The BBC’s new show has been criticised for being “unnecessarily gruesome and brutal,” with some viewers saying they became physically ill due to the graphic torture and execution scenes. Is portraying such violence necessary to better understand the historical context of 17th century England, or simply too much for Saturday night primetime television?
Tonight is Bonfire Night! The “Gunpowder Treason Plot” of 1605 was a failed mass assassination attempt against King James I of England and VI of Scotland and the House of Lords. A group of English Catholics planned to blow up the Palace of Westminster, following which the Protestant King James would be replaced by a Catholic monarch. When Guy Fawkes was discovered guarding 36 barrels of gunpowder beneath the palace, the plot was foiled and the conspirators were subsequently executed.
Londoners celebrated King James’s survival by lighting bonfires around the city, as a “public day of thanksgiving.” Although it’s no longer an official holiday, there are still bonfires and fireworks around the country to remember remember the fifth of November.
Continue reading “Gunpowder on Primetime: were torture and execution scenes too violent?”
Earlier this month, Representative Frederica Wilson of Florida reported that President Trump made insensitive, off piste comments over the phone to the widow of a soldier recently killed in Niger. According to Wilson, Trump told Myeshia Johnson that her husband “knew what he signed up for, but I guess it still hurt.” Trump flatly denied such comments. President Trump’s Chief of Staff, retired Marine Corps General John Kelly, rushed to Trump’s defense. Kelly called Congresswoman Wilson an “empty barrel,” and noted he was “stunned” over alleged comments she made “grandstanding about her own actions in Congress” at a building dedication ceremony honouring slain FBI agents.
Continue reading “Questioning the General: parallels to Soviet media control?”
From the archives! I wrote this essay in 2012 for my coursework in European human rights law, as part of my masters’ degree. Reading it now, five years and a law degree later (!) is a bit cringe, but I think it does a fairly decent job of explaining some of the more theoretical differences in American and European approaches to human rights.
Is the European recognition of positive obligations in human rights law superior to the view taken by the United States Supreme Court?
In the Liberal tradition, democracies emphasise the political and civil rights of their citizenry: autonomy, the rule of law, and both positive and negative liberties of the individual are some of many examples. But what of the negative and positive obligations regarding the state, in as much as human rights are concerned? While the democratic values of Europe and America are largely built upon the same ideals, it is the means by which their different legal systems ascertain government duty wherein a fundamental divergence of responsibility occurs. Principally, the distinction centres on the reach of law, and to what extent conflicts can be ameliorated through courts.
Continue reading “Comparing American & European Human Rights Norms”