Consent held back by pride and prejudice

A new paper from the neoliberal think tank the Adam Smith Institute says UK Government should update British laws on consent in body modification to become more liberal and permissive.

• British laws on grievous and actual bodily harm are outdated with consent not a valid defence.

• Judicial rulings that body modification and sexual practices (such as BDSM) are unlawful raise philosophical and legal questions about consensual activities in which neither party is aggrieved. 

• The law is applied inconsistently with personal prejudice and public opinion impacting on interpretation of the law to the detriment of minority groups.

• The development of transhumanism - technology to evolve beyond our current physical and mental limitations - could also be limited by existing laws that prevent body modification.

• Government should enable greater personal freedom, protect minority expressions, and enable emerging technologies, by reforming the Offences Against the Person Act so consent becomes a valid defence to charges of ABH and GBH. 

Britain’s consent laws are utterly outdated and harmful to minority groups and individuals, argues a new paper by free market think tank the Adam Smith Institute. 

Although undoubtedly well intentioned, and designed to protect individuals or society from harm, the law surrounding consent  Offences Against the Person Act and actual or grievous bodily harm is too vague and poorly applied allowing personal prejudice of judges and public opinion to impact on the interpretation of the law. 

The law in question, the Offences Against the Person Act stems from 1861 and the think tank says attitudes have changed since its inception. It has resulted in the conviction of some of the country’s most violent offenders, but it has also resulted in situations in which people have seen their rights curtailed by the state, unfair incarceration, and the stigma and loss of opportunity that comes from a criminal conviction.

The report says that it's high time the law was reformed so that consent becomes a valid defence to charges of ABH and GBH on a broad range of activities not currently allowed for under the law. 

While certain levels of consent have become included, such as surgery and tattoos, the lack of a permissive approach discriminates against minority groups who haven't been able to lobby for opt outs for their rituals or personal tastes. 

Under the plans put forward by the Adam Smith Institute, the onus in future would be on the defendant to prove that the alleged victim had consented to the acts. This way the government could enable greater personal freedom, protect minority expressions, and enable emerging technologies.

Sexual, cultural, and ethnic minorities are most likely to suffer from the current laws that do not allow individuals to consent. At present minority groups sit in a grey area waiting for a judge to determine if their ritual or activities meets their judgement as being in the public interest.  

In 2018 a tattooist called Brendan McCarthy (self-styled ‘Dr Evil’) was convicted of GBH after performing a number of procedures on willing and paying customers including: removal of an ear, removal of a nipple, and splitting another’s tongue so it forked. While extreme, in each case the customers gave consent and over 13,000 people signed a petition in favour of his case.

The think tank argues that this case and others show that courts have allowed personal feelings of disgust (and media around specific cases) to shadow the interpretation of the law. Minority groups receive this most often with a disgust reaction triggered when people bear witness to something which clearly deviates from the norm.

This has implications for the future too. Transhumanism promises to transcend the human experience with the promise of helping eliminate disease, tackle the effects of ageing, live longer, healthier, and happier lives the think tank argues it’s important to reform the law now so Britons that want to adopt and implant technology are free to do so.

With the law already out of date, and the world changing apace, it’s time to look again at consent.

Ben Ramanauskas, author of the report, said:

“It is a well established principle that a person should not face prosecution for partaking in consensual acts. However, the law currently criminalises people for activities taking place in private and involving consenting adults. The law needs to change. A more liberal approach would uphold individual liberty, reduce harm, and help to ensure that as humanity engages with futuristic technology Britons can benefit.”

Matthew Lesh, Head of Research at the Adam Smith Institute, says: 

“People should be free to consent to activities done to their body, even activities that make most people squirm. It is outrageous that you can consent to some potentially harmful activities - such as ear piercings, contact sports and religious flagellation - but cannot consent to body modification or pleasurable sexual activities. We should apply the law consistently, not in a way that hurts minorities and subcultures. Updating the bodily harm laws, to include a consent defence, is also necessary for emerging transhumanism technologies, that will allow us to evolve beyond our current physical and mental limitations.”

Notes to editors:  

For further comments or to arrange an interview, contact Matt Kilcoyne, Head of Communications, matt@adamsmith.org | 07904 099599.

The Adam Smith Institute is a free market, neoliberal think tank based in London. It advocates classically liberal public policies to create a richer, freer world.

Doing our duty by Hong Kong

A new paper from the free market, neoliberal think tank the Adam Smith Institute says UK Government should extend residency rights to Hong Kong nationals in response to violent scenes at protests in the city and a nearby military build up in Shenzen.

• The United Kingdom has a duty under the Sino-British Joint Declaration to uphold the rights of Hong Kong citizens until 2047

• While the United Kingdom cannot act within the territory of Hong Kong it can still act to maintain and enhance the rights of Hong Kongers within the territory of the United Kingdom.

• The United Kingdom should offer British National (Overseas) status to all Hong Kongers born before and after the 1997 handover, along with an extension of full residency rights to British National (Overseas) persons equivalent to the status of full British citizens.

• This would follow precedent as seen in arrival of Ugandan Asians in the 1960s and 1970s.

Following two months of protests in Hong Kong and more aggressive policing, a military build up in mainland China near the city, and more disruptive acts by protestors, the free market think tank the Adam Smith Institute argues that Britain has a duty to uphold the rights and civil liberties of Hong Kong’s citizens.  

In a paper today the think tank says that, while there’s little scope for action within the territory of Hong Kong, the UK Government could (and should) provide citizenship and the right to move and live in Britain to all current British Nationals (Overseas) in the territory and allow residents there to apply for that status freely. 

This would mean the 169,000 British Nationals would gain the right to move to and work freely in the UK, as well as open up the application process to the 4.5m Hong Kong nationals.

Britain has taken similar action in the past to help ex-citizens of the UK fleeing state violence with the most famous example being the persecution of Ugandan Asians by the dictator Idi Amin that saw tens of thousands of refugees come to the UK. Highly educated and with strong English language skills these refugees integrated quickly into society and they and their children are amongst the most likely to be in highly skilled professions, academia or own a business — famous Ugandan Asians include Lord Popat and Shailesh Vara MP, while Priti Patel the Home Secretary’s parents were from Uganda too. 

The UK has a unique role to play in de-escalating any violence in Hong Kong and upholding the rights and civil liberties of Hong Kong’s citizens stemming from a treaty between Britain and China preceding the handover of the colony in 1997. The Sino-British Joint Declaration, the think tank argues, requires the British government to maintain the rights of Hong Kong citizens until at least 2047, but says nothing about where this has to happen. 

The think tank therefore argues that the civil liberties that Hong Kong’s citizens enjoy now, should they be reduced by a heavy handed crackdown by the embattled Chief Executive Carrie Lam or by action from Beijing, could be offered in Britain instead. 

It follows similar calls by Tom Tugendhat MP, chairman of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, this week and in a Telegraph column.

Matthew Kilcoyne, from the Adam Smith Institute and report author, said:

“Britain has a duty to uphold the rights of the citizens of Hong Kong in the face of excessive force being used toward protestors and laws that infringe on the autonomy of the city. While the UK is far away, the country has a special link to these islands, and it has a responsibility and the ability to offer a home away from Hong Kong should the need arise.”

Notes to editors:  

For further comments or to arrange an interview, contact Matt Kilcoyne, Head of Communications, matt@adamsmith.org | 07904 099599.

The report ‘Doing our duty: how Britain can help Hong Kong’s citizens’ is available here.

The Adam Smith Institute is a free market, neoliberal think tank based in London. It advocates classically liberal public policies to create a richer, freer world.

UK banking system an accident waiting to happen

New report shows UK banks still sickly, nearly 12y on from run on Northern Rock

• Latest round of Bank of England stress tests conducted in 2018 drastically underestimated the vulnerability of the UK banking system

• UK banks are still highly leveraged and a major shock could cause the banking system to collapse

• Had the Bank carried out its tests using market valuations of bank capital and appropriately high pass standards, then all major UK banks would have failed

• Big 5 UK banks have issued over £34 of debt for every £1 of equity

• Average Leverage of the Big 5 Banks has increased from 27.8 in 2017 to 34.4 in 2018

• The Bank of England’s stress tests are worse than useless because they offer false risk comfort that leaves the economy needlessly exposed

The British banking system is an ‘accident waiting to happen’ according to a new report released today by the Adam Smith Institute, nearly 12 years after the run on Northern Rock heralded the beginning of the financial crisis.

Kevin Dowd, author of the report and professor of finance and economics at Durham University, says the Bank of England’s stress tests continue to greatly overstate the financial resilience of the UK banking system.

High bank leverage was a key contributing factor to the severity of the financial crisis and UK banks are still highly leveraged.

“In market-value terms, the big 5 UK banks have issued over £34 of debt for every £1 of equity. That’s an enormous level of leverage,” said Professor Dowd. “Indeed, the banks were in worse shape in 2018 than they were the year before. What we are seeing is retrogression.”

Market-valuations of bank capital are more reliable than book valuations and indicate that markets believe that banks are still carrying large hidden losses that are not reflected in book valuations or in the stress tests. And if the markets don’t believe the Bank of England, why should anyone else?

Like their predecessors, the central purpose of 2018 stress tests is to persuade us that the UK banking system is strong when the evidence indicates that it is not. The banking system is weak now, before any ‘worse than financial crisis’ stress scenario, not strong after one.

The free market think tank argues that stress tests are compromised by conflicted objectives, an inadequate number of stress scenarios, low pass standards, reliance on unreliable metrics and questionable modelling.

Had the Bank carried out its stress tests using market values and using more appropriate pass standards, then the banks’ true weakness would have been revealed. The ‘worse than useless’ stress tests provide the public with false reassurance about the financial health of their banks.

Professor Dowd suggests that the stress test programme is so severely compromised that it should be scrapped. Instead, the Bank of England should focus on the reforms really needed to get the UK banking system on its feet – raising capital standards, shutting down zombie banks, establishing tighter corporate governance and reforming accounting standards.

Kevin Dowd, senior fellow of the Adam Smith Institute and author of the report, said:

“The fifth set of Bank of England stress tests is about as useful as a cancer test that cannot detect cancer. The stress tests seek to demonstrate a financial resilience on the part of UK banks that simply isn’t there.

“The fact that UK banks are still weak after a long economic recovery is testimony to the failure of the Bank of England to perform its core job function and rebuild the strength of the banking system after the trauma of the crisis.

“The Bank of England constantly sounds a false alarm on Brexit but is hopelessly complacent about the banking system. It should stop its Project Fear nonsense and focus on what is should have been doing all along, fixing the banking system.

“Another crisis is a matter of time and neither the UK banking system nor the Bank of England are remotely ready for it.”

Matthew Lesh, Head of Research at the Adam Smith Institute, said:

“A little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing. The misleading conclusion of the Bank’s stress tests is serving to hide the underlying vulnerability in the sector. We heard that ‘everything is fine’ before the financial crisis - which resulted in hundreds of billions of pounds of taxpayer bailouts and economic and political effects that are still being felt today. We should be wary of allowing banks to maintain their highly leveraged position on the presumption that their risky behaviour will be bailed out by taxpayers."

Notes to editors:

For further comments or to arrange an interview, contact Matt Kilcoyne, Head of Communications,matt@adamsmith.org | 07584 778207.

The Adam Smith Institute is a free market, neoliberal think tank based in London. It advocates classically liberal public policies to create a richer, freer world.

Freeports to provide safe harbour in turbulent times

Freeports show that the government is taking the opportunities of Brexit seriously and we at the Adam Smith Institute are very pleased to hear that our Director and founder Dr Eamonn Butler has been asked to join the Freeports Advisory Panel to help bring them to fruition.

Director of the Adam Smith Institute, Eamonn Butler, said:

“Britain has a long and illustrious history as a global seafaring nation. Our prosperity has for centuries been built on free trade. Freeports will provide safe harbour for trade in turbulent times and show that hi-tech hubs of enterprise, low taxes, deregulation and trade without restriction can rebalance the economy and benefit regions that have been left behind. Free trade and freeports will set Britain on the right course as we sail out of the European Union and into the world.”

To arrange an interview or further comment, please contact Matt Kilcoyne on mobile (07904099599) or via email (matt@adamsmith.org).

UPDATE: news on freeports has been extensively covered in the media, with the Adam Smith Institute featuring in coverage by the BBC, ITV, the Guardian, the Telegraph, the Scotsman, and the brilliant Grimsby Telegraph. A comment piece by Dr Eamonn Butler featured in the Telegraph, and one by Dr Madsen Pirie appeared on the Spectator.