Magic Statistics

UBC professor Michael Byers, writing in the UK Catholic periodical The Tablet, claims that Israel’s response to Hezbollah’s abduction of two Israeli soldiers is “excessive” and “disproportionately deadly”.

The bombing of Beirut’s international airport, roads, bridges, and power and petrol stations was, he says, disproportionate.  He also charges Israel with reckless, if not indiscriminate, attacks on innocent civilians, saying that the deaths of hundreds of civilians suggest disregard for innocent lives.

Under the laws of war, civilians may be placed at risk only for reasons of military necessity. They must never be targeted to create political pressure, or for reasons of revenge.

Dr Byers’s argument invokes the just-war criteria of proportionality and discrimination.  In its article on “just war”, The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought describes these as follows:

The jus in bello [justice in conduct of war] is defined by two main ideas, the principle of proportionality of means, requiring that means of force be avoided that cause gratuitous or otherwise unnecessary destruction, and the principle of discrimination or noncombatant immunity, requiring that noncombatants should be protected so far as possible from the ravages of war and, in any case, should enjoy protection from direct and intentional harm.

Dr Byers provides no evidence that civilians were “targeted”, only that many have been killed.  To substantiate a violation of the just-war criterion of non-combatant immunity, it is necessary to show a direct and deliberate intent to kill innocents.  This he has not done.  It is, moreover, well-known that Hezbollah, like other terrorist militias, has set up weapons and other offensive equipment in or immediately adjacent to residential neighbourhoods, so any casualties among civilians living next to such legitimate military targets would be the fault of Hezbollah, not of Israel.

Is the bombing of Beirut’s airport disproportionate, as Dr Byers charges?  If Israel has reason to believe that Hezbollah has been or will be supplied through the airport, then it is a legitimate military target.  Roads, bridges, and power and petrol stations would also qualify to the extent that they provide logistical support to Hezbollah’s war effort.  I don’t think it’s a stretch to understand why such facilities would be objects of military attack.  Such infrastructure has been targeted in all wars.

After a few paragraphs criticising Israel, he then devotes far more space to attacking three Western supporters of Israel: President George W Bush, Prime Minister Tony Blair, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper.  Here Dr Byers moves away from the rules of war and indulges in baseless speculation and conjecture.

They undoubtedly feel sympathy for the past sufferings of the Jewish people, including in the Holocaust. They are probably influenced by domestic electoral considerations, and pro-Israel media moguls and lobbyists in their own countries. The complex and evolving nature of the situation could be obscured by a desire to maintain clear distinctions between "right" and "wrong".

“Undoubtedly”, “probably”, “could”.  Dr Byers provides no support for any of those hunches.  In the case of Stephen Harper, for one, Canadian commentators have said the opposite, that his pro-Israel stance could have adverse political repercussions.  More light has been shed on Mr Harper’s influences by Larry Zolf, usually a reliably anti-Conservative commentator, who says Mr Harper is acting from a genuine “love of Israel”.

Now Dr Byers goes away off the rails with another, even more whimsical, unsubstantiated assertion.

It is conceivable that one or more of them believes, along with tens of millions of evangelical Christians, that another war between Israel and its neighbours is a necessary precursor to the second coming of Christ.

Anything is “conceivable”.  It's “conceivable” that Byers is a Hezbollah agent—but I don’t think so.

His column isn't quite finished yet, but we are.

I was very disappointed to read Dr Byers’s column because he made so much sense on the issue of protecting Canadian sovereignty in the North.

via titusonenine.

Last year the number of UK heroin addicts aged 45 and over seeking treatment went up by a record 13 percent, prompting suggestions that the National Health Service will be unable to cope with so-called "baby boomer" addicts.  A spokesman for a drugs charity points his finger at government.

David Raynes, the director of the National Drug Prevention Alliance, said: "Most addicts manage to stop using heroin by their 40s … a 13 per cent increase in just one year is astonishing. It shows the Government's attempts to control drug use are not working."

Why is this the government’s fault?  Blockheads old enough to know better are receiving the entirely foreseeable, and in some cases intended, effect of their actions.

That’s not to say there’s no case for government-financed treatment of heroin addicts.  I just think it’s away over the top to blame the government when people do what they freely choose to do.

Previous related post: Heroin addiction is not a "disease".

The Episcopal Church's long knives come out again.

Last week rumours were circulating that four California bishops were about to file charges against the Rt. Rev. John-David Schofield, Bishop of San Joaquin, leading to a presentment (ecclesiastical trial).  The rumours were incorrect, but what has transpired is even worse.

The action launched against Bp Schofield calls for, not a trial, but an expedited deposition on the bizarre charge of abandonment of communion.  A trial entails presumption of innocence, due process, hearings at which both sides present evidence and argument, and other safeguards of goodness and fairness.  An expedited deposition, on the other hand, ultimately requires a simple majority vote of the House of Bishops, who are not required to hear argument or receive evidence from anybody.  This tactic can fairly be called a scheme of low cunning.  Some might even call it diabolical.

Four bishops with jurisdiction in the state of California have asked a disciplinary panel to approve an expedited deposition of the Rt. Rev. John-David Schofield, Bishop of San Joaquin.

In a letter to the organizing chair of the Title IV [Ecclesiastical Discipline] Review Committee, the Rt. Rev. J. Jon Bruno, Bishop of Los Angeles; the Rt. Rev. Jerry M. Lamb, Bishop of Northern California; the Rt. Rev. James R. Mathes, Bishop of San Diego; and the Rt. Rev. William E. Swing, Bishop of California, are concerned that Bishop Schofield intends to “abandon the communion of this Church.” As one of the primary pieces of their evidence the four cite recent changes that qualify subordination under the diocesan canons to the Constitution and Canons of the General Convention.
. . .
This is believed to be the first time that questions of abandonment have been raised about a bishop of The Episcopal Church. In the past five years abandonment rulings have been issued against an increasing number of priests and deacons often after the accused has claimed to have transferred to another province of the Anglican Communion. The abandonment process is much more expeditious than other disciplinary procedures which are adjudicated through an ecclesiastical trial process and under abandonment there is no presumption of innocence.

I know next to nothing about canon law, but Brad Drell knows a lot.  Here's some of what he has to say.

Why no presentment? Because there is no presentment process in abandonment of communion. Similarly to priests is such places like Connecticut, the higher authority does it, ignores the good faith denial, and we have a fait accompli. Night of the long knives, indeed.

What is so maddening about this for me is that the left is too chicken to actually have an open ecclesiastical fight. Rather, they are invoking a kind of ecclesiastical assassination, giving +Schofield no meaningful opportunity to defend himself, and no appeal.

Brad has initiated an online petition against the tactic being used to depose Bp Schofield.

Living Church link via CaNN, where we are also told that Binky is ill with problems related to the heat and humidity out East.  Please pray for his speedy recovery—and a change in the weather.

Sunday Times of London columnist Jeremy Clarkson heard a woman say on the radio that, if we want a more peaceable and humane society, boys should be reared by women.  Maybe she has a point, but there's also a downside.

Last week, on a Radio 4 show called The Moral Maze, a woman said that all men are wife-beaters and warmongers, and that a boy brought up by women is bound to become a better balanced human being.

Maybe this is so. But he is also bound to spend too much time on the telephone talking about nothing in particular. What’s more, he will be late for the start of all TV films and will therefore have no clue what’s going on, he will read books in which nothing ever happens, he may well turn out to be a teensy bit gay, and worst of all he will grow up never having seen an F-15 fighter jet loop the loop at an air show.

He may well have seen a B-1 bomber make a full-bore, combat-power takeoff, but only through the fence at Greenham Common. And that means he won’t have been in the company of someone who agreed that, yes, it’s much prettier and far more amazing than anything from the dreary and pointless mind of Jane Austen.

Read the whole thing.

Headline and sub-heading from this morning's Maclean's online:

Till fraud do us part

Increasing numbers of Canadians are falling victim to foreigners who marry them just to gain entry to the country.

The story doesn’t exactly live up to its billing, however.  The headline claims "increasing numbers" are marrying foreign tricksters, but only one victim is quoted.  Navdeep Dhillon of Abbotsford went to India in April 2004 and, on the recommendation of relatives, married a man she had never met.  Three weeks later she returned to Canada, and was joined by her new hubby five months later.  Then he told her the truth—that he had used her to gain entry to Canada—and disappeared.

That's not to say I doubt the veracity of the headline, but some attempt to estimate numbers involved would give needed perspective.

The story goes on to say that a Vancouver-based organisation Canadian Marriage Fraud Victim Society wants the Immigration Act changed to allow deportation of foreigners whose marriages to Canadian citizens break up within three years.  This is opposed by New Democrat MLA Raj Chouhan, who thinks the solution is—you'll never guess—public education.  Another enlightened leftist with a touching faith in education.

Judge David Marshall isn't giving up: He still wants to know why the Ontario Provincial Police didn't enforce his court order to take down the barricades at Caledonia?

Justice David Marshall called into court on Monday vrepresentatives [sic] from provincial police, the Ministry of the Attorney-General and the aboriginal occupiers.

He is hearing legal arguments about why the protesters remain at the housing development.

Six Nations members have occupied the land since the end of February, arguing that it was wrongly taken from them by the Crown.

Lawyers for the Attorney-General say Judge Marshall's orders have been carried out, noting police have laid 53 charges against 28 people.

But Judge Marshall said his orders have been blatantly disregarded and that the integrity of the court and rule of law are under attack.

Provincial authorities disagree.

There is no evidence that police have neglected their duty enforcing the law, argued Dennis Brown, lawyer for the Attorney-General.

"No evidence" other than the fact that the barricades were not removed forthwith, per Justice Marshall’s order?

Mr. Brown added that police need to balance their actions, calling the situation in Caledonia very fragile.

“No one is suggesting people can break the law without any recourse,” he said. “Flexibility has to be built into everything.”

Including "flexibility" to ignore court orders?

Could it be that the OPP and provincial government trying to stonewall Justice Marshall?  If he runs out of patience with them, he could declare them in contempt of court.  That should get their attention.

While the judge is to be congratulated, he would be well-advised to be careful lest he fall victim to phony accusations of racism or some other political incorrectitude.

Meanwhile, the OPP belatedly leaps into action with an internal whitewash investigation.

Earlier in the day, OPP Commissioner Gwen Boniface announced that Ottawa police would investigate the actions of provincial police officers during an assault on two television camera operators at the protest scene.

The TV crew was filming the occupation on June 9 when one of them was swarmed, assaulted and his equipment stolen.

The cameramen alleged that provincial police officers who witnessed the assault did nothing to stop it.

Those allegations are backed by film shot at the scene.

For the latest news from Caledonia, point your browser to Caledonia Wake Up Call, which the OPP has forbidden its officers to visit.

via Dust My Broom.

Previous related posts:

• More assaults on journalists at Caledonia
• Anarchy in Caledonia
• Judge to police and province: Why didn’t you enforce my order?

UPDATE (25 Jul.): Steve Janke has received an e-mail from an employee of Ontario's Ministry of Finance saying that yesterday Caledonia Wake Up Call was blocked, apparently to all Ontario government employees, but not today.