Chess cannot ensure fair play  Even if we were to accept all other reasons for including chess in the Olympic Games, it is actually not implementable. The Olympics have strict regulations against any form of cheating in their sports14, and have thus required chess competitions to be subject to drug tests before they can be considered. However, cheating in chess goes far beyond doping. There have been abundant chess scandals where players used computer programmes to aid them throughout the game. As technology develops, it is likely that these will become even harder to detect.  Furthermore, another form of cheating that is impossible to prevent is collusion. Players can meet beforehand and agree to draw games for their mutual advantage15. Both of these kinds of cheating are impossible to regulate, and thus chess cannot compatible with the Olympics’ zero-tolerance regulations.  [14] “Factsheet: The fight against doping and promotion of athletes’ health”, International Olympic Committee. January 2013.   [15] Everding, Gerry. “Cheating in world chess championships is nothing new, study suggests”, Newsroom, Washington University in St. Louis, 9 October 2006.


Chess-specific competitions create a better event for chess players than the Olympics  It would not benefit chess to become a part of the Olympics. In the status quo, the World Chess Federation organises a Chess Olympiad every second year, clashing with the Olympic Games. If the motion passed, the Chess Olympiad and many other chess competitions would, if not disappear, at least lose much of their prestige and popularity.  This is harmful for the chess community. Although chess-specific tournaments are less renown internationally than the Olympics, they have a high status within its fan base. In the Olympics, chess would become meshed with other sports with which it shares nothing. Having to compete for viewers with other sports’ Olympic tradition, it would be unlikely to amass great support. Thus, chess would risk both losing its own successful competitive events, and failing to obtain an equally high status in the Olympics.


Opening up the Olympics for borderline sports is bad in itself  Opening up the Olympics for chess leads to a dangerous slippery slope. After this concession it becomes extremely difficult to draw the line for bridge, poker, or even videogames. This is problematic, because in the status quo there are many sports that are universally recognised as such (unlike those mentioned above), and yet have to be excluded from the Olympics due to lack of space. These include bandy, baseball, bowling, cricket, netball, rugby, softball and rugby. All of these already have massive support internationally and form a coherent category. As a result of this lack of space some sports are sometimes replaced, for example at the moment wrestling is not certain to take place at the 2020 Olympics with baseball and squash vying to take its place.16  Chess, bridge, and similar games, on the other hand, have a very different nature. It makes more sense for the future of both categories to draw a distinction between conventional sports on one hand, and mind games on the other. That way, as many players as possible can participate in a top level competition, with more space in the Olympics for physical sports, and competitions such as the World Mind Sports Games dedicated to mind games.17  [16] AP “Wrestling, baseball-softball, squash make 2020 Olympics short list”, CBS, 29 May 2013,   [17] “History”, International Mind Sports Association.


Chess lacks the necessary physical activity  Sports are about the perfection of our bodies, and therefore the competitive aspect of sport should relate directly to that perfection. In the Fundamental Principles of Olympism in the Olympic Charter the first is “combining in a balanced whole the qualities of body, will and mind”.13 Although we value the mental battle between athletes, we find that kind of exertion secondary, and not the core of sport which is the physical aspect. Chess consists only of the mind and to a lesser extent the will. It does not matter how well you can move the pieces from one square to the other. Therefore, chess celebrates a different aspect of the human condition than the Olympics and sports as a whole do: it cannot be an Olympic sport.  [13] “Fundamental Principles of Olympism”, Olympic Charter, 8 July 2011,  p.10


All other Olympic sports have their own competitions. Even if the Olympiad was to fade out due to clashes, other prestigious competitions will doubtless remain as in any other sport.  Being recognised as an Olympic sport would be a great gain for the chess community. Exposure creates attention and support: for example, chess had its first boom in Norway after Magnus Carlsen became internationally recognised18. Being part of the Olympics will show people the benefits of chess and provide a higher platform towards which amateurs can strive.  [18] “Norway makes its international chess move”, News & Events, Norway: The Official Site in the UK, 3 September 2010.


It has consistently proven impossible to prevent doping in any Olympic sport. Despite many scandals we still have cycling, for example, in the Olympics. It will too get harder to prevent this, as drugs develop at a similar rate to technology to be more easily concealed. This is therefore no reason to exclude chess: we should merely take steps towards stricter controls and sanctions in the discipline.


In its bid for hosting the World Cup, the Qatar chairman Sheikh Mohammed bin Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani Al-Thani said the stadiums would have "zero carbon cooling equipment utilising solar technology to ensure the temperature is no higher than 27 degrees Celsius, ensuring optimum playing conditions and a comfortable environment for fans. This same environmentally friendly, carbon-neutral technology will ensure training sites, fan fest and fan zones are also cool and comfortable."(1)  This type of technology will ensure that the fans are protected from the intense summer heat at all times. It is true that they won’t spend most of the time in stadiums, but where they will spend most of the time are fan zones. In those areas bars, restaurants and shops will be installed, thus creating an environment where fans will be encouraged to spend large quantities of time.  It would be only reasonable to assume that in that $200 billion that Qatar will invest a significant part of it will be apportioned to assuring the well-being of the supporters. Even if the Qataris won’t be able to build artificial cooling-spots for everyone, the fans themselves will want to search for spots which will protect them from the sun, like hotels, pools or cafes.  As a result, due to the capacities of the organizers and the inner disposition of humans to shelter themselves from harmful environments, there are no reasons to worry about the health of the fans.  (1)” Qatar 2022 World Cup Bid Reveals New Stadium Plans and Cooling Technologies”, World Football Insider, April 28, 2010


A sporting event in the heat of a desert summer will not be a pleasant experience for the fans  One of the most important parts of the game is the fans. They are the ones who watch the sport, they are the ones to which football owes its popularity. Not only are they the ones who pay for the sport they are also a vital part of any competition. Without the choreographies made by the supporters and the impressive cheering, football becomes nothing more than a silent, mediocre sport. As a result, we must take into consideration how well these hundreds of thousands of supporters from all over the world who will come to Qatar feel during the World Cup.  Let us not forget, that they will spend most of the time outside the stadia; on the streets, in the gruelling heat, or they will be forced indoors. Unfortunately, for many of them this experience will be overshadowed by the constant heat-caused discomfort when engaging in the kind of socialising and watching matches at outdoor screens that usually creates the atmosphere of the cup. It is even more worrying when you take into consideration the fact that supporters of all ages and health conditions come here, some of them will be exposing themselves to heat related risks. Heatstroke can potentially cause death. Taking this into consideration, UEFA’s 54 member associations have already backed a switch, while Europe's leading clubs have said they are "open" to the possibility of a winter World Cup in Qatar.(1)  The 2022 World Cup in Qatar must switch to winter, according to FIFA’s own medical chief. Michel D'Hooghe, the chairman of the FIFA’s medical committee, will advise that the risks posed to supporters by extreme heat are too great. "I am sure the Qataris have the technical skill to organise a tournament where teams could play and train in a stable, acceptable temperature, but it's about the fans. They will need to travel from venue to venue and I think it's not a good idea for them to do that in temperatures of 47C or more."(2)  (1) Richard Conway “Qatar faces no threat to its right to host 2022 World Cup” , BBC, 3 October 2013   (2) “2022 World Cup in Qatar must be played in winter”, BBC, 16 September 2013


It is clear that Qatar will get more recognition, fame and respect from the international community if it proves itself able to solve a range of problems which were considered to be too difficult for anyone to handle.  In the past, all the other countries that hosted the World Cup were engaged in all sorts of social campaigns designed to solve multiple problems, and the Qataris will be no exception. But if they want to set themselves apart from the others they must prove they are able to solve even more difficult problems, such as their ferocious heat. Once they manage to solve this by introducing state-of-the-yard technologies, they will differentiate themselves from previous hosts and receive more respect.  Another reason why Qataris will receive more respect is because they will open the road for organizing sporting events in places which were previously considered to be ineligible. They will be the ones who will spur the development of the technology necessary to ensure the optimal temperature for this event, a technology which could be used in the future. As a result, they won’t just be the first Arab country which organized the World Cup, but the nation which blazed a path to enable Arab countries to host major sporting events in the summer.


Heat will damage player's health  In order to fully understand the implications of this motion, one must see what participating in the FIFA World Cup means to a football player.  First of all, it means an intense and sustained physical effort for a significant amount of time. Do not forget that the Cup itself lasts for a couple of weeks, and there are plenty of weeks of training before it in order to get the players in the best shape possible. This means they are exposed to a lot of physical stress and have to play or train no matter of the weather conditions or temperature.  Secondly, with temperatures ranging from 35C to 40C during the summer it would be torture to force the players to train and play in those conditions. Former France, Fulham, Manchester United and Everton striker Louis Saha told BBC Sport he thought it was impossible for players to handle the Middle Eastern country's extremely high summer temperatures. (1) "I was in Qatar recently and it was 48C," he said. "Believe me, it is impossible to have a proper game down there." It is not only the players who get hurt, but also the game itself, as you cannot expect the same show from fatigued, light-headed and exhausted players.  Most of all, FIFA’s top priority should always be the protection of player’s health, as, at the end of the day, despite money, show or spectators, no one should risk their life or be obliged to work in unsafe conditions. Studies show the immense risks of heat-related illnesses and their potentially deadly outcome.(2) Being aware of these issues, FIFA’s vice-president Jim Boyce, from Northern Ireland, is prepared to back a decision in principle to move the World Cup to the winter.(1)  (1) Richard Conway “Qatar faces no threat to its right to host 2022 World Cup” , BBC, 3 October 2013   (2) Erik Brady “Heat-related illness still deadly problem for athletes”, USA Today, 8/15/2011


Qatar’s successful bid to host the World Cup marked a historic moment for the country and brought huge responsibilities to the organizing committee. Qatar will be the first Arab nation to host this event, this meaning that they are under a lot of pressure to prove to the world that they have the necessary skills and capabilities to do this job. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that they will not let anything derail this event, let alone something as easily to control as temperature. It promised revolutionary air-cooling technology to counter the summer heat in its bid; this has been reiterated in a statement that they are prepared to host the tournament at anytime.(1)  Moreover, the small country’s officials guaranteed that the system, which will harness the power of the sun's rays to provide a cool environment for players and fans by converting solar energy into electricity, will be able to reduce temperatures from 45 to 25 degrees Celsius. As a result, there should be no worries regarding this aspect, as the Qataris won’t risk anything to stain the image of this event in which they will invest about $200 billion(2).  Having analyzed the preparations which have been planned for this event, Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore is adamant the 2022 World Cup should go ahead in Qatar in the summer.(3)  (1) Richard Conway “Qatar faces no threat to its right to host 2022 World Cup” , BBC, 3 October 2013   (2) Nick Schwartz ” Qatar will spend $200 billion on the 2022 World Cup” , USA Today, July 9, 2011   (3)” Qatar World Cup: Richard Scudamore wants summer event” , BBC, 15 August 2013


Moving to the winter would benefit Qatar  There a lot of advantages for you as a country if you are selected to organize a World Cup, a European Cup or any kind of major sport event. They range from fame and international recognition to money and influence in the administrative bodies. Therefore, it is in Qatar’s interest that this event goes as smoothly as possible in order to prove its organizing capabilities and thus allowing them to increase its chance for hosting any kind of future sporting event. By hosting the event in summer, Qatar is exposing itself a lot of unnecessary risk – and probable bad publicity.  The most obvious is someone getting injured or even worse, dying during the World Cup. This would be extremely problematic especially if we are talking about a football player participating in the event. It would not only stain Qatar’s image because it happened during the World Cup organized there, but it would also destroy any credibility that it has as an organiser of events after so many assurances that the heat will not be a problem.  Moreover if the cup were to be held in winter, some of the billions that would be used to build such complex systems of air conditioning could be used to serve other purposes. The Qataris could invest it in better publicity, more social campaigns such as discouraging racism in sports or many other areas. In that way, not only they would receive the recognition for being the organizers of the World Cup, but they would get extra credit from the international community for being involved in the social benefits of sports for example.  In conclusion, the Qataris do have the administrative support for a change of schedule, as even Sepp Blatter, FIFA’s President has recognised “After many discussions, deliberations and critical review of the entire matter, I came to the conclusion that playing the World Cup in the heat of Qatar's summer was simply not a responsible thing to do” and they should take advantage of this situation.  (1) Owen Gibson” World Cup 2022: Sepp Blatter paves way for winter tournament in Qatar” The Guardian, 3 October 2013


The November and December 2022 slot favoured by Blatter and his secretary general, Jérôme Valcke, remains “the most likely option because it avoids a clash with the Winter Olympics and takes in two international breaks so would cause marginally less disruption.”(1) That time-frame is the most likely to be chosen as the alternate date for the World Cup, so there would be no clash with the Winter Olympics and the ICC.  As far as the national championships are concerned, there should be no worries there. If indeed the World Cup is played in November-December, then the national federations would just have to enter the winter break a bit earlier than it was scheduled. This would of course mean that the championships would last a bit longer in summer, but this shouldn’t be considered a problem. The summers in most of the countries around the globe are less harsh than Qatar’s, so the players wouldn’t have any problems with this. If we were to talk about countries from the Middle East and regions alike, they could play games more often during the year, start the whole championship earlier or a combination of the two. Karl-Heinz Rummenigge, the chairman of the European Club Association, which represents the top teams, clearly thinks it would not pose too much of a problem to his clubs having said “It is probably better to play it in winter.”(2)  In the end, there are a lot of possibilities to juggle around this sort of situations and have both a great World cup and successful national championship, while maintaining a spotless relationship with the ICC.  (1) Owen Gibson “ World Cup 2022: Sepp Blatter paves way for winter tournament in Qatar”, The Guardian, 3 October 2013   (2) “Qatar World Cup 2022: Top clubs 'open' to winter tournament”, BBC, 10 September 2013


It is sad that all these bidders invested millions of dollars from taxpayer’s money in trying to create the most appealing bid for hosting the World Cup and they weren’t selected, but that constituted no reason to make unjustified demands.  In was clear from the very beginning that the date of the event wasn’t pinned down and there existed a possibility of changing it. A FIFA spokeswoman said "As part of the bidding documents all bidders, including the FA Australia, accepted that the format and dates of the staging of the FIFA World Cup and FIFA Confederations Cup, though initially expected to be in June/July, remains subject to the final decision of the FIFA Organising Committee."(1) Because every single one of the bidding countries knew about this possibility, they were all exposed to the same risks and thus they were all subjected to the same criteria. As a result, the bidding race was an equal and fair competition which the Qataris rightfully won.  (1) Owen Gibson “ FIFA tells Australia to forget about £25m World Cup bid compensation” The Guardian, 17 September 2013


A winter cup would harm media revenue  At the beginning of each year, every media company, especially the big ones, try and make a plan to see which of the sporting events, they should cover in order to maximize their ratings. As the broadcasting rights of these types of events cost hundreds of millions of dollars, this is a very sensitive issue.  One of the most important factors when deciding which events to and not to broadcast is the date in which it takes place. Every media company wants to create a system in which it has continuity of sporting events in their grid, by televising competitions throughout the year, and not just in some periods. By doing this, the channel becomes known for its sports coverage resulting in increased ratings.  This proposal of changing the World Cup date is at least problematic, as the televising-rights have already been sold. American TV network Fox, which paid £265m for rights to 2018 and 2022(2) World Cup for North America, “is understood to be concerned over the commercial implications of any move that would see any clash with the NFL season, let alone the Super Bowl”.(1) James Murdoch, the son of 21st Century Fox Inc. Chairman Rupert Murdoch, and other network executives told FIFA that “moving the competition by several months from its usual June start to the winter would clash with National Football League games”.(3)  Unfortunately for FIFA, this could create a precedent for future events, as there will always be doubt whether the date of the events will be changed or not after the televising rights are sold. This lack of trust will translate into a lower price which media companies are willing to pay for broadcasting FIFA’s competitions. Because we are talking about huge amounts, it will have a harmful impact upon FIFA’s competitions beyond 2022.  Let us not forget that FIFA is involved in campaigns against racism, discrimination and many others which help raise awareness and ameliorate a wide variety of problems. Therefore, a drop in funds will translate not only into worse football competitions, but also damage these campaigns which would likely be the first place for the cuts axe to fall.  (1) Richard Conway “Qatar faces no threat to its right to host 2022 World Cup” , BBC, 3 October 2013   (2) Robin Scott-Elliot “World Cup Q&A: How did the 2014 tournament in Qatar end up as a winter of discontent?”, Independent, 03 October 2013   (3) Tariq Panja “Fox Said to Oppose FIFA Plan to Shift 2022 Soccer World Cup”, Bloomberg, Sep 17 2013


It would Interfere with other competitions  One of the biggest downsides that this shift of dates would have is the creation of a clash if schedules all around the sports world, fuelling tensions and controversies. No matter in which month the Cup would be played, purposeless conflicts would emerge from this.  Among other potential conflicts if the organizers decide to move it in winter, this being the most endorsed proposal, then there could be a conflict with the Winter Olympics. The International Olympic Committee has warned FIFA against creating a clash with that year's Olympic Winter Games.(1) It would be only in FIFA’s advantage to maintain an open and respectful relation with the IOC. Such a move would create some tensions which could be detrimental for the world of sports.  If, however, the officials decide to move it in anytime during the year, this would create conflicts with the national championships. This could have a tremendous impact upon them, as the World Cup is a long competition. If you add the pre-preparations and the exhaustion that players feel at the end of it, you realize of its impact upon national championships.  This is very important as it will create purposeless conflicts between national federations and FIFA. This will happen due to the lose-lose situation that the federations will be put in. They either end the season abruptly for the world cup, resulting in an extended season (ironically) pushing some games into the summer heat or continue with it as it is. This would be also problematic, as top teams which have players who are also in national teams would be extremely disadvantaged by the sudden loss of their most valuable assets. As a result, conflicts will be created even between football clubs and national teams, as the clubs might refuse to let certain players go to play at the World Cup.  No matter the situation, the shift will bring a lot of disadvantages to FIFA and its partners. The best solution is to leave it in summer where it doesn’t interfere with any other sporting competitions.  (1) “FIFA confirm winter World Cup talks”, ESPN, September 23, 2013


Moving now would be unfair to the other bidders  Qatar beat bids from Australia, South Korea, the U.S. and Japan to win the right to stage the 2022 World Cup. Moving it to another date other than the one they all had to include in their bidding offers would be unfair towards the losers of that bidding process.  When submitting their bids to FIFA for hosting the World Cup, every nation has to consider a lot of factors in order to decide the budget, the venues, etc. One of the biggest and most important factors is of course the date of the World Cup. Each country had to take into consideration the events that happened in that respective time frame in their area, how long it would take to build the facilities, the organizing staff’s availability and many other factors. As a result others bidding offers would have been different if the event were to take place in winter, instead of summer. The FFA chairman, Frank Lowy broke cover to call on the world game's ruling body to promise that "just and fair compensation should be paid to those nations that invested many millions, and national prestige, in bidding for a summer event if the tournament is shifted to Qatar's winter".(1) As the race was extremely close, any change in the parameters that determined the winner could have a significant impact on the outcome of the race. Football League chairman Greg Clarke, who was part of England's 2018 bid delegation three years ago when Qatar won the vote for 2022, said “FIFA should run the vote again rather than switch the tournament to the winter”.(2)  Undoubtedly, it is fairness and equality that must be prioritized in deciding the winner of such a big event, which would bring a lot of social and economic benefits to the winner. As a result, there mustn’t be any room for error, but changing the date of the World Cup creates exactly such a problem and looks like favouritism.  (1) Owen Gibson “FIFA tells Australia to forget about £25m World Cup bid compensation” The Guardian, 17 September 2013   (2) Richard Conway “Qatar faces no threat to its right to host 2022 World Cup” , BBC, 3 October 2013


It is true that the change of dates might constitute a problem for media companies, but there are a few points due to which this change wouldn’t be unfair towards them.  First of all, it was clear from the beginning that the dates could change and that the final decision belonged to the FIFA Organising Committee. As a result, this risk should’ve been taken into consideration when deciding the offer.  Secondly, ratings are ratings. Media companies’ main concern is attracting more and more people to watch their program so that they can ask for higher prices for companies who want to advertise on their channel. As a result, it doesn’t matter that the World Cup takes place in winter or summer, as the broadcasters that are showing the world cup will have the same increase in ratings. They will still be drawing viewers from other channels so as far as they are concerned, the effects should be similar.  Finally, even if these highly unlikely harmful effects do exist, the normal response would be to renegotiate the broadcasting-rights with all the media channels and reorganize the auction. In that way, all the broadcasters could take into consideration the price they would pay for a winter World Cup and so they won’t be exposed to these downsides caused by the date change.


Teaching just evolution does not prevent teacher encouraging students to analyse how well evolution fits with the facts the students have learned. Similarly there can still be critical discourse in the classroom; analysing a fossil to decide what kind of animal it was and what its various parts of its anatomy were for would be just as rewarding for students. Moreover analysing on a smaller scale would mean having all the available evidence whereas students could never be expected to study all the evidence on creationism and evolution.


Teaching creationism as well as evolution gives students freedom to choose  This bill that opens the door to creationism is really about changing the way that teaching is done to make it more critical and analytical. This is an improvement in scientific education as it will help ensure that science is about critical, constructive discourse rather than just imbibing ‘facts’. [1] This bill aims to “inform students about scientific evidence and to help students develop critical thinking skills necessary to becoming intelligent, productive, and scientifically informed citizens”. [2] How can students be critical and learn to analyse if there is only one theory available to them through which to look at and analyse those facts? That would not be education, it would be indoctrination. [3]  [1] Zimmer, Robin, ‘Critical Thinking, Analysis Foster Good Science’, The Tennessean, 11 March 2011,   [2] Dunn, ‘House Bill 368 An Act to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 49, Chapter 6, Part 10, relative to teaching scientific subjects in elementary schools’’, State of Tennessee,   [3] ‘New Tennessee law: encouraging creationism or academic freedom’, Public Radio International, 23 April 2012,


In practice allowing room for other theories is a “permission slip for teachers to bring creationism, climate-change denial and other non-science into science classrooms”. The singling out of these subjects in the bill shows that it is not about impartiality and objectivity in science. [1] Instead it is promoting a kind of science denial allowing anyone with some quack theory to demand to be allowed to teach it regardless of the evidence.  [1] Thompson, Helen, ‘Tennessee ‘monkey bill’ becomes law’, nature, 11 April 2012,


Freedom of speech should apply to teachers as much as anyone else  Freedom of speech and expression are protected by the first amendment to the US constitution [1] and teachers are entitled to freedom of speech and their academic freedom as much as anyone else. If a science teacher does not believe that the evidence supports evolution then why should s/he have to teach evolution as fact rather than just as one of several competing theories? The Tennessee bill protects freedom of expression by freeing teachers to include whatever other angles on controversies such as evolution or climate change as they wish.  [1] Legal Information Institute, ‘First Amendment: An overview’, Cornell University Law School, 19 August 2010,


This is not a freedom of speech issue. Teachers are already free to express their own views during their own free time. When teaching in a school however they are limited by the demands of what is necessary to teach their pupils. Freedom of speech does not give teachers qualified in one subject the wherewithal to teach their class a different subject which is effectively what teaching creationism means. Creationism should remain in religion classes and evolution should remain in science classes. Teachers are employed by the state in order to teach children facts, not spread personal ideology. It is therefore best to seperate facts and ideas into seperate subjects.


The bill does not exclude evolution just allows room for other theories  What this bill allows is for the facts to be taught and then seen through the lens of various theories. The bill requires that the schools within the state remain within the state science curriculum. It “protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine”. [1] Evolution will therefore still have to be taught and won’t be replaced wholesale by any other theory. The result therefore is that this Tennessee law opens up academic enquiry and science rather than shutting it down as opponents claim.  [1] Dunn, ‘House Bill 368 An Act to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 49, Chapter 6, Part 10, relative to teaching scientific subjects in elementary schools’’, State of Tennessee,


First the ‘don’t say gay’ bill has not been passed as it was dropped by its republican sponsor Joey Hensley. [1] That this bill is directed at only a few subjects does not mean that it is not about academic freedom and freedom of speech. The bill is simply targeting and highlighting areas where the assembly believes free speech is lacking and alternative views need to be presented.  [1] ‘Tennessee ‘Don’t Say Gay’ Bill To Get Axed’, Huffington Post, 1 May 2012,


It is never too early to teach students to question ideas and theories no matter how well grounded they may claim to be. Students are capable of realiseing that there is a difference between the theories that interpret the facts and the facts themselves so educating in the facts will not be more difficult. The result will be classes that are much more engaged in the subject because they have more input in the teaching, this can only be good for science education.


Children should have the freedom not to be misled  Part of freedom of speech is the freedom to get accurate information. The students in school have this right not to be misled by their teachers [1] so teachers should have to concentrate on providing facts and evidence and what has been scientifically proven. Eugenie C. Scott of the National Center for Science Education argues “Telling students that evolution and climate change are scientifically controversial is miseducating them” because there is no controversy among scientists. [2] The law as it stands may attempt to sound balanced but preventing “discrimination for or against religion or non-religion” [3] opens the door to any theory seeking to explain the evidence no matter how flawed. This would be directly counter to the objective teaching the bill claims to promote. If there is to be objectivity schools must stick to the evidence and what it shows; evolution. The teachers may of course encourage the students to come up with their own interpretations of the evidence but should not be attempting to force their own views upon the students.  [1] Zabarenko, Deborah, ‘Tennessee teacher law could boost creationism, climate denial’, Reuters, 13 April 2012,   [2] Strauss, Valerie, ‘Tennessee back to the future with new anti-evolution law’, Post Local, 11 April 2012,   [3] Dunn, ‘House Bill 368 An Act to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 49, Chapter 6, Part 10, relative to teaching scientific subjects in elementary schools’’, State of Tennessee,


As it is not science creationism should not even be covered by the Tennessee law  As creationism does not fit the definition of "science", it is not even addressed by the law cited in the introduction to this discussion. The act specifically allows to discuss "scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories". It is a very false conclusion that because evolution is both scientific and a hypothesis, any other hypothesis must be scientific as well.  Creationism is lacking the key point of anything that could even remotely be called science, namely testability and falsifiability. Evolution posesses this property: There may one day be actual evidence that the theory is incorrect, such as a modern human fossil being found in a layer of soil that dates back aeons. Given enough such incidents, one could reasonably claim that evolution has been disproved and that there must be a better model to approximate reality. This is what commonly happens in the world of science. As a prominent example one may cite our views on atoms: They have been refined from "they are tiny multi-symmetrical grains" to the detailled analysis of sub-atomic particles we see today. This took innumerable steps, and yet we know for sure that our theories will never be accurate enough to describe reality.  However, such a process is impossible with creationism, as it is based on a belief. In theory, it could very well be true - God could have created C14 signatures in such a way that they would appear billions of years old to a modern researcher, and we could never know. This may be applied to each and every other aspect of research on the foundations of our universe. But excactly because we can never know, creationism can never be subjected to scientific analysis, and thus cannot qualify as scientific or science. It can only be subject to belief: You may well chose to believe that the creation happened excactly as described in the bible, as an omnipotent being would surely have the power to defy the laws of physics and just 'make things be'. Thus, in theory, any contradictory evidence such as the C14 signatures may be dismissed based on belief in an omnipotent being, whose non-existance may never be disproved either due to the laws of logic.  For this reason, creation may never be falsified, cannot be called a scientific theory and is not addressed by the law cited above. Hence, its discussion should not be supported by the state.


Tennessee is not seeking to protect freedom of speech  While supporters of this bill justify it based upon ‘academic freedom’ this is clearly not a motivating factor for the Tennessee legislature. At almost the same time a bill that prevents teachers discussing homosexuality was passed through the state’s education committee, if freedom of speech has been a concern this would never have even been brought up. [1] Moreover if the bill was about freedom of speech there would be no need to highlight particular controversies or particularly pick out science as an area requiring more discussion and dissent. Students could learn much more about competing interpretations of historical events, competing ideas in geography such as alternative theories about how oil is created, [2] even the English language is not totally settled as new meanings are created and new words added.  [1] Selwyn, Casey, ‘Teaching creationism in US schools’, Free Speech Debate, 2 May 2012,   [2] Glasby, Geoffrey P., ‘Abiogenic Origin of Hydrocarbons: An Historical Overview’, Resource Geology, vol.56, no.1, 2006, pp.85-98,


Teachers should not have freedom to teach whatever they wish as fact  There is a difference between a demand for freedom to teach what you like and freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not apply in the classroom; students are not allowed to stand up and discuss whatever issues they want and neither should the teacher. Both have to stick to a syllabus that ensures that the children are taught the basics of each subject so that the student can move on to more advanced instruction.  Ultimately for students to be able to exercise their right to freedom of speech they need to have a well-rounded education that provides a grounding of knowledge and how to analyse that knowledge. The student is then perfectly free to challenge this teaching and exercise their freedom of expression and explore many more ideas and dismiss evolution if they wish.  Essentially this bill is encouraging criticism of science at too early a stage, in elementary or even secondary school teachers are still teaching what science is, what it is for and how it works and it does not help to ‘muddy the waters’. [1]  [1] ‘New Tennessee law: encouraging creationism or academic freedom’, Public Radio International, 23 April 2012,


We cannot yet fully test evolution either; we can't recreate evolution in the lab. Creationism provides a valid critique and so should be taught alongside.


It is unquestioningly taking the ‘consensus’ view on issues like evolution and climate change that is misleading children. Teaching only the one viewpoint misleads children into thinking that the issue is fact and settled so denying the ongoing controversies in each of these areas. [1]  [1] Zabarenko, Deborah, ‘Tennessee teacher law could boost creationism, climate denial’, Reuters, 13 April 2012,


It’s fairly predictable that in a country such as Pakistan where the overwhelming majority come from one religious tradition that there will be a higher percentage of those people to be offended and, conversely, that a majority of suspects are likely to come from other groups.


Inevitably protects entrenched interest groups (Church in Crucible, Muslims in Pakistan)  In the event of two different perceptions of what constitutes harm, there is a tendency for that of the larger group to be seen as normative and, therefore, correct. This is shown to be the case in the example given here but also in other instances from the Salem witch trials to the fatwa on Salman Rushdie [i] ; the fact that there was an authorising body – in the shape of an orthodox religious body – the allegation itself acquires the force of that orthodoxy.  It is rare for minority beliefs to have much success and almost unknown for secularists to do so. Several cases in North America brought in an effort to protect the religious rights of Wiccans, for example, yielded little as they lacked the force of religious orthodoxy [ii] .  In states where there is either great homogeneity of belief or there is a theological element in the courts or political system, this has tended to be even more the case. This is particularly true of states that identify themselves officially with one religion, and especially so in the case of Islamic states [iii] .  [i] The Guardian. Looking back at Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses. 14 September 2012.  [ii] Religioustolerance.org. Wiccan education and anti-defamation groups.  [iii] Viewpoint. The Blasphemy syndrome. 12 October 2012.


The right to free speech is not a license to express any opinion regardless of the context. It’s equivalent of standing in a Museum and shouting, “Fire”. It is in these environments that caution is required.  Allowing free speech is one thing, allowing speech likely to cause harm is another is quite a different. There is a crucial difference between public and private space. Where offensive remarks are made in the public space then the blasphemer has knowingly put themselves and others in danger and - citing such principals as civic responsibility and the social contract, governments would have both a responsibility and a duty to use their legal powers.


Based on allegation rather than proof (cf. Sorcery, witchcraft, etc.)  Blasphemy, by its nature, is ‘all in the eye of the beholder’. It is impossible, in most cases, to determine whether there was intent on the part of the accused and as a result it is difficult to codify in legislation. Equally, unless the law takes a particular theological position, one person’s blasphemous slur is another’s sacred profession.  It relies on the predicate that the person alleging blasphemy was offended or felt their faith was under attack.  Of course these offences are very real and may at times be possible to codify but they cannot be applied universally because the perceptions they necessitate are not universal.  As a result, as in the case given above, allegation and proof must be deemed to be the same thing - to be accused is to be found guilty [i] . Acts of blasphemy cannot rest on intuited human norms – I do not wish to be harmed in this way therefore you do not wish it either – because those involved have a different understanding of the harm.  In the light of this there may be many remedies for blasphemy but legislation in general and criminal sanctions in particular cannot be appropriate.  [i] The Economic Times. Rajiv Jayaram. Blasphemy law represents coercive nature of Pakistan towards minorities. 27 August 2012.


It is perfectly possible in many circumstances to demonstrate intent before a blasphemous comment is made. Waving a banner making derogatory remarks about the founder of a religion or burning an emblem of the faith outside a place of worship could easily be said to demonstrate an intent to harm.  Moreover many cases come down to one person’s word against another’s.


People have a right to blaspheme  In the laws that come the closest in framework to blasphemy – libel, slander defamation and a range of incitement laws – there is a requirement to prove harm. This level of proof is not set at the level of being offended or believing that a problem may ensue, and certainly not at the level of just disagreeing with a statement. If there is no proof of harm then the principle of free speech stands, usually termed as a ‘justifiable comment’ in defamation defences. It is entirely possible to respect the rights of others to hold an opinion and, as in this case, disagree with that opinion [i] .  For anything other than that as the only logical basis for discussing blasphemy, it would be necessary to demonstrate a causal link to actual or probable harm – usually this proof requires either financial or physical harm to be involved [ii] .  In the case of blasphemy, such harm cannot be demonstrated. There is also an interesting point of whether God can be said to have been harmed and whether it is possible for a third party, other than the state, to act as a result of harm having been caused to another.  As a result, since harm cannot be proven and neither, in most cases, as we have seen in the previous argument, can intent be proven, it is difficult to see how blasphemy is anything other than free speech. It is far easier for other social groups – sexual and political minorities, people of disabilities and others – to prove both harm and intent of statements and actions but lack the legal protection given to religious organisations through blasphemy laws.  [i] See principle seven of the Free Speech Debate principles .  [ii] Wikipedia. Defamation.


This is the truly the argument of rogues. Where a mob seeks to gather to deliver their own brand of very immediate justice would be against the law and should be dealt with as such. For governments to argue such an approach is a complete abdication of responsibility. It is also incredibly naïve to suppose that the niceties of treaties would be observed in the Pashtun Valley or the Gaza strip.


If any state were to try and protect their citizens against all offence, it would have to ban everything. It is difficult to see how such a process could work – one that would allow Saudi men to be offended by the sight of a woman driver and, at the same time, those of a more liberal nature to be offended by them not driving. A test of legislation should be whether it can be universalised, where offence can be taken in both directions that is not, and cannot, be the case. As a result it is clear that legislation is an inappropriate tool to use in regards to blasphemy. The issue is not disagreeing with the particular piece of legislation but with the idea that legislation in this area should be introduced at all. Moreover the examples of limitations on the media used are not good parallel’s to blasphemy as blasphemy may be either unintentional or else be on the spur of the moment which is not the case with the media.


Blasphemy is comparable to legislation banning hate speech  Not only can remarks or images be labelled as inappropriate but, in extreme cases governments ban organisations, meeting and demonstrations. Where speech is deemed to be prejudiced or inflammatory the state intervenes to prevent either offence or possible violence. In all of the situations covered by blasphemy laws, the first of those would apply and, as has been seen on so many occasions, the latter is not uncommon. The experience of the “Anti-Islam video” prompted civil unrest around the world [i] costing nations money in terms of lost work and increased police time.  Both governments and individuals have the right to be protected against such outpourings of outrage. It seems only sensible for governments to prevent such difficulties where they can. In this light a legislative code that bans blasphemy is useful in the maintenance of social order and cohesion in many countries. It is a given in most countries that the government has a duty to protect citizens against statements or actions that they have a reasonable basis for believing are likely to cause social unrest. Blasphemy is just another example on that list.  [i] Al Jazeera. Timeline: Protests over anti-Islam video. 21 September 2012.


If the courts did not handle these issues, the mob likely would.  Where a grave offence is caused to many people and the state proves to be impotent in addressing it, it is not uncommon for vigilantes to take matters into their own hands.  Surely it is preferable to have such situations handled by the courts and under the rule of law. Proposition gave the example of the Salman Rushdie affair, where Ayatollah Khomeni issued a global fatwah on the author following the publication of the Satanic Verses. How much more preferable would it have been for that process to have been handled by means of diplomacy [i] , extradition and trial than a decade’s worth of civil and international discourse. The Arab league and others have called for an international treaty to this effect, as the issue of blasphemy committed in one nation causing offence in another comes increasingly to the fore in an internet age, it seems an effective approach.  In an increasingly Global world with the possibility for inflammatory remarks to travel the world in a matter of seconds, leaving only their context behind, it is time for governments to have a serious conversation about an international framework - to make sure that justice stays in the courts rather than the streets.  [i] Globalpost. Daniel DeFraia. Muslim nations push for international blasphemy law. 25 September 2012.


Blasphemy causes offence to groups and individuals  Not agreeing with a law does not provide carte blanche to ignore it. The reality is that large numbers of people in many countries and religious traditions find blasphemy offensive and upsetting. If, as prop argues this crime causes no harm, then they presumably accept that it can have no physical benefit to the blasphemer. So why do it? We place limitations on violence, sex and expletives in movies, on TVs and in publications, not because they cause a provable harm but because some find them offensive [i] . These actions, along with blasphemy, are collectively classed as criminal libels as they require the state to act rather than an injured party. We further create public order offences in relation to racial abuse, which, like blasphemy, may not be premeditated [ii] . Those in breach of such limits face a punishment.  If we are happy to impose widely held norms of behaviour in public fora such as entertainment – or in regard to public behaviour - then why not acknowledge similar issues in the case of spiritual beliefs. If, for example, the overwhelming majority of the population find attacks on the prophet Mohammed offensive then why not legislate on that basis?  [i] The News Manual. Chapter 71: Blasphemy, obscenity and sedition.  [ii] Brian Farmer. The Independent. Comic Frankie Boyle sues Daily Mirror for libel. 15 October 2012.


There are clear differences between racist, sexist or homophobic language and blasphemy. Hate speech legislation exists to protect minorities against being abused. A blasphemy ban, by contrast, simply perpetuates the influence of already powerful interest groups. Equally, to develop ops theory of sudden vigilante groups springing up to seek out the blasphemer – hate speech legislation seeks to protect the likely victim of a violent crime, according to Opposition, blasphemy legislation would seek to support the perpetrators.


Corporations represent the collective labour, goals, capital and ideas of a vast number of people. Far from representing a “person” who is accorded undue influence and significance by politicians, corporations are crucial in allowing major contributors to national economies to have a say in the affairs of the states that govern their activities.  It has already been established that corporations- even profit-led corporations- are capable of operating under complex regimes of objectives and goals. Not all corporations bow to the profit motive solely and exclusively. Suppose- following the Bradly Smith article quoted above- that a corporation faced the prospect of downsizing unless it could access a lucrative government subsidy. Loss of jobs would anger the company’s workers union. The corporation would have every incentive to use its influence to affect the decisions of the politicians responsible for distributing the subsidy. Moreover, in expressing an opinion on the matter, the corporation would be reflecting the views not only of its shareholders, but also of its workers and their union, it suppliers, its creditors.  Corporations can have an insight into the economic processes driving particular states that politicians may lack. Corporations concentrate very specific skills, skills that may not be reflected in a civil service, and are often based placed to provide opinions on- for example- trade relations with foreign states or the educational and research projects that a government should invest in. Individual students and scientists are unlikely to be able to muster this much influence.  Corporate entities represent a number of objectives, each supported by a large number of natural individuals. Even if a business corporation is sometimes at odds with its workers, those workers would still agree that they have an interest in the success of that corporation. Politicians do not court the support of corporations because they are wealthy or powerful as “individuals”, but because they contain significant numbers of voters with comparable views, concerns and aspirations.


Corporate influence distracts politicians from the needs of their constituents.  The content of public speech is informed as much by the ideas and convictions of individuals engaged in free expression as it is by the concurrent acts of expression engaged in by other individuals. Free speech is a product of society and the processes driving the development and growth of society.  The environment in which free speech is currently exercised is characterised by pervasive acts of expression – television commercials, billboards, spam email and advertisements on social media sites. Each of these forms of media is aimed at influencing opinions and behaviours. Active engagement with a book or a movie is often a prerequisite if an individual is to be influenced by its content.. The audience for the content contained in an advert does not necessarily choose to engage with its message.  As a result of this, adverts are uniquely placed to bring issues and perspectives to the attention of individuals who might otherwise have been unaware of them. Advertising is a powerful political tool. For this reason the manner in which political causes can be advertised and the amount of funding spent on those adverts is, almost without exception, strictly regulated in most liberal democracies. Commercial content carried by for-profit organisations such as newspapers and television channels is expensive. The prominence of a message is affected by the amount of money that can be spent on increasing its length, rebroadcasting it and showing it to new audiences. When it comes to political speech, spending money is the best way to increase the efficacy and persuasiveness of a message.  Irrespective of the qualities of a particular campaign, the qualifications of its candidates or the evidence underlying its policy proposals, its effectiveness will still be measured in the amount of money that it is able to spend on advertising. Legal restrictions on political spending are intended to prevent political speech from becoming a battle of budget rather than ideas – campaign finance laws are designed to protect the integrity, quality and efficacy of speech.  In the USA the Bi-partisan Campaign Reform Act achieved this goal by preventing corporations from funding “electioneering communications” within 30 days of a caucus or 60 days of a general election. “Electioneering communications” were defined by the acts as publications that named a federal candidate (a candidate for a presidential election, for example). The Act prevented interest groups indirectly affiliated with particular candidates from spending money to support a candidates’ message. Although there are limits on the income that a politician can directly receive from donors, different rules apply to organisations that are not directly affiliated with that politician. And although a politician may receive criticism for receiving corporate money, corporations can contribute to causes indirectly, by providing funds of issue groups.


Corporates that attempt to address social issues damage political discourse.  Corporate personhood is a challenging concept for liberal democracies. On the one hand, the legal fiction that underlies personhood enables groups of citizens to quickly and efficiently join forces to make collective grievances heard and to use weight of numbers to match the influence of wealthier individuals. However, corporations, particularly in the business context, can also be large and unaccountable organisations.  This proposition must address two issues. First, whether acts of free expression engaged in by corporations generally should benefit from the same protection as acts of expression engaged in by individuals. Second, whether there should be more scrutiny of the membership and objectives of corporations – or whether corporations should receive rights conditional on their activities.  If we follow the reasoning in the Citizens United case, which radically changed the interpretation of corporate speech rights in American law, it is clear that acts of corporate speech should benefit from a high standard of protection. Corporations can take the form of churches, trades unions or political campaigning groups [1] . The fiction of personhood allows these organisations to operate more freely, ignoring many of the bureaucratic burdens associated with partnership organisations. It also allows citizens to found non-profit making groups, such as PACs, without the risk of being made liable for the debts that those groups generate.  Profit-led corporations may be used to publish examples of free expression, without necessarily wishing to influence or misuse the ideas expressed. The publishers of political science textbooks, of annotated editions of Kapital and of Capitalism and Freedom are still profit-led businesses. In short, free speech in liberal democracies cannot be exercised effectively without the ability to disseminate speech among a large audience, and without the ability to co-operate with others in order to do so. For this reason, where a corporation is permitted to engage in free expression, the contents of its acts of expression should not be subject to restrictions that differ radically from those applied to individual acts of expression.  But what about the second issue? Natural persons are allowed- as a general rule- a broad right to free expression. This right is subject to certain caveats, but there is always a presumption that expression should be free and subject to as few limitations as possible. Should corporations benefit from the same presumption? No. The proposition side suggests that corporations’ access to constitutional free speech rights should depend on their goals, objectives and membership.  Corporations, unlike natural persons, are inflexible in their motives and influences. Free speech is preferable to conflict because it acts as a conduit for compromise, but before compromise can take place it must be possible for the participants and audience in a discussion or an exchange of views to be influenced by their opponents’ arguments. Profit-led corporations owe a very specific duty to their shareholders- the individual who support and constitute the corporation. Under the corporate-laws of almost all liberal democracies, business corporations must act in their interests, and this invariably means generating profit and increasing the value of the equity that each shareholder has in the business [2] . Because this duty is a legal one, and failure to uphold it can be cause to remove corporate decision makers (directors and executives) from their jobs and even to bring them to trial.  This behavioural imperative is absolute. Were a business corporation to announce that it would no longer operate with profit as its core priority, it would collapse [3] . Even if this process might not be inevitable in the real world, it still informs corporate culture to a significant degree. Natural persons are flexible and pragmatic; at the very least they have the potential to be so. Profit-led corporations are not. Free speech rights exercised by a profit-led corporation will always be exercised in the service of the profit motive.  [1] Citizens United v Federal Election Commission. Supreme Court of the United States, 21 January 2010. 558 US  [2] Bakan, J. “The Corporation”, Free Press, 2004  [3] “Kay needs to replace ‘shareholder value’ with ‘corporate value’.” Professor Simon Deakin. Financial times, 20 March 2012.


The proposition side have resurrected an old legal mechanism that was of limited use in order to defend an inaccurate and polarising interpretation of corporate rights.  The proposition argues that the actions and behaviour of profit making business corporations will always be guided by the profit motive and that, for this reason, corporations will never be able to contribute to the accommodations and compromises that free speech is used to foster. In plainer terms, side proposition see corporations as being inherently deceptive and untrustworthy.  The proposition side have failed to consider that it is possible for corporations to function within free markets, and to participate fully in capitalist democracies, without being bound to a single minded pursuit of profit.  Corporations have now recognised that the growth and maintenance of profits in the long term can often best be served by under-emphasising profit in the short term. Corporations have become increasingly conscious of the effects that their activities have on the societies that they operate in. Ostensibly profitable actions that undermine the cohesiveness of communities, make enemies of politicians or, ultimately, create less stable market conditions will not contribute to the long-term health of the corporation. Indeed, long term planning and long term impact is more important to corporations as they exist in perpetuity. Unlike natural persons, corporations will never die.  The profit motive is no longer the primary driving force behind corporate activity. There is little need for the state to take drastic steps to curtail corporations’ freedoms , because the behavioural imperative that the proposition side objects to is no longer the central priority of businesses operating in liberal democracies.  Another way to address this problem is to adopt the perspective of NPR columnist Bradley Smith. Smith correctly observes that states, including the USA, may grant rights to individuals and that those rights may be exercised under certain circumstances that the state prescribes. An individual can, for example, exercise a right to receive income support, or can obtain a right to drive a car by passing a driving test. Similarly, corporate persons have been granted a certain body of rights by the state [1] . The individuals that band together as a corporation have the right to limit their liability for the corporations losses; to have the corporation treated as a single person and to benefit (in the US at least) from similar rights to due process and freedom from discrimination.  Simply because a corporation is granted certain rights by the state that improve the efficiency of its operations and the financial position of its members, this does not mean that it should lose its right to speak freely.  In a liberal democracy, rights are not traded, hedged and swapped by states and citizens. Nor do constitutional rights exist in a hierarchy. Rights are incommensurate, because they can be applied in a wide variety of ways to defend a wide variety of causes. The right to speech are persuasion must always remain flexible because different audiences and different groups respond to different arguments. There is nothing dishonest in a company choosing the most persuasive manner of speech that it can find in order to defend its own interests.  [1] “Corporations are people, too”. National Public Radio online, 10 September 2009.


The value placed upon the right to free expression reflects its ability to enable the articulation of new, compelling and beneficial ideas, alongside damaging forms of speech. In liberal democratic societies, the potential inherent in free speech has always preserved it against limitation by legislation and- to a great extent- by social norms. A natural (as opposed to legal) person who makes statements that are openly offensive, or are inaccurate or misleading may also be able to articulate profound and useful ideas and observations. This is also true for certain groups formed by association – such as political parties.  However, corporations as they are popularly understood- as business entities- are constrained by law only to act in a certain way. In the United States, the individuals responsible for deciding on the actions of a corporation do so on the explicit understanding that they owe a particular duty to the individuals who make up that corporation. This legal duty takes the form of an obligation to run the business to maximise the value of the shares [1] in the business that each of its constituent investors holds. This duty has done a lot to promote investment in new businesses and to keep the reputation of established firms intact. It ensures that confidence in corporations is not undermined by speculation that they might be pursuing the wrong goals and it allows incompetent directors to be removed from their positions before they can harm investors' interests. However, this law also makes it necessary to limit the other rights that corporate persons might have access to.  The Unitarian commentator Tom Stites puts the situation bluntly. “Corporations express the collective investment goals of shareholders... Fiduciary responsibility confines all but closely held corporations to this singular goal. By shutting off other values to focus solely on pursuit of profit... corporations are by their nature immoral...” [2] In other words, the boards of directors of large corporations, in most circumstances will only be able to pursue a profit motive.  The type of personhood that money-making corporations utilise under American law is a personhood that comes complete with a very specific personality and set of goals. A corporate person that is formed by a collective of shareholders, each of whom have invested in the assets held by this individual, will be bound to engage profit motivated behaviour when it acts [3] . Executives and employees of the corporation, will find their jobs at risk if they choose to forgo profit-led behaviour in favour of directing a corporation to take actions informed by different social and economic principles.  An individual's right to free speech cannot not be abrogated in a broad fashion by a liberal government, in part because he is, to borrow an archaic phrase, “the captain of his own soul” – an individual with free will, able to be influenced by argument and to develop new ideas and perspectives upon the subject of his speech. A profit making corporation, however, is obliged to follow a single set of behavioural imperatives. If it is not attempting to maximise its profits, it will seek to protect the value of its interests and the efficiency of its operations. Where it is able to speak freely, a corporation will always use its right to expression for predictable ends. It is easy to envision scenarios in which corporate bodies will use the right to free speech to spread false or inaccurate information or to distort open debate if there was profit to be gained or protected.  Human behaviour is diverse and the ideas that we express can be altered by reason and the influence of argument. Through legal measures that were intended to protect shareholders investment in profit-making corporations, corporate behaviour has become limited, closed minded and immune to persuasive debate.  [1] Mills v Mills (1938) CLR 150  [2] “How corporations became ‘persons’”. uuworld.org, 01 May 2003.   [3] Bakan, J. “The Corporation”, Free Press, 2004


Limiting the rights of corporate persons would harm a wide range of organisations and limit the freedom of natural persons.  Public speech and exchanges of ideas lie at the root of political and social decision making in liberal democracies. Without a guarantee that expression will remain free and protected from government interference, the other rights discussed in the first amendment to the United States constitution would become impossible to exercise. The discussion and pursuit of religious ideas would be obstructed. The ability to challenge the actions and decisions of an incumbent government would be put at risk too [1] . Even the reporting of verifiably true information about the affairs of the state and its citizens- freedom of the press- would become hazardous without the toleration for inaccuracies and the concept of public interest that principled freedom of speech gives rise to.  In order for a right to be meaningful, however, it must be possible to exercise that right effectively. A right to free movement would be meaningless if the government that guaranteed it was unable to keep its citizens safe within their communities. Similarly, free speech in liberal democracies cannot be exercised effectively without the ability to disseminate speech among a large audience, and without the ability to co-operate with others in order to do so. Isolated oratory and passing on news by word-of-mouth are not effective ways of handling information.  Corporate entities have emerged as the most effective method of pooling individual resources in order to take full advantage of the benefits and freedoms of free speech and dialogue [2] . As the columnist George Will observes, in the USA “newspapers, magazines, broadcasting entities, online journalism operations- and most religious institutions- are corporate entities.” [3] The proposition side advocates depriving these bodies of many of their rights, simply because they benefit from a legal fiction that- itself- is designed to make co-operation and resources sharing among like-minded individuals- natural persons- more effective.  The difficulties presented by corporate campaigning would allow the state to restrain the publication of almost any coherent, publicly distributed form of speech that was critical of politicians or their parties. The legal scholar Eugene Volokh has noted that Jim McGovern's People's Rights Amendment, which most closely resembles the proposition's mechanism, would give legislators fiat to restrict the content of newspapers by defining it as “corporate” speech that did not benefit from the same set of rights as the expressed opinions of natural persons. This is a wider application of the rule that brought Citizens United and the BCRA before the supreme court [4] . As set out in the introductory case study, the BCRA allowed the Federal Election Commission to claim that a movie (produced by a right-wing PAC) critical of democratic presidential hopeful Hilary Clinton represented a misuse of private funds that could potentially give an unfair advantage to Clinton's opponents.  Under the sections of the BCRA that were struck down in 2012, and under the new laws that proposition wish to create, it would be possible for legislative bodies and the judiciary to target any and all forms of political communication produced by corporate entities without having to consider the objectives of those communications. In plainer terms, the state's power to ban and censor free speech would not be limited to statements made to lobby an electorate or to campaign in favour of a particular politician or policy.  Citizens who wished to avoid being caught up in this law would be obliged to share resources via archaic legal structures such as partnerships and co-operative agreements. Assemblies of citizens could be exposed to a great deal of financial risk in such a situation. Each member of a partnership would be forced to bear the debts and legal liabilities of the entire partnership. In addition, agreements concluded by the partnership would require the consent of every partner. This is a minor inconvenience when a partnership consists of two or three people, but it would be an impossible demand to fulfil for an organisation such as the communications giant ComCast, which has a share volume of 10.5 million (as of May 2012).  [1] “Taking a Scythe to the Bill of Rights”. Will, G F. The Washington Post, 05 May 2012.   [2] “Infant and corporate rights”. The Economist, 07 May 2012.   [3] “Taking a Scythe to the Bill of Rights”. Will, G F. The Washington Post, 05 May 2012.   [4] “The ‘People’s Rights Amendment’ and the media”. Volokh, E. The Volokh Conspiracy, 26 April 2012.


Uses of free speech motivated by personal gain should still be protected.  The primary objection of the supporters of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act to the decision taken in the Citizens United case seems to be that the objective of some corporations is usually the maximisation of the profits that their shareholders’ or owners receive [1] . Other considerations, we are told, take second place in the hierarchy of needs that corporations create for themselves [2] . Opponents of the Act and critics of the supreme court decision on Citizens United have attempt to claim that, because corporations’ behaviour is profit-led, corporate entities will use an unrestricted right to free speech to lie, cheat and manipulate the public [3] with the intention of boosting their returns. In other words, corporations will not use a right to free speech with the responsible aim of advocating for social change, but to enhance their own position as businesses or membership organisations.  In the sections of the amendments to the United States constitution that deal with the free speech rights of groups of individuals, no distinction is made between businesses, political parties, unions, or any other sort of gathering of citizens with similar interests and aims. As far as the core principles of the legal and governmental culture of the US are concerned [4] , all of these organisations are “corporate”.  The first amendment to the US constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment or religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therefore; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition to government for redress of grievances.” [5]  The right to peaceably assemble draws no distinction between peaceful assembly for political purposes and peaceful assembly for other reasons. Discrimination of this type would only have served to undermine the wide range of freedoms that the Bill of Rights guaranteed. After all, people obtain power through acting collectively. Any limit on the forms that collective action can take is also a limit on the ability of groups within society to respond to powerful actors by leveraging strength of numbers. “Corporation”- despite its contemporary connotations- remains a very broad and generic term. Even a large corporation is still directed by the approval and consent of its members. Restrictions on corporate speech represent of violation of the individual’s right to free speech  Irrespective of the content of what an individual has to say, of the statements that he makes in both the public and the private spheres, liberal democratic constitutions (not just the US constitution) impose very few restrictions on that individual’s right to speak. An individual that makes baseless statements that harm the social standing and reputation of an individual may be subject to civil proceedings, but is extremely rare for individuals to be censored or criminalised merely for expressing ideas or opinions. Even if the individual is lying, advocating extreme political ideologies or acting in his own interests while claiming to serve those of others, legal responses to his behaviour will be relatively limited and costly to deploy.  Corporations, as noted above, are often driven by acquisitive and self-interested objectives. Individuals are just as capable of being motivated by monetary gain, and are just as capable of concealing this motive as corporations. However objectionable the use of free speech by natural persons has been in the past, states have always encountered significant protest and dissent when they have attempted to control the content of individual expression. As discussed in a previous debatepedia article [6] , the possibility that an individual, natural or legal, might abuse free speech, or might be driven solely by profit, does not cancel out that individual's free speech rights.  [1] “Town by town, Vermont tackles corporate personhood”. The Guardian, 05 March 2012.   [2] “How corporations became ‘persons’”. uuworld.org, 01 May 2003.   [3] “Peculiar people”. The Economist, 24 March 2011.   [4] Citizens United v Federal Election Commission. Supreme Court of the United States, 21 January 2010. 558 US 50.   [5] The Constitution of the United States of America, First Amendment.   [6] “Constitutional Rights of the Corporate Person”. Yale Law Journal. (1982) 91 Yale LJ 1641


The People’s Rights Amendment is a proposed amendment to the United States constitution that attempts to address corporations’ increased freedom to engage in political campaigning. Referring to the First Amendment, section 2 of the PRA states “The word people, person or citizen as used in this constitution do not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any State the United States or any foreign state.” [1]  The US Supreme Court justified striking down the BCRA by stating that “if the first amendment has any force, it prohibits congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.” [2] However, the BCRA was never intended to limit US citizens' right to engage in effective and public political speech. The First Amendment to the constitution was not overridden by the BCRA. Newspapers remain effectively exempt from the powers granted to the FEC by the BCRA for this very reason, and, paraphrasing Justice Stevens’ opinion in Citizens United, it remains possible for the Supreme Court to challenge any attempt to legislate against freedom of the press – but such action has not yet been taken [3] .  Although ordinary citizens rely on corporate structures and company law to make the process of gathering and publishing publicly relevant information easier, corporate structures are also used to fulfil goals that are not related to the interests of the general public. Information released “in the public interest” is intended to be engaged with in a critical fashion. Voters receive information- even if it is biased- on the understanding that it represents an earnest commentary on the strengths and weaknesses and candidates' policies. Voters receive information during elections on the understanding that it relates directly to their interests and their welfare – to how they should vote.  The communications targeted by the BCRA, and by the proposition mechanism are those that seek to serve the interests of profit-led businesses by distorting political debate. The large raw materials business Pacific Lumber engaged in an abuse of direct democracy proceedings in Humboldt county, California, when it attempted to use a ballot initiative to remove the county's district attorney from office [4] . The attorney had brought a public suit [5] against Pacific Lumber after incompetent tree felling practices had caused flooding in the area. In plainer language, the corporation tried to use Humboldt County's electoral system to extricate itself from a court case brought by a state official. Such a bold and blatant move should not have been available to Pacific Lumber in the first place.  Balloting against Humboldt County's incumbent sheriff was conducted in a manner intended to mislead the public. The purpose underlying Pacific Lumber's actions was kept concealed from the citizens approached by the business's poll operatives. This runs contrary to the ideological objectives of ordinary political campaigning. Even inflexible ideologues that choose to hit the campaign trail will be acting to try and convince their audience that the normative content of their message has value and relevance for society as a whole. A campaign co-ordinated by a profit-led corporation will be geared only to serve the interests of that corporation.  Electioneering communications sponsored by corporations damage free speech by failing to contain any normative reasoning or content. They do not represent an honestly expressed view of the direction that society should take, of the policies that should be deployed to address flaws in society.  Far from limiting ordinary citizens’ access to the free speech protections that are a feature of liberal democracies, the proposition side are simply attempting to address an aspect of the on-going debate over the how best to protect the quality and vibrancy of free speech. It has always been necessary to ensure that free expression does not become a licence to exploit the credulous, but it is also important for democratic states to allow heterodox and unpopular ideas to be discussed as freely as those that receive widespread social approval. In this instance, legislation that was intended to achieve this objective in the USA has been exploited by corporations to use free expression to forward their own- very narrow- interests, usually under the guise of protecting others' essential freedoms and economic interests.  In cases such as this, where the marketplace of ideas has undergone a market failure, where legislation is being applied to scenarios that fall outside of the range of problems it was originally created to address, it is appropriate to reconsider the limits and purpose of freedom of expression. New legislation- including any proposed replacement for the BCRA- must take a case-specific approach to free speech issues due to the wide range of organisations that choose to define themselves as corporations. As discussed in the proposition side's substantive argument, the law must accord speech rights to corporations based on their stated goals, priorities and the groups whose interests they serve.  [1] “Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to clarify the authority of Congress and the States to regulate corporations…” Joint resolution, United States House of Representatives.   [2] Citizens United v Federal Election Commission. Supreme Court of the United States, 21 January 2010. 558 US 50.   [3] Citizens United v Federal Election Commission. Supreme Court of the United States, 21 January 2010. 558 US 50.   [4] “Humboldt DA fights to keep job”. San Francisco Chronicle, 28 February 2004.   [5] “Humboldt County D.A. sues logging firm, alleging fraudulent practices”. Los Angeles Times, 26 February 2003.


Mehanna clearly expressed sympathy with enemies of the US. His actions since his return from Yemen put the lie to the idea that he wished to pursue legal training and suggest a rather more explicitly jihadi purpose. He has published documentation that explicitly encourages Jihad in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen where, as he knew, the US and her troops would be the target of that holy war. As proposition has pointed out, we live in an age where the musings of an individual can be broadcast a great deal further than an eighteenth century pamphlet. His publications gave not only practical suggestions for the participation of others but also a moral justification and all from inside ‘the Great Satan’ – the actions of fifth columnists and traitors through the ages.


Innocent until proven Muslim  Judging people by their actions rather than what they may or may not have been thinking is a fairly fundamental tenet of liberty and seems to have been thrown aside with casual disregard in this case [i] . There needs to have been a goal in place for this to meaningfully be described as a conspiracy, there was not; and demonstrably not a goal of murdering Americans overseas, which he didn’t even mention.  Instead the court has conflated expressing an opinion about national policy – an entirely legitimate activity according to both the first amendment (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”) [ii] and both statute and case law. As Carol Rose, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, declared: “It’s official. There is a Muslim exception to the First Amendment.” [iii]  A huge amount of the commentary on this verdict, and the subsequent sentence, has focused on the belief that Mehanna was found guilty because of his religion [iv] [v] [vi] . Whatever the case serious concern has been expressed by jurors, Islamic groups and civil liberties organisations.  Tarek Mehanna did not justify, take part in, orchestrate, fund, supply, encourage or plan an attack on US personnel. There is no case to answer.  [i] This has not just been the case in the US. Attempts to mark online comment as seditious is a global phenomenon. Here’s an example from India .  [ii] ‘Amendment I’, Cornell University Law School,   [iii] Vennochi, Joan, ‘Tarek Mehanna case puts First Amendment on trial’, The Boston Globe, 19 April 2012,   [iv] Truth Dig. Chris Hedges. First They Came For The Muslims. 16 April 2012.  [v] Information Clearing House. Roqayah Chamseddin. And Then They Came For The Muslims. April 15 2012.  [vi] The Huffington Post. Rachel Levinson-Waldman. The Narrowing of Tarek Mehanna’s Liberties has Consequences for Us All. 15 May 2012.


None of those mentioned have travelled to Yemen in pursuit of training, presumably to be followed by participation in, the Jihad. They have not posted online 37 ways to be involved in one. They haven’t identified themselves as being more supportive of Muslims, regardless of their nationality, than of their fellow countrymen in general, and those in uniform in particular. The cases are quite different.


One man’s freedom fighter is another’s terrorist.  Nobody is suggesting that Mehanna planted a bomb – or even attempted to. His crime, if it deserves such a word is to hold an opinion and to have expressed it. That opinion was that current American military policy in the Muslim world is wrong and to suggest that those living there should be opposition to the major powers of the age attempting to impose their will, through force of arms, on a people in a different country.  Such an opinion is not only shared by many – if not a majority – of commentators in the West but could easily have been voiced by Washington, Jefferson or Adams [i] . There are two fundamental differences between Mehanna and the Founding Fathers: firstly they went further and called for violent opposition, secondly they were wealthy and white. It may be tempting to argue, “But wait, they were also Americans” – no they weren’t they were subjects of the British Crown. One might be tempted to argue that they were born in North America, fine but Mehanna is a faithful son of Islam – like Washington, simply defending his birth right.  Rather than recognising the similarities [ii] a court, sitting not that far from Concorde, site of the first battle of the American Revolutionary War, decided to tear up the Declaration of Independence, or at least its spirit and imprison a young man for the ideas in his head. Although the analogy with America’s fight for independence from Britain may seem far-fetched, it provided the core of Mehanna’s speech [iii] at his sentencing hearing although, apparently, too little affect.  [i] To take one example, here’s a review of American Insurgents, American Patriots. Found here .  [ii] Daily Mail (AP). Al Qaeda Terrorist from Wealthy Boston suburb given standing ovation by family as he starts 18-year prison sentence. 13 April 2012.  [iii] Mehanna, Tarek, ‘Tarek’s powerful sentencing statement’, 12 April 2012,


Prop’s argument is an intellectual sleight of hand. Ignoring the fact that the Founding Fathers and Islamic extremists are fighting for diametrically opposed goals (a reactionary theocracy versus a revolutionary democracy) they are doing so in a different world. A world where information and perception are tools of war and where the structure of the nation-state has changed so dramatically that the expectations of citizens of a particular nation are wholly different from those of the late seventeen-hundreds [i] . The simple reality is that Mehanna sided with people who would, quite happily, murder his neighbors – regardless of their views on US foreign policy.  [i] Fox News Website. Mark Dubowitz. The Real Terror War is on the Internet. 16 March 2010.


This is no different than political comment, etc.  Scholars, commentators and satirists [i] have pointed out the hypocrisy of current US strategy in the Islamic world. They have also pointed out that the only rational response to overwhelming American military superiority in terms of hardware is the kind of warfare being undertaken by insurgents from Bagdad to Kabul. None of them are in prison.  Mainstream politicians have called for an immediate withdrawal of American troops and the claims emanating from the right of the Republican Party that doing so ‘gives succour to America’s enemies’ now sounds as shrill as they do bizarre. Yet none of them are in prison.  Ministers of God, political activists and intellectuals have raised the issue of the loss of life among civilians in the Muslim world and the questionable justification of those losses on the grounds of national security. And yet they remain at liberty.  America’s allies around the world have questioned the continued presence of US troops in the region and, in many cases, withdrawn their own - and–if removing troops from the fight is not aiding the enemy, it would be difficult to imagine what might be. Despite this, leaders of these nations are honoured guests when they visit the Whitehouse.  There may well be those on the American Right who would happily imprison all of these groups but the reality is that they remain at large. For the sake of consistency, if nothing else, Tarek Mehanna should join them [ii] .  [i] The Christian Science Monitor. Sahar Aziz. Punishing Muslims for free speech only helps Al Qaeda. 19 April 2012.  [ii] The Guardian. Ross Caoputi. Tarek Mehanna: Punished for speaking truth to power. 16 April 2012.


It is an interesting argument to suggest that the suppression of Mehanna’s rights is okay because it has not been as sweeping as the generalised internment of Japanese Americans or the insanity of the McCarthy trials. Op is basically arguing, “Look, it could have been far more brutal, so count yourselves lucky.” One cannot help but suspect that comes as very small consolation to Mehanna in his prison cell. We should remember that the United States is not at war as was the case in World War II, congress has not declared war since 1945, nor even is the United States in a struggle with a peer competitor as during World War II rather it is at most fighting a disparate band of terrorists, hardly a thread that justifies such large violations of rights. [i]  [i] Bailey, Ronald, ‘How Scared of Terrorism Should You Be?’, reason.com, 6 September 2011,


Warfare hasn’t changed because it is now a battle between creeds – that has often been the case in the past. The asymmetric warfare to which op refers is a direct result of the military hegemony of the US. To confuse criticism of taking a military approach – that bombs are not the answer in a battle of ideas – with material support for the other side hands them a victory. It’s worth remembering that the US won the battle of ideas with the Soviet Union by demonstrating its virtues, as the body count increases in the foray with Islam, attitudes are hardening on both sides as we see the worst of both.  To take the one example given by Op, 39 ways to participate in Jihad – and this was at the heart of the prosecution. Google the term and you’ll come up with 590,000 returns, including full English translations and comment from respected scholars and journalists [i] .  It is impossible to protect the principles of liberty and democracy by locking people up for expressing their opinions. As the UK’s former Lord Chief Justice Woolf, pointed out, it is inconceivable that terrorist acts could pose a danger to nation states comparable to WWII and yet the response of many governments has been to go further in the removal of basic rights than was the case during that conflict.  [i] The New York Review of Books. David Cole. 39 ways to Limit Freedom of Speech. 19 April 2012.


‘Providing support’ must be considered to relate to implied moral support and justification  There is far more to aiding an enemy of the state than supplying them with armaments or funding. Propagandists and other saboteurs of the mind [i] have always been seen as a very real threat to national security, especially in times of war. To present the actions of Tarek Mehanna as anything other than endorsing and giving encouragement to those seeking to harm US personnel overseas takes an unusually determined form of niaivity.  He may have stopped short of posting instructions for bomb making online but he expressly stated that Muslims should resist the invasion of their lands by non-Muslim invaders. Proposition has been strangely silent on how, exactly, that could be done without the use of an AK47 or an IED.  Mehanna’s remarks are clearly a call to take up arms against US troops, presumably with the intention of killing them. That is, by definition, to be part of a conspiracy, along with his readers, to kill US citizens overseas – the crime with which he was charged and convicted.  [i] Lawfare. Benjamin Wittes. Peter Margulies Responds to David Cole. 21 April 2012.


Views of free speech in time of war (Japanese internment, American Communist party, etc.)  Nations act to defend themselves in times of war. Frequently those actions do not represent the highest ideals against which that nation may wish to be judged but they are an unpleasant reality of survival. It is demonstrably true that there have been Jihadi cells in western nations and that Western troops are at risk from their allies and enemies in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Stopping them before they act seems vastly preferable to the deaths of dozens or hundreds of civilians and military personnel.  America’s actions against Japanese civilians in WWII or Communist sympathizers during the Cold War may fall short of the ideals one might hope for but they ensured the survival of those ideals against the threats posed firstly by Nazism and then by Communism. In the face of Islamofascism, the response of governments in the West has been comparatively restrained when set alongside those earlier periods.  However, where there is a demonstrable threat to a nations civilian or military personnel, it would be a dereliction of duty not to take action. Mehanna’s conviction and imprisonment was a relatively modest act considering the threat – and far more humane than what has been meted out in return by those he supported against US and other citizens overseas – without the niceties of due process or the outrage of the liberal press.


Differing nature of war (not essays against king or country but about creeds)  In an unusual show of unity, most analysts are agreed that the wars of the 21st century will be markedly different from those that went before [i] . Clashes will be between civilisations and global perspectives fought with comparatively scant regard to national boundaries. Within this framework, the groups identified, broadly, as ‘Islam’ and ‘the West’ [ii] seem to be lining up as the two main players – although this seems to be by default in the case of the West. In this regard, at least, Bush jr. was absolutely spot on with his ‘with us or against us’ assessment of the nature of modern conflict.  Tarek Mehanna’s publications aren’t idle musings on political philosophy, they are practical suggestions about how his readers can involve themselves in a war against the US and its allies – advice given in his translation of 39 Ways to Participate in Jihad - a war between a sexist, reactionary, mediaeval theocratic mindset and those peoples who seek to defend the liberal and democratic principles of the Enlightenment. One of the reasons highlighted by the prosecution was that Mehanna and others like him don’t need to recruit a regiment or resource a battalion. The Terrorist atrocities that have shaken the world in recent years, 9.11, 7.7, Madrid and the rest, have involved in total a few dozen people. One inspirational individual, as the judge in this case noted, is quite capable of creating bloodshed and murder with a very small following.  Mehanna was and remains in no doubt about what side he is on. Prop’s only argument seems to be that he wasn’t a very effective agent. In response to which; firstly, thank God and, secondly, it would be an odd way to fight a war to wait until a massacre was committed before doing anything about it.  [i] Neumayer, Eric and Plümper, Thomas (2009) International terrorism and the clash of  civilizations. British journal of political science, 39 (4). pp. 711-734.  [ii] Although politicians have been at pains to stress that the battle with Islam per se many scholars have used the terms. This view was codified in Samuel P. Huntington’s book Clash of Civilisation in 1993. An article that preceded its publication (Foreign Affairs. Samuel Huntington. Clash of Civilizations? Summer 1993) can be found here .


Tarek Mehanna was engaged in promoting a political viewpoint that may not be shared by many but is certainly shared by some. Among them other American citizens [i] . When did promoting a viewpoint in the land of free speech become a crime? While we may not like that a U.S. citizen sympathises with the objective of removing US soldiers from Afghanistan and believes this enough that he considers that military resistance may be necessary to get the Americans out it is not the case that this moral support provides physical support for such attacks, and it is unlikely that he would even have provided inspiration. Mehanna was lynched, he was a scapegoat created out of the paranoia created partly by events and partly by the actions of a US administration with a point to prove.  [i] Guardian. Ibid.


Quite different claims are made about the origin of the authority of the other thinkers prop mentions. Their authority derives from the contents of their works whereas that of the prophets derives from a supreme being. To question their words is, therefore, to question the power and judgement of the supreme being to establish that authority in the first place. As a result, it is not ‘special pleading’ but an entirely different premise underpinning the ideas that are being profaned. Any attack on that authority starts to undermine the whole religion and its beliefs which is different from secular authors where their works are simply the starting point of a discourse.  It should also not surprise us that politicians act when a religious group is attacked but not as a result misrepresentation of scientific data; religions are large interest groups who may effect a future election. It is the politician’s job to decide whether he needs to take action to placate that group.