Magic Statistics

Anglican Bishop of Harare Nolbert Kunonga was charged with very serious offences, including incitement to murder, in December 2003.  An ecclesiastical provincial court was convened by Archbishop of Central Africa Bernard Malango but, very shortly after the trial started, a mistrial was declared on a technicality.  No further action has since been taken.

Now Abp Malango is facing legal action because of his failure to pursue proceedings against Bp Kunonga.

Robing for a service in Harare Cathedral on the Sunday before last, the Archbishop of Central Africa, the Most Revd Bernard Malango, was served with legal papers by a Messenger of the Court. The papers require him to respond officially to the outcome of the Provincial Court hearing concerning the Rt Revd Nolbert Kunonga, Bishop of Harare.

The Archbishop could go on trial in the secular courts if he refuses to re-convene the hearing. As scandal continues to surround the aborted trial of Bishop Kunonga, the spotlight is turning on Archbishop Malango’s refusal to intervene or to restrain his brother bishop.

In December 2005 the Archbishop was quoted in the press saying, “The matter is closed and cannot be revived”.  Then, last month he and Bp Kunonga paid a courtesy call on Zimbabwe's Dictator President Robert Mugabe, after which he told reporters that the charges against Bp Kunonga were trumped up to begin with. 

He went on to say that the allegations against the Bishop appeared to have been "framed by some individuals in the Church who wanted to settle personal scores", and said: "We have to work together as Christians. Who is not a sinner in this world?"

Admirable Christian sentiments, I’m sure, but they seem out of place in reference to a clergyman who is living on a farm that the Mugabe government stole from its rightful owners.

Archbishop Malango has been a busy fellow.  He intervened to overturn the election of Rev Nicholas Henderson as Bishop of Lake Malawi on the grounds that Rev Henderson, vicar of a parish in Ealing, London, is leader of a theologically liberal and pro-gay group in the Church of England and therefore “not of sound faith”.  This after the archbishop had initially expressed his satisfaction with the choice of Rev Henderson as bishop.  Understandably, this caused a huge uproar and drew severe criticism from both sides as Abp Malango managed to alienate just about everyone involved.

Archbishop Malango also appeared as one of the four “wise men” Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams was said to be considering appointing to give advice on the controversy over ordination of non-celibate homosexuals.  A London Telegraph article of last May named “the conservative Primate of Central Africa, Archbishop Bernard Malango” as one of those being considered.  (Since nothing further has been said about this, it would seem that such a group was never selected.)

So, let’s see.  When a bishop in his province is charged with intimidation and incitement to murder, Abp Malango advises tolerance and forbearance, saying, "We have to work together as Christians. Who is not a sinner in this world?"  When local Christian officials are so obstinate as to insist that the charges be properly adjudicated, however, the archbishop responds with veiled threats.

Then, when a theologically liberal English vicar is selected as a bishop in Africa, Abp Malango deploys the heavy artillery.  Archbishop Malango sounds like one of those people who gives “conservatives” a bad name.

He may have worked himself into a corner: Rowan Williams has called for him to suspend Bp Kunonga, and now a secular court is demanding that he bring Bp Kunonga to trial.  He has already ignored the former, but the latter will be more difficult to finesse.

Here’s one bright spot: Archbishop Malango is due to retire within the next year.

This is probably just a coincidence, but the Roman Catholic Church is also dealing with a renegade African archbishop whose last name is very similar to that of the Anglican Archbishop of Central Africa.

The Vatican has indicated serious concern about public statements by Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo calling for an end to priestly celibacy.

After disappearing from his Italian residence in June, the mercurial African archbishop appeared at a July 12 press conference in Washington, DC, urging that the Church, saying that "it is time for the Church to reconcile with married priests."

Guess which church will be the first to resolve their maverick African archbishop situation.

Link to first Church Times via Thinking Anglicans.
Link to Living Church via titusonenine.
Link to first London Telegraph via titusonenine.
Link to Catholic World News via Ignatius Insight Scoop.

Previous related posts:

• Mugabe’s day of prayer like asking Satan to preach at Easter
• Renegade Anglican bishop in Zimbabwe

Russian President Vladimir Putin has pulled off a major propaganda coup—hosting a meeting of an international organisation to which his country should not belong.  The latest summit of G8 leaders begins today in St Petersburg.  The G8 members are United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Japan, Canada, Italy, and Russia.  Except for the latter, all are economically advanced liberal democracies based on respect for the rule of law, freedom of the press, and private property rights.  Russia, by contrast, is experiencing worsening official corruption, lawlessness, and arbitrary and ruthless exercise of government power; but Mr Putin has apparently succeeded in keeping those unpleasantnesses off the agenda.

A few months ago it looked like the G8 summit would be overshadowed by criticism of President Putin’s democratic record. The Kremlin had scrapped local elections. Its grip on the national media was growing ever tighter. And it had stunned the world by cutting off gas supplies to Ukraine.

But on the eve of the summit, many Kremlin critics fear that the issue will hardly be raised. As G8 President, Russia has ensured that democracy is not on the formal agenda, which includes energy security, infectious diseases and education. Nor is it on the broader agenda — dominated by Iran, North Korea and Lebanon.

Edward Lucas in the Daily Mail discusses Putin’s real G8 agenda.

How Joseph Stalin and Leonid Brezhnev would have relished the irony: the leaders of the rich free world kowtowing to the authoritarian ruler of a state that is rich only in oil, gas and ruthlessness.

As Western leaders pack their bags for the first G8 summit hosted by Russia, starting in St Petersburg later this week, every one of them knows the event is a sick farce, of which President Putin's Soviet predecessors would have been proud. On the surface, the arriving Western leaders will be smiling.

But they are intensely aware that there is only one agenda on Mr Putin's mind: to increase his iron grip on his country and rebuild the once-mighty Russian empire.

Mr Lucas’s article is well worth reading in full, for he goes on to discuss Putin’s dirty tricks and political and economic manipulations that have thrown much of eastern Europe into turmoil and brought a chill over his own country.

In last week’s UK Spectator, Anne Applebaum argued that, by allowing Russia to remain in the G8, the West has discredited itself.  Liberal freedoms don’t really matter; power is all.

And after everyone goes home? The Kremlin — along with Venezuelans, Iranians, Arab leaders and other oil tyrannies — will sit back, laugh and agree that the leaders of the so-called West merely pay lip service to the ideals of freedom and democracy; they don’t really believe in them. If you have enough oil, they’ll let you into their fancy clubs anyway. As Putin’s defence minister recently put it, ‘In the contemporary world, only power is respected.’ As Putin’s adviser recently put it, ‘They [the West] talk about democracy but they’re thinking about our natural resources.’

What is at stake here, in other words, is not just Russian–Western relations, but the West’s very ability to go on talking about democracy — in Russia, in Iraq, anywhere — and still get taken even remotely seriously. In a world where the promotion of democratic and liberal values is itself a realpolitik necessity — some form of political liberalisation is absolutely essential to the battle against al-Qa’eda and the ultimate integration of the Middle East into the global economy — that’s a pretty big problem.

In the run-up to the summit, Mr Putin pressed his propaganda campaign on many fronts.  He ordered authorities to ensure that no poor people would be visible on the streets of St Petersburg, that no rain would fall, and that political dissidents would be silenced for the duration.  The number of radio stations carrying news programs from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Voice of America was drastically cut earlier this month.  (For some reason I don’t think that’s the best way to reassure fellow G8 members about the vitality of one’s democracy.)

To top it off, Mr Putin went on a carefully orchestrated counter-offensive.  He accused Western critics of holding on to an outmoded Cold War perspective that saw Russia as a political adversary.

President Vladimir Putin, seeking to pre-empt rebukes over democracy from fellow members of the Group of Eight, said on Wednesday the West's criticism of Russia was a mix of Cold War thinking and neo-colonialism.

In interviews with French, Canadian and U.S. TV channels — transcripts of which were published on his Web site on Wednesday — Putin denied allegations Russia was back-tracking on democracy, and said it would develop at its own pace.
. . .
He said Russia's current prosperity and stability had worried some Western politicians, who were more used to a chaotic Russia that could be pushed around.

"And therefore, in my opinion, there is this permanent carping about problems linked to democracy, with freedom of the media and so on. It is used as an instrument of interference in the internal and external policies of Russia."

Keep your noses out of our affairs, stop telling us what to do—and do try to keep up with the times.  That’s similar to the line that Mikhail Gorbachev took a few weeks ago in defending Russia: Everything’s fine.  Butt out.  Stop nitpicking and just leave us alone.

After Mr Putin’s well-executed propaganda offensive, however, the first decision from the G8 summit goes against him.  The United States does not agree that Russia is ready to join the World Trade Organisation (WTO).  Russia invokes health reasons to justify regulation of food imports, but the US is not convinced that those reasons are genuine and not a pretext for trade restrictions not permitted under WTO rules.

Graphic of President Putin from the [UK] Spectator. 

Previous related posts:

• We’re democratic—just leave us alone, and no criticism allowed
• Russia’s population may fall by half by 2050
• Europe beholden to Russian energy supplies

Canadian universities are providing safe havens for aboriginal academics who reject Canadian and American sovereignty over "Turtle Island", as they refer to North America.  Margaret Wente’s column in today’s Globe and Mail features two of them.

Dr Taiaiake Alfred is Director of Indigenous Governance Programs at the University of Victoria.

Taiaiake Alfred does not consider himself a Canadian. He is first and foremost Onkwehonwe, a "true person," one of the original people. He regards Phil Fontaine, most band councils, and the current native leadership with contempt. By co-operating with the government, they are helping to implement the assimilationist agenda of the Settlers (i.e. non-natives). He rejects the use of violence, but he does believe in what he calls "direct action" to achieve native aims. He is first and foremost a warrior, who believes in substantive restitution for the loss of Turtle Island (also known as North America).

The warrior is also a professor — one of a new generation of tenured radicals who are schooling the next generation in the politics of resistance.

Dr Dawn Martin-Hill is co-founder and Academic Director of the Indigenous Studies Programme at McMaster University, Hamilton.  A Mohawk citizen and resident of the Six Nations' reserve near Caledonia, she also supports civil disobedience to effect "reclamation" of "stolen" land.

Both of these aboriginal academics see European civilisation, liberal democracy, and global capitalism as the enemies.  Taiaiake has appealed to the myth of the noble savage in support of his worldview.

"On a theoretical level, the enemy of our struggle is the noxious mix of monotheistic religiosity, liberal political theory, neoliberal capitalist economics and their supportive theories of racial superiority, and the false assumption of euroamerican cultural superiority," he writes. And there is another theme — the theme of the inherent superiority of indigenous cultures, in which people are at one with the land and societies are egalitarian. "The ideals of peace, respect, harmony and coexistence," we are told, "are at the heart of Onkwehonwe philosophies."

"Superiority of indigenous cultures"?  "Ideals of peace, respect, harmony, and co-existence"?  Yeah, right!  The notion that aboriginal peoples were pre-modern conservationists and environmentalists is a fantasy with no basis in historical fact.  A recent scientific analysis found that ecological extinction caused by overfishing has been occurring for tens of thousands of years–before Western civilisation even existed.

Not ony that, many aboriginal peoples on the West coast of North America practiced slavery before the Europeans arrived.  And let's not get into the Aztecs and Incas.

One would have thought such naive romantic sentimentality out of place in institutions of higher learning.  Alas, no.  The politicization of academe proceeds.

For access to Ms Wente's full column, click here.

Previous related posts:

• More assaults on journalists at Caledonia
• Anarchy in Caledonia
• Kennewick Man may force rewrite of North American history