Against a background of knife-edge parliamentary debate, Guardian readers were re-introduced to the idea that IQ tests might be a help in selection for university.
ANGELIC ABI BOOTS FEMINAZIE BACKSIDES
Having stood by her man, Edinburgh-born TV presenter John Leslie, as he faced down multiple allegations of raping femininnies (all accusations were thrown out in court), delightful and diminutive (but impressively breast-enhanced) Abi Titmuss bravely stood by her man while condemnatory tabloids revealed a life of foursomes and sex games - the leak had come from a Black male ex-basketballer who had twice had sex with John and ex-nurse blonde Abi but eventually realized John's fame and that he could get rich by handing over photos of their orgies to paparazzi and getting Abi sacked as a TV journalist
Soon a 'friend' came forward to say swinging Abi had been into group sex, on-stage sex, cocaine, lesbian sex and big Black cocks from sweet sixteen.
{At least there remained no doubt that Leslie's orgies were, even at their druggiest, entirely voluntary on the part of all participants, so the final happy result of this tabloid smearing was more mud in the eyes of feminazies. A court ordered Texan baseballer Jayson Blayde to hand over all the images he had stolen from Leslie's home. And Abi was staunchly defended as a minx with a heart of gold by columnist Jemima Lewis in the Sunday Telegraph (25 i, 'An acrid cloud of hypocrisy hangs over the whole Titmuss affair'). Though demoted by some newspapers from 'Fab Ab' to 'Shabby Abi' and facing investigation by PC Plod for a self-confessed cocaine night, she turned out to support John as he played in a charity football match, and was said to have been offered a six-figure salary to work in soft porn TV. She was staying with her teacher parents at Ruskington, Lincolnshire, suggesting they were reasonably supportive, but Leslie's mother was said to be "devastated" and "inconsolable" (Sun, 27 i).}
IMMIGRANT 'STUDENT' RACKET EXPOSED
The News of the World (25 i) discovered with what ease Black and Muslim young males could make it into Britain: in the east end of London alone, the paper found six 'colleges' that offered nothing by way of education and existed solely to provide a fake identity as a 'student' to impress the UK Home Office.
EUGENIC INFANTICIDE SUPPORTED
One of Britain's top bioethicists endorsed infanticide in the case of infants born with previously unsuspected genetic problems or brain damage (Sunday Telegraph, 25 i; Scotland on Sunday, 25 i; Sunday Times, 25 i; Times, 25 i), BBC 26 i; Manchester Evening News, 26 i). In a debate organized by the House of Commons, handsome young Professor John Harris, a member of the British Medical Association's Ethics Committee, said there was no detectable ethical difference between abortion and infanticide undertaken for serious conditions, and added that there should be more openness about the fact that such infanticide was "a very widespread and accepted pratce in most countries."
The Manchester Uni philosopher's remarks infuriated pretty young 'pro-life' campaigner, the Reverend Joanna Jepson, curate of St Michael's Church in Chester, best known for her determination to outlaw abortions for cleft palate (with which condition she herself had been born). Julia Millington, the political director of the ProLife Party, said: "It is frightening to hear anyone endorsing infanticide, but it is shocking when that person is responsible for teaching others."
Professor Harris, Oxford-educated and a founder of the International Association of Bioethics, had fifteen books to his credit on the ethics of genetics. The Jewish-looking professor had in the past supported the ideas of people being allowed to sell their organs for transplant operations and being allowed to select the sex of their babies. A spokeswoman for the British Medical Association tried to dissociate from Professor Harris, saying: "These views of Prof. Harris are personal views and do not reflect the views of the Ethics Committee or the BMA, which is utterly opposed to the idea of infanticide." And Harris was promptly criticized by columnist Melanie Phillips (25 i) assorted bloggers and the right-wing Christian WorldNetDaily (27 i), and was noted by OpinionEditorials.com (27 i) to have revealed that abortions are often eugenic in intent.
Harris had been criticized previously in the San Francisco Chronicle (9 vi 2002) for attending to questions of human quality. But hardcore socialist groups were expected to resist the enforced pregnancies on which 'pro-lifers' were determined, and thus to support a compassionate attitude about infanticide (at least when carried out by mothers) that had developed in 20th-century Britain.(Nothing was expected of liberals who had altogether lost their way in the shoals of PeeCee.)
I wrote to the Manchester Evening News as follows:
Parents are expected to make decisions which a child cannot make for itself. Since our laws allow such choices as suicide and abortion, it is logical to allow parents to choose the suicide (by infanticide) of a child - assuming that the child faces a very low quality of life and that adoption is impossible. Thus I support the brave Professor John Harris.
I just hope that 'pro-lifers' who clamour to enforce pregnancies and parenting on unwilling parents are themselves generous in offering adoption and fostering. In the past, perhaps some two per cent of babies born in Europe were disposed of by their parents -- as can be read in Sarah Blaffer Hrdy's 1999 book, 'Mother Nature.' Myself, I imagine most severely handicapped people would rather have died (and have their healthy genes passed on by new brothers and sisters) than grow up unwanted or with a mother who had been plunged into depression at their birth.
Sincerely, -- Chris Brand.
{This letter was published (27 i) as one of eleven communications, eight of which were hostile - several of them strongly hostile -- to Professor Harris. Harris also turned out to enjoy the support of his fellow bioethicist, the Australian Peter Singer:
FROM http://www.theamericanscene.com/pubs/tdr11501.html:
"Peter Singer, now the Ida W. Decamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, proposes that "a period of 28 days after birth might be allowed before an infant is accepted as having the same right to life as others." In a 1995 article in The Spectator, which is actually entitled "Killing Babies Isn't Always Wrong," Singer wrote, "Perhaps, like the ancient Greeks, we should have a ceremony a month after birth, at which the infant is admitted to the community. Before that time, infants would not be recognized as having the same right to life as older people."
Peter Unger, a philosophy professor at New York University, calls Singer "the most influential ethicist alive." "
One of Harris' books is titled Pro-Life is Anti-Life: The Problematic Claims of Pro-Life Positions in Ethics.
------------------------------------
Comments? Email Chris Brand.
Some history.
-----------------------------------