Letters

Bathroom politics Sir: James Kirkup’s article (‘The march of trans rights’, 6 October) discussed many of the complexities created by the issue, and rightly so. It also briefly mentioned the ‘bathroom battles’ in the United States. Such episodes illustrate the practical problems with legislating against such societal developments — new laws often do not solve but escalate the issue. In North Carolina in 2016, legislation was introduced to prevent transgender individuals from using particular bathrooms. The policing of this law presented practical issues. It would be impossible to guard every gender-specific public bathroom in the state. Either it would require a significant increase in police numbers, or be up to the business to enact the law.

Neutral technology Sir: Jenny McCartney’s ‘wake-up call’ (22 September) reminded me of a 19th-century Scientific American piece I discovered describing a dangerous new trend ‘which robs the mind of valuable time that might be devoted to nobler acquirements, while it affords no benefit whatever to the body’. The fad? Chess. I grew up bingeing on video games and cable TV. I heard similar concerns to Jenny’s from my parents, who were scolded for listening to The Beatles. Before them, books were seen as promoting sedentary behaviour. New technologies are neutral — they reflect both the light and dark sides of human nature.

Stand by your plan Sir: Matthew Parris (‘Must the will of the people always be respected?’, 15 September) asks when it is permissible to seek to overturn a referendum result. He missed a crucial point, which is that the answer depends on the locus of the individual considering the question. To my mind an ordinary citizen is always free to campaign to overturn the result. An MP, possibly, but not when elected on a manifesto to implement said result or who when campaigning in the referendum said they would abide by the result. Any member of a government who has promised to implement the result must clearly do just that.

No debt without credit Sir: Liam Halligan and William Galston set out, convincingly, all the causes and effects of the 2008 crash, painting a doom-laden picture of the future of the world (‘The world the crash made’, 8 September). Not once do they mention China, which has to be the beneficiary of the consequential increase in global debt. Neither mentions that for every debtor there is a creditor. When I first worked in the financial world many years ago, the US was the world’s biggest creditor, Glass Steagall reigned supreme and, with growth slow but steady, everything seemed under control. But the Big Bang and Clinton’s repeal of GS opened the floodgates, allowing personal greed to determine the operation of the financial system.

Chinese burn Sir: Your leading article last week ended up saying ‘It is unrealistic to expect that we can achieve what China has in Africa over the past decade.’ If we were to have done that, I for one would wish to resign my British nationality. What they have done there for the past 30 years is to systematically rape and pillage the continent. China has insidiously worked its way into Africa by establishing ‘private’ contractors who then bid for building work and underbid all local opposition by being state-funded. Many local firms were thus put out of business. Their ‘aid’ projects — starting with the ill-fated TanZam railway — were funded not by grants but by loans accepted by weak and venal governments.

Venezuelan sanctions Sir: Contrary to the impression given by Jason Mitchell, Venezuela does not have a socialist economy (‘Maduro’s madness’, 25 August). It has a ‘mixed’ economy (and therein lies some of its problems; such as food hoarding by private companies hostile to the regime). The private sector is large, and involved in numerous sectors within the economy; food distribution, pharmaceuticals and so on. The US sanctions against Venezuela have always been about regime change, and these sanctions amount to a blockade of the country.

Not up to snuff Sir: The country is indeed crying out for expertise, as James Ball and Andrew Greenway wrote last week (‘The rise of the bluffocracy’, 18 August). But the main problem is with the civil service, not politicians. The civil service has traditionally wanted experts to be ‘on tap, not on top’. This attitude has done immense damage to Britain. Since 1970 the scientific civil service has been abolished in a series of reductions and privatisations. The result in 2001 was that there was nobody in government who had any clue about the epidemic of foot and mouth disease. In the education department there seems to be nobody who understands what a standard deviation is; nobody who appreciates the bottom one-sixth of the ‘Bell Curve’.

Why we love Boris Sir: Stephen Robinson is right: Boris Johnson is not loathed outside the Westminster bubble (‘Brexit means Boris’, 4 August). The reason is simple — people can tell he loves the country and is prepared to fight for it. Jacob Rees-Mogg is also very popular for the same reason. Many of our politicians and political commentators seem to have nothing but contempt for the country, or at least the people who live in it. Fullerton Bromsgrove, Worcestershire Virtue-signalling MPs Sir: James Forsyth writes, ‘Both Labour and the Tories are being accused by their own MPs of abandoning the liberal centre’ (Politics, 4 August).

Memories of drought Sir: I read your leading article with interest as I well remember the hardship caused by the drought of 1976, particularly to the farmers and the tourist industry (‘Troubled water’, 28 July). I was a director of the South West Water Authority and was deputed to issue drought orders, which included hosepipe bans. The privatised company to which I had been appointed to the board then built Roadford Reservoir, which has a huge capacity, and the company has never had to impose restrictions since. I agree that the industry is far from satisfactory. The companies, particularly Thames Water, found it cheaper to allow leaking pipes than to repair them. There is also the question of the exorbitant salaries of certain chief executives.

The Stauffenberg plot Sir: Matthew Olex-Szczytowski argues that the German officers who tried to kill Hitler did so only to save Germany from defeat, and were themselves Nazi war criminals (‘An alternative history’, 21 July). He is wrong on both counts. In fact, they tried to overthrow Hitler long before defeat was imminent. The first attempt to assassinate the Führer took place in 1938, one year before the war. The conspirators tried again in 1939 and 1940, when the Nazi regime was still triumphant. Many of them joined the movement in order to oppose Hitler’s genocidal policies. Their resistance to the Holocaust and the crimes against Poles and Russians is documented in wartime diaries, postwar testimonies, Gestapo documents and Soviet interrogation transcripts.

Marriage proposal Sir: Matthew Parris’s proposal that marriage be abolished, and civil partnerships installed in its place, is absurd (‘The term “marriage” needs to be untangled’, 7 July). This would not simplify the ambiguous connotations that the word ‘marriage’ has come to hold; rather, it would diminish its importance at a time when it is greatly needed. Committed and legally recognised relationships are a salient component of a functioning society: providing a stable environment in which to raise children, and serve as a welcome source of privacy in an era where such a concept is scarce.

Harvard’s racial quotas Sir: While I largely agree with Coleman Hughes that racial quotas are counterproductive (‘The diversity trap’, 23 June), he misuses Martin Luther King Jr to buttress his argument. King said that he hoped his descendants would ‘be judged…by the content of their character’, not by their standardised test scores. The grim pursuit of purely quantifiable ratings for intelligence and achievement in American schools — by Asians and white Protestants alike — is an even greater scourge these days than the illiberal goal of ‘diversity’ at any cost.

Song of myself Sir: As a disabled writer, I thoroughly despise the idea of being the beneficiary of a publisher’s tokenistic diversity initiative (‘When diversity means uniformity’, 9 June). If I’m going to achieve success, I’m going to do so on merit alone. In spite of the added challenges I face as a man on the autism spectrum, the notion that I might be treated differently from any other writer is an affront not merely to my dignity but to everyone else’s. Lionel Shriver is absolutely justified in her condemnation of what appears to be a thinly veiled attempt by Penguin Random House to enforce equity dogma in the publishing domain. It’s important to note that equity is not the same as equality of opportunity.

Exacerbating incivility Sir: I agree wholeheartedly with David Goodhart that if our politics is to ever recover from its current vicious state then all of us need to do our bit to ‘stand up for civility’ (‘The age of incivility’, 9 June). Goodhart explains well that what has ‘gone wrong’ with our politics is exacerbated by, but not entirely due to, social media. If the mainstream media were also to stop and ask whether it has contributed to the problem, that could be a positive step. The Spectator, for example, has at least two regular columnists in Rod Liddle and James Delingpole who seem to find it difficult to express a political opinion without putting their hatred for people they disagree with on display.

A debate that won’t happen Sir: ‘Westminster is overdue an abortion debate’ (Leading article, June 2). Yes, but there is little point in a debate without the possibility of changing the law. Governments will not take up this issue, regarding it as a matter of individual conscience. In 1967 the Abortion Act was the result of David Steel’s private member’s bill. But, crucially, the Labour administration gave that bill government time in Parliament. Since then, every attempt to change the law in the light of medical advances concerning the viability of the foetus — even when a majority in the Commons seemed to favour change — has been easily ‘talked out’ by the pro-abortionists.