Why are they doing this in Scotland?

Doesn’t Norfolk need it more?

A bid to change incest laws so they no longer apply to consenting adults over the age of 21 is to be considered by MSPs.

Or have they already changed the law in Norfolk?

Or perhaps, more likely, the law against it hasn’t quite reached Norfolk after a couple of millennia.

37 thoughts on “Why are they doing this in Scotland?”

  1. So Much For Subtlety

    What the f**k is wrong with these people?

    It is a good thing life in Glasgow is so perfect that there is no other business for this set of Toy Town Clowns to be dealing with.

  2. So the finest legal brains in Scotland never managed to spot a loophole that allows a bloke in Australia to dictate what the Scottish Parliament must debate?

  3. I’m pretty much of the “bad idea” here. I don’t generally like the state having laws and choosing when to use them, but this is the sort of place where it applies. Kids feel a certain loyalty to their parents, which is why child sexual abuse by parents is so utterly wicked. A lot of 21 year old women that are having sex with their fathers would testify in court that it was consensual, even when it wasn’t. Most sibling incest is abusive.

    On the other hand, there are genuine brother-and-sister relationships out there that I think, other than the resulting offspring, aren’t actually damaging (most notably, children separated at birth). So, while you have the option to prosecute, maybe make a judgement that no-one’s really being harmed in those cases.

  4. Well, there’s no logical reason why it should be illegal, but I doubt they’ll legalise it. The basis of objections, as with bestiality, is basically the Argument From Squick. But if that were valid, we’d still be banging up gays.

    Daresay Ironman will soon arrive on his tin horse of moral righteousness to put me straight though.

  5. @IanB, no logical reason?

    Because it’s a can of worms.
    What do you do about offspring? Forbid them? OK, so explain how that works? Mandatory sterilisation, or abortions. Or a policeman to go and check that the condom is put on properly?

  6. The law doesnt prevent family members fucking (if the laws was legal who here would start fucking a relative???) therefore I would remove it on grounds of redundancy.

  7. Ben-

    It’s not as if we don’t make all manner of intrusive laws. Come to that, how do you police incest itself? Put a policeman in every bedroom? Rape? Hmm, that’s rather difficult to police too.

    Anyhoo; practicalities and principles are different things. You start with the principle, then deal with the practicalities.

  8. It would seem that Scots have run out of ponies to shag and are turning on their own daughters. Or is that just what the Scottish Parliament wants me to think for some arcane reason of its own? Or, again, is it that several MSPs are incestuous? Where is Scotland’s Tom Watson when he’s needed?

  9. Why oh why is precious parliamentary time and resource used up in looking at issues that affect, my guess, just over a handful of people. At worst, we end up with one or two offspring who are even more demented porridge wogs than is the norm up here.

    We should be looking at wider issues of consanguinity involving much greater numbers, such as inter-cousin marriage in the south east Asian community.

  10. Roue – nah, this seems to just be a creepy weirdo trying to persuade people his creepy weirdoness should be legal.

    He’s not even Scottish, just seems to have spotted an opportunity to get attention.

    Let a thousand weirdos bloom.

  11. BraveFart,

    > “We should be looking at wider issues of consanguinity involving much greater numbers, such as inter-cousin marriage in the south east Asian community.”

    Exactly. Steve Sailer explained this a long time ago:

    In Iraq, as in much of the region, nearly half of all married couples are first or second cousins. […] By fostering intense family loyalties and strong nepotistic urges, inbreeding makes the development of civil society more difficult. […] And the engine at the bottom of these bedeviling social divisions is the oft-ignored institution of cousin marriage.

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/cousin-marriage-conundrum/

    The consenting adults defence is fine when there are no wider effects on society; but it’s clear that cousin marriage has a deleterious effect on society, and therefore should always be illegal.

  12. I’m with the Free Kirk Moderator here. Slippery slopes and all that.

    First they make it legal, then they make is compulsory.

    Sassenach blood impurities.Out! Out¨Out!

  13. So the finest legal brains in Scotland never managed to spot a loophole that allows a bloke in Australia to dictate what the Scottish Parliament must debate?

    Jesus wept, you’re right. These clowns wanted to run their own country…

  14. The basis of objections, as with bestiality, is basically the Argument From Squick.

    Nah, that’s an argument around consent. If the sheep could say “lemme have it, Taffy” then people would probably be prepared to turn a blind eye. Which they do already anyway, of course. Otherwise half of New Zealand would be in jail, writing to their mates in HMP Swansea.

  15. “The consenting adults defence is fine when there are no wider effects on society; but it’s clear that cousin marriage has a deleterious effect on society, and therefore should always be illegal.”

    You do realise that you’re slagging off centuries-and-then-some time-honoured european tradition? In both high and low society?
    Careful where you point your finger….

  16. Grikath,

    I’m perfectly happy to slag off the past. Whether it was burning witches or marrying cousins, a lot of things our forebears did can quite easily be viewed as morally wrong today.

  17. Bloke in Costa Rica

    Grikath, we got the War of the Spanish Succession out of that tradition. Not the highest of recommendations.

  18. So are we agreed then that there is no valid moral objection to consensual non-reproductive incest?

    Oh, and should we deny reproductive rights to people with bad genes? The Eugenics thing?

  19. Ian, if you can conclusively and accurately tell me what a “bad gene” is, I might consider pondering over a theory that was conceived in the time where the Learned Gentlemen hadn’t even a clue to what a gene actually was, where they were located, and how the mechanisms governing them worked.

  20. So Much For Subtlety

    Ian B – “So are we agreed then that there is no valid moral objection to consensual non-reproductive incest?”

    I am not. A change in the law is not a change in the law. It will flow through to a change in society as a whole. Look at the laws on gambling, abortion, homosexuality and divorce. So you are not merely validating non-reproductive incest. You will be validating a lot more. Quite what I am not sure. Presumably the normalisation of incest. Suppose that a father raises a child to feel intense guilt for all the sacrifices the father has made. Which can only be paid off one way.

    Should that be a crime?

    And of course by “adult” you mean a 16 year old.

    “Oh, and should we deny reproductive rights to people with bad genes? The Eugenics thing?”

    I have yet to see a good argument against it that is not based on theology.

  21. The problem with the eugenics thing is usually who gets to decide and what is defined as bad.
    Suggest watching the film Gattaca for an interesting take on the genetics good bad thing.

  22. SFMS same challenge for you… define “bad gene” , conclusively and accurately..

    Incidentally.. There’s a solid scientific answer to why Eugenics as a concept would not work, for humans at least. It’s taught in oecology, particularly population dynamics.
    Quite a lot of the basic theory and math is stuff that Tim would probably recognise instantly.

  23. It could just be a masterful example of trolling the Scottish Parliament, after all the UK parliment can be forced to have a debate on banning Trump from the country.

  24. So Much For Subtlety

    Bloke not in Cymru – “The problem with the eugenics thing is usually who gets to decide and what is defined as bad.”

    We should let our Social Democratic cousins in Sweden decide:

    Medical if a pregnancy could seriously put a woman suffering from chronic illness or permanently weakened constitution at risk of life and health.
    Eugenisk indication meant sterilisation could be done if a person’s offspring would receive undesired genes for insanity, severe illness or physical handicap of other kind.
    Social indication allowed sterilisation for someone evidently unsuitable to foster a child due to mental illness, being feebleminded or other distortion of the psyche, or having an asocial lifestyle.

    I do like that asocial lifestyle. If I supported that sort of thing, it would work for me anyway.

    “Suggest watching the film Gattaca for an interesting take on the genetics good bad thing.”

    Except the film is so disgustingly dishonest. Like Elysium. The genetically superior were in fact genetically superior. Jerome has superior physical and it is strongly suggested psychological traits. Vincent does not. He just really really wants to go into space. Why should his want trump every other consideration? Including the safety of his crew mates? If the film was honest it would show Vincent having a fatal heart attack while in the middle of some mission critical task which killed everyone else.

    Grikath – “same challenge for you… define “bad gene” , conclusively and accurately..”

    I am not sure I have to. However we do know that haemophilia is transmitted on the X chromosome in the normal course of events. We could trivially insist that every woman related to someone with the disease is required to screen her eggs before using IVF or has in utero testing.

    It may be in the normal evolutionary history of mankind that haemophilia will turn out to be useful for something. But I can’t think of anything off hand.

    But suppose we sterilise the “asocial”. That is a strong incentive not to be asocial. Even if it is not, we can be fairly sure that asocials will disappear in a generation or two. It has a dual effect both social and genetic. Leaving, of course, the population like the Swedes – unable to defend themselves as they are reduced to slavery.

  25. BniC
    Could be. Wouldn’t surprise me if there isn’t a faction that aims to Outdo the UK parliament no matter what…. 😉

  26. SMFS, “I am not sure I have to.”

    Well yes.. Of course you do. Haemophilia and other easily noticeable defects aside ( Which wouldn’t work anyway, since about 30% of the cases of the two most common types involve fresh mutations.. That’s *huge* in any kind of genetics..) , are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to expression of genotype into phenotype.
    Quite a lot, if not the majority of “traits” , if they have a scientifically provable genetic base to begin with, are not governed by a single gene at all, but either by multiple genes in tandem, competitive, or a cascade, or have a strong emergent component in their expression, making it impossible to point at any given “gene” ( nowadays Transcribable Sequence, because..Stuff..) and say “This causes That.”
    And that’s for purely physical processes.. For intellectual/mental “traits” the process is complicated by the fact that actual brain development past the basic layout is very strongly influenced by physical emergent factors which have nothing to do with genetics at all. And that’s just prenatal. We haven’t even started on Nurture yet..

    So effectively, it’s impossible to use modern genetics as the basis for any kind of “population improvement” , because except for a number of relatively rare occurrences involving single-gene mutations with a clear inheritance, you cannot scientifically state which gene can and will provide a desired or undesired trait to begin with.
    Which also means you cannot begin to write it into any form of program backed by law. You simply do not have the necessary data.

    You can, of course, just use Ideology and go ahead anyway… Select a large group of people fitting your “requirements”, and apply the Breeders’ Handbook for Guineapigs using all the tricks, including “reïnforcement” for guaranteed quick results. Which would mean your first stable lines would be around G4-5, never mind the “culls”.
    Which in human generation terms would amount to about a century…
    During which you must provide the stability to enact some really impopular measures on your population.. Better train your population as warriors as well.. And keep a tight rein on everything.. And find a way to stop society from changing in an ever-changing world..

    Hmm.. the only current nation who would possibly fit the requirements would be North Korea. If they don’t starve first.

  27. So Much For Subtlety

    Grikath – “Well yes.. Of course you do. Haemophilia and other easily noticeable defects aside ( Which wouldn’t work anyway, since about 30% of the cases of the two most common types involve fresh mutations.. That’s *huge* in any kind of genetics..)”

    Well no, I don’t think I do. You are asking for very restrictive examples. Even if we do not know a specific gene, that doesn’t mean that a programme would be pointless. That is an estimate that might be designed to cover up other things but even so a reduction of 70% is not trivial.

    “For intellectual/mental “traits” the process is complicated by the fact that actual brain development past the basic layout is very strongly influenced by physical emergent factors which have nothing to do with genetics at all. And that’s just prenatal. We haven’t even started on Nurture yet..”

    We think. We are not sure. And yet there is a body of work out there that asserts the Ashkenazi Jewish community has been breeding for intelligence. As have the Chinese. Their communities rewarded young boys who could pass the exams or become a Rabbi with lots of wives and hence lots of children. The result is that they are a standard deviation smarter than White Europeans on average. So it may be complicated. It is not impossible.

    “So effectively, it’s impossible to use modern genetics as the basis for any kind of “population improvement” , because except for a number of relatively rare occurrences involving single-gene mutations with a clear inheritance,”

    So apart from these examples you do not want to talk about …..

    “you cannot scientifically state which gene can and will provide a desired or undesired trait to begin with.”

    As yet.

    “Hmm.. the only current nation who would possibly fit the requirements would be North Korea. If they don’t starve first.”

    Actually we are living in a world that is both dysgenic and eugenic. The government encourages the dysgenic births by rewarding the feckless. The market rewards the smart and intelligent and they tend to have more children. We are, in our post-Christian world, creating a market for young fertile women who gravitate to men like Trump. All we need to do is stop punishing men so severely for divorce and richer men will be having a lot more children. Look at Rupert Murdoch – he is up to six children by now isn’t he?

  28. Why would anyone try to bath a cat – They’re self-cleaning?
    P’raps Ian B’s cat isn’t a cat.

  29. I had to do it once when she came in with her back covered in oil off a car. I still have the scars.

    By the way, there appears to be a trade off in terms of human selective breeding. Brainy nerds tend not to be noted for their physical prowess.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *