After 50 Years, Gideon v Wainwright Hasn't Delivered

It was a case that promised so much but in reality has delivered so little. In 1961, Clarence Gideon was charged with burglary of a Florida pool bar. Unable to afford counsel at his trial he was unrepresented and ultimately found guilty. Sentenced to five years' imprisonment he appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of the United States on the ground that the Florida law denying him counsel was unconstitutional.

The Justices agreed, Gideon was retried and acquitted.

But in reality the funding simply hasn't materialized to allow poorer defendants representation in some criminal cases. Of course, it's not a political priority and the public at large have little sympathy for those charged with committing criminal offenses.

But the case was a landmark and should be celebrated as such. Allowing an accused person access to an attorney regardless of their means is a fundamental principle in a civilized society. There's an excellent video here from CBS in which Professor Norman Dawson is interviewed.

Yeee-Hah! I'm Texan For A Day

I often marvel at some of the crazy laws that get passed by state legislatures in the South. From restricting the teaching of evolution in schools to liberal gun laws, Texas is probably the biggest culprit.

But now it seems the good 'ol boys have actually got something right for once with their proposed new law banning the buying and selling of shark fins.

This rotten  trade is stimulated by an obscene demand from Asians for a soup that doesn't even taste that good. Sharks in their millions - yes, millions - are being fished live, their fins hacked off and their bodies kicked back into the water. No wonder world shark populations are falling dramatically, with many species at serious risk.

So Yeeee-Ha!! I'm a Texan for today. The full story is here:  http://bit.ly/WwjJZy

Elder Abuse - We Should All Be Annoyed

Picked up on this story recently:

Lawyer asks jury for millions in elder neglect case: bit.ly/YabxZh

 ...and it got to me. As someone whose parent died recently from Alzheimer's it struck a chord. OK, the Plaintiff's lawyer was over-playing on the emotions of the jury just a little but I have to say I'd take his figure...

...and double it.

How To Prosecute A Dead Person...

Not hard if you're in Russia. What a story.....and these guys think they're a modern democracy?

Echoes of Stalin as dead lawyer goes on trial in Russia. Yes, really: bit.ly/Z682Ht

CA Prop 36: A Change is Long Overdue

Californians will get the chance to revise the well-publicized 'Three Strikes Law' that was passed by their legislature 18 years ago. This video accurately sets out the issues (sorry about the 15 second ad that precedes it). Depending on your browser the play button may not work - just click on the pic:




Surely this change is for the better. Mike Reynolds's story is a tragic one but his reasoning that we as a society should lock people up almost indefinitely 'just in case' they commit offences is obviousy flawed.

Surely the whole tenet of the original legislation was to keep repeat violent / sexual offenders away from the public and Prop 36 won't change that. By depriving someone of their liberty for virtually the rest of their natural lives for minor offences is almost a 'two-and-a- bit-strikes' law and cannot be what legislators or the public intended.

Let's hope that justice is done.

Why Religious Leaders Must Understand The Constitution

The Constitution of The United States was drafted by men of Enlightenment, many of whom were non-believers or paid lip-service to religion. As a result, the document itself is secular in its nature. This is an indisputable fact. When Benjamin Franklin suggested during the Constitutional Convention that the founders begin each day of their labors with a prayer to God for guidance, his suggestion was defeated.

The Founding Fathers wisely declared that Church and State should be completely separate (implied from the First Amendment) and even that the office of President need not be held by any person of any particular faith. This is hard to believe these days, where we see the huge political power of the religious right in the U.S. and a statement by any political condicate for any office that he or she is an atheist condemns them to abject failure. Almost all 535 members of Congress declare themselves Christians. This is a statistical impossibility.

The Christian right have hijacked the United States by stealth. Sections of the Tea Party even want schoolchildren to be taught that the Constitution was created by the hand of God. I kid you not. The phrase "One Nation Under God" wasn't adopted by Congress until 1942 in the Pledge of Allegiance and wasn't included on currency until the 1950's. It was never used in the Constitution.

So was it any surprise that a group of Churchmen of the right-leaning persuasion recently publicly admitted crossing the line and brazenly included politics in their sermons? Of course not.  These people think it's really OK to do this. Have they ever read the Constitution or understood its origins? These are people who benefit from tax-exempt status purely because they keep their meddling hands off politics and do good deeds in the community. Their sermons must sound like a rallying cry for the Republican Party (I'm tempted to add "for God's sake"), and in my opinion they should be prosecuted by the IRS or at least have their status reviewed.

Of course, people of faith have an interest in politics. Why shouldn't they? But it's a sad day when they go to Church on Sunday and hear a sermon that has all the hallmarks of a political rally. However, it's encouraging to hear that voters are getting wise tothis nonsense and almost 50% believe their leaders talk too much about religion and their personal beliefs, with a huge 66% saying that a church should never endorse a political candidate.

We can only hope this trend will continue and the Church keeps its hands off politics in future.

The Outrage of Sharia Marriages

The Sunday Times in London carried out an undercover investigation recently on the disgraceful forced marriages of children to adult Muslim men in the U.K. I shouldn't have been shocked but I was....and I'm furious. Unfortunately, I expect the situation is much the same in the U.S.

The report stated that girls as young as twelve were being married off to grown men. This is done with the complicity of parents and Muslim clerics - and we as a society it seems aren't prepared to say enough is enough for the fear of offending those who follow the religion of permanent offence.

If there are 'moderate Muslims' where are they? Why aren't they trying to stop this openly supported trade in paedophilia? Do they too shy away from causing offence to the all-powerful clergy? If that's right, well shame on them.

These people should be told that if they wish to practice barbaric customs from their 'holy book' then they are not only breaking the law of this country but if they continue they will be prosecuted to the full extent of it. Successive governments, however, have pandered to the whims of these people. Even some U.K judges have welcomed the fact that some pockets of society  are ruled not by the law of the land where they are situated but by the violent and Stone Age edicts of Sharia.

This has to stop.

I have lived in foreign countries over the years and I accepted the law of the land. I accepted other peoples' ways even if I sometimes disagreed with them. I have never been racist and never will be. I despise it. But we cannot ignore the creeping danger of allowing an alien culture to get a foothold in our home - a place it most certainly does not belong and isn't wanted. If Muslims, or anyone else for that matter, wish to practice their faith then by all means do so (despite the fact that those of other faiths aren't tolerated at all in many Muslim countries). But obey our laws or face the consequences.

This is the message that our mainstream politicians should be sending, but will never do so for fear of 'offending' Islam.