locus standi

Olympics and Nationalism Revisited.

2012-01-01T10:20:00.026Z

I have previously expressed my dislike of the nationalism associated with the Olympic games. This BBC article confirms my perception of how the games create national pride.

The study presented in the article also shows that the Olympic games are more important for national pride in developing countries, who probable are more insecure about themselves and their nation, than richer countries. For example 68 % of Kenyans state that the games affects their national pride "a lot", whereas only 19 % of germans state similarly, while 42 % state "not as at all".

It is beyond my understanding, why I should feel pride in Denmark, just because a Danish athlete wins a medal in some obscure sports, such as archery or synchronised swimming, and why such pride should benefit me, Denmark or the world.

Also the lack of national pride in Germany, as related at success at the Olympic games, can arguably be explained with a historical awareness of how the games can be used to boost destructive national pride.

The ridiculousness of the Olympic games affecting national pride is furthermore highlighted by the fact that hardly anyone outside a particular country will notice the achievements of that countries athletes, just as I, prior to reading the BBC article, had never heard of an Afghani athlete winning a gold medal.

Neither does, for example, a Kenyan athlete winning some long distance run create in me a more positive image of Kenya. On the contrary, if anything other than making me uninterested in long distance running, it reinforces a racist stereotype of Kenya as a nation inhabited by freakish people, a stereotype I do not consider to be true.

In short, its time to abandon the nationalism associated with the Olympics, and for the games to be seem as what they are, i.e. games.

El Classico

2011-12-11T09:46:00.008Z

The first of this seasons El-classico, i.e. the Real Madrid vs. FC Barcelona match-up, resulted yesterday in 3-1 Barcelona victory. For me, the news of the game only gave rise to a big yawn. The meeting of the two oligarchs of Spanish football, with their millions of armchair fans, is of hardly any interest to me.

Here is a list, in no particular order, of yesterdays results from the football world, which are, in my opinion, of much more interest and significance:

Reading - West Ham United 3 - 0
AFC Wimbledon - Accrington Stanley 0 - 2
Union Berlin - FSV Frankfurt 4 - 0
Maccabi Haifa - Hapoel Haifa 1 - 3
Torino - Pescara 4 - 2
Morton - Partick Thisle 1 - 2
Dundee - Queen of the South 2 - 1
FK Matalac - Partizan Belgard 0 - 3
Moreirense - Belenenses 3 -2
Rott-Weiss Erfurt - Babelsberg 2 - 3
Chacarita Juniors - Rosario Central 1-1
Yeovil - Notts County 1 - 0

To be or not to be a Dane.

2011-11-09T21:58:00.010Z

Being born a dual US and Danish citizen has several advantages. Primarily it entitles me to settle in the US, Denmark and, providing that I'm an economically active, a student or a person with sufficient means, in any other European Union country.

I have, however, for years been thinking of abandoning my Danish citizenship. First, because it creates of dualism of identity, which an insecure person such as myself finds hard to deal with. Secondly, because I'm so disillusioned by the rise of nationalism and xenophobia in Denmark, that I want to detach myself legally, and emotionally, from Denmark. Finally, because Denmark is, unlike the US, a monarchy and not a republic.

I haven't yet applied to be released from my Danish citizenship,1) for at number of reasons, including:

- Its irrational to relinquish rights to which there is attached a minimum of obligations. I need not like Denmark, or even care for its wellbeing, to enjoy the rights related the Danish citizenship.

- Relinquishing my Danish citizenship also means losing my European Union Citizenship, a citenship I highly value. EU citizenship transcend, in my opinion, nationalism, and gives me the right to travel and settle in any EU country, as well as other rights, such as protection against discrimination.

- The United States is just as plagued by nationalism and belief in its own superiority, as Denmark is. Some would argue the situation is even worse in the US, as evidenced by the neo-conservatism now dominant in US politics.

Yet in spite of these reasons, I still feel the urge to write an application for release of my Danish citizenship. The real reason for my hesitancy is probably fear. Not fear of having only one citizenship, which is after all the norm, but fear that I will regret such a decision. What a coward I am!

---------------------------
1) Section 9, of the Danish Citizennship Act (Infødsretsloven) requires an application for release of Danish citizenship, and will not, according to administrative practice, ordinarily be granted to a person residing in Denmark.

Comment on Mr. Manky's blog

2011-04-09T10:16:00.016+01:00

Today I wrote a comment on this blog by "Mr. Manky" . The comment has not been published as it must be moderated first. I have, therefore, rewritten it below:

Mr Manky, while much of your criticism of Denmark and Danish authorities is valid, your comment on Daniel Hornstrup's (DH) case contains three significant errors.

First, the Danish authorities did not annul DH's citizenship, as you cannot annul something that has never existed, or has never been granted. The only thing that was annulled was the erroneously issued passport, which is not equal to citizenship.

Secondly, the granting of an independent residence permit for DH is a mere formality. There are no requirements, other than the formality of applying prior to the age of 18, for residence permits to individuals who have previously resided as minors in Denmark, and who still fulfill the requirements for their previous permit.

Thirdly, the Danish authorities have not taken steps to deport DH. The Immigration Service merely informed DH that failure to apply for an independent residence permit, could result in a deportation order.

What should, therefore, be criticised is not the Danish authorities handling of the case after the passport error was identified, but Danish citizenship law, which does not automatically grant citizenship to children born in Denmark, as well as the points based criteria for granting permanent residency introduced by the government in 2010. It is these mischievous sets of rules, that prevents DH from acquiring permanent residency and Danish citizenship.

N.B. Non-Danish readers should be aware of the misleading translation of "kvajet sig" to "screwed themeselves", in the Google Translate version of the article in Infomration. "Kvajet sig" has somewhat same meaning as "messed up".

Søren Krarups Misforståelser (Danish)

2011-01-30T17:02:00.014Z

Below is a response, in Danish, to an article in the Danish newspaper Information, written by Søren Krarup, member of the Danish parliament for the nationalist and anti-immigration Danish Peoples Party.

Det er mange ting Søren Krarup misforstår, og i hans indlæg i Information den 28. januar 2011, er der mindst tre misforståelser.

Først, at politik, menneskeret og jura kan adskilles fuldstændigt, og en udtalelse fra Institut for Menneskerettigheder kan renses for politiske implikationer.

Dernæst misforstår Krarup Eva Ersbøls udtalelse om infødsretsloven af 1776. Det er rigtig, at grundloven bestemmer, at udlændinge alene kan opnå indfødsret ved lov, men grundloven definerer ikke "indfødsret" og "udlænding". For at finde de juridiske definitioner på disse begreber er indfødsretsloven af 1776, og efterfølgende ændringer, af højeste relevans. Det på denne baggrund, at Ersbøls udtalelse skal forstås.

Tredje misforståelse er, at Folketinget, ved at tiltræde FN's konventionen om statsløse personers rettigheder, har tilsidesat grundloven. FN konventation er, som Krarup skriver, ikke lov i Danmark, og indfødsret til udlændinge meddelelse alene af Folketinget. Dog vil det være konventionsbrud, såfremt Folketinget nægter at meddele indfødsret til børn født i Danmark af statsløse forældre. Folketinget skal derfor afgøre, ved hver eneste lov om meddelelse af indfødsret, om det fortsat ønsker, at Danmark skal leve op til sine internationale forpligtelser.

For at hjælpe Krarup af med sine misforståelser, samt sikre at Danmark ikke bryder den konvention som den har underskrevet, ville det derfor være passende, at Folketinget ændrede infødsretsloven således, at børn af statsløse forældre, erhvervede dansk indfødsret ved fødselen, ligesom børn født i Danmark af danske forældre.

Justifications for Israeli settlements

2011-01-08T08:59:00.012Z

In December 2010 a group of 26 ex-EU leaders wrote an open letter to the President of the European Council, urging sanctions for Israeli settlements. One response to this letter, a comment published on the EU Observer website by Daniel S. Mariaschin, is typical of apologists for Israel.

According to Mr. Mariaschin the letter fails to note the "context, history, or nuance needed to truly understand the situation,". The context and history includes which includes, inter alia, the Palestinian reluctance to return to the negotiating table, Israel's very real security concerns, Palestinian incitement, and the fact that a sizeable portion of the Palestinian population will not even recognise Israel's right to exist. Mr. Mariaschin also states, that the main hindrence for a Palestinian state is Palestinian obduracy,and that Israel, since 1967, repeatedly has tried to exchange the occupied territories for peace.

Even if Mr. Mariaschin assertions are accepted as true,(1) context and history does not, in my opinion, offer a defence for Israeli settlements.The creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza must be seen as the best solution to the Palestianen problem.(2) Israeli Settlements have taken over and divided a significant part of the West Bank, making a Palestinian state non-viable and a borders agreement close to impossible.(3) A state in which the internal movement of people, goods and services are impossible and where the authorities cannot exert control over a unified territory, cannot be considered a state. Context and history does not change this reality.

Israeli settlements, as well as Palestinian obduracy and violence, are hindrances to a two-state solution and defenders of Israel should accept and recognise this.

(1) Mr. Mariachin is also selective in what history and context he notes, failing, for example, to note that Israel closed its borders to approximately 700.000 Palestinian refugees in 1949 and the West Banks borders to approximately 300.000 Palestinian Refugees in 1967.
(2) The one state solution is, in my opinion, a utopian dream.
(3) Mr. Mariachins argument that the settlements make up only 5 % of the West Bank, fails to note that the settlements population is over 500.000 and that the infrastructure of the settlements cut of Palestinian movement and Palestinian control.

Police Chief Comment on Eastern Europeans.

2010-03-13T07:57:00.030Z

Last weekend, in connection with a recent murder case in Denmark, a Danish police chief in the homicide department, Ove Dahl, was quoted in the Politiken newspaper as saying (my translation):

The open borders results in us being overrun by Eastern Europeans. It's a huge problem. They commit bank robberies, burglaries, serious thief, begging, shoplifting - everything.

and

The Romanians are unscrupulous. They kill for a couple hundred kroner. It's a completely different culture.

After reading the quote, the vice president of the Radikal Liberal party, Zenia Stampe, reported the police chief for violation of section 266b of the Danish Penal code, which makes public comments degrading or insulting a particular group of persons on account of, inter alia, nationality, an offence.

The next day the police chief appologised, well kind of appologised, for his remarks and Zenia Stampe withdrew her accusation.

What happened next, is the most interesting thing in this matter: The near universal condemnation of Stampe! MP's, members of the public and the rightwing Jyllands Posten newspaper rushed to support of the police chief and disapproval of Stampe. Even the liberal Politiken devoted an editorial to the matter, criticising Stampe and calling the police chiefs remarks 'unfortunate'.

My own thoughts on this matter are somewhat contradictory.

I cannot condone Stampe, as I a disapprove of the inclusion of section 266b in the penal code. Although rarely used and requires a clear degrading statement, e.g. "All .... are vermin", for conviction, the section is an affront to freedom of speech.

I must, on the other hand, be critical of the police chiefs remarks, which in my opinion are xenophobic, even if there is an increased and large amount of crime being commited by Eastern Europeans. If quoted correctly, the police chief, by using general language such as 'being overrun by Eastern Europeans', 'The Romanians' and 'different culture', was not just directing his remarks to those committing crimes in Denmark, but to Eastern Europeans and Romanians in general.

The support for the police chiefs remarks by the politicians, newspapers and members of the public, therefore reveals a deafness to xenophobic language which exists in Denmark.

Baseball v. Cricket (continued)

2009-11-08T18:54:00.015Z

An anonymous writer recently commented on my blog post Baseball v. Cricket (22. april 2008), where I gave my own subjective views on baseball and cricket. I think the comment by 'Anonymous' has some good points, so I've posted the it below.

I agree with Anonymous arguments, except with the claim that the baseball pitchers delivery is much closer to the batter than the cricket bowlers. The cricket crease is 66 feet long, compared to 60 feet and 6 inches between the pitchers mound and home plate. The popping crease (behind which some point the bowlers foot must be behind at delivery), is 4 feet in front of the bowling crease (on which the stumps stand), making the real disance 62 feet, which is that different to the baseball dimisions. Added to that, the batter stands in front of the crease shortening the distance. Finally, both pitcher and bowler stretches towards the batter, thus shortening the distance the batter.

Like 'Anonymous', I am tired of hearing negative comments on baseball by cricket fans. I should be patient and accept that what I perceive as arrogance and snobbery, is really some sort insecurity.

Anonymous wrote:

In my experience I have found that baseball bashers from many a Commonwealth country also tend to be quite ignorant about the sport of baseball.

There are some key factors that cricket defenders seem to completely ignore:

1) Baseball pitchers consistently throw faster than cricket bowlers

2) A pitcher delivers from much closer than a bowler

3) The surface area of a cricket bat is far greater than a baseball bat, and the flat cricket bat further skews the advantage in favor of the cricket batsmen

5) The cricket pitch configuration greatly skews the contest in favor of a batsman because he can hit anywhere within 360 degrees. In baseball you have boundaries segmenting the field allowing a batsman to only direct the baseball within a 90 degree boundary.

4) So long as ANY contact is made by a cricket batsman, whether it be poor or solid contact, it is most certainly rewarded FAR MORE in cricket than in baseball. In baseball, a player who cannot consistently make solid contact cannot succeed - PERIOD. You can have poor batsmen who can only foul off pitches but never make solid contact in baseball who, if they did the same thing in cricket, may never be put out - particularly if they only need to take half swings, just make contact, and put the ball anywhere they can.

In baseball a batsmen does not just simply have to make a minimum contact - HE MUST HIT THE BALL HARD, WITH AUTHORITY AND DIRECTED ACCURATELY, AND DONE WITH CONSISTENCY AGAINST AN OPPONENT THAT THROWS HARDER, IS CLOSER, AND IS REWARDED BY GETTING THE BATSMEN TO ONLY FOUL TIP THE BALL.

I can appreciate the complexities of cricket. But you get tired of hearing all the arrogant, ignorant snobs who have never tried to even hit a baseball.

Democratic Yankees 3.

2009-10-27T18:22:00.011Z

The New York Yankees are (again) the World Series.

I have previously written about the uncanny ability of the New York Yankees to win the World Series under Democratic Presidents, and now the Yankees are again in the World Series and a Democrat is in the White House...

Although the city of Philadelphia has a special place in my heart, as I was treated very well by the Philadelphians the 2 weeks I spent at the naval base there, I will be rooting for the Yankees and not their opponents the Philladelphia Phillies. First, because I usually root for the American League champion in the World Series, and secondly, because there is just something right about Yankees as the champions of the baseball world.

When I became a baseball fan in the 1970's, the Yankees were the best, with players such as Ron Guidry, Catfish Hunter, Thurman Munson and Reggie Jackson. When I grew older and discovered the history of baseball, the Yankees grew in my apprecaition. From Babe Ruth, to Lou Gherig, to Joe DiMaggio, to Micky Mantle and onwards, this baseball club has been 'The Club' in baseball and you do not need to be Yankees fan to appreciate the institution that is the New York Yankees.

Finally, I also hope the Yankees win because it is also good to be reminded that a Democrat is president.

Obama for Peace!

2009-10-10T06:50:00.015+01:00

For what? This was my first thought, when I heard that Barack Obama had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. I couldn't seem to remember any significant effort for peace by the US president, or any ground breaking event that he had been responsible for.

I read the official announcement of the Nobel committee, and yes, I agree that seeking nuclear disarmament is radical and multilateral diplomacy is good, but awarding Obama the prize now still seemed premature.

So I asked myself "why would a Norwegian committee award Obama a prize to be handed out in Oslo?" And then it was completely clear to me. The Norwegians are envious of Denmark! Obama has already visited Copenhagen this month for the IOC conference and may (just maybe) be coming back in December for the climate conference.

Anybody witnessing the media and security frenzy of Obama's first visit to Copenhagen, will know how significant it is for a small country to receive a visit by a sitting US president. Suddenly Denmark felt what we already knew their hearts, that we were the center of the world and that all eyes were fixed on us.

Now, just to spoil our moment in the spotlight, Obama will be flying to Oslo to accept their little prize, and the Norwegians will get theirs!

Blogging Again.

2009-09-21T19:27:00.005+01:00

It's been 6 months since I last posted on this blog. Very briefly, this is what has happened in my life since April. I've...

... got a job in the Danish Immigration Service.
... moved from England to Denmark.
... bought a new car.
... put on 3 kilos.
... been without Internet access at home for 4 months.

In short, I've been kind of busy. Rebecca and I have moved to Denmark and settled in the little town of Haslev. I commute the 1 1/2 hours on the train to Copenhagen (and back) each day. This gives me a lot of time to read the newspaper (which I enjoy), but it also takes a lot of my free time and energy.

I haven't given up this blog (although I've probably lost my 2 to 3 regular readers). I plan to write at least one blog entry a week, if for no other reason, then to force myself to think about, research and write about something. No longer being a student, and work being full of pressure and deadlines, writing about law, politics or baseball or whatever have an opinion about, is essential for me.

So, whether anyone will read this or not: I'm back!

P.S. One issue I will not write about is immigration, either from a law or political perspective. Not because I don't have strong opinions about this, which I do, but it would be inappropriate of me, as a civil servant in a directorate under the Ministry for Refugee, Immigration and Integration Affairs, to write about this issue.

Anti-Terrorist Posters.

2009-04-06T10:42:00.008+01:00

Good comment here by Jeremy Kuper on the Metropolitan (London) Police's new anti-terrorist posters. Also check out these spoofs. I especially like the this one.

I wonder what were the police thinking? Do they really believe that citizens spying on each other is a good way to a better and safer society? As Kuper says:

How much more surveillance do we need? Do we really need citizens to watch people watching the CCTV?

Ther poster campaign does frigthen me a little bit, as I do have a habit of photographing surveilance cameras in the streets. How long before someone reports me to the police?

Comment on The Libety Blog.

2009-04-02T12:22:00.005+01:00

Today I wrote a comment to this article by Barry Bussey on The Liberty Blog of the North American Religious Liberty Association.

My comment, with minor corrections of spelling, is as follows:

Thank you Mr. Bussy for this interesting report. You overstate, however, in my opinion, the resolution’s potential to become part of customary international law.

Customary international law can only be established if there is: 1) widespread observance of the rule or norm in question, 2) the rule is accepted as law. The later requirement, usually refered to by international jurists as ‘opinio juris’, entails that states act in accordance to a rule because they believe themselves to be under a international legal obligation to do so.

UN General Assembly resolutions can constitute evidence of ‘opinio juris’, but is not automatically treated as such. This resolution has had significant opposition in the Human Rights Council and UN General Assembly, as you point out in your article. Even if the resolution somehow became part of international law, it will still not bind states who do not consider themselves bound by it.

The main problem with the resolution is not, therefore, its potential to become international law and accepted norm. Rather its the affect it has on on the international human rights discourse. The resolution significantly discredits the Human Rights Council and international human rights in western liberal democracies, as some of the comments on this page is evidence of, and it emboldens governments advocating a more limited understanding of freedom of expression.

On EU and Crisis.

2009-03-05T09:39:00.018Z

It shouldn't really surprise anyone that an outsider is the best to analyse a given situation. So its not really surprising that an American, Max Bergman in the Huffington Post, has written the best comment I've read on the crisis that the EU countries are facing.

Bergman's main argument is that the EU has a political deficit, which makes is ill suited to respond the present financial and economic crisis. The EU countries have taken giants steps in integrating economically, legally and socially, but the political power still rests with the national governments. In spite of the rhetoric by the Euro-sceptics (Euro-haters would be a better term), the Commission is primarily an administrative executive and does not hold the political power in the EU. Unified action depends on the national governments reaching agreement, which is hard at the best of times.

While Bergman makes a fine analysis, he is, in my opinion, too alarmist. The fundamental freedoms of the Union, i.e. the freedom of movement for goods, workers, services and capital, are too firmly established in law and practice to be broken down by the economic crisis. This doesn't mean the EU and European integration not will be severely tried by the crisis. The EU is, however, functioning just as the EU is supposed to function, by integrating Europe economically and socially while leaving political power in the national governments. This may not be the best way for Europe to face the economic crisis, but if the Union had not existed then we'd now been back to the protectionist and 'beggar thy neighbour' policies of earlier times, such as trade/movement restrictions and currency devaluations.

P.S. For a more Euro-sceptic and alarmist comment see Simon Heffer in yesterdays Daily Telegraph. Heffer's critique of the monetary union may have some legitimacy, but its hard to take him, and other conservative euro-sceptics, seriously when he calls the EU an "undemocratic, Sovietised swindle".

The Atheist/Agnostic Bus.

2009-01-16T11:43:00.009Z

It is easy to portray Christians as fanatical and intolerant, for there are always some who must play the martyr and react to provocation. For christian bus driver Ron Heather, the much hyped 'atheist bus' campaign was so much of a shock and horror that he refused to perform his contractual duties and drive a bus with an atheist advertisement. Mr. Heather is, in my opinion, letting the side down and providing evidence to those who claim that Christianity is intolerant of other beliefs and opinions.

For his part, Mr. Heather probably feels that the 'atheist bus' is just another example of religion being under attack in Britain. This is a sentiment often expressed by Christians. The 'atheist bus' campaign should, however, be seen as a reaction by atheists who feel that they are under attack from Christianity and that society is, at large, against them. The atheist bus campaign was, after all, provoked by a bus advertising the christian faith and a website promising eternal torment in hell for those who don't believe. Christians and atheists have, therefore, much in common and should realise that neither probably have the truth about the position of religion in society.

While I personally dislike the fact that public buses are privately run and plastered in advertising, atheist or not, couldn't we, as Christians, stop being constantly offended and intolerant of others expressing their beliefs and lifestyles? We are part of a fallen world and much, including many of our own actions, will not be to our liking. If we are to take offense, lets take offense at something really bad. Something the bible often speaks out against, such as hatred against our fellow human beings, ill treament of the weak in society, or the love of money.

On Piracy and Taking Responsibility.

2009-01-14T09:56:00.017Z

That piracy is an international crime with universal jurisdiction is well established in law.(1) This means that any nation has the right to criminalise piracy and prosecute offenders, no matter where the crime is committed.

There is therefore nothing in international law that prevents the nations patrolling the coast of East Africa and Somalia to capture and prosecute pirates. This includes Denmark, which has sent the pride of its navy, the HDMS Absolon, to the area.

Twice the Absolon has taken pirates captive. First, in September 2008, when it let them go,(2) and now in January 2009, where the government is trying to pass them on the Netherlands. The reason for letting the pirates go is that there isn't jurisdiction in Danish law to prosecute the pirates.(3) This problem could easily be remedied, but the majority of the Danish parliament is at present unwilling to change the law.(4)

Although international law may not be perfect in dealing with piracy,(5) the real problem is political rather than legal. If Somali pirates are taken to Denmark for trial, Denmark will probably have to house these people for life. Whether the individuals are convicted or not, Denmark will, most likely, be unable to return them to Somalia or any other country. Either the local authorities, or lack thereof, will not accept suspected pirates, or there will be a substantial risk that they will be subject to torture, or inhuman treatment, if returned to their country of origin. Denmark is commited to not extraditing individuals where there is such a risk.

Capture and prosecution of pirates is, therefore, problematic, but what kind of government runs away from its commitment to combat piracy, and is unwilling take the consequences of standing up to principle? While other countries may also be shirking their responsibility to deal with the problem,(6) the failure of the Danish government to act does not reflect well on Denmark.

------------

1) See, for example, the Princeton Principles of Universal Jurisdiction, http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/princeton.html.
2) Danmark løslader ti pirater, http://politiken.dk/indland/article571951.ece.
3) Minister opgiver at retsforfølge pirater,http://politiken.dk/incoming/article624263.ece.
4) Absalon må løslade pirater, http://avisen.dk/absalon-maa-loeslade-pirater_101989.aspx.
5) See, for example, this comment by Eugene Kontorovich, associate professor, Northwestern University School of Law, at http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2008/11/kontorovich.html.
6) The British Foreign Office has, for example, advised the British Navy not to detain pirates. See: Pirates can claim UK asylum, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3736239.ece.

Election Day.

2008-11-04T11:03:00.007Z

Today's is election day in the US and the polls are very hopeful for the Democrats.

I returned my absentee ballot several weeks ago and it won't come as a surprise for the few readers of this blog that I voted for every Democrat on the ballot. I should, therefore, be excited at the prospect of political change in America, as today may be the end of 28 years of Republican domination of Washington. While the Republicans have not had it all their way during this time, most notably between 1992 and 1994 when the Democrats controlled both the White House and Congress, conservatism has been the dominant political narrative in America since the election of Reagan in 1980.

However, a Obama presidency and Democratic control of both chambers of Congress does not necessarily mean an significant ideological change in America. Since Clinton, the centrists have dominated the Democratic party and Noam Chomsky is not far of when he described, in an interview in Der Spiegal, the US political system as "essentially a one-party system'. In spite of McCain's attempts to portray Obama as socialist, the Democrats subscribe to a free market ideology and can at best be described as a 'social-liberal' party. The expected gains for the Democrats today, as the gains in midterm elections of 2006, merely represents, therefore, a tiredness of the Republicans and not a significant shift in ideology of the American electorate.

I do, however, expect a real change on foreign policy, a democratic administration being more willing to engage with the world community through international cooperation and support for international organisations. This will be a real change from the Bush administration's disdain for the international community and hostility to international law.

I will, therefore, celebrate if Obama wins the presidency and Democratic gains in Congress and hope that there will also be a change away for the rabid conservatism that has dominated the American political discourse, towards a social liberalism that embraces concern for the weakest in society.

How I Saw The Debate.

2008-09-29T12:08:00.004+01:00

Over the weekend I read several comments on the McCain - Obama debate, and everybody seemed to disagreed on what the outcome had been. So I this morning I took time out from doing nothing and watched the debate on you tube.

Since I agree much more with Barack Obama than John McCain, its not surprising that I thought that he came across better in the debate. In my opinion Obama's arguments and answers were superior to McCain's. However, besides policies and arguments this is what I saw and heard:

- One candidate calling the other naive and slow to understand (constantly stating "Senator ... doesn't understand"), and one willing to find common ground (8 times stating that he agreed with the other candidate on a particular point), before setting out difference between himself and the other candidate.

- One candidate arguing from anecdotes about having been here and there, and one arguing from principle.

- One candidate making B-movie statements such as having looked into Putin's eyes and "seeing three letters, K, G and B", to "I'm a maverick" and references to not being "Miss congeniality" (twice), and one sounding like a university professor.

Whether McCain or Obama won the debate in terms of convincing undecided voters, I don't know. For me, however, Obama was head and shoulders above McCain.

And Now I'm Unemployed.

2008-09-24T19:08:00.022+01:00

Here is the frontpage of my Masters dissertation, which was submitted to the law school today.

I'm not completely satisfied with the dissertation. The title is a good example of how I couldn't quite get this one right. Why didn't I simply call it "Freedom of Religion in the Workplace", or "Freedom of Religion in Employment" or "Freedom to Manifest Religious Beliefs in the Workplace"?

What is done is done, however, and I'm certain that the dissertation is good enough to get a passing mark. That is, after all, what really matters. Today I am, therefore, happy and satisfied with having completed my Masters degree. Tomorrow I will be writing job applications.

Liberalism According to Romney.

2008-09-15T10:30:00.011+01:00

In an attempt not to care and to protect myself from disappointment, I've mostly stayed away from reading about or commenting on the US presidential election. I cannot, however, keep myself from commenting on Mike Romney's speech at the Republican convention, which included this statement: "Is a Supreme Court liberal or conservative that awards Guantanamo terrorists with constitution rights? Its liberal" (1)

Romney's statement is remarkable and refreshingly honest.

Its not certain which Supreme Court decisions Romney is referring to, but in two important cases the Supreme Court has held against the US government in cases brought by Guantanamo Bay detainees. In Hamdan v Rumsfeld(2), the majority of the Supreme Court held that military commissions set up to try terrorist suspects must comply with the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Then in June of this year, the majority of the Court held, in Boumediene v. Bush(3), that the right of habeas corpus review extended to detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

These cases concerned complex legal issues and there were dissenting opinions from Justice Scalia in each case.(4) However, whatever the merits of the legal arguments, to oppose in principle the extension of constitutional and human rights to terrorist suspects puts conservatives, in my opinion, in a very bad light.

Conservatism is of course an authoritarian ideology, but in US political culture conservatives have traditionally supported the right to habeas corpus review and the notion that democracy entails both political and legal constraints on the exercise of government. If Romney's statement is evidence of conservative thinking today, then conservatives have moved to a position attacking the very foundations of western democracy.

----------------
1) Full text here.
2) 548 U.S. 557 (2006). Full text here.
3) Judgement 12 June 2008. Full text here.
4) Scalia is quite an extremist in his thinking and it willing to hand over considerable power to the executive in security matters. If Romney only accepts as conservative opinions that arein line with Scalia, then conservatism is a really narrow and extremist political ideology.

Why I should have been a fireman.

2008-09-07T01:05:00.011+01:00

In 1990, shortly before i completed my studentereksamen (equivalent to A-levels), I had a conversation with my parents about my plans for the future.

In this conversation I stated that I wanted to be a fireman (a profession that doesn't even require a Studentereksamen). My parents said that while being a fireman was a good and respectable job, they were certain that I would be bored and unsatisfied in such a career. To settle for less than what was achievable and which suited my abilities was not, in their opinion, a wise decision.

I, on the other hand, argued strongly and passionately for the virtue of having low aspirations and for pursuing a career that would be a waste of the last three years of my education. In the end I was too scared to follow my heart and a few months later I was off to college in America.

For the next 18 years I've been in search of a profession that would not be selling myself short or be of low aspiration. I have in total spent 10 years in higher education and will complete my LLM at the end of this month. I am, however, no closer to being qualified for a job that would interest me than I was that evening in 1990. I still need between 1-3 years of further study to get a job in law, and I don't know how I will either finance this or muster energy for further study.

I really should have been a firemen!

Democratic Yankees 2

2008-08-27T09:37:00.009+01:00

On 08 October 2006 I wrote this blogpost on the uncanny ability of the New York Yankees to only to win the World Series under Democratic presidents.

On Monday the New York Times caught on in this article.

I am not accusing the Times of plagarising my research, as I am undoubtedly not the first to have 'discovered' this phenomenon. It is fun, however, to be two years ahead of the New York Times.

All the gold money can buy!

2008-08-21T16:06:00.019+01:00

Olympic fever is running high in Britain. 17 gold medals and counting. 'We're number three', and 'Great to be British', screams the newspaper headlines.

However, this success, if success it is, comes at a price. More precisely £265 million ($492 million dollars) in government subsidies to elite sports since 2004.(1) In total the UK government is to spend £600 million ($ 1.126 billion) on Olympic athletes in the run up to the 2012 Olympic games.(2) As one letter to the editor in today's Guardian aptly sums up: "Central planning, state funding and 15 gold medals so far. Smacks of socialism to me!"

In comparison, the US Olympic Committee (USOC) does not receive continuous government funding.(3) This does not mean that US athletes aren't well funded, the USOC has in fact a $130 million annual budget,(4) just that the US government does not subsidize the pursuit of Olympic medals. If, however, the US government were to grant US Olympic athletes an equal amount of money to that of the UK government, and taking into account the size of the US economy to the UK economy, the US would have to spend $5.6 billion until 2012.(5)

Such a policy would undoubtable ensure a lot more Olympic medals for US athletes and propel the US to the top of the unofficial medals table, but I have agree with this New York Times editorial, when it states:

If we are looking to invest in sports, we would be wiser to spend money on daily gym classes and after-school athletic programs. That would not produce a large crop of Olympians, but it would help combat the growing obesity epidemic among American youngsters and yield health benefits worth more than Olympic gold.

______________________
(1) AFP 19.08.2008, 'Olympics: Britain celebrates medals as investment pays off'.

(2) Paul Kelso, 'Minister's warning to elite after Willis gaffe', The Guardian 23.01.2008.

(3) Michael Jay Friedman, 'U.S. Funding of Olympic Athletes a Private and Community Affair' 01.09.2007 on www.america.com.

(4) see New York Times, Editorial: 'Our Idea of Gold', 17.08.2008.

(5) Based on the GDP of the US and UK in 2007, which according to the IMF were $13,843,825 billion and $2,772.570 billion respectivelly. The calculations is therefore $1,126 million * 13,843,825/2,772,570 = $5,622 million.

More on Nationalism and the Olympics.

2008-08-17T08:17:00.013+01:00

In 1996 Britain faced a national humiliation when it only managed to win 1 gold medal at the 1996 summer Olympics. Prime Minister John Major immediately pledged £100 million of lottery money for investment in sport, to ensure such humiliation would never happen again.

12 years later and its clear that at least the lottery money that has been pouring into British cycling has paid off. Britain is now the dominant force in Olympic cycling, set to win the vast majority of cycling golds this year. This is amazing since cycling is a minority sport with hardly any following in Britain, in sharp contrast to continental European countries such as Italy, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Belgium and Denmark where the sport is a national passion. Yet these countries cyclists don't stand a chance against Britain's. Britain's success in cycling is therefore, in my opinion, evidence of the willingness of nations to invests in obscure sports to win Olympic gold medals.

This point is made well be Canadian columnist Jonathan Kay in this article from 11.08.2008. Let me quote this passage from Kay's article:

Even in the West, there is always a great wringing of hands if our Olympiads fail to deliver the expected haul of medals — with newspaper editors and columnists (including purported conservatives) invariably proposing Soviet-style sports programs to rectify matters four years hence, as if it somehow were a matter of national importance that our Pommel Horse Men were screwing up their dismounts.

The Human Rights Commitee on British Libel Law.

2008-08-14T15:30:00.017+01:00

The UN Human Rights Committee has at its recent session criticised British libel law.(1) In its concluding remarks to its review of the United Kingdom, which can be downloaded here, the Committee states:

"The Committee is concerned that the State party's practical application of the law of libel has served to discourage critical media reporting on matters of serious public interest, adversely affecting the ability of scholars and journalists to publish their work, including through the phenomenon known as "libel tourism."(2)

The Committee recommends that the United Kingdom consider adopting a "public figure defence" similar to the defence formulated by the US Supreme Court in Sullivan v New York Times.(3) A public figure defence would prohibit public figures from recovering damages for libel unless the defamatory statement was made with 'actual malice' and the claimant suffered 'actual injury'.

I couldn't agree more with the Human Rights Committee, as British libel law does limit free speech.(4)

The problem with libel law is that it is actionable per se, i.e. the claimant does not need prove that a statement was false or that it caused damage, but must merely prove that was defamatory, it referred to him or her and that it was published.(5)

The defences to a libel claim are primarily these: 'justification" (truth) 'fair comment' and 'qualified privilege.' The later has been expanded by the House of Lords of in Reynolds v. Times Newspapers (6) and Jameel v. Wall Street Journal Europe, (7) giving defendants a defence when the comment in question is in the public interest. These decisions do not, in my opinion, go far enough.

The UK courts have not been able to develop the law in line with the US Supreme Court primarily because the UK does have an entrenched constitution guaranteeing free speech. Article 10 of European Convention on Human Rights does guarantee the freedom of expression, but the convention has only been enforceable in domestic British courts since 2000 and Article 10 is not formulated as strongly as the free speech clause of the US Constitutions' First Amendment.(8)

Hopefully the criticism by the Human Rights Committee will make the British government reconsider the law.

---------------
(1) The Human Rights Committee is treaty based judicial committee which periodically, and on application, considers whether state parties to International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights comply with their obligations under the covenant.

(2) See paragraph 25.

(3) 376 US 254. (1964)

(4) Professor Tony Weir makes this comment: "The claimant’s interest is in what people think of him, the defendant’s interest is in saying what he thinks, or thinks he knows. Reputation against expression, therefore. A balance has to be struck. The common law of England has struck it in quite the wrong way. " see Tony Weir, An Introduction to Tort Law 2nd ed. (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2006) p. 175

(5) See Simon Deakin, Angus Johnston and Basil Markesinis, Markesinis and Deakin‘s Tort Law 5th. ed. (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2003), 651-666.

(6) [2001] 2 A.C. 127

(7)[2006] 3 W.L.R. 642

(8) Critically, Article 10 contains the qualification that freedom of expression may be subject to such restrictions which are necessary for the "protection of the reputations or rights or others."

Its Just Not Baseball!

2008-08-13T08:40:00.010+01:00

Yesterday the Boston Red Sox beat the Texas Rangers by a score of 19-17. What an ugly game. It lasted 3 hours 58 minutes and included 37 hits, 5 home runs, 4 errors, 9 unearned runs, 2 blown saves, and a 10 run first inning by the Red Sox.

It is well established that Red Sox do not play pretty baseball, that just not their style, but this is ridiculous! I'll take second rate Olympic baseball over this any day.

P.S. note that the two Designated Hitters totaled 9 at bats, 5 hits, 7 runs, 6 rbi's, 3 walks and 3 strike outs!

On Nationalism and the Olympic Games.

2008-08-10T11:16:00.014+01:00

I really dislike the Olympic Games.

Yesterday evening I was more or less forced to watch the highlights of the first day on BBC, which consisted almost exclusively of highlights of British athletes and British victories. The host of the show even worked herself up to proclaim that "Britain Rules the Waves," when referring to the yachting events!

Throughout the show I had to remind myself that the media of other countries, including the Danish media, is just as biased and ridiculus. While Article 6 of the Olympic Charter states that the games are "competitions between athletes in individual or team events and not between countries," the reality is that all nations are completely focused the achievements of their own athletes. The real interest in the Olympic Games the Medals Table and whether China or the USA is going to come out on top, whether Britain will win more medals than France and whether the Australians can continue their role as the new East Germans of overachievement.

The Olympic Games are therefore just an overhyped and expensive exercise in nationalism, which I consider a disease that has infested the world for nearly two hundred years. Nationalism causes division and ultimately wars, it makes rational individuals loose their minds and is a tool of manipulation for politicians and demagogues.

As for the Olympics, I will do my best not to be watching or reading newspapers for the next two weeks!

ECJ Judges: Undemocratic when we don't like what they say!

2008-07-29T21:28:00.024+01:00

Anti-EU sentiment traditionally comes from the political left in Denmark. While the nationalist Danish People's Party in recent years has been criticising the EU from a right-wing position, euro-scepticism has mostly been the preserve of Socialists and Social-Democrats.

Now the mood may be changing in Denmark, after the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling on Friday in the C-127/08 Metock and Others case, on the right of residence for non-EU spouses of EU citizens living and working in other EU countries. For an overview see these articles from EU Observer, Jyllands-Posten, and DR. In the DR article Integration Minister, Birthe Rønn Hornbech, severely criticises the ECJ's judgment and calls it a 'democratic problem.' Criticising judges over decision they don't like is, of course, a favourite pastime of politicians, but the anger in the Conservative-Liberal camp over the ECJ is nonetheless interesting.

What follows is my analysis of the ECJ's judgment.

The free movement of workers is one of the fundamental doctrines of the EC Treaty and EU law. Not only is this stated in Articles 18 and 39 of the Treaty, but Directive 2004/38 (adopted by the European Parliament and Council on 29 April 2004) has purposefully strengthened the right of free movement and residence of Union citizens, a fact duly noted by the ECJ.

Directive 2004/38 states, in Article 7(1), that "All Union citizens shall have the right of residence on the territory of another Member State... if they: (a) are workers or self-employed person in the host Member State..." Article 7(2) extends this right to "family members who are not nationals of a Member States..."

As I read the ECJ's judgment, the issues before the court therefore were, 1) whether the EC legislature (the Council and Parliament) had competence to regulate the entry and residence of non-EU citizens who are family members of a Union citizen exercising his or her right to freedom of movement, and 2) whether the directive prohibited Member States from excluding the right of residence for family members in Article 7 to non-EU citizens who had not previously been lawfully resident in another Member State.

The court answered both of these questions in the affirmative. First, because Articles 18, 40, 44 and 52 of the EC Treaty clearly gives the EC legislature that competence, and secondly, because the exercise of the freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty would be seriously obstructed, if Union citizens were not allowed to lead normal family life in a host Member State (see paragraphs 61-62).

Final comments on the recent Employment Tribunal case.

2008-07-23T16:28:00.027+01:00

When Christian Registrar, Ms Ladele, two weeks ago won her employment tribunal case for discrimination and harassment, she hailed it as a victory for religious liberty, as did the conservative Christian Institute which financed her legal costs. Whether the decision is a victory for religious freedom is, of course, open to debate. Just as interesting as the question of freedom on religion in the workplace, is in my opinion he legislative basis for the decision.

While the Tribunal did refer to the right to freedom of religion in Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the case law on Article 9 does not give much support to Ms Ladele's case. Instead the tribunal's finding of discrimination and harassment was based on the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, and the tribunal only used the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights as guidance in how to balance conflicting rights.

The 2003 regulations were introduced in Britain in 2003 to ensure compliance with EU Directive 2000/78/EC. This directive obliges member states to implement legislation that prohibits discrimination in the context of employment on grounds of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.(1) Prior to the introduction of the 2003 regulations, the only available protection in English law against discrimination on the grounds of Religion was found in race discrimination legislation.(2) Legal protection in England for religion in the workplace therefore derives from EU law, a fact hardly any news media has mentioned.

Also of interest is the fact that in 2000 the Christian Institute published a pamphlet entitled 'Ditch the Directive', arguing against the implementation Directive 2000/78/EC. The pamphlet argued, inter alia, that the protection against discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation would be in conflict with protection against discrimination on grounds of religion, as well as Article 9 of the European Convention. The concerns of the Christian Institute included a suggestion that a Roman Catholic school would be acting unlawfully under the directive, if it "refused to employ non Roman Catholics, neo Nazis, atheists, communists, Seventh Day Adventists or practising homosexuals"(3)

This argumentation is, in my opinion, somewhat exaggerated, as the directive contains wide exceptions for religion.(4) It does tickle me, however, to see Adventists mentioned with neo Nazis, atheists, communists and homosexuals, in a list semingly meant to frighten British christians.

-------------
(1) Note that the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003 and 2007 also derive from Directive 2000/78/EC

(2) Lucy Vickers, Religious Freedom, Religious Discrimination and the Workplace (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2008) p.121.

(3) Robin Allen and Rachel Crasnow, Employment Law and Human Rights (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2002), p.152.

(4) Article 4(1) allows discrimination where religion is a 'genuine and determining occupational requirement', and Article 4(2) allows similar exceptions for organisations that are based on a religious ethos.

More on the Employment Tribunal.

2008-07-14T09:10:00.031+01:00

The commentaries on the Central London Employment Tribunal's decision that a Christian registrar had been discriminated against by Islington Council, has been depressing reading. Yesterday, The Observer, for example, published this editorial in which they confuse, in my opinion, the issues. I have already criticised the decision of the tribunal, because it failed to consider fully the rights of the Council as an employer, but on the evidence and arguments presented before it, the tribunal made some good points.

The tribunal only found in favour of the registrar because the Council offered no other reason for their actions than the need to protect the rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual (LGBT) community, and this community's rights were held not to have been impeded by Ms Ladale being excused from performing civil partnership ceremonies. In paragraph 87 of the judgment, the tribunal states: " We heard evidence that there was no dimution in service offered by reason of Ms Ladele not being undertaking civil partnership duties." This statement indicates that had the service offered by the Council in any way been limited by an accommodation to Ms Ladele's convictions, then the tribunal would not have upheld the her right not to be discriminated against on grounds of religion.

Also, this case was, as all cases are, decided on its specific facts. Ms Ladale had been a registrar since 1992, and until 2007 had been an office holder, and not and employee of the Council. In December 2007, when her status was changed due to the provisions of the Statistics and Registration Act 2007, the Council implemented a policy requiring Ms Ladale to perform civil partnerships ceremonies. It is likely that the tribunal would have looked differently on the Council's policy, if Ms Ladale had not been a registrar prior to 2007 and had always been an employee of the Council. This tribunal's decision should therefore not be seen as supporting a general the right of employees to refuse the performance of tasks on the basis of conscience and belief.

I wish those commenting on the case would not draw exaggerated conclusions. This case is significant, not because it involves the civil rights of the LGBT community, but because it shows that employment tribunals will not accept discrimination that is only justified in the abstract and not in fact.

Comment on Employment Tribunal Decision.

2008-07-11T12:24:00.011+01:00

The decision yesterday by an English employment tribunal that a registrar, Ms. Ladelle, had been been subject to direct and indirct discrimination and harassment on grounds of religion has, predictably, lead to much commentary. Some hail the decision and others fiercely criticise it. An example of the latter can be found today on The Guardians 'Comment-Is-Free' section, where the president of the president of the National Secular Society has contributed this commentary on the case. Sanderson, as well as the tribunal, confuses, in my opinion, the competing rights in this case.

In its decision,(1) the tribunal stated, inter alia: "This is a case where there is a direct conflict between the legislative protection afforded to religion or belief and the legislative protection afforded to sexual orientation."(2) The rights in conflict were found in Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) 2003 and the European Convention on Human Rights, and the tribunal emphasized that "one set of rights cannot override the other set of rights."(3) In finding that the Islington Council had indirectly discriminated against the registrar, the tribunal held that Council "placed a greater value on the rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual community than it placed on the rights of Ms Ladele as one holding an orthodox Christian belief. "(4)

In applying 2003 Religion or Belief Regulations, the tribunal first considered whether there had been discrimination on grounds of religion and secondly, whether such discrimination was justified. The tribunal's finding of discrimination is not controversial, but its analyses of whether the actions of the council were justified is more problematic.

In considering whether the actions of the Council were proportional to a legitimate aim, the tribunal balanced the rights of Ms Ladele against the rights of the homosexual community. The Council's actions were held not to be justified because the council did not show that the rights of the homosexual community would be undermined if the council allowed Ms Ladele to be excused from performing civil partnership ceremonies. The ability of the Council to perform its statutory duties to register civil partnerships were found not to be diminished.(5)

However, the rights of the registrar should, in my opinion, not only have been balanced against the rights of the homosexual community, but also against the right of the Council as an employer to organise and direct the work of the registrars, and to do so efficiently. Also the rights of other registrars and employees should have been taken into consideration.

I therefore do not consider this decision to be particularly well reasoned and its importance should not be exaggerated. Decisions by employment tribunals do not create legal precedent and this decision does not, in my opinion, add clarity as to how the test of proportionality under the 2003 regulations should be applied.

------------------
(1) Ladele v. London Borough of Islington, Central London Employment Tribunal, case number 2203694/2007. The decision can be downloaded from the Christian Institute's website here.
(2) Ibid. paragraph 50.
(3) Ibid.
(4) Ibid. paragraph 87.
(5) Ibid.

Employment Tribunal Finds Discrimination on Grounds of Belief.

2008-07-10T16:58:00.009+01:00

Its kind of ironic that on the day I decide to write a comment on the relationship between religious freedom and discriminination of other groups, that an employment tribunal rules that a registrar, who refused to conduct same-sex civil partnership ceremonies, was discriminated against on grounds of religious beliefs. For more see this BBC article.

The decision is somewhat surprising, but it would be premature to comment on it before reading the judgment, which can be downloaded here, in full.

Adventist and Discrimination.

2008-07-10T12:19:00.017+01:00

I was quite disappointed when the President of the British Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventist, Don Macfarlane, last year publicly spoke out against the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007.(1) For me it was hard to understand that an Adventist would openly advocate for the right to discriminate against homosexuals in the provisions of goods or services. Macfarlane essentially argued that it was right for individuals to be prevented from buying and selling goods and services on the basis of their lifestyle.

Macfarlane's statement, and those of other Christians, left me wondering what right do Christians have to claim legal protection from discrimination, when we ourselves want to maintain the right to discriminate?

Dr. Lucy Vickers, Law Professor at Oxford Brooks University, in a article on the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, makes the following point:

"... it should not be forgotten that discrimination on religious grounds is not only something encountered by religious people, but also something practiced by them. Religious groups are often as keen to retain the right to discriminate against others as they are to protect themselves from discrimination by others."(2)

It is because of this desire, or need, to discriminate, that both the 2003 and 2007 regulations contain exceptions allowing certain forms of discrimination by religious or other groups. (See regulation 7 of the 2003 Regulations and regulation 14 of the 2007 Regulations.)

Adventist have for a long time argued for the legal protection of religious freedom, as evidence by the North American Religious Liberty Association (NARLA) and the International Religious Liberty Association. NARLA has, for example, advocated for the passing of the Workplace Religious Freedom Act. That is why I found Macfarlane's argumentation disappointing. Except for the reasonable exceptions when a particular religion or status is "a genuine and determining occupational requirement,"(3) surely religious freedom is best promoted by non-discrimination, in employment and in the provision of goods and services, of all groups and of all manifestations of belief or lifestyle. Adventist opposition to the 2007 regulations was therefore, in my opinion, misguided and counterproductive.

--------------------
(1) Macfarlane's letter to the Prime Minister, published in the 16 February 2007 issue of the Adventist magazine Messenger, can be downloaded here.

(2) Vickers, Lucy, 'Freedom of Religion and the Workplace: The Draft Employment Equality (Religion or Beleif) Regulations 2003,' 32 Industrial Law Journal (2003) pp.23-36, at p.26.

(3) Regulation 7(2)&(3) Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003.

Moralising Judges.

2008-07-07T18:09:00.020+01:00

In connection with my dissertation I've been studying the case of Arrowsmith v. United Kingdom (1) in the European Court of Human Rights. This case is important primarily because of the Court's finding on what constitutes 'manifestation of religion' under Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights. What struck me when reading the case was, however, the attitudes of the judges, in particularly the attitude of Lord Justice Lawton in the the UK Court of Appeal.

In this case the applicant, Arrowsmith, had been convicted under sections 1 and 2 of the Disaffection Act of 1934, for encouraging British soldiers, required to serve in Northern Ireland, to desert or refuse service. The applicant had distributed a leaflet to soldiers with information of the options and consequences of going AWOL or getting discharged from the military. The applicant was sentences to 18 month's imprisonment. On a appeal to Court of Appeal, Lawton LJ made this remarkable statement concerning the leaflet in question:

This leaflet is the clearest incitement to mutiny and to desertion. As such, it is a most mischievous document. It is not only mischievous but it is wicked. This court is not concerned in any way with the political background against which this leaflet was distributed. What it is concerned with is the likely effects on young soldiers aged 18, 19 or 20, some of whom may be immature emotionally and of limited political understanding. It is particularly concerned about young soldiers who either come from Ireland or who have family connections with Ireland: there are probably a large number of them in the British Army. These young soldiers are encouraged to desert on learning of a posting to Northern Ireland and to mutiny. If they mutiny, they are liable to be sentenced by court martial to a very long term of imprisonment, and if they desert, they must expect to get a sentence of at least 12 months' detention. For mature women like this defendant to go round military establishments distributing leaflets of this kind amounts to a bad case of seducing soldiers from both their duty and allegiance.(2)

When Lawton LJ states that soldiers aged 18-20 may be "immature emotionally" or of "limited political understanding", he is basically saying that persons aged 18-20 may be incapable of making mature decisions concerning their futures and incapable of making decisions based on conscience. That is why the Arrowsmith's leaflet is not only "mischievous" but also "wicked".

Lawton LJ may very well believe that it is wicked to "seduce" soldiers from their "duty and allegiance", but to argue that the wickedness derives from the immaturity of the soldiers really is a remarkable. If Arrowsmith's leaflet is wicked on this basis, what then can be said of the British government, who, according to Lawton LJ, recruits into the military individuals that are emotionally immature and incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions, and asking of them that they fight wars and put themselves in harms way?

(1) Application No. 7050/1975, 16 May 1976.
(2) R v Arrowsmith [1975] Q.B. 678, per Lawton LJ at 684.

What The Poster Say...

2008-06-15T08:43:00.005+01:00

If political analysts want to understand the Irish no to the Lisbon treaty, they only need to look as far as this picture collection of posters used by the Irish 'No' campaign.

Browsing through the pictures leaves me with an impression of Ireland as a fearful and and xenophobic country. The posters reveal that the 'No' side, which was a diverse and not unified group, ran a campaign of wild exaggeration and fear of the outside world, with posters that claim the Lisbon Treaty will impose foreign rule over Ireland, to images of Jesus, the mark of the beast, nuclear war, severed bodies, crying babies, and equating the EU and UN to a satanic beast.

While the whole picture of Ireland and the Irish electorate does not emerge from these posters, the 'No' posters, and subsequent no vote, does illustrate the real problem faced by the EU. The European electorates are on the whole generally pro-EU voting consistently for pro-EU parties in general elections, and simply assume the rights and freedoms established by the EU, e.g. rights to no barriers for trade in goods and services, and free movement of citizens and workers. However, when abstract concepts such as democratic reform and the principles of conferral, subsidiarity and proportionality (see Article 3b), is put to a popular vote, arguments based on nationalism and fear will always trump arguments in favour of European Integration.

The Irish Vote.

2008-06-13T13:25:00.023+01:00

So it looks like the Irish voted no to the Lisbon Treaty. What the political ramifications of this vote will be I don't know and I don't care to speculate about it.

The Lisbon treaty, just as the proposed Constitution, is primarily a cosmetic change of the EU constitution as it presently stands. The treaty merges the three EU pillars, i.e. the European Community, the Police & Judicial Cooperation and the Common Foreign & Security Policy, into a single pillar European Union. The merging of pillars does mean that more decisions in the Council will be taken by majority voting rather than by unanimous agreement, including decisions related to police and judicial cooperation, but not foreign and defence policy.*

Although a strong supporter of European integration and the EU, I am not too bothered whether much of the Lisbon Treaty is implemented. For example, the introduction of a 'President of the European Council' and a 'High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy', is not in my opinion particular important.

What is important in the Lisbon Treaty, and which is now in jeopardy, is: 1) the introduction of 'double majority voting' in the European Council, 2) the elevation of the European Parliament by extending the co-decision procedure into new policy areas, 3) the strengthening national parliaments ability to scrutinise EU legislation, and 4) the elevation of the Charter for Fundamental Rights into a legally binding instrument.

It would be a crying same if these changes are not implemented because of the Irish no vote. The so called 'democratic deficit' of the EU is much debated and is constantly used by 'euro sceptics' as an argument against the EU. However, when the European governments actually get together and propose measure to strengthen the democratic decision making process, the proposal are then rejected in referendums as happened France and the Netherlands over the Constitution and now in Ireland over the Lisbon Treaty.

The EU constitution and decision making process is not undemocratic as it presently stands, but the EU has a democratic deficit because the Council can trump through legislation in many policy areas without the need of approval by either the European Parliament or national parliaments. To strengthen democracy in the EU, it is therefore important that the European Parliament be elevated to equal status of that the Council, be given greater powers to hold the executive (i.e. the Commision) accountable, and that the Council adopt voting procedures that reflects majorities of both the population and countries of the European Union. The Lisbon Treaty will address some of these issues, but after the Irish vote I fear that it will never come into force and that democratic reform of EU institutions will not take place.

*) For short introductions to the Lisbon Treaty see this Guardian article and this BBC aricle.

Break

2008-06-05T16:50:00.006+01:00

I've handed in my last assignment and have therefore completed the two semesters of my LLM. Its such a great relief. This last year, no, these last four years of studying, have been a real struggle.

Now I 'only' need to write my dissertation, which will be a comparative study of the approach to freedom of religion in the workplace, by the European Court of Human Rights and domestic jurisdictions.

Before I start the research in earnest, I'm off to Greece for two weeks together with my wife. Yesterday I booked a cheap flight to, and hotel in, the Greek town of Parga, where I plan to do nothing other than snorkeling and lying on the beach reading some good (non law) books!

The Adventist Vote

2008-05-24T02:15:00.029+01:00

I'd promised myself not to do any blogging until I had handed in my research paper on the International Criminal Court (due 2 June). However, after reading this editorial in the official Adventist magazine Adventist Review, my head is full of thoughts.

Roy Adams, associate editor of the Review, is using his position and editorship to encourage Adventists to vote against in a referendum to allow slot machines in the US state of Maryland. Roy Adams is far from being my hero, he is, after all, the author of this piece in the Adventist Review in 2003. Adams is nevertheless an influential figure in the Adventist church, both as associate editor of the Review but also through his authorship of several books.(1) Furthermore, according the this news story from Adventist News Network, the President of the General Conference of the Adventist church, Jan Paulsen, calls the suggestions "timely" and "appropriate."

The problem I have is not that Adams and Paulsen are speaking out against gambling, the church has made several statements concerning this issue over the years. Gambling does ruin lives and it saddens me every time I walk past the bookmaker that is located less than 100 meters from my front door. Neither do I object to Adventists, laypersons as well as ministers, advocating for or against certain political propositions, although I'm not certain I agree with Adams that gambling should be illegal.

What I object to is the church, or officials acting on behalf of the church, advocating specific political positions. The church can and should speak up on political issues concerning freedom of conscience and religion, but should not engage in, or become part of, the political discourse. Church members can and should be politically active, but not the church.

I have for a long time considered whether I should be a member of the Adventist church, now I think I should resign my membership. I maintain my belief in the core Adventist beliefs and seek the 'faith of Jesus,' but the church is becoming more like other evangelical churches that seek political influence and see themselves as moral guardians of society. I, however, cannot feel at home in a church that engages in politics.

- 24.05.2008, Update -
I've regretted writing the last paragraph since posting this entry late last night (at 03.00 AM). I'm not going to resign my membership of the Adventist church, and I shouldn't have suggested that disagreement with the church is a good reason to do so. The church is a fellowship of believers and what connects us is a belief in Jesus, not agreement over politics. I'll keep advocating that the church shouldn't engage in politics, but they are going to have to throw me out for me to leave.

(1) Including being the principle contributor to this quarter's bible studies guides.

What's in a word?

2008-05-16T12:20:00.042+01:00

When it comes to the word 'marriage', apparently a lot. The ruling yesterday by the Supreme Court of California illustrates this.

In re Marriage Cases a 4-3 majority of California's highest court struck down two laws that limited marriages in California to heterosexual unions. The interesting point is that the majority acknowledged that the "current legislation did afford same-sex domestic partnerships most of the substantive elements embodied in the constitutional right to marry." The majority concluded, however, that "the current California statutes nonetheless must be viewed as potentially impinging upon a same-sex couple’s constitutional right to marry under the California Constitution."(1)

The majority held that the constitutional right to marry entailed the right to have ones "family relationship accorded dignity and respect equal to that accorded other officially recognized families." Reserving the term 'marriage' exclusively to heterosexual couples therefore "poses at least a serious risk of denying the family relationship of same-sex couples such equal dignity and respect."(2) As the majority held that laws based on sexual orientation should be reviewed under a 'strict scrutiny' standard,(3) the legislation was subjected to this higher standard of review and struck down.

I know very little about Californian law, and I really don't have any opinion about the decision. However, the premise of the above decision, and the general controversy over same-sex marriage in the US, does puzzle me. The issue being debated is not really substantive rights, but merely the use of the word 'marriage'.

When I compare the US debate over same-sex marriage to that in Denmark, I am struck by the differences. Denmark became, in 1989, the first country to give same-sex civil unions the same legal status as heterosexual marriage. Yet the question of recognising same-sex unions as marriages is not debated at all in Denmark. The reason for this lack of debate could derive from the linguistic differences between Danish and English. While the Danish word 'ægteskab' does equate to the English noun 'marriage', it does not, as in English, share the same basis as the verb 'marry', which in Danish is 'gifte'.(4) Also 'ægteskab' is normally used to describe individual marriages, not the institution of mariage per se. The lack of political controversy may therefore be related to lack of importance placed on the word 'ægteskab'. A change in the Danish law would in any case be cosmetic, as civil unions are de facto marriages.

All this makes me completely agnostic as whether homosexuals partnerships should legally be recognised as marriages. I believe same-sex couples should have the same substantive rights as heterosexual couples, and it makes no difference to me whether these unions are called marriage or not. Neither would I care if the union between my wife and myself is legally called a 'marriage','domestic partnership' or 'civil union.'

(1)In re Marriage Cases, at p.9, per Chief Justice George. For complete text of the decision see: www.courtinfo.ca.gov
(2) Ibid. p.8-9.
(3) Ibid. p.10.
(4) As in 'gifte sig', 'blive gift' or 'gifte bort.' Also note that Danish has a different word for the act of marrying someone, i.e. 'vie'. Finally,'give/tage til ægte' also has the meaning of 'marry', but this is an old fashion expression similar to the English word 'espouse'

The end justifies the means!

2008-05-08T09:03:00.020+01:00

How else is one to understand British home secretary Jacqui Smith's speech today's on anti-social behaviour?

Labour, in trouble according to the opinion polls, is trying to outflank the Tories by being tough on anti-social behaviour. The government apparently wants the police to harass badly behaving youths. This is to be done by "openly filming them, knocking on their doors, following them on the estate and repeatedly searching them", in short making "their lives as uncomfortable as possible."

I find the proposals shocking. The British government essentially wants to use the power of the state to harass and intimidate teenagers. I'm also puzzled why the government wants to introduce such draconian measures at a time when crime rates continues to fall. The government claims that the methods works. But when has that been a good argument for policies that, in my opinion, are contrary to fundamental human rights? A deliberate policy of filming, harassing and intimidating surely amounts to a violation of the right to respect of private life in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

All this leads me to conclude that, in the minds of British politicians, British society has broken down. How else to explain the extreme mearues that British authorities have adopted to maintain order and reduce fear:

- Surveillance camera's on almost every street corner.
- Anti-Social Behaviour Orders that allow the authorities to punish offenders without recourse to the criminal law.
- Extensive police powers to stop, search and arrest persons under ever wider anti-terrorism legislation.
- A deliberate and systematic policy of police harassment.

How did Britain get to this point? Is social breakdown in Britain really that bad, and are there really no better ways to deal with the percieve social problems?

Baseball v. Cricket.

2008-04-22T11:09:00.013+01:00

The Indian Premier League looks set to change the cricket world and cricket purists are (justifiably) appalled. Stephen Moss' comment on the Guardians' website that the IPL is "Just not Cricket", is a good example.

Moss, as a typical cricket fan, cannot write a comment on his game without taking a dig at baseball: "The truth about Twenty20 is that it is baseball under another banner." Cricket fans love bashing baseball, and many seem to genuinely believe that their sport is objectively superior to baseball.

I like booth sports, but prefer baseball. This preference undoubtedly derives from the fact that I grew up playing and watching baseball and only learned to appreciate cricket as an adult. I feel compelled, however, by what I perceived to be the arrogance of cricket fans, to write this list of reasons why I think baseball is better than cricket. This list is of course completely subjective and many of the reasons why I prefer baseball could also constitute reasons to prefer cricket.

1) Batting is harder in Baseball!

I don't mean that batting in cricket is inferior to baseball, as batting in cricket is much more of an art form than in baseball. The cricket batsman needs to learn a wide variety of shots and defensive plays to succeed, and unlike baseball there is the added difficulty of hitting the ball after it has bounced of the ground. However, the fact of the matter is that cricket is a game dominated by batting, while baseball is dominated by pitching. There's a reason a test match last five days, and even then often ends in a draw. Five days is often not enough to get the required 40 outs. In baseball the minimum requirement of outs is 51 and games typically lasts 3 to 3 1/2 hours. The advantages a cricket batsman has, as compared to one in baseball, includes a smaller 'strike-zone', larger bats, longer distance from the bowler/pitcher, slower speed of the ball and, most importantly, the right not to leave the crease after hitting the ball. Preferring the dominance of either batting or pitching/bowling is of course a matter of taste. I simply prefer watching a good baseball pitcher than yet another cricket batsman scoring hundreds of runs.

2) The ball-strike count.

Each pitch of an at-bat in baseball changes the contest between pitcher and batter, and advances the game to its conclusion. A 3-1 pitch is a completely different proposition than an 0-2 pitch, and while 2-strike foul balls do not progress the at-bat, they are nevertheless significant. Each at-bat thus progresses to its conclusion as either a walk, strikeout or ball in play. A cricket innings does of course change as the innings progresses, but with the exception of wides and no-balls, each ball does not 'count' unless a run or out is recorded.

3) Base running.

Running in cricket simply consists of running back and forth. In baseball the skill of running the bases, the excitement when a batter stretches a single into a double, steals a base or hits a triple, or when a runner scores from first on a double, is an added dimension compared to cricket.

4) Fielding.

While cricket players do occasionally make some very spectacular catches, cricket doesn't place the same onus on fielding as baseball does. Cricket players seldom display the skills off baseball infielders getting the force-out at first, turning double plays, catching a runner trying to steal, or that of outfielders making a running catch or throwing out a runner at home.

5) Unlike cricket, baseball is not undergoing radical changes.

Real cricket is in crisis. While test matches are still popular in England, Australia and South Africa, the majority of the cricket world is now hooked on the limited overs game. County cricket is played in empty stadiums and the future of game is found in the 'one- day' and 'twenty20' formats. These forms of the game are, as Moss says, just not cricket. Twenty20 has few of the elements that make baseball great, while leaving out the best parts of test cricket. In comparison, baseball has changed very little since the end of the 'dead ball' era in 1920. The lowering of the pitching mound in 1969 and introduction of the Designated Hitter in 1973, has changed baseball to the worse. Compared to cricket, however, baseball is remains true to its basic format.

NHS: Now Truly Free!

2008-03-03T17:13:00.004Z

Today the Welsh Assembly confirmed that parking at hospitals in Wales will be free from 1 April. I've always been against parking fees at hospitals because it is a tax on the sick and because it contravenes the principle of free public healthcare.

Since Thatcher, who famously hated public transport, cars have ruled supreme in Britain. Public transport is unreliable and expensive, and a person cannot maintain a working life or have a family without owning a car. Parking charges apply everywhere including hospitals, where income from such charges are now an important part of the hospitals budget.

This is of course not a problem if you accept user payment for publicly provided healthcare. The political consensus in the UK has however been that National Health Service should be free of charge. Not even the Conservatives have dared challenge that consensus. The acceptance of the widespread use of parking fees, in an otherwise tax adverse country, has eroded the principle of free health care. Politicians in England should therefore be honest and declare themselves either in favour of free universal healthcare, as the Wales, or admit that they favour user payment.

Lib Dems and EU Referendum

2008-02-25T16:29:00.008Z

Interesting Op-Ed in today's Guardian by Nick Clegg (leader of the UK Liberal Democrats). Clegg argues that there should be an EU referendum, but not over the relatively minor Lisbon Treaty. Instead the question should be whether Britain want to be in or out of the EU!

Clegg is, in my opinion, both right and wrong his argumentation.

I agree that the Lisbon Treaty is a relative minor reform treaty (compared to the Single European Act (1987), Maastrict Treaty (1992) and Amsterdam Treaty (1998)), and that a referendum would be an opportunity for euro-sceptics to misrepresent the treaty and the EU. I also agree that the Lisbon Treaty is a positive reform of the EU, as it will strengthen the democratic decision making process in the EU (by creating a larger role for national parliaments in the EC legislative process, double majority voting in the Council and by giving the European Parliament greater powers through increased used of the 'co-decision' procedure).

However, the Lisbon Treaty is a reform of the EU constitution and should therefore be subject to a referendum in all EU states. The real argument against a referendum is that under the British constitution, where Parliament is supreme, constitutional acts and treaties have not, and need not, be passed by a popular vote (The Acts of Union 1707, Act of Union 1800, European Communities Act 1973 and EC/EU treaties mentioned above, were all passed without referendums).

It is also counterproductive for pro-europeans to revert back to the 'in or out' question. This does not further the cause. Pro-europeans will not be able to address and gain support for democratic reforms of the EU by framing the debate over European integration as a question of 'in or out". Rather we should argue why the Council and Parliament should be equal, why Council decisions should be passed by a 'double majority' and why the national parliaments should play a larger rule in the legislative process. Then we will win the debate!

Downfall

2008-02-23T20:47:00.005Z

Sometimes I just hate computers and the Internet!

For the last 24 hours my life has been made a complete misery after I discovered that my Internet connection isn't working properly. A handfull or so websites are no longer accessible to me, although they are up and running and accessible from other networks.

Being obsessive-compulsive, I've spent most of the night and day trying to sort it out. I've installed anti-Spyware software, downloaded and upgraded the Firmware to my router, reset my browsers. Nothing has helped. I've lost half a nights sleep, haven't spoken to my wife, missed church and a now a birthday party, trying to solve this problem (OK.. I wouldn't have gone to church anyway... but you get the point).

In my anguish and delirium I'm starting to get paranoid. Just take a look at some of the web sites I cannot access, but which all other Internet users seem able to:

- www.dr.dk (Danish Broadcasting Corporation (which is well know to harbour left wing journalists)
- www.adventist.org (Official website of the Seventh-Day Adventist church).
- www.sp-usa.org (Socialist Party USA)
- www.soccerstand.com (soccerstand?)
- www.youtube.com (Nuf said)

What am I to do?

The politics of sports...

2008-02-03T10:44:00.000Z

Reading recently about baseball in Cuba, I was appalled to learn that the best players from the Havana team Metropolitanos are regularly taken from the team and sent to the other Havana team Industriales. I considered this practice corrupt and an example of what is wrong with the political system in Cuba.

Then I realized that what happens in Cuban Baseball is exactly the same as what happens in professional European sports. In European team sports the best players are also regularly moved from smaller teams to the bigger teams. Wealthier clubs, such as Manchester United and Chelsea, simply buy the best players from other clubs or lure them from away with bigger contracts. The result is that all European sports leagues are dominated a only few teams, just as Cuban baseball is dominated by Industriales and Santiago de Cuba.

In Europe sports are run on free market principles, particularly after the Bosman ruling by the European Court of Justice in 1995, with laws prohibiting any limitations on the free movement of workers and capital. The end result is, however, not that dissimilar from what happens in communist Cuba!

Interestingly, US professional team sports are not run on free market principles as in Europe. Rather the sports are socialized with mechanisms to regulate and limit the power of money, including inter alia: restrictions on player movements, the draft, salary caps, revenue sharing and closed leagues with no promotion or relegation. These mechanisms have helped maintain a healthier competitive balance and greater equality between the teams than in Europe.

The US system is of course essentially capitalist. The leagues and clubs are business whose sole purpose it is to organize sports events for economic profit, but the system of regulations does seem to taken straight out of a Keynsian economics text book. It could therefore be argued that while European sports leagues are models of pure capitalism and Cuban baseball of communism, US sports are maintaining the social democratic ideal!

Thank heaven for the Royal Danish Air Force!

2008-01-25T19:28:00.000Z

The majority of the world's population is probably ignorant of the fact that the European Team-Handball Championships is presently underway in Norway. They are in fact most likely completely ignorant of the existence of the sport, and probably think of handball as a game played against a wall.

The Royal Danish Air Force, however, is well aware of the events underway in Norway and have manned their battle stations (OK, OK 'battle stations' is a Navy expression, but since i don't know what the Air Force mans (or if they in fact man anything at all), I'll call it battle stations).

According to this article in the Danish newspaper Politiken, the Danish Air Force is ready to send two F-16 fighter jets to escort the chartered plane that will fly the Danish team home, if Denmark is able to progress from the semi-final tomorrow against Germany and win the final on Sunday.

We can all rest assured tonight!

Election Blues.

2008-01-09T13:08:00.000Z

My last post is testament to 2 things:

1) 2.30 AM is too early in the morning to blog, and 2) I too often get carried away by my emotions.

I should not have let Obama's victory in Iowa make me believe that the Democrats would actually nominate candidate that could win the presidency...

No more hoping, no more dreaming for me!

Camelot lost.

2008-01-09T02:20:00.000Z

Thats it, I'm finished with politics.

What a fool I am, starting to get exited about a political candidate. Although I prefer John Edwards to Barack Obama, I had come to accept that Edwards wasn't going to win the Democratic nomination. Obama's victory in Iowa made me think that maybe, just maybe, Obama was the real thing. A Democrat with ideas and the ability to win elections.

I even went out yesterday and bought Obama's book 'The Audacity of Hope" with the voucher to Borders I'd been given as a Birthday gift.

And now he's losing New Hampshire after the polls had him wining by a margin of 10!

Romney and Religious Freedom.

2007-12-09T13:38:00.000Z

I must admit that I have been dismissive of Romney since he abandoned the moderate positions he held as govenor of Massachussetts on issues such as abortion and gay marriage. I've also read his article in Foreign Affairs (July/August 2007) which didn't impress me very much. So I admittedly watched his speech at the George Bush Presidential Library, available here, with some negative bias...

As to the speech itself, I thought Romney had some good points, particularly these three: 1) his emphasis on the need to separate of the authority of church and the authority of the state; 2) his statement that the 'conviction of the inherent and inalienable worth of every life is still the most revolutionary political proposition ever advanced'; and 3) that the union of church and state in Europe has not been a happy experience for either the church or state (although I could have done without his cheap dig at Europe, i.e. that the Cathedrals of Europe are "so inspired ... so grand ... so empty").

Romney's rhetoric was clearly aimed at appealing to politically conservative christians, which did put me off. For example, when Romney spoke of those who "seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God," who Romney said "are intent on establishing a new religion in America - the religion of secularism. They are wrong" I also took issue at Romney's assertion that freedom requires religion, and that the US Constitution rests on a 'foundations of faith' and that judges should respect that foundation.

I do not believe that a secularist interpretation of the Constitution, as expressed in an elimination of religious symbols from government and a strict prohibition of government support of religion, poses a threat to religious liberty. Neither do I accept that the US Constitution was constructed on faith. As I read the US Consitution I am struck by how the Founding Fathers were inspired by a number of sources, movements and ideas, including inter alia: the English Consitution (including the English Bill of Rights of 1688); he English Common Law; American Protestantism; and the Enlightenment's emphasis on reason as the proper source of truth, faith and morals.

Finally, Romney's statement that "America's resolve in the defence of liberty has been tested time and again. It has not been found wanting...," was a repetition of the sentiment Romney expressed in his Foreign Affairs article, and one that seems to reveal a messianic view of America.

That said, I was generally pleased that a Republican would make such a speech.

Torture and Positions of Responsibility.

2007-12-06T15:32:00.000Z

US Judge Richard Posner has been quoted for saying:

"only the most doctrinaire civil libertarians (not that there aren't plenty of them) deny [that] if the stakes are high enough, torture is permissible. No one who doubts that this is the case should be in a position of responsibility."*

While I find it discouraging that Posner, and other legal scholars such as Alan Dershowitz, embrace this view of the legal and moral permissibility of torture, its actually the second part of the quote that I find most interesting. What is expressed here, in the context of torture, is essentially a McCarthyan idea, i.e. that individuals holding convictions deemed to be dangerous should be prevented from holding positions of responsibility.

While Posner may only consider positions of high public office as 'positions of responsibility', it's not clear that he is not also speaking of other positions of public office, such as military officers, police officers, school teachers or even postal workers. This later position was, after all, the one adopted in Germany under the 'Anti-Radical Decree' of 1972 and the issuing of berufsverbot orders.

It would become apologists for the use of torture not to make such sweeping statements as the one qouted above.
-----------
*Quoted in Levinson, Sandford, 'The Debate on Torture: War Against Virtual States,' 50 Dissent (Summer 2003).

Lex Talionis

2007-11-21T01:27:00.000Z

The Old Testament has many passages that I, inspired as I am by humanism, have difficulti in reconciling with the concept of a loving God. However, it has always bothered me when critics use the 'eye for an eye' principle, prescribed by God in the book of Exodus, as an example of the vengefulness of God.

Exodus 21,23-25, which reads: "But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise," (NIV) is all about proportionality, not vengeance.

I was therefore quite pleased when I came across this passage by Professor Schabas:

"It is surely a general principle of criminal law that penalties must be proportionate to the crime. This was expressed in ancient times by the maxim 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth', or lex talionis, a concept that more recently is understood (or rather misunderstood) as one of retributive justice."*

*W. Schabas, "International law and the death penalty: reflecting or promoting change?", in Capital Punishment: Strategies for Abolition (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2004), p. 45.

Danish Election.

2007-11-13T16:28:00.000Z

Denmark is electing a new Parliament today. The right-wing government of the Liberals and Conservatives thought they could maintain their parliamentary majority in an election held now and called the election only 2 1/2 years into the election period.

I am sad to say their confidence is well founded. The opinion polls indicate a close election, which is usual in denmark, but the government and its supporting party, the far right Danish People's Party, are leading in most opinion polls.

The New Alliance, a new neo-liberal breakaway party from the Social-Liberal Party, have dominated the media coverage of the campaign. Media attention is however only positive if you have a strong political narrative, which New Alliance doesn't have. Their representation in parliament looks set to be 4 or 5 seats.

The largest increase in parliamentary seats looks likely to go to the Socialist People's Party, who according to the polls will double their representation from 11 to 22 MP's. Unfortunately this increase is unlikely to give the left an overall majority and we can look forward to another 4 (or 2 1/2) years of Liberal/Conservative government.

The first exist poll is due in 8 minutes!

Socialist Journalist, Right-Wing Politician.

2007-11-05T12:44:00.000Z

Interesting comment here by Lone Kühlmann in friday's Information (Danish Newspaper), on the phenomenon in Danish politics of famous journalist becoming candidates for right wing political parties. This is a particularly interesting trend, because the political right has for years complained of the left wing bias of the Danish media, in particularly 'left-wing mercenaries' of the state owned Danmarks Radio (DR).

Kühlmann doesn't answer her own question as to why journalist, previously accused of producing socialist propaganda, join right wing parties. One reader, L.Nielsen, quotes French King Henry IV in his/her comment: "Paris is well worth a mass". While oppertunism may be an explanation, it is not a particularly convincing one.

A mystery indeed!

NFL Live

2007-10-29T22:19:00.000Z

I went to my first NFL game Sunday at Wembley stadium between the Miami Dolphins and New York Giants. There had been a lot of interest in the game, being the first regular season game to be played in Europe, and I had been lucky to get a ticket.

Numerous discussions, mostly depressing and full of stereotypes, had appeared on the internet in the days leading up to the game, on the merits and demerits of American Football versus Association Football.(1) I was not, however, put off from going.

This was, after all, a chance to see if American football was the exception to the rule I had held as self evident: that spectator sports are better 'live and in-person' than on TV. After watching the Dolphins-Giants live I'm still not sure. Yes, the experience of watching the game was better than on TV, even from a seat like mine in the upper deck, but the numerous breaks and interruptions, which stretched the game over 3 hours, were very annoying. I had also found these interruptions annoying watching American football at home in front of the TV, but not as much as when I had been at the stadium for 4 hours, was cold, and just wanted to go home!

My enjoyment of the game would have increased if I had been a supporter of either of the teams. I couldn't make up my mind of who to cheer for, until the Dolphins cheerleaders came on to the field. I find professional cheerleaders demeaning. First, because they distract from the game, and secondly, I find the promotion of them as sex symbols demeaning to both sexes.(2) I therefore committed myself to supporting the Giants, as they do not have cheerleaders! (3)

As to the new Wembley stadium, well... let's just say I wasn't impressed. Maybe I'll write a blog entry to explain what I think is wrong with it (and all modern stadia), but that will have to wait till I have more time.

--------------------
1) Association Football is of course the official name of Football/Soccer, to distinguish it from other types of football such as Rugby Union Football, Rugby League Football, Australian Rules Football Football, Gaelic Football and ... yes... American Football. The word 'Soccer' derives from word 'Association' and originated, as the game did, in England.

2) The cheerleaders did, however, impress me with their dancing skills and fitness levels!

3) The five other NFL teams, beside the Giants, that don't have Cheerleaders are the Pittsburgh Steelers, Cleveland Browns, Chicago Bears, Detroit Lions and Green Bay Packers. Respect!

Defining Terrorism

2007-10-21T14:24:00.000+01:00

Here's a brilliant quote from Martin Scheinin, the UN Special Rapporteur for the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism. The quote is from the Rapporteur's report to the Commission on Human Rights in 2006, where Scheinin argues for a comprehensive definition of the term 'terrorism.'

"Arising from the need for precision, and to avoid use of the fight against terrorism as an excuse to unnecessarily extend the reach of criminal law, it is essential that offences created under counter-terrorist legislation, along with any associated powers of investigation or prosecution, be limited to countering terrorism. Crimes not having the quality of terrorism..., regardless of how serious, should not be the subject of counter-terrorist legislation. Nor should conduct that does not bear the quality of terrorism be the subject of counter-terrorism measures, even if undertaken by a person also suspected of terrorist crimes.

Scheinin's argument stands in contrast to those who argue against a comprehensive definition, such as Sir Jeremy Greenstock, former British Ambassador the the UN, who in a speech in 2001 made this somewhat naive (perhaps mischievous) statement:

"Increasingly, question are being raised about the problem of the definition of a terrorist. Let us be wise and focused about this: terrorism is terrorism... What looks, smells and kills like terrorism is terrorism."

Considering the way anti-terror legislation has been used in Britain to extent the scope of criminal law and the general misuse of the term terrorism for political gain, it is vital that terrorism should be clearly defined. Scheinin, drawing on international conventions relating to terrorism and Security Council resolution 1566 (2004), argues for following cumulative definition of terrorism, as acts:

(a)...causing death or serious bodily injury, or the taking of hostages; and

(b)... committed for the purpose of provoking a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidating a population, or compelling a Government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act; and

(c) Such acts constituting offences within the scope of and as defined in the international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism.

The End?

2007-10-18T00:13:00.001+01:00

This blog is probably nearing the end of its lifetime. I'm not quite ready to give it up quite yet, but posting will be rare in the months to come.

There are two reasons for this:
1) Lack of time. I've now started my LLM course and will not have much time or energy for blogging.
2) I'm too depressed to blog.

I've enjoyed writing this blog, but I really don't know if it served any useful purpose!

The Nature of Policing.

2007-10-17T18:02:00.000+01:00

The moment I heard that the British police had shot a suspected terrorist dead on the Underground on July 21 2005, I instinctively knew they had killed an innocent man. In my reasoning the likelihood of the police actually catching a terrorist in the act is somewhere on the unlikely side of improbable. However, in the world of armed policing such fantasies are considered reality.

The misinformation (lies is probably a better word) that followed in the next few days, such as the claims that De Menezies was wearing a winter coat, jumped over the ticket barrier and had an empty expression on his face (apparently a sign of terrorist intent), showed the police's disregard for truth and evidence.

While the police officers who shot De Menezes seven times in the head got away with it, the Metropolitan Police itself still faces a charge of failing to provide for the health, safety and welfare of Jean Charles de Menezes under sections 3(1) and 33(1)(a) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

In defending this charge the police produced a composite picture of De Menezes and Osman Hussain, the suspect they now claim to have been searching for. This picture, which in my opinion only shows how different De Menezes and Hussain look, turns out to have been manipulated by the police.

Seems to me the police just can help themselves when it comes to killing, lying and manipulating.

Reform Treaty 2

2007-09-25T14:40:00.001+01:00

It is with some bemusement, and horror, that I have followed the campaign in Britain to have a national referendum over the EU Reform Treaty. Bemused because the campaigners are essentially trying to save Parliament from itself, by defending the supremacy of Parliament with a demand that it submit to a referendum.

What is less amusing is the xenophobia exhibited by the conservative press in connection with the referendum campaign. Britain's largest selling newspaper, the Rupert Murdoch owned Sun, is (as expected) leading the xenophobic charge. Yesterdays front page had this manipulated picture of Gordon Brown displaying what is a very offensive hand gesture in Britain, and called the Reform Treaty the "Greatest threat since WW2." The Brown picture is, arguably, not as offensive as some of the Sun's past headlines, such as 'Up Yours, Delors'(1) and 'Gotcha',(2) but the World War II references are very disturbing.

Maybe I should just ignore what the Sun writes as the usual conservative rhetoric and campaigning. It is, however, hard to ignore the Suns views on the EU, and its general hated of everything European, as it is very much representative of mainstream opinion. While more serious media outlets, such as Sky News,(3) The Times,(3) The Daily Telegraph and, yes, the BBC, may not express their views as crassly as the Sun, their anti-European prejudice is, in my opinion, just as strong.

As a foreigner living in Britain It all makes me feel very uncomfortable.

------------

1) Jacque Dolors was EU Commission President from 1985 to 1995, and the headline related to the Maastrict Treaty negotiaions.
2) Celebrating the sinking of the Argentine Cruiser the ARA General Belgrano during the Falklands war.
3) Sky News and the The Times are also owned by Murdoch's News Corp.

Reform Treaty

2007-09-18T10:38:00.000+01:00

I am not certain that I support the idea of referendums to ratify the EU Reform Treaty. Constitutional treaties, and the Reform Treaty is constitutional treaty as it amends the EC and EU treaties that make up the EU Constitution, should principally be approved by the electorate. However, former French President and Chairman of the Constitutional Convention, Valery Giscard d'Estaing, is absolutely correct when he argues that in referendums people vote on other issues instead of on the actual referendum question (see here).

I am supportive of the Reform Treaty, as I was of the Constitutional treaty, for three reasons:

1) Double majority voting in the Council.
2) Increased power of the European Parliament, through the increased use of the Joint Decision Procedure.
3) Incorporation of the European Charter for Human Rights as legally binding.

These measures are essential in correcting the so called 'democratic deficit' of the EU. First, by ensuring that there is a better balance between the Council and the directly elected Parliament, and secondly, by ensuring a democratic balance of power within the Council.

Other steps are needed to increase the democratic legitimacy of the EU, such as making the Commission democratically accountable through either direct election or parliamentarianism. However, these reforms are what is on offer now and the national parliaments and European electorate should embrace them. The problem is that national debates, in connection referemdums, concentrate on such things as pints and banana's, federalism and corrupt bureaucrats, and not democratic reform.

MoveOn and Awe of the Military.

2007-09-16T12:01:00.001+01:00

I have, rather belatedly, discovered that there has been a political "brouhaha" in the US this last week over an add by the left wing MoveOn organisation. The add is critical of General Petreus and plays, rather crassly, on General Petreus' name. In response, the White House called it "a boorish, childish, unworthy attack," while Senator Lieberman labeled it "an outrageous and despicable act of slander."(1)

Counter-criticism is of course good politics. Attack your opponents style, even attack the media that they use, and you are more likely to prevail in political arguments. That the counter-criticism worked became evident when Elizabeth Edwards (2) made a public statement denouncing the add, saying: "Someone who's spent their life in the military doesn't deserve 'General Betray Us'".

Elizabeth Edwards statement interestingly sums up the essence of the MoveOn furore. In the US the military is generally beyond reproach. The armed forces are constantly lifted up, by mainstream politicians and media, as the essence of service and sacrifice. Support of 'the troops' is therefore required of all Americans and is distinguished from supporting the war in which they are engaged.(3) MoveOn failed to recognise this distinction and laid themselves open to counter-criticism.

Why anyone is more or less deserving of being the subject of jingoist adds or criticism, depending on whether or not he or she is military member, is beyond me. Every individual engaged in public discourse, whether politician, lobbyist, voter or general, deserves to be treated respectfully and to have criticism limited to their opinions, arguments and actions. The MoveOn add was disrespectful and crass. The counter-critics, however, are not really concerned with maintaining decency in the political debate. Rather they are exploiting (or simply a slave to) the awe and reverence Americans have towards their military.

----------------
1) ABC, Political Radar Blog, September 15: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/09/lieberman-blast.html

2) The wife of a presidential candidate John Edwards.

3) The imperative of 'supporting the troops" is illustrated by the response to the MoveOn add. Hilary Clinton, for example, made this statement concerning General Petreous: " I think both he and I share a strong commitment to the young men and women who wear the uniform of the United States", while Rudolf Giuliani criticised Clinton for failure to denounce MoveOn and accused her of "turning her back" on US troops. (see: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/09/clinton-respect.html)
While you can argue that US politicians should be supportive of the US military, it is nevertheless peculiar that the response to a critique of a general is framed as a question of 'supporting the troops".

Going to Wembley.

2007-09-12T17:47:00.000+01:00

The National Football League (NFL) received 1/2 million ticket requests within 72 hours when it announced that one regular season game was to be played in London in 2007. I also registered my interest on the NFL homepage, though not quite within 3 days.

A few weeks ago I received an e-mail notifying that I had been selected, by lottery, and was now entitled to purchase tickets in the second round of sales, beginning September 12 at 10.00 AM. The e-mail also stated that there where more applicants than seats available.

So this morning I sat ready in front of my computer and logged in at precisely 10.00 AM. I got through and for the ridiculous price of £45 ($90, €66) I am now the "proud" owner of one ticket to see the Miami Dolphins vs. New York Giants at Wembley stadium the 28th of October.

Turns out I was one of the lucky ones. The 10.000 tickets set on sale today were sold within 5 minutes.

p.s. special message to Karlund: I tried to buy two tickets so you could come with me, but they only offered me one. Sorry ;-(

All is Emptiness.

2007-09-11T22:58:00.000+01:00

Here's two good indicators that your life is empty:

1) You go shopping at 11 PM at Tesco's just so you can get out of the house and see other human beings.
(Purchases made: 1 bag of crisps, 4 Banana's, 1 deodorant and Paracetamol tablets).

2) You write about it on your blog.

Angels Sign Danish Player.

2007-09-10T13:13:00.000+01:00

Exiting news today for a baseball fan from Denmark like me.

Danish newspaper Politiken writes that the Los Angeles Angels have signed a Danish player, Frederik Brask Terkelsen, to a minor league contract.

Terkelsen is one of seven Europeans who have signed contracts with MLB clubs after attending the MLB European Baseball Academy, held from August 9 - 30 in Italy, according to this MLB press release.

While it is unlikely that Terkelsen will ever make it to 'The Show', it is nonetheless exiting that the game is gaining some ground in Europe.

List Mentality.

2007-09-07T00:06:00.001+01:00

In the 'Eppur Si Muove' episode of the TV series West Wing (Season 5, Episode 16), the fictional White House Press Secretary CJ Gregg says: "Haven't lists gone out with Joe McCarthy and Hula Hoops?"

Well I thought so too. Lists are, however, not consigned to history. On a recent Internet search for this article, written by Oren Ben-Dor for the biweekly political newsletter CounterPunch, I stumbled across this website with its "JEWISH S.H.I.'I.T.E. LIST". The list consists of Jewish individuals considered by the authors to be "Self-Hating and/or Intentionally Israel-Threatening Ediots".

Ben-Dor, a lecturer in political and legal philosophy at my Law School, is a very strong critic of Israel and is included on the list with, inter alia, this comment: "... as his Arab Nazi comrades bordering Israel slowly bleed Israel, Oren Ben-Dor sucks Israel dry."

In his latest CounterPunch article Ben-Dor criticizes, in my opinion rightly, the ideology of creating a state in which Jews have a preferential legal status.

Whether Ben-Dor is right or not, it is disturbing that anyone would take the time to compile and publish such a list. In ideology and methodology the list is very similar to the infamous Campus Watch project. The most disturbing aspects of such lists is, however, the mentality behind them, a mentality that consideres intimidation and the forcefull silencing of opponents to be good politics.

Terror Arrests and Political Popularism.

2007-09-05T14:40:00.000+01:00

Political popularism is not new. It is nonetheless disturbing, especially when events such as uncovering of terrorist plots is used to introduce tougher anti-terrorist laws and increased surveillance. This week is a good week for this kind of popularism.

In Germany the Interior Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble is, according to this BBC article, proposing stricter anti-terrorist laws in the wake of the arrest of three men suspected of planning a "massive" terrorist attack. Schaeuble's statement that "[m]ore security cameras should be used where it is sensible" is particular appropriate in its meaninglessness.

On Tuesday in Denmark, the far right Danish People's Party called for tougher anti-terror laws after the Danish police similarly arrested two individuals suspected of planning a bomb attack. The party's justice spokesperson, Peter Skaarup, proposed that individuals who have made statements deemed to be anti-democratic should be denied entry visas, and called for more video surveillance. (For more see this Politiken article).

Luckily, the Danish government was not impressed by the proposal. The Liberal Party's(1) Birthe Rønn Hornbech made this sensible statement to the Politiken newspaper: "I simply don't understand the logic of tightening the law when someone is arrested. This shows, on the contrary, that the police has good opportunities to work within the existing law."(2)

Finally, the EU Justice and Home Affairs Commissioner Franco Frattini is using the two sets of arrests to push for a EU-wide airline passenger data recording system similar to that of the US (For more see this Politiken article and this Forbes article).

(1) The Liberal Party is a right wing conservative party. In Europe "liberal" generally means to be for free markets and small government.

(2) My translation. The original quote is:
"Jeg forstår simpelthen ikke logikken i, at reglerne skal strammes, når der pågribes nogen. Det her viser tværtimod, at politiet har gode muligheder for at arbejde inden for den eksisterende lovgivning«

Today's Post!

2007-09-04T09:47:00.000+01:00

Today the postman unexpectedly delivered a package from some friends who live thousands of miles away.

The package was full of nice things, cookies, jam, chocolates, books, drawings and small messages. The home made cookies, which amaziningly made the journey intact, are extremely nice!

What really makes the package special, however, is the thought that somewhere far away is someone packing their love into a box and paying way to much in postage to send it to us.

The uniqueness of the US according to Simon Peres.

2007-08-29T22:51:00.000+01:00

In an article for the July/August issue of Foreign Affairs, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney provides the following quote from former Israeli Prime Minister Simon Peres: "America is unique in the history of the world. During this last century, there was only one nation that laid down hundreds of thousands of lives of its own sons and daughters and asked for nothing for itself... You took no land from the Germans, no land from the Japanese. All you asked for was enough land to bury your dead."

In Peres' understanding of history, nations that have won wars have always taken land from losing ones. Such an understanding is perhaps not surprising from a former PM of Israel, a country that has felt entitled to annex land it has conquered in wars, but it is nonetheless surprising that Peres would make a statement that is so hard reconcile with the history of the 20th century.

Because Peres was referring only to the 20th century, his view of American uniqueness excludes US land expansion after its wars with Mexico and Spain in the 19th century. Also excluded from Peres' statement is US involvement, during the cold war, in the violent overthrow of democratically elected governments in Iran, Guatemala and Chile in favour of US friendly dictatorships.

The main flaw in Peres' statement is, however, that the US can hardly be said to be the only nation in the 20th century to have "laid down hundreds of thousands of lives... asking nothing for itself." The United Kingdom, Canada and Australia, did not demand land in either world wars,(1) and arguably neither did France,(2) while suffering great loss of life. Britain's willingness in 1914 to fight in France and to declare war after Germany invaded Poland in 1939, was not less "unique" than America's late entry into either world wars.(3)

The US deserves a lot of credit for its involvement in the major conflicts of the 20th century, but to claim that the US involvement was 'unique' in its unselfishness (as defined by demand for land) shows either Peres' ignorance or his contempt of other nations. It is also disturbing that a US presidential candidate is so willing to repeat Peres' statements without any critical reflection.

1) Note that Britain, Australia, Canada and France also participated in the Korean war, and that Australia fought alongside the US in Vietnam.
2) France did of course demand the return of Alsace-Lorraine from Germany after the First World War.
3) Note that Peres statement was one of willingness to fight wars without gain of land, not whether engagement in the conflict was justified or not.

My Shipmates.

2007-08-26T09:06:00.000+01:00

When I had just completed Navy Boot Camp at Great Lakes Naval Station, my fellow recruits in Company 158 (pronounced: 'one-five-eight') were looking forward to our first free day off the base for two months. The Navy was nervous, however, to let us all out, knowing most of us would head the few miles south to Chicago and the nightlife there. So they assembled the two recruit companies from the 21st Division who where eligible for their first leave together for a talk.

Company 154 and 158, who for the lasts two months had competed against each other in series of competitive events that tested the training we had received, therefore met together in 154's living quarters for the first and only time. When it was announced that 158, unlike 154, would only have one days leave because we had finished last of all the companies in our group, the recruits of 154 made taunting remarks and noise. At that point 154's Company Commander got really angry with his recruits and told them off saying: "These are your shipmates, don't make fun of them!"

The Navy talked a lot about the importance of looking out for ones shipmates. Unfortunately for the Navy they did nothing to foster a spirit of unity and the environment in the Navy, especially onboard ship, was hostile. Everyone, from officers to lowest enlisted, were rude and spoke harshly to each others. When I arrived at my ship, the USS Seattle, I tried my best to work hard and get along with everybody, but found myself constantly being told off and jelled at.

The words of 154's Company Commander have nevertheless remained with me and I can't stop thinking about them. Isen't that the attitude I should have to everybody around me, that they are my shipmates and their welbeing should be at the forefront of my mind. Whether its the Polish waitress at the takeaway, the mother shouting at her kid in a pushchair, the teenagers hanging about on the streetcorners and all those awful readers of the Daily Mail. They are all my shipmates, they are all my neighbours!

Human Rights (2)

2007-08-22T17:20:00.000+01:00

Following up from yesterday blog, there is a this interesting article in today's Guardian, where Katie Ghose from British Institute of Human Rights argues that not only was the Chindamo decision based on EU law and not Human Rights legislation, but also that critics attacking human rights are undermining their positive aspects.

Ghose is right when she points out that the Human Rights Act* does not prevent the deportation of criminals and that Cheindamo's right to family life does not overrides all other considerations. I would, however, argue that the European Convention of Human Rights gave Chindamo a very strong case against deportation, and is therefore not irrelevant to the discussion of his case.

For more on the Chindamo case see this Guardian article and this blog (thanks to Andrew for the link.)

* The Human Rights Act, which Labour introduced and Parliament passed in 1998, incorporated the European Convention of Human Rights into UK law. Prior to 1998 individuals in Britain who wanted to enforce a Convention right only had recourse to the European Court of Human Rights.

Human Rights under attack.

2007-08-21T09:25:00.000+01:00

Human rights are unpopular in Britain. This is evident from the continuous stream of attacks on them by politicians and the press. Today those critical of human rights are speaking out against an immigration tribunal's decision to block the deportation of Learco Chindamo, an Italian citizen who murdered a school teacher in 1996. For more see this BBC article, or this Guardian aricle.

The right wing Daily Mail is having a field day with the story, and the first reader comments are already in. John from Lancashire thinks it an "Absolute disgrace", while Frank from England (?), writes: "How can a murderer have any human rights. The rules are ludicrous and only benefit criminals." Chris from Surrey simply writes: "Kick the useless scum out."

In my opinion, the he tribunal's decision is correct, both in its application of the European Convention of Human Rights and EU law, but also in being right and fair. Chindamo's foreign citizenship is mere formality. He was raised in, and has lived almost his entire life, in Britain and has no significant ties to Italy. Deporting Chindamo would therefore be an extra punishment that would not have been meted out to a British citizen and cannot be justified on security grounds.

What the critics of human rights in general, and this decision in particular, are in essence advocating that the criminal justice system should discriminate against foreigners in the punishment of crime.

I fear that cases like this will harden the will of British politicians to depart from a commitment to Human Rights.

Facebook

2007-08-14T11:30:00.000+01:00

So I've joined Facebook.

This last week I've been hearing constantly about it and realized that I had to be on it if I wanted maintain any friends.

I have 2 friends, for now, on Facebook (including my wife), but I'm not sure what the correct Facebook etiquette is. When you find someone you would like to have as a Facebook friend do you e-mail them, 'Poke' them or simply press 'Add to Friends" (hoping they won't reject you)?

So if I 'poke' or 'add' you in the near future, it just means I'm trying to make friends!

X-Change

2007-08-13T12:02:00.000+01:00

I came back yesterday after a week in Germany at the Church Planting X-Change Conference for the Adventist church in Northern Europe.

Although I was disappointed about several aspects of the conference, it was nonetheless a very positive experience. Positive because the Southampton based church plant team had time to get to know each other better and because there were so many of my old friends there.

The conference also made me think long and hard about my life. My mind was full of so many questions, mainly concerning how I can serve God and be a part of the church. I've been struggling for the last couple of years with the question of how to relate to a church that hired my wife instead of me?* I was overwhelmed, at one point of the conference, by the feeling that my life was empty and without purpose. But God did not leave me there.

At the conference I had the opportunity to present the idea of opening a debt advice service in Totton/West Southampton in cooperation with the Frontline charity. Although the presentation was very short (2 minutes), several individuals approached me afterwards with questions and interest. Through these conversations the idea grew in my mind and left me with a sense of calling. Maybe, just maybe, this is a way I can serve God and others.

So many people struggle with financial issues in Britain, where credit is cheap and credit cards are promoted by cheap balance transfers. Organisation and numbers are not my strengths, but the idea is so good that someone should do it!

* This is not meant as a criticism of the church, rather I am trying to explain how my wife's sponsorship and employment created somewhat of a 'crisis of identity' for me.

LLM

2007-08-02T10:10:00.000+01:00

So I've come up with plan for the future. I've applied for the Master of Laws (LLM) programme at the University of Southampton. Yesterday, a week after I applying, I got the acceptance letter.

Yes, yes, I know I've been complaining of how hard I've found the LLB (Bachelor of Laws), but even if I find it hard, I love the law. The Masters allows me to choose the subjects that I'm most interested in and is more academic than the LLB (at least that is how I'm trying to rationalise it to myself).

I've applied for the LLM in International Law and the courses I'd like to take are: 'International Protection of Human Rights', 'International Terrorism and the Law' and 'International Business Tax'.

I'm not sure that I'm going to accept the offer of a place, but as my search for a job is leading nowhere it seems more than likely. I've been sending out applications, mostly for paralegal and/or administrative positions, since coming back from vacation in early July, but I get no responses. Not even a "Thank you for applying" letter. So either I'm really bad at writing applications or I'm just don't employable.

The LLM, if nothing else, gets me out of looking for a job!

Book Review: 'Rubicon' by Tom Holland.

2007-07-29T05:14:00.001+01:00

Tom Holland states, in the preface to Rubicon (London, Abacus, 2004), that it has become a cliche to compare Ancient Rome to the modern United States. Surprisingly this comparison is most often made to the Roman Empire and not the Roman Republic. The Roman Republic is clearly the ancient regime that is most similar to the United States. As Holland writes: "Rome was the first - and until recently - the only republic ever to rise to a position of world power, and it is hard to think of an episode of history that hold up a more intriguing mirror to our own."(1)

Rubicon is, however, not a comparison of the Roman and American Republics. Rather it is compelling piece of narrative history chronicling the downfall of the Roman Republic, from the civil wars of 80's BC to the ascension to supreme power of Octavian (Augustus) in 27 BC.

Holland's thesis, emerging from the narrative,(2) is that Rome's republican constitution was undermined by the expansion of Rome's borders beyond Italy, as the expansion fundamentally changed the Republic's economy and military. This change lead to increased divisions, rebellions, civil unrest and the emergence of increasingly powerful military generals.

The civil war, in the 80's BC, between the supporters of generals Gaius Marius and Sulla, became the the first in many civil wars over the next 60 years. Sulla, by being the first Roman general to march his legions on Rome, set a dangerous precedent and his use of prescription lists (death warrants) against his enemies undermined the constitutional balance that he was actually trying to preserve.

The precedent established by Sulla made it hard for individuals such as Cicero, Clodius, Pompey and ultimately Caesar, to resist the temptation of using force to sort out the chaos of Roman politics. Cato (clearly Holland's favourite) is portrayed as the only true defender of republicanism during this period, and he is ultimately not strong enough to defend the Republic. Caesar's raise to power and the civil wars after his death were more than the Republic could bear and in 27 BC the Senate had no choice than to grant sole power to Octavian.

Rubicon is a good argument for modern politicians to study republican Rome as this regime shared many of the values of modern republicanism:(3) representative government, elections, constitutional checks and balances, the rule of law, citizenship and individual liberty, but also many of the ills of modern republics such as populist politics and the influence of money on politics. While there are also many important differences between Rome and modern republics, its seems important to note the undermining effect of imperialism and military might on the republican constitution.

Holland, if nothing else, has written a fascinating book that should increase modern readers interest in ancient history.

(1) p. xxiv.
(2) It is a testament to Holland's scholarship that a clear thesis emerges from this piece of narrative history.
(3) Republicanism, properly understood, is not just government without a monarch, but a government based on citizenship and representation.

Down with Capitalism!

2007-07-26T14:07:00.000+01:00

The dismissal from the Tour de France of Danish cyclist Michael Rasmussen is an example of everything that is wrong with capitalism.

Rasmussen was leading the race after defeating his rivals in the difficult mountain stages, but controversy surrounded him because his mislead, or lied, about his whereabouts in June. As a result Rasmussen had been warned by the cycling authorities.

In spite of these warnings Rasmussen had been cleared to race by the Tours organisers, the International Cycling Union (UCI) and his own team. Rasmussen had also been subjected to over a dozen drug tests during the Tour, without failing one. Neither the Tour nor the UCI had any grounds on which to disqualify Rasmussen.

His team's sponsor (the Dutch bank Rabobank), did not, however, like the association with Rasmussen and ordered, according to the New York Times*, Rasmussen to be fired. Rasmussen, unlike last years winner Floyd Landis who actually failed a drug test, will therefore not have any right to an appeal or fair hearing. Instead he is life work and career has been destroyed by a sponsors' arbitrary decision.

That's how capitalism works. The rules of law (and sport) are disregarded and individuals are destroyed in the pursuit of profit. I will never watch the Tour de France again!

* www.nytimes.com initially reported that according to Rabobank team spokesman, Jacob Bergsma, it was Rabobank who had ordered the firing of Rasmussen. See also this article in the Houston Chronicle.

Reading List

2007-07-18T00:01:00.000+01:00

When it comes to books my desire to own and read them completely outstrips my ability to set time of to actually read them.

This is a collection of just a few of the books that I have bought (or been given) in the last few months that remain unread.

Considering that I'm now unemployed I should have some time to catch up with my reading list.

Here's the problem, which one should I read first? Suggestions are more than welcome!

My Graduation

2007-07-17T09:11:00.001+01:00

Got the results of my final law exams a couple of weeks ago. Somehow I've managed to pass all of them!

It's very satisfying (to say nothing of the relief) to have completed the course. Deciding to study law is one of the worst mistakes of my life (up there with joining the Navy and quiting my job in the Tax administration).

My graduation (which I will not be attending) is on July 25.

For now I'm enjoying the satisfaction of completing the degree and trying not be overwhelmed with the harsh reality of unemployment and job applications.

Bec's Graduation

2007-07-10T09:39:00.000+01:00

Here's my wife at her graduation for a MA in Theology at the University of Wales, Lampeter.

I am so proud of her and not just because she got a distinction on her MA, but because of her hard work, dedication and soft heart.

On Monday my wife starts working for the Adventist church in England.

Debating the pros and cons of the EU.

2007-06-22T09:05:00.001+01:00

The argument for European integration will never be won in Britain (or any other nation) because it is fundamentally harder to explain the benefits of cooperation than to argue against limiting national sovereignty. The present negotiations for a new EU treaty is a case in point.

The essential elements in the proposed treaty are, in my opinion, these: 1) extension of majority voting in the Council to some 50 policy areas; 2) a new 'double majority' voting system, based on majority of countries and population; 3) the creation of a Council President; and 4) the creation of EU 'Foreign Minister'. Other issues, such as the legal status Fundamental Charter of Rights and the legal persona of the EU, are less important.

The move to more majority voting is the most significant proposal as it would entail the handing over of some sovereignty from member states to the EU. Whether this is a good idea should be debated and not just as a question of loss of sovereignty to 'Brussels' and the creation of federal super state. First because the super state scenario is exaggerated, and secondly because the treaty would also the strengthen democratic decision making process by giving the European Parliament more power through the extension of the co-decision procedure.

However, the media only presents the question of the new treaty as one of handling power away from member states to the perceived undemocratic European Union. The merits of cooperation, the double majority voting system and the strengthening of the European Parliament is hardly ever mentioned or discussed.

An example of how the pro-EU argument is always on the defensive could be seen in yesterdays Newsnight programme. The reporter Jeremy Paxman had a pro and anti EU representative debate the proposed treaty. Paxman didn't ask any difficult questions to the euro-sceptic and let debate center on whether the new treaty was necessary and the certainty of the coming super state. Considering that the BBC is considered by conservatives as a pro-EU and liberal biased, I found the programme decidedly euro-sceptic.

Hampshire Cricket

2007-06-21T10:08:00.000+01:00

I went to see the semifinal of the domestic one-day cricket cup competition between Hampshire and Warwarkshire yesterday.

I'm not a great connoisseur of cricket, although I have attended and played cricket matches since first moving to England in 1993. I don't actually like the one-day game very much, to me its 'just not cricket"! To limit the amount of overs bowled alters the objective and nature of the game from the full four or five day game.

Yesterday's game was, however, good fun and a pleasant and relaxing way of spending a day (a cricket game starts at 11 AM and continues to 6-7 PM). Got sunburnt in spite it being a cloudy day and wearing a cap.

It was exiting to watch the great Shane Warne bowl and see how he, as captain, was constantly changing the fielding positions. I'm not that strong on fielding positions (I don't know a 'square leg' from a 'gully') but it was fascinating anyway.

As the respective innings progressed and the white ball got dirtier I had trouble seeing it and missed the only hit for 6 runs (Unfortunately it was heading in my direction and landed 2 seats in front of me)!

Also playing was Kevin Pietersen, England's perhaps best cricketer at the moment (in spite of being born and raise in South Africa).

Hampshire won and will now play Durham in the final.

Being told off.

2007-06-17T23:06:00.000+01:00

Yesterday I went to an old manor house owned and run by the National Trust. In one room I mindlessly touched a door hidden in a wall. Immediately I was told off by a guard with the words "don't touch please!"

In spite of the guard using what I consider to be the rudest word in the English language, i.e. please, I didn't consider the guard to be rude or out of line. Yet, the incident provoked emotions in me that took me by complete surprise. I apologized, left the room and continued the tour around the house. However, inside I was feeling humiliated and angry, I just wanted to get out of there and vowed never again to visit a National Trust site.

The National Trust is a snobbish and stuffy organisation and avoiding it will be a pleasure, but my strong reaction to what happened is admittedly immature. The incident somehow transformed me back into the boy who was always getting in trouble and constantly being told off. All I heard was my teachers correcting me and I felt again the burning skin on my cheek as a teacher in a fit of range smacked me!

PS. 'please' is contrary to conventional wisdom not a polite word. The word is almost always used to disguise what would otherwise be considered to be a rude or aggressive sentence. Attaching the word to a command, such as 'don't touch, please' or 'pass me the butter, please', does not make is less of a command, it simply allows the speaker/writer to be authoritative, rude or aggressive without public condemnation.

Tax Returns.

2007-06-12T02:59:00.000+01:00

The discussion of tax under the June 5 'New Illusion' entry reminded me that I hadn't filed my taxes in either Denmark, UK or US. Despite having a filling requirement in three countries I wasn't bothered. Since I'm a trained tax specialist I thought it would be fun...

The Danish Tax return, due the 1st of July, took 2 1/2 minutes to complete.

The UK tax return is not due before January 31 2008, so I let that one lie.

Finally, the US tax return. By far the most complicated, but also the one that usually doesn't leave me with any tax payable.

The US taxes its citizens on their world wide income whether or not they are resident in the US. The US tax code therefore assumes that US writ extends to the whole world.

While the filing deadline in the US is April 15, as a foreign resident I have an automatic 2-month extension. However, this extension does not extend to payment of tax due, which this year will come back to haunt me!

It turns out that I have tax payable of $ 34 (assuming I've completed the form correctly). The reason is that while my student maintenance grant is taxable in Denmark and my interest income is taxable in the UK, the personal exemption in the UK wipes out any tax liability giving me no possibility of claiming a foreign tax credit on US taxes for the interest income.

So there you have it. I'm both ordinarily resident and domiciled in the UK, but it is Denmark and the US that is taking my money in tax!

Confusion in Europe.

2007-06-10T06:28:00.000+01:00

Whether or not Angela Merkel is successful in gaining support for a revised EU treaty (see here and here), most Europeans probably won't understand or even care what the new treaty will contain. The general confusion over the EU is sometimes at 'babylonian' levels, and is evidenced by numerous news reports mixing up the institutions and misunderstanding the powers of the EU.

The question of the Charter of Fundamental Rights is an interesting example of the confusion. To include the charter in a treaty would be unpopular in Britain. The charter's unpopularity in the UK derives largely from the unpopularity of the European Convention of Human Rights, which is kind of ironic as the convention's unpopularity derives partially from the mistaken belief that it is an EU creation. Of course it is not, but that just adds to the confusion.

The politicians who created the European institutions are to large extent to blame for the confusion as I hope to illustrate with this short overview of the European institutions:

The European Convention of Human Rights is a pan European convention established in 1952 with its own court: the European Court of Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights should not be confused with the European Court of Justice, which is the court for the European Community (known previously as the European Economic Community), which in turn is the largest constituent part of the European Union.

The European Community was created together with the European Atomic Energy Community by the Treaty of Rome in 1957 as a parallel community to the European Coal and Steel Community (created by the Treaty of Paris 1951). Since 1965 the three communities have been served by the same institutions, i.e. Council, Commission, Parliament and Court. In 2002 the European Coal and Steel Community ceased to exist and its funds transfered to the European Community, which then had become part of the European Union (created by the Treaty of the European Union (also known as the Maastricht Treaty) in 1993).

The European Community and European Union are governed by the same institutions. The most important is the Council of the European Union (previously known as the Council of Ministers), which should not be confused with the other EU institution the European Council, which in turn should not be confused with the Council of Europe.

The Council of Europe is an international body completely separate from the European Union (although the two do share the same flag). The Council of Europe's main function is to protect human rights as the guardians of the European Convention of Human Rights...

Conservative Anger.

2007-06-08T09:57:00.000+01:00

So I'm left wing/liberal/progressive/socialist/whatever, and I admit that the left wing is not devoid of anger and frustration. But I'm often amazed by the way conservatives brake out into rantings against liberals/left wingers and liberal/left wing politics, even in situations which are completely out of context.

For example, on a Internet discussion of sports uniforms and logos (a most peculiar interest I have and share in the dark allies of the Internet), someone wrote the following concerning the London 2012 Olympics logo:

Unfortunatly what was once Great Britain has become a haven for yougart knitting lillyliverd politicaly correct liberal morons who think you have to bow to the less desirable aspects of society,and underdtand them ,hence the 2012 logo a Graffiti based monstrosity bringing out everything that is wrong and discusting with this city and country.

The comment would be pathetic and sad if it wasn't so typical.

Why all this anger? The last 20-30 years have seen neo-liberal and conservative ideology in the ascendancy throughout the western world, yet conservatives are more angry than ever. Yes, the world is not as it should be and liberal values such as tolerance and inclusion have manifested itself into what some negatively label 'policial correctness', but surely that's is not the source of the anger?

P.S. What does 'lillylivered' mean?

Nothing more to do!

2007-06-07T10:45:00.000+01:00

Yesterday I had my last exam. The subject was EU Law which I've enjoyed studying and I thought the exam went well. I now have to wait 2 weeks for the results.

I've promised myself not to think too much about the future before I get the results. The thing is I don't have any future plans, which is shocking to most people I talk to. If I'm honest and answer their questions of what I'm going to be doing now with "I don't know", an embarrassing silence emerges.

To not have an occupation (or plans for one) is, in essence, not to exist. In Western societies, perhaps in all societies, we define ourselves by what we do and to a lesser extent with what we own. I don't own much and I don't have a career or calling. So who am I?

New Illusion.

2007-06-05T10:00:00.001+01:00

The rise of the new political party New Alliance in Denmark is a textbook example of how politics today is more about presentation and style than substance, and how the socialist and left wing is increasingly being marginalised.

New Alliance was founded by three prominent politicians from the center and right of Danish politics 4 weeks ago. They have made only two policy announcements: 1) a flat income tax at 40% for all, and 2) the party will only support a conservative/right wing government.

The tax proposal would increase income tax for the majority of taxpayers as it would eliminate all deductions and exemptions.(1) While the top income earners would pay less tax under a flat tax scheme, those with lowest the income, i.e. those on welfare and state pensions, would have their tax increase with 100%.(2).

Yet in spite of such radical liberal tax policies and lack of any other political thought, the party already has 19.000 members(3) and is polling at 10-12 %(4). This would make New Alliance the fourth biggest party in Denmark and put it into a position of influence. The really astonishing thing is, however, that party is mainly attracting voters from the left, i.e. the Social Democrats and Social-Liberals!

Denmark is therefore heading towards a situation similar to the US and UK where the political spectrum does not contain a left.

1) New Alliance haven't really been specific about their proposal but I'm assuming its a flat tax they are talking about, as the base tax rate is presently 38-39 % with incremental increases and with extensive personal exemptions and deductions.
2) Based on an income of 100.000 kr. and no deductions other than the personal exemption (personfradrag).
3) According to the party website: www.nyalliance.dk.
4) see: Danmarks Radio.

Here we go again...

2007-06-03T15:53:00.000+01:00

Another month, another Prime Minister, another tough anti-terror measure: The Guardian: Brown sets out plan for tough new terror laws!

When will it ever end?

Its not that I'm against all of the proposals laid out by Gordon Brown, I can for example readily accept the admissibility of phone-tap evidence in court. But why does the Labour leadership think that it will be more popular if it keeps talking tough and acting like conservatives? Is there really a hunger and outcry from the British population for less civil liberties and more police powers?

I can't be the only person longing for a political leader willing formulate an ideology intended to create better a better society and a better life, and not just intended to be tomorrows headline and tomorrows police state.

Yes, the world has changed but here's some news: the world has been always been changing. Change is the only constant! However, new problems and new threats should not change values, such as the right to habeas corpus, previously considered to be absolute and universal. Neither is freedom and democracy defended by authoritarian laws and increased police power.

2 Week Break

2007-05-24T23:46:00.000+01:00

I will not post for the next two weeks, due to the pressures of exams.

Just need to empty my head of distracting thoughts right now.

Instead I'll leave you (my few faithfull readers) with this picture of Portsmouth harbour and the British aircraft carrier the HMS Ark Royal, which I took relative recently from the Spinnaker Tower. (Perhaps to symbolise that I too would rather be sailing away...)

Aneurin Bevan and the use of armed force.

2007-05-21T10:22:00.000+01:00

A couple of weeks ago The Guardian published, as a daily supplement, a series of speeches under the heading of 'Great Speeches of the 20th Century.' The speeches ranged from Winston Churchill to Nikita Khrushchev. I found it interesting to read the speeches but also the introductions written by individuals, such as F.W. de Klerk and Mikhail Gorbachev, who themselves are well known and influential.

One speech caught my attention, even though I thought is was one of the lesser well written: Aneurin Bevan's speech in the House of Commons Dec 5, 1956 criticising the British (and French) government for militarily intervening in Suez and Sinai.

Bevan, a Labour MP, criticised the Conservative government not just for the military intervention but also the changing reasons given for the intervention. Bevan thus said:

...it really is desirable that when a nation makes war upon another nation it should be quite clear why it does so. It should not keep changing the reasons as time goes on.

There is, in fact, no correspondence whatsoever between the reasons given today and the reasons set out by the Prime Minister at the beginning.

Bevan then went on to critise the use of armed force to attain the "civil, social and political objectives" of a modern society, and stated:

"The social furniture of modern society is so complicated and fragile that it cannot support the jackboot. We cannot run the processes of modern society by attempting to impose our will upon nations by armed force. If we have not learned that we have learned nothing. Therefore, from our point of view here, whatever may have been the morality of the Government's action - and about that there is no doubt - there is no doubt about its imbecility. There is not the slightest shadow of doubt that we have attempted to use methods which were bound to destroy the objectives we had, and, of course, this is what we have discovered."

This is Bevan's strongest argument and one that should be used against Tony Blair and George Bush who, like the British and French governments in 1956, have used methods in their 'war on terrorism' that were bound to destroy the objectives.

For a full transcrip of Bevans speech see here.

Neurologist Visit.

2007-05-18T15:19:00.000+01:00

Last Tuesday I had another consultation with my neurologist.

The news was good (actually the neurologists haven't discovered anything new in my case, which is kind of good).

What my neurologist knows is that I have a motor neuron problem in my right leg, leading to denervation, twitching and muscle loss. The tests show no evidence of trapped nerves or autoimmune diseases. However, there is no significant muscle weakness or spread to muscles in other parts of the body, making my neurologist consider Motor Neuron Disease (also called Amytrophic Lateral Sclerosis or ALS) to be an unlikely cause of the problem.

I am, however, being referred to a Motor Neuron Disease specialist at Oxford University, who has special expertise in motor neuron problems confined to one limb.

I must admidt that being an unusual case and of particular interest to specialists gives me an odd (and somewhat disturbing) feeling of satisfaction!

CCTV and SpyBlog.

2007-05-17T19:34:00.000+01:00

On Tuesday I drove out to my in-laws to watch a BBC programme on surveillance cameras (CCTV). It was a very disappointing experience.

The programme was one hour of pro-CCTV propaganda (and I don't use the word propaganda lightly!). The programme was billed as a documentary but never engaged seriously or critically with the information presented. Neither academic researchers nor critics of the extensive use of CCTV were given much time or voice on the programme, nor did the programme present any empirical evidence of CCTV's effect on crime and anti-social behaviour. Instead we were presented with anecdotal evidence, in the form of CCTV footage and tales of solved crimes, to back up police claims to the effectiveness and necessity of CCTV.

For a more detailed analysis of the programme and the way CCTV is presented in the media see this article on SpyBlog.org.uk.

What future?

2007-05-17T12:45:00.000+01:00

I hate the lies, but I just can't stop. I guess its a vain attempt to maintain a facade or some kind of self respect, but for every every lie I hate myself a little more.

So here's the truth: I do not have any plans for the future. I have no idea what I will be doing when I finish my exams in less than a months time and neither do I particularly care.

I know such thinking is shocking to most people and so I lie. When I, for example, told the truth to my Neurologist he said: "You most have applied for some jobs?" So I went back to the telling lies: "Yes, I'm hoping to do find some para-legal work." I said this even though I don't actually know what 'para-legal work' means!

I am so tired of telling people what I think they want to hear. The problem is that I've been lying so long I don't know anymore what I would like to do or what is realistically possible.

The Wrong Kind of Foreigner.

2007-05-13T11:33:00.000+01:00

Up until now I haven't expected much from Gordon Brown when he takes over the leadership of Labour. While it will be great to be rid of Tony Blair and 'the cult of the individual' that followed with him, Gordon Brown seemed to represent the same authoritarian wing of Labour as Tony Blair did.

However, Gordon Brown's idea of a constitutional convention with the aim of establishing a written constitution is the best I've ever heard from a British politician (for more on Gordon Browns leadership vision see here). I could still be disappointed as it is not clear whether Gordon Brown understands that the essential elements of a written constitution are its enactment throught direct election and its function of limiting of the power of Parliament.

The thought of a social democratic Labour Party motivated by ideas and not empty rhetoric makes me wish I could be involved in British politics. I am, however, not a British subject and cannot vote and cannot be a member of Labour.

Britain does grant full citizen and voting rights to some foreigners, as any citizen of Eire (the Irish Republic) can vote in Parliamentary elections in Britain. Why Britain extends this right to people from a republic that is proud to be independent from Britain is beyond me and seems quite patronizing as well as discriminatory. I guess I am, in the eyes of the British, the wrong kind of foreigner!

"Are you now or have you ever been...

2007-05-08T23:02:00.000+01:00

...a member of the British National Party?"

McCarthyism in Britain? Well not quite, but according to this Guardian article, the British Police has a policy of banning BNP members.

Not only will the police fire any officer found to be a member of BNP, they are also using CCTV to investigate allegations of BNP membership. In short the Police is using CCTV to find evidence of legal political activity to impose sanctions against some of its members!

The BNP is a far-right party whose policies I oppose. It is nevertheless a legal political party registered with the electoral commission.

If police officers have broken the law, e.g. engaged in rioting or broken Britain's Race Equality Laws, then the police would have legitimate grounds for firing the such officers. However, a free and democratic society will not discriminate, or deprive individuals of their right to work, on the basis of legal political activity.

New Alliance

2007-05-08T10:17:00.000+01:00

Until I left Denmark in 2004 I was a member of the Social Liberal Party (Det Radikale Venstre). I am more of a social democrat at heart than a social liberal, but the Social Liberals and the socialist parties were the only ones speaking up for civil liberties and against racism.

I left the party because Denmark does not allow its citizens living abroad to vote and it diden't seem to make much sense being a member of a party I couldn't be active in.

Yesterday two prominent Social Liberals, Naser Khader and Anders Sammulsen, and one Conservative politician, Gitte Seeberg, broke away from their parties and formed a new party the New Alliance. The new party seems to be more about gaining political influence than ideology, although it could be an attempt to form a new Conservative Party without the xenophobia.

All I know is that once again the left and centre-left has split and weakened itself. Look out for more right wing domination of Danish politics.

Dershowitz, The Trial of Jesus and Biblical Exegesis.

2007-05-02T08:40:00.000+01:00

This is a blog entry I posted yesterday on Re-Inventing the Adventist Wheel.

Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz has some arguably controversial views on the use of torture and the state of Israel. He has nonetheless written an interesting comment on the trial of Jesus in his book America on Trial, Inside the Legal Battles That Transformed Our Nation (New York, Warner Books, 2004).

In the first chapter Dershowitz describes how the Bible was used as a source of inspiration in the development of American law. Particularly references to the trial of Jesus have abounded in American legal history. Commenting on Jesus’ trial Dershowitz states that “[t]he relationship between the Jewish and Roman authorities, and their relative responsibility for the conviction and crucifixion of Jesus, is among the least trustworthy and most conflicting aspects of the Gospels.”

Dershowitz emphasizes that although the substantive laws of the Bible made certain kinds of religious heresy punishable by death, it also had a variety of safeguards that made it nearly impossible to execute anyone. Roman law, however, had looser standards of proof, especially towards non-Romans, and it is therefore not surprising that Jews wanting to get rid of a religious troublemaker would turn him in to the Roman authorities. Dershowitz then argues that the Gospel accounts are more favourable to the Romans than to the Jews, due to Christian expansion into the Roman world.

In his analysis Dershowitz is aligning himself with a long line of critical biblical scholars who see aspects of the Gospels, in particular the Gospel of John, as a result of anti-Jewish sentiment by 1st and 2nd century Christians.

While the critique from Dershowitz and critical scholars is valuable in forcing Christians to re-evaluating their understanding of Bible, their analysis seems to make the mistake of imposing later religious thinking onto the Gospels. Although Christians have used the Gospels to fan anti-Jewish sentiment, critics should be careful not to attribute such sentiment to the Gospel writers.

The critical approach should also serve as a reminder for Christians not to impose supervening exegesis onto the Biblical texts. The classic example of how such exegesis gets it wrong, is the interpretation of the statement in Matthew 1:22 that Jesus' birth fulfills Isaiah 7:14. Christianity has traditionally understood this text as a prophetic foretelling of the nature of Jesus birth, i.e. birth by a virgin. The writer of Matthew, however, is not emphasizing Mary’s unmarried status, but is making the point that just as the birth of a boy by a young woman was a sign of deliverance to King Ahaz, the birth of Jesus is the ultimate sign of deliverance. Jesus, Matthew writes, will therefore be called Immanuel by his people because he will save them from their sins (see Math. 1.21-23).

Final Lecture

2007-05-01T17:19:00.000+01:00

That's it! I've just had the final lecture of my Law degree.

The lecture was on Equity and Trust, more specifically about the similarities and differences of a Common Intention Constructive Trust and Equitable Estopppel. Yes, it was just as exciting as its sounds. (Actually the lecturer explained it beautifully made it all sound so simple.)

Now I just need to remember it all for my exams in 4 weeks time. Unfortunately at this point in time I'm not as confident about passing as I should be. :-(

Roundup of Today's Obersver.

2007-04-29T14:11:00.000+01:00

Four important and interesting articles in today's Observer:*

First, columnist Henry Porter can always be counted on speak up for civil liberties and against surveillance.

Secondly, an article on UK Information commissioner Richard Thomas' warning against increased surveillance. Thomas is right to emphasise the way surveillance undermines trust in society and alters the way individuals interact with the state and each other.

Thirdly, an article on the 'garrison economy' of the United States. According to two US economists, one-fifth the US workforce is now employed as security guards, prison officers or police. Especially interesting, in my opinion, was the finding of a correlation between economic inequality and the number of such 'gaurd workers'. This should raise some serious doubts in the minds of those who defend the so called "Anglo-Saxon" economic model. Is the good society and good life really advanced by allowing the market economy to create more and more inequality and for society to be dominated by security guards and police?

Finally, a business article comparing professional team sports in the US and Europe by someone who actually knows what he's talking about.

* The Observer is the UK's oldest Sunday Newspaper, owned since 1993 by The Guardian and effectively 'The Guardian on Sunday'.

Mid-Life Crisis

2007-04-26T09:59:00.000+01:00

I don't know exactly what a mid-life crisis is, but I'm beginning to understand.

It happens at the point in life when you realise that all the things you thought you were going to do are never going to happen. A time when your defeats and disappointments outweigh your hopes and aspirations. You no longer know who you are or what you are doing!

Maybe I'm wrong but it seems like you spend your teenage years creating a personality, answering the question of "Who am I?" Then sometime in mid your 30s or 40s, you realise you've constructed your life on a falsehood. A dream thats no more real than the childhood fantasies you once had.

You realise that life is empty and void, and the rest is indeed silence!

Tort and Liability of Public Bodies.

2007-04-22T14:32:00.000+01:00

Right now I should be using my precious time to study for my Tort tutorial tomorrow. However, my mind keeps wandering and I can't seem to focus on the liability of public bodies! Tort, which in civil law systems often is called 'non-contractual liability', is, in any case, an area of law which I'm very uncomfortable with. I guess I can identify three reasons for this dislike.

First, while tort does rely on statutes, judge-made law seems to dominate. This is true whether the tort is Negligence, False Imprisonment, Trespass to the person, Trespass to land, Trespass to goods, Occupiers Liability, Misfeasance in public office, Slander or Libel (to mention just a few of the 70 or so torts that are thought to exist).

Secondly, Judges, in the formulation of tort law, are too willing to strain the law to fit into what they intuitively think is the right outcome of the case in front of them. This is most clearly evident when the case concerns purely economic or psychiatric harm. A good example of this is Lord Denning's statement in the 1972 case of Spartan Steel and Alloys v. Martin:

'Sometimes I say "There was no Duty". In others I say: "The damage was too remote". So much so that I think it is time to discard those tests that have proved so elusive. It seems to me better to consider the relationship on hand, and see whether or not, as a matter of policy, economic loss should be recoverable.'

Thirdly, tort is fundamentally a capitalistic and materialistic concept. Although different torts have different aims, for example to compensate the victim of a negligent act for the damage caused by the act, the underlying idea of torts is that the best way to correct undesirable behaviour is to impose financial liability on the individual or body committing the wrongful act.