Thursday, September 15, 2016
The World Cup of Human Rights?
I prepared this map for the Inter-Disciplinary.Net conference, Sport: Sport Places, Money, and Politics, the 5th global meeting of the Sport Project: Probing the Boundaries, this week at Mansfield College, Oxford. The map shows the movement of the FIFA Men's World Cup since the United States in 1994, illustrating FIFA's deliberate campaign to globalize the tournament and the sport.
In my talk yesterday, I traced the marriage of FIFA and human rights from Football for Hope investments in World Cup 2010 South Africa, to World Cup 2014 Brazil; on to World Cup 2018 Russia and World Cup 2022 Qatar; and at last, to a World Cup 2026 that might embrace the U.N. Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights in the manner proposed by Professor Ruggie.
Daunting challenges are presented with respect to international legal norms on housing, labor, sexual identity, racism and equality, due process and criminal punishment, and religious and expressive freedom. FIFA's extreme demands on host countries for infrastructure development, commercial protectionism, and security have made tournament hosting more easily the province of authoritarian regimes than of Western-style democracies, and that tendency works at cross-purposes with the incorporation of human rights norms in the Western legal tradition.
Labels:
Brazil,
Business and Human Rights,
due process,
equal protection,
FIFA,
football,
free expression,
human rights,
John Ruggie,
Qatar,
Russia,
sexual identity,
South Africa,
sport,
United Nations,
World Cup
Tuesday, September 13, 2016
Burning of the Bodleian
Today I had the extraordinary experience of touring the main, historic building of the Bodleian Libraries at Oxford University, UK. Here's some of the intriguing and tragic history shared by my capable guide, Fiona (a knowledgeable academic, whom I wish I could identify more precisely; Fiona, get in touch if you read this, and I shall give you due credit).
To get the most important matter out of the way at the top: Yes, this is the place were books literally were flying about the room at Harry Potter's Hogwarts. Fiona told a couple of good stories about filming in the library, which was permitted only during, and ran fully throughout, nighttime closing hours, 7-7. Sometimes filming had to be stopped on Harry Potter if sound booms got too close to the ceiling beams, or lights raised the temperature too much for the books' safety. On another occasion, Fiona asked a bearded guy, authorized to case the library, why?, and he answered, "For the next Transformers movie." Only later did she realize she had spoken with Steven Spielberg. She still wasn't sure why the library would make an apt set for Transformers.
So I'll skip the fascinating mechanics and history of care for the books--let Fiona have her IP, and you should take the tour, at least the 60-minute version, yourself--and mention just one arresting, contemporary fact: Fiona said it takes on average £20,000 pounds to scan one book from the historical collection. So feel welcome to donate in support of the effort. What's here that's worth such extravagant effort? Fiona casually mentioned the presence of an original Johnson dictionary among the holdings.
In the 15th century--the dawn of the printing press, remember--Fiona said, one book cost about as much as a small car today. The University library owned the princely sum of 20 books. In the 16th century, Oxford got a massive donation of books from Duke Humfrey (Humphrey of Lancaster, first Duke of Gloucester), but had no place to put them. So the library asked for some additional money from Humfrey to build the structure I was in today (but just the second floor; the Divinity School was on the ground floor and today is part of the halls still used for Convocation; it was and remains--with modern climate controls precluded in the name of historic building preservation--unwise to store books on the ground level because of the risk of rat and insect infestations).
Today if someone who has the proper credentials wants to see a book from this old collection, he or she must request it in advance, and then is given a date, time, and place to view the book. The book is then transported via underground tunnel across Broad Street to the more recent Watson Library (opened originally 1940s, renovated and reopened 2015), to meet its reader at the appointed time and station.
Yet these are not the original books of the 15th century. In the 16th century, the entire contents of the library was (believed) burned in the name of the Reformation. You can still see where a stone cross was removed from the wall. The stained glass windows, featuring Catholic iconography, were destroyed and today still are just plain clear glass. Some 40 or 50 (more?, it is suspected) books are known to have survived the burning, besides pages here and there (some lathered with butter, as they apparently were recycled by fishmongers to wrap their wares). The library has managed to buy back five--5! (or just three, Wikipedia says).
Thomas Bodley came around to restore the library in the late 16th, early 17th centuries--after 50 years of post-Reformation neglect that left ceilings open to the elements--and the library/libraries took his name. But that's another story for a longer tour....
"Readers" at the Bodleian--such as, once upon a time, JRR Tolkein--have always been compelled to recite aloud the library's pledge, formerly in Latin and now, thankfully, in English. At the shop, I bought the tin sign for my law-librarian wife to adorn her workplace, and perhaps demand likewise of patrons eager to explore special collections:
I hereby undertake not to remove from the Library, or to mark, deface, or injure in any way, any volume, document, or other object belonging to it or in its custody; not to bring into the Library or kindle therein any fire or flame, and not to smoke in the Library; and I promise to obey all rules of the Library.
See, fire, such as the burning of candles even for the innocent purpose of generating reading light, always and still poses a grave threat to the library. But that threat is second, Fiona said, to the ravages of water, which might be needed to put out a fire. Mold begets hungry bugs, who don't stop when they reach paper. Not even bottled H2O is permitted to today's readers, who must exit the library to slake their thirst.
Shhhhh! Silence in the stacks, please.
Friday, September 9, 2016
Of turds and torts
<Warning: Vulgar language ahead!>
Lately I have been doing research on "bad language" in anticipation of the Lenny Bruce conference that will dedicate his archive to Brandeis University libraries (see Comedy and the Constitution, and join us on October 27-28!). A couple of sources have taught me that the vulgar word "turd" shares an origin with the legal term "tort." As explained by Professor Geoffrey Hughes in his Encyclopedia of Swearing (2006), page 467:
TURD. This ancient term has followed the same basic semantic route historically as shit, being first recorded in Anglo-Saxon times in a plain literal sense, leading to various metaphorical extensions of coarse abuse from the medieval period onward. Etymologically the word turns out to be a distant relative of legal tort, both rooted in the concept of being twisted or crooked.So the next time I'm told, "You're full of shit," I will say, "Why, thank you. I am indeed a torts professor."
Now that's a savory re-tort.
Wednesday, September 7, 2016
SOL in Mass.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court adopted the continuing
treatment exception to the state medmal limitations period (three years)
and reasonable discovery rule in Parr v. Rosenthal, published this week, http://www.mass.gov/courts/docs/sjc/reporter-of-decisions/new-opinions/12014.pdf.
The opinion offers a worthwhile review of the language and standards of
Masschusetts common law interpretation of the statutory limitations periods.
Bonus tracks include (1) the problem of a minor plaintiff; (2) interaction with statutes of repose; (3) role of the jury in fact-finding; and (4) a dissent (from p. 37) that doesn't necessarily disagree with the rationale but thinks the upset to settled common law invaded the policy-making prerogative of the legislature.
Saliently for the litigants, the Court ruled that the limitations period ran despite operation of the continuing treatment doctrine, because the doctrine ceased to operate when the defending physician left the treatment team.
(Cross-posted to Obligations Discussion Group.)
Bonus tracks include (1) the problem of a minor plaintiff; (2) interaction with statutes of repose; (3) role of the jury in fact-finding; and (4) a dissent (from p. 37) that doesn't necessarily disagree with the rationale but thinks the upset to settled common law invaded the policy-making prerogative of the legislature.
Saliently for the litigants, the Court ruled that the limitations period ran despite operation of the continuing treatment doctrine, because the doctrine ceased to operate when the defending physician left the treatment team.
(Cross-posted to Obligations Discussion Group.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)