Trevor Phillips and the power of irrational thought

Today, Trevor Phillips' little money earner, The Commission for Equality and Human Rights, has published its long awaited, well by Mr Phillips anyway, grandiosely entitled, 'Fairness and Freedom: the Final Report of the Equalities Review'. I have yet to read the report in detail, but the foreword alone provides many indicators as to the worth of the rest of the document, which I will return to on occasions when there is nothing more interesting to write about.

Why is it that Trevor Phillips, who presumably either wrote or approved the document, appears unable to see the contradictions in the emotive and self-contradictory prose? Take for instance this paragraph,

'But a long-term vision for our society should be founded upon what it wants to be rather than what it is not. This Report is entirely about one of the – if not the – most cherished aspirations of the British people: to live in a society that is fair and free, and which provides for each individual to realise his or her potential to the fullest. At root, this is what we should mean by an equal society.'

Quite what percentage of the population actually worries its head about British society being 'fair and free' I don't know. Not a very high percentage I suspect. There are difficulties in the respective definitions of the two words. If somebody is 'free', it must mean that they are in a position to make whatever choices they like concerning their lives. This concept is quite obviously moronic.

Taken to its conclusion this idea encompasses the right of all 60 million of us to do exactly what we want. The most foolish among us, and even Trevor Phillips, should be able to see that this is utterly nonsensical. We all have limitations imposed upon our particular freedom by the freedoms that others wish to enjoy. As individuals we all have to compromise. There are two ways that such compromises may be effected.

The first is by the mutual agreement of all, or at least most, of society. This may sometimes apparently be imposed by the state, but is actually the state expressing the commonly accepted and expressed will of the people. For instance the side of the road on which we drive. Few would seriously suggest that this should be a matter of individual free choice. We accept the curtailment of our freedom to drive which ever side the whim takes us because it is in all of our interest to do so.

Other curtailments to freedom are both imposed and initiated by the state against the will of at least a substantial minority and most probably an overwhelming majority. One of the most fundamental of these freedoms is the ability to enjoy one's own property without fear of its being taken by somebody else. The state habitually takes chunks of my property against my will by way of taxation.

The amounts are quite arbitrarily decided in the course of the government's pursuit of goals upon which it decides and I, and nobody outside the government, have any influence. So, we are not 'free' and of course are never likely to be, although the amount of freedom any individual enjoys may well fluctuate depending upon who enjoys the ascendancy of power at any one time.

However, as the greatest limitations upon any individual's freedoms are imposed by the state, the obvious way to increase everybody's freedom is to reduce the power of the state to an absolute minimum. Possibly not what Trevor Phillips had in mind.

So, to move on to 'fair'. This word labours under a similar problem as 'free'. Who decides what is 'fair', and how should it be decided? 'Fair' has absolutely no meaning or relevance outside the perception of the individual observer. There is no great arbiter in the sky to hold the scales. Of course, many individuals may concur about what is fair in any given situation. These, however, will be the group who has the most to gain from that particular and specific definition. Mr Phillips, being utterly amoral, has, of course, no problem here. What is 'fair' is to be decided by him and his sidekicks.

Let us move on to Mr Phillips' pièce de résistance, everybody realising their fullest potential. This is social Darwinism red in tooth and claw. Its implementation would be beyond the wildest dreams of the most dedicated libertarian. I can't actually believe that there is nobody in Mr Phillips' commissariat with wit enough to have spotted the implications of this. It is saying that there should be no restriction on anybody doing to their utmost what they are best at.

Stealing, fraud, making paedophile films, bullying, drug dealing. Does the man have no scruples? Surely there should be some limitations on the degree to which individuals are able to express their own particular set of talents. What's more, it seems, the state should act to promote these freedoms.

Oh yes, of course I know that Mr Phillips didn't mean that. That is my very point. He doesn't have the faintest idea what he is saying or what it means. It is possible however to discern, dimly, just what Mr Phillips' vision of an equal society encompasses. His idea of free, his idea of fair and people allowed to do what he wants them to do and no more.

This was just para. 3 of the Foreword. There are approximately 170 pages to go. The report has been welcomed by that well known rational free thinker Ms Ruth, 'bring back the Inquisition' Kelly. Who else?