Mental Meanderings

This week I discovered Ann Althouse’s blog by finally following some blogroll links from (the wonderful) Opinio Juris and I have to admit to becoming really enthralled by her. Firstly she blogs an incredible amount (I won’t take a dig at her for being tenured and therefore having enough time to blog so much….or have I already done so?) and to a very high quality. Refreshingly for what is described as a law blog she doesn’t talk solely about law, which in a way is a blessing in disguise as her interest in jurisdiction probably ranks equally in the boredom stakes to my interest in property law!! Instead she blogs about a wide variety of things and almost all to an incredible level of controversy with most posts attracting 20+ comments! The second good thing about her is her vagueness about her political views. It’s not that she doesn’t give political opinion – most of what she writes is heavily politicized – but I find it difficult to assess, from reading her blog, whether she would count herself on the right or the left, as Republican or Democrat and frankly I find that refreshing.

I do have to say, however, that she has an exceptionally interesting perspective of right-ness and left-ness and counts individualism, or wanting to free from the constrains and judgmentalism of liberal communities, as a right wing trait. She’s attracted a lot of criticism for this – particularly since she appears to have espoused this view in a post about the Scorsese documentary on Bob Dylan – but I think she’s quite right. Left-wing-ism is inherently communitarian and, to some extent, surprisingly un-liberal inasmuch as people are blasted for saying, thinking or doing anything that might be construed as being anti-communitarian/collective. In this respect I can’t help but think of the many references Susan Brownmillar includes in her autobiography about the criticism that was directed at feminists who signed their names to their missives or published in their own names. There is something almost ‘dirty’ at times about those who wish to take credit for their work, because that is an individualistic, and therefore ‘right’, desire. Taking this view one could justifiably describe Noam Chomsky, for example, as a right-wing liberal, i.e. a person who holds left-wing views but retains the right-wing desire for recognition. Every academic who publishes could be said to have right-wing tendencies then as well, including myself. Does this detract the collective values of liberal academic work and writing? I don’t think so – in fact it surely adds to it as it disseminates the information. Does it make the liberal who enjoys appearing on radio, television etc… any less of a liberal? I don’t think it does either

Perhaps ‘traditional’ media and information systems require all of us to be ‘right’ to some extent – although there is the potential for collective blogs written without individual accreditation to create liberal leftwing scholarship and commentary. An interesting idea…

So I don’t know whether Althouse is right or left. I do know that I enjoy her though…and that she’s going on my favourites list.

Another French class this morning. Annoying boy has left the class – the teaching style wasn’t what he expected apparently. Everything went much more smoothly (and quickly) today!!

Magnifique!

John Roberts has been sworn in as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shortly after the Senate confirmed his nomination 78-22 heralding a new stage of development in American jurisprudence. Or potentially at least – he may well continue the relatively conservative jurisprudential trend of the Rehnquist supreme court. Only time will tell however

Supreme Court watchers now turn their attention to Sandra Day-O’Connor’s seat. Ann Althouse has picked up speculation surrounding the seat and, in particular, on rumours that Harriet Miers might take over. I think she’d be ok – very O’Connor-esque and certainly a swing vote with a good range of life and professional experience.

Last November many of us had two reasons to lament the results of the American elections: the re-election of George Bush and the success of anti-gay marriage constitutional amendments in many American states. These amendments were designed to both limit judicial activism in relation to ‘gay marriage’ in certain states and to bring out the conservative-Bush-loving (oh the irony…) vote. They certainly succeeded in the second aim, but what about the first?

In one of what is sure to be many cases challenging the meaning and effect of these amendments a Michigan court has held that the amendment, which made the union between a man and a woman the only agreement recognised as a marriage "or similar union for any purpose", did not preclude employers from offering benefits to same-sex couples. This was in stark contrast to the state Attorney General, Mike Cox (Republican…surprisingly), who had claimed that the amendment prevented the city of Kalamazoo from paying gay couples benefits. In reaction to Cox and the amendment twenty-one couples employed by the university and city of Kalamazoo challenged his decision and were successful in front of Judge Joyce Draganchuk, who said that the purpose of the amendment was to ban gay marriage and civil unions - not to keep public employers from offering benefits to gay employees.

I’m quite sure the AG will appeal – he’s said to be disappointed etc…. – but this is a significant decision. It goes to prove that no piece of law can be really assessed until we see how it’s implemented. So certainly the amendment does disallow the state from introducing same-sex marriage and civil unions but it does not prevent equivalence in treatment.
(BTW it would warrant a mention despite its significance in honour of Maman Poulet who presented at paper at Kalamazoo a few years ago!!)

It has to be said that, on appeal, I think this decision would likely be overturned – it does seem to contradict the natural meaning of the amendment, but maybe the Attorney General will take the advice of Jay Kaplan, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, and not “waste” taxpayer dollars on an appeal.

Full story here

As of 16:40 today there have been 2000 hits on this blog

I promise only 1959 of them were me


The rest were my lover

;)

Last week I started a French course in the Alliance Francaise here in Dublin. There were a couple of motivations – make myself more movable, increase potential for work with international NGOs who all seem to require French proficiency and also, of course, because my lover is French and living here in Ireland so it’s only fair that I would make myself acquainted with the language and culture to some extent. It’s a wonderful language and an excellent course, but as is so often the case it’s being almost ruined by one student. The poor guy is so frustrated – he can’t stand the fact that he doesn’t get everything immediately and gets annoyed at himself which, of course, he manifests as annoyance at the teacher. He clearly hasn’t studied a language before: he doesn’t understand why it’s important that the course is taught in French. I don’t know what he expects – how would one possibly teach French in English?? I mean, she does the grammar in English, I don’t know what else he expects

He’s driving me to distraction though…and his constant bitching about the teacher is really annoying me. I told him so too, so now I presume I’m being bitched about as well. Ah well… Here’s hoping he decides to either work harder or drop out.

What’s going on in Europe? Looks like people can’t decide what parties they want to rule their countries. In the last little while we have had indecisive election results in both Germany and Poland, but what does it all mean? Well maybe it means that parties are becoming more and more similar leaving little policy or ideology basis in people’s decisions about who to vote for. The closer parties come in policy, ideology and appeal the closer elections are likely to be. But is it healthy?

A strong ideological chasm between parties is good to my mind, particularly where there is a viable middle of the road alternative, like the Liberal Democrats in the UK for example; it keeps thought and dissent alive. Bland sameness is boring and counterproductive. It also makes decisions as to which party to support and/or be a candidate for almost moot.

Today I discussed this with an American colleague of mine who was sent an absentee ballot for an election in Virginia. She told me that she mainly votes Republican but it’s coincidental since she tends to vote for the candidate and not the party. She also felt that people choose parties as candidates not because of ideology, but because of the perception they want to create in voters – ‘look at me, I’m a Democrat, I’m liberal’ and vice versa. If an American in the deep south (who is very highly educated and aware by the way) can’t distinguish on a policy basis between two parties what hope is there for people in multi-party states like ours.

Talk abounds about a rainbow coalition after the next general election here. But how bland will rainbow really look??    

It’s over – and this time it seems it really is. The de Chastelain commission has confirmed that the IRA has put all of its weapons permanently beyond use. IRA aggression has been over for some time, but now even the threat of it is over. Are the unionists happy though? Don’t be silly…while they continue to tear Belfast apart with riots and protests they simultaneously demand even more confirmation of the disarmament – the words of religious leaders and de Chastelain, all of whom witnessed the disarmament, are not good enough for the likes of Ian Paisley. Why? Oh…because they might have to engage in actual politics mayhaps??

A girl was expelled from a Christian school in Ontario because her parents are lesbians – yes, this, apparently, did not comply with one of the school’s admission policies which required that parents did not engage in practices that are “immoral or inconsistent with a positive Christian lifestyle, such as cohabitating without marriage or in a homosexual relationship”.

If you’re wondering how anything like this could possibly happen in Ontario – newly crowned home of the queer – it’s because it happened in Ontario, California…as opposed to Ontario Canada.

Some things never change – another delayed train from Cork to Dublin yesterday, no trolley service, no hot water, half the toilets didn’t flush, signals broken, changed engine but, as the driver said in Mallow, “I suppose we’re lucky they had an engine for us at all”

I hate Irish Rail

Some confusion abounds about the status of Michael Brown, the former FEMA boss who resigned as FEMA chief after the disaster in New Orleans. CBS report that FEMA has rehired Michael Brown as a consultant to assess the efficacy of the response, whereas Associated Press reports things slightly differently claiming that Brown remains in place on a contract basis as leadership of the agency transitions. This is, apparently, in order to get a full picture of his experience and perspective on Katrina.

Poor old Kate Moss – she’s now lost her H&M and Channel contracts as a result of her alleged cocaine habit. In addition the police are supposedly investigating her cocaine taking. I say ‘poor’ Kate Moss for two reasons – firstly she’s clearly being made an example of in a profession where (by all accounts) more or less everybody is on coke (or worse); secondly she’s had ‘revelations’ about her love affairs with women all over the weekend papers in addition. Now what I want to know is why does it matter that she sleeps with women as well as men? Who cares? Honestly….the way some of the articles have been written you’d swear lesbianism is a worse thing than illegal drug taking

So it looks like her career may be coming to an end all because someone decided it was time to switch the media relationship from a love affair with Ms. Moss to an all out sexist homophobic relationship.

Another dyke bites the dust?

A proposal for same-sex partnership rights passed the first stage in the Czech parliament yesterday (full story here). The package certainly wouldn’t be marriage, or even equivalent to it, but it would give vital next-of-kin and inheritance rights. I’m unsure about whether or not it would give parental rights, like second parent adoption, but I would hope it does. So it looks like another European country might join the movement to protect queers – interestingly the Czech government spoke particularly about fulfilling the commitment to equality they made when they joined the EU last year. I wonder whether the Irish government might consider fulfilling their commitment to equality made in 1973 (or in the constitution in 1937!!) any time soon.

I am, however, a little unhappy with suggestions that this kind of partnership brings equality – the old ‘separate but equal’ adage simply doesn’t wash with me to be honest. Putting queers into some other category simply reinforces the stigma attached to being in a relationship with someone of your same sex/gender. Here’s hoping we realise that soon and lift the marriage ban in all countries, while also introducing other systems for family recognition that would allow people to freely choose their relationship with the law.

Roberts said he felt a landmark 1973 ruling legalizing abortion was "settled
as a precedent" and that the constitution provides a right to privacy. The
Supreme Court has based its abortion rulings on a right to privacy that justices
say is implicit in the constitution.

But when senators pressed for details on his opinions - even to the point of interrupting his answers - Roberts said repeatedly that he shouldn't address some issues that could come before the Supreme Court with him as chief justice.
At one point, Sen. Joe Biden, a Democrat who has indicated he may run for president in 2008, accused Roberts of "filibustering." "Go ahead and continue not to answer," said Biden. Later, he interrupted Roberts and when criticized, insisted, "His answers are misleading, with all due respect."

"Wait a minute! Wait a minute! They may be misleading but they are his answers," said Sen. Arlen Specter, the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee, which was holding the hearings.

Roberts - who had noted that Biden earlier would have heard a whole answer if he hadn't interrupted - kept his cool. "With respect, they are my answers and with respect, they are not misleading," he said.

I would say, as a general matter, that there are a couple of things
that cause concern on my part about the use of foreign law as precedent. As you
say, this isn't about interpreting treaties or foreign contracts but as
precedent on the meaning of American law. The first has to do with democratic
theory. Judicial decisions: In this country, judges, of course, are not
accountable to the people, but we are appointed through a process that allows
for participation of the electorate. The president who nominates judges is
obviously accountable to the people. Senators who confirm judges are accountable
to people. And in that way, the role of the judge is consistent with the
democratic theory.

If we're relying on a decision from a German judge about
what our Constitution means, no president accountable to the people appointed
that judge and no Senate accountable to the people confirmed that judge. And yet
he's playing a role in shaping the law that binds the people in this country. I
think that's a concern that has to be addressed. The other part of it that would
concern me is that, relying on foreign precedent doesn't confine judges. It
doesn't limit their discretion the way relying on domestic precedent does.
Domestic precedent can confine and shape the discretion of the judges. Foreign
law, you can find anything you want. If you don't find it in the decisions of
France or Italy, it's in the decisions of Somalia or Japan or Indonesia or
wherever. As somebody said in another context, looking at foreign law for
support is like looking out over a crowd and picking out your friends. You can
find them. They're there. And that actually expands the discretion of the judge.
It allows the judge to incorporate his or her own personal preferences, cloak
them with the authority of precedent -- because they're finding precedent in
foreign law -- and use that to determine the meaning of the Constitution. And I
think that's a misuse of precedent, not a correct use of precedent.

It’s a relief to see that the jury in the Araujo trial were not taken in my the gay panic defence used in the case and which I discussed here. Instead two of the accused were found guilty and a mistrial was returned for the third, Jason Cazares, as the jury found themselves hung in relation to his guilt or innocence. This is a huge victory for Araujo’s family and for the entire transgender community.

Good news from the land of the (un)free….for a change

Sometimes you buy a book and get really enthusiastic about it, only to be disappointed when you start to read it. That’s how it was with me and Andrew Sinclair’s An Anatomy of Terror: A History of Terrorism. As the book is separated into very much discrete parts, I flicked directly to the chapter entitled ‘Ethnic Terror’, as genocide is an area of particular interest for me in my work. What I found there was really beyond disappointing: presumptuous, precocious writing riddled with normative judgments and quasi-colonial expressions. Take, for example, this description of “the appalling Simbas, who still believed in witchcraft and flaying their enemies alive and the blessing of the urine of their leader Mulele to make them bullet-proof”. Having read this sentence (in the first paragraph of the chapter) I was immediately put off, although I did have to agree with his later observation that “[t]he failure of the Western world to intervene in the slaughter practiced by the Hutus against the Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994 was an indictment against European indifference only paralleled by the Turkish massacre of the Armenians more than seventy years before”.

The Rwandan genocide is something with which I have long been fascinated, not least in terms of examining the responsibility of the media, church and international community for the perpetuation of the violence – or at least some kind of complicity on their part in it. Romeo Dallaire’s Shake Hands With the Devil is high on my list of books to read.

Before then, however, I must finish the wonderful Pakistan: Between Mosque and Military by Husain Haqqani. It’s heavy going but it’s a wonderful narrative history of the role of both Islam and the army in the Pakistani nation-building exercise from the 1940s to the present day. It also explores the reasons for the alliance or alignment with the United States, which I have considered to some extent in the past.

Yes, it’s certainly worth the fifteen minutes I spent last Thursday being questioned in Stanstead Airport about why I had a bag full of literature on Pakistan …. I guess everyone looks like a terrorist now?

Amid the rightful indignation around the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan etc… one might reasonably wonder whether the race for the Supreme Court really makes that much of a difference. If you ask me, it makes more difference now than perhaps ever before.

The Chief Justice of the United States holds a vital position within the legal and administrative system in that country (see, for example, Leadership and the Supreme Court by Robert Steamer). It is indeed for that very reason that he is referred to as the Chief Justice of the United States as opposed to of the Supreme Court: his role is to usher the Court through turbulent and calm times retaining always the independence of the judiciary, the role of the Courts and the values of the Constitution and the Rule of Law as paramount considerations. Therefore President Bush’s very recent announcement that John Roberts is his nominee for the position of Chief Justice causes justifiable concern among many – even more-so than when he was nominated as an Associate Judge.

The Chief Justice plays two particularly important roles: he presides over Presidential and Vice-Presidential impeachment, and (when in the majority) writes the majority judgment or nominates an Associate Justice to do so. Following on from the recent events in the United States and, indeed, the concerns around misleading the public and congress (and the United Nations) in relation to the justifications for the War in Iraq, breaching international law etc… it would be surprising if wide-spread calls for impeachment were not heard within a reasonable amount of time.

It is quite clear that there is at least a question mark over George W Bush’s capacity to carry out the role of President in a manner that is legal, responsible, democratic and reasonable. It would be naïve to imagine that the White House is unaware of this potential for impeachment and that this would not play a role in the nomination of the Chief Justice: Roberts is a long-time supporter of the Bush family and Second Bush Administration.

He was Deputy Solicitor General in the first Bush Administration (1989-1993), during which time he acted in 39 major Supreme Court cases, winning 25. Bush Senior nominated him to the Supreme Court for the District of Columbia but no Senate vote was held before Bush lost the next Presidential election to Clinton. Then he advised Jed Bush, Governor of Florida, in light of the 2000 General Election (reportedly as to how Florida could name Bush Jnr as the winner in the poll).

He received judicial appointment in January 2003, to the Supreme Court for the District of Columbia, and while on that bench he presided over the controversial case of Hamdan in which he held that the Geneva Conventions gave no rights to individuals that were justiciable in the courts and that detainees in the War on Terror could be tried in military courts. This decision, of course, greatly assisted the President in retaining as few legal barrier to protracted detention as possible and removed that old problem of international law.

This is but a mere snapshot of the relationship between Roberts and the Bush family – one that appears close, consistent, and anything but ‘judicial’. To what extent, then, could the American people trust Roberts to remain independent and impartial in the event of an impeachment proceeding?

The second main area of concern relates to writing decisions for the majority. As a common law system the United States relies on judicial precedent in order to decide future cases with broadly analogous facts or questions of legal principle. Decisions of the Supreme Court therefore play a vital role in the legal system, and the political colours and ideology of Supreme Court judges, and particularly Chief Justices, is an important consideration. Throughout his career Roberts has lobbied for limitation of the judicial role and increased deference to governmental discretion, and particularly Presidential discretion. To this end he has, at various times, attempted to minimise the impact of Title IX, argued that the gender pay gap was ‘purported’ as opposed to factual, attempted to minimise federal involvement in cases around education and segregation, argued that Roe v Wade was “wrongly decided and should be overturned”, and been critical of ‘judicial activism’. Taking this history into account, and taking into account that all lower courts are bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court, to what extent might, or could, a Roberts Supreme Court backtrack on vital issues of individual rights?

This term the Supreme Court will face major questions relating to diability rights, gay rights and reproductive rights (for example): questions that exercise moral consciousness and challenge the true nature of Americanism. Whether you adorn your walls with pictures of elephants or donkeys should have no bearing on whether you support John Roberts as nominee for the position of Chief Justice. Rather your decision, and that of the President and Congress, should be based on his shown capacity, or incapacity, to exercise the precious judicial attributes of reasonableness, careful diligence, independence, objectivity and proportionality. Do you think he can rise to the challenge?

Cross-posted at http://blogcritics.org  

As the evacuation of New Orleans nears completion the horror stories are beginning to emerge in a steady stream, including this story of how women were asked to show their breasts by police in order to be saved and, when they refused to do so, simply abandoned.

And who says we don’t need feminism anymore??

Chief Justice Rehnquist of the American Supreme Court died this morning. I should feel sad, and in a way I do because he was very ill and clearly in some pain for a while. I also feel sad because now Bush has two vacancies to fill at essentially the same time (Sandra Day-O’Connor having recently retired). I also wonder who the new Chief Justice will be and fear that Scalia will be given the reins. Despite all that, however, I feel somehow relieved that he has left the bench (not that he has died): the man was perhaps the most conservative person who could imagine and more or less made it his life’s work to try to overturn Roe v. Wade, a feat he couldn’t manage in his 30-plus years on the Supreme Court bench.

There is no way they could replace him with someone more conservative……is there??

Update
Perhaps I spoke to soon - having posted the above my news ticker showed the headline 'Prompt action needed on court vacancies' directing me to this story. Looks like Bush wants to move quickly - and the article mentions what I consider to be the worst case scenario, i.e. Roberts and Gonzales being appointed to the bench and Scalia being promoted to Chief Justice...

It seems that the poor are not only suffering in America – today the third Parisian housing development fire in a short amount of time resulted in the deaths of 14 people. These three fires have mostly killed black people – many of them from former French colonies – and have exclusively happened in poor, run-down housing developments that are particularly flammable and have poor escape routes and fire warning systems. There are also increasing concerns that they represent arson attacks by people hoping to cash in on insurance policies, although the timing of the fires (night time) does not suggest arson to me. Arsonists are usually only interested in insurance monies and not at all interesting in causing death. Still, this is mere speculation on my part.

The point is that once again the poorest members of an affluent society are placed in sub-standard conditions and lose their lives as a result. Kudos to the thousands of Parisians who marched last Saturday demanding better housing conditions for France’s poor, particularly immigrants.

The poor housing conditions for immigrants in Paris are not news – Droit au Logement released this report in 2002 (in French).    

MB: …. And so, this -- this catastrophic disaster continues to grow. I will tell
you this, though. Every person in that Convention Center, we just learned about
that today. And so, I have directed that we have all available resources to get
to that Convention Center to make certain that they have the food and water, the
medical care that they need...

ZAHN: Sir, you aren't telling me...

MB: ... and that we take care of those bodies that are there.

ZAHN: Sir, you aren't just telling me you just learned that the folks at the Convention Center didn't have food and water until today, are you? You had no idea they were completely cut off?

MB: Paula, the federal government did not even know about the
Convention Center people until today….Those people have suddenly appeared.

This evening the week of flying solo will come to and end, meaning that it’s come time for a little review of La Bamba’s capacity for independent living. This week I have

• Cooked two dinners and had two take outs (unfinished);


• Had only two cups of coffee;


• Lost 7 kilos (YAY);


• Done four loads of laundry;


• Gone to Nottingham and back;


• Broken my mobile phone;


• Accidentally re-tuned the television;


• Cleaned house practically every day;


• Slept with double lock on front door, alarm on and bedroom door locked;


• Bought three tops, a travel make-up thing-bob, Elizabeth Arden foundation and three Clinque lip-gloss;


• Bought two books (An Anatomy of Terror and Our Lives Before the Law);


• Finished my examination corrections;


• Had one sleepless night;


• Slept on couch twice;


• Had baby sis to stay;


• Made a thousand blog entries ;)

Hmm – not that bad I suppose, although I can admit it’s hardly balanced.
Must continue to work on independent living skills, although am mostly just looking forward to seeing my lover again around 10 p.m.!!

[P.S. After ribbing at lunch Friday I have decided to have (a) some less serious blog entries, and (b) shorter blog entries. How am I doing??]    

I’ve decided a name change is in order – Mental Meanderings of a Melancholic Madam was simply too long, especially for listing on blogrolls etc… Therefore it’s Mental Meanderings…although the melancholic madam remains on the other side of the screen, typing away.

Hope we all approve!!

Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Overbearing godparents and friends are the bane of every aunt and uncle’s life, particularly when they don’t have children themselves. Being denied the chance to be a part of your beloved niece/nephew’s first few months by the overpowering and never ending presence of ‘non-family’ members, who are somehow assumed to be entitled to greater access to baby because they don’t have any familial obligations to be there, is a catastrophic feeling. It’s worse still when the new-parent-sibling is completely oblivious to it. So word to you friends, godparents and new parents: the bringing of new life into a family is a special time for all members of that family and, in the end of the day, an overbearing presence is destructive. Be sensitive and give people the chance to welcome baby into their family themselves. Parents remember that when all comes to all it’s your family who will always be there for you and your children: foster those ties at an early stage.

And some day, I’m sure, my nephew will actually manage to remember what my name is among the long list of family friends of whom he is so fond

In his typically eloquent fashion Bush reacted to a question on whether the rescue effort in New Orleans had fallen short because too many resources had been diverted to Iraq by saying “I just completely disagree”. Nevertheless the normally resolute President admitted that the federal relief effort had been inadequate and promised to deploy 7.000 additional troops over the next three days, making a total of 28,000 National Guard troops. What difference this will make, however, is debatable given that civil society appears to have completely ceased to function in New Orleans – and who can blame them? Corralled into a conference centre and left without food, water, energy or medicine for days it is understandable that some element of lawlessness would prevail and that, among those left in New Orleans, there would be some who would resort to murder, rape and suicide. This was not an unforeseen consequence of hedging that many people into an enclosed area – and if it was then someone must stand up and claim responsibility. The appropriate response is not to point a weapon at everyone who approaches law enforcement officials for help, or to fail to act for days on end. Rather it is to mobilize as quickly as possible bringing essential supplies into the city and trying to get people out of there as quickly as possible: and not just those who were staying in the local Hilton hotel.

Morgan at Morgspace rightly points out that my last post on fundamentalism reflected a very statist approach to the issue of the rise in religious fundamentalism, and so this is an attempt at a more political and societal response.

As is clear religious fundamentalism and fundamentalist political, economic and other views are on the rise, particularly extreme Christian belief in the USA. How can this be explained? I don’t know – maybe it reflects the notion that as society becomes less humanistic and more goal-oriented (as reflected by recent failures re: Katrina and the rescue missions) people search for explanations and comforts in the bosom of blind faith – no rationales are needed for faith, it simply exists. Belief can not be explained and offers a platform for argumentation that can hardly be refuted for, after all, how do you disprove or argue against devout belief? I don’t think that you can.

For sure, however, this poses challenges for us in modern secular and multi-cultural societies. To what extent should our laws be culturally relativist? Where do we draw the line between integration and assimilation? At what stage does respect for religious freedom become destructive to the tenets of secularism? To what extent can we, for example, be part of the struggle to ensure respect for Muslims and Islamic belief when our sexuality is considered so offensive within that religion (many who took part in the race marches in the USA encountered the same philosophical difficulties, including Joan Nestle who writes about it in A Restricted Country) and when extreme Christian and Islamic organizations caucus for the denial of gay and women’s rights?

I don’t know the answers to these questions but I promise to consider them over the next while and blog about them here as I do. But Morgan is right in one thing – the construction of Muslims as the ‘other’ is inappropriate – we share the same lands and laws but not always the same values. That diversity is what makes multiculturalism great but also what poses so many challenges. I just hope that somehow we can meet those challenges successfully.

P.S. Sorry for the lack of clash…but I can’t help but agree with you Morgan!

I have somehow managed to press automatic tuning on the television and now all the channels are on different numbers, I have no idea where anything is and, tragically, I appear to have lost sky news (although disappointingly I still have MTV). It’s very annoying – I love Sky News even though some people claim its journalistic values are somehow between slim and none. I would love to have Sky at the moment to see how they’re covering events in New Orleans. BBC News 24 is doing a characteristically wonderful job though, so all is not lost!

Time then, finally, to look at the second issue that arose on Morgspace a few days ago and has led to the Great Blog Triad Muslim Debate, namely that of the rise in fundamentalism/orthodoxy within Islam.

Firstly I suppose we should look at why there might be an increase in what might be called strict Qur’anic adherence, which I think is relatively evident. I would propose that this is a result of increased Western pervasiveness, cultural imperialism and neo-colonialism. It is common that, when a nation state/group of people feel oppressed by another force of some kind religion can be a bonding force that unites people and starts to signify their oppressed identity. This isn’t uniquely Islamic, of course, take for example the ascendancy of Catholicism in Ireland post-1922 (and particularly 1937) and the notion of Catholicism and Catholic values as being symbolic of Irish identity (lack of contraception, divorce, abortion etc…). The move towards more widespread use of manifest signifiers of religion can, perhaps, be understood in this way.

As for the perceived rise in ‘fundamentalist’ mentality, there are really two things to look at here: (a) what does this mean for Islamic society, and (b) what does this mean for the international community?

Certainly there is concern that this rise in fundamentalist mentality has a detrimental effect on the lives of moderates and non-Muslims in Islamic society such as was seen post Revolution in Iran. Religion, society and state can become indistinguishable from one another – they are now one with religious doctrine governing governance as much, if not more, than anything else and therefore pervading all aspects of life: education, health, crime and punishment etc… But to what extent is this a uniquely Muslim idea? Consider again Ireland in the first fifty years since the 1937 Constitution where Catholicism was pervasive – certainly there is a difference inasmuch as other faiths were respected in our Constitution but still people of all faiths were subjected to laws regulating personal behaviour and choice that were undeniably Catholic in nature and formation. Look even now at the United States were both state and federal laws and decision-making are often pervaded by notions of evangelical Christianity – the recent controversy around displaying the Ten Commandments in courtrooms is an example. Neither situation is more or less desirable than the other, but my point at this stage is that it is not uniquely Muslim.

Certainly there are concerns from an international perspective too, and I think that if we leave the nebulous War on Terror notion aside for a while we can see what is perhaps a different aspect of this, and one that Morgan has rightly identified as being of concern, namely the negotiation of international rights instruments. If we take the example of the negotiation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court there was an attempt to include in the jurisdiction of the Court the capacity to consider crimes motivated by gender, which was strongly resisted by the Holy See (which has observer status). The Hole See proceeded to form a caucus with many Catholic countries (particularly in Latin America) and Muslim nations to remove reference to gender, although in the end they succeeded in merely inserting a definition describing gender as traditional notions of male and female and nothing more (there concern was around gender being used as a heading under which to consider issues of transsexualism, transgenderism and homosexuality). So yes, they managed to scupper something that the Women’s Caucus and LGBT Caucus had worked long and hard to achieve in the Statute and yes, this is a concern for all of us, particularly those of us who occupy a ‘minority’ status and would benefit hugely from international rights protections. This is, however, an inescapable facet of international rights negotiation – all states are given equal voice (theoretically) as international law is based on the notion of state equality. Therefore if X number of states want something in it goes in and others enter a reservation to it so that they’re not bound by it. But certainly the fact that individual state interest can have an important and often detrimental impact on international rights negotiation means that we have a vested interest in trying to stall the rise in religious fundamentalism of all kinds and all creeds in nation states.

But how do we do that? If we go in all guns blazing literally we get disasters like Iraq and Afghanistan. If we go in all intellectual guns blazing we are accused of intellectual neo-colonialisation and again it’s counter-productive. The resistance must be organic. Of course an organic intellectual resistance can be very difficult and dangerous – think Mao’s Cultural Revolution for a quasi-relevant example – and often results in expulsion, defection and danger. For that reason those who engage in the organic intellectual struggle should be offered protection by the West – asylum/right to reside, funding (where necessary and appropriate), intellectual and academic support etc… I would think that the support offered to Salman Rushdie (who to my mind is completely over-rated but anyway…), Nawal Saadawi and Mohamed Charfi (whose new book is really wonderful by the way) are prime examples of the way to go.