Miriam Cates

We live in a world where not everything desirable in theory is possible in reality. Mature societies recognise that, because ours is an imperfect world where tragedy, misfortune and wrongdoing occur, legislation cannot solve every problem. For example, the presumption of innocence and requirement that guilt be proved beyond reasonable doubt mean not all perpetrators of crimes are punished. This is regrettable, but corporately we have decided this is preferable to lowering the burden of proof and risking innocent people being convicted. This principle is pertinent to the ongoing debate surrounding assisted suicide. Many people, like me, oppose assisted suicide absolutely – it blurs ethical boundaries, sends a mixed message on suicide and puts death and despair before hope and care.

Highly effective campaigning from parents and parliamentarians has forced the government to agree to introduce age restrictions for under 16s on social media. This promises to be extraordinarily popular among the public, but there are many well-founded objections that should be taken seriously. Raising the age limit for social media for under 16s will not be a silver bullet Some of these objections are practical. How exactly would a social media ban work? Critics point to Australia, where a world-first ban was implemented in December last year. It is being claimed that the policy is not working, but it’s far too soon to write off the Aussie experience.

The actress Sophie Winkleman has been honest and punished for it. As one of Britain’s foremost campaigners against the digitalisation of childhood, Winkleman regularly takes to the airwaves to speak about the multifarious ways in which the screendemic is harming children. Eyebrows were therefore raised when, earlier this week, Winkleman told the Times that, despite her passionate convictions, she had ‘failed’ and given her twelve-year-old daughter a mobile phone.

One may hardly be surprised that the battle over life and death in Parliament, focused on Kim Leadbeater’s controversial assisted suicide Bill, has featured Machiavellian manoeuvres inside Westminster’s halls. As the resignation of the Deputy Prime Minister dominated the headlines, a significant announcement was slipped out As the resignation of the Deputy Prime Minister, the cabinet reshuffle, and Nigel Farage’s conference speech dominated the headlines earlier this month, a quiet but significant announcement was slipped out by the government. At 2 pm on 5 September, peers were informed by email that extra time would be given for the assisted suicide Bill’s Second Reading debate in the House of Lords. On the surface, this might look like a practical tidying-up exercise.

Birth rates are tumbling across the world. This isn’t just a tragedy for the growing number of women who have fewer children than they want; below-replacement fertility rates mean that each generation will be smaller than the one before. This could lead to a permanent spiral of decline where the old always outnumber the young. But can anything be done about it? A report published last month by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) acknowledges the problem, but its analysis is rather confused. The authors complain that economic barriers prevent women from having ‘reproductive agency’ while simultaneously arguing that governments trying to reduce these barriers are, in some cases, ‘coercive’.

Since Tory MP Richard Holden called for first-cousin marriage to be banned in the UK earlier this month, few people have been prepared to speak in favour of the practice. While not unheard of among white British families, cousin marriage is rare and viewed as rather odd. So, when writer Charles Amos agreed to speak to GB News in defence of such relationships, we welcomed the opportunity for debate. The interview with Andrew Pierce and myself took an unexpected turn when, having argued against a ban on cousin marriage on the grounds that the state should not interfere in such matters, I asked Amos if this view extended to sibling marriage.