One of the strands in Unit 3C is about Civil Rights in America, and specifically how far there is racial equality in America. The tragic death of Trayvon Martin, and the subsequent acquittal of the neighbourhood watchman who shot him, George Zimmerman has caused protest across America.
Any G&P student may be forgiven for thinking that the case is a simple matter; an unarmed black teenager walking in the rain to a relative' house is shot by an armed security officer in the street, who is let free by a system which sees African-Americans as inferior and prone to violence.
There is, however a more complex argument here; certainly there were faults, and the system "failed" Trayvon Martin (according to this article in the NY Times). Slate has an article here which discusses the over-reaction caused by the case.
I'm not sure yet that there is an easily digestible short-version of this, except to point out that the legal arguments were complex and can be easily caricatured. And to say that the experience of the case undoubtedly does ask how fair America is in racial terms, especially when considers the recent Supreme Court decision about the Voting Rights Act.
The Mirror has an article discussing racial inequality in America here.
Wednesday 17 July 2013
Sunday 14 July 2013
Gay marriage, Voting Rights and pressure groups
Briefly, as a follow-on to my previous post about the recent decisions in the Supreme Court, and after the success of the LGBT movement in getting the Supreme Court's decision on gay marriage, there are signs that the movement as a whole is going to focus on overturning the recent decision to nullify part of the Voting Rights Act.
An interesting article here from Rolling Stone Magazine.
Useful pressure group examples might be those mentioned in the article, the snappily-named "Queers for Economic Justice", and "Queer the vote", both of which in various ways are moving on from simply being focused on LGBT issues.
The latter, for example highlights the fact that the community they represent could be significant in an election:
An interesting article here from Rolling Stone Magazine.
Useful pressure group examples might be those mentioned in the article, the snappily-named "Queers for Economic Justice", and "Queer the vote", both of which in various ways are moving on from simply being focused on LGBT issues.
The latter, for example highlights the fact that the community they represent could be significant in an election:
The lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) vote is sizable and bipartisan, and can be a swing vote in a close election.
Tuesday 9 July 2013
European Human Rights Act - prisoners
Probably of use to students studying Unit 2, the European Court of Human Rights has decided that prisoners sent down for the rest of their lives had their human rights breached.
This is certainly controversial as there are many who think that the crimes these individuals have done were serious enough to warrant the "rest of life" sentence. It also helps the Conservatives and others like UKIP who dislike much of the EU and what it represents.
Legal analysis from the BBC's man here.
As if on cue, Home Secretary Theresa May announces that the UK government will seek to opt out of parts of EU law and order measures which were part of the Lisbon treaty.
[Picture Credit - BBC News]
This is certainly controversial as there are many who think that the crimes these individuals have done were serious enough to warrant the "rest of life" sentence. It also helps the Conservatives and others like UKIP who dislike much of the EU and what it represents.
Legal analysis from the BBC's man here.
As if on cue, Home Secretary Theresa May announces that the UK government will seek to opt out of parts of EU law and order measures which were part of the Lisbon treaty.
[Picture Credit - BBC News]
Labour and the Unions
Briefly, there is a row over the Labour Party's candidate in Falkirk and how much influence the Unions have over this candidate's selection. It of course raises issues for the Labour Party about its links with the unions.
Of interest to G&P students contemplating the political ideas and beliefs of the Labour party (the Unite Union would like the party to be more socialist), and how candidates are selected by the local parties.
Ed Miliband's solution seems to be reducing the link between the members of a union and them being given Labour Party membership.
Clearly there is an issue here about political participation, and the effectiveness of Britain's political system in a situation where there is a falling membership of political parties.
As ever, the BBC's Nick Robinson has some interesting stuff to say about the whole thing here.
[Picture Credit - BBC News]
Of interest to G&P students contemplating the political ideas and beliefs of the Labour party (the Unite Union would like the party to be more socialist), and how candidates are selected by the local parties.
Ed Miliband's solution seems to be reducing the link between the members of a union and them being given Labour Party membership.
Clearly there is an issue here about political participation, and the effectiveness of Britain's political system in a situation where there is a falling membership of political parties.
As ever, the BBC's Nick Robinson has some interesting stuff to say about the whole thing here.
[Picture Credit - BBC News]
Supreme Court, Gay Marriage, and voting rights
The Supreme Court's decision about gay marriage in the USA clears the way for gay marriages to take
place. The short version of the story is that the court struck down the 1996 law "Defence of Marriage Act" which banned the practice.
All of which might make any G&P student think that this is a progressive, activist court, establishing new rights in the mode of Roe v Wade or Brown v Board. It is important to notice that there are in fact two related decisions here; the overturning of California's Proposition 8, and the overturning of 1996's DOMA.
Also, it is worth pointing out that the reality is more complex as fundamentally this was not a decision about the constitutionality of gay marriage.
The 2013 decision (US v Windsor) about DOMA arguably is more significant, since the decision says that the federal government cannot discriminate against gay couples. It is not saying that gay marriage is constitutional, but that discriminating against it is not constitutional, and falls foul of the fifth amendment (the "due process" clause). Individual states can pass laws allowing gay marriage (and many have), but it is still up to the states to do so. Many states have laws which discriminate against gay couples.
Importantly, the decision allows same-sex couples to enjoy the same tax-breaks, and benefits that different-sex couples do at a federal level, but does not at a state level (see left for a map of the US states and their opinion about gay marriage over time). A very good analysis from the legal position can be found here at the SCOTUS blog which discusses other related discrimination (so-called "mini-DOMAs").
The decision about Proposition 8 (2013's Hollingsworth v Perry), like the DOMA decision was all about legal procedure, and so did not deal with the constitutionality of the banning of gay marriage under Proposition 8 (a referendum) at all.
A good summary about the US v Windsor decision is here at the Huffington Post, and an interesting analysis of where this puts the Roberts' Supreme Court can be found here (the short version of this article is that Roberts is more conservative than might be seen at first as he is increasingly emphasising the rights of the states at the expense of the federal government).
Interestingly both decisions about gay marriage were passed 5-4, although Windsor saw the Justices split along conservative / liberal lines, and Perry did not.
One of the other recent controversial decisions was 2013's Shelby County v Holder, which saw the justices strike down part of the important civil-rights era Voting Rights Act of 1965. Analysis of that can be found here at the liberal Huffington Post. Again, although the details are very complex, the decision essentially removes some of the protection for minorities and their ability to vote.
[Picture Credits - The New Yorker & The Huffington Post]
All of which might make any G&P student think that this is a progressive, activist court, establishing new rights in the mode of Roe v Wade or Brown v Board. It is important to notice that there are in fact two related decisions here; the overturning of California's Proposition 8, and the overturning of 1996's DOMA.
Also, it is worth pointing out that the reality is more complex as fundamentally this was not a decision about the constitutionality of gay marriage.
The 2013 decision (US v Windsor) about DOMA arguably is more significant, since the decision says that the federal government cannot discriminate against gay couples. It is not saying that gay marriage is constitutional, but that discriminating against it is not constitutional, and falls foul of the fifth amendment (the "due process" clause). Individual states can pass laws allowing gay marriage (and many have), but it is still up to the states to do so. Many states have laws which discriminate against gay couples.
Importantly, the decision allows same-sex couples to enjoy the same tax-breaks, and benefits that different-sex couples do at a federal level, but does not at a state level (see left for a map of the US states and their opinion about gay marriage over time). A very good analysis from the legal position can be found here at the SCOTUS blog which discusses other related discrimination (so-called "mini-DOMAs").
The decision about Proposition 8 (2013's Hollingsworth v Perry), like the DOMA decision was all about legal procedure, and so did not deal with the constitutionality of the banning of gay marriage under Proposition 8 (a referendum) at all.
A good summary about the US v Windsor decision is here at the Huffington Post, and an interesting analysis of where this puts the Roberts' Supreme Court can be found here (the short version of this article is that Roberts is more conservative than might be seen at first as he is increasingly emphasising the rights of the states at the expense of the federal government).
Interestingly both decisions about gay marriage were passed 5-4, although Windsor saw the Justices split along conservative / liberal lines, and Perry did not.
One of the other recent controversial decisions was 2013's Shelby County v Holder, which saw the justices strike down part of the important civil-rights era Voting Rights Act of 1965. Analysis of that can be found here at the liberal Huffington Post. Again, although the details are very complex, the decision essentially removes some of the protection for minorities and their ability to vote.
[Picture Credits - The New Yorker & The Huffington Post]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)