EclectEcon

One Reason I Moved Toward Libertarianism

Don Boudreaux at Cafe Hayek nails it. I was young, a borderline socialist, certainly a wannabe elitist interventionist. And then I realized that giving more power to politicians and their appointees  not only could but would lead to implementation of policies I abhor. I began to back off my more interventionist views. But Boudreaux says it all so well:

If you are a modern “Progressive” and cannot abide the notion of conservatives, Christian or otherwise, having a say in who you sleep with and who you may marry, when and why you may get an abortion, what sorts of scientific research and artistic projects should be funded, what school curricula should and shouldn’t include, or when and why Uncle Sam goes on world-policing ventures, then why do you wish to expand the scope of government authority?  Doing so in a society with a wide franchise, such as the U.S., inevitably invites those rubes to intrude their antediluvian superstitions and dogmas onto you and onto all that you hold dear and sacred.

Indeed, much of politics seems like a battle between opponents vying for the right to control other people. But there is more there; the above is just an excerpt. Here is his conclusion:

The more expansive is the scope of government authority, the more my life is subject to commands issued in part under the influence of people who read Us magazine.
Scary.

Read the whole thing. It's not all that long. 

Has EclectEcon Been Barred from Ireland?

Not exactly. But the Teachers' Union of Ireland has unanimously passed a motion urging their members not to work with scholars who have Israeli affiliation. And that includes EclectEcon. From Engage:

A motion, calling for all members of the union to end work with Israeli counterparts, was passed unanimously at the TUI annual conference in Galway on Thursday.

The union called on the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to increase its campaign for boycott, divestment and sanctions against “the apartheid state of Israel until it lifts its illegal siege of Gaza and its illegal occupation of the West Bank”.

The passed motion requests TUI members to “cease all cultural and academic collaboration with Israel, including the exchange of scientists, students and academic personalities, as well as all cooperation in research programmes”.

The motion doesn’t bother to maintain the fiction of the “institutional boycott”.  This is a boycott of scholars and students on the basis of their nationality.  This is a boycott of a significant proportion of the world’s Jewish academics and students for reasons which are nothing to do with anything that those academics have said or done.  Nobody but Israelis are to be boycotted.

This is disgusting, outrageous, an affront to academic freedom, and anti-semitic. They do not go after China for its occupation of Tibet; they do not go after North Korea for its human rights violations; they do not go after Saudi Arabia and its neighbours for their treatment of women; etc., etc. Nor do they go after scholars from those countries.

Instead they single out Israel, a democracy, a country which has had to fight three wars to ensure its existence - a country which must continue to take measures to protect itself from formal declarations that they should be annihilated. And what is more, they go after scholars affiliated with Israel. 

Long-time readers of EclectEcon will know my position. I am so upset by such views and single-country stances, that quite a few years ago I sought and obtained affiliation with two different Israeli academic institutions: Haifa and Bar-Ilan. As my email signature reads,

Member, Int'l Advisory Board for Academic Freedom, Bar-Ilan Univ
Affiliated Professor, University of Haifa

Related articles

Irish academics' union votes to "cease all cultural and academic collaboration with Israel"

Teachers Union of Ireland unanimously calls for Academic Boycott of Israel

Cabaret: Berlin in the late 1920s, early 1930s

Berlin in the late 1920s and early 1930s was a hotbed of exploration and experimentation. Communists and socialists were strong, and at the same time sexual freedom was at an apex. Clubs abounded to present and/or satisfy nearly every sexual fantasy. Suppliers of these services were often young people (and their families!) who had lost their savings either in WWI or in the hyperinflation of the early 1920s. Others were simply young people who loved the sense of freedom and exploration. 

It was against this backdrop that Christopher Isherwood visited and revisited Berlin and wrote his stories and short novel that led, eventually, to the musical "Cabaret". Any performance of Cabaret that does not capture both the ecstatic freedom and the depressing near-slavery of this era misses the mark. To see what I mean, take some time to look at the documentary "Berlin - Metropolis of Vice" (broken into three parts for posting on YouTube) below [h/t Paige Miller, our director/producer].

In our upcoming performance, one of my roles is Max, the creepy owner of the Kit-Kat club, a small seedy nightclub where anything is possible and for sale. 

The second part of the documentary explicitly mentions Isherwood. And the third part shows the puritan-like views of the Nazis and the impact of their rise to power in the early 1930s.

Now put all this to music, singing, dancing, and acting; then throw in a substantial secondary love plot involving a Jew, and you have "Cabaret". 

 

Cabaret (Fuse Productions)
McManus Studio Theatre, London, Ontario
March 22-23; March 26-30 8pm, $25
March 23, 30 2pm, $15
Preview, March 21, 8pm, $15

Related articles

Cabaret, the Musical: March 22-30 McManus Studio Theatre, London, Ontario

Joel Grey donates 'Cabaret' hat to Smithsonian

Liza Minnelli talks 'Cabaret' in new doc on 40th anniversary Blu-ray - EXCLUSIVE VIDEO

Academic Freedom?

This past weekend I attended the annual meeting of SAFS (Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship). I'm a lifetime member of the group. This year's meeting consisted of numerous ivory-tower-type discussions of the meaning of academic freedom and how it can be preserved. To me it was a big yawn, even though I strongly believe that academic freedom, by some definition, is extremely important. 

And today I see the Trono Globe and Mail has a column about academic freedom. The G&M column makes explicit what was an underlying theme at the weekend conference: concerns about funding affect people's decisions and behaviour. As an economist, my reaction is.... "well, duh."

I love the idea of competition in the marketplace of ideas. I love the notion that better ideas will eventually conquer less-good ideas. I realize this is a long, painful, costly process, however. And I realize that universities, taxpayers, donors, parents, and students are not terribly eagre to fund the process. 

In economics, neoclassical thought gave way to the Keynesianism of the 50s and 60s, which gave way to monetarism of the 70s and 80s, which gave way to rationalized expectorations rational expectations, which has now given way to ???

Each time the prevailing orthodoxy was challenged successfully, it was because scholars have felt free to challenge it, to explore, to learn, to create, to develop. I'm grateful there is funding available to support scholars who challenge the orthodox. 

At the same time, I can assure you that if I had a cool $20m to donate to a university, I'd want to attach some strings to it. I'd want to be able to name the majority of the people who would oversee the stewardship of my donation. I would not want my money "squandered" (as it would be, in my view) on supporting a centre for the study and dissemination of, say, mathematical game theory (certainly a worthy endeavour, but not with my money, thank you). And I wouldn't want my money to be used for things that would ordinarily come out of the general budget so the funds from the general budget could be used to support such a centre. 

In my mind, academic freedom is not the same thing as open funding of whatever I want to study and teach. And once others acknowledge this distinction, we can begin to talk about what it should mean. 

Is Multi-Culturalism a "Delectable Lie"?

Salim Mansur has recently published a book on multiculturalism, The Delectable Lie, published by Mantua Books. He was in Regina, Saskatchewan, last week, speaking about  and debating the topic with Khurram Awan. Salim Mansur is a professor of political science at The University of Western Ontario and, as regular readers of Eclectecon know, a good friend. Khurram Awan is an attorney who worked for a group of Muslims in their human rights cases against Rogers Communications, Maclean's magazine, and writer Mark Steyn. 

The deck was clearly stacked against Mansur, who has been described as a modern, moderate Muslim. There was virtually no advertising of the event at the university, despite my pleas that the event be advertised widely. And it appeared that about 80% or so of the audience was made up of friends of Awan.

Mansur's presentation focused on the contrast between 19th-century liberalism and many different cultures. He relied heavily on political philosophy, John Stuart Mill, and catch-phrases from the U.S. Declaration of Independence (probably a strategic error in presenting to a left-leaning, anti-US audience). He also cited incidents of honour killings in Canada and Pierre Trudeau's reported regrets about having supported multi-culturalism.

Awan focused on legal aspects, essentially saying that all cultures must abide by the laws of the land. 

I found the entire event extremely disturbing.

• Questioners were clearly hostile to Mansur and were allowed to make inappropriately long speeches themselves attacking him. One, in particular misquoted Mansur, misrepresented Mill, and attacked his reference to the US Declaration of Independence, all to audience nods and wild applause. 
• In response to all these questions, Mansur continued to emphasize that they would not be able to have these discussions in a country that doesn't value freedom as much as we do in Canada, and that is his concern. This point seemed to fall on deaf ears.
• When I asked Awan how to reconciled the freedoms of expression and religion when they come into conflict, he launched into a discussion of "hate speech", which was appropriate, and then mentioned "competition in the marketplace for ideas", a view to which most classical liberals subscribe. His only criticism of this view was that he thought Rogers had an obligation to provide a venue for opposing views so that this competition could take place. Afterwards, I took him to task for that position (not being allowed follow-up questions and not being allowed to make a speech myself). He admitted that he, himself, would feel no obligation to provide equal time for Mansur's views in his own speeches, but argued that Rogers had/has an obligation to provide equal space for people who oppose views like those of Mark Steyn.

Of course this is incorrect. When I called him on it, he alleged that Rogers has a monopoly in the media. Nonsense. The CBC and many other media outlets certainly provide support for views counter to those of Mansur or Steyn (or Ezra Levant, for that matter). Also, if the issue is one of monopolization of the media, that should be a Competition Policy issue, not a human rights issue.

• A Muslim woman complained that Corner Gas doesn't hire female comedy writers but that she is a writer for CBC's "Little Mosque on the Prairie." She somehow attributed her freedom to be a comedy writer in Canada to her Muslim faith, but the logic of that escaped me. Nevertheless, the audience applauded wildly. Once again Mansur's response essentially said that she is lucky to be in Canada, for surely Muslim women in other countries, where Muslim and Arab cultures dominate, would not have the freedom to pursue such interests. Again, the pithiness of this type of response seemed to slip right past the audience.

In Mansur's book, I am especially enamoured of his work on the clashes of freedoms. For example, on p119, he approvingly cites Dworkin's piece, "The Right to Ridicule."

The theme throughout his book is well-stated on p134:

Multiculturalism was promoted as a policy that would make for a tolerant, accommodating and peaceful society tending towards increased diversity as a result of open-door immigration policy. But tolerance of the intolerant, the accommodation of those who push extremism of one sort or another as the Islamists or the Khalistani Sikhs have done, under the cover of multiculturalism [EE: and, I would add, under the cover of "freedom of religion and charter guarantees] has amounted to the undermining of liberal democracy from the inside. This is the paradox of liberal democracy, its vulnerability resulting from its concerns to improve the conditions of living for its citizens and its commitment to remain true to its principles of freedom and individual rights even as some might want to subvert them.

As I blogged many years ago, when the freedoms conflict, freedom of expression must take dominance over freedom of religion. Otherwise intolerant religions will dominate.

Update: Here is yet another example of the clashes that can result as we try to work our way through the conflicts between various freedoms [h/t Jack].

Is It Possible to be a Quasi-Libertarian?

I tend to think of myself as a libertarian or at least as having strong libertarian tendencies. What this means, I think, is that I recognize the gubmnt has important roles such as law enforcement, provision for contract enforcement and the common law, and (dare I say this) the provision of some sort of social safety net. But the problem with this last gubmnt activity is that it creates distorted incentives and opens the door for lobbying for increased gubmnt actions to raise the height of the social safety net. This is a problem, potentially, because the higher the social safety net, the lower are the incentives for people to prepare for and plan for different contingencies in their own lives.

Unlike many libertarians, I am willing to tolerate this problem to some extent. I am willing to use the force and power of gubmnt to require that we all become "our brothers' keepers" to some extent. But not much, especially when individuals choose to take risks of serious personal loss that they ought to know about and ought to prepare for (yes, this is a normative statement).

I was prompted to write this by a recent Bryan Caplan posting at EconLog, where he writes,

[C]ritics of libertarianism will never run out of empirically plausible "hard cases."  When faced with these hard cases, the best response we'll ever have is, "Charity can probably provide for the deserving poor.  Everyone else should live with the consequences of their actions - and stop blaming total strangers for failing to help them."

This conclusion of his posting captures my views pretty well. At the same time, I have little objection when the gubmnt provides some basic family welfare (e.g., beans have high protein content and will keep people from starving). 

Having said this, though, I'm not at all in favour of using gubmnt to force us all to help out all people who suffer calamatous losses. For example, consider those who lose their homes to hurricanes, floods, etc. These are clearly insurable risks, and it is beyond me that people choose to live in high risk areas without having adequate insurance. If the answer is that the insurance premia are "too high" (whatever that means), then I still see their choice to live there as a voluntary decision; they could have lived elsewhere.

In these instances, I support the role of (and indeed have contributed to) private charity to help people through the transition after natural disasters, and I have offered assistance to people who have maxed out their deductibles and co-pays for various unexpected calamities. And that is an important part of my quasi-libertarianism: private charity must step up, especially to the extent that gubmnt doesn't always do a very good job.

More on Islamic Studies at Huron College

I hope I have made it clear in my previous postings on this subject that I do not oppose free and open inquiry into any religion. The concern we raised in our initial letter, and which we continue to emphasize, is about the source of the funding for the proposed chair in Islamic Studies at Huron College, which is affiliated with The University of Western Ontario.

Because I was the primary signer of the initial letter, my name appears in this article quite a bit. Let me make clear, though, that even the initial letter was a group effort. 

From the article,

The UWO-affiliated college is caught in the crossfire of a decision to accept money from Muslim groups -- one local, one international -- to help fund a new chair in Islamic studies. Critics say there's a link to violent jihadism there and the $2 million could influence school courses and choice of chair. Huron College insists neither is true.

Based on numerous items, I am concerned about the quality of the "due diligence" performed by Huron College in their investigation into the nature of the source of funding for this endowed chair. I really hope they will re-open the question for discussion and additional input.

Geert Wilders Visited London, Ontario, Yesterday: some quotes and photos

Geert Wilders, outspoken Dutch critic of Islam and producer of the (in)famous film, Fitna, spoke in London, Ontario, last evening, under a cloak of secrecy and surrounded by a wall of security. 

Wilders is a well-known public figure who sees Islam as more of an ideology than a religion. During his talk, he lambasted multiculturalism. Two quotes:

Multiculturalism is the biggest disease in Europe today.

And the reason for that?

Multiculturalism would not have been such a catastrophe if it weren't for Islam.

Because of his views, his public statements, his film, and his policy proposals, Wilders' life is constantly in danger. The organizers of the evening event, the International Free Press Society, refused to advertise the dates and locations of his talks while he is in Canada. Instead, we found out about them through word-of-mouth and then had to register before receiving the information [he does have two more talks planned while he is in Canada, in case you are interested; the information is available at the IFPS website]. 

Accompanying Wilders were about 10 security personnel from The Netherlands; also the RCMP had a large security contingent on hand. We all went through a security check before being admitted to the place where he spoke.

This is just plain wrong. People speaking about religion and ideology should not live in fear for their lives and the lives of their friends and families. 

Geert Wilders:

The warm-up act for Wilders was a dialogue between Ezra Levant (of human rights and freedom of the press fame in Canada) and Sam Solomon, a noted scholar of Islam and Sharia Law; it was mostly an interview of Solomon by Levant. During that interview, Solomon (who converted to Christianity and was at times quite coy about his past) proclaimed,

If you do not hate, you cannot be a complete Muslim.

Both Wilders and Solomon are very outspoken critics of Islam.

Here is a photo I took of Solomon and Levant ( all my photos from the event: twelve-times optical zoom, no flash, from about 50 feet away):

The session was introduced by Bjorn Larsen, who recently filmed a documentary about Caledonia, freedom, and property rights and who heads up the IFPS:

One more photo of Wilders, who was extremely engaging and compelling as a speaker:

Geert Wilders to Visit Canada to Speak

Actually, click here.

The truly sad aspect of his visit is that because of concerns about safety, the organizers are not willing to advertise the dates and locations of his visits. However, by clicking on the link above, you can find the cities he is visiting and you can register to attend the talk. From that site,

Since 2004, Geert Wilders has been living under 24-hour police protection because his life is threatened by extremist Muslims. In 2008, Mr. Wilders gained international attention when he wrote and commissioned Fitna, a short documentary that explored Koranic inspired motivations for terrorism, Islamic universalism, and Islam in the Netherlands.

Mr. Wilders travels the world in defense of liberty and freedom of expression.

I'm planning to attend the session, which will also include a presentation by Ezra Levant. The get-together is organized by the International Free Press Society. 

Even if you don't agree with Wilders (or Levant, for that matter), I hope you agree they should be free to say the things they say. Competition in the marketplace for ideas is both valuable and powerful.

Preston Manning on Freedom

Last evening I attended a talk by Preston Manning, founder of the Reform Party in Canada and former leader of the opposition. He is a very engaging speaker.

While his talk was about grass-roots democracy in the prairies, I was delighted with the point he made both during his talk and in speaking with him afterward, namely that the essential elements of freedom (from his perspective) comprise freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. He does not include freedom of religion with these freedoms for the same reason that I don't: namely concern about the clashes of religious beliefs with the freedom of speech in theocracies. 

 Addendum: For those interested in a detailed summary, see the "dead blogging" done by John Klein here. He and I attended the event together, and he graciously took the above photo using my iPhone.

 

Wilders' Opening Remarks on the Importance of Freedom of Speech

In my mind, freedom of speech/press must trump freedom of religion. If my saying or publishing something controversial contravenes the tenets of any religion or organization, those tenets must give way to my freedom to express those views.

In my mind, that is what Geert Wilders is fighting about. Here are some excerpts from his opening remarks, defending himself for allegedly having engaged in hate crimes.

This trial is not about me. It is about something much greater. Freedom of speech is not the property of those who happen to belong to the elites of a country. It is an inalienable right, the birthright of our people. For centuries battles have been fought for it, and now it is being sacrificed to please a totalitarian ideology.

Future generations will look back at this trial and wonder who was right. Who defended freedom and who wanted to get rid of it.

The lights are going out all over Europe. Our freedom is being restricted everywhere, so I repeat what I said here last year:

It is not only the privilege, but also the duty of free people — and hence also my duty as a member of the Dutch Parliament — to speak out against any ideology that threatens freedom. ... I hope that freedom of speech will emerge triumphant from this trial. I hope not only that I shall be acquitted, but especially that freedom of speech will continue to exist in the Netherlands and in Europe.

Notice that by careful editing, I have removed any reference in these remarks to the nature of his alleged hate crime. I've done so because it doesn't matter whether he offended Jews, Catholics, Muslims, sociologists, or even graduates of York University. He's right.

Lars Hedgaard Acquitted

Whether you like what Lars Hedgaard said or not, and whether you like the reason for the acquittal or not, the very fact of the acquittal is an assist in the support of freedom of speech. 

When I see the political abuse of "hate speech" laws, these laws cause me great concern. I'm not sure where to draw the line, if one must be drawn, but I certainly prefer the concept of "competition in the marketplace for ideas" to legislative and judicial control.

For more specifics on the Lars Hedgaard case, see this and this.

WikiLeaks and the Economics of Property and Information

Let's get one thing clear: WikiLeaks is not entirely about freedom of expression. It is also about publishing stolen information. It does, however, raise an interesting question about who should have what legal entitlements to do what with intercepted or stolen diplomatic communications. This point is made quite forcefully by Janet Daley in The Telegraph.

In its self-contradictory maintenance of its own untraceable operations, it [WikiLeaks] effectively declares itself to be the only agency in the world that is entitled to secrecy. Its insistence that it is somehow a voice of open and transparent “freedom of expression” is simply absurd: there is no issue here of any individual or group openly expressing an opinion that would otherwise have been suppressed. The only opinion that is implicitly conveyed by WikiLeaks’ exposures is the boringly prosaic anti-Americanism of the average Guardian comment writer.

All that WikiLeaks has done, as its name suggests, is to publish stolen documents that were purloined by a malcontent within the US defence network. As it happens, the leaked material has been almost entirely unsurprising, apart from one rather spectacular own goal in WikiLeaks terms: it turns out that a number of Gulf states have been urging the US to strike at Iran before it succeeds in producing nuclear weapons, and that the US has been resisting this pressure. This tends to undermine both the image of America as trigger-happy warmonger and the idea that the entire Muslim world is united in hatred and distrust of the Great Satan.

 There are, of course, at least two parties involved in the WikiLeaks: those who "stole" the documents and provided them to WikiLeaks; and WikiLeaks itself. WikiLeaks is probably more like a publisher than anything else and will quite possibly be protected under freedom of the press. At the same time, I'm not sure that freedom of the press protects disclosure of "official secrets"; my recollection from The Pentagon Papers escapade of 1971 is that it does in at least some instances (for example, see this); but even if it doesn't, if the only relief is injunctive, it's too late now -- the cat's already out of the bag.

Update: George Friedman of Stratfor has pretty similar views.

Freedom of Speech and Scarce Resources

In his classic textbook on the Economic Analysis of Law, Judge Richard Posner points out that

1. Freedom of speech is not absolute. When the costs of competition in the marketplace for ideas outweigh the benefits (e.g. shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre), that type of speech is not allowed.
2. Freedom of speech does not mean that others must provide scarce resources for you to exercise this right. We have no obligation to provide you with a radio station, a newspaper, or any other venue to present your views. What we do have is an obligation to let you use your own scarce resources to promote your views (so long as doing so does not violate the first point, above).

I'm writing about this because recently I was accused of violating someone's freedom of speech.

The situation was this: there has been a huge debate on the campus of The University of Regina about whether the students should remain members of the Canadian Students' Federation. As is usual in situations like this, students often approach professors, asking if they can have a few minutes at the beginning of class to address the students in that class. 

I have never allowed presentations like this (or about job opportunities, etc.) in my classes. And so when I was approached outside one class by someone from one faction I replied, "Absolutely not!" And later that day, when I was approached by someone else from the opposite faction outside a different class, I again replied, "Absolutely not!"

I then informed the students in both classes not to ask to address their classmates on matters not directly related to the coursework, explaining that in my 64 years of teaching, I have never permitted my classroom to become a forum for political debate or entrepreneurial activities.

I was quite surprised that evening to receive the following e-mail message:

John,

I am sure you have received an email from URFA [University of Regina Faculty Association] announcing that should be allowing students to engage in the freedom of speech. They support the allowance of students speaking about the referendum. Today you disallowed me from speaking in your class, but we will most likely be sending someone again as we think it is vital for students to be aware of the referendum and becoming engaged university citizens. Please re-consider your decision.

Thank you,

I responded that I had not received any such e-mail and that I had checked with colleagues who informed me there is no university obligation to let students address the classes on such topics. I also pointed out the difference between freedom of speech and freedom to use other people's scarce resources to promote an idea. And I noted that both sides of the campaign use pamphlets, posters, tables in the corridors, etc. to promote their views to their fellow students; there is clearly no abrogation of "freedom of speech" taking place here.

And now, several days later, I am still bothered by the incident. It turns out the Faculty Association at The University of Regina has been debating whether faculty members should say anything or allow the students to say anything about the CFS. They have not issued any e-mail obligating us to do anything.

Also, as one my colleagues discovered, allowing students from one side of an issue to make such a presentation leads to demands for equal time from students supporting the other side; classrooms become debate forums, taking time away from what should be going on there. If students want the university to provide debating forums, I'm sure the university would oblige (and probably has). But there is no plausible argument to cut into class time to provide those forums. 

Update: no student approached me prior to any of my ensuing classes, asking to address the class.

"I was very happy to get blown up to save the world."

That sentence was uttered, not by a terrorist suicide bomber, but by a child actor in the notorious video "No Pressure". [see this, h/t Jack]

The parallels are disturbing: Children and young people from different walks of life being brain-washed into being willing to sacrifice their lives for a cause.

For another parallel, see this, about some veiled threats against atheists from some Christians in Oklahoma [from Ted Frank, no link available].  

I understand and agree with the need to teach children and youngsters the importance of principles and morality. But killing and threatening to kill those who disagree with you is rarely, if ever, defensible (I was a pacifist for much of my life). I much prefer competition in marketplace for ideas. 

 

Social Conservatives or Libertarians in the Republican Party?

Gerry Nichols tells of his work for a more-libertarian and less social-conservative candidate for the Republican nomination for the Senate in New Hampshire. His column in the National Post reminds me of the difficulties that often ensued when the more-libertarian and more-social-conservative folks formed a shaky coalition in Canada called "The Reform Party". 

Once again in the US, it looks as if the social conservatives are tending to dominate and are making life very difficult for those candidates with more libertarian views. Bill Binnie, the candidate for whom Gerry was working, wrote,

To me, if you’re a Republican, it means you stand for the very principles which made America great, principles such as freedom, individual rights and tolerance … Yet elements within my own party have a different vision of what it means to be Republican. They are more about imposing moral values than individualism, more about allowing government to dictate decisions on issues that should be a matter of personal conscience.

I would delighted if more people with views like these (e.g. King Banaian as well) were elected to public office. But as Gerry concludes: 

The fact is: Social conservatives have come to dominate the Republican Party and they will simply not tolerate social moderates in their midst. That’s too bad because they are driving away good candidates. In the process, they are making the Republican Party weaker, narrower and less electable. 

And let me add that if the social conservatives are driving the libertarians out of the Republican party, I cannot wish them well. I resent the anti-freedom, big-gubmnt views and policies of both major parties in the US, and I worry that we are facing a similar situation in Canada.

Women, Chattel, and Islam in Yemen

Here is yet another disturbing story about female children in Yemen being treated as chattel to be sold off as brides to willing bidders. In this case it was a swap, a trade in kind: my sister for your sister [h/t Gary]:

The practice of marrying young girls is widespread in Yemen and drew the attention of international rights groups seeking to pressure the government to outlaw child marriages.

Legislation that would make it illegal for those under the age of 17 to marry is in serious peril after strong opposition from some of Yemen's most influential Islamic leaders...

More than a quarter of Yemen's females marry before age 15, according to a report last year by the Social Affairs Ministry....

Last month, a group of the country's highest Islamic authorities declared those supporting a ban on child marriages to be apostates.

Okay, I guess I am an apostate. News stories like this one highlight the importance of understanding that freedom of religion cannot be and should not be absolute. There are far too many religious practices and dictates throughout the world that impinge on and threaten other personal freedoms that I consider more important.

YouTube and Freedom of from Expression

Mark Steyn, outspoken as usual, has some interesting comments about the policies from YouTube and other places concerning items that are pro-Israel (compared with some that are definitely anti-Israel). His concluding remarks reveal the biases:

Their [YouTube's] technological iconoclasm is, alas, all too often accompanied by soft-left squishiness on broader philosophical points such as freedom of expression. I long ago lost count of the number of places, from Toronto Airport to Marriott hotels, that have SteynOnline blocked as a "hate" site. Oddly enough, jihadist networks calling for death and destruction of western civilization, including the crappy Marriott round the back of the airport, never seem to fall into the "hate" category.

Kagan: It Just Doesn't Matter

One of the things that separates me from most of my right-wing friends is that I am definitely not a social conservative. Rather, I am more libertarian, valuing freedom highly. 

An example of this distinction comes from US Supreme Court Justice nominee Kagan. I do not care what her sexual preference or sexual orientation is. And to be more blunt, I don't think anyone else should either. And so I find articles like this to be of little relevance in considering whether she would be a good justice. 

Is she gay? It doesn't matter and it shouldn't be an issue.

What Ten Books Would You Save in a Fire?My Answer: None.

I came across this question the other day while reading this (likely via Craig Newmark). I thought about the question for a few minutes, and then I realized my answer is "none".

Not that I want the contents of books to disappear. Even I am not so much of an unlettered person that I would wish for that.

Rather, it's that I don't read books as books much anymore. I read books on the internet, I read books on my iPhone, but I don't often read hard copy books. And the ones I read as hard copy are generally (like most textbooks) so unimportant to me in the grand scheme of things that I wouldn't really miss them anyway (in part because they were sent to me by publishers at no charge). 

And in another 5-10 years I will hold this view even more strongly. I really doubt there will be many, if any, books in the homes of most of us or even in most libraries that are not available electronically.

This realization makes several things more interesting.

• First, censorship and control of the internet will be increasingly important. I hope people will continue to work for maintaining freedom of expression via the internet.
• Book burnings will be a thing of the past, if they aren't already. 

Ms. Eclectic and I both use our iPhones to read books electronically. They are very light and portable and are capable of carrying tonnes of books. I see little or no reason to buy books when the electronic versions are so much more convenient. And increasingly educators will be moving in this same direction.

If there were a fire, I would grab my laptop and iPhone long before I would think about saving my hardbound copies of Balzac or Shakespeare or Ayn Rand.

Respect and Consideration? Where are the University of Ottawa Admins' Admonitions Now?

I don't like Ann Coulter's humour. Many of her statements seem buffoonish at times. Some of my friends were disappointed that I declined to attend her talk when she visited The University of Western Ontario.

And yet, I thought it reprehensible that the University of Ottawa's Provost would issue a veiled threat to her in the form of a reminder about Canada's "hate speech" legislation before she visited their campus. Shock of shocks, the Canadian Association of University Teachers actually agreed with my position and wrote to the Provost, objecting to his behaviour (see this).

So, now, after some students disrupted her planned speech and closed it down, where are the University of Ottawa admins now? Has the Provost made any pronouncements denouncing their actions, denouncing their lack of "respect and consideration"? Alan Adamson asks a similar question. As Ezra Levant has said,

Houle essentially accused Coulter of planning to commit illegal acts. But when actual illegal plans were hatched -- in public for the world to see -- and then carried out, Houle was silent. So much for his "restraint, respect and consideration."

What a bunch of friggn hypocrites.

Does the University of Ottawa really want to take on Ann Coulter on Free Speech Issues?

This should be friggn embarrassing to all academics and Canadians. From Mark Steyn:

Ah, that famous Canadian hospitality. One François Houle, Provost of the University of Ottawa, writes to warn a forthcoming visitor to the campus, Miss Ann Coulter, that Canadians enjoy only the right to government-regulated "free speech" and that therefore she may be liable to criminal prosecution: ...

I would, however, like to inform you, or perhaps remind you, that our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or “free speech”) in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States. I therefore encourage you to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here. You will realize that Canadian law puts reasonable limits on the freedom of expression. For example, promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges. Outside of the criminal realm, Canadian defamation laws also limit freedom of expression and may differ somewhat from those to which you are accustomed. I therefore ask you, while you are a guest on our campus, to weigh your words with respect and civility in mind....

I wonder if the provost sends these letters to people from other parts of the ideological spectrum. Even if he does, it is offensive to those of us who value freedom of expression in the ivory tower.

Update: for more, see this.

In Ottawa, the president of the student federation barred a volunteer organizer from putting up posters advertising the upcoming appearance.

"The federation does not support Ann Coulter speaking on our campus," said student president Seamus Wolfe. "We're trying to work with the administration to see if we can ask her to do her speaking event somewhere else."

It Is OK for Teachers to Disagree with Some Political Views But Not Others? Guess which...

From FoxNews (Europe), [h/t BenS]:

A British teacher was fired from his job after complaining that some of his Muslim students were celebrating the Sept. 11 hijackers as "heroes," the Daily Mail reported.

Nicholas Kafouris, 40, who taught at East London's Bigland Green Primary School for 12 years, is suing the school for racial discrimination after he was allegedly forced from his post because he would not tolerate the remarks of his students.

Kafouris claims members of his class, some as young as eight years old, openly praised Islamic extremists in his classroom, hailing the terrorists behind the attacks of Sept. 11 as "martyrs," the Daily Mail reported.

Kafouris alleges the students told him they "want to be Islamic bombers when we grow up," and "the Christians and Jews are our enemies, you too because you're a Christian," according to the Daily Mail.

Israel, Haiti, and Gaza: "Forgive me, but this is nuts."

My posting of an item last week about Israel's aid to Haitians sparked a discussion with several Facebook friends who cited a piece from Haaretz and from the NYTimes by an Israeli writer complaining that Israel needed to show that much compassion for Gazans, too. My first reaction on reading that column was,

Even though I think the writer severely slanted the facts, isn't freedom of the press wonderful. I can't imagine being able to write something so critical of one's own gubmnt in (m)any other countries in the middle east.

My second reaction, was "Good grief, how might one reasonably address the issues raised in that column?" Fortunately, I don't have to do it myself. David Harris does it here. Excerpts:

I read the article in The New York Times on January 22nd with dismay.

... Entitled "For Israelis, Mixed Feelings on Aid Effort," referring to the response to the earthquake in Haiti, the article was best summarized by the following excerpt:

But Israelis have been watching with a range of emotions, as if the Haitian relief effort were a Rorschach test through which the nation examines itself. The left has always complained that there is no reason to travel thousands of miles to help those in need - Gaza is an hour away. The right has argued that those who accuse Israel of inhumanity should take note of its selfless efforts and achievements in Haiti."

Forgive me, but this is nuts.

Israel responded magnificently to the immense tragedy unfolding in Haiti.... The Israeli field hospital, by all accounts, quickly became the finest medical unit in the country. ... Israeli rescue-and-relief teams found survivors in the rubble and restored them to life. Other Israeli units are providing a range of basic services to a population whose needs are almost impossible to grasp.

The Israeli effort far exceeds the nation's small size and dwarfs the response of many larger countries. Of course, some countries, most notably in the Arab world, shamefully sat on their hands, doing nothing in the face of a human calamity....

In fact, Israel's quick action in Haiti is nothing new....

I visited an entire prefabricated town that Israel built in Turkey after a devastating earthquake, in 1999, destroyed thousands of homes.

I saw the Israeli field hospital in Macedonia set up to assist Muslim refugees from neighboring Kosovo, who were driven out of their land by Slobodan Milosevic's ethnic-cleansing campaign.

I recall Israel's offer to assist Iran - yes, Iran - after a powerful earthquake hit Bam in 2003, when more than 25,000 people were killed. Teheran rejected the offer, presumably preferring some of its citizens to die rather than be rescued by Israelis. ...

Indeed, few countries react so quickly and consistently as does Israel when it comes to mobilizing emergency responders at a moment's notice. ...

Yet, according to the Times' story, all of this, at least for a few Israelis, is, in the end, rather meaningless as a source of national pride. Instead, the litmus test for Israel must be Gaza.

This is when self-reflection turns to the instinct for self-destruction.

Gaza has declared itself an enemy state. It is run by Hamas, whose goal is the annihilation of Israel. Anti-Semitism runs rampant throughout the Hamas Charter and the blood-curdling statements of its spokesmen. The smuggling of ever more lethal weapons into Gaza is a top priority. Iran is Gaza's foremost state patron.

Of course, it didn't have to turn out this way. In 2005, at great political risk, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon withdrew all Israeli soldiers and settlers from Gaza. The unilateral disengagement offered local residents their first chance in history for self-rule. Moreover, Jewish donors, as a gesture of peace and reconciliation, purchased the Israeli-built greenhouses in Gaza and presented them to the Palestinian Authority. These were meant to form part of a new foundation of economic and social development. [note from EE: most of these greenhouses were soon destroyed by Gazans, not Israelis].

It was in Israel's vital national interest to see Gaza thrive as a society committed to construction and coexistence.

Alas, it was not to be. Hamas ousted the PA and seized power in a bloody civil war. Israel's brief re-entry into Gaza in December 2009 was an inevitable outcome of daily provocations that no sovereign nation could have long abided.

... While leaders of Gaza strikingly abdicate all responsibility and blame everyone but themselves for the misfortunes of their land, according to the Times, some in neighboring Israel anguish over Israel's purported responsibility for Gaza's travails.

One could argue that this is eloquent testimony to their ethical reflex, their desire to heal the world of Gaza. That might well be laudable but for the simple fact that Gaza is at war with Israel, a seemingly obvious proposition to all but those Israelis blinded by their own self-generated "guilt," which prevents them from confronting reality and those ultimately accountable for the facts on the ground.

Were circumstances different, would Israelis offer help in Gaza as they have in Haiti, Turkey, the Balkans and elsewhere? I have no doubt. In fact, Israel would doubtless do far more, given the proximity and the stakes.

Meanwhile, no national self-examination is required. Rather, Israel should be immensely proud of its role in Haiti - and what it reveals about the national character. As a friend of Israel, I certainly am.

Addendum:  KJ sent me this link, listing those countries which have provided or pledged aid to Haiti. It appears that most arab countries are on the list. Interesting contrasts: Lebanon and Jordan are on the list, but Syria and Egypt are not. UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia are on the list, but Yemen and Oman are not. Among other Muslim countries, Bangladesh is on the list, but Pakistan is not.

But this is digressive from Harris's main point, namely that Israel has provided considerable aid to Gaza despite the Gazan attacks on Israel. For more on this, itemizing Israeli aid to Gaza, see here.

Litwak, Mill, and Liberty

2009 was the sesquicentennial of John Stuart Mill's On Liberty. My friend (and sometime colleague), Eric Litwak has an insightful piece about Mill's work here. Some strongly libertarian excerpts:

It can be said of only a very few texts that they are touchstones for important discussions across many generations. John Stuart Mill produced such a text in 1859, and friends of freedom would do well to celebrate the sesquicentennial of On Liberty. At a time when challenges to human rights and freedom of expression continue around the world, the message of this relatively short work remains a clarion-call for liberty and the supreme dignity of the individual. ...

Rather than seeing human beings as something to be perfected by the state, he saw, in true liberal form, the need for the individual to be defended against excessive encroachments of the state. ...

Whatever liberal model might triumph, Mill saw the real threat to freedom as the forgetting or denial of the supreme value of the reflective individual over the collective. This he wisely saw as the common feature of all forms of dogmatism, bigotry, and overly perfectionistic views. His commitment to the liberty of the individual was also in keeping with his methodological individualism in social science, according to which group categories such as the state or nation are to be seen purely as the sum of many parts, with no transcendental power. The avoidance of the Procrustean bed of collectivism and autocracy in favour of the encouragement of human development through education, democratic debate and limited state intervention is the key challenge addressed in On Liberty.

In On Liberty, Mill depicted the ideal human life as maximally free in its choices, truthful and tolerant in its attitudes and individualistic, even to the point of eccentricity.

Not from the Onion: UN Investigates Canada for Discrimination, Ignores Serious Abusers of Human Rights

From a UN Watch Briefing (received via e-mail, not yet on their website, vol. 209, as I write this),

U.N. Discrimination Investigator Focuses on Canada, Ignores China, Sudan, Iran

 

News:  Ms. Gay McDougall, the U.N.'s chief monitor of discrimination against minority groups, and a leading defender of the 2001 Durban conference, just wrapped up a 10-day investigation of Canada by accusing it of failures and "significant and persistent problems." She has never investigated any of the countries listed by Freedom House as the world's worst abusers: not China, Cuba, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Belarus, Burma, Chinese-ruled Tibet, South Ossetia in Georgia, Chechnya in Russia, or Zimbabwe.

 

Analysis: While it's perfectly legitimate to hold free societies accountable, the reality is that immigrants of every color and creed rightly seek out Canada as a haven of tolerance, equality and opportunity. UN Watch launched a protest against this U.N. official's skewed set of priorities: picking on the most tolerant countries like Canada -- possibly as U.N. payback for Ottawa being the first of 10 Western governments to pull out of the world body's ill-fated Durban II conference -- while she consistently turns a blind eye to the world's worst abusers. ...

 

   In a related development, the U.N. human rights office is also investigating the United States as a country of singular concern. The “special rapporteur on the right to adequate housing” has decided to conduct her next investigation in the U.S., particularly in New York City. Writing in the Opinio Juris blog, Professor Julian Ku of Hofstra Law School notes that the U.N. monitor "is going to spend her time on a country which is unlikely to be in the top ten places with lack of adequate housing, and which in any event, is not a party to any of the treaties which form her mandate." But the anti-Western voting blocs that control the U.N. Human Rights Council -- and appoint its experts -- will no doubt be very pleased.

WWMFS

What Would Milton Friedman Say (about Obama's address to school children)? Phil Miller has the answer, with which I completely agree. The quotation from Capitalism and Freedom is a section that really opened my eyes and my mind when I first read it back in the 1960s.

Let's See the UN Human Rights Groups Go after THIS!

From Arab News [h/t Judith]:

Child bride turned over to 80-year-old husband

AL-LAITH: A 10-year-old bride was returned last Sunday to her 80-year-old husband by her father who discovered her at the home of her aunt with whom she has been hiding for around 10 days. A local newspaper said the husband, who denies he is 80 in spite of claims by the girl’s family, accused the aunt of meddling in his affairs. “My marriage is not against Shariah. It included the elements of acceptance and response by the father of the bride,” he said. He added that he had been engaged to his wife’s elder sister and that this broke off as she wanted to continue with her education. “In light of this, her father offered his younger daughter. I was allowed to have a look at her according to Shariah and found her acceptable,” he said.

But don't hold your breath waiting for the UN to say, much less do, anything about it.

Cowardice, Sell-Out, or Both? Yale University Caves on Danish Cartoons

From Roger Kimball (h/t BenS),

In its August 13 report on the decision by Yale University Press to censor Jytte Klausen’s book The Cartoons that Shook the World by insisting that she publish the book without the Danish cartoons or other images of Mohammed, The New York Times informed its readers that

Yale University and Yale University Press consulted two dozen authorities, including diplomats and experts on Islam and counterterrorism, and the recommendation was unanimous: The book, “The Cartoons That Shook the World,” should not include the 12 Danish drawings that originally appeared in September 2005. What’s more, they suggested that the Yale press also refrain from publishing any other illustrations of the prophet that were to be included, . . .

It turns out, though, that the recommendation was not “unanimous.”...

1) The story in the Times implied that in its appeal to experts the University and/or the YUP was exercising normal caution. But in fact, Professor Klausen’s book had already been throughly vetted. Readers’ reports — including two from Muslim scholars — were unanimously enthusiastic. The only Muslim member of the House of Lords, Baroness Kishwer Falker, enthusiastically endorsed the book. The book had also been vetted by YUP’s legal counsel and passed muster. The YUP’s publications committee unanimously and enthusiastically recommended the book for publication. So why call in another “two dozen authorities” on the veritable eve of publication?

Another detail: 2) .... As I said in response to a comment from Jytte Klausen, “I strongly suspect . . . that the threats-of-violence trope was a pretext, or at most a subsidiary concern” for Yale. What was the real reason that Yale was anxious to bowdlerize Professor Klausen’s book? Even now, I know, energetic investigative reporters are looking into Yale’s financial relationships with some of the spots where Linda Lorimer, Vice President and Secretary of the University, told Professor Klausen she has often traveled recently: Saudi Arabia, for example. Quite soon, I suspect, we will know why the Yale administration insisted that the Yale University Press dim the lux and veritas when it came to Professor Klausen’s book.

It looks as if the appeasers at a typically left-wing elitist institution over-ruled their own, in-house, Yale University Press. Or maybe the university was afraid of offending potential major donors? Or maybe both?

Orwell on Chaplin

The writings of George Orwell made the news last week when, without advance warning, Amazon erased electronic versions of some of his novels from people's Kindles [see, for example, this by Phil Miller]. That incident brought to mind Orwell's comments about Charlie Chaplin [h/t to BenS]:

Speaking of Chaplin in his role of The Great Dictator, George Orwell asks “What is Chaplin’s peculiar gift?” It is his power to stand for a sort of concentrated essence of the common man, for the ineradicable belief in decency that exists in the hearts of ordinary people, at any rate in the West. We live in a period in which democracy is almost everywhere in retreat, supermen in control of three-quarters of the world, liberty explained away by sleek professors, Jew-baiting defended by pacifists. And yet everywhere, the common man sticks obstinately to the beliefs that he derives from the Christian culture.”

 --Film Review, The Great Dictator in Time & Tide, Dec 21, 1940. Reprinted in All Art is Propaganda, Critical Essays by George Orwell (Harcourt, Inc.) 2008

I would happily change "Christian culture" to "Judeo-Christian traditions", but otherwise I like the observation.