There are very few scientifically literate, evidence-based and openly secular MPs in parliament. Dr Evan Harris has been the LibDem MP for Oxford West and Abingdon since May 1997 and is standing again at this election. I've never voted LibDem but I do support him for his work on scientific research, medicine, free speech, equality and secularism. He backed Simon Singh in his libel case and has actively supported Skeptics in the Pub, a group I belong to - most recently in our 1023 homeopathy campaign. He is the LibDem spokesman for science and serves on Parliament's Human Rights Select Committee.
There have been boundary changes in his constituency and it would take only a 7% swing for him to be replaced by Nicola Blackwood, a fundamentalist Christian Tory.
She is a member of the Conservative Christian Fellowship. Her profile on their website says that her political activities and voluntary activity are 'both classically Conservative and classically Christian'. It continues: 'along with many Christians, she is concerned that the right to freedom of religion is being undermined without proper understanding of the potential consequences for faith groups or the wider community. In particular, she fears that the voice of Christians and people of other faiths on key issues of conscience is too readily dismissed in public debate'.
This is not the place to unpack those statements but the National Secular Society website has plenty of evidence for why she is so very wrong.
Perhaps sensing Evan's alleged vulnerability, the sharks have started circling. Several groups have attacked him, some with a closer regard for the truth than others.
Some Christians are playing dirty. There is rap sheet against him written by the Reverend Lynda Rose that has been widely distrubuted in his area, calling him 'one of the most outspoken secularists in Parliament' and bringing up the old Dr Death tag. Secularist is not a term of endearment here.
The leaflet points out with a condemning finger that he is in favour of liberalising the law on abortion, that he promotes 'contraversial' embryonic research and the legalisation of euthanasia. He is, they say, against faith schools and the right of adoption agencies to turn away gay couples. He is also in favour of compulsory sex education in primary schools. Oh, and he wants the pledge to God removed from the Scouts' oath.
In other words, he is threatening the very fabric of decent society.
While the pro-life, anti-choice Reverend Rose claims 'It is a purely factual leaflet', members of the scientific and skeptical community generally have a higher threshold of evidence than she appears to. The evidence-based Dr Harris has a different view too. He told the Oxford Mail: 'It is a pity that, instead of putting up a candidate to contest the election, an anonymous group (...) is distributing an inaccurate personal attack leaflet in this constituency (...) I am proud of my record of speaking out on medical ethical issues and of course no candidate will agree with everyone on some of these divisive issues but I have always been prepared to debate the issue with any group'.
Another group who prefer emotive smear campaigns to facts are the Animal Protection Party, and they are fielding a candidate. According to them, Evan is an 'aggressive secularist' in favour of 'attacking the brains of monkeys'. He is also 'the drug companies (sic) chief mouthpiece in parliament' where 'he uses his position to attack herbal remedies, vitamins and homeopathy as 'untested', while promoting animal tested prescription drugs'.
I'll just point out that the alt med industry is worth billions a year and leave it at that.
The APP also accuse him of advocating 'the use of hybrid human/animal 'Frankenstein' embryos for research'.
If you're going to play the mad scientist card, at least get the right mad scientist. It was not Frankenstein who made hybrids, it was Dr Moreau, as in The Island Of... Even if you haven't read HG Wells' book, there have been several film versions.
Christina Odone had a rather unimaginative go at him in the Telegraph too, and yes, she did call him Dr Death. His response was :
"How sad that she resorts to snide personal comments which she has publicly condemned in others. Why not just stick to the issues?
"On the issues, it is true that, in common with 80% of the country and a majority of Christians, Lib Dems support – on a free vote for MPs and peers – the legalisation of assisted dying for the suffering terminally ill of sound mind. This is very different from “euthanasia” which would include involuntary and non-voluntary euthanasia (non-consenting or where no capacity to consent) which we of course oppose.
"On abortion, there is no party policy. I support – as does 80% of the population and the Church of England – the right of women not to be forced to go through pregnancy and give birth against their will. Abortion, when it happens, should take place as early as possible and our current laws should be amended to make access to early abortion easier to prevent delays."
Attacks on him are nothing new. The Mail notoriously had a go back in 2007. But this is election time so the stakes are a bit higher than usual.
After the lies, some facts.
These are some things he has worked on:
- repealing the blasphemy laws
- defeating the government on their proposed religious hatred laws
- campaigning for an end to the discrimination practiced by faith schools in admissions and employment
- promoting reform of libel laws
- promoting the updating of laws allowing stem cell research and campaigning for the passage of the HFE bills
- LGBT equality - his 1998 amendment forced the government to review and repeal discriminatory criminal laws
- heading the parliamentary pro-choice campaign that defeated anti-abortion amendments in the Commons in 2008
- being the main link between Dignity in Dying and the House of Commons in the campaign to legalise assisted dying for the terminally ill
If you should feel moved to, you can support him here.
Dr. Harris is a true hero in politics, totally undeserving of these snide and scurrilous attacks. I only hope his constituents see through these shoddy tactics and return him with an increased majority.
BUT WHY SO MAY UN ANSWERED QUESTIONS AND WHY ONLY VULNERABLE WHEN AN ELECTION IS LOOMING OTHERWISE BOSSIMLY SECURE IN WESTMINSTER???
http://drevanharrismp.wordpress.com/2010/01/29/dr-andrew-wakefield-and-t...
I was on the fringes of the political set in Oxford in the 1980s. I met Michael Gove a couple of times, knew Stephen Twigg, was aware of Boris Johnson (how could you not be?) was completely unaware of David Cameron (but then so was everyone else). Evan Harris struck me as the brightest, best and most charismatic of the whole set - a fair better prime minister than any of them, which is why he won't be.
Having just come from the Hustings in Oxford I was encouraged by the fine words spoken by all 4 of the candidates present regardless of whether they represented my views or not. Whilst Nicola Blackwood did err towards a classical Christian view on key subjects she was by no means Fundamental in her approach, nor was Dr Evan Harris the total anti Christian opponent that he is billed as; he is quite a statesman and the bravado with which he covered topics would not be a great gift for anyone opposing him. He appears to be an antidote to political correctness in his support for free and open debate and at the same time a champion of equality, no mean feat. For all his talents he does run the risk of wasting a perfectly able representative for Oxford West if he were to defeat Blackwood who spoke like a breath of fresh air on behalf of all those who want a more traditional edge to the debate: although it must be said she had no problems with undermining Church teaching in order to serve party interests.
I suspect Blackwood is trying to have it both ways, accentuating her Christianity in places where it will play well and going for a more general traditional values approach in open debate. The Tories have been doing a lot of that this time - Cameron sucked up to the Catholics in an interview with the Herald, for example (I wrote about that here). Not that this should surprise us as getting elected is their job.
A Page: Dr Harris isn't anti-religious, he's a secularist, so (AIUI) believes that religion is appropriate for individuals but not for the state to impose or endorse.
I've covered vaguely similar ground on my blog here (comments thread and actual post).
After reading Tessera's post the other day was so annoyed about some of the more "gutter" attacks on Harris that I emailed them to my Oxford-based parents to encourage them to "get the vote out". I know my father (nearly 80) will be checking names for the LibDems for a couple of hrs at the polling station. Hopefully my mum will be rallying the neighbours to cast their votes for Harris.
Whatever one's politics, the Commons needs more MPs who are committed to real free speech, open debate and evidence. Harris is one such, and I truly hope he trounces Blackwood resoundingly.
Dr Aust - you have excellent parents.
and cybercat is a silly billy
Nicola Blackwood 23906 votes, Evan Harris 23730 votes.
Good to see Harris lose. Could the author of ths blog find ONE false statement contained in the leaflet about Harris? He hasn't found one. Nor have the lawyers who looked over it. Have you? If not, perhaps you'd like to rethink your remarks re. evidence thresholds etc.
Oh btw Harris has consistently misrepresented the results of euthanasia legislation in Holland (see the work of Professor John Keown and Dr Wendy Hiscox)which can be obtained by 3 official surveys.
Still, let's see the evidence for your claims, and then we'll be able to judge your adherence to the scientific method. Thanks.
How ironic that you name your article 'playing dirty politics', and then go on to label Ms Blackwood a 'fundamentalist Christian'. I suppose its easier for you to paint Harris as the champion of all things good, if you in the same breath smear Ms Blackwood as some kind of bible-thumping creationist throwback. Except of course, thats a complete fabrication, and is, in fact, you playing dirty politics.
Ms Blackwood does not campaign on her religion and never makes an issue of it. I defy you to look through all her printed campaign literature and see if you can find the words 'christian' or 'religion' even once. Your cherry-picked quotes came from one hustings held in a church, and only after she was attacked by Harris on the issue of faith.
Ms Blackwood won because Harris is an ideologue who did nothing whatsoever for his constituency, because she campaigned on fiscal conservativism and social liberalism, as opposed to harris who went to Oxford colleges and promised all the student free tuition, a promise he knew full well was impossible: even Clegg said so. She won because she was the better candidate, not because of religious/secular divides.
And maybe it was her faith that led her to spend time helping teach children in impoverished third world countries, maybe not. But I have not seen the 'secular' harris do any such thing...
“Could the author of ths blog find ONE false statement contained in the leaflet about Harris?”
If I recall correctly, the Daily Mail started this Doctor Death nonsense some years ago. But regardless, it is still a term of personal abuse and simply saying that you have not made a false statement when you report something such as, “Smith says Jones is a child abuser”, is dishonest to say the least.
George Pitcher of The Telegraph is happy in his nasty, bitter way.
blackshadow - the leaflet listed Harris's voting record on a number of important issues. It did also report that he has been called by colleagues "Dr Death" - hardly surprising given some of his stances and his well-known unpopularity within and without the party. However, what matters is what the leaflet focussed on - his actual views and votes. And in what it said it was accurate. As to reporting what people have on the record said, well that seems ok. Remember that the accusation is amply backed up by Harris's own voting record (so, your 'child abuse' analogy misses the point). No dishonesty at all - unlike Mr Harris and Dutch data on euthanasia (or some of his supporters).
Further reply to Questioning Tessera.
“blackshadow - the leaflet listed Harris's voting record on a number of important issues. It did also report that he has been called by colleagues "Dr Death" - hardly surprising given some of his stances...”
His stances? The last I heard, abortion was legal in this country and there seems to be widespread support for euthanasia both publicly and politically. As for stem-cell research, his support for this is motivated by his well-founded belief that it is of medical value with the potential to improve or save the lives of countless human beings. Yet he is vilified as Dr Death by the same people who motivated by their deeply irrational religious beliefs, oppose such research and therefore condemn such sick people to continuing to suffer and die in their multitudes. It's therefore not just a distortion of the truth, but worse still, the very antithesis of it.
As for my child abuse analogy, it most certainly does not miss the point at all. You have implied that just because Dr Harris supports such issues as abortion and euthanasia that this somehow justifies calling him Dr Death. Well it most certainly does not. Where does this infantile nonsense stop, what's next, the title Dr Strangelove for a supporter of nuclear power for example?
Try sticking to the facts. If you are forced to lower yourself to spreading vile unsubstantiated, mendacious, rumours and gossip (conveniently supplied by some old hack from the Daily Mail) in lieu of a reasoned rational counter -argument then there's a good chance you don't have a case to start with, otherwise you wouldn't have to resort to personal abuse.
Err - no personal abuse at all. Counter-argument - abortion and euthanasia involve the deliberate killing of human beings (either very young or old).
Also, Harris exalts Holland which, according to official figures, has engaged in mass non-voluntary eeuthanasia. No problem with calling those who favour bombing countries with nukes as Dr S. (as opposed to nuclear power - your brilliant analogies again). As to stem cell research - no results from embryonic as opposed to adult stem ccells. FOr you killing early human beings is fine in the name of (fictional) 'cures'. I disagree and, consistently, extend the idea that innocent human beings shouldn't be killed. Harris supports killing across the board (not restricted just to the very very young). As to rumour - it is perfectly reasonable to call this man Dr. Death but that's not the main point. Oh - ands just because somehting's legal doesn't make it morally acceptable. Obvious, but you seem to be unable to grasp such things. You have no case - but hey, lets focus on so-called 'personal abuse'. Try a logic course in the meantime.