Joseph Markus

A human right to wear a cross?

Today a Chamber of the Fourth Section of the European Court of Human Rights released its judgment in the much-anticipated cluster of cases, Eweida and Others v. the United Kingdom. These cases courted controversy in the domestic courts due to what many on both sides of the debate saw as an important and apparently irresoluble conflict between the rights to manifest religious belief and the rights to non-discrimination held by, in these cases, homosexual individuals. Put into legal terms: the cases were about the alleged conflict between the rights of the applicants under Articles 9 and 14 of the Convention and the rights of others (broadly speaking – though never explicitly defined as – falling under Articles 8 and 14).

Four applicants meant four distinct groups of facts, although a number of common threads.

Maintaining social security

By josephmarkus

January 2, 2013

Joseph Markus

4 Comments

by Joseph Markus

Over the past few days much has been written seeking to predict the course of events in the New Year. Among the left-leaning columnists and writers, social security – a “war over benefits” – tops the list. That this is the case should not surprise anyone. This year will be the year when, for the first time, social security payments will fail to keep pace with the rising costs of living caused by inflation. We have also seen Iain Duncan Smith, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, unleashing splenetic attacks on the alleged overspending of the last Labour government, most recently in relation to tax credits. This is the same Mr Duncan Smith that believes in the Romney-esque mantra that the worst possible thing that society can do for the poor and out-of-work is to maintain their “dependency” on the state.

Analysis: why we should be concerned about the International Development Secretary’s views on rights

By josephmarkus

December 1, 2012

Joseph Markus

Leave a Comment

by Joseph Markus

Ever since the early 1990s the international development consensus has fixed itself to the idea that development can be achieved alongside human rights. For even longer – at least since the Brundtland Commission report in 1987 – the development community has also essentially, though at times uncomfortably, embraced the parallel concept of “sustainable development”.

Unlike human rights, however, quite what sustainable development means in any given context is pretty unclear. Perhaps driven by the perception that human rights don’t need to challenge the prevailing political-economic consensus – while sustainable development could – we have had Millennium Development Goals addressing human rights since 2000 (along with one goal addressing sustainability that has been far from successful). Conversely the international community has only just got round to considering which Sustainable Development Goals it might like to see in writing, for the first time placing sustainability front and centre.

Exile on main street: criminalising the squatters

By josephmarkus

October 1, 2012

Joseph Markus

7 Comments

by Joseph Markus

Estimates put the global number of squatters at 1 billion – a squat in Barcelona

The Crown Prosecution Service confirmed last week that it had secured a first conviction under new legislation criminalising squatting in residential premises. As reported in the Guardian, Alex Haigh was sentenced following a guilty plea to the offence contained in section 144 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. That Act, better known for its evisceration of public funding for legal services, changed the law to make squatting in residential premises a criminal, rather than a civil, issue.

The creation of any new criminal offence implies a number of things. The leading implication, however, is the suggestion that the conduct in question is best dealt with through the criminal law. In other words, usually both that it is a ‘bad thing’ to squat and should be punished and that it is an area of human behaviour in which criminalisation might have some deterrent force.

How did we arrive at this conclusion? It’s worth recounting quickly some of the justifications brought out by the Government.

Cable cuts compensation: but why?

By josephmarkus

September 15, 2012

Joseph Markus

Leave a Comment

by Joseph Markus

Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, is a consistent thorn in his Coalition-partners’ sides. So problematic has he been that, in a rightward reshuffle, the Tory-half of Government appointed new ministers to his department to keep up the focus on deregulation.

Hunters or hunted? The Ogiek of the Mau Forest

Leave a Comment

From time immemorial. That is the phrase used by both the Kenyan Government and James Anaya, UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, to describe the length of time during which the Ogiek, as a distinct socio-cultural entity have lived in East Africa. They were among the first peoples to populate East Africa and are believed to have lived in and around the Mau Forest escarpment (popularly known as one of Kenya’s ‘water towers’) since the 18^th century.

Let’s ban cars

Leave a Comment

If (former Labour MP) Chris Mullin ruled the world… Admittedly, it’s unlikely to happen – and I have no clue what other policies he would, in his autocratic wisdom, decide to enact – but at least one idea made a lot of sense. In a piece (£) published by Prospect Magazine, he makes the case for “a return to that brief golden age when the bicycle was king, when every little town and many villages were connected to the railway network, and when our inner cities were habitable”.

Israel: where your nationality determines which laws apply

By josephmarkus

July 11, 2012

Joseph Markus

Leave a Comment

A complement to Detained Children of the OPT

by Joseph Markus

A recent report has established—although it was a matter of record before—that Israeli laws concerning the arrest, detention, interrogation and trial of children are discriminatory, contrary to a number of fundamental international human rights law norms.

Looks like Healthcare will be Affordable after all

Leave a Comment

The results are in and, as expected, the Supreme Court split 5:4. But it wasn’t the usual ‘liberal’-‘conservative’ division: this time Chief Justice Roberts came over to the liberals, while Associate Justice Kennedy—usually the swing vote—went to the conservatives.

Yesterday’s decision finds the Affordable Care Act “constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part”, while—pointedly—“not express[ing] any opinion on the wisdom of the [Act]”. That particular judgment, thankfully, was “reserved to the people”.

Will Rio+20 lead to an effective deal on sustainable development?

By josephmarkus

June 13, 2012

Joseph Markus

Leave a Comment

Brazil prepares to host the Rio+20 Conference between 20-22 June

by Joseph Markus

The latest leak of the Rio+20 draft text doesn’t make for pleasant (or easy) reading. What it does do is really give an insight into the very clear geopolitics being played out in the context of this negotiation—just look for where the US and the G77 (representatives of the global south) disagree—as well as the tedious pedantry of sustainable development talks.

—socialjusticefirst

Advocates for social justice.

Archive

Joseph Markus

Is it your human right to wear a cross to work? Well, it depends…

Maintaining social security

Analysis: why we should be concerned about the International Development Secretary’s views on rights

Exile on main street: criminalising the squatters

Cable cuts compensation: but why?

Hunters or hunted? The Ogiek of the Mau Forest

Let’s ban cars

Israel: where your nationality determines which laws apply

Looks like Healthcare will be Affordable after all

Will Rio+20 lead to an effective deal on sustainable development?

Follow “socialjusticefirst”