Friday, March 31, 2006 

Torture Evidence Isn't Only for Courts

I just attended a session on Commander in Chief power under the US Constitution and particularly limitations on that power, but without getting into that minefield I was struck by a micro-exchange between Brigadier-General Thomas Hemmingway and Deborah Pearlstein about torture. Pearstein advanced the position that American troops engage in torture in at least some limited situations and cases. Without, I thought very imporantly, denying that incidents of torture extended far beyond those graphically documented in Abu Ghraib, Hemmingway noted that the Military Commissions (his area of work and expertise in this debate) have a rule - Military Instruction No. 10 - prohibiting the use of evidence obtained by torture in those Commissions in Guantanamo Bay.

Now, quite apart from the almost impossible evidential burden I think this lays on the defendant (they are not entitled to all the evidence against them so how can they argue how evidence was acquired??), I was also struck by the fact that this kind of Instrument is not one that prohibits torture. It merely prohibits the use of torture-evidence in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. It does not prohibit the use of such evidence in security operations, renditions, targetting etc...

It's a non-answer to the claim. I don't think we say that enough.

We should also remember that denying torture is dependant on having some kind of definition of what torture is. International instruments are in some ways unfortunately vague (though certainly nowhere near as vague as some claim they are) about defining torture and there can be no doubt that there are certain international actors who have a policy of reclassifying certain interrogation methods as allowable or not; torture or not. It can not be the case that because country X says that Y is no longer torture they can retain legitimacy by claiming the kudos of not torturing simply because of a reclassification.

BTW this ties nicely into a debate I fear myself and Richard - neither of us probably with sufficient knowledge of the US legal system - are about to engage in relating to signing statements, commander in chief power etc...

11:12 PM | |

 

Pope Benedict is Right (in part)

Pope Benedict has stated that the church's view on homosexuality and abortion are "non-negotiable" despite claims in Italy that he is meddling in the politics of the upcoming election. The Vatican, however, has asserted it's right to make statements about issues of church doctrine, and in this case they are right. Making a statement of doctrine is not meddling. Trying to impose a doctrine on politics is not meddling. It's lobbying, and everyone is entitled to do it. As long as he's not getting priests to stand outside voting booths and intimidate people to vote in a certain way he's not, to my mind, doing anything wrong. I don't agree with his views but he is a major world leader and he is representing his interpretation of church doctrine which is a determinative interpretation under church law and doctrine itself. Let him say what he wants. Let people vote with their conscience. He's simply trying to inform people's consciousness.

Irish Independent story.

Update Despite Richard (here) and Auds (in the comments) approving of my conclusion (which, some might say, is worrying in itself!!) there are disagreements, as I guess I could have predicted were it not 7 a.m. my time when I posted this! Mark includes in the comments a typically coercive quote from a member of the clergy about states’ responsibilities in terms of questions of morality like homosexuality and abortion. Suzy also weighs in with some reflections on how the use of the pulpit in electioneering constitutes meddling and, almost tangentially, to the issue of the Holy See’s involvement in international law making and international relations.

With respect I think there are a couple of important points to think about here, and these are just sketchy preliminary thoughts on this.

First of all, is there a difference between stating the law of the church and trying to coerce people into making the law of the church the law of the land? Arguably, there is not.

Secondly, is there a duty on the Church not to call on Catholic politicians to take their Catholicism into account when passing laws? I would argue that there is not. It is no more or less valid than members of the LGBT community, for example, being reminded of the plight of queers and asked to vote in a manner consistent with our generalised (though by no means uniformly held) notions of 'queer identity'. (This comparison isn't perfect I concede but it's the least bad one I can think of in my rush between sessions).

Thirdly, is there a responsibility on the part of an elected official to not allow himself be influenced by such statements? This one is much more difficult. On the one hand an elected official receives a mandate. It is a mandate to participate in a legislative process (among other things). The mandate is not to vote how the majority of your constituents want you to vote, but rather to vote in the manner that you find appropriate taking into account your constituents and broader social, fiscal and justice issues. For all elected officials their personally held morality or values will to some extent - either consciously or subconsciously - form part of that decision making process. For some elected officials that morality will be affected by any religious affiliation they may have. And furthermore the degree of that influence will depend on the degree of their commitment to any particular faith and their view of their role as a member of that faith.

In short what I am trying to say is that in the end the church or any other group can state doctrine until the cows come home. That statement of doctrine - and even attempts at what you could call 'conscience coercion' can have no effect absent an elected official/judge/state body etc... being personally willing to make their faith a central part of their decision-making process.

Things are immensely more complex on the international stage where religion arguably plays a far more prominent role in law making than it does in the majority of what we might call Northern states. There we see vastly sophisticated Catholic-Muslim coalitions, particularly when it comes to inclusion of the word 'gender' in international treaties. Again these are counterbalanced to some extent (certainly not completely) by caucuses - the plenipotentiary that produced the Statute for the International Criminal Court for example was hugely influenced by the counterweights of religion v. the women's caucus in terms of gender and/or sex crimes, despite the very unfortunate gender definition included in the statute in the end.

I don't think we can blame an organisation for trying to lobby its position, particularly when part of the raison d'etre of that organisation is the spreading of their philosophy to all people - spreading the good news or whatever you want to call it. Church doctrine can have no effect on law unless lawmakers allow it to do so either through individual decision-making processes that centralise or at least de-marginalise religious/moral considerations, or through the abrogation of state responsibility to religions as has traditionally happened in Ireland with regard to schools and hospitals, for example.

P.S. Reading over that I realise I really am in conference mode, aren’t I? Apologies…

2:42 PM | |

 

Can President Bush Actually Do That?

In signing the renewed USA Patriot Act President Bush added an addendum claiming that he did not feel himself bound by the oversight provision in the Act requiring that Congress be informed of how the FBI is using expanded powers.

I need someone to help me out here. Of course I understand that the American system of Separation of Powers is somewhat different to the Irish system, but surely he can’t actually do that; surely it is illegal for the Executive branch to unilaterally amend, by non-legislative means, an Act of Congress. This becomes even more worrying when one remembers that the Executive branch is asserting basically unchecked power in the War on Terror, stating that judicial assessment of certain administration decisions should not be undertaken.

I can’t help but be reminded of the words of Condoleeza Rice on Wednesday when she warned that concentrating too much power in the Executive is a recipe for tyranny. I would add that this is ever-more so when the time of War asserted is so nebulous as to really be an ongoing state of affairs that requires the three limbs of the American government to reconsider ‘war powers’ in such an ongoing and seemingly interminable situation.

1:40 PM | |

Thursday, March 30, 2006 

Rahman safe in Italy, but is he really a refugee?

Well done Italy - they've managed to get Abdul Rahman out of Afghanistan quickly and he's now safely in Italy where he's seeking asylum. Berlusconi is making very positive sounds and I don't think his application is in danger. This is the only way, I believe, Rahman could have avoided execution - either judicial or extra-judicial - for converting to Christianity.

From the perspective of refugee law, however, how meritorious is his claim? In order to qualify as a refugee in international law one is required to satisy six requirements.

First you must be outside your country of origin, which Rahman is as he is in Italy. (This is a simplification of a vastly complex area including internally displaced persons but we needn't concern ourselves with that in this context).

Secondly you must show a well-founded fear of persecution. This does not mean that being subjected to persecution must be probable, but merely that from an objective perspective your fear of persecution is well-founded. In this case I think that if we define being prosecuted for his religious beliefs and/or being subjected to the death penalty as persecution we can certainly show it is well founded. I'll consider whether that assessment is allowable below.

Thirdly you must show that the persecution emanates from the state or from the state's unwillingness/lack of ability to protect you from persecution. This requirement is clearly fulfilled here. It should be noted that persecution from non-state actors is not always recognised in refugee systems, although it should be.

Fourthly you must show that you are at risk of serious harm, which is how persecution has come to be defined. It is notable that prosecution is not defined as persecution, however arguments can be made that discriminatory laws may well amount to persecution and that, regardless (as I said above) the potential of being submitted to the death penalty should be sufficient for a European country.

Fifthly you must show that the persecution is for reasons of race, religion, nationality, or membership of a particular social group. Rahman is clearly covered here on the 'religion' ground.

Finally you must show that you are not excluded from protection as a result of certain actions (like involvement in non-political serious crime, war crimes etc...)

I don't believe too much thought will be given to whether or not Rahman would fall within the Refugee Convention - instinctively at least this is a case where most people would agree that someone needs to be protected. The role of refugee law is to return a person to a position where their rights are affirmed, which will be the result of having Rahman in a country where his religious freedom is respected. However from a purely legal perspective it could be said that there is some slight complexity with defining this as persecution from a purely legal perspective. I would not, for example, be surprised if many people with similar religion-based asylum claims were routinely denied asylum in various countries (examples from China come to mind).

Prosecution is not persecution in general terms. If we say that the fear of being subjected to the death penalty is persecution however we can proceed on a slighter firmer track. Countries within the European Convention on Human Rights are not permitted to return someone to a place where they might be subjected to cruel and inhuman treatment or punishment and the Strasbourg court has long established that the death penalty falls into this category (Soering v United Kingdom). This is part of the long-established principle of non-refoulement, i.e. not returning someone to a place or situation where they are in risk, and on this ground the asylum claim in Italy should be accepted. What is clear is that under Soering Italy certainly can't return him to Afghanistan.

I would hope that all asylum applicants would get the same compassionate and protective reception wherever they should land. Unfortunately, that hope is regularly dashed. Refugee law is part of human rights law, however too many countries see it as an area of border-control. Until we start to conceive of refugee law as part of our responsibilities as members of a human family one will need to have the publicity with which Rahman's case was blessed to be sure that you will receive asylum.

Cian has put up an astonishingly good response to this is in the comments which he cross posted to his own blog here. Think about what he's saying - it's really pretty amazing.

1:06 PM | |

 

Jill Carroll is Released

Safe and sound. What wonderful news.

The Washington Post has a good report here.

1:04 PM | |

 

Israel and Palestine: An Opportunity Presents Itself?

Amas Oz has a good piece in today's Guardian (posted here in Comment is Free) about the opportunities that currently exist in Israel. To be honest I have always felt Israeli politics to be too Byzantine to fully get a grip on and therefore have tried to come to terms with it more but never felt qualified to talk about it. I mention this column because it reinforces my instinctive reaction to the result of the recent elections in Palestine and in Israel.

Here's a good extract from her column

Is there anything the new centre-left Israeli government can do for peace, as long as Hamas does not want any peace with Israel? It can "take the issue upstairs" - talk to the bully's parents, as it were. In our case, the bully's family is the Arab League, which in 2000 adopted a peace plan. This envisages Israel's withdrawal from territories occupied in 1967 and a solution for the refugees of 1948 in return for a comprehensive peace agreement between Israel and all Arab League states. Obviously, the peace camp in Israel does not expect the new government simply to sign up to this. But why wouldn't it open negotiations with an Arab League delegation (in effect Egypt and Saudi Arabia) along the plan's general lines? Let us not forget that almost every Arab government is as concerned by the rise of Hamas - as threatened by it - as Israel.

It is not unthinkable that a deal between the pragmatic Israeli and Arab governments can be reached - and then brought before the Palestinians for a referendum. Considering the fact that no more than 41% of the Palestinian voters actually endorsed Hamas, and that most still tell surveys they are ready for a two-state solution, there is a good chance that an agreement could be adopted by a Palestinian majority.

Instead of Israeli disengagement - bound to leave many issues open and bleeding - we can work with Egypt and Saudi Arabia for a lasting peace.

So what do people think? Are these elections - both of which led to somewhat suprising results - really an opportunity. Many people see them as a problem, but as a wise woman once said to me every problem is a solution. Perhaps these election results are a solution to the stagnation that had arisen between the old guard, albeit through the Arab League which would then exert the pressure on Hamas?

12:52 PM | |

 

Human Rights Council: A New Era Begins

On Monday I missed the fact that the UN Human Rights Commission had its last session and handed over to the Human Rights Council.

It's all over, and it's all about to begin.

UN Report

4:10 AM | |

 

A Conversation with Condoleeza Rice

Update The full transcript of the conversation is now available here


This afternoon saw the first substantive session of the Centenary Conference of the American Society of International Law here in Washington. The first thing to note is that it was amazing that three of the four panelists on this were women – Condoleeza Rice, Sandra Day-O’Connor and Rosalyn Higgins. The fourth was Jose Alvarez, the incoming president of the society, whose work on international law is quite simply inspirational. I took substantive notes, although I unfortunately forgot my Dictaphone in the panic of leaving so I’ll be slow to attribute anything as an absolute quote… Likewise all questions are paraphrased.

The questioner/moderator was Gwen Ifill who did an absolutely fabulous job in following up and in trying her best not to allow Rice to get away with prevarication or obfuscation (although not always with success). The other really amazing thing was the performance of Rosalyn Higgins who made some really remarkable pointed remarks to the Secretary of State and the fact that she responded to them. In other words there really was a far richer and fuller frank exchange of ideas than I would have expected and that was certainly refreshing.

Some of the answers are really amazing, particularly Condoleeza Rice’s response to questions about when American involvement becomes interference.

I’ll abbreviate the keys as follows: GI = Gwen Ifill; CR = Condoleeza Rice; SOC = Sandra Day O’Connor; RH – Rosalyn Higging; JA = Jose Alvarez

Question 1 [paraphrased] Should the Geneva Conventions apply to people detained in the War on Terror?

CR said that the Geneva Conventions are a very important set of agreements and arrangements, but America is strongly of the view that this is a new kind of war in which the Conventions do not easily apply. To say that the Conventions apply to Al Qaeda terrorists would be to “stretch” the Conventions beyond their original conceptions. From the start President Bush was very clear that they would be applied to people in the Afghan army/Taliban but would not be applied to Al Qaeda terrorists as to do so would be to “subvert and in some ways pervert” the Conventions themselves. However she stressed that these people were to be treated consistent with the Conventions [NB] taking into account military necessity [NB]. She also stressed that we can not wait for a terrorist to commit a crime because then 3,000 people are dead; this is why this is different to municipal law enforcement and it is what creates genuine dilemmas for governments in fighting the War on Terror. When we are thinking about the Geneva Conventions we need to appreciate and think about these serious dilemmas.

GI Directed the same question to Sandra Day-O’Connor included asking her to comment on Judge Scalia’s statements in Switzerland [see here] that to give terrorists a jury trial would be “crazy”

SOC immediately said that nobody is asking for jury trials for terrorists so there’s no need to address that part of the question.

RESPONSE Skeptical murmurings in the audience.

SOC then said that the Geneva Conventions do not strictly apply to terrorists being detained and that perhaps the time is ripe to revisit the Conventions and see whether any changes are needed.

RH firstly stressed that torture is always prohibited and therefore regardless of whether the Conventions apply these detainees may never be subjected to torture. Secondly she said that the applicability of the Geneva Conventions do not depend on subjects themselves complying with those Conventions so the nature of Al Qaeda is really a moot point. Thirdly she said there are difficulties with the Conventions and particularly with how they deal with non-State actors, that there are areas that need tightening up but that regardless human rights do not disappear in times of war either, so even if the Geneva Conventions don’t apply basic human rights norms do.

JA reflected on the confusion that sometimes appears to exist about American policies towards torture (what constitutes torture?) and command responsibility. He phrased his comment in the context of his nephew who is serving in Iraq and his desire for clear instructions and parameters for his nephew and his hope that he could return confident that he has acted nobly. He also reflected on the fact that it is not enough to condemn torture in the abstract, therefore introducing confusion is problematic. He also stressed that transporting people to places where they might be tortured is also a breach of the Torture Conventions.

CR responded to JA in particular. She felt that there should be no confusion about torture and that the USA is living up to its obligations under the Torture Convention and that detainees in Guantanamo have a right to have their status reviewed on a regular basis. She also stressed that the Military Commission were an attempt to breach one of these difficult dilemmas that governments face and was an attempt to balance the requirements of protecting important information and ensuring due process for detainees. She also said that what happened in Abu Ghraib was “horrible, disgusting and, for me, sickening”.

Question 2 [paraphrased] What are your responses to American attitudes on democratization as shown a poll today? [In short few people believe it’s important and that America can help other countries to become democracies]

CR said that it’s very difficult to facilitate building democracies; democracy has to come from within, it can not come from outside. All over the world, she said, we are seeing the desire for democracy from people and there are no people on earth who are not ready for democracy.

GI [follow up] Referring to reports that President Bush wants a change in Iraqi Prime Minister – When does involvement become interference?

CR did not confirm that those remarks had been made about the Iraqi prime ministership and said that she “wouldn’t believe everything you read in the newspapers”

GI Smart Retort; Favourable murmurings from crowd

CR America is committed to “active facilitation” in democracy building in Iraq. What is important is to help create the circumstances in which indigenous democratization can happen. The US believes the Iraqis “need to form a unity Government and need to do it now”.

She refused to either confirm or deny that the Ambassador had passed on a message from the President that the Prime Minister of Iraq should change

RH Democracy is “simply a human condition” but it is also “more than periodic votes”. There are great difficulties involved in situations where an individual member of the United Nations takes it upon themselves to remove so called terrorists from office. There is no entitlement for any member of the UN to dislodge the leader of another country.

CR Iraq had been deemed a threat to international peace and security in UN resolutions since 1991. Once you remove that threat the country that did so then has a responsibility to think about how to create conditions in the country.

Question 3: To what extent should foreign law be used as a precedent in the United States?

CR stressed that she is not a lawyer so didn't know that much about it but the US does not exist in a vacuum but in general the US looks to its own laws.

SOC could not think of a single instance in which the US Supreme Court had cited foreign case law as binding law in interpreting the US Constitution. Objections to modest references to foreign law in the same way as journal articles may be referred to is difficult to understand – the Supreme Court is simply looking for ideas and examples.

JA stressed the difference between foreign law (the law of other countries) and international law (the law between states) and felt that the resistance to ‘foreign law’ comes mostly from a lack of understanding in Congress of the difference.

SOC Agreed with this confusion and stressed that international law is part of US law but foreign law is simply non-binding precedent; it is different.

Question 4: The President has said that the US has not given up on Russia. What does that mean in the context of Russia’s shaky relationship with the Rule of Law?

CR QUOTE “It’s never wise to interpret the President’s speeches”

Personal reaction – ‘did she really just say that??’

CR (Im almost sure this is word for word what she said but not 100% so won't call it a quote. The uncertainty is not material though in terms of what she was saying about the dangers of too much executive power) If you concentrate too much power in the Executive…you’re setting up the conditions for tyranny

Reaction Crowd murmurs with disbelief; JA makes extremely entertaining disbelieving facial expressions. CR carries on unaffected.

CR Isolation won’t make Russia more democratic

JA remarked that he was delighted to hear the Secretary express commitment to the separation of powers and to not concentrating too much power in the Executive as many of the Society’s members were worried about that much closer to home

Reaction Applause

Question 5 [Submitted by Ralph Wilde, LSE] The UK has much greater obligations under international law than the USA. How do you resolve these issues diplomatically when undertaking projects like Afghanistan and Iraq? Death penalty used as an example

CR There are rarely differences about the goal but sometimes about the tactics as the two countries have “common values”. However the disagreements at a tactical level are relatively rare.

SOC The question of the death penalty is left mostly to states in the USA. Some states have abolished it, others haven’t; this may change in time.

Question 6: [Submitted by an audience member – didn’t hear name, but from Bradford University] The Administration makes many analogies between now and 45-47. In 1945-47 there was easy acquiescence to American will which doesn’t seem to be present now. How far does the analogy stretch?

CR did not feel there was so much willingness to bend to American will. She gave a very good answer about difficulties in the immediate aftermath of the second World War included large communist support in Italy, the division of Berlin etc… and said that she felt nobody then could be quite sure of what would eventually emerge but the fall of the Soviet Union and the reunification of Germany are the products of those policies. This is now the start of a very difficult time, just as it was then, and we can’t be sure what it will look like years from now.

RH These are not analogous situations for three reasons:
(a) There is now a profound divergence of views about the state of the world both within and between states;
(b) Today we have the European idea of being a counterweight to the United States and this resistance wasn’t there previously;
(c) The human rights framework was not present at that time and is present now

Question 7: [Submitted from member from James Madison University – didn’t hear name] The US helped to exert pressure to have Charles Taylor arrested. Will they now support the Special Court in Sierra Leone and to establishment of one for Liberia?

CR didn’t really get the Liberia point so said she wouldn’t address it. She said that the USA was supported attempts to get the Sierra Leone up and running. She also remarked that sometimes the USA does have reservations about treaties because the country is “really very bluntly honest” when it comes to its capacity to comply with international treaties and will not sign up to treaties it cannot comply with. Even when the USA has reservations however they still try to find ways to co-operate with the system because “we’ve always stood on the side of bringing perpetrators of injustice to justice”

RH said that she thought it was important to avoid creating the impression that states should be accountable but not opening oneself to those laws.

Reaction Hugely supportive applause

RH In this way she felt that the culture was profoundly different.

CR said that was exactly the point – the cultures were different and “with respect we broke from Europe”

Response A fair amount of patriotic applause

CR stressed that they are accountable in a different way – through the separation of powers and an exceptionally free media for example. She stressed that the differences and the American system must be respected.

JA felt that it was ok for America not to ratify the International Criminal Court but hoped that some day it would realize that it is in America’s interest to ratify it. He also stressed that he felt we should respect other countries’ decisions to ratify and not engage in bilateral agreements that Americans in other countries should not be accountable for their actions.

2:40 AM | |

Wednesday, March 29, 2006 

Where Did all the Good News Go?

Crooks and Liars have this video of Lara Logan being fantastic in knocking criticisms of journalists for not covering the 'good news' in Iraq. Watch it all - she's brilliant. And she's angry.

6:52 PM | |

 

Plagiarism in the Irish Daily Mail

John Breslin is pointing out a problem with plagiarm in the Irish Daily Mail.

Well spotted by John, badly missed by the IDM editors...

6:36 PM | |

 

Narcissism in the Blog O'Sphere

Dermod's latest bootboy column sends up the narcissm of those who blog - including himself! An excellent and very entertaining piece. Check it out.

6:35 PM | |

 

How Not to Make People Believe Iraqi Sovereignty is Safe

Post-'liberation' Iraq is a sovereign state. It really is. That is, as long as America likes your Prime Minister. That guy who's there now? The president doesn't support him - you'll have to change him. It's not that your not a sovereign state it's just, you know, uhm....

An excerpt from today's New York Times:
The ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, told the head of the main Shiite political bloc at a meeting on Saturday to pass on a "personal message from President Bush" to the interim prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, said Redha Jowad Taki, a Shiite member of Parliament who was at the meeting.

Mr. Khalilzad said Mr. Bush "doesn't want, doesn't support, doesn't accept" Mr. Jaafari as the next prime minister, according to Mr. Taki, a senior aide to Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, the head of the Shiite bloc. It was the first "clear and direct message" from the Americans on a specific candidate for prime minister, Mr. Taki said.

5:39 PM | |

 

Condoleeza Rice

If you could ask Condoleeza Rice one question about America and international law what would it be?

Answers by 9 p.m. Dublin time please! Will let you know what question was submitted and whether it was considered or not!!

Update There are lots of questions being submitted by other people here on international law so I decided to take Simon's lead in the comments and submit this question
The United States uses Shannon airport in Ireland for re-fuelling purposes in the War on Terror. There are concerns that flights stopping in Shannon are being used in the rendition process, potentially placing Ireland in violation of international law. How would you respond to these concerns and to proposals that the Irish army or police search these planes to ensure compliance with Ireland's obligations?
I don't hold out much hope of it being asked but we shall see...

4:14 PM | |

 

Charles Taylor Arrested

I wrote here about Nigeria's plans to turn Charles Taylor over to Liberia in order for him to be brought to trial in Sierra Leone. Taylor then staged an escape attempt from Nigeria, but was (miraculously) captured by Nigerian forces and handed over anyway.

There's a lesson there for Serbia, which has finally admitted that Serbian forces have been protecting Mladic from arrest and transfer to The Hague.

Update There are some sounds that the capture resulted from Bush's threat to call off his meeting with Nigerian president today. If so, well done White House.

2:25 PM | |

Tuesday, March 28, 2006 

Scalia Hears Hamdan; We Can All Hear Supreme Court Online

Scalia didn't recuse himself from the Hamdan case in the Supreme Court this morning, despite the speculation that he might. All the indications are that he was the strongest sympathetic voice towards the administration with Alito tagging on, but the other justices apparently weren't interested. Am waiting for the transcript to come up on OYEZ or CSPAN. It's so handy to be able to hear the Supreme Court argumentation online like this. It would be great to see something similar start on courts.ie

The audio from Hamdan is best heard here

9:22 PM | |

Monday, March 27, 2006 

Please Don't Strike

That's it - the French government must relent on this labour law. I've decided. I'm flying Air France to Washington via Paris tomorrow except...it appears tomorrow is a national day of strike. I saw some hint of it over here and then herself broke the news from her neverending perusal of newspaper from home.

Looks like I'll be spending more time than anticipated in Paris then (if I ever get to leave Dublin).

Grrrrrr

Update I ended up flying to Paris last night as my flight was cancelled this morning, staying in a hotel in CDG and then catching my flight to Washington this morning. I'm currently in DC fighting the urge to sleep - got to stay up until at least 8 p.m. (DC time) to ensure that I'm fresh for Condi's appearance at the first main session of my conference tomorrow!!

2:07 PM | |

 

Truant TDs (Part II)

I wrote here about the poor attendance record in the Dail and some people felt that parliamentary business didn't suffer too much from poor attendance as a lot of work is now done in committee (see comments to that thread). Today's Irish Independent runs a story that shows that not only are TDs absent from Dail debates but they are also absent from a substantial amount of votes, including votes on legislation.


TDs who are paid an average of €115,000 a year are missing one in three Dail votes - a crucial part of their job. New figures compiled by the Irish Independent reveal TDs are taking a cavalier attitude to the law-making that governs the country.

Fianna Fail's Eoin Ryan, Liam Aylward and Jim McDaid and Independent Michael Lowry were the worst TDs for voting in the Dail last year. Voting is a fundamental part of a TD's job but all deputies on average are missing up to one third of the votes in the Dail, this newspaper's study of voting in 2005 shows.

The TD's average salary is €115,000, with average expenses of €46,000 on top of that, adding up to a financial package of over €160,000. But the Government's comfortable majority means TDs have developed a "lax attitude" to voting and are frequently "mitching" from votes on new laws and motions. The study shows that in 2005:

 12 TDs voted less than 30pc of the time;

 13 TDs voted between 30pc and 50pc;

 55 TDs voted between 50pc and 70pc

 65 TDs voted between 70pc and 90pc;

 20 TDs voted more than 90pc of the time.

The 166th TD, Ceann Comhairle Rory O'Hanlon, only votes if there is a tie.

In the first comprehensive study of its kind, this newspaper has compiled a 'roll book' of the voting records of the 166 TDs over the total of 137 votes held in 2005. The study found that even when laws are being passed, the most important of all votes, there are still large numbers of TDs missing. The high profile Disability Bill was passed last year with just 100 TDs voting on it.


It's notable that some of the worst voters are also MEPs and use their dual mandate as an excuse/explanation for not attending the votes. Eoin Ryan for example did not vote at all.

Well, I have an easy solution to the problem
  • With the exception of Ministers who get a twin for their vital travel all TDs should be docked salary for non-attendance at votes in the absence of certified urgent constituency business or illness or force majeure
  • Abolish the dual mandate by which someone can be both a TD and an MEP (presumably neither job gets done properly)

This is a hugely significant problem. We live in a parliamentary democracy and elect people to represent our interests. Sometimes those interests won't be represented through a win because of the government majority, but in those cases it can manifest itself in the value of having the national debate on an issue. However if our representatives are not in the Dail they can not have the debate.

The dual Leinster House/Brussels mandate is worrying not only from the perspective voting records in the national legislature but also because it represents the absolute monopolisation of power. One seat of power should be sufficient, particularly if our representations actually sat in it.

Make it an issue in the election - get the statistics for your current representatives and, if appropriate, ask them how they justify their salary given their low attendance.

Update In the comments it's been pointed out that as of 2007 the dual mandate between the Dail and Europe will be abolished. I was under the misapprehension that it was only the local/national dual mandate that had been abolished. Good start. Copernicus feels that this is a storm in a teacup and that time voting in the Dail isn't productive because of the whip system. He suggests we ask our representatives more hard hitting questions about the nature of voting mechanisms in the parliament. What do we reckon to that?

6:59 AM | |

 

Guantanamo Detainee to Have Effective Access to Lawyer

Evelle Younger once said "[a]n incompetent lawyer can delay a trial for months or years. A competent lawyer can delay one even longer."

In America it's the State that's being delaying cases from Guantanamo detainees, particularly by stymieing access to lawyers and intercepting communications between lawyers and their clients.

A federal judge in the US has now ordered that a lawyer be given access to their client which might act as an effective and important precedent for the eleven other detainees whose cases are being delayed as a result of such policies. [Jurist Story]

6:42 AM | |

 

Into Whose Hands Do We Commend His Spirit?

There's been a lot of speculation and consternation lately about the Rahman case, i.e. the case of an Afghan who converted to Christianity and was being prosecuted for apostasy. It appears now that Rahman will be released while the case is being reviewed - there is apparently some question of a lack of evidence or organisation in the prosecution.

I can't help but be skeptical. There had been huge pressure on the Afghan government from America not to put this man to death but the judge was being very clear that he would impose his interpretation of the Shariah punishment. How could the Afghan government get out of executing Rahman but not be seen (expressly) to cave into foreign pressure? Doesn't this sound like the perfect get out clause?

If this part of Afghanistan is anything like the border areas between Pakistan and Afghanistan (and I am reliably informed it is) I would bet some money that he'll be dead by the time a prosecutorial decision is made, and it'll be the mullahs who have him killed, not the courts.

This is pure speculation, but it's not implausible. Does anyone really think the release is on foot of a lack of evidence?

6:27 AM | |

 

It's hard out there for a pimp

RTE News report that a 62 year old man will appear before the District Court today having been charged in relation to his involvement in organised prostition. Here's the story in full


The man, who is from Dublin but has an address in Cyprus, was arrested at an apartment along the River Liffey last night.

The apartment was one of four premises searched last night by detectives from Operation Quest.

The other premises searched were in Dublin 1, Dublin 2 and Dublin 4. A number of people were interviewed at those three locations and garda investigations are continuing.

It's good to see the organisers being prosecuted here. I wish that RTE used less ambiguous words than "organised prostitution" - do they mean sexual slavery/forced prostitution or just some kind of 'enterprise'? I imagine it's the former but it would certainly be refreshing to see us start calling these kinds of situations what they are - if it's sexual slavery then call it that, stop pussy footing around it.

6:23 AM | |

Sunday, March 26, 2006 

Will Scalia Recuse Himself from Hamdan?

It looks like he should....

Now everybody is talking about it and most people appear to think that his comments (that Guantanamo detainees don't deserve full jury trials...with a reference to the fact that his son fought in Iraq) should lead him to recuse himself. One of the difficulties is that there is no set or firm set of rules about recusal but I wouldn't be surprised if he recused himself without the need for much pressure. Given the fact that Hamdan (more on the case here) is being heard on Tuesday it looks like this tape was discovered just in time.

Update The 'traditional' media were first to this by the way. The first (and very short) piece is in Newsweek. The WaPo's also got it, although it appears to acknowledge that Newsweek was first!

This really matters - The Chief Justice John Roberts has already recused himself (he heard the case that's being appealed before joining the Supreme Court bench) and if Scalia recused himself we could well see the tide start to turn in the Guantanamo situation. The Supreme Court justices have shown far too great a degree of deference to the Executive on these issues so far. If Scalia were to sit this one out it could be a hell of a lot easier for Ginsburg & Co to bring the bench around to a majority opinion that really ensured detainees had effective recourse to law.

Then again, let's not kid ourselves into thinking Scalia doesn't already know that. The decision is ultimately his - there's no higher court, he decides what he wants to do. Here's hoping he does the right thing (he's essentially decided the issue already - prejudgment is surely a barrier to objective decision-making based on merits), although Chris Borgen doesn't hold out much hope...

6:02 PM | |

 

Moussaoui Trial: Curioser and Curioser


If this trial is supposed to showcase the potential for America to bring people to justice through due process and fair procedures they're not doing a terribly good job.

The latest controversy? The subpoena for Carla Martin (who admitted to having coached prosecution witnesses) is inexplicably quashed by the presiding judge.

Associated Press reports

5:22 PM | |

 

Charles Taylor will face trial in Sierra Leone

In a hugely significant move Nigeria has agreed to turn former Liberian president Charles Taylor over to Liberia from which UN Peacekeepers will transfer him to Sierra Leone where he is wanted on indictment in the UN-supported Special Court.

You can find the news report here, a biography of Charles Taylor here, information on his role in the violence in Sierra Leone here, a copy of the indictment here and information on the Special Court here.

5:07 PM | |

Saturday, March 25, 2006 

Insomnia

I don’t know whether many of you suffer from insomnia but its occasional interferences in my sleeping patterns drive me around the twist on a fairly regular basis. I tend to get at least one night a week when I just can’t sleep, and tonight is the night. Of course it’s the worst possible night. We have a friend staying over so the futon has been rolled out in my study and she’s sound asleep there. This causes me a problem as my laptop and books are there so I can’t work and am relegated to the family PC downstairs which contains pretty much none of my materials. In addition the exciting part of the Commonwealth games (i.e. the track and field) appears to be over and BBC is filling the night with coverage of hockey and boxing, neither of which appeal to me.

So here I am catching up on some blog reading, making my first contribution to irishelection.com and catching up with some friends on either side of us in America and Pakistan. I’ve also managed to do some things I know I won’t now be able to do tomorrow including booking transport from Dulles to Washington (what’s the story with atrocious public transport from American airports?) and trying to find a car A is likely to want to buy as the hunt for the perfect 3 series continues and carzone.ie becomes our most visited site.

How do the other insomniacs out there fill their time?

5:10 AM | |

Friday, March 24, 2006 

Mick Fealty and The Guardian

A hearty 'well done' to Slugger's Mick Fealty who is blogging over at the Guardian's Comment is Free, a fantastic new blog that I really enjoy.
Comhghairdeas

2:25 PM | |

 

Interpretation Matters

From my time as an undergraduate and my time teaching Legal Systems I am perfectly aware that students are, to say the least, bored rigid by statutory interpretation, which is basically just figuring out what an Act of parliament means. There are a number of different schools of interpretation, all of which students are painfully familiarised with. However the current battle over the meaning of the Detainee Treatment Act 2005 in the States should provide a much more exciting example to take students through.

This Act includes the (by now infamous) Graham amendment. As some of you may recall this amendment was originally intended to strip all federal courts in America of the capacity to hear habeas corpus petitions from Guantanamo detainees. Habeas is the writ (or court action) used to challenge the legality of your detention by the State and is known as The Great Writ given its importance in preventing tyranny. Therefore stripping the courts of habeas jurisdiction was controversial enough, however the originally worded amendment stripped this jurisdiction both in the future and retrospectively, meaning that anyone who had already lodged an habeas claim would have it struck out as the courts had been stripped of jurisdiction.

Through the intervention of a Senator Carl Levin who managed to get the wording stripped to mean, on the face of it at least, no retrospective jurisdiction. Now, in a number of highly important cases, the meaning of this amendment has become the key issue.

In what appears to be an attempt to influence the interpretation the congressional record relating to the Act is becoming longer and longer with more Congressmen and Senators add to the record. This is essentially a tactic by both proponents and opponents of the amendment to influence the Courts' interpretive process. In some cases courts will take the legislative history of a provision into account - look at legislative debates etc... to figure out what the intention behind the provision was. If the Courts took that approach here then these Congressional records would certainly play an important role in the decision-making process. Very interesting times lie ahead with this amendment.

SCOTUSblog has an excellent analysis of this issue here.

11:02 AM | |

Thursday, March 23, 2006 

The Counterproductivity of the War on Terror

Last week I discovered this page by Mark Humphrys which included a critique of me and some of the opinions I express on this blog. Mark responded in the comments with some of the response directed to me and some to others. From the discussion a few interesting issues arose that I’m interested in talking about some more.

Essentially Mark appears to be bemused that someone who belongs to what he describes as “the globally persecuted gay minority” could be opposed to the “war on Islamism” as he describes it. Let me say categorically that I am not opposed to policies that try to minimise religious fundamentalism and release us all from what I feel is one of the most destructive forces in history. What I am opposed to on this front at least is the presentation of some kind of notion that Islam is the only religion plagued by fundamentalism. It’s quite simply not. The rise in fundamentalist evangelism in the United States is equally worrying to me and is equally dangerous for fellow members of the LGBT community, for women, for immigrants and for people of other faiths. People who blow up abortion clinics, for example, can not to my mind be said to have a moral superiority over people who blow up pizza parlours in Jerusalem. The scale of the violence is incidental to the reality of fundamentalist violence within religions. As long as the American establishment courts religious fundamentalism while at the same time denouncing it elsewhere I find the moral argument for a ‘war against Islamism’ hypocritical, worrying and unconvincing.

The second point I wanted to make is, as I said in the comments to the original post, I truly believe that most neocons are fundamentally good people. I have heard George Bush, Richard Perle and co. speak about the project of spreading liberal constitutionalism and the notion of freedom and I can’t help but believe that fundamentally they support the idea of freedom and liberty everywhere. The fact that the spread of freedom, liberty and constitutional democracy is good for America is to some extent irrelevant to me; the ideal is also good for individuals and communities and that’s what matters from my perspective. I also agree with the notion that the world’s only superpower has a responsibility both to itself and to the international community. If a country has the capacity to step in and help people to liberate themselves then I believe they should do so.

HOWEVER America does it badly. That’s the problem. America is practicing exceptionalism by saying that they will liberate people in country X but not step in to help end genocide in country Y. If you are going to undertake a project such as this then you have to do so consistently and with a clear decision making structure that is transparent and accountable, otherwise your project is both counterproductive and open to criticism of ulterior motives.

In terms of counterproductivity the argument should be clear. By practicing exceptionalism America ensures that countries who are strategically important for them can essentially continue to act as they wish towards their people with no risk of American action against them. Take for example Pakistan which is a vital ally in the ‘War Against Terror’ – America was quite prepared to lend legitimacy to the Musharaff regime which is essentially perpetual martial law despite the fact that he took control in a military coup, is completely controlled by the military, gives the Inter-Services Intelligence Agency free reign to spread terror and insecurity in the country and, in turn, allows intimate ideological relationships between the ISI and the mullahs to flourish. America however invites him to the White House, gives him a unending river of ‘aid’ money and calls him a reformer and modernist in return for the freedom to capture, detain and interrogate suspects in the Tribal Areas where Pakistani law has no jurisdiction. They develop ghost detention camps in those same areas and are happy for Pakistani officials to do the dirty work for them. How can America claim that this is a war for freedom and liberty and democracy when they behave in this manner? How can you criticize people who criticize the policy?

America needs people like me to support them – people who believe that the ideal of speaking constitutional liberalism and freeing people from the yoke of oppression are laudable aims and America’s responsibility – but they isolate us by acting in this manner. America has lost all good will in the vast majority of the human rights community.

The second way in which it is counterproductive is in the creation of blowback. When America armed resistance against the Soviets in Afghanistan they unwittingly created a band of jihadists with sophisticated training, good financing and American blessing for the creation of a theocratic state. They also unwittingly created Al Qaeda. To make such a mistake once may be denounced as irresponsible, but to now make the same mistake again is simply criminal. If this is really about American security and a fight against Al Qaeda then this is the worst tactic imaginable and it is all down to the failure to properly plan Phase IV of the war. Good idea; dreadful execution.

The third way in which it is counterproductive and worrying is in its flaunting of international law. An argument might be made that there was Security Council authorization for the war – I’m not sure I’m convinced but nevertheless there is an argument that can be made. However the main area of concern is with the flaunting of the well established laws of war, human rights law and jus cogens norms (i.e. rules that may never be excepted regardless of the situations). If America is trying to instill the Rule of Law everywhere how can it behave in a manner that suggests law is applicable to all except the most powerful – that is the very antithesis of the Rule of Law. It undermines international law. America may feel it doesn’t need international legal regulation at the moment in this area but it does need it in trade and so forth. If it consistently flaunts international law how can it expect other states to respect it in relation to them? The international community is essentially anarchic and the loose institutions and legal regulations we have are the only semblance of order within that system. They are vital. America can not insist on compliance with laws that it consistently excuses itself from.




12:47 PM | |

Friday, March 17, 2006 

Beannachtaí na Féile Pádraig!

Today we celebrate our Irishness. Some will celebrate it by speaking Irish all day. Some by playing music. Some by attending the parade in their local town or city. Some by a quiet day with their loved ones and traditional St. Patrick's dinner. Whatever way you choose to celebrate your Irishness today or, if you're not Irish, the contribution of our little island to the world I hope you enjoy it, and perhaps spare a thought to those children born in this country to whom we denied Irish citizenship and identity in the citizenship referendum. If you voted yes, ask yourself whether this feeling of pride in our Irishness is really something we should have denied to children.

If you plan to celebrate it by drinking too much well, I hope your head doesn't hurt too badly in the morning

We're celebrating by a lie in and going on holidays. Blogging resumes quietly on Wednesday.

Lá Fhéile Pádraig Sona Daoibh

10:51 AM | |

Thursday, March 16, 2006 

Mothers in the Home & the Irish Constitution

Beth over at Broccoli for Breakfast has this very thought provoking post on Article 41.2 of the Constitution to kick off discussions emanating from this and this. In response ainelivia, in the comments, asked me to put up a kind of a primer on Article 41.2 so here it is, together with some of my own opinions on it.

What does it say?

Article 41.2 provides
  1. …the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.
  2. The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

What rights does it give women?


You might think, from a reading of Article 41.1.2 that it might give mothers who work in the home some kind of constitutional right to state support, or mothers who wish to stay at home the right to some kind of financial support so that she would not be “obliged by economic necessity”: to “neglect …[her]…duties in the home”. It doesn’t – it gives women absolutely zero rights. Judge Flaherty has said that what the provision does is

[T]o require the State to endeavour to ensure that mothers with children to rear or to be cared for are given economic aid by the State. If a mother in dire economic straits were to invoke this Article it would be no answer for the State to say that it did not have to make any effort in her regard at all, though it would be open for it say that it was doing its best having regard to the State’s overall budgetary situation. (cited by Forde, Constitutional Law, p. 702).


There have been attempts to say that this provision gives women certain entitlements. In the case of L v. L, for example, a married couple were separating. The wife had worked as a wife and mother in the home for the entirety of their marriage and claimed that this work entitled her to some ownership of the house on the basis of Article 41.1. She succeeded in this claim in the High Court. The High Court decision was interesting because it was held that when a woman leaves employment in order to carry out this function that the Constitution recognises as significant then she makes an economic and emotional sacrifice. In particular she can almost never now afford to contribute financially towards the purchase of the property. As a result, it was held, the Court should ensure to her some kind of security by means of a share of ownership in the house, particularly since this work was of real financial value. This was overturned in the Supreme Court on two bases (a) precedent had confirmed that Article 41.1 gave no such rights and (b) if we were to ensure security for the woman this was a legislative function and not the role of the Courts.

It should be said that when a couple is divorcing or separating then Article 41.2 does underpin the idea, as laid down in statute, that the contribution of partners to the welfare of the family (including work in the home) should be taken into account.

What implications does it give rise to?

Beth properly points out that this gives rise to implications of particular gender roles that are detrimental to both men and women. It constructs the Irish woman as the stay at home mother who anchors her family and the Irish man as the go-to-work breadwinner with minimal role in child rearing. Taken in conjunction with the rest of the family provisions in the Constitution we get a very definite idea of ‘the Constitutional Irish man’ and ‘the Constitutional Irish woman’ – straight, Catholic, married, parents subscribing to traditional gender roles. There is nothing wrong with people who do conform to that construct of course, but there’s nothing universally good or preferable about it. The Constitution therefore perpetuates this construct or image men and women defined by gender stereotype as opposed to societal reality.

The second issue that arises here is the weakness of the guarantee suggesting that women have a natural or proper role in the home but that the State need only do something positive or financial or protect the woman who undertakes that role if it fits within the general budgetary requirements. Of course this is notwithstanding the fact that women who undertake this role do a massive service to the State. If it were not for our private willingness to care for each other the welfare burden on the State would be unbearable. Therefore those who care relief the State of a welfare burden which is never adequately reciprocated.

The third issue is the confinement of this to mothers. There is of course nothing inherently wrong with recognising the role of caring but why only parenting? Why only mothers? Why only mother who stay at home as opposed to mothers who work and care?

What’s being done?

This provision has been under some scrutiny lately, particularly during the work of the All Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution’s review of the family provisions. A number of organisations lobbied for retention of the clause as is. A number of organisations lobbied for gender neutralisation of the clause. And at least one group lobbied for the broadening of the clause to all carers and its being given effect by positive action.

The conclusion and recommendations of the Committee were that Article 41.2 should be replaced with the following (which continues to restrict the protection to parents and doesn’t seem to give any means of concretely enforcing the right (whatever it might positively mean)):


1. The State recognises that by reason of family life within the home, a parent gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.
2. The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that bothparents shall not be obliged by economic necessity to work outside the home to the neglect of their parental duties.

Earlier investigations had been undertaken by the Constitutional Review Group which reported in 1996 and recommended a gender neutral version of Article 41.2.1 and the possible removal of Article 41.2.2:

The State recognises that home and family life gives to society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved. The State shall endeavour to support persons caring for others within the home.


The difficulty is that few if any contentious recommendations or recommendations that relate to what might be called ‘values’ are actually put forward in Constitutional referenda.

What can we do?

Lobby your local TDs and Ministers and those who come looking for votes to guarantee a referendum changing or removing Article 41.2 – whichever you happen to support.

2:44 PM | |

 

Who says global warming is a myth?

It's snowing. It's the middle of March and it's snowing.
How does a white St. Patrick's day grab people?

10:37 AM | |

 

More on Women and Blogging

Update

The conversation continues apace. Claire over at gingerpixel has weighed in with a really thought provoking post about personal/internal blogging (which I think we're preferring to 'soft' blogging), Fustar has a substantive post and Beth has proposed the first thing we might talk about - the role of women as outlined in the Constitution.

I've bumped this up to the top again, but below this are new posts on the Rachel O'Reilly murder and the United Nations.

____________________________________________

I wrote here about the possibility of having some kind of women’s caucus when it comes to blogging which met with a pretty mixed but certainly heated response. The original post dealt really with two things – firstly the potential to talk about women bloggers and the perceptions of women’s blogs, and secondly the potential for blogging to become a powerful political tool for women. Unfortunately the former was concentrated on mostly – people tended to feel that the Blog O’Sphere was either “genderless” (I disagree btw) or that it was finding it’s own leveling space in terms of gender (which I’m rather more persuaded by).

The biggest thing that seemed to attract people to the conversation was the idea of women gathering together without men to discuss issues that predominantly concern women or to strategise. It wasn’t popular – which is fair enough – but what I find interesting is the rush to dismiss as exclusionary. I simply don’t agree that woman-only spaces are exclusionary; rather I believe that they are spaces that are required for women to figure out how best to improve inclusion. Anytime someone talks about women only spaces people tend to leap to make clear their disapproval for many reasons most of which I disagree with but many of which are valid. In the comments for example that girl said she couldn’t figure out why we’d exclude men from these discussions to which I responded

I just don't see it as excluding men. Why can't we change the focus and call it concentrating on women' instead. It's just a focus group - intensive discussion among women where we can talk about the issues and make some decisions from a woman-centric decision making process that we can then bring back and talk about in a broader context.


I still feel the same way about it. However the idea of the women’s caucus to talk about gender dimensions to blogging is out I think – which is fine. Can I then suggest that we think about talking about gender in the blogging workshops that that girl and Damien are setting up?

The second issue that I wanted us to talk about was how blogging might be used as a political tool by women and the women’s movement. I summed the queries up in the following questions

    • How can we further highlight women’s blogging in Ireland?
    • How might blogging be used to highlight ‘women’s issues’ in the upcoming election?
    • How can blogging be used to expose misogyny in government/institutions in a manner that is safe for individual women who may be vulnerable and involved in difficult situations?

These are by far the more important questions to my mind but the dominant response was to simply deny that there are any such things as women’s issues. Now this, I have to say, makes me really cross. “These are human’s issues” – well of course they are but if we don’t acknowledge the fact that there are gender dimensions (as well as race, sexuality, age, disability etc…) to everything. Simon (who I choose because he first articulated this viewpoint in the comments) took the example of rape and said
Rape for instance while predominatly against women (it can happen to men as well you know) is a crime against all of society. And has to be dealt as if it is against all society
First of all every crime is a crime against society but more importantly are you really suggesting that rape could even EXIST as a phenomenon without the underlying gender structures that allow it to happen? Structures that mark women as rapeable, ownable, takeable etc…? Without underlying gender assumptions that see women as capable of being possessed rape would not exist to the extent that it does. Yes rape is done against men as well and yes women rape as well but all kinds of rape have underlying gender structures to them, which become more and more complex when you get to male-victims of rape, but all of which essentially boil down to feminization in order to weaken and possess which could not exist without societal attitudes that women are weak and possessable.

I think it’s vital that we use blogs to whatever political extent that we can and, in the upcoming elections, that we highlight that there are certain issues that predominantly affect women and that we track how political parties are dealing with those issues. I make no apologies for that point of view (quelle surprise!).

Anyway the upshot of all this is
  • We have a good conversation going on about a whole range of things that affect women and the potential role of blogging in that;
  • We won’t have a caucus of the kind suggested although I think we should still think about the power of blogs to highlight marginality issues in the upcoming elections;
  • The discussion continues in the comments here about advertising, prostitution and feminism. It also continues at Sigla [Just blog…], Thinking Out Loud [Let’s Start a Conversation], Winds and Breezes [I just get on with…blogging], Paige [Going Soft to Good], Dick O’Brien [Women and Blogging]

9:45 AM | |

 

The Human Rights Council is Passed: America will Support

Having stood firmly against the proposed Human Rights Council the United States has announced that it will now support the Council in its current form and even pledge funds to support it. [For background on American objections see here and connecting links]. This followed a vote yesterday in which the proposed new Council was approved by 170 votes to 4 (voting against: USA, Israel, Palau and the Marshall Islands) [WaPo report]. I have to say first of all that Julian Ku’s statement that he’s now “not exactly sure what was the point of U.S. opposition in the first place” is a little difficult.

First of all we can take a realpolitik view of this – the USA opposed the Council on principle initially, they continue to be opposed to a number of aspects of the Council but in the end that’s what we now have to work with so it would be better to work with the Council as now formulated than to maintain opposition against it. This is important for the human rights community because like it or not we need the USA to show leadership as the only superpower and even if that leadership is sometimes flawed at least membership of and support of the main international human rights body, which will now be the Human Rights Council, may help now and in the future to restore American legitimacy in this field.

Secondly the answer to Julian’s question is really quite clear – opposition was not really based on the simple majority voting system or whatever other technicalities the United States may object to. It was based on concerns that America may be investigated – for either legitimate or illegitimate/political reasons – by the new Council and found lacking. This is absolutely evident from the fact that on one of his very few involvements in the negotiations of the Council US Ambassador John Bolton tried to ensure a permanent member system along the lines of the Security Council.

The decision to work with, and perhaps even participate in, the newly formulated Council is to be welcomed though – particularly by those of us optimistic enough to hope that American will relocate its moral legitimacy and begin to show human rights leadership again in the near future.

9:38 AM | |

 

Rachel O'Reilly Murder, the Media and the Law

Rather surprisingly there’s not a huge amount of discussion going on about the media coverage of the investigation into Rachel O’Reilly’s murder on the Irish blogs (Sarah Carey and newcomer Dan Buckley are notable exceptions), but the current situation calls into question the role of the entirety of the Irish media. For those of you reading from outside Ireland or not aware of this controversy Rachel O’Reilly was murdered a year ago and, in response, her husband did a number of media appearances (as advised by the Gardai) in order to try to get information on her murder. After some time the husband himself, Joe O’Reilly, became identified as the chief suspect and in the last few days the police have brought Joe O’Reilly and his partner in for interrogation, and the newspapers were there with their cameras ready to capture the moment. In fact photographs have appeared in newspapers of the apparent suspects going to work, having a cigarette outside work etc…

So what’s the problem? Well, there are three main issues from a legal perspective (the moral perspective is different…).

First of all there’s the question of jeopardising a fair trial. Trial by jury for serious offences is a keystone of our justice system but if it is probable that twelve jurors who would not have been prejudiced by the media coverage could not be empanelled then no fair trial can take place. It has to be said that the courts will tend to stress very heavily the capacity of jurors to take judicial direction as to what they should and should not take into account in such cases and are unlikely to take the decision that there can not be a fair trial very lightly. Famously it was decided that Charles Haughey couldn’t be tried as it wouldn’t be possible to empanel an unbiased jury, but on the other hand the criminal trial of ‘Z’ (the accused in the X Case who had been described as a rapist in the Supreme Court and the media) was allowed to go ahead as the Court held that a jury could be empanelled that would be able to disregard that which they had heard in the past and to make their decision based on the evidence admitted in court.

I think it’s fair to say that the media is running the risk of Joe O’Reilly not being tried if he were charged as a result of this media coverage. Sometimes, of course, the decision to try by media is taken purposefully by the police (and I’m not suggesting for a second that this is the case here). The kinds of situations I’m talking about are not limited to Ireland and not limited to any particular kinds of cases but sometimes the Gardai will be convinced that a particular person actually committed an offence but know that the evidence they have will not satisfy the criminal burden of proof they make choose to feed information to the press in order to ensure that the moral condemnation is brought to bear on someone even if criminal condemnation is not forthcoming.

The second problem is with a civil action for defamation by the subject of the media coverage against the newspapers in question. These kinds of actions are quite rare because they carry a huge risk for the plaintiff: if the defendant (the media outlet) can show on the balance of probabilities that they published the truth then there is no defamation. This civil burden of proof makes it much easier to satisfy the court as to the truth of the allegations than the criminal burden of ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ which must be satisfied in order to find someone guilty of an offence. The plaintiff then would very rarely achieve anything through an action of this kind and, as a result, media outlets don’t have to be hugely concerned about it.

The third problem concerns contempt of court. The media outlets concerned couldn’t be found in contempt until a charge had been brought against someone, so unless there’s a charge against either of these parties then there’s no contempt dangers. After the charge newspapers could be found in contempt under the sub judice rule: a rule that prohibits the publication of material intended to interfere with the administration of justice. Intention is a necessary element as is the requirement that this material would have a real (as opposed to de minimus) tendency to interfere with the administration of justice in the case at hand. Describing someone as a “murderer” for example could be said to breach the sub judice rule once someone has been charged with murder.

In the end of the day I think one could say that all of these areas – trial being abandoned, defamation action and a contempt action (if the coverage continues after someone is charged, if that happens at all) – could potentially arise here but that the media are playing a game of careful consideration. On the one hand they feel that the courts are more likely to allow clear directions to be given to juries about what they should disregard than they are to allow a trial to be abandoned for lack of unbiased jury, and so they feel the risk to the trial is minimal. I think they feel that they have free reign at the moment because there’s no charge so no contempt and that there is no way Joe O’Reilly will take a defamation case against them. On that front at least, I think they may be right.

The current coverage of this case leaves a distinctly bad taste in the mouth, but it’s carefully calculated risk taking on the part of the media.

9:17 AM | |

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 

You Know You Blog Too Much When

I've just looked at the clock and realised I need to leave in fifteen minutes and won't be back until after ten. And then I bit my lip wondering what would await me on the blog on my return. This is both a good and a bad thing. Good because it means that there's loads of conversation and activity going on around here, and bad because it means I may have built up some kind of dependency.

In my characteristic manner I choose not to think about it and rather to wander off and teach my classes, one of which interestingly includes a feminist deconstruction of succession law in Ireland!!

3:03 PM | |

Tuesday, March 14, 2006 

Being (Deliberately?) Misconstrued

Richard appears to have decided to misconstrue a sentence from this post from this morning and taken that as licence to remind me that conspiracy and commission of offences are two different things and finishes up with
And lawyers wonder why they people don't trust them
I am aware of the fact that he was charged with conspiracy and, unsurprisingly, am also aware of the difference between an incohate offence and a completed offence. The fact that he was charged with conspiracy and not involved with direct commission of the crime is the reason that I said I felt the death penalty was absurd. Do you even know how little it takes to constitute a conspiracy?

Update

Richard responded here. First of all he asks whether, if it’s absurd to talk about executing Moussaoui is it equally absurd to talk about executing Osama bin Laden as neither could be said to have directly commission the 9/11 attacks. I don’t think it is the same for two reasons – incitement as well as conspiracy would certainly be levied against bin Laden but in addition issues of ‘command responsibility’ could also arise (although that would cause some difficulties for the Administration in terms of having to recognise a command structure within Al Qaeda).

Secondly I believe that saying one is criminally culpable for omission to act/warn the police is dangerous, particularly if we’re attracting the death penalty to such omissions. Now let me say categorically that I do understand the particularities of this situation – we’re not talking about an ordinary omission, we’re talking about an omission that may (and it’s a miniscule possibility I think) have helped save 3,000 people – however my fear is the precedent that is created. Exceptional laws do not often remain exceptional – they have a huge propensity for leaking into “ordinary” legislation or “ordinary” scenarios particularly when you consider the open-ended nature of the “emergency” we’re currently experiencing.

The question as to whether RW knew how little constituted a conspiracy was not about testing his legal acumen but rather about what I believe to be the gross dis-proportionality of applying the death penalty to a case of conspiracy.

As for Richard’s point that this is all a losing argument as he has confessed I defer to clickhere

Towards the end of his most recent salvo, Richard comments:
“To move from the general to the specific, [Moussaoui] decided to attempt 9/11 [sic], wilfully joined the conspiracy, and was guilty of various acts committed with a view to realizing one or more of the objections [sic], namely mass murder.”

Which would prompt me to ask,“Why, oh why, then, would anyone risk scuppering the entirety of such a water-tight trial?”

I’d be inordinately interested to hear.

4:07 PM | |

 

Women Bloggers

Update I've lifted this post to the top of the Blog to keep the conversation going as I toddle off to work to teach the intricacies of Deduction of Title. In the comments the conversation ranges from whether this is gender exclusion, to whether there is any such thing as a women's issue and, courtesy of fatmammycat, whether traffiking is an "unbrealla word" used by some immigrants who voluntarily come as sex workers.

_______________________________________________________

One of the things that struck me most about the Blog Awards on Saturday was how many women were present. I’d done a little bit of an analysis of those bloggers who’d filled out the Quasi-Meme and found it to be overwhelmingly male (maybe that says more about men’s propensity for filling in surveys than it does about the number of bloggeresses?).

However there were plenty of women wandering around on Saturday night, and it was a pity that more women didn’t pick up awards (although we were marvelously represented by Thinking Out Loud and Sinead Gleeson).

This got me to thinking about women and blogging again. Despite the fact that the bloggeresses debate died a few months ago I think there are still some real questions to be answered about women and blogging, such as:

  • Why don’t more women blog?
  • Should we encourage more women to blog?
  • Is there a perception that women ‘soft’ blog?
  • Is this accurate and, if so, is that necessarily a bad thing?
  • Could blogging be empowering for younger women in particular?
  • How can we further highlight women’s blogging in Ireland?
  • How might blogging be used to highlight ‘women’s issues’ in the upcoming election?
  • How can blogging be used to expose misogyny in government/institutions in a manner that is safe for individual women who may be vulnerable and involved in difficult situations?

I’m sure there are loads and loads more questions to be considered there as well, these are just the ones that popped into my mind.

So what would other bloggeresses feel about starting some kind of informal Bloggeress Caucus/women bloggers’ caucus to talk about these issues, formulate some strategies, maybe dispute the fact that these are issues at all etc…?

If there’s interest maybe we could try to arrange a time that suits most of us and a place that has wireless so someone can simu-blog for women who can’t make it due to work/children etc…

Any thoughts?

11:59 AM | |

 

America Stands Alone in Opposing UN Human Rights Council

The controvery about the new Human Rights Council continues to rage with America still putting up fierce opposition to the new system. For those of you unfamiliar with the issues you'll find some background here and in the related links.

The main difficulty is that America continues to be opposed to the Human Rights Council which is designed to replace the Human Rights Commission in the UN. The Commission had become more or less impotent as nothing that emerged was being taken seriously mostly because some of the most egregious violators of human rigths - such as the Sudan and Libya - were quite often Commission members and managed in this way to escape the investigative gaze of the commission.

The newly proposed Council does have its problems - chief among them is the notion that one can be elected as a member with a simply majority as opposed to a two-thirds majority. This means that the precise difficulty that reduced credibility of the Commission continues to exist - prima facie there's nothing to stop human rights violators being on the Council. The more political reason for American dissatisfaction is that there is nothing to stop the Council investigating the United States. Initially the US wanted all of the veto-holding powers to have a permament place on the Council (effectively removing Taiwan, Chechnya, Guantanamo etc... from investigation) then there was a suggestion that he wanted the SC to have a veto on membership of the Council in order to ensure 'unfriendly' nations did not get a Council seat.

Everyone else has now weighed in behind the Council although most would prefer to have a two-thirds requirement (the way the negotiations went it was either this or nothing, so we settled for this). The new voting system is certainly more carefully thought out than the old system. As a joint statement from the major human rights NGOs says:

We believe that the draft resolution to establish a Human Rights Council presented by the President of the General Assembly is a sound basis to strengthen the UN's human rights machinery. World leaders pledged to do this when they met at the September 2005 World Summit. We call on all states to join the consensus that has emerged in countries from all regions of the world and to adopt the draft resolution. The proposed Human Rights Council will be better equipped than the existing Commission on Human Rights to address urgent, serious and long-running human rights situations wherever they occur. It will hold more frequent meetings throughout the year instead of only one. More competitive election procedures will encourage a membership that is more dedicated to the protection of human rights. Instead of slates being adopted by acclamation, members must be elected individually and a higher threshold of votes applies - at least 96 individual votes out of 191 members. A country’s human rights record will be taken into account by those voting and those committing gross violations of human rights can be suspended from the body. All members must fully cooperate with the Council and they will undergo a review of their human rights record through a new universal review system that will apply to all countries. This is an historic opportunity to create a better human rights protection system within the United Nations.

America stands alone as opposing it and nobody is fooled as to self-interest that motivates this decision.

Also writing about the HRC are Kevin Jon Heller [Opinio Juris], Robert McMahon [Council on Foreign Relations], Prof. Chandra Lekha Sriram [Jurist]

11:51 AM | |

 

Moussaoui & The Emerging Farce of American Justice

The trial of Zacarias Moussaoui is turning into a farce. First of all the man was in custody on September 11th and therefore not directly involved in the commission of the attacks so the whole notion of putting him to death was absurb ab initio. Now however it looks like the death penalty is definitely off the table as the Court discovered that prosecution witnesses had been coached.

You either have a case against an accused or you don't. Scenarios such as this one serve only to make a mockery of the American justice system and to cast doubt in the minds of people about the capacity of the justice system to respond to terrorist attacks in relatively non-controversial cases. How then are we to have faith in the system in more borderline cases?

The case will resume today and the Judge will then hand down her decision as to whether to call the whole trial off, have the four coached witnesses removed or simply proceed with the trial. Given her expression of utter shock and disgust at the revelations I wouldn't be surprised if the Court chose to call the whole thing off.

The New York Times report is here

11:41 AM | |

 

Inporting Cars: Saving Money but Maximising Hassle

The Irish Independent today reports that cars are much cheaper in other European countries - surely investigative journalism at its best. The paper does have a point however - if you shop around and buy your car in another EU state then you can save some money on it, even after paying the ridiculously high duties on import here in Ireland. However you're unlikely to save enough to make the hassle of going abroad, buying the car, waiting for it to be delivered in right hand drive, transporting it to Ireland, importing it, paying the dues and changing the number plates worth it.

We're in the middle of changing the car at the moment. A's initial preference was for an Audi and I of course was regaled with how much cheaper they are in France (the difference is staggering), although we settled on exploiting contacts 'down the country' to get a good deal on a different German model. We did think about importing something from France but we came to the conclusion I'm sure many people arrive it: dear Jesus, it just isn't worth the hassle....

11:31 AM | |

Monday, March 13, 2006 

In Defence of Michael McDowell....(Kind of)

There are three issues guaranteed to make people care about who wins the next General Election: tax, immigration and crime. Fianna Fail are pretty tight on the financial stuff – while our taxes are high not that many people are complaining and the economy is buoyant (for now) so the majority of voters tend to be more worried about famously high socialist taxes if Labour take power than they are about the personal economic impact of continued Fianna Fail government. All parties are vying for the label of “most subtlety xenophobic and racist” on the immigration front and unfortunately all proving quite successful at that venture. However it is the arena of law and order that is most exercising our politicians at the moment, not least because of the unfortunate incidents of the last week and the evocative character of the Minister for Justice (he’s one of those ‘you either hate him or love him’ types. I fall into the former, by the way).

Anyone who falls into the second camp would have spent most of yesterday foaming at the mouth at the Sunday Tribune coverage of his tenure as Minister for Justice. I didn’t actually leave the house and buy a copy but the online version seemed saturated with him and with his ‘failures’ relating to the Criminal Justice Bill (pretty valid criticism). This topped off a week of intense coverage for our camera-loving Minister who seems to relish the cut and thrust of intense political debate, particularly when it’s as Gaeilge or on radio chat shows. Micheal bocht is getting the proverbial kicked out of him right now but, much as I hate to say so, it’s all somewhat unfair.

Gangland criminality is growing in Ireland and with it comes all the hall marks of violence: firearms, execution-style killings and sensationalist media coverage. In addition, in true Irish style, we find someone to blame and that person, for now, is Michael McDowell. While I secretly relish reading column inches slating the man I can’t help but worry that our rush to demonise the most demonic of the Ministers carries with it hidden dangers; what happens after McDowell? (Otherwise known as ‘the end of history’?). The only response the Minister can make to the criticisms being levied at him is to “get tough” on crime (as the Taoiseach advocates) but long after this media brouhaha has passed the tough laws will still be there and, I’ll wager, gangland criminality will be more widespread than ever.


Much as those of us who have spent the better part of our adult lives with noses in the statute books would like to think so, laws do not deter crime. There are only three things that deter crime: personal morality, sufficiency of resources and opportunity, and fear of getting caught. Longer sentences and higher fines are exceptionally unlikely to work, especially as the people caught and punished are normally the lackeys as opposed to the big boys who wouldn’t deign to get their hands dirty actually commissioning crimes. Instead those people are doing what our justice system should be doing: investing in resources.

As the criminals’ technology and techniques get more sophisticated our ‘laws’ get tougher, our periods of detention without charge get longer, our Special Criminal Court gets busier and our streets get more dangerous. We have to stop responding to crime with tough words and draconian laws and longer sentences that we can’t afford to enforce and which we know don’t work anyway. Instead we need to focus on detection and, most importantly, prevention of crime. Let’s not kid ourselves – the vast majority of contemporary crime concerns drugs – drug running, drug taking, and drug selling. Therefore the key to solving our crime crisis is to solve our drugs crisis. How? Urban rejuvenation, rural rejuvenation, education, opportunity, alternatives, social responsibility, familial responsibility, jobs, hope.

As long as people remain poor and hopeless and rich and feckless drugs will continue to be the cancer that eats away at contemporary society and criminals will continue to rule our cities and, shortly, our byways as well. But no politician is ever going to propose the kind of programme we really need to eliminate this scourge – it costs too much, takes too long, carries too much risk and, worst of all, makes them look soft on crime.

Everybody knows that kind of plan would never get you elected.

11:46 AM | |

 

If you REALLY loved us Madam Editor

You'd get rid of the subscription service for the Irish Times online, run a regular 'in the blogs section' and have at least one blogger write a column every week.

While I continue to allow my head reside in what my second-class teacher affectionately called Cloud Cuckoo Land have a read of p. 7 of today's Irish Times for a good spread on the Irish Blog Awards by Jon Ihle.

Despite having a subscription through a different service I even went out and bought the paper this morning, but for those of you who didn't a certain someone has the text ;)

9:23 AM | |

Sunday, March 12, 2006 

Mary Hanafin will be Taoiseach? I think not...

Browsing the Sunday papers while the missus becomes almost uncontrollable with excitment at France beating the socks off the English over in Paris I couldn't help but be attracted by a certain headline in the Sunday Tribune - "Meet Ireland's first female Taoiseach".

Apparently Bertie could be the next Secretary General of the UN (highly unlikely btw - it's Asia's turn and skipping over that region, which includes the Middle East for these purposes, would be a catastrophic mistake on the part of the UN) but more interestingly Mary Hanafin could be the next Taoiseach. Again this is highly unlikely - many would see the role as Brian Cowen's right if Fianna Fail remain in power and Bertie decides to step down.

In fact even if Cowen got the crown there'd be many a disappointed Corkonian who believes that Michael Martin deserved the chance to lead having swallowed the bitter pill of a few difficult portfolios and lived to tell the tale.

Whether or not we believe there's a natural successor in Fianna Fail the next leadership contest will certainly be interesting and could be just what the party needs to revive young interest in what has become an old and disappointing party for many, and wouldn't it be great to see a woman there in the mix?

3:36 PM | |

Saturday, March 11, 2006 

Mark Humphrys definitely doesn't fancy me!

I just came across this page by Mark Humphrys. Here's his entry on me:


Fiona de Londras writes intelligent leftie commentary.
De Londras is a member of the globally persecuted gay minority.
Islamism is the greatest killer and torturer of gays on earth.
Yet De Londras considers "Islamophobia" and "The rise in the security paradigm" (the War on Islamism) as the greatest problem in the world today. She even suggested that the Muhammed cartoons should not be published because they violate Islamic taboos (though she does not think this should be enforced by law). Not all gays are hostile to the war on homophobic Islamism, but many are. It is a real mystery to me. Gays, like Jews and atheists like me, should be leading the fight against the evil philosophy of Islamism, which would exterminate us all if it could.

As with David Norris and Richard Dawkins, Fiona de Londras doesn't realise that the neo-cons are fighting for her.

I am both speechless and entertained. Although I have no objection to being compared with David Norris....

10:51 PM | |

 

Milosevic & the ICTY: What was the point?

Milosevic died today. Of course he'd been ill for some time, as the disruptions to his trial in the ICTY show, but he died before the case had come to an end. He will, therefore, never be named in a court of law as the master genocidier and rabid Serbian nationalist that he was. However the ICTY had Milosovic in custody for six years and the trial, for various reasons, turned out looking something like a farce.

What does his death say about international criminal justice and its efficacy? Not anything very positive anyway I'd wager. But what I'm more interested in is what this whole process has done (or failed to do) for reconciliation in the former Yugoslavia.

If transitional justice systems are supposed to create an official record of the truth, assign blame, name crimes and reconciliate peoples divided and shattered by atrocity then the ICTY has, perhaps, not been hugely successful. However those who criticise the process for allowing Milosevic to defend himself and grandstand should remember that another rationale of transitional justice systems is the re-establishment of the Rule of Law. If we don't give those accused on the international stage the same rights in a court of law as we insist individuals deserve in 'ordinary' courts then how can we re-establish a tradition of fair justice and due process?

A mixture of opinions: Roger Alford, Christopher le Mon, Reginald B. Goodridge ("The protectors of justice and accountability killed SM"), Monsters and Critics, Paul Vincent

10:25 PM | |

 

Irish Blog Awards

Despite my sickness I wandered out for the Irish Blog Awards this evening. While everyone else is revelling in the Alexander Hotel I've returned to the warmth of home, medicine and tea but it was a great night - and I'm sure it's about to become even better as the drink starts flowing in earnest.

Question I was most commonly asked: 'Is your boyfriend [Richard Waghorne] here?'

Most earth shattering moment: Seeing Broccoli for Breakfast walk in wearing the exact same coat (Expect an hilarious photo on Red Mum relatively soon)

Biggest surprise: Meeting Dermod, the handome old fecker

Least surprising moment: Twenty Major winning Best Blog

Person I really wanted to talk to but didn't get the chance: Sinead Gleeson

Superstar moment: Being interviewed by Letter to America (I blame my comments on illness...advance 'apologies' to RW)

Extensive blog coverage is available over at Geared Up Blog

Over all impression: We're bloggers, we look just like real people, and we're actually capable of not talking politics for a few hours!!!

9:33 PM | |

Friday, March 10, 2006 

Where's my Blog gone?

Oh God - what the hell happened to my blog?? My template's gone...I didn't even do anything!

OK so something funny happened but am just going to go with a default blogger template for now so at least it's intelligable and hope that a clearer and less-sick head comes tomorrow so I can change it!

So I managed to get myself back up and running on my chosen template...I choose not to even think about what happened there

11:10 AM | |

 

Support Victor Connell

Every sport carries risks and last year Victor Connell sustained a rugby injury that has left him paralysed from the neck down. He's also Gavin's cousin (Ireland's a small place!) and the Victor Connell Trust has been set up amid great publicity [Irish Independent, Website] to raise funds for his treatment. There are a few ways you can contribute

  • If you're at the Ireland v. Scotland match put as much money as you can spare into one of the collector's buckets - there'll be 250 of them there so no excuses;
  • Paypal [info here]
  • Direct contribution: Ulster Bank, Longford (a/c no 54437094, sort code 98 60 30)
  • A cheque made payable to the Victor Connell Trust Fund and sent to Tony Headon, Longford Rugby Club c/o Ulster Bank Ltd, Main St, Longford

Perhaps a little spot of change-gathering at the Irish Blog Awards would also be in order?

10:35 AM | |

 

That Irish Bloggers Meme Again

Do you remember this quasi-meme I started some time ago? Well now that I'm sick and useless I've decided to try to collate the results in some way. Through a technorati search I can see that Richard, vonzepp, Auds, Rinceoir, JoBlog, Zoomtard, JL Pagano, Eamon Brett, Paige and Colm have all done it.

A search on irishblogs.ie also gives me kevin, dunner, maca (in the comments on the link), UI and Hugh

I know that lots more people than that did it, but I can't find their posts. For example I know Fence did it but I can't find it on her blog etc... So if you did the meme but I don't have you here already pop a link in the comments please. If you know of someone who did the meme and I don't have it here then link in the comments or feel free to email from my profile.

Many thanks!

Update: The following also completed Gerry O'Sullivan, Sinead, Mark, Fence, Tuathal and CK

9:48 AM | |

 

The Lost Legitimacy of the United States

The annual exchange of human rights reports between the US and China is happening again. On Wednesday the US released its 2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices and, in response, the Human Rights Record of the US in 2005 was released by China on Thursday.

China urged the US to
look squarely at its own human rights problems, reflect what it has done in the human rights field and take concrete measures to improve its own human rights status. The U.S. government should stop provoking international confrontation on the issue of human rights, and make a fresh start to contribute more to international human rights cooperation and to the healthy development of international human rights cause.

Syria also responded angrily to US report on human rights there and criticised America for "designat[ing] itself as a defender of human rights in the world while flagrant violations of these rights are taking place in more than one region."

Anyone who says that American policies in the War on Terror are not undermining its legitimacy in the world and, as a result, undermining the global project of human rights is, qithout doubt, delusional.

See Jurist for more

9:32 AM | |

 

Fascist v. 'Faggot'

Simply incredible

The granddaughter of Italy's wartime dictator Benito Mussolini has defended being a fascist by saying it was better than being a "faggot".

Alessandra Mussolini's televised derogatory remarks came less than a month after Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi welcomed her far-right political party into his coalition before a general election in April.

Mussolini, proud of her ancestral ties to "Il Duce", had been criticised by a drag queen-turned-politician about being a fascist on Italian TV talk show Porta a Porta. "I'm proud of it," she snapped in comments due to be aired later on Thursday.

Vladimir Luxuria, who hopes to be Europe's first "transgender" MP and is running with the Communist Refoundation party, then asked if Mussolini wanted to lock up homosexuals.

"Better to be a fascist than a faggot," Mussolini said, using the highly offensive Italian word "frocio", according to Porta a Porta's press office.

It was not the first time one of Berlusconi's allies publicly insulted homosexuals. Mirko Tremaglia, an outspoken right-wing minister for Italians living abroad, said in 2004 that Europe was ruled by "culattoni".

The word derives from the Italian colloquial for bottom (culo) and refers to sodomists.

Dermod is living in Italy as far as I know - maybe he can shed some light on whether this has caused any consternation over there?

9:21 AM | |

 

Dubai Ports Deal: Tip of the Iceberg?

TIME magazine runs a story that details a contract held by Inchcape Shipping Services (ISS) - formerly a British company but now held by a Dubai government investment interest - which has a $50 million contract with the US government as an agent for Navy vessels in Southwest Asian ports. This includes Middle East ports. What type of agent? A husbandry agent, which means the party that arranges fuel, spare parts, food etc...

Presumably some people will make noise about this and holler from rooftops that it's a bad idea and jeopardises security, particularly if they're inclined to believe that the ports deal jeopardises security. I have to agree with the TIME assessment though:
Why is a Dubai shipping services company doing business with the Pentagon when handing over U.S. port operations to the emirate would supposedly compromise national security? Because it makes sense. Call it the reality of living in a globally connected business world. Your IBM laptop is now manufactured by a Chinese company that may outsource customer support to an Indian firm and the logistics to FedEx. Dubai companies aren't just buying overseas assets like hotels in New York and wax museums in London; they're providing jobs and business for U.S. companies. Boeing, for one, can only hope it doesn't receive a frosty reception the next time it wants to sell airplanes to Dubai's booming airline, Emirates. Rival Airbus would be more than happy to take advantage of Washington's creeping protectionism.

To add a little something to the mix, however, ISS may also be called on to provide services for US military operations inland in partnership with KBR - the same Halliburton division that has been awarded billions of dollars in reconstruction contracts in Iraq.

The point of this story isn't to cause a further furrore in America about Dubai firms being involved in American business, it's to hammer home the idea that this is how the world works: the cheapest tender with the best track record and capabilities gets the contract. If American firms want to be able to trade on a global market then they have to accept that firms from other countries will want to be able to trade in America, and by and large they do. However excessive protectionism and what can only be described as something nearing security-hysteria on the part of the US is likely to make life harder for American companies abroad.

9:07 AM | |

 

John Roberts & The Rule of Law

In his first major address since he became Chief Justice John Roberts said that "The rule of law is a cathedral we have to build brick by brick". First of all I love the building metaphor and while some people may be unhappy with the use of the word cathedral (preferring perhaps 'temple') I'm not overly concerned with it.

The Rule of Law is the sacred foundation of law - in fact while it might be traditionally seen as a 'Western' notion it is being morphed to fit communitarian values, socialist values and even communist values and therefore spreading. This is particularly so in Asia - Randal Peerenboom has an excellent book on this btw. [Review; Buy] The use of a religious metaphor then was not inappropriate I think.

Judge Roberts then went on to say


One of the pressing needs that remains in the ongoing battle for freedom around the world since the Berlin Wall was torn down is to establish the independent legal institutions that can give effect to the rule of law in emerging democracies


In the current climate one can't help but hope that the Chief Justice intends to repair and rebuild that cathedral at home when the Supreme Court assesses the Graham amendment.

8:36 AM | |

 

Analysing Blarney

For the best analysis I've seen thus far on the implications of Judge Patrick Clyne's judgment on the Blarney Case see this post by Suzy over on Maman Poulet

People may note that Myra McGuirk - one of the women who took this case - has commented on my analysis. If you feel so inclined pop into the comments and offer her your support.

8:33 AM | |

Thursday, March 09, 2006 

BREAKING NEWS: Oireachtas can Investigate Curtin

Have just heard the Supreme Court just handed down a judgment allowing an Oireachtas Sub-Committee to investigate Brian Curtin and, if they see fit to do so, propose a resolution for him to be removed from his judicial office.

Have just got a phone call from this and now just heard it on Newstalk 106 news as well but there doesn't seem to be anything on the websites yet - the coverage should all start to flow fairly quickly.

Very importantly Brian Curtin may be required to hand the computer over to the Committee, which would allow consideration of evidence that of course couldn't be considered in Court because the search warrant was spent by the time it was exercised.

Will update as more news emerges

Update RTE News;

Pat Kenny just said that he just received a copy of the judgment. I'm looking for it on the Courts Service website which should have it pretty soon.

Update 2 Coverage of this can be found on FindLaw [AP Rep]

11:02 AM | |

 

Travel Tips?

In the next month I’ll be off to see Amsterdam and Washington – Amsterdam in a pair and Washington all alone.

I know how well-traveled and cultural the members of the Blog O’Sphere are so…does anyone have recommendations for good places to eat or have a drink in either place? For the sake of placement we’ll be city centre in Amsterdam and I’m on M Street in Washington. Also – does anyone know if the Lincoln Memorial on your own at night is safe? I love the notion of the romance of it!!

10:27 AM | |

 

Tough on Crime or Pandering to the Electorate?

For a change Minister McDowell is right – we shouldn’t rewrite policy in light of one incident, in fact it’s policies of politicking with policies that lead to fragmented, disorganized systems in the first place. Of course I’m referring to all the talk about ‘tougher sentences’ in light of the murder of Donna Carey. First the Taoiseach spoke about how he;d like to see life mean life; then we saw Enda Kenny speak about how the Minister would be remembered for presiding over 500,000 headline crimes.

Insisting that life means life and that justice systems are all about punishment and punishment alone is, in a word, silly. If you want a system of life means life then you need gradiated homicide analogous to that we have in the United States. If you want a justice system that’s just about punishment let’s just take people outside into a town square and let them suffer a hiding – at the hands of the mob if you want. We want a criminal justice system that’s about justice: giving to each that which is their due. The sentences must be tailored to the individual and to the needs of society. As a society we don’t need to lock all murderers up for life – we need to detain people for as long as necessary to ensure that they are punished, that they have time to reflect and recognise their actions, that they show remorse, that they have the opportunity to engage in systems of rehabilitation and that they are ready to reassume a productive role in society.

Sure it doesn’t always work – show me a system that does? Sometimes it doesn’t work because of lack of resources; sometimes it doesn’t work because of addictions; sometimes it doesn’t work because of poverty and lack of opportunity and yes, sometimes it doesn’t work because of badness. But should we give up on an entire system because ‘sometimes’ it doesn’t work?

This whole thing appears to me to have very little to do with justice and a lot to do with an impending general election and the knowledge that there are plenty in the electorate who believe that being ‘tough on crime’ means longer sentences, regardless of the fact that prison doesn’t really work.

8:48 AM | |

Wednesday, March 08, 2006 

Blarney: It Ain't Amsterdam(!)

Yesterday saw the first conviction under s. 19 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003. People may recall that this provision, which was very heavily lobbied for by publicans, brought discrimination issues in bars before the District Courts as opposed to the Equality Tribunal.

The case concerned two women - Eileen Twomey and Myra McGuirk - who were having a drink in Malone's Bar, Blarney, Co. Cork. When one kissed the other the bar owner told them to stop doing so and th egame of pool they were playing was disrupted. They left the premises, not wanting to have to engage in a fight, but did inform the bar owner that his actions were illegal. It appears the bar owner should have known that anyway as he is, allegedly, Michael Malone of Michael Malone & Co, Solicitors, 8A Blarney Shopping Centre, Blarney, Co. Cork. [If anyone can confirm this for sure let me know in the comments but two sources have so far informed me that he's one and the same].

The women's frustration was greater as a result of the fact that there had been some 'froliking' with a blow up doll in the bar earlier, which had not been prevented. Indeed it was the hypocrisy of these actions that appeared to play a large role in the decision of Judge Patrick Clyne to convict. He did not, however, provide compensation to the women, as was open to him under s. 19. The Court has the following options when it comes to relief:

On such an application the Court may, if satisfied that the applicant is entitled to redress, make such order as it considers appropriate in the circumstances, including one or more of the following orders:

(a) an order for compensation for the effects of the prohibited conduct to be paid to the applicant by the licensee,

(b) an order that the licensee of the licensed premises concerned take a course of action specified in the order,

(c) an order for temporary closure of the premises in accordance with section 9, which section shall have effect, with the necessary modifications, in relation to the order.

The judge is reported (Irish Times) as having said that he was "quite satisfied that the applicants were the authors of everything that happened that night" and that they should have been aware that they weren't in a gay bar in Dublin or Amsterdam. In other words he appears to have seen it as a 'technical breach' - in fact as far as I've managed to ascertain that's the exact term he used. I've been calling the Cork District Court this afternoon to try to figure out whether any order under s. 19 and it appears that the answer is that there wasn't. Neither were costs awarded to the applicants.

All in all, the symbolism is very important but the judge's attitude, which from the reports appears to be pretty 'parochial', is disappointing. Judge Patrick Clyne is not on the Cork District full-time. Rather he's one of the judges appointed as a moveable judge. These are deployed for any number of reasons and I don't know why he was deployed in this case. I have heard rumours that a number of Cork judges refused to hear the case but I don't know how true they are. If they are true I imagine the reason was more a recusal - as the defendant is a colleague - than anything sinister in any way.

As a matter of interest Judge Patrick Clyne is not renowned for his subtle approach to cases. Consider the following, which seems to be the first media report on his activities on the Bench [Munster Express]:
The arrival of a new judge in any town or city always generates a measure of interest and, last week, the Wexford newspapers gave much coverage to Judge Patrick Clyne who was, as he said himself, only two days into the job when he presided over last Wednesday’s sitting of New Ross District Court.

According to the reports, the general consensus among legal practitioners and members of the public was that Judge Clyne passed muster and, being knowledgeable and fair, should have no difficulty winning the confidence and respect of all concerned.

However, a number of his comments were of a controversial nature and, apparently, some eyebrows in the court were raised so often they practically remained in the up position!

In one case, the defence solicitor also presented himself as a character witness for his client and was told by Judge Clyne: "If he ever comes before the court again, you will be instructed to take out a hurley and beat hell out of him"

The Judge also informed another defendant who had made disparaging remarks about another person’s mother: "If that remark was made about my mother, I would have beaten the daylights out of you."

Referring to yet another defendant, Judge Clyne declared: "I can’t believe that, at 26, he would be that stupid. He should be married by now and, if he was my son, I’d take him out and give him a good hiding".

Mind you, this tough-talking, no-nonsense approach proved to be effective in some instances. One young defendant, before the court on a charge of possessing drugs, was quite shaken when Judge Clyne explained to him what drugs would do to his body. "Apart from that", said the Judge, "you’ll be in jail for the rest of your life, nobody will want to know you and you’ll end up alone".
He is also a Knight Merit with Star in the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of St George [Official Site] and involved (either now or previously) with the Order of Malta [Irish site]

2:01 PM | |

 

The Village of Kinsale (?)

Sure, everybody who visits Europe makes the obligatory visit to the Eiffel Tower and Buckingham Palace. But to experience the continent in an altogether different way, consider spending a few days in a village, far from big cities and crowded attractions.

....

In Kinsale, Ireland, Conde Nast Traveler says you'll find excellent food at the 200-year-old Vintage Restaurant and a port-view room at the Old Bank House, a B&B. Local attractions include the Charles Fort and the International Museum of Wine.

9:46 AM | |

 

Liberal Professors; Terrorist Sympathisers

According to David Horowitz [profile] "[t]here are 50,000 professors" who are "anti-American" and "identify with the terrorists". [story and video] Time for a good old purge then, eh?

Good night and good luck, anyone?

9:19 AM | |

 

Giuliani for America?

A new poll names Rudolph Giuliani as the most popular politician in America.

I guess it's time to start talking about the '08 election in earnest. The results of the poll are interesting in general, with the top politicians panning out like this

George W. Bush 44.1%
Hillary Clinton 50.4%
Bill Clinton 56.1%
Condoleezza Rice 57.1%
John McCain 59.7%
Barack Obama 59.9%
Rudolph Giuliani 63.5%

I guess what's most interesting is the fact that Bill Clinton is still so popular - I wonder whether that gives Hilary the edge over Obama in terms of the Democrat nomination? Surely some of his popularity rubs off on her in the (now inevitable?) race for the nomination and, potentially, for the White House.

9:11 AM | |

 

International Women's Day


Today is International Women's Day so I extend best wishes to all other bloggeresses in the Blog O'Sphere and further afield. IWD originated in the early 1900s as a means of celebrating ordinary women who struggled to participate in society and equalise sex and gender relations between men and women.

In 1909 the US Socialist Party announced the first National Women's Day, which was then extended internationally by the Socialist International in Copenhagen in 1910. As the concept spread men and women began to take to the streets and rally on the day demanding women's rights to vote, hold public office, work, employment equality and vocational training. Gradually the notion spread to a greater extent spurred on by events such as the death of more than 140 working women in the Triangle Fire in New York (25 Mark 1911) and the emergence of peace movements in the first World War.

Now IWD symbolises solidarity among women accross the world and is the focal point for the continued struggle for gender equality throughout the world. Take some time today to call a woman you care about, to think about gender inequality in Ireland and abroad and perhaps to go along to one of the IWD events taking place around the country.

Is Feminism Dead?

A public forum is taking place to mark International Women's Day on the topic of is Feminism Dead? The forum takes place in Wynns Hotel, Lower Abbey Street and begins at 7pm. Everybody is welcome so come along and celebrate international women's day

Speakers:- Liz Mc Manus T.D.- Rosanna Flynn-Niav Keating (BODY –youth pro choice group)- Ailbhe Smyth (Women’s Education and Research Resource Centre)- Guest Chair: Jane Horgan Jones (Education Officer UCD Students Union)

International Women's Day gig Saturday 4th March 2006The Spirit Store, DundalkShaz OYE, Zrazy, Hazel O'Connor Tickets 15euro can be booked here

Fine Gael Women's Group Event on International Womens Day 8th March 2006

Women's Health Seminar in the Oak Room Mansion House, Dublin On International Women’s Day Hosted by Lord Mayor Catherine Byrne and Organised by the Fine Gael Women’s Group Executive Registration at 2.00pm starting at 2.30pm sharp Followed by reception at 5.30 pm

Banúlacht International Women’s Day Conference 2006

A conference to celebrate women's voices and women's activism locally and globally, to link local and global issues and to inspire women working at local level in Ireland. Marino Institute of Education, Griffith Avenue, Dublin 9 Wednesday 8th March 2006

8) What now for the children?. To mark International Women's Day the School of Social Work andSocial Policy, Trinity College, Dublin, has organised the thirdpublic lecture in their Women and Violence Series: Linda Regan, Senior Research Officer, Child and Women Abuse StudiesUnit, London Metropolitan University will give a lecture: 'What now for the children? Decisions about children's contact with their fathers following parental separation in the context of domestic violence'on Thursday 9th March 6.30 to 7.30 p.m. in Ui Chadhain Theatre, Ground Floor, Arts Block, Trinity College.

Finally, if you think that there is no need for an International Women's Day then look at this article in the UK Independent which outlines the findings from a UN report published today on women around the world. The United Nations resources on Women's Day are available here

7:59 AM | |

Tuesday, March 07, 2006 

Better Than Belgium?

The OSCE has said that detainees in Guantanamo were treated better than detainees in Belgian jails. They went by Pentagon invitation issued in December and I don't yet know whether they got to speak to the prisoners in person.

11:54 AM | |

 

Milan Babic

Milan Babic, who was serving a sentence handed down by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, was found dead in his cell on Sunday. He was one of the war-time leaders of the rebel Croatian Serbs and was convicted of persecution (guilty plea). He was a key witness in the Milosovic trial and had expressed deep regret at his actions.

Roger has more over on Opinio Juris

11:50 AM | |

 

Can't Stop Them Now

The US Supreme Court yesterday handed down a unanimous decision (in which Alito did not participate) upholding the Solomon Amendment, which allows military recruitment in academic institutions. This was challenged by law schools who claimed that it violated their anti-discrimination codes in relation to LGBT students and staff.

From SCOTUSblog
A unanimous Supreme Court on Monday upheld the "Solomon Amendment" that assures military recruiters they may seek to sign up students at the nation's law schools. The Court ruled that the military must be given access even though it violates the law schools' policy against facilitating discrimination against homosexuals. Moreover, the Court declared, law schools could not exclude the military even if they also excluded all other potential employers that declined to hire gays and lesbians.

10:32 AM | |

 

Test Yourself; It's the Best Way to Learn

Via Boing Boing I came accross this piece, which outlines some research by Dr. Henry L. Roediger III on learning methods. He claims that students learn much more from repeated test-taking than from repeated 'learning'. By test-taking the piece seems to mean both formal tests in class, 'pop-quizes' (oral and written) and self-testing when studying:
"Students who self-test frequently while studying on their own may be able to learn more, in much less time, than they might by simply studying the material over and over again," he adds. "Incorporating more frequent classroom testing into a course may improve students' learning and promote retention of material long after a course has ended."

Perhaps equally important, this study demonstrates that students who rely on repeated study alone often come away with a false sense of confidence about their mastery of the material.
But why is this so? The article outlines a number of theories, first
[W]e learn more efficiently when placed in difficult situations -- think of that sinking feeling in your stomach when a pop quiz is announced.
I tend to agree with this to at least some extent. I read a great piece a few months ago that said we learn once we are at the edge and about to be pushed off. This doesn't mean that we should bully students into learning (obviously!!) but rather that when being asked a question before the class there is a natural adrenalin rush, a sense of excitement and fear and a hope (though sometimes well buried) to do well not only for the teacher's affirmation but also for your own and for the respect of your class. On the other hand I think that this kind of theory does not work well for very self-conscious or very nervous students who hate pressure, who hate being called on in class and who answer every question with eyes down and a shake of their head.

The second theory:
Others suggest that repeated testing improves long-term recall by forcing students to practice the very skills they will need to recollect this information at a later date, a memory quirk that might be called the "use-it or lose-it" effect.
I absolutely agree with this - there is no question that repeatition bring familiarity and the more familiar you are with a topic the more detailed your knowledge of it and, crucially, the more adaptable your knowledge.

So did you have lecturers or teachers who were very interactive - constantly asking questions, constantly testing the class etc...? Do you feel you learned better because of that? Were you a crammer or a steady-studier?? Tell all!

10:21 AM | |

Monday, March 06, 2006 

Daily Kos on the US/Pakistan Alliance

DailyKos has an excellent piece here outlining the current difficulties in the US/Pakistan Alliance and within Pakistan itself including the ongoing civil conflicts in Balochistan and the Waziristans. It's long but it's well worth reading not least because it's perhaps the first proper and well researched blog piece on Pakistan that I've seen in a long time.

11:45 AM | |

 

Guantanamo - What do you think?

As you may have noticed many of my recent posts have been about US operations in Guantanamo Bay where hundreds of people are detained without trial and, apart from in ten cases, without charge. The United States claims that these detainees are a risk to the US and that they all pose a threat to the country, whereas detainees and advocacy groups ask for charges to be brought and prosecutions to be carried out to prove this in each individual case. In addition there are repeated claims of torture and inhuman/degrading treatment and punishment in the prison. Human rights concerns are countered by claims that some rights need to be limited in order to fight this new enemy and protect democracy and that the laws of war are incapable of dealing with the current kind of conflict.

I want to know what other Irish bloggers think of this whole situation.

* Is Guantanamo necessary?

* Do we really need to suspend liberties and rights in order to fight terrorism?


* Is this the best and most effective way of protecting America and the concept of free societies and democracies?

Feel free to just give general thoughts on the situation as well - these are just guidance questions.

11:38 AM | |

 

US Security Dogs Taint Sacred Site

Another triumph in cultural sensitivity then.... This time Bush isn't to blame, rather the unwillingness of the security forces to find a more sensitive way of carrying out their security requirements.
NEW DELHI - Hindu priests who look after the memorial of Indian independence leader Mohandas Gandhi conducted a purification ceremony at the shrine after a visit from President Bush. But it wasn't the president who offended them, it was the sniffer-dogs who scoured the area ahead of his visit.

After the dog visit, the memorial was cleansed with water brought from the Ganges river, which Hindus consider holy, the Hindustan Times newspaper reported Sunday.

Bush visited the memorial on Thursday during his three day visit to India. The site, where pacifist icon Gandhi was cremated, is considered sacred and all visitors, including Bush and his wife Laura, removed their shoes before going in.

The dogs, flown in from the U.S., were part of the intense security surrounding the president, but the Hindu priests believe they tainted the site. Letting dogs into the memorial also drew sharp protest from Hindu politicians and Gandhi's great grandson, Tushar Gandhi, who called the incident a "national shame," the Press Trust of India news agency reported.

11:16 AM | |

 

Islam Will Rule the World

But peacefully

11:05 AM | |

Friday, March 03, 2006 

Can We Heckle the Winners??

So, the Irish Blog Awards are only a week away. I'm getting quite excited about them actually - am looking forward to a few giggles, hopefully somewhere cosy for a ciggie and heckling the winners. I have a few questions though

(a) Black tie? Smart casual? Pyjamas? What??

(b) How are we going to identify ourselves - should we all wear little badges or perhaps put a screen shot of our blogs onto a tshirt and wrap it around ourselves bravely. Can you imagine the havoc I could wreak if I decided to disguise myself as Auds (can't of course, given the photo but hypothetically) and went around whispering in everyone's ear Secretly I support abortion and I think religion is silly or Auds disguised herself as me and went around whispering All I really want is a man to love me and to find Jesus.*

(c) Who has declared that they're coming and who's going to 'watch' by means of the live blogging?

(d) Is it worth bringing the laptop? Let me qualify this by saying that I've given up drinking for a while so I'm not worried about destroying but on the other hand I can imagine all the tech-heads hanging around telling me how much junk there is slowing it down and scolding me for not running enough virus scans and advocating changing to zzzZZZZ zzzzZZZZ - if you see what I mean!!


Update Damien says he's posted on the dress code - am in a rush so will check back later but it appears to be 'whatever you fancy yourselves' but I'm afraid just does not constitute guidance!!!

* BTW before someone gives out to me this is a joke parodying both of us

11:41 AM | |

 

Books Books Books

Sinead, Richard, Pete, Kevin, Colm and Auds all posted yesterday about books in order to commemorate World Book Day. I must also admit to a chronic and compulsive book buying issue although I have found that doing a PhD is about the best excuse for buying books with gay abandon that one could possibly imagine. Like Richard I tend to read a number of books at the same time, particularly when it comes to non-fiction and I'm exploring a particular line of enquiry. However with novels I like to just read one book at a time! I don't get too much time for novels anymore however as I spend all my day reading for work, but I still get an urge to read every two or three weeks and then absolutely devour a novel.

My pile of unread, half read and 'there for reference but i'll never read in full' books grows on an almost daily basis. I also adore travel books (both for people travelling and writtenby explorers and the like) so I have a growing collection.

At the moment I'm reading (for leisure) Michael Palin, Sahara; Rajmohan Gandhi, Understanding the Muslim Mind; Lilian Faderman, Surpassing the Love of Men; and Owen Bennett Jones, Pakistan: The Eye of the Storm

My beloved keeps trying to stop me buying so many - my study is now completely overrun with books - the bookcases, closet, boxes, shelves and floor all contain books at the moment. In fact it's one of our main 'must haves' in the next house: a great big study/den (preferably an attic conversion) for all my books, her CDs and DVDs, a plasma tv and the xbox. God I can't wait to leave Ireland and move to France where all that and four bedrooms will set you back the price of a one bed hovel in Dublin 8.

Update I've just realised that there are also contributions on the theme from copernicus on his new blog, The Midnight Court; Jimmy at Desolation Row; Dossing Times; Winds and Breezes;

11:24 AM | |

 

EU behind the HRC

The EU has issued a statement supporting the draft resolution for the UN Human Rights Council, which is very good news but won't be welcomed by the US. For more background see here and here.

10:12 AM | |

 

Torture in Gitmo & A New American Hero: Judge Gladys Kessler

At the time of signing the Defense Appropriations Bill President Bush also included a signing statement, which I wrote about here, which appeared to limit (or try to limit) the McCain amendment to places other than Guantanamo Bay. The McCain amendment prohibited the use of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment by US forces, but it was accompanied by another amendment: the Graham amendment [text]. At the time of introducing the Graham amendment there was a lot of concern that this might mean that Gitmo detainees could only ever use US courts to challenge their classification as enemy combatants (as opposed to prisoners of war) but not for any other purpose. Now the US government is claiming that the federal courts have no jurisdiction over claims of torture in the camp.

This is happening in the context of the force-feeding of detainees on hunger strike and in the court of U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler. I’ve already written about the earlier stages of this case here when she ordered the release of medical records in the cases of hunger strikers in the camp. Now one of the applicants, Mohammed Bawazir, claims that the US have tortured him through the new means of force feeding detainees that I wrote about here, whereas the US claims (a) they’re not and (b) even if they were the case wouldn’t be justificiable in Kessler J.’s court because of the Graham amendment. [WaPo piece]. It’s interesting to note that this new method was introduced for twenty prisoners just days after the introduction of the Graham amendment.

This is what most people were afraid of when it came to the president’s signing statement, although it’s by no means necessarily what Lindsey Graham intended when he drafted the amendment.

Judge Kessler doesn’t seem to be buying it, although if she finds against the Governemnt it’ll undoubtedly be repealed and that will be when all the big questions about the amendment’s compatibility with the Constitution (esp. Suspension Clause) will be considered. For now I’m going to say Judge Kessler deserves to be named an American hero for how she’s conducting this (quotes from WaPo article):


Kessler said getting to the root of the allegations is an "urgent matter."

"These allegations . . . describe disgusting treatment, that if proven, is treatment that is cruel, profoundly disturbing and violative of" U.S. and foreign treaties banning torture, Kessler told the government's lawyers. She said she needs more information, but made clear she is considering banning the use of larger nasal-gastric tubes and the restraint chair.

….

Kessler noted with irritation that [prison officials] made largely general claims about the group of detainees on the hunger strike in defending the switch to the new force-feeding procedures used on Bawazir.

"I know it's a sad day when a federal judge has to ask a DOJ [Department of Justice] attorney this, but I'm asking you -- why should I believe them?" Kessler asked Justice Department attorney Terry Henry.


I really can’t understand why people still get so upset about analogies with gulags and the like….surely anyone, ANYONE, with half a brain and half an ounce of humanity can see that what is happening here is just wrong. It is a moral absolute, and there aren’t many of those around.

10:00 AM | |

 

Yemeni Prisoner Refuses Gitmo Hearing

Findlaw carries this AP story about a Yemeni prisoner (Al Bahlul) who is boycotting his Guantanamo Hearing. He claims that he can not get a fair trial in the military tribunal setting that will operate for detainees of the camp and also asserts the right to be represented by a Yemeni lawyer. He has been appointed a US military lawyer - Major Tom Fleener - who he says will be influenced in his representation by the 9.11 attacks.

Fleener has now tried to withdraw from the case twice - mostly because his client had no faith in him and refused to meet with him - but he was refused leave to do so. The tribunals require that the defendant be represented by a military lawyer who may be assisted by a civilian with a licence to practice law in the US, but not by a lawyer from the accused's home nation.

So now Al Bahlul is boycotting the tribunals and Col. Brownback, who's running them, is considering trying him in abstentia. Something makes me wonder whether the legal representation and presence of the defendant really matters - it all appears a little too like victor's justice through the illusion of a trial to me.

7:55 AM | |

Thursday, March 02, 2006 

Pitcairn Islanders Lose Appeal; Will Go to Privy Council

A very quick post before I skip off for my teaching this evening. I've just spotted news that the men of Pitcairn Island have lost their appeal against conviction for sex abuse. You may remember that this story broke perhaps a year and a half ago of a small island that is under British law where there has been endemic incest and child sex for years (?). The men will now bring their last level of appeal in domestic courts to the Privy Council arguing, essentially, the inapplicability of British law and something akin to a cultural defence. Will post more about this tomorrow when I've time, but for now Jurist has a collection of links

2:45 PM | |

 

My Own Skin....At Last

As many of you know I had changed my template to one like that currently used by Damien and Rinceor however my technical incompetence was a real barrier to using the template effectively and despite his best efforts Cian couldn't make to do the things I wanted, so I've changed to this skin and I think I will stay in it!! It's analogous to the original template I had in as much as it is clearly compartmentalised, which some people said they liked. On the other hand it is more conducive to longer postings which is what I wanted. So hopefully we've struck a good balance. (I just need to change the photo which is now HUGE).

Today I'm busy working on my book (if my co-author is reading this it is a hint!!!) so I won't be doing much posting. Reward Cian's good works though and check out his blog. Leave some bullying messages there to get him to post more while you're at it!!

11:38 AM | |

 

David Rose - Guantanamo

I've just finished reading David Rose, Guantanamo: America's War on Human Rights. I have to say it was really excellent. Of course it's written as a piece of journalism with an academic bint but I found it very interesting, particularly the interviews he did with former detainees and with various Pentagon officials. The book is short and not expensive (12 Euro from Anthology Books, for example). I'd recommend it to anyone interested in the implications of the War on Terror on the global human rights systems.

Also just finished Sarah Waters, The Night Watch - quite different to her other books but equally enjoyable I thought, so it's another recommendation for people looking for something to read.

8:49 AM | |

Wednesday, March 01, 2006 

Force-Feeding & Torture in Guantanamo

We've been following the hunger strikes in Guantanamo and the policy of force feeding detainees including the use of some substantial force. As a result of these tactics it appears only four detainees are still on hunger strike, however lawyers for Muhammed Bawazir, a Yemeni detainee, are also claiming that the means of force-feeding constitutes torture in violation of the McCain Amendment.

More on the means of forcefeeding here

10:30 AM | |

 

The Human Rights Council: Not Perfect but Getting There

The controversy about the new Human Rights Council in the United Nations continues unabated. The new Council is proposed to replace the Human Rights Commission which has already been discussed here. The US has confirmed that they will oppose the format of the new Council, mainly because the danger of human rights offenders being elected to the Council continues unabated in the absence of the requirement for a two-thirds majority vote for membership. The US is particularly annoyed at the fact that the reform proposals will be voted on the General Assembly as opposed to the Security Council (heaven forbid the one international body that comes closest to true democracy - the GA - should decide on something as opposed to the blatantly undemocratic, grossly political and obsessively self-interested SC which has never shown human rights to be top of their agenda in the absence of ulterior motivation).

Of course there are both meritorious and unmeritorious critiques of the new Council. On the one hand I recognise the dangers of replicating the positions where nations like Sudan might be on the Council thereby effectively blocking the organisation from investigating them. However I don't see how John Bolton's proposal that permanent members of the Security Council would have a permanent position on the HRC would resolve this in any way. I already spoke about this proposal here, where I said

Annan rightly identified that such a situation reduces the credibility and reputation of the commission – some of the main weapons in a human rights enforcement armoury – and proposed instead that a Human Rights Council be established with a different ‘election’ mechanism. Now what does Bolton want to do? He wants to ensure that the five permanent members of the Security Council (USA, UK, France, People’s Republic of China and Russian Federation) would have automatic and permanent membership of this Council.

Nice – the USA doesn’t want perpetrators of rights violations having power to immunize themselves from scrutiny by temporary membership of the Commission (and they’re right here) but would quite like a permanent position on the Council so that they can immunize themselves permanently from the mechanisms of the Council/Commission.

In an era where the USA is shifting the moral goalposts when it comes to acceptable standards of rights enforcement, instrumentalising human rights to justify clearly violatory actions, holding people in conditions that clearly violate both treaty law and jus cogens and generally undermining the cause of human rights by allowing the security paradigm to become dominant, their moral outrage at the question of membership is difficult to accept. In the end there are no countries that don't violate rights standards - some certainly to a greater extent than others and some with a greater impact on the global project of human rights than others - so the best way seems to be to either remove states from the Council altogether and work with independent council members (which is likely to have a detrimental impact on political effectiveness) or to give each nation an equal chance and rely on diplomacy to try to avert catastrophies (such as happened in the African Union with Sudan in recent months).

Seth Weinberger - who's a typical IR UN/rights-skeptic - says that this whole issue calls into question the legitimacy of the UN. Borrowing heavily from Thomas Franck's concepts of Legitimacy in International Law Seth discusses how even though membership will be decided through legitimate processes it will fail to (or at least run the risk of failing to) establish legitimacy by means of adhering to appropriate standards:

Is the human rights commission legitimate because it will be created through the quasi-democratic process of the General Assembly, even if it fails to uphold any meaningful standards of human rights? Or, should the new body be judged according to how well it protects and promotes the protection of human rights? Unfortunately, far too many people choose the former, even if they're not willing to admit it to themselves. The UN does not in any way represent a consensus of values or ideals; it represents the triumph of procedural process over everything. That is, what the UN does it legitimate so long as it follows its own institutional procedural rules. So, the new commission will bear the imprimatur of international law and rectitude, even as it continues to accomplish nothing and allow gross violators of human rights to sit in judgment of themselves and others. This is disgusting, or in the word of my friend Geoff, "Another reason the UN should be taken out and shot."

My argument is that there's no means by which we can guarantee legitimacy through standards at present so maybe Seth's right - maybe we should scrap the UN's human rights role and commit to a new institution or new process; maybe we should shift completely to regional systems of human rights standard setting and enforcement, but how then would we deal with universal issues??

I challenge anyone to find an international institution that is absolutely perfect. I equally challenge anyone to find a nation state that does not violate human rights standards. However I would wager that the vast majority of states have improved their compliance with human rights standards by means of the UN and it is through a marriage of the world's two dominant discources: security and rights: that further development can be secured. I don't, therefore, see how we can abandon the United Nations and its role in human rights development, standard-setting and enforcement despite its obvious imperfections.

3:01 AM | |

Last posts

Archives

Links

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