| |
|
2. mars 2005
|
|
Harsh criticism of religion is banned in Australia:
The Australian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act of 2001 provides that "A person must not, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons engage in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons."
There's a defense for people who, among other things, are "reasonably and in good faith" engaging in "genuine academic, artistic, religious or scientific" commentary, or otherwise acting "in the public interest." But the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal held two months ago that this defense is available only to those who speak "reasonabl[y]" and who "honestly and conscientiously endeavour to have regard to and minimise the harm [the speech] . . . will . . . inflict," as opposed to "us[ing the freedom of speech] as a cover to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate people."
Pretty outrageous. I would assume that quite a bit of material in this blog, and in other blogs, could be illegal under this draconian measure.
Read the rest of Eugene's comments, too.
Religious people, like the rest of us, deserve to be offended from time to time. There is certainly enough in every religion to offend those outside it. Many religions, for example, proclaim that non-believers will be tortured in all eternity and deserve it. So why should the religious need or deserve to be protected from what they dish out?
Between the "hate-speech" legislating PC crowd on the left and the sexophobes on the right, freedom of speech is really under siege. What happened to the notion of just tolerating speech you disagree with, and rebut it if you can? Or just turn off that darned TV show you don't like?
9:16:06 PM 
|
|
Are scientists the result of nature or nurture? This Reuters headline gives us the surprising answer:
Scientists Are Made, Not Born - Fed Economists
It is news to me that scientists are made by being fed a steady diet of economists.
8:19:05 PM
|
|
Next in our 'eating crow' department we find The Guardian's Jonathan Freedland, inspired by Tony Blair's wise decision to not gloat over the democratic process in the Middle East, now admitting that there appears to be a silver lining in the Iraq war.
Even so, it cannot be escaped: the US-led invasion of Iraq has changed the calculus in the region. The Lebanese protesters are surely emboldened by the knowledge that Syria is under heavy pressure, with US and France united in demanding its withdrawal. That pressure carries an extra sting if Damascus feels that the latest diplomatic signals - including Tony Blair's remark yesterday that Syria had had its "chance" but failed to take it and Condoleezza Rice's declaration that the country was "out of step with where the region is going" - translate crudely as "You're next".
Similar thinking is surely at work in the decisions of Iran and Libya on WMD and Saudi Arabia and Egypt on elections. Put simply, President Bush seems like a man on a mission to spread what he calls the "untamed fire of freedom" - and these Arab leaders don't want to get burned.
This leaves opponents of the Iraq war in a tricky position, even if the PM is not about to rub our faces in the fact.
After arguing that this "side effect" does not justify the Iraq war post-facto, he issues a warning to war opponents who may be tempted to oppose the democratic revolution in the Middle East.
Second, we have to say that the call for freedom throughout the Arab and Muslim world is a sound and just one - even if it is a Bush slogan and arguably code for the installation of malleable regimes. Put starkly, we cannot let ourselves fall into the trap of opposing democracy in the Middle East simply because Bush and Blair are calling for it. Sometimes your enemy's enemy is not your friend.
And sometimes the enemies are not who you think they are. War opposition from the shrill left has been less about the actual planning, execution and intentions of the Iraq war. Typically, the leftists have insisted there is some underlying sinister motive to the war: that it was for war profits, for oil, for imperialism or for Israel. Their failure to take the quite explicit arguments for war at face value, and instead embrace conspiracy theories, have blinded many on the left to the mere possibility that the intentions were actually good. It was not enough for war opponents to say the plan would not work well (as they may have been entirely justified in arguing), they had to impose sinister motives on the Bush administration that went well beyond reason.
PS: Does not look good in hindsight: The same Freedland wrote in April 2004 about how the Iraq war would be Tony Blair's undoing and forever tarnish his legacy:
But it is Blair's international record which will undo him - even, perhaps, overshadow everything else he has achieved. It is odd, given that the young Blair who started to sweep Britain off its feet 10 years ago barely spoke about foreign policy - talking only of his burning domestic ambitions - yet it is his global adventures that are most likely to be remembered.
Generous analysts may praise his liberal interventionism in Kosovo and Sierra Leone; others will lament his failure (so far at any rate) to resolve Britain's ambivalence towards Europe, indefinitely postponing the key decision on the single currency. But they will be scathing about the Gulf war of 2003. Just as Suez is forever tied to the name of Anthony Eden, so future generations will examine Tony Blair and find Iraq engraved on his heart.
They will side with the 52 former ambassadors who wrote this week's damning open letter to the PM, wondering how a man so full of promise and loaded with political capital could have blown it on support for a rogue US administration.
Times are indeed changing, even on the British left. I don't think many future historians will praise the mindless worship of the 'stability' of despotism in the British foreign services' 'camel corps.' Hopefully, they will be thrown on the scrap heap of history along with the brutal dictators they defended.
5:40:52 PM
|
|
Jack William Pacheco of California was deeply embarrassed that his drug arrest made front page news in the local The Chowchilla News, and tried to buy up every single paper he could find.
Pacheco estimated that he bought 500 to 600 copies of The Chowchilla News from the newspaper's office, gas stations, convenience stores and a coin-operated news rack. The story of his arrest was on the front page.
The effort was futile, of course, since subscribers still got their papers, and the newspaper will now print extra copies of this surprisingly popular edition. Even worse, this story is now making news around the world, even in obscure places like, well, this blog.
Pacheco was arrested by the Madera Narcotic Enforcement Team on Feb. 17 at his home on Emerald Street in Chowchilla.
He has denied the allegations, saying the meth belonged to a relative's friend, Denise Stinson, 48, who was in his house that day to fix his computer. Stinson also was arrested.
Pacheco will no doubt have his day in court, but in the meantime he has secured himself some unwanted fame and a huge collection of newspapers.
He is planning to use the papers to clean windows and to toilet-train his new Shih Tzu puppy.
5:13:10 PM
|
|
The German economy is still in stagnation, and much worse, the unemployment is now at its highest level since the 1930s.
The figure of 5.216 million people, or 12.6% of the working-age population, is the highest jobless rate in Europe's biggest economy since the 1930s.
The news comes as the head of Germany's panel of government economic advisers predicted growth would again stagnate.
Speaking on German TV, Bert Ruerup said the panel's earlier forecast of 1.4% was too optimistic and warned growth would be just 1% in 2005.
Adjusting for seasonal changes gives 11.7%, up 0.3% from the previous month.
This is an astonishing rate for an industrialised nation, and especially one that prided itself on its work ethic and post-WWII "economic miracle."
The unification of Germany still explains some of the problems, obviously, but considering the similar problems in France, it is certainly not the whole story. As the German tabloid Bild splashed across the front page: "Do something!"
The parallel to the 1930s, when massive unemployment, depression and loss of confidence in democracy lead Hitler to power, is not lost on anybody. I don't expect Germany to collapse into totalitarianism any time soon, to be honest, but it is also obvious that this can not go on forever without dire consequences for Germany and Europe generally.
Update: More on Germany's misery from The Telegraph, including a nice table of purchase power:
Most startling is the finding that Germany has fallen way behind Britain in economic performance and individual purchasing power.
While Germany was eight percentage points ahead of Britain just a decade ago, now Britain is nine points ahead.
If that trend continues, Germany, which has had the lowest growth rate in Europe for almost 10 years, will eventually be close to the bottom of the EU's established 15 members (excluding the 10 new members who joined last May), just above Greece and Portugal.
Even Italy, which is considered one of the weaker links in the euro currency zone, is likely to reach parity with Germany by 2007, new figures show.
It is worth remembering that Germany has the largest population in the EU. What will happen when Germany has to stop subsidising its poorer neighbours and becomes a net recipient of EU money?
3:46:54 AM
|
|
Syria's Bashar Assad has been interviewed by Time's Joe Klein, and he tells that the Syrian army will pack up and leave within a few months:
TIME: Can you tell me when you will you be out of Lebanon?
ASSAD: Out completely?
TIME: Yes.
ASSAD: Actually, our discussion should be with Terji Roed-Larsen, United Nations envoy, who is coming back in March. It [withdrawal] should be very soon and maybe in the next few months. Not after that. I can't give you a technical answer. The point is the next few months.
TIME: Could you give me a timetable?
ASSAD: It's a technical issue, not political. I could not say we could do it in two months because I have not had the meeting with the army people. They may say it will take six months. You need to prepare when you bring your army back to your country.
Very encouraging words, as far as they can be trusted. Keep the heat on him!
There is more, of course. The Syrian army is not the only influence in Lebanon. Syrian intelligence and proxy militias saturate the Lebanese society. For Lebanon to achieve true independence, Syria's dominance must be substantially reduced.
PS: The UN envoy mentioned by Assad is named Terje Rød-Larsen.
12:14:55 AM
|
|
|
© Copyright 2005 Jan Haugland.
Last update: 01.04.2005; 01:56:46.
|
|
|
