Kaz Hubertz

From SkepticalVoter
Jump to: navigation, search

Kaz Hubertz was an Independent Parliamentary candidate in 2010 campaigning for the for Cardiff Central seat, and receiving support from Jury Team. However, shortly after the election was called, he was involved in a traffic accident and withdrew from the race in order not to harm his recovery[1].

Skeptical Voter Questionnaire Response

1. Do you support the use of NHS money to provide unproven health products such as homeopathy?

As far as I know there is no evidence for this having any more efficiency than the placebo effect (which I have read has reached upto 80% effectiveness) so I would be happier funding research into recreating the palcebo effect until it can be produced 99.95% of the time. However, my opinion is not as important as that of the voting majority. As an MP I firmly believe my job would be as a civil servant who simply conveys the message from my constituents to parliament/assembly. All of my answers have to put the views of the democratic majority first since the desire for a fairer free democratic system is the reason I am standing for election.

2. Should schools be allowed to teach creationism as an equivalent theory to evolution?

I personally would say absolutely not, and thankfully this is not the USA so I am pretty sure that the democratic majority here are much more sane in their beliefs (OEC, and ID) than a significant number in the USA. In other words as long as we keep encouraging a high level of scientific education in our schools I don't think it is an issue we will ever have to worry about in this country.

3. Do you believe that religious belief should be legally protected from ridicule?

Yes, everyone should be protected from ridicule within reason, because some people have emotional conditions similar to that of a child. And I am sure this is also the view of the democratic majority.

4. Should an independent government adviser whose views in their area of expertise conflict with government policy be able to express those views publicly?

Absolutely, again I am sure I share this view with the democratic majority.

5. Should religious courts such as Sharia and Beth Din be recognised as alternative systems within UK law?

For those who want them, especially in the case of marriage, as long as the over-riding law is that of the state. I see their authority as being equal only to arbitration service, eligible only to decide on something for example like a divorce settlement only when both parties have already decided beforehand that in the case of dispute they would abide by the decision of the religious court. However, they should be allowed the right to ignore the decision and go to a secular court for a decision if they choose and once they do so they should never be allowed to use the religious court ever again. I mean to say that once they are out of their religion by action then they should be legally considered to not belong to that religion any more. I think the democratic majority would agree that this is both logical and fair, and prevents hypocrites from taking the Michael so to speak :)

6. Do you agree that testing on animals (within strict criteria) is a necessary part of the development of medicines?

Yes, sadly. The needs of the many have always outweighed the needs of the few. Animals are to be respected all the more for their service to mankind in this way. Since the scars on our arms show all of us have been saved from small pox as a result of this testing we all either need to be in agreement or accept that we are hypocrites. I am not a hypocrite so despite my personal feelings I have to agree for the sake of logic.

7. Should policy-makers trust scientific evidence even when it appears counter-intuitive?

Depends upon whether it is beyond any shadow of doubt or not. If the evidence really is compelling and conclusive and all scientific research agrees on the issue then I would say absolutely yes. However, my opinion is not important, as in a democracy it is what the vast majority want which is all important or we would become an oppressive regime. You can not force a society to take a medicine when it is not ready to take the medicine, that is oppressive. So I am more in favour of educating the masses so that they can want policies which will be best for our society.

8. Do you think that abortion time limits should always be determined by the current scientific and medical consensus?

With something as sensitive as killing another potential human, I beieve opinions from the social sciences are more important than medical. It seems to me that whatever would be the social norm must be taken into consideration first of all. However, I really don't know anything about the topic, other than that if Beethoven's mother was carrying him today she would probably have been encouraged to abort him and the world would be all the worse for not hearing his Ode to Joy. I have also read that many autistic people would have been aborted, eugenics is something I am very opposed to. So to re-iterate I think the social sciences need to hold sway here, and by doing so we also preserve democracy.

9. Should religious leaders be entitled to vote in the House of Lords?

I suppose as long as they have the equivalent appropriate noble title, but shouldn't the real question be whether the house of lords really serves any purpose? This is a constitution issue which is really pie in the sky right now and sadly does not have much to do with democracy either way, much more important is the next question.

10. Do you support the reform of English and Welsh libel law to allow a stronger 'public interest' defence?

I know that libel law is having a gagging effect n scientific enquiry, so I would like to see whatever changes are necessary to allow scientific enquiry to be free from fear in this respect. I am sure that the democratic majority would also agree.

References

  1. http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=110736492294150&id=364585151916

External Links