The court concluded that the challenged provision, infringes the right to privacy guaranteed by Section 21 of India's Constitution as well as Section 14 (equality before the law) and 15 (discrimination on the basis of sex) of the Indian Constitution.

So this is clearly an "end of the beginning" situation rather than a "beginning of the end" (not even the U.S. can claim that status).

Meanwhile, let's not lose sight of how this landmark (if local) decision is serving to unite and inspire the entire nation of India — in religiously commanded hatred and bigotry:

"This Western culture cannot be permitted in our country," said Maulana Khalid Rashid Farangi Mahali, a leading Muslim cleric in the northern city of Lucknow.
…
Religious leaders in the capital and in other parts of India argued that gay sex should remain illegal and that open homosexuality is out of step with India's deeply held traditions.

"We are totally against such a practice as it is not our tradition or culture," said Puroshattam Narain Singh, an official of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, or World Hindu Council.

In New Delhi, Rev. Babu Joseph, a spokesman of the Roman Catholic Church, told New Delhi Television that while homosexuals should not be treated as criminals, "at the same time we cannot afford to endorse homosexual behavior as normal and socially acceptable."

Progress? That's a relative concept.

"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ."
–Mohandas Gandhi

The case is Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi (PDF – 105 pages).

Previously:
–Global Christians Race to the Bottom on Gay Bigotry
–Naked Bigotry Update: Pope Urges Anglicans to Reject Gays

Brad Setser writes,

Facts are facts. The US has already proved it can raise over $1.5 trillion in a single year [in Treasury borrowing]

That is a the sort of statement that could come back and haunt someone. It is along the lines of the guy jumping out of a building from the 10th floor, passing the third floor and saying, "It's all fine so far."

Kling's response is perfectly fine, but I'd like to offer my own.

It is true — at least thus far — that the federal government can run any budget deficit it likes — no matter how large — by conducting as many Treasury auctions — no matter how large — as are needed to fund those deficits. But as with any auction, indeed as with any economic transaction, the question is, "At what price?"

One of the few remaining things that the United States Government still cannot do is force people to buy a government bond. It must still entice buyers to purchase its bonds, the same way that anyone entices a buyer — with a sufficiently attractive price.

With any bond, government or otherwise, the price is really just a function of the interest rate paid on that bond. A borrower, government or otherwise, must offer a sufficiently high interest rate in order to attract lenders (i.e., bond buyers).

So when Setser says, "the US has already proved it can raise over $1.5 trillion in a single year," he's not really saying anything at all. Of course the U.S. could raise over $1.5 trillion in a single year in the past. And of course the U.S. could raise over $1.5 trillion in a single year in the future. The question is: At what price? At what interest rate?

Setser also conveniently ignores the pesky fact that we are talking here not only about interest rates, but also about interest payments. I presume Setser is aware that the federal government must actually make cash payments to the holders of Treasury securities. Those payments are not mere accounting entries on a notebook in West Virginia. They are real cash outlays that must be made to the bondholders — $450 billion per year and climbing. And those outlays have real economic effects.

Admittedly, it has been rather easy to dismiss the relevance of interest rates to fiscal policy debates over the past few years. But that is only because China's Communist thugs have been stupid enough, for long enough, to loan our government money at ridiculously low interest rates. And so long as Beijing remains stupid enough to continue doing so, then our response should be: "Great! Keep it coming!"

(Those who actually care about China's ever-swelling holdings of U.S. government debt tend to focus on other, less intellectually robust issues, such as "sending jobs overseas" — or, worse, primitive Buchanan-style xenophobic populism. Such people are almost as stupid as China's Communist thugs.)

Even Setser acknowledges this:

China's reserve growth is likely to slow, and over time so will its Treasury purchases — even if they haven't yet. China isn't going to add close to $70b to its short-term Treasury holdings forever; the pace of China's purchases will slow. That isn't a major problem though, not so long as it happens gradually.

"So long as it happens gradually." Famous last words. I suppose cancer isn't a major problem either — so long as it happens gradually. Question for Setser: Is this "gradually" enough for you?

Finally, let's assume that we indeed find other buyers for the ever-more-expensive government debt. Let's even assume that these new buyers are real, red-blooded Americans and not "job-stealing foreigners." Are those American Treasury buyers likely to be poor, or even middle class? Or are they likely to be the wealthy? Greater deficits mean greater debt, which means greater interest payments on that debt, which means greater income transfers from those with lower incomes (who pay the taxes) to those with higher incomes (who receive the interest payments).

And this plan is the cornerstone of what liberals consider "enlightened fiscal policy."

Astonishing.

Previously:
–CRS Recommendation: The National Debt
–CRS Recommendation: Foreign Holdings of Public Debt
–Government Bringing Back 30-Year Bond
–Defining "Balanced Budget" Down

Companies in two Chinese provinces, Shandong and Hubei, have been told they must seek official consent if they want to lay off more than 40 people. The order highlights the Chinese authorities' concern over mounting job losses.
…
The Chinese authorities are keen to avoid social instability, seen as a source of labour and political unrest. The human resources controls imposed in Shandong and Hubei are an attempt to put bureaucratic obstacles in the way of mass layoffs.

While it is somewhat difficult, in the wake of TARP, to insist that we ourselves are any less socialist (see also, "Directive 10-289"), at least we haven't quite gotten to the point where employers are enslaved to their employees (wasn't the concern the other way around under original theories of socialism?). But give it time: if Paulson or his successor suddenly decide that forbidding layoffs is the next idea to try, they'll try it. Just you wait…

The letter from Hampshire Social Services was as brief as it was bewildering. "Please ring me on the above number," it said. "I have some information that might be of interest to you." This was quite an understatement, as Michael Shergold soon found.
…
They said he was the father of another child — a five-year-old son from a previous, short-lived relationship. A former girlfriend, unable to cope with the demands of motherhood, had handed the boy over to foster parents.

A meeting with this new-found son was out of the question, he was told, let alone any sort of relationship. He was also informed that the boy was to be formally adopted and that the council was ringing merely to let him know.
…
Michael tried to adopt his son but last year he lost the battle and was refused even occasional visiting rights, which were deemed too upsetting for the boy.

Let's pause here. I know nothing about the subtleties of U.K. family law. But I know that a core principle of enlightened jurisprudence is that a waiver of rights must be knowing and voluntary if it is to be binding. A parent, who not only never harmed his child but never even had a chance to harm his child, ought to retain at least some of his parental rights.

Any fit and competent adult who becomes a biological parent, even unknowingly, and who never actively waived his right to be the child's parent, ought at least to have a right of access to the child. A right to adopt the child, or to nullify a previous adoption, might be a stretch — innocent adoptive parents have rights too. But a right to visitation (coupled of course with the duty to financially support) ought to be presumptive in the absence of some particularized reason of unfitness, such as a heinous criminal record or something of that nature. More should be required of the authorities than "Oops."

Let's also acknowledge the rights of the child here, including the right to as much familial love as is available to him. I am utterly bewildered as to how child welfare authorities could somehow conclude that bringing another loving relative into a five-year old's life could be "too upsetting."

If there is some "balancing rights" issue here, as is so often the case with problematic family law fact patterns, then I fail to see it. I only see rights being violated — Sherwood's and his son's.

This post could have ended with that. Unfortunately, as the saying goes, "but wait, there's more!"

But there were extraordinary surprises in store for Michael and his wife, Alex. Hampshire Social Services wanted more than just his acquiescence.

Andrew, it emerged, had been diagnosed with a severe problem in one of his organs. For legal reasons, it is not possible to be more specific.

But the boy stands little chance of living beyond his teenage years without a transplant — from a blood relative if at all possible. The most suitable blood relative, it was explained by social workers, was Michael himself.

In a disturbing saga, this was perhaps the most unpleasant twist of all. It brought him to a damning conclusion — that Hampshire Social Services had made him aware of Andrew's existence only to provide the child with a body part.

I've read that text dozens of times now — and I'm still stunned every time I read it.

The one observation I can come up with is that this abomination illustrates the evil of pure utilitarianism. Apparently, a supposedly civilized nation has now become perfectly willing to have its citizens literally start carving each other up based on some low-level bureaucrat's determination of "the greatest good for the greatest number."

(But, meanwhile, it is still apparently irredeemably monstrous to even discuss the notion of competent consenting adults selling their organs in a private market. Go figure.)

If the government presented me with the dilemma it has so pointlessly and cruelly foisted upon Michael Shergold, I would probably have a nervous breakdown. (Keep in mind that Shergold has two other minor children. The surgery would pose a serious risk to him and, vicariously, to them and their welfare.) How do you chose whose interests to prioritize from among your children — especially when, thanks to the coercive power of the government, you have bonded with your children in very different ways? What thought processes could possibly have led to this nightmare?

The one moral anchor I can find in all this is the axiom that "morality ends where the barrel of a gun begins." The government is using its coercive power to paint Mr. Shergold into this corner. He has been effectively stripped of any moral obligation one way or the other and must be excused regardless of what choice he makes. No matter what he does, someone he loves suffers. I hope the ghastly drones of Hampshire Social Services are happy.

I've taken some flak on this blog for suggesting that parental rights have limits, particularly in the context of inadequate, religiously-based homeschooling. But wherever the limits of parental rights is, that limit is surely greater than "None."

—

One additional hasty stitch:

The Mail on Sunday asked Hampshire County Council two months ago about its handling of the case. It responded by obtaining a legal injunction to prevent us printing Michael's story, claiming that to do so might damage his son's chances of settling down.

Determined that Michael should get the chance to speak, The Mail on Sunday has pursued a lengthy legal fight to lift the injunction, and last week we succeeded. Today, in this exclusive interview, Michael is able to talk about his ordeal for the first time.

Just another reminder that there is no First Amendment in Europe. But you already knew that.

In the early 1990s, Georgia and its breakaway South Ossetia region had agreed to a Russian-mediated ceasefire that provided for Russian "peacekeepers" to be stationed in the region. Moscow extended citizenship and passports to most ethnic Ossetians. Simmering long-time tensions erupted on the evening of August 7, 2008, when South Ossetia and Georgia accused each other of launching intense artillery barrages against each other. Georgia claims that South Ossetian forces did not respond to a ceasefire appeal but intensified their shelling, "forcing" Georgia to send in troops. On August 8, Russia launched large-scale air attacks and dispatched troops to South Ossetia that engaged Georgian forces later in the day. By the morning of August 10, Russian troops had occupied the bulk of South Ossetia, reached its border with the rest of Georgia, and were shelling areas across the border. Russian troops occupied several Georgian cities. Russian warships landed troops in Georgia's breakaway Abkhazia region and took up positions off Georgia's Black Sea coast.

As I noted in my one and only post on the conflict, until we as a global community devise a peaceful, rights-respecting way to move beyond the nation-state model of geopolitics, situations like this will continue to erupt.

To say — correctly — that Georgia is a democracy and Russia is a thugocracy is the beginning, but not the end, of the discussion. To say — correctly — that even in a democracy there should be at least some mechanism for increasing local self-determination and autonomy, up to and possibly including secession, is the beginning, but not the end, of the discussion.

It cannot be only about borders — and how to properly define them. It has to be about rights — and how to properly define them.

Previous CRS Recommendations:
Congress and the States
Political Activity by Tax-Exempt Institutions
The Law of Church and State
Constitutional Limits on Hate Crime Legislation
Same-Sex Marriage — Legal Issues
Saudi Arabia
The National Debt
Restricting Video Game Sales to Minors
Warrantless Wiretapping
Foreign Holdings of Public Debt
China's Internet Censorship
Summary of Rumsfeld v. FAIR

A Church of England vicar could face disciplinary action for saying gay men should have "sodomy" warnings tattooed on their bodies.

The Rev Peter Mullen, who is a parish priest and rector in the City of London, made the remarks on his blog, which has since been removed from the web under an agreement with diocesan officials. [Google cache here.]
…
"Let us make it obligatory for homosexuals to have their backsides tattooed with the slogan SODOMY CAN SERIOUSLY DAMAGE YOUR HEALTH and their chins with FELLATIO KILLS."

The bigot's response?

Despite the bishop's rebuke, Mullen played down the posts, which he described as "light-hearted jokes".

"I wrote some satirical things on my blog and anybody with an ounce of sense of humour or any understanding of the tradition of English satire would immediately assume that they're light-hearted jokes. I certainly have nothing against homosexuals. Many of my dear friends have been and are of that persuasion. What I have got against them is the militant preaching of homosexuality."

How can he possibly be a bigot, right? After all, some of his best friends are "of that persuasion"? Welcome to enlightened, urban, Twenty-First Century Anglicanism. God be praised…

One more pesky fact: Mullen is the chaplain of the London Stock Exchange. (Of course, he'll likely soon be the former chaplain.) So we are not talking about some unknown, unimportant, "Father Ted" sort of semi-retarded flunkie banished to the countryside. This is a high-profile London vicar with a sizable audience.

Let's hope the LSE and the C of E correct their error and reduce the size of that audience promptly.

Previously:
–Global Anglicans Want U.S. Apology for Gay Bishop
–Naked Bigotry Update: Pope Urges Anglicans to Reject Gays
–Global Christians Race to the Bottom on Gay Bigotry
–Africa to Anglicans: Be Bigots or Be Gone

—

I've decided I'm in the mood for some Father Ted:

The economic case for having the government enforce rules on food safety seems overwhelming. Consumers have no way of knowing whether the food they eat is contaminated, and in this case what you don't know can hurt or even kill you. But there are some people who refuse to accept that case, because it's ideologically inconvenient.

In June 2008, Krugman doubled down and invoked fellow lying muckraker Upton Sinclair:

The declining credibility of U.S. food regulation has even led to a foreign-policy crisis: there have been mass demonstrations in South Korea protesting the pro-American prime minister’s decision to allow imports of U.S. beef, banned after mad cow disease was detected in 2003. How did America find itself back in The Jungle?

In reality, America's food safety bureaucracy is not "ideologically inconvenient" and America is not The Jungle — this is:

As early as last July, He Feng, an investigative journalist with a weekly in southern China, had gathered detailed information on a wave of hospitalisations of babies. But the Chinese government, through the Propaganda Department, imposed a ban on publishing negative information about food scandals before and during the Olympic Games. So He Feng's editor decided not to publish his information for fear of being punished by the authorities.

Just before the Olympic Games, the Propaganda Department sent a list of 21 banned subjects to the news media. One of them — point 8 — was food safety. "All subjects linked to food safety, such as mineral water causing cancer, are off-limits," the directive said.

Now, for people who, like Krugman, might be unclear on this: government bans on the free flow of information are not "the free market." Milton Friedman believed in free markets. So what, exactly, does Paul Krugman believe in?

Those who insist that only the government can ensure the safety of the food supply conveniently ignore a cornucopia of private entities that do just that: ensure safety. Underwriters Laboratories, Good Housekeeping, Consumer Reports, etc. Not to mention less formal opinion aggregators such as Zagats, TripAdvisor and so on.

They also ignore that companies not only pursue higher profits through quality, but they also try to avoid the costs of product liability. The easiest way not to get sued is by not selling dangerous goods. (Think any of the melamine victims in China will get to sue anyone?)

And most importantly, they forget that only the government can censor news that, in a free society with a free press, would otherwise quickly reach the population and thereby mitigate the impact of a mass taint.

As a point of reference: Anyone remember the Diamond dog food catastrophe? Perhaps not, since it was so quickly contained, thanks in large part to the uncensored American Internet. No, it takes Chinese censorship to create a pet food holocaust.

Finally, let's remember that it's not just through the food supply that China's anti-capitalists kill children.

(And, coincidentally, note that the New York Times just today reiterated that it has learned absolutely nothing. Meanwhile, some people are going to sicken themselves even when the food is perfectly fine. How exactly is an expanded FDA supposed to protect morons from themselves?

Previously:
–"Atlas Shrugged" Quote of the Day

What may not be as well known is that they will also force their gay sons into marriage — even in Britain:

Positive East is a counselling service in east London which has given support to men who have been forced into marriage. One of those it helped is 25-year-old Arza, who was taken to Pakistan and forced into marriage at the age of 19.

He said: "I used to wear make-up and dress in women's clothes, and knew I was gay when I was a teenager. [My family] said my grandmother was ill, so we went to Pakistan. They said, 'If you don't marry, your mother will have a heart attack from the shock.' I was scared they would disown me and kick me out if I refused. I suffered from depression, mental health issues which were alcohol-fuelled. I kept saying to myself 'How do I lead both lives?' It was very difficult to get a divorce, my family wanted us to stay together. They wanted to protect their honour."

Another British Asian with a similar experience is Randeep, who was forced into marriage when he was 24. Now aged 30, he told Eastern Eye: "All the family went to India together, for a 'visit'. They said I had to get married. I felt isolated and under a lot of pressure. I told her, 'You will be spoiling the girl's life and my life'. She said, 'What will people think if you don't get married?' She only cared about izzat [honour]."

Of course, shotgun weddings, threats to withhold trust funds, banishment to torture reparative therapy compounds and other loveless forms of familial anti-gay coercion are not unheard in Christian and Jewish communities here in the U.S. Point conceded. On the other hand, the problem is no so rampant here that we need a dedicated, full-time "Forced Marriage Unit" to combat the abuse as the U.K. does.

(Via Hunter of Justice.)

Previously:
–RoP: Gambian Barbarian-in-Chief Calls for Summary Beheading of All Gays
–RoP: Bickering Eurocrats May Deport Gay Teen to Iranian Death Sentence
–RoP: Still Viciously, Even Lethally Anti-Gay

The most senior judge in Saudi Arabia has said it is permissible to kill the owners of satellite TV channels which broadcast immoral programmes.

Sheikh Salih Ibn al-Luhaydan said some "evil" entertainment programmes aired by the channels promoted debauchery.

Dozens of satellite television channels broadcast across the Middle East, where they are watched by millions of Arabs every day.

The judge made the comments on a state radio programme.

It is simply impossible to integrate such a religion, culture and "jurisprudence" (I use that word very loosely) into Twenty-First Century civilization. No number of Rolls Royce limousines, Gulfstream V jets and sovereign wealth funds can change that. Goatherder is as goatherder does.

More:

Clerics like Sheikh al-Luhaydan represent a huge dilemma for the Saudi royal family, our correspondent adds. On the one hand, Saudi rulers need their support to claim that they rule in the name of Islam. But on the other hand, fighting militant Islam can be difficult when the country's top judge calls for the beheading of those he views as immoral broadcasters.

Gee, you think?

Today's Kip Clip is therefore dedicated to Senator Chuck E. Cheese: