Tuesday, February 28, 2006 

New Template & Glitches

So I've changed the template to something I think is more conducive to longer posts, however I need some help. You might notice that the links on the right hand side of the blog are being split over two lines - instead of "Fiona de Londras" for example it says
"Fiona de
Londras"

Can anyone advise me as to how I can fix this before it becomes too annoying for words?? It's affecting profile, blogroll and past posts. Thanks in advance!!

 

Bosnia Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro

Today the case of Bosnia & Herzegovina v. Serbia & Montenegro opened on the merits before the International Court of Justice (documents available here). This case essentially scrutinises a nation's role in a genocide and is, to the best of my knowledge, the first time that the role of an entire nation has been assessed in this way. It's a case to watch with some interest.

The press release, including a detailed history of the litigation, can be seen here.

Update The opening argument for the Bosnian counsel is available here (via Opinio Juris). It's interesting to note that the legal team for Bosnia & Herzegovina includes Professor Thomas Franck (NYU) - one of the world's most prominent international law jurists, while Prof. Ian Brownlie (Oxford) is part of the team for Serbia & Mongtenegro. The leading opening argument, presented by Mr. Sakib Softić, was emotional and described the violence that started in 1992 as "a man-made tsunami" (para. 4) and includes the following passage:

[T]he Belgrade authorities have, knowingly, taken the non-Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina on a path to hell - a path littered with dead bodies, broken families, lost youths, lost futures, destroyed places of cultural and religious worship, destroyed property, destroyed homes, destroyed towns and villages; on a path towards a world where living memories were erased and where the intimate living environment was destroyed.
I'm also interested in how the object of this case was described, especially in light of this discussion on Seth Weinberger's blog:

This case is before this Court for truth-finding purposes. A rebuilding of Bosnia and Herzegovina against the backdrop of continued denial seems virtually impossible. Developing good-neighbour relations with Serbia and Montenegro against the backdrop of continued denial is virtually impossible. Sitting next to each other in the European Parliament does not look like a realistic, future option if the representatives of the Respondent keep entertaining totally false views on what their State did to its neighbours.

 

Rove Obsesses About Hillary

Or so she surmises...

 

Bring Ulster Back to Dublin?

Watching tonight’s Questions and Answers I couldn’t help but wonder whether we should welcome those who tried to march/parade/rally through Dublin last Saturday in remembrance of the victims of republican violence back to the city. Part of me can’t help but think that while many of those coming down to Dublin were doing so to make a genuine and important point about their trauma there were also those who were hijacking this rally as an opportunity to drum up trouble or, to some extent, provoke people. However I don’t believe they’re disrespecting our nation, our capital, our flag, our personality or our history by doing so. They’re making a political point.

That point now needs to be made more than ever before – people succeeded in not only gifting those who may have been using this as a trouble-making opportunity a neat victory but also in destroying their capital streets, shaming most right-minded Irish people and disgracing themselves and their alleged political cause (I wonder how many of them could even sing a verse of Amhran na bhFiann?).

I don’t think we should invite them back to march – as one of the questioners on Q&A suggested – however I think they should be welcomed should they wish to return, allowed to march peacefully, and that ordinary Dubliners should get out on O’Connell street and respectfully observe their march as a sign of support for the principles of association and speech-without-harm and for the principles upon which this nation was founded.

Also blogging about re-running the parade/march/rally – El Paso Times, Planet Potato, Sliabh.net, Where’s Me Country?, Dossing Times

 

Blogger Dependence Syndrome

Poor old Sinead (Sigla Mag) had some problems with her skin over the weekend, i.e. her blog skin as opposed to her skin skin, if you see what I mean. Anyway, she's got everything up and running again now and looking very lovely. I have to say I really like the look of her blog and of Sarah's (GUBU) and have been thinking about moving myself - especially to some kind of skin/template that would make longer posts read more easily. However I am absolutely petrified of having to maintain something myself - I can barely manage my blogger skin. I don't think I'd be able to manage the trauma of something without baby-step instructions!!

 

Abolishing Parliament in the UK?

The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, currently going through parliament in the UK, may look innocuous enough but it has potentially far - reaching provisions that, some feel, may lead to the abolition of parliament!

Clause 1 provides:
A Minister of the Crown may by order make provision for either or both of the following purposes: a) reforming legislation; b) implementing recommendations of any one or more of the United Kingdom Law Commissions, with or without changes
In other words a Minister could introduce a new law (although not a new criminal offence), wait a little while and hey-presto it'll be law without having undergone the normal legislative procedures. David Howarth (Cambridge University) had a piece in the Sunday Times warning against the provision, which appears to have been curiously under-examined. Howarth warns:
The Government claims that there is nothing to worry about. The powers in the Bill, it says, will not be used for "controversial" matters. But there is nothing in the Bill that restricts its use to "uncontroversial" issues. The minister is asking us to trust him, and, worse, to trust all his colleagues and all their successors. No one should be trusted with such power.
He's right.

Hat Tip - Jurist: Paper Chase

Monday, February 27, 2006 

Worse than Guantanamo?

The New York Times reports that conditions in Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan, where 500 'terror suspects' are being held (indefinitely and without charge...naturally) are even worse than those in Guantanamo.
From the accounts of former detainees, military officials and soldiers who served there, a picture emerges of a place that is in many ways rougher and more bleak than its counterpart in Cuba. Men are held by the dozen in large wire cages, the detainees and military sources said, sleeping on the floor on foam mats and, until about a year ago, often using plastic buckets for latrines. Before recent renovations, they rarely saw daylight except for brief visits to a small exercise yard.

"Bagram was never meant to be a long-term facility, and now it's a long-term facility without the money or resources," said one Defense Department official who has toured the detention center. Comparing the prison with Guantánamo, the official added, "Anyone who has been to Bagram would tell you it's worse."
The US military of course defended the conditions and the internment, however this raises a very important question. If we know about places like Guantanamo and Bagram and the conditions are this inhumane there, what the hell must it be like in the black sites?

 

Musharaff: Blasphemy Should be Int. Crime

More evidence, if it were needed, that Musharaff has one leg in the pockets of the Mullahs and the other in the pockets of the Military.

 

A Campaign of Re-Education

My lack of knowledge when it comes to film and music has always been a matter of extreme embarassment to me. As a result I am currently being re-educated in film, at least, until amazon.com delivers Season 5 of the West Wing and I can recommence my campaign of WWW (i.e. West Wing Worship) in the house. My question is this: what five films would you think absolutely vital for someone's movie re-education?

Don't assume anything about my film-watching background: it's seriously dire. I may be one of the only people in the Western world never to have watched any Star Wars movie, for example.

Update So far we've had some interesting nominations:

* Amelie (x2) - Have shamefully fallen asleep in front of this the three times A tried to get me to watch it.
* Three Colours Trilogy (x2) - Have seen these and I really love them
* L'Haine (x2)
* Battle of Algiers
* Godfather (x3) - Have seen all of them and love them, though I prefer the book
* Indiana Jones - Have seen one but can't watch them: too many snakes
* The Good, the Bad, the Ugly (x2)
* Requiem for a Dream
* Brazil
* Blade Runner (x3)
* Cry Freedom - Love this movie!!
* Calendar Girls
* Ruthless People - I love this one too!!
* Cinema Paradiso (x3) - Have seen it and I agree with everyone: beautiful movie
* Mystic River - I absolutely loved this movie, though it made me so angry
* The Constant Gardener
* Muriels Wedding - You're terrible Muriel
* Strictly Ballroom - Am I right in thinking this is now on the Leaving Cert course?
* Shawshank Redemption - One of my favourite movies of all time
* Dr Strangelove (x3)
* Das Boot - Seen it. Hated it. Am philistine ;)
* Terminator 2
* Shaun of the Dead
* Full Metal Jacket
* Heat
* Midnight Run
* Hamlet
* Jurassic Park - Does reading the book count, no?
* The Matrix - I really liked this although the pure impossibility of it drove me crazy
* The Usual Suspects
* Monty Python's The Life of Brian - What have the Romans ever done for us?
* Bringing Up Baby
* Some Like It Hot
* Jaws
* Patton
* Alien
* Field of Dreams - Seriously? Isn't that the soppy one with Kevin Costner?
* Gosford Park
* Pi
* LA Confidential - What a wonderful movie. Kim Basinger just rocks in it.
Keep 'em coming people!!!

 

'Anseo'? - Dail Eireann Truants

Every time we watch Oireachtas Report or see the Chamber of the Dail on the news my other half looks completely bewildered and shakes her head wearily at how empty the parliament is (you see, these things never happen in France - her home nation - allegedly). However despite her inbred chauvinism, which in fairness is kind of alluring, she does have a rather good point: the Dail really is pretty empty most of the time. Only the other day on the news Willy O'Dea was the only member of Cabinet in the Chamber and in total there were seven - yes seven - elected representatives there. They were even discussing something relatively important, but surely this is not how our legislature should be conducted??

Should we all adopt a policy of asking our politicians how long they actually spend in Debates in Leinster House, what their attendance record is like and how many questions they posed during their past term? Should we think about introducing a statutory minimum of attendance that is at least 80% of debates (after all we have attendance requirements for people here on student visas, why not for elected representatives?). And while we're at it, do you think we could make some kind of public speaking/debating training obligatory for members for parliament? And introduce an independent commission to select the Ceann Comhairle???

 

Diana, the Chauffeur and the French Secret Service

The Sunday Times reports:
THE chauffeur of the car in which Diana, Princess of Wales died was working for the French secret service, the British team reinvestigating her death has been told.

The inquiry — headed by Lord Stevens, the former Metropolitan Police commissioner — into the Paris car crash that killed Diana is now trying to obtain the chauffeur’s files from French intelligence but is being delayed by the reluctance of the authorities to hand them over.
I have only one question: should I really still care?

 

EU Leans on Serbia to Arrest Mladic

I got quite excited last week when it seemed that Mladic was about to be arrested and handed over to the Yugoslav Tribunal. In the end it appeared to have all been a lot of hot air and Mladic was neither arrested nor negotiating a surrender with Serbian authorities. One of the main issues that led to the speculation was the EU's clear statement that co-operation with the Tribunal was seen as a quasi-pre-requisite to continuing accession talks. Today's news from Brussels further reinforces this view.

The EU has threatened to freeze accession talks unless Mladic is handed over by the end of March. This is a brave and important move by the EU - he is wandering around Belgrade freely and has been for years.

The Serbian government's refusal to arrest him and hand him over to the Tribunal shows an unwillingness on their part to fully accept the wrongs of the past and commit to re-establishing the Rule of Law, even for the military. Serbia's next move will be interesting...

 

Amhran na bhFiann

I wonder whether anyone else watched Brian Kennedy read the national anthem as he sang it before the Ireland v Wales match yesterday and think 'Not only does he now know the national anthem but it;s clearly been written down phoenetically for him. This is PATHETIC'.

I know he's from Belfast and he probably wasn't taught Irish but you'd think that one would learn the national anthem if one was to be singing it at an occassion of that nature. Now this ties in to a discussion I heard on some moronic radio call in show where people were saying that Amhran na bhFiann should be learned and sung in ENGLISH not as Gaeilge.

I am just baffled by this - why don't people know the words of our national anthem? Why aren't people happy to sing it in our national language? And why weren't more people ashamed to see it being read by Brian Kennedy yesterday afternoon?

Also on the anthem A Northsider on the South Terrace laments the 'hummers' of the National Anthem here

Saturday, February 25, 2006 

'Republican' Riots?

People who desecrate the tricolour and destroy their capital city are not republicans, they're hooligans. Republicans love their country; they don't dishonour it with this kind of behaviour.

 

Banning Republican Adoption

Ohio Senator Robert Hagan is seeking a co-sponsor for a Bill that proposes prohibing households with one or more registered Republican voters from adopting children. It's not really because he thinks Republicans make bad parents, it's more to make a point: if we can prevent queers adopting then why not prevent others adopting based purely on one of their characteristics. Sexual orientation and political views aren't the same of course, however they are both characteristics so central to one's personality that one should not be forced to change them. As a result they should both be subject to protection from discrimination.

He's still seeking a co-sponsor but what do we think of making the point in this way?

Friday, February 24, 2006 

I Heart Garrett


I'm not a huge fan of Fine Gael but I am crazy about Garrett Fitzgerald. I've met him a few times and each time he has been absolutely charming and overwhelmingly impressive. This interview with Vincent Browne in Village isn't him at his most eloquent, nor is it Vincent at his best, but it's interesting nevertheless. I can't help but agree with VB's conclusion here that
There have been others in politics that have rivaled his intellectual prowess – certainly the likes of Patrick McGilligan, Sean McEntee, Charles Haughey, Conor Cruise O Brien, Declan Costello – nobody has deployed their intellectual energies in the public good as he has done over such a long time.

In the comments Is Garrett too intellectual or smart or sharp - all defined differently!? Should politicians dumb things down? Can a politician have too much integrity? How can we get more women and young people involved in politics?

 

Guantanamo Details to Be Released

In a hugely significant move the Pentagon has been ordered to release the transcripts of review hearings in Guantanamo Bay. This is signficant now we will actually know who has been detained in Guantanamo - previously we've only known the names of ten or so detainees for sure and many people are held there incommunicado so nobody knows whether their missing relatives are there or dead or somewhere else. In addition people released from Guantanamo ordinarily have significant gag orders placed on them so they won't talk or necessarily identify themselves to researchers and NGOs. Now we will also be able to see how many, if any, detainees have 'disappeared'.

Full story is here

In the comments Can we draw analogies between Guantanamo and Auschwitz? (Which is not the same as saying war on terror = the Holocaust)

Update Cian explains his initial analogy on his own blog - London Denizen

 

The Things Lecturers Say

I've just come accross this blog the other day - Overheard in Law School. It's the same idea as Overheard in Dublin etc... where people send in comments they overheard and they're posted. Honestly some of this is the funniest material I've read for a long time, but then again I'm never very funny when I'm lecturing (between property and genocide the jokes are pretty thin on the ground). Some of my favourites from the site are (I've given them titles):

#1 Why lawyers never get dates

Law Student: The exam is on Sunday at 9am.

Business Student: The exam is on Sunday? What the fuck is wrong with you people?


BA prof: What are the three principles of securities law? Disclosure, disclosure, disclosure.

*silence*

BA Prof: That was supposed to be funny. A real rip snorter. But I don't see anyone's socks on the floor.


Prof N: (re: why promissory estoppel was called equitable estoppel in the early days) A new name sounds like you’re wingin’ it.

Prof N: We’re just talking about Contract Law, but there are other types of law, maybe not as beautiful...


Funny lecturer/teacher stories anyone??

 

Troubled Port Waters

I really don't care whether Dubai Ports World takes over control of some US ports and I suspect that most ordinary Americans don't care either. I suspect that most Democrats don't really think that DP World poses a threat to national security. I suspect that most ordinary Americans know they're not really at risk from DP World. So why all the fuss? Maybe because of the bare-faced, incomprehensible cheek and hypocrisy of the whole thing.

Huge amounts of the money used to fund 9/11 was moved through UAE banks, not to mention other 9/11-UAE connections (c.f. Michael Smerconish). Doesn't that mean they stand somewhere in or around that big old axis of evil/supporting terrorism stuff? If so then why does the UAE get preferential treatment over other 'supporting' nations? [This is a rhetorical question of course!!!] People are kicking up a fiss because they want to hear the Adminstration say it - these guys are ok because they are economically beneficial to 'us' and they co-operate in a manner that ensureS we can trade together peacefully. (Oh, and they throw great parties out in Dubai - we really like them). Instead the Administration is saying:

1. I'll veto any Bill that attempts to stop the deal - Bush. Oh yeah - veto to protect a trade deal with the UAE while promoting constitutional amendments against abortion, resisting legislative amendments prohibiting torture and generally using the Legislature as a massive tool of social regression. It's nice to see your legislative priorities are in order. P.S. By the way I didn't never even know about this until y'all started makin' a fuss there but I'm adamant the deal with go through and I'll veto any attempt to stop it. BTW the Dubai Ports Authority are saying they want to hold off on the deal a little while now after y'all were so mean to them [and so I can threaten to veto but it'll never come to that]

2. We didn't disregard the law although we may have interpreted it differently - [Saw on CNN last night - a Deupty Secretary testifying to the Senate Armed Forces Committee - think it was Gordon England] So you pretend to abide by the law but actually put a completely out-of-left-field construction on it that was designed to let you do whatever you wanted while still saying that you might be working within the law. No new tactice for 2006 in the Bush White House then.

3. Resisting this deal isolates the Arab world - Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England. Ah, yes, not doing this deal is what'll do it. All that undermining democracy at home, fostering Islamophobia, invading two Muslim countries, killing thousands of innocent people, unquestioningly supporting Israel's oppression of the Palestinian people etc... etc....isn't the problem. It's not completing a contract.

Thursday, February 23, 2006 

New Reading

Tatiana has tagged me with five weird habits meme. I had already done it here but hadn't seen Tatiana's blog before so it's new reading for me!

 

Iran Pledges Financial Aid to Hamas

Yes, of course they do. Why? "[to] help this government...resist America's cruelty" according to Ali Larijani in this NYT piece.
*sigh* This is shaping up to be a very bad year.

 

The Dowling Diaspora

Mark Dowling's been blogging a little while now but he's really been on fire in the last few days with some good diaspora perspectives on Irish issues. Here he reflects on John Waters' general 'gobshitery' and here he has a great post on the hypocrisy of the campaign for amnesties for Irish illegals in the USA. If you don't already read him, start to do so.

 

Ready to Challenge Roe v Wade?

Yesterday Suzy noted that it hadn't taken long for the newly constituted US Supreme Court to consider partial birth/late term abortions. Well it also hasn't taken long for a legislature somewhere to write a Bill designed to be the challenge to Roe v Wade.

The wonderful SCOTUSblog reports:
A bill drafted specifically to test the Supreme Court's current view on abortion rights and to set up a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade won approval Wednesday in the upper house of the South Dakota legislature. The bill, H.B. 1215, was passed by the state Senate on a 23-12 vote....The bill declares that "life begins at conception, a conclusion confirmed by scientific advances since the 1973 decision of Roe v. Wade..." It says that, based on experience since 1973, "abortions in South Dakota should be prohibited."

Wednesday, February 22, 2006 

Open Threads

I've noticed that we don't seem to have a tradition of open threads in Irish blogging where commenters just say whatever's on their mind or bring the blogger's attention to something they would like blogged about. So this is an experiment - do open threads work in the Blog O'Sphere or is our readership not big enough to sustain them? Let's give it a go while I wander off and try to figure out whether Mladic has been arrested/surrendered himself yet.
Right - open thread, off you go!

Update Looks like the Mladic arrest is not happening - peteb offers perspective in the comments. Fence leads me into an admission of my fetish for organisation in the comments as well. Maybe part of the comments might turn to a little advice - it turns out A has to take 2 days hols before the end of April and I have a week off in March so we're going to go somewhere, Amsterdam or Venice methinks, for five days. We're leaning towards Amsterdam - travel and accom advice anyone?

 

Jack Straw & "Responsibility"

I've just seen Jack Straw on Sky News saying that the UK government would not intervene to help release non-citizen UK residents from Guanatanmo Bay on the basis that as they are not citizens they are, and I quote, "someone else's responsibility".

He may want to pass people off as "someone else's responsibility" but under the European Convention of Human Rights the UK govenrment has a responsibility to ensure the protection of all those on the territory of the UK, not just citizens. As a result allowing the removal of residents to a place where they are at risk of torture, inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment is a violation of Article 3 of the Convention and the UK Human Rights Act.

I'm sure we can all agree with UN conclusions that such treatment is meted out in Guantanamo, so saying it's not 'our problem' just doesn't cut the mustard.

Update Richard has some well placed friend who claims that the above is nonesense. Not so - if they people were taken into custody (by means, for example, of rendition) from UK soil the above applies. In addition under a new House of Lords ruling if the people were transferred to Guantanamo from British custody anywhere in the world the Convention applies and therefore the above applies. Of course if they are no longer on the territory of the UK or within UK custody then the above does not apply. Yeah - it was early!

Update 2 In response to my response Richard says

This is interesting. But surely then Jack Straw only has a "responsibility" to get involved it these people, picked up in Afghanistan and sent to Gitmo, passed through British territory?
Or if they were in the custody of any UK troops at any stage along the way which, of course, is possible. The point is that Jack Straw's assertion that just because these people are not UK citizens they are not the responsibility of the UK government is completely misleading and, moreover, incorrect. On the basis of the particular circumstances there may not be an ECHR case to answer but his approach - the 'off-hand dismissal approach' - is wholly inadequate.

 

Shooting Dogs

I recently got an email from Eoin Feeney about the new film he's promoting on the Rwandan Genocide - Shooting Dogs - which also included a link to an amazing and heartbreaking blog called Rwandan Survivors. Check them both out.

 

More on Force Feeding in Guantanamo

I've been following the plight of hunger strikers in Guantanamo Bay (most recently here) and, as a result, this report in the New York Times about military perspectives on the recently revealed brutal means of force feeding in restraint chairs is interesting. A taster follows but the full story is here

The military commander responsible for the American detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, confirmed Tuesday that officials there last month turned to more aggressive methods to deter prisoners who were carrying out long-term hunger strikes to protest their incarceration.

The commander, Gen. Bantz J. Craddock, head of the United States Southern Command, said soldiers at Guantánamo began strapping some of the detainees into "restraint chairs" to force-feed them and isolate them from one another after finding that some were deliberately vomiting or siphoning out the liquid they had been fed.

"It was causing problems because some of these hard-core guys were getting worse," General Craddock said at a breakfast meeting with reporters. Explaining the use of the restraint chairs, he added, "The way around that is you have to make sure that purging doesn't happen."

After The New York Times reported Feb. 9 that the military had begun using restraint chairs and other harsh methods, military spokesmen insisted that the procedures for dealing with the hunger strikes at Guantánamo had not changed. They also said they could not confirm that the chairs had been used.

On Tuesday, General Craddock said he had reviewed the use of the restraint chairs, as had senior officials at the Department of Defense, and they concluded that the practice was "not inhumane." General Craddock left no doubt, however, that commanders had decided to try to make life less comfortable for the hunger strikers, and that the measures were seen as successful.

 

Mladic in Custody (?)

Rumours are exploding (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) that Ratko Mladic has been arrested or is likely to arrested within the next few hours. Bloomberg reports that the US has called on Serbia to arrest Mladic and bring him to justice before the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. [The hypocrisy of insisting on this while deratifying the Rome Statute for an International Criminal Court is staggering but, in this context, unimportant].

Mladic is indicted on multiple charges including genocide [Indictment] and the fact that he has been wandering freely around Eastern Europe while the Tribunal has been completing its work has been a source of frustration and anger for many Prosecutors in the Hague (incl. Carla del Ponte) and victims and the families of victims in the Former Yugoslavia.

Although he had a hand in most of the atrocities in the Yugosav war including rape camps in Foca and elsewhere Mladic is perhaps best known for his involvement in the Srebrenica genocide where thousands of military aged men were killed. Srebrenica is an important case in international law because of its particular gendered nature - indeed a friend of mine, Adam Jones, has written extensively on this and was one of the people to coin a phrase now widely used in genocide studies: gendercide. While this term is mostly used to describe the targetting of military aged men the Yugoslav genocide was also gendered in the way that it used sexual violence against women included forced impregnation.

I'm sure all of us who work and research in genocide studies and international criminal law await the arrest and trial with great anticipation.

P.S. The role played by the EU's quasi-threat to suspend membership talks with Serbia unless Mladic is arrested should not be undermined here.

 

Gardai Investigate US Flights

Today's Irish Examiner carries a story reporting on the Government's report to the Council of Europe further to the investigation of accusations of rendition and black site in Europe. On the one hand it is positive to see that there have been some investigations, but on the other hand I am unconvinced by Dermot Ahern's reasoning.

It is quite clear that a State violating an extraditional treaty and potentially exposing a third country to international legal liability would by unlikely to be forthcoming with the truth, even in diplomatic talks, where that third party is vital to ongoing military action. There are far more reasons to doubt the US Government's assurances than there are to accept them as bona fide. However there are many more political, economic, legal and diplomatic reasons to accept the assurances and ask as few questions as possible.

I find it difficult to accept that the Government is not leaning in favour of these considerations and willfully ignoring the likelihood of illegal activity in Shannon airport.

The Press Release on the Department of Foreign Affairs' is available here and includes the following money quote:

The Government's response makes clear once again its complete opposition to the practices described in the questionnaire, which would plainly be in breach of international law, Irish law, and of the principles upon which the Council of Europe is founded, namely the maintenance and realisation of human rights and fundamental freedoms. It confirms previous statements by Minister Ahern recording the Government's “very deep concern” over allegations of the possible existence of secret prisons, and its “complete opposition to the practice of so-called extraordinary rendition”.

The full story is here but there follows a taster

THE gardaí investigated three allegations relating to CIA flights transporting kidnapped terror suspects through Shannon Airport, the Government confirmed yesterday. Files on two of the complaints were considered serious enough to be sent to the DPP but no action was taken because of a lack of evidence. The information was part of a 24-page report sent by the Department of Foreign Affairs to the Council of Europe committee investigating allegations of secret prisons and covert CIA flights in Europe. It stresses that the gardaí have powers to search any civilian aircraft. However, so far they have not exercised this power. A spokesman for Foreign Affairs Minister Dermot Ahern said the department did not see any reason why the gardaí should search aircraft. “We would not see any reason to because we have received categorical assurances from the US that they are not using Shannon in this way,” he said.

Tuesday, February 21, 2006 

Mississippi Madness

BBC News reports that the Head of Mississippi's Department of Human Resources wants to put the names and faces of convicted sex offenders up on roadside billboards. What's more, he wants to name and shame people convicted of statutory rape, i.e. intercourse with someone under the age of consent. He doesn't appear to make any distinction between the sixteen-and-half year old who has sex with his fifteen-and-half year old girlfriend and the fifty year old who has sex with a fourteen year old, but besides that he's only concerned with naming and shaming the statutory rapist if they get the girl pregnant (you see, that's how he'll know they've had sex).

Now clearly this is insane. Why do you need to put people's names and faces on billboards when they've already been convicted of a crime and, under US law, their names are released on something like a Sex Offenders Register? Second he appears to have given no though to the impact this is going to have on the families of the offender?

Not only is this plan both wasteful and moralistic but it encourages mob justice and undermines the legal system. Absolute Mississippi Madness

 

Antjie Krog & Plagiarism Accusations

I was amazed to read this story this morning. Of course there's nowhere near enough information to draw any conclusions about this, however Krog's Country of My Skull is an excellent book on the Truth and Reconcilliation Commission in South Africa. Here's the immediate question though - I get my Human Rights Law students to read parts of the book for their class on Transitional Justice Systems. Given the controversy should the book be taken off the reading list until there's some conclusion to this?? My gut reaction is that it shouldn't be removed from the reading list as I think she gets the benefit of the doubt given the veracity of her response however do I throw my zero-tolerance policy on plagiarism into disrepute by not removing the piece until there's been some resolution? Two publishers are considering legal action against the poet who has accused Antjie Krog of plagiarism and the award-winning poet and writer is to seek a right to reply in a coming edition of the journal that carried the claims.

In a scathing article in the latest issue of a local literary journal, New Contrast, Stephen Watson, head of Cape Town University's English department, accused Krog of "lifting the entire conception" of her 2004 book on Bushmen poetry, published by Kwela, from an anthology he published in 1991.

Krog's the stars say 'tsau' and Watson's Return of the Moon: Versions of the /Xam are based on the translations of /Xam Bushmen poetry by 19th-century linguists Lucy Lloyd and Wilhelm Bleek.

Watson also claimed some paragraphs on the concept of myth in Krog's award-winning book Country of My Skull, published by Random House in 1998, had been plagiarised from British Poet Laureate Ted Hughes's essay Myth and Education. Eve Gray, the publishers' adviser on copyright and publishing law, said Kwela and Random House had sought legal advice.

"I can't say whether they'll sue, but they... are tentatively considering taking action," she said. On Sunday, Krog said that the suggestion of plagiarism was absurd.

She had not seen or read Hughes's piece before writing Country of My Skull, she said. Also, Hughes had referred to the Greek and Christian influences on the Western mind, while she had referred to the apartheid indoctrination that led to the black man's being perceived as a "k....r", enabling the white man to kill what was considered non-human.

Watson maintained these paragraphs by "lazy" Krog had placed her in the ranks of plagiarists with Darrel-Bristow Bovey and Pamela Jooste. Random House's managing director, Stephen Johnson, said Watson's claims had been examined and rejected. "We cannot tell whether he is confused or deliberately disingenuous," he said. "We are dismayed that this lapse should have provoked an altogether unreasonable, venomous and academically shallow diatribe in response."

In an equally strongly worded response, Krog described Watson's criticisms as "vituperative" and "libellous". Her use of Bushmen folklore was comparable with "Walt Disney accusing one of plagiarism for making poems out of stories of the Brothers Grimm", she said. Poets like Eugene Marais, Jack Cope and Uys Krige, whose works she had read since childhood, had also made references to Bleek's work.

Replying to the accusation that JD Lewis-Williams's words were also lifted, she said: "What... can have caused Watson to overlook the explicit acknowledgment in the introduction as well as on the colophon page?"

Gray said the 19th-century materials were out of copyright and firmly in the public domain. The poems had been attributed to the San authors.

Update In the comments Pete directs me to this Guardian Books article that tends to convince me there's no need to remove Krog from the reading list. The Professor seems to be labouring under a massive chip on his shoulder and it appears Krog is receiving widespread support for her work and integrity.

 

David Irving

David Irving has been sentenced to three years imprisonment for Holocaust denial. His denial includes a denial of the gas chambers in Auschwitz (although during the trial he admitted he was wrong in saying that the gas chambers were a "fairytale") which is clearly prohibited under Austrian law. Austria has the strongest Holocaust-denial laws in Europe, however Irving's claim that the law would be scrapped within a year is surely without basis. The European Court of Human Rights has already held that Holocaust-denial laws are not a violation of the Convention so, provided he was afforded due process, there is no reason to believe that there is anything wrong with his conviction. In addition he had been banned from Austria and knew there was an arrest warrant against him - he wanted to be arrested because he wanted to be able to belittle Holocaust-denial laws. I doubt he's succeeded - most people I know welcome his imprisonment. This motivation is clear from the following quote from the Guardian's piece:

Last night Irving's partner Bente Hogh said he had brought his imprisonment on himself by going to Austria despite the ban. She said: "He was not jailed just for his views but because he's banned from Austria and still went. David doesn't take advice from anyone. He thought it was a bit of fun, to provoke a little bit."

I've had some experience with Irving in the past. I have read a little of his work with which I was distinctly unimpressed especially since I had recently been to Auschwitz and spent time in Poland with people whose relatives who had been killed there and in other concentration camps. In addition I was in university in Cork when the UCC Philosoph tried to bring Irving to speak on campus. In the end the Gardai called the event off because they couldn't guarantee safety (there were some exceptionally passionate protestors there).

Holocaust denial is dangerous not because it's revisionism but because it's anti-Semitic. As a continent we hang by a thread of religious pluralism - ant-semitism is only ever a moment away (even now in the age of rising Islamophobia) and Holocaust denial-laws appear to be a sensible way to go about trying to respect that history, ensure accurate education about the Holocaust and try, to some extent, to undermine anti-semitic views.

 

51% Support 'Gay Marriage"

Interesting stats from the Irish Examiner today. I'm not sure how significant it really is but it's interesting nevertheless. Of course it appears that the survey is about civil unions not marriage but let's not get too hung up on the technicalities, eh?
By Caroline O’Doherty
MORE than half the public supports some form of gay marriage, according to a new poll which shows 51% of adults are in favour of giving legal status to gay partnerships. The Irish Examiner/Red C survey on attitudes to homosexuality also reveals that exactly half of Irish adults would be happy to allow gay people to adopt children on the same terms as heterosexuals. The findings are published as a Government-appointed working group, due to report in June, examines the legal, financial and familial implications of introducing civil partnership legislation. Gay rights campaigners welcomed the poll's results.

Eoin Collins, director of policy change at the Gay & Lesbian Equality Network (GLEN), said: "When you consider where we have come from where you could be imprisoned for life for being gay this is definitely progress. People are changing."

Equality Authority Chief Executive Niall Crowley said: "It's a measure at a moment in time but it reflects a trend that's clearly moving towards a better, stronger recognition of diversity." Traditional attitudes prevail among some sectors of society. One in six of those surveyed believe homosexuality is wrong and one in three would not feel comfortable if a member of their immediate family told them they were gay. One in three would hesitate about voting for a TD in the next general election if the candidate was known to be gay and one in seven still believe that children brought up in a homosexual household are likely to grow up to be gay.

Red C interviewed a random sample of 1,000 adults across the country by telephone between February 13-15 and the findings were weighted to reflect the profile of all adults nationally. Of those asked, 51% said they were in favour of the introduction of civil partnerships for homosexuals similar to those introduced in Britain and the North late last year. There were marked differences in the responses of men and women with twice as many men believing homosexuality is wrong.

Regional differences were also evident. Almost one in four Munster residents believes homosexuality is wrong while resistance to gay marriage was highest in Connaught and Ulster. Younger age groups and people in higher income brackets were more supportive of introducing new gay rights than those at the other end of the age and income scales. Niall Crowley said the disapproval expressed by some of those surveyed was "disturbing but not surprising". He added "The reality is while this is a period of change, gay and lesbian people still continue to have many negative experiences."

Mr Eoin Collins said, however, he believed even more people would react positively to new rights for gays than the survey could measure. "In a survey, people respond to an abstract scenario but then they are faced with a real-life situation, they tend to respond very well. The situation is evolving rapidly. More and more young people are coming out, and more and more ordinary people are realising that this can be my cousin, my brother, my friend, my neighbour."

 

And the Winner Is??

The short list for the Irish Blog Awards is now up, the judges have been selected, Damien has assured us he is NOT a down and out [;)] and we're all gearing up for the Irish Blog Awards on March 11th!

The short list is here - well done everyone!!

Monday, February 20, 2006 

Planning War

outragedmoderates.org submitted a freedom of information request and struck gold – evidence from DoD staffer’s notes that plans for an attack on Iraq began on September 11th. Check it out here

 

Should Saddam be Hung?

Yesterday the Chief Prosecutor in Saddam Hussein’s trial said that Saddam could be executed within months if he is convicted. Reading about this has made me think again about whether Saddam should be executed. On the one hand I can see how execution might sate the desire for revenge but I don’t see how it feeds into the role of the tribunal. To me the trial is an exercise in transitional justice designed to show that the Rule of Law is now superior to the Rule of Man and designed to bring Saddam to justice for (at least some) of his crimes. However I don’t think that execution is the appropriate means of penalty if he is found guilty (and really, has there ever been any doubt that he would be??).

First the trial does not appear to be a fair one and imposing the death penalty after an unfair trial is a violation of international law. Second it reinforces ideas of an eye for an eye into a legal system that should now be moving towards being more concerned with deterrence and rehabilitation. That’s not to say that Saddam could be rehabilitated (I really don’t believe he could be) however I don’t think his being executed solves anything or strikes the right tone at the birth of a new legal system.

This is strange as I would have supported a political assassination of Saddam prior to the invasion. What’s the distinction? I believe that political assassination may be acceptable as the last possible resort where a political leader poses a significant humanitarian risk either to his own people or to the population of any other country. However when someone has been captured then there is an alternative, i.e. trial and sentence. In those cases I believe the death penalty reduces us to the level of the tyrant.

Anyway, I’d be interested in other opinions – should Saddam be executed?

Friday, February 17, 2006 

Torture Claim Rejected: Courts Won't Interfere with 'National Security'

Reuters report a very controversial decision in US courts rejecting a claim of torture against the Us Government on the basis that the courts do not interfere with foregin relations or national security:
A U.S. judge on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit filed by a Canadian citizen who was arrested by U.S. authorities at a New York airport and sent to Syria for interrogation as a suspected member of al Qaeda.

Syrian-born Maher Arar claimed in the lawsuit that he was tortured during a 13-day detention at New York's John F. Kennedy Airport and during his 10 months in a Syrian jail in 2002 and 2003. He was released in 2003 and the United States did not file any criminal charges against him.
Such a decision is like gold to a wartime administration, of course, and represents an extreme of judicial deference in times of emergency. It is worrying because instead of assessing the merits of the torture claim Judge David Trager held that the applicant could resubmit his case on the basis of due process (e.g. lack of lawyer during detention).

A decision like this might be interpreted as giving carte blanche to treat detainees in whatever manner you wish provided you ensure due process (which seems pretty oxymoronic). I have seen handwritten reports of people who claim to have been tortured by foreign agents and by American agents while in detention abroad and whose medical records tend to confirm their claims. This tactic is becoming widespread thereby undermining the absolute international prohibition of torture and the respsonsibility of the judiciary to stand as the protection between the individual and tyranny. The end point of this pattern is simply too awful to contemplate.

 

UN Condemns US

The UN Human Rights Commission yesterday released their report on the situation of detainees in Guantanamo Bay. It really adds very little to the debate - pretty much no new information - but it does highlight the difference between the existing human rights community and the US government on certain international legal standards particularly regarding the right to be free from arbitrary detention and the right to be free from torture (incl. what constitutes torture). It's worth a read however and is available here.

 

Defining Suicide Bombings Against US Soldiers

An Italian appeal court has upheld the acquittal of three men accused of recruiting suicide bombers to go to Iraq and act against US soldiers. These actions, according to the Court, are not terrorism but rather constitute guerilla warfare; they are terrorism only when directed against civilians.

I'm not an expert on Italian law although the analyses I've read so far suggest that this decision is within the meaning of the Italian legislation on 'international terrorism' but I'm sure it will upset many people.

Thursday, February 16, 2006 

Cheney Funnies

There have been lots of responses, both funny and serious, to the Dick Cheney shooting a 78-year-old on a hunting trip. I don't see it as particularly important - if you hunt accidents are going to happen from time to time - but the funniest response I've found so far has been from Anonymous Lawyer and is worthy of eliciting a few giggles on the Blog O'Sphere:
Kudos to the Vice President. I've often wished I could shoot people, especially the oldest partners at the firm. They've outlived their usefulness. Cheney knew this guy's best days were behind him and decided to take matters into his own hands. That's the mark of a leader. I've never been a fan of the Vice President. His heart attacks have been signs of weakness. But this incident gives me renewed respect. Besides, I'm afraid to write anything different. After all, the man he shot was a lawyer. I don't want him to come after me next.

 

Abuse at Abu Ghraib

An Australian TV channel has released new photographs from Abu Ghraib which you can view on this aricle on Raw Story. Be warned: they are not easy viewing, but they do remind us again of the depravity of torturers. The release of these photographs should bring renewed attention to the failure to assign command responsibility to those higher up on the chain of command in relation to these violations.

Failing to assign command responsibility is always dangerous as it allows superior officers to order those lower down the chain of command to violate international law (and domestic law) where the subordinate as individual criminal responsibility but the commander is not being prosecuted for his role in either ordering or failing to prevent such behaviour. As long as superior command responsibility is unrecognised in the case of Abu Ghraib the only incentive will be to hide it better, not to stop behaving in this way.

 

And we're back

After a very hectic week I finally have some time to get back to a little blogging and oh what excitement I’ve missed – Cheney accidentally shooting someone, controversial ministerial appointments and Haughey hissy fits and, of course, a challenge from Richard Waghorne. So much to do… So off I trot to get writing.

Wednesday, February 08, 2006 

Returning Art Stolen by the Nazis

I missed this story yesterday but the New York Times reports that the Dutch government has agreed to return art work seized by the Nazis. About time too....

In one of the largest restitutions ever of art seized by the Nazis, the Dutch government announced Monday that it would return more than 200 old-master paintings to the heir of Jacques Goudstikker, a wealthy Dutch Jewish dealer and collector who fled Amsterdam ahead of advancing German troops in May 1940.

The works include oils by Jan Steen, Filippo Lippi, Anthony van Dyck, Salomon van Ruysdael, Jan Mostaert and Jan van Goyen that have been hanging in 17 Dutch museums and other government buildings since the 1950's. No immediate estimate of their market value was available.

 

Dermod Moore on Gay Marriage

Dermod has an excellent post on gay marriage here (I think it's his Bootboy column but my lack of coolness means am forbidden from buying Hot Press) - go and have a read.

 

Who's Talking About Abortion?

The abortion debate is going along nicely and in a very good tone, thankfully. The Saint has a roundup of all the posts pro and con here. For now I'm going to step out of it for lack of time (and because my arguments are not going to change!!) but I'm enjoying reading people's arguments.

Auds in the comments has pointed out that I can't start something and then drop it, which is fair, so will give a round up post with responses to other posts next week when have finished my corrections.

 

Human Rights Law and The Cartoons

Professor John Cerone has an assessment of the cartoons and the demonstrations in protest under international human rights law here. It's part of the ASIL Insights series and might be of interest to anyone into the legality of restrictions on freedom of expression in international law.

Tuesday, February 07, 2006 

Who Are We? A Quasi-Meme for Irish Bloggers

Richard W. seems to think that we should come up with some way of assessing a general view of the Irish blogger. I think his point is that we’re a fairly homogenous liberal group with just a few conservatives or neo-cons. I’m not sure why he thinks that will limit the influence of Irish blogging, and I’m also not sure who the ‘high priests’ of Irish blogging are, but nevertheless it might be interesting. So how about a quasi-meme?

I’ll answer myself and then tag four and so on and so on until we’ve tried to cover most Irish bloggers, then perhaps Richard will have a better idea of what we look like as a group. I have no sociological training so I’m sure there’ll be plenty of things wrong with this from a polling perspective but nevertheless. You can, of course, choose not to answer any question you wish.


Gender:

Age: (1-18; 19-30; 31-45; 46-60; 60+)

Nationality:

Country of residence:

Sexual Orientation:

Do you have a disability?

How would you describe your political philosophy?

Level of education (primary; post-primary; third-level; graduate; professional)

If you were to vote on party lines which party would you choose (Ireland)?

If you were to vote on party lines which party would you choose (UK)?

If you were to vote on party lines which party would you choose (USA)?

Where do you stand on the EU?

Did you support the invasion of Afghanistan?

Did you support the invasion of Iraq?

Do you continue to support either or both of those conflicts?

What do you believe is the single biggest issue facing Irish politics?

What do you believe is the single biggest issue facing European politics?

What do you believe is the single biggest issue facing international politics?

Are you, have you ever been, and do you ever wish to be involved in politics in a party political manner?

Who would you have voted for in the past US Presidential Election?

My Answers

Gender: Female
Age: (1-18; 19-30; 31-45; 46-60; 60+) 19-30
Nationality: Irish
Country of residence: Ireland
Sexual Orientation: Gay
Do you have a disability? No
How would you describe your political philosophy? Liberal and feminist
Level of education (primary; post-primary; third-level; graduate; professional) Graduate
If you were to vote on party lines which party would you choose (Ireland)? Labour
If you were to vote on party lines which party would you choose (UK)? Liberal Democrats
If you were to vote on party lines which party would you choose (USA)? Democrats
Where do you stand on the EU? I support it and its vision although I believe that it overestimates the potential for trade to bring people together as opposed to bringing countries together. I believe its machinations are unable to adjust to (a) greater numbers of states and people (b) cultural differences and (c) the challenges of the contemporary world. Therefore I believe that to survive the EU must become more efficient and more effective at building a sense of European identity that lives alongside national identity.
Did you support the invasion of Afghanistan? I supported the ideal of removing the Taliban from power but not for the same reasons as America did.
Did you support the invasion of Iraq? I originally supported the notion of removing Saddam from power although I felt that a greater attempt at growing organic movements and smartening sanctions would be a better way of doing so. However I was originally in support of the movement. While the ideal of removing Saddam is still something I support I no longer support the invasion as a result of the illegality of many tactics involved, the lack of respect for civilian life, the lack of proper planning and resourcing, the lack of peace making and peace keeping capacities and forward planning and the lack of an exit strategy that would leave the country ready and capable to move forward on an equal basis with all other nations.
Do you continue to support either or both of those conflicts? I continue to support the ideal of both but the process of neither.
What do you believe is the single biggest issue facing Irish politics? Racism and xenophobia
What do you believe is the single biggest issue facing European politics? Islamophobia
What do you believe is the single biggest issue facing international politics? The rise in the security paradigm and the false dichotomy between rights and security
Are you, have you ever been, and do you ever wish to be involved in politics in a party political manner? I have been, I am not currently, and I don't know about the future.
Who would you have voted for in the past US Presidential Election? John Kerry, just because he was the least bad option

 

Questions to the Taoiseach

Today’s Questions to the Taoiseach are focusing mostly on Freedom of Information, social partnership, the Disability Act 2005 and the situation in Northern Ireland. I think the latter will be one of the most interesting part of questions, particularly as to whether the Taoiseach will remark on Paisley’s latest escapades. Various people are going to ask the Taoiseach about ‘Stormontgate’ so although his answers will, inevitably, be evasive it’ll be interesting to see whether he says something gutsy on the issue. In addition there’ll be questions on implementation on the All Party Oireachtas Committee’s Report on the Constitution. Watch with interest perhaps…

Questions paper (in pdf format) is available here.

 

Rosalyn Higgins is President of ICJ

Dame Rosalyn Higgins was named the President of the International Court of Justice yesterday. She's an amazing scholar and has been a great judge of the ICJ to date so here's hoping that she can continue as such and, with any luck, increase the efficiency of the Court in the future. She'll also be speaking at the American Society of International Law in Washington this Spring and is set to be one of my highlights of the conference I think.

 

A Little More on Abortion

Auds has responded to my post on why I believe abortion should be legalized with this very thorough post. Firstly Auds notes that she has often argued against abortion in a rational, non-emotional and non-theological manner, which is true, but what I said in my post was


I have yet to hear a rational, non-emotional and non-theological argument against legalising abortion in Ireland.


Talking about legalization is different to talking about abortion per se. But let’s not get hung up on that – I want to talk about a few of the points that Auds raises.

Auds talks about abortion ending a human life and does not advance the cause of human rights. Her latter point is essentially based on her first:


It creates an arbitrary line (birth) after which human dignity and equality comes into force. Before that, a fully genetically complete, growing small human being is somehow less than the rest of us. Refusal to extend the most basic of all human rights, the right to life, to unborn human beings, makes the ubiquitous human rights language that we reference so many of our dilemmas to, negotiable and wholly dependent on social/cultural mores.


Firstly that argument only stands if you accept that a foetus is a human being. In my opinion arguments for reproductive rights and for the right to choose abortion are not necessarily arguments that say a foetus is or is not a human being – in fact you’ll find that international human rights law tends to stay away from giving ‘a right’ to abortion (although international committees tend to see the prohibition of abortion as a difficulty) – it tends, instead, to say that the decision and life and autonomy of the mother should take priority over that of an unborn, non-autonomous being that depends on that mother for life.

In terms of advancing equality for women the prohibition of abortion tends, at the very least, to perpetuate inequalities between women where wealthy women can afford to go abroad for safe and clean abortions if they want them but poor women generally can’t and tend to suffer the dangers and difficulties of illegal abortions to a disproportionate extent.

Auds also rightly notes that abortion does not come without a physical, mental and emotional cost to women and there are two points in response to this. First I doubt that abortion is the only medical procedure that comes with such a cost. Second this is not a reason to prohibit abortion; it is a reason for giving people full and fair information and to allow them to make their own decision. There is no reason why abortion can not be introduced in a responsible manner where a woman who wants to hear about options is told of different option (without any preferential recommendation as to any of them) and is given the pros and cons of each of them. Then let her make her own decision. What’s the problem with just letting women decide for themselves??

Auds also notes that legalisation does not lead to a world without unsafe abortion and tells us that 12 people died from abortions in the UK in 14 years between 1985 and 1999. I would like to see some figures for people who’ve died from other elective surgeries first of all to be convinced that this is disproportionate in some way (it appears very low given the numbers of women having abortions in the UK including Irish women). Secondly you don’t have to die for an abortion to be unsafe. Thirdly there is surely an issue of underreporting in Ireland given the fact that abortion is illegal, so how accurate are our figures (if we have any)?

With all due respect I don’t think that Auds advances arguments for maintaining the prohibition of abortion, I think she argues against abortion, which is fair enough. I’m just not convinced that the reasons she has advanced are cause enough to strip women in Ireland of their choice in this matter.

Monday, February 06, 2006 

Iranian Nukes are Inevitable?

David Sanger has a great piece in today's New York Times on why the general wisdom seems to be that Iranain nuclear bombs are an inevitability and the world's role is to make sure it happens later rather than sooner.
Hours after the United States and Europe prevailed in a contest over officially reporting Iran's history of clandestine nuclear activity to the United Nations Security Council, President Bush issued a statement on Saturday from his ranch, saying that the overwhelming vote showed "the world will not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons."

But even some of Mr. Bush's own advisers say that may prove an overstatement. Behind the diplomatic maneuvering, many of the diplomats and nuclear experts involved in the West's effort believe that stopping the program cold is highly unlikely, and probably impossible. They acknowledge that a more realistic goal now is to delay the day that Iran joins the nuclear club.

"Look, the Pakistanis and the North Koreans got there, and they didn't have Iran's money or the engineering expertise," said one senior official who is instrumental in putting together the American strategy. "Sooner or later, it's going to happen. Our job is to make sure it's later." By that time, he said, the hope is that a changed or different government is in power in Tehran.

In part, this is the newfound realism of an administration that has learned some hard lessons in Iraq, and is no longer quite so eager to talk about pre-empting what it regards as looming threats.

 

Sunday Brunch 2

Richard Delevan's second installment of Sunday Brunch is now available Richard Waghorne putting forward positions on gay marriage, Sinead Gleeson's review of Munich and Gavin 'I look like a moviestar' Sheridan. It's quite good and confirms my suspicion that I will never get a radio job with my horrible girly voice. Oh well...

Good job Richard - this looks like it'll be a great contribution to the Irish bloggsphere.

 

Abortion Should be Legal

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about women’s rights here in Ireland, particularly when I was doing some guest lecturing abroad. One issue that has repeatedly arisen is that of abortion and I think it’s time to talk about it a little. In particular I want to talk about whether or not abortion should be legalised.

As it stands the Constitution of Ireland protects the right to life of the unborn (Article 40.3) although it does allow people to travel to obtain abortion and, after The X Case, it’s pretty clear that one can obtain an abortion where their life is at risk from suicide as a result of a pregnancy. This is vastly different to the original position relating to abortion but, nevertheless, restricts women in their capacity to obtain an abortion.

Prohibiting abortion is almost always a bad idea because (a) people will continue to want abortions for various reasons (b) people will therefore find a way to acquire an abortion and (c) people will often suffer the detriments of illegal and unsafe abortions as a result. Legalising abortion is generally good because (a) it serves the desires of those who want to avail of abortion and (b) it removes the dangers of illegal and unsafe abortion.

The common misconception is that legalising something constitutes condoning it, however even if that were the case it would be untrue to say that our Government does not already condone abortion. Many people will openly tell you that the Irish Government offers asylum seeking women papers to go to and return from the UK and pays the fee for an abortion there when women become pregnant, which is clearly condoning abortion. Despite this it is not necessarily true that legalising something means condoning it; it merely means that the Government recognises that people should have the opportunity to choose whether or not to have a pregnancy terminated. It is therefore a sign of condoning personal choice as opposed to condoning abortion.

There is, of course, a point of principle upon which abortion should be legalised: the right to privacy and bodily integrity. A woman has the basic right to make decisions about her own body and about what happens to it. However in Ireland the State intervenes and makes that decision for her on the basis that there is a living being inside her who deserves protection. Up to a certain time however that ‘living being’ is not autonomous and can not survive without the woman. Now whether or not one believes the ‘living being’ to be a human or to be a collection of cells is really not relevant; the only way in which it is relevant is the extent to which the woman herself regards the being as human/cells. It is not for the State to be involved in questions of personal morality of that nature.

This is where there is a difference between legalisation and prohibition. Through prohibition the State enforces its moral judgment on the country at large regardless of how the woman herself stands on the issue. Where there is legalisation, however, the State simply allows each person to make their own decision on whether or not they want to have an abortion and allows them to take an independent decision based on their own morality and their particular circumstances. It does not force anyone to have an abortion, it merely gives people the choice to do so. I have yet to hear a rational, non-emotional and non-theological argument against legalising abortion in Ireland.

Update Red Rover agrees that abortion should be legal, Damien Mulley either accuses of compliments me on starting the discussion but Richard Waghorne is distinctly unimpressed. He thinks that blogs are not the appropriate place to discuss this (good a place as any surely - here people can take a few minutes or hours before answering and put distance between themselves and the issue??) and chides me for taking emotion out of it. The reason, by the way, is that I have generally found abortion itself is an issue that people have their minds made up about. There's no changing them and it's pointless to try. Therefore it's better to talk about whether it should be legal. However I'll listen to all arguments and will snuggle up to my degrees so that Richard giving me low marks doesn't upset me too much. Hope others get in on the act too - it's a discussion I really feel we should have a serious and rational conversation about.

Tom Cosgrave has weighed in with typically rational pro-legalisation views

 

Driving Responsibly - Can We Do It?

Another five people died on Irish roads last night (RTE). In fact there is scarcely a day when we don't wake up to the news that someone has been killed on the roads. So what's the solution?? For once I suspect that law might not be the answer - it is practically impossible to police all roads all of the time.

The extant laws could be applied in a much more effective manner of course - like, for example, having Garda checkpoints near at the edge of villages and towns in the evenings when people walk out of pubs and into cars on a nightly basis. However it's time, perhaps, for us to take some responsibility in relation to this issue. We drive too fast. We drive irresponsibly. We do driving tests and then forget everything we ever learned the minute we get the licence. We drive with L plates without a fully-licenced driver in the car. We drive over the limit. We're killing ourselves.

Law can only do so much. Personal responsibility is the key here I think. But what I don't understand is why - why do people drive this way??

Paige is also talking about this here. In addition Ann makes a great point in the comments:

I think driver education is also at fault. The whole thrust of driver education is aimed at getting you to pass the test, not at teaching you the principles of safe driving. I don't think the test assesses your abilities to drive safely at all.

 

Rate my Professors and How Students Break Our Hearts

In the US Rate my Professors led to some heavy criticism but it appears that professors have hit back with, you guessed it, Rate your Students.

I know there are many serious issues here but I'm just finding it difficult not to be amused by some posts on Rate my Students and, in many ways, to question my career choice, just as this young woman did on her very first day. Here's a sample from an English Professor which many, many lecturers and professors will be able to identify with.
I have often thought the posts on here were frivolous, and I've been ill at ease with the notion of rating students, but today changed all that.

I have few rules in my class, but reading what's assigned is essential. Because we're only in our second week here, I've carefully established that reading each small section of text for the next class is the only way we can have an active class the next day. I've led class when I've had to, but I've been generally pleased at how many people seem aware of what our articles cover.

But today, today was a breaking point. I reached a boiling point, and I just want to scream.

I assigned a 4 page article from our textbook, a piece that is about Hollywood, and that mentions several fairly recent movies. The article says - endlessly - that movies form much of American culture, and isn't that too bad, given how single-minded and glib these movies are.

So we gathered in our normal spot, me and 15 sophomores, and I asked the typical opening questions. Nobody was biting, however, so I went to basics. "Well, let's just get the simple things established. What's the point of the article?" No sound. Crickets, maybe.

Then I tried, "Well what is the article about? It's about Hollywood, right? But what's more specific than that?" Nothing again.

Years ago I was taught in a teaching workshop that "letting them wait" is the way to go at times like this. I sipped from my cafeteria coffee and smiled pleasantly. I looked out the window and watched some snow coming down. I counted to ten in my head.

Nothing.Some students shuffled a bit. One brave soul was clearly reading like a madman.

Finally, the one reader raised his hand. "Is it about Russell Crowe?" (He'd located one line early in the piece that mentions a movie Russell Crowe is in, but in no way is the article ABOUT Russell Crowe.)

I didn't say anything.

We all went home early today, that's my point. And now the idea of facing them next week just gives me a pain in my head and my heart.

 

Job Vacancy: Secretary General, U.N.

Kofi Annan's tenure as UN Secretary General comes to an end this December, but who will replace him? It's Asia's 'turn' (despite the fact that, according to some New York friends in the know, Bill Clinton is rumoured to be angling for the job), so who are the possible successors? In UN terms Asia is much broader than we imagine, by the way, and includes much of the Arab world.

The Washington Post has been thinking about this lately and 'shortlists' the following:
    • Surakiart Sathirathai, Thailand's deputy prime minister, has been running openly since last year and has visited dozens of capitals around the world. He has the formal endorsement of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, a solid base from which to launch a candidacy.
    • Ban Ki Moon, South Korea's impressive foreign minister, has excellent relations with both Washington and Beijing. But would China accept a secretary general from a treaty ally of the United States, and a diplomat who is deeply engaged in sensitive six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear programs?
    • Jose Ramos-Horta is foreign minister of East Timor -- the newest nation in the world and, until recently, itself a war-torn half-island in the South Pacific administered by the United Nations. Ramos-Horta is a Nobel Peace Prize laureate and is well known internationally, but his country is tiny, with only 800,000 people.
    • Jayantha Dhanapala, a respected Sri Lankan, served as U.N. undersecretary general for disarmament and as ambassador to the United States. He has been openly campaigning for over a year, but some question the selection of another U.N. bureaucrat right after Kofi Annan.

 

Law Profs Respond to Wire Tapping

In addition to Specter's preliminary decision that the President's wiretapping was illegal Law Prof critics have entered this blistering response to the Department of Justice's brief on wiretapping. The tone is sharp, but the letter is well argued and, as you might imagine, pretty thorough.

 

Outing Political Figures in Cameroon

The Guardian reports that 50 public figures have been 'outed' in Cameroon where homosexuality is illegal. The decision (by tabloid newspapers of course) to publish these lists appears to have been inspired by the comments of a Catholic archbishop at Christmas, when he crticised those who supported gay marriage and denounced the EU for legitimating homosexuality. This is nasty and it appears almost miraculous that it hasn't led to violence against those named.

Cameroon has been rocked by an anti-gay crusade in newspapers that have accused more than 50 prominent figures of homosexuality.

Homosexuality is illegal in Cameroon as in many African countries, with jail sentences of up to five years, and editors say they are on a campaign against "deviant behaviour". The latest list by the weekly tabloid L'Anecdote sold out within hours and vendors resorted to selling photocopies. Those named included government ministers, news readers, popular singers and sports stars.

"Men making love to other men ... is filthy. It may be normal in the west, but in Africa and Cameroon in particular, it is unthinkable," L'Anecdote's publisher, Jean Pierre Amougou Belinga, told Reuters. "We could not remain silent. We had to ring the alarm bell. We don't regret it and we have to do it again ... in spite of numerous death threats that me and my journalists have had."

 

Specter: Bush Broke the Law

Arlen Specter has been on TV saying that he feels the President probably did break the law in ordering domestic spying. He also criticises the Attorney General, Gonzales, and makes the very good point that if the law was not adequate why did the Administration not go to the lawmakers and try to have it changed. Yeah, I wonder why that was...

New York Times reports:
The Republican who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee said today that he believed the Bush administration had violated the law with its warrantless surveillance program and that its legal justifications for the program were "strained and unrealistic."

The program "is in flat violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act," said the chairman, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who will open committee hearings on Monday.

 

Irish Blog Awards - Get Voting


The voting for the Irish Blog Awards is now open. There are long lists of great blogs and posts up there which will be whittled down to five per category by the public vote. The judging panel will then decide which of the five wins the award. I'm nominated in a few categories (Best Blog, Best Personal Blog, Best Political Blog) so if you like what you see please think about voting for me. Regardless of who you choose please just vote - the Irish blogging 'community' is growing at a great rate, let's take this opportunity to advertise ourselves.

Sunday, February 05, 2006 

On the Cartoons

In all the furore about the 'cartoons' very few bloggers have been talking about what I think is probably the central issue. Friday evening we spoke about this in the homestead and I said that I thought the newspaper had done nothing wrong and were entitled to publish these cartoons, although they may have been ill-advised in doing so. But A then informed me of something I didn't know - in Islam any representation of the Prophet in human form is blasphemy. It's not really about the bomb on his head or anything like that - it's about the fact that he was represented in human form at all. The means of representation then, of course, adds to the anger and frustration.

This (apparently basic) tenat of Islam should have been enough to stop them publishing the cartoons in the first place.

Update A great debate has broken out in the comments, including discussions of (a) whether representations of the Prophet are always forbidden, (b) whether public reaction was predictable given both the tenats of Islam and the current political situation and (c) whether there's a 'clash of civilisations' going on there (this is bubbling under the surface).

Join in!

Update 2 London Denizen and Mark Dowling agree that the images shouldn't have been published (Mark also criticises Richard Waghorne for his 'the Prophet was a paedophile' post - cartoon stuff is at th end of the post).

Friday, February 03, 2006 

Great Debate this Week

This just popped into my UCC email from the PRO of the UCC Law Society. I'd love to know how they convinced Buttimer to speak on this....

Update There's a good debate going on the comments about the relative merits of victim impact statements and sentencing theory - pop in and have a look if you're interested.

Dear student, On behalf of the Law Society I wish to announce that this coming Wednesday night, February 8th at 1930 in G19 the debate that "this house would ban victim impact statemets" will be held. This debate is perhaps in light of at the contentious and moving issue that everyone is aware of. Proposing the motion is Frank Buttimer Solicitior for Wayne O' Donoughe and opposing the motion is Brian Leahy, Barrister.

 

Out of Practice

Ta Imeall ag machnaigh ar an diospoireacht idir Richard agus me fein an seachtain seo chaite. Ta mo Ghaeilge as cleachtadh, ach cheapaim go thuigim an post ceart go leor. Is blag den chead scoth e, go hairithe do na sluite nach usaidear an Ghaeilge go trathrialta
P.S. There was a time that I was fluent in this langauge; this is embarassing (and my inability to get fadas makes it worse!!)

P.P.S. I get points for trying though, right?

 

Andrew Cochran Going Postal Over the Oscars

Andrew Cochran is going postal on the Counter Terrorism blog about the Oscar nominations and the number of films that challenge American foreign policy

It's clear from the Oscar nominations and current crop of movies that Hollywood just isn't going to aim its cameras at the terrorists who hate us (especially the Hollywood culture) and who try to kill us. In Hollywood, the enemy is the United States of America. Note this wire story about the "political action" in movies says about Oscar nominee "Syriana" and its producer-star, George Clooney: "Clooney and his Section Eight production partner Steven Soderbergh also put their clout on the line to produce "Syriana," writer-director Steven Gaghan's journalistic investigation of the machinations of the U.S. government and oil companies in the Middle East." Has George ever "put his clout on the line" to tell the history of the Syrian Assad family's long support for Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorist groups who have murdered Americans, Israelis, and other innocents for decades?

The sickest and most egregious display of anti-Americanism and ignorance of Islamic terrorism might be "Valley of the Wolves Iraq," a Turkish-made film with Hollywood veterans Gary Busey and Billy Zane. One article describes it as "American soldiers in Iraq crash a wedding and pump a little boy full of lead in front of his mother. They kill dozens of innocent people with random machine gun fire, shoot the groom in the head, and drag those left alive to Abu Ghraib prison - where a Jewish doctor cuts out their organs, which he sells to rich people in New York, London and Tel Aviv."

Steven Spielberg, Mr. Hollywood, who twisted the terrorist murder of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics into a criticism of Israeli anti-terrorism tactics in his Oscar-nominated "Munich," provides the rationale behind the burst of political statements, "These movies are asking sensitive questions about racial intolerance and Middle East politics...Some of it is due to our own insecurity about the voices representing us in government right now. We feel like our government has set us adrift, and we're trying to make our voices heard. We're telling them to be worried about these things." Excuse me, we're supposed to be "racially tolerant" of terrorists?!

There are NO movies about our heroes in Afghanistan who liberated a country from the Taliban's and Al Qaeda's murderous grip - not one movie about the detective work that went into the arrest and conviction of Americans who funded Islamic terrorism in the 1990s through the misuse of charities and companies - not one in-theater movie about the victims of the 9/11 attacks and the heinous plot intended, as Bin Laden said afterwards, to kill up to 30,000 innocents. Many of the biggest stars won't visit troops in Iraq, even in the safest zones. Spielberg's statement says it all - these movies are about supporting the "Hate America" movement, and Hollywood really doesn't care about terrorism

This piece is just so full of the things that make people afraid of counter terrorism legislation. The outrage at Spielberg's suggestion that some of our policies in relation to the Middle East might be emanate from some racial biases or cultural misunderstandings or religious beliefs is twisted to say "we're supposed to be 'racially tolerant' of terrorists?". No - we're supposed to treat everyone the same way regardless of their race.

Cochran fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of art and what makes a great movie - it's something that causes us to question. America is deeply involved in the democratization project throughout the world, but a fundamental part of democracy is the ability to question, to challenge and to openly criticise the government.

 

One for Law Students

Last night I stumbled accross Barely Legal: The Blog which is written by two law students in the US. There's almost no law in it, just the antics of pretty typical stewdents. It's funny though and it shows how you can have a whale of a time throughout law school and still get through your exams. It reminds me of uni....except they seem to be having more fun

;)

By special request I'm reproducing a copy of an email the boys on Barely Legal found on a website (from which it was subsequently removed) sent by an upstart student to his lecturer as a result of her failure to produce examination results on time. To all my students who read this let me assure you, such an email is NEVER a good idea (well, not unless results are something like a fortnight later than the promised return date). To any fellow lecturers this is why we should never give result-return-date guarantees.

Professor Hills,The morning of Friday has now come and gone. A few questions and requests:

1. When did you begin grading our exams?

2. Was it not foreseeable that by giving a 20 page exam with a 6,000 word limit that you were thereby committing yourself to an extensive grading project that would require you to begin grading the exams before whatever your answer to #1 above is?

3. In our review session before the final you sermonized about the professional responsibilities of an attorney. Because we would hold such weighty responsibilities in our professional careers you said that you would impose similar responsibilities regarding the exam. In particular, you made it clear that you would brook no excuse regarding an exam turned in after the 8 hour time limit. You made it clear that we were responsible for planning ahead and ensuring that the 8 hour time limit would be honored. Do you feel no reciprocal responsibility toward us, your students? A responsibility that extends beyond ex post facto apologies?

4. Please stop saying "I'm so sorry". A) The phrase has lost all meaning from constant repetition throughout the entire semester. B) Few students believe you. C) Fewer students care whether you>subjectively impose upon yourself an appropriate level of guilt.

Sincerely,(the law student's name)

 

Blair & Bush Meet; Decide to Disregard International Law

Prof. Philippe Sands QC (UCL and Matrix Chambers) has revealed the details of a memo he saw of a meeting between George Bush and Tony Blair some two months before the invasion of Iraq. It appears that the memo confirmed that America planned to invade Iraq regardless of whether there was a second UN Security Council resolution. According to the Guardian



The memo seen by Prof Sands reveals:

  • Mr Bush told Mr Blair that the US was so worried about the failure to find hard evidence against Saddam that it thought of "flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft planes with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours". Mr Bush added: "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach [of UN resolutions]".
  • Mr Bush even expressed the hope that a defector would be extracted from Iraq and give a "public presentation about Saddam's WMD". He is also said to have referred Mr Blair to a "small possibility" that Saddam would be "assassinated".
  • Mr Blair told the US president that a second UN resolution would be an "insurance policy", providing "international cover, including with the Arabs" if anything went wrong with the military campaign, or if Saddam increased the stakes by burning oil wells, killing children, or fomenting internal divisions within Iraq.
  • Mr Bush told the prime minister that he "thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups". Mr Blair did not demur, according to the book.

Of course I am outraged, but being outraged is becoming an almost standard state of affairs these days. I’m more focused on my depression; what future is there for international law when the nations like America and Britain are perfectly happy to fly in its face and even to consider undermining the world’s most important international institution.

Sands new edition of Lawless World is on sale now and well worth a read.

 

Wise Travels

Seamus Keane has some excellent travel tips and is particularly right about the right-hand security check in Dublin airport and the nightmare status of Heathrow - particularly if you're trekking (with your luggage) between an international terminal and the Irish terminal.

 

Auds is Bored of Me, But I'll Respond to her Anyway

Auds has responded to my deconstruction of Ronan Mullen’s piece. It’s late so let me do this quickly. And as Auds repeatedly told us she’s bored by this debate (which is fair enough) so I’ll keep it short.

First off I didn’t describe Ronan Mullen as hate-filled; I described his columns as hate-filled. There’s a very important distinction there (which also happens to disprove Aud's point about double standards). I quote:



[A]nother hate-filled column in the Irish Examiner yesterday

Secondly I mentioned his (alleged) membership of Opus Dei because I believe that people should understand the perspective of the writer who is expressing an opinion. My opinions are shaped by my beliefs and my identity and I think people deserve to know what my beliefs and identity are so that they can properly interpret them. I equally believe that interpreting another’s writing necessitates some disclosure. Personal opinions and beliefs shape opinion – I’m sure Auds wouldn’t disagree – so when people know something about someone’s standpoint they can then make their own decisions about the piece that they write. Auds for example practices disclosure by saying


I should mention that I am a personal friend of Ronan and like him loads – he’s a sincere, bright, articulate guy who does as United Irelander says “challenge mindsets”.

That’s important, and she obviously felt it was important because she mentioned it.

Auds also notes a comment I made somewhere on the blog that I would support the abolition of marriage for numerous ideological and political reasons. That is my personal opinion because I believe that marriage is patriarchal, restrictive and unnecessary. However I believe in the family and the fundamentality of family. As a result I have some time for people’s views that while marriage exists families can be protected by and from the State through it. I therefore want that protection extended to any family that chooses to enter into it. My political objection to marriage as a construct does not detract from the legitimacy of the argument in favour of the extension of marriage on an equal basis if it is to remain as a legal (as opposed to religious) construct.

Auds then does something I have yet to see someone on her side of the debate do – she actually links to the elusive studies. She is also right in saying that “[l]ike most social science research, there will always be a way to manipulate a study to support one side over the other”, showing again an intellectual vigour in the debate that I don’t believe Mr. Mullen shows. Here are a few representative samples of studies I believe support my position: American Psychological Association, a bibliography with summaries of some significant studies into different aspects of gay parenting and children of gay parents. It’s not about a ‘my studies are better than yours’ argument; it’s about the fact that there are studies that say both things but there are realities that need to be addressed and bandying studies about in national newspapers without naming them is, to my mind, bad argumentation.

Let me make one thing clear, and I think it’s clear from the comments I made to my latest post on this issue. I do not believe that everyone who opposes gay marriage is homophobic, although I do believe that the root of the opposition is homophobic. I do not believe that people are not entitled to hold an opinion on gay marriage. However I do believe that it is irresponsible of people to write columns in national newspapers that mislead (the “right to adopt” rubbish); I do believe that if someone doesn’t support their position through reasoned argument it is ok to ask whether their reasoning is simply homophobia and they don’t want to say it; I think it’s ok for people to oppose gay marriage on the basis of religion but question why they believe religion should have such a central role in the running of the State. Open debate on this is important and it is necessary, but it’s nothing unless we’re honest with one another, honest about our beliefs and honest about where they come from.

My beliefs don’t just come from the fact that I’m lesbian. They come from the fact that I believe deeply in equality and that I believe ‘different but equal’ is a fundamental oxymoron. I have repeatedly reasoned through my arguments in this forum and in publicly presented papers where people have had the opportunity to question, to talk back and to challenge. There was nothing scurrilous (or, as I think you may have meant to say, slanderous) about my post. I deconstructed a column put out in the public domain and challenged the views, mostly for being either (a) badly reasoned, (b) misleading (c) homophobic-esque (mostly for lack of reasoning) or (d) assertions. I believe that’s not only my right, but my responsibility.

Thursday, February 02, 2006 

Richard Posner's Judicial Philosophy, Or is It?

Richard Posner summarises how he decides a case in this way:


The way I approach a case as a judge — maybe you think it heresy — is first to ask myself what would be a reasonable, sensible result, as a lay person would understand it, and then, having answered that question, to ask whether that result is blocked by clear constitutional or statutory text, governing precedent, or any other conventional limitation on judicial discretion.


Another blow to formalists.... Posner is generally considered a conservative judge, however, and this method is mostly associated with judicial activism, which, if you listen to neo-cons, is a uniquely liberal trait. Of course it's not - it can be employed by conservatives or liberals to achieve their desired result, we just call it "originalism" or "strict constructionism" when conservatives do it...

On the other hand a justifiable argument could be made that when Posner says "other conventional limitation on judicial discretion" he is referring to the adage that 'judges interpret law, they don't make it'. Should that be the case we could assume he is considering the case from the outset within the legal framework its presented in and disallowing any decisions he feels would verge on judicial activism. It would be interesting to see him clarify the comment and particularly that very last phrase

Hat tip Washington Monthly

 

Cindy Sheehan: In Her Own Words

Cindy Sheehan has written this report of her arrest on Daily Kos.

 

Hurrah for Damien Mulley

Damien Mulley's had another bright idea. This time it's to bring bloggers together to debate things live. I think it could be really excellent. Maybe we could pick a topic each month, have people declare interest and then do some kind of 'pulling from the hat' thing to see who'd be against who. With your declaration of interest you could choose which side of the debate you'd like to be on. Perhaps if you participated one month you'd then be barred from doing so again the next month?? Hurrah for Damien!

Bring Bloggers together and have them debate Gay Marriage, Feminism, Iraq and Bush, Google in China, Open Source Vs Microsoft. One blogger on the for side and one on the against side. They will be allowed to prepare in advance and the subjectmatter would be topical. Host it in Dublin for now and maybe have this on once a month followed by some socialising after the event. Each event can be sponsored so it is free admission.

Simon McGarr's weighed in (comments on Damien's post) with an alternative suggestion that I think is just as good if not better than the original:

But instead of one person on each side of a proposal- the college debate model- why not a general topic and then a panel with a range of views. A short opening statement each, and then a moderated discussion. (Need a stong moderator, mind). The whole shebang taking about 40 mins. Then a mixer.

And, you could record it in front of whoever wanted to come, and release the sound file to everyone who wasn’t in Dublin. Multiple voices makes for a more interesting and varied listen than long blocks of just one person speaking

 

M. Cherif Bassiouni Sues the FBI

M. Cherif Bassiouni, who is an exceptionally prominent member of the international law community and particularly in international criminal law, has sued the FBI for keeping a file on him. When he find out about it he demanded to see the file, found errors in it and asked that they be corrected. The FBI refused to do so and so Bassiouni sued the FBI. He lost. The FBI refused to say why they were keeping a file on him, citing security reasons, but they also claimed they were entitled to keep the file. Here’s the money quote from the judgment:


The FBI notes its ongoing investigations into the threats posed by terrorist groups, specifically those originating in the Middle East.... Because of the nature of these investigative activities, and because of the breadth of Mr. Bassiouni's contacts with the Middle East, the FBI anticipates that it will continue to receive information about Mr. Bassiouni. ... The Bureau's file on Mr. Bassiouni will provide context for evaluating that new information.... We believe that the purposes identified by the Bureau fall within "authorized law enforcement activity" conducted by the FBI. We note ... that the realm of national security belongs to the executive branch, and we owe considerable deference to that branch's assessment in matters of national security. Furthermore, although the Privacy Act certainly does not authorize collection and maintenance of information of private citizens on the "off-hand" chance that such information may someday be useful, it does not require law enforcement agencies to purge, on a continuous basis, properly collected information with respect to individuals that the agency has good reason to believe may be relevant on a continuing basis in the fulfillment of the agency's statutory responsibilities.


Hmmm, does this pose dangers for human rights and international law defenders and researchers??

Hat tip: Roger Alford at Opinio Juris

 

That Oil Promise in the SOTU

According to the Washington Bureau those oil promises Bush made in this State of the Union were not to be taken literally. Who says? Well, the Energy Secretary and National Economic Adviser.


One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America's dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the president didn't mean it literally. What the president meant, they said in a conference call with reporters, was that alternative fuels could displace an amount of oil imports equivalent to most of what America is expected to import from the Middle East in 2025.

But America still would import oil from the Middle East, because that's where the greatest oil supplies are.

The president's State of the Union reference to Mideast oil made headlines nationwide Wednesday because of his assertion that "America is addicted to oil" and his call to "break this addiction." Bush vowed to fund research into better batteries for hybrid vehicles and more production of the alternative fuel ethanol, setting a lofty goal of replacing "more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025." He pledged to "move beyond a petroleum-based economy and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past." Not exactly, though, it turns out. "This was purely an example," Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said.

 

Charges against Sheehan dropped

So she didn't break any laws, huh? Yeah, that's one hell of a First Amendment law suit coming at the Administration.

Wednesday, February 01, 2006 

Speaking in UCC

It looks like I'll be speaking in UCC on the opening night of Rainbow Week (Monday, Feburary 13th) run by UCC LGBT. The theme will be something along the lines of 'The Role of Law in the Struggle for LGBT Rights' and will probably be relatively interactive. There are more details to follow but this serves as a heads up for any Corkonians who might be around that evening. If so, come along and have your say!

 

Purple Fingers, Red Cards and a Dramatic State of the Union

It looks like last night’s State of the Union address turned into a bit of a theatrical production. On the one hand the President introduced a woman who had voted in Iraq and who produced a purple stained voting finger and did the V for victory sign (we can presume that her finger was inked again especially for the occasion; it appears highly unlikely that she hasn’t washed her hand since December).

Indeed purple was a theme with a whole host of people having purple inked fingers that they placed in the air every time the Iraqi election was mentioned (they must have been exhausted) and many people swapping the traditional red and blue colours for purple suits for the ladies and purple ties for the gents. Now, given this theatrical production orchestrated by Bobby Jindal (i.e. it was a stupid freshman stunt) one would have thought that manifestations of one’s right to free expression (so beloved by the Americans) were welcomed at the SOTU. Seemingly it all depends on what you want to say.

Cindy Sheehan turned up in a t-shirt (yeah, we’re all getting a little bored of her by now but nevertheless).Michele Malkin is blowing a gasket by the way at the fact that she managed to get in and making characteristically moralistic admonitions of whoever it was got her there (Lyn Woolsey). It’s quite funny – it looks like she might actually have steam coming out of her ears as she types.

But it wasn’t the horrific breach of dress code that got Sheehan in trouble (who on Earth forgot to tell her that the SOTU was smart casual?); it was what was written on the shirt - ‘2245 Dead. How many more’ - a clear reference to American soldiers who’d died in the war. She was turfed out for it before the SOTU had started.

Now let’s not accuse them of being partisan about this in the SOTU by the way. The wife of, wait for it, a Republican was also removed. Beverly Young (wife of Bill Young, Florida) was removed for wearing a grey t-shirt that said ‘Support the Troops’. She was removed because she was told the t-shirt constituted a protest. She helpfully told them it was supportive of the troops and called the police officers idiots – which we all know police officers generally love being called.

Now Sheehan says she’s taking a First Amendment case, and she’d be right to. On the basis of Cohen v California alone she’d probably win. In that case it was held that it was one’s constitutional right to wear a t-shirt saying ‘Fuck the Draft’ inside a courthouse during the Vietnam War. While there was a genuine point about contempt of court in that case the SOTU is not a court, the President (much as he’d like to be) is not judge and jury, and these women should not have been removed – especially if others were going to be allowed to show support for something by engaging in ‘a touch of the lavender’ (oh the irony).

Story of expulsions is here

 

Tech-Heads to the Rescue?

So I'm completely useless with technology but I was wondering whether some of you wonderful bloggers could tell me in very simple and clear words whether there's an easy way of linking to documents on your blog. For example if there was an article, CV, working paper or something I wanted to link to that I had in a pdf format on my hard-drive is there a way of linking to it?

Any help much appreciated!

 

Everybody's Talking About Gay Cowboys

Brokeback Mountain appears to be the movie discussion point of choice in many places today, not least because of it's exceptionally good showing in the Oscar nominations. Even the Irish bloggosphere is in on the act with Richard Delevan proving the film wasn't 'banned' in Utah, merely pulled from the cinemas of one particular proprieter (you may recall I spoke about this here). The prize for the most unbelievable post of the day so far goes to Manuel Estimulo for this little chestnut.
Is Brokeback Mountain by homosexual-sympathising pervert Ang Lee. Is Taiwanese. What you expect? But has important message for everyone about youngsters not doing as they are told and how more discipline is needed today.

I have not seen it yet, but is going to win lots of trophies at Oscar ceremonies in sadly decadent and once-powerful United States of America, where the homosexuals in especial live (see Defeatists). I am hoping that Christian religious people will make big protests against this movie. Is indicative of dangers of letting men wear silly outfits and ride on horses, which is thing really only a lady should do. America should have learned from Village People and CHiPS and John Wayne, famous Chicago serial killer who dress up as cowboy AND clown and star in True Grit.

Also I am surprise very much about Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal. Well, maybe not about Jake Gyllenhaal. But I espect now that they will be famous. You can call me a cynical if you want to, but is clear that film industry is full of them.

It would never happen in Spain.

I continue to hope that this is a joke.

Update: Thanks to Colm in the comments I've realised my initial feeling was right: this is a spoof blogger. I didn't think a Christian would have the sense of humour to make the Village People joke :)

Update 2 Maybe Manual really leads a secret Mark Simpson reading life?? In the comments Dermod sheds some light:

There is something that does make it slightly more surreal, though - Mark Simpson wrote in his Yahoo! mailing list on 20th January that "the cowboy from the Village People... was the `gay cowboy consultant' on this metro-cowboy movie."

Interesting...

 

Rick Hasen on Alito

Professor Rick Hasen (Lyola Law) of the excellent Election Law Blog has been thinking about why his prediction of an Alito defeat was wrong. His conclusion?

In the end, I think my prediction failed because I overestimated the salience of the abortion issue and the strength and savvy of the Democratic party. Thanks to Sen. Kerry, Democrats have two losses rather than one in a 24-hour period.

Judging by the disappointment and disdain with which democrat bloggers and opinion writers are talking about him lately I don't think John Kerry has a hope of getting the presidential nomination in the next election, which might not be a bad thing.

 

State of the Union

Bush presented his State of the Union address last night. Text and video are here - I'll add more on in later, but in the meantime does anyone have any thoughts on it?

As an aside Slugger reports that Ian Paisely went to Washington to see Bush deliver the SOTU, with a little reflection on what this might mean about the relationship between Sinn Fein and the White House. Roger Alford has a good analysis of some of the foreign relations aspect of the SOTU over on Opinio Juris.

Links

Syndicate this site (XML)
Powered by Blogger
and Blogger Templates