Responsibility necessarily goes hand in hand with rights and forms the basis for accountability – it is inseparable from those things which all people regardless of political ilk must surely agree are the cornerstones of civil society.
Despite the attitude of the addict or the swindler, our responsibility is not only to ourselves, but to kith and kin also.
Conversely, despite the insistence of the social justice activist or the Socialist, the care of the individual is not the responsibility of government or institutions inherently.
Whatever the mechanism or goal, the manifest result we see played out on the world stage again and again is deferral.
The tendency to play fast and loose with the attribution of responsibility regarding both persons and institutions is a topic which caught my attention when watching the evening news a fortnight ago, and has demanded to be returned to sporadically as stories have come and gone from the media landscape between then and now.
Almost a week ago, US President Trump announced via Twitter that people with Gender Dysphoria (you know, the mental disorder) should be barred from serving in any capacity in the US military.
The predictable reaction was the raising of screeching voices across the West in protest.
It was suggested by some that instead money should be diverted from the treatment of Erectile Dysfunction (ED) and funnelled into the various (often ineffective) therapies required for transgender people to serve.
Of course, ED is a symptom of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder which is picked up by many as a result of their experiences at war – so the suggestion of cutting funding for the treatment of ED in favour of trans therapies is to say that the treatment of a pre-existing mental disorder should be prioritised in the military budget above a disorder which is the direct result of service.
It was also said by many that transgender people have an actual right to serve, implying a responsibility on the part of the military to both care for, as well as allow themselves to be potentially encumbered by them.
Let’s be clear: no one has a right to join the armed forces, such a thing is a privilege and requires the individual to be scrutinised to ensure that they will cope well in the high pressure situations they are sure to encounter during their service.
For instance, in my country you must present paperwork to the effect that you have been depression free for at least a year prior to entrance into the military if you have suffered from depression in the past.
In short: the public has a clear responsibility to pay for the treatment of mental health issues acquired while in their service, but none beyond that, and the military has absolutely no responsibility to harbour the unstable or inferior among their ranks.
Of course, the President has paid the price for taking away the precious rights of this notoriously noisy and entitled minority – with one disturbed authoritarian ex-military trans making implicit threats against the Commander in Chief:
“Let’s meet face to face and you tell me I’m not worthy.” – Chris Beck (he now calls himself Kristin).
This constant framing of everything in terms of worth and right is typical of the narcissism which is symptomatic of many mental ills, and should not be considered surprising in the case of Gender Dysphoria patients.
President Donald Trump has potentially saved US troops from seeing their lives put at risk by becoming reliant on 15,000 of the mentally unstable.
I believe this debacle sheds light on a more pressing phenomenon: the pushing of the mentally disordered towards such institutions, and the pathological need therein to see them as equal in capability to any normal citizen must surely demonstrate the ultimate refusal of the community and families of these sick individuals to do what is required in such cases – instead choosing to bolster delusion and pander to unreality (to take the easy option).
But what of those left who still believe in the old way of things?
What of those occasional people who value family and take the health and concerns of their kin as their own?
What of those who consider it the business of the family to nurture, sustain and protect in ways that no institution ever could?
We British (along with many further afield) were forced to face these questions while watching the very public and controversial case of the now deceased Charlie Gard unfold.
Charlie Gard passed away on 28 July following a long court battle.
Charlie Gard, who regrettably passed away on 28 July, had suffered from Mitochondrial Depletion Syndrome (a degenerative genetic illness causing muscle weakness and brain damage) during his life which fell just a fortnight short of a year.
After a court battle drawn out over months, Charlie’s parents Chris and Connie finally withdrew their appeal that they might take their son to America to pursue experimental treatment not available in Britain due to the length of proceedings and the worsening of the condition during that time.
The slim chance of effectiveness that the treatment across the Atlantic offered (perhaps 10% at best) has been widely discussed, but many traditionalists have concerned themselves less with the virtue of treatment as with the question of the parents right to pursue it.
Relatively little was asked of the British State – only that loving parents might take their son elsewhere and seek treatment at their own expense, and with the support of millions, notable among them Pope Francis and the US President.
The £1.3 million required for the treatment across the pond had been raised by voluntary donation through a crowdfunding scheme, and if nothing else served to show that the will of many was that the boy should be allowed a chance.
Indeed, all that was asked was that the business of family should be left to the family in question.
Alas, both UK and EU courts saw fit to deprive the parents of Charlie Gard of that most basic urge to protect their son and pursue his well-being to the end.
Whatever your view on the situation, it cannot be denied that this most public of cases has thrown up serious questions in the minds of the majority as to what the function of the State should be in relation to the family – and regarding our topic of responsibility, where responsibility to the next generation lies and whether what was once assumed to be the sacrosanct domain of the parent has been violated, or at least encroached upon in our pursuit of medical ethics.
Perhaps an even larger area of concern for Europeans when it comes to the responsibility of the State towards citizens is the issue of protection, borders and the prevention of cultural degradation.
On the evening of Tuesday 25 July, a 14-year-old girl was attacked at a train station in Birmingham, England.
She was raped by her two assailants, before flagging down a vehicle in an attempt to seek safety and procure a ride home.
She was then raped for a second time by the driver of the vehicle.
Khurram Rahi is accused of raping a 14-year-old girl.
One ‘man’, 27-year-old Khurram Rahi has been charged and remanded in custody as one of the perpetrators of the first rape, while his 35-year-old suspected accomplice has been released as investigations continue.
The third degenerate has yet to be identified.
The perpetrator of the second violation has been described by Police as another Asian man – something I’m sure will come of little surprise to readers.
Again I ask: whose responsibility is the protection of our young women in the face of such brutality at the hands of foreigners?
A mere three days after the Birmingham atrocities, in Hamburg one 50-year-old German citizen was stabbed to death by an Arab shouting “Allahu Ackbar”, and a further six people wounded.
The 26-year-old murderer from the United Arab Emirates was reportedly known to security forces as an Islamist, and was due to be deported but lacked the required identifying documents.
“Suddenly I saw a man smeared with blood running along the other side of the road with a knife.”
While this may appear to some to be a one-off extreme example of foreign crime in Germany, I assure you it is not.
Since accepting tens of thousands of so-called ‘refugees’ into German towns and cities, the German people have been plagued by uncommonly high numbers of terror plots, drug dealing, debauchery and perhaps most disturbing, an epidemic of rape and sex crimes.
Of course, this epidemic has befallen much of Europe, and many like myself have come to view it as the result of the ultimate deferral of responsibility: the denial of protection from the State, men or societies at large across much of our continent.
Even as I write, the news has broken that four Swedish girls aged between 15-17 were raped and a further 18 women sexually assaulted last week at a music festival in Småland, Sweden.
Although Swedish authorities declined to describe the suspects, only a fool would expect anything other than a group of drug addled young migrant men of Arab or African origin.
The response of some Swedish Feminists to the 1,000% increase in sex attacks at music festivals in the country in 2016 has been to blame men in general and to propose that men not be allowed to participate in festivals as either attendees or performers.
This marks yet further deferral of responsibility: the refusal to accept the consequences of poor border and immigration policy, and instead the leap into ideological denial and scapegoating verging on the slanderous.
How many more times will Europe have to be warned?
Aside from the common trend to lump European men of good character in with the sex-mad migrant horde, our shared attitudes towards responsibility in Europe – to our countries, to our Nations and to the next generation to whom we leave all that is ours (should it remain) is decidedly in need of re-evaluation.
Not for obligation, or because we are compelled – certainly, the easiest thing would be to continue down the winding path of deferral and retreat into hippy hedonism, ideology and the denial of our familial bonds to one another – but because without strong men and women who take responsibility gladly for all that they have and create for their own, what Europe will there be in years to come; and what terrible responsibility will we leave to the young?
God only knows.
Mine is the first generation that will have to work more than the previous to achieve a lower standard of living, and in countries less safe and less self assured than they ever were in the past.
However, the prospect of what will be the inheritance of the generations beyond my own may be far graver should these issues remain largely ignored and glossed over.