Magic Statistics

Officials in Azerbaijan have refused to allow registration of the parent’s choice for their new baby boy’s name.  The parents are Baptists and they want their baby named after the prophet Elijah.  That’s a no-no in the tiny but oil-rich nation with an overwhelmingly Muslim population.

Born on June 18 to a Christian family in northern Azerbaijan, three-month-old Ilya Eyvazov still has no official name.

Local authorities in the town of Aliabad at first refused to issue a birth certificate when the baby’s father, Novruz Eyvazov, tried to register his son’s birth on June 21.

“Impossible,” city administration officials told Novruz Eyvazov when they saw his son’s name was the Russian form of Elijah.

“They said it was because it was a Christian name,” said the Baptist church member.

Three months after the child’s birth, a government office finally issued a birth certificate, but the name field has been left blank.

Mr Eyvazov, who became a Christian in 1997, has five previous children.  He had great difficulty getting proper birth certificates for his last two children, boys named Moisei (Moses) and Luka (Luke).  It took 3 months for Moisei and 18 months for Luka.

Aliabad, a town of 10,000 people, has three Baptist congregations that are subject to frequent harassment and persecution.

Many local people, including some government officials, believe that giving babies Christian names is part of a plot to transfer the northern Azeri region of Zaqatala to neighbouring Georgia.

h/t: Persecution Blog

Previous related posts:

• Medieval Armenian cemetery destroyed
• Azerbaijan denies destroying ancient Armenian cemetery, but . . .

While visiting Australia, Canadian scientist TV personality David Suzuki yesterday unleashed a tirade against his hosts.  No one, not even the chef who prepared his free lunch, was spared.

During his hour-long National Press Club address, the renowned environmentalist swore repeatedly — despite his speech being broadcast live on ABC TV — criticising everyone from John Howard to his own supporters in the audience for eating the salmon and rice.

"You all sat here and chowed down on farmed salmon and obviously you don't give a s— about what you're putting into your body," the 70-year-old bellowed.

David Suzuki, ever the eloquent and gracious guest.

Dr Suzuki said Australia was a disappointment to the world because it had not ratified the Kyoto protocol, a pact between industrialised nations to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 2012.

He said as a result, Australia had no credibility as a "responsible global citizen".

"I've always thought of Australia as caring about being responsible international citizens, and by rejecting Kyoto, Mr Howard declares that Australia is an international outlaw, not to be bound by these kinds of treaties the rest of the world agrees to."

I thought being an outlaw was a matter of deeds, not words.  Given that the countries that actually signed on to Kyoto are failing to meet its requirements, aren’t they the real outlaws?

Dr Suzuki slammed Australia for allowing rice and cotton farming, and went on to condemn the Government's $350 million drought package for stricken farmers as an "ad hoc, knee-jerk" reaction.

He went on to praise — sarcastically — Mr Howard for acknowledging global warming. "Mr Howard has now acknowledged that global warming is happening. Thank God, it's about time," Dr Suzuki said.

"So 'boom', right away the solution is nuclear power. This guy ought to be booted out of office for that kind of approach to the problem, I mean, it's crazy."

Dr Suzuki’s subtle yet persuasive argumentation will no doubt prompt Mr Howard to resign in shame first thing tomorrow morning.

h/t: Greenie Watch

Previous related posts:

• Rona Ambrose: Friend of the environment
• Spot the comedian

Article 2 of The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms begins, “Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion”.  Evangelical Christian Kevin Kisilowsky of Stonewall, Manitoba, wonders whether that applies to him.  His licence as marriage commissioner was revoked last year because he refused, on religious grounds, to marry homosexuals.  He’s taking the government to court in an effort to have his Charter rights enforced.

Kisilowsky filed a complaint with the Manitoba Human Rights Commission in 2004 after the province informed all marriage commissioners — once gay unions became legal — that they had to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies or hand in their licences.

Kisilowsky argued he was being discriminated against because the province refused to accommodate his religious beliefs.

But the commission disagreed and dismissed his case.

So he's appealing in court and hearings could start as early as next year.

Here’s a question: Why are churches and other organized religious bodies allowed to refuse to marry homosexuals, whereas individuals like Mr Kisilowsky are not?  Does the Charter’s freedom of religion clause apply only to ordained clergy?

What’s more, until recently, Manitoba marriage commissioners were not actually required to marry anyone.

Marriage commissioners are not civil servants. In fact, anybody over the age of 18 can get a marriage commissioner licence, even a temporary one for the weekend.

The licence simply allows the person to solemnize a marriage.

They're not forced to do any marriages — except same-sex ones, according to the province.

So, here’s another question: Why has Manitoba mandated special treatment for homosexuals?

h/t: LifeSite News.

Previous related posts:

• Liberals hold Charter rights in contempt
• Religious hypocrisy in Canada
• Welcome To C-38istan