Author: Brian Carnell

Good Riddance, Mary Robinson

United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights Mary Robinson announced she was stepping down. Good riddance. Robinson aptly summed up the entire view that marked her term with this outrageous comment,

The buildings that were destroyed on Sept. 11 can be replaced. But if the pillars of the international system are damaged or demolished, they will not be so easy to restore.

Earth to Mary — we don’t care about the buildings, it’s the almost 3,000 human beings that died on Sept. 11 that count. This statement really puts a capstone on Robinson’s approach to human rights.

The spin from human rights groups is that Robinson ran into trouble because she was willing to criticize the United States. Reed Brody Human Rights Watch told the New York Times, “She has paid a price for her willingness to confront publicly big governments like the United States and Russia when they violate human rights.”

Give me a break. Robinson presided over a conference at which Israel was labeled the only racist country in the world. Yeah, that took a lot of moral courage.

Source:

U.N. Rights Enforcer to Step Down. Associated Press, March 18, 2002.

Here’s What You Can Do With Your Party Line

Last night I spent an hour chatting via IRC with author Wendy McElroy and about a dozen other people. Normally I find chatting a waste of time, but the topic that McElroy wanted to talk about intrigued me — dealing with unreasonable claims/positions/demands by people whom you are ostensibly defending.

In McElroy’s case, she has done a lot to promote the cause of the Men’s Movement and true sexual equality, and in return receive a lot of hostility, anger and even threats from some people involved with that movement. Some of the hostility is downright silly. McElroy calls her position Individualist Feminism, but for some in the Men’s Movement, the “f” word is just too much and they draw a line in the sand — if you’re going to call yourself a feminist, they want nothing to do with you (and, in fact, will react abusively).

One of the really odd things that was apparent from the chat was that many of these people were upset because they believe McElroy has some sort of power or influence and that what she says or does not say has far reaching effects. Now I’m a big fan of McElroy, and am glad she’s been writing for Fox News regularly the past few months because I enjoy reading her work, but power and influence? I don’t think so.

But I wasn’t all that surprised since I’ve had the same argument thrown in my face when it comes to animal rights. One of the things I like about running a web site is the independence — I have considered going to work for organizations in the areas that I write about, but could never be satisfied giving up that editorial independence. There are two things, for example, with which I have problems with in the anti-animal rights community: a) the tendency to support cockfighting (which, in my opinion, is both a dead end morally and politically), and b) the tendency to exaggerate the case against some animal rights groups.

In the last six months after writing about cockfighting and defending an animal rights group against what I thought were baseless accusations of being involved in terrorist activities, I received e-mails from people outraged at the comments. The basic argument was that given the prominence of my site, such comments could only aid the animal rights movement.

Bah! Who cares? What’s the point of rejecting the group think of one movement just to turn around and adopt the very same principles?

Developing Countries Need to Get Out of the Water Business

In an article for TechCentralStation.Com Dr. Roger Bate offers a persuasive argument that government misallocation of water resources is a major reason for the water problems that much of the developing world suffers from.

Bate argues that governments have a role in creating initial water allocations and setting up a framework for allowing water quotas to be traded, but then make the mistake of getting involved in the day-to-day end use of water which has the effect of promoting inefficient water usage.

A prime example of that is South Africa where, Bate explains, water quotas are allocated to farmers who are unable to sell them to anyone else. Combined with subsidies on farming, this means large chunks of water are destined for agricultural use even if that is not the most efficient usage of water. The end result is that the poor get shortchanged on their water needs.

Contrast this with Chile which largely ended subsidies for water and allow for the trading of water quotas (farmers who did not need all of the water they were allotted could turn around and sell the excess). According to Bate,

In 1970 only 27% of rural and 63% of urban dwellers [in Chile] received potable water. By the mid-90s the respective percentages were 94% and 99%. These figures are better than any other mid-income developing country in the world.

Having the state involved in deciding end water usage is a pointless exercise in futility. Other states should do more to emulate Chile’s model of tradeable quotas and let market forces determine the most efficient use of water.

Source:

Pipe Dreams for the Poor. Roger Bate, TechCentralStation.Com, March 4, 2002.

Revisiting Some AR2001 Complaints

Missed this the first time around, but someone dug up a fascinating message that Alex Hershaft posted to VegSource.Com describing the aftermath of last year’s Animal Rights 2001 conference. It seems that The Hilton used for this conference was less than pleased with some of the shenanigans that occurred at the July meeting.

Prior to the conference, The Hilton had spent millions of dollars renovating its site and, as a result, instituted a no pets policy. Apparently many visitors to AR2001 simply ignored that request,

In spite of it [the no pets policy], a number of people brought their dogs, and the hotel didn’t appreciate having to clean up after those animals who urinated on the new carpet. We will probably have to enforce a “no animal companion” policy of our own, unless someone can come up with a better solution.

Hmmm…what about the rights of the poor companion animals? (In fact several people replied to Hershaft that this was just a base prejudice against animals on the part of The Hilton).

The Hilton apparently did not appreciate the much-publicized protests at Nieman Marcus and Wendy’s (with the Wendy’s protest ending in several arrests).

The hotel is a member of the local merchants association, and the demonstrations at the nearby Wendy’s and Neiman Marcus gave them grief. We will have demonstrations at future conferences, but they will be part of the program, non-invasive, and well away from the hotel. However, here again, we will have to ask all participants to refrain from staging rump activities of their own

The Hilton was apparently not very happy when Neiman Marcus complained that protesters arrived in a Hilton van.

Of course when the Salt Lake City Olympic Committee set up protests areas for activists far from events, the activists acted as if the Constitution of the United States had been repealed. But scheduling demos so as to not offend The Hilton is apparently another story.

The message concludes that it is important to maintain the goodwill of The Hilton because, “We need a high-class venue, because of our size and because we are trying to project a middle class image.”

Yeah, wouldn’t want people to think they’re a bunch of nuts who protest Wendy’s and can’t keep their dogs from urinating on the carpet.

Source:

Hotel Grievances. Alex Hershaft, July 23, 2001.

Switzerland Abandons Ritual Slaughter Law

Switzerland’s government recently abandoned a proposed law that would have legalized ritual animal sacrifice.

Ritual animal slaughter has been illegal in Switzerland since 1893. The change in the law was supported by Jewish and Muslim leaders who expressed disappointment at the abandonment of the law.

The government’s about face came after animal rights activists began campaigning against the law earlier this year.

Source:

Bill legalising ritual animal sacrifice. Luke Coppen, The Times (London), March 16, 2002.

Saudi Arabia’s Religious Police Allegedly Contribute to Death of 15 Girls

On Monday, March 11, 2002, a fire destroyed a school in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, killing 15 girls — most of whom were crushed to death in a panic to exit the building. But rescue efforts at the fire were hampered when members of Saudi Arabia’ religious police — the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice — refused to allow either girls to leave the building or firefighters to enter the building. The reason? The girls were not wearing their traditional head scarves or black robes.

The English-language Saudi Gazette quoted witnesses as saying that a member of the COmmission told men trying to enter the building to try to save the girls that, “it is sinful to approach them” because they were not wearing the required garb.

Meanwhile, a civil defense officer told Saudi Arabian newspaper al-Eqtisadiah that he saw members of the Commission “being young girls to prevent them from leaving the school because they were not wearing the abaya . . . We told them that the situation was very critical and did not allow for such behavior. But they shouted at us and refused to move away from the [school’s] gates.”

The official response from the Saudi Arabian government has been to claim that the people blocking access to the school were not really members of the Commission. In an article in the Saudi English-language newspaper Arab News, the Civil Defense Department now claims that it has information “which casts doubt on whether the members of the Commission for Promoting Virtue and Preventing Vice who allegedly played a role in hampering rescue operation at the fire-hit Makkah girls? school were really members of the organization.”

As the Wall Street Journal put it, this claim smacks of a bad cover-up, but either way this is exactly the sort of attitude toward women and girls that Saudi Arabia’s leaders have long promoted with their funding and promotion of Islamic extremism.

Source:

Were commission members at fire tragedy impostors? Khaled Al-Fadly & Saeed Al-Abyad, Arab News, March 17, 2002.

Saudi police face deaths criticism. Reuters, March 14, 2002.