A Norweigen town has an idea for how to help a group of East African refugees: camel herding. It might sound crazy, but it actually makes sense if you read the article.
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Monday, January 16, 2006
Dutch Burqa Ban?
The Dutch government is deciding whether to ban full burqas (Islamic dress which covers the face apart from the eyes). Sentiment in the Netherlands, a country that is having particularly violent problems with integrating or assimilating Muslims, seems to be that the burqa is a symbol of female oppression that is not compatable with a modern liberal society. Yet "there are only about 50 women in all of the Netherlands who do cover up entirely" according to the government. While I agree with Dutch sentiment, I cannot help wonder if a out right ban on the practice will needlessly fan the flames of Islamic exteremism.
Tuesday, January 3, 2006
ECJ attacked for being an activist court
Religious conservatives in the United States will be familiar with new EU presidency's attacks on the European Court of Justice:
Austrian chancellor Wolfgang Schussel has kicked off his country's presidency of the EU with criticism on the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for systematically expanding EU powers through its rulings …
Mr Schussel said "the ECJ…has in the last couple of years systematically expanded European competencies, even in areas, where there is decidedly no [European] community law."
"Suddenly, judgments emerge on the role of women in the German federal army, or on access of foreign students to Austrian universities – that is clearly national law", he added.
That the rulings Mr. Schussel cites as examples of what conservatives call "judicial activism" in the US are both concerned the expansion of rights for women and foreigners is concern enough. However, an actual examination of the legal principles and the facts behind those two cases reveals that Mr. Schussel has either a very poor understanding of EU law or is pandering to right-wing conservative elements who are uncomfortable with greater rights for women or foreigners.
The case he refers to regarding women in the German military is Tanja Kreil v Federal Republic of Germany, a case from the year 2000. The facts are relatively simple. EU is very clear on the matter of sexual discrimination in hiring, both public and private. It prohibits it. While the law makes exceptions for protection of women, principally in regards to pregnancy and maternity, those exclusions are meant to be limited. Germany's Constitution, however, limited the role of women in the military to medicine, music, and volunteering. The ECJ ruled that this violated the rights of women in Germany because women were barred from many positions within in the German military based on their sex. The court ruled that Germany's exclusion of women from any positions that could see combat was too broad, and instead limited German's discriminatory public hiring practices to those positions that likely would see combat (like infantry). While the ruling did affect sensitive areas of national overnight like the military and national constitutions, the court was hardly being activist in its ruling.
I have already addressed the issue of how Austria's University admissions policies discriminated against foreign students here and here. To make a quick point. The court did not comment on the actual admissions policy itself, which is clearly a national competency, rather they ruled that Austria cannot have different admissions policies for Austrians and non-Austrians in violation of just about every legal principle upon which the EU is based. The ECJ rightly ruled that they had no jursidction over how Austria treated people in the admissions proceess, but they had to treat all people equally regardless of nationality since the whole point of the EU is that people and goods from one member state are treated the same as people and good from any member state.
Neither of these two examples suggest an activist court scrambling to find new areas in which to impose its will. Instead, they show a court willing to enforce European law even when doing so treatens cherished national policies. That is what the ECJ is supposed to do and it is why its rulings supercede national courts and national law. Anyone, including Mr. Schussel, who does not recognize that fact does not understand how the ECJ is supposed to function. But I think Mr. Schussel does know that, and that is why his pandering to reactionary forces is so annoying. It undermines the EU without offering any real answers to the problem.
Austrian chancellor Wolfgang Schussel has kicked off his country's presidency of the EU with criticism on the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for systematically expanding EU powers through its rulings …
Mr Schussel said "the ECJ…has in the last couple of years systematically expanded European competencies, even in areas, where there is decidedly no [European] community law."
"Suddenly, judgments emerge on the role of women in the German federal army, or on access of foreign students to Austrian universities – that is clearly national law", he added.
That the rulings Mr. Schussel cites as examples of what conservatives call "judicial activism" in the US are both concerned the expansion of rights for women and foreigners is concern enough. However, an actual examination of the legal principles and the facts behind those two cases reveals that Mr. Schussel has either a very poor understanding of EU law or is pandering to right-wing conservative elements who are uncomfortable with greater rights for women or foreigners.
The case he refers to regarding women in the German military is Tanja Kreil v Federal Republic of Germany, a case from the year 2000. The facts are relatively simple. EU is very clear on the matter of sexual discrimination in hiring, both public and private. It prohibits it. While the law makes exceptions for protection of women, principally in regards to pregnancy and maternity, those exclusions are meant to be limited. Germany's Constitution, however, limited the role of women in the military to medicine, music, and volunteering. The ECJ ruled that this violated the rights of women in Germany because women were barred from many positions within in the German military based on their sex. The court ruled that Germany's exclusion of women from any positions that could see combat was too broad, and instead limited German's discriminatory public hiring practices to those positions that likely would see combat (like infantry). While the ruling did affect sensitive areas of national overnight like the military and national constitutions, the court was hardly being activist in its ruling.
I have already addressed the issue of how Austria's University admissions policies discriminated against foreign students here and here. To make a quick point. The court did not comment on the actual admissions policy itself, which is clearly a national competency, rather they ruled that Austria cannot have different admissions policies for Austrians and non-Austrians in violation of just about every legal principle upon which the EU is based. The ECJ rightly ruled that they had no jursidction over how Austria treated people in the admissions proceess, but they had to treat all people equally regardless of nationality since the whole point of the EU is that people and goods from one member state are treated the same as people and good from any member state.
Neither of these two examples suggest an activist court scrambling to find new areas in which to impose its will. Instead, they show a court willing to enforce European law even when doing so treatens cherished national policies. That is what the ECJ is supposed to do and it is why its rulings supercede national courts and national law. Anyone, including Mr. Schussel, who does not recognize that fact does not understand how the ECJ is supposed to function. But I think Mr. Schussel does know that, and that is why his pandering to reactionary forces is so annoying. It undermines the EU without offering any real answers to the problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)