The Catholic Church said Something

I was looking for something to write about and I found a three week old story from Australia. It may have already made the rounds in Canada, or maybe it's just getting here now. It's a a filler piece, brief and pointed and attention grabbing. It is portal story, designed to lead the reader deeper into the paper and the ads that support it. The Catholic Church offers up the necessary headline fodder.
"Catholic Church says would-be brides are being too fussy"
The Catholic Church or in this case a spokesman for the church has this to say.


Father Tony Kerin, episcopal vicar for justice and social service in the Archdiocese of Melbourne, said women wanted the best of both worlds.

"Are women getting too choosy? I'd say yes," said Father Kerin, speaking on behalf of the archdiocese.

"I think many are setting aside their aspirations for later, but by the time they get around to it, they've missed their chance.

"In trying to have it all, they end up missing out."

The reverend Father Kerin was asked if he thought Australian women were being too choosy and h said yes then added a tiny bit of nuance to that initial statement. 

Apparently there is a shortage of  quality men for Australian women to marry. We are presented with this bare fact.

"Statistics show there are just 86,000 eligible blokes for 1.3 million females aged between 25 and 34."

A shocking statistic, that becomes less shocking when it is fleshed out lower down the page. 

"Demographer Bernard Salt calculated there are 1.3 million women aged 25-34.

But of the 1.343 million men in the same age bracket, only 86,000 single, heterosexual, well-off, young men were available after excluding those who were already married (485,000), in a de facto relationship (185,000), gay (7000), a single parent (12,000) or earning less than $60,000 a year."

There are 43000 more men than women in that bracket, yet a shortage is declared. What the statistic says is that there are 86000 single men available that meet fit the  economic description of "well-off" The definition of "well-off" is never properly defined. For the purposes of this article it doesn't have to be. 

What we get is a "hmmm you don't say" fact, transformed into an eye grabbing headline furnished by a spokesman for the Catholic Church. It doesn't rise to the level of an attack on women, so much as a restatement of the Catholic Church's position on the place, duties and obligations owed by women to society at large. Offensive certainly, but nothing new.

What get is a story about the number of economically successful single men within a certain age bracket, heroically trying to morph into something altogether different. The suggestion that women must settle for what is available rather than what they want is not being said only inferred. Rather that if women want "it all"; "IT" being jobs , husbands, kids and economic security. They are out of luck. Marry now or forever miss out, inspiring.  I'll ignore completely the suggestion that all women want to marry money, because it is a shameless stereotype. I think most people would like that, not just women. Though a think few would trade love for security. 

Women do face unique challenges, both biological and societal, non are insurmountable. We have a society and economy that has yet to take fully into account the change in relationship between men and women. Women are free and equal and our institutions need to reflect that. Our society is a made thing, not a natural entity. As such it may be altered to reflect new realities. So a women can have a job, husband and kids, though of course don't expect perfection.

The Catholic Church is always handy for stoking outrage. Quite often because their positions are by today's standards quite outdated. They also seem to make themselves available to any reporter hoping for a headline quote. "No such thing as bad press" I think the adage says. I disagree. 

What we have learned is that the Catholic Church is handy for getting eyes on ads. You need to read the whole story. That stereotypes are integral to bad journalism, and just because something appears in a paper doesn't mean it's journalism. 

Note as always the comment section that follows the story

Baird on Religious Freedom

Foreign Minister John Baird said recently that Canada has gone soft on defending rights like Religious Freedom. He said this in front of an American audience at the Religious Liberty Dinner. Canada went soft on religious freedom after world war two, the Harper government intends to reverse that trend, was the message They have a plan to fund a religious freedom office within Foreign Affairs at the cost of 5 million dollars. The purpose is to help Canada support religious freedom throughout the world. It is an ambitious goal. And a worthy one.

In his speech he spoke of defending all religious groups for persecution, though the body of the speech dealt with Christian and Jewish persecution. He noted the thousands of years of persecution of the Jewish people. Throwing in the he ubiquitous your with us or the appeasers Baird saying;

 "The world cannot take the words of Hamas, Hezbollah and the Iranian regime as mere rhetoric and cannot risk appeasing these malicious actors in the same way as it once appeased the Nazis."


He is right, on the issue of appeasement, it tends to embolden the aggressor. He is wrong on directly comparing the situation Israel with Nazi era Europe. 


Or here where Baird levels the usual charge, though muted slightly, that criticizing Israel springs from bigotry.


"We contend that modern anti-Semitism is alive in the disproportionate criticism Israel receives, and the refusal to accept its right to exist." 


This part of the speech was an affirmation of Israel and Canada's unwavering support for them. With Baird saying,


"Under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and under this foreign affairs minister, Canada will stand with the Jewish state and people as they struggle to protect their very right to exist." 


Israel is in a tough spot no one can disagree. That it is partly of their own making can also not be argued. But they are lucky enough to have over 200 nuclear weapons, the best trained/technologically advanced armed forces in the region, and the support of the United States of America. 


He makes mention of repression of Muslims,


"Burma, despite recent reforms, the regime continues to discriminate against certain forms of Buddhism and restricts the activities of Muslims."


But as he is addressing a Christian group he moves on quickly to the plight of Christians. 


" We have grave concerns about the persistent and serious violations in Iran of the rights of Iranian citizens to practise Christianity, including those facing charges of apostasy."


A nod is thrown out to the neocons in the crowd.


"In Iraq, where the United States has fought mightily and paid dearly to combat tyranny and secure for the people a better, brighter future, many challenges remain. Fundamental freedoms are the domain of the select few. And Christians are not always among the few."


The speech includes a veiled shot at Liberals for i guess, abandoning the theme of religious freedom.


"Canada has a tradition that some in our country seemed to forget during the latter half of the last century: a tradition of standing for freedom and fundamental rights, a tradition of standing against oppression."


"So I’m proud to say Canada no longer simply “goes along to get along” in the conduct of its foreign policy."


The elevation of terrorism. 


"Just as fascism and communism were the great struggles of his generation, terrorism is the great struggle of ours."


The remainder of the speech talks about the importance of religious freedom. How Democracy and religious freedom are inseparable. 


"Simply put, societies that protect religious freedom are more likely to protect other fundamental freedoms.

They are typically more stable and more prosperous.

When you have religious freedom, other freedoms follow."

The inference here is a bit blurry but i get the idea that Baird is trying to say that without religious freedom there is no Democracy. True, but i can say that about freedom of speech, press, against unreasonable search and seizure, etc. The core idea of Democracy is recognition that the citizen has rights that the state may not unduly abridge.


Since Baird was talking to a religious audience it is not unreasonable he would emphasize that aspect of democracy.


This was a political speech. It's content directed towards a conservative audience. I won't fault the idea behind the speech. It is important that people are free to practise their beliefs; that minorities are safe from persecution. That tolerance of the other is a key democratic principle. The coating of the speech is just not to my liking.


A last note, atheism made no appearance. In many places it is also unsafe to express no belief.

Religious Right and the PMO

Recently we have received warning of a rise in the influence of the religious right over the PMO. The Armageddon Factor: The Rise of Christian Nationalism in Canada by journalist Marci McDonald details a growing association bewtween social and religous conservatives and the Prime minister. An article in the Toronto Star provides an overview of this new controversy. What we appear to have is a growth in numbes and influence of the religious right. I won't argue that we don't have more groups advacating against the freedomn of women to choose, the advancement of gay rights, subtle attempts to restrict freedom of expression through tax credits, unquestioned support for Israel and quite a few other issue that seem to draw the ire of the social conservatives. They are here and represent a constituency. They are vocal and and engaged. What i don't see is the enevitable take over by these groups. I see a ceiling on their influence and it is rather low. Two thirds of Canadians vote centre left. This is not proof against influence, political parties on the centre left will have religious membership, but it appears to be of a different variety than one finds in the religious right. The religion has figured differently history in Canada and we have a decidedly low tolerance for mixing of the religious and politcal.
It has been suggested that the PM is onboard with this new Canadian religious right. I have seen nothing in Mr. Harpers history that leads to this conclusion. He is more publically religious than past Prime Ministers but a far cry from his conterparts in America. The PM sees the religious right a voting block to exploit but as many articles have highlighted he has done little to adavance the causes of the soacial conservatives. Many point out that The conservatives have been prevented from implementing his full adgenda because of minority governments. Maybe, but we can't judge a man on what he has done yet and still be fair. I believe the PM will move us to right on fiscally conservative issues. I just find it difficult to accept that he will follow that shift on social issues as well. I am not nieve. But whether conservatives like to admit it or not Canada is a liberal nation. I can't concieve of what chain of events would be required to drag us towards social consevatism. It doesn't mean it can't happen but in the doing, would render my Canada unrecognizable.
As citizens we need to be vigilant. Our right were hard earned over many centuries but can be lost quickly. Our job is not to stop the voices of those we oppose but to argue with them in the public space. People must be allowed thier version of the truth but not their version of the facts. We don't need to fear free expression, we need to fear secrecy. So let these groups do in public space all the activism they want, if you disagree oppose them in that same venue.

Big Government or Big Business do we have to choose?

Is the choice really between government or business? One of the core values represented by conservatives is that government should be small. So they represent the choice as being between Big Government or small government The role assigned to government should be confined to preserving order within the state and protecting it from external threat. Economic participation limited to regulation of trade. The American constitution sets out the powers of government quite clearly and conservatives have adopted this document to illustrate how good government should work. I might note that Conservatism as it is articulated today has a decidedly economic taste to it. The modern conservative will intertwine economic activity with most any issue.
I won’t sit here and try to convince anyone that government should be building cars or making couches or telling you what colour to paint your house. This is activity best left to Business, most economic pursuits are best handle by the private sector. The question we have to answer is where to put the dividing line, is overlap bad or necessary? Conservatives have answered this already saying that less is better. Liberals proposed that government intervention is necessary, or to put it less militantly, regulation while not a panacea for all economic and societal ills it makes life better. Your legislature should not be picking your paint colours, but it should be ensuring the safety of the product you use. That is the liberal position. The government tries guarantee the safety and quality of products used by the citizen because no individual can. The conservative trends to the idea that everyone is responsible for themselves if the product is bad people won’t use it anymore, the company in question will go out of business and be replaced by a better one that does a better job. I am not saying that conservatives want no regulation but they see the market largely as a responsive self correcting entity that regulation interferes with.
I am not economist but from observation markets don’t always acting according to plan. The Great Recession that we are pulling out of now certainly points to people acting so much in their own interests that they collapsed the system they operated in. Liberals don’t believe in entirely self-regulating economic systems, where there are people there will be self interest, and it is that self interest that needs over sight.
So we can see why conservatives want small government as a way of protecting business. But how does small government protect the citizen? Without being overly dramatic, I can not recall a single incidence of an economic interest protecting rights and freedoms of anyone not part of its’ structure. There are not tails of freed slaves, the down trodden being uplifted, the wrongly accused being championed by a multi national corporation. In the interest of fairness if you google Google you will see how they pulled out of China, they refused to act as an agent of the state police. Well done Google. If you follow this link http://www.business-humanrights.org/ you will find yourself at Business & Human Rights home page. This site offers you a look at the way business operates around the world.
A more specific example of how business is not like government, is a Wal-Mart incident involving the “can I see your receipt please” request. This is the link is from the individual involved weigh its’ value much the same as you would any information, http://cybercoment.com/reviews/walmart/ . The affair consists of a consumer who bought a product the alarm went off as he left store, he was stopped and asked to see his receipt and the man refused. He was detained by store security in his words poorly treated, the police were called. The man confirms that the officer was professional and polite in contrast to the Wal-Mart staff. The police confirmed that the product was purchased and not stolen, the man was however barred for life from all stores. Should the man have offered up the receipt? Maybe, it certainly would have made things easier, but the point to be made here is he had no choice in the matter. The store rules trumped his right to decline. By contrast his interaction with the police is very different. The officer does not demand compliance, but asks the man if he may search him. The implication is that the man has the right to refuse, though refusal also comes with consequences. there is nothing about the Wal-Mart policy that implies the right to say no, compliance is demanded and expected refusal is met with eternal banishment.
The key point here is not the surliness of the shopper but the nature of Wal-Mart, it is acting solely in and for its’ own benefit. While the officer is acting in the interests of both citizen and store. I don’t hate business for being self interested it is what they are designed to be. I don’t expect dogs to sing or cats to fiddle so why would I expect corporation to champion human and civil rights if it is not in their interest to do so. I think that is unethical and immoral but certainly in keeping with the mission to turn a profit.
It is however the purpose of government to guarantee rights and extend those rights to those who are lacking them. It is how I interpret the role of protecting the state from internal dissension and external threat. A government without the resources or the will to properly regulate the economic and social forces at play in society will fail most of its’ citizens. Power within a society is finite and distributed among centres of authority. The less power government wields does not lessen the amount available in a given society it transfers it to some other body willing to use it. Power in the hands of people or institutions with no obligation to the citizen can not be described as a good thing, unless that person or entity is yours. I would rather have power centred in a government contained by law for the benefit of the many.
In the end corporations will and should welcome regulation because it help to ameliorate the exuberance of business.