Injustice incorporated

Shocking - that is the first incredulous conclusion after reading the article in the NY Times of today on American justice courts. As it turns out, justice court is a misnomer for a large number of these institutions that often occupy premises more reminiscent of a farm barn or a workshop.

"Some of the courtrooms are not even courtrooms: tiny offices or basement rooms without a judge'’s bench or jury box. "

These courts are supposed to bring affordable justice to common people in small towns in backyard districts. Instead, according to a NY Times report following a year long investigation, dependents are often denied proper recourse to law, unfairly judged, unduly sentenced and obstructed from an appeal through utterly incompetent court transcriptions, if any.

"People have been sent to jail without a guilty plea or a trial, or tossed from their homes without a proper proceeding. In violation of the law, defendants have been refused lawyers, or sentenced to weeks in jail because they cannot pay a fine."

The judges are often incompetent.

"Some 1,140 justices have received some sort of reprimand over the last three decades - an average of about 40 a year, either privately warned, publicly rebuked or removed. They are seriously disciplined at a steeper rate than their higher-court colleagues."

"For the nearly 75 percent of justices who are not lawyers, the only initial training is six days of state-administered classes, followed by a true-or-false test so rudimentary that the official who runs it said only one candidate since 1999 had failed."

There is little control over these courts and the judges that run these institutions.

"State court officials know little about the justices, and cannot reliably say how many cases they handle or how many are appealed. Even the agency charged with disciplining them, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, is not equipped to fully police their vast numbers."

These courts are prevalent in a majority of states in the USA.

"New York is one of about 30 states that still rely on these kinds of local judges, descendants of the justices who kept the peace in Colonial days, when lawyers were scarce."

These courts handle not just trivial cases such as speeding offences either.

"It is tempting to view the justice courts as weak and inconsequential because the bulk of their business is traffic violations. Yet among their 2.2 million cases, the courts handle more than 300,000 criminal matters a year."

Small wonder that this travesty of law and justice is the order of day: A judge of a justice court can be appointed willy-nilly - as long as the person is elected!

"The reason is plain: Many do not know or seem to care what the law is. Justices are not screened for competence, temperament or even reading ability. The only requirement is that they be elected. But voters often have little inkling of the justicesÂ’ power or their sometimes tainted records."

The article in the NY Times continues to cite examples of abuse and incompetence by these justice court judges.

In defense of the system of justice courts, it is argued that the benefits to people outweigh the rotten spots. However, in reality this system is the remnants of a thirteen century English system of layman law for lowly cases. Unfortunately, modern times have left this system behind and exposed it for the folly it is today: a band of cavalier henchmen who reign supreme over their little local fiefdoms, often providing anchor points for wholesale nepotism and prejudice on a local scale.

Not in Britain, the Netherlands, both ex-colonial powers; or South Africa, an ex-colony of both forementioned countries, is there today any such aberration of justice as the justice courts of the USA, a country that prides itself on being a land of laws. Perhaps it would be better served by setting its own house in order rather than preaching to other countries about justice.

Not by the sword

Pope Benedict XVI has put his foot squarely in it during last Tuesday with his speech at the University of Regensburg, Germany. And he is still attempting to extract it so he can carry on with his tour to Turkey.

Once again Muslims are up in arms, some taking the opportunity to go on a rampage and in doing so, ironically affirm the view expressed in the unfortunate quote by the Pope from Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

The Pope continued along the lines of faith and reason: "[N]ot to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature."

His lecture contrasted the Hellenistic foundations of Catholicism in which a rational God is the premise, with religions such as Islam where God is supreme above all reason including His own dictates. He could not let slip the opportunity to gaff at the Reformation by noting that dehellenisation of the Christian religion started with the Reformation.

Science was not spared and the Pope took a firm swing at the scientific foundations of Platonic/Cartesian formulation and empirical verification. Accusing science thus defined of leaving no room for God and thus limiting faith in God to subjective conjecture or experience, Benedict was clearly on a gallop.

The target now loomed large as his argument converged on science and religion, both of which must be obedient to the truth and are founded in reason. Therefore, by implication science is challenged to leave scope for the metaphysical of religion. A reason that does not accommodate the possibility of the divine reduces religion to a subculture and therefore exclude cultures. A faith that does not allow reason is bound to be relegated to the realm of the subjective, where ethics and conscience are purely personal choices.

His discourse screeched to a halt with the final stroke: A call to the worlds of reason and faith to reunite, for a new enquiry into the rationality of faith and ultimately, for dialogue of reason amongst cultures and religions.

To which one question stands up with quiet resolve: Where do the Crusades and Inquisition fit into this logos?

The day after

Yesterday was 11 September. On that pivotal day five years ago, darkness fell upon the world. Brewing discontent spewed raw hatred into the capital of capitalism, New York. The serpent struck at the ankle of the colossus. The Twin Towers fell. In total 2,973 people were killed, including 246 on the four aeroplanes, 2,602 in New York City in the Towers and on the ground, and 125 at the Pentagon. A nation recoiled in horror and grieve. The world stood aghast.

Soon, vengeance followed shock and bewilderment, spreading with the poison from that venomous bite. The world moved one step closer to global confrontation. Chasms sprang open, gasping divides between cultures, religions and, more importantly, global economic interests.

Afghanistan was invaded, it's Taliban government deposed; replaced by a moderate, elected government. Importantly, the new government had the approval of US, UK and EU leadership, which also served to prop up security. Also noteworthy were the rich oil fields of neighbouring Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, with the prospects of an oil pipe line through Afghanistan, breaking the Russian influence over oil distribution from these regions [Guardian 2001]. The human death toll was hard to calculate. Some estimated the civilian death toll at over 3000 by the year 2002 [BBC].

Iraq was next, after spin doctors on both sides of the Atlantic did their part in whipping up support for an invasion. Saddam Hussein was toppled and his government replaced by an elected government. Amid rising sectarian violence, the new government carried the support of the US, UK and EU, to whose forces it owed it's continued existence. Interestingly, Iraq had the second largest proven oil reserves in the world, as reported in Global Policy. The cat was certainly out amongst the pigeons as far as gaining control over oil exploration in Iraq. The human cost was enormous - more than 100000 according to some studies.

So here we are today, the day after 11 September. Yesterday, we commemorated that dreadful day in 2001. Today, the US Embassy in Damascus has been attacked by terrorists, fortunately intercepted by Syrian security personnel. One security person lost his live. The irony of that incident is not lost upon the audience.

Today, the Taliban is resurging. Afghanistan is an imploding dust bowl, in the words of Peter Preston of The Guardian.

Today, the tensions over Iran is racing towards critical mass over that country's defiant stance on its nuclear research programme. Some reports indicate that Iran is bound to deploy dual-purpose installations [Global Security]. Yet, no conclusive evidence has been found to proof military intentions for the nuclear programme [Spacewar]. Meanwhile, Iran has the world's second largest natural gas reserves and fifth largest oil reserves, according to Global Security.

Today, the war on terror is raging unabated. Security is the name of the game, democracy the new gospel, pre-emptive strike the method of choice. In Lebanon they are still counting the bomblets from cluster bombing of civilian areas. Civilians casualties are stated at 1230 [Wikipedia]. Yet, the faceless enemy is still spinning on its evil axis. Coalitions of the willing are stretched to exhaustion. Officials and leaders are forever mincing words in search of more spin, votes and money for more wars.

Today, quietly in their back offices, the corporate leaders are counting their returns from the new empire of the wealthy. As with the British Empire of old, the public hunger for commodities and energy are fueling the endeavours of those who are willing, ambitious and greedy. As before, it is the common treadmill peddlers who pay the dearest price for these endeavours, the day after.