SUMMER HOLIDAYS (2)
For the past two weeks it's been over 20 degrees here in Denmark, and very dry; only 2mm of rain in July so far. Which makes it a very pleasant. And next week the temperature is likely to go even higher, into the high twenties or even thirty degrees. After a long and cold winter, it's a welcome respite.
So it's a pity that I won't be enjoying it. However, as of tomorrow I will be on holiday with my wife in a place that will be even hotter, namely Portugal. They have had temperatures well over 35 degrees, which is pretty hot.
I have never been to Portugal before, so I am really looking forward to it. No blogging for a while, back in 10 days.
Walter Blotscher
Wednesday, 17 July 2013
Tuesday, 16 July 2013
ALIEN
The original 1979 Alien film revolutionised science fiction, and the scene where it pops out of John Hurt's stomach was particularly memorable. There were three sequels, all of which involved Sigourney Weaver as the strong Lieutenant Ripley. Like most "franchises", the sequels weren't as good as the original; but they were still pretty good.
I watched Alien III again this evening. Ms. Weaver shaves her head in this one, but the real star was Lance Henriksen as the android Bishop, whom she rescues from the junkyard. Easy on the brain after a hard day's work on the cinema renovation project.
Walter Blotscher
The original 1979 Alien film revolutionised science fiction, and the scene where it pops out of John Hurt's stomach was particularly memorable. There were three sequels, all of which involved Sigourney Weaver as the strong Lieutenant Ripley. Like most "franchises", the sequels weren't as good as the original; but they were still pretty good.
I watched Alien III again this evening. Ms. Weaver shaves her head in this one, but the real star was Lance Henriksen as the android Bishop, whom she rescues from the junkyard. Easy on the brain after a hard day's work on the cinema renovation project.
Walter Blotscher
Monday, 15 July 2013
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
In common law countries such as the U.S. and the U.K. the standard of proof required in criminal cases is "beyond reasonable doubt". This is a higher burden of proof than in civil cases, where it is usually "the balance of probabilities". Basically, if there is any doubt about any part of the prosecution's case, then the defendant should be acquitted. The idea is that it is better to let someone go free who might be guilty than lock up (or execute) someone who might be innocent.
There is a further complication, to do with the role of a jury. If the jury convicts, then the defendant has the right to appeal, one or more times. But if the jury acquits the defendant, for whatever reason and however perverse that decision may seem to outsiders, then that is it. The criminal process is finished.
A third legal principle concerns the role of self-defence. Killing someone in self-defence can be a genuine defence to the crime of murder or manslaughter, but only in certain circumstances. The details vary from jurisidiction to jurisdiction. But basically, the defendant must first genuinely believe that their own life is at risk. Secondly, the response to that must be reasonable, taking into account all of the circumstances. Some years ago, there was an outcry when a Norfolk farmer was convicted of murder for shooting a burglar who had broken into his house; "we're no longer allowed to defend our own property", howled the tabloids. However, while the jury accepted the defendant's assertion that he feared for his life, they quite clearly thought that his response was totally unreasonable; the burglar was shot dead in the back as he was trying to escape from the house through a window.
Some of these elementary principles seem to have been forgotten in the recent case of Trayvon Martin, a 17-year old black boy shot dead in February 2012 in disputed circumstances by George Zimmermann, a white security guard on a private housing estate in Florida. Mr. Zimmermann has always maintained that he fired in self-defence, even though he admitted starting the altercation with Mr. Martin which escalated with fatal consequences. The problem for the prosecution was that there were only two witnesses to what happened, namely the two people involved; and one of them is no longer alive. So it was simply not possible for the jury to come to a view on whether Mr. Zimmermann's actions were reasonable or not. Against that background, the only logical verdict was acquittal; the prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Many black people feel that the justice system in America (and elsewhere) is biased against them; if Mr. Martin had been white and Mr. Zimmermann black, then the outcome would have been guilty. While there is ample evidence of racial discrimination in criminal matters, I have to say that in this particular case, I think they are wrong. The pity is that as recent and planned demonstrations show, much effort will be spent trying to change the verdict in this case (which is not possible) instead of concentrating on other matters such as eliminating the death penalty, reducing custodial sentences for minor drug offences, ensuring better access to public defendants, and (not least) working out why a security guard on a housing estate needs to be armed. None of those will help Mr. Martin, but they might make it a little bit less likely that a similar thing occurred in the future.
Walter Blotscher
In common law countries such as the U.S. and the U.K. the standard of proof required in criminal cases is "beyond reasonable doubt". This is a higher burden of proof than in civil cases, where it is usually "the balance of probabilities". Basically, if there is any doubt about any part of the prosecution's case, then the defendant should be acquitted. The idea is that it is better to let someone go free who might be guilty than lock up (or execute) someone who might be innocent.
There is a further complication, to do with the role of a jury. If the jury convicts, then the defendant has the right to appeal, one or more times. But if the jury acquits the defendant, for whatever reason and however perverse that decision may seem to outsiders, then that is it. The criminal process is finished.
A third legal principle concerns the role of self-defence. Killing someone in self-defence can be a genuine defence to the crime of murder or manslaughter, but only in certain circumstances. The details vary from jurisidiction to jurisdiction. But basically, the defendant must first genuinely believe that their own life is at risk. Secondly, the response to that must be reasonable, taking into account all of the circumstances. Some years ago, there was an outcry when a Norfolk farmer was convicted of murder for shooting a burglar who had broken into his house; "we're no longer allowed to defend our own property", howled the tabloids. However, while the jury accepted the defendant's assertion that he feared for his life, they quite clearly thought that his response was totally unreasonable; the burglar was shot dead in the back as he was trying to escape from the house through a window.
Some of these elementary principles seem to have been forgotten in the recent case of Trayvon Martin, a 17-year old black boy shot dead in February 2012 in disputed circumstances by George Zimmermann, a white security guard on a private housing estate in Florida. Mr. Zimmermann has always maintained that he fired in self-defence, even though he admitted starting the altercation with Mr. Martin which escalated with fatal consequences. The problem for the prosecution was that there were only two witnesses to what happened, namely the two people involved; and one of them is no longer alive. So it was simply not possible for the jury to come to a view on whether Mr. Zimmermann's actions were reasonable or not. Against that background, the only logical verdict was acquittal; the prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Many black people feel that the justice system in America (and elsewhere) is biased against them; if Mr. Martin had been white and Mr. Zimmermann black, then the outcome would have been guilty. While there is ample evidence of racial discrimination in criminal matters, I have to say that in this particular case, I think they are wrong. The pity is that as recent and planned demonstrations show, much effort will be spent trying to change the verdict in this case (which is not possible) instead of concentrating on other matters such as eliminating the death penalty, reducing custodial sentences for minor drug offences, ensuring better access to public defendants, and (not least) working out why a security guard on a housing estate needs to be armed. None of those will help Mr. Martin, but they might make it a little bit less likely that a similar thing occurred in the future.
Walter Blotscher
Sunday, 14 July 2013
GOOGLE
This blog is written on Blogger, which is a Google product. Since they host it and maintain it for free (the only requirement is to have a g-mail account, which is also free), it is a bit churlish to complain about it.
Having said that, those who read the blog regularly will know that something has been (and still is, I fear) awry during the past week or so. Headers and footers appear, but no text. As far as I can work out - admittedly not very far - one or more of the settings has been changed. But since I haven't been notified about it and can't work it out for myself, resolving it is proving to be a very hit and miss affair.
I think I have got it sorted. But if you can't read any of the text, please bear with me. As Marsellus Wallace famously said in Pulp Fiction, "I'm on the m... f...er...".
Walter Blotscher
This blog is written on Blogger, which is a Google product. Since they host it and maintain it for free (the only requirement is to have a g-mail account, which is also free), it is a bit churlish to complain about it.
Having said that, those who read the blog regularly will know that something has been (and still is, I fear) awry during the past week or so. Headers and footers appear, but no text. As far as I can work out - admittedly not very far - one or more of the settings has been changed. But since I haven't been notified about it and can't work it out for myself, resolving it is proving to be a very hit and miss affair.
I think I have got it sorted. But if you can't read any of the text, please bear with me. As Marsellus Wallace famously said in Pulp Fiction, "I'm on the m... f...er...".
Walter Blotscher
Saturday, 13 July 2013
EGYPT
Two and a bit years ago I said that it was unclear how Egypt would find its way to democracy, or indeed if it ever would. Recent events seem to be proving me right.
Twelve months ago Muhammed Morsi, a former member of the Muslim Brotherhood, was elected President of Egypt with 52% of the vote. As some commentators have noted, this was a higher figure than Barack Obama got last November when he was re-elected as President of the United States. So there is no doubt whatsoever that Mr. Morsi had a democratic mandate. Yet after protests by millions of people on 30 June, the anniversary of his election, the army gave him 48 hours to "meet (their) demands". When he unsurprisingly failed to meet that deadline, the army deposed him in a coup.
Unfortunately, there is also no doubt that during the past year Mr. Morsi has made a hash of the job, not least in economic matters (probably the primary concern of many of those protesters). However, that should not in itself be grounds for forced dismissal. After all, there are plenty of Americans who think that Mr. Obama is making a hash of the economy, but only a few nutters believe that the 101st Airborne should step in and get rid of him. Furthermore, although a sizeable proportion of Egyptians have welcomed the army's re-emergence in politics, there is an equally sizeable proportion who view it with horror. Clashes between the two factions have led to bloodshed, and will probably lead to more.
And that, I suppose, is my point. We in mature democracies advocate (or even impose) it on other countries, but we forget that it takes a long time for it to become embedded. If you take Magna Carta in 1215 as a starting point for the democratic process in the U.K., for example, then 600 years later there were still rotten boroughs, the purchase of positions in the armed forces and civil services, widespread corruption, disenfranchised citizens, notably women, and minorities (both religious and ethnic) who were legally discriminated against. And that was after a lot of violence along the way, including at least two full-blown and long-lasting civil wars. True, things move more quickly in the 21st century, and there are a lot more examples to help guide the path. But the basic concept, namely that you vote for a person or group of people, and - crucially - accept the decision if another person or group of people gets more, is not one that comes easily, or indeed rationally.
The problem with the deposition of Mr. Morsi is that it gives credence to the idea that might can prevail. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. So those who support him will be tempted to use the same methods to get what they want. We are not yet in a Wars of the Roses situation in Egypt; on the other hand, I would not be surprised if that is where the country ended up.
Walter Blotscher
Two and a bit years ago I said that it was unclear how Egypt would find its way to democracy, or indeed if it ever would. Recent events seem to be proving me right.
Twelve months ago Muhammed Morsi, a former member of the Muslim Brotherhood, was elected President of Egypt with 52% of the vote. As some commentators have noted, this was a higher figure than Barack Obama got last November when he was re-elected as President of the United States. So there is no doubt whatsoever that Mr. Morsi had a democratic mandate. Yet after protests by millions of people on 30 June, the anniversary of his election, the army gave him 48 hours to "meet (their) demands". When he unsurprisingly failed to meet that deadline, the army deposed him in a coup.
Unfortunately, there is also no doubt that during the past year Mr. Morsi has made a hash of the job, not least in economic matters (probably the primary concern of many of those protesters). However, that should not in itself be grounds for forced dismissal. After all, there are plenty of Americans who think that Mr. Obama is making a hash of the economy, but only a few nutters believe that the 101st Airborne should step in and get rid of him. Furthermore, although a sizeable proportion of Egyptians have welcomed the army's re-emergence in politics, there is an equally sizeable proportion who view it with horror. Clashes between the two factions have led to bloodshed, and will probably lead to more.
And that, I suppose, is my point. We in mature democracies advocate (or even impose) it on other countries, but we forget that it takes a long time for it to become embedded. If you take Magna Carta in 1215 as a starting point for the democratic process in the U.K., for example, then 600 years later there were still rotten boroughs, the purchase of positions in the armed forces and civil services, widespread corruption, disenfranchised citizens, notably women, and minorities (both religious and ethnic) who were legally discriminated against. And that was after a lot of violence along the way, including at least two full-blown and long-lasting civil wars. True, things move more quickly in the 21st century, and there are a lot more examples to help guide the path. But the basic concept, namely that you vote for a person or group of people, and - crucially - accept the decision if another person or group of people gets more, is not one that comes easily, or indeed rationally.
The problem with the deposition of Mr. Morsi is that it gives credence to the idea that might can prevail. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. So those who support him will be tempted to use the same methods to get what they want. We are not yet in a Wars of the Roses situation in Egypt; on the other hand, I would not be surprised if that is where the country ended up.
Walter Blotscher
Thursday, 11 July 2013
SUMMER HOUSES
Danes have a thing about summer houses. Originally, they were small fishermen's huts, or wooden sheds, deep in the woods or down by the seashore. And that combination of simplicity, rudimentary facilities and isolation, has persisted, even though modern summer houses are as well furnished as ordinary ones, and it's difficult to find a plot that doesn't have immediate neighbours. Indeed, so popular are summer houses that they often cost as much as ordinary ones that are twice the size. Particularly if they are on the "first row" (i.e. right next to the sea).
It's the sea that is the key to this phenomenon. Danes just love sitting outside a summer house, looking out over the sea. Lots of people in the town where I live own summer houses, often just five miles down the road. When I point out that the sea is not very far away and very easy to get to, they reply "yes, but you can't sit outside your own house and look at the sea".
My wife is very Danish in this regard. We live about half a mile from the Baltic Sea, which is down at the end of the dirt road, which our road becomes. Yet she still has a wish to have her own summer house. If I had a spare million, then I would probably buy her one. But since I don't, then I won't.
Walter Blotscher
Danes have a thing about summer houses. Originally, they were small fishermen's huts, or wooden sheds, deep in the woods or down by the seashore. And that combination of simplicity, rudimentary facilities and isolation, has persisted, even though modern summer houses are as well furnished as ordinary ones, and it's difficult to find a plot that doesn't have immediate neighbours. Indeed, so popular are summer houses that they often cost as much as ordinary ones that are twice the size. Particularly if they are on the "first row" (i.e. right next to the sea).
It's the sea that is the key to this phenomenon. Danes just love sitting outside a summer house, looking out over the sea. Lots of people in the town where I live own summer houses, often just five miles down the road. When I point out that the sea is not very far away and very easy to get to, they reply "yes, but you can't sit outside your own house and look at the sea".
My wife is very Danish in this regard. We live about half a mile from the Baltic Sea, which is down at the end of the dirt road, which our road becomes. Yet she still has a wish to have her own summer house. If I had a spare million, then I would probably buy her one. But since I don't, then I won't.
Walter Blotscher
Wednesday, 10 July 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
