You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Rule of Law?’ tag.
Much of the talk about the rule of law, at least in international politics seems to be but a mere convenience to be followed when international law happens to be in favour of a countries policies. When it becomes inconvenient to the national policy or doctrine, then the rule of law becomes an obsolete antiquated legal fixture, or international meddling in a sovereign countries affairs.
The US is rather notorious for this dubious commitment to the international rule of law.
“The United States contempt for international law is neither new nor an aberration but a long standing tradition between both democrats and republicans in the United States.
In another stunning example of human rights abuse by the United States is the case of Khaled El-Masri. Who happened to have the misfortune of having the same name as a terror suspect. He was subsequently kidnapped, flown to Afghanistan and was tortured and sodomosied.(4)
“Masri’s treatment at Skopje airport at the hands of the CIA rendition team — being severely beaten, sodomised, shackled and hooded, and subjected to total sensory deprivation — had been carried out in the presence of state officials of [Macedonia] and within its jurisdiction,” the European Court of Human Rights ruled. (Idid.)
When the International Court of Justice ruled against the United States in 1986 in favour of Nicaragua and found the United States was guilty of many international laws and human rights violations it simply upped and walked away from the court. (5)
The US benches were empty when the court announced its decision. Among the Nicaraguan delegates was the Foreign Minister, Father Miguel d’Escoto, who said he hoped that the verdict would help the Americans to re-evaluate their position and stop defying the law and the court.
Dutch legal experts argue that the decision is legally binding on the US, despite the American refusal to recognise the court’s jurisdiction. One said: ‘The USA has always recognised the ICJ. It should have changed its position earlier if it wanted to duck the court in this case.
‘It is a well-known principle of international law that, if a country submits to the jurisdiction of a court, it cannot sidestep the court after the judges have started their work,’ a professor of international law at Amsterdam University said. (Ibid.)”
I’d like to live in a world where concepts such as the rule of law actually exist in a state where they applied equally to all parties involved. The state of the world precludes this fair application of the rules at the moment and it should be taken into account when appeals to the ‘rule of law’ are made.
[Source:Counterpunch]
Harper and his mercurial band of autocrats are merrily stomping on the neck of democracy. Sadly, this isn’t news, but rather par for the course as dissent, reality based or not (I’m looking at you prison bloat omni-bus bill) will be passed hell or high water. What makes the Wheat Board debacle such a gut-rolling spleen bursting festival of shitacular brazenness is that our government intends to ignore what the courts have to say on the matter as well. Canada, in theory, still regards the rule of law as important as long as it follows the will of the governing party… Rule of law be damned. A spirited opposition has risen to the task of fighting Harper’s autocrats:
“The Harper government has reneged on its promise and is now breaking the law, and we intend to hold them to it and ensure that farmers’ democratic rights are respected,” board chairman Allan Oberg said Wednesday.
The board will file an application with the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench, asking it to rule Bill C-18 invalid. The bill is currently before the Senate and could become law within weeks, so the board is also asking the court for an injunction to suspend the bill until the case is heard.
The government has already suffered one legal setback over Bill C-18. A Federal Court judge ruled last week that the bill violates the Canadian Wheat Board Act, which says the government must consult farmers via a plebiscite before making major changes.
Justice Douglas Campbell made it clear, however, that his ruling was simply a statement on the government’s actions. He did not order the government to halt the bill and said he was not interfering in the legislative process.”
However, once the wheels of injustice are greased, there is little to be done to stop the nefarious deeds –
“Five government-appointed directors now in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board decided Friday morning in Winnipeg to drop the board’s bid to block legislation ending its marketing monopoly for Prairie wheat and barley.
Legislation to end the wheat board’s single-desk became law Thursday night, when Gov. Gen. David Johnston gave royal assent to Bill C-18.
With its passage, the eight farmer-elected directors of the board are gone.”
So it is done. Of course in klassy Conservative style:
“Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz was jubilant Friday morning, telling farmers gathered in Balgonie, Sask., that it’s a great day.
“This feels damn good. It’s been a long time coming,” Ritz said. “Finally you have marketing freedom.”
Farmers in the room with Ritz cheered.”
Woo, now we can enjoy the bountiful harvest of the ‘free’ market! Soon to be followed with “all hail our new corporate agricultural overlords!!”. Now it is just a matter of time as the real work of divide and conquer can begin. Without the protection of the wheat board we can look forward to even more corporate agriculture and all of the ill effects associated with strict monoculture farming practices.
When the small farmers are all gone, we’ll look back and note the passage of the legislation that marked their end. We’ll also note the cheering, for the sake of irony and the inevitable “I told you so” that is forthcoming.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…