Oh great, if it wasn’t bad enough having to pretend the opinions of bloggertarians matter one iota, now nerds are trying to make their voices heard.

Please, get a life and stop rabbiting on about homeopathy.

This sounds like a useful resource for nerds like me.

Given that the tories have a shadow minister for alternative bollocks, namely David Tredinnick, that they are likely to waste limited NHS money on alternative medicine and have said they will ditch NICE then this is relevant.

Why is “Sharia Law” a skeptical issue?

I can see why it would be a problem if you only read the right wing press and thought that it was being implemented as equal in weight to common law in the UK. However, I was under the impression that it would only exist to resolve some disputes in cases where both parties agreed to it, and that a similar system already existed for Jews in the UK.

I’m a skeptic, but of course I’m more than willing to accept that some people have religious beliefs, and that requires them to take a certain attitude to, for example, debt and interest. Why should they not be able to consult experts in Sharia Law, providing no-one is forced to?

An interesting point. I wonder how it got onto the list?

The answers may be informative about the mind of the politician, perhaps?

Whilst I agree with the principle, I was under the impression that the correct British English version of the spelling was “sceptic” rather than “skeptic”.

This sounds all right, I’ll be contacting my local candidates if I can be arsed.

I live in Stoke-on-Trent North, Walley is generally quiter good (I wouldn’t vote for her, though, because sheis Labour) & she responds quite promptly so I can probably et detailed information.

Point of order: David Jack has resigned as the Lib Dem candidate because o a shitstorm that happened around him. I was on his side & would probably have supported him, but no longer.

http://pitsnpots.co.uk/news/2010/01/david-jack-resigns-ppc-stoke-trent-north-and-chair-local-lib-dems

Conservative candidate is Andy Large:
http://largelistens.wordpress.com/

I’m sure he would respond, he has been on webshites expressing himself.

I don’t believe you ?

George W Potter @ 5:

Yes, it is ‘sceptic’ in British English: http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/sceptic?view=uk

Shame they didn’t think to ask a good speller before registering the URL.

Skeptic is another US import. They couldn’t handle the hard C.

Point 8 needs rethinking, too, since there’s a very good reason why a pro-choice sceptical scientist might answer “no” to that one – specifically that there’s no good reason for any time limits placed on abortions to be tied to the capability of medical science to save the life of a wanted premature baby of the same developmental stage. The development of an artificial womb, for instance, by future medical scientists, such that fetuses could be grown from conception to “birth” in an entirely artifical environment, would hardly be cause for banning abortion.

8. Do you think that abortion time limits should always be determined by the current scientific and medical consensus?

What on earth is sceptical about this? And why on earth would a sceptic want to delegate what is pretty clearly a moral question to scientists and doctors? (Do they have some special insight, or something?)

So in other words you stop being a “libertarian” when it comes to the question of whether women should have control over their fertility?

When’s the last time you got pregnant?

Twat.

@10, 11

I think the point here is about how current evidence should be reflected in policy. E. G. At what stage is the foetus viable? When does it start to feel pain? What is its cognitive state at any time? Do we have other comparitors upon which to make our judgement, for example how we treat people or primates?

Why shouldn’t scientists and/or doctors determine abortion time limits? They are in a much more informed position than those who want to determine them for instance politicians and especially religious leaders.

@1. Blanco, the reason why homeopathy is a pretty good subject on which to question a PPC or MP is because it is obvious nonsense if you have a basic grounding in the physical sciences. If somebody believes in homeopathy in the face of all the evidence against it then what other crazy ideas are they prepared to entertain?

That said I have issues with question 6.
6. Do you agree that testing on animals (within strict criteria) is a necessary part of the development of medicines?

Animal experimentation is the basis of whole fields of biology (developmental biology, neuroscience, etc) which do not obviously result in the immediate development of novel medicines. Their use is for mostly speculative purposes, expanding the frontiers of human knowledge and all that, and imho attitudes to this are more revealing than a candidates views on animal testing. In the latter case, where the favoured hypotehtical moral dilemma is the weighing a given volume of mice against the life of one child there is really only one acceptable answer to the mainstream, the child. However, the real battle for animal use in science should be on the battle grounds of basic biological research where the exploitation of animal life by humanity is routine, just as it is in using animals for food, clothing or for companionship.

@15

Quite so.

The fact that David Tredinnick is even considered for a cabinet post says a lot about the tories.

The conspiracy goes both ways now. CAM is worth £4.5bn annually in the UK. So much for Big Pharma ruling the roost. But in a free market…

Nice idea in principle, but the questions are terrible. Most of them are loaded, bordering on the contemptuous, for instance, in Q1: “unproven alternative “treatments” such as homeopathy?” both the word “unproven” and the scarequotes round “treatments” are going to annoy a pro-homeopather, who then may well simply refuse to answer your Qs, thus skewing the result. If you want to get a genuine reflection of MPs’ views, rather than a cheap snoot-cocking at the Trelawny’s of the world, you need to pose the questions in terms in which the MP may give the non-skeptical answer without the wording implying that they are therefore admitting to being idiots. Even though that is the case.

Q4 is not only heavily loaded, but is also a thinly disguised question about the nuttsacking affair trying to dress up a specific event in generic language. No government skivvy will answer “no” to it, whatever their genuine views on the matter, because it is too closely tied to a contentious event.

It would be great to know where our MPs stand on key matters. But there is a strand in the skeptic public voice which is shrill, arrogant and sneery. Either your wiki can be a fair-minded attempt to inform voters of their MPs leanings, or it will end up a cheap potshot and totally uninformative as the loadings in the questions will create selection bias in those who respond.

I agree with most of the questions, apart from #5.

I’m with TJC: I don’t see why this is relevant to science-y type of stuff.

As long as both parties agree – and make a fully-informed decision – to have their issues dealt with with reference, is it really anyone else’s business?

There’s also #6, but that’s more a case of not knowing enough the subject generally – but having spoken with a biologist friend – I’m aware that animals are a good guide as to how substances will react in people.

Just for the record, if I was asked, my other answers would be:

1. No
2. No
3. No
4. No
7. Yes
8. Yes
9. No
10. Yes

1, 2, 3 & 4: No, obviously. These are deal breakers for me.

‘5. Should Sharia law be allowed as an alternative system within UK law?’

Trickier. Abhorent as I think Sharia is, so long as both parties accept it *willingly* (and I think this is the matter of concern: to what extent is a party operating under social pressure within a closed community genuinely free to choose?) and so long as it doesn’t trump secular law it’s really not the State’s business if people choose to settle disputes by consulting the I-Ching or goats’ entrails. This is a free association issue, not one of sceptical enquiry. And I’m not sure Sharia banking is as different from ordinary banking as it’s supporters and detractors like to pretend.

6. Yes, though conditional on what those strict criteria actually involve.

7. Absolutely.

8. No. That’s not a science question and, given that the medical profession has historically been given to reactionary views, I wouldn’t trust their ‘consensus’ to remain in your camp. Left to the medical profession we’d be banning alcohol and sterilising the mentally I’ll.

9. Depends on why they are nominated to the House of Lords. The fact that someone’s charitable acts might be motivated by belief in the Sky Pixies doesn’t mean that they are automatically incapable of rational judgement. Since studies have shown that faith-heads assume their deities share their moral beliefs it seems they are often making moral judgements according to the same secular methods as atheists and then adding god in at the last moment. There are obvious exceptions were religiously-justified prejudice renders their oppinions suspect however.

10. Unless a statement is both demonstrably false and harmful it should not be classed as libel.

Indeed, question 5 singles out one religion, you could easily say- Should religious law be allowed as an alternative system within UK law?- Because all religions to some degree or another attempt to operate a subculture where their customs/rules supersede secular law, to mention Sharia just looks like a bad dog whistle to unsavoury chumps who need to be more sceptical about their possible prejudices.

And surely Yes on 4, or am I misunderstanding the question?

4. Should an independent government adviser whose views in their area of expertise conflict with government policy be able to express those views publicly without fear of being sacked?

Yes an adviser should be able to voice his views publicly without being sacked from his independent advisory position.

Many thanks for these comments. On the issue of why we chose those particular questions for the survey:

The topics were almost all drawn from the suggestions of people who visited the site. Skeptics (or indeed sceptics) by their nature are likely to have widely differing views about which of these issues matters most, and which hardly matter at all.

But our starting point was really that at the moment it’s very difficult to get a comprehensive picture of where our MPs stand on any of the issues that skeptics tend to be concerned about. We think that this sort of information should be more easily available, and we needed to start somewhere, so we’ve started with those 10 initial topics. We know there are many more. If you think that there are other more important issues that we’ve missed, please do tell us – or better still come and add information to the Skeptical Voter wiki.

@TJC – There are a number of reasons why some skeptics see the integration of Sharia into the UK judicial system as an important political issue. Firstly, there is the principle of maintaining a clear separation between organised religion and secular state institutions such as the judiciary. So people might oppose state-sponsored religious courts for the same sorts of reasons they oppose state-sponsored religious schools. Secondly, there are some concerns that, in practice, religious courts tend to deliver a watered-down (dare I say “homeopathic”) version of justice, the outcome of which is then legally binding. Some of these latter concerns are touched on here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7783627.stm

You may disagree, but one of the principles behind this whole project is that, whatever view we hold on a particular issue (be that homeopathy, Sharia or abortion), it’s surely in everyone’s interests that we know where our MPs stand on it.

Abortion, likewise, won’t be seen as a “skeptic” issue by everyone, but again, it certainly is seen that way by some people, and it seems difficult to see how anyone could object to people wanting to find out where MPs stand on that issue.

@Blanco – We’re here, we’re skeptics – get used to it etc.

‘So in other words you stop being a “libertarian” when it comes to the question of whether women should have control over their fertility?

When’s the last time you got pregnant?

Twat.’

not really. Most libertarians would say the Moral demands of personal self-ownership means a woman has a perfect right to terminate a pregnancy. But that’s a moral view, not a scientific one.

Science cannot animate any policy, it can only inform them. There is no ‘scientific’ way of saying which way of running a society is better than another. You have to establish moral grounds on which to judge a set of conditions.

‘And surely Yes on 4, or am I misunderstanding the question?’

Sorry, yes. Misread the question.

‘Firstly, there is the principle of maintaining a clear separation between organised religion and secular state institutions such as the judiciary.’

Choosing a Sharia court is opting out of the secular state institution, not giving state endorsement to Sharia. Again, that’s free association. Backing up Sharia decisions with state sanctions would be a different matter.

‘Abortion, likewise, won’t be seen as a “skeptic” issue by everyone, but again, it certainly is seen that way by some people, and it seems difficult to see how anyone could object to people wanting to find out where MPs stand on that issue.’

I agree I want to know what my MP thinks but linking this issue to a medical consensus is silly. The only thing that the medical profession could add to the argument is around the age at which a baby could survive outside the womb (often given as a ‘rational’ limit to which abortion is permissable). Since that age is likely to reduce with medical advances that narrows the window for termination, reducing the woman’s choice.

Stuart – thanks for the feedback about the wording – we may do some tweaks before the Qs start going out. Difficult to find a value-neutral yet accurate noun to categorise homeopathy – “treatment” without scarequotes seems to my mind to imply that the pills have some sort of effect, but I can see your point about the scarequotes making it look sarcastic. Maybe “products” would be a better bet…

More broadly, one of the main reasons we wrote this piece was to encourage people to come and look at what we’ve done with the site so far, and help build it into something that does address the issues that really matter.

@Dnotice – did I read somewhere that you’re going to be standing for the Pirate Party in the General Election?!

Shatterface, you don’t have to agree with the views that some skeptics hold on Sharia and deciding-abortion-time-limits-on-the-advice-of-scientists to see that it might be useful to try to get a picture of where MPs stand on these questions.

Sharia law in the UK is state-sponsored in the sense that Sharia court rulings become legally-binding: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece – many people find this disturbing.

The reports I’ve seen suggests that, in practice, the Sharia model fails worst when dealing with victims of domestic violence. Being subjected to long-term abuse can seriously hinder a person’s psychological autonomy – and thus their ability to make free choices – and then there’s also the issue of whether people are being properly informed before agreeing to go with the religious court system. The concern is that people who have suffered domestic violence may be pressurised into accepting a model of justice under which they have fewer rights and protections than they would have done under the secular courts. Some more background here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7783627.stm and here: http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Sharia-courts-set-to-bring.4573444.jp

Richard:

Yes, I’m a member of PPUK, but as yet we haven’t decided on who should stand nor where

Richard –

You write that “it might be useful to try to get a picture of where MPs stand on these questions“. Fair ’nuff, but what I object to is the assumption that this will determine “their level of commitment to evidence-based policy-making“. I mean, the ethics of abortion aren’t determined by science; to quote Russell: “science enables us to know the means to any chosen end but it does not help us to determine what ends we shall pursue” (Education For A Difficult World).

A parallel: in the early 1900s, some scientists/thinkers were very enthusiastic about eugenics, realising the effects that associated practices could have on a society. They might have been able to show – with thorough, evidence-based research – that, say, sterilising the “feeble-minded” would be likely to lessen strains of illness, but that wouldn’t necessarily make it the “sceptical” or moral thing to do.

Oh God, that sounds too much like a lecture. Sorry, it’s a symptom of doing too much work (ie. any).

‘Sharia law in the UK is state-sponsored in the sense that Sharia court rulings become legally-binding’

Okay, I’m against making Sharia judgements *legally binding*, which is what I meant by ‘Backing up Sharia decisions with state sanctions would be a different matter.’

Still not with you on ‘deciding-abortion-time-limits-on-the-advice-of-scientists’ though. It isn’t a scientific question, and if it *was* the ‘science’ (in as much as it describes the life expectancy of a premature child) would become *more* restrictive (i.e. less permissive) as technology improves, not less.

And that’s before we even consider the increasingly moralistic interventions doctors are making into social policy.

@Bensix I mostly agree with you, and I think your point about eugenics is a really important one. But I think that evidence-based policy-making is an important and useful principle even if we aren’t ruthless utilitarians willing to use any means to bring about X utopian result.

The reference to the “medical consensus” in discussions of abortion isn’t – at least in my reading – a question about doctors and scientists using their scientific expertise to tell us what’s right and wrong in principle. It’s about the consensus on the evidence for the point in time at which a foetus could survive outside the womb if born prematurely – as referenced in this discussion here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7059169.stm – this fits within a wider debate about the point at which we believe a foetus has become fully human. I agree that discussions of empirical evidence are only a part of that picture.

@Shatterface – Then I think we’re mostly in agreement on Sharia. Communities have always had their own informal systems of dispute resolution – be that within the context of a religious community, a workplace, or a cricket club. But for those sorts of systems to be used in place of the secular courts when a serious criminal or civil issue is involved – and for the results of that process then to be legally binding – is a whole other issue.

More broadly – while we do think that these 10 issues are worth quizzing MPs about, we haven’t set out to push people towards a rigid set of policy positions. The over-riding aim is to collate information on candidates’ views and track records so that skeptics (who by their nature tend to be averse to following anyone’s ‘agenda’) can make their own choices.

Richard –

It’s about the consensus on the evidence for the point in time at which a foetus could survive outside the womb if born prematurely – as referenced in this discussion here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7059169.stm – this fits within a wider debate about the point at which we believe a foetus has become fully human.

Oh, indeed. But the question seem to imply that “time limits should…be determined” by that consensus. If that’s true – and slap me down if I’ve got it wrong – it makes the assumption that time limits should be aligned with viability, which isn’t “evidence-based“, but a moral judgement. It’d seems unfair – unless, again, I’ve subjected it to a ferocious misreading – to suggest that disagreement reflects a failure of scepticism.

‘It’s about the consensus on the evidence for the point in time at which a foetus could survive outside the womb if born prematurely – as referenced in this discussion here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7059169.stm – this fits within a wider debate about the point at which we believe a foetus has become fully human.’

That’s precisely how I interpreted you, I just pointed out the obvious fact that the age at which a foetus can survive outside the womb is likely to be reduced as technology improves, therefore if we accept this ‘scientific consensus’ as a limit at which abortions can be carried out we restrict the woman’s choice further.

Unless you believe this restriction is ‘progressive’ I don’t see your point.

Sharia law in the UK is state-sponsored in the sense that Sharia court rulings become legally-binding: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece – many people find this disturbing.

Sigh, That’s no different to what people have been saying. You obviously haven’t read the article. Here are some quotes:

Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.

Siddiqi said: “We realised that under the Arbitration Act we can make rulings which can be enforced by county and high courts. The act allows disputes to be resolved using alternatives like tribunals. This method is called alternative dispute resolution, which for Muslims is what the sharia courts are.”

Jewish Beth Din courts operate under the same provision in the Arbitration Act and resolve civil cases, ranging from divorce to business disputes. They have existed in Britain for more than 100 years, and previously operated under a precursor to the act.

Here is the website with some info on why alternative dispute resolution may be useful for some people:

http://www.matribunal.com/alt_dispute_res.html

You have fallen for a typical newspaper scare story. All the relevant info is in that story necessary to discern the truth, but the “journalists” have muddied the water a fair bit by trying to make it seem as bad as possible. Some in the Times and other “quality” papers are like that. As are most stories in the tabloids.

One further point:

The Act mentioned in that article is from 1996 i.e. when the Tories were in power.

Me again, promise this is the last time.

A quote from that website:

In arriving at its decision, the Tribunal shall take into account the Laws of England and Wales and the recognised Schools of Islamic Sacred Law.

And here are the rules of the Football Association:

http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/~/media/Files/PDF/TheFA/Rules_Regs/Rules_of_the_association_pg91-127.ashx/Rules_of_the_association_pg91-127.pdf

This arbitration isn’t anything to get worked up about.

‘A parallel: in the early 1900s, some scientists/thinkers were very enthusiastic about eugenics, realising the effects that associated practices could have on a society. They might have been able to show – with thorough, evidence-based research – that, say, sterilising the “feeble-minded” would be likely to lessen strains of illness, but that wouldn’t necessarily make it the “sceptical” or moral thing to do.

Oh God, that sounds too much like a lecture. Sorry, it’s a symptom of doing too much work (ie. any).’

Indeed. Sweden went further and actually did it until the 70s. And it is perfectly plausible from a means-end scientific angle that sterilising the worse performers in a population will lead to things like better educational outcomes. That is why you need some guiding moral values to tell you when something is repugnant to humanity. Science isn’t going to do that for you.

Why do these bloggertarians single out Shariah law? Is it because Jewish people never commit acts of terrorism?

*Sceptical

@34 Shatterface & others

I think its important not to consider a single criterion on which to base the scientific contribution to policy about abortion. Technology may improve to allow a foetus to survive if born earlier, does that mean we should reduce the maximum term for abortion under normal circumstances? Not necessarily. There are other factors to consider: Ethically the position of the mother must be a factor but limiting ourselves to what science (not just medicine) can bring to the debate, what about the foetus? As it develops we may be able to determine what degree of of pain it can experience, its level of awareness and ability to suffer. Shouldn’t these be factored into evidence-based, ethically balanced policy making?

Alex – more detail here on why many secularists have concerns about Sharia. You don’t have to agree with them to see that it’s an issue that merits discussion, and about which it would be useful to know MPs’ views:

http://www.secularism.org.uk/campaignagainstsharialawinbritai.html

http://www.secularism.org.uk/107182.html

The Times article linked to by Richard is indeed a scare story. Look at the ridiculously loaded language:

“Islamic law has been officially adopted in Britain”
“The government has quietly sanctioned the powers”
“Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi … said he had taken advantage of a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996.” (in fact he didn’t say he had taken advantage – that’s why it isn’t a quote).

And it’s factually wrong:
“Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.”

They still do – all arbitration or Alternative Dispute Resolution requires parties to freely volunteer for it (except where compelled by English courts).

And so what if:
“… women who agree to go to tribunal courts are getting worse deals because Islamic law favours men.”

…so long as they freely agree to do so?

Shatterface rightly said that,

so long as both parties accept it *willingly* (and I think this is the matter of concern: to what extent is a party operating under social pressure within a closed community genuinely free to choose?) and so long as it doesn’t trump secular law it’s really not the State’s business if people choose to settle disputes by consulting the I-Ching or goats’ entrails.

Those are important points. On the other hand, if a party is under such pressure the question of what decision-making process they are subject to seems moot (iow, it is not sharia or any other system that is the problem in itself, it is the social pressure).

For outcomes to be legally binding, arbitration must satisfy general principles. Alex @ 35 is correct.

Richard,

Can you elaborate on question 7 please? What is the story behind it being included?

To Richard Wilson, the Times article you link to notes what I was getting at-

“Jewish Beth Din courts operate under the same provision in the Arbitration Act and resolve civil cases, ranging from divorce to business disputes. They have existed in Britain for more than 100 years, and previously operated under a precursor to the act.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece
More
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7233040.stm

All religions try to supersede secular authority, (another -horrific- instance is the Vatican & Catholic elites handling of child abuse) which is why 5. needs to say religious law and not sharia because that is singling out Islam for different treatment which is not something any sceptical person should engage in.

The ten questions proffered by Richard Wilson are well intentioned. But a bit sneery, as suggested by Stuart. Faith believers are capable of conducting rational science, hence the Jesuit astronomers associated with the Vatican.

My main problem is that the questions muddle moral issues with rational science with liberal values. Supervision of animal rights and abortion limits are moral concerns. Acceptance of evolution is a rational conclusion that is accommodated by mainstream religion. Justification for libel laws is a political concern argued around liberal principles.

Skeptics are a new political movement, and I share many of their concerns. Before I join them, I expect a bit more coherence.

Richard @ #42:

Those links don’t change my mind in the slightest. Let me first say though, that I consider myself a secularist, and hope that one day the UK will get its own First Amendment.

The two links from the NSS website you provided are a campaign for “One Law for All”. I agree that there should be “One Law for All”. And in fact there is. Sharia tribunals don’t interfere with this. Anyone can set up there own form of voluntary dispute resolution so long as all parties agree to it. For some Muslims, they use Sharia tribunals. Jews have the Beth Din courts. Football has a similar arbitration system. What is so hard to understand about this?

Now I agree that Sharia is discriminatory towards women. In fact, I haven’t come across a religion which doesn’t have parts which are morally offensive to me. However, if it’s voluntary, then what’s the problem? If Catholic Anne Widecombe thinks that her gender is inferior to men in the eyes of her god (she wouldn’t say that, but that’s what it comes down to), then that’s her choice. If people want to believe an offensive morality, then I’m okay with that (though I’ll try and defeat it in the marketplace of ideas). That is freedom of thought. And if the use of Sharia tribunals is involuntary in a lot of cases? Then that’s obviously wrong, but most things done involuntary are wrong. Why single out Sharia? This all just comes down to the issue of the burka all over again. If it’s forced, then that’s already illegal.

****

Remember, the NSS is a special interest group. It is entirely within their interests to exaggerate and misrepresent a situation in order to further their cause. And they have done so in this situation.

Notice how they attack the Sharia tribunals, but not the Jewish Beth Din courts which have been around for far longer. I am willing to bet if they had specifically attacked the Beth Din ones instead, they’d have been called out for antisemitism. But because they’ve attacked the Sharia ones, most people don’t bat an eyelid, because Muslims are the primary “Other” in the West in the 21st Century so far.