Personal rights : $b A presidential address delivered to the forty-first annual meeting of the Personal Rights Association on 6th June 1913

Transcriber’s Note
  Italic text displayed as: _italic_
  Bold text displayed as: =bold=




  PERSONAL RIGHTS:

  A PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS

  Delivered to the

  FORTY-FIRST ANNUAL MEETING

  of the

  PERSONAL RIGHTS ASSOCIATION,

  ON 6th JUNE, 1913,

  by

  MRS. MONA CAIRD.


  LONDON:
  THE PERSONAL RIGHTS ASSOCIATION,
  11, ABBEVILLE ROAD, LONDON, S.W.


  Price: ONE PENNY.




  PRINTED FOR THE PERSONAL RIGHTS ASSOCIATION,
  BY THE TOKIO PRINTING CO., READING & LONDON




MRS. MONA CAIRD

ON

PERSONAL RIGHTS.


LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:—I used to feel some impatience with public
speakers who spent half their speech in explaining how it was they had
committed the indiscretion of making it, and how much more suitable for
the post somebody else would have been.

Those gentlemen now have my profoundest sympathy!

I feel that I ought to spend not half, but my whole speech, in
explaining why I have the temerity to address you tonight on this
familiar subject, seeing that I never do speak in public, and that my
feelings about taking the chair are very much like they would be about
taking a cold plunge in the Atlantic in early spring.

However, I can’t get rid of my deficiencies by enumerating them, so I
must just throw myself on your mercy, asking you to regard this venture
as a tribute of admiration and gratitude to our President and his
supporters who have made so magnificent a defence of the Cause for so
many thankless years. Also I have felt moved to accept the honour on
account of the scarcity of wholehearted champions, especially—I regret
to hear—among the sex which has always been deprived of personal rights.

Perhaps that is just why they _are_ lacking in respect for them! And
what a warning this is! The spirit of liberty, it would appear, can
be starved to death. Society, having done its foolish best to destroy
that spirit in half its members, expects the other half to retain it
unimpaired—an obvious impossibility. For interaction of influence is
incessant and universal between the two sexes.

The career of women having depended not on right but on favour, they
have learnt to care little for an abstract idea which has no bearing
on their lives. Only the exceptional mind cares for that. But similar
conditions would assuredly produce the same result in men. And—we are
on our rapid way to similar conditions.

Now, in a vast subject like this, which really touches the heart of
everything that is vital and valuable in life, it is impossible, in
twenty-five minutes to deal with it in any detail; and I propose
tonight simply to dwell upon the perils with which we are all
threatened, in consequence of the present trend of sentiment. For we
have to try and make these perils obvious to the hearts as well as to
the minds of our contemporaries, if there is to be any hope of checking
the present downward tendencies.

It is of little use merely _stating_ that it is perilous to try
to purchase social benefits at the expense of individuals. To the
majority, that seems the safest thing in the world; and, strange to
say, the most just. The ancient idea of vicarious sacrifice is as
rampant today as it was when the groves of ancient temples echoed with
the cries of human victims, burnt on the altars, for the appeasement of
the gods and the good of the community.

The idea of _numbers_ enters largely into the popular idea of right and
wrong—what I call arithmetical morality. Because 100 is ten times more
than 10, it is assumed that ten _persons_ may justly be sacrificed for
the sake of the 100. But that is to confuse mere nonsentient signs with
living conscious beings; surely a strangely stupid proceeding. It is
this deeply-rooted idea which we have to combat.

First of all then, it must be noted, that, as a rule, the less liberty
people enjoy, the less they value or respect it. The preoccupation
will be not with liberty but with the best means of getting on without
it. And the best way of doing that will be—or will seem to be—to force
your own views as much as possible upon your neighbours—otherwise
they will force theirs upon _you_. Mutually lacking in respect for
liberty, there will be as many good reasons for attacking it in others
as you have theories to enforce. And the same for them. The situation
must obviously end in a stupendous tyranny of some kind: whether of
king or oligarchy or State: and that of the State, being practically
invulnerable, is the worst of all.

I am far from thinking that the motive for aggression would always be
self-interest. It would be less dangerous if it were. We all know the
deadly tyranny of the thoroughly well-meaning person: the highly-moral
person, for instance, who calls out for mediæval forms of punishment
for especially reprobated crimes. As some philosopher said: “He must
be an extraordinarily good man before he can safely be guided by his
conscience.” I go farther, and say: “The extraordinarily good man must
be trained for a lifetime by the Personal Rights Association before he
can trust his conscience—and even then he had better not!”

Of all human attributes, conscience, when backed by power over others,
seems to be the most dangerous. Think what martyr-fires it has lighted,
what torture-chambers it has furnished and kept busy! If we had only
self-interest to deal with, we should not be troubled with the present
ardent desire of increasing numbers of people, to further the interests
of Society—of morals, medicine, science—even what are called the true
interests of the individual himself, by progressive outrage against
him. It is this eternal “good motive” that makes our reformers as
irresistible as a swarm of locusts, and as destructive! The bravest of
us flinch before Virtue on the war-path.

Before they have done, our philanthropic locusts will have eaten off
every green blade and leaf of human initiative, and will leave the
Society which they so yearn to serve barren and blight-stricken,
perhaps for centuries to come. Of what value to any one is such a
Society? What in fact, _exists_, but individuals?

And mark: there is no retracing our steps if we go too far in this
direction. We are always assured that there would be a reaction against
a too great restriction of the human spirit. But that is true only so
long as the restriction is more or less a novelty and is _not_ too
great. Directly it becomes really extreme, there is no reaction. We can
see this in the innumerable nations of antiquity and of today which
have remained stagnant for hundreds and hundreds of years. Lack of
human rights tends progressively to stifle the spirit that would demand
or respect them. Even in England, whose history is that of the struggle
for liberty, we have seen how, in women, that spirit has been weakened.
How then are we to hope—after a too deep descent to Avernus—for a
return towards the light and inspiration of freedom? It is expecting a
result without a cause—or rather in the teeth of one.

Like Xerxes, stupidly confident, we burn our boats behind us. Or, more
accurately, Nature burns them for us. She seems to say: “Very well;
if you don’t want to give scope to original minds, you have only to
make your social conditions accordingly—subordinate your individual
ruthlessly to what you call ‘the common good’—and original minds will
never trouble you again. Not only will your organization suppress them,
but it will gradually destroy your power even to produce them. That
will save _them_ an immensity of trouble, and prevent all hitches in
your boring routine. If that’s what you want, it is easily yours.”

But our reformers _don’t_ exactly want that. They like to have it
both ways. They want a subservient, State-ridden community of highly
individualized human beings, who—like the inmates of Barry’s Home for
Geniuses—would initiate punctually and spontaneously to order—in the
approved direction, of course. No fantastic unexpected nonsense would
be tolerated for a moment!

The old pathetic story of Midas, whose wish—granted by the gods—that
everything he touched should turn to gold, seems vaguely symbolic
of this eager desire to turn living, initiating individuals into
subservient parts of a social Whole. It is possible to have a prayer
too completely answered, as poor Midas found, when his best cook’s
masterpieces became hard yellow metal under his teeth, till he starved
amidst fabulous riches; while his heart was finally broken when his
little daughter, running in to bid him good morning, was changed into a
priceless golden statue. Like Midas, our reformers are short-sighted.
Their eyes are so fixed on the Golden Age that they want to bring about
for humanity, that they forget that they may be killing humanity in the
process—the very spring and life-essence of the human material which
they—meddling little amateur deities—are trying so hard to make after
their own image.

Our philanthropists will find when too late, that they have turned
all that is living into hard, precious, valueless gold—the gold of a
mechanical social order—if the gods are cruel enough to grant their
foolish prayers!

I do not say that the day of awakening would never come. To China
and Japan for instance, it _has_ at last come—through _outside_ not
internal causes, be it noted. But think of the spell-bound, horrible
ages of night-mare-ridden sleep that went before!

Once upon a time in old Japan, a man was not allowed to give his
grandchild a doll measuring more than certain carefully prescribed
dimensions. The paternal Powers deemed moderation in dolls to be
desirable, and so curbed undue enthusiasm in grandparents by solemn
legislative measures. It is claimed by its admirers that the system
(whose nature we can gauge from this instance) worked admirably.
Probably it did. So does a regularly-wound clock.

As a matter of fact, the better the preposterous system worked, the
more fatally it would strangle its victims. Now it is this fact which
we all have to try to make clear to our opponents. Humanity growing
fat and prosperous on banquets of immolated individuals would be about
as disastrous a condition as one could well imagine. As a matter of
fact “Humanity”—a mere abstract term used for convenience of speech—has
been endowed by careless thinkers with a sort of divine self-existence;
and, like most divine beings, this new deity demands sacrifices. For
instance, the recent medical proposal to dissect criminals alive in the
interests of the Community—another collective-term fetish—reveals, in
typical form, the line of sentiment (I can scarcely call it thought)
against which we have to contend. I do not say that the majority would
not still be shocked at this proposal; but that is simply because it
has not yet become familiar. Once it does become familiar, the horror
will die away (think of the everyday atrocities which _have_ the public
sanction) and then—as there is no principle of personal rights to stand
between the proposed victim and the eager experimenter—the latter will
be allowed to take his long-coveted prize. He is already permitted to
take innocent, sentient creatures, on the plea of the public good; and
it is only carrying out the theory to its logical conclusion, to take
guilty ones for the same purpose. And on the same plea—like the lie,
“an ever present help in time of trouble”—the ordinary citizen will
probably follow, in due course. It is a question of time and sentiment,
not of principle.

Now is it quite impossible to awaken the public to the awful and
innumerable dangers which confront us all, as soon as the protection
of personal rights is withdrawn? Will not even this threat of human
vivisection reveal our utter defencelessness?

Can we not persuade our contemporaries to ask themselves if, for
instance, the apostles of eugenics have shrunk from _any_ measure,
however outrageous, which they thought promised the desired results?
Provided the end is gained, the individual must pay the price. It seems
to be thought unworthy of him to object. Thus he is placed at the
mercy of every wind and tide of popular opinion, or, what is worse,
at the mercy of the views of experts who naturally tend to think all
things lawful which benefit their particular branch of knowledge. If
vaccination is approved of, vaccinated the individual must be. If
Science demands human vivisection, he must submit even to that outrage.
On what principle, except that of personal rights, can the demand be
refused? The outrage _might_ result in valuable knowledge. Again, if
Society is obsessed by a crude and unproved theory of heredity, how
are we to resist interference with our marriages, or being treated as
hysterical, or feeble-minded, or degenerate, or insane? Genius and
originality generally seem pathological to the majority; and what the
end will be of this sort of old-Japanese system, considering its very
vigorous beginning, is not cheering to prophesy.

Unless its very absurdity causes a reaction before it is too late, we
shall find ourselves in the current of an evolution backwards to the
savage state, in which the individual is very like that foolish and
much overrated insect, the bee, hopelessly submerged in the social hive.

As originality is usually lodged in a peculiarly sensitive organism,
delicately responsive to conditions, it would tend to atrophy, as
plants do whose leaves and buds are persistently nipped off. No living
thing can stand the process long. It is one of the shallowest of
popular fallacies that genius always overcomes obstacles. It depends
on the obstacles and the kind of genius; or, more accurately, on the
ordinary qualities with which the genius happens to be accompanied. In
itself, genius is a handicap, not an aid, to outward success.

Now in the degenerating society which we are considering, its path
of descent is easy to trace. Observe the increasing tragedy of the
situation. As the strata of what I call Hive-heredity accumulate,
there is always a deeper and deeper soil of Hive-instinct out of which
each new generation has to spring. Is it not progressively unlikely,
therefore, that “sports” would appear? And if they did appear, at
lengthening intervals, would they not be handicapped by a strong
Herd-instinct, impregnably seated in that reservoir of inborn impulse
that we now call the “subconscious”?

The more one dwells on this principle of ours, the more its essential
truth and beauty and sanity is revealed. It is so gloriously universal
in its scope! Just in so far as man or animal can enjoy rights or
suffer wrongs, just so far we demand for him protection. We deem it
absurd and irrelevant to ask questions as to his faith or his morals,
or his “importance”; as to the number of his legs, or the nature of his
covering. It is obviously enough that he can _feel_.

We do not say: “He has no friends; let us make him suffer for our
good.” We say: “He is in our hands; therefore we are his guardians to a
man ... and woman!”

And as a result of this loyalty to the least of our brethren, we should
find—if we could but make it universal—that we had made impregnable our
one line of defence against innumerable dangers and evils—our Chatalga
lines, we might call them, of inalienable Personal Rights.

And in strengthening these for the protection of the humblest as well
as the greatest of our brethren, we render increasingly possible all
that makes life interesting, dramatic, and truly worth the living:
all adventures of the human spirit. A vista of possibilities is thus
opened which promises an enrichment in all the relations of life, an
enlargement of the range of consciousness, and therefore of progress,
to which we can actually set no limits.

Compare this with the unspeakable boredom of the hurdy-gurdy existence
of a State-dominated community!

Those who have been used all their lives to the atmosphere of
civilization, often do not realize how easily it can be destroyed. The
curious change that comes over educated persons who have lived long
in the backwoods, gives a hint of my meaning. As a rule, the man—or
woman—has in some way dwindled. The consciousness and comprehension
have narrowed, the perceptions are poorer, slower, less human. The
companioning element has almost gone, and one feels that the common
meeting-ground of civilized humanity has shrivelled almost to nothing.
And so one can but realize that a certain fine flower of the human
spirit—which might be still further glorified and developed—can, on
the other hand, be swiftly annihilated. Humanity, so to speak, loses
its level, like a traveller who has mistaken his way, and walks down
hill only to have to come up again, or else to resign himself to
remaining on the plains—he who had set out for the mountains!

Now, what if this be the reason that civilizations blossom only to
decay? I utterly disbelieve in the facile and misleading analogy of the
“social _organism_.”

Societies do indeed change, but they do _not_ go through an
exactly-repeated series of stages after the fashion of “organisms.”
It is quite unproved that there is any inherent “principle of decay.”
What, in fact, _is_ a principle of decay?

Now, it seems probable that one cause of decay is just this perpetual
losing of level. Like Penelope, humanity has always kept on undoing
its own work, and beginning all over again. And so our civilizations
naturally wither! And is this not, mainly, because we have never yet
learnt a true love of Liberty? Suppose for a moment, a universal
respect for it such as I have just been imagining: a society wherein
there was a real passion for protecting and liberating and giving
scope to the individual impulse and inspiration. Is it not almost
certain that this incessant loss of level—this destruction of previous
achievement would be avoided? And if it were—what is to prevent our
Traveller reaching the Mountains he set out for?




THE PERSONAL RIGHTS ASSOCIATION.

FOUNDED 14th MARCH, 1871.

_OFFICES: 11, ABBEVILLE ROAD, LONDON, S.W._


=President:=

Mr. FRANKLIN THOMASSON, J.P., Ex-M.P.

=Hon. Sec. and Treasurer=: Mr. J. H. LEVY.

=Assistant Secretary=: Mrs. LORENZA GARREAU.

=Bankers=: PARR’S BANK (CHARING CROSS BRANCH), LIMITED.


=OBJECT OF THE ASSOCIATION.=

The object of the Association is to uphold the principle of the perfect
equality of all persons before the law in the exercise and enjoyment of
their Individual Liberty within the widest practicable limits. It would
maintain government just so far as, but no farther than, is necessary
for the maintenance of the largest freedom; and, in applying this,
would have equal regard to the liberty of all citizens.


 =If you wish to join in this work, send a subscription to the Treasurer
 of the Association, at the above address; and the _Individualist_ and
 a copy of each of the pamphlets and leaflets issued by the Association
 will be sent to you, as issued, by post. Do not miss the opportunity
 of cooperating in this work—the breaking of the chains of oppression
 and the liberation of all the forces which work for happiness and
 human dignity.=

 =Cheques and Postal Orders should be crossed Parr’s Bank, Charing Cross
 Branch.=

 =Further information with regard to the Association may be obtained
 from=

  =(Mrs.) LORENZA GARREAU,
  _Assistant Secretary_.=




  Transcriber’s Notes

  pg 6 Changed: The old pathethic story of Midas
            to: The old pathetic story of Midas