"SHOCK" - Polar bear behaves "like a wild animal"

I hesitate to accuse people of being beyond parody for fear of encouraging them to move even further beyond parody, but...

From the BBC environmental pages:

Germany's celebrity polar bear Knut has triggered a new controversy by fishing out 10 live carp from his moat and killing them in front of visitors.

Critics say Berlin Zoo should not have put live fish inside Knut's enclosure. But German media report that the carp were put there to eat up algae.

There is speculation that hand-reared Knut killed the carp just for fun.

There has been heated debate about whether cubs rejected by their mothers should be saved or whether nature should be allowed to run its course.

The Frankfurter Allgemeine news website reports that Knut "senselessly murdered [sic] the carp", fishing them out, playing with them and then leaving the remains.

Maintaining that a bear "murdered" the carp "just for fun", while suggesting "nature should... run its course" for the bear and algae, although not for the carp - what odd and mutually contradictory ideas people have about animals.


Via Tim Blair

The Economist Retracts

A correction in The Economist:

In our article on Anglo-Saxon attitudes (”Anglo-Saxon attitudes”, March 29th) we said that Americans and Britons felt much the same about the death penalty: they were broadly against it. They do feel strikingly similarly, but not as we said. Between a quarter and a fifth are opposed, the same proportion are in favour, and around half would support the death penalty in some circumstances. Apologies. The online version of the article has been corrected.

Thanks to Jim Manzi, who spotted it too, for passing this on.

Economist Survey - The Death Penalty UPDATED

This week I'll be blogging about The Economist's "Anglo-Saxon" attitudes survey. You can find the survey itself here. I was particularly struck by the throw-away comment:

[Americans and Britons] feel much the same about the death penalty: they are broadly against it. - [Source]

I thought this was surprising, as the survey appears to show nothing of the sort. From the survey itself (Question 4, page 9 of the pdf file):
Do you favour the death penalty for murder? (Yes, always; Yes, sometimes, depending on the circumstances; No, the death penalty is wrong; Don't know)

	Britain	USA
Yes, always	21	26
Yes, sometimes	53	50
No	24	20
Don't knows	2	5*

Now, it's clear that the respondents do feel broadly the same way about the death penalty: but they are in favour of it. 74% (UK) and 76% (US) favour it in some circumstances. Now, the survey only had just over 1000 respondents, and although there was a breakdown by political affiliation, income, and age, there was no breakdown by location etc, so one can argue about the significance and relevance of the survey: what one cannot argue is that this survey offers any evidence that American or Britons "are broadly against" the death penalty.


* NB: yes, the American data does add up to 101%: suspect either a rounding error or typo.

UPDATE: The Economist retracts; see next post.

Anglo-Saxon attitudes

Kudos to the Economist for actually publishing the raw data of their "Anglo-Saxon attitudes:
a survey of British and American views of the world" survey on the Internet, rather than just cherry-picking random stats and hanging a story from them, as the rest of the British media does. You can read it here, and the article based on it here.

I'm going to blog about it this week, particularly regarding the questions on "crime and punishment" and "religion". I'm a bit puzzled by a couple of sentences in the article, that don't seem to be borne out by the data.

Newspapers and magazines definitely should do this more often.

Evidence based medicine?

From the BBC:

"Women should not drink any alcohol during pregnancy, NHS adviser the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has said.

It says if they must drink, they should not do so in the first three months and should limit consumption to one or two units once or twice a week afterwards.

It brings NICE in line with government advice and replaces previous guidance saying small daily amounts were fine.However, NICE concedes there is no evidence to support the change." [emphasis mine]

Have NICE employed "Doctor" Nick Fox of Capital Radio:

"Paedophiles have more genes in common with crabs than they do with you and me. It's a scientific fact - there no actual evidence for it - but it is a scientific fact"

He is not here, he is Risen

"And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, he is Risen" Luke 24:5-6

He is Risen indeed. Alleluia.

Whether you are Christian or not, I hope you have a very happy easter.

A couple of bits of pedantry

1. "Frankenstein" is a reference to the Creator, Victor Frankenstein, not to the poor Creature, who - significantly - is unnamed. The Creature is the only really sympathetic character in the book, as Satan is the only really sympathetic character in Paradise Lost. This comparison become explicit is as the Creature[1] identifies with Satan after reading Milton's epic poem.
   
2. "Fundamentalism" is term properly used to describe the sect of Protestants who, under Lyman and Milton Stewart, published the widely unread 12 volume work "The Fundamentals" during the second decade of the 20th century. The major concern of the Fundamentalists (note capitalization) was to preserve biblical inerrancy from the assaults of the higher criticism of the great 19th century German theologians. To call me a Fundamentalist is both Silly and Erroneous, but not prima facie Absurd. To speak of "Catholic Fundamentalists" is equivalent to speaking of a "square circle" and is prima facie Absurd.
   

Is this important, or am I on a pedantry crusade [2]? I would argue it is not merely important, but essential in order to marginalize Fundamentalism. You can't marginalize something if you don't know what it is, and someone who knows what she's talking about won't take you seriously. You'll alienate potential supporters: I'm not sure you can afford to do that.



[1] who taught himself to read, if I remember correctly, from Milton's Paradise Lost, the complete works of Petrarch, and Goethe's "The Sorrows of Young Werther"(!), which he found in an abandoned chest. "Frankenstein" is a fine book, but it cannot be accused of an over-reliance on Naturalism.

[2] To be fair, I am always on a pedantry crusade. But it's important, too.

Is placenta kosher?

Fascinating piece here from a midwife, who is trying to establish if placenta is kosher, and if its consumption is halachic [legal under Jewish law].

Christians aren't bound by the food laws [Acts 10:9-15], so this is something I know very little about. Well worth reading in it's entirety.

Another one bites the dust

To delirious cries of "yay!" and "yippety-skip!", I have polished off another chapter.
Now, if I can finish another before Good Friday (it's almost there!), I shall be a happy man. Edging closer to submission.

"Everyone who disagrees with me is a stupid bigot!!!"

is a superficially attractive but seriously flawed line of argument.

Look, I know I'm flogging a dead Archbishop here, but this is quite important: a number of his defenders are going with the line in the hope of deflecting attention from what he actually said. The current version boils down to "What's the problem with Shari'a,the Orthodox Jews do it, so you just hate Muslims, don't you?! Fascist" which demonstrates a unfortunate lack of familiarity with either English or Jewish law. Accordingly, I would like to illustrate that there are no privileges (a word which comes from prive lege, or "private law") that are available for Jews (orthodox or otherwise) that are not available to Muslims.

The various Beth Din courts have no status in English law.

I think there are two areas in which people have become confused (i) divorce and (ii) arbitration.

(i) Religious divorce clearly has nothing to do with civil divorce. However, there is a clause of the Divorce (Religious Marriage) Act 2002 which permits a husband/wife to obtain an order that the decree of divorce not be made absolute until

“[t]he parties to the marriage concerned (a) were married in accordance with (i) the usages of the Jews, or (ii) any other prescribed religious usages; and (b) must co-operate if the marriage is to be dissolved in accordance with those usages.” [1]

However, “(a) may be made only if the court is satisfied that in all the circumstances of the case it is just and reasonable to do so; and (b) may be revoked at any time. “.

As you can see, all though the law mentions “the Jews” specifically, it also extends to “other prescribed religious usages”. In this case it exists largely to protect a partner who gets a civil divorce but whose spouse refuses them a religious divorce [a Get in Jewish law], preventing their remarriage in an Orthodox, Conservative or Reform synagogue [rendering them an “Agunah” in Jewish law] [2]

The three important points to note are (i) English law [3] maintains supremacy (ii) the words “Get” and “Beth Din” do not appear (iii) the act AS IT STANDS contains reference to “other prescribed religious usage”. The issue is that that Shari’a courts haven’t been around as long as the Beth Din[4]. To some extent the problem will resolve itself in time, and could be hurried along much better by someone in a civil case using the Divorce act to stop a partner from getting his/her decree nisi made absolute: This would introduce into case law one recognized Shari’a court, and we could go from there with no need to primary legislation. Alternatively, we could amend the Divorce act to say “the usages of the Jews; the usages of the Muslims; or…” ,although it seems quite unnecessary.

(ii) Arbitration. The “binding” nature of arbitration is achieved through the “Arbitration Agreement” which all parties either sign or assent to [5]. The London Beth Din, for example, requires this, and I presume the other Beth Din do, too [6]. It is this Agreement that makes the result of the Beth Din judgement enforceable in the civil courts [7]. As this is a civil matter, judgements can only be pecuniary [8] in nature (an “Arbitration Award”). Now, this can be challenged in the courts (there is no parallel jurisdiction), and the process itself can be challenged on Natural Justice [9] grounds, but the assent of the parties (evidenced by the Arbitration Agreement) constitutes powerful evidence the parties were familiar with the arbitration procedures and aren’t really in a position to complain. The test, unsurprisingly given we’re talking about English Law, is that the procedure is “reasonable”.

ACAS is slightly different: set up, to provide mediation as well as arbitration, by statutory instrument (the most recent one here [10]). It is governed by the Arbitration Act 1996 [except a minor modification to 46(1)(b): see paragraph 5 of the SI].

As I think I’ve shown fairly conclusively, there are no special arrangements in English law that apply to Jews (Orthodox or otherwise), and not to Muslims.

Despite the best efforts of the Archbishop’s defenders, he was not calling for equality between Jews and Muslims (it clearly cannot be, as this is how the law stands at the moment). He is saying something much more dangerous.

From the speech:

I have been arguing that a defence of an unqualified secular legal monopoly in terms of the need for a universalist doctrine of human right or dignity is to misunderstand the circumstances in which that doctrine emerged, and that the essential liberating (and religiously informed) vision it represents is not imperilled by a loosening of the monopolistic framework.

He is disputing that the state has a monopoly on the law (as the defence is “not imperilled” by “loosening the monopolistic framework”), a bizarre concept: you can't really have parallel legal systems. The Political Umpire has made this point forcefully here. As PJ says in the comments:

...the really annoying thing about this whole debacle is the duplicitous pretence that he didn't say anything objectionable and controversial, and that anyone who says so has some sinister ulterior motive and/or is unable to parse such elegant and sophisticated prose.

I'm very happy to discuss the merits and demerits of having Shari'a civil courts. I'm not happy for people to tell porkies about what the ++Rowan said. God save the Archbishop from his defenders.

[1] Divorce (Religious Marriage) Act 2002

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2002/ukpga_20020027_en_1

Inserted into the “Matrimonial Causes Act 2002” c.18

Implemented via the Family Proceeding (Amendment) Rules 2003

[2] Liberal and Progressive synagogues do have Beth Din, but as – I believe – they permit religious remarriage without religious divorce, the Beth Din do not issue Gets. It's also worth noting this is explicitly feminist law: it assists Agunah ("chained" women) from being screwed over by their husbands and being stopped from re-marrying.

[3] I can’t see any material differences between this and the amendments made to section 3A of the Divorce (Scotland) Act 1976 by the Family Law Act 2006, but as I know so little about Scottish law I’ll leave that to people who know more than I.

[4] However, the Beth Din have no recognition in English Law, not under these acts, nor under the Arbitration Act 1996.

[5] It is a requirement that the agreement be in writing, and the consent of the parties be evidenced in writing, but not actually that the parties sign it [Arbitration Act, section 5]

[6] http://www.theus.org.uk/the_united_synagogue/the_london_beth_din/litigation/

In the orgy of coverage that has accompanied the Archbishops speech, there has been an assumption that (i)there is only one Beth Din which (ii) constitutes some sort of monolithic institution for all Jews in the country. As I discussed in my comment above, this is false.

[7] Ibid., although note that the Award can only be enforced through the civil courts “with prior permission of the Beth Din”.

[8] Except, of course, those powers discussed in Arbitration Act 1996 paragraph 48(5) (a)-(c), but as these are in effect contact law, they need to be enforced by civil courts anyway.

[9] And these days, the Human Rights Act 1998, although I’m not familiar with any Human Rights case law on Beth Din.

[10] The Arbitration Act 1996, which you can find online at:

http://opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1996/ukpga_19960023_en_2#pt1-pb1-l1g5

The ACAS Arbitration Scheme (Great Britain) Order 2004, a statutory instrument which replaced the earlier 2001 Order, which can be found at

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2004/20040753.htm

Can we have a new one, please?

Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeee's back! Yes, the Bearded Wonder has struck again. Fresh from vexing me last month, the Archbishop has branched out and vexed everybody:

But Dr Williams said an approach to law which simply said "there's one law for everybody and that's all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts - I think that's a bit of a danger".

"There's a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law, as we already do with some other aspects of religious law."

Dr Williams added: "What we don't want either, is I think, a stand-off, where the law squares up to people's religious consciences."

"We don't either want a situation where, because there's no way of legally monitoring what communities do... people do what they like in private in such a way that that becomes another way of intensifying oppression inside a community."

Funnily enough, this is just what he said last month:

This should be done by “stigmatising and punishing extreme behaviours” that have the effect of silencing argument.

His solution: to silence argument directly.

For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.

He says Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".

Wrong in so many ways:

1. To whom would a Sharia court apply? Could it's decisions be challenged in a higher court? If a Moslem and a Christian have a commercial dispute, to which court would you go? If a Moslem apostasies, would the judgment apply to him/her? Would this be retrospective? Could agreement be revoked? Would the whole arrangement not be subject to challenge in accordance with the Refah Partisi v. Turkey (2003) ,either at the ECHR itself or through a lower court in the UK ( under the Human Rights Act (1998))? The whole matter is legal nonsence, and muddying the waters with idiotic reference to the Beth Din arbitration process shows a serious lack of acquaintance with Jewish law as well as British law.
   
2. It is not "unavoidable". Few things are unavoidable if one is serious about avoiding them. To say something is unavoidable is the argument of a lazy man.
   
3. Speaking of lazy arguments, it is a gift to the "when you've seen one Abrahamic religion, you've seen them all" lobby.
   
4. It is an example of "vicarious offense" [hah- see what I did there?] Once again, someone who is not a Moslem is pleased to share with us what Moslems do or do not want. They are quite capable of speaking for themselves, and do not require ventriloquists, however well-intentioned.
5. It has just made the lot of "moderate" Moslems much harder. Why should they speak up against extremism when no-one else will? Extremists seem to trade as being a more "authentic" version of their faith - why play into their hands?
   

In any case, let's have the next Archbishop democratically chosen by the Laity. That way, when (s)he screws up, and everyone has a moan, we'll have no-one to blame but ourselves. In that regard, I like York and Rochester, with a preference for York: Go Sentamu! I think Lent is going to last a long time this year if this is what we have to put up with.

What I've found interesting is the groundswell of rage that this has generated: the bloke on BBC Radio 4's "PM" program said "it would be impossible to understate the strength of feeling on this issue". Britons are angry.

Archbishop Cranmer thinks it's time for Rowan to consider his position.
Superb post by the political umpire, who ends by calling for disestablishment of the Church. I'm inclined to agree, but want to think about it properly when I'm less cross.

Certainly the Church requires further Reform. That is "unavoidable".

Final, random, thought: "Sharia" would be a lovely name for a girl.

Druid in a dress, or, why hippies should not be appointed to the See of Canterbury

[Disclaimer/rant: I wanted Sentamu. Like almost all the other 77 million Christians who are members of the Anglican communion, my opinion was neither sought nor required: the winnowing was done by the Crown Appointments Committee, the final choice made by Tony Blair, and the whole thing rubber stamped by Her Maj. Given we're bringing democracy to Iraq, would it be too much to bring it to the C of E? The larger churches elect their churchwardens and PCCs as it is - it wouldn't require too much paperwork to elect vicars, bishops and archbishops. While we're at it, we could directly elect the House of Laity to the General Synod.]

Dr Williams, the Bearded Wonder, has been making speeches again. This is his right. But it a right he wants to deny to others:

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has called for new laws to protect religious sensibilities that would punish “thoughtless and cruel” styles of speaking.

Yes, we should make hurt feelings against the law, that's an appropriate restriction

...[T]he current blasphemy law was “unworkable” and he had no objection to its repeal.But whatever replaces it should “send a signal” about what was acceptable.

Signals should be sent by post, text or email, not legislation.

This should be done by “stigmatising and punishing extreme behaviours” that have the effect of silencing argument.

By cutting out the middle man and silencing arguments directly, via legislative fiat.

I summed up my views on the silliness of laws against offense, specifically blasphemy in the comments over at PJ's place.

Legislate at haste, repeal at leisure

The Devil's Kitchen has a robust take on the matter (NB: language a trifle direct)

Fox News in Pinko Harboring Outrage?

Gosh:

democrats are always railing against Fox news and its parent company News Corp. Today I went on to fundrace.org, and put in News Corp, only to find that "$14,600 was given by people who identified their employer as "News Corp".

$0 to Republicans $14,600 to Democrats

Shame!

From Semper Fido

Merry Christmas!

No, I'm not dead, but I've been on holiday. Unfortunately, my thesis did not write itself in my absence. Anyway, readers:

To all Christians, a Merry Christmas, and to all non-Christians, I hope you have a lovely holiday.

all best wishes
Political Scientist

Richard Dawkins: I'm a cultural Christian

I had to check the link to make sure my eyes did not deceive me. They did not.

Feline Mystery

I have a physicist's distaste for biology ("Yuck! It's all squidgy!"), but sometimes I wish I knew more to give me insight into those biological problems that impinge on my consciousness:

Nimrod, the Mighty Hunter with whom I share my life and my stipend, simply will not eat Whiskers's nice meaty chunks of rabbit or beef: only chicken will suffice. This is a source of tension between us, as Mr. Whiskers prudently sells his meat chunks in packs containing packets of rabbit, beef and chicken. There are no flies on Mr. Whiskers, although there are on the cat dish should I be foolish enough to put out rabbit. Nimrod will have none of it, and she stares at me reproachfully until I feed her chicken chunks instead. This is not the oddity. After gorging herself on chicken, she will track down, torture and kill field mice. This, too, is not the oddity. Having killed the mice, she chews the heads off. What sort of creature turns her nose up at meaty chunks of beef, but eats mice heads? It defies logic and mocks reason. She doesn't even like the mice heads; about once a week they are vomited up under the kitchen table as a lovely present for me. It is very puzzling.

In the meantime, should anyone be interested in a job lot of Whiskers beef, or indeed rabbit, chunks, perhaps they'd get in touch below. Otherwise, eBay beckons...

Our time is now

"Ugly people strike back" - from BBC news

Buenos Aires is a city of beautiful people where appearances are important.
But not everyone in Buenos Aires is beautiful. Gonzalo Otalora, for instance, is downright ugly, and he is not embarrassed to admit it.
It's not fair, he said. The beautiful people get all the breaks. Beauty is a natural advantage and he wants the good-lookers to be taxed to finance compensation for the ugly people.

We will arise, my people.

The French on British Corruption

Le Monde's take on the corruption scandal:

Concessionnaire Mercedes-Benz dans le Berkshire et à Orange County, en Californie, il avait auparavant participé au financement de deux écoles religieuses pilotes à Sheffield, en 2005, vitrines de la réforme de l'éducation du gouvernement Blair.

I suspect this is the principle point of interest: the religious schools. The slash-and-burn anti-clerical reforms at the end of the nineteenth century have left this as something of a curiosity.

A fairly humdrum article, lifted largely from the Mail on Sunday, is enlivened by this rather splendid comment:

Bah, on sait bien que l'Angleterre n'est pas une démocratie mais un pays d' "alternance" politique Droite / Droite, où le libéralisme économique sauvage règne en maître depuis l'époque de l'Empire quand l'Angleterre dominait économiquement le monde. Le Parti travailliste anglais, c'est surtout le parti qui fait travailler...

Worth remembering every time you read a pious piece about the tabloid press "hatred" of the EU.

Why I am not a Leftist

From the "Letters Page" of the Guardian:

It's right that we reflect on the appalling human-rights record of Sudan. But is not the bear which was to go home with the children not also an opportunity to see ourselves as others do? Our encouragement to our children to anthropomorphise wild animals is a baffling feature of our culture. The children's sections of bookshops offer little more than a choice between stories of white children or talking animals. Where does it all lead? Urban pets, Animal Liberation and more spending on pet food than the world's poor have to feed themselves. Many Muslims find our relationships with dogs particularly distasteful, not least in loving them for their companionship. I suppose we must have been doing it since we started breeding them in our post-glacial caves. No wonder we are muddled enough to think calling a stuffed bear Muhammad is OK on the grounds that so many Muslims name their sons after him.
Tom Snow
London

I hope this is a parody. I fear it is not.

And with one bound, she was free.

Finally, some good news:

Teacher Gillian Gibbons is to be released from prison in Sudan after she was jailed for allowing children in her class to name a teddy bear Muhammad.

Some more excellent news

Dr Imad Hassan, 45, is a Sudanese doctor and writer with a PhD in comparative religious studies who has lived in Britain since 1991.
He feels that someone from the Sudanese community must speak out against the ruling, and is planning to organise a protest from fellow scholars.
"I feel insulted as a Muslim by the government of Sudan, not by Mrs Gibbons," he told the BBC. "Describing the lovely children's toy with the name of Muhammad is a compliment, it is not an insult.

What a top chap. I wish the media would tell us more about men like this, and less about Abu bloody Hamza.