Magic Statistics

A study commissioned by the UK Conservative Party and conducted by an independent agency reinforces the view that marriage is far more likely than other living arrangements to provide children with a stable and supportive home environment.

Unmarried parents are up to five times more likely to experience family breakdown, according to the survey of 15,000 families carried out for the social justice policy review group headed by Iain Duncan Smith, the former Tory leader.

The findings will put intense pressure on David Cameron to offer voters a cast-iron guarantee that he will put marriage at the heart of Tory policies on the family.

Some of the Conservative leader's advisers want him to tone down the party's support for marriage because they fear the party risks alienating support from unmarried families.

The findings are highly damaging to that view.  The study of 15,000 mothers who gave birth between 2000-01 found that 6% of married couples separated during early years of parenthood, compared with 32% of all unmarried couples (including both cohabiting couples and "closely involved" couples).  Even after adjusting for family income, cohabiting couples were twice as likely as married ones to break up.

Evidence from the study suggests that the low breakdown rates among married couples can be explained by a range of factors including commitment, fathers playing a greater role in their children's upbringing and better communication.

A companion editorial in the London Telegraph says that Tory leader Cameron would be wise to incorporate the study's findings into party policy.

The point of marriage is that it is a public declaration of commitment, with attendant legal obligations. So it is hardly surprising that unmarried people should be up to five times more likely to break up. It also makes a compelling case for the Conservative Party's policies to reflect that reality: a vigorous support for marriage as the most stable and successful family unit, and the best environment in which to raise children, ought to be a natural position for the state to take.

The Labour Government's failure to support marriage as a social good has already contributed to a high rate of family breakdown and attendant socio-economic problems in the UK.  Children, parents, and British society have been badly hurt as a result.  It's time to act on what empirical evidence shows and reverse course on family policy.

Previous related posts:

• UK education minister attacks marriage
• Cohabitation is an inferior imitation of the real thing
• UK's Labour government seen as threat to families
• Does marriage matter for the nurturing of children?
• UK government contributing to erosion of marriage: Rowan Williams

Two stories in today’s Globe and Mail represent a small difference of opinion regarding the conduct of Canadian military personnel serving overseas.  Columnist Margaret Wente says our men and women in Afghanistan may be “too nice” to wage war.

Even when they're preparing for combat, our soldiers are nice guys. Last week, before the deadly offensive to retake a stronghold in the Afghan district of Panjwai (a place they've taken and retaken several times now), they made sure to give everybody lots of notice. They didn't want civilian casualties. So they dropped leaflets and sent radio bulletins warning people to leave. Unfortunately, the bad guys got lots of notice too. And instead of fleeing, they used the time to organize ambushes and hit our troops extra hard. The final score: 200 enemy dead (NATO's count) and four dead Canadians, not counting the soldier we lost the next day to friendly fire. You decide who won.
. . .
Our military is touchingly concerned about civilians. The Globe and Mail's Graeme Smith reports that it has budgeted $500,000 to buy tractors, wool blankets, rice, beans, and tea for the locals inconvenienced by the fighting. Was there ever a more kind-hearted fighting force than ours?

The other Globe story, however, offers a very different portrait of Canadian soldiers.  It reports that an article recently published in the British medical journal The Lancet accuses a UN peacekeeping force in Haiti, led by Canadians, of failing to prevent widespread and horrendous human rights abuses.  Moreover, Canadians are said to have threatened and harassed innocent Haitians.

The study, co-authored by Athena Kolbe, found that 8,000 Haitians have been slain and 35,000 women and girls raped since the ouster of president Jean-Bertrand Aristide in early 2004. Ms. Kolbe said that according to local Haitians, Canadian peacekeepers made death threats against them during house raids, and sexual advances against women while the peacekeepers were drunk and off duty.

That latter story turns out to be more complicated, however.  The Lancet has revealed that it is investigating allegations that Ms Kolbe has an undeclared conflict of interest.  She neglected to inform The Lancet that she used to work at a Haitian orphanage founded by Mr Aristide, and is further alleged to be a personal friend and admirer of the former Haitian president.  She denies any conflict of interest and maintains the estimates cited in her article are sound.

Supporters and opponents of Ms Kolbe and The Lancet duke it out in the Globe’s comment page.  Some contend that those who complained to The Lancet about Ms Kolbe themselves have undisclosed conflicts of interest.

I don’t know about Ms Kolbe and her connections with President Aristide, but her accusations are serious and, if true, reflect very badly on Canada’s military and international reputation.  Understandably, “some groups” want a parliamentary investigation.  (The Globe doesn’t identify the groups.)

For access to Margaret Wente’s column, click here.