The holiday season has many stories, songs and myths from different faiths and creeds, but they all come down to the same thing: compassion and love. Here's a reworking of the old Dickens favorite: A Drug War Carol.
Polis | 6 Writebacks | #
40 years ago, a man was silenced by the state, and today Governor Pataki has seen fit to make "a declaration of New York's commitment to upholding the First Amendment" by issuing a posthumous pardon.
Since it's the holiday season, I won't call him a hypocrite for caving to pressure from the wealthy and famous to take purely symbolic action when his own administration has ruthlessly fought free speech and the free flow of information. I'll just point out this, this, this and this. People can judge for themselves whether he's a hypocrite who trumpets the first amendment only when it doesn't matter.
Via Writerrific.
Polis | 3 Writebacks | #
I don't blame people like Ara Rubyan, who say Qadhafi is reprehensible and we should exact justice from him for the victims of his acts. Justice is a reasonable goal.
But the security goal is also valuable. It's reasonable to want to reduce or eliminate Qadhafi's ability and willingness to support terror in the future.
The solution pursued by Clinton and Bush is actually pretty good at approaching both goals. You know about the reduction of terror and WMD support. But not everybody is aware that we also demanded and got large concessions in the pursuit of personal justice.
For years we've been telling Qadhafi that normalized relations would require him to take responsibility for the bombings, make reparations, and turn over the people that did the bombings. He's made huge steps in doing all those things. He's paid out billions to the families of victims. He's pretty much admitted his past support of terror, and I wouldn't be surprised to see him come clean at some point in the future. He extradited two Lockerbie bombing suspects for trial (one was convcted, one acquitted). So we got some justice for the victims. It's not Qadhafi's head on a stick, but it's something.
To accept nothing less than deposing or killing Qadhafi is to demand too much. The man leads Libya, and he's not going anywhere. We've been applying maximum economic pressure for 15 or so years, and that's not toppled him. Absent invasion or assassination, I don't see any way to depose or kill the man, and I don't see invasion or assassination as better than the deal we got. As Dean Esmay asks, what would the objectors have done instead of taking the steps we took?
If we really think Qadhafi could be a threat with his WMDs and support for terror, then we have to do something to remove that threat. We took a big step toward accomplishing that without completely abandoning the Lockerbie victims. Indeed, we made talks on the security goal conditional on the justice goal.
Sounds like a good compromise to me.
Update: I'm not actually suggesting the Lockerbie victims should be happy with recent developments or that they should stop advocating for Qadhafi's head on a stick. They should do whatever they believe is required of their point of view and to honor their kin. They should continue to push. But the rest of us should balance their justice-oriented views and interests with other security-oriented views and interests.
Polis | 7 Writebacks | #
Libya's pledge to end it's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs is surely a great victory for America, Britain, Bush and Blair. I'm not so certain, though, that it is vindication of our Iraq policy.
The argument, made by the Bush administration, Dean Esmay, Neil Stevens, Matthew Yglesias and others, that Qadhafi caved because he didn't want to become the next Hussein just doesn't fly. Libya's disavowal of terrorism dates back to immediately after 9/11, when Qadhafi condemned the attacks and offered some material support. He also opined that retaliation was proper, a truly stunning stance for the man Reagan bombed in retaliation for his support of terrorism in 1986. The Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism said in May 2002, "Sudan and Libya seem closest to understanding what they must do to get out of the terrorism business, and each has taken measures pointing it in the right direction."
Even before 9/11 and before America started rattling its saber, Libya distanced itself from terrorism. In May 2001, an article in Foreign Affairs reported on Qadhafi's "partial rehabilitation", his attempts to repair relations with the West, and the effect tough sanctions have had on Libya.
And Qadhafi is not all talk. He's no saint, but he took definite steps toward reducing Libya's involvement in terrorism many years ago. Once considered a haven for terrorists of all stripes, Libya extradited terrorists and Islamic militants, shut down terrorist funding and terrorist camps, and expelled terrorist organizations. The reason Abu Nidal was in Iraq is because they got kicked out of Libya. Libya has admitted responsibility for and compensated the victims of several of its bombings, and offered billions in compensation for the Lockerbie bombing. All this started happened in the late 1990's. In fact, there is no known case of the Libyan government committing terrorism since the 1989 bombing of a French airliner.
All of this is to say that Libyan rapprochement is the product of many years of hard work. Getting Libya out of the terrorism business started with Reagan's tough stance, brutal sanctions and international isolation. Bush and Blair should be credited for travelling the last, difficult miles, but claiming Iraq was a necessary or sufficient cause of Qadhafi's capitulation is simply a short-sighted slap at Reagan, Clinton and the elder Bush.
Update: I'm not trying to suggest that Iraq had nothing to do with Qadhafi's decision. Invading Iraq certainly added pressure that pushed Qadhafi in the right direction. My claim is just that he was already headed that way.
Update: Via Hit and Run, an old quote:
"A spokesman for Mr Berlusconi said the prime minister had been telephoned recently by Col Gaddafi of Libya, who said: 'I will do whatever the Americans want, because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid.'"
I don't know how much to trust that quote (can you imagine the leader of a country saying something like that?), but there it is.
Update: Josh Marshall agrees with me, and the Guardian agrees that this was the product of negotiations going back to 1999 and that
As Libya has indicated, the Iraq war actually made agreement more difficult; it was eventually reached despite, not because of, Iraq.
As with the quote saying this was all because of Iraq, I don't know how much to credit the quote saying this was in spite of Iraq.
Update: Yglesias has changed his mind. He cites Martin Indyk as doing "a pretty good job of demolishing the argument that the second Gulf War caused Libya to agree to disarm."
Polis | 5 Writebacks | #
Acidman posted about embarrassment while buying condoms, and I was reminded of some embarrassment of my own.
When I was in college, I always chucked the half-empty box of unused condoms when I stopped seeing a girl. There's just something unseemly about being done with a girl but still having that half-full box in your nightstand. And there's also something unseemly about bedding down with a new girl using condoms from your last fling. Call me old fashioned.
At some point during my second year, I took up with a young lady. We were on a date, and we both knew where it was headed. We had the forethought to have the contraception discussion before getting home, and I realized I had no condoms left. So we stopped at a drug store.
We considered our options and settled on a brand (Lifestyles), type (spermicide lube), and size (huge). I reached for the jumbo box of 15 condoms. In mid-reach, I took another look at her and realized we were already on the down slope to being mildly annoyed at running into each other in bars while on dates with other people. I hastily redirected for the 3-pack.
And I was totally busted. She did this female mind-reading thing and knew exactly what thoughts had passed through my head. To her credit, she was only mildly insulted. She taunted me mercilessly, though, which I guess I deserved. It wasn't exactly the smoothest first date move around.
Still, we bought the condoms, and we used them that night. We made it through one more 3-pack before calling it quits, which, knowing her, proved some sort of point. To this day, I'm not sure what the point was or who won it. All I know is when I buy condoms, I shop alone.
Chris Geidner, one of the panelists at En Banc, explains Why Civil Unions Are Not Enough over at Findlaw.
Read it. It has all the power of honest emotion and passionate reason. Plus, he rebukes Larry Tribe, who responds. And Chris doesn't back down.
When I was in law school, I took a class taught by Evan Wolfson on the fight for marriage. It was 1998 or so and Evan was with Lambda LDF. Baehr in Hawaii was big news then, just as Massachusetts is now. Our last assignment in that class was King's Birmingham jail letter, which is mentioned in Chris's piece.
One of the most important lessons Evan taught us is something Chris already knows but so many others are just starting to figure out. The fight is not for gay marriage. There's no such thing as gay marriage. The fight is for equal access to civil marriage. I know most people don't hear a difference in those two phrases, but to me it's essential to clearly communicate both what it is advocates are fighting for and also that marriage is marriage, whether it be between straight or gay partners. Chris consistently frames the issues in terms of equal rights and makes scant use of the phrase "gay marriage". Good on him for helping move the ball forward on that point.
Another memorable bit I took from Evan's class was his term for civil unions: "schmarriage". It's kinda like marriage but not quite. It's all the legal rights with none of the respect or dignity. At some point, I asked him if he'd accept schmarriage. As I recall, he said he'd happily accept any advance in securing equal rights but the fight obviously can't end with separate but equal.
It's a long road, and Massachusetts is just the start. At first I thought Massachusetts was going to do like Hawaii and amend their constitution. Now it looks like it will be schmarriage at a minimum with a good chance at full on equal rights. It's great progress, and this is just the first step. But there's no doubt we're going to get there, and soon.
Polis | 3 Writebacks | #
Via Boing Boing come two beautiful websites showcasing fantastical notions in body paint.
People that want to deny gays equal access to the privileges of civil marriage always end up talking about sex. They're obsessed with Tab A fitting Slot A, the mechanics of round pegs and square holes. If you assemble the parts correctly, you produce a baby, and who doesn't love babies?. If you get the parts wrong, you get no babies, and all you're left with is the misery of unfulfilled biological imperative.
It's an argument from natural law, and it often results in people saying things like "We are more likely to be satisfied with the outcome, if we work with our biology rather than against it." And that's where the argument breaks down.
Perhaps you can convingly argue that "a marriage without a Tab A and a Slot A is going to be less satisfying", but it's a big leap to go from there to "marriages without a Tab A and a Slot A must be prevented". In addition to its puritan streak, America enjoys a pretty healthy libertarian streak. Why should the puritans and not the libertarians win this one?
If people want to try for happy marriages despite the setback of knowing the marriage will be childless, let them. We let straight people take the gamble, no matter how badly the odds are stacked against them (and even when the marriage can produce no children). Gays should have the same opportunities to take a shot at wedded bliss. And they should have the same support from society in keeping them from failing and protecting them when they do.
At the end of the day, peope will take the gamble, support or no support. Given that people are trying to form these long-term committed relationships, there is nothing gained in working for their failure rather than providing the support that will help some people succeed.
Polis | 3 Writebacks | #
We noticed somebody visited Brutal Hugs by way of Jenn Manley Lee's blog, which led us to her comic, Dicebox. It's beautiful and witty with engaging characters and confident lines. Go read it.
No, not busting people for selling sex toys. Apparently Dallas police busted a bunch of illegal immigrants for possession of what turned out not to be cocaine but instead just ground up gypsum. That's not the scandal. The scandal is that all of this stuff that isn't cocaine mysteriously tested positive for cocaine. The Mexican immigrants sat in jail because their public defenders couldn't afford independent tests. Police testified to having witnessed drug transactions that never happened. Innocent people facing mandatory 10- and 20-year sentences plead guilty.
Go read the details and the scant media coverage. It's terrible. Then read Mark Kleiman's post, which is a really good write-up.
Polis | 5 Writebacks | #
The American Family Association is conducting a poll. They want to know what you think of granting equal access to the rights of marriage to gay families. Go tell them.
Long Story; Short Pier says they're going to present the results to Congress, presumably to support some legislation or a Constitutional amendment that goes further than the Defense Of Marriage Act. Frankly, I don't see how they can do much more damage than DOMA. An amendment isn't going to fly, and with our new-found regard for the Commerce Clause and 10th Amendment, legislation regulating marriage should fail judicial review. This is a state battle.
Polis | 7 Writebacks | #
Interestingly, Nathan Newman thinks the medical marijuana decision in Raich v. Ashcroft is a bad one. The decision basically said that the federal government can't regulate purely personal consumption of marijuana because the federal power to regulate interstate commerce doesn't extend to such noncommercial activity.
Nathan says
[A]s far as federal-state power conflicts, voters can decide through their national representatives how much power to give the national government. There is no reason for the federal courts to second guess the voters who elected the Congress on how best to establish this balance.
Nathan is exactly wrong on that. His desire to use federal power protect minorities in homogenous state populations is admirable, but he's still wrong. There's a really good reason not to let the voters decide. The Constitution sets out specific powers of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce. Regulation of personal consumption of marijuana is a power reserved to the states. The reason this is in the Constitution is because the framers of the Constitution placed an outer limit on federal power, without regard to what the voters want.
That's the way it goes in a Constitutional system-- sometimes voters get trumped by the Constitution, and that's ok. We accept that we've bound ourselves in advance, that we've built hard limits into the system that can't easily be avoided.
We accept it because those limits root out Democratic, de jure oppression of racial minorities. They prevent the jailing of innocent people by elected politicians running hard on crime. They enable us to protest in the streets. And it's those limits that help preserve the states as laboratories of social change and legal exploration.
Nathan is unhappy because the electorate lacks absolute control over where to draw the line between federal and state power. But what the voters have is almost as good. It's almost absolute control. To enable the New Deal, the commerce clause power expanded to allow the federal government to regulate every aspect of life and without regard to the commercial nature of the activities regulated. The Courts basically said the federal government could have as much power as the electorate would give them. The Raich decision rolls that back just a twinch to truly take the commerce clause at its word, but it still gives the electorate huge line-drawing power-- they can choose across a whole spectrum of giving the states almost all the power to giving the feds almost all the power.
Even if we want the electorate to have that little twinch of power back, I wouldn't give up the hard limits that protect my Constitutional rights from a runaway electorate to get them back. I'd rather live in a world where the federal government respects Constitutional limits than live in a world where I am defenseless against the trampling of my rights except for my ability to vote.
Polis | 3 Writebacks | #
Sweet and lovely news from the 9th Circuit: Randy Barnett has emerged victorious in Raich v. Ashcroft, and the Court decided that the federal government probably cannot prohibit seriously ill users of medical marijuana from growing their own marijuana or have friends grow it for them. Read the opinions.
The 9th Circuit is the most frequently overturned Circuit around. It's also the only Circuit to take seriously the commerce clause shift outlined in Lopez and Morrison. I know I don't.
But don't cancel the celebration just yet. If I'm going to be proven wrong, this is the time and the place-- a case that invites conservatives to support limits on federal regulation of interstate commerce and that allows liberals to support compassionate medical marijuana legislation. Hopefully, the Courts unwavering support of the drug war (see Maryland v. Pringle, the latest rollback of probable cause protection spurred by the war on drugs) will not decide this case-- i.e. a case that invites liberals to reaffirm the reach of the federal power to regulate and that allows conservatives to wax hysterical about drugs.
As for the overall medical marijuana fight, even if this stands, this isn't a right to medical marijuana, nor does it allow states to trump the feds in allowing their citizens to manufacture or distribute medical marijuana. Like the recent ruling supporting the ability of doctors to advise their patients that marijuana might help them, this case isn't about a right to access to marijuana so much as other issues (free speech, commerce clause, etc.). And, lest we forget, U.S. v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative still prevents the medical necessity defense.
In other words, this is a small step down a long road. A happy step, but a small one. Keep on fighting.
Update: TalkLeft also has the story, and En Banc covers it as well, which makes En Banc's current top two stories the same as Brutal Hugs's.
Polis | 4 Writebacks | #
*sigh* Isn't this woman, arrested under an obscenity statute for selling sex toys to narcs posing as a married couple, protected by Griswold v. Connecticut and Lawrence v. Texas?
In Griswold, a doctor was arrested for providing contraceptives and information about contraceptives to married couples. The Supreme Court struck the statute criminalizing the use of contraceptives. In Lawrence, two men engaged in consensual sexual acts were arrested for violating a Texas law against sodomy. Again, the Supreme Court struck the law, this time reversing its 1986 decision in Bowers v. Hardwick. In both cases, the Court decided that the couples "were free as adults to engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution."
These cases reaffirm the right of adults to engage in private consensual relations as they see fit. Surely that right covers a little motorized tickling.
There are, perhaps a few open questions, but they strike me as relatively minor. Is it ok to ban the sale of such devices as long as you don't ban their use? Justice Douglas, in delivering the opinion for the Court in Griswold, suggests this distinction is significant. But nobody joined his opinion. Neither Justice Harlan's concurrence nor the plurality opinion, delivered by Justice Goldberg and joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Brennan, make any mention of the disctinction.
And then there's the obscenity statute. This isn't a law prohibiting the sale or use of sex toys. It's a law against obecenity. Obscenity laws are specifically aimed at expressive content, but what's the expressive content of a vibrator? It's difficult to see the effect of bringing this case under an obscenity law, but I can't imagine torturing a bad set of laws to prevent people from masturbating is a workable tactic.
As Justice Stewart might say, this is "an uncommonly silly law". Hopefully this will get shot down fast, and we can get back to hunting Osama bin Laden. If Americans aren't even free to get off with the latest technology, then the terrorists have already won.
Update: An Alabama Distrcit Court last year considered this issue in Williams v Pryor, which you can read about on the ACLU website and other places. Things got a bit complicated procedurally, but when the legal dust settled, they decided such laws are generally constitutional because states have a legitimate government interest in public morality. The lower court then found the law unconstitutional on more narrow, technical grounds of overly broad application. The use/sale distinction played a role, and it seems the court was willing to protect sale to protect use. Either way, that's Alabama and the 11th Circuit, so Texas could split.
Over all, I'd say a really good case can be made protecting sex toys in light of Lawrence, which Scalia believes is a serious setback for sexual morals legislation. If Lawrence holds, and assuming you lose O'Connor to the dark side (her equal protection logic wouldn't protect sex toy fans), you end up with Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kennedy outvoting Scalia, Rehnquist, Thomas, and O'Connor.
On the other hand, I'm not sure this Court wants to take more sexual morals cases. They don't want to be the Court that oppressed people in a time of increasing sexual liberation, and neither do they want to be the Court that opened the door to a right to polygamy and incest.
Update: Volokh has some interesting tidbits on the Texas statute, and Say Uncle has Beavis's reaction to Volokh's tidbits. En Banc also has some in-depth comments worth reading.
Polis | 8 Writebacks | #
Cory Doctorow, Copyfight, and Wired are all talking about the Pool, a repository of content (code, art, text), proposed, realized and utilized semi-collaboratively by an open community. Cory says this is a "a copyright-free zone", but it appears to be more copyleft than copyright-free.
This sounds like it should be some kind of neat idea. But I couldn't tell. I never made it through the flash interface to find out. Before you can access any of the pools, you have to click through a dialog box that makes sure you have a compatible browser, minimum screen resolution, and a maximized browser window. It's like 1996 all over again. And the scary thing is that those requirements aren't for maximum viewing pleasure. Those are really the minimum you'll need just to get the damn thing to work.
Once you're in the pool, you quickly realize why they need all that real estate-- every concept and project in the whole pool is on screen at once. Labels for the projects are just stacked on top of each other, 10 at a time, and so none of them are legible. Even better, they labels are bobbing up, down, left and right. Clicking on a specific project sometimes requires the patience of real-life fishing as you attempt to mouse over one project and not the dozen others overlapping it.
You have to scroll down to mouse over the projects at the bottom of the pool, but reading their descriptions requires scrolling back up, which most people will do with their mouse, which will cause the description to disappear. For other projects, the description pops up under the cursor. Moving the cursor to read the description causes the description to disappear.
This is one of those projects that benefits not at all from flashy pointless flash. HTML and a little CGI with a database could accomplish all of this with no worries. Instead, you have bobbing text all over the screen. I guess you have to give them credit for innovation-- I never thought I'd encounter something more annoying than a blink tag.
Polis | 1 Writebacks | #
The Morning News is starting up a regularly monthly gathering dedicated to chatter and drinking -- each month, 7 p.m., the third Thursday -- and the first installment is this week, Thursday, at Hi-Fi in the East Village. All Morning Newsies welcome.
Four men in a grey Yukon were stopped because police had received a tip that men in a grey Yukon were running drugs. Police removed them from the vehicle, ordered them onto the ground and demanded they show their hands. One man did not show his hands fast enough, and was shot and killed by police.
The man was innocent. No drugs, no weapons, no indication at all that these men had anything to do with the investigation or the tip. He just didn't show his hands fast enough. He's another drug war victim.
Via Say Uncle.
Polis | 3 Writebacks | #
Why is it that in a town known for its bagels, pizza and falafel, there are so few places that actually make a good bagel, pizza or falafel? Too many people take round bread, punch a hole in the middle and call it a bagel. I'd like to punch holes in their middles. Mark Kleiman mourns the passing of good bagels and belly lox. He also tells you where in LA to get cold-smoked steelhead, which subs for belly lox in a pinch.
In New York, of course, there are few places you can get a decent bagel, and edible lox is even harder to find. One-stop shopping does not exist, and the closest you can get to it is 80th and Broadway, where you can get hot H&H on the south corner and soulful gravlax and dill sauce on the north at Zabar's. When I lived uptown, my mother would stop at Columbia Hot Bagels for a dozen fresh every time she visited. But it's downhill pretty fast from there.
I have fond childhood memories of eating H&H and Zabar's down in Battery Park on a weekend morning. I didn't know how lucky I had it. I do, however, know where I'll be brunching this Sunday. Maybe I can find some of this cold-smoked steelhead at Barney Greengrass the Sturgeon King.
Check this flashmation look at the first year of living in the Creative Commons. Thanks, Lessig!
Polis | 3 Writebacks | #
The University of Minnesota's Design Institute examines how design principles can improve voting. They examine emerging voting technology in the hopes of steering America toward better voting systems and structures.
Via Boing Boing.
Polis | 2 Writebacks | #
Via Boing Boing, we hear that Japanese 100-Yen stores are coming to the Americas. We would probably call them dollar-stores, and in Canada, things will go for $2 Cdn. What took them so long, and when do they get to New York?
The capture of Hussein is easier and less useful than the capture of Osama bin Laden, but it's definitely something to celebrate. Some time back, I put together my thoughts on trying Saddam Hussein for his crimes against his own people. Suddenly those thoughts are relevant, although I believe it might have been neater if Hussein had perished in the capture.
Polis | 2 Writebacks | #
Nader is probably going to run again. And I'm all for it. Given that being president is the ultimate culmination of the American dream, epsecially for first-generation Lebanese Nader, claims that he shouldn't run are as unamerican as it gets.
To all you people who believe Nader was a spoiler and that a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush: GET OVER IT!
You have it exactly backwards. Gore cost Nader the election. If all those people that voted for Gore had instead voted for Nader, Nader would now be president. So, if you voted for Gore, you voted for Bush.
Polis | 9 Writebacks | #
Make your list. Check it twice. Then throw up all over it. Today is Santacon.
A good friend of mine is concerned that due to Santacon I will be too besotted to find my way to Guernica to celebrate his birthday tonight.
My plan is to pin an envelope to my Santa suit with a $10 bill and instructions to pour me into a cab aimed at Guernica. My only problem is I don't know whether to pin it to the front or the back. What do you think, am I more likely to end up face up or face down in the gutter?
Want to join the Santarchy? SANTACON 2003 will be meeting in the Food Court at Grand Central Terminal Directly across from the Oyster Bar. See "thestick" Santa for your 10 percent discount coupon to any drink and drink (food toooooo) in the food court area. Santas will start amassing at 11am, We will be there long enough for 2 beers (official Santa time should always be clocked in amount of beers possible to be consumed). This year's Santacon Hotline will be the same number as last year's. What? You don't remember it? 212.544.9664.
Update: FTrain caught up with us.
Nathan Newman and Pandagon agree that, not only is Bush a miserable failure, he is unelectable as well. We're all hoping Google will agree.
Polis | 4 Writebacks | #
Canadian scientists have discovered that when men are shown pictures of pretty girls, their ability to make rational decisions and plan for the future is impaired. Apparently this is news.
My question is why we always call Helen "Helen of Troy". Why not "Helen of Mycenae"? She started out married to Menelaos in Mycenae and, aside from 10 years in Troy, spent her adult life with Menelaos in Mycenae. So why does the loser of the battle retain top billing?
Maybe it's because her heart was in Troy. No matter that she returned to Menelaos. She'll always have Paris.
Interestingly, Paris is portrayed in the Iliad as somewhat craven and foppish. Maybe this is a case of the victor writing history, but it could be evidence that it is not just men who are swayed by pretty faces.
A cure for Parked Motorcycle Syndrome! (not work safe)
Here's how you know this was sent to me by actual motorcycle enthusiasts. The comment that accompanied that link said:
Is it just me, or does the Duc in the December 7th picture have a dented front rim?
There used to be a list on Usenet of illegal drug prices around the world. It contained entries like "I bought __ grams of weed in Downtown Vancouver and it cost me __". I saw it maybe 5 years ago or so. I never had a need for it so haven't used it since, but I tried to find it today (to settle a bet) and couldn't locate it on Google.
If you know where it is, email us. We'll be eternally grateful.
Polis | 0 Writebacks | #
Drug War Rant has an excellent round up of recent Canadian marijuana law relaxation and the US reaction to our progressive neighbors to the North.
Polis | 2 Writebacks | #
Fellow Blosxom blogger, Tim Lambert, over at Deltoid has been blogging up a storm, exposing gun advocate John Lott's anonymous reviews of his own works on Amazon.com. Apparently, Lott's inability to stomach criticism of his own works leads him to praise those works anonymously in the hopes of convincing people he's not a hack. It's some impressive detective work. Go read it.
The Brutal Hugs team is pretty varied in its views of guns, but thanks to Deltoid, even the NRA-defender among us thinks Lott should just pack it in.
Polis | 0 Writebacks | #
Via Boing Boing, we find out that Canada has developed a new style of arbitration based on Muslim Shari'a law. If the parties to a lawsuit want to submit to a Shari'a arbitrator, they can do so, and Canadian courts will enforce the arbitration decision. This is a way for Canadian Muslims to settle civil disputes by Shari'a law instead of by Canadian law.
Not everybody is pleased about the development. Warner Huston, writing in American Daily, warns about "Sharia barbaric law" and "insane Sharia style lawd". He seems to think this is the first step to Muslims overtaking Canada by Jihad. A similarly ignorant column appeared in the Calgary Sun, and Little Green Footballs has the usual knee-jerk reaction to all things Muslim.
I don't really see what the big deal is. I don't know about Canadian law, but under American law, barbaric and insane arbitration rulings wouldn't be enforced by American courts. In other words, if two people have a dispute over a debt, and Shari'a law says one or the other should pay, courts would enforce an arbitration award regarding the debt. If, though, a Shari'a arbitrator decided a man could beat his wife, courts wouldn't require the woman to submit to the beating. And you don't get aribtration for criminal cases, just civil cases, so there won't be any Shari'a-ordered killings of rapists or anything like that.
People have all kinds of horrible reactions to Shari'a law because we only hear about it when it results in horror stories. But Shari'a law is broader than that. It governs lots of civil disputes over property and such. My guess is that the purpose of allowing Muslims to avail themselves of Shari'a arbitration is more about letting them obtain legal relief that matches their social expectations in such civil disputes and not to let them duck criminal penalties for beating their wives.
And fulfilling expectations is what the law should be about. When we go to the courts for relief, we expect the results to be right, and by "right", we mean "in accordance with the principles we believe should govern". And generally, our largely secular Western courts grant relief that is in accordance with our largely secular Western beliefs.
But if you live in a Muslim community and make a deal with a Muslim, you and she might have the expectation that your deal will play out in compliance with Shari'a principles. Since you both subscribe to those principles, you would want any deviation from those principles to be corrected. And if you go to court because the deal doesn't work as planned, you and the other party would want deviations to be fixed in accordance with the principles you believe should govern, and also in accordance with the principles you expected would govern. Getting relief in accordance with largely secular Western beliefs would frustrate the intent of the parties. The relief obtained would not be right. Having enforceable Shari'a arbitration fixes that problem.
This kind of arbitration isn't even a new concept. Any two parties can agree to settle their civil disputes by whatever arbitration rules they can agree to. Jews can do it through Beis Din in Canada and America. As long as they meet some minimum requirements of due process and such, Beis Din decisions are no different from Shari'a decisions are no different from secular arbitration decisions.
It's wonderful when pluralism is so easy and simple.
Polis | 0 Writebacks |