So what I think is, we need to be careful about the forced classification of people. We've had serfs, peasants, working class, middle class, "We, The People", the proletariat, capitalists, hard-working families, immigrants, minorities, I heard "young British Muslim men" discussed the other day, the unemployed, people who say "As a writer, I..." or "As a woman, I...", and many other classifications into which it is often convenient to push people. The poor. The voters. The fans. The public. Minorities.
There's a danger here that we lose sight of the individuality of individuals. We talk about "the middle class" as though they're out there somewhere hogging public services. All of them, simultaneously. We talk about "immigrants" without necessarily thinking about the great variety of pressures that brought them here. It's convenient and no doubt it's necessary. But anything done in the name of "The People" that excludes "This Specific Person", whoever that might be, is problematic, surely?
Whether we're running High Speed [insert number here] through somebody's back garden because it will "create jobs" (incredible, the confidence with which that outcome is promised), or embarking on some other social-engineering project in the name of (say) the people or the unemployed or young British Muslim men, we could usefully start by reflecting on (1) whether we've actually consulted any of them, and more importantly on (2) whether, if we did get them all together in a room and ask them first, they'd agree on an answer.
Impossible to do right by everybody, but necessary not to forget that there are individuals, with the same human rights as everybody else, who don't fit neatly into any of the classifications. Once their rights are ignored in the cause of the majority, we're in danger of resorting to cliches: it's a slippery slope, et cetera. The term "human rights", since I seem to have started using it, is meaningless unless it refers to the individual as much as, if not more than, the group.
There's a danger here that we lose sight of the individuality of individuals. We talk about "the middle class" as though they're out there somewhere hogging public services. All of them, simultaneously. We talk about "immigrants" without necessarily thinking about the great variety of pressures that brought them here. It's convenient and no doubt it's necessary. But anything done in the name of "The People" that excludes "This Specific Person", whoever that might be, is problematic, surely?
Whether we're running High Speed [insert number here] through somebody's back garden because it will "create jobs" (incredible, the confidence with which that outcome is promised), or embarking on some other social-engineering project in the name of (say) the people or the unemployed or young British Muslim men, we could usefully start by reflecting on (1) whether we've actually consulted any of them, and more importantly on (2) whether, if we did get them all together in a room and ask them first, they'd agree on an answer.
Impossible to do right by everybody, but necessary not to forget that there are individuals, with the same human rights as everybody else, who don't fit neatly into any of the classifications. Once their rights are ignored in the cause of the majority, we're in danger of resorting to cliches: it's a slippery slope, et cetera. The term "human rights", since I seem to have started using it, is meaningless unless it refers to the individual as much as, if not more than, the group.