How Human Rights Work

You have probably seen the story about the unmarried mother who, the Supreme Court has just decided, should be entitled to claim Widowed Parent's Allowance after the death of her partner. It's a case about the European Convention on Human Rights (which is not an EU thing, but still European). So is this another case of meddling Europeans interfering with our laws? No.

The facts are these Ms McLaughlin and her partner, John Adams, lived together (apart from two short periods of separation) for 23 years until he died on 28 January 2014. They did not marry because Mr Adams had promised his first wife that he would never remarry. (This reason is described by the Court as "commendable" - see [42]). They had four children, aged 19 years, 17 years, 13 years and 11 years when their father died. He had made sufficient National Insurance contributions for Ms McLaughlin to be able to claim a bereavement payment and widowed parent’s allowance had she been married to him. But she was not. And the Widowed Parent's Allowance was only for people who had been married to (or - before you ask - in civil partnership with) the deceased parent.

So is that unfair discrimination? (More precisely, has there been a difference in treatment between two persons in analogous situations by reason of a relevant status, such as marriage, with no objective justification for that difference?) Well, as the Supreme Court put it, "There is no doubt that the promotion of marriage, and now civil partnership, is a legitimate aim". Moreover, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg (ECtHR) has a consistent line of authority that marriage is to be treated differently from co-habitation. Here are some quotations from the ECtHR taken from the judgment at [62]-[63]: "Marriage continues to be characterised by a corpus of rights and obligations which differentiate it markedly from the situation of a man and woman who cohabit"; "However, marriage remains an institution which is widely accepted as conferring a particular status on those who enter into it. The situation of the applicant [an unmarried widow who complained about UK law to the ECtHR in a 2000 case] is therefore not comparable to that of a widow"; "In Shackell [the 2000 case], the court found that the situations of married and unmarried heterosexual cohabiting couples were not analogous for the purposes of survivors’ benefits, since ‘marriage remains an institution which is widely accepted as conferring a particular status on those who enter it’. The Grand Chamber considers that this view still holds true”; and "States have a certain margin of appreciation to treat differently married and unmarried couples, particularly in matters falling within the realm of social and fiscal policy such as taxation, pensions and social security".

So the European law would say that there was nothing wrong with the British law. But in this case, it was the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom that said that the British law was incompatible with human rights, despite the Strasbourg jurisprudence to the contrary.

This is not a Brexit story. But it gives a flavour of what 'taking back control' might mean in practice. The Supreme Court is a bunch of pretty confident people who don't shy away from disagreeing with European judges. But they are not necessarily going to disagree with European judges by being less human rights minded.

Things that surprised me

1. Britain's carbon emissions are now back down to 1890 levels.

2. "At Fruitlands, a utopian community [Louisa May Alcott’s father] co-founded in the 1840s, root vegetables were initially outlawed because they grew in the direction of hell."

3. "Jesus talked more about money than about anything else."

4. "Donald J. Trump State Park is a 436-acre (1.8 km2) undeveloped state park located within the towns of Yorktown and Putnam Valley in Westchester County and Putnam County, New York. The park consists of property that was donated to New York State in 2006 by the now-President of the United States Donald Trump, and is named after him. Maintenance of the park was halted in 2010 due to budget constraints, and the park remains largely undeveloped as of 2015."

5. The monastery is being reinvented. Sort of. 

6. 4D chess is easier than 2D chess. Easier if you are trying not to lose, that is. 

7. Ross Douthat wrote a column comparing the political structure of the modern world to the Harry Potter novels and it is not altogether unconvincing.

News from around the world

No common theme to these links, except that none of them is terribly cheerful.

1. A family from Syria sought asylum in Norway, and now they are seeking asylum in Poland - to escape the Norwegian child protection agency.

2. In Wales, changing to presumed consent for organ donation made no difference to actual organ donations.

3. "A report released by Canada’s spy agency has warned that New Zealand, one of its closest allies, has been influenced at every level of society by the Chinese government, and that the situation has reached a “critical” stage." More here. (What did I tell you?)

4. The US "has called for a strong, peaceful and prosperous Russia, working in partnership with the United States". Sorry, no that's not news, that was President Obama in 2009 ("SEE ALSO: Obama lauds Putin at Russia talks"). That was then - before 'kompromat' and 'bots' - and this is now: the US will impose sanctions on Russia over the Skripal poisoning.

5. "Saudi Arabia is one of the world's top executioners, but crucifixions - in which the condemned is usually beheaded and then the body put on display - are rare", yet a "man from Myanmar was beheaded and his body put on display on a cross in Mecca on Wednesday". More here (don't worry - no nasty pictures). I wondered whether that was cultural appropriation of a Hellenic/Roman custom, but if so it is a very old one: the Qur'an apparently mentions crucifixion in 6 places, including as an appropriate punishment for some crimes, while Wikipedia informs me that "Most classical [Islamic] jurists limit the period of crucifixion to three days".

6. And now for some photos: first, lovely iPhone photos; and, finally, some relentless, compelling, depressing photos of abandoned Russia.

Brexit and Trump: fact and philosophy

The headline gives a fair idea of what is below the break. You have been warned.

"If you look at the United Kingdom, I think the policy of prioritizing debating and thinking has failed them"

The headline is taken from here. It reminds me of Tyler Durden's question about being clever: "How's that working out for you?"

Is the headline true? Well, I'd like to debate it and think about it of course.

I hope it's not true, but as Isaiah Berlin posited (and how did the policy of prioritizing debate and thinking work out for him?), maybe all the good things in life don't necessarily fit together neatly. You can have liberty or equality, thinking or good policy.

You might say this: "if you look at 5th century BC Athens, I think the policy of prioritizing debating and thinking failed them". Does that change your view of 5th century BC Athens?

Consolation

So. A writer has just seen a temple monkey in Varanasi appear to read a tattered newspaper, then as if in uncontrollable exasperation cast it away and leap to the topmost ledge of the temple, to rest and regain composure. He writes:

"In that parade of utter dissatisfaction with things I became aware of a strong fellow feeling. How often do the papers report some item that seems to demand just such energetic and immediate form of self-release – had one the monkey’s agility – as the only practical means of discharging inward discontents, rage, contempt, despair, at what one reads in the papers. It is better to remain calm; try to remember that all epochs have had to suffer assaults on common sense and common decency, art and letters, honour and wit, courage and order, good manners and free speech, privacy and scholarship; even if sworn enemies of these abstractions (quite often wearing the disguise of friends) seem unduly numerous in contemporary society."

Written, as one might suspect, before the internet became the prompt for discontents, rage, contempt and despair. And all the better for it.

For the shorter term, and in an altogether different register, everything is going to be alright.