Thoughts on Shatter's Views on Multiculturalism, More Powers for Human Rights Body

Minister Shatter made some interesting remarks at the release of the report of the Irish Human Rights Commission: “I reject the notion of parallel societies and belief that integration and not multiculturalism is the approach we have to take,” he said. “It is imperative that we encourage immigrants to be part of mainstream Irish society and not to perceive themselves as outsiders living apart from it.”

This is indeed a welcome statement from the minister, coming as it does in the aftermath of the Norwegian killings and the debate about multiculturalism. As I've argued previously, it is not multiculturalism that has failed but a lazy policy of appeasement of the most extreme elements within minority populations in European states. In the spirit of facilitating integration, the minister could take a highly visible, symbolic decision to terminate the ridiculous registration system for immigrants at the Garda offices near Pearse street. Such a system does not exist in the UK and the US, singles out immigrants as conspicuous outsiders, imposes an unnecessary financial burden in the form of fees, wastes an entire day of productive work - which many immigrants may not be able to afford, and produces benefits that are not immediately discernible. There are plenty of other less burdensome alternatives if the objective is for the State to keep tabs on immigrants. An electronic filing system can be easily created and integrated with the visa issuing offices.

Minister Shatter also spoke about enhancing the powers of the human rights commission: “We are reviewing the architecture of our human rights infrastructure to ensure that resources are used efficiently ... It is my intention to facilitate the commission playing an enhanced role.”

Among the reforms to be brought in under a new statute would be having the commission report to the Oireachtas Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights, he said.

In principle, this is also to be welcomed. But before committing additional resources, the appointment process has to be reviewed as any commission is only as good as its members. Secondly, there has to be clarity about its mission: is it a policy body or a more executive agency? From the talk about allowing the commission to bring lawsuits etc, it seems that some are intending a more executive function. This will require a different model of staffing and resourcing than one for a policy making and monitoring agency.

More at the Irish Times website.

Ireland Gets Lower Rates on Bailout in EU Deal on Greece, But Default Still Possible?

The Irish newsmedia is reporting that Ireland will benefit from the new bailout agreement being hammered out at the EU summit. These reports seem to have more finality than is discernible from the leaked draft of the announcement. I looked at the draft and here are some key provisions with my comments in blue:

We reaffirm our commitment to the euro and to do whatever is needed to ensure the financial stability of the euro area as a whole. We also reaffirm our determination to reinforce convergence, competitiveness and governance of the Euro area.

Nothing new here as a matter of policy, they've repeatedly stated a commitment to the euro. The real consequences will depend on follow up action in new legal instruments.

We have decided to lengthen the maturity of the EFSF loans to Greece to the maximum extent possible from the current 7.5 years to a minimum of 15 years. In this context, we will ensure adequate post programme monitoring. We will provide EFSF loans at lending rates equivalent to those of the Balance of Payment facility (currently approx. 3.5%) without going below the EFSF funding cost. This will be accompanied by a mechanism which ensures appropriate incentives to implement the programme, including through collateral arrangements where appropriate.

...

Structural funds should be re-allocated for competitiveness and growth under a European "Marshall Plan".

Greece is in a uniquely grave situation in the Euro area. This is the reason why it requires an exceptional solution. The financial sector has indicated its willingness to support Greece on a voluntary basis through a menu of options ...

EU leaders know that absent a bold plan, the contagion risk is very real. That might explain the Marshall Plan language. It is plainly a ploy to set up an exceptional situation to justify the extraordinary measures and to separate Greece from other countries like Ireland and Portugal. In the end it might be all talk and the markets may not be persuaded that Greece is all that different.

All other Euro countries solemnly reaffirm their inflexible determination to honour fully their own individual sovereign signature and all their commitments to sustainable fiscal conditions and structural reforms. The Euro area Heads of Statesor Government fully support this determination as the credibility of all their sovereign signatures is a decisive element for ensuring financial stability in the Euro area as a whole.

This is once again a ploy to allay contagion fears and to reassure markets that Ireland and Portugal will not default. Does a statement of this sort really mean that Ireland will not default? Or that the markets will discount the likelihood of that happening? Given recent experience, it will take a lot more than words and a selective default by Greece might well signal a likelihood of Ireland doing something similar notwithstanding this "inflexible determination" to honour its commitments. Words alone from a sovereign are worth very little, especially given the track record in this area.

We welcome the progress made on the implementation of the programmes in Ireland and Portugal and reiterate our strong commitment to the success of these programmes. The EFSF lending conditions we agreed upon for Greece will be applied also for Portugal and Ireland. In this context, we note Ireland's willingness to participate constructively in the discussions on the Consolidated Common Tax Base draft directive (CCTB) and in the structured discussions on tax policy issues in the framework of the Euro+ pact framework.

The troika's recent review said as much about Ireland, but the markets did not pay a lot of positive attention. And there is the recent downgrade to junk status suggesting that Ireland is not being rewarded for its belt-tightening. The CCTB language was probably to appease Sarkozy and signals that Ireland is continuing to receive pressure in this area despite its best efforts at resisting tax harmonization.

All euro area Member States will adhere strictly to the agreed fiscal targets, improve competitiveness and address macro-economic imbalances. Deficits in all countries except those under a programme will be brought below 3% by 2013 at the latest. In this context, we welcome the budgetary package recently presented by the Italian government which will enable it to bring the deficit below 3% in 2012 and to achieve balance budget in 2014.

These commitments are not new. The EU has looked away in the past when states including Ireland ran up deficits several times the permissible limit. What is needed is enforcement, and binding legal commitments that entail monitoring. One can expect the Germans to be more aggressive than they have been in the past as these mechanisms are fleshed out.

We look forward to the rapid finalization of the legislative package on the strengthening of the stability and growth pact and the new macro economic surveillance. Euro area members will do their utmost to help reaching agreement with the EP

We commit to introduce legally binding national fiscal frameworks as foreseen in the fiscal frameworks directive by the end of 2012.

As I wrote previously in the Wall Street Journal, the original Greek bailout is illegal. This summit statement is an acknowledgement of that reality. One hopes that the EU comes up with a legal framework that allows for transparent mechanisms to address such situations as they arise.

We agree that reliance on external credits ratings in the EU regulatory framework should be reduced, and look forward to the Commission proposals in this respect.

This is pure hogwash. The EU is living in la-la land if it thinks it can ignore market credit ratings and bully ratings agencies into hiding the truth. While the ratings system has many faults, these agencies have been willing to tell uncomfortable truths on sovereign credit. That might not please the politicians but it has kept them from selling us whoppers.

The full draft announcement is available here. My article calling for a hybrid conservatorship for Greece is available at Huffo here.

Suit Against British Government for Torture During Colonial Rule in Kenya

In what might prove to be a very significant judgment making new law, the High Court in London has allowed a suit against the British government for torture in Kenya 50 years ago. Via the BBC:

Mr Justice McCombe said the claimants had an "arguable case" and it would be "dishonourable" to block the claims. 

Ministers say London is not responsible for the actions of the colonial administration.

... the British government will have to defend accusations of torture, murder, sexual assault and other alleged abuses at a full damages trial in 2012.
Justice McCombe wrote:  "In my judgment, it may well be thought strange, or perhaps even 'dishonourable', that a legal system which will not in any circumstances admit into its proceedings evidence obtained by torture should yet refuse to entertain a claim against the government in its own jurisdiction for that government's allegedly negligent failure to prevent torture which it had the means to prevent."

It would be interesting to see whether UK courts will allow similar claims in respect of torture in other colonies. I suspect that historians would be able to document abuses in other places like India. However, given the amount of time that has lapsed, there are unlikely to be many surviving victims in a position to bring claims in the UK. Still, this has the potential to take legal responsibility for torture by colonial authorities in a new, welcome direction. It would be even more interesting if the UK courts allow submissions by the governments of former colonies in such actions.

Zogby Poll: Obama's Approval Ratings Lower than Ahmedinejad's in Arab World

A new Zogby poll of the Arab world has very interesting findings: "President Obama's favorable ratings across the Arab World are 10% or less." Worse than Bush. Ahmedinejad scores higher in every country bar Saudi Arabia. Somewhat surprisingly, Sarkozy scores really highly in Morocco and Saudi Arabia.

Approval for the killing of bin Laden:

Attitudes toward US:

You can see the poll here.

Saggy Pants Banned: Overreaching Law?

The fashion police strikes in southerwestern Illinois. Collinsville's city council voted to ban saggy pants and impose criminal penalties for breach. Via the Chicago Tribune:
"The Belleville News-Democrat reports the ordinance forbids pants that ride lower than 3 to 4 inches below the waistline of the underwear. A first offense is punishable with a $100 fine, while a second offense would carry a $300 fine plus 40 hours of community service."

In another example of regulatory overreach at the national level, Congress failed to repeal a new lightbulb law; its first phase comes into effect from "Jan. 1 through 2014, [and] requires bulbs to be 25 to 30 percent more efficient. The second stage could require bulbs to be 60 percent more efficient by 2020. ... The restrictions could eliminate the familiar incandescent bulbs, which have used essentially the same technology since Thomas Alva Edison invented them.
Republicans ... said the new types of bulbs are too expensive. Prices range from about $1.50 for a halogen incandescent to $20 for light-emitting diode, or LED, bulbs, which are supposed to last 10 years. Regular bulbs today cost about 35 cents."
More at the NYT's website here.

Irish Times Op-ed on Judicial Independence

An opinion piece in the Irish Times (unlike the typical Irish Times op-ed this one actually advances some opinions!) today claims that the chief justice must be elected by the other judges of the Supreme Court to "honour the principle of judicial independence perfectly. If ... such a closed system is too cosy, the choice could be made by a committee consisting of judges, lawyers and respected laymen along the lines of the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board that now screens appointments from the profession to the bench."

Maybe. But what is the evidence that the present system is compromising independence? The example offered by the author - Liam Hamilton's appointment after the beef tribunal's mandate was concluded - is not necessarily a reason to take the appointment power away from the government. It offers a good argument against employing sitting judges in tribunals where the government might be a party. Such appointments need to be predicated on an embargo against the judge being promoted or appointed to another position upon retirement to avoid suspicion. Otherwise suspicions about quid pro quo deals are hard to dispel.
To be sure, the current system might benefit a judge particularly adept at obtaining political support but I haven't seen any evidence that it has compromised independence or quality or that the alternative method would offer superior results.

The author also writes that "judicial independence requires that the decision on promotions from the High Court should be removed from government to an independent body ... in line with what happens in England and Northern Ireland," and makes a plea for "a more general reconsideration of the implications of the constitutional guarantee of judicial independence reviewing the system of judicial appointments, the tenure and accountability of judges, guarantees of their impartiality and how their remuneration as well as the overall funding of the courts should be decided."

Again, maybe. It would help if there was some evidence that the current system is broken. Are judges of the High Court and Supreme Court not "independent" because they are appointed by the government? Is there evidence that they rule in favour of the government at a rate suggesting bias? Is there evidence that bad judges have been promoted? Is there evidence that "less-independent" judges write poor judgments or are otherwise poor performers? Finally, while independence is important, accountability and transparency are at least of equal importannce when one talks about judicial reform.

One more strike against elected judges?

I blogged recently about John Waters' suggestion that Irish judges be elected by the public. In that post I pointed to evidence showing that an elected system yields judges who behave more like politicians than professional adjudicators. Now here's some more evidence via an article about Alabama judges - who are elected - via the NYT:
Since 1976, according to a new report, Alabama judges have rejected sentencing recommendations from capital juries 107 times. In 98 of those cases, or 92 percent of them, judges imposed the death penalty after juries had called for a life sentence. ... more than 20 percent of the people on death row in Alabama are there because of such overrides, according to the report, from the Equal Justice Initiative... The overrides in Alabama contributed to the highest per capita death sentencing rate in the nation, far outstripping Texas.
...
Overrides are more common in election years.

“Not surprisingly, given the political pressures they face, judges are far more likely than juries to impose the death penalty,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in a 1995 dissent from a decision that upheld Alabama’s capital sentencing system.
The full article is available here. It shows a clear divide between Alabama and two other states - Florida and Delaware - where judges are appointed. The desire to be seen as tough on criminals surely has to be one explanation for this contrast. Note that this is in Alabama - no one would accuse its jurors of being liberals or softies!

Minister Shatter on Judges' Memo

I've blogged previously about the judges' memo and the reported conflict between the Minister and the courts service. The Irish Times contains some interesting quotes from the Minister today seeking to allay concerns that the judiciary is being targeted:
“I think it’s regrettable that the matter is on the website, but to some extent it’s a side issue," he said. “I think it’s very unfortunate that an unnecessary controversy has arisen over the commitment in the programme for government to hold a constitutional referendum to deal with the issue of judicial pay, and essentially to facilitate applying to the judiciary in a manner that’s constitutionally appropriate and protects their independence the same public sector wage decreases that have impacted right across everyone who is in receipt of public pay.”

“There can be never any question of the judiciary being as a group or individually targeted for pay reduction,” Mr Shatter said.
“The Government believes this is hugely important to ensure that public respect for the judiciary is maintained and there isn’t a public perception that they’re immune from the financial and economic cataclysm that has hit the State and has affected so many people.”

Perhaps this whole controversy could have been avoided by better communication and drafting of the text. If it were to be tightly drafted to allow for pay reductions only in emergent circumstances when the pay cut was imposed across the board to all public servants, the judges' fears would be allayed. They have repeatedly asserted that they are not opposed to a pay cut.

Gallup Poll on Confidence in Criminal Justice System (US)

Since we've been discussing judicial pay and related issues, this new Gallup poll on confidence in the criminal justice system might be of interest. Surprisingly, Americans' confidence in the criminal justice system was on par with that for newspapers! Out of 16 institutions surveyed, both came in at no. 9, well below institutions like the military, small business and the police.

 

John Waters on Judges in the Irish Times

Unfortunately there's much vitriol that obstructs the substance. I'll restrict myself to one of his points: What we need is a referendum on the way judges are appointed, offering voters the option of a system whereby judicial offices become subject to appointment by public vote.
This would represent a first step on the way to a judicial system genuinely representative of the people, and potentially independent of the other branches of government and the State.

Many US states have elections for state judgeships and the informed opinion here is that it has produced bad results. Massive election campaign expenditures, garish TV advertisements featuring unseemly personal attacks, judges acting like politicians, good candidates refusing to run and the wrong sorts seeking office, and candidates pandering to the lowest common denominator are all largely acknowledged to be the unwelcome byproducts of this exceptional attempt at public accountability.

The average voter faces enormous informational barriers when evaluating candidates for judicial office, even where a candidate has a track record of serving as a judge. The odds of an elected system producing good judges on a consistent basis are very low whereas the chances of the wrong sorts winning elections are probably higher given the skills required to turn these informational barriers into votes. Political skills are likely to trump substance and what you get is another version of the legislature, with judicial powers.

There is plenty of research in the U.S. on elected judiciaries suggesting that the benefits are illusory. One study in Pennsylvania - where judges must face a retention election every 10 years - "[e]xamin[ed] over 22,000 Pennsylvania trial court sentences for aggravated assault, rape, and robbery convictions in the 1990s, ... confirm[ed] that sentences for these crimes are significantly longer the closer the sentencing judge is to standing for reelection." Another study by professors Choi, Gulati and Posner (Eric) shows that "[a]ppointed judges write higher quality opinions than elected judges do, but elected judges write many more opinions, and the evidence suggests that the large quantity difference makes up for the small quality difference. In addition, elected judges do not appear less independent than appointed judges. The results suggest that elected judges are more focused on providing service to the voters (that is, they behave like politicians), whereas appointed judges are more focused on their long-term legacy as creators of precedent."

Multiculturalism in the EU

Kenan Malik has an interesting oped in the NYT on multiculturalism in Europe:
In Britain, the promotion of multicultural policies led to the de facto treatment of individuals from minority groups not as citizens but simply as members of particular ethnic units. In Germany, the formal denial of citizenship to immigrants led to the policy of multiculturalism. In both cases this has resulted in the creation of fragmented societies, the scapegoating of immigrants and the rise of both populist and Islamist rhetoric.
...  The challenge facing Europe today, therefore, is how to reject multiculturalism as a political policy while embracing the diversity that immigration brings. No country has yet succeeded in doing so.
In principle, the French assimilationist resolve to treat everyone as a citizen, not simply as an inhabitant of a particular ethnic box, is welcome. Yet as evidenced by police brutality against North African youth and the state ban on burqas, France continues to tolerate, and even encourage, policies that polarize society in the name of colorblindness.

He is right. Multiculturalism does not equate with an appeasement of the most retrograde elements within immigrant populations. Yet many EU states have done just that. It is just lazy politics and is easy to understand because actual engagement requires a lot more work: learning about immigrant issues in all their complexity, creating support within the political space for solutions ...
The result is a massive disconnect between the early immigrants - many of whom were not well educated and clung to ideas from their home countries when those countries had not experienced modernization - and their children and grandchildren. The latter are better educated but are denied the full benefits of citizenship in some states and it is not surprising that radicalization is the end result. European states have to undergo the painful process of assimilation - which requires robust engagement with these populations - in order to maximise the full benefits of immigration. Ditching multiculturalism (as in the Netherlands)  is just another lazy attempt at solving the "immigrant problem."

No Ban on Corporate Political Donations

The Indo reports that there will be no outright ban on corporate political donations:

Contrary to the promises made by Fine Gael and Labour before the general election, Taoiseach Enda Kenny admitted the Attorney General advised the Government it couldn't bring in a blanket ban on corporate donations because it would result in "a serious constitutional challenge".

Instead, the law now seeks to put a limit of eur. 200 on non-individual political donations "unless the body has been registered with the Standards in Public Office."

I think this is a good move. I've blogged about this issue before here. Depriving those with skin in the game from participating in the political process is a bad idea for a variety of reasons. A sensible cap on the size of donations preserves the ability to participate while ensuring that those with the biggest purses don't exert disproportionate or undesirably excessive influence on political outcomes.

President Barack Obama's Birth Certificate

In response to the birther nuts, the White House has released the birth certificate of POTUS. I doubt that the facts will inconvenience these conspiracy theorists!

Ban on Corporate Political Donations: Bad Idea?

The Irish Times reports that the government is proposing to ban corporate political donations:
... corporate donations will not be allowed, the new law when enacted cannot prevent any individuals making donations as long as they remain below the allowable limits. Among the issues to be addressed by the Coalition in finalising the Bill are possible measures to prevent donations from a significant number of individuals from one corporate body.


All of this might play well to the gallery and appease popular sentiment but a ban on corporate political donations is a terrible idea. First, corporations are legal persons and have the right to free speech and expression. A ban is an abridgement of that right, is overbroad, and not reasonably necessary to achieve the purpose advanced. Second, there are perfectly good reasons to allow corporate donations. After all, they are frequentlly those having to bear the costs (monetary and otherwise) of various pieces of legislation and have a direct interest in ensuring that ill-advised legislation is resisted. Legislators have little (or no) skin in the game and might under-appreciate the problems caused by bad laws. Corporations can play a salutary role in protecting legitimate activity from government interference. Campaign donations are an essential tool for this mission.
The report also notes that [t]here is also the question of whether or not trade union subscriptions to the Labour Party should be considered as corporate donations.

Fine Gael Minister for Agriculture Simon Coveney said last week that trade union funding to political parties should be banned while a number of Labour representatives have argued for their retention, asserting that such funding is not analogous to corporate donations.
This illustrates perfectly the pitfalls of such efforts to police speech: when it suits certain political interests, donations from aggregate entities are acceptable but when they might support positions against those interests they become anathema.
Why should corporate donations be banned when trade union donations are not? They are both advancing aggregate interests and should be treated alike. Discriminating against corporate donations is merely a political preference masquerading as benign law reform.
To be sure, there are reasonable grounds to impose some restrictions on political donations. These must be restricted to disclosure of donations and size of individual contributions.

Dean Kagan's Nomination to US Supreme Court Confirmed

The Senate has just confirmed Dean Elena Kagan's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court by a vote of 63-37. Via the NYT:
Ms. Kagan, a former dean of the Harvard Law School and a legal adviser in both the Clinton and Obama administrations, was approved by a vote of 63 to 37 after hearings and floor debate that showcased competing views of Democrats and Republicans about the court, but exposed no significant stumbling blocks to her confirmation.

She becomes the fourth woman ever named to the court, and will join two other woman currently serving, including Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the first Obama administration nominee, who was confirmed almost exactly one year ago.
At age 50, Ms. Kagan could have a long tenure on the court, but her confirmation is not seen as significantly altering the current, closely divided ideological makeup of the court, which is often split 5-4 on major decisions.

Is Taoiseach Brian Cowen Overpaid?

It depends. As this chart from the Economist shows, he is certainly paid far more as a ratio of pay to GDP/person than the leaders of Britain, China and India, but not as much as those of Kenya, Indonesia and Singapore. The leader of Singapore probably deserves every penny but one wonders about Kenya and Indonesia. Manmohan Singh is definitely a very good bargain for India!

Article on UK Labour Party's Manifesto

Labour's election manifesto contains 66 references to the word 'future.' Just two mentions of "achievements" and 4 references to the government's 'record.' This from a party in power for three consecutive terms? Just two achievements and only four items on the record to be proud of? Clearly, this is a party seeking to run from its past by trying to sell a rosy future. Somewhat like a snake oil salesman. And, like snake oil, there is very little original or appealing in this manifesto.

Read more here.