Kategoriarkiv: Tidligere skribenter

Socio-økonomiske rettigheder: Justiciable eller ej? III

Af Jacob Mchangama, den 10. juni 2007. Skriv et svar

Denne Punditokrat har sammen med Christopher Arzrouni forfattet en kronik vedrørende menneskerettighedsbegrebets skizofreni, der blev bragt i Berlingske i sidste uge. Kronikken – der også er underskrevet af en række liberale debattører inklusiv denne blogs gamle redacteur – var genstand for debat i denne aftens version af Deadline, hvor undertegnede krydsede klinger med Birgitte Kofoed Olsen fra Institut for Menneskerettigheder.

Gimme that ol' time religion

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 9. juni 2007. 20 svar

Her er nogle passager, der godt nok lyder som noget lige ud af en religiøs prædiken.  Men læs dem og gæt, hvad de faktisk handler om, og hvem der har formuleret dem:

“[It] offers us the chance to experience what very few generations in history have had the privilege of knowing: a generational mission; the exhilaration of a compelling moral purpose; a shared and unifying cause; the thrill of being forced by circumstances to put aside the pettiness and conflict that so often stifle the restless human need for transcendence; the opportunity to rise …

When we do rise, it will fill our spirits and bind us together. Those who are now suffocating in cynicism and despair will be able to breathe freely. Those who are now suffering from a loss of meaning in their lives will find hope. …

[Then] we will experience an epiphany as we discover that this crisis is not really about politics at all. It is a moral and spiritual challenge.”

Dem, der kan gætte rigtigt i denne quiz, vinder en pose varm luft.  De rigtige svar og lidt kølig analyse kan læses her . 

Rationel adfærd

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 7. juni 2007. 12 svar

Whaddayaknow! Næste gang vores læseres undervisere, medstuderende, kolleger eller familiemedlemmer siger, at mennesker ikke handler rationelt og ikke reagerer på incitamenter–herunder f.eks. at der aldrig er nogen, der er ledige frivilligt–så giv dem en kopi af denne dags artikel fra Jyllands-Posten, “Sanktioner over for ledige virker”. Den har sågar været omtalt af Danmarks Radio og fortæller om en undersøgelse af arbejdsmarkedsforskeren, lektor Michael Svarer fra Aarhus Universitet .

Han har gennemgået 220.000 ledighedsforløb i årene 2003-2005. Af disse endte ca. 5.400 med, at den ledige blev påført en “sanktion”, fordi vedkommende ikke havde overholdt rådighedsreglerne. Denne bestod i et træk i dagpengene i fra to-tre dage og op til tre uger. Undersøgelsen viser, at der for kvinder, som fik en sanktion, var næsten 100 pct. større jobeffekt end for gennemsnittet af ledige; for mændene øgedes jobeffekten med 50 pct. i forhold til gennemsnittet af ledige. Michael Svarer siger i JP:

“Undersøgelsen viser, at sanktioner har en effekt. Sandsynligheden for at finde job i en bestemt uge steg fra 3 pct. til næsten 6 pct. for kvinder og fra 4 pct. til 6 pct. for mænd for de ledige, der havde oplevet sanktioner.”

Formanden for Arbejdsløshedskassernes Samvirke, Morten Kaspersen, er ifølge JP imod stramninger, men siger dog: “Jeg vil ikke afvise, at sanktioner kan have en effekt.” Mærk lige dagen af i kalenderen.

PS. Nu vi er i gang: Michael Svarer har iøvrigt tidligere forsket i bl.a. rationalitet i forbindelse med ægteskaber.

Gone Fisking

Af admin, den 7. juni 2007. 16 svar

Det har været et dejligt vejr de seneste dage, så hvorfor ikke give sig i kast med lidt Fisking.

Kom forbi endnu et indlæg om Plame-sagen i Berlingeren af Karl-Erik Stouggaard, hvor han bl.a. skriver:

For de nykonservative arkitekter bag Irak-krigen er sagen et alvorligt angreb på deres troværdighed, og de mener, at den aldrig burde være ført, og at dommen til Libby er politisk betonet. Deres vrede er så afgrundsdyb, at de endda benægter, hvad CIA, anklagemyndigheden og domstolen har fastslået som uigendrivelige fakta: at Valerie Plame var hemmelig agent, og at det derfor var rigtigt at undersøge, hvem der brød hendes cover, at Libby var med til at lække hendes identitet, inden det slap ud i medierne, og at han i øvrigt har pligt til at tale sandt i sådanne undersøgelser.

… hvilket kan sammenholdes med denne leder fra National Review, der bl.a. bemærker:

The problem was that Fitzgerald not only did not charge Libby or anyone else with those underlying crimes, he never even offered any evidence in court that those crimes, as carefully defined by the statutes involved, ever happened. His throw-the-book-at-him sentencing recommendation contradicted the conclusion reached by probation officials, who in their pre-sentencing report pointed out that “the defendant was neither charged nor convicted of any crime involving the leaking of [Valerie Plame Wilson’s] ‘covert’ status.”

Going one step farther, Fitzgerald also argued that Mrs. Wilson was, without any doubt, a covert CIA agent as defined by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. In court filings, he offered what he said was a CIA-authored summary of her job status affirming that, at the time her name was revealed by Novak, she was covert, and that the CIA was taking “affirmative measures to conceal her identity,” as required by law. But many months ago, when Libby’s defense team was begging for such information, Fitzgerald refused to provide it. He pointedly declined to call Plame “covert.” He said her job status was irrelevant to the case against Libby. He even argued that it was irrelevant whether Mrs. Wilson worked at the CIA at all. Agreeing with Fitzgerald, Judge Walton barred both sides from discussing Mrs. Wilson’s status at the trial.

Hmm, en af de to aviser har ikke sat sig ordentlig ind i sagen. Gæt hvem. Forhåbentlig ikke vores udsendte fra Tante Berlinger, for han omtaler en af denne blogs helte (Fred, you know) sådan:

»En politisk heksejagt« som en af de ledende skikkelser for at få Libby benådet, den kommende republikanske præsidentkandidat, Fred Thompson, kalder sagen.

STILLET OVER FOR sådan en attitude, hvor fakta er intet og politisk loyalitet alt, kan præsident Bush kun håbe, at dommeren beslutter at lade »Scooter« Libby være på fri fod, indtil en ankesag er afsluttet – måske først engang næste år.

Nydeligt.

Samme avis har i øvrigt kørt en interessant artikel om den skævvinkling, danske medier ofte giver af amerikanske forhold. Måske behøver man ikke se sig så vidt omkring for at finde eksempler.

The Boys from Pointe du Hoc

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 6. juni 2007. 3 svar

Denne Punditokrat er en gammel sentimentalist, og jeg kan godt lide mindedage–mestendels de glade og symbolsk højstemte. Jeg bliver glad, når de markeres, og ærgerlig når de glemmes–og forbandet på mig selv, når jeg f.eks. glemmer at tænde lys i vinduet 4. maj.

I den forbindelse tænkte jeg i dag en del over, at jeg (der i disse dage befinder mig i smukke Cambridge) reelt havde overset, at det i går var Grundlovsdag derhjemme i Danmark. Men så blev jeg mindet om, at i dag sådan set også er en anden, værdig mindedag: D-Dag. Det er i dag 63 år siden, at De Allierede gik i land i Normandiet, og i det store billede er det en af de dage, der klart må regnes som ikke bare en af de vigtigste i det 20. århundrede men en af de afgørende i frihedens historie.

Men det betyder også, at det i dag er 23 år siden, at præsident Ronald W. Reagan holdt en af sine bedste taler. Måske ikke den mest ideologiske, men klart en af de smukkeste, mest sentimentale (i ordets bedste betydning) og mest velskrevne–og selvfølgelig skrevet af Peggy Noonan. Talen, kendt som “The Boys from Pointe du Hoc”, blev holdt foran rækker med overlevende “Rangers” fra D-Dag, og den findes hér på audio (under datoen June 6, 1984) og hér som tekst. Her er et par uddrag:

“We’re here to mark that day in history when the Allied armies joined in battle to reclaim this continent to liberty. For four long years, much of Europe had been under a terrible shadow. Free nations had fallen, Jews cried out in the camps, millions cried out for liberation. Europe was enslaved, and the world prayed for its rescue. Here in Normandy the rescue began. Here the Allies stood and fought against tyranny in a giant undertaking unparalleled in human history.

… The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead, or on the next. It was the deep knowledge — and pray God we have not lost it — that there is a profound moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest. You were here to liberate, not to conquer, and so you and those others did not doubt your cause. And you were right not to doubt.

You all knew that some things are worth dying for. One’s country is worth dying for, and democracy is worth dying for, because it’s the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man. All of you loved liberty. All of you were willing to fight tyranny, and you knew the people of your countries were behind you.

… [But not] all that followed the end of the war was happy or planned. Some liberated countries were lost. The great sadness of this loss echoes down to our own time in the streets of Warsaw, Prague, and East Berlin. Soviet troops that came to the center of this continent did not leave when peace came. They’re still there, uninvited, unwanted, unyielding, almost forty years after the war. Because of this, allied forces still stand on this continent. Today, as forty years ago, our armies are here for only one purpose: to protect and defend democracy. The only territories we hold are memorials like this one and graveyards where our heroes rest.

… Here, in this place where the West held together, let us make a vow to our dead. Let us show them by our actions that we understand what they died for.”

Skal man grine eller græde?

Af Jacob Mchangama, den 6. juni 2007. 3 svar

Netop i dette minut sidder jeg på mit kontor i indre by og er vidne til en demonstration rettet mod G8. Demonstrationen synes mest at bestå af unge alternative typer, hvilket der sådan set ikke er noget galt med. At alle holdninger og overbevisninger skal have lov til at komme til orde i et liberalt demokrati er en selvfølge og demonstrationen bekræfter blot ytrings- og forsamlingsfrihedens vitalitet i dagens Danmark. Hvad der til gengæld slår mig er en animeret talers skingre protester, om at den vestlige verden hver dag træder rettigheder under fode. Disse anklager udslynges uden den mindste tøven eller skam samtidig med at taleren flankeres af demonstranter svingende røde flag med hammer og sejl.

Skal man grine eller græde?

Ugens citater: Wall Street Journal om avisfilosofi

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 6. juni 2007. Skriv et svar

Det se r ud til, at en af Punditokraternes yndlings-aviser, Wall Street Journal, er ved at skifte hænder.  Bancroft-familien er vistnok ved at sælge Dow Jones & Co. imperiet til Rupert Murdoch.  Det kan der vist både være godt og skidt ved, men på ledersiden i dagens udgave er der ihvertfald en artikel , der handler om dette og avisens filosofi, og her er to-tre gode citater.

Det første er fra en af avisens første debatredaktører, den eksil-skotske, fhv. liberale politiker, William Peter Hamilton:

“Don’t believe the man who tells you there are two sides to every question. There is only one side to the truth.”

Avisen har–i modsætning til stort set alle andre amerikanske aviser–ikke anbefalet en præsidentkandidat siden Herbert Hoover, fordi man bevidst foretrækker at rose eller kritisere kandidaternes ideer og specifikke forslag i.f.t., hvad der er avisens udgangspunkt. Som avisens tidligere chefredaktør, William Grimes, sagde, da Truman i 1948 angreb den for at være “Republikanernes bibel”: “our loyalties are to the economic and governmental principles in which we believe and not to any political party.”

Og hvad var og er de så? Det svarede Grimes på i en leder, “A Newspaper’s Philosophy,” 2. januar 1951:

“On our editorial page we make no pretense of walking down the middle of the road. Our comments and interpretations are made from a definite point of view. We believe in the individual, in his wisdom and his decency. We oppose all infringements on individual rights, whether they stem from attempts at private monopoly, labor union monopoly or from an overgrowing government. People will say we are conservative or even reactionary. We are not much interested in labels but if we were to choose one, we would say we are radical.”

Det er sgu’ da en Punditokrat-avis!

Hitchens om Kouchner

Af admin, den 6. juni 2007. Skriv et svar

Som bemærket så ofte før, hvorfor skrive, når andre gør det så meget bedre?

Derfor dette link til Christopher Hitchens’ artikel i Slate om Bernard Kouchner, den nye udenrigsminister i Sarkozys regering.

Her er en smagsprøve:

The single best symbol of the change in France is the appointment of Bernard Kouchner to the post of foreign minister. Had the Socialist Party won the election, it is highly unlikely that such a distinguished socialist would ever have been allowed through the doors of the Quai d’Orsay. (Yes, comrades, history actually is dialectical and paradoxical.)

Læs resten her.

Sullivan gør status

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 28. maj 2007. 36 svar

Det er en svær tid, vi lever i. 

Med fare for at bringe blodtrykket op hos et par af mine gode Punditokrat-kolleger, kan jeg her i en højhellig Pinse ikke rigtigt andet end linke til denne tankevækkende sammenfatning af status quo for krigen mod terror, foretaget af Andrew Sullivan.  Denne er næppe rundhåndet overfor ethvert synspunkt, men den er tankevækkende.  Og Sullivan er hverken en venstrefløjsaktivist eller en hr. hvem-som-helst–udover at være en af de mest læste bloggere i verden, er han en engelsk Tory (selverklæret “libertarian conservative”), med stærke sympatier for Hayek og hvad vi ville kalde klassisk liberalisme. 

180grader og public service

Af admin, den 28. maj 2007. 4 svar

Som en ‘private service’ fra os til jer henledes opmærksomheden på dagens udgave af 180grader, hvor undertegnede har forfattet dagens klumme – endda under mit borgerlige (det hedder det) navn.

Se nærmere her.

Muhammed, Danmark & ACLU

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 25. maj 2007. 3 svar

Kender man lidt til amerikanske forhold, og er man grundlæggende positivt indstillet overfor klassiske frihedsrettigheder, så må man næsten også per definition have et lidt ambivalent forhold til den amerikanske borgerrettighedsorganisation, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).   Blandt mange amerikanske konservative (men ikke alle–mere her) er den afskyet, fordi den bliver opfattet som en “left liberal, bleeding heart” organisation, hvis medlemmer er “bløde”, når det gælder den nødvendige retshåndhævelse.  Men blandt mange andre–klassisk liberale som venstreorienterede–er der en stor respekt for, at organisationen ofte tager slagsmål til fordel for klassiske frihedsrettigheder.

Denne punditokrat har ihvertfald altid selv haft et lidt ambivalent syn på ACLU.  Jeg har fundet det fremragende, at de ihærdigt har forfægtet habeas corpus, ytringsfrihed, adskillelse af kirke og stat, o.s.v.  Men jeg har også fundet deres læsning af den amerikanske Bill of Rights lidt selektiv–de har sjældent gjort meget ud af det 2. forfatningstillæg, selvom det altså sådan set også er en borgerrettighed, og mens de mange kommunister, som var med til at stifte ACLU godt kunne lide adskillelse af stat og kirke, gik de aldrig meget op i, at religionsfrihed også betyder retten til at udøve ens religion.

Og med den politiske korrektheds fremmarch i 1980erne og 1990erne var det næsten forudsigeligt, at denne også på et tidspunkt kunne få ACLU til at tippe endnu mere i den retning, som jeg ihvertfald ikke værdsætter.  Netop det emne var forleden omtalt i detaljer på Wall Street Journals debatsider, i kronikken “The American Liberal Liberties Union”, hvori advokaten Wendy Kaminer argumenter, at ACLU er ved at blive ret selektiv på ytringsfrihedens front–og midt i det hele dukker Danmark og Muhammedkrisen op.   Her kommer et langt uddrag:

“ACLU Defends Nazi’s Right to Burn Down ACLU Headquarters,” the humor magazine The Onion announced in 1999. Those of us who loved the ACLU, and celebrated its willingness to defend the rights of Nazis and others who had no regard for our rights, considered the joke a compliment. Today it’s more like a reproach. Once the nation’s leading civil liberties group and a reliable defender of everyone’s speech rights, the ACLU is being transformed into just another liberal human-rights group that reliably defends the rights of liberal speakers.

This transformation is gradual, unacknowledged and not readily apparent, since evidence of it lies mainly in cases the ACLU does not take. It’s naturally easier to know what an organization is doing (and advertising) than what it is not doing. But a review of recent free-speech press releases turns up only a handful of cases in which ACLU state affiliates defended the rights of conservative, antigay or otherwise politically incorrect speakers. And lately the national organization has been remarkably quiet in several important free-speech cases and controversies.

One of the clearest indications of a retreat from defending all speech regardless of content is the ACLU’s virtual silence in Harper v. Poway, an important federal case involving a high-school student’s right to wear a T-shirt condemning homosexuality. Of course, the ACLU doesn’t speak out on every case, but historically it has vigorously defended student speech rights, as its Web site stresses. It is currently representing a student in a speech case before the Supreme Court, Morse v. Frederick (involving the right of a student to carry a nonsensical “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” banner at an off-campus event). The ACLU pays particular attention to the right to wear T-shirts with pro-gay messages in school, proudly citing cases in which it represented students wearing pro-gay (as well as anti-Bush) T-shirts. This year, the ACLU awarded a Youth Activist Scholarship to a student who fought the efforts of her school to bar students from wearing T-shirts that said “Gay, Fine by me.”

So in 2004, when Tyler Chase Harper was disciplined for wearing a T-shirt declaring his religious objections to homosexuality, civil libertarians might have expected the ACLU to protest loudly. Mr. Harper was barred from attending classes when he wore the antigay T-shirt to school on an official “Day of Silence,” when gay students taped their mouths to symbolize the silencing effect of intolerance. Represented by the Alliance Defense Fund, he sued the school district. That same year, the ACLU initiated the first of two actions against a Missouri school that punished students for wearing “gay supportive T-shirts,” eventually securing a promise from the school to “stop censoring,” the ACLU Web site boasts. Mr. Harper, however, was unsuccessful in his quest to stop school censorship. In a patronizing, antilibertarian decision in which Judge Stephen Reinhardt stressed the imagined feelings of gay students, the Ninth Circuit rejected Mr. Harper’s First Amendment claims. (There was a sharp dissent from Judge Alex Kozinski.)

… The Harpers didn’t need representation from the ACLU. But the organization frequently speaks up for the rights of people it does not represent, like Guantanamo detainees, and often files amicus briefs in important civil liberties cases. Given its focus on student rights and religious liberty (one of the ACLU’s priorities), it’s hard to explain the ACLU’s apparent equanimity about the violation of Mr. Harper’s First Amendment rights–unless you consider the content of his speech. 

This case does not appear to be anomalous. Despite its professed commitment to religious liberty, for example, the ACLU tends to absent itself from cases on college campuses involving the associational rights of Christian student groups to discriminate against gay students, in accordance with their religious beliefs. But conservative students might be grateful for the ACLU’s absence. Consider its intervention in a successful federal court challenge to an unconstitutional speech code at Georgia Tech, brought by the Alliance Defense Fund in 2006 on behalf of two conservative religious students. The ACLU of Georgia filed an amicus brief proposing a substitute but still overbroad “antiharassment” policy that included a prohibition on “injurious communications . . . directed toward an individual because of their characteristics or beliefs.” In other words: Students should be punished for sharply criticizing or satirizing each other’s beliefs if their remarks are deemed “injurious.”

Og så til Danmark:.

“The ACLU was even AWOL in one of the most visible and frightening free-speech controversies in recent years–the Muhammad cartoons, which many condemned as “hate speech.” When Muslim groups violently protested the cartoons (first published in the Danish press), when American newspapers declined to publish them for fear of reprisals, and when the U.S. State Department condemned their publication–the ACLU exercised its right to remain silent. In fact, its press office actually advised ducking questions about the cartoons that might arise during discussions of torture at Abu Ghraib. A set of talking points from the press office recommended responding to questions about the cartoons by exhorting the U.S. government to “demonstrate . . . that it is taking the Abu Ghraib images seriously.” (This was later spun as an effort to stay on message about abuses at Abu Ghraib.)

Not until an ACLU donor complained about this silence on the cartoon controversy, and questions about it were
raised before the ACLU bo
ard, did ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero speak up–quietly. He mentioned the controversy in a relatively obscure dinner speech to the National Association of Hispanic Journalists. He sent a letter to the University of Illinois urging it not to discipline student editors who published the cartoons in a campus paper. In a letter to the ACLU board, Mr. Romero both denied and defended the ACLU’s relative silence: “With regard to the cartoons, rather than put out a hortatory statement that no one would read (except insiders) but might make us feel good about ourselves, we have tried to engage in thoughtful forums and discussions that relate to the issue. Speaking out on an issue involves more than slapping a paragraph together and posting it on a website.”

…

Why did the ACLU avoid issuing a loud and clear public statement decrying violent efforts to suppress the Muhammad cartoons? Its silence may have reflected growing sympathy among ACLU leaders and supporters for restricting what many liberals condemn as hate speech. “Take hate speech,” Mr. Romero remarked to the New York Times in May 2006. “While believing in free speech, we do not believe in or condone speech that attacks minorities.” (He was commenting on a proposal to bar board members from criticizing the ACLU–a proposal that was amended only after being exposed in the Times.) “

Kronikøren leverer flere lignende eksempler og sammenfatter:

“This is not the same organization that once took pride in its costly, principled decision to defend the rights of neo-Nazis to march in a community of Holocaust survivors in Skokie, Ill. Of course the ACLU hasn’t definitively abandoned its defense of speech: Large, national organizations change incrementally. But people should no longer depend on the ACLU to defend what they preach (especially at a cost), if it disapproves of what they practice.”

Adoption og EMD

Af Jacob Mchangama, den 24. maj 2007. 2 svar

Højesteret har i en dom fra sidste år fastslået, at ene-adoptanter ikke er berettiget til et børnetilskud, som ene-forældrer er berettigede til, hvilken retstilstand der synes at være et folketingsflertal for at opretholde. Man kan diskutere om dette er en berettiget forskelsbehandling. Uden at kende nærmere til baggrunden for og ordlyden af den relevante lov vil jeg umiddelbart mene, at forskelsbehandlingen er legitim idet adoption per definition er en veltilrettelagt handling, som kræver nøje planlægning, hvorfor det må påhvile den adopterende at sørge for at have tilstrækkelige midler til at forsørge det adopterede barn.

Taberen af den ovennævnte Højesteretssag har meddelt at man ønsker at indgive en klage til den europæiske menneskerettighedsdomstol (EMD), med påstand om at Danmark har foretaget usaglig forskelsbehandling. Da den Europæiske Menneskerettighedskonventions (EMRK) artikel 14 ikke indeholder et fritstående antidiskriminationsforbud, er klager nødt til at gøre artikel 14 gældende i sammenhæng med en af EMRKs øvrige bestemmelser, hvilket i denne sag utvivlsomt vil være retten til familieliv i artikel 8, hvis anvendelsesområde således skal være berørt af det forhold der klages over.

Hvad man end mener om den ovennævnte forskelsbehandling og Højesterets dom, må man spørge sig selv om dette emne virkelig egner sig til at blive afgjort af en international menneskerettighedsdomstol, eller om et sådant organ snarere burde beskæftige sig med sager der i højere grad involverer klare statslige indgreb overfor individer.

Dette spørgsmål behandlede en af EMDs mest karismatiske dommere igennem tiden – engelske Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice – i en dissens i en dom fra 70’erne. Dommen handlede – kort fortalt – om hvorvidt en belgisk lov der forskelsbehandlede børn født i og udenfor ægteskab var diskriminerende og en krænkelse af retten til familieliv – hvilke krænkelser EMDs flertal fandt godtgjort. Fitzmaurice anfægtede dog flertallets afgørelse og gjorde med nedenstående uovertrufne dissens gældende, at retten til familieliv slet ikke var anvendelig: 

It is abundantly clear (at least it is to me) – and the nature of the whole background against which the idea of the European Convention on Human Rights was conceived bears out this view – that the main, if not indeed the sole object and intended sphere of application of Article 8 (art. 8), was that of what I will call the “domiciliary protection” of the individual.

He and his family were no longer to be subjected to the four o’clock in the morning rat-a-tat on the door; to domestic intrusions, searches and questionings; to examinations, delaying and confiscation of correspondence; to the planting of listening devices (bugging); to restrictions on the use of radio and television; to telephone-tapping or disconnection; to measures of coercion such as cutting off the electricity or water supply; to such abominations as children being required to report upon the activities of their parents, and even sometimes the same for one spouse against another, – in short the whole gamut of fascist and communist inquisitorial practices such as had scarcely been known, at least in Western Europe, since the eras of religious intolerance and oppression, until (ideology replacing religion) they became prevalent again in many countries between the two world wars and subsequently.

Such, and not the internal, domestic regulation of family relationships, was the object of Article 8 (art. 8), and it was for the avoidance of these horrors, tyrannies and vexations that “private and family life … home and … correspondence” were to be respected, and the individual endowed with a right to enjoy that respect – not for the regulation of the civil status of babies.

8. Now it is evident that the type of complaint made by the applicants in the present case has absolutely nothing to do with the sort of thing described in the previous paragraph above. They have not been subjected to any of the practices in question, nor did they live under a legal regime according to which such practices were lawful and could at any time be put into action by the authorities.

Ovenstående citat er – mutatis mutandis – også passende for den danske adoptionssag, der bør forblive et nationalt anliggende.

Borjas har en blog

Af David Gress, den 24. maj 2007. Skriv et svar

George Borjas, professor i labor economics ved Harvard og skarp kritiker af USAs kaotiske indvandringspolitik, har startet en blog.  Nødvendig læsning, foruden at Borjas er en ualmindelig tydelig skribent.

Muslimer i USA

Af Jacob Mchangama, den 22. maj 2007. 22 svar

Pew Research Center har foretaget den hidtil mest omfattende meningsmåling blandt amerikanske muslimer til dato, hvilken undersøgelse viser en lang række positive og nogle få bekymrende tendenser.

Undersøgelsen (som jeg i dette indlæg har behandlet relativt selektivt) bekræfter, at amerikanske muslimer er langt bedre integreret (og måske endda i et vist omfang assimileret), mindre fundamentalistiske, mere patriotiske, veluddannede, velstillede og positivt indstillet overfor hårdt arbejde og at klare dem selv end europæiske muslimer. Nedenstående er lidt citater fra undersøgelsen:

Overall, Muslim Americans have a generally positive view of the larger society. Most say their communities are excellent or good places to live. As many Muslim Americans as members of the general public express satisfaction with the state of the nation. Moreover, 71% of Muslim Americans agree that most people who want to get ahead in the U.S. can make it if they are willing to work hard.

The poll reveals that Muslims in the United States reject Islamic extremism by larger margins than do Muslim minorities in Western European countries, when compared with results from a 2006 Pew Global Attitudes Project survey. However, there is somewhat more acceptance of Islamic extremism in some segments of the U.S. Muslim public than others. Fewer native-born African American Muslims than others completely condemn al Qaeda. In addition, younger Muslims in the U.S. are more likely than older Muslim Americans to express a strong sense of Muslim identity, and are much more likely to say that suicide bombing in the defense of Islam can be at least sometimes justified. Nonetheless, absolute levels of support for Islamic extremism among Muslim Americans are quite low, especially when compared with Muslims around the world.

[…]About half of Muslim Americans have attended college, which is somewhat lower than college attendance among the general public. However, Muslims’ annual incomes – and perceptions of personal finances – are fairly comparable with those of the public. Notably, more Muslim immigrants than native-born Muslims see themselves as well-off financially.

[…] Economically, family income among Muslim Americans is roughly comparable with that of the population as a whole.

The extent to which Muslims are integrated into the economic mainstream in America is in stark contrast to the position of Muslims living in four
major Western European nations. Surveys of Muslim populations in Great Britain, France, Germany and Spain conducted in 2006 as part of the Pew Global Attitudes Project found Muslims to be much less affluent relative to the general populations of those nations.

Et særligt interessant fænomen er, at indfødte amerikanske muslimer (hovedsaligt sorte) er langt mindre glade for USA og mindre tolerante end muslimske immigranter det være sig fra den arabiske verden, Asien, Afrika m.v. 71% af de adspurgte muslimer gav udtryk for at hårdt arbejde betaler sig i USA. Men 74% af de muslimske immigranter kunne støtte dette udsagn mod kun 64% af de indfødte (hvilket svarer til den amerikanske befolkning som helhed). 76% af de muslimske immigranter bedømmer deres lokalsamfund som excellent/good mod kun 65% af de indfødte muslimer (82% i den amerikanske befolkning som helhed).

Mest bemærkelsesværdigt blandt de positive tendenser er nok at 38% af amerikanske muslimer er tilfredse med tingenes tilstand i USA mod kun 32% i befolkningen som helhed. Heraf er 45% af de muslimske immigranter tilfredse og ligger således 13 procentpoint over den amerikanske befolkning som helhed, hvis undersøgelsens resultater står til troende. 47% af de muslimske immigranter mener man skal tilvænne sig amerikanske normer mens 21% mener man skal holde fast i egne værdier. For de indfødte amerikanske muslimer er tallene henholdsvis 37% og 38%.

Under halvdelen af amerikanske muslimer (47%) mener deres religion kommer før deres nationalitet mod 81% i Storbritannien (men 46% i Frankrig).

Det er også interessant at en større andel af amerikanske muslimer tager afstand fra, at moskeer skal give udtryk for politiske og sociale holdninger end amerikanske kristne mener at kirker skal give udtryk for ditto (49% mod 43%). Ligeledes går kristne amerikanere oftere i kirke end amerikanske muslimer går i moske (45% mod 40%).

Når det kommer til muslimsk ekstremisme giver 61% af amerikanske muslimer udtryk for bekymring. 60% blandt immigranter 66% blandt indfødte, men interessant nok giver 72% af de adspurgte arabiske immigranter udtryk for bekymring over muslimsk ekstremisme. Arabiske immigranter har dig en lidt højere tolerancetærskel overfor selvmordattentater end øvrige muslimer ”kun” 78% af arabiske muslimske immigranter mener at selvmordsangreb sjældent eller aldrig kan retfærdiggøres, mens tallet for samtlige amerikanske muslimer er 83% med 87% blandt indfødte.

Heller ikke Al-Qaeda kan regne med støtte blandt amerikanske muslimer, som kun 5% af disse har et positivt syn på mens 58% har et stærkt negativt syn og 10% har et noget negativt syn på. Det er også her interessant 63% af de muslimske immigranter har et stærkt negativt syn på Al-Qaeda mens kun 51% (36% blandt sorte!) har et stærkt negativt syn på Al-Qaeda.

De områder, hvor amerikanske muslimer afviger mest fra øvrige amerikanske befolkningsgrupper er krigen mod terror inklusiv krigene i Irak og Afghanistan. Kun henholdsvis 12 og 26% af amerikanske muslimer støtter op om krigene i henholdsvis Irak og Afghanistan mod 45% og 61% i befolkningen som helhed. Endvidere mener kun 26% af amerikanske muslimer, at krigen mod terror er udtryk for en ægte bestræbelse på at bekæmpe terrorisme. Tallet for den øvrige befolkning ligger på 67%. Mest bekymrende er dog at kun 40% af amerikanske muslimer mener, at arabere udførte terrorangrebet 11. september. Denne skræmmende statistik skal dog sammenlignes med at 1/3 af den amerikanske befolkning som helhed tilsyneladende mener, at regeringen enten udførte eller undlod at forhindre terrorangrebene 11. september.

Også når det kommer til synet på den rette størrelse af staten og støtte til demokraterne henholdsvis republikanerne afviger amerikanske muslimer fra den øvrige befolkning. Generelt ser amerikanske muslimer mere positivt på en større rolle for staten end den amerikanske befolkning som helhed (21% mod 45%), mens støtten til det demokratiske parti også er udtalt (63% mod 51%). Dette skal dog givetvis ses i lyset af krigen i Irak, idet 42% af de amerikanske muslimer i 2000 stemte på Præsident Bush.

Alt i alt synes undersøgelsen at give grobund for optimisme med hensyn til mulighederne for at integrere muslimer i liberale demokratier og undersøgelsen rokker kraftigt ved de deterministiske katastrofescenarier, som trives så vel i visse kredse. Når Mogens Camre udtaler, at ”forestillingen om ’fornuftige muslimer’, der støtter demokrati og menneskerettigheder, er en illusion”, skal han således ikke stoppes med strafferetlige sanktioner, men blot konfronteres med virkeligheden.

En god karakter

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 22. maj 2007. 10 svar

Jeg skal i den grad–både her og i Groft Sagt-spalten–afholde mig helt og aldeles fra at blande mig i den hidsige debat foranlediget af lektor Klaus Kjøllers udtalelser om, at nogle yppige kvindelige for- og bagdele kan resultere i højere karakterer ved en eksamen. Hvis du er ansat som forsker, har du lige så meget brug for at blande dig i den debat, “like u need a hole in yo head”–for nu at citere en anden med interesse for kvindelige former.

Men for denne blogs kræsne læsere, hvoraf en stor del er bekendt med “Den østrigske økonomiske skole”, skal jeg ikke undlade at benytte lejligheden til at fortælle, hvad jeg som studerende hørte, da jeg (1992-94) deltog i det hæderkronede Austrian Economics kollokvium ved New York University, der i sin tid blev etableret af Ludwig von Mises. Det er nemlig en historie om en af Mises’ mange talentfulde og begavede elever, den glorværdige østrigsk-amerikanske økonom, professor Fritz Machlup (1902-83).

Machlup var lige fra sine unge dage i Wien noget af en suave og pigeglad charmør–så meget at han i en kendt anekdote om, hvordan de liberale (og mestendels jødiske) østrigske økonomer fabulerede om, hvad de mon allesammen skulle lave, når de engang var tvungent i eksil udenfor Østrig.  Herforestillede de sig, at de alle ville blive nødt til at arbejde som noget andet end økonomer, f.eks. på en restaurant i Sydamerika ; Machlup blev tilskrevet rollen som danser og gigolo. (Hans kone, Mitzi, skulle være go-go girl, Hayek tjener og Mises dørmand, o.s.v.)

Interessen for det smukke køn blev åbenbart ikke mindre med årene. Da Machlup nærmede sig firserne og var i en slags halv-pensionist stilling ved NYU, insisterede han som en af de første dér på, at de studerende skulle aflevere deres eksamensopgaver uden eget navn på. Det var åbenbart meget sjældent dengang. Han var bange for, hvordan hans viden om og sympatier for specifikke studerende kunne resultere i, at han gav dem uretfærdigt høje karakterer. Det var her ikke så meget det politiske, det ideologiske eller det rent paradigme-mæssige, han tænkte på …:

“Zere are soooo many lovely girls, and I just cannot help giving zem a gut grade …”,

–skal han (efter sigende) have sagt, eller ihvertfald noget i den stil. Om historien er korrekt, ved jeg ikke, men ihvertfald illustrerer den en slags “rationel institutionalisme”, og hvis Kjøller har ret (altså i en strengt kausalvidenskablig forstand!), er den ihvertfald endnu et godt argument for at nedprioritere mundtlige eksamener til fordel for (om muligt) anonymiserede skriftlige ditto.

Mugabonomics

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 21. maj 2007. 10 svar

Som allerede omtalt af vores ærede redaktør , synes Venezuelas folkevalgte diktator, den socialistisk-nationalistiske (eller var det omvendt?) Hugo Chavez, nu at ville konkurrere på internationalt plan. Nærmere bestemt virker han forhippet på at ville gøre Robert Mugabe og Fidel Castro rangen stridig som en af dem, der hurtigst kan køre en–i det store billede–relativt velfungerende udviklingsøkonomi i sænk. Han bruger også Mugabes metoder, herunder vilkårlige besættelser af private gårde. Her er mere fra Wall Street Journals artikel:

“Now Mr. Chavez is taking his revolution to the Venezuelan countryside. “We must end latifundios,” he said in a televised speech in March, referring to large agrarian estates. “The people order it, and we will do it, whatever the cost.” Then he announced the seizure of a land area larger than the state of Rhode Island.

Since coming to power, The Chávez government has handed over 8.8 million acres, an area bigger than Maryland, for use by the poor. While much of this was state-owned land that was either idle or leased to ranchers, some 4.5 million acres were “recovered” from private owners, Mr. Chávez said recently. In some cases, the government compensated them. In most others… it has simply turned a blind eye to land invasions.

The government bills land reform as a way to make Venezuela self-sufficient infood. But so far, the effect has been to undercut production of beef, sugar and other foods, as productive land is handed over to city dwellers with no knowledge of farming. Established farmers and ranchers, fearing their land may be seized next, are cutting investment in their operations to a minimum.

The chaos in the countryside has contributed to shortages in basic items like milk and meat, a paradox in a country enjoying an economic boom traceable to high oil prices. Also spurring the shortages are price controls on certain foods that keep them prices below the cost of production. Meanwhile, 19%-plus inflation–as oil revenue floods the economy–spurs panic buying: purchasing price-controlled and other goods the shopper might not immediately need for fear of having higher prices in the future or not finding the items at all.

“You get up at dawn to hunt for a breast of chicken all over town. Housewives are in a foul mood.” says Lucylde Gonzalez, a Caracas homemaker, who says she hasn’t seen an egg in a week.”

Kunne man forestille sig, at nogen ville brokke sig over det? Ja, men så må de jo se, om de kan få fat i en journalist fra de medier, som ikke i samme anledning bliver frataget deres sendetilladelser.

President Thompson? VI

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 18. maj 2007. 5 svar

 

Ok, det kan være, at jeg er begyndt at lyde så varieret som en hakket plade, men her kommer altså mere af Peggy Noonan og mere om Fred Thompsons præsidentkandidatur … Take it or leave it. Her fra hendes klumme i dagens Wall Street Journal:

The Man Who Wasn’t There

Fred Thompson isn’t yet running, but he’s running a great campaign.

 

“Having watched the second Republican debate the other night, it’s clear to me the subject today is Fred Thompson, the man who wasn’t there. While the other candidates bang away earnestly in a frozen format, Thompson continues to sneak up from the creek and steal their underwear–boxers, briefs and temple garments.

He is running a great campaign. It’s just not a declared campaign. It’s a guerrilla campaign whose informality is meant to obscure his intent. It has been going on for months and is aimed at the major pleasure zones of the Republican brain. In a series of pointed columns, commentaries and podcasts, Mr. Thompson has been talking about things conservatives actually talk about. Shouldn’t homeowners have the right to own a gun? Isn’t it bad that colleges don’t teach military history? How about that Sarkozy–good news, isn’t it? Did you see Tenet on Russert? His book sounds shallow, tell-all-y.

These comments and opinions are being read and forwarded in Internet Nation. They are revealing and interesting, but they’re not heavy, not homework. They have an air of “This is the sound of a candidate thinking.” That’s an unusual sound.

Most illustrative was what started this week as a small trading of barbs with provocateur Michael Moore, whose general and iconic dishabille is meant to show identification with the workingman, though in America workingmen bathe. Mr. Moore was back from Cuba, where he made a documentary on the superiority of Castro’s health care system. Mr. Thompson suggested Mr. Moore is just another lefty who loves dictators. Mr. Moore challenged Mr. Thompson to a health-care debate and accused him of smoking embargoed cigars.

Within hours Mr. Thompson and his supposedly nonexistent staff had produced a spirited video response that flew through YouTube and the conservative blogosphere. Sitting at a desk and puffing on a fat cigar, Mr. Thompson announces to Mr. Moore he can’t fit him into his schedule.

Then: “The next time you’re down in Cuba . . . you might ask them about another documentary maker. His name was Nicolás Guillén. He did something Castro didn’t like, and they put him in a mental institution for several years, giving him devastating electroshock treatments. A mental institution, Michael. Might be something you ought to think about.”

You couldn’t quite tell if Mr. Thompson was telling Mr. Moore he ought to think more about Cuba, or might himself benefit from psychiatric treatment. It seemed almost . . . deliberately unclear.

Right now Mr. Thompson has the best of both worlds, an air of fearlessness and nothing on the line. He hasn’t committed. He’s not in. He can take a chance and be himself because he’s not afraid, and he’s not afraid because he has nothing to lose.”

Hvis ikke andet, så er det da ikke det værste, man kan sige om en præsidentkandidat–og hvis han vil tale til og om Michael Moore på dén måde, så får han gerne min stemme mod HRC. Hvis jeg havde én.

 

Update: Mere om Thompsons ikke-kandidatur og hans slagsmål med Michael Moore.  Om sine embargo-belagte cubanske cigarer: “As to the cigars, they are the result of the generosity of a friend of mine who gives me a few from time to time. We intend to see to it that they are destroyed over the next few months.”

Nye blog-skribenter

Af Redaktionen, den 17. maj 2007. 1 svar

Kort tid efter at vi har budt velkommen til Jonny Trapp Steffensen, kan vi nu byde velkommen til yderligere tre nye skribenter på denne blog.

Den ene er økonomen Niels Westy Munch-Holbek , der i række år har markeret sig som en af de mest klare pro-frihandelsfortalere i den danske globaliseringsdebat.  Vi regner med, at Niels–der også er vicepræsident for Akademiet for Fremtidsforskning –vil fortsætte med at holde dén fane højt her på bloggen.

De to andre, nye skribenter er henholdsvis Papillon & Altmann.  De har begge rødderne plantet i det borgerligt-liberale bagland, og de vil fra tid til anden slippe lidt god sladder og andet, der ellers gerne skulle være forblevet i det gedulgte, løs her på stedet.

Ugens citat: Henrik Dahl om "centrum-venstre psykosen"

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 17. maj 2007. 3 svar

Den tidl. SF’er, sociologen Henrik Dahl har hos Kommunikationsform et langt essay om “Centrumvenstrepsykosen”, i fire lange indlæg: I, II, III, IV (hattip: Kim Møller fra Uriasposten, igen via Ulla Nørtoft Thomsen og Dansk-Politik. Herfra to citater …

“Centrum-venstre – og ikke mindst centrum-venstre kommentariatet – har pådraget sig en psykose. Det lever i sin egen virkelighed, hvor u-landsbistand er en vindersag. Hvor man på udlandsrejser skal være flov over at være dansker. Hvor Danmark er præget af islamofobi og fremmedhad. Hvor muslimerne i Europa har fået samme status, som jøderne havde i Tyskland i trediverne. Hvor islamisme ikke er en totalitær magtfaktor i mellemøsten. Hvor Søren Krarup og Jesper Langballe bestemmer stort og småt i dansk indenrigs- og udenrigspolitik. Hvor man som noget helt nyt stemmer vigtige reformer igennem med spinkle flertal. Hvor statsministeren i ethvert af sine vågne øjeblikke pønser på at afskaffe velfærdsstaten. Hvor Danmark er blevet koldt og nyliberalt. Og hvor der nu på sjette år bliver skåret dramatisk ned på alle offentlige udgifter.

At tro eller hævde den slags, er psykotisk. Et udtryk for, at virkeligheden ikke gør det mindste indtryk på ens tankevirksomhed.”

[…]

“Kun de færreste i centrum-venstre har nogensinde fattet, hvad der ramte dem i 2001 og 2005. De fleste fabler om højredrejning og en eller anden hulemand, der som en anden Alien vil bryde ud af Anders Fogh Rasmussens bryst på et tidspunkt. Det er nonsens.”

Danmark og Menneskerettighedsrådet

Af Jacob Mchangama, den 17. maj 2007. 5 svar

Danmark stiller som bekendt op til valg til FNs Menneskerettighedsråd (Rådet), der afholdes i dag. Vi har her på bloggen dækket Rådets virke (her) og undertegnede har også holdt et frokostsymposium om emnet.

Kandidater til Rådet afgiver såkaldte ”voluntary pledges”, hvor man roser sig af sin menneskerettighedsefterlevelse og dybe respekt for FNs menneskerettigheder. Danmark har også afgivet et sådant pledge.

I Danmarks pledge hedder det bl.a.:

Denmark is strongly committed to the universal promotion and protection of interrelated, interdependent and mutually reinforcing.

Denmark is a firm supporter of the United Nations, including the Human Rights Council, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights, the treaty bodies, the Special Procedures and other human rights-related United Nations bodies. Denmark has also contributed extensively to United Nations bodies with a role in the promotion of the rule of law, including as Chair of the Counter-Terrorism Committee in 2005/2006.

Denmark has been actively engaged in United Nations reform, including the establishment of the Peacebuilding Commission as well as the Human Rights Council. Denmark is highly committed to making the Council credible, effective and operative and believes that this objective should be reached, inter alia, by building on the achievements of the Commission on Human Rights.

[…]

As a member of the Council, Denmark pledges:

To work actively to ensure that the Council becomes credible, effective and operative:

By working to ensure that the Council addresses all human rights issues: civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development.

Indgangsbønnen hvor Danmark fastslår, at borgerlige og politiske frihedsrettigheder og kollektive socio-økonomiske rettigheder er udelelige og indbyrdes afhængige er en fast del af den internationale menneskerettighedsbevægelses trosbekendelse. Den går igen i utallige FN-erklæringer og deklarationer og bekender sig man ikke til trosbekendelsen kan man ikke gøre sig håb om at komme med i det gode selskab.

Dette på trods af, at de vidtløftige ord ikke har det fjerneste hold i virkeligheden men er en ”sandhed”, som kun eksisterer på papir, som enhver national jurist med speciale i forfatningsret vil kunne skrive under på.Men ikke nok med, at Danmark, giver moralsk støtte til en række rettigheder vi ikke anerkender i vores nationale retsorden, Danmark har også påtaget sig aktivt at kæmpe for disse på det internationale plan. Skal dette stå til troende vil Danmark altså kæmpe lige så hårdt for at retten til udvikling – som ikke er anerkendt i nogen retligt bindende traktat eller retssædvane og som givetvis er et ”menneskeretligt krav” på udviklingsbistand – og ethvert menneskes ”fundamentale ret” til arbejde, sundhed, bolig og social sikring som den voldelige undertrykkelse af civilbefolkningen i Zimbabwe, tortur i Usbekistan, ytringsfrihed i Mellemøsten, og forbrydelserne mod menneskeheden i Darfur.

Når man i tillæg til ovenstående kan konstatere, at Rådet fungerer værre end sin forgænger, kan man kun begræde, at Statsministerens skepsis overfor Rådet ikke deles af Udenrigsministeren.