Overlawyered: Chronicling The High Cost Of Our Legal System

Posts Tagged ‘Europe’

European Court Denies Proactive Request for “Food & Water” Order

There but for “the grace…” —

A man with an incurable brain condition has lost his final legal appeal to insist that doctors give him food and drink in the final stages of his life.

Leslie Burke, from Lancaster, feels he will be denied sustenance when his illness makes him unable to speak.

The European Court of Human Rights said it did not believe there was a real threat that his food would be stopped. The European judges refused to reverse a UK ruling that allows doctors to decide a patient’s treatment.

Mr Burke, 46, has Friedreich’s ataxia. It causes a lack of co-ordination, but does not affect mental faculties.

This is certainly not the forum to reopen the Terri Schiavo affair — my posts are the subject can be found at this chain. And I have remained on the sidelines regarding the teenaged cancer victim who was almost forced to undergo debilitating and painful chemotherapy against his will.

I’ll simply note that I consider it axiomatic that food and water are, um, food and water and not “medical care” in the strict sense. And that knowingly permitting a patient under your care for Friedreich’s ataxia to die against his wishes — not of Friedreich’s ataxia, but of dehydration — is homicide.

Discuss.

(Via Medpundit.)

—

Perhaps the European courts are correct and Mr. Burke’s litigation was simply not ripe, as we say in the U.S. And perhaps a properly drafted “living will” would preempt any issues or concerns.

On the other hand, a legally recognized spouse would certainly also address those concerns. Generally speaking, when there is any uncertainty, a spouse has the final say about medical decisions when the patient cannot communicate. No living will necessary. Advisable, but not strictly necessary.

Just one of the more than 1,000 ways in which gays suffer in the name of “defending traditional marriage.”

It’s absolutely barbaric.

Filed under:

“Express Yourself” — But Not in Duesseldorf

One of the points that I often emphasize at my own blog is that there simply is no First Amendment in Europe.

Just ask Madonna:

Prosecutors plan to keep an eye on Madonna’s weekend concert in Duesseldorf to see if the pop diva repeats the mock crucifixion scene that has drawn fire from religious leaders.

Johannes Mocken, a spokesman for prosecutors in Duesseldorf, said Tuesday that a repeat of that scene during Sunday’s concert could be construed as insulting religious beliefs.
…
Mocken said authorities would rely on media reports rather than sending observers to the concert and that the show might be covered by laws protecting artistic freedoms.

Read that again: “might be covered.” So not only is there no blanket freedom of expression, but what partial protections do exist are so vague that even the prosecutors don’t know how they apply to whom under what circumstances.

Read On…

Filed under: ,

Changing planes in U.S.? II

While I oppose laws banning online gambling as ludicrous public policy in a world with government-run lotteries that return sixty cents on the dollar, I don’t see the controversy (also Hurt) over arresting someone indicted for breaking those laws when they step foot on US soil. If Osama bin Laden were foolish enough to take a commercial flight from Karachi to Caracas that changed planes in Dallas, federales could surely arrest him while he was waiting in line at the Orange Julius. Airports don’t convey some sort of diplomatic immunity.

That said, as a public policy matter, America should perhaps be less inclined to assert jurisdiction for victimless Internet crimes committed over international borders, lest we lose the ability to defend the free speech rights of American citizens to discuss issues of religion or politics barred in other countries. And in conjunction with the NatWest Three extraditions (ably discussed by Kirkendall), one fears a European perception of the US as a nationwide judicial hellhole unsuitable for business dealings, much the same way an American might view doing business in Russia. Already, international companies are choosing to raise capital in international financial markets outside the US where once they went to New York, a problem discussed by Larry Ribstein and Henry Butler in a recent AEI book on Sarbanes-Oxley.

Separately, with respect to the new federal interest in focusing scarce resources on gambling, one wonders if Rep. Jefferson is hoping that he shredded his March Madness pool entry before the FBI searched his office. And see also Mankiw v. Passey (via Taylor).

Filed under: , , ,

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t files: sunscreen edition

If there is anything behind that sunscreen class action seeking damages because sunscreen manufacturers comply with warning label regulations, it’s because the FDA refuses to approve Mexoryl, a sunscreen ingredient widely used in Canada and Europe that protects against UV-A rays. (Mike Thomas, “Not legal — but best thing under the sun”, Orlando Sentinel, Apr. 23).

Filed under: , ,

Stand Up to Islamism

Twelve leading writers from the Muslim world signed the Manifesto of 12: Together Facing a New Totalitarianism:

After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new global totalitarian threat: Islamism.

We — writers, journalists and public intellectuals — call for resistance to religious totalitarianism.

Instead, we call for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values worldwide.

The necessity of these universal values has been revealed by events since the publication of the Muhammad drawings in European newspapers. This struggle will not be won by arms, but in the arena of ideas. What we are witnessing is not a clash of civilizations, nor an antagonism of West versus East, but a global struggle between democrats and theocrats.

Like all totalitarianisms, Islamism is nurtured by fears and frustrations. The preachers of hate bet on these feelings in order to form battalions destined to impose a world of inequality. But we clearly and firmly state: nothing, not even despair, justifies the choice of obscurantism, totalitarianism and hatred.

Islamism is a reactionary ideology which kills equality, freedom and secularism wherever it is present. Its success can only lead to a world of greater power imbalances: man’s domination of woman, the Islamists’ domination of all others.

To counter this, we must assure universal rights to oppressed people. For that reason, we reject “cultural relativism,” which consists of accepting that Muslim men and women should be deprived of their right to equality and freedom in the name of their cultural traditions.

We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of “Islamophobia,” an unfortunate concept that confuses criticism of Islamic practices with the stigmatization of Muslims themselves.

We plead for the universality of free expression, so that a critical spirit may be exercised on every continent, against every abuse and dogma.

We appeal to democrats and free spirits of all countries that our century should be one of enlightenment, not of obscurantism.

Now, the 12 signers are the subjects of a death threat. One of the 12, Irshad Manji, is asking people to come to her website and add their own names to the Manifesto. I just did, and I urge you to do the same.

Filed under:

Update: Danish Muslim groups to sue over cartoons

27 Muslim groups in Denmark have announced their intent to sue the newspaper Jyllands-Posten for defamation in a Danish court, and also plan to “report Denmark to the UN Commissioner on Human Rights for failing to prosecute the newspaper that first published controversial cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad”. (Jenny Booth and news agencies, “Danish Muslims sue over Muhammad cartoons”, The Times (U.K.), Mar. 17). Earlier coverage: Mar. 4, Feb. 14 (Muslims in Calgary, Alberta plan to sue), Feb. 10, etc.

Filed under: , , ,

Update: U.K. Commons revolt on bill curbing religious speech

Civil libertarians take a stand in Britain: by single-vote margins, the House of Commons has surprisingly voted to water down significantly the bill introduced by the Blair government to attach legal penalties to various types of speech critical of religion. In particular, the bill “was stripped of measures to outlaw ‘abusive and insulting’ language and behaviour as well as the crime of ‘recklessness’ in actions that incite religious hatred.” Earlier, the House of Lords had heeded protests from free-speech advocates including comedian Rowan Atkinson by lending its support to amendments to the bill. “In a humiliating blow to Mr Blair, who has a 65-seat Commons majority, 21 Labour rebels voted with Opposition MPs while at least 40 more were absent or abstained.” (David Charter, “Religious hate Bill lost after Blair fails to vote”, The Times, Feb. 1; Greg Hurst and David Charter, “Racial hatred Bill threatens our civil liberties, say rebels”, Feb. 1; Greg Hurst and Ruth Gledhill , “How comic’s supporters kept their heads down and used their cunning”, Feb. 2). Earlier coverage: Jul. 16, 2004; Jun. 11, Jun. 27, Aug. 17, Oct. 19, and Oct. 29, 2005.

The Blair government’s primary motivation for the bill is considered to be to cater to the sensitivities of British Muslims, and many commentators (such as Charles Moore) make the obvious connection with the situation in Denmark (see Feb. 1). Meanwhile, violent threats continue against Danes, cartoonists, and liberal-minded Europeans generally. And some 500 lawyers in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, are supporting a project “to take legal action against” those who insult or demean the founder of their religion with one goal being “to enact laws that would incriminate abuse of religions and prophets in all countries,” as a spokesman puts it. (P.K. Abdul Ghafour & Abdul Maqsood Mirza, “Lawyers Vow Legal Action in Cartoons Row”, Arab News, Feb. 4). Michelle Malkin has much, much more (plus this).

Filed under: , , , ,

EU shelves “tan ban”

Ducking a heated controversy, the European Parliament has declined to rule on “whether workers such as bare-chested builders should be required by their employers to cover up to avoid excessive sun.” The issue will now be left up to national legislatures. “MEPs found themselves under siege from angry business groups and German building workers, who staged a shirtless protest.” (David Rennie, “MEPs run for cover in ‘tan ban’ dilemma”, Daily Telegraph, Sept. 8). “Socialists and Greens argued EU legislation was vital to cut skin cancer rates among outdoor workers, but the right denounced it as an example of the nanny state running amok and over-burdening business.” (Aine Gallagher, “Builders and barmaids avoid EU tan ban”, Reuters/Swissinfo.com, Sept. 7). More: Jim Leitzel at Vice Squad has the dirndl angle (Sept. 11).

Filed under: , , , ,

Book review in today’s WSJ

I’m in today’s Wall Street Journal (sub – $) with a generally favorable review of Sadakat Kadri’s new book “The Trial: A History from Socrates to O.J. Simpson“. A few excerpts from the review:

By 1880 the criminal trial as an institution had become standardized around the West to the point that readers on many continents found little that was unfamiliar in Dostoevsky’s account of the murder proceedings against Dmitri Karamazov. The lawyers popping up with objections, the witness box and table of evidentiary exhibits, the sensation-seekers filling the gallery — all were as common to the courthouses of San Francisco or Paris as to those of late-czarist Russia. Go back a few centuries to premodern Europe, though, and the forms of justice can seem to our eyes indescribably strange: trial by ordeal, by combat or by compurgation (the collecting of oaths from supporters) and so forth.

And yet the march of progress is not always quite so apparent. We may smile at the premodern practice of putting a pig or haystack on trial for having caused harm to a human being, yet our contemporary law abounds in forfeiture and pure-food cases with headings like United States v. 900 Cases of Peaches (1975) and United States v. One 1967 Pontiac Bonneville Convertible (1973)….

The continuities between past and present are many. Battles over jury selection, so typical today in big trials, propel the plot of Burnt Njal, a medieval Icelandic saga involving arson-murder and bloody retribution. The tendentious interpretation of ambiguous marks on witnesses’ bodies — a hideous aspect of the witch hysteria of the 16th and 17th centuries — reappears in the child-abuse prosecutions of our own era. Denunciation boxes, into which citizens dropped accusing notes in Inquisition times, popped up in police stations across Russia in the 1930s. Hype-fraught celebrity trials? They date back pretty much forever and serve useful purposes, such as calling attention to social problems that would never stir public debate if left abstract….Regarding the emotionally manipulative style of some courtroom champions, Mr. Kadri finds plenty of precedent. He quotes the 1897 Tennessee Supreme Court, which said that “tears have always been considered legitimate arguments before a jury. Indeed, if counsel has them at his command, it may be seriously questioned whether it is not his professional duty to shed them whenever proper occasion arises.”

As for glittering but empty turns of courtroom rhetoric, Johnnie Cochran was just building on a tradition that goes back to Shakespeare’s time. “Elizabethan schoolboys,” Mr. Kadri writes, “were commonly taught adoxography, the art of eruditely praising worthless things….The first English treatise on the subject appeared in 1593 and contained essays celebrating deformity, ugliness, poverty, blindness, drunkenness, sterility, and stupidity. Its preface claimed that it would be particularly useful to lawyers.”

Read the whole thing here if you are a subscriber, or go out and buy a copy of the Journal. Incidentally, the Journal’s editors had to drop a couple of paragraphs of my original review draft for space reasons. Here they are:

* On the centuries-old practice of digging up the rotting remains of deceased persons to make them stand trial on criminal charges, a judge named Pierre Ayrault observed in 1591 that after all it is natural to regard the reputations of the dead as of continuing interest — wouldn’t we want to free a wrongly accused decedent from suspicion? That still didn’t explain why it would be needful to exhume a corpse, so Ayrault suggested a painting of the accused be hung in court instead.

* On the differences, some apparent and some real, between American and British justice: “Plea bargaining has never been given legal recognition in England. Barristers nevertheless haggle over pleas and judges give ‘indications’ of their likely sentences almost every day in almost every court of the land.” On the other hand, some differences are very real indeed, as with British judges’ power to summarize for jurors the weight of evidence in a case: “The summing-up invariably pays lip service to the principle of jury independence — typically, by ending a devastating criticism with the observation, ‘It is, of course, entirely a matter for you.'”

Filed under: , , , , ,