6/29/05 - Safire Returns, International Women's Rights, and The Supreme Court Cops Out
I've been sick and stressed out so I've been writing less. Maybe I'll be able to do more when I feel accustomed to my Summer schedule.
William Safire Strikes Back
Even though I completely disagree with most of William Safire's opinions, he's one of my favorite column writers. His style, honestly and logic are almost always immpeccable and I tried never to miss a day. I like the fact he tried to appeal to audiences that didn't necessarily agree with him, a necessity for a conservative columnist writing for the New York Times. Anyway, he wrote a guest editorial today, and just seeing his name in print again (and not on treatises about language) makes my heart beat a little giddier.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/29/opinion/29safire.html?oref=login
Note the Novak point. Seriously, why hasn't he been thrown in jail. I mean, the people being prosecuted didn't even write stories about it... The Supreme Court's choice not to extend the shield laws has ramifications that go beyond just national security. For example, because reporters refuse to reveal which govenmental officials violated a man's right to privacy, they have been sentenced for contempt. The chill on press speech does not need to be innumerated. The media can't justify their stories by the fact they're true, but also have to justify the means their sources went about collecting facts. Nobody will be willing to talk to the press about anything controversial if that means they'll be dragged to court, and the harder courts lean on reporters, the more risk there will be that good journalism will be executed at the point of a gavel.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/29/politics/29contempt.html
Yes, Women have Writes
I didn't know women were allowed to become novelists in Iran. I kind of assumed that it would be something that was frowned upon. Apparently, I'm wrong.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/29/books/29wome.html
Normally, human interest stories aren't my thing, but I find the plight of women's rights in fundamentalist countries compelling. Moreso, now that Iran has elected a leader who is offended by the sight of women's bare ankles. I am especially interested in how women use inneudo to write about passion and sex even when its taboo. Repression is only going to get worse, I think.
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-iran-freedoms.html
Speaking of women and sex, a protest in South Korea was held today over the enforcement of an anti-prostitution law.
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-korea-sex.html
Though the spokesperson paints the industry as fairly healthy and women-friendly, I am not so sure. Researcher David Scofield wrote an article last year suggesting that government resources would be better spent targeting the worst abuses caused by forced prostitution but the industry's widespread roots makes it impossible to eliminate completely. Scofield even suggests that it might be helpful to the public as a form of tax revenue. The only thing I know for sure is that putting women and girls into jail probably won't stop the problem of prostitution, as exemplified by the United States.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/FE26Dg03.html
Finally, at least some judges in Pakistan can see sense. Mukhtaran Mai was allegedly gang-raped by order of her city council as a punishment for her brother's affair with a woman from a rival clan. The perpetrators were acquitted, but Pakistan's Supreme Court has locked them up again.
http://www.aljazeerah.info/News%20archives/2005%20News%20Archives/June/29%20n/Supreme%20Court%20Orders%20Rearrest%20of%20Rape%20Suspects.htm
The Court Prioritizes Laws, not People
There's been a fair amount of criticism for the Supreme Court's refusal to grant constitutional relief to a woman who begged the police to fulfill her restraining order on the grounds that their negligence resulted in the death of her two daughters.
http://www.commondreams.org/news2005/0629-02.htm
Full text of the opinion: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/27jun20051200/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-278.pdf
People may be shocked by the Court's callous treatment of people's lives and wellbeing, but this isn't the first case where the Court has found people hurt by government negligence have no constitutional remedy. Apparently, you have a right to free speech, but not to be safe. Deshaney v. Winnebago, decided in 1989, was a case about a child abused by his father. Social workers were aware of his abuse but did nothing to stop it, resulting in severe mental retardation. The child now lives in an institution, his motor capacities damaged by horrible abuse. In a 6-3 decision, the Court found that "nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors."
The full text of Deshaney:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=489&invol=189
The cases are very similiar. In both, the lives of children (who are especially precious in government sight due to en loco parentis) are jeopardized by state officials who know something is wrong but refuse to do anything about it. The results are horrific. The difference is in matter of approach: Deshaney focussed on a liberty interest and Castle Rock examined the due process clause. I'm not quite sure why the Supreme Court is ruling on Colorado's constitutional law also, but I haven't waded through the entire opinion yet.
At any rate, I don't think it's too much to ask for a government that takes our taxes to have an affirmative obligation to protect us. When you have knowledge of a wrong and still refuse to act, I'd certainly call that egregious and reckless disregard of a person's right to life. Unfrtounately, if the court is not going to impose one, we'll have to tackle the laws in a different ways. States should amend their constitutions to protect citizens from governmental negligence as a way to ensure accountability. I have no idea how to word a provision without also opening a thousand other Pandora's boxes (if the state has to protect life, when does abortion become illegal?) but that's what real lawyers are for. As it is, our government does so little for abused children. I blame the difficult case loads-- it's not surprising overburdened case workers make mistakes. Surely, we can do better for the next generation of young Americans then let them die at the hands of their parents.
Well, it could be worse. Iran's high court is allowing somebody's eyes to be gouged out. Now that's cruel and unusual punishment.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/IRIN/a8619f48c99683f07596984f48d916ca.htm
