I want to use my blog of Christmas tidings today to talk about Geoffrey Clarke
Geoffrey, when he is not being a chartered accountant, is a member of UKIP (UK Independence Party – who claim to be a non racist political party who want only people from England in England, but are, as far as I understand it, and I may be wrong, a slightly less overt version of the BNP) and is standing for election to become a member of Kent County Council.
Until today, Geoffrey, if he won, would have been the UKIP representative for the council, except that UKIP have now disowned him.
In my opinion, for UKIP to disown you, you have to be the political equivalent of the Yorkshire Ripper. It is quite amazing that Geoffrey has managed to achieve the distinction of being frowned upon by UKIP.
You may wonder what he has done to deserve this accolade.
In his infinite wisdom, Geoffrey has used his website to call for a debate regarding abortion and euthanasia.
I am not anti abortion, nor indeed euthanasia. As you know, I am not even anti debate, otherwise I would close the comments on some of my more controversial blog posts.
I am totally pro choice regarding abortion, and I think that clinics like Dignitas do a marvellous job of helping people who are in their darkest hour and want to approach their death with dignity.
Geoffrey however, is not really concerned with that. If he were, I wouldn’t be writing about him. Here is what the BBC News website has to say about Geoffrey’s views:
He calls for a national debate and an urgent government review of the NHS, which he says “risks becoming unaffordable in the future”.
The review should look at “compulsory abortion when the foetus is detected as having Down’s, spina bifida or similar syndrome which, if it is born, could render the child a burden on the state as well as on the family”.
He says the review should also look at medical treatment for those aged over 80, “which is disproportionately costly to the NHS” and might also include “legalising euthanasia and giving free euthanasia advice to all folk over 80”.
I would normally, having read something like this on a news site, pop over to the person in question’s website to make sure he is not being misquoted or maligned. Unfortunately, I cannot quite bring myself to do that in case I commit random acts of violence against people called Geoffrey. I am sure the Beeb have made what he has to say more, not less palatable.
I have checked out the story on other news sites, and read lots of comments, none of which seem to disagree with what I have put here.
There are lots of things that make me angry about this man and his views.
Firstly that he wishes to introduce compulsory abortion.
Someone in one of the comments I read said: ‘This is like eugenics.’ This is not ‘like’ eugenics, this is eugenics.
The Nazis were very enthused about eugenics.
That does not strike hope into the hearts of men.
Basically, Geoffrey is advocating that we get rid of any person who does not fit a specified ideal of health. In his manifesto he singles out those people with spina bifida and Downs’ syndrome or any other ‘syndrome’, which is a nice catch all for things he doesn’t know about yet but will clearly not approve of.
I think his proposition is indefensible at all levels. I do not know how you can classify people with spina bifida or Down’s syndrome or any other ‘syndrome’ as unworthy of life in the first place, let alone after a summer in which we celebrated as a nation and across the globe the glories of the most magnificent paralympics in history.
Which, if Geoffrey had his way, would never have happened because there would be nobody left to compete in it.
Where does he stop with his list of people who are not quite up to scratch, the ones he considers not human enough to be human? The Nazis were keen on blonde haired, blue eyed people as being the best ones to engineer as the master race. What would we end up with if we let Geoffrey the chartered accountant sort out our genetic heritage I wonder?
Then I shudder.
I do not think the word compulsory and the word abortion belong together. Why should we take away a woman’s choice? We have spent so long fighting for a woman’s right to have a choice, to start limiting that choice again is just plain wrong in my opinion.
I am not discounting the man’s choice either by the way. I am just prioritising the woman’s choice because she is the one who has to carry the baby, and go through whatever medical procedures need to be endured either to carry that baby to term or end the life of that child.
If I am carrying a child, that child is MY child, and unless a random act of God takes that child away from me, it is MY choice what happens to that child, not yours Geoffrey, or any one of your soulless, grey, spirit sucking accountant friends.
Geoffrey does not say how he feels about the fact that testing for Down’s syndrome and spina bifida, and other genetic problems is not always accurate, and that there is a not uncommon chance that children who would be perfect worker bees might be accidentally aborted. You think he would be quite keen on this kind of thing because there are statistics and measurable numbers to support this margin of error.
Geoffrey does not say how he feels about the fact that people who have children with these syndromes do not think of their children as a worthless drain on society, much less a burden to their family.
Nor do I, and nor do most right thinking people I know. We see them as what they are, human beings, with an equal right to life and the right to our respect. We see them as our children, no more or less precious than our able bodied children. We see them as our brothers or sisters. We see them as our grand children and our pupils. We see them as our husbands or wives. We see them giving something we cannot to the rich tapestry that makes up the diversity of human life on this planet, and we realise that without them, our lives would be poorer, greyer, and sadder.
The crux of Geoffrey’s argument, both for compulsory abortion and for euthanising the elderly has nothing to do with compassion and everything to do with cash.
Geoffrey has come up with this marvellous scheme because he is worried about the tax payer’s hard earned money.
If we euthanised our elderly population, and if we aborted all of the children we think might be defective before they are born, think of all the money we can save, is what Geoffrey is saying.
While we’re at it Geoffrey, why don’t we euthanise all the chronically obese people, the smokers, the anorexics, the alcoholics, the drug addicts and all of those with mental health problems as well?
Then we’d have even more money to spare.
I have a better suggestion.
Let’s start with the chartered accountants called Geoffrey.