I've spent much of the day ploughing through this 75-page judgment of the European Court of Human Rights relating to abortion laws in Ireland. H/T Ophelia Benson for bringing it to my attention over here.
The Irish law and the history behind it are fiendishly complicated. The way Irish law interacts with European human rights law is even more so. Oh, and the factual situations of the three cases before the court were not especially simple either. Suffice for the moment to say that all three cases involved women who'd had abortions in the UK as a result of the draconian Irish law which imposes a frakking life sentence on a woman who has an abortion!
In the upshot, only one of the three women before the court obtained any relief, and she probably didn't even get enough money to cover her legal costs.
I'm getting ahead of myself, though. The case is complicated enough that this will have to be mainly a place-holder post. I'll have a bit more to say over the weekend. But I do have to throw up my hands in horror at the mess that Irish law has made of this simple issue of abortion, and the mess that has been made of it in European and international human rights regimes. The law on abortion should be straightforward: it should be completely legal, but there should be regulation of training, safety, etc., standards of clinics and other providers.
Ireland has created a terrible mess by creating laws, including constitutional provisions, that are influenced by religion. Human rights law has compounded the problem across the board, not just in Ireland, by allowing exceptions to human rights based restrictions on governments for the mere enforcement of positive morality. It's a mess all round, and enough of a mess to make a good Millian liberal angry.
About Me
- Russell Blackford
- Australian philosopher, literary critic, legal scholar, and professional writer. Based in Newcastle, NSW. My latest books are THE TYRANNY OF OPINION: CONFORMITY AND THE FUTURE OF LIBERALISM (2019); AT THE DAWN OF A GREAT TRANSITION: THE QUESTION OF RADICAL ENHANCEMENT (2021); and HOW WE BECAME POST-LIBERAL: THE RISE AND FALL OF TOLERATION (2024).
Friday, December 17, 2010
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Coming back to the piece by Jack of Kent
I said I'd have a bit more to say about Jack of Kent's piece. One thing that I want to emphasise is that I agree with him that the criminal allegations against Assange - the Swedish sex charges - need to be dealt with on their merits. I see no evidence at this stage that that's not happening, and I agree that it's wrong to be calling for the charges to be dropped as if it's, like, transparently obvious that the charges are trumped up, or, in effect, politically-motivated. We don't know anything like enough to draw that conclusion, and I can see no reason at this stage to take to the streets or the press or the blogosphere calling for the charges to be dropped.
In particular, I put very little weight on public statements by lawyers for the various parties involved. Those statements are hardly objective - lawyers are paid to represent the interests of their clients, to put their clients' side of the story, whatever it is, and generally to act (quite properly) as advocates. Within certain boundaries imposed by professional ethics (yes, there is such a thing) they are supposed to be one-eyed about issues where they act as their clients' representatives.
Furthermore, the approach of trial by press releases and press interviews can only produce the most simplified and distorted picture of any legal case. It may be inevitable in such a high-profile case that the lawyers start acting as, in effect, PR representatives, but that doesn't mean that the dueling public comments give anything like the same picture that will come out in court.
We can still comment on the case, of course, but we need to do so carefully, showing a bit of humility about how much we really know the facts. If the full charges, once they are known to us, are ridiculous on their face .. sure, we can say so. But I think that a lot of Assange supporters are simply assuming that they will be in a way that betrays ... if not exactly an element of misogynism at least an element of something approaching it, a certain failure to take the interests of women with adequate seriousness.
That said, Jack of Kent makes some silly comments such as the one about placing the word "crime" in what are ambiguously ordinary quotes or scare quotes. Yes, doing that shows scepticism about whether Assange has really committed a crime, but in itself that kind of scepticism is not necessarily a bad thing in all the circumstances. If the word were used without quotes around it, it really would be prejudging things. Perhaps it's best to say something like "alleged crime", but I think that JoK is actually showing signs of losing objectivity in making a fuss about this point.
Worse is the bit where he quotes Pilger saying: "Catlin describes the Swedish justice system as 'a laughing stock'. For three months, Assange and his lawyers have pleaded with the Swedish authorities to let them see the prosecution case."
Jack of Kent's reply to this is pretty lame: "It would appear that they should perhaps have asked Mr Pilger."
That is not a good reply to a serious issue. Yes, perhaps Pilger has overreached in implying that he knows more than he really does. That point has been made already, earlier in the post. It's not very impressive to make the point again in response to a claim that Assange and his lawyers are not getting timely access to information about the prosecution's case.
Perhaps they are, perhaps they aren't. Perhaps they shouldn't get that kind of detail at this stage of the procedure. There will be statutory rules of some kind governing how the police in Sweden are supposed to act in such circumstances as these - what documentation they are supposed to provide when - and they have either followed the rules or they haven't. There's also a question as to whether Sweden's rules in criminal cases are sufficiently protective of an accused person's interests, compared to those in other jurisdictions or by some more objective standard.
But JoK doesn't deal with any of that at the appropriate point in his post - though it's exactly the sort of thing that we need him for. Instead, he just deflects the point by making a sarcastic comment about Pilger.
Overall, it's useful to have views on this case expressed by Jack of Kent, but he seems to be more invested than I'd really like. He's swinging too far for my comfort in the opposite direction to the mindless cries for Assange simply to go free without due process. I'd like to see a bit more rigour from the blogosphere's most astute observer (that I know about) of the British legal system.
In particular, I put very little weight on public statements by lawyers for the various parties involved. Those statements are hardly objective - lawyers are paid to represent the interests of their clients, to put their clients' side of the story, whatever it is, and generally to act (quite properly) as advocates. Within certain boundaries imposed by professional ethics (yes, there is such a thing) they are supposed to be one-eyed about issues where they act as their clients' representatives.
Furthermore, the approach of trial by press releases and press interviews can only produce the most simplified and distorted picture of any legal case. It may be inevitable in such a high-profile case that the lawyers start acting as, in effect, PR representatives, but that doesn't mean that the dueling public comments give anything like the same picture that will come out in court.
We can still comment on the case, of course, but we need to do so carefully, showing a bit of humility about how much we really know the facts. If the full charges, once they are known to us, are ridiculous on their face .. sure, we can say so. But I think that a lot of Assange supporters are simply assuming that they will be in a way that betrays ... if not exactly an element of misogynism at least an element of something approaching it, a certain failure to take the interests of women with adequate seriousness.
That said, Jack of Kent makes some silly comments such as the one about placing the word "crime" in what are ambiguously ordinary quotes or scare quotes. Yes, doing that shows scepticism about whether Assange has really committed a crime, but in itself that kind of scepticism is not necessarily a bad thing in all the circumstances. If the word were used without quotes around it, it really would be prejudging things. Perhaps it's best to say something like "alleged crime", but I think that JoK is actually showing signs of losing objectivity in making a fuss about this point.
Worse is the bit where he quotes Pilger saying: "Catlin describes the Swedish justice system as 'a laughing stock'. For three months, Assange and his lawyers have pleaded with the Swedish authorities to let them see the prosecution case."
Jack of Kent's reply to this is pretty lame: "It would appear that they should perhaps have asked Mr Pilger."
That is not a good reply to a serious issue. Yes, perhaps Pilger has overreached in implying that he knows more than he really does. That point has been made already, earlier in the post. It's not very impressive to make the point again in response to a claim that Assange and his lawyers are not getting timely access to information about the prosecution's case.
Perhaps they are, perhaps they aren't. Perhaps they shouldn't get that kind of detail at this stage of the procedure. There will be statutory rules of some kind governing how the police in Sweden are supposed to act in such circumstances as these - what documentation they are supposed to provide when - and they have either followed the rules or they haven't. There's also a question as to whether Sweden's rules in criminal cases are sufficiently protective of an accused person's interests, compared to those in other jurisdictions or by some more objective standard.
But JoK doesn't deal with any of that at the appropriate point in his post - though it's exactly the sort of thing that we need him for. Instead, he just deflects the point by making a sarcastic comment about Pilger.
Overall, it's useful to have views on this case expressed by Jack of Kent, but he seems to be more invested than I'd really like. He's swinging too far for my comfort in the opposite direction to the mindless cries for Assange simply to go free without due process. I'd like to see a bit more rigour from the blogosphere's most astute observer (that I know about) of the British legal system.
New piece on Assange by Jack of Kent
I'll come back to this. For the moment, this post is something of a place-holder. Still, I do want to follow what Jack of Kent has to say about Assange, since I think he (the former) has pretty good judgment on legal issues. Unfortunately, he makes a few snarky debating points aimed at John Pilger, but there are also legitimate points about the legal situation.
More later - meanwhile, feel free to discuss.
More later - meanwhile, feel free to discuss.
Currently reading: Humanity's End by Nicholas Agar
I'll be reviewing this book formally elsewhere, but it's worth also drawing attention to it here. Agar is an unlikely recruit to the bioconservative ranks, having previously written a book that offers a cautious defence of human enhancement technologies. On this occasion, however, he's produced a lucid critique of what he calls "radical enhancement". As I'll be pointing out in my review, he may not have changed position, exactly, as he's defined radical enhancement fairly narrowly, as involving "improving significant human attributes and abilities to levels that greatly exceed what is currently possible for human beings."
We've also published a lengthy review of this book, by Jamie Bronstein, over at The Journal of Evolution and Technology.
The arguments that seem dearest to Agar's heart, and will, I think, merit most discussion, involve the claim that a posthuman life would be impoverished by human standards (not by the standards of the posthumans themselves, who may be perfectly happy with their lives, or by some kind of objective standard that is inescapably binding on all rational beings). This raises issues about whether such human standards exist and, if so, whether they are the ones we should apply.
Agar wants us to adopt a "species-relativism" about values, which does not necessarily mean that we should be speciesist. Our species-relative values may turn out to involve concern for the interests of non-human animals. However, they may also involve a desire to preserve various kinds of relationships, approaches to life, social institutions, and so on, that would (arguably) have no appeal to posthumans, with their indefinitely long lives and/or vastly augmented, ever-developing intellects. To preserve these things and lead lives that we ourselves see as valuable, we will need to stay human.
I don't necessarily agree with all, or any, of this approach, and will saying more about why in my review, but Humanity's End is certainly an important contribution to current debates about enhancement, emerging technologies, and transhumanist philosophies.
We've also published a lengthy review of this book, by Jamie Bronstein, over at The Journal of Evolution and Technology.
The arguments that seem dearest to Agar's heart, and will, I think, merit most discussion, involve the claim that a posthuman life would be impoverished by human standards (not by the standards of the posthumans themselves, who may be perfectly happy with their lives, or by some kind of objective standard that is inescapably binding on all rational beings). This raises issues about whether such human standards exist and, if so, whether they are the ones we should apply.
Agar wants us to adopt a "species-relativism" about values, which does not necessarily mean that we should be speciesist. Our species-relative values may turn out to involve concern for the interests of non-human animals. However, they may also involve a desire to preserve various kinds of relationships, approaches to life, social institutions, and so on, that would (arguably) have no appeal to posthumans, with their indefinitely long lives and/or vastly augmented, ever-developing intellects. To preserve these things and lead lives that we ourselves see as valuable, we will need to stay human.
I don't necessarily agree with all, or any, of this approach, and will saying more about why in my review, but Humanity's End is certainly an important contribution to current debates about enhancement, emerging technologies, and transhumanist philosophies.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
100 best-selling books at Readings in 2010
Fascinating list. It's nice to see that 50 Voices of Disbelief: Why We Are Atheists made the list at # 90.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
The Santa Claus myth
How harmful is it to lie to our kids, if we have them, about the existence of Santa Claus? I'm now in two minds. On balance, I think it's probably harmless enough, but the Christmas book that I've been reading has two essays on the subject examining the morality of the practice. One, by David Kyle Johnson, argues strongly against it; the other, by Era Gavrielides, is in favour.
I think that Johnson overreaches at points, and, again, I'm leaning towards being okay with the practice. I'm not convinced that it does any real harm, and I don't go around with some kind of absolute standard of opposing lies in all circumstances.
Still, there's something at least tacky about the giving children misinformation, and I certainly resent little half-recalled examples of this from my own childhood. I most definitely dislike the idea that it's "cute" for children to be deceived and to act on the basis of their misapprehensions. But for all that, I don't resent being told stories about Santa Claus in particular. I just don't feel that it harmed me.
I don't very clearly remember the circumstances in which my parents came clean about the non-existence of Santa Claus. I do recall that it was when I discovered a children's book that I knew I was supposed to be getting for Christmas ... in a wardrobe at home. It was obviously waiting to be wrapped for me and left as a present on Christmas Eve - and this kind of proved that the gift was coming my way from my mum and dad, not from Santa. When I challenged them on it, they came clean that of course it was all make believe; and the way I remember this, I wasn't at all surprised because I'd already worked out for myself that the whole story didn't add up. I can't, however, recall more than that, and I'm not at all sure how old I was at the time: I've got no other recalled events from my very young life at the time to match it against.
Johnson, who is writing a book on the subject, says that many people tell him stories about their experiences of learning that Santa Claus was a fake - and many of these stories express memories of childhood disillusion and distress, and feelings of ongoing bitterness. What about you? Can you recall when you worked out that the Santa story was made up, and/or when your parents came clean about the Santa Claus myth? Was the experience hurtful to you in any way, do you think? Do you feel that your period of believing in Santa was even beneficial?
If you have kids, did you/will you tell them the Santa story? Do you think it's the right thing to do? Does it worry you in any way?
I think that Johnson overreaches at points, and, again, I'm leaning towards being okay with the practice. I'm not convinced that it does any real harm, and I don't go around with some kind of absolute standard of opposing lies in all circumstances.
Still, there's something at least tacky about the giving children misinformation, and I certainly resent little half-recalled examples of this from my own childhood. I most definitely dislike the idea that it's "cute" for children to be deceived and to act on the basis of their misapprehensions. But for all that, I don't resent being told stories about Santa Claus in particular. I just don't feel that it harmed me.
I don't very clearly remember the circumstances in which my parents came clean about the non-existence of Santa Claus. I do recall that it was when I discovered a children's book that I knew I was supposed to be getting for Christmas ... in a wardrobe at home. It was obviously waiting to be wrapped for me and left as a present on Christmas Eve - and this kind of proved that the gift was coming my way from my mum and dad, not from Santa. When I challenged them on it, they came clean that of course it was all make believe; and the way I remember this, I wasn't at all surprised because I'd already worked out for myself that the whole story didn't add up. I can't, however, recall more than that, and I'm not at all sure how old I was at the time: I've got no other recalled events from my very young life at the time to match it against.
Johnson, who is writing a book on the subject, says that many people tell him stories about their experiences of learning that Santa Claus was a fake - and many of these stories express memories of childhood disillusion and distress, and feelings of ongoing bitterness. What about you? Can you recall when you worked out that the Santa story was made up, and/or when your parents came clean about the Santa Claus myth? Was the experience hurtful to you in any way, do you think? Do you feel that your period of believing in Santa was even beneficial?
If you have kids, did you/will you tell them the Santa story? Do you think it's the right thing to do? Does it worry you in any way?
Monday, December 13, 2010
Fascinating paper on the history of Santa
Check out this fascinating and detailed paper by David Kyle Johnson. You won't be sorry.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Putting the Yule in Yuletide
Todd Preston's essay in Sott C. Lowe's Christmas anthology is entitled "Putting the 'Yule' Back in 'Yuletide'." This, of course, makes fun of the injunction to "Put Christ Back in Christmas." Preston replies, bit caustically, "First, given the sheer number of plastic nativity scenes, religious Christmas carols, and rebroadcasts of Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ over the past three months, Christ seems to be very much in evidence this time of year. More to the point, if this directive signals a desire to return to a more 'authentic celebration of Christmas, the key should not be in promoting the Christian aspect, but on balancing the Christian and non-Christian elements of the holiday."
Preston then does a fine job of explicating the history of Christmas as a feast day and holiday celebration, especially in the English-speaking world.
Preston then does a fine job of explicating the history of Christmas as a feast day and holiday celebration, especially in the English-speaking world.
Kitteh contest winners
Jerry Coyne has announced the winner and the joint runners up in the kitteh contest, judged by Miranda Hale, Ophelia Benson, et moi. Go and check 'em out.
You might also like to check out Ori's Glob, the blog of grand winner Lucy's owner, Oriana Varas.
You might also like to check out Ori's Glob, the blog of grand winner Lucy's owner, Oriana Varas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)