Salman Rushdie’s knighthood has provoked many responses in the print and broadcast media and online, including a post on this blog. But the best I’ve seen is by Andrew Anthony in this week’s Observer: Sir Salman is a godsend to literature and free speech.

Anthony’s piece is very well written and definitely repays reading; here’s a flavour:

… Few appeared to realise that a massive symbolic attack had been launched [by Khomeni's 1989 fatwa against The Satanic Verses] against the most vital freedom, not only in art but in society, the freedom of expression. Still less that our rather timid and repentant response would encourage religious extremists and censors.

Who can calculate how many books have subsequently gone unwritten and artworks unshown? We do know that the play Behzti was closed down in a theatre in Birmingham by a Sikh mob. We know that John Latham’s God Is Great was removed from the Tate gallery, even without complaints, due to the fear that it might cause offence. We know that the Danish cartoons were not published in this country, when they were the biggest story in the world. And abroad, countless intellectuals, writers and politicians now require round-the-clock police protection.

Following on from my recent posts (here and here) about the role of the Irish Film Censor’s Office (IFCO), last week brought news that the Censor, John Kelleher, had exercised his powers for the first time to ban a computer game on grounds of violence. The Video Recordings Acts, 1989 and 1992 extend the powers in the Censorship of Films Acts, 1923-1992 to cover videos (all of the relevant legislation is collected here). In particular, the Video Recordings Act, 1989 (also here) gives the Censor the power to certify and/or ban “video recordings”. Marie McGonagle discusses the system here (pdf; see pp 23-30; hat tip: TJ McIntyre). Although the definition of “video recording” in section 1 of the 1989 Act is sufficiently wide to cover games, they are (by another definition in the same section) exempted from that definition unless they are “unfit for viewing” (as defined in section 3); and if they are so unfit, then the Censor may ban them under Section 7(1)(b) of the Act, which provides:

If the Official Censor, having examined a video recording containing a video work … is of opinion that the work is unfit for viewing because …

(b) it depicts acts of gross violence or cruelty (including mutilation and torture) towards humans or animals,

he may make an order … prohibiting the supply of video recordings containing the work.

Last week (hat tip: TJ McIntyre, with interesting links), this power was exercised for the first time: Read the rest of this entry »

… is commentary like this, from the always-incisive Martyn Turner in the Irish Times on Thursday (21 June 2007) (click on the image for the full-size version from the Irish Times website):

















On the issues raised in the cartoon, Michelle Malkin is always good value – especially this important post (even if I don’t usually agree with her other opinions; oh, wait – respecting her right to express the opinions with which I disagree is what freedom of expression is all about!). And, following on from my own post on the issue some time ago, Martin George has another excellent post on Cambridge and the Muhammed Cartoons Again.

In my post on defamatory reviews a few days ago, I wrote that critics will usually be able to rely on the defence of ‘fair comment’. Now comes news (hat tip: Daithí) that the Court of Appeal for England and Wales thinks so too!

To be able to rely on this defence, the relevant statement must indeed have been a comment (and recognisably so, as opposed to an allegation of fact, for example); it must have been based on facts that are true (or protected by privilege); it must have been made on a matter of public interest (and the courts are now taking quite a broad view of what constitutes the public interest for this purpose); and it must have been one which could have been made by an honest person (that is to say: it must have been ‘fair’). In a relatively recent important case, Lord Nicholls said of this last requirement:

Finally, the comment must be one which could have been made by an honest person, however prejudiced he might be, and however exaggerated or obstinate his views. It must be germane to the subject matter criticised. Dislike of an artist’s style would not justify an attack upon his morals or manners. But a critic need not be mealy-mouthed in denouncing what he disagrees with. He is entitled to dip his pen in gall for the purposes of legitimate criticism.

[See Albert Cheng v Tse Wai Chun Paul [2000] 3 HKLRD 418, 425; discussed: Cottrell (2003) 27 Melbourne University Law Review 33, [2003] MULR 2]

Even so, in Associated Newspapers Ltd v Keith Burstein [2007] EWCA Civ 600 (22 June 2007), Keith Burstein, the composer, and (with Dic Edwards) co-librettist, of the opera Manifest Destiny, sued London’s Evening Standard (about | stories | wikipedia) for libel arising out of a review by Veronica Lee of the 2005 Edinburgh Festival production of the opera. Read the rest of this entry »

The title refers not to a salad of shredded brassica (though I like that too), but rather to slaw, which is one of my daily must-reads. It describes itself as a “co-operative weblog about Canadian legal research and IT, etc” (I especially like the “etc”), and it is a frequent source of many things I save to del.icio.us. But two recent posts are just crying out to be shared even more widely than that.

In the first post, Kim Nayer referred to two presentations at the SLA Legal Division 2007 Conference, one by Nathan Rosen on legal wikis, the other by Thomas Fleming on Legal Research for the Google Generation (warning: they’re both powerpoints, but well worth the effort). The other post, by Agnese Caruso, brought “What’s new on the legal web” to my attention (American focussed, but very useful).

Thanks to Kim and Agnese, and especially to slaw!

PS. As is always the way, ten minutes after I had published this post, it occurred to me that it really should have been called Slaw is del.icio.us!

Some updates to yesterday’s post.

First, yesterday did indeed see the Irish launch of the European Healthy Ageing Project 2004-2007’s report on Healthy Ageing – a Challenge for Europe (pdf). According to a piece by Fiona Gartland in today’s Irish Times (sub req’d):

Irish people have a shorter life expectancy than people in other wealthy EU countries, a European report on healthy ageing has found. Healthy Ageing – A Challenge for Europe, launched in Dublin yesterday, said that countries with high gross domestic product (GDP) usually have longer life expectancy, but this was not the case in Ireland. …

Dr Paula Gilvarry, president of the Irish Medical Organisation, said Ireland has higher than EU-average death rates from circulatory diseases, cancer and respiratory diseases. “The figures show that we are still playing catch-up in terms of investment in health,” she said.

Read the rest of this entry »

Today sees the Irish launch of the European Healthy Ageing Project 2004-2007’s report on Healthy Ageing – a Challenge for Europe (pdf). The launch will be hosted by the National Council on Ageing and Older People (NCAOP) as part of ‘Say No to Ageism’ Week.

‘Say No to Ageism’ Week, 18-25 June (NCAOP press release here (pdf)), is a joint initiative of the National Council on Ageing and Older People, the Equality Authority and the Health Service Executive (HSE), and its aim is to promote awareness of ageism and an understanding of how ageism lies at the root of many of the barriers which older people encounter when accessing goods and services. More information from the NCAOP and the Equality Authority. As well as the launch of the Healthy Ageing report, this week will also see the launch of a report on an action plan to enhance age friendly service provision in public transport. Read the rest of this entry »

John Naughton has published this here and here:

The physicist I.I. Rabi and General (later President) Dwight Eisenhower became friends after Eisenhower was appointed president of Columbia University soon after the end of WW2. When introduced to Rabi, Eisenhower said, “I am always very happy to see one of the employees of the university,� to which Rabi replied, “Mr. President, the faculty are not the employees of the university. They are the university.�

Quoted in J. S. Rigden, Rabi: Scientist and Citizen, Harvard University Press, 2000.