Gerard Jackson
BrookesNews.Com
Monday 22 December 2003

Every time December comes around I always think about the meaning of Christmas and its historical and religious significance. This year was no exception. However, a smart-alecky comment about Christmas that a journalist made in my presence got me thinking more deeply than usual about that seminal event, which in turn got me thinking about the moral state of journalism and Professor Peter Singer's attitude toward the newborn.

When in September 1999 Rupert Murdoch's Australian replaced the appalling Cameron Stewart, it's New York correspondent, with Stephen Romei I reluctantly predicted we would get the same left-wing drivel as before. Romei managed to live down to my expectations.

Obviously enthralled by Singer and deeply offended by his critics, Romei attacked them with the patently dishonest accusation that "Americans are passionate about protecting their first amendment rights to freedom speech — until they disagree with you." This is the kind of vicious anti-Americanism that is typical of The Australian's US-based journalists.

He asserted that it is "odious" for protestors to compare Singer with Hitler. After all, "three of his grandparents died in Nazi concentration camps." but what is really odious is not just Singer's murderous views but the dishonesty of so-called 'progressives' likes Romei.

Regardless of what Singer's adoring media mates claim, there is really very little original in Singer's sickening views. Moreover, the comparison with Nazi Germany is fully justified. In 1920 Permission to Destroy Life Unworthy of Life was published in Germany. Authored by a Professor Karl Binding in collaboration with Dr Alfred Hoche, the book categorised those who were to be killed — all for the greater good.

This forerunner of Singer's Practical Ethics contains the same morally corrosive ideas that Princeton now exposes young impressionable minds to. Hoche and Binding's ideas became respectable in Weimar Germany and provided the Nazi's with the intellectual reasoning for their war of extermination against the senile, the retarded, the disabled, etc. And it was the Churches that stood up against this tide of barbarism, not leftwing journalists.

With prejudiced journalists it is frequently what they leave out that matters rather than what they write. And so it is with Romei. He gave the impression that Singer's views on infanticide only extend to "deformed" babies, as if that made a difference — but in fact they extend to all babies. To Singer's warped mind babies are not human beings because they are not persons and thus parents should be allowed to murder them, at least until they are 28 days old. How in heavens name could any civilised human being arrive at this barbaric conclusion? By the simple procedure of redefining the meaning of person, regardless of reality or commonsense.

Singer argues that to be a person a "being" must exhibit certain "relevant characteristics," particularly rationality and "self awareness over time." From this one deduces that though most healthy human beings are persons while infants definitely are not because they have not developed self-awareness and lack the ability to reason. This obviously leads to the conclusion that people with significant cognitive disabilities (advanced Alzheimer's disease springs to mind) fall into his category of nonpersons, e.g, human embryos and chickens. On the other hand, he defines as 'persons' monkeys, dogs, cattle, sheep, elephants, dolphins, etc.

So seriously does he take this antihuman lunacy that he wrote in Practical Ethics that the concept of 'personhood' should be extended "perhaps even to the point where it includes all mammals." (This would even cause the animal-loving Nazis to gasp). Hence, not every person is human and not every human is a person. To dispute this view is — in Singer's perverse eyes — to commit the crime of "specieism"! This is the animal equivalent of racism, considering one species superior to another.

According to this evil doctrine (I would never dream of calling it a philosophy) only 'persons' have the right to live. This means that there are no moral considerations in murdering 'nonpersons' (sic). After all, their lives are "interchangeable" and "replaceable." No wonder Singer felt confident enough to argue that fully developed pigs have more rights than newborn infants. It also follows that fully developed animals have a right to life but not the senile, the severely handicapped or even infants with haemophilia.

Of course, being an intellectual he needs an 'objective' measure to justify his barbaric conclusions, and he thinks he has it in utility: the doctrine of the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Therefore killing 'nonpersons' is ethical because it raises society's total utility. (The same argument was used by the Nazis). Such a doctrine immediately puts the medically defenceless at the mercy of coldly calculating intellectuals like Singer who arrogantly claim to be able to measure the present and future happiness of millions of people. What extraordinary conceit and contempt for the rights and lives of others.

Romei claimed that Singer's "groundbreaking work" has been directed to reducing suffering. That the Nazis made the same argument is not something Romei cared to mention, preferring instead to malign Singer's critics. But the Nazi analogy is a legitimate one — and Singer knows it. Forced to acknowledge the Nazi 'euthanasia' program he argued that it's not the act that counts but the motive. Therefore, in his own words: "What the Nazis did was a totally different thing. They called their program euthanasia but it was not euthanasia because it was not for the good of the infants involved."

But murdering people for their own good was part of the Nazi euthanasia program, as Hitler's decree of the 1 September 1939 authorising euthanasia made clear:

"Reichleiter Bouhler and Dr Brandt are hereby instructed to extend the authority of physicians designated by name in such a manner that those who are, as far as it is humanly possible to judge, incurably sick may, after the most scrupulous assessment of their state of health, be granted a merciful death."

The Nazis argued that society had a moral obligation to relieve parents of the suffering and distress that severely handicapped children imposed on them. This statement destroys Singer's criticism of the Nazi euthanasia program and his spurious argument that motives make the difference. As for much of Singer's so-called "groundbreaking work" on animal rights, once again he was preceded by the Nazi's who outlawed vivisection in 1933. In many cases, some animals were even accorded superior status to certain human beings, especially Jews. Yes, the Nazi's were great animal lovers, Mr Romei.

Romei makes the outrageous accusation that Steve Forbes attempted "to blackmail Princeton into reversing Singer's appointment" and his action was "unethical". Let me make this so simple that even a left-wing journalist like Romei can understand it. Princeton and Singer are not entitled to Steve Forbes' money and he is completely within his rights to take a moral stand by refusing to subsidise Singer's appointment.

To suggest otherwise because he was a Republican presidential candidate is just plain stupid. Moreover, to argue, as Romei did, that Forbes' action made him a danger to freedom of speech merely demonstrates the sickening hypocrisy of the Left. Would Romei have made such an accusation if Singer were a professed Nazi? Of course not. Forbes acted openly and with moral courage, making it publicly known where he stands. This is a damn sight more than can be said for most journalists, especially those who work on Murdoch's Australian.

Romei had the gall to call Forbes "unethical." What about Romei's so-called journalistic ethics? He deliberately conveyed the impression that Singer's views on infanticide only referred to deformed babies, which is bad enough, when he knew that this is definitely not the case. (Romei's omission of this fact is something that readers should seriously ponder.) But telling the truth about Singer would have destroyed Romei's self-righteous attack on Forbes.

Now that we are talking about ethics — or lack of them — readers will note that Romei never once uttered a word of criticism of Singer's warped view, saving it for his critics. Instead he was full of praise for this dangerous man who attacks the sanctity of human life.

Romei called the those who gathered in Princeton's ground "odious". But who were those "odious" protestors. They were students who had come in wheelchairs, crutches and sticks. Young people who according to Singer's evil doctrine would not have had the right to live.

They and their relatives and friends were protesting not only on their own behalf but on the behalf of those who are yet to be born. They were standing up for the right to live and the sanctity of human life. And Romei called these people "odious". What does that make Romei?

Reading the "odious" likes of Romei persuaded me that the Australian media is in deed an intellectual cesspit.

Gerard Jackson is Brookes economics editor