Skip to main content

The petition to deport Piers Morgan is little short of a 'fatwa'

There is something distasteful about the way Piers Morgan is being treated both in the USA and in the UK over his vociferous position on gun control. Democracy is in a parlous state when it becomes predicated on the concept that you are only welcome to contribute if you agree. America is surely bigger than this. Wanting to deport someone because they are a threat to security or a danger to others, or that they have committed a crime, is one thing; seeking to deport them because they hold views within the mainstream is repugnant.

We might argue that it is foolish, or culturally and politically unwise, for Piers Morgan to engage in such a contentious issue as gun control in such a full-blooded way, particularly as such an issue is so divisive. But he has been doing nothing he has not been doing on other issues in his TV chat show. He is an opinionated man. I have no doubt he courts controversy. But I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of his views on gun control. There should be no 'no go' areas in political debate other than those that might incite hatred or prejudice. 

Piers Morgan divides opinion, here and in the USA. He is not my favourite personality.  I doubt that the petition to have him deported is representative of public opinion in the USA, although it is gathering momentum. It now has over 81,000 signatures at the time of writing. But such a petition has hallmarks of a 'fatwa' against an individual person. In a civilized society, individuals should not be hounded in this way. It is a hateful petition. 

Nor is it that America or Americans don't interfere with the politics of other countries. America makes its opinions known. Many of the leading politicians and pundits will often rail against policies adopted elsewhere in the world. They will sometimes bomb other countries; a rather more intense interference than Mr Morgan's words. It will often do so to 'protect' the free world. But in a 'free world' people are entitled to engage in debate. TV presenters are at the front line of that freedom, and that includes Piers Morgan, warts and all. 


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

No evidence for vaccine link with autism

Public health bodies are worried that an alarming drop in childhood vaccinations is leading to a resurgence of diseases in childhood that we had all but eradicated.  Misinformation and scare stories about the harmful effects of vaccines abound on the internet and in social media.  Where they are based on 'science', it is highly selective, and often reliance is placed on falsehoods.  Conspiracy theories also abound - cover-ups, deception, lies. As a result, too many parents are shunning vaccinations for their children.  So, what does the published, peer-reviewed literature tell us about vaccincations? Are they safe and effective, or are there long term harmful effects?  A new report now provides some of the answers. New evidence published in the Cochrane Library today finds MMR, MMRV, and MMR+V vaccines are effective and that they are not associated with increased risk of autism. Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (also known as chickenpox) are infectious diseases cau