Ἡ Patricia Hewitt ἦταν ἡ ὑπουργὸς ὑγείας ποὺ ἠγήθη τῆς συζητήσεως γιὰ τὸ κάπνισμα, τὸ 2006 στὸ βρεταννικὸ House of Commons, ποὺ εἶχε ὡς ἀποτέλεσμα τὴν καπνοαπαγόρευση.
Ἡ ἴδια Patricia Hewitt ἐργαζόταν στὸ National Council for Civil Liberties, πρὶν χρόνια καὶ ζητοῦσε νὰ κατέβῃ τὸ ὅριο συνεναίσεως γιὰ σέξ στὰ 10 ἔτη καὶ νὰ ἀποποινικοποιηθῇ ἡ αἱμομιξία….
Ἀλλὰ μὴν ἀνησυχεῖτε. Διότι προστατεύει τὰ “παιδιὰ μέχρι 18 ἐτῶν” ἀπὸ τὸν προφανῶς σοβαρότερο κίνδυνο τοῦ καπνίσματος. Μὲ τὴν παιδεραστία δὲν ὑπάρχει πρόβλημα…
An Unchanging Moral Order
I’ve been taking a slight interest in the travails of Patricia Hewitt and Harriet Harman.
The links that left Harriet Harman being forced to deny support for paedophiles date back nearly four decades when the Labour deputy leader was an official in the National Council for Civil Liberties.
Miss Harman, along with her husband Jack Dromey – now a frontbench Labour MP – and Patricia Hewitt, a former Labour Cabinet minister under Tony Blair, all worked for the council in the 1970s.
In 1975, the campign group – which lives on today as human rights watchdog Liberty – controversially granted official “affiliate” status to the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), a body which lobbied openly for child sex.
Tom O’Carroll, PIE’s founder and described as a “sexually predatory” paedophile, was put one of the Council’s working groups, and in spring 1977 he was allowed to make a speech at the Council’s spring conference.
During this period, the Council stepped in to defend paedophiles against “hysterical and inaccurate” newspaper attacks.
Today I came across something that made it a lot darker and murkier.
Lost in the plethora of material being written on the Ukraine and Crimea is the nauseating tale of Patricia Hewitt connected with the call for the age of consent to be lowered to ten and for incest to be decriminalized.
So back when they were both working for the National Council for Civil Liberties, they were both supporting a paedophile outfit. And Patricia Hewitt also wanted incest to be decriminalised, and the age of consent lower to 10? One wonders what the hell else these people were pushing for.
What really gets me about this is that Patricia Hewitt was the health minister who led off the 2006 House of Commons debate that resulted in the introduction of the public smoking ban. And she’d been a big player in the NCCL too. Yet in pushing hard for the smoking ban, in my view she brought about a profound loss of civil liberty in Britain: the liberty to sit in a pub and drink a pint of beer and smoke a cigarette.
Yet while she was taking away liberties from millions of smokers with one hand, she was pushing for new liberties for thousands of paedos and mofos with the other.
She clearly has a completely different set of values than mine.
But where did it come from? How did she acquire this new set of values, in which what was formerly right had become wrong, and what was formerly wrong had become right?
I certainly don’t get the impression that it was the result of any sort of deep thought.
Instead, my impression is that the Hewitts of the world (and there seem to be one heck of a lot of them these days) believe that moral rules can be changed at will, and that if enough people – a ‘consensus’ – think that something that used to be regarded as wrong is actually perfectly all right, then we can (and should) all adjust our moral codes accordingly. We can make up morality as we go along.
So if enough people decide that, say, killing people is okay, then we should change our moral codes accordingly, so as to ‘keep up with the times’.
But to me that looks like moral chaos. Because something that is right one day can become wrong the next day, and then right again the day after. It’s no morality at all.
My own view, for what it’s worth, is that there exists an unchanging moral order which it is our business to discover. We must find out what is right and what is wrong, not just decide for ourselves what we would prefer to be right or wrong as it suits us.
I suppose that I see that unchanging moral order as akin to the laws of physics, which it is also our business to discover, and which a long line of illustrious physicists have toiled to reveal.
But the Hewitts of the world seem to think that you can just make stuff up, and if enough people agree that it’s true and right, then it’s right and true. If enough people think that incest is okay, then it’s okay. And if enough people think that secondhand smoke is a danger to health, then it’s a danger to health. And if enough people believe that carbon dioxide is heating the planet, then it ‘s heating the planet. And the truth about anything is whatever anyone wants or imagines it to be.
But in my view, that way leads to madness and to disaster.