Magic Statistics

Ten days ago, a UK Ministry of Defence paper reported that Pakistan’s military intelligence agency ISI is assisting Taliban forces in Afghanistan.  Despite angry (although sometimes ambivalent) denials by Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf, it now emerges that NATO leaders in Afghanistan take the same view of the ISI.  The British commander of NATO’s Afghan forces is set to confront Pres Musharraf with the evidence.

Among the evidence amassed is the address of the Taliban’s leader in a Pakistani city.

Lieutenant-General David Richards will fly to Islamabad tomorrow to try to persuade Pervez Musharraf to rein in his military intelligence service, which Richards believes is training Taliban fighters to attack British troops. He will request that key Taliban leaders living in Pakistan be arrested.

The evidence compiled by American, Nato and Afghan intelligence includes satellite pictures and videos of training camps for Taliban soldiers and suicide bombers inside Pakistan.

Captured Taliban fighters and failed suicide bombers have confirmed that they were trained by the Pakistani intelligence service, known as the ISI. The information includes an address in Quetta where Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader, is said to live.

In mob flicks and TV shows (think Sopranos), telling someone “I know where you live” is always understood as a direct threat to life and limb.  I wonder if the same applies here.  Would NATO send assassins to the mullah’s spread in Quetta, Pakistan?

One would think not, but maybe that depends on Pakistan’s success in shutting down Taliban operations within its borders.  British and American generals are not going to stand by while their soldiers continue to get killed because Musharraf hasn’t got his own military on side.

“I feel real vitriol seeing our boys dying because of Pakistan,” said one British officer.

A senior US commander added: “We just can’t ignore it any more. Musharraf’s got to prove which side he is on.”

Sounds like a threat to me.

Previous related posts:

• Pakistan takes pressure off the Taliban
• Whose side is Pakistan on, anyway?

French language police have for years tried in vain to hold back the tide of English words worming their way into everyday French speech.  Now some German politicians also feel compelled to take up the cause of preserving the purity of their language.

The deliberate mangling of the German language by generations of comedians has kept the British laughing since the end of the Second World War. Now the Germans are desperately trying to defend their tongue against a modern English invasion.

While the French have been fighting a losing battle against Franglais for years, the Germans are only now beginning to take seriously the threat to their language from the rise of Denglish – the bastard child of Deutsch and English.

Angered by the emergence of such phrases as "Das ist cool" (that is cool) and "Eine tolle latte to go" (one large milky coffee to take away), German politicians and academics are demanding that their language be enshrined in the country's constitution to save it from extinction.

We Canadians have considerable experience in making language a constitutional issue.  Some free advice: Don’t go there.

Get a load of this overheated rhetoric in one of Germany’s leading public-affairs magazines:

"Trendy pseudo-English produced daily by apparently brainless advertising agencies, marketing experts and computer salesmen is pouring forth like a poisonous porridge of magma which is burying a whole cultural landscape beneath it," warned the writer Matthias Schreiber in Germany's Der Spiegel magazine.

Maybe it's a German thing, but I cannot imagine how Denglish could be any worse than that.

Previous related post: English changing too fast for French language police

The Church of England has laid into government policies intended to make the UK a multi-faith society.  A confidential C of E briefing paper entitled "Cohesion and Integration - A briefing note for the House [of Bishops]", leaked to the Sunday Telegraph, argues that, far from integrating different faiths into British society, the policies have left the country religiously more divided than before.

It claims that divisions between communities have been deepened by the Government's "schizophrenic" approach to tackling multiculturalism. While trying to encourage interfaith relations, it has actually given "privileged attention" to the Islamic faith and Muslim communities.
. . .
Britain remains overwhelmingly a Christian country at heart and moves to label it as a multi-faith society suggest a hidden agenda, it says.
. . .
The report lists a number of moves made by the Government since the London bombings in July last year to win favour with Muslim communities. These include "using public funds" to fly Muslim scholars to Britain, shelving legislation on forced marriage and encouraging financial arrangements to comply with Islamic requirements. These efforts have undermined its interfaith agenda and produced no "noticeable positive impact on community cohesion", the Church document says.

"Indeed, one might argue that disaffection and separation is now greater than ever, with Muslim communities withdrawing further into a sense of victimhood, and other faith communities seriously concerned that the Government has given signals that appear to encourage the notion of a privileged relationship with sections of the Muslim community."

The document maintains that resources devoted to integrating minority faith communities, particularly Muslims, into British life have yielded little, if any, positive return.  The paper's blunt approach represents a complete turn-about from previous Church dealings with Government on the multi-faith issue, which have tended to be conciliatory and understated.

The paper was reportedly well-received at a meeting of the House of Bishops last week.

Shortly after he was installed as Archbishop of York last year, the Rev Dr John Sentamu went on record criticising England's multiculturalist policies.  Perhaps this briefing paper indicates that Dr Sentamu's view is proving influential within the Church.

Wherever it came from, I, for one, applaud this expression of common sense by the C of E.

In a related Sunday Telegraph editorial, Patience Wheatcroft writes, "Multiculturalism hasn't worked: let's rediscover Britishness".

Previous related posts:

• Multiculturalism is so last century
• Muslim peace rally?
• Multiculturalism has betrayed the English

Fredik Reinfeldt, newly elected leader of Sweden’s centre-right coalition government, has made several controversial appointments to his cabinet, most notably Nyamko Sabuni, the country's first black cabinet minister.

The appointment of Liberal Nyamko Sabuni as integration minister is proving to be one of Fredrik Reinfeldt's most controversial choices. Sabuni, who moved to Sweden from Burundi at the age of 12, is the first black person to be appointed a minister in Sweden.

Her suggestion that all girls should undergo compulsory checks for genital mutilation (otherwise known as female circumcision) led to controversy. Sabuni was also attacked by Muslim groups for proposing a ban on headscarves for girls under 15 and the introduction of a specific mention of honour crimes in the criminal code.

Muslim commentator and author Kurdo Baksi slammed Sabuni's appointment:

"I am very disappointed that a person whom I consider to be an Islamaphobe has been appointed integration minister. It is a very poor start to a centre-right government's integration policy," he said.

Ms Sabuni also supports outlawing child marriage and forced marriage and prohibiting doctors from issuing “virginity certificates”.

I wonder which of those views qualifies her as an "Islamaphobe"?

h/t: Western Resistance

Previous related posts:

• End of Sweden’s welfare-state dream?
• Swedish welfare state is rotting
• Norway, Sweden, EU, UN embrace dhimmitude

On the occasion of World Hospice and Palliative Care Day, Rev Dr John Sentamu, Archbishop of York, writes in support of love and care for the sick and dying.

Hospice care is one of the UK’s outstanding success stories. The birth of the modern hospice movement grew from the vision and commitment of Dame Cicely Saunders who founded and opened the first modern hospice, St Christopher’s, in 1967. Since then modern palliative care has grown into a worldwide movement that has radically changed the way we approach death and dying.

Motivated by her own faith in Christ, Dame Cicely built a movement that cares for people of all faiths and none. Hospices care for the whole person, aiming to meet all needs — spiritual, physical, emotional and social.

The loving care given in hospice is ignored by euthanasia and “assisted suicide” advocates who, in Dr Sentamu’s view, play on fear.

The way forward for our society is to value how much can be done for the seriously ill and the dying. We need to learn to value both one another and ourselves, not for our economic output, our worth to society, but as those created in the image of God and deeply loved, by Him and by others.

Amen to that!

Relations between Russia and its south Caucasus neighbour Georgia deteriorated rapidly this week.  In the latest intensification of hostilities, Russia has begun deporting immigrants from Georgia.

President Mikhail Saakashvili of Georgia called on the West to denounce Kremlin "xenophobia" yesterday after Russia began to expel Georgian immigrants from its borders in an escalation of the dispute with its southern neighbour.

At the same time, Russia has ordered schools in Moscow to provide lists of children who have Georgian surnames.  It is feared that this could be a first step toward eventual deportation.

The crisis started last week when Georgia arrested four Russian officers on charges of spying.  Despite their release last Monday, Russia has turned up the heat on Georgia across many fronts, imposing a series of economic sanctions in transportation, banking, and postal services.

Few believe that espionage is the root cause of the dispute.  Georgian President Saakashvili wants to cast off the legacy of Georgia’s decades in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, assert his country’s independence from Russia, and forge closer ties with the West.  He has publicly lamented residual inefficiencies that he attributes to the former Soviet dictatorship and ongoing Russian meddling. 

"Unfortunately we are trying to deal with the institutions left by the Soviet legacy. We would have loved to inherit the judiciary that Britain left its colonies." The Georgian president also praised the way Britain relinquished its empire.

Many Georgians believe that Russia has lost an empire but is still in denial, with imperialist attitudes still alive in Moscow.

Moscow’s displeasure may have been triggered by Mr Saakashvili’s pro-Western tendencies.  This is also believed to be a factor in Russia’s testy relations with other former Soviet republics.

The Georgian president is unabashedly pro-western, and that may be at the root of the problem. He has introduced market reforms, tried to reduce the Kremlin's hold on the country where Stalin was born and — to widespread Russian disgust — is seeking membership of Nato. Georgia is not alone. Russia is also furious with Ukraine, and even with Communist Moldova for moving towards the West.

Mr Saakashvili is also re-asserting Georgia’s control over Abkhazia and South Ossetia, two provinces that fancy themselves independent nations and maintain especially close ties with Moscow.

Edward Lucas, writing in The Economist, says that previous Russian attempts to intimidate small neighbours by implementing economic sanctions have backfired, and that may well happen again this time.

[E]xperience in the Baltic states suggests that Russian economic sanctions against rebellious former satellites often have a perverse effect, stimulating trade with the West and underlining the dangers of dependence on the huge and tempting Russian market.
. . .
The biggest victim of the spat may be Russia. Georgia, a member of the World Trade Organisation, has said that it will block Russia’s application until economic sanctions are dropped. Having tried to polish its international reputation during its presidency of the G8, Russia is now losing it, particularly where being neighbourly, lawful and level-headed are concerned. And the vitriolic, near-racist tone of the public discussion of Georgian migrant workers does little to assuage fears about Russia’s future political direction.

In related news today, Russia’s application to join the World Trade Organisation could be derailed by a Russian website that sells music downloads for between 10 and 20 cents per song, one-fifth or less of the price in Western countries.  The US regards the site as a major source of pirated music and insists that Russian authorities shut it down.  The company running the site says it is in full compliance with Russian copyright laws.

Previous related posts:

• Democracy not on the agenda at meeting of world’s largest democracies
• We’re democratic—just leave us alone, and no criticism allowed
• Caucasians and other minorities attacked in Moscow

When evangelical Christian Darrel Reid was appointed chief of staff to Environment Minister Rona Ambrose earlier this week, the Liberals had a cow. Liberal leader Bill Graham, objecting to Mr Reid's disapproval of homosexual-rights legislation, called his appointment “an affront to our democracy”.

Mr Reid, former head of Focus On The Family Canada, has voiced outspoken opinions regarding same-sex “marriage”, abortion, and other social policy issues.  Although his statements sometimes contain strong rhetoric, the positions he supports are commonplace among Canada’s Christians.

The Liberals have always portrayed themselves as champions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But, as David Asper, Chairman of the National Post, points out, their reaction to Darrel Reid’s appointment shows that it’s all talk.

[B]y attacking a man simply because he happens to hold Evangelical Christian views, the Liberals are showing us that they hold in contempt many of the Charter's most sacred human rights: freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief, opinion and expression. Remarkably, it is Bill Graham's Liberals, not Darrel Reid or any of the Conservatives' other bureaucratic appointees, who are the real threat to Charter values. No Liberal voice was heard to protest Graham's slag of Mr. Reid.

Like other social conservatives, Mr. Reid has voiced opposition to gay marriage, liberal abortion laws, no-fault divorce and a variety of other modern liberal institutions. Mr. Reid's views do not command a majority in this country, but they do have millions of adherents. As they did in the previous two election campaigns, the Liberals are sending the message that all of these millions of Canadians are somehow too weird and dangerous to be trusted with public office.

The response to Mr Reid’s appointment was not to debate, but to vilify—not just him personally, but the entire Conservative government.  Is that the way to conduct a national debate on public policy?  Or maybe that’s the Liberals’ real agenda here: to short-circuit the hard work of persuading Canadians that their polices are preferable by ridiculing anyone who disagrees with them.

It is hard to see how the Liberals’ tactic will contribute to civil democracy in our country.

h/t: Persecuted Church Weblog

Previous related posts:

• Religious hypocrisy in Canada
• Anti-religious hysteria