Poet in opposition

1980 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 32-36
Author(s):  
Stewart Brown

For several years tensions in the former British colony of Guyana have been running high. Since the late 1960s Prime Minister Forbes Burnham and his party, the Peoples National Congress, have been accused of keeping power through a combination of fraudulent elections, the sponsoring and equipping of private armies of thugs (often linked to religious cults such as that of the notorious Rev Jim Jones and, currently, the ‘House of Israel’ led by the self-dubbed' Rabbi Washington'), the manipulation of the ugly racial divisions between those of African and Indian origin, and the harassment of the opposition. This last has included restrictions on the press, by interrupting newsprint supplies and intimidating printers, and outright murder. A number of recent events have brought the situation to a head. On 14 February 1980 the PNC-dominated National Assembly approved a new constitution which gives Burnham the position of Executive President and virtually unlimited powers. At the beginning of June the trial finally began, after two postponements, of three leading members of the left-wing opposition Working Peoples Alliance - academics Drs Walter Rodney, Rupert Roopnaraine and Omawale - accused of burning down the PNC headquarters in Georgetown in July 1979. Such were the doubts about the fairness of the trial, which the authorities had decided should be held summarily before a judge rather than by jury, that several international human rights agencies, including Amnesty International, the UK Parliamentary Human Rights Group and the United States National Council of Churches, sent observers. In the event, lack of evidence and radical inconsistencies in that which was presented, resulted in a further adjournment until August. The trial was accompanied by widespread arrests in various parts of the country, the erection of roadblocks, house searches and heavy-handed police operations to prevent demonstrations. Finally, on the evening of 13 June, days after the trial was adjourned, Walter Rodney was killed when a bomb exploded in his brother's car in Georgetown. Despite official denials all the indications were of assassination by a government-sponsored death squad. There was world-wide outrage, including statements by Commonwealth leaders Michael Manley and Robert Mugabe. Rodney's death deprives Guyana of one of the world's foremost specialists in African and Caribbean history, as well as of an able political leader, whose young and growing party has made considerable strides in overcoming racial antagonism. In the article which follows, Stewart Brown, an English specialist in Caribbean literature and himself a poet, looks at the writing of Guyana's leading poet, Martin Carter, and, through his work, at the general situation of the writer in the post-independence Caribbean.

2004 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 175-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jill K. Gill

AbstractIn 2000, after fifty years together, Church World Service and the National Council of Churches separated their organizations. These two ecumenical bodies, devoted to Christian unity, decided to do so after more than thirty years of intra-organizational tension had evolved into irreconcilable differences. This essay explores the long history of their troubled relationship and illustrates how profoundly political culture affects religious life and work. It asserts that the causes of their divorce were rooted in constituent and structural differences that became especially problematic during politically polarized eras. In spite of a mutual devotion to Christian unity based upon the expectation that ecumenism requires transcendence of worldly self interests, the NCC and CWS could not easily transcend the political culture of their times nor the self interests of their constituents if they wished to survive as organizations. Awareness of this reality is now a factor in the reshaping of national ecumenical organizations in the United States, which are moving more toward a multi-centered satellite model of ecumenism. The NCC/CWS split is also part of a global trend, for councils of churches and their service wings in several nations have been divorcing in recent years. Due to the influence of American ecumenical organizations internationally, the outcome of the NCC/CWS efforts to redefine themselves and their relationship will affect the future of ecumenism both within and beyond America's borders.


Author(s):  
Jeffrey Gros

The chapter considers the development of ecumenism in the United States, noting particular historical, cultural, and religious factors that have influenced relations there between Christians from many different backgrounds. Religious freedom, associated with the separation of Church and state, has given rise to a rich diversity of religious communities, but tolerance has also in some ways blurred confessional boundaries and complicated theological dialogue and the effort for visible Christian unity. The origin and role of the National Association of Evangelicals, the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA, and Christian Churches Together in the USA are described, together with initiatives which have given rise to the United Church of Christ and to the Church Uniting in Christ. Bilateral dialogues and some of their fruits are considered, as well as many ways in which Christian bodies collaborate more broadly. Continuing issues in the American context are identified and discussed.


Author(s):  
Vitaliy Hudyma ◽  

The article reveals the constitutional and legal foundations and features of the formation of the corps of professional judges in foreign countries. It has been established that in many countries there is an independent specialized body, whose competence is to ensure the training of candidates applying for positions of judges, for example, in France – the National School of Magistracy, Georgia – the High Council of Justice, Poland – the National Council of Judicial Procedure, Germany – a selection committee, Croatia – Council of State, United States of America – Senate Judicial Committee, Great Britain – Commission on the Appointment of Judges. It has been established that the process of training candidates applying for judicial positions should take into account the aspect of skills development provided for in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. It has been proven that in the context of the implementation of special training for candidates applying for judicial positions, one should rely on the provisions of Recommendation Rec(2004) of the Committee of Ministers is the Council of Europe to member states on the role of the European Convention on Human Rights in university education and vocational training. It has been determined that the constitutional and legal basis for the activities of institutions conducting vocational training of candidates applying for positions of judges is determined by a special law in many countries. It was found that professional training of judges takes place in the formats of a combination of an interdisciplinary approach to training with a multidisciplinary one, the use of various practical methods for teaching, based on the requirements of European legislation, the development of a program to improve the leadership and management skills of candidates applying for positions of judges. It is proposed to take into account the experience of France, Georgia, Poland, Germany, Croatia, the United States of America, Japan, Great Britain, and other countries when forming the corps of professional judges in Ukraine.


2006 ◽  
Vol 68 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ron Sievert

In examining the response of the U.S. to the development of international law and institutions, one observes that the proponents of an international approach are traditionally idealists and those representing the left wing of American politics. The opposition tends to be led by conservatives and nationalists. A review of public statements surrounding the creation of the ICC reveals that it is no exception. The Court was formed, in the words of Kofi Annan, to help “ensure that no ruler, no State, no junta and no army anywhere can abuse human rights with impunity . . . that those who violate those rights will be punished.” Organizations such as Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and Citizens for Global Solutions have heavily promoted the ICC, and many international lawyers have expressed a “romantic attachment” to the idea that the Court can efficiently judge and deter war criminals and those who abuse human rights. However, as early as 1998, members of America’s political right wing, such as Senators Jessee Helms and John Ashcroft, have made it clear that they viewed the ICC as a threat to U.S. national sovereignty and our preeminence in world affairs. Senator Ashcroft stated that the Court was a “continuing threat to the national interest,” while Senator Helms declared that “the United States will never—and I repeat, never—allow its national security decisions to be judged by any international criminal court.” AmbassadorJohn Bolton and the Cato Institute also took strong and early stands against the Court, with Ambassador Bolton declaring that the adoption of the ICC breaches “the American citadel . . . , advocates of binding international law will be well on the way toward ultimate elimination of the ‘nation state.’”


2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 143-163 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Sangiovanni

The Cameron government has recently negotiated a deal with the EU which permits the UK (temporarily) to restrict access to in-work benefits for recent EU migrants in the first four years of residence. Withdrawing access to in-work benefits will lead to significant inequalities in pay between British workers and their EU equivalents working at the same job, in the same general situation. The proposal has been widely decried as discriminatory. Is it? I do not, in this article, ask the legal question: Does it violate anti-discrimination norms implicit in the treaties (or wider human rights law)? Rather, I will ask the moral question underlying the legal one: Would, say, Polish citizens denied in-work benefits that British citizens receive be victims of wrongful discrimination? This question deserves consideration not simply because it will help us to evaluate some of the central concerns at stake in the Brexit debates but also because it will allow us to explore the role of norms against discrimination according to nationality within the EU, to address the nature of the European commitment to freedom of movement, and, in the reverse direction, to better understand our own moral commitment to anti-discrimination norms.


Leadership ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 226-244
Author(s):  
Keir Milburn

In October 2013 during a fractious interview with Jeremy Paxman for the Newsnight TV programme, the comedian Russell Brand called for a revolution against a self-serving political and economic elite. Over the following 18 months Brand became a prominent Left-wing political figure in the UK This paper suggests that Brand’s experience was not isolated but forms part of a wider contemporary trend of comedians becoming populist political leaders. Other examples include the French comedian Dieudonné and the Italian comedian Beppe Grillo, whose political party Movimento 5 Stelle is currently the largest in the Italian Parliament and part of the governing coalition. Using Brand as a case study the paper examines his political storytelling for its structure and mode of deployment. Whenever Brand ventures forward a sincere statement he always stands ready to ironize it in order to avoid the perception of piety. Using Peter Sloterdijk’s discussion of cynical reason and Slajov Zizek’s concept of cynical irony I suggest that a post-political ironic detachment has become the dominant mode of ideology. I then argue that this ironic detachment has come under increasing pressure since the economic crisis of 2008 and the increased political engagement it has provoked. It is within this aspect of the conjuncture that we can position the discourse about a Post-Truth era and Post-Truth leaders. The comedian as political leader, I argue, shows a particular route through this problem. They represent transitional figures pioneering the shift from ironic detachment to postironic statements and narratives of political sincerity of the kind that sustained political engagement requires.


Author(s):  
Kristy L. Slominski

Teaching Moral Sex is the first comprehensive study to focus on the role of religion in the history of public sex education in the United States. It examines religious contributions to national sex education organizations from the late nineteenth century to the early twenty-first century, highlighting issues of public health, public education, family, and the role of the state. It details how public sex education was created through the collaboration of religious sex educators—primarily liberal Protestants, along with some Catholics and Reform Jews—with “men of science,” namely, physicians, biology professors, and social scientists. Slominski argues that the work of early religious sex educators laid foundations for both sides of contemporary controversies regarding comprehensive sexuality education and abstinence-only education. In other words, instead of casting religion as merely an opponent of sex education, this research shows how deeply embedded religion has been in sex education history and how this legacy has shaped terms of current debates. By focusing on religion, this book introduces a new cast of characters into sex education history, including Quaker and Unitarian social purity reformers, the Young Men’s Christian Association, military chaplains, the Federal Council of Churches, and the National Council of Churches. These religious sex educators made sex education more acceptable to the public and created the groundwork for recent debates through their strategic combination of progressive and restrictive approaches to sexuality. Their contributions helped to spread sex education and influenced major shifts within the movement, including the mid-century embrace of family life education.


2014 ◽  
Vol 53 (2) ◽  
pp. 350-396
Author(s):  
Keith Loken

On December 4, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom ruled in In the Matter of KL that a child brought to the UK pursuant to a U.S. district court order–subsequently overturned by a U.S. court of appeals–in a proceeding under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (Hague Convention) must be returned to the United States. One week earlier, in a 9-8 decision issued on November 26, 2013, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), upholding the judgment of the ECHR Chamber below, ruled in X v. Latvia that the actions of the Latvian courts, ordering Ms. X to return her daughter E. to Australia under the Hague Convention, constituted an infringement of Ms. X’s rights under Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Human Rights Convention). These cases provide an interesting contrast in approaches to the international abduction of children.


2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dave Rich

In April 2020, shortly after Keir Starmer replaced Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the UK Labour Party, an internal party report concerning the workings of Labour's internal disciplinary unit in relation to antisemitism was leaked to the media. This report was over 850 pages long and was intended to be submitted to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which is conducting an inquiry into allegations of antisemitism in the Party. However, Labour's lawyers refused to allow it to be used, almost certainly because the content was so damaging to the Party's own defence. It confirmed many of the claims made by Jewish Party members and community organisations during Corbyn's leadership of the party, namely that the disciplinary system was not fit for purpose and cases of alleged antisemitism were ignored or delayed and punishments were too weak. When it was leaked the report caused a scandal because it claimed that Corbyn's efforts to deal with antisemitism were sabotaged by his own Party staff, who were mostly drawn from factions opposed to his left wing project. Furthermore, the report claimed that this was part of a broader conspiracy against Corbyn that even extended to Labour Party staff trying to prevent a Labour victory in the 2017 General Election. The leaked report is selective and inaccurate in many respects and ignores the role played by Corbyn and his close advisers in denying the problem of antisemitism existed. Nor does it address the reasons why people with antisemitic views were attracted to Labour under his leadership. It is most likely that it was written to allow Corbyn and his supporters to continue to claim that their project did not fail on its own merits, but was betrayed by internal saboteur


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document