Look into the future with Peter Hitchens

Peter Hitchens makes an interesting claim in the Daily Mail today about how he can help you ‘see the future’. His evidence for this is his amazing prediction in 2007 about the next election:

How you, too, can see the future

I told you so. Yes I did. Here’s what I wrote on October 16, 2007: ‘The result of the next Election is already decided – the Left will be in office, either with a Labour majority, or a Lib-Lab pact, or a Lib-Con pact, or a Tory government in thrall to Left-wing ideas. No radical change, on the areas which Tory voters care about most, will take place.’

See? You can look into the future, if you visit my blog.

So, he predicted that the election could end up with a Labour majority, a Lib-Lab pact, a Lib-Con pact or a Tory government and it turns out that one of those cover-all-bases predictions was right. Considering that Peter is about as far to the right as you can get, it also isn’t much of a bold prediction that whoever got into power would be – according to Peter –  ‘in thrall to Left-wing ideas’, considering that Peter considers pretty much everything apart from his own column to be evil left-wing drivel. I think Peter could have summed up his ‘prediction’ more succinctly if he simply said: ‘whoever gets into power will not satisfy my deeply backward, reactionary right-wing views.’

Peter Hitchens absolutely wrong about sex education

Peter Hitchens regularly writes some pretty barmy things, as most Mail columnists are paid to do, but occasionally he seems to stray beyond this into madness. Yesterday was one of those days, as he used the title: ‘More sex education means more teenage pregnancies…always‘ for his column arguing that sex education is pretty much the sole reason for teenage pregnancy.

You see Hitchens – rather like the Mail – blames sex education for teenage pregnancy and seems to think that if schools didn’t mention sex at all, then no teenager would engage in it. The whole argument is simplistic and wrong, teenage pregnancies happened before Labour and would continue to happen even if schools never mentioned it again. As ever, the Daily Mail pretend that the terrible liberal Netherlands doesn’t exist, seeing as they teach sex education to five-year-olds and have the lowest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe.

But facts aren’t important to Hitchens, as is made clear by the fundamental flaw in his basic argument: if more sex education leads to more teenage pregnancies, and we’re currently delivering more sex eduction year-on-year, then surely the teenage pregnancy rate must have increased year-on-year? The trouble is that they haven’t. Most years rates have dropped, with rates increasing in 2002 and 2007, and this latest report shows a drop of 13%.

So Hitchens’ whole argument is beyond silly, more sex education leads mainly to the year-on-year reduction of teenage pregnancy, the current figures show a reduction of 13% and a truly liberal sex education such as in the Netherlands leads to the lowest teenage pregnancy in Europe.

Hitchens makes his argument worse with the childish prudishness that makes him so employable to the Daily Mail – a paper that claims to have a moral objection to sex whilst plastering its output with half-naked females. Sex education to Hitchens is some evil liberal ‘invasion of school classrooms by supposedly educational smut’. Hitchens makes the classic Mail assumption that sex education is the teaching of various positions and techniques before handing out free condoms and contraceptives and turning the classroom lights out for a quick practical.

The irony of Hitchens is that he complains right at the start of his column that so many people ‘put up with so many separate insults to their intelligence in any given week’, then insists on insulting the intelligence of his readers with childish arguments and constantly referring to ‘smut education’. This idea that New Labour are attempting to breed a generation of Labour voting porn-stars seems to stem from Hitchens research into the history of sex education and his discovery of the invention of sex education:

I didn’t then know about its first invention, during the Hungarian Soviet revolution of 1919, when Education Commissar George Lukacs ordered teachers to instruct children about sex in a deliberate effort to debauch Christian morality.

And it gets worse, Hitchens genuinely believes that:

the people who want it are always militant Leftists who loathe conventional family life; that the pretext for it has always been the same – a supposed effort to reduce teen pregnancy and sexual disease; and that it has always been followed by the exact opposite.

Except that is hasn’t of course, because the figures do not support his argument at all. Furthermore, the simplicity of his argument ignores the reality of the relationship between sex education and sexual promiscuity. It would make equal sense to argue that as teenage pregnancy increases so does the government program of sex education, therefore the relationship between the two is inverse – it is more teenage pregnancies that causes more sex education, not the other way around.

But Hitchens is so certain that he is right that he doesn’t even try to form a coherent argument to support his viewpoint, probably because the evidence doesn’t support him he ignores it and spends his time acting like a paranoid child. He doesn’t even consider the completely different world that children are growing up in, constantly swamped in sexual images by a media obsessed with it – and the Daily Mail is no different. Hitchens would rather ignore the wider social influences on teenage sexual patterns and instead simply blames sex education. The whole argument is utterly without foundation and intellectual honesty, but I imagine that’s exactly why the Daily Mail prints it.

The worrying insanity of Peter Hitchens

Sometimes when I read the Daily Mail I wonder if it isn’t all a large practical joke being played out by creative writers who want to out-do each other with ever wackier viewpoints and rants. So many columnists writing for the Mail just don’t seem human – the amazing vacuity of Liz Jones and Amanda Platell, the utter bitchy pointlessness of Jan Moir, the vicious ramblings of Melanie Phillips and the predictably terrible drivel repeated by Littlejohn year after year. Still, even when you read these columnists regularly you still get shocked when a different Mail writer tries to trump them all with his utter insanity: step forward Peter Hitchens.

You should never judge someone by how they look, but I think in the case of Peter Hitchens we should at least address the fact that he looks evil. I won’t post a picture of him here because I don’t want his face scaring the occasional visitor that happens across this blog. He looks like the kind of person that has chopped his family into pieces and keeps various body parts in the fridge and freezer. He has the kind of face that scares local children who concoct rumours that he secretly kills dogs and eats them, if any kind of ball went into his garden no kid would dare fetch it.

I appreciate that all of this is rambling rubbish, but how else can you respond to a Peter Hitchens’ column that contains the following passages:

Of course I’d like to think that I would give a terrible thrashing to any burglar who broke in to my home. But I would be crazy to do so. It would be me who ended up in prison. In any case, what makes me think I’d come off best in a fight with some gaunt, rangy dope-smoker?

I long ago decided that the only wise thing to do would be to make the thief a cup of tea and ask him to sign a release form confirming that I had not harmed him in any way. I advise all my readers to do the same.

The solution to the problem does not lie in our having the freedom to bash burglars.

Though we ought to have that freedom as a matter of course, it would be more use as a deterrent than in practice.

The solution lies in a political change at the top – the expulsion from government of the socialists and liberals who have taken over all three major parties and driven justice from our country.

This liberal elite do not believe that burglary is wrong, so they won’t punish burglars properly. They think burglars steal because they are deprived, or because they were abused as children, or because they cannot get ‘treatment’ for their disgusting criminal drug habits. So many of our leaders now are unrepentant illegal drug-takers themselves that they shouldn’t be trusted near the making of laws.

Suddenly, after reading the insanity of Peter Hitchens my introduction – which is largely utter rubbish – seems to be a wonderfully composed and thought-out critique. Peter Hitchens is actually paid to write this shit. To actually write down that most of our elected leaders are ‘unrepentant illegal drug-takers’ and that somehow this has led to a person who (with two accomplices) chased down and beat the shit of out someone with various weapons being sent to jail.

He isn’t finished there either. He still finds room to make up some shite about that silly christian registrar who refused to carry out civil partnerships:

We are told by the Appeal Court that in a ‘modern liberal democracy’ the freedom to express Christian faith must take second place to the rights of homosexuals. So the law of England now says Lillian Ladele, a registrar who politely asked to be excused from conducting civil partnership ceremonies, must stifle her principles or give up her job.

This is the hard face of the same movement which has in recent years been doing its best to take the ‘Christ’ out of Christmas, and has marginalised our national religion in the schools and in broadcasting, often in the name of freedom.

Freedom for whom? Our ‘modern liberal’ society is not liberal at all towards those who continue to believe the message of the angels.

You get the impression with Peter Hitchens and most of the intellectually challenged keyboard stabbers that write for the Mail that their main problem is that they read the Daily Mail and believe it. Hitchens packs his columns with lazy conclusions arrived at by a lying newspaper. Thus he writes that all criminals are let out whilst the law-abiding are put away, that Christmas has been banned and that the world is run by some kind of liberal-elite that are – ironically – always accused of not being liberal.

The worst thing about the Daily Mail is just when you think it cannot get any madder, someone like Peter Hitchens pops up to remind you that it can.