Magic Statistics

I am so relieved to hear that!

The cover article in the October issue of The Walrus magazine claims that Stephen Harper is beholden to Canada’s powerful “religious right”.  After reading the article, Maclean’s columnist Paul Wells is incredulous skeptical.

[Writer Marci] McDonald believes the Prime Minister is in the pocket of religious extremists. She fails quite spectacularly to prove it: her article ends up reading like a brilliant satire of anti-conservative conspiracy theory. But we should welcome that, too. In science, maybe even in political science, if a hypothesis resists all attempts to prove it, you get to retire the hypothesis.

McDonald quotes a colourful array of anti-gay-marriage, anti-abortion, occasionally millenarian characters who are "convinced that Harper is one of their own." If the evidence so far is limited, there is a reason: "only after he wins a majority will he dare translate the true colours of his faith into policies that could remake the fabric of the nation." How so? McDonald is not sure. Perhaps Harper would "transform the country into a stern, narrow-minded theocracy." Or will he — McDonald is fond of phrasing her predictions as questions — turn over daycare to churches? Replace civil law by "Biblical prescriptions"?

Ms McDonald names four allegedly influential religious conservatives, but Wells shrugs them off as “kind of a bunch of losers”.  Yet, with the support of evangelical Christians and Jews, she claims Harper could be “unbeatable at the ballot box."  Dream on, says Wells.

In journalism it is almost always a good idea to count. About 12 per cent of Canadians self-identify as evangelicals and 1.2 per cent are Jewish. The NDP gets better numbers.

Canada has more NDP voters than evangelical Christians?  So much for theocracy.

At his Inkless Wells blog, Paul Wells reports that Maclean’s has received a letter from a “greatly displeased” Ken Alexander, editor of The Walrus.  Watch for more fireworks after the letter is published in the next few days.

Beverley Hughes, Minister for Children, Young People and Families in Tony Blair's government is the latest to stir up a hornet's nest by questioning family policies favoured by the "progressive" left.

Government minister Beverley Hughes sparked a row today after she said that putting very young children in childcare is not in their best interests.

The remarks by the Children’s Minister are likely to unleash a fresh debate about the effect — and possible harm — on children of putting them in nurseries rather than parents staying at home to look after them.

Conservative MP Tim Loughton pointed out the inconsistency between Ms Hughes's statement and tax system incentives to push mothers into the paid labour force.

Shadow children’s minister Tim Loughton hit out at the Government over its childcare policies, accusing it of "forcing" parents back to work as quickly as possible after the birth of a child through the tax credit system.

He added: "Now we have the Children’s Minister questioning whether that’s in the best interest of children. Parents will be confused and quite rightly outraged at these conflicting messages."

Ms Hughes also called for greater involvement from fathers in raising children.  She said that she and her husband both worked part-time for eight years so that their three children would have care from both parents.

Works and Pensions Secretary John Hutton has also made highly controversial pro-family, pro-children statements recently.

h/t: Pearcey Report

Previous related posts:

• Heresy from British cabinet minister
• UK’s Labour government seen as threat to families
• UK government contributing to erosion of marriage: Rowan Williams
• Does marriage matter for the nurturing of children?

Sitting atop Denmark's current best-seller list is "Islamists and Naivists," by Karen Jespersen and Ralf Pittelkow.  The authors used to be known as "progressive" thinkers in favour of a multicultural society, but their thinking has recently undergone considerable revision.

The book's main argument is that Europeans who ignore the threat posed by Islamists belong to a new and dangerous tribe of "naivists," a term coined by the authors.
. . .
"The threat is that the Islamists and their values are gaining ground in Europe, especially among the younger generation," he [co-author Pittelkow] said in an interview. "They try to interfere in people's lives, telling them what to wear, what to eat, what to think and what to believe. They warn Muslims to create their own societies within Europe or risk disappearing like salt in water."

Muslim leaders here have denounced the book, accusing Pittelkow and Jespersen of giving Muslim-bashing a respectable face in Denmark, a country that views itself as a tolerant and open society.

"Naivists" include those who underestimate or minimise the threat that Islamist extremism poses to liberal freedoms.  Some Danish leftists labelled as such in the book accuse the authors of encouraging unjustified attacks on Muslims and other immigrants.

The book also censures political leaders who appease Islamism by self-censorship and caving to demands for separate social and legal institutions.

One "naivist," Pittelkow says, is Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain. He cites the existence of Sharia councils in Britain that rule on divorce and inheritance cases, and notes a recent poll by Britain's Channel 4 indicating that 28 percent of young British Muslims want Britain to become an Islamic state and that 30 percent would rather live under Sharia than British law.

The book was released on 5 September, the same day that Danish authorities arrested nine Muslims on terror-related charges.

Denmark emerged as a front line in Islamist attempts to refashion Western public mores as a result of the Cartoon Jihad, launched over Mohammed cartoons originally published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten.

h/t: The Free West

Previous related posts:

• Aislin on the Cartoon Jihad
• Outrageous!
• Paul Marshall on the Mohammed Cartoons
• Enjoy freedom of the press while you can