Archive

Posts Tagged ‘current-events’

Care, Think, Vote

August 10, 2017 Leave a comment

On what might be the most important day of the year so far for New Zealand politics (when the leader of the opposition was changed) a reporter from Radio NZ went out to South Auckland, which is a traditional Labour constituency. She asked what they think of Andrew Little (the old leader) and Jacinda Ardern (the new leader). Here’s what people said…

Reporter: Do you know who the Labour leader is at the moment? [possibly to see if they knew the leader had been changed]

First person: No [nervous laugh], no…

Second person: Umm, no I don’t actually, to be honest, no.

Third person: Ah, no I don’t actually.

Fourth person: Um, not as this morning, unless it’s changed already. [so you would know if it had changed, but not if it hadn’t?]

Fifth person: Um, I forgot his name, but I support him 100% [so that’s full support for someone whose name you can’t remember… OK] Yeah. [when told it was Andrew Little] Andrew Little, oh yeah, that’s his name, yeah. He’s a good guy, he’s a good guy. Yeah. [when told he had quit this morning] Well we needed him for like, you know, to win the election. But, I’m a bit gutted now, yeah.

Sixth person: Um, is it Bill English? [no, that’s the prime minister] Am I right? [reporter: have you heard of Andrew Little before] Um, I think so, maybe, years ago. [poor Andrew, he did have trouble reaching the people]

Seventh person: I don’t know. [reporter: What about Jacinda Ardern] Nope. [reporter:Do you know any Labour MPs] Oh, is Helen Clark one? [her friend laughs, and says “yeah”] There you go, Helen Clark. [she was leader about 10 years ago] [reporter: The new leader is Jacinda Ardern] Oh, OK. Cool, cool. [reporter: What do you think about that?] I think that’s a good idea. She’s young, vibrant, you know, she’ll have a lot of ideas, so yeah. [reporter: Do you know who Kelvin Davis is?] Yeah, I do. [reporter: He’s the new deputy] Is he? Well, that is pretty good, yeah.

Reporter: What would make you want to vote?

Eighth person: Build their “module” on more American style of politics which is more, I guess, showmanship, razzamatazz, probably get us a bit more interested in our politics, ’cause our politicians – no offence – are really quite ugly and boring, [no offense taken, I’m sure] so, it’s hard for millennials when all we care about is Rhianna and Drake. [reporter: What about Jacinda Ardern though] Oh, I don’t know, I mean, she’s no Helen Clark in my eyes, who’s a boss-as bitch. [best… comment… ever]

Overall, I’m not sure whether to laugh or cry. I mean, even in the past when I had no interest in politics at all I could at least name the leader of the opposition (as well as the PM and a few other key ministers) so the ignorance of these people is truly astonishing. And considering there will be a general election here in a few weeks you might expect political knowledge to be a bit better than this.

But in contrast, when interviewing people in South Dunedin after Jacinda Ardern became the new leader, we got these responses…

First person: Probably better for them, but too late, I don’t think I’d want to be Jacinda and inherit the Labour Party. [The Labour Party has done very well since Ardern took over]

Second person: She’ll be good but they still won’t get in. [This is still uncertain, but they have a lot better chance now than they did before the change]

Third person: She seems really like a typical NZ person with ambition. I didn’t have too much faith in Andrew Little. [Fair call. I actually liked Little, but he didn’t communicate well with the average voter]

Fourth person: I just think it’s cool having a younger person leading a party ’cause you always see these old men. [Another fair call. Some “old men” did connect with the people, but neither the current PM nor any recent previous Labour leader did]

Fifth person: I don’t know enough about her. I know nothing. [Well at least they admit it, and to be fair we don’t actually know much about her]

Sixth person: She’ll probably put everybody off Labour, unfortunately. [Judging by the polling this person could not be more wrong]

Seventh person: She’s charismatic but it’s too close to the election. It’s a bad look for the party. So yeah, maybe next time. [Apparently it is not too close. Things can change very quickly in politics]

So the question must be at this point, considering that everyone has a vote no matter how good or bad their knowledge of politics is, does democracy even work and is it really the right system?

There are a few caveats I should state here…

First, South Auckland is probably an unusually bad area to look for astute political commentary. Maybe other areas might offer a far better level of understanding (and the South Dunedin responses were better, so this idea has some support).

Second, we don’t know if the people on the broadcast were representative of all the people interviewed – maybe they were just 8 bad examples and there were hundreds of extremely knowledgeable people who didn’t appear… yeah, I doubt that too!

Third, is political “trivia” like this a good indicator of a person’s ability to make a well informed and meaningful vote? After all, I am only using naming the leader of the opposition as a proxy for the general knowlege necessary to vote well.

As you can probably tell by my dubious tone above, I’m not very convinced by these ideas. I think that most people do not have good knowledge of politics and current issues, and probably don’t really deserve a vote. But that is a very anti-democratic idea and it would be difficult to establish a system giving some people a vote while denying it to others.

So I guess we get back to that great quote attributed to Winston Churchill: “Democracy is the worst form of government… apart from all the rest.” Or maybe the Opportunity Party’s tag line should be more appropriate: “Care, Think, Vote.”

Waking Up

August 2, 2017 Leave a comment

I have already mentioned in some past blog posts how interesting I find the ideas of neuroscientist and philosopher, Sam Harris. I recently started listening to his podcast “Waking Up” and before that had read a lot of material he has produced (including the books The End of Faith, and Letter to a Christian Nation) and watched many of his debates and lectures on YouTube.

It must be tempting for some of my debating opponents to say “of course you like Sam Harris – he is another militant atheist, just like you” but it goes beyond that. I find everything he says genuinely thoughtful and he doesn’t just fit in with a stereotype such as materialist, anti-theist, or liberal.

I like this because I am always suspicious of people whose ideas closely match a particular political, religious, or philosophical “clique”. For example, in the past it intrigued me how libertarians always supported the idea of free markets but rejected the truth of climate change.

Those two things aren’t really linked in any meaningful way, but if you found someone who thought a laissez-faire economy was a good idea they would probably also think that climate change was a conspiracy. That is not so much true today because climate change is becoming increasingly difficult to deny, but it was common 10 years ago.

And with conservatives it might be common to find other ideas such as aggressive military intervention and being anti-abortion associated. These really do not seem like they should be linked in any way, yet they are.

Finally – and this is something I might have been guilty about in the past before I “woke up” – liberals are also susceptible to this phenomenon. Many would (and still do) believe in strong environmental protection while also being against genetic modification. A strong case could be made that in order to protect the environment genetic modification is almost a necessity, although I admit there are other options as well.

My point here is that it is unlikely that individuals have some to these conclusions based on deep and unbiased examination of the facts. If they did I would expect to see a lot more variation in how the ideas I have listed are linked. For example, there should be a lot more environmentalist who strongly support research into genetic engineering.

It seems far more likely that these ideas have come about as a result of them being “absorbed” from other people in their social group. So if you live in a conservative environment you would absorb diverse attitudes such as being anti-abortion, pro-guns, anti-welfare, etc, while if you came from a liberal environment the exact opposite would be true.

Both Harris and I seem to be less easily classifiable into commonly recognised groups. We get quite strong negative feedback (often it is genuine abuse and threats) from all sides of the political spectrum. Of course, Harris is a well-known public intellectual and I am just an obscure blogger, but I would still like to think we share a lot in common.

So to give you an idea of why I count myself as a “rationalist” rather than any of the more traditional groupings, such as “conservative” or “liberal” or “libertarian”, here is a list of my attitudes on some contentious subjects…

Equality. I think everyone should get a fair chance to succeed and utilise their talents, but I am very suspicious of political correctness and affirmative action. I would be far happier seeing equality achieved in ways which don’t simply give advantages to “minority” groups even if there is good reason to think they are disadvantaged in some situations currently.

Environmentalism. I strongly support environmental protection. I think a natural consequence of unfettered capitalism is the destruction of the environment, so capitalism must be controlled. I tend towards the idea that we must move on from capitalism completely, but in the interim controlling it is sufficient.

Immigration. I think it is good to have some variety in the backgrounds, cultures, and beliefs of people in every country, but I don’t want that to extend to people with extreme beliefs that might destroy the positive character a country already has. For example, for a Muslim to come to New Zealand they should first prove they don’t take their religion too seriously by eating a pork sausage or some similar test!

Free Markets. I understand why people don’t want their government controlling the economy in too fine detail (or at all in some cases) but I can’t see the advantage in handing over control to large corporations which are probably even less likely to have the best interests of the majority in mind. So I think markets should be controlled where it makes sense but not to a ridiculous extend such as where obsolete industries are artificially kept running.

Abortion. I am conflicted here. The problem is that there is no obvious point where a cell becomes a foetus and a foetus becomes a baby. I think abortion in the very early stages of a pregnancy is OK but how to determine where the point is when a distinct, conscious individual is involved is difficult to determine.

Gun Control. I understand that the best way to avoid gun deaths is to eliminate guns and that is at least partly practical in some countries. But in others, such as the US, that chance has passed so guns must be accepted as a necessary evil. It should be necessary to prove a high degree of competency in using one before a license to own a firearm is issued though. I know that the “bad guys” will just get guns without a license, but at least the legal owners will have a higher level of skill and that might make the defensive advantage of guns greater.

Racism, Misogyny, Xenophobia, etc. I reject the idea of being biased against anyone because of factors such as race, gender, or country of origin. I also know that scientific tests show that everyone is biased in exactly these ways, often subconsciously! But at least knowing that, a person can try to overcome that bias. But, I also reject the over-use of these terms. For example, saying I don’t want a fundamentalist Muslim allowed into the country isn’t racist because Islam isn’t a race, it’s an idea. I reject bais against people, but not against ideas.

I hope that by looking at those opinions I could not be easily labelled with any of the traditional stereotyped political identities. I see some good points in all political positions and yes, I’m not afraid to admit that I agree with a few things controversial figures like Donald Trump have said.

And unlike most of my opponents I can justify my opinions with rational reasoning, not with simple-minded dogmatic hypocrisy which I so often see from people who obviously identify with one political movement. Instead of trying to fit in with that identity and to impress their friends with similar beliefs they should learn to think for themselves. They should wake up!

More of the Same

July 13, 2017 Leave a comment

Here in New Zealand we will be having a general election this year. The current government is lead by the center-right National Party and the main opposition party is the center-left Labour Party. There are a few other significant parties too, which will probably make an important contribution to the final mix in government.

National have been in charge for almost 9 years and have been quite moderate, and fairly solid, but uninspiring. Traditionally, after three terms a government would probably be thrown out, no matter how well they had performed, but this time National have maintained a fairly healthy lead in the polls. Or more correctly, the Labour and Green parties have failed to make any progress.

Why?

Well, it’s fairly simple really – and everyone except the strategists in Labour and the Greens seem to be able to see it. In the past occupying the center has been the path to victory. It is true that the center has lurched a long was into the libertarian-style right in the past 30 years, and that has only returned to a more traditional position recently, but the principle still stands.

But now things are changing. People want something different. They feel betrayed (and rightly so) by all forms of government. Both the right and the left have implemented policies which have badly damaged the middle and lower classes and now both sides of the political spectrum are almost indistinguishable from each other.

So advertising your party as a bastion of solidity and virtually promising more of the same is exactly the wrong thing to do. It’s particularly sad to see Labour abandoning any new ideas (because in the past all the new ideas have come from them) and for the Greens to toe the line and promise responsible financial management.

We don’t want more of that! Responsible financial management has created a super-rich upper class, an increasingly poverty-sticken lower class, and a whole new class of working poor (because wages and conditions are so bad after so much “financial responsibility”).

After the results seen in the US, UK, and France it should be obvious that, whatever the polls say (because almost all of them have failed miserably), people want something different. And if no reasonable party is prepared to offer that then we will get more unorthodox politicians gaining power. And that isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

Because when I walk down the street now I see a lot more people in obvious financial difficulty while at the same time seeing a lot of Aston Martins, Porsches, and other expensive cars than I have ever seen in the past. It’s pretty clear that this financial responsibility they speak of does great things for some members of society, at least!

And don’t ever have the temerity to tell me that those people worked hard for their fancy cars. While there might be a few who work more than most it’s very clear that work and income are no longer linked in any way. People who live in their cars often have multiple jobs while the super-rich can do nothing and still make millions.

Society has never been fair but it’s obviously a lot less fair now than it has been in the past. The greedy might have pushed things just a bit too far now and voters are looking for a way to make a change. It’s a great opportunity for the parties of the left to make a genuine difference but instead of offering something new they are just following the same old path they have been forced into by the necessities of the politics of the last 30 years which were dominated by neoliberalism.

But that ideology’s time is over. It’s time to move on. We don’t want more of the same.

Ignorant, and Proud of It

July 7, 2017 Leave a comment

I understand how people want to give other people – especially those from groups which might be seen as being disadvantaged – a bit of extra help and support. These people usually mean well and just want everyone to have a fair deal. And they often see anyone who doesn’t share that view as being ignorant, bigoted, or self-serving, and sometimes they are right.

But equally they should be open to alternative ideas and should have the humility to listen to opposing views, and perhaps modify their own ideas slightly as a result. After all, especially in the realm of social issues and politics, it is very easy to get stuck in a mindset which is never challenged by your usual friends. Contrary views should be welcomed and fairly considered instead of being dismissed with no thought.

But that’s not usually how things work, as illustrated by a “conversation” I had recently where my points – which were contrary to the other participants in the discussion – were just ignored without any appraisal at all.

The discussion was over a flyer produced by a New Zealand group, the Hobson’s Pledge Trust, which encouraged making political decisions (including voting for parties supporting their ideas) leading to equal rights for all groups, no matter what their ethnicity or origin.

I ended up debating the person (let’s call her “L”) who posted on Facebook regarding her distaste for the flyer. Here are the first few comments in that debate…

L: As Tama Waititi (NZ actor/director) says every bit of racism helps and this political offering delivered in our letter box today by Hobson pledge has a huge amount of it. Feel free to contact them!

Me: Is there anything untrue in that material?

L: Ahh Owen I will answer. Yes everything because it is written from an ignorant and racist perspective perpetuating hate and ignorance.

Me: I think it’s dangerous closing down a particular political view, whatever we think of it, by just applying a label like “racist”.

L: Nope very happy to :*)

Me: You should have a think about that.

L: Owen Baxter I have and very comfy thanks. :)

Me: OK. That’s your view. Just accept that other people have different views which can be justified at least as well as yours.

Before I comment I do need to say that I am no great supporter of the people behind Hobson’s Pledge. However, like all groups, I think they make some good points, and even if they didn’t, the correct response is to show that they are wrong, not to just refuse to even engage in discussing a view which has a fairly high level of support.

If you look at the discussion above you will notice how there is no attempt at all to answer my initial question on whether there is anything untrue in the material. More importantly, notice how L admits to wanting to close down the debate by simply applying a label with no justification.

This is simple ignorance, and ignorance is bad in itself, of course, but L seems to be proud of it! And to show now she is not alone, here are a few other comments which I collected from various sources on this topic…

One person said “I’m burning it without reading it”. Well, that’s very mature and fair, isn’t it. What are they scared of? Maybe, that it might make sense and cause them to change their mind. We couldn’t have that, could we? It’s better just to stay ignorant.

Another commented “We cannot allow it to happen because of the violent reaction to the abolition of affirmative action.” So this sounds like, if affirmative action (which is just another way of saying some groups, based on race, are given special privileges) is removed there will be a violent response. This isn’t an opinion based on right and wrong, just a threat of violence if a particular political view isn’t followed.

Here’s another, somewhat more reasonable, comment: “voters have moved on from the ‘negative sentiment’ of Hobson’s Pledge.” There might be some truth in this, but that doesn’t mean the idea isn’t worth taking into consideration. I also suspect there is a lot more support for it by the “silent majority” who are too scared to enter into any discussion on the topic.

And, “people, including politicians, are appalled by this racist leaflet.” OK, but don’t just be appalled, tell us why you are appalled – is it wrong? Is it immoral in some way? And please, try to avoid applying that label “racist”. It really has got to the point where all it really means is “someone who disagrees with me on a matter involving race politics”.

Finally, it was said that the Human Rights Commission has received complaints. But, of course, none of those complaints were upheld which seems to indicate that the flyer was not racist according to them.

I have made several posts in the last year describing how I am moving away from being identified with traditional left views. This is part of the reason why. It seems that the left are just as bad as the right on most issues now. They are just as self-righteous, just as inflexible, just as ignorant, and just as wrong.

More Red Tape

June 19, 2017 Leave a comment

Controversial commentator, George Monbiot, thinks the disastrous fire in the London tower block serves as a warning about removing “red tape” from society. He sees this as a consequence of the neo-liberal agenda followed by successive governments – which would traditionally have been from both the right and left – in the UK. And there is no doubt that a very similar situation has arisen in many western countries, such as here in New Zealand.

On the other hand many other political pundits have suggested that we need a lot less regulation. They say that worthwhile commercial and social programs are being held up by excessive regulation and laws which stifle all forms of innovation.

So who is correct?

Well, in many blog posts I have commented on how I think there are too many rules and regulations, but in others I have said that large corporations and other organisations get away with too much as well. So, which is it? Do I want more or less regulation?

Well, I want both. Both the opinions above are correct. It is not so much the number of rules we have (although I still think there are far too many), but the type.

To take an example in New Zealand: one of the biggest disasters here in recent times was the Pike River mine explosion and fire. There is little doubt that it occurred because of incompetent and irresponsible management, something I should note has not really been addressed in the years since the original tragedy began.

On the other hand we have ridiculous health and safety rules in workplaces with no real hazards which have no reasonable chance of preventing any deaths or injuries in any event which could realistically occur.

So there is both stupid, stifling bureaucracy (and a whole class of bureaucrats to enforce it) and a lack of regulation and enforcement where it is actually needed. We seem to have chosen the worst of all possible worlds!

Now I should discuss how this relates to the recent London fire. Before I do I should admit that the exact direct and incidental causes of the Grenfell Tower disaster have not been established yet. However I think there is sufficient evidence on what happened to make my following commentary (AKA rant) relevant. If it turns out that the causes aren’t what currently seems obvious then I will retract this post.

For a start, the facts…

First, a massive fire in an accommodation block in London has resulted in the loss of many lives (about 60 at this point) along with many injuries and missing persons.

Second, the block had recently been renovated by applying panels to the outside, and these panels were primarily decorative and contained a highly flammable material.

Third, the building was not protected by sprinklers and had no (or only defective or inferior) fire alarms and smoke detectors, and the residents were told to stay in their apartments in the case of a fire.

Finally, the residents (who were poorer people even though it was in a rich suburb) had warned the owners that the building was dangerous but had been basically ignored.

So putting the facts together, and reading between the lines a bit, here’s what I think really happened…

The building was in an affluent area and didn’t look up to standard to the rich people living there, so the building owner was pressured to improve its appearance.

The owner, or the contractor doing the work, tried to save a few pounds (in other words make more profit) by using a cheaper building material even though it was a major fire hazard (the cladding used cost 90,000 pounds less than a fire resistant alternative, and was part of a multi-million pound contract). This could happen because building regulations had been loosened by recent governments.

Warnings that the building was dangerous were ignored because the owner simply didn’t care. There was probably nothing illegal about the building itself (although some reports suggest the material was banned). In many ways bad regulations are worse than no regulations at all, because the owner can claim that the building follows the standards.

When the fire started it spread rapidly because of the material used and the fact that the money was spent on superficial cosmetic improvements instead of real safety features like sprinklers or modern alarms. In addition the residents were told to stay in their apartments during a fire – I know it’s hard to believe, but I’m not making this stuff up!

The following might not have made a lot of difference, but because of austerity measures the number of fire fighters serving the area was less than it had been in the past.

The government has made insincere, totally inadequate, and late efforts at helping. Of course an investigation is under way, but we all know how biased those usually are.

Now there are protests over this issue. But who should be the target and what, specifically, went wrong? I don’t think one person or one action can be blamed. This is a systemic thing which might be able to be improved to a limited extent but will never really be OK under the current system.

So, again I get back to the theme that we need revolution and not evolution. If one good thing comes out of this tragedy it might be to wake people from their apathy and have them finally realise that the ruling elite are both incompetent and grossly immoral.

To get back to the original issue about regulations. Do we need more? Well the best option would be to get rid of capitalism so that most decisions weren’t driven entirely by greed. Any decent building owner (assuming people were allowed to own housing at all, and I don’t think they should be) would want to provide safe accommodation, not to make some superficial changes to a squalid death-trap. But until we put decent people in charge we need regulations to control those who currently have all the power.

In summary, until the revolution comes we (regrettably) probably have little choice: we need more red tape to control the worst excesses of a system which is rotten to its very core.

More Free Speech

June 6, 2017 2 comments

Most people agree that free speech is an important right. In fact, some say that there should be no limits at all on what an individual should be able to say. But when the right of free speech is taken too far even those with that extreme view tend to become a bit more moderate.

I tend towards a view supporting the maximum right to free speech. I think it is very important and the people who try to shut it down are often those who have most to lose if that right is exercised. So I am usually very suspicious of people who want to suppress discussion and criticism of any kind. For example, most large organisations – including companies and governments – keep very tight control over what the members of that organisation are allowed to say about it, even when that is likely to be far more truthful than the official sources.

On the other hand, people should also have a right to privacy and few people would say that one person has the right to free speech to the extent that they share another person’s personal information for no good reason. For example, I know a lot of people’s passwords. Do I have the right of free speech to post them all in this blog post?

So there are two competing rights there: the right to free speech and the right to privacy, and like just about every issue in the realm of fairness and ethics, it is unclear where the balance should lie.

One interesting idea recently shared by a commenter on my blog is that the right to free speech should be absolute, but if that speech leads to negative consequences then the person exercising that right should have to suffer the consequences.

So if I shared the passwords here, that would be OK, but if the owner of one of the passwords lost the contents of their bank account as a result, I would have to reimburse that amount or suffer some form of punishment. The result of this would be that I wouldn’t share passwords because of the risk. Of course, I wouldn’t do it anyway because it is against my moral code!

But what about the situation of a whistle-blower? That is the person who shares some information that would normally be considered private and not the sort of thing a “moral” person would usually distribute but might be justified in being shared to bring attention to a case of corruption affecting the public.

The consequences to the person “owning” the information are negative but to the wider public the result might be positive. So is it the greatest benefit for the greatest number? It’s easy to see how this simple idea could go badly wrong, unfortunately.

So maybe it should be simply based on law. But surely this cannot work because most activities of whistle-blowers is illegal even when it is the right thing to do.

Although this is a difficult issue, I think the current balance is towards too much suppression of ideas, so we need more free speech rather than less. While I would like to move towards the right to say anything at all, for the reasons I listed above, that doesn’t seem practical.

But here are a few areas where we could immediately improve the situation…

Any company or other organisation which operates in the public space (that is, basically all of them) should not use excuses such as “commercial sensitivity” or “executive ownership” to hide facts about their activities.

Anyone should be able to present their opinion on a subject even when it is against the prevailing ideas of political correctness, in fact it is then when contradictory views are most important.

Names and other details of legal procedures, especially those involving the rich and powerful, should not be able to be suppressed, and in jury trials the jury should be given all the facts, not just those deemed relevant by a judge.

You can probably see how these extended rights might be misused, but I have some solutions to that possible problem.

First, there is the idea mentioned above, where real negative consequences resulting from information publicised for poor reasons could be used as the basis of a case against the person revealing the information. And second, I think there should be a mechanism where contrary views and fact checking could be easily associated with any opinion expressed publicly.

For example, if anti-vaccination campaigner is interviewed on radio or TV, a real expert should be involved as well so that the inaccuracies in the first person’s argument could be revealed. Or an argument by a politician wanting to reduce freedoms to fight terrorism could be countered by pointing out what a small risk terrorism really is and how reducing freedom is the exact aim of the terrorists.

The real issue isn’t that controversial views should be suppressed, it’s that they should be negated with a better argument opposing them. And if there is no good argument which can negate their effect? Well maybe that controversial view has some merit and really deserves to be given publicity after all.

One thing’s for sure: suppressing free speech doesn’t make awkward opinions go away, it just makes them even harder to handle because the fact that they are suppressed and never effectively countered just makes them look more powerful to those who follow them.

Have a look at recent political events and this phenomenon is very obvious. Suppressing speech doesn’t suppress ideas, it just builds resentment and hostility.

Islam Again, Again

May 31, 2017 7 comments

I said in my last post that I had some thoughts on terrorism and its causes, mainly after thinking about the Manchester attack. I think the there are two big problems which have lead to poor analysis of the situation: first, people tend to form conclusions based on their existing political beliefs instead of trying to reach an unbiased verdict; and second, they tend to look at things too simplistically instead of accepting that there is never just one cause for a complex social phenomenon.

In the last post I briefly mentioned my initial reaction when I first heard about the attacks. That was that it was probably “Islam again”. By that I meant that Islamic beliefs were likely to be an important part of the motivation for the attack. And that was clearly the case. But what I didn’t mean was that Islam was the only cause or that all Muslims should share equal blame.

Another important point is that, no matter how evil these attacks are, they really don’t represent a great threat when looked at statistically. There are plenty of stats out there to show this.

For example, the Washington Post reported that on the day that 130 people died because of the Paris terrorist attacks, roughly three times that number of French citizens died from cancer. They also say that in the US more people have been killed by being crushed by furniture than by terrorist activity since 9/11.

Those numbers should be accepted but that doesn’t mean that taking terrorism seriously isn’t important. It could be that because terrorism is treated as if it is far more dangerous than it really is that it has been kept under control to some extent. And disease, road deaths, and work related accidents are just an unfortunate side effect of people living their lives. Terrorism is far more malicious and deliberate and has no positive side making the losses a bit more tolerable.

So a death from a road accident and a death as a result of a suicide bomber aren’t really equivalent. People shouldn’t be scared of terrorism, but they shouldn’t become complacent and they should make their abhorrence of it clear even if they are unlikely to be affected by it directly.

I think I have made a case for treating terrorism and terrorists with the utmost contempt, what about the more difficult question of what or who to blame? Is Islam actually the problem?

Well yes and no. As I said above, all complex political or social issues have multiple causes. But the statistics make it very clear that Islam is a major factor. Find a list of terrorist attacks and you will see that the vast majority would be carried out by Islamic groups or individuals motivated by Islam. This cannot be denied, and I don’t think it can be denied that Islam is one of the most significant causes of terrorism.

People will say Islam is a religion of peace, of course, but that has become more a knee-jerk reaction than a statement which is the result of serious and considered thought. I don’t think it is a religon of peace at all. In fact, there are many reasons to think that it is one of the more violent religions. It’s true that most Muslims don’t act on these more aggressive aspects of their faith, but that doesn’t mean that they are not there and that they don’t encourage people with a predisposition to extremism.

Another excuse offered by Muslim apologists is that many of the problems in the Islamic world are caused by the unwanted meddling of the West, especially the US. I totally agree. I think US foreign policy is one of the biggest causes of political instability around the world today. But does the fact that a major power interfered with the politics of your country give you the right to kill innocent children at a pop concert in a different country? Only an incredibly sick-minded person whose human decency has been warped by a vile ideology could believe that.

Not many people would be prepared to sacrifice their own life and take those of many innocent people without some incredibly powerful ideology being involved. No one is going to strap on a suicide vest after considering a problem rationally. To do that takes something like strong political views… or religion, of course. The problem is currently Islam, but any Christian who thinks they can take the high moral ground on this should have a look at the history of their own faith and maybe reconsider that thought.

So was it Islam again? Yes it was, but it was also political frustration caused by western interference again, and it was many other things again too. Should there be greater scrutiny of Muslims because of this sort of event? Yes, but it should be in proportion to the potential threat.

These things are nuanced, and neither side: neither the people who always spring to Islam’s defence, nor those who automatically condemn all Muslims, are right. The truth is somewhere in between. Sure, it was Islam again and it will continue to be Islam again, but what our response should be to that fact is the real issue.