Chapter 18 Section 4 Journey to the future

By this time (1968) the left consensus on economic policy had been challenged and would continue to be challenged.But the emerging enlightened consensus on moral and social issues has gone unchallenged.That is, people in positions of influence in government, the media, and universities have succeeded in persuading a society that was still morally conservative to accept the more liberal views of some large cities.In Britain in the 1960s, traditional Christian values ​​and state authority began to separate, and are now almost completely separated.Some politicians see this as a coherent issue.But for most people, myself included, it's a question of reforming specific issues, and in some cases reforming rules that are brutally unfair.

So in 1966 I voted for the Leo Albers bill on homosexuality.He proposed in the bill: As long as both parties agree, homosexual behavior between two adults over the age of 21 in private places should no longer be considered a crime.That same year I voted for David Steele's abortion bill.The Act allows abortion if the child is in danger of becoming seriously disabled due to a physical or mental defect, or if a woman is not yet capable of motherhood.On both of the above issues, I have first-hand experience of other people's pain, and it has influenced me a lot.For example: When I was a barrister, I saw a local man of a certain status humiliated because he was found to have homosexual behavior on a pier. I was deeply shocked.

On the other hand, even then I felt that some elements of the liberal agenda had gone too far, divorce law reform being one example.In clinics in my constituency, I have spoken to many women who are living miserable lives as a result of abusive husbands.Marriage has become a prison for them and I think they should be freed.In this case, divorce may be the only answer.But if divorce becomes too easy, it can also destroy marriages that are just in trouble.If people can easily shirk their responsibilities, they will take those obligations less seriously when they begin.I worry about wives (or husbands) who want to make their marriage work but are abandoned.I'm also more concerned about the situation of the first family members after the man (or woman) starts a second family.So, in 1968, I was one of the few people who voted against the bill that made divorce easier.Divorce shall be judging marriage. "Broken irreparably" only becomes possible, and I support both amendments.The First Amendment states that certain types of marriages cannot be dissolved (except by special court order).The second amendment is that, regardless of any conflict of interest, the legal wife and children of the first marriage have priority over the de facto wife and children.

Likewise, in 1965 I voted against Sydney Selwerman's bill to abolish the death penalty for murder, which, like all the other measures listed above, was passed by Parliament, but only if Parliament decided to accept Otherwise the bill would expire at the end of July 1970.I voted against the motion to make this act permanent in December, 1969. On the issue of corporal punishment, as I have argued in many of my speeches as a backbencher, I believe that the state not only has the right but also the duty to deter and punish violent crime and to protect law-abiding citizens.The power to deprive a person of his liberty or, in certain cases, his life, no matter how much it is exercised, is inseparable from the sovereignty of the state.The greatest deterrent in almost all cases will be its effect on would-be murderers, and I have never had any doubts about that.Moreover, the capital punishment has the same great deterrent effect on those crimes committed with weapons, such as robbery.The most serious difficulty that comes to my mind is that innocent people may be sentenced or even killed - which does happen in a small number of cases.In contrast to this tragic case, there is another type of victim.Some murderers committed crimes and murders again after being released after serving their sentences-there are not many such people.Despite all the uncertainties and complexities, such as giving evidence in court, I believe that potential victims deserve the utmost protection, which can only be afforded as long as the death penalty persists.Designating certain particularly heinous murderers as "capital murderers" (under the 1957 Act) - a concept which again led to changes in the system of life sentences - seemed to me the right model.I have since voted in Parliament for the restoration of the death penalty for such murders.

With regard to abortion, homosexuality, and divorce reform, it is clear that things have not turned out as intended.For most of us in Parliament - and certainly for me - the idea of ​​making these changes is that they can address anomalies or inequalities that arise in a small number of instances, or that they can remove some aspects of the law itself. uncertainties, or their intention to legally recognize what actually happened.On the contrary, they can be said to contribute to a society that is cold, selfish, and irresponsible.The primary intent of reforming abortion laws is to stop young women being forced to have abortions in private, not to make abortion an "option."Although artificial contraception is widely practiced, the number of abortions has continued to expand.Homosexual activists have evolved from seeking privacy to demanding social sanction for their lifestyle, to demanding equal status with opposite-sex married families, and even to acknowledging that it is their responsibility to exploit the sexual instability of adolescents. legal rights.Divorce law reform has led to a huge increase in marriage breakdowns—though that's not to say it's the only cause of marriage breakdowns.Marriage breakdown has resulted in many children growing up without the care and guidance of their parents.

Would I have voted differently on the above questions if I knew this was how things would play out?I now understand that we were thinking too narrowly on these issues.As a lawyer and a politician who believes in the rule of law, I feel that the most important consideration is: the law should be enforceable and fair to the offenders.But laws also have a symbolic meaning: they are signposts of where society is going, and where legislators expect society to go.Moreover, the overall significance of these "enlightened" reforms of the 1960s was greater than their individual parts.They can be seen to provide a whole new framework for the behavior of the younger generation.

Indeed, this is a time of great concern for teens.Parents were so worried about the "generation gap" that even teens were starting to take it seriously. At the time, there was a whole "youth culture"—a misinterpretation of Eastern mysticism, outlandish costumes, and an obsession with hallucinogenic drugs. Chelsea was a very different place when we moved back to London in 1970. I had mixed feelings about what had happened. There was energy and talent, but it was also a largely false world. There is a perverse pride in Britain's contribution to these trends. Soho's Canabe Fashion Street. The Beatles, the miniskirt, the floor-length skirt have become the new symbols of "hipster Britain". And indeed they prove that they are all excellent Harold Wilson was good at getting the most political capital out of them. The trouble is that they mask real economic weakness, and even a talented fashion industry and a pioneering record label struggle to maintain relative balance .As Desmond Donnelly said: "My greatest fear is that Britain will sink into the sea laughing. "

While the UK colored new trends, they catered to the kind of affluent consumer society that could only be found in the US.My first visit to the United States was in 1967.At that time, according to the "Leadership" plan formulated by the United States, the rising young leaders of the world's political and business circles were invited to visit the United States.During the six weeks of my visit to the United States, I traveled all over the United States.The excitement of this trip has never really subsided.Everywhere I went I was greeted and entertained by friendly, open and generous people.They took me into their homes and lives, and showed me their cities and villages with great pride.The climax of the visit was when I visited the NASA Space Center in Houston.I looked at the training program for the astronauts, and in two years, they're going to put a man on the moon.A living example of UK talent policy that is too administrative, too taxed and leads to a brain drain: I met scientists from my constituency of Finchley at the Aeronautics and Space Agency, where they put their talents to work.I don't think there's anything wrong with that, but I'm glad that a British scientist has made such an important contribution.But if we don't learn from the corporate economy, the UK can't hope to compete with others even in simpler technology areas.

Two years later, I went on a week-long visit to the Soviet Union.The arrest of my constituent, Lecturer Glad Brook, in the Soviet Union for allegedly engaging in "subversive criminal activities" (ie, smuggling anti-Soviet materials) has made me extremely disgusted with the Soviet Union's consistent disrespect for human rights.I have repeatedly asked the government and the House of Commons to resolve this case, but to no avail.At that time, the Soviets had regarded Mr. Brooke as a pawn in their game. They wanted to use Brooke to get their spies Kruger and his wife released. (Eventually the deal was done in 1969.) One of the benefits I had in helping Glad Brooke get released: I was in contact with the Anglo-Soviet Relations MPs' group.What surprised me was that as we interacted more, I found that these congressmen had the same anti-communist consciousness as me, but unlike me, they were real experts in this field.In particular Cyril Osborne first taught me in evaluating Soviet tactics and proposing countermeasures.It was he who suggested to me before I went to the Soviet Union that, first, I should not let the Soviets pay for my air ticket, and second, I should insist on visiting several churches, and I accepted his suggestion.He also told me that the only way to earn their respect is to show them unequivocally that you are not weak.All this coincides with my thoughts.

I traveled to Moscow with the affable Paul Chanon and his wife.We had a very busy schedule and not only visited Moscow, but also Leningrad (former name, now St. Petersburg) and Stalingrad (Volgograd).Despite the different names of the cities, the propaganda we heard was the same, a relentless stream of numbers proving the industrial and social superiority of the Soviet Union over the West.To the interviewer at least, this approach lacks imagination, lacks a sense of humor, and invites nothing but irony.One of the galleries I visited had a statue outside of a blacksmith forging a sword with a hammer.My escort proudly sighed: "This represents communism." "Actually, it is not." I retorted: "This is from the "Old Testament"-they will hammer swords into plowshares and spears A hoe." To which the stout esthete had no rebuttal.Omg: I remember learning this passage in Methodist Sunday School.

Another time, someone asked me casually, since peace and harmony is the goal of people all over the world, whether NATO, which symbolizes the "Cold War", can be disbanded. "Of course not," I said, "NATO has kept the peace and we must remain strong." I had a similar situation when I visited Stalingrad.Local political leaders complain that Coventry has cut ties with them since the Soviets invaded Czechoslovakia last year, and I will not apologize for that.In fact, with the lifting of international sanctions, it is difficult for such an organization to scare the Soviet government. Yet behind the official propaganda, the gray streets, empty shops and workers' houses in dire disrepair lie the suffering of the Russian people.When the old men of Leningrad and Stalingrad told me about the great suffering they had endured during the war years, their eyes filled with tears.There is no doubt that these tears are real.The young people at the Russian universities I spoke to were cautious because they knew they were under the watchful eyes of the Kbg, but it was clear that they were excited to learn something about the West .In addition, government personnel are still human. When I visited the manager of the Moscow Passenger Transport System, he explained to me in detail how decisions on a new development project are made through committee after committee—I call this process For an infinite chain of no decisions.My eyes met a young man, perhaps the manager's assistant, standing right behind him, and he couldn't help the obvious smile on his face. I had another lingering impression of Russia, one that was reinforced on my later visits to the country.On the one hand, Russia has rich cultural achievements, which originated from ancient Russia, and the communists have given them good protection; on the other hand, the lives of ordinary people are very difficult, and the two form a sharp contrast.Leningrad has the well-stocked Hermitage and the Kirov Ballet, both of which I visited.It was 6:30 on a cold morning in Leningrad, before dawn, and from my hotel bedroom window I watched many working mothers cross the street with their children.They put their children in the state-run nursery all day, and pick them up about 12 hours later.While waiting at the Moscow airport for a delayed flight back home, I bought a beautiful coral green tea set, which is a proud addition to my collection.Whenever I see this set of tea sets, I think of the people in the country that produced the product, their torture and hopeless toil.