Magic Statistics

The United Nations has proposed creation of a new Human Rights Council to replace its discredited predecessor, the Commission on Human Rights. The problem is that the new body will be even worse than the old.

With a design which promises an institution more contemptible than its predecessor, the process has brought the UN to the edge of an abyss.

Human rights protection was the UN's essential rationale. The credibility of the entire organization depends on fixing its discredited central human rights mechanism, the Commission on Human Rights. It is now clear that this effort has failed.
. . .
[T]he proposed Council represents an enormous step backward for the international protection of human rights and the spread of democratic governance. The United States would do the legacy of Eleanor Roosevelt, the first Chair of the Commission on Human Rights, an enormous disservice by pretending otherwise.

So, why exactly is the UN's spanking-new Human Rights Council so reprehensible? Start with the list of member states. Council members include China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe—stellar examples all of punctilious observance and protection of liberal rights and freedoms.

If you want to know what else is wrong, read the whole thing.

Previous related posts:

• UN guilty of unethical and corrupt behaviour
• Mark Steyn agrees with me–or not

via little green footballs.

A new radiological technique for mass fatality investigation was used in the field for the first time recently by a team of researchers led by Professor Guy Rutty, a University of Leicester forensic pathologist.

Previous related post: Forensics: TV and real-life.

via Faith-Science News from The American Scientific Affiliation.

Why am I not surprised?

Government documents declassified today reveal that President Bush was briefed last summer of "a substantial risk" that Vice President Dick Cheney would shoot an elderly male in the face sometime in the next several months.

Read the whole thing.

The Crown has decided not to lay charges against the Western Standard and [Calgary] Jewish Free Press after the two publications re-printed most of the Mohammed cartoons. After an investigation, the chief prosecutor for Calgary decided that the publications had not violated Canada’s existing hate laws. So, Canadian Muslim leaders say that laws must be expanded so as to prevent such insults in the future.

Syed Soharwardy, president of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada, said the law must be expanded to outlaw insults against "all prophets and messengers of God, all divine books," including those of Christianity and Judaism.

"If somebody insults them, if somebody makes fun of them, they should be guilty of a hate crime and the law should be changed to reflect that," he said.

Wisely, in my opinion, the federal government refuses to take the bait.

Patrick Charette, press secretary to Justice Minister Vic Toews, told Reuters that Canada's new Conservative government has no plans to broaden the scope of the 36-year-old law.

"The provisions covering hate propaganda … as they stand strike a balance between the freedom of expression and also the rights of minorities to be protected from hatred," Charette said. "It's broad enough right now."

Muslim leaders want Christianity and Judaism protected on the same terms as Islam? Sounds like the fox wants to guard the henhouse. Mr Soharwardy’s proposal is a very bad idea, for Islam and Christianity have diametrically opposed understandings of the person and work of Jesus. Any legal regulation that met the demands of Islam would not be congenial to Christianity.

The Koran teaches that Jesus lived, but denies that he was crucified. (Sura 4:157-159.) Modern Muslim scholars reject the Christian teaching of the cross as offensive and dishonouring to Jesus. If Canada’s hate laws were to be changed in accordance with the wishes of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada, it wouldn’t be long before someone professing agreement with orthodox Christianity about the death of Christ is hauled into court by a Muslim claiming to be insulted and offended.

So, thanks but no thanks, Mr Soharwardy. Christians neither need nor want you to speak up in "defence" of our Lord and Saviour. And Jesus certainly does not need laws protecting him from insults. He’s endured far worse in the past, and come out better than ever.

Previous related posts:

• United Church of Canada embraces abject dhimmitude
• "Islam forbids images of Jesus"
• John Piper: Being mocked the essence of Christ’s work

via Angry in the Great White North.

One factor behind the successful putsch against Harvard University President Lawrence Summers was his scandalous statement that there are innate differences between the sexes. British biologist Peter Lawrence has also recently run afoul of the thought police of political correctness. His article, Men, Women, and Ghosts in Science, explored differences between men and women that appear to be rooted in biology and genetics. Science magazine had accepted the article for publication, but changed its mind at the last minute and handed Dr Lawrence a lame excuse.

An edited version of Dr Lawrence’s article is posted here. One of those who condemned Dr Lawrence’s paper was Massachusetts Institute of Technology biology professor Nancy Hopkins, who accused him of employing old-fashioned stereotypes. Now there’s a objection based on well-defined and accepted scientific concepts.

This is the same Nancy Hopkins who raised a ruckus over Lawrence Summers’s speech in which he suggested that innate differences between men and women could help explain why women are underrepresented in math and science.

The always hysterical Hopkins was in attendance at Summers's speech, but she had to leave early because she felt she was going to black out or be sick if she stayed. And no, it wasn't a touch of the flu, but Summers's mere words that prompted Hopkins's hissy fit.

Many women and many female scientists were less pleased with Hopkins's performance, given that it perpetuates the stereotype that women can't discuss controversial ideas without becoming overly emotional.

Those stereotypes’ll getcha every time.

Michael Coren speaks the unspeakable: "[A] woman's place is in the home". In fact, he said it twice in the space of two paragraphs, as if to be sure you’d believe your eyes: "A woman's place is in the home".

Admittedly, due to financial constraints, not all mothers can do this, but those who can should.

There is no compelling case that the world would be a better place if more women were lawyers, bankers, soldiers or engineers. There are many such arguments, however, that the world would be a far better place if more women were mothers. Which means more than the mere act of procreation. It means devotion, sacrifice and time. Not quality time, just time. Lots of it. It means refusing to accept that self-esteem can only come through a boss, water cooler gossip and a generous pension scheme.
. . .
Nobody is forcing women to become moms, but if they do they should take their new job seriously and not pretend it is some hobby or part-time occupation. Instead, we have created a situation where many women are embarrassed to admit that they are at home with their kids.

I shudder to remember that Canada’s former Liberal government was about to enact a national daycare program. Thankfully, the election of the Conservatives has taken that off the federal agenda. I cannot understand why government thinks it knows how better to raise children than parents do. It’s bad enough that the Liberals mismanaged millions of dollars in the Sponsorship Scandal. At least that’s only money; child-rearing is far more important than that.

Previous posts on child care:

• Daycare: Bad for children, bad for parents
• Babies better off if mothers stay home