Script - EUDC 2011 GF: THBT the state should pay reparations to women PM

Debate Videoのscriptを貼ろうとしたら、はてなブログは写真？以外貼れないそうなので、しょうがないのでテキストを貼ろうかなと思います。

EUDC 2011 GF: THBT the state should pay reparations to women.

PM: Ben Woolgar (Oxford A)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNiwqi0qnDU

It was not that long ago that liberal democracies behaved and acted as though they were composed of fifty percent citizens and fifty percent women, and perpetrated absolutely appalling injustices based on that claim. We think that in the same way states now apologize and pay reparations for all sorts of past injustices, they should now also do so for the greatest injustice perpetrated against half of their people. (毎回思うけど、introがイケメンだな。)

Four things at opening government.  Firstly very briefly, what were the injustices and how the state perpetrated them? Secondly, why past injustice links to women today and why they should identified as the group of benefits. Third, why the state, and especially men, should have to pay for those injustices.  And fourthly, why this does compensate women.

このサインポストは完璧。Motionの、特にcompensationのburdenを超理解している。

理由として、今回のモーションはStateが今現代を生きる女性たちに「補償」として何かをあげるってモーションじゃけど、その一部は過去行ってきた差別に対しての補償をするってことよね。でもそれを過去の(すでに生きていない)女性ではなく現代の女性にあげるので、なんで過去の差別と現代の女性が関係があるかを証明しないといけない。またこれはつまり、誰かがお金を払う必要があるんよね。当然それは男性になるんじゃけど、男性からすると「そもそも何で俺らが払わにゃならんの？俺らの所有権は？」っていう風になるので、それもargumentとして潰さないといけない。かつ男性から金をパクって「補償」として女性に回すわけだから、これまでの差別としてのハームが補償される、女性の生活がその分豊かになるってのを言わないといけない。これに答えたのが、上記のサインポスト。

Briefly what are we standing to do? Solve two problems.  First of all, to repay the debt that the state owes for past injustices and things done in the past. Secondly, to help them cut the legacy that means women today are still worse off.

In terms of our model, what do we say? We don’t think  we are going to give you precise numbers that is exactly how these reparations should be. We imagine that varies from state to state. That can be determined by tribunals. We now follow our model pay gap plus. That is to say, we will give all women lump sum payments on a fairly regular basis to compensate both for the pay gap and also for past injustices as determined by courts. We think we hold this debate about the broad principle of whether or not these reparations are good and just thing. We are also going to accompany this with an apology. Do we contend that all women are necessarily made worse off today by being women?  No, but we do contend that a very large number of them are made significantly worse off even if feminism has made some advances. For that reason, we are going to compensate as best we can.(このcourtが決めるってのはdefinitionでよく使う便利な方法。例として、何かの決まった金額や刑罰の際の刑期とかは設定が無理だから、stateやexpert、courtが決めますってdefinitionにする)

So what were the injustices we are talking about?  Two kind of things.

Firstly, injustices perpetrated by society, where the state failed to intervene. We are thinking about all kinds of discrimination against women: discrimination in the workplace, discrimination that they weren’t allowed to go into educational institutions and into the professions. Where the states failure to insist all of its citizen ought to be treated equally meant that women were made completely worse off.

But secondly we say the state also perpetrated some very specific injustices itself by passing certain laws which materially disadvantaged women. It was not that long ago that in France, it was only in 60s that women were given full voting rights. We also think things like marital property laws acted in the concrete way for state to disadvantage women.

Why do those past injustices link to modern women?  Two broad reasons.

Firstly, we want to say that identity ought to be considered in all of our basic political calculations. Why is that? Well firstly, because we think states shouldn’t stop caring about injustices just because they stopped perpetrating it. What we say is that women today are the very closest thing we can find to repay for part of injustices perpetrated in the past. More than that though, we think given that all individuals treat identity as a basic constituent of ways they behave in society that people conceive themselves differently according to whether or not they are male or female, that always has to enter into our political calculations. No thank you

But more than that, we say the second reason that these things ought to enter in, that the past injustices link to modern women is that they can continue to be disadvantaged by those practices. Why? A few reasons. Firstly, because they were not involved in most cases in the way the basic social structures were established, those structures continue to disadvantage women. We are thinking of things like the fact that capitalist system contains working day which makes it very difficult for women to reconcile potential child care responsibilities with also going out to work. We also think issues of self perception. The fact if the state made our mother or grandmother internalize image of herself that she wasn’t supposed to go out and work, that may well continue to reverberate down to women today. And finally wider social perceptions were also affected by those past injustices and continue to be perpetrated.

(POI)(マイクないため内容が不明。まぁPOIの返し的に、弱者と認定するからより差別が助長するんじゃね？みたいなありがちな内容かと推測。)

Okay, well, my final point is going to be about why this makes women concretely better off. But at the very least we say, all of those things we currently introduce laws to do. Nothing else our policy suggests we are going to stop also trying to prevent present injustice. Hugh will talk about that a bit more.

So, secondly, why should the state and specifically men be forced to pay? Two reasons.

The first one is that they continue to benefit in a very real sense from the past injustices I’ve just described.  Firstly that is just about  just logical correlative of the argument I’ve just made, which is women were made worse off by these structures, somebody will presumably be being made better off. We suggest that is men.

But more importantly, we also want to suggest, the moral debts are not kind of things that the state can cast off just because the people who were involved in those injustices, some of them may no longer be with us. Why is that?

Well, there’s no point at which one generation becomes another generation on which we can say that that was just passed through people, we are not there. Rather what we say is that, because the state is the locus of our collective moral actions as a society, we have to use it to apologize for past injustices. In particular, we say people cannot pick and choose their histories and which part of the state they choose to be proud of. If they are going to engage with present day states which are bounded on equal set of histories including establishment of land and political institutions, they also have take on moral burdens when those past justices are perpetrated by those institutions.

Finally, why this does compensate women?

Firstly, in broad financial terms, this is going to be a lot of money. It is going to close the pay gap. It’s going to do a lot more. With additional economic well-being, comes with the whole choices we think women are able to make in terms of their purchasing power, in terms of what they do with their lives. Now we don’t claim on the side of government that all injustice, it was necessarily financial or economic but nonetheless we are going to adapt the broad principles as we do in all sorts of other forms of law. We can sometimes compensate things using finance even when the damage wasn’t exclusive financial.

Lastly we suggest, our policy allows individual women to do things which reverse past injustices with the additional moneys they received. It allows them, for instance, to pay for childcare or to pay for additional education for themselves or their daughters. That allows them to be better off in the workplace.

Mr. Chair, ultimately this debate is about whether or not states consequently wash their hands of past injustices. This all male Gov team stands to apologize for those past injustices. It stands to recognize them and it stands do the right things by society as a whole and it is extremely proud to propose.

(Speech全体を通してだけど、Structureが素晴らしい。会長的に言うとブリリアントリーブリリアント。必ずAssertion(今回は疑問系が多い)の後にreasonのナンバリングが来て、その後にexample。これは日本人で英語のrhetricが得意じゃなくても真似できるから、言い方とかをぜひ真似して！！！多分このスピーチは日本人が最も参考にすべきで、かつ参考にできるスピーチだと思う。)