly run the party because, unlike me, they show up for meetings and take part in the selection process. 

Or the deselection process as it might become for Helen. Legally a local party is perfectly entitled to remove an MP if it thinks they are not doing their job properly. This is an important safeguard against people who are lazy, incompetent or corrupt. But should it apply to people who do not satisfy the prevailing ideology of the activists?

It is important to remember how you are viewed by the electorate as a whole before you toss out someone as your choice of MP.  If a commercial business or public service organisation got rid of a loyal employee simply because their face did not fit any more, Labour supporters would be rightly outraged and would back that person up if they chose to fight their firing through employment protection legislation. Why should the same standards not apply to the party? 

Any organisation, whether it is political or profit-driven, is judged by the way it treats people who work for it. This, incidentally, is why Dominic Cummings is such a dangerous figure for the Conservatives. He regards himself as being above common decency, a kind of unelected king who can - and does - get rid of people like Sonia Khan simply because he does not like them.

The need to act decently applies especially to organisations which appeal to idealism rather than to self-interest. What does it say about Labour if it pushes out someone who has been loyal and hard-working simply because of who they are, not because of what they have done? Frankly it makes us look terrible in the eyes of those whom we want (and need) to vote Labour.

I say ‘us’ because I am still a member of the Labour Party despite my misgivings about the way it is going. A political party should be there for everyone not just the better-off: for the many not the few as Jeremy Corbyn says. I was unenthusiastic about all-women shortlists but could see that they would at least increase the number of women MPs and might eventually lead to a woman leading the party and perhaps even becoming Prime Minister. 

Sadly, there is little likelihood of Labour entering Downing Street for at present. That does not mean we should not be trying to win the election which will probably arrive before the end of the year. Labour should be looking outwards, not inwards, to be challenging Boris Johnson on the £350 million a week he said would be available for the NHS once we had left the EU, rather than fighting a civil war on which candidates are chosen as potential MPs. 

Democracy might allow you to deselect sitting MPs. Decency surely says you should only do so if they have manifestly failed to do their job properly. Which Helen Hayes has certainly not done.

Edwin Lerner

My other blog is diaryofatouristguide.blogspot.com 

GENDER BENDERS

Coward was definitely but discreetly gay

Shakespeare loved men but was not

Twice recently I have been to the theatre and thought, “Hang on, something is not right here…”  The first was at the Old Vic where I saw a new version of Noel Coward’s play Present Laughter with Andrew Scott playing a version of Coward himself, a handsome and successful actor besieged by various lovers who give him no peace. The second was Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream at the Bridge Theatre.

In both instances the gender of one of the characters had been changed to give the play a gay dimension. In Present Laughter one of the lovers who attaches himself to the main character is male rather than female. This is understandable because Coward was discreetly gay while Scott is openly so and you could argue that they were merely doing what the playwright wanted to a semi-autobiographical work. In the Shakespeare play, it is Oberon, king of the fairies, rather than his wife Titania, who is made to fall in love with Bottom, which is a far more fundamental change to the plot and involved having characters speak lines written for someone else.

I actually far preferred the Shakespeare play to the Coward one, which was full of self-absorbed and, to my eyes, uninteresting characters. I soon grew fed up with Coward’s one-liners which were meant to be witty but ended up being merely tiresome. The theatre was packed, however, despite the high price of tickets and the audience applauded enthusiastically so I was in a small minority.

Coward was definitely but discreetly gay. He never announced the fact, not least because homosexuality was illegal for much of his life until it was decriminalised around five years before his death, by which time there was not much point. Some old lady in Worthing thinks I am straight, so let’s not disillusion her was his attitude. In any case, despite (or because of) his barbed wit he was instinctively reserved about such matters. ‘Coming out’ would have seemed a trifle vulgar to the elegant Coward and, therefore, unthinkable.

Was Shakesepare gay? In some ways it is a pointless question because the concept did not exist in his day. Men did sleep together quite often - and openly - in a supposedly platonic way and they may have had sexual relations, although performing the male homosexual act was punishable by death in Tudor times. He was married to and had three children with an older woman, although they lived apart for much of his working life. This might indicate a tendency towards being gay, although I doubt if he slept with other men.

However, Shakespeare certainly had some kind of obsession with the young man for whom he wrote the sonnets and, although he fulfilled his brief of encouraging him to marry and produce heirs, there was in the near worship of his subject a homo-erotic undercurrent. The two men later fell out over the same woman – the dark lady of the sonnets – and this gives their relationship an added element, albeit a less mysterious one, of sexual jealousy. He had sex with women but strong emotional feelings towards and bonds with certain men is my guess.

Who was the man in question? It has always been assumed that the subject of the sonnets was Henry Wriothesley, the Earl of Southampton, and Ian McKellen portrays him as an elderly man of fading beauty in Ben Elton’s story All Is True with Kenneth Branagh doubling up as Shakespeare and director. However, William Boyd put a strong case for the handsome youth being the Earl of Pembroke in his underrated tv play A Waste of Shame. Pembroke lived at wilton House, where Shakespeare almost certainly stayed and, as William Herbert, had the mysterious initials W H. We will never know the answer unless and until someone discovers Shakespeare’s private diaries. Which they won't. Shakespeare wrote for money and fame, not to reveal his inner feelings.

Are directors and theatre companies entitled to switch around the stories to suit a modern audience? We are far more accepting of gay relationships now than when these plays were written and, watching in heaven, Coward would probably give an amused shrug, indicating that Scott’s portrayal was closer to the truth than Coward himself could hope to be. Shakespeare would probably be bemused at the changes in his Dream, although I doubt he would be frothing at the mouth. In a way this production, with audience and actors rubbing shoulders and a highly acrobatic Puck making speeches and distributing fairy dust while hanging upside down, was truer to the spirit of Shakespeare than a more conventional one.

That is not to say that you can always hijack Shakespeare – or other writers – to support a particular point of view. In 1943 Hitler’s propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels authorised a version of The Merchant of Venice which was openly anti-Semitic and seemed to support the Nazi view that it was ok to eliminate the Jews. However, Shakespeare may have started writing the play with Shylock as a conventional villain but he finished it by showing that he had good reason to be embittered after the treatment he received.

One of the most vivid memories of my childhood is my English schoolteacher saying that an audience member shouted out at the end of the play, “This man has been wronged!” I have always found that a moving story and Shylock’s tribulations are what bring tears to my eyes, rather than the triumph of Portia and her complacent friends. This is surely the genius of Shakespeare: he does not let you settle. It also, incidentally, why his plays could not possible have been written by Christopher Marlowe (who definitely had sex with men, women and boys). Just read or watch The Jew of Malta and then turn to The Merchant of Venice. The titles of the two plays may be similar but there is no way on earth (or Heaven) that they could have been written by the same author. 

Edwin Lerner

My other blog is diaryofatouristguide.blogspot.com

NOISY NEIGHBOURS

Boris Johnson - clown or contender?

The flat where it all took place is quite close to where I live - about a mile away, I would guess. It belongs to Carris Symonds, who works for the Conservative party and which she shares (or shared, we are not quite sure) with Boris Johnson who was set to be the party's next leader and consequently Prime Minister until they had a noisy row and their neighbours called the police and, more significantly, The Guardian, which gave the story about the Tories publicity.

Of course, if Johnson had been a left-wing figure the Brexit-supporting newspapers would have milked it mercilessly to run him down. As it was, they sided more with him and The Daily Mail indulged in its usual habit of messenger-shooting by criticising the neighbours who recorded the row and broke the story as being left-wing troublemakers.

Which they are. But this does not make them liars or fantasists, which Boris increasingly seem like. Both are Remain supporters and could have let the whole issue die after the police assured them that no-one had been hurt in the incident. Instead they sent the recording of the row to the Guardian which publicised it and may have done real damage to Johnson's attempt to become Prime Minister. Obviously there was a bit of political opportunism in what they did - but that does not alter the fact of Johnson's behaviour and Symonds' reaction to it. She may even have ended the relationship but Johnson refuses to talk about the incident.

Does Johnson’s row with his partner/girlfriend matter? In the grand scheme of things, not much, but in leadership contest, character is obviously important. Johnson can hardly complain about this. If anyone has made a career out of personality rather than policy it is him. He plays the clown and has a good turn of phrase but it is well known that he only committed to the Leave cause at the last minute and had actually drafted an article in support of Remain before he decided to ditch it as he felt the wind was blowing in the other direction. He is far more calculating than he likes to appear and, if Leave would help him get to Number 10, then he would back it. And it did – so he did. It seemed to be working - until the row broke.

I had thought Jeremy Hunt might be next leader of the Conservatives after Theresa May without realising how the party felt they needed someone who could defeat Nigel Farage. There is no chance that Hunt would have a very public row with his wife (although he did manage to get her nationality wrong not long ago). He would be a safer pair of hands than Johnson and he must be rubbing his hands at how clumsy his opponent has been. Not only has he had this toxic row with his partner but he refused to answer questions it, acting as if it is beneath him to talk about such matters. I am going to be Prime Minister and am answerable to nobody he seems to say.

No-one forced Johnson and Symonds to have this fight and to disturb their neighbours. Why could Johnson not just apologise for making an almighty racket, laugh it off and say that the two of them had a row and apologised for any upset they caused? Yet there is something about Johnson which finds it impossible to admit to making a mistake and this makes me mistrust him. Most of us – myself included – have done things which we regret and are embarrassed by later on. Why not just come out and admit it? The story would die soon enough and a little humility might even help Johnson in the long run. He could make a joke about it and even turn the event to his advantage.

Instead he seems to think he is beyond apologising and, for this reason, I do not trust him to be our next Prime Minister. Most of those who have worked with Johnson do not trust him either. He repeatedly cheated on his wife and had numerous children outside his marriage. No-one is quite sure how many and it is astonishing that the party of the family seems so keen to embrace him as its leader and Prime Minister. Are they really saying that this is a private matter and should be ignored? They can only be desperate for someone who can defeat Nigel Farage at the polls.

Johnson's rival for the leadership Michael Gove has admitted to a misdemeanour and admitted taking cocaine. At the same time he was writing articles condemning middle-class drug-takers. It is not taking drugs which is wrong and writing articles saying you should be punished for taking them is common enough. It is the combination of the two which condemns Gove. Don't do what I do, do what I say seems to be the moral.

I hate what Brexit has done to Britain. When we went to Spain recently, we were waved through customs and passport control and made to feel welcome. Why are we breaking away from these countries? Why is it ok to hate foreigners now when they have done so little to damage our country? And why cannot we concentrate on things which are really important - like eliminating poverty and tackling climate change?

A no-deal Brexit now seems the most likely option simply by default and it will probably be a disaster. Especially with Boris Johnson, who has always had a shaky relationship with the truth, in charge.

Edwin Lerner

My other blog is diaryofatouristguide.blogspot.com

MAKING MONEY, PRESERVING FREEDOM

George Monbiot (from Wikipedia)

I was intrigued by a column in the Guardian newspaper recently by the environmental correspondent and in-house favourite George Monbiot challenging us to declare that capitalism is dead. It has long been accepted thinking on the left to say that capitalism is wicked, out of date and incapable of saving us from disaster. And yet, curiously, it seems to go on and on. The system is both resilient and adaptable and has long outlived socialism organised by the state or communism, as it was once known. I think that the death of communism has removed the brake on the acquisition of excessive personal riches which is such a blight on the system and on the lives of those who have accrued great wealth and seem none the happier for it. Having loads of dosh does not seem a good way to live.

Actually, I do not care that much about capitalism in itself. It is the democracy and freedom which come with it that I value. I agree with Winston Churchill who said that democracy was the worst system of government ever invented - except for all the others. The world is full of people who offer cheap and easy solutions to our problems. Just put me in charge for a while and everything will be ok, they say. I don't believe a word of it. These people often used to be on the left but are now mainly found on the right - Trump, Farage, Erdogan et al. 

At least with a consitutional democracy you can vote out those who are in charge every four or five years. Nobody lasts forever in a democracy and sometimes they last a pretty short time, as Theresa May has found out recently. I actually feel sorry for her and think she got dealt a bad hand in trying to sort out Brexit, one which she did not play very well in the end. Once I feel sorry for a leader their time is usually up. Pity does not play well in politics.

Monbiot's argument is that capitalism is failing us because it uses up resources more quickly than they can be created and this will inevitably lead to disaster. I think this underestimates the adaptability of the wealth creation process. Everybody in the country is aware of the potential dangers of climate change and global warming and so single use plastic, hybrid and electric cars and renewable energy are all making headway, not because this is ordered from above but because it is demanded from below. We still want to travel, turn on our computers and heat or cool our homes but at least we are going about these activities in a slightly more responsible way. Most people can buy into a system which takes account of the need to change our ways but are not keen to go back to the Stone Age.

Take tax for example. I can remember the days when tax rates were far higher than they are now, notoriously ninety eight per cent at the top end of the scale for 'unearned' income - ie investments. This led to two things, first the creation of so-called tax exiles, who chose (but were not forced) to live abroad on the advice of their accountants to avoid punitively high taxes. Secondly, inflated transfers fees for soccer players, which could be written off against corporation tax, and creation of entities such as Apple corps which was started by the Beatles who, faced with enormously high tax bills, could squander their wealth on schemes like these which could also be written off. Irresponsible short termism and lack of involvement in your country's long-term future were actually encouraged by high taxes.

Now personal taxes have been reduced to the levels that have been maintained for some time - a tax free allowance of roughy what you would earn on minimum wage, then twenty per cent until you get to around double the national average, forty per cent above that and forty five per cent for the top earners. Some people claim to like paying tax, others hate it and most of us cough up and have a good moan while acknowledging that they are needed to pay for schools, health, roads and agencies which protect us like the police and army. 

I think capitalism works better in a free society where innovation is encouraged. The example of China shows, however, that it can also flourish in repressive societies. Nominally communist, China long ago embraced free enterprise while retaining a high level of state control and offering little in the way of political freedom. In fact, China has a highly repressive and controlling society and has also has experienced terrible environmental problems and high emissions of greenhouse gasses, problems which more flexible western societies have been quicker to address, not because business is concerned with the long-term future of the planet but because the consumer is and demands better ways of protecting it. 

In short, capitalism does not need freedom but freedom needs capitalism. if we are going to save the planet we will have to do so from the bottom up not the top down and this requires the preservation of capitalism and the freedoms that go with it.

How can we individually make a difference as individuals? To find out go to:

https://savingourplanet.net/12-solutions-can-limit-global-warming/

To read George Monbiot's article go to: 
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/25/capitalism-economic-system-survival-earth . 

Edwin Lerner    My other blog is diaryofatouristguide.blogspot.com

A VEGGIE LENT

... and Hitler

The world's two most famous vegetarians - Gandhi

I had my first taste of meat for six and a half weeks on the evening of Easter Saturday when Lent came to an end.  It is good to give up because starting again makes you look at what you eat/use/do afresh.  My daughter is a vegetarian, was once a vegan and has been trying to convert me without much success.  Although I do have cut back on eating meat considerably, I have not it given up. Why not?

There are three ways to approach an issue like this – intellectually, emotionally and sensually or, if you prefer, via the head, the heart and the stomach. Let’s take them one by one.

Stomach – there is no doubt that I like eating meat. Tearing flesh from bone is a very neolithic urge and an enjoyable action. After finishing a meal with meat, I feel satisfied in a way that I never quite am with its vegetarian equivalent. And there is nothing quite like the smell of roasting meat to make the taste buds salivate. This is not a moral point but, as a biological being, I am definitely up for eating my fellow residents on planet Earth. This is how I was designed – or evolved – and is not in itself a cause for regret or shame.

Heart – I am not someone who takes delight in killing fellow creatures for food. I do not hunt and am, like most city dwellers, squeamish about killing animals. If I had to kill what I ate I might need to turn vegetarian. Or maybe not.

Brain – My basic problem with vegetarianism is that if you deny the death, you deny the life. While I acknowledge that the meat industry does some pretty terrible things to animals, most of these are during their lifetimes and can be controlled, supervised, improved. If we simply abolish eating meat altogether then the animals that provide this meat will soon disappear in a one way journey to the slaughterhouse.

So, it is two out of three. I enjoy meat and am not convinced by the case for refraining from it, even if I leave the killing to some less sensitive souls.  There is nothing unusual in this: I pay someone else to fix my car - and my body - when they go wrong. On the same way they pay if they want a tourist guide. We live in a world of specialists rather than survivors and animal slaughter is definitely a specialism. Even those who shoot birds and game employ a small army of helpers who depend on the sport of the better off.

Human beings can, of course, survive on a non-meat diet and many societies have done so. It is worth pausing, however, to look at those which have and I have three examples which I believe prove my point. These three examples are one that has survived and prospered, one that has ended and one that, thank God, never came into being. They are India, pre-famine Ireland and Hitler’s vision of a future Germany.

India is a country where the majority of the population have never eaten meat. It is not illegal to do so but it is restricted to the wealthier sections of society. In fact, meat-eating is often seen as a sign that you have risen from the ranks of the peasantry who cannot afford meat. Few Indians argue in favour of vegetarianism from a moral standpoint. They have just excised it from their way of living over the centuries. It is well known that you can feed more people per unit of land with a vegetarian diet than by raising animals, so this is how the Indians have coped with such a large population in a restricted space. Likewise, vegetarianism is often adopted in the West by people who live in densely crowded countries. Those who occupy places with wide open spaces almost always eat meat – either through hunting or by raising livestock.

Ireland today it has a population of five to six million which is actually lower than it was 200 years ago when it had to feed around eight million people. The reason for the drop in numbers was the potato famine which killed a million and forced over a million more people to emigrate. The Irish pre-famine diet consisted largely of potatoes and when the crop failed, hunger inevitably followed. Again, there was nothing particularly moral about this adoption of a meatless life. It was simply a result a large population in a restricted area. Once the population dropped the Irish starting eating meat again and still (mostly) do so.

Nazi Germany was formed, of course, from the vision of one man, Adolf Hitler. The extent of and the reasons for Hitler’s adoption of a meatless diet are debatable but it seems to me that mass vegetarianism was an essential consequence of ‘lebensraum’, literally ‘living space’ whereby the Aryan races would expand by seizing land from their weaker neighbours. The accompanying race purification would mean getting rid of undesirables – Jews, homosexuals, gypsies and those mentally or physically disabled – and animals would follow them into extinction as living space was increased both inwardly by more efficient land use coupled with eugenics and outwardly by conquest of those unfortunate enough to live next to the Nazis. The world’s two most famous vegetarians were Hitler and Gandhi. They were superficially opposites yet they both wanted to free their people and feed them in a restricted space.  Coincidence? I doubt it.

Hang on a moment here.  Are we saying that all vegetarians are fascists? Of course not. They are usually gentle and humane, inclined to be left-wing. Yet, the vegetarian movement is surely one which increases human domination of the planet rather than one which allows animals and human beings to live in Disneyesque harmony. It is an evolutionary defence mechanism designed to help us survive as our population increases. And for that reason – rather than sentiment or taste preference – I cannot take it up. 

Edwin Lerner

My other blog is: diaryofatouristguide.blogspot.com

KEEPING CONFIDENCES

Peter Sutcliffe, aka the Yorkshire Ripper - would you keep his secret?

A few years ago I went to a talk in which a social worker was describing a research project she had conducted in New Zealand which led to the book she was promoting. I cannot remember much about the book but I do recall her saying that it was important to guarantee total confidentiality to people you were talking to if you wanted them to speak freely and honestly. If they thought there was any possibility that you would betray their confidences by betraying them to the police they would immediately clam up.

When it came time for questions I raised my hand intending to ask her what she would have done if she had conducted her research in Yorkshire instead of New Zealand, had come across Peter Sutcliffe and realised he was the notorious Yorkshire Ripper before the police did. (Their investigation was notoriously incompetent.) There was not enough time for my admittedly awkward question in the end so I never got an answer, but it did set me thinking about the limits of confidentiality. Not only social workers with a book to write but priests also have to face this quandary. They are bound by the vows of their calling not to reveal what they hear in the privacy of the confessional box but have faced pressure to give up paedophiles who confess their sins to them but not to the police. 

There are three purely practical reasons why this idea is a non-starter. Firstly: if word got out that confessing to a priest led you to being grilled by a police officer, people would stop confessing without necessarily ending their criminal activity. Second: confessional evidence would probably not be admissible in court on the basis that, if a priest disobeys his vows, how can you trust what he says under oath? Third: never underestimate the power of martyrdom: if priests have a choice between breaking the seal of the confession (ie their vow of confidentiality) and going to prison themselves, the vast majority will embrace the earthly punishment and would be supported by a Catholic hierarchy rocked by its own child abuse problems and desperate for the opportunity to prove that the representatives of God on earth would sacrifice themselves for the faith. We would probably end up sending priests rather than paedophiles to prison, which rather defeats the point. 

But there is another reason why priests should not be obliged to give up those who confess their sins. Do we really want to live in a society in which everyone is obliged to report those who break the law to the authorities? For, if child molesters have to be betrayed, surely drug-takers and tax-dodgers must be too. The law does not distinguish between different types of crime when it comes to reporting illegal acts so, before long, we would be living in the kind of society which was utterly rejected by the inhabitants of East Germany, Russia and all the other countries which later threw off the yoke of the secret police. We might think that some crimes are not worth reporting but those who enforce the law do not grant us this luxury.

Landlords who rent out properties would have to act as unpaid and unofficial immigration officials by checking that their prospective tenants had the right to live here; doctors would have to inform the hospital authorities if they thought that their patients might not be entitled to free treatment on the NHS; and we would all have to give up friends who had slipped into a drug use, which might be spiralling out of control.

What would you do if a friend telephoned you and admitted that he was addicted to cocaine or heroin, that he owed money to his dealer, his wife had left him and he was about to lose his job? His life was going down the tube and he appeals to you for help. Do you say you will help him get on a programme and see what you can do to help him keep his family and job and free himself of his addiction – or do you hang up and call the cops to say that Joe Bloggs has just admitted to you that he has taken illegal substances?

Decent people would, of course, help their friend recover their life, even though it would technically mean that they were failing to report a crime (taking illegal drugs) to the authorities and would thus entail aiding a criminal. This is what priests are doing when they do not give up the child-molester by reporting him. That is not to say they ignore the wrong he (usually) does. “Go away and sin no more,” are the last words a priest says to someone who has confessed. They are distinguishing between a sin – that which is against God’s law – and a crime – which is against the law of the land. The two often but not always overlap.

The difference between child molestation and drug-taking, of course, is that there are identifiable victims who need protection in the first case but not the second, even though the fallout from drug use can be devastating for the families of addicts. It is not easy for a priest to allow a paedophile to continue his criminal – and sinful – activities without anything more than an exhortation to stop sinning.  But it is necessary. One of the reasons Catholic priests are not allowed to marry is that they have to hear these confessions but cannot give up the secrets they contain – to their wives or anyone else. Just as that social worker had to keep the secrets of those who talked to her in order to write her book, so the priest has to stay silent when he (definitely in the case of Catholics, possibly if they are Protestant) is hearing what terrible things have been done by those who come to them trusting that they can confess and that what they reveal will be heard in confidence. 

Edwin Lerner

My other blog is diaryofatouristguide.blogspot.com

THE ABOLITION OF AUTISM

Autistic - and Down Syndrome? - children

A closer view

I went to a ‘relaxed’ performance of A Midsummer Night’s Dream at Chichester recently. It was given by Flute Theatre, which was formed by Kelly Hunter to work with autistic people who are encouraged to come forward and join in the action with the actors. I even spoke briefly to her before the show: she is obviously very committed to the remit of the company, to involve people on the autism spectrum in performance. I am also reading Brave New World, the title also coming from Shakespeare (Ariel in The Tempest) and it set me thinking about what future there would be for people like this in a future where we control reproduction.

Let us get some terms right first of all. There are three related - and often confused - conditions: 

Asperger’s Syndrome – this is an inability to communicate effectively with other human beings. At its mildest, it is being unable to make small talk and a tendency to drift away and make poor eye contact with others. It is a condition an ex-partner of mine said I have and there may be a little truth in this although, as I have managed to lead a full and independent life, it is not a crippling condition at least at one end of the spectrum. In fact, some women would say of virtually all men that they do not pay enough attention to them.

Autism is a more severe version of the above and autistic people are very reliant on carers, usually their parents. They may have a tremendous memory for numbers (such as the savant Raymond played by Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man); they may bring great joy to parents and siblings, but they struggle to make friends and to live independently. Males are four times more likely than females to have the condition.

Down Syndrome people (previously referred to as Mongols) are instantly recognisable with their flattened faces and thick necks. While autism is an intellectual condition, Down Syndrome is a medical condition which can be identified through prenatal testing and this often results in the abortion of the affected foetus. 

Because autism and Asperger’s are on a spectrum, it is hard to determine accurate numbers, but there are probably around twenty five million people with the condition in the world today and nearly twice as many with Down Syndrome. Autism is a predominantly masculine condition, four to five times more common in males than females, while Down Syndrome is non-sexist, equally prevalent in both genders. Flute Theatre does not seem to distinguish between the conditions and I am sure there were people with all of them amongst those who were invited to take part in the performance – often magically – with the professional actors

There are no pre-natal tests - yet - for autism but the technology has advanced to the stage that you can now test for Down Syndrome children in the first twelve weeks of pregnancy. Unlike, autism, the causes of which are not fully known at present, Down Syndrome is caused by a chromosome (number 21) which can be identified relatively early. Although the test is not completely accurate, it can give parents a pretty good idea if their child will have the condition and, if it indicates that it will, they almost always terminate.

Before we rush to judgement on the Down baby abolishers, we should put ourselves in their position. Would you happily take on the extra commitment and frustration that having a Down child involves? Like most people I would accept and embrace any child I had but might, in the cold light of day, take the option and choose the easy path. This is one of those situations where technology influences decision making. It is hard to opt for ignorance, even harder to choose what was once known as God’s will, later just bad luck.

Dominic Lawson has written movingly about having a Down Syndrome daughter, saying that his desire to protect her meant that he bonded with her much more quickly than with her more ‘normal’ sister. He also said that his wife had expressed the view that those who had indicated that it was a shame that they had not known of her condition in advance – and, by implication, having a temination - could no longer be regarded as their friends. A bit harsh maybe, but the Lawsons would see this as a way of protecting their beloved daughter from those who think she should have been quietly flushed away before being born. 

This is an impossible conundrum and I am thankful that I have never had to consider it. I both sympathise with those who opt for termination and admire those who do not, either by deliberately remaining ignorant or by ignoring the implications of a positive test for Down Syndrome. I do not think it is possible to eliminate or forbid technology which makes us more able to analyse and understand the world around us but I also think that we sometimes know too much for our own good. It is probably just a matter of time before we can predict autism accurately in unborn children and, with people being allowed to abort foetuses that have nothing worse than a hare lip, it is likely that eventually both Down Syndrome and autism will disappear as we strive for ever more perfect pregnancies. 

Which will be a huge shame – and will leave the Flute Theatre crowd out of a job. Enjoy their work while you can, whether you are on the spectrum or have children with the condition or not. 

Edwin Lerner

My other blog is diaryofatouristguide.blogspot.com 

An interesting post by the mother of autistic sons: http://www.autismsupportnetwork.com/news/prenatal-tests-and-autism-mothers-story-4278942

For more on Flute Theatre go to: http://www.flutetheatre.co.uk