Magic Statistics

Source: Page-A-Day Online Calendar

Previous related post: For those who collect ten-dollar words

Caring Men Are Happier Than Traditional 'Macho' Men, Study Suggests — Science Daily, 30 April

Turkey’s parliament has passed an amendment to the notorious Article 301, which makes “insulting Turkishness” a criminal offence.  Under Article 301, Christians have been prosecuted for sharing their faith and academics and journalists threatened for discussing the Armenian Genocide.

Whether the amendment qualifies as an improvement, however, is doubtful.

Under the changes, which must still be approved by the country’s president, insulting Turkishness would no longer be a crime, but insulting the Turkish nation could still land you in prison.

According to Amberin Zaman, the Turkey correspondent for "The Economist" magazine, the distinction between insulting Turkishness and insulting the Turkish nation isn’t any clearer in Turkish than it is in translation. That leaves many people wondering how to interpret the revision to Article 301.

"A lot of people are asking the same question, and the change seems to be more cosmetic than anything else," Zaman says. "Indeed, what is the difference? And equally, what do they mean by the 'Turkish nation'? Does it mean ethnic Turks? Does it encompass Kurds, as well? Nobody really understands what this means."

In recent years, thousands of people have been prosecuted in Turkey for “insulting Turkishness,” as set out in Article 301. They include academics, historians, journalists, and writers — including Nobel laureate Orhan Pamuk.

If the amendment becomes law, insulting “Turkishness” will be legal but insulting the Turkish nation will not.  Somehow I doubt that will afford any additional protection for freedoms of thought and expression.

Previous related posts:

• Trial for “insulting Turkishness” drags on
• Accused Christians should be acquitted, says prosecutor

The collect for today, The Fifth Sunday After Easter, from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer:

O Lord, from whom all good things do come; Grant to us thy humble servants, that by thy holy inspiration we may think those things that be good, and by thy merciful guiding may perform the same; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The Epistle: St James 1:22-27
The Gospel: St John 16:23-33

Reliably far-left Globe and Mail commentator Rick Salutin engages human rights in today’s column and—surprise, surprise—gets it all wrong.  It’s behind the G&M subscriber wall, but you can read the whole thing for free at (where else?) rabble.  (Or you can do as I did and buy a dead-tree edition.)

Case 1: The Ontario Human Rights Commission has declined to rule on a complaint brought by Arab and Muslim groups against Maclean’s and writer Mark Steyn.  The OHRC said its mandate doesn’t cover such things but added, like a consolation prize: “Freedom of expression should be exercised through responsible reporting.”  This is clearly wrong.  Freedom of expression is exercised through irresponsible reporting—or what some people see that way.  That’s when the need to protect it arises.

Yes, the OHRC is “clearly wrong”, but so is Mr Salutin.  Freedom of expression is exercised whenever someone freely expresses an opinion—responsible, irresponsible, or otherwise.

The interesting part of the case is that the complainers asked not for an apology or correction—but for the right to reply, unedited, in Maclean’s.  Maclean’s refused.  I think this clarifies the stakes on both sides.  For Maclean’s owner Ted Rogers, what counts is not his right to free expression but his right to distribute massively what he chooses (through those he hires) to express.

As far as freedom of the press is concerned, that is a distinction without a difference.  Newspapers and other mass media commonly publish material not written by owners.  This has been an accepted practice for centuries and is not a big deal.  Indeed, it would be unworthy of mention but that Salutin is grinding his anti-capitalist ax again.  Here it comes.

It’s the reverse of the freedom to sleep under a bridge, which is available to rich and poor alike.  The other guys are free to publish magazines, too.  But the complainers demanded the right to express themselves with the same reach that Ted Rogers provides to Mark Steyn.  Call it the right to equal amplification of free expression.  That doesn’t sound unreasonable, but it turns the legal issue into an economic one.  How you respond to that in a society where money controls media, I don’t know.

Demanding a newly-minted “right to equal amplification of free expression” “doesn’t sound unreasonable”?  To the contrary, it sounds completely bonkers and betrays fundamental misunderstandings of both law and economics (now that he brings that up).  How exactly did Maclean’s gain its vaunted “reach” that complainants seek to commandeer at no personal cost?  Here’s a clue: It wasn’t bestowed by government edict.  Maclean’s started with next to nothing and earned its pre-eminent position among Canadian news magazines by prolonged, consistent use of journalistic and entrepreneurial skills.

Ted Rogers put his money (and that of willing investors) on the line when he purchased Maclean’s, so it is now his task to maintain its reputation.  If he does not, the magazine will suffer, along with his financial position.  That's why he has the right to freedom of expression through Maclean’s, and the complainants do not.

Moreover, the claim that money controls media is a tired and aged canard of the left, and an increasingly risible one in the age of internet and the blogosphere.

In Canada in 2008, it seems that anyone can prevail upon a human rights commission to force a private enterprise to bend to one’s will.  The complainants, God forbid, may well succeed in being awarded an undeserved free ride on the journalistic reputation and credibility that Maclean’s has spent decades building up.  But they should not fool themselves into believing that they will thereby share in that reputation and credibility.  For that, they would have do as Maclean’s and, for that matter, the Globe and Mail, have done: They would have to earn it.

Previous related posts:

• Richard Warman is exasperated
• New category of human rights violation: Failing to help clean house

The collect for today, The Feast Day of Saint Mark, Evangelist, from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer:

O Almighty God, who hast instructed thy holy Church with the heavenly doctrines of thy Evangelist Saint Mark; Give us grace, that, being not like children carried away with every blast of vain doctrine, we may be established in the truth of thy holy Gospel; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The Epistle: Ephesians 4:7-16
The Gospel: St John 15:1-11

Artwork: Bartolomeo Vivarini, St Mark Enthroned (central panel, Triptych of St Mark), 1474, Tempera on panel, Basilica di Santa Maria Gloriosa dei Frari, Venice.

More on St Mark here.

The collect for today, the Feast Day of Saint George (d. c. 303), Soldier, Martyr, Patron Saint of England (source):

O God of hosts,
who didst so kindle the flame of love
in the heart of thy servant George
that he bore witness to the risen Lord
by his life and by his death:
grant us the same faith and power of love
that we, who rejoice in his triumphs,
may come to share with him the fullness of the resurrection;
through Jesus Christ thy Son our Lord,
who liveth and reigneth with thee,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, now and for ever.

The Epistle: 2 St Timothy 2:8-10, 3:10-12
The Gospel: St John 15:1-7

Artwork: Gustave Moreau, Saint George and the Dragon, 1889-90.  Oil on canvas, National Gallery, London.

The collect for today, the Feast Day of Saint Anselm (1033-1109), Abbot of Bec, Archbishop of Canterbury, Doctor of the Church (source):

O everlasting God,
who gavest to thy servant Anselm
singular gifts as a pastor and teacher:
grant that we, like him,
may desire thee with our whole heart
and, so desiring, may seek thee
and, seeking, may find thee;
through Jesus Christ thy Son our Lord,
who liveth and reigneth with thee,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, now and for eve.

The Epistle: Romans 5:1-11
The Gospel: St Matthew 11:25-30

More on St Anselm here.

The collect for today, The Fourth Sunday After Easter, from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer:

O Almighty God, who alone canst order the unruly wills and affections of sinful men; Grant unto thy people, that they may love the thing which thou commandest, and desire that which thou dost promise; that so, among the sundry and manifold changes of the world, our hearts may surely there be fixed, where true joys are to be found; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The Epistle: St James 1:17-21
The Gospel: St John 16:5-15

Hallelujah! After much prayer, viewing of houses and house plans, and consulting with real estate agents and builders, the StatWife and I have arranged to have a new house built for us in Falmouth, Nova Scotia.  We also benefited from the invaluable aid of friends old and new.

Here are two views of this blog’s future home.  Ta-Da!

At right is the map of Halewood Drive, our street in the Valley View East subdivision.  Our lot, # 9, is bordered by farm land in the back while a green space is across the street.

Falmouth is located on the north side of Lake Pisiquid, across from Windsor, a delightful old town that claims to be the birthplace of hockey, and south of Hantsport, which during the late 19th century was the world’s fifth largest ship-building site.  More importantly, Windsor is home to the best English pub I’ve ever visited outside of Britain: The Spitfire Arms Ale House.  I love this place already.

Only 45 minutes from downtown Halifax, Falmouth is a farming area that has become a popular place for residential development.  Many Falmouthians make the daily commute to the big city by car or bus.  I am also told that geezers retirees from Western Canada like to settle here and elsewhere in the Annapolis Valley, driving real estate prices through the roof.

Since signing the agreement to purchase the house, the StatWife and I have been very busy drinking beer selecting flooring, siding, roofing, lighting, appliances, etc, etc.  Since we only have a few more days in Nova Scotia, everything has to be finalised before we return to Whitehorse.

If all goes as planned, our new home will be ready to occupy when we arrive permanently in early September.

Meanwhile, the countdown continues.

The collect for today, The Third Sunday After Easter, from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer:

Almighty God, who shewest to them that be in error the light of thy truth, to the intent that they may return into the way of righteousness; Grant unto all them that are admitted into the fellowship of Christ's Religion, that they may eschew those things that are contrary to their profession, and follow all such things as are agreeable to the same; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The Epistle: 1 St Peter 2:11-17
The Gospel: St John 16:16-22

On Deborah Gyapong’s advice, I snapped up a copy of the 21 April issue of Maclean’s and read Charlie Gillis’s profile of serial litigant Richard Warman (at right).   It’s worth every penny.  Warman comes across as a blinkered, self-righteous egomaniac with no awareness that his crusade endangers freedom of speech.

His successful string of complaints to the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission against bottom-feeding neo-Nazis inspired offended Muslims to bring their own complaints against high-profile targets Ezra Levant (for publishing the Danish Mohammed cartoons) and Maclean’s (for publishing an excerpt from Mark Steyn’s book).

The ensuing public outcry has focused attention on the CHRC's scandalous disdain for proper legal procedures and prompted calls to repeal Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the section under which Warman has waged his censorious campaign.

Warman can’t understand what all the fuss is about.

[A]cademic, political and legal heavyweights have been lining up against Section 13 — and by extension, Warman. . . . For Warman, the reaction has been exasperating. He has nothing to do with the cases against Maclean's or Levant, he says, so why take away the legal weapons he uses against unregenerate hate-mongers? But John Dixon, a two-term former president of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association who has locked horns with Warman in the past, says it's disingenuous for someone with Warman's means and legal acumen to run from the consequences of his cases. "Unless you're an idiot, you have to be thinking about what kind of conception of the law, what conception of freedom of expression, what conception of the relationship between the individual and the state is cemented in place by your action," he says. "Cases like these foster an atmosphere in which sensible people who know they can't summon the resources to defend themselves will censor themselves. It creates an ever-growing body of very regressive law when it comes to the integrity and freedom of a democratic forum."

What will it take to open Richard Warman’s eyes to the damage he has caused our civil liberties?

Read the whole thing for free here.

Previous related post:  Richard Warman litigates again