Fear, terrorism, whistleblowing, patriotism, authority.

Loyalty to your country can take different forms. It interests me when people say that our grandparents fought the war and lost their lives in service in order to achieve x. This x is variously reckoned to be some notion of freedom (e.g. civil liberties, or freedom of speech), British Values (generally undefined), or the overthrow of fascism. Alternatively, of course, this kind of argument might even be used to argue that the x our grandparents would really have wanted was a world of equality and smiling happy faces.

I think we can most of us agree that political freedom is mostly a very good thing, fascism is mostly a very bad thing, and that equality and joyous smiles are definitely worth digging a trench for. I do not think these arguments are entirely invalid, and I am sure that a good number of those who enlisted to fight against Hitler and Mussolini found their political style highly distasteful. I do wonder, though, whether some of those people fought for less fashionable reasons. Simple social peer pressure, perhaps? Xenophobia, peut-etre? Powerful political propaganda that convinced them that the enemy was immoral and irreligious and that their wives and daughters and cultural values would be at risk, maybe? Possibly an inspiring image of an idyllic green and pleasant land, the land of Keats and Wordsworth and charming country villages and rolling hills. Perhaps many men fought with a sense of pride or even arrogance, confidently striding out to defend what was formerly the largest empire in history and the land of the world leaders of 19th century innovation and progress. The land of Brunel, Watt and Darby.

Inculcating a sense of pride in one's own country is seen as an important part of education all over the world. Western liberals, however, have increasingly questioned the traditional narratives of our own history, and those on the left, in particular, have sought to expose the evils within, rather than uniting the country against an external enemy. Nowadays, our children are allowed to learn that actually, you know, maybe the empire wasn't entirely a wonderful idea from the perspective of those millions and millions of people who were subjugated, sold into slavery, or whose resources were commandeered for the emerging global market. The industrial revolution can be evaluated by students, and their teachers are allowed to suggest that perhaps it wasn't so wonderful for the children upon whose labour it (perhaps) depended. They can read sources and discuss whether the 'Tolpuddle Martyrs' were terrorists, or heroes, and perhaps they might learn of the terrible conditions for those who faced 'transportation' to Australia for 'political crimes' such as trade unionism.

There are some who feel that this kind of liberal claptrap is doing us no good. It's undermining the national spirit, by jove! They may not wish to defend these particular aspects of our past, I suppose, but they will perhaps argue that there is too much focus on these things, or that the history has become skewed the other way - all too ready to put ourselves down, we British have allowed the curriculum to work against us. The vital gel of patriotism has been lost, and our communities no longer will grow up with the determination to be strong, to be great, to be the best, to be happy. It was much better when everyone agreed that we were brilliant, and that people born elsewhere weren't as good. If we can all agree that German Nazis, or the spread of Soviet communism, or Islamic fundamentalists or secretive international financiers pose us a most immediate threat, then there is a certain sense of purpose and meaning gained in working together to destroy the threat. Nationalism thrives in such a context and along with it a tendency towards a distorted idea of those humans defined as opposed to us, and a willing ignorance about our own flaws.

The key here is that it was the threat that provided the path to a simplistic ideology of a purposeful and driven people. An analogy can be drawn with the effects of adrenaline on the human body: the hormone shuts down unnecessary processes and becomes an efficient machine for a fight or flight response - primed to deal with aggression, and to respond with aggression.

The thing about this kind of patriotism, is that as a system of thought, it doesn't easily tolerate criticism. As a matter of pragmatism, once the fear's adrenaline-like effects are established, the truth of the claims become unimportant. Maintaining the narrative becomes imperative. If people show that they don't wholeheartedly believe in our country, they are a threat. Once the balloon of national pride is inflated, dissenting voices become needles that need to be blunted for the sake of the hot air.

Governments, of course, have appropriated this mechanism for their ends. The USA, most obviously, with its flag-waving, fireworks on independence day, pledge of allegiance, and gun-toting survivalists. Manifest destiny, McCarthyism, reactions to 9/11 ... the religious right packages it all up nicely with your duty to God to boot.

The UK has done so, though perhaps in a more tempered way: our love of the underdog is at odds with it. Even if some faults in our past are accepted, the wonderful traits we have, and our ability to produce Shakespeare, the NHS and Tim Berners-Lee is held to outweigh the apparent genius we possessed for sailing big boats into new harbours and then trading on the misery of other tribes who we patronised and indentured.

In cases such as Watergate, Profumo, Enron, etc., leaks have widely been seen as good. The free press are feted for exposing corruption. In the internet age, we can openly dissent and find a wealth of resources promoting counter-cultural or anarchistic ideas, breaking taboos, and challenging established  'truths' in science and religion.
But we also now live in an age where our governments have tolerated the concentration camp at Guantanamo Bay. Where we allow these governments to track our every move. Furthermore Assange, Manning, and Snowden, are treated as enemies and traitors, not honourable and brave servants of their country. This, I believe, is a mistake caused by the nationalistic reflex reaction against anything which is said to go against our country's interest. Yet, I wish to argue, what is truly in our country's interest is to maintain the freedom to publish information which challenges the ills within our political and economic system. If you really want to be loyal to your country, you should fight corruption, injustice and dishonesty within it, and not just engage in wars against the perceived evils of other lands.

Moral primer

When I think of

politics and views of

value in my eye,

The question is:

Who are you competing with?

And why?

Wars & Just Cause. What would you kill or die for?

PART ONE: reflections on hard-won liberties.

They say they died for freedom,
and if that is really true,
then they always will be heroes,
and we should pay our dues.

Such bravery and trust they showed,
like lions to the slaughter,
and year on year they volunteer,
their grandsons and granddaughters.

Noblemen once went to war,
with workers side by side;
in olden days we hear of kings
who fought for England's pride.

Those in charge today no doubt
would like some glory too,
but do you think this government
would die for me or you?

Now it seems, for us at least,
that wars are far away;
other lands can be the stage,
where they don't have a say.

They started it, it wasn't us,
We didn't want to fight,
We're stepping in to help,
you see, we're on the side of right.

We're lucky, we're the winners,
though we lost much along the way,
at least we're free, well, more or less,
and must be grateful every day.

All those young men gave precious lives,
to fight against oppression,
but how can bombs and drone strikes
be the way to end aggression?

It's right to fight for justice,
for the whole human race,
but war is not the way to
make the world a better place.

PART TWO: what are we killing for?

I wouldn't kill for Britain,
NATO or the EU.
I wouldn't kill for glory,
or a Western point of view.

I wouldn't kill for money,
how ever much they offer.
I wouldn't kill for corporations,
to help to fill their coffers.

I wouldn't kill for history,
the past is in the past.
I wouldn't kill for vengeance,
a grudge should never last.

I wouldn't kill a criminal,
however gross his crime.
I wouldn't kill for leisure,
or just to pass the time.

I wouldn't kill for anger,
for hate or thoughtless rage,
Tantrums are for tiny kids,
I've learned to act my age.

I wouldn't kill for property,
Not mine or yours or ours.
I wouldn't kill for an easy life,
for duvets or hot showers.

I wouldn't kill for politics,
economics or for oil.
Not even for the landscape,
though I love this blessed soil.

I wouldn't kill for Jesus,
though they say he died for me.
The only true religion,
is to love humanity.

I wouldn't kill for knowledge,
to be infinitely wise.
I wouldn't kill for honour,
in anybody's eyes.

I wouldn't even kill for truth,
and never for a lie.
I wouldn't choose who gets to live,
and who deserves to die.

I've thought about just cause,
and what counts as decent grounds.
I wouldn't kill for any idea,
however smart it sounds.

I wouldn't kill for animals,
though I feel for them a lot.
They may be close to us indeed,
but humans they are not.

I would only kill to save a life
of my fellow human souls.
To protect is not to murder,
they're entirely different goals.

I'd kill to save my family,
my loved ones and my friends.
I'd kill to save my own life,
but not as means to ends.

I'd kill to save an innocent,
from this country or another.
For every life is special,
and all men are my brothers.

Homophobic abuse, football chants, humour, liberty and tolerance.

On a moral level, verbal abuse is verbal abuse, whether it is racist or anti-gay, and it is by definition liable to hurt or cause offence. Blaming someone for taking offence is ridiculous. After all, what is the difference from blaming someone for being upset if they get bullied? It is not the same thing as blaming someone for being raped, which is arguably a much more serious issue, but it is still a regrettably common defence of abusive language to say that it is just 'banter' and to suggest that we should tolerate it. I can remember from primary school years the nasty comments directed at some of my peers, and it is interesting that sometimes these jeers were followed by the chant: "You can't take it - You can't take it!" ...As if the victim was further at fault for being upset by the bullying.

I was driven to write this after reading this article about abuse directed at fans of Brighton & Hove Albion FC by Leicester City supporters, (of the same sort given by Leeds United fans recently, and which has also been directed towards Blackpool FC fans, so not an isolated occurrence). There are some fairly ignorant comments below the article, but also some positive ones; I think the most interesting comment is from someone called Lee, who questions where we draw the line. He then mentions regionalism, which I think this is absolutely relevant. The only consistent moral line to take is that all abusive comments are wrong.

Homophobia is arguably a bigger issue than regionalism right now, (even in football, as Amal Fashanu's documentary has highlighted, which is deeply, if not inherently tribal)... but regionalism can have harmful consequences nonetheless. Perhaps one day society will evolve to the point where anti-Scouse prejudices, to take one notable example, are more universally frowned upon, if not prohibited. If you think that is overly optimistic, I would have to agree... but if you think that such a world is not desirable- that is a view I want to contest. For instance, I imagine critics trying to argue that offensive language is somehow a right, or that it would be impossible for them to find anything funny if it doesn’t involve nastiness. To those who feel that this so-called ‘banter’ is acceptable, I would ask: why? What about it is at all good? Surely you don’t think it is somehow an important civil right to be horrible to others? Oh! They say, the world would be drab without being able to 'take the piss'. But what is so bland about peace, love and understanding? [Apologies to Elvis Costello!]
A distinction might also be drawn between gentle mockery and more obviously cruel comments. Matt Lucas, an openly gay comedian, suggested in the documentary mentioned above that one chant directed at Brighton fans: "we can see you holding hands" was acceptable, whereas a chant directed at Sol Campbell (which I will not quote) was unacceptable. There were other chants directed at Brighton fans that go somewhat further than reference to holding hands, but there is no doubt that the words directed at Campbell were nonetheless many times nastier. To me, the main thing that made the latter chant worse was not simply a 'degree' of nastiness, but the fact that it made reference to him dying a gruesome death. Matt Lucas' main defence of the former chant was that it was 'witty'. But, I would argue, his real point was, or should have been, that it was not as unfriendly. After all, the Sol Campbell chant involved wit and skill, but was absolutely vile. The difficulty that then arises is deciding how cruel the intention is.
The documentary also highlights another way this same distinction that may be drawn. In the case of Anton Hysen, his teammates seemed (largely) comfortable with his homosexuality, but felt more able to make jokes about it, now that he was 'out'. The clear implication was that these jokes were ok, because they were done in a friendly spirit. Some footballers at Millwall FC suggested that making certain jokes might be a way of actually showing camaraderie, and of indicating acceptance. Clearly, the context has a huge impact on whether any harm is caused. Amongst friends, I often hear jokes that play on prejudices of all sorts, and which may be told purely for their wit. For example, although the majority of my friends are straight white males like myself, they might share a joke they have heard about black people or blonde females or even about paedophiles or some such thing. These are sometimes funny, I admit, either because they are deliberately risqué, or perhaps intended ironically (though sometimes I wonder), or simply well-crafted with skill and wit. However, I would be uncomfortable repeating them outside the company of friends that I trust not to take this amusement further. Whilst I trust my friends would never use such 'humour' to actually directly oppress the 'victims' of such jokes, does tolerating this kind of joke necessarily imply that one condones actual discrimination towards them? I don't believe so. There is a possible question of hypocrisy here: I would not allow such jokes in my classroom, but I tolerate them in privacy with my friends. For me, the difference is that I presume my friends are educated and refined enough to know how damaging these jokes might be in a different context, and it is part of my remit as an educator to challenge the presuppositions of social attitudes. When it comes to this kind of humour, I am a fan of 'anti-jokes' (some good, but many bad examples here) that deconstruct or invert these presuppositions.

Now, when it comes to the issue of public comedy, satire and mockery, how far do we go? I think there is a relevant moral difference in [a] mocking someone for something they have no control over (e.g. their skin colour, or their sexuality) from [b] mocking them for something they have done (for example, I think that chants critical of John Terry’s private life are fair game, given the allegations of adultery.) Clearly, I think, it would be going too far to ban someone from shouting at a team that they are rubbish at football (to paraphrase one well-known chant), or to direct this at an individual- even if they find this opinion hurtful. Findley's recent miss for Forest against Leicester in the FA Cup, for example, was pretty funny. What about chants such as, ‘You fat bastard!’? I would argue this too comes into the second category... just. However, there might be an argument that although one's physical fitness is largely controllable, in fact one's size is at least partially genetic.

Also, I would argue, it is important that our culture tolerates mockery of religion and political views. I have been a strong supporter of Rowan Atkinson's campaign to defend freedom of speech against certain movements to limit criticism of religion. And although I wouldn't advise it, given the intolerance of certain elements of the Islamic world, I think that I should have a right to draw a cartoon of Muhammad if I want. Satire is an important tool in exposing irrational and hypocritical beliefs and behaviour. After all, if you hold such views, I believe you should be able to justify them.

Now, as for the philosophical dimension to this issue, the only possible justification for allowing such abuse would be some naïve version of Benthamite Utilitarianism. If a whole crowd of fans are enjoying the chants, then so what if a few people are offended? A simplistic quantitative application of the 'greatest happiness principle' might be used to argue that the minority must suffer the barbarism of the majority because otherwise the overall 'amount' of happiness would be reduced. The same sort of logic could be used to 'justify' gang rape.

However, this brute form of utilitarianism is not one that a philosopher would dream of defending. Back in the 19th Century, John Stuart Mill realised that Bentham's formula needed some qualification. He developed the philosophy by arguing that certain pleasures were 'more desirable than others', which paves the way to argue that some forms of suffering are more undesirable than others. In this case, the base excitement caused by bullying is of a lower kind than more noble or intellectual pleasures, and thus cannot justify causing more serious forms of harm.

In addition to the principle of utility (the 'greatest happiness principle'), Mill added the principle of liberty: "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign". He argued against state intervention, and thus might be used in arguments against legal sanctions for those abusive fans.

“Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest”. (On Liberty)

Mill was also a staunch defender of 'free speech', it must be noted: “If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind".

However, to quote Mill in this way- to justify the behaviour of an abusive majority- is arguably unfair. He limited the 'liberty principle' with the 'harm principle'. Whilst Mill thinks we have the right to do what we want with our own lives, this right does not allow us to do the same with others. We must not allow one person's liberty to infringe another's. The crucial issue here is how to define 'harm'. If it is restricted only to physical harm, then there is little we can do as a society to prevent bullying: the large part of which is not physical. So much the worse for society.

However, at the other end of the scale, we must allow a person to criticise another, even if they become upset. For example, an art critic might greatly hurt the feelings of the artist he/she is reviewing; an employer should be able to discipline an employee; and society must be able to punish criminals (to what degree is a matter for another essay). How we define 'offence' is a crucial matter for politics today. We can consider, for example, whether to allow public displays of homosexuality (such as a gay kiss on Eastenders), despite a fair proportion of society finding this to their distaste. Richard Dawkins has joked that he is offended by chewing gum and backwards baseball caps! To some extent, it might be argued these cases are affected by the context, and to what extent someone has been subjected to the 'offensive' situation rather than 'choosing to take offence'. Comments made in private may not warrant the same legal restriction as those that are broadcast, perhaps. I submit that the only reasonable line to draw is not based on how strongly you care about something (as people may care intensely about their unreasonable prejudices), but whether the criticism should be defined as acceptable (rather than abusive) must centre on whether or not it concerns something for which the person is responsible.