Would Tebbit have attacked Wilberforce for wanting to unilaterally abolish slavery?

Lord Tebbit has written a piece for the the Mail today rebuffing the judges who criticised the Government for dropping the SFO investigation into dodgy arms dealing:

"Are they ignoring the fact that tens of thousands of people could lose their jobs, or some even their lives, if relations between Britain and Saudi Arabia were to break down?"

That's the same reasoning used by those decrying the Clapham Set as insane and unpatriotic for wanting to destroy the mainstay of Britain's economy whilst it was at war with France.

Both arguments are selfish and short-termist.

Comments

[Grow up Sam!]

I disagree with Norman Tebbit on this issue but there is no evidence that he would have opposed Wilberforce's plans to abolish slavery. Sam Coates has shown his immaturity by making such unsubstantiated allegation. It is time that Coates grew up rather than trying to emulate that other puerile scribbler on this site, the risible leftist Peter Franklin.

[Samuel Coates]

I'll ignore the irony in your comment criticising "immature" commentary, and ask what evidence could there be other than the arguments he consistently advances in similar debates?

I don't, of course, believe Tebbit would condone slavery, but the issue didn't seem so black and white at the time. I've read a great deal about how the abolition of slavery came about and Tebbit prefectly fits the profile of the type of person who steadfastly opposed abolition.

[Umbrella man]

I'm with Sam!

All the arguments that Tebbit is using to defend corrupt dealings with Saudi Arabia today were used by opponents of William Wilberforce.

Opponents talked about Britain's economic interests.

They said they opposed the abolition of slavery but not yet.

They said that if we abolished slavery it would still be carried out by other countries. The same is said of the arms trade today.

[Igirisu Jin]

What is this nonsense? The whole argument hinges on the idiotic assumption that slavery and arms trade with the Saudis is comparable. How do you accurately justify that it is, using a sound argument? The deal with the Saudis may possibly have broken certain laws, but that doesn't mean that the laws are intrinsicly right. The slave trade wasn't breakings laws, but it was laws that were up for debate then. With slavery existing laws were debated and replaced giving a victory of morals over economics, now we have a situation where existing laws and foolish morals are hindering economics and security, and should be changed. That is the only real way you can compare the two situations.

[Grow up Sam!]

Samuel Coates wrote at 12.59 "I don't, of course, believe Tebbit would condone slavery". Yet the headline reads "Tebbit would have attacked Wilberforce for wanting to unilaterally abolish slavery".

It is clear from his post at 12.59 that Coates is trying use the Saudi issue as an excuse to smear Lord Tebbit. Where is the evidence for his comment "I've read a great deal about how the abolition of slavery came about and Tebbit prefectly fits the profile of the type of person who steadfastly opposed abolition."?

Norman Tebbit has a track record of serving his party and country with great honour. His wife was crippled by the IRA bomb. This great freedom fighter deserves better than to be psychologised and smeared by a jumped up little blogger who has achieved nothing in his short life!

[Samuel Coates]

IJ, whilst in terms of scale the two issues are in different ballparks some of the arguments are comparable and that's what I'm referring to. It's the people who say "If we don't do it someone else will" versus the people who say "We should take the lead and do what is right regardless". The former aren't necessarily malicious, just wrong to prioritise their perceived pragmatism when - as Britain showed with slavery - taking a bolder and more overtly moral position can do far more good.

To the commenter above, I've got nothing against Lord Tebbit at all. Unlike you, I dislike getting too personal in debates and if my post is read as an affront to Tebbit's character by people other than yourself then I regret that.

[Igirisu Jin]

[It's the people who say "If we don't do it someone else will" versus the people who say "We should take the lead and do what is right regardless".]

Define "right" in your view.

[Sean Fear]

This headline is rather a cheap shot, IMHO.

[Samuel Coates]

It wasn't meant to be Sean, I've made it a question rather than a statement now!

[Andrew Lilico]

I'm not convinced that the cases are at all comparable. Slavery involved specific victims. Bribery does not.

Consider a different sort of case, Sam. It has often happened in the past that if they are awarded certain contracts then foreign companies must pay specific taxes to the government. Alternatively, we could imagine a system in which, transparently and above board, those awarding contracts received (from the government) commissions proportionate to the value of the contract. We might question the economic utility of either of these systems, but we would not question the propriety of paying such a tax or participating in such a tender. Now, in more informal/less well developed systems, in which "the government" is not one institution but a collection of powerful individuals and factions, a number of whom receive their pay as "commission" (i.e. bribes) on the deals that pass through them, and in which such bribes are an important source of "government" finance to the organising factions.

Again, in such an environment we might question whether the government of that country had organised its affairs properly. But would we really want to criticize the company that participated? And if the company were government-owned or government-sponsored, would that make any real difference?

[Kate Bollinger]

It's quite simple-
on one side are politcians who believe in *when appropriate* sacrificing self-interest for the greater good
and on the other are those who hate ideals and believe merely in management.
I know which I prefer.

[Andrew Lilico]

Kate,

I'm genuinely confused: in which camp were you putting Tebbit?

[John Brown]

Don't know about Lord Tebbit, but there's a few folks on this site who'd have supported slavery back in the day.

[Igirisu Jin]

Don't know about Lord Tebbit, but there's a few folks on this site who'd have supported slavery back in the day.

Posted by: John Brown | April 16, 2008 at 16:59

Have any declared themselves as such?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It's quite simple-
on one side are politcians who believe in *when appropriate* sacrificing self-interest for the greater good
and on the other are those who hate ideals and believe merely in management.
I know which I prefer.

Posted by: Kate Bollinger | April 16, 2008 at 16:42

Aren't those both the same side? Sacrificing some of the self-interest in the so-called ideals for the sake of the greater good of good management seems quite sensible to me. It is those that have sacrificed (though more through stupidity than intention) management for the sake of certain (misguided) ideals that have brought this country to its knees from within.

Never mind Lord Tebbit, he's after all the innocent victim of this post. Like Andrew Lilico, I'm genuinely confused; Which of you're two sides of politicians do you prefer?

[Grow up Sam!]

Sam Coates wrote "It wasn't meant to be Sean, I've made it a question rather than a statement now!"

That is a blatant lie and a disreputable tactic. Sam's comments on this thread demonstrate that his intention was to smear Lord Tebbit as a supporter of slavery. Only a retraction and apology is acceptable.

[Tim Montgomerie]

It's you who need to grow up, 'Grow Up Sam'.

Sam's post is perfectly respectable. Norman Tebbit used arguments of economic self-interest to excuse arms sales to a nation that is corrupt and exports extreme Islamist propaganda around the world.

Economic self-interest was also used to justify slavery in Wilberforce's time. It's a fair point to make.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Sorry Sam, I can't support you at all on this. Bribery and Slavery are simply not comparable.

[Jon Gale]

A) Unlike slavery, bribery is a victimless crime :)

B) Many of the "commissions" attacked as bribery are not illegal in Saudi Arabia and did not take place in Britain, so it always was a strange "crime" ti investigate.

C) Investigating the bribery risked british intelligence gathering. Does the morality of trying to stamp out bribes really outweigh the security of British lives?

D) Comparing Tebbit to slavery supporters is cheap sensationalism.

[Richard Calhoun]

The real issue here is are we in a position to moralise outside our own sphere of jurisdiction?

We are a small country with 60 million people to look after and Tebbit is right, this countries responsibility is to its people.
Sam
There are many agents and countries who demand 'back handers' in return for orders, are you suggesting we should outlaw this practice from afar or simply refuse to trade with them??

Just not possible and we all know it!!

[Igirisu Jin]

Economic self-interest was also used to justify slavery in Wilberforce's time. It's a fair point to make.

Posted by: Tim Montgomerie | April 16, 2008 at 20:29

Economic self-interest is used to justify everything there is an economic interest in! The entire point of selling things is the economic interest! We don't sell war planes for a laugh or because it's fun! The point is whether or not the pros outweigh the cons. Clearly it was decided by popular opinion that the income from the slave trade wasn't worth the means, but how do you compare the act of paying a bribe to that?? If the question is should we sell to the Saudis at all, thats a different debate. We don't live in a perfect world, but we still have to deal in it. If we avoid business with every dodgy ccountry, we wouldn't have much trade. There is the question of our security. If we want the world to be more like us, then we have to be strong, but to do that, we have to be rich and to be rich, we have to put economics before some of the morals imposed on us. Whether we like it or not, a little corruption makes the world go around.

[Umbrella man]

The citizens of Saudi Arabia aren't free and we are selling arms to the regime that represses them.In this case the parallels with slavery are very close.

[Richard Calhoun]

Umbrella Man

The citizens in China and sub-saharan africa are not free, nor arguably millions of people in many so called 'democracies'

Do we cut off all trade to China???

[Umbrella man]

You make my point for me Richard. There is an arms embargo with China.

[Richard Calhoun]

I was not talking about arms only, what about all the other trade, aircraft etc.

However you do not address the question, would you cut off trade to China and other countries that are not democratic or repress their people???

[Umbrella man]

I would trade with most countries Richard but I would not sell arms to dictatorships or allow us to tear up our laws in order to gain economic advantage from them.

[Igirisu Jin]

Saudi Arabia is an Islamic country.. Islam is a fairly oppressive religion which ever way you look at it. But the Islamists want to be Islamic. There would be the same harsh rules no matter who was in charge. Many of them don't want our idea of democracy or western way of doing things. The left need to stop being so arrogant and assuming that the rest of the world is longing for the day they can adopt their version of freedom. The Saudis aren't going to use Eurofighters to oppress their people.

[Igirisu Jin]

What are our laws for if not to protect our interests? They weren't handed down from some gad. They are intended to do right by us, but if it is in our nations best interest to deal with these people for the benefit of our own security, then surely that is more important than some law thats not doing its job?

[Igirisu Jin]

Change gad to god! oops

[Richard Calhoun]

Umbrella Man
I have to say that does not seem a very tenable position.
We do sell arms to dictatorships and we either believe it is not possible to trade with these countries or not, to try and differentiate between products is very difficult.

[Richard Calhoun]

Umbrella Man
I have to say that does not seem a very tenable position.
We do sell arms to dictatorships and we either believe it is not possible to trade with these countries or not, to try and differentiate between products is very difficult.

[Ay Up]

May I recommend the Amazing Grace film about Wilberforce to the Tebbitites? they might learn a thing or two about the greater good

[Igirisu Jin]

What?!?! There is NO link between Lord Tebbit and slavery! Whether you like the man or not, there is nothing linking any of his views to anything pro slavery! Get a grip.

[Ay Up]

Apart from the small matter of economic interest?